PC or Not PC? That Is the Question.

On different issues I know in an instant what my position is because I can identify its substance to one facet or another of my own life like the anti-choice movement. Or, in its infancy, I quickly know how I feel because it's just a given, like the Black Lives Matter movement. From day one I had a connection so passionate as to think, "I will absolutely meet you in an alley out back over this."

There are some things that I have to spend time in reflection before I really know how I feel because the debate, itself, encapsulates my own inner turmoil about variables of either side, like the death penalty debate. It is obvious that our system is a clusterfuck where innocent people are sentenced (or worse) and it is questionable, at best, if a 'civilized' society would have a government that has killing human beings on its agenda. On the other hand, from the day I met and instantly loved my daughter I knew that if anyone brought the irreparable harm to her as finds so many of America's children, I would not want them to enjoy a moment in this realm where my child could not.

So with this discussion about our present definition of political correctness and whether or not it has been stretched so thin as to disallow our own societal growth, I have been back and forth on the subject and struggled while on both sides. I certainly will, for the rest of my life, disavow the ideas of political correctness offered by the meme creators on the right whose only obective is to denounce everything and everyone the basic tenets of political correctness uplift and celebrate, but I have questioned recently if we have found a way to take those ideals to extremes.

Yesterday, before I saw this video from Bill Maher I think I had pretty much found my answer, but as with all things in my mind that passionately demand definition, I still needed to understand why or how we found ourselves in this place. We can all point our fingers at problems and lament those who perpetuate them, but without understandings of their origins and implementations, nothing will ever be done to resolve them. Our own defensiveness will instigate theirs and leave no room for growth.

For me it was nice to have been afforded this perspective on the same day I felt pushed over the edge on the political correctness question I was teetering back and forth about because I now won't have to drive myself crazy trying to figure out the 'whys' and 'hows' for myself. The thesis offered by Caitlin Flanagan makes a lot of sense. There may be a few caveats I will need to manipulate a bit for my own belief structure, but the basis of why we find ourselves in this place is quite clear. And, having been a parent who raised a child during this age with steadfast absolutes regarding how to embrace and promote variables in society, the causation is evident. (So is my own complicity. Sorry).

If any good will come from people dismissing the Black Lives Matter mantra with generic reminders that all lives matter, it is our reaction to that dismissal. Our reactions are visceral. They are innate and genuine. We have raised ourselves and our children not only to know that truth but to demand it of society. But when we condemn those who agree with us on our embrace of humanity but either do not understand the definitions the same as we see them or with the same limitations, we begin creating more problems for our defined cause than maybe even solutions.

Below, please find my last straw. I realized our own failures yesterday and the dangers which come from our very narrow expectations of those who define themselves similarly. Quite simply, we alienate those who are our allies in the universal struggle and we, possibly, take that struggle to such an extreme as will never be accepted by a society whose progress is generally slow and whose identifications of variables will never come from the same places and experiences as another.

I am a feminist. I have had countless arguments with others who say I am not a feminist because I do not meet their definition. It is childish and I always let them know that. I will never question or be uncomfortable defining myself as a feminist and I will never need to reach out beyond myself to determine if it should change. It always pisses me off that someone thinks it is their responsibility to define it for me. Feminism is about equality. I can take it from here. Really. Thanks.

I always get very defensive when someone tries to define feminism for me. And here I am openly acknowledging that I am pissed off about the definitions of another. Beyond that acknowledgement, I am not really comfortable with the fact that I am doing it, but I do not feel apologetic for it, either. I will allow these people to not share my definition, I suppose, but I will say that my interepretation of their projections will make the movement even more difficult than it already is. I want my grandbabies to grow up in a world where the ERA has passed. I want them to have laws specifically not just to protect their rights to their own bodies, but on the books saying that no politician or judge can determine otherwise. The farther away the cause of equality comes from the mission, however, the fewer accomplishments we will have had for my grandbabies future. Frankly, that is unacceptable to me.

Has anyone else struggled with or questioned the political correctness debates, lately?

Dammit! Bill Maher, There is A Difference

I love Bill Maher. I do. I look forward to him every week and agree with him on a lot of things. But this is the second time recently that I have been so put off by something he said that I was compelled to write about it. I wonder if I will be able to piss off as many people as I did last time?

Last night in a quick aside when he mentioned the question from the GOP Debates the night before about whether or not any of the candidates had ever spoken to God (giggle, I know if there had not been a national audience at least Cruz and Huckabee would've answered in the affirmative and offered the myriad conversations full of the good Lord's glorification of their own good deeds), Maher said 7.5 million Americans are atheists and 9.8 are agnostics. He then said, "By the way, they're the same thing. People try to make a difference, there is none." There most certainly is, dammit.

I take it personally that I would be considered an atheist. I think that the non-existence of God is as knowable as the existence. I am not sure. I wouldn't ever want to be in a theological discussion and be misunderstood as an atheist because that would mean that I am negating the possibility of whichever beliefs another person holds true. I don't know. I do not believe that anyone has a way of knowing (aside, of course, from Cruz and Huckabee, I suppose).

I was raised a Methodist. I went to church and took classes to be confirmed because my parents said I had to. I was 13 so I did what I was told. I didn't really pay attention in the classes and the confirmation to follow meant nothing to me. I don't mean to disrespect anyone who thinks that is a poignant moment in their lives, but it was not one in mine. When I went to college I was excited to take the Comparative Religion class because I thought the idea of so many different ideas about faith would be cool to learn about, much in the way I am interested in many other aspects of history and sociology. The thing I walked away from at the end of that semester was the number of commonalities of most religions. Many had strikingly similar stories and offered the same basic tenets. My mind wandered off to question, "Well, maybe there is a God and he/she/it sent prophets with similar messages to different times and places when and where they were needed."

The nice thing about not having any personal investment in supporting the ideas of a specific ideology is that I can embrace any of them. I do not need to be right. I don't care who is right. It is curious to me that religion, for some reason, is the only thing I have yet come across in my life that I do not HAVE to understand. I honestly don't care either way. I tell people that I want to be a good person even if there isn't a hell. And I mean it.

I am offended by people of any religion who insist that I am wrong not to follow their faith and insult me for not believing what they do (or worse, insult me for not allowing them to believe what they do, which I would never consider but when you are offered too many opportunities to dismiss all other people with different beliefs, sometimes you end up with the arrogance that those who aren't 'on your side' are against you). Similarly I am offended by those who condemn those of faith to ignorance for having a belief in something which contradicts their atheist views. Its just shitty, in my mind, to tell someone they are ignorant for believing (or not believing) in something no one can prove.

Having faith doesn't make you stupid. Faith can be a lovely thing. I remember when my dad was dying over 3 weeks in the hospital. Countless times I wished I knew what it meant to have faith. I wanted to have a place to lay my heavy heart and feel my pleas may be heard. I would've done absolutely anything to go down to the chapel in the hospital and make a deal with God. There is very little I would not have promised to God in trade for alleviating my dad's pain. If having the capacity to pray and believe that there is hope makes people feel better or safer in their lives, wonderful. If they sincerely believe that it is a positive influence in their lives, who am I to tell them they are wrong? I've never seen God. I've never had proof either way. And I don't need it.

This will probably end up being a pretty irrelevant entry for most of my readers. The distinction was important for me. It is crazy o'clock in the morning, however, and I cannot even really be sure if I made my point. I am adorable like that sometimes.

Woody Allen Deserves No Quarter

Last night Bill Maher was quick to support Woody Allen when they were discussing the Bill Cosby rape allegations. Maher said that he would offer 'quarter' to Allen and insinuated that his accuser (Mia Farrow) had a personal reason to make accusations and that it was different. I make few distinctions between rapists and child molesters. It is hard for me to believe that any thoughtful person could with what we do know about Allen, regardless of whether or not he was ever found guilty.

It always disgusts me to hear Woody Allen celebrated. Do we not have enough off-beat comedic talents that we can't spare just one? The fact that he has maintained his career and continues to draw the biggest celebrities to be in his movies is, frankly, disturbing. The charges of molestation against his own adopted daughter, Dylan, were never filed in 1992 by the prosecutor who cited that there was potential for instability during a trial due to the child accusers instability. Their having gone unfiled had nothing to do with credibility or evidence. I don't need those charges to be true to loathe him, however. I find his lacking morality cause enough to believe the child and find him repulsive.

When Allen started his affair with Soon-Yi, not only was he supposed to have been her father-figure, but he was in a relationship with her mother. Her mother discovered the affair by finding naked photos of her daughter taken by Allen. Obviously this discovery precipitated the end of their family. That is a lot of weight for any child, but especially an adoptee, to bear. And how long had the relationship been going on? His having had the affair and then advising her to keep their secret is not only a blatant disregard for the family of which they were both members, but overt evidence of grooming techniques attributed to pedophiles. He destroyed the security of Soon-Yi and all of her adopted brothers and sisters. Whatever role or bond that each of the family members was meant to have had was made irrelevant and completely destroyed. Imagine explaining to a child that their sister would now be having the relationship that their mother had had with the man who had been their father-figure, and actual father to one, Ronan. (but I'm still pulling for that Sinatra rumor to be true).

Of course, he reminds everyone that he was neither her legal father nor biological. Right. No, sure. That makes sense. Never mind the fact that you were the father-figure in her home from the age of 10; or that you knew her as a young, broken and vulnerable child acclimating to a new country, language, home and family. There is no rational way for that familial relationship to ever gravitate into a romantic one. It was your responsibility as a guardian to make her feel safe in her new life. Piece of shit.

If society can accept this behavior, adoption should be outlawed because every child's emotional development and stability are at risk. If these are the mindsets of those raising our adopted children, how are they supposed to grow up strong with self-respect; with a feeling of connectedness and security? As best I can tell, the only accessory that never goes out of style in Hollywood is the adopted child. But they line up to kiss his ass. Does no one look at their own family and question what type of monster Allen must be? I believe in the goodness of people. I believe everyone deserves a chance until they give you a reason to question their character. I believe Allen has more than gone out of his way to prove his own repulsive character. As long as Hollywood continues to revere him, they bare their own character, as well.