(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

[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?

[hfx-ben.livejournal.com]

"But at what point does it go from "being polite for the sake of discourse" to "participating in my own oppression?""
A very good question. I'd say it crosses that line if a person perjures themselves (allows what's false to seem true) or acts opportunistically (flattering falsely, or agreeing to something with which they actually disagree). Surely this arises in other situations though ... it's a general matter of ethics and morality ... comes with the territory when a person is trying to be engaged and principles, yes?

"Why am I required to take the time to type this out every time I mention my fears and resentments?"
Because the world is confused and people are wounded?

"I hear Christian people complaining all the time about losing their privilege to plaster their religion all over public property."
Do you really? or is this a rather exaggerated complaint? That's the thing: if we each of us indulge our frustrations then it will be war, war, war.

"If that's their idea of oppression [...]"
Sure ... absent empathy and solidarity then, of course, it's war, war, war. They diminish me, I diminish them, they diminish someone else, and it goes on and on ...

"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."
And good efforts don't always succeed. Right. But that's not news ... the world is filled with neurotic, unreasonable, wounded people. And that doesn't cover those who are truly exploitative!

"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."
I don't really think that's actually true. Do you?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Because the world is confused and people are wounded?

Some of us more wounded than others.

Look, this demand that I be careful with my words is a tactic designed to derail the discussion from the main point (the oppression of queer people) to something inconsequential (my grammar). It's much easier to police my words than to actually focus on the oppression.

For one thing, as I pointed out in my main post, no one seems to expect the politicians and televangelists and activists who are fomenting the hatred to watch their language. To even suggest it seems silly and discarable. Why? Because everyone knows it is not in their interest to be polite. They are making a lot of money off of this, and public opinion is in their favor. So no one is going to police them.

But *I* am hounded ALL THE TIME to watch my language, to be the good dignified victim who might eventually be thrown a bone if I behave. It comes up every time. And every time it does, it succeeds in derailing the discussion and making me look like the bad guy, when the real bad guys are the ones profiting from my pain.


I don't really think that's actually true. Do you?

Yes, I do. I honestly do. I examine the question of oppression from the standpoint of economics, to which it all boils down. If each queer person is even slightly more likely than a straight person to lose their job, or to live on the streets, or to be expelled from their family or home, then those hypothetically slight disadvantages add up across the whole queer community to an economic advantage which is taken (usually blindly) by straight people.

Unfortunately, those likelihoods are not slight but considerable. I posted the percentages (cited by major news and activist organizations) here.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

And every time it does, it succeeds in derailing the discussion and making me look like the bad guy, when the real bad guys are the ones profiting from my pain.

And even if I were to be completely polite in my language, there are other tactics to derail the conversation. There is always some detail to hem an haw about. Anything, just so long as we don't actually have to talk about oppression.

[hfx-ben.livejournal.com]

" just so long as we don't actually have to talk about oppression."
I think you're missing the forest for that tree: as I've written about elsewhere, in-groups signal their loyalty by gestures such as accepting some points as moot or taboo ... that's how they signal loyalty.

It's merely corruption, merely dishonesty, merely the absence of authenticity. What else was JC on about, really?