Does "winning" a war mean nothing or everything?

Many people have explored the idea that there are no winners in war. That there is such irony in calling oneself a winner of a war.

Let me think about it.

If there is a winner, then it is certainly (presumably) a loser. Or several losers. What happens when people lose a game? If a person is a "bad loser" they can become angry and bitter and often act in negative or aggressive ways. I have witnessed bad losers before. But only in games. Like board games or bowling or mini golf. I am not the best loser when it comes to Monopoly for sure.

And sports games. Crowds can get violent after an important game. During the World Cup--and I imagine other organized games as well--violence against women goes up significantly in the country of the losing team. Let me put that into more specific words so the meaning is not dulled: When a team loses a game in the World Cup, more women in that country are violently beaten that night. Because aggression goes up after experiencing a loss. Of a football game.

And in war? If bad losers of board games and football games can act in such ways, what about the losers of a war? And not without reason. Not to say the actions are justified, but I can see how the actions of a loser in war could grow infinitely. If losing means that I see the death of my countrypeople all around me, if losing means that I fall witness to torture and rape and humiliation, if losing means starving and having no place to call home--then yes. I can imagine being a bad loser a very likely thing indeed.

What happens to those feelings after such a loss? They do not fade away into nothingness. They do not slowly dim, resulting in ambiguity.

I can only imagine that they grow. Mutate. Fester into hatred that cannot be forgotten. I can't even imagine feeling this. I am beyond fortunate.

Even in my extremely basic understanding of physics, I understand the principle that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So when people lose in war, the hatred, hurt and desperation must transform into something. If that cannot be turned towards the supposed winner of the war, then it must turn on someone else.

So I ask: does violence ever solve anything?

And the winner? I never really understood how a country or group of people can win a war. To me, that is a cruel slap in the face to every person whose life was lost fighting in that war; a slap in the face to every person who has loved a person who has died fighting to "win".

Yes, I have heard the greater good argument. But it is easy to make that argument when you are still alive. When all of your loved ones are cozy in their beds.

So even when a war is won, the victory is soiled with much blood. And those who do make it home after the war is over? Have they won when they cannot forget all of the violent things they have seen, all of the violent things they have been told to do? If this is what winning is, then my concept of winning and losing needs much reflection...

some afterthoughts...

The lives that are lost to win a war need to be heavily examined. The powerful people that determine if a country goes to war will rarely risk their lives, or the lives of their loved ones. In the U.S., economics play such a huge part in who enlists in the military. It is often the only forseeable choice for young U.S. Americans who cannot afford or no desire to go to university. These people, the ones who will actually risk their lives (and sometimes lose them) to achieve "the greater good" have no power or decision making rights. It is ridiculous to me that the ones deciding where the blood may be spilled, risk none of their own blood. Again, it is easy to wage a violent war when you are safe in your luxurious office.

Also, a friend made a good comment, that warfare should only be waged as an absolute last resort, when everything else has been exhausted. We need to exhaust more options. Of course millions of people are much more complicated than a couple in a relationship, but certainly the priciple can be expanded to war; in a fight between two people in a relationship, there can be many outcomes.

If the people are invested in one another, they will either resolve their conflict so both partners can go on feeling fufilled,cared for and respected, OR they will leave the conflict in a way so one partner is satisfied with the outcome and the other is not. The other partner is then left feeling as though they do not matter as much in the relationship. I don't know about you, but I have experienced this and it is a terrible feeling. Those relationships either end or go on with one partner delusionaly satisfied and the other feeling unfufilled and disconnected.

War is way more complicated than a relationship between two people for sure, but the principles of relationships can apply to many levels.

The luxury to have a reality check

A hallow victory...

One day after the International Day of Peace, I got to thinking. Yes, It is difficult to be a broke student trying to find a job in a bad economy with massive school loans weighing me down. Yes it is frightening to not have health insurance. Nonetheless, I am fortunate.

I have the luxury of sitting here by the window, typing and eating some pineapple. I have the luxury of discussion here on my blog--complaining about companies profiting off women's insecurities, about communication problems and relationships.

Had I been born to different parents, my life could be completely different. I might not have had the luxury of complaining.

I do not have to walk for days in the dessert heat, just to bring water to my family. I do not have to be afraid of being raped every time I go to the bathroom in my refugee camp. I do not have to cry as I look around at the women of my country, knowing that 9 out of 10 of my fellow women have been sexually assaulted. I will not be disowned and forced to commit suicide after being raped.

I am free from being violently thrown from my home, having nowhere else to go. I can rest in peace knowing that I will not be raped by an opposing side in a war that has nothing to do with me. I will not be humiliated. I will not be beaten. I will not have acid thrown in face, blinding and painfully disfiguring me on my way to school. I will not go to a school party and have fellow students assault me and leave me for dead under a bench.

I can sit here, in my quiet study, and know that I will fall asleep tonight safe in my warm bed. I want to make a difference in the world. I don't want to forget others whose lives are so full of hardships.

I don't want to complain. But it seems I have that luxury...

How are regular U.S. Americans surviving?

I have been extensively looking for jobs.
And I mean extensively.

While I finish my thesis and look for stimulating jobs in my field, I have been hunting for a tide-me-over job. Now, do not get me wrong...a job is a job. Any way a man or women can do an honest day of hard work is good by me. I am just really looking forward to starting a career involving my passions. (My passions that I have gone into huge debt over that I will probably be paying off for many years to come).

Anyway. Of all the (somewhere around 30) places I went to and called and followed up on only hire part time. So of course no benefits. And with this crap economy they can pay you less than normal because there are 300 other people who want the exact same crap job as you.

So my question: how are people supposed to survive?

It is difficult enough finding 1 part time job, much the 2 part time jobs that are needed to afford a shitty but bearable existence. On one part time salary, how am I supposed to pay rent? What If I get sick--how am I supposed to afford the doctor, or worse, afford any kind of treatment?

The price of food now is ridiculous! Maybe it is because I have been working and studying abroad for two and a half years now, but don't think so. I feel like going to the grocery store is such a disappointment. Buying 10 measly items racks up a $30+ bill! And I am a vegetarian, so that doesn't even include the cost of meat.

What if I had a family to support? As of right now, I only have my cat to feed. What if I had a kid or 2? Or 3? How on earth would I pay for a roof over their heads, health care, clothing, school supplies, food?

And yet, with every employer it remains the same: "We only hire part time".

How are you surviving, America? I wish the best for everyone. I really do...

Damn. "Femininity" is expensive.

What are we, as women, told is feminine? Long, shiny, voluminous, bouncy, non-frizzy hair. Long, dark, curly eyelashes. Long, hairless, tanned/not tanned legs. Full, colorful lips. Rosy cheeks; dewy complexion. Smokey, defined eyes. Perky breasts. Slim and defined waist. Oh yeah. We are told that looking young is the most important thing of all.

Of course, there is a plethora of products to help women achieve these so called feminine traits. We have all heard the statistic of how many billions of dollars U.S. Americans spend on beauty products, but do we really think about it? Do we think about the consequences, the implications?

You can buy self tanner, skin whitening cream, rouge, blush, straightening irons, curling irons, push up bras, waist cinchers, lip gloss, eyelash curlers (which look like a freaking medieval torture device), cover-up, foundation and powder (We already have skin, for crying out loud! And men aren't concerned with covering up "imperfections" with makeup...), shavers, hair-removal cream, hair-removal foam, hair dye, hair shine treatments, eyelash growth medication, tummy-control tights, lip-plumper lipstick, eyebrow waxing, eyebrow flossing (I don't even want to know how that works). I am not so big into this crap, so I am sure there are many products I am overlooking.

We are often told to 'enhance our natural beauty'. What is wrong with our actual beauty? I think men for sure, and hopefully some women would agree that the unpoked, unplucked, unmade female form is unbelievably beautiful. As is the natural male form.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to look your best, but why does your best have to be SO EXPENSIVE?

How convenient that there is a SHITLOAD of money to be made off women being insecure with their own, natural bodies. Why would anyone with money to be made off making women insecure about their bodies (beauty supply companies, fashion magazines etc..) have any motivation to really want to improve the lives of women? In three words: they would not.

Women: you are beautiful on your own. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Why would anyone tell you otherwise? Because they have power over you and want to make sure they keep that power.

MIS(ter)COMMUNICATION

This afternoon in the car, someone very close to me asked me, "...well, how many men do you know that are good communicators?" (This someone happens to be a man himself, and he also happens to be one of the best male communicators I have ever known).

Okay, so anyway... Excellent question. My answer: sadly, not very many at all.

Why is that? Communication is a vital aspect to maintaining healthy relationships.
A person is much more likely to be successful in a career if they are a good communicator. True, talking is not the only way to communicate--but for sure we, as humans, pride ourselves on rational thought and feeling. And rational thought and feelings are absolutely pointless if they cannot be communicated. Every great idea that graced the mind of people has either been shared or lost forever within the mind of its creator.

So, doesn't it seem to be a major setback for a man to not be a good communicator? Please do not get me wrong--being a woman does not make you a good communicator, and being a man does mean you are a bad one. In the nature versus nurture argument my see-saw tends to plunk down on the nurture side.

What is it? Does our society not value that skill in men? Are they socialized to see communication as a bad thing...or simply not valued?

Why are women labeled the communicators? Why are we seen as the talkers? Yes, I think a person can talk too much, but I also think that a person can talk too little. And plenty of people have trouble communicating in a positive, effective way.

My personal examples: (no names, no relationship details, but men I have known and cared about for a long time) Man 1--He is a great person, smart and caring. But very difficult to talk with deeply. Once every 2 or 3 months, he will open open up and we will have a great conversation for hours and hours. Then the communication window closes and you must wait patiently till it opens again. If you try to get him to open up at other times, he gets bothered.

Man 2--He shows his love by buying things and planning trips. He gets angry very easily and often says very mean and hurtful things out of anger. He says I love you, but can't really communicate it in any other way. He shows love by being a provider, not by communicating feelings.

Man 3--He does not like to fight, but when he does, he gets incredibly angry, mean and hurtful. The other 99% of the time, he avoids any kind of conflict whatsoever. It just builds up in him until it explodes in a very destructive way.

Man 4--He keeps nearly all of his feelings to himself. What affection he can communicate is nearly entirely through his actions. When he is angry,even over something extremely important, he does not deal with it, he will just leave the situation--often forever.

All of these men are really good people that I love or have loved. I am happy we are all different and I know not everyone communicates in the same way. I just wish these men could have communicated with me differently, more positively, more effectively. So many problems in my relationships have been due to miscommunication...one person says something they do not mean, one person takes something in a certain way that was not intended, people withhold their true feelings, people are too afraid to communicate their true feelings. Relationships present enough struggles as it is...not being able to communicate through those struggles makes the situation so much worse. I can't help but wonder, how would my past relationships have been different if we could only communicate what we feel, and in a constructive way?

I do not agree with the archaic concept of it being a man's job to provide for and protect. Sure it is nice when they do, but women should provide and protect too, and a man is no less of a man if fails to kill himself working and communicating etc.. to provide 5 plasma TVs for his family. BUT, this provider "rule" highly contradicts with the non-communicator aspect of masculinity. To be a good provider, you need to be able to communicate well; both with your family (to keep the family close-knit and happy) and in your job or career. To well at most jobs, you need to be able to communicate with your boss and fellow workers.

How many men have I known that can communicate their feelings and thoughts with me well? Very few. That makes me sad, I know many men that have a lot to offer. Men are worth more than their ability to work or perform. They are worth their thoughts and feelings too. Just as women are.

What would the world be like if we could all positively and effectively communicate our feelings? Just imagine...

Women, Men, Money and Divorce

I just read about a study in Time Newsfeed that found women who earn 60% of the household income were almost 40% more likely to get divorced than women who earn less than their male partners.

The author of the article comments that, for women, more money equals more problems. Is that true? I know many women of my parents generation who have stayed in unhappy marriages because the all too important financial side of life pressured them to. As I mentioned in an earlier post, women's jobs and roles are all too often devalued in our society. Women are also traditionally deemed the caregivers, and women do not want to split up their family and subject children (if they have any) to financial woes. It is damned expensive to provide for a kid. I don't have any but I was one--and I am certain I was crazy expensive! Here, again, gender roles need to be redefined. Women are not naturally good caregivers, and men are not naturally the providers.

My mother has always worked just as hard at her career as my father has. (And come home to cook, clean and take care of us growing up). She has worked passionately her whole life in non-violent education, promoting equal rights for people with disabilities, and k-university level education and development. She also makes a fraction of what my (equally hardworking) father does. He works in "Defense". Contracting, strategizing etc...

In regards to the study, of course the stereotypical questions come up...is the man threatened by his mates success? Does the couple fight more due to the income imbalance?

What about questions about the women? Maybe more money simply equals more stability and security. Maybe without being tied to her husband financially, she is able to assess her relationship, without fearing that she will not be able to make it on her own.

For sure, the topic is complicated and has many levels. Many things no doubt contribute to this social phenomenon.

Does that mean that partnerships where the man makes more money than the woman are more likely to stay together? If yes, what does that imply? That too seems to indicate that money and wealth is associated with men and masculinity. And what if men and women make equal amounts? Consider the results of another study: men and women in partnerships who share equally in household chores report significantly better and more satisfying sex lives. Does it seem logical to assume that partnerships where both earn similar incomes are more satisfied in their relationships? I know I feel much more satisfied being in an equal relationship! It is always an issue if one has more or less education, money, life experiences. I know a strong couple can make it through those inequalities, but maintaining a rewarding relationship is difficult enough, without any addition challenges to work through.

And also...what about gay and lesbian couples? Are they more likely to divorce or separate if one makes more than the other? I wish there was more research for all communities!