tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73256890559518980382024-03-13T11:18:56.559-07:00The Street PhilosopherI'm a sociologist by training, with a law degree to boot. Posts on this blog will be of a mixed nature and hopefully entertaining to some. Included: some sarcasm, some serious, some silly, some medical-ish, some educational-ish, some just for the sake of saying something other folks might not be willing to say. Also, find my Academia.edu page at: https://jfku.academia.edu/NicholasGibsonStreet Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125truetag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-92171790511541463102017-12-08T16:31:00.000-08:002018-01-05T14:14:46.713-08:00"Don't Judge the Police Using 20/20 Hindsight" or: Forget Rational Thought Regarding Public SafetyThe title of this post must be read with an understanding of what I'm talking about. In most mostly-white communities, the police are the people we depend on to help us create a sense of public safety. ('Public safety' actually existing and being a thing is its own debate, which I imagine I'll turn to at some point in the near-ish future.) They help find stolen items, solve violent crimes when they can, and generally can be seen and interacted with as officials that represent state-sponsored control. Or more generally, law enforcement officers (LEOs). I have known many LEOs through my friends who chose that career path, through dealing with police personally, through a whole bunch of second hand accounts, through my life as a sociologist and criminologist, and now through the lens of a law school grad. DISCLAIMER: for the most part, I personally believe that most LEOs are good people, and want to be good people, and want to be forces for good. This, I believe, is generally indisputable. That there are 'bad apples' or people who aren't actually good people at their core that also join police forces is also pretty indisputable. But there are problems with simplifying the issue down to the previous three sentences.<br />
<br />
First, because those three sentences are generally indisputable, it does us little to no good to have that conversation. They are a given. Like gravity. Or that the earth is a spherical planetoid. Or that #mentoo is stupid, and men don't need to interject and include ourselves in women's fights for equity so that we can be included in the 'victim' column. (Women were standing up for male victims of sexual and interpersonal violence before it was cool.) Y'know, obvious shit.<br />
<br />
Second, the 'good people' and 'bad people' issue is wholly unnecessary if we're talking about a systemic problem. Systemic problems are not started by just having 'bad people' around doing their 'bad people' stuff. It's a ridiculous argument to make that any police officer who does something shitty is just a 'bad person' and needn't be taken as a representation of a systemic problem. That's also an old argument that just...doesn't work anymore.<br />
<br />
Third, if what people were really concerned about (as they addressed the issue of police violence in the US) were 'bad people' becoming and working as police officers, this conversation would be about HR practices and hiring metrics. This conversation is not about that. Humans, please.<br />
<br />
The issue of unnecessary, unwarranted, and ultimately unjustifiable violence by LEOs is a systemic discussion. It is one that must start at the beginning (the first 'police' departments grew out of the tyrannically racist slave patrols) and continue through today (police departments as one arm of a criminal justice system that implicitly and explicitly negatively affects our larger society, but much more acutely communities that aren't mostly wypipo). The part of that discussion that no one wants to have is the one where juries of normal people continue to absolve LEOs of such unjustifiable violence. This absolution comes through our Supreme Court holding that <b>the only requirement for the justification of homicide by LEOs is being afraid</b>. On top of that, when juries are counted on to make these distinctions, they are only allowed to place themselves in the defendant officer's shoes within the moment of the violence. No 20/20 hindsight, no reasonable and rational look at whether the violence (often homicide) was reasonable and rational within our societal context. THIS IS A HUGE FU**ING PROBLEM.<br />
<br />
First, if we are making the case that LEOs are better people than your average US citizen (as the case has been made during all this police officer hero worship), and we demand that these people receive extensive training about how to do the job well, how can the justification for homicide be, "I was afraid for my life." That is ludicrous. Simply, utterly, ludicrous. I'll even give you that LEOs are generally not better people than the rest of us, but they certainly do get trained to behave better. Even then, being afraid as a highly trained officer of the law cannot be enough to excuse homicide. It just cannot. LEOs ARE PAID TO BE AFRAID AND HANDLE IT BETTER THAN THE REST OF US. Popping off five shots into some guy because you can't handle the stress simply shouldn't cut it anymore. Your job is to deal with the stress the rest of us don't, and shouldn't, need to. The real absolution should only come after this additional jury instruction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As a law enforcement officer trained in emergency management and subject de-escalation and control techniques, is it reasonable for this officer to have killed this person in this situation?</blockquote>
Even this would probably produce some questionable outcomes, but we sure do think police are mighty fine, and if they happen to kill some folks, well, they were probably askin' for it. But to instruct a jury, or anyone else for that matter, to drop rational thought when glaring back at a tragedy to determine whether violence was justifiable; it's idiotic. Humans, please. LEOs in general need to be held to a standard that demands they behave better than early homo-erectus. See a tiger running at you? Being scared is a fine reason to kill that tiger. It's a fu**in' tiger! But a person who's lying on the ground handcuffed or walking down the street while not being a white person? LEOs shouldn't get to fall back on fear as an excuse. Their job is to be better than we would. Their job is to overcome their base instincts, like we sometimes can't. Celebrate LEOs for saving people in burning buildings? Absolutely. And if those LEOs can suppress their base instincts to run into a burning building, they can suppress their base instincts in killing someone out of fear. If we as a society continue to allow LEOs to kill us because they were afraid for their safety while trained to overcome that fear and operate rationally in emergencies, 'public safety' is a joke. ('Public safety' already is a joke in many places where the majority of humans aren't white folks. This is a fact. And the police shouldn't be part of this problem.) This could be different. But it won't be different until our standards line up with our expectations, and our legal system brings accountability to our streets.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-15848507482541343132017-08-31T23:10:00.002-07:002017-10-02T11:36:08.742-07:00Back to LifeI felt like writing a little, but I wasn't quite sure what to write about. There are multiple constitutional crises happening right now in the US, and it's bad. Very bad. SAD! But there are already many peoples who have that covered. Our Supreme Court has decided a number of impactful and seriously important cases over the past couple terms. Again, other folks have that covered. So how about this: what's up with me, and why does it matter?<br />
<br />
I recently graduated from JFK University College of Law. That's right, y'all, I earned a JD. This was after I spent three years in Hawaii working on PhD level course work, teaching 5-6 sociology/criminology courses per semester, and learning a whole helluva lot about racism and whiteness, gender and all it's effects and implications, and the relationships both implicit and explicit within our societal and cultural frameworks. (I also pushed a couple 'official' publications out during, so not a total loss of time and effort professionally.) Prior, I earned an MA at Cal State Fullerton, after earning a BA at Cal State San Bernardino. This has been documented on this blog before, but hey, a little round up can't hurt.<br />
<br />
During my legal education, I felt like I was in the right place at the right time, specifically in terms of what I was learning and how I was learning it. I loved learning the law, as much as it contributed to a sense of isolation and some personal...hiccups. JFK is a CalBar school; it is not accredited by the American Bar Association, which carries certain implications. (1) I cannot practice law outside the state of California for five years after I am certified in this state, unless I go through a decent amount of bureaucratic wrangling; (2) many folks in the legal community might view my JD as less than impressive (seriously, it's law school, and it wrecked me, and I fucking kicked ass); and (3) I am now more than $400k in student debt. Yep. 400,000 ugly electronic dollars, and some odd cents or other. This is the culmination of my total educational debt, worth three degrees and three years of out-of-state tuition in a very pretty, but very expensive US-controlled (read: colonized) island in the Pacific. So there's that coming. The student loan payments. Much of it is federal, which is slightly less shit-tastic, but some of it is private, and they don't give a shit about my income. They want their damned money back with hella interest.<br />
<br />
Okay, section two, or why this matters at all to anyone else: law school debt and post-grad employment has been discussed <i>ad nauseam </i>over at <a href="http://abovethelaw.com/" target="_blank">Above the Law</a>. They are a fun and pretty solid journalistic outlet for legal news, gossip re: the legal world, and some fun stuff that ties in to the legal profession in general. It became required reading after starting law school, and I still tune in pretty often. But here's the deal: a legal education costs a great deal of money, no matter where you acquire it. It is simply expensive to get almost any education, especially at the graduate level. Before choosing to go to law school, one needs to be certain they WANT TO ACTUALLY GO TO LAW SCHOOL, or that one has the time and money to just give it a go. This is a personal decision, and no matter how much my student loan payments hurt, it was right for me. I have no regrets on that front. But going to law school means that you will be making a conscious choice to have far less of a life than you would have been used to. You WILL NOT be able to retain certain niceties and comforts to which you have become accustomed. You will have to focus, non-stop, on learning how the third article of our constitution works, both in theory and in practice, and that is simply a monumental task. Just to be clear, if that's what you want (to intimately learn the law, and say goodbye to seeing most of your friends and family in any regular way for three to four years) I've got your back. But know that it can feel like a shitshow for no apparent reason, and feeling haggard and worn out for years at a time is kinda the norm.<br />
<br />
A further caution to every person who comes across this blog, regards the reality of mental health during graduate education (hell, even undergrad education can really stick it to someone). Throughout all of my graduate programs, I dipped in and out of homelessness, struggled mightily with money, still managed to be relatively 'successful,' and during all this I did my absolute best not to let it show. At all. This may have been a mistake. I reached out for real help only occasionally at most. We don't talk about how to ask for help, so we sort of have to learn that skill on our own. But it can be very important, and it can literally save lives. If you choose to work toward graduate level degrees, if you're an undergrad, if you're a person at all, ask for help from someone you trust when you feel like you <b>might</b> need to. It's okay. Every person needs, and receives, help in some way at some point. It does not make you weak; asking for help proves the depth of your strength, in fighting against the internalized fears and the sense of failure. You are more than an isolated case of nerves; you are a person with other people in your life who care about you.<br />
<br />
I'm now working as a graduate advisor supporting the graduate students in the Economics department at UC Berkeley. It's temporary for now, as I needed a new gig and they needed somone competent help to fill the spot for a bit. But it's really a joy to work with grad students (and undergrads occasionally) and help the internationally recognized program keep flourishing. I'm not sure what will happen in the coming months and year, and I'm taking the bar exam in February (wish me luck and stuff), but I'm going to enjoy every moment I can. I can breathe, and studying for the bar, while definitely time-consuming, is fun again. I needed a break, and I took one by choosing to put off the bar exam until the next round post-graduation. So off we go, on this new adventure. We'll see how things go from here.<br />
<br />
I guess that's my entrance back into the blogosphere. Looking forward to it, and hopefully more comments than I used to have. I see those clicks, y'all, I know you're reading. Although, I guess that's enough.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-42455969974201005792015-07-10T12:00:00.003-07:002015-07-10T14:30:16.255-07:00From a Patient's Perspective 3 or: What the hell, Diabetes?Hey people. It's been a while. Nice to see you again. But the reason for this post is not so joyous; I know I'm usually a happy-ish kinda person, but: not everyday goes as planned. Some days, they make you want to say, "I'm over this. Just over this." But I can't be over this; I've had type 1 diabetes for 24 years, and it's not going anywhere. C'mon researchers, I know you can do it!<br />
<br />
Here's the context: I just started a new job. It's a killer gig, and I'm really excited about it. My working title is Executive Director of the Consortium for Data Analytics in Risk (CDAR) at UC Berkeley. The Economics and Statistics Departments are connected, as is a really forward-thinking industry partner, and there are two folks, plus a post-doc researcher I haven't yet met, churning research product pretty regularly. The mission is simple, yet elegant: work to bridge the academic and industry dimensions of data analysis regarding capital management and portfolio management, and minimize/mitigate risk in investment strategies. It's fantastic. And the people I'm working with are brilliant and very cool. On to the story.<br />
<br />
This morning, had a meeting set for 10am. A meeting I arranged. A meeting I was looking forward to. A meeting that can happen another time, yes; but so what? I woke up, at 10:40am. Everyone's nightmare, right? Even more so here: I woke up to that familiar-yet-terrible low blood sugar feeling. And I was immediately pissed off, embarrassed, hungry for all of the carbs in the whole world, and hopeful they wouldn't want to can me. And then I had to make the phone calls and emails. That's the worst part. Knowing you screwed up, yet not even really, because not every blood sugar is preventable or knowable. Not every change in blood sugar can be traced to something clearly. That's one of the most irritating things about living with T1D: there is no blood sugar crystal ball. No matter how good you are at it, T1D can still surprise you.<br />
<br />
I work pretty hard at managing this thing, while still having a life. Up through this past June, I was working three, and for a month, juggling four, part time jobs, and law school. Yeah, I know, I kinda asked for that batch of wildness. But out of all the things that can go wrong, this is the one that makes me feel powerless. As a wise cartoon once said, repeatedly, "that really grinds my gears."<br />
<br />
I'm going to still work hard at making T1D work for me, as it already has time and again. But every once in a while, until we get this thing cured or auto-tuned, I know that it might kick my ass occasionally. I have to know it, and be willing to roll with it, otherwise it will make me crazy. For the most part, my life with T1D has been far better for it than in spite of it. But sometimes...sometimes blood sugars just kick your ass.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-36505650349022336802014-01-06T19:36:00.000-08:002020-09-22T15:25:54.942-07:00'Real Men' and 'Real Women': this is why we call it misogyny, folksCross-blogged from: <a href="http://toentertainathought.com/">http://toentertainathought.com</a><br>
<br>
As many of us are wont to do, I too enjoy an updated Facebook newsfeed from time to time. I gotta say, there's a lot going on in our world, and since I subscribe to some cool pages, and have a bunch of smart and thinky-type folks as friends, I generally find my newsfeed littered with interesting topics, political points, blogs, article links, and scientific developments to sift through. It's fun, and following those links out into the webosphere takes me places I might not otherwise find myself. While sitting in the living room with three cats swarming all over the place, reenacting feline versions of scenes from the great Scorsese films of our time. There are also times when those posted things dishearten me;sometimes these links depict simple and sad phenomena like puppy mills, or the <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/177578/please-dont-call-it-rape-insurance-michigans-anti-choice-bill-hurts-all-women#">latest work on demolishing women's rights in the US</a> (both of which inspire feelings in me of passionate, controlled rage). Other times, they're something else entirely.<br>
<br>
This blog that you are reading now is an open letter to the guy who wrote (a now defunct) tirade about the pictures lady folks post on their profiles. Actually, I'm being facetious. He really, really wants women to know what makes a GOOD WOMAN. That said, there are everyday occurrences that speak to our collective and never-ending hope that women (and men) who speak against the socially acceptable dominant masculine viewpoint will just SHUT UP. It's very important that women stop having sex lives, personal lives, and professional lives, that maybe don't depend on our direct approval. These are the messages we send when we talk about 'good women', in relation to ladies that just...don't know what they need to do to be 'real women'. And ladies always need us dudes to tell them who 'good women' are. Because apparently, 'good men', 'real men', know who 'good' and 'real women' should be. (I hope readers of this know that I'm being very, very sarcastic.) I'm going to post the entirety of the entry, and respond within. And then I'll wind it up with a brief final analysis.<br>
<br>
Here's the url: http://dernierevie.com/an-open-letter-to-women-what-men-really-want/. His response to people calling what he said stereotypically gendered and sexist was a pretty impressive avoidance tactic. Actually, no, it wasn't impressive; it was boringly standard and lazy. But let's get to the heart of it, shall we?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I was thinking, the most BEAUTIFUL women are the ones that are selfless. I think that submissive, caring, driven women are so sexy! I love it when I look at a woman’s page (on social media) and it’s nice and sweet. No club pics, no pictures of her in the mirror, no vulgar, drama filled updates… just her. I realized that most women draw their cues from other women. They look at big butts, huge breasts, hairstyles, and lifestyles of other women and try to imitate it thinking that it’s what men want. Well, its NOT. Yes, we give those women attention, yes those women get flown places, yes they get taken shopping, but at the end of the day (to us) they are simply something to do. (Typically something to sex). The treatment that they get is part of a contract. That is, spend a little money and a little time and her legs will always be open for you. (Dudes do just enough to keep them interested.)</blockquote>
<br>
This is just packed with bullshit. So, selflessness is beautiful; can't argue with that at face value. However, in this context, what he really means is that women who don't think of their own wants and needs, and cater to mens' insecurities, are beautiful. It's the old, "women who take care of men are real women," trope. If you're in service to your man or men, then you're a good woman. He touches on this a bit more later on. Then, NO CLUB PICS? What the hell are women supposed to take pictures of if they go to a club? This is code for underhanded slut-shaming, as in: 'don't be a slut and don't be out with dudes you aren't married to'. Selfies in mirrors are sociologically interesting, and sometimes hilarious, as we can see from the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%23SelfieOlympics">#selfieolympics</a> on Twitter. And what if someone is dealing with some vulgar drama in their life? They can't talk about it? Again, this is code for WHY WON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP? What the hell, man? Okay, now imitation of others is sort of the point here. What do you think you're doing dude? Being originally masculine? We all imitate others. I imitate tons of writers, sociologists, lawyers, scholars...it's what we do as humans to try to figure out who we want to be. Who are you to tell half the population they should be doing anything other than what they damned well please? Now here's the fun part of this bit: he legitimately makes the case that women who dress a certain way are asking for it. Not rape necessarily, but absolutely as sex objects entirely. First, where the hell do you get off speaking for me? I have no interest in taking responsibility for what other adults choose as their dress code. And it doesn't matter what women wear: WOMEN ARE HUMAN PEOPLE WITH BRAINS, MINDS, BODIES, SEXUALITIES, AND LIFE TO DEAL WITH. It's your problem if you devalue women regardless of the context, not theirs. It's like saying, "look, it's not her fault she was sexually assaulted, but she went to a bar wearing that; what did she expect?" It's problematic because of the inherent misalignment of values and actions. Are we taking personal responsibility for how we treat people? Or are we blaming others for how we behave? You're blaming women for men treating women like sex-only objects. That's absurd, and should deeply insult all 'good men'.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What men, GOOD MEN, REALLY want is a GOOD woman! PERIOD. Give a man your (undivided) attention, time and affection and he will give you love and respect. If you cater to him, nurture him, mend his wounds and encourage his dreams he will lay down his life for you!</blockquote>
<br>
The last sentence here is fine-ish, as long as we're okay with a little Romeo & Juliet-esque dramatic style, and we assume that men should also 'care, nurture, mend wounds, and encourage dreams' in heterosexual relationships. But from what I know, most people would prefer that relationships take the form of a reciprocal, equitable time-sharing. It's shared time, not given time, that we might focus on. But again, dude, you're saying that women should service men. And that is a sexist idea. Remember, I'm disagreeing with you and labeling your words misogynist, not you the person. You can change your world view if you choose, but your words are what they are.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A man, a REAL MAN, takes pride in being a man! He will sacrifice EVERYTHING if it will put one smile on his woman’s face. No mountain will be too high to climb and no ocean too deep to swim. A man will go to the ends of the Earth to provide for the RIGHT woman.</blockquote>
<br>
More with the Romeo & Juliet fallacy. You know that was a story, right? Fiction, anyone? And one single smile? That's not a very high standard you're setting for yourself and all the rest of us. Now we're getting to the 'providing' action, and it is glorious! Let there be gendered separation! Men provide, women accept those providings with sexytimes and quietness. Yeah, here's what you're implying brosef: even if women have their own lives, they should spend extra time taking care of our needs, without regard for theirs. Because that's what the RIGHT women do to be GOOD.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ladies, take pride in being a WOMAN. Take pride in the fact that you are the backbone of mankind. The power, majesty and beauty of civilization comes from your womb! We (men) recognize that. We long for the woman that understands that as well.</blockquote>
<br>
Alright. This womb-worship is all fine if that's your thing, but it's a bit overblown. To the point where it's pretty obvious that the exchange implied is: ladies, if you cater to our fragile little egos, we'll say we love your wombs, and that you're everything to us, except in charge of your own life choices that we don't necessarily feel totally comfortable with. Which is sexist and misogynist. Your words, not you as a person. I'm not attacking you, I'm appropriately labeling your publicly published thoughts.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Allow us to take the lead. Not to control you, but to protect you. Let us clear the path so that your walk will be made easy.</blockquote>
<br>
This makes me shudder. Slightly reminiscent of, "men may be the head of the household/relationship/whatever, but women are the neck." Also, "you need us to protect you. Because you cannot take proper care of yourself." Look, everyone's relational dynamics are their own, but it's wholly ridiculous to presume that women need 'protecting' more so than any other gender. Patriarchal, sexist, misogynist. Your words, not you as a person.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Submit to us. Not for us to stand over you, but so that we can extend our hand to lift you up, over our heads.</blockquote>
<br>
Physics! Science! God references! Submission! I fully support everyone interested in establishing a healthy and fully equitable dom/sub relational dynamic. But I know that's not what you meant. And if you're lifting someone up, it means you were STANDING OVER THEM! Now there's physics involved here, and it's getting serious. And then you say that we'll position women above us...uh, not to nitpick (okay, well, to nitpick), if women submit to us, there's a perpetual power imbalance in the relational dynamics. I'm also relatively sure that one of your other implications is that women should be willing to be held up, by men, as trophies of our position as dominant. Right? Yeah, that's what I thought. Nice try though.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ladies, in our eyes (a REAL man’s eyes), there is NOTHING more precious than a woman. NOTHING.</blockquote>
<br>
You called ladies precious! That's cute! Like kittens, or puppies, or baby talk. Because nothing says REAL MEN and REAL WOMEN like baby talk. Again, if that's your thing, cool with me. But basing an entire gendered relations viewpoint on that? Naw.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One thing that I have realized about relationships is that people are continuously responding to the actions of others. What that means is, the best way to be happy, the best way to have a healthy, meaningful relationship is to give what you expect to get. If you want to be cherished, respected and valued, give us those things!</blockquote>
<br>
You keep mixing things that sound halfway decent, with things that are so obviously sexist it's staggering my fragile little mind. But what we're getting to here is that you're implying that if women want to be treated well by us in their heterosexual romantic relationships, they better cater to our egos and wants. Which is sexist and misogynist. Your words, not you as a person. Because I don't know you, but I'm getting to know your words intimately. And I'm getting more irritated and pissed off by the minute.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The treatment that a man gives to his woman starts and ends with her. Consider us, our feelings, our expectations, and the fact that we want to be treated EXACTLY how you want to be treated and watch as the world opens up to you.</blockquote>
<br>
We men can open the world up to women! I never knew! Where are the world-opening club meetings held? I haven't been to them, but I'd like to know how to open worlds for women with my magic. I bet that goes fantastically at parties (but not at clubs), where all the women are dressed in pillowcases not showing their cleavage or 'big butts' and just waiting to submit to me so they can be protected from themselves. I hear volcanoes are also very in right now, along with the opening of the world.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ladies, we love you, we need you, and we want you to understand that the way you treat us (and YOURSELF) dictates the way that we treat you.</blockquote>
<br>
You insulting prick. We men aren't responsible for how we treat women because if they don't service us, we don't owe them any respect? I've held it together pretty well over this whole thing, but I'm at the point where I'm just going to say it: if you cannot treat people with respect regardless of whether they service your fragile little ego, YOU ARE NOT A REAL MAN.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lastly, understand that your beauty and value ARE NOT defined by how you look or what you own. Your beauty and value is defined by your heart and it’s ability to give and RECEIVE love.</blockquote>
<br>
Women are constantly bombarded by imagery focused on inspiring body insecurity, cultural narratives (like the one you so eloquently wrote out) dictating wholly submissive and narrowly defined cultural politics, and political, social, and sexual violence. It's all cute and Disney (which is meant as a bit of an insult) to say things like it's what's inside that counts, or your heart and how you act are what really make you beautiful, but your sheer density is making me nauseous. Men have always been able to look like pretty much anything, and it's kinda alright. Yeah, there's a bit of body shaming in our culture toward men, but to nowhere near the volume, ferocity, and emotional violence as that directed toward women. So you don't have to excuse my anger at you for talking like such a typically uninformed and unaware male, and I don't really want you to. I want you get angry...at yourself, at our culture, at our gendered presumptions built into us by that very culture. To say that women should just BE THEMSELVES AND BE BEAUTIFUL INSIDE is like saying that everything we experience is just silly nonsense, and women should let men bring them up above it all, except that's exactly the problem in the first place.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I’m done being sappy.</blockquote>
<br>
You were a little sappy, and that wouldn't bother me one little bit if it weren't for you letting your sexist socialization and internalized misogyny dictate the thoughts you put into words. Sappy is fine with me; we all get a little gooey for the people we are attracted to. Totally normal in our context. The thing that bothers me is you took the bits of our cultural heritage of feminine servitude, tried to pretty them up with low-level platitudes about gendered submission being somehow romantic and lovely, and then tried to sell it like you were just trying to be helpful. Us guys do that helpful thing all too often, and I'm sure I have as well. We're built to do it by society; we are conditioned to think the way that you obviously think. No one is immune from cultural influence, and your writing is a perfect example of this cultural narrative training.<br>
<br>
But here's my challenge to you: question why you would ever ask a heterosexual woman to submit to you, or any other male partner. Because if there's one thing I think I can guess, it's that you aren't secure enough in your masculinity to have a truly equitable relationship without that power imbalance specifically in play. That means, along with a whole host of mostly-hetero men out here, that you've got some work to do on becoming that good man you seem to idolize. And if there's anything else I know, working to be a good man intending to create gendered and sexual equity, never stops, and never should. But this? The words you wrote that popped up on my Facebook newsfeed from an old college friend? This perpetuates gendered inequity in such a subtle way to us, the heterosexual men, because 1) we don't have anything to be concerned about unless we care about pervasive misogyny in the form of 'protective masculinity', and 2) it's highly likely that if we want women to just be themselves as you so succinctly put it in your first paragraph, we sure as hell better start demanding that us men treat ALL WOMEN, ALL TRANSGENDERED PERSONS, AND ALL OTHER MEN, as worthy of our respect, regardless of how they decide to present themselves to the world.<br>
<br>
So, instead of being done being sappy, which I actually think is good for us overly-masculinized men, try being done with imitating all the other egotistical, self-centered, culturally twisted men out there. Try being done with falling back on your (and mine too) straight male privilege. It's old, it's tired, and frankly, it's insulting to me as a man and it pisses me off.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-34190474987708613322013-11-22T17:21:00.000-08:002018-09-11T00:02:05.900-07:00Sexuality and society: misogyny and assumption at their most powerful<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
As I've been plowing through the first semester of 1L education (first year of law school...oy), I've been not-blogging. Yeah, I know. But, I've still been teaching two sociology courses online for Hawaii Pacific University; Introduction to Sociology, and Sociology of Gender and Sexuality. The text for the first half of Gender and Sexuality was already chosen for me, but it's definitely one I would choose anyway, and well worth a read for pretty much anyone: <i>The Sociology of Gender, Third Edition</i>, by Laura Kramer (Oxford University Press). The second half text was my choice: <i>Current Directions in Human Sexuality and Intimate Relationships</i>, Edited by Terri D. Fisher and James McNulty (Pearson) which features readings from the Association for Psychological Science publication. It's also friggin cool, and it allows my students to address the ways that good research can still have bias, and what we are learning from the sciences and social sciences about the study of our sexualities. Super interesting stuff in there.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
As part of the course requirements, I post discussion board questions, to which the students respond. This is fun for me, as I get to watch them tackle the concepts and support each other in exploring the ideas in often very practical ways. This week was section four in the <i>Current Directions</i> reader, Sexual Orientation. There were five selections, all cool reads. Check the text out for what's in there; it's not expensive, and really good reading. Here's the discussion prompt from this week:</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Our readings for this week form a relatively clear picture of what is going on today, in the sciences and the social sciences, regarding sexuality. One major development from the past decade has been work that highlights pre-birth factors contributing to people's sexual attractions. Another is an ongoing analysis of who people are, in terms of interests in familial arrangement, coupling, and sexual evolution, regardless of who we are sexually attracted to. These two major areas of research are important for two convergent reasons: (1) they allow us to better understand, as a society, what the interactions are regarding lingering questions about sexuality and the aged but still relevant 'nature vs. nurture' conversation; and (2) these areas of research provide a human picture of what it means for our society to be heteronormative at it's core.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Heteronormativity, put simply, is the assumption shared by many, if not most, people in most societies today: that heterosexuality is not just a 'default setting' of human beings, but that heterosexuality is the 'good' or 'normal' setting. The heteronormative assumption is also not necessarily overt, although often it can be. It is a foundational presumption with which we are taught to understand the world, through cultural messaging of all the kinds we experience: family group education, peer group conditioning, formal education, television, film, and in the contemporary era, internet entertainment and socialization. Ever hear someone use the term, "that's so gay," to illustrate the point that something is bad, stupid, wrong, or just uncool? This is only one, of many thousands of ways we are conditioned to understand non-heterosexuality as simply not as 'good' or 'acceptable' as heterosexuality. Similarly, many researchers and bloggers have, in recent years, tackled the idea that the most insulting thing a person can do to a man, is imply that he is 'like a woman', which is what we see when people call men 'little girls'. This brings us back to a set of assumptions that if a man is gay, he is womanlike, which inherently implies: less than a 'real man'. Which holds at it's core, the presumption that women are less 'good' than men, in whatever ways we seem to still collectively agree upon. And this is the foundation of misogyny pervasive and invasive in our society, that we must include in discussions of sexuality.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
While there is research telling us that most folks tend to at least 'lean' heterosexual, there is good evidence pointing to a very large gray area of sexual attraction, and sexual interest. There has also been a decent amount of research documenting non-heterosexual sex in countless animal species, making the 'natural' argument for heterosexuality, and against non-heterosexuality, much less convincing. In any case, as the researchers from our texts note, the study of our sexuality is rightfully nuanced. As Brian Gladue from North Dakota State University at Fargo notes in <em>The Biopsychology of Sexual Orientation</em>: "A continual and humbling reminder of the task of developing a model [of sexuality measurement] is that heterosexuals, like homosexuals, vary in their psychosexual milestones of genital, neuropsychological, erotic, and reproductive development."</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
All of this brings us back to a discussion of heterosexuality, non-heterosexuality, and what sexuality itself actually is within our societal framework. Most sexuality researchers are now in agreement that our sexuality falls somewhere on a continuum, and many people experience shifts in sexual attraction patterns over their life course, meaning that our assumptions about static and singular sexuality are more than likely at least partially false. <strong>What are some reasons why this is so significant today? What might be some situational, cultural, and societal factors that we must include in a discussion of sexuality and the experience of sexuality in our society? How might we address these concepts in regard to politics and government policy? Finally, what might we say about how cultural norms and values either restrict or enhance our own experiences, and the experiences of everyone else, of our individual sexualities?</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
What do you dear readers think?</div>
Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-72170161508028512822013-08-18T19:34:00.003-07:002017-07-30T01:50:06.766-07:00My first To Entertain a Thought BlogThis is a blog I just posted on the new group blog <a href="http://toentertainathought.com/" target="_blank">http://toentertainathought.com/</a>. To Entertain a Thought is all about discussion, interaction, and making positive contributions to a thought process. Check it out, get a Wordpress account, and join us for fun and interesting everything! This is my first post over there, mostly an intro to who I am and my perspective on doing things social and researchy. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
Greetings Wordpressers! Nick Gibson here, to say hello and whatnot.
The topic of this introductory entry is basically what makes me
tick...like a clock with a nice clear set of directions, here we go.<br />
<br />
My
love affair with sociology began in my undergrad program at Cal State
San Bernardino, and was buffered by my master's work at Cal State
Fullerton and three years of Ph.D.-level work at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa. That sociology applies to all facets of life is
intrinsic to an explanation of what sociology is; yet without a concrete
example of how the application of sociology works, the waters of
thought can be murky. My first, and most direct example of 'anything is
fair game in sociology' came when my undergrad mentor introduced me to
the study of conspiracy theories. It wasn't just about what the theory
was; we dug into how theories are transmitted, what people did about
belief in conspiracy theories, and the effects conspiracy theories have
on micro and macro-level relationships. A professor of mine from UH
Manoa said once (Nandita Sharma who kicks ass professionally): at its most simple, sociology is the study of
relationships in all forms, places, and spaces. Relationships between
people, relationships between people and institutions, relationships
between institutions themselves, and how people socially exist and
create the social experience within institutions, and about narratives
and definitions. So, with an eye toward an analysis of relationships, I
have managed to explore a whole lot of social phenomena, including 9/11
conspiracy theories. And boy, is it fun.<br />
<br />
Sociology can also be
exhausting. By exhausting, I mean that it is very difficult to turn the
sociology off. Or, as a friend of mine now holding an assistant prof
position at Pacific U in Oregon puts it, it is practically impossible to
'put the sociology back in the bag'. Even while watching comedy, I see
and hear things that trigger a sociological cringe and discussion in my
head. But it's much more wonderful than not, and I'm grateful. Here's
why: there is an important message that I learned, and it is that as a
relatively very socially privileged straight, white, cis-gendered male, I
have always been able to, and still can, ignore the effects of a
privileged social position without much thought. To be perpetually tuned
in, is to attempt to mirror the social locations of people without the
same kinds of identifiable social indicators. To be always aware, is to
attempt to pay attention to the presumptions and assumptions that most
of us, at least those of us who grew up in the United States, share. I
have been taught, indoctrinated, trained, pick-your-forcible-learning verb, to believe and act upon narratives about other people at a
basic, fundamental, and usually unconscious level. Those unconscious
lessons become real-world experiences, typically to the detriment of
people without social privilege. And that, dear readers, pisses me off.<br />
<br />
Yeah,
I get angry about social privilege. Mostly because I didn't earn it,
yet benefit from it almost all the time. As an undergrad instructor at
UH Manoa and Hawaii Pacific University, I explained this to my students
in every course I led. We are taught through media programming (movies,
TV shows, music, news shows), political discourse, our social networks,
and our legal system, to believe things about our fellow human beings
that simply are not true. To me, this is scary. Most folks react in
defense, yet given enough time, most folks also seem to eventually get
'it'. That 'it' is what is most important here. That 'it' is the thing
that makes all the socialization and social training we experience
understandable. That 'it', is the realization that we learn everything
we know, and if everything we know about the world isn't always true,
the fault doesn't necessarily lie with one person and their belief
system. The term 'fault' isn't necessarily the most accurate term to
describe what this means. <a data-mce-href="http://www.timwise.org" href="http://www.timwise.org/" title="Tim Wise">Tim Wise</a>
discusses this interplay of blame, fault, guilt, and responsibility
quite nicely. Guilt is something we should feel, as people aiming to
treat others well, when we do something that harms another.
Responsibility is something we decide to take because of the kind of
people we try to be. What does this mean? This means that if we are
attempting to add goodness to the world, we must explore the experience
of becoming comfortable with being uncomfortable. We must willingly
engage in discussion about those things that involve feeling vulnerable,
allowing for growth and self-reflection. We must take some risks, to
feel positive change and shift our world toward a more just future.<br />
<br />
I
self-reflect on a constant basis, as many folks do without putting the
same term to the behavior. I teach my students to self-reflect. I catch
myself thinking things that piss me off, and work to shift what that
means about what I have been taught against my will. My gender, assigned
to me and taught to me without my active knowledge, provides me with
social comfort. I must pay attention to that if I am to live what I
believe. My race, assigned to and placed upon me without my active
knowledge, affords me generous comfort. I must recognize the experiences
shaded by race (all of my experiences, as far as I can tell), and talk
about what that means. My sexuality, taught to me as the standard and
'normal', provides me a very comfortable social existence. If I do not
work to build a more just and equitable world in my relatively tiny
existence, I am not taking responsibility, and I am not living my
beliefs. It is these three huge concepts that I work to make obvious to
others. They inform why I do what I do, and why I aim to accomplish more
as time passes.<br />
<br />
Let's entertain some thoughts, and make our world
what we wish it to be. I wish for an equitable, just, thoughtful, and
welcoming society. Even though I experience mostly the best that people
have to offer, I want better for everyone. Myself included.<br />
<br />
That's it for now. Go like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/toentertainathought" target="_blank">Facebook</a> page, and follow the <a href="http://toentertainathought.com/" target="_blank">To Entertain a Thought</a> blog on Wordpress, and join us in entertaining some thoughts.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-43248130450965344892013-07-17T12:31:00.000-07:002013-07-17T13:39:13.730-07:00Zimmerman, Martin, and the Case for a Dose of SanityOver at the Book of Face, I've been adding to a small discussion prompted by Andrew Pegoda, a fellow academic and speaker on social junk and stuff. Check out his blog <a href="http://andrewpegoda.com/" target="_blank">here.</a> The original question was:<br />
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">Should
"double jeopardy" be OK in cases where it is quickly discovered the
lawyers and/or judge put together a set of evidence and jurors that
GUARANTEED the defendant would walk away. Consider the composition of
the jury, statements by the jurors as they were selected (esp racist
statements by B37 then, and now). Consider the directions they received </span></span></i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">[from the judge]</span></span><i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">
(see first comment). I still wonder why we don't have a better system to
decide supposedly clear cut issues </span></span></i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">[such as innocence or guilt]</span></span><i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">... </span></span></i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">[do typical juries] </span></span><i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">allow too much for prejudice, see second comment. Read, set, discuss! :)</span></span></i></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">I added the things in brackets. </span></span></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">Interesting discussion. At the latest point, one person asked, "...it sounds like you went into this case knowing the outcome you wanted." A little later, "Of course, you had no opinion before this?"</span></span></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">I think this is disingenuous, to assume anyone is objective, without opinion. Further, to think race played no part in all of this is purely bullshit, whether intentionally bullshit or not. Here's what I said:</span></span></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"> </span></span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[0].[0]">We
all have opinions. This discussion seems similar to the argument for
'objective analysis' or 'objective science'. No one is completely
objective, or devoid of opinions, in any situation, ever. No one lives
in a vacuum. This point is completely unnec</span></span><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[0]">essary.
What makes most science, or social science or law 'good', is the
attempt to be willing to change one's mind based on the observed stuff
that happens. </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[0]">I figure it's not a real thing that Bigfoot exists.
Haven't seen much solid evidence for that claim. But if there was a
whole lot of solid evidence that bigfoot existed, as a social scientist I
then change my perspective and assumptions to meet the reality of the
observed stuff. This whole 'racism isn't a thing anymore in America' is
contrary to the decades of social science evidence both in legal and
social aspects. To say a grown man can chase an unarmed teenager, only
doing so because of institutionalized presumptions about racial
tendencies (and a keen fear of 'others' as we like to use in sociology),
kill him, and then not at least be held a little legally accountable,
is sheer madness. </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[0]">Yeah, they'd had break-ins. I get it. It sucks, I've
had my stuff stolen, been jacked at knifepoint, it ain't fun. But I
don't see anyone demonizing white men for being perpetual white collar
criminals, who by far and away are almost the only white collar
criminals in the U.S., with far greater reaching impacts on human beings
than your typical street-level criminal. The real clothing I fear?
White shirts and ties. Hoodies don't scare me. So yeah. Race had nothing
to do with it.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<br /></div>
<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0]"><span data-reactid=".r[1wh5].[1][4][1]{comment10152055992593032_32952623}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[0].[0][2].[0].[3].[0].[0]">What say ye? </span></span></span></span></span><i><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"> </span></span></i></div>
Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-73322706245383988402013-06-18T20:58:00.003-07:002013-07-13T02:00:30.276-07:00The Move Back HomeAloha, California!<br />
<br />
It's been three weeks since I officially moved back to the Golden State (The California Golden Bear has returned). In that time, I have performed a wedding ceremony for two of my favorite people on the planet, have received more support, love, guidance and advice from those I trust than ever before, and got my motorcycle shipped, registered, and I passed the fuck outta the license tests. Also rode Amtrak for the first time ever. Met a couple new folks who I really dig. Have spent time with some of the people who are parts of the overall reasoning why I moved back, and will be spending more in the next week and a half. Agreed to jump into starting a business with another of my favorite people. Was invited back up to Bearskin which set my heart aflame. And that's not all...<br />
<br />
Towards the end of my time in Hawaii, my perception of how things happened was pressured, so I've given it all some thought during the whole transitiony thing. I was absolutely disappointed about a lot things, but I don't usually talk about what I don't feel good about. Not typically my style, although I've done enough of that since getting back to last me months. I tried to work my ass off to earn a Ph.D. which didn't work out. Of all the reasons, I think the most important is that the place I was living and working in wasn't the right place for me. People have asked me a number of times, "so you miss Hawaii, don't you?" And I have to say, not so much. I miss many of the people I met, especially the folks with which I built friendships. They, I miss. Hawaii, with its expansive physical beauty, its stunning sunrises and sunsets, and brilliant snorkeling, is a fun place to hang out. All of this was overshadowed, for me, by the sheer nastiness of the cost of living. And why was it so expensive, you might ask? Well, my inquisitive friends, a great majority of the food, transportation junk, and everything else is shipped into the state.<br />
<br />
Think about that for a minute. If shipping lines were disrupted, there's approximately enough food for the population living there for a maximum of roughly 3-4 days. This coming from the state gub'mint. I mean, holy grass skirts Batman! So yeah. There's the economic bullshit. Then there's the rent, which is somewhat comparable to San Francisco or Los Angeles, but is complicated by the realities of building shit in a tropical place: wood gets gobbled up by termites relatively quickly, metal gets nom-nom-nom'd by the salty air, and bricks don't make good windows. And the fuckin' Cane Spiders!!1! Those little bastards charge the shit outta humans! Fast! What the fuck?!!? Impressive little buggers, but what the hell, man. What, the, hell.<br />
<br />
There were also some goings ons in my professional life that really sucked, but I'll leave out the details. I'm simply grateful that I'm for the most part leaving the larger thing of academia behind me. I'll always enjoy teaching, and I think it's something I want to keep doing in some form or another if possible. As a full-time gig it's brutal. Got mad respek for academics, as for the most part they are brilliant, interesting, and delightful after just enough booze. After teaching six undergrad courses in one bitch of a semester, I can honestly say that I love it, but I can also honestly say: fuck capitalism. Fuck it, right in its ear. That being said, I really loved teaching at HPU, and got over my reservations regarding private universities pretty quickly. I felt very supported in my work by the department administration, and really all of the administration I worked with at some point or another. The other faculty were welcoming and interesting. Also, the students were great! I enjoyed both the in-person and online courses there, and the folks earning grades with me were a lot of fun. My students at UH I will miss greatly, as they were very much my motivation for doing good work.<br />
<br />
Also took the LSAT last week. Pretty sure I punched it in its solar plexus, although until my score surfaces from the depths of the LSAC intertubes I won't really know. So yeah, law degree or something. It's been an interest of mine for years, I just never pulled the trigger out of fear, anxiety, uncertainty, misinterpreted advice, yadda yadda. After getting through the professional shit-show that was my life on the island, law school and a startup: that I can and will do. Hell yeah.<br />
<br />
My people are spectacular human beings. All of you. And to anyone thinking of moving to Hawaii: if it's really what you want, be prepared to kick some serious ass. Avoid acting like an entitled dickhead; Hawaii has a history, a relatively recent colonial history, and it would behoove you to read up on the actual history of the state we know as Hawaii. I never felt threatened or unwelcome anywhere, but I was challenged occasionally. I welcomed it, and it made me better. I'm a living sign of social privilege, regardless of my own challenges that I face. Be aware of what's been going on, and take it to heart. Avoid thinking you already know everything you need to know about being a good person in a given context.<br />
<br />
The three years I spent on Oahu were perfect. I learned a shit-ton, possibly a metric shit-ton. Took opportunities as best I could. Worked my ass off both personally and professionally. Learned a lil bit of pidgin. Swam with fish who were literally eating each other alive. It was exactly where I should have been, until it wasn't. And that's a good thing to figure out; how to measure whether a place and space is working for me or not (and the complimentary part: whether or not I'm working for a place/space is just as important a thing to be able to see and internalize). <br />
<br />
Alrighty then, time to get back to life. Or something. Holla atcha boy.<br />
<br />
-Nick G.<br />
a.k.a. The Golden Bear<br />
a.k.a. Gibbey<br />
a.k.a. Gibbo<br />
a.k.a. Bigbo<br />
a.k.a. Gibbs<br />
a.k.a. Muthafucka<br />
a.k.a. Haole Boy (thanks Shawn)Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-41602758571542106872013-02-24T01:58:00.000-08:002013-02-24T01:59:13.862-08:00Online DatingI responded to a Facebook query from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/HelenASPopkin" target="_blank">Helen A. S. Popkin </a>about online dating. Really interesting question to be sure: <span class="userContent">"What is the difference between dating people you meet in real life and dating people you meet online?"</span><br />
<br />
<span class="userContent">Here's what I said: </span><br />
There isn't much of a difference if we take into account what a face-to-face relationship becomes. Meeting people can happen any number of ways. The success of any relationship depends on the people in it, regardless of the initial meeting. Whether or not we take as seriously, as personally, or as meaningfully, meeting online versus meeting face-to-face initially, the success of a relationship is always a toss-up. The way I figure, online 'dating' which is really online 'meeting' unless the relationship depends on an online connection over time, is exactly the same as meeting face-to-face. We only show what we wish for someone to see for a given time frame. The added bits happen over time, whether the ongoing exposure to another person is online or in person. So really, unless one inherently devalues online 'meeting', there is truly no difference in meeting online or face-to-face, if we assume that what we show of ourselves is always measured in some way by what we think people see us as. Would we inherently devalue a long term relationship that depends on Skype connections? If we make that claim, then it is safe to say that online meetings are inherently less reliable, less enjoyable, and less meaningful. But, if we ascribe the same level of meaning to a relationship that depends on internet connections that we seem to ascribe to relationships that do not depend on internet connections, we must conclude that meeting online is of the same potential value that meeting through face-to-face interactions tends to suggest. <br />
<br />
So, what do you think?Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-25463547271581522522013-02-20T09:14:00.004-08:002013-02-20T15:41:53.292-08:00Generally Speaking...I have students in a number of my courses submit reading responses as part of their overall course experience. With permission, I'm posting the text of one assignment from my Social Problems course at UH Manoa this semester. If you read through it, I'm sure you'll see why I'm putting it up for all to see; this kind of work should be shared, not hidden away in the deep recesses of my downloads file.<br />
<br />
The topic covered by the text was poverty and homelessness. Check it:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
"The problem with welfare as we know it, is we’re so full of
shit. Not only do we have rich people who fucking complain about being taxed
for having millions of dollars, they also have the damn nerve to say that the
government is spending too much “their” money on welfare programs. How fucking
greedy and envious do you have to be to think of treating people this way.
These clowns never had to spend a day in the damn streets working for a piece
of bread. They are in their nice warm luxurious offices complaining about how
they don‘t have enough. In fact, we barely spend any money on welfare compared
on how much of an income the government receives. The poor that do pay their
taxes are returned just a bit of what they are asked to give. And of course the
media is covering their fuckery up. And even the people that aren’t piss rich
are so confused with all the crap that the media shows them that they believe
all these lies that makes them think that the poor are a bunch of lazy, sorry,
good for nothing people that try to cheat their way to a “perfect” American
dream. Oh and to add a bit of truth to these big fucking lies lets blame it on
the minorities as well. They are already known for being a bunch of savage
people who like violence and drugs, let’s tell everyone that they are also the
ones that use up all the welfare money and don’t pay any back. Matter of fact
lets go deeper into this lie and point out the single black teen mothers and
call their children “mistakes” that everyone has to pay for. Oh and by the way,
Diane Sawyer can eat a bag of rusty nails. Who the fuck gives her the right to
judge all mothers? No one knows what these girls have gone through in their
lives. Show all the blacks in magazines and TV shows all you want. The truth
will always be the truth. Media is a bunch of shit put on the television and
paper to fuck with people’s minds. Call them myths all you want, they are all
lies. And I don’t give a fuck about what the technical difference is between
poverty and homelessness. I could honestly give a rat’s ass. They both mean the
same thing: human beings that are struggling in life who need help. Ever seen
the homeless here in Honolulu? The other day I bought a man a sandwich and a
Gatorade. When I went to give it to him, he threw it back at me. Did I get
angry and take it from the ungrateful piece of shit? Of course not, this person
is a human being. Their prides aren’t asking for anything, especially not a
welfare check. I walked away and returned after about an hour. He had the
sandwich in his lap and Gatorade next to him. He could barely accept a free
sandwich and people honestly give a fuck about the definitional differences
between poverty and homelessness. Something is clearly wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God, how many people are there out there that
are like Murray Barr. Decent, loving people whose lives are in a black hole.
And this can happen to anyone, in any city, town, state, country. No one ever
wishes to live that life. It’s a disease for them. And boy does it cost
millions of dollars on housing and medical bills. And surprisingly there aren’t
that many of them when you really look at it. Life is not perfect by all means
but if we all just chipped in a bit then something could really happen. We all
own what we came into this world with and will leave with, our human bodies.
Everything else is temporary possession and if you think you’re entitled to
everything then you are in for a big surprise the day of your funeral."<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
See? Brilliant. In my courses, while I do want good scholarship more often than not, these assignments ask for students to reflect on the topics and concepts, and explore their own perceptions and beliefs. One assignment like this is appropriate for this course, given what i ask of them. Seems pretty blogworthy, yeah? And worth all the possible points. Good work, anonymous Social Problems student. </div>
Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-39868973222597132802012-11-14T22:06:00.000-08:002012-11-15T15:09:09.488-08:00How is it that we know relationships are worth our time? Is it that we make a singular commitment, or is it that we make a collective agreement? When do we decide, in terms of what we will promise someone, that we are willing to commit more than just passing interest?<br />
<br />
I think this comes back to the question of, "who am I?" The reason I say this, is that anytime I have ever wanted to know the answer to a similar question, I have only had to ask myself: what will I contribute to this situation? Who am I, and who do I want to be given my current choices? Seems simple, yeah? Maybe not as simple as we might have thought...<br />
<br />
My guess is no one actually plans on having to define themselves. We expect a self-definition from everyone else, but when asked who we are: "I am who you see!" I believe that in order to thrive in a social environment, we must admit that we are all products of our cultural training, societal conditioning, and the experiences we have over the courses of our lives. <br />
<br />
The only thing we have to count on, really, is that we know where we, as individual human beings, stand. There is no guarantee that anything anyone tells us is actually going to matter. And this is not a negative thing; I would argue, that knowing we cannot necessarily count on everyone is a truly clear and present reality that allows us to make our own decisions, and account for ourselves. Other than that, we need not be concerned with anything else. This may seem pessimistic, but it seems to me that if we want to depend on others, we only need to depend on their records. Records give us dependable statistics, and histories with which to compare present experiences. Records and histories do, in short, tell us what we might expect.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that we cannot choose to take people at their word. Building trust requires a bit of faith, which is the most important chance we can take. As my closest friends and I have built our relationships, we have taken risks so that we have been able to depend on each other over time. This, I believe, is the key to sustaining valuable connections with people. It is the risks we take, and the dependability we find in each other, that makes all the difference in the world.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-65886474898730514842012-09-06T10:46:00.001-07:002013-10-31T02:35:41.495-07:00From: <a href="http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story" target="_blank">http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story</a><br />
<br />
<h1>
<a href="http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story" rel="bookmark">I debated whether or not to share this story.</a></h1>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<section>
And then I debated whether or not to put it on Tumblr…but I
decided it was important. Because in my own way, I can (unfortunately)
point out exactly what is wrong with men when they don’t realize how
hard it is to be a woman. How we do not have equal opportunities and
freedoms in everyday life. How most men, even good caring men, have no
clue what we go through on a daily basis just trying to live our lives.<br />
So here goes.<br />
I often ride the Metro when I commute from North Hollywood to Long
Beach in order to save money. I bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on
my ring finger to imply I’m married (I’m not) and keep to myself. <br />
Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of
these commutes. The most common approach is to walk up to where I am
sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and
sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not
crowded and there are many empty rows. Sometimes an overly friendly
arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in
close to talk to me as if we are old friends. Without fail, the man or
boy in question will lean to close and ask me<br />
<b><i>What are you reading?</i></b><br />
<b><i>Is that a good book?</i></b><br />
<b><i>What’s that book about?</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>This serves the double purpose of
getting my attention and trapping me in a conversation. If I stop
reading the book I enjoy to talk to you, random stranger, you hit on me
or just stay way too close to me. If I tell you to leave me alone, you
get mad at me. Because I somehow, as a woman, owe you conversation.<br />
Tonight when I boarded the train in Long Beach at 10:30pm, it started
up right away. I was not on the train more than three minutes before
three boys who looked eighteen sat in the row behind me and leaned over
the seats into my personal space, close enough to breathe on me. The
one with his arm draped over onto the back of my seat asked me—surprise—
“what are you reading?” I went through my usual routine. I told them
loudly and firmly that I wanted to be left alone to read my book. They
got angry. I was told “Why are you going to be like that? <i>I just wanted to talk!” </i>His friends start laughing at me and they don’t move, telling me <b><i>come on!</i></b> and <b><i>why are you gonna be like that? </i></b>until
I tell them to leave me the fuck alone, stand up, and move to the front
of the car near the three other people on the train, a couple and a
business man in a suit. They spend the next two stops shouting at me
from the back of the car, alternating between trying to sound
flirtatious and making fun of me, shouting <b><i>“I bet she’s reading Stephanie Meyer! I bet she’s reading Twilight or some shit! You reading Twilight or some shit?”</i></b><br />
They exit the train at the next stop, and I’m relieved. The train is
going out of service at the next station, so we all exit to board a new
train to Los Angeles. As we board, the business man steps aside to let
me go through the door first and asks me if those guys were bothering
me. I say yes, that it happens all the time, and he tells he’ll beat
them up for me if they come back. He is a nice person who talks to me
like I’m a human being instead of a walking pair of tits, and I make a
mental note: <i>This is how a real man talks to a woman on a train.</i><br />
The business man and the couple exit our new Blue Line train an exit
or so later, and I think my night is ending on a good note. A seemingly
normal man enters the train with his bicycle. At this point I am three
rows from the front of the car, another man was sitting near the back
of the car, and the rest of the car is empty. Bicycle Man walks halfway
down the row, and settles into the seat directly opposite me. Perfect,
I think. Twice in one night.<br />
It’s not the first time I’ve been bothered multiple times. As such,
I’m still amped from the teenagers on the first train. So when this man
leans across the aisle into my personal space and asks me, yes, <i>what are you reading</i>,
I assertively but calmly tell him to please leave me alone, I am
reading. The man stands up, moving to the front and muttering angrily
over his shoulder <b><i>that it isn’t his fault I’m pretty</i></b>.<br />
Yes. Exactly that. I am the bad person in this situation because
somehow this is all my fault. I started this by being attractive. I am
making a mental note to bitch about this to my friends later. I go so
far as to write it down so I know I’m remembering it properly. <br />
It is at this exact moment I realize Bicycle Man is not taking it
well. The seemingly annoying but normal man a moment before is now
talking to himself, becoming agitated. In my years of being bothered by
total strangers, I have learned how to hold a book and seem to be
reading while taking in everything around me. He is glaring at me, and
says out loud in an angry baby talk voice “PLEASELEAVEMEALONEI’MREADING.
PLEASE LEAVE ME ALOOOONE.”<br />
Then he’s up out of his seat and things go from bad to worse. He
begins pacing back and forth in front of his bike, alternating between
screaming something about his mother being dead and calling me a slut, a
hoe, a bitch. I am frozen in place. There is one other person in the
car, and I’m not sure if trying to change seats will draw more attention
to me or less. I trust my instincts and show no fear, doing my best to
appear to be calmly reading my book, never once looking up to
acknowledge the abuse he’s hurling at me. There are four stops left
until we reach the main downtown station where there are lights and
security officers. Those four stops are virtually abandoned, and I have
no guarantee that leaving to wait for another train won’t motivate him
to leave the train as well, leaving us potentially alone at a metro
station platform just outside of Compton. I’m frozen in place, trying
to plan what I’m going to do if he decides to take all this rage
directly to me. I’m ready to kick him, scream, make enough noise that
he panics and flees. <br />
At this point he’s punching the walls and doors of the train, screaming at me. He stares me full in the face and screams<br />
<b><i>SUCK MY DICK, BITCH</i></b><br />
<b><i>YOU BITCH</i></b><br />
<b><i>YOU STUPID BITCH</i></b><br />
<b><i>YOU GODDAMN HO</i></b><br />
<b><i>IF I HAD A GUN I’D SHOOT YOU</i></b><br />
<b><i>I WOULD FUCKING KILL YOU BITCH</i></b><br />
This went on for two stops. No one came to see what was happening.
The man in the last row was as frozen as I was. I’m not angry he
didn’t come to my defense. He was smaller, older, and frailer-looking
than I was. Again, I was worried if I got up, I would be turning my
back on him to walk down the aisle. In the state he was in, I had no
guarantee it wouldn’t get physical, and I had more physical strength
with my back to the window and feet in kicking position where I was. If
he had chosen to assault me, I would only be making it easier for him
by standing up and putting myself directly in his path. On and on, over
and over, he screamed at me, screamed at his dead mother, screamed at
me again.<br />
The moment we reached the downtown station, I was out the door and
down the stairs. I still had to catch a connecting train to North
Hollywood, and made sure there was no sign of Bicycle Man before I
entered the car. That’s when I finally starting shaking, and almost
threw up. By the time I exited the Red Line and reached my car I could
barely breathe and my heart was pounding out of my chest. Even now, in
my own home, my hands are still shaking and for some reason the stress
has made my back muscles feel cold and numb. From all the tension, I
can only assume. I can’t eat anything, I still feel like I’m going to
vomit, and I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t cried so much, so hard I
still have the headache.<br />
So when people (men) want to talk about “legitimate” forms of
assault, tell girls they should be nice to strangers and give men the
benefit of a doubt, tell them to consider it a compliment, tell them to
ignore the bad behavior of men, <b><i>I want them to be forced to
feel, for even one minute, what it feels like to have so much verbal
hatred and physical intimidation thrown at them for nothing more than
being female and not wanting to share</i></b>. <br />
<b><i>I just wanted to read my book.</i></b><br />
<b><i>It’s not my fault I’m pretty.</i></b><br />
</section><section><b><i><br /></i></b></section><section>This is me again, y'all. I think it's safe to say that everything we say, think, and maintain as 'normal' matters. To everyone, not just someone. The more we (people who both identify and are identified as male) allow for our gender to be categorized as consistently aggressive out of 'necessity', the more we lose out on the opportunities to be good allies. F**k yeah.</section>Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-87971157390322086262012-08-17T12:40:00.001-07:002013-07-13T02:02:37.302-07:00Where the GOP is going wrongI have an idea that I think might give the Republicans some traction this election year.<br />
<br />
Since the going assumption is that taxes are evil, and we all know that the IRS collects taxes, it is therefore the logical next step that GOP leaders should plan to disband the IRS. "This seems crazy Nick," you might say. But wait, there's more.<br />
<br />
After disbanding the IRS, we could transition some of the former IRS agents into the FBI. Since we won't need as many of them, we could lay off most of them, and reinvigorate the job market with a lot of former and well-qualified IRS staff. Then, we could move the day-to-day operations of the IRS to an offshore site, in a country that wouldn't require us to pay IRS workers living wages or fair benefit packages.<br />
<br />
As we redesign the tax code, we could implement the strategy of making tax payments rely on the honor system, since we know wealthy people always pay their fair share, and low and middle-income earners are always trying to screw the rich out of their hard-earned wealth. The new workers just joining the FBI could focus on tracing the millions of low and middle-income individuals and families who 'should' be paying taxes, and let the wealthy keep their hard-earned dollars, while reinstating debtor's prison. This would allow for the GOP to advocate the jailing of poor people, and the freedom of wealthy people.<br />
<br />
I think this should give the GOP a leg up in a political race that has seen fit to demonize the GOP's insistence that the wealthy need more freedom, and still allow for the GOP to lead the charge against the selfish masses. Without the constraints of so much federal money going towards a uniquely un-American federal office, think of all the things that money could buy: new yachts for wealthy political donors, fancy dinners for political donors, high-end chastity belts for prominent and important pro-life legislators; this could go on, but I'm sure you agree that the possibilities are endless.<br />
<br />
In this time of economic despair, it is very important for our GOP to appear resolute. We must give hope back to the people of this country, and this means displaying the wealth we have at our fingertips so that the people have something to shoot for. A shiny, beautiful example of what freedom can buy. And freedom from the IRS is something I think any good GOP supporter should demand. We must take our country back. Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-19731855575716590872012-07-10T18:20:00.000-07:002012-08-17T20:58:23.537-07:00Sexuality EducationIn a post on Alternet, the methodologies of human sexuality educators is explored. I tend to agree with the author, in that demanding reflexivity is useful and most often beneficial, but demanding full disclosure is not so much. You can read the article <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/156213/_how_far_is_too_far_in_a_college_sexuality_course_/?page=entire" target="_blank">here</a> and I'd love to see what my readers (if there are very many) have to say.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-88857131379340439462012-04-03T19:48:00.000-07:002012-09-02T17:17:24.021-07:00Marijuana, the Law, and RealityBeen throwing around some ideas recently, but here's one I think may resonate with some folks. The continual movement to support the legalization of marijuana has been modestly successful in some places within the US, but not at the level of really being significantly meaningful. Here's some info in case you have a conversation with anyone about it:<br />
<br />
The National Institutes of Health
(<a href="http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html" target="_blank">http://www.nida.nih.gov/<wbr></wbr></a><br />
infofacts/marijuana.html) which is the federal government's public health organizations, have concluded that
as of today, we know that the carcinogens in most readily available marijuana are quite
harmful to developing brains and bodies, yet do not have the same
detrimental effects in adults when not used habitually. Further, the
addictive properties have been found to be fundamentally behavioral in
nature. In adult users of marijuana, about 9% become addicted. All the
interventions available are behavioral in nature, and enjoy a very high
success rate of curing those addicted.<br />
<br />
A number of studies
conducted by the NIH, funded/published by Addiction (a medical/social
science journal), the National Academy Press, the American Journal of
Public Health, and Aids Treatment News have all provided scientific
evidence supporting legalization, at least in medicine. The evidence strongly suggests that
tobacco, or alcohol, pose far more serious physical health risks than
marijuana, especially given the direct links to cancer and death that
marijuana specifically prevents.<br />
<br />
Take it to the streets: if Marijuana were
completely legal especially at the federal level, with age restrictions
similar to alcohol and tobacco use, street-level dealers would
immediately become recognized businesspeople. The dangers associated
with marijuana dealing as a deviant form of employment would practically
disappear.<br />
<br />
So there's some stuff and junk for you. Enjoy your life, and if you smoke...I ain't trippin.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-31074947987893191242011-12-21T15:38:00.000-08:002013-10-31T02:48:03.724-07:00An interesting discussion on feminist activism and push-back from the privileged<div class="comment-content">
<a href="http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2011/12/21/why-i-resigned-from-the-good-men-project/">Hugo Schwyzer</a> discusses the Good Man Project's decision to not publish a column he wrote in response to a post by the project's founder, which inspired a Twitter back-and-forth. The links to the Twitter conversation are available on Schwyzer's blog linked above and some background story which I'll post here: <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/serious-discussion-is-not-wrath-of-feminists/">Serious Discussion is not wrath</a>, <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-wrath-of-the-feminists-a-discussion-of-masculinity-gender-and-feminism/">The Wrath of Feminists</a>, and <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/as-equals-and-as-friends/">As Equals and as Friends</a>. The discussion surrounding male privilege and dominance is one we must continue having, especially if the founder of a project aimed at contributing to this discussion is terrified of facing backlash for being an asshole.<br />
<br />
I commented on Schwyzer's blog, but here's my take and let me know yours.<br />
<br />
This issue, as with other vital social
issues like it (racial privilege and anti-racism, gender privilege and
gendered understanding, sexuality and human rights) are all centered on
choosing to take responsibility. Guilt is only helpful if one feels
guilty about things they have specifically done. Responsibility is about
taking a stand and taking ownership of something that harms many and
privileges others. As a straight white male, I enjoy so much unearned
privilege, and at times I do feel guilty for not doing more.<br />
<br />
I decide,
each day, to take responsibility for making a more equitable and equal
society for my community, for my important people, and for myself. This
inevitably involves accepting criticism, and I choose to accept it as
someone with privilege and social power that I have not explicitly
earned through meritorious work. Criticism for me is always helpful,
even if it comes with barbs aimed at my ego; especially with barbs aimed
at my ego. I appreciate the humility that criticism of my social
location provides, and I do not see disagreement with my current
viewpoint as an attack. It is an opportunity to become more aware and
more responsible.<br />
<br />
Fear is powerful, and as a male in a western society, I
feel the fear of losing privileges that I have enjoyed; however, that
fear is wholly set aside when I envision a future of understanding and
true integration of every person, whether previously privileged or not.
If I’m not willing to talk about my own life, and if I am not willing to
tell my own ego to take a hike, I am not taking responsibility for
making equity a goal, and that is unacceptable to me. Talking about how men
are victimized is important, but the central concept here is that
feminism allows for a critical look at social and societal inequalities
of all kinds, and my social location gives me the ability to choose to
pay attention, which in itself describes social privilege perfectly.<br />
<br />
Not running this piece smells bad. If it doesn’t fit with a brand,
that’s capitalism at its finest and completely within the rights of a
publisher to decide. Given that, if the mission of a movement is to
allow for a ‘lifting up of the rug’ on what we can do to make our
communities and society more just, marketing should be the last thing on
a publisher’s mind, as should the ego of a man unwilling to accept
criticism for his privileged social location.<br />
<br />
Update 10/30/13:<br />
Yes, I'm well aware of Schwyzer's meltdown, and subsequent obvious lack of integrity, honesty, and full-hearted bullshittedness. He's a jackass, I'm aware. His work was fairly good; his self-absorbed crap was tough to watch happen, and really lacked much of what many of us yearn for in good faith male feminist leadership. That said, while I do hope he tends to his shitshow in fucking public silence as decency dictates, I hope that those of us who are really working to act as positive forces continue to do so. Fuck his bullshit; I'm still going to advocate for us guys with shit-tons of privilege using that privilege as leverage against the, "we don't need feminism anymore." And those of you saying crap like, "feminism is a mistake, let the good times roll," up yours. You're full of it, and you know it.</div>
Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-41843193426223659332011-10-05T22:31:00.000-07:002012-08-17T21:07:25.023-07:00High School Principal as a homophobic bully...are we serious?Been a while, so I figured this was as good a time as any to post something. I just read/watched the story about the high-schoolers trying to establish a GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) at their campus, and apparently a straight ally was wearing a shirt with signatures of those who favored it because the administration had blocked their petition from the start. This principal then decided that it was appropriate to physically and verbally assault and harass this straight ally, after clearing his current classroom. Pretty fu**ed up if you ask me. Here's a rundown from a fellow blogger/newsie/anti-hate online activist Addicting Info: <a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/05/high-school-principal-bullies-gay-student-activist/">high-school-principal-bullies-gay-student-activist</a>. Just for kicks, here's the link to the video news report from local news station <a href="http://www.wbir.com/video/1200631978001/0/ACLU-involved-with-East-TN-students-fight-to-start-gay-stra">WBIR10 story</a>, in case you'd like to check it out and haven't already.<br />
<br />
I wrote him an email, and cc'd a few folks in the administration at his school as well as from the local school district. I'm posting the email I wrote him, and at the end I'll include his contact info, as did Addicting Info. Here's what I said:<br />
<br />
Aloha Principal Moser,<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">I would like to keep this short and sweet, since hopefully you are receiving a great many emails about your anti-humanist view of your students, but I don't want to act like you. So All I will tell you is that your position as a principal at a school teaching children (a public school no less, which is supported by a state government and is a place meant to be free of bigotry and hatred regardless of religious beliefs), implies that you are a responsible adult. This implication is obviously false, given your treatment of a current pupil who dared to speak the truth, and even wear it on his clothing.<br />
<br />
I believe you are in need of psychiatric and psychological help. Your obvious disillusionment with what someone else's sexuality is supposed mean, is intriguing in a primary educational leadership figure. I would imagine that having as much responsibility as you must, you would develop a sense of responsibility to your students to set a positive example for dialogue, discourse, respect, and acceptance. Instead, it is clear that you do not possess the mental capacity to lead an educational institution, and as such I would hope you would at long last show some dignity, and seek the proper amount of help for your social illness: hate and fear of children who attend your school. I would also suggest that while you are in treatment, you might consider either formally stepping down from your position as principal, or at least a leave of absence. No one who is this worked up and willing to gay-bash a student in their care should be around children, especially when it is obvious that you are willing to harm children in your care. Sure, the student in question is a teenager, but that does not give you any freedom to act as though he is your personal verbal and physical punching bag.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
Please consider my advice, and if you do decide to stay in your official position as principal, I would only ask that you remove yourself from contact with any and all of your students, since any of them might be at risk for victimization from a school official they have been told, over and over again, is only looking out for their best interests.<br />
<br />
Be well and enjoy a speedy recovery from your hatred of high school kids,<br />
<br />
-Nick</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">His contact info: Maurice Moser: moserm@monroe.k12.tn.us </span>Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-78028123318902194322011-08-02T04:29:00.002-07:002012-08-17T21:02:34.835-07:00Why do we act like a**holes?I commented on this Urban Politico entry...might wanna take a look? <a href="http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2011/08/hypocrisy-at-its-finest.html#more">http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2011/08/hypocrisy-at-its-finest.html#more</a><br />
<br />
Read the hyperlinked article...seriously...<br />
<br />
The behavior of folks in congress and/or the senate is not surprising given what we know about who people really are... I imagine you are familiar with reality, and familiar with who people really are...they aren't who they say they are on video for a campaign.<br />
<br />
Given that, why is anyone surprised? Why are we all so 'shocked' at the douchebaggery of everyone, literally everyone in congress and the senate, who are supposed to be 'special' when they are just...us? Why? Fu**ing why is anyone surprised, appalled, angered, disgusted, or opposed for that matter? These people are US!!!!! Why are they supposed to be different? And who the heck decided we had to live our lives by the standards they refuse to live by year after year? Why is this still SHOCKING? Be honest for once! I am a human being with wants, needs, assumptions, political baggage, social baggage, relationship baggage, friends, family, heart and soul. They are THE SAME. They are not different. They (those in D.C. or state leadership) are not different from us in any way, other than economic wealth, usually gender privilege, and social/political connections. REALITY: THEY ARE STILL HUMAN PEOPLE. PLEASE STOP THINKING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. THAT IS SILLY.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-79468509224581212192011-07-12T00:58:00.000-07:002012-08-17T21:01:56.361-07:00Casey AnthonyI know it's been a couple weeks, and so this isn't news anymore since nothing lasts for more than a few public seconds...but I had an email exchange with a former student of mine, and if anyone else would like to chime in, please do. Here's what I think about the case:<br />
<br />
Casey Anthony was innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This was a criminal case, so that was the standard for the jury to use as a litmus test. Was there any way that someone else could have done the crime, in a reasonable person's mind? The jury in this case believed so. I would say the justice system prevailed here; a jury would have had to be party to a miscarriage of justice if they had voted for a guilty verdict. Thinking someone did something criminal, and knowing it to be true intrinsically, is not equal to a guilty verdict in a courtroom.<br />
<br />
Here's an example from history: an African American male is accused of raping a white woman. Because 'everyone knows' that it had to be true, then a guilty verdict is an easy affirmative. Now, we can make the argument that racism might be different than what we saw in the case against Casey Anthony. However, if we were to take it on faith that she killed her kid, since any and all factual evidence was either inadmissable or nonexistent, then we would be making the same kind of legal leap of injustice that we have perpetrated for hundreds of years.<br />
<br />
That being said, if she came into my bar I wouldn't stop another lady from kicking her ass, because I'm pretty sure she's either indifferent to her daughter's violent death or she did it herself. But, I sure wouldn't want to be convicted on circumstantial evidence, nor would I want my friends or family or anyone for that matter convicted circumstantially, especially if they didn't actually do the crime.<br />
<br />
So it's a toss-up. It can feel messed up, yet it is the purpose of the justice system to allow for average folks on a jury to make this kind of decision this way. They did good; the prosecution sucked some yucky testicles. And even then, only having circumstantial evidence isn't the complete fault of a prosecutor's office. Sometimes we just don't have the evidence to convict someone. it would be nice if we saw this pattern forming across racial lines, but we're still a very racist nation-state (as I'm sure people of color know better than I).<br />
<br />
I also think that if we always look for some deep, deviant psychological reason for a mother harming her children, instead of ascribing the behavior to just bad behavior, we're not being fair either. Our assumptions about women and criminal behavior are still very gendered, and my argument is this: couldn't she have killed her kid, or been indifferent to the murder of her kid, because she's a self-centered asshole? Again, I'm not saying that this is a fact, but it's a possibility that we don't seem to be entertaining. Like, ever.<br />
<br />
It's also sad that she was news to begin with. But we're still baffled at the fact that mothers are people, and sometimes do crappy things (or might be partly responsible for crappy things happening).<br />
<br />
Those are my thoughts on this. Cheers.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-37007776302783296192011-06-29T04:05:00.000-07:002012-08-17T21:03:32.543-07:00Admittedly, this is also good, for a different reasonLook, I'm pro-human. And seriously, if you're a true American, you are too. This was also very well put together, albeit not as humongous or sexy, but definitely with just as much merit and written beauty. It is from a couple years ago, so those of you who have seen this, please forgive my straight and entitled ignorance...I'm still learning as I go. Enjoy from here or hyperlink this: http://www.alternet.org/sex/86347/<br />
<br />
Why I Fought for the Right to Say 'I Do'<br />
The right to marry will change how we feel about society and our place in it. And it will change -- officially -- how society feels about us.<br />
May 26, 2008<br />
As you all no doubt know unless you've been hiding under the blankets for the last week and a half, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the state Constitution. In a little less than a month, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in California.<br />
<br />
My partner and I are going to be one of those couples.<br />
<br />
And I want to talk a little bit about why.<br />
<br />
One of the questions that gets raised a lot when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up is, "Why is marriage so important? Why aren't civil unions or domestic partnerships good enough?"<br />
<br />
The usual answers are practical ones. And I'll certainly second them. Marriage is recognized around the country and around the world, and all its practical and legal rights and responsibilities get carried with you everywhere you go in a way that is most emphatically not true for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Besides, it's a well-established principle that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal. The very act of saying, "No, you can't have this thing that everyone else can have, but you can have that other thing we created just for you that's almost exactly like it -- isn't that special?" It's the creation of second-class status, pretty much by definition.<br />
<br />
But I want to talk about something else today. I don't want to talk about the legal and practical benefits of marriage. I don't want to talk about hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, inheritance rights, tax benefits, all that good stuff. That's all important, but it's also well-covered ground.<br />
<br />
I want to talk about something more intangible. I want to talk about why we're getting married apart from all that.<br />
<br />
Marriage is an unbelievably old human institution and human ritual. My parents did it. My grandparents did it. My great-grandparents did it, and theirs, and theirs. The word and the concept carry a weight, a gravitas, intense and complex social and emotional associations, from centuries and millennia of people participating in it. And as far as I know (admittedly my anthropology is a bit weak), it's existed in one form or another in almost every human society, in almost every period of human history. There may be exceptions, but I don't offhand know of any. Getting married means being a link in a chain, taking part in a ritual that's central to human history and society.<br />
<br />
Yes, much of that history and many of those associations are awful. Sexist, propertarian, oppressive. But the evolution of the institution from its complicated and often terrible history into what it is today is part of what gives it its weight. The history of marriage, and its growth away from ownership and towards equal partnership, is the history of the human race's maturation. Participating in it means participating, not just in the history and the ritual, but in its growth and change.<br />
<br />
Civil unions and domestic partnerships just don't have that.<br />
<br />
Let's look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in California. Let's look at what it won't change for my partner and me and what it will.<br />
<br />
On a day-to-day level, it probably won't change much. We're domestic partners, and California domestic partnership does afford most of the legal rights and responsibilities that marriage offers. Within the state, anyway. As long as we stay in the state, not much changes in any practical sense. And I doubt that much will change between her and me. We had a commitment ceremony two and a half years ago: a joyful, exuberant, larger- than-we'd expected celebration that we spent many months planning. That ceremony and celebration, and everything we went through to make it happen, did change our relationship, profoundly, and very much for the better. I doubt that our legal wedding in June will have anywhere near that same impact on how we feel about each other.<br />
<br />
But it will almost certainly change how we feel about society, and our place in it. And it will change -- officially -- how society feels about us.<br />
<br />
When we get married in June, the State of California will officially recognize that our relationship has the same weight as our parents' did, and their parents', and theirs. It will officially drop this "separate but equal" bullshit. It will officially stop seeing us as kids at the little table, poor relatives who should be content with leavings and scraps, second-class citizens. It will officially see us as actual, complete, honest-to-gosh citizens.<br />
<br />
Now.<br />
<br />
Look at the patchwork of laws around this country regarding same-sex marriage. Look at the states that have banned it, and the ones that have gone so far as to ban the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Look at the fact that if my partner and I travel to Alabama or Michigan, Alaska or Pennsylvania, or any of over two dozen other states, our marriage will be seen as not having existed at all. Null. Void. Look at the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President William Jefferson Clinton in 1996, stating that the Federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages, even if they're completely legal in the state where they were performed.<br />
<br />
What does that tell you about how those states, and the country as a whole, sees us?<br />
<br />
That's the weird paradox of the California ruling. It's thrilling. It's unbelievably great news. It's a huge historical step. But at the same time, it throws the true meaning of this legal patchwork into sharp focus. It makes it that much clearer that queers in this country are, in a very literal sense, second-class citizens. We pay taxes, we serve on juries, we have to obey the same laws that everyone else does, but in a very practical, codified- into-law sense, we just don't count for as much.<br />
<br />
Legalizing same-sex marriage isn't just about the legal and practical recognition of our love and our partnership. It's about social recognition. It's about being seen as a full member of society. Kudos for the California Supreme Court for understanding that. Let's hope the rest of the country figures it out eventually.<br />
<br />
Important note: As powerful and historic as this step is, it could be undone. In November, there will almost certainly be an initiative on the California ballot, asking voters to amend the state Constitution and ban same-sex marriage. If you think this issue and this movement are important, please consider supporting Equality California.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-22626366249237584032011-06-29T03:36:00.001-07:002012-08-17T21:03:09.147-07:00Damn, this is goodI already posted this as a link on Facebook, but honestly it deserves some re-blog play too. Absolutely beautiful execution here as a fellow blogger and writer on things important. And I don't think I could have gotten here. No way; I'm a straight, white male, and that's a big-time triple-threat. Please, take the time to read this and allow yourself to understand not only the nuance and craft of the writing itself, but the intent behind the effort. At least to me, it's astoundingly honest and wonderfully powerful, with some 'focused rage' (to borrow a quote from Time Wise, who I think borrowed it from a writer who is probably a person of color) to boot.<br />
<br />
Here's the hyperlink to the original: http://www.mattildabernsteinsycamore.com/gayrights_lip.html <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="headline">
Sweatshop-Produced Rainbow Flags and Participatory Patriarchy: Why the Gay Rights Movement Is a Sham</div>
<div class="main_text">
Mattilda, a.k.a. Matt Bernstein Sycamore</div>
<div class="main_text">
<i><b><br />
The Assimilation Success Story</b></i></div>
<div class="main_text">
As legends go, San Francisco is the place for sexual debauchery, gender transgression and political deviance (not to mention sexual deviance, gender debauchery and political transgression). The reality is that while San Francisco still shelters outsider queer cultures unimaginable in most other cities, these cultures of resistance have been ravaged by AIDS, drug addiction and gentrification. Direct on-the-street violence by rampaging straights remains rare in comparison to other queer destination cities like New York, Chicago or New Orleans, but a newer threat has emerged. San Francisco, more than any other US city, is the place where a privileged gay (and lesbian) elite has actually succeeded at its goal of becoming part of the power structure. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), members of the gaysbian elite use their newfound influence to oppress less privileged queers in order to secure their status within the status quo. This pattern occurs nationwide, but San Francisco is the place where the violence of this assimilation is most palpable.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
I first moved to San Francisco in 1992, just before my 19th birthday, and was completely terrified by the conformity, hyper-masculinity, and blind consumerism of the legendary gay Castro district. I quickly figured out that this could never be my "community," and always assumed that it wasn't anyone else's, either. Then one day, just recently, I was walking through the Castro with a friend of mine, whose social group includes a number of gay white men in their fifties, and everywhere guys were smiling at him and reaching out with great big hugs. I realized, then, that the Castro was somebody's community, and this was, for a moment, a revelation.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
What is sad about the Castro (and similar gay neighborhoods across the country and around the world), and indicative of what gay people do with even a little bit of power, is that these same smiling gay men have failed to build community for queers (or anyone) outside their social groups. Many gay men (even in the Castro) still remain on the fringes, either by choice or lack of opportunity. But as the most "successful" gays (and their allies) have moved from outsider status to insider clout, they have consistently fought misogynist, racist, classist, ageist battles to ensure that their neighborhoods remain communities only for the rich, male and white (or at least those who assimilate into white middle-class norms). They've succeeded in clamping down on the anger, defiance, flamboyance, and subversion once thriving in queer subcultures, in order to promote a vapid, consume-or-die, only-whites-need-apply version of gay identity. Homo now stands more for homogenous than any type of sexuality aside from buy buy buy.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
In 1992, there were still a few slightly interesting things about the Castro: a gay bookstore with current queer 'zines, and freaks and drag queens on staff; a used bookstore with a large selection of gay books; a cafe with live cabaret shows; a 24-hour donut shop with a rotating cast of tweakers; a tiny chocolate shop filled with delicate creations; a dyke bar; and a cruising park where faggots actually fucked. These meager (and mostly fag-specific) resources have disappeared, as rents have skyrocketed and corporate chains have replaced local businesses. A glittering Diesel clothing store now dominates Harvey Milk Plaza, the symbolic heart of the Castro, and the historic Castro Theater shows Eating Out, a movie about a straight guy pretending to be gay in order to get the girl with the gay friends (The tagline reads, "The fastest way to a girl's heart is through her best friend.").</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
Gay bar owners routinely call for the arrest of homeless people, many of them queer youth, for getting in the way of happy hour. Zephyr Realty, a gay-owned real estate company, advises its clients on how best to evict long-term tenants, many of them seniors, people with HIV/AIDS and disabled people. Gay political consultants mastermind the election of anti-poor, pro-development candidates over and over and over.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
In 1998, wealthy gay Castro residents (don't forget lesbians and straight people!) fought against a queer youth shelter because they feared it would get in the way of "community property values." They warned that a queer youth shelter would bring prostitution and drug-dealing to the neighborhood. For a moment, let's leave aside the absurdity of a wealthy gay neighborhood, obviously already a prime destination for prostitutes of a certain gender and drug-dealing of only the best substances, worrying about the wrong kind of prostitutes (the ones in the street!), and the wrong kind of drug dealers (the ones who don't drive Mercedes!) arriving in their whitewashed gayborhood.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
One sign of the power of San Francisco's gay elite is that any successful mayoral candidate must pander to the "gay vote," so it was no surprise when, in February 2003, Gavin Newsom, a straight, ruling class city council member representing San Francisco's wealthiest district, hosted a lavish, $120-a-plate fundraiser for the new $18 million LGBT Center. At that point, Newsom was most famous for a ballot measure called "Care Not Cash," which took away homeless people's welfare checks and replaced them with "care." Gay Shame, a radical queer activist group, gathered to protest Newsom's agenda of criminalizing homeless people in order to get ahead at the polls, as well as to call attention to the hypocrisy of the Center for welcoming Newsom's dirty money instead of taking a stand against his blatantly racist and classist politics. Whose Center was this, we asked? Was it a center for marginalized queers, queers of color, homeless queers, trans queers, queer youth, older queers, disabled queers, queer artists, queer activists, queer radicals... -- or a Center for straight politicians to hold dinner parties?.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
Our questions were answered when police officers, called by the Center, began to bash us as soon as they escorted Newsom inside. One officer hit a Gay Shame demonstrator in the face with his baton, shattering one of her teeth and bloodying her entire face. Several of us were thrown face-first into oncoming traffic; one protester was put into a chokehold until he passed out. As four of us were dragged off in handcuffs for protesting outside "our" Center, Center staff stood -- and watched -- and did nothing to intervene. Neither Newsom nor the Center has ever made a statement condemning the police violence of February 2003. In fact, one year later, newly-elected Mayor Gavin Newsom rewarded the powerful gays who stood on the Center balcony and watched queers get bashed. Newsom grabbed national headlines and solidified his San Francisco support base by "legalizing" gay marriage, and throngs of gay people from across the country descended upon City Hall at all hours of the day and night, camping out, sharing snacks and wine, and toasting Gavin Newsom as the vanguard leader of gay civil rights.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<i><b><br />
I Think We're Alone Now... Citizenship, Gay Marriage and the Christian Right</b></i></div>
<div class="main_text">
In the fall of 2004, Marriage Equality, a brand new brand of "nonprofit," held two amazing benefits in New York City and Washington, DC. Called "Wedrock," these star-studded events featured numerous celebrities, major-label activist rockers from Moby to Sleater-Kinney, Bob Mould to Le Tigre. Just to get people all excited about marriage equality, the promotional email for the events concluded by stating, "Get angry, protect your citizenship."</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
If gay marriage is about protecting citizenship, whose citizenship is being protected? Most people in this country -- especially those not born rich, white, straight and male -- are not full citizens. The not-so-subtle demand to "protect your citizenship" evokes images of George W. Bush's screeds against "enemies of freedom." Gay assimilationists want to make sure they're on the winning side in the citizenship wars, and see no need to confront the legacies of systemic and systematic US oppression that prevent most people living in this country (and everywhere else) from exercising their supposed "rights." This willful participation in US imperialism is part of the larger goal of assimilation, as the holy trinity of marriage, military service and adoption has become the central preoccupation of a gay movement centered more on obtaining straight privilege than challenging power.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
Gay assimilationists have created the ultimate genetically modified organism, combining virulent strains of nationalism, patriotism, consumerism, and patriarchy and delivering them in one deadly product: state-sanctioned matrimony. Gay marriage proponents are anxious to discard those tacky hues of lavender and pink, in favor of the good ol' stars and stripes, literally draping themselves in Old Glory at every pro-marriage demonstration as the US occupies Iraq, overthrows the only democratically-elected government in the history of Haiti, funds the Israeli war on the Palestinians, and makes the whole world safe... for multinational corporations to plunder indigenous resources.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
A gay elite has hijacked queer struggle, and positioned their desires as everyone's needs -- the dominant signs of straight conformity have become the ultimate signs of gay success. Sure, for white gays with beach condos, country club memberships, and nice stock portfolios with a couple hedge funds that need trimming every now and then (think of Rosie O'Donnell or David Geffen), marriage might just be the last thing standing in the way of full citizenship, but what about for everyone else?</div>
<div class="main_text">
Even when the "gay rights" agenda does include real issues, it does it in a way that consistently prioritizes the most privileged while fucking over everyone else. I'm using the term "gay rights," instead of the more popular term of the moment, "LGBT rights," because "LGBT" usually means gay, with lesbian in parentheses, throw out the bisexuals, and put trans on for a little window-dressing. A gay rights agenda fights for an end to discrimination in housing and employment, but not for the provision of housing or jobs; domestic partner health coverage but not universal health coverage. Or, more recently, hospital visitation and inheritance rights for married couples, but not for anyone else. Even with the most obviously "gay" issue, that of anti-queer violence, a gay rights agenda fights for tougher hate crimes legislation, instead of fighting the racism, classism, transphobia (and homophobia) intrinsic to the criminal "justice" system. Kill those criminals twice, this logic goes, and then there won't be any more violence.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
The violence of assimilation lies in the ways the borders are policed. For decades, there has been a tension within queer politics and cultures, between assimilationists and liberationists, conservatives and radicals. Never before, however, has the assimilationist/conservative side held such a stranglehold over popular representations of what it means to be queer. Gay marriage proponents are anxious to discard generations of queer efforts to create new ways of loving, lusting for, and caring for one another, in favor of a 1950s model of white-picket-fence, "we're-just-like-you" normalcy.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
The ultimate irony of gay liberation is that it has made it possible for straight people to create more fluid gender, sexual and social identities, while mainstream gay people salivate over state-sanctioned Tiffany wedding bands and participatory patriarchy. Many straight people know that marriage is outdated, tacky and oppressive -- and any queer who grew up in or around marriage should remember this well. Marriage still exists as a central site of anti-woman, anti-child and anti-queer violence, and a key institution through which the wealth and property of upper class (white) families is preserved. If gay marriage proponents wanted real progress, they'd be fighting for the abolition of marriage (duh), and universal access to the services that marriage can sometimes help procure: housing, healthcare, citizenship, tax breaks, and inheritance rights.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
Instead, gay marriage proponents claim that access to marriage will "solve" fundamental problems of inequality. This is not surprising, given that the gay marriage movement is run by groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, who have more in common with the National Rifle Association than any sort of left agenda, queer or otherwise. These are the same gays who routinely instigate police violence against people of color, homeless people, transgender people, sex workers and other marginalized queers, in their never-ending quest to "clean up" the neighborhoods they've gentrified. Their agenda is cultural erasure, and they want the full Monty.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
For a long time, queers have married straight friends for citizenship or healthcare -- but this has never been enshrined as "progress." The majority of queers -- single or coupled (but not desiring marriage), monogamous or polyamorous, jobless or marginally employed -- would remain excluded from the much-touted benefits of legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, in order to access any marriage benefits, those not entirely "male" or "female" would need to accept gender tyranny. As gay marriage continues to dominate the mainstream gay agenda, resources are directed away from HIV prevention, AIDS services, drug treatment, domestic violence services, and other programs desperately needed by less privileged queers -- millions of dollars are being poured into the marriage coffin. The fight between pro-marriage and anti-marriage queers is not a disagreement between two segments of a "community," but a fight over the fundamental goals of queer struggle.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
Gay marriage proponents are anxious to further the media myth that there are only two sides to the gay marriage/assimilation debate: foaming-at-the mouth Christian fundamentalists who think gay marriage marks the death of Western civilization, and rabid gay assimilationists who act as if gay marriage is the best thing since Queer Eye for the Straight Girl. It is no coincidence that queers who oppose gay marriage are shut out of the picture, since it's much easier for a gay marriage proponent to win an argument with a crazed homophobe than with an anti-marriage queer. And every time some well-meaning straight leftist thinks they're being open-minded by taking the gay marriage side, they need to go back to Feminism 101.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
Of course, Christian fundamentalists make no distinction between diesel dykes and Diesel jeans, or, to be more direct -- they think all queers are gonna burn in hell, Tiffany or no Tiffany. (as in, "I think we're alone now...). Every time gay marriage proponents patiently explain to Fundamentalists, "One, two -- we're just like you -- three, four -- we bash queers more!" the Christian Right gains authority. But this false polarization serves gay assimilationists as well, by silencing queers who threaten the power that lies behind their sweatshop-produced nylon rainbow flags.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
When gay assimilationists cheerfully affirm, over and over again, to lunatics who want them dead, that of course gay identity is not a choice, because who would choose it, they unwittingly expose the tyranny of simplistic identity politics. Not only have the dominant signs of straight conformity become the central goals of the gay assimilationist movement, but assimilationists see a threat to Christian fundamentalist security as a threat to "progress." Forget about choosing our gender, sexual or social identities, forget about building community or family outside of traditional norms, forget about dismantling dominant systems of oppression -- let's just convince the Christian right to accept us on their own terms.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<i><b><br />
Movement Rights, Civil Community</b></i></div>
<div class="main_text">
On January 13, 2005, 22 national LGBT rights organizations (including all the above, and more!) issued a joint statement with the leaden title, "Civil Rights. Community. Movement." Unsurprisingly, this document is filled with empty rhetoric such as, "We, literally, are everywhere," and "Stand up. Spread the word. Share your story." It even quotes gay rights pioneer President George W. Bush from an interview in People, where he agrees, in spite of his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that a couple joined by a civil union is as much of a family as he and Barbara.</div>
<div class="main_text">
"Civil Rights. Community. Movement." opens by defining "civil rights" as "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship [italics added]." Here we can already glimpse the exclusionary agenda of the gay rights movement. Instead of calling for universal access to benefits generally procured through citizenship (such as the right to remain in this country), this document seeks to secure a gay place at the red-white-and-blue table of normalcy, on the fashionable side of the barbed wire.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
This opening paragraph also attributes the successes of civil rights movements to "the complex interweaving of legal victories, political progress and advances in public opinion." Even a mainstream liberal would agree that many "civil rights" victories came about in large part through mass protests and extensive civil (and uncivil) disobedience campaigns. But the LGBT movement prefers empty terms like "political progress" and "advances in public opinion" to any recognition of direct action struggles. You don't want to frighten the funders!</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
The document continues by talking about challenging the family values rhetoric of "a small but powerful group of anti-gay extremists" by "[opening] America's eyes to the true family values that LGBT couples, parents and families are living and demonstrating every day." This is where "LGBT rights" becomes most sinister. In allegedly attempting to challenge the "radical right" (they're not Christians anymore, but worse -- radicals!) this document still insists on defining "family values" along heteronormative lines, rolling back decades of queer struggle to create chosen families that do more than just mimic the twisted ones assigned to us at birth.</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
When the report notes that "Binational LGBT couples and families can be cruelly torn apart by deportation and immigration laws that treat them as legal strangers," we are led to believe that marriage is the only solution to this citizenship dilemma. No mention is made of non-coupled queers who are deported while seeking asylum, of systemic racial profiling in citizenship decisions, or of routine murders of undocumented immigrants on US borders. Instead, the document states, "We must fight for family laws that give our children strong legal ties to their parents." One must infer that this pertains to the cases of lesbian (and gay) parents who lose custody of their children due to homophobic courts, though this is, astoundingly, not mentioned. While a shortsighted focus on parental control should be no surprise when coming from a "movement" centered around marriage, it is particularly striking given the extremely high rates of suicide, drug addiction and homelessness among queer youth, especially those escaping scary families of origin. What about family laws that allow children to get away from abusive parents? What about providing support systems for queer youth, who have extremely high rates of suicide, drug addiction, and homelessness?</div>
<div class="main_text">
<br /></div>
<div class="main_text">
The organizations behind this document prefer to talk about the "true family values" of straight-acting gays than to resist the tyranny of assimilationist norms. Apparently, "true family values" call for more inclusive hate crimes legislation, but no challenge to the prison industrial complex. "True family values" call for overturning the military's "anti-LGBT" ban instead of confronting US imperialism. "True family values" require all of us to "invest" in the movement, "invest in our future." That's right -- send in your check NOW, before you get priced out.</div>
<div class="main_text">
_________________________________</div>
<div class="main_text">
</div>
<div class="main_text">
I couldn't create this myself. It's much too genuine for me to have been able to come up with. (Because, as mentioned before, I'm straight, caucasian and male, and I have more privilege than I know what to do with.) But hell, I'll make sure it gets as much play as I can, because if we don't start trying to think differently, we never will. And it's important to our survival as a people to start thinking differently. 'nuf said.</div>
Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-86869257821984154312011-06-12T19:17:00.007-07:002012-08-17T21:01:00.415-07:00The 'adulting' movementSomething I've been thinking about for awhile now is the idea that as we grow older, we mature and become 'adults'. I'm not certain what this means, as many folks would explain being an 'adult' as sustaining a family, living in one place, having one job, and growing older. Some folks would say that being an 'adult' is more about attitude; this in and of itself is not necessarily wrong, just obscure and unspecific. Others might say that being an 'adult' is about handling the relationships you have in a 'mature manner'. However, most people who say this aren't mature or adulty, at least as far as I can tell. Then we come the idea that being an 'adult' is a very obscure thing. It is quite an eye-of-the-beholder type of concept, but we can say a number of things about what being an 'adult' means for certain, and this is what I will talk about today.<br />
<br />
I know, that being an adult means that I am not supposed to be silly. What I mean by silly is...well, I'll give you an example. My friend Will and I seem to find ourselves 'sillying-out' on occasion, or going so silly we actually become the definition of the term. Instead of going from one specific topic of 'adult' conversation to another with high levels of regularity and subtle seriousness, we sometimes will be speaking of very important topics such as wealth and race and gendered sexuality, and will suddenly start discussing how to best apply sunscreen to a walrus. It isn't that walruses have an ever-pressing need for sunscreen, but if one were to investigate the best way of applying sunscreen to a walrus, I am certain the data would be useful for any number of social science projects, and possibly the military.<br />
<br />
I believe silliness to be a necessary skill for coping with life, but I know some folks would disagree. Mostly, when we talk about being an adult, we talk about having a sense of humor balanced with the concept of maturity, but again the definition of such is obscure to the point of ridiculous. Do we really believe that a sense of humor is only about being able to entertain someone else in a way they find enjoyable? Why is a sense of humor not a reciprocal engagement of figuring out how two people's definitions of fun and funny can mesh or coincide? This is the primary question I find myself asking. Why is you thinking I have a good sense of humor predicated on my being able to ENTERTAIN YOU? That seems a little fishy, definitely self-centered, and not at all fun for anyone but you. I also will give, that most folks don't think about this issue this deeply, although if you've only been reading for a couple minutes and are already thinking I've gone off the deep end, you need Jesus.<br />
<br />
So here's the dilemma: do we really believe that in order to be considered an enjoyable 'adult' we must be able to entertain people, assuming we really enjoy that ourselves? And in conjunction with this, are we to also believe that sustaining a cartoony definition of the American Dream is the only way to be seen, or perceived, as a responsible 'adult'? If one were to choose to never 'settle down' and start what we collectively believe to be a 'normal adult life' most folks at least in the United States would try to find a way to say they were fucked up. If they happen to like said person, they would try to find words and concepts to explain away the person's seeming lack of maturity. Now, sometimes we glorify this lack of maturity, in the cases of high-level male executives who just never find the right person; they were busy building their career and 'sowing their wild oats' whatever the fuck that means. But when the high-level executive is female, this romantic idea disappears and we wonder, "Why wouldn't she want to have a family and kids? Is she lesbian? Is she too fucked up emotionally?" Beautiful double-standard to say the least. Misogyny to be precise. But that idea of what it means to be an 'adult' is fixed within a temporally fluid conceptual maze of everyday assumptions about what our lives are 'supposed' to look like, and gender is a highly flammable concept to address head on, especially when people think they know what's best for everyone else.<br />
<br />
In any case, I'll give a simpler example. I know a number of young adults who work jobs, go to school, and sustain relationships and friendships that mean a lot to everyone involved. Why wouldn't these people be considered adults? Because they like to laugh out loud in public? Whenever we see folks laughing in public, everyone seems to get all insecure and weirded out. "What are they laughing about? Is it me? Is it that other dude with bad hair?" Instead of catching the fun bug, we get all paranoid about people HAVING FUN TOGETHER. My friends and I constantly bring absurdity into our conversations. It's funny. It makes us feel good. We deal with a lot of emotional weight by getting absurd about ourselves, each other, and everything else. See <a href="http://theoreticalhero.blogspot.com/2010/11/dinosaurs-by-state.html">his post about the historical genealogies of dinosaurs</a> if you'd like a more concrete example...we have conversations like that all the time.<br />
<br />
I firmly believe that as we get 'adulted' we start to lose touch with the absurdities of our world. We start to think that the absurdities aren't absurd and funny; that they are normal, natural, and unavoidable. We think that if we aren't serious enough, we won't find success, happiness, or immortality. I would argue that success is again a fluid, and contentious and ultimately unnecessary concept wholly absorbed within the capitalistic ideologies of the 'First World'. Happiness too is a place littered with assumptions about what we are taught 'should' make us happy. And immortality is nothing other than those who outlive us remembering us for how we treated them, ourselves, and our communities. If we don't take time to talk about the subtle differences between gray and green aliens, or how we have trained ourselves to answer the call of the commercial, we'll lose our minds. Collectively, and eternally. And is that what being an 'adult' is really about?Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-17695540572440181332011-03-07T14:32:00.000-08:002012-08-17T21:00:36.443-07:00The Mascot WarA very interesting exchange between Simon Montoya-Smith at <a href="http://iamnotamascot.blogspot.com/">I Am Not a Mascot</a>, and Brad Schaeffer from <a href="http://biggovernment.com/">biggovernment.com</a> from back in December. First, Montoya-Smith's <a href="http://iamnotamascot.blogspot.com/2010/12/ask-indian-why-is-mascot-thing-issue.html">original post here</a>, a <a href="http://iamnotamascot.blogspot.com/2010/12/your-move-chiefoops-no-offense-bradley.html#comments">response to that post and then a final chapter here</a>. I posted my response below, but anyone else care to chime in?<br />
<br />
I think Schaeffer is ignoring a number of remarkably important points, and easily so; most of us white folk don't have to deal with the true nature of inequality embedded in our social world. We do not have to constantly be on guard in order to avoid feeling "overly sensitive" because every day is white people day. Every day, we do not have to be concerned with whether someone will make an off-handed racist comment, and think that we can't feel pissed about it because then we're just too sensitive, or too politically correct. <br />
<br />
And here's something that really bothers me: us white folks have never had to protect ourselves physically from racially motivated denigration of our singular 'selves' and our collective 'selves'. I'm not saying racism doesn't come in all forms, but institutional racism is not punishing white folks for being born. We've had to deal with almost no racially motivated social sanitation of who we are, or had to be legitimately concerned about becoming one of millions wiped off the planet through a holocaust, which is what happened when the white folks with a severe superiority complex and a capitalistic bloodlust arrived here.<br />
<br />
So, while it is fair to say that Mr. Schaeffer did make a somewhat strong case for Mr. Moya-Smith's contradictory argumentation, the reality stands on its own. People fighting against the change of a mascot, doesn't stand up to scrutiny in light of the true nature of our nation-state's history. So, my advice: get over it, and rename them the murderers, with a suit carrying a briefcase in one hand and a coffin in the other. Then we can see how many wall-streeters come crying foul.Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-89973079871643722952011-03-04T18:02:00.002-08:002012-01-05T18:38:31.056-08:00Are whites racially oppressed...fuckin really?This was actually on CNN.com. I hate this saying, but I'll use it here: fuck my life. Check it out: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/white.persecution/index.html">Are whites racially oppressed?</a><br />
<br />
So, my answer is this:<br />
<br />
<span data-jsid="text">Change is slow. And social change is slower than we like to think. </span><br />
<span data-jsid="text">If we are living in a racially equal time, it won't make any difference what our half African-American President says about race...but it makes people angry. </span><br />
<span data-jsid="text"><br />
If we are living in a racially e<span class="text_exposed_show">qual time, white folks won't feel uneasy about talking about race, ever, and our first instinct as white folks won't be to blame people of color for the inequalities we have created generation after generation. <br />
</span></span><br />
<span data-jsid="text"><span class="text_exposed_show">If we are living in a time of racial equity, white folks won't feel a need to try to 'take OUR COUNTRY back' because things are actually becoming MORE equitable, even though that equity is visualized through job loss, job insecurity and obvious shortfalls in public assistance programs now finally affecting white folks at almost similar rates as they have affected whole communities of color for decades.<br />
</span></span><br />
<span data-jsid="text"><span class="text_exposed_show">No one heard cries of outrage against predatory lending in the 90's when it was only being used within communities of color. Washington defended bailing out fortune 500's, mostly manned by white folks, after THEY TANKED THE ECONOMY.<br />
</span></span><br />
<span data-jsid="text"><span class="text_exposed_show">No one heard cries of outrage about the absolutely disgusting shows of 'patriotism' at the rallies to 'protect gun rights' in DC where white protesters spit on, screamed at and threatened both congressmen, congresswomen, senators and the President, as long as we saw white faces.<br />
</span></span><br />
<span data-jsid="text"><span class="text_exposed_show">Now we have a racial panic when things are actually equal on the negative??!! Get the whole way the fuck outta here with that bullshit. It's still white people day every day. Black people will still get pulled over more times for driving while black than white folks for actually breaking traffic laws, even in February. <br />
</span></span><br />
<span data-jsid="text"><span class="text_exposed_show">We've never needed a 'racial identity' until recently, and I still think it's bullshit anyway. So forget it, and go with cultural heritage instead. And quit the 'white supremacy is dying' whining. Enough already: grow up.</span></span>Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7325689055951898038.post-32830643029567798352011-02-03T14:42:00.001-08:002013-07-23T18:11:38.947-07:00Health care, a patient's perspective III wanted to write a little bit about how insane Ann Coulter is, but I think I'll leave it to all the others who are doing a great job: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/anderson-cooper-ann-coulter-mobs-egypt-video-2011-2">Glynnis MacNicol from Business Insider</a> and <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/ann-coulters-expertise-on-mobs-and-liberals-finds-nothing-good-in-egyptian-protests-video.php?ref=fpb">Frances Martel from Mediaite featured on Talking Points Memo</a>. Onward, to my next official blog post which hasn't happened since...crap, since I posted my last quickie for a class last semester.<br />
<br />
This edition of Health care from a patient's perspective is going to focus on what happened when I tried to get insulin here in Hawaii. I gotta tell ya, my Weird Shitometer went batshit crazy. Here's the deal:<br />
<br />
Last semester I didn't have health insurance...in fact, I didn't have health insurance from July 2010 until last week. I do feel lucky, in that calling up the health insurance folks who enroll us Instructors in the plans did move things along extremely fast, so thank you HMSA/EUTF employee I spoke with last week. Back to reality: I was running rully, rully low on 'slin. For those of you who know what I'm talkin bout, that ain't good. I saw my doc on campus, which cost me $20...doesn't seem like much, but hey, I was broke-ish. My bottle of Humalog was gonna cost me almost $150, and I'm grateful to my girlfriend who covered it for me at the time. Really grateful; I think I still owe her a couple foot massages.<br />
<br />
After seeing the doc, I got my script, and headed to Walgreens here in Honolulu. As I was trying to pick up the insulin the first time, I started getting weird questions.<br />
Pharmacy tech: "This doesn't say how much you're supposed to take per day."<br />
My reply: "yes it does; it says I have an Insulin pump for a basal, and to take boluses by sliding scale with meals as needed...it changes based on how many carbs I'm eating, my exercise/activity, other factors..."<br />
Pharma: "no, that won't work. We need to have specific directions otherwise we can't give you this lifesaving health product that you won't survive without. Sorry. Better luck tomorrow when the doctor's office opens and we can confirm."<br />
Me: "uhh...ok? What's the deal, yo? I've never heard of this kind of weirdness before."<br />
Pharma: "It's Hawaii law, so we can't get sued if you overdose."<br />
Me: "Really? Is this state this weird? I've had diabetes for two decades, I'm in great shape and I'm really healthy. I think I'm capable."<br />
Pharm: "Sorry, can't do it. We have to know that you know what you're doing."<br />
Me: "20 years as a diabetic. Seriously. If I fuck up my own diabetes care, what am I suing you for? Irresponsible pharmaceutical activities? Slangin the wrong 'slin to a shady character such as myself?"<br />
Pharm: "We'll call their office tomorrow, and we'll see you after."<br />
Me: "Right on. I know this isn't your fault, but I'd love to know what the background is..."<br />
<br />
So that's my Hawaii diabetes weirdness that sent my Weird Shitometer off the scales. Anyone else seen something funky like this?Street Philosopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254838469569142486noreply@blogger.com0