It’s About Making Babies!

Liz at Successful and Outstanding Bloggers asks Bloggy Question 57, about a business blogger posting comments on the contents of a business book, following point by point. The question is how to communicate any disappointment to your friend, the blogger in question.

Liz makes the point that normal practices of acknowledging significant references should hold true for a business blog. (My restatement of Liz’s comments.)

I wonder how this practice came about. Before lawyers got into the copyright business, academic works generally enforced the practice of referencing existing and known references. In part this was to simplify validating work being reviewed. Today the practice has taken on a ‘pay the ogre’ obsession with royalties, plagiarism, licenses, and claiming credit. Some of this probably has value in improving civilization, the collective body of information of the world, and advancing mankind’s knowledge. But mostly it harkens back to ‘my pointy stick is more fearsome than yours, so you better give me that carcass’ aggression.

So where did the academics decide to agree on the practice? I suspect that instructors imposed, as they do today, on students an expansion of their assignment. The instructor wanted to assure the student knew how to check and use base reference material, and providing a list of the references used simplified checking whether the student found references A, B, and C. I am sure that the second student with that assignment did the same thing I did in college - compare notes to be sure all the needed references got included in the list. Sometimes we even look at the reference.

But turn this around. A scholar with low self-esteem will be all to glad to ascribe additional authority, that of accepted, ‘proven’ sources, to as much of a portion of their work as possible. It is common to hear a complaint of research that the work lacks creativity, that little information is published that goes beyond the references cited.

In one sense, I argue that the practice of including references with an article is an expression of low self esteem. Institutionalized.

Lately there has been much angst among bloggers about reviews, references, and posts for pay. Where the paid relationship of the product to the blogger was concealed or simply not acknowledged, some people felt deceived.

Liz seems to feel that her blogger, by not revealing the book she uses to generate her blog, is similarly deceiving her audience.

Possibly the blogger didn’t think of including the reference, just overlooked the idea. Possibly the book that supposedly provides guidance for the blogger was written from the blogger’s earlier works - nothing is known to disprove this question. And possibly the blogger provides sufficient insight and explanation to go far beyond the contents of the book. Or maybe the blogger is confident enough of her work to let it stand alone, without reference to ‘fundamental’ accepted and acknowledged experts. Heck, for all I know, the blogger is systematically correcting the contents of the book!

No one should benefit from theft. Not from taking a purse from a shopping cart (*don’t* leave that cart and purse for a second, ladies!), or from copying someone else’s work and claiming to be the author. But there is a difference between a slavish imposition of an institution of low self esteem among scholars, and the legitimate copyright protection of published work.

Annie at Smart at Love mentions ‘what women want‘, the fundamental things women want in the middle of a long term relationship. Annie’s message is based on a Melbourne Stories blog by Mez, “What Women Want.” Which reflect’s Mez thoughts on a podcast by Australians Hughsey and Kate.

This is a list that Annie mentions:

* acknowledgment for what we do
* to be looked after when we’re sick
* the abolition of slavery (ours)
* to be listened to when we talk
* to be romanced (pash us passionately)
* affection (without promise of result)
* honesty
* equality
* security - to love and be loved without doubt
* respect

OK, this will sound like a smart-ass crack, but bear with me.

A wife is a luxury.

Men take wives for a number of reasons. To build a home with comfort. To have someone that they know well, that knows them, that cares about them. To have sex with, without having to make new arrangements all the time. To gain social contacts and status. To make having children simpler. To have someone to care for.

But most men have less stress, more money, more free time without a wife. Most men can pursue their career, do their job without a wife (although some organizations and companies require marriage for top level positions). Men are supposed to pass an affluence check before marrying — remember the rule, three months’ salary for the engagement ring?

Usually, a man is already putting as much time, effort, and money into a marriage or relationship as he cares to. Now let’s look at Annie’s list again.

This first group has to do with picking a responsible mate, then behaving responsibly with them. People that are honest, loyal, respectful, and caring usually continue that way, unless they change due to trauma or abuse. Pick the right guy in the first place, and treat him honestly, loyally, and respectfully, and you should have everything you want. However, very few people ever acquire these traits later in life. Sometimes. But most often people make a life that reinforces their values, and change seldom happens in the absence of trauma or abuse.

* honesty
* security - to love and be loved without doubt
* respect
* affection (without promise of result)

This saddens me, that anyone has to ask for basic care, respect, and empathy.

* to be looked after when we’re sick

Now, here we go. These requests of women in long term relationships all stem from the role they play. Most of this is dis-satisfaction created by media exploitation. Media, advertising, fashion, novels define fairy tales and pipe dreams (opium pipes, that is) of splendor and feeling like a princess every day. The reality is that we should each feel like ourselves every day. Unlike the basic needs in the parts of the list above, these wishes are negotiable. Each can be earned, or traded for, or achieved by a change in perspective. With the right partner. With the wrong partner (see above, about honor, respect, integrity, discipline), little good will come of anything - accept what is happening, or walk away from the relationship may be the only choice available.

* acknowledgment for what we do
* equality
* to be listened to when we talk
* to be romanced (pash us passionately)
* the abolition of slavery (ours)

Equality is a phantom. No one is equal to another, certainly not a woman to a man. A man won’t get pregnant, carry life to term. At a wedding the bride is dandied like the family treasure, given away by her father in many ceremonies, is bound by expensive and ceremonial rings. Christians define the man as the head of the house. Without getting deeper into what is right or wrong, the fact is that equality is a myth. Work out your relationship, without considering what is equal. ‘Equal’ as a goal is misleading and risks injuring each other over intangibles.

The flip side of this group of the ‘wish list’ is that it likely indicates low self-esteem. It takes low self-esteem to get into a situation these ‘wishes’ describe. It takes low self-esteem to view one’s life in those terms. A healthy perspective can accept almost any role in life, without feeling burdened or trapped or badly used, or taken for granted.

If someone feels like a slave, feels unappreciated, feels unwanted, those feelings are real. And the situation should change. A useful solution should take into account that the person feeling trapped got themselves into that role, that the person’s partner probably isn’t particularly happy with their role, but is unlikely to want to change. (Change is always painful.) A solution has to resolve why the person got there, what the issues are keeping the situation going, and take into account what role the person’s partner is reasonably likely to play in solving anything. People of good character should be able to improve things, perhaps together and perhaps with guidance.

Which goes back to the essential foundation of a relationship: Pick a partner of good character, temperate, honest, disciplined. They will be more likely to help solve problems that come up, and will care more to solve problems.