CSA, or community supported agriculture, are a return to feudalism.
Instead of one person, or family, supporting the workers of a farm and reaping the benefits for doing nothing besides providing money up front, it is a group of people.
A bunch of people buy a piece of land and the workers time. The workers, typically, sell the left overs making money themselves, and the people who bought in get food every week.
It sort of works. Enough to amuse me an horrify my room mates at lest.
On my retreat I got in a conversation at dinner with one of the other women about capitalism verses communism. It was one of those conversations where I was on one side and she was on another. It morphed into a conversation about whether talking about ideals was worth while since they can’t be implimented and then a meta-conversation about how our conversation was working. It was just the two of us but part of it took place over dinner.
We were sitting at a table with two others and we had paused the conversation for most of dinner but when they were talking about something else we started back up. We were talking for maybe ten minutes before we were told we “should drop that topic and talk about something else” I said that it was our conversation and if she didn’t like it she didn’t have to listen. Five minutes latter the other woman at our table lets out a big sigh and says “I’m bored,” clearly directed at the conversation I was having. I had a few strong words with the both of them about respecting others.
I’ve run into this problem before though. I’m having a conversation of different view points and somebody not involved thinks we’re arguing/mad. They come in with an authoritative tone telling me and who ever I’m talking with that we need to drop the topic and move on. When we say we aren’t arguing and in fact having a good time we are told that it sound like arguing and we should talk about something else.
Typically this only happens with really good conversations on controversial topics. As if two people can’t have different views on a topic and discus it civilly. I have no interest coming to a middle ground with someone, I want to explore new ways to think about issues. That was in fact part of this week’s conversation, the art of conversing. My partner in crime was convinced a conversation was useless unless an agreement was reached. I said the conversation and exploring ideas, even if you didn’t agree, was reason enough.
I’m convinced the art of conversation is dieing, and when it does spring up there will be people around to try and kill it.
I’m leaving on a three day retreat tomorrow and I want to get this post done before I go. It hasn’t been coming together to well but here we go.
One of the focuses of the program I’m in is empowering women to be leaders. The other day we were at women’s center talking about what leadership meant to people. We’d all written about it in our applications. As we went around the room everyone had a very similar view of what a leader was. I was at the end so went last and I had something a little different to say but I was fascinated on how different I viewed what being a leader was. I’m wondering how it affects our views of being followers but that will be a different post.
I took notes, so the quotes will be of my notes which are pretty close to word for word what they were saying but still in I’m-taking-notes form.
What it means to be a leader to this particular group of women. They were pretty intent that a leader was about empowering the people around them “Leadership as a collective, not just leader and followers.” Almost all the definitions and stories were about being inspiring. Teaching others to be self sufficent. Listening to others and assimilating their ideas into the over all plan.
We are “all leaders, and don’t know it. Sharing is leading, being confident in a task is leading.” Leaders “need to be enthusiastic and excited.” As leaders “we are facilitators, we show people what they can do”
Most of all being a leader is about making sure people get along with each other, that they are happy and a community. It is about being “loving and caring.”
I’m not certain I disagree with any of this per say. I just happened to be the last to go, and said something different. I think a leader needs to make sure a goal is accomplished, that they keep people on task and they take care of the needs of those working with them. They take responsibility for the group, both good and bad. They don’t have to be happy about some jobs, some jobs suck but still need to be done.
I got funny looks again.
I’m not quite to the point of being conseaded enough to think I have THE right way to do things but in a room full of people claiming to be leaders all they talked about was how to empower others, nothing about accomplishing a goal. They talked about letting everyone be a leader. Making sure people are excited to work: as if people can only work on what they want to work on. Never what they need to work on.
I’ve been in situations where the leader couldn’t listen to everyone’s thoughts on an issue and make everyone happy. They had to just act, and we had to trust that they were making the right choice for us. Being a leader for me isn’t about oppressing. It is about protecting and guiding. I mentioned how being a leader takes courage to be disliked.
There are different ways of leading, clearly, but I don’t think we really talked about leadership just making people feel good about the work they are doing.
This post still isn’t quite right but I want to know other people’s thoughts on this subject so I’m posting it in its confused glory.
I should also probably tell you all about my trip to the capital pretty soon.
After a wonderful conversation about the previous post and my sort of failed date today I have a new way at expressing the needing to be challenged.
To start with I was wandering around an art fair today and met up with a guy I’d met a party the week before. We ended up have a discussion that got pretty in depth about semantics and math and the existence of concepts. Anyways it was going well and he was expressing his thoughts and I was challenging them and then he would challenge what I said. I then said something that pretty well supported my point and he gave up. He said “My brain hurts, I can’t have this kind of conversation right now.”
I felt let down, the excitement and energy we’d built was suddenly dropped. I’ve been in situations where I’ve proven myself right in an argument but they guy kept running with the energy we’d built, changing the topic, teasing me, something to keep going. I didn’t think of it that way until I was explaining what had happened to a friend. Every time a guy does that it seems to be telling me he can’t handle the level of intensity we reached. I was enjoying myself and he told me he couldn’t handle it.
I would have been so much happier had he just smirked at me and said something along the lines of “You’re a little to into this I think.” A laugh and some form of physical contact probably would have done it for me. The laugh to acknowledge he was having as much fun as I was. The physical contact because when I’m being passionate about something, an intellectual conversation in this case, physical contact seems very natural. I’ll associate the enjoyment of that level of energy with being touched by that person.
I’m hanging out with him again tomorrow night. Maybe things will go better. We had enough to talk about today that it is worth a shot.
I need to be challenged by a guy to be interested in him. If he isn’t challenging me I wonder what the point is. I don’t want to always be right. I don’t want to always be in control. If I am I don’t bother. There is no point.
I can have a relationship all about me by myself. I see no reason to compromise my freedom to have someone tag along. I want to be submissive in a relationship, but that requires someone worth submitting to. If I submit without the guy dominating, then I’m still in control, thus defeating the point.
I’ll admit to shittesting. I call it holding a conversation but it serves the same purpose. I want to see if a guy can keep up, if he can make me think. If he is easily thrown by a unexpected comment, if conversation stops. I don’t want to have to hesitate to say something because it might make him feel dumb, or end up lecturing him on a topic. I like to play devils advocate to explore options. If a guy just follows my train of thought around with out effecting it, then why should I be saying it aloud?
I didn’t always relise this is what I was doing. I broke up with one boyfriend after multiple conversations on how I needed someone who could, well hold a conversation. He was a die hard, Rush Limbaugh loving Republican at one point in his life. I convinced him in two hours he really wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton. I didn’t mean to. I just was pushing him in his ideas to see if he could push me in mine.
There was another guy who I had a crush on for two years before I dated him. We were friends and would talk about everything. Religion, politics, social issues. We disagreed on a lot of things but respected each other enough it didn’t matter. After we started dating his views changed to match mine. I tried pointing this out, I didn’t like how conversations now were him agree with me all the time. He said he hated the way I would look when he disagreed or if I “won” a debate how he would feel. So he stopped. I stopped finding him as attractive. I don’t need a “yes man” as a partner. We had a weird break up. I tried explaining how frustrated I was that he always agreed with me now and he got mad that I was saying those things.
I don’t feel guilty about this. I want to be the girl in the relationship. I feel bad people get hurt. I never like that. But I need to feel safe not being in control.
My room mate Bubbles is quite the flirt. Most of her friends are guys and right now there is a guy downstairs trying to be couply with her. I’m not quite certain their story but I do know they met a few weeks ago and they have been flirting and acting couply. He however is to Beta for her. Well as she says he is a sweetheart, and she feels bad, but there is no spark.
When she was explaining this guy to the other room mates one of the things she said was he was too inexperienced. When it was pointed out that she could teach him she said that there just wasn’t enough interest to bother teaching him. I sadly missed this conversation, I want to know if he had experience would she be willing to be friends with benefits.
I feel bad for the guy. I’ve talked to him and he is pretty nice, he just lacks experience. He doesn’t know how to flirt or take control. Bubbles is the first girl to kiss him and now she is pulling lets just be friends. I’m telling her that it would be better to not string him along, because that is what she is doing. I strongly suspect that she just wants to be friends to have male attention. She should be an interesting study of female behavior this year.
Edit: Watching a new movie. Bubbles had been stand offish to her Beta. He was attempting an arm over the shoulder thing which made her close up to her side of the couch. After a while I think he caught on and he is now sitting on his side of the couch with his arms crossed. She is now leaning on her arm to the middle body turned twoards him. If I didn’t know better I’d guess she was flirting. I actually do know better and she is flirting.
Suddenly he isn’t trying to get with her and she is going to give him just enough attention to get him to flirt again.
Amazing how the body langue is working. An hour ago she was saying how she didn’t want him and now that he is on his side of the couch with arms crossed she wants him. I’d be proud of him but he keeps looking at her.
I’d be tempted to flirt with him myself just so he doesn’t obese on her so much.
Edit 2: She left and came back and is sitting in the middle of the couch with her feet on him. I need cards to hand out to guys like him sending him to places where he can learn to not be taken in by this.
A few nights ago I went out to a birthday party of a room mate’s (Bubbles) friend. We were at a bar and said room mate got drunk. She enjoys drinking to get drunk so I’m not suprised. When we got home politics got brought up. I don’t know how.
She was talking about how everyone needs to be accepting of others (1) and how stereotyping is bad (2) and how we have to accept that there are different ways people see as the way to live their lives (3) and we need to love everyone no matter what (4)
She also said that she would never vote third party (as I do) because a vote for third part was a vote for Republicans (5) (she had some reasoning for this which was dumb) and she hates Republicans (6) and they are stupid (7) and all stuck up, rich, white (8) and she hates them so much.
She HATES (her stress not mine) Bush with such a passion. Bush was Cheney’s puppet and made no decisions himself and was a moron etc. And was in tears about how wonderful Obama is. Yes she was crying as she was saying how he is so smart and sure he’s made promises that he hasn’t fulfilled but he wants to. And he is trying so hard.
I pointed out how point 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in exact contrast to points 5, 6, 7, and 8. I told her to her face she was being hypocritical and that was one of the few things I can’t stand. She admitted she might be but just hates them so much. “How can they be SO WRONG?!” She doesn’t understand the complete cognitive dissonance she lives with. I’d almost find it funny but I’ve met to many people like her that I see it as a serious issue. She is so emotionally involved involved politics. Obama can do no wrong. Bush is so evil. To her the most important thing is defeating the Republicans. No matter what. The fact she votes makes me sad.
