There are a handful of frozen-in-time moments I can recall in my life when I was instantly transformed by unfamiliar music. This moment is the first such one that I can recall.
Many 16 year old girls skip school in order to spend the afternoon in the backseat of someone's car. Me, I spent many a day holed up at E-8, an apartment that served as a refuge of sorts to Norfolk's young LGBT community. There was a rotating cast of characters who lived there- to be honest, one could never provide an accurate count of the number of permanent residents of this 2 bedroom apartment, but there was always a crowd of young lads and the girls who adored them sprawled all over the Aqua Net-scented digs. For me, this apartment was a refuge from the confusing, often off-putting world of aggressive, groping adolescent boys. From these older boys, I learned about fashion, new music, and advice about how to deal with guys, from guys who love other guys. I lived vicariously through their Grand Sufferings- the unrequited loves, the pain of being an outsider, the constant dramas that gay young adult men perfect like no others.
I cannot remember exactly what I was doing at that moment, but if I could guess, I was probably chainsmoking Marlboro Lights while one of the boys teased my hair into submission. Someone pushed the play button on a cassette player. The sound of a sonic jackhammer blasted from the speakers, followed by an unearthly guitar wail that demanded I stop whatever I was doing and pay close attention. Soon, a voice of longing- of poetry- of desperation poured out.
I am the son and the heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar.. I am the son and heir of nothing in particular
My head snapped upright and my mouth formed a perfectly round O. The guitars swelled.
You shut your mouth- how can you say- I go about things the wrong way? I am human and I need to be loved- just like everybody else does...
Up until this song, I had a long list of go-to "music for moping"; Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Joy Division, etc, but I finally had an anthem. For all the times I felt invisible- for all the times I experienced crushes on boys to whom I barely registered- for all the times I felt misunderstood, I had a response, a mantra.
I am human and I need to be loved- just like everybody else does...
Thus began my lifetime love affair with the Smiths. The collaboration between Johnny Marr and Morrissey was second only to Lennon/McCartney (and, perhaps, arguably, Simon and Garfunkel), and spoke more to my Gen-X sensibilities. Perhaps others artfully moped while listening to the Smiths, but I felt victorious, pumped, euphoric.
There's a club if you'd like to go... you could meet somebody who really loves you... so you go and you stand on your own and you leave on your own and you go home and you cry and you want to die
Two nights ago, I was fortunate enough to see Johnny Marr, The Smiths' guitarist, on his solo tour, in Carrboro. I have seen Morrissey, but it was in a large venue, he was a mere speck in the distance, and I did not feel as connected as I did at the more intimate Cat's Cradle. Morrissey is also very scant in covering the music of his seminal band, and Johnny Marr performed about 5 songs from The Smiths, including "How Soon is Now?" I stood a mere 20 feet away from Johnny, and as his guitar cranked out that unearthly, familiar sound, I stood in utter awe and jubilation. That guitar, those chords. I was taken back 30 years in time, still on the floor with my buddies, still tormented and racked by the grief of adolescence, still seeing my entire adult life before me, and I was frozen in the moment. I could not believe I was seeing this before my eyes, hearing this guitar, experiencing this moment in such an intimate setting. It was a revelation.
When you say it's gonna happen "now" Well, when exactly do you mean? See I've already waited too long and all my hope is gone.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Warning: rambly body image post to follow. Skip if not interested!
In 2009, my doctor read me the riot act. I was 255 pounds, used a C-PAP device, had high blood pressure, limped around with plantar fasciitis, and could barely climb a flight of stairs without becoming winded. She looked at me and asked me if I wanted to live to see my then-four year old daughter off to college. My weight had gradually drifted upwards for 15 years, and I had tried multiple diets to address the problem, to no avail. I walked into Weight Watchers with resolve and grit. The idea of dropping dead while my daughter was in high school was a chilling, somber prospect, and it was no longer, at this point, about looking awesome in a bikini. Apparently, looking awesome in a bikini wasn't much of a motivator, but staying around for the most important person in my life was.
It took a year and a half, and I'm still nowhere near done, 4 years later, but I managed to knock the bulk of the excess weight from my body. I have retired my C-PAP, exercise regularly, take no blood pressure medication, and feel great. I drifted upwards from a size 10 to a size 12, but appear to have stabilized here for now. Yes, my life as a smaller person is a much healthier, vital life. But there are aspects of my life as a smaller person that have taken some adjustment; side effects that I could not have anticipated.
When the weight first fell off, I had not a clue how to dress. For over 10 years, I had been the Queen of Lane Bryant, and suddenly, every store in the mall was available to me. I will fully admit that my necklines dropped and my skirt length rose. I bought age-inappropriate tight black minidresses at Express and invested in bras that lifted the girls to Eiffel Tower heights. No doubt my wardrobe was frowned upon at work, but, heck, after wearing a size 20, I went a little overboard because I *could*. I felt more like a female impersonator than an actual female. I was playacting, as I had no idea how to BE a smaller woman.
My over the top fashion sense led to the second weird adjustment, which was male attention. Yes, there are men who prefer women of size, but I hadn't personally encountered one. I think my body language, posture, and avoidance of body conscious clothing probably discouraged any BBW-loving men from approaching me. But, suddenly, I was finding myself an object of "the gaze", and I had no idea what to do about that. As a larger woman, I had that big, bawdy personality we often affect because we can, I guess. We can joke about sex as "one of the guys", and no one thinks the worst of us. As a smaller woman, that big, bawdy personality translated to "on the prowl", and I was very ambivalent about the effect it had on men. Certainly, I found the attention flattering. Who wouldn't? But it also made me feel uncomfortable, and threatened at times. One of the reasons some women stay larger than the cultural norm is to enjoy a certain level of invisibility. Sometimes, this desire stems from traumatic sexual experiences, other times we're trying to inoculate ourselves against straying. The attention pinged every insecurity and fragility I had, and I was simultaneously titillated and terrified. I knew I was probably subconsciously throwing out vibes that contributed to the problem, but I had no idea how to NOT do that. After years of being invisible, it was heady and exciting to be found attractive, but I also was tweaked and freaked out by the experience. I also found myself resenting the attention on some level. I was still the same person on the inside; I was no better at a size 10 or 12 than I was at a size 20. I had an attitude. I still find myself throwing up frequent selfies on Facebook, an act I tend to mock when other women do it, but I still don't believe the image in the mirror before me. I think I take those pictures because I am trying to believe that the person I see in the mirror is really me. But, I often find myself cringing after I post these pictures. Who am I to seek attention? Aren't women who post selfies insecure and a bit desperate-seeming? And how do I, as a feminist, reconcile this subconscious need for approval with my general distaste for male objectification of women?
As time passes, I am becoming increasingly more comfortable in my own skin with this new body. I know I still have a ways to go, but I have needed this time to adjust to the size I am. I am not quite prepared to go to the next level, where I know I'll get even more attention. I am still just big enough that I can easily tone myself down and enjoy some level of invisibility. Though women are beautiful in all shapes and sizes, men are as influenced by the cultural norms of "the ideal body" as are we. Or, perhaps my plateau comes from the knowledge that, at 45, I have aged past that phase in my life when, even at my goal weight, I'll be hit on all the time. I still haven't unpacked my complex reactions to "the gaze". I am beginning to feel more competent in selecting clothes that are both attractive and modest, and I am letting go of the need to be "on" all the time. On most days, my necklines are higher, and my hemlines are lowering to an acceptable level, though I still reserve the right to glam it up for appropriate occasions. I can go out without feeling the need to be glam; there is no reason I need to be full-on at Target, or while hiking. I am a real, flesh and blood woman of substance, not some cardboard pin-up girl. I want to be taken seriously, not treated as a good-time girl. I am by no means slutshaming, and there is nothing wrong with being perceived as sexually attractive, but, as a 45 year old mother and wife, I can mostly restrict the va-va-voom behavior to my own bedroom.
It took a year and a half, and I'm still nowhere near done, 4 years later, but I managed to knock the bulk of the excess weight from my body. I have retired my C-PAP, exercise regularly, take no blood pressure medication, and feel great. I drifted upwards from a size 10 to a size 12, but appear to have stabilized here for now. Yes, my life as a smaller person is a much healthier, vital life. But there are aspects of my life as a smaller person that have taken some adjustment; side effects that I could not have anticipated.
When the weight first fell off, I had not a clue how to dress. For over 10 years, I had been the Queen of Lane Bryant, and suddenly, every store in the mall was available to me. I will fully admit that my necklines dropped and my skirt length rose. I bought age-inappropriate tight black minidresses at Express and invested in bras that lifted the girls to Eiffel Tower heights. No doubt my wardrobe was frowned upon at work, but, heck, after wearing a size 20, I went a little overboard because I *could*. I felt more like a female impersonator than an actual female. I was playacting, as I had no idea how to BE a smaller woman.
My over the top fashion sense led to the second weird adjustment, which was male attention. Yes, there are men who prefer women of size, but I hadn't personally encountered one. I think my body language, posture, and avoidance of body conscious clothing probably discouraged any BBW-loving men from approaching me. But, suddenly, I was finding myself an object of "the gaze", and I had no idea what to do about that. As a larger woman, I had that big, bawdy personality we often affect because we can, I guess. We can joke about sex as "one of the guys", and no one thinks the worst of us. As a smaller woman, that big, bawdy personality translated to "on the prowl", and I was very ambivalent about the effect it had on men. Certainly, I found the attention flattering. Who wouldn't? But it also made me feel uncomfortable, and threatened at times. One of the reasons some women stay larger than the cultural norm is to enjoy a certain level of invisibility. Sometimes, this desire stems from traumatic sexual experiences, other times we're trying to inoculate ourselves against straying. The attention pinged every insecurity and fragility I had, and I was simultaneously titillated and terrified. I knew I was probably subconsciously throwing out vibes that contributed to the problem, but I had no idea how to NOT do that. After years of being invisible, it was heady and exciting to be found attractive, but I also was tweaked and freaked out by the experience. I also found myself resenting the attention on some level. I was still the same person on the inside; I was no better at a size 10 or 12 than I was at a size 20. I had an attitude. I still find myself throwing up frequent selfies on Facebook, an act I tend to mock when other women do it, but I still don't believe the image in the mirror before me. I think I take those pictures because I am trying to believe that the person I see in the mirror is really me. But, I often find myself cringing after I post these pictures. Who am I to seek attention? Aren't women who post selfies insecure and a bit desperate-seeming? And how do I, as a feminist, reconcile this subconscious need for approval with my general distaste for male objectification of women?
As time passes, I am becoming increasingly more comfortable in my own skin with this new body. I know I still have a ways to go, but I have needed this time to adjust to the size I am. I am not quite prepared to go to the next level, where I know I'll get even more attention. I am still just big enough that I can easily tone myself down and enjoy some level of invisibility. Though women are beautiful in all shapes and sizes, men are as influenced by the cultural norms of "the ideal body" as are we. Or, perhaps my plateau comes from the knowledge that, at 45, I have aged past that phase in my life when, even at my goal weight, I'll be hit on all the time. I still haven't unpacked my complex reactions to "the gaze". I am beginning to feel more competent in selecting clothes that are both attractive and modest, and I am letting go of the need to be "on" all the time. On most days, my necklines are higher, and my hemlines are lowering to an acceptable level, though I still reserve the right to glam it up for appropriate occasions. I can go out without feeling the need to be glam; there is no reason I need to be full-on at Target, or while hiking. I am a real, flesh and blood woman of substance, not some cardboard pin-up girl. I want to be taken seriously, not treated as a good-time girl. I am by no means slutshaming, and there is nothing wrong with being perceived as sexually attractive, but, as a 45 year old mother and wife, I can mostly restrict the va-va-voom behavior to my own bedroom.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Babies, breasts, selfishness, black and white thinking, et al
It is rare when a simple news story sticks in my head for hours or days. And when it does, it's usually one that highlights a terrible human tragedy- a natural disaster, the untimely death of a child, a human rights injustice. So, I am somewhat surprised that this article detailing a simple custody case over an overnight stay has made me ponder parenthood and divorce all day. A judge has ruled that a mother of a 10 month old baby must stop breastfeeding, so that the father can have overnight visits with his infant. The mother filed against the father's request, stating that she cannot pump enough breast milk for an extra day or two to send along, and believes that overnight visits should not be allowed as long as she is breastfeeding her baby.
What fascinates me about this story is not the actual case, about which I can't really hazard a strong opinion without knowing the backstory, but rather the strong, black and white reactions I am reading both on the comments section of the story, and on Facebook. There are no details about the couple's separation or how they ended up taking this to court, rather than to work it out amongst themselves. I believe that a mother should not be forced to stop breastfeeding, but I also believe that fathers have the right to bond with their children. There are many creative solutions that could be employed by reasonable, civil adults who have the best interests of their baby at heart- she could offer to let her ex spend the night in a guest room, or she could drive over freshly expelled milk over the weekend. The story doesn't even state if a doctor was able to verify whether the mother couldn't, in fact, pump enough breast milk to supply the baby during a sleepover. Yes, people lie in custody battles, both men and women. The story doesn't mention whether the father has consistently been around, or if he pulled a disappearing act and is now making a late reappearance, demanding his "rights". These two adults are apparently not mature enough to set aside their differences to work on a reasonable compromise. However, the people leaving comments either slam the judge and the father as being "selfish", or slam the mother for making up the entire scenario and attempting to keep this child away from the father. It appears to be a lightning rod for both breastfeeding rights and father's rights, when in fact, it's a typical custody battle between two adults who cannot get it together enough to civilly co-parent. It's fascinating how quickly people can make a judgment with few facts, and, in most cases, how they end up viewing the case through a lens and filter of their own life experiences.
Marriage is tough, tough stuff. I don't want to jump to judge either one of these parents for the fact that their marriage is over. Many marriages don't make it, and frankly, many shouldn't. Though I am a huge fan of going every extra mile to make things work when children are involved, there are cases of abandonment, abuse, and severe dysfunction where children are probably better off with divorced parents. But, I guess, I fail to understand how two parents cannot set their differences aside and try to be civil for the benefit of the children. I have seen too many cases where parents use their children as pawns in divorce and custody battles, and, frankly, I only sympathize with the kids in these cases. My own marriage has not been perfect, and there was a moment of crisis that I could have never anticipated. We were at the point of assessing the house value and looking at apartments. But, even at our worst moment as a couple, we never fought in front of our daughter, and we were willing to peacefully cohabitate together for a year or two while we tried to get on our feet financially. We looked at options of living in two apartments in the same community, so that we could have a civil 50/50 custody arrangement. We discussed having occasional dinners together and went to counseling to learn how to co-parent smoothly. And, gratefully, the moment passed and our marriage has grown stronger from dealing with this crisis. But, as bad as things were, we managed to pull our heads from our asses and work together for the sake of our daughter. My own parents managed to pull off the most amicable divorce I have ever seen. My father has remarried, and my mother gets along with my stepmother, and, in fact, my mother spend a weekend with my daughter at my dad's house along with my stepmother. My father stays in the guest room at my mom's house when he comes down to visit. So, it is possible for two people to realize that they cannot live together, but still stay kind to one another and focus on the well-being of their children.
Many people see this as a breastfeeding rights issue. Many others see it as a father's rights issue. I see it as a "grow the fuck up and put your kids first" issue. Your child did not ask to be born in the middle of a nasty divorce. And your inability to pull it together and compromise is going to heap baggage on your child later in life. Children of divorce can grow up perfectly well-adapted, but the odds of this happening are far greater if both parents can co-parent peacefully. Once you have a child, your life is no longer just yours to live. Mother, grit your teeth and open your guest room to your ex a couple of nights a week. Set up a travel crib in the guest room. Or drive over your milk as you pump it. Father- consider that perhaps an overnight visit might be delayed a couple of months and ask for more daytime visits. Be a creative problem-solver; be kind.
This all assumes that one or both of the parties is not a deadbeat parent, or abusive, or batshit crazy, or has abandoned the family. I do not have that backstory, and might take a different view if I knew everything involved. The people who left inflammatory, strongly opinionated comments don't know the entire story either. It's easy to assume that the mother is being manipulative, or that the father is selfish. I'd be happy to split the difference and say that they both are being immature, but I don't know what transpired between the two. But, geez, pull your heads out of your asses and come up with a solution that takes into account the best interests of the child.
What fascinates me about this story is not the actual case, about which I can't really hazard a strong opinion without knowing the backstory, but rather the strong, black and white reactions I am reading both on the comments section of the story, and on Facebook. There are no details about the couple's separation or how they ended up taking this to court, rather than to work it out amongst themselves. I believe that a mother should not be forced to stop breastfeeding, but I also believe that fathers have the right to bond with their children. There are many creative solutions that could be employed by reasonable, civil adults who have the best interests of their baby at heart- she could offer to let her ex spend the night in a guest room, or she could drive over freshly expelled milk over the weekend. The story doesn't even state if a doctor was able to verify whether the mother couldn't, in fact, pump enough breast milk to supply the baby during a sleepover. Yes, people lie in custody battles, both men and women. The story doesn't mention whether the father has consistently been around, or if he pulled a disappearing act and is now making a late reappearance, demanding his "rights". These two adults are apparently not mature enough to set aside their differences to work on a reasonable compromise. However, the people leaving comments either slam the judge and the father as being "selfish", or slam the mother for making up the entire scenario and attempting to keep this child away from the father. It appears to be a lightning rod for both breastfeeding rights and father's rights, when in fact, it's a typical custody battle between two adults who cannot get it together enough to civilly co-parent. It's fascinating how quickly people can make a judgment with few facts, and, in most cases, how they end up viewing the case through a lens and filter of their own life experiences.
Marriage is tough, tough stuff. I don't want to jump to judge either one of these parents for the fact that their marriage is over. Many marriages don't make it, and frankly, many shouldn't. Though I am a huge fan of going every extra mile to make things work when children are involved, there are cases of abandonment, abuse, and severe dysfunction where children are probably better off with divorced parents. But, I guess, I fail to understand how two parents cannot set their differences aside and try to be civil for the benefit of the children. I have seen too many cases where parents use their children as pawns in divorce and custody battles, and, frankly, I only sympathize with the kids in these cases. My own marriage has not been perfect, and there was a moment of crisis that I could have never anticipated. We were at the point of assessing the house value and looking at apartments. But, even at our worst moment as a couple, we never fought in front of our daughter, and we were willing to peacefully cohabitate together for a year or two while we tried to get on our feet financially. We looked at options of living in two apartments in the same community, so that we could have a civil 50/50 custody arrangement. We discussed having occasional dinners together and went to counseling to learn how to co-parent smoothly. And, gratefully, the moment passed and our marriage has grown stronger from dealing with this crisis. But, as bad as things were, we managed to pull our heads from our asses and work together for the sake of our daughter. My own parents managed to pull off the most amicable divorce I have ever seen. My father has remarried, and my mother gets along with my stepmother, and, in fact, my mother spend a weekend with my daughter at my dad's house along with my stepmother. My father stays in the guest room at my mom's house when he comes down to visit. So, it is possible for two people to realize that they cannot live together, but still stay kind to one another and focus on the well-being of their children.
Many people see this as a breastfeeding rights issue. Many others see it as a father's rights issue. I see it as a "grow the fuck up and put your kids first" issue. Your child did not ask to be born in the middle of a nasty divorce. And your inability to pull it together and compromise is going to heap baggage on your child later in life. Children of divorce can grow up perfectly well-adapted, but the odds of this happening are far greater if both parents can co-parent peacefully. Once you have a child, your life is no longer just yours to live. Mother, grit your teeth and open your guest room to your ex a couple of nights a week. Set up a travel crib in the guest room. Or drive over your milk as you pump it. Father- consider that perhaps an overnight visit might be delayed a couple of months and ask for more daytime visits. Be a creative problem-solver; be kind.
This all assumes that one or both of the parties is not a deadbeat parent, or abusive, or batshit crazy, or has abandoned the family. I do not have that backstory, and might take a different view if I knew everything involved. The people who left inflammatory, strongly opinionated comments don't know the entire story either. It's easy to assume that the mother is being manipulative, or that the father is selfish. I'd be happy to split the difference and say that they both are being immature, but I don't know what transpired between the two. But, geez, pull your heads out of your asses and come up with a solution that takes into account the best interests of the child.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Churching by the unchurched?
Last night, my mother brought up the subject of exposing our 8 year old to religion. I'm sure she meant "expose her to Christian moral values", which is funny, given that she hasn't set foot in a church in years, but I know that many parents, even those who are questioning their own beliefs, feel it's important to provide some basic religious training to their children.
My child is, as of yet, unchurched. The only time I can recall that she's even walked into one was during a summer camp fair that just happened to be hosted there. As an agnostic, I don't venture into churches, and am not going to be inauthentic and trot into a church to learn "Christian moral values", when I am not a believer, myself.
That said, I do believe that it is important to expose my daughter to information about the religions of the world. Ignorance is NOT bliss, and I want her to make an educated and informed choice as to whether or not she chooses to follow a path of faith. I will think no less of her if she does decide to become religious, and I have no desire to push my agnosticism on her, just as I do not want anyone trying to indoctrinate her into a religion.
A 2010 study found that atheists and agnostics actually have more religious knowledge than do evangelical Protestants. A person with no religious knowledge whatsoever is, in my opinion, more vulnerable to being manipulated into a belief system. Knowledge is power, and I want my child to have as much knowledge about the world around her as possible. Knowing what other people believe can provide context as to why they behave the way they do, or support certain political causes. I attended various and sundry churches up until junior high, and, as a result, can carry on an informed conversation with Evangelical Christians. Knowledge about the Bible has also provided context in understanding art, music, and literature. As an English major, I would have struggled more with Milton, Shakespeare, and other writers had I not been familiar with scripture.
However, I am grappling with how to best convey basic background information to my child. There are many books around that cover religion at a child's reading level, but many of these books take a stand one way or another. I am currently looking for religion encylopedias for children, and other books that will provide her with descriptions of the world religions in an unbiased manner. I am hoping to pick up a few books for Christmas.
I will come out and admit that I do not have the religious gene. I could write 20 blog entries as to all the inconsistencies I believe exist in the Bible, and discuss the harm I feel religion can cause to human beings. I am not closed; certainly, circumstances could change in my lifetime, and if the so-called "spirit" moves me, I will not fight it. But, all religions read as myths to me, as models used to explain that which humans are incapable of explaining. And all the major world religions were constructed at a time when people did not understand what we now do about science. I struggle to understand how modern day folk can believe that a man literally lived over 900 years, or that the world was created in 7 days, or that God isn't powerful enough to wipe out Satan, or that a man parted the red sea, or that Jesus walked on water. I cannot begin to fathom why modern Christians cherry pick the passages that suit their purposes while ignoring those that do not. I love and accept my friends who have faith, but I do not understand it. I realize faith can give comfort during difficult times, but I just cannot go there.
My mother is worried that, without a religious background, our daughter will not be exposed to morals and ethics. And yet, there are so many ways we can teach our children what we consider right from wrong without pointing to one single text. It can be more challenging to provide reasons for having certain values, of course. I have referred to using the Bible to deliver moral training as similar to using a company policy manual to point out rules and regulations to employees. "Policy 38b states that you cannot take more than 2 weeks vacation at one time." "The 8th commandment states "Thou shalt not steal". I think stealing is wrong as well, but I cannot just point to a verse in a book to support my reasoning. I have to come up with a secular underpinning for my ethics. But anyone who thinks that atheists and agnostics do not teach their children morals and ethics is sorely mistaken. And my daughter frequently makes statements that show that she does know right from wrong. Somehow, we're getting the message across; just without a verse attached.
Additionally, let's examine a few values the Bible can teach my daughter. She can learn about the acceptability of stoning non-virgin women on their wedding night, how to keep slaves, and that eating shellfish and having a rounded haircut are strictly forbidden. If one is to take the Bible as the Word of God, then one must take the entire body of work literally. I think I'll pass, thanks.
When Sadie has read her encyclopedia, I will ask her if she is interested in attending any services for any particular faith that is of interest, within reason. In my immediately surrounding metropolitan area, I doubt we have a community for every single world religion. But I am willing to accompany her, and keep my views to myself, unless the church advocates violating what I consider basic human rights or advocates violence or discrimination. I have my limits. And, after some initial visits, she is welcome to connect with others at these places, and when she's old enough, I will drop her off there, or allow her to ride with a friend's family. But, I have to be true to my own values and beliefs, and attending a church regularly when I do not believe would send the wrong message to her, I think. But she will grow into the person she is meant to be, and if that means she will be a person of faith, then I hope she does so after much study and thought, and not from willful ignorance, or as a result of manipulation.
My child is, as of yet, unchurched. The only time I can recall that she's even walked into one was during a summer camp fair that just happened to be hosted there. As an agnostic, I don't venture into churches, and am not going to be inauthentic and trot into a church to learn "Christian moral values", when I am not a believer, myself.
That said, I do believe that it is important to expose my daughter to information about the religions of the world. Ignorance is NOT bliss, and I want her to make an educated and informed choice as to whether or not she chooses to follow a path of faith. I will think no less of her if she does decide to become religious, and I have no desire to push my agnosticism on her, just as I do not want anyone trying to indoctrinate her into a religion.
A 2010 study found that atheists and agnostics actually have more religious knowledge than do evangelical Protestants. A person with no religious knowledge whatsoever is, in my opinion, more vulnerable to being manipulated into a belief system. Knowledge is power, and I want my child to have as much knowledge about the world around her as possible. Knowing what other people believe can provide context as to why they behave the way they do, or support certain political causes. I attended various and sundry churches up until junior high, and, as a result, can carry on an informed conversation with Evangelical Christians. Knowledge about the Bible has also provided context in understanding art, music, and literature. As an English major, I would have struggled more with Milton, Shakespeare, and other writers had I not been familiar with scripture.
However, I am grappling with how to best convey basic background information to my child. There are many books around that cover religion at a child's reading level, but many of these books take a stand one way or another. I am currently looking for religion encylopedias for children, and other books that will provide her with descriptions of the world religions in an unbiased manner. I am hoping to pick up a few books for Christmas.
I will come out and admit that I do not have the religious gene. I could write 20 blog entries as to all the inconsistencies I believe exist in the Bible, and discuss the harm I feel religion can cause to human beings. I am not closed; certainly, circumstances could change in my lifetime, and if the so-called "spirit" moves me, I will not fight it. But, all religions read as myths to me, as models used to explain that which humans are incapable of explaining. And all the major world religions were constructed at a time when people did not understand what we now do about science. I struggle to understand how modern day folk can believe that a man literally lived over 900 years, or that the world was created in 7 days, or that God isn't powerful enough to wipe out Satan, or that a man parted the red sea, or that Jesus walked on water. I cannot begin to fathom why modern Christians cherry pick the passages that suit their purposes while ignoring those that do not. I love and accept my friends who have faith, but I do not understand it. I realize faith can give comfort during difficult times, but I just cannot go there.
My mother is worried that, without a religious background, our daughter will not be exposed to morals and ethics. And yet, there are so many ways we can teach our children what we consider right from wrong without pointing to one single text. It can be more challenging to provide reasons for having certain values, of course. I have referred to using the Bible to deliver moral training as similar to using a company policy manual to point out rules and regulations to employees. "Policy 38b states that you cannot take more than 2 weeks vacation at one time." "The 8th commandment states "Thou shalt not steal". I think stealing is wrong as well, but I cannot just point to a verse in a book to support my reasoning. I have to come up with a secular underpinning for my ethics. But anyone who thinks that atheists and agnostics do not teach their children morals and ethics is sorely mistaken. And my daughter frequently makes statements that show that she does know right from wrong. Somehow, we're getting the message across; just without a verse attached.
Additionally, let's examine a few values the Bible can teach my daughter. She can learn about the acceptability of stoning non-virgin women on their wedding night, how to keep slaves, and that eating shellfish and having a rounded haircut are strictly forbidden. If one is to take the Bible as the Word of God, then one must take the entire body of work literally. I think I'll pass, thanks.
When Sadie has read her encyclopedia, I will ask her if she is interested in attending any services for any particular faith that is of interest, within reason. In my immediately surrounding metropolitan area, I doubt we have a community for every single world religion. But I am willing to accompany her, and keep my views to myself, unless the church advocates violating what I consider basic human rights or advocates violence or discrimination. I have my limits. And, after some initial visits, she is welcome to connect with others at these places, and when she's old enough, I will drop her off there, or allow her to ride with a friend's family. But, I have to be true to my own values and beliefs, and attending a church regularly when I do not believe would send the wrong message to her, I think. But she will grow into the person she is meant to be, and if that means she will be a person of faith, then I hope she does so after much study and thought, and not from willful ignorance, or as a result of manipulation.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Would you like a side of hatred with those collards?
While indulging in a little lunchtime thrifting, I struck up a conversation with an elderly couple in the checkout line. The wife chatted away, as we talked about green bean casserole with french onions, cooking with fatback, and the great deals we found this afternoon. The couple was very old-school Southern, friendly as could be to me, and I felt that instant affection I feel for anyone who reminds me of my older relatives from Bladen County. They were hospitable like my grandmother, chatty with strangers like my aunts and uncles, and I would not have been surprised if they had invited me to their home to feast on collard greens. Their kindness made me feel warm and nostalgic for those childhood weekends I spent in Bladenboro, sitting on a sliding bench swing, eating boiled peanuts, and listening to the grownups' folksy chatter.
Then, they checked out. The cashier was clearly Indian, and spoke English with a heavy Indian accent. I watched as their demeanor turned on a dime. Their friendly, open faces turned hard, they scowled, and they did not respond to the cashier's "Have a nice day". Then, they turned back to me, smiled effusively, and the woman said, "It was nice chatting with you! I hope you enjoy the rest of your day!"
It was at this moment that I could see how the dichotomy of a family-centered, but Xenophobic culture becomes schizoid and split. It was at this moment that it finally sunk in how African Americans could consider white Southerners unfriendly and hostile, while I defended how generous my relatives were to me and tell them that they didn't know my family the way I did. And it was at this moment that I speculated that the more hospitable a culture is to their own, the more hostile and suspicious it is to outsiders.
I have no idea how this couple votes, though I can speculate. I have no idea if this couple identifies as "Tea Party". But, the exchange made me think about the whole Tea Party phenomenon.
I read an article about a study about Tea Party membership and common demographics. There was some diversity in income level, though members were generally more affluent than those who identified as Democrats. I was somewhat surprised by this, based on the lack of basic grammar and communication skills I have observed in some of the louder members, and based on the fact that many of the Tea Party members I have met in real life have less education and seemingly less money than the people in my liberal, professional bubble. But the one characteristic that seemed to be universal was pessimism of the future, and a suspicion of those who are different.
I have spent a good amount of time around people who probably identify as Tea Party supportive, and this bears out in my own experiences. The conversations I hear seem to focus on what is wrong with America and how we are all going to hell in a handbasket. Soon after, the topics of illegal aliens and welfare mamas are beaten to death. And with so many of these folks, I would think that topics like jobs, home ownership, and economics would be more meaningful. When I see someone who is uninsured and out of work spending their time fussing about Adam and Steve getting married, and exhibiting general cultural pessimism, I wonder why he or she isn't more concerned about finding a job, or pulling him or herself "up by the bootstraps". Adam and Steve are not going to keep them from hanging on to their homes, whether married or not, and Republicans often claim they are all about economics. I wonder what it feels like to feel bitter and negative most of the time, and to stare into peoples' grocery carts so that they can complain if these people pull out food stamps.
And yet, the topic of corporate welfare never seems to come up. It's all a general principle for them, the idea that someone is getting a free ride, even if the average American making $50,000 is only parting with 10 cents per day into the food stamp program . The idea that corporations are getting something for nothing doesn't stick in their craw, even if they, themselves, are poor. It's that general rejection of "the others" at play. Every person I know who is a "good, hard-working, Christian" has a few rotten branches on the family tree, but it is easy for them to overlook their own relatives' flaws while focusing on the "brown" people out there who are "trying to get something for nothing".
Another common characteristic of Tea Party members, according to the study, is the acceptance of inequality of opportunity. I believe most mainstream Americans accept that we have a duty to provide the disadvantaged the opportunities to succeed, but not necessarily to continue to support those who have been given opportunities and frittered them away. Tea Party members don't seem to think there is anything wrong with a good portion of the population starting out in life with poor nutrition, no parental support, and abject poverty, and the fact that these people, without tutoring, school breakfasts and lunches, and educational opportunities will be extremely unlikely to have a chance to succeed. Don't let these people fool you. They know that the "American Dream" is more the exception than the rule, and they seem content with that knowledge. They will pretend that they believe the poor have an equal shot at success, but they know, like the rest of us, that this idea is ridiculous. They just don't care. They know that a child born in the ghetto with a drug-addicted absentee parent, a child who is poorly fed, a child who is not made to attend school, a child who is abused by the parent's lovers who parade in and out of the house, a child whose prevalent daily goal is to not be shot on the street, a child who is likely to be inducted into ganghood, has an extremely low chance at success. But, hey, that's how the cookie crumbles. Better them than me and my children. And, these people are proud to have these values.
One would think that, with the amount of money spent on guns and other self-defense items, that they would prefer to invest the money up front in helping the poor have a shot at self-improvement. After all, a child who emerges from the ghetto and attends college is far less likely to rob people at gunpoint. I am ignoring the fact that Tea Party types far overestimate the likelihood of their home being invaded by dark-skinned criminals. Truth be told, those of us who do not live in the inner city are far more likely to die in a car accident than we are to be gunned down by minorities. But, since they have a disproportionate amount of fear of crazed criminals, one would think that some investment in the future of the disadvantaged would seem like a practical investment.
I often hear disinterest in supporting the children of irresponsible parents framed as "The kids aren't my problem. We are just giving the parents a sense of entitlement." Fine. I will admit that there are irresponsible parents who aren't fit for their role. But, morally, ethically, as a society, I believe that we have a responsibility to our most vulnerable members; children, the elderly, animals. These children did not ask to be born into poverty, and for every child that is "left behind", there is a potentially angry as hell adult that will emerge down the line.
As for this couple, I left with sadness that the hospitality they showed me was a veneer of civilization plastered over a mass of hatred, distrust, and fear. I don't want their collards, I don't want their folksiness, I don't want their green bean casserole recipe. If they cannot display the slightest common courtesy to the cashier, who probably makes barely over minimum wage, who probably came to this country and works her ass off to make a better life for herself and her family, then I don't want the friendliness only showed to me because I have white skin and a slight Southern accent.
"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony,
Then, they checked out. The cashier was clearly Indian, and spoke English with a heavy Indian accent. I watched as their demeanor turned on a dime. Their friendly, open faces turned hard, they scowled, and they did not respond to the cashier's "Have a nice day". Then, they turned back to me, smiled effusively, and the woman said, "It was nice chatting with you! I hope you enjoy the rest of your day!"
It was at this moment that I could see how the dichotomy of a family-centered, but Xenophobic culture becomes schizoid and split. It was at this moment that it finally sunk in how African Americans could consider white Southerners unfriendly and hostile, while I defended how generous my relatives were to me and tell them that they didn't know my family the way I did. And it was at this moment that I speculated that the more hospitable a culture is to their own, the more hostile and suspicious it is to outsiders.
I have no idea how this couple votes, though I can speculate. I have no idea if this couple identifies as "Tea Party". But, the exchange made me think about the whole Tea Party phenomenon.
I read an article about a study about Tea Party membership and common demographics. There was some diversity in income level, though members were generally more affluent than those who identified as Democrats. I was somewhat surprised by this, based on the lack of basic grammar and communication skills I have observed in some of the louder members, and based on the fact that many of the Tea Party members I have met in real life have less education and seemingly less money than the people in my liberal, professional bubble. But the one characteristic that seemed to be universal was pessimism of the future, and a suspicion of those who are different.
I have spent a good amount of time around people who probably identify as Tea Party supportive, and this bears out in my own experiences. The conversations I hear seem to focus on what is wrong with America and how we are all going to hell in a handbasket. Soon after, the topics of illegal aliens and welfare mamas are beaten to death. And with so many of these folks, I would think that topics like jobs, home ownership, and economics would be more meaningful. When I see someone who is uninsured and out of work spending their time fussing about Adam and Steve getting married, and exhibiting general cultural pessimism, I wonder why he or she isn't more concerned about finding a job, or pulling him or herself "up by the bootstraps". Adam and Steve are not going to keep them from hanging on to their homes, whether married or not, and Republicans often claim they are all about economics. I wonder what it feels like to feel bitter and negative most of the time, and to stare into peoples' grocery carts so that they can complain if these people pull out food stamps.
And yet, the topic of corporate welfare never seems to come up. It's all a general principle for them, the idea that someone is getting a free ride, even if the average American making $50,000 is only parting with 10 cents per day into the food stamp program . The idea that corporations are getting something for nothing doesn't stick in their craw, even if they, themselves, are poor. It's that general rejection of "the others" at play. Every person I know who is a "good, hard-working, Christian" has a few rotten branches on the family tree, but it is easy for them to overlook their own relatives' flaws while focusing on the "brown" people out there who are "trying to get something for nothing".
Another common characteristic of Tea Party members, according to the study, is the acceptance of inequality of opportunity. I believe most mainstream Americans accept that we have a duty to provide the disadvantaged the opportunities to succeed, but not necessarily to continue to support those who have been given opportunities and frittered them away. Tea Party members don't seem to think there is anything wrong with a good portion of the population starting out in life with poor nutrition, no parental support, and abject poverty, and the fact that these people, without tutoring, school breakfasts and lunches, and educational opportunities will be extremely unlikely to have a chance to succeed. Don't let these people fool you. They know that the "American Dream" is more the exception than the rule, and they seem content with that knowledge. They will pretend that they believe the poor have an equal shot at success, but they know, like the rest of us, that this idea is ridiculous. They just don't care. They know that a child born in the ghetto with a drug-addicted absentee parent, a child who is poorly fed, a child who is not made to attend school, a child who is abused by the parent's lovers who parade in and out of the house, a child whose prevalent daily goal is to not be shot on the street, a child who is likely to be inducted into ganghood, has an extremely low chance at success. But, hey, that's how the cookie crumbles. Better them than me and my children. And, these people are proud to have these values.
One would think that, with the amount of money spent on guns and other self-defense items, that they would prefer to invest the money up front in helping the poor have a shot at self-improvement. After all, a child who emerges from the ghetto and attends college is far less likely to rob people at gunpoint. I am ignoring the fact that Tea Party types far overestimate the likelihood of their home being invaded by dark-skinned criminals. Truth be told, those of us who do not live in the inner city are far more likely to die in a car accident than we are to be gunned down by minorities. But, since they have a disproportionate amount of fear of crazed criminals, one would think that some investment in the future of the disadvantaged would seem like a practical investment.
I often hear disinterest in supporting the children of irresponsible parents framed as "The kids aren't my problem. We are just giving the parents a sense of entitlement." Fine. I will admit that there are irresponsible parents who aren't fit for their role. But, morally, ethically, as a society, I believe that we have a responsibility to our most vulnerable members; children, the elderly, animals. These children did not ask to be born into poverty, and for every child that is "left behind", there is a potentially angry as hell adult that will emerge down the line.
As for this couple, I left with sadness that the hospitality they showed me was a veneer of civilization plastered over a mass of hatred, distrust, and fear. I don't want their collards, I don't want their folksiness, I don't want their green bean casserole recipe. If they cannot display the slightest common courtesy to the cashier, who probably makes barely over minimum wage, who probably came to this country and works her ass off to make a better life for herself and her family, then I don't want the friendliness only showed to me because I have white skin and a slight Southern accent.
"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Consistency, people.
Listen up, fellow progressives. This is important. One thing we do very well is to call out the hypocrisy of the Christian Right. And b...
