Senin, 24 November 2025

Meryl Streep

 Copied from one page on facebook

Meryl Streep once said: Let things fall apart. Stop exhausting yourself trying to hold them together. Not everything is meant to endure, and forcing what is already breaking will only leave you drained. Sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is loosen your grip and simply let go.

Let people be upset. Let them misunderstand you. Let them judge, criticize, or create their own stories. Their opinions mirror their inner world, not your value. You do not owe explanations to those determined to misread you. You are not responsible for how others interpret your honesty or respond to your truth.

Stop fearing what you cannot see. Stop asking, What now? Where next? as if the universe has not held you through every moment so far. Loss can feel unbearable, yet often it is just clearing space for something far greater. What is meant to leave will leave, no matter how tightly you cling. What is meant for you will stay, no matter how uncertain the path seems. Life has its own balance, even when we cannot sense it.

There is a rhythm to existence, a natural flow of endings and beginnings. When we resist it, we create our own suffering. We cling to what is already slipping away, afraid that nothing good will come to replace it. But that fear is a lie. The universe is abundant, always opening new doors, offering new love, new purpose, new chances. The only thing standing between you and what comes next is your attachment to what no longer fits your life.

And never believe that your best days are behind you. Hardship does not mean the beauty has ended. There is still joy waiting for you, still love to receive, still peace to claim. But you must make room for it.

So ask yourself, What am I holding onto that is holding me back? And when you find the answer, trust yourself enough to release it. Something better is already on its way.



Minggu, 23 November 2025

The sexist Charles Darwin

 


He called women intellectually inferior.

She proved he wasn’t just wrong — he was unscientific.


In 1871, Charles Darwin claimed that women were biologically less intelligent than men.

Doctors repeated it.

Politicians used it.

Universities justified exclusion with it.

Darwin’s authority made sexism sound like science.


Four years later, Antoinette Brown Blackwell — a woman with no formal scientific training, barred from universities, dismissed by the establishment — dismantled his argument with such precision that he never dared respond.


Antoinette wasn’t new to breaking barriers.

In 1853, she became the first woman ordained as a minister in the United States, stepping into a pulpit no woman had ever been allowed to stand in.

But her mind refused to stay within one field.

She devoured philosophy, theology, and eventually evolutionary science — the very ideas Darwin had used to justify inequality.


She read his work carefully.

She understood it deeply.

And she saw what he could not: that his conclusions about women were not evolution…

but Victorian bias dressed up as biology.


For four years she gathered evidence.

Species where females were larger, stronger, or more complex.

Birds of prey with fiercer females.

Spiders where the female dominated.

Insects where males lived shorter, simpler lives.

Nature that refused to match Darwin’s story.


In 1875, she published The Sexes Throughout Nature — a calm, methodical, devastating rebuttal.

She showed where Darwin cherry-picked data, where he confused culture with biology, where he interpreted women’s limited opportunities as limited ability.

She exposed the circular logic shaping “objective” science: assume male superiority → interpret nature through that lens → claim nature proves the assumption.


Darwin never answered her.

He couldn’t.

Her evidence was too strong, her reasoning too clear, her scholarship too precise.


Male scientists ignored her because she was a woman.

Women reformers embraced her because she was right.


And Antoinette kept going — writing, lecturing, raising five children, and fighting for women’s rights for seventy years.

She lived long enough to cast a vote in 1920 at age 95, the only woman from the first Women’s Rights Convention in 1850 to live to see suffrage become reality.


She didn’t ask men like Darwin to believe women were equal.

She demonstrated it — relentlessly, brilliantly, undeniably.


Fun Fact:

Antoinette Brown Blackwell’s 1875 book is considered the first scientific critique of evolutionary sexism ever written.


Because sometimes it only takes one mind — one determined, unignorable mind — to expose the bias an entire world mistakes for truth.


#historyuntold #womeninscience #learnsomethingnew #equalitymatters #didyouknow


Sources:

American Philosophical Society – Antoinette Brown Blackwell Papers

Smithsonian Magazine – “The Woman Who Took On Darwin”

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Entry on Antoinette Brown Blackwell


Copied from facebook

Kamis, 13 November 2025

John Deacon, the ultimate introvert

 


He wrote Queen's biggest hit, made $200 million, and then Freddie Mercury died—so he walked away from fame forever and hasn't been seen in 28 years.

No farewell tour. No memoir. No reunion. No final interview.

Just silence.

John Deacon—the quiet bassist who wrote "Another One Bites the Dust"—simply vanished from public life at age 46 and never came back.

And here's what makes it extraordinary: He's still alive. Still out there. Living in the same South London house he bought in the 1970s. Playing golf. Raising his six kids, now grown. Collecting millions annually in Queen royalties.

He could be on stages worldwide earning standing ovations. He could write a bestselling memoir. He could do one interview and make headlines globally.

Instead, he chooses complete invisibility.

For 28 years.

Let me tell you why this matters.

1971. Chelsea College, London.

John Deacon was 19 years old—a serious, introverted electronics student who played bass in amateur bands but cared more about finishing his degree than rock stardom.

Three guys named Freddie Mercury, Brian May, and Roger Taylor had been searching for a bassist for months. They'd auditioned dozens. No one fit.

Then John showed up. Played one song. Barely spoke.

Freddie, Brian, and Roger looked at each other: This is our guy.

Not because John had the biggest personality—he had the smallest. But that's exactly what they needed. Three volcanic egos required a stabilizer. Someone grounded. Calm. Practical.

John joined Queen. But first—and this tells you everything about him—he insisted on finishing his university degree.

While Queen was recording their first album and playing bigger shows, John was attending classes and taking exams. He graduated with First Class Honours in Electronics in 1971. Only then did he fully commit to the band.

Most 19-year-olds would've dropped out immediately. "Rock band? Fame? Let's go!"

John thought: "Let me get my degree first. Just in case."

That pragmatism defined him for the next 20 years.

The quiet genius.

While Freddie commanded stages and Brian created guitar symphonies, John was the foundation nobody noticed. The groove. The pocket that held everything together.

But here's what casual fans miss: John Deacon wrote some of Queen's biggest hits.

"Another One Bites the Dust" (1980)—that funky, unstoppable bass line? John wrote it. The song became Queen's best-selling single ever. Over 7 million copies. Number one in America.

"I Want to Break Free" (1984)—massive hit. John wrote it.

"You're My Best Friend" (1975)—John wrote it for his wife Veronica.

"Spread Your Wings" (1977)—John's composition.

He wasn't prolific like Freddie or Brian. But when John wrote a song, it was often a smash.

And he did it all while being the quietest person in every room.

The rock star who lived like an accountant.

While Freddie partied extravagantly, John went home to his wife and kids.

He married Veronica Tetzlaff in January 1975—before Queen became massive—and stayed married. No rock star divorces. No scandals. No tabloid drama. Nearly 50 years together.

They bought a modest house in Putney, South London, and had six children. John lived there throughout Queen's entire peak—through stadium tours, worldwide fame, hundreds of millions in royalties.

He just... didn't participate in the lifestyle.

Brian May once said: "John was always the sensible one. While we were being rock stars, John was worried about mortgages and school fees."

Roger Taylor called him "quiet but lethal" musically—invisible in interviews, devastating in the studio.

Freddie relied on John's stability. The ultimate extrovert and the ultimate introvert, understanding each other perfectly.

Then came November 24, 1991.

The day John's world ended.

Freddie Mercury died of AIDS-related pneumonia.

The remaining members tried to continue. They held the massive Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert in April 1992 at Wembley Stadium.

John participated. He played. But anyone watching could see: he was shattered.

Queen attempted a few more projects. Made in Heaven (1995) using Freddie's final recordings. John played on it, reluctantly.

A few one-off performances in 1997. John participated minimally.

And then he stopped.

His statement was simple and devastating: "As far as we are concerned, this is it. There is no point carrying on. It is impossible to replace Freddie."

Brian and Roger wanted to continue in some form. Eventually they toured with Paul Rodgers, then Adam Lambert, as "Queen +."

John wanted no part of it.

He said no. And walked away.

That was 1997. He was 46 years old. Still young. Still healthy. Still earning millions annually.

And he simply... disappeared.

28 years of silence.

At first, people thought it was temporary grief. That he'd return eventually. Do one reunion show. Accept an award. Something.

But years passed. A decade. Two decades. Nearly three.

Nothing.

John Deacon hasn't given a public interview since 1997. Hasn't appeared on stage. He attended Queen's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction in 2001 but didn't speak. After that, he stopped attending public events entirely.

When Queen + Adam Lambert tours to sold-out stadiums worldwide, John declines all involvement. He still receives his share of royalties—millions annually—but wants nothing to do with performances or publicity.

Brian May occasionally mentions him: "We stay in touch. He's fine. He's happy. He just doesn't want any part of this anymore. And we respect that."

Roger Taylor is more blunt: "John wants to be left alone. He's not coming back. Ever."

So where is John Deacon?

Still in Putney, South London. Same house. Now 73 years old. Married to Veronica for nearly 50 years. Six adult children, grandchildren.

He plays golf. Manages his finances (that electronics degree training paid off). Lives a completely ordinary suburban life.

Very rarely, a photo surfaces. Someone spots him at a grocery store or golf course. He politely declines autographs, doesn't engage, walks away.

He's worth an estimated $200 million. "Bohemian Rhapsody" alone generates millions annually. He could live anywhere, do anything.

He chooses to live quietly in the neighborhood where he raised his kids.

Why this matters.

John Deacon achieved everything a musician dreams of. Worldwide fame. Historic success. Songs billions have heard. Financial security for generations.

And then he walked away. Forever.

In an industry built on ego, attention, and never knowing when to quit—John quit at the perfect moment. When it stopped being meaningful.

He kept his promise to Freddie: "You can't replace him." So he didn't try.

While Brian and Roger tour (their choice, valid, fine)—John remains firm. For him, Queen died with Freddie. Continuing without Freddie would dishonor what they built together.

There's something almost sacred about his loyalty. He could easily justify one reunion tour. One documentary. One final payday.

He refuses. Every time. For 28 years.

The last public quote attributed to John, from around 1997: "I have no wish to be on a stage again. My life is about my family now."

And he meant it.

Through temptation, offers, pressure—he's never wavered.

What we can learn.

In a world that demands everyone seek attention constantly, John Deacon chose invisibility and found peace.

He knew when to stop. Knew what actually mattered. Fame, applause, validation from strangers—none of it compared to the life he built with Veronica and his children.

He didn't need to prove anything. Didn't need one more tour, one more interview, one more moment in the spotlight.

He said what he needed to say through music. Then went home.

That's not retirement. That's something rarer: complete contentment with silence.

Most people never figure out when enough is enough. John Deacon figured it out at 46 and never looked back.

He's still out there. In Putney. Playing golf. Living the life he chose over fame.

And apparently, that's exactly where he wants to be.

The bassist who knew when to stop playing.

John Deacon: Born 1951. Joined Queen at 19. Wrote their biggest hits. Played on every album from 1971-1995.

Then Freddie died.

John said "It's over."

And meant it.

Still alive. Still quiet. Still done.

28 years later, the world still doesn't understand it. But John doesn't need us to understand.

He made his choice. He kept his promise to Freddie. He built a life that matters more to him than applause.

In an age of influencers desperate for attention, reality stars manufacturing drama, celebrities clinging to relevance—John Deacon is the counterpoint.

The man who had everything the world offers and chose something else instead.

Family. Privacy. Golf. Silence.

And he's never regretted it once.

That's not just a story about a bassist who quit.

That's a story about knowing what actually matters.

And having the courage to walk away from everything that doesn't.

#fblifestyle


Copied from a page on facebook

Selasa, 04 November 2025

NEGERI YANG LAGI MERIANG DAN KEDANAN PALESTINA

 Copas dari wall Andi Setiono, di FB

 


NEGERI YANG LAGI MERIANG DAN KEDANAN PALESTINA I 
 
Disclaimernya adalah saya tidak pernah menentang kemerdekaan Palestina, tapi juga kalau tetap menjadi bagian dari Israel, atau Yordania atau bahkan dibuatkan koloni di Indonesia sekali pun saya baik-baik saja. Bagi saya kedamaian itu tak bersyarat: damai ya damai. Kalau mau perang terus ya gak apa-apa. Bukankah perang adalah hobi paling purba dari makhluk yang bernama Homo sapiens. 
 
Bagi saya, sejarah panjang Israel dan Palestina itu berimpitan kuat, sebagaimana dulu kota kelahiran saya Yogyakarta. Ketika masih bernama Mataram, tak jelas benar kenapa generasi orang kemudian mesti menambahkan Hindu. Padahal ada Budha-nya segala. Menunjukkan bahwa sejarah selalu dicatat secara ngawur oleh generasi yang lebih muda. Jadi ketika, Islam mulai berkuasa lalu dilabeli Mataram-Islam. 
 
Bagi saya semisal, kalau orang Bali tiba2 jadi sedemikian kuat, orang-orang jenius dan pada kaya raya. Dan itu bukan mustahil, mereka tiba2 pindah ke Jogja, ya gak papa. Wong itu juga tanah nenek moyang mereka. Intinya, masalah tanah yang diaku sebagai bagian sejarah suatu etnis itu selamanya debatable. Apalagi di zaman medsos ini, dimana orang akan menunggangi segala isu untuk sekedar "nunut kondang", ikut populer. 
 
Persoalannya menjadi pelik, justru ketika ia sudah jadi isue, apalagi kalau itu "tumpuk undung", bertumpuk2. Isu agama (yang ini selamanya manipulatif), sosial (ini masalah superioritas etnis dan kelas), ekonomi (yang menyangkut penguasaan sumberdaya), atau malah budaya (nah... ini dia, mereka yang merasa selamanya eksportir akan merasa dirinya lagi2 superior. Sementara yang importir selamnya inferior). 
 
Akan sempurna peliknya, jika banyak kepentingan negara (baca: rezim) untuk ikut campur hanya sekedar cari teman dan sekutu.
 
Sesungguhnya, persoalan Palestina ini akan lebih mudah diselesaikan seandainya tidak banyak ikut campur tangan pihak2 yang justru menjadikannya kendaraan politik. Dalam kasus Palestina, saya merasa figur seperti Gus Dur adalah sosok yang mungkin bisa menjadi tokoh penyelesai. Ia memiliki semua syarat untuk itu. Bukan malah berlarut2 seperti hari ini. Sehingga orang2 lokal lebih suka mengibarkan bendera Palestina, dibandingkan Merah Putih sebagai bendera nasional bangsa ini.
 
Bagi saya, persoalan Palestina itu hanya menarik untuk orang2 yang pikirannya rumit dan narsistik. Tepatnya suka merumit2kan keadaan dan butuh selalu didengar pendapatnya. Orang yang bacaannya adalah status sosial media, alih2 membaca buku sejarah dalam sumber aslinya. Apalagi bersedia mendengar dari sisi pihak sebelah yang biasanya 180 derajat berbeda. Menjelaskan kenapa bukannya persoalan ini akan selesai, justru membawa kita semakin jauh dari penemuan solusi.
 
Faktanya di Indonesia, perkara Palestina ini sudah mewabah jadi isue yang seksi ditunggangi. Sekedar untuk menunjukkan identitas masing2 kelompok. Dengan buzzer dengan atau tanpa bayaran yang entah kenapa, jika menyangkut isu ini berubah jadi telengas. Coba cek sesekali, siapa yang berada titik sebaliknya bisa bicara bebas. Pasti akan dirajam habis, dianggap tidak berperikemanusiaan. Tidak ada...
Lagi2 Gus Dur adalah orang terakhir yang berani melakukannya. Setelahnya, orang lebih suka membiarkan persoalannya dibaca sebagai isu politik tanpa bacaan yang kritis. Gus Dur adalah figur yang berusaha menyederhanakan persoalan melalui dialog bilateral, bukan seperti sekarang yang ditarik menjadi isu multilateral. Menjelaskan kenapa persoalan yang sesungguhnya "latah" dalam sejarah dunia ini makin jauh panggang daripada api. 
 
Kenapa bahkan ketika kita bersikap secara berimbang saja, jatuhnya tetap salah. Kita tahu apa yang terjadi pada Gus Dur? Ia difitnah sedemikian rupa, diperumit posisi politiknya, dan akhirnya dijatuhkan. Sesuatu yang kemudian selamanya kita sesalkan!
 
Tapi apa sesungguhnya yang terjadi dengan Palestina itu? Kenapa tanah yang secuil ini bisa sedemikian mengharu biru masyarakat dunia, bahkan tak kurang di Indonesia?
 
Faktanya Palestina sebenarnya udah mendeklarasikan kemerdekaannya tahun 1988 yang dibacakan oleh pemimpin Fatah (PLO) Yaser Arafat di Aljazair. Bahkan setelah deklarasi kemerdekaan 1988 ini, lebih dari 80 negara langsung mengakui Palestina (ada yg menyebut 100 negara). Untuk melengkapi syarat sebuah negara melalui Perjanjian Oslo 1993, Israel mengakui Otoritas Palestina (OP) sebagai pemerintahan Palestina yg sah dan mengembalikan wilayah Tepi-Barat zona A dan B, untuk dikelola Palestina sendiri. 
 
Di tahun 2005 Israel kembali mengembalikan Jalur-Gaza ke Palestina juga untuk membentuk negara yg utuh. Dengan syarat utama pihak Palestina mengakui Israel juga dan berhenti bermusuhan dengan Israel (two state solution). Masalahnya Otoritas Palestina dibawah kendali Fatah (PLO) kemudian bertikai dan baku hantam dengan Hamas yang kemudian berhasil mengkudeta Otoritas Palestina dan menguasai Gaza sepenuhnya di tahun 2007. 
 
Kita tahu semua, siapa yang di belakang Hamas? Iran! Ia yang selama ini dengan semangat mengekspor Revolusi Islam mengirim senjata dan roket untuk menyerang Israel. Dan mencapai puncaknya pada 7 Oktober 2023, saat kelompok militan Palestina yang dipimpin oleh Hamas melancarkan invasi dan serangan terhadap Israel dari Jalur Gaza, menerobos tembok pembatas Gaza-Israel dan memaksa masuk melalui penyeberangan perbatasan Gaza, ke pemukiman terdekat dan instalasi militer Israel.
 
Hal ini membuat Israel membatalkan pengakuan negara Palestina dan menolak melepas wilayah yg mereka kuasai di Tepi-Barat terutama zona C, karena beranggapan pihak Palestina tidak menepati perjanjian Oslo terutama bagian berhenti bermusuhan dengan Israel. Di sinilah tiba2 seolah Israel sendirian dan diganyang hampir semua negara di dunia, kecuali tentu saja pendukung utama yaitu Amerika Serikat. 
 
Artinya apa? Palestina ini adalah kuda tunggang dari sedemikian banyak kepentingan. Terutama, negara2 yang merasa dirinya bisa jadi "eksportir", yah eksportir apa saja. Ideologi, pengaruh, dan tentu saja senjata. Intinya Palestina sudah berubah jadi subyek yang seharusnya merdeka berubah menjadi obyek yang selamanya dibonsai sebagai isu dan masalah. 
 
Indonesia dalam hal ini kecipratan tuah isu Palestina. Para politikus bersorak sorai, kelompok2 yang selama ini berposisi sebagai pembenci pemerintah menjadikannya punya eksistensi lagi. Bahkan di kota saya, stadion milik pemerintah atapnya diwarnai dengan bendera Palestina. Di acara apa pun, membawa bendera Palestina dianggap simbol pembebasan. Saya memahaminya sebagai kesumpegan di jalanan di rumah di komunitas. Dari tekanan ekonomi dan ketidakberdayaan terhadap represi hukum. 
 
Banyak kegiatan pengumpulan dana dilakukan, sebagian memang sampai. Sebagian sebagaimana biasa jadi ajang cari turahan, atau malah dikerakap semua. Seorang artis yang telah layu dari dunia film dan panggung politik. Tiba2 menyewa kapal judulnya membawa bantuan kemanusiaan hanya untuk ditolak masuk. Sebuah eksibisionis politik yang gagal. Apa yah dumeh mbake kae sing ayu njuk boleh? Bolehlah ia tampak ayu di sini, di Arab sana yang lebih ayu darinya banyak. 
 
Dan yang terakhir, seorang Menteri tiba2 menyediakan 15.000 ha lahan untuk tanaman pangan. Bagi saya ini sudah keterlaluan! 
 
Pertama, apa yang dilakukannya pasti dengan membabat hutan. Artinya sekedar pembenaran merusak hutan yang setengah mati oleh para pemangku adat pemiliknya dijaga. Atas nama negara, ia merusak hutan hanya demi kepentingan politik sesaat.
 
Kedua, kalau pun bisa ditanami yang itu pasti butuh waktu tahunan. Karena sebuah tanah gambut untuk dirubah tanah pertanian, paling cepat baru berproduksi normal butuh lima tahun setelah ia dibabat bersih. 
 
Ketiga, ini bukti lain betapa bangsa ini "semugih", sok kaya. Di tengah rakyatnya yang kesulitan pangan dan terkadang masih import. Ia lebih peduli pada yang jauh, abai pada yang dekat. 
 
Mereka ini lupa, bahwa nyaris setiap negara lain juga memberi bantuan besar. Jangan lupa, AS sebagai negara yang paling dibenci oleh Hamas dan Iran adalah donatur dana kemanusiaan bagi Palestina. Persoalannya tampak hiperbolis, lebih karena perilaku mereka yang selama ini memiliki sikap hedonis dan hobby pada perang, sekaligus menjadi penjarah bantuan kemanusiaan. Sesuatu yang tampak lumrah di medan perang manapun.
 
Kasus Palestina membuktikan, di hari ini Indonesia itu dibentuk oleh isue politik yang sialnya selalu jatuhnya dipolitisr, dan bukan pada kebutuhan mengejar kesejahteraan bersama untuk bisa bergerak maju. Sehingga setiap gerak maju justru selalu dicurigai, sedangkan nyaris semua isu politik dianggap sebagai obat mujarab untuk menyambung umur dan memanipulasi keadaan.
 
Silahkan terus atau diteruskan deman dan kedanan Palestina. Saya tak jadi penonton saja. Terlalu banyak yang bisa dikerjakan, selain mengurus urusan negara lain.
Negara yang sesungguhnya tak butuh2 amat kita urus.
.
.
.
NB: Sebagai orang yang pernah dididik berpikir secara geopolitis. Bila ukurannya hari ini, sampai kiamat pun kondisi bangsa Palestina akan tetap seperti ini. Dulu sekali, kita ingat Perjanjian Camp David diselenggarakan justru untuk mendamaikan Israel dan Mesir. Sebuah perdamaian yang efektif sampai hari ini, karena keduanya tak pernah lagi bersengketa. Sementara titik tengahnya, Palestina, negara yang jadi obyek sengketanya malah terabaikan.
 
Demikian pula, negara2 di sekitarnya. Makin tak peduli urusan Palestina. Bukan karena tak peduli, tapi selain melelahkan juga tak melihat titik untungnya. Arab Saudi contohnya, kalau pun mereka harus membakar uang, mending membeli pemain2 sepakbola mahal. Atau membuat kota raksasa baru bernama Neom. Karena mereka tahu, tanpa itu mereka tak pernah menarik dan disebut. Mereka boleh kaya raya, tapi tanpa publisitas yang baik, budaya pop yang digandrungi dunia: mereka adalah nothing.
Hanya Iran yang masih membela secara sporadis Palestina. Dalam hal ini pun harus dipersempit sebagai Hamas. Karena demikianlah watak kaum Syiah, mereka akan selamanya jadi eksportir ideologi mahiwal. Menjelaskan mengapa mereka sulit diterima dalam pergaulan i di tingkat apa pun. Iran pun setelah beberapa kali konflik terbuka dengan Israel, mereka mbleret, memudar. Tentu mereka juga makin sadar bahwa infiltrasi intelejen yang dilakukan Israel sudah masuk terlalu dalam. 
 
Dalam dunia politik, gerak intelejen itu lebih menakutkan daripada gerak pasukan tempur di atas medan laga. Apalagi itu kalau sifatnya menyangkut perang berbasis elektronik.
 
Saya bukan fans club Israel, walau saya seorang Katolik. Meski setiap kali misa didengungkan bahwa Yesus adalah Raja Israel. Bahwa setiap kali membicarakan Israel selalu harus mau membedakan antara Yahudi dan Zionisme. Ajaran yang menurut saya justru makin memperumit keadaan. Saya hanya menjadi bagian dari penikmat kabar baik, bagaimana Ethiopia bisa lepas dari jaring kemiskinannya. Karena kestabilitan negara ini yang berhasil diciptakan berkat dukungan Israel.
 
Hal2 seperti ini tampaknya tak akan pernah ada dalam bacaan orang yang sedang mengalami meriang dan kedanan isu Palestina. Gak apa, kalau Israel saja gak butuh pengakuan untuk itu. Untuk apa kita ikut membesar-besarkannya.
 
Di situ beda visioner dengan reaksioner.

 

Senin, 03 November 2025

Yeats

 Copied from one page on Facebook.



He proposed four times over thirty years—she said no every time, yet she inspired his greatest poetry and a Nobel Prize.

Dublin, 1889. William Butler Yeats, a 23-year-old aspiring poet, attended a gathering where he met a woman who would haunt his imagination for the rest of his life.

Maud Gonne was 22, startlingly beautiful, and unlike anyone Yeats had ever encountered. She was passionate about Irish independence, politically active, intellectually formidable, and possessed a charisma that made rooms fall silent when she spoke.

Yeats was immediately, utterly, devastatingly captivated.

Within days, he knew. Within weeks, he was writing poetry. Within months, he'd proposed marriage.

She said no.

She would say no three more times over the next fourteen years.

But she would inspire some of the greatest poetry in the English language.

Yeats came from an artistic family—his father was a painter—and spent his childhood between Dublin and County Sligo in the west of Ireland. Sligo's rugged landscapes, ancient ruins, and folklore-saturated culture seeped into his consciousness, shaping his poetic sensibility.

By the time he met Maud, he was already committed to poetry and to the Irish Literary Revival—a movement to reclaim and celebrate Irish culture through literature, pushing back against centuries of English cultural dominance.

But Maud Gonne gave his poetry new dimension, new intensity, new pain.

She was everything Yeats idealized: beautiful, politically committed, passionate about Ireland's freedom. She embodied the Ireland he wanted to celebrate in verse—fierce, independent, unattainable.

That last quality would prove prophetic.

Maud admired Yeats. She valued his intelligence, his poetry, his dedication to Irish culture. They worked together on various nationalist causes. They corresponded regularly. She inspired him, encouraged him, collaborated with him.

But she didn't love him. Not the way he loved her.

Over the next decade, Yeats proposed repeatedly. Each time, Maud declined. She had political work to do. She couldn't be tied down. Marriage would interfere with her activism. She valued their friendship too much to risk it.

All of which might have been true. But the deeper truth was simpler: she didn't feel for him what he felt for her.

Then, in 1903, Maud Gonne married John MacBride—an Irish revolutionary who'd fought against the British in the Boer War.

Yeats was devastated.

The woman who'd refused him for over a decade—who'd said she couldn't marry because of her political work—had married a fellow revolutionary instead.

The message was clear: it wasn't that Maud couldn't marry. It was that she wouldn't marry him.

Many men would have walked away at that point. Would have moved on, found someone else, nursed their wounds in private and let the relationship fade.

Yeats did something different: he transformed his pain into art.

Some of his most powerful poems emerged from his unrequited love for Maud Gonne:

"When You Are Old" (1893)—a haunting meditation on aging and lost love, imagining Maud as an old woman looking back and regretting not choosing him:

"But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,

And loved the sorrows of your changing face."

"No Second Troy" (1910)—comparing Maud to Helen of Troy, questioning why she had to be born in the wrong time:

"Why, what could she have done, being what she is?

Was there another Troy for her to burn?"

These weren't just love poems. They were explorations of beauty, violence, politics, history—all filtered through his feelings for one woman who wouldn't love him back.

Heartbreak became his muse.

But Yeats refused to let unrequited love define his entire existence. While Maud remained his emotional obsession, he continued building his literary and cultural legacy.

He became a central figure in the Irish Literary Revival, working alongside other writers to create a distinctly Irish literary tradition. In 1904, he co-founded the Abbey Theatre in Dublin, which became the national theater of Ireland and launched the careers of numerous Irish playwrights.

He wrote plays, essays, manifestos. He developed complex theories about history, mysticism, and art. He became one of the most important literary figures of the early 20th century.

And in 1923, he won the Nobel Prize for Literature—the first Irish person ever to receive that honor.

The Nobel committee cited his "inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation."

The spirit of Ireland. The Ireland Maud Gonne had embodied for him decades earlier.

Even winning literature's highest honor couldn't erase his feelings for Maud. They remained friends—complicated, intense, emotionally fraught friends. Even after her marriage to MacBride ended badly (he was abusive; they separated), even after MacBride was executed for his role in the 1916 Easter Rising, Maud still wouldn't marry Yeats.

He proposed again. She refused again.

At that point, Yeats was in his fifties, one of the most celebrated poets in the world, and still being rejected by the woman who'd inspired so much of his work.

Finally, in 1917, at age 52, Yeats married Georgie Hyde-Lees, a woman 27 years his junior who admired his work and shared his interest in mysticism and the occult.

Many viewed it as a practical arrangement—a famous older poet marrying a younger admirer. But something unexpected happened: the marriage worked.

Georgie wasn't intimidated by Yeats's fame or his lingering obsession with Maud Gonne. She was intelligent, patient, and brought her own interests to the relationship. Four days after their marriage, she began practicing automatic writing—a spiritualist technique where the writer allows unconscious thoughts to flow onto paper.

Yeats was fascinated. Together, they conducted years of automatic writing sessions that influenced his later poetry and his book A Vision, a complex mystical system of historical cycles and personality types.

Georgie gave Yeats something Maud never could have: partnership, stability, creative collaboration, and surprisingly, genuine happiness.

They had two children. They traveled. They worked on his poetry together. The marriage that seemed like a consolation prize became one of the most important relationships of his life.

But he never completely stopped writing about Maud.

Even in his final years, poems referencing their complicated relationship appeared. She remained his eternal muse, his impossible love, his poetic inspiration.

Yeats died in France in 1939, age 73, one of the 20th century's most influential poets.

His body was initially buried in France, but in 1948, his remains were brought back to Ireland and reinterred in Drumcliff churchyard, County Sligo—the landscape that had shaped his childhood imagination.

His epitaph, chosen by Yeats himself, reads:

"Cast a cold eye

On life, on death.

Horseman, pass by!"

Characteristically dramatic, mysterious, defiant.

Maud Gonne outlived him by fourteen years, dying in 1953 at age 86. She never remarried after MacBride's execution. She continued her political activism until her death.

Did she regret not marrying Yeats? She never said so publicly. She maintained they had been better as friends and collaborators than they would have been as husband and wife.

Perhaps she was right. Perhaps the tension of unrequited love created better poetry than fulfilled love would have produced.

Or perhaps that's just what we tell ourselves to make sense of tragedy.

What's certain is this: Yeats's greatest poetry emerged from wanting something he couldn't have. From loving someone who couldn't love him back the same way. From transforming personal pain into universal art.

His life teaches uncomfortable lessons about creativity and suffering.

Would we have his magnificent poetry if Maud Gonne had said yes? Would his work have the same intensity, the same longing, the same transcendent quality if he'd been happily married to her from age 23?

We can't know. But we do know that some of literature's most powerful expressions of love, loss, and longing came from a man whose heart broke repeatedly for thirty years.

And we know that he eventually found happiness anyway—not with the woman he'd always wanted, but with someone who wanted him back, who collaborated with him, who gave him peace.

That's not the romantic ending the story seemed to promise. But perhaps it's a better one.

The impossible love inspired the poetry. The possible love provided the life.

Remember his name: William Butler Yeats.

Remember that he proposed four times over thirty years to a woman who inspired his greatest work but never loved him back.

Remember that he won the Nobel Prize, co-founded a national theater, and helped define Irish cultural identity—all while carrying unrequited love like a wound that never quite healed.

Remember that he eventually married someone else and found happiness—proving that consolation prizes sometimes turn out to be the real gift.

Remember that creativity often emerges from suffering, but suffering alone isn't enough—you have to transform it into something beautiful.

And remember that loving someone who doesn't love you back isn't romantic. It's painful. But if you're a poet, it might become something lasting:

"When you are old and grey and full of sleep,

And nodding by the fire, take down this book,

And slowly read, and dream of the soft look

Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep."

Those lines will outlive everyone who inspired them, rejected them, and read them.

That's not consolation. That's immortality.


{PS}