Monday, October 19, 2015

Blogaround

Pangolins. Image source.
1. ‘Who gets a casserole?’ (posted October 8) "That family who lost their home to fire, flood or tornado faces a hardship that we can clearly understand and that we know how to fix. They lost their home, so we can build them a new one. And once we do that, their problem will be fixed and we won’t have to worry about it anymore. But people whose problems are more chronic or enduring, whose problems don’t have such an obvious and final fix, are less likely to get a casserole."

2. California ‘Redskins’ Ban a Rare Statewide Win for Movement (posted October 12) Great!

3. Is Hermione Granger White? (posted October 9) "A story about racial hatred and oppression, in which zero major characters are actual racial minorities, would be a bit strange, would it not?"

4. Using the Bible To Run From Jesus (What If Jesus Actually Is Enough?) (posted October 9) "In the end, I found that one of the best ways to avoid doing what Jesus taught, and one of the easiest ways to find excuses for why we shouldn’t live the way he lived, was to use the Bible to do it."

5. NonStampCollector – Bible Interpretation: Upside Down (posted October 15) A really interesting video parodying bible interpretation.

And another video from the same producer: Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you. Wow, this one is really good.

6. When There Is No Justice in Scripture: The Rape of Tamar (posted October 12) "Throughout my life in the church, I had never heard the name “Tamar.” No reference to this daughter of King David. No remembrance of her profound suffering and grief."

7. Why White Parents Won't Choose Black Schools (posted October 15) "Our schools are more segregated than they have ever been. Our educational system is deeply inequitable. Things are only getting worse. They shook their concerned liberal head in sadness wondering what they could do. Then they made sure their child got into the very white, pretty affluent charter school that is not representative of their neighborhood."

8. Why It’s So Difficult to Diagnose Autism in Girls (posted October 8) Yep.

9. Christians, Quit Waiting to Take Advantage of Tragedies in Our Lives to Convert Us (posted October 9) "I’ve even sat in on sermons and advice from apologists to college students saying Christians should wait till a friend has a hard time in their lives before sharing the Gospel to them."

10. The Problem with Gendering Kids’ Halloween Costumes Is Othering, Not Sexualizing (posted October 13) "What does it communicate to girls, I wonder, when they’re presented with “girlified” career uniforms that look nothing like what women in those careers actually wear?"

11. How being poor can lead to a negative spiral of fear and self-loathing (posted June 30) "The study also reported a “negative self-stereotyping” effect, whereby people in long-term poverty absorbed the prevalent media stereotypes of people on benefits or facing unemployment as being “low in warmth and low in competence”."

12. Once Seed Was Planted, Chinese Headwear Fad Grew Like Weeds (posted October 7) YOU GUYS YOU GUYS YOU GUYS. There is a new trend in China where people appear to be growing tiny plants on the tops of their heads.

More photos here.
Have a good week!

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Feminism 101: Gaslighting

Image source.
Feminism 101 is a series in which I define some of the terms that feminists like to throw around. My goal is to help those who are totally new to feminism understand what it's all about.

Today's entry: gaslighting

Gaslighting, as defined by Wikipedia, is "a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted or spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity." The name comes from the 1938 play "Gas Light", where an abusive husband often dimmed the gas lights in the house and when his wife pointed it out, he convinced her that she was just imagining it.

Basically, it means someone is telling you that the things you experienced are not real, that your memory is lying to you, that you can't trust your own mind.

(A few more links about gaslighting: Gaslighting Is a Common Victim-Blaming Abuse Tactic – Here Are 4 Ways to Recognize It in Your Life and 10 Things I wish I’d known About Gaslighting)

Gaslighting is a tactic used by abusers to weaken their victims, but it occurs in other situations too. Gaslighting occurs anytime someone tries to convince you "no that didn't really happen to you" or "no you don't really feel that way."

For example, there have been times when I was talking about how incredibly harmful purity culture is, and I was told, "No one was teaching that. You have Asperger's, so you always take things to extremes." This person would have me believe that the church tried to teach me a perfectly healthy, abstinence-based view of relationships, and then my Asperger's-brain invented purity culture.

Ha. Haha. NO.

(And here would be a good time to point out the intersection between gaslighting and mental health/ neurodiversity.)

I did not invent the idea that "guard your heart" means "be constantly worried that you like a boy 'too much'". I did not invent the idea of getting too "emotionally attached" to someone and "losing pieces of your heart". I did not invent the idea that if I break up with someone, I'm less pure than I was before the relationship started, so logically maybe it's better to stay in a bad relationship.

These are all things that purity culture explicitly teaches. These are all things that I have heard Christians say, or I have read in Christian books about how to date "God's way."

And yet, this person tried to gaslight me and claim "no one was teaching that."

The same thing is true for the topic of hell and evangelism. Apparently, the idea of being disrespectful to people in the name of evangelism is something my Asperger's-brain came up with, completely unwarranted by any church teaching.

Yeah, NO. I did not invent the doctrine of eternal, infinite torture for all non-Christians. I did not imagine Christians preaching "which is worse: a little awkwardness and the risk of losing a friendship, or your friend spending eternity in hell?"

In fact, I see this same gaslighting happen to a lot of people who grew up Christian and now are very critical of the church. Christians want to tell us "oh that's not what the church was REALLY teaching- you misunderstood!" Gaslighting. Gaslighting, all of it.

Back when I was "on fire for God," when I believed that crap 100% and lived every day of my life in devotion to it, they all thought it was so wonderful that I was bold and living for God. Nobody said a word about "actually I think this belief you have is too extreme and unhealthy." But now that I'm critical of those teachings, suddenly it's "no, we have never taught anything like that."

Gaslighting.

----------------

One more thing to add: this post, a response to a comic claiming that opposing marriage equality is about loving gay people, says this about gaslighting (emphasis mine):
He then uses this to revisit his original statement of beliefs and tell you that the things you thought were attacks on gay people actually aren’t. They’re signs of how much Adam loves you. As many other articles have said (and as I grew up hearing), true love doesn’t let gay people be gay. If you truly love them, you must pester them until they decide not to be gay anymore. That’s what articles like this mean, when they say that they love gay people: it means that they love them so much that they simply can’t allow them to live out their life unharassed, without being told constantly how much they’re hurting themselves. Because true love looks after their immortal soul.

There’s a term for telling people that the things they are experiencing as attacks aren’t, that they should instead take them as signs of love, and that they should doubt their entire perception of the world. It’s called gaslighting. And it’s mental abuse.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Trip to Hangzhou [photos]

Photos I took in 杭州 Hangzhou (for those of you unfamiliar with Chinese pronunciation, it's like "hong joe"), a city in 浙江 Zhejiang (umm... "juh jong") province.

The big attraction in 杭州 Hangzhou is 西湖 [xī hú] West Lake. It's really beautiful:


"请勿躺卧 Do Not Lie Down"
Plus a little symbol of a guy in a sexy "draw me like one of your French girls" pose


You can buy snacks and little toys and stuff here.







West Lake is a World Heritage site

Starbucks

Haagen-Dazs


This area is apparently called "Three Pools Mirroring the Moon"

So. I promise this is not a swastika. It is a Chinese character called 卍 (wàn) and here is a whole page about how this character comes from ancient Buddhism in India. That web page is in Chinese, here's one in English but with less information. Google Translate and any website where I've looked for an English definition say "swastika" but that's not what it means when you see it on some traditional Buddhist cultural site in China.
Anyway the point here is that the pavilion is shaped like a 卍 (wàn) and it means "all is at peace."




These next pictures are from a street full of little shops and stuff:


Cheap street food.

Snails.


Some sort of flat bread-ish thing, which is made by these guys pounding at it with mallets.

杭州 Hangzhou is nice~ I hope I can go again and see more of it sometime. ^_^

Monday, October 12, 2015

Blogaround

Image source.

1. Planned Parenthood’s “Government Funding”: The Same Kind Your Doctor Receives (posted October 5) "Any attempt to bar Planned Parenthood—a qualified provider—from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for providing birth control, STD testing, and other women’s healthcare services to Medicaid beneficiaries is not about reducing abortion. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that defunding Planned Parenthood would result in an increase in unplanned pregnancies, and that in turn would lead to an increase in abortions. Defunding Planned Parenthood is about punishing Planned Parenthood for providing abortions by making it more difficult to provide women with birth control and other women’s healthcare services."

2. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Mental Health (HBO) (posted October 4) "Because if we're going to constantly use mentally ill people to dodge conversations about gun control, then the very least we owe them is a ****ing plan."

3. Why We Need To Stop Devaluing Femininity (posted October 6) "Little girls are, for the most part, taught that women can be anything. This is a message that we try to instill in them from day one. However, what they aren’t taught is that people who dress, think, or act in a traditionally feminine manner can be anything."

4. "Female Privilege" and Sexist Arguments (posted October 6) "The legal and political decisions regarding both the draft and when to engage in war remain firmly in the hands of other men. If men are to be seen as disposable, it must be acknowledged that they’re disposing of each other."

5. A Three Tiered Universe – Earth, Heavens, and Seas (RJS) (posted October 6) "The earth is either supported on pillars or floats on top of the cosmic seas." About the Ancient Near East view of the world, which the biblical authors totally also believed.

6. The symmetric property of 2 Timothy 3:16 (posted October 5) "Justice is what 2 Timothy 3:16 says scripture is for. But justice is the very thing that our fundie friends ignore — completely — in their efforts to hijack this passage into an assertion about epistemology."

7. See How Smartphones Have Become a Lifeline for Refugees (posted October 8)

8. ‘Worst nightmare': Woman with concealed gun permit shoots at fleeing shoplifter outside Home Depot (posted October 8) "'I am more worried about an armed vigilante than a non-armed petty theft criminal,' one Michigan man wrote."

9. Why it’s so mind-blowing (and important) to see Asian parents kissing on TV (posted October 7)

10. 'What's Wrong with a Hug?' (posted October 8) "Despite feeling increasingly uncomfortable around the volunteer, the child had not gone to another adult for help because she was afraid that refusing the hugs would be considered rude. Unfortunately, her fears were confirmed. When they heard about the incident, many people did question the child’s “politeness” in refusing to let an adult hug her."

11. the not-so-ridiculous reasons people leave church (posted October 9) "It’s not that the people who make these memes or write these posts are unaware of the reasons I gave here, it’s that they don’t think these reasons are legitimate."

12. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards Is Not Overpaid. Here’s Why. (posted October 6) "In the 2014 video cited above, Cecile Richards was not willing to speak about death threats made against her personally, preferring to discuss those made against providers, clinic workers, and patients, but given her position, there is no way she doesn’t receive threats."

Saturday, October 10, 2015

China's "Working Weekends"

Image source.
Here in China, we just had 7 days off (October 1-7) for 国庆节 (guó qìng jié), Chinese National Day. (Like the Fourth of July, but for China.)

And that means that today, Saturday, October 10, I went to work.

This is the phenomenon of China's "working weekends." It means if you get a bunch of days off for a holiday, sometimes you have to come in and work on Saturday or Sunday a week later. (Here is the schedule of public holidays and working weekends for 2015.)

I'm pretty sure the math always works out so you get a net positive amount of days off.

When I first heard about "working weekends" I thought, that's ridiculous and inhumane. But, from another perspective, if they're only going to give you, say, 4 extra days off for a certain holiday, in addition to normal weekends, a lot of people would prefer if some of those weekend days were swapped around so they could get more days off consecutively, right?

So, eh, whatever. It's not a big deal. Just a quirk of Chinese culture.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Dear Christians: Here's how to ACTUALLY love transgender people

"Transgender rights are human rights." Image source.
On October 5, the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors held a conference called "Transgender Confusion and Transformational Christianity" [huge TRIGGER WARNING for nasty trans-hate at that link]. Jo, a non-binary trans person, went to the conference and tweeted all about it. (Poor Jo.)

And basically, the whole thing was about how transgender people are wrong about their identity, and conservative Christians know that transgender isn't even a real thing, and Christians should love transgender people by explaining to them why they are wrong about their own identity. Oh yeah, and also by spreading lies about them, and discriminating against them.

Yeah, no. That's not what love is.

If you want to actually love transgender people, you need to LISTEN to them and BELIEVE them when they talk about their own experiences, their own identity, their own needs.

(Maybe you're not convinced that you need to believe them. Okay, yeah, that's where I was, a few years ago. I was very much in the "this is wrong, but Christians should still love them- hate the sin, love the sinner" camp. If that's where you are, you gotta at least believe that love means listening to people instead of just buying into stereotypes about them. So please, listen and have a heart. God gave you a conscience, and I hope that you can hear God's voice in the voices of transgender people.)

So, to that end, I've collected a ton of links and resources created by, or heavily featuring the voices of, actual transgender people.

First, some basic information about transgender issues:
Transgender FAQ
10 Things You Need To Know About Transgender People, by Jazz Jennings  [video]
TRANSGENDER ADVENTURE!  [video]
Answers to Your Questions About Transgender People, Gender Identity and Gender Expression
Trans Etiquette 101: No Offense, But That’s Offensive
13 Myths and Misconceptions About Trans Women: Part One and Part Two
Resources for parents
Debunking Myth #2: Transgender people are confused

Here are some personal stories from transgender people:
Life as Sara: What it's like to be a transgender woman when you’re not Caitlyn Jenner
The Courage of Being Transgender in Public
Rob's story

And guess what, transgender Christians exist:
Living authentically as a transgender priest in the Christian Church
Ask a transgender Christian

Posts about the intersection of transgender issues and Christianity:
God Calls Caitlyn By Name
Transgender and Christian: Reimagining Genesis 1 [video]
To Grieving Christian Parents of a Transgender Person
Queer Theology

Some posts about the discrimination and hate that transgender people face:

About hate:
Disgusting

About anti-trans violence:
Someone Tell Me That I’ll Live: On Murder, Media, and Being a Trans Woman in 2015
16 Trans People (That We Know Of) Have Been Murdered this Year
Gender-Based Violence Against Trans Women Claims More Lives
It's Incredibly Scary to Be a Transgender Woman of Color Right Now

About depression and suicide:
Transgender people face alarmingly high risk of suicide
Transgender Suicide Attempt Rates Are Staggering
Transgender teen struck and killed on Ohio interstate in apparent suicide

About getting medical care:
End healthcare discrimination for transgender people
What the Affordable Care Act Means for Transgender People
Transgender people face maze of difficulties with health insurance, doctors
This Transgender Man's ER Story Will Horrify You
Paul McHugh is wrong: transitioning is effective [video]

About employment discrimination:
Fired for Being Trans
Barnes & Noble is latest retailer to face transgender discrimination lawsuit

About bathrooms and locker rooms:
Transgender women in women's restrooms: A purely imagined harm  [video]
The right to pee in peace: How do we design a trans-sensitive bathroom?
Bathrooms, Sports, and Pronouns: How Transgender Students Are Navigating School Discrimination

etc:
Transgender Rights
Transgender Woman Humiliated When TSA's Scan Flags 'Anomaly'
John Oliver episode on transgender rights

And guess what, other genders exist besides "man" and "woman":
Gender Wiki: Non-binary
Too Queer for Your Binary: Everything You Need to Know and More About Non-Binary Identities

To find out more, you can check out these trans bloggers/activists who have written/ made videos about everything related to being transgender:
Zinnia Jones
Natalie Reed
AustenLionheart
Ryan Sallans
TransAdvocate
The Catholic Transgender

Readers, any more useful links you know of?

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

John Piper Said "Sex Belongs to Christians" and I am Not the Least Bit Surprised

"I read sex tips in COSMO. I'm a Christian virgin, and I plan to WOW my future husband on our wedding night." Oh dear. Ohhhhhh dear. Image source.

So. John Piper said "sex belongs to Christians."

My reaction: *rolls eyes* yeah, that sounds like the kind of thing he would say. That's not that weird.

But apparently, a lot of people on twitter were way more surprised about it than I was. So I'm here to explain the existence of a culture in which statements like this are completely normal.

First of all, we have to talk about Christian hedonism, a term which John Piper coined in his 1986 book, Desiring God (according to Wikipedia), and Piper has been talking about ever since then.

Piper usually sums up Christian hedonism in this way: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." The idea is, when we seek God, we are actually seeking our own pleasure, because the most pleasurable way of life is one where we are totally consumed by an obsessive pursuit of God.

Christian hedonism seems to me to be a response to the idea that the Christian life is one of suffering and making sacrifices, and the more we abstain from pleasure, the more godly we are. To be clear, Christian hedonism also very much believes in making sacrifices and following God's strict rules, but the point is that by doing this, you will actually have a much happier life than if you had not made sacrifices for God.

You can find this idea in Trip Lee's song "Satisfaction (Hedonist)" [lyrics are here]. Trip Lee is a Christian hip-hop artist whose theology was heavily influenced by Piper. The relevant lyrics are:

See I'm a hedonist, I seek my pleasure
Not in sex, nope he's much better
Not in wealth, nah he's my treasure
Pursuing anything else will just upset you

Back when I was a Real True Christian, I didn't follow Piper particularly closely (but I definitely considered him one of those apologetics experts who knew all the right answers- for example, I believed him when he said "it's right for God to slaughter women and children any time he pleases") so I wouldn't have used the term "Christian hedonism", but I did agree with the basic idea. My life was one of unending worship and devotion to [a particular version of] Jesus, and it was so hard. It was so hard. I woke up early every day to read the bible. I put to death my own desires and submitted myself to "God's will." I worried so much about my friends' salvation, and had the awkward evangelistic conversations. I got discouraged. I doubted. I wondered if all the work I was doing for God even mattered.

But. I loved that god so much, it was all worth it to me.

And- maybe this is the most important part- I believed that my life would be a living hell if I were not constantly working so hard to follow that god.

I was a slave to god, but I believed the only alternative was to be a slave to sin, which would definitely be worse.

And I loved that god so much, in a stockholm-syndrome kind of way. And the idea of Christian hedonism was, for me, a way to argue that yes, I am happy and this is the best way to live- maybe because it was terrifying to even consider other ways.

So now we come to Piper's article, Sex Belongs to Christians. Basically, it's an article discussing 1 Timothy 4:1-5, which says that though some people "forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods", these pleasures were given to us by God for our enjoyment.

(As a side note: when you hear the term "forbid marriage", does anyone in today's society come to mind? Can you think of anyone trying to "forbid marriage"? Anybody? Anybody at all? *cough*John Piper*cough*)

From there, Piper goes on to say that pleasures like sex and food were given to us by God, and we should be "unembarrassed" to celebrate and enjoy them. He gives us some verses from Proverbs and Song of Songs about enjoying sex.

For me, any discussion about Christianity and the rules for sex is a discussion about purity culture. So let's stop for a moment and address this question: What is the connection between Christian hedonism and purity culture?

The most vocal advocates of Christian hedonism and the most vocal advocates of purity culture are not the same people at all. However, both groups are considered to be real Christians (and you guys know about how American evangelicals love to judge and decide who is a "real Christian"- I'm not even close to being a "real Christian").

Both groups believe that sex should only exist in a one-man-one-woman marriage; in any other context, sex is a sin. Both groups believe that if you follow God's rules about sex, you will have THE MOST AMAZING SEX POSSIBLE, and if you don't follow God's rules, it is impossible to have good sex.

Personally, I don't consider John Piper to be a purity culture advocate. I think his beliefs fit completely within the worldview of purity culture and do not challenge it at all, but he doesn't talk about things like "guarding your heart" and being afraid of dating and trying to force yourself to never ever have a single sexual thought. In other words, he believes premarital sex is a horrible sin, looking at porn is a horrible sin, etc etc, but he doesn't go beyond "don't do it", he doesn't start from there and develop a whole toxic, shame-filled, terrified-of-sex approach to the subject of relationships. (Correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

This is the case for a lot of Christians who are my parents' age or older. (For example, my parents.) Today's purity culture is very different from what they were taught when they were young, and they may not even realize what their kids are being taught. Also, they focus more on advice to Christians who are married, with very little to say to single people besides "don't have sex." Purity culture, on the other hand, has A LOT to say to single people.

I have seen Christians come across purity culture's teaching and, in horror, declare it be "legalistic." (I would not be surprised at all if Piper has made some kind of comment to that effect.) But they never give any kind of alternative, they never actually present a healthy view of sex and relationships and singleness. They still hold to the teachings of "don't have sex" and "don't lust" ... and at this point, I highly doubt that there even could be a healthy worldview built on that foundation. Believe me, I've looked.

Anyway, my point is, while Piper is not at all a spokesperson for purity culture, his teaching on Christian hedonism can fit within purity culture very well. Purity culture teaches that having sex with RUIN YOUR LIFE, and that people who have had sex (or have broken any of the rules of purity culture) are constantly racked with guilt over it.

In other words, obeying the purity culture rules is the best way to live. If you break the rules, your life will suck. Oh and also, if you obey the rules, God will give you an opposite-sex spouse and you will have the BEST SEX EVER on your wedding night.

This is more or less what Piper is saying, but he doesn't have as many rules in mind as purity culture does.

(And here I'd like to point out that purity culture damaged me far more than occasionally having sex could have. And there are tons of other purity culture graduates who would say that too. So. Yeah, that whole "this is the best way to live" thing is bullshit.)

Let's get back to that post. So, the beginning part is about how God created sex and we should fully enjoy it. And then we come to this part:
Sex belongs to Christians. Because sex belongs to God. "God created it to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." If it is used by those who do not believe and know the truth, it is prostituted. They have exchanged the glory of God for images. They have torn sex from its God-appointed place in the orbit of marriage. But they do not know what they are doing. And the price they will pay in this life and the next is incalculable.

The pleasures of sex are meant for believers. They are designed for their greatest expression by the children of God. He saves His richest gifts for his children. And as we enjoy His gift of sex, we say, by our covenant faithfulness to our spouse, that God is greater than sex. And the pleasures of sex are themselves an overflow of God's own goodness. This pleasure is less than what we will know fully in Him at His right hand. And in it, we taste something of His very exquisiteness.
Oh my.

And by "oh my", I mean "yeah that's pretty much what we believe, but we don't usually say it so directly and where unbelievers can hear us."

The logic goes like this: God created sex, and we can only truly understand and enjoy sex if we believe that God created it, and we follow God's rules. Everyone else, who doesn't believe the correct things about God, isn't able to have sex correctly.

In Hemant Mehta's post on Piper's statement (at the Friendly Atheist blog), he says, "Which, I guess, means all of us are doing it wrong. Literally." Mehta is making a joke here, but this isn't a joke- the church actually explicitly teaches that the only way to [insert whatever aspect of everyday life here] correctly is to do it "God's way."

How many times have I heard that the only way to be happy and have a truly satisfying life is to base your life on Jesus? And that everyone has a "God-shaped hole" in their heart and they will never be happy unless they become a Christian?

And you can't have a healthy dating relationship unless that relationship is centered around Jesus. And you can't have healthy friendships unless those friendships are built on Jesus- our best friends will always be Christians, like us. And you can't have a good family life unless you put God first. And you can't have a good career unless you put God first. And you can't do this or that and everything in between unless you put God first.

And the church is kind of squeamish about talking about sex, but when they do, of course they say you can only have good sex if it's done "God's way."

American evangelical Christians believe that everyone who's not a "real Christian" is living a miserable life in their own personal hell. Their lives are based on all the wrong things, so of course they are failures. This is literally what the church teaches ... but we hide it well.

We hide it because we love you. And "love" means "we know the only way for you to live a good life, and we must try to push you in that direction because it's obviously what's best for you." Now, if, when I was a Real True Christian, I had actually told people "I think your life is sad and miserable and you need to become a Christian", would that help to push them in the direction of becoming a Christian [aka living a good life]? No, it wouldn't. So I didn't say that.

I was dishonest and sneaky about my very offensive opinions on other people's lives, because I loved them.

I cannot say enough how happy I am to no longer believe that Christian supremacy crap. Now I believe that if you love someone, you want them to have the freedom to make their own decisions about their own life.

All right, there's one more thing Piper said that I want to talk about. Throughout this post, there's a theme about God being involved in our enjoyment of sex. For example, Piper says, "The heavens are telling the glory of God. We are to see it. And worship him. So it is with the breasts of our wives. The breasts are telling the glory of God, the goodness of God, the beauty of God and more. We are to see it. And worship Him."

Mehta phrases it this way: "In other words: All sex with a partner is a threesome because God’s inviting himself in. Kinky."

Do y'all think that's super-creepy?

Back when I was a Real True Christian, I occasionally heard statements like this. Like "when you're having sex with your husband, you can imagine Jesus is in the room too." To hear it stated that explicitly was pretty rare, but it did happen. And when Christians say things like that, they know it sounds bizarre and creepy- that shock value is pretty much the whole point.

The idea is, our sex lives are not something separate from our relationship with God. This subculture of Christianity believes that the entire point of being a Christian is having a "personal relationship with God." And actually, that relationship sometimes does seem creepily romantic or sexual- though you won't be able to get evangelicals to acknowledge this.

The goal of "personal relationship with God" Christians is to have their deep devotion to God flow through everything they do. To say "Jesus is there when you're having sex" sounds shocking and creepy at first, but really, it fits in with this ideology perfectly.

As best I can tell, normal people find this very creepy because they believe nobody is entitled to be involved in anybody else's sex life. Sex is a very personal thing that you share with only the people you choose to share it with, and nobody else has the right to know anything about it.

The idea that my sex life is absolutely nobody else's business, and that I can just choose to never say a word to anyone about it, answer no questions, and that is perfectly normal, continues to shock me.

Because in purity culture, we always talked about the rules- which means, we never even questioned the assumption that our sex lives/ romantic lives would be controlled by these rules our Christian leaders told us. And we believed we should "keep each other accountable", which means our close friends would ask us very personal questions about whether we were maintaining our purity, and if we were truly devoted to God, we would answer those questions.

Sometimes I say to my boyfriend "don't tell anyone" and he says "of course I'm not going to tell anyone" and I'm shocked. I'm still so shocked at the idea of not having to "confess" the details of our relationship to anyone.

So. To conclude, John Piper said "sex belongs to Christians," a statement built on the concepts of Christian hedonism, Christian supremacy, and a VERY personal relationship with God. And I am not surprised at all, because all of these elements were indispensable to the Christian culture I used to be a part of.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

"Homophobia" is an Ableist Term. Stop Using It.

Fear, a character from the movie "Inside Out." Image source.
Within feminist/social justice discussions about oppression and discrimination faced by various groups, you hear about a lot of "phobias." Most of the ones I've heard are related to LGBT identities- homophobia, biphobia, transphobia- but I've also heard of Islamophobia, fatphobia, etc. For pretty much any demographic, you can slap the suffix "phobia" on, and there's your term to describe opposition to the rights of those in that demographic.

This is not okay. This is ableist.

How do I know? Because I have phobias (which I have written about here and here) and I do not appreciate having my very real mental health issues being compared to hate and discrimination.

Let's back up for a second: What is ableism? Ableism is discrimination against people who have disabilities- or, in this case, mental health problems. It's prejudice against people who have limitations such that they can't do things that able-bodied people can do.

The use of terms like "homophobia" is ableist because it uses the negative stigma attached to having a phobia as a weapon against those who would like to deny rights to gay people. Rather than, you know, fighting against that anti-phobia stigma existing in the first place.

Not cool, guys.

So, about phobias. Wikipedia defines "phobia" as "a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational." The key words here are "disproportional" and "irrational," and that's why people who suffer from phobias are so misunderstood in society. You see someone freak out over something that's (to you) totally harmless, and it's hard to empathize with them. You can't imagine why they're so scared and why they can't just "get over it."

I've seen those clickbait lists of "the weirdest phobias." People read them for laughs- "haha, how could anyone be scared of that?" Honestly, I think a lot of the supposed phobias on those lists don't really exist- people just like to play around with Latin words. But if they do exist, if there really are people who suffer from them, those people deserve our compassion and sympathy. Can you imagine how hard it would be to live your life if you were terrified of a common everyday object or situation? (If you're in that situation, go to therapy. Things can get better. Your phobia doesn't have to control your life.)

I saw a talk show once, where the host was interviewing a woman who had a phobia, and then the host actually brought out the object of her phobia, and she got up and ran, and the audience laughed.

This is the way that our culture sees phobias. People don't understand how serious it is. They don't understand how the fear is so very real. They think it's funny to show you the stimulus and see your reaction.

So if you clicked on the links I posted above, where I talked about my own experiences having phobias, because you were curious about what kind of silly thing I could possibly be afraid of, well tough luck. I'm not telling. I don't write this so that people can laugh. I write because I want you to know what it's like. People need to be more educated about mental health. Mental health problems are legitimate health problems, not something we should just "get over."

Currently, my phobias are not a huge deal in my life. I very rarely encounter the things I'm afraid of, so usually I just don't think about them and I'm fine. Sometimes, though, I go through phases when I worry about the scary things a lot, and I regularly look around to verify that there are none near me. Maybe I even feel like I don't want to go to certain places because what if I encounter the scary thing? But I know I have to keep going places and doing things and living a normal life- I can't let the phobia win.

And then, if I actually do encounter the stimulus, sometimes if it's not that intense, I can take deep breaths and be okay. But more often, I get really tense- my body is stiff, my heart races, I can't concentrate on anything else except imagining all the horrible ways this thing could hurt me. I can't enjoy myself, I just have to get out of there as soon as I can.

If you think this is in any way similar to dehumanizing entire groups of people, saying and believing offensive things about them, and fighting against their rights, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, but wait. Somebody's going to say, "But homophobes actually are afraid!" Okay, yeah, I agree with that. A significant amount of "homophobia" is rooted in fear. Maybe people are afraid of how society will change if we treat gay people are human beings deserving of full equality. Maybe people are afraid that granting rights to others will cause them to lose some of their own power. Maybe people are afraid that God will send them to hell if they don't take a stand against LGB rights.

So yes, I totally buy that argument. "Homophobia" can be thought of as a fear of gay people/ gay rights/ gay equality.

Okay, so it's a fear.

It is NOT a phobia.

A phobia is a very specific type of fear. It happens when the mind takes negative emotions, past trauma, abstract fears, etc, and irrationally attaches them to a very specific object or situation. Then, when the person comes into contact with that object or situation, all of that negativity and distress comes out.

For example, one of my phobias is very much associated with the feeling that other people don't care about me. And unfortunately, this is self-reinforcing: if someone has the object I'm afraid of, and they are happy about it, it comes across like they don't care about me, like they're getting pleasure from hurting me.

It's really not about that object at all. The actual object is totally not dangerous. But for me, it's a symbol of my belief that other people don't care about me.

In other words, a phobia manifests itself as an irrational fear of a specific object, but if you dig deeper you find there are reasons behind it. "Homophobia" and other such "phobias" are the exact opposite: they present as well-thought-out arguments about why we should not extend these rights to this specific group, but if you dig deeper, you find the fear behind them.

"Homophobia" is not a phobia.

(And, I'd like to point out- people who oppose gay rights really hate being called "homophobic" precisely because of the negative stigma that phobias have in our society. This is exactly my point.)

If there was such a thing as homophobia, it would mean taking all those abstract fears about the future of society and associating them with the actual physical bodies of actual gay people, such that you feel- illogically- as if you're in immediate danger just being in the physical presence of a gay person. It would look like this:

So, you're at a restaurant with your friends. Just relaxing. Everything is normal. Then two guys walk in. Oh my goodness, I think they were holding hands. Were they? They're not anymore... Oh my goodness, were they? WERE THEY??!!! Wait, wait, don't panic, calm down, breathe. They probably weren't. Don't make a big deal out of this. Yeah, they don't look gay, right? Everything is okay. Try to think about something else. OH MY GOD look at how he just leaned closer to the other guy, oh my goodness are they about to kiss? OH I HAVE TO GET OUT OF HERE! WHERE IS THE DOOR? No, no no no don't freak out like last time.

And all this time, you're not even aware of the fact that you're very obviously staring, with the most incredibly worried look on your face. Your friend says, "Hey... are you okay?" and you say "yeah, I'm fine."

Then someone happens to brush against you as they walk by, and you just about jump out of your skin.

And you say, "no I'm fine I'm fine."

And you continue to sit there, trying to ignore the fear and enjoy yourself, but you're still watching the two guys, and every move they make, you imagine it's the first step in initiating a kiss. Even though, why would people randomly kiss when they're at a restaurant? Nobody does that. But that doesn't matter- it's an irrational fear. And if they did kiss, oh my goodness, that would be the worst thing in the world. Why would it be the worst thing in the world? To you, it's obvious, but it's impossible to explain to other people.

And you become more and more nervous, more and more jumpy, until finally you've built this thing up so big in your imagination that your mind seizes upon one particular motion that one of the guys makes, you decide this is it, this is definitely gonna be a kiss, and you grab your phone and fake like you just got a call, and say "sorry" to your friends as you rush outside.

And then you sit there alone, so incredibly relieved to be out of that situation, but at the same time, you want to cry because the phobia destroyed what was supposed to be a fun, relaxing evening.

I really doubt that anyone actually has homophobia, but I just want to say, if you did have it, you would probably know it was an irrational fear and you wouldn't try to actually stop gay people from having rights. See, when the stimulus is present, sometimes the fight-or-flight response can be so overwhelming it's literally out of your control, but when you're not experiencing the stimulus, you probably recognize it's not really logical to be so afraid of it.

Okay now someone is going to say, "But you're not gay [or bi or trans or whatever word you want to tack "phobia" onto], you can't tell us what words we're allowed to use to describe the oppression we face!"

All right, so if you make that argument, you're saying that gay people [or whichever group we're talking about] are more oppressed than people with phobias, so people with phobias don't have the right to tell gay people what to do. So... you want to play oppression olympics? As if we have to figure out which issue is a bigger injustice, and we're only allowed to care about that one?

I mean, mental health issues and LGBT issues are so incredibly different. Both groups face oppression and aren't fully accepted by society, but how could you possibly compare them and decide which is worse? The prejudice and negative stereotypes manifest in completely different ways.

It has to be possible to advocate for LGBT rights without throwing people with phobias under the bus.

Okay, and now someone is going to say, "Umm hello, don't you realize that a word can have more than one meaning? So 'phobia' sometimes means a psychological condition, and sometimes it means prejudice."

All right then, would you like it if I said "that's so gay" to describe something I disliked, and then claimed that "gay" has two different meanings, and using the word "gay" to express my negative view of something does not at all contribute to negative attitudes towards actual gay people?

When people use the word "homophobia", it's obvious that the "phobia" there means something very very negative. It means the "homophobic" person is doing something that is NOT OKAY. It means they are making a choice- A CHOICE- to treat people badly.

I have phobias, and that is not at all a reflection of my character or my ability to treat people as full human beings deserving of 100% acceptance and equality. And IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

And I have a big problem with the term "phobia" used as shorthand for "being a bad person."

If you want to tell me that "phobia" has two different meanings, and one does not affect the other at all, I will believe it when society stops laughing at phobias.

Because all I hear is "people who don't support gay rights are as ridiculous as those silly people who are afraid of harmless stuff for no reason, haha."

All right, so what word should we use instead?

[September 2019 update: At the time this post was published, I didn't have a good alterative, but now I do! Use the suffix "misia." It means hate. Homomisia, transmisia, queermisia, etc. The adjective would be "homomisic."]

Unfortunately, I have to admit that the word "phobia" is very grammatically versatile- it can be a noun ("whateverphobia"), an adjective ("whateverphobic"), and even can be a noun that refer to a person ("whateverphobe"). My ideas for alternatives aren't quite as easy, but I think fighting against ableism is worth it.

So, we can use "anti." Anti-gay, anti-bi, etc.

"Anti" is pretty neutral though. If we want to call someone's character into question and emphasize how unreasonable they are, the way "phobia" does (ugh), we can use "hate" as a suffix. I think "you're a homophobe" and "you're a gay-hater" would be equally insulting to a gay-hater, and only one of them perpetuates negativity about phobias. So this is a good option.

(Any other ideas?)

So, I'd like to conclude by saying if I'm literally the only person who cares about this, then I can't expect everyone to change their language just for me. We need to do further research and find out if other people who've experienced phobias are also bothered by this "phobiaphobic" language.

And if a significant proportion of us are bothered by it? Then you have a responsibility to stop using those words, and stop participating in our oppression.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Blogaround

Image source.
1. This Awesome Comic Shows Why Gender Transition Isn’t a Race (posted September 18)

2. How to understand ‘biblical inerrantists’ (posted September 24) "So they’re desperately hoping that a perfect text will cast out all fear."

3. Pope Francis Presides over a Church Still Fighting to Keep Accused Sex Abusers from Going to Trial (posted September 26) "the Catholic church is involved in lobbying against laws that would extend the statute of limitations, allowing victims of sexual abuse that occurred decades ago to find justice."

4. I am crucified: chronic illness in Christian culture (posted September 23) "most regular people don’t think that crucifying yourself is an ideal."

5. Bill Nye tells pro-life advocates ‘You literally don’t know what you’re talking about’ (posted September 26)

6. Man Can’t Believe Obama Would Use Tragedy To Push Anti-Tragedy Agenda (posted October 2) From the Onion.

7. Don’t die for Christ; Let Christ die for you (posted October 2) "I regret giving much of my life away to Christ."

Friday, October 2, 2015

When it comes to God, I believed Might Makes Right

"Might is right! And you know it!" Screenshot from Pokemon Blue. Image source.
I read an interesting post, Christians: Quit Blaming God For Your Horrific Beliefs. Own It., by Peter Mosley. It's about when Christians say offensive things- for example, telling people they're going to hell- and then when people are upset about it, the Christian says "Oh, I’m not saying it. GOD’S saying it. It’s just the way it is."

Mosley says, no it's still your fault, you chose to believe in and follow that kind of God.

This is a startling idea to me, because back when I was a Real True Christian, it never occurred to me to judge God and determined if he was worth following. I'm not talking about the question of whether God exists or not- I totally questioned and doubted that. But assuming that the God presented at my church exists, it was obvious that we should obey him.

Why? Because he's all-powerful. He made the world, he made you, and he has a right to tell you how to live your life. And if you don't dedicate your life to this God, then you'll never have a fulfilling life. And you'll go to hell.

It's hard for me to parse out how much of my choice to be a Christian was based on "an all-powerful being said to do this, I have to or else I'll go to hell, all that matters is saving myself, screw morality" and how much was "God loves us and if we obey God, everything will work out way better." There's much more to it than the way Mosley presents it in his blog post, as if people are saying "well this is an awful belief but it's what God says, so... *shrug*". No, Christians who hold those beliefs (about hell, denying rights to various demographics of people, etc) do not think they are awful beliefs. They may acknowledge that they sound awful, but on some deeper level, perhaps for reasons known only to God, they are not actually awful.

In other words, I believed that whatever God said or commanded was by definition right and good, solely because God said it (or, solely because it was in the bible- but that is taken to mean the same thing as "God said it"). Sometimes there were things that didn't seem good, and so then came the bible-study discussions on how we can convince ourselves that this horrible thing that happened in the bible was not actually horrible. We worked hard to find a way to believe that the Canaanite genocide was justified. We respectfully read the passages that said women can't teach men and tried to convince ourselves that it was right and good and not sexist at all.

OF COURSE we were uncomfortable with those passages. Those were the "difficult" ones. We believed in and loved God for other reasons- reasons about love and the benefits of being a Christian. But we had also been taught that the nasty beliefs were an indispensable part of the package.

In this ideology, morality is defined as following whatever rules God sets up, no matter how arbitrary they are, no matter if they make sense or not, no matter if they're beneficial or not. Many of God's rules do make sense and there are obvious benefits to following them, but this is just a nice side-effect, not central to the concept of what morality is.

In other words, to determine right and wrong, we must read the bible and distill it into a list of things to do or not do. Because Christians feel that this task is so important, they discuss and debate continually about context and history and which rules applied only in the past and which ones apply to us now. Yes, they use logic in this process, but only to address questions like "what would this have meant to the original audience?" not "if people followed this rule, would it have a positive or negative affect on society?"

God said it, so we have to obey it, and it doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not.

And because God is the very definition of morality, it's impossible to judge God's actions. There are no higher principles in play- no, God is above all that.

So if a person killed someone, that would be wrong. But when God does it, we pick up our apologetics books to find out why it's okay.

If you torture someone as punishment for, say, lying, that's awful and you should go to jail. But when God sends people to hell for their mundane sins, it's "God's justice" and it only seems wrong because we just can't grasp how holy God is.

If someone tries to convince you that the only way you can be happy is to be in a relationship with them, that nobody else loves you like they do, if they manipulate you and sabotage your plans, if they say "I'm hurting you because I love you so much", that is abuse and that is not okay. But when God does it, it's "God never stops pursuing us" and "God knew I had to hit rock bottom before I realized my need for him" and that's your testimony.

God is all-powerful and God created us. So who are we to judge God?

In other words, might makes right.

(So glad I don't believe that crap anymore.)

But anyway, back to the original topic, about believing that a certain God exists, but judging that God as being a jerk who is unworthy of worship.

What's sort of ironic about this is that's what Real True Christians think everyone else is doing. You know, everyone secretly knows God exists and Christianity is true, but they just love their sin so much and they defiantly don't want to follow God.

And I'm having a really hard time figuring out, back then, to what extent I was motivated by hell- by just saving myself. Perhaps a thought experiment would help shed some light on it. Think about this question: Would you sacrifice your life to save someone else?

Okay, most people would say it's very moral and courageous to die to save someone else. I'm not that brave, I probably wouldn't, but theoretically, I think it's a good thing to do. And back when I was a Real True Christian, yeah, I believed you would be rewarded in heaven (well, I mean, you only go to heaven if you're "really saved", obviously) so everything would work out all right in the end. Yeah, you died, but then after death there was a reward for you, so it's all good.

Here's another question: Would you sacrifice your salvation so that someone else could be saved? Would you go to hell so that someone else could go to heaven?

No. Absolutely not. Because if I did, where's my reward? Yeah so that person I love gets to be in heaven, but ... if I'm in hell, what do I care about that?

The idea of doing something good because it's the right thing to do, because it helps people, but there is no reward for me- that idea was completely foreign to me. It was always "yeah we make sacrifices now, but it's okay because God will reward us later."

Again, it's very difficult to figure out how much of my choice to be a Christian was "God says you have to, or else your life will suck and you'll go to hell", how much was benefits to myself, how much was because I really believed it was the most moral way to live, etc etc.

Okay this post is kind of long and rambly and has some good points but I can't connect them all and really give a real answer. So I'll just add one more thing:

Isn't it ironic that the same people who accuse me of "moral relativism" when I say it's not a sin to have premarital sex (does it hurt others? if yes, it's a sin. if no, it's not) are the ones who believe that genocide was okay in the bible because God commanded it? So it's wrong to kill an entire city, unless of course God tells you to, and then it's the right thing to do.

And isn't it ironic that the same people who say "atheists have no morals" get their morals from whatever arbitrary commands they can parse out of the bible- no matter if those commands make any sense or not- while most atheists I know base their morality on ideals like love and what's beneficial to society.

And isn't it ironic that I used to believe a sacrifice was only worth making if God rewarded me for it someday, while atheists who supposedly "have no morals" help others without needing a reward?

AddThis

ShareThis