Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Well I think the way the word "judgmental" is often used is meant: to judge someone unfairly, i.e., on some bogus basis such as race, religion, gender, etc. That is a different sense than "judging" simply as a form of evaluation without prejudice.

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

[dreadgeek]

Yes, this is precisely what I'm talking about and what I think that we, as a community, need to face head on. Truth be told, as a community we are not nearly as nonjudgmental as we would like to think we are. How can I be so certain of this? Because I can read and parse what people are saying. For example, when we talk about being nonjudgmental we are--wait for it--making a judgment. Whether people realize it or not, they are setting up a hierarchy of virtues and putting being nonjudgmental at the apex of it. While this may be emotionally satisfying it is not, in point of fact, being nonjudgmental. Let someone say something genuinely judgmental and people will come out of the woodwork to point out how nonjudgmental they are and how wonderful it is to be nonjudgmental.

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded. For example, if I were to jump up and say that my dead mother and father lived on beyond the grave and talked to me on a daily basis and that I knew this to be true and nothing anyone said could ever possibly disabuse me of that notion, I would be considered to be one of the most open minded people on this board. If, on the other hand, I were to state that I do not believe people live on after their death because I see no evidence that such a thing happened I would be considered horribly closed minded. Now, to my mind being willing to change one's mind upon presentation with better evidence is the sine qua non of open mindedness even if one has a high standard for what constitutes evidence. Being unwilling to change one's mind no matter the evidence, regardless of how high or low the bar is set, seems to me to be the very essence of a closed mind. However, that is not how we use those terms in everyday life in this community.

In this construction open-minded means believing that Joan of Arc speaks to people from beyond the grave on no better strength than someone *said* that it happens. Being closed minded means wanting evidence for any belief X where X is some phenomena that would effect all people. (In other words, I don't need to prove that my wife loves *you* in order to believe that she loves me. I do need to be prepared to demonstrate that if my parents are capable of speaking to me from beyond the grave that your parents are as well or I had better have a damn good explanation for why I am so particularly blessed to be able to speak to my folks long after they have died.)

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by betenoire

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded. For example, if I were to jump up and say that my dead mother and father lived on beyond the grave and talked to me on a daily basis and that I knew this to be true and nothing anyone said could ever possibly disabuse me of that notion, I would be considered to be one of the most open minded people on this board. If, on the other hand, I were to state that I do not believe people live on after their death because I see no evidence that such a thing happened I would be considered horribly closed minded. Now, to my mind being willing to change one's mind upon presentation with better evidence is the sine qua non of open mindedness even if one has a high standard for what constitutes evidence. Being unwilling to change one's mind no matter the evidence, regardless of how high or low the bar is set, seems to me to be the very essence of a closed mind. However, that is not how we use those terms in everyday life in this community.

In this construction open-minded means believing that Joan of Arc speaks to people from beyond the grave on no better strength than someone *said* that it happens. Being closed minded means wanting evidence for any belief X where X is some phenomena that would effect all people. (In other words, I don't need to prove that my wife loves *you* in order to believe that she loves me. I do need to be prepared to demonstrate that if my parents are capable of speaking to me from beyond the grave that your parents are as well or I had better have a damn good explanation for why I am so particularly blessed to be able to speak to my folks long after they have died.)

Cheers
Aj

This is so on the money that I just had to quote it. I mean talk about things being totally backward. Being closed minded not only means wanting evidence for any belief x where x is some phenomena that would effect all people, it is also apparently close minded when you have the audacity and insensitivity to point out fairly indisputable evidence that would or at least should disprove certain odd ideas that so many seem to take as reality. This particular line of thought reminds me of something I once read online entitled "Why Does God Hate Amputees?" Now that was pretty amusing.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

Haha, I wasn't saying I disagreed. In fact I totally agree with you on all of what you just said. I believe that there are universal rights and wrongs. I am not a moral relativist at all.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Truth be told, as a community we are not nearly as nonjudgmental as we would like to think we are. How can I be so certain of this? Because I can read and parse what people are saying. For example, when we talk about being nonjudgmental we are--wait for it--making a judgment. Whether people realize it or not, they are setting up a hierarchy of virtues and putting being nonjudgmental at the apex of it. While this may be emotionally satisfying it is not, in point of fact, being nonjudgmental.

Bazinga! (I know that I misuse that word, but I don't care.)

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded.

Right, it's as though having critical thinking skills and a grasp of how the universe actually functions (socially, scientifically, economically) is frowned upon.

I'm really not sure where all of this started. Any idea what can be pinpointed as the movement or event where we all started to lose our marbles a little? I'm pretty young still (34) so I have no framework for if it's always been like this. Were we able to have opinions without being demonised 20 years ago? Did we hold ourselves up to the same standards that we hold people outside of our community up to 50 years ago? Have we -always- been this way?

And now. I have to go to work.

[Ranger Butch Force]

We pass judgement every day of our lives, wether we do it conciously or not.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

We pass judgement every day of our lives, wether we do it conciously or not.

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

[princessbelle]

Originally Posted by Slater

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

So true.

I also find that it depends on my demeanor at the time. As in...if someone was dissing my beliefs, which i hear quite often, I just step back and try and listen. I take a breath, and calmly respond in print or face to face and remember that everyone has a right to opinions and who am i to judge them for that.

But, if i am in a crabby mood or someone is posting or saying something in a mean spirited way, or seemingly so, my calmness escapes occasionally and judgement can lash out more harshly.

My mood or what is perceived to be intend of the other person has a lot to do with when i judge openly or continue to judge privately or not at all.

[Ranger Butch Force]

Originally Posted by Slater

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with? Is it because it is not what a "normal" shoe looks like? At this point, we have been trained by society to recognize a "normal" shoe, so when we see something that is not "normal", we outcast it because it is strange or foregin. Instead of passing judgement on the shoe, or person wearing the shoe, try thinking in a positive manner. Maybe think, "oh wow, look at those shoes!"

If we, as a community, want diversity then we need to practice what we preach. I'm stating that in general.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with? Is it because it is not what a "normal" shoe looks like? At this point, we have been trained by society to recognize a "normal" shoe, so when we see something that is not "normal", we outcast it because it is strange or foregin. Instead of passing judgement on the shoe, or person wearing the shoe, try thinking in a positive manner. Maybe think, "oh wow, look at those shoes!"

If we, as a community, want diversity then we need to practice what we preach. I'm stating that in general.

However, I think there's a nontrivial difference between the example being given and, say, whether or not we have any grounds upon which to say that there are boundaries and actions beyond the boundaries. To give a few somewhat different examples where, in fact, I think we not only do but *should* reserve the right to make judgments:

1) Someone says something blatantly racist. I'll take two of my personal favorites I've had directed at me:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

Now, given the ethic of the community under discussion we should NOT judge the person speaking in such a manner. According to your example--and I'm not saying you are saying this but I am saying it logically follows from what you've said above in green--the better reaction would be to say "well, that person is giving me a compliment, backhanded as it is." This in the name of being nonjudgmental. However, there is *also* an ethic--I would say something approaching knee-jerk reaction--to call out racist statements (or statements perceived as racist, they are not always the same thing). We, as a community, have made a judgment that racism is intolerable. That we would very strongly prefer a community where racism is given no quarter to one where racism is tolerated either explicitly or tacitly.

2) A former boss, I'll call her Amy, was married to Donna. Colleen, who worked with Amy and I, started having an affair with Donna. Amy, thinking that Colleen was her best friend, started expressing concerns that Donna was having an affair. Colleen would sit and listen to Amy freaking out. Eventually Colleen and Donna were caught. Again, according to the *expressed* ethic in this community when next I saw Colleen I should have acted as if nothing had happened because to do otherwise would be judgmental. The thing is, Amy was my friend, as was Colleen. Amy had given both Colleen and me our big breaks. I could not believe that Colleen would screw over Amy like this. I thought (and still do) think that what Colleen did was one of the more truly fucked up things I've been witness to. But if I were to comply with the social norm here, I should have thought Colleen's actions not at all remarkable.

If what we were talking about were *either* situations where people are being judged not for what they do but for what they are OR something so trivial that to try to see it through a lens of morality would be to do violence to the entire concept of morality (say, wearing a pair of hideous shoes) then not taking a stance of judgment would be appropriate. However, the types of judgment we're talking about aren't those examples but far more weighty ones.

One more example:

3) Late last year, there was a NASA mission where a satellite was intentionally crashed into the Moon near one of the polar regions. On Huffington Post people were commenting and making all manner of truly bizarre predictions about what would happen. I'm not talking about predictions in line with what NASA was expecting (e.g. that there would be a great deal of lunar ice ejected which would then be measured to ascertain the approximate density of the lunar ice cap) but really weird things like the fact that this satellite--the part that would crash into the moon would be about the size of a modern VW Bug--would disturb the Moon's orbit which would effect the tides and, ostensibly, the menstrual cycles of every menstruating woman on the planet. No, I'm NOT making this up!

A colleague of mine and I crunched the numbers and determined that the amount of force that would be imparted by the part of the satellite that crashed into the planet, would be equivalent to a Hummer being caused to swerve because of the impact of a single bacterial spore from a mosquito hitting the vehicle while traveling 70 mph. In relationship to the mass of the moon, that satellite was like hitting a moving Hummer with a bacterial spore. Needless to say, Hummers and vehicles much smaller fairly swim through a sea of bacteria floating in the air without any ill effect every single day.

Yet, again, according to an ethic expressed in the community a truly openminded person would treat both the prediction that the Moon would be knocked out of its orbit by a small satellite causing tidal and menstrual problems and that it wouldn't be knocked out of its position but some mass would be ejected which would give us some interesting data, as being equally likely. In fact, we go farther and state that if two people are making one claim the one who is LESS likely to be moved by the evidence is the one who is being MORE openminded.

So, if one party said "this will cause catastrophe on Earth, I don't care what anyone else says" and another said "no, it won't but let's do this. Let's measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon now and do it again after the satellite crashes and if the distance has changed significantly* then we'll know I was wrong" the ethic in the community is such that we would say that the first person was openminded NOT because she was willing to have her mind changed but because she believed without any evidence and was unswerving in that belief and would remain so no matter what evidence was presented. Openminded, in this instance, appears to mean 'believing regardless of evidence'. On the other hand, the person saying they would change their mind if the evidence required it and even went so far as to establish what could be used as evidence is closed minded NOT because they won't change their mind but because they will only do so if certain conditions are met and these conditions have to do with presenting evidence, not emotionally compelling stories or evocative language given in personal anecdote.

*The Earth and the Moon are actually moving apart. It's at a very defined rate and we know what that rate is. There is also a very reliable way of determining the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. At several Apollo landing sites, reflectors were left. By aiming a laser at the site and then determining how long a round trip takes we can determine the distance between the two bodies because light moves at 186,282 miles per second in vacuum (a little bit slower in atmosphere but not appreciable for our purposes here). Round trip for a signal moving at light speed between the Earth in the Moon is a little over 1.5 seconds meaning the Earth is about ~250K miles from Earth.


Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with?

Ridiculous shoes:


Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.