As with everything (and I really can’t stress that enough), what we like influences our behaviour and vice versa. For instance – a rigid personal environment and adherence to the resultant behaviour will make it difficult or even impossible to like things that pertain to different, whatever that different entails… it could be another culture, another group within the same space, another religion, you name it. This boils down to one simple thing – our likes will be limited by our already extant behaviour, and our future behaviour will influence our future likes. Because of the predominant lack of change, personal and otherwise, in rigid environments, this will be a fairly static situation day after day, year after year, throughout one’s lifetime. Even grudgingly accepted gradual changes (technology, acceptance of what used to be different into one’s groups – this has been happening with the LGBT around the globe, actually -, appearance and adoption of foods and fashions…) may not be accepted by the truly rigid core of a specific group, as greater rigidity stands for hierarchical top in rigid environment, or, in simple terms, people think that they can a) out-extreme others, being and remaining at the top of the hierarchy of their group, b) gain hierarchical position by out-extreming others.
In fluid or fluid leaning environments, however, variety is the key to life. This is what I can admit excites my anthropological self a lot about it… the capability to explore, adopt, shift, change as one wishes, without the feeling of endangerment constantly present in the rigid societies.
The exploration of self in regards to one’s environment is particularly rich here, and it ends up, if I borrow a mathematical term, in constant permutations of endless themes. Feel like wearing a Hindi outfit today (lots of boho chic goes there, or is loosely inspired by, and many do enrich their wardrobe by even culture specific pieces… especially women, but men are close on their heels in the shift in fashion and self perceptions)? Want to experiment with African food and jewellery? Inspired by Asian cosmetic achievement? Joining French, Italian and American kitchen (or interior decor, looks…) into your life?
No problem… until and unless you hit rigidity.
I recently read an article in Cosmo (I think it was Cosmo for guys, actually, but I’d have to go back and check) that very much reminded me of the battle betwixt the rigid and the fluid.
Racism comes from all directions, including in the guise of “protecting one’s culture”. One article turned into several, and before you know it, I was pondering over things you should never say to a black girl, to a person in a mixed relationship, to a gay guy…
Majority was simply matters of appalling, nasty behaviour/ discomfort with Other from the perspective of people dealing with the said groups. I agree – if you have a specific look, which is what people first judge you by (and I think you’ll agree to me if I say that while you can “hide” to the first glance that you are say, Dutch in a group of all white people, it’s going to be a bit more difficult for someone not to figure out you are a Latina or a black man…even though this already comes with the added issue of wrong expectations, as there are many black, Asian and Latino Europeans all over Europe, but they are – or I can say we are – Europeans first and specific background second; it should not be impossible to understand that a Dutch person can also be black!), then it might be a bit tough to avoid the behaviours and expectations connected with them when dealing with the rigid, conservative minds. On the other hand, there were quite a few that got me thinking about the prejudice coming from the opposite direction.
To better explain, I will give you examples. But I will start with explaining a little something about myself. My own background is extremely mixed, including French, British, Germanic (and I say Germanic because this covers a lot of genetic groups, and far back, where this would fit!), Italian, Hispanic, Slavic, even Asian. There is a goodly chance that there might be a smidgen of Moorish blood in there too via the Hispanic route, and that would mean either Arab or Sub-Saharan, because of the time and the mixing of the regions included. In any case, I may appear white, I may be predominantly Caucasian, but the reality is that I am quite a cocktail. I grew up Continentally, but I consider myself British (an expat Brit to be precise), because of how my life turned out; in many ways, how we (including myself) see ourselves very much depends on personal perspectives unless we are trapped in a specific rigid perception that forbids us this freedom of perception. I also consider myself a woman, but do not adhere to many ideas about what a woman should be; this makes my gender role, to some, odd, even suspicious and repulsive – I am emotionally and physically emancipated and strong, I am outspoken and I do not tolerate the socially proscribed bullying levels of the more rigid people (including Westerners), I lack the expected feeling of guilt about self in relation to many things…including race and colour.
In the confusing world of sexual identity, I consider myself bisexual, as it is specific male or female traits that are likely to attract me. But I do have a pansexual trait when it comes to the simple question of logistics (i.e. anything goes).
This probably illustrates the sheer variety in myself, and also what in part forms my outlook when it comes to those social snags of who’s who and what that should mean. Being clearly a woman (and I don’t think I could hide it, not with a natural DD cup!), I puzzle people who expect a set of behaviours. Being bi, I confuse both the rigid heterosexuals and gays… bi-erasure is something that does happen in the LGBT groups just as well as from the heterosexuals, because the joy of rigid thinking happens to everyone, and being gay does not make you immune to it. Appearing white, I mess with the heads of those who expect, from me, the biases and behaviours of the white person…whether they are white or of a different colour themselves.
And let’s not start on the questions of nationalism, nativism, and professionally expected biases.
This is how I stand in regards to Things you should never say to.
Yes, I agree. While it is a bit of a difficult one to say to a gay guy if he can be sure if he is gay if he never tried dating a girl, while you REALLY should not assume that a person dates only people of their background or colour, while accusing people in interracial relationships of being cultural traitors is just ??!!!!!??, there is also something to say about things that are apparently a taboo topic but show more a lack of acceptance from the other side.
For instance – it is wrong to ask a black girl if she is mixed.
Seeing as I am heftily mixed myself, and people just assume that I am a result of close-group breeding connections (very, very, VERY wrong on most accounts… We are all much more mixed than we expect, which is why we are still genetically ok enough for our lives and our babies’ lives to be viable! Inbreeding results in a major genetic fail very quickly, it can be a question of a few generations only!), I see no reason to either deny my own happy cocktail self or to assume that others are not mixed. In fact, barring what I have just mentioned about inbreeding, it is equally wrong to assume that a white person is simply white as it is to assume that a black person is simply black. At the end of the day, none of this should influence how we are perceived, and here’s a little hint…if it does, you don’t want to be around the person with this type of prejudice anyway, period. They would, sooner or later, find something to dislike about you, and would make your life hell.
There is, of course, the question of slavery to consider. I understand that this is a painful topic to every Afro-American out there, and for a good reason. No one should think that they can own another being. Ever.
However, anthropology is also knowledge of other cultures and of history. Slavery has existed for thousands of years, and while few types actually compare to the American slavery system of the especially 18th and 19th centuries, it is definitely comparable (and, however terrible this sounds, often outdone by) African inter-tribal slave behaviour. Including the question of consent of the women in question.
This will probably make many readers uncomfortable, even angry. I am not, in any slightest way, excusing the horrors done to the American slaves, because nothing can ever excuse abuse of human rights…nothing.
But I am asking you to think without bias. For many Afro-Americans, and some more racist groups in Europe – who have been insisting to have a status of a minority while having a proper status of a full-rights citizen (cf. here, here) and who are as displeased by the EU rule of not looking at race or background in citizen studies as the, say, Front National members are, despite the fact that this would actually give fuel to those who wish to have only white Europe (which is blind anyway, given ancestral mixing, but I never said racists were clever!) -, the fact of slavery erases all possibility of considering any match between two people of different colours consensual and possible, present or past. This is awful, because it not only takes away consent from any man or woman who is or had been willing and in love and turns their lover/loved one into an abuser, it also fakes a consent of both parties in the context of all-African matches, past and (sadly all too often) present.
In other words, it becomes as racist as the white supremacists to have a problem with mixing, or the fact that others may not have issues with being mixed, or you being mixed. If I am open about my background, I cannot see why I would not extend that same courtesy – of openness without shame – to another person.
Any other behaviour draws lines where there should be none, creates contexts of alienation and distance.
Then there is a question of colour. Many women, regardless of their background, share similar tones. I have seem Italian women and Spanish women whose skin was darker than that of many Afro-American ladies. It is a beautiful, chocolatey tone, and I see no reason why, if you do actually share the tone or a goodly amount of similarity, you should be forbidden to say so.
Colour is colour, and it really only matters in two things – how much sunblock you may require and how you find make up that fits your particular tone. Given that no two ladies are alike (something that is very clear when you want to try out someone else’s make-up, even when you are all white), even the simplistic all-white expectations result in foundation that won’t match.
Moving on to the questions regarding the LGBT. Yes, if you have a boyfriend who is uneasy about gay people, we are likely dealing with someone who is simply a victim of rigid environment education (because everyone is taught to hate, at least when the hate isn’t personal, for someone who has done them wrong); he could also be in the closet, desperately trying not to be gay, or bisexual and even more confused because surely, if being with girls works, how come he has those other ideas in his head (this is where it really REALLY sucks that bisexuality is not spoken of more). Of course, all these things can still make him a bully and a homophobe (ironically), and impossible for a gay man especially to be around; and no, it doesn’t say anything good about you as a girl sticking with the guy who obviously doesn’t think twice about being abusive to a possible target, whatever his reasons (for one, what does it say about your own being a potential target of his wrath and prejudice at some point later?). On the other hand, I really did get stuck on the whole “you shouldn’t say that you would have never expected this actor/artist to be gay”.
Why. Not. Last I looked, none of us are walking around with labels on our clothes (thankfully, because mine would be so long I would have trouble walking). Equally, we might as well forbid talking about being in a relationship or single, being heterosexual, having brown hair, having had our nails done or liking pizza (Hawaiian for me, thanks 🙂 ).
Often, we can look at a person and just know it (whatever it is that we know); at other times, a fact will surprise you. Examples?
Workplace, a very polished-looking woman. You change gyms, and next you see her, she is cross-fitting with a grim expression of concentration, sweat pouring down her face, no trace of make-up, her hair messy and dishevelled. You look at her and say, I never expected that.
And you didn’t, because her work identity differs quite a lot from her workout identity.
Eg. 2 – you know a friend is allergic to dog fur. And then you realise that they are and have always been an avid dog lover and manage their allergy while having three lovely pooches they are really fond of, despite the dubious joys of the allergy (I have two friends who are avid cat lovers and are deathly allergic).
Eg. 3 – You see a work colleague with a man, a woman and three children. You assume that we are talking his or her brother, a wife to one of them and their children. In reality (and you can pick your favourite one here), they are a) an ex husband, his child from her first marriage and your colleague’s two children with his current wife; they split up amicably and they are all friends, b) a consensual polyamorous relationship – what you are looking at is your bisexual colleague, his homosexual partner/husband and their wife/partner (or any other combination you wish) and their children.
Eg. 4 – you realise that a friend you thought was German actually has an Indian great-grandmother.
All possible, all taken out of real life situations. But generally, surprise at discovering someone else’s facets of personality and the intricate details of their lives are not insulting; nor should the questions pertaining to them be. We all have eyes, and we all think, meaning that we create an impression which, without further confirmation, information or input remains the same, however wrong it might me. Many people have thought me American, because my accents shifts from British to American with great ease, because I have spent a lot of time around Americans and working with them. On the other hand, people have asked me in the past if I was Scandinavian, because of how pale my skin gets in winter and the lilt my accent gets sometimes – never forget I am multilingual (in fact, according to my partner, my English is at its best and crispest when I am getting really cross with someone) and that switching between languages has consequences.
Sticking with the theme of sexual orientation, it struck me as odd to realise that there was this idea that only heterosexuals would be surprised that someone is gay. When I realised that Luke Evans was gay, it definitely came as a surprise to me… while I can usually suss out one’s preference (comes with the job, really), Evans really did not strike that note with me for some reason, and his orientation came as a surprise. Equally, there will be people someone gay will assume to be gay… but will be surprised when they learn they are heterosexual, and yet this does not seem to be addressed.
I agree – there is a certain stereotype in people’s heads about what is a lesbian, gay man, black person, woman… but at the same time, those stereotypes are being challenged all the time by new information. As women change behaviours, black people are no more or at least less segregated (because let’s face it, segregation is insidious, and yes, it does still exist!), LGBT are openly out and walking under the sun, these changes are observed and stored away in your brain as new information. You now know, for instance, that, unlike the stereotypes, not all lesbians are butch, women lift, gay men can be pretty much fitness models with no effeminate behaviours and black people don’t all belong to gangs (something that is still used in the more segregating parts of the States especially to breed distrust and hate towards them), but have jobs and live the same Western lifestyles as their white or other counterparts.
That said, your brain is also the place where you recognise subtleties. My archaeological training has filled mine with cranial studies, and it’s often interesting to see (and, if you ask, realise how close you were, or that you are right) just how mixed roots influence personal looks, from the actual cranial shape to the facial features.
Even if you don’t go that far (and if you are slowly and carefully backing away from me now 😉 🙂 ), there will always be little things that will result in that one important voice you should always, always listen to – your gut feeling.
It may be wrong sometimes, but then again, it might not be. My partner and I took a long time to figure ourselves out… but pretty much everyone who knew us had that nagging feeling that it would happen, it should happen and it will happen. A happily married man may only figure out he is bisexual when he bumps into the one man who will turn his life around… and unless he figures out that he is bisexual, and quite possibly polyamorous as well, he could be looking at months or years of confusion, regret and doubt about himself. The same way a woman who thinks she is a lesbian may find that one person that actually points out her bisexuality to her.
I say this because I have seen this happen, and because it is tough out there for people whose sexual orientation, as well as monogamous or polyamorous leanings aren’t clear from day one to them (tip – they aren’t, not always; and what with social expectations, one’s perception of oneself may be influenced by more than just the lack of that special someone in the picture!). There are many taboos attached to the topic from both sides – the rigid extremist because sexuality is part of the control mechanism of the status quo of the particular aura of factuality, and the other side because they have battled so long just to get recognition as real people with proper personhood and to be left alone and no longer poked, prodded and potentially seriously imperilled for who they are.
This is bad, of course, and not just for the science… it is bad because taboos allow wrong impressions to grow, evolve and degenerate into something completely different. For instance – transsexuals are possibly one of the most discriminated groups at present. It is often difficult for them to be who they are, to the extent they desire, and there is so much prejudice directed at them.
At the same time, we face a very dire, real concern.
We do not, at the moment, know what actually causes transsexuality, not with any great certainty. We may never know, or we will discover it tomorrow… but at present, we are at sea.
At least scientifically.
This does not mean that transsexuals are less deserving of being perceived as people with real personhood. Even in the crudest version of acceptance, a full transition (or even a partial one) is a question of two things – a name change (full or occasional for people who are gender fluid… if you have trouble getting this, just imagine a man called Harrison James Grey; at the office, he is either known as Mr. Grey – ha! 🙂 – or, to his friends, Harry or Jimmy, depending on the moment… Now transfer Harry into Harriette, and you have what it’s like to work with a fully gender fluid person) and body modification.
If we can accept earrings, multiple earrings, piercings, tattoos, different kinds of fashion… then we can learn to see that today, Jimmy is Harriette. After a little bit of time, your brain will pick up on the looks and you won’t even blunder on the name any longer, because your brain will tell you – Grey; skirt/blouse = Harriette; trousers/shirt = Jimmy. Of course, as acceptance of anything goes where gender and clothing is concerned shift, this may become even more complex, but trust me – your brain can do it. It is a question of simple recognition, which is something all people without brain damage (and I’m not being nasty here, brain damage can and does impede recognition, cogitation, short and long term memory… But that would be true in any case, even in a fully same-sex team at the office or with the family and friends at home) can manage just fine.
But there is a little problem that really isn’t that little. The leave-alone policy of the LGBT leaves many people vulnerable, trans people in particular. We all deserve to be fully ourselves, whatever that means… and under normal social circumstances, we have little enough trouble asserting that self, and getting help if there is need for it.
An abused man or woman can seek legal help, or go see a psychiatrist.
But the LGBT group, and perhaps Trans people most of all, face with difficulties due to prejudice from the socially available help very often, and are wary for a good reason. At the same time, nothing protects them from an environmentally charged abuse. For instance – a son born to a mother who obsessively wants a daughter may be pushed into being a girl completely subconsciously, or even deliberately. Instead of picking up on this abuse, people (and the boy in question) will simply assume that they are trans, and will treat him this way, allowing his mother’s abuse to continue, as well as forging a persona for him that may not be truly him, and that may make him uncomfortable in the long run, causing anxiety and depression, even suicide.
A lesbian girl may desperately try to be “normal”, and may undergo the full change to be “normal” i.e. a man, because men like girls, but girls cannot.
This is where taboos are the worst… because on one hand, we have the extremism pressing people to dig in their heels about psychological or psychiatric counselling, and on the other, we have this great, often fully blind, almost hysterical “acceptance” hurriedly slotting people into boxes and missing abuse where it is happening.
*I have come across both cases I mentioned above.
So what can we do to avoid this?
Well, first of all, we STOP with taboos. We stop with saying, here’s a list of what you are not allowed to say to xyz person. We accept variety, we embrace it and we bask in it, but we remain vigilant and we protect people from those who want to slot people into boxes, including ourselves and those around us.
We work on making sure that bias and prejudice are eradicated from the professional world around us. Changing sex, for instance, is a serious, often complicated procedure; if you change sex, you will be facing operations (expensive in countries where this is not covered by insurance), post-op touch-ups, maintenance (for instance trans men, as some penises are going to have to be changed through use and this has not changed yet, cf. here), life-long hormonal therapy (cf. here), tons of paperwork and potential discrimination, while perhaps not being happy with your new identity, because it wasn’t the right solution for you specifically (cf. here). Just like psychological help is given to victims of violence and available before all major health procedures (and if it’s not, it should be!), just like a tattoo artist isn’t allowed to perform on you, even on your wish, if you are drunk and therefore less than fully responsible for your decisions (while this is not consistent, it is considered bad practice at the very least, and normally, you have to sign a waiver stating that you are fully conscious in all ways), help should be considered and taken for people who are taking this huge step in being themselves… and while it should most definitely not be aiming to impose a stereotype of “normality” on them, it should also make sure that the patient/client a) copes well with the scarier aspects of their transition, like post-op pain, sickness from the relevant medication and prejudice they may be facing, b) takes this step for the right reason.
It is equally wrong for someone to pose the famous “Have you tried to not be a mutant” question and the associated pressure as it is to try to force them (and I’m looking at you, Magneto, as a very good example for this) to be mutants when they are not.
In other words, discussing why someone wants to go through a transition, including whether or not they are sure of their reason, should not be taboo.
Victims of violence, especially when this violence was or is still being perpetrated by someone close, someone they should love and trust, and who should love them back unconditionally, often experience vigorous denial when first faced with the truth about their abuse. This is because they have dealt with it by either pushing it away, normalising it or simply erasing it, fully or in part, from their conscious mind. What hurts is too painful to think about, especially if it remains unresolved, and that means that the parts of any therapy that tries to resolve it (because, present visibly or not, this is still ruining your life!) is in a way painful for both the client and the therapist. I have sat through many gruelling experiences of people coming to terms with the fault their cultural, traditionalist, social or religious environments have in the pain they go through, whatever their particular reason, and it is never pretty. But it is necessary, as we cannot be whole without finding a way of coming to terms with and removing the harm from our lives, be it a memory of an act of abuse, on-going abuse from a loved one, cultural expectations or meeting with prejudice because of an aspect of you at school or workplace.
Recently, the #MeToo movement has riled up women – and men! – from around the world, sharing their experiences of sexual harassment and abuse, working to break what remains of the still present taboo of discussing it and stopping and preventing it. I had my own comment to make, sadly, and while I, like many, decided to keep the details private, and while there is no way I could have ever read through all the stories shared, I have observed a certain amount of issues pop up even at the start.
For instance, one particular comment (which I will not share, because the woman who posted it has a right to retain what anonymity the sheer number of people presents, and I would not single her out, especially when there are others who have likely posted similar comments as well, as this is a much wider problem than one person) stood out to me. The woman in question started by grudgingly admitting she had in fact had an experience that could count as harassment, and by pointing out that, oh well, she might as well join, because while most people will probably lie or exaggerate, at least this is for a good cause, sort of, and that maybe this will encourage people with real experiences to come forward and get help.
Two things struck me most with this statement – firstly, the apparent belief that there is hierarchy in abuse. That it doesn’t count until and unless it’s really horrible. Who keeps the score?! There should NEVER be a hierarchy to abuse – abuse is abuse, and it doesn’t matter how it was perpetrated and how far it went, it was still abuse, and harmful, and should be considered as such. To behave this way prevents victims from coming forward.
Secondly, the fact that this person actually openly stated that she believes that majority of the people (male and female) who have joined were actually lying or exaggerating their experience.
Granted. There have, since, been posts all over the internet, mostly by radical feminists, on what they feel already qualifies as sexual abuse and harassment (including talking to a girl without her explicit consent… which created, in my mind, a ridiculous picture of a man in shackles and a mistress-type lady beckoning him over, saying: “Come hither, slave. You may now talk to me.”), completely devoid of both reality and legality.
Thankfully, they have mostly been accepted as such.
But this still leaves us with the original comment, dubbing people who gathered courage to come forward, the floodgates of emotion that this may have opened, liars.
This is inexcusable, because it pushes the victims back into silence. While there are likely to be some people who will join for other reasons (pathological liars doing what they do as pathological liars, radical feminists trying to make some ridiculous point, people who feel embarrassed that, in light of some of the stories shared, they only have this much, who will then try to elaborate to make themselves feel less of an outsider), it is insane to say that the majority are just saying things.
This is precisely the problem with abuse – to keep the status quo, the victim must be without help. Moreover, he or she must be without even a notion that help could be sought and received. The ultimate goal is for the silence to persist, for the victims themselves to defend the “good and bad” divide, so that the abusers can continue acting unpunished. Abuse is a major part of every rigid society, and a part of indoctrination of every child to be an unquestioning part of this society is for them not to question things… i.e. communicate, doubt, explore, ask questions and expect honest answers.
Taboos are how status quo is kept. Every time we stumble over a question because we think it might offend someone we keep this status quo. We keep the silence, not just of harassment or sexual or gender or sexual orientation or colour or race based silence, but many other as well. Perhaps the person you are directing a question at will be offended and perhaps they will not. Perhaps they had a reason and perhaps they did not; perhaps the reason was something in their past that got to the forefront of their mind and perhaps it was you. In either case, both the person asking and the person answering should always be clear about their own emotions and why they feel what they feel. The only truly valid feelings are personal, and even there, a predisposition due to experience must be avoided. All other predispositions are likely highly questionable. So ask. Ask yourselves, whether you are asking or answering, why you feel the way you feel. Tailor your responses and questions to that, and to the action and reaction between the speakers included.
Break the silence, because it needs to be broken. Break taboos, because they keep the silence.