Sunday, January 20, 2019

Road Rage


I first observed road rage when I was in high school. I was riding with my easygoing classmate Ken. While driving around Northern Utah, Kenny would carry on a cheerful conversation with his passenger. However, he’d regularly interrupt himself with a shocking torrent of profanity – directed at the hapless little old lady in the Ford Pinto that Kenny had just cut off.

I haven’t seen Ken since the 1980s. Nevertheless, I’m sure by now he’s on the same industrial-strength blood pressure medication as my mother.


For countless millennia, humans evolved as members of hunter-gatherer tribes. In contrast, we’ve been driving cars for barely a century. There’s a serious disconnect between our primitive wiring and the modern stimuli we face behind the wheel.

Like other primates, humans are intensely social. We are tribal creatures. And we’re deeply concerned about our social status within the tribe. According to evolutionary biologist Robert Wright, we're therefore wired to rage against perceived injustice – or at least injustice directed towards ourselves. Like Trump University, evolution taught our brains a kind of “shady accounting,” with “a deep sense of justice slightly slanted toward the self.”

As a result, we all go through life with a chip on our shoulder. Road rage happens because some people’s chips are particularly easy to knock off.


I confess that I used to suffer from road rage. Not the virulent strain of anger mismanagement that afflicts people like my friend Ken, or my son Oliver when he plays videogames. But enough to make driving unpleasant.

In recent years, however, I’ve embraced mindfulness meditation. I've learned to modulate my initial reactions to the thoughts and feelings that arise during the day. Driving actually provides an ideal test course for examining your responses to frustrating situations. Just compare the warm fuzzy feeling you get from stopping for a friendly pedestrian in the crosswalk, versus your burning indignation when someone else pulls into “your” parking spot. When you face the road with generosity and humor, you arrive at your destination healthier and calmer.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those Pacific Northwesterners who will sit forever at a four-way stop pantomiming “No, you go first.” And I don’t let every harried parent coming out of the McDonald’s parking lot cut ahead of me. That would disrupt traffic.

Instead, I use the experience of driving to remind myself we’re all in this together.  


If you surveyed my children to identify the most memorable stories in our shared family history, all three would include an incident that happened in the parking lot at Ezell’s Famous Chicken five years ago.

Ezell’s is a Seattle landmark. It’s in the Central District, across the street from Garfield High School and its lavish Quincy Jones Auditorium. Ezell’s serves excellent fried chicken and other comfort food. As you stand in line, you can read the endorsements on the wall from Oprah and similar luminaries. Sadly there’s nowhere to dine in at Ezell’s, and only a tiny parking lot. But Ezell's is conveniently located just down Martin Luther King Boulevard from the Seattle apartment we lived in before moving to Bellingham.

Ezell’s was my go-to place for fast food on those frantic evenings when I had a last-minute court filing, then picked up the kids from after-school care. Late. Again. (Sorry, Miss Melonie. We were lucky to have you looking out for the kids for five years.) On this particular occasion it was raining, everyone was hungry and angry and needed to go to the bathroom, and the staff at Ezell’s took forever to get our order right. When I finally got back outside, I discovered the minivan was blocked by a parked car containing two women and a toddler. The driver was shouting into her phone obliviously.

I honked a few times. Nothing happened. My kids were climbing the seats. I was losing my temper. Eventually I got out of the minivan. I knocked on the car door to get the woman’s attention. She leaped out and started screaming about her [expletive deleted] new car. I responded angrily. When I attempted to photograph her license plate, she tried wrestling the iPhone out of my hand, and started punching me. (She outweighed me by at least seventy pounds.) A bystander finally calmed things down. We returned to our cars, still fuming. 


Back in the minivan, my children were terrified and crying uncontrollably. Back at the apartment, no one was interested in eating fried chicken. In fact, no one was interested in going back to Ezell’s ever again. One of my young children confessed the entire experience made all black people seem scary. A child whose best friend at school was black. 

Rosalind seemed particularly affected by what she’d seen. I texted her therapist for advice. She suggested we come up with a story about why the other driver might have been so upset. So I sat down with my daughter, and together we wove a narrative about a woman who was excited about her brand new car, but worried about bringing dinner home late to her waiting husband and other children. That’s why the woman was on her phone and couldn’t hear me honk. By telling a story and putting ourselves in another person’s shoes, we reduced the impact of our traumatic experience. 

As I recently I wrote in “Woke Humans,” biologists believe the human brain’s greatest evolutionary leap occurred when we developed our capacity to see things from another person’s perspective. Sharing the road gives us an opportunity to practice empathy every day.


Every person of color I’ve ever told the Ezell’s story to, along with most of the white Seattle natives, has an identical reaction:   “Only a crazy person would bang on someone’s car in Ezell’s parking lot.”

See, I really am mentally ill. Or maybe I'm just a tired single dad.




Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Our Family


Like ancient Rome – and no doubt every other city with variable topography and a decent PR department – Bellingham is built on seven hills. The kids and I recently moved from Sehome Hill to South Hill. However, this month I’m living across town on Alabama Hill. 

I’m housesitting for my parents while they snowbird in Hawaii. My family moved to this house in 1981. That was the year when (a) I graduated from high school in Brigham City, Utah; and (b) my parents belatedly came to their senses and moved back home to the Pacific Northwest.


One of the many traits I inherited from my mother is the compulsion to fill every wall in the house with an artistically arranged assortment of family pictures and meaningful art. Like my mother, I no longer have the energy to seasonally rotate displays. (Frankly even Christmas decorations are an afterthought lately.) Nevertheless, we are still sufficiently flexible to add the occasional new item to our permanent collection on display. 

This week I noticed an unfamiliar framed poster on the wall in my parents' breakfast nook, next to my temporary computer work station. In flowery script, the title reads “Our Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

I didn’t have my glasses on when I first saw it, so my initial reaction was horror:  “Why did my woke PFLAG mother hang a copy of that especially reactionary Mormon document? Right below the beloved hand-drawn family portrait from 1981?”

Without reading glasses, I could only make out the words “Family” and “Proclamation” amid the print’s illegible cursives and mismatched fonts. I therefore assumed the text was the Mormon Church’s “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which I’ve seen on walls in the homes of many conservative Mormons.


The Mormons’ two highest religious bodies – the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles – issued their Proclamation on the Family in 1995, at the height of hysteria over the mere possibility of marriage equality. Many states rushed to pass “Defense of Marriage Acts.” You will not be surprised to learn Utah’s mostly Mormon legislators won the race to pass the first DOMA in the country.

The Mormons’ Proclamation on the Family includes innocuous sentiments like “all human beings – male and female – are created in the image of God.” According to the Proclamation, parents “have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness,” and “to provide for their physical and spiritual needs.” 

Unfortunately, the Proclamation also insists on a very narrow vision of what a family looks like:

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.… By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children…. God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Like the church’s all-male gerontocracy themselves, the language of the Proclamation on the Family comes directly from the era of Ozzie and Harriet. Nevertheless, I barely notice the Proclamation’s pervasive sexism. Instead, I’m inevitably drawn to these words:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”



Ironically, the Mormon authors and readers of the “Proclamation on the Family” didn't realize “gender” is not the same thing as “sex.” They probably thought “gender” is just a euphemism for “sex” that doesn’t sound so, well, sexy.

I first focused on the distinction between sex and gender when I was a grad student studying English at the University of Washington twenty-five years ago. Scholars like Judith Butler described gender as a social construct that varies over time and among cultures, rather than a product of immutable biological or physiological characteristics.

But I became particularly aware of the significance of gender identity and gender expression when I became a civil rights advocate. In 1995, when the Brethren were announcing their Proclamation on the Family, I was a LGBT rights lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. As Suzanne Pharr notes in the title of her powerful book, homophobia is “a weapon of sexism.” So is transphobia. As a leader in the gay and lesbian community, I was an early and outspoken advocate for transgender and intersex inclusion. Not just in our legal arguments, but in organizations like the national Federation of Statewide LGBT Advocacy Organizations, now the Equality Federation, that I chaired in the late 1990s.

Like many traits, sex is often reduced to a simple binary. The biological reality is more complicated for some individuals – regardless of whether one focuses on chromosomes, organs, hormones, or brain wiring. Even the simplistic chart above hints that “male” and “female” are merely the “two main categories” of sex.

Gender is much more varied than sex. It's also much less reducible to a single binary, or even to a continuum between “feminine” and “masculine.” As with other complex systems, we may emphasize specific aspects of gender identity or expression when dealing with a particular issue. Nevertheless, you may be personally uncomfortable with a framework intended for the vast population who finds it easiest to focus on “two main categories” of both sex and gender. For you, I can offer a friendly nonbinary Gender Unicorn:

A couple of years ago, my eight-year old son startled me by asking out of the blue, "Papa, are you gay?" The two of us were in the middle of the produce section at the grocery store. I nevertheless launched once again into my familiar "some boys like girls and some boys like boys" speech. Before I could get very far, however, Oliver interrupted me to say "No, the other kind of gay. Do you talk gay?" He then demonstrated a couple of flamboyant hand gestures he’d apparently learned on the third-grade playground. 

I quickly switched to an age-appropriate spiel on the evils of gender stereotyping. After hearing there are places on the planet where the men rather than women are the ones who wear skirts, Oliver concluded "I think everyone should just wear jeans."

Several months later, the kids came with me to a Vancouver Men's Chorus rehearsal. On the way out of the building, I introduced them to some of my friends from the chorus. Including Tyler, who is an interior decorator. Obviously.

Oliver decided this was the right time to continue our discussion from the grocery store. We hadn't gotten ten feet before Oliver loudly observed, “He’s gay."

Here are the words you will read on the wall at the homestead on Alabama Hill, below the hand-drawn picture of what my family looked like in 1981. At the time, my three younger brothers were about the same ages as my children are today.

Our Family: A Proclamation to the World


We believe:
Marriage between two people who love each other is a good thing.
Families are unique and diverse.
No family looks the same and that is okay.
All human beings – male, female, and everyone in between – are awesome beyond words.
Gender is personal. Sometimes it is complicated, sometimes it’s not. We respect all expressions of gender.
Intimacy is an expression of affection between people who love each other, and is nobody’s business.
Parents have a responsibility to:
1.    Provide for their child’s physical, emotional, and spiritual welfare;
2.    Love their child without condition or constraint;
3.    Teach their child how to love others; and
4.    Teach their child to love themselves.

By design, parents are equal partners together. They preside, provide, protect, nurture and nourish.
Families are established and maintained on principles of love, compassion, respect, trust, honest, and integrity.
Every family is inherently beautiful.

I’m eternally grateful to be part of such a family.  








Monday, January 7, 2019

The Year in Review


Once upon a time, Christmas and/or New Years included writing an old-fashioned family newsletter. These reports included lots of pictures of the kids, together with a few humble-bragging anecdotes. 

Then my life got ugly. For the last few years I couldn't bring myself to look back, or forward.

Fortunately, things are much better these days. Indeed, in some ways this entire blog is a verbose attempt to catch up with life. 

Rather than repeat myself in a newsletter, here's a quick recap of the year in review:


Best things about 2018:


1.   Family
2.   Mental health
3.   Writing
4.   Vancouver
4a.   …Men’s Chorus  
  

Worst things about 2018:


1.  People with cancer
2.  Frustrating job search
3.  Mean people
4.  Piano bar closed
5.  Moving 



Favorite Nonfiction:


1.  Robert Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
2.  Robert Wright, The Moral Animal
3.  Michael Pollan, How to Change Your Mind

Favorite Fiction:
 

1.    Andre Aciman, Call Me By Your Name
2.  Andrew Greer, Less
3.  P.G. Wodehouse, Joy in the Morning



Favorite Animated Movies:


1.  Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse 
2.  Incredibles 2          
3.  Ralph Breaks the Internet

Favorite Other Movies (I don’t get to see many other movies):


1.   I, Tonya
2.  Black Panther
3.  Crazy Rich Asians

Favorite TV shows:


            1.   Hannah Gadsby, Nanette 
            2.   Bojack Horseman
            3.   American Horror Story



I've also had a productive year of writing. I published 96 blog posts in 2018, totaling 102,162 words. The most common words are summarized in the word cloud above.  

Favorite blog posts about family:


1.  I Come From Good People (1/7/2018)
3.  High School Musicals (11/28/18)
4.  Blaming the Children (9/21/19)
5.  Growing Up with the Chorus (11/14/18)

Favorite blog posts about everything else:


1.  Lilies that Fester (3/25/18)
3.  My Best Friend Paul (6/7/18)
4.  Lost in a Good Book (10/23/18)
5.  Woke Humans (12/11/18)
6.  Backing Up (12/5/18)
  

Most read blog posts:


2.  Vote for Roger (7/22/18)
3.  Blaming Your Parents (4/1/18)
4.  Caring for your INFP (3/9/18)
5.  Moral Alignment (1/11/18)

Apparently the last two posts are some kind of search engine bait.


[When they came home from school, I gave each of my kids a writing assignment before turning on the electronics.]

Oliver's Top Apps:


1.  Fortnite 
2.  YouTube
3.  Sound Cloud



Rosalind's Favorite Video Games:


1.  Five Nights at Freddy's
2.  Overwatch
3.  Fran bow



Eleanor's Current Favorite TV Shows:

1.  Grey's Anatomy
2.  Friends
3.  Riverdale
4.  The Flash
5.  Jane the Virgin
6.  The Fosters
7.  Gossip Girl




Happy New Year from Bellingham and Vancouver


Sunday, December 30, 2018

Parental Superpowers


Children expect their parents to know where everything is. Yet they're amazed when we usually do.


This week my daughter Rosalind asked me to locate an object she herself last used:  her favorite scissors. 

She’d been wrapping presents at the dining room table that afternoon. While setting the table for dinner, the house’s magic cleaning elf moved Rosalind’s scissors eighteen inches north by northwest, to the corner of the buffet. Next to the other ingredients from her unfinished craft project. 

There the pink-handled scissors prominently remained when Rosalind returned to the table to consume the delicious Trader Joe’s pasta she’d ordered from the house elf. The scissors still were there later that evening as she ate the Tillimook Special Edition "Pacific Northwest Apple Cider" ice cream he dished up for her dessert. (The house elf is waiting for Harry Potter to lead an intervention with his children about the ungrateful working conditions here.) 

After playing some after-dinner Minecraft in her room, Rosalind wanted to continue the gift-wrapping project. But she couldn’t find her scissors. She called on Papa for assistance.

I summoned Rosalind to my side, and pointed across the dining room table with my best Ghost-of-Christmas-Future finger extension. (The dramatic gesture was wasted, of course. My Drama Queen daughter Eleanor was away at a sleepover.)

Papa:               “That’s the first place I’d look.”

Rosalind:         “That’s the last place I’d look.”


Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Inclusive Language


As a person living with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, I'm triggered by all the people claiming to be "triggered" when they're merely offended. 

Actually, I’m usually just offended myself by their imprecise language. It demeans people with PTSD, and/or culturally appropriates our experience. Their insensitivity can be upsetting. Nevertheless, we all have to deal with upsetting things in life – even ten-year-old video gamers and people with PTSD.

On the other hand, it’s possible the specific words someone uses when claiming to be “triggered” might just happen to push my buttons and trigger debilitating PTSD symptoms – presumably because of the relationship between their words and the youthful traumas I endured at the hands of anti-gay Mormons. Or because the speaker resembles my bishop at BYU. I mean, it’s  theoretically possible.

I’m reminded of the classic gender guide for choosing toys:


A similar proportion of the snowflake/free speech debate involves language that is triggering in and of itself. Rather than merely upsetting or otherwise offensive.

Nevertheless, language is a powerful tool. With great power you should be able to expect great responsibility. 


P.G. Wodehouse is the greatest comic English novelist of the twentieth century. (Don’t argue with me, I have PTSD.) 

Unlike my daughter Eleanor, I binge on good books instead of cheesy TV series. Topping off the well of Wodehouse at Bellingham Public Library, which I have now drained, my parents recently gave me a three-volume book of Jeeves & Wooster novels and short stories. 

One of the stories in the collection came from early in the last century, and early in the Wodehouse oeuvre. It included one instance of the word “nigger.” The word was used thoughtlessly rather than as a matter of writerly art, as far as I could tell. Nevertheless, no one should be offended to learn my personal library includes an otherwise exemplary text that is nevertheless representative of its time and place. 

In the same collection I came upon versions of the following metaphorical expression four times: “That’s awfully white of you,” meaning “That’s awfully good of you.” In my short theatrical career in Utah, I encountered the same phrase in the script for Kiss and Tell, a comedy set during World War II. We changed the line. (FYI, I played the handsome hero’s nerdy best friend. As usual.) 

Whether you’re in 1986 or 2018, the phrase feels wrong. A “white” = “good” metaphor is no longer part of our shared English language. At least not quite so directly.


When I was in law school, I joined the Yale Gilbert & Sullivan Society, where I sang in the choruses of H.M.S. Pinafore, Patience, Pirates of Penzance, and Ruddigore. Some might call membership in the Yale Gilbert & Sullivan Society a clue to one’s eventual sexual orientation. Like excessively groomed eyebrows.

In addition to channeling my proto-gay-men’s-chorus urges, doing theater at Yale gave me the opportunity to socialize with folks outside the law school. Participants came from all over the university. For example, our divinity student choreographer is now the thirteenth Episcopal bishop of Rhode Island. 

At a cast party my first year, the wild G&S crowd at Yale introduced me to a term I’d never heard at caffeine-and-alcohol-free Brigham Young University:  “girl-ing your beer.”

Admit it. You know what the phrase means. Certain people, and I’m not saying who, have a tendency to open a beverage and then leave it on some surface undrunk. Repeatedly.

This fall we observed a sudden increase in this same phenomenon at our house. Particularly abandoned cans of Diet Coke. All fingers immediately pointed to Eleanor. Her fingers most dramatically.

After a brief period of observation, I realized something more was going on than my daughter’s usual combination of hoarding, absent-mindedness, and casual privilege. It turns out they have a fancy new coffee-maker over the hill at my ex’s house. Teen-aged Eleanor has become addicted to a splash of coffee before school. During the weeks when the kids are with me, she gets her morning fix from a demitasse of Diet Coke.

I told Eleanor the story of gender-correlated alcohol consumption patterns at Yale. We agreed it’s best to avoid sexist language. And I suggested she work on her carbon footprint.

The other day, Eleanor came home from school and went straight to the fridge. She retrieved that morning’s mostly-full can of Diet Coke with this proud announcement:

“Look, Papa, I didn’t ‘Eleanor’ my drink!”

In our house, at least, one may refer to this reprehensible practice as “Eleanor-ing” without being accused of sexism.


Language is filled with hidden historical prejudices. For example, there are linguistic purists who won’t use the word “dilapidated” to refer to run-down wooden buildings, because they know the word’s Latin root “lapid” means “stone,” not “wood.”

Similarly, “dexterous” means “showing or having skill, especially with the hands,” while “sinister” means “evil or criminal.” The two words come from Latin roots with opposite meanings:  “dexter” means right handed, while “sinister” means left handed. 

As we paddle down the river of a language’s evolution, most of the baggage washes away. Today’s English speakers are unaware that our vocabulary subliminally reinforces rightie hegemony. I’ve never heard a right-hander use either “dexterous” or “sinister” for the purpose of encoding his supremacy. (Obviously we’re talking about a “his,” rather than a “her” or a “their.” Supremacy is involved.)

Now that I’ve let the right-handed cat out of the bag, no doubt we can expect an outpouring of feedback from outraged left-handers. Remember, “offended” is not the same as “triggered.”


Which brings us, at long last, to my real question today. What do we talk about when we talk about lunacy?

Sometimes I consciously apply words like “crazy” to myself in ostentatious air quotes, just to annoy my mother. She's convinced I’m not even trying to find a real job. Or I hint that PTSD caused me to be late for chorus rehearsal. Really I just lost track of time while writing at some coffee shop – but I worry folks will get suspicious if I overuse my usual excuses, i.e., kids, border, and/or traffic.

The other day I noticed the phrase “driving me crazy” in a sentence I’d written months ago about the itchiness of facial hair. Other blog posts similarly mention things like going “stir crazy,” or hearing “maddening” noises. Most of these references don’t come up in a discussion of mental illness itself. Instead, I consciously and unconsciously use the colorful language of Bedlam for its metaphorical effect. These words are part of the English language that's wired into my brain.


Every three years, lawyers in Washington have to report that they’ve attended 45 hours of Continuing Legal Education. Because I’ve been working at home instead of at some cushy firm, for the first time in my career I find myself up against the deadline. I still have another 16 hours of coursework to go before New Years Eve. 

To finish my CLE requirements, I bought the cheapest possible video lectures online. They’re taped in a conference room in New Jersey. Each of the presenters is dreadful, but in his or her own uniquely dreadful way. The Fifth Amendment speaker read her entire printed text. Slowly, in a monotonous drone. The employment discrimination instructor could barely speak through her bronchitis. The sports law guy managed to make “Boxing Law” utterly boring. And so on….

This morning I watched a generic legal ethics presentation, describing the usual parade of horrifying exemplars of the profession. In one case, the disgraced lawyer spent a year in prison after going on a 45 minute spree where he assaulted his ex and trashed her apartment. The question was how long state regulators should suspend his law license for – sixty days, six months, or three years? 

In describing the factual background and potential mitigating or aggravating factors, the instructor mentioned that after the incident, the lawyer went to a psychiatrist who diagnosed him with anger management issues. I don’t have an opinion about the case – the instructor was primarily using it as an example of how legal regulators vary widely in their sanctions. But it’s not the first time I’ve heard a lawyer cynically suggest mental health diagnoses are a gimmick to game the system. Indeed, much of the pernicious early case law undercutting the Americans with Disabilities Act involves judges who can barely disguise their hostility to claimants suffering from mental rather than “physical” impairments. 

I have no objection to folks appropriating the language of craziness to describe the world – particularly these days, when the world seems so deranged. As long as you remember mental illness is real. And not just a metaphor.