Turns out that this blog is where I like to express what I think of as "the bleedingly obvious" or the occasionally bizarre (I still think that living with animals is bizarre. It's been happening for thousands of years, and I love pets, but it still fascinates me). Generally I'd like to say that most posts won't be as sanctimonious at the last one, but let ye who is not ever self-righteous cast the first stone.
I read all the articles on gay marriage when they appear. Then I read the comments. Then I want to slowly turn and bump my head gently against the nearest surface - gently, because I have a thesis to finish, and bruising my cerebral cortex will not serve me well.
The one I wish to address today is a common objection: "Just because someone is against gay marriage does not make them homophobic! I have gay friends." (paraphrase) Oh, you have gay friends! What a marvellous skyscraper of morality you are! I have gay friends, too! We have so much in common! Oh, wait - except I want my gay friends to enjoy the same rights as my straight friends?
These people who are against any alteration of the status quo are horrified and angry that they are deemed homophobic - "fear of/discomfort with homosexuality" - because they don't like the idea of a same-sex couple getting married. They feel pigeonholed. They feel judged. They feel that "the crazy lefties" are labelling and bullying them (cue the World's Smallest Simple Plan Album Playing Just For YOU*). They appear to think that there is no justification for this idea that an opposition to gay marriage is a sign of homophobia.
I think that perhaps they are not well-blessed with self-awareness or an analytical mindset, so on the off chance that anyone ever reads this without me telling them to do so (ha!), I thought I might lay out the logic that we crazy lefties and/or gay lobbyists (one of my favourite lines: "Oh, I love the gay lobby. It's through the gay front doors and right before you get to the gay elevators.") are following in this case.
1. No argument against gay marriage makes any logical or legal sense. In the interests of not re-hashing in detail, I'll list the arguments of which I am aware, debunk them with my mad debating skills, and move on. This has been done many times before, so in the further interests of not claiming undue credit, I am probably stealing the answers that make sense to me. Then again, logic is provided free of charge. Here we go.
1a. "God doesn't like it." This is the easiest argument in the world to debunk. I'm not going to enter into the religious debate - I lack the wherewithal to do so - so here it is: which God? We live in a secular society. Say it with me: secular. Say it slowly, say it fast, it's a beautiful word. Rolls off the tongue, don't it? I don't have to live according to your religion; the law is on my side. I only have to live according to the law of the land. And the law of the land is (ideally, and nominally) made to fit everyone in that society. We don't make atheists get baptised. We don't make Christians face Mecca to pray. And I'm sorry if those comments are based on religious ignorance - my ignorance in this case is a case in point. Nobody made me go to Bible studies (actually, I didn't have a choice about religious instruction in my second primary school, but that's a separate issue).
Example: I'm married. I'm an adult woman, married to adult man, according to the law of the land. I was married in a civil ceremony in a freaking winery, under a tree. My wedding was not religious. In fact, I've often said that God was not invited, and if He turned up, the deity was gatecrashing. I'm not sure, but I don't think I'm actually married in the eyes of God/Church. As it happens, I still consider myself married. Marriage is not a religious institution; it is a legal condition; legally, it must ignore religion.
Summary: legally, we don't care what God thinks about gay marriage. Legally, we can't care.
1b. "Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's always been that way." No, it hasn't. And how is "It's always been that way" ever an argument for anything? Ideas of marriage change from generation to generation. For thousands of years it's been about the ownership of women and the inheritance of property... in some societies. Same-sex marriage is certainly not unheard of in ancient history.
1c. "I support and defend marriage. I love being married. Allowing same-sex couples to marry debases my marriage." I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Is your marriage so weak that someone you don't know getting married affects it? Honestly, I thought your marriage was about the two of you, but clearly, it's about feeling superior to unmarried people.
1d. "Think of the children!" "Selfish gay parents experimenting on their kids!" Alright, slow down, you're right - homosexual parents should definitely not be experimenting on their children to form X-Files style alien-human hybrids.
Oh. Wait. That's not what you meant.
What you meant was that apparently growing up as the children of a same-sex couple is an experiment. Firstly, marriage isn't about children. This has been debunked so many times, but it keeps popping up: apparently, marriage is about the ability to reproduce, and contribute to the next generation via the binding of gametes. This is arrant nonsense; infertile couples get married all the time. People adopt if they want kids. And furthermore, there are plenty of married, heterosexual couples out there who don't want children, and we let them get married.
Sure, it's nice when kids are raised in stable, loving homes - which homosexual parents are able to provide just as well as heterosexual parents and there are numerous studies showing that there is no psychological disadvantage to these situations. Teh science is against you. I know people who would give their right arm to have been raised by even one sane, present parent of either sex rather than the heterosexual drop-kicks who actually raised them. Heterosexuality is no guarantee of stability. And furthermore, another argument has been raised - I quite like this one - that allowing gay marriages is good for children, because marriage overall increases the stability of a family. It also means that these kids don't have to look at their parents and wonder why, even though there is plenty of love going around, society apparently has decided that the relationship is Just Not Good Enough. No matter how supportive, how loving, how thoughtful, how stable.
1e. "I'm in favour of gay marriage, but why do you need the word marriage?" Why not? Separate isn't equal. If you don't think the word is a big deal, go on, do like your parents taught you - share. Words are a huge deal. We think in language. We debate in language. We justify in language. Language shapes thought, language has impact. Words, in short, matter. You don't gain anything by keeping the word marriage exclusive to a penis-vagina coupling. See (1c).
1f. "Churches will have to perform same-sex marriages which oppose their doctrine!" No, they won't. See Canada.
1g. "I just know it's wrong."
Now we get to the nub of the matter, because so far, none of these other arguments make sense in a secular society. Children will not be threatened (and I'd go so far as to say that if we live in a more egalitarian society, all children will benefit enormously - especially children who grow up to be same-sex attracted and would like to not be bullied, discriminated against, or otherwise abused by society). Status quo is a terrible, terrible argument (see: interracial marriages, women voting, etc. etc.). Religion is an appalling reason to oppose same-sex marriage. If marriage is a religious institution only, I'm not married - and guess what, I take extraordinary exception to that idea. There will be pummelling.
2. "I just know it's wrong." Hon, that's not how morality works. That's not how fairness works. That's not how our society works. We have laws. We have reasons. We generally agree that discrimination is bad. If you have no return argument for any of these debunkings, then your response is instinctive, and inadmissible. Your instinctive response is about your discomfort.
You are, for some reason (probably lack of exposure to the idea that those pesky homosexuals are, in fact, people like you), uncomfortable with the idea of two people of the same sex getting married.
Discomfort. Hrm. With homosexuality.
We do call that homophobia.
-----
*Re: "A Simple Plan" are probably not around any more. Who is the current emo band that would fit in this bracket? I'm getting old, you see.
-----
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
On fidelity
Every now and again, you come into contact (directly or indirectly) with someone whose world view differs drastically from your own. That's diversity. It's interesting - usually. Occasionally, that difference leaves you sputtering in confusion: "But who does that? Seriously?"
The issue of fidelity in monogamous relationships seems to be one such minefield.
My own approach (which we shall call "A") is: "I am in a monogamous relationship. I will not seek romantic and/or sexual activity with anyone outside of this relationship." This seems fairly straightforward to me (and to Husband, whose initial response to our proposed relationship was, "Monogamy? Well, I'll give it a try..." and it seems to have worked out quite well, seven years later).
However, I have met, encountered, heard-of-in-the-third-person another approach (which we shall call "B"). It is this: "I am in a monogamous relationship. However, everybody cheats. No-one really means it when they say they're monogamous, and no-one really expects me to keep it in my pants. Therefore, it's okay for me to cheat, because everybody does it."
This seems... convoluted. It means that in a conversation with A, B might be thinking, "What a naive person! How dare they judge me for doing what everybody does!" And I can promise you that A is thinking, "My God, you're a freaking tool, aren't you?" as well as, "You did what? Who does that?" (also, I have it on good authority that B likes to say things like, "But s/he meant nothing to me! Therefore it didn't count!")
This is not about people who do fall in love with someone else, or make a poor decision one drunken night, or anything along those lines. It's also not about polygamous relationships, or open relationships, each of which seems to have its own carefully worked out idiosyncratic approach.
My own theory is this. If you're a person who espouses "B", an exclusive monogamous relationship is not for you. Be honest about it, because maybe your partner is an "A"; if they discover your infidelity, the emotional pain you will deal to them is beyond words, and beyond what you half-arsedly try to rationalise with your "everybody else is doing it" justification.
I like "A", for my money; because I say what I mean, and mean what I say. As far as I'm concerned, life is too short and relationships already too complicated for second-guessing what someone really means when they say something. If you're all speaking the same language, say what you mean.
And mean what you say.
The issue of fidelity in monogamous relationships seems to be one such minefield.
My own approach (which we shall call "A") is: "I am in a monogamous relationship. I will not seek romantic and/or sexual activity with anyone outside of this relationship." This seems fairly straightforward to me (and to Husband, whose initial response to our proposed relationship was, "Monogamy? Well, I'll give it a try..." and it seems to have worked out quite well, seven years later).
However, I have met, encountered, heard-of-in-the-third-person another approach (which we shall call "B"). It is this: "I am in a monogamous relationship. However, everybody cheats. No-one really means it when they say they're monogamous, and no-one really expects me to keep it in my pants. Therefore, it's okay for me to cheat, because everybody does it."
This seems... convoluted. It means that in a conversation with A, B might be thinking, "What a naive person! How dare they judge me for doing what everybody does!" And I can promise you that A is thinking, "My God, you're a freaking tool, aren't you?" as well as, "You did what? Who does that?" (also, I have it on good authority that B likes to say things like, "But s/he meant nothing to me! Therefore it didn't count!")
This is not about people who do fall in love with someone else, or make a poor decision one drunken night, or anything along those lines. It's also not about polygamous relationships, or open relationships, each of which seems to have its own carefully worked out idiosyncratic approach.
My own theory is this. If you're a person who espouses "B", an exclusive monogamous relationship is not for you. Be honest about it, because maybe your partner is an "A"; if they discover your infidelity, the emotional pain you will deal to them is beyond words, and beyond what you half-arsedly try to rationalise with your "everybody else is doing it" justification.
I like "A", for my money; because I say what I mean, and mean what I say. As far as I'm concerned, life is too short and relationships already too complicated for second-guessing what someone really means when they say something. If you're all speaking the same language, say what you mean.
And mean what you say.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
On very odd behaviour from medical professionals
So, yesterday an endocrinologist told me that I had no sign of a glucose disorder and was at very low risk. Goodo! Then he weighed and measured me, told me I needed to lose a couple of kilos and 4cms of waist circumference (80cms is apparently "desirable" in women; thought back; yes, that was the phrase). I looked extremely skeptical.
Then he pulled out a "kilo of fat", which broadly looks a bit like a fat, urine-coloured sausage. And told me to lose "one or two" of those.
My response was probably not what he expected. I wasn't angry yet, I was just a little bit weirded out by the strange man with his strange fat. After I failed to react in any way other than, "Huh. ...yeah?" he wrapped it back up in its Gladwrap, put it away with some sheepishness, and continued the consultation as though it had never happened.
Further investigation has yielded two friends who have experienced this treatment.
My initial confusion was this: "I'm not sure how I'm expected to respond, man. You just pulled out a kilo of freaking fat and dumped it in your desk. I think this is a step in a social dance for which I am really not prepared."
(When I spoke to my Mum later, I said, "It would be like if I had a liver in my fridge, and if I had guests over, and I pulled out this liver and went, hey guys, this came from a duck, what do you think?" It's a poor metaphor, because the answer is obviously, "I think it's pate.")
(I now wish I had said to the man, "I think it's pate," for added surrealism)
Asking around, apparently, my response is supposed to be shame. The kilo of fat is supposed to shame me into losing weight. My problem with this is twofold. Firstly, I'm not sure how the kilo of fat is supposed to incite shame of any kind. It's an inanimate entity on a desk. In my body, it's a biological entity. It's storing nutrients should I need them. In and of itself, there's actually nothing wrong with fat. Perhaps we should not forget a generation whose grandmothers try to insult them (shame them) by saying, "My dear, don't you look healthy." (Translation: you're fat)
I lack grandmothers in the extant sense; that's an anecdote I've heard from several female friends whose living grandmothers happen to be on the catty side. Another one said to a friend, perfectly pleasantly, "You're quite skinny. Are you unwell?" This friend is on the narrow side in terms of build. The fact that we couldn't work out whether it was (a) a genuine inquiry based on concern, (b) a compliment or (c) an insult suggests we live in a world that is seriously fucked up.
But I digress. I don't think I can be shamed with a kilo of fat any more than I could be shamed with duck pate, or any internal organ from any animal, human included. (I now wish I had asked what animal had produced the fat, presuming it isn't actually plastic) I simply don't link those kinds of emotions to bodily stuff. I'm not saying I'm beyond body image issues; I have them, and have had them, and was miserable about my supposed fatness all the way through primary school and high school. I feltugly, yes; I didn't feel ashamed about being ugly, though, because it wasn't my fault. I felt crappy that I was unattractive. That's it. I had bigger things to occupy my overactive guilt/shame centers. I had other things going on at home, at school, and so on, that meant feeling ashamed of my body was way down the list.
Note: I draw a line between being ashamed and being self-conscious. They are not the same thing, and this brings us to the next point: the idea of being shamed for being fat, whether you are actually fat or not (as though there is some arbitrary line rather than an n-dimensional continuum of body shapes).
I felt horribly self-conscious in high school, yes. I didn't want people to look at me too much, because I felt ugly. However, I didn't feel as though I had done anything wrong.
This is key.
At what point, in shaming people about being fat, do you say, "Gosh, you have done the wrong thing. I want you to feel bad. Feel bad yet? Right, now that you feel bad, go and do something good for your health."
I know for a fact I am not the only person who sees a disconnect here. I know why I've put on a small amount of weight while writing a thesis. It's because I'm not going to gym, or swimming, or diving, and I'm stressed. I'm not actually eating more junk food than usual, or anything like that, but I'm not doing exercise, and I should be. I should be, because it makes me feel good and it makes me feel alert and excited; I should be, because it makes me strong.
Feeling ashamed, feeling bad about yourself, feeling bad about your body, from my experience, do not make you want to go out and do exercise. In my experience, anecdotally, this feeling makes you want to curl up in bed in a depressive lump. Feeling crappy makes you feel tired, not energised. Not motivated. If at some point a doctor felt the genuine need to tell me to get more exercise, all s/he would have to do is explain, in simple form, the health risks associated with my not doing so. If a doctor felt the need to tell me to change my diet, again, all he or she would have to do is list what I needed and for what reasons.
Then I would respond, not according to shame, but according to freaking common sense.
Instead, what do I get? Gosh, your fat is bad.
Now, these arguments apply to this sort of treatment regardless of your size. I am also deeply concerned because, with a dietician doing a quick back-of-the-envelope BMI calculation and saying I am perfectly fine (although should I even use BMI to prove a point? Maybe not), a jeans size of 12 (Just Jeans), and with a waist-hip ratio of (I just worked it out, from sheer bloody mindedness) 0.78* (which is apparently also fine from my swift googling), and now an endocrinologist saying that I have no sign or indication and am at very low risk for a glucose disorder, he still felt the need to say, "Gosh, your fat is bad."
Look, I'm normal. There are two problems here: the first is with anyone being treated this way, and it involves the paradigm shift as we come to realise that supposedly "excess" weight is not the terrible health threat that we've all been hearing about our whole lives. It is a red herring and an exaggeration. Everything we hear about what obesity costs taxpayers is complete freaking bollocks.
The second problem is that, even for a doctor who does believe that being above a certain weight counts as a significant health risk, he classed a person of my size as having that risk. Nowhere can I find any evidence to support his claims. Mind you, Googling is obviously not on a par with the ridiculous amount of education required to become a specialist in a medical field, but if he's working from a standard, however arbitrary, shouldn't that standard be available somewhere? Just how small do you have to be?
And my next question is, what do they do to underweight people? I have several friends who have had doctors constantly telling them they need to put on weight, that they are too small, that their low BMI is "undesirable" - what's the tactic for them? Do they get shown the kilo of fat and told that, it's not gross, it's awesome, and you need more of it? That's no better, but it does break the logic of assuming that fat is always bad.
I'm still angry.
----
EDIT: realised that being measured around the tummy is not your waist, so I remeasured it myself. WtH ratio is now 0.73...
----
Then he pulled out a "kilo of fat", which broadly looks a bit like a fat, urine-coloured sausage. And told me to lose "one or two" of those.
My response was probably not what he expected. I wasn't angry yet, I was just a little bit weirded out by the strange man with his strange fat. After I failed to react in any way other than, "Huh. ...yeah?" he wrapped it back up in its Gladwrap, put it away with some sheepishness, and continued the consultation as though it had never happened.
Further investigation has yielded two friends who have experienced this treatment.
My initial confusion was this: "I'm not sure how I'm expected to respond, man. You just pulled out a kilo of freaking fat and dumped it in your desk. I think this is a step in a social dance for which I am really not prepared."
(When I spoke to my Mum later, I said, "It would be like if I had a liver in my fridge, and if I had guests over, and I pulled out this liver and went, hey guys, this came from a duck, what do you think?" It's a poor metaphor, because the answer is obviously, "I think it's pate.")
(I now wish I had said to the man, "I think it's pate," for added surrealism)
Asking around, apparently, my response is supposed to be shame. The kilo of fat is supposed to shame me into losing weight. My problem with this is twofold. Firstly, I'm not sure how the kilo of fat is supposed to incite shame of any kind. It's an inanimate entity on a desk. In my body, it's a biological entity. It's storing nutrients should I need them. In and of itself, there's actually nothing wrong with fat. Perhaps we should not forget a generation whose grandmothers try to insult them (shame them) by saying, "My dear, don't you look healthy." (Translation: you're fat)
I lack grandmothers in the extant sense; that's an anecdote I've heard from several female friends whose living grandmothers happen to be on the catty side. Another one said to a friend, perfectly pleasantly, "You're quite skinny. Are you unwell?" This friend is on the narrow side in terms of build. The fact that we couldn't work out whether it was (a) a genuine inquiry based on concern, (b) a compliment or (c) an insult suggests we live in a world that is seriously fucked up.
But I digress. I don't think I can be shamed with a kilo of fat any more than I could be shamed with duck pate, or any internal organ from any animal, human included. (I now wish I had asked what animal had produced the fat, presuming it isn't actually plastic) I simply don't link those kinds of emotions to bodily stuff. I'm not saying I'm beyond body image issues; I have them, and have had them, and was miserable about my supposed fatness all the way through primary school and high school. I feltugly, yes; I didn't feel ashamed about being ugly, though, because it wasn't my fault. I felt crappy that I was unattractive. That's it. I had bigger things to occupy my overactive guilt/shame centers. I had other things going on at home, at school, and so on, that meant feeling ashamed of my body was way down the list.
Note: I draw a line between being ashamed and being self-conscious. They are not the same thing, and this brings us to the next point: the idea of being shamed for being fat, whether you are actually fat or not (as though there is some arbitrary line rather than an n-dimensional continuum of body shapes).
I felt horribly self-conscious in high school, yes. I didn't want people to look at me too much, because I felt ugly. However, I didn't feel as though I had done anything wrong.
This is key.
At what point, in shaming people about being fat, do you say, "Gosh, you have done the wrong thing. I want you to feel bad. Feel bad yet? Right, now that you feel bad, go and do something good for your health."
I know for a fact I am not the only person who sees a disconnect here. I know why I've put on a small amount of weight while writing a thesis. It's because I'm not going to gym, or swimming, or diving, and I'm stressed. I'm not actually eating more junk food than usual, or anything like that, but I'm not doing exercise, and I should be. I should be, because it makes me feel good and it makes me feel alert and excited; I should be, because it makes me strong.
Feeling ashamed, feeling bad about yourself, feeling bad about your body, from my experience, do not make you want to go out and do exercise. In my experience, anecdotally, this feeling makes you want to curl up in bed in a depressive lump. Feeling crappy makes you feel tired, not energised. Not motivated. If at some point a doctor felt the genuine need to tell me to get more exercise, all s/he would have to do is explain, in simple form, the health risks associated with my not doing so. If a doctor felt the need to tell me to change my diet, again, all he or she would have to do is list what I needed and for what reasons.
Then I would respond, not according to shame, but according to freaking common sense.
Instead, what do I get? Gosh, your fat is bad.
Now, these arguments apply to this sort of treatment regardless of your size. I am also deeply concerned because, with a dietician doing a quick back-of-the-envelope BMI calculation and saying I am perfectly fine (although should I even use BMI to prove a point? Maybe not), a jeans size of 12 (Just Jeans), and with a waist-hip ratio of (I just worked it out, from sheer bloody mindedness) 0.78* (which is apparently also fine from my swift googling), and now an endocrinologist saying that I have no sign or indication and am at very low risk for a glucose disorder, he still felt the need to say, "Gosh, your fat is bad."
Look, I'm normal. There are two problems here: the first is with anyone being treated this way, and it involves the paradigm shift as we come to realise that supposedly "excess" weight is not the terrible health threat that we've all been hearing about our whole lives. It is a red herring and an exaggeration. Everything we hear about what obesity costs taxpayers is complete freaking bollocks.
The second problem is that, even for a doctor who does believe that being above a certain weight counts as a significant health risk, he classed a person of my size as having that risk. Nowhere can I find any evidence to support his claims. Mind you, Googling is obviously not on a par with the ridiculous amount of education required to become a specialist in a medical field, but if he's working from a standard, however arbitrary, shouldn't that standard be available somewhere? Just how small do you have to be?
And my next question is, what do they do to underweight people? I have several friends who have had doctors constantly telling them they need to put on weight, that they are too small, that their low BMI is "undesirable" - what's the tactic for them? Do they get shown the kilo of fat and told that, it's not gross, it's awesome, and you need more of it? That's no better, but it does break the logic of assuming that fat is always bad.
I'm still angry.
----
EDIT: realised that being measured around the tummy is not your waist, so I remeasured it myself. WtH ratio is now 0.73...
----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)