Social Justice

LGBTQ+, Social Justice

While I continue to collect stories of accomplished, amazing women who are proud of what they have done, I’m going to write about other things. (And if you haven’t read yesterday’s post or the comments, please do. Good stuff is happening there.)

Today, I finally had the chance to catch up with some blogs that I’ve been neglecting. Over at Registered Runaway’s blog, I read this post (and the ones preceding it; be sure to read all 4 parts). It made me sad. Then it made me angry. I still don’t understand why the way Aibird, the writer, was treated is allowed to continue.

I’ve had Christian friends try to tell me that no one still acts that way–or at least, Christians don’t. I’ve heard the arguments that anyone threatening “curative rape” isn’t a real Christian anyway. And yet, here is a woman telling her story, including receiving death threats from people professing to be Christians.

We can’t ignore the parts of the Church (worldwide) that hold hateful attitudes. They are as much a part of us as any other Christian. But that’s not actually the thing that bothers me most. It’s the fact that we’ve chosen–as the rest of the Body–not to fight them. I can’t help thinking that it’s because deep down, many Christians agree with the underlying beliefs, even if they don’t agree that picketing and threatening and even attempts at curing are the right answer.

It’s not enough anymore. I have never been of the mind that it’s okay to live somewhere halfway between being an ally and being an enemy. I’m not entirely a black-and-white thinker. I’m open to having lots of grey and wrestling with that tension. I’m willing to talk about what it means to have a healthy sexual ethic or whether it’s okay for Christians to watch violent movies or if tattoos and swearing are acceptable. We may never agree on any of those things, and that’s okay.

What I’m not okay with is fence-sitting when it comes to personhood and equality.

Too many people have come to the conclusion that they can rest comfortably with the belief that they may not “agree with the homosexual lifestyle” though they would never insist on anyone trying to be “cured.” There are far too many places where we’ve done what we seem to think is a kinder, gentler version of non-acceptance. The thing is, though, it’s still exactly that: non-acceptance. No more “But I have gay friends, and they know where I stand, and they are okay with that!” Are you sure? Because when I read stories like the one above, I get the impression that an awful lot of people aren’t actually okay with you disapproving of them, they just hide it well or have learned that it’s an off-limits topic if they don’t want to hear again about their sin. You personally may not be holding up a “God hates fags” sign, and you may not have threatened anyone with rape or death. You may not even have given anyone the phone number to a place where they can be “changed.” But if underneath it you still think they’re in sin, you hold the same beliefs as the people of ex-gay organizations and Westboro Baptist.

If you do call yourself both a Christian and an ally, then why not directly speak up against people who are doing active harm? I honestly can’t remember where I read it (or I’d link to it; maybe someone else can help me out here), but I recall reading about someone meeting with some people from Westboro Baptist and talking about how “nice” they were. Not that I want to paint anyone as evil and remove that person’s humanity, but I fail to see how “But they’re so nice!” is in any way helpful. I also don’t believe for a millisecond that there’s any use in simply leaving people to their own devices because everyone knows how hateful they are. If you really think these things are wrong, why not speak up about it? Not merely to your LGBTQ friends–who probably already know–but to the rest of the Christian community.

Things aren’t going to change. LGBTQ people are not going away, and they’re not going back into their closets. People who are Christians–whole denominations, in fact–have already become not just accepting but affirming. Laws are changing. Meanwhile, people are still being pressured and harmed. There’s no way to be somewhere in the middle anymore. That might have worked at one time, but that time has long since passed.

I already cast my vote. I know that to some people, I’m irredeemable. I’ve already been told–more than once–that I can’t call myself a Christian. I’ve been informed that I’m leading people in the wrong direction. Well, so what? I don’t consider that a big deal, and I think it’s worth it. (And let’s be honest, there are people I’m happy are out of my life because they can’t handle the fact that I’m an ally. Think of all the wonderful LGBTQ friends I’m sparing from having any interaction with them.)

I think I understand being genuinely unsure. I know there’s a transition between what we might have learned growing up or in some churches and a place of being an ally. I get that. But don’t sit there forever, and certainly don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. Don’t fake being in agreement with either side (or both). It isn’t fair to anyone, even yourselves. Take time, but make a choice–then do something about it.

If you want to know why I feel this sense of urgency (besides the immediate concern for individuals such as the woman whose story I linked above), then read this post. It’s not just about us, about our nation, anymore. And, like Registered Runaway says at the end of the post (though I disagree that no one is fighting here anymore),

And I’m beginning to think that instead of having a conversation, a culture war truce, with Fundamentalists and right wing Evangelicals, our work would be better focused on protecting the world from the wrath of these people. Despite the lament from many progressive evangelicals, the right wing is hardly fighting here anymore. They’ve moved on. They’re going after the rest of the world.

How do we stop this?

How, indeed?

https://amleibowitz.com/2013/10/08/3303/

More on NALT and being an ally

LGBTQ+, Relationships, Social Justice

Yesterday, I wrote about why I’m not making a NALT video. I want to expand on that a little. There are some valid concerns about the project, but from what I’ve seen, a lot of those concerns border on what the project might do rather than what it is doing and on assumptions rather than experiences.

One big issue is whether or not the people making the videos believe that’s all they need to do to be good allies. First of all, it’s a pretty big assumption to think that those people are not already doing other things. All we know of most of them is whatever they happen to say in a couple of minutes. We don’t know whether they think they’ve done their part. Obviously that could be true, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of people who make the videos are sitting somewhere feeling satisfied that they’ve completed their assignment and can now move on. It also assumes that all of those people are straight and cisgender (hint: they’re not).

I think one of the things that frustrates me is the belief that it’s “easier” to be an ally online. That has not been my experience at all. I find it far easier to be an ally in real life; it doesn’t take a whole lot of effort. It mostly consists of being a good friend–which isn’t usually about someone else’s sexuality anyway. Sure, there are times when I need to take action. Sometimes I vote for legislation that extends the same rights I enjoy. Sometimes I have to ask people not to say stupid, hateful, or hurtful things. More often, though, it’s about getting a cup of coffee together or chatting while our kids play or having our sons baptized on the same day or attending a wedding celebration. It’s about sharing together the things that are important to us, including our identities. It’s not complicated.

When I first started to blog, I stayed anonymous for a long time. I didn’t do it out of fear. I’m hardly a person who cares that some church official might decide that I shouldn’t be involved in ministry. I did it to protect the people whom I was serving. I wanted to stay web-silent so that I could be a safe person for youth and their families. I know people who have been threatened and bullied for supporting their gay children, and I believed they and their children needed someone safe to talk to. If I had been public, I would have been removed from ministry and therefore have been less available for people who needed me.*

When the time was right, I began using my real name. It was mildly risky on my part, but that was at a point when I knew that I wasn’t putting anyone else at risk. When people make these videos, they may be doing the same thing. It may be a first step in being public after a time of flying under the radar. They may be risking much more than I was in making a statement.

When I named myself, I discovered something: It’s a lot harder to be a good ally online. It’s tricky to navigate the wide range of needs among people I don’t know anywhere but the Internet. I’ve learned a lot, including that sometimes people’s needs are completely opposite. The NALT campaign is a good example–some people feel hopeful and encouraged while others feel angry and hurt.** I’m an incredibly sensitive person, and I tend to absorb other people’s feelings. That’s a good thing, except when people are expressing such vastly different emotions. It puts me in a place where I feel like I have to choose between people I care about and respect. It makes me want to quit the Internet and run back to the safety of doing this only offline.

Here’s the thing, though. I think that’s as it should be. It is hard. If it were easy, everyone would do it. Everyone would know all the right words and there would never be a question. Everyone would be able to be a good ally offline and on the Internet. We would never have to work at listening, caring, speaking, or writing. Taking on the challenge–whether one finds it harder online or off–is important, necessary work if we ever expect social change.

Not everyone can do it on the Internet. Maybe passing on blogging, videos, and tweets is the best option for some people. Those who resent having to walk such a fine line are probably better off concentrating on other things. Those who are so tenderhearted that they are slowly sucked dry by conflicting views might need to back off in order to have the emotional reserve to care for people in their own lives.

For the rest of us, though, it’s worth staying in. It’s okay that we’re hearing different answers to the same question, because no two people are identical in their experiences. There is no Hypothetical Idealized Ally. There’s no perfect way of writing or talking about these things. I think my first rule of being an ally needs to be, “Don’t tell other allies how to do it correctly.” I don’t have everything right. All I can do is point back at those to whom I’m an ally and say, “Ask them.” Even then, it’s going to depend on the individual. My default is to individually ask, “What do you prefer?” and act accordingly when communicating with that person.

Even though I find it difficult at times, I’m not going to be silent on the Internet. I may get pushed from different directions at times, and that has to be okay with me. I have to go with it because it’s not about me. When I make decisions about what I write or whether I’ll make a video, I have to go with what feels right in my heart because sometimes there’s no way to do both of two opposing actions. I can’t both make a video and not make one. What feels right to me at this time is not to make one, even though I know there are people who may be disappointed. If people care so little about me as a human being that they reduce me to being bad or good depending on whether I agree with them or I’ve done exactly as they wanted me to, then those aren’t people I want to spend much time with.

Where have you found it harder to be an ally? Online or offline? Where have you found it harder to find allies? What advice would you give to those who want to be allies online?

______________________________

*I know I’m being vague. I simply can’t be more specific in order to protect people I care about.

**Or some other combination–say, hurt but hopeful. All those feelings are valid. The difficulty is in how to proceed when pulled in opposite directions.

FYI (if you’re a mom of teenage boys)

Christianese, Feminism, Parenting, Sexuality and Gender

Dear moms,

I have some information that might interest you. Last night, as I sometimes do, I sat on my couch and looked at social media on my phone.

I’ve been on vacation, so naturally there are quite a few blog posts and news articles to wade through. Wow – the Internet sure has been busy with the slut-shaming this summer! Some of my friends brought this to my attention, because as Christians and/or feminists, we notice shit like that.

I noticed other things, too. For one, it appears that I’ve been on the wrong path when it comes to raising my own son.

I get it – you’ve seen ~~all those shameless hussies putting their pictures up on Facebook~~ how our culture exploits women’s bodies, right? I can’t help thinking that maybe I’ve failed by trying to raise a son who respects women regardless of how they’re dressed. Clearly, I should have been protecting his eyes. I should remedy that.

So, here’s the bit that I think is important for you to realize. If you are the parent of a teenage son, you should definitely make sure he never, ever sees a half-dressed girl. Half-dressed boys are okay, though, because naturally, none of your sons are gay or bisexual. Posting half-naked pictures of your own sons flexing on the beach is also totally fine, since no one ever equates strength and virility. We all know that unless we see a penis, it’s not sexual anyway. Besides, it’s not at all exploitative to parade their bodies on the Internet for your own gain; everyone knows that’s much better than making one’s own choices about what to post.

Please understand this also: you are not responsible for making sure your sons know that regardless of what a girl is wearing, she deserves respect. All you need to do is assure they don’t see those pictures. After all, if they don’t see them, then you can relax in the knowledge that your sons do not know what girls’ bodies look like or that they won’t satisfy their curiosity by looking at the Internet at a friend’s house.

Not to mention that those “sexy” selfies your sons’ friends are posting ~~don’t reflect who they are~~ clearly demonstrate that they are temptresses who want to cause your sons to fall into sin. You need to be sure to remind them often so that you can ~~keep your sons from acting like animals~~ protect your sons.

And now – thank God – you have a good excuse to select who your sons are friends with. You can also have awkward family dinners during which you remind them that ~~masturbation is a sin~~ ~~teenage girls are sluts~~ they should probably not see a female-bodied person in her nightgown until they are married.

I know you’re concerned that these girls’ parents would be disappointed if they knew their daughters were causing your poor, defenseless sons to ~~get hard~~ think impure things when looking at them on the Internet. Obviously, you know that once a boy sees a girl in a state of undress, he turns from a respectable, nice kid into a raging, hormonal beast. You don’t want your sons to only think of girls in this “sexual” way, do you?

Of course not.

You’re also probably aware that girls don’t fantasize about boys’ bodies, so you’re free to put as many objectifying pictures of them up on your blog as you like. No worries–you won’t be causing any teenage girls to lust. That’s because girls don’t really have any sexual feelings unless they are a)married or b)they weren’t properly guarding their hearts. Naturally, they never masturbate or look at naked men on the Internet. And they’re not ever lesbians, either.

Good thing you’ve resolved not to give any of these teen temptresses a second chance to corrupt your innocent little men. I’m sure you’ve also installed nanny software and have a firewall so good no one could ever hack it. You’ve probably made sure that your sons’ friends have these things too. Don’t forget that awkward conversation you had with all their dads to find out if any of them had a stray magazine or several that you needed to confiscate before you allowed your sons into their homes.

I know that sounds harsh and old-school, but that’s just the way needs to be if you want to raise your sons right. Blocking, banning, and shaming is so much more effective than merely having open conversations about how your sons treat women. Remind yourself that you are raising men, while their female counterparts are mere girls. That way, you can convince yourself that your sons are mature enough to make adult decisions while these girls are not–and apparently don’t have any parents to help them learn and grow the way you’re helping your sons. Their parents will probably be grateful that you implied their daughters are tramps anyway.

Meanwhile, you should have in mind the kind of women you want your sons to marry. Your gag reflex probably prevents you from realizing that they may be gay, which is why you need to imagine them with women. It’s not creepy and weird at all that you are making these plans for them when they’re only halfway through high school. It’s never too early to control your children’s future adulthood. Besides, there’s no chance whatsoever that your sons will go behind your backs and date or have sex or whatever. And did I mention that these “men of integrity” are totally not ever, ever masturbating? Oh, I did? Well, I said it again.

Moms, it’s not too late! If you think you’ve made a mistake in raising your sons (we all do – don’t fret – I’ve made some doozies), RUN to your boys’ social media pages and block every single one of their girl friends. There are pictures of them that make it easy for your sons to imagine them naked, including that lovely senior portrait. After all, girls don’t even need to be in a state of partial undress to tempt boys to lust after them–all it takes is their mere existence.

Will you trust me? Your boys are crying out for you to teach them that girls are the cause of all their adolescent hormone surges as well as any other behaviors they may exhibit. Deep down, they are uncontrollable cavemen who cannot possibly learn how to respect and love women unless you protect them from the grasps of those alluring young things. (And also, they are NOT gay, so you probably don’t need to worry about protecting them from other boys.)

You are raising MEN.

Teach them guilt, sexism, and blame.

I’m glad could have this talk. Maybe we’ll talk again sometime about how we can raise our girls into women who feel ashamed of their bodies.

Mrs. Mitchell

It’s not about the sex

Feminism, Racism, Sexuality and Gender

Courtesy of http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/miley-cyrus-sexual-exploitation-vma-2228134 *(this was the least offensive photo I could find)*

While some people are busy fretting over how they can’t let their kids watch the VMAs because of performances like Miley Cyrus’, I’m shaking my head and wondering how it’s gotten boiled down to arguments about whether her parents did their job or whether she’s just acting foolish because of her age/fame. There are problems with her performance (which I didn’t watch live; I saw the video this morning). None of them have to do with what she wore, whether or not she’s trying to be “sexy,” or whether or not she has gone from wholesome to trashy.

I didn’t find her performance sexy (and what was wrong with her tongue? Does she have a condition?), but I’d be happy to chalk that up to personal preference. That is, if not for two glaring problems:

It was racist.
It wasn’t empowering for female sexuality.

I’m not the best person to explain what was racist about it. You should just go read this (and the several articles linked therein). It explains perfectly what was wrong with Miley’s performance from an intersectional feminism perspective. I was glad to read that; I’m not always sure that I’m on the right track, so I was happy to have confirmation that my initial reaction wasn’t off-base. There is obviously more wrong than this, but my first question after watching was, “Why are all the back-up dancers black?” It didn’t seem right, so I dug a little deeper. I’m glad I did.

I can speak a little better to the second point. Other women have performed in less clothing than Miley wore and have had equally sexual dance moves. Why is hers somehow worse? The short answer is that by itself, it’s not. If it were just Miley up there (preferably minus the objectification of black women), it would have been less of an issue. In one sense, Miley is trying to find out who she is apart from her family and her childhood. When other child stars do the same, they are often shamed for their mistakes because they can’t screw up in private. But there’s a special kind of venom reserved for “wholesome” girls who grow up into women with sexuality. For some reason, the finger-wagging always seems to crop up around things like the VMAs, with parents lamenting, “What about the chiiiiiildren????”

Young men don’t seem to have this problem. One of my friends was kind enough to point out that Daniel Radcliffe didn’t get the same treatment when he was naked. On stage. With a horse. I mean, I guess parents probably figured that wasn’t something to take the kids to see, but still–he got more flak when people thought he was gay than for his performance in Equus. Right there, that says volumes about people’s priorities.

The real problem with Miley’s performance is adding Robin Thicke into the mix. A few years ago, I had a grad school professor who mentioned in class that he’d done some research on pornography (yes, that’s actual research, people). He evaluated pictures in magazines based on several criteria–pose, facial expression, etc. He discovered that in many photos of women, they were pouting and passive, and there was often a fully clothed man in the photograph. This was in sharp contrast with photos of men, who were mostly smiling, active, and alone. It was the last one that surprised me (and bothered me) most.

As it turns out, I wasn’t wrong about that. The presence of a fully-clothed man feeds into the idea that women are bodies that exist solely for men’s pleasure. Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke played that out on national television. The excuses were strange, too–that this is his “thing” and he’s never been a Disney star are hardly important when he’s perpetuating a degrading view of women with someone half his age who’s barely an adult. His sexual freedom and aggression are celebrated; she’s shamed for not living up to her status as a role model (which, by the way, she is not obligated to do).

The two problems (racism and misogyny) that I mentioned are linked by the fact that Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke have intentionally joined them. This is their view of what it means to be sexual, and it hinges on exploitation and the blatant appropriation of a subset of black culture–along with a host of horrible assumptions about black women. Combine Miley’s own admission that she wants to try on “black culture” with a man singing about “blurred” consent while a woman mimes sexually pleasuring him and you should get a good idea why this is so disgusting.

The whole thing made me feel sick, and many of the reactions have made me feel sicker still. It was gross, and it was wrong, and we need to ask ourselves why we’re more concerned with the fact of Miley’s attempts at being sexy than how she’s trying to achieve it or why it’s so wrong. It’s not about teaching our daughters about what’s “appropriate” when it comes to clothing or dance moves. It’s not about another former child star “gone wrong.” It’s about how we’ve failed as a society to stop exploiting people for profit and how we’ve failed as a society to teach our children that growing up means knowing the difference between empowering people and continuing to subjugate them, even when the line seems thin.

Today, I’m not a good feminist.

Feminism

Anti-feminist symbol. By Ahmadi (own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

I think I haven’t been a “good” feminist for a while now. I’ve been thinking about it, and maybe I’m just not cut out for this gig. Oh, I don’t mean that I’m not into equality and I’ve suddenly gone backwards to the world of women having a proper place. I just mean that I don’t really fit in with what looks sometimes like the Ideal Feminist.

When I stopped believing in the typical conservative evangelical version of Christianity, the first thing to go was the notion that there is some ideal standard out there. This isn’t Jesus, this is Plato. That’s not to say there isn’t “better” and “worse,” just that there’s not some magical fairytale Perfect Being with such an impossibly high standard that all of humanity disgusts the Perfect Being.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that this notion exists outside Christianity. Evangelical Christianity is at least honest about it–if you don’t agree that you’re bad and repent (with the appropriate belief in the magical Perfect Being), you get a one-way ticket to Hell. The rest of the world is not quite so open about what will happen to you. From what I can tell, though, if you don’t get it right (there’s no Perfect Being to rescue you), you get ejected from the club and placed on the list of People Who Piss the Gatekeepers Off No Matter What They Say. I have a feeling there are some people who could say, “The sky is blue” and they’d get an argument about the specific shade.

The reason I say I’m a lousy feminist these days is that I want to concentrate on the big picture and not the minutiae of precisely how someone said something or what an individual woman chooses to do. I’ve been guilty of hair-splitting myself, and I think it’s time to be done with that. I’m not convinced the right way to be a feminist is to demand that we consider every damn detail of the decisions we make, analyzing it all to make sure it conforms to the Feminist Policies and Procedures Manual.

There’s this list of rules (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) that exists somewhere, and I just don’t think I can keep up anymore. This is by no means exhaustive:

Don’t do or say anything that could be construed as “what about the men” (the details of what that entails will be explained to you after you screw up)
Define anything men say that sounds corrective as “mansplaining,” even when it has nothing to do with feminism (because there’s no possible way you could be wrong if you studied it, read it, or wrote about it)
Grill women about the choices they make (taking husband’s name, having babies, working for pay, etc.) and tell them there’s a right answer for anything you think isn’t “feminist” enough
Police people’s methods of healing from abuse (but expect them not to do the same to you)
Make violent threats, use verbally abusive language, and do the same creepy things you complain men do, but say you can do it because your threat is “empty”
Find the most mild examples of your own privilege and say, “See? I check my privilege!” (this applies exclusively to white feminists and mostly to straight feminists)
Complain about “creepers” on social media but don’t bother blocking them the first time they make you uncomfortable
Do all this to others while claiming you have no issues to work on

I am not in either therapy or recovery, but I know plenty of people who are. The steps above are aspects of what’s called “taking someone else’s inventory.” The essence of it is that you’re finding fault with other people and assessing their motives without examining your own. The problem with this approach when it comes to feminism is that it separates women from each other. I’m not saying every feminist I disagree with does all of these things, but a fair number of them do at least two, one of which is usually the last item on the list.

A good example of this behavior is an article I linked some months ago about women’s reasons for taking their husband’s names. The writer didn’t see any valid reason to take one’s husband’s name except for being religiously conservative and believing it was the right thing to do. Any other reason, including “because most people do it and I didn’t think that deeply about it,” were game-show-buzzered automatically.

Name-changing is not a primary issue, yet somehow, it’s been put on the Throne of Importance. If I’m not railing against the oppression of changing my name, I’m apparently an idiot and a faux feminist. You know what? I honestly do. not. care if you change your name to your husband’s, hyphenate it, make up a new name, give him yours, or drop the last name entirely, Cher-style. You could insist on having your birth name (which may be your father’s anyway) and still be part of a complementarian marriage or have a husband who abuses you. That’s because the name isn’t the real problem.

Another one I saw the other day was a tweet asking why people had kids. No, seriously. Because it’s totally invasive to ask people why they don’t have any but not at all violating to demand we explain ourselves as to why we had them. (Before you ask, yeah, I answered the question, because I didn’t think anything of it until later, when I realized how much it upset me.) Anyway, the tweet also said that “because it’s what people do” is not a valid reason. Again, I’m not making this up. I love the attitude that says someone else can evaluate my choices but God forbid I evaluate theirs. As with the name change, I do not have any interest in whether you have kids or you don’t. That’s your choice. But it’s a super-duper privilegey thing to do to ask people why they reproduced and blast people you think didn’t consider it hard enough. (Pro tip: it’s classist.)

I feel more in feminist spheres like I don’t measure up than I ever did in religious ones. That’s probably owing to the fact that I wasn’t abused in church like some were, so I acknowledge that. There are also some feminists (even of the more extreme sort) who don’t do this. It seems to be, for the most part, limited to (strangely) Christians who claim the feminist label. I chalk that up to the need to rebel against an anti-feminist system, but it doesn’t make it right. You know what I want out of my feminism? I want to work toward making sure that all people have opportunities. I want equality and justice. I want women of color to be paid the same thing as white men for doing the same job. I want my son to be a ballet dancer and my daughter to be an engineer (if that’s what they want). I want our culture to reflect the beauty and diversity of women’s contribution to the arts. I want all forms of human-against-human violence to end. I do not want to argue about names and babies and the definition of “job.”

There’s an attitude among some women that they are better than others because hey, at least they aren’t anti-trans like some people or at least they don’t use the word “c*nt” like some people.* ‘Nother pro tip: taking other feminists’ inventories is also bad. Stop doing it. Stop nit-picking my decisions and asking me rudely personal questions in order to prove that you’re the better feminist. If that’s what you want, then fine. You can be the Queen Feminist. I’m out, though. I’m claiming my fourth-prize ribbon for being a lousy feminist and calling it a day.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Last pro tip, I promise. The word “c*nt” is really, really bad in the U.S. Don’t use it if you live here or are visiting here. I understand that it doesn’t have quite the same impact in other places, though. So we in the U.S. really don’t have the right to tell non-Americans whether to use it or not. For some reason, there’s a boatload of policing that particular word because “Zomg! Someone used it on Twitter and Americans read Twitter! And they used it IN THEIR TWITTER HANDLE OMG I AM SO OFFENDED!” Yeah. Get over it. We have words that are equally offensive to other cultures.

Healing, forgiveness, and redemption

Bullying, Feelings, Feminism, Life, Relationships

Joseph Forgives His Brothers, by the Providence Lithograph Company (http://thebiblerevival.com/clipart/1907/gen45.jpg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

I recently had the privilege of connecting with Stephanie Drury (of Stuff Christian Culture Likes) through an online community we both belong to. I’ve long appreciated what she has to say because even though I don’t agree 100% with everything she says, she’s one of the people who comes closest to expressing more or less where my own faith is right now. I don’t have the history of spiritual (and other) abuse she’s endured; my stay in the conservative evangelical world was comparatively short and uneventful. My leaving was mostly for the sake of my children. I saw enough to know that even in the best-intentioned evangelical spheres, abuse is a natural outflow of certain teachings. It wasn’t something I wanted my children to have long-term exposure to. Trust me when I say I’d have been happy to foot the therapy bill knowing I could have prevented the damage and didn’t.

That said, yesterday, I read Stephanie’s post, hugo schwyzer’s suicide attempt, the feminist response, and the tension of holding horrible things alongside possiblity. While again, I don’t agree 100% with everything she says, it resonated with me. Bear with me as I attempt to explain why, keeping two things in mind:

Stephanie writes from a place of having been harmed. No one should accuse her of failing to understand what it’s like to be victimized.
I am not writing from that place. I’m writing from the place of one who has both done the harm and seen the harm.

A lot of people were pretty angry about what Stephanie said in her post. I understand that. There was a time when I would have readily jumped on that train. I have my own experiences with being told to forgive someone who had wronged me–to the point of not being able to express my anger because both Christianity and “psychology” told me that the burden was on me to “own” my reactions. I wasn’t supposed to hold past misdeeds against people who continued to hurt me. All of those things are lies; it’s not on me to do anything, and a person’s history does inform his or her present actions. So believe me when I say I get it that some of what Stephanie said could trigger a lot of feelings.

On the other hand, her post did make me consider two things that are very important for me. I emphasize that last part because I recognize myself to be pretty near the top of the privilege food chain. I’m white, I’m cisgender, and I’m straight. I’m a married stay-at-home-mom (to me, that’s like the height of economic privilege, that I can choose to do what I want). I’ve never been spiritually abused, though I have a long history of other forms of bullying, and there were certainly abuses in my family. What Stephanie’s post made me think about wasn’t how I treat those who have wronged me but how I, as a person who has wronged others, have had my own redemption story.

First, I have to really, truly, deeply own my history of fundamentalist ideas. When I was 15 or 16, I was in the car with a couple of family members. I cheerfully told them that “sin is sin,” a line I was repeating from church. They already knew that my church had taught me that gay = sin. The conversation went like this:

Me: Sin is sin. One sin is no better or worse than any other.

Family member 1: So, lying and murder are equal.

Me: Yep.

Family member 2: You believe it’s wrong to be gay.

Me: Yes.

Family member 1: So, being gay is as bad as being a rapist.

Me [now very uncomfortable]: Yeah, I guess, but it’s just because all sin keeps us from God.

Family member 2: So I’m as bad as a rapist.

Me: I don’t know. I guess so.

And that’s the most mild and printable of the ways I hurt this person.

Ten years. It took me ten years to get to a point where I didn’t still believe that. I have no idea how that particular family member stuck it out with me. All I can say is that from the time I was old enough to remember, she’s been one of my favorite people in the whole world. She’s been one of my biggest advocates. Because she (and other family members, who have also been wonderful) loved me and waited patiently for me, we made it past all that. I changed.

It’s that belief that people can–and do–change that keeps me blogging. It keeps me searching for new ways to be an ally and it keeps me reading on Twitter to see where my privilege is showing and what I can do to make it right. It keeps me searching for justice and my part in it. It keeps me pointing to the voices of others and asking people to listen. I express all that in different ways. Sometimes I’m angry and bold; sometimes I use Scripture; sometimes I write about how deeply I love the people in my life. I keep going, though, because someone, somewhere may be reading and might just find the spark to change.

The second thing that occurred to me is that I’m a harsh critic of people. I don’t actually like people very much. Perhaps that’s the result of my history with peers at school or with some of my family. It could be because I’m pretty introverted. I don’t really know. The problem is that I often have trouble separating what people say and do from who they are. This is particularly true when those people are public figures.

I have little difficulty accepting and loving ordinary people, even when they aren’t perfect. The real people in my everyday life get the benefit of my ongoing forgiveness. My two closest friends (other than my husband) are very different women, but I love them both so, so much. Have we ever hurt each other? Sure. Do we do things the others think are probably bad ideas? Of course. But there is a lot of good history that none of us are willing to throw away. We make things right and we move on.

That can’t be done with these big-name “celebrity” bloggers, pastors, and speakers. I’m not at all condoning what any of them say or do. We need to keep calling them out on their behavior because they are doing these big, public things and using their fame to gain followers who will then turn around and do the same things. We need to stop them. We need to be angry, we need to be pushy, we need to be bold. We also need to be gentle and persuasive and kind–not because that’s the “best” way to do it but because our natural personalities make us respond in our own ways. I cannot imagine some of my fellow bloggers being polite about Mark Driscoll or Hugo Schwyzer’s latest pile of poo. On the other hand, there are many bloggers I can’t imagine writing a scathingly funny take-down or an angry rant; they normally write very differently than that.

Where we may be able to agree is that we can say what a person is actually doing without assigning motive or making assumptions about who that person is or whether there is any hope for change. We can say with certainty that Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Hugo Schwyzer, and others have said and continue to say terrible things. We can worry about their families. We can tell anyone who will listen in whatever way we need to that their words are damaging. What we can’t do is know why they do those things or whether they will ever change.

I also feel uncomfortable with name-calling, as that speaks to who or what we think someone is at their core. I admit to having done this; I imagine that I learned to do it as a child. My mother used to call me names when she was angry, and I was bullied mostly with name-calling for years. Whether or not anyone else agrees, I believe no matter what abuse someone has committed or appears to have committed, it is, in fact, bullying to call people steaming piles of shit or assholes or fucktards or douchebags. I don’t really care that you think it’s not hurting them because they hurt you first or that you’re just expressing your anger. It’s still not right. They are humans, not poo or body parts–regardless of the evil things they’ve done.*

There is one place where I strongly disagree with Stephanie (and I hope this does not hurt her, in the same way that I hope not to have hurt others with my words above). In the specific case of Hugo Schwyzer, his past is applicable. He may have apologized for what he did, but the fact that he keeps on doing it says volumes more than his apology. Perhaps he wouldn’t try to kill an intimate partner now, but he isn’t demonstrating respect for women. This is the same man who penned an article (which I will not link to) about removing a tampon from his soon-to-be ex-wife. If that’s not a violation of her privacy and her womanhood, I don’t know what is. If he wants people to stop bringing up his past, then he needs to stop behaving that way in the present.

I know this post is already too long; I hope you’ve stuck with me. I honestly don’t want to hurt anyone with my words. As I said near the beginning, this was mostly about the things I believe I’ve done wrong and now wish to amend. It won’t change the fact that I’m going to continue to use my words to fight injustice. It does mean that I want to be careful not to conflate actions with unknown motives or words with people.

I’d love to know what you think; leave me a comment and tell me what’s on your mind.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*I maintain that name-calling can be ok for institutions (which are not thinking/feeling beings) or in certain humorous contexts, such as the post I linked in my News last Friday about being a better douchebag (it wasn’t connected with a specific individual).

It’s not about the sex

Today, I’m not a good feminist.

Healing, forgiveness, and redemption

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content