Why Rich Kids Don't Know They're Rich
Why don’t you know the air is full of oxygen? You don’t think about it; that life-giving substance is just kind of there, surrounding you, to be taken at will. You’re told it’s scarce on other planets, but that seems abstract.
Take another breath. There it is. The elements of life, freely available, whenever you want them.
That’s what being rich is like.
If you’re poor, even as a kid you know right away because your life is defined by what you can’t have: an apartment without nosy landlords and loud neighbors, anything but ramen for dinner again, clothes that aren’t hand-me-downs. Whereas if you’re well off, you just sort of assume that a house and healthy food and the clothes shopping trip at the beginning of school is the default.
And why not? It’s a saner world you’re envisioning, the one where everyone gets eggs if they want and can have a fun trip to Target to get all the sparkly notebooks. You’re told that there are poor kids, ones who don’t get enough to eat, but that seems weirdly bizarre; why would you go hungry? Candy bars are only a dollar, and dollars are everywhere. And houses, well, houses are pretty much the same, with bathrooms that all work and roofs that don’t leak and nicely mowed lawns.
You see other, rattier houses from afar, but you never go in them and they don’t stick in your mind. They’re like set dressing. They slip out because you can’t really imagine what it’s like to live there. You buy cans for poor people at the supermarket, racked up in a nice cardboard box that gets gathered up and carried away periodically.
Your life is still defined by the lack of things, but it’s for things you don’t necessarily need: that X-Box 360, that drum kit you really wanted, the expensive dress for the prom. You don’t get those things right away. Those things, you have to wait for Christmas, or your birthday, and even then it’s not guaranteed that you’ll get it. There was that one Christmas you didn’t. But usually, you get this once-a-year get out of jail free card, where your deepest desire is presented to you in a nice, gift-wrapped box and you think that waiting eight months for this was an honest hardship.
You ask mom or dad if you’re rich. They always say the same thing: “We’re doing okay.” Because “rich” in America is a dual-toned word: if you say you’re rich, well, you’re a douche. Rich people aren’t supposed to be proud of their money, they’re supposed to be proud of their achievements. But if other people call you rich, that’s a compliment! So when you ask your parents, they don’t want you walking around the playground, telling all the other kids, “We’re rich!” – especially when there are probably even richer kids who would put you down for the hubris of self-proclaiming.
So you’re not rich. You’re doing all right. Doing all right to the tune of being in the 10th percentile of American income, in many cases – but as a kid, you don’t understand that. And you’re probably in a neighborhood where everyone’s about as rich as you are, so the word just doesn’t come up.
You think you’re middle class. Maybe even tickling the bottom of middle class, because at your school there’s a kid who’s really rich – like, his dad owns a helicopter rich – and when you go to his party, he’s got a live band and ice sculptures and a caterer, and all your party had was a clown and a rental of Chuck-E-Cheese for the day. You can’t be terribly well off, because that wasn’t even a particularly good clown.
Some day, if you’re not particularly lucky, you wind up on your own and realize just how things actually are. When you wind up out of work and eating the ramen noodles, you start to realize exactly how much of your childhood was a gimme. You feel, exquisitely, every dollar poured into the fundaments of your life. You start adding up the cost of hiring that clown and the Chuck-E-Cheese rental and realize that it’d be half a month’s rent now, and go, “Wow, we were doing more than okay. We were pretty well off, as things go.”
Or maybe you don’t. Maybe you just quietly keep floating along, bolstered by a good college and good connections and a taught trade that’s valued highly in America, and you continue to think that nobody lives like that. Or if they do live like that, then they must have specifically rejected the basics of life, living a lifestyle so depraved that they actually shucked off the natural fine home and two dogs and well-kept lawn that are the birthright of every American to live in some stupid tenement.
But if you do find out, then you have an embarrassment. It lasts for a while, realizing just how much your Mom and Dad did for you. And how oblivious and, at times, ungrateful, you were.
Polyamory And Fidelity
My conservative friend Brad Torgersen wrote this note on Facebook:
My wife informs me that the marriage of a close family friend is breaking up. Infidelity. I see it as a cautionary tale. No matter how strong your relationship with your spouse may be, it only takes being weak once to screw the whole thing up. In my 10 years in the military I’ve seen a lot of people play around on TDY. I always try to make a point of wearing my marriage on my sleeve when I am away from home. It’s a reminder to me that I am not looking for a fling, and it’s a reminder to others that I am not looking for a fling. And yes, I know some women adore a happily married man. And that this may make me a bigger target. The choice is still mine, however. Nobody makes me cheat. I have to want to first. I refuse. I refuse to disrespect and dishonor my best friend & eternal companion like that. I would rather divorce her honestly, than cheat behind her back. Our friend is now in an agony of shame, anger, humiliation, and confusion. It’s such a needless waste.
Now, I doubt Brad is much down with kinky polyamory, given that previously he’s posted links to the only safe sex being “get married and be faithful,” stating “we in modern society have invented 101 excuses for ourselves as to why this isn’t practical, or even necessary.” But the fascinating thing is how much overlap there is between healthy monogamy and healthy polyamory.
Because even with multiple partners, if you don’t have fidelity, you don’t have a relationship.
In polyamory, the relationship is no longer defined by exclusive sex – but it’s doubtlessly defined by some expectations. Many of those are sexual, such as “You’ll always use safe sex” or “You’ll always let me know who you’re with so I can make an informed decision.” But when sex ceases to be the defining factor of your relationship, then the other expectations become that much more critical – “You’ll always be there for me when I need you,” or “Friday night is our special movie night,” or “This restaurant is our special romantic rendezvous, for no others.”
Keeping those agreements is fidelity. And if you can’t keep those, then you wind up inflicting the same agonies of shame, anger, humiliation, and confusion.
Look, those agreements are who you are as a couple. And when you suddenly decide to break those bonds, either out of convenience or just out of neglect, then suddenly your partner doesn’t know what you mean to each other. They’re just as important as the “no sex with anyone but me bond,” and when broken it creates a cascade of terror in that “Well, does s/he still love me? How could s/he do that to me? Should we be together? How could they claim they love me and yet manage to hurt me so deeply?”
Which is not to say that such expectations have to be lasting bonds. Relationships are dynamic things (hell, Gini and I started off as monogamous, and there’s never a guarantee we won’t switch back if it makes us both more comfortable), and sometimes you want to renegotiate that Friday night movie night, or have unprotected sex, or bring a new lover to that special French cafe.
But too many bad poly relationships broach that by shattering the agreement, and then asking forgiveness. Forgiveness is often given, because “getting a burger with some other girl at that diner” seems like a small, petty thing to get so wounded over. Yet it’s not a small thing. It’s something that defined you, together, and now suddenly it defines someone else, too, leaving one partner to wonder what the moorings of this this particular pair-bond is. You’ve broken fidelity, and that weakens everything else to the point where your partner has to wonder what trust must be accidentally broached next.
And is that really polyamory? Or just you, doing as you please, regardless of the hurt caused? ‘Cause there’s not much love in that, Jack.
The problem with poly is that quite often, you don’t understand how vital these trusts are until you break them. Maybe your lover thought your affectionate kiss on the forehead was exclusive to her, and discovering that you do with that anyone you like is going to wound her. Maybe your partner didn’t understand how emotionally specific those burgers at the diner were to you. Which is why, in a poly relationship (or in any relationship, really, but the poly ones especially), you have to be up-front about defining your needs and ever watchful of what your partners may think of as special to them.
My wife, who is wise and wonderful, refers to our style of relationship as “polyfidelity.” I think that’s a wonderful term, and correct. And one of many wondrous reasons why I go out of my way to keep my agreements with her.
Damn, I Love Art In The Mail
So this morning, I received the following envelope:
Which was also pretty on the back:
(I do love the “Warning” on the back – I think art is everywhere – )
And inside was this:
That’s right – a comic from my favorite webcomic “Buttersafe,” a listing of what to do in case of a nuclear attack in Seattle, and a coupon for a free cup of Starbucks coffee. Why the coupon? Well, rogue car window artist Punzel (go check out her artwork, which I find wonderfully compelling) was appreciative of my what-it’s-like-to-be-harassed essay “Can I Buy You A Coffee? and wanted to buy me a coffee by way of thanks. (No worries, Consent Culture fans – she asked if she could send it first.)
Which is, frankly, a lovely way to start a Saturday.
(Before any of you express concern, I discussed the envelope with Gini, and after a couple of focused Google searches easily turned up our address, we realized that no serious stalker would be hindered in discovering where we live. So if you’re thinking about sending me anthrax, well, I guess I can’t stop you. In the meantime, have some art.)
Why I, A Democrat, Can Tell You, A Republican, What Republicans Think, Using Only The Taste Of Their Urine
One of my conservative commenters tut-tutted me yesterday. “Ferrett, you wrote this essay on How Not To Be A Political Asshole, which said never to generalize about a person – and then you told me what I thought about the rich in an essay the day before! It’s fascinating, learning what I think.”
The answer is simple, and consistent: because I believe that all people are individuals, I do not assume that you, as a Republican, believe everything the party line spouts. But I can believe that Republicans, as a group, generally hold to certain tenets.
Because if a soft drink company had, as part of its advertisements, a consistent emphasis on “OUR DRINK WILL MAKE YOUR PEE TASTE LIKE APPLE JUICE!” – well, you can bet your ass that it’s a drink I’d be reluctant to try. I don’t really wanna taste my own pee, let alone make it taste better. But I could certainly see it as an attention-getting novelty factor for a new soda eager to increase sales, and I’d think, well, this is a college craze that will end soon. Kind of like Goldschlager, but with less gold and more tasty pee.
But if every single major soft drink company had, for the past decade, emblazoned their cans with “NOW 50% MORE APPLE FLAVOR IN YOUR URINE!” – well, then my attitude starts to change. I think, “Well, certainly they seem to have this bizarre emphasis on urine-drinking, which is very off-putting to those of us who are not fond of aqua vitae. But since they’re all doing it, and doing it so consistently, I can only assume that the majority of soda-drinkers like to recycle.”
The alternative flies in the face of Occam’s Razor. Yes, it certainly could be that the soda companies are hammering on this relentless message in the hopes of, say, depressing the sales of the apple juice industry. Or that most soda drinkers don’t enjoy drinking their own pee, or know anyone who does, but they are nevertheless very concerned with having fruit-flavored urine. Or that nobody really is all that fond of the urine campaign, but by coincidence both Coke and Pepsi do it anyway. But it’s unlikely.
Now, this relentless marketing is prone to some misinterpretation, of course. It could be, quite reasonably, that the soda-drinkers don’t drink their own urine, but they’re all dating urolagnists who long to be showered upon. Perhaps my specifics are a little off! But it’s not incorrect to say, “There’s a clearly lot of urine-guzzling going on in the soda community,” even if that pisses off the fine soda aficionados who don’t drink urine, don’t know anybody who does drink urine, and they really just love Coke Zero for its amazing, addictive taste.
(You may think this particular metaphor an excuse to tar the Republican party. No, it’s actually an excuse for me to link to one of my favorite comedy skits of all time – the League of Gentlemen’s “Aqua Vitae”:)
In any case, no, I cannot assume that all Republicans are, as I so colorfully put it, “fellating the rich,” nor do all Republicans think that all rich are superheroes. But I can say that among the repeated speaking points of the Romney campaign and Fox News, many of them involve:
1) We cannot tax the rich, because they are all job creators, and certainly none of the rich were involved in the repeated scandals that damn near caused our economic collapse.
2) It is morally wrong to tax the rich, because they worked very hard for their money and as smart people who worked so hard, they deserve to keep every penny.
3) If we do tax the rich heavily, they may stop working!, with the heavily implied theme that once the rich stop working, the entire nation will collapse in a Ayn Randian heap and never arise again.
4) If we do tax the rich heavily, they may even move to another country, which when discussed on the shows I’ve seen is generally approached with the terror of the Daily Planet wondering “If we print this editorial, will Superman ever return to Metropolis again?”
5) (Also, if we do tax the rich heavily, then poor people will go, “Well, I could earn a million dollars, but if I do, then the government is just going to take half of it. Fuck it, I’ll work at Taco Bell.” Not part of my point, but I figure if I leave that off then people will snottily tell me how I don’t get it, man.)
And these pro-rich-person messages pop up again and again in Romney’s speeches, and his policies. I can only assume that he’s making them because the logic resonates with a large enough portion of the Republican party. Maybe you don’t buy that logic, but a large number of people do. Otherwise, he wouldn’t keep saying things like that. He’s repeating that line of logic because someone – not you, maybe, but a lot of someones – go, “Hey, those rich people are extremely smart and hard-working! How dare we take away their reward for all of this effort?”
Don’t believe me? Well, why doesn’t the right wing hammer home about the extremely smart and hard-working poor, who are trapped in poverty for no good reason? Oh, they’ll definitely make passes at the middle class, and occasionally talk about the poor, but their message isn’t a consistent “The poor work very hard for their little cash they deserve, and yet their mighty intellect isn’t enough to save them!” Because that stuff wouldn’t fly. (Nor would it go over particularly well in liberal circles if Obama started discussing, repeatedly, the way the poor are often responsible for their own shitty plight.)
I don’t believe in demonizing people, but the Republican party is led by people who want to repeal Roe Vs. Wade and the lower levels of the Republicans have been supporting folks who want to outlaw birth control. It’s not fair to say, “All Republicans are anti-women,” but it is fair to say that the Republican party is largely against birth control, and hence conclude that their stance against birth control is symptomatic of the party base’s larger problem with women’s rights. (That’s not a fact, but it’s a reasonable extrapolation to put on the table, just as it’s a reasonable question to ask, “So do the Democrats actually encourage self-sufficiency, or are they just driven to endorsing it by external forces?” Both will irritate the party base to extremes.)
So no. Maybe you’re not all about the rich, man. But from what I’m seeing, the Republican message is clearly pro-wealthy-people, and I can only assume they’re firing off that message because a large of number of Republicans pump the fist when that gets mentioned. (Just as, yes, the Democratic message is often that the poor are the people who are more morally correct. It goes both ways.) And it’s entirely fair to say that about the party you are affiliated with, because that’s part of what they’re selling.
As a special end note, my friend says this (and this, unlike the opening paraphrase, is a direct quote):
“Perhaps you should consider whether you have ‘demonized the enemy to the point where they’re a homogenous slur.’ Hint – if you think of people who disagree with you as ‘the enemy,’ the answer is ‘yes.'”
I don’t think of people who disagree with me as the enemy, but the Republican politicians certainly are. If elected, they wish to take away rights from people I love. The people running for election right now are anti-gay marriage, certainly not actively against gay discrimination (at least not to the point where they’d push for laws to enforce it), against Roe vs. Wade, and skeptical of the need for birth control. If they had their way, people I love could get fired for their sexual orientation, and not have an abortion if they were raped.
Those are extreme cases, of course. If elected, they won’t get everything they wanted. But the fact is because their agenda would harm my friends, I have to work against them. That makes them my enemy. I do not have to hate my enemy, nor do I have to want to kill them, nor do I even have to assume that they’re evil for doing so. (“Misguided” is a long-term excuse for doing terrible wrongs.) I could forgive the fiscal policies of the Republicans – but when you target what I perceive as the necessary freedoms of my beloved, then we’re gonna be at odds.
I’m out to stop the Republican agenda. And if you support them with your votes, well, we can still be friends, and you can still be good people… but you are aiding and abetting, and I’m not going to lie that it hurts a little. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. But we’re at cross-purposes, and I don’t feel like sugar-coating that.
How To Not Be An Asshole During Political Debates: The Easiest Method
One of the best tricks the conservative troll ever learned was the Kobayashi Maru of troll tricks: the “You’re supposed to be inclusive!” cat-call. Which is to say that the conservative troll becomes increasingly abusive, occupying your time with shoddy arguments and half-assed insults. Just as you’re declaring this argument to be a waste of time and energy, they say with glee:
“Hey! I guess you can’t really deal with other people’s world views, huh? You’re so closed-minded!”
Thus, you’re left with two options: continuing to engage someone who’s patently insane…. or blocking them and reinforcing their world view that yes, those Democrats are sheltered and unable to deal with real argument.
But there is something even worse you can do in the course of a political argument, and here’s where I encourage you to strenuously avoid it.
It started with a debate with a usually-sane conservative friend of mine, who irrationally complained that Obama was “trying to lock [Ryan] fast into a box defined by what they think they can beat most easily.” To which I replied that this was politics, not liberal politics, in that trying to lock the opponent into a box is what you do, even if the Republicans are usually better at that locking.
*Cue the sound of troll feet jumping into the argument*
The troll in question then said, quasi-reasonably enough, “They DID make hay with Bush’s past. They even invented some when that wasn’t enough (Texas Air Nat’l Guard smear).” To which I replied that “And Republicans haven’t? Obama’s a Muslim/Kenyan/lazy. The point is, both sides try all the time; only some sticks.” Not a terrible interplay.
At which point he said, “Muslim/Kenyan/lazy is an accruate reflection of his origin. He is certainly not culturally African American.” So I replied, “If you believe he’s a Muslim, then you’re sufficiently removed from reality that I don’t see a need to engage. Enjoy.”
Cue flurry of angry responses, because what he meant was that Obama wasn’t a Muslim, but he had Muslim origins, and he’s an Arab and you’ll find virtually no one named Hussein who isn’t from a Muslim family, and how dare I misintepret his Tweet to say that he thinks Obama is a Muslim, and “His origins aren’t an issue. His socio-economic ideology is, and it’s based in a failure and is alien to American culture” and “Having lived in E.Germany, I know his core group’s methods: demagoguery, phony class enemies, strawmen, vote-buying.”
Which is a sucky argument, since my point was that the right has smeared Obama as a Muslim – not a man of Muslim origins, but a fucking Muslim now, with around 15% of the population thinking it despite it’s not being actually, you know, true. And I called him on it, saying that “your own dismal ability to process is the issue, not my unworldiness” and exited the argument.
At which point, over the next couple of hours, he kept leaving increasingly insulting messages to me – “is baiting people all that your political view amounts to? Stay in your ethnographic bubble, sparky” – and finally ending with “Hey, have you called anyone ‘Chimpy’ lately?”, referencing the calling of Dubya Chimpy McFlightSuit, at which point I moved towards the “block” button.
Now. Here’s how you avoid being a political asshole.
You might suspect that the problem here was his argument, but that’s not it; it was a shoddy argument that relied on the disjunct between “I believe Obama has Muslim origins” and “the conservatives have successfully caused a large percentage of people to believe that Obama is a Muslim,” but that could be explained away by Twitter’s crappy 140-character limit. I might have engaged more if this had taken place in my journal, where there was more space to talk.
The assholeness was assuming that since I was a Democrat, all Democrats do this.
I blocked him because I personally find it offensive to call Dubya “Chimpy,” and have never been thrilled with those who do. I have a friend who posts all sorts of Photoshopped images of Romney and Paul on Facebook, making them the Ambiguously Gay Duo or the Munsters or whatnot, and to me it’s disrespectful. Romney and Paul’s policies are so offensive that frankly, that should be enough – and calling them silly nicknames just makes it harder to actually get across the point that these guys are terrible for America. As a Democrat, I’m against it.
But to this dude, because I’m liberal, this is naturally what I do.
That’s how you become an asshole. Pigeonholing.
I’ve seen it time and time again – “Oh, you’re a Democrat? You fucking hate guns!” Well, no, I don’t. “You’re a Democrat? All you want to do is tax small business-owners!” Well, no, actually, I think encouraging low business taxes is what makes America great. (In fact, one of the main reasons I want socialized health care is so it’s that much easier for people to start their own business and not having to worry about paying exorbitant COBRA rates to protect their families.) “You’re a Democrat? Aww, you atheist scumbag!”
Look. As a Democrat, I’m a unique person, not some fucking stereotype who chugs all the Democratic Kool-Aid. I have serious problems with liberals, and I’m not down with everything they do – but there’s only two parties in this country that have a reasonable chance of getting elected, and the Democrats have more of what I want.
Treating me as though I had all the traits of your stereotypical Democrat just because I’ve expressed one wins you no points. It tells me that you have demonized the enemy to the point where they’re a homogenous slur, where you don’t interact with the real world because to you, anyone who disagrees with you must adopt all the opposites to your world view.
That makes you a dick.
And Liberals! You’re not exempt! Time and time in this journal, I’ve seen people leave comments about their desire for lowered taxes – and idiot liberals have assumed that because they’re for low taxes, they hate gays and are die-hard Christians who want to put women in chains and hey, you fucking Reagan lover! And that’s not cool, either. I suspect many Republicans are in the same state that I am – which is to say, hey, I’m not entirely happy with the way my party’s going, but at this point in time there’s slightly more to like on my side… so reluctantly, I stand over here, wishing there was a third party who had what I really believed in. (And could, you know, get elected.)
Want to not be an asshole in a political debate? Don’t assume. Ask what their take is on something, and then debate that. But don’t debate people like they stood for the monolithic and ill-defined strategy of an entire political movement unless they’re actually leading that movement. And don’t assume that any one person automatically has all the worst traits of the people you loathe. They don’t.
In short: when debating, remember that people are unique. Thank you.