Every year, the third week in June finds me in mourning. No matter how many years pass, death's sting reminds me that this week was once filled with a succession of celebrations. It would really start in May with lots of shopping for the perfect gift for the perfect mom, being mine. It was met with lots of family revelry and good eats.
A few weeks later, it was the third week in June, and Mom's birthday and Father's Day always ran back-to- back. Well, since her passing nearly two decades ago, this week always finds me 'making my way' through. Being her only daughter, other family members have moved on and think I should do the same. In a large degree I have; but, anyone who has had a world-class mother knows you never completely move on. There are days that you really have to weather. And, when the week starts off with rain, as this one did, it simply adds to the drear.
Remembering Mom is swiftly followed on Sunday with the remembering of some very special fathers who have crossed over. Most recently my oldest brother, who left behind six very beautiful children, departed this existence a bit over a year ago. I'm reminded also of the man who gave me two beautiful children as husband and father and died much sooner than anyone who loved him would have wished.
In the midst of all the mourning, there's another mourning of sorts. My dear sweet Dad is still very much alive and well. That's a real blessing. However, as many know, when one parent dies, the other eventually remarries, especially men. Well, such is the case. About a decade after Mom died he married a wonderful woman, a baker's-dozen years' younger than he, which I'm sure helps keep him youthful. With that said, new wife comes with six new half-siblings who have adopted him as the wonderful dad that he is, considering their father died, ironically, nearly two decades ago. As my birth-family once was, they are a very family-oriented clan and have his Father's Day mapped to the hilt with barbecues and gifts that reminds one of Christmas. Added to that, I'm a three-hour drive away. Oh yes, I'm more than welcome to attend; but, can you imagine trying to be stoic with a step-mom trying to live up to my birth mother. Dizzying to think about, and much too 'pseudo' for lack of a better word. As I said, she really is the perfect wife for my dad. So, I'll call and genuinely wish him a happy day. It is tiring to sound upbeat when we speak in this third week in June. As usual, I eventually bring up mom's recent birthday, which is a bit awkward, trying not to rain on the mood. After 'catching up' we end the call, and if I'm blessed, as usual, the fourth week in June rolls around, and by God's grace life resumes as normal.
So, if you're mourning a loss with the upcoming Father's Day, know that you are not alone. Don't be shy to talk about your sorrow even if everyone around you thinks you should have moved on by now. It's not for them to decide; after all, most have not experienced the loss as you have.
20150612
Dolezal's Misrepresentation More A Case of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
There's nothing new about people denying their true race for an opportunity at a better, more posh future. NAACP Head, Rachel Dolezal merely flipped the tables on the controversial practice of Affirmative Action. Interestingly, I'm reminded of a recent law case - Fisher v. University of Texas - involving a student taking her race-based complaint to the Supreme Court in attempt to lawfully overturn a perceived discrimination practice. The Supreme Court tossed it back to a court of appeals, which offered no conclusive verdict, and Fisher continues her fight against race-based admissions.
The issue of Dolezal reminds me of someone functioning from a "whatever-it-takes" mentality, which is very common in the make-it-to-the-top career-world. The first time I heard that phrase, I cringed to the core; because, the question asked was in relation to something that should have required a more problem-solving approach as an answer. There's something deceptive about doing whatever it takes to make something happen. In this case, it is the integrity of someone working in a job capacity requiring utmost integrity.
Recently, I have applied for many jobs. Usually, near the end of a lengthy application, a page pops up indicating that for statistical uses ONLY information about my race, age, and gender are required. Some companies allow for an opportunity to opt-out. I offer the data anyway; since these identifying factors are easily discernible on my vitae. I'd have to be pretty naive to think one couldn't surmise with near-exact precision my race, age range, or gender based on details given.
On to the bottom line: Do I believe Dolezal should be fired? Nope. If she is clearly fulfilling her role as director, then she should continue doing so. After all, if she wasn't vetted for race, obviously race wasn't a factor in her qualifications. Perhaps, the fact that she checked two boxes infers some loyalty to her son and her adopted siblings. I am sad that she felt a need to falsify her race; however, I clearly understand that for those who have peace about rationalizing integrity in life, she resorted to 'whatever it took.' Clearly, she had all the qualifications needed to impress the person who appointed her. After all, to fire her because she's white would be reverse-discrimination; thus a violation of equal-opportunity rights.
Let it rest. The quandary is hers to deal with. The media-mayhem may get the better of her and she may resign, not because she's white; but because she was truly disingenuous about a key factor in the position she holds. If she denied a black person a lucrative job because the hiring committee 'thought' she was black, then let it rest. It's not her fault, in a sense, because she clearly sat in front of them during several interviews and received the nod as the woman for the job. One for Dolezal. Thousands of people fudge on job applications every day in less obvious ways with hopes of having a pay check at the end of the month to have a sustainable life. Will she resign? I don't know. Should she be fired because she lied about her race? NOPE. After all, to reiterate, this would become a case for reverse-discrimination, as well as the presumption that the NAACP can't have white leadership. Now, that would be a case for the Supreme Court with some tornadic winds in its sails.
The issue of Dolezal reminds me of someone functioning from a "whatever-it-takes" mentality, which is very common in the make-it-to-the-top career-world. The first time I heard that phrase, I cringed to the core; because, the question asked was in relation to something that should have required a more problem-solving approach as an answer. There's something deceptive about doing whatever it takes to make something happen. In this case, it is the integrity of someone working in a job capacity requiring utmost integrity.
Recently, I have applied for many jobs. Usually, near the end of a lengthy application, a page pops up indicating that for statistical uses ONLY information about my race, age, and gender are required. Some companies allow for an opportunity to opt-out. I offer the data anyway; since these identifying factors are easily discernible on my vitae. I'd have to be pretty naive to think one couldn't surmise with near-exact precision my race, age range, or gender based on details given.
On to the bottom line: Do I believe Dolezal should be fired? Nope. If she is clearly fulfilling her role as director, then she should continue doing so. After all, if she wasn't vetted for race, obviously race wasn't a factor in her qualifications. Perhaps, the fact that she checked two boxes infers some loyalty to her son and her adopted siblings. I am sad that she felt a need to falsify her race; however, I clearly understand that for those who have peace about rationalizing integrity in life, she resorted to 'whatever it took.' Clearly, she had all the qualifications needed to impress the person who appointed her. After all, to fire her because she's white would be reverse-discrimination; thus a violation of equal-opportunity rights.
Let it rest. The quandary is hers to deal with. The media-mayhem may get the better of her and she may resign, not because she's white; but because she was truly disingenuous about a key factor in the position she holds. If she denied a black person a lucrative job because the hiring committee 'thought' she was black, then let it rest. It's not her fault, in a sense, because she clearly sat in front of them during several interviews and received the nod as the woman for the job. One for Dolezal. Thousands of people fudge on job applications every day in less obvious ways with hopes of having a pay check at the end of the month to have a sustainable life. Will she resign? I don't know. Should she be fired because she lied about her race? NOPE. After all, to reiterate, this would become a case for reverse-discrimination, as well as the presumption that the NAACP can't have white leadership. Now, that would be a case for the Supreme Court with some tornadic winds in its sails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)