There a lot of people that complain about things like Toms, or Product (Red), or other random percentage of the proceeds style of charities. People also like to moan about how "raising awareness" is a waste of time because it doesn't fix the problem. Because none of the things I've listed here fix the problem. But I still sometimes buy percentage of the proceeds items, and I'm here to tell you why, so there are 5 reasons to buy that pink strainer at target, or post an awareness "sticker" to your Facebook wall.
1) I need clothes. and many other things.
Things I wear regularly: jeans, tshirts, hoodies and (because for some reason I've become a grown up) sweaters. Non-regularly I wear fancy clothes. I use my phone daily, my computer, my car, dishes, etc. Often times I need new versions of these daily items because I have worn them out. If I am going to buy a t-shirt would I like to buy a tshirt that gives 100% of the net proceeds to the jet fuel for the CEO's private plane? Or would I like to buy a tshirt that, while giving 90% of the proceeds to the jet fuel, 10% (even if that's only $1) goes to someone that needs something? Of course with everything you should do your research, is the charity that is receiving that 10% a real charity doing real work that you really support? Is it a cause you can get behind? does 9% go to the charities CEO and 1% to the people or is the charity really doing good work with that money? If it passes all those tests, why not buy the shirt? I need a tshirt/strainer/phone case anyway.
2) Stuff looks cool.
I don't like the color pink. Its bright and cheery and bubbly, gross :-). But some people totally love the color pink. Sure that pink spatula at Target might only give .05cents to fighting breast cancer, and the purple toothbrush holder might only I've .10cents to fight domestic violence. But if you've been looking for a pink spatula, when better to get one than in October? Did you see those FeedUSA bags that Target sold a few months back? Or if you LOVE the color red, and you buy the red item, and it happens to give money to fighting AIDS, cool. The idea of NOT buying the thing you want because the attached charity doesn't give enough to the people in need is silly. .05cents is better than $0.00. (and yes all of the examples will be from Target because I only shop at Target and bookstores. Deal with it).
3)Really, some people don't know.
Human beings tend to stay inside their little bubbles. We hang out with like minded people, who share interests and hobbies. It is for that reason that "raising awareness" about bullying or domestic violence or AIDS or whatever else seems silly to most of the people in those groups. Why keep beating a dead horse? We don't need to tell people about it, we need to fix it. But that is incorrect. People don't know, a lot of people don't realize that 33% of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former partner, or that in the US each year there are more than 38,000 suicides. People don't know rape really happens, or violence is real. People live in bubbles, and they don't see it so it must not be happening. If we raise awareness and get people to understand these are real issues with real consequences for real people, they will fight harder to stop them. (or at least that's the hope, it doesn't always pan out that way).
4)bad economy killing shoes are better than no shoes. The big argument about buy one give one companies like Toms is that they are still using the same tired sweat shops and taking away from the countries ability to get their economy off the ground by letting them make and sell shoes and other items for themselves. Which is totally legit. But I don't see people clamoring to start a hand making company in Haiti. I see people clamoring for the latest, cutest Toms, and I see people not caring about sweatshops. I would rather people have shoes made in sweatshops than no shoes. Buy one give one is the lazy mans charity, but hey it's still giving people shoes. Also, back to point #1, you need shoes and point #2 they are comfy and cute/cool looking. If you have a problem with the way buy one give one works, start your own charity. Too lazy to start a non-profit? Then go buy some Toms.
5)Americans are selfish and lazy. Stop being offended, we are totally selfish and lazy. People are WAY more likely to give to charity when they get stuff in return. The "what's in it for me" disease is rampant in America. Not only that but we don't want to hear about all the bad things happening in the world. People get legitimetly upset when you tell them that young (8-15 year old) girls and boys are bought and sold for sex and slavery, or that children in Africa really have no clean water. We change the channel when those commercials come on with the sad hungry children, or Sarah Mclachlan's one eyed cats. And what better way to get people to help other people than to make them think they are really just buying a status symbol? Now you can tell all your friends that this shirt is one you bought because you wanted to save the children, but you never had to see the faces of the children. Win-Win (sort of). You are not really going to write a check to the charity for the full price of the thing when you get home, stop lying to yourself and others.
Bottom line, you don't have to SEEK OUT companies that give to charity when you buy stuff but at least don't boycott the companies that are at trying to give some money. Maybe they are doing it for publicity or marketing, maybe they are still making huge profits, but at least it's a number higher than zero.
31.10.13
28.9.13
Some thoughts on Obamacare
One of the main differences between somebody that gets labeled "liberal" and somebody that gets labeled "conservative" is their willingness to take risks and try new things. A person who is more conservative is more likely to calculate the risk as well as the outcome before trying something new. A person who is more liberal will generally call it a new experience and be open to taking more risk. That is why we tend to view conservatives as sticklers and rule followers while we view liberals as willy nilly and not thoughtful.
And so we have Obamacare. Here's the thing about healthcare in America, right now it doesn't work. The system we have does not work, it does not insure everyone, a lot of poor people don't have access to healthcare, a lot of women don't have normal preventive care services covered, a lot of people with pre-existing conditions can not be insured. These things are not ok, and these are the things that need to change.
Obamacare is not perfect. Nothing is really ever perfect. But Obamacare is something new. It is different from how we have been doing things for a long time. It is a risk. It is possible that it won't work. But anytime anything is implemented it is possible that it won't work. It is also possible that it will be great.
If I ever were to meet somebody who had at some point in their lives genuinely wondered how or if they would ever be insured again. Someone who has a pre-existing condition. Who doesn't have healthcare provided to them by work. Who doesn't have them money to pay for private healthcare as it is now. That is against Obamacare, I would begin to dig more deeply into why and things would need to be different.
As it stands right now, the only people I have heard being so outraged by this new law, are middle to upper class white people with insurance. And for those people, I suppose it sucks because now that the playing field will be level you will have to pay your share in taxes. But besides taxes being raised, I can't seem to find a way that allowing other people to be insured hurts these people that are complaining. In fact, much like some of the other hot button arguments, I haven't heard one single REAL argument against Obamacare. I have heard that poor people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as if they are just sitting around being happy about being poor. I have heard that women and people with pre-existing conditions SHOULD be discriminated against, because it's not discrimination, their care costs more so they should pay more. (except some companies WON'T insure these people not even for higher premiums).
Obamacare is a little bit socialist in that it asks people to make sacrifices for other people. Small not actually noticeable sacrifices. And it is a risk. A huge risk. Changing the face of healthcare in America is a huge risk, it could backfire, everyone could be uninsured, the country could catch fire, women might start thinking they deserve reasonably priced healthcare, poor people might start thinking they are entitled to not die of diseases while living in the richest country in the world. These are risks I'm willing to take if it means a more insured America.
And so we have Obamacare. Here's the thing about healthcare in America, right now it doesn't work. The system we have does not work, it does not insure everyone, a lot of poor people don't have access to healthcare, a lot of women don't have normal preventive care services covered, a lot of people with pre-existing conditions can not be insured. These things are not ok, and these are the things that need to change.
Obamacare is not perfect. Nothing is really ever perfect. But Obamacare is something new. It is different from how we have been doing things for a long time. It is a risk. It is possible that it won't work. But anytime anything is implemented it is possible that it won't work. It is also possible that it will be great.
If I ever were to meet somebody who had at some point in their lives genuinely wondered how or if they would ever be insured again. Someone who has a pre-existing condition. Who doesn't have healthcare provided to them by work. Who doesn't have them money to pay for private healthcare as it is now. That is against Obamacare, I would begin to dig more deeply into why and things would need to be different.
As it stands right now, the only people I have heard being so outraged by this new law, are middle to upper class white people with insurance. And for those people, I suppose it sucks because now that the playing field will be level you will have to pay your share in taxes. But besides taxes being raised, I can't seem to find a way that allowing other people to be insured hurts these people that are complaining. In fact, much like some of the other hot button arguments, I haven't heard one single REAL argument against Obamacare. I have heard that poor people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as if they are just sitting around being happy about being poor. I have heard that women and people with pre-existing conditions SHOULD be discriminated against, because it's not discrimination, their care costs more so they should pay more. (except some companies WON'T insure these people not even for higher premiums).
Obamacare is a little bit socialist in that it asks people to make sacrifices for other people. Small not actually noticeable sacrifices. And it is a risk. A huge risk. Changing the face of healthcare in America is a huge risk, it could backfire, everyone could be uninsured, the country could catch fire, women might start thinking they deserve reasonably priced healthcare, poor people might start thinking they are entitled to not die of diseases while living in the richest country in the world. These are risks I'm willing to take if it means a more insured America.
26.7.13
Trayvon and the legal system.
I know I'm late to the party, Zimmerman wise, but that's because there wasn't much to say that hasn't already been said. I thought about just not saying anything, but nowhere have I read what really needs to be said.
I made a joke to my dad yesterday, that as sad as it is when someone dies, no matter what they are always remembered as the person that loved everyone and everyone loved them and they had no enemies and no drama in their lives. It's good to remember those things about our loved ones, because why dwell on the mistakes they made when they were alive. I don't fault anyone for saying those things about people they love, but sometimes we do need to remember that people aren't perfect. Including Trayvon Martin.
For good reasons Trayvon is being remembered by his family as a wonderful son and friend. I am sure that he was those things. But he was also 17 years old. Race aside, even gender aside, when have you met a 17 year old that didn't make mistakes? Trayvon was suspended from school multiple times, he smoked marijuana, he was never convicted of theft but there was solid evidence he had committed theft. Trayvon was troubled, he was living in Florida because he was suspended from school. There is a chance he was casing the homes in order to break in, an equal chance he was not. But he was not a perfect young man. He had his struggles. Struggles that can be argued he was predisposed to because of our cultures innate ability to put young black men "in their place" and make them criminals even when they are not. Trayvon, sadly, was going down the path our society told him was the only one he deserved.
This country is racist. We have racism so deep in our veins that even when we try not to be racist we are still. Being anything other than a white man means you will have to fight for the things you want. Which sucks. And I will be the first person to stand up and say that our society sucks when it comes to race relations.
George Zimmerman is not society. He is one man. One man who was not on neighborhood watch duty that night, whose house had been broken into, and whose neighbors homes had been broken into. The suspect was a black teenage boy. He had reason, beyond race, to be suspicious of Trayvon. As a matter of fact, when I'm driving in my neighborhood at night I'm pretty suspicious of mostly everybody out late at night. So are you. And most of us, because of our upbringing will more quickly be suspicious of the black teenager than the white one, even if that is a stupid way to feel. In order to truly fight racism, we have to acknowledge our own faults, we are all kind of racist. Its not ok to be racist, and you should ask yourself why you judge black teenagers (and young men) quicker than white ones, this way you can become less racist. But Zimmerman had lots of reasons to be suspicious of Trayvon.
Law says that unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty, they are innocent. There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in the form of confession, that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. And there is proof that they got into a fight. And there is proof that Trayvon had a habit of picking fights.
My point is this case is a lot less about race than it is about gun laws. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman didn't fear for his life during his altercation with Trayvon. Which means the jury was right, legally speaking, to come back with a "not guilty" verdict.
But even if Trayvon Martin picked fights, and broke into homes, and was on drugs, none of those things are worthy of being put to death. Trayvon didn't deserve the death penalty for being seventeen. And he wouldn't have gotten it had George Zimmerman not had a gun that night. Zimmerman would have found a way to over power Trayvon Martin. Without a gun, George Zimmerman might have been less inclined to follow Trayvon Martin. Without a gun Trayvon wouldn't have allegedly said "you're going to die tonight" since he allegedly said it after seeing the gun.
There was absolutely no reason what so ever for George Zimmerman to carry a gun when he was running out to the grocery store. What did he think might happen at the grocery store? Or was he carrying a gun because his gated community was so dangerous. Sure, it had experienced a few break ins recently, but nothing that was cause for a gun.
When you aren't carrying a gun you are much more likely to find other ways to save your life that are not killing the person who seems suspicious. I don't carry a gun, and I have never been killed nor have a ever killed anyone. When in doubt I have found safety and called 911. We don't just need to enforce the laws that allowed George Zimmerman to carry a gun that night and shoot Trayvon Martin, we need to create laws that protect people like Trayvon Martin. That keep guns where they belong, which is at shooting ranges, and hunting (ranges? areas? what is a hunting spot called?). Our white, gated, rich communities are not so dangerous that you need to carry a gun.
So yes, the jury was legally correct to find George Zimmerman "not guilty" because the law was not on Trayvon Martins side.
30.4.13
Stealing Jason's Thunder.
So this mediocre basketball player dude came out yesterday. Jason Collins, I'd never heard of him and neither have lots of other people. Probably only basketball fans who are really into knowing all the players and stats knew who he was. He has played for a bunch of teams and is now a free-agent. Maybe he will get a team, maybe he won't, I doubt it will be about who he dates, he seems like an inconsistent player, but like I said, I don't know much about him. Except that he's gay.
It seemed like a big deal at first, but something just kept nagging at me about the whole thing. All these great headlines about moving forward were floating around every news source available, but it didn't feel like a step forward. And then I realized why, because it's only a small step forward. It's some dude taking credit for being the first at something that so many women before him had done. It is a way for our society to continue the thinking that being a man = being good at sports and women, therefore a man who likes men is less of a man. (Also a man who is bad at sports is less of a man).
On the other hand, a woman who is good at sports and women...well she is basically one of the guys, so she gets instant respect. There are so many things messed up about that thinking. Why does "being a man" equal respect and not being one is a failure somehow? Why is manhood defined by such ridiculous markers as scores, in dating and sports.
This thinking is why we assume men who do things like figure skating, ballroom dancing, or yoga are gay. Because those are womanly sports, if you're not man enough to play a real sport like football, you're not man enough to date women. It's basic failed logic.
This type of logic tells us that women are less than men. They are not as good. When a football coach calls his players ladies, he is insulting them. We tell people not to throw like a girl, to man up and shake off that pain. And when we tell girls to be ladies, we mean put on a dress, cross your legs, and stop talking. Just giggle and agree with that man that escorted you here. These are all super gross concepts and even people that say they are not feminists will agree that it is absolutey absurd that we teach girls that being a woman means sitting down and shutting up. But people don't feel the same way about what we teach boys that being a man means.
They way we raise boys to be men is not by teaching them to respect the people around them, not by teaching them that real men have good sportsmanship. We don't teach boys that to be a man doesn't mean you have to be good at football, and if you like to do ballet that doesn't make you any less of a man. We don't tell boys that they don't have to fight. We teach boys that real men fight for what they want, women, pride, whatever, it's all worth a little blood. But wait, winning that woman is worth a little blood? No wonder men think they can beat women into dating them, they are taught to fight for what they want, not to respect another persons personhood.
And so we have today's sports culture. A place where real men make it into the NBA, so they can't be gay. And if masculinity = being good at sports and liking women, then any woman that makes it into the WNBA is obviously gay. Which means that when a woman who is gay comes out in a professional sport, its not courageous, its not a step forward, it's simply confirming what we already knew. But when a man does it, well that's courageous and barrier-breaking and proves that who you date has nothing to do with your sports talent.
We all know that sports is one big double standard having, rape apologizing, misogynistic place. But the actual sports part of the sports culture is great and I would appreciate if I could enjoy sports without having to feel guilty about perpetuating everything I hate about this society.
I would also really appreciate it if CNN and all the other news sources could stop saying, "first person to come out as gay in pro sports." Jason Collins did something great, but his headline has a lot of specifiers. Here is his real headline: "Jason Collins comes out as gay, making him the first active male American athlete in one of the four major sports to come out as gay." Sorry it takes a long time to say but lets not forget about all the people before Jason Collins that made this path easier for him:
Billie Jean King....Pro Tennis player: gay
Megan Rapino...Pro Soccer player: gay
Chaminque Holdsclaw...WNBA: gay.
Lauren Lappin...Olympic Softball (because we don't have pro women's base/softball): gay
Sarah Vaillincourt...Olympic Hockey (^ same problem): gay
Jamie Kuntz...Kicked of his college football team for being: gay
Stephen Bickford...Pro Soccer: gay
Wade Davis...NFL, came out after he retired: gay
Jason Somerville...Poker (which is not a sport and should not be on this list, but it is lol): gay
Luke Huff...Motorcycle Racing: gay
This could go on forever so I'll stop, but you get the point. What Jason Collins did was amazing and great and a step forward, but not the first step. I mean, guys, Billie Jean King. What if Neil Patrick Harris had taken credit for being the first comedic actor to come out, when Ellen really took that leap? So if you're wondering if sports still disregards women as actual people: yes, yes it does. Let's work on stoping that.
It seemed like a big deal at first, but something just kept nagging at me about the whole thing. All these great headlines about moving forward were floating around every news source available, but it didn't feel like a step forward. And then I realized why, because it's only a small step forward. It's some dude taking credit for being the first at something that so many women before him had done. It is a way for our society to continue the thinking that being a man = being good at sports and women, therefore a man who likes men is less of a man. (Also a man who is bad at sports is less of a man).
On the other hand, a woman who is good at sports and women...well she is basically one of the guys, so she gets instant respect. There are so many things messed up about that thinking. Why does "being a man" equal respect and not being one is a failure somehow? Why is manhood defined by such ridiculous markers as scores, in dating and sports.
This thinking is why we assume men who do things like figure skating, ballroom dancing, or yoga are gay. Because those are womanly sports, if you're not man enough to play a real sport like football, you're not man enough to date women. It's basic failed logic.
This type of logic tells us that women are less than men. They are not as good. When a football coach calls his players ladies, he is insulting them. We tell people not to throw like a girl, to man up and shake off that pain. And when we tell girls to be ladies, we mean put on a dress, cross your legs, and stop talking. Just giggle and agree with that man that escorted you here. These are all super gross concepts and even people that say they are not feminists will agree that it is absolutey absurd that we teach girls that being a woman means sitting down and shutting up. But people don't feel the same way about what we teach boys that being a man means.
They way we raise boys to be men is not by teaching them to respect the people around them, not by teaching them that real men have good sportsmanship. We don't teach boys that to be a man doesn't mean you have to be good at football, and if you like to do ballet that doesn't make you any less of a man. We don't tell boys that they don't have to fight. We teach boys that real men fight for what they want, women, pride, whatever, it's all worth a little blood. But wait, winning that woman is worth a little blood? No wonder men think they can beat women into dating them, they are taught to fight for what they want, not to respect another persons personhood.
And so we have today's sports culture. A place where real men make it into the NBA, so they can't be gay. And if masculinity = being good at sports and liking women, then any woman that makes it into the WNBA is obviously gay. Which means that when a woman who is gay comes out in a professional sport, its not courageous, its not a step forward, it's simply confirming what we already knew. But when a man does it, well that's courageous and barrier-breaking and proves that who you date has nothing to do with your sports talent.
We all know that sports is one big double standard having, rape apologizing, misogynistic place. But the actual sports part of the sports culture is great and I would appreciate if I could enjoy sports without having to feel guilty about perpetuating everything I hate about this society.
I would also really appreciate it if CNN and all the other news sources could stop saying, "first person to come out as gay in pro sports." Jason Collins did something great, but his headline has a lot of specifiers. Here is his real headline: "Jason Collins comes out as gay, making him the first active male American athlete in one of the four major sports to come out as gay." Sorry it takes a long time to say but lets not forget about all the people before Jason Collins that made this path easier for him:
Billie Jean King....Pro Tennis player: gay
Megan Rapino...Pro Soccer player: gay
Chaminque Holdsclaw...WNBA: gay.
Lauren Lappin...Olympic Softball (because we don't have pro women's base/softball): gay
Sarah Vaillincourt...Olympic Hockey (^ same problem): gay
Jamie Kuntz...Kicked of his college football team for being: gay
Stephen Bickford...Pro Soccer: gay
Wade Davis...NFL, came out after he retired: gay
Jason Somerville...Poker (which is not a sport and should not be on this list, but it is lol): gay
Luke Huff...Motorcycle Racing: gay
This could go on forever so I'll stop, but you get the point. What Jason Collins did was amazing and great and a step forward, but not the first step. I mean, guys, Billie Jean King. What if Neil Patrick Harris had taken credit for being the first comedic actor to come out, when Ellen really took that leap? So if you're wondering if sports still disregards women as actual people: yes, yes it does. Let's work on stoping that.
20.4.13
Some thoughts about Boston
A lot has been going around the internet about the events that unfolded at and after the Boston Marathon. Much like the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine and 9/11, this bombing will change how we think and act forever. We will each remember how and when we learned of the events and will take extra precautions around crowds. This will be the catalyst for a change in our thinking as a society, however subtle the change, we will change.
TERROR
Our idea of what terrorism looks like will forever be different. Before when the word terrorism was thrown around we thought of muslim extremists blowing up cars and planes; suicide bombers on missions from the middle east. Now, we can fully grasp what it feels like when it comes from inside. This is something that other countries deal with every single day, and we can now have some small idea of what that feels like.
Terrorists are not just Muslim men, and they can not always be easily detected before an attack. However tragic this event was, we can be sure the FBI, DOJ and homeland security teams have all learned a lot about what it means to track a potential terrorist, what new red flags and protocols can be put in place. This guy and his brother were both interviewed and tracked before the attack, back in 2011 but lived such normal lives the FBI saw no reason to be especially worried about what they might do.
It's important to not assume the FBI failed, or was in some kind of conspiracy. I'm not saying they are perfect, or that they don't make mistakes, I'm saying they can't tell the future, they don't have a crystal ball. If they interviewed these guys and found just two normal young men, no web posts, journal entries or anything like that to cause them to suspect terrorist activity, they would have no reason to arrest or follow these men closely. Just as if they tried to track me for terrorism, they would learn quickly I'm not a likely terrorist and move on, rather than spend resources tracking someone who has been checked out. Sometimes people will surprise you, in good ways and in bad ways, and do things nobody would ever suspect they do. It certainly tracks with what his friends and family are saying, that he was a nice kid with no serious red flags.
BOMBS AND GUNS
With the senate vote on background checks happening right in the middle of all the commotion, I realized that there are no gun control measures we can put in place that would have prevented this from happening. The devices were crude, and with enough time anybody can buy the stuff to make a bomb like that without setting off any red flags. The things that could have been done to prevent this are only things we think to do in hindsight. In the moment, in reality, checking every abandoned backpack at a marathon is not really a reasonable thing to do, unless you know what is about to happen. The officials there to keep everyone safe were more focused on typical marathon safety: making sure everyone stayed hydrated, being close in case someone didn't make it, or it got too hot, those types of things. Not so much keeping an eye out for bombs.
Whenever there is loss of life it is sad, and it should be prevented. But when you think about the number of lives lost in Boston vs the number of lives lost every single day by gun violence, or the number of lives lost in any of the school shooting that have occurred in the last 15 years, it's more proof that we need to put some laws in place to keep guns out of the hands of people that are using them to hurt other people. If this means making it hard for good people to get guns, I'm OK with that because the 2nd amendment gives you the right to have a gun, not the right to do it without regulation.
RIGHTS
I absolutely 100% think this guy needs to face the justice system. We need to find out why he did it, if there are others ready to carry out similar attacks or if he and his brother were alone. We need to know what happened if this kid was no nice and sweet, to make him do something so terrible. Was he the follower while his brother was the initiator? Is there an international group we need to know about? All these questions need to be answered, and the faster the better.
This does not mean we get to take away the rights of an American citizen. The Justice Department has decided they don't need to read this guy his Miranda Rights, invoking the "public safety exception" which is used when police and others need to protect the public from immediate danger. I get that we want information fast, and we want the truth, but that doesn't mean we get to take away somebody's rights. The thing about rights is that just because you don't tell somebody they have them, doesn't make them go away. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you get to take away their rights (a concept seemingly lost on America right now).
Yes this guy is more than just some punk kid we don't like. Yes it is easier to think that he acted with an international terrorist group that to think that an American could do something like this. (And yes he was a real American, being an immigrant does not make you less of a citizen). But he has rights, and we have a justice system with rules for a reason. You can't just go around trying to take away rights because he committed a crime. That's not how our justice system is set up, and there is a reason for that. I just hope this kid payed enough attention to know his rights, but that doesn't make me any less hopeful he gives us some insight.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
"We need to do something about not letting potential terrorists become citizens." I think the only positive thing that comes from that type of thinking is realizing immigrant is not just someone from Mexico. But I think we need to be careful not to make the word immigrant a bad or derogatory word. We were all once immigrants, remember how the Europeans came over and committed mass genocide to give us this country? I don't know for sure, but I would bet that "potential terrorist" is already an immediate disqualification for citizenship. And if it isn't I'm down with making it one. But people who are NOT potential terrorists shouldn't be made into bad people just because they come from a country that might have some bad people in it. If that were the case Americans couldn't be citizens.
If we want to talk about immigration it has to start from a place of compassion. We have to realize that so many of the people we want to send back to their country are not here to be drug lords or terrorists or whatever other sort of criminal, they are here to have jobs and provide for their children.
I know what this guy did was bad, and he was an immigrant but we have got to stop doing that thing were we make a whole group into something that only one member of that group is. Not all muslims are terrorists, not all immigrants are criminals, not all black people are thugs, not all italians are in the mob, not all white people commit tax fraud, not all christians are hateful, not all football players are rapists. Judging good people based on what one person with a similar characteristic did is pretty ridiculous, and it has to stop, like yesterday.
I hope this guy tells us everything, and I hope we don't end up going to war with Chechnya (where he never lived).
TERROR
Our idea of what terrorism looks like will forever be different. Before when the word terrorism was thrown around we thought of muslim extremists blowing up cars and planes; suicide bombers on missions from the middle east. Now, we can fully grasp what it feels like when it comes from inside. This is something that other countries deal with every single day, and we can now have some small idea of what that feels like.
Terrorists are not just Muslim men, and they can not always be easily detected before an attack. However tragic this event was, we can be sure the FBI, DOJ and homeland security teams have all learned a lot about what it means to track a potential terrorist, what new red flags and protocols can be put in place. This guy and his brother were both interviewed and tracked before the attack, back in 2011 but lived such normal lives the FBI saw no reason to be especially worried about what they might do.
It's important to not assume the FBI failed, or was in some kind of conspiracy. I'm not saying they are perfect, or that they don't make mistakes, I'm saying they can't tell the future, they don't have a crystal ball. If they interviewed these guys and found just two normal young men, no web posts, journal entries or anything like that to cause them to suspect terrorist activity, they would have no reason to arrest or follow these men closely. Just as if they tried to track me for terrorism, they would learn quickly I'm not a likely terrorist and move on, rather than spend resources tracking someone who has been checked out. Sometimes people will surprise you, in good ways and in bad ways, and do things nobody would ever suspect they do. It certainly tracks with what his friends and family are saying, that he was a nice kid with no serious red flags.
BOMBS AND GUNS
With the senate vote on background checks happening right in the middle of all the commotion, I realized that there are no gun control measures we can put in place that would have prevented this from happening. The devices were crude, and with enough time anybody can buy the stuff to make a bomb like that without setting off any red flags. The things that could have been done to prevent this are only things we think to do in hindsight. In the moment, in reality, checking every abandoned backpack at a marathon is not really a reasonable thing to do, unless you know what is about to happen. The officials there to keep everyone safe were more focused on typical marathon safety: making sure everyone stayed hydrated, being close in case someone didn't make it, or it got too hot, those types of things. Not so much keeping an eye out for bombs.
Whenever there is loss of life it is sad, and it should be prevented. But when you think about the number of lives lost in Boston vs the number of lives lost every single day by gun violence, or the number of lives lost in any of the school shooting that have occurred in the last 15 years, it's more proof that we need to put some laws in place to keep guns out of the hands of people that are using them to hurt other people. If this means making it hard for good people to get guns, I'm OK with that because the 2nd amendment gives you the right to have a gun, not the right to do it without regulation.
RIGHTS
I absolutely 100% think this guy needs to face the justice system. We need to find out why he did it, if there are others ready to carry out similar attacks or if he and his brother were alone. We need to know what happened if this kid was no nice and sweet, to make him do something so terrible. Was he the follower while his brother was the initiator? Is there an international group we need to know about? All these questions need to be answered, and the faster the better.
This does not mean we get to take away the rights of an American citizen. The Justice Department has decided they don't need to read this guy his Miranda Rights, invoking the "public safety exception" which is used when police and others need to protect the public from immediate danger. I get that we want information fast, and we want the truth, but that doesn't mean we get to take away somebody's rights. The thing about rights is that just because you don't tell somebody they have them, doesn't make them go away. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you get to take away their rights (a concept seemingly lost on America right now).
Yes this guy is more than just some punk kid we don't like. Yes it is easier to think that he acted with an international terrorist group that to think that an American could do something like this. (And yes he was a real American, being an immigrant does not make you less of a citizen). But he has rights, and we have a justice system with rules for a reason. You can't just go around trying to take away rights because he committed a crime. That's not how our justice system is set up, and there is a reason for that. I just hope this kid payed enough attention to know his rights, but that doesn't make me any less hopeful he gives us some insight.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
"We need to do something about not letting potential terrorists become citizens." I think the only positive thing that comes from that type of thinking is realizing immigrant is not just someone from Mexico. But I think we need to be careful not to make the word immigrant a bad or derogatory word. We were all once immigrants, remember how the Europeans came over and committed mass genocide to give us this country? I don't know for sure, but I would bet that "potential terrorist" is already an immediate disqualification for citizenship. And if it isn't I'm down with making it one. But people who are NOT potential terrorists shouldn't be made into bad people just because they come from a country that might have some bad people in it. If that were the case Americans couldn't be citizens.
If we want to talk about immigration it has to start from a place of compassion. We have to realize that so many of the people we want to send back to their country are not here to be drug lords or terrorists or whatever other sort of criminal, they are here to have jobs and provide for their children.
I know what this guy did was bad, and he was an immigrant but we have got to stop doing that thing were we make a whole group into something that only one member of that group is. Not all muslims are terrorists, not all immigrants are criminals, not all black people are thugs, not all italians are in the mob, not all white people commit tax fraud, not all christians are hateful, not all football players are rapists. Judging good people based on what one person with a similar characteristic did is pretty ridiculous, and it has to stop, like yesterday.
I hope this guy tells us everything, and I hope we don't end up going to war with Chechnya (where he never lived).
18.4.13
Hate society, not the victims of it.
Beauty product companies are flawed from the start. They prey on people who are afraid of how they look, promising with one swipe of a product they will be instantly transformed into something else. They create two products with the same ingredients (I’m not joking go read some bottles), make one blue, one pink and label them as strong vs beautiful and market them to men and women. I use 2-1 mens shampoo because it keeps my scalp from getting dandruff, sorry the bottle isn’t pink (no actually I’m not sorry) but it does the job. I don’t use weird cover ups that will make my skin itchy to cover the one crazy pimple I have on my face, even though I hate it and want it to go away immediately. I don’t like the idea that hygiene products and beauty products are grouped together. I don’t like that face lotion and body lotion are in separate aisles (which is less a commentary on society and more on how much shopping sucks).
Other people wear make-up. They use dark circles correctors and age-deifiers. I use the products I use because I feel better and more confident that way (you know...not having dandruff confident). Other people use the stuff they use because it makes them feel more confident and happy. Who am I to say that someone shouldn’t wear make-up? It’s not my decision. They get to look how they want to look and that’s their deal. But we all do these little things because we want to look good and feel good. People lose weight less for health reasons and more because they think they will look better skinny. We care a lot in this society about what other people think. Too much, I would say. But I am guilty, as is everyone, of caring more about what random strangers think sometimes than what I think.
And so when I watched the Dove Real Beauty commercial that is going around the webs, I felt good. Good because maybe my various flaws aren’t perceptible or important to the outside world. Good because maybe I should stop being so hard on myself and accept that I’m obviously way cuter than everyone else :-). Good because maybe the people I care about who hate themselves for how they look will realize that it’s not important to eliminate every single so-called flaw. As beauty product commercials go, this one was pretty solid.
Here watch it for yourself:
Enter the progressives who are just so much better and more liberal than, like, everyone else. They made some really good, really solid points: like, why are crows feet considered a flaw? Why is “round-face” a flaw while “long, thin face” a positive descriptor? Those are very very valid. But that is much more a society problem, and less a Dove problem. Dove is a corporation, they are not worried about making people feel good or beautiful, they are worried about making money, and being talked about...and they succeeded. Their message was, “hey buy our stuff so you too can have a thin face.” Not cool, but what did any of us really expect from a corporation? Outward beauty is Dove’s entire purpose for existing. If they don’t convince us that it’s outward beauty that matters, they have failed because they are a company that wants to make money.
But let’s talk about outward beauty, you know the thing you keep saying is a waste of time. Most (not all, but most) of the women who posted an issue with the Dove thing outwardly meet societies standards of beauty. White, cis-gendered, young, light hair, light eyes, and thin. And here you are telling the rest of the world not to care about outward beauty because it doesn’t matter. But it does. Looking good means being more confident. And I hate it as much as you do, but looking good helps with success. A resume can prove if you’re qualified, an interview proves if you look the part, can make the boss laugh, and aren’t lying on your resume. To say otherwise is to be lying, and first step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have a problem. Problem: beauty effects every single aspect of your life, personal, professional, and relationship.
Dove didn’t set out to solve that problem, and I don’t fault them for that, we can’t solve every problem in one 3-minute spot. It doesn’t work like that. We have to chip away at the problem piece by piece. Step one: help people realize they are not as ugly as they think. Help people be confident in how they look.
Dove set out to simply make people realize those crazy flaws aren’t really noticeable, thats a good, solid step in the right direction. Attacking Dove will not help us get to step two: helping people realize those “flaws” aren’t really flaws, they are life markers, proof that you have lived. And incorporating men into the fold, because men are more then just rough skin from all the hard labor in their lives. We will get there someday, to the point where outward beauty isn’t so important, but we can’t get from airbrushed models to perfection in one step. It takes time, it takes patience, and it takes appreciating those that make even the smallest forward steps.
Dove is not perfect, I still won’t buy their stuff because I hate the overly-gendered marketing. But I will appreciate what they have done, because it made lots and lots of women feel better about themselves, and that is a good thing in my book.
Here watch it for yourself:
28.3.13
Discussing the inevitable.
People are angry. It makes sense because people get angry when things get serious. When something challenges the core of someones belief system, people get angry. The problem is, anger isn't the solution to people having huge differences between their belief systems. Anger is a feeling that is ok to have, but the actions should always be compassionate. Not just labeled compassionate but still anger and hate, actual real compassion.
People are frustrated because Facebook turned red and they couldn't do anything to stop it. Because it seems inevitable at this point that DOMA will fall and that marriage equality will be legal and that people will be free to love whomever the choose. And this freaks people out. A lot. Like, way more than it should, in my opinion. "all I want," they say, "is an open, loving dialogue about the issue so we can at least understand where we are coming from." I don't know if that's true, or if people who support "traditional" marriage just want to talk more so that people might change their minds. But, I'll give it a chance. So here it is, some thoughts from the other side, proving both that I totally get where you're coming from, and that conversation is possible, if you're willing to open you're mind to the other side also.
Religious liberty.
I keep hearing all about how the crazy liberals are trampling all over religious liberty. When we let people decide if they want to take birth control or not, when we let people decide what religion they want to be a part of, when we let people decide who they want to spend the rest of their lives with, it all seems to trample all over religious liberty. Religious liberty does not mean that one religion controls all the people. It means that people are free to practice or not practice any religion or no religion.
That being said, churches are protected by the state. They are protected from being forced to do things that go against their beliefs. Masques are not forced to have pig roasts, Temples are not forced to get rid of their kosher kitchens, Churches are not forced to take field trips to strip clubs. In much the same way, no church will be forced to marry anybody that they see as un-fit to marry, including same-sex couples. But more than just same-sex couples, any clergy person or church can deny anybody the right to marry within their church. Churches do it all the time, if you have been divorced but not annulled lots of Catholic churches will not let you marry until you get an annulment. Churches are also not forced to recognize divorce as a thing, since divorce is a sin in many religions, churches are free to teach their congregation that you can not get a divorce. But divorce still remains legal, because other people who are not of that religion can get a divorce. (where are all the protests and attempts to make divorce illegal?). A clergy person that tells you that if gay marriage is legal, he or she will soon be forced to marry gays or be subject to legal action is either uneducated or lying.
But some places totally are subject to legal action for discriminating against the gays! Yes, yes they are. Those places are not churches. Those places are publicly funded places like schools. And yes, sometimes private companies, but that is a legal gray area. Churches are not a legal gray area from this, churches are free to practice their religion as they see fit. Your church will be free to deny marriages to anybody, people who just aren't ready, people who are black, people who are too young, people who are gay, etc. Heck your religion could make a rule saying straight people can't get married there, and that would be totally within your legal protections.
Sure, it's scary to not be able to control other people. Especially when you think those people are going to die a fiery death. But Jesus didn't do very much controlling. Besides, if your religion really is The Truth, don't you think people will find their way there eventually? And more so if they are not being forced?
So yes, if by religious liberty you mean that your religion will not be allowed to control other people then you are 100% right, your religious liberty is being trampled on. But if by religious liberty you mean everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they choose, then no, not so much. And one other thought, be careful with the idea that we can invalidate a religion, because once the state has control over what OTHER religions can do...that's when they will start being able to control what your religion can do.
Is it a sin?
There are two very different debates happening over this issue. One is whether or not is is legal for gay people to get married, or rather is it unconstitutional to forbid them to marry (we will get to that later), and the other is whether or not being gay is a sin. The question of whether or not being gay is a sin is directly related to whether or not gay people get married in your church, but not so related to the legal question of marriage equality.
There a million arguments on why being gay, or at least being in a gay relationship, is a sin. All of these arguments seem to boil down to two basic concepts: pro-creation and gender roles. And you have probably heard all the opposing arguments against it which are basically that gender is pretty much made up and the world is over crowded and love can't really be controlled by those rules. This can be argued all day and all night. You don't have to change your opinion on the matter, just as long as you don't impose that opinion on anybody else. It's also a pretty interesting conversation to have, assuming everyone goes into it with an open mind. But none of that has anything to do with the legal question of marriage equality. Because as was pointed out above, one religion's sins can not dictate another person's life.
And no, by legalizing gay marriage liberals are not imposing their views on you, because you are free to continue in your life as it was before.
This discussion is for another blog at another time.
Slippery Slope.
But if we let the gays get married then who knows what else will be legal! Proven simply by the fact that when they de-criminalized sodomy in Texas a dissenting justice said it will soon lead to the legalization of gay marriage...and here we are. The idea of legalizing gay marriage is about letting two consenting adults marry, because they are adults and they are able to make their own choices. Some things that can't make their own choices are: kitchen appliances, animals, inanimate objects that are not people. To argue that gay marriage will lead to the marriage of anyone to anything is just silly. Besides, if we let people marry toasters, soon we will let toasters marry each other and then..seriously, what will this country have come to.
The slippery slope toward polygamy is a little more reasonable. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't say if polygamy will go back to being the norm for marriage as it was in the Bible, but this doesn't much have to do with gay people. Who knows, if the FLDS church starts a huge civil rights movement and becomes some kind of force in America that out battles the 99% of everyone else who don't want polygamous marriages, then maybe. But lets just go ahead and cross that bridge when we get there, and acknowledge that polygamy is probably not going to be legal for a while. (currently polygamy is a CRIME, and something being illegal is very different from something not being legal).
But none of that is the real fear. So I'm going to go ahead and address the real fear: if those stinkin' libs get this gay marriage thing, they won't stop there, they will just keep fighting for other weird stuff. Yes, yes that's true. You really want people to just say, "hey thanks for making things equal here on this marriage deal, we will just go ahead and ignore all the other inequalities of the world now"? Nope. More than polygamy you should be worried that if this gay marriage thing happens those stinkin' libs will turn their attention to things like trans-rights, women's rights, or animal rights. (get to know a one of them and you will find this to be true). So if you want to have the slippery slope argument, lets have a rational one. If gay marriage becomes legal, homosexuality will be normalized, kids will learn about gay leaders in school, trans* people will start having rights like the ability to change the gender on their birth certificate, transgender issues might become normalized, women will get equal pay, women will start being treated like people, etc. (Not in that order). But the thing about the slippery slope is this: if you have an issue with one of the things on the list, but not gay marriage...stop fighting gay marriage and start fighting the thing you have a problem with. Except that, again, your religion doesn't really get to dictate other people. Sooo...I don't know what to tell you. Maybe try acceptance.
Legality.
So the LEGAL question of gay marriage becomes simple: does anybody have a constitutional right to stop gay people from getting married? Do gay people have a constitutional right to marriage? That's it. Because all that other stuff just has to do with human interactions, religion, morality, etc, not so much law.
The constitution has two amendments that pretty much decide the case. The fifth amendment which says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with out due process". This doesn't mean that the supreme court HAS to legalize it, but they at least have to hear the cases before they deprive gay people of the liberty to marry.
And the fourteenth amendment, which says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."
No, marriage equality is not already established because every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I think we can all agree that's an empty argument. Gay couples are denied over 1100 rights that straight couples have, that is the definition of inequality. To me the legal argument seems pretty simple, and maybe that's what worries people.
As it turns out, "it makes me uncomfortable" is not grounds to make something illegal. If it were, car shopping would be illegal, going to the club would be illegal, being kissed on the cheek by Aunt Betty who you haven't seen in three years would be illegal. You catch my drift.
Purpose.
Considering all of this, I have to wonder what the purpose of keeping marriage an institution of inequality is for conservatives. If your hope is to have more straight couples, the legality of gay marriage will not affect the number or gay or straight couples in the world. It will only affect how much protection under the law these couples get.
The sin argument, even if it were based in legality, doesn't make any sense here either. We are not arguing about if gay people should build lives together, have children, and get old and senile. That's already happening and will keep happening. We are arguing about if said gay couples should be entitled to receive the life insurance of the person they spent the last 40 years with when that person dies.
It seems like your purpose is to have the country living your morality, which not only has no legal basis, but is pretty rude and unconstitutional.
Extra thoughts
+Liberals, progressives or whatever label you want to place are not perfect. Lots of people are not accepting of things they should be accepting of, conservatives and liberals alike. This, though, is not pertinent to the legality of equality.
+Yes, I should accept everyone. No, I should not accept your intolerance of others.
+If you are uncomfortable with gay people, don't hang out with them. Problem solved.
People are frustrated because Facebook turned red and they couldn't do anything to stop it. Because it seems inevitable at this point that DOMA will fall and that marriage equality will be legal and that people will be free to love whomever the choose. And this freaks people out. A lot. Like, way more than it should, in my opinion. "all I want," they say, "is an open, loving dialogue about the issue so we can at least understand where we are coming from." I don't know if that's true, or if people who support "traditional" marriage just want to talk more so that people might change their minds. But, I'll give it a chance. So here it is, some thoughts from the other side, proving both that I totally get where you're coming from, and that conversation is possible, if you're willing to open you're mind to the other side also.
Religious liberty.
I keep hearing all about how the crazy liberals are trampling all over religious liberty. When we let people decide if they want to take birth control or not, when we let people decide what religion they want to be a part of, when we let people decide who they want to spend the rest of their lives with, it all seems to trample all over religious liberty. Religious liberty does not mean that one religion controls all the people. It means that people are free to practice or not practice any religion or no religion.
That being said, churches are protected by the state. They are protected from being forced to do things that go against their beliefs. Masques are not forced to have pig roasts, Temples are not forced to get rid of their kosher kitchens, Churches are not forced to take field trips to strip clubs. In much the same way, no church will be forced to marry anybody that they see as un-fit to marry, including same-sex couples. But more than just same-sex couples, any clergy person or church can deny anybody the right to marry within their church. Churches do it all the time, if you have been divorced but not annulled lots of Catholic churches will not let you marry until you get an annulment. Churches are also not forced to recognize divorce as a thing, since divorce is a sin in many religions, churches are free to teach their congregation that you can not get a divorce. But divorce still remains legal, because other people who are not of that religion can get a divorce. (where are all the protests and attempts to make divorce illegal?). A clergy person that tells you that if gay marriage is legal, he or she will soon be forced to marry gays or be subject to legal action is either uneducated or lying.
But some places totally are subject to legal action for discriminating against the gays! Yes, yes they are. Those places are not churches. Those places are publicly funded places like schools. And yes, sometimes private companies, but that is a legal gray area. Churches are not a legal gray area from this, churches are free to practice their religion as they see fit. Your church will be free to deny marriages to anybody, people who just aren't ready, people who are black, people who are too young, people who are gay, etc. Heck your religion could make a rule saying straight people can't get married there, and that would be totally within your legal protections.
Sure, it's scary to not be able to control other people. Especially when you think those people are going to die a fiery death. But Jesus didn't do very much controlling. Besides, if your religion really is The Truth, don't you think people will find their way there eventually? And more so if they are not being forced?
So yes, if by religious liberty you mean that your religion will not be allowed to control other people then you are 100% right, your religious liberty is being trampled on. But if by religious liberty you mean everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they choose, then no, not so much. And one other thought, be careful with the idea that we can invalidate a religion, because once the state has control over what OTHER religions can do...that's when they will start being able to control what your religion can do.
Is it a sin?
There are two very different debates happening over this issue. One is whether or not is is legal for gay people to get married, or rather is it unconstitutional to forbid them to marry (we will get to that later), and the other is whether or not being gay is a sin. The question of whether or not being gay is a sin is directly related to whether or not gay people get married in your church, but not so related to the legal question of marriage equality.
There a million arguments on why being gay, or at least being in a gay relationship, is a sin. All of these arguments seem to boil down to two basic concepts: pro-creation and gender roles. And you have probably heard all the opposing arguments against it which are basically that gender is pretty much made up and the world is over crowded and love can't really be controlled by those rules. This can be argued all day and all night. You don't have to change your opinion on the matter, just as long as you don't impose that opinion on anybody else. It's also a pretty interesting conversation to have, assuming everyone goes into it with an open mind. But none of that has anything to do with the legal question of marriage equality. Because as was pointed out above, one religion's sins can not dictate another person's life.
And no, by legalizing gay marriage liberals are not imposing their views on you, because you are free to continue in your life as it was before.
This discussion is for another blog at another time.
Slippery Slope.
But if we let the gays get married then who knows what else will be legal! Proven simply by the fact that when they de-criminalized sodomy in Texas a dissenting justice said it will soon lead to the legalization of gay marriage...and here we are. The idea of legalizing gay marriage is about letting two consenting adults marry, because they are adults and they are able to make their own choices. Some things that can't make their own choices are: kitchen appliances, animals, inanimate objects that are not people. To argue that gay marriage will lead to the marriage of anyone to anything is just silly. Besides, if we let people marry toasters, soon we will let toasters marry each other and then..seriously, what will this country have come to.
The slippery slope toward polygamy is a little more reasonable. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't say if polygamy will go back to being the norm for marriage as it was in the Bible, but this doesn't much have to do with gay people. Who knows, if the FLDS church starts a huge civil rights movement and becomes some kind of force in America that out battles the 99% of everyone else who don't want polygamous marriages, then maybe. But lets just go ahead and cross that bridge when we get there, and acknowledge that polygamy is probably not going to be legal for a while. (currently polygamy is a CRIME, and something being illegal is very different from something not being legal).
But none of that is the real fear. So I'm going to go ahead and address the real fear: if those stinkin' libs get this gay marriage thing, they won't stop there, they will just keep fighting for other weird stuff. Yes, yes that's true. You really want people to just say, "hey thanks for making things equal here on this marriage deal, we will just go ahead and ignore all the other inequalities of the world now"? Nope. More than polygamy you should be worried that if this gay marriage thing happens those stinkin' libs will turn their attention to things like trans-rights, women's rights, or animal rights. (get to know a one of them and you will find this to be true). So if you want to have the slippery slope argument, lets have a rational one. If gay marriage becomes legal, homosexuality will be normalized, kids will learn about gay leaders in school, trans* people will start having rights like the ability to change the gender on their birth certificate, transgender issues might become normalized, women will get equal pay, women will start being treated like people, etc. (Not in that order). But the thing about the slippery slope is this: if you have an issue with one of the things on the list, but not gay marriage...stop fighting gay marriage and start fighting the thing you have a problem with. Except that, again, your religion doesn't really get to dictate other people. Sooo...I don't know what to tell you. Maybe try acceptance.
Legality.
So the LEGAL question of gay marriage becomes simple: does anybody have a constitutional right to stop gay people from getting married? Do gay people have a constitutional right to marriage? That's it. Because all that other stuff just has to do with human interactions, religion, morality, etc, not so much law.
The constitution has two amendments that pretty much decide the case. The fifth amendment which says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with out due process". This doesn't mean that the supreme court HAS to legalize it, but they at least have to hear the cases before they deprive gay people of the liberty to marry.
And the fourteenth amendment, which says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."
No, marriage equality is not already established because every person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I think we can all agree that's an empty argument. Gay couples are denied over 1100 rights that straight couples have, that is the definition of inequality. To me the legal argument seems pretty simple, and maybe that's what worries people.
As it turns out, "it makes me uncomfortable" is not grounds to make something illegal. If it were, car shopping would be illegal, going to the club would be illegal, being kissed on the cheek by Aunt Betty who you haven't seen in three years would be illegal. You catch my drift.
Purpose.
Considering all of this, I have to wonder what the purpose of keeping marriage an institution of inequality is for conservatives. If your hope is to have more straight couples, the legality of gay marriage will not affect the number or gay or straight couples in the world. It will only affect how much protection under the law these couples get.
The sin argument, even if it were based in legality, doesn't make any sense here either. We are not arguing about if gay people should build lives together, have children, and get old and senile. That's already happening and will keep happening. We are arguing about if said gay couples should be entitled to receive the life insurance of the person they spent the last 40 years with when that person dies.
It seems like your purpose is to have the country living your morality, which not only has no legal basis, but is pretty rude and unconstitutional.
Extra thoughts
+Liberals, progressives or whatever label you want to place are not perfect. Lots of people are not accepting of things they should be accepting of, conservatives and liberals alike. This, though, is not pertinent to the legality of equality.
+Yes, I should accept everyone. No, I should not accept your intolerance of others.
+If you are uncomfortable with gay people, don't hang out with them. Problem solved.
20.2.13
Why the pro-life movement is losing. Even with anti-abortion groups.
Pro-life is the movement that works to prevent abortion. They believe that life begins at conception and by having an abortion and ending that life a grave sin is being committed.
The opposing opinion is pro-choice. This movement is hard to hammer down, some people believe life begins at conception and others do not. There are varying opinions of when a woman "should" have an abortion, but the one thing that holds pretty true to the pro-choice movement is that the decision about whether or not to have an abortion is up to each individual women.
I personally don't like the idea of having an abortion. I think fetuses are a life and deserve a chance at being born whenever possible. I also refuse to align myself with the pro-life movement, and I know that I'm not the only person in this boat.
First, the pro-life movement is extremely controlling. And force is never the way to stop somebody from doing something. When a young girl is pregnant and scared and feels like she doesn't have any other option, accusing her of contemplating murder is not going to help the situation. Telling her boyfriend that driving her to the abortion clinic makes him an accessory to murder also does not help the situation. Jesus would not be so mean and forceful. He would not shove images of bloody fetuses in the face of a scared teenager. The solution is love, compassion, understanding, and education.
The pro-life movement also doesn't tend to support real education. In order to have an abortion, you have to be pregnant. So the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. And the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy is to educate women and men (including teenagers) about how to not get pregnant. There are more unplanned pregnancies in less educated environments than in very educated environments. Because in very educated environments the people know about all the options (and usually can also afford various options or have health coverage for various options) of birth control, while in less educated environments people don't have the knowledge or means to have as many options for birth control. The pro-life movements solution is people should just stop having sex, well good luck with that. I think education is a more realistic way to prevent pregnancy.
One of the biggest reasons I can't bring myself to identify with the pro-life movement is it's insistent on using "tag words" and propaganda that may or may not be true without digging deeper to into the real issues to solve the real problems. A real thing that happens that everybody can agree on is that there are tests that can be done during a pregnancy to find out various things about the baby. Is it a boy or a girl? Is it healthy? Is there a possibility that the baby could have a disability? There are even tests that can be done to find out if the baby has diseases that will lead to early death, to vision impairment, and a slew of other things parents may or may not want or need to know before the baby is born. After these tests, some people choose to terminate the baby. Terminating a pregnancy because of a possible disability is terrible. Saying that pro-choicers are out to eliminate and kill people with disabilities is stupid.
It is also true that a lot of minority women have abortions. This is a term that pro-lifers have labeled "black genocide". Don't you think there might be other factors contributing to the fact that lots of black babies are being aborted? Like to aforementioned undereducated environments that are generally mostly minorities, of which black is one. If 30 black women get pregnant and 10 white women get pregnant and 10% of each racial group has an abortion, then 3 black babies and 1 white baby were aborted. This is not genocide, this is the racial gap in education and wealth. Does it really make sense that the pro-choice movement, made up of mostly liberals, who also generally fight for racial equality, would commit a crime like black genocide because they want less black people around? Or does it make more sense that the pro-life group made up of mostly rich white dudes would completely ignore the fact that some people are not rich white dudes?
Like I said before, the solution to less abortions is not telling women they don't get to have control over their own bodies. It's educating men and women on how to be safe and healthy and not have unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Women spend enough time being told they have no control over their own lives, choices, and bodies, calling them murders for wanting that control back is not going to get you very far. I am not pro-abortion. In fact, I would rather people not have abortions when given the choice. But maybe she should be given the education and the choice, and with love and compassion abortions will decrease. Instead of just yelling.
The opposing opinion is pro-choice. This movement is hard to hammer down, some people believe life begins at conception and others do not. There are varying opinions of when a woman "should" have an abortion, but the one thing that holds pretty true to the pro-choice movement is that the decision about whether or not to have an abortion is up to each individual women.
I personally don't like the idea of having an abortion. I think fetuses are a life and deserve a chance at being born whenever possible. I also refuse to align myself with the pro-life movement, and I know that I'm not the only person in this boat.
First, the pro-life movement is extremely controlling. And force is never the way to stop somebody from doing something. When a young girl is pregnant and scared and feels like she doesn't have any other option, accusing her of contemplating murder is not going to help the situation. Telling her boyfriend that driving her to the abortion clinic makes him an accessory to murder also does not help the situation. Jesus would not be so mean and forceful. He would not shove images of bloody fetuses in the face of a scared teenager. The solution is love, compassion, understanding, and education.
The pro-life movement also doesn't tend to support real education. In order to have an abortion, you have to be pregnant. So the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. And the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy is to educate women and men (including teenagers) about how to not get pregnant. There are more unplanned pregnancies in less educated environments than in very educated environments. Because in very educated environments the people know about all the options (and usually can also afford various options or have health coverage for various options) of birth control, while in less educated environments people don't have the knowledge or means to have as many options for birth control. The pro-life movements solution is people should just stop having sex, well good luck with that. I think education is a more realistic way to prevent pregnancy.
One of the biggest reasons I can't bring myself to identify with the pro-life movement is it's insistent on using "tag words" and propaganda that may or may not be true without digging deeper to into the real issues to solve the real problems. A real thing that happens that everybody can agree on is that there are tests that can be done during a pregnancy to find out various things about the baby. Is it a boy or a girl? Is it healthy? Is there a possibility that the baby could have a disability? There are even tests that can be done to find out if the baby has diseases that will lead to early death, to vision impairment, and a slew of other things parents may or may not want or need to know before the baby is born. After these tests, some people choose to terminate the baby. Terminating a pregnancy because of a possible disability is terrible. Saying that pro-choicers are out to eliminate and kill people with disabilities is stupid.
It is also true that a lot of minority women have abortions. This is a term that pro-lifers have labeled "black genocide". Don't you think there might be other factors contributing to the fact that lots of black babies are being aborted? Like to aforementioned undereducated environments that are generally mostly minorities, of which black is one. If 30 black women get pregnant and 10 white women get pregnant and 10% of each racial group has an abortion, then 3 black babies and 1 white baby were aborted. This is not genocide, this is the racial gap in education and wealth. Does it really make sense that the pro-choice movement, made up of mostly liberals, who also generally fight for racial equality, would commit a crime like black genocide because they want less black people around? Or does it make more sense that the pro-life group made up of mostly rich white dudes would completely ignore the fact that some people are not rich white dudes?
Like I said before, the solution to less abortions is not telling women they don't get to have control over their own bodies. It's educating men and women on how to be safe and healthy and not have unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Women spend enough time being told they have no control over their own lives, choices, and bodies, calling them murders for wanting that control back is not going to get you very far. I am not pro-abortion. In fact, I would rather people not have abortions when given the choice. But maybe she should be given the education and the choice, and with love and compassion abortions will decrease. Instead of just yelling.
12.2.13
When did Brett Favre become God?
I understand why people get freaked out when cases of pedophilia happen in the church, and some people cover it up and weird things happen. I don't think it's right to cover up those things, but with a religion it ends up being so close to someone's heart people get weird about it and forget that sometimes things are more important. It makes sense. (like I said, I think it's wrong, but at least there is logic behind the weird things that are happening)
I don't understand how the same thing happens with football. Football, no matter what Americans think, is not a religion. Brett Favre is not God and Peyton Manning is not Jesus and Andrew Luck is not the second coming of Christ. Somehow, we have turned a really great sport into a religion. We worship the players, who are unworthy of worship. And we act like the idea of not having football is the worst thing that could possibly happen in life.
Football, the sporting event that involves thinking about plays and then running into people while eating food you really shouldn't eat, is something I love a lot. Football the religion, I hate. The religion of Football is homophobic, sexist, violent, and becoming more and more corrupt. That is not ok.
Look at what happened with places like Penn State and Steubenville? Penn State spent 10 years covering up the rape of boys. Sure Jerry Sandusky is in jail now, but when it was all going down people were upset about the football team. Those poor football players will have to suffer because of this trial and the fallout of this case. And Joe Paterno can do no wrong, and the entire football program was protected by the school. The school was helping the football program hide the fact that one of their coaches was regularly raping little boys. And people were worried about the FOOTBALL TEAM??
In Steubenville a football team raped a drunk girl. Because that's not bad enough, later more high school boys made a youtube video laughing and joking about what it is like to have sex with a "dead girl". (They didn't realize the girl was drunk and not dead, that is how incapacitated she was). The city of Steubenville is divided on the issue because while the girl was raped, she was also drunk..so it was kind of her fault and those poor boys are going to have to live with this the rest of their lives. And they don't want this to ruin their teams chances of winning the championship! Seriously.
Football players committing rape has become such a regular activity that even the left leaning new york times phrases it like this "...an unconscious girl had been sexually assaulted over several hours while others watched. She may have even been urinated on." Because being peed on is so much worst than being raped. (Both are terrible, but, I mean, rape is obviously the worse option).
How many players on the NFL have committed rape? More than I can even count. And the response is always, well she is doing it for money and we don't want to ruin his career. Because god forbid we tarnish the NFL over something as silly as rape. She was probably wearing clothes anyways, so that means she was asking for him to take them off right? (Ben Rothesberger and Kobe Bryant are still huge stars, and yes I know Kobe doesn't play football, but he needed to be mentioned here). Shouldn't there be a rule that says once you have raped somebody you can't play professional sports anymore? That seems fair to me, but in our society we don't want rape to ruin a mans life. Because if rapists couldn't play football all of our favorite players would be kicked out of the sport. And then what? Obviously we would all die, I guess.
Football is one of the few institutions that is openly and comfortably homophobic. When the Boy Scouts were homophobic people wrote letters and protested and said that boys should be allowed to be Eagle Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation. When marriage was homophobic people protested. When the military was homophobic people fought to get DADT repealed. When schools are homophobic kids are taught not to bully, that everybody is allowed to be themselves. But when football is homophobic, boys will be boys. In football it's still OK to bully, it's still OK to tell boys they will have to stay in the closet or lost everything. In football being gay is still the worst possibly offense. Why?
I don't know if the Manti Te'o thing was an elaborate beard scheme or not, but the more details I hear about it the more I think it was. (beard: a person of the opposite sex being used by a gay person to disguise their gayness. As in, a beard is a great disguise). In case you live under a rock or don't follow sports drama here's a quick debrief: Manti had a GF who died of Leukemia. Sad. But then we found out the girl was actually a dude who had been scamming everyone and acting as the GF. Weird. Manti claims he wasn't in on it. In an interview with Diane Sawyer she asks Manti if he's gay, his response was "no, no, no. FAR from it. Definitely not". Later, the scammer is asked why he decided to end the scam and he says it was because he was in love with Manti.
My theory: Manti is gay, he fell in love with scammer but knew he couldn't come out. He would lose his career if he did. So they made up this girl. Then as scammer fell deeper in love he didn't want to lie anymore, Manti didn't want to lose everything. And the whole thing blew up in their faces. (I don't know why they killed her off. Even if Manti wasn't in on it I don't get why she was killed off)
All this because being gay in football means losing your NFL career. Manti was a first round pick and now, he's not. Side note: being part of a scam drops you down more in the draft than rape. Are you starting to see how insane this is? Being gay is a huge offense, but being a rapist is just another part of being a pro-football player.
That is what we tell kids. Boys, eventually you should find yourself at a bar waiting for a hot waitress to bring you a beer and you should hit on her. She is nothing more than an object. Girls, you should strive to be an object. Find a guy who thinks you're hot. Don't worry about being healthy, it's about being hot. If you fight for your intelligence we will call you angry and man-hating.
Oh, but you can be anything you want to be. Good luck kids!
We can't tell kids to stop bullying if adults are bullies. And we can't tell kids they can be anything they want to be if when they are adults that won't be true. And we can't tell little girls their body is their own if when they grow up their body actually belongs to the football player that decides he wants to rape her. And canceling a season of football to prevent rape seems ok to me. Because football is not actually a religion.
I don't understand how the same thing happens with football. Football, no matter what Americans think, is not a religion. Brett Favre is not God and Peyton Manning is not Jesus and Andrew Luck is not the second coming of Christ. Somehow, we have turned a really great sport into a religion. We worship the players, who are unworthy of worship. And we act like the idea of not having football is the worst thing that could possibly happen in life.
Football, the sporting event that involves thinking about plays and then running into people while eating food you really shouldn't eat, is something I love a lot. Football the religion, I hate. The religion of Football is homophobic, sexist, violent, and becoming more and more corrupt. That is not ok.
Look at what happened with places like Penn State and Steubenville? Penn State spent 10 years covering up the rape of boys. Sure Jerry Sandusky is in jail now, but when it was all going down people were upset about the football team. Those poor football players will have to suffer because of this trial and the fallout of this case. And Joe Paterno can do no wrong, and the entire football program was protected by the school. The school was helping the football program hide the fact that one of their coaches was regularly raping little boys. And people were worried about the FOOTBALL TEAM??
In Steubenville a football team raped a drunk girl. Because that's not bad enough, later more high school boys made a youtube video laughing and joking about what it is like to have sex with a "dead girl". (They didn't realize the girl was drunk and not dead, that is how incapacitated she was). The city of Steubenville is divided on the issue because while the girl was raped, she was also drunk..so it was kind of her fault and those poor boys are going to have to live with this the rest of their lives. And they don't want this to ruin their teams chances of winning the championship! Seriously.
Football players committing rape has become such a regular activity that even the left leaning new york times phrases it like this "...an unconscious girl had been sexually assaulted over several hours while others watched. She may have even been urinated on." Because being peed on is so much worst than being raped. (Both are terrible, but, I mean, rape is obviously the worse option).
How many players on the NFL have committed rape? More than I can even count. And the response is always, well she is doing it for money and we don't want to ruin his career. Because god forbid we tarnish the NFL over something as silly as rape. She was probably wearing clothes anyways, so that means she was asking for him to take them off right? (Ben Rothesberger and Kobe Bryant are still huge stars, and yes I know Kobe doesn't play football, but he needed to be mentioned here). Shouldn't there be a rule that says once you have raped somebody you can't play professional sports anymore? That seems fair to me, but in our society we don't want rape to ruin a mans life. Because if rapists couldn't play football all of our favorite players would be kicked out of the sport. And then what? Obviously we would all die, I guess.
Football is one of the few institutions that is openly and comfortably homophobic. When the Boy Scouts were homophobic people wrote letters and protested and said that boys should be allowed to be Eagle Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation. When marriage was homophobic people protested. When the military was homophobic people fought to get DADT repealed. When schools are homophobic kids are taught not to bully, that everybody is allowed to be themselves. But when football is homophobic, boys will be boys. In football it's still OK to bully, it's still OK to tell boys they will have to stay in the closet or lost everything. In football being gay is still the worst possibly offense. Why?
I don't know if the Manti Te'o thing was an elaborate beard scheme or not, but the more details I hear about it the more I think it was. (beard: a person of the opposite sex being used by a gay person to disguise their gayness. As in, a beard is a great disguise). In case you live under a rock or don't follow sports drama here's a quick debrief: Manti had a GF who died of Leukemia. Sad. But then we found out the girl was actually a dude who had been scamming everyone and acting as the GF. Weird. Manti claims he wasn't in on it. In an interview with Diane Sawyer she asks Manti if he's gay, his response was "no, no, no. FAR from it. Definitely not". Later, the scammer is asked why he decided to end the scam and he says it was because he was in love with Manti.
My theory: Manti is gay, he fell in love with scammer but knew he couldn't come out. He would lose his career if he did. So they made up this girl. Then as scammer fell deeper in love he didn't want to lie anymore, Manti didn't want to lose everything. And the whole thing blew up in their faces. (I don't know why they killed her off. Even if Manti wasn't in on it I don't get why she was killed off)
All this because being gay in football means losing your NFL career. Manti was a first round pick and now, he's not. Side note: being part of a scam drops you down more in the draft than rape. Are you starting to see how insane this is? Being gay is a huge offense, but being a rapist is just another part of being a pro-football player.
That is what we tell kids. Boys, eventually you should find yourself at a bar waiting for a hot waitress to bring you a beer and you should hit on her. She is nothing more than an object. Girls, you should strive to be an object. Find a guy who thinks you're hot. Don't worry about being healthy, it's about being hot. If you fight for your intelligence we will call you angry and man-hating.
Oh, but you can be anything you want to be. Good luck kids!
We can't tell kids to stop bullying if adults are bullies. And we can't tell kids they can be anything they want to be if when they are adults that won't be true. And we can't tell little girls their body is their own if when they grow up their body actually belongs to the football player that decides he wants to rape her. And canceling a season of football to prevent rape seems ok to me. Because football is not actually a religion.
17.1.13
Protect the 2nd amendment
Much like the Bible, people think they know what the constitution says but really they have no idea. So I'm here to help you all out. Here is the actual text of the second amendment straight from the constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Here are a few quick definitions so we all know what we are talking about:
Keep: To retain possession
Bear: to carry.
Regulated: control or supervise by the means of rules and regulations.
Regulations: A rule or directive made or maintained by an authority.
Security: The state of being free from danger or threat
Militia: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency
Arms: Weapons and ammunition
Infringed: Act as to limit or encroach on.
So in plain english:
A well controlled and supervised militia being necessary to maintain a state free from danger and threat the right of the people to retain possession of and carry weapons and ammunition shall not be encroached upon.
It is fair to say that the wording of that amendment can be interpreted in many different ways, thereby causing the outrageous gun debate that we are now having in this country. It is also fair to say that we don't really have a need for a militia anymore. Our military is the largest in the world (one of the largest? I don't really keep track of the size of militaries), and the really great thing about having a powerful military is that the civilians can just not worry about it. (thanks soldiers). So that begs the question, if we can admit that we no longer require a militia, then do we still need the people to have the right to keep and bear arms? I mean, that was written so that average joe guy could protect himself during wartimes.
Well, for protection, yes. It can be argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own protection is still important. (I wouldn't argue it, but it could be argued). We also need to remember that when the Constitution was written the only arms people were keeping were muskets and bullets. There were no handguns, rifles, AR's and definitely no 100 round magazines. So in order to be truly and honest logical about the Constitutional right to have guns, we have to think about what it means.
The whole purpose of the right to bear arms is to ensure the security of the state. One of the best ways to ensure security back when America was just a toddler was with a militia. Our military then was not what it is today and the people needed to supplement the military with their own protections. The war was on our soil (we forget this, because wars are never on our soil anymore). But when the war in on your soil you have a much higher need for personal protection because the enemy (the actual enemy, not the figurative 21st century enemy) could very well appear at your home with guns blazing.
Today, no soldiers are going to show up at your home guns blazing. Today we need to protect ourselves from modern threats like robbers and psychopathic murderers. While I will agree that there is a need to protect yourself and your family from threats of the outside world, that threat no longer requires a militia. You can get locks on your doors, alarm systems in your home, etc.
There will never be a time when in order to protect yourself from a robber or other intruder in your life or home you will need a 100 round automatic rifle. One bullet will put the intruder out of commision if not kill him.
That being said, the right to bear arms for the security of a free state basically ensures your right to a gun for protection. This in no way ensures your right to a gun for hunting, but hunting is relatively harmless, so fine we can include that.
It's also important to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and people that will use their guns for evil. This isn't in the constitution but the soldiers in the revolutionary war did not give their guns to the british soldiers, why would you want someone to have a gun that could kill you? In today's world keeping guns out of the hands of the bad people means something different than what it meant hundreds of years ago. It means things like background checks, and controlling or regulating where the guns go, who gets them, and why they have them. If you are a law abiding honest gun owner, then your right to bear arms won't actually be infringed upon at all by gun control laws.
Here are some of the things Obama ACTUALLY wants to do:
~Create a national database to make sure background checks are run through all the systems and no criminal falls through the cracks.
~Close the gun show loophole so that the same strict rules have to be followed at gun shows as they do at regular stores.
~Start a national dialogue about mental health
~Encourage congress to pass an assault rifles ban
~Ban large ammunition magazines
~Train emergency responders to have an effective and quick response to shootings in public places
~Give incentives to schools with police officers.
I know people don't like the word "ban" inherently. But instead of just getting mad at the word Obama or ban, really look at that list. What on that list is actually a bad thing and/or will actually take away the guns of a law abiding honest gun owner who is using their guns for protection and hunting? Keep in mind that the kids who took the lives of the students at Columbine got their guns from a gun show. Adam Lanza took his mothers AR that she got legally because ARs are legal.
Think about how many lives would be saved just by not having automatic weapons around. James Holmes would have only gotten 5 or 6 shots off before having to reload, giving people way more time to run out of the theater. Eric Harris might have just resorted to only bombs, which he was bad at making and those lives would have been saved.
What Obama is doing is not liberal or left wing. What he is doing is protecting his country, exactly what a commander in chief should do. Now I know this had lot of logic in it, so if that bothers you then go ahead and go back to posting memes about how Obama is black and probably on crack which is why he is banning all guns and allowing the gays to create hurricanes to kill all the good people. Otherwise, use your brain and think about how much better off this country would be if people weren't walking around with assault rifles.
11.1.13
How to prevent rape: flow chart edition.
Ever since Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh and a slew of other not so intelligent conservative old men opened their mouths to define rape, rape has been a hot discussion topic. You might think this is a bad thing, but actually it's a good thing. This means that maybe people will stop assuming they have a right to another persons body. Maybe if we talk about it enough boys will grow up understanding the difference between respect and rape.
The funny thing is, we still have, in this society, a culture of victim blaming. I see more re-posts of how women should prevent rape that I ever wished existed. Women should carry weapons or mase, they should dress like nuns and have short hair. Women shouldn't walk alone at night, they shouldn't park in parking structures, they shouldn't lead promiscuos lives. Women should refrain from things like one night stands, because it gives men the wrong impression and they might get raped. Women shouldn't go to frat parties, they shouldn't get drunk around men they don't trust. I could go on forever listing the ways women are supposed to cease enjoying their lives in order to prevent idiotic men and immature boys from raping them.
But why? Why do women have to be in charge of making sure they don't get raped? Shouldn't the rapist be in charge of NOT RAPING PEOPLE! I mean seriously, why are we not raising boys to be less ridiculous?
Just recently Jenna Marbles, a youtube famous vlogger, made a video of things she doesn't understand about women "sluts edition". This video talked about a lot of things, but skirted pretty close to the edge of victim blaming. Victim blaming, meaning that women who get too drunk, make bad choices, sleep around too much, or dress "slutty" in some way deserve the assault of the man who found her black out drunk when she couldn't make decisions.
A number of other less famous vloggers then made response videos about the slippery slope to victim blaming. This one is my favorite:
She does a really good job of articulating the problem with labeling date rape as a "bad decision". She makes the important and too often ignored point that being raped is not the result a bad decision on the part of the victim, but the result of a horrendous violating attack on the part of the rapist. Watching the video will do more justice than my description, so watch it and then continue reading.
The thing that really killed me was the comments section of this video. Of course there were plenty of people saying how proud they were and how much they like when this vlogger had to say. But naturally there were jerks also. Jerks that made comments like "How drunk does someone have to be for it to be considered rape?" and "people shouldn't intervene if they think they see someone being taken advantage of." Is that a joke? I can only assume those comments came from the same sort of jerks that edited this wonderful point made my this women into this totally rape-y version.
That is the original photo. This wonderful and amazing women took this photo of herself to make the point that no matter how a woman is dressed, she isn't there for you to have sex with. Some completely horrible people edited to this:
Seriously? They "fixed" it by erasing the words "still not" so that she is now asking for it. This is how much power people think they have over other people's bodies. A quick photoshop job and now they can have sex with that woman. These are the people you think don't really exist. These are the people that you get sick of "feminists" hating. This is pretty symbolic of the way women are treated by rapist types. And this is NOT ok. Ok, so whatever these are just stupid uneducated horrible men. Fine, then I'm going to educate everyone. I made this handy dandy flow chart to help you understand when it is ok to have sex with someone. I know it is small, I made it in a word proccesor and kind of quick but I tried to make it large enough to see. If your computer has a zoom feature use that.
Should I have sex with this person I think is cute?
So you see, most roads lead to no. This doesn't imply that women can't have sex all the time all day, but they have to say yes all the time all day. My point is that we need to get away from "no means no". That's insane. Instead, wait for a yes. It also answers the question that never needed to be asked about how drunk someone has to be for it to be rape. Doesn't matter, they can have had 1 beer or 20 shots. If they are too drunk, tired, unconscious, distracted, or whatever, to definitively say yes, then you can't have sex with them.
Let's think about it another way. You know how in football if the ruling on the field is not a touchdown, the only way to overturn it is with IRREFUTABLE video evidence? Meaning it was NOT a touchdown unless it can be irrefutably proven to have broken the plane. Think about sex like that, unless there is NO QUESTION in your mind at all, unless there is IRREFUTABLE evidence that the person said yes they want to have sex with you then you should NOT have sex with them.
Still not understanding? Ok, well how about this: if someone was about to do what you are about to do to your sister, mother, daughter, or best friend would you beat the crap out of them? If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't. (disclaimer: this doesn't include that fact that dads would probably like to beat up the people taking their daughters on dates and holding their hand).
Until we change this culture around rape, and until we make preventing rape the job of the rapist and not the victim, we are going to make women feel like bad things that happen to them are their fault. If women sleep around as much as men that DOES NOT mean they deserve to get raped. Even if you think their life is terrible, they do not deserve to get raped. Even if you think they are unworthy of respect, they do not deserve to get raped. When Daniel Tosh said that the audience member who heckled him deserved "to be gang raped by five guys" what he was doing was perpetuating the idea that bad women deserve bad things.
I will leave you with this: even if a woman makes the worst decisions ever, every single day of her life and dresses like a prostitute and walks along the streets at 2am without any weapons...she still DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE RAPED. Teach this to your children, that the rapist is the only one responsible for preventing rape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)