Prejudice

Sight, Sources, Statistics and Science

Standard

Social media provocateurs love to push popular controversies to generate clicks on their sites and get those heated comments sections.  The question about the gender of two boxers in the female category of the competition was that perfect story.  It was not straight up or settled, but generated a lot of strong opinions on both sides.

For myself, it is fairly evident that these two boxers do have a competitive advantage or they would not have won in their respective divisions.  I mean, that’s not even a matter of dispute.  An advantage is how anyone wins an athletic contest and it doesn’t mean they cheated.  However, when not only one but two people with the same extremely rare and potentially enhanced condition—both get the gold?  What are the odds?

Only one out of 500,000 people in the world go to the Olympics.  But, of course, nothing is ever that simple.  Those who live in small countries, like Algeria or Taiwan, have a far greater chance of representing their home countries simply because there are fewer people to fill the same spots.  And then not everyone in the world is competing to be in the Olympics.  Most of us don’t try out.  It is sort of like my being sixth while wrestling in the Eastern National AAUs—many superior to me simply didn’t make the trip.

But to go to Paris and beat everyone?  There is a reason why we give precious medals to those who do.  It is one thing to be that PhD who identified as a breakdancer and ended up scoring zero, it is quite another to get on the podium.  There were 124 boxers in the female category, divided into six different weight classes, and went through three qualification tournaments.  This is certainly not an easy road.  The champion is one out of every woman in the world who can make that weight and is into boxing.

There is speculation that those two boxers who had been disqualified from IBA fights due to failed gender tests—and masculine appearance—is they may have a disorder called Swyer syndrome.  This isn’t a fact, but it would explain why they would have been declared women at birth and always identified as women.  Those with this very rare condition have a male Y chromosome despite their female sexual hardware and offer no male advantage.  

However, it is also possible that the two have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which impacts 2-5 out of 100,000 females, which means they would have characteristics of a female outwardly but also have male testes that are undescended.  Severe AIS wouldn’t confer an athletic advantage, according to the sources I’ve read, and yet that does not tell us anything about milder cases.  

Still, the conversation can’t end there, we have other possibilities:

Some press reports have mentioned 5alpha-reductase type 2 deficiency.  This rare syndrome is best reported in the Güevedoces in the Dominican Republic.  Affected XY individuals are apparently female at birth because they can’t activate sufficient testosterone to the much more potent dihydrotestosterone to masculine in utero and thus appear female (the default gender in the absence of masculinising hormones).  However, they have testes in what appear to be labia.  At puberty, the testes produce much more testosterone sufficient to activate receptors and masculinise the child.  Such subtleties are beyond the capacity of most regulatory bodies to accommodate.

The chances of two women with these rare chromosomal disorders somehow making it to the Olympics would be incredibly low.  For example, Swyer Syndrome is around 1 in 80,000 births.  So multiply those odds by the chances of getting to the Olympics and then take that times two.  The number is incredibly large.  There is a far greater chance of being struck by lightning.  If the XY chromosome is present in these two—along with higher testosterone levels—the fact they dominated the field, given what coaches have said, should be considered proof of a potential unfair advantage.

Sources Please Vs. What We See

Much of the smirking response of mid-wit “sources please” types—who simply went along with the ‘official’ International Olympic Committee (IOC) narrative—comes down to many of the slightly dimwitted “I see what I see” types misidentification of the issue as being about transgenderism.  When the real issue is whether or not these athletes have intersex characteristics and thus an unfair advantage in female competition.

Yes, the right is too reactionary.  However, not without cause, they know too well how the NCAA and corporate media denied that Lia Thomas had an unfair advantage as one born a man and still having a penis as well as the rest of a man’s hardware.  And they correctly see that these two Olympic boxing competitors have a masculine appearance.  They had incorrectly assumed that this was just another case of a man cheating his way to the top by pretending to be a woman.

However, that misunderstanding of some is being used as a strawman of the real issue, the real argument is source versus source.  Specifically, the fact that these two athletes were disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) for having male XY chromosomes.  These laboratory tests took place in Turkey and India  So, despite the attempts, by bigots, to smear the IBA as being corrupt for ties to Russia.  But the reality is that no organization is totally without political ties and there’s a reason why the IOC has never banned the US for our military aggression around the world.

So it really comes down to who we want to believe.  The IOC rests its entire claim of gender, on legal documents, passports, and birth certificates, provided by the country of origin, and says this gender assignment makes the boxers women.  By contrast, the IBA cites biological science and test results and tells us these two ‘women’ have XY chromosomes.  Right off the bat, the criteria of the IBA are science and laboratories whereas the IOC is relying on political entities.  Should we follow the science or believe those appealing to non-scientific evidence?

At this point, the mid-wits completely lose the plot and rely on their confirmation bias rather than logical deduction.  They’ll simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that the official IOC criteria to determine eligibility is entirely inadequate for solving this riddle; that the IBA at least has what appears to be scientific evidence, and thus this is a question to be answered in the lab rather than the court of public opinion—so they double down on their insults trying to deflect from the real issue.

But, in the end, this isn’t about science, what we see, statistics, or sources.  No, it is about partisan politics that blind many somewhat intelligent adults to what even a child could see.  It exposes those “sources please” mid-wits as just another level of ignorance.  And social conservatives could help themselves a whole lot by not jumping the gun and not oversimplifying complex issues.  Both sides are guilty of false dichotomies and believing misinformation.  Lastly, those who are suggesting that I-man Khelif is representative of Algerian femininity are guilty of the bigotry of low expectations.

The Displaced Aggression Of Ruby Hamad  

Standard

As someone who prefers getting news from non-Western sources, I occasionally read Al Jazeera for some perspective, and that is how I came across an article, “Imane Khelif and Western delusions of white innocence” and had to hit back.  For the remainder of this blog, I will identify as a minority woman to obtain maximum victim points, and so I don’t need to pull my punches.

Editorials are often wild swings, some are so off-balance and contrived that they invite a counterpunch.  I had no idea who Ruby Hamad was.  But her profile reveals a Syrian-Lebanese woman obsessed with ‘white’ European women and how they are loved more than her.  She has made her name through her racist and misogynistic attacks on ‘white’ feminists.  It’s a little bit weird given how white she is.  But hatred is not always rational—she only has a platform because she helps ‘woke’ white leftists with their self-loathing.

In response to the recent outcry, about the two Olympic boxers who had previously failed their gender eligibility test, Hamad politicizes.  She rides on her favorite hobby horse—that being ‘white’ women—and she tries to reframe the discussion as being about the protection of ‘white’ women rather than a matter of maintaining integrity and fairness in the competition.

Now typically I’m sympathetic to those trying to break free of US hegemony and who are tired of their national stability and desire to self-govern being constantly undermined by US-led Western powers.  European colonizers are responsible for the current disorder in many parts of the world.  And, I also believe the Palestinian voice should be heard and that their innocent population should be protected by international law like any other occupied nation, and the killing of children and non-combatants in Gaza is horrendous.

Victims aren’t just Israeli — nor are ‘people of color’ the only ones who suffer injustice.

However, Hamad does exactly what those on the Zionist side do to Palestinians—with a broad swipe she tries to make all people in a place share guilt for what governments have done.  In essence, she has exactly the same attitude as Israeli spokespeople who claim that all in Gaza share in the blame for the Hamas incursion and—outraged that we care that Palestinian babies die—then turn the attention back to the suffering of their own people on October 7th. 

It is a whataboutism.  A deflection.  And doesn’t deal with the actual issue.

This does highlight one aspect of the controversy, that being the solidarity with the two athletes centers on racial or religious identity rather than their gender.  Those who most vehemently deny the complexity of the gender question are Arabs (or Taiwanese, in the case of Lin Yu-ting), which suggests their political partisanship and that the racial motivation is a projection that is entirely their own  Hamad believes that it must be about white women because this is how she thinks.  But it is really about how gender is defined to keep competition fair.

I guess Istanbul is now white?

Hamad flails in her attack.  She makes the row about the Italian boxer crying—which totally reinvents the chronology and ignores the reality of where it all started.  People had already been talking about the disqualifications of Khelif and Yu-ting, by the International Boxing Association because of failed gender tests.  It had nothing to do with how they looked, where they came from, or the race of the women pounded by them.  It is, rather, everything to do with alleged XY chromosomes and higher testosterone levels, and fairness to female athletes.

Guess which one is a woman of color?

But the truth does not need to line up with her narrative.  An Italian woman, who has a darker complexion than Haman, is now made into the token example of “white woman tears” for being upset after a disappointing loss to a physically superior opponent.  Imagine that, someone who put an enormous amount of time into their sport, then forced to quit the fight after 46 seconds due to the strength of the blows that were landing, having very strong emotions…

Scandalous whiteness! 

Had silly Hamad spent 46 seconds thinking instead of trying to force the evidence to fit her own toxic ideology, you would have missed this rhetorical beat-down.

The biggest irony of this all is that Hamad is in complete alignment with the old imperial left—who, by far, are the most meddlesome of the political elements of the West both in the world and domestically with a constant barrage of moralizing emotive nonsense.  Like concern over ‘misgendering’ a trans ‘man’ who is competing as a woman and is born a woman at the same time they tell us we can’t question the gender on birth certificates or passports. 

The self-loathing face of white privilege.

It is truly only the privileged people who have the time to virtue signal and stir up division between people, the rest of us need to work and provide for our families—hoping these lunatics don’t start another war.

What makes this personal is I have a good friend who is Algerian and is one of the most beautifully feminine women I’ve ever met.  Had she not been a devout Muslim (who, unlike Khelif, wore the traditional dress which always included a Hajab) there may have been been good chance of a romantic relationship between us.  So this notion that European femininity is somehow different or more vulnerable is plain ridiculous.  Khelif is no more representative of Algerian or Arab femininity than I am Britney Spears.

Stunning and brave!

Ultimately this is all political.  Hamad does not care about boxing, certainly not things like safety or fairness.  She is just another myopic and mean-spirited partisan who only cares about injustice when it comes to her people.  She’ll never write an article about the Arab abuse of their foreign help (many of them vulnerable women of color) nor is she intellectually curious enough to know about the slave trade of Europeans (yes, many women) by Muslim Arabs who raided shipping and became enshrined in the anthem of the US Marine Corps: “To the shores of Tripoli.” 

Incidentally, the ‘Barbary’ pirates capturing US sailors for ransom led to the re-establishment of the Marines.  At the time, the US was not oriented towards global dominance and only started along that path of being a sea power because of this provocation.

Muslim Arabs, before they were conquered themselves, pillaged the Christian Middle East and subjugated all in their path.  No, this is to villainize them or say that ‘white’ is better.  What it is to say is that conquest is human and we’re all guilty of the best and the worst parts.  The only real difference between myself and the Hamad types is that I want to escape the tribalism of the past while she thrives on it.  I envision a world where everyone wins whereas she can only be happy when those who she declares “not white” rule.  She’s not truly anti-colonial, she is simply enraged that her own tribe lost the civilizational struggle to those she believes are inferiors.

In addition to this, she is like the angry PhD candidate, also from a Syrian background as I recall, and as vile as Hamad, who—despite a progressive feminist lean—was very racially prejudiced and to the point that she scorned me for my once having a black fiance—told me she would never go with a man who had been with a black woman.  This is what makes me amused when Hamad gestures towards the African American grievance.  Blacks may have been second class in the US, but they would be far worse off in the Arab world she represents.

The truth is that men beating women is as acceptable in Algeria as it is across Arab and Muslim regions.  I believe this is why intelligent women from these places have such cognitive dissonance.  They believe, on the one hand, this religious cultural identity makes them better.  But then, on the other hand, they’re also battered and afraid of the men in their own places.  They’re resentful.  They would love to be treated as a Western woman and protected.  This is why they want to see the women they envy to be hurt.  It is displaced aggression:

Displaced aggression is a statistically robust psychological phenomenon. It involves a specific form of attack prompted by rumination on anger-inducing experiences and/or revenge-related thoughts, which might lead to the expression of anger on innocent people. Often, victims of aggression will not seek to confront the actual source of aggression (the original provocateur), and instead bully subordinates in an effort to relieve themselves of the stress that they carry.

Incidentally, in a conversation with a black female neighbor, she described the toxic reality of the community she left and how much she loves to live amongst us ‘white’ rural people who encouraged her rather than trying to tear her down and ruthlessly compete.  Her mother, an alcoholic, used to deride her with the slur that she was ‘white’ for showing a little bit of ambition and self-respect.  This black woman wisely chose to bring her children to the safety of a community still governed by a culture of self-restraint and looking out for the vulnerable.

White women are targets of jealous rage.  Hamad would be better to acknowledge the true origin of her self-loathing and challenge the framing that makes her only care about the tears of those who look like her.

Hamad’s book “White Tears Brown Scars” is an attack on feminism and the West’s culture of protecting women.  She popularized the phrase “white women’s tears” as a way to downplay and dismiss the suffering and display of emotions by white women.  It is dehumanization.  Making her sexual rivals into manipulative animals that do not deserve our empathy or concern.  A license for calloused and cruel disregard in response to actual injustice.  What it really amounts to is an attempt to normalize the abuse of women who step out of line—which is allowed in the Islamic culture that produced Hamad. 

Ruby Hamad should clean up her own side of the street first before commenting on ours.

But I reject her, with her displaced aggression, because it is not okay for men to beat women—despite what her Syrian–Lebanese culture or the Quran says:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

This is key to understanding the big difference in attitudes between Christian and Islamic traditions, I know the Old Testament treats women more as property of men—like the Quran—but the Gospel radically changed the conversation.  St Paul tells husbands to sacrifice themselves for their wives like Christ died for the Church. 

My wife tells me you couldn’t walk around in her home country like American women do, go out in revealing clothes, alone.  She claims men where she lives would take it as being an invitation for assault and they would likely find your body in the ditch.  If it is ‘white privilege’ or some form of imperialism for women to be able to stroll safely through their own community, then so be it.  I’m not going to apologize for valuing the tears of my wife, the woman I love, over Hamad’s bitterness about not being able to find a man like me.  I’m quite alright with a daughter who cries.

Watching Gran Torino With My Asian Son

Standard

After reading a review of Gran Torino, a Clint Eastwood movie from 2008, that dismissed it as shallow in its exploration of racism, I’ve decided to explore some of the depth of the movie that was missed.  It was a great story about finding common ground, that takes a bit of twist at the end from the typical Clint Eastwood film.  My family (mixed race and culture) could appreciate the themes more than the average viewer—yet is a beautiful redemption story that all people can enjoy as well.

“Get off my lawn!'”

The story is about an angry old man who is not dealing well with change.  Walter ‘Walt’ Kowalski, a Polish-American retired auto worker, Korean War veteran, and recent widower—his beloved wife passing right before the start of the narrative.

In the opening frame, he fits a stereotype of an elderly homeowner defending their patch of turf from an encroaching world.  It seems every small town has one.  That guy who trims his front lawn with scissors and does not deal well with the trespasses of the younger generation, the snarling “get off my lawn” line from the movie became an instant meme.  

Why?  

It is just too familiar. 

The expression captures the essence of a fading dream.  The American middle class values property ownership.  A lawn, once a complete luxury and exclusively for wealthy estates, had become the mark of post-WW2 affluence.  Walt was the beneficiary of this period of economic growth.  He had lived a quintessential suburban life.  

But now it had become a nightmare.  It is not the same neighborhood anymore. The once tidy little homes, owned by people like him, had fallen into disrepair as a new group of immigrants took over.  The woman who he built a home with was gone.  His sons bought foreign brand vehicles and betrayed the legacy their father had built working at Ford.  The world Walt had known was falling apart and he was bitter.

That patch of land, other than the ghosts of his past, was all Walt really had left.  To set foot on it was to violate his sacred space.  It was a shrine.  And his 1972 Gran Torino in the garage likely represented the pinnacle of his productive career.  Since the Korean War ended in 1953, this would put this car purchase around two decades into civilian life with a young family and point when the future looked bright.  So he was clinging to what was left of his identity and willing to defend it with deadly force.

Demons of the Past

Early on we see Walt, the tough guy, who is playing a part.  His racist language is a part of the facade—a barrier he puts up—because the alternative is to be vulnerable—or a victim.  He is still haunted by his war experience, in the beginning using it as a threat, saying he could kill without remorse:

“Yeah? I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house… and I sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea… use ya for sandbags.”

However, later, when it comes to stopping the neighbor boy from taking revenge, we see the reality under the surface:

“You wanna know what it’s like to kill a man? Well, it’s goddamn awful, that’s what it is. The only thing worse is getting a medal… for killing some poor kid that wanted to just give up, that’s all. Yeah, some scared little gook just like you. I shot him in the face with that rifle you were holding in there a while ago. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it, and you don’t want that on your soul.“

Just like today, where Russians are called “Orcs” and portrayed as subhuman by propagandists, racial and ethnic slurs were used against various Asian enemies of US policy in the region.  But for Walt, he knew better, he knew that it was not a demon at the receiving end of his rifle.  He had murdered a human child and he felt immense regret.  Note how he says “poor kid” rather than all of the racist terms he used freely throughout his conversations.  It is almost as if, up to this point, he had to reinforce the dehumanizing descriptions to keep ahead of his shame. The truth is Walt didn’t sleep like a baby. No, he was running his sins his entire life and exhausted.

War propaganda then and now.  Enemies are always portrayed as evil and subhuman.

Walt’s racism was part of his pretty much equal-opportunity disdain for other people, including the young parish priest, and his own family.  He was a broken and hurting man, who had driven away his children and was hiding his own terminal illness.  What he needed was some compassion, a safe place where he could finally let his guard down, and it was the persistent effort of a young Hmong neighbor that finally broke through his wall of insults.

Finding Common Ground

The review, that sparked my response, tried to overlay a “white savior” trope on the story and completely missed that it was Walt who was being saved!

*spoiler alert*

Yes, ultimately, Walt sacrificed himself for the sake of the Asian family next door.  But this only after Sue, played by an actual Hmong actress (some critics panned the amateurism, others praised), went above and beyond to disrupt his dismal world.  

She was his savior.

It was by her effort that he would face the demons of his past and could be at peace with his Creator.  It was a redemption story, a story of an old man who had lost his wife, lost his children, lost his religion and even lost his neighborhood, but finds life again by learning to love his enemies.

I can feel this character.  My own life didn’t go as planned.  I had to leave the religious culture where my hopes had been built.  I had a beautiful Asian woman who was patient with me while I was still lost in delusion and did not give up when times were difficult.  Now we have a blended-culture home.  Yes, my Filipino wife and son are different from me in many regards.  However, after seven years of knowing each other and now over a year of being married, our love has only continued to grow.  Some of my happiest moments were with her family in the Philippines and recently while visiting her relatives in Canada.

I am Walt.

My ‘Sue’ did save me.

The real story of Gran Torino is an old man who finds more common ground with those he had thought were strange than he does with his own children.  Once Walt had got past the superficial differences he realized he had more connection to these Hmong people than many who looked like him.  Unlike the war, he was now defending real people and not political ideologies.  He was fighting for the local community, against those within who are destroying it, and not gunning down random boys thrown into a conflict not truly their own.  The storyline is a comparison between perspectives and shows us what really matters in the end.

It is about relationships, not race.

It is about building bridges.

The ongoing dialogue between Walt and his priest demonstrates this.  The priest, who is of European descent based on appearance, is at first scoffed at by the grizzled military veteran for his youthfulness.  The baby-faced “Padre” is bluntly rejected by him: 

“I think you’re an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.“

But, despite this insult, Father Janovich will not go away.  And eventually, with his persistence, he does earn the respect of Walt.  The bond, built over a few beers, culminates with Confession and Walt is finally able to have the guilt that had plagued him since Korea absolved.  Now he is free and at peace, ready for a last act that goes contrary to expectations and confirms the redemptive arc.  

It was faith that saved Walt, both that of the young woman who withheld judgment and didn’t allow his wall of nastiness to stop her and finally of the persistent outreach of the Church.  And it is only because of this concerted effort that we get to see the protagonist do what is right. By the end of the film, Walt has overcome those demons driving his anti-social behavior and also has gained a son worthy of his prized Gran Torino.

Now To Review the Reviewer…

Why did the critic miss the obvious?

The reviewer who inspired me to write my own was projecting their own worldview onto the script. Eastwood is a rare conservative Hollywood producer.  In fact, so conservative he spoke at a Republican National Convention and gave a mock interview with an empty chair, used to represent Obama, and he calls Biden “a grin with a body behind it.”  Perhaps it is this that the review is responding to?  But I think it goes a bit deeper than that.

The Marxist left sees the world as being a zero-sum game, or that for some people to gain others must lose, and thus everything is a competition for power.  But, not only this, but everything is divided up into strictly bounded categories based on their skin color, financial status, or sexual classification.  If someone cooperates across these lines then they are an “Uncle Tom” or traitor.  So the themes of Gran Torino just do not compute.  Asians are collaborators. Walt is an irredeemable privileged white man, he needs to be canceled—not humanized.

So, since we can’t have everyone come out as a winner, the only thing the woke reviewer has left is to hallucinate something color-coded and negative.  Thus they see a movie that tells us to reach across lines of age, culture, and race as just another “white savior” trope.  It is bizarre, such a narrow and distorted perspective, to entirely miss everything and then to insert what is not actually there.  Yes, Walt saves, but in the context of others saving him, and that’s not even the point.  The point of is that color (or age) doesn’t matter, finding our common ground and community does.

Gran Torino isn’t a perfect movie.  It may go a bit overboard with ethnic slurs at times.  But, then again, the comedic relief of the barber and Walt exchanging these insults as terms of endearment is also great commentary.  Why do we let words be “violence” when the same utterances can be laughed at in another context? It is because these words have the power we give them.  What this is suggesting is that we can go further when we reframe the conversation. 

The left wants to believe that our behavior is determined by what others have done to us—Eastwood says we can be free to live above their rules.

Politics may be all about power, in-group and out-group, but love overcomes all. 

BAY-BEE, Identity Language and Oppression Narratives

Standard

The nurse pronounced baby as “BEE-bee” in our prenatal class and it got me thinking of how language develops.  Words will shift to reflect their usage.  The meaning eventually match with the reality when we attempt to disguise unpleasantness in flowery speech or try moral inversion.  Cultural values will shine through and snap understanding back where it was prior to the manipulation.

How did “bAy-bee” become “BEE-bee”?  

The latter evolution in pronunciation is cuter and therefore a better representation of the subject matter.  The word never will change the thing it describes.  Yes, words influence our perception, they also change to reflect a new understanding of the things that we are describing.  For example, the word “baby” only changed in pronunciation for me when considering the little human now within my wife’s belly.  It was no longer an abstraction or vague category, but a tiny vulnerable ball of loveable life.

When we experience something firsthand it is harder to deny what it is.  We can use the terms detached and technical to distance ourselves from the emotional content.  Say that a baby is just a clump of cells or some kind of parasite—up until the moment when we finally hold it in our hands.  To keep up the charade after this would be delusional or psychopathic.  It is not human to see an infant as anything other than precious.  The political lexicon becomes irrelevant.

A Tangled Ball Of Words 

Words trigger emotions.  I was thinking of this as a tear formed while the instructor in a prenatal class described the ideal of “skin to skin” and a soothing environment.  Some of this reaction may be feeling the weight of my wife’s pregnancy.  But it also has a lot to do with my own identity as the “premie” and “fighter” who struggled for life.  Discussion of baby care today compared to what it was for me.  The thing is, while my experience certainly impacted my development, I don’t have memories of the trauma.  It probably only looms large as a part of my personal identity because my mom told me what I went through and reinforced it.  The I gave further shape and form to it by attributing many of my struggles to the events of my birth—everything from my delayed growth to difficulties with focus in school.

However, it is impossible to know, outside of creating a genetic clone, if I would have been much better off with a normal birth or with more human touch rather than being in a plastic box with ‘stimulating’ music.  This had some impact, no doubt, and yet there is the bigger psychological complex I’ve built on top of this named thing.  Like an irritant in an oyster, it provided a nucleus to attach all of my insecurities to and blame for my failures and shortcomings.  With a normal birth would I have been more like my more accomplished siblings and less a mess?

However, it is very easy to reverse cause and effect to give ourselves an excuse for our being lazy and taking of exceptions.  We become the label that we apply to ourselves as much as it truly describes us.  We act the part.  Things of identity, like race, sexuality, religion, are as much a construct or fantasy as they are facts.  We live up to our name to an extent.  My mom would often tell me that my name meant “strong-willed” and it might be one of those self- fulfilling prophecies.  If we tilt confirmation bias in a direction it isn’t a big surprise if our character develops that direction.  It is like strapping a young tree to influence where it grows.

In a sense, nobody is truly “born this way,” it is a statement discredits conditioning and culture too much. But the environment itself doesn’t make us where we are as much as those descriptive words that reverberate in our heads.  A child that is called “stupid” by a parent or teacher may spend many years trying to sort through their doubts.  My dad letting me look over his blue prints and then giving some affirmation when spotted an error made by the engineers is likely what led to my being confident in my abilities and a career in design.  Our reality is influenced by use of language.

These are just personal observations, but it is also backed up by other sources that put it more succinctly:

Language is not just a medium of communication; it’s a lens through which we view the world and a mold that shapes our identity. From shaping cultural perceptions to influencing personal identities, language’s role is pivotal in constructing our social and personal realities.

Language as a Mirror and Molder of Reality and Identity

Language is more than a mere tool for communication.

It’s a portal through which we perceive and interpret the world.

Imagine how our understanding of colors evolves when we learn names for shades we previously couldn’t distinguish.

With each new word we acquire, a facet of reality emerges from obscurity, offering us a richer tapestry of experiences.

The Dynamic Relationship Between Language and Reality

 Neither of those sources are academic or truly authoritative, but do say what I’m saying in a different way and thus useful so far as my goal here which is to provoke thought.  New use of language reframes the world.  It can amplify our efforts and transform society as more people begin to see the world through the lens we provided.  Memes do this, as do pounding of propaganda headlines, it is why “fact-checkers” exist—all to reinforce a particular narrative.

With so much power in our words there is plenty of reason for cunning and conniving people to exercise this for their own selfish ends. 

They take advantage of insecurities and level accusations to shame or confuse the innocent. 

Wordsmiths, they could turn a baby into a villain and murderer into a saint—beware. 

His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords. 

(Psalms 55:21 NIV)

There are some use the guise of compassion to gain control.  Their promises are about attaining power.  They seek only to bind us and yet many people are blinded to these motives because their identity has been hijacked by these nefarious actors.

Categories Are Social Constructs 

The structures and constructs of language are entirely fabricated.  There is no person who is “black” or “white” by birth, no, rather these are categories we create, clans that we join, and always artificial divisions.  We are often grouped by others using various label words and internalize the divisions as being inseparable from our own experience, in that we identify with other “rednecks” or “blue-collar” types as those ‘like us’ and yet also *become* like that.  Nothing requires a rural person to use country slang or go buy a massive diesel pick-up truck, some of the markers of this lifestyle (chewing tobacco or dress) can impact opportunities.  This is about politics, not genetics.  It is about the strength of an identity group that helps us gain power for ourselves.  Being a victim of an “ism” is a lever, a social tool or means to build a coalition against others.  

The individual without these groups, that is denied the right to put their fist in the air in solidarity with others ‘like them’ is weakest and most disadvantaged in this game.  That is the irony of the “systems of oppression” language.  Those who describe this kind of problem are actually creating it more than they are simply observing.  In the same way that observation in quantum mechanics is an influence of reality (collapses the wave function), the ‘study’ of human interaction is an interaction and is a product of our bias as much as it has basis in reality.  Those who are concerned with the existing ideas (of racism, sexism, or heterosexism) steal attention (and thus disenfranchise) victims of systemic heightism and those who lack privileges in ways not discussed, defined or even recognized.  The individual is the most vulnerable, a minority of one, and frequently abused by recognized groups.  Bullies travel in big groups—victims are often alone.

This line of questions quoted below is most likely well-intended, but is exploitative:

1) “Language both mirrors reality and helps to structure it” (2). Explain and give an example.

2)Racism, sexism, heterosexism, and class privilege are all interlocking systems of oppression that ensure advantages for some and diminish opportunities for others, with their own history and logic and self-perpetuating relations of domination and subordination (3). Explain what this means. Do you agree/disagree? Why?

3)What are the economic impacts of constructing race, class, and gender?

Sandwiched between the lines of this effort to build awareness (indoctrinate) are a pile of assumptions that, in the end, only serve to darken these artificial dividing lines. 

It is rewarmed class warfare rhetoric, Marxism, and is basically designed to feed envy or feelings of being an other and disenfranchised.  No, this is not to say that prejudice or abuse is entirely a social construct.  What it is to say, rather, is that their worldview, segregated by these simple binaries, is too compartmentalized and minimizing of other factors.

There isn’t one group of oppressor and one group of oppressed. 

There is no hierarchy of victimhood. 

Everything depends on the context or situation.  A Jewish student that is harassed on a college campus because of the IDF dropping bombs on Gaza is not privileged in this moment even if they are ‘white’ and rich.  Nor is it anti-Semitic to characterize the decades long campaign against the Palestinian people as an ethnic cleansing.  Labeling terms like “terrorist” or “occupier,” while useful to an extent, rarely explain accurately and are dehumanizing ends of conversation.

The whole point of claiming the existence of “interlocking systems of oppression” is to make anyone who dares to question their narrow perspective a part of a monolithic enemy rather than an individual with life experience to be respected.  It is truly the educated left’s own version of a conspiracy theory where anything they don’t like is part of some invisible system that can teased out of the statistical categories they created to emphasize identities based on color and physical features.  If some in one of these groups lag behind then some other group must be at fault.

Building humanity requires the de-emphasis of meaningless boundaries and formation of bonds based on behavior.  Skin color is not synonymous with culture or the choices one makes that shape their outcomes.  Yes, we must identify mistreatment of people on the basis of appearance, but this isn’t black and white, nor is it oppression to apply the same standard to all.  Indeed, some people are treated unfairly, but many end up being marginalized for antisocial behavior and yet claim to be victims of oppression when the chickens come home to roost.

Call A Turd a Baby…

Bringing this full circle, the word “baby” is cute (and the pronunciation of the word is becoming cuter) because babies are cute.  The language of description is merging more and more with the reality adorableness that we perceive in a human child by our instincts.  Using the word “baby” to describe an adult does not make them cute.  Albeit pet names, used to convey fondness, do imdue the quality a bit or at least will hijack some of the sentiment that associated with babies.  However, this is something that can only be stretched so far before the absurdity is too obvious.  

In this regard language that is used in an attempt to counter popular perspective, or overrule accurate description, will eventually take on the meaning that it was supposed to erase.   The language police can only temporarily remove a stigma (albeit never long enough to make the effort worthwhile) and it is because the unpleasant reality will always bubble to the surface again.  In fact, “special needs” today probably carries more negative baggage than the use of the words slow or retarded in the past.  

Likewise when a person is accepted at the university or get your job simply as a result of the particular identity group they belong to rather than only on the basis of equal qualifications this leads to an asterisk with the accomplishment—even when equally earned.  New terms like “diversity hire” will spontaneously and organically come into existence as a result of need to delineate between identity and merit based.  These, sadly, are far more damaging stereotypes applied to minorities who are outstanding by their own right.

Just as one cannot relabel a turd as a baby and expect people to cradle it once the truth is revealed, one can’t just apply credentials or distinguished titles to someone thinking this will change a lack of qualifications.  It will only degrade the meaning of words and in the long-term will do nothing to solve the socio-economic divide. 

Calling someone a fisherman and giving them a pile of fish is not the same thing as teaching them how to fish.  You can’t simply declare reality as the left believes they can.  Turds are only cute when the term is used ironically to describe something truly cute.

What Do We Do with the Freaks?

Standard

I ran across two stories the other day, one of them about a mixed race man who looks like a female and another about a child with ‘werewolf syndrome’ who looks like the missing link—in both cases I thought about the negative attention this brings.  In the later case, given the current awareness push, a young man who looks very feminine faces presumptuous comments about his ‘transitioning’ and I wondered at what age this happy kid would realize that he was a genetic freak?  School children don’t need to be taught cruelty.

While I’m certainly not on board with the current “I identify as” phase, I also am not for alienating or adding to pain others have from being odd.  What I’m talking about is the exceptions who are the exceptions by no fault of their own.  Starting with those who are visibly different, dwarfs, albinos, Down Syndrome, conjoined twins, chimeras, Klinefelter syndrome (boys and men with extra X chromosomes), intersex people (born with ambiguous genitalia) or Turner syndrome.  There are many chromosomal abnormalities and many issues that do put some in a “none of the above” category that is apart from what is most common.

We accept that physical abnormalities exist, it is pretty much impossible to deny, but the controversy begins when someone who has all of the physical characteristics of a man demands that other people use a female pronoun to describe them or competes as a woman.  Genitals don’t tell me what goes on in someone’s head.  My wife says that I’m “like a woman” in how I am expressive and emotional.  My little sister was a “tomboy” growing up.  I suppose today that would be proof that we deserve special protection or rights?  How far can we tolerate people who do not meet expectations for their gender?

You don’t need a biologist to tell you that men tend to have a very distinct advantage over women in strength and size.  It is not fair or safe for women to be in competition with those born with an XY chromosome no matter how they identify.  I mean, isn’t that why women’s sports were created in the first place?

And, contrary to what the “Muh rights!  You can’t make me wear a stupid mask in your private establishment.” people think, it is perfectly okay for groups to exclude those who have willfully refused to conform to the established standards.  Try to walk into any church naked.  They probably won’t even let you get to your explanation about material making you itchy or how Biblical prophets ran around butt naked.  We set rules.  We define categories.  We decide if those with Swyer Syndrome are men or women.  Click the link and give me your own answer in the comments.

Include or exclude?

It is our cultural bent to be more inclusive of the exceptions.  We are taught that we must show empathy and understanding for those who are “born eunuchs” as part of Christian love.  Then again, the Gospels are a sort of square peg being fit in the round hole of Scripture and it is easy to comprehend why the ‘chosen people’ rejected Jesus given how he mingled with the impure.

Biblical Exclusion 

One reason why to be sympathetic towards those Jews who rejected the message of a teacher who ate with sinners is the Biblical tradition itself and the system it established to exclude those deemed defective:

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God.  No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’ ”

 (‭Leviticus 21:16-23 NIV‬)

And repeated:

No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 

(Deuteronomy ‭ 23:1-3 NIV)

Discrimination against the abnormal wasn’t only suggested or caught in a round about way be misinterpretation, but a command from God.  Talk about a kick in the nuts (or lack thereof) for those already suffering an undesirable condition.  Be born the ‘wrong’ ethnicity or suffer an unfortunate accident and you’re out.  Not much of this is actually explained, giving opportunity for apologists to explain around it, but Christian religion (along with modern science) has certainly taken things in a very different direction.

If a woman is ‘barren’ nowadays we try to treat the condition rather than assume it is a curse from God.  I mean, yes, the woman in the Philippines who had the hair covered son with ‘werewolf syndrome’ may believe that it had something to do with eating a cat during pregnancy, the popular notion of “you are what you eat” manifesting, but we’re not as likely to see it as punishment from God—we do not tend to attribute things blindness or misfortune to sin.  It is harder to exclude those who are imperfect when you realize it could’ve been you.

Any more than I need to know why Islam is different from Christianity, where someone was clearly copying some else’s notes, I’m not going to attempt to theologically explain the transition from Old to New Covenant.  It is clear enough that those who had lawfully been excluded, the leprose, lame and blind, Jesus healed.  The result of his ministry two millennia ago was a wave of tolerance that started with his Jewish converts.  Peter had his pigs in a blanket vision (while hungry out on the road) and now we eat bacon despite Biblical command:

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.  It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”  “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. 

(‭Acts 10:9-16 NIV)

This, along with the Jerusalem Council, is a huge departure from Jewish Biblical religion and, again, it is no big surprise this new cult was rejected by the faithful.  Even today some observant Jews continue the tradition, like that Orthodox chaplain who declared loudly as he took a seat (next to me) on a crowded airliner with mixed races, “I’m a racist and don’t care what you think!”  My own cringe at this statement is born of an indoctrinated sensitivity, years of Christian influence, and not values arising naturally from thin air.  Or, rather at least not without a sheet to carry it down from heaven.

Bacon To Bisexuals

The other day I saw a post, from a Muslim friend, and it listed the problems with eating pork meat, their unique parasites, what pigs eat, etc.  Of course the winning comment was “but fried bacon is so delicious” and it basically for this reason why no Baptist will ever depart from pork consumption.  If it is pleasurable to us, we do it.  However, don’t dare use that reasoning with these same Biblical fundamentalists when it comes to things they’ve not be acculturated to.  And not at all to say that bisexuality is now in that big blanket of tolerance coming down.

No, it is just interesting to me how Biblical law is largely ignored except where it makes sense to us.  Don’t like tattoos?  Well then it is okay to misapply those laws that pertain to specific ancient pagan practices.  But if you like shellfish, then “freedom in Christ” exempts you from having to obey these outdated and irrelevant laws.  The energy in the room is completely different when it comes to the violations of Scripture we’re unaccustomed to or don’t apply to our own circumstances.  Sexual deviation is a whole can of worms that I’ll avoid until or at least until a good explanation of Swyer Syndrome is given to me.

One eyebrow raising moment, during a Bible study, while being brought into Orthodoxy, was when the topic of veiling (1 Corinthians 11) came up for discussion and how the old ethnic Russian priest dismissed it as being custom or cultural.  I never had the chance to ask him about the explicit quotes of Saint John Chrysostom on the topic.  But, like all things, what is important is a matter of our perspective.  The cradle Orthodox follow after the mainstream of Protestantism as much as anyone else, whereas the converts from Protestantism are more strict about preserving Orthodox tradition.  It’s amazing how culture influences our applications of Scripture.

All this to say that I don’t know where the precise dividing line is between pure and impure, acceptable or unacceptable.  But believe there is much more value in being merciful as our Father is merciful.  That is to apply the Golden Rule to those who struggle in ways that we can’t fathom or begin to understand.  Where it was once okay to stigmatize and treat left-handed people as second-class or evil we now accept them and think it is strange it was a problem for past generations.  There are many things that aren’t an identity we choose or a matter of “feel this way” (like a man who claims to be transracial) that require that us to show some grace.

“Ew, Brother Ew”

You’ve probably seen the meme.  A Muslim preacher lamenting those who abandon the Islamic practices of eating on the floor and growing a beard.  His comical expression of their disgust gets to the heart of what most of these religious do and don’t rules come from.  There is a continuum when it comes to gender and normalcy, taboos change, as do ideas of what real men do.  It’s funny to see how these standards have evolved over time.  From the time pulpits had spittoons to the current time of rainbow flags, we are not the same as our ancestors.

There are natural aversions.  We’re naturally disgusted by bodily fluids and it is for good reason.  Disease travels in blood, saliva and waste.  We are also attracted to beauty, the healthy form or good hygiene, this is about instinct and survival.  Sexual promiscuity is also risk as well.  So being grossed out can be beneficial if it protects us from negative outcomes.  However, this can malfunction, sort of like an autoimmune disorder, where we can overreact and exclude on the basis of things that aren’t a danger to us.  Bigotry and prejudice, like middle school fears of cooties, are often as sign of immaturity or lack of self-awareness.  Attributing every unfortunate condition to a moral failure is not sound judgment.

Just because something is strange or ugly to us is not a reason to recoil.  If a person is not trying to draw attention to themselves it is important to acknowledge their humanity rather than their odd appearance.  We didn’t choose to be ‘normal’ anymore than it was a decision they made to be different.  We do not need to pretend everyone is beautiful or affirm every exception as glorious.  There is healthy, there is deformity and disorder, we can love the person who overcomes or does not give up for their character.  It is possible for inner beauty to shine when we truly get to know the person rather than only see the outward appearance.

WhY dOn’T tHeY jUsT…?!?

Standard

It is 2064 and refugees from Spanish-speaking countries nearly match the native-born American population in border states.  The United States, after fighting war after war and finally collapsing economically, is a shadow of the globe-spanning power it once was.  A militant ethno-nationalist contingent within this group of new arrivals, armed with their own understanding of history, believes that the American West rightfully belongs to them.  And using a campaign of terror and intimidation, after a few skirmishes, have driven even many native Texans out of their most notable cities. 

La Raza (or ‘the race’) is not satisfied to only have parts of the historically Spanish parts of the continental US.  However, the new UN based in Dubai, while agreeing that the Spanish had a better claim, determined that a two-state solution was best and drew the map for a partition plan.  Of course, neither side is truly satisfied with this and both are merely buying time.  A coalition of sympathetic American states formed to help the Texas Rangers, which is now a paramilitary organization of mostly fundamentalist Christians, but the partisans of the Partido Nacional de La Raza Unida strike first.  Many Texans flee as cartels and Chinese-backed militants start a campaign to push them out.

Decades pass and the Spanish state increases its zone of control.  The Texans continue to fight asymmetrically but have lost control of their resources and are also politically destabilized by their better-funded rivals.  MTGA, or Make Texas Great Again, an extremist group that states a goal of removing all non-Americans from Texas, is secretly aided by La Raza who seeks to undermine the more representative and moderate Texas Rangers.  Why?  Well, with their end goal of taking all of what was Spanish territory, they really did not want a successful state of Texas, they wanted exploitable chaos and opportunities to seize more land using self-defense as an excuse.

After a small success, where the MTGA ‘terrorists’ managed to break through the formidable La Raza borders (ironic, given that generations of Americans were told that borders are racist), the enraged Spanish demand that Texan civilians evacuate and begin to bomb the Texas panhandle camps where the remaining resistance fighters base their operations.  Across the Spanish world their own language media, sympathetic to the Spanish cause, ask many questions.  Why do the Texans not overthrow the terrorists?  Why don’t they simply move to other US states and give the land back to the rightful owners from the South?  Why do the border states oppose the relocation of Texans so much when they’re all Americans?

Of course, the scenario above, for the time being, remains fictional, but it is also an analogy to introduce this post which deals with similar questions as to why Gazans do not overthrow Hamas or leave for other Arab lands.  I realize some, even if they don’t admit it, see the people of Gaza as being subhuman, a race marked for destruction or “Amelek” (as Israeli right-wingers call them), and won’t even attempt to understand their perspective.  The propagandists have done their job well, once again, and convinced the masses that the side they are told to oppose is a bunch of savages who can’t be reasoned with and whose blood—including their own children—is on their own hands.

WhY DoN’t ThEy JuSt OvEr-ThRoW hAmAs?!?

Many do not draw a distinction between Hamas and Palestinians.  This is what those who want a blank check to do whatever they want to Gaza want.  If you can make all in this small territory collectively guilty, then you don’t need to deal with the moral dilemma of whether it is okay to kill innocents as a response to innocents being killed.  If all Palestinians are terrorists then you can just treat them like a termite infestation.  It isn’t genocide, it is just pest control!  No, they won’t come out and say that.  However, be honest here, when you drop bombs on a populated city that is exactly what is happening, it is collective punishment and a war crime.

Anyhow, what they don’t tell you is that only a fraction of Palestinians voted for Hamas.  In fact, in no single district of Gaza did Hamas win the majority of votes.  For all of you who want a third-party ballot choice, there’s your warning.  And once you give power to a group like Hamas don’t expect to ever get it back without a fight.  

Propaganda Parrot: “Bu-but, what about all those Gazans out cheering when Hamas attacked Israel?!?”

Me: “What about it???”

Thousands of Americans took to the streets to chant “Not my President!” when Trump won.   And thousands of Americans participated in the Jan 6th ‘insurrection’ as well.  In neither case did the protestors in the crowd, even if millions of them, represent the plurality of Americans.  Furthermore, being in the crowd doesn’t make you a supporter of whatever others have attributed to your cause.  If you are pro-MAGA, contrary to what the Democrat-controlled media says, you aren’t sympathetic to a coup for being upset about the election and subsequent prosecutions.  No, you’re rejecting their framing of the event and beholden to an entirely different narrative.

The same is true of Gazans.  Maybe they don’t support the means of Hamas.  But they certainly understand the grievance and see Israel as an oppressor of their people.  Many Americans would be happy to see Moscow or Tehran leveled.  Does that make them one and the same as those giving the order or carrying it out?

But more significant than that, half of the population of Gaza is children.  They didn’t get a vote nor do they have the ability to go toe to toe with a group currently giving the IDF a run for their money.  Why don’t the Gazans overthrow Hamas?  Maybe for the same reason that those of us who disagree with the waste of our tax dollars and endless wars don’t overthrow the US government:  We want to live our lives.  We don’t want to be killed or end up locked up.  People do not rise up even against a regime that abuses them simply because they don’t want to die.  I mean, come on, do you really expect civilian Palestinian mothers and fathers to take down Israel’s enemy for them?  Do you expect children to overthrow armed men?

Are you really that dull?

Okay then…

WhY dOn’T tHeY jUsT LeAve GaZa?!?

Wow, you’re smart!  Why don’t a million people just follow the IDF command to leave everything behind so that their homes and communities can be leveled without concern for civilian casualties?  I mean, we would all do that at the snap of a finger, right?

This is the biggest bullshit line of all of them.  

State War Crime Apologist: “We gave them an opportunity to leave…”

As if this makes them not responsible for the bloodbath that follows.  I mean, by that reasoning, if they had an opportunity to leave, then the atrocities that followed during the Pogroms are on those who didn’t immediately flee, right?

This is just not a realistic expectation and most especially given the very recent history of the Palestinian people.  First, many who live in the Gaza Strip are already refugees living in camps.  Why?  Well, they were forcibly expelled by Zionists in events like the Nakba of 1948 and many others, these massacres to push them out may have been forgotten by us, but what if that was your grandparents who still remember the olive groves they tended and the good life that they had prior?  Now you have a place, even if it isn’t the greatest, you have friends and neighbors around you, are you going to just march into the desert again so that more of your ancestral land can be annexed?

This is stupider than expecting Texans to up and leave for Canada if they don’t like the current border situation.

If Palestinians leave who will ensure that they are allowed to return?

The UN?!?

Of all people, white Americans who decry foreigners entering their country, and threatening their culture, should understand this.  If we can’t even tolerate sharing our land and so fear losing our national identity, imagine if we had been backed in a corner for decades and are now being told we must evacuate to a new place so that our rivals can do their mop up of the American resistance.  

No, Palestinians don’t leave for the same reason we wouldn’t leave and the same reason why Israelis don’t simply move to friendlier Western nations.  I mean, it would be much easier for Israelis, many of whom are wealthier and have dual citizenship, to make the move to safer places.  Why not just move completely out of range of Hamas rockets and incursions?

You don’t have to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause to see this as an injustice, you just need to be human.

As ignorant is this idea that Arab nations should simply absorb the people displaced by Israel as if that would solve the problem.  I mean, it isn’t like hard-core Zionists don’t also think that Lebanon belongs to them.  Unlike many Americans, Arab leaders aren’t dumb.  They know that in politics when you give an inch they’ll take a mile.  Their own rule is fragile enough.  They understand that a stream of refugees will potentially undermine their stability and, again, we should understand this by looking at what is happening in Europe or the US where refugees are welcomed.  And, sure, the US certainly could’ve moved all from the British Isles across the Atlantic to avoid confrontation with Hitler, but why would we?

Why should Gazans leave?  Why should Arab leaders facilitate the whims of Israel?

Blame-shifting Is Evil

Abusers always make the victim guilty.  The little girl he assaulted should’ve been wearing that dress.  This is how they wash their own hands, so they aren’t the bad guys in the narrative they create for themselves.  In their mind, they’re not a bad person, they were just presented with an irresistible temptation, and it was a failure somewhere else that caused them to fall.  Sexual predators do say things like “why did her parents leave her with me” or “he didn’t put up enough resistance” as a justification.  It is evil when they do it and it is evil when others do it in murkier circumstances.

The blood of Gazans, who are killed by the IDF, is completely on the hands of the Israeli leadership who are ordering the invasion.  It is no different from Hamas being to blame for those who were shot by their militants.  Gazans are not collectively guilty of what Hamas does and, likewise, innocent Israelis have no blame to bear for what their government does.  If an enemy uses “human shields” that doesn’t give a military permission to gun down or bomb the civilians between them and their enemies.  If a military invasion is not possible under those conditions, then find another solution.

Israel doesn’t need to invade Gaza to neutralize Hamas.  Even Israelis see the incursion as a failure of their government.  And doing more to defuse the legitimate grievance of the Palestinians, who are having their land systemically taken by religious extremists who cite texts thousands of years old, would go a long way to helping them move on.  Turning enemies into unthinking inhuman monsters is exactly what has enabled genocidal purges in the past and is what is most concerning about the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of Zionists.  It is not Christian.  It is not excusable.

The propagandist’s job isn’t to placate critical thinkers. No, it is to feed the confirmation bias of those who have already picked a side or keep those on the sidelines indifferent. One way this is done is by answering legitimate concerns with plausible, yet spurious, excuses for why normal human compassion need not apply to this situation. It is basic blame-shifting, where you make the victims of abuse guilty for what others are doing to them. And, as gullible and eager as they are, it really doesn’t take much to keep a ‘Christian’ Zionist spouting talking points.

We need to think long and hard about the precedents set by Gaza given our own diminishing influence.  Islamic no-go zones in Europe have expanded to include large swaths of urban centers.  Refugees from destabilized regions of Africa and the Middle East have flowed in, unabated, while native populations have dwindled.  Will we go quietly when it is our turn to be displaced?  Will we like it when our own ethics are turned against us?  Hopefully whoever will rule after us has more compassion and mercy than we do.  Pray that they do not dismiss our cries for justice or brand us as terrorists to be destroyed for opposing their unjust edicts.

It is disheartening that so many in the West have an understanding of the problem less sophisticated than a French aristocrat musing, in response to the starving people saying they don’t have enough bread, “Let them eat cake!” It’s out of touch. It is cruel and indifferent. It will come back to bite us when the world starts to hold us responsible for the abuses of those who claim to act on our behalf and have slaughtered millions. Who will stand to defend us?

I Don’t Care What You Call It

Standard

I feel the need to preface this once again with a trigger warning for those who won’t read through and will miss my point. No, I’m not saying what Hamas did was justified. Nor am I saying that Israel should not respond. But I am trying to confront a bias, motivated by a misuse of Scripture, that is leading our side to look the other way at what amounts to dumping white phosphorous on innocent children and then pretending this is a just response to the death of Israelis. I am addressing what clouds the moral judgment here and not saying that one side or the other should just take the abuse.

I’m addressing the false dichotomy exposed in this letter from Albert Einstein (Jewish) in his opposition to the terrorism that was taking place. He wrote this right after a massacre carried out by Zionist extremists and warning of what would eventually become the horrendous reality of the Nakba and why Palestinians today are reluctant to leave their homes today. They know the history even if you’re ignorant. Read what Einstein wrote and then study what happened next…

To be clear, Einstein was not against a Jewish homeland. He was simply against the violent means being employed that have led to the current hatred. Had more followed his advice then we wouldn’t be facing yet another bloody war today. When will we learn?

Framing Issues

Had the British managed to put down the bloodthirsty terrorists who fought to “water the tree of liberty” by violently taking over their American colonies, does that mean they never existed? No, they (along with their weird pagan offshoot religion that required regular human sacrifice to keep their tree nourished) did exist and they existed as a distinct entity the moment that they declared themselves to be independent. And to say otherwise would be dumb.

One of the stupidest arguments ever made is “tHeRe Is nO PaLeStINe” as if the millions of people pushed into Gaza and West Bank simply do not exist. By that sort of semantic and legal argument, there was never a state of Israel prior to May 14, 1948. Sure, there were a people called the children of Israel and a kingdom of David, but never a STATE by that name, and certainly not one that was a Western-style democracy, prior to a bunch of Europeans moving to British-controlled Mandatory Palestine (which is what it was called) and most certainly a nation with the world’s strongest standing army is not the same one as found in the Scriptures. No, that doesn’t mean they should be run into the sea or not recognized as a legitimate nation (although many do not) and yet we must deal with the reality that the land was occupied before European settlers arrived to claim it. Historical claims may make a nice romantic script, for those with no skin in the game, but telling people that their grievance of being displaced doesn’t exist because you don’t like the name is asinine. It is reasoning that may get you likes in your echo chamber but suggests you are silly and should not be taken seriously by those with a modicum of intelligence. It’s not like the Palestinians are going to stop their fight against those who took their deeded land because you claim they don’t exist.  

Furthermore, legal recognition does not change what something is. By now we all should know this. The governments of the world can call black white or white black and it doesn’t change the nature of color. Calling a man a woman or your affinity for your pet a marriage doesn’t make it true. We have the absolute right to question legal precedent or to hold to whatever existed in our minds prior to their changes. Maybe your modern definitions are simply ignorant of the original meaning and the other side is right. You might eventually be blotted off from the face of the Earth and forgotten. But it doesn’t mean you or the perspectives you held don’t exist. A person’s perspective still exists even if opposed by the powerful who have better propaganda and denying it exists is plain dumb.

Palestinians exist even if they are erased from the land or never officially recognized by many in the United States. That’s not a statement that will suit many from my fundamentalist religious background. But they’re simply not dealing with reality, it is denial, and ridiculous. Einstein called it Palestine. It was Palestine. The modern-day Israeli state came after.

Who were the Samaritans?

They were people deemed illegitimate by the pure-blooded religious elites.  They made a counterclaim to what the other descendants of Abraham Jesus mingled with saw as their own exclusive property.  The Samaritans had their own priests (apparently descendants of Aaron directly) and, contrary to the belief of their Jewish rivals, also continuously occupied the land like their Semitic cousins.

This is what makes how Jesus recognized these people so significant.  We learn, in his conversation with a Samaritan woman, that true worship wasn’t about location, including Jerusalem, but about Spirit and truth.  If this wasn’t clear enough, the parable of the good Samaritan was a slap in the face of those whom Jesus addressed.  A Samaritan more righteous than their own best?  Jesus was intentionally antagonizing. He intended to offend and insult them.

The point, however, remains that salvation is not a birthright.  It is not about your claim to be or ethnic inheritance.  The Christian truth is about what we do, and how we love, and never a matter of our worship ritual or genetics.  The measure of Christian pedigree is faith, pure and simple, like that of Abraham—which is what makes a person a son or daughter of Abraham.

Jesus didn’t mince words when addressing those who believed they would be saved by their ethnicity or Abrahamic bloodline:

Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

(John 8:39‭-‬44 NIV)

There are not multiple paths, according to Jesus, but only one way, truth, and life for all to come to the Father.  Galatians makes it clear that Abraham’s seed is fulfilled fully in Christ and all who believe in Him:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. […] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

(Galatians 3:16‭, ‬26‭-‬28 NIV)

Romans affirms what St Paul said above in Galatians:

So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. […] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened…

(Romans 11:5‭, ‬7 NIV)

The “remnant” is those who believed in Jesus.  While the “hardened” are those who rejected Him and, in their unbelief and ignorance, crucified the one who was called their King.  And, for those who contort and turn the Gospels inside out trying to revert to a Covenant that passed away, Hebrews 8:13, I despise your bastardization of truth.  Those who would replace His Kingdom “not of this world” with a modern secular state are not legitimate scholars or Christians.

I reject your ignorant religion.

I reject your indifferent religion.

I reject your false religion.

The true Christ isn’t an ethno-nationalist or waiting on yet another stone temple to be built.  And I don’t really care what your Scofield reference or some random guy on YouTube says.  Christian Zionism is a contradiction of terms.  I’m perfectly fine with European Jews finding a homeland and defending it.  But it should never be confused with the fulfillment of anything more than that.  We should instead be looking for the new Jerusalem.  So stone me like Stephen for repeating what he said: “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.”

Count me with the Samaritans.

A blessing or a curse?

Since the 1950s, no other nation has shown more perfect loyalty or full allegiance to the state of Israel than the United States.  The Biden administration is no exception and doubling down on what Trump started.  For this have accumulated a mountain of debt, a decay of our institutions, and sharp moral decline as more and more Americans fall away from faith.  Sure, we are materially wealthy, for now, but churches are empty and those that remain are temples to consumerism rather than self-sacrificial love.  If support for this country is a blessing then I guess we’ll need to redefine that word like we have been with everything else lately.  Or maybe consider we’ve gotten things wrong?

The direction of the US doesn’t look good right now and maybe that is because we’re like the Jeruselum condemned by Ezekiel:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

(Ezekiel 16:49-52 NIV)

Maybe it is time to stop focusing on the sins of Samaria and consider our own. Sure, maybe IsRaEl hAs ThE rIgHt To DeFeND iTsElF, but then so do the other Semitic people in that region. Consider that we are Haman, from the book of Esther, unwittingly building our own gallows as we justify our unjust vengeance against undeserving people. We’re not a righteous judge. The children of Gaza did not attack Israel. It is not anti-Semitic to stand with Einstein or recognize the unjust suffering of the Semitic people in Gaza. It is not our allegiance to the state of Israel that will bring us blessings, only allegiance to the king of the true Israel can do that and we must all repent of our delusions otherwise.

The Token Converts

Standard

Years ago I had a nemesis. My counterpart positioned himself as a white knight type of character and was basically there to harass anyone too fond of the religious tribe I was born into. He knew the group, he had been a convert and was now an ex-member, who classified us as “an ethnic church” dismissing what we said about our conversion experience.

Now that I’ve left the group there is no reason to continue to guard the ideas left behind and that includes the notion that my own participation had been completely a choice. There are doctrinal reasons for this denial of the obvious. I mean, if you believe that conversion is a personal choice, a rational and unbiased conclusion, then it really gets under your skin when someone says that you’re more or less a product of a religious culture.

We were, in our own eyes, a sort of remnant church. And then also had to deal with the awkward reality that many, like us, were so inbred that they had distinct genetic disorders. And, unlike our radical forbearers, we had no cultural relevance besides being the quaint old fashioned people who dressed like it was the 1800s and called this non-conformity to the world. So, obviously, the fact that everyone who shared our views happened to be genetically related was the source of cognitive dissonance.

It is for this reason that converts, the more exotic the better, were clung to and even given special treatment. We would say it was out of Christian love and yet some of this had to do with our own insecurities. They were our validation. They were the proof that we were more than just an ethnic cloister, more than a bunch of cousins of a particular European heritage claiming that our own brand of religion represented something universal and relevant to the times.

Those who come into this group, visibly from the outside, are often treated both with mistrust and also with a special adoration as well. They can never be fully accepted, they’re always both more and less than equal, coddled or spared normal rebuke from some to keep them from leaving, and yet also can sense that they’re just the tokens being used to prove a point rather than being treated as people. Sure, they may form real friendships with some, but they themselves are often misfits from whence they came and still remain stuck in no man’s land.

Now that I’m in a church that both spans continents and is mostly converts locally, I don’t have as strong an urge to collect tokens or evidence that I’m not just a product of my ethnocultural roots. I mean, sure, I still want to be right. But the pressure to bring the Gospel to all people is off my shoulders. The Church didn’t take long to spread into Asia or Africa, early Christians didn’t dress like Europeans from a generation ago either, there may be some times to chase down Ethiopian eunuchs in their chariots, and yet there’s also a time to acknowledge that the fullness of the faith has never left Africa.

Evangelicals, of all stripes, have this desperation for relevance. They think that they will win more converts by being more cosmopolitan, and by painting a picture of superficial diversity and inclusion, but Jesus said that his message would make the world hate us and even divide families. If we have the truth, if we know the truth, we are no longer bound to ethnic quotas and, instead, simply love people, especially of the household of faith, as we are commanded. Jesus preached to his own tribe first, his converts were mostly other Jews, like him, and that was perfectly fine.

The Shocking Truth About Diversity and Strength

Standard

Composite materials are stronger than their component parts.  When two or more materials of unique strengths are blended together the result can be a composite that has the ideal characteristics of all the parts.  This is what makes concrete and rebar a formidable pair.  The combination gives both the compressive strength of concrete and also the tensile strength of the steel.  It is inarguable that diversity is not strength or at least when it comes to material science.

However, as all topics go, it does not end there.  Boeing, like all builders of commercial airliners, has two primary goals (besides safety) in their designs: Lightweight and reducing costs.  One of their innovations is the use of carbon fiber in their aircraft.  The problem with carbon fiber is that it reacts with or is corrosive of aluminum.  For this reason, they must use a separating layer of expensive titanium as the solution to this bad material pairing.  It works in this case, but diversity is also a source of conflict and potential systemic failure.

Diversity: Good and Bad

First, the good.  We’re all unique.  I go to work with a group of people with slightly different abilities and backgrounds from my own.  It is what allows us to specialize and thus be stronger as a team than if we tried to do it all by ourselves.  I would rather Patty do the bookwork, the members of our sales team talk to our customers and stick to my role of designing trusses.  This is where diversity is a great strength.

Furthermore, men and women are different, both physically and otherwise, which can make them an ideal pair.  Only a male and female can produce offspring together.  We can argue over the particulars or against sexist generalities, but there is something special about any diversity of characteristics that can lead to the creation of new life.  It is ideal in other ways as well.  One of this special partnership can provide and protect from outside threats, the other can nurture their children and organize their shared space.  It can be the best of human arrangements.

Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad, and what can be the best of things can also be the worst.  The gender wars, that endless battle for control between abusive men and their feminist counterparts, is how the most wonderful kind of diversity can go very badly and be anything but strength.  Diversity is, therefore, also a source of deep division and strife.  What can make a strong composite can also lead to corrosive interactions and unwanted drama.  Sparks flying.

Homogeneity is our strength?

While the West, the ‘woke’ Anglosphere in particular, is obsessed with “diversity and inclusion” as the highest order of priority, not all in the world do.  

Japan, for example, is very happy to remain Japanese and feels no need to host foreign refugees on their own ancestral lands.  This homogeneity of their culture and ethnicity does seem to help to reduce the friction in their society.  Crime is extremely low.  During the disaster at Fukushima older engineers were willing to sacrifice themselves for sake of their younger kinfolk.  And there’s just a sort of harmony that exists with everyone pulling in basically the same direction.

This has never really been the case in the United States   There were wars between the natives and new arrivals.  With every new immigrant wave arriving there was mistrust and contempt between these groups.  It is what led to sentiments like this:

Only a damn fool can expect the people of one tradition to feel at ease when their country is flooded with hordes of foreigners who — whether equal, superior, or inferior biologically — are so antipodal in physical, emotional, and intellectual makeup that harmonious coalescence is virtually impossible. Such an immigration is death to all endurable existence and pollution and decay to all art and culture. To permit or encourage it is suicide.

H.P. Lovecraft

It is notable that Lovecraft, the famed atheist writer of existential horror, had his strong opinions about various races, including Italians and Jews.  His racism, xenophobia, disgust over the intermixing of people or fear of contamination, has the markings of an obsessive-compulsive disorder.  And yet he was not entirely wrong about the “melting pot” being chaotic and creating a place that’s lacking social cohesion.

It is no big surprise that after a decades long assault on policing and national symbols that, with the ‘woke’ takeover, military and law enforcement recruitment is falling off a cliff.  Nobody, in their right mind, would ever sacrifice themselves for a country or cause that doesn’t represent them and their own values.  Participation requires buying into the common vision and is not possible when there’s competition for that spot.  Nobody wants to die for those who lack appreciation or are completely divorced from what matters to them.

Unequally Yoked: Understanding Biblical Warnings

There is a sort of distain, even amongst professing Christians, towards the Old Testament law.  The various cleansing rituals, dietary prohibitions and other restrictions can seem to be quiet arbitrary our modern ears.  Why does it matter if we mix several materials in our clothing, plant diverse seeds or crossbreed different animals?   

First, I believe this was more about teaching a concept of Holiness or being set apart for good.  

Second, it is a completely practical point about our greater potential when being of the same mind or spirit:

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

(Amos 3:3 KJV)

Third, this principal didn’t end in the Old Testament:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

(2 Corinthians 6:14‭-‬16 KJV)

The whole point of Old Testament law was to reinforce the things that St Paul explains above, we cannot expect good results when we are paired with those who are pulling in a completely different direction.  It’s simply reality, we need to have a boundary between ourselves and those who have nothing in common and want to destroy us.

Is Diversity Our Strength?

It depends.

I don’t think complete segregation of sexes or making all people androgynous is a good solution to gender difference.  Nor should we erase subcultures in the name of unity either.  We want diversity, we want people of different strengths.  But there needs to be some kind of common identity or bonding agent, otherwise we end up with a bunch of competing identities and a fight for the supreme position.  It takes a powerful adhesive to make composites work and this can mean a national identity that overrides all others.

Christ: The Ultimate Bonding Agent 

All composite materials rely on some kind of bonding agent to work.  And early Christians, likewise, were also trying to bridge some vast cultural differences.  In fact, much of the struggle, in the early church, came down to the difference between the Jewish born and Gentile coverts.  Should those newly converted, from non-Jewish background, be required to follow same requirements of faith or be exempted?

 There was plenty of compromise, a new vision (Acts 10:28) and joint identity formed in Christ:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

(Ephesians 2:11‭-‬18 NIV)

It is Christ who eliminates old social barriers:

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Galatians 3:26‭-‬29 NIV)

So, diversity, if bonded in Christian love, can be an amazing strength.  But, when lacking any kind of joint identity it is a horror show, it is corrosive.  It leads to a bloody and violent competition for supremacy between rival groups.  Without Christ it becomes man versus woman, black versus white, class versus class, and there is no strength in this kind of arrangement.  The ‘strength’ of diversity is only possible when all, despite differences, are seeking after the exact same overall goal.

It is okay to have our own separate identities, even to celebrate our own cultural or ethnic heritage. But, when are being black or white, male or female, rich or poor, puts us at enmity with each other, when it is corrosive and causes is to react with hostility to those of a different perspective, then it must be brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and repented of rather than to be a source of pride. This is the higher order priority: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (Romans 14:19 NIV) And, “over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.” (Colossians 3:14 NIV)

A Short Response to Systemic Heightism

Standard

The following is intended both as serious and satire.  The serious part is that the statistics are real, shortness is practically a crime.  The satire is how little those who typically decry such things care about forms of discrimination not as popularized and yet as established in fact as any other.

Systemic heightism is everywhere.  This discrimination against people on the basis of shorter than average stature is something that is deeply embedded into culture and our institutions.  For men, in particular, it means a lifetime of being denied opportunities for some and height privilege for others.

Shortness and Statistics 

In terms of available statistics, and actually proven discrimination, short men are most disadvantaged of any group of people both in history and modern times. 

There is a distinct wage gap driven by height:

“…researchers estimate that each additional centimeter of height is associated with a 1.30% increase in annual income. In other words, a person who is 5 feet 6 inches making $50,000 per year would expect to make about $2,000 more if they were 5 feet 7 inches, and $4,000 more if they were 5 feet 8 inches.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2020/04/16/your-height-has-a-big-impact-on-your-salary-new-research-seeks-to-understand-why/

It isn’t only a matter of income either, but status: 90% of CEOs are of above average height.  Try playing college sports, let alone get an athletic scholarship, if you’re below average height.  Even in the Bible a man named Saul was made king simply for being taller than average.  Meanwhile, David, a short man, was ridiculed, and had to literally kill a giant to prove his worth.  

Many short men are never given the chance to prove themselves and this is especially true in the realm of romance.  Women on dating sites openly, and rudely, dismiss short men writing in their profiles things like “must be 5′-10″ or over to ride.”  Of course, most women are more covert in their height discrimination and simply ignore potential suitors who who don’t meet their requirements.

Some women say what others conceal, but the preference is proven in the numbers.

A 2006 study, by the University of Chicago, found that a man who is 5’6” needs an additional $175,000 to be as desirable as a man who is approximately 6′ tall and only makes $62,500 a year.  Talk about an uphill battle.  Not only do short men get paid less, on average, but they also need more money in order to get an equal opportunity to be considered desirable to women.

Given that single men have a deceased life expectancy, presenting a 32% greater risk for men, being especially short is basically a death sentence.

Getting the Short End of Stick

Deniers of systemic heightism try to explain away the discrimination by victim blaming.  They will often claim that lack of confidence that is the real issue.  However, this is adding insult to injury.  A short man can’t even be confident without risking an attempt to diminish him on the basis of his height.  An assertive tall man is considered to be confident, to have leadership potential, while a short man with similar qualities will often be accused of “small man syndrome” or having a Napoleon complex.

Napoleon was often pictured with his tall elite soldiers and not actually unusually short.

Even in language, terms like “great stature” indicate something good, while phrases like “short tempered” are indicative of a flaw in character.  And not to forget those many common expressions, like “getting the short end of the stick” or “coming up short” that associate shortness with inadequacy or misfortune.  There is even implicit heightism expressed in the statues of famous people being enormous in size.  It is inescapable, ‘bigger’ is typically paired with ‘better’ and nobody cares about the harm done.

Over the course of a lifetime a short man will have endured being last picked in gym class despite his tenacity, friend-zoned by women who admire his character and yet are not at all romantically interested.  He’ll literally be overlooked by his employers and routinely denied promotions.  It will cost him years of his life.  But there will never be reparations, never even be a bit of sympathy, because nobody sees shortness the same way that they do gender or skin color.  

The Long and Short 

We’ll never have social media campaigns to affirm shortness because it would just seem too silly, plus even short men (already self-conscious) would reject the effort.  I mean who really wants to be praised, falsely, for a characteristic that makes less attractive than others?  It is better to just deal with it, use the disadvantage as motivation, prove that a guy can be short of stature and still a bigger man than most.  That is the best and truly the only way to overcome adversity, to show the world who you are.

Johnny Depp with bodyguards

Maybe this is why the most powerful and influential men are actually on the shorter end of the scale?  Many actors and a significant number of billionaires are of average or below average height.  Maybe it is because they knew that they would be overlooked without going 110% in everything they do?  The long and short is that we can forever wallow in our disadvantage or we can turn it into a strength.  No, it does not make it fair, nothing ever is fair, still nobody will ever come to the rescue of short men.

The worst thing we can do to anyone is pity them and make them dependent on our help to be actualized.  It is the true racist, and the real sexist, who assumes that some need their help or uses their ‘sensitivity’ to such things for their own socal advancement, a person dealing honestly will value character above all else and not allow themselves to be biased one way or another, favorably or unfavorably, on the basis of outward appearance.

Elliott Rogers is a poster child of grievance culture and where he was the real problem.

In the end, hurting people come in all shapes and sizes.  It is impossible to quantify and rank such things and completely a fool’s errand to try to compensate people for every disadvantage they face in life.  Furthermore, in trying, we make the problem worse in that we actually reinforce the feelings and the perception of inferiority in those we’re trying to help.  It also leaves those not receiving this special treatment, and as disadvantaged or more, feeling even more neglected.

Sure, absolutely, a little awareness of the unique difficulties some encounter can go a long way to helping. And yet grievance is often a tool used by toxic and controlling people so they can have their way without putting forth the required effort for success themselves.  There’s a vast difference between pity dating a short guy and giving him a chance despite his lack of statute.  We should help people because they are people, not because they tall or short, black or white, male or female.

Short men, by dwelling on their grievance, will only exasperate their disadvantage. It may be cathartic to whiny and complain, but it doesn’t bring a person closer to feeling accepted. Having ‘pride’ events, marches declaring we matter, even months where members are extolled, can never actually produce the legitimacy that those snared in their grievances crave. It is only in finding our identity in something else that we’re free.