*Interesting fact: The image to the left is in the first row if you do a google image search for “power tools.”

As part of our research for the WEFC’s Women & Social Icons Initiative, we watched the long version of this video.

It awakened me to the power of advertising, and to the insidious violence inherent in ads like this one I saw today (pictured below). Unfortunately, like for most of us, it’s not only normal to see these ads, but they have been foundational in the development of my belief & value systems about women, and consequently, about my self.

So how does advertising like this affect us on a subconscious level? How does using select faceless body parts affect our view of women, and our value and role in society? In “Killing Us Softly 4,” Jean Kilbourne states, “Turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step in justifying violence against that person.”  Of course, this does not only apply to women.

For example, what if we see people as “viewers” rather than human beings?  As viewers, we are concerned with ratings and the revenues they will bring us.  Perhaps as human beings, we may concern ourselves with how the information affects them, how it may drive their values and choices, and, ultimately, how it drives society. Here’s an interesting article in the NYTimes.

The media may be the most powerful tool of our time. Like a scalpel, which in the hands of a surgeon can be used to save lives yet in the hands of a murderer to destroy them, this “power tool” is in our hands and how we use it should be of great concern to each of us.

This subject is of great interest to me and I will be writing more about it.  In the meantime, The Media Education Foundation is a great resource for anyone interested in the power of media and how it is used. Also check out their channel on YouTube.

The Science of Music: Sounds Wonderful | The Economist

“MUSIC is a mystery. It is unique to the human race: no other species produces elaborate sound for no particular reason. It has been, and remains, part of every known civilisation on Earth.”

This article about music captured my attention and delighted me. It aroused my love of music. I love the way music moves me, the way it touches my soul and invites it to dance, feel and express. Music connects me to my inner most self. Enjoy!

On his most recent visit to the US, I was privileged to hear His Holiness the Dalai Lama speak. First in Los Angeles, where he spoke mostly about Cultivating Compassion, in a series of events sponsored by Whole Child International; and then in Ft. Lauderdale, where he broached such subjects as The Responsibilities of Ethics in Higher Education In Today’s Society and Compassion as a Pillar of World Peace. Whether His Holiness’ message is global or specific, I always find it simple and beautiful, touching the hearts of all who hear it.

As I followed His Holiness from event to event, I began to think about my relationship with him and with Tibet. Why is this important to me? Why would I spend a week of my time following him, listening to him, supporting him?

I realized that, to me, His Holiness and Tibet represent my highest values: human values. When I look at the world and humanity, I see we are sorely lacking these values. It seems we believe, and are taught to do so from the minute we can perceive, that everything we need to fulfill us comes from the outside world.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama

When I hear His Holiness say over and again to the world – to celebrities, educators, leaders, politicians, and to the millions of people watching Larry King, the “real source of peace is inner peace,” it resonates with me. In stark contrast to almost everything else society teaches us, His Holiness advocates wherever he goes that joy, love, peace and security are not in things, but in us.

This message deeply resonates with me and is at the core of the World Ethical Foundations Consortium (WEFC.) If we believe our experience of peace and joy come from things, it is understandable we would want to protect and control having those things, and perceive each other as potential threats and perpetrators. If however we can experience reality – what we seek in things and others is in us – our perspective and feelings toward each other as humans can shift. Rather than see each other as threats to our happiness, we can see each other as the key to experiencing more.

This alignment of values and perspectives is why my relationship with His Holiness and with Tibet is so sacred to me. I have, and will continue to take a strong stance, in whatever way I can, supporting Tibet in its struggle with China simply because I see their struggle as humanity’s struggle and as my struggle. Tibet and China represent opposing forces within me: the struggle between my quest for internal peace and love, and my fixation with gaining those things from the external world. Supporting and upholding His Holiness and Tibet is supporting and upholding my own humanity. Every time I vote for him with my words or actions, I vote for a better, safer, more humane world, both internal and external to me.

A few years ago, I felt incredibly inspired listening to my friend and mentor Keith Raniere speak about what he hoped would become a new humanitarian trend. His vision caused me to rethink my concept of “cool,” as well as my relationship to what I consider “cool” and what it even means to be “cool.”

Have you ever thought about it?  What is cool?

According to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ¹cool

Pronunciation: \ˈkül\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English col, from Old English cōl; akin to Old High German kuoli cool, Old English ceald cold — more at cold

Date: before 12th century

1 : moderately cold : lacking in warmth
2 a : marked by steady dispassionate calmness and self-control <a cool and calculating administrator — Current Biography> b : lacking ardor or friendliness <a cool impersonal manner> c of jazz : marked by restrained emotion and the frequent use of counterpoint d : free from tensions or violence <meeting with minority groups in an attempt to keep the city cool>
3 —used as an intensive <a cool million dollars>
4 : marked by deliberate effrontery or lack of due respect or discretion <a cool reply>
5 : facilitating or suggesting relief from heat <a cool dress>
6 a of a color : producing an impression of being cool; specifically : of a hue in the range violet through blue to green b of a musical tone : relatively lacking in timbre or resonance
7 slang a : very good : excellent; also : all right b : fashionable, hip <not happy with the new shoes…because they were not cool — Celestine Sibley>

— cool·ish \ˈkü-lish\ adjective

— cool·ly also cooly \ˈkü(l)-lē\ adverb

— cool·ness \ˈkül-nəs\ noun

synonyms cool, composed, collected, unruffled, imperturbable, nonchalant mean free from agitation or excitement. cool may imply calmness, deliberateness, or dispassionateness <kept a cool head>. composed implies freedom from agitation as a result of self-discipline or a sedate disposition <the composed pianist gave a flawless concert>. collected implies a concentration of mind that eliminates distractions especially in moments of crisis <the nurse stayed calm and collected>. unruffled suggests apparent serenity and poise in the face of setbacks or in the midst of excitement <harried but unruffled>. imperturbable implies coolness or assurance even under severe provocation <the speaker remained imperturbable despite the heckling>. nonchalant stresses an easy coolness of manner or casualness that suggests indifference or unconcern <a nonchalant driver>.

_____________________________________________

Interesting, isn’t it? “Cool,” the word we use to define what is acceptable, popular, desirous – even good! – in today’s world, is synonymous with “lacking in warmth” and “marked by steady dispassionate calmness,” “lacking ardor or friendliness,” “marked by restrained emotion,” and “indifference or unconcern.” Wow, how cool?

Yet, when I think of the best of humanity – the creators, inventors, thinkers, leaders, athletes and artists – they are anything but what we seem to call “cool.” Imagine Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama “lacking in warmth, ardor or friendliness.” Imagine Beethoven or Picasso “marked by steady, dispassionate calmness.” Imagine if Gandhi or Mandela were “nonchalant” or Malcolm X “unruffled.” What great work of art, music, poetry, or prose was ever written “free from agitation or excitement?” What important evolution was born from a place of “indifference or unconcern?” None I can think of.

So it seems to me what we consider “cool” may not be forward moving for us as humans. What will motivate us to preserve our species if we don’t care? How will we overcome the maladies in the world with this cool indifference? How will we stop poverty, violence, war and destruction if its existence doesn’t ruffle us?

As a person of influence living in the most cosmopolitan city in the world, I recognize my responsibility in this skewed notion of cool, and as such, my capacity to change it. For as long as I can remember I have striven for coolness. I’ve worked hard to be cool; suppressing myself, hiding anything I cared about or liked, being careful not to show any emotion or spontaneous form of expression. I have been protecting myself against a misidentified enemy, armed with “cool.”

My goal for 2010 is to help inspire a new wave of cool. A cool synonymous with warmth and friendliness, care and concern. I want to create safe environments for people to disarm: to feel, connect, experience and express themselves. A global warming that really is man-made!  My starting point for this quest, of course, will be with myself. First, I must put away my weapons of self-destruction, arm myself with compassion, and melt all that remains “cool” inside me.

My relationship with poetry has always been somewhat obscure. Since I can remember, I have loved song lyrics, but never really taken an interest in poetry in its raw form.  Other than various renditions of “Roses are red, violets are blue,” the first poem I ever wrote was after I discovered my two friends had been shot dead in Las Vegas. I think it was called “Evil is alive and he’s living in Vegas!” I was so angry and confused, I had never experienced such deep or intense feelings. I remember I began to hear words in my head and I began to put them together, giving them form. Somehow, organizing my thoughts in a pattern and rhythm was soothing to me – a type of self-nurturing. And so my poems have become my friends, and in times when I experience intense emotions, as any good friend would, they alert me to my feelings and help me work them through. And while I know my poems come from me, I don’t always experience it as such. The following poem for example, came to me in the summer of 1999 when I was living in the Turks & Caicos Islands, and writing it was sort of like an exorcism. One morning, a day off, I awoke at 6:00 a.m with a burning urge to espouse the words ringing inside my head. It was as if someone else dictated the words to me, I barely even remember writing them.  Yet, the words were mine. Clearly I was moved by what I had seen, but I had been far too disconnected from myself to notice. I had lost my “Lady” for several years, and when I recently found her I realized I have cared about things, human things, for a long time. Poetry has been a gift to help me feel, experience and express the things that move me. I hope everyone finds in his or her life at least one such gift.

LADY IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK (1999)

She was sitting in the back of a truck when I saw her. 

A lady. 

Her robes were blue, the colour of the sky and green, like the shrubs bouncing by. 

She wore rings on her fingers, yet I could not see her toes 

As out of the clutter she sank and rose, 

A lady – in the back of a truck. 

On her face she wore dignity, her head she held high 

For no bouncing could dishevel the beauty inside 

The lady – in the back of the truck. 

As I peered beyond her, with scrutinous eyes 

I stared in wonder at the slender youth driving. 

Honking and waving and carrying on, 

Disregarding the lady, bouncing along 

With the clutter, in the back of the truck. 

“Did no-one ever teach you respect?” 

(I said in my mind) 

“For she who bares the fruit of mankind? 

She cares for and nurtures you, helps you survive 

Yet she sits in the back of your truck 

With the clutter – bouncing along?” 

And just as my anger began to rise, to a heat at which blood boils, 

I looked back at the lady and she was looking at me, 

With eyes that seemed to be talking. 

She had heard my thoughts, and to them replied: 

“Child, it’s better than walking.”

Following my exploration of  last week’s “Women at Arms” article, I was drawn for the first time to Lisa Belkin’s NYT blog “Motherlode.” Lisa seems to post very interesting articles with compelling information and studies about parenting – many of which, like this one, are relevant to the questions about gender i have been exploring through Jness™, the WEFC Women & Social Icons Initiative and, as an effect, in my own life. It’s worth checking out. Also very interesting: Gender Identity in Kids

This article from the Sunday New York Times evoked so many questions and stirred so many emotions, I decided to share it… and perhaps inspire some dialogue?

As I read the article, I struggled even with the inherent conflict held in the title, “Women at Arms.” In my experience of life as a woman, the whole concept of using “arms” as weapons seems unnatural to me. Ever since I was a child I found war absurd and believed in resolving differences without violence. I believe I experience an innate “maternal” instinct to protect and care for living things; especially for other human beings. These traits, along with others, like the tendencies to adapt, cooperate, compromise, or retreat, I have often associated with my female-ness. So, when I read this article about “women at arms” I began to question: How much of my perspective actually comes from being a woman? And are the sexes really that fundamentally different?

I have believed women are biologically pre-disposed to nurture and protect life and it goes against our biological, if not moral, fiber to destroy it. I have believed men are more prone to violence and destruction, and killing other human beings is more acceptable, or natural, to them.  I apathetically read articles about ‘men at arms’ every day, yet I read one article about “women at arms,” and I am deeply disturbed. Why is this? “War is no place for women,” I thought, as I read this article. Is it a place for men? Do I have less concern or empathy for men? Do I see them as less human? Why do I view the use of force by men as natural yet by women unnatural? Is it? Or are destructive and nurturing tendencies just as prevalent in both sexes yet disproportionately expressed? If women were physically equal to men, would we use force just as readily? Do men have “maternal” instincts too? From the article Pink Brain, Blue Brain I posted about a few weeks ago, it seems our beliefs and prejudices play a large role in the existence of gender stereotypes and our actualization of them. What if the pre-dispositions we experience as gender related are not so, or at least not in the way we think?

Renee Peloquin, 25, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, served in Tikrit, Iraq, with her state's National Guard. She worked as a radio operator and received the call when her best friend was killed.

This week my mother took my sister and me to see the play “Oleanna” by David Mamet. From the opening monologue, and throughout the entire eighty minute performance, I sat with my arms folded tightly across my chest, attempting to counter the extreme discomfort ignited and fueled by the controversial performance. My feelings grew with increasing intensity and while part of me was drawn in, hanging on every word, another part was repulsed, resisting a strong urge to bolt right out of the theater (as at least one person did!). In the end, I cannot even tell you what the play was about – other than the relationship between a student and her professor – only my experience of it; which, for me, is precisely what the play is about.

There is a line midway through the first scene where John, the Professor, states:

Well, you see?  That’s what I’m saying.  We can only interpret the behavior of others through the screen we… (The phone rings.)  Through… (To phone: ) Hello…?  (To CAROL:) Through the screen we create.

(theater.harvard.edu/archive/2001-fall/Oleanna/script.doc)

This, for me, expressed the play’s core message. Two people interacting with their environment and with each other the only way they know how – based on their unique and limited experiences, data sets and perspectives.  Because of this I found “Oleanna” to be a truly magnificent depiction of the human struggle, and a testament to what a miracle it is we all get along as well as we do, live together and even survive at all.

After the play, we stayed for the “Take a Side: The Oleanna Talk–Back Series.” At first, I found myself subconsciously (and silently) jeering at the audience members and, with an air of superiority, judging their opinions as myopic, ridiculous and wrong. However, I soon found myself laughing not at them but at my own arrogance. I was impressed by my unwillingness to try on their perspective and see how what they were saying must be absolutely real for them. Here again the theme rang glaringly true – each of us is completely right and valid in our own perspectives, based on the “screens we create,” or contrarily, as stated in the play’s tagline: “Whatever side you take you are wrong.”

I left the talk-back series feeling a deep sense of love and compassion for our human struggle – the struggle to evolve our perceptual limitations so we may harmoniously exist – first within each of us and then with each other. I also felt affirmed and ever more motivated and convicted in the work I do as an invaluable resource to help us overcome this challenge.

The subjects of this play were two people, a student and a professor, but the essence and process relates to all of humanity. It was about Palestinians & Jews, Catholics & Protestants, Turks & Serbs, and so on. If we cannot come to understand ourselves and the “screens we create” we will continue to destroy each other to prove our perspective is valid, to prove we are right, in control and, ultimately, that we are ok. Call me naïve, but I believe evolving ourselves beyond this limited viewpoint is not only possible, but the first and most crucial step towards building a more humane world. By bringing this to our attention, “Oleanna” helps us do just that.  Or, at least, it helped me.

I have recently become an avid reader of Newsweek Magazine. I not only find the content covered rich and appealing, but I find the process – the way in which the content is presented – to be fairly unbiased and scientific, something typically rare in today’s world.  I found this article especially interesting because of the studies we have been doing with the “Women & Social Icons” initiative of the WEFC, as well as with Jness™ (an organization for women whose unique education has transformed my experience and understanding of my gender, so much so that I am helping launch it in NYC). If you don’t want to take the time to read the whole article, entitled Pink Brain, Blue Brain, here is the paragraph I find the most fascinating, most important and, indeed, most exciting. Speaking of studies done on children, this is what Sharon Begley had to say:

“In one, scientists dressed newborns in gender-neutral clothes and misled adults about their sex. The adults described the “boys” (actually girls) as angry or distressed more often than did adults who thought they were observing girls, and described the “girls” (actually boys) as happy and socially engaged more than adults who knew the babies were boys. Dozens of such disguised-gender experiments have shown that adults perceive baby boys and girls differently, seeing identical behavior through a gender-tinted lens. In another study, mothers estimated how steep a slope their 11-month-olds could crawl down. Moms of boys got it right to within one degree; moms of girls underestimated what their daughters could do by nine degrees, even though there are no differences in the motor skills of infant boys and girls. But that prejudice may cause parents to unconsciously limit their daughter’s physical activity. How we perceive children—sociable or remote, physically bold or reticent—shapes how we treat them and therefore what experiences we give them. Since life leaves footprints on the very structure and function of the brain, these various experiences produce sex differences in adult behavior and brains—the result not of innate and inborn nature but of nurture.”

If this is true, imagine what could be possible for both genders when we evolve our prejudices?

One of the things I value most in the world is authentic human expression. For me, Teddy Thompson not only has a beautiful voice and musical soul – deeply rooted in what seems to be a true and extremely personal love of music – but there is an incredibly genuine and honest quality to his music, increasingly evident in his lyrics and performances. In a world where “cool” is synonymous with unemotional, inexpressive and anti-humanitarian, I consider Teddy’s expression an act of bravery; on the cutting edge of a what I hope will be a new, redefined, humanitarian trend – a warmer shade of “cool.” Check out his tour dates with Elton John and make a show if you can – you wont regret it!

If you can’t catch him in concert, you can listen to him here: