Obligatory Sappy Romantic Post

Today, I take a brief pause from ranting about the state of the world to celebrate the fact that I’ve been married to the best guy ever for twelve years.  We’ve been through infertility and pregnancy loss, and all manner of chronic health issues.  He supported me through a career change and a master’s degree.  We bought a house, did a bunch of work on it, planted a garden, accumulated too much stuff, did more work, got rid of stuff and accumulated different stuff.  We’ve fostered dogs, and a cat, and hope to foster children.  We’ve been to London, and Alaska, and Pennsic.

I’m looking forward to the next dozen years, and the next, and the next.

Advertisements

Actually, it is personal.

I miss high school debate.  Getting assigned a topic, researching the hell out of it, putting together a convincing speech.  We talked about serious issues, but to me, it was always fun. Looking back on it, I now see that as privilege.  It was never anything that affected me personally, so I could look at it from a safe distance.  I remember debating against affirmative action, and now I marvel at the absurdity of having a bunch of white kids, many of whom went to all-white schools, debate affirmative action as though it was something we actually understood anything about.

I find myself losing my cool more often in Facebook and Twitter debates, and I’m realizing that things that are deeply and intensely personal to me are just thought exercises for other people.

I haven’t been able to convey the extent to which the 2016 election broke something inside me.  I’ve been grieving for a year and a half, and everything feels irredeemable. And yet, I see so many people acting as though everything’s fine.

My friendships with conservative-leaning people have been more than a little strained.  I’m okay losing the person who tells me that “well, *actually,* Donald Trump is an ally to the LGBT community” and then, predictably, doesn’t say, “wait, shit, I was wrong,” when he bans trans people from the military.  But for the people who haven’t actively been hateful to me, there’s this chasm between us that I don’t think can be bridged.

I want to scream, “You voted for someone who literally does not think I’m a person” in their faces, but they’d just argue about how *clearly* Trump doesn’t hate women because look how proud he is of his daughter.  Or that I’m unfairly accusing them of misogyny.

Because the sexism isn’t personal to them.  For the guys, they can just ignore it.  It wasn’t said about them, or women they like, so it doesn’t affect them.  For the women, I honestly don’t know.  I don’t get how you can vote for someone who very clearly doesn’t see you as a person, unless you’ve been so beaten down by abusive theology or just plain abuse that you don’t see yourself as a person either.

But to me, it’s personal.  I remember being out at a concert, right after the election and wondering if I was safe.  The rash of hate crimes and sexual assaults was going on, and I sure as hell didn’t feel safe.

When someone has hurt you deeply, and they can’t even conceptualize the idea that you could or should be hurt by what they did, what the hell do you do with that?  The civility police would tell me that I’m supposed to let it go, and be extra nice to them in order to convince them that maybe voting for a brazenly racist authoritarian is a bad thing to do, but there’s no way to communicate the extent of the badness when civility means pretending that everything is fine, and *of course* their guy can’t be a misogynist, because that means I think they’re misogynist, and they totally voted for a woman that one time.  (I literally had someone say to me that they don’t know whether they’ve ever voted for a woman or not, because gender is so completely irrelevant and they focus on *policy.*  Ri-ight.  I’m sure you couldn’t tell me the gender of your current senator or representatives, but you could totally explain their policies in depth.)

I’m tired of the idea that I should be nice to people who don’t view me as fully human.  But the thing that makes it hard is they’re convinced that they do, because they’ve turned politics into this abstraction that doesn’t matter in real life.

Calling for a Truce in the Workplace Diet Wars

A couple weeks ago, Ask a Manager had a post “My Coworker Keeps Pushing Junk Food on Me,” that generated a lot of heated discussion.  The LW, on a weight loss diet, would really like the coworker to stop bringing in so many sweets and snacks, and to quit offering them to her.  There was, of course, the strong implication that the coworker was “bad” and “wrong” for offering sinful, sinful treats, and Alison did call the LW out for mentioning the coworker’s weight. No name was given, so I’m gonna call the coworker Sally just to keep things straight.

The thing that struck me the most is that respect for coworkers’ food choices has to go both ways.  A lot of people were really quick to assume that the coworker was going to get really pushy, when the LW had never actually said, “Actually I don’t eat X, please stop offering.”

Yes, there is a weird thing that people feel like they need “co-conspirators” to eat “bad” food, so people do try to get other people to eat treats with them to assuage their guilt.  But, the comments pretty clearly illustrated why that’s the case.  People attributed all sorts of negative motivations to Sally, made snarky comments about her weight and assumptions about her health.  It was kind of a microcosm of the judgment toward fat people eating anything other than a salad anywhere ever.

I feel like the way you shut down that dynamic, if that is what’s going on, is not to assert that your food is better or more moral and virtuous, but to just shut down any kind of moralizing about food. Don’t criticize Sally for what she eats, don’t complain that someone’s bringing in food to share, just politely ask her to quit offering food, you know where it is if you decide you want some.  But also don’t rhapsodize about how good you’re being by only eating a salad for lunch and how everybody should eat the way you’re eating.  Basically, if Sally is looking for a partner in crime, and you’re treating her like a food criminal, you’re feeding into that.

I really think the LW was approaching the situation as though her diet was clearly superior and Sally, with her Cheetos and cupcakes, was clearly in the wrong.  But if you’re going to judge someone else’s diet as sinful and gluttonous, you really have no room to complain if they judge yours as boring, insufficient, and no fun.

I feel like it would be better to approach all food as morally neutral and highly individual.  You’re trying to avoid sweets, fine.  Not everybody is.  Not everybody needs to.  But it might be better to treat it as if Sally brought in something that you happen to be allergic to, rather than that she’s the villain trying to sabotage your diet.

I mean, I sympathize with being offered tasty, tasty food that you really want but that’s not really your friend.  My coworkers have a cheese club, where we take turns bringing in random fancy cheese for everyone to try.  And at least half the time it’s some jalapeño, or habañero, or Old Bay concoction that would trigger my IBS.  And it sucks.   But my coworkers aren’t trying to make me sick.  They’re just bringing in stuff that they like, and sometimes it works for me and sometimes it doesn’t.  I also kind of suspect that the LW isn’t getting enough fat or enough calories to be satisfied (because you usually don’t on a weight loss diet).  So, of course she wants the freaking cupcakes, because she’s *hungry.*

Additionally, the distraction of being offered food is a whole separate thing.  It’s fine and reasonable not to want your coworker to swing by your desk two and three times a day and break your concentration.  But I wonder if the LW would be less annoyed at the interruption if Sally were offering hard-boiled eggs or protein bars, or whatever’s on her specific diet.  Because the distraction would be the same either way.

To me, there are a few rules about food at work that should be sacrosanct:

  • Don’t criticize or praise other people’s eating habits, and don’t try to pressure anyone about food.
  • Don’t deprive other people of food.  This includes both snagging more than your fair share of donuts and stealing other people’s lunches.
  • Clean up your own freaking messes.

That’s it.  I’d add “Shut up about your stupid diet already,” but some people enjoy those conversations, so I guess they can have at it.  And honestly, once you’re at a happy place with your own eating, those conversations are much easier to tune out.

Basically, if you want your food choices to be respected, foster an environment of respect and permission, to the extent that you can.  It’s “do unto others,” the food edition.

No, we don’t have to enforce all the laws – we can’t

One of the ways people justify evil things while still believing that they themselves are good people is to hide behind the rules.  “Yes, it’s terrible that families are being separated, but those parents *broke the law.*”

There are a thousand good counterarguments to that including that in many cases, no, they didn’t.  Seeking asylum is a protected legal right, even if a person came here illegally.  Not only that, but it’s illegal to punish an asylum seeker for coming in illegally if they can show good cause why they didn’t come the legal way.  Since the US has been sending asylum seekers away from official points of entry, and since the asylum application process at a US embassy can take years, it’s not surprising that people fleeing for their lives cross the border illegally.

But apart from that, there’s a stunning hypocrisy when “law and order” people wholeheartedly support a president who’s claimed the ability to pardon himself, and who has pardoned a sheriff for flagrantly abusing the law.  The law, it seems, only matters when you already don’t like the people who are breaking it.

In reality, most people break the law on a regular basis and suffer no consequences whatsoever.  Even if we set aside traffic infractions like speeding and jaywalking, crossing the border without permission is a misdemeanor.  Other misdemeanors include disorderly conduct, vandalism, underage drinking, and public intoxication.  If you drank before you reached legal age, or you’ve ever gotten into a loud argument in a public place or stumbled out of a bar to a waiting Uber or a sober friend’s car, then you are just as much of a criminal as someone who crosses the US border without permission.

The truth is, our system would grind to a screeching halt tomorrow if we decided that every single law on the books had to be enforced to its fullest extent.  For starters, do you really want to prosecute stranded hurricane victims for shoplifting food?  If my house is on fire and I run onto my neighbor’s property, should I be taken in for trespassing?

No matter how carefully rules are written, there are always going to be points when exceptions are needed.  Yes, we should work as many of the needed exceptions as possible into the rules themselves, to avoid favoring only people judges and juries find sympathetic (mostly white guys).  But that effort will never be perfect.

Not only that, but a certain amount of discretion is built into the system at every step. Imagine that every single person who’s pulled over for a traffic offense must be given a ticket.  No more letting people off with a warning, no matter how clean their record is or what other mitigating factors exist.  We’ll probably need to hire more cops just to keep up with the paperwork, and more judges for traffic court.

Now extend that further.  If all laws must be enforced, no exceptions, then plea bargains are no longer a thing.  The state now has to spend money prosecuting cases it can’t necessarily win, because there’s no motivation for anyone to plead guilty to a lesser offense.  If “all laws have to be enforced,” then they have to be charged with every single offense that the evidence supports, regardless of what they’ll plead guilty to.

This also destroys any concept of getting immunity in exchange for testimony.  If you’ve got to prosecute the small-time drug dealer regardless, he’s not going to give evidence against his boss or his boss’s boss.

So, no, we don’t need to enforce all the laws all the time.  We couldn’t possibly, and we’d break the system if we tried.

Show Up and Vote

Back on May 21, Jim Wright (@Stonekettle) posted a long thread about how Republicans control such a large portion of government because liberals don’t show up, or only show up every four years, and ignore the state legislatures who choose electors and establish voting laws.  He pointed out, repeatedly, that the only way to win is to show up.  The only way to reform anything is to show up and vote.  (I’d link the thread, but I’m not finding it in Google, and Twitter history doesn’t go that far back.)

And, yes, there are people who can’t vote.  They don’t have the cash to order their birth certificate from another state so they can get an ID that will be accepted at the polls.  Or their polling place isn’t accessible with their disabilities.  Or neither of their two minimum wage jobs will let them out of a shift to vote, because *they* aren’t scheduling them for the whole day, but when you factor in both shifts and transportation between the two, there’s literally no time in which they could vote that the polls are open.

These are all real problems.  For some people, they’re solvable problems.  There’s a nonprofit who will help them get ID or a coworker who’ll cover a shift or a friend who will drive them to their polling place.  For others, they aren’t.  It’s not my place, as a mostly (if not entirely) able-bodied white chick with my own car and a reasonable employer, to tell someone in one of these situations that they *can* vote if they just try hard enough.  It’s not my place to tell someone with a painful disability how long they *have* to stand in line outside to do their civic duty.

And yet, none of those completely real and completely valid problems changes the fact that if we don’t show up, en masse, we are all fucked.

Yes, there is all manner of cheating.  Gerrymandering and cancellation of early voting and closing of DMVs and polling places.  It’s abhorrent.  But the winning team picks the refs.  There is no higher authority we can realistically appeal to to make our elections fairer. (The UN observes, but has no power to *make* the US do anything.)  Either we win the game, we pick better refs, and we make the rules fairer, or we lose, the other team cheats more blatantly, and our chances of ever winning get slimmer and slimmer.

And, despite the analogy, this isn’t a game.  We lose, people die.  People are already dying because we lost in 2016.

So, if you can vote, you need to vote.  Every general election, every primary, every position.  The county commissioner and state legislator in your area have tons of power to affect your life.  Not only that, but being mayor or state delegate or holding some other local office is how people get the experience to run for Senate or governor or President.  If you want more women and POC in Congress, then you need more women and POC on the school board and in the state assembly.

If you’ve got hours to look up the candidates, great, do that.  If you’ve got ten minutes, spend that ten minutes on Vote411 or Ballotpedia and make the most informed decision you can.  These sites will let you print out a custom ballot to take to the polls.

If you can do more than show up, do that. If you can register people to vote, do that.  If you can drive people to the polls, do that.  If you can donate money to the NAACP or VoteRiders or the Progressive Turnout Project, do that. If you can run for office next year, great, do that.

Those of us who are able to vote need to show up.  Those of us who are able to help others show up need to do that.  This is made more urgent, not less, by gerrymandering, voter suppression, and Election Day not being a national holiday.

I’d also like to stress that not being inspired is not a reason not to vote.  Not liking either candidate is not a reason not to vote.  As a Quaker-flavored progressive Christian, I generally don’t feel it’s my place to impose moral duties on other people.  But I’ll make an exception for voting.  (Again, I want to distinguish between “can’t” and “don’t feel like it.”) It’s a civic duty, not a fun hobby.  And it matters.  It’s literally a matter of life and death for many people.  So, if it’s in any way possible for you, please, for the love of all things good and holy, show up and vote.

 

Bullies with Chicken Sandwiches

Content note for homophobia, suicide, death penalty, Islamophobia

It’s been a few weeks (roughly eight and a half years in internet time) since Jonathan Merritt posted a long Twitter diatribe about how hypocritical liberals are for not eating at Chick-Fil-A ( threads are here and here). To summarize, liberals who don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A are apparently massive hypocrites unless they not only boycott *all* Muslim businesses (regardless of that business’s actual stance or donations, just based on the sweeping assumption that Muslim = anti-gay) *and* somehow manage to boycott gas because Saudi Arabia is anti-gay.

And, despite everything that’s happened in the mean time (for example, our so-called President reneging on the Iran deal and courting open war because he hasn’t shit on President Obama’s legacy enough yet), I’m still pissed off about it.

At this point, one important  reason I don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A is that the very mention of Chick-Fil-A makes me think about self-righteous conservatives lecturing me about how I should eat there, because if I don’t I’m a vicious bully who’s trying to single-handedly bankrupt the poor, innocent owners who are just trying to be good Christians.

Unfortunately for those conservatives, I reached my quota of bullying by the eighth grade, and I’ve also reached the point where I want to tell them exactly what they can go do with that chicken sandwich. At this point, it’s nice that Chick-Fil-A has stopped or reduced donations to some of the most virulent anti-gay groups, but nothing short of a public apology, a giant donation to the Trevor Project or the Trans Lifeline, or sponsorship of a freaking Pride parade, is going to make me want to eat there again.  There are plenty of other fast-food places whose fries don’t carry the aftertaste of donations to organizations that think I’m a child molester because I’m bi.

Honestly, I think what really pisses me off about Jonathan Merritt’s crappy analogies is both the blatant Islamophobia and the insistence that LGBT people be grateful to Christians for not executing us.  It’s telling that Merritt assumes that a random guy with a falafel cart must be as anti- gay as Focus on the Family, and probably more so.  Never mind that affirming Muslims exist, or that he gets cranky when Christians are painted with a broad brush.  In the same vein, he wants liberals to boycott Saudi Arabia (as impractical as that is) but doesn’t appear to care if they boycott products from Uganda.  I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that Uganda is predominantly Christian, or that their anti-gay laws were inspired by American preachers.

Look, you don’t get a medal for not executing gay people, especially when Christians can call for *exactly that* without being thrown out of their churches or losing their livelihoods.  Seriously, Google “pastor calls for executing gays” and you’ll find hordes of these guys.  They might spark a protest or two, but their congregations don’t get up and walk out en masse when they say gay people should be stoned.  Scott Lively literally blames gay people for the Holocaust.  Has he been shunned? No, he’s running for governor of Massachusetts. The Liar Tony Perkins can accuse gay people of molesting and recruiting children all day long, and the Family Research Council continues to rake in millions of dollars in donations.

For that matter, a gay person executed in Saudi Arabia isn’t any deader than a gay teenager who freezes to death on a park bench because his family kicked him out.  Or the one who slits their wrists after hearing a sermon about how people like them are disgusting to God and that natural disasters are punishment for their sins.  Yes, obviously, gay people in the US generally have it much better than those in Saudi Arabia, but let’s not pretend that driving someone to suicide is fine and dandy, as long as you’re not tying the hangman’s knot yourself.

So, no, I’m not grateful that the majority of anti-gay churches in the US (though, let me restate, *not all*) have cleared the ridiculously low bar of not pushing for LGB people to be executed.  No more than you would tell a kid whose lunch money was stolen to go back and thank the bully for not beating them too.

And, speaking of lunch money, I’m sorry that where I spend mine bothers some conservative Christians.  I’m particularly sorry that it bothers them much more than the fact that their theology gets LGBT kids killed.

What about the people who need help? – Guns and Mental Illness Part 4

This post is part of a series.  Part 1 is here. Other links will be added to Part 1 as they’re published.

Another problem with an information pipeline from your therapist to the police is that people already withhold information from their mental health providers because they don’t want to be committed, or because they have other worries.  Even though the conditions under which a therapist is required to break confidentiality are pretty narrow, there are plenty of people who avoid therapy all together to maintain their privacy.

The first time I applied for a background check that included a consent form from my therapist, I was freaking terrified that some bit of information I disclosed would screw up my background check. And I have anxiety disorder—one of most common, least stigmatized, best understood mental health diagnoses out there. Granted, that level of worry is itself a symptom of the anxiety disorder, but expecting people with mental illnesses to act like they don’t have mental illnesses is kind of ridiculous, especially when you’re making it harder for them to get help.

If I were to start experiencing scarier, more significant symptoms, I would definitely be concerned about whether disclosing them to my therapist would impact my job. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I *wouldn’t* get them addressed, but it would give me pause. If we’re going to add *more of that,* we need to be really sure it’s worth it. Especially when, as I mentioned in the last post, mental health is only a tiny sliver of the problem.

This is magnified when you talk about taking people’s guns away, particularly with groups of people who are already clinging to their guns like they live in a warzone. I mean, the NRA is literally taking potshots at teenagers with PTSD because it might threaten their supporters’ ability to sell as many guns as humanly possible. “They’re coming for your guns!” is the best, most successful scare tactic the NRA has, and an awful lot of gun owners are *terrified* of this possibility. It’s one of the reasons mass shootings are such a big moneymaker for gun manufacturers, and therefore for the NRA by virtue of donations. Every time someone murders a bunch of people, people start stocking up on weapons just in case there’s a ban.  Not only do the gun manufacturers then have more money to pour into the NRA’s coffers, but at the same time, the people buying the guns are also donating to the NRA to make sure they get to keep those guns.

So, what happens when the card-carrying NRA member with an arsenal that the local police would envy experiences mental illness symptoms? There are already stigmas about mental illness and about seeking treatment, and they seem to be way more prevalent in conservative circles. So, he’s already got to overcome toxic masculinity telling him that a real man just deals with his problems. Maybe he’s got to overcome his pastor telling him that if you have a mental illness you’re not praying enough or your relationship with God isn’t right. If we add, oh, and you might lose the gun collection that makes you feel safe and that you’ve got a huge portion of your identity as an American and as a man tied up in, he’s even less likely to seek treatment.

That’s not to say that every NRA member views their guns as a core part of themselves or as an extension of their masculinity if they’re male.  But certainly many do.  Gun advertising reinforces this all the time.

And, yeah, I value the lives of the Parkland, and Great Mills, and Sandy Hook kids much more than I value anybody else’s gun collection.  But I also value the life of the guy who’s deeply depressed but doesn’t want to seek therapy because he fears they’ll take away his guns.