Your December 13, 2010 Cup Of Sad

This is an actual interview between actual human beings. You can even view the clip at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/09/60minutes/main7134156.shtml?tag=contentMain%3BcontentBody

(On page 3)

Here, Lesley Stahl is interviewing incoming Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R), about a certain word he doesn't like.

Boehner: We have to govern. That's what we were elected to do.

Stahl: But governing means compromising.

Boehner: It means working together.

Stahl: It also means compromising.

Boehner: It means finding common ground.

Stahl: Okay, is that compromising?

Boehner: I made it clear I am not gonna compromise on my principles, nor am I gonna compromise…

Stahl: What are you saying?

Boehner: …the will of the American people.

Stahl: You're saying, "I want common ground, but I'm not gonna compromise." I don't understand that. I really don't.

Boehner: When you say the word "compromise"…a lot of Americans look up and go, "Uh-oh, they're gonna sell me out." And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense.

Stahl reminded him that his goal had been to get all the Bush tax cuts made permanent.

Stahl: So you did compromise.

Boehner: I've, we found common ground.

Stahl: Why won't you say you're afraid of the word.

Boehner: I reject the word.

It's more likely that he avoids a word that scores poorly in test groups. Now, if you have been within 500 miles of me, you are probably aware of my political alliance. Although it may be more accurate to just say 'the people I tend to vote for', as the Democrats and I aren't exactly BFFs. And while there are a handful of issues where I could happily stand with the GOP (or at least I should say the GOP of days past, I haven't seen much to imply that they still value anything I value), I can at least value someone for taking the place of the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition keeps you honest. They make you defend your position. They make you argue your case.

I value my friends who argue with me and do these things, because then when I take my many strong viewpoints out into the world, I know they are battle (or bicker) tested. Any holes have been filled, any common misconceptions or exaggerations have been debunked, and I really know how I think about it. More likely than not, I also have a solid respect for the viewpoint that isn't mine, and before I take a stand on something that I'm going to argue about, I do my homework.

Why am I talking about what a smarty smarty smart pants I am (not to mention my loyally opposing pals on the internet who I love even though I think they are all wrong)?

Because I'm still friends with my loyal opposition. I'm not going to ask John Boehner to make friends with anyone, because that's not how he's chosen to play this game. And it makes me sad that he's chosen to play this game with the Congress I know, love, and obsess over, but it makes me even more sad that that people who are not politicians will try to play this game. Because politicians should know better, but I know that the no-compromise, vote-the-party-line game works. It wins. For the party.

But it loses for the government. Now, people who are politicians might not care about that, because they will probably get re-elected, or hired as a lobbyist or at a think tank. So, this still kind of works for them. It is in their interest to act like this, and there's not much I can do about it (until I take over the universe and rule with a dainty, benevolent, iron fist. Then you guys are all picking up trash for the rest of your lives. But hey! Free health care.).

But if you're not a politician (and why would you?), I kind of have higher hopes and expectations. And when I hear and read about people sniping over political/religious/social issues, it doesn't bum me out that they are arguing, because I argue, and that makes it a virtuous behavior. It does bum me out that the thrust of the argument has become one of proving the other person wrong (or worse than wrong, a socialist) in order to argue that you are right. To argue that the other person is stupid to prove that you are smart. To argue that the other person is a moral sinkhole in order to contrast yourself as a radiant beacon of virtue. (I have still done all of these things before, and may well do them again, because I am a human being and we do irrational things. Feel free to loyally oppose me on it.)

But this binary thinking is an illusion. If I engage in it, I am lying to myself. I am not the polar opposite of my loyal opposition. I am not even the polar opposite of Rep. John Boehner. I am not the polar opposite of Sarah Palin, Tony Blair, or Justin Bieber. I share all of my DNA, most of my alleles, most of my life experiences,most of my values, most of my language, and all of my emotions with these people. And while I can always value arguing with what someone writes or says or does- that doesn't mean I'm addressing who they are as a person. You can dispute my words or my actions without attacking me as a person- but if you start attacking me as a person, you've probably just missed the point of anything I've said or done. Which means we both just lost.

Mark Driscoll thinks you need to grow up

So this fellow Mark Driscoll has a few thoughts about the world. I was linked to an interview with him by a buddy of mine, who frequently goes about the Christian blogosphere and posts cool things for me to ponder. Sometimes I find it insightful, sometimes funny, and sometimes I don't know what to think. This time, dear internet, the things Mark Driscoll had to say that I found respectable and fair were somewhat dwarfed by his disparaging and casual writeoff of a large chunk of the population.

Since I'm making up this blog as a place to share my overly wordy thoughts (with my Fuie friends are invited to post their thoughts here as well, in overly wordy format), with the internet and this first posting is getting linked to a Facebook page, some of you might not know me. So to start off, I want to make it clear that while I disagree with some of the assertions Mark Driscoll makes, I am not in any way interested in attacking, criticizing, or disproving his faith. None of that appeals to me, and none of that benefits me. I have a hinky solely with what he says about certain people. Mostly, people who aren't just like him. Also, I'm quoting from an interview, so some of the formatting on this might come out funky.


The interview starts out asking for Driscoll's definitions on dogma and doctrine, where he discusses the separation of religious issues that define Christianity, and the religious beliefs that may or may not exist in a Christian without affecting whether or not they count as Christian. This concept is AWESOME, and I have no beef with it.

Where the Ozzie brow begins to furrow is here:

"You’ve talked a lot about twentysomethings today living in a sort of extended adolescence. Why do you think that is?

I think, in particular, it’s young men. Perhaps to some degree it is young women as well, but we’re finding more women are getting better grades, more women are graduating high school, more women are graduating college, more women are buying homes, more women are doing things that are more adult and responsible. We’ve created this. It’s a sociological category. It used to be you go from “boy” to “man,” and now you go from “boy” to “guy” to “man.” There is this whole new creation of a “guy.”"

Ok, wait. So, sociologists went and made a whole new category, where previously they had to sort between boy and man, now they have to be able to make brand-new distinctions for the intermediate pupa referred to as 'guy'? I use the terms pretty interchangeably. And this phenomenon might have a parallel with women, except then I'm going to list all the things women are doing more that count as 'grown-up'? Eh? Whatever makes a guy different from a man?

"It’s just extended adolescence, where 20s, 30s, sometimes even in his 40s, he doesn’t really want to get married, doesn’t really want to have kids, doesn’t really want to pursue a career. He has a lot of hobbies, got a lot of buddies, watches a lot of porn, gambles, has a lot of fun, maybe plays in some band or is in a guild of World of Warcraft, or something ridiculous like that."

Hold up. So we've got an entire throng of dudes, maybe 20 years worth, who simply don't want to do anything? All of them, because men are a monolith who act precisely the same? Maybe even a large percentage of men are acting this way?

"And they’ve even got little [mottos] like, “It’s all good” and, “Bros before hos.”"

Seriously?

I'm fairly certain that every rising generation has its own type of slang, which the older generation finds alienating and weird. While I've said 'It's all good' more than twice in my life, it's hardly a marker of my constant video-game-playing, chronic porn-watching, work-shirking, band-playing lifestyle. I've known folks who did engage in this kind of lifestyle, but I didn't run into them much after the middle of college, and I still interact with people all over the spectrum now. And I can't say that I've heard anyone say "Bros before hos" seriously, but I've encountered shitty sexist judgment from dudes of all ages. It is not a special marker of the 20, 30, 40somethings.

It’s just this whole adolescent, juvenile culture. Kind of the Adam Sandler-esque view of life, and there is this whole genre of comedy movies built around these kind of inept, irresponsible, immature guys, and I think part of the problem is, as well, that the Church in large part has accommodated that."

I've seen a lot more movies where there are characters acting like this than I have seen actual guys acting like these fictional characters. And again, I've seen parts of this in real human beings, but over the age of 20-22, most folks start getting bored and growing up as they, you know, grow up. I think these movies can be insulting and condescending, but clearly have enough merits to keep Hollywood going. It's hardly good social nutrition, but neither was Avatar. What's curious about this is that he seems to that the Church is responsible.

"Those guys tend not to go to church. If those guys do show up at church, it’s usually just to find a couple of gals to break the commandments with."

Really? Going on the prowl at Sunday services? Actually, this doesn't seem too out of line as a strategy, but it also seems kind of demonizing. I also know a number of churchgoers, single and married, who play in bands, don't have kids, play video games, shirk their responsibilities at work, watch porn (not in front of me, but it's been mentioned), gamble, etc. It's almost like he's depicting people who do 'bad' things and churchgoing Christians as two separate kinds of people.

"And the Church doesn’t really know what to do with them, so the least likely person in America to go to church is a guy in his 20s who is single. Without knowing what to do with those guys, they commit crimes, they get women pregnant, they’re a drain on social services, they don’t raise their kids, they don’t contribute to church, they’re not getting ready to lead the next generation. I’d say it’s nothing short of a crisis, it’s a real problem."

Man. These guys are insidious. I sure would be worried about them if anyone could prove there were significantly more criminals, pregnancies, etc. Or if there were any demographic data indicating a 'crisis' among 20-40 year old men (or 'guys'?) beyond trying to get employed in a crippled economy. Bemoaning the behavior of the newest generation is hardly novel- they were rocking it in the Middle Ages, they rocked it in the 60s. It's not like 20somethings are dying more than any other age group in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (not that anyone's out to get them specifically, younger people tend to be lower ranks), are helping to run the free health clinic, running the animal shelter, running a bazillion volunteer organizations and other activities on college campuses, but ZOMG! Video games, playing in a band, hanging with buddies! Not yet married!

It's hard not to feel really judged by this here man (I will try not to call him a guy), who seems to have very concrete ideas about what everyone is doing, without acknowledging what plenty of people do that is inarguably good. People are interested in sex and checking out porn when it is so easily accessed is hardly traumatic. Playing in bands is fun. Playing in video games is fun and offers an escape (more on this later) from regular life. Hanging with your buddies is hardly the end of the world. And I could name you a number of people who would work very hard at their jobs if only they could find one.

What's more of interest to me here is, why don't single guys in their 20s go to church? When I was a more attentive churchgoer than I am now, I noticed a serious dearth of anyone between the ages of 18 and 30. It made me feel out of place. I did notice that new visitors and members tended to be newly married couples, or families with young kids. Also, gays and families of gays who left their old churches because of the reaction to an 'outing', but that's normal for the Unitarians and not really pertinent to Driscoll's condemnation of all dudes young. It just seems that if an entire demographic avoids YOU, the problem might not be with THEM.

"What do you think has created this “guy” phenomenon?

Part of it is the unintended consequences of divorce. Forty percent of kids go to bed at night without a father. Not to be disparaging toward single moms, but if you’re a single mom and you’re working 60 hours a week, and you’ve got a boy, and he’s home all by himself with no parents and no dad, he’s just going to be hanging out with his buddies, feeding himself pizza rolls."

So, not to be disparaging to single moms, but I am going to disparage you for a moment, because this scenario I'm inventing wouldn't be happening all across America if only you hadn't gotten a divorce, or had a man leave you, or had to leave your man, or had your partner die, or whatever you did because you are desperate to be a single mother. Furthermore, it's not like teenage kids are frequently active in after-school activities such as sports, volunteering, jobs, or *cough* church activities. Nor is it conceivable that these kids might be doing innocuous things (as a dadless youth, I spent countless afternoons utterly without adult supervision, as well as involved in the above mentioned after-school activities. I had a lot of beneficial experiences, and some stupid ones, that helped me along on the maturing practice. I can't imagine what massive benefit would have occurred if I were sitting home, staring at my mom. Maybe we could have played video games together?).

I don't say this to disparage the importance of fathers, or mothers, or parents in general. Parents are good, but having one parent only does not equal condemnation to an adolescence of misdemeanoring. And part of adolescence is figuring out stuff for yourself- some of that process happens when hanging out with your teenage buddies, eating pizza rolls (horrors!) and talking about teenage stuff.

"The number one consumer of online pornography is 12- to 17-year-old boys."

I was a little skeptical about this, if for no other reason than that teenagers are more closely monitored (that is, monitored at all) than 20somethings (who are utterly not monitored), and that it's trickier to buy and use porn when you don't really have your own money and Mom could walk in at any time. Also, 20somethings have had more time in life to think about this, and to try to do it. If it peaks in the teens, maybe the appeal is largely hormonal and they get bored with it? Maybe they get up the nerve to chase real girls rather than stare at the fake ones? Who knows?

So when I googled "Who consumes the most porn?", Google answered, "Utah", and mostly used it as an excuse to rag on conservatives. Surprise! To be fair, the study only tracked porn subscriptions, so it might be that conservatives are more supportive of the porn industry and are actually paying for it, versus getting the free stuff or stealing it. And the tendency of the journal to snipe at conservatives can't be overlooked, but whichever. Looking for "The number one consumer of online pornography is" gave me this website, which had part of this quote listed in the Google search BUT I couldn't actually find it on the page. (?) However, the same website had statistics saying that over 70 percent of 18-34 year olds ('guys' in Driscoll's new sociological category?) visited a pornographic website once a month. This doesn't shock me, and while it maybe doesn't sound very nice, visiting a pornographic website isn't the same as being a sex addict. For that matter, I'm not sure we should be shocked that hormone-riddled teenage boys are looking for virtual naked ladies. So, I can't disprove Driscoll on this count, but I'm not convinced it's true either. And, it's kind of gross but not shocking or evidence of a new wave of serial killer 'guys'.

What that means is he’s home eating junk food, drinking Monster energy drinks, downloading porn, masturbating and screwing around with his friends. That really doesn’t prepare you for responsible adulthood.

If that's all he's doing, mayhap. And that's a lot of what some teens do, but I don't recall too much of that in my adolescence, and I imagine that besides this behavior, kids do other stuff. But a lot of figuring out adulthood comes from actually trying to be an adult, and failing at it. It's not a quick transition, and it's not easy. Does anyone remember going to high school, and feeling REALLY STUPID at the beginnning? And then graduating, feeling like you really get it, only to go back to STUPID when you're in a new situation in college/work/military? Nah, you just had it all figured out by 18, when you magically poofed into a completely mature adult

That’s a really sad picture, especially if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”

Dude. BLEAK. Do you only read Cathy comic strips to get your ideas about single women? What makes you assume no marriage = no guy? Some of those unmarried women might well be lesbians (in which case, probably no guy), some might be in a live-in relationship but not married (hello, a lot of people out there!), some people don't believe in marriage (my married sister is one of them, go figure), some women might get pregnant and decide that the father of their child is better off not being involved in the child's life, but honestly that's their business.

Ok, so back to the video games spiel. While I'm personally squicked out by the violence and imagery in a lot of these, and they don't exactly appeal to me, they don't seem as inherently destructive as some other forms of escape- alcohol or drugs for starters, or even music, movies, and reading for more innocuous fare. A little escape is normal, the constant need to escape is a concern. What seems more the issue here for 20something, 30something 'guys' isn't if they compulsively play video games, but if they feel something that drives them constantly to seek escape. But I'd say that's a growing problem for everyone, regardless of age or sex.

What Driscoll's doing here seems to be more like telling people what's wrong with them, while still missing the problem.