Guerilla Tactics of The Human Rights War

Howdy, everyone! Sorry for the delay. Fall break, the flu, and a deluge of tests collaborated to prevent me from getting regular posts up. But I am once again wroth with the Facebooks, so here we go.

Take a look at this. 

Now, nobody start screaming yet. The individual who posted this is a devout Catholic with a paramilitary background, and a good man. I want to be clear on that, because I'm addressing the problems associated with posting this shit, not the man himself.

Let's also be clear on one more thing: I don't agree that women's reproductive health care is an issue that should be politicized. Decisions made regarding personal health are hard enough without around 600 politicians standing over your shoulder. So, for the record, women's health is (to me) an individual choice, and politicians should butt out.

The corollary here is that: the other side of this argument must be acknowledged as  a valid point of view for discourse to occur. 

For those that aren't sure, the other side of this argument is (very generally) that certain options related to women's reproductive health are morally reprehensible and should be legislated against. 

No, I don't agree. Does that mean that the other side has no right to hold that opinion? Nope. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion. 

I can't call bullshit on someone else for no reason other than "because bullshit." While it may not be, to me, a moral or ethical behavioral/belief system, it is to that person and I must respect that they hold that belief to have any discussion whatsoever. 

Ok, disclaimers aside: here we go.

There's obviously a few things wrong with this. Straight up, no lie. Here's a short list, because a long list would have us here all day:

1. The comparison is horrible. 

2. There are severe generalizations on both sides, to the point of making what almost looks like a "straw man" argument.

3. The wording obscures the point, so that it seems at first glance as if there is a 1-1 comparison being made and that both sides are being equally decried.

4. Even if all of the above were overlooked, there is still a contention made that fighting for rights/beliefs is not a valid course  of action without the presence of violence. 

5. Finally, there's the fact that this follows the "first world problems" meme model. The comparison belittles half of an argument that is polarizing the entire nation, by pointing out that since it could be worse, the other side's argument is invalid.

Holy troll logic, Batman!

Point the first: comparing non-analogous incidents to make a point is always bad. While in both cases, gender war is being waged, in the case on the left, the woman has been physically attacked and brutalized. In the case on the right, the argument is for equal rights and is being waged as a legal and social battle against selective discrimination in healthcare. This is not an equal comparison. 

The analogy (cause y'all know I love me an analogy) is comparing the movement for equal LGBT rights to the fight against laws that make it legal to kill gay people. Same general group of people being attacked, both are serious concerns, but these are two very different types of attack. Comparing physical violence to a denial of rights is not an equal comparison. Both are serious, but it's two different spheres.

To jump off a deep end, there is a similar argument made to create a false fear: that if abortion remains legal without any of the tweaky little caveats, women will use elective abortion as late in the day birth control. I will not argue this one out, because sanity. 

But the principle is the same. Any time an argument, however valid or invalid, is compared to a broad assumption or to a non-analogous but similar argument, you are failing to make a reasoned comparison.

This leads neatly into point two: generalization. On the left, and I'm going to try for once to handle this with kid gloves, is an extreme example used for maximum shock. Women are abused, maimed, and killed for trying to exercise equal rights in situations where severe rights abuse and retaliation for attempts to exercise those rights are tolerated or the norm.

This is a serious issue. Acid throwing is a horrible practice that is widespread in certain parts of the world. But let's step back for a moment. On the one hand, holy shit women are being horribly abused! On the other hand, if we're going to use this as an example, could we focus for a moment on the bit about acid throwing?!

This is a woman. Who's been attacked with acid. For an unknown "infraction" presumably to do with modesty, but potentially because her husband felt like it. Or her neighbor. Or the psycho down the street. So yeah as examples go, this is a pretty strong and attention grabbing one. But as a goddamn human being, my first response isn't "women are being tortured." 

My first response is "oh my gods, people are being assaulted with acid! Someone get Chuck Norris a nuclear flamethrower and a C130, stat!"

Does it happen to men? No clue. Couldn't say, didn't find anything. But at the end of the day, that's a horror unto itself and should be treated as such, not thrown out as an umbrella argument for abuses of women. 

I mean, seriously. If we're going to have a talk about women's rights, let's talk about the abuses of women's rights and cover the ground that needs to be covered, damn it. This is part of the picture, but to claim it as a whole is both horrific in it's ethnocentric arrogance and degrading to reduce it to a shock tactic to make other rights concerns seem less pressing.

Women in cultures where this is acceptable can face grinding, horrific lives involving casual brutality, lack of education, and slavery. So should this issue be addressed? Hell yes. Should you slap it on a meme a shock tactic to represent the brutality against women that is rampant worldwide? Hell no.

On the right, we have the claim that this woman, Sandra Fluke, "believes there's a war on women in America because she can't get enough condoms to get her through law school."

Full stop. What?

The left side panel's generalizations are sneaky, hard to address, and basically the kind of argument sane (not sane, if you missed that bit) people won't touch with a ten-foot pole. Because calling it out can make you look like an ass. 

The right side, on the other hand, is rife with juicy bits to call out. First off, the bit about condoms to get through lawyer school implies: Sandra Fluke is only obtaining a law degree through sexual liaisons, Fluke is sexually promiscuous, the only reason a woman would want birth control must be to allow her to be sexually promiscuous, Fluke is an entitlement junkie that wants the government to sponsor a multi-year consequences free sex junket…I could go on. For pages. 

So we'll address these first because there's really only one response: you misogynistic, chauvinistic, morally reprehensible, ethically challenged boor. I personally know several young ladies that rely on birth control to regulate and temper their menstrual cycles to keep said cycles from a) rendering them immobile for half the month every month due to excruciating agony; or b) keep their cycles from straight up killing them or destroying their bodies.

And let's not beat around the bush, here, guys: ever been kicked in the nads?  Not a love tap. Full on assault to the babymakers. Saying it hurts is like saying oxygen is somewhat conducive to civilization, right?

Now imagine being kicked in your tenders twice a second. For a minimum of one week, up to two weeks, at a stretch. Starting roughly at age 10. While having people tell you that this is now a part of your normal day to day existence, and will occur monthly for the next twenty to thirty years. Oh, and there's a medication that can lessen the suffering, but God says it's a sin. Have a nice day!

Boys, if this was happening to men, there'd be automatic birth control dispensers  on every street corner. You'd hit the ATM, walk two steps, and hit the AHD, or "Automatic HALLE-FREAKIN-LUJAH Dispensary." 

And that's when considering it as a quality of life mechanism. As in, bestowing some, not adding to some that already exists. One woman I know locked herself in her room for a minimum of a week out of every month for close to a decade before she got the meds she needed. Because she couldn't walk for the pain.

Let's then turn to the consideration that this can kill women. How? Allow me to introduce endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. Read through those. See where it says that treatment involves "hormone regulation"? The most common form of non-invasive, affordable hormone regulation is birth control medication. And yes, there's shots and such. But guess what? Those shots are dangerous. Oh and, strangely, they have the exact same freaking effects as birth control. 

Because that's what hormones do, you nitwits. They regulate bodily functions. There's a reason endocrinologists get called in when shit gets real and other doctors are scratching their heads. It's because they're damn near voodoo magicians due to the sheer number of bodily systems hormones control, and the myriad of ways hormones interact. 

How can this kill women? Welp, looky there at treatment courses one and two: pain meds, which are addictive and only a palliative remedy, and surgery. Yeah. Options a, b, and c here are "use birth control," "pop pills that may hamper your ability to function and will only mask the massive damage being done to your body," and "go into surgery and allow invasive damage to be done to your body, which will in no way prevent the problem from reoccurring but may provide temporary relief."

No, really. Surgery is a temporary solution for these disorders. And there are always chances of death in surgery, due to complications resulting from surgery, or when multiple surgeries become necessary. 

Now, there is some element out there that will now commence to say: "Oh, well, for medical use, sure. But let's not be using it as birth control. And while we're at it, condoms have no medical purpose and are evil!"

We're hitting on core belief systems here. The belief that condoms are only necessary because sex happens outside monogamous, committed, long-term, married relationships is absolutely factual. 

My response here is that as soon as you find a way to eliminate STD's and enforce a 100% effective abstinence rate for all individuals that fall outside that very narrow range, I'll be sure to stop yelling at you for trying to ban condoms. People have sex. Sex causes both the spread of STD's and the spread of people. Condoms keep the one in check, and in the case of the latter it's between them and the Deity of their choice. Nope, that's it, point made, closing argument now, not carrying into it any further.

Going waaaay back to the part where I said there were two major generalizations on the right side of that meme: I should think the second would be obvious by now. The idea is to make it seem ridiculous to think that there's a war on women because ladies can't get Uncle Sam to spring for Trojans. 

Given the fact that this is a health issue, with pain, suffering, and illness in the balance and given that the most strongly affected individuals in this argument are women, I would have to say that's a pretty fine case for a freaking war on women!

But, as with the left side, it's a generalization. We have wage inequality, we have education inequality, we've got glass ceilings, we have discriminatory practices in hiring, we have large segments of half of our population as the most widespread targets of some of our most heinous crimes. All these things make up the war on women as a whole, and should be taken into consideration before dismissing an entire cultural battle on the grounds that a woman's right to reproductive healthcare conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Onwards to point three! Finally, a short point. Basically, this is what might be called "dead baby" humor. But without humor. So what happens is, at first and even second glance, it appears as though both women in the meme are being called out for mistakenly believing that their situations constitute a war on women. 

That one, I will admit, might just be me. But it took me a couple of seconds of blind fury to realize this was a "first world problems" meme, and that the woman on the left was not being decried for taking a jar of acid to the face. 

On that note, point four: the contention that direct violence must be present for human rights concern to be valid. 

Redux:

If someone robs you, that's a crime and they get punished. Even if no-one got "hurt" as in physically harmed, there's still "hurt" involved in being deprived of goods, services, and certain intangibles like security, privacy, and peace of mind. 

Leaving the worst of the health concerns aside, a loss of health care creates a loss of: services, health, quality of life, and the right to exercise personal beliefs in the pursuit of individual medical care. 

As to that last? At the risk of throwing a red herring here, a person who gives their power of attorney to someone else is giving them a tangible legal power. If it's a real enough right that you can legally stick it on paper and transfer it to someone else, then yes it's entirely possible to deprive someone of it. And declaring that one class of individuals does not have the choice to exercise that right in the area of healthcare that is exclusive to them is indeed discriminatory and a denial of rights. 

There aren't any truly victimless crimes, people. If you really can declare it to be a victimless crime, it might be time to go look at that legality again. Because if it ain't hurting anyone at all, why the hell are we wasting jail space on it?

But to get to the fifth and final point. It was covered a little in point four, but there's enough of a distinction to justify more extended ranty goodness.

Contending that because things are worse elsewhere, anyone who has a similar problem in a given situation is a whiny whiner who should STFU and GTFO.

This…pisses me off on so many levels. Ever tried to tell someone about a problem you're having? Sometimes the response is a strong slap, usually verbal, to the ego to remind you that your problem isn't and you really need to stop whining. That's fine, we all need reality checks occasionally.

Doing this is the other side of that. This is the verbal slap when the problem is real. This is that time you sit down to tell someone your problems or concerns, and they spend the next hour telling you how much worse their problems are. The point is to belittle your problems so they can justify not addressing them. In other words, they want you to shut up.

How do I know this? Welp, growing up this was a fairly common tactic for my extended family and certain parts of my immediate family. Problems were buried under a deluge of "well, look at how my life is going. How do you think I feel?"

It's a misdirection tactic, and a vicious one at that. Using it in this context? Wrong on every level, disrespectful to both women pictured, and arrogant as hell. Because in this case, the person using this tactic isn't even involved. Unless someone can show me proof that a woman built that image, I'm going to assume it was a guy. 

And then I'm going to want to kick him in the nads, because there's no reason in any sane universe that he can claim the "problems could be worse, STFU" argument and have it mean anything. Because a man would be making that claim for a total stranger undergoing travails and horrors he can't imagine in his darkest nightmares. 

To be clear: a woman could make the argument meaningfully. But it would still be a red herring, smoke and mirrors thrown out because smoke and mirrors. No one on earth can use this argument in this way and make a useful argument.

Bottom line, then: the argument for/against women's reproductive rights is not soluble by one guy sitting in an office chair writing an angry blog. But it certainly won't be solved by using horrible, sick, twisted memes to express points of view. 

So for the love of all that's holy: argue for your freaking side if you must. But don't use misleading dead baby humor to try and invalidate the other side of the argument entirely. It's sickening and only showcases ignorance and cruelty. 

You want to be taken on as making an actual argument? Then make one, damnit.

Or else shut up, sit down, and get your sexist ass out of the way so women can get to the healthcare that is their right as human beings. 

Something Pleasant This Way Comes

And now, for a bit of positivity. Which is rare for me when blogging, because there's so very much crap on this earth that has me reaching for the handgun I won't allow myself to carry. Y'all have no idea how often my right hand spends clenching and unclenching just over my right hip/thigh, where the holster would sit. No freaking idea.

But the other day, I was zipping along on my way to work, when I heard an NPR story that nearly made me pull over to applaud better. For some reason, I can't find the actual radio story, but here's the Associated Press version.

NEW YORK (AP) — Advertisements preaching religious tolerance and an end to bigotry are going up in Manhattan subway stations.

A court decision forced the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to accept ads implying that enemies of Israel are "savages" and urging subway riders to "support the civilized man" and "Defeat Jihad."

Now the MTA has sold additional space to groups that disagree with the message of those ads.

Ads by a rabbis' group were to go up Monday. They proclaim: "Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors."

The Christian group Sojourners is paying for ads, also going up Monday, that say: "Love your Muslim neighbors."

Critics say the anti-jihad ads equate all Muslims or Palestinians with savages. But ad sponsor Pamela Geller has insisted the term applies only to people who support violence against Israel.

Whooo! Now that's what I'm freaking talking about! That's how religion is supposed to work, damnit. A faith system is supposed to be about caring for your fellow man, supporting those in need, working for the betterment of mankind regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, etc,. That's the freaking point. No one gets left out in the cold.

I get so worn out reading about religion as an excuse for bigotry. I read stories every day about religion being used as an excuse to ignore women's rights; how religious leaders use spiritual threats and bullying to force their congregations into line politically.

Religion should not be an argument for anything but religion. Faith should not be a temporal weapon, wielded to force victory for your "side." And if only by saying "it's God's will" can you support your stance, then keep your stance away from my politicians. Because I have enough trouble knowing some of them are bigots without watching spiritual leaders climb up on the stump with them.

It's nice to see that some spiritual leaders actually understand what "spiritual leadership" means. So for you, awesome rabbis and Christian activists, here's 20 or so seconds of celebratory Tiny Dance:

You've freaking earned it. Keep up the good work!

Handbasket Riders On Rollercoaster Lifts

Today, there isn't anything pissing me off, for a wonder. Not that there aren't things happening that would normally piss me off. I'm simply too tired to give a fart. 

For those that don't know me personally, I'm a college student. This semester, I'm also a part time lab assistant. I'm a professional journalist working part time, a full time husband, and a volunteer board member for a local BDSM group. I get four to five hours of sleep a night, the homework is backing up, the housework is glaring at me like a hall monitor that's caught you without a pass, and we just finally got our fuzzy child home a month after moving into the new apartment. She's an old little girl, and takes a bit of caring for.

My sister-in-law is currently in legal proceedings that I will not discuss, beyond saying that she's in no trouble and I have to drive up to the Oklahoma panhandle at least once a month. This month, it'll be twice due to the comedy of errors.

As recently noted, I've lost one of my anchors in life. I'm switching degree tracks after I finish my associates this semester. My husband and I are adjusting to living on completely our own for the first time in our relationship, and while it's wonderful it is an adjustment.

What? A point? Right, I had one somewhere.

I have no clue what I'm doing anymore. I write to write because writing helps me think. I write erotic work to keep the creativity flowing, I write near dadaist fiction filled with non-sequiturs because that's how my mind works. I write news because I'm paid to. 

I haven't painted anything in over a year, haven't composed anything in two. I haven't been out in a dress in…dang, two, almost three years. That last is going to be rectified on Hallowe'en, but still. 

My degree is nearly useless in my field, and my field is changing so much I have to go get a different degree because I no longer recognize my first love. I don't want to be in this anymore, but the English track I'll be switching to feels…well, like change. I've been working towards this for three years, and at the end of this semester, not so much anymore.

I'm so tired of being tired. I'm tired of fighting all you fuckers that have stories because you're afraid I'm out to get you. I'm grateful to those who work with me, but more often than not news sources run screaming from the mere suggestion of an interview.

I'm tired of homework, tired of class work, tired of spending hours and hours of my week listening and taking notes, only to panic and fight to get everything in on deadline and keep my grades up. I love my professors, don't get me wrong, but it's been a while since I've taken a day just to have a day, talked to a professor for the joy of talking, without a need for information or one eye on the clock. 

For those that know me really well, let me reassure you: no this is not a lead-in to a hemp fandango, or anything similar. I got over that years ago, and I'd have led with that if it was the problem. 

No, I look forward and I see a future there. I see my husband, and any boyfriends we may have, and babies, and publishing at least a little of my work, and all my zany family (both chosen and blood) hanging out as best they can. 

I just haven't the foggiest idea how to get there anymore. But damn it if i'm not going to keep grinding on. 

Because my point here is this: I may not know where I'm going or how I'm going to get there. I may be headed down in a hand-basket at warp 6. But I can't stop moving. I'm exhausted, and feel like beaten bird crap, and my mind is filled with mothballs, but I'm still going.

I'm damn well not going to stop. Ever. Sleep when you're dead, and maybe not even then. So for anyone out there that's looking at me and going, "slow down. You're so tired, you need a break, you need to take care of yourself."

Nope, slowing down is never going to happen.

I may be tired, but I'm still going. Being tired just means I have to watch more carefully that I don't hit the guard rails on life's highway.

I've taken breaks, and nearly gone mad. For me, it's better to run in the dark and pray I get somewhere good than wait for the dawn, and try to make up lost time.

My body is a rental. I've got maybe 60-80 years in it, and then it's repossessed. I'm going to get as much mileage out of it as possible. I've maintain it as I go the best I can, but if it can't keep up, that's a design flaw. And since the only time I'll get to take  that up with the manufacturer is after the repossession, I'm not overly worried about it.

I'm tired. I'm exhausted. I'm not Superman. I have no idea where I'm going, but I'm making marvelous time getting there.

And I'm not stopping, slowing down, deviating, or flinching. I'll catch a nap if I have to and come back roaring. 

So for everyone in my life: this acceleration? The way I've been moving faster and faster, getting more and more exhausted? That's the ramp on the rollercoaster. We're going to go a hell of a lot faster before we're done. Try and keep up. 

In Childhood Dreamings Unimagined

You know that feeling you have as a small child? That once you grow up, the world will make sense. The you will find a rhyme and reason, a pattern to things. That whatever your childhood dumps on you, it'll be ok someday, because someday you'll be an adult. Gods, I hate that feeling now.

Why? Because every time I turn around, I realize a) I still have a bit of it, and b) the cosmos has an infinite number of way to beat me over the head with it. We're going to talk about my mother today, Herr Dr. Internets. I'll just stretch out on this virtual couch, shall I?

My mother is, as all persons are, complex. I can't make unqualified statements about her, except that I love her. She's a sometime saint and frequent bigot; a fundamentalist doomsday Roman Catholic, and a mother raising her children to survive an ongoing world; she's a true genius, but also a Renaissance woman who prefers the methods of pre-Industrial America.

This woman has both pulled me through and put me through more hell than I can describe in one place comfortably. On the one hand, when I pulled crazy bullshit as a teen, she was standing there to keep me from losing everything. On the other hand, she drove me back into the closet three times and raised me knowing I was gay but still punishing any behavior that smacked of gender nonconformity.

For the good she's done, I've spent years as an apologist for the "quirks" she has. I tell stories on my mom a lot and though I try to balance them between accomplishments and quirks, the end result is often "geez, dude, your mom is nuckin' futs."

So I explain. I clarify her point of view. I clarify the point of view of the church she belongs to. I have spent more time in theological debate over why my mother thinks the way she does than I have actually talking to my mother. And that's over a period of five years. Turns out, this was a huge mistake.

Yesterday I sat down with my mom to finish a discussion we'd started over the phone. Quick back story: she'd said, through text, she wanted me to come back to the church. I called her and explained what's going on with the Catholic church right now. Since mom was in the middle of dinner, we decided to postpone since I was visiting my grandmother (who lives with my parents) and we could have the talk in person. Which brings us to yesterday.

Coffee was made and poured, I hunted down an ashtray, and we began. I'm a very humanist thinker, given to logical trains of thought and clarity of wording. If you say it to me in a debate, damn well know that what you say and how you say it aren't the same thing to me. If you mean one thing, but say something that doesn't quite mean what you intended I will call you on it.

My mother is the exact opposite style of debate. She interrupts a lot to restate her positions, or to demand clarification. My mother is, to date, the only person on the planet that causes me to consistently want to scream "what do you mean, what do I mean?" as a matter of course. She is also the only person I know who can inject enough ambiguity into a statement to allow her to completely change its meaning anywhere from 2 minutes to 10 years later...and leave you wondering if that's what she meant all along.

Long story short, it's a headache talking about anything more complex than the weather, especially if it's something we both have strong views about.

Consequently, the discussion lasted four hours. I won't detail all the arguments and counterarguments made. Just know it would have gone on longer, but for one thing: we hit an ideological impasse.

After hearing the dozens of arguments and tricks of rhetoric and sophistry that allow her to make sweeping statements and then argue the opposite on a detail level without opposing said sweeping statement, I finally made the argument I've wanted to make for years.

"But Mom, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' hurts people. It's dehumanizing, it assumes an entire group of people will be willing to give up a major part of the pursuit of happiness to satisfy an abstract being for the promise of getting to be with that being! It assumes that you are willing to hurt yourself in the name of a being, and the reward is spending eternity in that being's presence!"

Well, she nods and starts to congratulate me for getting it, and explain why it's so. I interrupted her.

"But mom, can't you see that's a horrific argument? It only works because you use God to prop it up!"

Her response?

"Well, of course I can see that if God wasn't part of the equation, it would be a rotten argument. But He is part of the equation, so this is how it has to be."

Yes. My mother holds the same ideological fervor that powers fanatics. For her, the beliefs, the dogma, are simply extensions of faith and following them is an act of faith. There is no question in her mind that though it would be horrible to inflict this on someone without a God to back her up, her God does back her up. And because God says so, the horror simply disappears and is no longer part of the equation.

I am...sickened beyond any means to describe. I've defended her point of view for years, to my shame, without realizing how perfectly fundamental it was. Simply saying "it's God's will" makes a horror not only acceptable, but righteous.

No more. I will never willingly have this conversation with my mother again. I will neither broach it to her, nor bring up her point of view except tangentially to anyone else. I will not defend her point of view, though I will defend her right to hold it. And I will not even mention, after this point, that she holds these views excepting that it is necessary to explain the foundations of my own.

What has this to do with childish thinking? Well, I had always thought that when I grew up and learned more, I'd be able to have an intelligent dialogue with my mother that didn't end with "Because I said so" or "Because God." And come to find out, that's her entire operating principle. For everything. Ever.

Godsdamnit, I'm tired of being hit over the head with childhood naivete.

Confuse the Sinner

Every time I turn around these last couple of days, I'm running into something I need to write about. Gods, I'm seriously considering hiding under my sofa for a few days to catch a break from being pissed. Unfortunately, I have dust bunnies. And that would annoy me.

Today's anger comes in the form of a blog an old family friend posted in which he stated:

[T]o say that one's sexual orientation -- a characteristic that connotes action, in other words, one must choose to act upon one's sexual preference-- is the same in kind as the color of one's skin -- a thing that is unalterable by the act of the will -- cheapens the human understanding of sexuality and ethnicity.  

This is, so far, a fair argument. There really isn't a good comparison between sexual orientation and race beyond the fact that both are discriminated against. I'm gay, but I can butch up (somewhat) and no one will know. My skin does not declare me a part of a minority, nor am I so declared by any outward, immutable sign. 

Unfortunately, this argument is made in support of this one:

This line is meant to imply that the term "non-traditional family" should include gay couples. As one who comes from a "non-traditional family" -- black step-father and white mother -- I resent this comparison.  This clip equates race with sexual orientation.

The essential problem here is the confusion of what's actually being argued. In fact, the whole post reads like this. Towards the beginning, Foshee states that he finds several issues with the show that prompted his blog post, including women's rights concerns and the dehumanization of children. But he also states that, for brevity and clarity, he will confine his argument to the "race issue."

What follows is 282 words about how offended Foshee is at what he believes is an implication that gay couples inclusion under the heading "non-traditional family" equates sexual orientation with race. 

I am now, officially confused. Also slightly hurt in my turn, but mostly confused. 

First of all, let's break down the argument from the first premise: that inclusion of LGBT (specifically gay) couples under the heading of "non-traditional family" somehow makes a connection between the issues faced by gay couples and the issues faced by interracial couples, single parents, grandparents caretakers, adoptive parents, foster parents…

Hmm? Oh, no, he was only speaking of interracial couples. As he himself states, he is the child of a caucasian woman while his stepfather is African American. Problem is, he's using a very narrow definition of "non-traditional" to form this opinion. 

So, Merriam-Webster defines a tradition as "an inherited, established or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom.)"

H-uh. Ok. So, based on roughly 225 years of established "American" social custom, with a couple hundred years more of British social custom behind that, a traditional family consists of: a strong male head of house who earns the sole income for the family; a female companion that runs and governs the house in the male's absence, does not work outside the home, and should defer to her spouse; between one and 15 children; and any parents or siblings of either the male or female leaders of the house who may be invalid, aged, or single. The final caveat is that, with the exception of any children born out of wedlock, all members of the family should have roughly the same skin color.

On the other hand, good 'ol Merriam defines the prefix "non-" to mean "not, other than, reverse of, absence of <nontoxic> <nonlinear>."

So, a "non-traditional" family in the strictest definition would be any family that doesn't have the exact structure, or some slight variation of the structure, that is described above.

Frankly, I'd have to say that covers a lot of ground. There aren't a lot of families that fit that definition. It should be noted that, culturally, the definition has be flexed a bit to include families with working mothers and female heads of house as long as there is a heterosexual racially homogenous couple as the center of the household. But even with that expansion, there's way too many family structures to try and make any definitive statements about the category as a whole. 

So to say that two selections within that category are similar beyond their inclusion in that category because they are included in that category is nonsense. The only similarity that can be drawn from their simultaneous inclusion is that they are both non-traditional family structures. And definitively speaking, that is a correct statement.

Quick summation: there is no inherent comparison implied or made by the inclusion of gay couples in the "non-traditional" family group. Further, it is a matter of definition that such couples are inherently a part of that group.

Still with me then? Excellent. Let's take this to the next step. 

The basic argument of "race ≠ sexual orientation" is a sweet bit of rhetorical real estate. There isn't a good counterargument, the statement is true on a 1:1 value, and there's a lot of charged dialogue that can be generated from it. The arguments for it even make themselves, as evinced above.

Unfortunately, Foshee decides to take a flying leap to another topic entirely to make this simple point. 

Sexuality must be actualized by the will, and because of this, is one of the most humanized actions we are capable of doing.  In other animals, it is simply instinct.  Whether or not one is born with homosexual tendencies does not take from him the ability to choose to act upon his sexuality.  He can choose to reject it, accept it, flaunt it, suppress it... etc.  Choice defines this aspect of our lives.  I should know; I'm choosing to live a celibate life as a priest.

Ok. This is an old, old argument. Ever heard the old saw "love the sinner, hate the sin"? This is the grown up non-Aesop-y version of that. What we've got here is the acknowledgement that being gay may or may not (despite lots of evidence for 'not') be a choice. 

"But even if it isn't, having gay sex or relationships certainly is! So there! It is a choice to 'be' gay, because you can choose not to express it! HA!" says inner straw man.

For those that can't see me, I'm doing a Spock eyebrow right now at my inner straw man.

This is actually a fabulous argument, rhetorically speaking. Some people are going to throw things at me for this, but it's fabulous because, definitively speaking, it is in fact true. Any action requiring conscious deliberation and consent by the actor before action can occur is made by choice. 

But a person born of a certain ethnicity does not have the ability to choose anything about his race.  He simply is black, white, latino, asian... etc.  Sure, you can try to change things -- the way you dress, how you act, even cosmetic changes.  But you can't act upon your ethnicity.

I went on with the quote before completing this argument because it needs context to be clear. Again, I'm not entirely sure why the comparison is being drawn between these two very different groups based on an umbrella term that encompasses both, but we'll go on anyway.

While it is true that there is no element of choice in racial heritage, and it is true that any action taken is definitively a choice on some level, this is where the "choice of action" argument hits a snag.

This would be it. I give you the 2005 National School Climate Survey. 

Listen to how this sounds for a moment: "you're a good and wonderful person. But unless you find someone that you aren't attracted to that you can live with, you must spend your life alone and celibate, because any action you take that follows your inclinations is inherently sinful."

At any point during that, did you stop hearing "don't sin" and start hearing "you're broken, and must die alone if you want to avoid the wrath of God"?

I did. And to paraphrase Foshee: I should know; I'm a gay kid raised Catholic, who had to learn to support that argument in apologetics classes. 

And the best bit is, that's a summary. Since the statement is only very rarely made in total, it never sounds that bad to the person saying it. And on the off chance that a kid puts all the pieces together and then has the guts to ask if that is that actual total statement? 

Cue an hour long explanation of why God loves us enough to give us what is essentially a near free ticket to heaven, as long as we spend life without intimate companionship. And intimate can definitely mean relationship here. Sure it's possible that two gay guys might live together, love each other, and never have sex. But there's this fun little clause known as "the avoidance of near temptation." Basically, it means "don't get in situation that might tempt you to sin." 

Which in turn means the "celibate companion" option is either never brought up, or decried if it is.

What all this boils down to is that there is no mercy shown by the "choice of action" argument. It's a way of intentionally or unintentionally cloaking the same argument of "gays are TEH EVULZ" in ways that make it sound somewhat palatable at first glance.

By way of my own out-of context comparison though, I feel the need to make a point of my own as a conclusion to this mess. Foshee says in his  closing line:

Sure, you can try to change things -- the way you dress, how you act, even cosmetic changes.  But you can't act upon your ethnicity.

Fair warning: what follows is a nasty, ugly argument made for the purposes of rhetorical comparison, and only for those purposes. 

Technically speaking, and by the very definition Foshee uses to allow for gay people to be human while still demonizing any homosexual action taken, yes you can. After all, if there is a "choice of action" in acting homosexual, there is an equal "choice of action" in acting black or Latino, or Chinese. 

No, the color of the skin can't be changed. Throughout history, however, there have been horrific attempts to "whitewash" cultures and languages. By the definition of "choice of action" as used by Foshee, all ethnic individuals that embrace their cultural heritage are "acting on the choice" to be who they are. The fact that it can't be hidden is immaterial. Any such individual could "choose" to abandon their heritage and culture, and attempt to be "as white as possible."  

End Comparison. You were warned.

But if I was to seriously suggest that the best way for any ethnic minority to avoid discrimination was to "whiten up"? I'd be lynched, and rightly so.

Now please…explain to me the difference between discrimination and hate based on the color of skin, and the "whitewash" solution — and discrimination and hate based on who one loves, and the "don't act gay" solution?

A Pageant Of Arrogance and Hate

Once upon a time, in the land of Naïvète, I believed trolls existed only in their purest form on the Intarwebz. Never, ever have I been so wrong. Nor have I ever been so frustrated at being wrong.

Lets get some background, shall we?

There is this group in Oklahoma (and a few other places, though I don’t know if the various groups are affiliated) called the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ. Every so often, you’ll be out driving in OKC and run across this fairly large group of African American guys in black fatigues and combat boots. Over this, they wear white surplices (clerical garb, ok?) and stoles of various colors. Also, funny hats. But hats are awesome, and should never be mocked, even if they make me go “huh?”

If there’s more than four of them, they’ll have a big sandwich board with a Star of David on it, and contact info and so on for their church and what they believe, etc,.

I don’t listen to them. For the most part, it’s a question of convenience. They set up by roadways and gas stations, and there’s really no good place to park and listen. Also, the places they can be found are places that I’m only likely to be while on my way to somewhere else in a hurry.

All this giving you a picture in your head? Good. Last fact, before we move on: there are no winners in this blog. The Israelite Church is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group of the Black Separatist variety. Immensely long story short (and made slightly inaccurate in the shortening) black separatists want segregation and/or all individuals of African descent to go back to Africa. Don’t ask why, I don’t know, nor do I particularly care to speculate. If I ever meet one, I’ll ask.

So, there is troll numbah one: a group preaching a return to racial segregation in the name of a god.

Now, I pull up for gas with my husband at a 7-11 and they’re out on the corner yelling into the wind (literally) and doing their thing. Got no clue what message they’re preaching, cause I can’t hear them, but there’s people honking, and taking pictures and video. Any spectacle in Oklahoma is a major win, even if it’s bigoted crap. Often, especially if it’s bigoted crap. So they’ve got an audience.

Enter troll numbah two in the form of a dumpy little woman. As I walk into the station to pay for my gas, I see this little fat lady waving her purse and shouting about Jesus. This being Oklahoma, people shouting about Jesus are not uncommon, and I ignored her as well.

By the time I get out of the station, this little lady is standing in front of the Israelite Church congregation, screaming at the top of her lungs to drown them out. Not even a coherent argument, but just over and over “He died for us all!”

I have never seen such a ludicrous display. Ever.

On the one hand, we have a group of individuals shrouding bigotry and separatism in the trappings of religion. I’ve noted before that spirituality is important to me; taking a gift of faith and perverting it to spread hate or fear is one of the few things on this earth that truly disgusts me.

But standing in front of them, on the other hand is a woman who is fairly clearly attempting to represent a faith system that is one of the most dominant in the world. And she is representing it by screaming at the top of her lungs, seeking to invalidate an argument simply by repeating one of her articles of faith.

For those not into theology, an article of faith is defined as an precept or belief that is believed not because it is supported by rational validation, but because one has faith that it is true.  In other words, this woman is trying to disprove their argument by repeatedly screaming a “fact” that is only true to her because she believes it is!

The worst bit? She won.

Now this isn’t the worst bit because I agree with black separatism; nor is it the worst because I dislike Christianity. This is the worst bit because she demonstrated the kind of intolerance that gives fuel to the fires of discrimination, bigotry and racism. Her victory made the Israelite Church’s point for them. And both more clearly and more sharply than any hours of preaching could ever have accomplished.

And, worst of the worst, it proved to watcher’s that there’s no need for a rational debate. There’s no need for accord or compromise. If you hold a majority belief, you can simply scream at a minority until they shut up and go away. Again, I do not condone their belief, but it was their gods-given right to stand on that corner and preach whatever they wanted short of incitement to violence. And this one woman shut them down by screaming to the point of near incoherence, repeating a belief.

Is this it? Is this how we solve debates in our country now? Mud–slinging and name calling, and screaming to drown out opposing views until the loudest voice stands alone?

Watching that display, I have never been so ashamed to call myself human, and even more to call myself American. Because I saw in that moment every stereotype that I’ve heard about our “great” nation encapsulated perfectly. I saw the bombastic voice, unheeding and uncaring to have it’s closed mind opened. I saw hate preached on a corner, for the sake of hate. I saw a crowd of people watching, laughing like maniacs and recording this for the value of entertainment, to show their friends and laugh at the idiots.

I saw a pageant in miniature of all the things the world must see in us. And I saw, to my shame, that they’ve all got more than a grain of truth.

All The News You Want To Hear

As I was driving into work today, I listened to NPR to get my daily dose of whatever horrors mankind can come up with, in sprightly tones and sound bites. Given that I live in America and it’s a an election year, the horrors of war and death were largely set aside to make room for the horrors of politics.

This is where the rant kicks off. I am rapidly losing all respect for professional American news media outlets. Yups, the journalist is biting the hand that feeds!

See, throughout the various chats with pundits, commentators, pollsters, and the like, no one mentioned any names but those of the candidates for the big parties. Yes, there are others, for those that wondered why I made that distinction. And there have been other candidates this whole time. Yet the only ones getting press have been the Republicans and Obama. 

Heck there’s an independent libertarian candidate right now. Ever heard of Gary Johnson? Unless you liked him already, probably not. As far as the world is concerned, the race is between the Republicans and Democrats courtesy of their flag bearers. 

Why? Cause the media says so, dangit. “That Johnson dude hasn’t got the chances of paper cup in a hurricane, so why bother covering him?”

And so no one learns he exists. 

The shift in the way news is reported has been happening for years. Thirty, even twenty years ago, news was delivered dispassionately by men and women whose sole job was to tell the friggin’ facts to people. There’s always been bias, depending on word choices and which stories made it to the air, but the facts were still fairly intelligible. 

Nowadays, that’s not so much the case. We have what’s called “advocacy journalism” which basically means “pick a side.” The facts are still the basis of news, but the structure and content of news is now determined by network or publisher views, with a goal of informing people of the facts, while also informing them of how the reporter or anchor feels about the facts. 

Don’t believe me? Go, right now, and find a story that both Fox and NBC covered. Compare and contrast, a là college Comp I. I friggin’ dare you.

Now, for fun, stop and think of this: Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Grace, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert are viable news sources. Think on that for a second. Every person on that list hosts a show where the biases are out in the open. 

Tuning into their shows means you get something that looks and sounds like news, and often actually is news. And you don’t have to worry about being mislead, because they’re absolutely clear on the fact that they’re either strongly biased for their own side, or making fun of the other side. 

(Except maybe Colbert. Apparently, he falls victim to Poe’s Law fairly regularly.)

But what’s worse is that, while advocacy journalism can be handled by moderating your news sources (using several at a time to get a whole picture), there’s a strong shift back towards sensationalist news in response to the growing prevalence of non-professional “citizen journalism” through “new media.” Basically, the interwebs.

For anyone that hasn’t taken a mass comm class yet, sensationalism is the reporting style that flourished during the Hearst-Pulitzer publishing wars of the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. The whole point of sensationalism is to sell the product, be it a paper, web subscription, or XM radio station. It means that instead of reporting what is important, or reporting it with absolute factualism, viewers only get the news they’re willing to watch. And they get it in a way that overdramatizes it, making it more palatable to an entertainment driven culture. 

Why is this bad? Well, the bottom line here is that as the news shifts to become more and more yellow, the facts become less and less important. After all, to you do your best to be absolutely factual when you’re telling your friends or family a story, or about your day? 

Of course not. Because your goal is to rant, or entertain. Which is also, more and more, the point of the “news.”

So get out there and keep your ears to the ground. But just make sure you get a lot of different voices telling you the news, cause any one of them could be just telling you a bedtime story to sell advertising, instead of a news story to keep you informed.