Word of the day: Prosopagnosia.

Also known as "difficulty or inability in recognizing specific faces." Also known as "problem that has plagued me and annoyed my mother for years."

It's not that I can't recognize faces; I'm just shitty at it. I have been to church with the same people for years on end and wouldn't be able to tell you their names if you asked me to. I have difficulty recognizing actors unless I've seen them in a multi-season TV show or unless there's something really distinctive about them (to this day, I do not know how people recognize Terry Thomas by anything other than his voice).

Watching The United States of Tara, it took me about three episodes to realize that the husband was played by John Corbett, despite the fact that I'd seen his name in the credits twice.

There was one point in my teenage years when I honestly could not make out the difference between Danny Kaye and Bing Crosby until I actually saw Kaye and remembered what he looked like (confusion that has since cleared up, fortunately).

I can't count the number of times I've heard my mother ask me "Do you know who that is?" like I should know, but I honestly don't recognize them at all.

It's a big enough problem that I've changed the way I perceive the world to compensate - when I'm trying to recognize someone, I usually start by listening to their voice, and then trying to pinpoint specific facial features that seem similar to me. It's a process. Usually works pretty well.

I don't know why I have his problem. Could be because I was dropped on my head as a baby (seems unlikely) or just something genetic (seems more possible). I also have some of the shittiest short-term memory retention of an otherwise healthy person that I know - unless it's personally significant, it will usually drop straight out of my head if I don't repeat it over and over. And not just long words like "prosopagnosia," but factoids like "you need to go to your grandmother's house to help her with something."

A consequence of that is that I end up writing stuff down a lot. Which impresses people, because I look all organized and premeditative. People really, really like that.

Introductions Part 1: The Dude and Nic

!Or, the start of a list of introductory posts for those who aren't familiar with my headmates. AKA the inhabitants of Hell. Some of us have decided that I am Hell and they're dead in it.

!Okay, so first there's me. The Dude, we'll call me. I have a name, and it's not even William (William was a name I went by once and kept it as a pseudonym when I picked out another one later), but I don't share it. I can use The Dude safely for reasons I'll explain in the next paragraph. -Right there! In the next little paragraph! How about that?

!STFU, Doctor.

!Okay. The gist of it is, -long ago there used to be this person. Kind of a girl, but not really. Good at pretending to be a girl, anyway. !Whoever this person was, she had proprietary rights to the body for many, many years. Close to twenty. (Makes me feel like kind of a dick for stealing it, actually, except I didn't really. I'll explain.) This semi-girl - genderqueer person, I guess - was not the most healthy, mentally-wise. She was emotionally and physically abused by her parents, and as a result a lot of her (or the body's) natural personality traits were suppressed. She also had very little self-discipline, self-motivation, yadda - a problem I still struggle with. In ways, I think she was a shell for the actual body owner - kind of a personality-suit, if you will, with me behind the wheel. If you'll forgive my mixing comparisons. Anyway, she started to break down around the time I lost my faith (a hugely traumatic experience, but the thing that pushed us over the edge was losing our trust in our mother). Around this time, we/she/whoever was starting to try and get xemselves together, and manifested "The Dude." We didn't realize it at the time, but The Dude was basically a projection of everything we wished we were - confident, competent, good-looking, male. He wasn't a full-on personality/person, just a projection, and went dormant after a few months.

A year or so later, I was reading about transgenderism (I say "I" because at this point "she" was starting to break away,a lot of that old programming going dormant since I wasn't using it anymore) and I realized that I, too, was trans! Oh noes! The more I read, the more I was convinced, and the longer I was convinced the more naturally male I felt. There were other side effects as well - I started to feel more confident, more capable, generally more together. Not perfect, but better.

The Dude had integrated.

Okay, that took longer than a paragraph.

Next is Nic. I'll copy and paste his introduction from another source.

Nearly everyone in my head is an import of a fictional character, or else a composite of characters that seemed to be close enough to make a whole. Nic, for example, is based on Nicolas Cage, but is neither like the real Nicolas Cage nor a specific one of his characters - he is more of a composite.

...Not that I'm not a real human being. There's a difference between me and everyone else here. I couldn't describe it; I'm not a self-reflecting kind of guy. I'm a "get stuff done" kind of guy. I'm a eat-sandwiches-and-coffee-and-then-get-back-to-work kind of guy. I'm not afraid to speak my mind. Not afraid to speak Cameron's mind, either. Not that everything we say that isn't exactly blooming in the tact department is my fault. Cameron's got a big enough mouth to go around.

!An interesting fact is that in most situations, most of my headmates have difficulty actually talking through my mouth. They have voices, they just have difficulty bringing those voices to external space. Nic, on the other hand, is a very free talker when he has fronting time. On the other hand, he has difficulty writing - the above paragraph was semi-transcribed and is the only written word he's gotten out so far.

...It's not that I can't type. The Dude always seems to start fronting whenever someone tries to work a keyboard - !except when Spike is fronting; he's a pretty good typist. ...Anyway. So it's taken some practice to be able to run a keyboard without someone else getting in my way. That's why it seems like I don't talk much. That and I don't have a lot to say. I don't get out much, so what am I going to say? Hi, my name is Nic, I live here, I only come out when Dude needs me. Yeah.

!Like he said, Nic's a get-stuff-done sort of guy. He's kind of a work horse type personality - in contrast with me, who has been known to spend days on end playing Minecraft, Nic feels out of place if he's not working a steady job. That's his niche, his environment, you get the picture. He's also a defender kind of guy - well, everyone's defensive to a degree, but Nic is more proactive. He would carry a knife at all times if he could, and probably talk me into learning to shoot small firearms as well, just in case he ever has to get into an epic firefight with John Travolta or something. I think he thinks we're cooler than we really are.

Children with privilege are the only ones who matter.

I will asplain.

I just read this post on Womanist Musings: Oh Oh, Bigots Steamed Because Sheriff Woody Endorsed 'It Gets Better Campaign'.

According to Alan Chambers, an "ex-gay" fellow who spends not inconsiderable portions of his time turning his internalized prejudice onto his fellow GLBP folk, it is saddening and disappointing to see a children's movie character speaking up about something that, to quote a quote, "at this point children have no need to know about."

Where do I start with this?

Firstly, I assume he's talking about the bizarro version of gayhood wherein it is a horrible, horrible curse and everyone who has it struggles with their feelings of abnormalcy and just wishes they could be straight, unless they're complete perverts.

Secondly, he also seems to be talking about the bizarro version of gayhood that magically kicks in at puberty (whereas straight children are straight from the age of four or so).

And thirdly, as usual, the only children that Chambers is worried about are the straight children.

This is a typical claim from bigots who are trying to prevent education in "politically-charged subjects" from happening at an early age. (Ironically, these are usually the same people who believe that children need to learn Christian Creationism in public school science classes.) I read about this frequently on Womanist Musings. White people say that children don't need to learn about racism, because it is just too horrible for their delicate little minds and their innocence needs to be maintained - plus, by teaching them by racism we might encourage them to be racist! Onoez! Of course, "children" is a misnomer -as Renee points out repeatedly, children of color in the United States start learning about racism as soon as they are cognizant enough to understand what the words mean (pretty much as soon as they have a good grasp on English.) So what they're really worried about are white children.

The same argument has been made re: disability. In another post, Renee shares the story of a woman who, in the process of giving birth to her children, sustained an injury that has rendered her unable to move any part of her body except her eyelids. The children's father, with classic sympathy, took advantage of her incapacitated state, took the children, and ran. Since then he has refused to let the children see their mother because he fears that it might scar them.

Really? SCAR them?

Scare them, maybe. The kiddies probably aren't used to interacting with someone who is paralyzed (definitely, if Dad's behavior is any indication), and it will probably concern them, and they might not know how to act at first. But if they were actually allowed to spend time with their mother and interact with her, they'd get used to it. They could have a wonderful relationship and it wouldn't bother them in the slightest. Because KIDS ARE FLEXIBLE.

Which brings me to my next point.

Kids ARE flexible. They're also in a state of perpetual learning. Kids are open-minded, and often very compassionate (once they develop empathy). There is no better time for a person's life to begin learning about oppression and develop the desire to fight it than when they are a child.

And it doesn't take much. A child only has to witness one act of blatant discrimination to figure out that it's messed up (and yes, even privileged kids have the ability to figure out when someone is being put down) and speak out against it or even start a charity to fight it. (Not saying that the kid's going to be perfect at it, but the motive is there). You can read countless stories on the Internets and Highlights Magazine about a child who does something that seems incredibly plucky, like mowing lawns to earn money to buy shoes for poor kids, or refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance until true equality has been reached, or whathaveyou, all because they were given information about the issues in question.

But most children are not given this opportunity. Instead, we "shelter" them from these issues, protecting them from as much badness as we can. And what are they shown instead? Straightness, cis genders, whiteness, able bodies, single minds. At the point in their life when kids are most able to learn tremendous amounts of things about the world, we so rigidly filter their intake that they can only learn the most privileged side of the story. And the kids, being kids, suck it all in. Their understanding of the world, of society - of what behaviors and bodies "should" exist - becomes framed to prioritize these privileged bodies.

The result of this is that when these kids do begin to gain information about a new perspective, they have no idea what to do with it. When they begin to meet people who are fat, or need special equipment to move around, or have "weird hair," or "talk funny," they don't know how to react. They might know how to pity the crippled child, or to accuse the child who speaks out about racism of making things up or being too sensitive - the limited types of interaction that are conveyed in mainstream entertainment. But they don't have any real knowledge of how to handle these people on a tangible human basis.

Some kids are more flexible than others, of course. Some of them are very open-minded and will instinctively treat nearly everyone with some level of respect and kindness. But a lot more will not. Children who have learned that the world is a place of sunshine and roses and SCWAT bodies will freeze up when they meet someone who is different. They may refuse to deal with the "other" person. They may make fun of that person to assuage their own confusion. Or they may look to their peers to learn how to deal with the person - and their peers, having roughly the same upbringing, will teach them how to scorn the nonconformist.

As the privileged child ages, unless someone intervenes in xir life, nothing is likely to change. Instead, the problem crystalizes. By the time this "innocent" child has become a teenager or young adult, xe is now convinced that the world is exactly as xe learned it, or close enough, and xir reaction to a different perspective will likely range from disbelief to an outright refusal to consider the possibility. Sure, xe is now old enough that xir innocence is probably not considered an issue, and others might finally decide that it's time to teach xem about oppression - only to find that xe is lacking the core education needed to understand these concepts. The core education can be had, of course. And the education that builds upon it. And teenagers and young adults are, relatively, more impressionable than older people. But at this point there are two things stacked against them: firstly, they may not have access to the information they need, and secondly, they may simply decide that they don't want to learn because they have other things to worry about (like building their own life).

A young child doesn't have other things to worry about. A young child's job is to learn about the world. By preserving "innocence," by shielding them from anything that might be considered controversial or "too harsh" (apparently the real world is too much for children to handle), their parents are instilling a worldview that is one-sided and profoundly naïve. Not only does it hurt the marginalized - by implicitly training children to ignore their lives and struggles - but it hurts the child, by limiting xir ability to function with various "other" persons on a fully human level, as well as xir capacity to understand why extra work and sanctions are needed to protect marginalized persons.

As for gay children, transgender children, children of color, disabled children, and many others - all of them are getting a firsthand education in some form of discrimination. "Innocence" is a luxury that they cannot afford, at least for those realms to which they are privy. Through sheer happenstance of birth or life events, we were rendered clinically incapable of retaining this quality that is supposedly so valuable to a child's healthy development, and somehow we managed not to be ruined for it. Yet this inconvenient fact frequently gets swept under the rug by people who continue to insist that innocence is the most valuable thing a child could have - not understanding that maintaining the innocence of a privileged child often means destroying the innocence of marginalized children.

We do not get this.

Spike is a self-professed vampire. He has an irrational fear of sunlight and doesn't really care for food. But he doesn't have an intense craving for blood, possibly because he's in a human body.

The soldier, on the other hand, was never a smoker until we read an extensive story about a soldier character who picked up the habit. Now whenever we communicate I am blasted by an inordinate craving for cigarettes. I do not smoke; I am not physiologically addicted, but the soldier demands some sweet burning tobacco.

I wonder if growing up with smokers, moderate exposure to secondhand smoke, etc. is somehow responsible for this. All I know is that it does not make sense, particularly since the last time the soldier was out (after reading that story) he wasn't having this problem. Also, I feel a little silly now, because I have my "token smoker." One of those weird li'l plural system clichés that I figured I would probably avoid.

(And because most people who read this will probably have no idea what I'm talking about, an introductory post is probably in order.)

Riffing on an old quote.

First the threat was Britain, and I fought because I knew the British were wrong.
Then the threat was Germany, and I fought because I knew the Germans were wrong.
Then the threat was Russia, and I fought because I knew the Russians were wrong.
And then the threat was me, and I fought because I knew that my battles were just.

Sparrows, the United States in a nutshell.

So, bin Laden is dead.

How do I feel about this? Well, I'm going to tell you a story:

Some weeks ago, a friend ("Q") and I were getting into an argument with a mutual acquaintance ("F"). We'd been hanging out for a few hours, during which time F let loose a slew of ableist slurs. Q and I had both been keeping quiet to keep the peace, since F was only going to be around for a few hours - xe was just down for the weekend, lives pretty far away, and rarely visits.

Finally I couldn't take it any more and asked F to stop using the slurs. Xe became defensive, and we got into a long, drawn-out argument. Q and I spent ridiculous amounts of energy trying to explain to F why it was not okay to use these slurs, because even if xe didn't personally know anyone who was disabled, it encouraged others to use them and generally made the world a less safe place. F continued to disregard us, while at the same time goading us, asking if we were going to get violent (because anger = violence, you know) and insinuating that if we ever did xe would make us very, very sorry.

F refused to listen, and eventually got tired of listening to our criticism. Xe pulled out xir privilege and made a very rude comment to Q and me.

At this point, Q lost hir temper and slapped F (an action which I am completely against, by the way).

The next thing I knew, F had completely lost control. Xe screamed "DON'T FUCK WITH ME!" and fell on Q in a violent rage.

F is several inches taller than either Q or me. Xe is also muscular - I believe xe works out - and has martial arts training. It took both Q's and my efforts to barely restrain xem. The altercation ended after several minutes of struggle, at which point F ran to xir mother and told her that we had attacked her.

And that is the war on terror.

Violence is NEVER a joke.

Trigger warning: description of physical violence in the first paragraph, discussion of threats throughout.

Never ever. It's not a fucking joke.

Have you ever been the victim of, or been in close proximity to, an act of physical violence? Let me tell you what it was like for me: it's fucking TERRIFYING. You don't know whether the person being beaten (be that you or someone else) is going to survive the encounter or not. You don't know whether the attacker is going to keep going or for how long, and you're afraid to try to stop it in case xe turns on you next. The blows don't come rapidfire like they do in Hollywood. They're fast, yeah, but you see EVERY SINGLE ONE as it lands, and if you're not the one being attacked, suddenly you realize that could be you.

It's like a nightmare come to life. But at least in a nightmare you know you'll be safe when you wake up. You don't get that comfort in the waking world.

The reason I bring this up is because I found this post on Microaggressions today:

If I should mention (snip) that I’ve taken multiple self defense classes, the response that I almost always get from men (snip) is some variation of “oh, well, I could still snap you like a twig, you silly, 120 pound, 5’5 girl.” It’s like they want to make sure I know that no matter what I do, they can always overpower me, I will never be able to handle myself, I will never have any power, no matter how I try, over my own safety.

You know what that is? THAT'S FUCKING CREEPY. That's the kind of behavior that will probably make ANYONE who is less physically able than most average-height, young-to-middle-aged, able-bodied, testosterone-fueled men want to run for the door. (It can also be triggering to victims of actual violence.) If you're not sure why, try putting yourself on the receiving end of this exchange.

The fact is, if a man said this to another man, there would be no question in his mind that this was a threat. Men just don't say shit like this to one another unless they expect that they might follow through with it at some point. Why should it be different for women?

But he's just pointing out a fact - firstly, no, he isn't. 120-pound, 5'5 women tend to take self-defense courses that are aimed at 120-pound, 5'5 women. They learn how to use their enemies' size to their advantage. Add to that her potential opponent's cockiness, evidenced by his comments, and she may well get the upper hand.

And secondly, no. It's not "a threat" when you say it to a man but "just pointing out a fact" when you say it to a woman. This assumes that, because of their relationship or the man's personality or whatever, the man means well and wouldn't actually do anything, and woman has an obligation to believe that.

At the risk of repeating myself, NO.

For one thing, she does not know what's in that man's head (and neither do you). He could be acting like a nice guy when, in reality, he wouldn't hesitate to attack her. Or he could genuinely be a mainly nice guy, but due to emotional repression or simple failure to understand acceptable boundaries, he may be inclined either now or down the road to attack her anyway. She has no guarantees that she is safe. Therefore, it is not "overreacting," but JUST FUCKING PRUDENT to assume that this statement is more than "just pointing out a fact."

And thirdly, why the fuck would he feel he needs to bring this up, anyway? Is he afraid that if he doesn't, the woman will get delusional about her abilities? As if a 5'5, 120-pound woman needs to be REMINDED that she's small and vulnerable. As if she took MULTIPLE SELF-DEFENSE CLASSES because she thought she was perfectly safe. She doesn't need to be reminded.

Yeah, but that wasn't really a JOKE, so I don't see what it has to do with your first point - It was a cavalier statement about inflicting violence on another human being, which said human being was then expected not to take seriously. Close enough.