Mix Bakeshop
Decaf Americano
Almond Croissant
After Roseburg, my sister sent me a message asking how I was doing. I told her that it hurts every time, more when it's close. Roseburg is only a little bit north of here. One of the survivors from UCC was here, yesterday, lighting the menorah on the town plaza for the first day of Hanukkah, and speaking about peace and bringing more light to the world.
Planned Parenthood - been there for each of my pregnancies, getting the confirmation I needed to apply for assistance to raise each child.
And just a few days ago, San Bernardino - even closer to home. I've driven those roads. I know those landmarks. The shooters lived in Redlands. I grew up there. I was up late into the night scanning Facebook for any mentions of family or friends killed or hurt. One of the names of the victims is similar to an old classmate's. Her little sister, maybe?
And the rest of the walls of social media are papered with their usual fluff. Life continues amidst such horrors, and it always seems perverse and strange to those close to the hurt. But I don't feel any resentment. This is just the moment for lolcats. This is the moment the Kardashians fulfill their social purpose. I have zero interest in them, personally, but I don't hate them. The Kardashians, and all the other celebrities under the media's relentless gaze, are there for those who care to care about them... when you need a mental palate cleansing, especially after being overwhelmed by all the distress of the world.
It's okay to be interested in other people's stories. It's very human, and it's actually very important.
After Paris, many people pointed out the huge amount of media attention that terrible act of carnage received compared to the terror attacks in Beirut, just the day before. It occurred to me that, for Americans, Paris is close. Paris is a place many Americans have traveled to, and for the rest, Paris is a celebrity, that familiar stranger from a multitude of stories that have become part of our lives. From the vantage of the stories of our lives, Beirut might as well be the North Pole. But even the North Pole get's more press these days...
This is exactly why the lack of diversity in our stories and our news of the world allows horrors to repeat, again and again, without a blip in our newsfeed.
Mix Bakeshop
Caramel Cider
Morning Bun
And now it's the 22nd, and almost closing time. Much has happened in the last couple weeks. So much of it the expected noise, but I am remain concerned. So much free-floating hate... It's expected that a salesman would try to exploit a market. The great blustering moron would obviously try to stoke the fear and propose something as monstrously unAmerican and deeply dangerous as a religious registry and a ban on any incoming Muslims. "Until we can figure out what's going on here." You fucking asshat. We KNOW! The grown-ups have been having the earnest conversations about how these different groups have evolved, what ideologies they accept or reject, and, mostly, what NOT to do about it. There are many people in many areas, from government to military to academia and journalism, who know a great deal about "what's going on here." And they know that Islam is not the fucking problem.
But the used car salesman is still not worse than the tragic number of people willing to buy that bullshit.
In case anyone who happens to be reading this is inclined to point to San Bernardino as validation of their mistaken notion that Islam is inherently violent and nothing like Christianity, you have been lied to. The fearmongers have made their case, made it sound very convincing, and it is tragic that you have cut yourself off from anyone who could counter that hate. That is not the world as it is. First, all these religions are religions of peace. I can find you the quotes. Also, these religions are guilty of long histories of violence and oppression. I can find quotes for you of some really, not subjectively, terrible stuff in the Bible that I guarantee many Christians have never committed to memory.
It really doesn't matter the name of the group, or the policies they are supposed to obey - people are people. Terrorism, hate, violence - they are not the domain of any religion or people or ideology. They are a reflex of the human mind. They are age-old. They have been with us a long time and have been brought out of us and directed toward anyone of any convenient label.
But alongside the history of our violence is the history of our love and compassion for others. Within any of these religions you can find the tension between the teachers who compel you to embrace the Other and those who demand you "purge" the Other. That is where the hazard of religion lies. If you start from a premise that there is a divine authority behind these teachings, it makes it difficult to refuse to do what one of these teachers says. Which one of these teachers do you follow? Questioning can be deadly, so choose wisely...
Downtown Grounds
12oz Soy Fireside Spice Latte
Berry Muffin
And here we are on the 28th. I'm never very productive around the holidays...
This season, friends and family celebrated their traditions in
their own ways. One friend observed the winter solstice by keeping a
fire lit through the longest night, for friends to come and go, share food
and stories, reflect on the past year and look forward into the next year with positive intention. Another friend mentioned his Muslim family had matzah ball soup for Christmas. And some of my Jewish friends donned their obnoxious Hanukkah sweaters and watched the new Star Wars flick (again).
We observed our Christmas morning traditions, as well. Beneath a living pagan wreath, beneath a miniature wrought-iron Saturnalia tree, beneath cards of well-wishing from family and friends, our little family gathered and exchanged gifts and sweet treats. The first, the Santa Gift. The one gift we give to remember the importance of kinetic lovingkindness, given in the name of a bishop, a teacher of the kindness of Jesus. Though the bishop has come to bear more resemblance to the myth of Odin with his flying eight-legged horse. So sayeth Wikipedia. The point - the reason he's worth remembering - is the kindness. No matter what religion or tradition you keep, no matter what land or people you hail from, kindness and compassion are found everywhere, and, in the end, they are the only things that can save us.
That sounds like an airy-fairy platitude. Right up there with, "Love is all you need." Tell someone without food or shelter that all they need is "love." Tell someone who has just been mugged that "kindness" is their best defense. And yet... if we turn to anger, or fear, or hate after we have suffered, if we put that into the world... how can we expect to have someone open their doors to shelter us, feed us, and share stories through the darkest nights of our lives?
I've decided I don't believe in retribution. I don't think there is such a thing, because we can never go back and "correct" a grievance. Our actions only go forward. If we want peace in the future, we have to act in peace now. Be kind. Now.
When I began writing this weeks ago, I chose the title from a line from a Stone Temple Pilots' song, in remembrance of the passing of their front-man, Scott Weiland. I see, in these acts of violence, the conversations behind them. The conversations we are having, and those we are not. We are hearing so much conversation about who to hate, not how to stop hate. It's that human reflex again, fear being twitched, repeatedly, until the hate muscles spasm violently.
I have a cousin I haven't seen in years. When I catch his Facebook posts, they almost always break my heart. One particularly virulent anti-Muslim post actually caused me to rest my head in my hand and weep. All I could think of was how my uncle was probably the kindest man I have ever known. But my cousin was robbed of his voice, from a young age. I can not believe, if my uncle had been around to counter this nonsense with his compassionate voice, that my cousin could have gone so far down a path of hate and unreason.
I chose not to comment on my cousin's post, not wanting to throw down the Dead Dad Card. I should have said something, though. There has to be pushback, if only to remind our loved ones that the ideologies they are being sold are not universal. At the time, I felt weary and overwhelmed, because the walls between my cousin and I, the walls between real conversation taking place, are brutally fortified. But leaving the conversations as they are, those turning victims into villains, and villains into martyrs, that's what gets people killed. Even the casual verbal violence, stereotypes, repeated falsehoods - they promote the Us versus Them mentality. That leads to "good" people making bad policy, and to crazy people finding a violent purpose.
I worry for Muslim friends, my Jewish friends, my gay friends, my black friends, my female friends... I worry less for my white Christian friends (no matter what Starbucks is putting on their cups), but that doesn't mean I somehow don't care about them. I worry less about their safety (except my friends who live too near to tornadoes... or blizzards... or wildfires), but I worry about those who embrace their skin color or religion as a group identity. I worry about those who embrace these false distinctions, or who trivialize or dismiss the wrongs other people have suffered, who think they're whining or playing martyrs. I worry about my gun-owner friends who do not fight for better gun regulations. There are so many obvious fixes, so much data we can discuss... I worry about anyone who wants to keep our conversations separate.
If you disagree with any of this... come sit with me by the fire. We can share food. We can share the stories that show how our different names and skins, religions and opinions, are the same story of our different journeys bringing us together today.
Time to wrap it up.
Please, enjoy your holy days... and in your every days, may you give kindness and find kindness given back to you.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Millennials: These are not the assholes you are looking for...
Starbucks
Caramel Apple Spice
Egg Salad Sandwich
Okay, I'm going free-rant today. As in, I am uncharacteristically under-read on this subject, so I'm going to draw on my experience being a "Gen Xer" and just BS straight from the gut. So...
To everyone over-analyzing and over-criticizing the Millennial generation: please shut the fuck up.
I am right at the tail-end of the previous generation which, depending on who you're asking, extends to anyone born under any president from Kennedy to Carter. I distinctly remember all the angst over my generation, all the generic criticisms of the older generation against this younger, wilder - different - generation. We were called everything - lost, free, apathetic, self-centered, chaotic, idiotic, juvenile - almost none of it was flattering. There was a lot of trying to figure out what we were all about, what we valued, what the hell was wrong about us, and finally, what we were going to buy.
All the chatter about Millennials sounds about the same. Some of the features - the memes - are different. But it's all just a bunch of the old generation trying to figure out the kids today; and, again, trying to figure out what they're going to buy.
So, let's get something straight... Millennials are not just a bunch of entitled, over-sharing, little twerps. What you're picking up on are the featured assholes of this particular generation.
There are trends particular to each generation, not just in fashion or technology, but in thinking, as well. There are larger forces faced by each generation - wars, debts, climate, and other cataclysms - that influence their thinking and behavior. And changes in all aspects of life have been increasing exponentially over the last several generations, which can make each successive generation feel further and further from the previous one's understanding.
But we're all still the same people we've always been. We are complex and varied. We're raised steeping in the values of our parents' generation. We still tend to come out a lot like them. Or we fight to be nothing like them. Either way, we are more heavily influenced by them than they seem to want to accept. There's no need to feel anxious or estranged from each other just because we don't get each other's pop culture references. We probably get more than we think, and could understand even more about each other if we stopped acting like the proverbial old man shaking his selfie stick at the trains.
Let's not forget that many of these "Generations" are still living and evolving side-by-side. There's a lot of overlap in behaviors and influences. It's not only Millennials that are getting tattoos and smartphones and driving less. Any values or behaviors ascribed to them are neither exclusive to them, nor universal among them. So stop saying things like, "Millennials are..." whatever disparaging adjective you feel like sticking in there. And, for the love of humanity, stop fretting over what Millennials are going to buy. If that's part of your job description, just ask yourself what any person under these structural forces is likely to do, and you'll be a lot closer to a useful answer than trying to divine how the inner angst of these kids today might manifest in the financial markets.
Srsly...
Caramel Apple Spice
Egg Salad Sandwich
Okay, I'm going free-rant today. As in, I am uncharacteristically under-read on this subject, so I'm going to draw on my experience being a "Gen Xer" and just BS straight from the gut. So...
To everyone over-analyzing and over-criticizing the Millennial generation: please shut the fuck up.
I am right at the tail-end of the previous generation which, depending on who you're asking, extends to anyone born under any president from Kennedy to Carter. I distinctly remember all the angst over my generation, all the generic criticisms of the older generation against this younger, wilder - different - generation. We were called everything - lost, free, apathetic, self-centered, chaotic, idiotic, juvenile - almost none of it was flattering. There was a lot of trying to figure out what we were all about, what we valued, what the hell was wrong about us, and finally, what we were going to buy.
All the chatter about Millennials sounds about the same. Some of the features - the memes - are different. But it's all just a bunch of the old generation trying to figure out the kids today; and, again, trying to figure out what they're going to buy.
So, let's get something straight... Millennials are not just a bunch of entitled, over-sharing, little twerps. What you're picking up on are the featured assholes of this particular generation.
There are trends particular to each generation, not just in fashion or technology, but in thinking, as well. There are larger forces faced by each generation - wars, debts, climate, and other cataclysms - that influence their thinking and behavior. And changes in all aspects of life have been increasing exponentially over the last several generations, which can make each successive generation feel further and further from the previous one's understanding.
But we're all still the same people we've always been. We are complex and varied. We're raised steeping in the values of our parents' generation. We still tend to come out a lot like them. Or we fight to be nothing like them. Either way, we are more heavily influenced by them than they seem to want to accept. There's no need to feel anxious or estranged from each other just because we don't get each other's pop culture references. We probably get more than we think, and could understand even more about each other if we stopped acting like the proverbial old man shaking his selfie stick at the trains.
Let's not forget that many of these "Generations" are still living and evolving side-by-side. There's a lot of overlap in behaviors and influences. It's not only Millennials that are getting tattoos and smartphones and driving less. Any values or behaviors ascribed to them are neither exclusive to them, nor universal among them. So stop saying things like, "Millennials are..." whatever disparaging adjective you feel like sticking in there. And, for the love of humanity, stop fretting over what Millennials are going to buy. If that's part of your job description, just ask yourself what any person under these structural forces is likely to do, and you'll be a lot closer to a useful answer than trying to divine how the inner angst of these kids today might manifest in the financial markets.
Srsly...
Monday, September 28, 2015
Let's go Bizarro
Bloomsbury Coffeehouse
Soy Cappuccino
Chai Spice Biscotti
I just came from the physical therapist today. Yep, going through that again. This time, however, they might actually approve the referral. I'm still trying to squeeze in as many appointments as I can, just in case, since I won't get billed for any treatments prior to the official denial. Nonetheless, I have been assured that the insurance has changed their policies regarding pain management so there shouldn't be any problem getting this approved.
So they say.
I have been through this so many times, I have a conditioned dread of seeking help. Towards the end of my first appointment, I almost started crying (catchphrase!) in front of the therapist, worrying that I wasn't broken enough, or hadn't described all the pain or in the right way, to get the insurance to approve it this time. Again, they tell me it's going to be different this time. But there was another deeper emotion mixed in that was driving the feeling of break down: body-hate. I just hate my body right now. Loathe it.
I have been fantasizing lately about Bizarro Chandra - the super-healthy, super-well-adjusted version of me from another incarnation of the universe. Bizarro Chandra doesn't have these pain problems. She never gained too much weight - she eats right, she does yoga. She finished school and got a real job - she's probably your favorite math professor - so she has real health insurance, which she almost never has to use because she's so super-healthy and awesome like that. She still doesn't wear make-up but she's still a super-hottie. And crying at inopportune moments is not her catchphrase, because she has her shit together. She is my most positive visualization of myself.
In short, Bizarro Chandra is my evil fucking nemesis.
And lately, I can't stop beating myself up with the image of this person I can never be. No matter how much I can improve in this real-world version of myself, I will never be like that. Too much damage has been done. Even if I lose this extra weight that is such a burden to carry, and recover the functionality and strength in my body, I will still be left with a sack of extra skin hanging off me. I already look like a half-deflated windsock and I've got at least another 30 pounds to relieve myself of to feel healthy and functional. I fantasize about this mythical post-weightloss head-to-toe plastic surgery - so I wouldn't feel like a walking Savini gunk-dissolve - but I can't fathom ever paying for it. I've priced it out and it would probably cost as much as we earned last year. And even if we had an extra year of pay, and, miraculously, no bills to put it towards, I still could not justify spending that much money, no matter what it would cost me mentally to keep carrying that baggage - forever.
It has become abundantly clear that we're never getting out of this financial state. Whatever changes will not be enough - it's not mathematically possible. So whatever resources we have will have to be put towards making sure the boys are okay and have an education with as little financial burden as possible. Retirement is not going to be an option for us, so we have to keep ourselves healthy enough for as long as we can to keep ourselves in the workforce - for as long as we can literally stand it. So, costly indulgences like having a less cumbersome body that I don't have to think about are totally off the table.
So this is the Is! I fucked up along the way and this is the body I have and I have to deal with it. There are still things I can do to make it work better. They may be much harder to do than other people think they ought to be, but they can still be done. And my body doesn't really matter so much anyway, right? I need it to function for my sake - and my family's sake, so I can take care of them - but in the grand scheme of things, who gives shit, right? What I have to say and do and and who I am as a human being, is far more important to the world than what my body looks like. Right? And it's not like I'm in the dating scene anyway, so what do I care?
Yeah, all true, but I fucking care. It's not just that my body hurts, it's that my mind hurts to think about my body... especially naked. I'm angry at my physical pain because I feel like it's yet another way I have failed, failing to somehow take care of myself in spite of the obvious obstacles. And I'm angry at my reflection because, even though I have known so many men - even particularly gorgeous men - who can love and be attracted to women of all physical states (including this women), I still feel undesirable - unlovable. I even feel a sick pang of embarrassment at noticing an attractive celebrity. As if I can metaphysically feel his disgust, or pity, and rejection of my attraction. Like I'm a damn teenager again.
Perhaps, it's some deep-seated fear that, even though I've become strong enough (sometimes) to accept that I can be desirable to some mere mortal, if that same hottie were famous and had other options, I wouldn't stand a chance of being loved by him. And I'm married! I'm not looking for anyone else but the man who does love me. But still, emotionally, I am always seeking that validation. It's something primal, I guess. Acceptance, not just by the Group, but by the Alpha Group.
I am aware of just how much of a downer this useless blog is. But I guess it can't be useless if I needed to write it. I know I am not alone. I know that body-hate isn't just for fat chicks. And sometimes I can inhabit that Bizarro Chandra mindset and love my own body, or at least not give a shit whether anyone else does or not. But that's for me to work out. What I would really like to see is a little more Bizarro from the outside world.
I would love to see an art project, a photobook or some such, of those rarefied A-list, Sexiest Men Alive types in intimate couplings with Hollywood's rejects. All those people denied representation in the cultural consciousness - from my fellow fatties to the gay-lesbian-trans folks to any person of non-white color to the wide array of people with disabilities of one kind or other - being shown loved by their fellow human beings who already reside in that elite space. It is not about being validated because of some beautiful person's interest in you - to make you feel better. The power of it would come from seeing the people you identify with being fully accepted and integrated into this highest abstract ideal of our society. After all, the absence of these real-life truths from our cultural vision can be absolutely devastating.
And we self-haters are fully capable of dismissing even this gesture. We can tell ourselves that these rich, beautiful people want to be seen doing something nice, but they couldn't actually be interested in us in real life. So, I would make it a part of the design of such a project that anyone approached as a participant has to actually believe they could, under the right circumstances (as in, if they weren't already married to another rich and beautiful person, etc) be in a relationship with the person they were ultimately paired up with. Like a preliminary hypothetical dating service pre-screening. Because the truth is that such couples do happen in real life. Not everyone is stuck with Hollywood's narrow and superficial tastes. Plenty are that bad, but plenty more prefer to live a little Bizarro.
Soy Cappuccino
Chai Spice Biscotti
I just came from the physical therapist today. Yep, going through that again. This time, however, they might actually approve the referral. I'm still trying to squeeze in as many appointments as I can, just in case, since I won't get billed for any treatments prior to the official denial. Nonetheless, I have been assured that the insurance has changed their policies regarding pain management so there shouldn't be any problem getting this approved.
So they say.
I have been through this so many times, I have a conditioned dread of seeking help. Towards the end of my first appointment, I almost started crying (catchphrase!) in front of the therapist, worrying that I wasn't broken enough, or hadn't described all the pain or in the right way, to get the insurance to approve it this time. Again, they tell me it's going to be different this time. But there was another deeper emotion mixed in that was driving the feeling of break down: body-hate. I just hate my body right now. Loathe it.
I have been fantasizing lately about Bizarro Chandra - the super-healthy, super-well-adjusted version of me from another incarnation of the universe. Bizarro Chandra doesn't have these pain problems. She never gained too much weight - she eats right, she does yoga. She finished school and got a real job - she's probably your favorite math professor - so she has real health insurance, which she almost never has to use because she's so super-healthy and awesome like that. She still doesn't wear make-up but she's still a super-hottie. And crying at inopportune moments is not her catchphrase, because she has her shit together. She is my most positive visualization of myself.
In short, Bizarro Chandra is my evil fucking nemesis.
And lately, I can't stop beating myself up with the image of this person I can never be. No matter how much I can improve in this real-world version of myself, I will never be like that. Too much damage has been done. Even if I lose this extra weight that is such a burden to carry, and recover the functionality and strength in my body, I will still be left with a sack of extra skin hanging off me. I already look like a half-deflated windsock and I've got at least another 30 pounds to relieve myself of to feel healthy and functional. I fantasize about this mythical post-weightloss head-to-toe plastic surgery - so I wouldn't feel like a walking Savini gunk-dissolve - but I can't fathom ever paying for it. I've priced it out and it would probably cost as much as we earned last year. And even if we had an extra year of pay, and, miraculously, no bills to put it towards, I still could not justify spending that much money, no matter what it would cost me mentally to keep carrying that baggage - forever.
It has become abundantly clear that we're never getting out of this financial state. Whatever changes will not be enough - it's not mathematically possible. So whatever resources we have will have to be put towards making sure the boys are okay and have an education with as little financial burden as possible. Retirement is not going to be an option for us, so we have to keep ourselves healthy enough for as long as we can to keep ourselves in the workforce - for as long as we can literally stand it. So, costly indulgences like having a less cumbersome body that I don't have to think about are totally off the table.
So this is the Is! I fucked up along the way and this is the body I have and I have to deal with it. There are still things I can do to make it work better. They may be much harder to do than other people think they ought to be, but they can still be done. And my body doesn't really matter so much anyway, right? I need it to function for my sake - and my family's sake, so I can take care of them - but in the grand scheme of things, who gives shit, right? What I have to say and do and and who I am as a human being, is far more important to the world than what my body looks like. Right? And it's not like I'm in the dating scene anyway, so what do I care?
Yeah, all true, but I fucking care. It's not just that my body hurts, it's that my mind hurts to think about my body... especially naked. I'm angry at my physical pain because I feel like it's yet another way I have failed, failing to somehow take care of myself in spite of the obvious obstacles. And I'm angry at my reflection because, even though I have known so many men - even particularly gorgeous men - who can love and be attracted to women of all physical states (including this women), I still feel undesirable - unlovable. I even feel a sick pang of embarrassment at noticing an attractive celebrity. As if I can metaphysically feel his disgust, or pity, and rejection of my attraction. Like I'm a damn teenager again.
Perhaps, it's some deep-seated fear that, even though I've become strong enough (sometimes) to accept that I can be desirable to some mere mortal, if that same hottie were famous and had other options, I wouldn't stand a chance of being loved by him. And I'm married! I'm not looking for anyone else but the man who does love me. But still, emotionally, I am always seeking that validation. It's something primal, I guess. Acceptance, not just by the Group, but by the Alpha Group.
I am aware of just how much of a downer this useless blog is. But I guess it can't be useless if I needed to write it. I know I am not alone. I know that body-hate isn't just for fat chicks. And sometimes I can inhabit that Bizarro Chandra mindset and love my own body, or at least not give a shit whether anyone else does or not. But that's for me to work out. What I would really like to see is a little more Bizarro from the outside world.
I would love to see an art project, a photobook or some such, of those rarefied A-list, Sexiest Men Alive types in intimate couplings with Hollywood's rejects. All those people denied representation in the cultural consciousness - from my fellow fatties to the gay-lesbian-trans folks to any person of non-white color to the wide array of people with disabilities of one kind or other - being shown loved by their fellow human beings who already reside in that elite space. It is not about being validated because of some beautiful person's interest in you - to make you feel better. The power of it would come from seeing the people you identify with being fully accepted and integrated into this highest abstract ideal of our society. After all, the absence of these real-life truths from our cultural vision can be absolutely devastating.
And we self-haters are fully capable of dismissing even this gesture. We can tell ourselves that these rich, beautiful people want to be seen doing something nice, but they couldn't actually be interested in us in real life. So, I would make it a part of the design of such a project that anyone approached as a participant has to actually believe they could, under the right circumstances (as in, if they weren't already married to another rich and beautiful person, etc) be in a relationship with the person they were ultimately paired up with. Like a preliminary hypothetical dating service pre-screening. Because the truth is that such couples do happen in real life. Not everyone is stuck with Hollywood's narrow and superficial tastes. Plenty are that bad, but plenty more prefer to live a little Bizarro.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
On doing your job
Rogue Valley Roasting Co.
Iced Americano
Vegan Pumpkin Bread
There have been a number of "Do your job"-themed memes lately directed at county clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. And while some of them are genuinely amusing (I particularly liked the "Clerks" one), I get a little uneasy with the message. I do believe that she should be doing what her job requires here, but I feel the need to clarify and expand that conclusion a little bit.
The reason I get squirmy here is that "do your job" is too simplistic and, in other contexts, is the absolute wrong thing to do. When officers of the government, be they in military or in law enforcement, are told to do something that violates the constitution or international law, they are obligated to refuse to do so or they can, and should, be held accountable. They can't say, "I was just doing my job," when their job entails torture or unlawful detention or other violations. They are responsible for carrying out the order. Further, they are supposed to be protected when they speak out and refuse to carry out what they believe to be an unlawful command. Obviously, there are a great many people who did their job when they should have refused and were never held accountable (though I wouldn't necessarily go after them more than the ones issuing the orders). Likewise, there are some who did refuse to be complicit in the illegalities, some who should have been protected as whistle-blowers, and were punished anyway.
But what about when something has been deemed legal, by the legislature or even the judiciary, that someone believes should be illegal? What are their obligations then? This is not as clear-cut an answer.
We all want to believe that we would have been running the Underground Railroad if we were living back in the day, that we would have defied any law requiring us to comply with slavery. Clearly, some of us wouldn't have, had we been born and raised under that zeitgeist. Nonetheless, we generally agree, today, that the abolitionists were in the right, and posthumously support any instance of their defiance. We would surely not have said, "Do your job," to any government grunt involved in returning an escaped slave to their "owner."
But Kim Davis is no abolitionist, and she's certainly no persecuted Christian martyr.
Where we can clearly see that a once-legal institution that deprived people of life, liberty, and any chance in Hell of pursuing happiness, could not persist as being consistent with the founding principles of the Constitution, and should therefore be defied, we can't say that about everything we disagree with. Slavery killed people. Slavery stole their liberty. That's pretty clear and reasonable criteria for disobeying the laws that upheld it. But look at the defiance of laws that gave freedom to those once-enslaved. For some people, it was evident that enfranchisement of these "obviously inferior" people was damaging to society as a whole, so they used whatever means they saw fit to prevent these laws from being implemented. Some even quoted their deeply held religious beliefs to justify that defiance and obstruction. "God's law" was ever superior to man's law, and that gave them the right to break man's law.
Sound familiar?
It's easy to vilify segregationists after the fact, but we should never doubt their sincerity. So many monstrous things are done by people who fully believe they are doing what is morally right. Some people know they are evil bastards. Most seem to think they are destined for statues or sainthood. Frankly, Kim Davis might be as much as a footnote someday, no matter how much of a political prop she is at the moment.
And I want to take a moment to say that I don't repeat her name to vilify her or call her a bigot, no matter what her actions show her to be. My sense is that she is another one of those people who doesn't necessarily carry around a hateful heart, but whose actions are hateful and cause a great deal of harm to people who have been made to suffer too much already. I think she is what happens to those otherwise good people who try to make their worldview conform to someone else's interpretations of someone else's stories about someone else's supposed actions, all of which occurred in an entirely different time, place, and context. She is fortunate that those interpretations have changed already, otherwise she would not have been able to be divorced three times, nor to speak in public about religious matters, nor to be elected to public office. Among other things.
To get back to disobeying the law... It's hard to set a definitive criteria. We can generally agree that laws that go against the basics - life, liberty, etc - should be defied in some way or other. And we do have the right to peaceful protest, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, all that, without the risk of losing our own life or liberty or job (so long as we follow the established protocol, get our proper permits, and whatnot). Beyond that, if we deem the laws to be so egregious that they require greater acts of civil disobedience, there may well be consequence. That's Thoreau's Dilemma - do I pay my war taxes or go to jail? But that remains between you and the State to square. The problem comes when your act of conscience infringes on another citizen's rights.
When a Muslim airline attendant discovered that she was expressly forbidden by her religion, not just from imbibing alcohol, but from selling it, she approached her employer about reaching some kind of compromise. Since other attendants were available to serve alcohol, they agreed that she would not be required to do so as part of her job. However, a coworker decided to complain that this wasn't fair. The company decided to fire the Muslim woman and she is now suing. I believe the law is on her side, because her inability to serve alcohol, 1) could have been successfully accommodated without causing an unreasonable increase or change in the duties of any other employee, 2) was an act she was expressly forbidden from performing, 3) was not directed at any customer through discriminatory bias, and 4) would not have impacted the rights of any customer to receive equal accommodations from the airline.
Here's why the same is not true of county clerks or bakers. The Muslim woman above was prohibited from performing a particular act - serving alcohol, which was only one task she was expected to perform as a flight attendant, and, thus, easy to work around. Had she been a bartender who had then converted, she wouldn't really have a case. Serving alcohol is the whole job, so not serving alcohol cannot be accommodated. Bakers are not prohibited from baking cakes, under any religious doctrine. They are prohibited from establishing a public business, then refusing to serve members of the public cake because they are feeling all judgey because those people wear make-up and don't cover their hair and the baker's sincerely held religious beliefs say that that is wrong. Too bad. If you serve the public, you serve the public. Conformity to your religious values is not a requisite for service. It doesn't matter if the customer plans to use the icing for eye-shadow, you don't get to single them out because you think your god doesn't like them. The law is there to protect them from that kind of discrimination, just as it would protect you from whatever their religious beliefs might be.
As for the county clerk, you don't get to pull the Religion card either. Issuing a marriage license is civil act, not a personal or religious endorsement. A clerk is acting on behalf of the government and carrying out the laws of that government. They are simply acknowledging that the petitioners have met the criteria set forth by the government to form a legal marriage. The clerk's beliefs are not involved in that act. Nor is the act of processing paperwork expressly forbidden in any Bible I can think of. It doesn't matter that what the government considers to be a valid marriage isn't what the individual clerk considers to be a valid marriage in the eyes of their religion, their god. That's between the couple and who- or whatever is there to meet them in the afterlife. The clerk simply has to acknowledge that we live in a country where everyone has a right to their own beliefs and, as she wants her country to protect her right to each of her marriages - to not question their religious consistency with the written texts, or their conformity to the beliefs of the clerk who happens to be issuing her documents - if she is acting in the capacity of representing the government, she must protect the rights of every citizen to their own marriage.
If she believed that same-sex marriages were inherently unconstitutional for some legal inconsistency, she would be protected in holding protest signs and writing letters and petitioning for change. If she refused to issue those marriage licenses, however, that's an act of obstruction and not simply protest, and, thus, not protected. And since the act of issuing a marriage license does not cause the clerk to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness, there's no moral case to be made, either. Refusing to issue the license, however, does cause real harm, both mentally and financially, at least.
If Kim Davis can't get past the erroneous conclusion that allowing other people to have their own legal protections somehow makes her complicit in their perceived moral trespasses, then she has to leave her job. Her beliefs cannot be accommodated here, nor should they be. Her Oath of Office requires her to uphold the law - man's law - and uphold it equally, without discrimination. She is failing to uphold her Oath of Office, selectively, based on a religious prohibition which does not exist and couldn't legally be accommodated anyway. If she doesn't get that and continues to break the law, then there should be some kind of legal process to remove her from her office. She is breaking the law, and obstructing others from exercising a right that harms no one.
As an ordained Methodist minister, my late grandfather officiated many marriages. He managed to get most of the family, though he had to get my dad the second time around since my parents eloped as youngsters. He also performed my marriage five years ago, despite the fact that my husband and I are both agnostic. We discussed it all beforehand. My grandfather felt that his authority to perform the ceremony came from the church, but we felt it would be disingenuous to make our vows in the name of a deity we didn't believe in. So he found the language that we all felt satisfied our beliefs, consistent with the spirit of, well, the Spirit. He still blessed us with a prayer, and we took no offense to the benediction, but God was not invoked in the actual vows.
During his visit here, my grandfather, the reverend, also made a point of informing us that he totally supported legalizing gay marriage. And he couldn't understand why his church had to waste three days of their convention talking about how much they didn't support it - oy!
This whole thing is a pretty clear case of "render unto Caesar" because, even if you don't agree with gay marriage, it causes no one harm on this earthly plain, and allowing it to exist, unobstructed, alongside other marriages does not make you a party to it. And, remember, if God is going to damn someone to Hell for any particular offense, that's His prerogative. If I remember correctly, "Vengeance is Mine," says the Lord. And, chances are, God is not so prejudiced as the people claiming to act on His behalf.
Iced Americano
Vegan Pumpkin Bread
There have been a number of "Do your job"-themed memes lately directed at county clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. And while some of them are genuinely amusing (I particularly liked the "Clerks" one), I get a little uneasy with the message. I do believe that she should be doing what her job requires here, but I feel the need to clarify and expand that conclusion a little bit.
The reason I get squirmy here is that "do your job" is too simplistic and, in other contexts, is the absolute wrong thing to do. When officers of the government, be they in military or in law enforcement, are told to do something that violates the constitution or international law, they are obligated to refuse to do so or they can, and should, be held accountable. They can't say, "I was just doing my job," when their job entails torture or unlawful detention or other violations. They are responsible for carrying out the order. Further, they are supposed to be protected when they speak out and refuse to carry out what they believe to be an unlawful command. Obviously, there are a great many people who did their job when they should have refused and were never held accountable (though I wouldn't necessarily go after them more than the ones issuing the orders). Likewise, there are some who did refuse to be complicit in the illegalities, some who should have been protected as whistle-blowers, and were punished anyway.
But what about when something has been deemed legal, by the legislature or even the judiciary, that someone believes should be illegal? What are their obligations then? This is not as clear-cut an answer.
We all want to believe that we would have been running the Underground Railroad if we were living back in the day, that we would have defied any law requiring us to comply with slavery. Clearly, some of us wouldn't have, had we been born and raised under that zeitgeist. Nonetheless, we generally agree, today, that the abolitionists were in the right, and posthumously support any instance of their defiance. We would surely not have said, "Do your job," to any government grunt involved in returning an escaped slave to their "owner."
But Kim Davis is no abolitionist, and she's certainly no persecuted Christian martyr.
Where we can clearly see that a once-legal institution that deprived people of life, liberty, and any chance in Hell of pursuing happiness, could not persist as being consistent with the founding principles of the Constitution, and should therefore be defied, we can't say that about everything we disagree with. Slavery killed people. Slavery stole their liberty. That's pretty clear and reasonable criteria for disobeying the laws that upheld it. But look at the defiance of laws that gave freedom to those once-enslaved. For some people, it was evident that enfranchisement of these "obviously inferior" people was damaging to society as a whole, so they used whatever means they saw fit to prevent these laws from being implemented. Some even quoted their deeply held religious beliefs to justify that defiance and obstruction. "God's law" was ever superior to man's law, and that gave them the right to break man's law.
Sound familiar?
It's easy to vilify segregationists after the fact, but we should never doubt their sincerity. So many monstrous things are done by people who fully believe they are doing what is morally right. Some people know they are evil bastards. Most seem to think they are destined for statues or sainthood. Frankly, Kim Davis might be as much as a footnote someday, no matter how much of a political prop she is at the moment.
And I want to take a moment to say that I don't repeat her name to vilify her or call her a bigot, no matter what her actions show her to be. My sense is that she is another one of those people who doesn't necessarily carry around a hateful heart, but whose actions are hateful and cause a great deal of harm to people who have been made to suffer too much already. I think she is what happens to those otherwise good people who try to make their worldview conform to someone else's interpretations of someone else's stories about someone else's supposed actions, all of which occurred in an entirely different time, place, and context. She is fortunate that those interpretations have changed already, otherwise she would not have been able to be divorced three times, nor to speak in public about religious matters, nor to be elected to public office. Among other things.
To get back to disobeying the law... It's hard to set a definitive criteria. We can generally agree that laws that go against the basics - life, liberty, etc - should be defied in some way or other. And we do have the right to peaceful protest, to petition the government for a redress of grievances, all that, without the risk of losing our own life or liberty or job (so long as we follow the established protocol, get our proper permits, and whatnot). Beyond that, if we deem the laws to be so egregious that they require greater acts of civil disobedience, there may well be consequence. That's Thoreau's Dilemma - do I pay my war taxes or go to jail? But that remains between you and the State to square. The problem comes when your act of conscience infringes on another citizen's rights.
When a Muslim airline attendant discovered that she was expressly forbidden by her religion, not just from imbibing alcohol, but from selling it, she approached her employer about reaching some kind of compromise. Since other attendants were available to serve alcohol, they agreed that she would not be required to do so as part of her job. However, a coworker decided to complain that this wasn't fair. The company decided to fire the Muslim woman and she is now suing. I believe the law is on her side, because her inability to serve alcohol, 1) could have been successfully accommodated without causing an unreasonable increase or change in the duties of any other employee, 2) was an act she was expressly forbidden from performing, 3) was not directed at any customer through discriminatory bias, and 4) would not have impacted the rights of any customer to receive equal accommodations from the airline.
Here's why the same is not true of county clerks or bakers. The Muslim woman above was prohibited from performing a particular act - serving alcohol, which was only one task she was expected to perform as a flight attendant, and, thus, easy to work around. Had she been a bartender who had then converted, she wouldn't really have a case. Serving alcohol is the whole job, so not serving alcohol cannot be accommodated. Bakers are not prohibited from baking cakes, under any religious doctrine. They are prohibited from establishing a public business, then refusing to serve members of the public cake because they are feeling all judgey because those people wear make-up and don't cover their hair and the baker's sincerely held religious beliefs say that that is wrong. Too bad. If you serve the public, you serve the public. Conformity to your religious values is not a requisite for service. It doesn't matter if the customer plans to use the icing for eye-shadow, you don't get to single them out because you think your god doesn't like them. The law is there to protect them from that kind of discrimination, just as it would protect you from whatever their religious beliefs might be.
As for the county clerk, you don't get to pull the Religion card either. Issuing a marriage license is civil act, not a personal or religious endorsement. A clerk is acting on behalf of the government and carrying out the laws of that government. They are simply acknowledging that the petitioners have met the criteria set forth by the government to form a legal marriage. The clerk's beliefs are not involved in that act. Nor is the act of processing paperwork expressly forbidden in any Bible I can think of. It doesn't matter that what the government considers to be a valid marriage isn't what the individual clerk considers to be a valid marriage in the eyes of their religion, their god. That's between the couple and who- or whatever is there to meet them in the afterlife. The clerk simply has to acknowledge that we live in a country where everyone has a right to their own beliefs and, as she wants her country to protect her right to each of her marriages - to not question their religious consistency with the written texts, or their conformity to the beliefs of the clerk who happens to be issuing her documents - if she is acting in the capacity of representing the government, she must protect the rights of every citizen to their own marriage.
If she believed that same-sex marriages were inherently unconstitutional for some legal inconsistency, she would be protected in holding protest signs and writing letters and petitioning for change. If she refused to issue those marriage licenses, however, that's an act of obstruction and not simply protest, and, thus, not protected. And since the act of issuing a marriage license does not cause the clerk to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness, there's no moral case to be made, either. Refusing to issue the license, however, does cause real harm, both mentally and financially, at least.
If Kim Davis can't get past the erroneous conclusion that allowing other people to have their own legal protections somehow makes her complicit in their perceived moral trespasses, then she has to leave her job. Her beliefs cannot be accommodated here, nor should they be. Her Oath of Office requires her to uphold the law - man's law - and uphold it equally, without discrimination. She is failing to uphold her Oath of Office, selectively, based on a religious prohibition which does not exist and couldn't legally be accommodated anyway. If she doesn't get that and continues to break the law, then there should be some kind of legal process to remove her from her office. She is breaking the law, and obstructing others from exercising a right that harms no one.
As an ordained Methodist minister, my late grandfather officiated many marriages. He managed to get most of the family, though he had to get my dad the second time around since my parents eloped as youngsters. He also performed my marriage five years ago, despite the fact that my husband and I are both agnostic. We discussed it all beforehand. My grandfather felt that his authority to perform the ceremony came from the church, but we felt it would be disingenuous to make our vows in the name of a deity we didn't believe in. So he found the language that we all felt satisfied our beliefs, consistent with the spirit of, well, the Spirit. He still blessed us with a prayer, and we took no offense to the benediction, but God was not invoked in the actual vows.
During his visit here, my grandfather, the reverend, also made a point of informing us that he totally supported legalizing gay marriage. And he couldn't understand why his church had to waste three days of their convention talking about how much they didn't support it - oy!
This whole thing is a pretty clear case of "render unto Caesar" because, even if you don't agree with gay marriage, it causes no one harm on this earthly plain, and allowing it to exist, unobstructed, alongside other marriages does not make you a party to it. And, remember, if God is going to damn someone to Hell for any particular offense, that's His prerogative. If I remember correctly, "Vengeance is Mine," says the Lord. And, chances are, God is not so prejudiced as the people claiming to act on His behalf.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
A permissive culture
Mix Bakeshop
12oz Soy Mocha
Veggie Tartine-thingy?
My boys are 3 and 5 years-old. We were coloring once, and I grabbed my 3 year-old's paper to show him how he could draw something with white crayon, then use a colored crayon to reveal the image. He kept saying, "No Mommy, that's my paper!" I kept saying, "I'm just going to show you something cool..." He kept saying "No!" but I did it anyway. When I was done, he looked at me with furious, weepy eyes and said, "I'm so mad at you, Mommy! You did not have my consent to color on my paper!" Though I did not intend to teach them this lesson this way, this is how I learned that, not only did they know the word "consent," they knew exactly what it meant.
I took the moment, then, to acknowledge that he was absolutely right, that I should have respected the "No." We use this phrase a lot now - "Respect the No" - and refer back to this incident whenever they need to be reminded about respecting boundaries. I also make a point of not using the word "consent" interchangeably with "permission." For example, if they were trying to use their gadgets when it wasn't Gadget Time, I would say that they did not have permission to use their gadgets, because their gadgets belong to them (under parental regulations), not to me. But if they wanted to use my phone, I might grant them my consent to use my phone - under the terms I specify - because the phone is mine, first and foremost.
I offer up a lot of vocabulary that I don't expect them to understand right away or to remember. (Last night, I asked Ovi to say the word "ergo" because he was demonstrating such a sound use of deductive reasoning as to why Mommy had to tuck him in instead of Daddy). Some would argue that they are too young and that I'm just going to make them feel bad about themselves for not understanding these big words and ideas, which could end up being counter-productive. But if I never gave them the opportunity to learn these things, I would never know that they had the ability to understand them.
Further, these kinds of concepts make a difference, right now, in how they play with other kids. We were at a play area at a McDonald's yesterday (McDonald's: who could give as many fucks about vegetarians as they give itty-bitty cherry tomatoes in their " garden salad"), and we might as well have been the only parents in there, given the way the other kids behaved. I'm all for hanging back and seeing if the kids can work things out on their own, but just about every other parent in there was completely checked out. And it showed. Older kids shrieked (and it fucking echoed!) and jumped around dangerously on the equipment. They ran into smaller kids, intimidated them off of things they were playing with, showed zero concern for anyone. And they were never called on it, even at the times the parents actually looked up from their cheeseburgers or their smartphones.
Let it be known that, if your child has become a hazard, I will intervene. I can't change all the effects of your lack of parenting - not your laissez faire parenting style, but your lack of basic intervention on behalf of your child and others - but I will inform your child that their behavior is not okay. Somebody has to. Because what kind of person is your child going to grow up to be if they never receive any kind of push-back? How old will they be when you decide they're old enough to understand that they should respect other people? How effective will that message be, by then? And how well will they understand that concept of "consent" in their sexual relationships, down the road, if they are never taught to respect other people at the most basic level, from the very beginning?
I wrote, a long time ago, in my "Know Your Audience" blog, that the most attractive thing to a predator is opportunity. And opportunity is not just a dark alley or an unattended drink. Opportunity is a permissive culture. A permissive culture is one that does not hold aggressors accountable for their actions. A permissive culture ignores, denies, or diminishes the magnitude of the crime, or blames the victim of the crime for being a victim.
A little boy knocks over a little girl's blocks. "Boys will be boys." No punishment. No lesson on boundaries. No questions to the boy like, how do you think that feels? how would you feel if they were your blocks?
A big boy is acquitted of raping a big girl. "She was a big girl - she should have done a better job of making it clear that she didn't want to get raped." No punishment. No lessons learned. Save, don't be a girl.
A person of color is stopped by police because __________ and is killed by police because __________. "They must have been doing something or they wouldn't have been stopped, the officer wouldn't have shot." Innocence of the officer is presumed. Guilt, by the dead, is assumed. No consequence for the shooter. No other cause sought. No lesson learned.
A non-white person, American or not, is detained - stolen, disappeared - for the entire life of their child, from infancy to graduation... or is killed... by an American soldier. "They must have been a terrorist, or helping terrorists." I have read the entire Declaration of Human Rights. If any country but America had perpetrated indefinite detention and invasion of a sovereign nation without clear, demonstrable cause, they would have been held accountable.
No. Lessons. Learned.
This is what a permissive culture does. Even in the face of innumerable and obvious wrongs, it will not even say that something might not be right. And that is how it creates the monsters out of the innocents. I don't think every soldier or police officer or college guy, or even the thoughtless little boys of the world, are evil. I deeply respect the sacrifice, and the dangers, that our soldiers and our officers take on. But we can't afford to pretend that there isn't a strong trend of race-driven violence and abuse being perpetrated or protected by our heroes, our champions. And we can't pretend that sex-based stereotypes don't lead to the subjugation and abuse of women, and the LGBT community.
And don't think that those Lone Gunmen - our very real and present American terrorists - are actually alone. In his ear - in his, almost categorically, white, male ear - are words of fear. Every scared, white male, warning about the dirty "other" or the "liberated" woman or the black helicopter government, and bemoaning his loss of security and dominance. And in his hand, is the fear-mongering gun lobby. No matter how many gun owners support reasonable reform, they are somehow drowned out by the most loud and fearful and moneyed. And the crime is permitted to go on.
It is not only the victims who have been wronged by this culture of permissiveness, though they have, unarguably, suffered most because of it. It is also these wayward villains who have been wronged. Some people are just fucked up, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. And every one of them, who has perpetrated any of these many abuses, must be held accountable. But we have to be held accountable for our contribution to these crimes. We must let ourselves be uncomfortable and face what Is. And in every instance, when we see even the smallest infractions, we must push back.
Even when we're not sure what to say, even when we're a little scared and we don't want to antagonize someone, even when we don't think it's our place, even when it's not our racist uncle, even when it's not our kid - we have to say, "That's not okay." Somebody has to, or they will never learn how not to be the monster.
12oz Soy Mocha
Veggie Tartine-thingy?
My boys are 3 and 5 years-old. We were coloring once, and I grabbed my 3 year-old's paper to show him how he could draw something with white crayon, then use a colored crayon to reveal the image. He kept saying, "No Mommy, that's my paper!" I kept saying, "I'm just going to show you something cool..." He kept saying "No!" but I did it anyway. When I was done, he looked at me with furious, weepy eyes and said, "I'm so mad at you, Mommy! You did not have my consent to color on my paper!" Though I did not intend to teach them this lesson this way, this is how I learned that, not only did they know the word "consent," they knew exactly what it meant.
I took the moment, then, to acknowledge that he was absolutely right, that I should have respected the "No." We use this phrase a lot now - "Respect the No" - and refer back to this incident whenever they need to be reminded about respecting boundaries. I also make a point of not using the word "consent" interchangeably with "permission." For example, if they were trying to use their gadgets when it wasn't Gadget Time, I would say that they did not have permission to use their gadgets, because their gadgets belong to them (under parental regulations), not to me. But if they wanted to use my phone, I might grant them my consent to use my phone - under the terms I specify - because the phone is mine, first and foremost.
I offer up a lot of vocabulary that I don't expect them to understand right away or to remember. (Last night, I asked Ovi to say the word "ergo" because he was demonstrating such a sound use of deductive reasoning as to why Mommy had to tuck him in instead of Daddy). Some would argue that they are too young and that I'm just going to make them feel bad about themselves for not understanding these big words and ideas, which could end up being counter-productive. But if I never gave them the opportunity to learn these things, I would never know that they had the ability to understand them.
Further, these kinds of concepts make a difference, right now, in how they play with other kids. We were at a play area at a McDonald's yesterday (McDonald's: who could give as many fucks about vegetarians as they give itty-bitty cherry tomatoes in their " garden salad"), and we might as well have been the only parents in there, given the way the other kids behaved. I'm all for hanging back and seeing if the kids can work things out on their own, but just about every other parent in there was completely checked out. And it showed. Older kids shrieked (and it fucking echoed!) and jumped around dangerously on the equipment. They ran into smaller kids, intimidated them off of things they were playing with, showed zero concern for anyone. And they were never called on it, even at the times the parents actually looked up from their cheeseburgers or their smartphones.
Let it be known that, if your child has become a hazard, I will intervene. I can't change all the effects of your lack of parenting - not your laissez faire parenting style, but your lack of basic intervention on behalf of your child and others - but I will inform your child that their behavior is not okay. Somebody has to. Because what kind of person is your child going to grow up to be if they never receive any kind of push-back? How old will they be when you decide they're old enough to understand that they should respect other people? How effective will that message be, by then? And how well will they understand that concept of "consent" in their sexual relationships, down the road, if they are never taught to respect other people at the most basic level, from the very beginning?
I wrote, a long time ago, in my "Know Your Audience" blog, that the most attractive thing to a predator is opportunity. And opportunity is not just a dark alley or an unattended drink. Opportunity is a permissive culture. A permissive culture is one that does not hold aggressors accountable for their actions. A permissive culture ignores, denies, or diminishes the magnitude of the crime, or blames the victim of the crime for being a victim.
A little boy knocks over a little girl's blocks. "Boys will be boys." No punishment. No lesson on boundaries. No questions to the boy like, how do you think that feels? how would you feel if they were your blocks?
A big boy is acquitted of raping a big girl. "She was a big girl - she should have done a better job of making it clear that she didn't want to get raped." No punishment. No lessons learned. Save, don't be a girl.
A person of color is stopped by police because __________ and is killed by police because __________. "They must have been doing something or they wouldn't have been stopped, the officer wouldn't have shot." Innocence of the officer is presumed. Guilt, by the dead, is assumed. No consequence for the shooter. No other cause sought. No lesson learned.
A non-white person, American or not, is detained - stolen, disappeared - for the entire life of their child, from infancy to graduation... or is killed... by an American soldier. "They must have been a terrorist, or helping terrorists." I have read the entire Declaration of Human Rights. If any country but America had perpetrated indefinite detention and invasion of a sovereign nation without clear, demonstrable cause, they would have been held accountable.
No. Lessons. Learned.
This is what a permissive culture does. Even in the face of innumerable and obvious wrongs, it will not even say that something might not be right. And that is how it creates the monsters out of the innocents. I don't think every soldier or police officer or college guy, or even the thoughtless little boys of the world, are evil. I deeply respect the sacrifice, and the dangers, that our soldiers and our officers take on. But we can't afford to pretend that there isn't a strong trend of race-driven violence and abuse being perpetrated or protected by our heroes, our champions. And we can't pretend that sex-based stereotypes don't lead to the subjugation and abuse of women, and the LGBT community.
And don't think that those Lone Gunmen - our very real and present American terrorists - are actually alone. In his ear - in his, almost categorically, white, male ear - are words of fear. Every scared, white male, warning about the dirty "other" or the "liberated" woman or the black helicopter government, and bemoaning his loss of security and dominance. And in his hand, is the fear-mongering gun lobby. No matter how many gun owners support reasonable reform, they are somehow drowned out by the most loud and fearful and moneyed. And the crime is permitted to go on.
It is not only the victims who have been wronged by this culture of permissiveness, though they have, unarguably, suffered most because of it. It is also these wayward villains who have been wronged. Some people are just fucked up, I'm not going to sugar-coat it. And every one of them, who has perpetrated any of these many abuses, must be held accountable. But we have to be held accountable for our contribution to these crimes. We must let ourselves be uncomfortable and face what Is. And in every instance, when we see even the smallest infractions, we must push back.
Even when we're not sure what to say, even when we're a little scared and we don't want to antagonize someone, even when we don't think it's our place, even when it's not our racist uncle, even when it's not our kid - we have to say, "That's not okay." Somebody has to, or they will never learn how not to be the monster.
Monday, July 27, 2015
A cry for help, or a case of the Mondays?
Mix Bakeshop
Decaf Soy Cappuccino
Morning Bun
A friend wrote a very personal blog about her struggles with depression over her lifetime and her fatigue with the "positivity police." She is, rightfully, sick of everyone trying to fly in to fix her any time she talks about her emotional state. The comments she received were loving and appreciative of her words, revelatory for some. I, of course, was the asshole who couldn't help but drop in words of advice. She gave me the gentle, 'love you, too, but shut the fuck up' that I deserved.
I had almost resisted the reflex and not said anything more than the "totally agree" that was warranted. Instead, I let it happen and tried to preface it that my motivation was not an attempt to change her fundamental state. But I have that Fix It reflex. It's born of my personal story, my struggles to deal with depression, among other stuff. And there's also a fear, whenever we see or hear someone drop the d-word, we are afraid they're going to follow it up with the s-act. I wasn't expecting my friend to harm herself, but the motivation is born of all the people we've seen pass without our ever knowing how bad things were.
So, advice is largely selfish. As much as we think we say these things because we don't want our friends to suffer, it may be more that we don't want to wake up and find out our friend is not there anymore. And, mostly, that we don't want to live with the guilt of wondering if we could have said just the right thing that would have kept them from doing it.
So what's a friend to do?
Well, step one is learning to evaluate whether a comment from your friend is an actual cry for help or just someone with a heavy burden trying to deal with it by venting a little. Musically speaking, singing the blues is a coping method, not a request for relationship counseling. Similarly, bitching that I have gained more weight and must now go shopping for larger clothing, does not mean I want you to send me diet advice or "encouragement" that I can be skinny if I just get off my fat ass and work for it. Maybe I don't give a shit what my size is; maybe I just hate shopping and spending money I don't have. And maybe I do want to be a healthier weight, but your tactics and your timing do more harm than good.
If a friend with a painful chronic condition says something dramatic like, "Had to go to the ER again. This shit is killing me!" that's probably more a Case of the Mondays than a request for you to send them motivational, spiritual mantras. Like you're going to chant away Crohn's Disease. Studies might show positivity to be really beneficial but who wants to be told to think positive when it feels like your insides are stabbing you? That's not what your friend needs from you that moment. As my friend repeatedly made clear in her blog, it's not your job to fix the disease. No matter what your own experiences may have been, it's not your condition - it's not your life. It is for you to accept that it's there and that it is your friend's battle to handle as they see fit. It is not your problem to solve.
One of the worst things my husband has ever said to motivate me to be happier is, "You only get what you want." As in, if you're not happy it's because you don't really want to be happy and you'd rather do the self-destructive things that you say you hate. This was advice that worked for him. All it did for me was make me want to punch him in the face. Tell that to someone who has had something horrible happen to them, or who is battling medical problems. That shit is outside their control and nothing they would ask for. And framing your unhappiness as something you want... head-desk. Specifically, his head slammed against a desk.
Now, was that there a red flag that I'm going to assault my husband? Not today. That's just me venting.
So what do you do about the real red flags? As a friend, aren't you supposed to do something? let them know that they're worth being around? that they're not alone? Yes, that's fine. When it's obviously warranted.
If you're not sure, send a direct message to your friend and ask... "Hey, it sounds like you're in a really bad state - do you want to talk? Is there anything I can do?" Even if you have nothing useful to say, no remedy or past experiences to relate, just engaging someone and letting them get things off their chest might be enough. And if they are clearly at a crisis point, do what you can to get them to seek professional help. Even if they are willing to talk to you, if someone is that much in distress, you do not want to take on the job of trying to help them - they need a trained professional. But you can offer to help them make the call, be their voice for them if they break down or have a panic attack when they try to speak. You can go with them to their appointment and be in the waiting room when they come out on the other side.
It's tough if it's a faraway friend, as are almost all of my social media friends and family. Social media can be both a lifeline connection and completely alienating. Just listen to what your friend is saying and do what is in your power to help. If they actually want it. It would be so much easier if all these social media sites had a "Commiserate" option, instead of just "Like" and "Favorite" and such like that. For now, we have to settle for typing out that we love our friends and are thinking of them.
Look at me, giving fucking advice again. I'll shut up now.
Decaf Soy Cappuccino
Morning Bun
A friend wrote a very personal blog about her struggles with depression over her lifetime and her fatigue with the "positivity police." She is, rightfully, sick of everyone trying to fly in to fix her any time she talks about her emotional state. The comments she received were loving and appreciative of her words, revelatory for some. I, of course, was the asshole who couldn't help but drop in words of advice. She gave me the gentle, 'love you, too, but shut the fuck up' that I deserved.
I had almost resisted the reflex and not said anything more than the "totally agree" that was warranted. Instead, I let it happen and tried to preface it that my motivation was not an attempt to change her fundamental state. But I have that Fix It reflex. It's born of my personal story, my struggles to deal with depression, among other stuff. And there's also a fear, whenever we see or hear someone drop the d-word, we are afraid they're going to follow it up with the s-act. I wasn't expecting my friend to harm herself, but the motivation is born of all the people we've seen pass without our ever knowing how bad things were.
So, advice is largely selfish. As much as we think we say these things because we don't want our friends to suffer, it may be more that we don't want to wake up and find out our friend is not there anymore. And, mostly, that we don't want to live with the guilt of wondering if we could have said just the right thing that would have kept them from doing it.
So what's a friend to do?
Well, step one is learning to evaluate whether a comment from your friend is an actual cry for help or just someone with a heavy burden trying to deal with it by venting a little. Musically speaking, singing the blues is a coping method, not a request for relationship counseling. Similarly, bitching that I have gained more weight and must now go shopping for larger clothing, does not mean I want you to send me diet advice or "encouragement" that I can be skinny if I just get off my fat ass and work for it. Maybe I don't give a shit what my size is; maybe I just hate shopping and spending money I don't have. And maybe I do want to be a healthier weight, but your tactics and your timing do more harm than good.
If a friend with a painful chronic condition says something dramatic like, "Had to go to the ER again. This shit is killing me!" that's probably more a Case of the Mondays than a request for you to send them motivational, spiritual mantras. Like you're going to chant away Crohn's Disease. Studies might show positivity to be really beneficial but who wants to be told to think positive when it feels like your insides are stabbing you? That's not what your friend needs from you that moment. As my friend repeatedly made clear in her blog, it's not your job to fix the disease. No matter what your own experiences may have been, it's not your condition - it's not your life. It is for you to accept that it's there and that it is your friend's battle to handle as they see fit. It is not your problem to solve.
One of the worst things my husband has ever said to motivate me to be happier is, "You only get what you want." As in, if you're not happy it's because you don't really want to be happy and you'd rather do the self-destructive things that you say you hate. This was advice that worked for him. All it did for me was make me want to punch him in the face. Tell that to someone who has had something horrible happen to them, or who is battling medical problems. That shit is outside their control and nothing they would ask for. And framing your unhappiness as something you want... head-desk. Specifically, his head slammed against a desk.
Now, was that there a red flag that I'm going to assault my husband? Not today. That's just me venting.
So what do you do about the real red flags? As a friend, aren't you supposed to do something? let them know that they're worth being around? that they're not alone? Yes, that's fine. When it's obviously warranted.
If you're not sure, send a direct message to your friend and ask... "Hey, it sounds like you're in a really bad state - do you want to talk? Is there anything I can do?" Even if you have nothing useful to say, no remedy or past experiences to relate, just engaging someone and letting them get things off their chest might be enough. And if they are clearly at a crisis point, do what you can to get them to seek professional help. Even if they are willing to talk to you, if someone is that much in distress, you do not want to take on the job of trying to help them - they need a trained professional. But you can offer to help them make the call, be their voice for them if they break down or have a panic attack when they try to speak. You can go with them to their appointment and be in the waiting room when they come out on the other side.
It's tough if it's a faraway friend, as are almost all of my social media friends and family. Social media can be both a lifeline connection and completely alienating. Just listen to what your friend is saying and do what is in your power to help. If they actually want it. It would be so much easier if all these social media sites had a "Commiserate" option, instead of just "Like" and "Favorite" and such like that. For now, we have to settle for typing out that we love our friends and are thinking of them.
Look at me, giving fucking advice again. I'll shut up now.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Extra Feels
Rogue Valley Roasting Co.
Soy Cappuccino
Breakfast Burrito
Okay, I'm a little fucking grumpy this morning, so I'm going to start by ripping on my husband a bit. This is what he gets for not reading my blog.
My husband is a racist, just not about race. I have informed him of this before when he has been railing about politicians and lawyers and such. This came up again after I read Amanda Palmer's recent article for The New Statesman. It was a wonderful article about empathy and being open to understanding even the most monstrous of people as human beings who also have human experiences. I thought it was wonderful, anyway. When I brought it up as something my husband might want to check out, not as something he would necessarily agree with, but something he might want to ponder since I have tried to say the same things in my own way, the conversation devolved quickly. So did I.
But, hey, crying at inopportune moments is my catchphrase.
It's strange that someone like me, who was born with extra feels, could end up with someone who doesn't share this level of open-mindedness. Though we generally reach the same conclusions about politics and religion and such, we seem to reach these points from very different paths. This does not mean he is without compassion or deep feelings of his own (he loves to get his cry on watching YouTube videos of surprise soldier homecomings). He's just lazy about applying his empathy.
For instance, when I express grievances about economic inequality favoring the so-called 1%, I am clear that my problem is with economic policies that bring about this situation. I do not presuppose anything about any individual person or their motives. I do not even generalize about "most of them." My husband, on the other hand, is convinced that there is no such thing as a businessman who is both moral and successful. He makes sweeping generalizations about the morality and/or intelligence of many groups of people. He was even dumb enough to make certain generalizations about women.
"Honey, if 'all women' want to marry rich, attractive men with fancy cars, how do you explain me marrying you?"
"You're weird."
And that's the problem. Yeah, I am weird. But that's not why I don't value wealth and other material expressions of virility. I'm not a deviation from "all women." That presumption is just a stereotype. Can you find examples of it? Of course! How common is it to see a beautiful young woman on the arm of a wrinkledy old rich guy? But seeing that doesn't validate the stereotype about how "all women" are in reality. The truth is that women are just as complex as men in their desires and values. But there are comparatively few rich old men, so it is not difficult for them to find at least a few women willing and available to confirm that bias. And the stereotype persists because of overexpression in media and repetition by society at large. As in, people like my husband being idiots, who take television as the broad reality and real-world example as aberration.
This might sound like the rantings of a grumpy wife. These are such rantings, but they are also true. It's also all so much more important - and dangerous - than it might seem.
Every time we frame our opinions, even our humor, in stereotypes and generalizations, we dehumanize people. We take away someone's right to be seen and understood as an individual. Even if it's not someone in front of you at the moment, there is a cumulative cultural effect.
Gender stereotypes engender a "benign sexism," which can be an inconvenience, at best, or a worse economic disadvantage. But that background sexism accumulates in some as outright misogyny, and frequently results in physical and mental violence against women. Men, too, suffer because of gender stereotypes. But no one wants to equate their comment that women just aren't as good at math, or their rantings about their "touchy" girlfriend, to rape culture. They aren't bad guys - they'd never do something like that! But the stereotypes are where the violence starts.
The same is true for racist comments. Even when you're telling a joke among friends, even friends of that race, who know you are not in the least bit racist, if the joke involves race-based stereotypes, it still promotes harm. I'm not talking about satirical use of stereotypes to call them out as ridiculous and invalid, though this is not exactly risk-free. I'm talking about, say, following the news that the new employee is Mexican, making a joke that there will finally be someone to mow the lawn... and it's funny because everyone knows that you're totally not racist and the new guy is actually an engineering major.
But as much as you don't want to see yourself as the bad guy because you are not causing the harm directly, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that you are still harming people. Your "totally cool with it" friend may not be as cool with the joke as you think they are, or maybe it's over the long run that it's going to take its toll. But even the other "some of my best friends..." people present are affected by the repetition of the stereotype. They are primed for that example to come along and confirm the bias. And someday, when the person who reflects the object of the joke finally speaks up about the harm and dehumanization they have experienced, that would-be ally is more likely to feel detached rather than empathetic, and to deflect or minimize this other human being's experience.
I can feel my older brother rolling his eyes at me. See? This is why he doesn't tell those jokes around me. I have no sense of humor. I'm too sensitive. Deflect, deflect.
Really, how dare he say I have no sense of humor! I heard a great joke the other day:
What did one condom say to the other as they walked by a gay bar?
"Wanna go in and get shit-faced?"
Was that a gay joke? Yes. Did it involve stereotypes or subjective values about gay people? Nope.
There is no doubt that I am sensitive. That is nobody's fault. I was born that way. Cultural stereotypes would have you believe that it's because I'm a girl. But you know who else is super-sensitive in my family? My older brother. Not that brother, the other one. But, growing up, while my crying was "weak" and "girly," his throwing the gameboard was just "being a sore loser." And that's where it starts
All these cultural sicknesses, these abuses of gender or race or creed, they all start from that first act of generalization, thus, detachment, thus, the other-ing and dehumanization needed to make abusive acts, major or minor, acceptable in polite society.
Sorry, if my being aware of that infringes on your punchline.
....
Mix Bakeshop
Decaf Soy Cappuccino
And I'm back for round 4! (Yes, it has taken me four weeks to finish this ever-changing blog). But let's just wrap this puppy up...
Amanda Palmer and I aren't the only ones on this empathy wavelength. Wil Wheaton (who reminds me a bit of my older brother... not that one... the other idiot) also blogged about a seeming cultural shift online toward widespread bullying and hostility. Not that it hasn't been present before. His concern is that the younger generation seems to have incorporated wanton snark and vitriol as part of their cultural identity and is now saturating the internet, among other parts of society, with it.
The internet is a peculiar and particular place, and I think we're still a long way from figuring out how to handle it. But we of the extra feels are still here. Even if there are trends in thinking - trends like racist thinking, sexist or xenophobic thinking, isolationist, myopic, self-righteous, self-involved, what have you - they are only trends and are never all-encompassing. Bell-bottoms were a trend. Many people thought bell-bottoms were a really, good idea. But bell-bottoms were never a fundamentally true expression of human aesthetics and we, thankfully, evolved. If we can get over bell-bottoms, and if we can elect a black president, and if we can handle women becoming astronauts and leading successful movie franchises, then we can overcome this trend of apathy and anti-empathy.
We of the extra feels are not naive or weak. We have been born more sensitive and aware and that has immense value. And I assure you, we are many. We must take strength in each other's presence and pay no mind to our inopportune catchphrases (just me?). And, as hard as it is, don't lose faith in change. People can change their trends in thinking. It's not a guarantee, but it's a possibility. No matter how monstrous. Or how annoying. They are still human, and for most people, there is still plenty of love within them. And we are primed to show them the way back to it.
Time to head home. My loving, misguided partner in crime awaits me. Peace.
No, seriously, motherfuckers. Peace.
Soy Cappuccino
Breakfast Burrito
Okay, I'm a little fucking grumpy this morning, so I'm going to start by ripping on my husband a bit. This is what he gets for not reading my blog.
My husband is a racist, just not about race. I have informed him of this before when he has been railing about politicians and lawyers and such. This came up again after I read Amanda Palmer's recent article for The New Statesman. It was a wonderful article about empathy and being open to understanding even the most monstrous of people as human beings who also have human experiences. I thought it was wonderful, anyway. When I brought it up as something my husband might want to check out, not as something he would necessarily agree with, but something he might want to ponder since I have tried to say the same things in my own way, the conversation devolved quickly. So did I.
But, hey, crying at inopportune moments is my catchphrase.
It's strange that someone like me, who was born with extra feels, could end up with someone who doesn't share this level of open-mindedness. Though we generally reach the same conclusions about politics and religion and such, we seem to reach these points from very different paths. This does not mean he is without compassion or deep feelings of his own (he loves to get his cry on watching YouTube videos of surprise soldier homecomings). He's just lazy about applying his empathy.
For instance, when I express grievances about economic inequality favoring the so-called 1%, I am clear that my problem is with economic policies that bring about this situation. I do not presuppose anything about any individual person or their motives. I do not even generalize about "most of them." My husband, on the other hand, is convinced that there is no such thing as a businessman who is both moral and successful. He makes sweeping generalizations about the morality and/or intelligence of many groups of people. He was even dumb enough to make certain generalizations about women.
"Honey, if 'all women' want to marry rich, attractive men with fancy cars, how do you explain me marrying you?"
"You're weird."
And that's the problem. Yeah, I am weird. But that's not why I don't value wealth and other material expressions of virility. I'm not a deviation from "all women." That presumption is just a stereotype. Can you find examples of it? Of course! How common is it to see a beautiful young woman on the arm of a wrinkledy old rich guy? But seeing that doesn't validate the stereotype about how "all women" are in reality. The truth is that women are just as complex as men in their desires and values. But there are comparatively few rich old men, so it is not difficult for them to find at least a few women willing and available to confirm that bias. And the stereotype persists because of overexpression in media and repetition by society at large. As in, people like my husband being idiots, who take television as the broad reality and real-world example as aberration.
This might sound like the rantings of a grumpy wife. These are such rantings, but they are also true. It's also all so much more important - and dangerous - than it might seem.
Every time we frame our opinions, even our humor, in stereotypes and generalizations, we dehumanize people. We take away someone's right to be seen and understood as an individual. Even if it's not someone in front of you at the moment, there is a cumulative cultural effect.
Gender stereotypes engender a "benign sexism," which can be an inconvenience, at best, or a worse economic disadvantage. But that background sexism accumulates in some as outright misogyny, and frequently results in physical and mental violence against women. Men, too, suffer because of gender stereotypes. But no one wants to equate their comment that women just aren't as good at math, or their rantings about their "touchy" girlfriend, to rape culture. They aren't bad guys - they'd never do something like that! But the stereotypes are where the violence starts.
The same is true for racist comments. Even when you're telling a joke among friends, even friends of that race, who know you are not in the least bit racist, if the joke involves race-based stereotypes, it still promotes harm. I'm not talking about satirical use of stereotypes to call them out as ridiculous and invalid, though this is not exactly risk-free. I'm talking about, say, following the news that the new employee is Mexican, making a joke that there will finally be someone to mow the lawn... and it's funny because everyone knows that you're totally not racist and the new guy is actually an engineering major.
But as much as you don't want to see yourself as the bad guy because you are not causing the harm directly, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that you are still harming people. Your "totally cool with it" friend may not be as cool with the joke as you think they are, or maybe it's over the long run that it's going to take its toll. But even the other "some of my best friends..." people present are affected by the repetition of the stereotype. They are primed for that example to come along and confirm the bias. And someday, when the person who reflects the object of the joke finally speaks up about the harm and dehumanization they have experienced, that would-be ally is more likely to feel detached rather than empathetic, and to deflect or minimize this other human being's experience.
I can feel my older brother rolling his eyes at me. See? This is why he doesn't tell those jokes around me. I have no sense of humor. I'm too sensitive. Deflect, deflect.
Really, how dare he say I have no sense of humor! I heard a great joke the other day:
What did one condom say to the other as they walked by a gay bar?
"Wanna go in and get shit-faced?"
Was that a gay joke? Yes. Did it involve stereotypes or subjective values about gay people? Nope.
There is no doubt that I am sensitive. That is nobody's fault. I was born that way. Cultural stereotypes would have you believe that it's because I'm a girl. But you know who else is super-sensitive in my family? My older brother. Not that brother, the other one. But, growing up, while my crying was "weak" and "girly," his throwing the gameboard was just "being a sore loser." And that's where it starts
All these cultural sicknesses, these abuses of gender or race or creed, they all start from that first act of generalization, thus, detachment, thus, the other-ing and dehumanization needed to make abusive acts, major or minor, acceptable in polite society.
Sorry, if my being aware of that infringes on your punchline.
....
Mix Bakeshop
Decaf Soy Cappuccino
And I'm back for round 4! (Yes, it has taken me four weeks to finish this ever-changing blog). But let's just wrap this puppy up...
Amanda Palmer and I aren't the only ones on this empathy wavelength. Wil Wheaton (who reminds me a bit of my older brother... not that one... the other idiot) also blogged about a seeming cultural shift online toward widespread bullying and hostility. Not that it hasn't been present before. His concern is that the younger generation seems to have incorporated wanton snark and vitriol as part of their cultural identity and is now saturating the internet, among other parts of society, with it.
The internet is a peculiar and particular place, and I think we're still a long way from figuring out how to handle it. But we of the extra feels are still here. Even if there are trends in thinking - trends like racist thinking, sexist or xenophobic thinking, isolationist, myopic, self-righteous, self-involved, what have you - they are only trends and are never all-encompassing. Bell-bottoms were a trend. Many people thought bell-bottoms were a really, good idea. But bell-bottoms were never a fundamentally true expression of human aesthetics and we, thankfully, evolved. If we can get over bell-bottoms, and if we can elect a black president, and if we can handle women becoming astronauts and leading successful movie franchises, then we can overcome this trend of apathy and anti-empathy.
We of the extra feels are not naive or weak. We have been born more sensitive and aware and that has immense value. And I assure you, we are many. We must take strength in each other's presence and pay no mind to our inopportune catchphrases (just me?). And, as hard as it is, don't lose faith in change. People can change their trends in thinking. It's not a guarantee, but it's a possibility. No matter how monstrous. Or how annoying. They are still human, and for most people, there is still plenty of love within them. And we are primed to show them the way back to it.
Time to head home. My loving, misguided partner in crime awaits me. Peace.
No, seriously, motherfuckers. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)