Family Life & Marriage: Some Myths

In modern world women are nip and tuck with men. And very often it is the woman who is a breadwinner, head and support of the family. Sometimes she is even a defender. As she has to deal with school problems, services and so on. According to some researches we can make such conclusions:

- Relations of equality become a dominate tendency.

- The matter of the family head transforms into the problem of leadership.

- The man often is a formal head of the family, just because of the tradition.

- According to surveys, in every fifth family a woman is head and in every sixth a man is.

- There is a process of active feminization of modern family. A woman occupies more often a leading position in a family. She controls the family budget for example.

- The woman-mother has a leading role in up-bringing children.

- The woman is often a housekeeper; it means that she allocates duties about the house among all family members.

Statistics and facts are a very much stubborn things. You should understand that everything you wait for is in the past and it is important to find new ways in relations. So now let’s speak about relations themselves.

What does the modern woman wait from the marriage?

Myth #1. Find a couple and happiness in marriage are super ideas for many people. The woman waits from marriage some fairy tale and her wishes coming true.

It is a great delusion. First of all, there is nothing magic in life together. It is life, it is different, sometimes it is happy and sometimes it is a problem. It is just life together. Think over these words. There is a deep sense in them. Life together means to live and to save your inner space and inner world; it also means to share it with a partner.

Life together doesn’t cancel the values of every partner tasks, his dreams and desires. If you live together you have to help each other to make life more full, conscious and happy.

Myth #2. Many women’s expectations are often bounded with the desire of understanding and full division of emotions. They say, “We should be extremely open with each other”. It is the second delusion. The extremely openness looks like life under the bright light of projector. It’s impossible to live in bright light all the time, you will begin to feel tired and annoyed. So the second thing to realize is to give some freedom to each other in family life.

Myth #3. One more stumbling block is a woman’s desire that man should solve all matters. But when he starts to solve them of course in his own way, there is a storm. If the rights to make decisions are in the man’s hands you have to obey them. It is an important thing to be consistent in the relations.

Myth #4. Women link a desire of security with marriage. It touches the property and social position. But even so they feel shy to discuss financial conditions of the marriage. Some women are afraid of marital agreement. Hypocrisy which is involved in a fairy tale about romantic love will prevent to build honest partner relations. It is important to discuss such questions if you are going to live together and to born children. You must discuss all the things that are really important, because, meal, clothes, sport and some other things are really important for our life. Every woman should speak about them with her husband, not with friends or somebody else.

What should you do?

The first variant:

You can remain a staunch supporter of traditional patriarchal relations between a woman and a man. At least you will meet your man of course. But if you real life will differ from a fairy tale you will see in marriage.

The second variant:

- You should get up of sweet dreams about past and to look bravely to the changing world.

- Try to separate social attitudes and mass hysteria from the world of your own desires and views about modern relations between man and woman.

- It is important to define your expectations from the relations with man, which will answer your real requests.

- For harmonic relations of two personalities it is necessary to understand that you mustn’t think that another person is your property.

- Remember that you never live with the same person you were married to. He will be constantly changing. Women have identity crisis not as often as men.

So as you can see, it is really important to understand the reality of family life and marriage. Of course every person will have his own problems and joys, but the general problem is the same for all. We do not think about the real things and problems before marriage and wedding.

About the author: Though Sarah Hall is a young girl, she has recommended herself as a talented and experienced blogger and creative writer. Her range of interests focuses on leadership, marketing and web design. But this young author is able to express interesting thoughts on other topics. More information can be found at Sarah's Google+|classycustomwriting.com

Caution: Gossip Is A Danger To Any Relationship

It ruins countless reputations and may even help put innocent people in jail or prison. It ends even the closest friendships and marriages. It erodes much trust between spouses and between the dearest of friends. It causes untold personal misery and heartbreak, due to losing dear friends and beloved mates. It is a trap and deceptively fun to engage in, but it is no fun to be the object of it. It is called gossip, and on the surface it seems like no big deal when you think of serious societal ills, like crime, hunger, war and world poverty. But as it is behind so much pain and grief, it really is a trap and a big deal. If we value our marriages and our friendships, especially our closet friendships, we ought to be on our guard to end any role we may have in the gossip mill, and keep this deceptive evil from our relationships.

So what is this deceptive social evil that ruins so many relationships and reputations? Gossip is not just maliciously telling lies about another person. It isn't simply betraying confidences shared with us. It's easy to define it as just those things, and if it were just that, many of us would be innocent of this social evil. Ah, gossip is much broader than this, as so many other forms of it have the same potential to ruin reputations or relationships even with the absence of any intent. First, there is the old practice that so many of us have, of spreading rumors about other persons, even when these rumors are unconfirmed and we can't or won't go the person involved and verify the accuracy of what we heard. This is so easy to do, that if we are not on our guard against this, we will spread rumors without thinking about it. It may give us a false and sick feeling of importance if we can "build ourselves up" by tearing others down. Examples are: "Oh boy, I heard that her teenage daughter may be pregnant. How awful!" If you are a person of faith, you may even repeat this rumor in the form of a prayer request to your group of Christian friends, but without the person's permission. You may hear about a friend's pending divorce, and put the word out: "Say, did you hear? So-and-so is getting a divorce!" If you are a person of faith, you may get that word out in the form of a prayer request, telling your group of Christian friends: "We have to pray about this!" All without the person's permission! Oh, gossip is so deceptive!

A subtle for of gossip is called "triangulation" and is often engaged in as a way to deal with being hurt or upset by others. Here is how this works: Someone hurts or upsets us; we feel unable or unwilling to deal with the person (s) involved, and so we gripe or talk to third parties with no intention to solve anything. Since getting hurt is so much a part of life, this is probably, after spreading rumors, the most common form of gossip there is. We participate in this form of gossip in weakness and often out of fear. This is the form of gossip that I have engaged in all my life more than any other, and still do. Let's face it; it's far easier to gripe or talk with third parties than it is to bravely go directly to the offending person (s) and lovingly talk to them about what upsets us. We may mess up or the person may not even listen to us. But "resolving conflicts" by walking out and talking about the offending person instead of to them, means that the marriage or friendship is in trouble. As long as we attempt to talk to each other in love, there is still a chance. Once we stop that, the relationship may be dead. The exception to going behind a person's back is when we know a person is suicidal or homicidal. In that case, safety is more important than privacy. But this is rare.

The subtlest form of gossip is passive, and we can term it listening to gossip, or being a party to it. It looks like this: We may read and even purchase, celebrity or political magazines that are created mainly to gossip about these politicians or celebrities. We listen to gossip when we tune in, just for entertainment, to talk shows that are set up to gossip about celebrities, criminals, or politicians. Yes, those in the public eye are accountable to us and we have the right to know about them, but only to the a point. We listen to gossip when family or friends rant on about others to us, and we allow their rants to go unchallenged. It is hard to stem the tide, and tell the loved one or friend, "This is really none of my business. Have you tried going to that person?" Yet, as the saying goes, "If a person gossips TO you, that person is gossiping ABOUT you or will gossip ABOUT you." It's so easy to listen to gossip because it is fun to hear about how bad or bad off others are, as compared to us. We let family and friends gossip to us because we may feel included in on secrets or may just don't want to offend them by challenging them. Yet much gossip would stop if we would quit enabling it.

This social evil has gone high-tech, and is behind much cyber-bullying. What does gossip look like online? It comes in the form of lies or rumors spread online, whether through texts, emails, blogs, or social networking status updates. Gossip happens when, instead of dealing with an online contact directly, through private messaging, we post about them in public forums, as on blogs, or via posts or comments. Yes, I know that many users ignore their inbox messages, and many people don't hear us out. But if we value our relationships, we owe it to the other person and to ourselves to at least try. So many users of social networks unfriend or block other users because of they listen to gossip rather than go to the person directly. As an admittedly heavy Facebook user, I know that I have lost many Facebook friendships for that reason. I would have occasional fallings-out with certain users, and they would rant about me to our mutual online friends. Those friends would listen to the gossip rather than confront me and ask me what the problem is. I know this to be so because of the timing of so many lost Facebook friendships and reasons given as to why I "had" to be deleted. We listen to online gossip when we visit sites, blogs, or "like" pages set up mainly to gossip about criminal, politicians, or celebrities. The Internet has power to be used to serve God and people, but when we use it for gossip, we are using it for bad.

These are the holidays, and if we don't have much money, we can still give people the gift of being able to trust us. We can help them uphold their reputations. We can fight for our marriages and friendships. We can stop wasting our time in watching and listening to trash that does nothing to build anyone up. We can build others up instead of tear them down. We can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

The above photo is courtesy of MorgueFile.com, is by earl53, and can be found here.

An Open Letter to All of Those Who Have Unfriended or Blocked Me Permanently

It gives me sorrow to feel the need to even write this, but I feel that I need to. Last week, I experienced digital drama that has taken the meaning and happiness out of the holiday season for me. This post is not addressed to those involved, as I don't know what the outcome may be. The incident just triggered bad memories of many past online dramas. But this post is addressed to those whom I have reason to believe, have permanently removed me from their Facebook or other networks based on evidence and usually time.

First of all, I do not direct this to those of you whose unfriendings, almost all on Facebook, come from accounts that you have de-activated, who had approached their 5000 friends limit, who had multiple profile pages and were managing your friends lists, or other benign reasons that had nothing to do with any anger or ill will toward me.

This blog is, rather, addressed to those of you will probably be unwilling to read it because you have put me out of your lives, as you have deemed me to be unworthy of your friendship for varying reasons. You are not open to what I have to say. >br />
I write this to those of you, my former fellow parishioners, who got tired of my missing person posts or other causes posts, and who removed me so you would not see the offensive posts.

I write this to those of you who took offense at my political or Christian posts and who, tired of someone whose views were insulting them, cleansed me from your friends' lists.

I write this to you users who wrongly mistook my passion for my causes as "spam" and who, sick of the "problem," got rid of the "spammer" and deleted me from your networks.

I write this to those of you whose unfriendings or blockings happened with no precipitating incident or explanation whatever; you quietly removed me and thought I would not notice.

I write this to all of you whose unfriendings or blockings were most hurtful of all, who took your actions as acts of pure anger or ill will against me because of wrongs you believe I have done to you.

As I wrote in my former post, cyberspace has changed the way we relate to each other and affects our offline relationships. I know that, until recent months, I was a heavy Facebook user and, in that sense, you can say I was "asking for trouble." Your actions against me, done with just a few mouseclicks, show that you view relationships as disposable commodities that can be dispensed with when they get "toxic." Cyberspace has changed the way that you relate with people. Now, don't get me wrong. I know that there are times when unfriending users is legitimate and is even the right thing to do. These unfriendings and certainly, blockings, should be reserved only for those whom you suspect or know to be dangerous to you and to others in your networks. These actions should be reserved for those whose criminal actions are known and who would hurt your reputation if you aligned yourselves with them. We are known by the company we keep. But most people in your networks are not convicted criminals or violent, dangerous persons. Unfriending and certainly not blocking, should not be done to users who are just annoying or offensive.

Actually, your actions would be considered "just Facebook" and "just cyberspace" and would not count as "real pain or loss." Most see digital drama and online rejection as "no big deal." I admit that, especially in the first year or so that I have joined Facebook, I did not know how things work. I was ignorant of what was accepted and what was not, especially posting on people's Facebook profile pages. You chose not to give me the benefit of the doubt and realize that I would eventually "get it." But so many of my actions were wrongfully taken personally when I was not aware that you were offended, such as your getting unwanted Causes requests from me. Spam is a stark cyberspace reality but we define that word too broadly. That's my belief. Isn't spam actually sending unwanted messages that often ask for money or your sensitive information? Your actions against me show the breadth of your definition of that word.

I'm not writing this to win your friendship back. I know that it's too late for that. I'm writing this so that other users will learn, from my experiences, that unfriending has the capacity to hurt real people. Just because those people, like you, operate from behind computer screens does not make unfriended or blocked people any less real. I'm writing this for myself. I'm writing this to let people know that the "Unfriend" and "Block" buttons, while put there for your protection, should not be used sparingly. And please, if you develop close relationships with people who are Facebook users, do not use Facebook to settle your conflicts. Pick up the phone and call the person, write them a letter, or, if geography permits, pay them a visit. As for all of you who will not read this because you cannot or will not, I think of you with sadness and not anger. You have my prayers. This is the season to be thankful and I thank God that He will right wrongs.

The first photo is courtesy of MorgueFile.com.

The first photo is by Shakira120.

The first photo can be found here.

The second photo can be found at MorgueFile.com.

The second photo is by Karpati Gabor.

The second photo can be found here.

Do We Really Mean That?

"No comment."--Actually, by saying this, we DO intend to declare our opinion BUT we are unwilling to give it because either we think other people should know what it is already, we assume that they know what we think. Another reason for this one is that we don't want people to know what our actual opinion is but we definitely want them to know that we hold a strong opinion on the subject concerned. Once, on a popular talk show, a certain person was heavily criticized for her actions; a guest was discussing this person. The talk show host snorted, "No comment from me." Months ago, I saw a political post on a Facebook user's page and I saw mention of a certain politician whom I have always held a strong opinion on. In the comments area, I posted, "No comment from me about this individual."

"Never again!" Actually, we normally say this in the wake of betrayal or disappointment where we quite understandably don't want to experience that agony again. I'm sure countless divorced people and rejected lovers have said this at the time. But the fact that so many of those lovers move to new relationships and so many divorced people remarry, show that this is a phrase often said in the heat of emotion and not deliberate choice. After my most recent bad experience with a nonprofit, I said, "Never again." So far, I have stood by this, but who knows?

"I don't care." Actually, so often when we declare this, we are really striving to convince ourselves that we don't care about something that really matters to us, but which or who has let us down. There is a popular song called, "I Don't Care Anymore," and this is the refrain in the song. But if this song is true, would it actually be the case that the rejected lover is trying to convince himself that he doesn't care in order to dull or numb the pain? In a certain book, the character is depicted as declaring, in response to another friend's rejection, "I don't care." The book goes on to state that this character DID care.

"I'm fine." Actually, so often when we say this we are ANYTHING but fine. I know that this is the standard part of the answer to the greeting, "How are you doing?" Yes, a greeting. I have so often though that this converastional interchange, like much small talk, is really a waste of time and just fills the air with empty talk. And detesting small talk and doing poorly in it, is a common trait in Asperger's Syndrome and autism. Aside from this, it is dishonest to state that we are "doing just fine" when we may be anxious, depressed, ill, lonely, or have suffered a loss, trauma or tragedy. Yet can we really say how we ACTUALLY are to people whom we don't know or don't know well? Not really. But to say, "I'm fine"? Yet when we keep up this small talk in settings like close friendships, family or our comgregational settings, is not appropriate. In these settings, we should be able to be honest and open about who we are and not have to pretend. Yet even in these setting, too many of us do this.

"Don't worry." I suspect that many times we say this because, somewhere in the back of our minds, we know that there IS cause to be concerned. Or else why would we even ask a person not to worry? Normally, this reassurance is offered when there some cause for concern in a situation or the person whom we are talking to is worried about something. I well recall that when I expressed my concern to a person, "I was told, "Do not fear," and yet, I soon found that I had cause for concern in that instance. In that instance, the outcome was not a good one. So when I hear such a reassurance, I don't know if I can or should trust it or if the person knows something I don't. Or why would I be asked not to worry? Now I'm sure there are many times when "Don't worry" means that while there is cause to worry, that things will ultimately work out.

"I'm starving." Yes, I know that in even in the developed world, hunger is a reality for many people for different reasons. But among us in this part of the world, it is easy to confuse appetite and true hunger. We may say, "I'm starved" when we really mean that our appetites are turned on, especially for foods high in fat, salt and sugar. Right? I'm quite sure the vast majority of children and many adults use this phrase when hunger is not the issue. And not knowing the difference between appetite and true hunger is the reason so many people are overweight or even obese. And we know all the health risks that come with being heavy and I will not discuss them here. "Starving" actually refers to literally not getting enough food, protein, calories and even fat, to sustain existence. It IS the accurate phrase, of course, to describe the plight of countless people in Third World countries.

"Cry me a river." Actually, this is something we say when we are NOT interested in hearing about someone's woes or seeing any tears they may cry because we are convinced that they have no cause to carry on about their probems. When criminals, accused or convicted, complain about their situations or make excuses for their actions or have shed tears over their sentences, I have often heard this phrase as the indignant response.

"I need it." Actually, we often say this when we really want something and are convinced that life is not worth living if we do not get it. Even as I write this, I know that I have said this concerning things I have set my heart on that I know, deep down, I could live without if I knew how to navigate life without these things I so desire. And I know that all of of parents have often heard our children cry out about things they want, even if these are downright bad for them, "I need, I need, I need!" And yes, we, as children, we cried out even about things that are downright bad for us, "I need, I need, I need!" But wants and needs are not the same thing. Our needs are essential for our physical, emotional, and spiritual survival. Our wants may help fill our needs or they may not. And spiritual needs are often unfelt needs. For example, the Bible declares, from cover to cover, that we need to trust God. But how many of us FEEL this as a need? On the other hand, we may desire soda or sweets in the worst way, but do we NEED these?

"It's nothing." Actually, we often say this when we just don't want to talk about something that is very important to us, even of central importance to us. I know that I have said this when I did not feel comfortable talking about a subject of great importance to me. So even if someone tells us, "It's nothing," when we ask them what is bothering them, we probably should not take take that at face value. Yes, it may be the easier thing to do but it may be a serious, even fatal mistake!

"We need to talk." These words have always, in my experience, been the preamble for bad news that I was about to receive. And I suspect that this phrase is used when ACTUALLY we have to deliver bad news that the other person is not going to want to hear and so we are laying the groundwork for the delivery of our bad news. In one instance, a person sent me an email simply saying that "I need to talk to you about stuff." This person was not going to tell me that she was setting up a meeting to give me bad news but instead, just gave me the impression that this was a social thing. But when I made it to this meeting, I rapidly saw that this was no social encounter but a venue for bad news. In another instance and more recently, another person sent me an email and told me that she had to talk to me about a matter. I knew this was going to be bad news and when the person called me later, I found that I was right!

"You are great, good, beautiful, smart, talented, but----". So often, it seems that people heap compliments on us as a way to ward off a blow starting with, "but" and the "but" is usually either bad news or criticism that we know the person will not want to hear, even be devastated by. I know that this approach is often recommended when we have to give criticism or bad news and want to do it in the least hurtful way possible and soften the blow. I experienced this when a certain nonprofiit would not admit me on their team. The person contacting me heaped me with praise about my personality and character before telling me, "You application to volunteer with us has been declined." I have heard the word "but" so often be used when praising people and their qualities that often I wonder how sincere such praise is. And I know that we use the word "but" as a disclaimer in countless other contexts having nothing to do with people. Yes, I'm sure such comments may often be sincere but I can't help but wonder if "but" is being used to cancel out all the good things that were just said.

Social Networking: Does It Breed Narcissism?

     One day, I was scrolling through my Facebook homepage where a user posted something like this: "Really, Facebook should be called Fakebook as all you're going to see of its users are their best photos. All we see of people on here is what they are at their best. It's an illusion." I posted in the "Comments" section about how much I agreed with this person on this matter.
     I have observed that users on social networks are focused on doing everything they can to place themselves in the best light. We talk about wearing our "Sunday best" when we attend worship services and while I'm NOT comparing using social networking with attending worship services, it seems that we have a "social networking best" as well. And so many users seem to be bent on impressing other users wth their accomplishements, credentials and just who they are. Now I understand that when people are trying to grow their for-profit or nonprofit organizations or are trying to market their causes, that much of this is essential to get business or supporters. After, as is said so often, we have "only one chance to make a good first impression."
     I see so many users who post photos and posts about their babies and I understand the urge to "show off" one's darling offspring to the world. But so many people, including those who do not have children or who cannot produce offspring, might be hurt or at least annoyed by such posts, depending on their own situations. If you are a user who is struggling with infertility and are unable to conceive, the last thing you probably want to see is others posting photos of their cute babies. It screams out: "Look at what I have!" It's like you are expected to be an infertile person celebrating other's children; this is the message these posts can send to such people or to others unable to become parents for other reasons. Users who have lost babies may also be hurt or retraumatized by seeing these photos, especially if their loss is recent.  And aside from that, for parents who post these baby photos, there is the safety and privacy issue to consider, as online predators lurk, unseen and unknown, behind their computer screens and who can guarantee that they cannot see the cute photos? Such posts have sometimes annoyed me as well as have saddened me, as often, when I see them, I'm reminded that babies and young children will not be in my future.
     Many months ago, a user posted about her machanical talents. In a transparent effort to show off her prowess in this area, this user posted about her washing machine, how it broke down and how she was able to fix it on her own. Gleefully and most childlike, this user posted: "I have fixed my broken washing machine by myself and now it is fixed! Yes, I am boasting!" Amused by this status update, , I saw it as no big deal except that users who lack such talent and have to hire machanics to do repairs for them, may be annoyed by such a post and especially if their budgets are tight.
     Many users, in their "About Me" or "Info" sections of profiles or pages, list such a list of accomplishments or places they travel, that I feel that my own life is lackluster as compared to theirs and that I have done nothing with it. Some users post such extensive lists of accomplishments and places they travel, and their life experiences, that frankly, I find it hard to believe these claims that many make about themselves. Maybe this is just me but I think so much of it is the way social networks make it so easy for people to present themselves any way they please online. And when I see these claims and believe them, I admit to experience feelings of jealousy toward these users for being able to "soar as advocates," with social connections, financial resources and opportunities that I can only dream of, and which would certainly help in my current petition campaign!
     One Facebook user posted a thinly-veiled reference to her financially rewarding career. No doubt this user was happy at this time and wanted to share this happiness with all. "I must admit," this person boasted, " that I enjoy the financial rewards that I get every week!" Another time, this user declared, "Wow! I'm seeing a big windfall coming!" I felt both amused and a wee bit jealous.
     At one time, a user in my Facebook network changed her profile photo. When I saw this photo, I was rather startled and wondered if what I saw was genuine or "doctored." This user had put up a photo where she graced the covers of Forbes magazine. What kind of statement was this user trying to make? And how was she able to make the cover of this magazine, if in fact that really happened?
     Earlier this year, I was most annoyed by one Facebook user and this person's transparent show of narcissism as shown on this user's profile and Facebook page. This user ostensibly was spearheading a movement whose stated mission was noble. However, this person's profile and page, even if casually checked, told a different story of what this user seemed to be about. For both this person's profile and her page showed many "glamor shots" of her and I could not understand what this had to do with this user's stated mission. If this user made it her practice to put up all these "glamor shots" in order to generate support and donations, she most certainly succeeded! This person's page added many thousands of "fans" within days! And on her profile, this user got countless posts of support and affection from adoring supporters. I experienced feelings of jeaousy o this person even as I could see these transparent gestures of self-promotion on her part. I believed in this user's cause and while I certainly am not judging her heart or her motives, behavior such as she has shown says a lot! This user reflects this shallow culture and our often phony values. While I know that packaging is part of marketing one's cause and mission, when it is taken too far as I believe happened in this user's case, credibility is lost.
     Last year, one the eve of this user's birthday, she kept checking her birthday greeting as I kept getting Facebook notifications that this user has posted a "Thank you!" on one birthday greeting after another, as received. And the following day, this continued. This user kept checking in and responding to her greetings with "thank you's" and affectionate symbols. Sounding much like school days when we compted to see who would get the most Valentine Day's greetings? This user was only one example of many who made it a point to check it around and on their birthdays as their birthday greetings poured in from users in their social networks. Yes, I understand that seeing hundreds of posts wishing a user happy birthday would be, at the very least, a temporary boost to one's self-esteem. I can't blame any user for this childlike behavior. Social networks are a place where many users seek support, friendship and affirmation that they may not find in their offline lives.
     While I know that Facebook always gives page owners full control over who can post on their pages, I have been put off by how controlling some page owners can be and how little interaction they permit their "fans." Yes, I know that page owners that trun pages for business or nonprofits need to keep their pages focus on their products or missions. But I have seen some page ownners who I think take this too far and who are running personal or "community" pages. Social interaction on such pages are limited only to sharing their content or expressions of support for them or their material. I was not only annoyed but angry when I tried to email one such page owner via her contact information on her page. I emailed her twice, requesting that she post a petition that bore a good measure of relevance to the purpose of her page as it involved the people she is advocating for. I didn't get any response. So, after about a month, I posted a link to this petition, twice, in the "Comments" area on this person's posts (as I could not post on her page). The following day, I was aghast to see that she posted a status update, politely but firmly saying that external links were not allowed on her page and that she would consider such links by email and post them IF they fit in with her mission. Apparently, the petition did not fit her criteria. Angered by what I saw as self-promotion, I deleted myself from her page, on both my accounts. More recently, I sought this user's support with my own petition, which also is to benefit those she advocates for. To make a long story short, my attempts failed completely and the person not only refused to support my petition campaign, but has banned me from her page on my first account and has told me, "I don't ever want to hear from you again!"  Right or wrong in my attempts to garner this user's support, her response shows that many users use social networks solely for very specific agendas with little room for those with other agendas.
     Most recently, some users have been uploading and posting photos of their certificates and honors which they have won, or their children have won,  and which I'm sure they have worked hard for and deserve. I know that many users have made it a point to proudly display their awards or honors or accolades won by their children. And I know that this is the time of graduations from different levels of education. And I'm sure these users who display their honors or those of their children, assume that everyone will share in their happiness. While I certainly understand wanting to share one's happiness with the world, not everyone is able to do those things signified by these honors. Many people will never be able to graduate from college because of lack of funds or learning differences or for other reasons. Struggling advocates and small nonprofits lack the funds and resources that can empower their missions to soar and put them in the position to do the things that awards like these signify. "Oh, people who begrudge those who win awards or honors like these are just jealous, resentful or childish!" some may object. "Get a life!" There may be some truth to this, but why incite others to such things? And as many awards and honors come with generous financial stipends, sharing about these, in my opinion, is especially insensitive to small nonprofits and advocates with limited resources and who are struggling to "make their voices bigger."
     Showing support for each other's causes on Facebook, in personal networks, should go both ways. In my current petition campaign, I have set up a "My Birthday Wish" online "event" on the "event" page of Facebook in order to promote my petition. I created the page in the hope of reaching as many people in my networks as possible. Even after all my efforts to stress that this "event" was merely an online effort to promote my petition, that it was NOT a fundraiser, and that people had control over the privacy of their signatures, I saw many more "Declines" to my "event" than those who marked "Joined." Granted, some who marked "Declined" DID sign my petition and not all who marked "Joined" actually signed the petition. Yes, I could understand why those outside the US have not been supporting my petition, even though I stressed that even they could still help by sharing the petition by finding it on my Facebook page (giving them the link). But others in the US? "I don't do petitions," one user said. Well, there was nothing I could do about a user like that; months ago, another user had told me, "You causes are lovely, but I can't support them." And yet, a good number of these "nonsupporters" have been enlisting my support for their own causes, petitions and are sending me invitations to games and other applications. It makes me wonder: Does the give-and-take of relations not apply, at least to some extent, to online relationships?
     And in my petition campaign, I guard against coming across as a self-promoter and like those who call for support for their own causes but who won't reciprocate when others seek support from them. For I have always gone out of my way to show support for others' causes and petitions, though I know that a few users have deleted me because they felt "snubbed" by me. Actually, in these cases I have not seen or noticed these user's causes.
     Actually, social networks are neither good or bad; the users behind these networks are what make them what they are. For social networks are people.

Social Networking Friends and Foes, Real People and Fakes

     Just yesterday, two separate times, I was logged into Facebook and was reading some posts, Two status updates stood out and reflected my own feelings about my many of my own social networking experiences. One person posted (and I'm paraphrasing): "Facebook is ridiculous. Want to know what I think? I wonder who among you are really my friends. This includes those of you whom I have met in real life. I spend so much time looking at your pages and signing a bunch of your petitions and I feel like my time is being wasted when so many of you don't take the time to look at my material. Let's face it, folks. Who among us have real friends whom we have met online? Who among us would talk to each other outside of Facebook?"
     A few hours later, I saw another post on my homepage. This person posted (and I'm paraphrasing): "Folks, can any of us really trust anyone we meet only online? Online contact does not work like real life. Online, people can too easily hide behind their computer screens and lie to you about who they are and what they do. Don't trust people even when they present themselves as having missing loved ones; they are not saints and cannot be really trusted. Don't trust people even when they are advocates for children; they are not saints and cannot really be trusted. It doesn't matter what people pose as or say about themselves. You cannot trust anyone if you have met them only online."
     I hate to agree with these statements as total truth but as I have had many painful online experiences that resemble that of countless other users, who have placed trust in online people who have proved to have violated that trust. I have seen too many people who have not been what they and their devoted followers, have claimed that they were. In person, is is easier (unless you have trouble reading nonverbal cues), to determine if another person's body language and demeanor point to ulterior motives and social masking, indicating deceit. It is simply so much easier to fake it and deceive, online and safely behind a computer screen and to use ostensibly nice and friendly behavior to gain the trust of people before scamming you.
     I think that most of us perceive and treat online friends differently from in-person, offline friends. In real life, I seriously doubt that any of us would approach a stranger or someone whom we don't know well, and tell them, "Hello, --------------------------, I'm adding you to my contacts because someone has suggested you to me and because we have mutual friends." But many of us do this very thing online, to connect with new online contacts. We "add" other users as "friends." What does it mean to be or have Facebook friends vs. offline, in-person friends? How did "friend" ever become a verb? Now, we say that we "friend" or "unfriend" people! In "real life," if any of us approached people the way we do on social networks, "friending" new users, it would be called stalking. But I think this sort of behavior is a online habit among us who have causes where we seek to raise awareness for, or who who have businesses and are seeking to sell products and is common among nonprofit organizations so they can shore up support and donations. "friends" on Facebook and other social networks, are often more like online acquaintances whom we correspond with.
     Another common online practice that would kill most offline friendships, is the way that, after exchanging initial friendly words with newly added people, we never speak to each other again. This has happened to me so often that I have come to expect it. It is like I add so many of these users and they apparently forget that they have ever connected with me. I don't know if this is because of their default homepage settings where they create "friends lists" where my posts do not show up in many newsfeeds, have "hidden" my posts from view, or use social networks sporadically. But it makes me wonder, Why did I "friend" these people in the first place?
     The fact that we see online friends as separate from offline friends is the way that we so often handle differences with online friends. So many users are quick to use the "Unfriend" button and, less often, the "Block" and even the "Report" button for things that we would much more readily forgive an offline, "real-life" friend for. In real life, we are much more prone to work out differences and bear with each other, where online, users are much less likely to give other users  benefit of the doubt, and to use the "Unfriend," and even the "Block" or "Report" buttons. For example, last year, a public scandal in the life of a certain politician erupted and his reputation was destroyed, even though he expressed contrition for his actions. Nevertheless, many of his Twitter "followers" quickly deserted him. If these "followers" had known this politician offline, I daresay they would have been more disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt and stand by him. In my experience, I have often been "unfriended," sometimes "blocked," and in a known recent case, I have been "reported," because of offensive posts or private messages. I'm sure that if these users had known me personally, they would have been more likely to work out our differences and be reconciled.
     I knw that many users use social networks only to "have fun" and keep up with family and friends and want no part of causes. In a way, I don't blame them a bit! Yet in a troubled, embattled, dying world like ours, I see it as morally unacceptable to "leave the world alone" and not embrace any cause or make some attempt to make a difference to the best of one's ability. And the price for raising awareness and advocacy are that we have to open ourselves up to people, all kinds of people whom we may not otherwise, and it poses a challenge to protect ourselves and our social networks even as we seel to make a difference. This is why, sadly, as the users whose statuses I paraphrased earlier, we so often encounter the darker side of social networking and the shallowness and the pretense so often seen on social networks.
     Online self-expression are often easier than offline self-expression. I think many people are like me; it is often easier to open up and express ourselves online than offline. In "real life," I often clam up, especially in group settings of any kind. But online, I have felt more comfortable in self-expression, revealing things that I have never felt comfortable saying to most people whom I have known personally. The dark side of this is that it is easy to overshare online and I have often seen users share things about themselves that I felt were not anyone's business, including mine. I find it difficult to tell, sometimes, what many users mean by what they post, and it drives me crazy when they beg for help and don't provide any context.
     Online, I find that it is much easier to find people who share my values and my goals. The tradeoffs are that, almost always, these are people who are located far from me and have no shared history with me. With many people in "real life," there is usually more proximity and more shared history, but often we do not share many values or goals in common. For example, online, I know of people who have shown much support for my causes but have proved to be unavailable when I feel the need to contact them with questions. Offline, most of my family, friends and acquaintances, are those who see no need to support any causes and see what I do as useless and that I should leave my efforts to "the experts."
     In my current petition campaign, I know that I take it personally and feel it as a "slap in the face" when people show no support for my petition or make any effort to educate themselves as to its importance through reading the text in my petition on the page. I have thousands of "friends" but only hunderds of signatures, many not even from these in my network. Most people, depending on their default settings (unless they have "hidden" me in their newsfeeds), who use Facebook or other social networks regularly, no doubt have seen my posts about my petition. And yet, many seem to simply be ignoring it. I suspect that these "nonsupporters" may feel that their signatures don't count, feel that I may "hit them up" later for donations (despite my disclaimers), may not trust me, or may not even know about autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and don't care to learn. And so many, I fear, have their own agendas and causes and are happy to see me support them, but are not willing to support mine.
These "nonsupporters" usually don't know me, and I doubt that they value their relationships with me and so where they are concerned, expectations need to be kept low. One user bluntly posted on my "Birthday wish" "event" page, "I don't do petitions."
      Social networks often unmask the real motives and thoughts of those whom we know in "real life." In my online experiences, many local "friends" and some relatives, have "unfriended" me without notice, and in one known case, one has blocked me totally. In every one of thse cases, I did not suspect that anything was amiss in my relationships with these people until I added them to my online networks and found myself removed from theirs. And it is well-documented that many marriages have been ruined when when one souse has uncovered evidence or secrets about the other spouse online. And It is also well-known that many people have lost their jobs when their bosses or co-workers have learned things about them online. Social networks have forever changed how we relate to each other.
      Social networks are neither good or bad. They are just a tool. Behind social networks are people who use them, either for good or for evil. Because so many use social networks for evil, we who use them for good need to be even more discerning about everyone we meet online, realizing that all other users need to be equally discerning in relating to us. But in our discernment and healthy skepicism, let's not miss the the good, honest, caring, trustworthy people who are using the networks for good.

    
    

Our Throwaway Culture

          For the longest time, the divorce rate, at least in the US, had stood at 50 percent; that is, if you "tied the knot," you would have a 50/50 chance to "untie that knot." Now, that divorce rate has risen to 60 percent. Statistically, this means that if you get married, you are rather more likely than not, at some point, to call it quits.
          Employers devise more screening tools to manage all the applications that cross their desks. One of these tools is the personality test; this effectively prunes applicants from the list which the employers has to deal with. You probably know very well what this means: You can work your rear-end off to make your application stand out to an employer so you will get thay interview, knowing that yours is only one of many applications to cross that employer's desk.
          CEO's see their profit margins drop and they see a need to do some pruning so their corporations don't go bankrupt. So what do they tend to do, short of filing for a bankruptcy? They look at all the employees who are costing them money and thet start pruning jobs and eliminating employees. The trouble with this is that behind every job is a person who needs that job just to survive and usually to support a family. Not only this, but but jobs often provide health insurance, a chance to meet people and self-esteem as one makes a contribution to society. All this is lost with a lost job.
          Many of us use social networks to connect with people. But according to my research, "unfriending" people is getting more and more common on Facebook. When we are offended or annoyed by an online friend's posts, is is easy to hit that "Unfriend" button or even use the "Block" option. In not even two years of social networking, hundreds of people in my network have hit the "Unfriend" button to get rid of me and some have hit the "Block" button. Among those who have dropped me include advocates, fellow church members, including a pastor's wife and youth workers, other local acquaintances and even some family members. I have been unfriended and blocked just this past weekend! On social networks, you can get rid of undesirable people with a few clicks of a mouse!
          More and more, without labor unions to protect employees, employers can terminate employees that they don't like or want to deal with for reasons know best to themselves. I've heard of too many people being terminated without disclosure or given vague reasons. This has happened to me and to some of my loved ones. Worst of all, if discrimination is suspected, it sometimes can't be proved. Sadly, employers find it easy to get rid of employees for disability-related reasons. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is meant to give a level playing field to qualified people with disabilities and it is having success. But the "undue hardship" clause in this legislation, meant to protect employers, can be overused as an excuse to fire people because of prejudice.
          In families, relationships often become ugly because of disputes over inheritances. When money becomes a factor in even the closest of relationships, it often changes the dynamics of the relationship. And when unprincipled, unethical relatives cheat loved ones out of their inheritances, this parts the closest of family members and turns them into bitter enemies. Always sad and heartbreaking, family members have been known to disown each other, to never speak again, and even to take each other to court! I know this from experience!
          Homelessness is heartbreaking and a good number of the homeless are war veterans. How many of these homeless are people are living in the streets not because they lack money but for more complex reasons? How many people are living in the steets because family members have ordered them to leave because they could not deal with them for one more minute, whether because of substance abuse, an unwanted pregnancy or some despised lifestyle? When I was attending a former congregation, some among us would reach out to one such woman who was seen to wander the streets because of being "thrown out" of her home. Of course, there are no easy answers to this.
          The ultimate method of getting rid of people is murder. Since 1973, girls and women, when faced with unwanted pregnancies, have had the option of "terminating their pregnances" available to them by law. The trouble with this option is that the thing being eliminated is not a thing at all but a live, conceived baby with all its DNA and a little being being "knit together" in the mother by its Creator. This "abortion mentality" has opended the door to people turning to murder, more and more, to get rid of "problems." When we become inconvenient, annoying, difficult or undesirable, we are, more and more, at risk. So many murders have, at the motive, the simple desire to eliminate a person for the killer's own reasons. Such murders are often staged "eraser killings" where the killer makes the murder look like a suicide, a mysterious disappearance or something other than what it is. Can this be why we have so many unsolved crimes and missing people? Chilling.
           Get the point? Ours is a throwaway society. Our method of dealing with problems and conflict is often just to "walk out" of the bothersome relationships and to end them. We often hear about and may even talk about, the virtues of real friendship and sticking together through think and thin, despite differences, disagreements, or adversity. But in reality, when relationships get inconvenient, annoying, burdensome, or merely boring, they become vulnerable to being discarded like trash. Instead of dealing with what's wrong in relationships, it's far too easy to end friendships, to change churches, to quit jobs, even to dissolve marriages. Our culture encourages us to leave relationships we no longer want to be in. The idea of "marriage for keeps," though it is Biblical and strongly encouraged in the Bible, tends to be dismissed as old-fashioned, outdated and unrealistic. Abortion is seen as socially acceptable by many people and is seen by some as a way to reduce poverty and other social ills by "thinning out our ranks" and reducing our numbers. When someone in our church home hurts our feelings, when we can't stand our boss or our co-workers, when a friend won't pay a debt, when an employee's work slows down, when an online friend posts controversial material, many voices will encourage us, "Get out! End the relationship! Eliminate your problem! It's your perfect right."
          In my own experience with this, people have, over the years and often, terminated their bonds with me, either because of misunderstandings, their unkind reactions to my differences, or my trusting them too readily and mistaking friendliness with ulterior motives with real friendship. Growing up, I went through seeing my parents divorce and I know many others who have divorced. I've already mentioned, in earlier blogs, about being terminated as a volunteer in several intances. I've already mentioned all the online friendships I've lost. Most recently, my membership for a certain movement and campaign was abruptly terminated by its Founder when this person found out about about one of my online posts which raised questions about the cost-effectiveness about the use of its funds. On the flip side of this, I have left certain social settings where I felt misunderstood or excluded.
           I know that there are times when we need to, or must, let certain relationships go and I'm not talking about these. But how can we be united unless we stand together and stick together through all the things that could divide us? This is especially important in our throwaway culture.
           On the reverse side of this, I find few things more inspiring than that of seeing people who have been married for many decades, sticking together through all manner of hardships, losses, challanges, conflicts and uncertainties.
         

Unequal Interests

          You are fascinated with a member of the opposite sex. You do what you can to get near the object of your fascination. You even gather the courage to make small talk and promise yourself that you will call her and ask for a date. This person's actions show that she does not care that you exist.
          You enjoy a budding friendship with a person who has been showing interest in you and asking you about yourself. You feel that you can trust him and you confide personal information that you share with few people. Soon, this person seems to cool toward you until he is ignoring you. You email him, you write him and you call him but you get no response.
          You are an enthusiastic Facebook user and are trying to add people because you have heard about them and they have added your other friends. Your friend requests remain ignored.
          You correspond with a person on Facebook and befriend the person, believing that a real friendshiop is forming. You share personal information with her. One day you see her posts but her name is in black letters and no longer links to her profile; she has blocked you!
          You deeply believe in your cause and want others to share your passion. You can't stop talking about your cause or shouting out about it. However, both in person and online, many of your contacts are showing little or interest.
          You are working hard to get your new nonprofit "off the ground" and badly need donations to make this happen. So you use all the networks available to you to ask for donations, appealing for help. You are getting some response, but not nearly enough.
          You set your sights on volunteering with a certain nonprofit and apply, trying your bet to make a good impression while being honest. The nonprofit lets you know that they are not interested
          A facebook friend has let you know, in no uncertain terms, that she does not want your posts on her page.
          You are volunteering to "telemarket for your faith" and while a few people show interest, a number have made their lack of interest explicit and a couple have hung up on you.
          You are going door-to-door to sell your product and a number of people refuse to open their doors to you; several have slammed their doors in your face.
          What do all these scenarios and so many others like them that we all face, have in common? They all share the fact that one party in the scenario has much more interest in engaging the relationship than the other. This happens to us all the time: we find ourselves far more interested in engaging in a relationsip, whether love or business, personal or professional or offline or online, than the other party is. And I must point out, there are also those times when this principle operates in reverse, that the other party is far more interested than we are in engaging in a relationship. This has been called The Principle of the Least Interest.
           In a perfect world, this principle would not even be an issue. But this is very frequently an issue for all of us, in some form or other. In an ideal world, we al would have the judgment to perceive and become interested in engaging only with those parties that we know would share our interest. No one would know the pain and heartache of another's nonresponse or rejection. Sadly, we do not live in that kind of world. We are often unable to judge who will return our interest in engaging in a relationship with us, whether in love or business. When the interest is not returned, we are forced to do things on the terms of the party who is least interested. We must take no for an answer. When people refuse to accept the other party's nonresponse to their interest, this can evolve into stalking or worse. Refusal to respect this Principle of Least Interest is at the root of much violence and crime where rejection is the motive.
          We know that behind most stalking, harmless and more sinister, is the refusal to take no for an answer. Here is where I need to offer a disclaimer concerning the harmless variety. In the field of autism and related cognitive differences which affect social perception and social skills, much behavior that can be called harmless stalking has been observed, while some have had to face consequences for this stalking behavior. The nature of autism and related cognitive differences makes it tough to understand the Principle of Least Interest and the need to take no for an answer. These forms of harmless stalking are very rarely done with any harmful intent and the offenders need help and counseling, rather than retribution. It is the harmful, potentially violent stalking that we need to stand against; it is these stalkers who often get covered in the media and who increase and deepen the stigma of autism and related cognitive differences.
          Aside from this, it indeed hurts, even much so, when another party refuses or cannot return our interest. Yet attempting to force that party's interest and allowing ourselves to become stalkers not only annoys the other but is not in our best interests either. The other party will be annoyed but we will be making ourselves sick and wasting our time. Why do we want the interest of someone who has little or no interest in us, whether our business or our love or whatever else we want to offer? Why is it so hard to take no for an answer and to accept the fact that we have been rejected or that another is just not interested in us or what we want to give? These words are meant as much for myself as much as they are for anyone else.
          We may be aware of the high-profile case of the biological father of Jaycee Dugard's birth father, who after many years, reportedly wanted to enter into a relationship with her, but Jaycee was not interested. He appeared on a well-known talk show to discuss this. I'm sure most of us would see how unwise it would be to force one's self on a traumatized person who did not need to complicate her life one whit more, which Jaycee would have been doing if she had allowed her birth father in her life. In cases like this respecting the Principle of Least Interest needs to be done for the other party. I have heard of cases where birth parents yearned to re-unite with their birth children, after many years of placing them in adoption, but those birth children were not interested. This is another case where the best interests of the other party need to come first. This principle needs to be observed in numerous custody cases where older children express the desire to live with the other parent. There are many other examples.
          In my own life, there was, many years ago, the intance of a certain young man in a singles group whom I was fascinated with. I liked his personality, his rugged good looks, his affection with women. I would try to get near him as well as show my feeling for him. But one evening, it apparently dawned on him that I was interested in him. Nippting this interest in the bud, he rebuffed my advances when I started to stroke his back. This hurt! And he never spoke to me again and refused to acknowledge my existence. In another intance, I was a member of a certain church for years. I entered into a ministry where I was matched one-on-one with certain fellow parishioners. One of them wanted no part of it and I was notified that she had ended our match. That hurt; I felt slapped in the face. In the same parish, I was interested in certain members and would get near them and sometimes communicate with them. All to no avail. They never returned my interest or responded to my overtures. As all of us can, I can testify to lots of unreturned emails, letters (if we write), messages, and phone calls. Most recently, I applied to volunteer with a nonprofit, wanting to "step up" my involvement with them as "just a supporter." I applied, even volunteering personal information that I thought could explain material in my background check as well as impress them with my candor and openness. I tried very hard to make a good impression. However, the nonprofit contacted me and let me know, in explicit terms, that they were not interested in my volunteer services. This devastated me. And the parties involved have not spoken to me since. And I'm sure most of you can tell similar stories.
          On a spiritual level, God is the ultimate Example of Someone Who respects the Principle of Least Interest. He respects human freedom; He does not force Himself on us. He has never barged in anyone's life who did not want Him and He never will. As God in the flesh, Jesus never went where He was not wanted. Once, He visited a village but the village wanted no part of Him. Two of His disciples wanted Him to call down fire on the unwanting village. Jesus rebuked these disciples and refused to listen to them. We need to follow His model.
          Letting go and taking no for an answer usually hurt to some degree but for our interests and for others, it needs to be done.
         
        

On Surface Relationships vs. Caring Relationships

          This is a sample of a typical conversation, wther in schools, in the workplace, in places of worship and even (dare I say it?) in some families, indeed, in any setting:
         "Hi," you say to the other person you are encountering, "How are you doing?"
         "Oh, I'm just fine, can't complain," the other person says. "And you?"
         "Oh," you say, "I'm doing just fine also, can't complain here, either."
        
         Typical conversation? I wonder how many times we all say, "Oh, I'm doing just fine," or hear the same thing from others, when this is very far from the truth. Right? I wonder what would happen if, when we are asked how we are doing, we would be more open and more candid. Would we dare say, "How am I doing? I'm petrified because I have just been diagnosed with cancer or heart disease (or some other serious condition). I'm fearful about losing my job. I have lost my job. I'm petrified of losing my home. My home is going into foreclosure. I"m a victim of abuse or crime. I'm having lots of pain. I have lost a loved one. I need your help." You get the point.
         And when we ask a typical person during the day, "How are you doing?" do we really want to know how that person is actually doing? I think this is what strikes us about Jesus in the Gospels. According to an account, when He was exhausted and saw that huge crowds of people wanted to see Him, it is recorded, "and he had pity on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he taught them many things that they needed to know." (Mark 6:34 TLB).
          Don't get me wrong. I know that it is not wise or appropriate to reveal our personal emotions or problems with every person we encounter in a day. It is not even realistic. We would get nothing done if we entered into a messy conversations with everyone we encounter in a day. There are many relationships where we are wise to keep our exchanges confined to light exchanges and to social small talk. There are many people with whom we can never be friends. My problem with all this superficiality is that we often maintain superficial relationships where we can and should go deeper.
         Take relationships in our places of worship, where, because of the nature of our relationships, potential exists for much caring. Yet in so many of our places of worship, particularly in more affluent and larger ones, our exchanges tend to be marked by light exchanges and social small talk rather than than by trust, openness, and authentic caring and sharing. This is very unfortunate. Why is this?
  In my opinion, so much of this is because in our free world, our places of worship are seen as "museums for the worthy and the respectable and the beautiful people" rather than as "hospitals for those who are sick with moral maladies, emotional baggage or who have been pummeled by life." Right?
         In my own experience, I recall that as a child, my grandmother took me to worship services (later, I was simply dropped off). Always, my siblings and I would be forced to submit to my grandmother's inspection of how we were dressed. Now don't get me wrong. Bless my late grandmother's heart, she loved God and her church but she focused too much on keeping up with appearances. As a child, when I entered my place of worship, I had to "look perfect" and "act perfect." There was less emphasis on attendance out of our deep sense of our need for God in this world and our love for Him and His people. And later, when I entered adulthood full of emotional baggage from a troubled childhood and youth, when I interacted with people in my places of worship, I felt the burden to "pass as one of them" and to avoid stigmatizing myself by revealing my past or my present challenges. And I wonder how many others were doing these exact same things and still do, in so many places of worship. Especially larger, more affluent ones.
         Even in families, we tend the skirt the real, pressing, festering issues that plague so many of us. So many of us have topics that are simply "off-limits" and which we know we had better keep secret or else we will suffer repercussions. This causes a sick atmosphere where secrets, suspicions and lies pile up--often for decades and even being passed from one generation to another.
         In person and online, I have noticed that, over and over again, caring relationships and authentic sharing take place when people suffer losses and tragedies. I wonder if this is one answer to the age-old question, "Why does God allow us to suffer?" Could one reason be that sorrow, loss and tragedy draw us to each other to care for each other?
         Isn't this just about what we call "keeping it real"?