Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 5)

According to research by the Barna Group:

The most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else.

That's just plain wrong. So where'd it come from?

Theory No. 5: It's the politics, stupid

In trying to explain this weird new pre-eminence of the Doctrine of Hatin' Gays it doesn't matter that most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible says it's wrong. That could explain it being a perception, but not the "most common perception." Mere theological opposition cannot explain "excessive contempt."

The Bible, after all, says a lot of things are wrong: gossip, swearing oaths, retaliation, lending at interest or even lending with the expectation of repayment. None of those is the "most common perception" of American Christianity. None of those are perceived, really, as having much of anything to do with American Christianity. If you meet an American who does not believe in retaliation, you're more likely to think they're a Buddhist than a Christian. If you meet an American who opposes lending at interest, you'll probably assume they're a Muslim. And if you meet an American who lends without expectation of repayment and never engages in gossip, then ... well actually, this being America, you won't meet such a person.

The above examples aren't entirely fair. All of those things are expressly and unambiguously prohibited and condemned in the Bible, but they're not really considered sins by American Christians.* So, OK, lets look at some other examples that everyone still regards as full-fledged sins.

How about lying and stealing? These are prohibited by the ninth and eighth commandments (or the eighth and seventh, for my Catholic and Lutheran friends). American Christians believe these are sins. American Christians are morally, ethically and theologically opposed to them. Yet neither "anti-lying" nor "anti-stealing" turns up as a common description of these Christians, let alone as the most common perception. And in neither case would this opposition be characterized as "excessive contempt."

So these moral, ethical and theological considerations and concerns about what the Bible teaches are beside the point. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain why excessive contempt for homosexuals should be the dominant attribute of American Christianity. It has to be something else.

I think it is. I think it has very little to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

The perception that Barna documents is, I think, primarily a perception of evangelical Christians. The Barna Group is an organization based in the evangelical subculture, and while they provide generally reliable data, they are also prone, at times, to the evangelical tendency to use "Christian" and "evangelical Christian" interchangeably. (This recalls Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger's statement, "We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians.") Evangelical Christians also tend to be the most outspokenly sectarian, so this interchangeable terminology is often lazily reflected in the media as well. Barna's survey respondents clearly weren't thinking of the Christians who attend Metropolitan Community Churches or the United Churches of Christ. And I think the survey would have produced quite different results if respondents had been asked specifically about the black church, or Presbyterians or even Roman Catholics.

So let's consider evangelical American Christians in particular. Evangelicals tend to be earnest, generous and accustomed to listening to people in authority. They also tend to be sheltered, ingenuous and suspicious of intellectualism. All of that makes them particularly susceptible to hucksters and demagogues. The history of hucksterism in American evangelicalism is long and storied and sad, but I'm more concerned here with the demagoguery. American evangelicalism in the late-20th and early-21st century has been shaped by demagogues.

The most visible and influential leaders in American evangelicalism are not theologians or clergymen like Billy Graham, John Stott or J.I. Packer, but rather parachurch activists and media barons like Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell and wife-beating apologist James Dobson -- the self-proclaimed spokesmen and self-appointed magisterium of the religious right. Such leaders are not mainly about the spiritual growth and well-being of their followers, nor are they about spreading the gospel. They are about amassing and consolidating power.

The religious right portrays itself as a religious movement seeking to reshape politics, but in fact it is a political movement seeking to reshape religion. Its agenda -- at which it has been distressingly successful -- has always been to turn a church into a voting bloc.

The demagogues of the religious right pursue power -- political and economic power -- by preying on fears and prejudices. Their power depends upon the perception of barbarians at the gate, on the perception that some menacing Other is on the verge of destroying all that their followers hold dear. This Other, the demagogue's scapegoat who must die for our salvation, can't be something that presents a genuine danger, because that would expose the demagogue's impotence to protect his followers from real threats.

Homosexuals make an ideal scapegoat for the demagogues manipulating and fleecing their evangelical flock. The safe-target dynamic ensures that your scapegoat isn't someone your sheep are likely to know or empathize with, and the innocent-backlash claim provides a fig leaf that allows the demagogues to claim that the nastiness they're promoting is justifiable.

The only real difficulty with demonizing homosexuals is that they're not actually demons. Homosexuals don't actually present any kind of threat at all to American evangelicals. The demagogues overcome this obstacle by doing what demagogues are best at: lying. Homosexuals, they claim, are a threat to Marriage, and to The Family, and to the Word of God. Reality doesn't support such claims, so they embellish reality. They claim that same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage because, um, mumblemumblemumble pound pulpit, it just would! Same-sex marriage, they claim, would mean your church would be forced to perform gay weddings.** They claim that hate-crimes legislation protecting homosexuals from violent intimidation would mean that pastors could be arrested for quoting from Leviticus. They claim ENDA -- the bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation -- would mean your church could be legally forced to hire a gay pastor. It would mean no such thing, and they know it would mean no such thing. The lie is deliberate, intentional, lovingly crafted to nurture fear and the unthinking allegiance that fear can create.

It is no accident that excessive contempt for homosexuals has become the most common perception of American evangelicalism. That contempt has been deliberately nurtured, fed and guided by demagogues seeking to manufacture fear that can be channeled into political power.

By laying so much blame on these demagogues, it might seem like I'm trying to excuse or exonerate the rank-and-file evangelicals who follow them, but I don't think this really provides them with room to boast. I am suggesting that, left to their own devices, those evangelicals probably wouldn't be quite as contemptuous and bigoted as they've allowed ourselves to become due to their unquestioning allegiance to ill-chosen leaders. This contempt and bigotry, the argument suggests, isn't something they would have pursued quite so single-mindedly on their own, merely something they willingly embraced at the behest of leaders who preyed on their fear and naivete.*** That's hardly grounds for congratulations.

The suggestion that evangelicals have fallen prey to demagogues presents a difficult problem. It means they've been duped, and no one likes to admit they've been duped -- particularly when, as is so often the case, the con works by exploiting something less than admirable in the victims' character. This is why crime statistics on scams and con games aren't wholly reliable. Many victims are reluctant -- out of shame and embarrassment -- to report these crimes. Admitting that you handed over your money due to greed or foolishness is not easy to do.

Admitting that you've been manipulated by duplicitous demagogues exploiting your own fears, insecurities and prejudices isn't easy to do, either, so I'm afraid my message here for American evangelicals is something of a bitter pill that I don't know how to sugarcoat. The current situation, represented by the findings of the Barna Group above, is not something they can be proud of. Forced to confront this reality, evangelicals will have to provide an apology of one kind or another.

That word "apology," of course, has two meanings. It can mean an admission of fault, an acceptance of responsibility accompanied by a plea for pardon and an attempt to make restitution. Or it can mean almost the opposite -- a formal, defiant defense. The demagogues offer the latter sort of apology for the gay-hatin' gospel Barna identifies. Whether or not the rank and file of evangelicals will continue to follow them remains to be seen, but the other kind of apology is their only other option.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* These sins were not downgraded due to any conscious theological decision, nor due to any explicit attempt to justify American Christians' disregarding the clear meaning of the text. They are not considered sins primarily because of cultural reasons that are rarely, if ever, explored by those within American culture. See earlier, "Let us reason together."

** You know, just like when President Clinton sent the National Guard into St. Patrick's Cathedral to force Archbishop O'Connor to bless the wedding of two divorced Roman Catholics. (Addendum: To clarify, no, that never happened. And it never could happen. Religious groups are free to perform wedddings only for members in good standing of their respective communities, and they are free to define for themselves such membership in good standing however they see fit. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage would not change that.)

*** H.L. Mencken's ungenerous definition of a demagogue: "One who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." In his defense, the old fart was, I think, hoping that by ridiculing suckers for being suckers he might provoke them to stop being suckers.

Comments

[forestwalker]

"How about lying and stealing? .... American Christians believe these are sins. American Christians are morally, ethically and theologically opposed to them. Yet neither 'anti-lying' nor 'anti-stealing' turns up as a common description of these Christians, let alone as the most common perception. And in neither case would this opposition be characterized as 'excessive contempt.'

Your conclusion to this series is very disappointing Fred. Of course it's the politics. And of course the Christian community is very ill-served by the demagogues that have so successfully politicized us. But the paragraph above screams out the glaring omission in your essay. If there were a concerted cultural shift underway to not only remove the social taboos against lying and stealing but to actually celebrate them as goods, Christians who resisted very likely would come to be perceived as vehemently anti-lying and anti-stealing. You've repeatedly pooh-pooh'ed the idea of 'innocent backlash' throughout this series (through assertion rather than argument). I would agree that 'innocent' is not a particularly accurate modifier, but 'backlash' is close enough to 'reactionary' that this large piece of the answer to, "So where'd it come from?," should not have been so easily dismissed.

[Jesurgislac]

zzyzx: I'm just saying that there has to be a way that a well meaning person could understand that the other person wanted them to stop.

"Stop." "No." "Ouch!" "Quit that."

I dunno. The discussion thread attached to PD's post was quite illuminating, but, it's not something I can really understand: If I'm making love to someone, I'm paying attention to her. Close, undivided, persistent attention. If she stops enjoying what I'm doing, I want to notice well before she actually asks me to stop - especially if "stop" means not "Wait a minute, I want to move these pillows and really get comfortable" but "No, stop, I'm not enjoying this, I changed my mind!" If she's not enjoying what I'm doing, I'm doing something wrong, and I'm going to notice and change what I'm doing before she starts wanting me to stop. (This is where talking during sex comes in useful, but I also like it when my partner gets completely incoherent.)

Whereas on discussion threads about "but how do you know she's consenting?" the tack being taken by a lot of men always seems to be "How unenthusiastic can she get about what I'm doing to her before I should have to realize that she's really not enjoying it?" and, judging by real-world events, that can include "Well,she was totally drunk but her eyes sort of opened and she might have said something that probably wasn't 'No', so I'm good."

[twig]

Reading Off Our Backs at an impressionable age leads to some interesting issues, although Dykes to Watch Out For made up for it.

Read Bechdel's "Fun Home" if you haven't yet. It's phenomonal.

[Geds]

Geds, I don't think Fred was trying to explain why many Christians of all flavors "think homosexuality is wrong."

The problem is that the politics would explain some perception of anti-gay, um, stuff, in Christianity. Guys getting on TV and ranting about it doesn't help.

But it doesn't explain an overwhelming response. In order to believe it's the case, nine out of ten non-Christians surveyed will have had to hear Pat Robertson spew anti-gay rhetoric and not met any Christians who disagreed.

Then there's the fact that 80 percent of churchgoers agree. That means that they have to have sat in a church week after week hearing anti-gay rhetoric and probably thinking it and neither argued against it nor heard anyone argue against. That can't just be politics.

Not by a long shot.

It's why I've been tossing my own speculations in on the comments, since I grew up and live in Wheaton, Illinois, home of Wheaton College and Tyndale. I know Christians exactly like the ones everyond else around here is trying to describe. Hell, I used to be one.

I never liked James Dobson, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I know a lot of fundievangelical Christians who don't. Yet there's a surprising overlap between people who don't like the above and still think homosexuality is a sin. I also had a youth pastor tell me that I wasn't being a good Christian if I wasn't out every day trying to stop abortions. That same youth pastor is now doing pre-marital for counseling a friend of mine and attempting to tell him and his fiancee that they should be working as hard as possible to make sure that God grants them the gifts of lots of kids and she can stay home to raise the young'ns, just like God wants the universe to work.

The problem is that this pastor, like a lot of Christians I know, will say that they choose their politics according to their version of Christianity and that it doesn't work the other way around.

Somebody upthread asked if the Republican Party made a deal with the evangelical right. They did after the 1948 Presidential election when everything told them Dewey was supposed to beat Truman, but Truman still won. It took a while to really manifest itself, but draw a line through Nixon to Reagan, then extend it onward and you get something real close to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, think about William Jennings Bryant and Huey Long. They didn't get elected even though they had strong messages and populist support. Think about George Wallace. There were enough racists in America to get Wallace the best third-party return since Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party, but it was still about 10% of the electorate.

George W. Bush was elected President.

Twice.

Even if there were electoral shenanigans on as large a scale as some would have us believe, there's no way Gee Dubs got less than 40% of the vote in either election, which is still four times that of George Wallace and better than popular former President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

Politicians might think that they can create perception. In some cases it's even true. But to say that the massively, massively anti-gay stance of the evangelical church in America is only about politics is wishful thinking. Then add in the fact that the Presbyterian and Lutheran and Catholic churches are all in the same boat.

I'm sorry, but we can't just blame it all on the higher-ups and call the rank and file unwitting dupes. That's too simplistic and ultimately shallow and wrong.

[Chuck]

Jeff: It took my a while to learn that the proper response is not "Bitch!", but "Work it! Fierce!" with an extra wiggle thrown in.

Seriously. If a woman were to comment on my ass, okay fine, she's probably making fun of me, but why not take it in the best light possible? In my experience, there's very little that can make you more attractive than just being confident. And what's confidence if not, "I'm so secure in myself that you can't make fun of me"?

Perhaps that's the other advantage to being a theater geek: There's nothing like being on stage to get you used to looking stupid in front of everyone you've ever met; and there's nothing like a co-ed dressing room to force you to be comfortable with people seeing your body.

[Chuck]

Jeff: I'd think there was a BIG problem. Occasional "yes" or "YES!", sure. But 'over and over for hours without interruption'? That sure sounds like a problem to me. So much so, I'd stop and make sure she really was OK.

I had that thought, too. Also, most people I've known (in the biblical sense) lose the ability to force coherant words as sex goes on. "Why'd you stop?! I was almost there!" "Sorry, you stopped saying 'yes' so I couldn't be sure I had consent."

Not being into S&M, I respect both "No" and "Ow" as universal safewords. "Stop", especially in the thick of things, can often mean, "I'm about to give you different instructions, but nothing's actually stopping". "Ow" pretty much always means "Stop everything and wait for an explanation."

[Jesurgislac]

Geds: I'm sorry, but we can't just blame it all on the higher-ups and call the rank and file unwitting dupes. That's too simplistic and ultimately shallow and wrong.

Given that Bush still has 27% approval ratings, I'd say that's a lot of people who are still unwitting dupes.

[Ken]

Well, I read somewhere on the Web that judging from sermon and publication materials, a lot of Evangelicals have a New Trinity of "Homosexuality, Evolution, and Abortion".

Though I think some of it might be due to gay activists becoming very In-Your-Face. I've seen the same phenomenon at work in Furry Fandom and among Christians. It's why you get Zoos/Babyfurs/Fred Phelpses hogging the camera and media, keeping the highest profile, becoming de facto spokesholes for the entire group. Because the let-it-all-hang-out crazies have no jobs or lives to take time away from 24/7/365 self-indulgence and self-promotion.

...wife-beating apologist James Dobson -- the self-proclaimed spokesmen and self-appointed magisterium of the religious right. -- Slacktivist

I never heard this about Dobson before. Could you point me to the source?

And, Slack, when you get on a roll like this, you get as frenzied and carried-away as any Pentecostal preacher tonguing away in the hollers of Western Kentucky.

Huey Long. They didn't get elected even though they had strong messages and populist support.

Geds, The Kingfish was assasinated in September 1935, well before he had a chance to actively campaign for the presidency.

[Ken]

Like a lot of people, they feel the modern world is chaotic, confusing, and threatening. So they envision retreating to a simpler, more innocent time. -- McJulie

Do any of you remember the opening theme from All in the Family, as sung by Archie & Edith Bunker?

[Tonio]

Cyllan, excellent point about homosexuality being a lightning rod for fears about changing gender roles and family dynamics.

Your suggestion that "people who have power don't like to give it up easily" is technically accurate but misses the larger point. I doubt that the reaction is a conscious one based in narrow self-interest. Instead, I suggest that the reaction is an unconscious one based in the universal need for security, and the conservative Chrisitan husbands draw security from their sense of power. Perhaps the wives in the conservative Christian families feel less secure when faced with social change, but not to the same degree.

"Could it have been the foot you were chewing on?"

Jeff, the Idi Amin comment happend during junior high when I wasn't trying to feign interest in football. The boy came up to me and said it at a moment when I wasn't talking with anyone. In fact, I don't remember ever talking to him.

[ako]

But it doesn't explain an overwhelming response. In order to believe it's the case, nine out of ten non-Christians surveyed will have had to hear Pat Robertson spew anti-gay rhetoric and not met any Christians who disagreed.

Not necessarily. Some of it's how much, and in how much depth you're exposed to each perspective. Most people don't carefully consider survey questions for potential nuances (one of the reasons there's so much room to manipulate surveys; if you can get it so what people think you mean isn't quite the same as what your statement says, people tend to answer what they think). So, if someone repeatedly hears the "homosexuality is against God" arguments presented both loudly and in-depth, and don't hear much opposing religious argument, then it's easy to form a less-than-rational impression that homophobia and Christianity are closely tied. Which, depending on how the survey was done, could produce those results.

I know, being lesbian and not religious, I wind up getting exposed to way more religious justifications for homophobia than religious expressions of acceptance. This is somewhat influenced by my own interests, and the kind of media I tend to seek out. I don't have any particular need or urge to find out what opinion any deity takes on my sexual orientation. So I'm hardly going to seek out "Why God doesn't hate homosexuality" religious arguments. I do, however, care a great deal about my political rights. Which means knowing something about the people trying to take them away, and what they're claiming. So I tend to hear a lot more religious arguments against homosexuality than for it. Which, if I don't think about my own selection bias, can distort the whole picture.

Also, I think the homophobes might be better at being loud and attention-getting, and more shameless about asserting "This is what the Bible says!" instead of "It makes sense to interpret the texts in this fashion." Put the whole thing together, and it's easy to create a picture of what the 'major' or 'real' Christian view is, and still know people who express something different.

[cjmr]

Do any of you remember the opening theme from All in the Family

Ah. This, you mean?

"Boy, the way Glen Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade. Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days! Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight Gee, our old LaSalle (a car) ran great. Those were the days! And you knew where you were then! Girls were girls and men were men. Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again. People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent. Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days! Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win. Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin (five dollar bill). Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song. I don't know just what went wrong! Those Were the Days!"

[zzyzx]

"Stop." "No." "Ouch!" "Quit that."

Well duh. Those also are messages to stop. Just to give perspective, I wasn't looking for ways to get off the hook legally. Rather, my terror was that I would ruin someone's life and not even know that I was doing it. At the time I was reading all of these letters where people talked about giving extremely subtle signals (or even pretended to be enjoying themselves because they were so intimidated by the man), I didn't have enough interpersonal experience to know that their reactions weren't as common as reading letter after letter made them out to be.

[Ken]

I'm a hetero man who has always been more interested in books than in sports. In my school, that was tantamount to wearing a pink triangle. I tried talking about football with the other guys to make myself seem stereotypically macho, but my ignorance about the sport and the teams was probably obvious. Because I wasn't being accepted, I became reclusive and didn't socialize. During high school I spent almost all my evenings and weekends in my room. I didn't have my first date until I was 20. Even today, I'm uncomfortable around men from such stereotypically male fields as sports, the military, and construction, because I worry that in their eyes "I'm gay until proven straight." -- Tonio

Tonio, that sounds like the standard high school career for first-generation F&SF fans. My high school experience was similar, except I didn't have my first date until I was 26 and I never got the "gay until proven straight" vibe from military/construction types. (At least not since I got into college.)

It might because I discovered SF fandom shortly after high school, and was able to achieve critical mass with others like me. (As long as you have the common interests with the rest of the fandom and can keep up with them, fandoms usually don't care who or what you are.)

Plus, I tend to get along much better with rural redneck types than with the latte-swilling metrosexual yuppies my age, marital status, profession, and income should lump me into. (And does, judging from the junk mail and spam I keep getting.) Piss off a redneck, and he'll get in your face, face-to-face, directly and physically. Piss off a Sophisticated Metrosexual, and he'll smile in your face, tell you about his concern and compassion for you -- then stab you in the back with a lawyer six months later. I like my fights stand-up and face-to-face.

[Geds]

Um, Jesu, you're not over here. Specifically, you're not in red-state America. There are plenty of people who have damn good reasons to keep supporting Bush.

Well, damn good reasons in their own minds, at least.

The whole idea that it's hate preachers on TV keeping the real, loving, caring Christians from being seen by the rest of the world is the flipside to the old, "The Devil made me do it," argument. Without the Devil people would still do crappy things to each other and find ways to cause pain and torment. Without Pat Robertson, Fundamentalists would still figure out exactly who they can safely hate.

It's shallow theology as much as it's shallow politics.

Go sit in an American Bible or Baptist church. You'll get a sermon about how you're supposed to behave. Even if the expected behavior is, "Love one another," or, "Cause no harm," it will still end with a bullet point list of the pastor's ideas about how best to go about doing that. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to end a message like that with the lists of things you are and are not allowed to do.

There was a campus ministry at my school that had a rule that the student leaders all had to live in the co-ed frathouse-like structure they had just off campus and weren't allowed to hang out with people who might reflect badly on the group's oh so Christian image. When I heard that I started laughing. How else do you respond to a "Christian" group that wouldn't accept Jesus Christ as a leader?

They didn't have that rule because of politics. They had that rule because of a stupid, shallow, thoughtless theology that did not look to helping or being salt and light to the world but to separating themselves and letting everyone know how great they were.

There were lots of people, some of them friends, who went along with it. Some people didn't know they were doing something that was patently offensive and wrong. Some did it because they didn't know better. Some just signed the document and did their own thing, anyway. Some thought they were being subversive and would change it from the inside. Some simply thought that Christianity is little more than a set of rules. Some did it because they genuinely didn't like people who weren't like them.

So maybe some of that 80% of the churchgoing world who think that anti-gay and Christian are the same thing are unwitting dupes. I'd never say it's all of them. I'd be hard-pressed to say it's half. There are a lot of Christians out there who go along with the flow who should and do know better.

The unwitting dupes argument doesn't work for them and it never will.

[Tonio]

"If a woman were to comment on my ass, okay fine, she's probably making fun of me, but why not take it in the best light possible?"

Because there are only two reasons that people make fun of you - either you did something wrong or something is wrong with you. There is no way to put either of those in a good light. In your example, what that woman is saying is that she only approves of you as long as you fulfill her expectations.

"Do any of you remember the opening theme from All in the Family, as sung by Archie & Edith Bunker?"

Ken, excellent point. Archie Bunker is a non-evangelical version of the phenomenon I've been talking about. He's not evil, he's simply mired in ignorance and fear, and his fear leads him to hate anyone who is different.

[Mat]

tries very hard to squelch the immediate mental image of Hillary and Margaret getting it on

Ironically, I think that thanks to this thread I am now gay.

[Geds]

anon @ 2:41:

Dangit, you're right. I tend to get the timeline of Huey Long's assassination and George Wallace's attempted assassination confused and think that Long got farther than he did...

[Ken]

"Boy, the way Glen Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade. Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days! ..." -- cjmr

Yes. Notice what the song is saying; it's your insight into Archie Bunker. The fuel of Archie's bigotry, according to Norman Lear, was not hatred but fear. Archie Bunker is not hateful, he's afraid of what has happened around him. The world has changed radically ("chaotic, confusing, and threatening"), and he's coping with the Future Shock by fighting off change and returning to "a simpler, more innocent time" -- at least within the walls of his blue-collar duplex row house in Queens.

turn off italics.

[zzyzx]

Closing your italics I think this will work.

[Tonio]

"Tonio, that sounds like the standard high school career for first-generation F&SF fans."

Ken, in high school I stayed away from SF and D&D and the fans of those things, because I wanted social acceptance and the last thing I wanted is to be associated with (other) outcasts. I'm not proud of that small-minded reaction.

"Piss off a redneck, and he'll get in your face, face-to-face, directly and physically."

The type of redneck you describe gets in your face because he doesn't like who you are, not necessarily because you've done anything to him.

[Cyllan]

Your suggestion that "people who have power don't like to give it up easily" is technically accurate but misses the larger point. I doubt that the reaction is a conscious one based in narrow self-interest.

I don't necessarily think that the reaction is a conscious decision either. "Power" is perhaps an overly loaded word for this particular discussion; it could easily be replaced with "security" as you suggested or "sense of control." When confronted with the loss of any of those things, I think that most people will do their best to hold on as tightly as they can to what they have. Grabbing on in this fashion doesn't have to be (and probably generally isn't) a conscious decision.

[ako]

Because there are only two reasons that people make fun of you - either you did something wrong or something is wrong with you.

What do you consider 'wrong'? Because if 'wrong' means 'can be made fun of', your statement's a tautology. It just means that people only make fun of you if you have a feature they can make fun of.

And if you're talking about wrong as in bad, I have to disagree. Plenty of people will mock others because of their own problems, not because something in the other person causes the mockery. Making fun of others can be a way to gain social status, get an ego boost, or distract others from what's wrong with the mocker (I'm sure plenty of slacktivites will offer up other reasons). If you get pleasure or benefits from the act of making fun of people, you'll be more motivated to find, or invent reasons to make fun on them. It might not indicate any flaw in the person being made fun of at all (again, unless you define flaws as things that get made fun of, which is back to tautologies).

[Tonio]

"It just means that people only make fun of you if you have a feature they can make fun of."

The ridicule means (in the big scheme of things) you don't measure up to some expectation or standard. So any such feature amounts to a defect.

"Plenty of people will mock others because of their own problems, not because something in the other person causes the mockery."

I know that intellectionally. But emotionally, it feels like the problem is me. If I could have changed something about myself, maybe my classmates would have left me alone.

[Tonio]

"Intellectionally"? When did I start talking like President Bush?

[Chuck]

Tonio: Because there are only two reasons that people make fun of you - either you did something wrong or something is wrong with you. There is no way to put either of those in a good light. In your example, what that woman is saying is that she only approves of you as long as you fulfill her expectations.

Bull puckey! People make fun of you to feel better about themselves, justifying their self-image or worldview. They make fun of you to make you a target and take the heat of themselves. They make fun of you for the sheer enjoyment of it. Does this mean that something is "wrong" with you, that you're a target? Gods, no. You can get made fun of for "trying too hard" to conform.

The greatest decision I ever made was to ignore the "popular" crowd and hang out with people who I liked, and to like myself for being me, not for who I could mold myself into.

And people respected me for it. My mother was very concerned during my freshman year of high school, because she kept hearing horror stories of hazing from parents whose kids were trying desperately to "fit in." (The closest I ever got to hazing was being convinced to trade a Birds of Paradise for two Fireballs and a stack of land.) People only have power over you if you give it to them, after all, especially in high school where no one actually has any power.

As for the woman who "only approves of you as long as you fulfill her expectations", okay, so what? It doesn't matter if she approves of me. If she's impressed by that, sweet. If not, screw her, there's a soprano section in need of a few low notes over here...

[Chuck]

...and you apparently had that conversation with ako while I was typing. Ah, well.

[mmack]

anon @ 2:41:

Geds, that was me! Just lookin' out for you.

Trust me to post when Fred's uploading a new chapter of Left Behind. No wonder Thinkpad was so slow.

[Tonio]

"People make fun of you to feel better about themselves, justifying their self-image or worldview. They make fun of you to make you a target and take the heat of themselves."

Again, that doesn't feel true for me. It feels like I'm bringing it on myself.

"It doesn't matter if she approves of me."

When I receive disapproval or when I'm the target of anger, I expect something bad to happen to me. I expect people to become violent when they become angry. I expect people to act like Nigel Hawthorne in "The Madness of King George," where I have to walk on eggshells around them.

[hapax]

The ridicule means (in the big scheme of things) you don't measure up to some expectation or standard. So any such feature amounts to a defect.

Tonio, I've noticed in this and a lot of other threads that you seem to mentally equate "expectations" with "judgment" with "truth."

Everybody has expectations of everybody else. Even here, we generally expect (at minimum) a passable degree of coherence and courtesy, a consistent handle, and closing html tags.

Just about everybody fails to meet these expectations at one point or other. We often make fun of others (or ourselves) when we fall short. But nobody thinks of other posters as BAD PEOPLE when they do! (Or at least, I don't think anyone says so out loud. And, if anyone were so judgmental, that doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry if I'm playing Junior Psychologist here, but I think it is very important that you stop internalizing other people's expectations, transforming them into statements of worth, and acknowledging their truth. No matter how much you reason, plead, hector, or cajole, you can't do anything to stop every other person in the world to stop having standards and expectations. All you can control is your own response to it.

[Chuck]

Tonio: I expect people to act like Nigel Hawthorne in "The Madness of King George," where I have to walk on eggshells around them.

("The king's water! It's blue!")

Well, to be blunt, then that is your problem. I'm not sure I should go so far as to say something's wrong with you (That depends on your definition of "wrong"), but certainly, that if you want respect and approval you'll never get, and read other people's faults as your own, you're going to have a hard time of things.

Of course, even when you grasp that intellectually, it's hard to understand it emotionally. It's somewhere between a bad habit and a phobia.

[Jeff]

Not being into S&M, I respect both "No" and "Ow" as universal safewords. "Stop", especially in the thick of things, can often mean, "I'm about to give you different instructions, but nothing's actually stopping". "Ow" pretty much always means "Stop everything and wait for an explanation."

My girlfriend and I do a lot of tickle-play. If we're not tickling, or similar, "No", "Ow" and "Stop" all mean the same thing. When we are doing tickle-play, we want to go (at least a little) beyond our comfort-zone, and saying "Stop" is too automatic. The safeword gets us out of bounds but not over the line.

Tonio, all I can say is that there's a lot of us who've had the same experience as you. If you desire change, this is a pretty safe place to help.

[Geds]

Geds, that was me! Just lookin' out for you.

Thank you, Sir. Say, "Hi," to the missus for me.

And with that I've convinced myself I've been up way too long and need to take a nap.

Or offer up a rambling, somewhat-on-topic dissection of the episode of Jeremiah I just watched...

[Tonio]

"No matter how much you reason, plead, hector, or cajole, you can't do anything to stop every other person in the world to stop having standards and expectations. All you can control is your own response to it."

I don't like feeling like I'm at fault whenever someone doesn't like me or mistreats me. The alternative is feeling completely at the whim of other people's moods. It's somewhat like being a young child of an emotionally unstable alcoholic. It feels like pleasing people is the only way I can stay alive.

"It's somewhere between a bad habit and a phobia."

For what it's worth, there have been a few times when I've gotten nauseous and dizzy when my wife has gotten angry at me.

[Chuck]

Tonio: Not to get all Carolyn Hax on you, but have you considered therapy? This is obviously something that significantly impacts your life.

[ako]

The ridicule means (in the big scheme of things) you don't measure up to some expectation or standard. So any such feature amounts to a defect.

No, the ridicule means that you were unlucky. People who go out of their way to hurtfully mock others aren't systematically looking over groups to pick out the defective ones; they're (excuse the language) flinging shit around to see what sticks. They'll avoid people who they're scared of, but aside from that it boils down to standing near them when they've got something to throw. Just because you got hit that particular moment doesn't mean you're somehow defective or causing people to fling shit at you. It means you were there, people looking to be nasty noticed you, and they weren't too scared to go through with it.

Again, that doesn't feel true for me. It feels like I'm bringing it on myself.

I think reminding yourself that it isn't true helps. Obviously, just saying that doesn't make the feelings go away, but persistently reminding yourself of the rational truth can weaken the power of of the feelings. Knowing that the emotional response is understandable, but not true, and reminding yourself, can help.

[Tonio]

Just because you got hit that particular moment doesn't mean you're somehow defective or causing people to fling shit at you.

I recognize that. I'm saying their behavior evokes feelings of danger in me, and I suspect that over time I've unconsciously denied the danger by blaming their behavior on myself.

[ako]

I recognize that. I'm saying their behavior evokes feelings of danger in me, and I suspect that over time I've unconsciously denied the danger by blaming their behavior on myself.

Makes sense. I've heard of people doing that a lot. The whole 'if I'm causing it, I can control it and maybe prevent it' thing. It does sound like it might be worthwhile to consider counseling or something. Obviously, that's up to you. It might help.

[Jeff Weskamp]

"Homosexuals don't actually present any kind of threat at all to American evangelicals."

Quite true. However, many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals claim that God will punish all America for the increasing tolerance for homosexuals. I have heard some of these folks claim that we will ALL be punished along with the gays when God starts emptying his Bowls of Wrath upon us (something about Christians not speaking out enough against gayness, or something...). So indirectly, they do believe that gays pose a threat to them. Apparently, their version of God is so darned sloppy in applying His Wraths that He hits innocent people. Oh, well, it's just "collateral damage," you know!

[Tonio]

Jeff, when I first read your post, I thought you wrote Bowels of Wrath. Is there any mention in Revelation to spoiled shrimp?

[hapax]

Bowels of Wrath.

Now I can't erase the image of Jung's dream of Basel cathedral...

Behold the great outpouring of the Bowels of Wrath...in my pants!

[Tonio]

Hapax, I know little about Jung and I wasn't familiar with that story.

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff; However, many Fundamenthttp://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/11/gay-hatin-gospe.html
slacktivist: Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 5)alists and Evangelicals claim that God will punish all America for the increasing tolerance for homosexuals.

Exemplified by Fred Phelps, who thinks soldiers are dying in Iraq because God hates America, or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who thought al-Qaeda crashed planes into the WTC because of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way", or the various nutters who asserted that God sent a hurricane to destroy New Orleans or forest fires to destroy California because God hates gays and has really bad aim? Yep.

If I can suggest a follow-up post, Fred, the Christians reacting badly to J. K. Rowling announcing that Dumbledore was gay almost need a theory of their own. There's the woman who shut down a mailing list because she couldn't deal; a Catholic blog with a whole bunch of people complaining; a creepy rant from one poor fan who seems to think that Rowling outing Dumbledore was a deliberate outrage to Christianity; and a 51-comment thread about it on Fantasy Fiction for Christians. And that's just a sampling. All of them suckered by Pat Robertson et al?

[cjmr]

And, mind you, Jes actually linked to some relatively mild anti-Dumbledore-disclosure stuff. I read much worse.

[Jesurgislac]

Oh, so did I. But there are limits about what I'll link to.

[Rosina]

I'm not sure what age Deathly Hallows would be suitable for - the reading levels of the books have risen during the series (possibly faster than that of the original child readers). But I would insist that all children 13 and over (or even earlier) study The Charioteer for the clash between Christianity and homosexuality. Set text, and it can double as the obligatory WW2 literature. Ralph/Laurie OTP*, and Andrew is as bad an example of Christian (in)tolerance as Straike. They can then go on to The Last of the Wine, Mask of Apollo and the Alexandriad. Before tackling the Dumbledore horror.

*Is that the correct fannish designation?

[No One of Consequence]

Posted by: Tonio | Nov 02, 2007 at 02:55 PM:
Ken, excellent point. Archie Bunker is a non-evangelical version of the phenomenon I've been talking about. He's not evil, he's simply mired in ignorance and fear, and his fear leads him to hate anyone who is different.

This is wrong. Being mired in ignorance and fear, he takes the conscious, willing act to hate and to act on that hate, and that is evil, making Archie evil. Archie was as ignorant as he chose to be.

It is entirely possible to shoot a cop out of fear. But unless you can make a case to the jury that that fear was reasonable, you will go to prison for it. Bunker's fear wasn't reasonable. It was a choice, and an evil one because it caused harm for the sake of his self-aggradizement.

I disagree with Cyllan, upthread, on this issue. When it comes to long-term opposition to a group, there is very much a conscious decision involved. I grew up with people who despised homosexuals. They were very much aware of what they were doing.

This is also the simpler explanation of evangelicals. The anti-homosexual rightwing isn't stupid. It isn't all that ignorant -- that is, it's more willingly ignorant than suffering from a lack of experience. They're not stupid -- they're bad.

They weren't stupid when they hated blacks. They were bad. They're bad now.

(And some still hate blacks. I come from Southern Christian backgrounds. It's surreal to belong to a general religious practice that could, two churches over, be demonizing you, quietly, because of your skin color. Actual Christians in the U.S. are, I'm betting, relatively few in number. Christianity is a vast cultural movement but a small faith.)