(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

davidould wrote, As I've said before, I understand completely why you react with fear. I'm saying that you have a responsibility not to perpetuate that kind of feeling and impression on others.

I'm not sure, then, what you would consider an acceptable expression of my feelings. Do you mean that every time I say, "I am afraid of Christians because of my experiences and those of friends and other people in my community," that I should feel required to add a disclaimer?

Hmm. Televangelists and Christian activists who send out fundraising letters designed to generate fear of queer people in Christians, aren't required to add disclaimers. Politicians who refer to Christian doctrine when saying ugly things about queer people are not required to add disclaimers. Laws and policies rejecting the validity of a recognized medical condition purely because it offends Christian morality don't carry disclaimers. Why is no one harrassing Jerry Falwell or George Bush or Cardinal O'Malley to add a disclaimer saying, "Of course, not *all* queer people are corrupting our youth or deteriorating our moral values, just some."

I'm well aware that two wrongs don't make a right, but this is my private journal, where I write to collect my thoughts and clarify my feelings and experiences. The above are mass-distributed public statements that reach millions.

I am not going to add a disclaimer every single time I write about my feelings on this issue in my journal. I'm not. Any offense that causes is miniscule compared to the incredible restrictions on my life that I am expected to quietly endure. Why should I avoid making the teeniest offense when I'm forced to swallow grievous offense every day? What's in it for me, will it increase the chance I'll change anyone's mind? I'm not convinced I can get through to anyone if I censor myself. Those who are straight and cis-gendered have no idea how restricted my options are, socially, culturally, legally and financially. No idea.

Also, I'm not convinced that adding a disclaimer would stop people from taking offense or complaining that I'm hurting their feelings anyway. It hasn't in the past. The only way to avoid offending people, apparently, is total silence, which I refuse.

Omitting a disclaimer or voicing these feelings is not "perpetuating that feeling in others," because chances are they already have that feeling. That feeling is generated and perpetuated by politicians, several huge Christian denominations, and groups like Focus on the Family, who are making money and gaining influence thereby; it's also generated and perpetuated by people who have literally beaten and harrassed them. My journal is a drop in the ocean of fear. If people who read my journal have the same fears and angers, it's not because I've given voice to them.

You know, I'm not proud of anti-Christian prejudice, I consider it a failing. I know it is not rational. Fear is smothering this society and I don't want to play the fear game anymore. I struggle against my feeilngs on this matter and have even started praying for help. But while I work through it I am not going to be silent about it in my journal.

Comments

[apis-mellifera.livejournal.com]

Hey, a new word for my vocabulary! Spiffy! (And that's a much better word than the other ones I've used in the past, because "biological", "real", and "born" all sound disrespectful to trans and intersexed people IMO.)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Or "genetic," which isn't always accurate either -- and besides, what if there is a genetic component to transgenderism?

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

A-men. I am honestly sick and tired of sucking it up, trying to remain impartial, trying to appeal to people's higher natures, always taking the high road, not sinking to their level etc. To my mind this sort of thinking is what's sinking the Democratic party into a morass of "make nicey nice" while we're embroiled in a cultural war that is flatly winner take all. It's time for liberals, queers, women, working people, military families...everyone that this regime is dead set on hurting...to come out and show the enemy our teeth. At the very least to say that we -have- teeth.
And to tell the other Christians "What they are doing in your name is hurting people - if you tolerate that you're colluding with the enemy and I -am- going to judge you for it." Especially since I see very, very few of the so-called 'good' Christians standing outside Focus on the Family headquarters decrying Dobson and his ilk for their hatemongering ways.
Somehow liberals have had it drummed into our head that two wrongs don't make a right to the point where we're allowing the opposition to be completely unopposed. Walk right on over us, y'know, because aggression returned to aggression would be -wrong-.
But as I've said before...if someone's got a gun to your head and you're unarmed, that's not a position in which there's room for balanced, reasoned, fair negotiation. At best you're relying on the moral compunctions of your assailant and from what I've seen - that's a dangerous, nay even fatal, game to be playing.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I feel bad for GLBT and progressive Christians, because I know many of them are acting publically about this... but they are simply being shut out. When it comes to liberal religion I think the UUs are the only remaining hope. There was an article about Boston Pride in Bay Windows which described the UUA's contingent in the Pride parade:

the most striking feature of this year's parade was the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) contingent, consisting of nearly 1000 marchers from congregations from all around the state. In past years individual congregations marched in the parade, but this year the UUA decided to march as a group. The UUs filled several city blocks and created a sea of pink streamers, which the congregations carried as a unifying symbol, and they were hands down the largest contingent at Pride.

Laura Landry, a North Andover resident who marched with the North Parish Unitarian Universalist Church of North Andover, said that she was excited to show the solidarity of the UUA in their support for LGBT rights.

"It feels really good. Part of it is it feels like Unitarian Universalism presents a really good alternative to evangelistic Christian right, and I feel like the right has such a religious base to organize with that it's really important to understand that there are alternatives to that, that religion does not mean homophobia," said Landry.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

There is a clear line that's being blurred when someone tells you that expressing your "negative" feelings encourages intolerance.
The line is the one between honest, open expression of ones inner turmoil, and calling for repression of others.
To state "The effects of homophobia in my life are grave and hurtful" is both a validation of your feelings and the beginning of looking for solutions, as well as support to others who have similar experiences.
This is a vastly different thing than say your suggesting that all homophobes should be jailed or killed, which is what the other side is calling for.
Not equivalent behaviors at all.
Sounds like victim blaming to me. Making your expression of pain viewed as part of the problem.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I DO think that homophobic churches which preach hatred should lose their tax exempt status. I also feel strongly that parents who teach hatred to their children should have their children removed from their custody.

[fuzzybutchkins.livejournal.com]

Why should I avoid making the teeniest offense when I'm forced to swallow grievous offense every day? What's in it for me, will it increase the chance I'll change anyone's mind? Those who are straight and cis-gendered have no idea how restricted my options are, socially, culturally, legally and financially. No idea.

Hi there. I'm a butch, gay female who lives, with greater or lesser degrees of success, in today's modern world in either the distant suburbs of a very large city or the near suburbs of a very small city take-your-pick. My experiences don't seem to line up with yours at all.

I'm not trying to invalidate your opinions and experiences (even if you were hallucinating, and I'm not suggesting you are, they're still real in your head, and that's still just as legit as anything else in this case), but I have never encountered any systemic form of harassment or prejudice to which you speak that i'm aware of. I've been out for 12 years. i've never been denied financially anything i've needed and i'm not rich enough for it to be a "money begets money" situation. I've recieved domestic partner benefits every time i've asked. I'm as successfully employed as anyone with my qualifications can be. I've never encountered verbal or physical harassment due to my real or percieved orientation (my weight is another matter). I don't live in any sort of sexual/gender ghetto. My sexuality (with a few notable exceptions) is a great big screaming non-issue, which is or should be the point of all the years of activism.

So, when I read statements like yours, my knee-jerk reaction is that you are screaming "Victimhood!" out of habit or orthodoxy because I just don't see it. However, I like to think i'm slightly more evolved than that, so I ask: what has has happened in your life to cause you to think this way? Because, no, I don't know, and I am honestly curious.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that you have not received any trouble for being out.

Some of my experiences have been recounted here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/100132.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/462701.html?thread=3236205#t3236205
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/521403.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/522963.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/523437.html

On top of that, I've been sexually exploited by straight men. I've never had problems at work, but then, I've been 100% closeted at work because I've never felt safe enough to even talk about my gender identity or sexual orientation. In many ways I can't even verbalize, it's been communicated to me throughout my whole life that who and what I am is not acceptable.

[wyndhover.livejournal.com]

You've been very fortunate. I'm happy for you. :) A scan of the recent survey in this journal will show you that your experience is unusual, I believe.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

Here in New Orleans, there are Christian group which travel here from other parts of the country to preach hate. Some from Oklahoma. Others from elsewhere. They carry signs such as "God hates Gays", "Gays will burn forever in HELL". They have bullhorns. They shout at people from close range with the bullhorn. They are surrounded by big muscled goons. Some groups have the goons in a para-military uniform. They come to Mardi Gras. Some come to big Gay events. Their religion is based in shaming other people.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

If you are being held solely responsible for the fear and anger towards Christians on the part of gay and pagan people by someone, I think said person needs to take their head out of the box in which they have it stuck.
I'm not angry at Christians because I've been drummed up to it by you or some other over sensistive gay or pagan people, it's because: I sat in church and heard gay people lied and screamed about; I saw Christian literature on a regular basis throughout my life that says gay people are evil and hellbound; Many Christians' first assumption upon hearing that I don't follow their religion is usually that I must be a blood drinking cat killing Satan worshipper or a God hating atheist; because I couldn't work at what I loved in my own town without screaming, hateful, angry Christians trying to drive me out of business and insulting me through bullhorns , nor could I publically worship (as they were) without threats of violence and actual violence being perpetrated against me and my co-religionists by them; because they try - and succeed - at passing laws or keeping current laws in existence that put my loving family at a financial, legal and social disadvantage; and because they fight for their religion and only their religion to be enshrined in courthouses, implication being that perhaps I am some sort of outlaw since I am not a Christian (and the obvious disadvantage I would have in any court case being held there.)
So all I can say when someone pipes up and says "But I'm a Christian and I'm nice and I'm not like that and when you bring up all these things it hurts my feelings and therefore you should suffer silently!" is - cry me a river, baby.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Why does it seem ludicrous to even imagine saying to someone like Jerry Falwell or George Bush or any of thousands of priests and ministers who regularly say nasty things about queer people, "Oh, but I'm a *good* queer person, not all of us are like that." It's ludicrous to imagine they would entertain the notion of moderating their words or really even do anything but laugh. They are not concerned in the least with how we feel; they have nothing to gain from moderating themselves because homophobia is how they make their living.

Taking that into account, it's downright magnanimous of me to have given the airplay I have to that response from Christians.

[qilora.livejournal.com]

being honest while working towards self-improvement is never something that *I* feel you should apologise for.

he knows damn well what your "intentions" are, if he reads your writing with any regularity that is.

and if not, he should shut up, sit down, and take a while to get to know you as a human, before telling you how you are morally obligated to act/re-act....

kudos, gf.

namaste,
Dok.

[thesecondcircle.livejournal.com]

As I've said before, I understand completely why you react with fear. I'm saying that you have a responsibility not to perpetuate that kind of feeling and impression on others.

Bullshit! I see it! I call it! Don't fall for it (not that you would).

If you have a reason to react with fear (and if the potential to be beaten to death for your sexuality isn't a reason, I don't know what the fuck is) then you have every right to express your reaction. The only failing is in not listening when other people present facts to the contrary.

If I say, for example, that I find myself fearful of African American men (a common fear in US society perpetuated by media hype and stereotyping) expressing my fear isn't the wrong. The wrong is only in refusing to listen when people present evidence that my fear is irrational.

It is only through confronting our fears that we gain any control over them. Confronting them means expressing them -- to ourselves and in the larger forum of public discourse. Only then can we determine whether the fear is legitimate (and take steps to rectify it) or irrational (and work toward eliminating the phobia).

[aerope.livejournal.com]

You should definitely not silence yourself for the sake of offending people. For lots of reasons. First, it's important to you. It affects your life. Of course you should write.

Second, I see plenty of anti-Christian stuff on the Internet, and your writing on that is probably the most careful I read because you identify exactly what about Christianity and Christians are the problems, how and by whom you are hurt and why that makes you so wary of all Christians. And you are willing to talk with people who say "I'm a nice Christian!" on an individual basis. I think your expression of your feelings is unusually fair compared to all the "well, Christians had the Inquisition and they're all like Jerry Falwell, some fucking religion!" posts out there.

Third, you need to tell the straight Christians who will read your journal. It's a drop in the ocean, and the Christians who are "nice" and willing to listen or who belong to the UUA and UCC are also drops in the ocean, but the ocean's made of drops.

[chimpstop.livejournal.com]

Just had a chance to go thru your post and the responses. Have a strong Yen to nick name you "Radical Rebis", which has a alliteration I like, but might not be an exact definition...but then again It's only a nick name and not necissarily a position statement.
California has spoiled me on this, since non-mainstream folk outnumber the mainstream here...this is mutant country, alien nation, OZ. It's good to be reminded that the world is far from free, and we live in a social island out here.
I've marked some of the entries you posted for later reading.

[c3fyn.livejournal.com]

California has spoiled me on this, since non-mainstream folk outnumber the mainstream here...this is mutant country, alien nation, OZ.

And as soon as CA secedes, baby, I'm on my way out there.

[cowgrrl.livejournal.com]

Given that we are under constant attack from so-called Christians - and don't need to look any farther than today's paper for evidence of this:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/weddings/articles/2005/06/17/romney_backs_new_effort_to_prohibit_gay_marriages/

I don't think you owe anyone an apology or disclaimer of any sort.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Why do oppressors and abusers always say it is the _victim_ that has a "responsibility" not to speak?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Because the code of silence takes a lot of effort, and speaking up is a violation of it.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

If you can't write freely in journal, what's left? We all need some place that feels safe. I understand questioning my friends or viewpoints, but it's not to make them wrong. And the truth is, that the Christian power establishment isn't live and let live - they want to impose their skewed values nonconsensually upon others. Period. And if Christians say that's wrong, then they need to do something. But mostly they don't and act like silent sheep.

[c3fyn.livejournal.com]

At risk (no, really) of repeating myself...I'm with Bonewits on this one. We should continue to complain loud and long, and viewing Christians as a whole with a certain amount of, at the least, distrust and reserve is entirely natural in light of their past propensities. I still contend that, given the fact that about 80% of the Christian scriptures present every opportunity to construct hate-based theologies, that the meme is in and of itself a bad thing, and we have every right to criticize it as a whole. It is demonstrable that all of the socially progressive and "enlightened" bits of the Bible are not unique to the religion itself.

[c3fyn.livejournal.com]

...to finish my thought...are not unique to the religion itself, and I question those who continue to label themselves as Christian, yet hold progressive values far out of line with its 2000-year-old tradition...why use the label at all? Some liberal Catholic friends of mine eschew the label entirely.

[hfx-ben.livejournal.com]

"Do you mean that every time I say, "I am afraid of Christians because of my experiences and those of friends and other people in my community," that I should feel required to add a disclaimer?"
In effect, yes. The environment we're swimming in is so hot with antagonism, so mean, so reative ... so many folk wounded and confused that the slightest ambiguity is taken as a pretext for antagonism.

When folk don't have their opinions validated (which doesn't always call for agreement, of course) they feel diminished. Consequently they're (we're!) prone to dismiss and invalidate others. And so it goes.

Bottom line? We should all crawl into the closet and curl up. Oh-wooops no no ... bottom line for me is to keep trying, to stay connected, to try and not create enemies, to not suck up or eat crap, to resist bitterness and resentment ... to express my thoughts authentically and try to sense others' authenticity.

Yaa ... disclaimers ... the language of discourse. It ain't easy cuz the situation ain't terribly wholesome. And that's the point, nae?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

But at what point does it go from "being polite for the sake of discourse" to "participating in my own oppression?" I mean, it is plainly obvious that not all Christians are doing bad things to queer people. Why am I required to take the time to type this out every time I mention my fears and resentments?

I mean, I hear Christian people complaining all the time about losing their privilege to plaster their religion all over public property. If that's their idea of oppression I would like to see them tolerate the indignities queer people have to endure at every level of interpersonal interaction, from parental homophobia, to insults throughout our whole lives, to a constant elevated threat of random violence, to laws and institutions opposing our very existence.

I have been very careful when writing my entries on this topic to mention "some Christian leaders" rather than "Christians" as being the ones fomenting hate. I seek to be mindful that not all Christians are doing the bad things. But all Christians benefit, whether they like it or not, from my fear and self-loathing, because it silences me in the face of their public privilege. And when I encounter Christians on the street -- and by that I mean, people being conspicuously Christian in some way -- I am truly afraid of them. When I'm expressing that fear in my journal, why should I be taken to task for not stating the obvious when my oppressors don't extend me the same courtesy?

[davidould.livejournal.com]

I took some time before responding to this.

I'm not sure, then, what you would consider an acceptable expression of my feelings. Do you mean that every time I say, "I am afraid of Christians because of my experiences and those of friends and other people in my community," that I should feel required to add a disclaimer?

no, that's never what I've said. i've simply pointed out that it's wrong for you to refuse to distinguish between those who act in a violent way and those who simply disagree with your moral position but would never dream of being violent.

You repeatedly deny the validity of people like myself who take an alternate position but decry the violence. This misrepresentation takes a number of forms. Yours is to refuse to distinguish. Others use perjorative terms like "homophobia" and "preaching hate". They're all simply weasel words.

I don't go around claiming that every single GLBT person hates God and wants the destruction of the capitalist system. I don't claim that every pagan sacrifices live animals.

So why, I find myself asking yet again, will you not extend the same courtesy?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I see two different ways of looking at the issue here.

On the ideological level, the distinction you mention is clear and obvious. This level assumes that all people come to intellectual discourse with an equal opportunity to be heard, an equally objective frame of mind, and an ability to set aside their experiences and emotions and look at facts in a logical way.

On many issues, I am able to do all that and participate in discourse at the ideological level. But on this issue it is difficult for me.

You don't live in the US, so I'm not sure you can see how bitter and acrimonious this situation is here. You read things about what's happening here, so I'm sure you can glean some idea, but the cynicism of the debate here is poisoning the culture.

It is plainly obvious that the distinction you mention exists, and I acknowledge that. But on the practical level, where one's experiences and emotions are relevant along with one's thoughts and ideals, it's hard to see the distinction, because I don't come to this discussion with the same ability as you to view the matter objectively. As I acknowledged in my post, this is a failing on my part and it is one I am seeking to work on.

In the past few months I've made a special effort to be careful when writing entries on this topic to mention "some Christian leaders," rather than "Christians" in general, as being the ones whose actions I take particular exception to. There are some who make money or gain political influence at my expense; who wouldn't object to that? I also seek to be mindful when this issue comes up that not all Christians are doing the bad things.

But when I encounter people on the street being "conspicuously Christian" in some way, I am truly afraid of them.

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

I do actually sympathize a lot with this attitude, and hope I didn't give a different impression with my comments on Neitherday's journal. It's incredibly difficult to draw the line between the ideal (complete intellectual honesty) and the practical (defending yourself against an oppressor's intellectual dishonesty).

It's also almost unavoidable to make generalizations in the course of speech, especially critical speech. I used to check everything I said for disclaimers and possible exceptions, and it was crippling. It felt like every post was a Xeno's paradox, where every category was divided up so many times, nothing clear could ever be said.

I guess that's why I try so hard to devote myself to "good faith" principles of debate. If the speaker really does at least try to become aware of and correct hidden prejudices, and listeners really try to read in charitable interpretations of ambiguous phrases, there's at least some possibility of real communication. But that leads to a serious problem: what the hell do you do when you're communicating with some arrogant dogmatist -- like a typical "Chaliban" -- who won't argue in good faith? I wish I had a good answer for that. Most of mine these days include the words "punji stakes." :)