I thought I share a story with you will make me admit to some grayish ethical behavior. Nevertheless, it's quite amusing and I think you are going to enjoy it. ;^)
Last summer my husband and I were hosts to 2 students on vacation from my country. Both enrolled in respectable universities in Poland. One of them asked me for help with her English. I told her I do my best and I immediately begun sending her trashy novels, because trashy novels, as everyone knows, are the best for learning another language. There is a plot, there is sex, there is angst and romance, there is mystery, and everything is written in the easiest possible language. My student revolted after the 3rd Lauren Hamilton's Anita Blake story. I don't blame her. Read one vampire story – know them all!
Soon, however, I received a request: a paper on Chicago. The teacher found out about the girl's trip to Chicago and requested a 10-page critical paper on the Windy City. I wasn't keen on cheating so I insisted at first she writes an outline in English that would set us out on an email collaboration in the creation of a paper that I would smartly made her write while I corrected. Of course, that didn't work. And the deadline was approaching faster than I anticipated.
So finally, one Sunday I sat down with my friend, a technical writer and quick witted Puerto Rican woman, and we wrote it. We took care not to overcomplicate it, since it was supposed to be written by a student of English. We took care to write it according to the teacher's guidelines and we made it funny. Gosh, was it good! We showed it to my friend's husband, a writer and an English professor. He laughed loudly when reading and afterwards asked, "can I post it on my website for my students?" – he didn't know, poor thing, that it was a cheating paper...
After formatting the paper according to MLA rules I sent it off to Poland asking for feedback on the grade. It came. C. Minus. The teacher's comments were: a) the paper was too simplistic; b) the vocabulary too narrow; c) the conclusions too personal; d) the knowledge about the city too insignificant; e) the formatting unprofessional; f) it was NOT funny. If the student wished to get a better grade, she should rewrite the paper by the following deadline.
I showed the grade to my co-conspirator (MA in English, btw) and – accidentally – to her husband. The husband only now found out we were cheating. But that realization melted into the background of his complete amazement, "This got a C? I would grade it at least a B+, for the humor alone I'd give it an A," he said. "What school is she attending?" followed by, "There is nothing wrong with MLA" and, "Am I too tolerant as a teacher?", "Am I letting my students down?" The last two statements were enough to get him entangled in our plot to get a better grade. (So you don't loose count: there were four people now involved in the writing, 3 of them adults, and one student, who was probably at the time sitting in a pub with her boyfriend, speaking only in Polish...)
So, the three of us met two more times. We divided research equally. We covered history, politics, business, architecture, literature and music. We dealt with all aspects of Chicago life: the dark and the shiny examples (what a beautiful subject, btw). We argued on what should go into the paper as we changed its format to APA. We wrote it with complete disregard for reality seeking only the most sophisticated and eloquent language, rewriting the sentences endlessly. When it was completed, we decided we had enough information to write another paper more focused on the history and current events of Chicago's political life and we wrote it (we entitled it, "Chicago – The Case of The Meg's Field"). We gave it Chicago style formatting, and then we rewrote it in MLA – just in case (let's not loose the count: there were 2 papers now, one in 2 versions, total of 3). After the final polish of the dry wit of the Irish pen of our English professor, he sent off the papers to appropriate specialists of political science and journalism from 2 colleges in Chicago. They made their notations which we promptly included. Gosh, were we proud!
I emailed the papers in the last possible moment. And we waited. Emails shuffled between the 7 of us, all beginning with conspiratorial, "Did you hear anything?" (Did I mention the other professors, aka, the specialists, were now involved in the conspiracy as well?) All seven of us were convinced that the paper(s) merited publication not just a grade. We waited. Finally, months later, the news came. B minus – for each paper. The grade posted: B, as the student showed an effort writing two papers instead of one. (Actually, there were 3 papers, one in 2 versions, but who's counting!) Apparently, a) the formatting was better now – although not flawless; b) the vocabulary – a little better, but not comprehensive enough; c) the conclusions, however, were obviously opinions of the author of the paper, which according to the teacher was WRONG. Although the paper was researched well, the teacher wasn't interested in the student's personal conclusions. It seems that conclusions have to be supported by statement of a recognized authority figure (i.e.: "I must agree with the pope when he says…"), as she (the teacher) would like to have learned something from the paper and the student's opinion does not present a real value. ?#&^%$#!!!!!
Do you see now why cheating doesn't pay? ;^)
There are seven of us sitting in the pub and planning a trip to Warsaw to shake some sense into THAT woman and we can't go! We have dreamed of thousand humiliating exercises we could put THAT woman thru, but we can't! Some wanted to just demand B minus as "we don't accept charity!" The student is upset with us because her GPA (or the equivalent) is going south. Everybody is looking for some written paper by THAT teacher, but it seems that if you just teach another language, you are not required to publish. The political science professor is learning swear words in Polish, just in case he runs into THAT woman. The English professor drowns his sorrows in scotch as he recalls his attempts to emulate Royko's style (as he doesn't drink anything below Glenfiddich, it's getting really expensive!). I ponder the paradox. ;^)
What do you think, will we ever live down the humiliation? ;^)
Given the fact that I know first hand what jerks Polish teachers can be that story doesn't surprise me in the least.
I'd bet this teacher is just an envious prig. You know - you trash those you envy, play hard to please and be dismissive of other people's efforts, talents, knowledge - the list goes on. I've read somewhere a good line: a snob is someone who secretly envies those who have the self-confidence to enjoy whatever they please without giving a damn about other people's opinions.
It's a very convenient situation for that teacher: she doesn't have to move a finger, while the poor student sweats, trying to live up to the teacher's expectations. A great power play. What a perfect way to boost your fragile self-esteem - cut down someone else just because you can... especially if they're good.
Posted by: michael | Dec 03, 2003 at 06:46 PM
There might be another explanation, Michael. She might have been on to us from the start... After all, how difficult it is for a teacher to judge his/her student's abilities?
Posted by: Gryka | Dec 07, 2003 at 05:04 PM
Ah! Is this girl any good when it comes to English? Was her English so bad that the teacher could immediately tell something fishy was going on when the student gave her a well-written paper? That would work too.
On the other hand I know how envious some Poles get when they learn you've been to the US. It's sad and stupid but unfortunately true.
Posted by: michael | Dec 08, 2003 at 02:58 AM
OK - even though the notion of peace on earth does seem to belong in the realm of fantasy, I think this discussion belongs here. :^)
We can still draw inspiration from the words, whether those of Pericles, or Jefferson. Many of our American "founding fathers" defined a "human", for rights purposes, as "white male landowner". It took long years of struggle for us to codify in the constitution the notion that "all men are created equal" was properly interpreted as "all humans". Even so, we draw a distinction between two humans born a mile apart on opposite sides of an imaginary line defining a national border, so we have far yet to go. This is why nationalism is so offensive to me.
(and ultimately, of course, such rights would even apply to, say, sentient oceans...)
I had a similar moment of clarity regarding the whole "right to life" question a number of years ago. I realized that everyone has the same standard: they believe beings have a right to life - except when they don't. We just disagree on the exceptions.
I think Iraqi shopkeepers enjoy the same right to life as World Trade Center stock analysts. Bush's preemptive policy is a force oppposed to civilization, one that has been destructive through all history. The same one bin Laden espouses - one that says "my family/class/city/religion/nation forms a special class to whom greater consideration is due, at whatever expense to the rights or very lives of those on the outside"
It's been said generally that promoting war as the solution to conflict is like promoting cannibalism as the solution to hunger. (yes, I know - the primary exception is self-defense)
Posted by: Glimmung | Jan 21, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Oh, I'm so glad of your clarification Glimmung! I was utterly confused by Michael's statement.
For the life of me I could not see relevance between what I said and your statement, Michael, on ancient Greece. (Was I not supposed to read and be inspired by Thucydides because his city allowed slaves and homosexuals?) But Glimmung's clarification is right on the money: our civilization changes, develops, evolves. We clarify our positions on things as they become understandable to us. Is there even a possibility of doing so without an inspiration from our past?
The concept of equality among men (exclusively men) shows up for the first time (or about) in Rousseau's writings. Before then men were equal only in the eyes of God (clue: in the afterlife, i.e. never!) and even that didn't include women until 4th century (Council of Nicaea voted on it and it was decided by ONE vote that women have souls after all – this story always amused me that's why I repeat it here ;^) ). To ancient Greek it wasn't evident that men were equal (just read Aristotle!), in contrary, it was a privilege exclusive to male citizens. Privilege earned, not bestowed (democracy wasn't a stable system) and therefore a privilege that came with great responsibility.
How fortunate that Glimmung mentions Declaration of Independence! It was Ben Franklin, the self-taught scholar, who edited Jefferson's writing. He was the one who put the word "self-evident" in We hold these truths to be self-evident, that every man is created equal. One doesn't need to be a scholar to know where it comes from. It's from Euclidean Geometry and it describes the only other thing in the universe that is "self-evident" – axiom. It's the first time in history that equality of men is stated as a scientific fact. The statement was so revolutionary that 2 centuries later people still vehemently disagreed (see: fascism). But my greater point is this: Ben was inspired by a Greek to put the proverbial 2 and 2 together. It took our civilization "only" 22 centuries to arrive to conclusion we think today to be obvious.
So was it really hypocritical of Perycles to say what he did?
Posted by: Gryka | Jan 21, 2004 at 04:30 PM
Yes, it was. He was presenting Greece as a standard other countries should live up too, while the Greek reality was brutal and ugly. Athenians had toward each other a dog-eat-dog, envious, overly competitive, fight-provoking mentality. Greek morality really left lots to be wished for. It's exactly like with Jefferson - he talked about democracy but didn't mind keeping slaves. Exactly like in Greece. Equal and more equal. That is hypocrisy, historical period and culture notwithstanding. Pericles' speech reflects that "double-standard" attitude. Moreover, Pericles was warmongering. Playing the "moral superiority" card when you are just out to kill someone is sick and bigoted. Just like Glimmung I hate nationalism - that fake pride that serves as a self-righteous cover to do whatever you please to someone else. That is just like Bush and Co. And no matter how nicely you put it, it remains corrupt.
Hope that explains it.
Posted by: michael | Jan 21, 2004 at 06:13 PM
This is damn long but you might find just browsing through it and stopping on certain fragments interesting (you know me, I couldn't resist it... ;) ):
psychohistory and war
Posted by: michael | Jan 22, 2004 at 03:33 AM
I couldn't connect to the link from this page, so I'll just post it like again this:
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln06_war.html
Posted by: michael | Jan 22, 2004 at 05:37 PM
Gryka, Regarding Scalia/Cheney, at least someone has noticed.
Sorry I haven't contributed any comments to your main "ethics" topic. But, my home computer has evidence of numerous "comment-related program activities"! And I have it on the highest authority that that is just as good.
Posted by: Glimmung | Jan 23, 2004 at 12:43 PM
Guys, CBS is refusing to run a paid MoveOn.org ad during the Super Bowl. If you're interested in signing the petition to CBS: go here and click on CBS Censors Ads.
(The link is to the ad, not to the petition, although you will have the option to sign it if you choose so. Also, CBS will run White House Drug Policies ads during the game. This is not a free speech issue. Although, it's about the execs at CBS being afraid of the conservatives – if you can call them that – you know, the people who made CBS scrap the Reagan TV series.)
Glimmung, I read that story on Yahoo as well. Have you noticed thou how demure it sounds? I mean Scalia's behavior is outrageous! In any other democracy there would be talk of his impeachment. Here all we get is "Democrats doubt impartiality" – which we all know that Democrats would do exactly that as they are in opposition. I don't understand what Scalia is trying to tell all other judges? Is it no longer inappropriate to privately meet with a defendant in a case they preside over? You know being from Chicago, I can cite half a dozen cases in which local judges were fired and sentenced to prison for doing exactly that. I suppose we ought to now apologize to them, release them, and put them back at work, right?
"Comment-related program activities"? You mean you got lots of emails? Or big traffic reports? (See how confusing it is? ;^) )
I've been pondering what you said about universal values. I keep thinking of the time we met on the internet on Solaris Forum, when I had the impression that you were ethical relativist... Boy, was I wrong! :^)
Michael, don't you think that you view of the ancient Greeks is a tad one-sided?
Posted by: Gryka | Jan 23, 2004 at 02:59 PM
I think morality is created by evolution to counterbalance our more “darwinian” impulses and let us live in complicated societal structures. If morality is innate then it means that it is universal for all humanity, no matter what culture you talk about. Things that cause people to be emotionally and physically hurt are morally wrong and those things are common for all of us, because we are built in the same way. I understand that people can not see that what they do is harmful but it doesn’t change the fact that it IS harmful and therefore immoral.
The major cultural achievements of Greece, its Golden Age happened during a rather short period of about a century. Yes, those were major cultural achievements and changes in societal structure - the democracy we talked about. But Pericles limited this democracy to male Athenians whose both parents had to be Athenians. Women weren't citizens, ex-slaves weren't citizens. That is a pretty elitist democracy, isn't it?
I wrote about the overly competitive and envious nature of this society. There is in fact a book titled "Envy and the Greeks" which in itself says something about how important envy was in this society. Pericles was the victim of this deadly emotion - he was banished from Athens when his enemies thought he was getting too powerful for their taste. Socrates paid with his life because he was envied. It wasn’t safe to be smart, pretty, wealthy or powerful in Athens. Can you imagine how harmful and demoralizing it must have been to live under the constant supervision of “envious eyes”? Getting votes to have someone ostracized from Athens was easy and this had a serious impact on Greek history and the everyday life of ancient Athenians and other Greeks. It was in fact this envy and rivalry that kept Greeks constantly fighting with each other and didn’t allow them to create a large, unified nation. This lead to their later downfall. I've watched on PBS a program on ancient Greece and the program's conclusion was that life in Athens and Greece in general wasn't pretty.
Sorry about returning to this drastic topic but this has to be pointed out as it is of fundamental importance: children in Athens (in fact all around the world) were used as sex toys - both girls and boys. This was common and treated as normal. It was a rarity for girls in Athens to become teenagers and still be virgins, a fact noted by Greek and Roman doctors of that period. When Socrates proposed that wives, children and property be considered common (!!!) Aristotle replied that it was a bad idea, because he wouldn’t be able to tell if he wasn’t by chance having sex with his son or daughter!
If the brightest, most progressive people of this nation could talk in such a callous manner about their children and wives then what does it really say about this nation? How did they perceive and treat other human beings? Think about it in terms of what was going on in their heads. Do you think that what is considered now unconscionable, then was healthy? Those people were biologically just like us and the impact of this behavior was the same then as it is now. It is just that this damage was so extensive and common that no one even noticed that something was wrong. Does the fact that something is common make it normal? What do you think about pedophiles today who claim that having sex with children is healthy? What about an entire nation that consists of such pedophiles? And do you know that the infanticide rate in ancient Greece was about 50%? I hope that despite the fact that I've been talking about such things ad nauseum you will still be able to recognize their full meaning.
Although I do appreciate ancient Greece’s contribution to our culture and political structures, I cannot see them in a positive light when morality is concerned.
Posted by: michael | Jan 23, 2004 at 08:24 PM
Wow!
I've been out of touch for a couple weeks, and it seems I've missed a lot.
I'm beginning to think I'm being baited by the whole pedophile discussion and ancient Greece. I only have a few minutes, but let me just say this. I agree that the Greeks had many contributions to mathematics, and science. Geometry, Astronomy, Architecture. All wonderful achievements. But the greeks were a society without a moral compass. And, if I may throw theology into this for a moment, they were a society that stood in rebellion to God. Pedophilia is a perversion of God's gift of human sexuality. Much like homosexuality.
Let me pose this question. How can someone with a purely humanistic or naturalistic viewpoint defend pedophilia in terms of the man-boy relationship when biology seems to be pretty specific in terms of how to propogate the species? I mean, if the parts don't fit together, shouldn't that be a clue that this practice is unnatural?
--I realize I'm moving off on a tangent, but it really bothers me when there is so much pressure by society to "normalize" homosexuality. How long before incest is considered okay. (assuming they are consenting adults?) How long before bestiality is considered "trendy"? How long before "orgy bars" start popping up all over the place? How long before society allows its moral compass to erode to the point where all things are acceptable as long as "nobody gets hurt"? Look no further than Rome and Athens and Babylon. Or, Sodom and Gomorrah for that matter.
Posted by: Yeti | Jan 26, 2004 at 12:04 PM
This behavior is what psychologists call act-outs, Yeti. I've explained that act-outs are symbolic expressions of inner emotional conflicts. Banning bars and outlawing certain behaviors will do no good. Since when did the death penalty deter a serial killer from killing? These inner problems are too strong for any punitive measures to be effective. Besides the "people are animals that need to be kept on a leash" attitudes are nothing but a reflection of the poisonous pedagogy that is exactly the reason why all our problems happen in the first place.
As for homosexuality - from what I understand indeed part of the homosexuals are acting-out. When they had very bad relationships during their infancy with the parent of the opposite sex, later in life they are unable to really trust the opposite sex and choose partners of the same sex. But there is also a group of homosexuals who are born that way. You might remember that I was talking once about how the child's brain is shaped by hormones in the womb. Those hormones decide about the sexual orientation too. Some people are just made that way, Yeti. If mother nature made them that way and as you believe God leads mother nature's hand, then maybe homosexuality isn't a sin.
About reasons for the problems of Greeks and Christians alike try this
It wouldn't be bad for you to read that link I posted about war. If any of you guys think that the methods of raising German children in the 19th century described there are a gross exaggeration, then try finding something out about German's "Dr. Spock" of the nineteenth century called Moritz Schreber (his first name is actually Daniel but that is also the name of his son who was later a famous psychiatric case, so better type into search Moritz). Some of the books written by this monster were reprinted in Germany 40 times and were immensely popular. Find out what he said about childrearing and maybe you'll understand why WWII happened in the first place.
BTW, now that we have it officially confirmed that there are no weapons in Iraq, can someone give me a rational explanation why this war happened in the first place? What was the reason for it? What does it mean when one nation attacks another one on a "hunch"? Is that really rational? See the psychohistory and war link again...
Posted by: michael | Jan 26, 2004 at 07:22 PM
Ah, so this is how it works Yeti? (1) Present a personal opinion about ancient Greeks, (2) assume that opinion is widely accepted to be true and, (3) based on the newfound "truth" accuse Greeks of lacking "moral compass." Should I change the title to "sophism, anyone?"
Contrary to Michael's opinion there is no rational evidence that Greeks approved of pedophilia. paiderastia indeed didn't have negative meaning, but it didn't refer to prepubescent boys (only to pubescent lads – until they grew beards) and most probably didn't include sexual act at all (the furthest it'd go be kissing and cuddling). Greek words with negative meaning: paidophiles and philopais. Where: paidion=child, pais=lad/lass, philos=love; in Athens one stopped being a pais at 16, in Sparta at 18. Both terms were used to denote physical love and spoke of depravity not admiration. For example, Alexander the Great was called by historians a philopais to show his insatiable appetite for everything including young men and women.
I can't comment on the PBS show I haven't seen, but if the authors indeed used Aristotle's argument the way Michael described, it's pretty obvious they slept thru their philosophy class. Which makes me wonder what else did they sleep thru?
Pericles was never banished from Athens. Early in his career he orchestrated ostracism of his political opponent Cimon (if you can call it a banishment; Cimon left with an armada of 200 ships on an expedition to Cyprus where he died). Ostracism was a punishment for those prominent citizens who worked against democracy; to make it a law it required 6000 votes; the banishment usually lasted 1-10 years depending on crime. There are 12 known cases of ostracism in the history of Athens (6 of them happened one after another in the 480s BCE during Persian War and had to do with treason); in 417 BCE ostracism was officially abandoned.
Socrates wasn't accused because of envy. His death had many reasons, the major one being his stubborn indignity at being accused at all. The official accusations were: corrupting the young and teaching new gods not recognized by Athenians (Plato's Apology). The trial happened during the period of radical democracy right after the fall of Thirty Tyrants (399 BCE). This was indeed one of the darkest moments of Athens' history.
While it's true that in the Republic Plato makes Socrates speak of common marriage, these aren't the words of the real Socrates. Whenever in the dialogs Socrates speaks of social order or metaphysics you can be sure these are Plato's ideas.
And he doesn't talk of sharing wives, he's proposing dismantling the institution of marriage and replacing it with "free love" – yeah, he was the first flower baby ;^). In Republic women have the same rights as men and they could choose their lovers as they wanted (BTW, Spartan women went to school with boys and had the right to own land, i.e. had citizenship). Plato also says that children should be raised by the state (parents are the cause of bad character traits in children, remove the parent and give the child to educated teacher = bad character traits disappear). Obviously, if parents didn't rear their children they wouldn't know them, hence Aristotle's argument about how one could be sure he wasn't courting his own daughter.
In his response Aristotle notices, among other things, that human beings don't care for children that aren't theirs – so children reared by the state would be nobody's children and would suffer neglect. He uses the word "possession" to describe relationships of parents to children and men to women but he doesn't mean it in terms of ownership, rather belonging. This word is a cornerstone of his concept of a man as a social animal: his essential need of possession/belonging makes the man a social creature (2nd book of Politics).
In any case, the Plato-Aristotle arguments belong to realm of intellectual discussion on how the world SHOULD BE organized not how it WAS organized.
While it's true that infanticide was practiced by Hellas, I can't fathom how one can arrive at any statistics on this at all. No one kept statistics or records at the time. Medical practitioners relied on, often unproven, anecdotal evidence. I remember reading Soranus (the only medical text on gynecology we know of) that girls should not be deflowered before menstruation due to health concerns. But the health concerns he describes are full of magic so I'm not sure he's ever seen a case, he's probably repeating common knowledge. Anyway, Soranus lived in the 2nd century CE, so I have no idea what sources Michael is quoting.
Roman doctors? Roman citizens were prohibited from practicing medical profession since early Republic. Their doctors were Greek, trained in Greece.
And btw, the Athenian Marriage Rites says that a girl must be 15 to marry. While 15 is very young by our standards, by Greek standards I should be dead of old age. A Greek bride would appear in blood-red double veil – the outer veil symbolized her readiness to be a woman (that she was menstruating already) while the inner veil symbolized her readiness to leave her childhood (loose virginity).
I'm not saying Greeks were irreproachable, but attributing deviancy to countless generations of ancient Greeks is simply unacceptable. Before you accuse someone of not having a moral compass I suggest you at least read what they wrote, learn their language, religion, and culture, and try to do it with due respect instead of uncritically accepting the spin our society produces to justify its own ends.
Posted by: Gryka | Jan 27, 2004 at 03:51 PM
Sorry, I've checked now (should have before, of course) - it was Pericles who banished (ostracised) his political enemy not the other way around. I've watched that program some time ago...
I actually thought it was a discussion between Plato and Aristotle but then I've read somewhere that it was Socrates' idea and got confused. Maybe I'm just biased, but in the light of other things I've read and seen, I just cannot believe the good naturedness of all this. I realize what the traditional view of Greeks is but the material I've read and watched reveals something different that is too consistent with what is known about people's behavior for me to ignore.
When it comes to the relationships between men and boys in Athens, the relationships were idealized but they had a sexual nature. See for just a small examplethis
That was pederasty but pedophilia was apparently rampant too. When it comes to both Roman and Greek doctors reporting on sexual misuse of prepubescent boys and girls see this
If you look at the Arab world, the way the men there treat their women is much like Athenian men treated their women. Athenian women were expected to stay at home and couldn't attend the Olympic games even as spectators. Those Athenian women were only a small step above slaves. From birth a girl was not expected to learn how to read or write, nor was she expected to earn an education beyond house chores. How could a relationship between an educated man and a woman who spent her entire life indoors, was discouraged from social contact and was refused education look like? These were not relationships based on respect, partnership or love. Aristotle's approach was like this - women should stay at home, shouldn't talk to other women and should obey their husband. Look to muslim countries now to see what happens when women are treated like that. You get to see a whole lot of men holding hands, as a female friend of mine who visited Algeria reported. And btw, how do children fare in those countries?
As for Spartan women, they were an exception in the ancient world. They were better fed as children than their Athenian counterparts, could own land, travel alone, they were very atlethic but the truth is that this independence was a necessity. The men were so preoccupied with being warriors that more often than not women were left to take care of things. The story about the wedding night I cited came directly from another PBS program, a miniseries I watched not long ago about Sparta. The Athenians were appalled by the training methods used to turn Spartan boys into killing machines but I don't recall hearing a word that they opposed the sexual practices of the Spartans. It was not some "platonic" love for the Spartans. This was clearly stated and it was also stated that Sparta's population diminished rapidly because of those sexual practices. This is the program I'm talking about How come Spartans could "go at it" without restraint while their nextdoor neighbors Athenians, who just happened to be also misogynysts and baby-killers (not much better than Spartans apparently), were so full of pious, philosophical restraint? Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
In the program on Ancient Greece, there was not a whole lot about pederasty but, apart from other things, the huge competitiveness, constant rivalries and role of envy in Athenians' lives was stressed with the comment that life in Athens wasn't pretty or easy (or something to that effect). I've checked the PBS site - the title of this program is most likely "The Greeks: The Crucible of Civilization". That was the only program there about ancient Greece, so it must be it.
When it comes to Socrates' death - he apparently was a difficult guy to argue with and that coupled with the fact that he was too smart, too different and very upfront with his views caused a lot of animosity. Socrates himself said he was envied and slandered during his trial. From what I understood, envy of smaller minds and conformism was what killed him. Envy usually likes to pose as something else and uses arguments that are just a mask for the real reasons. I was trying to find excrepts from "Envy and the Greeks" on the web but couldn't. I distinctly remember reading an analysis of Socrates' trial as a study in envy and I think it was in "Envy and the Greeks" but as I can't check it, I cannot confirm it. I know that this situation reminded me of mobbing at the workplace: slander, dubious accusations and the target is someone who is better than the rest.
You'll see the death rate of children in Athens mentioned here
It happens to coincide with the ratio of infanticide around the world at the time and the same number for infanticide in Athens was mentioned on the psychohistorical site. I've read in numerous places that killings of newborn, especially girls, were common practice in Athens (doesn't that say something about how Athenians really treated their women?).
The estimates for infanticide come from comparing numbers of girls and boys (usually there is many more boys so you can immediately tell how many girls were killed), population growth numbers, when you can predict how many children should have been born in a given time and how many people really lived there based on old texts, archaeological findings, economic factors and so on. Those infanticide numbers are also roughly the same for primitive tribes today.
Child prostitution was apparently common in the world at that time and Athens was no exception. Though at some point it was outlawed, it was still practiced. You'll see information about this on the psychohistory website and even in this little tidbit Just as an example that I'm not making this up.
There is a lot of confussion in the way ancient life is presented. For example, I've read a line about ancient Athens: "Infanticide was common but parents cared deeply when their other children died". I'm sorry, but how is that possible? You kill one newborn but are emphatic and loving toward another? That doesn't make any sense! Lloyd deMause in one of his articles on his website cites a case where a scientist writes about Aboriginal women that they ate every other child but were good mothers (?!!!). This is exactly the kind of denial that Miller says is overwhelming in historical textbooks and biographies (where childhood, the foundation of the personality and of the future path of life, is usually barely touched upon, even when there is plenty of material to use). That seems to be slowly changing, but there's still a long way to go...
If you wanted to, you could test the accuracy of what is written on the Journal of Psychohistory site, by checking their sources. When people like Alice Miller contribute to this site, I have reasons to believe that they are serious and know what they're talking about.
I look at today's world, see the drastic numbers of child abuse, abuse of women's rights in muslim countries, compare it with a world that was more primitive and overtly brutal than ours - after all what would those Greeks and Persians do if they had the technology we have today?! - and I know from psychology about denial, homosexuality, misogyny and the compulsive nature of pedophilia enough to see sense in the things the psychohistorians write about on their website. Even if those things seem extreme at first to someone unaccustomed to such ideas (I am sometimes rubbing my eyes and I've read quite a bit!), they are plausible if you learn what psychology says about human nature, provided that the facts cited are correct and the facts' interpretation is sound. I seriously doubt psychohistorians cite data that is cooked or grossly misinterpreted.
From a psychological point of view the image of the relationships between those boys and adult men in Athens as actually just intellectual and esthetical really doesn't make any sense. Those were people just like us and they were subject to the same rules and drives as we are. Consider this - given how sexual abuse of children and pedophilia is alive and well today even here in the US, what makes you think that Athenians, with their apparent love for the physical attributes of boys were so chaste? And why should they have cared enough for girls not to take advantage of them before a certain age, if otherwise they didn't hesitate to kill them in large numbers and despised them as misogynysts do? Men who deliberately keep women uneducated and closed in home don't love and respect them. People who kill their children are incapable of loving those that are left alive. How did these uneducated women, who were treated by men not much better than slaves, who watched their babies killed by their men and had no hope for escaping from their situation, feel about their newborn sons and how did they behave toward them? What were the consequences of this for the entire society?
I am no historian but don't these questions make at least some sense?
Posted by: michael | Jan 28, 2004 at 08:39 AM
Gryka wrote:
Ah, so this is how it works Yeti? (1) Present a personal opinion about ancient Greeks, (2) assume that opinion is widely accepted to be true and, (3) based on the newfound "truth" accuse Greeks of lacking "moral compass." Should I change the title to "sophism, anyone?"
I'm not sure I follow your assertion. The only opinion I offered about the Greeks was that they made great achievements in science and architecture. Is that not widely accepted as true?
Allow me to restructure my statements above in a more elementary fashion.
1)If we believe that the greeks engaged in pedophilia and homosexuality, and if homosexuality and pedophilia are immoral, then the greeks were immoral.
2)If the greeks were immoral, and if we assume immorality is indicative of the lack of a "moral compass", then the greeks lacked a "moral compass"
3)pedophilia and homosexuality go against God's will as revealed by the bible. Therefore, if the greeks engaged in pedophilia and homosexuality, then they went against God's will and therefore were a culture that stood in rebellion against God.
Now, when I talk about "the ancient greeks", what I probably should have said was "ancient greek culture in general". I doubt that every ancient greek was a pedophile, just like every modern american is not a pedophile. However, the prevailing culture of ancient greece seems to have condoned this practice, and so that indicates to me that their society overall was in poor shape morally.
You know, it's a little like when Clinton had his fling with Monica Lewinsky. I heard a lot of people say, "So what if he was gettin' some in the oval office, as long as he is doing a good job keeping the economy going". Does that make him a great president? Are we supposed to just ignore the fact that his juvenile behavior made a mockery of the office of the president? Similarly, should we revere the ancient greek philosophers and just ignore the fact that they indulged in various forms of immoral behavior?
Posted by: Yeti | Jan 29, 2004 at 12:04 PM
Yeti, since some Americans engage in pedophilia and homosexuality then surely the American society is immoral and lacking moral compass, right? You're an American and yet you seem to think that you have a moral compass, how is that? (BTW, I said your statement was based in unproven premise not that your argument was illogical.)
It's really flaming when you put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same basket Yeti. A man is a sexual being, while a child is asexual. Humans have understood it since the beginning of history (we have linguistic as well as historic proofs since Sumeria). Sexual act between sexual beings isn't deviant, "sex" on the child IS. Sexual act implies partnership and a child can't be a partner, because s/he lacks the equipment (physical and psychological). For the same reason rape is not sex. Thus, pedophilia is rape. You may disagree with homosexuality but don't you dare to call it rape.
About woman's role: her position wasn't as weak as it appears at first, Michael. Women run households, the manufactories of the day. They produced textiles, clothing, food, they were the buyers deciding economy, they handled household's cash flow, practiced medicine (midwifes, herbalists), and finally, most of the clergy were women (few priestesses, but the most influential person in Greece was Apollo's high priestess in Delphi). Also, reading skills, which became important only in modern times, were available to more affluent women in Greece. There were women poets, philosophers, scientists and some had their own schools where they taught men. There were also women soldiers, women armies and women generals.
On the other hand, what my female Moslem friends complain about is that the Arab world didn't adapt to technological developments in positive way. With mass-production of goods women found themselves displaced and no longer in charge of their households, their responsibilities shrunk and they stopped having access to finances, the men took their jobs away and offered nothing in return. Think about it: Mahomet married his boss, a thing unheard of today. Women in the Arab world today are worse off than at any time in history (with few possible exceptions).
About infanticide: it was practiced by all ancient societies, not only by Greeks, simply because people were not equipped to care for babies born with defects. Also, the ancient societies were always near starvation point. Pax Romana changed that for Rome but not for her provinces, which she exploited to feed Rome. People didn't kill their babies because they were heartless or lacked moral guidance; they did it because they were powerless. We're the most privileged of all generations on this planet. In fact, we're so privileged that we can't imagine any longer the hardships a regular person had to endure and the toll that took on their soul.
However Michael, there may be something to the claim of excessive infanticide of female babies. Greeks were warring people, which might be a sign they had too many young males (rarely a natural occurrence, especially for long periods of time). Still, such an opinion is highly speculative: the wars may have equally been caused by close proximity of city-states, increasingly shrinking local resources, the type of warfare available, or things we don't even know about. So the war culture could have been the latent effect not the cause of wars.
About Socrates: really, no envy! We don't know why Socrates was indicted. From his students, Plato and Xenophon, we know his defense but we don't know the accusers' rationale. Plato clearly states Socrates instigated his own death. He gives good reasons. He compares Athenian democracy to mobocracy. To change it Socrates had to sacrifice himself (and succeeded, significant changes were made to the system after his death). Indeed, the trial happened in very unstable times, general amnesty just allowed exiles back to Athens, a power vacuum after the fall of tyranny caused a form of radical democracy that resulted in limiting free speech (sounds familiar?). Socrates must have been very outspoken in his criticisms. He and his influential students might have been perceived as a growing political force (Aristophanes ridiculed him in The Clouds; was he paid to do that?). Perhaps Socrates was the Tim Robbins of his time (you know, criticized the war and was shunned as unpatriotic)? If that's the case, is Tim Robbins envied by anyone and is it relevant? Whatever the cause of Socrates death, saying it was envy is pure speculation (quite inept actually) with purposeful omission of existing evidence.
About your sources Michael: I'm sorry, but they aren't good. For example, I don't know who José Ernesto Mieres is, he may well be THE authority on Hellas, but he only states his opinion, which happens to coincide with yours. Good sources are facts, original texts and art logically (thru deduction rather than induction) substantiating your conclusions, not references to others who share your opinions without insight to their reasoning. And do you really think psychohistorians adhere to higher moral standards than others? In that case, there is a bridge in Chicago I'd like to sell you... ;^)
And Yeti, I really can't stomach references to Clinton's penis anymore. Hasn't this subject been discussed enough? Anyway, a new pResident has been in Washington DC for almost 4 years now and if he's reelected I'll have to open a soup kitchen for my highly qualified and unemployed friends. It's been a learning experience for me to watch Clinton being labeled immoral for cheating one person who didn't care for our intervention at all, only to find out that it's perfectly moral for the new pResident, in his public (not private) life, to cheat, lie, promote cronyism, and deceive his entire constituency. Liberals started talking about noticeable deterioration of values in the country. I wonder is it to compensate for the right wing lack of moral compass?
Posted by: Gryka | Feb 03, 2004 at 03:34 PM
Yeti,
I don't see anyone here defending pedophilia. You're raising a straw-man here.
Speaking just for myself, I would condemn pedophilia for the same reason I condemn bestiality - neither minors nor animals can give consent.
We don't have to "normalize" homosexuality - nature and history have already done that. It has been a constant presence in human society since the dawn of time. It isn't surprising that religious or other systems of belief embraced by a majority would reflect the deeply held beliefs of that majority and condemn it.
My answer continues to be "Don't believe in same-sex marriage? Don't practice it." I don't mean that to sound flip, but I have never understood exactly how allowing gays to enjoy the legal protections (the contractual aspects, if you like) of marriage threatens anyone, much less how it damages the "sanctity of marriage". Seems to me heterosexuals have pretty much got that covered without any help from gays - huge divorce rate, reality TV marriages, rampant cheating by the very same people who presume to lecture the rest of us on morals. People like Gingrich and Limbaugh think so highly of marriage, that they've done it three times with no kids to show for it.
Conservatives are fond of trashing progressives for supporting "PC" speech codes, because it's silly in their eyes to pass laws just because someone might be offended. Well, I don't support PC speech restrictions, and I feel the same way about those who want to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL FRIGGIN' AMENDMENT because they are offended by gay marriage.
You may have noticed I feel strongly about this issue, as do you. We may have to agree to disagree. But, still...
If the Christians are right, and there is a god who thinks homosexuality damns individuals to hell, then they'll go there whether the law allows them to marry or not. And those who urge them to "repent" will have done their duty.
But if the Christians are WRONG, then sentient beings, built a certain way (by chance or design), will have had their entire, brief journey through life made much more miserable and lonely than it would be otherwise.
Bonds of committment make society stronger, not weaker. People complain that gays don't enjoy stable lifestyles, but these same people do their best to make SURE of that by seeking to prevent gays from marrying, having equal access to housing and employment, or even being able to walk down the street hand-in-hand for fear of becoming targets of violence.
Practically every argument (except the "tab A - slot B" argument) made against gay marriage now was made against interracial marriage just a generation or two ago. The supreme court recognized correctly that these laws violated "equal protection" and outlawed them even though a decisive majority of Americans were against interracial marriage.
In many countries, Christians are a minority. Is it OK with you when their rights are denied to them because a non-Christian majority is "offended"? No? Well, you can't have it both ways. Either majorities have this right, or rights reside with individuals.
Supreme court justice Robert Jackson said it well:
Rome was weakened by a decadent, hereditary elite who acted solely in their own narrow interests. We have such an elite - and the Bushes are part of it, not the homosexuals.
Posted by: Glimmung | Feb 03, 2004 at 11:17 PM
Gryka,
If my argument has a faulty premise, then you are correct. Let me restate it yet again by saying it this way.
1)If we believe that the certain individuals who were members of ancient Greek society engaged in pedophilia and homosexuality, and if homosexuality and pedophilia are immoral, then the those certain individual greeks were immoral.
2)If certain individual greeks within the culture of ancient Greece were immoral, and if we assume immorality is indicative of the lack of a "moral compass", then those certain individual greeks lacked a "moral compass"
3)pedophilia and homosexuality go against God's will as revealed by the bible. Therefore, if certain individual greeks engaged in pedophilia and homosexuality, then they went against God's will and therefore stood in rebellion against God
--Now we come to the debatable part--
4) If those certain immoral individuals made up a majority of ancient Greek culture, and if we can ascribe certain characteristics to a culture based upon the characteristics of a majority of its individuals, then we can draw the conclusion that ancient Greek society was immoral and hence lacked a moral compass.
Now, lets address the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia. All I said was that both of these practices are immoral, and I base that statement, in part, on biblical principles. For example, consider the following passage from 1 Corinthians, Chapter 6:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Sexual Immorality
12"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[2] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
---I've included this passage for the sake of showing you the basis for my statement that homosexuality is immoral. You may choose not to believe in biblical principles, and therefore in your view, biblical reference means nothing. As Glimmung stated, we may need to agree to disagree about it.
Getting back to lumping homosexuality in with pedophilia, the only comparison I made between them is that they are both immoral practices, and I've shown you my basis for that statement. You are the one who drew the comparison between homosexuality and rape, and I agree that from a humanistic viewpoint, rape and pedophilia are much worse than homosexuality because there is a "victim" and an "offender". I never said that homosexuality was rape. I tend to agree with you, though, about pedophilia.
Maybe I should have used incest instead of homosexuality. That's one immoral practice that still seems to have a social stigma associated with it. Would you say that incest is okay as long as both "partners" are consenting adults? What about a relationship between an 18 year old and a 17 year old? Is that pedophilia? Is it rape? the law says it is. What if they are both consenting?
As far as American culture not having a moral compass, I couln't agree with you more. Take the whole Janet Jackson thing. Just another symptom of moral decline. The folks at MTV probably had a good laugh about it.
As for the whole gay marriage thing, I don't have time to write about it now. Another time.
Posted by: Yeti | Feb 04, 2004 at 12:58 PM
OK. I'll stir the pot here.
Would you say that incest is okay as long as both "partners" are consenting adults?
Yes. Same goes for polygamy.
What about a relationship between an 18 year old and a 17 year old? Is that pedophilia? Is it rape? the law says it is. What if they are both consenting?
By law, yes. However, this is why prosecutors, judges, and juries are allowed to exercise discretion. It is logical not to treat sex between 17 & 18 year olds the same as between 40 & 14 year olds. Age of consent is necessarily an arbitrary line to draw - we all know 16 year olds who are more responsible and emotionally mature than many 25 year olds. Show me a case where an 18 year old was charged for having sex with a 17 year old, and we'll probably find that there is some other reason someone was out to get that particular 18 year old - sort of like getting Capone on tax evasion (or Clinton for lying about private, consensual sex).
Interestingly, a 16 year old is considered able to consent to marriage, at which point she can consent to sex!
As far as the Bible is concerned, I respect those who attempt to reflect its precepts in their daily lives, not just on Sundays. Where I have a problem, is when certain precepts (such as "no homosexuality") are singled out and the attempt is made to enforce the behavior on all citizens, whether or not they subscribe to that belief system, while so many important precepts, existing side-by-side with the selected one, are ignored by the believers. I guess those upstanding leaders at Enron must have overlooked 1 Corinthians 6. And I have been eagerly awaiting those who cite 18 Leviticus on homosexuality to begin picketing Red Lobster and its patrons for the abomination of eating shellfish (11 Leviticus).
RE Janet Jackson: Breasts don't offend me. What's more offensive is that the targeted audience (not limited to MTV) is assumed to be OK with men ripping womens' clothing off at will.
Then, there is this revealing (pun intended!) statistic:
Hours elapsed between the event and the Bush Administration announcing an investigation:
Janet Jackson's breast exposed: 17
Highly placed administration official exposes identity of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame: 1752
Posted by: Glimmung | Feb 04, 2004 at 03:46 PM
Okay. Gay marriage.
I probably don't need to tell you that I don't belive in it generally, but I think it's important to make a distinction between that which is illegal and that which is immoral. The problem with gay marriage, though, is that marriage is both a spiritual union as well as a legal/civil one. This issue weaves its way through many areas of people's personal and religious belief systems, and that's why it's so complicated.
I would submit that in the spiritual realm, anyone who considers themself a true christian has got to reconcile themselves to the fact that if you are gay, and you think it's okay to be gay, then the bible is basically meaningless to you. Once you throw out the passages on homosexuality, why not just pick and choose whatever else you want? If you think premarital sex is okay, then just choose to ignore those passages in the bible as well. So this makes me wonder why someone who is gay would want to be married in a christian church? Gay marriage in a christian church, therefore, should not be allowed. Nor should gay ministers be allowed. If you follow christian beliefs, then homosexuals are living in a state of sin and should not be placed in a position of authority within the church.
So let's assume, then, that the gay couple is not christian, or that they are atheist. Should they be allowed to get married? Yes, if it is not done in the context of a christian marriage ceremony. If they'd like to have a judge preside over the ceremony, or Captain Stubing, or some other licensed (non-christian) marriage practicioner unite them in some civil ceremony, then why not? I would, however, reserve the term "marriage" for the union between a man and a woman. I would call a "gay marriage" a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or something like that.
Getting back to comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. It would probably be more correct to equate homosexuality to adultery. We typically think of adultery and homosexuality as being between "consenting adults", and so that removes the "unequal" argument that you posed above, Gryka. I personally would lump both adultery and homosexuality into the same boat. Immoral, but not necessarily illegal.
I don't know, is adultery illegal?
As for Leviticus, it's important to remember that this is the old testament, and so I would submit that anyone who considers himself to be a true jew probably SHOULD be picketing Red Lobster, although they may not be too upset if it's only gentiles eating there. For christians, Christ is the fulfillment of old testament law, and through Christ's death and resurrection, he paid for all our sins. So it is not by observance of the law that we are saved, but through the grace of Christ. I would refer you to Romans Ch. 7 for further reading if you are really interested.
Let me pause here and say that I'm not trying to set myself up as being "holier than thou". I'm just as much of a sinner as anyone else, and you are right, Glimmung. It's wrong for someone who professes to be a christian to condemn homosexuality and then go out and cheat on his wife. Either you are a christian or you are not. I personally use the bible as my "moral compass". It's something that is concrete that I can use as a basis for making moral decisions, and it's the basis for my religious beliefs. Without it, all there is is "my idea" and "your idea" of what is right and wrong. Without some type of absolute truth, how can anyone know for sure if they are making the right moral choice?
I think it is important for people to come to terms with what they belive and what they don't. I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot believe, and as I said, you can't legislate morality. So I don't have a problem with recognizing that gay couples should have the same legal rights as married couples with respect to common property, inheritance, medical decisions, etc., I am just disappointed when the gay lifestyle is praised and glorified by the media. I don't think people should be ashamed of being gay, I just get tired of people glorifying that type of lifestyle. Can't people just be gay if they want to be and leave it at that?
Posted by: Yeti | Feb 05, 2004 at 12:36 PM
Just a quick note, Yeti (can't take much time - darn job!). I appreciate how calmly you are conducting this discussion in the face of the obvious fact that basic elements of your system of belief are very different from pretty much all the rest of us here. I hope I am showing you similarly sufficient respect in the way I'm carrying on my part of the conversation.
One short question - what is the middle ground between "glorifying" homosexuality, and staying in the closet? Where does walking down the street hand-in-hand fall in that spectrum? How many normal things that heterosexual couples take for granted become "glorifying" if homosexuals do them?
I'll draw at least one distinction between homosexuality and adultery. In adultery, there is at least one nonconsenting victim - a betrayed spouse (or, if you like, a broken contract). Unsurprisingly, I consider the state of being homosexual to be value-neutral, but anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can commit an immoral act of adultery.
Posted by: Glimmung | Feb 05, 2004 at 01:09 PM
I second what Glimmung said and ask: are Catholics Christian, Yeti? Not only they wouldn't make any of the arguments you're making but also your arguments might offend them. Yet, they're unquestionably Christian, aren't they? And what about the Christian churches that already marry gay/lesbian couples? Are they not Christian? Don't they read from the same Bible? If they're protestant they do, don't they? Isn't it all just a matter of interpretation then?
And while I get why Jews don't go to Red Lobster (no kosher food), I still don't get it why the church which calls homosexuality an abomination and supports its view by quoting Bible verbatim won't follow the other rules from the same text in the same literal way? Is it a pick and choose week?
(See I can't be a church goer! My husband says I'm a closet iconoclast, and says to come out and sit in the open right there with him... ;^) )
On different note: I watched Angel yesterday and saw Cordy wake up from comma. She was, of course, very upset with Angel for signing up with Wolfram and Hart (the law firm in LA that represents evil clientele – this cracks me up, btw). While they're walking down the corridor of the corporate headquarters, Angel explains that they are fighting the good fight from the inside. Cordy answers, he seems not to realize that he made a deal with the devil. Just as Angel suggests that she's a bit melodramatic, a guy that looks like the devil (red face, horns, pointed ears, goatee, and a tail, in a very nice Armani suit) comes over to Angel and says he took care of everything and "are we still on for racquetball, this Thursday?" :^)
Posted by: Gryka | Feb 05, 2004 at 05:34 PM
Glimmung,
Actually I'm enjoying this discussion. I know I'm in the minority, but that's okay. It's refreshing to be able to discuss these things with people that are calm and rational. It's always good, I think, to be able to discuss things with people who don't agree with you so that hopefully both parties can gain some understanding of what other viewpoints are.
Gryka,
As usual you are diametrically opposed to my viewpoint. I've come to expect that. But I do value your input. You at least argue from an informed perspective, and that's refreshing.
Are catholics christians? That's a loaded question that I don't have the time to answer right now. The short answer is yes, as long as they have accepted Jesus as their savior. The problem is that catholicism teaches that salvation is achieved through a person's works, and strictly speaking, that's not a biblical perspective.
Do you really want me to answer your other questions, or are you just asking them to be argumentative? I'm happy to cite biblical references and give you your answers if you'd like. (I may do it anyway, but it's nice to know whether or not I'm just wasting my time.)
Posted by: Yeti | Feb 06, 2004 at 05:51 PM
Glimmung,
Getting back to your earlier comment, It's a fine line between glorification and acceptance of homosexuals. I don't think walking hand in hand is glorification. But, television would have us believe that homosexuals are a huge percentage of the population and everybody has a gay neighbor. The gay person is always portrayed as kind and understanding and "likeable". You rarely see gays portrayed in an extravagant way where they are annoying or pushy or self-centered, except when it's done in the context of comedy.
I don't know. Like I said, it's tough because I don't agree with that type of lifestyle, and so I may be hyper-aware of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but every time I turn on the TV, the programming inevitably finds its way to something with a gay theme.
Posted by: Yeti | Feb 10, 2004 at 01:31 PM