On flies and honey

[veronica_rich]

My mother, God rest her soul, tried her hardest to impart to us that we could catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (the scientific accuracy of this has been debated, but you can't argue which tastes better to most humans). She was always lecturing me about using more tact - perhaps to my own detriment, however, this is one area in which I am more like my father. She could look at a turd and come up with a benign name for it; Dad would call it shit, mainly because it's there, it's offensive, and it's stinking up the joint.

I posted earlier this week how I used to be far more civil when it comes to public policies, laws, and political interactions; what got me thinking about it was an article I read somewhere about civility about a week ago. My civility was seriously called into question around 1998, and it ended solidly somewhere under Bush/Cheney. I've said on several occasions many reasons I'm not a Republican, but never why I'm not a Democrat. It's mainly because I feel they're too weak as a party to do what needs to be done to improve things for all of us in this country on a faster schedule. Normally, I'm all for compromise - but not when it is painfully obvious that only one party is attempting to do it anymore.

I've watched interactions online for years between people who say stupid things and minorities or their allies; and between people who either say something they don't realize is stupid or not actually stupid, but just taken poorly by minorities or their allies. I've seen extreme reactions from the latter in both cases of explosive name-calling and rage for what was said/written. I used to wonder at the toxicity of this - "If they weren't so unpleasant, I bet they could get more people to listen to and maybe agree with them" I would think. I still feel it's the responsibility of the replier to at least make an attempt to suss out whether the first speaker/writer is actually an asshole, or just casually employed a term or line of thought they didn't realize would be offensive. As a woman and a feminist, I feel like I have authority to at least say that if somebody says something that sounds sexist, I need to think about it for a minute in context and realize if they realize they are insulting women or not - and answer accordingly.

Flies and honey.

But, you know, to get back to watching instances of someone replying to a deliberate use of marginalizing language, or a mistaken use of it (many people still don't know why the word "gyp" is wrong - I feel this is a case where it can be pointed out calmly and a reasonable person will get the connection and figure out another word to start using). I've come to the conclusion that if somebody gets angry at a person for using "N-" to refer to black people in any context other than quoting from somebody else's writing to make a valid point in a discussion (or they are black themselves and using it in a way that frankly, I don't understand, but I have no dog in that fight since I'm not black), they're allowed to appear angry. Why the hell should they smile and be pleasant when anybody can see the original speaker/writer intended to make them - or any black people reading it - feel an inch tall? (This of course would not apply, I suppose, in the case of a non-American, ESL speaker who does not yet know why it's offensive.)

Ellen DeGeneres used to say "my point - and I DO have one - is XXX." I have a point and I'm taking forever to get to it because of this analogy. I promise it's coming very soon.

If you make it known that you belong to a certain denomination of a religion or a political party as an adult, these are things you have chosen to be. You have chosen to identify yourself with that group or that party, and if you remain with them without explaining your exceptions when something is brought up, it will probably be assumed - reasonably or otherwise - that you're in agreement with their publicly stated positions. And positions are fair game for ranting, anger, derision, and frustration. If people see these positions as limiting and discriminatory in an unreasonable way, NOTHING WILL CHANGE IF THEY KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT AND GO ALONG WITH THEM. (I'm amazed this would have to be explained to any Christian; don't these people know the origins of their own religion?)

My reasons for ranting about particular facets of the modern Republican party didn't really crystallize for me until about this time last year; before then, I used to feel bad about not being more civil. I used to read articles and watch programs on calls for more civility on both sides, and agreed with them - but there were a lot of times I just couldn't bring myself to feel or practice civility, and it bothered me because while I've done a lot of things in defiance of my mother's advice over the years and not regretted it, I still had that lingering feeling of "Self, if you were nicer, more people might agree with you, or at least start shifting their thinking as a result of it."

Flies and honey.

But what happened a year ago was a very brief conversation with the wife of some boss in my company that put me in such a position that I did not feel it was wise for me to get into an argument with over what she said - instead, I shut down the conversation by changing the topic. I said something about how making fun of fat people is still one of the few things it's OK for anyone to do without retribution in our society, even from fat people themselves, because it's seen entirely as a choice instead of something some people can't fully control (I don't remember why it came up - maybe it was something that had been on TV or I'd read). This is the analogy she chose in response: "Well, that's not the only one. I mean, it's considered okay to persecute Christians and make fun of their beliefs and discriminate against them because of what they are, too. Other groups don't have to put up with that so much anymore." (Emphasis mine.)

As I said, I didn't reply; I realized there was no way I could be civil in anything I said to it, and I'm realistic enough to know that one needs to be civil in dealing with employers and their spouses. (And for the record, she IS a modern Republican and buys everything the party is selling right now at this point in history. So this story does kind of matter to this post.) Had she been a regular person, I would have pointed out: (1) she needs to pick up a dictionary and learn the actual meaning of "persecute" and "discriminate" and (2) she continues to choose to be both a Christian AND a Republican - BOTH OF WHICH ARE MAJORITY INTERESTS IN THIS COUNTRY AND HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CONTROLLING ROLE IN SETTING LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICY OVERSEEING THE LIVES OF EVERYONE ELSE.

And so, finally, we get to my point about civility and why I don't always feel as beholden to it in my political discussions as I did, say, 10 years ago. Frankly, I don't think non-Republicans and Republicans hold opposite but equal opinions - not remotely - at this point in time. If you are a Republican, and you do not explain that you disagree with any or all of these things, you are making a choice that you align yourself with a party whose leadership has publicly, proudly, and frequently stated that it: (1) actively opposes marriage for some pairs of consenting adults because it's thought that one set of mythological beliefs ought to have some bearing in the real world ... or they just think gays are icky; (2) actively opposes the right for gay people to adopt children who desperately need a home, even if they pass the same background check as straight adults, because as everybody knows, all gays are pedophiles; (3) actively opposes allowing female adults to make decisions over their own bodies and futures (and don't give me that "I just want to protect the fetus, I'm not against the woman" crap - anyone over a certain age knows damn well how pregnancy works - or should, Todd Akin - and that it involves a woman); (4) actively views corporations as equal to human beings (which I guess means the GOP is in agreement with giving a corporation more rights than a woman); (5) actively believes that if somebody's gotten rich off of the American system of socialist education and public services, scholarships, tax breaks, corporate-friendly laws, and even in some cases, honest-to-god welfare public assistance at some point in their life, that they are entitled to further advantages in the form of ridiculously pandering tax cuts and paying a lower percentage of their income than the dirty unwashed masses (including you), when they ought to be glad to pay into a system that made it possible for them to grow wealthy in the first place instead of adopting a "I got mine, Jack" stance; (6) actively opposes many social programs that have been proven to improve the lives of common people and even to benefit society at large; and (7) last but not least for now, perpetuates that ludicrous "WE BUILT IT" junior-high-mentality bullshit.

And that doesn't even touch on the Republican positions wanting to curtail the rights of and benefits for workers who helped rich people "BUILD THAT," those that assume if a person can't afford health insurance, they're just lazy slags who probably need to die anyway ... and so much more. I could be here typing for most of my three days off, if you want to know the truth.

BUT, even all this, even all these beliefs, I could view as simply opinions with equal standing to my own, to be tolerated and treated with respect - and I used to - if not for the fact they are so damn widespread and legal in the form of prohibitive laws and policies. These are not fringe points of view - these are the guiding principles for much of what we are all forced to abide by on a daily basis. They are the majority, not a minority. Our system is not set up to punish white European-ancestry straight people who assume that their American experience with two parents who had enough money to raise them is how everybody grew up - it's set up to demand more of everybody else and give the former demographic an easy pass.

Even with anti-discrimination laws in place, in the 21st century, we have the only president at least in modern history - if not ever at all - who is still being asked to produce a birth certificate. Why? Because he has an exotic-sounding name and he's not white. It's not because there's a genuine question about his citizenship; there have been fully legal (white) presidential candidates before who were really were not born within U.S. borders. (Frankly, if I were the governor of Hawaii, I would be angry on behalf of the state for being treated as foreign by a country into which it pays taxes - even Alaska is treated as "American," presumably thanks to some loser who quit her job before she'd even put in the same amount of time as some kid earning a community college degree, but made all the right noises about "God" and "family" and "Jesus.")

And I sort of feel like this is perfectly representative of fully-privileged Republicans who see the ranting at them and their platform from other sides, who see the anger and indignant attitudes, who are perfectly aware that our system of laws mostly treats them and their interests better already than the needs and interests of those who are different ... and in response, can only say "Why can't you be nicer to us? We're tolerant of YOU."

As for Dems and Independents who also advocate civility like this? Well, they're kinder than I am. For what I feel are the right reasons, I will admit I can be an asshole.

To paraphrase James Carville: IT'S THE PARTY POSITIONS, STUPID. If you feel caught in the shitstorm of anger, there's probably a reason you ought to. If you legitimately don't believe most of those things, you can afford to sit back and say "well yeah, that IS a dumb thing" and recognize that you are not being singled out and targeted. If you feel targeted ... well, read above. I see your party's positions as social throwbacks that I'm not required to tolerate BECAUSE I AM NOT IN YOUR PARTY. There's a reason I'm not in your party - several, in fact! When your party has had a big hand in creating most laws, and now obstructs any effort to change things I think are outdated and overly prohibitive or lax - even your party leaders going so far as to say compromise shouldn't be an option - I am going to criticize it.

Flies and honey. It doesn't always work. Believe it or not, I wish it did. I did not start out a confrontational, angry person in my life or even into my adult years.

You know, Mom is *just* enough in my head that I do try to remember to allow for exceptions when I rant about the GOP's set of views; I realize it's not a homogenous group, even if I don't always explicitly state that. I realize there are "leftovers" of Eisenhower Republicanism who find their own party these days confusing and irritating - and perhaps they hope that just maybe, if they hang in there long enough, the Teabagger Bully Faction will form its own group and leave the party the hell alone. I realize not all are Christians who feel the way the woman I cited earlier does about her poor, underdog, persecuted minority religion in these Atheist States of America; hell, I realize not all Christians feel the way she does. My friend Diane was a Christian, a devout one ... and to her, her religion not only allowed for gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, her church felt it required that she view those people as equal to herself with the same rights of decision over their lives and to participate as fully in the world as she could. Mom herself was a Republican for most of her life, but she couldn't have cared less if gay people wanted to get married, nor did she think a corporation was equal to a human being, nor did she think poorer people should pay proportionately more to exist than rich people, nor did she think welfare should be abolished (though after working in that system for over 30 years, she certainly had opinions on how it should be overhauled), and she was pretty upset when she figured out a year and a half into the Iraq war that there had been no good reason for sending people to die in it.

Now that I think about it ... this all might explain why Mom chose to vote Democrat in the last couple of elections before she died. And why in her older age, she was a lot less likely to be tactful and sweet, and had become more direct and willing to say what she thought, even if it made friends or family upset with her. The older you get, the closer you get to death and the less time you have to put up with things you think are harmful to a lot of people, including yourself.

Comments

[pseudoblu.livejournal.com]

So many of your posts recently have made me wish they were on tumblr do they could be reblogged very much.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

High praise! Thank you. But LJ already eats up enough free time; I'm sort of afraid of committing to any other kind of social media just because I have to do things like work and eat and exercise and sleep, sometimes. LOL

[pseudoblu.livejournal.com]

Tumblr is definitely a huge time-suck so stay away if you can!

[keechakatt.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you said. The only think that personally gets my goat are people stating they are persecuted against. I think there needs to be another catch pharase or something. It seems like the persecuted feel like they should be treated like special snowflakes. Name one group in history who has not been persecuted against at some point? my ancestors included.

I use this as an example. I'm white so certain segments of the African American population believe they deserve compensation. My ancestors all fought in the Union Army because they believed slavery was wrong. In addition, they couldn't afford one even if they wanted one. I agree compensation was needed to the slaves, their, children, possibly even granchildren. These people are now all dead yet some living believe they are owed something.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I understand the thinking behind reparations for slavery in the U.S., but I can't get behind it in practical execution this long after the fact - not in the sense of handing out money, anyway. What I understand is there are families, there are businesses, that profited and prospered off of slave labor and sweat, and blood - and this definitely built our country faster and gave white Europeans a leg up over everybody else early on. Those advantages extend even to now, financially in some instances, but also definitely socially. And those slaves and their children were never repaid for what they did in this country; it was vast and should have been thanked and better efforts to mending fences made LONG before it began happening during the Civil Rights movement. But at some point, you have to say "nobody alive today owned or traded in slaves, and how can I be expected to pay in full for something I wasn't even alive to see nor would want to take part in? Plus, my economic situation isn't much better than yours."

Now I do feel like we're moving to a more tolerant society eventually, with regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, mainly in the sense of, there are more people who openly frown on and condemn casually racist behavior or speech in public ... but it's sure not going very fast, and it's held up by some of the very things I cited above. But on reparations specifically: No, I do not support financial payments. I do still think affirmative action is needed to some degree, to make a more level playing field. No, I don't believe things are as bad as they were 50 years ago (though, how would I know for sure?), but to put it honestly, we still have a stronger racist vibe in this country than is good for any society, and I'm sure more than is comfortable or conducive for a lot of black people to have a deservedly normal, peaceful life.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

Amen. *raises glass (ok coffee cup)*. Huzzah!

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Pirates don't drink straight coffee. I'm very disillusioned by you! ;-)

[janamelie.livejournal.com]

Found this on Twitter. A female journalist covering the RNC and getting understandably frustrated: http://t.co/jjDTj7pG

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm ever going to understand women like the ones she cites. But I'm pretty sure they would look at me and boil my life down to simplistic platitudes, based simply on a few factual tidbits, that don't turn out to be true at all (i.e., oh, look at the poor dear, barren as a boiled pot, she probably secretly yearns for five children and a man to look after things for her, she's just bitter because she has to drag herself up and out to work every day; she doesn't understand this is just how the world IS and will always be and it's our lot in life to accept as much abuse as they can heap on us while they get a free pass for having penises because their work of making money and conquering things and places is VALUABLE). At the end of the day, I know unpleasant truths about the world and I'm still a relatively happy individual - even when I was sick and in debt and clinically depressed, I didn't really have persecution challenges to worry about in my life. I wonder if these women would have their same peace of mind if they willingly stared into themselves and other people's motives (as my job requires me to do), or found out, for example, that there are men who view women as full and equal human beings to themselves - and they're stuck with having to put up with the ones who can always find a "women are strong, but ..." conditional to trot out?

[pir8fancier.livejournal.com]

To me this automatic lock-stepping is why more and more people are independents. All those people in Wisconsin who voted for Walker and then found that they lost their right to collectively bargain, did you hear what he was saying when he was running for governor. He wasn't silent about it. He was dead up front about his desire to break the backs of unions. Of course, these idiots didn't realize it was THEIR union he was so hell bent on busting. People need to stop following whatever sort of cracked up version of the American Dream that is being spun by ALL politicians, and then need to think about the consequences of what exactly each party stands for. The GOP is pretty damn clear about what it stands for and what it doesn't. Stop listening to the spin. Start exercising your responsibility as a citizen of this country and start reading and listening to exactly what the partys are saying.

This is what irks me more than anything else: the STUPIDITY of the populace. Like this is some sort of reality-based television show. You vote for certain people, you are going to lose certain rights. THINK ABOUT IT.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

AND THEN THEY KEPT WALKER IN. Explain, please.

You have to dream pretty big to vote for economic policies against your own interests - that you'll someday be rich enough to benefit from the protections the GOP *will* authorize - and for social policies limiting a whole bunch of other adults' personal rights - that you'll NEVER be in a position where your liberties will also be at stake someday.

[pir8fancier.livejournal.com]

Considering that $40 million (and no that's NOT a typo) came from OUT OF STATE to combat the recall effort says to me that it was a squeaker, even though he technically beat the recall. If you factor in the all money the GOP spent, he kept his job but he was pretty wounded, IMO.

[janamelie.livejournal.com]

Again from Twitter. Perfect. :D https://twitter.com/AnnajoyDavid/status/242710138849472512

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

It's a distraction. Now it's a mark of how dumb the GOP top strategists are that they'd pick this instead of gay marriage as a Waterloo (given how many people still hate gay more than female). Although I will say, women's rights ARE economic at their foundation - if more had more help, better income and education/daycare access, fewer would likely abort.

[a-silver-rose.livejournal.com]

This is basically why I'm not a member of any political party. I like to be free of the peer pressure to adopt certain ideals which might be abhorrent to me.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Ditto.