No Surprises Here

Here's a couple of very revealing facts about Republicans and "Christians" in the wake of the accusations against "Judge" Roy Moore:

But the answers to this question are disturbing: "Given the allegations that have come out about Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misconduct against four underage women, are you more or less likely to support him as a result of these allegations?"

Just 38 percent said they now are less likely to vote for Moore, 33 percent say it makes no difference to them, and a nearly one in three Alabama voters (29%) say they are more likely to vote for Moore as a result.

The poll, conducted November 9-11, also says nearly six in 10 (58%) call themselves evangelical Christians.

It's bad enough that 29% of Alabama voters are more likely to vote for Moore after the allegations, but that 33% don't care is even more appalling.

I think it's become quite clear over the past couple of years, and especially since the election of Trump, that evangelical "Christianity" is not a religion and has nothing to do with Christ: it's a tribal identity marked by hating the same people. As long as that's in order, there are no expectations of good behavior or moral probity (except, of course, in calling out the failings of the disfavored groups), especially for men.

(For an illuminating discussion of evangelicals' attitudes toward women and sexual predators, see this post by Digby.)

In other words, it's everything we as a society have been moving away from for the past century.

A Note: Oh, an about all those senators taking back their endorsements, etc.: Moore's not well-liked in Washington to begin with, but he's what they had. Now they have a credible excuse for cutting him loose.

Today's Must-Read: Understanding Fly-Over Country

This, from RawStory, points out, I think, a basic flaw in all the analyses of Trump's base -- and the Republican base in general:

As the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump is still being sorted out, a common theme keeps cropping up from all sides: “Democrats failed to understand white, working-class, fly-over America.”

Trump supporters are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete bullshit. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to throw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t east coast elites who don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is rural America doesn’t understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out.

One aspect of this that the author points out is that, unless you are one of them, they're not going to listen to anything you say that disputes what they already believe. There is a deep distrust of "outsiders" at play here -- I've run into samples of it while visiting family in the North Carolina hills: if you're not in some way connected, you're suspect.

It's longish, but it's worth reading in full.

Berdache: An Introduction

A nice addendum to our ongoing discussions of sexuality and identity.

What was/is the American Indian berdache? Too often there is an attempt to use European categories to understand the berdache and thus to assume that they were homosexual. Undoubtedly, some were, but the role of the berdache was not a sexual one. Sometimes the berdache has been described as a transvestite or as a transgender people. Again, this is not a totally true image of who they were. Gender and sexuality in Indian cultures allowed a wide range of variation and the concept of the berdache simply shows that cultures exist which allow a great deal of freedom with regard to gender identity.

Sex and Identity

Extraordinarily intelligent post from Jim Burroway on Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, as a response to Autumn Sandeen's post noting that Chimgalanga identifies as a woman.  Burroway quite rightly notes that by Western standards, that would make Chimbalanga "transgender," but that we are not dealing with a Western couple.

I agree wholeheartedly with Autumn’s point that this story does say a lot about the LGBT community and media. But I also think that Autumn’s position, as admirable and fully correct as it is from a Western point of view, says more about the construction of sexuality and gender in Western society than it does about how people in other cultures actually see themselves.

As I said, we have avoided describing Tiwonge and Steven as a “gay” couple, but we’ve also avoided describing Tiwonge as intersex, transgender or transsexual, and for good reason. None of these terms may describe Tiwonge very well because they speak to a Western, Euro-centric understanding of sexuality and gender, and not an African one.

Sandeen makes some good points, but as Burroway points out, her assumptions may not be quite on target.   It's the old problem -- assuming that our frame of reference is everyone's frame of reference.  For anyone who has any familiarity with other cultures at all, it's an obvious fallacy.  (Hell, if you're paying attention, you can figure it out from reading manga -- the Japanese have very different ideas than we do about a lot of things.)

At any rate, read both posts -- they intersect very nicely with a lot I've written about cultural identity.