paying-attention

I have several different people who forward emails to me. One is a Mexican-American co-worker who sends out very funny, but often offensive, jokes about the battle between the sexes and about his ethnic group. Other well-meaning friends send me cute photos and blessings that include instructions to pass them on to five hundred people within five seconds or suffer a run of bad luck. Occasionally I receive a warning about a product, phishing scheme or computer virus -- the first easily verified or discredited on snopes.com, the latter two by a quick email or call to my ISP.

Then there are the political screeds. I have a bunch of people who send me original and forwarded jokes about and criticisms of George W. Bush (and Republicans in general) and a couple others who supply me with a reliable "right-wing wacko" viewpoint. I am less likely to read the political stuff. But when I do, here is a warning: Don't send me anything inflammatory if you aren't prepared for me to light it up.

Email is so much different from ordinary conversation. In a conversation, even a disagreement, you can see the other person's face and hear their tone of voice. If they choose to repeat a story they heard, they'll unavoidably infuse it with their own voice and attitude. Forwarded emails do not have this advantage: they aren't personal, and they are usually designed for the maximum emotional response. That's why jokes and visual gags tend to work well in this medium.

Some of the people who forward stuff to me obviously do not read all of it before they send it. That's all right. I don't read it all either.

Recently someone who I like and respect, and generally think of as a friend, forwarded an email to me with a headline that offended me deeply. I didn't read the rest of the letter. I was hurt that she thought I would want to. She is someone who puts thought into what she passes on and to whom. I have always known that there were certain issues that I view differently than she does, but we've been able to exchange ideas respectfully in the past. As far as I can tell, here is what went wrong:

The message she sent did not reach me in her voice. The part she thought was important was apparently somewhere farther down in the missive, in the part I deleted. When I reacted angrily, she replied defensively. My reply pretty much gave her no choice. Factually, she and I are pretty close on the issue she raised. But our points of view differ dramatically. In person, that would have been immediately obvious.

We have to be careful of the global community that we've all joined here online. It means we are able to interact with people who are far away, and whose experiences and prejudices are quite diverse. That's a good thing. Even if it sometimes leaves us angry with our friends.

Labels: email, jokes, politics, snopes.com

Susan Faludi advances an interesting theory in today's New York Times.

"...[A] Barack Obama versus John McCain match-up still has the makings of an epic American gender showdown.

The reason is a gender ethic that has guided American politics since the age of Andrew Jackson. The sentiment was succinctly expressed in a massive marble statue that stood on the steps of the United States Capitol from 1853 to 1958. Named “The Rescue,” but more commonly known as “Daniel Boone Protects His Family,” the monument featured a gigantic white pioneer in a buckskin coat holding a nearly naked Indian in a death’s grip, while off to the side a frail white woman crouched over her infant.

The question asked by this American Sphinx to all who dared enter the halls of leadership was, “Are you man enough?” This year, Senator Obama has notably refused to give the traditional answer...."

So, like Bill Clinton was the first black president, is Obama going to be the first woman? Does this kind of labeling do us any good? I used to have a neighbor who was prissy and whiny and, frankly, annoying. I described him to people with the phrase "He's such a woman." Leaving aside the question of whether I, an avowed feminist, should have been using such an expression at all, is this perception going to hurt Obama? Like Faludi, I tend to think it will not. The reason is that Americans have had enough of bullies and chicken hawks. If McCain is smart, he'll let his sensitive side show.

Labels: gender, mccain, obama, politics, susan faludi, toughness

Okay, I've done it. I'm still not willing to change my registration from Republican to Democrat, but I've officially signed up to work on Tom Udall's campaign for the U.S. Senate. I'm just working a couple of hours a week in the office; they tell me that there is a good-sized "Republicans for Udall" contingent but I have to admit that I don't get along too well with most other Republicans.

I do wonder whether Steve Pearce's office allows people to bring four different dogs in to work with them. Are Democrats just free-spirited animal lovers, or is this a reflection of Udall's outdoorsman/environmentalist leanings? Oh well, they seem like nice dogs; they get along with each other and with the staff and they don't slobber unnecessarily.

Labels: dogs, politics, senate, tom udall