Pleadings for Tolerance

I don’t care if people don’t agree with anything that I say or believe, if they hate all of my interpretations and every single one of my beliefs.  It really doesn’t matter to me.  Some of my closest friends and most trusted confidantes disagree with me on a huge number of my beliefs, especially many of those that I tend to post about on this blog.  So what I do care about is people having enough respect for the fact I am a (relatively) rational adult with the free will, freedom, and intelligence to make my own decisions, to form my own thoughts, and to have my own interpretations.

In today’s culture (and perhaps in the past as well), “tolerance” is a dirty, four-letter word among many Christians.  For some reason, they view it as a requirement to give up every one of their beliefs, to concede to total universalism, and to never even be used in expanding the Church.

I understand that fear, and while I find it ludicrous (and have probably addressed it elsewhere), that’s not what I’m talking about right here.  What I’m so incredibly twisted around about currently is the idea that, even among fellow Christian believers, there cannot be dissention, disagreements, or alternative interpretations.

I’ve said it before, in fact I said it incredibly recently on this very blog, but I will reiterate: for Christians, beyond the “essentials of Christianity” (usually defined as a handful of doctrines including man’s sinful nature, God’s holiness, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and the creation of the Church), there is much room for interpretations.  In fact, a Jewish rabbi once said that with every passage of Scripture there are thousands of ways to understand what it means.  Furthermore, even in Biblical times, there was valid and acceptable dissention in the early church.  Peter and Paul had sincere doctrinal disagreements.  Paul once said “Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.”  And while, according to my own arguments, this statement can be interpreted any number of ways, what I understand it to mean, in light of the context of the passage, is that different Christians can and will have sincere disagreements over doctrines, over how to act, over moral choices.  What matters is not coming to some universal agreement on every minutia, but instead to believe what we believe, act the way we have come to understand is correct, while keeping a watchful eye for situations in which some spiritual or other leadership role would cause our beliefs and actions to become “stumbling blocks” to others.

Additionally, the thought that it is every Christian’s job to “judge” their fellow believers is so beyond my comprehension, it’s laughable.  Jesus said, “Take the beam out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”  I’m not saying there is no place for encouraging and challenging your fellow believers to re-evaluate their actions or beliefs in light of Scriptures.  There is.  But I simply can’t wrap my head around the thought that, as a Christian, I have the right to walk up to any fellow believer, no matter my relationship with them, and, in judgment, try and force them to accede to my own beliefs and interpretations.

As I said, there is a role for constructive criticism, for accountability.  But, from what I’ve come to understand, this role should be (and is) fulfilled in my life by certain individuals who truly know me, have the opportunities and abilities to see the way that I both speak and live, and in whom there is a relationship of mutual respect.

If among believers as a whole there is no room for differing opinions, for alternate interpretations, for “agreeing to disagree,” for tolerance, the church, and ultimately the world, would be in a constant state of war.  Every believer would perpetually be trying to force their beliefs down every presumed Christian’s throat, and I don’t see any way other than it getting bloody at some point.  In my opinion, this thought that tolerance is unacceptable is simply dangerous. 

And while I, by nature of my own thoughts on the subject, will tolerate my fellow believers’ opposing views on tolerance, I must set up boundaries between myself and them if they choose to try and shove their beliefs down my throat.  I cannot have rational conversations with people who won’t even respect me enough to allow me to have differing opinions, who won’t tolerate my opposing views.

Ending Fat Shaming - Even If I Can't Write It Myself

I've been trying for a couple years now to reject society's notion that I should be utterly ashamed of the way that I look.  I can honestly say that I'm getting much better about it, but I'm not yet in a place where I can boldly proclaim, in my own words, my pride and my love for my appearance, for my curviness, and yes, for my fatness.  I can barely even write that last word.  But I need to claim it publicly if I'm ever going to, for any extended period of time, successfully stop hating this part of myself.  So I'm claiming the words of someone else who has written boldly and unashamedly about this subject for years.  Maybe one day I can do the same.

[This post was originally written by Melissa McEwan and posted on her blog.  I've edited some parts out of it and inserted a few personalizing touches.]

Fat Stereotype #9: Fat people don't know how they look.

As preface, I want to acknowledge that there are people with body dysmorphic disorders who are genuinely unaware of how their bodies actually look to other people, and many of us, to one degree or another, have some dissonance about some aspect our appearance when we, for example, see a picture of ourselves. This post is not about that. This post is about the concept of thin people (and sometimes other fat people) reflexively concluding a fat person is unaware of how she looks if she does not present herself in a way that conforms to cultural expectations about fat people's performance.

Not only are most fat people aware of "how we look," and the precise ways in which "how we look" deviates from the kyriarchal norm and fails to conform to what is considered acceptable for people of our size, we are also keenly aware of the negative commentary being delivered on "how we look" via the unsubtle judgmental gazes of body policers.

Internal judgment and external judgment conspire to ensure that we generally have a heightened awareness of both "how we look" and "how we are perceived"—which are often two different things.

But both of them are about deviating from the expectation that fat people should be seen as making some sort of demonstrable effort to be ashamed of their fat and hide it from view, which is second best to not existing at all.

In the comments of the last entry in the series, I observed: "One of the key things to understand about systemic fat hatred is that fat people are asked to be invisible. Once you understand that we are asked to keep ourselves from view, to take up less space, to be less noticeable, all the rest of it makes perfect sense. We are not even meant to visible, no less flashy about it."

We are meant to abide The Rules that prescribe not calling attention to ourselves, folding ourselves up to take up as little room as possible, and, crucially, seeking maximum coverage of our fat bodies by loose garments that mask our shapes.

In practical terms, this means that we are not supposed to wear anything that clings to and thus outlines fat; we are supposed to cover as much of our flesh as possible; we are supposed to strap our fat bodies into "shaping" garments that prevent unseemly jiggling; we are not supposed to wear anything that flatters our figure or suggests that we might be attractive and/or sexy; we are supposed to avoid anything that calls attention to ourselves at all.

The perfect outfit for a fat person is something black and shapeless. The justification is that it's "slimming." The reality is because it helps blend us into the background. Just another shapeless shadow.

(Fashion designers are happy to oblige in the shame department, routinely designing clothes for fat people—if they have plus-size lines at all—with the evident expectation that we are ashamed of our bodies.)

Thus, when a fat person—especially a fat woman, who has no purpose in life since she is axiomatically deemed unfuckable and hence worthless as a woman/sex object—refuses to be unseen, and instead demands to be seen, and/or refuses to live a life of discomfort, and instead wears what makes her feel good, when she lets her fat body hang out of her clothes, when she wears sleeveless shirts or short shorts, when her belly meets the breeze, when she dons bold colors and patterns and (gasp!) horizontal stripes, when she shows off fat flesh bedecked with brilliant tattoos, when she wears short hair (or long hair, depending on The Rules according to fat policers around her), when she insists on being a visible participant in life, she is thought to have no concept of what she looks like.

How could she go out of the house all openly fat like that? Doesn't she know people can see her body?! Doesn't she know people are judging her?! If she had any idea what people are thinking, she would cover herself up and have the decency to be ashamed of herself.

Because it is incomprehensible that anyone could be fat and content (or even happy!), it is inconceivable that a fat person who is unabashedly fat in public, who isn't remorsefully covering herself in eight yards of unflattering fabric to conceal herself in deference to the delicate gazes of body policers offended by her very existence, knows what she looks like and made the deliberate choice to look that way.

It is a radical notion that some of us are visibly fat ON PURPOSE.

Fat people who aren't conforming to The Rules on how we must exhibit remorse for failing to be invisible are not unaware of our transgressive appearance. We've made the conscious choice to reject the obligation to take up less space, physical and psychological, than we need.

We know "how we look" to you. We don't care. (At least not insomuch as we're going to let your opinion dictate how we present ourselves to the world.) What is important, the only thing that should matter, is how we look to ourselves.

Disagreement with that notion comes in many forms, the most frequent of which is the ubiquitous criticism that is some variation on, "She shouldn't be wearing that." Shouldn't be. As if it's a moral act.

The implication is that she should be, instead, wearing something more appropriate for a fat person; that is, something that better communicates she acknowledges her body is hideous and ought to be hidden. Something that renders her invisible.

That's straight-up eliminationism, and yet we give it a pass because of the profound cruelty of asking fat people to do it to themselves.

Fewer things more pointedly than that underscore that fat hatred is not about "health," but about aesthetics.

Which is why I'm slowly but determinedly giving up every last trace of any urge to hide myself for other people's pleasure and comfort. My once almost exclusively black-and-grey wardrobe is now filled with color. And the clothes are in the right size—not a size bigger to conceal my shape....I have worn sleeveless shirts all summer—Flabby Arms Meet World! I now have five tattoos that I unabashedly show off.

There are and will be people who wonder, sometimes loud enough that I can hear, if I don't know what I look like. I do. I look like someone who refuses to agree with the idea that I shouldn't exist.

All credits go to Melissa McEwan on Skakesville.  Original found at: http://www.shakesville.com/2012/07/fatsronauts-101.html

The Third Commandment and Politics

Why would someone post a political belief (of any kind or nature) on FB and then explicitly outlaw commenting or questions regarding the belief?  If you're going to post any opinion, political or otherwise, in a public forum, you should always be able and willing to back up your opinion.  Now this is especially true if you're going to be invoking the "will of God" as some form of justification for your personal opinion.

Now, I obviously am not one who tends to shy away from broadcasting my personal political beliefs in public forums (hence half of this blog's content).  But I don't believe that I've ever tried to silence dissension or discussion, and I've never backed away from defending my own beliefs.

Any time a person states an opinion, really of any kind, and then outlaws any further discussion of the matter, they come across as one of two things: an ignorant jerk decrying discussion because they literally have no response, or an arrogant asshole who believes that they can just broadcast their opinions as some form of gospel truth too lofty for debate.

Now beyond all of this, it really frustrates me when individuals of either political party use the name or will of God to prove their own personal political opinions.  It's all well and good to base your political opinions on your own religious or moral beliefs.  But to try and proclaim that the interpretations and conclusions you have  come to should be imposed upon the rest of the nation because you are somehow assured that it is the "will of God" is positively ludicrous.

It's just like any other interpretation of Scriptures or religion: there can be dozens or even hundreds of equally valid interpretations.  To claim that having one or the other interpretation of some mundane (and I use that word purposefully glibly) passage of the Bible is going against God's will is truthfully quite prideful.  We can all make our best, most well-educated guesses and conjectures regarding what the truth is and what God's true path is, but we just can't know for sure.  While, as Christians, we can be certain of some things (i.e. the essentials: God's holiness; man's sin; Jesus' birth, death and resurrection, etc.), there are many other things left up to human interpretation.  And on these things we may never know what God's will truly is until we meet Him face-to-face in the afterlife.

So I really can't understand how this basic concept of certain Scriptures being open for interpretation doesn't seem to be able to translate over into the American political arena.  Individual people or entire political parties seem to perpetually be claiming the right to "God's will."  And as I saw a commentor on MaddowBlog remark the other day, the Third Commandment says not to take the Lord's name in vain, so how dare we try and use God's name as a stamp of approval on every political opinion that we spew at the mouth?

So stop trying to bolster your own opinions and make yourselves feel more justified by strapping God's name to something.  God is far bigger, far wiser, and far more complex than our American political system could ever grasp.  Furthermore, as I've said before, God stopped trying to establish a true theocracy when the Biblical kingdom of Israel asked for its first king, so why on earth would we be so presumptuous as to believe that He suddenly wants us to set up one now?  Because only under a true theocracy can an agent of the government claim that they are acting out the will of God (especially if it comes to foreign policy matters).

Well, after all of that rambling, I guess I'll get off my soapbox with one final plea, bearing the risk of being obnoxiously repetitive: stop breaking the Third Commandment by invoking God's name to justify your own political beliefs.  Have your opinions.  Explain them freely and fully.  But don't claim moral and religious superiority over someone regarding a national political issue.  It's obnoxious, uncalled-for, and frankly, disrespectful of God's true name and will.