Christmas and other connections.

I sat down at the computer with the intention of starting this post at 4; it is now close to 5 and I am just getting it started. And as soon as I am done this sentence, I need to go downstairs and pull out some laundry and throw another load in - so I can either try to make this sentence as long as possible, thereby putting off the inevitable for a few more minutes, or I can end it quickly and just get it over with, thereby getting back to this post sooner; not sure which one I will do. I guess it’s moot now; I’m done that bit now.

There have been quite a few thinks going on in my mind lately. I’ve been thinking about some connections that I’ve seen or have made - for example, I was listening to a Pink song this morning, and some of the lyrics made a connection (non-linear, mind you) to this horribly entertaining show I watched for the first time the other day, Jersey Shore. I’ll explore that later.

Song lyrics are always in my mind. I heard a song by Lady Antebellum called “Need you Now” and was very much reminded of “Self Esteem” by the Offspring. That particular connection - which I was also explore later in a post about song lyrics - was curious, given the different styles of music and core audiences of the groups. It lends credence to the theory that music is universal - maybe .

Then again, a lot of things remind me of “Self Esteem”.

Today I thought it would be good to touch on the “Merry Christmas” thing.

We don’t want to offend anyone: Let’s face it, Canada is a multi-cultural nation, as is the US, and Great Britain, and most western countries that celebrate Christmas. If companies insist on having their staff wish everyone a Merry Christmas, they will offend someone. That’s the same reason why we changed our cards to say “Happy Holidays” because even if our customers / clients aren’t christian, the end of the year is still a time of holidays in Canada. No one will be offended if we wish them a Happy Holidays.

Christmas is for Christians: It may be a holiday time for everyone, but Canada and other western nations that celebrate Christmas are founded on Christian principles. The only reason that it is a busy season for retailers is because people are buying Christmas gifts. Retailers in particular should honour the season by making, or at least allowing, their staff wish customers a “Merry Christmas”.

What I think: Not much to talk about on this issue, from the two sides. Not very timely, either. My impression, though, is that both sides have it backwards. Retailers, in particular, should recognize that their sales are due mainly to Christmas shoppers and should be trying to encourage Christmas shoppers to come into their stores. I have never met anyone who is non-Christian who gets offended at being wished a Merry Christmas, and I think that companies who instruct staff not to risk creating negative publicity.

On the other hand, Christians should be offended that retailers, in particular, wish them a Merry Christmas. Retailers use a holy occasion to create more sales; saying Merry Christmas to increase sales sounds a lot like breaking a commandment, using the Lord’s name in vain. Plus, given Jesus’ negative history with retailers (see, for example, his reaction to his church being used a marketplace or the Bible’s prohibitions on paying or receiving interest) it makes wishing shoppers a Merry Christmas more than a little ironic .

How I relate: When I was working in fast food, I never had any directives from head office, my boss, or anyone with the company to not wish people Merry Christmas. I think if I was in a non-retail business, I might keep my Christmas cards saying “Happy Holidays” but even now I send cards saying “Merry Christmas” to people I know are not Christian. If they wanted to send me solstice cards, or Ramadan cards, or anything else, I would think it pretty darn neat that they thought of me. I would not think “ Those jerks - not even asking me what religion I am before they send me a card.”

Sigh. The next load of laundry is just about done. I suppose I will format this and then go check on it.

Still haven't been down to check on the laundry. It did occur to me, however, that it is kind of funny that a lot of Christians do not consider Santa Claus to be an appropriate Christmas symbol - the whole " Let's celebrate the birth of Santa Claus" thing. I think that this is kind of funny because Santa Claus is largely based on people from a strong Christian tradition, while other Christmas symbols, such as the date, are not.

And the time now is just after 6 and I just finished listening to Fall Out Boy's cover of "Beat it".

Too Long

So I finished off the year on a very slow note. In my defence, I was of course busy, had a lot on my plate, etc. No excuse really. I finished with 21 posts, less than 2 a month. So I think that I need to do make some changes to the format of tis. First, quit trying to write an essay on each topic. Certainly I still like the format; it allows me to critically think about an issue and being forced to examine both sides of something makes me much more aware of the flaws in both sides. But it takes me an hour and a half minimum to create a readable post, which is much more that I want to spend on it. So what I propose (to myself, because this is after all, my blog only) is that I keep the same format for posts once a month, and focus on smaller issues twice a month. Maintaining 3 posts a month in this format should be doable. We will see, of course if I can maintain even that.

I had three things that I was thinking about posting here. The first was about Christmas (being that it just passed) and whether businesses should wish their clients Merry Christmas or some other PC greeting, like Happy Holidays. The second was about New years resolutions, and whether they have any value. The third is the one I was discussing with my Dad, and I have enough material to discuss it today. It is somewhat related to the Olympics.

Men are from baseball, women are from softball: Professional competitive sports have to be divided by sex. Women and men are far to different physically to compete in the same arena. Men are stronger and faster; women have better endurance. In team sports, women would never make the team; and in individual sport, women would never even qualify for competition.

Keeping the sexes separate actually gives girls better role models. Boys have their sports heroes to look up to. Only lately, because of the existence of female only sports, have girls had athletic heroes to admire and emulate. Putting the sports together would eliminate a whole generation of heros for girls.

Women also play the games differently than men. Men are much more competitive, much more rough than women are. Women would feel bullied in same sex sports and men would feel like bullies, just for playing the way they are expected to. The overall quality of the games would decline.

Forget Suffrage, we want sportage. Physical ability between genders is not only a myth, it is not relevant for most sports. Sports like golf only have a women’s tee to reinforce the notion that women are weaker than men. As long as this myth exists, it will continue to get reinforced by our society. Breaking down barriers in sport will help to make men and women equal.

A lot of the men who play sports are not in physically good shape. Look at baseball players, for example. Those fat slobs are role models? If women were in professional sports on the same level as men, not only would it help to close a huge wage gap, it would also give girls real role models - one who competed at the highest level and were paid the same as men for it.

Women only play the games differently because they are expected to. Give them the same set of rules, and they will adapt. So will men. All sports change their rules from time to time - changing them to for women would be no different. Sure the games would change -but probably for the better.

What I think: Right now, I think that football is the only sport that women would be unable to play at the same level as men. All the small sports (golf, bowling, darts, stuff like that) physical fitness has little to do with it, and so should all be mixed. Of the major sports - hockey, baseball, football (and rugby in other countries), soccer, and basketball - football is the only one where size makes that much difference. Baseball I think would be the easiest for women to get into, except for the fact that baseball is very American, and Americans like their gender roles. I could easily see women entering the hockey professional ranks first, for two reasons: size, while important, is not the most important thing - speed, accuracy, and agility are more important; and it would open up the market to a whole new set of fans. If the NHL had some female players, especially in it’s smaller markets, it would really attract a lot of attention and generate new fans. And to be competitive in this current sports climate, that is what it needs to do.

I think that if it is going to happen, it would happen for a few positions at a time. Goalies would be an easy fit, because they don’t have much physical contact with other players. Then forwards, and finally defencemen. Baseball I could see them starting in the infield first, and they wouldn’t be power hitters at first. Basketball, they would likely be guards. Football they could be play in some positions - kickers, and possibly receivers, but I think the public would have a real hard time watching women being tackled. Because we think of women as being weaker and also as victims, seeing men hit them hard would be uncomfortable for a lot of people. Soccer, there is no reason why they can’t play on the same field as men.

A good place to start would be the Olympics. There was the start of it this year, although in a roundabout way. When women ski jumpers were denied a chance to compete, it has unintentionally set the stage for women to try to compete in the same category as men in a future Olympics. Some sports would be very hard for people to watch - boxing, for example. Back in the 70’s there was a famous tennis match called “Battle of the Sexes” between a man and woman (both at the top of their game - I forgot who it was between, I think Chris Everett Lloyd and some guy, and I don’t feel like googling it. ---10 minutes later - now I googled it, and it was Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs) in which the woman won. The time is right for that type of thing again.

How I relate: Not much to say in this part. I’m male, so maybe you’d think that I don’t want women in men’s sports. But it seems that having women in an acknowledged second tier devalues them; also it would be good to see men and women actually competing. They do it in every other aspect of modern society; why should sports be different?

Interestingly, my Dad thought that women would be unlikely to play in hockey because of the fighting aspect of it, and there would be resistance to women in baseball because of the “throws like a girl” attitude. He’s right in that the public would not particularly want to see, for example, George Laroque dropping gloves with Hayley Wickenheiser; but they would get used to it. If it ever did happen, it would be very interesting to see where the protests came from - the right or the left, the feminists or the anti-feminists.

Long post this time. 4 pages, if I was handing it in, 7 if it was double spaced; 10 if I put a cover page and references with it. I hopefully will still cover the two topics I mentioned earlier, although they are less and less timely as days do by.