The Zen of why atheist men should understand #ShutUpAndListen

OK, so I’m a man. I am going to preempt this post by saying that his is an attempt to explain my understanding of an issue which I may be completely wrong about. But I think it’s valuable to express it anyway, just in case I might flick on a light bulb for some people.

Ex-theists and perspective:

Many atheists used to be theists. If this is true for you, then there was a time when they were involved in questioning your beliefs, and during that time you probably had conversations with atheists who were attempting to provide evidence, logic, etc in order to get you to see a point. For whatever cognitive reasons, your past self was just not seeing it. But over time, you started to digest the ideas, have them incorporate themselves into your mind, and one day it just sort of clicked. It just made sense, perhaps suddenly, perhaps a little at a time, but one day it just made sense that belief in a god is not rational nor justified. You were not necessarily exposed to a new idea, but you were exposed to a new perspective that shifted how you saw the issue.

I am willing to bet that a lot of what delayed this ‘getting it’ was trying to engage with the information. A theist hears a logical point from an atheist, and they have to try and employ their current worldview against it; their mind has to address it with what content it already has. In short, they are trying to respond to it as part of an intellectual conversation.

Privilege is a tricky concept. One of the important aspects of it is that if you have it, it works to blind you against seeing it. In our culture, belief in god, mostly the God of Abraham, is widespread and the tradition called “Christianity” has a privileged position. I’ll bet that most ex-Christians didn’t understand the privilege that theism and Christianity had before they started living as out-of-the-closet atheists. And now that they are out of the closet (I hope, anyway), they start to understand that privilege because they see it from a new perspective.

Just like the theist could not understand the atheist position, intellectually or in terms of the cultural privilege such belief comes with, many men are struggling with the concept of male privilege right now, and the relationship between these two phenomena should be enlightening.

Male privilege as a perspective

A few women have told me that the ideas that some men are trying to communicate, in regards to feminism, sexism, and “Men’s rights” are ideas they are well-aware of. On the other hand, many of the messages that many women are trying to communicate to such men, especially right now in the atheist community, are not being understood. Feminist criticisms are based on ideas that are not part of the mainstream and which are marginalized in comparison with the ideas some men tend to make in such conversations. So when some men respond, rather than listen, they are repeating the mainstream view which the feminist criticism is responding to in the first place. It’s like a theist responding to an atheist claim by saying “but god really exists. Just ask anyone!”

For our purposes here, the (mostly Christian) theistic ideas that many ex-theists are familiar with are analogous to the anti-feminist ideas which many of those same atheists still defend. Similarly, atheist arguments are analogous to feminist criticisms of mainstream gender concepts and behaviors. The atheist talking to the clueless theist (clueless in the sense that they do not yet understand either their privilege or the superiority of the atheist position) is therefore also analogous to the feminist talking to the MRA or someone like Ron Lindsay (also see Amanda Marcotte’s open letter to CFI) who simply is not getting why they are being told to shut up and listen.

This is not about free speech. This is NOT about silencing dissent or quelling men’s place in the conversation.

I will repeat. #ShutUpAndListen is not about silencing dissent, conversation, or about bullying forward an ideology. It’s about the fact that if you are not listening, you may not be in a cognitive position to understand because your mind is oriented along the lines of the mainstream idea being criticized. In this specific case of male privilege, it’s about how one’s position as a male in our society gives that person unconscious, automatic, and unintended advantages that they will not see by trying to engage by using it.

One’s intellect is not in question here per se, but it is partially your intellect—your ability to engage with and converse about ideas—that is the cause of the blindness. By engaging by use of your perspective, which is privileged, you are using your privilege rather than trying to see it. There is a paradox at work here, in other words.

It seems to me that this is very much like a Zen koan.

If you try and use your intellect only to understand Zen, you will never understand the concept of Zen. Zen is about transcending ourselves, consciousness-raising, etc. It is about allowing you to take yourself out of yourself so you can see yourself from another perspective. Once you see it, your perspectives shifts in a way that you could not have understood, or predicted, before the shift. After you see the shift, you can engage with it intellectually, but not before.

Privilege is about perspective, perception, and is entwined with the very foundations of how we understand ourselves in relationship with other things. It is not an objective concept to be apprehended, it is a way we see such concepts. It is a method, not a fact.

Think about how it changed the way you understand the world to understand that your previous religious worldview (for those that had one) was fundamentally wrong. Was it conceivable to understand what you understand now, then? When I first saw the shift of my own privilege (which happened much too late, when it comes to male privilege), it changed the conversation for me. And so now talking with men who do not get it yet is much like talking with a fundamentalist Christian. I simply cannot show either of those interlocutors either my atheist or feminist perspective, but I can talk around it. I can describe it and hope that they are listening to me, rather than thinking about their reply, but I cannot force them to.

All ex-theists had to spend some time really listening, whether live or via reflection, to what an atheist has said to them about belief. Some may do this on their own and without external argumentation, through genuine introspection and self-doubt, but it amounts to the same. Understanding privilege is more about introspection than it is about understanding a concept. it’s about understanding how our mind works (or, more correctly, how it doesn’t).

And that’s why we all, at some times, need to shut up and listen. It’s like meditation; we have to shut down our privilege engines, our verbal and intellectual powers, and watch the mind in action to see how it’s skewing the world for us. By insisting upon verbalizing it—by talking rather than listening or watching—we are not able to see the machine in action, and to fix it.

So, whether it comes to gender, race, etc, shut up and listen. Sometimes, it’s the only way to understand.

Let’s just get this out of the way…

Shaun and I just got home from Women in Secularism 2, and it was a fantastic conference. Most of the internet buzz about this is already about Ron Lindsay’s opening remarks and the ensuing kerfuffle. I have a couple of thoughts on that, and I’m going to put them down right here and then move on, because I don’t want the amazingness of the conference as a whole to be overshadowed by those 15 minutes.

Basically I agree with everything Amanda Marcotte writes here. To me, his opening speech was ill-advised, tone deaf, and inappropriate for the context. His subsequent response to a criticism of his speech did not make things better. Both the speech and the responses are impolitic and inappropriate, and I suspect that when he’s cooled down a little he will be ashamed of himself. (Whether this shame results in critical self-examination or in increased defensiveness remains to be seen.) The only point I want to make that hasn’t been covered elsewhere is this: I could have told him exactly how his words would be received by his audience. I imagine many, many other people could as well, probably including many people who work for him. I could have predicted the response and the fallout with pretty good accuracy. And I assume that the fallout here is NOT what he would have wanted or intended, regardless of how right he thinks he is (if he knew ahead of time what the result would be, and went ahead with it, then we have a much bigger problem). This indicates to me that Ron Lindsay has not yet done enough listening. He still has a lot to learn about the perspective and concerns of many, many women in his movement, if he thought that that speech would be anything but a disaster.

Lauren Becker, who did a fantastic job keeping speakers and questions on track, had a job no one could envy: she delivered the closing address, on a day when warring blogs had been flying about Lindsay’s comments. Pretty much everybody I talked to agreed that the conference was one of the best we’d ever been to, and yet there was this undercurrent of anger that we were having to have this same conversation again, even here. Becker’s job was to close up the conference in a way that incorporated the positivity and sent us back into the world inspired and energized, and if she was going to touch on the conflict around Lindsay at all it would have to be very delicately done. Lindsay is her boss, and a majority (based on crowd response to various comments) of the audience was angry with him. That’s a no-win situation there, and if I’d been in her place I’d have probably spoken as if the controversy didn’t exist.

Becker proved why she’s in her place instead of me, because she did touch on the controversy, obliquely, delicately, and fairly; she said something important and yet something which (I think) nobody, whatever side they were on, could reasonably disagree with. She talked about how easy it is to misunderstand each other when we come from different backgrounds (using a personal story illustrating how even a word like “Think” can be misconstrued.) She talked about how we, as skeptics, value being able to admit when we are wrong. She talked about the importance of criticizing ideas rather than attacking people. Most importantly, she talked about giving each other space to change our minds: when we are in conflict with someone, we need to believe that they can and might change their mind, and we need to leave space in the conversation for that to happen. (Also, of course, we need to be continually reassessing our own position to make sure it’s not our mind that needs to change.) She could have been speaking to people on both sides of the issue… she probably was. But she wasn’t speaking to both sides in a way that demanded compromise or assumed a middle position was best… she was speaking to both sides in a way that reminded us of our shared value of self-criticism, reminded us that we’ve all been drastically wrong before and been able to change our minds, and that we should all be hoping that people we’re in conflict with do the same, rather than writing them off as lifelong enemies.

It’s a Women in Secularism anniversary!

One more day!

Tomorrow morning, Ginny and I will be getting in the car and driving down to Washington DC to attend the Women in Secularism conference. And on Sunday, Ginny and I will be celebrating our one year anniversary! In fact, the reason we didn’t make it to the first Women in Secularism conference was because our wedding was the same weekend last year. And while I considered skipping out on my own wedding for a conference, ultimately I decided it would not be a good decision. Plus, our wedding rocked.

I’m looking forward to seeing some old friends, meeting some new ones, and generally having a great weekend. I may be blogging, or at least tweeting, from the conference (@polyskeptic), but if I don’t I will certainly have something to say after I get back.

I do hope to avoid any and all potential absurdity from some certain persons who will be attending, and broadcasting, from the conference while there. I will reiterate that I am really not interested in interacting, socially or for the sake of ~~argument~~ discussion, with people who perpetually fail to comprehend the intersectionality of social issues as they relate to the drive that pushes atheists to be active. The same motivations I have to be active in this community lead me to care, and act, about other issues. And since (with atheism and feminism, for example) there are overlapping concepts and goals, having a space for people who contain the multitudes of social justice concerns makes sense. Again, nobody is claiming any necessary logical relationship between atheism and gender equality as envisioned by feminists such as myself. The point is that the desire to be an activist for one set of concerns—such as the separation of church and state, education and theocracy, and atheist civil right protection—is related to the desire to see other issues dealt with in society. And since these different issues have some overlapping concepts (like privilege), experiences (like discrimination and misunderstanding), and similar goals (general human rights) it makes sense that some people talk, write, and act on their intersectionality. The whole point of intersectionality is that various cultural concerns have overlapping affects and experiences, and some of us care about how atheism, skepticism, gender issues, racism, ableism, etc intersect.

The problem, for many critics of this view, is that they don’t agree with or care about the kind of feminism that we espouse. That’s fine. They have the legal protection of believing whatever they want, and they can still do pure skepticism/atheism, if they want (I think that’s getting old and boring, personally). On the other hand, this critical view has nothing to do with the fact that we we plussers and other atheist advocates for third wave feminism comprehend, care about, and argue for the active intersection of these issues. Nobody is forcing anyone else to contribute or cooperate, and nobody is redefining atheism or trying to enforce community standards.

Why the fuck can’t some people comprehend that?

*sigh*

/rant

In any case, I will be there and I expect it to be a great weekend.

Will you be there? If you are reading this and plan on being there, feel free to come say hello to either of us. I will likely be wearing the blog shirt or something equally offensive to mainstream sensibilities.

New website!

Hello all! I haven’t been writing much here lately… largely because of grad school and trying to get my sex educator career off ground. Today I’m happy to announce that a beta version of my new website, Sex in Specs, is live! (It’s been live for a few weeks, actually, but I didn’t want to talk about it until there was at least a smidgen of content.) Right now it’s an extremely bare-bones WordPress site with a couple of blog posts, and more to come… the end goal is to have it become a well-organized, easy-to-navigate static site with lots of information, advice, and resources about sexuality, all from a geeky, skeptical, science-and-analysis-loving perspective. My self-imposed deadline is midsummer’s day, although I’ll be adding content continually even after that point.

Right now the prelimary (or, as I like to think of it, larval) version of the site is there to let me start writing and posting some of the content pieces that will be part of the grown-up site. Apparently I find it very difficult to write things for an indefinite audience that might appear sometime in the future: I do much better when I’m writing something I know people will be reading immediately. So a large part of the purpose is to provide immediate incentive for me to write stuff.

Another part of the purpose is so I can hand out my business cards and there will at least be something at the web address they give.

And the third, most important part of the purpose (Reason. I should have started using “reason” back there instead of locking myself into an unwieldy phrase) is so that people can comment on what I post, and I can refine and adjust my thoughts before I integrate them into a structure that won’t allow direct commenting on articles. (Probably.) So I welcome feedback, additional thoughts and criticisms, on the posts I’ve written so far. Go check it out, and watch to see what it will become!

The atheist culture wars; applying moral foundation theory to the great schism

This morning I found myself pondering the idea of cultural relativism, tribalism, and how it relates to the various fights which have emerged in the atheist and skeptic communities. Cultural relativism is a concept in anthropology which developed as a reaction to a kind of tribalism which is called ethnocentricism. Just think of Bush-era conservatives with their nationalistic, jingoistic, and what they called “patriotism.” Ethnocentricism is exemplified by the idea that America was getting it right (well, at least their red-state America, anyway). Those of us on the political Left, those who voted for Al Gore and who saw Dubya as an awful president surrounded by an awful administration (which dragged us through scandal after scandal) would sometimes point out that perhaps we were not doing it all right. Perhaps some relativism was necessary…which led to us being told we hated America.

In other words, the culture wars.

As writers such as Jonathon Haidt and the (discredited, but largely for different work) Marc. D Houser have pointed out, much of these political and cultural differences are based in differing value-sets. There are different ways that we perceive information, in emotional and moral ways, which change how we draw conclusions about reality. In short, what values we have will influence our intellectual opinions.

Both of these writers have emphasized two primary narratives which lead in two major directions concerning how we think about our tribe, other tribes, what kinds of rules our tribe should have, etc. In American culture, this translates into the conservative “red state” America and the “blue state” America. You know, the culture wars distinctions we have been talking about for more than a decade now.

I think this is what’s happened to the atheist community. I don’t think that the main differences are precisely the same as they are in the larger culture, but I think this is the type of thing that has happened to us, and I am not sure anything can be done to fix it, just like with the larger culture wars.

How can you change someone’s values? I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do things like criticize other people’s values (I, for example, think that liberal values–such as care and fairness–are actually superior to largely conservative values –such as loyalty, authority, and sanctity. But of course I would say that; I’m a pinko ‘Murica-hatin’ liberal). The question is how, assuming that I am in any meaningful way objectively (or at least inter-subjectively) right that my values are better, can I convince a loyal, authority-loving, ~~sanctimonious~~…sanctified conservative of that?

That’s a harder thing to do.

Ever talk to a creationist? How about a “pro-life” (or pro-choice, if you are on the other side of that fence) activist? There is more than a distance of facts (although there often is that), but there is a distance of language-games, values, and worldviews. Such a conversation needs more than a good moderator, it needs a cultural anthropologist in order to shake out the worldview distinctions.

Ever read a blogger who uses the term FTBully not ironically? Ever read a post by PZ Myers or Rebecca Watson? I do, fairly frequently. And guess what; I think one side of that fight is crazy, and I think that they are fundamentally wrong from the bottom up (guess which). The problem is not the factual disagreements (that is a symptom, not the cause), the problem is the fundamental worldview distinctions. The problems are fundamentally about what values matter to us.

That is, they are not wrong because of their bad logical argument itself, but of their assumptions, worldview, and moral values. This is because logic is only a tool. It can only manipulate information given to it. Just like a Bible-toting evangelical conservative Christian can use logic to make their points, so can the atheist they are arguing with. And while both may make logical errors (guess which I think is likely to make more), the source of the problem is at the level of things like values, assumptions, and biases; not mere facts.

Those who oppose the efforts of inclusion in the atheist community are not wrong because they are opposing inclusion. In fact, the very framing of that statement was (intentionally) worded to lean one direction (hey, Fox News does it, so can I…). They are wrong because they are valuing the wrong things.

Value divisions in the atheist community

Surely, there are both political liberals and conservatives in the atheist community. But how the foundational values we have get expressed in the larger political sphere will differ from how they will create splits in our smaller atheist culture. The values which split us here; values such as authority, loyalty, and sanctity being expressed in the atheist/skeptic communities as opposed to liberty, care, and fairness will illuminate the foundations of our disagreements. In other words, I’m applying moral foundation theory to this split, and I’m claiming that it is largely analogous to the conservative/liberal split in the larger community.

Let’s take a look at the third moral foundation, for a clue:

3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

I will bet that both sides of this split will identify with this, but in different ways. Clearly, some people feel bullied by others in the community, and claim that those people are trying to wrangle authority over everyone else. Those people trying to define what atheism, skepticism, etc mean when it’s clearly not what it means (to them).

But on the other side, the argument is that mere philosophical or semantic precision are not what matters. PZ Myers’ concept of the “dictionary atheist” was not an attempt to redefine atheist in the philosophical sense, nor to force this definition on anyone, but to recognize that those philosophical senses are secondary to many people. And he’s right.

See, we are not primarily rational beings. We are emotional beings who believe things for largely non-rational reasons, and then we rationalize (or explain) the causes of our beliefs. Hopefully, we are willing to change our minds based on new information, but believing (or not believing, in the case of atheism) is an emotional phenomenon which we later rationalize. Some people are not aware of this and get overly focused (as I have, in the past) on the semantics and philosophical side of the question. This is, I believe, Justin Vacula’s primary fault, as a thinker, and why he fails to get it so often.

In other words, rationalized arguments about semantics when the difference is one of values.

Let’s get back to moral foundation theory to see more facets of this disagreement.

Some people want to employ fairness:

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

If we interpret this in the sense of giving everyone a fair chance to participate, then there are at least two ways that we can go. The question concerns the issue of whether we should treat everyone the same or whether we should treat people in the way which produces equal outcomes. The question of privilege, which has become a lightning rod in recent years, is relevant here. Treating people the same, irregardless of their place relative to privilege, often leave people in different outcomes (says this liberal pinko). This is part of an old argument which is reminiscent of not only recent atheist discussions, but culture war arguments over the last few decades.

In the atheist community, this has been most obvious in terms of the treatment of feminism, which some see as exclusive of the rights of men, but which other’s see as learning from the experience of women to make it better for everyone, regardless of gender. If we seek to include more women, do we treat them like men or do we try to dig deeper and understand that the assumptions about gender need to be revisited so that we stop perpetuating gender roles and expectations, hopefully leading to a more gender equitable community where the varying perspectives are better seen and understood? Seems simple to me, but other people have different values and view equality either secondarily or as a simple function of treating everyone the same, even if that means people get to different places. One of these values is superior to the other.

Then we can ask whether this foundation is more or less important than purity, or sanctity:

6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

But don’t let the description fool you; this is not a strictly religious behavior pattern. This pattern of behavior, in my opinion, is not religious per se, but was usurped by religion just like morality and rituals. The feeling that something does not belong; social justice is not relevant to atheism (for example) is a deep and important value for many people. The question is whether this or the desire to include those affected by social injustice, and trying to counteract that, is more important.

For me, the sanctity of pure skepticism or atheism (as it is seen by some, say Jamy Ian Swiss) are not more important than addressing the intersectionality of skepticism with atheism, racism,gender inequality, etc. But if someone else feels disgusted by that degradation of the purity of the cause of skepticism (or atheism), they will reject movements such as Atheism+. They will feel that to include gender issues, race issues, etc into the larger cause is a form of contamination; it just is not what atheism/skepticism is about! (says our sanctimonious friends). Again, this is a difference of values more than a difference of facts. Again, one of these sets of values is superior.

Accommodationism

Remember the old argument about accommodationism? One of the issues was whether it was important to care about people, despite their beliefs. How nice were we supposed to be? Well, that’s all about the care/harm foundation:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

Take that in balance with other values, such as the liberty/oppression foundation:

3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

and we can see why the anger at oppressive religious institutions and doctrines might override the care/harm value. Some people were so angry, justifiably so or not, that they were not concerned about being sensitive to people’s feelings. Who cares if some Christian’s feelings are hurt when their beliefs are criticized when you balance that against the harm Christianity is doing to so many people! On the other hand, argued others, if we do not accommodate their beliefs, we will never change their minds and we will simply push them further away. Whether this is true or not is relevant too, but at an emotional level it exposes how our values are the origin of such arguments, not the facts per se.

Big Tent Atheism

What about our desire to create a large umbrella organization or a big tent? The goal of coming together as atheists no matter our differences, for the sake of our shared rights? Well, that’s the value of Loyalty/betrayal:

4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

Here, anyone who is perpetuating the drama is a traitor. They are betraying their larger cause in the name is stupid arguments over secondary concerns. This is, I believe, the motivation behind my long time friend Staks’ anti-drama pledge. It is a value I understand, but which I do not share as a primary moral concern. I am more interested in making our community better than making it bigger and closer. That is, I would rather be a part of a smaller, more inclusive atheist community than one which is more concerned with what I see as a false sense of community around the answer “no” to the question “do you believe in any gods?” I’m more concerned with addressing social justice and the intersection of issues around atheism than focus on merely getting along for the sake of what I see as short-term atheist rights issues.

As I see it, any movement that focuses on its own civil rights over the intersectionality of all human rights is participating in short-term thinking, and will eventually be left behind with the conservatism of history.

As our community continues to grow, transform, and gain political and cultural influence, we will become institutionalized, inevitably. How we think of ourselves now will effect how we will leave our mark on history. I would rather leave a smaller, but more inclusive mark on history than a larger but more conservative and exclusive mark. With this in mind, I want to address the fifth, and as of yet unmentioned, moral foundation; the Authority/subversion foundation:

5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

Five years ago, this foundation would have had no place in this discussion. Five years ago, we were all subversives, pulling away from a larger tradition of hierarchical religious institutions which dominate our culture. And, of course, this is still largely true. But in another sense, this has become a point of division within the atheist/skeptic community, now that we have at least established, at least internally, some traditions (or at least tendencies) and some leadership.

No, there is no atheist pope. There is, however, some hierarchy and some power. Richard Dawkins saying something about atheism carries weight. Not for all of us, but he is a symbol of our movement and his opinions carry some weight. We can and do disagree with him (some more than others, of course), and his words are not officially conclusive, but because so many people respect him his words have an effect on our thinking. He’s just one example.

If you love PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, or Justin Vacula, then their words carry weight. The people you are willing to listen to will influence your thinking, and those whom you vilify you will, tribalistically, either ignore or hate.

If you have written off someone like Rebecca Watson or PZ Myers (as bullies or whatever), then you will only see her words when someone you like quotes them, and your view of them is skewed. If you hate Justin Vacula, the same is true from the other side. Personally, I make a point to read the words of those I disagree with as well as those I tend to agree with. I never agree with anyone all the time, but there are certainly people with whom I agree more often than not, and those with whom I rarely agree. I am aware that this is more about values than mere facts.

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m on board with Atheism+, that I am very appreciative of Skepchick for exposing me to many ideas and perspectives I did have 3 years ago, and that I abhor Men’s Rights Activists. I’m a third wave feminist who makes the attempt to be aware of the privileges I have, and to understand my cultural blind spots. I have chosen my side, not because I think my side is always right and the others wrong, but because I share values with them. Just like I am not a Republican or a conservative politically (even if I might occasionally agree with them), I voted for Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama (twice), and I think that Fox News is pretty awful, I have a side in this atheist schism. But I still listen to the other side. I try to understand their values and arguments, and understand that I may never be able to get them to see what I see.

But, most importantly, I think that my values are superior. Not such that I will force them on anyone, but insofar as I think that they lead to a better world. Am I objectively right? Well, I don’t think that’s a meaningful question. Am I intersubjectively right? I think so. The difference between the two is that the former assumes an objective perspective, while the latter only assumes that such a perspective is always abstracted from a subjective one, and is thus not universal or authoritarian. This is what I think many political conservatives do not see; liberals may think their views are superior, but they are not actually trying to demand authority over others based on it. We want you to see that we are right and join us, are frustrated when you don’t, and we are amused when you call us bullies or totalitarians. We find it funny because the values which make totalitarianism or bullying possible are conservative values, not ours.

The same is true for those in the atheist community who call people such as PZ Myers bullies, to whom the remainder of this post is addressed The values we have do not include authority as strongly as do yours, so we are not natural bullies. But since you have those values in stronger measures, you think everyone feels the same and so you project the authoritarian attitude onto us. We’re not telling you what to do or what you should think, we are just saying what is better (and hopefully why they are better). And we are sad when you don’t understand it and pull away from us, creating the schism. We don’t create the schisms; we identify the sources of them and offer a bridge to join us where things are better, which you subsequently see as a demand, a redefinition, and as some sort of totalitarianism (a Horde, if you would). We don’t seek to control you, we seek to have you understand that the controls already exist and that you are subject to them because you don’t see them.

We are not bullies. The bullies are your projected values onto us.

Queer Youth Radio on Polyamory

I ran into this today:

I saw it on a blog called Youth Media for Building Healthy Commnities, which I just discovered today.

It’s a fairly good, and short introduction to polyamory intended for young people, specifically in the Long Beach, CA area. I’m glad to see that resources for young people are inclusive enough, and aware enough, to include polyamory into it’s programming. The video is pretty low tech, and I don’t know what kind of reach it has, but seeing it’s existence is at least encouraging to me.

I noticed that the video made the claim that polyamory fits under the umbrella of “Queer,” and thus LGBTQ generally, which is an idea which is not universally accepted by all poly people or by all LGBTQ members and allies. That the struggles which poly people endure are comparable to those of the traditional LGBTQ community is a tough sale, even if in some philosophical sense there is an affinity between the two groups. There is a sense that poly people are queer, and perhaps the relationship is more obvious to younger people than it is to me. I’d be interested to hear from younger people about how they think about that relationship.

I believe that the LGBTQ community should be generally informed about polyamory, especially because there is a natural affinity between minority groups who are struggling for understanding, rights, and community. We have things to teach one-another, and projects like this video, and the blog with which it is associated, are good positive steps in the right direction. Also, I would very much like to see a future when comprehensive sex education includes the basic concepts of polyamory as a possibility for people to explore, especially since it will be preferable and more healthy for many people (at least). We need young people, for the sake of our future world to be a more sex-positive place, to have understanding about their sexuality, possibilities for relationships, and all things related to those two.

I also noticed that they said, near the end, that “monogamy is an equally valid lifestyle choice, just as polyamory is a great fit for others.” Putting polyamory on equal footing with monogamy is an improvement over the usual view that polyamory might merely be right for some people, which seems to imply it’s a weird thing that weird people do (well, it is that often too). I might be willing to go further, and say that polyamory is superior (with the appropriate caveats, of course), but i appreciate the equal footing here.

More of this, please!