The GOP Base in One Sentence

Musician Kid Rock is apparently contemplating a Senate run as a Republican.

Via PinkNews, here's pretty much the perfect encapsulation of the GOP base right now:

 "Polling has shown [Kid Rock] has massive support among the GOP base, despite his lack of experience or policy knowledge or stated political agenda."

Importantly, Kid is willing to publicly act like a bigot by, for instance, expressing his transphobic thoughts, as detailed in the PinkNews article.

All that matters to many people is that Kid Rock is "politically incorrect." That is the only relevant qualification a candidate need have, at least if he's a white guy. That he's otherwise completely unqualified doesn't matter. Lock her up, etc.

What a cool party, Republicans. And, to be quite frank, any person on the left still gaslighting us about the bigotry the GOP stokes can fuck off forever.

Have a nice day!

Things Trump Has Had Time For Other Than Political Correctness

For posterity:

"I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people and I don’t, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time, either." -Donald Trump, 2016

Today I offer a sample of some of the important items the pressed-for-time Trump has had time to talk and think about.

Calling established, if imperfect, news organizations "FAKE NEWS":

Mocking the largest protest in US history, which was waged in response to his Electoral College win:

 Participating in Important Golf Matters:

Mocking Meryl Streep, who used her platform upon receipt of a Golden Globes Lifetime Achievement Award, to speak against Trump:

Monitoring the ratings of a TV show and comparing its current ratings to when he was on that TV show:

I see.

Coupled with his atrocious Cabinet picks and recent Executive Orders, it's not clear what, exactly, Trump is making "great," let alone "safe" again. Other than, I suppose, his own thin-skinned ego and life of 100% unexamined privilege.

Dear The Left

[Content Note: Bigotry, Privilege]

First they came for the trans people, and we said, "America is sick and tired of hearing about liberals’ damn bathrooms."

Wait, no. That's not right, is it?

Do you have as many thoughts as I do about the various white-male-authored think pieces about how identity politics and political correctness have supposedly alienated "ordinary white people," causing Hillary Clinton to lose the 2016 election? Of course you do.

Welp, head on over to Shakesville to read the full piece.

Election 2016 Fallout Part 1: On Bullying

Part 1 in a series of 9.

(1) On bullying.

I've seen a lot of white Trump voters on social media who are shocked, angered, and saddened that "intolerant liberals" are "bullying" them by calling them, or suggesting they are, bigots.

But, it's not limited to the right. Over the course of the election season, we saw various levels of even liberal hand-wringing about how Clinton supporters need to have more "empathy" for Trump supporters, largely coded as the (white, male, aggrieved) working class. The white working class, we are told, has "economic anxiety" and we mustn't judge them with our "elite liberal" sensibilities by calling them bigots.

Well, I'll talk more about that economic anxiety claim later this week. But, on the empathy/bullying front, I still contend, as I've contended for years, that the empathy must work both ways. For, we also have to remember that Trump is a bully-in-chief who ran a campaign premised upon name-calling, taunting, and aggression, which he has neither atoned nor apologized for. Indeed, he's already back on Twitter sounding off his grievances about the anti-Trump protests and media. People are so mean to him. So unfair.

So, while it is nice, I guess, that Trump supporters are taking a stand against bullying now that they feel they are being bullied, where were they for the past 18 months when their top guy was impulsively pecking out insults on his Twitter? Oh, right. They were celebrating his "tell it like it is" persona because they purportedly believe telling the "truth" is more important than coddling people's feelings.

Truth.

What a concept. Imagine if more people understood that a critical distinction exists between saying what one thinks the truth is versus what the truth actually is. Trump, for instance, might be "honest" in the sense that he says whatever is on his mind at the moment; but what's on his mind is not necessarily truth in any objective sense of the word.

Which leads to the hypocrisy of it all, via garbage fire Joe Walsh:

The "joke" within the first post is that liberals have overly-delicate feelings and can't handle the truth.

The argument within the second post is the threat: you damn well better not call us names, or we'll never vote for you again! That this also might be construed as a request to coddle the delicate feelings of bigots, who literally argue for safe spaces within the public discourse, does not seem to cross the bigot mind.

All of this is to say I'm suspicious of any demands to re-center the feelings of white people who have unexamined, defensive bigotry, whether these demands come from the left, right, center, media, or purportedly neutral parties. The Tolerance Trap of "you must tolerate my intolerance of you" is a real, fucked-up thing.  But, listen, we actually don't have to be tolerant of all things all the time, particularly of opinions and people that degrade our dignity, just because people call us "intolerant" or mock our safe spaces or think we're mean when we express fear, hurt, or anger at injustice against us.

Drawing boundaries is, actually, a key point to being a feminist progressive.

I humbly offer this post as a resource, particularly for those who navigate conversations in which people request that you not call out bigotry when you see it.  You might have noticed the Gaslight Extravaganza that's going on everywhere lately.

Name what is happening, if only to yourself, and know when you need to walk away for your own well-being. Note the hypocrisy. Note the double-standard. If Trump supporters and their liberal enablers are imploring to you that bigotry wasn't a factor in Trump's election, know that this claim can only be made with a straight face in communities with toxic, fucked-up power dynamics.

University of Chicago Rejects Trigger Warnings/Safe Spaces

I'll let others comment on other aspects of the letter, but today I want to focus on one aspect of University of Chicago's recent letter to incoming students:

"Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."

"So-called." Scare/sneer quotes. Presenting safe spaces as students seeking to be coddled from dissenting views as opposed to reasonable accommodations for people of varying backgrounds and experiences.

I'm not offended. But, I am contemptuous. Incoming students, or their parents, are about to drop $200,000+ on tuition alone (~$280,000 including room, board, and other fees) to earn a degree at this esteemed institution and the grown-ass Dean of Students and other administrators involved in this decision have stooped to lowering the discourse to such simplistic culture war talking points about what is actually a much more nuanced issue than they present.

This topic could have been presented in a way that evidenced that the administration of this institution thoroughly thought through and debated the issue. Instead, framing their statement in the exact way that anti-PC crusaders frame the issue does not lend the impression that such a debate happened or had any measurable impact on decision-makers. Even if a more robust debate did occur behind the scenes, if I were an incoming student any acknowledgement of nuance would not be apparent to me.

Going forward, it remains to be seen how this stalwart institutional champion of free speech reacts to those who use their free speech to share their dissenting opinions of the university's decision here, as well as to those who might want to use their own free speech to critique and protest objectionable speakers and content the University sanctions and allows.

For all the railing against "safe spaces," speech that is defined as free to be said, versus not, often still depends upon who holds power over the platform.  If you don't believe me, tell a bigoted administrator or professor that they're being bigoted and see how well they tolerate that "dissenting view."

Dreher Rages In Support of Gender Police

[Content note: anti-trans bigotry, gender policing]

Welp, Rod Dreher is at it again with the anti-trans crusade at his blog.

First things first, he begins with the preening male conservative equivalent of a trigger warning/content note (caps and bolds in original):

"Below, a video that went up on Facebook on April 19. DO NOT WATCH THIS AT WORK. The language directed at the police is foul and abusive. But if you can handle cursing, you need to watch it. I’ll describe it below."

I use content notes, so I'm not knocking the practice. Rather, my point is that his own content note shows that for all their railing against "PC culture run amok" social conservatives have their own versions of political correctness. And, I've interacted with such people long enough to know that their moral outrage about swearing, especially if engaged in by "females," usually far exceeds their moral outrage at certain (what they deem) societal undesirables being treated indecently.  Saying fuck, shit, or (lord help me) pussy while female is akin to inflicting upon society a human rights violation of the first order. But verbally bash gay or trans people? Shrug.

He continues:

"In the video, a very masculine-presenting teenager is asked by police to leave the women’s restroom. The person, who has a deep voice, says she’s a woman, and not going anywhere. She gets very aggressive: 'I’m a f–king female. Do I have to tell you again?'"

The police ask the teen for her ID and, when she says she doesn't have it, the police remove her from the restroom. Dreher links to the video, and adds his own commentary:

"I saw the video on this FB page. Read the comments for an example of the unshirted rage of these people."

"These people." Hmmm.  I guess it's something that he at least calls them people. Credit where it's due. Dreher goes on to justify the decision to remove the, what he calls "alleged lesbian," from the restroom:

"[If you don't remove her] you might have let a man stay in the women’s bathroom — a public toilet — making women who didn’t know this person was a lesbian very uncomfortable, and even make them feel unsafe.

.....This country is crazy. It is instructive to read that Facebook page, and to see how berserk so many of those on the cultural left are — as if the cops had behaved like stormtroopers instead of like reasonable people trying to protect the public safety."

The reasoning, such as it is, behind Dreher's argument is twofold (a) trans women are actually men and (b) men in women's restrooms pose an inherent threat to women.  Funny how this particular example works out though, isn't it?

In this case, he finds it justifiable for the police to have removed a cisgender woman from the ladies because some other women might have merely felt unsafe by what they might have thought was a man but really wasn't. The risk, by his own logic, was not there because neither a man nor a trans woman was present.  Thus, in practice, we see that the policy does not address actual safety of women, but perceived safety and even that's questionable. For, it is Dreher who editorializes, inserts himself, and simply imagines, on women's behalf, that women might be scared.

At his blog, Dreher speaks often of a so-called Law of Merited Impossibility, alluding to his belief that Christians like himself are at imminent risk of widespread, brutal persecution. Under this "law," he claims that liberals don't believe such persecution of Christians will ever happen, but if it does, we liberal types will think that those bigoted Christians will deserve it.

This "law" looks like 100% projection.

What was at first a policy of keeping trans people out of gender-appropriate restrooms becomes acceptable to more broadly apply, so that anyone who doesn't properly perform gender becomes suspect.  And, well, I guess those people deserve the policing and abuse, what with being so unhinged and angry.  I mean, did you hear they even swear sometimes? (Caution!)

Dreher's illogic becomes even more apparent when watching the video. In it, you see that the woman is in a line of many people in what appears to be a very crowded restroom of people coming and going.  Indeed, other people in the bathroom were telling the police, "That's a girl! That's a girl!" suggesting they were hardly threatened. It is difficult to imagine at what point this "potential man"/"alleged lesbian" would get away with raping a woman in the bathroom. What I'm saying here is that I'd do more listening to actual sexual assault experts on this matter, many of which condemn anti-trans "bathroom bills" for putting trans people at risk for violence and not actually protecting cisgender women.

Indeed, we scratch these policies even just a little bit and we mostly get the putrid smell of incoherent gender policing, coupled with threatened, fragile masculinity. The disgust at the "mouthy""masculine" "lesbian" and her cohorts is practically dripping from Dreher's mocking temper-tantrum.

Yet, rather than recognizing the flawed logic, rather than seriously engaging counter-arguments to his point of view, he acts as though the other side ("the cultural left") has no legitimate argument for all this bathroom business. As though trans people don't actually have to ever piss or shit when they're out and about. And if they do, well, too bad. It's their fault for being trans, and the rest of the world shouldn't have to accommodate that - they deserve no bathrooms! (And hey, did this lesbian ever get to pee, by the way? I hope so).

Well. Many people in his comment section rightly took Dreher to task, although he mostly responded with the typical whining that people didn't READ what he ACTUALLY WROTE so WAH! So, he posted an "update" to his piece, erm, clarifying:

"Maybe living with that degree of social anxiety [of people being able to use "whichever gendered bathroom they want"] is worth it to you so transgenders, genderfluids, genderqueers and all the rest can pee wherever they like, whenever they like. But it’s a big damn ask for women."

Okay player.

First they come for the "transgenders," and then see how the list of who it's justifiable to exclude from public restroom access expands. (Hey, by the way, did you all hear that The Handmaid's Tale is coming to Hulu?!)

Now, here I have to ask, why the potty obsession, which seems so fashionable in conservative circles at this particular moment in time, with an election looming?  With so many defenders of traditional morality being exposed as sexual hypocrites or predators themselves, are we looking for a new social wedge issue or does the topic serve the purpose of being p0rn for prudes? By "monitoring" "deviant" gender and sexual behavior, some conservatives can consume that behavior while also signaling their own virtue by publicly rejecting it.

Here: I do not reject any of this.

On a final note, if we assume the very best intentions on his part, well, as a woman, I don't want or need Rod Dreher, or any other concerned-ass citizen, to exclude trans people from women's restrooms on my behalf, for my defense. Mostly, because I live in the real world where trans people don't actually pose a threat to me in the potty.

The fact is, I have shared restrooms with trans people (when I've even known they were trans) and I have literally never felt unsafe. But, for me, trans people aren't an abstraction. They're not a symbolic evil or sign of societal decay and decadence. They're not "men trying to be women" or "women trying to be men" or predators hell-bent on attacking women in restrooms.

They're human beings.  And, I'm of the opinion that when one understands that simple concept, one also understands that therefore trans people's concerns and perspectives are worth contemplating beyond a knee-jerk reactionary level that dismisses the whole debate itself as evidence of how "crazy" modern society is about gender.

But, you know, I'm a swearing lesbian who likes a prison show featuring trans, lesbian, bisexual, and otherwise gender-non-conforming women too, so I'm sure that discredits my entire argument in the view of some. Scribble that on your goddamn content note.

Candor and Truth

In yesterday's post, in reference to the Divergent book series, I referred to candor as "telling the truth."

As I was walking home from the train yesterday, though, it occurred to me that a distinction exists between candor and truth, although many people use the terms somewhat interchangeably (including myself, at times, obvs).  For a statement to be candid, it does not have to be objectively true.  In a sense, a candid statement has to "truly" represent someone's thoughts, but the thought itself is often a subjective matter of opinion or it is "true" in the sense that it's an authentic emotion.

In in the context of debates and the so-called culture wars, I think that those who take an intense pride on being "politically incorrect" often make a similar mix-up.  When they make a statement about, say, the purported illogic or immorality of homosexuality, the "politically incorrect" seem to think they are telling the world some important truths that people these days need to hear.

It's helpful to remember that what they're usually speaking with is candor, and not in reference to a truth outside of their own opinions, emotions, and/or chosen religious and moral beliefs.

By the way, does anyone watch The Good Wife?  You know that judge, played by Ana Gasteyer, who hilariously adds "...in your opinion" to every argument the attorneys make?  Internet, debates, religion, and - let's face it - the world seriously needs an "in your opinion" generator that tacks that phrase onto every asinine, bigoted opinion that people try to pass off as truth.

Brushes With Civility

"'The stroke is executed by cutting back, then down,' is the teaching given in an ancient scroll, 'followed by a swift, slight rise to the right like the movement of striking with a whip.'

Another scroll, almost equally antique, contains poetic, if enigmatic advice about the practitioner's state of mind, likening it to a 'flower scattering, falling without sound on moss, a flower scattering to be heard through the depths of mountains.'

Only those unacquainted with the paradoxes of art in Japanese culture would be surprised to learn that the first commentary is concerned with the gentle skills of calligraphy, the second devoted to the perfection of warriorship with the sword." -Dave Lowry, Sword and Brush: The Spirit of the Martial Arts

In the West, it is sometimes said that the pen is purportedly mightier than the sword. Yet, in medieval Japan, some warriors saw both calligraphy and marital training as arts that were not only a demonstration of character but also ways to center the mind and body.  And, in these ways, form and content were inseparable. The dedicated practice of each, Lowry concludes, could potentially result in reality being "reduced to a single unique encounter of perfect clarity."

Notable is the focus on clarity. Not winning, not defeat, not killing, and not demolishing one's opponent, but clarity.

Reflecting upon these concepts as they relate to blogging and debate, I believe that some of my most rewarding experiences in the blogosphere over the years have come from instances where I feel I've either expressed an argument with clarity or, due to a debating partner's clear expression, have finally come to understand someone else's position better. In debate, these moments are rare. 

For one, I think that a debating rule in which people have to clearly articulate their opponent's argument to their opponent's satisfaction prior to trying to rebut it could minimize many misunderstanding before things get to the "OMG you are the worst person EVAR!" stage of conversation.

And two, when I've been involved in experiments, so to speak, of civil debate in Internet forums, I've often picked up on frustration when the topic of civility is mentioned. Many people believe that civility is a means to "censor" people from telling certain truths, purportedly "politically incorrect" truths that need to be said no matter how brutal they are - even as some of these same folks readily admit that intimidating people out of conversations is the end goal of promoting "anything goes" policies in Internet forums.

I question the line of thinking that posits that truth is the enemy of civility. Form and content are, I think, often inseparable. 

If we think of the tone of a statement as its form, and the the meaning of the message as its content, oftentimes, for instance, a comment that is racist is called racist not only because it is hurtful (form) but because it is also inaccurate (content). It is the inaccuracy of prejudiced statements is what causes the sting, not the truth of them. And, the hurtful nature of such statements is amplified precisely because they are inaccurate yet also marketed by its utterer as a "politically incorrect truth that needs to be said."

Labels and the words we use can, and often do, actually distract from reality rather than describe it. 

I'm reminded of that upon reading an article in The New Yorker entitled "The Power of Names":

"...words carry hidden baggage that may play at least some role in shaping thought. What’s surprising, perhaps, is how profoundly a single word can shape material outcomes over time.

...What ancient mapmakers did unwittingly for north and south, lawyers do intentionally when they describe accident scenes. The defense might call a car accident 'contact'; the plaintiff might say one car 'smashed' the other. These labels really matter, as Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer showed in a classic experiment. After a group of students watched the same series of traffic accidents, they were asked how fast the cars were going when the accident occurred. When the cars were described as having 'contacted' one another, the students estimated their speed to be thirty-two miles an hour, whereas another group estimated that the cars were travelling at forty miles an hour when they were described as having 'smashed' one another."

I've long believed that the words we choose are reflective of the way we think. Word choice can be a way to articulate our thoughts, enhance or deflate our egos, as well as a way to maintain, or break, civility.

For instance, is someone on Internet calling a political opponents' article a "rant"? Sometimes the word is apt, but often it's used to deliberately and passive-aggressively dismiss a rational argument as being unhinged.

Does someone use the word "homosexual," the clinical, outdated term that references the historical baggage of homosexuality formerly being a DSM mental illness?

Does someone set the stage for debate by suggesting that their online Internet opponent might physically "clobber" them for sharing their opinion, or "half-jokingly" say they're going to "run away" after posting an opinion rather than deal with the purportedly-sure-to-come aggressive reaction?

Does someone refer to all human beings as "he," insisting that male pronouns are also oxymoronic "gender neutral" pronouns?

What is the consequence, in terms of implicitly reinforcing male privilege, of living in a society in which "God" is continually described with masculine pronouns?

How do all of these word choices reinforce and sustain a false reality?

Indeed, for all the poo-pooing that goes on about our alleged "PC Gone Awry" culture, I think many folks are protesting too much. I think that many people are very well aware of the implications of their language choice and so choose the words they use precisely to marginalize. That is why attempts to make even minor changes to improve clarity and accuracy, such as making statute language gender neutral, are often met with such resistance.

I also think that word choice can marginalize even if that is not the intent of the speaker.

Civility and truth are not diametrically opposed. Communications that some people proudly call "un-PC" are often failings not only because they are usually "bombs instead of scalpels," but because they also distract from reality rather than describe it.

Quote of the Day

In a letter co-signed to the Republican National Committee:

"We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally."

-Gary Bauer, President, American Values

  Paul Caprio, Director, Family Pac Federal

 Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B.Anthony List

 Dr. James Dobson, President and Founder, Family Talk Action

 Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition

 Tom Minnery, President, CitizenLink

 William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition

 Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

 Sandy Rios, VP of Government Affairs, Family Pac Federal

 Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute

 Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

 Rev Louis P. Sheldon, Founder, TraditionalValues Coalition 

 Tim Wildmon, President, American FamilyAssociation

Of course they resent the insinuation they've been unkind to "homosexuals." That's what people do. Just because they resent the insinuation, though, it doesn't mean they haven't been unkind to "homosexuals."

Also notable is this group's approach to attract racial minorities. It doesn't involve acknowledging the existence of racism or listening to what many people of color say they are looking for in a political party. The strategy seems to mostly involve white people not doing anything, really, except bonding with people of color over a shared opposition toward homosexuality.

It's a strategy, of course, that coincides with the National's Organization for Marriage's revealed strategic goal of "driv[ing] a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies" and "provok[ing] the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing [African-American] spokesmen and women as bigots" for opposing same-sex marriage.

How kind and civil.


Related Reading:

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda
The Anti-Gay Movement
On Bigotry, Again

Of Course

As you may have heard, Rutgers men's basketball coach Mike Rice was recently fired after ESPN aired a video showing him physically and verbally abusing his players during a practice, including throwing basketballs at them "at point blank range" and calling them by homophobic slurs.

The university administrators admit to having known about Rice's behavior for some time. They only fired him after the video went public and after outrage ensued.

So, of course, Rice being fired, to some defenders of aggressive, entitled masculinity, constitutes PC Gone Awry.  Or, as Fox News commentator Eric Bolling calls it, "the wussification" of America. Here's his comment in full:

"This story kind of infuriates me. We’re in the midst of political correctness crushing our ability to teach kinds, to discipline kids, to disagree with people or one another or kids. Our culture is in decline, but this is an example of our culture in free fall. And I’m saying this because he got fired, not because of what he did… Listen, it’s time to toughen up. Talk about the wussification of America, the wussification of American men."

"Political correctness," so we meet again.  Was there ever a more asinine phrase in the English language?  Other than "wussification of American men," that is?

In this instance, by "political correctness," Bolling seems to mean that "holding people to standards of basic civility and non-abusive behavior" are what's responsible for the decline of "our culture."  But, of course, he can't just say that without looking like a total ass and losing all credibility, so he hides behind the phrase "political correctness" while purporting to be some brave truth-teller and defender of "our culture" against the swarming masses of the PC Police who are getting all upset about nothing.

I guess what I wonder most about critics of "political correctness" is what world they are living in if they think the problem with culture these days is that people are too darn nice to one another, or that society doesn't have serious issues with respecting people's boundaries.

Over at another blog, I got into a conversation with a self-proclaimed Christian man who (a) freely admits to verbally abusing people he disagrees with in order to shut them up, and (b) who also claims to welcome the experience of being victimized himself so he can fulfill the Christian prophecy wherein Christians are, supposedly, to be persecuted for their faith.

This type of mind game seems somewhat common in US politics, even though many people aren't as open as this particular man is about his tactics.

A goal of some conservatives seems to be to provoke people into anger so that the provocateur can end up feeling like an oppressed victim, in the end.  Here, we are to believe that it's bullies who deserve our sympathy, not because they are damaged people, but because they are being victimized by "political correctness."

There's just something so insincere about it all.  I find that people who use the phrase "political correctness" rarely say what they mean, or truly mean what they say in political conversations, and using the phrase "political correctness" in this particular instance of abuse seems to be a prime example of this sort of insincerity.

It's the PC Police, Again!

Via Echidne, via a letter to the editor, one man is Very Upset that LDS women will, for apparently the first time ever, be allowed to offer invocations and benedictions at the religion's General Conference. He whinges:

"Woman was created for man; this world was made for men to lead households and prayers. Man was created in God’s image — not in a woman’s image. 

American society has become so politically correct that it has spilled over to theology. Women, as well as children, may sing in church and participate in other ways."

What a small little world this man must live in, trying so very hard to maintain the mythical notion of male supremacy against a world that is moving on.  It's a War On Men, I tell ya!

Notable here though is yet another usage of that nearly-meaningless phrase "politically correct."

In this instance, the user of the phrase purports that his biblical fairy tale thinking about gender is the real truth, and that those who believe that women can just as competently lead prayers as men can are full of malarky. 

The usage seems to be a defense mechanism that prevents its utterer from recognizing that maybe, just maybe, he's not automatically superior to half of humanity just because he's a man.  I imagine that the impending loss of all that unearned status must truly be scary for some men.

Quote of the Day

Laurie Penny, talking about my fave topic:

"The term 'political correctness' is commonly used to reframe racist or reactionary ideas as somehow rebellious. It is used to silence the anger of people who complain about injustice and hate speech by recasting them as bloodless censors. When I’m accused of political correctness, it’s almost always by somebody who is frantically hanging on to their deep-seated prejudices about people who look, live or sound slightly different to them.

Reactionaries and conservatives practise precisely the kind of political correctness of which they accuse the left – but they call it 'decency' and 'morality'. Which is a rather PC way of referring to shutting down dissent.

We are informed that freedom of speech, if it means anything, is the right to be offensive. The question is whether or not, in these paranoid, sphincter-clenching times, it means anything else. From the weird, late-night back alleys of the internet to the pages of daily papers with millions of readers, freedom of speech has become synonymous with 'freedom to attack the vulnerable' – and that’s about it."

When I hear someone utter the phrase "political correctness" used in sincerity, I tune out.  I'm not ashamed to admit it. People who say that are simply not the brave truth-tellers they think are.  

And of course conservatives have their own version of political correctness, as evidenced by mixed-company tap-dancing conversations where, if the conversations are to happen, we aren't to say that anyone is being sexist or racist or anything.... we're just...erm...you know.... maybe we can all take a step back and re-think how some views might be.... you know... problematic.... or something?

It's like many critics of "PC" thinking believe that standing up against problematic behavior is all "PC gone too far" .... well, until someone gets called a bigot, and then shit gets real.

On PC, Again

It's official.

After years of Internet Arguing, I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "that's a bunch of political correctness run amok [or awry]" is definitely one of the top 5 most intellectually-vapid responses to being told that one's statement is racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise problematic.

People who utter this one often think that people "cry sexism" (or any -ism) not because there's something genuinely problematic happening, but because we want to shut down thought and shut down conversation.

But, what the hell are we supposed to do with this "PC gone too far" accusation?

What does it even mean?

(I hate this over-used saying too,) but I really don't think political correctness means what people think it means.

Because I'll tell ya what it means. When I hear it, I automatically bristle, because it's become a stand-in for:

"I'm going to be a jerk and if you call me out for it, I'm going to pretend you're the problem for being oversensitive."

It's a complete failure to both listen to and to engage an argument. It's profoundly uncivil.

On all counts, it doesn't even try.

It's a refuge for people who are too lazy to form coherent, meaningful arguments as they smugly believe that the wrongness of the PC Gone Awry Crowd is so self-evident it doesn't even have to be addressed.

Fischer: "Underground Railroad" Needed to Rescue Children in Gay Families

[Content note: Homophobia, heterosexism] 

In his essay discussing how confusing and harmful it was for him to have been raised by lesbian parents, Robert Oscar Lopez states that the flawed and widely-critiqued Regnerus study is especially "affirming" to him "because it acknowledges what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore." His claim is that the "the gay activist movement" is actively trying to hide or ignore the reality that "the children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them" because "being strange is hard" and they don't have both a male and female role model.

In his narrative, Lopez does not acknowledge that a main critique of the Regnerus study was that it was not a study about "the children of same-sex couples" or same-sex parents, but rather, that it was a study of the adult children who reported that their parents had ever had a same-sex relationship while the children were under the age of 18.

Are scholars of the family to now believe that Lopez's story gives Regnerus' study a statistically-significant sample size of "children of same-sex couples"? Does his anecdote somehow bolster the study's conclusions? Can his article be used as though it's a scientific addendum to the study? Does family scholarship methodology in a post-Regnerus era now consist of collecting a buncha anecdotes and calling them "data"?

For those who are using the Regnerus study to confirm their already-held belief that "the children of same-sex couples" fare worse, much worse, than other children, Lopez's narrative will surely ring true. In a vicious domino effect of confirmation bias, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer has used Lopez's essay, which both relied on and supported Regnerus' study, to Tweet that Lopez's story is evidence as to "Why we need an Underground Railroad to deliver innocent children from same-sex households."

So, in addition to groups misusing the Regnerus study in legal actions to deny LGBT people equality, the study is now, however tangentially, being used to incite unlawful kidnapping of children from their families.

Personally, I have always given Regnerus the benefit of the doubt that he did not have bad faith intentions when he published his study, and I continue to do so. I can't read his mind, so I'm not even going to try to explain what was in it. Mostly, I remain perplexed by his actions. When one is purporting to write about a topic as politically-contentious as same-sex households, it is inexplicable to me as to why one might think that their sketchy categorization method would not be scrutinized with resulting blowback and critique, or that groups devoted to attacking and marginalizing same-sex families wouldn't misuse the study.

The actions and words of all of us can have consequences down the line that we cannot anticipate or predict. I think that those in positions of power and influence, on all sides of this debate, have a responsibility to try to be more mindful of that reality.

Same-sex families are constantly under attack and, no matter Regnerus' intentions, his study- and the flawed methodology that he chose to use- enables that.

That Bryan Fischer can incite criminal acts against "children from same-sex households" also demonstrates that, despite so many protestations to the contrary, Americans can say quite a lot about homosexuality, LGBT people, and our families without being arrested and detained by either the PC police or the actual, real police.

That will continue to be the case even if same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the United States. To those who fear otherwise, I wonder.... is what you really want to say more uncivil, more aggressive, and more bigoted than what Bryan Fischer has already said?

[Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog]

A Conversation About Boy Scouts

Over at Family Scholars Blog, David Blankenhorn proposes the following, with respect to the Boys Scouts' recent announcement that they would not change their policy prohibiting gay Scout leaders and troops:

"When I spoke to several Scout leaders about this topic several years ago, I suggested that they consider changing their policy to say something along the lines of, the Boy Scouts as an organization does not involve itself in the sexual lives of boys, will not permit Scouts or Scout leaders to act out sexually in any way under the aegis of Scouting, and rejects in general the idea of bringing topics of sexual expression into the organization, whether heterosexual or homosexual."

In response, I said:

"I support the Boy Scout’s right to define their own membership, even though I disagree with how they do so and even though I think it’s (yes, I’m going there) bigoted and heterosupremacist. 

I go back and forth about whether progressives should abandon institutions like the Boy Scouts (and many religious organizations) and create better ones than those that continue to entrench privilege, or whether we should remain and instead try to reform these flawed institutions. 

It’s a tough call for me, but I do come down on letting private associations form their own rules and membership policies. 

I also think your proposal is a good start to the conversation. (I really would have loved to have been a fly on the wall, listening to the committee that recently issued this decision, and heard whether something like this was put forth). 

With respect to this provision of your proposal: 

'and rejects in general the idea of bringing topics of sexual expression into the organization, whether heterosexual or homosexual.' 

I wonder, is it common for Boy Scout leaders to talk about marriage, being married, and having a wife? Is it common for boys in this organization to talk about girls and having crushes on them? 

I’m wary of the above-quoted provision of your proposal, because I contend that a gay scout doing the exact same thing that heterosexuals do all the time (while often taking for granted the ability to do so without being accused of 'throwing their sexualities in everyone’s faces') would be quickly accused of 'talking about sexual expression' were he to mention his husband, partner, or boyfriend. 

And, if there truly were no double standard in enforcing that provision and all mention of partners/sex/marriage were prohibited, I think it’s a bit… reality-denying. Just think, all to avoid acknowledging the reality that gay people really exist in the real world, the provision would, instead, silence people of all orientations from talking about topics related to sex, sexual orientation, or sexual expression. 

Talk about 'political correctness' (the conservative, anti-gay kind that caters to people unable to handle the reality of homosexuality) silencing people. Wow!"

What do you all think?


If the Boy Scouts instituted a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, would that be a good, workable, or moral compromise to the issue of Gays In The Boys Scouts? Should we, progressives, just abandon this institution if it refuses to allow gay scouts and leaders? 


Or, do you see some other alternative?

Marriage Matters In the Workplace

Via "Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace":

"...[W]e found that employed husbands in traditional and neo-traditional marriages, compared to those in modern marriages, tend to (a) view the presence of women in the workplace unfavorably, (b) perceive that organizations with larger numbers of female employees are operating less smoothly, (c) find organizations with female leaders as relatively unattractive, and (d) deny, more frequently, qualified female employees opportunities for promotion."

A traditional marriage was defined as a heterosexual marriage in which the man took on the breadwinning role and the woman took on the caregiver role. A neo-traditional marriage was defined as a heterosexual marriage in which both spouses worked, but the man was the primary wage-earner and the woman remained the primary caregiver.

These two types of marriage were contrasted with the egalitarian model that posits that gender is unrelated to which role a spouse centers, "such that men and women can aspire equally to both roles."

The authors of the above-cited paper contend that men in traditional and neo-traditional marriages represent a "pocket of resistance" to the gender revolution and partly explain the purported slowdown in women's occupational progress. They also argue that this resistance will not go away until the structure of these men's marriages change, "an exceedingly improbable event on a large scale."

Repeat. "An exceedingly improbably event on a large scale."


Note that claim, which is made in light of the ever-present "threat" that the legalization of same-sex marriage allegedly poses to traditional marriage.

On a not unrelated note, I also observed that, despite their explicit claims to the contrary, the authors seemed to go out of their way to absolve men in traditional/neo-traditional marriages of responsibility for women's occupational plateau. They write:

"Early on, we noted the gender attitudes and beliefs of men embedded in traditional and neo-traditional marriage likely are implicit. Thus, these men's attitudes and beliefs are not likely to be overtly hostile towards women in the workplace.... Therefore, we do not intend to, nor are we pointing a finger at those whom we have claimed constitute a pocket of resistance to the gender revolution." (Emphasis in original) 

Wha?
I mean, really.

Let me summarize here:

New paper shows that men in traditional marriage think poorly of their female co-workers, that this male resistance partly explains the plateau in women's progress, and that this male resistance will never go away, but don't worry everyone, these men aren't, like, sexists or anything! Well, maybe they are, they just don't know that they're sexist. So can't we all just take a minute to calm down, stop '"pointing fingers," and think about the men here and how they might be feeling all accused about this? Geez, so unfair!

Puh-lease. 

And therein I think we've also found part of the problem for why this male resistance is so resist-y, and so "exceedingly" improbable of going away. 


We continue to entitle men who hold sexist beliefs to think it's worse to be called sexist than it is for them to actually be sexist.
And so I note here, because it evidently needs to be stated directly and explicitly, that men can hurt women with sexism even if they don't intend to, even if they're usually nice, and even if they aren't aware that they even have sexist thoughts. 

In other words, don't be afraid to point that finger when it's appropriate to do so, folks. Naming what's happening, rather than tip-toeing on eggshells around the truth, is a critical first step in countering social injustice.


Citation:

Desai, Sreedhari D., Chugh, Dolly and Brief, Arthur, Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace (March 12, 2012). 


Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog

Man-Woman Marriage as a "Microcosm of Society"

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the percentage of births to unmarried women in the US in 2009 was 41% (PDF).

Those who oppose marriage equality sometimes assert that marriage as one man, one woman, and their biological children constitutes the "microcosm of society."

Yet, given the above statistic, is such a claim really accurate? Don't many, various "microcosms" of society exist, given the reality that families come in multiple forms?

The claim that heterosexual marriage constitutes the "microcosm of society," not only implies that only one authentic way to be a family exists and thereby erases non-heteronormative families, it also implies that only one authentic way to be a woman (or a man) exists.. Note, for instance, the following claim expressed by a proponent of the "microcosm of society" talking point:

"Marriage provides the child with two parents: one to be emulated, and one whose qualities are sought in a spouse of their own. The differences in the sexes are not arbitrary social fiat, but unchangeable natural fact."

Here, we learn both that the sexes are very different and that these differences are an "unchangeable natural fact." This conventional narrative implies that people who do not possess these purportedly "unchangeable" "qualities" that men and women apparently "naturally" possess are either unreal men and women or they do not exist.

Notice the internal contradiction, as usual, within this narrative. These differences are so very "unchangeable" and "natural," oh yes they certainly are! just take their word for it! everyone knows it!. In fact, these different qualities are so natural and inherent in male and female that children must learn to emulate these "unchangeable natural" differences by observing the behavior of the parent whose sex they share.

I often find that those who believe in this myth of gender complementarity often deem themselves brave truth-tellers about What Men And Women Are Really Like But No One Is "Allowed" To Say Anymore Because Of Feminism.

Well then.

Perhaps it is for the sake of the "traditional values" politically correct and their folksy-folks commonsensical "truths" about gender that the more rational thinkers among this crowd ignore the obvious disconnect within their heteronormative indoctrination plan.

An Agenda Revealed

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…"

-From a confidential, internal National Organization for Marriage (NOM) memo, referring to a NOM endeavor entitled "Not a Civil Right Project."

This revelation, of course, has long been obvious to many equality advocates, including myself, for many years. White opponents of same-sex marriage, most of whom rarely talk about race in any other context, appear to take a certain glee in citing their Best Conservative Black Friends who are Gravely Offended at comparisons between race-based and sexual-orientation-based oppression.

It's affirming, nonetheless, to see NOM admit to its divisive agenda in print.

This admission comes from a strategic report that was unsealed as part of Maine's ongoing campaign finance investigation of the group. The pro-equality Human Rights Campaign (HRC) initially posted the documents, and the release quickly spread on the Internet yesterday.

Other strategies outlined in the document include "interrupt[ing" the analogy that being gay is like being black, "rais[ing] the costs of identifying with gay marriage," and to "develop an effective culture of resistance from behind enemy lines."

Every single project and action item in the document pertains to same-sex marriage and constitutes millions of dollars worth of activities.

I find this monomania, frankly, to be incredibly troubling and threatening to my existence as a lesbian in a same-sex partnership that is legally recognized.

In his book, The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn outlined dozens of concrete steps that married couples and the government could take to strengthen marriage including mandating counseling, ending marriage penalties for low-income people, and passing new laws offering tax and financial incentives for marriage.

One is led to wonder, if NOM's mission is, as it claims, to "protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it," why does every. single. activity. documented in this strategic memo relate solely to NOM's efforts to oppose same-sex marriage and to get other people to oppose same-sex marriage?

Do other strategies to protect marriage matter at all?

Now, what I'm about to suggest is not politically correct for progressives to utter aloud in mixed company with social conservative, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

If this, dare I say, obsessive activity to oppose same-sex marriage, as represented by millions upon millions of dollars spent, countless robocalls made, social media utilized, billboard and media campaigns created, minority groups pitted against one another, narratives told wherein SSM opponents are "victims," blogposts and press releases written, and voter (lack of) interest in the same-sex marriage issue stoked is not evidence of animus toward LGBT people, what is it evidence of?

Does an organization that is truly serious about wanting to protect marriage behave like this?

This gathering storm of single-minded opposition to same-sex marriage is simply not, to many reasonable people, a logical response to the "threat" posed by the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.


Related:

Marinelli: NOM Sought "Crazy" Pictures of Equality Advocates


Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog

A Politically Incorrect "War on White Men in Uniform"

[Content note: violence, racism]


Via Ta-Nehisi Coates, regarding Trayvon Martin, we get the following quote from Sanford police chief Bill Lee:

"Our investigation is color blind and based on the facts and circumstances, not color. I know I can say that until I am blue in the face, but, as a white man in a uniform, I know it doesn't mean anything to anybody. "

Just another white man expressing his self-centered, privileged, and entitled opinion that white men holding the power and authority to legally imprison and kill people in the name of the state are treated unfairly when racism within that state is pointed out and blamed for the death of an unarmed teenager who had the temerity to walk around while black.

Typical.

As of late, I've been making much ado about the phrase "political correctness." It's a phrase I truly loathe, as it's most often used by those who deem themselves courageous truth-tellers yet who mostly seem to be looking for an excuse to express their asshole-y, privileged, problematic statements while pre-emptively trying to ward off criticism.

You know them.

"This isn't PC to say, but racism is over. I don't even see race."

"I'm going to get clobbered for saying this but, women just aren't interested in sports."

"No one's allowed to say it these days, but kids need a mom and a dad, not two moms or two dads."

These claims are made as though they are self-evident truths that require no further proof. These are, they say, objective truths that Everyone Else, apparently, is too scared to utter aloud these days because the PC police might come and.... start criticizing these "truths." (The PC Police. Isn't that phrase a fun inversion of power and authority? As though we, the so-called PC Police, have the legal authority to go around looking for "suspicious" people to maim and kill and imprison for merely stating their beliefs on, say, the Internet?)

I say we co-opt that phrase, "PC," and throw it back in their faces.

Because, so often, those who deem themselves Courageous Non-PC Truthtellers cannot handle the truth. Usually, in fact, it is marginalized people who have to tiptoe around on eggshells barely hinting at people's bigotry because conversations get shut down and people get offended if we outright, explicitly point it out.

The truth?

They can't handle the fracken truth.

Many Couragous Truthtellers can't deal with being told that society, their statements, and even sometimes, gawd forbid, they themselves are racist, sexist, homophobic, able-ist, trans*phobic, or any other problematic -ism. It is, in fact, a great affront to civility, not to actually express any of these -isms, but for people to suggest that others have these -isms at all.

So, let's just go ahead and say it (as many people already have):

"It may not be PC to say so these days, but, er, white men in uniforms are not victims of a racist society. Black, unarmed teenagers who are killed, like Trayvon Martin, are."

"The War on Men"

The ongoing assault on reproductive rights isn't actually a war on women. It's a war on the poor, poor men who are waging this assault. Because, you see, people are being So Mean for criticizing these male public figures' public acts that deprive women of rights.

So says Kathryn Jean Lopez anyway:

"...I am deeply offended by what is being said about men. A few good men have stuck their necks out lately in defense of religious freedom in America, and they deserve to be thanked and defended as they counter a dedicated campaign of dishonesty, hysteria, and raw bigotry.

Reasonable women cannot remain silent as the secretary of state of the United States pretends that America under a President Santorum or Romney would be an oppressive society for women. Or as a New York Times columnist echoes her, insisting that good men protecting conscience rights are 'cavemen,' and that 'Republican men' are trying to 'wrestle American women back into chastity belts' in an 'insane bout of mass misogyny.' Or as Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, calls the U.S. Catholic bishops 'violently anti-woman.'

This is miserable, insulting, desperate stuff. It’s just not right, and women of reason cannot let it stand."

Lopez doesn't actually try to, let alone actually succeed in, rebutting the notion that an America under... *dry heave*....President Santorum or ....*shiver* ...President Romney would be an oppressive society for women. She just states that it's a "war on men" to say that.

And welcome to socially-conservative political correctness.

Despite their dominance in social conservatism, men who work to roll back reproductive rights are apparently fragile, porcelain dolls, capable of being shattered with the hammer of bigotry and oppression when people are insufficiently polite about critiquing the regressive policies such men support.

While these powerful, prominent social conservatives call women sluts, support forced birth policies, make birth control a "debatable" issue in 2012, and oppose abortion even in cases of rape, we are to believe that it is the duty of socially conservative women to stand by their men and insist that we not use words to describe how oppressive these policies are to women because doing so is Big-Time Rude.

Because, apparently, it's evidence of a deep and pervasive man-hating agenda to criticize male public figures. I mean, can't a guy even support a law requiring a private citizen to undergo an invasive, unnecessary medical procedure just because he doesn't approve of another medical procedure ze's having, jeez?


In other news, I think I'm going to start headlining all of my articles from now "The War On Men." (Oh hell, I might as well go all-out and call them "The War On White Men"). I guaran-gawdamn-tee I'd be getting paid to pen op-eds for The New York Times in no time.