So, in human development class

the instructor read us some letters from a case study, a kid he'd actually treated, but was also a crime investigation.

Basically this was one high school student stalking another, for years. He read us some of the letters that he'd anonymously sent the other boy and had been given to the police.

The early ones went like:

well, no, I won't recreate them, because you know what, I haven't been stalked like that? and even for me, it was really hard to listen to them. Rather detailed and explicit threats and demands (to wear specific pieces of clothing, it was obvious that he really was monitoring the other student VERY closely), and elaborations on how exactly the one student planned to kill the other. Apparently at one point he'd actually followed through to the point of slitting a candy bar down the seam, filling it with rat poison, and leaving it in the other student's car. (He didn't eat it).

Needless to say, the family, and the school were rather frantic.

A year goes by, and then the student gets another letter:

(from recreation, roughly)

"Dear ___, I hope you don't think I've forgotten about you. I've been thinking about you more than ever. But this time, I'm not going to threaten you. I've been doing some thinking. I've come to a realization. I love you. You are the most beautiful, gorgeous, Adonis like..."

and so on. well, and then still with the "requests" that he meet the stalker at something like, either Tuesday, May the 8th or Friday the somethingth. at 2:14 or at 5 pm respectively; if on Tuesday, wearing the orange shirt with the __ team logo, if on the Friday... you get the idea.

and then, finishing off with, "with selfless and pure devotion" (as taken from the Webster definition of "love," which the kid made sure to include).

Well, I mean, this isn't exactly news, that stalkers have this uhm thin line between love and hate. The details were rather fascinating in a horrid way, though.

So, eventually, they caught him, and the instructor got to treat the offender--reluctantly, because, well, understandable: hi, what if he decides to change the object of his stalkerish affection to -him-? it's a real possibility...

we didn't get to many details after that, but one was: apparently, the kid had a pet.

We were asked to guess what the pet was. "A snake, a pit bull...a rock."

Nope.

A goose.

Have you ever seen a goose? he asks. They're MEAN. They hiss, and they spit...

so, the kid's been keeping this -goose- in his house, in his room, shitting all over everything, honking, you know.

And, he brings the goose to family therapy, along with the raging violent alcoholic dad (surprise) and whoever else.

So every time the father tries to speak, the goose starts honking at him and beating him up...

Yeah, I know why I changed from theatre: this is MUCH more unlikely than any shit I could've made up.

Quote of the day, 7/12/08

I often think about people who have boundary issues not just as people who have trouble maintaining their own or who are inclined to violate those of others, but as people who seem to actually lack the understanding of where you start and they end. Meaning they take on emotion that’s yours in ways that are just inappropriate, and becomes kinda controlling, and can be really overwhelming…and given that, it’s not actually that surprising when the people with a saviour complex start getting offended when the designated-savee decides no thank you, that’s not the way she wants to go, develop delusions that they and only they can handle the necessary struggles, and become really fucking controlling, actually.

--Purtek, who's been on a roll lately

Dear American Psychiatric Association: What the -hell- are you thinking?

Via Questioning Transphobia, the Bilerico Project:

A short time ago, I’d [Mercedes Allen] discussed the movement to have “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID, a.k.a. “Gender Dysphoria”) removed from the DSM-IV or reclassified, and how we needed to work to ensure that any such change was an improvement on the existing model, rather than a scrapping or savaging of it.

Lynn Conway reports that on May 1st, 2008, the American Psychiatric Association named its work group members appointed to revise the Manual for Diagnosis of Mental Disorders in preparation for the DSM-V. Such a revision would include the entry for GID.

On the Task Force, named as Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Chair, we find Dr. Kenneth Zucker, from Toronto’s infamous Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH, formerly the Clarke Institute). Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilizing reparative (i.e. “ex-gay”) therapy to “cure” gender-variant children. Named to his work group, we find Zucker’s mentor, Dr. Ray Blanchard, Head of Clinical Sexology Services at CAMH and creator of the theory of autogynephilia, categorized as a paraphilia and defined as “a man’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman.”

Drs. Blanchard, Zucker, J. Michael Bailey (whose work has even gone so far as to touch on eugenics) and a small cadre of others are proponents of dividing the transsexual population by sexual orientation (”homosexual transsexuals” vs. “autogynephilic”) and have repeatedly run afoul of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH, formerly HBIGDA), and openly defied the Standards of Care that WPATH maintains (modeled after the original SoC developed by Dr. Harry Benjamin) in favor of conversion techniques. Blanchard and Bailey supporters also include Dr. Alice Dreger, who re-stigmatized treatment of intersex, controversial sexologist Dr. Anne Lawrence, and Dr. Paul McHugh, who had set out in the begining of his career to close the Gender Clinic at Johns Hopkins University and has been one of our most vocal detractors.

An additional danger that gay and lesbian communities need to be cognizant of is that if Zucker and company entrench conversion therapy in the DSM-V, then it is a clear, dangerous step toward also legitimizing **ex-gay therapy and re-stigmatizing homosexuality...

The call to action, thus far:

The APA press release states that for further information regarding this, to contact Rhondalee Dean-Royce (rroyce@psych.org) and Sharon Reis (sreis@gymr.com), though it’s possible that they may govern the press release only, rather than have any involvement in the decision to appoint Zucker. The APA itself is headquartered at 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington VA, 22209. Their Annual General Meeting is currently being held (May 3-8, 2008) in Washington, DC.

I’m poorly situated (Western Canada, with no travel budget) to lead the drive for this, which I see as a very serious danger to the transgender community. So I am calling on the various Transgender and GLBT organizations to band together to take action on this, and will assist in whatever way that I and AlbertaTrans can.

I am also calling upon our allies and advocates in the medical community and affiliated with WPATH to band together with us and combat this move which could potentially see WPATH stripped of its authority on matters regarding treatment of transsexuals.

**
Yeah, about that ex-gay therapy. Here's a bit of how that works, one of many such stories:

For three years I had weekly sessions with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Dr. Nicolosi thought that homosexuality was a pathology, a sublimated desire to reconnect with one’s lost masculinity. The theory: under-attentive fathers and over-attentive mothers create gay children. The purpose of therapy was to put me in touch with my masculine identity and thereby change my sexual orientation.

I would like to say that I resisted therapy throughout, but the truth is that I liked and respected Dr. Nicolosi. And the theory sounded plausible (I was too young to know that plausible does not mean true). It is a period in my life that I do not think about often, not because it hurts especially but because it has become increasingly irrelevant.

...Years after I stopped therapy, I requested the case notes, knowing they would be destroyed after seven years. They provided an annotated collection of long-forgotten events. Next to the description of an argument with a male friend, Dr. Nicolosi scribbled “needs to look at the real source.” This was code: whatever the problem, it would be traced back to my lost masculine sense of self; I was angry because my friend had not paid attention to me as my father had not. Much of therapy also involved uncovering the numerous ways in which my parents had cheated me (as a teenager, I was more than happy to blame things on them).

Disgust with what was termed the “gay lifestyle” was implicit in therapy. I remember Dr. Nicolosi telling me, in response to the question of whether one could easily contract HIV from semen, that if this were the case then gays would be “jerking off in hamburgers all over” to infect people.

I learned to be a man: I was encouraged to play catch with my father, work out, watch football. At one point Dr. Nicolosi assigned me a therapy partner who was my age. Ryan and I used to speak by phone (he was in Colorado, I in Arizona), gossiping about school, at one point promising to send each other pictures of ourselves (the canker was already on the rose). After not hearing from him for a few weeks I called his family, who told me that Ryan had gone to court and emancipated himself from them. His father, in tears, told me this had ruined his life...

And just in case you -still- are under the delusion that right-wing Christian fundamentalists are somehow going to be better friends to trans folk than they are to lesbigay people, in the U.S. or elsewhere:

that guy Zucker? who's on the new APA committee? Here's what you're getting in bed with, "radical feminists" who "question transgender," gay folks who believe that all this trans stuff is none of our business and a distraction from the real issues, and basically anyone who gives a damn about human rights viz a viz gender, sex, and mental health but doesn't see the problem here:

Zucker has long been a self-proclaimed "leading figure" in the care of gender variant children. Many hundreds of such children have been forced through his infamous facility (formerly known as The Clarke Institute) by their parents and by the centralized Canadian health care system, and have been coerced there into denying their innate gender feelings - at least while young and under the control of Zucker.

Zucker is widely-known for his insistence that feminine boys "drop the Barbie", and for his strict enforcement of traditional masculinity on boy children as a means of "curing GID". Zucker is especially focused on prevention of transsexualism, considering gender transition to be a very bad outcome. In the process, Zucker has become the darling of groups like the Catholic Education Center and the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH) (more), which have highly promoted his work among their homophobic and transphobic constituencies.

In March 2007 NARTH published a report entitled "Gender Identity Disorders In Childhood And Adolescence: A Critical Inquiry And Review Of The Kenneth Zucker Research". In that report, NARTH lauds Zucker's reversion therapy at CAMH (aka The Clarke Institute), in which he psychologically intervenes to "cure" childhood GID, seeing it as a way to "cure" homosexuality too. The report concludes:


"Zucker’s priority is “helping these kids be happily male or female,” but he also acknowledges that the treatment process does, in some cases, apparently avert homosexual development . And in support of parents’ rights to avert a homosexual outcome for their children, Zucker cites a persuasive quote from Richard Green: “The right of parents to oversee the development of children is a long -established principle. Who is to dictate that parents may not try to raise their children in a manner that maximizes the possibility of a heterosexual outcome?"" -- NARTH, March 2007

An favor.

So, I'm taking this research methods and statistics class, and for this assignment I'm supposed to make up a questionnaire and give it to at least twenty people. If y'all wouldn't mind...it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds.

per the "confidentiality" business: this isn't a particularly "sensitive information" quiz, but if you'd like to use the "anon" option to answer this one, please feel free.


cheers!

***********

QUESTIONNAIRE:

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY: This research study explores the relationship
between peoples' energy levels during the day and their eating habits
in the morning.

PROCEDURES: If you choose to participate in this study, you will be
asked to answer four questions.

TIME: This questionnaire should only take a few moments to complete,
but you may take more time if you wish.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS: No potential risks or discomforts are
anticipated from participating in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY: The information you provide will be kept
confidential.

YOUR RIGHTS: Your participation is entirely voluntary and you are
under no obligation to participate. Should you decide to end your
participation you may do so at any time.

*******

1. Please indicate your gender (M or F) and your birthdate (month, day
and year).

2. On a scale from one to five, please indicate at what time of day
you have the most energy. 1=much more energy in the morning and
5=much more energy in the evening.

3. On a scale from one to five, how big a breakfast do you usually
have? with 1=biggest meal of the day and 5=skip it altogether

4. How many cups of (caffeinated) coffee or other caffeinated
beverage do you drink in the morning?

Shame, shame, shame.

Inspired by a comment at Oh No a WoC PhD, and tangential to the main point of the post, which I do happen to agree with (cliff notes, with commentary by me, brackets Miz brackets: If you've got a 600K house with all the trimmings including a bloody koi pond [?!], and the dilemma is currently whether to sell the house, cut back on spending, or go back to work: mazel tov, seriously, and good luck with whatever you decide to do, but you're not frigging POOR, and it's rather grossly insulting to suggest that you ARE. signed, another person who is grateful for her relative socioeconomic privilege, does not wave the bloody shirt but won't wear the hairy one either, and tries to at least maintain some gorram perspective and sense of who the hell I'm talking to when the subject of financial wangst comes up)

(...or, no, I'll put it in PBW's own words, in case you're thinking of going over there; please do not follow my own example and give in to the temptation to snark at another commenter and thus further derail, no matter how--anyway, here's PBW:

My issue is with classism and elitism masquerading as victimhood and solidarity. It is not about Bitch PhD as a person or a blogger. Please try to at least get the basic facts right if you plan to point people to my blog as I am tired of having to explain it to them when they arrive.

My blog isn’t about smack downs it is about discussing oppression and until now the people who read it have been able to have a civil and productive conversation. I resent that this episode means those days might be gone. So much for standing up against the tide.”

on edit: Black Amazon's take on this, and her expansion into the more general subjects of entitlement versus gratitude, and the latter's application within the broader culture, particularly the loosely-defined progressive political communit(ies), is--as usual, it's BA--well worth a read or six.

--ANYWAY, on the subject of shame.

A commenter said this:

When shame leads to self-hate and inaction it is a pointless emotion. When shame stems from abuses that only perpetrators should carry and yet society expects from the survivors it is a function of patriarchy and should be shunned. But when shame signals a warning that you have done something wrong, you have fallen down, then use it as an opportunity to stop doing that, get up, brush yourself off, own your mistake, and forge a new way.

which got me a-ruminating, since this is the sort of thing that I think about a lot (quibbles over whether one wants to use the term "patriarchy" as the Monolith du jour or not aside).

I said:

*nod* I know people have talked about the difference between a “shame” and a “guilt” culture, but for the life of me I can never remember which is which.

In psych there’s this notion of “optimal” shame as an essential part of the socialization process, I remember from child development class. Basically, it’s like the littlest Bear. Not enough of it and the kid never really gets to grow, doesn’t learn sie can fix hir own mistakes (just that someone will be along to clean um hir mess), or basic empathy, which is actually hir loss as much as anyone else’s, because well, that’s actually a rather lonely and disconnected place.

At the other extreme, if you’re too heavy-handed with the shaming it can crush the kid’s spirit. Interestingly enough it can lead to the same sorts of coping mechanisms as too little shaming, i.e. narcissism. It can also make you a kind of Bontsha the Silent, someone whose spirit is just kind of crushed, who stops asking for or even imagining that sie deserves anything better than whatever comes to hir.

From another angle, I’ve often pondered to what degree one’s cultural and religious baggage influences how we deal with shame/guilt, even if on the surface we don’t identify with the religion or culture of our upbringing. For instance, more and more lately I’ve been thinking that maybe part of the reason why I don’t “get” certain approaches to various political movements, i.e. this weird sort of interpretation of “the personal is political” (I am thinking in particular of someone who announced that -anyone- can do social work or practical work to help women, -real- feminism is an “in your soul” thing) might -possibly- have something to do with, my own cultural/religious background, secular humanist Jewish, doesn’t really grok the whole “faith, not works” thing. Yeah, guilt we get, and we can overdo it, but mostly what I learned wasn’t “you have already sinned in your heart, and that’s just as bad as the deed;” what I learned was “what you DO and how it affects OTHER PEOPLE is what matters. You fucked up? -Go fix it.-” THAT is “atonement,” not self-flagellating or…

mm, then again, here it is Yom Kippur-ish (which I -always- forget about), and I don’t suppose fasting is particularly about anyone else but one’s own spiritual process. Still, on the whole, I’ve generally thought of My People as rather eminently pragmatic, for good or for ill.

Thoughts on this, either the shame/guilt thing or the influence of religion and culture? I realize I'm painting with a rather broad brush here, particularly viz Judaism and Christianit(ies). Still, I do think the New Testament switch from outer to inner--and I am not saying this is always a bad thing, by any means, I've said it before, on the whole I tend to like the dude in the sandals a lot better than much of the Old Testament, whatever problems I have with many of (H)his followers and/or fanfic writers notwithstanding--has maybe -something- to do with the ways in which shame manifests in this (U.S.) culture.

...and now I am also thinking of Midori, who, in the course of a workshop on female domination, expounded on her take on the difference between the Japanese ways of processing shame/guilt (she was one of the ones who made the distinction, dammit, and I STILL can't remember which is supposed to be which) and the--well, at least the U.S. one, I don't remember how far she expanded that, but she did connect it to predominantly Protestant-influenced cultures, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, she was particularly of course referring to sexualized shame/guilt; very roughly i think her take was that in Japan, it's a lot less about internalization of "I am a bad person for having these fantasies" and more about a sort of socialized shame; i.e. if a wanker wanks in the forest and no one sees or hears, ain't nobody's business if sie do; neither Santa nor the baby Jesus is interested in whether you've sinned in your heart. I'm probably getting it horribly off, it was a long time ago.

"Spoons"

A good analogy for a number of situations. (Personally i relate it to depression/anxiety, at least somewhat).

h/t hexy

(i was trying to come up with something clever viz "there is no spoon" and well it just wasn't clever. probably just as well).

"Tearoom trade"

Off the Larry Craig scandal (it just keeps going! and going! and), an interesting short piece on the etiology of bathroom cruising at the L.A. Times.

On June 28, 1969, when New York's far-from-fashionable Stonewall Inn was raided, the patrons responded by fighting the cops. Although gays and lesbians had resisted before (often right here in Los Angeles), this Manhattan uprising served to jump-start the modern phase of the gay rights movement.

That movement, with its defiant insistence on being free to be as gay as all-get-out, quickly left the likes of Walter Jenkins and, if the cops were right, Larry Craig in the dust. They're part of a subculture within a subculture that was memorably identified by the daring sociologist Laud Humphreys in a landmark sociological study titled "Tearoom Trade."

Taking his cue from Kinsey, Humphreys was fascinated with married-with-children men who didn't self-identify as gay or bisexual, yet still sought clandestine sex with other men on the side. Humphreys, when he began his research, was one of these I'm-not-gay(s) himself, though he eventually came out.

Published in 1970, "Tearoom Trade" is full of useful information about foot tapping, shoe touching, hand signaling and all the other rituals those so inclined use to make contact with one another in such places. Clearly no media outlet should be without a copy -- especially Slate.com, whose editors revealed their cluelessness on the subject this week in a "real time conversation" rife with unintentional hilarity: "I can't believe it's a crime to tap your foot." "Can someone explain the mechanics of how two people are supposed to commit a sex act in a stall where legs are visible from the knee down?"

As for the less blinkered among us, in the age of Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris, "Brokeback Mountain" and the smooching gay teens on "As the World Turns," bathroom cruisers seem almost antique. Today's gays want to get married, and an airport men's room is no place to propose.

Moreover, if what you're "proposing" falls well short of marriage, there's always the Internet. Larry Craig, meet Craigslist. In short, never has the admonition "Get a room!" seemed more apropos. It's up to the I'm-not-gay(s) to discover the real freedoms fought for and won by the people they so fiercely claim they're not.

h/t Todd and in Charge, via a comment at fastlad.

****

Well, it's a -bit- apples and oranges there; not everyone does want to get married, and while sure, "there's always the Internet," Craigslist isn't necessarily any safer or even more "private" than the good ol'fashioned backroom. ("You: blue shirt, in the phone booth at the corner, sucking my cock. Fifteen minutes.") It is a bit more straightforward, to be sure; but see the trouble with being a Public Figure is that it's -dangerous- to be too straightforward. You never know who'll track you down from that personal ad; and as for gay marriage, why, Craig is happily--happily, I say--married to his wife; he's hardly for gay marriage. In fact, he's strongly agin' it:

Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits

YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage
NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation
NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation
NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes:
YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

Good thing the guy in the next stall didn't decide to beat the crap out of him; or, well, hey, I'm sure if he -had- been gay-bashed as well as humilated, had Craig, it would've all been okay: either the guy would've put down the broken beer bottle or baseball bat and backed off, saying, "why, I recognize you! YOU'RE not gay! You're a straight upstanding pillar of the community! 'Scuse me, my apologies, good day to you, sir;" or else Craig would've suffered his lumps and accepted whatever punishment the State cared to dole out to the other gentleman who was just, well, what was it, defending himself from the creepy pervert.

You know, Mera Terrha Pakistan brought up the question of internalized homophobia recently--specifically, whether it was still relevant for those of us in the U.S. (among others). I'd say this is a textbook example of--well, don't take my word for it:

Bilerico:

So we're left with a gay man who was picked up for soliciting public sex. The whole thing is sad - from the fact that he has spent a lifetime with his wife trying to maintain a public image of heterosexuality, including voting for anti-gay legislation, to the internalized homophobia that fueled his guilt and guilty plea instead of trying to fight the system, to the fact that he has a criminal record and might just lose his family, a family who I'm sure he loves, because of our fucked up culture that imagines swarms of men having sex in public, no, forcing men, not just men but children as well, to have sex in public so much so that the police is instructed to go into those public spaces, encourage that type of behavior, and then divine someone's motivations from a few gestures. If I were a bigger person, I might stop making fun of him.

commenters at PrideDepot, focusing on the peculiar institution that is Log Cabin Republicans (openly gay members of the more conservative of the two main U.S. political parties, i.e. Craig's party):

by: Alan

"...but what is it then that makes someone work for and support a group of people that revile them?"

Idaho what it is is their economic insulation protects them from the actual people who revile them. These are not generally the people they meet in the course of their daily lives. The people they meet are socially, economically and probably even religiously copies of themselves. People who they think of as friends, colleagues and equals [the ones who disappear when the knocking on doors begins]. Unless they're into rough trade they don't generally run into people who are not like them.

Another problem here is that we all paint with too broad a brush. There are millions of moderate Republicans who do not revile homosexuals. Many in the libertarian branch of the party fully support gay rights and even gay marriage.

Unfortunately the Republican Party hierarchy has decided to suck up to that portion of the party that does revile us - something that comes from a lack of education, which the LCRs have in spades, and because of the very existence of the LCRs - they don't ever have to be in the company of those who revile them at party meetings because they have separate meetings. Consequently it's a question of their considering the revilers as an other, not their kind of Republican - the kind that lives for tax cuts so they can keep their wealth and doesn't think bad things will happen to them because they "happen" to be gay.

...


by: Idaho Queer

Well said Alan. The thing LCR's say is that they are trying to change the system from within. Bullshit! Why not do that from within Democratic Party with issues that are typically conservative republican. That would be an easier swim upstream than gay acceptance from right wing neo-cons. This has always seemed rather masochistic to me.

In my humble opinion, what we are really talking about here is huge denial mixed in with self loathing and internalized homophobia acting out the need to accepted by those who revile us.

Perhaps our Republican Queers should start first by working out and resolving within themselves their issues of acceptance within their own families of origin. This is WAY more complex that just about fiscal responsibility, family values and gun laws.

However in the meantime while gay republicans are, or are not, figuring this out, they are helping the homophobes use us for political purposes and exposing HATE, making it harder, not better, for the rest of us. How could anyone support such an agenda and be in their right mind.

In many ways it is not much different than a Jew working for Hitler.

by: Alan

As I have said many times to the former head of the local Log Cabin Republicans - when they coming knocking at your door screaming "Hey Faggot" they won't care about your party affiliation. Gay Republican is not an oxymoron - just an ordinary moron, usually with enough money that they think they will be somehow protected.

the Liberty Post, with a slightly different take:

I'm sure as the press digests the Craig scandal, you'll hear a lot about "hypocrisy," "repressed homosexuality" and "internalized homophobia." Good enough, I suppose, for making a somewhat cheap political point and sweeping these undeniably creepy, tragic guys back into the Brokeback Mountain days from whence they apparently came. But I wonder if the GOP's burgeoning "bathroom problem" isn't reflective of something larger than just a bunch of conservative dudes who couldn't come out of the closet. There's something palpably sad to me about what happened to Allen and Craig too, something oddly touching about their misplaced faith in the fading world of secret, anonymous gay sex. That world--once found in bathrooms, parks, piers and adult bookstores; the furtive refuges of adventuresome queers, married men, the curious--has been swept away by so many police raids, privatization schemes, quality of life campaigns and internet dating services. But mostly, it's fallen away as gays have become increasingly integrated into the mainstream, and also, paradoxically, more marked than ever. "You're either gay or you're not" seems to be the equation.

Until someone like Craig, Allen, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard or Jim McGreevey shows up to ripple momentarily the waters of public discourse on sex. These guys have problems, no doubt. But we might also pause to wonder if there's some cultural knot that gay liberation--despite its original and best intentions--has left in place. At the very least the link between public power and domestic heterosexuality--with all the fetishistic displays of family life that entails--has yet to be completely severed. Just ask Rudy Guiliani, or Hillary Clinton! Moreover, that knot, perhaps best described as sexual propriety, is what fuels the moral campaigns against homosexuality that have become one of the Republican Party's identifying causes--loyally supported by the likes of Craig, Haggard, Foley, et. al. It's also what leads Bob Allen to the stunning and revealing calculation that it would be better to be seen in the public eye as an avowed racist than as someone who likes to have sex with men sometimes.

******

Which opens up an interesting set of questions: if one has indeed "internalized homophobia," what is it, exactly, that one has internalized?

x-posted at Big Queer Blog

Dr. Wee Beastie I Presume

Dreamed last night that my cat was my therapist. Spoke in the same dry if reassuring tones as my actual therapist, had the same office (albeit with a bed instead of a couch, for me) and everything. At the end of the session, I started to say "see you at home" but then realized it might seem unprofessional to the other clients who were waiting, as would scritchies or a squeeze. And asking how he learned to talk, as it suddenly occurred to me to do just before I woke up, seemed just plain rude and patronizing. It'd just have to wait.

While on the general subject of cognitive dissonance, btw...

I want to thank Azundris for the link to the experiment i couldn't remember how or where the hell to find the reference, and it was driving me nuts. Yeah, file under the general subject of dissonance, cognitive:

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns and, another one, putting spools onto a tray, emptying the tray, refilling it with spools, and so on. Participants rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave. This is an example of an induced compliance study.

However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the participant was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.

When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks later, those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 group and control group. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. Experimenters theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring". When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior. Behavior internalization is only one way to explain the subject's ratings of the task. The research has been extended in later years. It is now believed that there is a conflict between the belief that "I am not a liar", and the recognition that "I lied". Therefore, the truth is brought closer to the lie, so to speak, and the rating of the task goes up.

The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by changing their attitude. This process allows the subject to genuinely believe that the tasks were enjoyable.

Put simply, the experimenters concluded that many human beings, when persuaded to lie without being given sufficient justification, will carry out the task by convincing themselves of the falsehood, rather than telling a bald lie.

It goes on to talk about how that particular study's been criticized for faulty design (which is the sort of shit I should be able to grasp a lot more easily and quickly if/when I ever finish this fucking research methods/stats course. in theory)

But, I think the general principle does hold up.

"Oh dearie dearie me, this is none of I!..."

tangentially, I think that actually also nails part of what was freaking me out about the Battlestar Galactica season-ender. hell, the entire damn show, come to that.

What does "I hate children" really mean?

Over to feministe, Roy has a post rebutting some of the "the kids aren't all right, not with me anyway" sentiments that he's seen around. His point, which is a worthy one I think, is that it's counter-intuitive for anti-bigotry people to engage in kid-bashing, because

Calling children “radically disempowered” is almost an understatement. Pretty much from the moment they’re born, children are subject to a world that treats them as much like property as like people. Children grow up in a world with no voice. There are countless rules and regulations controlling their daily lives, and they have absolutely no say in any of those rules. They are subject to the whims of the people around them- people who may or may not have their best interests in mind. Children have no privacy and no right to a fair trial when an adult (parent) accuses the child of wrong doing. Their entire lives are at the whims of people who control what clothes they wear, whether they have a roof over their heads, whether they even eat.

Being a child isn’t easy. Very little in your life is under your own control, and you’re also subject to your body’s whims. Children are still growing and developing, and they don’t always even understand how or why they feel certain ways. They may not know why they’re tired or cranky at any particular moment. And, as someone else pointed out, even if they do know, they’re still subject to other people’s whims. An adult who isn’t feeling well can call in sick and avoid interacting with other people, in many cases. Children don’t have that option.

The thread, which is at the time of this post pushing 300 comments, addresses that point and covers a lot of the usual back and forth over this rather explosive issue. Parents versus non-parents is a lot of it, of course. The question of whether it isn't in fact an extension of sexism to complain about "breeders" or bad parents (usually mom) who can't control 'em. Overpopulation, notes about class, various cultural expectations, exasperation more at a society that pushes procreation on people who don't wanna--especially the more reactionary aspects--and so on and so forth.

But I'm looking at it from a slightly different angle:

One difference between hating children and hating whatever other group is that, parents or not, we all once -were- children ourselves.

So, “inner child” mawkishness aside, i do wonder: is this also about disowning a part of ourselves? It's not like we leave the child we were -completely- behind, like a carapace.

I mean, i have to cop to this: screaming kids drive me crazy.

But part of it is irritation because sometimes it reminds me that -I- feel like screaming, and I’m not socially at liberty to do so.

And now I'm curious: do y’all remember how you behaved/were treated when you were in public, when you were kids?

Continuing the riff...

First, Nezua says,

ARE WE BACKING OURSELVES into a trap? With our surety and righteousness and protection?

If A has been oppressed/hurt/abused by B's type of people, and because of this we all agree that A owes B no explanation or education on why or how they experience life and need to be seen and treated because of this (yet A does want this awareness and sensitivity on the part of B), nor any sensitivity to B if B crosses a line that B is not aware of...what is left to happen? Have we created, thus, a dynamic that will mostly lead to exclusion and continued alienation and nonunderstanding?

Do we really want unity? Or just to be tight and safe in our posse? Either one is okay. But do we want one and say we want the other? Do we actually want unity but not know how to work to get there? Is our safety eventually protecting us from even reaching our goals?

Sure, I may be—in this agreed upon locus of duty and obligation that Internet Race Theory has taught me so far—in my "rights" to tell a white person, white man, white woman, to go figure it out. I could dive into my hurt, or even just my safety and know I am understood by my brown friends. In the times I have confronted white people displaying ignorance or even racist thought in my blog, you'll note I almost always begin with trying to do my best to make them understand. Or to understand them. [See "Speech Rules or Beliefs and Attitudes?," see "Right of Peaceful Assembly. Gone," see "Plant the Fear: Reap and Sow"]. I usually end up getting...a bit of a sad reaction from my brown friends, as if I am pulling a Coconut on them, an "Uncle Tom." I feel a pressure to ignore the white people's feelings entirely, their confusion shouldn't count, I ought to respond with anger or scorn. I feel wrong for trying to speak reasonably to them, to help them see what is going on. I am "pandering" to whiteness.

But if all of us in our respective areas—gay, disabled, women, brown, black—give up on caring in this way about other humans, even if the OTHER and their kind have not cared about us as they should have, how much progress can we make? If we really want unity, can we stand so strong and proud and righteous in our refusal to meet anyone halfway? ...

Trinity responds,

I don't have much to add to these wonderful words. I guess I will simply say that I think "we don't have a duty to educate" comes originally from a good place. Burnout is easy to get to and easy to get lost in.

But not having a duty to do it doesn't mean people never should. Sometimes when we have the guts to say it, to cut down on the snark and say "hey, you don't know much about this but have you ever considered...?" it actually works.

And I think a lot of us lose that in the fierce pride and fierce solidarity that anger initially provides. It's invigorating to give yourself over to feminist rage if you've too long hidden your anger. It's thrilling to be the "angry, ungrateful" crip who says "I was born this way. What the fuck made YOU so nosy?"

It feels good. But after a while if rage is your center, everyone in the "oppressor class" looks exactly the same, and every one looks beyond redemption.

...allies are not perfect.

people who try to be allies but backhandedly hurt you don't deserve free passes. but some people are trying. really trying.

which is why my mom going to pride was actually pretty awesome, even though she might not really get it.

some people really are trying for the kindness.

and I think in the end it'll be the kindness that makes all the shit come crashing down, eventually.

not the theory. the kindness.

not the rage that consciousness-raising initially stirs. that rage is a stage. a real one. an important one. and one that never truly leaves, not until people are really free.

the kindness.

the stupid humans trying to accept and love others, in their own bumbling ways.

And that, you know, is really fucking important. ..actually, looking at this I almost want to just leave it and not continue on with what I was going to say, because in a way it sort of detracts from this really simple, key point.

Compassion.

But I'm gonna soldier on with it, because I want to explore a little bit about -why- I think people burn out, go to that defensive place.

I said:

I think in a way it's actually safer to retreat to the burned-out, cynical position. It's understandable, it might even be a necessary retreat, but...it isn't a good permanent resting place. then you start getting into I Blame The...territory. then you don't really accomplish anything.

I do however think it's okay to give up on particular -individuals- when they repeatedly demonstrate no indication of any breakthrough whatsoever. That's realpolitik, but it might also be something deeper.

Truth to tell, i think that it's partly that--the repeated efforts with a particularly obstinate person or group--that actually leads to burnout more often than not. People pour a lot of investment into person or small group x, -sure- that this is the key to bridging the gap, that -if i can only break through to these people-, well, the skies will open and hosannas will play, and...

Meanwhile glossing over all the -other- people wandering to the door and going, "hey, that really speaks to me, I never thought of it that way before," or "you really changed my mind on this," or "thank you for being there, your words make a world of difference to me"

...because, well that's nice, but that doesn't -count-. Not as much.

We're taking that for granted, you see.

Even more truth to tell, -sometimes,- i think that when -that- happens, there's...something else going on besides pure politics. Old shit getting worked out, maybe.

Which, and I think that's inevitable; but maybe it's worth getting conscious of that. Of let's call it old patterns and old beliefs, and whether or not they're what's actually happening right now, and--especially--what -we- have invested in holding onto those old beliefs.

The belief being something like,

"If I can get so and so to love/accept/understand me, then everything will change for the better. Until that happens, nothing will ever change."*

Because so and so is standing in for some -other- so and so, in whom we've unconsciously invested a lot more power than they probably deserve. Certainly that's true of the stand-ins. Honestly it might even be true for the original so and so's. Politics isn't really equipped to deal with that as such, though, I don't think. Which is unfortunate.

Yes, I know. But but such and so is REAL, it's REALLY HAPPENING, so and so DOES have power, it manifests in xyz concrete ways.

I'm really really trying to not discount the structural stuff we've all been talking about, or reduce this all to some sort of happy-crappy self-help thing. I know, there are issues with that sort of approach when it comes to politics. Really.

But.

What if it were a yes-and rather than an instead-of? What if, yes, so and so has material and manifest power in xyz ways, in ways that have nothing to do with anything I've done or contributed to -that- original situation,

BUT ALSO

the -feelings- of hopelessness and despair and deep hurt that come up when so and so, or some representative of so and so, doesn't get it, might be also coming from something that isn't just about right now? And, more important, what if it could be dealt with in some other way? So that when we come back to the table and discuss realpolitik, we're recharged, have gotten the emotional/spiritual sustenance elsewhere, so that we can continue the work?

*and there is also this question:

Do we really want change.

And if so, 1) from what to what, specifically, and 2), why?

Because you know what, on the individual level and so I think even more so the collective level, change is scary.

Yeah, even change for the better. Yeah, even though we swear up and down consciously that of COURSE we want to change, this situation is miserable, anything's got to be better...

But, see, there's also this little inbuilt human fear of the unknown.

It's natural. It's instinctive. It's self-protective. And, it's one little fucker we're really gonna have to struggle with if that part of us which is conscious and rational really sees that change is necessary if we're going to continue to survive.

Old habits that no longer serve. How do we identify them, and how do we transform them into something that -does?-

It's a challenge on the individual level as well as the global one; and it's probably never been more crucial.

gah. i hate that dream.

that one where my teeth keep coming out? or are about to come out?

i hate that dream.

God bless the child

(note: there are two other posts on similar themes, "God bless the child" parts two and three)

There is an interesting discussion unfolding in the comments of this post about Shaquanda Cotton, at the Anti-Essentialist Conundrum. Cliff notes: this is a fourteen year old girl, black, with no prior record, who was sentenced to seven years in jail for shoving a hall monitor. And had already served an entire year before her case got any attention outside her hometown.

Others, including Sylvia, have been covering the deep-ingrained societal racism that this case illuminates so starkly. For the moment, I'd like to talk about something separate, if no doubt related: authoritarianism. Which I've talked about before; and which, like so much else, begins--but doesn't end--at home.

So, back at Sylvia's, a commenter has this to say:

Ya’ll stop and think about what you are reading. Shaquanda was/is a troubled child b/c of her mother. The law (Judge, DA, etc)is trying to keep them separated b/c they see its the mother’s influence thats leading her astray. Most of us (black folk) have seen these type situations either in our family or somehow close to us.

7 years is way too long for this assult conviction. But as it reads its UP TO 7 years so she can get out as soon as she learns to behave. The problem is TYC is probably just going to make her harder than she alredy was and when she gets out at 21, she’ll be a true threat to society.

As it stands, who wants a child in their children’s school who feels she can do this to a teacher. If she’ll push a 58 year old teacher today, she’ll stab another student tomorrow or follow thru on her threat to “burn the school down”. This behavior has to be put in check. Where is her dad in all this? Why isn’t he standing up for them? He probably knows what her mother is all about and trying to stay clear.

and, later:

We’re screaming that this is a racist judge making a racist decision b/c he gave two white kids probation and Shaquanda got 7 years. Did you not read that her mother fought the probation that was offered “would not cooperate” she was on K104 (Dallas Ft.Worth urban radio) saying just that. She says Shaquanda didn’t do anything. Kids pushing kids is one thing, but when they are bold enough to push elderly teachers to the floor, that’s different and it doesn’t happen everyday. This type of behavior has been progressing from her for years, you have to wonder where it would go if left unchecked. In our parents/grandparents day they would have handled this on the spot and it never would have made the news or the court b/c they knew how take care of business and the kids then knew it. Now we got people like you talking about rights of children. Look at where it’s getting most of them.

Bint's response(s) to this is a thing of beauty and worth reading in full; I'm just going to include part here:

Yes, I have read about how her mother would not go along with the probation that was offered. Is there any reason why she should have? If Ms. Brownfield did what she says she did and raised her arm to this child, then Shaquanda had every reason to believe that she was about to get hit and therefore she acted as any normal person might do when they feel that they about to be assaulted.

And when did Ms. Brownsfield become elderly? This woman is 58 years old. My step-father is older than that and he can still climb trees and chop off branches. If she’s really elderly, then why in the world would the school put her in charge of keeping children out of the school in the morning? This isn’t about boldness on the part of Shaquanda. The girl didn’t just walk to some random little old lady and push her down to the ground. This was a case where an adult raised her hand to someone else’s child and then acted surprised when the girl reacted to that.

Furthermore, her behavior was not going unchecked. The child was taking medication for ADHD. Guess who had to bring her to a doctor and get her tested and pay for her prescriptions and keep the school supplied with her medication? Here’s a hint: IT WAS HER MOTHER. You know, that woman that you claim just isn’t willing to believe that Shaquanda has any problems. Tell me, in your mind, through whatever process you are using to evaluate all of this, why you think that her mother was doing all of this if she just didn’t give a damn about the girl’s behavior?

Yeah, I used the word rights. If this teacher had the right to raise her hand towards someone’s child, then the child also had a right to try and prevent being hit. And I don’t know about YOUR children but the ones in my life are doing just great. It isn’t talking about rights that leads to problems for children. The problem (or at least a very significant part of it) is people like you with your uncritical acceptance of every illogical epithet and pathetic cliche that society puts out about kids, especially children of color.

So, but putting the details of that particular case aside, I want to get back to this bit:

In our parents/grandparents day they would have handled this on the spot and it never would have made the news or the court b/c they knew how take care of business and the kids then knew it. Now we got people like you talking about rights of children. Look at where it’s getting most of them.

Here he is alluding to the influence (on contemporary theories of parenting, the self-help industry, and the body politic) of such people as Alice Miller. Here is an example of her thinking:

Children who are given love, respect, understanding, kindness, and warmth will naturally develop different characteristics from those who experience neglect, contempt, violence or abuse, and never have anyone they can turn to for kindness and affection. Such absence of trust and love is a common denominator in the formative years of all the dictators I have studied. The result is that these children will tend to glorify the violence inflicted upon them and later to take advantage of every possible opportunity to exercise such violence, possibly on a gigantic scale. Children learn by imitation. Their bodies do not learn what we try to instill in them by words but what they have experienced physically. Battered, injured children will learn to batter and injure others; sheltered, respected children will learn to respect and protect those weaker than themselves. Children have nothing else to go on but their own experiences.

Born innocent

The well-known American pediatrician Dr. Brazelton once filmed a group of mothers holding and feeding their babies, each in her own particular way. More than 20 years later he repeated the experiment with the women those babies had grown into and who now had babies themselves. Astoundingly, they all held their babies in exactly the same way as they had been held by their mothers, although of course they had no conscious memories from those early years. One of the things Braselton proved with this experiment was that we are influenced in our behavior by our unconscious memories. And those memories can be life affirming and affectionate or traumatic and destructive.

In the 1970s the French gynecologist Fr�d�ric Leboyer demonstrated that babies delivered without physical force and given a loving reception by their immediate environment show no signs of desperate crying or any kind of destructiveness. In fact they will even smile only a few minutes after birth. As long as they are not separated after birth, as was the custom in the 1950s, mother and child will develop a relationship of trust that will have positive repercussions on the entire further course of the children's lives. In the physical presence of her baby, the mother will produce the so-called love hormone (oxytocin) enabling her intuitively to understand the signals emitted by the child and to care for its needs by a process of empathy. These phenomena are described by Michel Odent in his latest book ("The Scientification of Love", London, Free Association, 1999).

Why have these important, groundbreaking insights on human nature failed to penetrate into the awareness of the public at large? True, the works of Leboyer have changed the face of birthing practices. But the philosophical, sociological, psychological, and ultimately theological implications of his discovery of the innocent newborn do not appear to have left any mark on society as a whole. We can see this in many areas: in schools, the penal system, and politics. All these areas are dominated by the notion that punishment - and notably the corporal punishment that goes by the name of "correction" - is effective and harmless. There is little awareness of the fact that physical punishment actually creates the evil that we later try - more or less ineffectually - to banish by inflicting more of the same...

As you can see, this represents a rather different worldview from that expressed by, for example, Ray "Cold" Comfort, partner of child-star-turned-fundamentalist-preacher Kirk Cameron and co-author of a website where he produces such gems as:

What a Lovely Child

...It is a tragedy when ugly doings are seen as cute. One of the first horrible things to reveal itself in a child is the back-arch. This often happens when the parent uses the word "No" and stops the child from touching something he wanted to touch. Mom or dad then picks up the precious bundle, and instead of finding cuddly cuteness, they find the back-arch of protest.

This is the first sign of infantile rebellion against parental authority, and if it isn't dealt with, this seed will grow into a monster and destroy everything in its path.

...Understandably, no parent likes to think that their beloved child is evil, just as parents of newborns would reject any thought that their baby is ugly. However, when a youth stretches his wings, and gets away from the prodigal father's eye, sin is given full reign. You just have to listen to the average teenager talk to see that the testimony of God is true when it says "their throat is an open sepulcher," and that "their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." Perhaps you could never see the little child in your arms as "having feet that are swift to shed innocent blood," but the potential to do so is there. Godless kids love violent movies and sadistic video games. They don't see the blood-thirsty murder of another human being as being something that is horrific. Rather, it is something to be enjoyed. It gives an adrenalin rush. This is why you must introduce the "monster-slayer." You must get rid of the fiend at an early age.

Don't look to a supposed goodness in the heart of your child for a restraint against evil. Man's goodness is a cracked dam. The weight of sin cannot be restrained. It is common for the mother of a vicious murderer to say that her teenage son was actually a good boy. Such loyalty comes from godless reasoning. It comes from the thought that there is good in everyone. That seems to hold true until you define the word "good." It means to be morally excellent. It means to be perfect in thought, word and in deed. It means to love God with all of our heart and to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves. In that case, Jesus was right. There is none good but God. So, reject the world's philosophy, and instead embrace the biblical viewpoint. Again, God's Word says that there is none good. Not one. Your child isn't good. He is like the rest of us. His heart is evil. Face the ugliness.

Don't wait until you have a Jeffery Dahmer on your hands before you use the word "evil." That monster murdered and cannibalized seventeen people, but his background is no different than that of most children. He himself said, "When I was just a little kid I was just like anybody else."* However, when, as a child he began showing cruelty to animals (something common in human nature), the monster wasn't restrained. So it is up to you to understand that the first back-arch isn't cute. It's ugly. It is the beginning of rebellion. You must deal with it by cultivating the restraint of the fear of the Lord in his life...

If you want to see this philosophy of parenthood made concrete and contemporary (you'll find plenty if you go back to "our parents/grandparents' day" without even trying), by the way, you can take a gander at the Babywise/Ezzo discipline:

After babies reach only 6 months of age, parents are instructed to begin punitive disciplinary measures such as "squeezing or swatting" of the child's hands or "isolation" in the crib for "rebellious" infractions including "foolishness," "malicious defiance" or even playing with food on the highchair tray. Ezzo explains to parents that the use of "pain" and "discomfort" can be essential disciplinary tools. After age 2 and a half, children who have a toileting accident are required to clean themselves up.

Despite the plethora of respected research demonstrating the critical importance of early parent-child attachment, "Babywise" breezily dismisses this concept as little more than self-indulgent psychobabble. Thus, parents are told that they can actually harm a child by too much rocking or holding and that they should, at all costs, avoid "emotionalism" in responding to a baby's cries lest parents be held "in bondage" to the child.

"Of course you can harm a baby by picking him or her up too much," asserts Ezzo.

...Scott notes that, depending on a child's individual temperament, Ezzo's recommendations appear to either work brilliantly -- meaning that the child essentially gives up and stops protesting completely -- or leave parents incredibly frustrated as to why, no matter how many times they "swat" the baby, she still won't use good "highchair manners."

Author and lactation consultant Huggins agrees, observing that parents who read "Babywise" may believe that they are experiencing success with the program when in fact, the opposite is true. "What Ezzo is saying 'works' in that many babies do eventually stop crying as they become resigned to taking only small amounts of milk. In that way, you could say it works," says Huggins.

In interview after interview with families who are using "Babywise," parents spoke of their sincere desire to produce "obedient," "respectful" children. Rarely did these parents mention a hope to produce emotionally healthy adults. Overwhelmingly, "Babywise" parents accepted without question the conventional wisdom that "kids today" are out of control. Faced with the onslaught of media images of rampaging middle-schoolers and wilding teens, these parents believe that by cracking down on what Ezzo defines as infant rebellion now, they will prevent problems later.

"I have no intention of raising an out-of-control child, " says Franklin Stout, a 32-year-old father of two who is implementing "Babywise" methods with his young children. "My wife and I like having a guide to help us know how to respond to our sons' different behaviors. We believe that firm discipline in the first year or two will save us all a lot of grief later."

..."Telling parents that there is one simple way to get kids to behave is, well, let's just put it like this: This type of parenting is part of this whole swing to the right all over the country," says pediatrician and Harvard professor T. Berry Brazelton, known to millions of American parents and grandparents as the author of "Touchpoints" (Addison-Wesley) and numerous other bestselling books on parenting and child development. "I feel bad for young parents who are being told that if they follow this program or that program, they won't have problems. You have to look below the surface to see what's going on with each individual family."

After reviewing "Babywise," noted social historian Stephanie Coontz, author of "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" and "The Way We Really Are: Coming to Terms With America's Changing Families" (Basic Books), says that she is able to understand how some parents are drawn to Ezzo's advice. "The way this book has been hyped speaks to real dilemmas faced by parents today," says Coontz. "Unfortunately, this book may give the wrong answers. The book provides solutions to real problems that are at least as bad as the real problems themselves."

..."Parenting like this shows very little respect for children," says pediatrician Brazelton. "It's very adultamorphic and not sensitive to the baby. Although parents should gently set limits, punitive discipline for very young children and babies is repressive and can quash exploration and excitement in the first two years of life. It will be interesting to see some follow up on these kids in later years. I suspect that they'll have a lot of inner rebellion."

Don and Jeanne Elium, family therapists and authors of the books "Raising a Son," "Raising a Daughter" and the new "Raising a Family: Living on Planet Parenthood" (Celestial Arts), concur with Brazelton that the discipline practices promoted by Ezzo are neither age-appropriate nor effective in the long run.

"All isolating a baby or young toddler teaches them is that the world is not a safe place to be in," says Don Elium. "Let a baby be a baby so that she can be an adult when it's time to be an adult."

"Leaving a baby alone to cry in order to punish or to train them to sleep can create a sense of rage that comes from abandonment and hopelessness," agrees Jeanne Elium. "These children will probably pay an expensive price in therapy later..."

And here we come to the crux of it: how completely backasswards the whole thing is. Essentially, the child is being asked to have more control over hirself than the adult. And to accept abuse that would be considered an outrage were an adult to do it to another adult (well, all other things being equal, which of course they often aren't; nonetheless). Which pretty much goes against everything we understand about human development, those of us who've come out of the Dark Ages, at least.

And then the child grows up; and guess what happens to all that pent-up rage, frustration, terror, grief, unmet needs? Well, oftentimes sie simply turns it in on hirself. Depression, rage, various ways dramatic and subtle of putting oneself down and out--because, the adult kid is a decent person, doesn't want to do unto others what was done unto hir, is horrified by the prospect of becoming like the abuser...and at the same time, too, the implications of accepting exactly how things really went down are primally scary. back to Alice Miller again:

These letters are almost always written from the perspective of the parents, parents who were totally unable to bear, let alone love, their children. The children's perspective finds no expression whatsoever, except in the sufferings of the adults they have become, the physical symptoms, the bouts of depression, the thoughts of suicide, the crippling feelings of guilt. The writers of these letters constantly insist that they were never abused as children, that the only physical "correction" they received was occasional slap of no consequence at all, or a kick or two they had richly deserved because they sometimes behaved abominably and got on their parents' nerves. I am frequently assured that deep down these people were loved by their fathers and mothers, and if they were cruelly treated from time to time it was because things just got too much for their parents, who were unhappy, depressed, uninformed, or possibly even alcoholics, and all because they themselves had been deprived of love when they were young. So it is hardly surprising that these parents were quick to lose their tempers and take their unhappiness and resentment out on their children. Such behavior is readily understandable. The dearest wish of these children was to help their parents, because they loved them and felt sorry for them. But however hard they tried, they never managed to free them from their depression and make them happy.

The tormenting feelings of guilt triggered by this failure are unrelenting and implacable. What have I done wrong? These people ask themselves. Why have I failed to free my parents from their misery? I try the best I can. And it's the same with my therapists. They tell me to enjoy the good things in life, but I can't, and that makes me feel guilty too. They tell me to grow up, to stop seeing myself as a victim; my childhood is a thing of the past, I should turn over a new leaf and stop agonizing. They tell me not to put the blame on others; otherwise my hatred will kill me. I should forgive and forget, and live in the present; otherwise I'll turn into a "borderline patient," whatever that is. But how can I do that? Of course I don't want to put the blame on my parents, I love them, and I owe my life to them...

...How can people love themselves if the message that they were not worth loving was drummed into them at an early stage? If they were beaten black and blue to make them into a different person? If they had it impressed on them that they were a nuisance to their parents, and that nothing in the world would ever change their parents' dislike and anger? They will believe that they are the cause of this hatred, though that is simply not true. They feel guilty, they try to become a better person, but this can never succeed because the parents take out on their own children the rage they had to suppress and hold back in their dealings with their own parents. The child was merely the butt of this rage.

Once we have realized this, we stop waiting for the love of our parents, and we know why it will never materialize. Only then can we allow ourselves to see how we were treated as children and to feel how we suffered as a result. Instead of understanding and commiserating with our parents, instead of blaming ourselves, we start taking sides with the abused child we once were...

But other times? When sie has what's called in psych parlance an "external locus of control?" That's wight, wabbit. Sie turns around and inflicts the abuse--yep, that word--on hir own kids, and calls it "discipline" or "the way things ought to be."

Or--sie might or might not have kids. And instead/in addition sie becomes, o I don't know, a police officer, or a teacher. Or a preacher. Or a politician. Or a talking head. Or a filmmaker. Or a judge.

The personal, indeed, is political.

And so we come back full circle to Shaquanda Cotton. And yes, institutionalized racism is very much an enormous part of this. Separate from what family-level, intimate abuse and even what Miller calls "poisonous pedagogy," perhaps...and yet, not unrelated.

Because the authoritarianism, and particularly right-wing authoritarianism is the common denominator:

The current study investigated the relations among fundamentalism, authoritarianism, homosexual bias, and racist attitudes. Thirty men and 90 women from a small midwestern university participated. Results indicated a positive correlation among the 4 bias variables: fundamentalism, authoritarianism, homosexual discrimination, and racism. Fundamentalism was positively correlated with authoritarianism, which in turn was positively correlated with racism and homosexual prejudice. ANOVAs of sex and religious denomination (conservative and moderate) found sex nonsignificant with regard to the 4 bias variables. Significant differences of denominational category were found for authoritarianism and homosexual prejudice within the conservative denominational category. Religious self-ratings and church attendance were positively correlated with all bias variables except racism. Results support the previous research of the fundamentalism-authoritarianism-racism relationship. Authoritarian tendency and selectivity bias are discussed as possible explanations for these results.

Because

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a psychological personality variable or "ideological attitude".

It is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. "It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader."
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. "It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. "Traditional ways are best."

and thus is it that one can see the convergence of all these factors in sentiments such as the one expressed by yet another commenter back at the Anti-Essentialist Conundrum thread:

unknown Mar 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

To Shaquanda Cotton,

I am so glad to see you get the support and attention that you need. Too bad you did not have that the first 14 years of your life. Maybe some of these people will come to Paris and try to do the same for the rest of your family. Maybe they can provide a place for people like you and your siblings so you can get the help you all deserve. Let them pray that they can find positive activities, besides getting high on the front porch or feeling that you need to be with any guy that shows you the lest bit of attention. I really hope you can bring yourself to ask God to help you in times of you and your family needs, and please don’t forget to ask him for the wisdom you need to get through this. I too will have this entire town in my prayers.

As commenter Taceo notes in response,

It is that mindset that gets situations like the one at hand.

oh, yeah, and: about that whole, "right-wingers are nicer than left-wingers" business

you know, because they're nicer to Althouse, and l'Etat, c'est Qu'Emu, anyway Orcinus has a few notes on that as well:

Glenn Reynolds [referencing Muslim mothers reluctant to obtain certain immunizations]: "Just think of it as evolution in action."

...Bill O'Reilly:

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.

...[Frequent MSNBC guest] Melanie Morgan: "I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber."

and

"We've got a bull's-eye painted on [Pelosi's] big, wide laughing eyes"

...Rep. Peter King:

And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove.


..."The Political Insight":

Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?

Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous -- grab for the golden ring...

oh, per that last one: yeah, there is such a thing as online terrorism. Altmouse, please take note: people making fun of you for being an ass--a creepy, stalkeriffic ass who analyzes another blogger's breasts and then blames her for havin' em, pretty much, no less-- is NOT in the same category as being in receipt of actual stalking and death threats.

back to Orcinus: actually there's an entire ten-part series on "eliminationism," starting here; worth reading. As is this earlier series by Neiwert. This bit, f'r instance:

See if this has a familiar ring to it: A rabid right-wing radio talk-show host has been stirring up a campaign of hatred aimed at local liberals. In this case, though, the threats have gone beyond simply empty words into concrete action involving threats and intimidation.

The talk-show host in question is a fellow named John Stokes, who operates little KGEZ-AM, a radio station south of town next to Highway 93 (in fact, there are reasons to believe he bought the station mainly as a way to scam the state out of millions in condemnation proceedings, but that's another story). Shortly after Stokes took over in 2000, he began broadcasting right-wing screeds that indeed made Rush Limbaugh sound like "the voice of reason" in contrast. Stokes regularly launched vitriolic attacks on all kinds of liberals; gays and lesbians came in for special scorn (he accused two lesbian activists in Missoula whose home had burned down in an arson of setting the fire themselves), and of course Bill Clinton was a frequent target.

The primary targets of Stokes' venom, though, were conservationists and environmentalists, for whom not even the most appalling comparison nor the most groundless accusation was adequate: Stokes constantly referred to them as Nazis, and the central thrust of all his attacks was that "greens" were responsible for nearly everything that was wrong with life in Western Montana, particularly the depressed economy. Indeed, Stokes has referred frequently to Patriot conspiracy theories, and not merely on the subject of environmentalists (who are viewed by militia types as a cult intent on enslaving the rest of mankind); he's also trotted out Patriot theories on such subjects as taxation and the Constitution.

Unsurprisingly, his audience reflects this kind of proto-fascist orientation. Many of his callers have outright advocated violence against conservationists, and Stokes has encouraged them to do so.

The real-life consequences of all this talk made quite clear that this was not merely "entertainment," and that Stokes' "hot talk" was doing more than just garnering ratings. Beginning in the summer of 2001, local conservationists began receiving a series of death threats, some delivered in person, others by phone. Car windows were smashed in, tires slashed. Strange men would show up in people's yards at twilight, then run off when confronted. People's homes were vandalized. Others would be followed home by men in pickups or on motorcycles. Sometimes the teenage children of the targets were threatened.

And egging all of these people on was John Stokes. Sometimes callers would announce on his show that a local conservationist was on vacation, which would present an opportunity to "visit their home." In others, a caller would simply give the home address of an environmental activist who had just been vilified as "Satanic" on the air by Stokes...

note: this was written in 2003, and i think the "rising tide" to which he alludes, next, has shifted somewhat. but, it's hardly irreversible, and i still think this is highly relevant:

The massive propagandizing of the right against liberals generally and antiwar elements specifically is an area where a number of disturbing trends are beginning to coalesce:

* The increasing tendency of extremist memes to appear in mainstream discourse as an acceptable version of conservative thinking, propelled especially by the now-apparent bias among most national media outlets favoring conservative propaganda.
* Bush's purposeful projection of religious motivations for his war effort, with overt suggestions that his decisions are divinely guided.
* The extremist right's growing identification with Bush, and their apparent willingness to use thuggish tactics of intimidation on his behalf.
* Likewise, the Bush regime's increasingly apparent willingness to make use of such factions for their own political ends.
* The rising demonization of antiwar liberals, complete with vicious eliminationist rhetoric.
* The constant framing of the war in jingoistic "national renewal" sentiments, both in political and religious terms.
* The dislocation caused by the flailing economy and terrorism fears, both of which raise the conditions under which people become willing to turn to totalitarianism.

These rivulets have been coalescing in a campaign directed against antiwar liberals, and creating a powerful undercurrent that hasn't yet broken through the surface. What hasn't happened yet is that the thuggishness has not directed itself on any kind of large scale at all (there have only been a few isolated incidents); neither has the Bush regime made any kind of open signal that such activities are viewed approvingly.

If they do signal such an alliance, however, then I am convinced that the nation is in serious danger of submerging under a tide of genuine fascism. And as I've been arguing all along, it won't be a fascism we can easily recognize. It won't be German-style or Italian-style; rather, it will be uniquely American -- probably, if history is any guide, one with a veneer of Christian fundamentalism, but underneath, one predicated on a coalescence of corporatist power with proto-fascist thuggery.

That said, even though the danger is clear, it's important to understand that we are not there yet. More to the point, we can stop this slide. We only need to be aware that it is occurring.

My advice would be nearly identical to that which I give those little community groups like the one in Kalispell: Stand up for democracy. Don't threaten and don't cajole. And don't back down.

Most people -- conservatives especially, who view analyses like mine as merely an attempt to smear Republicans -- are in denial about these trends. Even in Kalispell, there was resistance from many in the business community that even addressing the problem just gave the extremists free publicity -- ignoring, of course, the reality that trying to pretend them away just gives them a free ride.

...From my experience and that of nearly every community that has had to deal with right-wing extremism, the notion that paying attention to it -- covering both the leaders and the followers in the press, responding to them publicly -- only publicizes their kookery is a gross mistake. Remaining silent and refusing to stand up to them is not an adequate response. They mistake the silence for complicity, for tacit approval.

This is equally true of the shape-shifting "transmitters" who take extremist memes and inject them into the national discourse, often under the guise of providing "fiery" rhetoric. When the public starts calling them on the sources of their ideas, and exposing them for the coddlers of hate-mongers, extremists and terrorists that they are, then they inevitably scurry back and hide under the rocks whence they crawled out. This is already starting to happen with Michael Savage; it needs to begin happening with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan and the rest.

Like all bullies, they prove cowards in a real fight. It's time for the rest of America to start fighting.

p.s. Altmouse may be a lightweight in the greater scheme of things, but she damn well is a bully by my lights.

and, of course she/they start whining about how persecuted THEY are, as soon as anyone so much as looks at 'em crosseyed, as per that last hilarious demonstration (for example), because that is ALSO what bullies do:

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization ("This is so trivial it's not worth talking about...") and the Fresh Start tactic ("I don't know why you're so intent on dwelling on the past" and "Look, what's past is past, I'll overlook your behaviour and we'll start afresh") - this is an abdication of responsibility by the bully and an attempt to divert and distract attention by using false conciliation. Imagine if this line of defence were available to all criminals ("Look I know I've just murdered 12 people but that's all in the past, we can't change the past, let's put it behind us, concentrate on the future so we can all get on with our lives" - this would do wonders for prison overcrowding).

b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour. Often the target is tempted - or coerced - into giving another long explanation to prove the bully's allegation false; by the time the explanation is complete, everybody has forgotten the original question.

Both a) and b) are delivered with aggression in the guise of assertiveness; in fact there is no assertiveness (which is about recognising and respecting the rights of oneself and others) at all. Note that explanation - of the original question - is conspicuous by its absence.

c) Feigning victimhood: in the unlikely event of denial and counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions, especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears, which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated", claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be "deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...") and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ... blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied..."). Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the piece. Or presenting as a false victim.

...By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they have said or done. It is a pattern of behaviour learnt by about the age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this, but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has been practised to perfection.

A further advantage of the denial/counter-attack/feigning victimhood strategy is that it acts as a provocation. The target, who may have taken months to reach this stage, sees their tormentor getting away with it and is provoked into an angry and emotional outburst after which the bully says simply "There, I told you s/he was like that". Anger is one of the mechanisms by which bullies (and all abusers) control their targets. By tapping in to and obtaining an inappropriate release of pent-up anger the bully plays their master stroke and casts their victim as villain.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, mature adults do not respond by bursting into tears. If you're dealing with a serial bully who has just exhibited this avoidance tactic, sit passively and draw attention to the pattern of behaviour they've just exhibited, and then the purpose of the tactic. Then ask for an answer to the question.

The River Denial

Some years ago, when I was living in L.A., I had joined a women-in-theatre membership group. They advertised meeting for a get-to-know-you lunch at a local restaurant. Networking, yanno. Seemed like a good idea; and, hey, lunch, what could be bad, right? So, I went.

When I got there, it turned out there were only two women at the reserved table, neither of whom had ever been to the group before either. (Already this didn't bode well). They were both considerably older than I: I was in my early twenties; they must've been in their comfortable middle years. One seemed pleasant enough. Kind of quiet. The other...

Well, she seemed pleasant enough as well, at first how-de-do. Right away I did pick up that her energy, in retrospect, although i wouldn't have put it in such terms at the time, was a bit...odd. But she looked all right. Large frame, large eyes, large lipsticked mouth, a shock of short white hair, chatty. By the end of the luncheon, I had her firmly associated, physically, with Ursula, the mer-octopus villain in Disney's "A Little Mermaid..." But I'm getting ahead of myself.

So, we sat down, we looked at menus, we talked about this and that. The place is busy. A waiter rushes past, once, twice; the white-haired woman signals that we're ready to order, but he doesn't see us. Or maybe he said something like "I'll be with you in a moment, ma'am." It was a long time ago. It blurs.

What I remember much more vividly was the next part:

Ursula's cheerful smile changes--instantly--to a snarl of rage. She slams her hand down on the table and shouts at the top of her considerable voice,

HELLO?!? CUSTOMERS HERE!!! WE WANT SOME GODDAM SERVICE!!!

Somewhere while I'm still remembering to breathe, the manager comes over, or something happened; whatever ultimately transpired, we were -not- thrown out on our asses, and indeed even got some goddam service, eventually. I'm not sure why. Maybe it was because the other, more soft-spoken woman talked them all down; maybe Ursula did another 180 as soon as the manager came, turned the charm back on, some goddam thing.

After they left, before the food arrives, Ursula turns back to us, grins, and says, in a normal speaking voice,

"That's how it's done."

The other woman is acting like this is all completely normal. In retrospect, I think that's actually what freaked me out the most.

Eventually they notice I've gone oddly quiet.

Ursula asks me something probing, I can't remember what.

So I say, oh no, I'm fine, really, just, we've been here so long, my meter's probably about to expire. I should really go feed it; I don't want a ticket.

I get the impression that Ursula is rather suspicious. But she allows me to leave, or I allow myself to leave. Politely. Apologetically, even.

Now, here's the kicker. I went back in.

Why in God's name? Of course she knew as well as I that it was a transparently lame excuse to peel the hell out of there. I'm sure I knew by that point that there was absolutely no "networking" that I wanted any part of to be had here. Did I feel guilty for having ordered food that I wasn't going to consume and thus pay for? Or was it some other guilt, of some deeper, murkier origin?...

Somehow we got through the rest of it. She said a few things that I thought were kind of, well, insane, as we ate our lunches (Caesar salad, I think, was mine; not very good). She laughed a lot, loudly. But nothing else seriously dramatic happened in the next, oh, forty minutes or so.

Eventually, the bill came. I think there was a further production about who owed how much, to the penny. When it was over, she gave me her card. We walked to the parking lot and went our separate ways, amicably enough.

And, while I can understand why the restaurant, a business, after all, didn't maybe want to make trouble with an obviously unstable and pugnacious person, still I don't really have a clear answer:

Why didn't the other woman seem to notice that anything was remotely wrong with this person, or rather even this situation?

And why in God's name didn't I leave, when I knew how badly I wanted to, and that there was nothing else for me there?

Because it was "no big deal, really?"

Because I didn't want to hurt her feelings?

Because I was afraid of the implications of acknowledging, even to myself, just how crazy this was, when no one else seemed to notice?