On bashing vs. awareness

There’s a popular post being circulated on social media which says, “You don’t need to bash skinny people to say that bigger people are beautiful. You don’t need to bash men to promote women’s rights. You don’t need to bash white people to promote racial equality. You don’t need to bash a certain genre of music to promote another. You don’t need to bash straight people to promote gay rights. You don’t need to bash anyone to promote your opinion.”

At face value, I agree with this statement. But the topic is a lot more complex than something that can be distilled down to a meme-ified soundbite.

Yes, it’s true that one doesn’t need to “bash” mainstream, privileged groups in order to empower marginalized ones. But at the same time, there are people from all those groups who will interpret any kind of empowerment campaign as a personal attack. There are white people who see pro-black statements as inherently anti-white. There are men who see feminist statements as inherently anti-male. The irony is that they are the ones conflating whiteness with racism and misogyny with maleness. Many of the more defensive members of the aforementioned groups will feel “bashed” when somebody points out that they don’t face many of the same problems as those who are more discriminated against, even though that statement in itself is not an attack. So they may think that any promotion of plus-sized people, women, non-white folks, and the LGBT community is “bashing” those who don’t belong to such categories, but their opinions should not dictate the way we express ourselves.

This isn’t to say “Bash all you want because somebody will be offended no matter what you say.” It’s obviously not wise, productive, or safe to vent about more advantaged groups in every single setting or social situation. Marginalized people are well aware of this. But I do think it can be helpful to have spaces where venting is allowed, which is not always the same as “bashing.” And even if bashing does occur, it doesn’t have the same widespread consequences as a privileged person bashing someone who is oppressed, because it’s not backed up by a long history of systemic discrimination.

“You don’t have to bash X to promote Y” could just as easily be expressed in the opposite form, with people saying, “Why can’t we have straight pride?? Pro-straight isn’t anti-gay!” But that is to completely ignore social context. That dismisses the fact that “straight pride” and its neighbors of “white pride”, “cis pride”, etc. have always been about being proud of not being gay, non-white, or transgender. Those types of pride are about reinforcing supremacy, not celebrating survival in the face of adversity.

Also, to promote women’s rights tends to mean criticizing misogyny and to promote racial minorities’ rights is to criticize racism. It doesn’t always necessitate the criticism of individuals, but those who embody that kind of bigotry will take it personally when it is called out. 

Consistency is overrated

During election season, there are often sound bites passed around which depict a candidate saying something offensive when they were significantly younger, sometimes in their twenties or even their teens. The takeaway message is always, “Is this the kind of person you want in office?”

I understand the validity of this if the candidate still expresses the same attitudes today, and so it’s meant to show that they haven’t grown. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Almost always, it’s meant to imply that an opinion someone holds in their youth is a defining part of their permanent nature. That assumption is not only unfounded, but unfair. How many of us cringe when we recall insensitive, bigoted, or just plain ignorant things we said when we were younger? Everyone deserves a chance to be seen as a more evolved version of our former selves, as long as we actively demonstrate it and denounce the harmful things we used to espouse. In that case, changing your mind isn’t hypocrisy. It’s maturation.

If the candidate is known for flip-flopping, that’s another story. Tailoring your core values to your audience, rather than just adjusting the presentation, is dishonesty. That deserves to be called out. All the same, I think it’s rarely relevant to try to prove a point by showing a clip of someone being foolish in college.

This relates to the way that consistency is falsely assumed because it's so overvalued. You hear a lot of quotes like, “Don’t make fun of other peoples’ appearance when you’re not attractive yourself” or “Don’t use the Bible to be homophobic unless you follow all of its rules.” Why is being hateful toward the LGBT+ community somehow more acceptable if you’re religiously consistent? Why is it more excusable to harass people about their looks if you are traditionally attractive?

It’s better not to hold horrible beliefs at all, whether or not they’re consistent with other behavior or with beliefs one has held in the past. Unfortunately, the allegiance to sameness—even sameness to your self—can cause many to stubbornly cling to bad ideas.

Fetishization and fear

Most people seem to know a guy who rails against same-sex marriage but loves lesbian porn. The hypocrisy is pointed out, and it’s accurate. That type of attitude is hypocritical and wrong, although I’d say it’s not surprising.

For humans, the disgust and arousal impulses are very similar. It sounds counterintuitive because those feelings seem like opposites, but they stimulate the same part of the brain. That’s why a lot of people do things during sex that they might otherwise think of as “gross.” That’s why fetishes and phobias are often flip sides of the same coin. I learned that when a person has a fetish, it often used to be a phobia. It just happened to transform from a fear into something that intensely arouses the person, either by chance or as a coping method.

When someone is homophobic but also really into watching two women have sex, it’s both a fear and a fetish. Fetishes are usually applied to inanimate objects, whereas lesbians are obviously people, but a homophobe doesn’t see them as people. He sees them as objects he watches and fantasizes about and then rejects in disgust. (Women can definitely be homophobic too, but I’m using a straight man in this example because so many people have aptly brought up the fact that homophobic men who like lesbian porn are hypocrites.)

This can also be seen in politicians who draft anti-gay and anti-trans policies but are then caught having sex with gay and transgender people. If they’re sleeping with someone of the same gender, many people will respond by saying that homophobes are secretly gay. While it’s true that some are closeted and overcompensating, I’d say that it’s more than a matter of just being gay and not wanting the public to know. It’s a combination of fetishization and fear. If they are hostile toward the LGBT community, they are probably not respectful toward the person of the same gender whom they’re involved with. They most likely dehumanize them. And when a homophobic person is immediately assumed to be gay, that can reinforce the idea that gay people are their own worst enemies and that they’re the ones who are really oppressing each other, which absolves straight homophobes of responsibility.

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.

Popular defenses for bigotry, and why they don't work

Two of the most ill-informed defenses of homophobia, racism, and general bigotry: 1) "Why should their beliefs be challenged? What they believe is their own business and their own right," and 2) "What's so wrong with taking your own side?"

The first excuse might hold a little more weight if bigotry toward marginalized groups were entirely self-contained and didn't actually affect said groups. But in reality, these attitudes don't exist in a vacuum. They have a huge impact on the way members of privileged groups treat other people. It makes a difference not only in interactions, but also voting habits and laws. Additionally, it influences the way parents raise their children. Raising a child with bigotry not only perpetuates the cycle; it also has hugely damaging consequences if the kid happens to be a member of a group that the parents hate. An obvious example would be homophobic parents of a gay kid. And following up the "How is it anybody else's business?" defense with "They have a right to their own beliefs, so their opinions shouldn't be challenged" is based on a glaring misconception. It falsely equates having the right to your own beliefs with having the "right" to live one's entire life without ever hearing those beliefs questioned. Yes, people have the right to be as bigoted as they please, but it's still a terrible perspective. And the freedom of speech afforded to those of us who are averse to such bigotry means that we have the right to openly disagree.

The second argument, "What's wrong with taking your own side?", is less of an excuse and more of an outright attempt at justification. When a member of a privileged class decides to attack those who are unprivileged, they are not "taking their own side." They are targeting marginalized groups of which they are not a part. You can care about the safety and well-being of people in your own group without being hostile toward outsiders. But misogynistic, white supremacist, classist, and LGBT-phobic people always define themselves by their hatred of disadvantaged populations, rather than defining themselves simply by their concern for straight, rich, non-trans, and white peers (who are not being collectively oppressed for those traits, even if they have problems as individuals). And in calling that "their own side," they are the ones conflating white people with white supremacy, straight people with homophobia, men with misogyny, rich people with classism, cisgender (non-trans) people with transphobia, and more. It's ironic, because that's exactly what they accuse their critics of doing.

The ideological virus

I think most people can understand the pain of losing a close friend or family member to drug addiction, but a less understood pain is the loss of someone to extremist, cultlike religion.

To be clear, I'm not saying one is "worse" than the other. Drug addiction is certainly more dangerous to physical health and is more likely to land people in legal trouble, but religious fundamentalism can also be deeply harmful. It erodes at individuality, curiosity, creativity, and compassion. It replaces a fully realized human being with a set of prepackaged values intent on conquering all other worldviews. Essentially, it's a virus that masquerades as a cure. I don't believe that religion itself is a virus. It can be practiced in a healthy way. But fundamentalism is never healthy, either to oneself or to others. It also seems to have more social support than narcotic addiction because it comes with the veneer of a moral high ground--not only a sense of superiority over those who are not religious, but also over those who are spiritual but not obsessive about it.

I have watched as unique, brilliant, funny, completely benevolent people have succumbed to drug addiction and religious extremism alike. It's heartbreaking in both situations. A cherished old friend of mine now believes I'm going to hell because I don't think you have to be Christian to be a good person, nor do I believe that non-Christians are damned, and because I am bi. It's so chilling to look at someone you used to know so well and see that they no longer recognize you, and vice versa. To know they sincerely believe you are destined for a place of neverending torment and that you will deserve every moment of it because you're not straight and you don't share their beliefs. Yet they tell you in the same breath that they "love" you. How can you love somebody if you believe that the ultimate judge of the highest good has already deemed them worthless? If you think they deserve to be tortured? I'm not only disturbed on my own behalf, but also on account of the way they're treating other people. The constant proselytizing, the vandalism of others' sacred spaces with fire and brimstone. The way they behave toward the LGBT community. I have always found the idea of anybody ever being designated to hell to be abhorrent, and reject it because it could not coexist with any kind of goodness in the world.

Hopefully they will come around eventually. Hopefully their emotional and intellectual immune system will fight off this virus and they'll be back to themselves someday. This is my most urgent wish right now. There are few things as painful as watching a beautiful person deliberately suffocate everything that makes them who they are.

Intersections

Anti-poor and anti-gay attitudes often echo one another's talking points.

People who are classist and those who are homophobic (and many are both) believe they are choices; that they're the fault of those who are oppressed for living with the labels. Bigoted individuals insist that a person's financial circumstances, sexual orientation, and gender identity can be easily changed at will. They believe people choose those identities or those stations in life out of laziness, fear, or a desire for "special rights" and validation. They honestly think that being LGBT or being poor are privileged statuses that shield people from any kind of accountability. This perspective insists that those who fall under both umbrellas are pampered, attention-seeking brats who refuse to live as adults.

Gay, bisexual, trans, and non-gender conforming identities would exist regardless of society's attitudes about them*, and there would be no danger to living as a LGBT person if those negative attitudes didn't exist. Poverty, however, is a social construct--and by that, I don't mean it's any less real, but that it only exists because people cause it to. Layers of oppression cause and perpetuate poverty. But people are judged as responsible not only for their financial struggles and for their gender and sexual orientations, but for others' reactions to it as well.

              There are, of course, straight people living in poverty who espouse anti-LGBT beliefs, and financially well-off LGBT individuals who look down on the poor (although it's worth noting that the common perception of gay people as affluent is largely a myth). But both groups are discriminated against on the same basis, even if members of those groups sometimes discriminate against one another.

Anyone who knows what it's like to be poor is painfully aware that nobody would willingly choose it. Where's the "luxury" in putting off going to see a doctor as your health takes a nosedive, and then ending up spending more on emergency care? Where's the luxury in having to decide whether grabbing so much as a Snapple or a cup of coffee is worth the indulgence, even if it's your only frivolity of the week, and then having to answer to a frustrated spouse if you do choose to spend that money? And then seeing the guilt and inner conflict on your partner's face because they want you to be able to enjoy such basic pleasures? Where's the luxury in having to constantly arrange your social outings around watered-down (or almost liquidated) finances and turning down invites when you would love nothing more than to go? Or living in terror of pregnancy, not because you don't love children or wouldn't want them, but because even providing for yourself is such a strain?

The same is true for being non-heterosexual or not fitting into a proscribed gender mold. Nobody would choose an orientation that's too controversial to be represented in most media because you are not "family friendly." No one would choose an identity that isolates you from family, friends, and ideologies which are deeply committed to not understanding. Nobody would opt to be seen as an objectified prop, either to bolster someone else's progressive credentials or to serve as an experiment for somebody who says they're just curious. It's so hurtful to be referred to as "practice." Practice for what? For a relationship with someone of another gender, because that's the only legitimate kind? For someone who says you're fun to hook up with and they love you as a person, but you're no more than a friend? Meanwhile, you want to draw their every mesmerizing feature and hand them bouquets of blooming words and show them all your favorite books and songs and know all of theirs in return. To bring them to all your treasured spaces, both tangible and mental, and bask in a shared world you can add to together. No person would ever choose an identity that's spat at and called immoral, even though nothing can be more moral than love.

If any of those examples sound autobiographical, it's because they are. They're all problems I have faced at different points in time, but those stories are not only mine. They belong to anyone who doesn't fit into the middle class and strictly heterosexual mold. People who think these are choices do not believe we face those kinds of struggles. They convince themselves that we live in taxpayer-funded bubbles of decadence, but they are the ones who live in insulated bubbles and are terrified of having their illusions popped.

*Gender norms are a social construct, but gender itself is not. Also, it's important to remember that sexual orientation and gender identity are separate things.

Marginalized groups don't create bigotry

Various forms of bigotry are very often excused by saying that a person only became a bigot after having a bad experience with (insert marginalized group here). But bad experiences are not responsible for such beliefs, because the person in question has most likely also had negative run-ins with those of dominant or privileged groups and did not hold those groups responsible.

This judgment is often made when a member of a persecuted population does something that matches a stereotype. A white person who has been assaulted by a racial minority could use that as justification to hate that ethnicity and say the stereotypes are true, but odds are that they've also been attacked by other white people, or known someone who has, and didn't decide that whites are violent. I've known straight people who were sexually assaulted by gay people and concluded that the gay community is mostly composed of rapists, but they don't look at all the hetero folks who commit rape and decide that straight people are sexual predators. I've known people who were cheated out of money by Jewish individuals and used that as justification for anti-Semitism, but they've also been swindled by plenty of non-Jewish peers and they don't associate financial scams with non-Jews.

This is not at all to say that a person from an oppressed group is justified in doing abusive or otherwise unethical things, or that they shouldn't face social/legal consequences for it. I'm saying that these behaviors are not due to their minority status. (Certain behaviors may be connected to oppression, such as a poor person who robs others out of desperation, but that's a topic for a whole other discussion.) To develop bigotry toward a disadvantaged populace because someone of that group has wronged you, you must have already believed stereotypes about them in order to make that connection and generalization. A person who does this while not holding dominant groups responsible for those same actions, and not assigning overall blame to dominant groups, does so because they see such people as the default—yet another example of their preexisting unawareness of privilege.