Today I was judged based on the color of my skin.
A coworker with whom I have spoken less than a dozen words prior to today made a bold assumption about my person without taking the time to actually know me. I find myself deeply offended, and not just because her assumption was wrong, but even more so because the deep understanding of discrimination she claimed to have could not have been shown to be more shallow and one sided. I also find myself bothered that I attempted to extricate myself from the discussion several times to no avail and do not feel comfortable bringing it to my superiors as I believe both of the assistant managers would side with her (being of the same race).
The most confounding thing about the whole situation is that it arose over an innocent discussion about homeowner's associations (HOAs) that devolved into debating their legality and whether or not their very existence was discriminatory (but more on that later).
The assumption my coworker made was that I didn't understand discrimination because I'm white (she's black, and from the south). She said it differently and multiple times, but in ways much more condescending than I have put here though I don't find it necessary to drag out each wound. While I can openly admit that I have not experienced discrimination in the same context or to the extent that she has that does not make me incapable of understanding what discrimination is, suffering from discrimination myself, and being able to recognize when it is happening.
If the ability to recognize (and thereby prosecute) acts of discrimination was limited to those who have been discriminated against... well that's a thought too absurd to finish. Educating people to be accepting of other peoples differences will help change our society and prevent discrimination in the future but to know equality means we must also know the converse which is inequality and that acts of hate that spring from it.
Her other big flaw is failing to recognize that discrimination does not just come in the form of white people against black. As a member of the LGBT community I know what it is to feel those pressures of discrimination, and not just from society, but from my own family which brings challenges not found in racial discrimination. I have also encountered other forms of discrimination through the treatment of close friends and family that helps me to understand through knowledge and sympathy. I do not need to feel the pain of another person to understand that they feel pain.
Overall, the whole argument today left me feeling sad because, if she labors under the self delusion that she is fighting for equality, how many more out there are fighting for a cause but hindering the overall battle for equality.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Girls Don't have to be "Good"
There are many double standards between men and women that we have yet to break through. This is most prominent in the realm of love, romance, and sex. A woman who hits on or "picks up" a man is forward but when a man does it he's a player. A man who sleeps around is a stud but a woman who does is typed as a slut. There are certainly segments of society that have broken through and disregard these stereotypes, but the overwhelming majority are still clinging to societal traditions.
Another area where this double standard is apparent is in porn. Men watching porn is almost a given and only the extreme conservatives make a fuss out of it. Women, on the other hand, are commonly thought to have no interest in porn. The worst indicator of this is the "Porn for Women" book series. I give this entire line of books 2 thumbs down.
The idea that women are turned on sexually by images of men vacuuming, doing dishes, and changing diapers is a huge step affront to women everywhere. True, many women in long term relationships may like to see their partner doing those things, but that's not the point of porn. Porn is meant to be sexually arousing and unless you've got a fetish for it diaper duty is not it.
Women should be free to watch porn to their hearts content. Soft core, hard core, whatever their personal pleasure. Ladies, if men can do it, so can you.
Another area where this double standard is apparent is in porn. Men watching porn is almost a given and only the extreme conservatives make a fuss out of it. Women, on the other hand, are commonly thought to have no interest in porn. The worst indicator of this is the "Porn for Women" book series. I give this entire line of books 2 thumbs down.
The idea that women are turned on sexually by images of men vacuuming, doing dishes, and changing diapers is a huge step affront to women everywhere. True, many women in long term relationships may like to see their partner doing those things, but that's not the point of porn. Porn is meant to be sexually arousing and unless you've got a fetish for it diaper duty is not it.
Women should be free to watch porn to their hearts content. Soft core, hard core, whatever their personal pleasure. Ladies, if men can do it, so can you.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
It Doesn't Take Millions to End Homelessness
The header to this installment is the contents of a sign I saw yesterday in my city's dwindling occupy movement and only proved to me just how idiotic the movement has been. This is evidence of our society's failure to grasp Roosevelt's famous expression of giving "a hand up, not a hand out." Our society expects instant gratification, not understanding the cost attached to having their whims fulfilled.
The reality that has so obviously been ignored is that we live in a world of limited resources. If we presume to house each person in a studio apartment the rent will be approximately $500 a month (and that's on the low end compared to some cities) you are looking at $6000 a year to house just one person. And that is not taking into account the cost of utilities and food and clothing which are the necessities of life. In reality you're looking at an average closer to $1000 per month per person or $12,000 per year per person. Considering the number of people who are currently homeless in our nation the reality equates to millions of dollars a year, and then some.
That money is not just going to appear out of thin air, nor are the jobs to supply that money. And the economic movement necessary to supply people with jobs will never provide enough jobs to employ every individual. You also need to take into account that much of the homeless population struggles with drug and/or mental health issues that make it nearly impossible for them to hold jobs. All the social programs in the world cannot sustainably provide housing for every individual.
To make a large story short there is a lot more to solving the problem of homelessness than simply housing the homeless. The economy is a delicate system and we cannot allow our emotional ideals to veil the reality. The truth is that it doesn't take millions to end homelessness, it takes billions of dollars plus a vast array of other resources. Any economic issue is complicated and even our best intentions may result in the opposite effect (whether months or years down the line). The best thing our government can do to assist those in need without upsetting the balance is to give a reasonable hand up, not a handout.
The reality that has so obviously been ignored is that we live in a world of limited resources. If we presume to house each person in a studio apartment the rent will be approximately $500 a month (and that's on the low end compared to some cities) you are looking at $6000 a year to house just one person. And that is not taking into account the cost of utilities and food and clothing which are the necessities of life. In reality you're looking at an average closer to $1000 per month per person or $12,000 per year per person. Considering the number of people who are currently homeless in our nation the reality equates to millions of dollars a year, and then some.
That money is not just going to appear out of thin air, nor are the jobs to supply that money. And the economic movement necessary to supply people with jobs will never provide enough jobs to employ every individual. You also need to take into account that much of the homeless population struggles with drug and/or mental health issues that make it nearly impossible for them to hold jobs. All the social programs in the world cannot sustainably provide housing for every individual.
To make a large story short there is a lot more to solving the problem of homelessness than simply housing the homeless. The economy is a delicate system and we cannot allow our emotional ideals to veil the reality. The truth is that it doesn't take millions to end homelessness, it takes billions of dollars plus a vast array of other resources. Any economic issue is complicated and even our best intentions may result in the opposite effect (whether months or years down the line). The best thing our government can do to assist those in need without upsetting the balance is to give a reasonable hand up, not a handout.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Airplane Philosophy and Other Tidbits
Well, I'm returning from a much needed hiatus. I've got a new job so no more complaints about that. I also gave up on making my old insurance company pay up after going 5 rounds and almost 6 months with them (another reason for the job change).
Tonight's topic is on the lighter side. I'd like to discuss a personal philosophy that I have adhered to for many years and has served me well. It's something I've dubbed Airplane Philosophy and if you've ever flown on a plane you'll know what I mean very quickly. After boarding the flight attendants always go through the standard safety talk including what to do in the case of a loss of cabin pressure. The cheesy yellow masks get brought out for demonstration and everyone is told that they should always secure their own mask before assisting children or those around them. Can you see where I'm going with this?
People always seem to idealize the concept of selflessness but in reality that concept does more harm than good. If you don't take care of yourself you are in no position to take care of anyone else. Like on an airplane, if the cabin loses pressure and you help your child with their mask and in turn pass out from a lack of oxygen you've done no good at all. You've caused someone to have to save you because of your attempt to save someone else.
We all need a bit of selfishness in our lives, so don't feel guilty about taking care of your own needs first.
Tonight's topic is on the lighter side. I'd like to discuss a personal philosophy that I have adhered to for many years and has served me well. It's something I've dubbed Airplane Philosophy and if you've ever flown on a plane you'll know what I mean very quickly. After boarding the flight attendants always go through the standard safety talk including what to do in the case of a loss of cabin pressure. The cheesy yellow masks get brought out for demonstration and everyone is told that they should always secure their own mask before assisting children or those around them. Can you see where I'm going with this?
People always seem to idealize the concept of selflessness but in reality that concept does more harm than good. If you don't take care of yourself you are in no position to take care of anyone else. Like on an airplane, if the cabin loses pressure and you help your child with their mask and in turn pass out from a lack of oxygen you've done no good at all. You've caused someone to have to save you because of your attempt to save someone else.
We all need a bit of selfishness in our lives, so don't feel guilty about taking care of your own needs first.
Friday, May 11, 2012
People Should not be Afraid of their Government
Today I was wondering downtown and there was a man trying to get people to sign a petition to put up a ballot measure to legalize marijuana. I put my signature down, and gladly, though even if it gets on the ballot it won't pass, even if it does pass the courts will likely overturn it, but my signature is where it belongs.
My issue is, as the man was passing on, he approached a woman and asked her to sign the petition. She refused, but I heard her say what her reasoning was: she is a teacher and she is afraid she will lose her job.
I will start with the less offensive assumption that being in support of legalized pot is equivalent to smoking pot. Coming out in support of legalizing marijuana doesn't even mean the you agree with people smoking it. Supporting legalized marijuana only means that you don't believe the government should restrict marijuana use and/or sale.
The more offensive item is the idea that your political opinions can be used against you by the government or your employer, and especially a government employer. If they did use it against you it would be a clear violation of free speech and any judge worth their metal would not allow it and probably grant a large civil settlement as well. The problem I see here is that any citizen should fear that voicing their opinion would result in government retribution.
I know it's anecdotal, but if one person is thinking it I'm sure there are many others. In the words of V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of their people."
My issue is, as the man was passing on, he approached a woman and asked her to sign the petition. She refused, but I heard her say what her reasoning was: she is a teacher and she is afraid she will lose her job.
I will start with the less offensive assumption that being in support of legalized pot is equivalent to smoking pot. Coming out in support of legalizing marijuana doesn't even mean the you agree with people smoking it. Supporting legalized marijuana only means that you don't believe the government should restrict marijuana use and/or sale.
The more offensive item is the idea that your political opinions can be used against you by the government or your employer, and especially a government employer. If they did use it against you it would be a clear violation of free speech and any judge worth their metal would not allow it and probably grant a large civil settlement as well. The problem I see here is that any citizen should fear that voicing their opinion would result in government retribution.
I know it's anecdotal, but if one person is thinking it I'm sure there are many others. In the words of V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of their people."
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Playing on Sympathies
President Obama's announcement earlier this week that he supported legalizing gay marriage has caused quite a stir, as I'm sure his campaign intended it to. Though he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman" he is still coming our in support of gay marriage. Overall his speech is full of mixed messages.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Missionary Mayhem
Today I got a visit from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. Mormon) missionaries. It was a very sweet elderly couple who started off trying to flatter me into submission. I invited them in and we all got comfortable at the dining room table before I started in on them. I am fairly familiar with LDS (their term for themselves) doctrine so I brought the conversation around to my main issue with the church, their treatment of the LGBT community. We spent the next hour going around in circles about this. I'll paraphrase the arguments for the sake of brevity:
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)