![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceBeen finding myself in a few Someone is WRONG on the Internet! debates of late, primarily around queer/ss-marriage issues. Keep running into the assertion that ss couples just want to "destroy" marriage, The Family (tm), etc. I can usually run interference on most points of fact these folks get wrong, but this one is always a head-scratcher for me, because I just don't get it. I just can't figure out why anyone would consider someone else's relationship, and the legal status thereof, to be somehow threatening.
But I think I sort of get it, now, and I think it comes down to two things: Insecurity, and a cultural sensibility that translates to, "If you're not us, then you're them, and therefore the enemy." And I get that because I've felt that way, too.
In terms of homophobia and other sorts of abject bigotry, some of this, undoubtedly, comes from religious and cultural traditions that actually do teach in those precise terms. They set up an ideal of existence that's very narrow, and teach that anything less than that ideal is not just imperfect but aberrant. Some of it is just a false sense of persecution, too--group leaders who have lied to their adherents about exactly how much power and dominance they really have. And some is also the sense that one is entitled to unquestioned dominance--the belief that the superior position they're in is the natural order of things, and any attempts to raise others up to that level is a breach of protocol (see: Randians.)
Combatting that kind of hard-wired stuff is basically impossible, and there's no sense in trying, IME.
However, there's another type, and it's one that I've come to realize is uncomfortably familiar, because I do it, too: A sense of cultural isolation that's real to some degree, which then results in a perception of Me Against the World.
If the minority you're in is quite small, unorganized or otherwise generally weak, it doesn't matter whether the dominant majority is actually persecuting you or not. The fear is that you don't have enough numbers to fight back if they did decide to do so. Add in any amount of actual persecution, even if it's something far back in history or sporadic, and it's all too easy to assume that anyone who isn't in your group is a potential threat, and one you have no way of fighting.
Thing is, even though there may be some real level of risk involved, living as if every stranger is a potential assailant is hell--and counterproductive. If you stay only within your own small circle, you'll never have a chance to make allies who can help protect you and your group against any actual threat.
Now, of course when it comes to groups that actually do pose a real threat, of course a bit of a "them" designation makes sense. People who choose to vote conservative, for instance, are actually making a choice to disregard or actively try to take away my human rights, and therefore trusting them is kind of pointless. With only very rare exceptions, those folks actually ARE "the enemy," so to speak, and building up defenses about them isn't just understandable, but necessary.
But I think us folks in non-dominant groups often overestimate exactly how threatened we are by people who just happen to not be like us, rather than having a demonstrated history of antipathy toward us. I think past traumas and a sense of isolation make us tend to retreat--to hole up among things and people that are familiar and safe, rather than venturing out more or less alone into a world that may or may not pose a danger.
I think it also leads us to a lot of tearing-others-down as a means of building ourselves up. If we don't feel we have safety in numbers or strength to stand on our own, then the only choice we feel we have is to try to subtly chip away at the power of others to even the playing field. Terrorism, in other words. We don't have huge armies and fighter jets, so we set off small bombs instead, because we feel it's the only way we can fight back.
It's actually pretty darned uncomfortable to realize how much of this I've done--and still do. Because of my vast assortment of oddities, there are so few of "me" around that I really do feel like an army of one, which has made me downright paranoid about people who don't share at least a few of my oddities, if not all. And so I'll sit and snark on muggles, or w'ev, and dig myself a pit of supposed safety on that basis.
But, honestly, I don't want to live like that anymore. Thinking of doing otherwise terrifies me, of course, but I can't face the idea that the last 20 years of my life might be spent lobbing bombs at people just because they're mainstream and I'm not. Again, I'll always still be fighting the real enemies, but my panic about, say, straight women and non-geeks really needs to go away.
I think a lot of homophobes who aren't irretrievably brainwashed are people in minorities themselves. They're poor, or POCs, or have little access to a larger, multi-cultural community. And those things result in isolation, and the sense of digging in for shelter. They hate queer folk not for any real reason or as a matter of religious idealism, but because they're unfamiliar, and not like the traditions and cultures in which these people feel the most safe. It's the same reason they hate people who live in cities, or people with extensive education, or people who speak a different language. They're afraid of being out in a world that isn't guaranteed to be supportive and familiar.
And I get that. I also get how incredibly hard it is to get out of that habit.
I'm not quite sure that understanding all this is going to help me get anyone else out of it, of course--homophobes least of all. But I do think I can at least work on it for myself. I'd at least like to get to the point where I'm perfectly happy saying "Yay, me!" without an attached "Boo, you!" on the end of it.
Of course, my paranoid side could well be right, and trying to do this is just going to turn me into the world's doormat in some way or another. But if the world really is that threatening, then it's going to take me down eventually whether I'm bravely facing it or not. And because the potential benefits of that bravery are pretty damned high, then, well... It's time to stop being a gutless wonder.
And who knows? Maybe in doing so, I'll at least set an example for someone else, and they can unlearn some of that paranoia, too.
But I think I sort of get it, now, and I think it comes down to two things: Insecurity, and a cultural sensibility that translates to, "If you're not us, then you're them, and therefore the enemy." And I get that because I've felt that way, too.
In terms of homophobia and other sorts of abject bigotry, some of this, undoubtedly, comes from religious and cultural traditions that actually do teach in those precise terms. They set up an ideal of existence that's very narrow, and teach that anything less than that ideal is not just imperfect but aberrant. Some of it is just a false sense of persecution, too--group leaders who have lied to their adherents about exactly how much power and dominance they really have. And some is also the sense that one is entitled to unquestioned dominance--the belief that the superior position they're in is the natural order of things, and any attempts to raise others up to that level is a breach of protocol (see: Randians.)
Combatting that kind of hard-wired stuff is basically impossible, and there's no sense in trying, IME.
However, there's another type, and it's one that I've come to realize is uncomfortably familiar, because I do it, too: A sense of cultural isolation that's real to some degree, which then results in a perception of Me Against the World.
If the minority you're in is quite small, unorganized or otherwise generally weak, it doesn't matter whether the dominant majority is actually persecuting you or not. The fear is that you don't have enough numbers to fight back if they did decide to do so. Add in any amount of actual persecution, even if it's something far back in history or sporadic, and it's all too easy to assume that anyone who isn't in your group is a potential threat, and one you have no way of fighting.
Thing is, even though there may be some real level of risk involved, living as if every stranger is a potential assailant is hell--and counterproductive. If you stay only within your own small circle, you'll never have a chance to make allies who can help protect you and your group against any actual threat.
Now, of course when it comes to groups that actually do pose a real threat, of course a bit of a "them" designation makes sense. People who choose to vote conservative, for instance, are actually making a choice to disregard or actively try to take away my human rights, and therefore trusting them is kind of pointless. With only very rare exceptions, those folks actually ARE "the enemy," so to speak, and building up defenses about them isn't just understandable, but necessary.
But I think us folks in non-dominant groups often overestimate exactly how threatened we are by people who just happen to not be like us, rather than having a demonstrated history of antipathy toward us. I think past traumas and a sense of isolation make us tend to retreat--to hole up among things and people that are familiar and safe, rather than venturing out more or less alone into a world that may or may not pose a danger.
I think it also leads us to a lot of tearing-others-down as a means of building ourselves up. If we don't feel we have safety in numbers or strength to stand on our own, then the only choice we feel we have is to try to subtly chip away at the power of others to even the playing field. Terrorism, in other words. We don't have huge armies and fighter jets, so we set off small bombs instead, because we feel it's the only way we can fight back.
It's actually pretty darned uncomfortable to realize how much of this I've done--and still do. Because of my vast assortment of oddities, there are so few of "me" around that I really do feel like an army of one, which has made me downright paranoid about people who don't share at least a few of my oddities, if not all. And so I'll sit and snark on muggles, or w'ev, and dig myself a pit of supposed safety on that basis.
But, honestly, I don't want to live like that anymore. Thinking of doing otherwise terrifies me, of course, but I can't face the idea that the last 20 years of my life might be spent lobbing bombs at people just because they're mainstream and I'm not. Again, I'll always still be fighting the real enemies, but my panic about, say, straight women and non-geeks really needs to go away.
I think a lot of homophobes who aren't irretrievably brainwashed are people in minorities themselves. They're poor, or POCs, or have little access to a larger, multi-cultural community. And those things result in isolation, and the sense of digging in for shelter. They hate queer folk not for any real reason or as a matter of religious idealism, but because they're unfamiliar, and not like the traditions and cultures in which these people feel the most safe. It's the same reason they hate people who live in cities, or people with extensive education, or people who speak a different language. They're afraid of being out in a world that isn't guaranteed to be supportive and familiar.
And I get that. I also get how incredibly hard it is to get out of that habit.
I'm not quite sure that understanding all this is going to help me get anyone else out of it, of course--homophobes least of all. But I do think I can at least work on it for myself. I'd at least like to get to the point where I'm perfectly happy saying "Yay, me!" without an attached "Boo, you!" on the end of it.
Of course, my paranoid side could well be right, and trying to do this is just going to turn me into the world's doormat in some way or another. But if the world really is that threatening, then it's going to take me down eventually whether I'm bravely facing it or not. And because the potential benefits of that bravery are pretty damned high, then, well... It's time to stop being a gutless wonder.
And who knows? Maybe in doing so, I'll at least set an example for someone else, and they can unlearn some of that paranoia, too.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Infidels
Re: Infidels
That said, I get how difficult it must be for folks in your position to find candidates who are in favor of your other issues who aren't also at least pandering to the religious fringe (out of political necessity.)
Of course, I'm personally progressive when it comes to financial and regulatory issues (both as a matter of human compassion and in terms of long-range outcomes) and most candidates who share those views are also gay-friendly. So I'm fairly lucky in that it's relatively easy for me to find candidates with whom I agree on most points. Jay Inslee, one of the guys running for governor here, for instance, pretty much dovetails with every political position I have, and it's a joy to be able to support someone like that.
But for folks whose opinions on financial matters differ, yet who don't support the religious fringe, finding candidates is probably a big pain. One of the problems is that the GOP leadership of the 70s and 80s started pandering to social conservatives for the sake of votes, and now those folks have more or less taken over the party. So you get lunatics like Bachmann, whose husband runs an ex-gay ministry, instead of far more sensible people who just want a balanced budget or want to ensure that any public-supported social programs are effective before they're funded.
Interestingly enough, I've had some of these conversations with some conservative- and libertarian-leaning friends, and have pointed out that there's actually a contingent within the Dems--the Blue Dogs--that's pretty close to what they want. Hesitant when it comes to how they spend public funds, but also quite in favor of full ss marriage rights, etc.
IMHO, with the way the GOP is sort of imploding right now, I think one of two things is going to happen: The sensible people in that party, realizing that taking it back from the Bible thumpers is next to impossible, are either going to go off and form their own party (or join the Libertarians) or they're going to hook up with the Blue Dogs. I think the latter is more likely, and I think it'd be a good thing. Much as I agree with most of the stuff the progressive wing of the party does, having a non-crazy opposition around to keep them honest would be a good thing.
Infidels
Re: Infidels
In my understanding, for instance, compassion is cheaper than the alternative, peace efforts are cheaper than war, spending money now on sustainable energy is cheaper than cleaning up environmental disasters later, etc. Ounce of prevention v. pound of cure and all that. I'm always looking at long-range outcomes rather than quick fixes, and spending money/effort now for benefit later just comes naturally to me.
I'm also kind of practical to a fault, perhaps. Idealism is all well and good but without practical application, it's just tilting at windmills. Human nature is what it is, and managing 300 million of us spread over a huge range of geography is necessarily going to be complicated, messy and ultimately imperfect. But it's far better than anarchy. There are simply too many nihilists, sociopaths and misanthropes among us not to have a centralized, community-controlled-and-funded system of management. In smaller, tighter populations, this system can be simple and easy. But in a country this large? It's just not possible.
I wish things were more streamlined and would love to see a total overhaul of how we do things--a parliamentary system would be awesome, for instance, and I also love the idea of instant-runoff elections. But... ain't gonna happen. So a long time ago, I decided it made more sense to just work with what we're stuck with and do the best I can to improve things incrementally.
Over this time, I also learned that carrot methods work far better than stick ones in terms of getting people to do the right thing (basic human psychology 101 there, actually.) The promise of reward consistently makes people perform better, longer and with more reliability than the fear of reprisal (which almost always just makes people bitter, resentful, sneaky and plotting to retaliate.) So... Yeah. I'm going to want to spend a lot more money on schools and welfare-to-work programs and health care (including mental health care) than I am on jails and exponentially more-expensive methods of blowing people to smithereens.
Of course there will always be the necessity of extreme methods to manage outliers (I'm in favor of the death penalty, for instance, and also really angry that we wasted so much time/money in Iraq when we could've been properly dealing with Afghanistan all this time.) But at the same time, we can also work on long-range plans to prevent those outliers from developing and doing damage in the first place. Where do criminals come from? Aside from people who are simply mentally ill (which also needs addressing differently), it's mostly people who grow up desperate enough that they think that's their only option. How do you stop that? Obviously, the threat of incarceration or even death hasn't stopped it. What has? Education, mental health care and job training. We can jail the criminals we have now to keep the public safe while also working on plans to stop the next generation from going bad. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition. (continued...)
Re: Infidels
If it helps, this is how I look at it from a top-down level: The bad things that happen in the world are like a physical disease. Treating the pain and damage that disease causes is of great importance, of course, and in many cases, extreme methods of dealing with those things have to happen--sometimes, ya gotta amputate. But at the same time, working on cures and vaccinations has to happen, too. Because even though those things may not solve the problem for the current infection, they'll eventually help prevent new ones--and the far greater cost of managing them down the road.
And because it's pretty much impossible for individual people to manage such large-scale planning, that means we have to all go in on it to make that planning possible. It's not just about compassion for the individual who is suffering at the moment, but about working toward a goal of preventing that suffering from happening to more people, which ultimately has benefits for everyone, both people at risk for that suffering, and people who would be affected--financially, practically, etc.--by those who suffer. Honestly, it's never just the people directly affected by these "infections" who come to harm from them. The ripple effect pretty much touches everyone in some way or another, which is why everyone has to chip in on some level to fix it, even if they can't see any immediate personal benefit for doing so.
So, really, that's my political philosophy in a nutshell: Practicality, compassion, long-range planning and solutions and community effort for community benefit. Apply that to just about any political issue, and it's pretty easy to see where I'm going to land.
I get that other folks see the world differently, of course. This is just where I've come to roost after the last 20 years of studying how humans work, both on an individual psychological level and in large-scale groups and cultures. We're certainly a strange bunch of dextrous monkeys. :)
Anyway... Like I say, I do love you. Even if you are a stubborn old crank sometimes. :)
no subject
be not!
no subject
Actually, I'm quite glad to be 40, now, as it gives me much more justification to be the curmudgeon I've been since I was 6. ;)