Ignorant, hateful jerk becomes less hateful, ignorant. News spreads like wildfire.

[naamah_darling]

I've been seeing this link thrown around a lot in the last few days:

National Organization for Marriage tour coordinator Louis J. Martinelli comes out in favor of gay marriage.

I am really happy to see someone change his mind about this issue, especially someone who has - or had - some clout with a hate group like NOM.

I don't think he deserves

Comments

[naamah_darling]

I can see your point.

I certainly am grateful he A) changed his mind and B) admitted this publicly. And I think -- or at least I hope -- that good will come of it in the form of other people stopping to really think about what they are standing for. And I did state that I think he deserves thanks for that part of it -- the standing up and admitting that what he had said/done was wrong.

I've seen a lot of people doing that, and it's nice and all, I am certainly glad the message got out and is being received, in general, as well as it has, but I hadn't seen anyone -- anyone -- comment on the fact that he still believes some pretty disgusting things. And I think that's pretty important, and totally relevant, and that he needs to be called on the carpet for that. Anyone who believes those things does.

I'm not going to watch my tone in my own personal spaces for fear of discouraging or alienating privileged people who believe wrong and hurtful things. I'm just not. Withholding or granting support based on how something is said, as opposed to what is being said, is shitty, and if a person's support is fragile enough that another person's tone can put them off, I'd say they probably aren't really ready to come around.

I hesitate to use it as an example, but I have read a number of womanist blogs written by women of color, harshly indicting both feminism and white people, especially white feminist women, for neglecting their sisters and in general, being assholes. Calling out, basically, people like me with certain kinds of privilege, and often in a really nasty way. Not comfortable, no. And they have every right to being angry, and they are also almost always totally right about what they are saying. I listen anyway, because you don't always learn best from nice people.

Now, if I were having an actual talk with someone in person, or talking in their blog-space, or in a space that was neutral ground open for debate, I would have an entirely different tone. I'd be much nicer. But this is my journal, and I assume -- rightly, and I prefer it this way -- that people who believe that the statement "homosexuality is wrong" is true are either not reading me or would run like hell.

I'm not always nice. Generally, yes, always, no. I don't think we should police our personal spaces to make sure we aren't being mean. I think that's giving them waaaaaay too much control, and they have too much already.

[dulcimeoww]

My comment was less about the tone of your journal (which you're more than entitled to) and more about the idea of not thanking the guy because he was just finally thinking what he should have been to begin with. I must have misread your statements. Basically, I just saw, "Sure, thank him for speaking up in our favor, but not for being willing to listen or admitting what he did was wrong, because he owed us all that and aside from having finally done it he's still an asshole."

I wanted to encourage recognition that listening with an open mind may be what grownups are supposed to do all the time, but it doesn't make it easy or even remotely common practice. Not even those of us who try for that kind of openness are actually very good at it, and even if we privately conclude we need to change our opinion, it's even rarer for us to face up to that in public. So that's where I was coming from... the belief that you were advocating a scornful approach to the man, and the sincere desire to convince you not to. I apologize for misunderstanding.

[naamah_darling]

Like I said, I see your point. I totally do. And I actually don't necessarily think you misread my statements.

I think I may have phrased/presented some things in a way I didn't quite intend, and some of what I meant got buried. I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'm still looking at it to see where that happened.

I am really impressed with the way he was willing to speak up after changing his mind about something like that, for actually trying to undo some of the harm he's done. But at the same time, he still holds some really gross opinions, and reading between the lines of his Road-to-Damascus moment, it's apparent that where he was coming from was messed, basically confirming all of the worst things we think people like that believe while hoping that, no, they're better/smarter than that. And it was messed in ways I don't think he is even aware of, not even now.

So it's sort of like . . . a really bad form of cognitive dissonance. I admire his guts, but dude, ew.

There's some scorn involved, won't lie, but it is mixed up with "Well, I don't condemn [[this part]] of what he has done, because that took a lot of nerve, and I approve of what he is trying to do and appreciate the courage it took." I admire what he did, but I just can't find him admirable, I think, is the division.