Today's Must Read

Very interesting post at Mahablog, focused ostensibly on race and identity, but touching as well -- well, actually, based on human beings as social animals and how that context shapes who we are and who we think we are.

We are not only physically dependent on each other but psychologically dependent as well. There is all kinds of data and real-world experience showing that actual isolation is devastating to a human. Prolonged isolation from other humans literally drives us mad. Indeed, our personalities — the traits we think make us uniquely “me” — are (to the psychologist and sociologists who study these things) entirely about how we relate to other humans. If there are no other humans to relate to, personalities cannot be expressed and arguably don’t even exist.

One of my favorite exercises — describe who you are as an individual without reference to a position within some kind of social or economic network. In other words, describe who you are as an individual without reference to family, nation, profession, interests (sports? stamp collecting? messing around on the Web?) or anything that doesn’t require other people. I say it can’t be done.

This ties in to my thinking on the social contract and the bases of morality, which I've explicated ad nauseam, but to summarize: the social contract is our morality, which in turn is all about how we relate to other people, which is something those who rail on about the evils of birth control and homosexuality and the like are never going to understand, since they think of morality as a set of rules derived from the tribal taboos of a group of ancient Middle Eastern nomads that can't be broken for fear of eternal damnation, to which I can only respond, Well, you get what you pay for.

Right Wing "Moderates"

Very interesting post by Fred Clark at Slacktivist on the role "moderate" evangelicals play in the culture wars:

It would be a positive thing if these moderate mainstream white evangelicals, these Very Nice People with their emphasis on civility, were able to provide a challenge to the vitriol, dishonesty and power games of the culture warriors.

But unfortunately, that’s not the role they play most of the time. Most of the time their smiling civility doesn’t provide a challenge to the culture warriors, it provides a cover for them.

He makes a good point.

And a thought: If a bigot is someone who demeans and discriminates against a group of people without any rational reason -- say because of religious belief -- how to these "civil" evangelicals rank? Is it possible to have a Very Nice Bigot?

And that just naturally leads to Maggie Gallagher, the queen of the self-styled "civil" participants in the culture wars. She's now slamming Gov. Chris Christie for signing a bill outlawing "ex-gay" counseling for minors, and she's either very sloppy about it, or deliberately lying. Her opening paragraph is . . . illuminating:

Due to staff error, a statement on Chris Christie’s signing a bill banning all professional counseling for minors unless it is gay-affirming was issued without my consent, or knowledge. I dislike using language that portrays gay people as “homosexuals” who are “tormented” by same-sex desires. For myself, and I speak only for myself, I consider this language condescending to both gay people and to men in general. Among other things, as far as I can see for most men, of whatever orientation or state in life, being tormented by sexual desire is pretty much the human condition for long stretches of life, rather than an unbearable cause for condescending pity.

First off, the "staff error," also known as "it's someone else's fault," which is a staple defense of so-called "conservatives," a/k/a, the party of personal responsibility.

And do I have to comment on her apparent attitude toward men?

This is where she goes totally off the cliff:

Governor Chris Christie has just put his name to a bill that uses the power of government to strip both parents and teenagers of the right to seek competent, professional help to live their life in accordance with their own values. The bill does not ban a specific kind of destructive therapy; it is a blanket ban on any licensed counseling professional helping any teenager who does not wish to act on gay (or transgender) desire. Not only efforts to change orientation but efforts to change behavior are forbidden, under penalty of law.

Governor Christie just endorsed a law that thus excludes many gay teens who wish to live in accordance with Bible-based values from the circle of care; he has outright banned chastity as a goal of counseling. His bill is not only anti-religious, anti-liberty, and anti-family, it is anti-science because it does not permit scientific knowledge to evolve in the hands of competent professionals.

None of that is true. None of it. The last part is hysterically funny: orientation-change therapy has been condemned by every major medical and psychological professional organization in the Western world because it is not scientific, its practitioners are not competent, and it has been shown to be damaging to those who undergo it. Besides, it doesn't work.

Gallagher either didn't read the bill, or she doesn't care what it really says.

Via Box Turtle Bulletin.

Socially Maladjusted

I've noticed this -- but then, I was raised with the concept of courtesy as the foundation of social interaction. From John Aravosis:

The other day a friend tweeted some Web site where you were supposed to spin a virtual wheel and then do the New Years' good deed the wheel landed on. The good deed it selected for me was "hold a door open for a stranger." Who wouldn't do that anyway? Since when did common courtesies become the thing of "special New Years promises"?

I do that constantly, and it's sort of interesting: there's a Thai restaurant on the first floor of the building, and the people who work there -- all Asians, pretty much -- are unfailingly courteous. They hold the door, and they thank those who hold the door for them, unlike some of the Westerners who don't even acknowledge that you've done them a courtesy -- who in fact don't acknowledge you at all.

We don't show up particularly well against the rest of the world. I remember being in Paris a number of years ago, head full of the conventional wisdom that the French, and especially Parisians, were rude and hostile, especially to Americans. Frankly, I've never met a group of people anywhere who were so unfailingly polite and good-humored -- except maybe New Yorkers.

I think the lack of common courtesy in America is the root of a lot of other behaviors that fall under the category of "my own private universe." Call it a lack of empathy, most clearly visible in the Christianist apologists for -- well, you name it: not only ignoring others' points of view, but refusing to admit that they even exist. And as we all know from the confirmation hearings for Justice Sotomayor, "empathy" is a joke on the right -- probably because it's a notable lack in their collective character, and too many of them are way beyond feeling shame. On the left, empathy becomes a cause, as does everything else, and I wonder sometimes how many of the PC left actually feel empathy for others in any way but the abstract.

Aravosis quotes Dr. Douglas fields in this post from HuffPo, who goes into the effects of rudeness on brain development, which I'm not going to go into here -- you can read the original for that. But Dr. Fields cites the example of the Japanese, for whom rudeness is perhaps the ultimate sin. One thing I run across again and again in reading manga is the cry, "You're not thinking about how I feel!" I think that probably is an accurate reflection of Japanese attitudes, the stress on empathy -- unless you think about how others feel, you're going to be tearing at the fabric that holds us together.

We're selfish.

I think we do, as a people, worship selfishness. It's not only the Rand Paul/Megan McArdle school of libertarianism that's at fault here. Just think about the emphasis in contemporary Christianity -- at least, the most visible and vocal proponents of it -- not on the teachings of Christ, one of the most selfless individuals who ever lived, but on the dicta of authority, which have little to do with caring for our fellows. It's fairly obvious at this point that the Roman Catholic Church is all about preserving its own privilege, and not much else. I don't think many of the Protestant sects are far behind -- just think about their cries for "religious freedom" -- for themselves, of course, not for anyone else.

And there's also St. Ronny and his economics of greed -- we're paying the price for that now. If you want to see the ultimate expression of our selfishness, just look at the heroes of Wall Street, who simply have no clue that they've done anything wrong. Oh, and I'm not buying the idea that it's corporations doing this, and corporations are soulless. Corporations reflect the values of those who run them.

I sometimes feel guilty when I refuse to give change to panhandlers on the street -- I don't have huge resources, but I could probably spare a little something, most days. Then I think about the coworker who recently lost her father, and was so grateful for a hug on her first day back at work, or the editorial assistant, someone whom I almost never see, who stopped by the front desk one day and poured her heart out. That's what I give: myself.

I'm not trying to make myself out to be a saint, it's just that that's what I have to give. I think we all do, and maybe we should all think about giving it more often. It all starts with common courtesy, which is just another way of saying respect and empathy toward others.

Another One

The really sad part is that when I hear stories like this one, I automatically assume the guy is lying. Maybe not an outright fabrication, but so distorted that it might as well be. I don't think it's any innate prejudice on my part against conservative "Christians." Remember, half my relatives believe the same things -- more than half. I grew up with this. Over the past few years, it's become a learned response, because most of these stories are either badly warped or actually made up out of whole cloth.

But is does seem that to some people, being "Christian" means that the social rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to you, because you're special. (But gods forbid you should be subjected to any rudeness yourself -- you automatically become a victim of the vast (insert favorite bugaboo here) conspiracy.)

This guy could very easily have just avoided discussing the manager's engagement and his thoughts on it, and just said "How nice for you" and let it go at that. That's what most people do when confronted by a conversation they find discomforting because we do place a premium on getting along with others. But apparently this guy has the god-given right to be an obnoxious prick.

Must be nice.

Terminology

This post by Waymon Hudson caught my eye over at Pam's House Blend.

I find myself cringing when I hear the word "homosexual."

Yes, I know it is a scientific term and meant to be clinical. And I know it is odd that this word bothers me when I embrace other words like queer, which is horribly offensive to some.

I know this may be in my mind, but I still have a guttural reaction when I hear the word. To me, it seems that more and more the word "homosexual" is becoming the new "faggot." It is being used by the religious right, conservatives, the media, and just about everyone else as a fill-in for a derogatory term.

I have pretty much the same reaction, tinged by a healthy dose of rage, but I have an easy answer for you, Waymon:

It's not the name we chose for ourselves. It's not the name by which we've asked to be known. To continue using it after that is indicative of, at the very least, lack of minimal respect for us as human beings. I won't go so far as to brand all who use that very clinical term with "hater," because I know many of them are not. They just don't know any better.

You're right that it's at least in part a generational thing, but perhaps not in the way you think. I'm thinking specifically of older friends of mine who are unsure as to what is correct. I try to steer them right, but we're talking about people in their 70s and older who have a lifetime habit to break -- and considering the word they are using, it's a lifetime habit of being nice about it, and they are trying.

Let's be very clear about it: the use of the term "homosexual" by the bigots you're referring to is deliberate and meant to be insulting. They do know better. You won't catch any of them referring to African Americans as "Negroes" -- at least, not in public. Their use of the term "homosexual" when referring to people is a deliberate insult, and they know it. It's a refusal to acknowledge that we have any say in our own role in society, and it's a deliberate attempt to diminish our humanity. And that's the compassionate part of their philosophy.

So, we keep educating those who can be educated, and fight the others. What else can we do?

Common Courtesy Examined: A Friday Gay Blogging Post on Sunday

Reader PietB, bless his heart, has come up with another e-mail that deserves aknowledgment and discussion:

I read this morning's post and was thinking that the people Dreher was talking about are the very people who most need to learn a little manners. My housemate was at the nursery the other day and some woman was talking with him about the bedding plants he was buying. The conversation eventually got around to the fact that he wasn't married, wasn't divorced, did have a housemate, and was in fact a -- gasp -- homosexual, at which point she began to loudly and insistently recommend that he take Jesussss Chrisssst as his personal savior because that would bring him into a right relationship with Gawd and keep him from burning in the eternal flames of Helllll. In the middle of a plant nursery on a bright, chilly day in late March. At the top of her lungs. Apparently she kept pressing him about religious issues: why did he reject Jeezusss, why did he not go to a Christian church now when he had gone to one as a younger man, why did he insist on being one of those homosectionals, etc., and at one point she proclaimed that she couldn't believe he was really one of those homosexionated people because he was "so nice".

Of course, the reaction I have to all this is to be completely horrified by the lack of good manners displayed. And I wonder why it is that modern evangelicals can't see the rudeness of their approach. I guess that having been brought up in an anti-proselytizing religion makes me cringe even more than I would if my particular childhood church had been neutral (much less a proselytizing sect), but that just seems so ill-bred and wrong. And of course that is the very thing they fear. They don't really fear censorship; they fear that their active and insistent proselytizing in all sorts of improper settings will be criticized and labelled for what it is: rude, intrusive, arrogant, condescending, stupid, and wrong. And they are probably not even consciously aware of what the actual fear is, which is even more telling.

I've had similar experiences. The one that sticks most in my mind is an incident in which I was approached in a fairly deserted subway station one night by a smiling young man who was determined to save me. I said, quite politely, that I wasn't really interested. (I am, believe it or not, a very polite person in the normal course of events, particularly with strangers. It just works better.) He persisted, until I finally lost patience and told him that 1) I am a practicing and very devout Witch,* and 2) if he didn't go away and stop harassing me, I was going to call a cop.

A couple of issues here: "common courtesy" is, as I pointed out in the post that Piet's referring to, the grease that keeps the wheels of society turning smoothly. The last portion of Piet's post hits this one square on the head: rather than admit that they have no respect for other human beings at all, much less differing viewpoints, they'd rather claim persecution for their religious beliefs -- i.e., if their ability to condemn others loudly and publicly for not sharing those beliefs brings repercussions, they are being deprived of their "rights." As I noted in the earlier post:

Yeah, if you feel the need to constantly express your disapproval of those around you, you're going to be marginalized -- not because of your beliefs, but because you don't have the civility to keep them to yourself when expressing them is inappropriate.

For crying out loud -- if someone asks you nicely to go away and stop bothering them, do it, for the love of all that's holy. And if you don't approve of something you learn about a total stranger, why on earth would you feel bound to inform them of the fact? As though they care -- you're no one to them -- except now you are obnoxious and offensive, having gone out of your way to hurt their feelings.

The point of this is that courtesy is much more than window dressing: it is a fundmental and very important part of making a society work. "Courtesy" is much more substantial than mere "manners," although we use the two terms almost interchangeably. "Courtesy" implies respect for others, it implies that one values others and recognizes their legitimate place in the order of things. It is, to all intents and purposes, something that one can easily include among one's values -- it is a motivating force for dealing benignly with one's fellows. "Manners" are just the forms for expressing that, and, as is too often the case, the forms can take the place of the substance (which is something I find true of so-called Christian "morality" -- morality also grows from respect and honest caring, but you won't find indications of that in the propaganda of the anti-gay, "Christian" right -- lip service is the best they can come up with).

Vis-a-vis so-called "Christians" and their propensity for knee-jerk condemnations of those who don't agree with them, it's another facet of something that is widespread in the evangelical/fundamentalist movement: they serve a higher purpose, so mere human considerations -- not to mention ordinary standards of morality and decency, including their own -- are beneath notice. Hence someone like James Dobson or Tony Perkins can quite comfortably lie about gay people in the national media because they are doing God's work. One wonders what God would say about that. I seem to remember a saying from somewhere: "Evil done in God's name is not God's work."

And of course, this all comes into focus in their opposition to treating gays as human beings in any regard. There are, of course, the purely political considerations -- which as far as I can determine, form the major part of their purpose -- which their moral posturing and claims of persecution merely serve. (And no one has yet explained to me how a religion that claims 80% of the population and whose followers have controlled the government for at least the last twenty years can claim to be "persecuted.")

The bottom line here is that if some stranger comes up to me and starts haranguing me about my sinful life, and they don't go away when I ask them to, I'm calling a cop.

* A note on this, at the risk of getting personal: My religion is something that I embraced relatively late in life, after a great deal of introspection and, to put it plainly, prayer. It was like coming home. I'm not changing. Period. It fits me, it accepts who I am -- and not just my sexual orientation, but my whole personality and point of view, my whole way of engaging with the world -- and provides a constant and strong foundation for the ongoing series of moral choices that is my daily life. It's not an easy religion to follow, but it suits me. Just as one example, the story of the Lord willingly offering Himself at Samhain and entering the Underworld moves me to tears, which is something the story of the Crucifixion, with its focus on cruelty and brutality -- and politics -- never did. There is an element of joy mixed with the sadness in our version that I never really saw in the Christian version, even though both look forward to His return.