You have the right to offend me

On one of the social networking sites where I hang out, they've introduced a "report abuse" feature for comments on posts. Yesterday I saw a post by someone trying to be helpful and to explain this new feature to others, saying they should report it if they see "naughty" comments, and later, when asked about what he had meant by that, he said he had used the word "naughty" to refer to "anything that a person would not like to see in a comment."

I'm seriously hoping he didn't really mean that. Taken literally, I could report his comment on that basis: I really would not like to see people suggesting that people should report others for saying things simply on the grounds that it's something they'd rather not see.

But this got me thinking: what would it be ok to report people for?

It's very easy to say: report comments which are racist, sexist, hateful. It's easy to say that, because this is what western culture currently says is unacceptable. Just as there were times when racism was the social norm, but blaspheming against God could get you burned at the stake. (Which seems to me a blasphemy against God, but that's another story.)

It's also very easy for me to say this because I'm a woman and I'm Jewish, so racism and sexism are serious issues for me personally.

But here's the problem: I want the freedom to express myself, to say what I think without someone forcing me to shut up. And this means I have to give that freedom also to those who would say things that offend me.

Sure, there are things I hear (or read) which offend me and personally I'd rather people didn't say. Like I said, I'm a woman and I'm Jewish, so I get offended by some stuff that objectifies women and I get offended by negative stereotyping of Jews; I'm an Israeli, so I get offended by some of the stuff I hear said about my country; I'm a follower of Jesus, so I get offended by anti-God stuff and by... hang on a minute, this is where it gets kind of interesting...

You see, as a follower of Jesus I get offended not just by vile things people say about Jesus or about his followers - as a follower of Jesus I get offended by unloving attitudes that people show towards one another, and I get particularly angry when these attitudes come from people who claim to be Christians. When I hear people spewing hatred towards a group of people and claiming to do so in the name of God, to me this is blasphemy.

But back to what I was saying before: there are things which offend me and personally I'd rather people didn't say them. But there's a major difference between saying "personally I'd rather you didn't" and saying "thou shalt not". You see, there are things I say that offend other people, and just as I don't want someone to force me to shut up, I don't want to force others to shut up either.

Some of those who read my posts over there may at this point say: so why did you yell so loudly about those boob pictures? and I will say again: there's a major difference between saying "personally I'd rather you didn't" and saying "thou shalt not" - I won't tell you not to, but just as you have the right to post things that offend me, I have the right to point out that they do offend me. And, once you know I'm offended, you might or might not change your behaviour as a result - it's up to you: there is no automatic "someone is offended by X, therefore I mustn't say X" - human discourse is such that as soon as we open our mouths we may offend someone somewhere, and we won't get very far with debate if causing offence would automatically make us shut up. I blog about my faith knowing that what I say is offensive to lots of people - being a Jewish believer in Jesus is something that some would prefer to sweep under the carpet and pretend there's no such thing. And saying that I believe Jesus is the only way to God - that is obviously offensive to people who believe in other ways. But this is what I strongly believe, and it's important to me to talk about it openly.

So, just as I value the freedom to say things that are offensive to others, I will fight for the right of others to say things that are offensive to me.

---

p.s. I do, however, reserve the right to moderate comments on my own posts - my focus here was on what people say on their own or on other people's posts (or what they say offline). Still, I don't often remove comments, it's not a decision I take lightly, and certainly not just on the grounds of the content being offensive to me personally.

Like-minded people? There's no such thing.

I've been exploring a new social networking site and getting to know new people. It's great fun. One day I stumbled upon a thread where, in the context of this SN site still being invitation-only, someone wondered if maybe it would be nicer if it stayed that way, so that he could keep interacting with like-minded people.

Like-minded people? Really? Is there such a thing?

It must be weeks since I saw that comment, but it has stayed on my mind. It has haunted me as I've been getting to know more people, people who are fun and interesting and inspiring and yes, we have some things in common but in other areas we are miles apart, and that's cool - that's part of the joy of human interaction, getting to hear different points of view, getting insights into how other people see things, getting to know someone who is - gasp! - of a different culture, different faith group, different political persuasion, different mentality... getting to know people with different preferences, people whose favourite colour is green when I really like pink, people who love eating stuff that I can't stand, people who are into different hobbies, different genres of literature, different tv programmes... Like-minded? yes, no, maybe... you normally start from something you have in common, yes, but then as you get to know a person you discover other aspects, you discover the differences, and if you're both grown-up about it, you can build friendships with people without having to pretend you agree about everything.

The thing is, there is no chance that I will ever find another human being on this earth who will agree with me about everything. I can find people who are like-minded in one sense or other, for example when I go to church I meet with people who share my faith so we are like-minded in one aspect, but that doesn't mean we can't find stuff that we see differently. People join all sorts of groups where they meet with people who share their political view or their love for a hobby or whatever, and if they keep to that subject they might be able to remain under the illusion that they are in the company of like-minded people, but once you scratch the surface you will find that there is no such thing as two thinking people who are of the same mind about everything. And whilst the like-mindedness may be the starting point, whilst it might be what draws you to start talking to someone, it's actually the differences that make it interesting to carry on. If all the other person ever said was "oh yes, me too" it would get boring.

There is sometimes a comfort in talking to people who you know agree with you about something in particular, when you're weary from debates it's quite nice to be able to retreat into a little huddle with a few friends and sigh together about those out there who "don't get it"... but living life like that all the time would be so vanilla... and anyway, it's impossible unless you switch your brain off and find others who have done the same.

Vulnerability and the Royal Wedding

or: the price of our freedom is loss of security

Brené Brown got me thinking about vulnerability. (Warning: that video clip I linked to is about 20 minutes' long. Well worth the time though.) And then came the Royal Wedding, and surprisingly it came with not just lace and finery and fairytale coach and horses, but some food for thought too.

One of the things that moved me in Will and Kate's wedding was something in the sermon, about how marriage can provide a space in which people can grow, and be transformed into who they are meant to be - or in other words, grow and fulfil their potential. This is true, of course, only when a marriage is functioning the way it ought to function, and the bishop did talk about the importance of giving each other space and not trying to control the other person - which sadly does happen, and it's not just men trying to dominate - my own gender has its own manipulative methods. There's a sad old joke about marriage that goes: what are the three words on a bride's mind on her wedding day? aisle, altar, hymn. Say it out loud and see what you get. My own husband knows he's safe because there wasn't an altar at our wedding :) but seriously - I know my role as his wife is not to try and change him but to love him as he is, and that is exactly the key to what the bishop was talking about. Marriage, when it's functioning the way it's supposed to, means each of you is in a place of safety, knowing you are loved as you are, and it's in that safety of being accepted as you are that you can grow and be transformed.

Brené Brown talks about the need to make ourselves vulnerable in order to receive the love we need, and I'm wondering: is this problem she has identified perhaps a newish problem, as a result of changes in western society over perhaps the last five decades or so? Let me try and unpack this thought.

Marriage as a place of safety, where you know you are loved as you are and therefore you feel safe enough to explore things and to find out more about who you really are, you feel secure enough to take some risks and discover to your amazement that, yes, you can actually do XYZ... this kind of marriage is more rare in the west today, because at some stage we rebelled against "the institution of marriage" and claimed the freedom to do whatever we like, we looked in disdain at the old-fashioned ways of previous generations and said: what's the point of staying in a marriage when you don't love each other any more - putting the cart before the horse, not realising that love in a marriage is not primarily about having romantic feelings but about choosing and promising to show love to the other person even when you don't feel like it, so that they will have that safe place in which they can be themselves... and also so that the children will grow up in a safe place.

So today we have people getting married but not really knowing that they're in a safe place, not knowing if/when the other person will get fed up with them for some reason, or have a mid-life crisis, or meet someone else and fall in love and then, according to the values du jour, they will naturally get up and go because, according to the values du jour, there is no point staying in a marriage when the feeling is gone.

It seems to me that at least part of the reason there is so much of this feeling of unworthiness that Brené Brown talks about, part of the reason why so many people are scared to be openly themselves in front of others, is because we in the west have rebelled against the very things that were giving us a sense of security, safety, belonging - in something very much resembling a teenage tantrum, we threw away our security blankets, yelling that we're all growed-up and don't need this stuff any more, and now we're scared and lonely and we can't get our security blankets back because... well... how? Once we've made it perfectly ok and acceptable for someone to walk out on a marriage at any given moment for any reason whatsoever, how can we now make it not ok again? We demanded that freedom, but of course the flip side of Mrs Smith being free to walk out on a marriage is that she has to live with the knowledge that at any point in time Mr Smith might walk out on her, so the price of that freedom is the loss of security.

And children are growing up with the knowledge that this is what life is like - even if their own parents stay together, they'll know some kids whose parents have split up, and this is bound to make them grow up more anxious - if I see this stuff happening in other families, how can I know that my world won't turn upside down tomorrow?

So of course people are feeling vulnerable and scared. We have - out of our desire for greater freedom, and a contempt for old-fashioned values without taking the time to explore their merits - removed something that was providing us with a sense of security and belonging, and turned our world into a much scarier and lonelier place.

When marriage functions the way it should, it can be a safe place in which two people can grow and fulfil their potential; a safe place for them to bring up children; and a safe place out of which they can reach out to other people, to those who are lonely. If you're in a place of safety, you can do that, you can be more generous, you can show more kindness, you can think of others because you're not worrying about your own situation.

Safety, stability, commitment - these things may sound boring, but we need them so much! and we have to be willing to give them if we want to receive them.

Someone is wrong on the internet

from http://www.xkcd.com

I came across an interesting linguistic analysis of the wording of this familiar cartoon - starting with whether or not the word order is wrong, then moving from there to why it's not just right but also funny, which he reckons is to do with the difference in meaning between "wrong" in "something is wrong" and "wrong" in "someone is wrong". Interesting, I thought.

But the bit I really loved was where he says: "someone is pretty much always wrong. This is normally not something that has to be put right before you can rest easy."

So simple, so profound, so true - and not just when it's on the internet.

"the grouches pull you down"

had one of those inspiring powerpoint thingummies on the email - you know the ones - pretty pictures and bits of text that sounds like sage advice, and some of it is but some of it isn't, and if you're not careful you just absorb it all amongst the pretty scenery.

amongst the advice about how to keep young, some of which was lovely, there was this bit:

Keep only cheerful friends - the grouches pull you down.

and I'm wondering - if everyone were to follow this advice, who would be left to show love to the grouches? who would be there to help lift their spirits? if everyone followed this advice, I would have remained a grouch forever.

so no, don't keep only cheerful friends - don't be so selfish. take some of the joy you have and go share it with the nearest grouch. they need it.

great expectations

or: just because you got hurt, it doesn't mean they're nasty

sometimes people hurt other people not because of any nasty intentions but simply because of the two parties having different expectations of whatever-it-is that they're getting into.

I remember years ago when I had a mad crush on a very charming Irish guy and I came across a book that was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to tell you all you ever needed to know about Irish men. The one and only thing I remember from that book now was this: when an Irish guy says to a woman "I'll call you" - she hears "I'll call you tomorrow" whilst what he means is "I'll call you sometime between now and the day I die"...

I also remember another crush, this time over a colleague at work (yes, I know, bad idea, but I was young and foolish in my mid 30s) - a phone call from him asking if I'd like to come for lunch at some trendy new place round the corner certainly got my expectations up!!! but he hadn't said "just you and me", so I couldn't blame him when I was upset to find there was a whole bunch of us round the table. I was hurt, but he hadn't set out to hurt my feelings. (at least I don't think he had. of course I did also meet some guys along the way who were actually nasty, but I don't think this one was.)

but this isn't just about romance - the expectations thing happens in all sorts of situations. I think there's tons of scope for it to happen on social networking sites - Jane invites Diane to be her "friend" on an SN site, Jane being the kind of person who collects online contacts with no particular intention to build relationships, and Diane being a very needy person who has suffered lots of rejection and looks at every such invitation as a promise of undying friendship.

it's tricky, because so much of this stuff goes unsaid. people don't often state clearly what their expectations are. often we just assume that everyone else sees things the same way we do. sometimes we're embarrassed to confess to our weakness, so we don't state our needs - what if I say I'm looking for really deep friendship and it turns out the other person wasn't, I might feel I'd made an idiot of myself.

no contracts, no signed agreements, no listing of the ground rules - therefore plenty of scope for misunderstandings and for disappointment. we let other people down sometimes without being aware of it at all - like that guy at work who invited me to lunch, not knowing what I was hoping for...

and so, when we get hurt because someone didn't live up to the hopes we had, the thing is to look at the situation realistically and ask ourselves: did X actually promise us this rose garden that we were hoping for, or is it just what we allowed ourselves to believe?

it's hard to do that - to separate out our hurt from the people who hurt us. but if someone steps on my toe when they don't even know my toe is there, I can't really blame them.

so one goes somewhere quiet to weep, and forgives them for they knew not what they were doing.