The anti-bully bullies

Bullying is the hot topic on everyone's lips lately. Most people seem to connect it only with teens - mostly homosexual teens who are struggling to find their place in society and gain acceptance. While this is true, it's to a point: I've said before that it's a teen issue, a girl issue, a boy issue - an everyone issue. Probably everyone has been bullied, and I dare say probably everyone, in some way, bullies other people. They just don't realize it.

Speaking of gay bullying, there's this one:

Wait a minute. We're countering bullying with... more bullying? And when it comes to bullying gay people, I've noticed something, especially when it concerns celebrity homosexuals (or rumored homosexuals) - they are bullied. By people in the gay community. I feel sorry for gay people who feel forced to come out of the closet (if they really even are in it in the first place) by someone - maybe an entire group of someones - who just can't handle it if someone isn't ready to talk about it openly, isn't ready to make an announcement for the entire world to hear, or are endlessly pressured to view their gayness the same way everyone else does. And then, those bullies justify it - because, really, everyone being out and open about it is almost perceived as a greater good kind of thing. If you are quietly leading your life, happily gay behind the scenes, how dare you?! 

Have you ever noticed that?

Then there's this one:

Seriously? This is basically saying, "I am going to say and do whatever I want. If you don't like it, you are the one with the problem."

I'm not saying I never swear, but mostly it's not within earshot of my grandmother, children or anyone else. I've heard young people spout out every curse word known to man in the middle of the checkout line at a convenience store, for no reason other than it's just a thought in their heads that they think needs to be expressed right now, and honestly - they sounded like idiots. We've gone from a culture who (mostly) uses profanity sparingly - and at one point would face strict fines and punishment because of obscenity laws - to one who drops the F bomb at every turn. Mild profanity has long been part of our regular television viewing, and every few years you'll hear an increasing arsenal of words that get past the censors.

A few years ago we went to a local farm to pick out pumpkins for Halloween. While sipping our cider and enjoying our family time, another family - with kids in tow- was openly using the F word in public, in front of their kids (and within earshot of mine). What do you do? What do you say? Surely someone is going to get ticked because their "freedom of speech" has been infringed upon. Surely you stand a good chance of getting into a fist fight because some idiot decides his right to say whatever he wants, whenever, is more important than your right to not hear it.

Oh yeah, speaking of the First Amendment and your "right" to "free" speech: there are exceptions to that free speech. They include:

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

In other words, you are not within your rights to assume that you can speak freely - obscenely - wherever you please. But somehow, I am the one that's wrong because I'm offended. Say what? And I'm sure few people will challenge you on it, because that's just how far down the toilet bowl our culture has sunk. If Grandma Betty doesn't want to hear you use the F word every other sentence, then Grandma Betty can just @(%&* (!&. Right? Because she is the one with the problem, not you (and your total lack of respect for others).

A few years ago my husband stopped at a gas station and after we left, he thought the cashier had mistakenly given him the wrong change. He went back and told the guy what he thought had happened, in a polite, non-confrontational manner, because he wasn't completely certain it wasn't his error. We walked in together, and the cashier - a young man - opened up with both barrels on us: I'm fairly certain the F word was used no fewer than half a dozen times, I was called a 'fat cow,' and we were told to "Get the f--k out of 'his' store," or something to that effect. I was beyond shocked, for two reasons: that a simple inquiry could be met with such fury, and that no one - not one single person - spoke up in our defense. I remember looking around, seeing several customers who barely registered a reaction, and wondered, "Surely they are going to hear him - that's really unprofessional!" When I wrote a letter to Exxon, they offered little, if any, response, and the store owner basically denied the incident.

Surely not everyone in that store that day used profanity like this guy did - but, because hey, it's your "freedom of speech!" I guess it's perfectly okay for your "rights" to run right over mine, 'kay?

Another thing I've noticed are the peaceful, loving memes about respect, tolerance, acceptance, and the usual sunny happy daisies stuff. Usually there's a quote that's got Gandhi's name on it, which somehow elevates it to near-holy status and must mean that it's unquestionably good, right and true. That's great - everyone should feel love for one another. But I think the love only extends so far - and usually stops at the first person who expresses an opinion different than yours. Suddenly that 'peace, love, and tolerance' flies out the window. And usually when there's a disagreement, the word 'hate' is used: because we all know people who disagree are "haters," right?

Here's another one that kind of grates on me, even though it's from everyone's favorite author, Dr. Seuss:

I'm guessing this one is often taken out of context, especially considering Dr. Seuss' equally famous line, "A person's a person, no matter how small." Somehow the meaning has been derailed: "No one else matters but me and those people who agree with me." I don't think that's where Dr. Seuss was going with this. The next time you get pulled over for speeding, try using this one on the officer.

Who "matters," exactly? And who are you to determine this? How can we teach our children not to expect everyone to agree with them, and how to get along with those who don't? How to learn from them, perhaps even change our perspective, because they have something to offer - despite disagreeing? Children are "color blind," so to speak, in that their rose-colored glasses are often tainted with age, experience, and the complete ass-hattery of adults in the world around them. And as much as adults like to say they think bullying is horrible and we should accept everyone, they don't seem to realize they're part of the problem.

Another thing we often hear is "If you don't like it, don't look/listen," etc. As if it's your fault for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or the fact that you've actually had the audacity to let something offend you. But if the shoe is on the other foot - if you're the minority in the group who expresses an unpopular opinion - well, then there should be Congressional hearings on it to get you banned, right? How is that not bullying someone to see your point of view, to agree with you even though they don't want to, and to just get over it already? I wish that street ran both ways.

The reality is, that more often it turns into something like this:

Everyone that disagrees with me is a "hater" and "stupid." Problem solved! I don't think Dr. Seuss would approve...

In looking back over these images, there is one thing they seem to say: that we are a selfish society that thinks the opinions of certain people matter more than others. That because it's your idea and it came from you, that you should put it - and yourself - above everything else. If we teach our children anything, the first thing we should learn ourselves is humility. Be humble enough to realize that you're not always right, no matter what side of the fence you're on, and if you know you are (as opposed to only thinking you are), approach others with love and respect - it's a lot more effective than harsh words, criticism and hateful talk. If that doesn't work, at least you'll have taught your children an important lesson about truly loving others, instead of demonstrating hypocrisy. As the saying goes, 'be the change you wish to see in the world,' instead of doing more to perpetuate it, only through a different lens.

Have women been duped by the feminist movement?

When it comes to sex and relationships, our culture is messed up - a jumble of ideas and opinions that focus little, if at all, about the true nature of what those relationships can do to us or mean, especially long-term. The divorce rate is at about 50 percent right now, and I'm wondering if it's because many people wouldn't know how to have a healthy married relationship if it bit them in the ass, in all honesty. The "anything goes" ideas of the 1960s (basically, our mothers' and fathers' generation) are trickling down and bringing with it a hefty emotional price tag.

The over-sexualization of young girls is especially troubling. Teen sex has always been a "problem" in some way or other, but the rate of STD's among teens has reached an all-time high. Our society is obsessed with sex in all forms, and if you aren't, then you're perceived as the one with the problem. No more so than for women, who are subject to double standards and all kinds of 'rules' that don't seem to apply to men.

I can't help but wonder if the 'liberated woman' mentality that came out of the most recent feminist movement is nothing but a farce - a way of making us feel better about our past bad choices, justifying otherwise bad behavior, and basically making us think that whatever problems we have will just 'go away if you ignore it.'

I can see how the feminist movement did more than try to get equal rights for women: it tried to remove the social stigma of women having sex before marriage. Women who had promiscuous sex, and those who probably trusted a partner before marriage and had a steady relationship that might have ended in something other than holy matrimony, were sort of lumped into the same category: slut. Women were supposed to be pure and chaste, and sex was "for men." If a man had more than one sex partner, that was okay; women were supposed to look the other way. However, women were labeled.

This public health ad warns men about "those kind of women." No guilt on them, just the unspoken permission that it's okay for you to be wherever you want, but the woman gets the blame. (And no one's asking why on earth they're looking for a good time when they might otherwise be in a relationship with someone else, either.)

In some ways, perhaps indirectly, the women's movement brought about a new way of thinking about sex - anything goes, "love the one you're with," etc., which has been a time bomb waiting to go off - for both women and men. Perhaps as a way to free ourselves from that negative stigma, it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and only made things worse. Rather than help us learn about our self worth as women and the amazing things we can do, our culture has taken it to extremes, trying to separate love from sex.  In other words, they have tried to drain all the emotional ties, both good and bad, out of sexual relationships and what it symbolizes. In some ways, it's like trying to fill a cup that has a large crack in it; eventually it's going to slowly leak out, maybe imperceptibly at first, but noticeably. Patching it back up helps for a little while, but then the crack gets bigger - until it can't really be repaired at all.

The idea that sex = fun and is for everyone pervades, even though it seems, as a greater public consciousness,  there are still some of the same stereotypes persisting. One campaign geared towards HIV-positive teens (read the PDF here) basically said "it's totally okay" to try on multiple partners like a pair of sweat socks, experiment, do what makes you happy, but protect yourself from pregnancy and disease. The one thing they're forgetting is that even if you don't get a physical disease, it can create another kind of disease: one of the mind, of the emotions. I don't necessarily think we should be shamed into feeling that sex and our bodies are dirty; but neither should we think that it's perfectly okay to give it away to anybody that walks by, either.

If you do have somewhat of a checkered past, we're told to ignore our inner feelings that perhaps what we're doing is wrong, and proceed as if nothing has happened. Get over it! It's in the past! We can all be friends here! is the mantra. If you don't want to be "friends" with someone, it's perceived that you're still pining away for that person, even though it couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe people think you're still bitter, or behaving like a child if you don't manage to have some contact, however benign, with the former boyfriend/girlfriend.

Just like teenagers, adults are impressionable when it comes to relationships and sex. We have fallen for the big lie that says it's okay to throw your feelings away and just do whatever feels good. Every time I see Cosmopolitan magazine on store shelves, I want to puke my guts out: 10 things guys want you to do to them in bed! Learn how to please your man! What is your man really thinking about sex? Blah blah blah, it's freaking endless. Who'd think that all the while the editor of that magazine, Helen Gurly Brown, was the biggest shriveled up looking prune of a woman that you ever saw. That's not teaching us how to have REAL, meaningful relationships with anyone but OURSELVES. Heads up, people: (ladies?) YOU are not the number one priority in your life. Stop thinking about yourselves all the time and then you'll be able to take care of others, and even yourself. I wonder: when women, accompanied by their young daughters, pass through those checkout aisles, what do their daughters think when they see these magazines?

What is our over-sexualized culture teaching us, and our daughters, about how to love and respect their bodies, within appropriate parameters? The same culture that has a hard time separating breasts for pleasure and as a source of nourishment to a baby; the same culture that likes to tell us "You don't need a man to validate yourself as a woman," yet does just the opposite. No one seems to want, or even know how, to put those ideas into practice.

If anything, the sexual liberation movement has taught us less how to behave and think like women, but to approach those same ideas of sex and relationships and think like a man. The other day I was reading an article from Cosmo (gag) called "Should exes be friends?" At one point, I thought this might be true, although it certainly depended on the relationship. Bad idea. Very, very bad idea.

One tidbit they mentioned: more men, statistically, still pine over former flames than women do. (Who said anyone was pining for each other?) This stat might be telling: that as women, we're taught to treat these once-important relationships as more 'throwaways' than anything else. That it's okay to pick up and move on without more than a passing thought.

The article set some parameters for whether you should be friends with an ex. Like, it's okay to be friends with an ex if, after a night of drinking, you "still wouldn't sleep with him." One Ph.D. offers this "advice" -

It is possible to be "just friends" with an ex, especially if the relationship was mostly platonic anyway. "Even if a romance loses its spark, you can still enjoy each other's company," says Patricia Farrell, Ph.D., author of How to Be Your Own Therapist. Plus, he remembers why he fell in love with you and can give you an ego boost when you need it. 

What, exactly, does "mostly platonic" mean? Not only are those boundaries fuzzy, but using someone else to get an 'ego boost' is doing just that: using them. I imagine this psychologist's patients are going to need more than just therapy after taking advice from her.

Further in the article, you are suggested to "booty call him for a sporadic shag if "the sex is fantastic but your feelings don't run deep" or "the day after a booty call, you feel just as good about yourself as you did the night before." Another expert Ph.D. tells us that sex with an ex can be positive because you're just in it for the fun: "Not only are you already comfortable with this person sexually, but also there's little at stake since the relationship aspect is over."Yep, like a pair of sweat socks that can just be washed over and over again, such is completely emotionless sex with another person.

Two things this article doesn't mention at all: how the other person might feel if he knows you're just using him, and how your possible current (or future) partner might feel about your past. It's all about me, me, me and what I can do to please me, me, me. We want to be seen as the sensual and emotional females that we are, but yet simultaneously want to be able to act like it's perceived men are allowed to act. What?! 

Conversely, we allow - no, expect - men to behave cooly and detached from relationships as a matter of course, as if that's the measure of a man. (And yet, somehow when they do behave that way, we can't stand it. Weird.) Deep down, no doubt, they don't even want to behave that way - because many of them aren't - but there's sort of a societal expectation of them to behave badly. Sure, many of them do, but if they don't, they're sort of treated as an anomaly, as if it's too good to be true.

The entire idea of sexual liberation, just like Cosmo magazine, has taught us how to do little more than justify our own needs over those of others and gratify ourselves at any cost, all while saying it's okay. And in doing that, it's supposedly cloaked in learning how to respect yourself, but has done the total opposite. All those ads from the 1950s that warn men about "those kinds of girls" has pretty much come true. 

Somehow, in all of this, we misinterpret new-found 'sexual freedom' as loving and respecting our bodies, that it's okay to show them off because we're proud of what we have. We let ourselves and the female image be objectified and take the emotion out of what we have to offer a man - not just any man or a string of them - because we don't even recognize our own self-worth and beauty that we already had and just didn't know it. Whatever innate power we had, we have let ourselves give away for the asking.

More reading:
A Return to Modesty, by Wendy Shalit
Love Your Body - Offensive Ads 
Statistics on HIV/AIDS, STDs and Unintended Pregnancy - State of Illinois pamphlet
STDs and Teens: A Reality Check
The Daily Mail: Friends with Benefits