Due to my inability to balance the needs of my family with keeping up the blog, I will be taking a break from writing for a while. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to throw the odd post up until I can get back to writing regularly again, but until then, I hope you enjoy what I've got up so for.
Thanks for visiting.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Friday, March 02, 2012
The Marriage Debate: Why marriage?
I've been slowly working on this for some time - long enough that I can't even remember what originally triggered the whole thing - made several false starts and deleted some draft versions. In the end, my problem was that there was just too much I wanted to cover. So now I start again, but will be splitting things up into specific topics.
For this post, I will focus on one thing. Why marriage? In other words, what is the purpose of marriage? Why do we bother to get married, and why has marriage been elevated and recognized throughout human history?
First, I want to make clear that when I use the word "marriage," I am referring to marriage between one man and one woman; the so-called "traditional" or "Judeo-Christian" marriage. When discussing other types of marriage, I will be more specific and use terms like SSM (same sex marriage) or polygamy, etc.
So what is the purpose of marriage?
This is a complex question to answer, since the purpose of marriage is both public and private, religious and secular. Many of the reasons for marriage are also intertwined, and cannot really be separated, one from the other.
Marriage has been viewed as many things throughout the millenia. It has been a rite (both religious and a rite of passage), an obligation, a responsibility. It has even been mandated by secular law, as well as by religious decree. It has long been an expectation, and those who never married were often viewed with pity, while those who deliberately chose not to marry were often viewed with derision.
Marriages around the world continue to take place by choice, arrangement and even by force. At times, people could only marry with permission, either from family members or from rulers.
One thing marriage has never been, however, is a right. It can be a privilege to be earned or qualified for, an obligation that had to be met, but never a right. At most, it is a granted right, like the right to vote or the right to drive. Granted rights have qualifiers. There are many, many granted rights. Human rights are rights we have simply because we are human, and there are very few of those. The problem is, too many people are demanding granted rights as though they were human rights. I will discuss rights more later on.
Another thing marriage has never been about is love. Oh, we have been admonished to love our spouses. Love is a verb; it's something we do. What has never been a requirement is to be "in love" - a passive term that makes for a rather shaky foundation for marriage. Either way, love itself has never been a requirement of marriage.
So after looking at two things marriage is NOT, what is marriage about?
The primary reason for marriage, however, is procreation. More specifically, it is a recognised institution dedicated to the creation and protection of future generations, connected largely (with recognised exceptions) by biology. When you have a single wife and a single husband, you are pretty much reassured that the children born of that coupling are genetically related to those two individuals. Adoption, of course, is a necessary and recognised exception.
But what about those marriages that don't produce children? Are they less valid?
Well, historically, yes, they were. If a married couple did not have children, this was considered something shameful. It was also generally assumed to mean something was wrong with the female, so it was extra shameful for her. Lack of children was considered a valid reason for divorce, and some couples went to extremes to produce the required children. What those were depended on the culture of the time.
The need to procreate was so vital, that in some (usually patri-linial) cultures , if someone died childless, they considered truly dead. If a person died with progeny, then they still lived on through their children. To die without children was a greater tragedy then death itself.
Procreation within marriage served other purposes. It ensured the continuation of the family line, as well as the continuation of the community. Inheritances and lineages were assured, often through complex rules, customs and negotiations. It also served the communities. It was not unusual for cultures to restrict marriages within the village. Instead, marriages had to be arranged between neighbouring villages. This not only prevented intermarriage (for those cultures that saw intermarriage as a bad thing), but ensured ties between neighbouring communities. One was far less likely to cheat or go to war with your neighbours when you had family there. Kinship ties could be incredibly complex, and custom required special behaviour and treatment of those ties. Such recognisable ties could not exist without the recognition of genetic relationships, and those relationships could be determined with assurance only through marriage. Infidelity was a scandal as much for its effect on these kinship ties as it was for the betrayal involved.
In essence, marriage between one man and one woman attaches children to their parents and each other. It ensures that those children belong to those parents, and they are responsible for those children. That recognition and responsibility is a nucleus within the community that expands outward, connecting the community through expanding, concentric ties.
Which leads me to another, overlapping, purpose of marriage. The joining of families and communities through recognised ties. Nations could be built and wars ended on the marriage bed (or the other way around, I suppose). Kinship through marital ties often accompanied elaborate ritual recognition that established responsibility between groups. People could be complete strangers, but if it was found that they had kinship ties, there were proscribed ways that they had to treat each other, ranging from care of children, care of the elderly, inheritance, gifting, and ensuring that those kin who were undergoing hardship would be assisted by those who could, even if they lived far apart.
Another important part about marriage is that it is absolutely and necessarily exclusive and discriminatory.
First, what does it mean to discriminate? From Merriam-Webster, we have:
What about exclusive? The Free Dictionary give us:
These days, when people talk about discrimination and exclusivity, they tend to use the terms as entirely negative. Discriminate, in particular, is mostly a positive term - it's choosing the best; making good judements, etc. One would hope people would be discriminating when it comes to choosing spouses! If anything, we need more discrimination in marriage, not less.
Exclusivity is another important part of marriage. When a couple marries, they are publicly stating to all that they are now exclusive to each other.
Which brings me to the next purpose of marriage.
Sex.
Yup, marriage is about sex. Married couples have exclusive sexual access to each other. This is important and related to the expectation of procreation, since without exclusive sexual access to each other, the assumption of paternity cannot be made.
Of course there's more to marriage then the sexual relationship, but that does not change the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to show, to the entire community, that this couple has sexual exclusivity. This is a public statement, not a private one.
This leads to another reason for the exclusivity of marriage. The more sexually active people are outside of monogomous marriage, the greater the risk of contracting and spreading disease.
Now for the recognition of marriage.
With few exceptions, marriage has restricted to one man, one woman. Even when, in the interests of procreation, other sexual relations were condoned, the marriage itself was the official, recognised relationship. Even in cultures where homosexual relationships were mandated by the state, marriage itself was limited to one man, one woman.
State recognition of marriage, however, follows community recognition of marriage, and community recognition of marriage has its foundation in religion. With few exceptions, regardless of what god or gods or spiritual beings were worshiped, marriage was a religious rite.
So when people tell me that oppostion to various alternative types of marriage is religion forcing itself on everyone else, they have it backwards. It is those groups who demand recognition of their alternate marriages that are forcing their version of marriage on everyone else.
State recognition of marriage tends to take on two forms; it either reflects the religious and community recognition of marriage, or it tries to control its populace through marriage. Therein lies the danger of the state imposing marital law on the populace, rather then the other way around. I will leave that topic for now, however, as that will be discussed in another post.
For now, let's look at the secular side of marriage. Secular, by the way, is a word rooted in religion and meant "in/of the world." Specifically, medieval Christianity. When men and women reached the end of their religous training, they had a choice. They could continue to live a "religious" live of academia, or they could chose to live "in the world."
Today, the word is defined as
The problem of that particular argument will be the subject of my next post.
For this post, I will focus on one thing. Why marriage? In other words, what is the purpose of marriage? Why do we bother to get married, and why has marriage been elevated and recognized throughout human history?
First, I want to make clear that when I use the word "marriage," I am referring to marriage between one man and one woman; the so-called "traditional" or "Judeo-Christian" marriage. When discussing other types of marriage, I will be more specific and use terms like SSM (same sex marriage) or polygamy, etc.
So what is the purpose of marriage?
This is a complex question to answer, since the purpose of marriage is both public and private, religious and secular. Many of the reasons for marriage are also intertwined, and cannot really be separated, one from the other.
Marriage has been viewed as many things throughout the millenia. It has been a rite (both religious and a rite of passage), an obligation, a responsibility. It has even been mandated by secular law, as well as by religious decree. It has long been an expectation, and those who never married were often viewed with pity, while those who deliberately chose not to marry were often viewed with derision.
Marriages around the world continue to take place by choice, arrangement and even by force. At times, people could only marry with permission, either from family members or from rulers.
One thing marriage has never been, however, is a right. It can be a privilege to be earned or qualified for, an obligation that had to be met, but never a right. At most, it is a granted right, like the right to vote or the right to drive. Granted rights have qualifiers. There are many, many granted rights. Human rights are rights we have simply because we are human, and there are very few of those. The problem is, too many people are demanding granted rights as though they were human rights. I will discuss rights more later on.
Another thing marriage has never been about is love. Oh, we have been admonished to love our spouses. Love is a verb; it's something we do. What has never been a requirement is to be "in love" - a passive term that makes for a rather shaky foundation for marriage. Either way, love itself has never been a requirement of marriage.
So after looking at two things marriage is NOT, what is marriage about?
The primary reason for marriage, however, is procreation. More specifically, it is a recognised institution dedicated to the creation and protection of future generations, connected largely (with recognised exceptions) by biology. When you have a single wife and a single husband, you are pretty much reassured that the children born of that coupling are genetically related to those two individuals. Adoption, of course, is a necessary and recognised exception.
But what about those marriages that don't produce children? Are they less valid?
Well, historically, yes, they were. If a married couple did not have children, this was considered something shameful. It was also generally assumed to mean something was wrong with the female, so it was extra shameful for her. Lack of children was considered a valid reason for divorce, and some couples went to extremes to produce the required children. What those were depended on the culture of the time.
The need to procreate was so vital, that in some (usually patri-linial) cultures , if someone died childless, they considered truly dead. If a person died with progeny, then they still lived on through their children. To die without children was a greater tragedy then death itself.
Procreation within marriage served other purposes. It ensured the continuation of the family line, as well as the continuation of the community. Inheritances and lineages were assured, often through complex rules, customs and negotiations. It also served the communities. It was not unusual for cultures to restrict marriages within the village. Instead, marriages had to be arranged between neighbouring villages. This not only prevented intermarriage (for those cultures that saw intermarriage as a bad thing), but ensured ties between neighbouring communities. One was far less likely to cheat or go to war with your neighbours when you had family there. Kinship ties could be incredibly complex, and custom required special behaviour and treatment of those ties. Such recognisable ties could not exist without the recognition of genetic relationships, and those relationships could be determined with assurance only through marriage. Infidelity was a scandal as much for its effect on these kinship ties as it was for the betrayal involved.
In essence, marriage between one man and one woman attaches children to their parents and each other. It ensures that those children belong to those parents, and they are responsible for those children. That recognition and responsibility is a nucleus within the community that expands outward, connecting the community through expanding, concentric ties.
Which leads me to another, overlapping, purpose of marriage. The joining of families and communities through recognised ties. Nations could be built and wars ended on the marriage bed (or the other way around, I suppose). Kinship through marital ties often accompanied elaborate ritual recognition that established responsibility between groups. People could be complete strangers, but if it was found that they had kinship ties, there were proscribed ways that they had to treat each other, ranging from care of children, care of the elderly, inheritance, gifting, and ensuring that those kin who were undergoing hardship would be assisted by those who could, even if they lived far apart.
Another important part about marriage is that it is absolutely and necessarily exclusive and discriminatory.
First, what does it mean to discriminate? From Merriam-Webster, we have:
transitive verb
1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofb : distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like objectb : to use good judgment
intransitive verb
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources>
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
What about exclusive? The Free Dictionary give us:
adj.
1. Excluding or tending to exclude: exclusive barriers.2. Not allowing something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive conditions.3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function.5. Complete; undivided: gained their exclusive attention.6. Not including the specified extremes or limits, but only the area between them: 20-25, exclusive; that is, 21, 22, 23 and 24.7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an exclusive club.8. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops.9. Linguistics Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that excludes the addressee, such as we in the sentence Chris and I will be in town tomorrow, so we can stop by your office.
Exclusivity is another important part of marriage. When a couple marries, they are publicly stating to all that they are now exclusive to each other.
Which brings me to the next purpose of marriage.
Sex.
Yup, marriage is about sex. Married couples have exclusive sexual access to each other. This is important and related to the expectation of procreation, since without exclusive sexual access to each other, the assumption of paternity cannot be made.
Of course there's more to marriage then the sexual relationship, but that does not change the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to show, to the entire community, that this couple has sexual exclusivity. This is a public statement, not a private one.
This leads to another reason for the exclusivity of marriage. The more sexually active people are outside of monogomous marriage, the greater the risk of contracting and spreading disease.
Now for the recognition of marriage.
With few exceptions, marriage has restricted to one man, one woman. Even when, in the interests of procreation, other sexual relations were condoned, the marriage itself was the official, recognised relationship. Even in cultures where homosexual relationships were mandated by the state, marriage itself was limited to one man, one woman.
State recognition of marriage, however, follows community recognition of marriage, and community recognition of marriage has its foundation in religion. With few exceptions, regardless of what god or gods or spiritual beings were worshiped, marriage was a religious rite.
So when people tell me that oppostion to various alternative types of marriage is religion forcing itself on everyone else, they have it backwards. It is those groups who demand recognition of their alternate marriages that are forcing their version of marriage on everyone else.
State recognition of marriage tends to take on two forms; it either reflects the religious and community recognition of marriage, or it tries to control its populace through marriage. Therein lies the danger of the state imposing marital law on the populace, rather then the other way around. I will leave that topic for now, however, as that will be discussed in another post.
For now, let's look at the secular side of marriage. Secular, by the way, is a word rooted in religion and meant "in/of the world." Specifically, medieval Christianity. When men and women reached the end of their religous training, they had a choice. They could continue to live a "religious" live of academia, or they could chose to live "in the world."
Today, the word is defined as
adjective
1.of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2.not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3.(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4.(of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5.occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6.going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.
However, whem people use the term these days, it tends to be anti-religious, rather than non-religious.
Secular or state recognition of marriage reflected religous and community recognition of marriage, and that includes its restrictions, and like religious recognition of marriage, what is recognised is not the same everywhere. Canada, for example, now allows first cousin marriages, but other countries still do not, so a first cousin marriage in Canada would not be recognised in those countries, even though it's legal here. Likewise, Islamic countries recognise polygamous marriages, while Canada does not. The issue of polygamous marriages among immigrants is starting to cause all sorts of problems in Canada, but that's a discussion for another time.
Meanwhile, not only are there cultures and states that recognise polygamous marriages, there are those that recognise marriages to non-humans and objects. In some Indian cultures, a man who's astrologer told him his first marriage would be a failure, but his second a success, could marry a dog or a doll, and that marriage would be recognised. He would then divorce his "wife," and what would be seen as satisfying the astrological prediction.
So why did countries like Canada recognise "traditional" marriage, but not polygamous marriage? In essence, it's because Canada is a Christian country, whether people are willing to admit it anymore or not. The state reflects the people, and the foundational culture of Canada was based on Judeo-Christianity, even if individuals may not have been.
State recognition of marriage has its own purproses outside of religion. Once again, procreation plays a large part. The state recognises that children within a marriage as being the product of that marriage, and that in turn affects such things as the rights and responsibilities of the parents over their children, and influences laws of inheritance, property, etc.
Though Judeo-Christian history included polygamous marriages, it is the union of one man and one woman that holds special status. Why?
Because the union of one man and one woman has been found to be the most beneficial to all, whether on an individual basis to society as a whole. Polygamous marriages almost always devalue women. The rare cultures that practice polyandry have the problem of breaking paternal recognition. We always know who the mother is, but which husband is responsible for which children? It also tends to devalue women, as it often takes the form of brothers "sharing" a wife, who gets passed around to various male relatives for sexual purposes.
"Traditional" marriages have also been found, through centuries of experience, to be the most stable unit for the upbringing of children and the strengthening of society, as well as for the individuals involved. Mental and physical health, for parents and children, is improved, they tend to be more stable, the children raised have better outcomes, including education and mental, physical and even financial health.
Ah, but what about all those divorces? Infidelity? Abusive relationships? etc. Traditional marriages are badly flawed, so preventing people who love each other from marrying is wrong and denying them their equal rights, right?
The problem of that particular argument will be the subject of my next post.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
A word on the facebook dad
Normally, when a topic gets really hot for one reason or another, I tend to stay away from posting about it. Most of the time it's because there are so many people saying what I'd already be saying, I see no need to add my own voice.
So when the story came out with the dad responding to something his daughter wrote on facebook and ended with him shooting her laptop and posting the video on her facebook page, I wasn't going to bother writing about it. I'd shared it myself, but that was about it. I wasn't surprised it went viral.
What I found interesting is the reactions the video got, and that's what prompted me to throw in my own two cents. Here's the video, just in case you've been living in a cave and haven't seen it yet. Or if you're one of those who've refused to see it because you heard such terrible things about it. If you're one of those, it's not as bad as it's been made out to be. Go ahead and watch it. It won't claim your immortal soul and plunge you into the depths of despair.
So there you have it.
As people have been sharing this video, tweeting about it, blogging about it, writing articles about it, and just plain adding to the din, the usual sorts gravitated to different camps about it.
On the one hand, you've got the people lauding him as a hero. Father of the year, best dad ever, and so on and so forth. On that side, I really didn't see much I didn't expect. A lot of people out there could really empathize with this dad. At the most extreme, some people said some pretty nasty things about the daughter that were uncalled for and unwarranted, but for the most part, there was a lot of understanding about the father's anger and frustration.
Then there's the other side, and this is the one that I found fascinating. It wasn't just that they disagreed with this dad and what he did. They were horrified. Saddened. Depressed. Feeling that this just showed how terrible the world was becoming. Doom. Gloom. Terror. Woe.
One of the first things I noticed is that many completely disregarded the daughter's role in triggering the situation. It didn't matter to them that the daughter had posted a rant online that portrayed herself as a slave and victim of her parents' cruelty, or that she had actually lied to make her own case sound so much worse. They weren't bothered by her class-ist reference to the "cleaning lady." It didn't matter that she was rude and crude. It didn't matter that she exemplified the white privilege this side tends to rail against. It didn't matter that she used facebook as a soapbox to rant against her parents, for all the world to see, except for her parents, whom she thought she could block from seeing it. Nope. She was just an innocent child and the dad was an ogre, humiliating her online for no valid reason. He was labelled cruel and abusive, and if they bothered to note the daughter's part in all this at all, it was to blame the dad.
It was all rather fascinating to watch this side of the equation play out. We don't actually know a whole lot about this family and how they got to this point in their lives, but I quickly noticed a whole lot of projection happening. People who had experienced parental disciplinary action that they felt scarred them for life would project those events onto this family, with this dad standing in for their own parents' cruelty. Interestingly, they often referred to being punished for something they didn't actually do, whereas in this video, there was no question that the daughter had done what she did. This wasn't some guy going off the deep end with no evidence - he had the evidence right there in his hand, and he'd found it in the laptop he had worked long and hard to fix up for his daughter.
A lot of people were distressed over how this dad had humiliated his daughter, and I'm sure they're right that she has been humiliated by it. Of course, they don't care that she had humiliated her parents and their "cleaning lady" online herself, and these folks don't seem to have any problem with that.
Then there was the really over-the-top commentary. There were people predicting that this daughter will someday end up shooting her parents/boyfriend/insert whoever else here as a direct result of this horrible, horrible parenting. Others suggest the daughter is going to shoot herself. Some predicted that she will leave home at 18 and never have contact with her parents again (usually from people who went on to say how they had left their own parents young, and how they'd never forgiven them for being such terrible parents). I've seen people actually advise the daughter to run away from home, while others recommended she exact revenge by doing this like using her dad's toothbrush to scrub the toilet. Others suggest that the father should shoot himself because he was so cruel to his daughter by posting this video. There's more and worse, but that's just a sampling.
As I was reading from a lot of parents talking about how much they had a problem with this, I began to notice something.
The one thing they all agreed with was that he was a bad parent. Why? Well, he humiliated his daughter, of course. And he smokes. He's got a gun. He shot the laptop instead of donating it to charity. He has a southern accent. He disrespected his daughter. He clearly doesn't love his daughter. He's a redneck. Her mother should have stopped him. His wife is just as bad because she told him to throw in a shot for her.
This whole thing, of course, is all his fault. You see, if he had respected his daughter first, she would never had done what she did. If he had been a good parent, he would never humiliate his daughter online like this. If he were a good parent, he wouldn't have a gun to shoot the laptop with (and we all know those gun owners; they're just a thread away from going into rampages - a laptop today, a human tomorrow, that sort of thing).
They, of course, would NEVER do something like this! They respect their children too much. They would never be so cruel. They would never shoot anything. They would never...
... and that's when it became glaringly obvious to me. It wasn't about the dad and his daughter at all. It was all about them. You see, only a bad parent would do something like this, and since they would never do something like this, THEY were clearly good parents. They were superior to the redneck with thecowboy Tilley hat and the cigarette and the Colt .45 By running on about how terrible this guy was, how wrong he was, or psychoanalysing him as someone who is clearly [fill in diagnosis by projection here] and unfit to be a parent, they were able to turn the spotlight on themselves over what wonderful parents THEY were, because they weren't like him.
Chances are, this dad probably regrets putting up this video. He was clearly very angry when he made it, and I doubt it occurred to him that it would get beyond his daughter's facebook friends; his target audience. People - even IT people - can forget that the internet is forever. How could he predict that it would be taken up by newspapers and go viral? Yet his daughter had been warned. While such a public display might be considered too much, he was following through with the consequences he's warned her of.
In reading comments from his detractors, I began to detect a hint of resentment, and even perhaps some jealousy. Here is a guy with a "went uphill both ways, barefoot" type of history, and he has clearly made a success of himself. He mentioned being an IT guy, which can pay pretty darn good. They live on an acreage, and he can afford to buy his daughter a laptop and all the stuff that comes with such a purchase, along with other electronic toys for her. He can afford a video camera, and he can afford a gun and ammunition. He's also willing to work out exchanges of service, such as with their "cleaning lady" that showed he wasn't the greedy, money obsessed sort, either. He's got what a lot of people wish they had.
In condemning this man for being a bad parent, his detractors seek to elevate themselves above him. THEY would never do such things, sure, but then they likely couldn't afford to buy their own kids all the electronic gadgets they wish. And how many could forfeit payment and barter for services, instead? THEY would never humiliate their child, but they probably don't know what their kids are doing behind their backs any more than this dad did until he stumbled on it (and I've encountered more than a few parents, including home schooling parents, blissfully in denial that their kids were completely messed up). THEY would never smoke or own a gun, and they certainly wouldn't destroy something that could be donated to charity.
I suspect these folks would have been much happier if Mr. Cowboy Hat, with his cigarette and Colt .45 and his pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps work ethic went back to the trailer park where he belongs, and they could go back to living their superior little lives and never have to look at their own lives in comparison.
update: If you want to see what this dad has to say for himself about all this, his facebook page is public. And for those freaking out, yes, he has been visited by the police.
uppderdate: Response to Dr. Phil.
So when the story came out with the dad responding to something his daughter wrote on facebook and ended with him shooting her laptop and posting the video on her facebook page, I wasn't going to bother writing about it. I'd shared it myself, but that was about it. I wasn't surprised it went viral.
What I found interesting is the reactions the video got, and that's what prompted me to throw in my own two cents. Here's the video, just in case you've been living in a cave and haven't seen it yet. Or if you're one of those who've refused to see it because you heard such terrible things about it. If you're one of those, it's not as bad as it's been made out to be. Go ahead and watch it. It won't claim your immortal soul and plunge you into the depths of despair.
So there you have it.
As people have been sharing this video, tweeting about it, blogging about it, writing articles about it, and just plain adding to the din, the usual sorts gravitated to different camps about it.
On the one hand, you've got the people lauding him as a hero. Father of the year, best dad ever, and so on and so forth. On that side, I really didn't see much I didn't expect. A lot of people out there could really empathize with this dad. At the most extreme, some people said some pretty nasty things about the daughter that were uncalled for and unwarranted, but for the most part, there was a lot of understanding about the father's anger and frustration.
Then there's the other side, and this is the one that I found fascinating. It wasn't just that they disagreed with this dad and what he did. They were horrified. Saddened. Depressed. Feeling that this just showed how terrible the world was becoming. Doom. Gloom. Terror. Woe.
One of the first things I noticed is that many completely disregarded the daughter's role in triggering the situation. It didn't matter to them that the daughter had posted a rant online that portrayed herself as a slave and victim of her parents' cruelty, or that she had actually lied to make her own case sound so much worse. They weren't bothered by her class-ist reference to the "cleaning lady." It didn't matter that she was rude and crude. It didn't matter that she exemplified the white privilege this side tends to rail against. It didn't matter that she used facebook as a soapbox to rant against her parents, for all the world to see, except for her parents, whom she thought she could block from seeing it. Nope. She was just an innocent child and the dad was an ogre, humiliating her online for no valid reason. He was labelled cruel and abusive, and if they bothered to note the daughter's part in all this at all, it was to blame the dad.
It was all rather fascinating to watch this side of the equation play out. We don't actually know a whole lot about this family and how they got to this point in their lives, but I quickly noticed a whole lot of projection happening. People who had experienced parental disciplinary action that they felt scarred them for life would project those events onto this family, with this dad standing in for their own parents' cruelty. Interestingly, they often referred to being punished for something they didn't actually do, whereas in this video, there was no question that the daughter had done what she did. This wasn't some guy going off the deep end with no evidence - he had the evidence right there in his hand, and he'd found it in the laptop he had worked long and hard to fix up for his daughter.
A lot of people were distressed over how this dad had humiliated his daughter, and I'm sure they're right that she has been humiliated by it. Of course, they don't care that she had humiliated her parents and their "cleaning lady" online herself, and these folks don't seem to have any problem with that.
Then there was the really over-the-top commentary. There were people predicting that this daughter will someday end up shooting her parents/boyfriend/insert whoever else here as a direct result of this horrible, horrible parenting. Others suggest the daughter is going to shoot herself. Some predicted that she will leave home at 18 and never have contact with her parents again (usually from people who went on to say how they had left their own parents young, and how they'd never forgiven them for being such terrible parents). I've seen people actually advise the daughter to run away from home, while others recommended she exact revenge by doing this like using her dad's toothbrush to scrub the toilet. Others suggest that the father should shoot himself because he was so cruel to his daughter by posting this video. There's more and worse, but that's just a sampling.
As I was reading from a lot of parents talking about how much they had a problem with this, I began to notice something.
The one thing they all agreed with was that he was a bad parent. Why? Well, he humiliated his daughter, of course. And he smokes. He's got a gun. He shot the laptop instead of donating it to charity. He has a southern accent. He disrespected his daughter. He clearly doesn't love his daughter. He's a redneck. Her mother should have stopped him. His wife is just as bad because she told him to throw in a shot for her.
This whole thing, of course, is all his fault. You see, if he had respected his daughter first, she would never had done what she did. If he had been a good parent, he would never humiliate his daughter online like this. If he were a good parent, he wouldn't have a gun to shoot the laptop with (and we all know those gun owners; they're just a thread away from going into rampages - a laptop today, a human tomorrow, that sort of thing).
They, of course, would NEVER do something like this! They respect their children too much. They would never be so cruel. They would never shoot anything. They would never...
... and that's when it became glaringly obvious to me. It wasn't about the dad and his daughter at all. It was all about them. You see, only a bad parent would do something like this, and since they would never do something like this, THEY were clearly good parents. They were superior to the redneck with the
Chances are, this dad probably regrets putting up this video. He was clearly very angry when he made it, and I doubt it occurred to him that it would get beyond his daughter's facebook friends; his target audience. People - even IT people - can forget that the internet is forever. How could he predict that it would be taken up by newspapers and go viral? Yet his daughter had been warned. While such a public display might be considered too much, he was following through with the consequences he's warned her of.
In reading comments from his detractors, I began to detect a hint of resentment, and even perhaps some jealousy. Here is a guy with a "went uphill both ways, barefoot" type of history, and he has clearly made a success of himself. He mentioned being an IT guy, which can pay pretty darn good. They live on an acreage, and he can afford to buy his daughter a laptop and all the stuff that comes with such a purchase, along with other electronic toys for her. He can afford a video camera, and he can afford a gun and ammunition. He's also willing to work out exchanges of service, such as with their "cleaning lady" that showed he wasn't the greedy, money obsessed sort, either. He's got what a lot of people wish they had.
In condemning this man for being a bad parent, his detractors seek to elevate themselves above him. THEY would never do such things, sure, but then they likely couldn't afford to buy their own kids all the electronic gadgets they wish. And how many could forfeit payment and barter for services, instead? THEY would never humiliate their child, but they probably don't know what their kids are doing behind their backs any more than this dad did until he stumbled on it (and I've encountered more than a few parents, including home schooling parents, blissfully in denial that their kids were completely messed up). THEY would never smoke or own a gun, and they certainly wouldn't destroy something that could be donated to charity.
I suspect these folks would have been much happier if Mr. Cowboy Hat, with his cigarette and Colt .45 and his pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps work ethic went back to the trailer park where he belongs, and they could go back to living their superior little lives and never have to look at their own lives in comparison.
update: If you want to see what this dad has to say for himself about all this, his facebook page is public. And for those freaking out, yes, he has been visited by the police.
uppderdate: Response to Dr. Phil.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Either, or
Social media makes it extremely easy to share things. With just a click on a link, you can pass on all sorts of things to all your friends, followers and so on.
Taking advantage of this, people make all sorts of graphics specifically to be shared. Some include only text, or quotes with relevant (or not) images. They can be funny, silly, thought provoking or heartbreaking. Some announce to the world that the individual sharing it believes in a particular faith, holds a certain political viewpoint, or just likes cute, fuzzy animals.
What seems to be very popular are graphics that juxtapose two extreme images, then make a statement comparing them in such a way as to point out the flaws of particular concept. These can actually be done well, pointing out how illogical a situation or some such is. I've shared the odd one myself, though rarely. Why? Because more often then not, they are not only done poorly, but they reveal the maker (and the sharers) to be ... well, let's just say critical thinking isn't their strong point. Either that or they so favour the supposed message, they're willing to overlook all sorts of logical fallacies to score their point.
Among the ones I've seen recently are silly ones comparing Occupy camps with customers camping overnight in store parking lots, or a particularly obnoxious one that insisted that Republicans/Teabaggers have to chose between Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ, but they can't like both, because Rand hated religion and Jesus said it's hard for rich people to get into heaven. There's just a whole lot of stupid being demonstrated with these things.
Today I saw another one that had me shaking my head. The original text was in Spanish, I believe, but the version I saw was a translation into English. On the left was a photo of two men, lips almost touching, eyes closed and half-closed, about to engage in a passionate kiss. On the right is this photo.
What, precisely, is the maker of this graphic suggesting? Are we being told that we cannot consider two vastly different and unrelated things as being immoral at the same time? Are we being told that, if we find photo A immoral, we must necessarily view photo B moral, or vice versa? Or that our level of shock reflects our views on morality? What if we find both shocking, but for different reasons?
There's another problem with using these two photos, however. Only one of them actually deals with morality. Let's look at what morality actually means.
From Dictionary.com we have:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us:
So what is immorality? Going back to Dictionary.com, we get:
Merriam-Webster has an even more interesting definition.
In essence, morality and immorality involve our choices and actions, and is often closely related to sexual behaviour (or lack of it) and vice. Morality and immorality is about what we DO.
Which brings me back to the images in question. In the one photo, we have two men about to kiss in a sexual manner. This is an act that many consider immoral, and actually fits within the definitions regarding morality and immorality. Whether someone considers it an immoral act or not, the photo is appropriate to the theme.
The caption, however, doesn't talk about that. What is does is challenge whether or not we find the one more shocking than the other - as if the two are in any way comparable. If we find men kissing more shocking then children starving, we, the viewer, are told we have misguided views on what is or isn't moral. Obviously the maker of this graphic does not view men kissing as either shocking or immoral, and it's basically telling anyone who does think so that they are the ones with messed up views on immorality. It also suggests that anyone who does think there's something wrong with two men kissing with sexual passion must also think there's nothing wrong with starving children. Or something. It's presented as an either/or situation. Either you are okay with men kissing and not okay with starving children, or you are not okay with men kissing, but are okay with starving children. Like so many of these graphics, it presents a false dichotomy.
The other photo, however, has nothing to do with morality. It shows starving children reaching out, presumably, to food. We don't actually know, though we can judge from what looks like children holding food in the background. I really don't think the creator of this graphic is suggesting the children in the photo are being moral/immoral because they're starving and appear to be reaching for food. If the photo were of someone denying them food, that would then make it appropriate to the theme. Since it's more likely the children are actually being given food, this makes it an even more inappropriate juxtaposition.
The second photo shows us a tragic situation, but it does not illustrate morality or immorality.
I have actually seen this photo of the starving children used in such graphics before, and just as badly (juxtaposing it with Christmas shopping, for example). This photo has been around for a long time, and the children in it are probably either adults now, or may even be dead.
Which brings up a question.
Just how moral is it for the creators of this and similar graphics to use a photo of starving children to bolster their own personal agendas?
Taking advantage of this, people make all sorts of graphics specifically to be shared. Some include only text, or quotes with relevant (or not) images. They can be funny, silly, thought provoking or heartbreaking. Some announce to the world that the individual sharing it believes in a particular faith, holds a certain political viewpoint, or just likes cute, fuzzy animals.
What seems to be very popular are graphics that juxtapose two extreme images, then make a statement comparing them in such a way as to point out the flaws of particular concept. These can actually be done well, pointing out how illogical a situation or some such is. I've shared the odd one myself, though rarely. Why? Because more often then not, they are not only done poorly, but they reveal the maker (and the sharers) to be ... well, let's just say critical thinking isn't their strong point. Either that or they so favour the supposed message, they're willing to overlook all sorts of logical fallacies to score their point.
Among the ones I've seen recently are silly ones comparing Occupy camps with customers camping overnight in store parking lots, or a particularly obnoxious one that insisted that Republicans/Teabaggers have to chose between Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ, but they can't like both, because Rand hated religion and Jesus said it's hard for rich people to get into heaven. There's just a whole lot of stupid being demonstrated with these things.
Today I saw another one that had me shaking my head. The original text was in Spanish, I believe, but the version I saw was a translation into English. On the left was a photo of two men, lips almost touching, eyes closed and half-closed, about to engage in a passionate kiss. On the right is this photo.
The caption under it reads, "If the picture on the left shocks you more than the one on the right, you need to revise your views on immorality."
What, precisely, is the maker of this graphic suggesting? Are we being told that we cannot consider two vastly different and unrelated things as being immoral at the same time? Are we being told that, if we find photo A immoral, we must necessarily view photo B moral, or vice versa? Or that our level of shock reflects our views on morality? What if we find both shocking, but for different reasons?
There's another problem with using these two photos, however. Only one of them actually deals with morality. Let's look at what morality actually means.
From Dictionary.com we have:
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us:
The term “morality” can be used either
- descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
- some other group, such as a religion, or
- accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
- normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So what is immorality? Going back to Dictionary.com, we get:
1. immoral quality, character, or conduct; wickedness; evilness.
2. sexual misconduct.
3. an immoral act.
Merriam-Webster has an even more interesting definition.
Definition of IMMORALITY
1 : the quality or state of being immoral; especially : unchastity
2 : an immoral act or practice
Examples of IMMORALITY
<religious denominations that regard drinking, smoking, and even dancing as examples of immorality>
<a sermon about modern society's casual acceptance of or indifference to immorality>
First Known Use of IMMORALITY
circa 1566
Related to IMMORALITY
Synonyms: corruption, debauchery, depravity, vice, iniquitousness, iniquity, libertinage, libertinism, licentiousness, profligacy, sin
In essence, morality and immorality involve our choices and actions, and is often closely related to sexual behaviour (or lack of it) and vice. Morality and immorality is about what we DO.
Which brings me back to the images in question. In the one photo, we have two men about to kiss in a sexual manner. This is an act that many consider immoral, and actually fits within the definitions regarding morality and immorality. Whether someone considers it an immoral act or not, the photo is appropriate to the theme.
The caption, however, doesn't talk about that. What is does is challenge whether or not we find the one more shocking than the other - as if the two are in any way comparable. If we find men kissing more shocking then children starving, we, the viewer, are told we have misguided views on what is or isn't moral. Obviously the maker of this graphic does not view men kissing as either shocking or immoral, and it's basically telling anyone who does think so that they are the ones with messed up views on immorality. It also suggests that anyone who does think there's something wrong with two men kissing with sexual passion must also think there's nothing wrong with starving children. Or something. It's presented as an either/or situation. Either you are okay with men kissing and not okay with starving children, or you are not okay with men kissing, but are okay with starving children. Like so many of these graphics, it presents a false dichotomy.
The other photo, however, has nothing to do with morality. It shows starving children reaching out, presumably, to food. We don't actually know, though we can judge from what looks like children holding food in the background. I really don't think the creator of this graphic is suggesting the children in the photo are being moral/immoral because they're starving and appear to be reaching for food. If the photo were of someone denying them food, that would then make it appropriate to the theme. Since it's more likely the children are actually being given food, this makes it an even more inappropriate juxtaposition.
The second photo shows us a tragic situation, but it does not illustrate morality or immorality.
I have actually seen this photo of the starving children used in such graphics before, and just as badly (juxtaposing it with Christmas shopping, for example). This photo has been around for a long time, and the children in it are probably either adults now, or may even be dead.
Which brings up a question.
Just how moral is it for the creators of this and similar graphics to use a photo of starving children to bolster their own personal agendas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)