THOMAS SOWELL

This is an author I recommend everyone read. He has written some good books, and one of my favorites is Race and Culture. It's an analysis of what happens when a minority group moves into a society, and either succeeds or fails. When they are successful, the dominant culture views certain occupations and lifestyles as below them while the minority group has no such restrictions, and their willingness to take on those activities shunned by the larger culture often results in a substantial financial foothold within just a few years. For example, they might be willing to live in more crowded conditions, and/or pool their finances. They might be eager to work in an occupation that has no status in that society. The values of their particular subculture can be a key to financial freedom, or financial bondage. He analyzes cultures around the world, including some strong opinions about the failure of the descendents of the African slaves to rise out of poverty in the United States. He's not very popular in some circles. I think those that don't want to take responsibility for their own actions have the hardest time accepting his viewpoint. Take a look at his writings, and give me some feedback.

WOMEN AS OBJECTS

The cultural changes of the last 200 years have been impressive. Specifically, slavery has been abolished in our Western culture, and women have been given the right to vote. Yet, in some parts of the world neither has happened. It is as if human rights has a tentative hold, like a kitten on a screen door. At any moment the kitten could drop, and we could find our world reverting back to the way it was. It is a scary thought, and even more scary when you realize that millions of people want that to happen.

The idea of women as objects also remains strong. In the West, we see it primarily in pornography, but there are strands of it trailing through other parts of our culture. I'm not sure of the cause, but I suspect that it has to do with the issue of power. Men are physically stronger, and traditionally have the role of protector and provider. When that power is perverted, it corrupts the relationship between men and women.

I think the problem arises when men use their strength for selfish fulfillment. A man gets married and has children, but he never quite makes a complete transition into the protector/provider mentality. Deep in his psyche, the wife is his "property." She exists to make him happy. That attitude can be passed down from generation to generation.

I often wonder what the world would be like if all the men woke up on Monday morning and found that they were as physically strong as ever, but that all the women in the world were twice as strong as the men. Would "yes dear" take on a whole new meaning?

What about other cultures? In Islam, religion cooperates with the men to keep women as second class citizens. We seem to have made more progress in the West. Our Judeo-Christian roots are patriarchal, yet both Jewish and Christian history have accounts of women accomplishing great things. The roots of anti-slavery are grounded in the Christian principles of men and women like William Wilberforce and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Perhaps the real problem is the issue of dehumanization. Looking down on others who look or think differently from us seems to be part of our human experience. It happens between nations, of course, but if you look closely you can follow that same mentality down to tribes, clans, and even individual families who see themselves as superior to those around them. It's not surprising that a man can carry this outlook into his relationship with women.

How does one not fall victim to the temptation of dehumanizing others?

PARADIGMS

Most of us are familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Go here to take the test. It provides a means to identify various personality types, and how they relate to one another and the world. (I am an ISTJ.)

“Paradigm” is a word that entered popular culture in the last decade. It speaks of a particular way of looking at the world. It might be an “us and them” mentality. Remember the song “You and Me Against the World?” I think of people with this type of outlook as walking around with a perpetual scowl. You can keep others at a distance if your face says “back off.” It also tends to make one susceptible to conspiracy theories. Even if you don’t have a scowl, you may see a Communist under every rock. Wait! That was the 50s. Today it would be the Trilateral Commission, or the Jews, or a government conspiracy to keep us from learning the truth about 9-11.

An opposite paradigm is that “everybody loves me.” I think of how our boston terrier greets guests. As more guests arrive, the excitement builds, until she is racing around the house in total ecstasy. She has no enemies. She would gladly get in a car with a total stranger.

The Myers-Briggs Indicator measures sixteen different combinations of personality traits. Each has its distinct way of relating to others. Once you know your classification, you can google it and verify that you fit the description. It seems that basic personality is largely genetic. You can’t change the way you are born. All you can do is temper it to make it palatable.

I don’t think there is any right or wrong personality. However, some are definitely easier to get along with. If you find yourself stuck with 10 others in an elevator for 18 hours, what kind of personality would you like them to have? How would they like you to behave?

Thinking about how we look at the world makes me wonder how we can give young children the best possible perspective. Do I want them to be careful, or cautious, or optimistic, or all of the above? Our kids are now adults, so it’s too late to correct mistakes that we may have made. How should we teach our children to be likeable adults in a world where the next person they meet may have sinister plans?

Can someone who is suspicious be changed into being loving and open toward others? Do you need to change, or are you happy with the way you are? I’m assuming that you agree with me that we would all like to be loving and open. That speaks of course, to the existence of absolute truth, which we have discussed previously. Otherwise, some would desire to be cruel, and others to be kind, and one would not be better than the other.

As mentioned previously, I am an ISTJ, although I consider myself barely an “I.” My “I” is almost an “E.” Do people who like to blog tend toward certain characteristics in their personality? Look at this description of each classification after you take the test and see if yours is an accurate description of you.