In internet time, it has been decades since The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided the "hobby lobby case" regarding what constitutes beliefs and when and how those beliefs can be imposed on those around us. It was not a win for religious freedom nor a win for women's rights which somehow in the media are now two mutually exclusive ideas. You either care about women and hate religion or care about religion and hate women. Neither of these are true. And, in truth, I could write 7000 blogs about how the things we think of as mutually exclusive in our society are not. But instead, I think it's more important to point out the reasons that the decision in the case that we now think of as Hobby Lobby v. Birth Control is about neither Hobby Lobby nor Birth Control. It's about unfounded logic about what the labor force of America dares to think they deserve.
America is a consumerist nation. We thrive on consumption. Our most successful brands (Apple, Netflix, McDonalds) are about nothing more than consuming things we want. Our favorite past times involve human connection and consumption. (Beer on the patio with friends, dinner out with family, movie with the sig. other). As such, our nation would crumble without the humble laborers of the service industry. Your cashier, your waitress, that kid that helped you find that super soaker your niece wanted so badly, we need them all. They are the backbone of what drives the American economy. (Daily Challenge: count how many service industry people you interact with in one typical day. Then try to imagine said day without ANY of those people.)
Yet somehow, the service industry is not just under valued but it's workers are treated as lowly peasants. Less deserving of the spoils of the rich. We tell ourselves that they are just kids working through high school, but if you really counted the workers in one day you will see the diversity of age. (And even kids deserve respect, but that's a whole other blog). We act like people employed at McDonalds should be grateful that they were even deemed worthy to have a job, and should not be demanding things like pay and benefits. How dare the peasant make any demands of the rich. Spoiler alert: these are big fat stupid lies.
Working with the public day in and day out can be very trying. The roller coaster of emotions that is humanity is an adventure in itself and trying to be on top of your game pleasing each individual while not letting down the corporation at large is more of a challenge than any CEO can imagine. And each person that works DESERVES to get compensated for their time.
The agreement between employee and employer is as follows: Employee performs a service on behalf of Employer, Employer compensates Employee on previously agreed upon terms and at previously agreed upon intervals. I am not indebted to my employer when she gives me my paycheck. Inversely, my employer is indebted to me each time I perform a service on her behalf. This is why hourly workers don't (and shouldn't) work "off the clock". This is why hourly workers should never be asked to or expected to perform their duties when they are on their earned rest breaks. This is also why corporations are so serious about their employees not working off the clock. It can get really confusing to try to figure out how much time you worked and what the company now owes you. They owe you for every second of time that you spend working for them. I enjoy my job, but it is not a secret to me or my employer that it is my job, and therefor my source of income.
Employers provide "compensation packages." Called such because they include more than just money. Compensation packages include everything your employer is going to give you as a compensation for providing a service. And yes, they are going to give it to you. (we get weird about the word GIVE also). There is but one string attached a compensation package and it is simply that I have performed the service previously agreed upon. Once the contract has been executed, I have performed my duties and they have given me my compensation, the cycle starts over. The compensation they gave to me previously is no longer any of their concern. I performed a service, I was entitled to compensation, I received compensation. The End. And this is where the Hobby Lobby case gets frustrating.
What I do with my paycheck is not the business of my employer. Let's turn the tables a little bit to make this hit home a little better. Say your employer is an anti-theist. She HATES organized religion, sees it as myths and thinks anybody that subscribes to such hypocrisy is obviously too dumb to see the light. But you are a devout Christian, you give 10% of your income to the church. To not do this would be deeply against something you believe from the core of your being. Does your employer have the right to tell you that you can not give your money to your church because it goes against her deeply held religious beliefs? No, of course not. It is your money and you have the right to spend it how you wish.
And so to is this true about the rest of the compensation package. Part of your compensation package is your healthcare. It generally works as such: your employer takes a set amount out of each paycheck and puts it towards your health insurance. They get massive discounts on the insurance because it's a group plan. Depending on the employer some of the costs may be eaten by the company on your behalf (as part of your compensation) or you may pay the full amount. You have EARNED this money and you may now do with it what you wish.
If you have vision insurance, does your employer get to have a say as to which frames you purchase? Some frame companies have a 1 for 1 program where when you buy a frame, a frame is donated to someone in need. Does your employer have the right to tell you that you must use the company because it is her deeply held belief that consumerism should always be balanced with a positive impact on the world around us? If you must wear special shoes in order to stand for eight hours straight, does your employer have the right to tell you that you may not wear those shoes because it goes against her deeply held belief that you should always be wearing the cutest shoes around? If you have to have oral surgery, can your employer tell you that you may not use narcotic pain killers because it goes against her deeply held belief that narcotics are too addictive to be used for pain killers? Of course not. It is your health insurance, something you have earned. Something your employer has GIVEN TO YOU as compensation for your work. It is yours and they have no right to tell you what to do with it.
And this is why the Hobby Lobby case is more devastating for the lowly peasants of the service industry than it is for women or religious people. SCOTUS has now said that your employer has a say in how you use the compensation package that you earn from them. They have taken another step towards lowering the labor force of America into slavery. That those of us that work in the service industry should be grateful that Ms. CEO decided to give us a job, and we should not demand appropriate compensation or expect to have the freedom to use that compensation in any way that we please.
Is the next step that we will raise the federal minimum wage, but only under the condition that people spend the extra money on the things their employer deems worthy? Or will we make it so that employers may control where employees spend their money, or to whom or what employees donate? Am I allowed to donate to a politician that goes against my employer's political views? If I work for an orthodox jewish company, can I purchase non-kosher food?
I support women and their right to take birth control, but I wish we would all start talking about what this really means for hourly laborers. It is a devastating blow for the freedom and rights of those who keep America happy.
12.7.14
31.10.13
Save the Children!
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.
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.
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)