Home

Divisiveness in the current election?

Leave a comment

It’s something a lot of people are talking about, usually blaming those who think differently than they do.

The fact is that we were already divided, but people who held certain opinions didn’t feel free to express them till a leader came along and showed they can do so with impunity. The things we are learning about our relatives, friends, coworkers, neighbors were true all along, but they were hiding them.

I think it’s important to always remember that the fact that people are publicly following the rules of civil behavior does not necessarily mean that they accept the rules, that they believe as their public behavior might indicate. That they don’t say racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic things in public doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t believe them. They may just be waiting for their chance to safely go public.

It’s discouraging, but appears to be true, that while conditions have improved (with still far to go in most cases!), over the course of my lifetime, for minorities, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people, and some others, and while many people have changed their viewpoints–their hearts, their consciences–over time, not everyone has. Some just took their hatred and prejudice into private until a man came along who told them they are right.

Bisexuality

Leave a comment

Partly because I have some bisexual friends, I have been seeing posts on Facebook and elsewhere, both from them and with links to others, about “bisexual erasure.” (If you don’t know what it is, please use Google.) This erasure comes, it seems, from both heterosexual and homosexual people.

I just can’t wrap my head around the idea–which seems to be the basis here–that EVERYONE is either gay or straight and that there is no way for a person to be honestly attracted, romantically, sexually, or both, to people of both genders, all genders, no gender, or all of the above. In other words, no way for a person to be attracted to, y’know, other individual humans and not to a specific configuration of genitals.

I have never been romantically or sexually attracted to another woman, even though when I was not monogamously partnered I was open to the possibility. There have been a few women about whom I have thought/felt, yes, she has the characteristics of someone I could have a relationship with–IF I felt a romantic/sexual attraction, but I didn’t. I suspect pheromones, but who knows.

The attraction that I have felt to these women is very much like what I have felt for the men I have had romantic/sexual relationships with, but minus the romantic/sexual attraction. So it’s obvious to me bisexuality is possible.

But–as I think we all know well–a lot of people believe that if they don’t experience something, it doesn’t exist. Others feel that if anyone thinks or feels differently than they do, it’s an implicit criticism of their thoughts or feelings. Add those two groups, and it’s a powerful lot of folks who won’t accept thoughts or feelings outside their personal experience.

Their world is so small.

The right to die

5 Comments

Upfront: I do not want to have a religion-based discussion. That is another topic for elsewhere. And I will delete any incivility.

I understand, I think, the concerns of people who have disabilities or have loved ones who do, regarding the “right to die” (in whatever guise). But I always come back to this: who has more right to say whether a life is worth living than the person living that life ?

Unfortunately, the only metaphor I have come up with to make this point is able-ist, but because it is based on a well-known saying, I am going to use it here: we may try to walk in another’s shoes, but we can never walk with another’s feet. We can never truly know another’s pain (or lack of it); we can only know what ours is in the same situation (or even more remotely, what we think ours would be in the same situation).

Yes, societal forces can pressure people in making the decision to die. But if the problem is societal forces that pressure a person to die who might otherwise not choose to, is the answer to build societal forces that pressure the person NOT to die, even if it is what the person wants?

Yes, acknowledging a right to die can lead to a slippery slope by which people with disabilities are pressured to die. But does taking away the right to die from those who want to exercise it increase the rights of people who would choose to die because of societal forces rather than personal choice?

Yes, one can view acknowledgment of the right of disabled people to kill themselves as telling others that death is better than disability. But that view is wrong. One person’s choice, even many people’s choices, does not equal universal truth. An individual’s choice is exactly that: one person’s choice, as the person lives an individual life in an individual body.

I don’t understand how anyone can be pro-choice regarding abortion and anti-choice regarding the right to die. For that matter, I don’t understand how anyone can be anti-slavery and also anti-right-to-die. All are about ultimate bodily autonomy.

In a real sense, if society controls my death, it also controls my life.

Roe v. Wade

Leave a comment

Today is the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. I have a lot of mixed feelings on the subject of abortion, but I am pro-choice in the sense that I do not want to see abortion be illegal. Among my fairly close relatives, there are women who have had an abortion; women who have placed a child for adoption–in pretty much every permutation: closed adoption but reunited with the child later, closed adoption but never (to date) reunited with the child, somewhat open adoption, completely open adoption; women who have raised their child alone. We also have family members who are adopted (not just my kids).

I have an abortion story, but it is not mine. However, I have told it once before, to a limited audience, and I think it’s time to tell it again.
******

She was 15 years old. She lived in a small Midwestern town, in a Catholic family, in the days before Roe v. Wade. The only sex education she ever had was what she saw on the farm. When she had her first period, a couple or three years before, she had no idea what it was and thought she was dying; when she turned to an older girl for help, she learned what it meant and how to take care of it.

When the cute older guy at school asked her out, she was flattered. When he said, “This is what people do on dates,” she went along. When she didn’t get her next period, she was terrified.

She couldn’t tell her parents. The boy never spoke to her after that first date. She had nowhere to go.

I don’t know who told her about someone in town who took care of this problem for unmarried women (and, I’m sure, for some married women whose health or finances couldn’t withstand another child). She didn’t tell anyone about her problem, but that name undoubtedly was whispered among the girls and young women of the town, as such names were in small towns and big cities throughout the country. Fortunately, this name belonged to a real doctor. And so she had a safe, but highly illegal, abortion.

Later she married and had children. She always felt guilt, but she never felt regret, for the abortion. “What else could I have done? What would have become of me?” Certainly she would not have married the man she did, and therefore she would not have had the children she had.

She never, in her whole life, told anyone this story–except me. She’s gone now. Everyone who knew her then is gone. I’m not sure there is no one who will judge her, if they read this story. But [before the one time I shared it] I kept this confidence for nearly forty years, and it’s time the story was told.

She was my mother.

******

What I really want is changes in society so that–just for starters (not in order of priority): (1) no woman or girl (because I don’t care if she can physically get pregnant, most 12-, 13-, and 14-year-olds are still “girls,” and some who are older as well) is stigmatized because she is pregnant; (2) families are more fluid, so that open adoption is common; (3) resources are available for a woman or girl to raise a child on her own, and to continue her education if she chooses; (4) birth control is easily available, and its use is the norm among sexually active people; (5) people with disabilities are fully accepted members of society, and families with a child with a disability get the help and support they need. Those changes would go a long way in reducing the number of abortions.

Autism, thinking, society, gender, Foyle’s War, AHA!, and me

Leave a comment

I am not autistic. As far as I can tell, I am not on the spectrum. Yet often things I read about being autistic resonate strongly with me.

I do not think in words; I think in what I have always called “patterns,” though that isn’t exactly correct, but–how do I describe something that is not-words in words? I had never encountered anyone else who said they thought this way–and had encountered people who denied that anyone could think in other-than-words!–until I read something by Dr. Temple Grandin in which she discussed word thinking, visual thinking (her style), and pattern thinking. It was a huge AHA! moment for me.

What she says in an article here–http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/temple-grandin-on-a-new-approach-for-thinking-about-thinking-130551740/–makes me change my description a bit: I think in patterns with a strong visual component. She says, “Each of the three types of thinking is a continuum,” and I agree, but I think they have, or can have, intersections. I was good at both algebra, which to me is patterns, and geometry, which to me is mainly visual. Yet I am also good with words; that seems strange, but I think it’s because I have to think ABOUT words, rather than think IN words. It’s probably part of what makes me a good editor.

******

I recently mentioned that I seem to have more female friends on the spectrum than many neurotypical women do. A couple of my AS women friends agreed that they find a friendship with me easier than with most neurotypical women. Today my spouse showed me this link: http://ownshrink.com/aspergers/female-aspies-explained/. The writer says, “Having Asperger’s Syndrome as a female is to live in a world that is aggressively and consistently assumptive.” Another AHA! moment. I have frequently talked about not having had many of the experiences that some women claim that ALL women have. When I have brought this up in a discussion on some “women’s” issue, I have been told that I am in denial, or that if I haven’t experienced it I have no right to talk about the issue–it has even been implied that I don’t count as a “real” woman if it is true.

“Aggressive and consistently assumptive”? Yeah! Actually we all live in that world, of course, but some people fit the assumptions so well that they never notice them–in either applying them to others or having them applied to themselves. I don’t fit society’s assumptions about “woman” in many ways, however, and I try never to apply society’s assumptions to other women–or men, or other-gendered people, little kids, the elderly, teens, and so on. (“Try” I say; in this as in all my other goals, I am not perfect.)

******

I have been watching the series Foyle’s War. In a recently watched episode, Christopher Foyle, who is an extremely reserved English police detective, was forming a friendship with another man. The way it was transpiring pleased me–do you know that feeling when you are watching a show and you just get a kind of “oh, I like this, I like what’s happening, this is nice” feeling? And there it was, another AHA! moment.

I have always had male friends, going back to my earliest years. While I was friendLY with various girls, throughout childhood and teens, I was usually closest friends with a boy. In my adult years, whoever has been my life partner, or in between those, the person I was dating most seriously, has been literally my best friend, but I have had other male friends as well.

I gravitate naturally to the way that some men do friendships. I don’t mean the sports-and-beer, never have a real discussion kind–if those actually exist in real life and not just in stereotypes. But sharing another’s company without having to talk all the time, enjoying activities together, discussing movies or politics or the best contractor or, yes, sports, if you both feel like it. And then at a certain point knowing that you can trust this person, he has your back, you can tell him things and he can tell you things–but you don’t have to, it’s OK to just be. No drama. No judgment. No BFFs one week and not speaking the next. Did I mention, no drama?

I am NOT saying that two women never have this kind of friendship or that all men do. But in my lifetime experience this kind of friendship, the kind I prefer, has been by far easier for me to find with men. The women I have the best friendships with these days are generally (1) friends of very long standing –going back to high school, 50 years and more, so we know pretty much all there is to know about each other; (2) my cousins, again with a long history–and I am fortunate in that both sides of my family generally get along very well with each other; (3) women on the AS spectrum.

******

I don’t have a grand conclusion for this. It is what it is, presented for your consideration, should you care to consider it.

Humans and groups of humans

2 Comments

Those who know me, or who have read much of what I write, know that I don’t “believe.” I distrust the word, because so often once someone says, “I believe,” there is no room for new, and especially contradictory, information. My viewpoint is “This is what I think, based on information, observation, and experience up to now, and subject to change at any time with new information, observation, or experience.” Unwieldy, I know, but there you have it.

But there are things I am pretty close to “believing,” and this is one: humans are humans, subject to their human nature, in every time and every place and under all conditions. Further, humans are each unique. Therefore, in any situation with a sufficient number of humans, there will be those who do good and those who do evil, those who love and those who hate, those who judge by reason and those who judge by emotion, those who lead and those who follow and those who stay out if it, and so on. Take a small enough group, and one can generalize about certain things–particularly regarding the factors that bind them as a group. But as soon as the group is just a little larger, even those things are no longer true of all the members.

To generalize about men or women, about blacks or whites, about Asians or Latinos, about Christians or Muslims, about conservatives or liberals, is meaningless, yet very dangerous. When we do so, we deceive ourselves into believing that we know what we do not know, and from there we judge what we cannot fairly judge. We deceive ourselves into believing that those categories of humans are somehow fundamentally different from each other.

We can and should judge what humans do, but we cannot judge what they are. We can say that members of a group with this characteristic in common have done this thing, individually or in concert, but we cannot say that every human who has that characteristic has done, or would do, this thing.

I would be surprised to learn that there has ever been any human group of any significant size that has not regularly done, individually or in concert, horrible things–to their neighbors, to women, to children, to elders, to those among them who are “different” in some way–being gay, or suspected of witchcraft, or having a disability of some kind, or so many more “differences.” And further, those horrible things have been supported, approved, or at the very least not opposed, by the group as a whole. Perhaps–probably–not by every single member, but by enough members that one might reasonably say “the group.”

Yes, we should condemn the horrible things that groups do, just as we should condemn the horrible things that individuals do. But it is the worst kind of hubris to think that those horrible things make “them” somehow fundamentally different from “us.” Because the next step from there is to believe that what “we” do is automatically right, that we cannot possibly do evil–even when we are doing, or have done, the exact same action as “they” are doing.

When Does Life Begin?

Leave a comment

When does life begin? It sounds like a simple question, doesn’t it? Certainly it is a question to which one could give at least one’s personal opinion.

Not so fast. At least when asked in regard to abortion issues, “When does life begin?” is a smokescreen, a red herring, a trick question. It’s a “gotcha” waiting to happen.

Even scientists do not fully agree on what constitutes “life.” But by most definitions I can find, a single sperm cell or a single ovum, qualifies, as do most other single cells in the human body. Is that what the questioner means? Probably not.

Rephrase it perhaps, to “When does human life begin?” Not very helpful, as too general. OK, then, how about “When does a discrete human life begin?” Better.

Let’s posit that a discrete human life begins when sperm and ovum join. But wait! What if that entity later splits into two, producing identical twins? Did two discrete human lives begin when a single sperm and ovum joined? Did that single entity possess two lives? Or is one the original life, and the other just a copy? If so, which is which?

But that doesn’t really matter for abortion discussions, because it still isn’t the question that is actually being asked. That question is “When does a human life begin that is entitled not to be ended by another’s deliberate action?”* And that is the question on which people differ. Some say when the sperm and ovum unite, some say when the embryo is implanted, some say when life outside the womb is technically possible, some say at birth. Some say only when the life is wanted by the woman incubating it. Some at the radical ends argue either for the life-sacredness of the individual sperm and ovum or for the “right to life” not beginning until some period of time after birth.

It is a question that has occupied years of thought on the part of philosophers, theologians, and legal scholars. It is a question on which not all of them have decided on an answer, and of those who have, their answers do not agree. Small wonder, then, if the occasional person not able to devote their life to the question has not decided on an answer.

And then: it is a question regarding which some people are willing to impose their answer on everyone, and others are not.

*The obvious corollary is “When does a human life cease being entitled not to be ended by another’s deliberate action?” but this essay is not about war, self-defense, removing life support, capital punishment, etc.

Older Entries

#Signs of Love

An Alison Kirkpatrick blog

Carrying It with Me

Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful, we must carry it with us or we find it not. -Ralph Waldo Emerson

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.