House on Fire

Recently, someone I respect stated that the things “Millennials” (shudder, I hate that term) focus on for social activism for small, unimportant things. Examples I saw across his feed included misogynistic comments, cultural appropriation in Halloween costumes, and transgender bathroom access.

I hope very much he will not mind me quoting him:

“Some problems are objectively more important than others.” His example of a far more important problem was this article: Isis ‘Executes’ 232 Near Mosul.

So I started thinking – why are those issues important to me? In the face of Isis uprooting civilians and using them as human shields, why do I still feel strongly about something like cultural appropriation or offhand misogynistic comments?

For the purposes of this post, I will address misogynistic comments. Not because the two other issues are less important, but because it is the one I have the most personal experience with, and therefore feel I can give the most context for.

Consider a neighborhood of houses, all within the same neighborhood association. I am going through my home and some frayed electrical wires. I call the neighborhood association and say let them know – I noticed some frayed wiring, and actually I saw a rat the other day. Maybe we need to worry about this.

The answer is “Don’t bother us right now – Nancy’s house in on fire!!!” They call the fire department, the fire department comes and deals with it. I call in to mention it again, but they say “How can you bother us like this – we’re still dealing with the fallout of Nancy’s house fire. What a selfish person you are, where are your priorities?”

Time goes on, and now I can hear rats in the walls. My lights are dimming and brightening every once in awhile, and I can sometimes hear sizzling and popping noises. I try again to raise attention, and now Steve’s house in on fire. Same routine – how self-absorbed I am with a petty rat problem, can’t I see that other people have bigger issues?

Eventually my house will catch fire too, because the rats are chewing on the electrical wires. By then, though, the house is on fire. Damage has been done.

Misogynistic comments are rats. They chew away at the idea that women are people. They gnaw on the idea of consent. When you take the idea of slut shaming to its extreme, you get a society where women are forced to cover every part of their body, whether they want to or not. When you take the idea that women belong at home to its extreme, you find a society where women must be escorted by men whenever they leave their house.

And when you take a misogynistic comment, like perhaps this one, “I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” The extreme of that comment (which, by itself is suggesting assault) is rape.

It’s easy to think that it’s stupid to care about one comment, one remark. But for me, this isn’t the first dimming of the lights. This isn’t the first rat I’ve seen. And every once in awhile you see a scorch mark on the wall, next to the electrical socket. This poor young girl set herself on fire to stop Isis fighters from raping her. The culture within Isis is a house on fire, and the people in that house need to be saved. But it starts with their culture – their wiring. As a group, they do not value consent.

Let’s not kid ourselves that our culture couldn’t catch flame as well. All it takes is a lot of rats, and some bad electrical wiring. And frankly, let’s not pretend that parts of our home aren’t already seeing smoke. How many women had to report that Bill Cosby had raped them before they were believed? Even now, as women allege assault and harassment, they are accused of seeking their “ten minutes of fame.”

So yes, even in the face of Isis uprooting civilians and human shields, I will continue to protest misogynistic remarks. I will object to cultural appropriation that diminishes the value and marginalizes other cultures. I will point out racist microaggressions that stereotype groups of people, because those stereotypes affect how they are treated by our government, and by our police force.

Where did it start for the Kurds? How do people come to see other groups as enemies, not people? With small remarks, the setting of a tone, the implication that one group is our evil, or not to be trusted, or not to be valued. It ends with violence. We have an opportunity, in our country, to lay down rat poison, replace our electrical wiring, and build a safe home so that we will never need to call the fire department. And, by the way, here is a nonprofit that does great work in this area.

 

Also, VOTE.  Please.

 


A Year of Foolishness

This is the year in which I will be foolish.

Steve Jobs, possibly the most famous Silicon Valley misanthropic genius, implored us all to “Stay hungry, stay foolish.” I have never been one to delight in misanthropy or hunger (pie, anyone?) so I have never really looked to the technological giants of my hometown to guide my way. But when I heard that quote, I felt it with the pang of regret that you sometimes experience when someone tells you to do something you know you want to do, but are not doing.

In other words, I am hungry (for more things than pie, though seriously, does anyone have some pie?), but I have never been willing to be foolish.

Since I can remember, self-expression has always seemed like the ultimate self-indulgence. I remember as a child being chided for “wanting attention”, for “taking myself too seriously”. Now, as I grow older, I find myself yearning to express myself – through aerial and non-aerial dance or through written words. As I try, the admonishments of my past ring in my ears. My prose is too stilted, my movement too dramatic, and my passion too damn foolhardy. How will I pay the bills, when I’m only focused on myself?

Who am I letting down, when I choose to spend my time on self-expression? Yesterday, my inconceivably talented aerial coach told me that one of her other students had cited me as her circus inspiration. As soon as I heard it, I went through my usual expressions of grateful self-deprecation on the outside. On the inside, I took that information, put it in a teeny tiny box, and put it in a corner of my mind to look at later.

It is to state the truth, and also sound incredibly arrogant, when I say that there have been a few very intelligent, amazing women in my life who looked up to me as a career woman. They saw my drive, my ambition, and say that it freed them to embrace and pursue their own. In the last year, when I finally acknowledged the possibility that I am not a “career woman” after all – that I might not be suited to becoming an executive and wearing immaculately tailored suits and relegating my expressions of emotions to drunken post-work confessions and midday visits to the bathroom stall to cry – I thought of those women first. Would my abandonment of this path shake their faith? Would they be disappointed in me? Was I letting them down?

When I went back and opened that little box in the corner of my brain, I realized how important it is to me to try to inspire people. And I realized that my career is not the only place where I can aspire to be inspiring.

This year I will be foolish, because I need to be. At every phase I will likely laugh at myself, because that is what the admonishments of my past helped me to do. And I will reclaim my self-expression, and try as hard as I can to not feel guilty about it. But I’m still not sold on being hungry – I think I’d rather have a nice slice of pie.

 


Kilgrave is Real

I had never heard of Jessica Jones as a character until the recent Netflix series. I didn’t watch more than 3 episodes of Daredevil. I even stopped watching Agents of Shield, despite its connection to the Whedon family. Superhero TV, to me, has somewhat played itself out. How many more stories are there to really tell (that wouldn’t be better told in a movie)?

It turns out there are still stories to tell – women’s stories. What struck me over and over watching the show was how real it felt to me. The obsessive behavior, the sense of entitlement, the possessiveness of the villain was so incredibly authentic to me, and I suspect any woman who has grown tired of the male gaze.

Every man who ever felt I owed him sex because he paid for a date. Every man who ever thought that he “deserved” an explanation for why I didn’t want to go out with him, or talk to him. Every married man who has wanted to use me as an escape hatch from a life he felt was too restrictive. Every man on the street who feels entitled to my attention, like a constant annoying “Do you have a moment for my penis?”. It was all there, in one British, immature, whiny little shit that a badass brunette got to hit in the face. To say it was cathartic would be, frankly, an understatement.

Jessica got to tell the personification of rape culture exactly how it felt, and exactly how okay it wasn’t. Sometimes she went too far in trying to punish him. I could understand that too.

SPOILERS BELOW

At one point, Kilgrave tells Jessica that she really does want him, that he intentionally let his mind control wear off to see if she would “choose” him. He remembers a beautiful rooftop scene where she smiles and kisses him, by her own will. She remembers trying to summon the nerve to jump off the building to escape him.

As the scene played out, I flashed back to situations that I no doubt remember quite differently than the men involved. The man who cornered me in his apartment and tried to block the doorway when I wanted to leave – does he remember a pleasant evening of watching movies? When he later tried to push his way through my door and into my apartment, does he remember a rude woman who was too busy to talk, or a scared college student wondering if she was about to have to defend herself?

Then there’s Simpson, a man who needs only simple manipulation (and some superstrength pills) to achieve his ends. I am also all too familiar with his tactics. The “I need to apologize” with no regard to whether the other person wants, or needs to hear it. The offer to help that turns into a demand to control. The anger when his apologies, help, or input is refused. These are sometimes worse than the Kilgraves, because often you care for them. You wanted their help, at one point. You are owed their apology, and therefore feel obligated to listen.

I saw a post on Facebook where a man complained that there were no men on Jessica Jones that felt like whole characters – just villains or eye candy. Then he said “Oh. I guess that’s how that feels.” I laughed, because he was making a good point about portrayals about women in media.

But the truth is, there were realistic men on Jessica Jones. Kilgrave, Simpson, those men were not caricatures to me. They were real villains I have met in my life. The ones I knew didn’t need mind control, because they have the ever-present pressure of society telling women to be quiet, polite, accommodating. Don’t be a bitch. Don’t lump us all together. #notallmen, after all.

At the end of the show, I thought about all this and smiled. Because the older I get, the less I give a crap about being quiet, polite, and accommodating. Jessica’s superpower wasn’t really super strength – it was that Kilgrave’s mind control didn’t work on her. We ladies, like Jessica, will eventually be immune to the mind control. Then shit will get real.

 


5 Self Defense Tips for the Ladies in my Life (and possibly your life too)

Back when I was graduating from high school, I ran a small “self defense” class for my friends. It mostly consisted of me demonstrating a technique, my friends nodding solemnly, and then giggling when we tried it out.

As much as I’m sure they enjoyed my helpful tips about eye gouging (it’s effective!), there’s more to self defense than the much advertised kick to the nuts (although yes, it’s also effective). So, without further ado, though there wasn’t that much ado, here are my top 5 tips for being the least assaulted you can be. Enjoy.

1. Pay attention

Try this next time you’re out walking. Imagine that you are playing an extremely casual game of hide and seek with someone. They might be trying to sneak away behind you. They might be hiding around the corner, or under that dumpster. They could be in the back seat of your car, or in that doorway on your right. As you walk down the street, just take a quick check of all those places. You don’t have to go out of your way, just scope them out.

Image

If you see someone like this, maybe skip the stroll down that dark alley. (photo credit: chanpipat, http://www.freedigitalphotos.net)

If you can start doing this all the time, you will see “stranger danger” threats long before they reach you. You’ll start noticing when doorways have unusual shadows that might be people. You’ll notice if that people have been following you for several blocks. Even better, they will notice you noticing. Most “bad guys” don’t want to attack someone who sees it coming. They want an easy target.

I was once walking at night in San Francisco when my internal alarm went off. There was a man walking behind me, closer than I wanted, so I turned to look at him. He introduced himself and began to walk next to me, making idle conversation. I answered monosyllabically, and kept him in my peripheral vision the whole time. Then he saw my sweatshirt (with my dojo’s logo on it) and said “Do you do karate or something?”

I stopped, looked him in the eye, and said “I teach it.” 

He wished me a good night and walked the other direction. Is that because he thought I was a kung fu badass who would karate chop him to death? Probably not. But he knew I wasn’t an easy mark either, and sometimes that’s all it takes.

2. Maintain physical distance

Most non-martial artists have an excellent plan for what they would do in a fight. The plan is to “Run really fast”. This is a great idea, but it’s missing a key prep step. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched a woman get into a situation where a creepy guy is right up in her personal space. She tries to be polite, or casually move away, but some guys can’t or won’t take the hint.

As ladies, we’re trying to be nice. It’s rude to tell someone to get the fuck off us. For most women, the concept of telling a guy to please back up to a respectable distance and refrain from touching us at all times is like doing a standing backflip on a crowded dance floor. Sure, it would be awesome if we could, but most times, it just doesn’t feel plausible. We don’t want to make a scene, get stuck in an endless loop of “what’s your problem, bitch?”or be labeled as “over-sensitive” by everyone in the room. So we just sit there, while some extremely creepy person gets further and further into our personal space.

Image

Like this. But with a nice lady instead of a cat. (Photo credit: pandawhale.com)

The problem is, this too often extends into one on one time with male friends. You don’t want to insult your friend by implying that you find him creepy or rude, and you don’t want to seem arrogant by assuming that he’s making a pass. So again, you just politely ignore him and hope the situation resolves itself. Unfortunately, if it doesn’t resolve itself, your best option just got a lot more difficult.

3. Learn pacification techniques

This is something that has been left out of every women’s self defense course I’ve seen. Women leave feeling prepared to hurt random strangers on the street. But what about their friends, their family, their lovers? Statistically speaking, these are the men we will have to defend ourselves from. In our rush to empower women to hurt their attackers, we forget the flip side of that coin – the guilt they feel when they are unwilling to execute what may be permanent damage on people they care about.

Image

I’m sure our friendship won’t be at all affected by me blinding you in one eye. (photo credit englishattitude.wordpress.com)

Make no mistake – for most women, that is often the reality they are facing. I once found myself in a confrontation with a man I cared about. He was much bigger than me, had his own experience with martial arts, and was mad as hell. It didn’t take much mental math to know that the only way I could possibly win was by inflicting a drastic amount of damage as quickly as possible. I didn’t know if I even could, and I definitely knew I didn’t want to. I was able to walk away from my confrontation, but that’s not always a choice.

If you are a woman, you should think about what your options will be in that kind of situation. These are times when something like a wrist lock, a pressure point, or a well rehearsed distraction technique could be incredibly valuable. But you will only be able to execute things like that if you think about them ahead of time, pick your techniques, and practice them. It’s ok that you don’t want to hurt someone else. But understand that your attacker is not more important than you are. Be as prepared as you can be to protect yourself.

4. If you can, go for quick, painful, permanent damage. Then run away.

If you are backed into a corner by a stranger, and there’s no way out and you don’t know what to do, don’t waste your time with clever wrist locks or front push kicks or whatever. Yes, they work sometimes, but you’re not vying for an award here. Get fucking crazy. Dig your thumbs into his eyes, grab an ear and try to rip it off, grab on to the first body part you see, hold on to it and bite down hard. Don’t focus on what you can’t do, but rather on what you can.

Image

As Mike can tell you, people get really freaked out when you try to bite their ear off. (photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Too often when someone grabs ahold of us, we instinctively play tug of war, rather than assess our options. If this person is stronger, you’re just wasting your energy. Check for what limbs you have available, and do whatever you can with those.

To figure out what those options are, I recommend taking at least one self defense course. Take everything they say with a grain of salt, of course, because those people don’t know your strengths and weaknesses. Tell your instructor that you want to try out a variety of things and figure out what makes you comfortable. Then try to review, at least once a month, what you learned. Just think about it. Try it in the air once or twice. Make those movements real and comfortable to you, in case you need to use them. Find a buddy and practice. I know it feels silly, but it won’t if you repeat enough times.

5. Don’t get cocky

You may be thinking to yourself, “This wouldn’t happen to me. I don’t even know how to fight, why would I be cocky about it?”

If you follow my advice, however, then you will probably catch yourself feeling cocky. It’s human nature. When I was in high school, I tried out one of my takedown techniques on a linebacker for the school football team (he wasn’t actually attacking me, it was just a drill). He dropped like a stone, and I felt invincible. I trained 5 times a week, often with men half again or double my size. I learned how to assert myself in social situations, and saw the results in how people treated me.

I thought I was pretty hot shit.

Image

Basically, I figured I was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, except without the constant need for a stunt double. (photo credit: Wikipedia)

After mastering your awesome eye gouging techniques (grab the head and use your thumbs!), you might think so too. But no matter how many techniques you master, you’re never invincible.

Women are in a different dilemma than men when it comes to self defense. Women don’t tend to get into bar fights, where there are unspoken “rules”. When we defend ourselves, it is almost always to protect our bodies or our lives. We are far less likely to be facing an opponent our size. The truth is, you never know when someone has a knife, a gun, or a friend behind the corner. You never want to stick around to find out, no matter how great your palm strike felt in class, or how confident you feel about the mace you have in your pocket.

So stay smart, stay safe, and stay awesome. And, as I’ve been saying for years, if you ever need some backup, you know who to call.


It’s Been Said, But Now I’ve Said It Too

Here you are, meandering down the leaf-strewn streets. It’s a beautiful day in Chicago (or wherever) and you’re enjoying the nice crisp weather that signifies the return of winter.You’re walking back to your apartment, which is small, but you’ve learned to love it.

The entrance to my bedroom hallway is between that counter and the refrigerator. I like to think of it as a friendly daily reminder to never get fat.

When you get home, you notice that the window you left with a slight crack in it (radiators are really overheating apartments these days) is now wide open. Concerned, you walk in to find a clearly ill man sitting on your couch. You freak out, but before you can run he says “Wait, please, just hear me out.” You can tell just by looking at him that he is clearly incapable of doing much harm at that moment, so you wait.
“I broke into your home because you are the only person with my blood type in the city. I am dying, and the only way to save me is a bone marrow transplant. I’m homeless, and have nowhere to live. Please, will you donate your bone marrow to me, and put me up in your home until I am well again? It will take about a year, and I know the transplants are excruciatingly painful, but, if you really want, when the year is up you can find a new place for me to go.”
What would you say? Do you think there should be a law that requires you to take him in? If so, do you believe there should be a law requiring blood donations? Or kidney donations? Or, for that matter, bone marrow transplants?

(via istockphoto) There’s a similar question about trolleys and whatnot that I love to break out at parties. Because nothing says “Party Time” like philosophical quandaries!

Building on this idea, if homeless shelters become overrun, should there be a law that requires you to offer up your home to homeless people in the dead of winter? What is our obligation to, every day, save the lives of others?
Peter Singer (my favorite philosopher to hate), pointed out once that even small amounts of money donated to children starving or dying of preventable disease in faraway nations saves lives. If you take your money and instead buy yourself a new sweater, or a fun video game, that is money that could have saved someone’s life. Those people have done nothing wrong except be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. The majority of us do not donate our blood as often as possible, or offer up our organs, or donate all our spare money to starving/sick children. If our government tried to make a law that required us to, the backlash would be enormous.
This is why I find the pro-life argument hypocritical. This is why I am pro-choice.

Well, that and the clever bumper stickers.

I do believe that human life is sacred. Fetuses are not yet people, but they could be someday. They cannot participate in a moral universe, they cannot contribute to society in any way. Their value lies not in their current form, but in their potential to one day be a human being. Starving and sick children are already people. So why does an entire political movement feel more obligated to fetuses than existing people? Don’t tell me it’s because of borders – if you care enough about human life to legislate my body, you should care enough to support people who aren’t in your own country.
Look, carrying a fetus, particularly an unwanted one, to term is a morally Good thing to do. I believe that women who choose to do that are making a morally positive choice. However, I do not believe it is a morally necessary choice. If I were to become pregnant, I do not believe I have any more of a duty to a fetus growing inside me than I do to starving children in Africa. Just like constantly donating blood and money, carrying a fetus requires a huge sacrifice from me. It costs me money, career momentum, and carries a lot of health risks (much more so than simply donating blood). If I choose not to do it, I am not automatically Bad. And there is absolutely no way in hell my government should legally require me to do it.
Yes, conservative pundits, having sex is a choice. So is living in a consumerist first world country. The Peace Corps is always looking for new applicants – every day that I stay here in America instead of flying overseas to help save others is a day that I make a choice to not save lives. Having sex is no more morally problematic than continuing to live a life where I go to work and make money that will allow me to enjoy dinners out with my boyfriend, new shoes for those dinners out, and Christmas gifts for my loved ones rather than save dying children.
I understand that having sex (before marriage) is considered a morally repugnant choice by a large portion of the population. That said, if their concern is sex, rather than saving lives (which, given their legislative stance on health care, I strongly suspect that it is), then let’s get real: put up a law that prohibits pre-marital sex. That law, unlike abortion laws, would restrict the behavior of ALL citizens, not just women. That law would be honest. It would also be hilariously useless, but so are laws against abortion. For those too lazy to click links, that is an article that discusses studies that prove that abortion rates in countries where it is illegal do not go down. The abortions are just more dangerous. Can I get that one more time, for the people in the back? OUTLAWING ABORTIONS DOES NOT STOP WOMEN FROM HAVING THEM.

I’m sorry to yell, but some of these politicians are very old and ignorant. Sometimes both repetition and volume are necessary..

So, in conclusion, I encourage all pro-lifers to put their money where their mouth is. Send all your spare money to Africa, support programs like welfare/health care/medicaid, join the Peace Corps. Support birth control and sex education, which is the only thing that affects abortion rates (seriously guys, go read that article). Alternatively, go draft the legislation to outlaw premarital sex. But please, either way, understand – until you have sacrificed everything in your life to save as many human lives as possible; until you have drafted laws that require all people to donate their bodies (in the form of blood, organs and bone marrow) to save the lives of others; until you support organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide the services that allow women to have healthy bodies that make healthy babies – you simply have no right whatsoever to try to legislate my right to have an abortion. None.
PS. Read this.

On Todd Akin, Rape and Abortion

It is day 2 of this scandal and I am already tired of Todd Akin’s stupid, hateful face. Where do I begin? The use of the term “legitimate rape” which Akin later clarified to be “forcible” rape? (Wow, thanks for clarifying. For a moment I was worried that you were a total douchebag who thinks that date rape is fake!). The nauseatingly ignorant lack of understanding about women’s bodies and how they work? How about the scores of GOP legislators coming out to denounce him, even though they already attempted to “redefine” the word rape last May?!

When I was younger, and more aggressive in my arguing, I used to state that men should not even have a say in women’s health issues. You want an opinion about abortion? So sorry, but I’m going to need you to develop the ability to accidentally grow a watermelon inside your stomach for 9 months then shove it out of your ass. And then if you decide you don’t feel like growing a watermelon inside you, maybe I’ll be an asshole and say things like, “But there are people in the world who are starving! How dare you withhold that watermelon from them!”

So, ya know. Enjoy the morning sickness, the inevitable stall in your career growth and the agonizing delivery process. It’s all worth it, because someone else thinks you should do it!

Of course, there are also many women who oppose abortions. Those women, in many cases, share an unfortunate bond with Phyllis Schafly in their argumentation that I will probably never be able to overlook. However, I’m willing to hear a reasonable, thoughtful anti-abortion argument from anyone who chooses to present it. But man or woman, fertile or infertile, I do not want to hear your abortion argument or rape definition if the underlying sentiment of it is “That’s what you get for being a woman.”
Let me clarify. When people talk about “legitimate” or “forcible” rape, they are implying that there are forms of rape in which the fault is shared. Perhaps a woman chose to partake of alcohol, or wore a short skirt, or, god forbid, changed her mind after inviting a man to her home. Or perhaps you can simply find evidence that she may have enjoyed “rough sex” in her past somewhere. The way I hear itl, as long as she can be categorized as promiscuous, it’s open season. Ladies, close those legs, put down the booze, and grab your nun’s habit. Men, carry on doing exactly what you’re doing. Wear what you want to wear, drink what you want to drink, do what you want to do! Sleep with as many women as you like…a round of high fives awaits you!
Let’s imagine I made a new law about kicking men in the testicles. If men wear jeans that are too baggy, I can kick them (repeatedly) in the testicles, and it’s only “kind of” assault. If men bring their testicles within distance of my foot and I heard a rumor somewhere that they like being kicked, then I can kick them in the testicles, and it’s no big deal. If they didn’t want to be kicked, why the hell did they walk up to me? And if I want to kick a man in the testicles, and he doesn’t want me to, all I have to do is get him drunk. Then I can say that I got mixed signals about whether or not he wanted me to slam my foot into his testicles.

You know, the men I talk to never seem to enjoy this analogy.

I make this analogy because I feel, sometimes, that men like Akin confuse “rape” with “sex”. See, I can think of many times when men would probably like me to touch their testicles. But they are never interested in me slamming my foot into them. Similarly, women who might be interested in sex sometimes do not want to be raped. Ever. If we cannot give consent, then we are NOT interested. If we have not given consent, we are NOT interested. Women, on the whole, do not want a penis in our bodies unless we’ve given it some thought and decided it sounds like fun. You’ll know by how we are a) awake, b) coherent, c) saying things like “oh yes, that’s so good.”
And after this incredibly hateful, invasive, violent assault on our bodies, we also do not want to hear about what you think we should do with the parasite that may or may not be growing inside us as a result. Yes, it might someday (barring miscarriage) grow from a collection of cells into a baby. But how about I do that whole testicle kicking thing, and then we discuss whether you now want to go ahead and grow that watermelon inside you. No matter how many people are starving, I somehow doubt you want to add that to your ordeal. Furthermore, that watermelon is easier to deal with than a baby that you have to love and care for. A watermelon would be far easier to handle than a person who has done nothing wrong, but who reminds you every day of the pain and violence you have experienced.

An edgier comedian than I would make a joke about this baby resembling a rapist. I just can’t do it. Sorry.

This is a non-negotiable issue. There is no question of whether Todd Akin deserves the verbal vitriol that has been directed his way. There is no question of whether I’ll be forgiving him. Dedicate your life to understanding women’s health, violence against women, and the true ethical and biological aspects of abortion, Mr. Akin. After that, you can come back and tell me about the mistake you made “in the words [you] said. Not in the heart [you] hold.”

On Batman and Morality

Ever since I was a small person, I have known that Batman is the greatest superhero. His villains are awesome, he’s broodingly handsome and his martial arts skills are top notch. And ever since I chose to major in philosophy, I have loved ethics. So it’s no surprise that I love, love, love the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. I haven’t seen The Dark Knight Rises yet (obviously) but if it is not an awesome movie I will eat my shoe. I’ll soften the leather with my tears of disappointment.

That’s right Nolan. If this movie sucks, I will find a small child and have her cry in a heart-wrenching manner right in front of you.

So in honor of the upcoming release of TDKR (and inspired by the good people over at Modern Myth Media), I would like to combine my loves of complex ethical issues and Batman. I will now attempt to explain how Batman, specifically the Batman of Nolan’s movies, is the perfect medium through which we can better understand the tension between Utilitarianism and Deontology.
A brief summary for those who haven’t spent hours of their college careers trying to decipher John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant. The Utilitarian system of ethics essentially argues that the outcome that produces the greatest happiness is the most desirable outcome, and any steps one needs to take to get there are morally good because they achieve that end. Let’s ignore that tragically overcomplicated sentence and take a look at Batman.

Break for man candy! Annnnnd we’re back.

Since the death of his parents, Bruce Wayne has employed vigilante justice in order to rally the people of Gotham, fight corruption, and attempt to make the city a better place. His motivations are complex (revenge for his parents, attempting to fulfill their dream for the city, a whole lot of free time and money), but the goal remains the same. He hopes to save the city of Gotham from corruption and villainy. As a vigilante standing outside the law, he’s free to employ some…questionable methods in his pursuit of this goal.
Some obvious examples are: he can string up criminals by their heels (I hear it’s frowned upon when the police do that), he can fly to China to haul some guy back to Gotham to face justice, and he can wear a super cool/crazy outfit while he does it.

Also, a little collateral damage, particularly in the form of property, is not a big deal to him. Did you know that Nolan actually flipped a goddamn semi to film that shot? Because he did. Hot damn, I love that movie.

However, Batman has his one rule – he does not kill. Here’s where deontology comes in. An extremely oversimplified explanation of deontology is that any action is either right or wrong, based on whether or not it fits the golden rule. If it does not, then no situation, however dire, justifies that action. So Batman, no matter how many people the Joker kills, cannot murder the Joker. It doesn’t matter that it would arguably be the best thing for Gotham (and therefore the most straightforward way of achieving his overarching goal). He cannot break that rule without becoming akin to the villains he is trying to defeat.
So Batman is, essentially, trying to save Gotham while balancing two opposing moral doctrines. On one hand, the ends justify the means, but on the other hand, he cannot simply deal out death and mayhem amongst his enemies without becoming a monster himself.

Oh no! Not FrankenBatman!

But wait! This is just the premise. This is just the start of the whole endeavor. The best part is watching these two doctrines fight it out through multiple situations that pit them directly against one another.
For example, in Batman Begins, Ra’s a Ghul is running a train into the city to release fear gas into the entire population. Batman has to stop it before the entire population goes insane and tears the city apart. His method of stopping it is, essentially, distracting Ra’s while Gordon runs the Batmobile into the train tracks. Batman escapes and Ra’s al Ghul is killed in the ensuing crashsplosion. Did Batman kill Ra’s a Ghul? Only if you believe that killing is equivalent to not saving someone. Should he have saved Ra’s? Listen to this podcast (this particular debate is toward the end around the 59 minute mark) and you’ll find out the answer is…no one can agree.
How about when Batman employs a system of cell phone spying to try to determine the Joker’s whereabouts? It’s an extremely problematic invasion of privacy that prompts Fox to resign from Wayne Enterprises in protest – just as soon as he helps Batman with this one mission. Then, of course, Batman tries to resolve the tension by destroying the whole system once it has accomplished its goal.
If you try to look at it from only one moral perspective, the decision is completely inconsistent. Deontologically speaking, he never should have used the machine at all, because it is simply an immoral technology. No positive result justifies using it. From a utilitarian perspective, there was no need to destroy the machine because it was never morally problematic. It was needed to find the Joker and therefore it is morally justified. And yet, Batman’s compromise resonates with us, philosophically. He used immoral means to accomplish moral ends, but he did NOT use it to justify further immorality.

Here, have an action shot. Much like Christopher Nolan, I enjoy a spot of violence with my philosophical musings.

There are countless other examples in the movies. What makes Batman, and the exploration of these moral dilemmas, so fantastically compelling is that we all live the same way. We habitually make our choices based on one of these doctrines or the other – very few people (even devoted deontologists like myself) can stick to one doctrine all the time. In a sense, Batman’s dilemmas are our dilemmas, and we learn about ourselves when we root one way or the other. Did you believe that Batman was wrong to conceal his identity even after the Joker began murdering people? Do you think Batman should have killed the Joker before he had a chance to do more damage? Do you hold Batman responsible for Harvey Dent’s death? Is the entire premise of vigilante justice so fatally flawed that nothing Batman does can ever be morally right?
This is why these movies are more interesting than say, Watchmen, which had a similar debate but ultimately chose a side. We, as humans, may want a clear cut answer, but in reality, morality is messy and difficult. As much as we may sometimes wish Batman had made different choice, or chosen a different side of the moral coin (that’s a lil’ Two-Face joke for ya. I’ll pause for your groans), that tension reflects how we all relate to each other morally. We’re all like Batman, forced to play the moral balancing act every day. The stakes are usually lower, but the principles are the same. And that, folks, is why Batman is the awesomest superhero of all time.

On the Importance of Mothers, and Mine in Particular

Everyone has a mother, and I’m sure that yours is wonderful, but unless you are my brother, I regret to inform you that mine is the wonderful-est, at least in my book. I’ll understand if you disagree, but hear me out. It seems like every couple of years I write about how and why my mother has made my life better. So I think she knows these are just the most recent reasons that I think she is amazing, and all the others still hold true.

My mother isn’t perfect. She can’t dance (sorry Mom, it’s true), she has a bizarre love of brussel sprouts, and I’m pretty sure I heard her say a swear word once (much to the delight of everyone around her).

But my mom has made sure, every step of the way, that I had the best choices in the world, and the tools with which to make those choices. And even more importantly, she’s never made my choices for me. Every time I have deferred to her judgment, rather than mine, it has been because I sincerely believed that mine was impaired, or unable to be trusted.

When you think about that, is there anything else in the world that I could ask for, than to have every possible door opened to me, and then told to choose? My sense of morality and decency is not exactly the same as hers, but it is motivated by hers. That’s because she inspired me to be moral and good, but never tried to force her definition of that upon me. She lets me see the world for myself, and decide who I want to be within it.

The best teachers in the world are the ones who make you sad when you disappoint them, happy when they are proud of you, and always, always give you an example to follow. There is no better example of a powerful, smart, thoughtful, moral, independent, gracious, generous person that I could look to. In her proudest moments, my mother is still humble, and grateful. She taught me that it’s okay to use the advantages you are given, but to also understand that not everyone has them.

She taught me that it’s okay to be a strong woman, even when it makes others nervous. She taught me how to make others feel more comfortable when they get nervous. She taught me when to be practical, and when to stand up for what I believe in. She taught me not to be afraid to change my mind. She taught me to value my gifts, and compensate for my weaknesses. She taught me to be brave, and adventurous. She taught me to ask for help when I need it, and not to accept my own excuses. And she taught me to accept other people for who they are, because she accepts me, the headstrong, willful, emotional, sometimes-impetuous, sometimes-overcautious, and always stubborn daughter that I am.

This is Mother’s Day, and I don’t have any flowers, or chocolates, or even hugs for my mother. I moved far away from her, following the dreams and the principles and the ideas that she taught me. But I hope that she hears me every day when I tell her that I love her, and I appreciate her, and that I’m the luckiest daughter in the world to have her.

Happy Mother’s Day, everyone.

 


On the New Form of Racism

To quote a song from Avenue Q: “Everyone’s a little bit racist.” That’s why videos like this are funny, in a kinda cringeworthy way.

But as I’ve talked to people over the years, and as we head into the upcoming election, I’ve noticed that there’s a little confusion about the word “racist” that I am probably contributing to when I point out that Republican nominees seem to equate blackness with poorness. Upon further investigation, I noticed that conversations seem to become angry and irrational as soon as anyone uses the word “racist.”

Back in the day (and by the day, I mean before I was born, or at least before I can remember), racism was more culturally acceptable (or so I hear). For proof of this, I can merely go speak with elderly people in the midwest.

"Here dear, have a cookie. Now, did I ever tell you the story of how we had to move to a new home because this awful black family moved into our old neighborhood? It was the worst."

However, we have now reached the point in American culture (thank goodness), where being blatantly racist is generally considered unacceptable. The side effect of that seems to be that calling someone (or something they have said) racist is such a horrible insult that it immediately shuts down all conversation. I don’t mean to point out the obvious here, but that is not productive.

For example, I was having a conversation in a bar the other day with two cops. I was recounting the story of how I suspected two guys intended to rob me by snatching my purse, but I noticed them before they had a chance. When I said that I obviously had no proof that they were going to try to steal my purse, since they hadn’t actually gone through with it, one of the officers said “Were they black?”

I said, “No, they were both white.” And both men then said: “Then they weren’t trying to rob you.”

This was how I felt. Except I was actually shocked, not just faking it to seem relatable.

If you don’t think that was racist, I invite you to explain why in the comments. But if I had said (as I so desperately wanted to) “Wow, that was racist,” I do not doubt that those guys would have been pissed off and defensive. Then I would have had to sit through a lecture about crime statistics – as if that justifies judging someone by the color of his/her skin.Which is why I settled for calling them old and implying that they were repulsive later in the conversation.

It was kinda satisfying, but not at all productive.

The problem with racist statements or comments is that everyone believes they have a reason for making them. We have all, at one point or another, said “I don’t want to sound racist but…” For the record, whenever you start a sentence with that, just stop the sentence right there. Nothing good will come of finishing that sentence. But no one wants to believe that saying that stuff makes you racist.

But science says that almost everyone has discriminatory attitudes, even though we may not realize it. That matters because it’s still discrimination, and the only way to combat it is to recognize it and consciously remind yourself not to act on it. How are we supposed to do that if we can’t even point it out?

I think the real problem is that once upon a time, being “racist” meant that you actually believed that people of another color were inferior, and therefore not worthy of equal treatment. Now we use the same word to describe discriminatory statements or actions by people who actually do believe in equality, but have made an error in their choices. I suspect that makes people feel like they are being confused with willfully hateful douchebags. And honestly, I wouldn’t like that either.

There really is an important difference between these two groups. The latter group is (hopefully) willing to expand their understanding of the issue in order to avoid inequality and discrimination. The former group is pretty much going to need a “Come to Jesus” moment before they can be considered useful members of society. I wouldn’t mind reserving “racist” for those people. It’s a large enough insult now that I think it’s worthy of being reserved for true asshats. The question is – what’s a new word we could use? I have an idea or two, but honestly, this is a hard one.

You know, I thought this reply would stop being funny at some point. But it never did.

Based on the common usage of “homophobic” I thought about “negrophobic”. The pro is that it properly represents what I think might be at the heart of a lot of unconscious discrimination today – fear. The con is that it’s specific to black people, and discrimination applies to people of a lot of different colors and backgrounds. I also think that sometimes, it’s truly an ignorance of why something is offensive that motivates people’s actions…but I’m not sure if there’s a word that properly describes that.

I’m open to suggestions – but I’m not open to just letting things slide because they might be difficult to talk about. Unfortunately, racism, negrophobia, and ignorance are still alive and well. And the only way it’s going to get better is if we stop being defensive, and start thinking seriously about how to make things better.

PS. Sorry this is more preachy than funny. Please accept this adorable photo nonsequitur as my apology

Once again, the internet saves the day.


On Violence and Catharsis

Recently a good friend of mine wrote a blog post about violence and entertainment. The point, as I understood it, was that “real-life carnage is disturbing and not a form of entertainment” and people who produce entertainment should keep that in mind when creating their product.

Of course, his approach is more nuanced, which is why you should go read it before you read the rest of my post. It’s cool, I’ll wait.

So now that you’ve read it, you know that he opens with a discussion of the movie Hana-Bi, which I may or may not have partially napped through the other night (sorry!). The previous movie night was my selection: Ninja Assassin.

If you haven’t seen that movie, and you don’t care if your movies have plot, go check it out. It is full of violence and shirtlessness and violence. And shirtlessness. Suddenly I understand how Rain beat out Stephen Colbert for most popular person.

I try to include one super ripped shirtless guy in every couple blog posts. For science, or something.

While I wouldn’t say that violence is presented as not having consequences in the movie (the “plot” is basically how a guy gets revenge against his sensei for being violent and cruel towards people he cares about), it certainly presents violence in a gleeful, exhilarating manner. And, as I’ve mentioned before, real violence is rarely about fancy weapons and flying side kicks, and generally more an undignified scuffle that ends with people wrestling on the ground. Unless there’s a weapon involved, in which case people end up getting stabbed, shot, or otherwise injured in ways that are not especially entertaining nor enjoyable.

So I can see how a movie like Ninja Assassin, at first glance, might be seen as taking something very serious and making it seem more appealing that it is. But I think that it actually reflects a truth about human personalities and behavior. Years of evolution have built up a fight or flight response that is still a major influence on our brains. When we are stressed, scared or upset our minds demand physical action. But in modern society, it’s very rare that we can actually take that option.

But I need coffee NOW. HULK SMASH!!!

That can lead to a lot of pent up frustration and, frankly, aggression that we all have to find ways to exorcise. For a lot of people, that can be mental – through watching violence. We see the fight, we get the adrenaline rush that our biology demands, and we experience catharsis. We may not be able to hit the people who make us angry, but we can imagine it, we can visually experience it, and then we can try to move on. Sexual imagery is often used the same way, and for (I believe) the same reasons.

So what obligations do authors/directors/etc have to present violence in a truthful way? To me, it depends on the message behind the product. If, like my friend London, you are writing a book targeted towards young adults that you hope resonates with their personal experience, it might be more important to emphasize consequences over glee. Particularly for an age group that often has impulse control issues, something as serious as violence is probably worth treating fairly seriously. That said, some kids might not respond to that – they may just need the adrenaline rush. Chuck Norris to the rescue!

Chuck Norris knows the last digit of Pi.

If you accept that as a premise, it puts a whole genre of entertainment that I will call “Catharsis Products” in a new light. There’s no shame in creating entertainment that allows people to mentally indulge/manage all the impulses that they will never be able to act out in real life. To me, that’s sometimes all that art needs to be about – the ability to take someone out of their realm of experience. It doesn’t always need to be uncomfortable, sometimes it can just be enjoyable.

As a side note, while I am interested in the implications of violence in entertainment, I will not waste space here constructing an argument against the idea that violent movies/video games/etc cause violence. It’s already been done, and in my experience people generally have already made a decision on that one. I will say that the people who choose to believe it almost never seem to be gamers, which does seem suspiciously like fear of the unknown to me.

I don't want my child thinking it's okay to shoot fireballs out of his hands! Why will no one THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

To sum it up: biology is powerful, and we spend a lot of our lives fighting it in order to fit into a society that really isn’t built to accommodate those physical needs. The majority of us already know that violence has consequences. That’s why we don’t let ourselves become violent in everyday life. Therefore, Catharsis Products may have value beyond what we initially perceive.

On a final note: I would like to speak to the point that America, as a country, is paranoid about/obsessed with violence. I think that is both true and not true. Next time you walk down the street or through a grocery store, see how close you can get to someone without them noticing you. Look around as you walk and see how many people are staring down at the sidewalk, or looking at their phones, or just glazed over. We understand the possibility of violence theoretically, but we don’t incorporate that knowledge into our behaviors.

So this is my little PSA: Carry pepper spray in your pocket, not your purse. Look around you as you walk. Listen to your gut when you feel you might be in danger. Take a self-defense class. Because real violence can be avoided a lot more easily than you might imagine. Here endeth the lecture.