Dear Feminists,
Melissa McEwan, Jessica Luther, and Garland Grey have launched a new site called Flyover Feminism.
Their mission statement explains the point of the site very well, so I encourage you to read it.
Conventional wisdom suggests that all of the USA's liberal and progressive people live in big cities on the coasts. If you live in the "heartland" or the "flyover states" or the "Bible belt" or whatever your particular region of the country is called, you'll get comments from people in those big, coastal cities telling you to move. You'll hear people suggest that your state just secede so that it can be its own conservative mess while the rest of the country progresses. There are no liberals in that state anyway, right? It's all a bunch of conservatives or rednecks or Bible-thumpers or uneducated lumps.
There are progressive people in every state. There are feminists in every state. Why don't we all just move to New York or San Francisco or whichever liberal haven you're idealizing? Maybe because we have families here. Jobs here. Friends and roots and ties and paychecks and responsibilities here.
Maybe it's because we realize that turning your back on a problem won't fix it. Maybe it's because we realize that there aren't enough feminist, progressive voices here and abandoning ship will only make that problem worse, will only leave a bigger dearth for the people we leave behind. I don't want to make things better for myself alone; I want to make things better for everyone.
When you live in a small town, you know that people with potential often leave. They're encouraged to go, to seek out bigger places with more opportunities. The town left behind, however, now lacks the energy and ambition and brilliance of the people who've moved on. When people with promise head for something bigger and better, the ones they leave behind are only worse off for it. When people with progressive, feminist ideas head for liberal enclaves, the ones they leave behind hear one less progressive voice and have one less feminist role model.
If I didn't believe that I could make a difference, I wouldn't be a feminist. If I didn't believe that I could help, I wouldn't have picked up this teaspoon. Yes, being surrounded by racist, homophobic, religious conservatives is incredibly unpleasant and often makes me want to storm around screaming in people's faces. But that's precisely why I need the support of my feminist allies. When you dismiss my state, erase my existence and my effort and my struggle, and suggest that there's no hope for us (no reason to bother, those people are all just a bunch of inbred Bible-thumpers anyway), you've stopped being an ally and started being part of the problem.
If you're prone to dismissing Alabama as too far gone for help or prone to suggesting aloud that Texas just go ahead and secede already, I hope that the work done at Flyover Feminism will change your mind. If you find yourself left out of the conversations between the big city movers and shakers, please consider submitting a post for Flyover Feminism. As always, the more voices we hear from, the better.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. Flyover Feminism is not for citizens of the USA only!
Monday, August 13, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Dear Book Readers
Discussion of sexual assault and rape culture to follow.
Dear Book Readers,
Long story short, I've found myself with stacks of books to read that I wouldn't necessarily have picked up on my own.
Some of them are romance novels. Within those romance novels, I'm noticing a trend.
The scenario runs like this: the man touches the woman without her permission and against her will. Sometimes she squirms and pushes at him and protests, and he backs off. Sometimes they have a long and physical struggle over it with the writer communicating the woman's sincere distress clearly.
The man is the hero of the novel. By the end of the book, she's proclaiming her love for him and they're strolling off into their happy future together.
The scene describes sexual assault very frankly but never names it as such. It's like a step-by-step description of how to make a sandwich without ever saying the word sandwich, only with way more danger and misogyny.
Elsewhere in the book, later, someone will bring up rape. In one book, for example, some other guy tries to rape the heroine. In another, the heroine protests against the hero's sexual aggression, and he points out that kissing her against her will and groping her breasts despite her protests isn't rape, so what is she so upset about?*
It seems as if the author's trying to set up the threat of rape as a counterpoint to the hero's aggressive sexuality. He's controlling and forceful, he takes without asking, he victimizes her for his own amusement, sure, but he's not a rapist!
Okay, no. He doesn't rape her. He does sexually assault her.
Consent matters. It's not as if going so far but not too far is okay. It's not as if overriding someone's consent and continuing despite someone's distress is okay as long as there's no PIV penetration.
Setting it up as "good guys" versus "rapists" is a false dichotomy. There are all sorts of people somewhere in the middle who may not rape anyone but are still hostile to consent. It's not as if in the absence of rape, someone's automatically a good guy. He might be an entitled douche. He might be a molesting asshole. He might do all sorts of things to people against their will or without their consent. "At least I didn't rape you!" is not a defense of negative behavior and does not deserve cookies.
Rapist versus good guy is another way the rape culture pressures us to accept the crossing of boundaries. It encourages us to brush away sexual assault and unwanted touching and violations of space as "not that bad." They are bad. They're unacceptable. They can range from annoying to criminal. It's not romantic to violate boundaries, and if someone doesn't know where the boundaries are, he should ask.
Once upon a time, I might have read those scenes and not thought very much about them. They're awfully common, in popular culture and in real life. If you enjoy reading a book with these themes, I hope that you consider the message it sends. If you share similar books with someone else, I hope that you'll have a conversation about it. The more closely we examine rape culture, the better we can dismantle it.
With love,
Frank Lee
*This point is usually followed by the hero saying something like, "Don't tell me that you didn't enjoy it!" As if that's relevant. First, how good is this guy at picking up on signals and reading body language to begin with, that I should trust his interpretation of events as opposed to the panicked, frightened response I read? Second, sometimes the body responds one way while the mind responds in a different way, so "your nipples were hard and your skin was flushed" does not mean "you wanted it." That idea needs to be annihilated. Third, I don't care if she wanted it or not. Her desires have nothing to do with anything. She can want it all day long, but she didn't consent to it. End of argument.
Dear Book Readers,
Long story short, I've found myself with stacks of books to read that I wouldn't necessarily have picked up on my own.
Some of them are romance novels. Within those romance novels, I'm noticing a trend.
The scenario runs like this: the man touches the woman without her permission and against her will. Sometimes she squirms and pushes at him and protests, and he backs off. Sometimes they have a long and physical struggle over it with the writer communicating the woman's sincere distress clearly.
The man is the hero of the novel. By the end of the book, she's proclaiming her love for him and they're strolling off into their happy future together.
The scene describes sexual assault very frankly but never names it as such. It's like a step-by-step description of how to make a sandwich without ever saying the word sandwich, only with way more danger and misogyny.
Elsewhere in the book, later, someone will bring up rape. In one book, for example, some other guy tries to rape the heroine. In another, the heroine protests against the hero's sexual aggression, and he points out that kissing her against her will and groping her breasts despite her protests isn't rape, so what is she so upset about?*
It seems as if the author's trying to set up the threat of rape as a counterpoint to the hero's aggressive sexuality. He's controlling and forceful, he takes without asking, he victimizes her for his own amusement, sure, but he's not a rapist!
Okay, no. He doesn't rape her. He does sexually assault her.
Consent matters. It's not as if going so far but not too far is okay. It's not as if overriding someone's consent and continuing despite someone's distress is okay as long as there's no PIV penetration.
Setting it up as "good guys" versus "rapists" is a false dichotomy. There are all sorts of people somewhere in the middle who may not rape anyone but are still hostile to consent. It's not as if in the absence of rape, someone's automatically a good guy. He might be an entitled douche. He might be a molesting asshole. He might do all sorts of things to people against their will or without their consent. "At least I didn't rape you!" is not a defense of negative behavior and does not deserve cookies.
Rapist versus good guy is another way the rape culture pressures us to accept the crossing of boundaries. It encourages us to brush away sexual assault and unwanted touching and violations of space as "not that bad." They are bad. They're unacceptable. They can range from annoying to criminal. It's not romantic to violate boundaries, and if someone doesn't know where the boundaries are, he should ask.
Once upon a time, I might have read those scenes and not thought very much about them. They're awfully common, in popular culture and in real life. If you enjoy reading a book with these themes, I hope that you consider the message it sends. If you share similar books with someone else, I hope that you'll have a conversation about it. The more closely we examine rape culture, the better we can dismantle it.
With love,
Frank Lee
*This point is usually followed by the hero saying something like, "Don't tell me that you didn't enjoy it!" As if that's relevant. First, how good is this guy at picking up on signals and reading body language to begin with, that I should trust his interpretation of events as opposed to the panicked, frightened response I read? Second, sometimes the body responds one way while the mind responds in a different way, so "your nipples were hard and your skin was flushed" does not mean "you wanted it." That idea needs to be annihilated. Third, I don't care if she wanted it or not. Her desires have nothing to do with anything. She can want it all day long, but she didn't consent to it. End of argument.
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 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
Friday, August 10, 2012
Dear Judd Apatow
This is not just their storyDear Judd Apatow,
This is everyone’s story
-trailer, This Is 40
Everyone's story? Really, everyone's?
Don’t make me go all Princess Bride on your ass.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear General Mills
General Mills’ mission is Nourishing Lives. Not just some. But all.Dear General Mills,
Thank you.
When I heard that homophobic groups were gathering to boycott General Mills, I assumed that you must have done something good.
And you have.
I hope that you continue to embrace diversity and champion progressive causes. I hope that these statements lead to bigger and better things. It's heartening to see a major corporation move in this direction.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Mitt Romney
"We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple. I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons. Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people, are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith."Dear Mitt Romney,
—Mitt Romney
I would like someone running for President of the United States of America to be a good orator. A skilled public speaker. Someone who doesn't make embarrassing gaffes, particularly in regards to a domestic terrorist act.
I would like someone running for POTUS to be well-educated enough to know the correct terms for various types of citizens, including religious minorities.
You're running for POTUS right now. At this very moment! I would like you to be smart as well as sensitive to the issues affecting your people.
One of the problems relevant to this very terrorist act is the conflation of people of color. The conflation of religious groups. If you're an angry white man with notions of white supremacy and Christian supremacy filling your head, you might not know the difference between Muslim and Sikh. You probably don't care. You're full of fear and hate and everything the patriarchy's been pumping into you since birth, and you're ready for action. You don't care who that action hurts. They're people of color who dare not to be Christian, and that's enough for you. Muslim, Sikh, what's the difference? Sikh, sheik, what's the difference? They're not like you, right? They're interchangeable and incomprehensible anyway.
What you said fed right into that. It rang those very same bells.
Maybe you spoke out of ignorance, but this isn't the time for ignorance. This isn't a time for insensitivity. This isn't a time for mistakes and gaffes. This is a time when it's very important to get it right, as right as we can.
I hope that you become a compassionate, thoughtful man and a silver-tongued orator, and I wish you well in the pursuit of that goal. But I hope that someone who's already a step ahead of you in the not-being-racist department becomes the next POTUS.
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:
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?
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.
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
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.”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.
“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.”
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 Fatherly Car Owner
I like lipstick around my dipstick.Dear Fatherly Car Owner,
-Car decal
Because a child's car seat and toys were seen in your backseat, I'm going to assume that you're a father. Maybe your situation differs from my assumption, which is the risk we take when we make assumptions, but until new information comes in I'll just go ahead and consider you a father.
A car is a very visible accoutrement. A car is often considered a status symbol. Our bumper stickers and other car accessories are one-glance messages we project to the world. People often use bumper stickers to promote ideas and messages; it's a way both of signal boosting and of advertising something about oneself. What's your political affiliation? What's your favorite dog breed? Which organizations do you belong to? What has your child achieved lately? It's all right there on your rear bumper.
What do you want the world to know about you?
"I like lipstick around my dipstick."
So, you have a penis. You like to get head. You like to get head specifically (as heteronormativity rears its ugly head and I continue to make assumptions) from women who conform to the patriarchy's exacting beauty standards.
That's the one thing you want the world to know about you. You like patriarchy-conforming women to suck your dick.
Not that you're a father, not that you're a member of some club, not that you passed some milestone in life, not that you want to promote a cause. No, what you're most proud of is the pleasure you get in having women (certain kinds of women, mind you) give you head.
Here's the thing, Daddy Driver. If we all lived in a happy void where nothing we do affects each other, I would look at that decal and think that if that's the most important thing complete strangers should know about you, you lead a very small, sad life. That would be the end of it.
However, what we do actually does affect each other. The things we say can sometimes fall in line with other messages and reinforce existing ideas.
There are ideas, for example, that women are only good for sex, only good for pleasing men, naturally subservient to men, and so on.
If you love and respect women, your car might boast messages like: "I love women!" "I love smart women!" "I love confident women!" If your sexual needs have to be a factor, you could advertise: "Assertive women turn me on!" "Funny women = hot women!"
But you aren't talking about women, really, at all. You're talking about an anonymous pair of lips coated in patriarchy-conforming lipstick. You've reduced women to one specific body part. A body part you're co-opting for your sexual pleasures. You don't care what a woman says with her mouth; you aren't interested in her thoughts, her opinions, her personality, her jokes, her wit. You just want a sexual orifice, and she'd better make sure that it meets your patriarchal standards.
Your reinforcement of misogynistic notions communicates to the world that women are for sex, that women are a mere collection of useable body parts, that women had better meet patriarchal standards or they'll find themselves not even worthwhile for the one purpose you allow them.
When did you get this decal? When did you decide to plaster this particular message on your car? Before your daughter was born? After? Before her mother was pregnant? After? I picture you seeing the decal in a store somewhere and giving a good chuckle and deciding to make that purchase; I picture you slapping it on your car window. Should I picture a happy daughter playing in the backseat? A pregnant woman waiting for you in the passenger seat?
The daughter's there now. The sticker's there now. She's going to see it. What will she think of it? The people who see your car at work, in public parking lots, in your driveway; your friends and neighbors, strangers, what do they think of it? What do they learn from it? I wonder if you've pictured your daughter bringing boy friends home. The boys notice your decal, and look at your daughter, and snicker, and those ideas you're reinforcing churn...
I hope that your opinions mature soon. I hope that your daughter finds a thoughtful, caring father in you. I hope that you scrape off that decal and learn to view your daughter and all women with a more respectful eye.
Maybe your daughter will join a club or join a team or get on the honor roll, and you can brag about that to the world, instead.
With love,
Frank Lee
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Dear Lisa Suhay
Dear Lisa Suhay,
I read your recent article on Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas. You admit mid-article that you shouldn't judge other parents. You say that "of course you never want to judge." I really think that you should have stuck with that idea and not written this article at all. Yet you push past it with "the tendency to judge other parents is pretty powerful" and continue blithely on.
You know that you shouldn't judge other parents, but you feel that the tendency to do so is "pretty powerful" in certain circumstances, and that's enough justification to write a public article for a widely read title? Your own impulses trump your morals fairly easily, there. While we're talking about parenting, what sort of example are you setting for your children? I wouldn't ask, but, considering the circumstances, the tendency to judge you is pretty powerful.
The article is about how the biological parent-child bond is so important that anything, including Olympic dreams, should be sacrificed to keep the family unit together. However, early on, you say:
This is where shit gets real. This is where your article stops pretending at idle musing and gets right into the judgmental criticism. Her mother divorced the same man twice! Her mother's poor! For all of your "keep the family together at all costs" rhetoric, it's very telling that suddenly it's better to farm the kids out away from that all-important family unit if it'll get them away from the atrocities of poverty and divorce.
I'm not rooting for poverty and divorce. I also don't think that poverty and divorce make people bad parents. I don't know anything about this family's financial situation or how it affects their day-to-day living. I don't know anything about why Gabby's mother married that guy or divorced him. It doesn't sound like you do, either. Have you been to their home and talked with their friends and family and sat in their kitchen and helped out at bedtime and discussed marital history? Probably not. Does Gabby's mother confide in you? Probably not. Do you know much about Gabby's siblings or their lives or their schooling or how loved and supported they are? Again, probably not.
Poor people have kids and rear children and live as parents all of the time. Is it ideal, no. Struggling financially or not being able to afford certain luxuries or not being able to provide your child with certain opportunities hurts. But Gabby's mother did provide her with great opportunities and was able to give her a great shot at rare success so very, very few people ever get to strive for at all. Does Gabby's mother give her a new pony every year, I'd guess not. Did Gabby's mother support her dreams and encourage her success and help her to realize her goals? Yes. Which of those two is more important when it comes to parenting?
Parenting includes sacrifice, and I expect that you know that. I know as little about Gabby's family as you do, but now that we've heard your interpretation of events, here's mine. I like to think that Gabby's mother loves her enough to do what's best for her. Gabby's mother recognized her potential and was willing to sacrifice that same-roof golden-momentness to help her achieve her goals. As opposed to thinking, I'm poor and this house is chaotic so she's better off somewhere else, maybe her mother thought, My daughter's something great and I want to help her to make the most of her amazing gifts even if it means missing out on sharing her life the way I want to.
If it comes down to reaching for the stars or being tucked into bed at night by their mother, your kids will get tucked into bed. You want your children right beside you where you can teach them the values most important to you. Instead, Gabby's mother taught her daughter that her gifts are special, that her goals are important, that her family shares and encourages her dreams. Isn't that better than, "I love you and I support you, only as far as your needs mesh conveniently with mine?"
With love,
Frank Lee
I read your recent article on Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas. You admit mid-article that you shouldn't judge other parents. You say that "of course you never want to judge." I really think that you should have stuck with that idea and not written this article at all. Yet you push past it with "the tendency to judge other parents is pretty powerful" and continue blithely on.
You know that you shouldn't judge other parents, but you feel that the tendency to do so is "pretty powerful" in certain circumstances, and that's enough justification to write a public article for a widely read title? Your own impulses trump your morals fairly easily, there. While we're talking about parenting, what sort of example are you setting for your children? I wouldn't ask, but, considering the circumstances, the tendency to judge you is pretty powerful.
The article is about how the biological parent-child bond is so important that anything, including Olympic dreams, should be sacrificed to keep the family unit together. However, early on, you say:
Still, visit any highly competitive training facility in sport, child or adult, and it truly is a family complete with all the love and dysfunction of the real thing.Emphasis mine. Sentence yours. If children get genuine familial love and a sense of family from a training facility, is being away from family to train for the Olympics really so anti-family?
"I wanted to make my Olympic dreams a reality, so I told my Mom, 'I need a better coach, and I need a better coach now,' " Douglas told Time magazine. I'm sure she's a lovely child, I adore her smile and am rooting for her and shouting at my TV set like anyone else, but all I could think of was Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka and what happened to her. It made me ask, "Who's the parent?"The parent is the person who heard what Gabby said, agreed with her, and arranged for the move to the new coach. The parent is the person who supports her daughter's dreams and recognizes her daughter's potential and helps her to realize her goals. Do you want her mother to bring the topic up first? Or do you want Gabby to be less ambitious?
However, all the reports today talk about how this Olympian has blossomed in IowaGreat! That's terrific. Her new situation seems to be going very well for her, then.
Perhaps the stability and not just the coaching is what this child really needed coming from a home where her mother, who according the Virginian-Pilot divorced the same man twice and has struggled on disability to provide for her needs.You may want to edit that sentence, as the syntax is a little off.
This is where shit gets real. This is where your article stops pretending at idle musing and gets right into the judgmental criticism. Her mother divorced the same man twice! Her mother's poor! For all of your "keep the family together at all costs" rhetoric, it's very telling that suddenly it's better to farm the kids out away from that all-important family unit if it'll get them away from the atrocities of poverty and divorce.
I'm not rooting for poverty and divorce. I also don't think that poverty and divorce make people bad parents. I don't know anything about this family's financial situation or how it affects their day-to-day living. I don't know anything about why Gabby's mother married that guy or divorced him. It doesn't sound like you do, either. Have you been to their home and talked with their friends and family and sat in their kitchen and helped out at bedtime and discussed marital history? Probably not. Does Gabby's mother confide in you? Probably not. Do you know much about Gabby's siblings or their lives or their schooling or how loved and supported they are? Again, probably not.
Poor people have kids and rear children and live as parents all of the time. Is it ideal, no. Struggling financially or not being able to afford certain luxuries or not being able to provide your child with certain opportunities hurts. But Gabby's mother did provide her with great opportunities and was able to give her a great shot at rare success so very, very few people ever get to strive for at all. Does Gabby's mother give her a new pony every year, I'd guess not. Did Gabby's mother support her dreams and encourage her success and help her to realize her goals? Yes. Which of those two is more important when it comes to parenting?
I realize that I do not have what it takes to be any kind of Olympic parent. My hat is off to you all. Yet I wave my hat and smile for the parents who chose the path that kept them walking right beside their child. The path where everyone is under the same roof or at least in the same state at the end of the day.Here's where you make it plain that the focus isn't your child. The focus is you. Your desires, your goals, your interests, your memories. You want your children beside you. You want to enjoy golden moments. I understand where you're coming from, but what's best for the parent isn't always what's best for the child. What's best for the family overall isn't always what's best for the child.
I believe that there is a deeper strength we must train into a child, a tempering that forges their ability to win in life and still be on the medal stand. The kind of Olympic mom who is up at 5 a.m. making toast and hugging her child and whispering, "You can do this," in her ear before the event. I would not be able to give that responsibility to a stranger because those are the golden moments all parents treasure – win or lose.
Parenting includes sacrifice, and I expect that you know that. I know as little about Gabby's family as you do, but now that we've heard your interpretation of events, here's mine. I like to think that Gabby's mother loves her enough to do what's best for her. Gabby's mother recognized her potential and was willing to sacrifice that same-roof golden-momentness to help her achieve her goals. As opposed to thinking, I'm poor and this house is chaotic so she's better off somewhere else, maybe her mother thought, My daughter's something great and I want to help her to make the most of her amazing gifts even if it means missing out on sharing her life the way I want to.
If it comes down to reaching for the stars or being tucked into bed at night by their mother, your kids will get tucked into bed. You want your children right beside you where you can teach them the values most important to you. Instead, Gabby's mother taught her daughter that her gifts are special, that her goals are important, that her family shares and encourages her dreams. Isn't that better than, "I love you and I support you, only as far as your needs mesh conveniently with mine?"
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Amtrak
Dear Amtrak,
Thank you.
I've been avoiding flying for years. The way airlines treat their fat customers pisses me off and, frankly, makes me anxious. The only person I've shared my worry with has assured me that I'm not fat enough to be harassed, but the airlines apply their anti-fat policies so unevenly, I'd rather avoid the situation altogether.
And then there's the security theater. The enhanced pat-downs. No. I object to all of that bullshit on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
In my efforts to avoid flying, I've begun to seek out alternatives. You, Amtrak, were my first consideration. I did some research into your policies and security. Your anti-fat policies don't seem as obnoxious or as obvious as the airlines', for what it's worth. It seems that security measures have been increased recently, but I was assured by an Amtrak rep that if I travel with you, no one will pat me down or, indeed, touch me.
My relief was immense, and I decided to look into using Amtrak for my next excursion.
And then, only yesterday, a link from Shakesville took me to Towleroad which took me to MetroWeekly which said this:
With love,
Frank Lee
Thank you.
I've been avoiding flying for years. The way airlines treat their fat customers pisses me off and, frankly, makes me anxious. The only person I've shared my worry with has assured me that I'm not fat enough to be harassed, but the airlines apply their anti-fat policies so unevenly, I'd rather avoid the situation altogether.
And then there's the security theater. The enhanced pat-downs. No. I object to all of that bullshit on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
In my efforts to avoid flying, I've begun to seek out alternatives. You, Amtrak, were my first consideration. I did some research into your policies and security. Your anti-fat policies don't seem as obnoxious or as obvious as the airlines', for what it's worth. It seems that security measures have been increased recently, but I was assured by an Amtrak rep that if I travel with you, no one will pat me down or, indeed, touch me.
My relief was immense, and I decided to look into using Amtrak for my next excursion.
And then, only yesterday, a link from Shakesville took me to Towleroad which took me to MetroWeekly which said this:
As part of an effort to market its standard discounted family travel program, for the first time, the national passenger rail company included gay families in its materials. In an online ad sent by Instinct magazine to its email subscribers, a photo of same-sex parents with their child is featured.Thank you, Amtrak. If I'm able, I hope to make you a staple of my travel plans.
Two version of the ad, one with a picture of a male couple and another with a female couple, were distributed. Both versions include the headline: Priceless Family Moments Are Now Affordable. The ad goes on to promote Amtrak's 50% off campaign for children age 2 to 15 who are traveling with an adult, and directs readers to its gay travel website www.AmtrakRideWithPride.com.
Amtrak, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a member of the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association. In began its initial Ride with Pride campaign in 2010.
With love,
Frank Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)