Social Archives - More Letters to the Corinthians

Names

Looks like the whole world is getting in on this relabeling thing. Egypt just announced they’re changing the name of their soccer team to the Cairo Practors. Previously it was the Sonic, referring to the speed and outstanding play of the team, but apparently some meteor got offended.

Back home, I’m sure we’ll get through this. Within months we’ll see the Washington Memes, the Cleveland Also-Cavaliers, the Los Angeles Looters, and out here the Edmonton Cantaloupes. But that’s not what worries me. I say, we should be discussing the nationality names we’ve given each other. You know, words like “spaghetti bender,” “kraut,” and “kamikaze.” They too probably need an update. So here are some suggestions:

Italians – spaghetti bender was fine but now that everyone is eating it, perhaps we need a change. Besides, dagos have moved up in the world. How about something that recognizes our accomplishments in the fashion industry like, “Mr. Gucci over there” or “Lady Ferragamo.” This would be nice.
Portuguese – these guys are tired of being called pork chops. They’re noble people and Portugal is a beautiful place. So how about we call them Portuguese for now and if you see just one, a Portcha-goose?
Greeks – all those crowbar jokes have to go. They’re getting old and Greek men are lousy in bed. I say little feta-cheezers or Opa Winfries, but no more crowbar jokes.
Armenians – nobody ever talks about these people. They’d just like to be mentioned.
Asians – like the Greeks, they’re sick of Asian driver jokes. So they’re not that good at it. Take out more insurance.

And while we’re talking, here are a few more:

The Fat – something that ties into snowmen, like frosties or mountain people.
The Skinny – I think beanpole is still good. Hasn’t been over used.
Gays – no name in particular, just keep mentioning the parade.

Long story short, it’s good to have labels for the different looks of people. Not only do they act as wonderful terms of endearment but they’re efficient for telling police. So let’s keep the custom going. Then again, you could see the whole thing as being bigoted and say it’s time to move on. No more need to tease each other based on ethnicity, colour, or shape. And you might be right. Most of these sayings are out of date. Yes, they once served a purpose. Back in the day, laughing at each other was a great way to break up tension. Comics like Don Rickles used stereotypes to bring people together and it worked. Joking gave folks the freedom not to fear one another and then be themselves. But perhaps this style has passed. The melting pot has melted and today we’re mostly the same.

Just one question, can we still make fun of the Leafs?

Italian Blood Brothers

White people have this tradition to bond friendships that they learned from the Natives. Each man pricks his finger and the two exchange blood. This old trick solidifies the relationship so they get through thick and thin together. This way, no matter what happens, I’ll hang in there.

Italians have a different system. Instead of pulling out a hatchet we insult each other right at the start. This way, no matter what happens it’s not the end of the world. Getting the worst out early works for two obvious reasons: one, Italians suck at physical altercation and two, we love to shout.

Magic words

The magic words are FU and calling the other a knob. These are the biggies that make two gentlemen friends. If your relationship can survive these simple insults it’s ready for the long term. That’s why we test it early—so nobody wastes time.

Of course, white people are different. Even after trading blood, most friendships remain tenuous. You could be buddies for twenty-something years, swapping both blue jeans and beer, only to cross this imaginary line and poof—it’s over. Italians could never operate like this. We wouldn’t have friends.

Anger

Hey, anger is natural and it’s good to sound off. Some on a daily basis, some by the hour. People need to blow off steam from time to time because it’s unhealthy to keep thoughts bottled up. But what’s important is that everyone gets over it.

The problem with white people—those from the British Isles, Germany, Holland, and Rural Alberta—is they’re sensitive to being called stupid. Italians don’t have this problem. We already know we are. Intellectual superiority isn’t important to us. But with white people it’s a really big deal. That’s why you have to watch yourself around them.

Summary

Allowing immigration was a wonderful idea (and thanks again) but newcomers aren’t just about cheap labour and good food. You can learn many things from us and fighting is one. Letting out opinions without repercussion is a great way to communicate and you’ll fall in love with it fast. Nobody is Zeus around here. We’re all on the same path.

So put on the pasta and say what you think. Honesty is a great step on the way to progress. But remember, there’s one cardinal rule—no mothers.

Don Cherry

There isn’t a person in Canada who doesn’t have an opinion on Don Cherry. Some like him, some not. I do. Not because he knew so much about the game or dressed a little funny, but because his character was reminiscent of the past. For years, hockey watchers turned up the volume whenever loudmouth came on the air, even if they didn’t like the guy. Why? Because he had something to say. And that’s what I’ll miss.

Having grown up in a mostly immigrant family, I’ve never been offended by anyone’s speech. Oversimplifications and speaking your mind were always in vogue because we didn’t know any other way. We weren’t fancy people who knew how to mind their p’s and q’s. So in light of Don’s dismissal, I’d like to make two points: one on immigrants and another about free speech.

Russell Peters

A basic rule in comedy is you can’t pick on the weak. Audiences don’t like it and it’s technically a cheap way to get a laugh. Women, immigrants, and the disabled were off limits unless you did it perfectly. You could easily talk about masturbation and getting stoned every day, but stay away from anything controversial. That was until Russell.

Russell Peters opened the door to talking about immigrants and coined the Canadian version of the term, white people. For years he struggled until one day he struck. His brand of immigrant-based humour exploded and Russell went on to perform all over the world. But how? What happened? What changed?

What changed is that people from Asia no longer considered themselves weak. That’s why they showed up in droves to laugh at themselves. And white people couldn’t get over it. They didn’t understand how you could joke about idiosyncrasies without being condescending. And that a poke at obscure habits was just silly fun. It blew them away.

Enter the new world, all immigrants are not weak. And the immigrant community, namely brown people from Mississauga, could have handled these remarks without any help from you. As a matter of fact, it’s disrespectful to insinuate people from India and Pakistan don’t have the ability to fight their own fight. They don’t need white people for protection. (For example, one councillor from Brampton openly tweeted against the remarks but didn’t feel Cherry should have been fired. He wanted another go at him—like the time Don ended up wearing a tutu.)

Rednecks

Over the past 30 years, this man could have been fired for numerous causes. These comments over wearing a poppy are the least of his offenses. He’s called out French Canadian players along with the Swedes for, shall we say, their hockey habits. But years later he called Vincent Lecavalier along with Jerome Iginla the top two players in the world. And more recently says Frederik Andersen is the best goalie in the league. (Of course, Frederik is from Sweden.)

Now did Don make these statements out of political correctness or did his new views come from prolonged observation just like any other redneck. I say personal experience, which is another reason why this should have been left alone. When we quelch certain fires too soon they don’t get a chance to naturally burn out. And that’s how most rednecks learn. Time, conversation, and then cultural osmosis.

We ended this conversation early, which was a mistake because it would have been a beauty.

Summary

The action by Sportsnet was premature and not in a million years would I have done it. They knew full well what he was before signing and this incident didn’t break the camel’s back. He’s done worse and if you listen to the whole tape, this was kinda minor—not racist. They could have exited him gracefully. At the end of his contract, which should have been signed annually.

But I’m not worried about Don. He’ll be fine. (Lost, but fine.) I’m worried about me. I often blurt out nonsense without thinking. Then someone pushes back and I reconsider my thoughts. It’s a natural way of learning. You empty your garbage from time-to-time just to reload. “Oh, but you’re not on TV.” Yes I am. We all are. Every text, Facebook, and twit is being recorded and can be used against you. And if people decide to make it an unforgiving world, I’m susceptible to losing my reputation just like everyone else.

That is, unless white people are there to protect me.

Truth

Lots of people have trouble arguing these days, especially with so much to fight about. Some feel it’s a duel to the death and somehow family honour gets involved. They go after each other tooth and nail until somebody has to pull down their pants. It’s crazy. So here’s the news: arguing is the way to get closer to truth. You must engage.

If you want to get Greek about it, how do you think philosophy got started? Plato, Aristotle, and the boys were not geniuses. They just pushed each other until finding something worth writing down. And this pushing came mostly from friends (each other).

So fighting is good and a healthy way to spend time, but if done incorrectly you can lose pals. A situation that can be avoided by using three simple rules: social issues aren’t science, you must continually hone views, and an argument is never over. You keep fighting and honing until never reaching the end.

Science

In the world of science, whenever someone makes any sort of claim the community goes about its best to prove them wrong. Only after surviving this barrage of meticulous testing is any one claim deemed to be actual fact. But when it comes to social situations, how do we discover truth in the absence of certainty? There’s nothing to measure and we can’t generate tests that continually yield the same results.

Answer: the very same way. Do your best, put it up for examination, and wait for sparks to fly. Then after getting ripped apart a few times, jump back up and make adjustments. This way you get closer to rock solid. Yes, the process is frustrating but it’s the only way.

Honing

In comedy, you can’t get good unless you perform before small crowds. With large ones, there’s always some group that’s laughing. But with 20-30 people, you can hear the difference. Less than half isn’t the same as 75-90%—the line between A-jokes and B’s. But once you hone your act, roars will be thunderous back on the big stage.

Making an argument is the same sort of thing, you don’t just do it once. It’s not like writing a speech. With comedy you get to practice and perform, over and over. Now think of lawyers arguing the same case in multiplicity. Each time they present, statements can be refined until delivering only A-type material. Lots of work, but totally cool when done.

Approach

We’ve all seen TV courtrooms so we basically know the format. It’s not a verbal fist fight. We’re hosting a sensible discussion with some awesome points. But for seekers there’s a difference. Our lawyers aren’t just trying to win, we’re engineers searching for truth.

Write down allegations, address them one by one, and list agreed upon facts. Then when getting to the details, recognize the hard work. Not as entertaining as entertainment, but fun the same way. Defendants are usually charged with multiple counts, so settling one doesn’t finish the whole case. Participants should be respectful and try to agree. And it’s okay to table things. The goal isn’t about winning, it’s to better one’s truth.

What screws people up is emotion. Something a real court dismisses. So before starting any new fight please make a choice: are you looking for emotional validation or searching for truth? Because if it’s truth you desire, put feelings aside. Emotions cloud logic and cause PsD. No sense tackling an issue when your mind’s already made up.

Summary

People are dying to argue but we really don’t know how. There isn’t a common system and feelings get messed up. But for those who partake there’s one golden rule. No getting pissed off. If you enter the ring, be prepared for conflict. Not everyone sees things the same. And though we’ve been taught to be well-mannered, sometimes the gloves come off. It’s just the nature of the game. But in the end, it’s worth it. (And what else do you do when retired.)

Adversaries are not enemies, they’re friends. And nobody ever loses when both parties win.

An Irish argument differs because it’s mostly based in fun. The idea is to make everything up. But a genuine disagreement is more serious and a true test of will. Buddies get called out, which helps make the point. And pushing people to do better is one of the nicest things. So grab a shovel and come digging. We’re headed for the centre of the Earth. Sure we’ll never get there, but at least we’ll live trying.

Feminism

Established in the 1950s, we still have government programs dedicated to the advancement of women. Are these departments still worthy of public funding or is it time women should stand on their own? A good question that deserves an answer. Let’s start by defining the term weak. It can only result from three factors:

gender intelligence
cultural norms
nature

When it comes to the first, Jordan Peterson says there’s no difference between the sexes. He says guys are a little more this way and women a little more that, but on the whole, intellectual differences are negligible. So point number one is out.

Culture

Cultural norms were real, certainly in the 1800s, but are they still applicable today? Back in the day, large families were hosted on farms with men and women performing different duties. It goes without saying that both involved a lot of work, but men primarily did the farming while women helped out and then cared for the home. Once we got to the 80s, with women fully engaged in the workforce, those roles changed.

When discussing this new system within a mixed group, a fellow said, “In my house we use the rule of sidewalk in, sidewalk out.” (Referring to older style homes where a sidewalk dawned the front of every doorway. So guys cut lawns and trimmed bushes while gals vacuumed, etc.). A lady replied, “If my husband came home with that attitude I’d put a sidewalk right through our living room.” Times they were a changing.

There are many valid reasons for why things were the way they were. If men were responsible for family income, why wouldn’t they be the first to access education in a world with only limited spaces? And back then, nobody really had a problem with it. As a result, women were later to get the vote. But remember, as per the article on British History, there was never a time when all men could vote and all ladies could not. Achieving the vote was a gradual affair for both sexes. And in places like Wyoming, pioneer women were given the vote the day the state was incorporated (1869). Just like men (for state affairs).

The past is the past, and things have changed due to modernization. People of my age group bore witness to the second half of feminism. During my lifetime, women had equal access to education (for example, in my college residence there were 160 girls and 140 boys) and equal access to employment. As a result, women now dominate certain industries. For example, if you break business down into three categories: sales, product, and admin, you’ll see sales is 50/50, men dominate product, and women are the majority in admin.

On a side note, women dominate sales positions where the primary purchasers are female (e.g., household goods) and men dominate the area of industrial goods. So women sell to women and men sell to men. Currently, sales positions are evenly split, but there is a pay gap due to product positions paying better than admin. For example, entry level labour jobs in the construction industry pay better than entry level clerks at an insurance company.

Women in the 60s were often paid less for the same job (say, a store clerk) because certain employers felt the principle behind dual income families was somewhat cheating. That because a wife held a job, the family had an advantage that led to a nicer home. So some of this was straight discrimination and some was in response to the new society. And remember, most of the guilt early working mothers felt was not from hubby, it came from parents (especially, moms).

Anyway, the past is the past and here’s where we are. The greater majority no longer live on farms, there’s lots of room within education, everyone gets to vote, family sizes are smaller, and almost every kid is placed into daycare. We’ve arrived. So does Canadian culture now play any significant role in determining gender occupations or wages?

Many say no. That as gender bias was no longer required, it gradually washed itself out. And today we’re left with only nature to blame for various outcomes.

Nature

For those who agree, we have only the last alternative. That even though ladies are just as smart and now have equal opportunity, they’re somehow disadvantaged simply because they’re women. Good question which brings a divided answer.

Ask any of the new “female majority doctors or school principals” if they belong to the weaker sex and you’ll get a cuff in the head. They don’t appreciate the insult. But ask the not-so-successful in the workplace and you may get a different response. Which brings us back to the original question.

Alberta didn’t have a ministry for the advancement of women for 23 years before the NDP brought it back. Should it be back and what if the Conservatives (if elected) reverse this decision? To help with your opinion, consider the following:

there are just as many economically disadvantaged men (and they don’t have an agency)
a waitress makes more than a waiter
retail store clerks all make the same

Summary

Lots of talk these days about the patriarchy; mostly coming from postmodern feminists still trying to make change. They say modern society is a long way from ideal. Sure, equality of opportunity is good but we also need equality of outcome. Meaning girls should bring home the same paycheck as boys, regardless of work.

For them, administrative postings must be reclassified to generate the same pay as even dangerous positions that involve braving the elements, oftentimes out of town (e.g., construction jobs). And they may start asking female part-time workers to pick up their game to 40 hours just to make numbers look better for some professor.

So here’s the question. Where’s the report card and when will this whole affair be over? Are we 60% of the way there? 70%? 40%? And who’s in charge of making the final assessment? Is there going to be a referendum, voted on by only women, that eventually says enough?

There’s no question society has changed over the past 70 years and that much progress has been made. But sometimes these things go overboard, specifically when a cause doesn’t know when it’s finished. It’s easy to make gains in an affluent society when you have truth on your side. You just highlight an injustice and provide a viable solution. But once all that stuff is done, adversaries still need a job. Always a problem with issues.

Personally, I feel we’re there and don’t see a reason for reinstituting a provincial agency to promote women. But my voice counts only for one. What do you think?

Stormy

Stormy Daniels entered the press lately for indiscretions performed by the president, but she’s much more of an example of what not to do. Why? Because voluntary prostitution is simply part of society and there’s an established way of doing it.

At some point in their lifetime, 15-20% of men will use the service of a prostitute and over 90% will visit a strip joint. For ladies, these figures are less than one percent—so let’s stop pretending we’re the same when it comes to sex. We’re not.

The service of sensual massage or full-fledged contact is fundamental for getting men to work. Because if there’s nothing in life for me, why bother? And let’s be honest, not all wives are into it. There’s a movement going on for governments to step in and subsidize the industry. It says men should be able to receive such a service, from a reasonable technician, in a reasonable location, at a reasonable price. And these folks might be right. But regardless of outcome, voluntary prostitution is with us and as such must conform to certain standards.

Like medicine and money, it’s an intimate industry. Financial advisors know all about your assets and doctors have heard everything about your cysts. But they don’t go around telling the world—discretion is implied. The same goes for the sex trade. Service providers know about you sexually and this information must stay classified. So what Stormy did is inexcusable.

If you’ve got a big one or not, or whether you like to dress up in drag is top secret information. And every hooker out there knows it. Plus you’re not supposed to go on TV and say “Ya, it was that guy.”

Stormy Daniels undermined basic human decency and set back her sister profession by a hundred years. All for the sake of money. Are you kidding me? He gave her $130K. So make up all the porn videos you want—when it comes to being a hooker, I’m scratching you off the list.

#MeToo

There’s a scuffle going on these days over the #MeToo movement. What started out as a protest against gross sexual misconduct and abuse of power has turned into a general discussion over sex-based attitudes. What’s appropriate and what’s not. Many men are offended by what they feel are phony claims and even some women are saying allegations have gone too far. But politicians aren’t sexy enough to lecture us on any of this so we’ve asked our favourite personality to come forward and lay down the law.

Jennifer Aniston

We met up with Jennifer Aniston at her home in Bella Luna Del Ray and here’s what she had to say.

“Guys have crazy drives—they never know what they want. Half are horny as billy goats and some are deviates that girls should stay away from. That’s how the movement got started. Then it expanded into other areas, which made some people upset.”

When asked about Hollywood she replied, “Look, there are lots of good looking people down here and who wouldn’t want to jump their bones. But it comes down to sexual propriety. No matter what someone wants, it’s my body. So hands off, unless I say so.” After admitting that most people will never meet a Hollywood exec (and Spielberg is nice), Jenn said there are two parts to the movement: calling out predators (sleazy guys in power positions) and hosting a discussion about appropriateness. She then offered three general rules for those of us stuck in ordinary lives:

Sober guys can’t sleep with drunk girls
Girls can’t use their sexuality at work
Everyone needs to respect the difference between valid complaints and frivolous claims

“Sober guys sleeping with drunk girls is plain wrong, especially when it’s the first time. If you’ve been dating a long time, that’s different. But when you see a young woman smashed out of her mind, be a gentleman and get the lady home. You might only get a thank you in the morning but you’ll earn a reputation that’s important among women. And the workplace is simply for that. Ladies shouldn’t cheat by showing a little cleavage in the boardroom. This doesn’t mean you can’t have a drink after work but true sexuality should be reserved for when everyone’s gone home. Save it for friends, husbands, husbands of friend’s, and boy scouts who come to the door.” (She then smiled and I couldn’t help but wonder if my uniform still fit.)

Lastly, those fostering frivolous claims only water down the movement. Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion but making a big deal out of regular events disrespects the seriousness of the message. Every crusade is intended to change the world so be careful what you ask for.

In general

Jennifer says acknowledging predatory men is certainly an issue that needed to come out. “We should know about this, but men and women have never gotten along so well. And though we still have things to work out there aren’t 17 million predators (postings on #MeToo).” Sexual appropriateness is then the second side of the cause. “Ever since we left the culture of the 1950s, there has been confusion over the roles of ladies and men. Not everyone is clear how it all works. Sure, we’ve had sexual revolutions but that doesn’t mean everyone sees things the same way. Plus a lot of this revolves around booze. It’s well known that alcohol lowers a man’s inhibitions and brings out his horns. It also makes girls vulnerable. So the rule is: if she’s drunk, take her home; if he’s drunk, don’t let him in.

Jenn adds, “Women don’t understand the male sex drive—that’s why so many find this surprising. Maybe it’s time for fathers and daughters to have a discussion about men. Because when it comes to overtly aggressive guys, we still live in a jungle.” The interview ended as I watched her drive away in her white corvette. Thanks Jennifer.

Note: The #MeToo movement is predominantly real and we’re coming to a new understanding between women and men. Here are the links to their website and Wiki page.

Racism, Eh?

A previous article dealt with the question of racism in America. This week we had allegations of racism right here in Canada. To better understand this concept, please meet Farmer John.

Farmer John lives on the Canadian prairies, right near a campground purchased by the Hell’s Angels. The Angels do some pretty serious partying on Saturday nights and sometimes go into town to cause havoc. They don’t physically shoot anyone or inflict personal harm, but they do steal things and damage some property, and folks around here don’t like it.

As a matter of fact, Farmer John is often afraid and sometimes feels he’s in danger. It’s not that he doesn’t like people who ride motorcycles or get tattoos, but he knows that whenever people from the campground show up, drunk—trouble can get started.

Now let’s substitute Angels with Italians—the kind that were in the mob. Farmer John is friendly with the Grazianos and always buys his salami from Pusateri’s Bar and Grill, but whenever those boys from the mob show up, he gets incredibly anxious (even though they’re all very handsome).

So is Farmer John a racist? Comedian Chris Rock says, “There are two kinds of black people and I’m afraid of the other kind too.” But we don’t call him a racist. So what gives?

Racism

Racism is defined as blanket discrimination against one group by another. For example, in the US under Jim Crow law, black people weren’t allowed to drink from certain fountains. It didn’t matter if you were the smartest, nicest, kindest, or most industrious black person on the planet, you weren’t allowed to drink from those fountains.

The same can be said of the poor treatment of Irish Catholics by the British. For over 400 years, people in Ireland either had to convert to Protestant or weren’t allowed to vote. So the ones who decided to stay the same were denied this right (along with a host of other privileges).

Because of intermarriage, Hutus and Tootsies in Rwanda looked so much alike they brought it down to the width of your nose. And the government had to issue mandatory identity cards to tell people apart. So if you didn’t have the right card on you, you were deemed to be no good. ISIS does the same sort of thing regarding religion and Nazis did it with Jews. (And if you want to get technical, Catholics do it by not allowing women to hold positions of power and Mormons do it when they won’t allow women to count money—all because of boobs.)

Saskatchewan

The incident in Saskatchewan this week was featured as an act of racism, but was it?

Everyone knows there are long existing problems with people on reservations. That between alcohol and other factors not all the kids are well raised. And some of these kids grow up to have real issues that lead them into town to do harm. We also know that folks in the nearby community can easily say hello to one band member in the morning, only to be afraid of another at night.

Reservations have existed in Canada for more than 300 years and members from both sides continually try to resolve these problems. But people aren’t naive about the possibility that things may never work out.

No one will ever dig into the details of this particular case. They won’t read the transcripts, get to know the law, or understand what the jury was told by the judge. That’s because it doesn’t matter. This shooting will go down as a bunch of disorderly drunks from the local reservation going onto Farmer John’s land to cause havoc. And the pulling of this trigger will get etched into stone.

Of course, the newspapers in Toronto will have their say—jumping and screaming like westerners are impersonating the States. But people out here know that what happened occurred on a much deeper level, not something to be labelled by race.

They say you can only poke the bear so many times until something eventually breaks. And it’s no secret that under their breath many people grumbled the word, good. But these same people are now realizing this boy should never have borne the brunt of a cumulative past, and will hopefully take time to reflect. In the meantime, for everyone in Toronto, this farmer’s actions weren’t based in racism.

It’s more like the problem we used to have with Italians.