Category: Sexuality and Gender

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, Media Ethics, media-general, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Publishing, Sexuality and Gender Tagged with , , , , ,

I am asking myself two questions in the wake of Tuesday’s election results.

1. Why did so many people stay home? Why, despite a bazillion new registrations, despite enormous enthusiasm at every public appearance, despite a roster of endorsements the like of which I’ve never seen before did 13 million fewer people vote for Harris then did for Biden 4 years ago?

2. And why did 72 million people vote for a convicted felon who tells thousands of demonstrable lies, who based his entire campaign on hatred, othering, retribution, and the promise of fascism, and who was increasingly incoherent, physically exhausted, and obviously mentally unstable as the campaign went on?

I have a ton of respect for journalists. I trained to be one. But under the rubric of “journalistic objectivity” and pressure from owners who are more interested in ratings than reality, they had a lot of constraints covering this election. And thus I think at least part of the answer lies in a third question: why did the mainstream media consistently have a double standard of coverage: refusing to hold Trump accountable as they were doing first with Biden and then with Harris?

First, they went after Biden, even before his disastrous debate with Trump. “Isn’t he too old?” “What about inflation?” I even remember a shockingly biased Washington Post newsletter with a graph comparing Biden’s age at the end of a second term to Trump’s age at the beginning of one. So suddenly the three and a half year age gap looked like seven and a half years. Wtf?

And then after the debate, enormous pressure for Biden to step down. I do think he had become compromised and stepping down was the right decision. It was pretty clear within a couple of weeks that the debate was not a one-off (as it had first appeared) but a pattern that was emerging more frequently. He wasn’t up to the job for another 4 years and to his credit, and unlike his opponent, he stepped away to make room for a younger generation.

But then came the attacks on his replacement. “Why won’t she meet with us?” “How come they aren’t going to run the primaries again?” “Why doesn’t she release policy statements?” “Does she have the gravitas to be president?”

That would have been fine if they were asking the same questions of Trump. Not only were they not pressuring him to go into details on policy, but they accepted his softball interviews in front of Trump-supporting audiences venues like Fox News as an adequate substitute for actual journalistic interviews.

More worrisome was the normalization of Trump as a legitimate candidate. Where were they when it was time to question Trump’s gravitas—or his competence? As Harris herself noted, he is “an unserious man” in a position to do serious damage. The cadre of media that was so quick to jump on every little stammer of Biden’s not only tried to paper over Trump’s increasingly incoherent and delusional speeches, even on several occasions translating the nonsense into what he might have said if he had been talking in comprehensible English. They also papered over the genuine threats to democracy in the vague policy outlines he did provide and the much more detailed proposals from the project 2025 blueprint. His lack of gravitas showed again as he lackadaisically attempted to disavow in the face of evidence that his fingerprints and those of people close to him were all over it. And Vance? Vance has so little gravitas after just two years in the Senate that he whined the one time in his debate that he was fact-checked—after making up completely false and very damaging lies about immigrants eating their neighbors’ pets, as he himself admitted later.

There wasn’t even much hand wringing when Trump skipped out on future debates after Harris wiped the floor with him in their sole formal pairing. And then he skipped out on promised interviews with real media, who acquiesced.

And there was surprisingly little examination of his character until just a few weeks before the election. Where was the focus on his 34 criminal convictions, his liability in civil court for raping and defaming, the other 60 or so criminal felony counts that didn’t get to go to trial and now probably never will, the literally tens of thousands of lies he told before, during, and since his term in office, his authoritarian tendencies, his blatant narcissism and personal cruelty, and his totally transactional view of the world in which everything has to be a way for him to make money, gain status or power, and/or build his personal brand or else he is not interested. That this sociopath was treated as a normal candidate will be a shame on the media for decades to come.

And then there is Fox! I used to be a free speech absolutist. But free speech absolutism only works when there is a common core of decency that everyone respects, some minimum standards for reporting. The filth that was spewed by their commentators, the disgusting and completely false advertisements they were airing, and the way they shielded their audience from any negative news about Trump should disqualify them from any legitimate role as press. This of course is not new and has been going on since it was founded—but it has now reached extremes and probably has a lot to do with why certain sectors of the population voted for Trump against their own interests.

I happened to be at a restaurant one night that was airing a baseball playoff on Fox. They showed one Trump commercial accusing Harris of immigration positions she has never taken and policies that did not exist. I happen to know a thing or two about immigration issues. It has been the focus of my activism since spring 2019. This ad was so blatantly false that it made me wonder why it is even legal to air it. After all, a candidate who is attacked has no way to respond. Those messages go out into the ether unchallenged, whether or not they’re based in fact. Only when the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in the Reagan era did Fox become even possible. And maybe it’s time for real-time fact checking to be standard operating procedure for any political debate.

We don’t have room in this article to explore WHY this biased coverage happened. But unconscious OR conscious othering (ageism, racism, sexism, bias against physical disabilities such as Biden’s stutter) just might have been a factor, don’tcha think?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Environment, Ethics in Government, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

As I was waking up this morning at 5:47 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, the New York Times was calling the election for Donald Trump. And when I checked a few minutes later, I literally burst into tears. I am not much of a crier but I feel upset, betrayed, a stranger in my own country.

It is going to be the worst presidency in the history of our country. This lying, thieving, predatory thug is going to do his worst to reverse all our hard-fought progress. Expect devastating attacks on:

  • The environment and the movement to reverse catastrophic climate change
  • The rights of immigrants, LGBTQ folks, people with disabilities, people of color, people who do not identify as Christian
  • Women’s reproductive freedom, and potentially even women’s place in modern society
  • Independent media featuring honest reporting
  • Low-income wage workers
  • Labor unions
  • And of course, democracy and personal freedom

But we can’t give up!

We have 2 months to organize a nationwide nonviolent resistance movement. We have four years to do what we can to clog up the evil work this man will try to do. We have been here before, in the 1850s, in the 1960s, and in the 1980s, to name three. We have resisted and we have survived. Never underestimate our collective power but never take it for granted either. Some of us may find ourselves organizing from  prison or exile. But we can still organize.
Study and train in non-violent resistance. Follow people like Stephen Zunes, Erica Chenoweth, George Lakey, the long list of people who organized Standing Rock, the shrinking list of people who were active in the many-headed nonviolent revolution that brought us the civil rights, get out of Vietnam, modern feminist, and environmental movements, and whose (figurative as well as literal) children and grandchildren have been active in stopping carnage in Palestine and elsewhere. That is our future, that is our hope, and that is our call to action. We do not give up and we are not going back! Even if our government is.
You may thing that nonviolent resistance doesn’t work. But you would be mistaken. Nonviolent struggles are slow but they do work. Historicallty, they’ve worked better than violent revolutions. On multiple occasions, they’ve brought down govenments.
One lesson I take away from this is it proves that yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I am totally shocked that 15 million fewer people voted for Kamala Harris then for Biden 4 years ago. It was about people staying home or voting third-party. That is the only way I can understand the huge drop between Biden’s 81 million 4 years ago and Harris’s 66 million. That’s where the election went.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Diversity, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Peace and War, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Sexuality and Gender, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democracy itself is at stake in this election. If you choose not to vote, or you cast a vote for a 3rd-party candidate, you may never have the right to vote again. You’ve probably heard about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—but have you looked at the details? Fasten your seatbelts—this one’s scary! Heritage’s president, Kevin Roberts, actually said it out loud: he’s attempting to conduct “the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be…There are parts of the plan that we will not share with the Left: the executive orders, the rules and regulations.”

But what they did commit to paper is bad enough: an approximately 900-page blueprint for a fascist takeover of the US including an agency-by-agency roadmap for the first six months of a second Trump administration. Project 2025, written with input from somewhere between 85 and 100 senior Trump advisors and endorsed by J.D. Vance in his foreword to the main author’s book, will attack our freedom in many directions. Here are five of the awful things they are planning to do:

  1. Viciously attack immigrants with massive deportations and detentions that would be far, far worse than the criminal cruelty of Trump’s first administration (this link outlines all the immigration points I summarize below)
  2. Attack women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and women’s equality—starting with banning abortion in all 50 states.
  3. Act as if the climate crisis doesn’t exist: wildly ramp up dirty energy sources like oil, coal and nuclear while destroying green energy programs. According to the Sierra Club, “Project 2025 is essentially a death sentence for federal climate and environmental protections.”
  4. Eliminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs—and further enable Trump’s long history of open and blatant racism, from the 1970s right up to his recent race-based attacks on Kamala Harris, to be just the outward face of seriously cruel policies..
  5. Eliminate the right to vote for millions of people, through obscenely difficult registration procedures, reduction of polling places in areas that vote Democratic, and even bringing armed thugs to polling places to discourage voters of color—and, from all appearances, try to maintain power indefinitely. Trump even publicly told a so-called Christian Nationalist audience (if you look at what Christ said, they’re not Christians), “You got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

Because this article is a project of Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice, let’s look more closely at the horror of Project 2025’s immigration proposals. You can find equally horrifying parts attacking civil rights, social equity, women’s reproductive freedom, the environment, and even education itself. According to the Niskanen Center, a centrist think-tank, Project 2025 would demolish legal immigration and make the US less safe while inflicting significant damage to the US economy

Specific policies within Project 2025 are a fascist’s dream and a progressive’s nightmare. To list just some proposals, it would:

  •       Choke off many types of legal immigration (even for survivors of crimes)
  •       Cut off federally funded student loans from up to 10.7 million US students at schools that grant in-state tuition to DACA recipients and undocumented students
  •       Ban most immigration from 13 countries that refuse to receive deported nationals
  •       Repeal ALL Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations (putting about 700,000 long-term US residents at risk of deportation)
  •       Stop processing refugee immigration applications
  •       Eliminate work permits for many immigrants, denying them jobs and creating a burden on taxpayers
  •       Require immediate expulsion if Customs and Immigration Service denies an application, even for simple paperwork errors, and even for people with valid Green Cards
  •       Force state and local governments to provide driver’s license and other data to the feds—pretty much ending Sanctuary communities around the country
  •       Eliminate ALL privacy protection for those without documents, leading to risk of harassment by private vigilantes and deportation or incarceration by federal agencies
  •       Evict from public housing mixed-status families that include citizens or green card holders and people without documents

Immigration justice activists will also be badly hurt by non-immigration-related parts of both Project 2025 and Trump’s own hate-filled speeches such as how to handle dissent and dissenters.

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections…They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream…the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within…” 
—Donald Trump, speaking at a rally in Claremont, NH, November 11, 2023

Note that the “vermin” wording is one of several times Trump has plagiarized from Adolf Hitler. That’s not a coincidence.

If Trump gets back into the White House, many progressives might have to organize from inside the walls of prisons and detention centers. Proposals to stop dissent from those who lean Democrat and other supposed “enemies” include:

Another deeply worrisome batch of proposals would centralize government power in the White House and eliminate even the weak protections against corporate greed that now exist: Project 2025 aims to:

  •       Move control of the Federal Communications Commission (which regulates TV, radio, telephone, etc.) and other public protection agencies directly under the White House while eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce entirely
  •       Permanently eliminate career managers and replace them with political appointees loyal to Trump

Coupled with the recent Supreme Court Trump v. United States decision giving presidents they like unlimited powers to quash dissent, including even assassinating their enemies, we need to take these threats—and all the other threats wrapped up in Project 2025 and in Trump’s own words—VERY seriously.

And to those who voted “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary to protest Biden’s way-too-enabling response to Netanyahu’s massive crime in Gaza, let’s not forget that Trump has not only called for detaining/deporting Pro-Palestinian students and their allies but has told Israel to “finish the problem,” encouraging the Israelis to continue on the path toward genocide.

Sitting out this election or voting 3rd-party is not an option if you want to protect democracy and prevent fascism. Without ranked-choice voting, any vote other than for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump and his brand of fascism.  Is Harris perfect? Certainly not. But elections in a two-party, winner-take-all election are not about getting the perfect candidate. They are about who we’d rather be organizing against or trying to impact!

Although on a number of key issues–especially immigration justice and the war in Gaza–Harris is far from where we want her to be, we activists across the country will have a much better chance to extract concessions from a Harris-Walz administration than from the fascist alternative. As Abraham Josephine Riesman wrote in Slate, progressives do influence the Biden administration: “They have, at times, responded to pressure from their left wing in Congress (the so-called Squad and others), as well as pressure from unions and advocacy campaigns…”

National partners in the immigration justice movement (led by those most directly impacted) confirm that progressive organizing campaigns have led to recent wins (e.g. TPS for Haitian asylum seekers, legal paths and freedom from deportation for undocumented spouses and children of US citizens).  Currently the ACLU and immigration justice groups are suing the Biden administration for their new anti-asylum executive orders.  Under a Biden-Harris or a Harris-Walz administration, these suits and advocacy efforts can move forward.  We don’t know what repressive steps would be taken if MAGA were to win.

As we continue to fight to save lives in Gaza and on the US/Mexico border, we must be assured of the best environment possible to continue to influence legislators and the administration, speak up and speak out, and push the news media to take stands in favor of peace and justice.   With Biden and Harris, we have been able to push for better policies and we have had some wins.  We need to elect Harris and Walz so that radicals will not be hunted down as they were during the McCarthy era and so we can build our movements to be as large and inclusive as possible.  This is a long-term fight, and electing Harris and Walz is just the first step.

In fact, we urge you to vote for Democrats for every contested office this time so that Harris and Walz can get things done without getting blocked by Congress, state legislatures, governors, and judges at every turn.  The choice this time is clearer than it’s ever been.

 

Lifelong activist Shel Horowitz wrote this on behalf of Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice, which unanimously endorses it and ran an abridged version in its newsletter. An author, international speaker, TEDx Talker, and expert in turning business into a force for social justice and environmental healing, his award-winning 10th book is Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World. Download excerpts from the book at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com Shel acknowledges Holly Bishop and D. Dina Friedman, whose significant edits made this piece stronger.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, General Commentary, language, Media Ethics, media-general, Mindset, Politics, privacy, Psychology, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , , , ,

Trigger Warning: This post discusses my history as a survivor of separate instances of rape and sexual coercion.

 

Did Trump cheat on his wife with Stormy Daniels? Yes. Was it an affair? No. Does this matter? Absolutely, and I’ll explain why.

My venerable paper copy of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged defines affair in this context as “an intense amorous relationship, usually of short duration.” Dictionary.com copies all the Random House definitions verbatim (it’s definition #6). Microsoft Word’s dictionary calls it “a sexual relationship between two people, one or both of whom are married to or in a long-term relationship with someone else.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “a sexual relationship, especially a secret one.”

Note that all three definitions include “relationship” and the first says it has to be “intense” and “amorous.”

Daniels’ evening with Trump was not a relationship, and the amorousness went in only one direction. They had met casually and he’d asked her to have dinner with him. She says she accepted because her PR agent said it might be career-building and she did not have sex on her mind. Neither did he appear to at first, until she came back from the bathroom and found him on the bed, down to his undies. At best, it was a first date. At worst, it could be considered sexually harassing behavior.

It was not rape. Unlike the myriad of his other accusers, she never claimed that she didn’t consent. She consistently says that she was reluctant, was not enthusiastic, and felt so ashamed afterward that she was shaking as she got dressed again.

I would consider this interaction a coercive sexual encounter, if for no other reason than because of the power dynamics. One party is a rich and famous man in his late 50s, of towering (and intimidating) physical stature, with a bodyguard on the other side of the door. The other, a woman in her 20s and not overly familiar with the centers of power, is known only in a socially marginalized (though extremely popular) industry that has low credibility with mainstream media and mainstream morality.

He has all the power. And if she still has any illusions that he might help her career, she’s going to get on that bed even if she doesn’t really want to. For her, it was transactional; for him, it may have been notching a conquest or some kind of boost to his fragile ego. I can only speculate on his reasons, because despite the massive evidence, he denies the incident ever took place. 

I survived a rape, grabbed off the street by a stranger and dragged to a stairwell at age 10 or 11 (yes, it happens to boys—more of us than you probably think). I also survived a coercive sexual encounter at age 18 with a creepy 53-year-old man who’d made no secret of his desire to get into my pants. Like Stormy’s encounter with Trump, it was not rape because I was not in a position to withhold consent. And like that notorious encounter, it made me feel like total crap.

I had also, at that point, had a months-long actual affair with a man ten years older than me and several consensual one-nighters.

It’s not hard to tell the difference among these four types of encounters. The affair was mutual. It was delightful. It was a relationship. The consensual one-nighters were fun but did not lead to an ongoing relationship. For some of them, I wished it had continued—but that wasn’t the other person’s agenda.

The coerced encounter was not fun. It was unpleasant but in that moment I saw it as unavoidable. I have far more resources and communication skills these days and would handle it differently now, almost forty years later. While it was disgusting, it didn’t create long-term trauma. But the rape was traumatic, with consequences that lasted many decades and are not completely done yet. I couldn’t even bring myself to tell anyone for several years, and I never told my parents. It remains, after more than 50 years, the worst day of my life.

Neither being raped nor being coerced into sex is anything I would ever characterize as an affair. There is no relationship. There is not even any mutuality.

With this lens, with this history, you can understand why it has upset me since Daniels first went public that so many people who should know better, including many journalists, use the wrong term. Just the first results page from an Ecosia.org (tree-planting search engine) search for “stormy daniels affair” brought hits from the New York Times, BBC, NPR, NBC’s Chicago affiliate, and CNN. Now, with the trial verdict, it’s back in the news and I’m finally ready to call out these journalists. They are making it sound like love was involved, that these were two people who cared about it each other. But they didn’t.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

No—but he may as well be. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were told that Soviet schools (especially during the Stalin years) were places of indoctrination, not learning. They were propaganda factories churning out children whose world view was all about how great our then-enemy (and again enemy, since it invaded Ukraine) was—who would grow up to be dupes, unquestioning of their country’s moral, economic, and military superiority, etc. The same was true—and this we know as fact—of the schools the Nazis ran.

Of course, US schools, and the schools of pretty much any country, have also served a propaganda function. Schools are designed to raise children who would be complicit in or even participate in such things as the US’s involvement in numerous imperialist wars. Those wars are attempts to prop up a deadly version of capitalism whose place in developing countries was to exploit the resources—and not to worry about how many of the locals were killed or brutalized in the process. And again, the US was not alone. Ask in India about the Brits, in Congo about the Belgians, in South Africa about the Dutch, in Armenia about the Turks, in First Nations in Canada and the US about the history of their relations with White-run governments.

These days in most of the US and in other democracies, a more nuanced version of history is taught. History usually recognizes the moments where a country went astray, looks at the reasons, and at least casually discusses the consequences.

But in Florida, starting this month, that is no longer true. Heather Cox Richardson devoted her newsletter this morning to exploring the white supremacist fantasy that Florida now calls history and requires its teachers to teach. And I call the Florida curriculum a total distortion of truth. Read her column! It’s crucial to understand what’s going on in the battle for our children’s minds and souls.

Of course, this rogue state under Ron DeSantis has had a problem with truth telling for a while. It has a nasty habit of censoring anything that makes someone—at least a conservative White, cis, hetero, and male someone with no disabilities—a little uncomfortable. This is the state where it’s illegal for a teacher to mention LGBT folks, let alone that we are normal and part of the diversity that makes our country great. (I identify as bisexual so I include myself in that community.) Where it’s illegal for a teacher to point out that systemic racism still exists in the US. Where book banning has taken more than 300 books out of classrooms and libraries. And where DeSantis forced curriculum and management changes at a well-known progressive college in the state system that resulted in another progressive college, an expensive private school near me, offering to accept students from there at the same low tuition cost they’d been paying (and several accepted).

Unfortunately, while its approach is extreme, Florida isn’t alone. Other states are passing similar laws in a foolish counterrevolution that will dull the ability of its students to think, to make ethical choices, and ultimately, to show leadership. In addition to the obvious consequences of attacking human rights of those other than conservative White, cis, hetero, and male, this regressive path, in my opinion, leads to intellectual stagnation and the US falling behind other countries in the quality of our science, invention, and achievement. So in both moral and practical terms, it’s a disaster.

Fight for our right as a nation to have a REAL education! Support teachers and librarians! And most importantly, vote the censors who would drum critical thinking out of our children and turn them into compliant automatons out of office!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Environmenl, Ethics: General, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Sexuality and Gender, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

El Greco's painting of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. Via Wikipedia.
El Greco’s painting of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. Via Wikipedia.

There is a part of me that hopes the Republican Party nominates DeSantis, because when he loses the general election by a huge margin, it will be a repudiation of the entire loathsome cloak of hatred that DT and RDS both stand for. No one will be able to make a case that it was merely a rejection of DT’s criminal activity, egomania, lack of loyalty to those who stood by him, and/or incompetence.

While RDS shares and even exceeds DT’s vile politics, and has an equally thin skin, he at least appears to be rational and is not shadowed by a long list of personal scandals and accusations of criminality for personal benefit. The crimes he is accused of, such as breaking laws and misusing Florida tax dollars in deceiving immigrants to board planes from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, have been about his policies–like those of the equally creepy governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, who booby-trapped the Rio Grande to prevent an influx of immigrants, breaking maritime laws and hurting local businesses in the process.

I like to think–and maybe it’s a delusion–that the vast majority of US voters want no truck with either of these men’s open racism, homophobia/transphobia, self-defined “Christian” nationalism, xenophobia, attacks on women’s reproductive rights, love of guns more than the right not to be randomly shot, and all the rest of it.

Why do I put “Christian” in quotes? Because Christ, based on my reading of the Four Gospels, would have had no truck with their bigotry in His name. Christ’s morals were about helping the poor, the downtrodden, those disabled and ostracized because of disease. Christ threw the moneychangers and merchants–the apex capitalists of their era–out of the Temple. He blessed the peacemakers and the poor and the meek, rescued a woman about to be stoned to death for violating sexual mores, embraced people of other cultures–the Samaritans were a despised cultural group, so it was a big deal for him to talk about the Good Samaritan.

Contemporary right-wing bigots treat immigrants and refugees as subhuman, while Jesus proclaimed, “Welcome the stranger!” They demand an end to the slightest restrictions on guns, while Jesus preached nonviolence not just in offering the other cheek to an attacker who strikes your cheek, but condemning even thoughts of hating another.

If I were to flag every passage of Jesus living His life and preaching His truth in direct opposition to the intolerance, violence, and small-mindedness of these “Christians,” this post would go on for many pages. But the elevator-pitch version is simply this: If you call yourself a Christian and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, you must be willing to accept and even celebrate values like peace, nonviolence, diversity, equality, respect for the natural environment, fair treatment of “the stranger” (immigrants, those of different races or ethnicities or gender orientation), and improving the lot of the poor and the ostracized.

And as an immigration justice, social justice, and environmental activist who has read the Gospels more than once even though I’m not a Christian, I welcome His allyship.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, language, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Someone on Quora asked, “How do you tell someone their name is wrong?”

A kindergarten classroom similar to what I experienced in 1961. Via Wikimedia Commons, credited to Yogurt yeah. Full attribution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kindergarten_class_early_1970s.jpg
A kindergarten classroom similar to what I experienced in 1961. Via Wikimedia Commons, credited to Yogurt yeah. Full attribution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kindergarten_class_early_1970s.jpg

That question brought up a painful long-ago memory. I responded, “Two weeks into kindergarten, I was transferred to a new school. On my arrival day, the teacher said, “I hope you spell your name S-h-e-l-d-o-n, because that’s how we spell it here.” Even at not-yet-five-years-old, I was outraged. I thought but did not say, “Who the #*^%& are you to tell ME how to spell MY name?”

I don’t think that at four years old I even knew a good cuss word to put in the string of symbols but I did know she was messed up. It was an assault on my identity, even though it was not an identity I’d chosen or even liked; in high school, I shortened my name to Shel. But in kindergarten, that was a long way in the future. 

It happened that her spelling was correct—but if it had not been, I’d have gone home and complained to my parents. A few years later, I would have politely told the teacher that her spelling wasn’t the right one, and that I did know how to spell my name. She did get the spelling right—but I tuned that teacher out to the point where it is the ONLY memory I had of her because she had established herself in my head as an ‘authority figure’ of zero importance to me. I went through the motions of kindergarten. I may have wasted a whole year of schooling because she discredited herself to me on my first day.

In today’s world, where the same root name can have a dozen wildly variant spellings, we should not only honor the names people use (whether given or chosen), but also their choice of pronouns. As the parent of a grown child who identifies as nonbinary, I can assure you that they see every intentional use of the pronouns they rejected as a similar assault on their personhood. Five years since the pronoun change, I still goof up once in a while–but they know it’s unintentional and that I’m doing my best to overcome 25 years of programming that associated them with pronouns that were biologically determined.

My kid even wrote a song about the experience of being misgendered repeatedly by a stranger–a waiter in a restaurant. Their website is Flight or Visibility.

And if you’re one of those people that pride yourself on fighting the “culture wars” to preserve heteronormative CIS-gendered lifestyles as the only choice, I’ve got a few questions for you:

  1. Why is the way some other people are wired threatening to you?
  2. Why do you need to stop other people from living the life that feels not just natural to them but their destiny?
  3. How would you feel if it was your personal lifestyle being attacked by people in the centers of power?
  4. Why do you choose actions that invalidate their personhood as mine was invalidated by that kindergarten teacher and my kid’s by that waiter? Does it make you feel superior to put other people down?
  5. If this were not natural, why have non-hetero and gender-queer people of all sorts existed throughout history, even in openly scornful or even repressive societies? Even into the late 1960s, there was basically no support for queer people of any sort, and in many parts of the world, it’s still an anathema that can lead to long prison terms. Yet people persist. They are willing to take on the burdens because they cannot deny who they are. Unlike the homophobes, they are not trying to “recruit” or “convert” others, just trying to live their lives. Why do you try to deny them?
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Politics, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,
Purity illustration: Jesus Baptism by Waiting for the World. Licensed through Creative Commons.
Purity illustration: Jesus Baptism by Waiting for the World. Licensed through Creative Commons.

When I was a kid, Proctor and Gamble was still running TV ads claiming Ivory Soap was “99 and 44/00 percent pure.” (Digression: Here’s a link to a quick, fun article on the origins of this marketing slogan, which dates back to 1881.) Even back then, I found this absurd–because I  already understood that even just over half a percentage point of impurity meant it wasn’t pure at all. It was actually pretty contaminated. After all, sewage is 99 percent water–and I don’t know anyone who would want a glass of that.

In daily living, 100% purity is a rare thing indeed. In science and in business, we’re often very appropriately guided by the slogan, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

A typical process would be:

  1. Design.
  2. Test.
  3. Debug.
  4. Redesign.
  5. Ship.
  6. Receive user feedback and debug, then iterate again.

That process works far better than holding out for an illusory perfection that can’t even exist until real-world conditions show us the flaw. So why do we demand it in our politics? I read a New York Times article this morning about a controversy over naming one of its telescopes for 50s-60s-era NASA head James Webb because he may or may not have been homophobic. The article makes it abundantly clear that whether he was or not is a matter of debate–but he was clearly antiracist at a time when that was far from popular, and provided many career opportunities for people of color. It also reminds us that homophobia was the official policy of the US government at that time.

We humans are an evolving species. The LGBT movement as it existed in that era was mostly quiet, clandestine, and not in the mainstream consciousness. The Stonewall Riots, considered the birth of the modern LGBT movement, didn’t take place until 1969. I was very active in that movement from 1973 through 1986 and remain supportive of its goals. But I dont think we should fault Mr. Webb for not being an out-front visionary advocate of LGBT liberation at a time when gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans people were ridiculed or assaulted if they entered the mainstream consciousness at all. Rather we should take pride that as a society, we’ve grown to accept that LGBT folks are entitled to civil rights, to choose their families, and even to marry. When I attended my first same-sex weddings in the late 1970s, I never imagined that legal same-sex marriage would be achieved in my lifetime, let alone in less than 40 years–less than 30 in my own state of Massachusetts.

And for the most part I don’t fault our politicians when they compromise on other issues to get some good things passed into law, as long as they come away with significant progress. (I do get tired of the Democrats’ frequent and problematic tendency to negotiate away far more than they have to to try to get bipartisan support that is usually not forthcoming–but once that fails, they don’t go back to the original stronger versions. This is what Obama did with the ACA, and whatBiden has done on issues like immigration and climate.)

When we pass a week or insufficient law, we have to recognize that we will have the next iteration and the one after that–and we can work to strengthen our hand. Change is more often gradual than sweeping. Even the loathsome Bill Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about gays in the military was a huge improvement over the dishonorable discharges and possible prison terms that were official policy before that change–though I’m very glad to see it go away, and to see the Respect for Marriage Act become law just six days ago. (Another digression: here’s an academic essay from the quite recent past–2021–arguing that don’t ask, don’t tell” should be overturned. Warning: it looks like it might be a term paper mill site.) 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail