I initially wrote the following in February 2015 as an article for the Wellspring Clubhouse's newsletter, which was published. On December 4, 2016, upon starting this blog (which I admit I need to post to more often), I posted this article as the inaugural article, with a graphic attached so I could post it to my Pinterest page.
Having attended a training regarding "recovery language" and the words/phrases that are now considered "offensive" on 11/22/19, it strikes me as apropos to share it with you, though updated slightly as a result of/response to that training. [This article, with the exceptions of a direct quote used in the article and the graphics at the end, is solely me. And the coarse language found in the primary quote is in fact a direct quote. I do not expect anyone to agree with me. As the title of my blog says, this is Food For Thought.]
--------
No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try for otherwise, either you will offend someone or they will offend you. It’s simply a part of this thing we call life. There is one thing to realize and remember: The only way you can be offended is if you choose to be offended.
Ultimately, the best way to deal with it is to surprise everyone and choose to not be offended. Ask yourself why the person is in any way important to you specifically. Also remember that others won’t necessarily share your viewpoint. Sometimes, their view will be both negative to your way of thinking and will seem to be narrow-minded and inflexible. Deciding to be offended will only succeed in giving you extra unneeded “baggage” that will only adversely affect *you*. You do better to decide to not be offended, try to at least see where their point is coming from, explain your point of view (i.e. have something of a conversation about it), and if you can’t come to a consensus then at most mentally conclude that they’re an idiot and then just go on with your life.
Now there's a movement to change recovery language so as to be "patient first" in an attempt to thwart stigma. On the surface this sounds noble as fighting and ending stigma is absolutely needed. Unfortunately, it's focusing on the wrong problem in that it isn't the words "autistic," "autism," "drug addiction," "mental illness," or any of the other related words/terms that are the cause of or carry the stigma; it's the conditions themselves to which those words/terms refer. Language is reflective of the culture that spawned it. One anthropological fact is that language follows culture, not the other way around.
The fact of the matter is that *any* word, phrase, or terminology can be turned into a pejorative regardless of how innocent that word, phrase, or terminology is, just as anything said can become sexualized even when the word/phrase isn't sexual in and of itself.
At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, it was decided to refer to people with various physical/mental health issues as "special" as it was considered a positive and affirming word. We no longer say "special" because it quickly became a pejorative term. And in an effort to thwart the use medical terms in the mental health realm, the terms have become more complex; the result has been an increase of the phrase "I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce" as an insult.
In another aspect regarding the fallacy of thinking being "offended" is a useful reaction, an example: While I was still a member of the Wellspring Clubhouse, I was in a conversation with a female friend, and while I don't recall the topic I do remember we were in agreement. Shortly thereafter in the same day, I was in the library/computer room having a similar conversation with a male acquaintance about the same topic. While I was describing the prior conversation (without identifying the woman I'd been speaking to due to my privacy protocols), with my lead-in being that I agreed with her, another female member came into the room on unrelated business whereupon she heard part of what I was saying. Without bothering to learn the context of my remarks, she concluded that she was offended by what I was saying and came to the "defense" of my female friend. The woman was further offended when I pointed out that, because she was coming into the middle of a conversation with no accurate reference points, she had no idea what she was talking about since I was in fact in agreement with my female friend. Rather than utilizing logic, the woman who still thought she was defending my friend decided to let her emotions rule regardless of the facts.
[See my article: "Check Your -ism by Rev. J.T. Smith" for further examples.]
Regardless of whether it's in an individual setting or a more institutional one (e.g. job, official or professional situation, et al), being offended solves nothing and does not give you nor anyone else any special rights or privileges. As Stephen Fry once said: “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more . . . than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." [I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”
Getting and/or being offended solves nothing. It won’t actually change anything. Your viewpoints, no matter how well reasoned or even potentially innocent they may be, will still offend someone else. That’s merely human nature. Regardless of what far too many people will tell you, you always have a choice (you simply won’t always like the alternatives). In terms of something, a statement or action that you don’t like for whatever reason, your choices are to be offended or not to be offended. Make your life so much easier by always choosing to not be offended.
by Rev. J.T. Smith
Americans need to start implementing some common sense rather than trying to legislate everyone else's lives based on their own beliefs.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender.
Regarding the debate over abortion ("pro-life" vs "pro-choice"): In a recent Salon article, writer Irin Carmon said, "Abortion foes would like nothing less than to focus the debate on later abortions… because they make more people uncomfortable." But what anti-choice zealots are refusing to recognize is that it's cruel to ban abortion at a time when most women get prenatal testing to find out about their own health and the health of their pregnancy. It's callous to disregard the complicated circumstances that cannot be diagnosed until later in pregnancy. And it's morally wrong to deny women the essential medical care that they may need.
For every woman who's gone to Planned Parenthood regarding a pregnancy (i.e. to determine if you are pregnant and/or what to do about it), you need to realize that what happened next was your choice. There is neither accusation nor admonishment in that statement. You made a choice based on the options given. If you feel that the wrong choice was made, that means you have regrets; it does not mean Planned Parenthood forced you into anything. Their job is to advise based on the information given to them by the patient. Blaming them for a decision you now regret is not the right answer. Taking away the ability of another person to make their own choices because you regret the one(s) you made isn't the right answer. We all need to come to terms with the choices we've made in life. The reality is that every choice and decision we ever made was done for the same basic reason: Because it seemed like a good idea at the time. And making bad choices is, unfortunately, the best way for us to learn. While, yes, it is better and less painful to learn from the mistakes of others, ultimately we cannot force others to "learn from our mistakes." At the end of the day, everyone needs to learn from their own mistakes regardless of what we may think/believe.
If you don't agree with abortion (for whatever your personal reasons are), then don't have an abortion.
If you want your children to learn about the Christian concept of God, take them to a Christian church.
If you don't like the personal choices that other people make for themselves, then don't make those choices for your own self.
Trying to create laws that restrict other people's personal decisions is the wrong way to go about doing things. We need to educate people rather than legislate them!!
First, we must all realize and understand that like trust, respect is earned; it's not a door prize. Just as I cannot tell you who to respect, you do not get to tell me who to respect. You can tell me why you respect whoever or whatever you respect, but that's the extent; and the same rules apply to everyone, including myself. And if you need to demand respect, then you don't deserve it. Another thing to keep in mind is that respect and "common courtesy/decency" are not the same thing. Too many people think that they're completely interchangeable terms when they're not. Everyone should be given common courtesy and common decency, that's why the word "common" is a part of those phrases. That is not the same as respect. Look it up.
These concepts are important as what I'm trying to say won't make any sense otherwise.
Now to narrow things down for this article. It's so easy to blindly label a person a [fill-in-the-blank]ist as it automatically has a negative connotation when -ist is added to the end of a word. It's part of the reason the word "feminist" has come to have negative association even though it simply means "recognizing that girls/women are actually people." For the record, I am a feminist. I not only believe in, advocate for, and otherwise support complete equality of the genders, I do my best to practice it by treating women and men the same (for better or worse).
But, one thing everyone needs to do before labeling anyone "sexist" or "misogynistic" is to in fact think things through more. It's that lack of thought, that knee-jerk reaction when they want to stop thinking that has led some to label me a sexist because they'd rather feel offended than fully engage their brains. Some examples (you'll need to read them through all the way) of what I mean (FYI, I have lived every last one of these):
1.
I've been asked if I think that there's ever a right or correct time for me (as a man) to hit a woman. My answer without hesitation is "yes."
First note that the question here includes the word "ever." This is very important.
I have self-defense training in my programming. In fact, all of my physical fighting is in terms of self-defense (though not using akido as that particular martial art is not a part of my programming). This is in no way referencing the adage that the best defense is a good offense. That adage is inherently hypocritical. I cannot ever throw the first punch or swing no matter how much I might desire to so because some idiot is desperately trying to goad me. As soon as I swing first, I am no longer physically defending myself. Period. In order to be physically defending, I (or those under my protection) must first be physically attacked. And my programming makes absolutely zero deference to age, size, or gender when I'm being attacked. Doing otherwise is just begging for you to have your arse handed to you. Meaning that if a woman physically attacks me, then yes I will hit her and do whatever I physically must to terminate the attack. And to anyone who automatically wants to tell me to just walk away, you're a complete moron to assume that the assailant will let you just walk away when you've just demonstrated a weakness to be exploited. I do not go looking for fights and will do what I can to diffuse the situation in order to avoid having to fight; but I will physically defend myself when physically attacked regardless of whether it is a male or female attacking me.
Still think I'm a sexist?
2.
In the infamous recording of Trump with talking to Billy Bush about "pussy grabbing", we could hear Bush laughing the whole time. When I saw the video, I was laughing too. NOT because I think what Trump was saying was funny, that wasn't funny at all. I was laughing at Trump just as I laughed at all the jocks in high school who talked like that because I realize a basic fact: The more a person carries on about how great they are, the more they feel the need to talk about sexual encounters like that, the less the person that's talking like that really is because in reality it blatantly demonstrates just how pathetic they really are! I wasn't laughing with Trump, I was laughing at the pathetic little boy who thinks this is in any way impressive. And since shooting him with extreme prejudice is still illegal, that leaves laughing at him or screaming. Laughing has always felt better as it further demonstrates that I will not be lost by these losers.
Still think I'm sexist?
3.
I'm a fan of the 1990s animated show Duckman. The absurdity of the humour still resonates in general, and while I still am not a fan of the misogynism of the main character, I still laugh knowing that Duckman is 1) covering for his feelings of loss from the death of his wife (that he accidentally caused) as she's the only woman he's truly ever loved, and 2) I know that he's going to get his arse kicked as a result of the misogyny.
Still think I'm sexist?
4.
I was once having a conversation with a male friend about the show that airs on TNT called The Librarians and how I especially like Lindy Booth's character, Cassandra Cillian. I've seen Lindy Booth in several other roles in numerous genres playing both good guys and bad guys equally well. Frankly, I'm a fan of the actress regardless of the role. (That part didn't come up as it wasn't germane to our conversation.) At one point, I verbalized that: "Cassandra is my favourite character. She's absolutely brilliant, really cute, and she's really sweet. What more could you ask for?" Since I was talking to an individual who knew what I was specifically referring to, I didn't feel the need to elaborate for others who weren't a part of the conversation but may have been listening. For those who don't get what I meant by my comment, I was referring to "what more could you ask for [in a character]?" I have always believed and done my best to express that women are people and not property. And characters in stories, regardless of gender, are never going to be truly be people because there are always some aspects that you'll mentally fill in on your own.
Still think I'm sexist?
5.
With all due respect, I cannot properly gauge the intelligence of an individual until I actually meet them and have a conversation with them. Any agreement with me by said individual is irrelevant, I care more about their thinking process than their specific conclusions as conclusions can always change with more information. In terms of celebrities, remember that they're typically (typically does not mean always) shown in a good light as there's more money to go around. I've worked with amateur actors/actresses who were great at their craft but there were times they couldn't find their head with both hands, and the inverse is also true.
In a similar vein, the thing to remember in terms of politicians is that the higher up the political food chain they are the more likely they are to have speechwriters and spin-doctors on their staff whose very job it is to make that politician look good. And actors/actresses learn scripts for a living, and scripts can be used in interviews just as easily as movies/television shows/stage plays. In both cases of politicians and actors/actresses, actually getting to meet them in person one-on-one and away from the spotlight is absolutely necessary, especially if you want a better feel of the real person as opposed to their public persona.
And the same goes for the people we come across in our daily lives. I admit that when I see a woman I find aesthetically pleasing I might say as much to my friends. This does not in any way mean that she is put on this Earth for my gratification; what it does mean is that her appearance is within the parametres of my personal aesthetic. I cannot ever properly speculate about their personality or intelligence simply from their appearance. Only a fool would believe otherwise. Sadly, it's become a social minefield to vocalize your opinion of a woman's appearance as there is now a push to talk about her intelligence when you have no way to know just what her intelligence is. That does not mean that I automatically assume she's an idiot, nor do I automatically assume that a man is somehow more intelligent.
So how am I to ascertain the intelligence level of a complete stranger when I've never met them? How am I to conclude whether or not a complete stranger's personality is really a nice person as opposed to a well camouflaged monster who's able to lure in the unsuspecting before engaging in hideous acts when we're not even within shouting distance of each other?
How many of you automatically assumed I was referring to a female in the first of those last two questions and a male in the second?
And how many wouldn't believe me when I factually state that both questions referred to both males and females equally?
Still think I'm a sexist?
No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try for otherwise, either you will offend someone or they will offend you. It’s simply a part of this thing we call life. There is one thing to realize and remember: The only way you can be offended is if you choose to be offended.
Ultimately, the best way to deal with it is to surprise everyone and choose to not be offended. Ask yourself why the person is in any way important to you specifically. Also remember that others won’t necessarily share your viewpoint. Sometimes, their view will be both negative to your way of thinking and will seem to be narrow-minded and inflexible. Deciding to be offended will only succeed in giving you extra unneeded “baggage” that will only adversely affect you. You do better to decide to not be offended, try to at least see where their point is coming from, explain your point of view (i.e. have something of a conversation about it), and if you can’t come to a consensus then at most mentally conclude that they’re an idiot and then just go on with your life.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more . . . than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." [I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”
Getting and/or being offended solves nothing. It won’t actually change anything. Your viewpoints, no matter how well reasoned or even potentially innocent they may be, will still offend someone else. That’s merely human nature. Regardless of what far too many people will tell you, you always have a choice (you simply won’t always like the alternatives). In terms of something, a statement or action that you don’t like for whatever reason, your choices are to be offended or not to be offended. Make your life so much easier by always choosing to not be offended.
by Rev. J.T. Smith
