Dialectics, History and Cross Cultural Communications

Posted to my Com class message board. A dialectic perspective of history and it's impact on communications across cultures was the topic and we needed to include an example of something we learned that turned out to be wrong. Here is a concise explanation of the dialectic perspective of communications for context. Thanks to the University of Maryland for what is turning out to be a very handy reference for this class.

It is often important to understand other cultures, from the perspective of their history because it forces us to take a more objective view of their present. An excellent example given in the book is the role that history has played in black/white race relations in the U.S.

It is very easy to forget that our present and the present of others are ultimately the current culmination of what our ancestors passed down from generation to generation. This is both a progression of traditions and heritage, as well as the transmission of changes each generation made in the face of the perceived cultural failings.

Without the considering that this progression happens in every culture, it is all too easy to judge the cultural practices that we find distasteful in others from our own progression. While there is no question that regardless of the cultural context some cultural practices are absolutely repugnant, any attempt to foster change in those cultures must take into account the history that brought about those practices. When one can communicate from the context of this other culture and it's history, it creates a communication paradigm that this other culture will be far more receptive to.

I think a very good example of this, is the history of interactions between native Americans and the European settlers. Many of those of us who were educated in public schools were taught that the Europeans did really horrible things to the natives of this land. But what we were taught actually paints my ancestors in a much better light than they deserve. It is a lot like saying that Nazi Germany mistreated the Jews.

What actually happened was nothing less than a systematic attempt to entirely destroy the cultural heritage of all native Americans. From outright genocide, to removing children from their parents for re-education, often beating children who spoke their native languages or attempted to follow their spiritual heritage. Just 120 years ago, we still thought little of gunning down 200 natives. Just 37 years ago, intolerable conditions on a primarily Lakota reservation, led residents of that reservation to take over and occupy a small town, leading to a major standoff with federal officers.

And just 18 years ago, two native Americans lost their jobs and were denied unemployment benefits for having participated in a religious ceremony involving the ingestion of peyote. While many of us assume that the exploitation of native lands ended a long time ago, even today we refuse to allow the reservations the autonomy they were promised by treaties made and broken over the past two hundred and some odd years. Attempts to assuage our guilt by allowing native Americans to open casinos on their lands is ludicrously inadequate.

I learned the Disney version of the history of interactions between European immigrants and native Americans more than twenty years ago. I have learned the considerably more horrifying truth of it mostly over the past ten years. Yet this understanding is essential to understanding just why many native Americans are extremely angry. For nearly three hundred years they have been subjected to the whims of mostly European settlers and their antecedents. Entire native cultures have been irretrievably destroyed, all others threatened nigh to extinction.

As the conquerors who wrote the history, we learn something less shameful than the reality. Our ancestors (those who have roots extending back) committed horrible atrocities, atrocities that many wanted to forget. What was passed through our generational progression was slowly changed to something far less egregious that it was. Making it easier to ignore much of the suffering this nation was founded upon and to ignore our continued subjugation of native Americans.

Native Americans have a generational progression as well. One that carries the scars of cuts hundreds of years old, given stark clarity by the wounds suffered by each generation since. Without understanding both our own history and the history if native Americans - a history that stretches for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, it is very difficult to understand the anger, the sensitivities of natives taking offense to things that most of us would otherwise consider trivial.

The Joys and Pains of Getting a Little Old

So I ended up going to Urgent Care last night, after some pain under my ribs - mostly on the left side began to spread and get a lot worse. I have been feeling sore for a few days, but when I woke up yesterday is was notably worse and got considerably worse through the day. To whit, when I have to breath deeply - or worse, yawn - it is about as painful as most anything I have experienced - though admittedly, not even close to passing a kidney stone.

I knew I didn't have a fractured rib, because I have had those and know what to feel for. I knew it wasn't a heart issue, because I pay pretty decent attention to my heart rate and know what to look for. I was mostly concerned that it might be pneumonia or something related. But while I do seem to have pretty heavy bronchial inflammation and swollen, sensitive glands, the doctor is pretty sure it is not pneumonia - though as he was giving me an antibiotic for the bronchial infection, he prescribed one that would deal with that as well.

The problem, it seems, is something called Costochondritis, possibly Tietze, because there does seem to be some swelling. Basically, there is a major inflammation of the cartilage connecting the ribs to the breastbone. Pretty much harmless, but hurts - a lot. The cause can be nothing, some trauma or simply light exercise. The doctor also mentioned that this is more common with middle age men and older.

The icing on the cake was that while he was poking and prodding and getting me to tighten various muscles - the whole experience was exceedingly painful - he noted that I seem to have the beginning of a possible hernia on my belly. He gave me some ideas about how to deal with it, but was clear that I really, really don't want to have it turn into a full fledged hernia. Indeed he said that while that still would not quite hit the pain level of passing a stone, it would probably come a good bit closer.

Gregorian Chants and Algebra do NOT Mix

Godsmack on the other hand, is just the thing...

For The Record, I am Attracted to Adults

Though Australian Senators Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett would probably just assume I am a pedophile. Or maybe they would just assume I am "at risk" as it were, for pedophilia. The symptom? I happen to be rather fond of small breasts. But according to Joyce and Barnett, porn that includes small breasted women should be banned, because it encourages pedophilia.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. Along with their campaign against small breasted women, Joyce and Barnett are also going after what they call the "abhorrent" sex act of female ejaculation. Apparently believing this is somehow akin to urination, breaking the rules against depicting urination as a sex act. For the record, female ejaculate is most assuredly *not* urine.

Of course just as important as female ejaculate not being urine, is the fact that it shouldn't fucking matter. I am not personally interested in water sports/golden showers, but there are a lot of people who are. Some of them are really into it. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - nothing whatsoever.

Human sexuality is remarkably diverse - diverse and complicated. One of the ugliest complications is intense pressure towards a social norm. Mind you, this social norm is ever changing. What we are told we should be attracted to/get our kinks from changes pretty much constantly - never mind we are diverse and diversity means we are attracted to/get our kinks from many different things. This pressure to engage in this ever changing social norm creates a great deal of shame for a lot of people who happen to be into something else.

And of course when your fetish happens to be rather more atypical than most, that shame is just that much worse. People who have a bodily waste fetish are pretty much wide open to ridicule and disdain. People who are into latex fare little better. People who are huge into being abused - about the same. People who are into providing the abuse - just vile excuses for human beings. People who are into feet, fur, vegetables or power tools - complete and utter freaks.

Only they are most certainly not. They are no more or less than part of the diverse web of human sexuality. Some engaging in sex acts that are only marginally about what most people think of as sex or sexual fulfillment. Sex is beautiful, diverse, complicated, fascinating and wonderful. That is not to say it doesn't have an ugly side. Nonconsentual sexuality is just plain unacceptable and steps should be taken to ensure that people who would engage in it are comfortable with getting the help they need not to - before they cannot control the drive to act on it. But outside of that, sexual diversity is a beautiful thing.

Certainly not something that we need a government trying to control.

(more or less a HT to Pharyngula's never ending thread - though Juniper pointed me to the article, not the post)

Is it Rude?

Something I haven't really discussed much, is my rather extreme discomfort in crowds of people - at being out in public in general. It is exhausting to me, to have to deal with being surrounded by strangers, yet as a student, I am surrounded by them on a virtually daily basis. And as an avid user of public transportation (when living where decent PT is available), I am often pushed in close with them.

One of the things that I do to help myself feel better, is to listen to music or audiobooks on my mp3 player. There are occasions when I manage to wander down the hall without it, but generally I don't actually get very far before I pull it out and put it on. Listening to something that the people around me are not makes me feel like I am at least experiencing a little bit of privacy. And for the record, no, I cannot manage grocery shopping without it...

What I am wondering, is if you might happen to think this is rude. To what degree you might think it rude. Whether you think the degree of rudeness would outweigh the discomfort of not wearing it (for me, it is roughly the difference that an average dose of valium might make).

To be clear, I am not the least bit discomforted by interpersonal communications. When the number of people I am talking to gets up much more than four or five people, I start getting rather uncomfortable - my preference being for more intimate gatherings. Being in front of a crowd doesn't bother me in the least. I have spoken to crowds of a hundred plus and as front man, I have played for audiences of more than a thousand - didn't break a sweat. And being in class, or moderating support groups is not nearly as uncomfortable as being stuck in a random crowd or group of people...

So what do you think? Is it rude of me to walk around with earbuds in all the time?

Now for the rest of the Culture Questions...

I do want everyone to know that I appreciate all the responses I got to the last set of questions and rest assured, I am going to be using the responses I got - indeed, they are an integral part of this whole project. I would appreciate even those who did not respond to the first questions to respond to these. I will write a blog post about why I asked these and the others, as well as posting the paper that I am going to write, using the responses to these posts as something like the core of the paper.

I would also like to mention again - even if the response you have for any or all the questions has been given, please respond anyways. And again, if you are a professional (i.e. anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, please refrain from responding in comments. I would be happy to get your response via email, but I would prefer that your response not bias other responses.

First, I am going to define culture for the context of these questions - actually defining culture in a few ways that differ, but are not mutually exclusive. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to write them separately - though they will get melded some in the questions.

Culture = the human capacity to define experience through symbols (language) and communicate experiences using the symbols that define it.

Culture = an experience that is shared by the members of a particular language community, transmitted from one generation to another, through the use of symbols.

Culture = a common interest shared by several humans that includes language specific to that common interest. This common interest may transcend shared language communities, but includes symbols specific to that interest - though the specific symbols used may differ from language group to language group, the meaning of the symbols are consistent.

For the first question, let us assume you are part of a particular culture that transcends shared language communities - please consider this in the context of a culture that applies to you (i.e. SciFi, Comic books, a specific discipline of science, etc.).

Which would it be easier for you to share something interesting you have discovered about your interest;

Someone who is a member of your language community, but not your culture? or Someone who is part of a different language community, but is as strong a part of your culture as you are? Assume for the latter that you have no shared language and that even the symbols specific to your culture might be somewhat different.

Assume that you are trying to engage someone from a different language community than your own and that you do not share common language (aside from a couple of words that you think you might recognize). You have to communicate with this person, but all you have are each other. You are in your home, while this is taking place. How would you go about trying to communicate with this person?

Now you are trying to communicate with someone who is part of your language community. You want to explain a very common, integral aspect of your culture to this person, who is not a part of the culture you are trying to talk about. How would you go about this?

Finally, you are trying to communicate with someone who is part of your language community about a common, integral aspect of your culture, who while not being a part of that culture, does have a different shared culture with you. Would you explain it differently to them, than you did the last person? How?

To provide contextual examples for the last two questions - I am an exceedingly hard-core scifi/fantasy geek (though I have never been to a con). I am currently going through a series of books that I started in the nineties, but gave up on afraid the author was likely to die before he finished them (at that point, nine books in, following the same plot line, same characters). Now it is going to be completed, in spite of the author dying, so I have started over. This series (The Wheel of Time) has a rather peculiar system of magic - not even going to try to explain, suffice to say it is complicated and it is also entirely integral to the books and the cultures described in them.

For the first question, it would be like trying to explain this system of magic to someone who absolutely loathes fictional writing. For the second, it would be like trying to explain this to someone loves particularly well written crime fiction (i.e. Dennis Lehane, Elmore Leonard) like I do, but who has never really gotten into scifi/fantasy.

Burying Childhood Friends

This is something that should only be done at a ripe old age - until then, one should only have to bury friends and loved ones who are much older. Unfortunately, I am about to bury my first childhood friend. I suppose he is technically my second, but I was not around for the funeral of the first and in all honesty, he wasn't really a friend.

In this case, it is especially difficult, because this friend was younger than myself and in a couple of ways I was a mentor to him. I am really not sure how I feel about it, I haven't actually seen him in roughly fifteen years - possibly longer. I cared for him and never stopped caring for him - he was my friend and I am not one for letting lack of contact stop me from caring for old friends. But it has been a very long time and that makes for some dulling. And there are other more personal reasons that are causing confusion.

What I do know, is that I am way to fucking young to be burying childhood friends - especially younger childhood friends...

What is this thing we call Culture? *Updated* (Help DuWayne with Schoolwork)

I would just like to note that even if your definition has been mentioned, please respond anyways. I am interested in the numbers of people responding in a particular fashion.

I have way too damned many things to address, so it is fitting that I should add something more to that. This semester I am taking two classes that overtly delve into culture and another that addresses a specific subculture that looks to be intensely interesting.

I am going to provide my own response a little later, but I am rather curious how you might define culture. What do you think of, when someone mentions the word "culture?" How does "culture" differ from "society?" What is/are your culture/s?

Depending on the responses I garner (if I garner any), I will probably have some more questions. Indeed, I actually do have some specific questions to come that I am not asking now simply because I don't want to bias responses to the questions I have already asked.

I am asking these questions because I am hoping to use the responses as part of the foundation for one of my papers this semester. If you could help me out, I would really appreciate it. I would ask that those who have a background in anthropology or sociology refrain from responding in comments - I am not looking for professional definitions. What I am looking for is purely layperson responses. And if you have the urge to encourage others to respond to this post, I would be very appreciative. The more responses I can get, the better.

BikeMonkey and Equivalence of Oppression (update)

A certain lovely someone made the point to me that I wasn't particularly clear on a point that I am quite definitely not trying to claim that the bigotry aimed at atheists is like the persecution of the Jews. I am not at all. My entire point was that I have had to deal with some very intense feelings regarding this particular issue. Feelings that are completely valid.

PalMD wrote a rather upsetting post the other day, one that resonated with me on one level and made me spitting fucking angry on another. He finally felt the need to respond to Garrison Keillor's vile diatribe in Salon, trying to put non-Christians in their place in regards to celebrating x-mas. Pal comes from a very different perspective on this than I do, one that I cannot possibly understand, not being Jewish myself. His feelings on this resonated with me not because my experience is the same as his, but because Keillor's sentiments have been thrown in my face as well - sometimes by people who were once my friends and who despite my anger towards them and their bigotry, people I still care about. But that was not my first comment there - my first comment there was an expression of all out rage at something besides Christmas that Keillor ripped from Pal.

I am a musician and a midwesterner raised in Michigan - the same state that Pal hails from. I am not and never have been primarily into bluegrass, but bluegrass and hybrid mountain folk are nevertheless a part of my musical experience - a rather big part. Some of the best times I have had playing music, have been as part of a relatively large crowd of people hanging out and playing bluegrass and folk. Because of Michigan's automotive history and the importation of a hell of a lot of workers from parts of Appalachia, Tennessee and Kentucky, there is a huge presence of this sort of music here. There are professional and semiprofessional bluegrass and hybrid folk players, as well as dulcimer makers who can build instruments to rival the best instrument makers from the aforementioned areas. And I have had the pleasure of playing with a lot of these folks, as often as not, while sitting around a fire.

Here is the thing about bluegrass and folk - no one gives two shits what labels someone wears. If you want to listen and enjoy, you are more than welcome any time. If you want to join in, most folks don't care if you can't carry a tune to save your life, much less care what labels you wear. What matters is that you love music, love the community being fostered right then and there and want to take part - whether by listening or joining right in. That is what bluegrass and mountain music is all about - that is the point of it. Traditionally, folk music of any sort in most cultures has been a great leveler - a chance for everyone in a village or group to be equalized and enjoy themselves freely.

So when I read Pal's heartfelt sorrow at feeling that was taken from him, I got fucking angry as hell - far more angry than I did about Keillor's overt x-mas commentary. And I expressed my indignant anger at the notion that some motherfucker could take something so fundamentally open and inclusive away from anyone, much less someone I like. I was not invalidating Pal's feelings, I was expressing my own - and to some extent expressing my anger and refusal to let motherfuckers like Keillor "put me in my place" as well. Nowhere was I suggesting that Pal's feeling weren't valid or that he should just be able to ignore the bigotry and pretend it doesn't matter. Hell, I wasn't even suggesting that I can do that. Not letting not only people like Keillor or right wing blowhards or people who used to be my friend "put me in my place" doesn't mean it doesn't matter or effect me - obviously it does, rather fundamentally even. I just happen to have a different attitude than Pal does about how to handle it from there - in large part because I have a very different experience from Pal's.

But BikeMonkey, in his infinite wisdom decided that I needed to be put in my place, much like Keillor does - though in a different context. BM doesn't think that my feelings about this topic are valid, because my experience isn't Pal's and my overwhelming privilege means I should just shut the fuck up and pretend it doesn't matter. BM decided that there was some sort of equivalence being made, rather than what actually was happening and assumed he knows all about my great fucking privilege in the face of religious expression. I am going to address this idiot notion of equivalence first, then talk a little about my extreme privilege and experience with bigotry.

There is no equivalence between my experience and Pal's. None. Because I don't actually have a window into Pal's head, I cannot say for sure what he feels, but I do have his words to go by and can assume that this whole situation had a rather profound affect on him. Pal has a lifetime history of being Jewish that feeds his experience of Keillor's diatribe that I do not have and he has feelings that have nothing to do with Keillor that impact what he is feeling about it now. And we have to add to that that he was raised by people who are Jewish and who probably faced even more antisemitic bigotry than he has faced - something that probably had a pretty profound effect on his worldview. There is absolutely no equivalence to our experience, because his is not mine - I didn't grow up with the anything like what he grew up with.

That does not mean that my feelings are somehow less valid than Pal's. They are different - very different. They may not even have the depth of his own, though that is impossible for anyone to judge, because no one has a window into anyone else's head. I don't know what Pal's feelings are or what feeds them - I only know my own and what feeds them.

I am an atheist. I am not an atheist because I wanted to be an atheist, I am an atheist because I finally was unable to perpetuate my faith in the face of so very much evidence to contradict everything I Believed. I feel free now, like a huge burden has gone from me - do not get me wrong - in many ways I feel much better for finally shedding my faith. But that has come only after a nearly twenty year struggle to cling desperately to that faith. I described a great deal of that experience and the abusive nature of my brainwashing here, here, here and a bit here, so I am not going to really go into the abusive nature of my relationship with my faith now - suffice to say, if you do not want to click the links, that like a lot of people I spent a very long time in a very abusive relationship with religion. I will highlight one aspect of that abuse though, because it speaks well to my immense privilege.

Before I do, I do want to be clear that I am pretty cognizant of my privilege. I am privileged and I have benefited from it my whole life. But privilege is relative - it is always relative.

One of the worst abuses my relationship with religion fostered, was my attitude about my neurological issues. At an early age I was taught that I did not have neurological problems - or if I did, it was totally a matter of demonic activity being at the heart of it. I was taught by my fundie mother that it was totally a matter of wholly surrendering myself to her god and following his plan for my life. That if I just believed enough - prayed enough - figured out and accepted her god's plan for my life, I would no longer have any of these problems. On the other hand, I was told by my atheist father that these neurological issues are just as excuse others were making for me and that if I just damned well did as I was told - if I buckled down, I would be ok.

Being a hardcore little fundamentalist myself, this god person was the obvious choice. Not that it mattered, whether my faith was too weak or my will to weak, my inability to overcome my neurological issues without help was entirely my seven year old responsibility. There was therapy in there when I was in middle school, but with a therapist ill equipped to help me, especially given that I was truly convinced by my parents that it was all on my head. Faith or will, it was all up to me and me alone. It wasn't until my entire world shattered around me as a teen, that I changed my view on that - unfortunately it only changed for the worse.

I decided then to embrace my mental illness and in exactly those words. I decided that just as my god obviously wanted me to have sex and use drugs - else he wouldn't have sent the opportunities for both my way so often - I became convinced that this is the way I was made, the way my brain was made and I should just accept it as it was. I decided that the only way I could ever be successful, was if I truly accepted who and what I was, because when my world shattered I didn't stop believing. My beliefs changed to be sure - they changed quite fundamentally. But the Faith was still there - the absolute Belief was still there. Not only that, but it was something that I described as Christian, though I explored all sorts of other beliefs.

I no longer denied that I had atypical neurology, but I didn't believe that I should try to change it - in spite of using a hell of a lot of drugs that did just that. As I learned more and understood more about the world around me and even myself, my feelings about my brain evolved. I accepted eventually that I really would probably do better with help, but help wasn't available and recreational drugs were. But still there was that faith - though even that had evolved further and further.

I should note that I was quite often subject to bigotry from other Christians, because I was not the right sort of Christian and as a rather serious substance abuser and horrendous slut, I obviously did not live their version of a Christian lifestyle. My advocacy for glt rights also counted hard against me, as did my acceptance of evolution.

There were times when I might have let it go, but for the simple stark terror I had of hell and the possibility of hell. That, combined with this belief that there were otherwise unexplainable interventions in my life - the biggest being that I was still alive and relatively coherent. And it was a great comfort when I moved to a new city where I literally had two friends before I moved there. My partner and I had split and I was pretty much bereft of anything approaching the support network that I had developed and fostered back in Lansing. I went to the church that my two friends in Portland were attending and was embraced into a wonderful new family.

Until it all fell apart - until I could no longer reconcile or justify any of it. Then I was rejected by this family I had been part of. I was rejected by people who were an important part of my life and the life of my eldest child - not just in the context of faith, but in a very holistic fashion. I was rejected and my child faced rejection for things he had no comprehension of, by people who were as important to him as they were to me. And ever since, I have either endured rejection from these people or pressure to just read this book or listen to that speaker - and it would all make sense again. Comments that they are still praying for me and have every confidence I will one day return to their god's grace.

And while it is certainly not all, many people I care about find it downright offensive that I would infringe on their holidays and any other aspect of their culture.

Being back in the midwest has brought on other problems. Friends who were my friends in spite of my identifying as a Christian - friends who had been rejected by most people who carry that label, but accepted me because I did not have come to reject me for rejecting any spiritual or religious beliefs altogether. To be sure, I still have many friends - including many gay and transgendered friends. But I have lost as many as I still have.

And I still have to make a lot of decisions about whether or not to admit to being an atheist to whom. There is a very common theme in the midwest (and many places) that people don't care what your spiritual or religious beliefs might be - they just take exception to people who don't believe in any sort of higher power.

I have been soundly rejected by most of my community of friends and loved ones. Was rejected at a time when I was dealing with the trauma of finally getting free of my struggle with religion. As abusive as it was, like many such relationships it was nevertheless a fundamentally important part of my life. It is over and I am free of it, but I am not free of it's influence. I am not only dealing with the hole left by faith, I am dealing with the hole left by many people I love - exacerbated by the bigotry of people I love, the bigotry of strangers aside. And while people can't just look at me and see that I am an atheist, I sometimes have to sit quiet and pretend I am not.

And it is only in the last year, while dealing with this rejection and pain, that I am finally actually getting help for my neurological issues and managing to repair the severe damage those problems have created in my life and in the lives of my children. At thirty three, I am finally getting an education in hopes of pulling myself and my children out of the poverty and near poverty that has been their lot in life.

So no, my experience is not PalMD's experience. His experience may even plumb greater depths than my own, I can only speak for myself on that count. All I can say is that my experience with religious bigotry has had a very painful and profound affect on not only myself, but my eldest son as well. There is no equivalency because Pal's experience and mine are very different and because neither of us could begin to know the depth of suffering the other feels to compare. But just because there is no equivalence, does not make either of our experiences or the feelings fostered by those experiences less valid than the other.

Gearing up for the winter semester

I took the boys back to their mother on new years, amazed again at the ability of my two and almost eight year old to endure ten hours plus on the road with minimal fuss. I am rather depressed they are gone, talking on the phone every day just doesn't hold a candle to snuggles, reading to them in person, being peed on post bath or even having same two year old wander over to the corner to crap in his diaper five minutes after spending twenty five minutes sitting on his potty holding it in. I will also miss the sledding - post tooth coming out and emergency oral surgery actually included. While it was rather horrific, it is also better now and another experience shared with eldest.

But they are back with momma (for now) and I am getting ready for another semester.

I am really excited about my classes this semester, even the bloody math. I am taking abnormal psych, cross culture communications, American sign language, intermediate algebra and language and culture. The last three are four credit classes, making this an eighteen credit semester. I am a little reticent about the load, but ultimately I think it will be pretty easy going.

Abnormal psych is with a rather brilliant instructor and I can expect to write one paper, tests making up the rest of my grade. I am pretty comfortable with my knowledge of abnormal psych going into this class, so I don't expect any problems with tests and most regular readers of my blog know how I feel about papers...For those who don't - I bloody well love writing papers.

Cross culture communications is an online class - something I have never managed to deal with well before. But the instructor is my instructor for interpersonal communications and he made it clear that he is available personally and that he not only has message board discussions, but actually takes part in them. And most excitingly, there are only two tests (IIRC) and the rest of the grade is pretty much wrapped up in three - yes three papers!!!

I am taking intermediate algebra with the same instructor who taught my remedial algebra class and have every confidence that this will be just as great as that was. He was very instrumental in helping me understand concepts that I have had a totally shit time with in the past. He also is very available before and after class, as well as during rather more extensive office hours than a lot of instructors.

American sign is going to be pretty awesome - I actually dropped it last semester, after a couple of sessions for personal reasons, but have every confidence that this will be a great experience. The instructor is great and given my limited experience with her, someone I can totally deal with. She is very pleasant, very warm - without being saccharine, at the same time she is also very strict - a combination I am very fond of.

Language and culture is something I am really looking forward to for several reasons. First and foremost, I am really looking forward to the instructor - I would have taken any class she happened to be teaching this semester. She is the head of the humanities department and there are several things that I am interested in discussing with her - things she has a fair expertise in. And joy of joys, the only class she is teaching this semester is something I very much wanted to take. I am approaching the study of language from a very science oriented perspective - I think it will be valuable to look at it from a humanities perspective, extremely valuable really. I have been reading Terrence Deacon, who among many other things makes a solid case for approaching symbols/language/icons from a broader angle than science really allows for, when engaging the study of language and cognitive/neurological evolution.

And honestly, I have to admit that I am excited about having the opportunity to write a couple of papers in MLA. There is something rather relaxing about the MLA format - not to say that I don't appreciate APA - I do. But I will totally admit to being something of a whore when it comes to writing styles and there is just something rather sexy about MLA...

With all of my paper writing this semester, I am hoping I will be encouraged to write more blogposts - though they will be rather topical to the papers I happen to be working on at a given point. I know that we will get the parameters for our communication papers within the first week - so those will probably be the first ones that I hit on. I also expect to get the psych paper parameters early on as well. I am not all that sure when the humanities paper parameters will come out, but don't expect them until a specified time before they are due. The paper for sign-language will be available right away, but we won't have the background for it until we are well into the semester (I believe that one might be MLA too!!!).

All in all, I am really looking forward to the upcoming semester. It looks out to be totally big fun and excitement through and through (ok, so I am rather less excited about math, but still)...Good times will be had by all!!!

An open letter to lazy, obnoxious parents at McDonald's

I accept that going to McDonalds means going to a place where kids are free to be rather kidlike. Doesn't really bother me that much, because as a parent I understand that kids aren't perfect little angels all the time. But just because you chose to take your spawn to McDonalds, doesn't mean they are free to do anything and everything while you sit on your lazy ass - refusing to be bothered by your nasty little issue.

It is especially fucking obnoxious when your spawn are several inches taller than the max height and still they play - trampling children who are much smaller, much younger and far better behaved. It is one thing when they are running up to help a smaller sibling, it is quite another when they are trying their best to destroy the play structure, climbing around the outside of it, hanging from the bar and kicking their feet (as well as small children who are passing) and running down very small children in their haste to get through the structure. Control your fucking vile monsters please and keep the larger ones off the fucking play structure.

My children and the other small children have a right to play on these structures (and park play structures as well) without being shoved around, trampled and knocked off by your moldering pile of uterine fucking waste. My eight year old and even my two year old are better behaved and will continue to be better behaved, than your shit eating waste of oxygen. Why? Because I fucking parent and our personal issues aside, so does my children's mother. You, on the other hand, aren't fit to raise a fucking dog. My eight year old should be allowed to play and have fun, instead of having to protect his baby brother and other small children who get in the way of your mistakes.

If you can't control your children, keep them locked in a closet. McDonald's is most certainly not the appropriate place for them.

Driving, Snow and Bloody Teeth

So Friday we drove down to TN to pick up the boys. Planning well, we left early enough and were making good enough time to get there early and start back - thus splitting the trip up into two parts. Unfortunately, that is not how it worked out - though it is good we got going early and made good time. When we were close to the highest elevation of I-75, it started snowing - big fat snow that plopped onto the windshield, rather than drifting gently down. Given this is southern KY/northern TN, folks aren't right familiar with driving in this and that, coupled with a semi broken down meant it took us nearly three hours to get about twenty five miles. We made it and picked up the boys, but spent the night where I usually stay when I go down to visit the boys.

And then there was snow - lots of snow, almost the entire drive home there was snow, though it wasn't snowing much anymore. The roads were pretty well clear until we got into MI and even then it wasn't too bad. All in all a wondrous thing, because the boys love the snow.

Then we went sledding yesterday - thankfully, leaving youngest with the grandparents. Eldest and I had a lot of fun and look forward to the next trip, with one major snag - the tooth incident. Did you know that if it is dealt with quickly enough, permanent teeth can be put back in? I didn't, until the tooth incident.

We went a little ways downhill, when we noticed that the rope was caught under the sled. We stopped and went to take the sled uphill. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that eldest had put the rope in his mouth and was biting on the rope, when I gave the sled a kick and one of his relatively new front teeth came out of his mouth with the rope. One emergency oral surgery later and the tooth is back in - with a pretty good prognosis for no problems with it in the future, given it is still developing.

Hell of a way to learn the lesson about why papa always says not to use our teeth inappropriately. Not to mention a rather expensive one. But all in all, I think eldest is pretty certainly not going to be trying to open bottles and the like with his teeth any more...And papa will be a little more careful about kicking things that are relatively close to the face...

Nietzche, Kierkegaard and Russell: The Human Condition

For the final essay in my philosophy class, we were asked to decide who ultimately best described the human condition - Neitzche, Kierkegaard or Bertrand Russel. This essay turns out rather circular, because I was rather uncertain about how I felt about it. I spent about forty minutes writing this off the top of my head - I didn't edit it in class, I am not about to edit it here. That would bloody well be cheating...

I would also like to clarify that I do not mean anything disparaging by my comments about "the masses." I don't think there is anything the least bit wrong with caring more about living life, than about what meaning there might be in it all - or what Truth might be, or if it even exists. Honestly, I am often of the mind that not giving a shit would really be preferable to never shutting this bloody damned thing down sometimes. Even with meds, my brain is going full tilt almost all the time - in some ways, cannabis was far more effective at slowing things down. Unfortunately, it also made it rather harder to think properly about things that I need to be able to think about...So it goes and so it is - and without further ado or banal babbling...

It is hard to say that any of these three truly described the human condition, if the human
condition is measured by the life experience of the majority of humans. For most the human condition is to toil as we must to garner material needs that sustain and as much luxury as can be afforded after those needs are met. Through the toil, most just want to do what they must and take their leisure time as just that – leisure. Most people do not want to think much about Truth, the mind or the abstractions that make up human existence.

I also think it is rather arrogant to assume that the dogmatism of those who never travel the
region of liberating doubt is an arrogant dogmatism. While there are certainly those who own an
incredibly arrogant dogmatism, most people engage in a very humble dogmatism, a meek and gentle dogmatism that stems from understanding they accept from others. They do not presume to know but accept the knowing from those who are engaged in the arrogant dogmatism of which Russell speaks. Accepting knowledge from people who claim to know doesn't make the person accepting it arrogant, it makes them quite human.

Throughout the history of our species, since the earliest development of rudimentary culture the
human condition has been to toil, humbly accepting the guidance of those who claim to know and
doing what we must. If left with enough to survive – sometimes when left with less, humans humbly accept the leadership they are given. Given enough discontent and leaders willing to rise up from the humble masses to engage the masses in revolt, the humble masses will change leaders – but even there, the heart of revolution, the masses are humbly accepting the orders of new leaders.

In short, the human condition is the will and striving to survive in the best comfort possible,
dreaming dreams of the young that change to simple desires as one ages. The general human condition simply does not care about philosophy or engage in much consideration of abstractions. The human condition has neither the energy or concern.

But then there is the human condition of thoughtful people. People who are not content to
accept knowledge or dogmatic certainty. For these I think that all three men are correct. The human condition of the thoughtful is to desperately seek for Truth in the face of uncertainty, to accept that such truth may not be found and to be the best they can be by their own regard. It is also to consider and sometimes accept that the truth may be that which is arational, even irrational. Finally, I think that the ultimate joy to be found is the awe and wonder of the child. The acceptance of liberating doubt, is the joy of seeing what is familiar, through the lens of doubt – in essence seeing them for the first time, every time.

What is better than the beauty of the world made fresh and new with every glance. Considering
the mundane in the light of accepting that while Truth may exist, while it is possible that humans may one day find there are no more horizons to delve – it will not happen in my lifetime and therefor my life can be filled with awe and wonder at the mysteries left to consider, the vistas left to explore.

I think that in the final tally, the human condition is all of this. The humble masses who toil and
seek to survive, who accept knowledge, know things for themselves. They also know doubt, for there is ever uncertainty about things that might be considered. And they know wonder, largely stemming from that doubt. At the same time, thoughtful people are not bereft of dogma, some arrogant and some plain – fed them by those who know what they do not know. Accepting there are vistas left to explore, there are those that are and for which they know.

In the end we are, all of us, human. Contradictory, contrary and paradoxical. Each and every
one of us has these characteristics described by Nietzche, Kierkegaard and Russel, in various measures. There is no way to claim that one of these men understood the human condition better than another, because each of them described aspects of the human condition that no person can avoid. What they described is absolutely what it means to be human and likely what it will always mean to be human.

I would just add to this, I am not nearly as humble as I should be most of the time. I too often take myself too seriously and tend to be an all too arrogant motherfucker. I have nothing but the more profound respect for those who are actually humble and arrogantly like to mock those who are more arrogant than I am - reveling in my superior ability at humble grace...(in case you didn't realize - that last line was sarcasm)

Transphobia and Homophobia: Communicating Fear as Hatred

And this would be my communications paper...Here it is formatted, with reference pages...

Defining Transphobia and Homophobia

Basic definitions for trans, and homophobias are really quite simple. Phobia comes from the Greek word “phobos,” meaning an intense fear of. In the field of modern psychology, phobias refer to an intense, abnormal or irrational fear of something (Stedman's, 2009). So transphobia refers to an intense, irrational fear of trangendered people, while homophobia refers to an intense, irrational fear of homosexual people. It is especially important to note that these fears are irrational. Transphobia and homophobia do not describe someone who is afraid of transpersons or homosexual persons because they were somehow victimized by a person or people who fit one of those categories.

It is also important to define the impact of transphobia and homophobia. At their worse, transphobia and homophobia lead to violent confrontations and even murder. Short of the very worse, transphobia and homophobia can lend themselves to feelings of isolation, anger, depression and self-loathing (Gordon & Meyer, 2007; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). At the extreme, these feelings are responsible for a significantly higher rates of suicide among LGT1 people (Hill & Willoughby, 2005).

A Fear of Differences
A primary motivator for transphobia and homophobia, is basic xenophobia, or fear of people who are different from oneself (Gordon & Meyer, 2007; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). The more significant the perceived differences, the more intense the phobic expression can become. It could be as simple as choosing not to engage in an interpersonal relationship with someone, or as intense as lashing out in violence against the person with the perceived differences. Quite often, the more intense forms of phobic expression require the phobic person to dehumanize the target of their phobic expression based on the substance of the perceived difference. They will ignore everything else that defines a person, focusing entirely on that one factor.

The xenophobia factor alone, is particularly intense with regards to sexuality, gender expression and religion. These tend to be less about superiority, fostering a more passionate response to the differences alone. With regards to gender expression and sexuality, men tend to have a much more aggressive, impassioned response than women (Nagoshi et al., 2008). While women with authoritarian or fundamentalist religious tendencies tend to have a negative response to homosexuality and transgenderism, they do not tend to feel the same threat to their own identity that men seem to experience.

Fear of Introspection or Transference
Men generally seem to find the mere existence of people who do not fit within a relatively strict gender construct a threat to their own gender and even sexual identity (Patel et al., 1995). Far more than women, men seem to consider the gender and sexual identities of others, especially other men or male borns2, in the context of their own lives. They engage in a sort of transference that forces them to perceive the sexual identities of other men and sometimes women, as a clear and definite threat to their own personal identity. Women do not seem as prone to this type of identity threat, likely due to a general tendency towards empathy. Rather than perceiving transgendered women borns as a threat, they are far more likely to perceive their gender identity as a betrayal (Nagoshi et al., 2008).

Men are not always guilty of this response, any more than women are always immune to it. This tendency is generally more prevalent with men, because of the nature of men to avoid addressing their feelings or psychological well being (Levant & McMillan, 2005; Fischer & Good, 1997). Because men tend to be less capable and even afraid to address their feelings and mental health, being forced to consider gender and sexuality from a non-traditional archetypal perspective often garners an aggressive response.

Measuring Transphobia and Homophobia

Because of the nature of transphobic and homophobic expressions and their impact on transgendered people and homosexual people, it is important to try to understand not just what trans and homophobia is, but also how strong these tendencies can be and how they can manifest. It is very easy to define what these phobic expressions are and where they come from. It is not as easy to define the real world impact of these expressions. To understand that impact and attempt to change the negative consequences of transphobic and homophobic expressions, it is necessary to measure and even categorize transphobic and homophobic responses.


Types of trans and homo phobic expression
There are two major types of phobic expressions. These actually relate to the treatment of all outgroups3 and are basic categories of measurement (Gordon & Meyer, 2007). There is the more overtly bigoted and even hostile phobic expressions who are identified simply as overt transphobes, and/or homophobes. Then there are people who engage in latent phobic expression. These expressions are almost entirely unconscious, engaged in by people who do not consider themselves phobic or bigoted. An example would be expressing surprise at being exposed to a homosexual male who tends to express themselves in a traditionally masculine fashion. Another would be referring to a transgendered person by their birth sex, even after they have asked that you not do so. Or simply treating a gay or transgendered friend a little differently than you would treat other friends, based on their sexual or gender identity (Wentling, 2007).

Depth of Phobic Tendencies
The depth of phobic tendencies is a little more complicated. The more overt bigotry ultimately tends to be more superficial. Overt bigotry is generally based entirely in xenophobic tendencies. While it is difficult to change those attitudes, regular exposure to people who have that trait that is so feared will generally slowly change that attitude. The problem lies with the latent bigotry and phobic tendencies. These tend to be very deep seated and as they are unconscious, those who have them are usually entirely unaware that they even have them (Hill & Willoughby, 2005).

Latent phobic expressions have a fundamental basis in cultural and social conditioning. Rather than being based so firmly in a traditional fear response, they are vestigial reactions to people who have factors that traditionally garner a specific response socially. Because the basis for the response is shaped by social conditioning, rather than conscious fear and prejudice, it is harder for people to even be aware of their phobic expressions. It is also harder for people to understand that the simple fact that these expressions are the result of social conditioning, does not mean they are any less bigoted for their lack of conscious expression (Wentling, 2007; Lindsey, 2005; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). They most certainly are. Latent phobic expressions are no less hostile and no less damaging for reflecting social and cultural norms. The easy use of such expressions reflects both the privilege and sense of social superiority of the speaker. When someone expresses surprise, for example, at being exposed to a homosexual male who doesn't fit the effeminate stereotypical gay man, they are essentially expressing the belief that being a homosexual is all that defines a gay person. That somehow homosexuals are not defined by all of the innumerable labels that define every person, that their sexual identity is the only label that means anything.

Ending Transphobia and Homophobia: Deconstructing Gender

Transphobia and homophobia are largely based in archetypal social gender constructs (Lindsey, 2005; Nagoshi et al., 2008). The stronger any person, man or women, identifies to traditional gender constructs, the more likely they are to have transphobic and homophobic tendencies and the more intense they will be (Gordon & Meyer, 2007; Nagoshi et al., 2008). The blatant gender nonconformity of transgenderede persons and the perceived gender nonconformity of homosexuals are perceived as a threat and/or a betrayal of the traditional gender norms. Gender norms that are so important to, intrinsically a part of some people that the mere existence of people who fall outside those roles, is perceived as a threat to their identity.

Even people who do not fit firmly within traditional gender constructs are nonetheless shaped by those constructs (Berger, Levant and McMillan, 2005; Nagoshi et al, 2008). Those constructs are a fundamental aspect of culture and society. Because of this, they are also a fundamental part of individuals within culture and society, even perversely, transgendered and homosexual people. The decisions people make and the way that they treat others are fundamentally grounded in a patriarchal worldview, driven by traditional gender constructs (Berger, Levant & McMillan, 2005; Wentling, 2007).

The abuses these gender constructs perpetuate are not only foisted upon transgendered people and homosexual people either. Traditional gender constructs are also damaging to men and women who live within their confines (Berger, Levant & McMillan, 2005; Tremblay & L'heureux, 2005). They are inherently abusive, due to their natural inclination for staying strictly within specific confines.

The solution for these problems is obviously to deconstruct gender stereotypes. This is not to suggest that men should not follow traditional masculine gender roles and women should not follow traditional feminine gender roles. Rather, it means that society as a whole learns to accept people who do not fit within those confines. It means accepting that there is nothing inherent to being a man or being a women. It means deciding that an individual should not choose a course of action based on their sex, but rather base those decisions on what they want as an individual.

Following this course, it would seem impossible for transphobic and homophobic behaviors to be sustained. The additional benefits would likely be a similar lessening of misogynistic and sexist behaviors, as well as improved mental and emotional health for men. Strict gender conformity does not seem to provide any benefit, while it seems to sustain a lot of destructive and unhealthy behaviors and tendencies. Deconstructing gender seems an obvious solution.


1Lesbians, Gays and Trangendered persons

2Male borns and women borns implies someone who was born male or female but who later chooses to identify as either the opposite sex, or as neither male nor female.

3Outgroups are people who are in some sort of minority, whether it be based on ethnicity, skin color, national origin, religion or any other cultural trait. Outgroups are inherently social constructs.

Dissent: Debate v Dehumanizing

There are a lot of people who seem to have the mistaken impression that characterizing people they disagree with as something they are not equals debate. Or more to the point, characterizing people as less than they are. People who believe that dehumanizing their opponents is a legitimate tactic of debate. They turn them into "others" who lack characteristics that are fairly critical to being a functional, reasonable member of society.

Take the person I recently had to ban from commenting. Apparently he thinks that I cut him off because I am afraid to debate him. Someone who likes to make references to "you atheists." Who believes, or claims to believe that atheists lack compassion, love and morality. Someone who cannot comment on the topic of a post, without engaging in dehumanizing rhetoric that disparages atheists - as though all anyone who identifies as such is, is an atheist. The only label - the only defining characteristic that matters to him, is the label of non-believer, of atheist.

The irony of this person, is that he refuses to actually debate, instead engaging in all sorts of denigrations. He decries "those" atheists refusal to debate, claiming that this is somehow proof of the superiority of his position, while all he does is spew hateful bile - pretending that this hate somehow equals debate.

Don't get me wrong. I am no supporter of religion. I haven't even the slightest compunction about ripping into religion, liberal, moderate or extreme. I have absolutely no use for it and absolutely believe that the destruction wrought by religion is not even close to balanced by the good that religion does. Sometime soon I am going to write about an issue that my lovely Juniper and I were discussing, about the "virtue" of not being virtuous. Good works done with strings attached are not all that particularly "good." Sure, they benefit people - but what does that say about the person providing that benefit. They aren't doing it because it is the right thing to do, they are doing it to get something out of it. I realize that this is not limited to religious people - people providing charity for purely secular reasons usually have ulterior motives - but that is something for a later post.

Bottom line, I am pretty much against religion.

There is a difference between me and this person who was recently banned. I don't just label people by their religious inclinations. I recognize that their faith is just one label, one aspect of the person. I recognize that there are a great many wonderful people, who just happen to be religious. I also recognize that there are a lot of really shitty people who also happen to be atheists. I recognize that atheist is just one of many labels that make the person.

I recognize that there are things specific to atheism that some theists want to debate - I am more than happy to debate about it. If you really believe that morality, for example, is impossible without a god to shape it, I am all about having the discussion. I write about morality a lot and there is a whole hell of a lot of room to argue with me, as I have a fairly controversial stance on it. While I happen to think I am right and that my position is sound, I am not so arrogant as to assume that I assume there is no possible way I could be wrong.

The irony of the argument of he who was banned, is that he was generalizing my position on morality to all atheists. The problem with that, is that while there are certainly atheists who agree with me, there are a great many more who do not. Even more interesting, there are theists who agree with my position on morality and moral relativism.

And this phenom is true of a great many label versus label sort of issues. There are a lot of things that I tend to agree with many liberals about. There are also things that I tend to agree with a lot of conservatives about. I love, for example, going to Ed's blog, because I get to argue with people on different threads at the same time. Though I have had little time for it lately, I love to argue with someone about something over on that thread, while shredding someone else's argument with them on another. I am fairly certain there is not a single person I interact with on a regular basis, who I do not have a single, significant difference of opinion with.

And there are people I generally disagree with on things - including theists, who I love to spend time with. There are authors who support political positions I am pretty fundamentally opposed to, who I never the less love to read. That is not to say that there aren't people who support things that I find so very repugnant, that I cannot stand to be around them. Oh, there most certainly are. There are ideological positions that are so far beyond the pale, that I just can't muster anything but scorn and derision. But those are few and far between.

Seriously folks, I am all about lively dissent and discourse here. I have opened my front page to dissenting views and would love to do so again. I am all about having lively, even heated debates here. What I will not accept, is the dehumanization of people who choose to engage in discussions here. That kind of language will not be fucking tolerated - period. Argue - meaning if you disagree, tell me or someone else why you disagree and why you are right. Talking about "them" and "people like you" and "you ____" is not debate or argument - rather, it is fucking bullshit and I will delete that kind of shit out of hand. If all you have is hateful bile - I don't care how much you pretty it up, hate is hate - you are not welcome here.

Though if you drop those kinds of comments (or emails) I totally reserve to right to turn it into a post and rip your bigoted, hateful fucking bullshit to shreds.