As Decnavda pointed out, fat politics makes for strange allies. Case in point: Right-wing columnist (and science fiction/fantasy novelist) Orson Scott Card’s latest column is a pretty decent fat rights column. (Link via Big Fat Blog). Here’s a sample:
When you look at the gloomy prediction that obesity will chop two to five years off the lifespan of overweight individuals, you find out that the study this was based on made some very iffy assumptions, relied on old data, did not look at potential deaths from underweight, and ignored the possibility of future advances in medicine.
Even with all those iffy assumptions and omissions, the study only showed a death rate increase of four to nine months. The “two to five years” warning is a wild guess based on what might happen in future decades. In other words, it’s a made-up number.
And you could look at the same stats, change the assumptions in perfectly reasonable ways, and reach the conclusion that the increase in deaths due to obesity will be zero.
Although Card highly praises W. Gibbs’ recent, terrific Scientific American article on obesity (and well he should praise it, a lot of his column is cribbed from it), he singles out one aspect of it for criticism:
Gibbs (and some of the critics he cites) thinks it’s significant that many or most of the studies that supposedly support the claims about a “fat epidemic” were funded in part by the weight-loss industry.
Aha, one thinks. So they have a motive! It’s about making money from people who want to lose weight!
But that’s absurd — pure conspiracy theory.
Card goes on to claim that Gibbs had jumped “to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest,” had committed “irresponsible journalism,” and “should be ashamed of himself.”
Unfortunately, in his eagerness to club Gibbs, Card parted ways with the facts (note his conspicuous lack of direct quotes from Gibbs to support Card’s accusations). No where in the article does Gibbs “leap to the conclusion that people are overtly dishonest”; Card should have had the honesty to inform his readers that this is something he was reading between Gibbs’ lines, not something Gibbs actually said.
Nor is worrying about funding logically the same thing as suggesting a conspiracy theory, and it’s deceptive of Card to say it is. Most of the funding for obesity and diet related research comes from corporations who have a lot invested in supporting the theory that obesity equals death and weight loss equals health; those companies are, as Card admits, going to fund researchers who “share the same assumptions.” That’s not dishonest, but it does create a legitimate concern that the field is structured in such a way to give researchers whose work supports “fat = death” a prominence and funding unrelated to the scientific merit of their work.
In short, it’s possible that “funding bias” has caused the entire field of obesity and diet research to be strongly biased towards a particular view of the issues, regardless of scientific merit. Being concerned about funding isn’t the same as accusing people of conspiring or of deliberate dishonesty, and it’s Card’s accusation against Gibbs that is “journalistically irresponsible.”
I was also struck by this passage:
Yet they are condemned, ridiculed, treated hideously — often by medical professionals to whom they have come for help. You think fat people don’t know how they’re despised? You think they don’t want to be different?
It’s especially galling because the people mocking them are often of that tribe that doesn’t gain weight no matter what they eat. In other words, it’s easy for them to stay thin because their bodies burn up whatever they eat. People like that should keep their thin little mouths shut when fat people are being discussed, because they have no idea what it’s like to be heavy, or what it takes to lose the weight, when it can be lost at all.
First of all, although Card’s rhetoric has appeal, I wonder how true it is. It seems to me that many of the most fanatical fat-bashers are among the 5% of dieters who have successfully lost weight (unlike the 95% for whom diets fail).
Second of all, considering Card’s incredibly hateful views towards lesbians and gays, it would be appropriate to point out that queer-haters are often of that tribe that couldn’t be attracted to the same-sex no matter how hard they tried. People like that should keep their hetero little mouths shut when gay rights are being discussed, because they have no idea what it’s like to experience same-sex attraction, or what it’s like to be denied substantive legal equality just because you love someone of the “wrong” sex.
You know, no matter what gender someone like Card’s attracted to, I wouldn’t want to be it. That’s the problem with these gay bashers: no gender on the planet wants them, so they hate everybody who doesn’t hate.
Orson Card is a true homophobe and gay-basher. That link was the least of it. I find him hypocritcal to be able to be such an allie on this yet so hateful when it comes to something _different_ than he is. He has no empathy or love for ‘others’.
Truly sad. Ihave liked Card’s books and respected him as an author, even though his books did show some clues about his views.
*spoiler* Consider Enchantment where the legendary Russian witch Baba Yaga (the bad guy in the book) finds common ground with modern feminists, and subverts a bitter, but non-evil modern feminist (straw-man variety) for her hateful, murderous agenda. *spoiler*
I think his earlier books didn’t show so much bias, but the later ones are really damaged by them.
He may be a bigot, but this fat issue shows that he has some sense left in him, even if it is of the hypocritical variety.
This issue presents an interesting conundrum for those on the right, and it’s fascinating to see how they twist it. One the one hand, it gives them an opportunity to bash the “Nanny State” (i.e. the CDC and other “Big Government” entities), and yet they must be careful to support Big Business (in this case, the diet and pharmaceutical weight loss industries). What a tightrope act! The right’s precious Market Forces are behind a great deal of the anti-obesity hysteria, but expect them to downplay commercial forces at work in this instance.
I really wish some more prominant progressives would start chiming in on fat issues. While I’m glad the issue is increasingly seen as non-ideological and the fact remains that all substantive gains towards fat acceptance have come from liberal leaders (what few gains there are), I’m increasingly uneasy about the way wingers are taking to this in such high numbers. I worry that some on the left will have a knee-jerk, “screw that” response and turn further against fat people. Thus negating the effect of making the issue more open to all ideologies. I’m glad that some on the right are seeing the folly of fat hatred for what it is, but my political breathern on the left are getting seriously outflanked on an issue that still seems more on their turf.
Basically, I’m sick of having to say “Well, I’m glad you’re for fat accpetance, but about all that other stuff…” whenever anyone publicly supprots fat people lately. Progressives are responsible for promoting the single most visable and widely publicized fat hatred vehicle in recent years, too. (the dishonest and exploitatively insulting “Supersize Me”) I’m really concerned about fat hate taking up residence on the political left.
The issue seems to be confusing to the right and the left.
As you say, the right gets to bash the “nanny state” as there are increasing calls for government action to attack fat people. The CDC just sent out a field team to investiage an “outbreak” of obesity in West Virginia, for instance. And of course, the embarassing goings-on in Arkansas. They’ll not mention, of course, that the CDC is run by Republicans now or that the Surgeon Generals who’ve been most obsessed with fat people have been GOP appointees. And what’s that (R) after the Ark. Governor’s name stand for again?
On the other hand, bashing fat people is a lovely way to beat the drum of “personal responsibility” and fat as a moral issue. And lets not forget the Big Business interests profiting from fat hatred.
And yet, those on the left often do forget just that. For all their skeptism over big corporation, they target they’ve chosen isn’t Big Pharm’s manipulation of the FDA or the big business of habitually dishonest WLS docs. Now is it Big Diet’s work towards encouraging low self-esteem. No, they get obsessed with freakin’ McDonalds, falling completely for the absurdly unsupported line from the diet industry that Big Food=Big Tobacco. It played well to conservation instincts and the stereotype of a fat person as a symbol for overconsumpsion. Indeed, like many on the right, they see as a moral failing, too, and aren’t shy about expressing that.
Yet, in truth this is an issue of corporations exploiting the masses and defining public opinion. The disproportionate abuse of women in all this makes it a feminist issue, as well. And lets not forget the civil rights angle. Yet, while many on the left get far enough to question the culture of thinness, they never seem to get the point of caring enough to do anything about or ask the more difficult questions about whether any of the culture of fat hatred is valid at all. They’ll complain about the objectification of women and promotion of an uber skinny ideal, while in the same conversation express disgust at the supposedly expanding waistlines in this country.
Both sides have reasons to support fat acceptance, yet both sides also have many reasons to attack it. I really worry about the balance shifting too strongly to one side of the political divide as it could topple over nearly all support from the other side. I hope there isn’t an anti-fat backlash from the left in response to the genuinely small moves from some on the right in expressing mere skeptism.
Amp, I think you’re right that:
many of the most fanatical fat-bashers are among the 5% of dieters who have successfully lost weight.
But I don’t think that is so much true of folks who go to Overeaters Anonymous.
On the other hand…OA people believe that what keeps people back from losing weight is being in the state of unenlightenment that obtains prior to working the steps. So in a way OA is implicitly judgmental of overweight people–it’s just that their judgment is about the state of the fat person’s soul rather than the way they look.
On the other other hand, OA people say that one of the most common characteristics of people who need a good dose of the Twelve Steps is a heightened tendency to judgment of self and others.
So maybe the 5% who lose weight absent the Twelve Steps are people who lose the weight, but not the tendency to be harshly judgmental.
By the way, I didn’t know anything about Card’s politics prior to reading your post. But I just this weekend finished the second book in the Ender quartet–I read the first a long time ago–and it seemed kind of pro-lifeish to me.
I think I remember reading somewhere that Card is a Mormon. If true, that would explain a lot.
Card is a Mormon and the religion has come to dominate a lote of his writing. I’ve given up on his books as a result. Last week I had to throw out a book he had recommended (Elantris) in disgust and turns out the author was associated w/ Brigham Young University. So I suppose it’s a case of Mormons supporting each other.
One question, is Card overweight? He writes on this issue with the sort of fervor that sometimes comes from personal experience.
If you think that’s a strange bedfellow (huh huh. he said ‘bedfellow’) check these people out
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a right wing lobbying group with ties to mega producers like Coca Cola, Outback Steakhoses, the tobacco industry, etc…
And if you’re interested in that, Theresa Nielsen Hayden over at Making Light has a great thread on how Deceiving Us Has Become an Industrial Process.
I urge everyone to check it out.
hey, careful with the ‘He’s Mormon and that explains his politics’ meme.
I’m Mormon, progressive and gay…as is my partner (all three of course)..
his family, to the last one, are devout Mormons _and_ progressive Democrats.
and so is Senator Reid (though he’s ‘pro-life’, he’s prolife in the sense of Hillary Clinton is :)
and the Udalls…
and the Mathesons…
and a lot of other political individuals and families.
Mormons are as monolithic politically as a lot of liberals believe. Though 50% of Mormons identify as Republican in the US, 35% identify as Democrat…. and then there is the other half of Mormons who live outside the US
;)
that should read “NOT” as monolithic.
Card has stated–I think in his short story collection–that he was overweight; I have no idea if he still is, but that certainly does make him seem somewhat hypocritical for insisting on fat acceptance while bashing gays and lesbians.
He does claim that his politics are rooted in his Mormon beliefs.
Card’s science fiction is overflowing with sadism and pedophilic imagry–but he thinks gay sex is icky? Go figure.
Total nonsequitor, but have you read http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/13/82551/6958 ? I think you’d like it.
Trey, If an author makes his/her relgious beliefs overt and incorporates the same into his/her writings whether fiction or essays, it is now open to comment. This is what Card has done.
rhc, I think Card’s religous beliefs are fair game for comment, but it’s not unreasonable of Trey to ask for accurate comments. Card’s beliefs aren’t representitive of all mormons; they’re representative of religous right mormons.
That’s a distinction worth making. Some mormons are very cool progressive allies, and we shouldn’t diss or invisify them while we criticize Card.
“invisify”
:)
What Ampersand said…
Yes, if someone says, as Card does, that his political views are based on his religion, then it is fair game to criticize the view and their interpretation of the beliefs that led them there…
But, just wanted to make the point that being a Mormon doesn’t make one rightwing. All those Mormons i mentioned above (including myself) also find our political beliefs arising from our religious beliefs (welfare, public education.. heck.. even women’s rights ;). Just don’t want us to alienate those 20-25% of Mormons who consider themselves not only Democrat, but progressive :).
Trey, maybe what we should say instead, is that Card is a traditionalist Mormon who incorporates his beliefs into his writings. I apologize for my offensive and stereotypical shorthand.
lee,
just so ya know, i didn’t find your shorthand ‘offensive’
maybe stereotypical… so I was just expanding the view a bit :).
He is a Mormon and his _conservative_ and _’fundamentalist’_ interpretation of his religion affects his views, writings and politics…
Trey, s’OK. I have worked with many Mormons over the years and have some neighbors who are Mormons, but I had never met a progressive one before. I will say that once I knew Card was a Mormon, a lot of what is in his books makes more sense to me. Completely off-topic, would you say the Ender series was allegory?
I think that Orson Scott Card has let the Mormon church control more and more of thinking – the lying piece of bigotry he wrote last year was a superb piece of writing: it was also, as I discovered once I sat down to read it with care and attention in order to dissect it, built by straw men of nothing but lies and bigotry. It was a contemptible piece of work not because of Card’s opinions, but because he could not bring himself to write honestly what he thought: he needed to back his opinions with lies and create straw men to fight rather than state honest disagreement.
I haven’t read anything Card’s written since then, but it sounds to me like he still argues the same way.
I have fantasies about getting to say all this to him at a con sometime, but I doubt I ever will.
Ampersand, I think that your entire final paragraph is fallacious, some sort of mutant offspring of the Ad Hominem and the Red Herring. Orson Scott Card’s views on homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with his views on obesity. It does not follow that, just because he preaches tolerance of obesity, he would believe in tolerance for homosexuality. Why? Because he believes homosexuality is morally wrong. You disagree; so do I. But that’s not the point. No one argues against obesity based on morality, they argue based on science and health.
It is one thing to believe that morality should play a part in social structure and law. Virtually everyone believes that. But believing that current scientific studies on what is or is not healthy ought to play a similar part is completely different. I think it’s wrong. So do you. So does Card. This is an entirely legitimate view.
Did that make sense? Not trying to troll, I just wanted to stick up for the man. I think you’re all being entirely too hard on him. He is an incredibly rational and reasonable person when it comes to anything outside his religiously mandated moral beliefs.
And in none of his anti-gay marriage essays have I ever seen any hate, or ‘bashing’. Those expressions are tossed around far too casually. It is good to recognize wrong moral beliefs, like Card’s beliefs about marriage. But it is counterproductive to label rational, flawed men “gay-bashers”, or say they “have no empathy or love for ‘others'”. I have read most of his opinions on the topic, and I think it’s simple, religiously mandated intolerance. Save your labels, and your vitriol, for the people who dash homosexuals’ brains out with stones. And for Fred Phelps.
Also, Card’s weight has fluctuated his entire life. He’s gone through periods of being lean and fit, and several phases of being very overweight.
And, for one final record, I am a pro-war, progressive, libertarian-leaning liberal who agrees with Card on almost nothing at all, but still manages to enjoy both his fiction and his nonfiction. The man may be wrong a lot, but he’s still brilliant.
Of course not, Dan. I think you’ve misunderstood the comparison I was making. My point is that it’s reasonable to expect Card to have consistent values; it is illogical for him to suggest one standard (“people who could never be X should not criticize people who are X, because they don’t understand what it’s like””) for fat people, but embrace a completely contrary standard (“people who could never be X are correct to harshly criticize people who are X”) for queers.
It can be consistent to have contempt for homosexuality and sill defend fat rights; but it can’t be consistent to do so according to the logic Card provided. (At least, not if one is heterosexual, as I believe Card is.)
With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve correctly comprehended Card’s views at all. Long sections of Card’s anti-SSM essay are (Card believes) based on social scientific evidence (although Card doesn’t actually provide any cites to support his claims). And some parts of Card’s fat rights op-ed are clearly recognizing – correctly – that anti-fat bigotry is rooted in moralism, not science, and he responds on both a moral and a scientific basis.
Have you even read his anti-SSM essay?
Do you think it’s “incredibly rational and reasonable” to suggest, without a single bit of cited evidence, that gays and lesbians were commonly turned queer due to being raped or molested? To suggests that PC liberals are conspiring to force any “borderline” kid to be homosexual? To refer to all opposition views as “screaming hate speech”, and everyone who favors SSM as “barbarians”?
And I’m sorry, but the idea that gay marriage will destroy (Card’s word, not mine) heterosexual marriages is not “incredibly rational and reasonable.” No one has provided a plausible cause-and-effect chain showing how SSM in Massachusetts will lead to an increase in heterosexual divorce or a decrease in het marriage, for example.
If you take at look at other essays by me on the subject, you’ll see that I don’t use the terms casually or categorically (unlike Card’s use of “barbarians,” which you don’t see fit to criticize). There are some anti-SSM folks who I respect despite their wrongheaded views (scroll down looking for my posts responding to Elizabeth of Family Scholars, and to Eve, at this link). One of the things they all have in common is that they don’t endorse anti-gay myths, such as the myth that gays create more gays by raping children.
I called Card’s views on homosexuality hateful because that’s what they are, not because I call everyone who disagrees with me about SSM hateful.
So in your view only those who either actively murder queers or call for queers to be murdered qualify as homophobes, and nothing else can reasonably be called anti-gay bigotry?
I wonder if you’d feel the same way about prejudice against (say) Jews or Blacks. If someone was vocally anti-black, and uses bogus social science to claim that blacks are unbalanced, lonely and unhappy because so many of them want to marry other blacks, but didn’t call for blacks to be murdered, would you object to calling such a person a racist?
When Martin Luther King Jr. criticized racism in folks who didn’t actually murder blacks or encourage the murder of blacks, would you have told him to save his labels?
Not all SSM opponents are hateful bigots. But, judging by the essay I read and linked to, Card is a hateful bigot. Why should I give him a pass?
Finally, I agree that Card’s views are based in his religion. But it’s condescending to religious people to make “religion” a get-out-of-criticism-free card for bigotry. No one holds a gun to Card’s head and forces him to embrace and publicize right-wing Mormon views. You shouldn’t expect people to refrain from criticizing Card for his freely chosen views.
P.S. I like Card’s novels, too (well, the Alvin Maker series). And I agree he’s a good writer.
Note: Not sure how to do block quoting in html. If anything I say seems not to be referencing you in a clear way, my apologies.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
I know he uses ‘scientific’ evidence, but it’s so thin that the only people swayed are people who already agree with him and won’t change their minds anyway … essentially, people like him. His beliefs in this are religiously mandated, which is the only reason an otherwise rational and reasonable man would ever believe such malarky. I discount all his beliefs on the subject this way. None of them are rational or reasonable. But…
I’m not saying his religion is a get-out-of-criticism-free card. It’s simply, like all religions, a get-out-of-rationality free card. When the only moral values you’re using are purely religious ones, handed down from your god or gods or turnip or what-have-you, rational discussion by necessity must shut down. This is certainly, as you said, condescending, but sometimes religious views need to be condescended to. Sorry. (Okay I’m not all that sorry)
I will concede one point: Card is a homophobe. I was overzealous in my defense of him, and should not have defended him against that label. He seems genuinely afraid of many aspects of homosexuality and their ‘repercussions’. But, perhaps not so much in your post as in your comments, there have been other accusations flying too. For one, I just don’t see the hate in his views. (And saying “That’s what they are” didn’t quite convince me. The italics almost did it though. Very persuasive. That was a joke.)
So, he is a homophobe. And it is just to label him as such. But I also have to object to your comparisons to racism. As someone of indeterminate sexual orientation myself, I absolutely do not buy the belief that sexual orientation is on the same level as race. I’m not saying I think it’s a ‘choice’, per se … although I don’t think genetics play much part … but even if it’s not a choice, it doesn’t, by necessity, pervade one’s life the way their ethnicity does. We wear our ethnicity on our sleeve (well, our skin anyway). Sexual orientation is infinitely more subtle than that. So, I do feel very differently about prejudice against blacks or Jews.
To me, prejudice against gays is actually very similar to prejudice against, well, fat people. Amusing, since my entire thesis was that it’s unfair to expect Card to see the two as the same. Still, it is unfair, because he;s afflicted with the rationality-impairing disease called Religion, and I’m not. (Just leprosy)
Fat people do wear their, erm, fatness, on their sleeves, but even still, I think the comparison is valid. Both are lifestyles that I consider a very complicated mixture of choice and destiny. More importantly, both, by the very nature of their condition (condition has negative connotations and I desperately wish I could think of a more suitable word. Please believe I do not mean it negatively) are going to have a modified life experience than the rest of humanity. Black people experience differences not simply by being black, but by being black in our society.
That may be confusing. What I mean is, if a black and a white person were raised somewhere utterly without racism or prejudice, their lives would be indistinguishable. There is nothing inherent in being black, or white, that changes someone.
But, even raised in a magical land free of prejudice, a fat and a skinny person would live different lives. As they would if one were gay and one straight.
Why does this matter? Now that I’ve gotten this far, I absolutely don’t know. I feel the distinction is important, but I can’t say why.
Sorry for wasting your time, I suppose. I’ve really enjoyed this so far, though. You seem eminently reasonable yourself.
In closing, I will bring the discussion back to Card.
“You shouldn’t expect people to refrain from criticizing Card for his freely chosen views.”
I don’t. I felt that your criticisms were good, but somewhat out-of-place in a discussion of his fat-activism. I still think so. If someone does a lot to end racism against blacks, but at the same time embraces racism against another group, I think it should be possible to commend the first without feeling a need to point out the man’s hypocrisy. I have a great deal of respect for Malcolm X, after all.
And what I do expect, when people are criticizing his views, is for people to criticize his views.
“Card’s science fiction is overflowing with sadism and pedophilic imagry”“but he thinks gay sex is icky? Go figure.”
That’s not criticism. And it is offensive.
One thing I almost forgot to say. (well, I did forget, since I hit “submit comment” without saying it)
Card’s use of “barbarian” didn’t bother me. But now that I think about it, it’s probably because computer RPGs and twelve years of Dungeons & Dragons have desensitized me to the word.
Dan: For one, I just don’t see the hate in his views.
I do. (I would have assumed any LGBTQ person would.) If you read his essay against same-sex marriage, you find a great deal of hatred – for any queer person who steps out of line. There’s a rank amount of hatred for me and for anyone like me in Orson Scott Card’s writing, both fiction and non-fiction: indeed, since discovering what he thinks of me and people like me in reading his essays, I have found reading his fiction a more and more disconcerting experience. I can forgive a writer from the past his support of inequality and discrimination when I can say “he was a product of his time”. But Card is a product of my time, and his hatred of people like me fleers off the page.
We wear our ethnicity on our sleeve (well, our skin anyway). Sexual orientation is infinitely more subtle than that. So, I do feel very differently about prejudice against blacks or Jews.
Jews come in all skin colors, and can “pass” the same say that queers can “pass”. Of course homophobia isn’t exactly the same as racism–it’s really the bedfellow of sexism–but I don’t understand your desire to minimize it.
The man may be wrong a lot, but he’s still brilliant.
You mean, he’s a talented and brilliant writer. I don’t understand why your admiration of his work compels you to make such a weak defense of his political views.
Mythago, good points. Especially about homophobia being more akin to sexism than racism.
Either way though, I don’t think I’m trying to “minimize it”. His views on homosexuality are repugnant and backwards. Certainly. But here is what I don’t understand: Why must they be brought up any time the man’s views on anything are brought up? He is not an outspoken anti-gay activist.
In recent years he has only written one piece, and it was specifically on the subject of same-sex-marriage, not homosexuality in general. It was not a hate-filled piece. Jesurgislac may be able to see the hate there, but I would have to be considered at the least bisexual, and I don’t. Jesurgislac hasn’t really offered any reasons the hate is apparent to him/her, either. It just is.
Before that, how many did he write? The one everyone is so upset about was considerably longer ago… written in 1990. Most of the myths he supports in it had considerably more support in the mainstream back then. And to boot, where was it published? Somewhere in the mainstream, to try and strike back against the eeeevil gays? No. it was published in Sunstone magazine. An LDS publication.
I know what you’ll say to this. Is being a largely closeted homophobe and bigot make it any better?
In a word? Yes. He’s not an activist. He’s not devoting any appreciable amount of time to actually hindering homosexuals in any way. He is not filled with hate. He adheres to an insane religion that condemns our lifestyle. Fine. It makes me a lot more upset with the Mormon church than it does with Card.
But I’m beginning to realize that I should probably step out of this. Because you guys seem to be, well, activists. In a way Card never has been. And in a way I doubt I ever will be, too. I’m very glad for your activism, but I think it tends to polarize your views, too. Homophobia, alone, just doesn’t bother me much. I’ve known too many people who genuinely live what Card says; “Love the sinner, hate the sin”; to disbelieve him when he says that’s his view.
I know, most of you probably find that statement repugnant. I did too, once. I still wish those people would smarten up and stop giving a damn about the ‘sin’, but I know that they do mean what they say. They hold no hate or ill will towards me, they just want to defend what they see as morality, in a nation that is as much theirs as mine. Misconstruing their views as hate usually causes one to hate them in kind, and I absolutely do not see the value in that.
I know that, the more time that is given, the more progress will be made in turning the climate towards accepting homosexual marriage. Progress is inevitable. I suspect most of you disagree there. I’ll bet you see a lot of hate in our president and his cabinet, too, and we’ll have to disagree there as well. The only hate I see in the Right Wing is a very clear minority.
At any rate, I do want to thank you all for being so civil. Past experiences posting on political blogs have resulted in a lot more vitriol. I’ll poke back in tomorrow or the next day and see how much of this rambling’s been torn to polite shreds by then. :)
One last thing…
“You mean, he’s a talented and brilliant writer. I don’t understand why your admiration of his work compels you to make such a weak defense of his political views.”
Because his political views, when the diverge from homosexual marriage, are brilliant. Some of them I don’t agree with, some I do, but I have never read a (not-SSM-related) political essay of his that I found to be deeply flawed. Wrong on a moral level sometimes, but not fundamentally flawed as an argument.
When the only moral values you’re using are purely religious ones, handed down from your god or gods or turnip or what-have-you, rational discussion by necessity must shut down.
No, it musn’t. Assuming that basic moral values are beyond question and rationality, whether or not they come from God, is a cop-out. (cf: Job.)
Why must they be brought up any time the man’s views on anything are brought up?
“On anything”? Amp brought them up in the context of his views on a particular type of bigotry. Amp didn’t call him a homophobe in the context of, say, Card’s views on cyberpunk, or on New Wave science fiction, or on whether the result of the Battle of Hastings was inevitable.
“Oh, you guys are activists” may be something you’re grasping at to back out of the discussion, but really, it’s nonsense. We’re not talking about a remark Card made to a buddy that a third party overheard. He, a writer, chose to produce and publish a non-fiction opinion piece on SSM. He chose to put his views into the public marketplace, with the intent of influencing others, so what exactly is your beef when others respond to it?
You may not be an activist, Dan, but you’re clearly a fan, and it’s coloring your views; it’s good of you to admit that, but I believe you don’t quite see how much it’s warping your argument.
Need to get back to work, but I just wanted to respond to this…
Assuming that basic moral values are beyond question and rationality, whether or not they come from God, is a cop-out. (cf: Job.)
I didn’t exactly say that. I believe very, very strongly in objective morality. I believe that moral values must be held to rational criticism. But moral values rooted in religion are, by their very nature, above criticism. There may be some leeway for interpretation, but there will always be a core set of values that the religion holds as truth. The only way to convince a religious man that his values are fundamentally wrong is to convince him that his religion is wrong. This is a thousand times more difficult and complicated than discussing right and wrong outside a religious framework.
I definitely think that my view of religion and morality colors my acceptance of Card’s views.
And it’s definitely possible my admiration for the man is twisting my argument. Looking back, I certainly see me doing a lot of backpedaling.
I actually found this post while looking through a lot of anti-Card writing that is plastered across the web. Along the same lines as the poster that claimed his writing is full of pedophilic themes and sadism. And I had worked myself into a lather at the extremes people were going to, and the vitriol that seemed to utterly dwarf any ‘hate’ he had ever put forth. So I came in here guns blazing, and pretty much made a fool of myself.
My apologies, Amp. Thanks again for such a civil and thought-provoking place.
… That was a lot longer than I planned. I’ll check back in later.
But moral values rooted in religion are, by their very nature, above criticism.
Again, not so. If it were, then all Christians would agree on whether capital punishment is right or wrong, all Jews would agree whether homosexuality is right or wrong, etc. Of course all religions accept certain base things as true, e.g. the Nicean Creed, but beyond that, there are varying degrees of what is and isn’t “beyond criticism”.
Dan,
I had never heard of the 1990 essay before reading your post today; the homophobic Myths employed by Card, which I criticized, were all from the 2004 essay on SSM. But now that you’ve introduced me to his 1990 essay, let me point out that in that essay he calls for retaining laws making it illegal to have gay sex, and throwing the occasional queer person in prison just to set an example.
If advocating “set an example by throwing some gays in prison” policy doesn’t qualify as hateful, what does?
I’m afraid that I don’t have time to respond any more; my housemate had a baby today, and it’s a busy time here. But I’ll try to come back here and respond in more detail sometime in the next week. In the meanwhile, Dan, thank you for your civility and the concessions you’ve made. I appreciate how nice you’ve been in this thread.
If advocating “set an example by throwing some gays in prison” policy doesn’t qualify as hateful, what does?
It’s hateful, but not necessarily hate-filled. I don’t have to hate hippies to think that maybe it’s a good idea to throw a hippie in jail every once in a while so that the rest of them think about putting away the tie-dyed shirt and taking a bath before they go downtown. That might be a hateful act of the police power, but it isn’t motivated by hate; it’s motivated by a policy preference to not have the downtown smelling like patchouli.
The appropriate emotional state might well be disregard. Card doesn’t care that some gay people will be inconvenienced or hurt or frightened at having to go to jail for gay sex, because he doesn’t much care about their rights. Not caring about rights isn’t always hate-based.
Robert,
You and Dan are the only ones who have used hate-filled, everyone else has used hateful (just did a search of this thread).
Also, the difference between hating someone and thinking so little of them that you think that their suffering is not really worth including in your considerations seems much smaller than the difference between hating someone and actually not hating them.
Now you’re just being silly, Robert.
Dan: Jesurgislac hasn’t really offered any reasons the hate is apparent to him/her, either. It just is.
Well, yes. To me, a lesbian, Orson Scott Card’s hatred of gay people reeks from every page of that essay. You don’t write an essay like this lying piece of bigotry (as I see it referred to above) unless you loathe LGBTQ people. Passing references to gay friends he claims to have (he may know them, but I doubt if they class him as one of their friends) asserting that their relationship is “playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes”, the hateful claim that any child who doesn’t conform to gender norms is bullied into being gay, the truly repulsive claim that many gay people were raped into being gay – Dan, I really don’t understand how you can read that essay and not understand that Orson Scott Card hates you.
Mythago:
Again, not so. If it were, then all Christians would agree on whether capital punishment is right or wrong, all Jews would agree whether homosexuality is right or wrong, etc. Of course all religions accept certain base things as true, e.g. the Nicean Creed, but beyond that, there are varying degrees of what is and isn’t “beyond criticism”.
First of all, the italics for quotes works well, so I don’t need to figure out how to do the blockquotes. Thanks.
Anyway, you are absolutely right… to a degree. Yes, they can disagree and they can argue. But this doesn’t really disprove what I said. Because religion is by definition something not rooted in rationality. It is rooted in faith. Beliefs held because of faith tend to be unshakable in the face of rational argument, even if the faithful invent ‘rational’ reasons for their faith. See Intelligent Design for another excellent example.
The problem with arguing against these ‘rational’ reasons is simple: They aren’t rational. They are faith, couched in a shroud of feeble rationality that nonetheless convinces the faithful. The only way to persuade them is to divorce them from their faith, at least with regards to the subject at hand (Homosexuality, ID, what-have-you).
Once you do that, though, chances are high you won’t need to criticize their absurd beliefs. If they stop believing that God absolutely says homosexuals are bad, then they’ll likely find it pretty easy to believe homosexuals aren’t bad.
Did any of that make sense?
Amp, I know you won’t respond any time soon, but I’m still going to reply. :)
If I’m looking at the same section as you, I still don’t see the hate. I see a very firm belief in his twisted morals. I see the same belief I see elsewhere in his work, that being civilized is somehow about restraining all of our desires and committing ourselves to confusion and misery (read: marriage). I do not agree with his morality and I do not agree with his assessment of ‘civilized’. But neither are about hate.
I’m afraid that I don’t have time to respond any more; my housemate had a baby today, and it’s a busy time here. But I’ll try to come back here and respond in more detail sometime in the next week. In the meanwhile, Dan, thank you for your civility and the concessions you’ve made. I appreciate how nice you’ve been in this thread.
That’s wonderful! I love babies. I hope all goes well. And, well, I do try to be nice. A bit condescending at times, and sometimes a bit of a smartass, but still, nice. :)
Robert:
The appropriate emotional state might well be disregard. Card doesn’t care that some gay people will be inconvenienced or hurt or frightened at having to go to jail for gay sex, because he doesn’t much care about their rights. Not caring about rights isn’t always hate-based.
This is absolutely false. He does care. He simply does not believe that people should have the right to engage in that.
Card says he’s a democrat and he’s absolutely right. He’s a conservative democrat, almost the exact ideological opposite of me. He believes strongly in society regulating everything. Including sex.
Dan, I really don’t understand how you can read that essay and not understand that Orson Scott Card hates you.
I just realized something.
I am cutting him huge amounts of slack. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt ten times over. Precisely because of what I said up there. He is the ideological opposite of me.
He believes in regulating private lives, even sex. I don’t. I believe in freedom of choice in every case so long as no one else’s identical rights are infringed.
He believes capitalism should be heavily regulated. I don’t. I have faith in the free market.
He believes in God and the afterlife and spiritual laws. I don’t. I believe that the only moral laws are the ones we discover ourselves, and when we die the only place we go is to the morgue.
He even hates Macs! I’m writing all this on a lovely little iBook G4.
… And I don’t really understand him, because of it. All of it, not just the Mac part.
Yet, when discussing generic topics he shows a great clarity of thinking and an excellent understanding of the topic. So I give him the benefit of the doubt and extend my respect for him everywhere, even to the places I think he’s utterly wrong.
I believe the only reason he believes these things is because he has spent his life accumulating radically different experience than I have, and his beliefs are the logical culmination of that experience. And it would take a lifetime to give him the evidence needed to change these deep-rooted beliefs.
But I also trust him when he says that he hates the sin and loves the sinner. I believe such a stance is possible, and, not understanding him and respecting him as I do, I trust that he truly maintains that stance.
And thus far, I still don’t see the hate.
Dan: But I also trust him when he says that he hates the sin and loves the sinner. I believe such a stance is possible
I believe that someone can honestly believe they “hate the sin and love the sinner”. But Orson Scott Card’s concept of “sin” includes all my sexual and romantic feelings; every time I’ve made love with someone and every time I just had good sex; every time I committed myself to someone; every time I wrote about my feelings and my joys in a positive way; every time I said something positive and helpful to another queer person who was feeling negative and down about a homophobic world; the work I’ve done as a queer activist; and even my self-respect. All of these things he hates. To argue that because he is prepared not to hate me once he has stripped me of any hope of sexual pleasure, any hope of loving someone and making a lifetime committment to that person, any ability to fight for equal rights for myself and other LGBT people, and every single scrap of self-respect, means that he really doesn’t hate me, just these sins I commit – well, to me, Dan, that reads like he hates me. Someone who insists that you disrespect yourself before they’ll love you does not love you at all.
That was very eloquently said.
I have no idea how to respond to it, but I have a long day of work to think about it.
[Applause for Jesu and #43]
That is all. I don’t read Card anymore.
Beliefs held because of faith tend to be unshakable in the face of rational argument, even if the faithful invent ‘rational’ reasons for their faith.
So if the faithful do in fact argue rationally, they’re not really rational, just inventing pseudorational arguments? Again, Dan, you seem to be confusing “fundamentalism” with “religion.”
One can also hold an unshakeable religious belief (God disapproves of homosexuality) yet have the consequences of that belief subject to reason. For example, one Christian might believe that it’s not the job of the government to prevent any couple God disapproves of from marrying.
Mythago: “One can also hold an unshakeable religious belief (God disapproves of homosexuality) yet have the consequences of that belief subject to reason. For example, one Christian might believe that it’s not the job of the government to prevent any couple God disapproves of from marrying. ”
Brava, Mythago. I would have put it “any couple their church or other religious organization disapproves of,” but otherwise you have stated my position much more clearly than I could have done, and faster, too.
Oooh, that is an excellent point, Mythago. I see what you were saying before.
Still chewing on your post, Jesurgislac. It’ll be mighty fun to jump back into it when I’ve figured out just where you and I disconnect. :)
Still chewing on your post, Jesurgislac.
Thanks for letting me know. I’ll look forward to your response.
… It’ll be a while longer. Just got some horrible personal news.
Unless I’m suddenly possessed by the need to write, which happens occasionally when I’m under a lot of stress, I doubt I’ll be replying until things have calmed down.
Sorry!
I’m sorry to hear that, Dan. Hope it all turns out to be a false alarm.
So sorry to hear that, Dan. Take care of yourself.
Good luck, Dan.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » My Open Tabs, and, Open Thread (Orson Scott Card is a weenie edition)