The intersection of diversity of thought: A call for fairness and respect

I have never wavered in my belief that people have the right to control their own bodies. However, like most people, that belief is subject to limitations. People tend to disagree more on those limitations than on the right itself. Examples of such limitations involve the circumstances, context, and complexities applicable to any given situation. When it comes to the right to terminate a pregnancy, for instance, such things include how the pregnancy occurred (i.e., rape or incest), the legal capacity of the pregnant person (i.e., age and legal competency to make those decisions for oneself), the degree of development, and viability issues, among others.

I am sharing this because on July 12, a man in a heterosexual marriage with children, who knows me, lives in Los Angeles California, and whose politics appear to be very right of center wrote the following to me (among other things), after having read an article of mine that was published by Huffington Post on Nov. 6, 2014 titled "The Problem with Covenant Marriages and Fault-Based Divorce":

"I'm sure you wrote [an article] on the virtues of killing unborn children in a legal magazine.... Don't forget to wash your hands tonight... they are covered in the blood of families.... I'm sure that [children who are born alive mean] nothing more to you than an embryo, pre-fetus, and fetus to be torn and vacuumed out of [their] mother's womb."

Meanwhile, on July 5--just a week earlier--a female law student at Kansas School of Law, who is married, holds a master's degree in Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution and had worked as a mediator before starting law school, reached out to me. She shared the following:

"You have no clue about reproductive justice.... You live in an extremely privileged bubble and sure like to reign your judgment down from your ivory tower.... Your expectations are unrealistic, paternalistic, condescending, classist, misogynistic, and supportive of eugenics.... You're gay so you don't EVER have to worry about it, so who the F*** are you to judge people?!... Your personal responsibility arguments sure sound like Republican talking points.... Why do you have any right to decide how people use abortion or what they choose for birth control???? You need to get off your f***ing high-horse and stop judging others' decisions that do NOT have anything to do with you. You have no idea what you are talking about, other than parroting bullshit conservative ideals. Shut up!"

At this point, I want to remind people that bias is defined as "an unfair personal opinion that influences your judgment."

Regardless of the fairness of my personal opinions that I conveyed on my personal Facebook page which led to this woman's response to me, I want to be clear that I have never allowed those opinions to influence my judgment in support of that which had been set forth under Roe v. Wade. I have operated under the perspective that I have no business forcing my personal beliefs on other people. My personal beliefs that some people who have children cannot afford the cost of raising those children, for instance, never played out in my judgment as to their legal right to decide for themselves whether to have children. That is a personal decision, as far as I am concerned. Furthermore, because of my concern for children whose parents cannot afford the cost of raising them, I tend to have rather liberal views regarding tax and spend policies.

As this woman noted, I've never had, nor will I ever have or raise any children. However, I have never complained about the taxes I pay to subsidize other people's children and their families. Nevertheless, according to this woman, I am not permitted to have diversity of thoughts that I do not even attempt to impose on anyone else. She is far from alone in her belief, which is why I covered this exact issue in my article "Just because they think differently from you doesn't make them wrong," Daily Journal, June 1, 2023. In fact, one of the examples I provided in that article involved people saying that my opinion doesn't matter or that I am not entitled to an opinion on something because I am gay.

For frame of reference, the exchange with this woman occurred due to my reaction upon learning the results of Bankrate's survey published on July 1, 2024, reflecting that "the average American feels they need to earn over $186,000 a year just to live comfortably," regardless of where in the United States they live, their marital status, and whether they have any dependents. The survey itself included information that can be found elsewhere, which is that someone needs to fall within the top six percentile of income earners in the United States to earn that amount of money a year.

This woman got upset with my response to merely the feeling the "average American" has such that they believe that they need to earn over $186,000 a year "just to live comfortably," regardless of their circumstances. I never mentioned children or families in my post. She then started in on the cost of raising children, including the cost of child-care and other child-related expenses. She told me that "infant childcare is like $1,000 per week, which is $52,000 per year."

I would hope that if a parent needed such costly childcare, it is because both parents are working, which would mean that between the two of them, they feel they need to earn over $372,000 a year just to live comfortably in the United States, according to the survey, which places them in the top three percentile for household income in this country.

A fellow lawyer and mediator in Los Angeles County, who happens to be a woman who raised children had also posted a comment on my post, and then sent me the following private message:

"I just deleted my comment on your post, so that I don't have to get involved with that *** woman. You have so much more patience than I do. Besides the mortgage tax credit, the major expense of childcare is two years or less, and the rest of regular expenses are somewhat fixed. We all pay the same prices for utilities, food at the market, and fuel for our cars. You don't have to be in the top 5% to survive."

If you imagine that the issues I raised for which I was being verbally attacked by this woman had to do with personal responsibility such that they would not feel they need so much money a year on which to live, you would be correct. Not everyone can fall within the top six percentile of income earners and the top three percentile for household income. Furthermore, I have a very difficult time believing that a person cannot afford to live a comfortable lifestyle anywhere in this country if they fall below those percentiles. My college major was in Economics/Business, and I used to be employed by UCLA to tutor athletes on scholarship in economics and statistics. Speaking of unrealistic expectations, how exactly is it within the realm of possibilities for each of us to live lifestyles that require more than $186,000 a person and $372,000 per two-income household?

What I also know is that the answers to the survey were based upon emotions and not facts, which is why it referred to what the average American feels they need. In addition, a person's perceptions of that which they need and that which they perceive as comfort are subjective, which means that the answer people gave when surveyed was very likely influenced by their biases. In other words, their answers were probably emotionally-based. In fact, the following is included in the survey:

• Men felt they needed to earn $21,000 more than women felt they needed;

• Adults with no children felt they needed $43,000 less than parents with children under 18 years of age felt they needed;

• Black Americans felt they needed to earn $111,000 a year more than White Americans felt they needed; and

• Hispanic Americans felt they needed to earn $2,000 a year more than White Americans felt they needed.

Also, since the woman mentioned above brought up the issue of parents with minor children, according to the survey, the average American in such circumstances felt they needed to earn $215,000 per year "just to live comfortably." Since children generally have two parents, even if those parents are not living together, that would mean both parents combined would be earning an annual income of $430,000 "just to live comfortably," and that applies anywhere in the United States. That just seems a bit absurd to me, especially if they live together as a family and enjoy economy of scale through shared expenses. Please forgive me, because I apparently just exposed myself as judgmental, by judging such feelings and beliefs based upon those feelings as being a bit absurd.

That said, if you look up "middle-class" and "comfortable" online, you will find that falling within the middle-class is associated with enjoying a comfortable standard of living. According to an article titled "How Americans define a middle-class lifestyle - and why they can't reach it," by Alyssa Fowers, Emily Guskin, and Scott Clement, Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2024:

"A poll from The Washington Post finds widespread agreement among Americans on what it means to be middle-class [the popular image of the middle-class]. But just over a third of U.S. adults [35%] have the financial security to meet that definition, according to a Post analysis of data from the Federal Reserve."

Since "the average American feels they need to earn over $186,000 a year just to live comfortably," which places them in the top six percentile of income earners in the United States, and since thirty-five percent of U.S. adults meet the definition of what it means to be middle-class, something is very amiss. This is true, even though what is considered a middle-class lifestyle varies significantly based upon where a person resides, among other things. Why must something be amiss? Because only six percent of U.S. adults can fall within the top six percent of income earners. Almost six times the number of U.S. adults fall within the "widespread agreement among Americans on what it means to be middle-class" than the amount of annual income average Americans believe is needed to cause them to feel as if they are living such a lifestyle.

In saying this, I also understand that those who earn $500,000 a year can feel that they are not "rich," depending on their effective tax rate, their place of domicile, and other factors.

In that regard, best-selling author Taffy Brodesser-Akner said the following when she was interviewed by Lisa Allardice for the Guardian in an article published on July 6, 2024:

"'You can write anything you want about sex.... But you cannot talk about money.' And yet, she says, it is at the heart of everything. 'Nobody really knows how much money is enough money, or how much money is too little money. All you really know is that you don't have as much money as other people, but you don't have as little money as other people. So how do you even talk about it?' she asks. 'There are a lot of very wealthy people who, because of their proximity to much wealthier people, don't feel wealthy.'"

When something is off by almost six hundred percent, my reaction seems more like reality testing than my being judgmental.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the city in which I live as well as the state of California on "What It takes to Be Middle Class in America - 2024 Study," which is based on data "from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2022." The upper bound of middle-class income in Pasadena is $190,268.00 and $183,102 for the state of California, as a whole. Furthermore, depending upon where in California one resides, the upper bound ranges from $118,736 to $339,562, which is still lower than what a two-income household would earn a year, if each earned more than $186,000.

Those are the upper bounds, meaning "the highest incomes needed by households to maintain a middle-class standing." This is interesting, considering that which average American feels they need to earn a year "just to live comfortably," regardless of their location and circumstances.

In any event, the woman who verbally attacked me lives in Kansas, a state in which the upper bound on household income needed to maintain a middle-class standing ranges from $101,418 to $201,944, depending upon the city. Since she is married and lives with her husband, she apparently believes that the combined household income they would need to feel they are living just a comfortable life exceeds $372,000 a year.

I am sharing this because it seems to me that programs such as "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" and "Real Housewives" have skewed people's perceptions of that which is needed to afford to live comfortably. This is important because conflict occurs when expectations fail to align with reality, and people tend to vote based upon their feelings and emotions.

In saying this, I am not questioning anyone's desire to earn whatever sum of money they can and want to earn. I am also not denying that income and wealth inequality in this country is not a huge problem or that it is not expensive to live in the United States, particularly in certain locations. Not everyone earning less than $186,000 a year, or households with a combined income under $372,000, will necessarily be uncomfortable.

In any event, over a seven-day period of time, I was accused of supporting the murder of "unborn babies" and viewing living children as if they were disposable because I believe in the right of a pregnant person to make their own decisions on such matters in accordance with that which had been set forth in Roe v. Wade. I was also told that I am not entitled to my personal opinions even if I do not attempt to impose them on others, and even if they are based upon thorough research and thoughtful analysis. In one instance, no diversity of judgment is permitted, regardless of my personal opinions and the fairness of those opinions. In the other instance, it does not even matter if our judgments are in alignment, if there is diversity when it comes to personal opinions which are not even influencing such judgments. I am inclined to believe that this relates to the reality that Democrats have long been known to "eat their own," which makes them easy to divide and conquer.

I showed the quotes from both individuals used in this article to two cisgender straight white Christian female friends of mine who are or were married (until death of the spouse for one of them) and who raised children. One is a licensed psychologist, and the other is a licensed psychotherapist. They were both stunned and found the language from the mediator now enrolled in law school to be the more jarring of the two. I also showed those quotes to my friend and mentor Kenneth Cloke, who responded as follows:

"WOW! What comments! I think they may require more than one column, especially about how bias turns into hatred, which promotes violence, and is potentially genocidal.... The language used against you is violent, and it is worth considering where we are heading."

No wonder people are so uncomfortable sharing their thoughts. Who wants or needs to be subjected to ad hominem attacks, told their opinion does not matter or that they are not entitled to one, even if that opinion is based upon thorough research and thoughtful analysis? Mind you, the reason my colleague and fellow attorney/mediator said that "[I] have so much more patience than [they] do" is because unlike those engaging in ad hominem attacks against me and ignoring or dismissing the information I conveyed, I remained respectful. Still, there was no reciprocity, which also means that in both instances, I was trying to communicate with people with whom I could not communicate because it was a one-sided conversation - and not because of anything on my end. I wish these experiences were atypical; however, what I have found to be uncommon is the ability to engage in a dialogue with people, because of biases and their impact, something I have spent an immense amount of time and effort researching and writing about for over sixteen years.

The title of this column, Balanced Scale, refers to the scale of justice, which is described on the Supreme Court's website as "symbolizing the impartial deliberation, or 'weighing' of two sides in a legal dispute." Some synonyms for "impartial" are fair, just, objective, and unbiased.