What’s Wrong with That Word?

I haven’t always been the most sensitive person with my speech (and, for that matter, with my views concerning minority groups that I do not belong to that influence that speech). For example, one of my most regrettable mistakes that I can recall is using the “it” phrase in reference to a coworker who was gender nonconforming. I knew almost immediately that what I had said was wrong (even though the person I was talking about never heard it), and the memory of that sinking feeling of guilt is burned into my brain as a reminder to always try to do better. I’m not sure, but that might have been the moment that changed my outlook on the power of what I say to hurt and hinder or include and help others.

Over the past few years, I have worked to make the language I use everyday more inclusive of the diverse perspectives I want my worldview to encompass. When I realize a phrase has a meaning that I was not aware of, whether outright offensive or simply evolved from divisive terms, I make an effort to remove that phrase from my vernacular (those that are offensive I stop using immediately, while those that that aren’t I usually look for alternative ways to express what I mean). This process isn’t always easy; in fact, sometimes it can be downright difficult (especially if the phrase is something I use on a regular basis). But that doesn’t change the fact that it is necessary if I wish to be a more inclusive and ethical being.

I was reminded of my focus on improving my language the other day in one of my philosophy class. The first two reading assignments in this class are The Iliad and The Odyssey. In this particular class session, we were just moving from finishing The Iliad to beginning The Odyssey. One of the topics we have been discussing is the role/treatment of women in the writings*. (Of course, for those of you who don’t know, it’s not very good, especially in The Iliad where women are mostly mentioned as prizes and possessions.) A question was brought up about why women in The Odyssey are, very often, seen weaving or spinning. One female student responded that these tasks were the “natural role for women.”

“Natural”? I find that this word is very often misused, and it is misused in this very context. First of all, what do we mean by natural? Well, that can be difficult given the different connotations that the word has in different contexts. However, I think when someone talks about a “natural role for women [or men]” they are most likely referencing the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate. In this debate, something would be natural if it is only influenced by our genes. In other words, something can only be deemed “natural” if it would be expressed in anyone, with a certain gene, born anywhere without regard to how they are influenced by culture.

I can remember in my first psychology class my professor talking about how little girls tend to develop fine motor skills earlier than boys, boys tend to have better hand-eye coordination, women tend to be more artistic, and men tend to be more mathematical. Then she said something extremely important: “But remember, we are all socialized.”

From a very early age, we are already being “taught” how we are to behave according to our gender (or more accurately, our assumed gender). (There is even research that suggests that it starts from birth in the way we, as adults, treat boys and girls differently.) What tasks we are suppose to take on. How we are to play. These are all a part of our training. Of course, the majority parents don’t realize what they are doing. No one is given a direct command, when they become a parent, that they must instruct their child on how to be a girl or a boy**, and this makes it hard for us to notice these subtle influences.

So how much of this difference between the genders is natural? Well, that’s a complex question that, unfortunately, I can’t answer. There are many different views (some more valid than others) on this. Some say that none of it is natural and that our perceived differences are only a result of culture and the process of socialization. There is some validity in the idea that our concepts of gender may be highly influenced by culture, but, in my opinion, there isn’t any evidence to suggest that there is no influence from our genetics. On the other hand, there are those that claim that gender roles are merely a product of purely natural differences. I have a hard time seeing any redeeming qualities in this side. And the biggest problem I have with either side is that, followed to their logical conclusions, both ideas lead to some problematic views concerning trans individuals (including absolute denial of their existence***).

However, what I view as most important in this issue is that we question whether we have enough evidence to call something natural before we claim that it is. By assuming that certain traits are inborn when there is no proof that they are, we limit our cognitive powers (sorry, I’ve been reading too much Kant lately) to “truths” that we can’t substantiate and we have no reason to assume are valid. We are, in a sense, building a roadblock to our progress, and, for the most part, we are completely unaware.

Want to join the conversation? Please review the comment policy.

*There are actually a couple of different views that were brought up about this that I could blog about. One of them being that several of the students seemed to have this “oh, women are treated so much better in The Odyssey, therefore all those sexist thoughts are solved.” This, of course, ignores the fact that really the treatment didn’t improve that much.

**In my experience (a former religious individual), I think you might be able to argue that there is an exception here when it comes to certain socially conservative religions. I grew up in an environment where parents where told by preachers that it was there God-given duty to instruct their sons and daughters on how to fulfill their roles as either. My only reason for not giving much time to this idea is that, I believe, it is secondary to the concept of gender. That is to say, you must already accept the idea of separate gender roles to arrive at the conclusion that a parent must take an active role in forming those roles.

***This can happen on both the nature and nurture side. “Only your genes determine your gender” vs. “No one’s really trans, we just need to rise above gender roles.”

The Power of Fiction

Since I’m out of school, I have a lot of time on my hands (time that I could be way more productive with). One thing I’ve been doing with my time is watching a lot of TV and movies. Someone suggested that I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer because I had never seen it before (yes, I know, I lived a sheltered life in the 90s).

In the fourth season, Willow’s story arc involves the leaving of her boyfriend, Oz, and her developing a relationship with a fellow (female) witch, Tara. When Oz comes back, Willow is left with the difficult decision of who to be with. She realizes that she still has feelings for Oz, but that she can’t ignore the deep relationship she has with Tara. She doesn’t want to hurt either one, but knows that she must choose one or the other.

While watching this story unfold, I had a thought that I’ve had quite often: why not date both? In a polyamorous relationship, not a cheating sense. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have an openly poly (good) character?

Too often, characters who date more than one person are used to reinforce monogamy as the only suitable relationship state. In the fourth season of Bones, there is an episode where we learn that Dr. Brennan is seeing two different men. She makes some pretty good arguments about why monogamy is flawed. However, Brennan is not being honest with the two men and is keeping her dual relationships a secret to both of them. In the end, her secret comes out, and they both dump her. End lesson: anything other than monogamy leads to disaster. This portrayal is flawed, of course. In a truly poly relationship, all parties should be fully informed of other relationships.

Last night, I tweeted my desire to see an openly poly protagonist in a show or movie. I got a response asking me if a documentary would suffice. Documentaries have a distinct audience. You’re not going to hear a majority of people raving about the newest documentary. That being said, documentaries do work to make people aware of something they might not have come across any other way. They can make us think about life from someone else’s perspective and may change our opinions. However, they can also make us aware of something that we still think is “wrong” or “weird”. Documentaries, in my opinion, have limited affect on society.

So why do I think it’s more important to have a fictional character that is poly? Simple: fiction has a lot of power over the way we think about things. One of the things I have loved about my literature classes is seeing how a writer could weave a new concept into a story during a time when it would not have gone over well with the general public. I even wrote 5 papers about this with an emphasis on the topic of race in writing. (I’m sure I annoyed the hell out of that professor. I imagine that by the time he got the 5th paper he could predict what my topic was.) This is best said in a line from the movie Anonymous:

“All art is political, Johnson. Otherwise, it would just be decoration. And all artists have something to say. Otherwise, they’d make shoes.”

Any writer who says they don’t have an ideas to get across is either lying or in it only for the money*. The point of writing fiction is to try out new ideas that one cannot in our reality. You can sneak ideas into the readers consciousness that they would never even consider in life. Once a reader makes a connection to a character, they will face some cognitive dissonance if they’re favorite character is doing something they deem wrong or shameful. The reader will have to examine these new ideas, which can lead to a change in their views. Fiction changes minds more than you think.

I want to make something very clear, though. Writers are not trying to brainwash people. You have control over your mind (to a point, of course); I, or any other writer, can’t infiltrate it and plant control devices. Writers are doing the same thing anyone who is trying to show why their point of view is better is doing. We just use different methods. I have no desire to control anyone, but I do desire to make things better and, hopefully, encourage people to try and understand other points of view.

Want to join the conversation? Please review the comment policy.

*Writing simply to make money seems odd to me. Having something published (unless you;re helped along by fame or family) is rarely a sure thing, and even if you get published there is no way to know how well the work will be received. Choosing to become a writer is a gamble, and I’d say that most people who write don’t choose it. Unfortunately, it chose me. I explain to people that I “suffer the literary muse” with emphasis on the suffer part. It’s rarely enjoyable for me.

A Journey That Lead Me Here

So this writing a new post every day thing is getting tough. Before I actually come to write, I can think of plenty of topics. Once I get to this page, nothing. Or I have things to say but I just don’t think I can do the topic justice. Two more months of this?! I’m not going to say I think I can’t do it; I’m just going to keep telling myself I can. Even though I feel like I’m staring down an unending path and being told the end of my suffering is “Just down there a ways.” Well, today I think I’ll continue my posts about Buddhism. This one is going to be less informative about Buddhism and more about why I call myself Atheist and Buddhist.

Most people find their way to a belief system by either being born into it (taught from the day their born) or by searching for meaning and answers in the world. Most religions love the second group; they’re just so…pliable. Easier to convert because they’ll accept just about anything. And we, as atheists/agnostics, see this problem and seek to stop religion’s hold. But sometimes, we make the mistake of assuming that everyone who chooses religion is “weak-minded.”

I got my first taste of Buddhism in a weird way. Okay, maybe it wasn’t weird. Just not a “traditional” way to go about religion. On the other hand, maybe it fits Buddhism perfectly. It was in a philosophy class. We weren’t studying Buddhism, but one of our readings touched on the No-Self Theory* as presented in Buddhist teachings. (This theory is not unique to Buddhism, but is a central theme to Buddhists.) I was immediately attracted to this theory. It made a lot of sense to me (judging by the discussion in class, I may have been the only one who didn’t have a hard time understanding this theory). But I left it there. I wasn’t interested in finding a religion to follow. I wasn’t searching for meaning, although it could be said that I am always looking for answers…just not to the questions of how the world came to be and what my purpose in it is.

The next interaction I had with Buddhism was in a world religions class months later. To begin the class, we had discussions about religion in general. If it was important, its characteristics, why it cause such strong reactions, etc. In this discussion, one young woman mentioned that she had been an atheist and had become a Buddhist. My instant reaction was to question (to myself) how someone could do such a thing. But there was something that struck me about this individual, something I had noticed about the few other Buddhists come across in my life, she was so…peaceful. No matter how heated a conversation got, she was able to respond without raising her voice or any hint of derision. In that, I respected her quite a bit.

I approached our study of Buddhism the same way I would approach any religion: with a critical analysis and really trying to understand. But something happened that I didn’t expect. I actually agreed with the tenets of Buddhism. I wanted to know more. What about all that ritual stuff that the major schools are full of? Is that required?

So I did some more research. I found out that the only thing required in the Buddhist philosophy was to accept the Four Noble Truths and follow the Noble Eightfold Path. None of which required a belief in the supernatural or an emphasis on ritual. Plus, I already agreed with most of it (the rest was a logical conclusion from what I did already accept). I learned that approaches to Buddhism were just about as varied as the people who practiced it. This is due to the fact that its focus is on individual experience and not dogmatic observance to rules and restrictions.

I became a Buddhist. So…that means I’m not an atheist, right? Absolutely not! I still don’t believe in a god, or anything supernatural for that matter. That qualifies me as an atheist. And I still think that fighting the dangers of religion is important. I don’t even hold special privilege for Buddhism (of course, I’d like for people to try and understand it first and not accidentally strawperson it); it should be critically analyzed just like any other idea.

I’m Buddhist because I understand that my life is connected to everyone else, and I owe it to them to make choices that minimize negative impacts on them. I’m Buddhist because I seek to live in harmony with the world around me, not fight against it. Some non-Buddhist hold these views too. For me, Buddhism offered the structure that work in my life. Doesn’t mean it does for everyone. And I know that.

Want to join the conversation? Please review the comment policy.

*Basically, the No-Self Theory presents the idea that there is no true “self.” We are just made up of labels that have little bearing on us. For instance, if I say, “I’m a writer, student and daughter” none of these are actually ME. Sure, I’m a writer, but if I removed that label would I stop being me? Of course not. At some point in time, I won’t be a student anymore, so that label can’t be what I am in my truest self. As we go on, we realize that these labels are just used for convenience. They are not the our “self”.

Poetry Post: A Rant

I told you the poetry was coming. This one is really rough because I just wrote it. It is inspired by my thoughts about the atheist/free-thought community. I’ve found people I really like, but I’ve also come across people who, in my opinion, just want to fight. Thanks to Anna for inspiring me to turn my rant into a poem. Check out her blog.

A Rant

I like who I am
You won’t change me
By hurling insults at me

I don’t believe in god
And I want a community
We’re on the same team
Why do you have to attack me?

All I want is a discussion
To help change wrong thinking
To encourage thinking
We don’t all have to think the same way
Although you seem to believe we do

Sometimes I think the religious are right
You’re just looking for a fight
Only you can be right
And anyone who disagrees
Even a little
Is your enemy

But I believe
That we can disagree with each other
And still respect each other

Somethings will never be answered
And I’m fine with leaving room
For more than one interpretation
But if there isn’t room for that
Here
In this community
Maybe I don’t want to be here

Want to join the conversation? Please review the comment policy.