You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2018.
I’ve done this to several men, and they catch on rather quickly. You’ll be able to have a conversation right then and there, and it works long term too – they might’ve forgot their manners by the time you talk to them again, but by repeating this, they’ll eventually learn to let you talk without you having to do this at the start of every convo. Source: I have a very stubborn older brother, who eventually learned too.
1. When they interrupt you, stop talking. Don’t try to raise your voice or battle them. Be completely quiet and wait.
2. Ignore everything they’re saying. Do not actually listen – just wait until they shut up. Don’t make a point of anything they say, do not answer to anything they say, do not refer to anything they say here. Literally do not listen a single word. Let them rant as long as they want.
3. When they finally shut up and wait for your reaction, say: ”I wasn’t done talking.”
4. Start over whatever you were saying when they interrupted you. I don’t care if it was a 10-minute explanation of rocket science. Start. Over. Repeat you original thought, but do not add anything related to what they just said while talking over you. That gives them the idea that it’s okay to interrupt you, you’ll still listen and pay attention and they’ll get their point clear without having to listen to yours. (It’s especially funny when you get done and they expect you to keep going talking about whatever they talked over you. The face when it sinks in that you didn’t listen a single word is glorious.)
5. If they interrupt you again, return to step 1. If you find yourself repeating the cycle over 3 times, tell them: ”you’re not letting me speak. Either you listen and wait for your turn, or our conversation ends here.” If they try to make excuses, laugh it off or keep interrupting, end the conversation. Prove them that if they wont let you speak, they’re not worth your time.
Why does this work? First, because sometimes talking over is internalized and men don’t actually notice they’re doing it. Being vocally called out makes them realize it and pay attention to it – especially if it happens more than once. Secondly, by refusing to acknowledge anything they say when they interrupt you, they’ll soon realize they will not get their own point across if they keep doing that. People and especially men have the need to be heard and paid attention to when they talk – when you make it clear that by talking over you, they will not have your attention, they’ll learn to wait until you’re done, because they know that’s when you will be paying attention and actually listening.
Go my darlings. Have some actual conversations where your point of view is just as valid as his. Demand the basic respect of being heard. You can actually have some interesting conversations with men when they’re forced to listen too, when being louder is not going to make them feel like they’re dominating the conversation or winning the argument.
Entrenched patriarchal attitudes and norms are the enemy. Pervasive, ‘invisible’, and yet ubiquitous. The battles that must be undertaken are fraught with notion of the permanence of patriarchy and how unassailable it seems.
It isn’t. Just reaching one person and showing them the way is a victory, savour it and use it to power the next task at hand.
I felt as if I had to put a little inspiration before this quote of the day, as it is a bit on the disheartening side, but necessary to see the breadth of the task at hand.
“The female “gender-blenders” interviewed by Devor (1989) can help us see how women’s ambivalence about being female usually tends to reinforce patriarchy. These women clearly identified with men. They dressed like men, and they viewed women as most men view women— inferior. They showed strong devaluation of femaleness and of the subordinate behaviors assigned to women by the male-dominant culture. Their strong rejection of the feminine role for themselves was related to their strong acceptance of the message, presented to them by older family members, that females are sexual objects, are subordinate, and are deficient in comparison to men.
It is probably impossible for women not to internalize men’s denigration of femaleness and femininity to some extent. For example, both the women who adopt the feminine role for themselves and the genderblenders described by Devor have internalized the notion that females are subordinate. Neither group questions male culture’s definition of femaleness and femininity. The gender-blender challenges the belief that she is a subordinate but not the belief that women as a group are subordinate.”
|
|
In Canada it is easy to see where elite consensus lies. Marijuana legislation is barrelling ahead (potheads rejoice!) and electoral reform is dead in the water and slowly sinking out of the public’s consciousness.
This is how electoral reform died in Canada:
“In response, Trudeau pointed to a difference of opinions among the major political parties.
“As people in this House know, I have long preferred a preferential ballot. The members opposite [in the NDP] wanted proportional representation. The Official Opposition wanted a referendum,” he said, gesturing toward the Conservatives.
“There is no consensus. There is no clear path forward. It would be irresponsible to do something that harms Canada’s stability.”
Later, in response to a question from May, Trudeau expanded on his explanation.
“Anything a prime minister or a government must do must be in the interest of Canada and all Canadians, particularly when it comes to transforming our electoral system. I understand the passion and the intensity with which the member opposite believes in this and many Canadians mirror that passion and that intensity.”
“But there is no consensus, there is no sense of how to do this. And, quite frankly, a divisive referendum, an augmentation of extremist voices in this House, is not what is in the best interests of Canada.”
It is quite odd that ‘building consensus” and “augmentation of extremist voices” were of such a deeply troubling concern to our dear Prime Minister. The Liberal Party currently holds a majority in our House of Commons – 184 seats (14 more than the required 170) – so they can pass whatever damn legislation they choose, at any time, and the opposition can do precisely diddly-squat about it.
Enter the consensus building. Or, to look at things slightly more Machiavellian, why would the government dismantle the electoral system that has brought it to power tweny-four times since the inception of Canada as a nation?
I’m pretty sure that’s all that needs to be said on the issue of electoral reform.
The other half of the story is the legalization of marijuana and that folks is an example, par excellance of Canadian Government policy careening downhill on the greasiest of skids. Nothing is going to stop this fully loaded freight-train of weed goodness. (I have heard nary a whisper of building consensus on this issue – it’s just getting done). From the Liberal Party website –
” Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.
Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses. At the same time, the proceeds from the illegal drug trade support organized crime and greater threats to public safety, like human trafficking and hard drugs.
To ensure that we keep marijuana out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, we will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana.
We will remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code, and create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework.”
Oh the principled anguish!
I’m not buying it for a second. The legality of marijuana is a trivial issue. It will not affect those in the halls of power one iota. And, thus we have this great commitment and expressed vigour to helping all Canadians and making things better for the country. (Clearly, reforming the skewed FPP electoral system won’t benefit Canadians or the country…)
“OTTAWA — The Canadian government has introduced sweeping legislation designed to permit the recreational use of marijuana throughout the country by July 2018, fulfilling an election promise by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The bill, inspired in part by the experiences of cannabis regimes in Colorado and Washington state, goes well beyond the U.S. situation, where marijuana remains prohibited at the federal level. In Canada, the federal government will change criminal law nationally and will license growers and set product standards while leaving it up to the provinces to handle distribution and manage retail sale.
Canada will become the first large industrialized nation with a broad system permitting recreational as well as medical use of marijuana. At present, only Uruguay has a national legal regime permitting widespread use of cannabis.”
*sigh* – Oh, Canada. :/
Just a note, I do not advocate tossing cats into black holes. I can think of several more worthy human candidates before we even *considered* throwing in the kittehs.
Ah, 2018 opens with a intelligently compelling argument brought to you by none other than the nigh-famous Ken Ham. (Folks, I think may have fused my cortex writing the words intelligently and compelling in the same sentence as Ken Ham).
So this happened.
Then they changed it to this.
Like the climate change that comes along with carbon emissions DOESN’T hurt us. Short term thinking is our bane. For the record – the carbon tax is a necessary feature of our society if we wish to continue to progress as a society and a nation.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…