Making Peace with True Gender Equality

At the aggregate level, the majority of college graduates across the United States are now women. The vast majority of college applicants with the highest grades, scores and accomplishments are women.  (A recent article I read noted that the single biggest beneficiary of affirmative action these days is white male college applicants as colleges scramble to come close to an equal number of women and men on campus--they fail--many colleges have 60% women or more) 

(why are all these women white? why couldn't I find a better picture?)

At the anecdotal level, most of young adults that I know that are succeeding in the world in conventional terms (education, career, independence from parents) are women (caveat: not sure if this is born out by statistics, but seems probable).  I should also note at this point that as I write, the distinction between the sex that someone is born with and the gender that someone identifies with is also completely being defined and so these changes that I am exploring increasingly do not take place in a binary gender universe, but instead within a continuum that I cannot entirely predict or imagine.

Yet we are still in a time when the vast majority of elected officials are men, the vast majority of CEOs of major companies are men, certain fields remain top heavy with men, and women (across all backgrounds) earn 70 cents to the dollar of men (across all backgrounds). 

So as this generation, in which women are, for the first time perhaps in thousands of years, more prepared to be the breadwinners than men are, comes into its own—the possibility for pushback is enormous.  The 119 cataclysmic election has been widely covered as part of the pushback, particularly as Trump beat the first female major party nominee for president.  Much of the analysis of why Trump won has focused on angry white voters rather than angry male voters, partly because white female voters defected in significant numbers from Clinton to Trump.

But I think we’re making a mistake if we think that men are the only people uncomfortable with a transition to equality.  In race relations, although I have no research to back it up, it is probably safe to assume that almost all people of color are comfortable with a swift transition to a leadership that looks more like the actual workforce or the electorate. 

But may not be the case with a transition to even an equal, let alone female-dominant, leadership of institutions.   In many instances, even some feminists, may be uncomfortable with a change of that magnitude—it shakes the foundations of family, of culture in a way that many can’t quite fathom.  I think it is not historical coincidence that we elected a male person of color president before we elected a woman (of any color).

I believe this because I see it in myself.  Here I am, a white woman, a lifelong feminist, and while I have no problem voting for female candidates (I do have a problem with Clintons, but I voted for her anyway), I do feel uncomfortable at the prospect of a world to come that might be disproportionately female-dominated.

Here’s an example, I’m a senior minister, the head pastor at my (small) church—an extreme rarity in the world of churches.  On the local email group of clergy, which is almost all male, my title often gets inadvertently dropped.  And I’m sensitive to this, and wish there were more female clergy in the world.    Yet, it makes me uncomfortable that in my denomination, the Centers for Spiritual Living, the vast majority of all ministers are women.  In 2014, in my graduating class from Holmes Institute for Consciousness Studies in Santa Rosa, CA, ten out of ten of us were women.

Until recently, that has worried me.  And I’ve had to look at that and do my work around it.  I’m irrationally bothered on both ends.  I’m bothered that the executive director and the Spiritual Leader of our international denomination (as wonderful as they are) are white men, in an organization that is dominated by women and has significant number of ministers of color and a commitment to diversity.  I’m bothered that in crowded fields of ministers vying to be called as senior ministers at larger centers, it seems (anecdotally) that the congregations are much more comfortable offering the pulpit to male than to female ministers. 

And yet I’ve also been uncomfortable with how few male colleagues I have.  It feels unhealthy and strange.  I grew up with a very strong relationship and identification with my (feminist professor advocate) father and my wonderful brothers and husband.  Yet, I also see that a strong part of my cultural upbringing is that it is women’s job to make men feel comfortable.  For example, in mixed company it is acceptable for men to talk about sports or comic books or microbreweries or other subjects that women may by and large take little interest in (or feign interest in).  Meanwhile, it is decidedly unacceptable for the women in that same mixed group to talk for more than a second about films that particularly appeal to them (acceptably and popularly demeaned as “chick flix”), shopping for clothing, or anything at all to do with menstruation or childbirth.  If women want to talk about such things, it is understood that they need to do it separately.  Men for the most part can talk about whatever they want, whenever they want (except extreme sexual objectification of women, which they are advised to take into their “mancaves.”)

I am reminded of the hilarious feminist comic Kate Clinton’s early bit on how if men menstruated, and they needed a tampon, instead of whispering shamefully on the sidelines and hiding it in a bag as they transferred it to another person, the men would shout out in groups, “anyone got a ‘pon?” and another guy, who would have a neat pack in his breast pocket, would say say, “sure, go long,” and pass it like a football.

So where am I going with this?  My point is that whether we realize it or not, every layer of our society, every class,  depends upon women trying to make men feel like men.  It is our job to do so.  And as we become the CEOs, the governors, the presidents, the senior ministers (all of whom historically relay on unpaid wives to bolster their careers and their egos and their lives), how do we do this?  Is there a role reversal?  Is it now men’s job to make us succeed?  Is it every person for themselves?  Who is raising the children? Is it to be generations of women giving birth and handing the child-raising over to men because they’re the ones with a paying job? 

I guess I sound like someone born 56 years ago that has more questions than answers and I’ve gone on too long.  Blog out.

No Substitute for Oral

I am not the classic luddite curmudgeon.  Born in 1961 towards the end of the Baby Boom, I nonetheless like to think of myself as an early millennial because my parents brought me up without limits or responsibilities and because I started being obsessed with computers and digital communication as a teenager in the 1970's.  Throughout my 35 years since then, I have always had a bias towards converting every form of everything to digital.

I'm that person in the office who has always driven everyone nuts expecting people to communicate through the cloud, keeping everything updated, uploading everything, like that.

So, it is not lightly that I admit, begrudgingly, and foolishly late in the game, that there is really no substitute for direct oral communication.  In the communication guidelines for Center for Spiritual Living, Santa Rosa, they hold themselves to a standard of never trying to make ANY decision by email.  Email is used only for information, not for discussion or decision-making.  I think it might not even be used to introduce new proposals.

I know one actual millennial who imposes similar constraints on texting. She will use it for logistics, but not for conversation.  She saves that for the phone, or in person--which puts her at odds with most of her peers, and with me.  I am, whether I should be or not, perfectly fine with text conversations, however un-nuanced and awkward they may be (which reminds me of a hilarious fake story comedian Paula Poundstone told on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me about 2 people lost in the wilderness for 2 days whose survival was threatened because their cell phone batteries ran out and they were no longer able to express themselves or know what they were feeling without emojis😆 ).

I have come to understand that nobody really reads anything beyond a couple of emails.  While electronic apps and devices and great for organizing information, and for storing information, and for putting advertisers out of business, if you really want someone, anyone, to know or understand something you talk directly to them, preferably face to face and in person (side note that while I am a big fan of videoconference, particularly Zoom, I am capable of looking like I'm participating in a conversation on video while I'm really checking my email, which is practically impossible to pull off in person, so on balance, in person is better.  Also if you ever invite someone to a videoconference and they call in instead, its a lock that they are multi-tasking.   Some people hate videoconferences for the same reason that I like them, because they minimize multi-tasking.)

So that's really all I have to say.  Now I just have to remember this the next time I go mad trying to "communicate" online.

Chronic Pain--the Epidemic Behind the Opioid Epidemic--Who is Treating IT?

We've all read the headlines and started to understand that there is an opioid addiction health crisis in this country, but how many of the articles address the underlying driving force behind the addiction: chronic pain.

Millions and millions of Americans live with chronic pain.  Their experience of pain prevents them from sitting anyplace for long. Their experience of pain prevents them from walking, from exercising, reduces enjoyment of all fun occasions.  For a long time, physicians only answer to this pain has been the prescription of opioids.

Receiving pain killers as your doctor's solution to chronic pain is a little bit like taking your car into the mechanic with an engine failure light lit up on the dash only to have him disconnect the wire to the light instead of fixing the engine.  Pain is there to give us information about something that is going badly awry.  Covering it up with medication doesn't change the underlying situation.

Even worse, many if not most of the people who are regularly taking the opioids STILL experience a lot of the pain that drove them to get the prescriptions.  So now they are addicted, at risk of overdose and still in pain.  It's bad.

A good friend of mine is one part of a team that has opened a special residential treatment program in Camarillo (near Ventura), California for addiction free pain management.  It's called A Healing Place -- The Estates: Transformative Solutions for Chronic Pain.  Click here for an article on their website entitled "why addiction free pain management?" 

A year ago Center for Spiritual Living, Davis founded All is Well Institute where our first project is to teach and support people in using spiritual tools, such as meditation and forgiveness, to heal themselves from chronic pain and chronic illness.  The results we've experienced are tremendous.

Love Your Divine Feminine At Sister Spirit Sept. 14-17

If you don't have plans for September 14th through 17th (and you identify as female), it's not too late to sign up for Sister Spirit retreat at the beautiful Saratoga Springs Retreat and Healing Center near Upper Lake, California.
Several years ago, my life transformed as I attended the Woman Spirit retreat created and facilitated by Rev. Georgia Prescott and a wonderful team.  Going into that retreat, despite believing myself to be a feminist, and consciously walking a spiritual path, I really had no peace with my femininity--the really consistent loving presences in my life had been men, not women.  I liked myself in spite of being a woman, not because.

After a long weekend of playing, painting, dancing, sweating, crying and laughing with women in the woods, that all changed.  I loved myself and I had a Great Spiritual Mother to consult (as well as a Divine Father, which I'll always have and love as well).

Enter Sister Spirit, created by Abigail Schairer, inspired by the Woman Spirit retreat several years ago. At this point Rev. Abigail (Spiritual Leader of the Center for Spiritual Living, Peninsula in Redwood City, CA) leads one of these retreats in the fall and one of these in the spring.  This year's fall retreat has Lakiba Pittman as the featured speaker and Amy Steinberg as the featured musician. If you have no other plans, this is a wonderful way for you to heal yourself and restore and rejuvenate.  

If you want to register, there are still a few spaces left.  Click here for more information about Sister Retreat.   Click here to register

Since When is Sexism an Ideology Up for Debate?

Yesterday's coverage in the New York Times of the Google firing (Culture Wars Come to Silicon Valley) implies that reasonable minds can differ about whether women are genetically inferior to men, and that this is merely an ideological debate.   Let's be clear about this:  the Google software engineer wrote a detailed multi-page (internal) memo arguing that women are "genetically" incapable of high level work as computer programmers and that the company should stop trying to hire them. My question is, since when is the worst kind sexism ideological rather than just plain discriminatory?

There was a time in our nation's history when white men felt free to assert in public the inferiority of women and of people of color. Surely that time has passed, and we don't need to lament it.   If a similar memo surfaced claiming that people of color were incapable of being software engineers, would we claim that the writer of the memo was having their free speech censored because they had a right to these opinions?  No.  We wouldn't.  Well Breitbart and its ilk would, but the rest of us, including The New York Times, would not.    Is it the ascendancy of this kind of perspective in the White House that emboldens The New York Times to muse about this? You'd think that being routinely maligned as "failing" by the Tweeter in Chief would make it less likely.   In this case, though, The Times is "failing" us.

We have civil rights laws that protect us from discrimination on the basis of race and gender.  Google was well within its rights to fire this employee because he advocated and tried to justify illegal hiring practices.  This harms the company and puts it at risk for successful lawsuits.  Indeed, the publicity surrounding the surfacing of the memo may have even reduced Google's stock prices.  It's hard to see a more clear instance of an imperative firing.

Yet, many on the right are calling this firing a violation of free speech rights.   The folks raising these objections are in the same ideological camp that fiercely protects the "rights" of private companies (NOT the employees) to deny birth control coverage to employees and to not sell wedding cakes to gay couples.  Do they only want to protect the rights of private companies and employees with whom they agree?

I don't.  If that fired Google employee wanted to write his sexist screeds on the internet and the government suppressed his writing, or jailed him for his opinion, THAT would be a violation of free speech rights, however wrong his writings, unless he was advocating hate crimes against women.  I would protect this guy's right to speak, just not in the workplace.  And I would write against it (or, I might just ignore it, not wanting to give oxygen to such ludicrous nonsense).

Can we please all agree that in a civil society, we do not pretend that advocating discriminatory acts is somehow to be applauded?

What do We Mean by LOL?

I think we can agree that people around the world use LOL a lot in text speech and that we do not basically ever mean that we are laughing out loud.  So what do we mean?

It started to dawn on me about a month ago when I read a cute piece in the "failing New York Times" as "that awful Trout in the White House"* calls it, about how we laugh in text.  (Laugh and the World Laughs With you ).  I liked the piece and agreed with all of it except her analysis of why LOL is used so much.  

The author posits that LOL long ago ceased to have anything to do with laughter and that it is "basically the equivalent of 'K'" (which I have to confess I use a lot).  And then she closes the article with a throw away, "And no, Mom, once and for all it does not mean 'lots of love.'"

But is she right?  I think we can all agree that text speak is a particularly un-nuanced environment for communication (contrast texts with tweets which are obviously the perfect way to announce major public policy initiatives--but I digress into an over-discussed matter...).  There is much potential for hurt feelings, misunderstandings, a sense that people, in communicating so quickly and with so few letters, are being rude or mean.

Enter "lol" which does not mean laugh out loud and is not a stand in for "k" (which really means, "roger, I have received your message, over").  So what purpose does lol really serve?  I think that that lol is there to soften the hard edges of the text universe.  It is there to tell us that what we just said was not mean, was not terse, was not a sling or arrow, was just information.   And sometimes it is a question.  Many times I’ll text a little tidbit to someone only to have them text back, “LOL?” This question is asking, “how do I mean this to land?”  If I text back, “LOL” then I have confirmed that it is meant sweetly.  If I don’t, it means something in else.

In other words, Mom, it means “lots of love.”

BTW, "That awful Trout" is what my mother calls the President.  LOL

-->

Four Snouts Up for Detroit in theaters now

(:)(:)(:)(:) out of a possible 5 for the movie Detroit by (white) director Kathryn Bigelow in theaters now.  This is the second film in a row I've seen that I would recommend but that I did not enjoy.  The first was Dunkirk.   I didn't enjoy them because they are so stressful.  Both films are tense and terrifying throughout and very well crafted.  The similarity of course, ends there and the comparison should not have been made in the first place, apologies for that.

Anyway, some questions initially were raised about whether this white director would be able to create a film that adequately portrayed an African-American perspective of this terrifying night of psychological torture and murder at the hands of white Detroit police that this group of young Black men and 2 white women endured.  Obviously there's no way I'll be qualified to address that issue. Click to the right for one favorable review from an African-American perspective-- Daily Beast on White Director for Black Movies.

I appreciate the stress in Detroit because it put me in a frame of mind where I was forced to understand on a visceral level the fear, the distrust and the outrage of what it is to be an African-American dealing with (white or other) police.   I already knew this intellectually.  I was already furious about it.  And now, post Detroit, a level of fear has been experienced that I had not yet imagined.  I didn't relish that fear.  I don't particularly seek out that fear.  But I think it is important for me and other white Americans to witness this one chapter in the real life horror movie that continues to be the African-American experience.

Top 10 Ways NOT to Set Boundaries

I don't know a lot about how to set appropriate personal boundaries but I am an expert on how NOT to set them, so I'm going to walk through that now.

#10 -- First wait years to figure out that there's no appropriate boundaries between you and other people;  This is crucial.  If you set boundaries at the beginning of your life and hold them, they you might grow up with consistent loving relationships and where's the fun in that?

#9 -- Know that the other people are the problem & that if they would only stop doing this to you, then you would be okay;  I can't emphasize this enough.  If you don't blame other people for violating YOUR boundaries, then its very difficult to justify the implementation of the other 8 key tips;

#8 -- Figure out a boundary that you want the other people to observe;  Remember that in my dysfunctional universe, I believe that it is OTHER people's job to observe my boundaries (not mine).  So I need to come at the boundary from that perspective.  Like, if I don't want to talk on the phone with someone 6 times a day, I need them to stop calling me.  I never consider other options that I could control.  I don't stop answering. I don't turn off my phone.  I don't NOT call back.  I don't block their calls.  Remember this is their problem, not mine.

#7 -- Tell them why you have to set a boundary and how bad they have made you feel;  They must know how bad they have made me feel and they must be made to feel terrible about the years of harm they have caused me.  If I don't tell them why I'm setting the boundary, how are they going to get the motivation to change?

This is a boundary!  Stop crossing it!

#6 -- Describe exactly what the boundary is; since they will be the ones in charge of observing the boundary, not me, it is crucial that they recognize it.

#5 --  Tell them what they can't do anymore; Never make the mistake of thinking that you are in charge of only your own behavior.  It is THEIR behavior that is the issue here.  You're the victim.  They're the perp.  Therefore the spiritually enlightened thing is to tell them what they can and cannot do.

#4 -- Tell what you're going to do when (not if) they break your boundary;  talk to them in an angry blaming way about the boundary that you have failed to hold for years and make sure they understand that you now (contrary to before) mean business and that when, not if, you can't trust these people, they next break this boundary, this is what you're going to do. 

#3 --  When they do break it, don't do what you said you would do; u want to keep them guessing, so if you said that you are going to leave the room every time they speak to you in an abusive manner.  Next time they do that, stay in the room and sulk;

#2 -- Don't be quiet about this; if you choose to quietly without fanfare leave the room, or hang up, or change the subject every time someone crosses a certain line, they might not ever understand that they are the problem and everything might just quietly get sweeter and more serene.  Don't risk this.  See above.

And the #1 way to NOT set boundaries IS:
Whatever you do, do not choose to hold your own boundaries; the single biggest mistake you can make is to take responsibility for your own life and choices.  If you take responsibility for holding and maintaining your own boundaries, then everything in your life and everyone in your life and all your relationships will improve without anybody ever feeling bad about how they treated you, or getting angry that you've changed.  This, clearly, is a ridiculous result to be avoided at all costs.

Why my kids call me "Bob"

This is the photo that popped up
when I Googled "call me Bob"

Years ago when we were at a public pool or somewhere where everyone's name is "Mom," they had summer colds, and when they yelled for me, it sounded like  "Bob" instead of "Mom."

We all noticed that I turned around and responded a lot quicker than when they called me "Mom."  So they started using it even when they were not congested.  Other people in public places, it turns out, think you're saying Mom, or more likely, just don't care what you're yelling at all.  But I could pick out that it was Bob instead of Mom and it always seemed to hasten the process of the mother and child reunion.

It stuck.  Years later, long beyond the time that they would ever call out my name in public unless they needed me to pay a restaurant check, their name for me remains "Bob."

This has the added bonus of injecting an appearance of diversity into their lives when bring their friends home to meet "Dad and Bob"--some are shocked it's not a 2-dad family.

Conditional (:)(:)(:)(:)(:) for Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks

Abolitionist John Brown at Harpers Ferry

No one in their right mind would review a book before they've finished reading it, so I'm giving it a conditional five out of a possible five snouts up for Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks, page 436 out of 758.    I've had this book on my shelf for a couple of years, working my way around to the right mood for reading a fictionalized treatment of the life of abolitionist John Brown through the eyes of a surviving son.

But then I realized that I was headed to my mother's family reunion near Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.  Our Engle family settled near there throughout the 19th century including one of my direct ancestors who inauspiciously chose to fight for the confederacy even after his part of Virginia refused to secede from the union, sigh.  So this then, was the perfect time to read Cloudsplitter to better imagine those volatile times leading up to the civil war.

I even went one better and assigned Cloudsplitter as the Engle Etchison family reunion book (who does that?) to make sure that I read it.  I was certain that no one else would read the book.  And, now that I'm at the reunion, I've been proven right.  I, however, am absolutely riveted by the perspective of his middle son Owen brought up by this zealous, deeply Christian man who became convinced that it would take an organized insurrection to end the institution of slavery.   The imaginings in the book of his hateful rants towards weak, nonviolent white and black abolitionists, and his sense that he is somehow a better, more dedicated "Negro" than many actual African-Americans, holds me spell bound.  This book, a national bestseller and Editor's Choice of the New York Times Book Review in 1998, somehow holds up even better in today's climate where current administration policies are strangely reminiscent  of such outrages as the Fugitive Slave Law of the 1850.

Combine this reading as I have with a first trip to the African-American Museum on the National Mall, a viewing of An Octoroon at the Woolly Mammoth Theater and a reunion of my white West Virginia relatives and you've got yourself a real American party.

The Best Adaptation of a Play You've Never Heard Of -- (:)(:)(:)(:) For An Octoroon at the Woolly Mammoth Theater in DC

It was not without trepidation that I bought tickets for the Woolly Mammoth Theater.  Almost 20 years after moving across the country, we only recently successfully extricated ourselves from their mailing list.  But we always loved their work when we lived in DC and on our recent visit, it seemed clear that it was the best ticket in town.

So, I am pleased to give 4 somewhat weary snouts up (see the key for my snout-based rating system) for An Octoroon  at the Woolly Mammoth Theater in Washington, DC.

Typically a much discussed theatrical adaptation involves a play that we've seen or at least heard of. But this is adaptation called An Octoroon by African-American playwright Branden Jacobs-Jenkin of The Octoroon written and produced by white playwright Dion Boucicault in the19th century.    And it is fascinating.

To show you how wild the whole thing is: in the photo above, the character on the left is a white slaveholding character from the original Dion play being played by an African-American actor in white face. This actor starts the production as "the adapting playwright" who has had so much trouble  finding white actors to play the melodramatic 19th century slaveowners in the play that he resentfully decides to play the 2 lead characters himself by putting on white face. Meanwhile, the original 19th century playwright is played by a white actor who puts on "red face" to play a Native American character.  Most of the lines in the play are the original melodramatic race charged 19th century language but the framing is all 21st century African-American playwright lens.

It's super complex, super brilliant, super fascinating and super long--3 hours plus.  Hence the "weary snouts."  Let the bulk mailings begin...

Legacy & Donations: The Real Affirmative Action in College Admissions

The New York Times reports that the civil rights division of the Trump Justice Department has a quiet plan to redirect its resources "toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants."  The idea that universities and colleges are discriminating unfairly against white students by actively trying to recruit students of color, makes a mockery of the very purpose of the civil rights division.  

The discovery of this plot prompted The Daily 202 (a wonderful email service of The Washington Post) to resurrect a recent example of the kind of affirmative action that has taken place throughout history: Jared Kushner's "curious" acceptance into Harvard--detailed in Daniel Gordon's book The Price of Admission--apparently Kushner's father made a $2.5 million dollar gift to Harvard not long before Jared, a mediocre high school student, was admitted.

This form of college admission played a role in my family history as well.  According to my father, his rigorous application process for an elite private college was as follows:

In the summer of 1949, my grandfather, Culver Nichols, himself a Stanford University graduate, noticed that my father, a middling high school student (although editor of the school paper and captain of the football team it must be said) had no plans for September. So Culver placed a long distance call (kids, that was once a big deal) to Stanford and said, "Hey, my son Nicky will be coming in the fall."  That was it, he was in.  

These were the days when Stanford had a cap of 50 on the admission of women, and they were referred to as "the Stanford pigs."  Men were discouraged from dating these "brainiacs" as they were considered unmarriageable.  My father followed that advice, but did take it in hand to lead the campaign as president of his fraternity to allow Jews and Blacks to join it--this was the beginning of his own decades long journey to even the playing field that had advanced him to the 10 yard line.

I might add that while the unfair advantage of admission influenced by legacy and large donations (unique to this country btw) continues to vault thousands of affluent white students ahead of other equally or more qualified applicants every year, it failed to get me (with much higher scores and grades than my father before me) into Stanford in 1979.  Somehow, though I have muddled through life as a Reed College graduate.

It also appears to me that our daughter (herself perhaps buoyed by legacy status into Brown University, although highly deserving of admission on her own merits) has benefitted highly from the university's successful effort to recruit students of color and from other disadvantaged backgrounds. She is in the first Ivy League freshman class to have enrolled a minority of white students.

In planning to use the resources of the "Justice" Department to sue universities like Brown, the current administration is grotesquely contorting the mission of the department and misusing the power of its office.

I guess I'm "one of those people"

There’s a reason that pride is considered a sin and that it “goeth before a fall” – every single thing that I overtly or invertly (coinage alert) brag about inevitably kicks me in the ass.  Here’s my latest sense of that:

I have always prided myself on not being “one of those people” who a) takes a trip without knowing who they’re going to see or what they’re going to do or b) stays up all night packing and working and arrives exhausted.  The latter prohibition may surprise some of you.  I am, and have been, quite clearly a chronically over-booked person.  But I am also an obsessive planner.  So my planning obsession generally trumps overtakes my activity addiction and causes me to cut bait a day or two before a trip and pack everything in advance.  Not, I hasten to add, always with clarity, focus, ease and grace.  Often there is chaos in the wake of my packing but I postpone facing that until my return.

Weeks before the trip (no, probably months) we start thinking about what we’re going to do, sending out email inquiries to friends in that town to see if they’ll be around, poking around on the internet to see what’s happening, what to get tickets for, what to line up.  By the time we arrive we have a full dance card and program of activities—dinners, lunches, shows.  And it’s great and we enjoy it all. 

Unfortunately, I have passed on the planning gene to our 20-year-old daughter and it seems to be, depending on the setting, one of her greatest blessings and curses.  “Here’s the thing, Bob,” she calls me Bob (it’s a story for a different post), “No one else my age plans anything.  I am a freak for planning!” She leaves the obvious unstated, that I too am something of a freak even in my generation.  Yet, she sometimes confesses, “It actually gives me a lot of ability to lead with my friends and at work.  It’s like I can do this weird thing that practically no one else can do.”  (Bob, I can hear her saying now, I totally never said that.  Why are you putting that in your blog?  Please leave me out of your weird blog)

So that’s the context in which you find me--dusting off my clothes and spreading Arnica on my metaphorical bruises from a fall last night: I got less than 4 hours of sleep because I stayed up working and doing last minute packing.  And, it gets worse—we are arriving today for 2 days in a city in which we lived in for 9 years, filled with old friends, with no plans and no one to see. 

-->

Sigh.  I guess I’m one of those people…

4 Snouts Up for Bad Jews and Sakamoto -- Great evening in Sacramento!

(:)(:)(:)(:) Four enthusiastic snouts up for Bad Jews at Capital Stage through July 23rd.  This clever, provocative play is tightly constructed, fast-paced, well-acted and provides a rare of combination of roaring laughs with food for thought about the nature and important of subculture, especially Jewish culture--and whether and why we might value it.  The six of us who attended this play tried dinner beforehand at Sakamoto (literally a half a block away on the corner of 22nd and J Streets in midtown Sacto).  It was easy to park on a Friday night at 6:30pm.  None of us had ever been to Sakamoto but Yelp suggested it was good.  The place is huge (no need for a reservation).  And the food was really really good.  I thought it was way better than Mikuni's (which i've always thought was over-priced and over-rated so that's not saying much).  Really tasty fresh sushi, fast service and good value.  I would definitely make this my go to Capital Stage pre-show dinner place.  [Note: Cap stage, make a deal with Sakamoto.  Obviously Tapa the World and other restaurants are also close but this might be the best for ease of grabbing an early meal that's very good.]

Now back to the play.  Typically I'm grouchy about family dramas where people say awful things to each other.  My husband and I recently (last year) saw a highly touted drama called The Humans on Broadway of that ilk and were underwhelmed by it--it was very realistic but it came to nothing.  It's a lot to go through the stress of all that without a real pay off.  But some of the best plays ever written have that aspect, all of Tennessee Williams, some of Arthur Miller, and Eugene O'Neill come to mind.

This play manages to somehow make you guffaw and gasp at the humor while appalling things are said.  The thing that the playwright, Joshua Harmon gets right (well, he gets a lot right) is what's at stake.  At the beginning you think that the controversy at hand is a tempest in a teapot, and wonder why you care, but as the play unfolds you see how much is at stake emotionally for every single actor.  This makes everything make sense and gives us a way to connect.

As Cap Stage reminded us at the beginning of the play, the Bee no longer has a theater critic any more, so please re-post and re-tweet and forward this review to other people in town to get the word out about a great Sacramento double bill: Bad Jews and Sakamato.

Coyote Trickster Redeemer Caroline Casey Provides A Fresh Language for the Spiritual Politics of the Current Era

"Visionary political astrologer" Caroline Casey has been finding new ways to talk about old things for a long time--people have called her a stand-up philosopher.  She gives us tidbits like, the etymology of "protest" means to grab your balls in affirmation.  "So," she asks whimsically, "can we start protecting and stop protesting?" She tells us about wonderful things her friends observe like "if you watch a horror movie backwards, everyone gets healed by chainsaws and then goes camping."  She suggests that we, like some native American tribes did, make friends with our prey instead of fighting and coax them into what we want, like nuzzling cute little big oil under the chin and saying "whose a polluting industry that's too expensive to succeed?  oh yes you are, yes you are"  And when encountering police at a seemingly conflict-laden moment, chant "give the cops a raise, give the cops a raise."

If you, like me, are thirsty for someone who can awaken in you a hopeful, energizing, fun approach to social change while being grounded in history, reality, and the very real consequences of the time we live in, Casey's radio hour, "The Visionary Activist Show"should be at the top of your podcast list (attention luddites: there is a built-in app for podcasts on your smart phone, type in the name of this show and push a button and you are subscribed automatically and for free and will get every episode and back ones).

I particularly urge you to listen to her Post Cataclysmic Election Town Hall Talk which she played the first (and best) half of on her November 24th show -- Click here and scroll down to access the November 24th show -- this is juicy wonderful stuff, people.

I first encountered Casey when we both inhabited Washington, DC in the 90's--a daughter of a congressman and Brown University graduate might seem an unlikely candidate for a career in astrology--back then Casey would say she was doing "astrology for cynics."  Today we both live in northern California, Caroline in Marin county, I'd guess and me for sure in Sacramento.

She urges us to toss old, violence-laden or tired metaphors into the bubbling cauldron and stir up something new.  So, as Caroline Casey might say, desperate times, call for delightful measures.

What Else Is Possible?

I think this clip represents the best approach that I have for moving forward right now.

Katie Rubin reminds us here that judgment is what blocks us from receiving, growing and creating the planet we want. Judgments are hard and stuck. Questions create. Some great questions that she suggests we all ask, like aloud, like frequently, is "How can this turn out better than we ever imagine?" "What else is possible?" "What can I be and do today to create a sustainable, loving planet and an energy that I’d like to live in?"

I will add that a great spiritual law that relates to what she is saying is "what you resist, persists." In that respect (my husband's predictions not withstanding), I am not at all surprised at the result. Every single time that every single one of us said "Trump" in this campaign, we were in a sense voting for Trump. And we all, myself included, cast billions, not millions, of votes for Trump with our focus and attention on him. We Trumped ourselves into this reality. And this is the result. It is not different from focussing, complaining, etc. on any other condition. 

I am sad today. I am sad that we chose to create this situation in this country. But I am not scared. The reason I am not scared is that I prayed for the candidate to win who would create the most peace and love and joy and lightness in the world. And I let go, and I declined to question the results. Evidently this is that way. I was not in a position to know this. I still don't feel in a position to know this. But I trust and I pay attention and I ask these questions: "How can this turn out better than we ever imagine?" "What else is possible?" "What can I be and do today to create a sustainable, loving planet and an energy that I’d like to live in?"