Subconscious impressions of others

No one's perception of others is neutral. Even our perception of a stranger, someone we've never before met, does not start from a "blank slate" and develop only as we get to know the person.

Our starting point perception comes from our past experiences: people they remind us of, knowingly or unknowingly; information, correct or incorrect, remembered or just a vague feeling, that we learned about the group or identity we attribute to them; feelings and images we associate with who/what we see at first glance; perceptions and portrayals we consciously or unconsciously picked up from family, friends, and our larger communities and societies; our familiarity with aspects of their self-presentation; the context of our meeting. All of these things affect our "first impressions" of every single person we meet, and left unexamined, will continue to influence all further interactions with them and others we deem like them.

More difficultly, all of those initial perceptions can and often do conflict with what we intellectually know and think. Any of us may know and truly believe it's wrong to judge people by how they look, yet still react differently to people based entirely on their appearance. Studies have shown this, but we can even demonstrate it in ourselves. Side by side images of the same person, one of them in a suit in an office and one in a t-shirt and jeans at a party create very different impressions and bring up very different feelings, even though they are both real expressions of the person's identity and personality. Or two different people wearing the same thing can bring up different feelings. Don't believe me? Take this example of one of the Daily Show correspondents and honestly pay attention to your feelings and impression of him.

 

Now take a look at another person from the same segment with a similar expression:

There's a good chance you won't feel the same about both (and this reaction isn't exclusive to comparisons of race, gender, or even just general appearance; any two people will elicit different responses simple because they're different people and each of us picks up on more makes associations to different aspects and elements. However, it's usually more apparent when between groups our society makes significant distinctions between, which is why I use race here. You may notice it more in yourself with a different comparison.)

Reacting differently to different people because of your experiences does not make you a bad person. It is not a character flaw to have been influenced by stereotypes and societal assumptions; everyone is because we are social and learn from and influence each other. We all come to see the environment we live in as normal and pass that on into the future. We also navigate the world and manage information by condensing and simplifying things we don't need to know regularly or that are not a priority in our personal day-to-day life. This helped up survive in the past, and sometimes even now.

But our societies have changed, and we have changed. We interact with a range of people in large, multicultural societies in a way that makes tribalism a liability that prevents us from seeing others as full people like ourselves. We have statistics and research that can help us uncover our subconscious thoughts and compare them to reality. We have the ability to be introspective, assess ourselves and where our initial perceptions come from, and actively counter our gut reactions when they are not helping or develop those that are. We can recognize our own cognitive dissonance of valuing anti-bigotry while still feeling bigoted things and re-train our intuition and our outward reactions to be in line with how we want to be. We can update or question information and ourselves. We can look at ourselves and listen to others and actively decide how we want to define community.

Most people hold subconscious biases, stereotypes, and inappropriate or unfair gut reactions towards at least some others. Most people also want to deny this fact because realizing it hurts our inner sense of self-worth. Wanting to protecting our identity, self, and value is not unreasonable or wrong. It's hard to be vulnerable, even if it's only to yourself. But denial and refusal to really uncover and understand your deepest, inner influences is not real protection and hurts others, even if it may seems to hurt the individual less. Having a real grasp of yourself and why you are the way you are is how you work to be the person you think you are and want to be. And because we're social - we need and care about each other for survival and wellbeing - we're all counting on each other to do the hard inner work so we can all thrive.

Simply stating we're anti-bigotry or anti-discrimination doesn't make it so, no matter how sincere we are, unless we're willing to honestly assess ourselves, and not just others, in the process and takes steps, internally and/or externally, to counteract whatever negativity and bias we unfortunately will find.

Patriarchy hurts everyone (with Bronies), Part 1

"If patriarchy hurts men too, then how is patriarchy even real?"

Patriarchy doesn't mean that all men benefit while all women are marginalized; rather, it means that a society is structured to favor a stereotyped masculine ideal that is the default perspective and position, and is expected of all men, with an idealized feminine ideal expected of women, but still defined in relation to the preferred masculine concept.

In practice this means men who do not inherently conform to the masculine ideal are marginalized, although unlike women, being still men (or perceived as such) means they have the opportunity to attempt to conform or fake their conformity. Being men, particularly men who have internalized these masculine norms and do meet them at least partially, they are still favored by a society that perceives them as men (with all the social assumptions that go along with that perception), at least until their perceived masculinity is "removed" (such as having too many stereotypical "feminine" interests, including being attracted to men, failing to meet expected "masculine" standards and presentation, such as clothing and personality).

These men have two main options, attempt to conform to the ideal (or try to expand the ideal to include them), or reject the ideal. Since most people in a society have so internalized their community's norms, they never question them, and try to conform when they notice discomfort (ie: shame or embarrassment).

My Little Pony fans.
My Little Pony has always had a large fanbase of children and adults that was predominantly female; this is how it has continued to exist for 30 years. Although they were a minority, there were male fans even from the beginning. The current series, Friendship is Magic, expanded that fanbase to include more boys and young men. However, rather than integrate with the large, preexisting, majority-female fanbase, they created their own "masculine" fanbase, with a masculine name, Bro-nies, and masculine interests like drawing the characters as "sexy" or making outright porn of it, rejecting the stereotypical feminine elements of the series as less important, and even going so far as to claim the action elements are proof that the series is really for boys, for them, not for girls: that it is masculine, and that being "masculine" makes it superior to the perceived "feminine" previous generations, ignoring the similarities in fantasy and action.

These Bronies are men who, by having a "feminine" interest, fall outside of the male ideal that they have internalized. Patriarchy has hurt them. They feel the discomfort, the judgmental social expectations, the embarrassment over their interest. Many in the past chose to hide their interest from others, or even from themselves, but Bronies embrace their interest. Unfortunately, this leaves them to deal with the cognitive dissonance. They like something "feminine" but have not rejected the masculine ideal that they have internalized as part of their male identity; it's so foundational to their worldview that they may not even know they hold it. And so rather than question the validity of masculine expectations, they reinterpret their interest, reject the feminine parts, emphasize or outright create the masculine parts, push away female fans with their displays of hyper-masculinity and sexuality, all framed as perfectly normal and natural, as that default masculine ideal makes it seem, in turn reinforcing the illusion that yes, FiM must be for boys because mostly boys are here, as well as reinforcing the illusion of how to "properly" be a male fan.

This wasn't the only option though. There were male fans before. Male fans who felt the embarrassment of liking something "for girls" and dealt with harassment and disapproval from not just society, but close family and friends, who were still working out of the patriarchal mindset and judging and hurting these early male fans for it. Yet some refused to reject their interest and instead rejected the masculine ideal, or at least parts of it. This wasn't the easy option of course; there weren't enough of them to make a change in perceptions. They may have still hid their interests from most people, but they joined online fan groups with mostly female fans, and had private collections, and went to pony meets to spent time with other (mostly female) fans. And within the larger fan community, "the boys" had private, safe spaces for only them. Because patriarchy hurts men too.

Bronies had the chance to change perceptions. There were enough of them willing to come out and embrace and defend their non-traditional interests. But they chose not to question and reject the flawed foundation of their masculine identity and fear of the inferior feminine, but instead reshaped themselves and their interests to conform to those expectations and fears. In doing so, they only reinforced the patriarchal concept of maleness, masculinity, and it's superiority to the patriarchal concept female and femininity, setting up the next group of non-traditional males to struggle with the same cognitive dissonance.

I'll address female Bronies/Pegasisters and women who don't conform to patriarchal femininity, as well as the harm of conforming, in other posts.

Those obnoxious relatives

Do conservatives worry about holiday gatherings where they'll be surrounded by obnoxious, insensitive liberal relatives who are going to spend the time complaining about politics with no regard for anyone else present's views or feeling? Do they get ready to go to these family get-togethers by mentally preparing themselves to either argue or hide their feelings to keep the peace, and go home afterwards needing a vacation from their emotionally draining relatives? Do they wish they could avoid them or convince everyone to talk about other topics as a way to respect the diversity of opinions during what should be a happy time, but go and try to be as silent as they can because they still feel an obligation to their families? Do they write blogs and complain to their friends about how hard their family makes enjoying their company and how alienated it makes them feel around the very people who are expected to care about them most?

Or does that stereotype only exist in reverse?

Not seeing privilege and thinking you're oppressed

MRAs claiming it's sexism against men to focus on women's issues. Christians claiming discrimination and intolerance means society not supporting and promoting only their views. White people claiming it's racist to question if a white person might be racist. Cis-gender people claiming it's cis-phobic to call them "cis," or anything at all.

Privileged people are appropriating the language of oppression and social justice for themselves.

I suppose this is to be expected in a way. One of the defining traits of privilege is that society tends to be build in support of your worldview while marginalized views are perceived as unreliable accounts. So of course oppression and social justice concepts are just as susceptible to being reinterpreted through a privileged lens as any other cultural element. One's own privilege is very hard to see when it's the assumed backdrop of everything around you, yet it does still hurt to be accused of things you don't believe are true about yourself. If you don't see the inequality in the system you're commenting on, it certainly looks like those "other" people are simply complaining because they don't like something you, their "other" does, so why can't you do the same when you feel hurt by them too, right?

I think the important thing right now is how do we help people see the power imbalance and inequality that their group identity benefits from and contributes to when they claim oppression for themselves? How do we communicate the understanding that something hurting or being different from what you like does not by itself put you on the marginalized side of the privilege/oppression dynamic? That you can be privileged in some area because of some aspect of your identity, and still have things not go your way as an individual? That they're subconsciously devaluing other people's experiences and elevating the value of their own when the hostilely accuse the others having a secret agenda, by arguing against a simplistic strawman? That the study that has gone into these issues is real, and they're not as simplistic as they appear on the surface? That promoting and supporting minority/oppressed/marginalized identities and issues over privileged ones is not promoting inequality in the opposite direction, but is trying to right the balance of inequality and priority that already exists? How do we get people to see that inequality still exists and is still in their favor and is the very reason they can dismiss everyone else's views so easily, if even if doesn't feel like it? How do we show someone the very thing that's preventing them from seeing?

People can and do have paradigm shifts in their fundamental understanding of themselves and their relation to the world. That shift to a more complete picture and aware understanding of other people's experience is what we're asking, and there's no denying it's asking a lot. How do we do it?

Guns, tools, and responsibility

I've written previously about my thoughts on guns and gun control, and my views on "good" and "bad" people in regards to gun use and ownership. I want to follow that up with my thoughts on calling guns "just another tool" and why that perspective concerns me.

Tools are objects that we use to serve a certain purpose, to aid us in completing a task, to do things we would not be able to do with just out bodies. Tools are designed for a specific purpose or multiple purposes, but can often also be used for actions and activities they weren't initially intended for. A spoon is a tool used for scooping and stirring food or other liquids, gels, and granular materials. Because it is designed for scooping, it can be used for digging or scraping if you don't have a shovel. If a tool designed specifically for prying is not available, it can be used for that purpose as well, depending on the material and design. A spoon can be made into art. Under certain circumstances, it can be used to injure or kill someone. But it is designed for scooping and stirring, and learning to use a spoon means learning to use it to scoop and stir effectively and without hurting yourself or others.

A knife is a tool used for cutting. Even moreso than with a spoon, there are many utilitarian uses of knives, and knives and small blades are often designed for specialized uses: kitchen knives, scissors, pocket knives, scalpels, filet knives, rolling blades. Each of these have an intended use that they are best for, but each can be used for other things if necessary. Including hurting or killing someone. Thus, learning to use a knife typically means learning how to use it to cut without getting hurt or hurting others.

So, if a gun is "just a tool," then what is its purpose? It's purpose is to hurt and kill. It is not "just a tool," it is a weapon, with no utilitarian use. Now, of course, similar to tools, training with weapons in intended to also decrease accidental injury and death, but with the intent of getting better at only causing wanted injury and death. This is the opposite of tools, where improved use means not causing harm. The better you get at using a gun (or knife designed for fighting/killing, or certain explosives), they better you get at hitting a "target," the better you're intended to get at hitting a living person or animal. If guns (and other weapons) are "just tools," then they are tools with a dangerous purpose that gives the wielder a "responsibility" no one deserves: the "responsibility" to decide who lives and dies.

Now, of course, people will make the case that self defense is necessary when someone else decides to take on that "responsibility" and uses it to kill others. But the more invested the "self-defense" advocate is in "needing" a gun for this purpose, the more they insist guns are the most reasonable form of self defense and not an absolute last resort, wanting to take it everywhere as if day-to-day life in most of American is that dangerous, the more they minimize the actual ethical and "responsibility" implications of using a weapon by using it for "fun" or calling it "just a tool," as if killing a person or animal is just as utilitarian a purpose as and equitable to cutting a piece of fabric, the less I trust them to understand the "responsibility" they claim gun ownership teaches; the less I trust them to not become the person who makes a decision to kill another. They already have decided that it's OK as long as that person is the "other," and I don't trust how they're going to define the threat from this "other" when they talk and behave as though their personal safety is constantly a risk even when it's not.

As I've said previously, I don't trust people who think causing injury or death is not simply sometimes necessary, but reasonable, who think "every man for himself" is an effective way to maintain order when we are social beings living in a society that should be able to provide structure to minimize violence without using a threat of more violence. Otherwise, what's the point of living in a society?

Why is talking about spanking so divisive?

Why can it be so difficult to talk with people who were spanked as children about the fact that spanking has been found to be harmful and not actually effective at teaching children good behavior? Why is even suggesting this might be true met with hostility and defensiveness (never mind outright stating it)? If people want what's best for children, and I don't doubt people in these conversations do, then why does the disagreement reach such high levels of angry opposition to even considering alternatives to spanking?

Of course, many people who were spanked will claim that it worked out fine for them, taught they "respect" and "consequences," so the risks must be overblown or completely untrue. This is an illogical conclusion since a few anecdotes are never enough to completely overturn a measurable trend, never mind that they may simply be unaware of the harmful effects it had on them personally, but I question just why are they holding on to irrational conclusions? What is the motivation to try to justify this conclusion?

I think the answer is in their justifications. They don't typically argue that hitting children is OK, and will even sometimes go so far as to try to claim that "spanking," or whatever other term they choose to use, is somehow not "hitting." So they know using violence against children is wrong; they simply refuse to see spanking as violent, and they look to their own upbringing for justification.

This, I think, is the key to their defense of spanking. They're not simply defending their own parenting abilities - many of these people are not even parents themselves. Instead, they are defending their own parents.

People who love their parents and had a happy childhood with them are going to usually reject the idea that anything their parents did could be interpreted as abusive. Abuse is something "bad" people do, people who don't love or care about their children. Real harm is done on purpose, not by accident, by loving parents who didn't know better. Loving parents aren't ignorant of how to raise their kids!

This positive view of one's own parents seems normal, but add the stated goals of spanking - respect (for parental authority) and consequences (for challenging parental authority) - and it becomes even more difficult to think critically about one's own parents! Respecting parents in this mindset means trusting that they know best, not challenging parents, enforced through painful "consequences" that are framed as logical, natural outcomes of not "respecting" "authority."

Of course in this environment, where spanking is used to reinforce this kind of unquestioning "authority" of parents, breaking out of the mindset that respect and love means supporting and obeying parents and instead recognizing that it's OK to question and doubt your parents, even to say that they're wrong, is going to be a difficult challenge. The more spanking was taught at the way to raise children to love their parents, the more difficult it's going to be to convince someone who does love their parents that spanking isn't likely the reason they do.

Rage

I’ve gotten angry about things in society and culture that have hurt me. I’ve raged. I’ve yelled. I’ve blamed individuals for harm caused by a system they didn’t create and aren’t trying to maintain. I’ve insulted. I’ve talked down to (See last post, where I “explained” what’s going on with other people rather than giving my take and opening up a place for discussion about it).

My feelings and anger about these issues are justified. My friends, and even others should understand why I’m upset and not hold it against me for expressing my feelings.

But.

No matter what society may tell me, I’m not just expressing my feelings. I’m not just “venting." If I wanted to make a point, analyze something in other’s behaviors or in our society, I could do that without taking out my anger on everyone else.

No, I rage to hurt. I rage out of revenge. I rage because I know no one likes to be yelled at, insulted, lumped in with people and ideas they too don’t like; stereotyped. I rage because it momentarily makes me feel better to imagine they’re hurting now too; that it give me power over their feelings that they had over mine; that it will teach them hands-on humility and empathy.

 

Of course, it won’t. I know that because being hurt myself doesn’t make me sympathetic to their perspective. So it won’t help them understand mine either.

 

It’s not even the guilty parties who end up facing my rage. The high school teacher who crystallized my understanding of privilege? He’ll never know what he did to me, and I wouldn’t go to him and yell at and insult him to his face even if I could. That would be wrong; most of us would agree trying to hurt others is wrong. Instead, I rage in “safe spaces,” but my friends may encounter my rage. It’s not their fault; they’re great, despite being from a culture that produces people like that teacher. They may even understand and be sympathetic and take steps to not contribute to that harm. But I would still be hurting them because it’s still parts of their own history and identity that I’m attacking when I generalize my rage.

 

And in some way, that’s the point. “I’m justified in being angry, so I’m justified in taking it out on your identity, but you also shouldn’t feel hurt by that personally if you’re not responsible.” It's not really between me and them, so they can’t, and won’t, hurt me back, so I can get some kind of emotional revenge while convincing myself it’s harmless, that it’s not revenge at all, just “expression” of my feelings. But it does hurt them, and I'm only attempting to control other's feelings more by telling them they can't get upset with me for it.

 

None of this is conscious or deliberate of course. I don’t really want to hurt anyone and want to prevent harm. But if I really think through what I’m feeling, why raging, yelling, insulting feels good, at least in the moment, what thoughts I’m repressing because I don’t want them to actually be true about myself, this is what I come to.

 

It’s not that I’m not wrong to criticize. I’m not wrong to analyze problems in society, in a culture. I’m not wrong to try to change the problematic systems. I’m not wrong to feel angry and be motivated by that. I’m not wrong even if it’s painful for people to hear the groups they identify with have caused harm and need to change.

 

But I’m not going to pretend I can’t cause harm myself by acting on that anger by blaming whole categories of people as if all individuals are responsible, even if I  do so while acknowledging it's an exaggeration. It’s a different kind of harm; not a systematic, oppressive kind, but it’s still wrong and unhelpful.

 

It’s also something I’ll probably continue to do. Not because I think I’m justified to lash out, but because I’m not perfect, I get upset, and I sometimes act on my emotions without thinking, like everyone else in the world. I would ask, however, that others would be understanding and sympathetic because my underlying emotions are still legitimate and real, and I hope this has made it clear that I try to do the same for others.

Using words correctly

Why do people who criticize feminism confuse feminism with chivalry? Or patriarchy with men as a group? Feminism and the philosophy underlying chivalry couldn’t be more different or oppositional; it’s perhaps the one thing feminists might actually all agree on. And how does anyone confuse a word referring to a social structure with a word that’s simply a category title?

Hanlon’s Razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,” or, to put it more generously, ignorance is often more likely than malice. It’s a perspective I’ve always tried to take even before I knew there was a term for it.

Yet I can’t help but think that stupidity/ignorance isn’t adequate here. Everyone’s heard of feminism, and it’s not at all difficult to come across information about at least the very basics, like the problems with chivalry. Pop Feminism 101 right there. The difference between “patriarchy” and “men” should be obvious just from a linguistics perspective, even without knowing the exact definition. You can’t say “You are two patriarchy” as a replacement for “You are two men.” There can’t be that many native-English speakers who don’t know how their own language works.

The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is either outright malice or willful ignorance (which, frankly, is itself a form of malice since it means treating other people’s ideas as unworthy of serious consideration and accurate representation – refusing to learn). Perhaps the problem in fact comes back to something like a lack of application of Hanlon’s Razor on the part of these willfully ignorant people. They’re attributing malice to feminists rather than any other possibility, and so don’t even bother to attempt to learn what their words and concepts actually mean, or learn, but claim it’s a cover, lie, conspiracy on the part of feminists to hide some “true agenda,” which only makes sense if they go back to redefining terms to mean things feminists don’t mean. Again, Hanlon’s Razor; or better yet, stop assuming the worst.

 

Or perhaps it really is ignorance. Ignorance so deep that they can’t even comprehend that there are perspectives outside their own, and so, without anything for contrast, are unable to even see that they have a personal, non-universal/default perspective that can change. Terms thus get redefined because the terms changing is the only way they make sense.

 

If you find yourself frequently being told that’s not what a word means, be it in regards to feminism, evolution, or any other contentious subject, the problem is, indeed, most likely your (mis)use of the terms, not everyone else you disagree with.

 

(Next post, a follow-up to this "talking down")

Thinking in circles

I haven't posted in a while. Not because I haven't been thinking - I'm always thinking - but because I seem to have thought myself into a circle I can't seem to find a way out of.

I've been finding myself more and more at odds with social justice activists. Not their goals, certainly; I support these issues and outcomes most social justice communities are aiming for. But the methods, their ways of relating to and rejecting the power structures in society.

Disagreement isn't necessarily a bad thing; I think that often times, there are multiple "right" perspectives and ways of engaging, even contradictory ones, often depending on context and the individual's own experiences. But that doesn't mean I think all ways are good, helpful, valid. And some of my values and ways of understanding and relating, based on my own experiences or marginalization and privilege, are outright rejected by many who I consider to be on "the same side."

One of my guiding principles, coming from those experiences, is that when everyone around me is telling me I'm wrong about something, especially when I otherwise agree with them, I need to really consider where they're coming from and really assess if I am in fact wrong. This has usually worked well. Sometimes I conclude that yes, I was mistaken, sometimes I don't, and can give a reason for justifying my conclusion.

But here, on these particular issues, I still don't understand how I'm wrong. The evidence I'm given for why I'm mistaken is that certain experiences I've had (or rather, not had) by definition prevent me from seeing it, a general principle that I do understand. But I can't just accept blindly that everyone else is correct, even just for the fact that I can't support them if I don't understand. Yet the alternative is that everyone else is wrong while I'm the one not understood. This seems highly unlikely. But one of the very things we seem to disagree on is whether that mutual understanding is even possible without the experience.

How do I prove that I understand something when it can always be denied with "no, you can't"? And how much am I required to think about it before I conclude that no, in fact, I've thought about it enough, and I'm not wrong?

So I guess this is how I make sense of it all

I feel silly for not thinking of this sooner, but of course people have done research in identity development, particularly racial identity in the US. I even know someone who this is the subject of her research. I knew that, but I guess I forgot. I think these concepts also apply to other aspects of identity and privilege/oppression, which helps me in more than just one area.

I'm just going to put this here as reference for the kinds of things I've been reading. They're not answers to the concerns I have, but I think they're a good framework for my thinking about these issues. Maybe others who aren't familiar with this area of study will find it enlightening.

There seem to be multiple models for "stages" of development, and I'm told some are considered more useful than others, so here's some rough summaries of a few:

http://www.diversitycelebration.com/models-of-racial-identity/
http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/staff/tlink/development/theme_identity_and_cohort/race_stages.html

From the Unitarian Universalists, here's information about forming a positive, anti-racist white identity:
http://www.uua.org/documents/gardinerwilliam/whiteness/positive_white_identity.pdf

(But whatever you do, DO NOT Google simply "white identity" unless you want a bunch of white supremacist information. "White identity development" or "racial identity development" are fine though.)

And finally, what I found most interesting to read, a description of the progress of a college class on racial identity, Talking about Race, Learning about Racism: The Application of  Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom by Beverly Daniel Tatum
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic551851.files/TalkingAboutRace%20Tatum.pdf

How do I make sense of it all?

There are many social issues I care about. Ones that affect me directly. Ones that affect people I care about. Ones that don't affect me or people I know, but still matter. Yet reading the ideas from many of the online communities surrounding these topics, I feel like I don't fit. I feel unwelcome. Because while I agree on substance, I don't always agree on method. And I seem to keep coming across people who frame disagreeing on method as being just as bad as disagreeing on substance. I feel like if I speak up, I'd be treated as an enemy to the very things and people I care about.

Fundamentalist Christians alternately glorify sex and are ashamed of it. Sex-positive people try to counter the shame. They say they're nothing wrong with it if you want it. But then say it's wrong not to want it. They still glorify it. Why can't it just be?

I care about the harm that comes from religion, from irrational beliefs, from unsupported faith. But I'm not a "New Atheist" either. I'm not actively anti-religion because I don't see what that would solve, even if I think a world without religion sounds appealing. Ideas, including religion, come from people, who are not completely rational. Myself included. So getting rid of religion won't get rid of underlying irrational, harmful, unsubstantiated ideas and assumptions. Religion's not some supernatural force over us, making us do things we wouldn't do otherwise. Our irrational thought structures and lack of cultural introspection do, and religion is just the most visible way that's expressed. I'd rather focus on relieving the harm and increasing critical thinking and reasoning, and if religion doesn't go away with that, instead adapting to be a little more rational and a lot less harmful, so be it, even if it's not my preference or not completely reality. But this is near-traitorous to New Atheists.

I want to see better representation of PoC in our art and entertainment. I'm deeply bothered by whitewashing of characters and stories. Yet my own Mediterranean features and ancestry are often attributed to persons of color while I'm personally (usually) considered white, leaving me no safe way to try to conceptualize my own racial and cultural identity without risking appropriating the problems faced by actual racial and cultural minorities. I don't even feel I'm allowed space to be concerned about this without being accused of "worrying more about being called racist than actual racism." As if I can't both care about racism and my own identity.

I think feminism and LGBT activism are important. I see how society is so focused only on a white-cis-male perspective, everything else is invisible. I see what harm that does. I'm angry, but I'm not enraged enough apparently. Same as with atheism. Because I prefer calm dialogue to angry rants. I try not to simply explode in my anger, and because of that, I apparently think even feeling anger is unjustified.

Civility is apparently catering to privilege because privileged people expect to be treated nicely, better than everyone else, and they don't deserve it. I think there's a middle ground. I think everyone should expect to be treated nicely unless they've knowingly done something to change that. Maybe it's just a difference in our definitions of "civility" and "nice." But in others' minds, I'm apparently too biased in favor of religion or I'm too repressed and unaware to be listened to. Because I think it's worth taking into consideration how important the things we're challenging are to the identities of the people we're challenging. I think it helps in anticipating their objections, and responding, in understanding and making them understand without then shutting you off. In bringing them in gently rather than hurting them because they hurt you, and then demanding they change. But I'm shot down with accusations of "tone-policing" because I think dialogue is a more effective way to start a conversation than insults and targeted offense. I'm apparently silencing others by caring about everyone's feelings, not just the oppressed.

I've always felt distant, like an observer on society. I don't mind that so much. I wonder if it gives me perspective. Maybe not. But when I do want to engage, I don't know how, not just because of me, but because I keep encountering people who don't want to help others engage. Who want everyone coming in to already know everything. They may say "it's OK to make mistakes" but they certainly don't act like it. Or they're willing to help, but only if people end up agreeing with them. But I can't say that, accuse them of that. That's too much like comparing an oppressed group to the people with power; comparing their individual behavior to a system of power that they don't have.

But where's my power? What am I? I'm not welcome anywhere, and I'm not allowed to claim it for myself without being accused of hurting those causes I want to help...those that I'm a part of. And when do I get to stand up for myself as an individual? For what I believe in? Who I am? When and where do I get space to work out my understanding and relation to these issues? To make mistakes? To explore different, and maybe even unpopular, ways of looking at things? Everywhere I go, I feel stifled, shot down, told trying to make sense of it for myself if I don't get it 100% right and not just uncritically accept what others have said means I'm hurting the very people I'm doing everything I can to not hurt!

I came to care about these things because I felt erased, assumed to be things I wasn't. Things privileged people thought were positive, but I thought were negative. I wanted people to respect the real me. To listen to me and understand me. To know I wasn't an exception to their stereotypes; their stereotypes were exceptions to reality. To know they were wrong about me and everyone else who was not privileged. But I can't demand that without also giving that. So I did listen. I do consider the experiences others have. I do believe them when they say they've experienced oppression I don't understand. I don't intend to stop. But still no one does that for me. They say I'm privileged because I'm not saying what they want from me. I'm biased. I'm not listening. I'm the one who's being self-centered when I've spent my whole life learning to speak for myself! I'm the one who's whining even now because somehow whatever harm I've experienced is "less"...less harmful, less worthy of concern, less important and valid. Oh sure, they say it's wrong to "compare oppressions," but in practice, that's what happens. You can't understand because apparently there's no overlap in people's experiences or what they've learned. Whatever lessons I learned from it, whatever conclusions I came to about how to fix things, how to help, are meaningless because other people's hurt and conclusions are more "correct," more meaningful, more worthy of concern.

I was hurt. I am hurt. I don't have to justify those feelings. My experiences don't neatly fit into the boxes of clear racism, sexism, etc., and I need space to make sense of it. I don't care if you think I'm too privileged in one area to understand or have a right to speak because if you won't allow me a safe space to figure it out, you certainly can't judge either. Whatever it was, it influenced me to listen, and I'm going to keep listening, and I'm going to keep reaching my own conclusions about being just treating each other well, and I'm going to keep speaking up. I know experiencing discrimination doesn't mean I get to walk all over everyone else because that's exactly I expect from everyone else.

Yet saying that scares me. Because more than anything, I don't want to hurt others, especially those who are already down. I want to be understood, to be treated kindly, I refuse to be misrepresented, but I can't have that at the expense of others. I don't want to be called racist not because of some abstract "reputation," but because it means I've failed at not hurting others! I want to be thought of as a good person because I want to be a good person. It scares me because I see myself sometimes disagreeing with even influential philosophies and activists and people respected for their understandings of privilege, oppression, discrimination, and I must be wrong if I'm disagreeing with them. I must be missing something, not understanding something critically important. I can't have some understanding they didn't. Can I? If I disagree, is it just because my own privilege is blinding me? Or are others simply using the concept of privilege to beat back any disagreement? Sometimes it seems disagreement becomes "proof" of privilege; are others simplifying things too much? Or am I making something simple more complex than it is?

How do I balance who I am and what I want and need for myself with the kind of respect everyone else also deserves?