I was thinking about the glass half-full or half-empty paradigm. It occurred to me that perhaps it doesn't matter whether one sees it as half-full or half-empty. The key is in the choice we make in dealing with that situation.
Some people will feel the need to conserve and protect the status quo to minimise further loss. i.e. this is the glass we have, its our glass and regardless of whether the liquid is no longer at optimum temperature, has lost its fizz, gone stale or otherwise tastes awful it is still half a glass and its our glass!
I'm inclined to realise the limitations of a half-full (or half-empty) glass and take action to replenish the glass - i.e. change must occur by topping up the current glass or getting a new full glass to replace it - perhaps even a bigger glass, or one that is better designed for our purpose.
I have a favourite saying that I live by - "Change will only occur when the pain of change is less than than the pain of staying the same."
That is my philosophy lesson for today.
Cheers! *hic*
Identity, Behaviour and Characteristics
I believe that most of society confuses behaviour with identity or characteristics in a reckless and disrespectful manner. A person (regardless of sex, gender or sexuality) can display homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or asexual behaviours and these can be separate or in conjunction with one or more other behaviours.
A person's (sexual) identity is something personal, but which can be influenced by peers and external influences.
A person's characteristics (eg flamboyancy, fashion, genes, language, mannerisms etc) can be congruent or juxtaposed with their sexual identity and/or their sexual behaviour - that is how we arrive at stereotypes. As such, society tends to make judgements and label individuals primarily based upon their characteristics (first impressions), secondly by their behaviours (if known) and rarely on their chosen identity.
That is a simplified argument, but it is how I look at the world. That is why I never assume a person's identity based upon their behaviour or characteristics, but only upon what they tell me. It is not for me to label someone bisexual or transgender or androgyne. If they want such a label I trust that they will offer it freely.
Of course the problem is that our society is so hung up on the gender binary that we are often forced to label something or someone male or female. We can just as easily get that wrong as we can other aspects of people's identity. What do you tell a 5 year old child who points to a feminine person at Fair Day and asks "Is that a boy or a girl?"
"Well, dear, that depends on .... "
The same goes for sexuality, I think. Who can be the judge of your own identity?
A person's (sexual) identity is something personal, but which can be influenced by peers and external influences.
A person's characteristics (eg flamboyancy, fashion, genes, language, mannerisms etc) can be congruent or juxtaposed with their sexual identity and/or their sexual behaviour - that is how we arrive at stereotypes. As such, society tends to make judgements and label individuals primarily based upon their characteristics (first impressions), secondly by their behaviours (if known) and rarely on their chosen identity.
That is a simplified argument, but it is how I look at the world. That is why I never assume a person's identity based upon their behaviour or characteristics, but only upon what they tell me. It is not for me to label someone bisexual or transgender or androgyne. If they want such a label I trust that they will offer it freely.
Of course the problem is that our society is so hung up on the gender binary that we are often forced to label something or someone male or female. We can just as easily get that wrong as we can other aspects of people's identity. What do you tell a 5 year old child who points to a feminine person at Fair Day and asks "Is that a boy or a girl?"
"Well, dear, that depends on .... "
The same goes for sexuality, I think. Who can be the judge of your own identity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)