Hey, remember Jan Butler, the writer with the tenuous grip on logic and history? You know, the one who wrote that incredibly asinine letter to the RWR? Not only did she reply at Kate Rothwell’s blog, but she wrote a reply on her own blog, too.
I initially composed a point-by-point rebuttal on her blog, only to find it doesn’t allow comments by people without Blogger profiles. I’m posting my reply to her entry here instead:
But I find it both funny and very UNfunny that many of the people who are slinging the most vituperous arrows at ME are the same people who *claim* to stand for Free Speech in this Country, By Golly. You can’t censor us! How dare you! The culture demands diversity!
Oh, yeah?
You know, free speech? First Amendment? The one that enables them to make a book or a website or a movie or a joke as smutty as they like, and I don’t dare tell them they can’t?
Yeah, THAT First Amendment. But what has happened to MY First Amendment protection?
First of all: If your reply to the claim that “you can’t censor us” is to point to the First Amendment, which indeed guarantees the freedom of speech (among other things), may I say that there’s something seriously wrong with your logic? It sounds like you’re saying the First Amendment protects your right to censor our opinions, and really, it doesn’t. It’s sloppy reasoning, sloppy writing or both on your part.
Second of all, if you could point to posts that cried for you to be censored, or even that the RWR should never have published your letter, I’d greatly appreciate to you linking to them. I’ve read quite a few of those posts, and while the “wow, this woman needs to get a clue and learn some history” responses loomed large on the landscape, I read precious few that seriously argued that you had no right to your (asinine and poorly-reasoned) opinion.
In short, there weren’t any serious calls for you to be censored. What you got instead, dear lady, were a whole slew of people disagreeing with your point of view—vigorously, and yeah, oftentimes rudely. But vigorous disagreement does not constitute censorship. You disagreed with an aspect of our culture, you wrote a letter, a whole hell of a lot of people disagreed right back, and all of a sudden, you’re being denied your right to free speech? I call bullshit. What you’re witnessing, in fact, is other people exercising their First Amendment rights.
When you take a crucifix and dip it in urine, I’m supposed to bite my tongue and consider that art. It’s NOT. It’s smut, and a sacrilege. But I don’t dare SAY so, or I’m interfering with your freedom of expression, I’m a fascist, I’m a right-winger nutjob…
That first two sentences are so flagrantly untrue, I’m somewhat flabbergasted. Critics disagree all the time on what constitutes art and what doesn’t. You’re certainly free to express your take. I’d like to point out that what you did in that letter to the RWR, however, wasn’t just expressing that opinion: you actively called for the RWA to enact and enforce certain standards—standards that would’ve been de facto censorship within the organization. And THAT’s why we’re calling you a conservative asshat. Mind you, we (or at least, I and all the other bloggers I read who responded to you) didn’t say you didn’t have a right to that opinion. We just thought it was an excessively fuckwitted opinion—a poorly-argued one that would be a very bad idea to pay attention to.
…which brings me to my point. Which is, that First Amendment provisions apparently only cover those who are espousing a point of view which is NOT to the right of center. Those of us who have even the whisper of conservativism about us? We’re nutjobs.
Funny, I don’t find it there, either. But you certainly wouldn’t know it by the reception I’ve gotten to my remarks. I’ve been called hateful and bigoted. I’ve been made fun of for being a Christian, for having conservative interests listed under my blog profiles, and even for supporting the President…as if those very beliefs and practices are not only distasteful, but somehow mark me as somewhat less than human.
Again, if you could point to the piece of legislation that prevents you from having or expressing an opinion, either positive or negative, about an artwork, I’d greatly appreciate it. Hell, if you can find that sort of opinion expressed in the blogs that disagreed with you, I’d appreciate it if you’d point that out, too.
The First Amendment protects your right to free speech—that is, unless it’s deemed obscene, or unless it constitutes a nuisance, such as yelling on a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 a.m., or unless it’s speech that’s a form of conduct, such as fraud or incitations to violence. It also protects the speech of everyone who disagrees with you. Is this so hard to grasp? And yeah, that means that if we want to call you a nutjob, we can—oh, that wacky First Amendment. If you really do seek redress, and if what we say provides you with sufficient fodder for a libel suit, then by all means, you can attempt to sue.
And frankly, your beliefs and practices ARE distasteful to me. That’s why I disagree as violently as I do—contempt and outrage are pretty powerful fuels. I don’t, however, think of you as less than human for holding such different core beliefs. Now, if I wrote to the RWR asking that books featuring monogamous heterosexual Christians falling in love not be labeled “romance” because Christianity is such a blight on reason and secularism, and look, look, so many pedophiles identify as Christian, this must mean there’s something wrong with Christianity itself—now, if I did that, you’d have a much better case for that assertion.
And some of you went to a lot of trouble to find something to pick on me for, which means that…just maybe…there really weren’t a lot of holes in my letter to begin with.
Actually, lots of people pointed out lots of different holes in your letter—none of which you bothered to address. Feel free to refresh your memory by reading my reaction to your letter, or Kate’s, or any of a slew of other responses.
But I’d just like to know what part of the First Amendment allows you to do that to me. Because it doesn’t. And you know it doesn’t. And you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for doing it.
The part of the First Amendment that allowed us to poke fun at you for your fuckwittery is this one right here: “Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
The First Amendment, alas, does not have any provisos regarding courtesy in speech or the manner in which debates should be conducted.
You know, kids, freedom of speech has to apply to everybody, or it’s not free. If I am considered “repressive” and “hateful” for being shocked at things that ought to shock anyone with a scintilla of decency…then you need to be called “repressive” and “hateful” for hating my doing so. Protection of the law works both ways, or it’s no law at all.
The unfortunate fact—one borne out by these attacks—is that we no longer have a concept of “rights” that protect anyone but those who stand on the left side of the creek. Those of us—and there are a whole lot more of us out here—who stand on the right side…well, a whole lot of you apparently just wish we’d go the hell away. Die, preferably.
Your continued insistence at conflating a disagreement carried over the internet with actual legislation would be funny if it weren’t so tiresome and, well, so completely missing the point. But then you conflated pedophilia with consensual adult homosexual relations, so that’s not much of a surprise there.
And speaking as somebody who’s a pretty dedicated pacifist: no, I don’t wish harm on people who disagree with me, much less hope that they’d die. I do wish they’d change their mind, or if they can’t do that, then at least stop meddling in private affairs that aren’t theirs to meddle with. However, your projection of that violent desire onto a whole bunch of strangers is interesting—and telling.
Tangentially: Why is it that as soon as somebody disagrees with a certain type of extremist, they start squawking about their free speech rights being trampled on? All this malarkey about free speech is a smokescreen, and an exceptionally poor one, at that, because nobody’s free speech rights have been restricted so far. If you’d address the points we made about how what you propose is de facto censorship, or provide proof for your assertions about the history of romance novels, or, hell, explain how NAMBLA and adult homos engaging in consensual sex are connected, that’d at least give us a chance to get to the heart of the disagreements, instead of crying about having one’s free speech repressed. Debating the finer points of the morality of homogaiety would actually give me something to really dig into and provide me with an opportunity to sound like a pedantic asshole in new and interesting ways on this site, instead of my usual pedantic assholery.
I think what Gibson said was offensive as hell, but, good god, can’t someone be forgiven if they sincerly regret doing something.
The problem with Gibson’s apology wasn’t that it wasn’t sincere, it’s that it wasn’t truthful. He claimed he said things he didn’t believe. I don’t for one single, solitary moment buy that.
What people say when they are drunk is not implanted into them by alcohol; it is what is already in their heads that they are smart enough not to say when they are sober.
I’d have a lot more respect for Gibson if he came out and said, “Yes, I have harbored anti-Semitic views and I regret them.”
But the lightbulb doesn’t want to change.
yeah, what Steph said.
That’s why it’s worth ranting and making a fuss in the tiny world of RWA.
On a lighter note, my daughter sent me an open letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger that was posted on the Internet by a professor.
Now that I no longer live in So. California, “Dr.” Laura (I think her degree is in like nutrition or kineseology or something) isn’t so much in my peripheral vision anymore, but I *do* remember this hysterical letter, and I thank you for reminding me of it. What has always amazed me about Schlesinger is how she has managed to survive all the revelations about her personal life and its, uhm, disharmony, shall we say, with her advertised moral imperatives.
Robin said: I think her degree is in like nutrition or kineseology
It’s in physiology. I’ve been told that in Canada you can’t call yourself an engineer unless you are licensed. I wish they’d do that with doctors here. As much as I respect those who have earned doctorates in non-medical fields (my much-beloved father-in-law among them), there ought be some way to distinguish those who are licensed to practice medicine from those who are not.
Stef, thank you for posting that link. Neat stuff!
OK, after nixing Internet access for myself almost all day because I had the Project That Ate My Soul to contend with, I’m back! And WOO DAMN y’all had a lot of things to say.
But what jumped out at me were some assertions by Katie earlier in the discussion thread, some of which were addressed by Selah. I’d like to address the rest of it. I’m probably going to sound pissy for a lot of it. I could apologize, but really, what’s the point? I’m a pissy wee bitch.
Unlike some people who want to tapdance circles around Biblical passages and make it seem like the authors weren’t specifically referring to homosexual behaviors in their condemnations, I, personally, don’t think so. I think the Bible is pretty damn clear about homogaiety.
You know what else the Bible is really, really, REALLY clear on? Adultery. Sexual infidelity and fornication in general, actually. Infidelity and fornication are condemned more often and in even stronger language that the four total mentions (if I remember correctly) homosexuality gets in both Old and New Testaments.
Now, last time I checked, no Christians were trying to fix it so that people who adultered, had pre-marital sex or otherwise fucked in Non-Bible-Approved Ways were systematically denied their civil rights.
And if contravening Biblical law is grounds for denial of civil rights (because let’s face it, the whole “fags and dykes shouldn’t be allowed to marry!” rhetoric has its conclusion in “Because my God says so!”), then I’d also like to see people who violate the Sabbath, disrespect their father and mother and other such things be denied their rights. We can start small. Start with yanking their driver’s licenses, work our way up to denying them the right to marry, and then gradually revoke their right to engage in the political process. I mean, if they’re going to be bastards about something, at least be CONSISTENT bastards, no?
I agree with the first part, but as for the second—not having the moral justification to vilify her for taking the Bible seriously—I just plain disagree with that. People have used religious texts, including the Bible, to justify all sorts of things, from slavery to the oppression of women to treating children like chattel. I am tired of people using the “religious tolerance” defense to excuse their ethically retarded bullshit. If somebody’s using their religion as a prop for their bigotry, then we need to call them out on it.
First of all, we’ll have to distinguish whether we’re talking about economic leanings or social issues. One can conceivably lean left when it comes to social issues but be a lot more to the right when it comes to economics. I’d argue that Hollywood tends to lean left when it comes to certain types of social issues—well, not left, even, so much as “permissive,” and leftiness shouldn’t be conflated with permissiveness—and the news media less so; however, the vast majority of Hollywood and the American mass media lean rightwards when it comes to just about everything else. It makes a whole lot more sense when you factor in how the vast majority of American mass media are dependent on advertising revenue. Hollywood has a pretty lax attitude towards sex because sex sells. On the other hand, on issues like science education (especialyl Intelligent Design theory) and global warming, where commercial parties may have a vested interest in seeing the issues portrayed in some other way, you see the media take on a right-wing bias again and again; it’s especially infuriating when science is politicized so that if you believe in the anthropogenic causes of global warming and evolution, you’re some sort of barking moonbat lefty when they’re, well, the freakin’ facts.
I can go on and on and on about the mass media issue because I find the whole issue fascinating, but I won’t bore you here; suffice it to say that you should check out this study about the “liberal media” claim if you’re at all interested in the issue.
As for the political leanings of movie characters: I’m not the biggest movie afficionado around, but most of the movies I see strike me as sort of politically neutral. Some TV shows are quiet screamingly lefty on a consistent basis, such as The West Wing (a former college prof and Nobel prize winner elected president? Talk about a liberal’s wet dream), but most of them don’t make an issue of the characters’ politics, and even then there are sympathetic right-leaning characters, such as Ainsley Hayes (however, as I’m only on the second season, so she may morph into a horrible bitchbag later—so far, though, her character is pretty awesome).
Selah has a point: people get this (unfair) impression about conservatives because most of the mouthpieces of the right ARE intolerant, racist, homophobic assholes. I, however, like to evaluate assholes on a case-by-case basis. I don’t generally tar people by something incidental to them, like their race, religious affiliation or gender; I do, however, reserve the right to call people assholes if they hold asshole beliefs. And people who believe as Jan Butler do—that it’s OK to deny gay people their rights—are assholes, and God knows fundie Christians aren’t the only homophobes around.
Of course I don’t think all Republicans are racists or any group of people are racist. That blanket statement can apply to no group. I stated:
“most sane black folks won’t touch rightwing philosophy”
In the following sentence the wording should have been “it” instead of “they” because you can see I was referring to the rightwing philosophy.
I do think the extremist rightwing philosophy is quite racist, as do many blacks. Extremist rightwing pundits espouse racism (I could find an offensive statement from any of them in a few minutes). Otherwise there would be more blacks supporting rightwing neocon thought.
And the blacks who do support rightist extremeism, nope, I don’t think they’re quite balanced. This is, of course, my opinion.
I can’t think of anything to equate it accurately to—it’s not as extreme as a Jewish person supporting Nazism, but that’s the direction. An Israeli supporting a state who officially says Israel has no right to exist is closer to the mark.
You’ve just gotta wonder why.
Now, last time I checked, no Christians were trying to fix it so that people who adultered, had pre-marital sex or otherwise fucked in Non-Bible-Approved Ways were systematically denied their civil rights.
In their wildest dreams, they would.
See, these people don’t hate gays because of moral conviction. They hate—and fear—sex, and because they think being gay is all about sex, they hate and fear gays most of all.
These are the same people who want to let pharmacists refuse to sell birth control pills, who want to keep the morning-after pill prescription-only (or better yet, ban it), who want to outlaw the sale of sex toys.
IOW, even if you’re a happily married, missionary-position-Friday-night-only kind of person, you still shouldn’t have sex unless it’s to make babies. That’s their bottom line and their ultimate agenda.
I’m at the point where I just pity these people. They’re missing out on one of the greatest God-given joys of life. I just wish they wouldn’t try to foist their misery on the rest of us.
Hey, it’s Friday night! Gotta go lie down.
I think fear is an exceptionally powerful motivator in these sorts of arguments. That, in my opinion, is why you so often see the misdirect in their responses instead of a logical reply in support of their beliefs. After all, they’ve been taught from the cradle that this is true. If this belief isn’t true, then what else might be untrue? Blacks as inferiors? Jews as coldhearted moneygrubbers? Muslims as jihad-obsessed fanatics? The list goes on and on.
No, it’s easier to fall back into a defensive stance. When someone is secure in their beliefs, they are able to back them up with the reasons WHY they believe, and they’re usually better than, “Because *whatever* says so.” Whether it’s Mom and Dad, the Church, the Bible, or the Magic 8 ball, that’s not a good argument, IMO. Then again, I’m a fact-lovin’ kind of girl, and I was raised in a family where nothing, and I mean NOTHING, was considered closed to debate, and we could discuss absolutely anything without becoming shrill and angry.
It’s that thinking-for-yourself thing. So scary for some, so precious to others.
You know…as I was reading Jan’s blog….one thought came to my mind that I think sums up everything you said, Candy.
That thought was this: “What the fuck is this bitch babbling about?”
She’s talking about censorship and freedom of speech, and I’m just like “What the hell? When did anyone try to censor you?”
I read the SmartBitches rant, I read Kate’s blog, and I read several other blogs disecting “Janny’s” letter. I also read a hell of a lot of comments, and not once did I see anyone say “She shouldn’t be allowed to say that”.
Frankly, I think she has about as much of a clue talking about the connections between Censorship & Disagreement as she does speaking about the connection between Homosexuality & Pedophilia.
In other words: She has none.
*sigh*
I swore to myself I would NOT go read Kate’s blog, but hell if I didn’t do it anyway. Am I pissed off because ‘Janny’ and the respondents are poking a stick at one another? Nah. Go get ‘em, and have fun while you’re at it.
What consistently befuddles me are the statements made about RWA, an organization in existence for the sole purpose of supporting career romance writers through networking and advocacy. There are over 9,000 members, and I’d venture a guess they’re not all of one mind. The organization is governed by bylaws and policies and procedures, which are available for review by any of those 9,000 members. If there’s a question about RWA, why doesn’t a member review the governing documents? Or how about contacting a board member with a question? If a member is concerned that RWA is excluding anyone, whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation, or political bent – or excluding books for like reasons – I would urge that member to do a bit of investigating. Is it in the bylaws or policies and procedures?
Perhaps the member feels it’s not the organization, but the other members who exclude some based on their race, creed, sexual orientation or political bent. If so, I’m terribly sorry, but there’s an old expression – we can’t legislate morality. If members choose to be asswipes, we can’t kick them out, or keep others from joining. We don’t discriminate against anyone – even asswipes.
I’ve been a member of RWA since 1995. I’ve made a lot of friends over the years, met some stellar human beings, made a lot of fond memories, learned an enormous lot about the publishing industry, craft, and the business of selling books. I’ve also been excluded, ignored, and had my feelings hurt (I remember one group in particular, years ago, who mocked my Texas twang when I said hello as I passed their table in the bar – my accent is something I’m particularly sensitive about, so it was like pouring salt in a wound) – but I don’t blame RWA for the inelegant bad manners of a few tacky women. I read letters like Jan Butler’s and strongly disagree with her, but I don’t take her opinion as the Voice of RWA – I take it as one voice in 9,000.
As for the exclusion of books – I really don’t get this accusation, at all. There are requirements for publisher recognition – all based on numbers, without subjectivity. As to what constitutes a romance, it’s up to the market to determine – not RWA.
Yes, there was a survey, which died a quick death. Why is this brought up in any discussion about RWA? Graphical Standards are history, dead and buried, yet, I continue to see references made to them, as if they’re still around, or may be reinstated. Suppose people were still throwing fits about Prohibition? What would be the point, other than to bitch and moan about how wrong-headed the government was, almost one hundred years ago?
I sometimes read a writer’s declaration that she dropped her membership, or one who vows never to join, enumerating all the reasons why – and they’ve got all their facts wrong. If a writer is fully aware of the facts, and still feels RWA isn’t for him/her, I respect that. But to stand on a soapbox and accuse an organization of over 9,000 writers of things like exclusivity, racism and intolerance – I seriously don’t get it. By espousing a viewpoint and making a decision based on false information, a writer might lose a great many opportunities. Bummer that.
Glad you spoke up, Stef. I just joined RWA a year ago, went to my first conference last week, and found it to be full of warm, open, fun-loving people. They seemed very accepting of different kinds of writing and writers.
Dunno, maybe I was just hanging out with the wrong crowd. Maybe my intolerance of intolerance provided a natural repellant.
Having an entirely new board of directors seems to have taken the organization in a new, healthier direction. It’s been a quiet year, from what I’ve heard, with no controversies until Butler’s letter, if you can call that a controversy.
I don’t think their printing her letter makes them a conservative organization, any more than the New York Times can turn into Fox News by printing a Letter to the Editor from a conservative.
My feeling is that RWA is struggling to be neither conservative nor liberal, to just be about the writing. In today’s political climate, it seems like everyone has to take one side or the other, when it’s never that simple.
Just my five cents (I’m preparing for the phaseout of the penny).
I’m not a member of RWA and haven’t been for various reasons, but I will say the huge defense of personal rights that I’ve seen on this issue, right here, has been the best thing I’ve ever seen in favor of it.
Okay, a word on RWA since I gripe about it once in a while (unwad panties, I will explain).
Nowhere in the bylaws does it state that it’s a white-oriented organization. I’m a founding Prez for a chapter, so I know about their gotdarn bylaws.
The RWA is an extremely useful organization. I consider it invaluable for anybody wanting support and networking for writing romance or getting published. It helped me.
All I’m sayin’ is that RWA has never dealt with the segregation and marginalization of a fairly significant number of romance writers, based on nothing but their race, while regularly addressing other issues in the romance industry.
Does RWA have the right to ignore the issues facing this segment of of romance writers? Sure do.
But personally, as a published romance writer, the organization is not suitable for my needs at this time. I’m set apart from my peers as far as marketing, who my readers are, and my potential as a romance writer. The RWA claims to speak for ALL romance writers and they don’t.
But many black writers and published authors find the organization useful for what it does do—networking, writing support, etc. and choose to join and participate in what’s offered.
Maybe at some point in time, I will do so again. The leadership seems to have regained its equilibrium from last year’s fiasco and is steadier on its feet.
I’m still laughing over the fact that Ms Butler’s blog entry is entitled “Freedom of speech and ideas…for whom” and she still hasn’t allowed one comment to be posted.
I guess she answered her own question.
You’re absolutely right, Stef. Pretty much any time I’ve complained about RWA, it had nothing to do with the bylaws, the P&P, the Board (well, not THIS year, anyway), or the vast majority of the members. Maybe I should always qualify it as “a few members of the RWA” or “a clique within RWA” or something like that.
The review kerfuffle of a few weeks ago is a case in point. I said at the time that the sixth-grade-girl behavior was one of the things I liked least about RWA, and I think you took some exception to my generalization. In all fairness, I should’ve said that I disliked how certain members used their RWA connections as a weapon against others. I loathe bullies. Always have. I honestly believe that if most members had read the threads here and elsewhere and were aware of everything that went on behind the scenes in that ugly incident, they’d be just as appalled as so many here were.
That the Jan Butler letter appeared in RWR proves to me that the RWA is big enough to accommodate a wide range of opinions. Her views on things are held by a minority of members, IMO, but nobody refused to print her letter. I fully expect the next RWR to have so many rebuttals that it’ll be as thick as an issue of InStyle. To me, this is further proof of the diversity of views within the organization.
As always, thanks for being a voice of reason and fairness. 🙂
Nora Roberts quoted Buffy—fire bad; tree pretty. Wow. How did I not know she was a sister? I already thought she was cool, but this?
Stef gets to the heart of the matter. The people who talk about being gay as this big incomprehensible evil thing are mostly ignorant. They haven’t loved and held someone who was gay, or been best friends with someone who was gay, and spent enough time around them to know that their lives are comprised of the same mixture of goals, joys, disappointments, and mundane tasks as so-called normal people.
Jan is undoubtedly further scared and driven into her darkness by the fact that people of her ilk are becoming more and more of a minority. Popular culture is no longer on her side—as proof, a film about two gay men almost won Best Picture. She tries to work within her own little sphere of influence, but the support is just not there. What’s a good
Christian Girl to do?
You’d think learning tolerance would be an option.
She’s allowing comments again. I posted, asking her to cite where it was suggested that she didn’t have a 1st Amend right to her opinions,
Jusst fyi:
Letters in response to Ms. Butler’s, or anything in the Aug issue won’t be in Sept’s RWR, but in Oct’s—and possibly in Nov for any who missed sending in a letter to the ed by Aug 5—the deadline for Oct’s RWR.
BTW, not only a HUGE Buffy fan, I have all 7 seasons on DVD—and consider it one of the best written shows EVER on TV.
I blogged her, too, since she is not allowing anyone to respond on her wonderous tribute to free speech.
My response is on my blog: http://christineolinger.blogspot.com .
Anyone wanting a copy of her most recent (2002) book can pick it up for 33 cents on amazon.
Huge following that Janet has!
99 comments… egad.
One man/one woman. How many wives was it that Solomon had, again…? Not to mention the concubines.
And re: New Testament condemnation of gays… I’m sorry. Jesus said nothing about it. He said “love one another,” he said “judge not, lest ye be judged,” “Do unto othes as you would have done to you,” etc. If I remember correctly, the Scribes and Pharisees who know the letter of the law but didn’t understand the spirit usually wound up looking as stupid as .. well, as Mrs. Butler (surely she is a Mrs?)
As for Paul of Tarsus. Well. He started out persecuting Christians, had a heatstroke, and switched to persecuting everyone who didn’t like Christians. He may have been one hell of an organization-builder, but of all the “apostles,” he was one who never even met Jesus. If one interprets Christianity as I do, ie, the teachings provided by Jesus Christ, not Pau’s subsequent reframing, there is nothing in there for or against gays and lesbians except insofar as He advised us to be kind to one another. Scary thought.
“Because my god said so,” is not a good reason for anything, since your god is may well not be wearing a mask the other party accepts as divine.
95% of the media is owned by the corporate folk who own George Bush. When CNN is wondering, on-air, if a war based on a deliberate lie is “armageddon,” we have gone beyond the twilight zone. The media are as liberal as the corporations that own them.
Oh, and one can have a scintilla coat without animal cruelty. Just build a little mesh vest and train your scintillas to hang on tight. Peanuts are a good training aid.
If one interprets Christianity as I do, ie, the teachings provided by Jesus Christ, not Pau’s subsequent reframing, there is nothing in there for or against gays and lesbians except insofar as He advised us to be kind to one another. Scary thought.
This is an interesting comment, because I was thinking yesterday about anger and its various forms. I, for example, was much more *personally* angry over what was done to a particular Amazon reviewer several weeks ago, because despite all the protestations of principle, the whole thing seemed to me to be spiteful and mean at its core. Butler’s comments, on the other hand, offend my own sensibilities, but they don’t make me angry in the same way, in part because I really believe that she *is* standing on some sort of principle, even if it’s one I disagree with, find inconsistent, and contains implications with which I took issue (i.e. that to support a broad and inclusive defintion of Romance *isn’t* a principled position, too).
To be completely honest, I understand why Butler hasn’t been allowing comments on her blog, even if it seems illogical given her claims about free speech rights. She isn’t required to defend her case, especially when her comments suggest that she believes that she is “right” and those of us who disagree are “left” unenlightened (although I know there are right leaning folks who disagree with her). Although I think her position is illogical, inconsistent, and intolerant, I don’t think she’s silly or ridiculous or an imp of satan for espousing it, in part because the few members of my family who are politically and/or religiously conservative have allowed me to understand that perfectly nice people can have really incoherent and IMO hypocritically judgmental beliefs. For one thing, I really don’t think that most people examine their belief systems with all that much care. Then when they try to explain them, the contradictions become overwhelming and they have to rest their case on “principle”—and IMO this applies to both sides of the political dividing line.
HelenKay Dimon had an interesting comment on her blog, which was that stripping away all the excess rhetoric and emotion from Butler’s statement, it’s worth talking about the basic issue that Butler puts forward about the one man/one woman Romance definition. At first I thought, yeah, that’s a good point. But one of the problems, I think, is that before you can even articulate a position the issue is already bound up in political and social philosophy. The RWA national web page even refers to its own “core ideology”—which sounds more like something you’d encounter in a political party than a Romance writer’s organization.
Because the definitional issue is so fraught with ideological concerns at its core, I can’t imagine how the RWA could EVER even attempt a new definition of Romance without converting itself into an overtly political organization. And given the broad spectrum of views on the part of its large membership, *any* attempt from *any* faction to further define Romance would, IMO, essentially dismantle the RWA and turn it into something else. Now, at least, the RWA is an organization that is not exempt from politics, but is not, itself, a declared political entity, and I think that’s the only way it can maintain its role as a *writer’s* organization. Now Author A can believe that gay and poly Romance should be included in the genre, and Butler can say they shouldn’t, and both of them can belong to the RWA, an organization whose express “ideology” is to support writers not police the genre. Now, I personally think that’s a position that can also be defended as principled, but at the very least, it’s practical.
The problem for me, even when you delete all the cha-cha-cha from Butler’s letter is that there IS no single definition of Romance any more than there is a specific one for the Mystery genre or any other. How could you sum up in a few sentences all the areas of fiction that fall under the Mystery genre—suspense, romantic-suspense, police procedurals, thrillers, cozies, soft-boiled, hard-boiled detective novels and on and on?
And what’s the point?
Same holds true here for me. And such matters should never be, as this one has become, bound up—as Robin said—with religion or politics.
It’s not RWA’s job to define Romance, certainly not in words. Its function is to provide a platform for those who write it, publish it, edit it, promote it and sell it to network, communicate, educate. It promotes and celebrates the genre. That’s a really big job already.
I don’t need an organization to define Romance for me. I don’t see why anyone does.
I feel the same way, Robin. One thing I’ve noticed is that nobody has made an articulate defense of Jan Butler’s position. We’ve seen a few anonymous posts here and there, but even those have been of little substance. We may live in a country with an appallingly high number of people who think that way (some of whom, unfortunately, are in a position to make policy decisions for the rest of us), but in her case, I really do feel like she brought a knife to a gunfight when she took this stance in the romance community.
I’m glad to see so many people coming out against the bigoted worldview expressed in Jan Butler’s letter and subsequent blog posts, but at this point, isn’t it like shooting fish in a barrel? The tougher job would be taking this fight to the larger world outside romancelandia.
I’m with you, Robin, in that this hasn’t made me nearly as angry on a personal level as the outing of the Amazon reviewer and the publishing biz “advice” she was given. That still sickens me.
*Having an entirely new board of directors seems to have taken the organization in a new, healthier direction.*
Actually, out of 18 people on the board, only 5 were new this year, myself included.
Like anything else in our world, there are a lot of things that can, and should, be explained, and a lot of things that are best left behind us – kinda like roadkill. I’d like to say, the women on this board, including those who returned from last year, all volunteered because they love RWA, because they want it to be the best it can be, and because they all have a real desire to support career romance authors. It’s been a long row to hoe, gaining any measure of respect within the industry, despite how much money romances earn for publishers. We get closer, every day. Maybe we can’t change public perceptions to any large degree, (although we’re sure trying) but I think we’ve made great strides within the industry.
I can’t speak for the board, because it’s not something I CAN do, but for myself, I’m on the We Can’t Define Romance bandwagon. I see Jan Butler’s point – I really do – but I also see that there are over 9,000 other points of view. Who’s right and who’s wrong? From RWA’s perspective, no one is right, or wrong. It’s actually a moot point. We recognize publishers who publish romance – if a book is inspirational, or erotic, or somewhere in between, and the recognized publisher calls it a romance, that book is eligible to be entered in RWA’s contests, and we, as an organization, will support the author through advocacy – go to bat for her, and the other authors who write for that publisher.
It’s been a great year, and it’s seriously been a privilege to serve on the board. I’m doing it again, running for treasurer this time – not a lot of financial minded people in RWA, or at least, ones who’re willing to serve. ‘sokay – being a CPA, I always get nailed to be treasurer of every organization I join. I’m looking forward to continuing on the board, as are all the returning members. Y’all can call me Count de Money.
Celeste, Monica and Jeri – thanks for responding to my post. I know RWA isn’t perfect, but its objective is to try and fulfill the needs of the entire membership, not just a select few. We’re an unusual writing organization, in that we don’t have a tiered membership based upon published status – hell, the fact that we have unpublished members is somewhat unusual. Most writing organizations don’t. So it’s a balancing act, trying to meet the needs of the newbie, the almost there, the newly published, the midlists, and the NYT bestsellers. Our board includes some of all of those, which gives us a good representation of each.
Monica, if you rejoin, and if you have any solid ideas about how we can better serve members, I’m all ears. That goes for anyone else who’s a member – email me, or any other board member. That’s what we’re here for.
And here’s to another good year for RWA.
The problem for me, even when you delete all the cha-cha-cha from Butler’s letter is that there IS no single definition of Romance any more than there is a specific one for the Mystery genre or any other. How could you sum up in a few sentences all the areas of fiction that fall under the Mystery genre—suspense, romantic-suspense, police procedurals, thrillers, cozies, soft-boiled, hard-boiled detective novels and on and on?
And what’s the point?
IMO the point depends on your perspective. Genres are called such because they have certain recognizable properties that *technically* categorize them for writers and readers alike (and I mean technical in the sense of techne, not in a diminishing capacity). We know, for example, that sonnets are poems, and even though there are Petrarchan sonnets and Shakespearean sonnets, etc., and each type has certain requirements it must meet to be called a sonnet. Each genre has certain thematic and technical elements at its core. The RWA defines Romance fiction as containing a “central love story”, with an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending” (which most people think of as the HEA), and while other genres may have romantic *elements*, straight Romance is generally distinguishable from, say, straight science fiction. Even for all the hybridizing that’s taking place, the generic definitions are helpful in distinguishing the elements. This is where sub-genreric categorization has come in handy (and applies to the distinctions you point out for mysteries, because there are broad similarities and specific differences under the umbrella of a large genre).
For readers, I think these definitions can be helpful because some readers have strong preferences for what “type” of fiction they enjoy. For example, I don’t think Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse books are Romance novels, and I don’t recommend them to readers who only like straight Romance because of a) Sookie’s relationship patterns, and b) the love story is not the central focus of her books. If a reader goes into those books thinking they are straight Romance, disappointment may result, and, IMO, an unfair judgment of the books based on elements particular to Romance fiction. Readers who don’t like paranormal Romance or fantasy or science fiction may also not like these novels (although I think they’re brilliant PERIOD, so I’m biased).
So I think generic definitions are useful and even necessary to some degree. HOWEVER, the kind of definitional framing Butler is arguing for is, IMO, different, because it imports a specific moral judgment into what I think should be a straight technical issue. She is, IMO, going beyond technical distinctions. I can absolutely recognize a gay Romance as a Romance if the love story is central and the ending optimistic and emotionally satisfying. Same with polyamory (Emma Holly’s Strange Attractions is a perfect example of this, IMO, even though the book was marketed more as erotica). In a way I think it’s unfortunate that what should, IMO, be technical considerations have become so politicized, but at the same time, I realize that’s not a new phenomenon and probably unavoidable when you’re talking about something like love, which has itself become politicized. I still think that as long as you have so-called genre fiction you need to have broad guidelines for both readers and writers, but IMO they need to be as neutral and general as possible.
The RWA defines Romance fiction as containing a “central love storyâ€, with an “emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending†(which most people think of as the HEA), and while other genres may have romantic *elements*, straight Romance is generally distinguishable from, say, straight science fiction.
I guess I should have used “mainstream” instead of “straight” here. Pun not intended, in other words.
I’m on the We Can’t Define Romance bandwagon.
Although the RWA HAS provided a generic definition of Romance on its “What Is It?” page. And I also noticed today that the definintion specifies “two people,” although I guess you could argue that polyamorous Romance might still fit, in that you have *at least* two people or some combination of couples. Although polyamory is probably less mainstream these days than gay Romance, isn’t it? I see Butler’s position as one of further defining Romance past its “required” (according to the RWA, at least, which uses the phrase “every Romance novel” on its genre info page) technical and thematic elements.
At least two people – hmm. Guess that means self love between someone and Rosy Palm doesn’t qualify.
Har.
Sorry – couldn’t resist.
Although I do know a few guys whose love for themselves knows no bounds – there isn’t room in there for anyone else.
I think Jan was a little surprised that more of us outspoken-goin’-to-hell “liberals” are the ones talking.
What I think would surprise her most is that many of her peers don’t believe her rhetoric…and that’s why they are quiet. I know she finds it hard to believe that any good Christian (especially a good Catholic) would have the audacity to go against God and believe that it’s not right to judge someone based on who the fall in love with. Even if those someones both have penises. But, it’s true. It happens. I’m married to one of them and he was raised by two of them. Liberal Catholics…they’re out there. Be very afraid.
And they are keeping quiet, not because they are afraid of the backlash of the awful loudmouthed-shrill-minority, but because they are afraid of how their own peer group will treat them.
I’m glad Jan is passionate about her beliefs. I just wish she respected that there are many of us out there who passionately believe otherwise.
I’m with you, Robin, in that this hasn’t made me nearly as angry on a personal level as the outing of the Amazon reviewer and the publishing biz “advice” she was given. That still sickens me.
Not to change the subject, but what was that all about? I never heard anything about it and am dying of curiosity now…
aries75, the main part of the discussion started here on SBTB but spread across maybe half a dozen other blogs.
I’ve read the initial letter and the follow up comments on Kate’s blog. Must admit I’ve rarely seen that much rhetoric outside a Baptist church. She uses language well enough, but her argument lacks a spine to substantiate it.
No matter how hard I try, I can’t make my understand how diversity hurts anyone else, either in life or in fiction. Does anyone really want a homogenized, Orwellian future?
Being gay doesn’t rub off. I read books that are interesting and well-written. The worst thing a book can do is bore me. The antithesis of love isn’t hate; it’s indifference. That said, I really can’t get worked up by someone else being an asshat, but I am puzzled by it.
One thing y’all need to realize is that I’m coming at this from the librarian perspective, and that I’m quite obviously not a writer.
The American Library world is essentially governed by the American Library Association, but the ALA is more of a “public library” organization than some special libraries need. Their basic rules are great, but they don’t have any specific guidelines for legal or medical libraries, and only basic guidelines for academic libraries. This gave reason for the formation of the Special Libraries Association, (SLA) which led to the Medical Library Association (MLA) and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL).
The point of this diatribe was to say “what about any offshoot organizations?” Have the RWA be the big, general purpose organization, and have other groups for more specific areas of “romance?”
Or are those specific groups already formed and I’m just showing my laziness by not researching before I post? Bad librarian! Bad!
Am I just looking at this problem through rose colored glasses? Because sometimes when the organization that you belong to just isn’t cutting it, you start your own. This can be taken as the “I’ll take my ball and leave” mentality, but I think of it more as “Well, you’re playing baseball, and I’m holding a soccer ball, so I’m going to go play over here with the other soccer players. Y’all have fun!”
Research Proposal – Extract
Submission by the Society for the Evaluation of Cognitive Reactions to External Theories of Gender Actualisation in conjunction with the Yorvik Association for Gender Development Assessment.
Several theorists have recently postulated the existence of a direct causal connection between certain behaviours and sexual orientation. It is the purpose of this study (conducted jointly by S.E.C.R.E.T.G.A. and Y.A.GEN.D.A.) to evaluate the correlation of a defined series of “popular” activities with changes in such an orientation and thereby provide an empirically-determined scale to facilitate the classification of the cumulative degree of orientation-alteration risk of various activities (gradient of the “slippery slope”).
The subject’s own responses will be assessed through a questionnaire (see sub-section C, below) but the research team is aware of the possibility that they may be “in denial”. Therefore, the principal determinant of degree of variation in orientation of the subjects will be the non-conceptual, unmediated form of knowledge of a panel of specialists (“gaydar”).
Due to the strong correlation between reading predeliction and personal development (the well-known “Oliver” effect which compels readers to wear striped linen aprons and subsist entirely on gourmet organic gruel cooked in le creuset casserole dishes), the primary study will focus on the impact of reading same-sex romance novels on an officially-determined heterosexual subject (zero “blips” on the “gaydar”).
Upon completion of each novel, the test subject will be re-assessed by the panel and a new score assigned. A control subject, reading books that have been determined to be sexual-orientation neutral (by a certain “Betty Neels”) will also be assessed at each stage.
Following the successful completion of the primary study, the “slippery slope” scale will be further refined by similar assessments conducted of the following activities:
1. Attendance at Madonna World Tour concerts. (control: gender-appropriate concert)
2. Attendance of same in front row (wearing “Front Row Bitch” t-shirt). (control as above, t-shirt with gender-appropriate joke)
3. Eating vegetarian quiche (males). (control: consumption of similar weight steak tartare)
4. Wearing dungarees (females). (control: wearing of floral-print frock and Manolos)
5. Use of Aveda grooming products (males). (control: use of rubbing alcohol or “Brut” as aftershave)
6. Cultivation of hirsute lower limbs and lack of feminine support garments in warm tropical climates (females). (control: full leg, bikini wax and facial in same environment)
Grants in excess of £10,000 or donations of front row seats for Madonna “Confessions” tour, gay romance novels, Aveda products, OshKosh dungarees (size 10), Doc Marten boots (12-hole, cherry red, size 6), lengthy stays at 5-star tropical island resorts and effeminate quiche recipes are therefore appreciated to further our valuable research. Bra-burning nights on the association’s own bonfire first Thursday of each month.
That’s interesting, Robin, because that’s a reversal of how I feel. The review kerfuffle inspired mostly annoyance in me, especially in the way many of the people involved didn’t want to cop to their behavior (“No! No! We just wanted to teach her a lesson—a NICE, FRIENDLY, NOT AT ALL THREATENING OR BULLYING lesson!”), but it was at least in reaction to what J. Wallace did. The reaction was all out of proportion, but the reviewer wasn’t attacked for what she is. Yes, the whole thing smacked unpleasantly of spite and petty malice, and it was all quite thoroughly unpleasant, but it didn’t quite rile me up in the same way.
Moral rhetoric against The Ebil Gays, on the other hand, drives me right up the wall. It’s cherry-picking one characteristic of a person and saying “This one trait of yours here? Means you’re going to be systematically denied the rights everybody else has. A heterosexual axe murderer has a right to marry and, if he wants to, have children. You, on the other hand, could be healthy and loving, but you’re not allowed to marry the one you love.” And there’s no working around that. Gay people are being defined and discriminated against based solely of one aspect of their personhood.
On the other hand, the personal ramifications for the J. Wallace are potentially much larger due to the nasty bit of business with the reviews, whereas I doubt Jan Butler’s letter has impacted an individual gay person one way or another, much less the LGBT community. However, I’m not just reacting to Butler’s letter. I’m reacting to all the people out there who believe as she does—and there are enough of them to pass amendments banning gay marriage in a several dozen states already. Quibbling about genre definitions aside, if Butler gets her way, I see it as yet another way of de-legitimizing and alienating homosexuals. (You’re absolutely right, Robin: defining romances so that they explicitly exclude the non-straight and the polyamorous goes beyond the technical requirements of the genre and leaps straight into making political and moral distinctions that a genre doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need.)
And to briefly go back to something somebody said way, way up above, about how those who proclaim their tolerance are often those who are most intolerant of religion: Lookit, skepticism of and disagreement with religion, even poking fun at it, doesn’t necessarily constitute intolerance. Yeah, it gets a bit rude sometimes, but disagreement and debate are, by and large, healthy.
To my mind, intolerance involves wanting the opposition wiped out entirely or to have legislation enacted against the opposition. I disagree vehemently with Jan Butler’s position, but I would disagree just as vehemently with anyone who would argue that she doesn’t have a right to that opinion. I want to change her mind, and the minds of everyone else who thinks like her, and to be honest, when I’m feeling really exasperated, I want to shout them down. (Except for Ann Coulter. Her, I’d punch in the crotch. Vox Day, too.) The big difference is, I don’t want to legislate or control aspects of their private lives. Who they fuck1, when they fucks ‘em and what types of fuckin’ they want to read about are pretty much their business. On the other hand, Butler and other people like her seem to have no compunctions about attempting to dictate the shape of other people’s moral landscapes should they differ from theirs. Once us godless bleeding heart liberals start lobbying for, say, churches to be banned, or constitutional amendments that disallow monotheists from marrying, or the banishment of religious schools from the land—or hell, if an agnostic disowns her kid for converting to Christianity, then yeah, you can certainly argue we’re being intolerant.
1 Assuming the “who” are entities capable of providing informed consent, of course, though these definitions seem to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
EAP: That’s another bit of comic genius.
Oh God. It hurts so much because it’s true. *weeps silently in corner while clutching to small sturdy bowl that she’d used to smash up some olives for her olive chicken with herbed aioli*
First of all…“MENTOR PLACE”? I think not. How fucking presumptuous is that?
Second, I’m not a member of RWA (being the fat but still-starving artiste that I am) but I sure as fuck know the difference between “infer” and “imply.” (Sorry, but I don’t know how to insert italics on this website.)
Third…well, I just stopped reading.
This kind of shit makes me crazy. Are readers’ IQ’s in remission or what?
I’ve posted twice on Butler’s blog. Both polite.
Guess how many of my comments have been deleted?
First of all…“MENTOR PLACEâ€? I think not. How fucking presumptuous is that?
Second, I’m not a member of RWA (being the fat but still-starving artiste that I am) but I sure as fuck know the difference between “infer†and “imply.†(Sorry, but I don’t know how to insert italics on this website.)
Third…well, I just stopped reading.
This kind of shit makes me crazy. Are readers’ IQ’s in remission or what?
What are you talking about? Can you give me a link, or did I totally miss something because it’s late and my eyes hurt?
🙂
>>And to briefly go back to something somebody said way, way up above, about how those who proclaim their tolerance are often those who are most intolerant of religion<<
Hi Candy! 🙂 That was me, I think I’m pretty much the only one not following the party line here.
<< I don’t want to legislate or control aspects of their private lives. Who they fuck1, when they fucks ‘em and what types of fuckin’ they want to read about are pretty much their business. On the other hand, Butler and other people like her seem to have no compunctions about attempting to dictate the shape of other people’s moral landscapes should they differ from theirs.<<
I think this is where we don’t see eye to eye. I think the Ms. Butler’s of the world have every to be intolerant of homosexuality. If they have the numbers to make the RWA a christian, no sex in romances at all organization I say go for it. ;-P
I don’t think the government has the right to deny anyone their rights. Gay marriage is just as legitimate as hetrosexual marriage. Everyone should have the right to the same legal protections under the law. If the RWA was a government organization I would certainly argue that gay romance not only should, but has to be included along with erotica and, I don’t know, satanic romances. :bug: LOL!
However, in private life people have the right to believe whatever the hell they want. Now, I realize you’ve said you would defend Ms. Butler’s right to her beliefs, but would you really? Do you support hers and others like her right to be intolerant of things they find sinful and to exclude them from their organizations? Should they be forced to see the light and accept homosexual romance even if a vote was taken and the majority rejected gay romance (this is a hypothetical, I’m not saying the majority feels this way, I have no clue)? Let’s say she’s in the minority, shouldn’t the group then be able to decide they want to include homosexual romance and not be dictated to by an individual’s belief no matter how much that individual thinks she is right.
I guess I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from. What about a church refusing to hire a female minister? Would you suport their right to reject her on the basis of gender or would you say that’s sexism and the court has the right to force them to hire women regardless of their religous convictions? Should the KKK be forced to start accepting black members (I don’t know, has there been a case like that yet?) or do they have the right to be prejudiced? Do you think a company has the right to dictate to it’s workers whether they can smoke in their own holmes for their own good and on the basis of health care costs?
What gets to me about this conversation is the lack of respect people have for other people’s right to be wrong. Hell, I think Ms. Butler is wrong and the way she’s handling this debate annoys me as not very christian like. However, I don’t believe what she does. And who the hell cares what I think (besides me, that is, lol). She could be right. Homosexuality could be a sin. I don’t believe that, but I can’t make her accept my philosophy. And why would I want to?
I mean, if our laws were what they should be, everyone would have the same legal rights, but at the same time no one would be forced to conform to anyone else’s belief system. If the majority wants a damn nativity scene in their commnity then, by god, the minority should suck it up. If the KKK wants to march then they should be able to get the proper permits and do it. Likewise, all the people who think they are evil dumbasses should be free to get out there and protest. What people shouldn’t have the right to do is legislate morality on either side. For example, hate crimes are bullshit. Either someone is guilty or not. It shouldn’t matter what they believe, only whether they violated someone else’s rights.
If, God forbid, the RWA did become that christian group by majority vote couldn’t all the people who disagree with that decision start their own organization?
Conservatives piss me off with their intolerance and liberals piss me off for the same damn reason. I resent like hell that liberals can shut their opposition up by labeling them racists or bigots or religous fanatics. And conservatives need to worry about their own morality and leave everyone else the hell alone. Both liberals and conservatives need to stop trying to force their morals/beliefs on everyone else.
Bottom line freedom means being able to do whatever stupid, wrong thing you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else. People have the right to smoke, to not wear a seatbelt, and to believe whatever god awful thing they want to! And, while I’m on a diatribe 🙂 prostitution, assisted suicide, and drugs should be legal. Animals aren’t our fucking property, but are a means to their own end with the right to live just as much as any human does. Rant over. 😆
I disagree vehemently with Jan Butler’s position, but I would disagree just as vehemently with anyone who would argue that she doesn’t have a right to that opinion. I want to change her mind, and the minds of everyone else who thinks like her, and to be honest, when I’m feeling really exasperated, I want to shout them down. (Except for Ann Coulter. Her, I’d punch in the crotch. Vox Day, too.)
I agree, Candy, and will happily hold your purse and coat while you sock Ann Coulter (aim low, will you?). Who or what is Vox Day? But the comment you make about wanting to change minds is, I think, at the heart of why I don’t have the same reaction to Butler’s comments as I did to the Wallace fiasco.
When I experience anger, it’s a pretty base and un-nuanced emotion, brought on by stuff like bullying, personal disloyalty, unprovoked or spontaneously mean behavior, abuse of or picking on those weaker than you (i.e. children or animals). I really have a hard time being around people who indulge in unprovoked mean behavior and have a difficult time liking or trusting them at any level. And there are, of course, those folks who are intolerant and mean, which is pretty much the double whammy of doom in my book.
What I feel toward Butler’s comments, though, is much more layered. While there is an element of exasperation, I’m not angry at *her* as I was at various individuals involved in the Wallace incident. Partly, I think it’s because despite my jadedness, I am really basically an idealist who believes that extremism is untenable in a functioning democracy. And I really do, despite everything, have faith that the marketplace of ideas and the democratic principles we still cling to will ultimately prevail. Our society may falter, but I do think we have mostly been staggering forward, despite the slips and falls of the past few years.
Also, I have had people in my life in various capacities over the years who have had some intolerant beliefs (both liberal and conservative), and despite that, these people have been caring, kind, and good people who were really trying to live a “good” life. Often, their bigotry was abstract, while their one-on-one relationships with people actually contradicted the ideological intolerance. Often their intolerances weren’t even coherent, and were born of some weird fear. Some of them have mellowed in their bigotry, and some haven’t. Those who have often found their epiphany in a personal experiences that finally made their abstract bigotry untenable. Those who haven’t mellowed are mostly the ones who have a certain generational legacy that, IMO, explains some of the bigotry.
But they all forced me to accept that not all people who share a general political or social philosophy think alike. The differences matter to me, because I think there’s a certain power in being able to parse various arguments and combat them with reason. And I feel that I have some tools to respond to arguments like Butler’s, and if I can’t prompt reconsideration on her part, at least I can offer a different perspective for consideration, whether or not others agree with it. Sure there are people who remain on the extreme edge of intolerance, but I think the harder these folks pull in that direction, the more counter-pressure is exerted to pull things back toward the center. And because these are *ideas* we’re talking about, I see them as more easily challenged. although I also accept your point about their dangers and about the exasperating idea that someone could think it’s okay to legislate against another’s identity. I’m not saying I’m fine with that, only that it engenders a different set of feelings within me.
Maybe it just comes down to how we each experience and define anger. I feel very disempowered when I get angry. When I feel I can respond to something effectively—whether or not I can make a difference by myself or whether or not other people think what I have to say is valuable—I don’t feel so disempowered and don’t get so *personally* angry. I might feel sort of indignantly outraged, but even that usually gets eclipsed by a need to analyze and respond in some productive way.