Patriarchy begins at home

As is probably true for most women reading this, this Kavanaugh ‘thing’ has me seething, reeling, and itching to respond in some overt way.  I’ve been a feminist for a long time and while I knew we still had plenty of work to do, I naively believed that we had actually made some progress in stanching the power of patriarchy.  But what I see now is that the only progress we have made is that we’ve convinced some men to allow us to share that power in some arenas.  There are a few more women holding higher level offices in politics and business.  There are a few more women doctors and college professors – even some college presidents.  There are a few women in traditionally male dominated careers like fire fighters, police, and what are commonly known as ‘the trades’.  Even some religious organizations are allowing women to take on roles previously restricted to men.  And while I wish it wasn’t so, women now participate in military combat.

But, when I look a little deeper what I notice is that, while women have been allowed to take on these roles in the working world, the other expectations of what it means to be a woman have not changed.  And that’s where the power of the patriarchy still holds firm. In case you have forgotten, patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.  Clearly, this system is still strong in the world.  While men may allow women to have some greater role in certain situations, what is really telling is that this has not meant a release from the traditional roles women have been relegated to.  The female college professor who is married and has children is still most likely the one to assume all the responsibility for managing the care of the child(ren) and the home. The husband may sometimes ‘babysit’ while the wife does other things, or may feed, bathe, and get the child ready for bed.  He may do laundry or sometimes clean house or cook meals.  But all of this is usually reliant on the coordination of the women.  And I still hear women who are one half of a two-parent, both working household comment on how grateful they are that their husband is such a big help around the house!  Why is he the ‘helper’ and she the one being helped?  Because she is still conforming to the expectations placed upon her by the patriarchy.

And why are so many women and girls still obsessed with creating an appearance that appeals to the (mostly sexual) interests of men?  According to Money magazine, the average woman will spend $15,000 on makeup during her lifetime.  (And since I spend none, someone out there is over doing it!)  And then there’s the clothes, and the hair, and the body shape.  Most women seem compelled to do everything they can to look as young and thin and pretty as possible (or torture themselves for not being able to live up to the ideal.)  Of course, some men spend some time, money, and energy to make themselves attractive to women but we all know that what women do is hugely out of proportion to what men do.  So why is it that a man’s natural appearance is much more acceptable than a woman’s?  Why is it the expectation that women will go all out to look good for a man but the reverse is not true?  No matter how often women may say, “I do it for myself,” I’m sure that is only a delusion.  They are conforming to the expectations placed upon them by the patriarchy.

One of the primary features of a patriarchal system is that it is based on an ideology that acts to explain and justify the dominance of men and attributes that dominance to inherent natural differences between men and women.  So while some women may be seen as capable of displaying some characteristics required for assuming some previously exclusive male roles, that does not mean that the ‘natural differences’ that keep women in their place have been erased.  Indeed, in the eyes of the patriarchy, all women are still expected to retain the “natural” submissive, subservient status required to maintain the system.  Maybe they can be a brilliant neuroscientist but they still better come home and make dinner, or show a little cleavage and flirt with their male coworkers.  They had better understand that they should welcome the sexual attention of men and continue to regard men’s needs as primary.  No matter what role a woman may hold in the male-dominated world, they better never forget their true place.

So I think that our mistake, this generation of feminists who have struggled against the patriarchy for nearly 50 years, has been to assume that if we made inroads into politics, business, education, science, and religion, then it would follow that we would lose those other expectations that still serve to keep us under the thumbs of men.  And I think we’ve gone along blithely believing it was so.  Some of you have even found ‘good men’ who seem to be willing to let go of those expectations.  But the storm around the nomination, accusations, and approval of Kavanaugh as the newest Supreme Court justice has made it abundantly clear that we were wrong.  Men still want to control women’s bodies (by controlling their access to birth control and abortion.)  They band together to support each other (or just keep silent) when women accuse one of them of assault, making a loud noise about being falsely accused (even though the statistics are against them.)  They retaliate by accusing women of lying to get attention or gain power and belittle them for coming forward.  They still believe it is acceptable to force unwanted sexual attention on women because “that’s just how men are”; “women probably really want it when they say they don’t”; or if they don’t want it there must be something wrong with them.  All in all, they cannot conceive of the idea that any woman would not welcome sexual attention from any man because, after all, it’s in men’s nature to give it and women’s nature to want it.

Men are not going to give up this sense of superiority and entitlement on their own.  In all this hub-bub of #MeToo and the Kavanaugh investigation men have fought back with incensed outrage and vitriol against the accusers.  They believe they have much to lose by giving up their power over women, and maybe that’s true, but perhaps we will all have more to gain.  We won’t know until the scales are balanced.
  
So, sisters, it’s up to us.  We must rise up against the patriarchal expectation of woman as man’s property – the wife/spouse responsible for keeping his home and making his meals, the mother responsible for raising his children, the lover responsible for satisfying his sexual needs and affirming his ‘manhood’, and all the other little ways men are allowed to maintain their control over women.  All the talk is about 2018 and 2020; about voting out the old white guys and voting in more women.  But that will not be enough.  That will not bring down the patriarchy.  The patriarchy is perpetuated in our homes and our personal lives.  It is perpetuated by our conforming to all of those little expectations that we have come to believe we have chosen.  It is perpetuated by our deference to men’s entitlement rather than calling them on it.  And until we are willing to challenge patriarchy at its root, all those women we elect will still be expected to look and act according to men’s preferences while at work, and they will all go home to families that have the same expectations of them as wives, mothers, and lovers.  Patriarchy depends on every one of the small, personal instances of conformity we let slip by.  But we must be vigilant.  There is something very big at stake here and even if we have to do something really hard now, I believe it will be worth it for all of us in the end.

My favorite place in all the world

My first trip to the Big Island of Hawai’i was probably in 1972 or ‘73.  We stayed at the Volcano House hotel and spent a few days exploring Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park.  This was in the midst of the Mauna Ulu eruption period but there was no eruption activity at the time we were there.  There was, however, much evidence of recent activity, including blockages of the Chain of Craters road by lava flows that were only months old.  Months!  We drove along the road and reached a place where we just couldn’t go any further because there was new lava right there!  Usually, when we think about rocks (if we think about rocks – I know most people don’t) we assume them to be millions of years old.  They’ve just been here forever.  Even the most recent lava production in Washington State, which I discovered many years later, is already over six million years old.  Mount St. Helen erupted in 1983 but that was an explosive eruption of ash and debris, not an outflow of lava that produced new rock or new land.  That’s right, new land.  Kilauea has added over 500 acres of new land to the island of Hawai’i since the current eruption began in 1983 and this current phase has created a shelf a mile out into the ocean.

On that first trip I was awed by the stark beauty of the land.  Swaths of black lava rock dotted with bits of green fern, ‘ohelo berry, and ‘ohi’a seedlings.  Ropes of undulating pahoehoe interspersed with the sharp clinkers of ‘a’a, and, if you’re lucky, golden bits of Pele’s hair or glassy Pele’s tears.  Examining even the smallest bit of rock up close revealed a beautiful iridescence that I could hardly stop looking at.  And then I sat down in the middle of the lava field and felt a deep, visceral connection with the power of the earth that I had never felt anywhere else I’ve been.  I have been back to the Big Island maybe ten times since then, and every time I’ve felt a greater and greater connection.  There’s the physical connection I feel that just makes me want to lie down on the hard, bare lava (which I do every chance I get) but there is also the sense of the earth being alive and in a constant state of creation (and destruction) that is so apparent in the vicinity of an active volcano.  The Hawai’ians believe that this volcano is the home of their goddess, Pele, and that the flow of lava is the primary way she expresses herself in the world.  I can’t argue with that.

I lived in Hawai’i for about ten years and I go back to visit as often as I can since I moved away.  Other than the explosive development that has happened over the last 20 years, I love everything about the islands.  For me, there is no more perfect place in the world.    As humans, we cannot help but fall in love with the incredible natural beauty of the islands.  From the lovely trade winds to the magical sunsets; from the pristine beaches and clear ocean water to the soaring, lush mountains draped with mist and ribboned with sparkling waterfalls; from the waving palms to the heavenly scent of flowers that permeates the air.  If you’ve ever been hiking, swimming, surfing, snorkeling, taking a drive, or just walking on the beach in Hawai’i, it’s easy to see why we think of this place as “paradise” and it’s tempting to believe that this special place was created by the gods for humans to enjoy.  It is easy to be lulled into believing that this spectacular beauty is what nature is all about – that it is the perfect expression of “nature”.  

I, myself, have been tempted by this notion.  In 2000 I purchased an acre of land on the Big Island in Leilani Estates.  I had the idea at the time that I would retire there with two express purposes in mind – to enjoy the warm weather, lush beauty, and slow pace of Puna and to be close to the volcano that exerted such a strong pull on my soul.  Even though I knew, when I chose my little acre, that it was in an area clearly labeled as “Lava Zone 1” I did not really expect to have to reconcile those two purposes in my heart.  I sometimes commented, only half-jokingly, that if Pele decided to take me and/or my land I would welcome it as a devotee in awe of her power and in recognition that it was hers to reclaim.  In all my visits to the island I have enjoyed so much of what it offers: swimming in the warm pool at Ahalanui, lounging on the black sand beaches, exploring the Wailuku River and Rainbow Falls, wandering the trails of Lava Tree Park, snorkeling at Kealakekua Bay and Kapoho tide pools, marveling at the height and beauty of Akaka Falls, eating local fruit, attending the Merry Monarch Festival, and, of course, lava viewing and hiking on and around the volcano.

But that is only one side of the story.  With the eruption that began on May 3rd, it feels like everything has changed.  Even though I decided several years ago that I would never live on the Big Island, the area of Puna is very dear to my heart.  Now, half the sub-division where my property is has been destroyed.  And even though, at this writing, I believe my property has not been covered by new lava, it has come so close that it may have burned or killed most of the vegetation.  The Kapoho tide pools are gone.  Ahalanui Park with its lovely warm pool is at risk and, even if it is not destroyed by lava there is no access by car due to the lava flows over the road on either side.  Miles of lush green forest have been turned to bare rock in a matter of hours.  We look at these changes and call it devastation.  Of course, we mourn for those who have lost their homes.  I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to leave your home in a rushed evacuation knowing with near certainty that when (if) you return everything will be buried beneath 30 feet of rock.  That is devastating.  But when we place a value on one expression of nature – beautiful tide pools filled with jewel-like fish for instance – over another – the destructive power of a volcano – we have ceased to appreciate nature for what it truly is, in all of its raw beauty and power.  We have made it about us, about what makes humans happy, about what suits our own purposes.  I have been a pagan for over 30 years - a nature lover and an environmentalist.  I support environmental organizations and lament the negative impact of humans.  But this event, this total destruction of one part of nature that I love by another part of nature that I also love, brings me up short.  It makes me realize that most of what we think of as “saving the planet” is really about saving the planet for humans.  When we destroy habitat and pollute the air and water we definitely impact other species but we are only a small piece of the big picture.  Nature, as a force, is much more powerful than we humans can imagine.  She creates and she destroys what she creates.  While it can be difficult to reconcile in my mind I have no doubt in my heart.  Both of these things are beautiful.  Both of these things are true and I just have to sit with that. 

Atonement

With the opening of the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, the first capital of the Confederacy as well as the center of the Civil Rights Movement, I’ve been thinking a lot about America’s need to acknowledge and repent our sins.  Unfortunately, we seem to be wholly reluctant to do so – due in part, I think, to our lack of awareness of those sins.  Admittedly, many white Americans are working to root out their own prejudices and recognize their privilege.  They are working on social justice issues and trying to improve race relations in their communities.  They are outraged at innocent black people being harassed, arrested, and shot by police when these things make the news or are spread around by social media.  But I doubt we’ll ever get very far in solving the issues of today and creating a better tomorrow if we are not willing to face the sins of the past. 

While all of these attempts to address the racism of today are admirable, they have little depth and no solid footing because they are mostly based only our gut feeling of what is right and fair.  Of course it’s admirable to look at the way some people are being mistreated or oppressed and want to remedy that.  But the truth is, white Americans do not deserve admiration for doing what is right in this situation.  White Americans are all too willing to claim ownership and pride over all the great things “we’ve” done – how great “we” are as a country – and at the same time we are in total denial of our appalling history of slavery, terrorism, oppression, and incarceration of black and brown people.  To suggest that white Americans should be admired for doing what is right is to suggest that they have no obligation to do what is right but have come to the work out of some sense of mystical enlightenment.  “Oh, look at these bad things that are happening around me!  I am such a good person, I will do what I can to try and fix it.”  See how that makes it about us?  About how good we are to do the right thing?  But the problem is it’s only about us because we created this mess.  We are responsible for every bit of the racism, oppression, and terror that people of color are still experiencing.  Now, you don’t have to look at every little thing that happens and be able to track it back to some earlier acts committed by white people or figure out how you’re responsible.  It’s not that simple and it’s not necessary.  But what you should do is learn, read, listen, become aware.  I’ve considered myself to be anti-racist since I was a teenager – before I even had any idea what that meant.  I’ve never intentionally judged someone nor treated them badly because of their skin color or ethnic origin.  I’ve had non-white bosses, neighbors, teachers, friends, and lovers.  I’ve appreciated and respected them all and enjoyed the diversity.  And I thought that was enough.  I thought that my own sense of what is right and wrong would be enough.  But I was wrong.

I’m pretty sure that what I learned in school about the treatment of blacks in this country was non-existent.  Sure, we learned about slavery but it was only in the context of the creation of America, of wars, and of economics.  I doubt there was ever any lesson in any of my classrooms that was meant to teach us that America did a very bad thing by bringing people to this country against their will and forcing them into slavery.  I grew up in the 50s and 60s.  Think of the things I would have been exposed to that included anything about slavery – Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Gone with the Wind.  What would I have learned from those books?  Very little about how bad slavery was for those who were enslaved.  And though the Civil Rights Movement was happening practically under my nose, no one I knew talked about it or tried to help me understand what was going on.  I’m willing to bet that for most people who are adults now, any depth of understanding about our country’s treatment of black people is sorely lacking.  And without an understanding of that history, we cannot truly address what is happening now and move toward a future that not only treats everyone equally but honors and respects every individual and their history.  I thought that I was ‘clean’, clear of racism but I don’t think that’s really possible for a white American without making an effort to truly understand.  On my way down this path I have recognized ways in which I judged people of color because I did not understand how their behavior or their circumstances were shaped by the legacy of racism.  I have come to understand privilege and its role in helping me get to where I am when others have not been able to get past the ways that my privilege holds them down.  No one did this for me.  I have sought out this knowledge.  I listen and read and watch films.  And every day it seems I learn of new sources of information, new books to add to my list.  None of this comes easy.  You don’t become aware of this history in a flash of enlightenment.  You work at.

So here’s what you have to do.  First, you have to read.  You have to educate yourself.  You have to listen to the stories.  Read as much as you can.  Read about slavery and the slave trade.  Read about the Civil War.  Read about reconstruction.  Read about the Jim Crow south.  Read about the great migration.  Read about mass incarceration and the school to prison pipeline.  Read about what black people are experiencing today.  Listen to what they have to say.  You should read both fiction and non-fiction.  Novels are just the stories of people who did not have a voice.  They’ll give you very personal accounts of what life has been like.  And the non-fiction will give you facts, draw references and conclusions, make connections you’ve never thought of, pile up statistics that you will find overwhelming.  Fill yourself with this information until there is no room for your “what about…” or “I wasn’t responsible for that” or “why didn’t they just…”  Read until you cannot deny the pain of people stolen from their homeland, of families ripped apart, of enslavement, beatings, rapes, maimings, terror, torture, and murder.  Read about the injustice and oppression and humiliation still heaped upon other human beings by white Americans.  Read it until you weep.  Read until you recognize that nothing you have experienced as a white person in America comes close.  And then ask forgiveness.  Get down on your knees and say, “I’m sorry.  I’m so sorry this happened to your people.  And I’m sorry that my people are responsible for it.”

Then, because you know that what black people in America are still experiencing is part of that historical trajectory, you will be ready to stand up and say, “No more.”

There nature of resistance

I didn't go to the anti-gun march organized by the kids from Parkland High school.  I feel kind of guilty – like I’m not really a good enough activist, or maybe I don’t really care enough about the issue.  But really, I think I’m so overwhelmed by the awful things that are happening that I’m starting to feel numb and like there’s nothing I can do.  Why is that happening to me?  I don’t really feel powerless.  I've put lots of personal energy into the fight.  It’s just not as visible as a march or rally.  Perhaps it’s that many things feel so awful right now that most of the normal things seem insignificant.  But, no, it’s not that.  Is it that our leaders (and so much of the population) are so blind – or that we are so polarized – that none of the normal things are likely to bring about any real change? Maybe what I’m searching for instead is a way to change myself, a way to be, do, think, speak, that clarifies my own intention (because I believe that clearer and more focused is more effective.)  It’s kind of like what I was feeling about the women’s march this year.  Without a clear focus, the energy has little impact – no matter how many people show up.  I think it’s important that those kids are out there, learning about political activism and being seen and heard, even if they don’t have a clear, unified demand.  In this case, I think it’s okay.  What they’re doing is getting their feet wet, feeling their way into themselves and exploring how to harness the energy of their passion.  That’s a good thing, a really good thing.

But my personal goals around resisting the tide that feels like it could overwhelm us are very different.  For me, it’s about exploring my own personal power.  For so much of my activist career I have been involved in protests against a particular position – the war in Iraq, the first gulf war, the marginalization of queers, the oppression of women, racism, environmental degradation...  So, what is different now?  Maybe it’s that things are more complex.  Trump’s treatment of women is terrible and sets a terrible example but the hard clear lines have mostly been broken.  Discrimination against women, in pretty much any context, is illegal in this country, though the #metoo movement makes it clear that there is still a problem with how women are treated.  Queer people are still stigmatized, discriminated against, and even assaulted, but all of that is illegal and most government entities at least try to enforce the law in those areas.  Racism still has a huge impact on people of color but now it is mostly due to persistent implicit biases that are difficult to identify and address.  We have enacted many laws to address environmental issues, though many of them now are at risk in this current administration.  I guess the thing is, we’ve already taken most of the straightforward, obvious steps that can be assigned to the government and our leaders.  The issues we have to address now are much more subtle and require the population – the individual citizens of this country – to make some changes.  I doubt that more laws restricting guns are really going to help – it’s the culture of guns and violence in this country that is the problem.  There are already laws against discrimination and sexual assault of women – it’s the culture, particularly the culture of men who still believe that they have some right to women’s bodies, that is the problem.  It is illegal in this country to discriminate against people based on their religion and yet we have leaders who demonize Muslims and tacitly encourage regular citizens to do the same.  It is illegal to discriminate against people based on their ethnic background or the color of their skin but we have a president who refers to Latinx immigrants as rapists and murderers.
 
Well, I guess you get the point.  I think it’s the culture, and the culture is us.
 
At some point we need to begin taking responsibility for our own actions.  We need to examine our own role in upholding the status quo that allows the political leaders and big corporations to put profits over people.  We need to examine our own behaviors, those that value convenience over environmental responsibility.  We need to examine our tacit complicity with a legal system that puts black and brown men in prison at an alarmingly disproportionate rate and that leaves the continuing murder of black men by police unpunished.  Women need to examine the ways in which we buy into (literally) the ideas of fashion, body type, hair, speech, etc. that are driven by our need to conform to a male dominated culture.  We need to examine our willingness to support sports and leisure activities that glorify violence, speed, and dominance that only feed into (both physically and psychologically)  the macho blustering of a culture and a nation that sees aggression, and even war, as the only way to resolve conflicts on our streets and in our world.  We need to examine our unwillingness to even see the thousands of people who live on the streets in our cities, much less to reach out and help in any meaningful way.  We need to look to ourselves.
  
And while I say "we", what I really mean is "I".  I will continue to examine my own behavior and hope that I will be an example to some; that I will provoke others to find even small ways that they can resist the tide in their own lives. And I'll probably continue to use this forum to preach a little.

2A

Okay, I’m clearly not finished ranting about this.  In trying to explore the reasons gun owners feel a need to own guns, I was kind of surprised at how many of them referred to the right to defend themselves against an overreaching government, or in more archaic language, tyranny.  But I don’t see where the second amendment gives them that right.  On the contrary, it seems to me that the language is in reference to the “free State’s” need to occasionally call up a militia in order to defend itself, presumably from outside forces.  But I’m not a legal or constitutional scholar so I can’t really argue that issue.

What I’m really struck by is the idea that these guys with their guns are going to defend themselves against the American government – even with semi-automatic rifles.  Our government has nuclear weapons and other big bombs!  They have bomber planes and missiles to deliver those bombs!  They have rocket propelled artillery and cannons!  They have tanks and armored Humvees!   

But let’s just say that they were willing to stand up to the government in a situation where the resisters believed the government was “overreaching”.  What would that look like?  The armed occupiers at Malheur?  If those guys had actually shot at anyone trying to dislodge them from the facility they would likely have been captured, arrested, and charged with breaking the law.  Would individuals assume the right to resist?  Would a civilian use a gun to stop cops from abusing someone?  Would a civilian resist the National Guard for using excessive force in trying to control a protest?  Would a parent threaten to shoot a CPS worker who came to their house to take their child?  All of these examples are ludicrous, so how does the individual right to ‘bear arms’ actually translate into using a gun?  I think that’s where it gets vague and risky.   

While I’m sure plenty of these guys who advocate for gun ownership and display pictures of themselves and their guns would love the opportunity to wield their guns somewhere besides on the firing range, that’s pretty unlikely to happen.  What they really get out of having guns is feeling a sense of empowerment.  Guns are just big toys that make them feel tough and strong – better than a big pickup truck!  And the bigger the gun the tougher they feel.  It is time for our country to stop feeding this image of the tough white guy.  The #MeToo movement ought to be a wakeup call reminding us that men in this country already have an outsized entitlement problem.  Allowing them to carry guns that are only meant to hurt other people simply puts those who choose not to own guns at risk.  All of these gun advocates will tell you that they are the ‘good guys’ and they’re here to protect us from the ‘bad guys’.  But when I see how angry they get when they think their ‘rights’ are being threatened, I do not trust them not to turn into the bad guys.  And it perpetuates the belief that there are lots of evil people out there who need to be deterred with guns.  It encourages the idea that shooting someone is a legitimate way of solving problems.   

As Abraham Kaplan reminds us, “The First Law of the Instrument states that if you give a boy a hammer, he suddenly finds that everything needs pounding.”  And if you’re a guy carrying a gun and itching to use it, you’re much more likely to skip over any other possibilities for resolving conflicts.  Even cops supposedly trained in other tactics too often jump directly to using a gun in a tense situation.  Look what happened to Charleena Lyles, a tiny, pregnant woman shot to death by Seattle police.  You can’t tell me that some civilian hot-shot with a gun is going to react any better.   

And you’ll notice I’m mostly talking about white guys here.  You’ll never convince me that if a handful of black men attempted to stage a protest while carrying their legally authorized guns they would get off as easily as Ammon Bundy and his crew.   

The United States constitution is an amazing document, and in many ways the authors had the foresight to consider that things might change in the future.  But for the American public to hold so tightly to this one sentence is ridiculous.  It is time for us as a people to declare that, other than law enforcement or military, there is no place in our country for individuals to own and carry guns whose only purpose is to kill many people quickly.  We need to stop placating the egos of white men and start thinking about the lives of everyone else who is at risk of suicide, assault, accident, or murder.  We can say ‘Yes’ to a short list of guns for hunting or personal self-defense, but we need to say ‘No’ to everything else.  No, No, No.  Give up the idea that you should try to rationalize or compromise.  Our integrity as human beings is at stake.  Just say NO.  Go ahead, practice saying that: NO, NO, NO…

Advocacy at its worst

I have begun this post at least three times on paper, and many more in my head.  What I’m really trying to sort out for myself is what the actual difference is between those who so adamantly oppose even any talk about gun control and those of us who believe that we need a whole lot fewer guns available in our communities.  It seems to me that if we can’t zero in on addressing some of their concerns, we won’t make any progress on this issue.  Recently, because I saw some comments on a friend’s post (not by her) that said they had guns to keep their families safe, I thought, “Maybe that’s it.  They’re just afraid.”  And, indeed, Pew research shows that the percentage of gun owners who named protection as the main reason has steadily risen from 26% in 1999 to 67% in 2017.  There is a lot more research on the demographics of gun ownership that you can find for yourself.  The Pew Research Center is a good place to start.  But, back to this idea of fear as a motivator for gun ownership.  The Pew Research Center also has statistics on violent crime which shows that it has declined significantly in the past 25 years.  I don’t want to get into arguing the rationality of their fear based on statistics but there just isn’t any evidence that people are in more danger than they were in 1999. 

But they said they feel the need to have a gun to protect their family and I wanted to know why.  After all, I’ve never felt the need to have a gun, or any other weapon really, to protect myself.  And I thought if we could understand their fears, maybe we can find some other ways to help them feel safe.  So, on that same Facebook post, I tried asking that question – plain and simple.  What makes you feel so threatened that having a gun in the house is necessary?  The first response I got referenced Nazi Germany, government overreach, and the right to bear arms.  Um, okay.  So, I tried again to get them to answer specifically how they would use their guns to protect themselves from ‘government overreach’.  This was only the beginning of the response I received, “First of all what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you? What makes your "feelings" more important then (sic) my constitutional rights?”  I think you can see where this is going.  Nowhere in my comments did I actually say anything about gun control or how I felt about anything other than making this statement, “we certainly seem to have a culture that values guns over human lives.”  Anyway, it got much more irrational from there.  He even added this quote (probably wrongly) attributed to Thomas Jefferson, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”  I checked this person’s Facebook page and, at the same time he was ranting about government overreach he was carrying on about respecting the flag and ranting that kneeling during the national anthem was disrespectful to the flag.  So, do you support our country (and its national symbols) or not?  And if you don’t, you can take up arms in resistance but others can’t kneel.  Got it.

And, while I hate to generalize, I see these same sentiments every time I try to explore what it is about gun advocates – because that’s what they are, advocates, not just owners.  There are those who feel the need to have a small hand gun for protection (which I still don’t understand) and those who have a few hunting rifles, but I wouldn’t call them “advocates”.  I met a guy one time who had the 2^nd amendment tattooed on his arm!  And there is a town in Georgia that has a law requiring every household to have a gun.  That’s advocacy!  The truth is, people in the gun advocacy camp see the world much differently than those of us who don’t see much need for personal gun ownership.  They seem to see a world full of evil and much of that evil is projected out onto other people, particularly blacks, Latinos, immigrants, gays, non-Christians – basically anyone who isn’t straight, white, and male.  They seem to believe that those other people are out to harm them by stealing their stuff, assaulting them, using their taxes to pay for ‘welfare pregnancies’ or abortions, forcing their daughters to use the same bathroom as transgender women, protesting against police violence, getting married, not getting married (and having sex anyway), praying to a different god or praying to the same god in a different way, and a host of other bad behaviors.  And their way of defending themselves against all of this bad behavior is to have one or more big guns with lots of fire power.  At the same time, they insist they have, and teach their children, a respect for guns and (innocent) life and that they would never harm anyone except in defense of themselves or their families – all the while posting pictures of their guns or pictures of themselves holding or wearing their guns, or both.  It’s a “don’t mess with me, I’m a tough guy” attitude.  It’s a CULTURE – a culture that thrives on being right, being in power, and having privilege.

So what conclusion have I come to about all of this?  In general, gun advocates believe they’re right about everything, that their way of seeing the world is the only right way, and that they need to defend that way of seeing the world with big guns.  Their stated fears are not logical, rational, or based on any statistical information.  They refuse to place any value on all of the statistics that show that more guns mean more gun violence.  They want their guns, all their guns, and they believe that the right to have guns is a major foundation of their freedom.  Having a gun means you’re free – no matter how likely it is that you or anyone in your family will ever be physically threatened and no matter how many innocent people die for that freedom in mass shootings.

And under those circumstances, the two sides, mine and theirs, will never be able to have a useful dialogue about the issue.  When one side believes their way is the only right way and they get angry at any questions from the other side, there is no room for trying to understand and find some places for compromise.  Even a seemingly heartfelt appeal by a gun advocate misses the mark.  “Pro-gun people believe that owning a gun is one step of many in helping to keep their families safe and their government from becoming too tyrannical.  Anti-gun people believe that the mere existence of a gun is a danger to all. But note that both sets of people desire safety in general.”  This writer admitted that he has no expertise, and his statement above bears that out.  There are statistics that show that the ‘pro-gun’ beliefs are not based in reality and that the existence of guns results in more gun violence.  He then goes on to propose a solution to prevent more school shootings that includes posting armed retired cops and military at all schools and arming teachers and all other school personnel – more guns to solve the problem of guns.  I just can’t go there!

My goal in starting down this path on this subject was to explore ways to honestly engage with the opposition – being a ‘liberal’, that’s what we do!  In this case, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s just not possible.  So, I believe it is time to invoke that Last Jedi quote, “That’s how we’re going to win.  Not fighting what we hate but saving what we love.”  I won’t quit working for more stringent gun control but I will definitely quit trying to engage with gun advocates.

If you’re interested in some good articles on the issue, try these:

Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

America As A Gun Culture

Capitalism and Facebook

I’m pretty sure that most of us who ‘Facebook’ have posted or shared something – a photo, a meme, a story, a video – that, at first glance, seems to support our position on a particular issue.  I say we, because I’ve done it myself.  (I’ve taken the example above from a friend’s post but do not mean to call out that person over any of the rest of us.)  The problem with doing that, and I’ll go into this specific example below, is that often those snippets tend to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information.  They sound good on the surface but they do not really tell the whole story.  From what I’ve seen, they don’t lead to honest, thoughtful dialogue, but instead, to anger, name-calling, or self-righteous agreement – with no room for anything in between. And without room for real dialogue, I just don’t see the point.  Most of the issues that I and my friends care about are far too complicated for Facebook.  Obviously, when we post these things on social media we’re looking for something.  But I doubt we’re getting what we want.

What I really want to talk about is capitalism and wages.  I’m still working on expanding my own understanding of capitalism, and economics in general, so I definitely don’t have the answers.  But I want to explore the thinking and assumptions behind this particular issue as part of my process. 

The basis of capitalism requires that some people do actual work and others invest capital in that work, or the equipment and supplies needed to do the work.  Those who invest expect a return on their investment – they want to get back more than they put in.  They’re the ‘capitalists’, though they are now called shareholders.  And these days, the whole goal of most companies is to provide the largest return on investment for their shareholders.  Of course, one way to increase the profits is to keep the wages of the workers as low as possible.

The people who do the work get paid for their work, usually an hourly rate or by salary or piecework.  Whatever it is, we’ve created this notion that the income of labor is based on merit, and we, therefore, earn what we deserve and deserve what we earn.  I think I bought into this idea for a long time but I’m starting to see that it’s just not that simple.  As we all know, the gap in pay between the workers and executive management in most fields has grown obscenely wide.  In 2015 the Huffington Post reported that in 2014 the gap between the median wage and the CEO salaries was 204-1!  So, the unequal distribution of the wealth of a company is another way that worker wages are kept low.
I agree that, based on the wealth generated in this country, workers should get a higher proportion of the wealth than they do.  But the argument being made in the meme does not address the complications and even assumes that the issue of out-of-reach rent could be solved by increased wages.

This is where I get back to the failure of Facebook posts to accurately inform or make room for dialogue.  The post above makes assumptions, statements, and calculations that are all questionable.  “The average US rent is $1234/month.”  My first question is, “where did that statistic come from?”  And for what size home or apartment – an adequate 600 square foot, one bedroom apartment for one person; a studio; two bedrooms?  And, generally, using the median rather than the average for a statistic like this is more accurate.  The next statement: “for rent to cost less than a quarter of income, as suggested…”  As suggested by whom?  I have never heard that rent should be less than 25% of income.  In my experience and through various Google searches, the standard suggested percentage is 33%.  That figure can be challenged, and in some cities it’s probably an impossible standard, but suggesting that the standard is 25% is just a way of making the argument stronger.  And then the calculations… the figures in the example are based on working 160 hours in a month (40 hours/week X 4 weeks).  In reality, the average, standard work hours in a month is 173 (52 weeks X 40 hours / 12 months).  As for the minimum wage, $7.25/hour is the federal minimum wage.  However, based on state and territory minimum wage laws in place in 2016, the average minimum a worker would actually earn is $8.51/hour.  More than half of the states or territories had a minimum wage above the federal standard in 2016 and many have laws or indices in place that will increase the minimum wage over time. It’s not that any one of these things constitutes such a big difference but the whole goal of this post is to get you riled up by drawing a comparison between a perceived, unjust minimum and some more reasonable or necessary hourly wage.  Every inaccuracy or half-truth along the way makes for a bigger gap, which then reinforces the intended goal of the statement.

And this is where social media fails.  These things are designed to get you riled up!  They are not intended to provide accurate information or thoughtful ideas around which you can have a reasonable dialogue or make personal decisions about your own behavior or actions.  And for those of us who truly care about issues of fair pay or a dysfunctional economic system, about sexism, or racism, or environmental degradation, or poverty, or homelessness, or bullying, or gun control…(the list is endless) – we need real information and real dialogue.  We think we’re saying something when we share a meme but, instead, we’re dumbing down the issue.  And, unfortunately, I think that this way of engaging is creeping into our lives and our face-to-face interactions.  We’ve gotten so used to these short, pointed commentaries that we think we know something – about the issue or about the person who posted the meme – and we just don’t look any deeper.  This is not how we will make progress in creating a world that works for everyone.  We’re smarter than that!

As I review what I’ve just written I see that this whole post is an example of the type of distraction these memes cause.  When I began this post I really wanted to talk about the idea of the “minimum wage” and about our expectations of the space we need to live.  I wanted to talk about the evolving perceptions of needs verses wants and about rampant consumerism that has had a significant impact on how much money we think we need.  Instead, I wasted the time it took to write this post on trying to discredit the supposed conclusion of a single meme posted on Facebook that I should have just ignored.  Maybe next time I’ll write about something that really matters.