Pull Up a Seat, Make Yourself Uncomfortable
“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.”
(C. S. Lewis)
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
(Martin Luther King, Jr.)
We place a lot of emphasis on comfort. We want our shoes and clothing to be comfortable (though the push-pull between comfort and fashion is real). We want our homes to be comfortable (it’s part of why we run AC as much as we do). We want our cars to be comfortable (it’s part of why many refuse a more fuel-efficient car).
We want our relationships to be comfortable, too. We want to get along without friction. We want to share views on family, food, culture, sports, and politics. We want to have nice, comfortable evenings around the table or around the BBQ. We will some times ghost a person rather than have a difficult conversation.
More and more, we take measures to ensure that level of comfort. We avoid strife, conflict, and challenges. We watch TV shows or channels that conform to and reinforce our own worldviews. We would not be caught dead watching FoxNews or CNN (depending on your leaning). We watch shows that are old-fashioned and offer clear gender stereotypes, or we watch series and movies that offer a more complicated view of gender and world politics. We log onto websites that cater to our personal, ideological, and political needs. We subscribe to FaceBook or BlueSky. We use dating apps that are narrowly tailored to find potential mates who align with our worldviews and values.
For example, many of the “neutral” dating sites (Match, OK Cupid) allow users to filter profiles by political or religious affiliation. That way we can avoid the unpleasant task of conversing (virtually or in person) with someone who might challenge our views. In more targeted sites, both RepublicanPeopleMeet and The Right Stuff promise dating parters who share conservative political views. ChristianMingle offers matches with people who share both religious and political views. And many, many others. Similarly, we have Liberal Singles, Democratic Dating Service, and Bernie Singles. All of them are tailored to maximize our dating comfort zone. Will you end up together? Who knows? But you are less likely to argue about religion or politics.
What is at the base of the right’s push-back against pronouns, or mixed-sex work places, or evolving society? They do not want to be uncomfortable.
Now, I know that the counterargument is more varied than that. They might argue that having more than two sexes goes against “God” or “Nature.” They might argue that these “additional” sexes/genders are innovations that are unnecessary. And I’m sure some of them do believe that at a deep level. Nevertheless, these social and political changes make them uncomfortable.
I recall Rush Limbaugh saying — way back in the “politically correct” days — that he did not want to have to stop and think about whether he was using the “correct” term to refer to African Americans or to women. So, first and foremost, it would make him uncomfortable to have to think about a term before he used it. He preferred the comfort of whatever he had learned, or whatever he was used to. And, at a deeper level, he did not believe that those individuals/groups were worth his time, effort, and discomfort.
More recently, conservative media personalities such as Jordan Peterson (he/him), Matt Walsh (he/him), and Candace Owens (she/her) (and many others) have weighed in on the issue. Peterson, for example, has said in interviews that he does not want to be compelled to use a name or pronoun. Walsh calls the use of gender pronouns “arrogant,” “narcissistic,” and “wrong.” On a talk show, he said, “You can have whatever self-perception you want, but you can’t expect me to take part in that self-perception or to take part in this kind of charade.” Owens has called using “they/them” “poor grammar,” and that she would beat a child with a cane if they came out to her.
Peterson’s distaste for “compulsory” use of pronouns is really a personal discomfort and unwillingness to adjust for another person’s request or well-being. He must realize that we do exactly that all the time. Every time we meet a person and ask their name, we’re agreeing to honor what they want to be called. Walsh’s conflation of various parts of speech is similarly rooted a personal stubbornness and discomfort. Pronouns and adjectives simply do not work in the same way. They do not do the same thing, and his conflation is a ruse. Respecting someone’s pronouns may require him to think for a second, but it is respecting another human being. Owen’s grasping at grammar is juvenile. Anyone who has studied English grammar at all knows that the singular “they” is very old, indeed. I mean, if the singular “they” is good enough for Shakespeare, it’s good enough for Candace Owens:
There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend
(A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3)
J. D. Vance has expressly stated that women who take the career track are misguided, bitter and angry. He argues that their true nature is to raise children. While we understand that that is his own worldview, he finds it impossible to comprehend that some women might not share the same values that he does. That some women do not adhere to the same notion of essential gender is an uncomfortable fact for him. For her part, Candace Owens has said that “things” have gotten worse since women joined the workforce. (Not entirely sure what she means by that, or when she means by that, since women have been working inside the home and outside the home very a very, very long time.) She claims that women in the workplace are a distraction.
Both Vance and Owens begin with the assumption that women are here on planet Earth to make babies and to support men, and that men are here on this Earth to go out into the world and provide from women. Anything else is against Nature. Anything else is a violation of norms. To ponder whether their assumptions are valid, would be uncomfortable. To realize that their assumptions are invalid would shake their own worldview — and so they require everyone else to conform to theirs.
And, yet, we know that most growth comes through discomfort.
Physically, we experience “growing pains” as we grow up. Our teeth hurt when they come in. Our joints hurt as we get taller. When we’re a bit older, we may hit the gym in order to get fit or get stronger. We cannot stop when the machine starts to hurt. We cannot give up when we begin to get out of breath. We have to challenge ourselves and push through. Through that discomfort, we become stronger and healthier. Have you seen videos of professional athletes working out? They go until they can’t go anymore. They go well beyond comfortable.
Intellectually, we also need to push ourselves. Not necessarily with long hours and cramming sessions. Rather, we need to read things that challenge us to think. We need to have our youthful worldview challenged — and potentially shattered. Learning logic, or algebra, or history. All of these things that challenge us to think — and to think hard. Things that make us uncomfortable. It’s one of the reasons that conservatives rail against the “indoctrination” of colleges. In college, a person gets away from their upbringing. They are exposed to people who think differently. They are exposed to all kinds of new ideas. And, sometimes, that person breaks away from old beliefs. That can be uncomfortable for the individual and for the family.
Emotionally, we must also risk discomfort. For one, loving someone (a person, a pet) risks discomfort. We risk having our hearts broken. For another, the other person may challenge our beliefs. They may challenge our routines. They may challenge our maturity. They may challenge our space. The only way to grow the relationship, and the only way to grow as a person, is to have the uncomfortable conversations. We must confront our assumptions. We must confront our privileges. We must be willing to risk discomfort and change, or it’s not a healthy relationship, at all.
So, pull up a chair, and let’s get uncomfortable. Let’s learn and grow. Let’s grow personally. Let’s grow as a society. Let’s, as Lewis suggests, look for truth — and then we might become more comfortable. But that comfort will not come without, as King suggests, struggle and growth first.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings (Aqueduct), Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book is Queering SF Comics: Readings (2024, Aqueduct Press).
