Nice Places To Live

Remember high school?  Focus on the cliques and the gossip.  For some there was bullying.  Think how good it was to get out of there into normalcy.  Then consider the possibility that you return to such an environment as an adult.

There are a minimum of three grapevines in my community.  They take truthful facts and embroider them until the original tidbit is no longer visible (LOL, audible).  On a slow day, it is nothing for the perps to make up a story, especially if they don't particularly like the victim.  Sounds more familiar all the time, right? 

Presentation of the area is a big issue.  They actually printed the exact inches that the grass length should not exceed.  But do they ever think of helping someone whose lawn is a little out of control?  Punishment and threats abound over such situations.  Several years ago we had guest speakers at a meeting.  They chided us all for complaining about the length of one resident's lawn instead of helping her.  Turns out she had cancer.  But unbeknownst to these guests, she had always been one of the short grass sticklers who had reported other people.

One social worker type who resides here continually nags that we must all keep our yards clean and free of toys and debris.  She says when we fail to present well it attracts crime to the area.  She may be quite right, but there is crime here anyway.  There was before I came and will be after I leave.  One of my neighbors told of a police officer who had lived in my unit.  He bought the car of his dreams and parked it out in front of the building.  It was stolen overnight.  From a police officer?

This neighborhood advertises itself as "A Nice Place To Live".  But is it really?  Nice places to live are more akin to the age of settlers when neighbors helped each other and were supportive.  In that age the social events were focused on fun and friendship.  A word about a neighbor was a word of concern, not a critique.

Perhaps if I live here long enough, the Board and Office Staff will realize they are elected and hired -- paid by us to represent us not to tell us what to do.  They are here for our agendas, not for their own power trips.  It is their responsibility to serve, not their option to dictate. 

Nice places to live are not about grounds keeping facades and who can top whom with the latest critique of each other.  They are not about people who steal your stuff from your home and yard.  They are not about official (legal) and unofficial (illegal) inspections.  They are not about lying to the homeowners. 

Nice places to live are about loving, caring people who actually give a heck about one another -- not about a sign that is meant to deceive or a yard that is clipped to the nub.

I Just Didn't Understand, Did You?

During the '60s, I guess I was a baby factory.  My three children were born in '62, '66 and '69.  My focus was on them, my upwardly mobile husband, work and finishing my B. A. degree.

You talk about segregated schools!  I grew up in a segregated community.  Lest you don't get this concept, let me explain.  I attended school and church, never realizing there was a black/white issue in the world.  Why would I?  My parents, who taught me to be nice and polite to all individuals, didn't seem to know, themselves, how serious an issue it was.  Not until the incident, anyway.  My grandparents and uncle attended the local Methodist Church.  My Uncle's committee arranged for a guest evangelist to speak.  Nobody took note that the church hierarchy had assigned an African American to the task.  We finally noticed when the local motel refused to let him have a room.  Hard to realize in this day and age, but no negro people were allowed in my hometown after sunset.  A room was found for him in the next town north.  Everything, but the scar on my soul, went on happily ever after.  Well, no doubt the minister's soul was scarred worse.

My next barely escaped learning experience was the summer after my high school graduation.  A friend from elementary school invited me south -- to Paducah, KY -- to spend the weekend with his family.  I boarded the bus.  Being a back of the room kind of person, I headed toward the back of the bus.  There were three individuals leaning into the aisle.  All were white.  Two men, one woman.  One was a soldier way too happy to see a girl my age.  My usual avoidance mechanism set in, just in time, so that I dropped into the only empty seat in front of them.  I sat beside a young black male who did not leave the bus in Paducah.  He was headed straight for the south, seated in the front of the bus and I was so segregated that I didn't even know the issue.  It was 1956.

From 1963-1965 my husband and I lived in Bloomington, IN.  He was a doctoral student and I a secretary at Indiana University.

Three of us girls ate lunch and played cards together at work.  I remember being hurt when the African American said to me, in an accusatory tone, that the other white one and I were "so tight".  I didn't feel any tighter with one than I did with the other.  I still didn't get it.

Just before the ex's graduation, he began job hunting at various universities.  We left Indiana during the "worst snow storm in fifty years" and were greeted by daffodils at the Florida state line.  The job interviews did not turn out to the ex's liking, so we were in a real hurry to pick up our daughter from the grandparent's home and get back to the land of snow and ice.  We decided to take turns driving through the night.

Outside Selma, AL, a place that had been much in the news, my pea sized bladder set up an attack.  We drove for miles and miles looking for a filling station or shopping area.  Somewhere in the moonless wilderness, we finally came upon a small light.  As we pulled in, I noticed a negro man standing in the shadows.  A white man approached a screened-in restaurant.  The negro man softly called to him.  I saw the white man nod and take money from the black man before approaching the restaurant to place an order for both of them.  I still didn't get it.

I was directed by signs toward ye olde country outhouses.  I was dumbstruck when I stood before three of them.  They were labeled "His", "Hers" and "Theirs".  I finally got it.  No further instructions needed, Lord.  From my sheltered, protected, segregated world, it had been hard to understand what the fuss was all about.  The memory still causes knots in my stomach.

We got the heck out of Selma at once.

So You Think You're the One?

Come on folks, let's face it.  I'm just not that hot.  In fact, I wasn't all that hot when I was young and generally described as cute and sweet.  So why in my seventy-fifth summer did I get "hit on" in stores on two consecutive shopping trips?  Why does the grapevine keep circulating my name as special friend to someone I've never even met?  I don't care if he lives right next door to me, I've never met him.  In fact maybe he's looking for my next door neighbor.  As far as I know, she's actually looking for someone, cute young widow that she is.  She's not all worn out from waiting on a significant other.  She'd probably still like a little girl to go with that little boy of hers.  At the risk of sounding paranoid, who sent you?  Who put you up to this?  How high is the bet?

You might think I'm just imagining all this.  So, how would you take it if a stranger bent over in front of you, looked up into your face -- not more than a foot away -- and smiled while you were selecting face soap from a bin.  No, I'm sure I didn't know him.

Then there is the one I call "Hair".  Rude, you say?  Since I've never met him either, I don't know what else to call him.  He actually shampooed his habitually greasy hair, parted it in the middle and let it flow down past his shoulders.  He knew he looked pretty nice.  Then, he walked down the street toward his prey -- a look of anticipation and sureness of result on his face.  But the result wasn't as anticipated.  How confused that made him.  Where was his error?

Could it be their goals are different?  He, like many men, is pretty casual about the sex thing.  If people are attracted to each other, why complicate things with marriage and playing house?  Why not get it on and then get on to the next one?

Does she have a say?  So you decided she was your summer fling?  Does she want a fling?  Maybe, unlike you, she wants a long-term relationship complete with white satin and lace?  Maybe she really is ready for her 2.3 children and the picket fence.  Can she tell by your gait that you are not the permanent kind?

And what happens to her if she agrees to a summer thing?  How many of those could she survive before such as you looked askance?  Even in this age, they call women sluts if they have more than a couple of summer encounters.  How deep does your concern for her go?  Is it that you just want to be the one who wins that bet?

Or maybe she has been there and done that.  Maybe one longer-term marriage was sufficient for her.  Perhaps she is luxuriating in the freedom from a high maintenance dude, an over-controlling parent or a bunch of finally grown kids.  Maybe even a summer of fun feels like too much loss of freedom.  You can never tell.

Then maybe she fears you are one of those types that requires being married.  If she offered you the opportunity to "live in sin" instead of tying her down, what would you say?  "No?"  Would you express your need to have a helpmate to cook and clean the house while you worked a minimum wage job to support her?  Would you promise her she could cater your weekend parties?  Would you tell her the names of your future children?

Have you asked her what kind of things she likes to do?  Does she like to read?  Do you?  Does she hate sports, especially those in which you revel?  Is she the cerebral type, and you the mechanic who leaves car parts all over the house and yard?  What do you have in common?  You don't know?  Why the heck not?

You mean you've never walked up and introduced yourself?  You've never discussed the weather?  Yet, you thought to break the ice by getting her into the sack straight away.  What ever happened to going out to dinner or a movie?  Is that a thing of the past? 

Or are you married, looking for something on the side?  Maybe she considers herself a coveted entrée, not a side dish.    Maybe she deserves a little respect and expects a lot of it.  Do you know that in a woman's experience, married men are the number one most likely people to "hit on" a single female?  They are said to represent at least one third of the men who subscribe to singles services.  Second are young black men hoping to stop by for a while, leave a baby and take off again.  Third are young white men less than one third her age.  Are you one of these, or are you older than you appear?  Perhaps if you knew her age, you would not be interested at all.  But did you do anything to find out?

Of course, there is always the chance she is involved already, but did you think to find out?  Or maybe she is married, but he is away in the military.  Worse, at her age, he may be in a nursing home.

So, nevertheless, you think you're the one.  Well possibly you could have been, but probably not.  But you'll never know.  Why not?  Because you presumed that if you decided, it would just be.  You didn't go to any effort to find out who she, the person inside of the body, is.  You did not talk to her.  You did not wine and dine her.  She was worth no effort from you other than you deciding you were the one.  And once you finally decided, your approach was all wrong.  You showed her that you were sure of her.  That made it too late.

Inappropriate Use of Behaviorism

When people like Nathan Azrin and Ted Ayllon and their group began adapting and applying the research of behavioral scientists, such as B. F. Skinner, to humans, there was a great debate.  The pros and cons were discussed at depth, much like people had debated the pros and cons of nuclear energy.  Like any powerful new phenomenon, "good people" would no doubt use it for the good of mankind, while evil people would use it to control others and exploit their fellow men.  Like other such discussions, it is probably still being debated in academic circles on occasion.

Most people familiar with the Principles of Learning from Operant Conditioning and/or the behavioral versions, including the simplistic B-Mod formulas, see the great advantage of using such methods in the home and our schools.  As parents and educators responsible for helping young people grow into productive citizens, using the techniques takes the pain out of child rearing.  Instead of using the rod to get the desired results, children can be "rewarded" for appropriate behaviors, thus becoming stellar citizens with half the effort and trouble.

It is when people become teenagers and adults that the lines of appropriateness begin to blur.  Do we have a right to reward conformity and discourage the uniqueness of teens?  Isn't non-conformity how they show self expression and establish themselves as adults?

Humanism, a counseling and psychology point of view, suggests that it is much more humane to enlist the teen or adult to agree to a program that will change specific behaviors.  But, what if the person prefers his own self or way to your way?  Are you sure your way is right?  There are some ways both teens and adults can misbehave that anyone would agree need to be modified.  But these areas are few in basically productive individuals.

Let's face it, it takes a pretty arrogant individual to think that he or she has the right way to do something.  It takes a very arrogant and self-serving individual to decide to use the Principles of Learning from Operant Conditioning to change others to be like himself.  And what self-respecting individual would want to become like a person such as that?

It is a given that control freaks are long on self-service and short on consideration for others.  It is into the hands of these individuals that such powerful knowledge should never fall.  Fortunately, most people are exposed only to the B-Mod version with it's watered down techniques of rewards and punishments.  They don't know the actual functional definitions.  They haven't been taught that one man's "reward" can be another's "punisher".  They are simple technicians, not knowledgeable planners.

On the whole, behaviorism does not belong in the workplace.  Most adults know the fundamentals of being a hard-working, reliable and loyal employee.  If anyone does not know this, they don't get much past a short-term trial period anyway.  It's not likely someone will work well a few years and then let their work ethic fall apart.  Even if they did, the natural consequences of the hire and fire structure would go into effect and remedy the situation.

Any use of reinforcement and punishment beyond salary increases and promotions should be unnecessary.  Yet, workplace after workplace has inadequately trained individuals applying B-Mod techniques to well-functioning employees, many of whom are more desirable employees than the modifier.  But control freaks will be control freaks, won't they?

It seems an appropriate time to mention that there is a huge problem with applying any control techniques to adults.  People just aren't as easy to control as animals.  We can think.  We can decide.  We like our way.  We don't want to be a clone of you.  We sometimes don't even like you all that much.  We frequently have good reason not to think so highly of you. 

Businesses need to be wary of trying to change the behaviors of others.  If it is totally necessary to do so, never use any employee below the management level.  Continually train the individuals used to do this.  And remember, most of all, if the employee can tell they are being "modified", that means you don't know what you are doing.

My Issues With Paul

As a psychologist, I am well aware that the blindness, as well as the hearing of voices by Saul of Tarsus, could be construed as a break with mental health.  The lack of sight would probably be construed as hysteria and the hearing of voices as schizophrenia.

The general public, at least the Christian portion of it, thinks nothing of believing that Saul (Paul) had a genuine religious experience.  They believe that God struck him blind on the Road to Damascus and that he called Paul to "turn over a new leaf" and turn to Him.  Whatever caused Paul's great guilt complex on that road, he became one of the greatest Apostles of Jesus.

That same Christian part of the general public, however, is among the first to label a fellow human as mentally ill when they say they believe God speaks to them or sends them messages.  Well, which way is it?  You can't "have your cake and eat it, too."

It is this kind of schizophrenic Christian belief that causes non-Christians to view us as emotional and spiritual lepers -- the unwashed, the unclean, the untouchable.  We need to merge our two personalities in this modern world and formulate a new, improved set of beliefs.

One thing we need to keep foremost in our minds is that Paul made a lot of decisions based on an impending end of this world.  He did not expect there to be a full planet of Christians and non-Christians in 2013.  He did not see beyond a brief lifetime -- probably just his.  Now, we  should not fault him for this belief.  He was simply believing and quoting Jesus, himself.

The problem is, the words of Paul, meant for a short interim between the death of Jesus and the end of the world, are still being used to dictate Christian beliefs and behavior today.

One of my biggest issues is that we read his words not to marry -- at least leaders of Catholic Churches do -- as the gospel truth in this millennium even though Paul stated that his suggestion was due to the impending end.  So, generations of religious leaders have lived bereft of a spouse and children.  In some, their sex needs have become so great that they preyed on vulnerable little children.  Perhaps had they been permitted a hetero or homosexual significant other, there would have been less molestation in the church.  I recognize, of course, that there is an illness that causes some adults to prey on little children sexually, and some of these individuals may suffer from that.  However, I believe it is possible that many turned to this disgraceful behavior because they could no longer quell their sexual needs and those poor, innocent little kids were handy.

In Women In the Ministry at lousdevotes.blogspot.com, I wrote of the apparent contradictions in scriptures attributed to Paul and his caution to wait until the new Kingdom to follow Jesus' teachings because the end is near.

I'm not suggesting that we "throw out the baby with the bathwater," but I am suggesting that we of the current age at least make note of what issues he raised that he attributed to being because of the impending end.

Paul was writing to the churches he had helped form about real issues of that age.  He may have been a prophet, yet do we have evidence of that?  His words at that time were pertinent to that time.  They may be harmful today.

As example, had all Christians of that age chosen not to marry and reproduce, it would have meant the annihilation of the Christian portion of the human race.  Big of Paul to say it is better to marry than to burn.  That gave Catholics outside the priesthood a reason for families.

But at the same time, such teachings led leaders of the early church to classify sex as a sin.  It is not a sin, it is a gift from God.  It is how we exercise that gift in conjunction with God's commandments that renders it good or bad.