Happiness as a Super Power

Happiness as a Super Power

Some people are born with extraordinary beauty, a mind for numbers, musical talent, or athletic prowess. When cultivated and nurtured they can become super powers.

While I am not particularly beautiful, have zero athletic talent, and make babies cry when I try to sing - I too have a super power: I was born with the cheerful gene.

Over the years I have cultivated and nurtured this gift. I've given a great deal of thought to what happiness means and how people acquire it. I can't say I have cracked the code, but in answer to those who ask why I'm "always in a good mood" (even when I'm not!) here are 3 simple things that have worked for me:

1. Walk around feeling grateful

It is very difficult to be bitter or irritable or sad when you walk around feeling incredibly lucky. Grandma's advice to "Count your blessings" was no joke, and didn't only apply when things were going your way. In fact blessings are often most obvious during the tough times. For example:

Imagine I'm laid up with the flu. Counting my blessings is not what comes to mind as I lay in bed with a 102 degree fever! But if I did stop to think about it, those blessings would be too many to count. Things like: 

• I have paid time off and don't have to worry about my job
• I have a great support system at home
• I have access to antibiotics and other medicines I need to get better and feel more comfortable
• I don't have to worry about access to clean water, healthy food, and a warm bed
• I have indoor plumbing and a clean environment in which to recover
• If things get really bad I have access to a hospital, and arguably the finest health care available in human history

And so on. These may seem obvious or silly, but trust me they are not things to be taken for granted. I did nothing to deserve them. Millions of other people (many far more deserving than I) do not have them. I'm just plain lucky, and I know it. The "knowing it" is called gratitude. So even in the midst of a terrible flu I am keenly aware of my blessings. I may still feel feverish or nauseous or achy, but I certainly won't feel bitter or depressed.

2. Compare yourself to those LESS fortunate

Human nature relentlessly directs our attention to those more fortunate, more gifted and more successful, while blinding us to those who are less fortunate, less gifted or less successful. 

This brings to mind a conversation I had with my son Kevin when he was around 9. We lived in California close to Disneyland but we couldn't afford to go very often. One night he seemed uncharacteristically sad, and when I asked what was troubling him he said, "I wish I was Bryan. He gets to go to Disneyland all the time." After assuring him that it's ok to want things we don't have, I asked him a question: "Do you think that somewhere out there there's a little boy talking to his mom, and saying "I wish I was Kevin. He has two parents at home who love him"? Or, "I wish I was Kevin, he never has to feel hungry"? Or, "I wish I was Kevin, he has so many friends at school"? I asked him what he thought that other boy might be saying about him, and for the next few minutes he listed off all the ways HE might be seen as the lucky one. Kevin went to bed that night feeling very lucky indeed - and a good deal happier than before.

3. Consider happiness your moral obligation

I wish I could claim this one because it's the best of all! In truth, I discovered it reading Dennis Prager's Happiness is a Serious Problem. In the book Mr. Prager claims that happiness is a moral obligation. Like most people hearing this for the first time I bristled, thinking it unfair and insensitive. After all, not everyone was born with the cheerful gene. And we all go through serious things in life that (seem to) preclude a state of happiness. Mr. Prager's direction to "act happy" even when you don't feel it offended my modern bias toward authenticity and self-acceptance.  

But like many transformative ideas, this one deserved a second look through a more open mind. I evaluated it by comparing happiness to other obligations we honor every day, for example:

• Taking care of our children
  
• Obeying municipal laws
• Keeping promises
• Treating animals with kindness
  

Importantly, we are free to break these obligations if we choose. There are times we don't feel like tending to a sick child or helping a friend move. A sense of moral obligation is often what compels us to override our feelings and do them anyway. When we encounter someone who regularly defers to her feelings instead, we don't admire her authenticity and level of self-actualization! Rather, we consider her thoughtless, irresponsible, untrustworthy, or rude.

Some will say, "happiness is different because your mood is not a conscious choice." To them I'd pose this challenge. Think of a time when you were at your absolute worst: seething mad, depressed, despondent, resentful, etc. Now, your neighbor rings the doorbell. Before you answer, a genie appears and says "I will pay you one Billion dollars to smile and act cheerful to this person." Could you do it? If your answer is "yes", you actually can control how you act toward others, regardless of how you feel inside!

In this context it makes sense to consider "acting happy" a moral obligation for the benefit of those around us, just as we honor other obligations to contribute to the sort of society (or household) we want our children to inherit. To be clear: I am not saying we shouldn't share our true selves with friends and family. What I am suggesting is that we remain keenly aware of the impact our behavior has on those around us. We have the power to uplift or tear down. The power to create light or cast shadows, so it's appropriate to use that power wisely and not simply obey our own emotional impulses. (For another example of freedom from our emotions read Sex and Conversation)

In summary:

I hope this answers your questions about why I'm always (seemingly) in a good mood. I would have loved to have been born with a face like Angelina Jolie's or a voice like Whitney Houston's, but I'm happy with the cards I was dealt, because - well - being happy is what I do best! 😊 

Think Again

 

I grew up a confident and happy atheist. 

Dad's side of the family was Jewish, but of the cultural vs. religious variety. Mom had attended a Methodist church as a young child, but notions of God or Christ simply weren't part of our household zeitgeist.  My father is one of those 'bigger than life' personalities: an engineer and inventor who was brilliant, passionate, adventurous, and generous. He would never, ever be unkind to any individual, but he had an underlying attitude toward Christianity that bordered on disdain. 

 

Naturally, this influenced my own attitudes well into adulthood. I went through life proclaiming, "I believe in science, not religion!" But hubris can blind us. For someone who claimed allegiance to science and reason, I had never actually explored the science and reasoning behind atheism; I simply took it on faith (ironically!) that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris were right, and never thought to consider otherwise. I drank in the secular worldview, then sat back to bask in the positive reinforcement pouring in from all sides: music, television, movies, college professors, newspapers, and more - all telling me how smart and enlightened I was.

 

I also believed that Christians' ethics were imposed upon them, whereas atheists were free to choose their own values based on reason and science. It wasn't until middle-adulthood that I realized how wrong I was; that atheism is not only a religion in its own right, but an aggressively evangelical one at that! I realized my choice wasn't between dogma and free thinking. It was between competing dogmas (atheism and theism), and which one I chose to align myself with.

The laws of inertia state that something in motion will continue on its trajectory until acted upon by a force. So it was with my belief system as a young adult. My best friend in the world became a born-again Christian, and knocked my worldview completely off it's axis.

This particular friend was the smartest person I knew. At the time she was a PhD candidate, played every conceivable instrument, and had traveled the world. She was also a truthful person, and I could see that she was sincere. Try as I might to dismiss it I couldn’t shake the question, “How can someone so brilliant actually believe in that stuff?" I knew there had to be a substantive answer, otherwise people like her would never become believers.

So I got curious. I sought out the best contemporary Christian thinkers I could find, people like C.S. Lewis and Dinesh D'Souza to see what they had to say about the case for God. I found them surprisingly cogent; their claims were based on compelling evidence across historical, scientific and philosophical disciplines, and their reasoning and logic were impressively tight. 

Next, I set about studying the preeminent atheist thinkers: Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. To my surprise and dismay, their works were comparatively flimsy and rife with errors. Even with my rudimentary understanding of logic, the ad hominem remarks, non sequiturs, straw men, circular reasoning and false dilemmas jumped out at me.

I also couldn't help noticing a marked difference in tone: Lewis and D’Souza were calm, rational and respectful whereas Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins were often condescending, evasive, even snarky at times. This didn't help since I knew that when people resort to those tactics it means they have no real substance to anchor on.

 

I came away unsatisfied and dejected; it was rather like seeing your home team fail miserably in the most important game of the season. Over time, the more I dug in the less confident I became in my home faith. It seemed that in the bright light of serious inspection, atheism was all bark and no intellectual bite. 

Mind you, this dawning realization didn't happen over one sunny weekend. Atheism had burrowed its way deep into my psyche and old habits die hard, especially for those of us cursed with stubborn hearts!

C.S. Lewis shared of his own conversion, “I gave in, and admitted that God was God - perhaps that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”  

Likewise, despite years of searching diligently for empirical grounds to justify my atheism I finally, reluctantly had to admit that God was God. While atheism and theism both require a measure of faith, the evidence was in - and it pointed overwhelmingly to God as the far more rational choice. 

Not only did the Christian worldview ultimately satisfy my need for intellectual fulfillment, it was, to quote Greg Koukl, "the best explanation for the way things are." To the eternal mysteries of human nature, good and evil, the fine-tuning of our own universe, and the infinite cosmos beyond, Christianity offered a uniquely beautiful and elegant response. 

I wish my conversion story were more romantic or emotionally compelling, but we all come to truth in different ways. For me it had to come through my mind first, and the heart would follow. 

 

In a way, becoming Christian was like becoming a parent. From that moment on, every thought, decision, action and point of view could only be seen through the lens of my new paradigm. Entire worlds opened up in my heart, and suddenly everything made sense: why we’re here, why we matter, how precious we are, and the glorious shared purpose of humanity.

25 years after my conversion the journey continues for me - and I pray it continues for you, wherever it leads. May the Lord our God grant us humility to listen, wisdom to recognize truth, and courage to follow it to the end of our days. Amen.

Postscript: in the interest of brevity I omitted why I chose to follow Jesus of Nazareth rather than perusing a different religion. Perhaps someday I'll expand on this. For now suffice it to say that this was another collaboration between my heart and my mind. Jesus alone fulfilled the deepest yearnings of both, and opened my eyes to a purpose and joy I found unique to the faith. 

Three Minutes to Live

Air travel is exhausting these days. More often than not you're subject to flight delays, cancellations and detours leading to the awkward sprint-lurch through the airport dragging heavy bags behind you, spilling sticky Starbucks drinks on your suit, sweating like a pro wrestler, and praying you'll make your connecting flight - which without fail is taking off from the far opposite terminal.

I recently returned from THAT trip. Exhausted, consumed with pain (ref don't be a pain) - and yet the lucky recipient of a most unexpected revelation.

On one connecting leg, we experienced some routine turbulence. Nothing dramatic, but it got me thinking: "what if my number was up, and I was on a flight that actually DID go down - what would my last thoughts be if I knew I only had 3 minutes left to live?"

Well, before I had time to think about it consciously, the answer hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks. So clearly, with stunning certainty, in an instant:

"THANK YOU. Thank you God for all the love I have had in my life. Thank you for the exquisite joy of raising children, and for the love we share even now that they're grown. Thank you for the love of my wonderful Mike, for his pure goodness and loyal friendship, and the way he loves me. Thank you for all the beauty I have seen, and heard, and for all the good people I've known. Thank you for your guidance; for helping me to be better than I really am. My life on this earth could not possibly have been more lovely. Thank you for giving me this little glimpse of heaven here on earth" 

I was completely consumed with a singular sensation of gratitude. How impossibly blessed I am, that THAT is the thing that would fill my heart and mind in those last precious moments, rather than regret or sadness or fear. It took me totally by surprise - almost like jumping into the Pacific ocean and gasping from the shock of the cold. I blinked my eyes and realized my cheeks were wet with tears. When I'd recovered my senses, I realized what a gift this was. Permission of a sort to leave worldly stresses behind and bask in the knowledge that all would be well. I had already experienced the best this life has to offer. Everything else is just icing, to be savored for as long as I'm here.

Don't get me wrong, I plan to stay around for a good long time. Long enough to see my grandchildren get married and take their own first steps toward discovery of heaven on earth. But whenever my time does come I'll be ready. Ready to look back with joy and gratitude. Ready to leave with peace on my heart, carrying with me every bit of the love I've been so privileged to receive in life.

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 

Ode to the Patriarchy

In the spirit of amplifying Unconventional Wisdom, I’d like to challenge the current narrative that overwhelmingly lauds the feminine and vilifies the masculine. The fact that "Toxic Masculinity" is part of our vernacular in the West speaks volumes about women's attitudes about men. In recent decades women have been given sobering levels of power, but seem to lack the wisdom to understand where it came from, and that it comes with equally sobering levels of responsibility.

Ironically, the only reason American women can prosper and enjoy our independence is that MEN built a civilization in which Betas like us can thrive. In a world where survival depends on the ability to build shelter, hunt for food and defend against armies – women are acutely aware of the value of their men. But from the safety of modern life in America we can afford to insult and belittle the men who afforded us the very right to do so.

Despite conventional wisdom, Judeo-Christian men have never treated women with the degree of contempt women level at them today. I recently saw The King and I at a local theatre and was struck at the true story of a lovely young widow traveling across the world with her young son in the 1800’s. During the long voyage she shared the ship with an all-male captain and crew, and yet she was perfectly safe. Not only did British leadership tap her for this most important diplomatic mission (it seems men did respect women back then after all), but she was treated with utter deference by the crew. Did she think herself somehow "unequal" because she relied upon them for food, shelter and protection along the way? On the contrary, I suspect she was secure in the knowledge that she was there because of her intelligence, diplomacy and skill. Appreciating the men who endured the punishing demands of the voyage to deliver her safely to her destination in no way diminished her own power and worth. 

One more note: it’s very easy to confuse a cultural shift with misogyny. Of course men looked askance at women participating in business and politics, because it was a new idea. But that is not the same as a nefarious desire to hold us back, or an institutional lack of respect for women. If it were, life in the west would look very different for women than it does today. The inconvenient truth is that women are where they are today because the patriarchy of yesteryear allowed it. Modern women love to rail on about the overbearing, domineering, disrespectful patriarchy - while completely missing the irony that if their claims were true, they'd never be allowed to complain about it!

Instead of honoring the men who honor us in so many ways, and appreciating their extraordinary strength, loyalty and fortitude, like petulant teenagers our pride and arrogance fool us into thinking we no longer need them at all. Worse, that men are ignorant, bullying creatures who must sit down and be quiet, and let women rule. In this humble writer’s opinion, we are profoundly poorer for it.

My Superlative Man

I think about my husband a lot. When something funny happens, when I've had a rough day, if I need his advice - he is always the first person I think of. It struck me recently that when I think of Mike, or when I'm talking to others about him, I so often use superlative language: "He is the wisest", or "He is the kindest" or "most brilliant" person I know.  Bias aside, my husband really did hang the moon.

We've only been together 18 years at this writing, but that's long enough for me to have seen Mike in different stages and situations; when things were going his way and when they weren't. The longer I know him the  more I admire him. One of my very favorite quotes is, Your Character is Who You Are When No One is Looking. This man has Character with a capital C. He's what I like to call "quietly extraordinary." His knowledge of history, science, literature and even pop culture is deep and wide, and matched only by the humility with which he carries it.  And his heart is as big as his mind. I have yet to see Mike exhibit selfishness or pride, or to put himself above others either in word or in deed.

My wise, wonderful mother once told me, "You should never marry a man until you can name three things you don't like about him." Mom was married for nearly 60 years to the love of her life so she knew what she was talking about. I thought that was such sage advice: Make sure you know this person inside and out and are ready to love him forever, ignoble attributes and all. On my wedding day I told Mom that I hadn't been able to find three things I disliked about Mike. All these years later I'm still stumped.

Lest you think I'm either hopelessly deluded or am not in fact married to a mortal being, there are things about Mike that do challenge me. He is a very, very masculine man. He's the quintessential "take charge" guy. I am - let's just say - no shrinking violet. I'm equally as passionate about My Way as he is about his. Cooking together rarely ends well since neither of us will relinquish the title of Head Chef! Mike has strong opinions about everything. He knows what he believes and why, and unless "the data" tell him otherwise he won't be shaken. However, even in his stubbornness he is thoughtful and kind and never, ever demeans or insults when others disagree.

I can be sure - every time - that Mike's positions stem from goodness and honesty and never from pride or emotional immaturity. And he always has my best interests at heart. He looks out for me, he has my back, he is my constant advocate and true friend. It's very common for people today to paint the uber-masculine man as a bully; someone who uses his machismo to lord over women. We think we must "cut them down" in order to be equal. The truth is, when all that machismo is inside of a good man and it's directed at elevating the woman he loves, it makes an already strong woman all but invincible. I'll take that all day long over a man who will simply bend to my will.

When we were dating I asked Mike what he needed in a woman. He thought for a minute and said, "I need someone who can stand toe to toe with me and be my equal" (I enjoy reminding him of this often!)  We take "equal" to mean "the same" these days, but it's our differences which enable us to fit together into a perfectly choreographed whole that is so much more than either of us could possibly be alone. Isn't that, after all, what marriage is all about?

Someday I hope to be the kind of person who is worthy of a partner like Mike. Until then, he remains my hero, my desert island person who could find food, build shelter, craft a raft out of reed scraps, use his knowledge of military strategy to defend us from the natives and devise an ingenious radio signaling device to call for help. All with quiet humility.

I'll concede, there's a possibility that Mike didn't actually hang the moon. But I bet he could figure out how if he needed to.

 

Related: Girl Power!

Confused Compassionates

People can say whatever they like. Even to themselves, and even when it's a lie.

Case in point: the self-proclaimed "Compassionates" who advocate for those poor little lab rats with tearful aplomb - and then (with a straight face, mind you) turn around and advocate for killing unborn human babies.   

Question if you are a PETA donor: What is it that makes a human baby less worthy of our compassion than a lab rat or a chicken or a baby seal? Is it that the human mother gets to make the decision? So - if we could "pay" a female monkey a bunch of bananas to hand over her baby for scientific experimentation, would you be ok with that because after all, it's her decision to make? If you answer "yes" then at least you are consistent. 

The parallels between this issue and issues of the civil war cannot be denied. In the latter, there were two groups of people:

1. Those who believed that blacks were not "fully human", which exempted them from the rights and protections others enjoyed. 
2. Those who believed that blacks were fully human, thus deserving of the same rights and protections as anyone else. 

In the abortion debate there are also two groups of people:

1. Those who believe the unborn are not "fully human", which exempts them from the rights and protections others enjoy. 
2. Those who believe the unborn are fully human, thus deserving of the same rights and protections as anyone else. 

If you fall under the same group in each case you are intellectually honest. If you don't, maybe it's time to think again about what you really stand for. 

Before you call yourself compassionate because you refuse to dissect a frog in biology class - Remember that compassion must extend not only to animals or "causes" but most importantly to your fellow humans. 

We've Won the Lottery!

What are the odds of winning the lottery in your country or state? Most estimates in the US are around 1 in 300 million or so. Now consider this:

Of the world's population, only 17% are lucky enough to live in a developed country. Of those, only about 70% are employed right now according to Statista. And of that group, a mere 30% report enjoying the work they do.

Even if we stopped right there, many of us would find ourselves amongst a scant 3% of humanity who enjoys similar blessings. If we piled on things like happy children, a good marriage, and decent health the odds become so small they're nearly incalculable. 

None of this diminishes the pain and turmoil life throws our way. It's just a reminder that while every last  human being experiences heartache and tragedy very, very few enjoy the privileges most of us take for granted every day.

Odds of winning the lottery? That's nothing we haven't already beat several times over :-)

First Offendment

I recently wrote a very polite objection to Honeymaid after seeing a television ad on their new “Wholesome” campaign in which they celebrated same-sex couples as archetypes of wholesome living. My intention was to simply write a note to the company respectfully letting them know why I wouldn’t be purchasing their product moving forward. Their corporate website routed me to the facebook page to submit my comment, so I did:

“I've been eating Honey Maid graham crackers every day (breakfast of champions, lol!) for years. However, I've switched to the store brand because of this campaign. It seems you're not at all worried about offending Christians, who still constitute the majority of the country. You have every right to propagate your beliefs, no complaint there whatsoever. However, I also have the right not to partake. So after years of yummy Honey Maid breakfasts I must say goodbye to the brand.”

As a person who has always believed that good people can differ on issues of the day, I was shocked by the slew of profanity, vicious rhetoric and name-calling my simple little note was met with. After all, the worst thing I said was that I was offended as a Christian. I shrugged it off and didn’t bother responding since clearly these are not people who value diversity, or are capable of tolerance toward people whose views differ from their own. The level of sheer irony would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.

I thought nothing more about it until yesterday, when I received a note from Facebook saying they had “removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.” No complaint about the F-bomb-riddled, malicious responses – but my own comparatively mild post had violated some “standard” or other. I’m including a link to said standards so you can make up your own minds, but I was mighty hard pressed to see how my rather innocuous comment had breached any of them even in the slightest.  In fact Facebook goes so far as to emphasize, “Because of the diversity of our global community, please keep in mind that something that may be disagreeable or disturbing to you may not violate our Community Standards.” So apparently my comment was so egregious as to blow right past merely “disagreeable or disturbing” and move right into “harmful” or “dangerous”.

There is a link on the standards page to a letter signed by both Monika Bickert, the head of Global Product Policy and Justin Osofsky, the Vice President of Global Operations, both of whom have been invited to read this blog. I’ll keep you posted on any response I may get.

In the meantime, to my progressive friends:

• If you are a person who fights for the rights of minorities, gays and the poverty-stricken, and you believe that whether someone is blue, green, transgender or handicapped they have the right to live free in America without fear of retribution or persecution, I genuinely applaud you. I hope you know that most Christians agree with you.  Just know that if the respect and freedom you advocate for is not extended to everyone – including and especially those who disagree with you – what you’re actually advocating for is tyranny.
• Please don’t let anyone trap you into a false dichotomy. It’s a very common but effective logical fallacy that goes like this: There are two and only two possibilities, only one of which can be true. In the context of this discussion it goes something like this – there are only two possibilities. Either:

a.      Someone agrees with the progressive doctrine (“green” lifestyle, gay marriage, abortions for all and so on). These people are to be considered virtuous, loving, compassionate, enlightened, caring, open-minded and generally “good” human beings.

b.     Someone disagrees with the progressive doctrine. These people are to be considered evil, hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist, fill-in-the-blanksist people who are less than human and certainly not deserving of kindness or respect.

Is there no room for someone like me to believe that every human being - yes, even one whose lifestyle I may not endorse -  is a precious child of God, and is to be treated with respect and dignity and kindness? Isn’t that in fact the very definition of “tolerance”? Or, is it that “tolerance” isn’t enough and that if I don’t openly endorse, celebrate and whole-heartedly embrace the acceptable progressive doctrine I am summarily loaded onto the “category B" train (words chosen intentionally)?

How can a person treat conservatives with open contempt and public ridicule, while claiming he advocates for every person's right to be treated with dignity? His very behavior undermines his credibility! Or, are conservatives somehow less than human, and thus exempt from the progressive versions of compassion and tolerance? What is the meaning of tolerance if it's only extended to people you agree with?

Why it’s so easy to lure people into a false dichotomy, I don’t know. Maybe it’s easier to just group people into categories and label everyone who differs with you as “bad” because it makes you feel safe and accepted. Maybe that’s what drove the Nazi’s in the ‘40s, and the people who hung blacks by trees in the 60’s. Maybe it’s what drives the progressive elite today. All I know is, wherever that kind of thinking has prevailed society has become less kind, less tolerant, and a whole lot less free.

To my conservative friends:
Make no mistake. “Diversity” and “Tolerance” are reserved for a very select group of people and it’s abundantly clear that Conservatives and Christians are not among them. So we all have a choice to make. We can either “sit down and shut up”, or continue to stand up, speak up and be subject to persecution and ridicule for holding a certain set of beliefs – even when those very beliefs command us to treat others with respect and dignity. I choose the latter, and I hope you'll join me.

Sock Blindness

How many times has your husband walked right past a pair of dirty socks on the floor and NOT picked them up? Or crammed one more thing into an overflowing trash can, or reached for a paper plate instead of emptying the dishwasher?

Is he blind? Is he lazy? Is he inconsiderate? Why on earth doesn't he just PICK THEM UP?

The answer is  . . . wait for it . . . He Doesn't See Them.

How can he not see socks that are laying there right in front of him? It's a good question, with a simple answer. People notice what they value. I could walk right past a 1948 Astin Martin DB1 in a parking lot and it would never even hit my radar, guaranteed. The man I'm walking through the parking lot with might conclude that I'm ditsy or unobservant. The truth is, I just don't care about cars. I was too busy noticing some woman's great shoes, or the lovely sunset, or I was thinking about work, or dinner, or the kids, or pretty much anything other than cars. We value different things, so we notice different things. It's as simple as that. Don't make the mistake of believing that others (even your husband) value the same things you do.

There's another layer to this argument. You might say, "If he loved me, he'd care that dirty socks bother me. He'd pick them up for me." That sounds well and fine, but think it through for a minute. If your husband loves fishing and you love him, do you magically begin noticing different brands of fishing rods? Of course not! You would never hear a man say, "If you really loved me, you would have noticed that guy's incredible fishing rod!" How absurd that sounds, yet we do it to men all the time. So no - his loving you does not make him suddenly begin to notice socks on the floor, or an overflowing trash can or a leaky sink.

Now that we've established that Dear ol' Hubby has Sock Blindness, what's the cure? Ladies, pay attention because this will change your marriage forever.

The cure is Admiration and Respect.

A man who is admired and respected will move mountains to please you. A man who is nagged and belittled will withdraw faster than you can say Henpecked Husband. Men only participate where they can win, so the secret is to set your guy up to win, and win big! Men WANT to be Super Heroes, we just need to hand them their capes and let them fly.

So how do you set him up to win?

1. Know that he's not leaving the socks on the floor on purpose, or out of laziness or neglect. 
2. Understand that what's important to you (a clean floor) may not be important to him; therefore, you are asking HIM to do YOU a favor by picking up his socks. This sets you up to appreciate that he's picking them up, rather than being disappointed in him for not picking them up without your asking.
3. Ask, and be specific! In other words, tell him precisely how he can win. "You're such a slob - you're always leaving your dirty socks on the floor" means the game's over and he already lost. That's hardly going to inspire him to participate the next time around.

Don't believe me? Try it: Next time his dirty socks are on the floor ask him very sweetly, "Honey, would you mind tossing those in the hamper for me?" (the "for me" is important because it gives him a real shot at winning your appreciation). I bet he'll take it in a New York minute. A kiss of genuine appreciation will seal the deal, and he'll redouble his efforts to please you.

So ladies, remember to be kind to the the sock-blind. They DO love you. In fact, they'll go to any lengths to show you. All you have to do is let them.

Fat Chance

CVS Pharmacy recently announced their plan to penalize employees who have a higher BMI than they deem acceptable. At the same time their own diversity policy states:

"We celebrate differences in age, gender, family status, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, appearance, thought and mannerisms." 

Their argument is that overweight employees incur higher health care costs, and that it's unfair for others to have to share the burden of those costs. Why should folks who eat organic foods and work out every day have to pay for their couch potato colleagues when the 'taters have a heart attack? Other companies have imposed similar fines on smoking employees citing similar logic.

The truth is, if this was really about fairness CVS' policy would have to include people with high blood pressure, whether they're overweight or not. And what about people with arthritis or kidney disease or congenital heart issues? They'd certainly have to impose a pretty steep fine on homosexuals since they are at far higher risk of contracting AIDS and other costly illnesses.

By the way, if we're looking at risk of possible future health care costs we'd also need to include people who ski or mountain bike or skydive or run marathons. Really, anyone who is not currently sick or injured but who has a high likelihood of becoming sick or injured due to activities they engaged in.

Wait a minute . . . isn't that the inherent definition of insurance?  Isn't insurance a form of risk management used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss? Do we know that an overweight person will become sick? Do we know that a marathon runner will develop shin splints or a sprained ankle? Of course not! These are uncertain losses, risks we have agreed to collectively share in the event of illness or injury.

A policy like this institutionalizes intolerance, while expecting us to swallow that it's in the name of fairness.

At the end of the day, a company which cares so little for the privacy and dignity of its employees cannot be trusted to care for the privacy and dignity of its customers. CVS has every right to do what they want with their own business. Likewise, I have the right to drive past CVS and travel the extra mile down the road to Walgreens, which is exactly what I'll be doing from now on.