Ruining Everything

[lillibet]

Last week on Last Resort a female character said to a male character grieving the death of another soldier in his unit, "You loved him." The male character responded "He was my brother." Jason commented afterwards that he liked the simple, non-defensive way the actor delivered that line. And I thought about it and agreed about the delivery, but pointed out that the line itself was problematic. The character couldn't just say "Yes," he had to justify his love for another man by contextualizing it as a familial relationship, reassuring himself and his listeners that there was nothing gay about it.

And I got to thinking about how I can understand people feeling that those who demand visibility and acceptance for homosexuality have made it harder for straight men to express their love for other men. Except wait, what? You can't say "I love him" because someone might think you're gay? And that's a problem because...? Oh, right, because our society has declared love between some adults acceptable and others not. And somehow that's the fault of...those whose love is condemned? How does that work?

I'm seeing a lot of this lately. That's probably a good thing. Just for starters (and feel free to add more examples and links in your comments):

- Rebecca Watson's Experience

- The Penny Arcade Dickwolves Incident

- The Anita Sarkeesian Incident...and that article lists several more incidents of women being vilified and attacked online for speaking out about sexism in our culture.

- and lest you think this is just about women, there's Race and the Halloween Mask of Ignorance and its accompanying slideshow on how to respond to 9 Bad Excuses for Racist Costumes. This year's hot topic in costume politics is actually not the standard racist ones, but whether or not its okay to mock Honey Boo Boo and her family.

I get it. It's hard to think before you speak. Re-considering your own actions from a perspective different than your own is one of the biggest tricks our minds have developed and it's not nearly instinctive yet. Thinking about how your attitudes impact people of different genders and colors and abilities and sexualities and faiths and experiences is difficult. It would be easier if we could all agree on acceptable behaviors and cultural contexts and play along and get the joke without taking offense or insisting that you use the big lump at the top for something other than a counterweight. But that's never been the world we actually live in--if you think otherwise you're just nostalgic for a time before those who are different dared to challenge your perspective and attempt to expand the horizon of your vision to include the people all around you who don't think your joke is funny.

I have had my own failures. Here is my most public one to date and it's far from my only one. But (for those of you who followed the link, or who remember that incident) you see what I did there? When someone brought to my attention a way that I might have hurt and offended others by failing to think my message through sufficiently, I apologized. I thanked them for bringing the problem to my attention. I promised to renew my efforts to think more effectively about these issues in that and every other context. And I took it as a positive example of engagement with my work, a sign that people care about what I'm saying.

I'm still learning--I will always be learning--but I've learned this much: when someone tells you that you're doing it wrong, it's not they who are spoiling things. In perceiving their comments as a threat to your way of thinking, your behavior, your community, and counter-attacking with violent words and actions, it is you who are ruining everything.

Comments

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

Is the show all that's cracked up to be? I had a hard time processing the story as something that can be stretched into multiple seasons. (One season, maybe.)

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I'm enjoying it. The stuff stateside has a tendency to turn soapy (thanks to one sadly miscast character, mostly) but the stuff on the island is mostly fun. And they get out in the submarine often enough to evoke good memories of Hunt for Red October. I don't know how long it can run, but for now I'm sticking with it.

[desireearmfeldt]

As a thought experiment, what would have been different about the way it read if either the living soldier or the dead one (but not both) had been female? (I'm not sure what I think the answer to that question is, but I think it's an interesting question.)

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I agree it's an interesting question. I think that in either case, especially in the context of a growing romantic relationship between the questioner and the soldier, the question would have had implicit romantic overtones, regardless of the answer, and the justifying answer would have been a refutation of the idea that men and women can't love each other except in a romantic or familial contexts--which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

And now I'm thinking about the interesting things Stargate: SG1 did with Sam and Jack's relationship.

[wellstar.livejournal.com]

The character couldn't just say "Yes," he had to justify his love for another man by contextualizing it as a familial relationship, reassuring himself and his listeners that there was nothing gay about it

I don't know the show, but I did the same thing desiree did, except with one male and one female character. It didn't stand up as a double standard for me. Either way 'round (he was my brother/she was my sister) the implication is "nothing romantic about it" rather than "nothing gay about it" and I don't see why that couldn't be the case for the line as it was presented in the script. I don't think sexual orientation has to be a factor here. (Again, not to say it wasn't, because I didn't see it, but as someone who has had to explain on more than one occasion that my wife is not my sister and my brother is not my boyfriend, I think the situations are similar on either end of the spectrum.)

[muffyjo]

I've not watched the show at all but even out of context, I think that the fact that "there's nothing romantic about it" is the point. He defines that with the "like a brother". But why does it have to be non-romantic? Why do we need to define that? Is the loss of a person dear to you like a brother or dear to you like a partner less profoundly painful? Which one is the closer and more likely to provoke sympathy from the audience? What do I mean by "which one is closer?" How can I ask such a thing, they are two different relationships.

And there you have it. That seems to be the important part.

Frankly, I would hope that they would both bear considerably weight to the audience, and lover or brother they would understand that he is in considerable pain and sympathize accordingly. But I also believe that the lack of mention says more to some people than the mentioning, due to our culture of "don't ask don't tell", especially in the military.

I'm not sure it's coming out right from my tired head, but I hope that makes sense.

[ron_newman]

I had never heard of 'Honey Boo Boo' before reading your post. What is the issue with having a Halloween costume based on this character?

[muffyjo]

There's a lot of meat here to chew on. I have more thoughts to share later and maybe in person but for the moment I want to recognize that this is really cool thinking and a good place to be investigating.

I've been incredibly proud of the way you have handled discussions of sensitive areas, specifically the one you faced in the link you posted.

[muffyjo]

This reminds me a great deal of the talk that Randy Pausch gave as his last lecture. (The longer version is here)

If you want to achieve your dreams you better work well and play with others.

A. Tell the truth

B. Apologize
1. I'm sorry
2. It was my fault
3. How do I make it right?

C. Wait and people will show you their good side.

D. Show Gratitude

[desireearmfeldt]

Hey, thanks for the link -- not something I'd seen before but well worth the watching!

I read both lilibet's post and your comment in the context of a conflict that someone unexpectedly-to-me engaged me in, which makes this all particularly thought-provoking particularly thought-provoking.

[cz_unit]

I always think of it in the Waynes World manner, I can love another man and say it without difficulty.