Month: June 2015

Why do we have to choose? What is it about society that pushes us to choose a single side? … as if all conflict is so black and white, that we feel so enamored and capable of assessing the complete, altruistic values of one side — and the evil endeavors of the other?

The push comes early in life — and — in seemingly, every arena. For example…

In sports, even though it’s supposedly “only a game,” it seems as if there is a push to identify one team as morally superior and simultaneously demonize the other. It’s as if in our preference for one, we have to find something that’s inherently wrong with the other. In our fandom, we get forced to choose a side — deeming one to be all good and the other all bad… whether that be in the NBA finals, NHL finals, or even on a summer, Little League field.

Sometimes, too, I see this so-called “side choosing” in friendship, relationship, marriage, etc. When a relationship ends, many of us near to the situation feel as if we must choose a side to remain friends with. Granted, there are times when one person intentionally, deeply harms another and is wholly responsible for the broken relationship; that’s different. But I will say that there have been times over the course of my life where I’ve felt it wise to equally honor, love, and befriend both involved in the broken relationship. It’s not always a sided issue.

Perhaps the current push to choose a single side is most prominent in the political arena. As one party seeks to gain an advantage over the other, they encourage us choose only them — and they want us to demonize the different.

It was just this past week that candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.” And it was only two weeks ago when conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said, “They misstated facts… They did that to get more guilt money to launder for their political party… that’s the MO of the Democrat Party. This is how Democrats work.”

Notice what they’re both doing? They are both attempting to build themselves up by tearing another down. They are both attempting to get us to deem one side as ultra altruistic — and concurrently, the other side as utterly evil. While undoubtedly we can believe certain policies adopted by one party to be wiser than another’s, to demonize an entire party and prompt us to choose a single side is a disingenuous technique with other motives in mind.

It reminds me of Rob Reiner’s 1995 “The American President” movie, when Pres. Andrew Sherman (played by Michael Douglas) faced nagging conflict from an opposing candidate. Sherman said his opponent isn’t interested in solution. Instead, “He is interested in two things, and two things only — making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.”

I feel as if time and time again, persons attempt to lure us into believing all things are a sided issue… like it’s black and white and we should be picking a unilateral, single side.

This concept has now moved into the social arena. Notice how currently, we are seemingly being pushed to choose a side regarding Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner and the Duggar family. Bruce has gone through transgender transition to become Caitlyn in a way that has invited and attracted ample publicity. The Duggars are a conservative, reality TV family, whose son, Josh, recently acknowledged fondling four sisters and a babysitter twelve years ago.

Friends, it is totally ok to have an opinion on each of these issues. It is totally ok to believe that a behavior or mindset is good/bad, pure/impure, or healthy/unhealthy and to respectfully speak out on these issues.

What I do not believe is necessary is to choose a side. There is no “side” to Jenner’s gender, and there is no “side” to Josh Duggar’s former fondling. My sense is that if we wish to continue with solution-oriented dialogue — if we want to wrestle with what’s good and true and right and what’s not — then one of our first (and wisest) steps would be to quit being lured into choosing a nonexistent, so-called side.

Respectfully…

AR

Over the weekend my son and I had a rather significant, extended disagreement. Before sharing some of the details, allow me first to fill you in on my ever growing, budding in wisdom, 16 year old…

JT is funny and witty and studious and smart. He is athletic and thoughtful and strategic and sharp. He is also still 16.

Being 16 (shhhh… don’t tell them this yet…) means there is much to learn. Finally possessing a driver’s license although believing for years that they already know how to drive, 16 year olds are on that brink of maturity — growing by leaps and bounds while straddling the spheres between teendom and adulthood. They don’t know as much as they think they do, but they know exponentially more than they used to. In a few short years, independence will come calling in the form of college or career.

One of the things I’ve always admired about JT, no less, is his keen sense of perception. He is able to interact with others, dialogue, and then quickly make some very insightful observations. He seems to always be soaking so much in.

On Sunday he wanted permission to go elsewhere. With school still in session and “finals eve” nearly upon us, I appreciated his request but respectfully denied permission. Granted, in between the teen/adult spheres is a lesson for parents, too, as we must learn how to both loosen and tighten the reins, depending on the scenario at hand. Sometimes permission needs to be requested — sometimes not; sometimes it’s totally up to the teen. Parents have to learn how to put increasingly more of the decision-making responsibility into the hands of our soon to be adult children.

So when the request was made, I was not harsh nor curt nor any other knowingly negative adjective. I simply logically laid out the reason why I didn’t believe his request was a good idea.

Almost immediately, JT reacted strongly. But instead of dealing with the actual decision, JT’s sharp, verbal appeal was all focused upon the decision maker… yes, me.

Instead of weighing the merits of my decision, he focused on what must be wrong with me in order to deny permission. “Something must be wrong… you’re never this stern… your logic doesn’t make sense… what’s wrong with you today?” In other words, as our conversation ensued, JT spent his energy focused on the messenger and not the message. The conversation continued for another 20 minutes; it was 20 minutes focused on what was wrong with the messenger.

Hence, the decision stood. I would not change my mind.

After a chance to sleep on it (and also, to put heightened emotion to rest), JT and I spoke again of the conflict at the breakfast table yesterday morning. I told him that I appreciated his request, but I was not attempting to be stern; I simply felt with only a handful of school days left, he needed to solely focus on academics. I also shared how I’m often willing to reconsider my decision — and perhaps I might have the day before; however, when he shifted his focus from the message to me, I was less willing to alter any opinion.

He and I then spoke of how this happens in society. Adults, too — even the seemingly most intelligent among us — when they don’t receive the answer they want, begin to attack the messenger as opposed to the message. They work to tear down the other person as opposed to wrestle with the other person’s dissent. In turn, the other person becomes more firmly entrenched — with an even lesser desire to listen, consider, or change their opinion.

JT waited a bit and then asked if he could apologize. “I’m sorry for attacking you and no longer considering what you said. People sadly do that all the time.”

Did I mention he was a 16 year old kid, budding in wisdom, growing by leaps and bounds?

Respectfully…

AR