Yesterday I wrote about a children's story I heard at church that disturbed me very much. The message of the story seemed to be that people should always be themselves and that they should always be loved and accepted, no matter what. In this case, it was about a boy who despite all evidence to the contrary, insisted that he was a girl, and that it was ok, even admirable for him to do so. That everyone should take him at face value and say, yes, Bailey, you are a girl (even if you don't look like one.) That it simply is not right to tell anyone that they are wrong, or deluded. Live and let live.
The trouble with that is that it simply is not true. I would not be where I am today if I had been allowed to "be myself." I was fortunate enough (though I did not recognize it at the time) to have people around me who cared enough to say "look, this is how the world works, and if you want to get along with people and get ahead in life, you will have to make some changes." I was fortunate to have people along the way who cared enough to give me needed advice. Sometimes I did not want to hear that advice.
I have a cousin who is probably on the spectrum (he's never been tested and that subject is taboo in our family). There's nothing wrong with him, there's nothing that needs changing. That's what his parents always said. He's just being himself. And so he lives in his own little world. Safe in the bosom of his family, he is accepted for who he is. But he is in for a very rude and unhappy awakening. One parent has already passed away and the other is not in the best of health. He lives in a rural county where social services are few and unemployment and poverty high, and he does not have the skills or the knowledge to navigate the overloaded system. There are just too many people in need and they cannot all be helped. His "being himself" has led to a fool's paradise, which is about to come to an end. Soon he will have to swim--or sink.
In the story, the author judges Bailey's parents because they do not go along with his "I am a girl" delusion. They are being mean to Bailey. The appropriate response is, "We love you, Bailey. Be yourself." I am sure that there are people who would say to my cousin, "We love you, be yourself." But where will they be in his time of need? Bailey's parents respond as they do because they know how the world works. They know that a boy who insists despite all evidence to the contrary that he is a girl is going to have a rough road ahead. They wish to spare him that. This is not a story about a boy who likes girl's things--this is a story about a boy who insists that he is something else. If Bailey insisted that he was a Martian, should we all go along with that, too?
Suppose Bailey has a thing for torturing animals? Should we say, "We love you, Bailey. Be yourself"? Or likes to bully other children? Or, god forbid, as he gets older, finds that he is sexually attracted to children? We all know that there are people out there who should not be encouraged to "be themselves." That's why I have a problem with the idea of universal unconditional acceptance. It's a lie.
I heard a story the other day on NPR about a lawyer who was having trouble winning cases. It seems her natural voice was too high pitched for her to be taken seriously in a courtroom. So she consulted a voice coach. The changes the coach recommended were slight but they made a difference. Her "fake voice" enabled her to gain credibility in the courtroom. She was smart. She realized that sometimes some aspects of "being yourself" can be a liability and not an asset.
As this lawyer learned, there is a time and place to "be yourself" and there is a time and place when you do have to use a "fake voice". To suggest otherwise is dishonest and foolish--and cruel.
The trouble with that is that it simply is not true. I would not be where I am today if I had been allowed to "be myself." I was fortunate enough (though I did not recognize it at the time) to have people around me who cared enough to say "look, this is how the world works, and if you want to get along with people and get ahead in life, you will have to make some changes." I was fortunate to have people along the way who cared enough to give me needed advice. Sometimes I did not want to hear that advice.
I have a cousin who is probably on the spectrum (he's never been tested and that subject is taboo in our family). There's nothing wrong with him, there's nothing that needs changing. That's what his parents always said. He's just being himself. And so he lives in his own little world. Safe in the bosom of his family, he is accepted for who he is. But he is in for a very rude and unhappy awakening. One parent has already passed away and the other is not in the best of health. He lives in a rural county where social services are few and unemployment and poverty high, and he does not have the skills or the knowledge to navigate the overloaded system. There are just too many people in need and they cannot all be helped. His "being himself" has led to a fool's paradise, which is about to come to an end. Soon he will have to swim--or sink.
In the story, the author judges Bailey's parents because they do not go along with his "I am a girl" delusion. They are being mean to Bailey. The appropriate response is, "We love you, Bailey. Be yourself." I am sure that there are people who would say to my cousin, "We love you, be yourself." But where will they be in his time of need? Bailey's parents respond as they do because they know how the world works. They know that a boy who insists despite all evidence to the contrary that he is a girl is going to have a rough road ahead. They wish to spare him that. This is not a story about a boy who likes girl's things--this is a story about a boy who insists that he is something else. If Bailey insisted that he was a Martian, should we all go along with that, too?
Suppose Bailey has a thing for torturing animals? Should we say, "We love you, Bailey. Be yourself"? Or likes to bully other children? Or, god forbid, as he gets older, finds that he is sexually attracted to children? We all know that there are people out there who should not be encouraged to "be themselves." That's why I have a problem with the idea of universal unconditional acceptance. It's a lie.
I heard a story the other day on NPR about a lawyer who was having trouble winning cases. It seems her natural voice was too high pitched for her to be taken seriously in a courtroom. So she consulted a voice coach. The changes the coach recommended were slight but they made a difference. Her "fake voice" enabled her to gain credibility in the courtroom. She was smart. She realized that sometimes some aspects of "being yourself" can be a liability and not an asset.
As this lawyer learned, there is a time and place to "be yourself" and there is a time and place when you do have to use a "fake voice". To suggest otherwise is dishonest and foolish--and cruel.
