My wife asked me if it is normal in America to call someone “Hey!” Her coworker had used this exclamation rather than her first name. “My name is not Hey,” she thought, not verbalizing the protest. In her Filipino culture this casualness is considered to be impolite bordering on an insult.
It has been a big adjustment, coming here, to see how little respect there is for others, especially the elderly and the pregnant. For her, from her perspective, I should not use my elder neighbor’s first name. He should be “uncle Steve” instead, to denote his age rank in comparison to us. Likewise, she was shocked how expecting mothers are not given lighter duty, as they would be in Asian countries. However, tough as she is, she vowed that if an American woman can do it then she can.
But it really does say something about us that we can’t be bothered to recognize the status of others. Most people in the world, including our own past generations, realize that we come into the world and leave the same way. The deference shown to elderly is paying it forward, a recognition that we too will become old and increasingly frail, that we will need help. The use of honoring language is part of that care or setting them apart from those youthful and able.
We have sought absurd equality in the US, where people are all interchangeable, the incel ‘conservative’ says it is unfair for him to have to pay women for maternity leave and ‘progressives’ think biological men can be women with some nipping tucking and a change of wardrobe. Feminists, ironically, strip motherhood and natural feminity of its glory to prioritize the tasks that any human can do. Egalitarian aims are good so far as equal protection under the law, but when it becomes erasure of all human difference it isn’t so much anymore.
Concepts of social rank, codified in religious law like, “Honor your father and mother,” are a part of natural order. Social animals have hierarchies, a pecking order or status that is earned through age or abilities. This can be abused and yet the alternative of disorder is not an improvement. Why be honorable, for example, in a world where accomplishment or reputation is no longer recognized? This may be why we’re so afraid to age—we only lose abilities and gain nothing in return for the experiences we’ve had.
My wife also observed how her American boss doesn’t want to be referred to using a title of respect. It is as if men are afraid of rank, would rather just be one of the boys, and therefore are uncomfortable when the language of their status is used. This, of course, doesn’t change the authority that is wielded by a manager. No, all it does is hide this under a layer of obscurity and makes me wonder why we have become so afraid or ashamed of status.
This all adds to the comedy when Taylor Swift screams “F*ck the patriarchy” to her stadium full of adoring fans. A billionaire who got her start with the help of her rich Daddy pretending to be some poor little powerless girl, a victim of oppression, in a society where nobody wants to be called “sir” or “ma’am” (maybe due to ageism?) and attractive women have all the power—both feminine wiles and all of the opportunity for worldly wealth possible. Total buffoonery on the part of the pop icon.
Still, part of the deal with titles of respect and social rank is living up to your honored name. I’ve blogged against patriarchalism, that is the spirit of entitlement some men have and believe that those who want to be addressed in a dignifying proper way must be dignified. There is also a little bit of self-respect required. My wife is also aghast at how her female coworkers will playfully call each other “whores” and I start to wonder why we must be so degrading?
We all know a story about a little girl going to her grandma’s house and is confronted by a talking wolf who convinces her to go astray. But this written account is predated by tales with similar characters, and yet not exactly the same. In the end, no matter the version, we read it as being a fairytale and understand that it should not be taken as being a historically accurate record of an event. Why? Well, animals don’t talk and we were told it is an old fable.
I had to think of this while seeing so many fundamentalist friends share a false claim that Travis Kelce threatened to quit the Kansas City Chiefs if they did not cut the currently embattled franchise kicker. This part of the hysteria (both in response and in reaction to the response) over the conservative kicker’s commencement address that promotes traditional Catholicism. Normally it would be customary for these Protestant friends to bash those who believe in Jesus in the same manner as Harrison Butker. But, in politics, I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend—suddenly those who give special honor to Mary are now acceptable?
The problem with this Kelce claim is that it is as fictional as Little Red Riding Hood and being spread as fact. I mean, I would think that credibility is important to Evangelicals, being that their mission in life is to convince others a man literally walked on water and then rose from the dead because they read about it in a book. But nope, they share the most urban legends of any demographic on my friends list. For those who say that they know the Truth, personally, this should be a huge embarrassment—except it never is.
Those who have no ability to detect fakes or frauds, who spread blatant lies, really aren’t in a place to preach their values.
As much as I support Butker’s freedom of speech and think the cancel culture outrage over his comments is ridiculous, I really do not find a home amongst those who accept any claim that confirms their ‘Biblical’ views on social media. All it takes is a satire site say that there has been evidence of the Red Sea crossing has been found or that a solar eclipse is passing over seven towns in the US named Nineveh and they will spread these blatant falsehoods to the ends of the Earth because they can’t be bothered to verify the claim before posting it.
If the religious adherents truly occupied the high ground of truth why would they dare to risk their credibility?
Whether it is fake news or just exaggerated tales, that believers are gullible or in people in denial in the manner of a sports fan who can only see what promotes their team as good, the cost is credibility. A consensus of idiots is meaningless. I have no reason to think that prior generations were any better at sorting out the facts from the fictional BS. It is just disheartening, for someone who had hope of a marked difference between the faithful and the frauds.
The truth is that Travis Kelce (and his brother Jason) have come out in support of Butker. So maybe it is time for some professing ‘Christians’ caught spreading this malicious gossip to do what their religion requires, humble themselves, and repent?
Wolves will likely talk before these reactionaries reconsider anything…
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 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.
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.
My son complains that he doesn’t get paid enough for household chores. He feels he is somehow entitled to everything that we’re giving him and more. It is a struggle trying to explain why we won’t simply hand him all that he wants. We have plenty, in his eyes, and can just share our wealth with him. But the reason we hold back isn’t our greed or that we don’t want him to have the best life has to offer. No, quite the contrary, in fact, it is because we want him to do well life that we resist the urge to coddle him.
What is coddling?
On the surface it is being overprotective and indulgent. It stems from distrust of another other person’s ability to deal with normal life situations and emotions on their own. And, while it may appear to be motivated by love or compassion, it only ever empowers those who keep the other confined to the bubble wrapped world. It is the devouring mother, the one who uses their nurture as a tool of control. They only care about the target of their efforts so far as it feeds their ego or feelings of self-importance. It is a virtue signal and degrades those coddled.
Bigotry of Low-expectations
Along with thoughts about parenting and the goal, some of the inspiration for writing this came from the governor of the state of New York, Kathleen Hochul, who declared:
Young black kids growing up in the Bronx, who don’t even know what the word a computer is, they don’t know. They don’t know these things. And I want the world open up to all of them, because when you have their diverse voices, innovating solutions through technology, then you’re really addressing societies broader challenges.
Other than to call this statement what it is: Bigotry (or racism) of low expectations and patronization. I’ll not pile on.
Many, like Hochul, are isolated. They have not spent much time in urban communities nor met the people who live there. From my own first hand experience her claim (which she now claims was misspoken) is absurd, none of the black I met were unfamiliar with or incapable of using computers. Many of my acquaintances there could afford to go to college and more credentialed than I am, so where does this notion come from that they’re hapless ignorant people in desperate need of government assistance?
The answer, in this case at least, is that it is hard to maintain a bloated state budget (let alone greedily expand it) without somehow justifying it and what better way to do that convince people that they need you to get somewhere in life?
Condescending political elites are not moral paradigms and minority voters are not stupid. I believe those pandered to know it is insincere and coming from someone who sees them as dumb. But they also understand it works to their advantage and don’t say no to it. We naturally take the path of least resistance and rationalize why we are deserving of the help. By playing up the consequences of slavery and impacts of racial prejudice, a little wealth redistribution (looting or theft) can be redeemed as social justice.
Unfortunately, low expectations produces what it is supposed to remedy, it gives an excuse to wait around for a handout and kills initiative. This contributes to racism in that it creates the impression that the only way some can compete is by lowering the bar or a double standard. It diminishes the accomplishments of those who knew what a computer is without the help of those in the the benevolent class. Now, because of politicians meddling, there is the question, did they earn it by being the best candidate or are they a diversity hire?
Woke is Weak
My conservative friends wouldn’t likely see the link between Christianity and wokism, but it is definitely there. The woke glorify the victim and reframe accomplishment as unearned privilege. For those who started a business, “You didn’t build that” they reason, and nullify the hard work and the sacrifice of those who followed the entrepreneurial spirit to success. Likewise, in church we’re encouraged to tithe generously and be charitable since it is giving back a portion of all that is given to us by God. The difference being that the woke want us to give to the government, the religious their own organizations.
And there’s nothing wrong with our helping those in need. I provide for my son and my wife as well. However, when I give I give to empower rather make them dependent and weaker. My hope is for my son to grow his strength and ability so that in time he does not need me to survive. And the same thing is true of my wife, she is my partner not my patron, we both contribute different things to the whole and neither of us is entitled to what the other gives to the relationship. It is how a real community works, we give and take as necessary, and we do it for the good of the common project.
Wokism, by contrast, is motivated by envy and pity, it encourages fragility by marking off space spaces and enforcement of strict language codes. Again, this strict regulation has a parallel in religious fundamentalism. Home schooling parents are terrified of the influence of the ‘world’ on their children. They, like the woke, overemphasize the role of the environment in the formation of the individual. The one exempts swaths of the population from the normal civil expectation (while increasing the burden on others) and the other thinks salvation of poor little Johnny depends on them. Bad behavior always blamed on an external influence rather than a lack of will to do better on the part of their designated eternal victims.
This is what Friedrich Nietzsche critiqued as being a hatred for life. When we remove temptation rather than ever teach children to resist it—when we are constantly vilifying strength rather than encourage it—when we follow after reasoning or rationality instead of developing our instincts, we are promoting the weakness of our society and degeneration.
Woke is weak. It attempts to foster spirits of ressentiment and forms an identity around a person’s fear of being disenfranchised for things completely out of their control. And in the end it destroys the incentive to find a way to overcome by our own means.
The Meek Shall Inherit
Neitzsche could be accused of painting with too broad a brush for the dismissal of the Christian ethic as slave morality and an opposition to the powerful.
The message of Jesus and his Apostles was, in part, freedom from those human laws of “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (Colossians 2:21) and very nearly could be the “will to power” that the German philosopher championed once unpacked. Hedonism wasn’t the goal of the departure from “slave-morality,” the aim was instead for people to exercise will-power and resolve. In the same manner Jesus and St Paul preached freedom from the law that brought only bondage and death:
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
(Romans 7:6 NIV)
This is not to suggest that there is any kind of compatibility between the Spirit-led and the Übermensch. Nevertheless, both would have us abandon a lower morality based on restrictions for a pursuit of our own ultimate form. To St. Paul the Gospel means we are free from “the flesh” or the unbridled urges, while Nietzsche thinks we’re instinctively at our best, and both men are not opposed to impulse control. The big difference is that the Apostle’s answer is spiritual whereas the philosopher says that additional layer is not needed and morality a hindrance. Both would disagree devaluing the attitudes and culture that lead to success. Being master of ourselves requires strength and never allows for excuses.
Furthermore, the Jesus of the Bible wasn’t weak, he spoke with authority and we are told that he had power over all things, but he chose a meek posture rather than wield this power destructively. Now it is a matter of faith if you accept this or not. I could say that I could strangle Mike Tyson yet choose not to. Talk is cheap. But meekness is the ability to restrain ourselves. Having the power to impose our will is always desirable, nobody wants to be at the mercy of the elements or other people. However, sacrifice for sake of the next generation is better, to parent is to live beyond ourselves, that is why this is an instinct for those who have children, and it is the role of the Father.
When I wrestle with my son I don’t use all of my strength. I would hurt him if I employed full power. My goal is not to destroy him, he is not my enemy or threat to obliterate, but it is to train and strengthen him. I restrain to protect him currently and also challenge to protect him in the future. That is the real Biblical kind of meekness, it submission to the greater role we can serve as protectors and builders of civilization. It is the having all things in balance, which Nietzsche might agree, and using our strength to take on the burden of creating the future. We do not retreat from life. Faith requires the we go headlong into the fight rather than hide or be ruled by resentment.
Late-stage Protestantism
I can understand the campaign Nietzsche waged against morality in light of wokeism and virtue signaling nonsense. Apparently he was very well-versed in theology and did not find answers there. Which is correct, it is not intellect that brings us life, study for sake of study is vanity, and truth is more in the practical telos than in some theoretical construct. Nietzsche attacks rationality and reason as an end and those things do implode upon themselves when no longer grounded in a higher life-serving purpose.
The current ideological push for wokeism, and the mindless promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion at the expense of standards, merit or competency, is simply another step down the path of trying to eliminate all suffering and in the process destroying excellence. I want my son to face some hardship, even if it is only artificial, because his striving will build strength. It is the thought behind Proverbs 13:24:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.
Or, as Nietzsche postulates in Beyond Good and Evil:
The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?
In the same vein, in The Will to Power, he wrote:
To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities – I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not – that one endures.
No, I don’t want my son to be last picked for his dark skin. And yet I also don’t want him to live in a world so sanitized that he’ll need to invent offenses (in the same way that an autoimmune disorder is the body attacking itself) then expects me to always step in on his behalf rather than face it. Success in life requires some voluntary submission or suffering for sake of our goals. Coddling and bigotry of low expectations does not serve the long-term benefit of children or civilization.
We need to discard this ugly paradigm of late-stage Protestantism. There are great men, powerful and worthy of our respect, then there are those in desperate need of improvement. We don’t help the latter by going soft and changing the requirements to make everything easier. There is nothing radical or reforming about the direction the church in the West has gone. This “have it our way” drive has led to a fracturing of the church, a consumerist mentality in worship and a new religion without obligation to the fathers or their commands.
Woke is simply the latest development in the direction. It is the child with imperfect parents now thinking they know better and don’t need the silly disciplines of their parents to thrive. Whether Anglican or Anabaptist, it is always about rejection of authority and the hierarchies established by the early church and originating with Christ. We think we can do better, that the home is better if there is equal with no patenting or need for development of conscience. In the end we get the complete agnosticism which goes further and to destroy everything the generations of faithful built for our good.
Attainment and success doesn’t need to be made more accessible. My son may think he deserves everything without effort, that we’re hoarding a kind of wealth just given to us and undeserved. But that’s his ignorance. There are no shortcuts to heaven and you can only keep the benefits of civilization if you continue to maintain the very foundation it is built upon. We think that we will be saved by technology and the vague notions of progress of those who think power comes from the stroke of a pen—but that’s not how we got here nor is it a path to a better future.
One of those fun things to do after church, as a child, when the adults had left the auditorium, was to go up and play preacher. We could mimic the motions of our elders in a convincing enough way to be funny and yet really had no idea what we were doing. And this reality would be quite obvious the moment we were asked a serious question.
Part of becoming an adult is the realization that many don’t really know what they are doing. Sure, some might enthusiastically perform their roles, and they have the necessary qualifications, but they either lack practical experience or simple aptitude. Not every doctor or engineer is equal, for example, some are more competent, and others—not so much. But none of these ‘professionals’ have an authority that should be unchallenged.
Reflecting on the priorities, and performative religion, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that some are really only concerned about looking the part and lack any real spiritual substance. It is disheartening when getting customs right is of greater importance than welcoming children. When leaders can answer on matters of trivia but are unable to offer any real wisdom or direction when it comes to the practical application of the clichés they preach, they’re phonies.
I’ve concluded that many participate in church as a sort of social club. And it goes all the way to the top. They have clout in the organization. They can wear the costumes and get the recognition that they so desperately need. But, in the end, they are empty vessels, a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. It would be better to be a child going through the motions, in play, than to take yourself seriously and offend the little ones in the faith. Jesus wasn’t talking about pedophiles in Matthew 18:6.
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.
My initial reaction to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge was disbelief, I had just swiped open my phone, eyes adjusting after I rolled out of bed Tuesday morning, and saw the Daily Mail headline blazing on my Facebook news feed. So immediately I Google “bridge collapse” and, sure enough, the highlighted results were full of similar headlines. It must be true.
Since that moment there has been a flurry of speculation. My first thought, of course, is was this deliberate? Did the Russians do it? But as I started to gather evidence, like the video showing the lights going out and puff of black smoke, mechanical failure was a plausible explanation. That didn’t rule out some kind of sophisticated hacking attack, but then this isn’t a Tesla car or Hollywood fantasy where anything electronic can just be operated remotely through undisclosed magical means.
Theories are easy to create. The hard part is to sift through the information pouring in and come up with something actually likely given probabilities and reliable sources. A random guy online or old Larry at the parts counter isn’t trustworthy. The corporate media is only slightly better, in that they at least get the general story right, yet are also politically motivated and basically parroting official sources or their ‘experts’ at a lower resolution.
What of these officials and experts?
I generally rate someone who has their own reputation on the line over someone who is spit balling and couldn’t change their own spark plugs. Someone with credentials is a better choice for information given that they did put in the work to get their degree and prove their competence. However, a PhD or government position doesn’t make a person honest or free of bias. Those who get paid by the government are part of the political establishment and their partisan agenda should be assumed.
1) Professional Experience
The sources that I trust are those who built a reputation outside of politics and within the industry—this is why I’ve subscribed to “What is Going on With Shipping?” Later in the day of the collision and collapse of the bridge I found an established channel about maritime matters for explanation. How do I know he’s credible? His fluency is a start, he has the technical jargon and credibility with others who know shipping from first hand experience. It is notable that nobody here is surprised that this incident could happen. The details of his analysis give me confidence that the information is good.
Authority comes from having professional experience and a proven record. When I picked my neck surgeon, for example, we had a conversation about his prior record and the procedure. I sized him up. He was articulate, empathetic, and had all the expected confidence of someone who could work a miracle of modern medicine. He also was able to explain everything in terms that I could understand. The trust I put in him paid off, my recovery was great and I’ve come back stronger than ever. Licensing with charisma doesn’t mean someone is competent, but it definitely helps.
2) My Own Aptitude
But my main tool for determining who to trust is based on my own aptitude. I have a decent understanding of physics and spent my younger days curious about mechanical systems—and always needed to understand how they work. I could turn a wrench. I did my own diagnostics and repairs. So when I do bring my car to the mechanic I’ve already done my homework.
For example, when my car lost power right away I suspected the Ti-VCT system was to blame. The engine then gave a code that supported this hypothesis and I took it to a local tire shop and inspection garage. I told them exactly what to look for giving them a page of the diagnostics manual. And yet, after having the car for a day or two (after changing the air filter and cleaning the MAF sensor) they concluded it could just be the car is old and losing compression. Finally, after taking the time to look under the hood, I found the problem. It was what I had been suspecting. This time I took the vehicle to a real technician, a guy who with a reputation for good diagnosis, and he gave a beautiful technical explanation of what happens with a short in that system. After an inexpensive repair I’ve had no issues since.
I’ve never worked in the engine room of a big cargo ship. I know that they are huge and, despite involving the same principles, are on an entirely different scale. For one, it takes a team to keep them running, this isn’t like your Toyota where you can simply turn the key, put it in drive and go. No, they have a startup sequence and when I heard a play-by-play of the disaster unfolding, where the puff of black smoke was explained as being a fuel-air mixture imbalance when they were using a burst of compressed air to start the massive engine, I recalled hearing this being explained in a documentary and it all lined up with what I know about engines. It is clear he was credible and therefore I felt the rest of his commentary had merit. I’ll never trust the people who completely miss on the basics and then expect me to believe their conspiracy theories.
3) Most Plausible Explanation
It could be the MV Dali crew were attacked by mind control aliens using the 5G cell phone network. There’s no way to disprove this is not what happened. However, it is not the most plausible explanation and certainly not the first stop (or last) of a reasonable analysis. What is probable is the answer with the least amount of moving parts or crazy assumptions, which points currently in the direction that this was an accident waiting to happen or a matter of reasonable probabilities that needs no fanciful dreamt up explanation.
There are those times when fact is stranger than fiction. But we should only go there if there is plain evidence of motives and the means. Like when the Nord Stream pipeline exploded and prior to this the US President made a threat “We will bring an end to it.” It isn’t a big stretch to believe he had a hand in the sabotage. The US Navy is one of the few in the world that have the capability of making this kind of attack, so that is a very plausible explanation. It also wouldn’t just happen on its own or accidentally, so we do look for the potential connections.
Nothing is ever absolute. We can’t know for certain. But I’m going with the assessment of the professionals who don’t seem at all surprised that this could happen and can give an informative analysis. I’ll weigh one of their opinions over ten thousand who claim that there’s something fishy or they feel it in their gut and who have never set foot in the bowels of a cargo ship. The reliable sources are those with professional experience and are not tainted by ideologies or narratives that color their perspective of all events.
As we rolled into Washington DC, national symbols emerging into view, I alerted my twelve-year-old son to the sites ahead. He looked up, grunted an acknowledgement, and then immediately buried his head back into the device in his hands. At which point, now frustrated, I let him have it with one of those classic back in my day dad speeches imploring that he join us in the real world.
This episode segues well with a thoughts developed further this past weekend.
I had an informative conversation with a man who worked in the US Capital with prominent politicians and also knew a little about astronomy. He showed me a picture of this formation of stars that he took while at his home in the Philippines. I didn’t recognize it and he then proceeded to tell me that this is the Crux (or Southern Cross) and how early explorers had used this for navigation after the North Star slipped under the horizon.
I’ve been trying to define a problem that is more prevalent in to our time. And it has to do with the difference between social constructs, suspended in language, and actual substance. Before GPS, to navigate the globe required direct observation and accurate intuition. A successful voyage depended on being grounded in the realities revealed by the tapestry of the stars above and celestial bodies. Even without images from satellites they could properly deduce the shape of the Earth.
Today we are not looking up anymore, we look down to our smart phones and get lost in the mire of information space and tangle of interpretation. It is sort of like the night sky is blotted out by artificial light, many do not know the difference between overlay of language or theory and the real bedrock of science. They live in a world of distracting fantasies and imaginary monsters. They float off into a sea of nothingness at very best and could potentially imperil the ship of civilization if their delusions took the helm.
Abstraction is great. Thinking beyond what can be immediately seen is an important tool of human intellect. Language, likewise, is a superpower. And yet these things must be properly calibrated. The sextant is only useful with the correct inputs. Likewise, if the waypoints of our thoughts are incorrect and the final conclusions that we reach will be flawed as well. Many sail boldly, despite having deviate far off course of sound logic and reason, with disaster ahead.
Collapsing the Narrative
The Francis Scott Key bridge was struck by a careening cargo ship after the first part of this of this blog was written and the many interpretations of that event provide even more fodder for thought. Many have a hard time believing that this kind of accident can just happen without some kind of nefarious behind the scenes orchestration.
These conspiracy minded folks are like the ‘woke’ who always see everything through the lens of race. From my friends who tell me to not believe my eyes (or engineering intuition) and follow their gut feelings about “something fishy” or those on the opposite side trying to make a connection between this and “MAGA extremists” voting against a pork-filled ‘infrastructure’ bill—they mistake their ideological lens and partisan bias with special discernment.
The problem is, unlike the Key bridge that needs actual physical pillars to remain as a viable structure, there is no amount tonnage of reality that can knock down these towers of ignorance. Those who confuse their own interpretive matrix with the actual substrate of reality can free-float in their fantasy lands and delusions pretty much indefinitely. It is what Jonathan Swift explained: “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”
The other day I stumbled across a video, “Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things,” that discussed the motivated reasoning that is detached from reality and delusion. The description “fashionably irrational beliefs” (or FIBs) gets to the heart of the matter and that is that our intelligence is oriented in the direction of social status or acceptance and group belonging rather than some notion of objective truth. This identity protective cognition leads us to believe a pile of nonsense:
“A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”
Saul Bellow
This disposition explains the eagerness of academics to join with their other colleagues in pushing agendas like transgenderism and concepts of white privilege.
It also relates religious dogmas and doctrines, where you post a blog post questioning the idea that Anabaptists are the true church resulting in hate-mail from a self-described radical who couldn’t find polite words when their most cherished identity was challenged. Whether the defense mechanism is middle-school insults or doctoral dissertations, it can all be lacking substance underneath.
As I’ve thought how to make this blog more concrete, I believe it all does come down to the disconnect between language (and the ideas contained) and the material world. I can tell you that gravity is fake—something invented by the Pope in Rome to control and subjugate, but jumping off of a tall building will not likely go well for me. In that case the ground rising up to meet me would be the final authority and my special “wisdom of the ages” splattered.
Unfortunately, while we can escape the virtual reality of our cell phones by looking up and just observing the world around us, we can’t ever be free of our own minds. We’ll always be limited by our own perceptions and concepts—seeing the world as we are rather than as it is—but we can always at least be aware that we need constant calibration. Abstraction needs to be grounded or it is useless for navigation and only good for entertainment.
Over the past couple of decades the liberal end of the conservative Mennonites and a few others get together to navel gaze about what it means to be them. This “Anabaptist Identity Conference” (an annual event which some of us have dubbed the identity crisis) is truly a product of this time where nobody is sure of who they are as they once were. There is a strong urge to seek out others, like us, as to bolster our shaking foundations.
In this year’s event there is a line up of many meme worthy topics, like “The Anabaptists: Continuation of the Ancient Faith,” where ol’ David Bercot, a man who truly knows where his meal ticket comes from, will try to make the case that Anabaptism (as they define it) is somehow a direct lineage to the Apostle’s church. This connecting the dots to make it fit narrative, of course, will play right into the confirmation bias of his audience who fawn over an educated outsider. Maybe this year he’ll have pictures of whoopie pies painted in the catacombs?
Anyhow, some may believe that the first Anabaptist Identity Conference was held in 2007, in the Amish vacation Mecca called Sarasota, but there was one before this way back in 1536. It occurred in the aftermath of an event that left Anabaptists then trying to find a path forward. This is the Bocholt meeting that brought together survivors of the Münster rebellion and other factions in the Anabaptist movement:
In August 1536, the leaders of Anabaptist groups influenced by Melchior Hoffman met in Bocholt in an attempt to maintain unity. The meeting included followers of Batenburg, survivors of Münster, David Joris and his sympathisers, and the nonresistant Anabaptists.[4] At this meeting, the major areas of dispute between the sects were polygamous marriage and the use of force against non-believers. Joris proposed compromise by declaring the time had not yet come to fight against the authorities, and that it would be unwise to kill any non-Anabaptists. The gathered Anabaptists agreed to the compromise of no more force,[5] but the meeting did not prevent the fragmentation of Anabaptism.
No discussion of Anabaptism is complete without a little discussion about this crazy polygamous uprising. Sure, the revisionist historians of the denomination may tell you otherwise, but the association is definitely there and the Wikipedia summary is accurate. Menno Simons, in his 1539 Foundation Book, called the Münsterites “dear brethren” rather than claim they weren’t truly Anabaptists. So are we really in a better position today to decide who is truly representative of the Anabaptist identity? No, we’re not.
What is the Anabaptist identity?
In America it is mostly an ethnic group with a similar religious lineage. Some within this category have openly lesbian pastors while others cling to traditional dress and buggies for transportation. Unlike in the first 1536 identity conference, when their big debate was over use of violence, now the surviving Anabaptist groups agree on that and really not a whole lot other than that. Even those who organize and attend the conference in the current year only represent a subset of the conservative Anabaptist groups. The ‘spiritual’ lineage, while all claim it as their own, is too vague to put a finger on.
Men like Bercot and their ilk may want to declare the boundary lines even stricter than the early Anabaptists did, but that is just adding delusion upon a delusion. No, I am not saying they aren’t Christians, that’s not my purveiw, but for one to claim they’re some kind of special remnant of the remnant is just plain grandiose. And what comes to mind, at this juncture, is the “Stop It, Get Some Help” meme.
Newsflash: You’re not even representative of the early Anabaptist —let alone the ancient church.
This conference can’t speak for the plurality of the groups today who trace their roots the so-called “radical reformation” and do not have a voice in this identity rumination project. What is hard to miss, for those outside looking in, is that this is an effort to preserve their distinction and not to seek the the unity in Christ that St Paul commanded (1 Corinthians 3) when some in the early church were busy commending themselves for their special identities.
I don’t have a problem with having an ethnic identity that is cherished. I’m German, still Mennonite in many regards, and absolutely adore Old Order people. I have no problem with having our own culture or celebrating our heritage. It is why I encourage my son to keep his Igorot language and ways rather than have it all be erased in the American monoculture. But there’s a vast difference between that and those basically arguing that they’re saved through heritage.
Saying that Anabaptists are a “continuation of ancient faith” is only a half step away from being as crazy as the Schizophrenic who thinks they’re the second coming of Jesus. The denominational ground you’re standing on is not sacred simply because you currently stand on it. It is spiritually equivalent those Anabaptists in Münster declaring their own project to be the New Jerusalem. We should know better than to live in that kind of self-delusion. We should not condone or encourage it.
There are questions that frame an issue the wrong way and are only answered by asking another question. One of them is: How can you raise another man’s son? The only real question for me is how could I claim to love my wife and then not love HER children?
Maybe I simply look at the world differently from other men. But the initial question to me comes off as sounding like “how can you love another man’s daughter?” Answer: “Well, we are the same species and it just happens naturally, I suppose?”
I believe the real issue is when someone is looking at step-parenting from a detached or deconstructionist view. In this framing it is all about biology and evolution. In other words, we should be like lions who kill the offspring of male rivals, not raising them as our own. It is a sort of Social Darwinistic construct where a man should only ever be concerned about raising the product of his own immediate genetic insemination.
But I think this is truly a very naive view of human relationships. We get along with our relatives as far as we relate to them and not after we DNA test them for our paternity. It is the same for my son and I. Probably a bit over six years ago I met this goofy kid with a bit of a crooked grin. He was endearing to me for his energy and his incredible ability to make friends anywhere. And, a few years later, when he asked me if he could call me “Daddy,” the die was cast.
The thing is, when I learned my bhest had a son I knew any romance with her would be a two for one deal. It was never a question for me. I did put considerable thought to it, worried more that this young person would accept me for this important role.
There was assurance, along the way, that helped me settle my worries and came from a stepdaughter who absolutely adored her stepfather. She told me that the fact he had choose to love her like a daughter made it a special love. Good step-parents don’t make a mistake when they bring a child into their lives. By contrast, there are many biological parents who become parents because they were unable to control sexual impulses.
In conclusion, my question is to those who ask the question: How could you not love a beautiful child, a wonderful miracle of life, who makes no judgement of you for your own multitude of faults? A child can form attachment to any adult who loves them as a parent loves and the same works for men who are committed to love.
Despite our variety of gifts and superficial differences of appearance, we’re all genetic cousins. My wife comes from the opposite side of the world, like our son, yet we are a couple very much compatible. Sure, there are differences in cultural expectations, or personality conflicts that come along, but it is really what you’re willing to put in as far as building the bond that matters.
If you could not love or even raise a child simply because they aren’t genetically your own then my only advice is to step up your game. Any man, who still has a functional reproductive system, can impregnate fertile women. That doesn’t make him a father or worthy of raising a child. No, it is always a choice to take responsibility for the needs and future of another unique individual.
It was our joint love for Ydran that helped us to push through years of waiting. If it were only the future of two adults going separate ways would have been easier. But when he called me “Daddy” on the phone, something changed in me and after that there was no way I would simply abandon him to fate.
Irregular Ideation 