| Now that I understand it better, I have to admit my initial thoughts may have been an over-reaction. |
| That often happens. Especially with you. But, what is the topic? |
| Oh, sorry! Remember when you forwarded me the email from that woman who had read about our detour into the world of Criminal Justice on our website, and she said, "I just wanted to encourage you to consider changing the language a bit." At first, I rolled my eyes, but then I got annoyed. |
| I remember the email but have no idea why you would get annoyed. It was not a random email from nowhere. She and I are both members of the Texas Women's Justice Coalition, although she is much more active as, for me, it is a learning experience. Plus, since she had been incarcerated, she has a very different perspective than I do. |
| I wasn't questioning her credibility; I was annoyed because we've gone above and beyond to make it clear that we have open minds in terms of the criminal justice population – male and female. In fact, thanks to you, I went from a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality to seeing them not as bad people, but people who have made bad choices. |
| OK, but now I'm really confused as to why you were annoyed. It is not like you are only willing to help people on "the outside" but not when they are "inside". |
| No, that's not what I'm saying. It's that initially, I thought to myself, gee, we've done all this – and for free – and it's some of the most rewarding work we've done, yet we're being criticized for using the word "offender"?! Seriously? One word! |
| Yes, but she followed up by explaining how when we referred to them as "offenders" before seeing them as "people", it was contextually appropriate. However, by continuing to use the word "offender" it "perpetuates the dehumanization of the people in the minds of your readers." |
| But one word?! I felt like she was ignoring everything else we said and being overly sensitive to one word! |
| Sounds like you are the one being overly sensitive. Regardless, that one word has connotations, and conjures up images and stereotypes and misconceptions. It defines the person by their crimes and punishments, ignoring everything else. Words are powerful, so should always be used carefully, especially in criminal justice situations, where there is already such strong bias by both the media and society. |
| I understand that. Now. The fact you thought it important enough to change the language on our website so quickly helped. Plus, the Marshall Project article you forwarded helped me understand that just because your intentions may be good, your choice of words can be damaging. |
| I never realized that the word "offender" could be offensive (sorry, could not resist), as are other words such as "inmate" or "prisoner." But if changing it to "person who is incarcerated" can help change mindsets and attitudes, it seems an easy thing to do. |
| Well, it worked on me … once I got past my assumptions and over-reaction. |
| Sometimes change happens one person at a time … |
| Based on the "hints" in your Ghosting post, it sounds like your recent "romance" wasn't quite a Lady GaGa "bad romance", but, well, a frustrating one. |
| Interesting comparison, as years ago Gaga revealed that she is drawn to bad romances, but is not sure if she goes after them or they find her. Regardless, my "relationship" ended in the dating stage and never really became a romance. Either when I dated him almost 30 years ago, or recently. Although, this time, I thought it had potential. |
| I was amazed that you were even willing to "rekindle" the relationship as you're not exactly a believer in "recycling" relationships, as I think you once phrased it. In fact, I thought you were pretty adamant about the concept of not repeating your mistakes. |
| True, you should learn from your mistakes, not repeat them. But with most things in life, timing is everything. And, just because someone is not "Mr. Right Now" does not preclude them from being "Mr. Right" at another time in your life. |
| That sounds good, but neither time did you date very long. Maybe there's a reason for that. A reason why you should've left the past in the past. |
| It is funny you say that because that was my first thought. Then, I thought about where each of us was in our lives at that time. I was still climbing the corporate ladder and was not interested in ever having children. He was building his business and had young children. However, what made us incompatible back then was no longer applicable. |
| That all makes sense. But, at the risk of making you sound warm and fuzzy, you have described him in glowing terms – very intelligent, caring parent (and now grandparent), loyal friend to many people, and all-around nice guy. |
| And, we both collect art, enjoy fine red wine, and have similar tastes in restaurants and hotels. Not to mention being almost thirty years older and looking at life from a different perspective. |
| You sound totally compatible. Which, as you've told me over the years, is critical to a successful relationship, especially when all the "lovey-dovey" romance gives way to day-to-day reality. |
| I think that may be where we disconnected. We each need to have realistic expectations, and then decide if we are compatible. He may have decided that he wanted someone more romantic, and less pragmatic; therefore, I was not a good fit. Which I would have accepted. But, instead of telling me that, he went radio silent. |
| I'm not condoning his behavior, but I can understand it. Speaking as a "mere mortal", I can see why he might want to avoid having such an uncomfortable and difficult conversation with you. Especially if he's ever seen the "debate queen" side of you. But this isn't the first time he dated you. Doesn't he know you're a Vulcan? |
| Intellectually, he knew that I am not a physically demonstrative person, especially in public. Nor do I immediately get carried away with the idea of "being in love". |
| Excuse me? This from the woman who I used to say got engaged instead of dating? |
| Fast-forwarding past the "games" and "infatuation stage" of dating to see if a relationship has long-term potential is very different from thinking infatuation is true love. |
| Don't you know most people, if they like someone, want to jump in quickly and enjoy getting "carried up in the moment"? |
| That is fine, as long as they know that infatuation is only infatuation. It may be the beginning of a long-term relationship, or the spark may die. Unfortunately, it may result in a dating process that eliminates those who have the potential to be a lasting relationship, instead focusing on those who want to get carried up in the moment. |
| I'm almost afraid to ask, are you talking about someone in particular? |
| Sometimes you wonder why, in their determination (and rush) to find a lasting relationship with one person, they cannot see everything that has made them lifelong friends to so many people took time. |
| You didn't answer my question, but if you are – maybe you should remind them of that. |
| Maybe I will send them this post. |