Spirituality, symbols and respect - or why I stopped Beloved Feng Sui-ing our house

Musing on my past post about not being particularly fond of the idea of Beloved mapping out our house according to Feng Sui (and not just because I have no wish to reorganise all the furniture)

Basically, it comes down to this - if something is someone’s legitimate spiritual belief - religious, cultural and/or both/other - then it deserves a level of respect because of that.

It deserves respect because it is important to people

It deserves respect because it is a part of their culture

It deserves respect because it is a part of someone’s identity, their sense of self, the greater picture of them. Their culture, spirituality and beliefs are a part of them.

That is due a level of respect. Not respect because I agree with the beliefs - but respect because I respect them as people - and this makes up an important part of them as people, their identity, their history and what goes into the tapestry of them.

And part of that respect is not playing with their beliefs. These beliefs have reason and meaning to people - these are a part of people. When we decide to use Buddha as a garden gnome, or re-organise our living room because feng sui is fashionable, or wear some fake Native American jewellery because it’s pretty or wear some henna tattoos or doaist symbols because it looks cool n’ stuff, then we’re saying we don’t care how important it is to people.

We’re saying we don’t care about that person, that culture. We don’t care that that’s a part of someone. Our desire for a decoration or a fashion trend is more important to us than their identity, than their being, than their selves and their lives. It is extremely privileged, arrogant and, I feel, grossly disrespectful for us to say “my need for a garden gnome completely justifies ripping of a vital symbol of your culture, faith and identity.”

And it is arrogant and appropriative. We see not just something that is very much someone’s symbol and belief system - but we claim it. We make it ours to use, to brand, to distribute, to wear. And we not only claim it - we mangle it, we rip the bits out that look shiny and throw the rest aside. We wear the symbols but strip them of their meaning. We appropriate the pattern but ignore the spirituality, we copy the forms but never the reason. We take something of theirs that is so vital and important - and we turn it into a toy.


To me, if you’re going to take the symbols you need to take them wholecloth, you need to take the meaning with them. That is respectful - that is treating them as what they are - more than just pretty pictures, more than just an interior design technique, more than a cool tattoo, more than a unique way to be cool and interesting. You need to acknowledge and respect the more, you need to acknowledge that this isn’t your toy, that it isn’t yours at all. You need to acknowledge that it is important, that is meaning and value - you have to acknowledge what it means and what its worth and the people who rest parts of their lives and selves on these things.

In short, by all means use the symbols if you’re a convert - but not if you’re a colonist.



Now, for some caveats:
“Due respect” doesn’t make a system, belief, culture, spirituality or faith sacrosanct (hmmm, better make that “untouchable”). I would accord it basic respect - but that can be lost.

- If a belief or culture is inherently objectionable and damaging (e.g. being overtly bigoted, supporting destructive laws, etc etc) then it can and SHOULD be challenged, fought - even mocked and satirised. Not because we disrespect the belief or culture or spirituality - but because we vehemently object to the damage it causes and the harm it does. For me a major example of this will be the Catholic Church. I can respect it as a belief system and a cultural foundation and a pillar of vital importance in people's lives - but that respect is eroded by the damage and hate it causes.

- “Due respect” doesn’t mean adherence. I can respect someone’s beliefs/faith/spirituality while at the same time refusing to be bound by it or refusing to apply it to myself as I’ve said, such a demand is disrespectful to me. It means I will make reasonable allowances to let someone follow their own path - but I am not obliged to walk it with them.


Caveat on the Caveat
I don’t think “not making sense” is reason to not respect a belief or spirituality. Because no beliefs make sense. No religious/spiritual beliefs make objective, logical sense - and I include my own in that. Nor do 80% of what people do. We’re not rational creatures. I don’t think harmless and personal irrationalities are justification for disrespect.

Did you ever wonder...

What a religious right lesbian would look like?

Well, look no further for Julie Bindel fits the role nicely.

Yes, Ms Bindel is a lesbian - and she hates trans people, has zero respect for them (she also thinks gay male porn is misogynist, so, y’know, it kind of gives a good baseline for how much logic she carries around with her). She surges forwards ferociously to protect women’s rights - but never trans women - and she pushes from places and arguments that should be safe for them and should be held for them.

Ms. Bindel - you’re hurting us. And not just the trans people you spill your bile over - though you‘re most certainly hurting them and turning safe spaces - our safe spaces, their safe spaces, into toxic places for them.

You’re hurting us in general every time you use the arguments of the haters. Every time you give repeat to the ridiculous “slippery slope” argument, every time you imply one of our bothers or sisters is unnatural or freaky or wrong, every time you show your prejudiced backside to the world, you hurt us. You are using the tools of those who would hurt us. You are giving legitimacy to all the vile arguments we spend our lives countering. these are arguments that literally mean life and death to all LGBT people and YOU ARE SUPPORTING THEM. For gods’ sake, Ms. Bindel, buy a clue and open your eyes. READ your screeds - they are from the religious right’s playbook!

Hey, y’know? I have issues with the word “queer” as well, but to use the weapons of the haters like Ms. Bindel does - to sharpen them to a nice edge before handing them back - is ludicrous, destructive and offensive. To attack one of the pillars of the LGBT movement like this.

She is not champion of ours. Her bigotry against the “t” should make her shunned by all the LGBs as well. So not accept her hate. Do not accept her prejudice. Do not consent to this woman presuming to speak for us or represent us. And most certainly she should not be honoured or help us as any kind of advocate or speaker. We disrespect our trans brothers and sisters when we accept her and do not call her on her crap.

Livejournal - another fail? Seriously - listen to what people tell you!

To give a summary of the event if you haven’t been following it (as far as I understand it).

Basically, LJ, in it’s rather less than infinite wisdom, decided to look at compelling new users to choose a gender for their profile. In fact they’d get a ticky box - Male or Female. Removing the unspecified

Which kind of sucks to several kinds of suckness if your gender doesn’t neatly fit into that binary.

So, in the wake of criticism, they added the option “Unspecified” (or returned the option) which, well, also kind of failed. because people who don’t fit the gender binary may very well be able to specify their gender - it’s just that LJ isn’t giving them the option. Still it’s something many can grit their teeth and deal with albeit not happily.

So, now we change again to “personal.” Which is rather worse, methinks. Since we go from “I can‘t answer this question so am going to have to tick unspecified and suggest I am witholding information because I am somehow ashamed or embarrassed” to “I can’t answer that question, it’s embarrassing and private” which, y’know goes from implying a non-binary gender is a shameful thing to all but declaring it to be.

If you check your user info now “Male,” “female” and “personal” are the current options. It’s not made public and LJ says they have no intentions of making it public. Which rather leads me to question why they’d do it at all? Better directed advertising, perhaps? I don’t know - women who see advertising on LJ, do the adverts seem directed at women? (Which usually means “Barbie pink and sparkly” in the world of advertising). I’m also leery of “never will be made public” turning into being quietly made public in the future and hoping no-one notices (it IS LJ after all).


How to do it right?
Well, how to do it better would be what Dreamwidth does: Male, Female, Other, Unspecified. My my, 4 options. ‘Other’ is a wide term, naturally, but people do use a wide range of terms to describe their gender.

Or maybe an empty text box that allows the user to fill in what they want?

Or maybe accept that there is absolutely no particular reason to demand gender information anyway and scrap the whole thing?


The depressing thing about this is the “why don’t you just include “other” and “unspecified” has been suggested since 2001 (hence why Dreamwidth has done it) and it’s such a very simple thing...