This post is mostly for me. This is so I can look at it, and see the progress I've made. I get impatient, you see, and that frustrates me, and occasionally makes me depressed. So, to try and prevent that, I'm writing this.
In 2003, I made my most successful suicide attempt. Prior to that, I hadn't really considered traditional mental health measures to be of help to me. A psychiatrist (whose name I can no longer remember, sadly) actually listened to what I had to say about antidepressants, and how they affect me, and suggested bupropion. I tried it out, and wow, it worked out well. It didn't fix everything, but it put a band-aid on, so the bleeding could at least slow down some.
Fast forward to about two years ago. My husband and I were having some problems with our marriage. I won't go into what here because, frankly, it's not anyone's business but ours. We started seeing someone for couples counseling. After a while, it was pretty clear that we had worked on what we could together, and needed to work on ourselves, so we started seeing the therapist separately.
In that time, my therapist has been working pretty diligently to convince me that I'm worthwhile. I still have moments of doubt about that, but not as many as I used to. The big thing we've been working on lately is how I actually do need to feel like I belong. You see, he's a pretty big fan of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and likes to hit me over the head with it a lot (though I cannot say he's wrong for doing so). As I fight myself up the pyramid, I am realizing that the view looks quite a bit better, the farther up you go. And as I go farther up, I fight myself less and less.
One of my specific problems as far as belonging that I've been facing is my dislike for being touched. This has complicated my life in that the subcultures which I belong to and/or hang out with seem to love to hug people. I have a nice big bubble in which I do not invite people to intrude. Also, some people tend to treat hugging as courtesy rather than a sign of affection. They hug when they say hello, they hug when they say good-bye, etc. It seems a little false to me.
So, I've been watching a bunch of TED talks all this past weekend. One of the ones I ran across was Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin. In this, he discusses oxytocin's role on morality, trust, and yeah, belonging. I knew most of this stuff already, as I'm a huge fan of Patricia Churchland. That is, I was already aware of oxytocin's role on the sociability of mammals. But, I don't really think I ever put it together with how it could be applied to me. So, I had a "perfect storm" moment, in which my previous knowledge from both independent study and therapy combined with what this fellow, Paul Zak was saying. I was already looking up oxytocin nasal sprays before the video ended. Then I realized that those are relatively expensive. Luckily Mr. Zak suggests an alternative at the end of the video, which is to have about eight hugs a day. That seems a little overwhelming to me, but I'm willing to start out slow and give it a try.
So, two years ago, I've gone from feeling pretty worthless, to tentatively feeling like I should be getting about eight hugs a day to feel like I belong to the human race. The idea of deserving this is a new concept for me.
Another thing which recently happened was that I had a bit of a meltdown last week. In the midst of feeling overwhelmingly bad, I had a good moment. Rather than numb the emotion like I would normally do, I stopped myself, and said, "No! I would rather feel shitty than nothing at all!" and forced myself to not numb the emotion. This is actually pretty important, as it seems pretty commonly accepted that doing this to one emotion causes the same to happen in all of them. It's also pretty startling, as it's something I've done for almost three decades. I'm hoping I don't backslide into this habit again.
There are other things, other steps which I've taken, that show my progress, but I think these two are particularly poignant, along with being recent. I think these are both very two important steps I've taken along my journey, and am looking forward to my next steps. Now, I just need to avoid the temptation of dismissing my previous steps when I'm feeling particularly bad and/or impatient.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Girls don't like nice guys
There's this tendency of "nice guys" to say that they are sick of getting friend zoned, and how women just want the "bad boys". I am getting really tired of this! First of all, does anyone actually believe that women want to get into a relationship with some scum bag? Like, I know there's some evolutionary psychology BS about how women want the "tough guy" to be able to take care of any potential offspring / bring home the bacon. But, in my opinion, this is complete and utter dreck. Secondly, how do these guys even know that they're being rejected because they aren't "mean" enough?
I mean, seriously. Being on the conventionally unattractive end of the spectrum, it's not like I've been at the top of everyone's "to date" list. And yeah, I used to say that men were just looking for someone attractive. I'd watch guy after guy go after women who treated them like shit, just because they looked good. Meanwhile, I got left in the dust. But you know what? I realized that I want someone who will want me for who I am. That *includes* the outside, you know, the face, the body, the whole nine yards. I don't want to date someone who's just "giving the nice, but fat girl a try". I want to date someone who looks at me and sees someone beautiful, inside and out.
The second thing I realized is that I don't want to be that person who complains about people not giving me a chance. There's two reasons for this. First, I don't want to be in a relationship with anyone who isn't 100% committed to being there. I don't want to guilt anyone into being in a relationship with me, when they feel like they can "do better". That's not healthy for me, or for them. Secondly, who cares if someone doesn't like me "that way"? If they can't see how awesome I am, well, they're the ones missing out, not the other way around! Frankly, I can do better than them.
In addition, I think that when you're with someone who you think is "settling" for the nice guy/girl, you will project your insecurities on to them. Because that's what this is really about, your insecurities. You'll think that you don't deserve to be with someone so awesome, and constantly question why they're with you. And that's some misdirected disrespect, right there.
Quite frankly, we women tend to internalize these issues. We tend to tell ourselves we aren't attractive, and assume that no one wants us. When we bitch about how all men want are the good looking women, it doesn't become a fucking internet meme. The whole reason women end up with those shitty guys? Because THEY were the ones that made the woman feel attractive.
Guess what guys: being nice does not entitle you to a lay. If you treat us with respect, as people, then you aren't going to be as disappointed when we don't fall into bed with you. Because you know what? You act nice because you're talking to a fellow human being, not because you are hoping to score a fuck. If you're doing the latter, you're not actually a nice guy.
And please consider, that while you may find someone intensely attractive, the feeling is not always mutual. Just because you're nice does not mean that there isn't some other flaw in your personality that other people may not like. There may be something about you that just bugs them. It may not be enough to keep you from being their friend, but there tend to be higher standards for someone who you are going to possibly spend your life with. If it's a big enough flaw, it may cause you to become really unappealing to the person, as far as sex/relationships are concerned. (Hint: one of these may be whining about how no one likes nice guys.)
So to sum up:
- Being nice does not entitle you to sex / a relationship
- Women are allowed to pick who they're attracted to as well
- You may very well *be* friend material, rather than relationship material, for a specific woman
- You shouldn't try to get into a relationship with someone who doesn't want to actually be there
- Guilting someone into trying you out as a "nice guy" means you aren't actually a nice guy
- Finally, food for thought
Friday, March 2, 2012
I'm better than you are!
Back when I was young, a nice fresh nineteen, I was working for a convenience store. The assistant manager was a very nice black woman, who really tried to do little things to take care of me. (I still have a cute sewing kit she gave me, for example.) So, I was pretty shocked the day when some Cubans came into the store, and she made a few racists comments about them. This was my first introduction to something I've experienced a few times since: that there is a tendency in the African American community to be racist towards Latinos. (NOTE: This is REALLY not an absolute. It's not even THAT common that I've experienced.)
I found this to be odd. Wouldn't a people who have been subjugated be against doing the same to others? Don't they understand how damaging that is? Why would they intentionally inflict that on others?
I've experienced a similar phenomenon, or rather, several similar phenomena amongst the gay and lesbian community; biphobia and transphobia. There are some homosexuals who are simply hostile to bisexuals (when they even acknowledge that people can be bisexual) and to transgendered people. I've heard people say things like, "Bisexuals need to pick a side" or "I'd never date a bisexual, because they'd just cheat on me with a [someone of the opposite sex]." And of course, the ever popular, "Bisexuals don't exist, they're either just straight people who are experimenting or gay people who aren't ready to accept a gay identity."
The transphobia thing is a little more subtle (though, I admit, only in my experience, if trans people have seen more overt bigotry, please feel free to comment). One of the things I've seen is, if a trans woman is attracted to men, and therefore does not identify with the LGB community, she is sometimes told she *does* belong there, and she's wrong to thing otherwise. To me, this really disrespects the idea of who she actually is, and falsely ascribes it to what genitals she may have previously had, or still has. At the end of the day, I don't think that matters. If she knows she is a straight woman, why would you say she belongs in a gay community? Who are you to decide that for her?
The last has to do with the sanitizing of the community as described in this post. I am very conflicted on this issue (as my comment to the post indicates). BDSM is not exclusive to the gay community, and gay people are not all kinky. So, I can very much understand the idea that people would not want to link the two, unnecessarily. That being said, it's hurtful, when you are in the subculture of a subculture, to have the larger subculture essentially turn it's back on you. In addition, there seems to be this tendency for people within the gay community to be dismissive of the "pervs". "I may be a man who likes to have sex with men, but I'm *normal*, unlike those perverts over there!" Why would anyone feel the need to even make that distinction?
(There's also some really fun distinctions in the feminist activist community. Straight vs lesbian, white vs racial minority, etc. But that's not quite what I'm going for, as those are all complicated by a LOT of other factors, so I'm not going to get into that in this post.)
Anyway, these are all examples of pretty much the same thing. A subjugated group, which is starting to work it's way out of subjugation, turns on another subjugated group, and contributes to this other group's subjugation. I think of this as the "I'm better than you are" phenomenon. I've seen something similar on an individual level as well. When a person is stressed, and worried about losing their job, they may "talk shit" about a fellow employee, so that they look better by comparison. I often wonder if this is what's at work within these subjugated groups. If some of their individual members, on some level, feel anxious about their identified group, and so therefore attempts to make their group look better by comparison. If so, I really wish I knew some effective way of combating this. (The last example is tricky! Especially since fetishes are still a taboo subject.)
I found this to be odd. Wouldn't a people who have been subjugated be against doing the same to others? Don't they understand how damaging that is? Why would they intentionally inflict that on others?
I've experienced a similar phenomenon, or rather, several similar phenomena amongst the gay and lesbian community; biphobia and transphobia. There are some homosexuals who are simply hostile to bisexuals (when they even acknowledge that people can be bisexual) and to transgendered people. I've heard people say things like, "Bisexuals need to pick a side" or "I'd never date a bisexual, because they'd just cheat on me with a [someone of the opposite sex]." And of course, the ever popular, "Bisexuals don't exist, they're either just straight people who are experimenting or gay people who aren't ready to accept a gay identity."
The transphobia thing is a little more subtle (though, I admit, only in my experience, if trans people have seen more overt bigotry, please feel free to comment). One of the things I've seen is, if a trans woman is attracted to men, and therefore does not identify with the LGB community, she is sometimes told she *does* belong there, and she's wrong to thing otherwise. To me, this really disrespects the idea of who she actually is, and falsely ascribes it to what genitals she may have previously had, or still has. At the end of the day, I don't think that matters. If she knows she is a straight woman, why would you say she belongs in a gay community? Who are you to decide that for her?
The last has to do with the sanitizing of the community as described in this post. I am very conflicted on this issue (as my comment to the post indicates). BDSM is not exclusive to the gay community, and gay people are not all kinky. So, I can very much understand the idea that people would not want to link the two, unnecessarily. That being said, it's hurtful, when you are in the subculture of a subculture, to have the larger subculture essentially turn it's back on you. In addition, there seems to be this tendency for people within the gay community to be dismissive of the "pervs". "I may be a man who likes to have sex with men, but I'm *normal*, unlike those perverts over there!" Why would anyone feel the need to even make that distinction?
(There's also some really fun distinctions in the feminist activist community. Straight vs lesbian, white vs racial minority, etc. But that's not quite what I'm going for, as those are all complicated by a LOT of other factors, so I'm not going to get into that in this post.)
Anyway, these are all examples of pretty much the same thing. A subjugated group, which is starting to work it's way out of subjugation, turns on another subjugated group, and contributes to this other group's subjugation. I think of this as the "I'm better than you are" phenomenon. I've seen something similar on an individual level as well. When a person is stressed, and worried about losing their job, they may "talk shit" about a fellow employee, so that they look better by comparison. I often wonder if this is what's at work within these subjugated groups. If some of their individual members, on some level, feel anxious about their identified group, and so therefore attempts to make their group look better by comparison. If so, I really wish I knew some effective way of combating this. (The last example is tricky! Especially since fetishes are still a taboo subject.)
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Conflicting terminology
One of the things I like to think about is when the same word or phrase is used to describe multiple things, and how those different definitions are used in different social groups.
For example, when I was a teenager, I was standing in a comic book shop, engaging in a conversation about this or that comic. This conversation included myself, an employee of the store, and a rather portly fellow. Suddenly, the store employee digressed with this statement, "I can always tell who the subs are." We followed his gaze to an attractive young woman walking into the store. I was pretty confused, and asked, "Wait... can you explain that?" He responded that he was talking about people with subscriptions. I laughed, and said, "OH! I thought you were talking about sexual submissives." The portly gentleman said, "And *I* thought you were talking about submarine sandwiches."
The above illustrates how easily miscommunication can happen, and how divergent language can be used even amongst those who not only share a common language, but a common dialect. I find this incredibly interesting, and often very amusing. I often have to laugh at myself when this sort of thing happens, as it points out that my mind is *constantly* in the gutter.
For example, when many people see "CBT", they think "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy". I've also been told that this can also stand for "Compulsory Basic Training" which is what is required in the UK before someone can drive a motorcycle. On the other hand, when I see that, I usually think "Cock and Ball Torture". Nevermind the fact that I can NEVER see myself engaging in Cock and Ball Torture, it's the first thing that comes to mind when I see the letters "CBT".
Another example are the identifiers "Top" and "Bottom". These terms are both used within the gay male community, and within the BDSM community. Because I communicate regularly with people in both communities, I often have to catch myself to ensure that I'm using these terms in the correct way, depending on my audience. (A momentary digression: My therapist and I were talking about the above two examples, and he mentioned that he believes that "Top" and "Bottom" were re-appropriated from the gay community for use in the BDSM community. I mentioned that I'd been thinking about this for a while, and I agree with him. However, neither of us has proof that this is how this went down. I welcome any thoughts on the subject.)
Okay, so I'll give you a non-sex-related example to close. The word "fugue". As someone who has received a lot of training in music, for most of my life, I was only familiar with the musical term. In my early twenties, I became aware of the psychological term. What is really interesting about this, is that both of these terms actually trace back to the same word. But don't take my word for it, here's the etymology of both: 1590s, fuge, from It. fuga "ardor," lit. "flight," from L. fuga "act of fleeing," from fugere "to flee". Current spelling (1660s) is from the French version of the Italian word.
I really think it's interesting, and can tell you a lot about a person to discover which definitions of words they first thought up when hearing them. I invite anyone reading this to write their own thoughts on various words / terms that are commonly used with two different definitions, and which definition usually comes to mind first.
For example, when I was a teenager, I was standing in a comic book shop, engaging in a conversation about this or that comic. This conversation included myself, an employee of the store, and a rather portly fellow. Suddenly, the store employee digressed with this statement, "I can always tell who the subs are." We followed his gaze to an attractive young woman walking into the store. I was pretty confused, and asked, "Wait... can you explain that?" He responded that he was talking about people with subscriptions. I laughed, and said, "OH! I thought you were talking about sexual submissives." The portly gentleman said, "And *I* thought you were talking about submarine sandwiches."
The above illustrates how easily miscommunication can happen, and how divergent language can be used even amongst those who not only share a common language, but a common dialect. I find this incredibly interesting, and often very amusing. I often have to laugh at myself when this sort of thing happens, as it points out that my mind is *constantly* in the gutter.
For example, when many people see "CBT", they think "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy". I've also been told that this can also stand for "Compulsory Basic Training" which is what is required in the UK before someone can drive a motorcycle. On the other hand, when I see that, I usually think "Cock and Ball Torture". Nevermind the fact that I can NEVER see myself engaging in Cock and Ball Torture, it's the first thing that comes to mind when I see the letters "CBT".
Another example are the identifiers "Top" and "Bottom". These terms are both used within the gay male community, and within the BDSM community. Because I communicate regularly with people in both communities, I often have to catch myself to ensure that I'm using these terms in the correct way, depending on my audience. (A momentary digression: My therapist and I were talking about the above two examples, and he mentioned that he believes that "Top" and "Bottom" were re-appropriated from the gay community for use in the BDSM community. I mentioned that I'd been thinking about this for a while, and I agree with him. However, neither of us has proof that this is how this went down. I welcome any thoughts on the subject.)
Okay, so I'll give you a non-sex-related example to close. The word "fugue". As someone who has received a lot of training in music, for most of my life, I was only familiar with the musical term. In my early twenties, I became aware of the psychological term. What is really interesting about this, is that both of these terms actually trace back to the same word. But don't take my word for it, here's the etymology of both: 1590s, fuge, from It. fuga "ardor," lit. "flight," from L. fuga "act of fleeing," from fugere "to flee". Current spelling (1660s) is from the French version of the Italian word.
I really think it's interesting, and can tell you a lot about a person to discover which definitions of words they first thought up when hearing them. I invite anyone reading this to write their own thoughts on various words / terms that are commonly used with two different definitions, and which definition usually comes to mind first.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Grammar Nazis
For those who don't know, I try to be very precise with my grammar. I also try to encourage this preciseness those people with whom I am closely acquainted. You may ask yourself why I do so. You may ask why you might do so yourself, not knowing fully why. Language is a marker of class, those who speak in the currently acceptable dialects are given more prestige than those who do not.
I have been reading about the effects of prestige language, and language imperialism. This happens all over the globe. Those who are dominant in a culture tend to control what is considered "correct" language. Whether the difference between two languages (Irish versus English), or between dialects (African American Vernacular English versus Standard English), or even accents within the same dialect, there are usually power struggles between those who speak the prestige language, and those who do not.
I have often seen acquaintances make fun of grammatical errors, as if having correct grammar somehow makes them superior to those who do not. While it's true that mastering some of the finer points of English grammar can make one feel triumphant (eg archaic word forms such as "whom"), it does not actually demonstrate a greater intelligence level. Rather, one's ability to speak prestige English seems largely to indicate what kind of family one was born into (likely a middle or upper class family).
(I don't think I'll even go into English's spelling issues. I understand why and how spelling works in English simply because I think that etymology and historical linguistics is a fun hobby. But not everyone is as much of a nerd as I am.)
As such, I attempt to school those who cross my path on the workings of prestige English. It's my own quiet way of encouraging social mobility. My mother, as an Algebra teacher does the same. She will assign a word for her students to learn, in addition to their math studies because she feels the same as I do. That language keeps people from truly being socially mobile.
At the same time I do this, I mourn that I am contributing to the destruction of a dialect. As has been demonstrated (by actual linguists, rather than hobbyists such as myself), the loss of a dialect can cause the loss of knowledge encoded in that language. With the assumption that a dialect does not fit into the ideal of the prestige language, is often the assumption that those who speak it have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. This is often false. However, it is often human nature to assume those who are different from one's self are inferior. As long as we hold this prejudice, we shall not be able to allow people to speak in a different way from ourselves.
Further reading:
The Last Speakers: The Quest to Save the World's Most Endangered Languages by K. David Harrison
Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson
I have been reading about the effects of prestige language, and language imperialism. This happens all over the globe. Those who are dominant in a culture tend to control what is considered "correct" language. Whether the difference between two languages (Irish versus English), or between dialects (African American Vernacular English versus Standard English), or even accents within the same dialect, there are usually power struggles between those who speak the prestige language, and those who do not.
I have often seen acquaintances make fun of grammatical errors, as if having correct grammar somehow makes them superior to those who do not. While it's true that mastering some of the finer points of English grammar can make one feel triumphant (eg archaic word forms such as "whom"), it does not actually demonstrate a greater intelligence level. Rather, one's ability to speak prestige English seems largely to indicate what kind of family one was born into (likely a middle or upper class family).
(I don't think I'll even go into English's spelling issues. I understand why and how spelling works in English simply because I think that etymology and historical linguistics is a fun hobby. But not everyone is as much of a nerd as I am.)
As such, I attempt to school those who cross my path on the workings of prestige English. It's my own quiet way of encouraging social mobility. My mother, as an Algebra teacher does the same. She will assign a word for her students to learn, in addition to their math studies because she feels the same as I do. That language keeps people from truly being socially mobile.
At the same time I do this, I mourn that I am contributing to the destruction of a dialect. As has been demonstrated (by actual linguists, rather than hobbyists such as myself), the loss of a dialect can cause the loss of knowledge encoded in that language. With the assumption that a dialect does not fit into the ideal of the prestige language, is often the assumption that those who speak it have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. This is often false. However, it is often human nature to assume those who are different from one's self are inferior. As long as we hold this prejudice, we shall not be able to allow people to speak in a different way from ourselves.
Further reading:
The Last Speakers: The Quest to Save the World's Most Endangered Languages by K. David Harrison
Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson
Monday, January 9, 2012
Freedom of Speech vs. Anti-Bullying laws
The other day, I got into a debate with someone on Facebook about whether anti-bullying laws are a violation of the First Amendment. I thought that I had argued the point rather well, and apparently, I did, as the other person conceded. This somewhat redeems humanity, in my mind, as it's not often that you can reason with someone, and they will be actually willing to change their mind. So, I thought I would share the debate here:
(This was in response to this article)
Debate partner: This is gonna get a lot sadder if this poor kid becomes the poster child for censorship.
<insert conversation between my debate partner, and someone else>
Debate partner: What, about the censorship? Pretty straightforward, I'd think.
To write the article as nothing more than a human interest piece would be grotesque, right? "Hey, guess what? This kid stepped in front of a bus!"
Nor do I imagine it to be a set-up to an invitation to the funeral.
Closest alternate guess would be that the writer's urging us all to simply grow up, not be such bullies, and hopefully raise our *kids* to not be such bullies.
But that's not how humans work. Already there are censorship laws in place, with cases like this as their meat. There will be more, and we know it. Bullying... it's the new flag, the new cause whereby we oppress each other in the ironic name of ending oppression.
Please don't get me wrong... despite having never met the kid, sure, I feel bad for her too. But I also feel a little worse that she can't rest in peace. She was driven to suicide, and now she's being used as a tool to make you and me more supportive of "STFU if your speech isn't correct" laws.
Me: Emotional pain has the same affect on the brain that physical pain does. That is, the same areas of the brain are stimulated in the same way, and people have the same chemical reactions to this pain. When a person is subjected to severe emotional trauma, they are dealing with the same chemical wash that comes with physical trauma, and, psychologically speaking, it's very much the same thing. However, since there are no visible effects, eg bruising, bleeding, etc, society tells us that this pain is not "real", even though brain imaging quite clearly tells us it is real.
So, a person subjected to severe emotional trauma is under the same amount of duress as say, a person with a long, ongoing terminal disease. This is an especially appropriate analogue in the cases of bullying, given that bullying does not generally cease, or at least, it does not quickly or easily. (Thus the point of the "It Gets Better" campaign.) So, when dealing with physically illness, we debate the merits of assisted suicide, but for those who are in constant emotional pain, we tell them either to get over it, or to wait it out, as it will eventually gets better.
As someone who has suffered from Major Depressive Disorder for the last twenty-seven years, and which in part stemmed from childhood bullying, and as someone who has multiple suicide attempts under her belt, I can tell you now, that being told to get over it doesn't help (no one ever tells you HOW to get over it), and being told it gets better never seems very realistic to someone in the midst of a depressive episode. In addition, this puts the onus of resolving the issue on the victim of the emotional abuse, rather than on those who are causing it.
Now while I can see how identifying emotional abuse as being the same as physical abuse (legally speaking, since it's already been demonstrated to be the same neurologically speaking) can have some issues. That is, in a debate, someone might simply claim that they're being bullied, which may put a stop to the debate. However, if we actually look at anti-bullying laws, they are pretty narrowly defined, and specifically target people who are emotionally abusing children. Children, btw, do not have the cognitive abilities that adults do, and so may find it incredibly difficult to shrug off bullying or look for that light at the end of the tunnel. They simply have not reached that stage of brain development. (This cuts both ways, as bullies do not often have the executive thinking abilities that would allow them to see the consequences of their actions.)
In addition, you are looking at the first amendment outside of the context in which it was drafted. The Bill of Rights was formed specifically in reaction to the war with England. The first amendment protection of free speech was to ensure that citizens could criticize their government without fear of oppression. As a libertarian, I am all for supporting the bill of rights, regardless of the context of the times. However, I don't believe that allowing a group of people to oppress an individual is in the spirit or the letter of this law, or the liberty that it seeks to protect. You are, in essence, telling a group of people that it's okay to emotionally torture someone, in order to express their freedom of speech.
If anti-bullying laws extended more protections than they did, I might agree with you, but they don't. In some jurisdictions, they even allow someone to say that they were morally outraged by someone's behavior, and that they are therefore justified in emotionally abusing someone. I don't think that protecting our most fragile of populations, during their developmental years is an affront to the laws of this land, or the principles of freedom of speech.
(Here's one of the sources regarding emotional pain having the same consequences on the brain. Just google "Emotional Pain is the same as physical pain" if you want to find some more.)
Debate partner: Yeah, I've been bullied in school. Most of us have. And yes, it hurts. Aaaaaand yes, I share your desire to see such activity stamped out.
Where we depart is in our relative optimism / pessimism regarding any related law's ability to do more good than harm.
I remember how the bullies got past the rules that were in place in my own time. It was pretty easy, I think... they just waited 'til they had you alone. Until we finally achieve Orwell's world, I don't see that changing.
Yet there those laws will be, looking for *someone* to control. And there those agenda-mongers will also be, the extremists on both sides, with good precedents now in place on behavior controls beyond the "thou shalt not bring a gun to school and start blasting" standard.
You think this will end well. I applaud your optimism, and feel a mild temptation to even envy it. May you somehow be right. It would delight me, ten years from now, to have to say "my bad" on this one. My grin would likely split my head open.
Me: What you're missing is what legislation can accomplish in the bigger picture. When integration started happening in schools, was racism magically wiped out? No, it wasn't. But, as time has gone on since then, racism has become less acceptable. Is racism gone? No, we must continue the struggle. It's a step-by-step process. However, what integration, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws taught was that racism was no longer acceptable by the majority of the citizens.
The anti-bullying laws aren't meant to stop one bully. They are meant to send a message. I've actually had people tell me that bullying prepares you to have a thicker skin for adulthood. This is actually the exact opposite of what happens, psychologically to people who've been continuously bullied. They develop disorders, and in some cases, brain damage*. Despite this being known, it's still socially acceptable to pass off bullying as something that everyone goes through, and makes people stronger. Anti-bullying laws are meant to address that. It's meant, not for this generation, but for the next. Laws indicate the mores of our society, and send a pretty deep message to those who can't simply take scientific fact.
While this may not help kids now, their children will be raised by a generation of people who were told that bullying is an unlawful act. This should only have a positive affect on how those children will interact. Perfect? No. A good outcome? Socially progressive laws seem to be working so far, but we'll see.
Debate partner: ...okay, those are good points. My pessimism decreases, and my taste for truth is forcing me to admit that the counter-arguments I was *about* to post would've been the product of simple distrust toward my own species, as opposed to any serious reasoning.
Well. Again, may you be right. May this help. I do remain pessimistic, but at least not quite as *much* so. So thanks for that.
----------------------------------
*Let me clarify the brain damage statement, because it was an over-simplification of a very real issue. When someone is subjected to emotional abuse, or some other action which causes depression, the brain tends to "learn" your constantly dark moods. Thus, when the source of the mood has been removed (bullying, abusive relationship, etc), your brain has already learned what the "normal" state of things are, and will remain that way. I referred to the changes emotional abuse can cause as "brain damage" because this actually has some influence on brain structures. Various therapies can "fix" this damage, including drug therapy, talk therapy, etc. These also influence brain structures. (I remembered someone posted something recently on Facebook about how anti-depressants cause permanent changes to the brain, and how alarmed they were about that. I was like, "Uh, yeah, that's why they work. There are a LOT of things that can make permanent or semi-permanent changes to brain structure.)
(This was in response to this article)
Debate partner: This is gonna get a lot sadder if this poor kid becomes the poster child for censorship.
<insert conversation between my debate partner, and someone else>
Debate partner: What, about the censorship? Pretty straightforward, I'd think.
To write the article as nothing more than a human interest piece would be grotesque, right? "Hey, guess what? This kid stepped in front of a bus!"
Nor do I imagine it to be a set-up to an invitation to the funeral.
Closest alternate guess would be that the writer's urging us all to simply grow up, not be such bullies, and hopefully raise our *kids* to not be such bullies.
But that's not how humans work. Already there are censorship laws in place, with cases like this as their meat. There will be more, and we know it. Bullying... it's the new flag, the new cause whereby we oppress each other in the ironic name of ending oppression.
Please don't get me wrong... despite having never met the kid, sure, I feel bad for her too. But I also feel a little worse that she can't rest in peace. She was driven to suicide, and now she's being used as a tool to make you and me more supportive of "STFU if your speech isn't correct" laws.
Me: Emotional pain has the same affect on the brain that physical pain does. That is, the same areas of the brain are stimulated in the same way, and people have the same chemical reactions to this pain. When a person is subjected to severe emotional trauma, they are dealing with the same chemical wash that comes with physical trauma, and, psychologically speaking, it's very much the same thing. However, since there are no visible effects, eg bruising, bleeding, etc, society tells us that this pain is not "real", even though brain imaging quite clearly tells us it is real.
So, a person subjected to severe emotional trauma is under the same amount of duress as say, a person with a long, ongoing terminal disease. This is an especially appropriate analogue in the cases of bullying, given that bullying does not generally cease, or at least, it does not quickly or easily. (Thus the point of the "It Gets Better" campaign.) So, when dealing with physically illness, we debate the merits of assisted suicide, but for those who are in constant emotional pain, we tell them either to get over it, or to wait it out, as it will eventually gets better.
As someone who has suffered from Major Depressive Disorder for the last twenty-seven years, and which in part stemmed from childhood bullying, and as someone who has multiple suicide attempts under her belt, I can tell you now, that being told to get over it doesn't help (no one ever tells you HOW to get over it), and being told it gets better never seems very realistic to someone in the midst of a depressive episode. In addition, this puts the onus of resolving the issue on the victim of the emotional abuse, rather than on those who are causing it.
Now while I can see how identifying emotional abuse as being the same as physical abuse (legally speaking, since it's already been demonstrated to be the same neurologically speaking) can have some issues. That is, in a debate, someone might simply claim that they're being bullied, which may put a stop to the debate. However, if we actually look at anti-bullying laws, they are pretty narrowly defined, and specifically target people who are emotionally abusing children. Children, btw, do not have the cognitive abilities that adults do, and so may find it incredibly difficult to shrug off bullying or look for that light at the end of the tunnel. They simply have not reached that stage of brain development. (This cuts both ways, as bullies do not often have the executive thinking abilities that would allow them to see the consequences of their actions.)
In addition, you are looking at the first amendment outside of the context in which it was drafted. The Bill of Rights was formed specifically in reaction to the war with England. The first amendment protection of free speech was to ensure that citizens could criticize their government without fear of oppression. As a libertarian, I am all for supporting the bill of rights, regardless of the context of the times. However, I don't believe that allowing a group of people to oppress an individual is in the spirit or the letter of this law, or the liberty that it seeks to protect. You are, in essence, telling a group of people that it's okay to emotionally torture someone, in order to express their freedom of speech.
If anti-bullying laws extended more protections than they did, I might agree with you, but they don't. In some jurisdictions, they even allow someone to say that they were morally outraged by someone's behavior, and that they are therefore justified in emotionally abusing someone. I don't think that protecting our most fragile of populations, during their developmental years is an affront to the laws of this land, or the principles of freedom of speech.
(Here's one of the sources regarding emotional pain having the same consequences on the brain. Just google "Emotional Pain is the same as physical pain" if you want to find some more.)
Debate partner: Yeah, I've been bullied in school. Most of us have. And yes, it hurts. Aaaaaand yes, I share your desire to see such activity stamped out.
Where we depart is in our relative optimism / pessimism regarding any related law's ability to do more good than harm.
I remember how the bullies got past the rules that were in place in my own time. It was pretty easy, I think... they just waited 'til they had you alone. Until we finally achieve Orwell's world, I don't see that changing.
Yet there those laws will be, looking for *someone* to control. And there those agenda-mongers will also be, the extremists on both sides, with good precedents now in place on behavior controls beyond the "thou shalt not bring a gun to school and start blasting" standard.
You think this will end well. I applaud your optimism, and feel a mild temptation to even envy it. May you somehow be right. It would delight me, ten years from now, to have to say "my bad" on this one. My grin would likely split my head open.
Me: What you're missing is what legislation can accomplish in the bigger picture. When integration started happening in schools, was racism magically wiped out? No, it wasn't. But, as time has gone on since then, racism has become less acceptable. Is racism gone? No, we must continue the struggle. It's a step-by-step process. However, what integration, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws taught was that racism was no longer acceptable by the majority of the citizens.
The anti-bullying laws aren't meant to stop one bully. They are meant to send a message. I've actually had people tell me that bullying prepares you to have a thicker skin for adulthood. This is actually the exact opposite of what happens, psychologically to people who've been continuously bullied. They develop disorders, and in some cases, brain damage*. Despite this being known, it's still socially acceptable to pass off bullying as something that everyone goes through, and makes people stronger. Anti-bullying laws are meant to address that. It's meant, not for this generation, but for the next. Laws indicate the mores of our society, and send a pretty deep message to those who can't simply take scientific fact.
While this may not help kids now, their children will be raised by a generation of people who were told that bullying is an unlawful act. This should only have a positive affect on how those children will interact. Perfect? No. A good outcome? Socially progressive laws seem to be working so far, but we'll see.
Debate partner: ...okay, those are good points. My pessimism decreases, and my taste for truth is forcing me to admit that the counter-arguments I was *about* to post would've been the product of simple distrust toward my own species, as opposed to any serious reasoning.
Well. Again, may you be right. May this help. I do remain pessimistic, but at least not quite as *much* so. So thanks for that.
----------------------------------
*Let me clarify the brain damage statement, because it was an over-simplification of a very real issue. When someone is subjected to emotional abuse, or some other action which causes depression, the brain tends to "learn" your constantly dark moods. Thus, when the source of the mood has been removed (bullying, abusive relationship, etc), your brain has already learned what the "normal" state of things are, and will remain that way. I referred to the changes emotional abuse can cause as "brain damage" because this actually has some influence on brain structures. Various therapies can "fix" this damage, including drug therapy, talk therapy, etc. These also influence brain structures. (I remembered someone posted something recently on Facebook about how anti-depressants cause permanent changes to the brain, and how alarmed they were about that. I was like, "Uh, yeah, that's why they work. There are a LOT of things that can make permanent or semi-permanent changes to brain structure.)
Sunday, January 8, 2012
"Gay" is not an insult
There is a baffling trend, amongst my fellow social liberals to call someone a homosexual as if it is some sort of insult. For example, Marcus Bachmann, the husband of politician Michele Bachmann is often referred to as being obviously flamingly gay. This is supposed to be ironically funny, of course, as he is involved with conversion therapy, and "haha, it obviously didn't take with him".
A caveat here: I love ironic humor. I will ironically use stereotypes in my humor, because I think that they are ludicrous. However, I don't think this has any place in political debates, as it detracts from very valid and contentious issues. If you want to intelligently talk about politics, that's awesome. If you want to inject humor in it, that's also cool. But, please realize that not everyone gets irony. Not everyone will read the nuance of meaning involved with repeating stereotypes you do not believe in.
Back to Marcus Bachmann. When someone jokes about Bachmann being gay, this actually can cause some harm. One, it reinforces stereotypes that all gay men act in a certain flamboyant manner. This reinforces the ideas that certain bigoted people have about gay men (and relatedly, others in the gay community) acting in one way, which reduces a group of individuals to just the group. It's easier to hate a group than an individual, because groups do not inherently impress us with their humanity.
In addition, it would be one thing if we have proof that Bachmann is gay, and so therefore would highlight his hypocrisy. However, we don't have any proof of that. The only "evidence" is some campy behavior on his part. If someone points at that and conclusively says he's gay and a hypocrite, then they are being a bigot themselves. Maybe he likes behaving that way, and resents that he's called a homosexual because of it. Maybe that's where his dislike of homosexuals comes from? Who knows? I certainly don't know the man, and don't have proof one way or the other about his sexual orientation.
Look, I'm not here to defend this guy. I think he's an asshole, and that his wife is an asshole, and anyone who supports conversion therapy is an asshole. I don't think calling Marcus Bachmann gay is anything but a point to get cheap laughs.
This also applies to Santorum. I think Santorum is one of the slimiest assholes in politics today. I have more respect for the alternate definition of his name than I do for him. However, just because he speaks against homosexuality does not make him a closeted fag. Attacking someone as being something that you would normally defend is the height of illogical and disorganized thinking to me.
Do you remember when Kagan was first being considered for the Supreme Court? Lazy pundits on Fox News, when they couldn't come up with anything better, said that she played softball and disliked bratwurst. Oh, hahahaha, she's a lesbian! That's so hysterical!
That's what people sound like when they ironically trash talk an anti-gay politician as being gay. They're making fun of someone for their perceived homosexuality, and therefore their perceived hypocrisy. There's enough to criticize there already, you know? We don't actually have to insult them by calling them gay. We can insult them for being bigoted, ignorant, assholes. I think that's good enough.
A caveat here: I love ironic humor. I will ironically use stereotypes in my humor, because I think that they are ludicrous. However, I don't think this has any place in political debates, as it detracts from very valid and contentious issues. If you want to intelligently talk about politics, that's awesome. If you want to inject humor in it, that's also cool. But, please realize that not everyone gets irony. Not everyone will read the nuance of meaning involved with repeating stereotypes you do not believe in.
Back to Marcus Bachmann. When someone jokes about Bachmann being gay, this actually can cause some harm. One, it reinforces stereotypes that all gay men act in a certain flamboyant manner. This reinforces the ideas that certain bigoted people have about gay men (and relatedly, others in the gay community) acting in one way, which reduces a group of individuals to just the group. It's easier to hate a group than an individual, because groups do not inherently impress us with their humanity.
In addition, it would be one thing if we have proof that Bachmann is gay, and so therefore would highlight his hypocrisy. However, we don't have any proof of that. The only "evidence" is some campy behavior on his part. If someone points at that and conclusively says he's gay and a hypocrite, then they are being a bigot themselves. Maybe he likes behaving that way, and resents that he's called a homosexual because of it. Maybe that's where his dislike of homosexuals comes from? Who knows? I certainly don't know the man, and don't have proof one way or the other about his sexual orientation.
Look, I'm not here to defend this guy. I think he's an asshole, and that his wife is an asshole, and anyone who supports conversion therapy is an asshole. I don't think calling Marcus Bachmann gay is anything but a point to get cheap laughs.
This also applies to Santorum. I think Santorum is one of the slimiest assholes in politics today. I have more respect for the alternate definition of his name than I do for him. However, just because he speaks against homosexuality does not make him a closeted fag. Attacking someone as being something that you would normally defend is the height of illogical and disorganized thinking to me.
Do you remember when Kagan was first being considered for the Supreme Court? Lazy pundits on Fox News, when they couldn't come up with anything better, said that she played softball and disliked bratwurst. Oh, hahahaha, she's a lesbian! That's so hysterical!
That's what people sound like when they ironically trash talk an anti-gay politician as being gay. They're making fun of someone for their perceived homosexuality, and therefore their perceived hypocrisy. There's enough to criticize there already, you know? We don't actually have to insult them by calling them gay. We can insult them for being bigoted, ignorant, assholes. I think that's good enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)