Why are there boundaries?
Boundaries serve to delineate a difference – over here is Germany, over there is Poland. They serve to separate incompatible functions – on this side of the wall is Sales, on that side is Production (and dangerous equipment, pressurized gases, concentrated chemicals, high voltage electricity). And they serve to provide guidance / provide protection – if you go past the fence, the bull / deep ravine / toxic waste might get you. Valid boundaries are vital to your happiness / health / survival.
We went through, a generation back or two, a widespread rejection of boundaries – “tune in, turn on, drop out” in Leary’s phrase. Boundaries were seen as limiting, arbitrary, restrictive – as obstacles rather than protections. Boundaries kept people apart rather than kept people safe. Boundaries prevented free association instead of limiting contact between incompatible groups. Boundaries were bad.
But valid boundaries are necessary. They manage interactions that nature, society and geography require while human nature, interpersonal conflict and heritage conflict. They give a way for groups to interact without provocation. And they limit how badly out of hand things may otherwise normally tend to get.
The modern states of India and Pakistan were created to keep Hindus and Moslems from killing each other. Whole communities left where they originated and went elsewhere to stop murder on a daily basis. It generally worked; while no one argues that India and Pakistan are best buddies, millions of deaths have been prevented by that boundary, in this case the national border between them.
But Americans have not remembered the need for boundaries. Lately (last fifty years) all kinds of real, useful boundaries, necessary and useful, have been torn down, to our detriment.
As one example, in my house I have two bathrooms. They are open-access, anyone in my family can use either one. The door limits access (it has a lock) while one party uses it. The other parties can wait, or go use the other one (if unoccupied). Generally, this is a gender boundary, or possibly a personal one.
My wife and I can bathe together if we choose (we don’t; I like rather warm showers, she likes lobster-cooking baths). My kids (both mature) do not choose to bathe together (I think she’d kick him somewhere sensitive if he tried, he’d probably faint from embarassment if she offered). Neither child seems to want to bathe with either parent, having gotten that out of their systems as infants. The bathroom is a boundary that delineates reasonable and proper behavior regarding sanitary and hygienic necessities for both genders. No one complains, takes offense or acts insulted for bathing alone. The bathroom raises no problems at my house.
But these years, in the name of equality and freedom those who take offense and act insulted demand that we allow men (who see themselves as women) to use the female public toilets and presumably women (who see themselves as men) to use the male public toilets. To accommodate the mentally ill the mentally sane are required to forgo reasonable and customary boundaries and accept unreasonable access. This is imposed insanity for social posturing (and possibly social engineering).
I have facilitated access to opposite-gender bathrooms (stood guard briefly) for special circumstances (urgent need by stressed companions, one or the other public toilet out of order). I have accidentally gone into a female public toilet twice, once for a missing sign and once on sheer un-observant oblivious walking (and apologized profusely and left immediately once I noticed).
Never would I intrude on a uniquely female safe-space without an urgent need and justification (think broken water-pipe flooding, and even then I would try to empty the space first before bringing the wrenches). Women generally need a place they can take care of their business without fear of interlopers violating their privacy, solitude and sanity. A boundary is needed to prevent trauma, voyeurism and even assault.
Similar observations could be made on everything from the Boy Scouts admitting girls (who is going to police the tents?) to same-sex marriage (how can you force believers to deny tenets of their faith?) to censorship of the Web for political reasons (how can anyone deny free speech based on political positions in America?) Boundaries need to be established on what constitutes unacceptable behavior in communications control and compulsion.
Until we learn to respect valid boundaries again we will reap the consequences: confusion, corruption (of societies) and finally conflict (when the pressure overruns the missing boundaries). Choose, and live with the consequences.
What’s so hard for even the mentally and politically fucked up to understand about that? Oh, I know. Because they are doing it on purpose and that pisses me off the most.
Common sense isn’t anymore.
I notice that the people that don’t want to work are the ones who don’t like boundaries. They want what is on the other side but don’ want to work for it.
And there are those who resent ANY boundaries, no matter how logical, necessary or worthwhile. When I meet such people I wonder if they would really be happier in a world without guardrails. They want what they want, the rest of us be damned – and if we let them have their way, we will be.
good article james,lots of truth/common sense in what you say–
it seems so obvious but it’s no longer the case–
The whole reason I wrote it. TPTB have spent decades, trillions and millions of man-hours to remove common sense from the thought processes of the populace; the populace needs to put them back.
I’m kind of disappointed at the lack of comments so far; it seems not many SJWs read TBP.