This Is Family, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise
March 26, 2011 Martha Thomases 0 Comments
Some time in the early 1970s, my mother decided to fly an American flag in our front yard. At that time, many assumed that only conservative supporters of the War in Viet Nam would fly the flag. “It’s my country, too,” my mom said. “It’s my flag, and opposing the war is a patriotic position.”
Questioning conventional assumptions about political rhetoric is something I inherited from my parents. You might say it’s a family value.
When I turn on a television talk show, there are frequently guests who claim to represent family values. By this, they mean they are anti-choice, anti-gay and, most recently, pro-bullying.
That’s not my family. That’s not how I was raised.
In my family, when we celebrated Passover with a Seder, we learned that the Jewish people had been slaves in Egypt, and because we were freed, we had an obligation to stand up for anyone anywhere who was oppressed.
In my family, we learned that children were so important that Dad left the office every day at five o’clock so he could be home for dinner, instead of working 80 hours a week to make a lot of money.
In my family, we learned that we were part of a larger community, and to fulfill some of this responsibility, Mom spent at least one afternoon a week volunteering at a senior home.
Later, we learned that this responsibility extended to the political arena. If we wanted the war to end, we couldn’t sit back and just yell at the television (although that was fun). We had to get out and do something.
I’ve tried to bring these values to my own family. I’ve tried to expand them, based on the experiences I’ve had filtered through my parents’ values. For example, my parents didn’t really talk much about gay rights when I was a kid. My mom’s stories about feeling ostracized for being Jewish in the 1930s, when many of her neighbors had pro-Nazi feelings, helped me empathize with the stories gay people told about the closet..
I’m sick of being told by James Dobson and Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee that I’m not pro-family. I think we need to start a progressive group that represents real family values, like tolerance and generosity, loyalty and love. Instead of obsessing about which consenting adult is rubbing which body parts against which other consenting adult, we should be demanding decent, affordable health care for all bodies. Instead of arguing about when life begins (which might be interesting on a philosophical or theological basis, but not in politics), we should be encouraging businesses to enable parents to enjoy the children they have by paying living wages and keeping reasonable hours.
We’re families, too. The fun kind.
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, is looking forward to seeing her baby this week.
Doug Abramson
March 26, 2011 - 1:07 pm
Martha,
I like YOUR version of family values. I’ve been saying many of the same things for years. America is still haunted by the warped world view of the Puritans. Sometimes I think that we’d been better off if the Mayflower had sunk.
Martha Thomases
March 26, 2011 - 1:53 pm
@Doug: In my family, we enjoy having bodies.
Tuesday, I saw Dan Savage and Terry Miller at a local Barnes & Noble, hyping their new IT GETS BETTER book. Dan said that, while Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Franken, and even David Cameron (the Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain) had all made videos, no Republicans (except a state senator) was willing to go on camera and say gay kids shouldn’t kill themselves.
Howard Cruse
March 26, 2011 - 2:18 pm
The Republicans have been re-writing the language for quite a while now. What’s annoying is the way Democrats let them get away with it.
pennie
March 26, 2011 - 2:53 pm
Martha, if it takes a village to raise a child, with all of those families, how many villages does it take to raise a Boehner?
Mike Gold
March 26, 2011 - 3:55 pm
“…no Republicans (except a state senator) was willing to go on camera and say gay kids shouldn’t kill themselves.” But if those kids are looking for somebody to kill, I’ve got a list. Enough of this shit. These people are tyrants. Defend yourself. Want to stop bullying? Enroll your kids in self-defense classes. I guarantee you, they will rarely if ever have to use their martial arts skills, but they will learn self-respect and they will learn the importance of respecting others.
Howard, honest patriots who have actually read the Constitution and are capable of understanding it lost the war of words decades and decades ago (“‘Love it or leave it?’ Fuck you. Move it or lose it. I love this nation and I’m working my ass off to make it healthy.” Me, circa 1969.) My beautiful marriage was not jeopardized one whit once gay marriage became legal here in Connecticut; sorry to see these self-righteous right wing religious bigots have such flimsy marriages that can be undermined so easily simply by somebody else’s love. My family is great; too bad about theirs. We get what we deserve.
And Pennie, sometimes you make it too easy.
pennie
March 26, 2011 - 4:31 pm
Mike, I just couldn’t lay off…
Sanctimonious they are. Back in the day, Buddy Holly knew True Love Ways far better than these miscreants ever will.
Martha Thomases
March 26, 2011 - 5:02 pm
It continues to amaze me that “family” means so many different things to different people. I can’t understand how a parent might want a child to be a suicide bomber, but the newspaper tells me it happens. I can’t imagine ostracizing a child who might be LGBT, but Pennie can testify that it happens.
These are among the reasons we need to take the words back.
pennie
March 26, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Okay, all jokes aside now, Martha just kicked me to a different level.
Does family mean acceptance?
Not so much for so many.
Does family come with cold rules–live as “we” do; as we want you to?
Or does family mean, “You’re included if you subscribe to the same magazines; cook the same recipes; love the way we do?”
I claim the words that shape my life; that contain the greatest meanings. No one can steal these from me. I won’t let them. Like so many others, I’ve staked my life on it. Martha knows.
Mike Gold
March 26, 2011 - 7:30 pm
Family is a group of people who realize, on some level, that no matter what, we’re stuck with each other. Positive and negative, you can’t get rid of ’em. Even if you shoot your father dead, he’s still your father. For good and for bad and even for nothing.
MOTU
March 26, 2011 - 10:00 pm
Mike,
I may be wrong (I was…once) but don’t a lot of school shootings take place in nice little middle class GOP districts? I may be wrong again but is not being bullied one of the reasons some kids bust a cap in some other kids because they have simply had enough?
This I KNOW I’m not wrong about-the GOP really thinks what they believe is what we ALL should believe.
I’m simply amazed that in the year 2011 there are educated people in the world that think if you are not like them then you are less than they are and must be put in their place.
It seems to me that the GOP is really a Muslim extremist group without Allah.
ettacandy
March 27, 2011 - 5:25 am
You really nailed it. Martha.
I’ve always bristled at misuse of the word family.
A couple of times recently I’ve had to explain to people (my own relatives) that I too, have a family and they would do well to respect that.
The righteous see others as being invisible by their definition.
I got news for them…
Mike Gold
March 27, 2011 - 6:19 am
MOTU, you’re certainly damn close to being totally correct. Both the GOP and the NRA are right: these kids need to go to school armed, preferably with 31 round clips. Hand it to them as they enter their schools (instead of making them go through the metal detector), get the guns back as they leave. In this way the community remains safe and we’re just one Columbine-style fart away from solving with our overpopulation problem.
This, in turn, will dramatically improve the environment and within one generation totally cure our dependence on foreign oil and resolve climate change. This will make the liberals, and the sacrifice of our future generations will inure to our benefit. Oddly, it’ll be the religious right who will likely oppose this.
And dramatically reduce the price of the PlayStation 4-D.
Ed
March 27, 2011 - 6:26 am
It goes without saying that right-wingers think everyone — including left-wingers — ought to have the same values as right-wingers. But honestly, don’t we left-wingers believe just as strongly that right-wingers should change their minds and adopt the left-wing perspective?
Whitney
March 27, 2011 - 6:41 am
pennie –
How many villages does it take to raise a Boehner?
I guess zero. He is feral, which explains his dark outdoorsey tan.
Kidding aside, there is a reason we have an expression about ‘crocodile tears’. A cold-blooded creature might bait its prey with a false visage in order to lure them into striking distance.
To cry, you don’t need a heart. Just a camera crew.
Martha Thomases
March 27, 2011 - 7:09 am
Ed said, “But honestly, don’t we left-wingers believe just as strongly that right-wingers should change their minds and adopt the left-wing perspective?”
Maybe? Personally, as long as they keep their perspectives out of my business (and my bedroom, and my body), I’m okay with them believing whatever they like.
pennie
March 27, 2011 - 9:13 am
Mike wrote, “Family is a group of people who realize, on some level, that no matter what, we’re stuck with each other. Positive and negative, you can’t get rid of ‘em. Even if you shoot your father dead, he’s still your father. For good and for bad and even for nothing.”
Sure. Biologically speaking, one’s living presence on this earth generally resulting from some sort of sperm and ova meeting–back alley, petrie dish, turkey baster, whatever… There was a biological construct.
But, I disagree with your definition. “Family is a group of people who realize…”
What if some refute that realization and they choose to get unstuck–permanently.
“Positive or negative, you can’t get rid of them.”
Really? They can get rid you “you.” And have.
Sure, biologically, the man who provided sperm remains the donor and can legally be classified as father. Same with the mother.
In so many other crucial ways–not so much.
pennie
March 27, 2011 - 9:15 am
Whitney–with Bonehead, the amazing part to me is how this pre-fabricated construct gets away with it all. He’s like one of those Hollywood sets–all veneer and no substance.
Doug Abramson
March 27, 2011 - 10:39 am
pennie,
I think that you just insulted over a hundred years of set designers. In the proper context, they at least look authentic. Boner on the other hand…
Mike Gold
March 27, 2011 - 11:38 am
Pennie, I understand where you’re coming from and I respect that journey and admire its conclusion of survival. So I won’t drag this into the hell of semantics, except to emphasize the word “REALIZE.” If that group doesn’t realize they’re stuck with each other, then they’re not a family.
My definition. Not one I heard on the 700 Club.
pennie
March 27, 2011 - 3:21 pm
Doug, you’re right.My apologies to those set imaginative designers. I think you understand the point of my image–all illusory–a facade.
pennie
March 27, 2011 - 3:31 pm
Mike,
I understand and appreciate yours.
In retrospect, your definition applies with the foundation being that abstract: realization.
The fragile and real need for familial acceptance crumbles under the consuming weight of bigotry, phobias and maintenance of some absurd facade of “normality.”
Priorities.
A 50’s sitcom notion of unconditional love is often delivered with far too many demanded conditions. With a blatant disregard for one’s own true condition.
R. Maheras
March 27, 2011 - 5:29 pm
The stereotypes on this thread are so thick it’s quite disconcerting.
As a kid I was bullied until my junior year in high school, when I finally grew tall enough to give various bullies pause. Before that I was usually the class runt, so I know a thing or two about being bullied.
I was white, male, straight, and a Protestant.
Who were the bullies? They were white, black, big, small, straight, gay (at least one was bi-sexual, since he later married), and were of varying religious backgrounds (probably even a few were atheists).
None of the bullies, as I can recall, were female, although most of the more “popular” girls wouldn’t have anything to do with me. Was that psychological bullying? You tell me.
Back then, one’s stature amongst peers in the middle grades was measured by the number of Valentines Day cards one received (back in my day it was not mandatory for students to give them to everyone in class), and the number of classmates who showed up for your birthday party.
The one time in grammer school when I was lucky enough for my folks to be able to afford a birthday party for me (5th or 6th grade, I think), only five classmates showed up. And if you think that’s bad, one time I was the ONLY other kid to show up at a classmate’s birthday party, so to me five attendees was a moral victory.
As far as classmates intervening on my behalf against bullies went, I only remember one incident in 7th or 8th grade where a couple of black female classmates chased off a group of three or four white kids who had me cornered and were going to kick my ass. Other than that, I was usually on my own. Consequently, I did a lot of running home and/or sneaking out of back doors at school.
All of this is why, today, I try very hard to avoid stereotypes — when it comes to bullies, politics, or almost everything else. It gives too many scumbags a free pass from scrutiny.
Martha Thomases
March 27, 2011 - 8:38 pm
@R: I haven’t been dealing with misleading stereotypes in my column nor my subsequent comments. While statistics don’t apply to every situation, they are useful tools for studying problems (and, unfortunately, often for lying about them). More than half of all bullying involves homophobia. The fact that you were bullied (which is awful) but not because you were perceived as gay does not negate the statistic.
I was the recipient of hundreds of in-school notes in my sophomore year in which I was called a dyke. I’m not,nor was I then but it’s still homophobia.
And it’s a fact that Dan Savage has been trying to find Republicans who will say they think gay kids shouldn’t kill themselves, and not one (with the exception I noted) has done so.
Doug Abramson
March 27, 2011 - 8:48 pm
R.
I’m not sure where you’re coming from this time. I re-read the entire thread, most of the comments are from personal experience or observations. Some of the ones that could be called cheap shots, mine included, are directed at public or historical figures. The comments directed at the GOP or Christian Right as a whole, aren’t any more numerous than any other political thread here.
R. Maheras
March 28, 2011 - 10:25 am
Doug wrote: “I’m not sure where you’re coming from this time.”
Interesting, since you started the whole thing with the comment, “America is still haunted by the warped world view of the Puritans.”
The Puritan’s world view influenced early America, but so did the world view of other religions. And just because you disagree with some of the tenets of early Judeo-Christian religious societies in America does not mean they were “warped” in the context of their historical era.
Would America be a better and more tolerant place today if we had adopted the historical mores of the Incas, the Apaches, Arabs, Bantus, Chinese, or any other religion/culture from that era?
I sincerely doubt it. The “Puritan” world view you apparently despise is the same one that allowed for the creation of the Magna Carta, and later, the U.S. Constitution — both of which led to the Democratic and more open society we have today.
The fact is, it was the Puritan/Judeo-Christian world view that led to America’s (and the world’s) entire foundation of individual rights and laws, and the idea that the average Schmoe is just as important as the mightiest of kings.
And before anyone starts up about the early democratic efforts of the ancient Greeks and Romans, keep in mind both societies were male dominated, embraced slavery, and saw nothing wrong with conquering, looting and mass murdering their neighboring cultures on a scale that would make today’s despots green with envy.
Doug Abramson
March 28, 2011 - 10:52 am
R,
The Puritans had nothing to do with the Magna Carta, everyone in England was Catholic at the time. Martin Luther and Henry VIII were a couple hundred years later. The Puritans were a noisy blip on history whose influence on social thinking in this country have outlasted most of their sects. Most of the signers of the Constitution were “Mainline” Protestants that had embraced the Enlightenment, if they were religious at all. I’m talking about the people that banned Christmas, executed a king and tortured innocent people for being witches. Not many of those around today. I was taking a shot at a purely historical group. Now, for your “point” about my Puritan comments, I did exclude all of my comments on this thread when I was defending most of the rest from your charges of too many stereotypes.
John Tebbel
March 28, 2011 - 11:19 am
There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian” beyond the world of some Christian fundamentalists who seek bogus historical cover for some of their more unsupportable ethical excursions. Jews never use it, unless they’re passing. Most of the ethical world of the Jews was specifically denied by St. Paul. (How many converts would he have gotten if he hadn’t been able to fudge the circumcision thing, not to mention Pulled Pork.)
It was exactly the Jewish and Christian leaders, men I’ll remind all, that gave the moral underpinning to centuries of despots and monarchs, ruling wisely or not by their divine right.
Check out “To the Finland Station” by Edmund Wilson, a story of how humans stole history back from the kings and priests (SFX: expectoration).
R. Maheras
March 28, 2011 - 4:26 pm
Doug — I never said the Puritans wrote the Magna Carta. I said “the ‘Puritan’ world view you apparently despise is the same one that allowed for the creation of the Magna Carta.”
I specifically put quotation marks around Puritan because the Puritans, the Catholics and all of the other European religions based on the Bible all used the same fundamental moral code with which to base their laws on. The drafters of the Magna Carta and the Constitution did not use the moral code of the Incas, Bushmen, Atheists-R-Us, or any other religion/culture to create these foundations of individual rights.
John — Those who deny there was such a thing as a “Judeo-Christian” moral code are grasping at straws. Both religions use the Old Testament as a fundamental basis for their moral codes/laws, so both have much more in common than, say, Mayans and Jews, or Christians and Zoroastrians.
And while it’s true that it was Jewish and Christian leaders who “gave the moral underpinning to centuries of despots and monarchs,” it was also Jewish and Christian leaders who broke the back of rule by “devine right,” and gave the common man and woman rights undreamt of at any other time in history.
Doug Abramson
March 28, 2011 - 8:07 pm
R,
The Puritans were an extreme sect. They read the same scripture as the people who built Europe and our government, but they interpreted it in an extreme manner that those people did not. All the Puritans built was part of New England, leaving a cultural shadow that makes many Americans preoccupied with who and how their neighbors are fucking; and a shame about their own bodies’ physical needs. Neither of which has anything to do with what made America great. They are cultural flaws that we as a people have had to overcome, with limited success. That is why I sometimes wish that they had wound up on the bottom of the Atlantic instead of New England.
R. Maheras
March 28, 2011 - 10:48 pm
A few more comments about being bullied in general…
The upside of being bullied as a kid is it made me more cautious, quick-witted, self sufficient, stubborn, forward-thinking and it made me realize that no matter how hard you try, it’s impossible to make everyone “like” you.
Other benefits that I did not discover until much, much later? I found out I was fundamentally “anti-hazing” long before it was fashionable (hazing is nothing more than organizational bullying), and I found out I had an automatic anti-bully “gut check” that helped me keep from abusing my position whenever I had power over peers or subordinates.
If I could do it all over again and call the shots, would I dump the portion of my life where I was terrorized by bullies? Probably. But, then again, if I did that, my whole outlook on life would have been very different — which may not necessarily have been a good thing.
Martha Thomases
March 29, 2011 - 5:41 am
@R: I’m not sure how to interpret your last comment. Are you saying that gay kids should be thankful that they’re bullied?
If you’re not, I don’t want to assume you do.
However, if you do, you’re missing my point. Bullying is not a family value in my family. In my family, we stand up against bullying. And in my family, we testify to LGBT kids that they shouldn’t kill themselves because they’re fabulous just the way they are.
R. Maheras
March 29, 2011 - 1:59 pm
My feelings are that being bullied is bad.
So is getting fired/laid off, being raised by a single (abandoned) mother, getting seriously ill/injured, having one’s house burn down, losing several loved ones/close friends, and repeatedly being unwillingly separated from my wife and family for long periods — all of which (among other things) I’ve had to deal with over the years.
Life can be very, very tough, and I think how one views and bounces back from its many adversities makes all the difference in the world.
Like you, I’m anti-bully. But I cannot honestly say that in my case dealing with bullies was a total negative. It toughened me and made me stubbornly self-reliant — all of which later helped me cope with the myriad of other adversities life saw fit to throw my way.
I too would tell a young person being bullied (gay or straight) that they are as important as anyone else, should believe in themselves and their abilities, and should not be intimidated by the bullies of the world.
I wouldn’t coddle them too much about it, however, because, based on my experience, the real world certainly won’t.
That said, if I see bullying taking place, I’ll step in and stop it if I can. For example, when I was a shop chief, my subordinates wanted to haze one of their co-workers who was getting ready to transfer. I said, “No.” They argued that such hazing was a tradition. I said, “Not any more,” and that was that.