It is with somewhat of a heavy heart that I report to you the end of free Red Sox games in the Boston area. Though I pay for cable and can watch them at home, there was something nostalgic about watching them on TV38, albeit only on Friday nights for the last few years. I remember when they first made the move to NESN years ago, and my father shelled out something in the neighborhood of $12 a month to Cablevision JUST to get that station and watch his games. With rising ticket prices and even faster rising cable costs, it seems that being a Sox fan is getting expensive these days.
At least I can read about them online.
Oh, yeah, that costs money too.
This story is great. I kid out in Milton is trying to say that the school system is gender biased towards female students. I can't get enough of him. I'll start out with a quote:
The system is designed to the disadvantage of males...From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this. Thankfully (or unfortunately, depending on your view) this isn't this kid's only point. Can you imagine a world where we try to instill discipline into the youth? But let's not judge too harshly or too quickly; maybe he has a point. Could it be that he is identifying something valid but isn't quite saying it right? Maybe what he's really pointing out is that much of what determines one's success in school does NOT come from academic achievement, but rather from simply following rules. I think he's just making excuses for not doing well. He says he wants to get into Holy Cross, and this seems to me to be a feeble attempt by this kid (and probably his father, who is a Boston lawyer) to somehow explain away why he doesn't have the grades to do it. Not surprisingly, this kid has support among other students in the school. Amazingly, however, even the female senior class president back several of this kid's ideas. You can't expect a boy to buy pink paper and frills to decorate their notebooks. What she's essentially claiming here is that because one teacher offers extra credit to anyone who "decorates" their bookcovers, this equates to using glitter and feathers. It may be just a way in which that teacher is getting kids to cover their books, something that prolongs the life of the book so as not to have to buy new ones any time soon. In the same breath, the president complains that the same teacher requires students to type up reports, which is somehow girly. Wow...typing, what an unneeded life skill. Many of the other points this kid raises seem to have nothing to do with academics at all, and could actually be testament to favoratism towards girls in his school. If teachers are asking boys for passes in the halls and not girls (one of his claims), it could be that they like girls more....OR it could be that it has nothing to do with gender at all, and those people who are asked for passes have established some precedent for the inquiry, and this kid (I love calling him that) is simply trying to conveniently generalize it to fit his whacko theory. To top off this kid's list of ridiculous suggestions, he poses the idea that boys should not be made to fulfill the community service required of all high-school seniors to graduate, saying it is "another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result"...this kid could care less about the community apparently. His father should be ashamed of himself for raising such a child (and that's exactly what he is) and in fact encouraging this type of mentality. The fact is, this kid has no idea what it is like to be discriminated against. He's a white guy who seems pretty well off and will be provided for regardless of what he does (or more acurately, doesn't do) in whatever school he ends up going to. Daddy, it seems, will make sure of that. I enjoyed the other things boston.com readers posted in response to this story. Read them here.
"Christmas"
It's just a word. In our current American society, however, its usage is a hotbed topic of debate. Some say using it to decribe the time at the end of the year when people sing songs, give gifts, light candles, and make a point to spend time with family is not appropriate anymore. In lieu of saying "Christmas time" or "Christmas season", many companies, institutions and individuals have now adopted the term "Holiday Season". I myself have used it, almost unknowingly, as it's appearance around town and in the media has become more commonplace. When I think about it, its not a big deal to say either, as people know what I mean either way (successful communication is of course still the most important thing). It's the reasons I hear people give as to why NOT to say simply "Christmas" that I am not sure about.
The most popular complaint is that the term "Christmas" describes only the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Sure, this is what the holiday was originally about. The man's name is in the word itself, even. It still IS about that, to Christians, but what about the rest of us?
I was raised by a Catholic and an Athiest. I was never baptised or christened or initiated into any kind of religion whatsoever. Yet somehow we had Christmas every year, and though I eventually learned about the holiday's origins, my parents never presented it to me in any way other than the time of year kids got gifts randomly. Materialistic, yes (and now that's truer than ever), but it still managed to suceed in solidifying Christmas in my mind as a holiday that transcended its religious origins.
Christmas isn't just for Christians. I know lots of people from varied cultures, ages, and religions, Jewish and otherwise, who exchange gifts on December 25th in the name of a non-religious Christmas holiday.
Most of what we as a whole affiliate with the holiday has nothing to do with it's Christian origins. Christmas trees, stockings, coal in the stockings, milk and cookies, eggnog, mistletoe, elves, toys, the North Pole...none were present or part of the celebrated birth in the manger. Even Santa Claus, whose title indicates sainthood, has what to do with the birth of Christ? Most children, I would venture to guess, become more familiar with all of Christmas' non-religious pieces long before they learn the Christian story behind it.
This would not be the first holiday to break off, at least partially, from its religious beginnings. Another Christian holiday is I think an even stronger example of this phenomenon: Easter. How many kids across America think about Jesus' resurrection before decorating eggs, eating jellybeans, and awaiting a visit from the Easter bunny (none of which I think had anything to do with the Christian meaning)? All of the bunny-related parts of the holiday are so detached from the religious parts of Easter that they are pratically two different holidays with the same name and occuring on the same day.
Why, then, is there not an outcry for the use of different names for the two different kinds of Easter? Might it be that there are not observances from other religions around the same time? Maybe if there was a Kwaanza or a Hanukkah around the same time we'd have another "season" to appease all. I contend that this is another reason people are no longer wishing others a "Merry Christmas" in late December without reservation.
Maybe the fact that there are so many Christians in this country has something to do with the uproar. Perhaps they don't want others to celebrate their holiday. If that's true, its not exactly a step in the direction of recruiting people to become Christians, not to mention its extrememly narrow-minded. So let's assume that is not the case. Maybe it is that non-Christians affiliate Christmas with Christianity and therefore want nothing to do with the holiday. OK, perhaps. But what about Kwaanza? So far as I know, that isn't affiliated with any religion whatsoever. Can people celebrate both holidays at the same time?
Do people who don't celebrate Christmas celebrate other holidays like Easter (in the non-religious sense)? What about holidays that stem directly from other belief systems that are not as popular? Halloween is a great example. Originating from a Pagan observance, how many of us non-Pagans dress up our kids and march them around to collect candy from neighbors? Maybe a better question is, how many of us do not because of a conflict of religious interest? I see Halloween as maybe the clearest example of a holiday that has transcended it's religious origins.
Let's come back to the original point: "Christmas" is just a word. It's a word that has different meanings to different people, sometimes unrelated to the word's origin. How much time has to pass before it is acceptable to the majority? Are there any such words in our everyday vocabulary today? The answer is yes, and for evidence look no further than the names of the first six months of the year:
January, from Janus, the god of doors and gateways in Roman mythology.
February, from Februus, the Roman god of purification.
March, from Mars or Martius, the Roman god of war.
April, possibly from Apru, the Etruscan name for the Greek god Aphrodite.
May, from Maia, the Greek godess of fertility.
June, from Juno, the Roman god of marriage.
I think that very very few, if any, people are part of a Roman or ancient Greek belief system today (merely the fact that we describe those religions as mythology is testament to our perception of them). Since they have nothing to do with Christians, should Christians come up with new names? Wait..wasn't it the Romans who persecuted Jesus? Hmmm...
In the end, I'll wish people a "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" interchangably and without reservation. If someone claims offense or notes that they don't celebrate Christmas because of religious differences, I'll simply make sure they know what I mean.
Then I'll give them a Christmas card.
|
|
