Pharyngula

Posted by: F | July 26, 2011 5:17 PM

And yet the putative national concern is with Bachmann's migraine headaches.

Whatever.

Posted by: Zinc Avenger | July 26, 2011 5:19 PM

Christianity: Proving that evil and self-righteousness aren't mutually exclusive since about 33.3AD.

Posted by: ethyachk | July 26, 2011 5:23 PM

It's really hard to be hopeful about the state of things when shit like this keeps popping up.

Posted by: LarianLeQuella | July 26, 2011 5:26 PM

I would love to see someone present her with a question from this particular entry by PZM at her next crazytrain stop. She takes questions from her adoring (addled) fans, right? Could one of us sneak in and just simply ask:

"How do you respond to the situation in your own district where children are bullied so severely that suicide is nearly an epidemic?"

When she replies with the standard zero tolerance to bullying response with no meat, spring the "Oh yeah, these kids were gay and bullied for that. Does that change your response? (Feel free to consult your husband...)"

Posted by: csreid | July 26, 2011 5:28 PM

You know, "suicide" must be one of those words that I hear so often that it loses some impact. Or maybe it's just the blunt nature of the statement "He hanged himself in his bedroom last summer". Either way, I actively wept when I read that sentence.

Hanging oneself isn't a thing you can just do... I mean, it's a very deliberate thing. I can't imagine the mental anguish that would make hanging yourself seem like a reasonable alternative.

Posted by: Mellow Mattoid | July 26, 2011 5:28 PM

Now I'm wondering how long it is before the tone trolls arrive.

Hell, good old Pilty might even pop in!

Posted by: Art Vandelay | July 26, 2011 5:33 PM

Vile as it is, she can easily disassociate herself from this with some good old right wing spin. I'm more interested in someone asking her why she thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 26, 2011 5:36 PM

of course its part of the agenda, they are parasites... and what is the definition of a parasite?

Posted by: shyster | July 26, 2011 5:36 PM

PZ, I don't know how the various ISPs rotate ads, but a Michele Bachmann for president ad ran alongside your most recent post about her when I signed in to Pharyngula. I don't believe in coincidence.

Posted by: nemo the derv | July 26, 2011 5:36 PM

It's one thing if you do not accept what now is generally acknowledged to be the reality of homosexuality and it's community. No one is demanding you roll out the welcome matt.

It's quite another thing if you go out of your way to conduct a direct attack.
That's what this is, an attack.
You don't need to load your amendment #2 guaranteed weapons to cause damage.

I'm not sure what to call this.
Paranoia or boderline peronality disorder?

Posted by: rad pumpkin | July 26, 2011 5:38 PM

Ah yes, let's all preach to the gays! No wait, that's not nearly large enough an audience for the grand works of the almighty cosmic jewish zombie and/or his daddy. Let's also include the regular church goers! Ooh, I know, let's incessantly quote Leviticus at them. You know, threaten them with stoning if they work on the Sabbath, for eating shellfish, playing football, or for wearing clothing of mixed fabric. How about a Day of Literal Biblical Punishments: Hell for everyone!

(Leviticus is incidentally hilarious, though I'm sure most of you know this already)

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 26, 2011 5:41 PM

Read the whole article now. Crying. As someone above said, you hear about suicides, but it's different when you hear that a boy "hanged himself in his bedroom last summer" or that a girl "had lain down in the bathtub and put a hunting rifle in her mouth".
And that vile creature didn't comment on this, but about anti-bulling bill she said:

She told state lawmakers: "I think for all us our experience in public schools is there have always been bullies, always have been, always will be. I just don't know how we're ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?...What will be our definition of bullying? Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression? Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be—will we be expecting boys to be girls?"

Posted by: Snausages | July 26, 2011 5:47 PM

Back when I was a christian, the way they thought of and treated gays drove me to suicide several times. Lucky for me I ended up losing my faith, or I'd have ended up dead in my teens. Much happier now!

Posted by: Timberwoof | July 26, 2011 5:53 PM

I have no doubt that the site uses clever algorithms that determine what ads to place based on the content of the page. (Just clever. Not astonishingly brilliant or even really smart. Just clever, as in, "My, aren't you clever?")

Click on the ads. Clickthroughs cost money to the advertisers. Might as well make Michele pay for this blog. And don't worry: money is fungible.

Posted by: csaar | July 26, 2011 5:54 PM

This is the true church:
http://csaar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/thechurch2.jpg

Posted by: nemo the derv | July 26, 2011 5:57 PM

Underpants gnomes:
get underpants====>??????=====>profit!

fundamentalist trolls:
gay sex====>?????=====>world coming to an end.

can anyone identify ?????

Posted by: rinus | July 26, 2011 5:57 PM

Shit, the US is a scary place at times.. How the fuck, in a modern western country, do attitudes like this not only exist, but exist in potential presidential candidates?

Those kids doing the bullying can be excused up to a certain point. Kids are morons and pretty good at not understanding the broader effects of their actions, but what the fuck is wrong with these kid's parents and teachers?

Posted by: oihorse | July 26, 2011 6:06 PM

@rinus

but what the fuck is wrong with these kid's parents and teachers?

They believe they are carrying out a being's divine will.

What is more nobler or more empowering than that?

So, what's wrong with them? They're fucking delusional.

Posted by: KingUber | July 26, 2011 6:30 PM

I don't really see the logic here. Kid is told that because he is gay, he will go to hell when he dies. If he believed it, why would he kill himself and go there quicker? If he didn't believe it, why kill himself?

Don't misunderstand me, it's awful he died and it's awful people said that stuff to him, I just don't really understand his thought process that lead to that decision.

Posted by: oihorse | July 26, 2011 6:33 PM

@KingUber

How long has it been since you were a kid?

Posted by: No One | July 26, 2011 6:40 PM

They do this to children.

Cowards...

Posted by: oofreerefilloo | July 26, 2011 6:41 PM

@37,

It's an irrational action, motivated by an irrational fear. Asking for a reason is like trying to squeeze water from the proverbial stone; it, by definition, does not exist.

But if I were to attempt to explain the situation to you.. I would probably begin with the point of view of the child. When you're young, you tend to look for a place you "belong", be it a club, a clique, or what-have-you. You don't yet realize that everyone is so different that no one is going to fit perfectly into a mold; eventually, someone is going to point out a flaw in your "design". At which point, you have been kicked out of your comfortable zone. That which was your world suddenly seems like a vile beast that's cornering you, baring it's gruesome teeth and glaring at your heart with hungry eyes.

For some people, it's too much. They'd rather die than accept the torture day after day. They'd rather just let the beast kill them.

They don't know that things get better after high school. They don't know that their opinions and perspectives are perfectly fine and valid. They don't know the political bullshit going on behind the scenes. They only see the beast.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts if those poor kids knew about the bullshit going on between the GSA and the PAL, there would be no deaths; only a swelling in our ranks.

When you understand that ignorant, cruel people are actively trying to hurt you, oftentimes the fear you felt before you understood turns to seething rage after everything becomes clear.

The truth, as always, will set you free.

Posted by: RFW | July 26, 2011 6:49 PM

@ Grace Margaret, #26 (5:51 PM)

Why the obsession with gay people?

Several reasons:

1. I suspect many gay-haters were simply brainwashed as kids and have never wakened up to the nature of the lies they were fed.

2. They aren't anti-gay because of what the book of fables says. They were anti-gay in the first place, and discovered that the book of fables can be cherry picked to support their prejudice.

3. Those who stir up anti-gay hatred had a little problem when the Soviet Union disintegrated. They could no longer scream about the red under the bed, so they had to pick some other category of "other" to frighten their dupes with. What could have been better than those horrible butt fucking fags?

4. Simple future shock, a la Alvin Toffler. The haters are distressed and disturbed by rapid technological and (more importantly) societal changes. The niggers (word used knowingly) no longer have to stay out of white folks' restaurants (etc), the wimmin have gotten uppity. Gotta have somebody to vent your rage on, so who better than the wicked, sinful fags.

5. A lot of people don't know any gays (that they are aware of), so it's very easy to demonize those horrible men in bare-ass chaps and pink feather boas. Of course, you know and I know that they do know gays (they're everywhere!), it's just that their gaydar is on the blink.

NB: I have used a couple of very rude terms in the above posting, notably "nigger" and "fag". I did this to emphasize the attitude the haters have toward these groups. Apologies if anyone thinks that I think that way; I don't.

Posted by: Gayleftieathiest | July 26, 2011 6:56 PM

What a desolate end for anyone, let alone, a child. To listen to adults infected with this evil fundie mind virus is nauseating. These people are no better or different than the fascists were back in the 20's and 30's. If they get ahold of all 3 branches of government there will be more than a wave of teen (and other) suicides to worry about.

Posted by: KingUber | July 26, 2011 7:06 PM

Were his parents against him too? If they showed love and support for him his life wouldn't be so depressing (not blaming the parents, just wondering)

Posted by: CJO | July 26, 2011 7:14 PM

Were his parents against him too? If they showed love and support for him his life wouldn't be so depressing

Unfortunately, adolescence is the time of one's life when the parent-child relationship is the most fraught. So, they may well have been (showing love and support), but it didn't help because that's not the quarter to which the typical adolescent look for validation and emotional support, or they may not have for the reason that the relationship had become strained, as it will for most in adolescence, whether there are "issues" with sexuality or not.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 26, 2011 7:29 PM

So to these vile people even realise that they have blood on their hands? That there are people dead, because of their actions? They must know about these suicides. Do they display even the slightest bit of guilt, or shame? Or do they all delude themselves into thinking *they're* not to blame...?

I think you will find Rightwing nutter easier to understand when you realize that much of Conservatism boils down to Causality Denial.

How can these suicides be related at all to our bullying?

Global Warming isn't real, there's no way us puttng stuff into the atmosphere can have any effect!

Radiometric dating doesn't mean an old earth

Poor people are poor because they are lazy not because of our economic policies!

Terrorism is because they hate our freedom...the war couldn't have made it worse!

Racism is dead, there's no way those black people are failing because of our actions...its gotta be inferior culture/society

etc etc etc

Posted by: HeavyMetalYogi | July 26, 2011 7:33 PM

I wish there were a Hell to condemn those PAL scumbags to.

Posted by: drwfishesman | July 26, 2011 7:43 PM

My fiance's family lives in Anoka County. Her and all her brothers went to Anoka-Hennipen schools. Her youngest brother committed suicide five years ago after relentless bullying. They picked on him because he was different not because he was gay, not that it matters. Her parents are very conservative and Bachmann supporters, but they have pushed to get anti-bullying campaigns into the schools there and are frustrated by the school district's reluctance. I don't really know how they reconcile support for Bachmann with their anti-bullying campaign. As Catholics, they likely vote for her because of her pro-life stance and don't really know (or maybe choose not to know) about her anti-gay beliefs.

Posted by: RemembersABeach | July 26, 2011 7:49 PM

I've lived in the 6th Congressional District for 15 years. It's a crazy district - suburbs, exurbs and rural. There are pockets of sanity (my house) but lots of crazy.

She won her Congressional seat because the Democrats ran Patty Wetterling, who was painted as a one issue candidate with no political experience. She kept her seat because the Democrats fielded a candidate (El Tinklenburg)who barely campaigned until the final weeks and then a state representative (Teryl Clark) whose campaign was essentially "I'm not Bachmann." Those of us who are sane would vote for anyone who wasn't Bachmann, but many people were looking for a little more and stayed home.

Posted by: halfdeaddavid | July 26, 2011 7:59 PM

"The eternal irony for me--as a former Christian--is that Jesus would be HORRIFIED by Bachmann's behavior. He would never stop throwing up if he had a chance to see how Beck, Bachmann, Bush, Palin, et al. use his name to commit all sorts of atrocious deeds. Another thing I totally don't get is the way the rightwing shoves Christianity down our collective throats, and yet they do not behave in a manner that is in the remotest way "Christian.""

Yeah no true christian...

Bachmann is a real christian the phelps are real christians.

In order to be a good human being and a christian at the same time you need to cherry pick what you wish to believe from the book of rules therefore you are either a bad christian or a bad human you can't be good at both.

Posted by: Basiorana | July 26, 2011 8:01 PM

King Uber: If he doesn't believe it, he beleives that either he's going to heaven, going on to the next life (where he might not be gay, or gay there), or he'll just cease existing. The bullying, regardless, will stop.

If he does genuinely believe he's going to hell, well, guess what? Eternal torture in a lake of fire has NOTHING on what teens will do to the "f*ggots." Trust me. My fiance wasn't even gay and he was bullied so severely for violating gender norms that he developed DISSOCIATIONS.

This isn't teasing. This is beating people into a bloody pulp EVERY DAY after school; making them feel unsafe whereever they go; isolating them from possible friends or other support (especially by making them think the school staff will treat them the same) and telling them every single day, every possible chance, that they are unloved, unwanted, inhuman, and worthless. That any day they will die, and only their parents, if that, will actually care.

Primates are social animals. We don't tend to do too well when we are rejected so powerfully, when we have no where to turn to even feel safe in the basest physical sense.

And no, parental love and support is rarely enough. Especially since telling one's parents will make the bullying ten times worse when the parents complain to the school.

Posted by: MagistraMarla | July 26, 2011 8:13 PM

I was the GSA mentor/teacher in a large high school in Texas. The kids had been getting together at a table in the cafeteria after school on Thursdays.
The AP chased them away and told them that they couldn't meet without a teacher to sponsor them.
The kids asked several teachers and were flatly refused.
Finally, one who was a Latin student asked me. My reply - "Of course!" I had to go down to the AP office to sign a paper taking responsibility for the group. He thanked me for agreeing to "babysit that bunch of misfits." I informed him that I intended to be their mentor.
We hung a rainbow tassel in my classroom that I was given by a college LGBT group for which my daughter was the student gov't liaison. It became the symbol for tolerance in my room. Everyone knew that when they were in my classroom, all were accepted, everyone was free to be him/herself, and intolerance was NOT acceptable.
I was just as proud of my GSA kids as I was of my JCL kids. We did as much as we could to increase awareness and encourage tolerance in the school. Sadly, we had more problems with the faculty than with the students. It is very difficult to teach tolerance in places like Texas and Bachmann's school district.

Posted by: m.groesbeck | July 26, 2011 8:16 PM

You would think that Christians, who claim to have the moral high ground in everything, would recognize that driving kids to suicide is not ethical behavior.

They claim the moral, not the ethical, high ground. These people don't believe in ethics. They don't believe that ethics is possible. It's an article of faith for them that everyone who doesn't adhere to their right-wing agenda must, by definition, be entirely evil.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 26, 2011 8:27 PM

I haven't read the Mother Jones article, but I don't think anyone is claiming that Bachmann caused this behavior. What PZ is saying is that people like this elected Bachmann, and that Bachmann campaigns - successfully - on anti-gay positions.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmYuS4O2eYUa8zXk4drth0-xiSsClLXkdo | July 26, 2011 8:55 PM

Not gay, but I was definitely ostracized growing up. Especially in my old town. It was one of those isolated little bumfuck towns rife with whisper campaigns and fake smiling churchies. And of course, their miserable youth.

I had a few friends, it wasn't near as bad as it could have been, but to this day I still can't shake that feeling of 'the eternal outsider.'

I remember the one openly gay kid in that town. 'Brian' somethinerother, but I remember the whisper campaigns. And this is up in canada, where homophobia is relatively low-level compared to the US. I can't even imagine how bad it must have been for those kids... I wanna say something insightful about it but I just can't. It all sounds stupid and hollow in my head.

-The Lone Coyote.

Posted by: nemo the derv | July 26, 2011 9:16 PM

#39 I'm sure they said other things too.

"why dont you kill yourself"

It's a case of raw bullying. Anything they could say to hurt the kid.
That's what hate does

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmYuS4O2eYUa8zXk4drth0-xiSsClLXkdo | July 26, 2011 9:24 PM

I just remembered a kind of.... sad/amusing anecdote from my current town. I was smoking a joint with this girl on my front porch one night back in my teenage days, and I notice this guy down my driveway and around the corner, trying to look as inconspicuous as possible. I was like, "who's that guy?"

And she says "That's my friend Joseph. He's afraid you'll beat him up cause he's bi."

Sad because the poor kid looked absolutely terrified, especially when he knew I noticed him. Amusing, in a sense, only because he had nothing to fear from me and I quickly made him aware of that. You gotta understand, I am totally unused to having a guy look that afraid of me.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 26, 2011 9:53 PM

How the fuck, in a modern western country, do attitudes like this not only exist, but exist in potential presidential candidates?

Well, this won't BE a modern country for much longer if things keep going this way.

Posted by: Shala | July 26, 2011 10:19 PM

KingUber, the parents may not even factor into this if they are known homophobes. Some people are completely, utterly alone with no support in being LGBT.

Posted by: RFW | July 26, 2011 10:21 PM

@ Gayleftieathiest, #47 (6:56 PM)

If [the fundies] get ahold of all 3 branches of government there will be more than a wave of teen (and other) suicides to worry about.

I have no doubt that were this to come to pass, the fundies would be quite pleased at the resultant tsunami of gay teen suicides.

But let's remember something: the vast majority of fundies who have fallen for the anti-gay line are dupes of ambitious people who figured out that taking such a line is a path to political power and wealth.

As with so many other details of the decline of he US, a lot of blame can be placed on the deteriorating school system. One has to wonder why local school districts have the power they do when they abuse it in this heinous way.

Posted by: Stardrake | July 26, 2011 10:28 PM

DLC @ #78:

If Bachmann has her way, the United States will violate the laws of physics and go backward in time from 2011 to 1871.

More like 1851. Before that unpleasantness that made all the blacks so uppity, and started giving other "outsider" groups ideas....

Posted by: mfheadcase | July 26, 2011 10:44 PM

Another think to keep in mind about the shitstains who allow or even tacitly encourage anti gay bullying.

They accept no responsibility when kids commit suicide. NONE.

No they blame the suicide on the victim being gay, not on the fact they were victimised.

And it doesn't help at all that:
a) A significant number of the kids bullied are likely to be misperceived as gay.
b) kids who are afraid of being so misperceived will join in the bullying to fit in.
c) Probably some of the bullies are self hating closet cases.

Noooo, blame the victims, the queer kids suicide because homosexuality is of the devil...

For these evil fuckers it is all about "personal responsibility," but only for victims, not for themselves.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 26, 2011 10:51 PM

I suggest we actually avoid the euphemism of "bully" in this context. I move we instead call the phenomena what it really is; institutionalized systematic psychological (and physical) torture of children.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 26, 2011 10:55 PM

I wrote a long post, got signed out, and forgot to copy it before signing in so it got wiped out. I'll just condense it down.

As far as I'm concerned these groups encouraged and the administrators allowed the bullying that directly resulted in the deaths of their students. They're criminals.

Posted by: Easterngal | July 26, 2011 10:59 PM

@Zugswang

It is not even a complete recycling, the old ones still appear, alongside the new ones.

You can still hear people say "The only good German is a dead German". Sure, Germans are white, on a practical level, they probably don't face any institutionalized discrimination (in terms of race), but on an emotional level, that pretty much counts as bullying (or attempt at bullying, since I guess most adults would be able to take it, kids though, not so sure).

Now imagine those bullying targets who actually suffer institutionalized discrimination, it is pretty depressing.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 26, 2011 11:05 PM

The school district in question has over 38,000 students, so we'd be looking at an average -- AN AVERAGE -- of around 2.6 suicides per year. 9 suicides over two years comes out to 4.5 suicides per year

4.5/2.6 = 173%.

73% higher than baseline.

Falls within "any averaging margin"??? In what alternate universe?

Someone's math sucks here, but it isn't PZ's.

Posted by: mfheadcase | July 26, 2011 11:07 PM

BTW, 2.9 per 100k, is one FUCK of a lot less than 4.5 per 38k.

Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche | July 26, 2011 11:15 PM

U.S. government study found that LGBT youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.

This reminds me of something very important. These religious fucks will often say "statistics show that gay teens are more likely to commit suicide, be homeless, abuse drugs and alcohol, experience mental illness, etc., and this is proof of homosexuality's perfidious effects on our youth! Get your kid vaccinated against the gay today!"

It doesn't get brought up enough that the causal link goes the other fucking way. Gay teens are more like to commit suicide because they're bullied at school, not because they're gay. They're more likely to be homeless because their Christian bigot parents kicked them out, not because they're gay. They're more likely to be mentally ill due to 1. parental abuse, 2. abuse by their peers, 3. knowing that they lack basic legal rights and are not considered full citizens or, indeed, people. They don't become mentally ill because they're gay.

My point is that society ostracizes gay people, youth in particular, and then blames them for the effects of said ostracization. The same exact thing happened in the gay marriage debates: bigots thing gay people aren't monogamous, we just sleep around so our relationships aren't "real". Thing is, the fucking method for validating and exercising monogamous relationships in this country is...marriage! We don't deserve marriage because we're not married. THE FUCK!

/end rant

Posted by: DLC | July 26, 2011 11:18 PM

Well, I was being generous to Bachmann.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 26, 2011 11:21 PM

Googleness's math is a infinite repeating series that converges to FAIL

Posted by: FrankNiddy | July 26, 2011 11:26 PM

Christ, sometimes I think Squidbillies is a documentary.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 26, 2011 11:33 PM

Oh, okay. My bad. I compared gay suicides (NOT!) to regular everyday suicides. In that case, since gay suicides happen at a higher rate than regular everyday suicides, the suicides in Bachmann's district are even LESS of an "epidemic."

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 26, 2011 11:44 PM

Oh and of course that teen suicides is highest in the US than any comparable nation.

That alone should be motivation enough for you "Family values" wankers to want to address the issue. But what do you do? You come in and swing around your ilnumeracy to downplay the fact that a CHILD IS FUCKING DEAD What are you just butt hurt thye don't let you into the wake so you can literally piss on their corpse?

Posted by: Steve Ride | July 26, 2011 11:46 PM

RahXephon231 #104

True.

My post was about my personal experience, although I will say that if a person does not stand up for themselves who will stand up for them? (As shown in the OP).

I am not in any way attempting to 'blame the victims for not standing up', I hate bullying with a passion and many times in my life have stood between a bully and their victim.

Posted by: John Morales | July 26, 2011 11:50 PM

[meta]

Sigh.

For those of you who can use a bit of cheering:
It gets better.

(don't give up!)

Posted by: StevoR | July 26, 2011 11:58 PM

How bloody awful these scumbags are.

This sort of tretament of others, this cruelty and torture of otherpeopel for being differnt is just the very worst, most disgusting side Humanity has.

FUCK HOMOPHOBIA & FUCK MICHELLE BACHMAN and her sadistic beckwitted fucknut supporters.

Fuck 'em with the traditional dead porcupine sideways followed by a sulphuric acid enema poured down their throats! Bullying, nasty, bile-spewing bigots like the ones that drove 15 y.o. Justin Aaberg to committ suicide really are pieces of shit.

These are kids who were bullied for being gay, or suspected of being gay, or not fitting in to the their inbred little community (and who would want to?),

I think it is an intrinsic part of human (primate) even) nature etowant to fit in wherever you are. To find a community of people like you who have common interests and practices and how will support you and be supported by you.

@Stardrake | July 26, 2011 10:28 PM

DLC @ #78: "If Bachmann has her way, the United States will violate the laws of physics and go backward in time from 2011 to 1871." More like 1851. [snip]..

Or 1581.

Or 1158 even. :-(

Their views are just that fucking medieval.

Posted by: Wild old rancid caveman | July 27, 2011 12:02 AM

Raven #38:

Oddly enough, no one has been able to find any of these foster kids to ask them the usual questions (e.g. Is she really that crazy?).

She probably stoned them all to death for being disobedient / wrong clothing etc and has to regularly replace them which could explain why she has had so many.

Posted by: ghoti | July 27, 2011 12:09 AM

I was bullied a lot in Jr. High. But getting picked on, beat up, spat on, locker being abused, etc. didn't hurt as much as notes from one guy claiming to be my "gay lover".

I'm not gay, but was very repressed by my folks and I didn't "fit in" with a whole lot of groups. I wasn't allowed to go on dates or school functions ever, and the assumptions like the one made me very angry.

It took me a while and some deep thinking to get rid of the anti-gay programming I went through from a very religious upbringing, which was made worse by what I experienced.

Posted by: John Sven | July 27, 2011 12:22 AM

I was just in St. Paul. There are good people there but a heavy peppering of crazy is easy to see. Most of my family in the area have digested my cousin being gay. Although it does speak much that my cousin lives in the twincities by choice.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 27, 2011 12:35 AM

(Dismay is a weapon to our enemies; why help them?)

Goal is not dismay. Outrage.

Posted by: cowalker | July 27, 2011 1:13 AM

The very last effing thing that middle school kids need is encouragement to be discriminatory and exclusive. THE VERY LAST THING! It is already built into the culture that they divide up into cliques and establish a pecking order. Adults should be sending the message that This Is Wrong.

My daughter got caught in the middle in a stupid, pointless effort to discriminate against a classmate, and I am convinced that her resistance to doing so led to stress that triggered an autoimmune disease. But in any case, the young people who let their hormones rage for a while in that situation are long since reconciled. Young people like middle school kids desperately need our guidance at this time in their lives, and this guidance should encourage them to accept differences, to enjoy diversity, and to not worry too much about other people's genitals. Trust that everyone will work things out, and focus on what feels right for you. Don't think you have a mission of some sort to provide others with an answer to life's challenges.

Posted by: matt.wartell | July 27, 2011 1:38 AM

I normally consider that Mr. Meyers says what I'd like to say only more clearly.

Although I am in complete agreement with his points about hate-mongering, bigotry, and the not-so-loving thy neighbor as thyself hypocrisy that substitutes for discourse these days and agree that suicide is a horrid response, I'd like to point out a bit of dangerous rhetoric above.

Meyer's claim of "driving kids to suicide" is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and ill-colors a point that could just as well be made without the accusation. It is incumbent upon us to not stoop to the style of Bachmann and crew.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 27, 2011 1:58 AM

Who is this Meyers you speak of?

I'd like to point out a bit of dangerous rhetoric above.

No, cupcake. The dangerous rhetoric is the bullying. That, yes, does drive kids to suicide. It's happened right in front of your eyes. Nine of them in two years. Are you mad?

Posted by: TheLoneCoyote | July 27, 2011 2:37 AM

Bachmann says bullying is a natural part of school, but so what if it is? Disease is a natural part of life- does that mean we let it run its fucking course?

Posted by: blauregen | July 27, 2011 3:51 AM

It's completely bizarre that these people are so obsessed with homosexuality and "curing" it. If it was such a serious issue you'd think Jesus would have made at least ONE mention of it in the new testament. I don't recall anything from my Christian upbringing, seriously NOTHING.

Probably because it isn't hat much of an issue, unless you want to capitalize politically on some cultural issues with genderroles and a dislike of minorities.

Leviticus is mainly about ritual law,and suffers from translation problems, and Paul, if we wanted to ignore the context, was Paul. He wasn't bothered by slavery or oppression of women either.

If the christian bible is relevant for you, religioustolerance.org has a few pieces about different interprtations of the pertinent passage.

Posted by: Gorogh | July 27, 2011 3:55 AM

@KingUber #37, however naive your question may be, it raises an interesting point, namely, exactly what sort of visceral/cognitive processes an early (or even late) exposure to such concepts as hell produces, and how "(im-)precise" such a psychological intervention works.

On topic, I am appalled to at the thought how indifferent you have to be for the actual suffering of another conscious being to condone this. This is likely facilitated if you believe in a happy afterlife.

Posted by: TheLoneCoyote | July 27, 2011 4:26 AM

Bullying is, as a reality, 'a natural part of school life'. That part I actually agree with Bachmann on. It sucks. But I think of bullying like a disease.

Like I said earlier, diseases are "a natural part of life"- but that doesn't mean we just ignore them and hope they'll run their course. We fucking treat the disease.

Using Bachmann's logic, one could argue that shitting in your pants all day is also perfectly natural. But from toddlerhood, we're trained not to do it. Why not so with bullying behaviors?

Posted by: Gorogh | July 27, 2011 4:36 AM

I don't know if bullying is actually deemed "acceptable", @Calgor #134 - correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess the problem is more to define bullying, isn't it? It is within a spectrum of social behavior - some individuals will be liked, others less so, others even less so, and we might consider the latter to be bullied at some point... but to operationalize and binarily define this fuzzy behavior must be extremely difficult.

Then again, if we're really talking about

[being] beat up, spat on, locker being abused

as in ghoti's case above, wow, only an inhumane person would not want to forbid that.

I am happy I've never witnessed such things in my school or experienced it myself.

Posted by: dr-rieux | July 27, 2011 4:41 AM

Me @50, then random engineering @58:

I think Mother Jones' attempt to tie this to Bachmann personally is a little hazy;

I don't see it as hazy at all. She is the putative leader of the people that did this.She is? How? Who, er, putates that, and why?

I yield to no one in my distaste for Michele Bachmann, but I don't see how she bears personal responsibility for homophobic abuse that takes place in the Anoka-Hennepin School District—or at least responsibility that comes anywhere near that held by numerous school and school-district officials in Anoka-Hennepin.

She's a Congresswoman, not a school superintendent. How would this story be any different if the school district were in Keith Ellison's Minneapolis district (which is in fact less than 20 miles away)?

Posted by: Twisty | July 27, 2011 4:53 AM

Wow, that made me cry.

I just can't get my head around this shit. These people think that THEY are good. They think that THEY are moral, they think that their fucking MORALITY gives them the right to interfere in the private lives of strangers. That becuase of a line in a ridiculous ancient fairy tale it's ok to bully children to the point that they don't want to live anymore. And they think that they are in the right. I just... Gah.

Things like this make me despair of our species.

Posted by: cyranothe2nd | July 27, 2011 4:56 AM

Also, it doesn't matter that she isn't a school superintendent and so has no direct involvement with this particular school. She supports the social stigma that makes these deaths possible and likely. This is how homophobia works--by providing aid and comfort to bigots, by normalizing bigotry, by creating uncentralized and pervasive power that reifies and reinforces that bigotry so that no one is directly responsible. It's the same way racism and sexism work, incidentally. And it's so very obvious how Bachmann's entire platform feeds into it.

Posted by: John Morales | July 27, 2011 5:10 AM

[meta]

Twisty:

I just can't get my head around this shit. These people think that THEY are good. They think that THEY are moral, they think that their fucking MORALITY gives them the right to interfere in the private lives of strangers.

Righteousness is the zealot's meat and drink, the torturer's excuse, the oppressor's justification.

(Religious people and other ideologues hold it as admirable)

Posted by: Krasnaya Koshka | July 27, 2011 5:24 AM

RahXephon231, un féminist sur la branche @97:

Thank you! That is exactly right.

When I "forcibly" came out my senior year in high school (basically, my mother read my diary and then called everyone in my family and at my school), I was not really bothered by the students--other than the occasional jock shouting "Dyke!" at me, to which I'd respond, "No shit, sherlock."

But the adults in my school made my life horrible. My favorite teacher and basketball coach, Coach Sheppard, turned on me vehemently. I had babysat his kids weekly for years but suddenly I was a monster and not allowed in his home.

He held a team meeting and informed my teammates of a "cancer" on the team called "lesbianism" and that they should be careful. I was outraged! He said, "But I'm safe" and turned his wedding band on his finger. My mind still boggles at this comment. WTF?

He ended with, "I would not be surprised if my car tires are slashed after this meeting." Because now that he knew I was a lesbian, I was also a criminal. The betrayal was brutal (nearly as bad as my mom's).

Yes, the vice-principal of our school followed me into every one of my classes (except P.E.) after that and warned me, "If you do one small thing inappropriate, I will instantly expel you"--which was ridiculous as I was a straight "A" A.P. student--but that was merely the smelly frosting on an already putrid cake.

I feel so terrible for these poor kids. No one deserves to be treated so horribly and feel so alone. Ugh, it makes me shake so hard with rage, I can barely type.

Posted by: John Morales | July 27, 2011 5:30 AM

cyranothe2nd:

The problem isn't that gay kids "give up"

I used that euphemistically to refer to suicide, and no, it's not the problem, it's a possible outcome due to the problem.

("Give in" was also an allusive euphemism)

The IGBP does nothing to address that and instead, asks the bullied kids to somehow just ~bear it~.

Were it the sole aspect of the initiative for tolerance, I would agree with you, but it's just a component, not the system; its only purpose is to provide some hope, rather than being intended to remedy the situation. That is for other aspects to achieve.

(I think you are disappointed because you expect it to be more than that)

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 27, 2011 5:37 AM

Also, I might be wrong about the role of politicians but I thought their role was to represent people. Specifically, when they represent a district, they hold certain responsibility for what goes on there. When something extreme happens, for example a very high number of teen suicides, they should somehow respond. Make a comment, not completely ignore it. Especially if it is somehow connected to a certain law they were against and generally caused by the same kind of bigotry they promote.

But of course, politicians don't really owe anything to anyone. Their role is in fact to promote themselves and fuck up their country so that future politicians can more easily earn their bread there. Huh, that makes them even look thoughtful.

Posted by: nemo the derv | July 27, 2011 5:50 AM

#148
interesting quote.
i especially like that last line.

Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be—will we be expecting boys to be girls?

Is Bachman implying that girls don't bully?
She must have been home schooled or something because she has no clue what going through public education is like.

Posted by: Miki Z | July 27, 2011 6:05 AM

nemo the derv@148:

Is Bachman implying that girls don't bully?

Having known far too many people like her, I think this is Bachmann's 'appropriate tone voice' for saying that we don't want to turn boys into pussies, do we?

dr-rieux,

The reason I hold Bachmann personally responsible is based on my own experience of looking for help as a child -- when the people in charge are egging on your tormentors, it tends to extinguish any hope that things will ever change.

Posted by: nemo the derv | July 27, 2011 6:13 AM

#155
Your probably right. It does fit better with her overall message.
There is a "we need bullying to beat the gay out of people" vibe I'm feeling from her.

Posted by: Calgor | July 27, 2011 6:33 AM

@Gorogh #137,

"Acceptable" is used to denote any behaviour that condones the activity. Either explicitly as being an active protaganist of the bullying , or indirectly, an extreme variant being the activities of the "adults" in Krasnaya Koshka post (#147) where their actions appear to be instigated specifically to identify Krasnaya Koshka for social ridicule by her peers.

As for the definition of Bullying, I think the attitude should follow the definition that is used in the UK equality and diversity laws - The receiver (and/or observers) get to define if its abuse, not the instigators. This may seem arbatory but only a victim truely knows if they are being bullied.

Bullying should never be considered acceptable ever! - this is about the only thing I agree to permit "zero tolerance" attitudes on.

There are mechanisims to address it, a personal favorite is to make the situation of investigation and punishment onerous to not just the perpetrator but also for the parents, they may think their little angel can do no wrong, but enough annoying incidents can soon grate on even the most devout parent.

Posted by: Calgor | July 27, 2011 6:34 AM

@Gorogh #137,

"Acceptable" is used to denote any behaviour that condones the activity. Either explicitly as being an active protaganist of the bullying , or indirectly, an extreme variant being the activities of the "adults" in Krasnaya Koshka post (#147) where their actions appear to be instigated specifically to identify Krasnaya Koshka for social ridicule by her peers.

As for the definition of Bullying, I think the attitude should follow the definition that is used in the UK equality and diversity laws - The receiver (and/or observers) get to define if its abuse, not the instigators. This may seem arbatory but only a victim truely knows if they are being bullied.

Bullying should never be considered acceptable ever! - this is about the only thing I agree to permit "zero tolerance" attitudes on.

There are mechanisims to address it, a personal favorite is to make the situation of investigation and punishment onerous to not just the perpetrator but also for the parents, they may think their little angel can do no wrong, but enough annoying incidents can soon grate on even the most devout parent.

Posted by: blauregen | July 27, 2011 6:46 AM

Is Bachmamm implying that girls don't bully?

No, in this case I think she simply refers to gender roles.
Masculinity defines itself mostly in opposition to feminity, and outside christian-political rhetorics, the homophobic mainbeef, when it comes to male homosexuality is not moral concern, but that sleeping with a man is unmanly, especially if you don't top exclusively.

That's why you have all those effeminate media caricatures, and why for example in situational homosexuality, like in prisons, the guys keep status, and the punks lose it.

I guess it too is the reason why conservatives regularly have a heart attack, when some feminist mother sees no problem in her toddler trying nail polish.

What she likely means is that the boy's gender role development could suffer, if they aren't allowed to demarcate viciously against a lack of masculinity. And because falling for men is girly...... Well, you probably see.

Posted by: mikee | July 27, 2011 7:09 AM

John Morales,

Thanks for posting the http://www.itgetsbetter.org link. It's great to see some positive support for GLBT kids.

High school can be one of the cruelest times in life for many people and the role adults can have is to either greatly alleviate the damage done to kids or like Bachmann and her cronies they can cause incredible damage.

I cannot express how much I loathe people like her - they have no empathy, no common decency. I think all GLBT need to hang in there at school just to spite people like them.

Stories like this always make me shed tears for the lives lost, followed by such anger that adults can allow this to happen.

Religion has a lot to answer for in the deaths of GLBT children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHV9h7Lgvn8

Posted by: mikee | July 27, 2011 7:17 AM

Bachmann state lawmakers: "I think for all us our experience in public schools is there have always been bullies, always have been, always will be. I just don't know how we're ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?...What will be our definition of bullying?"

I wonder how she would react if students were being bullied because they were christian? I bet then she would have a definition for zero tolerance!
Stupid, stupid, stupid, uncaring woman!

Posted by: Christina099 | July 27, 2011 7:26 AM

nice comments.....
=====
web design

Posted by: rygold | July 27, 2011 7:40 AM

What I'd like to know is, how much of the population in US supports the right wing elements in the Republican and Tea parties. Is it a case of a really small but vocal and loud group of people? Or do Palin, Gingrich and Bachmann really have a substantial amount of support. Surely they are far to radical even for most of the people in the GOP?
I realize that come the elections, Republican's generally tend to vote out of loyalty as opposed to Democrats who might vote more on policy. Hence, the GOP can count on most of their supporters voting regardless of whether or not they actually agree with the way the party is going. But does Bachman really have the overall support of the party or are they just going along with it?
Needless to say, I feel like a need a bath after reading this post. They really are a putrid festering boil on the ass end of America.

Posted by: Frankencone | July 27, 2011 7:56 AM

Aaaah, Christians the the Truth(tm). They sit in mass together every sunday, desperatly attempting to convince one another of their still persisting relevance.

Posted by: contentedreader.com | July 27, 2011 8:11 AM

This is horrible. Truly horrible.

I am just old enough to remember when this kind of bullying came standard-issue at ALL schools, and was considered a normal part of the growing-up experience.

Now, schools that still permit it stand out, and are the subject of national attention and condemnation.

Change comes more slowly than I would like, but I am dazzled by how much change has already happened. And change is coming to this school, too- If they won't change because it's right, they'll change to avoid lawsuits.

Posted by: agonistes | July 27, 2011 8:24 AM

It seems like the parents of the suicides are passing the buck by blaming a political figure. Ultimately, the responsibility of protecting a child, be it physically, or psychologically, belongs to the parents. These parents were asleep at the wheel. If they knew the bullying was going on, and damaging to their children, they should have done something about it.

If the school couldn't or wouldn't stop it, then they should have sought alternate education for their child; home schooled them, or even moved the family, rather than have their child remain in what they seemed to believe was a toxic environment. If they were unaware of the bullying, they weren't involved enough in their kids lives. Either way, they shoulder the lion's share of guilt in the matter.

The article seems to gloss over it, but there is some wording to suggest that a number of the suicides were from single parent, or broken homes. Perhaps a contributing factor in the suicides.

I'm sure the parents of the suicides try to work around their own guilt and responsibility, by casting it back upon the state, or politicians.

It seems to me that if your kid commits suicide, you fucked up as a parent. I mean, if the primary job of a parent isn't to "keep your kid alive". what is it? Perhaps if the one mom would have been a little more attentive to her daughter's plight than buying her some new clothes, the daughter wouldn't have shot herself whilst mom was off renting a movie with her boyfriend.

~Ag.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 27, 2011 8:32 AM

It seems to me that if your kid commits suicide, you fucked up as a parent.

Posted by: Gorogh | July 27, 2011 8:39 AM

@Calgor #159, the adults in Krasnaya's story are really the worst part.

I am not sure if I'd disagree with you on too many actual instances of bullying. However (and I hope this "however" does not nullify the former statement for you), I still believe the matter is very difficult to be treated justly in all possible cases, more difficult than your "definition" permits. Nevertheless, it also seems frequent and important enough to warrant false positives.

If aimed at static traits, it corresponds to my value system that bullying should not be acceptable. If aimed at behaviors or attitudes, it probably is acceptable that a person should be put under stress/challenged, but only to a certain degree, and my guess is that my tolerance regarding that degree does not encompass most of what one would consider bullying, anyway. So again, your "definition" might be pragmatic after all.

Finally, those rules should generally apply - so if measures such as your "personal favorite", namely

to make the situation of investigation and punishment onerous to not just the perpetrator but also for the parents, they may think their little angel can do no wrong, but enough annoying incidents can soon grate on even the most devout parent

become an instance of bullying for the bully ("retributive justice"), we'd probably have to have further discussion. But that leads us astray right now, I think, for in essence I agree with you.

Posted by: nemo the derv | July 27, 2011 8:52 AM

#141 twisty.
If you go to the extreme left you get Communism
If you go to the extreme right you get Facism.
Facism requires a scapegoat in order to be effective.
Homosexuals are the scapegoat the right wing needs.
Especially since GOP support is shrinking and they need to serve their more extreme holdouts.

Posted by: Shala | July 27, 2011 9:12 AM

It seems to me that if your kid commits suicide, you fucked up as a parent.

You are a fucking monster.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 9:35 AM

If you go to the extreme left you get Communism If you go to the extreme right you get Facism. Facism requires a scapegoat in order to be effective. Homosexuals are the scapegoat the right wing needs.

Oh, the irony! You clowns may not be Communists, but you are certainly extreme leftists and are probably just one itty-bitty step away from being full-blown Communists. Anyway, extreme leftists need a scapegoat, too. Guess who that would be. Why, Michele Bachmann and other evangelical Christians, of course! Why don't you look in a mirror and see those accusing fingers pointing back at yourselves?

Posted by: raven | July 27, 2011 9:54 AM

It seems to me that if your kid commits suicide, you are an internet troll,

you fucked up as a parent your parents fucked up and failed to raise a normal human being.

Fixed.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2011 10:17 AM

The Spawn, especially DaughterSpawn, have dealt with a lot of bullying situations by telling themselves, over and over, that the bullies are displaying typical adolescent chimp behavior and that since they do not intend to be part of the bullies' breeding population, they can just keep breathing and get out. This is easier to do when you're a homeschooled atheist teen with supportive parents and the bullying situation is 2 weeks at summer camp, but the It Gets Better has spread this sort of reasoning a lot.

I think that part of the problem with bullying is actually created by our assembly-line educational model. A group of teens with limited supervision is not "socialization," it becomes "Lord of the really fast. The adult-kid ratio in virtually all schools is way too low to allow the adults to exercise actual leadership and even prevents adults and older kids from serving effectively as role models for appropriate behavior. I have no idea how to change this without changing a whole lot of other things about contemporary social institutions. (Sigh.)

As a thought experiment, this morning I pondered the response if it was gay or atheist kids bullying the Christian kids to suicide. It pissed me off so much that I cleaned the inside of my toaster oven with extreme vigor.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 10:23 AM

So, you're telling me that Michele Bachmann doesn't demonize homosexuals?

More irony. You demonize Michele Bachmann (and other evangelicals), but then get your panties in a knot when you [wrongly] think she's demonizing homosexuals.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 27, 2011 10:24 AM

agonistes: It seems to me that your parents fucked up. To steal a phrase from Ing, your mom should have coat-hangered you into the nearest Port-a-John. And, before it came to that, your dad should have checked the expiration date on his condoms.

Googlespooge, #187: Did you care to address the actual points made in the OP and thread, or did you just want to blow your Foxload all over us?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2011 10:29 AM

but you are certainly extreme leftists and are probably just one itty-bitty step away from being full-blown Communists.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 27, 2011 10:37 AM

@Daisy Cutter
@Nerd
It pains me to see two intelligent individuals wasting their breath arguing with a future bio-hazard waste.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2011 10:45 AM

Dude, being an old-fart I was in college during the radicalization of big campuses during the 'Nam war. I know the difference between various forms of communism and socialism. I get tired of idjits like Googlemess conflating the two. And one isn't a socialist if they say there should be a reasonable safety net for the unemployed, and a single payer medical system. Those are progressive ideas.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 10:48 AM

If Evangelical Christians weren't reprehensible monsters, I'd have nothing against them. However, as is evident from their behavior, they are responsible for masses of people denying the basic human rights of marriage and employment and even the right to life to gay persons. Before that it was women. Before that it was black people.

Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians are a blight on civilized society and as long as they exist, true freedom cannot.

Demonize away! (Cute parroting of PZ at the end there, too. "A blight." You people have absolutely no original thought processes.)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2011 10:59 AM

Hey googlemess, here's the point of the OP, which you seem to have missed. The people who have elected Michelle Bachman are people who encourage bullying to the point of suicide. She is the sort of leader such people voluntarily select, and she does not use her bully pulpit (as it were) to condemn bullying or even offer honest words of consolation to bereaved families.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 27, 2011 11:12 AM

Googlemess

May your life be long and fruitless.

Judging by your posts, I'm fairly certain of the latter.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmrT3c7tVjcGk6gf_IwAoYQL71D0rKKPFo | July 27, 2011 11:25 AM

http://www.parentsactionleague.org/
Several interesting articles there, which show how deeply committed to "academics" they are. *cough*

Posted by: Lou | July 27, 2011 11:28 AM

Veteran of the school district (BHS '98) and my parents are the scum of the earth that vote for Bachmann. One poster described the area as "the AL of the midwest;" TX is more like it. The most obvious characteristic being throbbing blue-veined androcentrism. Hell, one of the managers of the football team was gay, and he faced very little resentment on account of being 1) a dude, and 2) as obsessed w/ us as we were. A lesbian manager, nor any other gay student, would not have that cover. It's a nasty place of working class assholes barely pretending to be upper class assholes by the skin of their home equity loans. Anyone not playing that game gets kicked to the margins.

Comparatively speaking, Fargo is a bastion of enlightenment.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 11:59 AM

The people who have elected Michelle Bachman are people who encourage bullying to the point of suicide.

Prove it.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2011 12:10 PM

From the PAL website:

Bullying of any kind, for any reason, towards any child must NOT be tolerated." Note: Respectfully disagreeing with a point of view or behavior is not bullying per the First Amendment.

Two points. First, the Supreme Court has established, in the Bong Hits For Jesus case and others, that minors and/or public school students do not have full First Amendment rights - a school could easily justify limiting kids' right to say "you're going to hell because you're a fag."

Second, "respectfully disagreeing" means telling kids, who may or may not be gay, that God hates them and that they're evil, dirty, worthless losers, right? Respectful disagreement means putting dogshit in their lockers, making up sexually explicit stories about them, and commenting on their bodies because the kid may be gay?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2011 12:21 PM

The people who have elected Michelle Bachman are people who encourage bullying to the point of suicide.

Prove it.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | July 27, 2011 12:25 PM

Posted by: Thomathy | July 27, 2011 10:47 AM

Hmm ...it seems to me that there's a rather large chance that when a poster here uses the word 'homosexual' to refer to gay people that they're actually a bigot.

Word to the wise everyone, gays do not self-refer as homosexual. It's a cold, academic and medical term with a loaded history, better relegated to academic contexts. Interestingly, all of the regulars (and-semi regular) here tend to use the words homosexual and gay appropriately.

If everyone could, we may have an effective way of weeding out the bigots early. After all, gays are people and homosexuals are statistics and populations.

Well, that's this gay regular's take anyhow.

When I was at school in the 80s/90s in England, "gay" seemed to be mainly used as an insult (or at least I mainly heard it being used disparagingly), while "homosexual" seemed the neutral and technical term.

But as I'm not gay (and at the time was rather prejudiced myself), maybe I just wasn't sufficiently aware of the range of useage. Or maybe it was a regional/national difference. Or its changed over time (it certainly seems to be used more benevolently now, although that may just be because British society is becoming much more tolerant of different sexualities).

The other reaon I've tended to be slightly cautious about saying "gay" is that while the opposite of homosexual is the equally technical heterosexual, the opposite of gay is usually "straight", which has connotations of "normal" or "how things should be".

(I've also always seen "queer" as being a very offensive slur, but a lot of people here seem to self-identify as such).

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 12:32 PM

Hmm ...it seems to me that there's a rather large chance that when a poster here uses the word 'homosexual' to refer to gay people that they're actually a bigot.

*facepalm*

183... 188... 198... all bigots, I guess.

PZ, too:

scienceblogs. com/pharyngula/2009/09/stay_classy_ben_stein.php

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 27, 2011 12:44 PM

I'm not privileged, but they are, especially when people like you put them on a pedestal based on their suicide rates while you completely and utterly ignore every other child who commits suicide for reasons not connected to homosexuality.

And here we have the basic theme of all right-wing politics: resentment. If it's not white resentment (the driving force), it's that people pay attention to a group of young people who have elevated suicide rates and work to eliminate the conditions that foster that higher rate of suicide. Yup, we're privileged because gay kids kill themselves. Next, you'll tell us that the broad exclusion of LGBT people from equal citizenship is a sign of how advantaged we are!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2011 12:49 PM

I'm not privileged,

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2011 12:54 PM

I'm not privileged, but they are, especially when people like you put them on a pedestal based on their suicide rates while you completely and utterly ignore every other child who commits suicide for reasons not connected to homosexuality.

"Can you believe those lucky cancer patients? They get all the attention. I'm balding too, but you don't see anyone organising a Fun Run for me."

Go tell your tragic story somewhere else, googlemess.

Posted by: No One | July 27, 2011 12:55 PM

googlemess;

I'm not privileged, but they are, especially when people like you put them on a pedestal based on their suicide rates while you completely and utterly ignore every other child who commits suicide for reasons not connected to homosexuality.

Yep, more of "your side" scapegoating.

Posted by: dr-rieux | July 27, 2011 12:59 PM

Me @139, then truthspeaker @196:

She's a Congresswoman, not a school superintendent. How would this story be any different if the school district were in Keith Ellison's Minneapolis district?

If these people lived in Keith Ellison's district, Keith Ellison wouldn't have gotten elected.

The Robbinsdale school district is immediately next door to Anoka-Hennepin. Possibly Robbinsdale school administrators aren't as pathetic about GLBT issues as the A-H ones are (low bar), but do you seriously believe that brutal homophobia stops at the district (school or congressional) line?

If the Anoka-Hennepin school district had been gerrymandered into Ellison's Fifth Congressional District, he in fact would have been elected in 2006, '08, and '10. And I can't imagine how having Ellison as their Congressman would have made the Anoka-Hennepin district administrators, students, parents, and teachers—the people who are actually the most directly responsible for these children's deaths—behave any differently than they did.

Bachmann is a wackaloon Congresswoman from Stillwater. She's as responsible for these tragedies as any homophobe with a public megaphone is, but not because her congressional district happens to include the school district. Bachmann's election and these suicides are, as PZ's title expresses, sibling effects of the same cause.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 27, 2011 1:01 PM

Googlemess

You're dead wrong. I've got a lovely, loving wife and three beautiful children, so no, my life isn't fruitless and will never be so.

I find it interesting that you consider having three off-springs with above-average appearance as being "fruitful".

You have my pity.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 27, 2011 1:14 PM

Michelle Bachmann is no more a Christian than my cat is. Less so, perhaps. She pretends to be one because it plays well in Peoria (or wherever the fuck she's from), but all one has to do is compare her hate-filled rhetoric with the customary standard of Christian behavior and it's obvious she's just spewing out lies, distoritons, and other garbage to keep her position of power and influence - such as it is.

Bull-fucking-shit. I spent over thirty years deeply involved in several different churches, and everything she says is stuff I've heard from numerous pulpits. You do not get to deny the people who actually take all of the Bible seriously, not just the fuzzy cute parts.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 27, 2011 1:25 PM

Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter, oh, it is a tell. And, you're right, especially when combined with other language. There must be a subconscious knowledge that gays like to be considered human and a (perhaps) conscious effort to other them by using a loaded technical term. I find it most interesting to analyse the language use of fundies/conservatives/trolls.

Posted by: raven | July 27, 2011 1:31 PM

dumb troll lying:

I've got a lovely, loving wife and three beautiful children, so no, my life isn't fruitless and will never be so.

Yeah right.

Being a moron internet troll, that is about as believable as anything Michele Bachmann ever said.

It's far more likely you are 30 years old, living in your mom's basement, never going to grow up, and spending your waking hours being stupid and ugly online.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 27, 2011 1:40 PM

Humm. I use homosexual as an all encompassing term for homosexuals when discussing homosexual issues.

For whatever reason I feel that "gay" is interpreted as "gay men" by a large part of the heterosexual population. I could be wrong. So I use homosexual to include men and women.

Never thought of it as an issue.

I'm open to being corrected.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | July 27, 2011 1:57 PM

Case in point of the topic, there are for example the Gay Apostolic Pentecostals who,thanks to critical retranslation of a few bible verses, managed to reconcile their orientation nicely with their desire to believe in the christian god. :-)

How lovely for them. Now what are they going to do about the rest of the bullshit?
How much critical retranslation can the bible stand before the whole thing flies apart like the Death Star?

Posted by: contentedreader.com | July 27, 2011 2:03 PM

It's entirely possible that one or more of your three beautiful children is gay. The things you are teaching them at home have already permanently damaged them, even before you or they knew the damage that was being done.

Maybe your gay child will commit suicide, or maybe she'll simply disown you, or maybe you'll continue to see each other, both of you strained and uncomfortable. Your wife and your other children will have to choose which of you to support, and it'll tear your happy family apart.

The destruction of your family won't be the fault of gay people, or your gay child- it'll be your own fault, for introducing the hatred of your child into your family.

Because you're teaching anti-gay philosophies to your children, one or more of whom may be gay, you are already a child abuser. Or maybe you'll be lucky, and all of your children will be straight, and thus the harm won't be so bad.

Unless they teach the same thing to their children, one or more of whom might well be gay.

The only decent thing for you to do is either (a) work hard, starting today, to learn to love gay people as complete equals to straight people, and talk openly with your family about why you're doing that, encouraging them to help you, or (b) immediately start the process of finding a loving, stable gay couple who will adopt your three beautiful children.

Do the right thing today.

Posted by: contentedreader.com | July 27, 2011 2:12 PM

I suppose it's too late for us to go back to 'homophile' instead of 'homosexual?'

'Homophobe' isn't a very good word, either. Maybe we could just change it to 'asshole.'

Posted by: Thomathy | July 27, 2011 2:25 PM

Contentedreader.com, homophile would just have been used in the stead of homosexual by the same psychiatric and medical communities that appropriated that term for their bigoted beliefs about gays and their sexuality being a disorder. So, yeah, in a sense it's too late for homophile. Also, the 'phile' ending, considering its, albeit legitimate, usage in the word pedophile, would probably not carry the best of connotations in a word referring to gays. Especially considering the oft lumping of pedophiles and gays together by bigots.

Posted by: raven | July 27, 2011 2:50 PM

You're dead wrong. I've got a lovely, loving wife

And her wool provides you with lovely sweaters, too.

Think you are overestimating here.

His wife does fine as long as you pump her up with some more air occasionally.

And whatever you do, don't let the cat play with her!!!

Posted by: MetzO'Magic | July 27, 2011 3:20 PM

Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians are a blight on civilized society and as long as they exist, true freedom cannot.

Word! And how frustratingly fucking ironic is it that they think anyone who doesn't share their twisted, bigoted, small-minded worldview is the problem, rather than them?

Posted by: blauregen | July 27, 2011 3:38 PM

You mean 236, obviously.

Indeed. Thank you for the correction. :-)

As Carlie so eloquently put it, bull-fucking-shit. You know nothing about what she is "sadly underinformed about," and you obviously haven't noticed that the existence of a "variety of christian interpretations of their scripture" does nothing to rebut her argument.

It would have been more correct to write 'you seem sadly underinformed....' because despite of her statement

I spent over thirty years deeply involved in several different churches, and everything she says is stuff I've heard from numerous pulpits. You do not get to deny the people who actually take all of the Bible seriously, not just the fuzzy cute parts.

she apparently predominantly experienced conservative views in her involvement in several different churches. While those are undeniably there, and politically prominent, those are hardly the only ones, and reducing christianity to those would produce a onesided and ultimately incomplete view, only serviceable for propaganda.

Because 'being a christian' is mainly defined by adherences to christian beliefs, notions about what constitutes 'being a christian' must differ to the same degree, as their beliefs, as derived from their interpretation of the scripture differs. 'Christian' as a term for a person who adheres to any of a variety of christian beliefs, is too fuzzy to be of any value as a generalized description.

From an individual perspective though, the statement 'X is not a christian because X does not adhere to the beliefs I was thought to be christian.' is valid in the context of those beliefs.

There, by the way, is the denial of a "variety of christian interpretations of their scripture" you mentioned—though you conveniently didn't see fit to go after RFW for it.

No, I didn't. The predominant attitude in the thread seemed to be sufficiently critical of christianity as apparently interpreted by for example Miss Bachmann, that I didn't feel it necessary, to add to it. And I am not obsessed enough with logical fallacies, to hunt each one down, especially not in a comment which I read more as an expression of emotional discomfort about the woman's views, than as an attempt to defend her, or christianity in general, rationally.

"There are Christians who interpret things differently" is not in fact a rebuttal to Carlie's argument. It is, however, a rather blatant attempt to whitewash Christianity and its horrendous record.

It wasn't meant as a rebuttal, but as a comment, and it is not an attempt to whitewash anything, but a factual statement. A nice and short overview about differing beliefs on the topic of homosexuality, from people who partly consider themselves to be christians, is for example here

The purpose of the more progressive interpretations can obviously not be to 'whitewash christianity or it's record', because a reinterpretation of the bible would not change the history of christianity, nor change one bit of what was done. It seems far more probable, that it is an attempt to adapt their faith to changing social situations.

Or how honest they actually are about the horrors that are all over the disgusting mythology at the center of Christianity. Interpreters who disingenuously mangle the Biblical text in order to deny the massive inhumanity that suffuses it have no automatic standing.

But what I tried to point out is not distortion of history, or denial of inhumanity in the bible, as viewed in the context of the values of a modern society. That's hardly tried anyway. Even most right-wing-fundamentalists chose to simply ignore for example the parts about condoning slavery or assembling the village to stone your neighbour who works on sabbath.

Neither are those interpretations, as far as I can see, disingenuous. As interpretations go, they seem to be as valid, if not closer to the probable intentions of the original authors, as the more conservative readings.

And no doubt there are Jews who could "retranslate" Mein Kampf and end up with a lovely work that they can fall in love with. [Oh, and " :-) ".]

:-D I'd like to see that.

So what? Why should we be impressed by human beings' ability to delude themselves?

You shouldn't be impressed. It might be advantageous to gain a differentiated view of the people and organizations you oppose, but history shows that blind and undifferentiated condemnation works well, for political purposes.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 3:47 PM

And these same Christians respond to this by saying "See? 'Teh Ghey' is also bad because it makes you want to kill yourself!"

Where has anyone said that? I mean, other than you.

Posted by: Calgor | July 27, 2011 3:52 PM

Using Gay vs Homosexual as a Troll indicator is flawed...

As GravityIsJustATheory puts it:

When I was at school in the 80s/90s in England, "gay" seemed to be mainly used as an insult (or at least I mainly heard it being used disparagingly), while "homosexual" seemed the neutral and technical term.

Being raised in similar period, it is the same attitude that I hold - and to a lesser extent still do, not being homosexual myself i find it difficult to use these tags so complacently.

Stealing Gay and Queer to be used as positive identifiers from the bigots was a long and bloody process for the homosexual community here in the UK (20 years I believe and I use homosexual correctly as both Gays and lesbians fought the cause).

Similarly, it took England 30 years to reclaim the national flag from the far right (in the late 70s the flag of st George had the same revulsion as the nazi swastiker) and was itself a nasty fight.

Thankfully I was brought up in tolerant household where my dad's comment on the subject of homosexuality summed up the environment:

Gay means happy and Puffs' a dragons name, provided a man doesnt hurt anyone in the pursuit of his own happiness, Its none of your business

The thick northern accent (think Monty Python - when I was a lad) sealed it for me.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 3:55 PM

And her wool provides you with lovely sweaters, too.

His wife does fine as long as you pump her up with some more air occasionally.

And whatever you do, don't let the cat play with her!!!

Your resentment is noted.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 27, 2011 4:06 PM

This talk about the correct use of homosexual vs gay is interesting. I have more often used homosexual precisely because it sounds more formal. At the same time I was also using heterosexual and not straight. It might be because English isn't my first language, so more formal use seemed better because I wasn't sure if gay might in fact be found offensive.
Also, like many others, I always thought that saying gay excludes lesbians.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkZqbt_zOb2Sxqdt-iHOkkGGr-Xrm5XTbs | July 27, 2011 4:14 PM

This talk about the correct use of homosexual vs gay is interesting. I have more often used homosexual precisely because it sounds more formal. At the same time I was also using heterosexual and not straight. It might be because English isn't my first language, so more formal use seemed better because I wasn't sure if gay might in fact be found offensive.

Quite frankly, it's stupid. Homosexuals often refer to themselves as a lot of things which would cause those who aren't gay and lesbian to be damned as bigots. "Queer" and "dyke" are by far the two most common. It is no more bigoted to use "homosexual" instead of "gay" than it is to use "gay" instead of "queer/dyke."

Also, like many others, I always thought that saying gay excludes lesbians.

Oddly, it does and it doesn't. It varies based on context, which is sometimes subtle.

Posted by: Calgor | July 27, 2011 4:16 PM

Sorry, Thomathy, missed your post,

I was always informed that Gay refered to males hence the necessity to refer to the community using the phrase Gay & Lesbian (ie male and female). This was from homosexual friends identifing themselves with these labels, male used gay, female used lesbian, and like legistech stated: Gay was used to represent generic situations like gay marrage.

@Googlemess

Bachmann's failure to make any comment on the issue is the evidence that you claim doesnt exist - Its a valid scientific outcome, and has presedence, ask Michelson Morley for a reference.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 27, 2011 4:18 PM

Ah, and now googlemess brings the resentment based, "Gays want special rights and treatment! Waaaaaaaaaah!"

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 27, 2011 4:25 PM

Resentment? No, no, no, my dear child. It's not resentment. It's noticing and exposing your hypocrisy and bias

Translation: Yes, it is resentment. I'm really resentful of the strawmen I keep trying to make you take and you won't! Take my strawman arguments! Please!! I have no other ones!!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2011 4:33 PM

So in other words... you can't prove it.

"Gays want special rights and treatment! Waaaaaaaaaah!"

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 27, 2011 4:34 PM

The purpose of the more progressive interpretations can obviously not be to 'whitewash christianity or it's record', because a reinterpretation of the bible would not change the history of christianity

The purpose of the more “progressive” interpretations is to attempt to squeeze even a drop of something honest, positive and/or good out of that religion. Given its history and the plain truth of the Bible’s barbarity and hate-mongering, you need some extreme cherry picking to get there. However, this cherry picking is aided by the simple fact that most xtians never read the Bible anyway (or at least, not all of it) and therefore, they have absolutely no idea how negative it is, or just how much needs to be left out to maintain the delusion that its peaceful, loving religion.

“Progressive” religions are just exercises in denial by people unwilling to rid themselves of fairytales.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2011 4:41 PM

When it comes to suicide, I actually treat kids equally no matter what their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. You don't.

So googlemess, what would you say to the numerous straight people who have commented about being bullied for being gay? And haven't you heard that the kids who are bullied for being "unathletic, not as smart, don't dress as well or aren't pretty/handsome" have that bullying phrased as that kid is sooooo gay?.

You apparently don't spend much time around teens if you don't know this. (Hint: some of the kids discussed in the article linked to in the OP were not gay. They killed themselves because they were teased about their clothes, their appearance, and the like, and some to most of that teasing was worded as you're so gay bullying. And you still haven't answered my questions about community responsibility and leadership.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 27, 2011 4:43 PM

And it would help to link to the regular Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Posted by: Thomathy | July 27, 2011 5:06 PM

The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge @ #255 is exactly correct. Specifically,

The popular misinterpretation of the word "gay" to mean "gay male" is I think inevitable given constant use of phrases like "gay and lesbian" (both!) I think it's at worst folk etymology, not bigotry—"If 'lesbian' means 'gay female', then the coordinate term 'gay' must mean 'gay male'."

The problem, I think, is that there is a polite, neutral term "lesbian", but unless I'm mistaken, no nice neutral term for gay male. I know the "f-word" (no, not that one) has been to a certain extent reclaimed by the gay male community, but not being a member of that community, I don't feel comfortable using it. Is there an acceptable term that could be used in "___ and lesbian" to subdivide "gay"?

I can see your point about the word "homosexual" being a bit aloof. I'm not really aware of any particularly loaded history it has and really thought "gay" and especially "queer" had more loaded histories (though am aware both have been reclaimed to a substantial extent).

As far as inclusiveness, I suspect you'd have some issues if you tried to move from "LGBT" to just "GBT", so I'm not sure if I could comfortably use "gay" without including "lesbian" except in the context of some general phrases such as "gay marriage".

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | July 27, 2011 5:12 PM

Thomathy ,

Thanks for the lesson. :)

Posted by: Calgor | July 27, 2011 5:24 PM

Thomathy,

Thanks for the info, but a small part of me would argue that this is an american take on the situation and not fully embracing the UK aspect.

After all, fag actually means cigarette.

Point taken despite my argumentative nature.

Posted by: Ctenotrish | July 27, 2011 5:44 PM

Agonistes@177

What a tremendously rotten, and remarkably inaccurate, thing to say, "that if your kid commits suicide, you fucked up as a parent." For any parents, friends, or family members out there who did their best - or *didn't even comprehend or notice* what their child, friend, co-worker, etc. was going through - please know that it was not your fault. Well, unless you were an active part of the problem, in which case fuck you. Having suicidal thoughts can be something that people find shameful, and they can and will work very very hard to cover it up. Not every person intending to commit suicide acts out, talks about killing themselves, leaves perfect little bread-crumb trails to the gun or a rope, or paints a picture of suicidal despair. Reading that blame-the-parent comment felt like having acid dripped into an open wound.

Posted by: TheLoneCoyote | July 27, 2011 5:45 PM

dr-rieux: I'm no scientist, but I thought doing one's further homework kinda 'came with the territory'.

Posted by: myeckwaters | July 27, 2011 6:12 PM

dr-rieux's advice to TheLoneCoyote got me to finally do a search on NTS, and the first hit was the Wikipedia entry which has been recently updated to include Bill O'Reilly's use of it to prove that the Norway mass-murderer was not a christian.

And it struck me that in all probability every single logical fallacy could be illustrated with examples from Fox News. And should.

Posted by: agonistes | July 27, 2011 6:32 PM

@288

Well, it's nice to see a reasonable post amongst the "you should have been aborted" nonsense. Still, no cogent refutation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that "doing your best" is necessarily good enough, if your best isn't enough to keep your child from killing his or herself.

I mean, if a parent was an alcoholic who beat the hell out of their kid every night, but was "trying their best" to beat alcoholism, should we leave the child in their care? Are they absolved from all responsibility because they are trying "their best"?

As for your "didn't even comprehend or notice..." their child was suicidal; that's another big parenting fail. Parents take note, you should probably strive to "notice" if your child is days away from putting a hunting rifle in their mouth.

Parenting is a monumental undertaking and a huge responsibility. Those that aren't up to keeping a child sane, and non-suicidal throughout their formative years, need not apply.

All those moms of suicides that are marching to raise awareness, should have raised their own awareness prior to the tragic death of their own children.

~Ag.

Posted by: Athyco | July 27, 2011 7:08 PM

Parenting is a monumental undertaking and a huge responsibility. Those that aren't up to keeping a child sane, and non-suicidal throughout their formative years, need not apply.

You ignore the agency of the child/adolescent altogether. There have been children who go to great lengths to present a happier face to an aware, worried parent so that the interventions their parent would exercise does not come into play and prevent a suicide. You ignore the extent to which parents must foster independence--a part of keeping a child sane and non-suicidal throughout their formative years--while also watching eagle-eyed for the child's every interaction with peers, teachers, extended family members, strangers. Ignoring just those two factors to end with an "All those moms" (no dads, by the way?) statements is vile.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 27, 2011 7:58 PM

I get the feeling that agonistes is one of the people cheering when Raquel Nelson got convicted of a higher-level offense than the driver who killed her child.

Posted by: raven | July 27, 2011 8:25 PM

Parenting is a monumental undertaking and a huge responsibility. Those that aren't up to keeping a child sane, and non-suicidal throughout their formative years, need not apply.

Tell that to the fundie death cult xians.

Fundies have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion than the general population.

A lot lower rates of education.

They also have high rates of child sex abuse. According to the FBI, the second highest correlation with child sexual abuse is membership in "conservative religious cults."

Among their miscellaneous accomplishments is the primitive rite of human child sacrifice by witholding medical treatment and beating the snot out of their kids because of a line or two in some kludgy old book.

If we were going to issue parenthood licenses, the fundies would all end up sterilized for the good of society.

Thanks mom and dad for not raising me like a fundie xian would. I probably would have survived but spent the rest of my life in your basement pursuing a career as...an internet troll so stupid I can't even log in with a comprehensible ID.

Posted by: raven | July 27, 2011 8:45 PM

Conservative religiousity is the second best predictor behind alcohol and drugs.

A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father.
But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles.

This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes.

(Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). (emphasis in original) ["Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73]

It's a matter of mountains of cold, hard statistics that fundies make terrible parents.

It's no coincidence that their heartland is sometimes referred to as "Dumbfuckistan".

Posted by: agonistes | July 27, 2011 10:02 PM

@300
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agonistes

It's from Milton, try reading a book.

@303

Well, one of the moms was out with her boyfriend while her daughter was killing herself, so I think it's safe to say that Dad probably wasn't around.

I guess you just chose to leave the "where did she get the gun?" question alone...

I read the article. So, add to her bad parenting, raising her kids in a dangerous area where walking 1500 ft to a crosswalk is less safe than crossing a busy street. Still, that's her opinion, not fact. Maybe she was too lazy to walk, who knows? I'm not sure why she wasn't holding the 4 yr old child's hand though, preventing him from dashing into the street. As I said, probably didn't have the resources to be a good parent.

Maybe city planners should put some more crosswalks, in. I'd vote for that. Until there is one however right there however, do the responsible thing and walk your gaggle of kids 3/10th of a mile, and use the closest one available. Also, don't raise your kids in a shitty area. If you can't afford a decent area to live in, don't have kids.

I'm all for the draconian punishment of drunk drivers though. He should never drive again, for starters, and serve a hefty prison sentence as well.

~Ag.

Posted by: Ctenotrish | July 27, 2011 10:33 PM

Agonistes@294

Still, no cogent refutation. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that "doing your best" is necessarily good enough, if your best isn't enough to keep your child from killing his or herself.

What is "best"? Can you actually raise a perfect child, free of harm and full of never-ending beauty and life? I had (have) great parents. I had a normal childhood. I did not suffer violence or abuse, physical or verbal while I was in their care -call it to age 19. I nevertheless attempted suicide more than once, and the acid in the wound I mentioned above is that you, and likely others, would have blamed them. They actually did it all right, parenting, that is. I was loved, learned right from wrong, got support in all good things, was disciplined appropriately (grounding, losing privileges like TV, driving, phone, etc.) when I did intentional wrong, I mean really - I look back and can only wonder what my problem was.

And I did have a problem. It just wasn't something my parents could be blamed for. How could they, when I worked so hard to hide it, from them and everyone? Teachers, friends, family, even my best friend in the world. No one knew. My parents were, and are, good parents. They didn't overtly "try their best" they were just good, normal, average, every day parents. They didn't know, and still *to this day* do not know, about the worst of my attempts. I hid it from them then, and I still do today. They don't need to know, no one does. When I took enough pills to kill a rhino (probably I exaggerate here, but enough to kill me without their intervention, certainly), they got me to the ER, and got me into the therapy. Repeatedly, because it took a while before we found someone I clicked with.

And always, always, I kept up my grades, had friends in and out of our house and I visited their homes too, I did not change my eating or sleeping habits: I was the anti-poster child for potential suicides. The article that is the topic of this post not notwithstanding, I do hope you read this and eventually consider at least a little bit that your statement in post 177 "if your kid commits suicide, you fucked up as a parent" is indeed, beyond the pale.

I had good parents. I am so happy that I still do! And the acid in the wound is the thought that something I did (thankfully, failed to do) would have had people, even one person, look at them at think that it was their fault. Because some of us are extraordinarily good at hiding ourselves. And that is not the fault of our parents. Our friends. Our families.

Not a "cogent refutation," perhaps. But I know damn well that I am not alone in that sort of back story .....

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 28, 2011 7:14 AM

So, add to her bad parenting, raising her kids in a dangerous area where walking 1500 ft to a crosswalk is less safe than crossing a busy street.

Your classicism is breathtaking.

I'm not sure why she wasn't holding the 4 yr old child's hand though, preventing him from dashing into the street.

Again, if you could read, you'd see that she was. Have you ever tried to keep hold of a four year old?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 28, 2011 8:08 AM

I hope that helps you understand better

Thanks. I honestly never associated a negative connotation with the word.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 28, 2011 10:42 AM

@Ag

Fuck off and die you self righteous asshole.

Posted by: What a maroon | July 28, 2011 11:34 AM

Also, gay means something not quite analogous to happy if you're speaking Middle English or trying to sound quaint (admittedly the word began to be used again, in the recent past, as something analogous to happy by some, but that stopped not long after). still, no one speaks Middle English anymore and gay doesn't mean happy, though it's a quaint notion.

There's an extensive discussion of the use of gay here. I'll just point out that Middle English usually refers roughly to the language spoken between the late 11th and 14th centuries. Gay seems to have been borrowed from French towards the end of that period. It's been used to refer to licentious behavior for a long time, alongside its other meanings, but apparently it's only fairly recently (i.e., since perhaps the late-19th Century) that it's come to refer specifically to homosexual activities.

And the use of gay to mean, roughly, "happy", is attested at least as late as the early 1960s in the US (c.f. Hanna, W., and Barbera, J. (1960). Theme from "The Flintstones": "We'll have a gay old time").

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 28, 2011 1:06 PM

Also, don't raise your kids in a shitty area. If you can't afford a decent area to live in, don't have kids.

Wow. Just... wow.

Poor people shouldn't have kids, huh? Did you know that up until the early 1970s there were states that forcibly sterilized poor women? For example: North Carolina. http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

You disgust me.

Posted by: What a maroon | July 28, 2011 1:18 PM

So I'd say that while you don't need to be "wealthy" to be a good parent, I'd say that you should have the means to provide nutritious food, adequate supervision, safe and clean living quarters, healthcare and education to start. If your kid needs to drink out of the Ganges, or you don't feel safe walking 1500ft. outside your house after dark don't bring children into the equation.

Posted by: Anri | July 28, 2011 2:54 PM

Ag:

So I'd say that while you don't need to be "wealthy" to be a good parent, I'd say that you should have the means to provide nutritious food, adequate supervision, safe and clean living quarters, healthcare and education to start. If your kid needs to drink out of the Ganges, or you don't feel safe walking 1500ft. outside your house after dark don't bring children into the equation.

Ok, just so we don't misunderstand you, can you give us your basic rundown of your minimum parenting standards, and your suggestions for enforcement of them?
I mean, you were a little vague here, especially about enforcement, and I'd like to make certain I'm not strawmanning your ideas to prevent Unqualified Parenthood.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 28, 2011 3:31 PM

So I'd say that while you don't need to be "wealthy" to be a good parent, I'd say that you should have the means to provide nutritious food, adequate supervision, safe and clean living quarters, healthcare and education to start. If your kid needs to drink out of the Ganges, or you don't feel safe walking 1500ft. outside your house after dark don't bring children into the equation.

I don't suppose, say, society making it easier to GET said nutritious food, adequate supervision, safe and clean living quarters, healthcare, and education (to start*), and then to KEEP all those things for 18-20 years in a row, comes into your plan at all. It's not like parents are people or anything, like the rest of us.

(Or contraception. Personally I'd love the opportunity to sponsor an IUD, just to change things up.)

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | July 29, 2011 8:11 AM

Posted by: What a maroon | July 28, 2011 1:18 PM

So what you're saying is that roughly 99% of parents througout history were criminally irresponsible and should never have been allowed to have kids.

That's an underestimate. By his "reasoning", it would be 100% for certain periods of history and prehistory.

Posted by: Ctenotrish | July 29, 2011 2:00 PM

Agonistes@311

it seems your parents saw the first big sign in the ER after your pill incident, and put you into therapy. So they were proactive, and I'm glad to hear it.

Well, retroactive, technically. But here's the deal: if I had been just a tiny bit better at attempting suicide and had died, you would have believed, and *thought it was okay to tell them so*, that my parents fucked up. That it was their fault that I chose to kill myself. And you would be wrong. So wrong that your sheer arrogance just takes my breath away.

Posted by: TheLoneCoyote | July 29, 2011 5:44 PM

Timberwoof: Apologies, I wasn't thinking. I should have known better, because if there's one thing I know from experience it's that people can't 'choose' who we're attracted to, gay or not.

"lifestyle choice-" the same words that the fundies who want to cure the gay use. It's pretty blatant once you point it out actually.

Posted by: agonistes | July 29, 2011 7:21 PM

@318 & 324

I would give allowances for historical realities. If raising a child in the 1200's one would expect parents to provide a reasonable environment for the time. So the Raquel Nelson analogues in the 1200's shouldn't have kids. The two parent, middle class family analogue, perhaps should.

@319

Probably a great many people fail as parents because they are chasing the capitalist dream. I wouldn't suggest they should be parents either. Resources isn't my only bar for parenthood, it's just one of them.

My nephew isn't particularly well behaved, I'd say he's about average, and a bit of a fearless one, so he likes to run. I'm just extra vigilant when I take him anywhere. My sister and her husband live in a middle class suburb with safe parks, and have a nice backyard as well, so it's a relatively safe environment for him.

@320

Again, "...the means to provide nutritious food, adequate supervision, safe and clean living quarters, healthcare and education to start."

Obviously setting up such a system requires a great deal more planning and effort that a quick blog post, however I'd say that being on welfare, having any serious criminal record, etc. would probably disqualify one from obtaining a "child license."

I think overpopulation is a serious problem, and I think limiting the number of births isn't a bad idea. I'd like to see a child license program, where parents-to be, paid a fee to be assessed by the ministry of children, or some such organization. I'd like the license fee to be high enough to make it a cost neutral endeavor, or a revenue generator.

The U.S. had around 4,000,000 births in 2009. Assuming half of those people choose not to have kids due to the new fees, we're looking at 2 million. As a nice round number let's suggest a 5,000 dollar fee per child license. There's 10 billion dollars a year to fund the ministry, and subsidize birth control to boot. In other ways such as ensuring continued child safety, the ministry would function much as it always has, conducting investigations as needed.

Parents who chose to have children outside the licensing system would be assessed, fined, and if met the criteria, allowed to raise the child. Otherwise, it would be taken from the unfit parent, and placed into adoption or well funded government facilities.

@322

I don't believe it's the responsibility of the state to subsidize the poor, however I'd be willing to spring for birth control. Interestingly enough, a nurse friend of mine spent a great deal of time working on native reserves, where Depo-Provera was provided free, due to a disturbing large number of unwanted pregnancies, many by rape, in the native population. Norplant is a better option, but more expensive, and many native bands don't want to foot the bill.

@326

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. However, do you think the woman in the case where the daughter shot herself with a hunting rifle when they were away bears some guilt in having a child-accessible firearm and ammunition in her house; particularly when he child has shown signs of depression, that she admits to seeing?

~Ag.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2011 7:42 PM

I don't believe it's the responsibility of the state to subsidize the poor

Exactly. Fuck 'em. Let 'em rot. It'll have no effect on me so why should I care.

They're just poor people.

Posted by: agonistes | July 29, 2011 8:28 PM

@332

I just believe people should make their own way in the world.

@333

People voted in leaders that led them to this situation, it's not North Korea, you can't blame a dictator for your collective financial woe. I lost money in the crash too, I just lost some money, not all my money, because I went to school, got a professional job, and saved some money in case things got rough. Kids shouldn't do without because there parents didn't plan for tough times.

I'd happily pay for sex ed, and birth control. All the other stuff should be borne by parents, that should be able to afford it.

"Is this really about money for you, or did you buy stock in other people's misery?"

It's about money, child welfare, and personal responsibility.

Regarding stock in other people's misery, I have a fairly diverse portfolio, although I don't recall having bought shares in misery as of yet.

~Ag.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 29, 2011 8:44 PM

I just believe people should make their own way in the world.

Then you believe in a fantasy.

Not since Purgatorius hid from Troodon while T. rex snoozed has ANY member of the human lineage been capable of making "their own way in the world."

Humans are a social species, that survives only be relying one another.

Bengal Tigers can make their own way in the world.

Great White Sharks can make their own way in the world.

Human beings cannot.

Posted by: TheLoneCoyote | July 29, 2011 9:48 PM

Agonistes:
The reasons you outlined above are exactly WHY such talk of 'licensing breeding'makes me uneasy. It stinks of classism. Would you think these were such great ideas if you were poor? I mean it's great that you're financially secure, really, but not everyone is.

Furthermore, though this is just my opinion, any talk of government regulating reproduction always seems just a butthair away from social darwinism and eugenics. A slippery slope.

Posted by: agonistes | July 30, 2011 4:26 AM

@ 335
Aww, I didn't make a good impression on you? Whew, good thing I don't care.

@336
Obviously humans interact and have social ties to one another. By "making ones own way in the world" I was speaking to not relying on charity as an adult. So, the vast majority of people that aren't relying on food stamps, etc.

@338
It is eugenics in a roundabout way. Many drug addicts, mentally ill people and the like would be excluded from breeding under such a system.

To be clear, I wasn't always financially well situated. I made a point not to have children when I didn't feel like I could provide a proper environment for them.

I've also been in the trenches dealing with child negligence first hand, and seen race-based, and poverty advocacy groups intervene to fight ministry officials from taking children out of homes where the kids were so filthy, they were getting skin infections because their parents were too busy drinking to bathe them.

I've been involved dealing with communities where alcoholic welfare parents didn't supervise their children; unsupervised kids who then stole a car after huffing glue, and crashed it into a tree and were trapped inside the burning car, screaming and melting in front of nearby residents that were desperately trying to get them out.

So ya, I thought these ideas were pretty good when I didn't have any money, and now that I have some money, my opinions haven't changed.

~Ag.

Posted by: TheLoneCoyote | July 30, 2011 3:20 PM

Sorry, Agonistes rather. I keep reading your name Agonista.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 30, 2011 3:48 PM

Seriously, it's your own fault that OTHER people tanked the economy and your lost your job because of it...You should just be allowed to starve and die in the street. Make your own way. Pay no attention to how my actions fuck you over, live your own life.

Causality denial.

Posted by: agonistes | July 30, 2011 6:05 PM

@Coyote

Again,natives are only one example. I've seen it in every walk of life, and every ethnic background; from people born into money and privilege, to people born with the deck completely stacked against them. What do you say to the rich kid that decided to start using heroin, and threw his whole life away? Blame the system? Are you wanting to paint all these "disadvantaged" people as completely hopeless at improving their own situation, without the most elementary-school level of support? "Today class, we're going to learn how to refrigerate milk!"

Even with housing support, food support, various counseling and education programs, these people would rather drink away their welfare check than look for gainful employment. I just don't want to allow them to have children suffer along side them; being sexually abused on the reservation, being born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome etc.

Are you alright with having children suffer and die while you try for years to straighten out a population with social programs? I'm not willing to let children pay they price for their parent's perceived right of self determination.

~Ag,

Posted by: pteryxx | July 30, 2011 10:27 PM

I've seen it in every walk of life, and every ethnic background; from people born into money and privilege, to people born with the deck completely stacked against them. What do you say to the rich kid that decided to start using heroin, and threw his whole life away? Blame the system?

I gotta ask you about this one. Didn't that rich kid start out with good parents, by your definition? If 'e's a RICH kid, then the parents obviously had enough money to provide food, shelter, housing, healthcare and all that other stuff you're conflating with Good Parenthood. So why did this kid crash and burn? Should THOSE parents have their hypothetical parenting licences yanked? Or do you only blame the parents when they're not rich?

Are you alright with having children suffer and die while you try for years to straighten out a population with social programs? I'm not willing to let children pay they price for their parent's perceived right of self determination.

First off, you forget that most of the support systems I suggested ARE for the child's welfare. That they also benefit the parents is somewhat incidental, because a child is dependent on the parents (duh) so there's no way to draw a dividing line between child and caretakers. Even if children are cared for by teachers, childcare workers, foster homes or whatever, the same dynamic applies. You can't just give a small child a monthly stipend.

But more to the point, you forget that children BECOME parents. Across the board, children primarily live in marginal homes because their parents started out as disadvantaged children: who couldn't get good jobs because of poor schooling, who suffered from poor nutrition that affected their ability to learn in school, who grew up in bad family situations because THEIR parents were working multiple jobs and couldn't care for them properly. By your own argument, YOU would let children suffer and die rather than provide them support, just because that support would incidentally help the parents.

But support to children gives them better odds of growing into the kind of parent that CAN maintain a home and job, even by your standards.

Posted by: agonistes | July 31, 2011 5:03 AM

@Nerd

Name calling and cursing does not a cogent presentation make. It should be obvious by now, that you don't matter to me. So, present something worthwhile like the others, or if you are so disinterested, find something else to chime in on.

@pteryxx

"I gotta ask you about this one. Didn't that rich kid start out with good parents, by your definition? If 'e's a RICH kid, then the parents obviously had enough money to provide food, shelter, housing, healthcare and all that other stuff you're conflating with Good Parenthood. So why did this kid crash and burn? Should THOSE parents have their hypothetical parenting licences yanked? Or do you only blame the parents when they're not rich?

As I said in earlier posts, having resources isn't the only factor in being a good parent, by a long shot. Clearly there are bad parents from all economic backgrounds. I'm acquainted with a number of high-finance / law folks who are quite wealthy, on their 3rd marriage and coke fiends. Clearly not guys that would get "parent licenses" under my system. Ultimately, not matter how much the deck is stacked against you, or in your favor, there are people who struggle through adversity and make it, and those that toss all advantage away and screw it up. Call it personal agency.

To be clear, evaluate everyone, and base it on a bunch of factors; resources, family stability, sanity, responsibility, etc. This is not just a system for the poor.

That said, most of those that commented on my posts seemed to take it for granted that it's easier for those from stable, middle class backgrounds to succeed in life than those from single parent, poor families, all other things being equal. It's why they accuse me of coming from a position of privilege.

You are right to suggest that very often all the neglect and abuse is a cycle. For the most part a cycle that is incredibly hard to break while children remain with toxic parents. All the social programs in the world haven't made reservations good places to grow up. They were hellholes where abuse and neglect were rampant, before the programs, and they are still hellholes where abuse and neglect are rampant after the programs have been in place for decades.

I simply can't stomach kids being neglected to death. Make no mistake, this "slowly change the community with non-intrusive social programs" mindset results in dead children. It's far too slow, and addicts are notoriously hard to transform. Many children, if seized from their addict parents, would still be alive today. So, if I'm a little heavy handed (or very heavy handed) in my approach, then so be it.

So, in short, I'd advocate concentrating the resources on the children, who when taken from shitty parents at a young age, (or are not born in the first place)and trying to make sure kids have "reasonable odds" of making it, coming from "reasonable homes" (e.g. food, shelter, sane parents who aren't criminals etc.) My system essentially eliminates the problem of "generational shitty parents" in one generation. It does it, because shitty parents are simply aren't allowed, and the ones that defy the system have their children taken.

Are you content with the slow-minimal intervention systems of present that allows children to suffer and die needlessly?

~Ag.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 31, 2011 11:41 PM

Thomathy:

It's just rather insulting for people to refer to you as something you don't even identify as, especially when you don't particularly like the word that they're calling you. It stings even when that person means well.

I will try to avoid that in the future.