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.