How to Avoid Getting Angry at Stupid Comments

I was reading on a Yahoo page today a user that commented on the fact that girls raised without fathers in the home are 7 times more likely to become pregnant. Like many blogs and articles you've read, the comments below were mostly angry, and extreme:

"Wow! Are Moms actually 7 times worse at raising little girls? Wow!"

"So we should make a law forcing the courts to give daughters to fathers, no matter how violent or abusive they are. Great choice."

"The highest rates of divorce and single parent homes are among conservatives - not liberals. So here's my advice to all the 'value voters' - try making YOUR actions fit your words."

"Daughters? What about the sons sticking it in the daughters?"

Each of these comments approaches the issue from a different paradigm. The solution to avoiding getting angry is laid out here:

Step 1: Understand the nature of social facts.
A social fact is like a physical fact in the sense that it is real and measurable, but it's also intangible. Here are some examples:

• Women in the U.S. are paid less money for the same work done by men
• Working mothers are more likely to struggle with anxiety than stay-at-home moms
• The largest demographic group in federal and state prisons are African American males

These are not value statements - they're just facts. Don't get upset yet.

Step 2: Understand the nature of theoretical paradigms.
We rarely discuss social facts without attaching a "therefore" to the end of them. You  interpret these facts through your social lens -  conflict theory, religion, feminism, environmentalism, biological theory, etc. - and you assign values to them as a result. Here are some possible interpretations of the previous examples:

• Women in the U.S. are paid less money for the same work done by men
• Conflict theory/feminism: Overall, we are still a sexist society - and employers are still discriminating against women
• Evolutionary theory: Men are paid more because it's their nature to be more aggressive, and men are more likely than women to negotiate for a higher salary

You see? Same fact, two different interpretations. Let's do one more:

• The largest demographic group in federal and state prisons are African American males
• Oppression theory: Black men are in jail because white men have more social and political power to put them there.
• Organic functionalism: Because of the changing nature of American markets, manufacturing jobs are disappearing from many predominantly black communities. Without jobs, these individuals are more likely to turn to drugs and other illegal sources of income.

Every fact can be valued and judged a million ways, depending on what aspect of the situation is most important to you. When an empty house burns down for example, are you concerned for the safety of the surrounding trees and the decrease in air quality? Do you want to look at crime rates in the area? Are you concerned about the emotional well-being of the owner? Are you angry that schools aren't providing more education about fire safety? 

It's important to note that while individual causes may be studied, you cannot disprove a theory. It's just a way of looking at information. Recognizing and appreciating theories other than your own can be liberating. If there's a theoretical paradigm that makes your life miserable (mine would be the selfish gene theory, which postulates that all behavior is inherently self-serving) - pick another one! 

Step 3: Understand how interpretation leads to emotion

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, probably the most popular theory in modern mental health counseling, postulates that how we mentally interpret a situation leads to how we emotionally feel about it. To return to the article mentioned at the beginning of this post: Saying that girls raised without fathers are 7 times more likely to get pregnant is not a value statement - it's not extremism or propaganda or anything - it's just a fact. Based on your interpretation of the fact, you will be happy about it, angry about it, or not care at all. Here are some options:

• I'm neutral because: Not having a father doesn't CAUSE girls to get pregnant - it's a correlation. The type of families without fathers also tend to be the types of people who are more lax about sexual behavior.
• I'm happy because: There's nothing wrong with that fact. Society is changing, and it will keep changing - it's just going through some growing pains. (or) Having children is a wonderful, beautiful thing and the fact that these girls are become mothers earlier than most is totally fine.
• I'm angry because: People prey on easy targets. Not having a father in the home is a symbolic sign to the neighbors and the community that the home is unprotected, and that the family inside is unprotected, so daughters without fathers are more likely to be victims of sexual predators.
• I'm sad because: Without a father in her life, girls struggle with feelings of rejection and loneliness and a strong psychological need for male companionship, and so they're likely to be more sexually promiscuous, which leads to teen pregnancy.

You can probably think of other ways to see this as well.

What you should probably NOT do is make yourself angry by interpreting facts through a lens of extremism. If you think not having a father is a cause of teen pregnancy, and if you believe that's bad, you must not dismiss that with fallacies like: "Well that may be true, but having a father who beats the living daylights out of you isn't good either." Two horrible choices don't cancel each other out. You can acknowledge that both are bad.

Step 4: Understand the difference between interpretation and action

Acknowledging a fact is not acknowledging an interpretation, and acknowledging an interpretation does not dictate a course of action. In fact, it is crucial that we separate these. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. are classic examples of two men who went through this process together, and then split when they got to action:
Fact: Black Americans are not allowed to ride at the front of buses
Interpretation: Society is structurally discriminating against black people
Emotion: Anger! Frustration!
Action: MLK- peaceful protest, Malcolm X - violent protest

Here's a modern example of how people might behave toward poverty today:
Fact: The gap between the rich and poor in America is increasing
Interpretation: The wealthy have more power to maintain and increase their wealth, while the poor are becoming more disenfranchised
Emotion: Anger! Frustration!
Action (option #1): Lobby to change the tax code in order to equalize the playing field
Action (option #2): Give to charity. Encourage others around you to do the same
Action (option #3): Lobby to put more federal tax money into low-income schools
Action (option #4): Create a families-helping-families program in your local congregation, where individuals can sign up to provide resources, networking, tutoring, etc. for families that are less well-off

Step 5: Realize your own decision making process, and respect the process of others
Once you understand how this process of understanding people's reactions to things, you should recognize how flexible and fluid it really is. That alone should give you the patience and love to allow others to disagree with your interpretation, your emotions, and your actions. Good luck.

Why You Should Be Upset about the Overturning of Utah's Marriage Amendment

Most important issues are also complex, which means they can't be pithily stated in a two-sentence tweet. Explaining how planes actually fly takes a lot longer than just posting "gravity doesn't exist!" So, I hope you will read with sincerity my non-pithy explanation of why gay and straight people alike should be upset about the decision today by a federal judge in Utah to rule their marriage amendment unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby overturned a 66% majority vote on an amendment to clarify the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, stating that "The state’s current laws...demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason."

"Why should I be upset about this?", you may say, "This is awesome! I'm totally excited about it" If this is you, my next point may not seem like a big deal, but I will explain: If we want laws to change, it needs to be because we vote on it, not because one person just decides we should.  Suspend for a moment your opinion on this particular issue: are we okay with having one person decide to strike down the voice of the people just because he personally doesn't believe it's a good idea, or because he doesn't like the rationale of the other side?  The judiciary is there to protect our rights, not to decide which laws are terrible. As Chief Justice Roberts said in last year's decision to uphold Obamacare, even though he personally disagreed with it, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,”

Do we want a king or a democracy? In the Book of Mormon, a hefty number of people keep saying they want a king. Why would anyone want that? Well, think about it: if the king supports your views, he/she would sure get things done a lot faster and more efficiently than having to go through Congress. We could even still call them "president" or "judge" to make ourselves feel better. But even if you like the current outcomes of that system, you should not be okay with judicial fiat just because this one happens to support your view. The next one may not:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

(from A Man For All Seasons)

"But Kindra", you may say,"the judiciary isn't legislating - they're just protecting the civil rights of a minority group, who are not being allowed to marry." Okay, let's be very clear about this - yes, their job is to strike down laws and amendments that violate the Bill of Rights, but this is not a Bill of Rights issue. Saying that lesbians and gay men are being denied their right to marry is actually a logical fallacy. Let me explain.

Every adult in America has the right to marry. Think about it. No one asks you your orientation at the courthouse. In the sense of how we are treated by the law, we are completely equal. You can be lesbian, black, atheist, whoever - you already have the right to get married. But all states decide what that contract looks like, and WHO you may marry. You're probably more okay with this than you realize. In most states, you are denied the right to marry more than one person, or marry a close relative, or marry a child, for example. Are you okay with these? Yes? No? Well, that's why the states vote on them: because marriage is a social contract with social functions and implications.  Gender theory and conflict theory would have you interpret everything as though it's an issue of oppression, hate and bigotry - it's not. This is just a definition; It's a social contract, and it's flexible, and we can vote to change it. Please keep in mind - those of you who support gay marriage - you can and should still believe this!

"But they ARE being denied their rights", you will then say, probably indignantly. "They have the right to have their loving relationship legally validated just like anyone else." This is very important, please don't be mad at me - but you don't actually have that right, in any state. Getting married is an individual right, but defining marriage is not. Gay supporters - you can still be okay with this too! 

What you're actually saying is, they SHOULD have the right. Aha! If you believe they should have the right to marry, and you think we should change the marriage laws, let's VOTE on it! Let's pass an amendment! This is a time for discussion and campaigning, not self-righteousness and accusations. We have to respect each other enough to do that.

While the justice system ensures that no one's civil rights are violated, the voice of the people decides on the nature and extent of every other type of right, and they are not nearly as clean-cut as we'd like to believe: does the doctor have the right to peace and quiet in his home, or does the drummer next door have the right to play? Do you have the right to walk around naked in public, or do I have the right to experience public decency? According to Hobbs, the mere fact that you live in a society of any kind requires you to give up certain rights. Fortunately, in this country and in this age, you have a say in what those are.

On a final note - while having your love validated is not a right defended by the Constitution (or at least, it is questionable), religion unquestionably IS. That means, whether you worship God or a giant flying squirrel or nothing, you have the right to believe, act, and vote according to your conscience. We are a country that is free for Orthodox Jews and white supremacist groups, gays and straights, progressives and conservatives. The beauty of America is that we don't eliminate any opinions from the table - EVERYONE is invited to come, to discuss, to debate, to persuade, and ultimately to vote. Just because someone believes something for religious reasons does not disqualify them from the conversation. Let's be a civil society - let us uphold American values in the way we treat one another, and let us uphold the system of governance that has been the ensign of freedom to the rest of the world for the last 250 years.