Sticks and Stones and Bones and Souls

There is an old children’s rhyme: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.“ This rhyme, it turns out, is a lie. The name calling such as that which the Left now engages in against those of different political persuasions cuts to the quick – to the soul. More accurate than the children’s rhyme is this from Ecclesiasticus 28:17-18: “The stroke of the whip makes marks in the flesh, but a stroke of the tongue breaks the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen by the tongue.”

Words can be lethal weapons that injure the spirit and crush the soul. Many on the left have learned how to weaponize words. Words can do damage far worse than a stick or a stone. Bruises heal, they are superficial, the hurt is short lived. Sharply weaponized words attack the very soul of an individual – the inner self that makes the person whom he or she is. It silences what could and probably should be a very vibrant part of whom they are.

Recently (the admittedly Right-wing source) Breitbart printed a list of 632 verified political acts against those not supporting Leftist agenda; many of these were acts of verbal harassment. (see article here) This list does not include the acts of name-calling and shaming that occur daily in simple attempts at conversation between people of differing political views. All are attempts to intimidate and silence.

I along with others I know, have personally been the recipient of nearly every epithet in the Democrat repertoire when daring to state a point of view contrary to theirs. Even though false, these epithets hurt deeply, in the way that it hurts when one is accused falsely of a crime and any attempt to prove innocence is impossible. When the attack has been especially vitriolic, I have afterwards felt a deep sadness, a sort of aloneness that reaches deep into my soul.

Are those who engage in these verbal assaults attempting to wound their perceived opponent’s soul? Maybe (this question of course assumes that they believe in such things as a soul). Do they know that this name calling is a weapon that they are using intending to cause hurt? Most probably. Is it intended to silence diverse views? Most definitely.

This weaponized name-calling is an adult version of the sticks and stones of childhood. When a child on the playground doesn’t know how to deal with something he doesn’t like or understand, he might throw a rock. These Democrat adults seem unable to handle views contrary to their own and so, instead of throwing a rock they throw an epithet. But, the intent is the same – to hurt and silence the one causing them confusion or discomfort; to make them go away.

It is bullying, and bullying is a result of intolerance. Intolerance of those who do not look, think, or behave as the bully would like. It is an attempt to have the victim either go away or change behavior. It results from ignorance and dislike of anything different. It is an attempt to silence that which one does not understand.

Verbal attacks do more than silence the words of opponents; do more than simply stop them from speaking their views. They create an intimidation that reaches one’s soul as they attempt to reform one’s very being into one that the Left find’s acceptable - a clone of their every view. That creates a separation of being as the victims understand that they are seen as some sort of evil worthy only of shaming and exclusion. This sort of intolerance is wrong. Whether it is addressed toward someone’s looks or race or sexual orientation or religious persuasion or political stance, it is bullying, plain and simple. And the wounds often remain, silencing one’s soul for a lifetime.

I suspect many on the Left would condemn words that may have effected the silencing of others in the past: hateful words flung at gays or Blacks or Jews or mentally disabled or anyone else who looks or behaves differently from some “norm” of the attacker. Yet how different is that from berating one with words like racist, supremacist, hater, inhumane (the list goes on and on) or banishing someone from one’s world simply because a person holds a different political view, a view that the Left is unwilling to tolerate or understand?

While they often accuse those on the Right of intolerance, the Left has a blanket intolerance for any and all who do not think like them. This is what those without tolerance seek: silence of those whom they choose not to tolerate. The Left’s use of bullying words is nothing more than evidence of their intolerance and unwillingness to listen to those with whom they disagree; their assaults are intended to shame or intimidate differing views into silence. They break the bones of the victims' souls.

The Left’s use of verbal assaults is cruel and heartless and by its very nature flies in the face of all they claim to stand for; it belies their claims of caring for humanity from all walks of life while proving their real objective of claiming uncontested and ultimate power for themselves.

Yes, sticks and stones may break one’s bones, but the Left's words of intolerance break the soul – the soul of the victim, of free and open discussion, and of America itself.

Is This Really What You Meant To Say?

"Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein. Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status."

This statement came nearly a week after the Weinstein allegations first appeared and so we can assume that there was plenty of thought put into its crafting.  Yet, note the qualifier about the demeaning and degrading acts: “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion…” Does this mean that there is some “fashion” – some time, place, or manner – in which it is acceptable to demean and degrade women?  That is what this sentence implies.

In a world where the media loves to play gotcha with every word and phrase spoken or tweeted by the president or his supporters, I hope that someone will pay some attention to this phrasing.  Not because it came from the former president or from a Democrat, but simply because of what it says. 

This phrasing says so much about so many things in our society.  First, its delay suggests that it needed to be carefully crafted so as to hit just the right tone and not offend the wrong people while at the same time showing disgust at something the majority and the media have pronounced to be disgusting.  This makes one wonder how sincere is the disgust itself.  Is it something that comes from the heart, or simply from an understanding of what is good for one’s political career or what one is expected to say?

That the qualifier phrase was not caught by the writers (I assume there were several) or the issuers of the statement suggests that demeaning of women is so accepted or ingrained in our society that one does not even notice such things.  It takes something truly shocking for many to even notice that women were demeaned, and even then it is only the shocking behavior that is perfunctorily condemned.

Such disgusting behavior is seen across the spectrum of our society, from those with all political views.  The Weinstein incidents probably should not be so shocking since they come from someone who is a part of the Hollywood culture; that is the culture that gives us a plethora of visual images of such degradation in our movies and on our personal TVs and media devices.  And yet those images reflect our culture, for Hollywood primarily gives us what we want – what sells.  Perhaps we should give some thought to why this is so popular with the masses.

The Obama statement does go on to say, “And we all need to build a culture -- including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect -- so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future."  Yes, we do need to build a culture filled with decency and respect, not to make such behavior less prevalent, but to make the inner characters of every person in that culture not inclined toward such behavior.  That is, behavior is an external, superficial reflection of what is within one’s soul.  It is not until we change that inner character that we can change the behavior that is its reflection.  And that character is something that some “we” does not just place upon us like some cloak; it begins with each child and the values they are taught in their homes.

Now I also note something else about the phrasing of this sentence.  It tells us “we” need to empower our girls.  That sentence says not only that girls are not powerful, but that their power comes from without rather than from within; that is, it implies that it is someone else’s job (whoever that “we” is) to empower them.  This image is itself demeaning.  I’m sure it was not intended in that way, at least not at a conscious level, but there it is, nonetheless. (And, since the statement came from both Barack and Michelle, we can’t forget Michelle’s recent statements implying that women are told what to think by men and that they all must think and act alike, with no mind of their own or ability to form diverse political thoughts and positions). 

Demeaning and degrading can take many forms.  I am happy to see outrage (even if late coming and even if perhaps not sincere) at the recognizably demeaning behaviors of Weinstein.  But I would be happier still if we paid more attention to the subtle and daily barrage of activities and words that present and perpetuate views that demean women, that suggest that they are somehow lesser in some way than men, that suggest that they need someone other than themselves to help them in one way or another to survive. 

We as individuals and as a society need to find that decency and respect, for women and for everyone, within ourselves and within our souls.  We all need to be alert to the many subtle messages that we hear and see, and to those that we ourselves send, that further a culture devoid of any decency or respect not for just women but for all our fellow human beings (for, if we truly believe that women are equal, then they are among all those human beings that we must respect, not needing of extra help, but simply of the same decency that everyone should expect).

So, let us say what we mean and mean what we say.  And let us challenge those who say something that, whether intended or not, furthers a culture that is demeaning to women.  Let us not be afraid to ask, “Is that really what you meant to say?”