WHO ARE YOU?

October 2021

My grandmother was a Russian Jew who narrowly escaped a pogrom in her village as a child. Like many descendants of those people I’ve always found stories of that time especially poignant and personal.

I’ve also been fascinated at how these things happened right in front of the non-Jews living all around them, whose lives seemed to continue on with little impact. Did they realize what was going on? Or had they been told that Jews were the enemy often enough by people in authority that eventually they accepted it as truth? 

Historically when one group of people is singled out for persecution, the remaining population falls into three groups:

1. Those who simply go about their business unaware of what is going on, or who don't care because they're not personally impacted.
2. Self-appointed enforcers who gleefully point out the offenders to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime and (they hope) preserve their own favorable standing.
3. A courageous few who despite being exempt from persecution themselves, risk everything to stand up to tyranny because they answer to higher ideals which transcend cultural or political whims. 

It was this group who helped people like my grandmother during the war, or became resistance icons like Witold Pilecki and Oskar Schindler. They understood what was happening and did something about it. Many others risked their own lives by hiding Jewish families in their homes or helping them escape the country. 

Growing up, people like that were my archetypes of courage and character. I’d ask myself, “If this happened today, who would I be? If all the chips were down and it would cost me everything, would I have the moral courage to help a Jew?”

We all like to think we are in group 3 but history tells us otherwise. The majority of people fall into group 1, with a good number in 2 and a smaller percentage in 3. 

And it's no wonder. Remember, the horrors of the holocaust were preceded by an all-out PSYOP campaign to turn people against the Jews and separate them from mainstream life. The Reich controlled the public narrative and enforced it through aggressive and unrelenting media campaigns. As Hitler’s own Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels famously said, “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes accepted as truth."  No wonder many businesses displayed “No Jews Allowed” signs in their windows. No wonder Jews were routinely turned away from movie theaters, concerts, shows, and other public venues. 

In fact, the propaganda was so effective that before long many people believed that Jews shouldn't be allowed to mix with Gentiles at all, much less attend school with their children. Finally, laws were passed preventing Jews from entering civil service, the military, medicine, teaching and other professions, all in the name of the "public good." Widespread protests did nothing at all to deter the hell-bent Reich from their agenda. 

 

By the time Jews were physically separated from the general population many people were relieved, believing they were safer not being exposed to the Jews. It's worth noting that the propaganda did not have to be true to be effective. People were thoroughly convinced that Jews posed an imminent threat to their way of life, despite the fact that they had been associating with Jewish friends, neighbors and co-workers for months or years without suffering any ill effects at all! What had changed, other than the narrative? How right Goebbels was. And how different history would look if people had believed what they actually saw and experienced, rather than the narrative that was being sold to them.

The parallels between this and what is happening today are striking. Pick up the NY times or the Washington Post and substitute the word "Jew" for "unvaccinated." If you have any moral sense at all you'll be appropriately alarmed; it is virtually indistinguishable from anything published by the Reich during WWII, right down to "necessary measures being taken to avoid the spread of misinformation." Word. For. Word.

Exactly like the Jews in the months leading up to the holocaust, the un-vaxed are being banished from civil service, the military, medicine, teaching, and other professions (also presumably for the "public good"). No matter that millions of un-vaxed police officers, soldiers, nurses, doctors, teachers and others have been doing their jobs continually over the last 3 years without making anyone sick at all. In fact there is not a single documented case of anyone getting sick from exposure to a healthy, asymptomatic unvaccinated person! Why then are the un-vaxed suddenly unfit to mix with the general population? What has changed, other than the divisive narrative being sold to the public? 

               

Hitler was in excellent company. The most unthinkable atrocities in history have been committed in the name of the public good - just ask the 7 million Ukrainians Stalin intentionally starved to death, or the millions of Armenians slaughtered in Turkey, or the Cambodians lying in mass graves at the pleasure of Pol Pot. Those are just three in a long list of Governments who decided that a certain contingent wasn't going along with the program and needed to be dealt with. 

In the news March 23 2021 (link provided in the hopes that YouTube doesn't pull it down): Canadian government pledges $23.7M for isolation camps across Ontario for people who have been diagnosed with "or possibly exposed to" COVID. This is not an obtuse reference to what Hitler did, it is exactly the same thing. 

As today's un-vaxed are labeled "human filth" and worse, with people advocating for shunning, firing, and other punitive measures, I urge good people everywhere to consider two questions: 

1. Am I being rational? No question that it's rational to fear someone infected with Leprosy or Ebola or Tuberculosis. It's even rational to keep your distance and wash your hands after being exposed to someone with a common cold or flu. But is it rational to fear perfectly healthy, asymptomatic people? Some will rebut, "she could be a carrier and not know it!" But hasn't that always been true, of any illness or disease? How do you know that your vaccinated neighbor doesn't have TB or another infectious disease? You don't! Yet you don't steer clear because they "might have something contagious." You use common sense and make rational judgments based on how people look and act, as people have done since the beginning of time. How in 2021 have we been convinced that healthy, asymptomatic people pose not only a threat, but one so deadly that it warrants banishment from mainstream society? Is it based on rational observation and sound common sense? Or is it because we've been told that lie often enough by people in authority that we actually believe it? 
2. “Who am I?  Will I look the other way because mandates and restrictions don’t apply to me? Will I point at the unvaccinated and turn them in to the authorities to demonstrate my loyalty? Or, will I have the moral clarity and courage to stand up and fight tyranny whenever and wherever it happens, be it against Jews, Blacks, Asians, Christians, or the Unvaccinated?”

As perfectly healthy people around you continue losing their jobs, health insurance, homes, access to grocery stores, banks, public schools, airports and even critical hospital care, which group will you be a part of? 

When history looks back on this time, what will your grandchildren say about who you were in 2021?

On Following the Science 

If you're inclined to "follow the science" consider this: a defining hallmark of legitimate science is that it welcomes rigorous review and debate. Real scientists recognize that knowledge cannot advance without ongoing scrutiny and revision. In 1633 Galileo was arrested for daring to challenge the assertion that the sun revolved around the earth. The fact that he was punished for offering a difference of opinion tells us everything we need to know. This had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. 

In 2021 right here in America, the Federation of State Medical Boards recently declared: "Physicians who spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license." 

Exactly who decides what constitutes "misinformation" - especially on the topic of a brand new virus? Shouldn't open discussion and questions be encouraged in the interest of accelerating discovery? Why is this so different? When else have second opinions been punishable by banishment from medicine? 

Did you also know that parents have actually been arrested as domestic terrorists for showing up at school board meetings to voice their concerns about the effects of lockdowns and face masks on developing children? 

Across the board, only one rigid viewpoint is permitted and anyone daring to question it is immediately punished. People can debate whether the Government's motives in all of this are nefarious or simply misguided. But of one thing we can be certain: this has nothing to do with science. 

________________________________________________

Sex and Conversation

Bill wants sex. Mary's tired, and just not in the mood. She tells Bill, "I've had a long day, and I'm just not up to having sex right now." Bill replies, "You're my wife - you're supposed to be there for me when I need you!"

Most people would consider Bill a thoughtless neanderthal at best.

Put that aside for a minute and consider this one:

Mary has had a horrible day. Her boss has been on her back, she was rear-ended getting lunch, and then found out her sister's husband left her for another woman. She finally gets home, bursts in the door and says to Bill, "You would not BELIEVE the day I just had!!!"

Bill turns his back and walks away saying, "I've had a long day, and I'm just not up to listening to you right now." Mary replies, "You're my husband - you're supposed to be there for me when I need you!"

Most people would consider Bill a cold, uncaring, thoughtless man.

Wait a minute: In both cases, one person has a fundamental need: Bill for sex, Mary for someone to talk to. Each one a powerful and primal need for men and women respectively. And in each case, the other wasn't in the mood to fulfill that need.

Why is Bill an insensitive pig for expecting his wife to meet his most basic need, but Mary is justified in expecting her husband to meet hers? It sure seems that the system is rigged for men to be the bad guy no matter what.

Next time you're "not in the mood", ask yourself how you would feel if your husband decided one day that he "wasn't in the mood" to listen to you, or "wasn't in the mood" to visit your Mother on the weekend, or "wasn't in the mood" to fix the toilet. Would you immediately withdraw your expectations and cheerfully defer to his mood? If you're answer is "No", you'd better think twice before expecting anything different from him.

Where else in life do we apply the standard, "Only If I Feel Like It"? Being in a loving, committed relationship means being there for each other whether you feel like it or not. I realize how un-pc this is, but it's something we already know instinctively. Do mothers only change diapers or feed their children when they feel like it? Does the breadwinner in the family only go to work when he or she feels like it? Love means caring for anther's needs over and above our own. It involves, well, sacrifice. If you'd rather live life at the whim and mercy of your immediate feelings and moods, don't begrudge others when they do the same. And whatever you do, don't get married!

I'm not saying your husband shouldn't be understanding if you're occasionally just too pooped for passion. But realize that his need for sex is every bit as foundational as your need for emotional intimacy. Rejection hurts him in the same way it would hurt you if he turned his back when you needed someone to talk to. 

We women can't have it both ways. If you expect him to defer to your "moods" when you don't feel like sex, you'd better be ready to defer to his when he'd rather watch football than hear about your day.

Related article: Girl Power!

Don't Be a Pain

I used to be a pain in the neck. Let me explain.

My neck is chock full of hardware. Neurosurgery combined with two cervical fusions have left me with 2 titanium rods, 15 screws, bone grafts, some wire and a metal cage supporting my head. It hurts. All the time. Sitting on an airplane, being bumped around on a long car ride, or even looking down for too long can provoke mind-numbing agony.

Even so, I enjoy an absolutely extraordinary quality of life. Mastering "Mood Over Pain" has been the lynchpin of my recovery. Specifically, I'd like to share 5 tactics that have worked for me, in the hopes that others living with chronic pain might find a nugget or two they can use in their own journey toward a full and happy life.

1. Understand the Journey:  Most of all, understand that it IS a journey. Things will get better. Life will seem normal again. Dealing with long-term physical therapy and rehab can wear you down and have you believing that this is what your new life looks like. Always remember that this is a stage - as painful, long and tough as it may be. Someday it will settle into a new "normal" that you can not only live with, but thrive within.


2. Consider the Alternative:  As difficult as these surgeries can be, imagine for a moment what an incredible gift they are. Consider the alternative: Living with (or dying from) your condition because you didn't have access to a good surgeon. The level of healthcare we enjoy in this country today is unprecedented in human history, and you and I were just lucky enough to be born at the right time and in the right place to benefit from it. How incredibly blessed we are!


3. Re-Condition Your Thinking:  Every time you hear yourself think, "I used to be able to (fill-in-the-blank), now I can't even (fill-in-the-blank)", STOP.  Immediately replace the thought with "I can still . . ." and fill in the blank with something else, no matter how small. "I can still read stories to my grandchildren" leaves you in an entirely different frame of mind than, "I'll never be able to water ski again."
   
   I was amazed when I started re-focusing on all the things I still could do; not only at how long the list was, but at how rich it was. It included those things that have always mattered the most, even pre-injury. Things like time with my family, visiting friends, and doing fulfilling work where I can contribute and be challenged. Conversely, there was not one thing on my Can't Anymore list that was truly going to matter on my last day. This  epiphany gave me a deep sense of comfort which enabled me to let go of the Can't Anymores with far less angst. I was still 100% able to be there for my family and friends, to support and love them and to extend kindness to others, even to enjoy my work and continue to grow and learn. In the end, aren't those the things that really matter anyway?


4. Prioritize: What does your family need from you - not according to you, but according to them? 
   
   I always thought that being Superwoman meant making dinner every night after working a 12-hr day, keeping the house clean and baking homemade birthday cakes for loved ones ("Store bought?? Perish the thought!"). My condition left me feeling like a useless failure because I could no longer "take care of my family" in the same manner I had before.
   
   After countless tearful rants about how "I can't do ANYTHING anymore without ending up flat on my back in pain", my wise  husband sat me down, looked me in the eye and said, "Honey, I didn't marry you to cook my dinner or clean the house. I married you because you're my best friend. All I really need is for you to be my friend." The irony is that my stubborn determination to push through the pain in order to "provide" was actually undermining my ability to provide the one thing my husband really needed from me. 
   
   It's taken a long time, but I've finally come to the realization that being my best, happy self is a serious responsibility and that I owe it to my marriage to do whatever I have to do to protect and maintain that state. If that means not cleaning the bathroom on a given day, so be it. 
   
   Another way to think of it is this: You have a finite number of comfortable, productive moments in a day (I call it "neck-quity"!) Once it's all used up you're unable to move around the way you'd like and get things done. So being very intentional about how you spend your pain equity will help you make the most of every day.


5. It's Not All About You: Severe and sustained pain is horrible. It's all-consuming. It pinches us where it hurts - right in the heart - and leaves us feeling dark and small and alone. When you're in that state it's nearly impossible to think of others. However, if you're able to force yourself out of your "pain place" the effect can be downright transformational. Doing for others opens your heart and lets in the light. It pushes away feelings of isolation and despair, even if just for a little while. And remember, Doing for Others doesn't need to be anything earth-shaking. Think of a friend who's going through a hard time and pick up the phone to say hello and offer an ear. Tell a lady at the grocery store how pretty her coat is. Any little thing that brightens someone's day or puts a smile on their face will usually do the trick. I've developed a keen radar over the last few years for my own self-absorption. I know when it's bubbled up too far and needs to be dealt with. That's when I turn my thoughts to Doing for Others and look for opportunities to be there for someone else.
   
   A variation on the theme is this: whether you're at work, the mall, the grocery store or the ballpark - take a look around. Every last person you see is dealing with something, guaranteed. A lost loved one, aging parents, sick children, job loss, bankruptcy, illness, substance abuse - the list goes on forever. Being acutely aware of this is humbling, and I find that it helps me avoid getting too absorbed in my own discomfort.

Practicing these 5 basic rules helps me remember that I cannot allow my pain to define me. I am NOT a pain in the neck. I HAVE a pain in the neck, and you know what? I can live with that.

Girl Power!

In 1950's America, women had little control over their own lives. They were stuck at home barefoot and pregnant. They weren't valued or respected in the same ways men were. They had no real career options. They were dependent on their husbands, for better or for worse. Women as a group were repressed and unhappy.

Or were they?

Conventional wisdom today paints a picture of the mid-century housewife that looks like - well - Betty Draper. Sad, trapped, powerless, frustrated Betty Draper. But if we look at how people back then actually saw themselves, a very different image emerges. If film and television reflect the current culture, we can gain insight into how people viewed themselves by looking at the icons of the day.

What we find is that female icons of the 50s were hardly timid, obedient doormats at the mercy and whim of the male power structure. Quite the contrary, they were the likes of Lauren Bacall, Maureen O'Hara and Katherine Hepburn, whose power  and influence left legions of heartbroken, defenseless men in its wake! Their power came not from attempting to "beat men at their own game", but from their brilliant and bold expressions of femininity. 

Could it be that modern feminism got it all wrong? That we abdicated our true power in favor of some second-rate version of masculinity - and that in doing so we've actually made women less happy, less powerful and less fulfilled than their mid-century counterparts?

To answer that question we need to put aside conventional wisdom and find out how life really was in the 50s.  Were women truly as unhappy and stifled as we're given to believe? Are women in fact happier today? Is American society stronger and healthier as a result of feminism? Let's take a look.

Were women in fact unhappy and unfulfilled in the '30s, '40s and '50s?

What kind of children did they raise? It's probably safe to assume that unhappy, repressed women generally do not beget happy, smart, productive children. This would be even more true retrospectively since most women back then stayed home with their children rather than dropping them off at day care, amplifying the impact they would have had on their children's' psyches.

So how did they turn out? Well, in 1969 the children of those powerless, repressed women living under a misogynistic patriarchy figured out how to put a man on the moon!  We also know that between 1945 and 1960, the gross national product more than doubled, growing from $200 billion to more than $500 billion. Unemployment rates, crime rates, housing costs and inflation were all low, while middle class wages, literacy rates and high school graduation rates were soaring. America, by any objective measure we have available to us was thriving and growing.

This alone should lead us to question our assumptions about the mothers of those remarkable achievers. It also forces us to confront two possibilities. Either:

1. Unhappy women raise overwhelmingly happy, productive children, in which case we need to revisit the claim, "I'll be a better parent if I'm happy and fulfilled" - or,
2.  Women were actually quite fulfilled in their roles providing strength and encouragement to their husbands and raising smart, happy, inventive children.

Has modern feminism made women happier?

Let's turn to data which are statistically linked to stress rates and depression. These include suicide rates, drug addiction/abuse rates and stress-related conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, ulcers and infertility (which is frequently cited as a cause of depression among women today). If women of the 40's and 50's were chronically unhappy and feeling trapped and devalued, we'd expect them to suffer from much higher rates of these types of conditions. But that's not at all what we find. By all objective accounts these numbers are far higher today especially among women than they've ever been before (see below for links to common data sources).

Note: One could rightly argue that "Women's issues were undiagnosed or under-reported." Maybe. Maybe not. We simply have no way to accurately measure if and to what extent that is true. Likewise, one could say that women have heart attacks today for all sorts of reasons other than stress or depression -  environmental changes, food preservatives, moon cycles and so on. But it would only be speculation since we don't have any credible data linking those factors to heart attacks in women, while the correlation between happiness and stress-related illnesses (in both men and women) has been well documented for decades.

The actual data seem to invalidate the claim that women are happier today than they were in 1950. Have we cut off our noses to spite our faces? Women of the 50s didn't have to worry about finding a replacement sitter when they were up against a deadline and the nanny called in sick. They didn't have to stress about skipping work to attend parent meetings at school. They didn't have to spend evenings and weekends catching up on laundry, housework and chores. They didn't have to make arrangements for someone to pick up the kids from school when they had to work late. They didn't have to call in sick because a child was home with the flu. They didn't have to dash out of the office every day, pick up the kids at day care, stop at the store for groceries, cook dinner, help with homework, bathe the little ones, read bedtime stories and tuck everyone in - all after a stressful day at the office. Honest women can't deny that while modern feminism may have improved certain aspects of our lives, it has also given rise to  an entirely new set of stresses which can seriously impact our happiness.

Did some of our 1950s counterparts wish they had broader career options? Sure, some did. Did some wish they could divorce their husbands without financial devastation or public shame? No doubt about it. I just wonder how those troubles stack up against all the new ones we've inherited  in the name of a "better life" for women.

And what about society in general? Has society benefited from the feminist movement? Societal health is measured by things like cost of living, crime rates, housing costs, unemployment levels, literacy rates, healthcare costs, percentages of high school and college graduates, and so on.

I'll spare you the inclusion of pages and pages of raw data. These figures are easily accessible from the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Center for Financial Stability, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics and many other substantiated sources.

Suffice it to say that by any measure we have available to us today, society was extraordinarily successful in the 1950s. In fact the data seem to indicate that it was more successful in many ways than American society in 2015.  We can debate why this is true - the issues are many and complex. Nobody is claiming that the reason for the downtrend is women in the workforce! But to claim that modern feminism has improved life in America - for women or for anyone else - would simply have no basis in fact.

Still, the feminist movement is lauded unchallenged as a huge leap forward for women. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves on what basis we make that assumption.

Maybe conventional wisdom has it wrong and Betty Draper has little to do with reality after all. Maybe the truth looks a lot more like Lauren, Maureen and Katherine standing up tall and defiant, hands on hips and chins in the air, eyes blazing, setting the record straight.

Postscript:

In a world where women are indeed powerful, would they be so quick to sue men for saying offensive things? Before you start licking envelopes to send me your hate male - it goes without saying that physical violence should NEVER be tolerated. However when I see women suing men over saying offensive things or looking at them the wrong way, they strike me as no different than a petulant little girl who goes running to Daddy because someone was mean to her on the playground. Just because she's running to her lawyer now instead of Daddy, she is no more powerful than the sad little girl who needs someone to rescue her. A strong woman ignores rude remarks, walks away, or issues a clever comeback when it's safe to do so - she doesn't need her Daddy or anyone else to save her. 

I recognize that many of you will disagree. Some may even call me ignorant, naive, wrongheaded or worse. That's perfectly ok, I can take it like a man :-)

Related article: Sex and Conversation