When formulating my views, I have consciously attempted to take the route of Descartes: to forget or ignore (as best I can) all preconceptions, and begin from scratch. I even have my own proof for the existence of the self:
Incognito ergo sum
Roughly translated (remember, it’s so much more elegant and deep in Latin): I wear disguises, therefore I am. In other words: in order to pretend, there must be a pretender.
So, that’s where I’m coming from. A blank slate, and one which is a little warped, at that.
When I see people put so much stock in something ridiculous, I just don’t feel sympathy for them when their assumptions are challenged. Lately, it has been brought to my attention how insecure some men are, and it’s all thanks to feminism.
There is quite a bit of talk of masculinity among men seeking to explain the horrors of feminism. What does it mean to be a man?
I’ve seen a lot of definitions, but I am compelled to note the immortal words spoken by Jeff Bridges in “The Big Lebowski.” When asked, “What makes a man? ... is it doing the right thing, no matter the cost?” the Dude replied, “Mmm, that and a pair of testicles.”
This is not to say that someone like Lance Armstrong is half a man. Rather, it is to say that what fundamentally makes a man is determined by nature, not nurture. The whole nurture bit is all that bullshit hammered into our heads by parents, religion, art, and whatever the hell Disney movies are.
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll ignore the presence of various mutations that result due to additional or missing sex chromosomes, and I will also just gloss over transsexuals by saying that I acknowledge they feel like the gender with which they identify naturally. For the purposes of this discussion, I will only be dealing with simple male and female gender, though I feel obliged to acknowledge additional complexity.
I hesitate to use this word, because I don’t see masculinity as a religion (because, you know… it isn’t) and this world is tied with religion, though it need not be. Regardless, masculinity is a myth, like femininity. There is an entire mythology to masculinity and femininity, and many women have been actively altering female mythology over the past couple centuries in the West. If this wasn’t enough to piss some men off, some women are also actively trying to alter the mythology of men.
But let’s drop the religious-sounding language, in favor of a more empirical, scientific terminology. In a sense, masculinity has been an experiment. If I may be so bold, I am obliged to say that in many ways it has failed.
Masculinity has undoubtedly succeeded in some respects. We are still here as a species, after all. But if mere survival is our end goal, I believe we are setting our sights rather low as men.
Statistically, men are falling behind. The feminist experiment in redefining femininity has been an indisputable success. More women are earning advanced degrees, women commit far less crime, and women live longer than men. Women are on the whole happier and kill themselves less often. In nearly every modern measure of success, men have fallen behind. We can make jokes about it or pretend these things as unimportant, but the facts remain.
This situation is largely a function of how the male ideal is stuck in the past. Masculinity is a fossil, and men tend to pride themselves on the most inconsequential things. My internal 12-year-old is itching to tell me, in response to the above examples of female superiority, “Yeah, but I could take any woman in a fight!”
Well, first of all: no, internal 12-year-old, not with this body. I could probably take a lot of women, but there are some tough ladies, and this flabby pile of adipose tissue wouldn’t stand a chance against a whole slew of female professional athletes, or just women who are physically imposing compared to my chubby 5’11” frame.
Second of all, who cares if I can beat someone up? This is the age of the gun, the great equalizer. All the testosterone in the world won’t give me a physique that is bulletproof. Besides, in a society, it is not the individual that matters in situations of physical violence. The very basis of society itself is focused on neutralizing such inequalities, acting as a group for justice. This is why there are police and armies: because using force in a large, organized fashion can minimize the impact of injustice among individuals (while, of course, opening the door to a whole new kind of injustice… but that is another issue entirely).
Of course, the majority of male detractors of feminism aren’t using this as their argument (even if they’re thinking it, but are considering whether to comment on how they never would). A popular one, and one I have used in the past, is that feminism focuses too much on women.
I tend to file this one under the “no shit, Sherlock” category. Seeing a guy make this argument is tantamount to a white person saying, “Yeah, but what has the NAACP ever done for me?” I’ll tell you the benefit of these special interest groups that seek to expand the rights of certain demographics: a more equitable society.
On top of that, I have a news flash for men: not everything is about us. If you’re a male (especially white… and this is the internet, so let’s be honest, you’re probably white), I urge you to read that last sentence again, and maybe a third time, too. If that offends you, ask yourself: why? Is it because you know it’s true, or because you wish it wasn’t true (because it most certainly is true)? It’s not offensive to me at all, nor to any other mentally stable and emotionally adjusted man. There is frankly no reason for an adult to have an ego that is too sensitive to be told that the world does not revolve around them.
If it’s too much for you to accept that other people have problems, I honestly am not sure what hope there is for you.
Though honestly, it’s not necessarily an issue of selfishness that drives male hostility for feminism. Instead, there are those who see feminism as a human idea, and is therefore subject to all of the imperfections inherent in human ideas.
Without question, one could decide to cherry pick examples from feminism and say, “Look, here, feminism is an extremist group of crazy, man-hating dykes who practice witchcraft and eat aborted baby sushi rolls while using a butcher knife to carve ‘pig’ into the skin of a man chained to a radiator.” You could say that, but I hope that at least atheists would know better.
I mean honestly, if you’re an atheist, have you not learned anything from people trying to shove Stalin and Mao in your face like they constitute a good representation of atheism? If you’re a Christian, I understand why you might be so clueless, but atheists supposedly pride themselves on logic.
To point to failures in a vast field of feminists does not succeed in proving anything except that feminism is not perfect. What more, I see so few tangible examples of feminists overstepping their boundaries. I mostly see extremists pointing to perfectly reasonable feminist ideas (like eliminating the pay gap or fighting against the perception that women are responsible for rape because of how they dress), and then I see “moderates” who feel obliged to frame the debate as if there are two equal sides, each as acceptable as the other.
I mentioned masculinity as an experiment earlier, and before that as a mythology being altered by feminists. It doesn’t have to be feminists or women who alter the course of masculinity. It just happens to include them because so few men are acknowledging the need to redefine what it means to be a man. Women are doing us a favor, but men don’t want help. Men shrug off help; we want to do it ourselves.
Women have gone from barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen to outpacing men in many areas of intellectual achievement in a relatively short time. I would feel comfortable putting masculinity in their hands, but I have a feeling that nothing women come up with will please men. Ultimately, and all women know this, if you want to get a man to change his mind, you have to get him to believe he thought of it himself.
It all comes back to that ego…
So, I’ll step up and take some initiative in the gender war. I submit to you, my gentle reader, my new model for masculinity, based on what has not worked for men and what has worked for women.
First of all, the whole “machismo” bullshit has got to go. Say good-bye to that obsession with guns, weapons, fast cars, motorcycles… you know, all that stuff you bought to compensate for your tiny penis. If you just have to get off on taking a risk, be a real man and try telling that girl you’ve been dating for years that you love her and just get married already.
Another problem, and this is the one I struggle with, is that men are easily side-tracked. Porn comes to mind (it often does), but there are plenty of other male-dominated distractions, from sports to video games. Entire billion dollar industries run solely on wasting (primarily) men’s time. Obviously, some women are into this stuff, but there is a social stigma attached to it for women, and this is enough to provide the vast majority of women who do enjoy these things a reason to distance themselves from becoming obsessed.
In other words: it’s socially acceptable (for whatever reason) for men to be insanely into something like sports, and for it to dominate his time and even detract from his life. These things should not be banned or limited, but should instead be socially treated in a manner that discourages so many bright and promising young men from throwing away countless hours on things that won’t provide serious benefit. Basically, it should not be masculine to throw away your life on frivolity.
Men also do drugs at a higher rate, which has a similar outcome, with the added problem that this activity also ends up being the main source of male inmates (and probably female inmates, though I might be wrong). In many ways, ending the drug war would be a great boon to men, especially black men, for while drug use probably would not go down (and may even rise), the detrimental effects of drug use pale in comparison to being convicted of a crime.
Perhaps the biggest complaint of wives is that men don’t help out enough around the house (including child care), and most don’t. Even if you have a job, it’s still your responsibility to do some things around the house. Your wife is not your maid. In fact, chances are she probably has a job, too. It does everyone (male or female) some good to know what goes into cleaning and maintaining a house. If you never clean, you probably won’t realize what a horrible mess you make. If anything, gritting your teeth and just doing some chores can provide you with a little appreciation for your spouse.
I could keep going, but this is more than enough for one post. If you somehow made it to the end of this, congratulations are in order. I hope this makes a decent start, but I’m sure at some point in the foreseeable future that I will be delving into this idea of redefining masculinity more fully.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
On Male Reactions to Feminism
I have never understood the hostility men have for feminism, though to be fair, there is a great deal about most people of both genders which I don’t understand, like… I don’t understand the female obsession with fictional dramas where every little thing that could possibly go wrong does, nor do I understand the male obsession with violent action films where guns seem to solve every problem imaginable.
I don’t understand why women would go to a club or a bar to be hit on by men who play ridiculous games, and I don’t understand men who think that being mean to women is somehow a trick that will make them to like you (when really they just haven’t refined their technique since 3rd grade, when they used to throw mud at the girl they had a crush on).
I’m not particularly manly or girly. I feel as comfortable using a lawn mower or a power drill as I do vacuuming or doing laundry. I just don’t see gender as particularly important beyond the biological ramifications of reproduction. And I don’t think this is a particularly rare stance.
I feel I am rather qualified to speak on the male reaction to feminism, since I feel like I have no bias on the matter (I don’t see either gender as superior, nor do I prefer to be in the presence of people who identify with one gender over another). Plus, I am biologically a man, so I have access to the views of men that they wouldn’t share with women.
Sexism is alive and well, that much is very clear. And I’m not talking about superficial and harmless sexism, like calling the office secretary “toots.” That may be irritating, but I assure you that she wouldn’t mind so much if she was being paid the same salary that a man in her position was being paid, or if she had the same opportunities for advancement and mentorship as her male co-workers.
Sexism today is sort of like racism today: a fair amount of people (all of whom are the ones unaffected) think it’s gone because they don’t see it or practice it themselves. These forms of prejudice have largely gone underground. This isn’t worse than before, by any means, since there are far more opportunities now for women and ethnic minorities, not to mention regulations on overt bigotry that prevent some of the larger offenses. However, this last bit of prejudice will probably be tougher to wipe out than the large-scale and systemic discrimination practices that have been eradicated so far.
It’s kind of like eradicating pests from a house. It’s easy to get everything you can see in the open, it’s another to get the last of them that are hiding in the walls.
I haven’t done a poll on this among men I know or men in general, but I suspect that the majority of men don’t like feminism (especially if asked in a room full of guys). While I’ve never heard this argument made expressly, I wonder if the fact that the name “feminism” is part of the problem. I myself find it slightly biased (why not “gender equality” or “egalitarianism?”). But I know that most men see it as a movement that only benefits women, and I imagine the name can’t be helping.
Now, I’ve thought about it for a long time, and I’ve listened to a lot of men talk about how they hate feminism. I’ve taken the time to read many opinions on the matter, and it comes down to this: I can find only two reasons for men not liking feminism.
The first one is that certain men, who tend to be traditionalist, conservative, religious, role-oriented, and/or just plain misogynistic, see feminism as a legitimate threat to their perception of male supremacy. I suspect this is a scant minority.
The second type of men who feel threatened by feminists are those who are, for lack of a better term, whiney pussies. [No offense, ladies, but that sentence was for their benefit, not yours, and you have to speak the language of your listener if you want to be heard.] These men tend to take great offense at what they perceive to be a shame campaign by feminists to make white, primarily middle- and upper-class males feel guilty for who they are.
Basically, a bunch of pouty, whinging, overgrown cry-babies can’t get over the fact that someone, somewhere, might not like them. Boo hoo, white males, here’s a straw so you can suck it up.
Get over yourselves, you self-pitying, wanna-be victims. Feminists don’t make me feel bad about being a white male. No, assclowns like you fuckheads do. You are exactly who they’re talking about, the ones who refuse to acknowledge any degree of privilege or undeserved advantage and still have the audacity to turn around and act oppressed by people seeking to level the playing field.
To be quite frank, feminism would disappear the day assholes who complain about feminism disappear. Feminism is not a spontaneous movement, it is reactionary, and if the thing causing them to react disappears, their rhetoric falls to pieces and they become irrelevant. Instead, I see these indignant embarrassments who call themselves men providing all the ammunition the feminist movement needs in order to confidently continue their claims.
At some point, if you’re a well-off white guy like me, you have to be able to look at yourself and say, “I had it easier than other people, and that’s okay, because I want to live in a world where opportunity is available to everyone, not just a privileged few. When someone talks about rich white men making the world a worse place, I don’t get defensive, because I know they aren’t talking about me.”
So, ultimately, I think the only reason to get upset at feminists is if you identify as part of the problem [see reason one, above].
I don’t understand why women would go to a club or a bar to be hit on by men who play ridiculous games, and I don’t understand men who think that being mean to women is somehow a trick that will make them to like you (when really they just haven’t refined their technique since 3rd grade, when they used to throw mud at the girl they had a crush on).
I’m not particularly manly or girly. I feel as comfortable using a lawn mower or a power drill as I do vacuuming or doing laundry. I just don’t see gender as particularly important beyond the biological ramifications of reproduction. And I don’t think this is a particularly rare stance.
I feel I am rather qualified to speak on the male reaction to feminism, since I feel like I have no bias on the matter (I don’t see either gender as superior, nor do I prefer to be in the presence of people who identify with one gender over another). Plus, I am biologically a man, so I have access to the views of men that they wouldn’t share with women.
Sexism is alive and well, that much is very clear. And I’m not talking about superficial and harmless sexism, like calling the office secretary “toots.” That may be irritating, but I assure you that she wouldn’t mind so much if she was being paid the same salary that a man in her position was being paid, or if she had the same opportunities for advancement and mentorship as her male co-workers.
Sexism today is sort of like racism today: a fair amount of people (all of whom are the ones unaffected) think it’s gone because they don’t see it or practice it themselves. These forms of prejudice have largely gone underground. This isn’t worse than before, by any means, since there are far more opportunities now for women and ethnic minorities, not to mention regulations on overt bigotry that prevent some of the larger offenses. However, this last bit of prejudice will probably be tougher to wipe out than the large-scale and systemic discrimination practices that have been eradicated so far.
It’s kind of like eradicating pests from a house. It’s easy to get everything you can see in the open, it’s another to get the last of them that are hiding in the walls.
I haven’t done a poll on this among men I know or men in general, but I suspect that the majority of men don’t like feminism (especially if asked in a room full of guys). While I’ve never heard this argument made expressly, I wonder if the fact that the name “feminism” is part of the problem. I myself find it slightly biased (why not “gender equality” or “egalitarianism?”). But I know that most men see it as a movement that only benefits women, and I imagine the name can’t be helping.
Now, I’ve thought about it for a long time, and I’ve listened to a lot of men talk about how they hate feminism. I’ve taken the time to read many opinions on the matter, and it comes down to this: I can find only two reasons for men not liking feminism.
The first one is that certain men, who tend to be traditionalist, conservative, religious, role-oriented, and/or just plain misogynistic, see feminism as a legitimate threat to their perception of male supremacy. I suspect this is a scant minority.
The second type of men who feel threatened by feminists are those who are, for lack of a better term, whiney pussies. [No offense, ladies, but that sentence was for their benefit, not yours, and you have to speak the language of your listener if you want to be heard.] These men tend to take great offense at what they perceive to be a shame campaign by feminists to make white, primarily middle- and upper-class males feel guilty for who they are.
Basically, a bunch of pouty, whinging, overgrown cry-babies can’t get over the fact that someone, somewhere, might not like them. Boo hoo, white males, here’s a straw so you can suck it up.
Get over yourselves, you self-pitying, wanna-be victims. Feminists don’t make me feel bad about being a white male. No, assclowns like you fuckheads do. You are exactly who they’re talking about, the ones who refuse to acknowledge any degree of privilege or undeserved advantage and still have the audacity to turn around and act oppressed by people seeking to level the playing field.
To be quite frank, feminism would disappear the day assholes who complain about feminism disappear. Feminism is not a spontaneous movement, it is reactionary, and if the thing causing them to react disappears, their rhetoric falls to pieces and they become irrelevant. Instead, I see these indignant embarrassments who call themselves men providing all the ammunition the feminist movement needs in order to confidently continue their claims.
At some point, if you’re a well-off white guy like me, you have to be able to look at yourself and say, “I had it easier than other people, and that’s okay, because I want to live in a world where opportunity is available to everyone, not just a privileged few. When someone talks about rich white men making the world a worse place, I don’t get defensive, because I know they aren’t talking about me.”
So, ultimately, I think the only reason to get upset at feminists is if you identify as part of the problem [see reason one, above].
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Am I A Liberal?
I sometimes ask myself, “Should I call myself a liberal?” Usually it’s right after having written something implying I am liberal, then reading it over.
I just don’t feel like a liberal.
It’s sort of like asking, “Am I white?” I can get really literal and say, “Well, my skin is more pale peach, I’m not sure I’m really white.” But when people say white, they mean people like me. I don't have an ounce of non-European blood in my traceable ancestry. Yet, I just don’t see myself as strongly identifying with the label “white.”
And it’s not that I disavow labels. I’m comfortable with the label atheist (skipping right over the weak “agnostic” designation). I’m comfortable saying I’m a male, though I don’t find that label to be particularly meaningful to me outside of the confines of sex. I’m fine with saying I’m an American, fat, and left-handed.
But when it comes to being liberal or white, I just go along with the assumptions of others out of convenience. Maybe if I wasn’t a mongrel mix of Sicilian, Irish, Dutch, Slavic, German, Austrian and who knows what else… maybe if I had one singular label to rally around, I might have been exposed to the environment which would have instilled in me the pride of being born out of a particular race. I lucked out, in this regard.
The situation is similar with the label “liberal.” I don’t have a lot of politicians I can point to and say I like. I would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders for president, but that pretty much makes me the laughing-stock of the “liberals.”
I would say Democrats aren’t liberals, just centrists, but maybe I am over-stepping. Maybe Democrats are liberals, and I’m just something else. It certainly could be the case, because I feel little or no camaraderie with the Democrats as a whole.
I guess that makes me left-of-liberal… or “LOL.” Fitting, because I quite often feel like a joke when talking with liberals. Still, I’d rather be the punch line than one of these wishy-washy do-nothings who pride themselves on their ineffectiveness.
As least I am ashamed of how ineffective I am.
I just don’t feel like a liberal.
It’s sort of like asking, “Am I white?” I can get really literal and say, “Well, my skin is more pale peach, I’m not sure I’m really white.” But when people say white, they mean people like me. I don't have an ounce of non-European blood in my traceable ancestry. Yet, I just don’t see myself as strongly identifying with the label “white.”
And it’s not that I disavow labels. I’m comfortable with the label atheist (skipping right over the weak “agnostic” designation). I’m comfortable saying I’m a male, though I don’t find that label to be particularly meaningful to me outside of the confines of sex. I’m fine with saying I’m an American, fat, and left-handed.
But when it comes to being liberal or white, I just go along with the assumptions of others out of convenience. Maybe if I wasn’t a mongrel mix of Sicilian, Irish, Dutch, Slavic, German, Austrian and who knows what else… maybe if I had one singular label to rally around, I might have been exposed to the environment which would have instilled in me the pride of being born out of a particular race. I lucked out, in this regard.
The situation is similar with the label “liberal.” I don’t have a lot of politicians I can point to and say I like. I would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders for president, but that pretty much makes me the laughing-stock of the “liberals.”
I would say Democrats aren’t liberals, just centrists, but maybe I am over-stepping. Maybe Democrats are liberals, and I’m just something else. It certainly could be the case, because I feel little or no camaraderie with the Democrats as a whole.
I guess that makes me left-of-liberal… or “LOL.” Fitting, because I quite often feel like a joke when talking with liberals. Still, I’d rather be the punch line than one of these wishy-washy do-nothings who pride themselves on their ineffectiveness.
As least I am ashamed of how ineffective I am.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Top Ten Fifty: Living Atheists
52. Guy Pearce
51. Stephen Fry
50. Julia Sweeney
49. Adam Savage
48. Jamie Hyneman
47. Sarah Silverman
46. Bret Easton Ellis
45. Joe Rogan
44. Sam Harris
43. Patton Oswalt
42. Christopher Hitchens
41. Richard Dawkins
40. Ani DiFranco
39. Henry Rollins
38. Sir Ian McKellen
37. Darren Aronofsky
36. Adam Carolla
35. Eddie Izzard
34. Salman Rushdie
33. Noam Chomsky
32. Björk
31. Joaquin Phoenix
30. Ray Romano
29. Jesse Ventura
28. Penn Jillette
27. John Malkovich
26. Guillermo del Toro
25. Warren Buffett
24. Ted Turner
23. Eddie Vedder
22. Roger Waters
21. George Soros
20. Mark Zuckerberg
19. Bill Maher
18. Dan Savage
17. Gore Vidal
16. Seth MacFarlane
15.Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
14. Roger Ebert
13. Fidel Castro
12.Frank Zappa
11. Andy Rooney
10. Quentin Tarantino
9. James Cameron
8. Lance Armstrong
7. Jodie Foster
6. Ricky Gervais
5. Woody Allen
4. Daniel Radcliffe
3. Kevin Bacon
2. Jack Nicholson
1. Brad Pitt
51. Stephen Fry
50. Julia Sweeney
49. Adam Savage
48. Jamie Hyneman
47. Sarah Silverman
46. Bret Easton Ellis
45. Joe Rogan
44. Sam Harris
43. Patton Oswalt
42. Christopher Hitchens
41. Richard Dawkins
40. Ani DiFranco
39. Henry Rollins
38. Sir Ian McKellen
37. Darren Aronofsky
36. Adam Carolla
35. Eddie Izzard
34. Salman Rushdie
33. Noam Chomsky
32. Björk
31. Joaquin Phoenix
30. Ray Romano
29. Jesse Ventura
28. Penn Jillette
27. John Malkovich
26. Guillermo del Toro
25. Warren Buffett
24. Ted Turner
23. Eddie Vedder
22. Roger Waters
21. George Soros
20. Mark Zuckerberg
19. Bill Maher
18. Dan Savage
17. Gore Vidal
16. Seth MacFarlane
15.
14. Roger Ebert
13. Fidel Castro
12.
11. Andy Rooney
10. Quentin Tarantino
9. James Cameron
8. Lance Armstrong
7. Jodie Foster
6. Ricky Gervais
5. Woody Allen
4. Daniel Radcliffe
3. Kevin Bacon
2. Jack Nicholson
1. Brad Pitt
Monday, July 4, 2011
On Casey Anthony
I haven’t really commented on the Casey Anthony case, so now that it’s coming to a close, I might as well swoop in with the rest of the vultures.
Now, I’m going to say something kind of controversial that may shock you: I think the most pointless crime is child murder. Try to stay with me on this. It makes no sense at all to kill a kid, especially a young child. I mean honestly, those little shits are so stupid that some of them would kill themselves several times over the course of an hour if you don’t intervene.
What I’m trying to say is… this whole Casey Anthony business would never have happened if Caylee Anthony had just been armed with a gun. The two-year-old would have offed herself pretty quick. If Casey had just left a loaded handgun lying around, she’d only be facing neglect, instead of capital murder.
Well, a good lesson for the rest of us.
Now, I’m going to say something kind of controversial that may shock you: I think the most pointless crime is child murder. Try to stay with me on this. It makes no sense at all to kill a kid, especially a young child. I mean honestly, those little shits are so stupid that some of them would kill themselves several times over the course of an hour if you don’t intervene.
What I’m trying to say is… this whole Casey Anthony business would never have happened if Caylee Anthony had just been armed with a gun. The two-year-old would have offed herself pretty quick. If Casey had just left a loaded handgun lying around, she’d only be facing neglect, instead of capital murder.
Well, a good lesson for the rest of us.
Music Monday: Jimi Hendrix
I know of no artist who more aptly personifies independence than Jimi Hendrix. So, on this Independence Day, enjoy the Experience.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Grammatically Correct Argumentation
More than any other development, it is speech’s capacity to convey complex, abstract ideas which separates humanity from other animals. Language grants us the ability to transmit complex ideas between independent minds, allowing for such things as education and culture to flourish.
Along with our upright stance, which opened our hands to tool making, the ability to form complex syllables is one of the few human activities which has shaped our very biological evolution after diverging from other apes (the anatomy of modern speech does not appear in the fossil record until about 50,000 years ago).
Language has power. There is perhaps no other idea more correctly grasped by religions the world over that is ignored by atheism. Buddha talked of right speech leading to right action. According to Genesis, YHWH spoke the universe into existence. Many religions have words of power which are said to carry the ability to protect or harm. Every religion has certain types of speech which are taboo.
It occurred to me recently that a lot of criticism is, for lack of a better word, grammatically incorrect. Because of this error in grammar, which I will get into briefly, people have not only been fooled, but they daily fool themselves and each other.
My realization is this: we have either learned independently or have been taught by others that we should criticize nouns, when we ought to be criticizing verbs.
Suppose Bob says something that offends Sally, and Sally in turn calls him a racist. In this instance, they failed to use language properly.
In all likelihood, Bob did not intend to offend Sally, but even if he did, she was in error to label him negatively. Why? Because she has no way of knowing if Bob is a racist, unless she also happens to read minds. Rather, all she knows is that something he said was perceived by her to be racist. Therefore, the proper response is for her to say, “I think what you said is racist,” not to call him a racist.
Christians don’t have a name for this, though they have a phrase which defines it: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” You can secularize it in many ways, like “Ignore the speaker, criticize the speech,” or “Respect the thinker, attack the thought.”
The idea is, a person’s words are best thought of as fundamentally apart from the individual saying them.
Why? Well, for one thing, we tend to label people unfairly. In our above example, Bob ceases to be Bob, in a sense, and is instead “a racist.” Just analyze the language of that for a second: rather than seeing an individual and seeking to get to the bottom of what Bob meant to say (which is probably not as bad as what he said, though maybe it is), Bob is labeled as “a racist,” just one out of some vaguely defined group of racists, which makes him easier to dismiss and simply ignore.
This is not a constructive use of language.
In that example, Sally is not really angry at Bob, she is angry at what he said. Words are an abstract thing, and Bob said them, so it appears to make sense to blame Bob. Indeed, he is responsible for them, and he is to “blame” for them, but Sally would probably find more success treating Bob like the same person she saw him as before he said those things and address his use of language.
Bob may have no idea how his words are interpreted by another person. Assuming he doesn’t realize what he said will be taken as offensive, being called something he isn’t (like “a racist”) won’t help at all. It will instead probably lead him to exhibit hostility towards Sally, which is ironic because he should be angry at her words, not her. He’s really just angry at this whole process, where a noun is attacked because a verb originated from it.
But suppose he even meant to say what he said, and he knew how it would be taken. This gets us to the heart of the matter, and why the scenario I have presented in fundamentally different from, say, a crime.
When a person commits a crime, real and tangible harm has occurred. Crime, in this case, is not necessarily tied to legality. Instead, crime is defined philosophically (for these purposes) as when one person is tangibly harmed by another. Saying something that offends someone is fundamentally different from physically harming someone.
We address a person when a true crime is committed because we cannot take back an action, and we are also interested in discouraging actions of that nature in the future. Historically, we formulate punishments for crimes as a deterrent or as a form of removing an unwanted person from society through exile, imprisonment, forced servitude, or death.
Some see certain kinds of speech as criminal, and I do understand why. After all, words can harm. However, words can only harm you if you let them. Unless you are being detained and forced to endure constant verbal abuse without the opportunity to escape, it’s not really a crime for someone to say something you don’t want to hear.
If Bob says something racist because it’s racist, Sally has a lot of options on how to handle it. She could be dismissive, never knowing what he meant or if he was serious. She could question further and perhaps find out the motives behind why he said it. And if he didn’t just say it out of shock value or in a misguided attempt at a joke or even just because he didn’t know better, if he turns out to really, truly be racist, even then, she can choose to keep asking questions or to just walk away.
Ultimately, walking away may seem safer and easier, and it’s certainly the most common choice, but it does a disservice to Bob.
I would be a failure if I didn’t change over time. I’m not perfect, so failing to alter my ideas and methods is ultimately the easiest (and laziest) way to fail. And I don’t just say that because it’s what conservatives do; that’s just a coincidence.
I’m sure I’ll still say plenty of offensive things, but I need to tone down what I say, especially in interacting with others. For one thing, you guys are enormous pussies. With all due respect, most people are soft-skinned, whiney little bitches who couldn’t stand up for themselves if their lives depended on it. I see that more clearly than ever. But the truth is, no one wants to hear that, and saying things like that (unless I’ve waited until the very end) will cause people to tune me out.
I know people can’t help it. I don’t blame them. It’s not easy to look beyond something offensive. When someone is shooting arrows at you, the first impulse is to shoot arrows back. Ideally, though, we should address the sting, that point where the insult sunk deep and hit something true. But if their aim is off and they are missing, even then, why attack them when you can use their ineptitude as an opportunity to disarm them?
Of course, this is all easier said than done. This certainly has not been my practice while blogging. Still, for a former writing tutor, remember a rule like “ignore the noun, attack the verb” is something I think I can remember.
Along with our upright stance, which opened our hands to tool making, the ability to form complex syllables is one of the few human activities which has shaped our very biological evolution after diverging from other apes (the anatomy of modern speech does not appear in the fossil record until about 50,000 years ago).
Language has power. There is perhaps no other idea more correctly grasped by religions the world over that is ignored by atheism. Buddha talked of right speech leading to right action. According to Genesis, YHWH spoke the universe into existence. Many religions have words of power which are said to carry the ability to protect or harm. Every religion has certain types of speech which are taboo.
It occurred to me recently that a lot of criticism is, for lack of a better word, grammatically incorrect. Because of this error in grammar, which I will get into briefly, people have not only been fooled, but they daily fool themselves and each other.
My realization is this: we have either learned independently or have been taught by others that we should criticize nouns, when we ought to be criticizing verbs.
Suppose Bob says something that offends Sally, and Sally in turn calls him a racist. In this instance, they failed to use language properly.
In all likelihood, Bob did not intend to offend Sally, but even if he did, she was in error to label him negatively. Why? Because she has no way of knowing if Bob is a racist, unless she also happens to read minds. Rather, all she knows is that something he said was perceived by her to be racist. Therefore, the proper response is for her to say, “I think what you said is racist,” not to call him a racist.
Christians don’t have a name for this, though they have a phrase which defines it: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” You can secularize it in many ways, like “Ignore the speaker, criticize the speech,” or “Respect the thinker, attack the thought.”
The idea is, a person’s words are best thought of as fundamentally apart from the individual saying them.
Why? Well, for one thing, we tend to label people unfairly. In our above example, Bob ceases to be Bob, in a sense, and is instead “a racist.” Just analyze the language of that for a second: rather than seeing an individual and seeking to get to the bottom of what Bob meant to say (which is probably not as bad as what he said, though maybe it is), Bob is labeled as “a racist,” just one out of some vaguely defined group of racists, which makes him easier to dismiss and simply ignore.
This is not a constructive use of language.
In that example, Sally is not really angry at Bob, she is angry at what he said. Words are an abstract thing, and Bob said them, so it appears to make sense to blame Bob. Indeed, he is responsible for them, and he is to “blame” for them, but Sally would probably find more success treating Bob like the same person she saw him as before he said those things and address his use of language.
Bob may have no idea how his words are interpreted by another person. Assuming he doesn’t realize what he said will be taken as offensive, being called something he isn’t (like “a racist”) won’t help at all. It will instead probably lead him to exhibit hostility towards Sally, which is ironic because he should be angry at her words, not her. He’s really just angry at this whole process, where a noun is attacked because a verb originated from it.
But suppose he even meant to say what he said, and he knew how it would be taken. This gets us to the heart of the matter, and why the scenario I have presented in fundamentally different from, say, a crime.
When a person commits a crime, real and tangible harm has occurred. Crime, in this case, is not necessarily tied to legality. Instead, crime is defined philosophically (for these purposes) as when one person is tangibly harmed by another. Saying something that offends someone is fundamentally different from physically harming someone.
We address a person when a true crime is committed because we cannot take back an action, and we are also interested in discouraging actions of that nature in the future. Historically, we formulate punishments for crimes as a deterrent or as a form of removing an unwanted person from society through exile, imprisonment, forced servitude, or death.
Some see certain kinds of speech as criminal, and I do understand why. After all, words can harm. However, words can only harm you if you let them. Unless you are being detained and forced to endure constant verbal abuse without the opportunity to escape, it’s not really a crime for someone to say something you don’t want to hear.
If Bob says something racist because it’s racist, Sally has a lot of options on how to handle it. She could be dismissive, never knowing what he meant or if he was serious. She could question further and perhaps find out the motives behind why he said it. And if he didn’t just say it out of shock value or in a misguided attempt at a joke or even just because he didn’t know better, if he turns out to really, truly be racist, even then, she can choose to keep asking questions or to just walk away.
Ultimately, walking away may seem safer and easier, and it’s certainly the most common choice, but it does a disservice to Bob.
I would be a failure if I didn’t change over time. I’m not perfect, so failing to alter my ideas and methods is ultimately the easiest (and laziest) way to fail. And I don’t just say that because it’s what conservatives do; that’s just a coincidence.
I’m sure I’ll still say plenty of offensive things, but I need to tone down what I say, especially in interacting with others. For one thing, you guys are enormous pussies. With all due respect, most people are soft-skinned, whiney little bitches who couldn’t stand up for themselves if their lives depended on it. I see that more clearly than ever. But the truth is, no one wants to hear that, and saying things like that (unless I’ve waited until the very end) will cause people to tune me out.
I know people can’t help it. I don’t blame them. It’s not easy to look beyond something offensive. When someone is shooting arrows at you, the first impulse is to shoot arrows back. Ideally, though, we should address the sting, that point where the insult sunk deep and hit something true. But if their aim is off and they are missing, even then, why attack them when you can use their ineptitude as an opportunity to disarm them?
Of course, this is all easier said than done. This certainly has not been my practice while blogging. Still, for a former writing tutor, remember a rule like “ignore the noun, attack the verb” is something I think I can remember.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
