Alone and Unobserved

I don’t know how many times I’ve told my deconversion story, in whole or in part, on this blog or elsewhere, but my impression has been—for years at this point; yes, I’ve been an ex-Mormon atheist for that long now and it blows my mind—that the fundamental seed of my apostasy, the moment I first broke from the faith, was when I was about twenty-two and finally began to accept myself as a gay man.

In fact, I’ve found myself defending this position several times, when people have implicitly and explicitly accused me of leaving Mormonism so I could go “sin” and “be gay.” I’ve been forced to say repeatedly that my being okay with being gay, as the first point of doctrine I disagreed with my church on, was a (perhaps the) deciding factor, the first step in my journey away from religion, but wasn’t the REASON I ended up leaving. After all, I pointed out, there are any number of practicing Mormons who are also okay with gays or with being gay and they haven’t felt the need to leave. I left the Mormon church because I disagreed with virtually every point of doctrine, including the existence of deity.

I realized today that I’ve been fundamentally wrong this whole time. Not about Mormonism being full of shit, or about the existence of deity, or about religion being a net negative in today’s world, but about when I felt the first disconnect with religion.

It all comes back to patriarchy. You see, I was a feminist long before I realized I was a gay man. I was a feminist in the making before I started kindergarten. Why? Because when I was a kid I wanted to be a girl. When I was REALLY young I very nearly thought I was a girl. I had no interest in the “boy” things other boys were obsessed with—I wanted a Barbie and a My Little Pony and a Rainbow Brite and pretty dresses and I wanted to be a princess AND a sorceress AND an enchantress and forget that moron He-Man, I wanted to be SHE-RA.

I identified strongly with my mom over my dad, and, especially when I was super-little I had trouble accepting that my (one-year-older) sister and I were not functionally the same person. (I mean, we did everything together, and we always would, right?) So when I found out what the Mormon patriarchy expected of young women, I took it very personally.

My mom had her own visible struggles with patriarchy as well. She told us how her father was a Scoutmaster when she was a tween and she fought long and hard for the right of going on campouts with him and her brothers without success, and I watched her do her best to turn the local Young Women’s camping program into something resembling an actual outdoors exploration course.

It upset me that my mom, who was so smart and capable and (let’s face it) ambitious, especially when compared with my go-with-the-flow dad, was expected to accept a background role and take orders from all the stupid MEN around her just because she was a woman. My mom tried to be philosophical about her lot; denying her natural gifts was God’s way of teaching her to be patient, and a better person, and what-the-fuck-ever-else, but I didn’t, couldn’t buy it.

Polygamy bothered me for a similar reason. Why had men been “given” (yes, that’s right—GIVEN) more than one wife, but women were only allowed to marry one man?

Why were there so few independent females in the scriptures, which were otherwise crowded with independent men? Why were there vanishingly few female prophets?

I’m sad to say I learned fairly quickly that voicing concerns about this got me labeled as weird and girly, and I learned even quicker that these were “bad” things to be. As I got older and became more convinced that I actually was male I found myself participating in the patriarchy, both overtly by becoming a deacon at age twelve just like all the other guys, and by laughing uncomfortably at my friends’ sexist jokes. But I was still never comfortable with the whole thing, just like I was never entirely comfortable being male.

Another thing I’ve often said is that I was a “true believer” back before I started explicitly questioning Mormon doctrine when I was in my early twenties. But I’ve been wrong about that, too. I certainly tried hard enough to be a true believer—doing everything I could think of to convince myself and everyone else that I believed. Hypnotizing myself into suppressing my doubts. Testifying to others with passion, zeal and throbbing sincerity that I not only believed, I knew that the Mormon church was the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

But the seed had already been planted. The seed of feminism, of fairness, of this isn’t right, this can’t possibly be right, because it contradicts everything that makes sense. And once I took that next step of acknowledging that I was gay, and accepting myself for who I was, it couldn’t be held back any longer. Because if I was gay, then not fitting into the straight male paradigm was completely irrelevant! I could be as girly or as feminine as I liked. Everything else in my ex-religious journey, I’m convinced, followed from there.

The Mormon church, like almost every other existing religious sect, is fundamentally patriarchal. It is anti-feminist, anti-fairness. Anti-sense. Not just because its doctrines are not true, but in its philosophy, organization, culture and outlook. It pains me to say this, because so many people I love and value are still part of it, and have defended and will continue to defend its destructiveness to me and to others. I just hope that if enough people point out the reality of religion and Mormonism that we can make a difference in the future of girls, women, boys and men everywhere.

A couple days ago I posted the following status to my Twitter and Facebook accounts:

I’m amazed at how many straight men who claim to support gay rights & not to be homophobic will still use “gay” as an insult w/ each other.

I got a lot of responses (all supportive), but the main common thread was… everyone misunderstood what I was going for. And it was my fault! In trying to cram my idea into 140 characters, I left out everything I really meant to say. It happens; some ideas just aren’t concise enough for Twitter. So here’s the blog-length version.

First, some preliminaries: I have no problem with people using “gay” as a purely descriptive term to mean “homosexual.” I actually prefer “gay” to “homosexual,” since the only people who seem to use the latter term anymore are gay-hating homophobic fundamentalist Christians.

I’m not a fan of people using the word “gay” to mean “worthless” or “shitty,” as in “The iPad is so gay. It doesn’t even have Flash on it.” I’m gay, and I find it offensive when people equate that with “worthless piece of shit.”

But that’s not where I was going with my tweet. Or rather, that’s exactly what my tweet meant, but it’s not what I intended for it to mean. A better tweet would’ve been

I’m amazed at how many str8 men who claim to support gay rights & not to be homophobic are still offended if someone assumes they’re gay.

I don’t hang around or even associate with people who are openly homophobic. In fact, I don’t usually associate with people who aren’t willing to openly disavow homophobia and champion gay rights when the occasion presents itself. So it always surprises and disturbs me how negatively some of my straight friends react when someone mistakenly assumes they are gay because they are hanging out with me and my gay friends.

It comes down to this: if you are offended by being called “gay,” or having someone imply that you are homosexual, or that you like taking it up the ass (if you’re a guy), or that you like eating pussy (if you’re a girl), then you need to accept the fact that, in this sense, you are homophobic. You may be pro-gay-rights, you may be pro-marriage-equality, you may have tons of gay friends, but if you become angry when someone calls you gay, then you need to examine that feeling very carefully and recognize it for what it is: deep-down, visceral bias.

Similarly, when someone calls the library and I answer and say “Hi, this is Sean, how can I help you,” and they spend the next five minutes of the telephone conversation calling me “ma’am,” and I get pissed off, I need to confront my own sexism. Because being called a girl or a woman, or even having someone assume or imply that I’m female, is still apparently offensive to me. And what does that say about my real feelings towards women and their value and worth if being equated with them offends and angers me?

I’ve talked about bias and privilege here before, and about how easy it is to recognize others’ bias and privilege and how hard it is to recognize our own. Well, here’s a fun exercise: What ethnic group are you offended to be mistakenly included in? What sex, gender, sexual orientation or sexual preference are you offended to be mistakenly conflated with? What group do you violently disclaim any membership in? I submit that the root of all of these reactions is likely to be some kind of bias. But that’s a good thing! Because it’s so much easier to get over your bias and prejudice once you’ve recognized it.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? What was your reaction to this post? Let me and my other readers know in the comments.

[Note: I'm not singling out anyone in particular with this post. Trust me: if you think it's about you, it probably is—but it's also about a lot of other people, too.]

I was at the corner store yesterday to buy a few necessities, and I ended up in line at the checkout counter behind an attractive, blond, college-age couple who were buying some random groceries.

Cashier: That’ll be thirty-seven dollars.

Woman: (Holds out credit card.)

Man: No, no, I’ll get this. (Holds out his own card.)

Cashier: Well, I have to let the guy pay, if he offers. (Smiles knowingly and takes man’s credit card.)

Me: (Teeth grinding)

What the fuck is wrong with people? “I have to let the guy pay”? What is this, the Fifties? Oh wait, it’s Utah, so yes it is. AAAAAARRRGGGGHHHH

[Note: I have no idea how the woman felt about having her offer to pay declined; I didn't see her face. She may have expected it, if they were on a date, or whatever. Still, dating norms are fucked up, too.]

“Why not just shut the he!! up about your sexual proclivity and become productive members of society.” (online comment on a recent news article about marriage equality)

Gays and gay-rights activists hear it all the time. “Why do you talk about your sexual preference all the time? You guys are sex-obsessed. You don’t hear us [heterosexuals] talking about that stuff!”

There are two responses to that: heterosexuals exhibit their sexual preference constantly, all the time, but don’t notice it; and in other cases, heterosexuals don’t need to make their sexual preference clear because theirs is the default/assumed orientation. American society (like most/all societies the world over) is deeply, fundamentally heteronormative. As with other kinds of privilege and bias, it is invisible to the majority, and may even be invisible to many in the homosexual minority. But think about it for a minute.

If you are heterosexual, you may have had to make a decision about when to tell people you are married/seeing someone. But if you are homosexual, talking about your significant other to people who don’t know you are gay is coming out. (In some places, such as the wonderful state I live in, it can get you fired or evicted. For instance.) Ditto to putting photos of your family on your desk at work or bringing your significant other to social functions.

If you are heterosexual, you grew up listening to stories and music that reaffirmed your sexual orientation again and again. If you are homosexual, you almost certainly did not. Love songs are overwhelmingly about heterosexual love. So are fairy tales. So are romance novels, and the love stories in films, and the love stories/marriages in religious texts.

If you are heterosexual, you have never worried about whether it’s safe to hold hands with your significant other in public because of his/her gender. If you are homosexual, that may be all you could think about the first time you went out on a date.

If you are heterosexual, your parents probably have the same sexual orientation you do. In fact, almost everyone you’ve known since you were a baby has had that same sexual orientation. If you are homosexual, this is almost certainly not the case.

If you are heterosexual, you probably have never been asked when you chose to be that way, or been told/had it implied that your sexual orientation is a choice and/or a sin. (If you have, it was probably a gay person ironically turning the tables on you.)

If you are heterosexual, you’ve probably never had to “come out” about your sexual orientation. If you have, those situation are probably few and far between (say, at a predominately gay party). If you are homosexual and you want to be out, you must constantly come out.

Gay people will always be a minority, wild-eyed religious/conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, which means that society will always be mostly heterosexual. But that doesn’t mean society needs to be heteronormative and heterosexist. And the way to try to achieve a mostly-heterosexual-but-not-heteronormative society is if gay people and gay allies make themselves known and make themselves heard.

Happy LGBT Pride Month. Come out as gay or as a gay ally today. Speak out. Make a difference.

Cross-posted as a comment on the Trembling Hand post “Why Women Don’t Make Games,” in which Tim Dean claims the reason more women don’t become computer programmers is because men are naturally better at math.

His argument, boiled down to its essentials:

Go read that blog post and then read this response.

Tim, while it’s clear that you read the data in the article, or at least a rough summary of the data, it sounds like you didn’t read the conclusion. [Or] if you did, you’ve chosen to ignore it.

It is true that the study shows a gender-based disparity in math scores at the higher end of the scale. However, the authors of the article don’t make any claims to understand *why* such a disparity exists, since their study didn’t address that question in the slightest. Instead, their conclusion is as follows:

“If educators and others are concerned about encouraging women to enter S&E [science, mathematics, and engineering] careers, the gender difference at the high end of the math score distribution is an important problem that must be addressed….

“Future researchers in this area should focus on identifying the determinants of this gender difference. Among the likely determinants are attitude changes toward math learning, social expectancies for math achievement, and social stereotyping of female students’ career options. Also, future research should use longitudinal panel data to examine math achievement change at the individual level. For example, a group of male and female students with above-average math achievement could be identified in eighth grade and followed as they progress through higher grades to determine whether the male students become progressively better in math achievement while the female students remain at the same level or become progressively worse.”

In other words, the data show a disparity; now it is up to further research to continue the research, and to determine possible causes *and remedies* for this disparity. Your conclusion (that there is a biological basis for the disparity and that it is irremediable) is a non sequitur.

I also take exception to your generalizing high-school-level mathematics scores to ability in higher mathematics. The kind of math studied in high school (even at the higher level) and actual higher mathematics are almost two completely different subjects. I have a master’s in math, and I tutored and TA’d college level math for years, and I never encountered a difference in ability between male and female students in math courses (including a number of CS/programming students) that could be easily reduced to purely biological terms.

Another part of the article that you ignored is the *opposite* gender-based disparity in the test scores of African-American students. Do you have some made-up racist explanation for that portion of the data to round out the sexism of your other made-up conclusions?

I’d like to add that there are several other problems with Tim’s assertions. One that immediately springs to mind is the fact that gender disparity in male-dominated occupations and gender disparity in female-dominated occupations are not parallel cases. Research shows that men do quite well in female-dominated occupations such as elementary education, nursing and librarianship, being promoted faster and higher and earning more money than their female coworkers. The same cannot be said of women in male-dominated occupations, where women are not promoted, and do not earn as much as their male coworkers. (See The Gendered Society by Kimmel for an entire book full of this kind of information.)

I have a straight female friend who regales me occasionally with tales of the latest Boy she is interested in, and I’m always fascinated by the things she takes for granted about her role in her dating relationships.

“I invited Boy A to go on a hike, because I know we both like hiking. Do you think I was too forward?”

or

“Boy B said I should let him know if there was a fun lecture I wanted to go to, but I’ve invited him to a chamber music performance instead. Do you think that looks too aggressive?”

or

“Boy C and I went out on a few dates, but then he didn’t call for two weeks. When he finally called I let him know that WASN’T OKAY.”

So, basically, a woman can ask a guy out, but she’s walking a fine line. If she’s too retiring and never takes a risk, maybe she won’t get dates; if she’s too outgoing, maybe she’ll be viewed as mannish and dominating, and she won’t get second dates. Of course, my friend’s last comment also shows the double standard men are held to: in the earliest stages of a relationship, the guy is supposed to call. If he doesn’t, the girl can call him… but she risks seeming desperate. Really she’s supposed to wait for him to call her. And if he doesn’t, she’s supposed to agonize over it with her friends for several days before (maybe!) picking up the phone.

Another straight female acquaintance, erinannie, recently wrote a short blog post in which she said, “If my marital status is always going to depend upon me making the first move, I’m going to be single forever.”

The commenters sympathized thusly:

“Why can’t boys just figure it out?” one said.

“You shouldn’t have to [make the first move]. Men need to be men,” wrote another.

And: “I am so tired of my guy friends telling me that I need to make the first move. I am not going to do their job!”

“Was I too forward?” “He didn’t call for two weeks.” “Men need to be men.” “I am not going to do their job.” Once again, I’m glad I’m not heterosexual. Straight guys have it tough! In order to be seen as “real men,” they have to always make the first move, ask the girl out, pay for her way, call the girl back after the date—but not too soon! Straight girls have it tough, too: they’re supposed to attract the man’s gaze (as erinannie puts in, “I have done everything except lay down across his desk naked and poured chocolate across me to get his attention”), but—no matter how interested they are in the guy in question, they are supposed to wait for him to ask them out. (Am I missing anything? I was never very good at the straight mating game.)

Things are changing for straights, but homosexual relationships are still so much easier in this regard. Since both people are men or both are women, neither is “the man” and neither is “the woman.” Either can take initiative, either can pay for the date (or they can just split the check), and either can make that after-date call.

This isn’t to put erinannie and her dating practices on the spot. I understand being timid or otherwise reluctant to make the first move. Rejection is a bitch. As I explained in my own comment on erinannie’s post, I would never have had a boyfriend and would be dateless now if it depended on my taking the initiative, because that’s my personality. What I don’t understand is buying into the whole American patriarchal culture of dating and courtship.

So, straight people! Speak up. Why do you or don’t you follow the patriarchal norm in dating and relationships? Guys, do you mind if a girl asks you out, pays for a date, calls you first, etc.? Girls, do you mind doing the asking, paying, calling? Why or why not? What would you say the actual norm is these days, and what negative consequences are there for breaking it?

Non-straight people! What are your relationships like? Egalitarian? Patriarchal? Dom/sub? Butch/femme? Poly? What dating rules do you feel you must follow? People are dying to know!