The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell?

I actually think I don't need any other Christmas presents, tbh.

I've been seeing a trend lately (and lately is meant entirely in my poor perception of time) of, when insulting Twilight (and, more recently, the Bieb), harping precisely on what is recognized as femininity.

I suppose it's one of those thing I should've recognized and just don't, but, to me, the reason to mock Edward sparkling is just that, in the context of the vampire legend, it makes no sense. Or it breaks from the legend, whatever.

Alright, fine, even if we want to take the sparkling-isn't-aggressive route, I could buy it to an extend. While there are ways to be powerful while being passive, or not being traditionally aggressive, the fact is that more (traditionally) feminine traits aren't aggressive. I mean, I'm viewing femininity and masculinity here in terms of traits, divided along the lines of passiveness vs. aggressiveness (to speak utterly generally) - and, very importantly, completely divorced of sex. A woman can be masculine and a man can be feminine.

Now, if you want to argue that vampires have usually been traditionally masculine (not really, but, you know...part of the reason I don't believe in inherent gender roles), then yes you could say sparkling isn't so and, thus, not acceptable for a vampire.

I'm willing to buy that.

The implication that one or the other is tied to a biological sex is problematic. Because they're making the extended argument that the femininity implied in sparkling isn't a problem because Edward is a vampire - but because he is male. God, are we so damn archaic…?

Ignoring the restricting gender roles this creates for males, even, let's consider what this means. While not as readily apparent in the above two images, what's implicitly assumed is that the opposite of masculinity is bad. Vampires are supposed to be strong - femininity is not. Not that the legend is simply traditionally that vampires are aggressive but that Edward is weak and ineffective because he is feminine.

Fear Dexter. You don't have to face Edward. He's ineffectual; he's effeminate.

So, of course, since the root of the apparent problem here is that Eddie's problem is that he's male and effeminate, what comes bundled in this ingenious argument is that WOMAN IS WEAK. Woman in ineffectual. Female = bad.

("Eww, period; and Edward HAS one! Hahahaha" How fucking old are you??)

What tends to get associated with this is the idea of that Cullen is gay (because apparently the concept of gay men wanting to become women still can't die in some minds). And, invariably, the F word gets tossed around quite easily. Which, again, is a severely disturbing phenomenon. Let me put it this way - if you wouldn't say the word nigger without worrying about everyone in the room beating the shit out of you, I don't want to hear faggot breathed from your lips (so this excludes you 4chan...). I don't understand how we seem to find that an acceptable term to just be tossed around - ever. If you wouldn't say the racial epitaph (including all the historical hate and struggle that includes), I don't understand why you'd utter the other one.

Of course, I like inappropriate humor well enough. Anyone who knows me tends to know that's the humor I tend to ship. The below picture?

Hilarious. And maybe it's partially because child molestation is one of those that everyone understands that you're an abject monster if you ever found that acceptable, the joke can never enter that ambiguous zone. Obviously it's not serious. Hence we can laugh at it and enjoy the inappropriate humor.

That's not quite the same with sexualism and (mind-blowingly to me) sexism.

I went through a tumbler account by some random girl where nearly every other post was an anti-Twilight image. And nearly every single one was about Edward sparkling. And nearly every single one about Edward sparkling was something about how he's gay or effeminate. And, of course, nearly every single one attacking his femininity was, by dualism, insulting femininity and, by extension, implying that women were weak with traits no one should ever want.

I'm sure the feminists who fought for you to simply represent yourself would be proud.

Of course, no one wins, really. Part of what's implied, too, is the old paradigm of "I want a real man".

While you work on that, excuse me while I go write poetry. After all, I'm just a faggy English major, right?

Alright, I generally try to be tempered with politics. If it isn't gay rights related and it doesn't involve inane, regressive social policies (keep your abstinance only education out of me and my siblings' schools), I tend to be live and let live. When it comes to economic issues, I admit my own general ignorance and try to listen and learn from anyone. And, as I've said many times before, I hate how politics tears apart people who are otherwise friends and how it causes fighting. I don't want to fight and I don't want to degrade. So, I try to stay tempered.

The issue? I quite secretly (okay, maybe half secretly) love politics. It's something over the past 3 years or so that I've tried to strengthen. And so, of course, I can't possibly not form an opinion around it (even if said opinion is hesitant and vague).

Though, admittedly, while the recent election results more than infuriate me, I still offer my congrats to my fellow conservative Americans to their victory. And, were it simply a matter of economic conservatives coming out in droves to vote their opinion, I might reside myself to non-hindering and unoffensive grumbling off in the corner.

But let's be honest, that's not why the Dem majority got ousted. It was people fed up with the job they perceive Obama to be doing. And, were it often reasonable objections, I – again – might not be so angry at the moment. No matter which way I twist it, high spending will never look appealing to an economic conservative. I understand that's liberal economics (well, technically conservative, but I'm not talking liberal economics in the classical, laissez-faire sense, clearly). However, to complain that Obama is the worst president ever??? As I said some post before – I've ceased to have any intellectual respect for you (also, if you really think the Nazis were proper socialism in any sense of the term, please shoot yourself. They hated the communists, too; stop twisting history to fit your agenda. There, Godwin's law, I thought I'd get it out on the table). 

So, this is not aimed at conservatives. This is to my liberal brothers and sisters who have said that Obama has not done enough or anything at all. This is not a debate of whether conservative or liberal policy is better. This is purely from a liberal standpoint (whether it's good or bad, I have to admit – cut me and I bleed blue).

As I've said countless times on here, I didn't like Obama at first. He seemed to be another Clinton – "I'll say whatever it takes to get elected." Well, I was partially right. Obama is pure politics and, to somewhat of a degree, he knows how to work politics. The difference between him and Clinton? Obama actually works it to get the policies he promised done.

I keep hearing, "What has Obama done, what has he done?"

How about financial reform requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status, allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to actually vote on executive pay, and prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading?

The elephant in the room (no, not that elephant) but I'll say it anyway - fucking government public health care!!! (okay, not really. But damn well closer to the ideal thing) Ever since my economics teacher in Junior year of high school was completely baffled that Canada had perfectly functioning public health care and we didn't, I've been in total support. I mean, progressives have been wanting this since Teddy. Obama did it.

What does that really mean? Extending health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, for one. It also cuts prescription drug cost for those on medicare by 50%. I'm partially parroting, but it also means, starting in 2014, insurance giants will be banned from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from imposing annual caps on benefit payouts. Which, of course, also means not having to wait until they near death and then using government funds to save those in the ER who are uninsured. "As of September, insurance companies can no longer arbitrarily revoke coverage for those who get sick. Children with existing illnesses can no longer be denied insurance. Younger Americans can stay on their parents' policies until they're 26. And 1 million elderly citizens are receiving checks for $250 to fill the gap in Medicare's coverage of prescription drugs." And? Accomplishing "all this while extending the solvency of Medicare by a dozen years and cutting the deficit by $143 billion over the next decade."

Yes, we didn't get the public option. In fact, Obama used that as a bargaining chip so that, when the bill was whittled down for compromise, we'd still have something to rejoice over. Harsh? Yes. But – we still got it!! Remember how hard a battle (even WITH an f-ing Democratic majority in both chambers!) it was? As a friend of mine had said, Clinton would have taken some sort of compromise rather than fighting for it.

What else?

Providing $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act?

Hell, he's also supported getting the Matthew Shepard act passed and extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees for his administration. He's also given more coverage and voice to the gay, bi, and Trans community than it's received from just about any president since Clinton (and we all remember how that turned out, don't we?). Hell, the man's appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history – and a transgender woman ('bout time the Trans community got more public, official attention; it's still small steps (did my pathetic hyphen and specificity not tip you off?)...but they're big and necessary steps).

Should I get started on the stimulus plan? No, I won't even. I'll just highlight how he saved the auto industry from tanking. Some say he should have let them go bankrupt – because apparently the part builders and dealerships that would undoubtedly have suffered on top of just GM and Chrysler and have resulted in the loss of more than 1 million jobs isn't all that big of deal. Maybe I'm just a bit biased, being from Illinois and all (and, therefore, in the midwest), but I'm pretty sure my parents really appreciate that. Sure, admittedly, I don't like active use in the government. I actually do believe in as much limited government as is reasonable (so, no, public health care is not stricken from my list). Basically, create the rules (read: laws) and then let it function on its own. Taking active role smacks a little too much of king (though, keep in mind, congress can always refuse; checks and balances for a reason). However, this was a crisis. No one seemed to mind Bush making special rules in light of a crisis. Of course, I'd love to hear what people would say about Obama handling the economy had he just let it run its course and let the auto industry just fail. All in all, I'll take the bailout rather than not.

Now, again, I don't want to turn this into liberal vs. conservative. However, Bush was our president for 8 years (though, in fairness to my conservative friends, I generally hesitate to ever call Bush an economic conservative, though a social one he often was (even if just to get votes: gay marriage, anyone?); spending as much as he did on Iraq is not fiscal conservatism and we all know it). So, I say this just to put things in perspective: in 2010 alone, more jobs were created in the private sector than in all 8 years under Bush. Honestly, take a look at some of the charts and the info. in the article. It's absolutely amazing what's been going on economically.

I really hesitate to throw in voluntary disclosure of White House visitors for the first time in US history as a show of transparency seeing as it was backroom deals that got us most of our progressive achievements. That's fair criticism.

I also hesitate to mention that he appointed the first Latina supreme court judge (I was raised in the suburbs – I see the world in a colorblind fashion, even if I know enough about race politics to know we cannot do that quite yet), but it really is important.

I could also add to the list eliminating subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans and protecting student borrowers.

For those Teddy fans out there, he's also increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%.

Fan of world peace (I say that only half sarcastically)? He signed a new START Treaty, a nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia.

I'm not the biggest enviromentalist nut, but one I was personally thrilled about: increased average fuel economy standards from 27.5 mpg to 35.5 mpg, starting in 2016.

Extremely passionate patriot? Now the Pentagon provides travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover Air Force Base.

Need something to go with the last point I made? He's reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base.

Also repealed Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (oh, thank God, yes).

Dislike torture? He ended the Bush administration's CIA program of "enhanced interrogation methods" by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations.

Alright, fine, don't like taxes? Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage.

And, while on taxes, could we end the complaints about them? Yes, no one likes taxes - but they pay for the services that your government provides. The reason why my public high school was so damn good was because of the taxes paid. Failed public schools? Not when you actually don't try to cut the system.

And, really, the list could go on. Seriously, way on.

Now, of course, I'm not entirely pleased. While I might be able to swallow creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, making the Tobacco industry susceptible to the FDA smacks a little too much of too much big government and government intervention for me (this libertarian streak in me is hardly surprising, seeing as social liberalism meets economic conservatism by virtue of a belief in a non-intrusive government; and the ability for every individual to choose their own course in any manner they choose so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else is core to my being).

And, have we gone over the offenses he's done to gay rights? His administration releasing a defense for Prop. 8. The removal of our large category of civil rights on the website early in his presidency. Promising us a gay marching band to make up for the lack of a gay speaker at his innaugeration. Not doing more to end Don't Ask Don't Tell and currently asking for a stay on the immediate cease that was declared for DADT by a federal judge? Offensive is barely the words I could muster.

However, much like I've always suspected that his whole "I believe in civil unions, though not gay marriage" thing was a political ploy (however, seeing how much everyone seems to hate him at the moment, he might as well go for broke since he's playing politics severely wrong), I suppose so is his hesitance on gay issues. He's not the open president we expected.

However, he is the progressive president we wanted. I was hesitant before. While I was, admittedly, incredibly impressed by his campaign and the image that was being crafted and will likely survive in history (as a PR person and an activist, I tend to look for these things; it also explains why I have an absolute love for memorials), I was not impressed by the man. I thought he wasn't doing anything. I can now say that I can place him in that great line with FDR (and when I say that, you know I'm meaning buisness). He doesn't have the openness that's made me an Adlai E. Stevenson man even though I never saw the man alive (then again, Adlai didn't win election twice, if we remember), but he's done more for progressives than has been done in a while.

I've complained for the past 10 years that politics is a sham and that, while my party fits just about every issue that I would ideally want covered, they don't actually stick to those issues. Obama has. For the first time I'm able to say, he's the president we've been waiting for.

Honestly, get off the man's back. He's done more in two years than many Democratic presidents have done in 8.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We are gathered here today, as a community, to honor our dead. Not all of the youth above identified with a non-heterosexual identity and, now, we may never know what they might have declared themselves to be. And, in honor of their right to autonomously define themselves, we will respect the, now permanent, silence on that subject. But I proclaim them to be our dead because straight allies have always been so weaved into our own lives that they couldn't possibly not be our community and because, like so many of us, the above had to witness the callousness that sexualism breeds. Whether they fit the bill or not, they fell prey to the overbearing message in our society that if you don't toe the line, don't match the profile, you're a problem in need of fixing.

It's no wonder, in a world that seems to find it must take a pistol butt to the back of your head for too feminine a gait, that the wrists bent a little more dramatically and the camp was upped. "Am I Queen? Then fine, a queen I shall be - but let me tell you, honey, I'm gonna be the best damn Queen you ever met."

Maybe it was just fear - the idea that a woman could be just as masculine (if not more) and could give another woman all you ever bothered trying to compensate for. Or maybe that the masculine and the feminine didn't have to remain so rigidly separate was too much to comprehend.

It was Harvey Milk who told us to burst down those closet doors so that someday some kid somewhere would happen to see that gays exist, so [he/she] ze'd turn away from suppression and ze'd turn away from the noose. I can't say that such representations would have convinced these poor kids otherwise (at 11 years old, how do you possibly comprehend life getting better when it's that bad when so young??) - but maybe it might've impressed some better "etiquette" upon the attackers before it became too late.

You see, I keep thinking that the very basic, seemingly convincing (and utterly and entirely tragic) evidence would make our existence clear. You don't come out as gay (Asher) at 13 and then commit suicide over harassment simply because you felt that'd be fun to try. When you're backed into a corner, you fight back - sometimes that means throwing stones and whatever you can get your hands on at the police for the very first time...sometimes that means a more tragic end, like the stories listed above. But - there has to be a corner in order for you to back into it. So follows such simple logic.

So, after all these years, I'm still flabbergasted. Astounded that we can continue, as a society, these unrealistic expectations (which children are learning oh so well, don't you think?), even in the face of such murders, I'm reminded of David Mixner's words as the protection to making a living, from not being fired for simply being you was put to vote in the middle of the AIDS epidemic ravaging our community: "We're busy burying our dead, and we have to defend our right to work."

No, there likely will be no peace for a long while. So, yes, Ms. Coulter, we happen to quite well be an oppressed group. Because, you see, it doesn't matter whether it is 1969, when Howard Efland was murdered as he resisted arrest from a vice squad that kicked and stomped him as he shouted, "Help me! My God, somebody help me!", or if it is 2010, with the line up you see above. But maybe I shouldn't be so arrogant to assume that she's already seen the mounting list of our Transgender dead, honored each Transgender Day of Remembrance as the world passes by without notice.

And I drive home this message in some faint hope that it'll make some difference, make some sense, make some kind of emotional strain (at the very least) because those kids died for the exact same reasons our community is pursued. To be brutally honest, I feel like I've failed them. The world still is not safe enough for them to simply breath.

But words can't bring back the dead. Nor do hopes for a better future or some sort of willed humane change. We all know well enough the work that lies ahead of us.

So we come together today to lay to rest our dead, too quickly and too early. We pray for them, that they might be in a better place. And, more than anything, we further dedicate ourselves to forging the better world that they deserved - and which they were robbed of.

Si mundus est contra veritatem, tunc Athanasius contra mundum it.

Every light extinguished brings the night ever closer.
Every voice silenced quiets the choir.

Rest In Peace

I really need to do another archaic word of the day. It's been far too long since the last, yes?

So, as I imparted to Kari yesterday, it kinda pisses me off that there is a such a limited, narrow, and slanted view of what is attractive in terms of how women look (because, if we're being brutally honest, I'm far closer to straight than I am to being gay and so can speak more authoritatively on that end of the spectrum).

Granted, I still find physical attractiveness to be a sorry form of evaluation for people, pointless, and a cruelly unfair system that aids to many of the debilitating aspects of our society that erodes self-confidence and certainty in self-image (hyperbolic? I'd hardly say so).

That being said – I'm not going to convince many (if any) other people to my line of thinking. And, if that's the case (as I said above), it really pisses me off that there's such a limited view of what is considered attractive when it comes to women.

It may just be me, but there is a complete wealth of diversity and multitude of differing body types when it comes to girls (like I said, I'm a poorer judge when it comes to guys, so it's mostly ignorance talking there) that it absolutely amazes me that our society tries so harshly to smash it into some ridiculous notion of a singular mold. I mean...why would you want to limit yourself?

However, as I said above, there's a limited view of what is considered attractive. Obviously, attractive doesn't mean only physically attractive (and by physically attractive I mean traits that can only be derived through genes). There are many personal and cultural choices that a person can make that can make them attractive or not attractive to a person (such as choice of clothes or whether they wear glasses or not).

So, that being said, understand that the rest of this discussion in this post covers on some things which are just a matter of opinion and others of it are just inexcusable pickiness and stupidity. Also understand that while I'll focus on my out-of-what-is-usually-considered-the-norm attractions, I generally fall within the mainstream as well. Which is all fine and dandy. I get why we might flock to certain ideas of attractiveness and generally will agree. It's our seeming inability to venture away from these or even admit that the ones I'm going to list are perfectly applicable candidates as well that bothers me.

The first that drives me insane is our society's complete inability to recognize curves. I wanna scream every time some idiot mislabels someone as being "too fat" just because her body actually has a shape which differs from a stalk of celery. Obesity and curves are not the same thing. The latter, you dumbnut, happens to be the natural shape a woman's body takes. Not all, obviously, but please stop telling all to achieve that of a pole.

That being said – fat isn't a bad thing. Being chubby can be equally attractive. Criticize the muffin top, if you will, but chubby girls tend to be more cuddly and are tons more fun to hug.

Also, what's with the Only Huge Boobs Please thing? They get big enough and they start to no longer look human. Alright, alright, I'm being facetious by now; but, seriously, small breasts aren't a bad thing. They are quite the opposite often enough. Diversity, people!

Now, this next pet peeve of mine, admittedly, is mostly a preference thing. I can't honestly chastise people here in good conscience. Obviously some may just honestly disagree with me. But I've never been able to understand the makeup thing. If I wanted to be cocky and snide, I might say it's because I'm a fan of natural beauty and don't understand wanting to cover it up, but that would most clearly be just me being a smartass, and I could easily disassemble such an argument. That said – I still don't understand makeup. In 99.9% of the cases I've seen (and I'm mostly meaning towards the beautifying stuff, anyway (like lipstick, etc.); not movie makeup, for example), the individual looks utterly better just without makeup. But, then again, I've always had what my mother has called pathetically simplistic and boring tastes. A girl with no makeup, hair done up in a simple ponytail (with no other "trimmings"), and wearing jeans and a hoodie is a thousand times more attractive to me than one "dressed up" (say, a dress). Then again, I'm also a fan of adrogynous girls and what others might call "plain looking", for two other vaguely related examples.

I was slightly horrified, admittedly, yesterday when Vikki and Bailey started freaking out over Alys having a figure and going to go shopping with her; I've always found her to be attractive, unrevealing dressing style and all. Yeah, I said it; granted, it partially doesn't matter because this will likely never make it back to Alys and so she won't be able to glare at me like she tends to. But still. Regardless of where the majority lies, those are my tastes. I'm sure there are others out there that agree.

Also, arms with hair on them. Are they really so bad? At first I was kinda indifferent. Now a days, I lean a little more in favor of. It seems like whenever hair and female get put in the same sentence people recoil (I can mentally see my parents doing so right now) – but I don't get it. It can be just as cute or pretty as hair on one's head can be, I think.

I remember last Winter Break my mom asked me if I had seen any girls at college yet that I find attractive. Normally I either ignore her or say something along the lines of, "Why? It's only an illusion anyway." This time, however, I decide I'll humor her. So, I respond, "No, not really. I've kinda been into more masculine women lately." My parents reactions? They gawk and go, "What???" Now, granted, I probably meant more physically feminine women with a masculine gender, but (as I've said here many times now) butch women are pretty fantastic as well. My main point here is that there are, in the mainstream, a lack of women with a more masculine demeanor (either in only their gender or physically or some combination of both). I mean, if we're being totally technical, playing video games is still generally considered a masculine trait (as in it's considered socially acceptable when done by males and often not considered acceptable when done by females), which instantly makes gamer girls technically more masculine than most of their fellow female peers. But clearly most of us wouldn't instinctually label video games as being all that masculine (leastwise, I don't). I mean in areas that are more universally thought of as masculine, there is a lack of females which possess that. The only category (again, I'm talking mainstream, so (for example) the butch/femme lesbian culture doesn't really count, not to mention (to the best of my ignorant knowledge) I believe that culture is slowly fading away) for such a phenomenon is the old tomboy stereotype – and that's pretty limited. How about a girl that wears a lot of "guy" clothes (such as suits, etc.) but isn't all that athletic? However, if we could break stereotypes so easily in people's minds, I'd be a much happier person and quite busy in the world.

And I'm sure there are a million others I could think of. I didn't mentioned, for example, braces or glasses in part because our society is moving closer to finding them acceptable on a really mainstream level, even finding them cute. Anyone see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs? It says something that the fact that the main character's love interest is a nerd, equipped with glasses, can go over our heads because we've become so used to the idea and also – well, she's a nerd! And it's a children movie that did well at the theatres. Think of how this may affect future generations of kids who saw the movie? Granted, I'm not going to assume that all such taunts and aversions to glasses will end because of this movie (my father once told me he would never have dated anyone else with glasses because he was so self-conscience about his own as a kid); but it's progress.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, love your "imperfections" and "blemishes".

You never know who could be admiring them.

Oh, and also rail against the stupidity of society. But I guess that's kinda the undercurrent of this entire Xanga, now isn't it?

Horst: I do. I love you. Isn't that silly?

...what are you doing?

Max [arranging the pile of rocks]: Arranging these. We've been sloppy. They could beat you for it.

Don't love me.

Horst: It's my secret.

Max: Don't love me.

Horst: It makes me happy.

And I have a signal. When I rub my left eyebrow at you, like this, it means, "I love you." I bet you didn't know that.

Max: Don't love me.

Horst: I can't help it.

Max: I don't want anyone to love me.

Horst: Too bad.

Max: I can't love anybody back.

Horst: Who's asking you to?

Max: Queers aren't meant to love - they don't want us to!

You don't love me, you don't love me...

I must be slipping. There're so many ways for opposition to misread this, so many ways for miscommunication, or the need for explanation. Yet...well, this girl's my hero for the day:

Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation - An Intelligent Assessment of Controversy

This is NOT the past.

We, in America, do not teach about marginalized groups in an appropriate way.

The general conception is we've to treat everyone equally and fairly and everything is solved. Everyone gets along happily and everything is fixed.

As idealistic as this mindset is, it is not adequate to truly understand marginalization.

The first issue we run up against is the way that racism is thought of. I read once somewhere that a man visited high schools and found that black and white students consistently talked past each other on terms of race. The white students see racism as discriminatory actions towards others while the black students see racism often as institutional.

And there is our first problem. I'll give you a hint: it's not that the students see racism in different terms.

The man observing these students makes the claim that the black students see racism one way and the white students another. Ignoring that this binary excludes every other possible race, it makes the mistake of claiming that a certain way of thinking belongs to each race. Not only is this statement momentary and will likely change as time passes (not to mention it is a generalization), it doesn't get at why this is the current way these two races view racism.

Frantz Fanon put out the fantastic argument that systems create racism. Trying to fight racism as actions and opinions is futile because these opinions and views of people will continually be created by the systems in society. Destroy the systems, destroy racism. While I don't entirely agree with this paraphrased version of Fanon, it gets at a point. For example:

Some of the school systems in Chicago are based on (either) a tax system or where the student is living, with each place having a different level of taxes needing to be payed (I can't entirely remember). However, the other drawback is that the schools that receive students from low-tax areas are also poorer in quality. That means the ability to move up in society is greatly reduced. Combination of lower education and poverty (and all the frustration that goes with poverty)? Higher criminal rate and antisocial and -cultural habits within the people. And, as you might've guessed, the majority of people located in these areas are minorities.
This system creates people who act out a role which allows the solidification of racism.

And think about it - don't the stereotypes about blacks include poverty, living in a ghetto, being uneducated, and acting unruly? It's important to remember that this system originated in our nation's racist housing situation starting in the 50s (I won't take the time to explain that one here; I'll just take it on faith that your education in life has covered that part of history).

Of course, you could object - that's not a racist institution. It's discriminatory, sure, but along class lines, not race. It was started by racist intentions, sure - but it's motivated by a monetary situation now. Switch out the blacks for any other race or put a mix of races there and you get the same situation. And, for the most part, I would agree. I actually do take the mainstream opinion that race is based upon the actions people take and views people hold. Racist institutions and groups can be formed, but whether that depends upon the group trying to promote racist ends (KKK) or it only requires a system to be founded with originally racist intentions in mind (the previous Chicago example) is not an important debate.

Fine, don't fight it on arguments of racism. It's still a poor system that needs to be reformed. However, we must understand all of this I've just explained to understand why certain racial groups may argue about racism and the changes necessary to combat it in the way that they do.

Which brings us nicely to Affirmative Action. I right now admit I don't believe I know enough about AA to speak wholly intelligently on it. I already know there are different forms of Affirmative Action; and it doesn't work quite like it is generally portrayed in the mainstream (you're black? Get a full ride for college!). Actually, GodlessLiberal did a well done post on AA quite a while back (if you happen to meander over, check out how the guy's been doing; he's been fading in and out of Xanga for a bit now). To summarize, he argued that AA should be based upon class rather than race (again, I stress, I do not fully understand the ways AA works. I'm assuming that GodlessLiberal's descriptions of it are correct. His serves as a good example, regardless, because of the lesson in perspective learned from it). I agree with his argument. This makes sense. However, if AA is based on race in implementation, we have to see why.

Arguing against a staunch black AA defender that AA is an unfair system will not win the person over. As far as they're concerned, you're simply arguing for further suffering in a system that specifically picks out blacks economically. AA should reverse the inherent racism of the system that holds most blacks back. However, as we've already discussed (at least in this specific example of economic injustice situated in Chicago), the system is not racially motivated (though, even in millions of years, with no change to the system, it's unlikely any large amount of blacks will break from this system in a way that will reduce the number of blacks caught in the system. The most likely difference would be to add and trap other races in this system). The argument really should be that the system is abolished, thereby allowing equal economic opportunities, regardless of race.

All that I've just said? That's the amount of unsaid material that happens in our current discussions on race. Now, I'm not entirely sure what types of systems may exist out there for other marginalized groups and how they may work off the top of my head. Since discussions of race and racism are so large and plentiful in our country, however, it's the easiest example. But this is only one side of the coin (if you've made it this far, I'm impressed; we need more people like you who are willing to adapt their mindsets).

Two topics related to each other, this side of the coin is split in half. The first half is representation.

Often, marginal groups will bring up issues that the majority of the country rolls their eyes at and don't understand the fuss over it. The perspective of the marginal group is lacking. You cannot just apply a veil over everyone and expect to treat and see them all the same. As much as I'd like that (and I do agree with the mainstream again and believe that is the goal), reality keeps us from doing so.

The history of marginalized groups is important and must be taught - because it does inform the present. It explains why things are the way they are (think of the Chicago example above).

Last week, there was an article on the front page that questioned whether Miley's possible use of the word Gay as an insult is offensive or not. Hell, why is it even important? Same question we've heard many times before. And it's here that the picture above draws relevance as well: defamation, ignominy, contempt.

There's a reason why when an artform first created and performed by a marginalized group is taken in and performed by the mainstream and majority, some get angry. The artform was born out of struggle and persecution. Its history is often erased. The representation of your suffering is gone.

"That's so gay!"

Around the world, millions of 15-year-old boys and girls will be told they don't exist. And one of the few non-offensive words (faggot, lesbo, pederast, etc.) that they have to define themselves has been reduced to a mere petty insult. When you spend most of your life growing up being told that you're a fad or a phase and that you really can't be gay, this trivialization is more than just a changing of the meaning of a word and insulting to the very personage.

I AM A MAN; I exist: do not deny me.

The other half of this side of the coin is how we view marginal groups. I'll use myself as an example.

I was raised in the suburbs. As a result, most of my tastes, interests, and what I think was formed by what is generally mainstream society. I consider myself a goth, identifying with the sub-culture. I love rap, writing some of my own as well. Reasonable Doubt by Jay-Z is, to me, one of the best albums ever. I was pretty much raised on Bruce Springsteen. Around high school I discovered Black Sabbath - and fell in love. Most of Freshman to Junior year, actually was stuck somewhere between Atreyu, Slipknot, and Cradle of Filth.I consider myself a nerd, loving video games and the such. My ethnicity is German, Haitian, Spanish, Polish, French, English, Scottish, and American. I grew up eating almost always Haitian food. I was raised Catholic and still piously practice Catholicism.

I don't think I need to be the one to tell you that you could racialize pretty much every single one of those descriptions. But, in that context, some of them seem to contradict each other.

The mainstream (and when I say that this time, I mean the intelligent faction that doesn't make generalized statements about particular races (I'm sure you could think of plenty race jokes for examples)), for the most part, holds the view that race is not attached to culture. As just seen, I'm a decent example of the types of cultural influence that may affect a person.

I actually don't even have a racial identity. I don't see myself in terms of race. Sure, I'm aware that I'm a mixed child. I'm aware that most view me as "black" and that sometimes I'm confused for being mostly Hispanic (or other nationalities). But I don't see race in terms of culture. That makes no sense to me. I recognize my heritage (as listed above) and the cultures associated with each respective culture, and I identify as American and with the American culture. Again, I don't have a racial identity. I would actually argue that race is a socially constructed mechanism for labeling others.

Alright then, why the Black Panthers? Why Afro-centric movements? Why a Latino culture? I remember finding a personal opinion someone had put into Wikipedia under the Harlem Renaissance that both offended me and put the answer quite clearly. Towards the end of the entry on the Harlem Renaissance it's explaining the goals of the movement, particularly in terms of the New Negro and trying to create a unique black culture that would legitimize blacks on the same level as whites of that era. The person who wrote the entry finishes it off with, "But the positive implications of American nativity have never been fully appreciated by them. It seems too simple: the African-American's history and culture is American, more completely so than most other ethnic groups within the United States."

Because the positive implications of American nativity was blatantly clear (or not at all possibly offensive at the time) in contrast to slavery, Jim Crow South, and continual prejudice on many levels from other Americans.

Why might the writer of that quoted statement not understand a refusal of the mainstream culture by blacks?

I believe cultures evolve out of an isolation of specific people (whether voluntary or involuntary) and the creation of rituals, ideals, etc. out of that isolation. America has isolated blacks for years. That is why there is such a thing as a Black Culture.

For those who want that race-blind view, that is problematic. I remember my mother bringing home an Ebony magazine one time. I tried reading the first few pages and stopped. It was too weird. As I said before, I have no racial identity. Having something have meaning out of the concept of being a person of color, as a form of identity, is just weird to me. I wouldn't fit too well into all of current black culture.

But why do these cultures exist? Why might what is considered specific attributes to "blackness" be extolled?

In the case of our example of blacks in America, because of previous prejudice. There would be no Black Panthers if not for prejudice.

And (this is important to understand for those who honestly do believe in a color-blind view of humanity) we cannot simply expect blacks in America to join back into the mainstream culture. For one, they have probably been raised in a different culture most of their lives. Further, racism still exists in America (as we all well know) or, at least, institutions which continue the creation of racism do. These alternate cultures built along the lines of race came into existance due to something. Finally, harking back to the concept of representation - often the mainstream portrays blacks poorly on a consistent basis or doesn't portray them at all (and, yes, that is direly important).

Now, I'm of one of the mainstream opinions. I believe in treating people in a color blind fashion. I believe in associating the culture of a person not with what "race" they are but simply by which culture the person says they identify with (the notion of someone of Korean ethnicity partaking entirely in Irish culture isn't as impossible as some would have us believe, especially if the person was adopted by Irish parents when they were just a baby).

However - this is not realistic in terms of our world. Many people don't see themselves simply as people and identify heavily and strongly with concepts of "race" - for a multitude of reasons which we would do well to know. And while I would argue that the eventual goal is to see marginalized people as simply people rather than in terms of what caused them to marginalized (for example, think of how we see brunettes as people despite a characteristic which does set them apart from others), the history of the marginalized group and what it means is direly important in terms of giving the proper respect to a marginalized group - and understanding that group. In trying to view the world entirely as the same, it often erases the past of marginalized groups and that past does inform the future. A "insert group here"-blind viewing means that equal representation isn't necessary - and in this world, right now, that often means a mainstream dominated by the majority with mindsets thinking that is how the world is. And for many who probably aren't racist, sexist, sexualist, etc. they will still subconsciously think of their world in terms of the majority. I'll save you further examples; I'm sure you can think of others on your own.

I've said twice on here before that race relations in this country were heading toward a complete train crash. I take that back now. We are so talking past each other on issues of race that we couldn't possibly hit, even if we wanted to. Everyone has these different concepts of marginalized groups, for a variety of reasons, and they only understand their own beliefs. Only once we get on the same footing of understanding can we move forward (though quite difficultly) in addressing these issues.

***note: you'll notice that most of this addresses race (and only in terms of black and white) and touches on sexuality while biological sex (and any other groups) isn't addressed at all. The largest reason for the large focus on race is because of the great attention it has received in our country and, therefore, the familiarity of knowledge with it by most Americans.

This post also makes some pretty generalizing statements and those statements must be understood fluidly for marginalized groups to be fully understood (for nothing stays stagnate). For example, gays and women have less of any type of culture outside the mainstream because they have had less isolation from the majority than those of different races. Another example is that if the concept of looking at everyone as being equal and the same does eventually someday come to fruitation, these concepts will likely become obsolete or must be thought of differently. That day is far, far, far, far off - but we cannot allow our thinking and understanding of concepts to become mired.

Also, the title is an allusion to this Xanga post: http://www.mancouch.com/716194723/race-sex-sexual-orientation-and-abortion/

Because I can't keep quiet in the face of stupidity...heh, no matter who listens....

First, why is it we continually seem to look towards Beauty Pageant contestants for leaders? Ignoring my own professed beliefs...I think the past couple have been compelling reasons not to bother!

That could go into many other beautiful arguments and theories but for another day.

The other thing that pisses me off - two idiots (I do not use this lightly) on Revelife decided to make the claim that Christians were a "hated" group. News flash - just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't make you a hated group.

Ever been to a white supremacy website (check out Jew Watch if you're direly interested)? Their entire argument is that they believe in the freedom of others - but God forbid those minority groups work in the system and happen to come out on top of the majority. "The majority people in each nation deserve better." Essentially - you can live, so long as I get representation and what I say is considered right - only me.

Hmm, so that's what makes a hate group. It couldn't possibly be that people find the ideas utter ludicrous.

Forgive, this might totally be out of place for me here, but I'm bisexual and half Haitian. I honestly don't know how I got the idea in my head, but somehow I thought I had a better idea of hate and discrimination.

Let's look at the hate crime statistics recorded by the FBI for 2007.

52.2 percent were motivated by a racial bias
16.4 percent resulted from religious bias
16.2 percent resulted from sexual-orientational bias

Well, seems the religious beat us. Of course, it's not exactly mandatory for local law enforcement agencies to record hate crime information (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,004.htm). You don't possibly think that some states could give a damn less about what queers get killed, do you? Without hate crime punishments within a good deal of states still? No, not at all possible.

Well, now, let's break this down, shall we? According to the FBI, of those committed in anti-religious bias,

68.4 percent were anti-Jewish
9.5 percent were anti-other religion
9.0 percent were anti-Islamic
4.4 percent were anti-Catholic
4.3 percent were anti-multiple religions, group
4.0 percent were anti-Protestant
0.4 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc

Hmm...so, combining the Catholics and Protestants...that's 8.4% anti-Christian hate crimes. (you know, versus the 68.4% anti-Jewish ones).

Now, breaking down the sexual-orientation in a similar fashion,

59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias
24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias
12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias
1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias
1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias

So, even will our less than accurate numbers (for those who have gone unreported who were gay, etc.), considering there was a .2 percent difference between the religious and sexual-orientation people victim to hate crimes, there was about 89.8% more people victim of a hate crime with anti-sexuality bias than those victim of hate crimes with a anti-Christian bias.

Wait, wait - Christians are a hate group?

Heh, forgive me if I'm a little confused - who has the right to marry at the moment? Better yet - who has legal benefits given by the State that I don't have?? Want to talk about housing situations? How they're fucked as a result of anti-racial discrimination that we're still feeling the affects for? Or how about that if my name were Jamal, I would have 50% less of a chance of being hired (http://books.google.com/books?id=9I7ExPk-920C&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=Black+names+job+employment&source=bl&ots=r6Wsam1HvT&sig=eNcRkSPD3dnOAAA6kAP2jhQuvgE&hl=en&ei=L2T3SfeAD6WsNaOLoLYP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA226,M1) than if I submitted an application with my actual name?

Hate group? Are you kidding me? I'm floored! No, I'm insulted. I'm flabbergasted. In this country, you have the audacity to complain that just because your ideas are opposed, you feel you're hated? Perhaps you should recheck your ideas.

I believe in free speech; I believe in it because only in open dialogue can we further in progress. This is the perpetuation of idiocy.

In other news, gay Iraqis are dying by torture: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/26/10950#comments
In Uganda, people still push for jail-time for life for being found to be gay: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/04/24/10921#comments
Antisemitism is on the rise again in Europe: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/883342.html
I'm still able to find pictures like this online:
 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/nigger-make-up.jpg&imgrefurl=http://patdollard.com/2008/07/theyll-call-me-a-nigger-mccain-and-hussein-have-begun-nastiest-presidential-battle-in-decades/&usg=__0olbGA313rc2GpCXQ49eW0QRcU0=&h=290&w=400&sz=29&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=tcQhMM3UuJfgtM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnigger%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1)
Many still don't understand sexism when faced with it.
And for way too "comfortable" an amount of people, I'm still a nigger - and I'm still a faggot

What's that other negative word people call me for being Christian? Oh, right - there is none

An Explanation of the Day of Silence

I had been in enough riots to know the fun was over…. The cops were totally humiliated. This never, ever happened. They were angrier than I guess they had ever been, because everybody else had rioted…but the fairies were not supposed to riot…no group had ever forced cops to retreat before, so the anger was just enormous.