Either context, it's still bad!

It's Christmas time again, meaning it's the time of year when all the criticisms of "Baby It's Cold Outside" get passed around. I don't see the value in repeating what's already been said by so many others about it, so I'll just add my reply to idea that our criticisms come from a modern take on the lyrics, but in the context of it's time, it's not what it sounds like to us now. I haven't heard that addressed yet, so here it is.

Interpreting it charitably, it could be that the woman actually does want to stay with the man, but realizes she will be criticized if she does (she mentions her sister, neighbors, and aunts being "suspicious") so she's looking for an excuse to stay (the weather, too much to drink).

But how is this better? The modern take is that the man won't accept her "No," and that's why it rapey, but in this world, her consent doesn't even exist! There's no difference at all between her ability to say yes and no! Just to do what she wants, she has to pretend to be coerced or else be judged by people who have no business even butting in! And then we wonder why our society has such a difficult time "understanding women" when this is the background we come out of. Don't forget, people who grew up in this mindset are still alive today and, since they didn't reject it but instead sings songs about it, would have passed on those ideas to their children.

What religion meant to me

I grew up understanding religion as a guide for how to live your life. Apparently, a lot of people see religion as a guide for how others should live their lives.

Does this make sense?

Feminism to me is a philosophy, not an identity the same sense of race or gender or sexual orientation. Feminist men are allies to women, but they are not “feminist allies,” just feminists.

I wouldn’t tell male feminists, or allies of other identities I associate with, that, because of their privilege alone, they can’t discuss or critique or give their input on ideas and concepts within each social justice area. It makes things trickier, certainly – they have to be a lot more careful to make sure they do understand the issues and assumptions influencing their own position. That they’re not speaking in place of others when they should be ensuring those others are getting heard directly. This is perhaps most important. And they’ll probably get some things wrong even then.

But I think that’s OK. Competence, high competence, but not perfection, is what I can reasonably ask for.

We’re all in this together; we’ve all be programmed by the same society, all fighting different aspects of the same thing, fighting the fact that it programmed us differently, unequally. If they’re aware and trying to continue to fight and change things, even if it’s just within themselves, I can’t blame them for creating or sustaining the system. They didn’t, and I don’t hold them accountable for the harm caused by others. They – we – can’t escape the privilege others give us if we want to continue to function within our society. To continue to fight to change it. Being part of the privileged group doesn’t make you incapable of having ideas, opinions, interpretations that are valuable; it just means you will have to try harder to get it. I don’t want to silence anyone who cares and may be able to help. And if they’re helping, then they’re not silencing me.

If you say so...

Self-proclaimed “Nice Guys” claim that they used to be nice, but it didn’t lead to the kind of relationships that they wanted, that women don’t actually value guys being nice, so they stopped being nice.

You know, it’s really not healthy to try to completely change yourself to what you think others want for the sake of a romantic relationship. It makes you sound desperate. Better to have no relationship than an unhealthy one.

My awakening

I grew up in a fairly diverse area in New Your City with fairly liberal parents. My family was mostly only weakly to moderately religious. I went to religious instruction classes, believed the Bible stories I knew were based on some element of truth, if enhanced to make a point. I was familiar with other mythologies and religions and had no problem thinking of them as just stories while recognizing that people did believe them to be true, either currently or in the past. I learned to value the separation of church and state, equality, and tolerance (apparently now a "bad word" among progressives, but how I learned it was basically synonymous with "acceptance" so that's how I use it here). To my parents, these values were seen as fundamentally important as Americans, probably more-so than even freedom. I'm sure there was prejudice I didn't see, and certainly some that I did, but I don't remember personally holding any racist ideas that I can look back on now and identify as such. I'm sure I had some biases at the very least - everyone does - but I'm not aware of acting on them. At least, not to the extent I'm about to get to.

When I was 12 we moved to North Carolina. Culturally, it was different, of course. I have a lot I could say about that, but I'll focus on just one part now. There were many smaller incidents and everyday occurrences that lead me to have a much more conscious awareness of racism, Christian privilege, and other prejudices, and lead me to leave religion entirely, but one in particular was probably the most influential and the most hurtful. In freshman or sophomore year of high school, we were required to take a government class, which covered the basics of how the US government works. We did learn this. But my teacher seemed to believe part of his job was ranting about the evils of abortion, making racist statements, explaining how Northerners were stupid, and otherwise imparting his oh so wise and self-righteous ideas about "good Christian" morals and values. It was like the culmination of everything I hate about the south, all wrapped up inside one disgusting excuse for a human being. I'm told one of the other government teachers was similar, though not quite as bad. At least this was before 9/11. I can't imagine how much worse he must have become after that. And yes, we did have Muslim students at the school. I hope they were alright.

Students would frequently encourage him if they didn't want to do the work for the day. He seemed perfectly happy to go along with it. And he got away with it too because who was going to speak up? Clearly, most of the other students had no problem with it. In fact, he was one of the most popular teachers in the school! I'm sure the fact that it was easy to get out of doing anything in class helped his reputation, but many students sincerely liked him. I know a few others must have been uncomfortable with it all, but they never said anything to me or to him, as far as I know. Certainly not to the principal; he may have been an even worse person. At least this teacher didn't seem to actively hate the students.

But I did speak up, once. He made a comment about New Yorkers being dumb, then told a story about a black woman from NY that he used to work with making a poor split-second decision on the job and injuring herself. Racist, sexist, and xenophobic, all at once!! I couldn't take it anymore. After class I started crying and told him how hurtful that was. He seemed genuinely shocked, although I'm not sure if that was because he didn't think what he said was hurtful or he, like so many others I met, forgot where I was from. He did like me as a student, and I definitely encountered from others the "you must be an exception to my stereotype" conclusion that I know many oppressed groups have to contend with all to often. In response, he told me that implying that New Yorkers were dumb wasn't the point of the story. Because apparently saying it and then telling an unrelated but still offensive story makes it better. Jerk.

But mostly what got to me was his obsession with "Christian values." I seriously to this day hate talking about "values" and "morals" and really wish we had other words to describe those things. Everything good to him was "Christian values," even if other people also held those values. I'd never met anyone so vocally obsessed with Christianity. And I have a crazy-religious Aunt who's constantly talking about God. Constantly. And this guy was worse. Of course, he also decided who was and wasn't "really" Christian. Catholics like my family? Nope. At least, not entirely. He never went into details about just what he thought on that front, probably for the best, but he didn't seem to indicate that he could even image that anyone in his class would be Catholic. Like his apparent forgetfulness about my state of birth, he seemed to have no idea that most Italian-Americans are Catholic, but still had an opinion on us anyway. Or maybe he forgot I was Italian too. It's like the man had no experience or even rough concept of what the rest of the world was like. Well, he probably didn't. But how does someone like that become a High School Social Studies teacher?! That's, like, the entirety of what you need to know! Oh wait. Right. He was really a coach! Way to not promote that stereotype, moron.

So, as the term went on, I continued to think. My Muslim and Hindu and Eastern Orthodox friends back in NY are not less, no matter what he says. I know them, he doesn't. He is wrong. I'm not less no matter what he says about the political and social groups I identify with. But he doesn't seem to actually think I'm "less" when it comes to actually interacting with the guy...because I'm white? Is that all this comes down to? That's about all we have in common. And because I don't talk much in class so he doesn't hear my accent much, so he forgets?

And this is a form of Christianity I hadn't encountered before. But we're both Christian, basically. I don't doubt the sincerity of his belief, or that he's accurately representing his form of Christianity. The approval he seems to get from everyone is evidence of that. What gives him the right to claim all "good" values are his version of Christian, and all "Christian values" are good? He's just asserting it. Because...he believes it's true? He feels it's true? He knows "the Truth" the way others can't? Others that he's demonstrated over and over again he knows absolutely nothing about? My friends back in NY are no different from me, no matter what he says. They feel the same kinds of things I do. They believe their own beliefs just as strongly or weakly as anyone in any other religion. I know that because they're my friends. His "Truth" is clearly all in his head. I want nothing to do with that. That's hurtful. That's insensitive. That's arrogant. You can't believe they're all equal; treat people equally like that.You have to hurt people, think of them as less, disrespect their beliefs and identities, be arrogant. I refuse to be like that. It hurts. It's cruel. I want to be understood, to be respected. I refuse not consider other people's experiences. I refuse to think I know more about them than they do. I refuse to not listen or ask. I'll take your "Christian values" and be a better "good Christian" than you ever could be. I'll show you what it really means to kind to others, to give respect, to have humility and be introspective, to value others as equals. You're not better than me because of your beliefs, they made you a horrible person, but I'll become better than you.

But...of course you have to believe your religion is true in order to, well, believe it. My friends must feel the same way. Just not preachy. Is this just what religion is? A belief that you have some grasp of reality that everyone who's different doesn't have? Clearly, he's demonstrated that it's easy to delude yourself into thinking your inner experiences are more real than anyone else's. His assertions have no basis in reality, no grounding that he could point to to show me or anyone else just why his understanding of the world, of our shared religion, was more right than mine. So how can he so arrogantly believe he knows something divinely special that everyone else doesn't? How can anyone think that? Unless it's all fake. Unless it's all in our heads. Unless there is nothing divinely special that can't be distinguished from our own imagination.

Am I an atheist?



Senior year, while helping finish a mural in the cafeteria, I painted over the praying hands of the figure in the center of the image. It was inappropriate for a public school. I didn't ask, no one stopped me, and no one questioned me afterwards. At the time, it seemed obvious to do that. I was more nervous about painting over another student's work, unfinished as it was. Looking back, I'm rather proud of that, even if the mural is gone now.

A conversation with my former roommate

Roommate: Yoga as it's practiced in the US is cultural appropriation.
Me: Yes, but, we both do yoga. Why is that OK?
Roommate: Well, we've both studied the philosophy behind it.
Me: Yeah, but we still just do it for exercise...

I get what cultural appropriation is. I don't get what it isn't.

Was my roommate just rationalizing her own cognitive dissonance? Or is there something here I'm missing?

Worldviews and Interpretations

"It was then, in my daily contact with a diversity of people from a diversity of beliefs, that I concluded we all experience the same thing but are interpreting these experiences through our own worldview, imputing our own stories onto this experience, and articulating it in our own frameworks and languages. What a beautiful and peaceful revelation that was."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/11/muslims-christians-and-flying-horses/


Reading this should make me happy. I agree, and have wanted to find a way to say something like this for a long time. And this is so simple and well said. Yet it makes me angry. Why does this even have to be said? Is this really not obvious to some people? How arrogant does someone have to be to think they have some special, privileged access to feelings and experiences that are different, better, more important that other people's because of their beliefs?

But then I remember, I guess I've always known on some level it isn't obvious. That's why I had wanted to say it myself. Really, that's what made me question religion in the first place. As I kid, I never thought about my friends' non-Catholic beliefs as "wrong." I never really gave much thought to their beliefs at all, except to recognize that they were different from mine. Only after I met evangelicals did I realize that part of religion was believing I was correct about the nature of the world and that others were wrong.* I realized people like them were working from the unstated assumption that they had an inner experience that everyone else was lacking, and they needed to share that with others. As if others don't feel those same things already and attribute them to their religious experience.

At the time, I said I didn't want to claim I was "better" than others. What I really meant even though I didn't have the words was that I didn't want to claim that I somehow was more human than others.

I don't see much causal connection between what a person believes (the ideas that the hold) and what they are capable of feeling. Everyone feels awe, happiness, love, sadness, fear, or at least, has the capacity to. No supernatural causes are necessary. Just look around and listen to people. Read what they write; look at their art. These are basic human emotions. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, and everyone else experiences them, so I don't see how they can require belief in any particular deity. The degree of each emotion varies from person to person, but claiming you feel these things "better" or in a more meaningful way than anyone else who believe differently seems arrogant and based entirely on not looking outside yourself. I want no part in that.

So, I am happy someone said it. I do appreciate this revelation and I do think this is a wonderfully elegant way of putting it. And I do appreciate the understanding that a continued contact with a diversity of people can lead to it. I have long thought that's what got me to this point, and I'm happy for that experience.

*Even if you believe there are multiple paths to God, you still probably think at least some people are "doing it wrong." But even murders and other "bad" people can experience the same emotions without changing their "bad" behavior or "incorrect" beliefs, so I don't see how relying on feelings like awe to prove the existence of a "higher power" is a reasonable idea. In fact, when a person is incapable of experiencing certain emotions, we tend to consider that a mental illness, something that's gone wrong in the development of the brain, not that they simply have the wrong beliefs while everything biologically is fine. (I say this as a biologist with anxiety, so thinking of my brain as "defective" in that respect makes sense to me. No one's biologically perfect. But I can understand why to some it might sounds too much like a value judgement. My apologies if it does.)

Don't take it personally

Criticisms of sexual images is not criticism of you for finding them appealing. You probably can’t help that, and you’re allowed to like what you like. Just be honest about it. If you find images such as those on Eschergirls sexually appealing, you’re allowed to, as long as you recognized that they ARE distorted and unrealistic, and that you like them because they’re sexual. Don’t make excuses (oh, but their feet are shaped perfectly for stilettos; she’s naked because she’s a nature spirit and they don’t understand clothes; I just appreciate her beauty). Own your preferences and reasons. Don’t try to pretend you have other non-sexual reasons when that’s not really true. You don’t need to be ashamed of your preferences.

BUT.

You can’t JUST do that.

Also be honest about your expectations of the prevalence of these kinds of images. Criticisms of how common sexualized images are are not criticisms of you for liking them, but criticisms of your expectation to find them everywhere. Not even of your expectations, but criticisms of the system we all live in. Recognize that the system benefits you, but not others. Your sexual preference does not need to be everywhere. It is not a priority over anyone else’s or any other kind of preference. If you like drawing those kinds of images and that’s a priority for you, that’s OK. You can do that. But maybe you should consider drawing comics where that is the goal, not inserting it into general-audiences superhero comics. You're preferences are not the default. Claims of harm from those images are not claims that YOU and your preferences are harming anyone, but that your expectation and treatment of those images as normal in all contexts is harmful.

You can like what you like. That’s OK. But when what you like involves other people, as sexual preferences ALWAYS do, recognize that your preferences cannot take priority over the other people/genders you’re projecting your preferences onto. A sexy image is not just a picture; it is a representation of a category of people, a representation of others shaped to meet your preferences about them. You can have your preferences, but recognize that it is often not the preferences of the people being displayed, people who don’t have to like your representation of them, even if you're perfectly allowed to have it. And recognize that everyone’s preferences for their OWN representation DOES take priority over other people’s preferences for another’s representation. And they DO need place in society to see themselves portrayed as they see themselves, not primarily as others see them, from others' points of view.

A is for Asexual

An ally, by definition, cannot be the “A” in LGBTQQIAetc. because an ally is someone who is affiliated with and supportive of a group or category that they are not a part of. LGBT or any combination of those letters is not a club or organization you can get membership in, it’s a collection of sexual or gender identities. It is the term for people who are not cis-gender and/or heterosexual; people who are gender and/or sexual minorities. If you are cis-gender and heterosexual, then by definition you are not LGBTetc. Just as someone who is LGBT is not heterosexual or cis-gender. The “A” stands for asexual, a minority so invisible, most people aren’t even aware they exist. Not ally. Allies are important, valued, and needed. But allies are not sexual or gender minorities. They are friends, family, and people who care about others. They may face discrimination themselves because of it. But they are not the “others” they support. They have their own terms: Allies of LGBTQQIA people, Heterosexual/Cis-gender supporters of LGBTQQIA, not LGBTQQIA themselves. And that’s OK. Be an ally, please; don’t take someone else’s identity.

(note: I know the “alphabet soup” for defining sexual identity is questionable to some and can include more or less letters depending on who you ask, and I personally don’t think it’s the best way to define things, but it is the most commonly-used term and we don’t to my knowledge really have any better alternatives at the moment.)

An attempt at a more concise response

I'm often frustrated with the responses I see to victim blaming. I agree, of course, that it's not OK to dismiss harm done to someone by saying, "well, they shouldn't have gone there," or "they shouldn't have worn that," "they should have known better or been more careful," or "they should have respected themselves more." I agree, of course, that these statements simply divert blame and attention from the person who actually did something wrong.

There are lots of responses to this problem, how they take away responsibility from the perpetrator, how they imply it's expected for some people to not have self control or empathy, how they cause even more harm. But while all that analysis is very important, it doesn't often feel to me that it would be all that convincing to someone who really believes what they're saying. They need to be helped to see it from a different point of view, a different angle, to see just why they're focusing on the wrong thing, perhaps by relating this to other issues more broadly.

So I want to try to simplify the main point of the response to victim blaming:

When you tell a victim they should have done something differently, you suggest that the outcome was an expected consequence of something the victim did. This shifts blame off the perpetrator, and shifting blame away implies that their actions were on some level acceptable. No. It is never acceptable. No one has the right to do something to or with someone else without that person's consent. Clothing is not consent, interactions with other people or situations is not consent more broadly, location is not consent, other activities are not consent, uncertainty is not consent, personality and behavior is not consent, feelings and opinions about self and others is not consent.

I'm not just talking about sex. You can't force someone to buy something they don't want, even if they're shy and have a hard time speaking up for themselves and their wants (I've had this happen, and it's very upsetting to be steamrolled like that). It's rude to continue to ask personal questions someone doesn't want to answer. Even doctors generally can't just do something different than what you're seeing them for with out your permission, barring certain emergencies (if you've had surgery, doctors may have had you sign a form saying you agree to let them do what they need to if something unexpected comes up). It is normal and acceptable to expect other people to have self control, decency, and basic respect for personal autonomy, and hold them accountable if they don't, no matter what anyone else is or isn't doing, so focus on promoting that if you want to really change things. Focusing on changing the victim instead of the perpetrator means accepting and accommodating the bad behavior rather than fixing the real problem.

I don't care how positive you feel about it

You still basically named a character "Defective" and then suggested she's mentally disabled. Yet you really don't comprehend how someone might see that as offensive?

Intent does matter

In the blogs I follow, I've been seeing a lot of the statement "intent isn't magic" in response to when someone unintentionally says or does something rude, insulting or harmful. Meaning well doesn't make it hurt less, doesn't make the thing OK or unproblematic. I agree. To an extent.

If a friend says something sexist to me, for example, it's not going to hurt less just because it's a friend who genuinely likes me. In some ways, being a friend who supposedly respects me may even hurt more. I'm going to feel hurt and I'm going to get angry, I have a right to my feelings, and that doesn't change based on their intention, whether it was said or done out of naivete or ignorance, or out of a truly sexist worldview.

But their intention does matter in how I respond.

If they're a friend who claims to respect me and didn't intend to hurt me, I'm going to talk with them about what they said, why I think they were wrong, why it hurt, and because they're my friend, expect them to at least consider what I have to say. If they claim to be a feminist or ally, I'm going to talk with them about why I found what they said to be sexist. Maybe they're just not entirely informed, or maybe they have their own thoughts on why they think what they said was fine. After all, I may have simply misunderstood or they may simply have a different but potentially still valid perspective I hadn't considered. Just because I feel hurt doesn't mean they necessarily said something "wrong," but even if they did, I expect to be able to have a conversation with them, or at least be able to come to a point where we can still move towards the same broad goals, albeit in different ways. I'd like to think we don't have to be in perfect agreement, or even be completely correct or ideologically consistent to share that. We don't even have to like each other to still be allies.

If I did or said something to hurt a friend or an ally in an issue we both care about, I'd hope they would talk to me as well, instead of just get angry, refuse to be my friend any longer, or call me a "bad ally" because I didn't understand something perfectly the first time. Or even the second or third time.

However, if the person's intent was simply to belittle me, to disregard my thoughts, to hurt me; if they refuse to listen to what I have to say or consider views outside of their own; if they reject the history and research that should inform a well-thought-out opinion, even after being exposed to it; if they refuse to have a back-and forth discussion and just assert their own correctness and insist my feelings are irrelevant or illegitimate while theirs reveals the truth, never considering if they simply misunderstood, then I am going to consider them a "bad ally," ideological opposition, someone who is not a friend. Then I am going to avoid discussing it with them, avoid wasting my time and energy. Then I may even warn others about them.

If someone say they didn't mean to hurt me, they're sorry I was hurt by their words or actions, I don't consider that a "not-pology" most of the time. To me, it means they acknowledged that they have hurt me and do feel bad about that. They may just not understand why, but recognizing that they did certainly seems like a good place to start that conversation.

Sometimes I think I shouldn't be blogging

I see I've gotten a comment, and I feel sick. I'm glad it's a friend because I respect my friends' thoughts and I feel pretty comfortable that they respect mine. So it's OK if we disagree. But I already know we disagree, so what if I've unintentionally insulted them or hurt their feelings?! What if I haven't really thought through what I was trying to say and embarrassed myself? Maybe if it were a stranger commenting, it would be easier. But then they might be rude, a troll, or someone who isn't really interested in discussion, just looking to tell me I'm wrong!

I want to have discussions, but then I think I have too much anxiety to deal with potential disagreement.

So three comments have sat unread since April.