Word of the day: Tolerance

This site (specifically, this line of reasoning) contained so many artfully elusive logical leaps that I felt compelled to keep reading because of the brazzenness of it all. After I skipped past the argument that 'gays commit more crimes than they have committed against them for being gay,' I stumbled upon an actually interesting idea.

"Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster's the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others' beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.

we can't tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

This essential element of tolerance--disagreement--has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant.

This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise tolerance toward him, yet doing so brings the accusation of intolerance. According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible."

(I'm going to force myself to ignore the main logical flaw in the above argument. Wait, no I'm not: homosexuality is, on its face, a practice and not a belief. So, using this definition, a tolerant person, while not sharing a propensity toward gay sex would "permit," "recognize," and even (gasp) "respect" a homo's practice of said sex.)

Whereas I usually enjoy conservative and anti-gay writing just because of the shits and giggles I get from feeling outraged, this writing actually touched on something that I've been meaning to write about for a while: the fundamental assumption that liberals want "tolerance" or, if they're a little more radical, "acceptance" of differing viewpoints.

Fuck that.

I may or may not be a liberal. If you're conservative, and you use the term "liberal" as a slur, then, sure, I'm a liberal. If you're a leftist and you think liberals are whiny sell-outs, then, no, I'm not a liberal. But regardless of my political label, I think this subtle charge of hypocrisy needs to be addressed, but good.

This comes up a lot on college campuses, especially at my alma mater. In the groves of academe, the political gradations tend to run from "not voting out of protest" to Nader to Gore. But there are always a few frat brothers who vote Republican. Inevitably, some wildly unimportant event will bring all the conservatives out of the woodwork to decry the university's discrimination against white male athletes, or support of Islamic extremism, or something. When this happens, all hell breaks loose. You've got your yelling, crying, spewed invectives, and, shock of all shock, disagreement.

Then comes the clincher: "You liberals claim to be tolerant, but you don't tolerate people who disagree with you. In fact, you're silencing me right now. As I speak."

I've got one fundamentalist bone in my body, and that bone is devoted to freedom of speech. I don't care if it's racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, offensive, or stupid: you can say it. Hell, I'll even let you print it if someone is willing to spill ink on you. However, once you've said it, you've got to stand by it. You've got to accept criticism, disagreement, and anger. That anger, no matter how harsh, hasn't prevented you from speaking; don't prevent the emotions you've evoked from being expressed.

That's tolerance.

It doesn't mean putting up with offensive shit. It doesn't mean that you think every conceivable way of living is fine and dandy. It doesn't mean reserving judgment. It means keeping a healthy distance from what you believe is right and what you will permit other people to do. It means calling people out when they do something you disagree with. It means putting yourself and your convictions on the line and allowing the person or lifestyle you've criticized a space to respond.

This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of calling all the 'phobes out there intolerant. If they want to criminalize sexual expression between consenting adults, that's one thing. If they want gaymos to 'keep it in the bedroom,' that's another. In those situations, they are refusing to t tolerate expressions of difference. But if they simply believe that gay people are diseased, unhappy, and perverted sinners, they're not intolerant-- they're bigoted and ignorant. Let's call a spade a spade.

How to Take Money from the Right Wing, Legally!

Apparently, Focus on the Family will give free books (including shipping costs) to anyone who wants them. Probably in the hopes that these free books will convince gaymos to become ex-gaymos. If you're secure enough in your sexuality/gender/religion, order some books on their dime and sell them on eBay. You'll make money, they'll lose money. Everyone's happy! Follow this link to learn the 12 steps of this fun direct action.

Don't worry, folks, gentrification is GOOD for Black people

You have to love the sheer audacity/cluelessness that permeates this article by the SF Chronicle. Front Page. Above the fold. (For those who still think in newspaper terms.) Headline, you ask?

"The Bay Area's Minority Migration Population Shift: Inner cities shrink as minorities seek better schools and lives."

Hm.

The story opens with an anecdote about a Black family that decided to move from Berkeley to Antioch because:

"I have a big, huge yard, and I love the weather. The streets are cleaner, and the schools are better."

And this is the only analysis they offer of the possible reasons behind the sudden shift of Black and Latino populations away from city centers. There's no discussion of sky-rocketing rents. Nothing about the changing character of the city. Nothing about the changing nature of the types of jobs that are available in cities. Nothing about the prevalence of young, white, college-educated, 20-somethings moving to San Francisco and commuting to Silicon Valley to take part in the next dot com boom/bust. Nope.

Black and Latinos are moving because they can have a better life in the burbs. That 90-minute commute doesn't bother the author of that first quote at all.

One quotation (not even a poorly-conducted survey!) provides the rationale behind the entire 'behind-the-colon' portion of the headline.

What I find interesting about this article is the not-so-subtle comparison of minority movement to the burbs with the "White Flight" to the burbs that took place in the 70s and 80s. I've seen it before -- mostly from White liberals who whine: 'I can't do anything right! If I move to the suburbs, I'm participating in White flight! If I move to the City, I'm gentrifying!' This is coupled with an almost manifest destiny approach to movement towards outlying areas.

Go forth, young non-white, and grow up with the suburbs.

For those keeping track (ha), I plan to revisit this issue in the future, because I think this article brings up another important fact behind recent population shifts. Namely, that these shifts aren't only the result of forced displacement, but are also the result of rational decisions to improve one's economic situation. When addressing these sorts of population shifts, into and out of cities, it's important to keep in mind each individual's decision to move or stay put. Another time.

my two cents.

My mom was a single mother for most of my brother's and my upbringing. She worked as a nurse and supported us in every way imaginable. In a lot of ways, she defined herself by her relationship to us, and she prided herself on being a good mother. Which she was.

So, when one of her colleagues decided that our family didn't meet the definition of 'family' because there was no 'marriage' and no 'father,' it hit my mother hard. I was young, but I remember it involved some sort of invitation snub -- a party for 'families only' or something -- and a subsequent confrontation. By proxy, it hit me hard. This was the family I knew, the mother I knew, and someone felt entitled to literally define us out of existence.* By heading up a non-traditional family, my mother was forced to constantly fight for the right to mother her children.

As evidenced by recent blow-ups over motherhood on some popular feminist blogs, motherhood is an emotional subject. It's hard out here for a mom. Single moms, working moms, stay at home moms... older moms, younger moms, adoptive moms... The struggles are different depending on your position -- maybe a working mother struggles with inadequate family leave policies, while a stay at home mother struggles with isolation -- but birthing and raising a child is a friggin' hard job. All these mothers have to deal with the judgment of strangers, the government, schools, family, bosses, lovers, psychologists. I will not add to that judgment.** Well, maybe I'll add a positive judgment to the mix. Here goes: Yay Mothers! You rock.

But.

My initial reaction to these posts was defensive, angry, and resentful. I'll explain why I reacted this way and why this anger and resentment does not necessarily denigrate motherhood or women who mother.

I'm not a mother.

Chances are I will never be a mother. Not by having been pregnant and giving birth, at least. Maybe by raising kids, my partner's kids, adopted kids, something like that. Who knows. Maybe not.

I have a tenuous enough relationship to my gender as it is. So when something like pregnancy or birth i s held up as indicative of one of the main things that separates women from men, something that that "vast majority" of women do, and something that turns women into productive members of society, I cringe. Not because motherhood is wrong or bad, but because I have decided not to identify with motherhood's centrality to a productive female identity.

It's worth noting that feminists aren't responsible for emphasizing the role of motherhood
in a female identity. A childless woman -- an infertile woman, a childfree-by-choice woman, a woman whose gender identity doesn't permit pregnancy -- doesn't thing she's less of a woman because angry feminist moms are telling her so. She gets this from society at large and brings these sentiments into feminist discussions. Likewise, a feminist mom doesn't feel guilty about how she approaches motherhood because angry feminists have some anti-child, anti-mother bent that makes it more difficult for her to birth and raise a child. No, it's just easier to fight over specific blog quotes from specific feminists that we read everyday, because society is just too big. We can't even decide what to call it! (I didn't use the word "patriarchy" for a reason.)

I've opted out of a female identity that requires pregnancy. I'm of the opinion that expanding the definition of womanhood is a good thing. Give mothers the support they need to succeed in a very difficult job. Fight for the right to choose motherhood. Avoid the dreaded mommy drive-by. But acknowledge that, as women, we're being groomed to have children from the moment we're handed a doll. Having a child is wonderful and difficult. But choosing to remain childless also requires strength and conviction.

*This is mean: this woman was an evangelical Christian whose son got addicted to meth and hid gay porn under his bed so she would be sure to find it. I judge her, even though my mature self recognizes that she was denigrating my family so that her own family could be redeemed.

**Now that I have the first * out of the way: I vow not to judge children or their parents in supermarkets, nice restaurants, family restaurants, fast food restaurants, bars, taquerias, movies, parks, cars, schools, zoos, church, the post office, streets, and offices. I make no guarantees for other locations, but only because I can't think of any others.

Word of the day: "strawman"

I mentioned earlier that I wanted to write this blog because I was interested in being able to re-read old writing and cringe at my naivete. I can't believe it's happened already. In the past few days, I've decided that I hate the term "strawman." And I used it in the title of my very first post.

I first encountered the word in Intro Women's Studies (before it was Feminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies) during the Anthropology unit. Back then, I young and impressionable. I started using words like "problematic" and "discourse." Soon, I made jokes about "hailing" people, yelling "Hey! You there!" at random people on the street. Boy, I sure called them into being. Somehow "strawman" never entered my vocabulary. Until now. And I want it out out out.

A strawman, as most bloggers know, is a logical fallacy. It refers to the common practice of mischaracterizing an opponent's argument in order to easily refute it. To unpack the word further, the term evokes a specific action: building an effigy out of an argument, preferably in the shape of a scarecrow, and setting it on fire. We all know that straw burns more easily than ideas.

Why do I suddenly detest this term? Because it has become a useless cliche. It no longer evokes the mental image it once did -- a burly man in an army uniform thrashing a limp scarecrow until straw pokes through its eyes. That image was great: it was silly, it made the burly man look angry and useless, it took everyone down a notch. Now, however, its meaning has morphed into shorthand for "you're not engaging my arguments fairly, so I will not engage your arguments at all. Rather, I will accuse you of committing a fallacy in order to prove I am smarter than you." Instead of encouraging someone to stand up and debate, it is a way to shut down the conversation. It concentrates on the debate method or the rhetorical device used rather than the idea itself. Also, it is often used incorrectly. I hate that. I hate words that have lost their punch. I hate words that have been conscripted into the service of people who wield them indiscriminately. And therefore, I hate the word "strawman." I will be on the lookout for misuse of this horrid term. Consider yourself warned.

If only.

I am printing gobs and gobs of documents so that I can produce them to the defense before an expert gives her deposition. First, however, I will copy them with a fancy copy-setting that adds little numbers to the bottom of the page so that they are recorded, accessible, and easily referenced. Chances are I will organize them into a three-ringed binder with color coded exhibit tabs at some point. Such is the thrilling life of a paralegal. I sit back, relax, do some printing and copying, and watch opposing attorneys hit each other over the head until one expert emerges as the most expert-seeming to potential jurors.

All this, when I could be sipping pina coladas in a beach hut bungalow off the coast of Honduras.

Or exploring the Mayan ruins of Tikal.

Or boating down the Amazon.

Or even getting travelers’ diarrhea in a dingy hostel with hairy tarantulas crawling around in the shower.

Better get back to work.

The conservative strawman is flesh and bone

I love reading conservative writing. I love listening to conservative talk radio. Christian talk radio is the cats pajamas, especially when they're talking about the homosexual agenda/lifestyle/infant-fucking. It gets me going but good. It's a righteous, full feeling of anger and fascination that I don't get from reading blogs I agree with. My gf sometimes worries I'll become an ex-gay and leave her. I promise I won't.

However, these media sources can cross the line, even for a junkie like me. And The Conservative Voice did so on August 1, 2006. A letter to the editor called "Can a good Muslim be a good American?" cautions us to "be very mindful of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans...The religious war is bigger than we know or understand." And here I thought we were stepping away from eliminationist religious war rhetoric. So disappointing.

I try to read charitably. But the ignorance of this letter astounds me. It refers to Allah as the "moon God of Arabia." It states that Muslims are forced to marry and beat four wives. And it slaps you in the face at the end by invoking the righteous cause of religious war. The vision of this article is one in which America is an entirely Christian nation, loyal to the cross, doing battle with heathen, wife-beating Islamists. And this terrifies me. This war, this mentality. It is a willful misunderstanding of an entire philosophical world view. And it is the prevailing worldview today.

Welcome to me

Hi. I am my own first visitor. And I am just thrilled about this blog. I envision words of wit and profundity leaping off the page into the arms of an unknown audience. I envision a reason to write. I envision a collection of thoughts, saved for the future, so I will be able to cringe, laugh, and shake my head at my naivete. I hope this turns out to be fun.