When someone presses the "dislike" button

Lessons that, for most of us, can be very hard to swallow:

-The fact that a person dislikes you doesn’t always mean they don’t know you well enough.
-The fact that someone dislikes you doesn’t automatically mean they are an asshole. It also doesn’t mean that you’re an asshole.
-It’s okay to not be fond of somebody who likes you. The same goes for vice versa.

On the first point: We all want to believe that everybody would like us if they knew us better, and that any person’s aversion is based on misinformation. Unfortunately, this isn’t true. If a person looks at me and doesn’t like what they see, it doesn’t necessarily mean their lenses need a new prescription. They could be seeing real flaws that are deal breakers for them. They could be seeing personality traits that are objectively neither good nor bad, but are simply not compatible with themselves. They could be seeing qualities that remind them of bad memories or sometimes their own insecurities. I’m not for everyone, and neither are you. This is all right. It’s not okay for somebody to be nasty and hostile, but we’re all allowed our own feelings. If I do have a flaw that is consistently pointed out, then it’s my responsibility to work on it. However, I shouldn’t do it with the end goal of winning any specific person’s friendship. It also doesn’t help to bury oneself in shame. That can actually stop us from making improvements.

Regarding the second point: Sometimes a person will dislike you for a terrible reason. They may be bigoted or prejudiced. They may have a prior commitment to animosity because of malicious intentions, and that does reflect badly on their character. They might just feel unfavorable toward most people. But, in other circumstances, there could be valid reasons for an aversion. The most common reactions seem to be to vilify the person who doesn’t like you, or to internalize it and decide there must be something wrong with you. As I said, it doesn’t have to mean any personal failing for either party. It could just be incompatibility.

As for the third point: Although we’re much more apt to like people who appreciate us, the fact that someone is fond of you doesn’t mean you’re obligated to return that feeling. That doesn’t mean it’s justifiable to be a jerk, but you’re not an unkind person for not wanting to hang out with them or be close. Likewise, it’s not weird or pathetic to like somebody who doesn’t seem interested in you. In that case, it helps to not internalize their disinterest (although that’s easier said than done), and it’s important to respect their boundaries and not push a relationship.

There are complex reasons for why some people click with each other and others don’t, and it doesn’t always reflect on character. It’s easy to get hung up on the people who don’t like us, even if we get along well with most people. The helpful thing is to do the best we can, and find those who both understand and enjoy us. There are plenty who will.

The oxymoron of "politically correct"

I finally figured out what bothers me about the phrase “politically correct.”

            We all know that conservatives criticize what they see as political correctness, as do some liberals who think others within their own camp “go too far”. Those on the far left tend to believe that no criticism of political correctness is valid, because it really means treating marginalized people with respect and it’s not possible to overdo that. The understanding is that anybody who rails against political correctness is really railing against the expectation to treat oppressed groups with basic decency.
            Often, that is the real complaint. Many times, people who take issue with political correctness really are objecting to the fact that their racism, misogyny, or other types of bigotry will be socially frowned upon. But as frequent as that is, it’s not always the issue. Sometimes when a person chastises another as “politically correct”, they mean that the person gets so focused on specific words that they lose sight of the message as a whole. Sometimes it means the person uses an academic vocabulary that may be inaccessible, and that they scorn others who aren’t familiar with their terminology. It can mean assuming that a person who says something misinformed has malicious intentions, and immediately responding with hostility. (I know that intentions ultimately matter less than results, but I don’t believe them to be completely irrelevant. Somebody without hateful intentions is more open to productive discussion. That being said, a person who is directly affected by their ignorance isn’t obliged to educate them or react with patience.)
            So I disagree with the idea that in every single circumstance, criticizing “political correctness” is criticizing the idea of treating marginalized people with respect. But I have a problem with the phrase “politically correct” to begin with.
            Calling something “politically correct” implies that it’s politically beneficial. It implies that it’s the dominant view held by the government; by political systems. It assumes that it’s in line with the status quo. Therefore, describing oneself as “politically incorrect” makes some people feel edgy and rebellious. It makes them think they’re fiercely independent. In reality, “politically correct” is a buzzword—or buzz phrase—just as much as any phrase I might use, and I have been frequently described as politically correct. The difference is that I and others with similar mindsets know that we’re expressing ideas that are shared by others. I’m not a special snowflake for being liberal.

            If a leftist mentality was the political foundation of our culture, then racism and sexism and homophobia and anti-trans bigotry and classism would be far less rampant. They wouldn’t be supported by numerous public policies. They wouldn’t be systemic. Unfortunately, though, those systems of oppression are the status quo—both personally and politically.
            Efforts to dismantle those things disrupt our current system. That’s why they’re as far as possible from being politically correct.

The Iconoclast Effect, or how Lisa Simpson teaches us to kill our heroes

            We've all become disillusioned with a personal hero at some point, whether it was someone we knew or someone idolized by many. When I hear a news story exposing a beloved figure for corruption, I'm often hesitant to share it. Not because the truth is secondary to the ideals a person may represent—it's not—but because it's painful to see their admirers' respect shattered. I've never wanted to be a killjoy. There are times when I wonder if it's really worth posting about the less positive aspects of Pope Francis, seeing as he (or at least his public image) brings hope to so many LGBT Catholics. Or if linking to articles about Mother Theresa's exploitation of the poor is too demoralizing to people who are currently living in poverty and hold her dear as an icon. Or if talking about the fact that John Lennon beat his wife is discouraging to people who find solace in his beautiful, although hypocritical, pleas for peace. I wonder if the end justifies the means, when those who admire these public heroes don't actually promote corruption or bigotry. They admire those figures because they believe them to stand for compassion. But if a person supports someone who commits harmful acts or holds toxic beliefs, then are they inadvertently promoting that same negativity? That may be the case, especially if victims of their behavior are still alive and continue to be affected. This doesn't mean it's wrong to enjoy a person's work, as the work itself may transcend its creator. But it does mean it's best not to see the creator as noble or to excuse their behavior because of what they've made.
          This always makes me think of a Simpsons episode from 1996 called "Lisa the Iconoclast." In the storyline, Lisa discovers that a historical town hero named Jebediah Springfield was actually a fraud. The whole town has revered him for a century, to the point of having a local holiday and parade in his name. Lisa tries to expose the truth about Jebediah with limited success. She writes an essay which is met with dismay from her teacher. She makes flyers to hang up on the Kwik-E-Mart windows, but Apu panics and forbids her to display them. At the end, she's standing in front of the parade and prepared to make a public statement. She's about to announce to the town that Jebediah was a murderous pirate operating under a false identity. But at the last minute, Lisa changes her statement and tells them he was great. Afterwards, the head of the Springfield historical society asks her why she did it. Lisa answers that it was more important to keep the townspeople happy than to expose Jebediah for who he was, because his legend inspires them and provides a sense of community.
           This ending bothered me a great deal as a child. I didn't see it as upholding a loftier goal, but as backing down on her principles. Springfield hero-worshipped a mass murderer and lived in ignorance. What could be more important than the truth?
           In hindsight, I see this episode as a lot more ethically complex. None of the people who had been robbed or otherwise wronged by Jebediah Springfield were still alive, and neither was anyone who would have been aware of his crimes. Placing the flyers on display in the Kwik-E-Mart would have likely jeopardized Apu's safety—not only because of the message, but because he was an Indian immigrant living in Springfield. Their region was insular and strongly focused on town pride. He was already seen as an outlier, so granting a platform for criticism of Springfield's beloved founder would have further reinforced that status. He would have gone from an outcast to a pariah. Lisa herself would have caused outrage, but most of it would have been directed at her parents. After all, her character is only eight years old. Everyone sees a young child's opinions as a direct reflection of their parents'.
            So, in Lisa's situation, I understand why she reached the conclusion she did and decided it was not a cause worth pursuing. The ending still leaves me unsatisfied, though. It feels like an injustice, both to Lisa's diligent efforts and to Jebediah's victims, to see her bury that fiery righteousness in order to appease the majority.
           In my imagination, there's an alternate world in which the Simpsons universe is real and the characters aren't suspended in time. Lisa grows up and publishes her research, which has not gone to waste. She doesn't have to announce it in front of an idealistic crowd, but it's there for those who want to find it. That's the ending I want to believe.
           And, in the end, that leads me to my conclusion about exposing flawed cultural icons. I think it's generally the ethical thing to do, but with caution and sensitivity and respect for the faith their admirers hold in their ideals. It may be difficult to find that balance, but it's worth striving for. It means knocking over a house of cards, but leaving the deck stacked for a more stable foundation.

On humor

Humor is often looked at in a reductive manner of “Anything somebody claims is a joke needs to be taken at face value as one,” and that analyzing joke structure means you lack a sense of humor. Neither of these assumptions are true.

Analyzing jokes is what a professional comedian does for a living. If everything they say sounds completely natural and off-the-cuff, that’s because they’re so well practiced. Successful stand-up requires a great deal of self awareness. As Robin Tran recently pointed out, there’s even an art to hiding the punchlines. Making it in comedy means playing to your audience.

There’s a well known subset of people, both online and off, who think they’re comedians just because they shout out every racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted thought that barges into their minds, and they lambaste anyone who says it’s not funny. “It’s just a joke, bruh. Don’t you have a sense of humor?” And then this is the part where they fumble for any gay/black/female/trans person in the vicinity to use as a human shield and say, “They’re not offended.” But as soon as anybody who does belong to one of those groups is unamused, their opinion and identity is cast out with the rest of the perceived trash heap and they’re called “just another sensitive [insert slur here].” Their status as a member of a minority group immediately drops them from a position of value (or, rather, exploitation) to a position of mockery. It's pretty sobering to know just how easy it is to fall into that behavior, ourselves.

That’s not how professional comedians work. They have to make the audience like them. This is never achieved by getting angry at people for not laughing, or for getting offended by their offended reaction. It’s not achieved by laughing at a notably disenfranchised group and demanding that they sit there and take it, telling them, “You have to be able to laugh at yourself.” Laughing at oneself should always be a person’s own choice, and it’s funniest when it is. It just becomes bullying when they’re already screwed over by society and now some atomic stink bomb with a mic is demanding that they find it funny.

Even notoriously racist, homophobic, and otherwise douchey comedians know how to tailor their act to specific listeners. They know that if there’s an audience full of women, it’s wise to avoid jokes about them deserving to be raped. (Not that it’s better to make that joke to male audiences. This is about more than not looking like an asshole; it's about not actually being one.) They know that if they themselves are unattractive, it's hypocritical and clueless to make fun of other peoples’ looks. Again, not that it’s better for the comedian to pick on appearance if they are good-looking. There’s the famous rule about punching up, not down.

This leads into the topic of celebrities. Normally, famous people are fair game. They’re rich and successful, so what a comedian says probably isn’t going to affect their status or rub salt in a wound. This would naturally seem like a form of “punching up.” It is—except when the joke is about the famous person belonging to a group that’s historically and institutionally dumped on. This is where things get a little more complicated.

A bigoted joke about a Hollywood star is still a bigoted joke. It may not affect them personally; they probably won’t even hear it. But it will be heard by others of that same group who aren't rich and successful. A joke making fun of Tess Holliday’s weight or Laverne Cox’s transgenderism still affects plus-size women and trans people. Members of those populations are still seen as public laughing stocks, even if those two celebrities aren’t—and they’re ridiculed for aspects of themselves they never chose. (There are people who will argue that you do choose your body size and can decide to be transgender, but that’s a whole other topic. For now, I’ll just say that while some people may be able to dictate their weight to an extent, not everybody can and there are a lot of genetic factors involved. As for being trans, you can choose to get surgery but you don’t choose gender dysphoria. Also, not all trans people get surgery or experience dysphoria. That’s a subject for another blog post, though. My point is that these groups of people, along with others, are torn apart for traits that don’t harm anyone and are overwhelmingly attacked by society.) If someone is unable to make a joke without being a bigot, then they're not very funny or creative.

This is tough to talk about, because nobody wants to be the humor police. Nobody wants to be seen as the no-funster who crashes through the wall at a party to force feed everyone the PC Kool-Ade. But it’s very telling when a person who doesn’t laugh at a hateful joke, or who says it’s not cool, is the only one who’s judged as a buzzkill. Not the person who makes the hateful joke in the first place.

Another telling factor is the way you’re accused of being humorless as soon as you reject or even consider the premise of a joke, even if you and that same person had been cracking up about something else only minutes before and they were telling you how funny you were. It's interesting how quickly any previous demonstration of your humor is now forgotten. Or the way that many of the same people who insist that a racist, misogynistic, or classist comment is “just a joke” will then defend it because “it’s so true!” Or that if you question it, you’re assumed to be trying to censor everyone. It is true that there are some who want to censor others; who want to ban them from having any platform or have them arrested for what they say. I’ve known several such people and would say that approach goes way too far. But more often, anybody who objects at all is accused of being censorious. That’s not what most dissenters aim for. People are free to say what they want, however ignorant it may be. And, in turn, others are free to argue with them. Rather than shutting down public discussion, I want to provide more and to see more offered. Let’s see more counter-arguments. Let’s see more jokes that give off their own light instead of reflecting others who have been drained and derived from for as long as anyone can remember.

That would bring more than amusement; it would bring happiness. And that’s something the world is long due.

One Way to Confront “8 Ways to Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (yes, I’m going meta)

An article entitled “8 Ways to Confront Your Wife’s Sexual Refusal” (http://www.donotlink.com/fc0m) has been making the rounds online, both by enthusiastic endorsers and by those criticizing it. It’s on a site called “Biblical Gender Roles” and is written, as can be gathered, from a stringently conservative Christian perspective. The article, in its entirety, is a striking example of everything that makes such a worldview abusive, vile, and emotionally toxic—both to the self and to others.

The author outlines a plan of escalating punishments that a “Christian” husband should inflict upon his wife if she regularly chooses not to respond to his advances (the author seems to assume that women are never the initiators, and that they should not be). He adds a quick qualifier to assure the reader that he’s not suggesting physical abuse, but his suggestions seem to stop just short of that. They still amount to abusive behavior, even if it’s not physically so. He recommends that the husband first “rebuke her privately.” This doesn’t mean trying to have an open discussion about why she seems to lack an interest in sex. It means castigating her for it and accusing her of sinning both against him and God (which makes it sound like his omnipotent father wants to be involved in their sex life).

The author prefaces, “This assumes you have already on several occasions tried speaking gently to her about this issue. You have tried time and time again to find out if there is anything you can help her with, and anything you can do different.” He is not recommending that, though. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he implies that the “rebuking” should only occur if the husband has already tried to work things out peacefully. But on the other, he also says, “What I am addressing here is the wife who consistently and routinely denies her husband sexually simply because she does not need sex as much or she thinks she should not have to do it except when she is in the mood or she thinks her husband should have to earn sex with her by “putting her in the mood” by doing various things she expects or likes…A wife cannot flatly refuse her husband, she may only ask for a delay (a raincheck) and then she needs to make good on that raincheck as soon as possible.” In another paragraph he states, “A husband ought not to feel guilty for having sex with his wife when she is not in the mood if she yields, even grudgingly.” (If he’s even capable of enjoying it when she’s clearly not, and if he deliberately fazes out her distress, then he’s selfish at best and abusive at worst. No wonder she doesn’t want him).

The author is saying that the hypothetical husband has no obligation to try to “put her in the mood,” but that his wife has an obligation to passively agree to unwanted sex. He doesn’t consider the painfully obvious fact that trying to please her will probably yield the results he hopes for, or at least make it a lot more likely. He does not see women as sexual beings, or even as people. He regards them purely as receptacles and encourages all husbands to take this same approach. And having sex with someone who clearly doesn’t want to amounts to rape. But since wives apparently exist to serve husbands, that’s nothing to feel any kind of remorse about.

The second step is to “rebuke her before witnesses,” such as a marriage counselor (although he specifies that it should only be a Christian one, presumably because they’re less likely to object to the “rebuking”). The third step is to bring her before the church; to have a pastor lecture her about her sexual obligations if she won’t concede to you. The author states here, “At any one of these points, your wife could have threatened to leave, or has already left. You may be separated or in divorce proceedings.” In that case, why would you still be trying to sleep with her?

Steps four, five, and six are as follows: “Stop taking her on dates or trips.” “No unnecessary household upgrades.” “Stop doing the little extra things” (such as housework, which the author firmly states is solely the wife’s responsibility, and giving her massages). In other words, emotionally freeze her out and stop being nice to her, because that will definitely win her over. Not that people in this situation should be looking at it from a purely self-interested perspective of “how do I get what I want?”, but the author clearly cannot think past that point and assumes no other man can, either.

The seventh step is, if possible, even more insidious: Remove her funding. “This step may only work if your wife does not have her own income. Change your bank account so her ATM card becomes worthless. Cancel your credit cards.” This brand of theology almost always demands that the wife be unemployed and completely financially dependent upon her husband, so doing this would be an even further act of isolation and abuse. If she’s so restricted that she can’t even spend any money without her husband’s permission, it’s no surprise that she might choose to reject him physically. That may be the only possible expression of autonomy she has.

The last resort he suggests is to divorce her for “sexual immorality.” He references this earlier by saying, “Sacrificing yourself for your wife, as Christ sacrificed himself for the church does not mean toleration of this kind of sin on the part of your wife. Many counselors throw out the “husbands you just need to sacrifice yourself for your wife like Christ did the church” but they don’t tell you WHY Christ sacrificed himself for the Church.” (Following this line of thinking, it sounds like he’d say, “Because the church wouldn’t have sex with him.”)

The author insists that this is “discipline”, rather than manipulation. He defines manipulation as something that an underling does to achieve a desired result from someone of a higher status. By this definition, he also classifies union protests as “manipulation” and compares it to children throwing temper tantrums. What a lovely way of infantilizing the poor and trivializing the need for workers’ rights. And, in this sense, he also compares husbands and wives to employee/employer, and to parent/child. If someone doesn’t see how deeply troubling it is to make those parallels, I don’t even know where to start. But I will point out that this teeters awfully close to the edge of pedophilia.

He then goes on to romanticize the ancient “biblical” days in which people barely knew each other before they wed, and when the husband bought the wife as property. (Yet he takes issue with the concept of paying for sex.) He even wrote a separate blog entry called, “You don’t have to buy the milk when you own the cow.” 

All of this may sound incredibly bizarre and extreme, and it might be hard to imagine anybody genuinely following this line of thinking. But in my life, I have known an alarming number of people who share those values. There were ones whom I tried to persuade differently, but eventually came to the painful realization that I cannot “free” anyone from those types of values. Many times, they don’t want to change.

The marital scenario outlined by that blogger seems to result from a great deal of problems that are directly created by conservative Christianity, rather than resolved by it. A couple who are forbidden to have sex before marriage are far more likely to wed before they’re ready and to make a commitment they don’t fully understand (especially with the way these communities idealize marriage and provide very little sex education). They won’t know if they’re emotionally, mentally, or sexually compatible until they’re already in a legal contract. It’s even worse when they’re prohibited from divorcing in almost any circumstance.

Furthermore, the restrictions inherent in religious fundamentalism contribute a great deal to sexual frustration. They’re only allowed to have the most white bread sex imaginable. No kink, no porn, no toys, no non-vaginal penetration. It's fine to not incorporate any of those things if they don't want to, but they are specifically told that they can't. In some religious communities, they’re not allowed to engage in any sex act that doesn’t directly result in pregnancy (which most often means nothing that can give the woman an orgasm). Many of them are banned from using birth control, which means sex is always laden with the possibility of pregnancy looming in their minds. If they want to try anything new, they’re advised to “pray on it”—which just sounds so spontaneous and fun. If one of them is not up for it, the other is not even allowed to take care of their own needs, so it’s no wonder that a lot of resentment builds up and both parties are left with the expectation of meeting all of their spouse’s urges all of the time. If one of them has a higher drive than the other, this can become an incredible burden for the one with the lower libido and a significant void for the one who has no other sexual outlet. And, within this framework, the man is the only one expected to have a libido. The woman is thought of as a “whore” if she likes or craves physical intimacy, so it’s no wonder that so many of them refuse.
               So, in summary, this is oppressive bullshit. A great deal of Christians vocally disagree with this author, which is very encouraging to see. Let’s keep the dissent going, no matter what religion you might observe (or not observe). Let people like that author know that he is not the spokesman for his faith, for marriage, or for any kind of morality at all.

Self-sabotaging sexism

Warning: brief mention of sexual assault and harassment

*    *    *

Whenever I come across a site or blog overrun by misogynistic rants, its strikes me just how insulting that perspective is toward men, and how misogynists lack the self-awareness to recognize it.

For example, there are those who claim that men and women are fundamentally, diametrically opposite and that those differences are purely a result of biology rather than social conditioning. They use this to rationalize professional discrimination against women, saying that women are simply unfit for leadership roles or jobs in science and math because of biology. They say that women tend to avoid those fields by choice and that it’s perfectly reasonable to hire more men for those positions because women are less suited for them. They dismiss the influence of social conditioning and the discouragement and harassment that so many women receive when entering those fields, shrugging it off with a flippant “that’s life” and “get used to it”. However, they would never be so dismissive about a man who was facing discrimination. They complain about men not doing as well academically or having more trouble with subjects like English, yet they never blame that on the same gender stereotypes that also affect women. They’re oblivious to the fact that it comes from the same source.

If you believe that women are naturally more inclined toward language and writing, as so many gender essentialists claim, then it would make sense for women to rise above men in those fields. But: 1) male authors are still more widely represented in academia and literature, so there is no phenomenon of men being silenced in those areas, and 2) sexists only want to tout gender essentialism when it can be used to justify anti-female bias and institutional discrimination against women. They only decry that same belief system when it disadvantages men. They point to programs that are specifically arranged to create more opportunities for women and call it preferential treatment, but those programs exist to counteract the effects of discrimination. They would otherwise be unnecessary. Programs geared specifically toward helping men get ahead in STEM fields don’t exist for the same reason that there is no financial aid for wealthy students.

Misogynists also say that men are better suited for high-risk fields and that women should be excluded from them, yet complain that more men are killed or injured at work and say the male sex is seen as “disposable” because of these jobs. If you believe these jobs are only appropriate for men, then you are the one who sees men as disposable.

Sexists say that the types of jobs which are most heavily populated by men are the more important ones, and that’s why men tend to get paid more. But they fail to see that those jobs are only deemed “more important” because they are associated with men.

There are myriad ways in which misogynists negatively stereotype men in other areas of life as well. Sexual assault is a glaring example. I’ve heard so many “Men’s Rights Activists” and other anti-feminists excuse rape and sexual harassment by calling it “male sexuality.” They use it as an umbrella term, rather than acknowledging that there is no singular form of male sexuality. (What about men who are sexually submissive? What about men who value consent? What about non-hetero men? Trans men? In the eyes of misogynists, they are not “real” men and don’t count.)

Misogynists are fond of saying that feminists and the legal system “criminalize male sexuality,” but they are the ones conflating male sexuality with sexual assault. They’re the ones saying that “real men” yell obscene comments to women on the street, grope their female coworkers, drug and rape women at parties, and try to solicit sex from fourteen-year-old girls. They are the ones defining that as manhood, just as they accuse feminists of doing (and, for the record, I have never heard a feminist say that all or most men commit these acts). The difference is that misogynists laud, or at least excuse, that type of behavior. Misogynists constantly accuse rape survivors of lying about their assaults, but they don’t see that this victim blaming also does enormous harm to male sexual assault survivors—despite the fact that they frequently (and accurately) point out that men are raped, too. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to want to discuss male rape as an issue in itself. They only want to bring it up when it can be used to talk over women who have been assaulted.

Those are just a few ways in which I've noticed that anti-woman beliefs are self-sabotaging, but there are so many more. Misogyny is an endless feedback loop of wanting to have their cake and eat it too, but then poisoning their own cake and blaming women for allowing a man to bake for himself.

I'm a resident of Tot Town

When you're working with small children, there's a very distinctive kind of dread caused by handling plastic food in the play kitchen and discovering that it's soggy. There's also a particular relief in bending down to pick up toys, catching a whiff of an anonymous diaper, and knowing you're not the one who has to change it.

You're asked questions you never thought you would be, like "Why do deaf people have ears?", and you explain to someone that old black and white pictures didn't mean the world actually used to be in grayscale.

You see preschoolers in T-shirts that say "Single and Loving It!" and wonder why there are clothes for little kids featuring statements about dating. You wonder if it's fair to dress a child in a proclamation they don't understand, then wonder if that's comparable to putting a band T-shirt on a baby, and eventually conclude that band shirts lack the presumptions of heteronormative and sometimes blatantly sexualized toddlers' clothes, so you don't have to feel ambivalent about dressing your hypothetical future baby in a Sonic Youth onesie. (Or maybe that's just me.)

And you're continually amused by the things that young children get so emphatic about. The other day a four-year-old girl in the arts and crafts area was vehemently resistant to the suggestion of putting glitter on her cardboard unicorn ("Unicorns DON'T SPARKLE!!"), but insisted that they do have tails made out of confetti.

Most of these things could also apply to being a parent, but I don't know anything about that yet. I'm just loving working with them for the time being.

             At present, my life includes a lot of glue sticks and hand sanitizer, and I come home glad to have spent time with the kids but relieved that I can give them back at the end of the day.

Cycles of abandonment

An all too common relationship pattern I notice: One person is afraid the other is going to leave them, and this fear may not be grounded in reality. So instead of trying to talk to their partner about what's going on or try to reconnect and be closer, they lash out at them and become vindictive because they're anticipating abandonment. And then, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, the other person does leave them—but only because of the way they started behaving. This seems to happen a lot.

The horror of diagnosis

A lot of horror movies feature themes of psychiatric hospitals and patients. I can enjoy some of those films as long as they're well-made and don't generally vilify people with mental health issues, but I notice that the theme seems to be prevalent because mental illness frightens the public. It can be scary to see someone behaving erratically, but a lot of the fear is based on lack of information or on misinformation—much of which is spread via this type of media. It becomes a cycle. And while there should be a difference between fearing a mental health issue and fearing the actual people who have it, these fears tend to become intertwined. Although a person with a psychiatric disorder can be violent or predatory, it's almost always because they had an inclination to be that way in the first place, not because of the disorder. Sometimes the fear isn't entirely projected onto others, though. Sometimes people are afraid of developing a similar condition themselves.

I used to think mental health-centered horror films were purely told from an outsider perspective; from the narrative of someone encountering others with psychiatric conditions. That's undeniably a huge part of it. However, there's also a common theme of the main character finding themselves in a similar state. So many horror tropes seem to mirror the experience of entering psychosis or having an episode. Demonic possession may represent being taken over by a force (in this case, a psychological one) which is completely unfamiliar and terrifying to them, but coming from within. In that way it might seem like even more of an imposition than an external force would, because it can feel like self-betrayal. The same is true for plot lines involving alien abductions or ghost hauntings. It symbolizes a problem that intrudes upon your life and your mind, refusing to leave. This problem could be trauma, or it could be an innate condition. Paranoia of the main character can look very much like the paranoia suffered by a person in the midst of psychosis. The story trope of nobody believing the protagonist, and either mocking or persecuting them for talking about what's going on, is very true to life for those who manage day to day with mental health issues. So is the sense of isolation and dread which manifests physically in the scenery of horror films. The sudden, startling movements which are frequent in these films can be similar to hallucinations. And in horror movies, magical thinking is always real. It feels just as real to many who struggle with it.

Of course, there are numerous other mental health conditions other than psychosis-based ones. But horror movies tend to most strongly evoke themes of psychosis-based disorders. I have a lot of friends who have experienced these things and describe them in similar ways. I myself have depression, anxiety, and OCD. I've never been in a psychosis, but even the problems I have remind me of some of those themes.

The 3 least honest pro-life arguments

Everyone has heard a virulent pro-lifer refer to those who disagree with them as “babykillers”, because believing that abortion should be legal is the same as “killing a baby,” and because pro-choice people must obviously see a fertilized egg as a sentient being and gleefully celebrate the death of it. Not all pro-life individuals believe this, but the most vocal and aggressive ones do. In addition, many of the loudest tend to rely on a host of bad faith arguments to make their points. To argue in bad faith is to make an argument you don’t genuinely believe to be true.

So far, these three talking points seem to be the most commonly used—and misused—by those opposed to choice.

-Religious fundamentalists who believe abortion should be illegal but support the death penalty will argue that those two views are not in opposition because they care about protecting “innocent” life, and they don’t see death row inmates as innocent. But the truth is that many of them don’t believe innocent life exists at all. This is the view of many anti-choicers—and I say anti-choice instead of pro-life because it’s possible to be personally opposed to abortion but still want to keep it legal. However, these people want to eliminate the choice altogether. The fundamentalist Catholics who are anti-choice believe in original sin. They think everyone is born with an inherently “sinful” nature, including infants. Many conservative Protestants believe this, too. I have actually seen a really outlandish, disturbing blog post by an extremist who claimed that crying babies are sinning by expressing “selfishness”! (And no, this wasn’t satire.) So if these particular anti-choicers say it’s consistent for them to support the death penalty while calling for an end to legal abortion because they care about innocent life, they either lack the self-awareness to recognize their cognitive dissonance or they are arguing in bad faith.

On a related note, many of these same folks will claim to believe in an “age of accountability” in which a child automatically goes to heaven if they die before a certain age, usually before twelve years old or so. Following that line of thinking, it seems counterintuitive that they don’t extol abortion, considering their belief that all fetuses are “saved” from hell. If they really believe this, then wouldn’t they do anything possible to salvage its soul? Horrifically, some fundamentalists have even ended the lives of their fully sentient, non-fetal children in the belief that they were securing them a place in heaven. But for some reason, they still wouldn’t support abortion. (For a more detailed argument from an ex-fundamentalist, I’d recommend reading this: http://tinyurl.com/n3adqzp ).

-Anti-choicers claim to regard a child as a “gift,” but their punitive attitude toward women who have any kind of sex they disapprove of is very telling. I’ve had countless discussions with such people who call pregnancy a gift and say that all women should be grateful for it, and then go on to say, “If you have [premarital/unprotected/“promiscuous”] sex, then this is your punishment.”

-And finally, there is a third bad faith argument which pretends to be disinterested in the ethics of abortion and instead focuses on demonizing the poor. This is what happens when somebody says they think abortion should be legal, but only for those who can afford to cover it themselves. The reasoning usually goes, “I don’t care what you do with your body, but don’t ask me to pay for it.” Whatever the speaker may say, they do care what others do with their bodies if they decide there are certain expenses they don’t want to help with via insurance or taxes because of their own disapproval. It’s possible for someone to object to paying into any medical care of any kind, but that is rarely the reason. Usually the one making this argument will say, “Well, I’m fine with helping to cover something like cancer treatment, but I don’t want to pay for anyone’s birth control coverage or abortion.” Picking and choosing based on personal tastes is a moral judgment, and they want to be in the position of limiting options for those living in poverty. It gives them both a feeling of moral superiority and a paternalistic sense of control, under the guise of “I’m the one who knows what’s best for you.” This patronizing attitude is also seen in the way people want to regulate what kinds of groceries others are allowed to buy with food stamps.

They accuse the poor of being irresponsible and dependent, but they really seem to relish treating them like helpless children who can’t make their own decisions. Then, when poor women have children they can’t financially support, the same people will grumble about it and say “I don’t want to pay for your child” or even “You should have kept your legs shut.” They want to enforce celibacy on those who are living below the poverty line, like parents who tell their fifteen-year-old daughter to keep her bedroom door open when her boyfriend is over. And then they go on about how the poor need to act more like adults.

            There are other bad faith arguments to mention, and you are welcome to contribute any you have heard. Once recognized, you can call them out for what they are: dishonest attempts to look righteous or discourage dissent.

On Quirkiness

It’s funny that “quirky” has become a whole niche market, since that seems to contradict the whole concept of being offbeat. If you Google “quirky”, there’s a specific aesthetic that shows up—an aesthetic I’m fond of, myself. Cat eye glasses, scarves, cartoon owls, vintage bicycles, handlebar mustaches. I find that look very charming, but I personally don’t regard it as quirky or even indie. As soon as something becomes a trend (whether that trend is mainstream or popular within a subculture), it is no longer independent. As soon as there’s any subculture associated with it, it’s not unique.

The concept of “quirky” has been watered down solely to an aesthetic and thus made marketable, and that’s what I object to. It’s a way of trying to advertise and sell an identity—or, rather, a look that’s sometimes used as shorthand for one. But there is so much more to identity than what someone wears or what music they listen to. Those do play into it, and they sometimes extend from a deeper part of the self. But they don’t entirely define a person, and I feel that the commercialization of “quirkiness” is an attempt to flatten a three-dimensional and endlessly diverse concept onto a billboard.

As I said, my problem is not with the style or the tastes in entertainment that are associated with quirkiness. My problem is with the tortured contradiction of telling consumers they can buy and wear an identity, selling them a mass-produced aesthetic, and then pressuring them to be unique. Maybe there is nothing fully unique at all, since it stops being so as soon as there is more than even one person doing it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Rather, I’d say it’s to be expected.

I think the fixation on quirkiness is related to our culture’s idealization of independence, of the whole narrative of “I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and never asked for help from anyone. I am a self-made person.” It’s ironic, since indie culture tends to define itself in opposition to the corporate kind, but both are a lot more interdependent than they like to admit.

While it’s obviously possible to be financially successful, nobody is truly financially independent. We depend on those who pay us, and they depend on those who fund them. We need the roads to get us to work. Our careers are hinged upon the education that prepares us. We rely on banks and credit unions and factories that print money and credit cards. There are also structural privileges set in place which many lean on, such as the greater opportunities afforded to those who come from rich families or born able-bodied. (The aforementioned types of preferences are unfair and need to change, and those are just to name a few.) My point is that, while achievement is certainly more of a challenge for some than for others, nobody attains success without any kind of collaboration—even if the help simply came from the conditions in which we live.

The same is true for artistic endeavors. The end result may be unique, but it’s created from resources that already exist and were put in place by others. Art supplies, materials, and even the sources of inspiration are all provided by the world around us. Similarly, no one is completely emotionally or intellectually independent. We may not care what everybody thinks, but we all value the opinions of at least a select group of others, or even the hypothetical approval of a future self we hope to become. We may construct our own theories, but like all other creations, we work with what we’re given and connect concepts that have already been established. We combine them in new ways. We branch off preexisting ideas. It’s all patchwork, and the patches are made up of threads spun by our surroundings.

So feel free to wear vintage sweaters and get a tattoo of an owl if that appeals to you. It's a fun look and it can brighten up the whole scenery around you. But here's a word of advice that I'm leaving as an offering, and only in the friendliest way: If you consume things that are marketed or widely seen as "quirky," do it because you genuinely take pleasure in them, not because you think you're supposed to. And if you come up with a new idea or become wealthy, that's wonderful. You deserve to take pride in it and be happy. At the same time, though, please remember the conditions, inspirations, and people who brought you there. Do what you can to help others contribute their own offerings to the world.

Can you believe terrible things without being a terrible person?

I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to definitively answer that, since illustrative examples are include too much gray area for any person of any ideology to feel fully comfortable with.

Hating already-marginalized groups is certainly more likely to lead somebody to do terrible things. As I’ve said before, beliefs don’t exist independently of consequences. They profoundly affect the way you treat everyone around you. People of all belief structures will often say their worldview has brought them peace, but inner peace counts for nothing if it doesn’t also entail bringing that peace to the outside. By “peace,” I don’t mean complacency or avoidance of conflict if those conflicts are needed to bring about positive change. I mean making an active effort to comfort people, to encourage them, to expose abuse and to do our best to end injustice. I mean motivating others toward goals that will instill social peace in the long run and right the wrongs in society.

If someone claims to have “inner peace” on account of their political or religious perspective but then only uses that perspective to make people feel hopeless or bring agitation for no reason, then their “peace” is not productive. I’m thinking of Christians who tell non-Christians they’re going to hell. I’m thinking of atheists who troll internet prayer groups and tell someone whose mother has cancer that there’s no use praying for her because heaven is a fairy tale and she’ll only end up as worm food. I’m thinking of conservatives who proudly embrace bigotry because they think it makes them brave and unique, free from the “politically correct” masses. I’m thinking of far-leftists who tell more mainstream liberals that all of their views and causes are worthless unless they become radicalized and embrace Leninism. I have met people who fit every single one of those descriptions.

I used to say you can tell you’ve become an extremist if you think it’s impossible to go too far within your own belief structure, and if you think anyone who disagrees with you is extreme. I still maintain that for the most part, although I don’t think it’s possible to go “too far” with the belief in equality, because equality by definition is fair. Most people will say they champion equality, but will differ in their ideas on how to achieve it—as well as in their perspective of who is actually being persecuted. We all believe we root for the underdog, but we’re largely defined by who we believe the underdog to be.

Even white supremacists think they are defenders of equality. They’re convinced that the way to achieve it is to restrict the rights and freedoms of non-white people, because they are genuinely certain that racial minorities are privileged and that whites are being oppressed by said minorities, as well as by self-hating white liberals. You see it in their propaganda all the time. “Anti-racist is really code for anti-white.” “Diversity=white genocide.” Of course their beliefs are not deserving of equal consideration or respect. They’re wrong, plain and simple. Wrong in a way that’s empirically and statistically provable, as well as morally bankrupt. They have a long-standing history of doing horrendous things in defense of their beliefs.

But I think it’s important for everyone to remind ourselves that even if we believe the right thing, we’re also capable of taking it in negative directions.

In recent years, I have been called an extreme ultraliberal. Maybe I am—although I have only been called that by people who are far-right conservatives, rather than those I would consider mainstream. Maybe the fact that I see them as radical means I am radical, or maybe they really are extreme. But I do know there are people who are further left than myself, and further left than I’d strive to be. For example, I’m not a socialist. I have socialist friends whom I highly respect, but it’s not a camp I fall into. I was raised intensely conservative. My father used to say that most Democrats are closet socialists, and that socialism will lead to communism in the same way that HIV often leads to AIDS. He said that communism is socialism perfected. I grew up fully believing that, but then I met plenty of liberals who don’t identify as socialists or communists. I met socialists who say that communism goes too far. Eventually I became liberal, and I recognize the difference. Liberalism is by no means a monolith.

To my dad’s credit, he never discouraged me from making friends with leftists. Some of his closest friends are liberal, and he once told me that sometimes it’s not worth it to argue with people you like. The lessons I’ve chosen to retain from my upbringing are scarce, but that’s one I still carry.

One of the problems with believing liberalism=socialism is the assumption that all socialists are socially progressive. The Nazis are solid proof that it’s not true. Many conservatives like to hold up Nazi Germany as a socialist boogeyman, but their beliefs and practices were heavily socially conservative. They restricted abortions and birth control for the Aryan women they encouraged to reproduce, while forcing eugenics on those they deemed “undesirable”—the non-white, non-Christian, mentally ill, LGBT, poor, and disabled populations, all of whom are still popular scapegoats for social conservatives today. They used fundamentalist Christianity and an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible to drum up hatred of Jews and other non-Christians, which is still a common tactic among the religious right. I am not going to make the same sweeping assumptions about All Conservatives that I used to make about All Liberals. There are conservatives who don’t espouse bigotry, but most of these types of bigotry do seem to be espoused by those of a conservative bend.

At the same time, it’s definitely possible for a left-leaning person to behave terribly and think it’s excusable because they hold progressive beliefs. I’ve known my share of liberal activists who treated others with complete inconsideration and rudeness on an individual level, but thought that was justifiable because they cared about humanity in an abstract sense and because they were fighting for the correct political causes. I had one former friend who stands out particularly in that sense. She thought she’d become a better person because she had honed her Marxist philosophy, but she was still just as narcissistic and manipulative as ever. She didn’t become a better person, just a better communist. Some might say that meant she wasn’t a “true” communist; that real communism would have resulted in the improvement of her character. But whether or not that’s true, it falls too close to the No True Scotsman territory.

Some beliefs may justify or excuse someone’s preexisting negative traits, but it’s hard for me to believe those views are entirely responsible for creating them. Unkind people tend to be drawn to unkind ideologies. A good person may be brainwashed into a terrible worldview, and they may say and do awful things as a result, but I have faith that their natural drive toward decency will save them in the end. And a cruel, vindictive person can adopt a benevolent belief system but refuse to practice it properly, using it to rationalize their abusive tendencies instead.

It’s hard to tell for certain where beliefs start and identities end. I just think they form circles which often overlap one another and sometimes even eclipse.

The false willpower of extreme self-denial

Society often admires people on some level for imposing oppressive regimens on themselves (extreme asceticism, excessive religious self-denial, etc). Even if we wouldn't practice it ourselves, we often see it as a sign of strong discipline. But it often indicates a lack of willpower, if less restriction would lead to a total loss of control. We all have to make some sacrifices that will pay off in the end, but there is such a thing as pointless sacrifice. It's a way of subjecting oneself to needless suffering, which is neither reasonable nor healthy.

Mascots and respectability politics

There's a popular criticism of marginalized groups: "If you don't want to be stereotyped, then don't be a stereotype." I used to parrot that mantra when I was younger, but now I hate it. It places the onus of preventing discrimination on the people who are being discriminated against. It assumes the abuse and disenfranchisement they face must be based on their own behavior, whether or not the speaker would go so far as to say they "deserve" it. But people in positions of power, both social and financial, are always looking for excuses to step on the hands of those below them on the ladder, and those underneath them are not there of their own volition. People invested in maintaining privilege—which does not mean preserving the luxuries they have, but aggressively denying those same advantages to others—will stereotype and dehumanize those they see as inferior, regardless of how hard the ones they're targeting try to seem "respectable." If they can't find a reason to stereotype, they will invent one. And even if somebody of that group does match a negative caricature and is rejected on that basis, it's still completely unfair to believe they are at fault for their entire group being attacked and dismissed. To believe that is to make the individual into the mascot of their whole group. Seeing one person as wholly representative is deeply harmful in itself, whether they're regarded as a positive or negative symbol. But if someone is determined to find an unflattering mascot for a group, then it shows they were already committed to stereotyping them harshly, long before they actually found a person to confirm their prejudices.
              A related thought: many privileged people seem to think they're not bigoted as long as the stereotypes they assign to disadvantaged groups are blamed on "cultural problems," rather than biology. But saying that a disempowered group is to blame for their own struggles because of a "cultural problem" (within their own culture, rather than the dominant one) is really no less bigoted than saying they're genetically inferior, because the former explanation entails the belief that all of their problems result from their own choices. It's saying that the populace in question has a collective attitude problem.

The shallow end, or why religious fundamentalism crushes creativity

There’s an idiom I especially love: “Religion is like the public pool: Most of the noise comes from the shallow end.” In hearing the description of the shallow end, I immediately think of the Religious Right. By this, I don’t mean religious people who happen to also vote Republican. I mean a particular and highly recognizable subset of the pious crowd: Those who are aggressively anti-gay, anti-sex (except in very specific, procreative circumstances), and anti-science. Those who believe anyone with a different outlook, even within their own religion, is going to hell. Those who burn Harry Potter books and believe Halloween and rock music are genuine threats to society. Those who want to instill their beliefs through law as a theocracy. Not all Republicans have this perspective by any means, nor do all who identify with a religion. But those who adhere to this worldview almost always merge it with conservative politics.

This group insists that anyone who rejects religion does so out of a reluctance to be good. The truth is that many reject religion because this boisterous and seemingly all-pervading subset clings to such an arbitrary definition of “good.” They think you can’t be good if you enjoy secular entertainment. They say your goodness is defined by dressing conservatively, believing the “right” theological statements, trying to convert others to your religion, avoiding all manner of drugs and alcohol, never swearing or enjoying more ribald humor, and avoiding sex before marriage (especially if you’re a woman). To me, and to others who cannot relate to this mindset, these factors have nothing to do with your goodness or worth as a person.

I got into Christianity for a while in my early twenties and tried to fit into the evangelical mold, but I always felt like an unwelcome outlier. This was because I’m bisexual and don’t feel a need to apologize for it; because I do not believe in hell and see it as an abhorrent concept which is antithetical to any kind of a loving god; because I didn’t see anything wrong with living or sleeping with my husband before we were married, nor with getting drunk or smoking a bowl once in a while; and because I love fantasy and punk rock and just about any alternative scene. This left me as a misfit who was seen as “double minded” and hellbound. I think that any god that exists could not possibly be so petty, like a popular kid ousting someone from their lunch table. Those who argue with that reasoning say, “No, God accepts everyone as long as they meet his standards!” But the whole mentality of “I love you the way you are, now change!” makes no sense.

The conservative evangelical subculture is particularly oppressive for creative people. They seem inherently hostile to artists, whether our drive manifests in music, visual art, or writing. Sure, the Religious Right will utilize those skills when they can be used to promote their perspective, but any coloring outside those lines is looked at askance. They’re quick to interpret artistic works as “witchcraft.” They see co-creators as God’s competition, which is why they demand that you credit all your work to their god. They especially see secular fantasy and mythology as competition for their own lore. People of this group will tell you they’re “sheparding” (ie: micromanaging) you for your own good, but it’s really out of self-interest or a commitment to preserving the status quo. Many of them don’t realize these motives, even when they’re acting on them.
           They rule you with an iron fist hidden inside a plush glove.

The social etiquette of dreams

It always seems awkward to tell somebody you had a dream about them, unless they're a person you're really close to or the dream was hilarious. I wonder why this is. After all, we have dreams that feature casual acquaintances all the time. All it means is that they crossed our mind—and that, in itself, is not considered a particularly revealing fact. So why are dreams regarded as more private?

On a related note, it's also awkward when somebody tells you that you did something really hostile or rude in their dream. Are you supposed to apologize? What can you say, "I'm sorry your subconscious representation of me is such a jerk"?

Standing up to homophobia, and what *not* to do

When someone is harassed because they're assumed to be gay, and they have neither confirmed nor denied it, one of the most misguided ways in which others try to defend them is by vehemently insisting that the person in question is straight. The intent may be protective, but it reinforces the idea that being gay is a terrible thing which has to be denied. When calling out harassment, it's important to direct the focus to the perpetrator's behavior rather than to their target's orientation.

Another mistake is to flip it around and tell the homophobe, "Well, you must be gay. Why else do you care so much?" When that's said in an accusatory way that's meant to make somebody defensive, it also expresses the idea that being gay is wrong—whether or not that's the intention. That, and it obscures the fact that there really are straight people who are committed to making anyone miserable who is either gay or perceived to be. The majority of it is not some self-sabotaging effort orchestrated by closeted folks. In implying that it is, people absolve heterosexual homophobes of responsibility.

Every college philosophy class has That Guy (or girl)

In every college philosophy course, there seems to be at least one student who's completely engrossed in the topic and ends up hijacking every class discussion. This may be true for every subject to an extent, but it seems especially relevant to philosophy.

In a course I once took, there was a monologue-prone man who always did this and kept making jokes about Georg Hegel that nobody understood. In another, there were two students who would always play conversational tug-of-war. One was a hilarious stoner whose mind was constantly blown by the ideas introduced (he was basically a real-life version of the Keanu Reeves meme--and no, I don't mean he actually was Keanu Reeves). The other was a conservative Christian fundamentalist who was offended by most topics and heavily disapproved of Stoner Dude's enthusiasm. They'd go back and forth all the time.

And in the first philosophy course I ever took, it was me. I totally was That Person Who Never Shut Up. So, my apologies to anyone who was there.

Representation and racism

A pattern I notice in popular entertainment and public responses to it:

There's a TV show with a diverse or semi-diverse cast. Or maybe not even diverse; they might be all white except for one black actor. A white viewer complains that the show is "too PC" essentially because it's not entirely composed of white people. They accuse the show or casting director of "pandering" or "caving to political correctness”—again, because not every single face on the show is white. Said viewer speculates that the racial minorities on the show were only cast because of their race and couldn't possibly have earned it by being the best actors for the roles. They call it "reverse racism."

In response to being made to feel unwanted in mainstream entertainment, non-white actors and entertainers create their own spaces and their own shows which predominantly feature racial minorities because they want fair representation that isn't received with bigotry. They want to feel welcome and have fellow ethnic minorities feel welcome, too. The same white viewer who didn't want to see them in mainstream entertainment now accuses them of excluding white people and "separating themselves."

This demonstrates that there are some white folks who just don't want to see non-whites represented anywhere in media, whether it's within an integrated cast or in their own.

If you're a white person who wants to say that you'd never respond this way, then this analogy doesn't apply to you. But even if it doesn't, I'd recommend that you please not jump to the "not all white people" defense. It really doesn't help the situation.

There is no single self.

I don't believe in the assumption that people are always their "true" selves on the internet; that anonymity or the barrier of a computer screen grants us the freedom to unleash our full, authentic nature. Nobody has one singular self. We are multifaceted, and different facets are expressed in different settings. This is as true for face-to-face scenarios as it is for online discourse. Just because one particular side of someone is being conveyed, that doesn't mean the others are now invalid. They could all be just as real, even if they contradict one another. And sometimes a specific setting will push someone further into a direction than they'd normally go or incite them to express things they don't usually feel. It's not accurate to point to somebody in a specific scenario and say, "That's who they really are, and everything else they've ever said or done which contradicts this is just an act."