Tuesday, August 11, 2009

A Second Motive

Matthew Yglesias published an insightful piece yesterday, he brought out an idea I had not heard before. What we can call "Christian conservatives" have defined life to be a difficult thing to get through -- to oversimplify, you are not supposed to do a lot of things that you might like to do. This seems to me to be an important justification for their overuse of the word "family," as in Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Family Research Council, etcetera; for them, the concept of a family symbolizes the principle of resisting temptation, a family means building a monogamous relationship with someone, with offspring you love and protect, versus building ties to the world outside your household, a world that lures you with offers of sin and temptation. There is nothing wrong with families, please don't quote me as criticizing those ideals, I love my family and can think of nothing more important in the world than keeping a family together and happy. But in our day the word has become a code-word for a set of beliefs, actually a set of feelings, having to do with avoiding mundane temptation. Everybody is in favor of families, not everybody sees it the way the Family Blah Blah groups do.

The Christian right has a problem, they have a really pretty bad track record when it comes to living up to their ideals. We smirk and laugh over here in lefty-land every time another Republican gets caught having an affair, spending time with hookers, hitting on same-sex underlings, sitting with a "wide stance" in an airport men's room, because Christian conservatives have defined acceptable conduct in terms too narrow for themselves to stay within the boundaries. They talk like everyone else is weak and evil, as if the institutions of marriage and family are constantly under attack, but they themselves are not really that good at staying on the straight and narrow. Even with all the talk about resisting temptation, there is a lot of "hiking the Appalachian trail" among that cohort.

Yglesias comments that the United States is a country that’s “conservative right up until the moment that it costs us.”
I think this explains a lot about the appeal of anti-gay crusades to social conservative leaders. Most of what “traditional values” asks of people is pretty hard. All the infidelity and divorce and premarital sex and bad parenting and whatnot take place because people actually want to do the things traditional values is telling them not to do. And the same goes for most of the rest of the Christian recipe. Acting in a charitable and forgiving manner all the time is hard. Loving your enemies is hard. Turning the other cheek is hard. Homosexuality is totally different. For a small minority of the population, of course, the injunction “don’t have sex with other men!” (or, as the case may be, other women) is painfully difficult to live up to. But for the vast majority of people this is really, really easy to do. Campaigns against gay rights, gay people, and gay sex thus have a lot of the structural elements of other forms of crusading against sexual excess or immorality, but they’re not really asking most people to do anything other than become self-righteous about their pre-existing preferences. Social Conservatism Beyond the Easy Parts

This suggests a second motive for vehement anti-gay campaigning as we have seen in our county and elsewhere. The first motive, of course, is the need to suppress one's own tendencies, a man hates to find that he has "those feelings" and as he tries to deny them in himself he accuses others of failing to suppress their own feelings adequately. It must just kill some of these guys who are trying as hard as they can to live as heterosexuals, when they see openly gay people living normal lives, having friends, accomplishing things. That's gotta be hard to watch, and you can see why they'd be against that.

But this second motive is a little more subtle. With all their white-knuckle monogamy, the mandible-grinding difficulty of forgiving those who trespass against them, it must be a tremendous relief to be able to point the finger at sinners who are doing something that they themselves have no desire to do. It's easy for you not to have sex with members of your own sex, therefore those who do that are immoral beyond your capacity to imagine.

It's not an argument I have heard before: Campaigns against gay rights, gay people, and gay sex thus have a lot of the structural elements of other forms of crusading against sexual excess or immorality, but they’re not really asking most people to do anything other than become self-righteous about their pre-existing preferences. Good point.

12 Comments:

Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

I've had that nagging suspicion for years. I also feel that a lot of these folks are bolstering their self esteem by disqualifying other for, say, 'illicit same-sex sex' or 'wanton gender confusion' -- you know, capital offenses...

August 11, 2009 11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that Jim and others understand that just because we have the propensity or desire to do something -- that doesn't mean it should be done.

For example, our bodies can become grotesquely obese. However, most of us know, instinctively, that we should strive to keep our bodies in a healthy state. While we strive to maintain that weight, many of us fail along the way or don't reach the optimum goal. However, this does not mean that the goal of maintaining a healthy weight is not a worthy one. Indeed, it is a goal that should be pursued.

Just like...our minds can become grotesquely bloated and perverted, but most of us instinctively know that we should strive to keep our minds in a healthy state. While we strive to maintain a healthy mind, many of us fail along the way or don't reach the optimum goal. However, this does not mean that the goal of maintaining a healthy mind is not a worthy one. Indeed, it should be pursued.

August 11, 2009 11:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" -

"Physician, heal thyself"

August 12, 2009 1:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, just because we can decline to fulfill our desires dosesn't mean that we should, particularly to please bigots like you. Unlike obesity a same sex relationship harms no one and brings happiness and fulfillment to the people in it. This is something to be pursued, supported and affirmed throughout society. There's a reason why all the research and major medical organizations support this goal - its the truth.

August 12, 2009 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmmm, Priya....I didn't even mention same sex marriage. Did you equate "grotesquely bloated" and "perverted" with same sex marriage? If so, don't blame that on me!

August 12, 2009 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With all their white-knuckle monogamy, the mandible-grinding difficulty of forgiving those who trespass against them, it must be a tremendous relief to be able to point the finger at sinners who are doing something that they themselves have no desire to do."

I think you are delusional, Jim.

How does:

1.opposition to murdering children in their mothers' wombs or

2.opposition to the redefiniton of marriage to include a same gender deviation or

3.opposition to pressuring old people into ending their lives before the spend too much of the money that they could leave to their heirs or

4.support for allowing poor families to let their kids escape the hell-hole schools they're trapped in

constitute "mandible-grinding difficulty of forgiving those who trespass against them"?

The family advocates you denounce are much less judgmental than liberals.

You may remember the contrast between the reactions of liberals and conservatives when it was learned Sarah Palin's daughter was pregnant out of wedlock.

August 13, 2009 10:39 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

How does:

1.opposition to murdering children in their mothers' wombs or

2.opposition to the redefiniton of marriage to include a same gender deviation or

3.opposition to pressuring old people into ending their lives before the spend too much of the money that they could leave to their heirs or

4.support for allowing poor families to let their kids escape the hell-hole schools they're trapped in

constitute "mandible-grinding difficulty of forgiving those who trespass against them"?


I'll take these one at a time.

1. I love your clever way of demonstrating that you are "much less judgmental than liberals" by referring to abortion in completely hysterical terms. How is abortion a difficulty for conservative Christians? This is easy -- it's difficult when they need one. While conservatives may oppose abortion more than liberals in polls, speeches, and interviews, you will find just as many conservative as liberal women in the waiting room. The "mandible-grinding" comes when they have to try to reconcile their political opposition with their personal need -- and Anon, I'm sorry to break it to you, sometimes women need to terminate a pregnancy, even -- what'd you call them? -- "family advocate" women.

2. Anon, you are terrific, I could not invent a character as despicable as you if I tried. I suppose here you are referring to legally allowing gay couples the same right to marry that straight people have. If you are conservative and gay, you might fall in love and want to start a family, and will find yourself torn between your political or religious belief and the legal reality, that would be bad enough. If you are gay and conservative and Christian and in love with someone and you think of your relationship as "a same gender deviation," well I don't think I need to explain why there would be an element of mandible-grinding anxiety or self-loathing there.

3. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Are you saying that gay people are homicidally overeager to obtain their inheritance? Sorry, I'd be happy to respond but this just doesn't make any sense to me, I've never heard this one.

4. Again, I'm not sure, is this about charter schools and vouchers, or are you advocating busing inner-city kids to your neighborhood school, or what? I suppose it would be a little tough for white Christian conservatives to pay tax money to support inner-city children going to Afrocentric charter schools where they learn how racism has affected their lives, study their own culture and history, celebrate Kwanzaa, and perhaps learn something about the differences between their way of life and the lifestyle of privileged white folk in the suburbs. But maybe I don't get your point.

As for your final comment at Sarah Palin's daughter, yes that was illuminating for a lot of us, I think -- most liberals believed that Bristol should have gotten married before she had a baby, Christian conservatives were overjoyed at her indiscretion. Like many Americans I was surprised and a little shocked to find that religious conservatives see little value in marrying and establishing a family, when you get right down to it.

Jim

August 13, 2009 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim - It is absolutely and positively astounding how you can go on and on and on, ad nauseum, day after day, defending the "civil rights" of certain groups -- and then completely and utterly and profoundly foresake the RIGHT TO LIVE of the the single most defenseless group in our midst -- the unborn!

August 13, 2009 12:18 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I am not taking sides on the non-issue of anyone's right to live, I simply said that as many conservative women as liberal ones get abortions. I'm sorry it's necessary, but sometimes women making decisions about controlling their own lives think it is, whether you or I agree with them or not. For people who believe like you do it must be an especially difficult time.

JimK

August 13, 2009 12:55 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Interesting that you bring up obesity.

Research indicates that the single largest reason for harassment of children in schools is physical appearance, or size. The second is real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

Watch what happens when school systems or states add physical appearance sand/orize to their anti-harassment or nondiscrimination policies. This makes sense even to the 'phobes in the 'family' organizations.

Then compare and contrast with the reaction of those same groups when it is proposed that sexual orientation or, god forbid, gender identity/expression be included in those policies.

Paper due Friday. Maximum 4 paragraphs double-spaced, 12-point font.

rrjr

August 13, 2009 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

As one that intensely suffered various forms of physical, mental, and constant emotional abuses most of my childhood, and now, for the same reasons, most of my adult life, for no other reason than being "different".

I was different.

I was everything that would have been exceptional for a young girl, but was born biologically male.

I was smaller and weaker and built differently than any of the male kids. Did i choose that ? No, i don't think so. Was i punished and penalized for something of which i had no choice in the making. Yes, most assuredly.

Was i abused, teased, constantly beaten upon and called names like "retard and freak" for being several grade levels ahead (talking, reading, & writing on a first to 2nd year college level in 6th grade) ? Yep, you betcha - worse than almost anyone else ever in fact because of the combination of these "defects".

Was i abused and disrespected and judged for being quite naturally deeply sensitive and emotionally expressive as would be acceptable for any young girl but, for never a boy ? Yes.

Was i hit and hurt almost every day in the first dozen years of publics schools for simply having INNATE physical, mental, and emotional qualities that i could no more change than blink and turn the sky green ? Yes. Have i experienced the same or much worse as an adult in this culture for the very same reasons ? yes.

and all of you wish to continue to somehow under the guise of a higher moral code, You call that an acceptable code of morals ? acceptable ethics ?

Good solid Christian values that were taught to the fellow children that reacted in this way to me, no matter what i tried to do to avert and avoid conflicts ?

Many of you have not ever changed in your disguises as adults, and now still continue in your sheer judgementalism, to do much more damage to your fellow human beings without the slighhtest compunction or even honest self-awareness of such as your own hypocrisy.

Nothing but Bullcrap and hypocrisy.
You are going to lose because of your hatred and assumption to take the place of the only judge, which you are not.

Most Respectfully,


Maryanne

August 14, 2009 2:18 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

The term "Lifestyle Choice", which is, no doubt, one of the most negatively misused characterizations of people like ouselves, especially in what i have seen directly emanating/originating from "conservative" views, and often in my direct personal experience is largely based by expression within what some characterize as "theological tenets" of one form or another.

Allow me to explain from personal experience.

My first conscious awareness of myself at age 4 (yes, i said age 4), was with what i clearly define as overwhelming awareness of my gender as being female (or, opposite/other than my physical/biological makeup at that age).

To explain further: From the first moment of my conscious awareness, i knew i was a girl. Age 4. I can only describe this as an "all-encompassing" level of personal awareness that deeply affected me on every level possible - physical, mental, and emotional, even from that age.

This was, in personal experiential nature, joyful, magical, and anguished, in every moment, 24/7/365 from that moment forward, until now at this moment i that i write this explanation. This was not "sexual" in nature.

Nor, at that age, could it possibly be defined as a "Lifestyle Choice" by any known cultural, social, or psychological standards that are in use or have ever existed that i am currently aware of. There was no sexual abuse in my family. I had no sisters. I was not encouraged in this self-awareness in any way or form whatsoever by anyone friend or family in my life from that age onward.

Please explain how this could be a "sexually deviant choice of lifestyle" and that i, and any other such youth that by adolescence has also deeply grappled with such an issue since earliest conscious awareness?

Again, if all of nature is a part of God, and vice-versa, and therefore we could not have POSSIBLY "chosen" to have been MADE the way that we are, with respect to the abovedescribed conditions, how would we then be such "abnormal freaks of nature" ?

Most Sincerely,



Maryanne

August 14, 2009 2:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home