Dear Justin Timberlake

This post contains discussion of classism, transphobia, mockery of homeless people, mockery of people who appear to be mentally ill and/or intoxicated and/or addicted, and gross amounts of thoughtless privilege on display.  It also contains references to rape culture.

Dear Justin Timberlake,

Congratulations on your marriage.  I hope for your happiness.

I'm about a month late on this topic, because I've been debating with myself over whether or not to speak up.  Back in October, Liss pointed readers to an article about this:

The blind was all about the “wedding gift” some friends made for a recently married couple. The “gift” was a “funny” video in which homeless people talked on camera about how they were super-sad to miss the celebrity couple’s big, fancy wedding. Because the “joke” is that homeless people are SO funny, what with their homelessness and not knowing where their next meal will come from, and the joke is that of course the celebrity couple would invite some homeless people to their wedding.

Terrible.  That is cruel and mean-spirited and absolutely disgusting.

As word of the video spread, you responded in an open letter on your website.

Let's take a read.

As it pertains to this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery:

Not a mockery?  I don't understand what it was, then.  How does the video work as a joke if it isn't mocking the people onscreen?  What's the joke?

My friends are good people.

Good people make fun of those in need?

Your friends may be more complex than you realize.  Perhaps this gets to the nature of what "goodness" is and how we exhibit it.  If you only ever see Bob act like a decent guy, you think of Bob as a decent guy.  Then you find out that Bob has done some shitty, cruel things.  You can either go with the response of, "Wow, there are aspects of Bob's personality and character that I never knew!  Let me reevaluate how well I know this guy!"  Or you can go with the response of, "But the Bob I know donates money to AIDS research!  He's a wonderful person!  Donating money is a good thing, so Bob is a good person, and I allow for no complexities in my fellow human beings!"

You'll see this sort of response a lot when someone's being accused of being a rapist or murderer.  "Not Bob!  Impossible!  Bob pets dogs!"  "Bob?!  No way!  Bob's always nice to me!"  This is how a lot of sexual predators get by in life.  They do good things in public and horrible things in private, and when the horrible stuff comes to light, everyone says, "But he's always been so great to my kids!" or "But he volunteers for the church!" and he continues on his merry, awful way and his victims are called liars.  That's why the blanket statement of "he's a good person" really, really needs to be discarded as a defense.

Your friends may be funny, helpful, dog-petters around you.  That does not make them good people.  That makes them friendly around Justin Timberlake.  They're also (at least one of them) completely shitty and cruel around homeless people.  In my book, that's incompatible with the label "good people."

This was clearly a lapse in judgment which I'm sure no one who is reading this is exempt from.

Yes, we're all given to lapses in judgment from time to time.  I often regret doing or saying (or not doing, not saying) something.  We fuck up, we make mistakes, we're human.  But coming up with the video idea, getting a camera and going out to interview the people featured, conducting the interviews, editing the video and adding a soundtrack, and then sharing the video, involves a lot of time and effort.  It involves a certain amount of time in consideration of the video and its various aspects.  Deciding that I can speed up and get through a traffic light in time, only to cause an accident, is a lapse in judgment.  What's under discussion here is much more serious.

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive.

No?  How so?  What do you think that it was, then?  The point was to mock homeless people in need of help.  It's a joke, but not mockery and not insensitive?  Was it sensitive, then?  Sensitive to their needs?  Sensitive to their plight?  Sensitive to their need to be treated with dignity and respect?

More so, I think it was made as a joke on me not having that many friends attending my own wedding (which IS kind of funny if you think about it).

Up until this point, I find it difficult to understand precisely what you think is going on.  Here is where communication breaks down entirely and I wonder if you think that we don't know who you are.

Hi.  You're Justin Timberlake.

People love you wherever you go.  People collaborate with you on a song or work with you on a set and immediately cannot get over how awesome you are.  You seem to have some ridiculous amount of personal charm which turns other Hollywood professionals into starry-eyed fans.  It happens in every corner of the entertainment industry you brush up against.  It has happened throughout your career.

You have no trouble making friends.

With that said, maybe you don't consider those people to be "friends."  Maybe you appreciate the interest and intentions of all of those other people, but when you think of true friendship, you think of someone who's been there for you, someone you can open up to, someone you've really been through something with.

The other members of *NSYNC, perhaps?  No, not them; you didn't invite any of them to your wedding.

All right, maybe your definition of friendship is something more intense, something more personal.  Your true friends are the people you've really connected with, really bonded with, people who know you inside and out.  The only people you'd consider inviting to your wedding are members of an elite inner circle, people who know you as no one else ever can.

Those people know you very, very well, then, I'd imagine.

They'd know what you like.  They'd know your sense of humor.  They'd know what makes you laugh and what crosses the line.

And they made this video for your special day.

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

Its intention was to make you laugh.  Its intention was to be funny.  Its intention was to entertain with some good-times humor.  The intention was to mock poor people, homeless people, people who need help.  Because homeless people, people with addictions, people with mental illnesses, and trans people are funny.  At least, it's hilarious to think of them being so deluded as to consider themselves welcome in your sphere.  Hilarious to think of them being welcome at your wedding or associated with you.  Hilarious to think of them even knowing you!  So, so funny.  As if you would ever know someone like that!  As if, wait.  As I recall, Chris Kirkpatrick lived out of his car for a while.  Wait, that can't be right!  That would make it seem as if homeless people are actual people, like anyone else.  Almost like you!  With things in common with you!  Aw, now the joke's ruined.

Once again, in the world that we live in where everyone thinks that they know everything, I want to be very clear... I am NOT defending the video. I agree with the overall consensus.

For someone who's being "very clear," you're not being entirely clear.  You agree with the overall consensus?  Would you care to explain what you believe the overall consensus to be?  So far, you've described the video as:

something that has even shed any kind of dark light on what was and will always be one of the most special weeks of my life.

this silly, unsavory video that was made as a joke and not in any way in mockery 

a lapse in judgment 

I don't believe it was made to be insensitive. More so, I think it was made as a joke on me 

I think we can all agree that it was distasteful, even though that was not its intention.

It's a silly, unsavory joke.  In poor taste, accidentally.  Unintentionally insensitive.  Not a mockery.

A well-intentioned joke that accidentally turned out to be in poor taste.  If it mocks anyone, it mocks you, really.  Poor, friendless Justin Timberlake, the real victim in all of this.  How cruel of us to misunderstand.

I want to say that, on behalf of my friends, family, and associative knuckleheads

Aw, those knuckleheads.  Always goofing around, mocking homeless trans people!

I am deeply sorry to anyone who was offended by the video.

There we go!  "I am deeply sorry."  It only took you 12 paragraphs to get there!

Sorry to anyone who was offended, you say?  What about an apology to the people in the video?  To the specific people taken advantage of for your crowds' amusement?  To the general kinds of people mocked?  Any apologies for them?  Anything to say to the trans community?  To people in poverty, people in need, people on the streets?

Again, it was something that I was not made aware of.

You seem to be aware of it now.  When were you made aware of it?  I guess that you were too busy to join in the wedding festivities, so when it was shown to everyone else, you weren't around?  I mean, according to the linked article, "Mr. Huchel made [the] video to be used and exhibited privately at Justin Timberlake’s wedding as a private joke without Mr. Timberlake’s knowledge," but I can't tell if the "without Mr. Timberlake's knowledge" pertains to the "made" or the "used and exhibited."  Either way, it seems odd that he'd go to that much work to make the video without ever showing it to you.  It's like a wedding gift for everyone at the wedding but the actual couple.  It makes me wonder what sort of dynamic is at play here, that a friend of yours would make a video for your wedding that he thought your wedding party would find hilarious but wasn't worth showing to you.  Odd.

But, I do understand the reaction and, by association, I am holding myself accountable.

How?  In what way?  What does this mean?  What's happening here?  You're going to give yourself a stern talking-to?  You're going to take time out for somber reflection on your choice of friends?  You're going to donate to homeless shelters?  You're going to educate yourself on poverty and addiction?  You're going to say to yourself, "Justin Timberlake, I hold you responsible for this silly, well-intentioned joke which accidentally turned out to be in poor taste!" and then go golfing?

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.

It's your website.  You have the opportunity to post anything you want to post on it.

It really is a blessing to be able to speak directly to my true fans so that you can know exactly where I stand.

True fans?  You and I have a long, long talk coming about how you treat your fans, and I probably shouldn't get into that here, but calling on your "true fans" only serves as a "prove it to me" statement.  You're seeking to differentiate "true fans" from the other fans, as if your true fans will be loyal and stand by your side and accept whatever you say without question, while anyone who dares to read your "apology" and call bullshit can't possibly be a true fan.  That is a lousy thing to do to your fans.  They're allowed to love and support you and still think that this is a shitty moment and a terrible apology.

You can bet your ass that I'm having my friend do at least 100 hours of community service... Boom.

Wait, I thought that you were holding yourself accountable.  Should I expect to see you out there doing 100 hours of community service, too?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Apathetic People

Dear Apathetic People,

I keep coming across the same mentality in different spheres of life.  People will converse, someone will posit an opinion, and you'll respond with something along the lines of, "Why do you care?  It doesn't affect you in any way."

The more I see you say that, the more disgusted I become, and the more I wonder if other people will pick up on your ideas.  Let's clear it all up now before it spreads.

Here's why you're wrong: We don't live in a void.  No man is an island.  It takes a village.  I can throw overused phrases at you all day, and they'll continue to be true.  I don't live in my own private society of one, and neither do you.  What we do affects each other, sometimes in huge and devastating ways, sometimes in minor and barely perceptible ways.

How other people live affects me.  Their quality of life, their happiness, their health and success and lack thereof, affect me.  Maybe not directly, in that if my neighbor stubs his toe my feet continue to feel just fine.  But let's say that his house burns down.  How does this affect me?

• If the fire spreads, my house might suddenly be on fire, too.
• I now live next to a charred ruin.  It's both an eyesore and a reminder of the ever-present threat of tragedy and loss.
• Maybe he'll rebuild.  If so, I'll live next door to a construction site.  That means loud noises at any hour of the day, trucks and other vehicles in my normal route of navigation, debris, etc.
• Maybe someone else will move in next door.  New neighbors: are they pleasant to live near?  Maybe we'll become friends.  Maybe we'll barely speak to each other.  Maybe they'll throw loud parties or play basketball at two in the morning or let their dog defecate on my lawn.

All of that ignores the basic human component.  It goes something like this: My neighbor's house burns down.  My neighbor is a fellow human being who's just suffered a great loss.  He now has a personal tragedy to deal with and recover from.  That touches me because I possess empathy.  Maybe I'll reach out to him directly and offer him material support in the form of money or a place to stay.  Maybe I'll offer him emotional support and advice.  Maybe I'll just worry about him and wish him well.  Maybe I'll find out what caused the fire and double-check my own habits to prevent his fate from befalling me.

I don't have to be on fire, myself, to care that someone else is on fire.

I care about the happiness of people around me.  I care about the quality of life of people around me.  Even the people I don't know.  We all bump into each other, at work or around town or on-line.  We're all members of intersecting communities.  If I hear that someone's going around spitting on left-handed people, I don't shrug it off with a careless, "I'm not right-handed, it doesn't affect me, whatever."  The fact remains (in this scenario, although I hope not in actuality) that someone's going around spitting on people.  That's ridiculous and unwarranted and needs to stop.  Why would I not have an opinion on it?  Why would I not speak up about it?  Why would I not commiserate with the people even more directly affected by it than I am?

"I don't care because it doesn't affect me in any way" is bullshit, because it does affect you in some way, even a very minor, many degrees removed way.

"I don't care because it doesn't affect me" also suggests a narcissistic, self-absorbed, antisocial mentality.  Your self-interested lack of empathy is disgusting.  Discouraging other people from caring is even worse and somewhat contradictory.  Why do you care if they care?

Even if you lack empathy, you must understand that what other people do affects you.  It makes sense on a larger scale.  The economy, for instance.  The environment.  What other people do all around you has an impact on your life.  If you live in the USA's culture of violence, you may be aware that there have been a number of public shootings over the last few weeks.  Other people may affect you whether you see it coming or not.  If you understand it on a larger scale, try to see that it works on a smaller scale, too.  Even in minor ways.  When some members of a community are scared or angry or confused or anything else, it affects other members of the community.  Since you don't live on a solitary island within a void, you're a member of a community.  You're a member of a society.  What other people do affects you.  What you do affects them.  One way or another.

I want to be a member of a vibrant, healthy society.  I want the communities I'm involved in to flourish.  I want the people around me to be happy.  Your self-absorbed, me-first, apathetic mentality is fucking that up.  Please reconsider.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Everyone

For reference.

Dear Everyone,

Pondering the utter foolishness of the marketing for This Is 40, I thought to myself, "Yes, yes, if there is anyone with enough insight and genius to touch on life in such a way as to draw out those strains of the universal human experience, it's certainly Judd Apatow."

But what is the universal human experience?

To experience some sort of midlife crisis, to struggle against maturity, to refuse to grow up, to live with childlike wonder and innocence even into adulthood, to rebel against aging?  No.  Those things happen, and they may even be common, but they're not universal.  There are many people who mature early in life, who don't have the luxury of gazing at the world with irreverence or innocence.  There are many people who hit the milestones of aging without any sort of trepidation or rebellion at all.

To love someone and be loved, in the romantic sense?  No.  Not everyone falls in love.  Not everyone is loved.

To know a mother's love?  No.  Not everyone's mother is loving.  Not every child is wanted or loved.  Some people know their mother only distantly or through negative experiences.  Some people grow up with no mother at all.

To struggle and rise above challenges?  I don't know, some people have it pretty easy.  Some people have it incredibly hard.  Not everyone struggles.  Some people do nothing but struggle and never really win.  We'd have to do a lot of talking about what it means to "triumph" for me to believe in this one.

To wonder about what it all means, what the purpose of life is, what's the nature of God, and so on?  No.  I think that a lot of people go on about their business without ever taking the time to ponder those things.

I could go on, but I'm starting to see a pattern.  The "universal human experiences" I'm familiar with all make interesting novels and inspiring movies, but they're just stories we like to tell ourselves.  They're just narratives.  They may be popular enough to strike a chord with a lot of people, but they're not universal.

It's nice, isn't it, to think that we'll all find romantic love, that we can all overcome challenges, that everyone has a loving mother?  What pleasant little stories we tell ourselves.

But they're not true.  In fact, they may be harmful.  Consider the "loving mother" one.  If the narrative tells us that everyone has a loving mother, then every mother must be loving.  If your mother doesn't love you, is something wrong with you?  Is the fault yours?  Should you have been different from birth?  If you become pregnant and don't immediately, instinctively fall in love with the potential developing inside you, is something wrong with you?  Are you unnatural?  Broken?  What if you don't want to be pregnant?  What if you aren't sure about having a kid?  What if you have a baby and then don't adore it beyond reason?  What if you don't instinctively recognize your baby in a group of infants, or don't instinctively know when something's wrong with your child, or don't instinctively know everything about breastfeeding?  Motherhood is natural!  It's instinctive!  Everyone has a loving mother; what's wrong with you for not providing your child with one?

The narratives discourage people from seeking help.  If I can't overcome every challenge in life through my own determined ingenuity, I'm failing.  If I'm an uncertain mother, I'm unnatural.  Something's wrong with me; the fault is mine.

The narratives also discourage us from offering help.  People with disabilities shouldn't need accommodations, right?  They can overcome any obstacle through their own courage and uniqueness!  Don't you watch movies and Very Special Episodes?  Struggling families don't need help, not really.  A mother's love will fix everything!  Anyone who can't rear three children and keep a clean house and hold down two jobs and earn a degree in her spare time must not really love her kids, I guess.

We don't all get to have a midlife crisis.  Some of us die too soon.  Some of us grow up too early.  Some of us don't have the luxury of acting out immaturely.  If the story in This Is 40 truly is everyone's story, that must be one hell of an inclusive, diverse movie.  Also very long.

To look at your own life, or one kind of life, and assume that everyone else has the same experiences suggests that you lead a very insulated life.  I don't live in a world where everyone around me lives the same way that I do.  We don't have the same experiences or laugh at the same jokes or see the world from the same perspective.  There are people I struggle to identify with at all.

If you think that you can use Pete and Debbie from Knocked Up to tell the universal human experience over the length of a major motion picture, you probably think that "everyone" is just like them/you, which suggests that you move in a very small circle, have a limited imagination, lack empathy, and suffer from a major case of unexamined privilege.  Whereas I'm beginning to think that we should stop pushing the notion of a universal human experience at all, and begin telling a wide variety of people's stories so that we can stop assuming that everyone is just like us and start solving the problems of real human beings instead of cardboard narrative people.

But most of us know that not everyone is just like us, don't we?  The moment you realize that you don't fit tidily into the narrative, the moment you realize that you don't see anyone like you anywhere on TV, the moment you finish one last book without coming across a character reflecting your lived experience, you understand.

Here's to broadening the narrative, to expanding the screen, to including everyone's story.  Thank you to all of you who've shared your experiences and told your tales.  Every time you speak, the people around you learn more about this diverse human experience.  I hope that Judd Apatow learns more, too.  His movies can only be better for it.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Pat Robertson

Dear Pat Robertson,

Recently, you said some pretty ridiculous things about a terrorist act.  Violent tragedies which expose some of the nastiest problems in our national culture are not the best place to make ridiculous statements, so I hope that you'll ponder your mistakes and strive to speak more appropriately in the future.

Let's look at some of the bullshit you went with this time:

...televangelist Pat Robertson came to the conclusion that Sunday morning’s Sikh temple massacre in Oak Creek, Wisc., was ultimately because “atheists hate God.”

“What is it?” Robertson wondered aloud. “Is it satanic? Is it some spiritual thing?”

“People who are atheists, they hate God, they hate the expression of God,” he continued. “And they are angry with the world, angry with themselves, angry with society and they take it out on innocent people who are worshipping God.”

First, atheists don't hate God.  Atheists don't believe in God.  Atheism is defined by a lack of belief.  There is no deity for them to hate.  I don't hate the tooth fairy; there is no tooth fairy.  I don't hate the Easter bunny; there is no Easter bunny.  I don't hate Zeus.  There is no Zeus.  There's nothing for me to hate.

Do atheists hate Christians?  I'm sure that some of them do.  And a lot of Christians have given them plenty of good reason for it.  Frankly, you're not exactly helping.

Why, precisely, do you think that atheists hating God is at all related to Satan?  Are you trying to say that atheists worship and obey Satan?  You do understand, I hope, that since atheists are defined by their lack of belief, they don't believe in Satan, either?  They don't worship Satan.  If they did, they wouldn't be atheists.  Maybe you're implying that they're innocently and helplessly being used by Satan in some sort of anti-Christian plot?  Okay, that's possible; I have no idea what Satan's up to these days.  But that wouldn't be their fault, it would be Satan's fault; they'd just be pawns in some merciless game.

Here's the problem with that theory, though: it removes human agency.  It erases the motives of the actual killer.  It ignores all of the cultural and systemic problems which played into what happened.  It permits us as a nation to wash our hands of the entire issue and pretend that nothing could've been done to prevent the tragedy.  It discourages us from taking steps to prevent it from happening again.

Atheists are not angry.  No angrier than anyone else, I'd imagine.  Do you have independent and verifiable research?  If there are any scientific results which point to atheists being significantly unhappy, can you prove that it's not because they live in a nation filled with Christian supremacy and nationally known figures like you who blame them for terrorist acts?  If people pointed the finger at me every time a national tragedy (whether natural or otherwise) occurred, I'd be pretty testy, too.

Any more words of wisdom for us?

“Whether it’s a Sikh temple, or a Baptist church, or a Catholic church, or a Muslim mosque — whatever it is — I just abhor this kind of violence, and it’s the the kind of thing that we should do something about,” he said. “But what do you do? Well, you talk about the love of God and hope it has some impact,” the TV preacher recommended.

Those things are not equal.  Not in this country.  Not in a culture where Christianity reigns.  It's appalling, disgusting, abhorrent, that in commenting on a terrorist act which specifically targeted a minority religion and a temple full of people of color you're acting as if it were just the same as if a white Baptist church had been attacked.

When an abortion clinic is bombed, do you compare it to Johns Hopkins being bombed and shake your head in regret that anti-healthcare people are at it again?  You are deliberately misrepresenting what has happened.  This is not a case where any old generic house of worship was attacked and any old congregants were killed.  In a majority Christian nation, a non-Christian religion was targeted.  In a racist nation, people of color were targeted.  This is not about atheism, but you got one thing right: this is about hatred.  And fear.  And the lies we tell about Christianity being under assault.  And the lies we tell about white men being in more danger than anyone else; being in danger from everyone else.

What is particularly striking about Robertson’s conclusion is that, as of yet, there has been no evidence that the alleged gunman Wade Michael Page was an atheist. In fact, neo-Nazism and white supremacy movements often encompass a form of Christianity that emphasizes racial purity and nationalism.

 Got that?  "A form of Christianity that emphasizes racial purity and nationalism."

Christianity emphasizing racial purity and nationalism.

Neo-Nazi.  White power.  Christianity.

You blame atheists as if nonbelievers are the problem.  You blame Satan as if all-powerful figures are at work and we're helpless to do anything about it.  You skew a terrorist act as if Christians are under attack.  As if Christians aren't often the terrorists themselves.

The narrative that Christianity is under attack is part of the problem.  Pointing the finger at anyone else, everyone else, from people who aren't like you to mythical figures, isn't going to solve the problem.  I'd like to solve the problem.  I hope that someday soon you do, too, because your voice reaches more ears than mine, and it's going to take a lot of us to make a difference.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Consumers

Dear Consumers,

While many people are choosing to boycott Chick-fil-A and object to their proud homophobia, and others are choosing to celebrate Chick-fil-A in their own nasty ways, some of you are making apathetic comments.  You seem to think that we shouldn't care, that it doesn't matter where we eat, that it doesn't matter what a fast food company owner thinks politically.

If I want to buy a new shirt, maybe there are only three stores in town.  Store X sells great-looking shirts and makes it a point to hire only part-time employees so it won't have to extend benefits.  Store Y sells shirts that always fit me really well and dyes its clothing with some pigment found in rocks dug up by abused children in a foreign country.  Store Z sells shirts which aren't as fashionable but treats its employees fairly well.

The money I spend on that shirt helps to keep that store open and fund those business practices.

Other people will see me in that shirt, so I'm providing advertising for its company.

Other people will see my car in the parking lot and will see me in the store, so my very presence demonstrates to others that this is a good place to shop.  If they had qualms about the company's business practices, they can assuage their guilt by noticing that they're not alone there; other people shop there, too, so it must not be all that bad.

You're voting with your wallet.  When you spend money with someone, you're saying, "Hey, I support what you're doing here."  You're supporting the product and the company behind it.

Music fans will make it a point to go out and buy a favorite musician's album as opposed to downloading it illegally because they understand that sales make a difference.  When gamers don't like a new feature of World of Warcraft, they cancel their subscriptions in protest.  When a big national chain comes into town, some people boycott it and deliberately choose to spend their money with small, local stores to keep those local owners in business.

Why does it matter that the people behind Chick-fil-A are homophobic?  For one, corporate culture.  If the people at the top are homophobic, they're likely to be homophobic in their hiring practices, in their corporate policies, and so on.  For another, they actively support homophobic organizations.  They've donated millions of dollars to anti-equality groups.  They're fighting against equal rights for all citizens, and you're cheerfully supporting them because you think their chicken is tasty?

Civil rights < chicken?

Maybe civil rights < pizza for you, too.  Papa John himself donates millions to Republican campaigns and hosted an exclusive fundraiser for Mitt Romney.  Maybe you're a Romney-loving Republican, too.  Or maybe you just like that little tub of sauce you get in the pizza box.

Sometimes the decision of where to spend your money is complex.  One company funds homophobic campaigns, another exploits its workers, and another does shady things abroad.  You start to wonder if you can safely spend your money anywhere.  Maybe you'd love to spend your money with one company, but you can only afford the one with terrible practices.

Just as it's up to you to be a responsible citizen, it's up to you to be a responsible consumer.  Maybe you didn't know that Chick-fil-A was best friends with Focus on the Family, but now that you do, you can make an informed decision.  Maybe you can't afford to shop at an expensive but worker-friendly store, but you can make your opinions known to the terrible store you can afford, and you can continue to vote and agitate for better policies.

I don't care about Papa John's sexuality and I'm not interested in his private life.  I do like knowing that the Chick-fil-A family works so hard to entrench homophobia and fight against equality, because I don't want to support that kind of harmful hate.  It matters to me because human rights matter to me.  I'm not going to giggle over jokes about how no one cares what the Burger King does in bed, because that's not the point and you're well aware of that.  I'm not going to throw up my hands and say, "Eh, all corporations are evil to some extent, what can you do!"  I expect more.

I hope that someday you do, too.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Pranksters

Dear Pranksters,

Let's talk about pranks.

Here's an easy one.  Let's say that Jane is sensitive to cold and Lisa is sensitive to heat.  They sit together at a table on a hot day in August.  Lisa gets up to add ice to her drink.  Knowing that Jane is unsuspecting, she waits until her hand is chilly from the ice, then plants her hand on the back of Jane's neck.

Jane, surprised, gasps and jerks away in distress.

Lisa laughs.

This is a prank.

Pranksters consider themselves to be funny people out for a laugh.

Who's laughing in this situation?  Lisa.

What is she laughing at?  Jane's distress.  Her own cleverness in taking advantage of Jane.  "Ha ha, I really got you!"

Maybe Beth was at the table, watching.  Maybe she laughs, too.  This makes it even funnier for Lisa, who has a witness to her antics.  This also means that Beth saw Lisa sneaking up on Jane and, instead of warning Jane of Lisa's intentions or warning Lisa away, sat in silent complicity or egged Lisa on.

Maybe Jane is a close friend and loves pranks.  Maybe Jane is a common target, someone Lisa and Beth have been bullying for months.  Maybe Jane enjoyed the prank and laughed along.  Maybe Jane laughed because she was startled, because she was nervous, because she's been socialized to play along and not ruin everyone else's fun.

If you take advantage of me and prey upon me and then laugh, you're not being funny, you're being an asshole.  Pranks are designed to startle people, to scare them, to upset them, to hurt them.  "Ha ha, you're in pain!"  That's not hilarious, that's sadistic.

If you're genuinely a funny person, you'll be able to find other ways to enjoy a good laugh without pranking someone.

If you have fun with pranks, give careful thought to who your victims are and what sorts of pranks you enjoy.  There is a line between shared jokes and bullying.  Please don't cross it.  A lot of people laugh along with pranks because we're socialized to do so whether we genuinely enjoy the "joke" or not.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Boy Scouts of America

Dear Boy Scouts of America,

Congratulations to your super-secret committee on deciding to confirm how homophobic your organization is.  Your "no gay folks allowed!" sign looks great with that fresh coat of paint.

Here's my problem.  Your organization is homophobic.  To me, your hateful bullshit and exclusive policy are so disgusting that your decision communicates "we're homophobic assholes and proud of it!"

But other people love the Boy Scouts of America.  There are adults who gained a lot from their experience with you.  There are adults who contribute a lot to your organization now.  There are kids who build friendships and confidence with you.  To them, the BSA is great!

If the BSA is great, and the BSA is homophobic, then homophobia might be great, too.  You wouldn't discriminate without reason.  You're keeping those gay people away with good cause, right?  There must be something wrong with them.  Being gay must be a bad thing.

Will kids become homophobic solely because of your super-secret committee's decision?  Probably not.  But you don't operate in a vacuum.  Homophobia's all around them, sometimes from shady sources, sometimes from trusted sources.  We live in a homophobic society, and it takes progressive activism from the people around us to teach us not to be homophobic jerks.  It takes critical self-examination to uproot homophobic ideas.  What you're doing is reinforcing that garbage and encouraging hostility.

The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.  For over a century, the BSA has helped build the future leaders of this country by combining educational activities and lifelong values with fun. The Boy Scouts of America believes — and, through over a century of experience, knows — that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society.

Homophobia is responsible citizenship?  Rejecting gay people is a step to building a productive society?  Oh, you're not kicking them out of society, are you, just out of your organization.  No gay people here!  No gay leaders.  No gay scouts.  No lesbian den mothers.  If gay kids want to participate, they'd better deny who they are, repress themselves, remain closeted lest anyone find out.  Sure, that's how to build character and help youth.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America.

I wonder what these "issues of same-sex orientation" are which need to be addressed.  Do you know what I think that the Boy Scouts need to teach kids about gay people?  That gay people exist.  That gay people are anywhere and everywhere, responsible citizens of our "conscientious, responsible, and productive society."

With love,
Frank Lee

With thanks to Pam's House Blend.

Dear Danielle

I hardly ever speak to my family, and it’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.
-Danielle, "Cutting the Ties That Bind"

Dear Danielle,

Thank you for this article.

While it would be terrific if all families were made up of caring, understanding, loyal individuals who loved and supported each other, that's not the case.  Many of us have that ideal somewhere in our minds, so when someone says "I haven't spoken to my brother in twenty years" or "Don't answer the phone, I never pick up for my father" or "My mom was a terrible mother," sometimes there's a lot of push-back.  Some people don't understand or can't accept that not all family members are good for each other.  They'll insist that you should reach out!  Patch things up!  He's your only brother!  Reconnect now before it's too late!  You'll live to regret it!

The example a friend of mine always brings up is Eminem.  He's said some terrible things about his mother, and there have been a lot of responses like: "You can't say that about your own mother!  What kind of awful human being says something like that about his own mother!"  As if despite the various problems he's mentioned (Munchausen by proxy, for starters), speaking ill of one's own mother is an unspeakable transgression.

There's a lot tied up in that.  The reverence our society claims to have for motherhood (when it's convenient).  The idea that we owe our parents something (everything) for conceiving us in the first place.  I think that a lot of people in the USA feel the need to cling to family especially because of our lack of a robust social safety net.  If we're cut loose from family, who else will take care of us?

Many families are great to each other, and that's a beautiful thing.  Other families are pretty good to each other, or at least can get along when necessary.  And then there are families where the bad outweighs the good, at least between some members.

Everyone has her own point where the balance tips.  Everyone can only take so much.  Sometimes you arrive at the moment when you realize that it's not worth it anymore.  You're not getting enough out of this relationship to make the pain and frustration and trauma worth it.

When people hear "I haven't spoken with my father in 15 years" and reply "That's a shame," yes.  Yes it is.  It's a shame that he's such a terrible father.  It's a shame that he's such a terrible person.  It's a shame that he'll never get to understand or appreciate what a fun, smart, compassionate person I am.  But I am not going to keep going back, trying to create a relationship with someone who isn't interested in having one with me.  I'm not going to keep throwing my time, energy, and emotion into a void based on a notion of "fatherhood" that's barely applicable anyway.

Insisting on some abstract notion of "sisterhood" based on mere biology is kind of rude to all of the people who genuinely work on their relationships and are good sisters to each other.  Insisting that the mere fact of biological fatherhood is owed some great loyalty is kind of rude to all of the people who put genuine effort into being good parents or caretakers or guardians.  A man ejaculates once, shows up a time or two after that, and isn't heard from in twenty years, but when he finally pops up, "You owe it to yourself to reach out to him!  You'll regret it if you don't!  He's your father!"  Never mind the stepfather (or single mother or foster parents or grandmother) who actually reared you with love and care.

As I said, everyone has her own point where the balance tips.  Different people have different levels of emotional energy and emotional resiliency.  Different people are more or less forgiving, empathetic, and tolerant.

If someone makes a decision to break ties with her family, that's up to her.

Let's stop paying lip service to the idea of motherhood and fatherhood and all of the rest of it.  Let's stop forcing people to honor destructive relationships just because we like to believe that there's some magical binding element in biology which makes blood ties intrinsically superior.  The reproductive process in and of itself does not make someone a good mother.  One particular moment of ejaculation will not make a man a good father; all of the rest didn't, did they?  The fact that two people share a common parent doesn't give them some sparkly blood link which unites them forever against all odds.

You know how feminists often explain that intent isn't magic?  Biology isn't, either.  It's just a matter of science and chromosomes and reproductive cycles.  That doesn't make up the social unit we call "family."  Love and loyalty and support and compassion and forgiveness and a lot of other sometimes pretty complicated things do.  And when those things aren't there, why stay in a relationship with someone who doesn't like you, doesn't want to understand you, treats you like shit, abuses you, and only deals with you because, technically, there's some biological link?

If it's not worth it to you, then it's just not worth it.

It's a shame that they'll never understand or appreciate what a great person you are.  I hope that there are other people in your life who do.

With love,
Frank Lee

P.S. This letter seems to have developed into something for everyone in general, not only you, Danielle.  Sorry about that!  I got carried away.

P.P.S. None of the examples above apply to me in particular.

Dear USA

Dear USA,

This is atrocious.

The Texas Republican Party official platform has been updated, and it is a disgusting, contemptible, hateful mess.

It's also very real.  This is the real and current platform of politically active adults in a major party in a well-populated state.  This was written and directed by people with a lot of influence.

This is not the fringe.  This is the base.

It can be hard to admit how very, extensively hateful people in our country can be.  Not just hateful, hateful and powerful and numerous.  This is the Texas Republican Party.  The last president we had, whom we endured for two terms, was the Governor of Texas before he became president.

We have to take this seriously.  Gross and scary and hateful as their platform is, it's not unique.  It's not rare.  It's not unusual.  It is very, very normal and very, very mainstream.

If you needed a wake-up call, let this be it.  Get involved now.  Speak up, vote, donate, volunteer, agitate.

I want these ideas to be the fading roars of dinosaurs soon to be extinct.  I want this platform to be little more than a laughable footnote of history.  I'm counting on the notion that you do, too.

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Society

Dear Society,

Forgive me if this gets harsh.  I'm going to discuss fat people in some unpleasant ways while I tease apart some ideas.

We talk about food as if there's a moral component to eating.  We talk about "cheating" on our diets as if we're cheating on our spouses or our taxes.  We talk about "guilt" to the extent that some lines of diet food are labeled "guilt-free" right on the packaging.

We talk as if what is healthful and nutritious for some people is healthful and nutritious for all people, which it isn't.  We talk about that food being good for us.  We separate foods into "good" foods and "bad" foods.  We praise ourselves and each other for eating "good" foods and chide ourselves and each other for eating "bad" foods.  Within that framework, eating "good" foods becomes a pious act.  Eating "bad" foods is a sinful act.

Good people eat good foods.  Bad people eat bad foods.

There's a related problem.  We act as if "calories in, calories out" is a magical formula which never fails and holds true for every body at all times.  We act as if "you are what you eat" means that if you eat food with fat in it, you will automatically become fat.

Put those ideas together, and where does that leave us?  Fat food makes fat people.  Fatty food is bad for you; fatty food is bad.  Bad people eat bad food.  Fat people eat fat food.

Fat people are bad people.

Food has a moral component.

Fat people are immoral.

It's bolstered by "gluttony" being on the official list of the seven deadly sins.  Gluttony is a sin.  Gluttons are wicked.  Fat people are fat because they overeat, which proves them gluttonous, therefore fat people are wicked.

Nasty, gluttonous fat people.  How many fat villains can you name?  How many fat heroes can you name?

I used to see fat bullies on TV and in movies, and that never made sense to me.  In my reality, fat people aren't bullies, they're the ones being bullied.  In addition, bullies are often popular and charismatic people, while I never thought of fat kids as popular.  But I often see fat kids depicted as bullies in popular culture.  Because fat kids are mean.  Fat kids are hateful.  Fat kids are nasty and immoral and greedy and gluttonous.  If they weren't so immoral and greedy, they wouldn't be fat, would they?  And they wouldn't need to steal other kids' lunch money, because they wouldn't want to spend it on extra lunches or candy or snacks like the little pigs that they are.

What good does all of this food morality do?  What do we gain from it?  We praise thin people, or people who eat foods we perceive to be "good," as virtuous people.  We shame fat people, or people who eat foods we perceive to be "bad," for being greedy and wicked.

So thin people can feel good about themselves.  That's nice.  I like for people to feel good about themselves in general.

But they feel good about themselves at the expense of fat people.  But I know a lot of fat people.  I know that they're fat for a lot of different reasons.  I know that they eat the same foods in the same quantities and same ways that thin people eat.  Which isn't to say that Fat Person A and Thin Person B eat precisely the same; what I mean is, if you take all of the thin people in the world and compare them to all of the fat people in the world, you're going to find matching pairs.  You'll find thin and fat people who are vegetarians, thin and fat people who exist almost entirely on fast food, thin and fat people who scarf down gourmet pasta, thin and fat people who nibble on leafy greens, and so on.

You'll find thin and fat people with all sorts of health problems.  And you'll find thin and fat people who are perfectly healthy.

Yet some of them are good, virtuous, and pious.  And some of them are immoral, greedy, and wicked.

Maybe you're worried that people are eating too much crap in their meals.  Okay, sure.  Let's take some of the HFCS out of food.  And let's take some of the morality out of it, too, okay?

With love,
Frank Lee

Dear Society

Dear Society,

Man-jewelry.
Guyliner.
Manscara.

It has to stop.

There is nothing innate about jewelry which makes it somehow the official property of women.  You don't have to clarify between "jewelry worn by women" and "jewelry worn by men."  It's just jewelry, all of it.

There is no magical property within eyeliner which turns it into a different product when it is worn by a man.  It is eyeliner.  It is not exclusively made for, or worn by, women.  Neither is mascara.

These objects are gender-neutral.  They're just things.  Eyeliner is still just eyeliner, no matter who wears it.

"But it's just some harmless wordplay!" you protest.  "Eye rhymes with guy!  It's cute!"

Perhaps my definition of harmless differs from yours.  You see, when you call it "guyliner," you're differentiating it from "eyeliner."  Which denotes that eyeliner is the women-only version.  Eyeliner, therefore, is for women.  Make-up is for women.  Men who wear make-up and eyeliner are different.  Weird.  Freaky.

This is called gender policing.  Women are like this, men are like that.  Women do these things, men do those things.  Never the twain shall meet!  But what happens to all of the wide majority of people who don't fit neatly into their tidy little gender categories?  What about women who don't fit into all of the women traits, or men who don't fit into all of the men traits?  What if women do men-things and men are into women-things?  They get harassed.  Bullied.  Abused.  Killed.

There's a lot more to gender than some rigid binary, and when you start to police gender, you end up hurting a whole bunch of people.

The big things in the world are related to the little things in the world.  You call it guyliner.  It feeds into gender policing.  Which makes life very unpleasant for a whole lot of people in a very real way.

Maybe you could skip the cute little wordplay next time and just call it eyeliner.

Oh, and while we're at it?  What the hell is up with women wearing "pants suits?"  They're not called "pants suits" when men wear them, are they?  No, then they're just "suits."  Let's just call them "suits" when all people wear them, okay?

Nice talking to you!

With love,
Frank Lee