Sochi 1996

I have such mixed feelings about the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

Sochi 1996 view from hotel

I've been watching them for a week now, and been just thrilled to see the competition (but also thrilled to see such a beautiful location).

We visited Sochi on a weekend trip back in December 1996.  We rode the train there and stayed in hostels.  Many friends actually swam (it was that warm).  I just remembered all the plants, the architecture was amazing.

But I am distressed by the human rights actions in Russia (and have been for some time).  The imprisonment of Pussy Riot, the freedom of the press.  I am pro-GLBT rights, pro human rights.  

Me @Sochi 1996

So I'm conflicted that by supporting the games, I'm supporting the Russian government and its policies.  

One thing I did learn, all those years ago was that the people were separate from the government.  That just because the American government decided to do things that I supported their actions.  And that the Russian people were generally the same.  It is a complex issue.  So I support the athletes, and I support the peaceful protesters.  

And I do wish I were there now, despite losing most of my Russian language skills.

Traditional Marriage

My fb feed has been lit up this week about the marriage equality issue. 

Many people have written eloquently about this issue, much more eloquently than I could.

I was listening to a commentator today explain their position against same sex marriage.  First, he started by saying that he appreciated that we were able to agree to disagree, to disagree peacefully (specifically in the protests in D.C.). 

I agree. I'm glad that the protests (on both sides) are peaceful.  Violent protests help no one, and violence with this issue would not be helpful.

Then he explained why he supports traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.  This is where his opinion offended me, a married mother of two.  From what I could surmise, his argument was that society had changed, that marriage was no longer a long term commitment.  That many children were being raised in single families without fathers.

Now I can't explain the causes of poverty, and I can't speak to parts of the community where fathers don't take an active role in their children's lives.  But it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not related to this at all.  The argument is that same sex marriage "cheapens" the marriage brand, and therefore makes fathers unwilling to marry their children's mothers.  Or divorce is easier and children suffer.

Again, I can't speak to some of the community issues.  I live in a middle class area, I have an education.  I have friends who may not be married to their children's mothers, but they all support their children.  I also know people who have gotten divorced - and for some - it was really the best solution.  I am thankful that divorce is an option for everyone.  Sometimes people do get screwed in divorce, and perhaps there should be divorce reform.  That's not an argument against gay marriage.  I

I enjoyed the pbs "Makers" program that recently aired.  And I can't help but think, when some people talk about traditional marriage, it's a euphemism for returning to the bad old days.  Where a woman couldn't divorce her husband, even an abusive a**hole non-providing husband.  Where it was perfectly acceptable to beat and/or rape one's wife (there was no such thing as rape within marriage).  Where women were routinely paid less for equal work and were not given promotions.    

I don't want to go back to that society.  Maybe there are parts of our society that have been lost, and perhaps that harms us going forward.  There are certainly values worth maintaining.  A wife who is property is not one of them. A marriage where the wife is a slave is not one of them.

My husband and I lived together before we married - I was shocked by how many people told us we were on the road to divorce (at least nine).  And these were not necessarily my conservative mormon relatives either.  (And yes, they were almost saying - maintain two separate residences before you make it legal - even if you never actually live at one of them).

While living together first can be complicated, I will recommend it to my children (if they ask my opinion).  As long as children from a union are supported (physically, financially, emotionally), that's what matters. 

Some people simply can't live together, and some relationships are better off ending.  I would much rather my friends and loved ones had happy, fulfilling relationships, than just staying together miserably. And legally, it seems to me if two people want to commit to one another, we should support that. 

History as we want it to be

***Downton Abbey season 3 spoilers ahead!  Don't read if you are sensitive to spoilers***




Like many Americans, I've been watching Downton Abbey.  It's a good program, although at times it can be rather soapy.  And a part of me is surprised by its popularity, since I've enjoyed most Masterpiece/BBC programs for quite some time.  I'm not sure what's so unique about this.

However, in one of the episodes of Season 3, there was more than a small anachronism.  Thomas (the valet) is a closeted gay servant.  He's also caused quite a bit of trouble and drama from day one in the household.  (Remember all the trouble Mary got into during the first season with Mr. Pamuk?  That was Thomas' doing).  In this season (after the war) he's back in a life of service. 

He mistakes another servant's friendliness for a love interest (with the help of another scheming servant, O'Brien).  Barrow hits on him (the character Jimmy) and is discovered by another footman. 

The point of all of this is, while some of the servants are shocked and dismayed, in the end, everyone accepts that Barrow is gay.  Even Lord Grantham doesn't have an issue with a gay servant.  This is the same Lord Grantham who, for the record, was shocked that his daughter married a chauffeur and that his granddaughter was going to be baptized Catholic (the horrors).  Also shocking for the Earl, his daughter wearing pants and another daughter writing for a magazine.

It would have been wonderful if in the 1920s, it was not a big deal for someone to be gay.  If gay men and women weren't repeatedly arrested and socially ostracized.  But the truth is, being openly gay was still listed as a disease in the DSM until 1986.  The American Experience program about Stonewall was amazing to me. Clubs were raided and upstanding citizens were arrested, simply for being gay.  Looking at Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, set around the same time, had an upper class gay character - who ends up full of despair (because at the time, gay characters couldn't be successful and happy - they were doomed to ruin).

The mormon church is far from 1920s Edwardian England, but I can quote many mormon church leaders who agreed with this disease model.  In church leader Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness, it says that it is better for someone to come home dead than dishonored.  This book and its message has been repeatedly discussed in the bloggernacle, but has never been formally repudiated by the LDS church.  Even in 2010, an LDS church leader (Boyd K. Packer) implied that god would never make anyone gay.

But in fiction, we don't have to be fully honest or historically accurate.  Even if it is unlikely that an openly gay servant could remain in a conservative household, the creator could stretch reality.  And there are many uncomfortable parts of human history, some of which we would rather ignore.  I would like to pretend that the United States wasn't founded with slavery.  I would like to pretend that women weren't treated as property for most of human history. 

But that's not the truth. 

This slate article explains that each character defended Thomas for their own reasons.  So perhaps it does work.  I am simply wary of revisionist history that ignores the very real sometimes violent struggle that many people had to face, for human rights.  If we don't accurately depict the way things were - it diminishes how much we have had to overcome.