"I believe all men, all women, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic background, you deserve the same rights." Sophia Bush

Among the many characteristics that we are born with that we have no control over, are three prominent ones: race, sexual orientation, and gender.  All three have been the basis of venomous discrimination.

It is common to have clubs or gatherings where discrimination is still practiced - and, in my experience, most commonly in churches.  Groups form which call themselves the "Sisterhood" or some such thing denoting that it's for women only and if a man dare ask if he may join he is abruptly told "No."  Would we sanction a "Whites (or Blacks) Only" group?  What about "For Straights (or Gays) Only?"

When questioned, women proclaim that there are subjects that women don't feel comfortable discussing in the presense of men.  I'm sure that there are subjects that "blacks" don't feel comfortable discussing when "whites" are around (and vice versa).  "Gays" must feel muffled if "straights" are present (and vice versa).  So if a group feels that some topics of interest are out of bounds if their group is enlargened is that license enough to discriminate?

As a practical matter, I doubt that many men would attend a meeting of the "Sisterhood" but if they did it would probably be mutually beneficial. I think that the motivators for the creation of such discriminatory groups reveal an unhealthiness and/or a lack of healing of an injury caused by some past psychological trauma.  A therapy group run by a professional is probably a better venue to vent their problems and seek a cure than a church group. 

Is it not ironic that a major and legitimate complaint of the feminist movement was the existence of "Old Boy's Clubs" where decisions and friendships excluding women were made that women had no chance to participate in?  Yet many of these same feminists flock to the "Sisterhood."

I cannot say it any better than Dorothy Allison, "Class, race, sexuality, gender and all other categories by which we categorize and dismiss each other need to be excavated from the inside."

I must check to see if the local quilting group allows men to join.

© 2014 Lester C. Welch

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Barack Obama

I kept very close track, this past week, of the landing of Philae on the comet 67P by the European Space Agency (ESA).  It was a huge engineering and scientific achievement - done by Europeans.  Even though at some level I know that America shouldn't and can't do it all, my thoughts wandered to recent examples of scientific prowess.  The major particle accelerator in the world is CERN in Geneva where the Higgs boson - a major piece of the puzzle in our understanding of the physics of the universe - was discovered.

These tasks - landing on a comet, discovering the Higgs, the Space Station - are done in the name of humanity and offer no direct immediate financial gain but furthers man's understanding and appreciation of the cosmos we live in.  The nation - or consortium - that accomplishes them is exceptional.

America at one time - when we landed men on the moon, when we built the world's largest (at that time) particle accelerator, FermiLab, - was exceptional.  Not only did we have a democracy that enabled all of us - to the extent of our abilities - to participate but we recognized the importance of adding to knowledge whose only benefit was an increase in understanding.

Then the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), a particle accelerator to be built in the vicinity of Waxahachie, Texas was canceled in 1993. When future historians study America they will signify that event as the end of American exceptionism. Our priorities shifted from the exceptional to the mundane.

It was fitting that NASA officials were on hand to congratulate ESA.
© 2014 Lester C. Welch

"The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

I disagree.  The purpose of life is to be happy.  It may be that helping others - à la Mother Teresa - gives you happiness and, if so more power to you.  But are we to completely denigrate the poor soul who lives a productive life but gets his happiness from sitting in front of a fireplace and sips cognac?  Suppose that we all helped each other but all of us were unhappy.  Is that a satisfactory state of affairs?

 I think we can learn to associate happiness with a variety of activities.  The diversity of cultures and their activities offers proof.  We can learn to achieve happiness from working in a soup kitchen for the poor - or from wrestling alligators.  If you're happy you will do better at whatever activity you indulge in.

In religious terms, salvation doesn't come just because we're unhappy.

© 2014 Lester Welch

"One of the secrets of life is to keep our intellectual curiosity acute." G. M. Trevelyan

Those who know me realize two things about my personality:

1) I have a great intellectual curiosity.  This manifests itself in several ways (sometimes distructively) but most obviously in my "six-month" hobby excursions (e.g., mechanical clock mechanisms, plant identifications, artificial language constructions, genealogy, different cuisines)   Once my curiosity is satisfied, I move on.  I have the same intellectual curiosity about social movements/issues.

2) I love to argue/debate/discuss issues.  I can (and have) argue/d both sides of an issue.  Both I NEVER make it personal.  I really want to get to the "truth" - or the best representation thereof.  I do have my personal beliefs but often I want to put my personal beliefs to the test - are they consistent/logical? - and I seek out external competent counter-arguments.

These two traits have gotten me into trouble.

I frequently underestimate the extent that others take my "probing" questions to be personal.  I'm wanting to get to the "bottom" of the matter and others interpret my efforts as questioning their integrity or their values.  

I firmly believe that objectivity is required to get closer to the "truth."

"I love objectivity when mine.” Brian Spellman

© 2014 Lester Welch