Recently, a friend of mine got divorced and her ex-wife, who was eventually going to move out to live with her parents, refused to pack and move until my friend ended up moving out to move to another state. This puzzled me. Why would she not be motivated to move out as soon as my friend had asked for the divorce?
I realized: she wasn't angry.
Sadness is a passive emotion.
Had my friend's ex-wife been more angry instead of sad, or rather, expressed her sadness with anger, perhaps she would have moved out much more quickly. But she didn't. She stayed were she was, sad, taking days off work to be sad, and she stewed in the life she was about to no longer have with the woman she loved but who no longer want to be with her. Sadness is immobilizing.
This story is an allegory for our greater political process in our country. I'm afraid that we are all sad; we're immobilized with this grief for the system we have when instead we should be angry.
Historically, nothing political has ever been done without anger. The Civil Rights movement is a perfect example, but here I will discuss the AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power, or ACT UP.
Larry Kramer, playwright and activist, is one of the key members of ACT UP and one of the only surviving members. He was interviewed for the HBO documentary The Out List and in that interview he briefly describes ACT UP.
Everything changed in July 1981 with the announcement of what would be called AIDS. I helped to start two major organizations; Gay Men's Health Crisis and ACT UP. On the one hand, so many of our friends were dying and on the other hand we slowly had a small army of people that were working so very hard to save the rest of us. It was during that time that I realized, number one, how truly proud I am that I am a gay man and how truly wonderful I think gay people are.
I found that with AIDS the Times wasn't writing about us, nobody was writing about us, the Mayor wasn't answering phone calls, it was awful. People would rush up to me and say, "Have you heard of anything, is anything coming along, I don't think I'll be able to last much longer?" For many years there wasn't anything and you'd have to say to them, somehow, "Hold on, hold on." And give each other hugs.
And ACT UP made itself. We began every meeting with announcing who had died since the last meeting, and, boy, if that wasn't enough to keep you going then I don't know what. The first meeting had two hundred the next meeting had three. We had a demonstration that following week on Wall Street, several thousand showed up, and we were born.
It got more radical as we went on and we decided to have a protest at St. Patrick's. We had all been trained in civil disobedience and it was very carefully choreographed, what we were going to do. Like all good actors, these guys and gals really got into their parts. They faced the alter and yelled at 'em, "Stop murdering us!" Cardinal Connor was having a fit. We were crucified ourselves the next day and on. Every major network, every major newspaper said the most awful things about ACT UP. How terrible we were, destroying peoples' right to worship. And people were scared. "What are we going to do, they hate us!" And I said, "No they don't, they're afraid of us. This is the best thing we've ever done. We're no longer just limp-wristed fairies. We're guys in jeans and Levis and boots. We're here, we have voices, and we're gonna fight back." It made us, that action at St. Patrick's.
Every treatment for HIV that is out there is out there because of us. Not from the government, not from any politician, not from any drug company. We forced all of those things into being by our anger and our fear. And that's what anger can get you. You do not get more with honey than with vinegar. Anger is a wonderful emotion. Very creative, if you know how to do it. I really truly felt that for some reason I'd been spared to tell this story. Everybody I know is dead, all my friends. I shouldn't say everyone, but almost. I'm still here. Ok, thank you God, I don't believe in you, but thank you anyway. This is what I'm going to do to pay back.
Anger made ACT UP. It saved people's lives. And people right now are dying in the streets, sometimes left there, and where is the anger?
I am angry. I am pissed off. I want change.
No matter what side of the aisle you are currently are on, we need to recognize that those sides and the aisle is bullshit. The elite political forces to clearly are not on the side of the citizens that it is unfathomable at this point that all people aren't also pissed off.
We do not live in a democracy, and this election is showing everyone that. That is bullshit. I want my voice to be heard equally to everyone else's and the only people who don't want that right now are the delegates and powerful within the Republican and Democratic parties.
I think it's time we do something. Bu first we have to get angry.
I just received this e-mail from the ACLU, and I thought it was important to share in case anyone didn't get it. In just 3 months we've done some amazing things!
Here's their message:
In the three months since ACLU Action launched, hundreds of thousands of us have stood together to secure crucial victories in the fight for civil liberties. So before we all go off to enjoy fireworks and family barbecues for the Fourth of July, we want to take a moment to celebrate all that we've done together:
We smashed CISPA. After we learned CISPA would have allowed private companies to hand over our personal information to government agencies (setting the stage early on for our most recent fight against NSA spying), over 50,000 ACLU Action supporters and a big coalition of partners demanded that President Obama promise to veto CISPA if it passed Congress. Then to turn up the heat, hundreds of us chipped in money to take out a full-page ad in Politico, which hit the desks of almost every politician on Capitol Hill. It worked. President Obama issued his veto threat and CISPA failed to move.
DOMA is history. Edie Windsor had been married to her partner Thea Spyer for years, but after Thea's death they were treated as strangers under federal law. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edie and deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. This was an incredible moment in a long journey (the ACLU took its first LGBT rights case in 1936), but the fight is not over. In 37 states same-sex couples still cannot marry, so we've just launched a major push to fight for marriage equality in states across country.
Animal abuse whistleblowers in Tennessee won't be jailed. Ag-gag bills that seek to suppress undercover investigations of the inhumane treatment of animals in factory farms have been popping up in a number of states. With our allies in the animal welfare community, over 30,000 ACLU Action supporters pressured Tennessee Governor Haslam to stop ag-gag legislation, ensuring that whistleblowers are not criminalized for practicing free speech. On May 13th, the Governor vetoed the bill.
Bayli Silberstein secured her right to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. After her year-long fight to form a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club at her school, over 50,000 ACLU Action supporters stepped up to stand with 14-year-old Bayli against the school board's proposal to ban all extra-curricular clubs. We flew a plane banner over their board meeting, packed with hundreds of supporters, to make sure they heard our message. The board finally relented when faced with a lawsuit and Bayli's GSA is now able to meet, affirming Bayli and other students' right to organize freely against homophobia.
Private companies can no longer patent our natural DNA. Myriad Genetics' patents on two important genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) make critical tests for genetic predisposition to cancer inaccessible for many people - like our client, Kathleen Maxian, who is now living with late-stage ovarian cancer. Kathleen's story became the centerpiece of our petition demanding the United States Patent and Trademark Office stop issuing gene patents. Soon after, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favor that companies like Myriad cannot patent genes, opening the door for more women like Kathleen to be fully informed of their cancer risks.
This is only the beginning of what we as a community can achieve when we come together to defend all of our rights and liberties.
Between last week's Supreme Court decision to curtail the power of the Voting Rights Act, our ongoing struggle against the surveillance state and the battle raging in Texas right now to limit the personal health decisions of women, we know there is still much left to do. Let's keep at it together!
Thank you for making all of these wins possible. Anthony and the ACLU Action team
I hope you're all as exited as I am about these actions.
On my day off, I decided to sleep in until 11am, make a tofu scramble breakfast burrito, and watch "Animal Cops: Houston." This particular episode of ACH involved busting a dogfighting opperation, including watching a video (which was completely disgusting). One of the investigators was speaking on how these poor animals were just doing what their "masters" wanted and how horrible it is for people to use animals for this kind of entertainment. I completely agree; I love this show because it does show and speak on these issues, but I wonder if this kind of entertainment is different from that kind of entertainment...
I'm not saying I know anything about this man who was saying this, but statistically, he is most likely not vegan. And statistically, the majority of the people who watch this show are most likely not vegan. Yet because they enjoy ACH they are probably morally opposed to dog fighting. And this is where the hypocrisy come in: how can someone be disgusted by one kind of abuse of animals and not another? Why are dogs considered superior to cows, chickens, turkeys, horses, buffalo, and all other kinds of animals murdered for their flesh?
Dogfighting is a form of entertainment, but so is the consumption of meat
Humans do not need meat to survive. There is absolutely no nutritional benefit to eating meat that isn't healthier when obtained from a plant food, and in fact, there is peer reviewed evidence that suggests that eating animal-based foods will do nothing but make you sick. That is: higher chance of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension, just to name a few. It would be surprising for me to hear that someone didn't know that to have a healthier diet you need to decrease animal based foods in all forms and increase fresh foods and vegetables - isn't that common sense?
Therefore, the only benefit I can logically find from eating meat is cultural. It is entertaining to eat meat because meat has a lot of fat. That, and all of the chemicals added to the animal's food when it was alive and the chemicals added to the flesh after it was killed, create a chemical reaction in the brain that makes you feel like you're eating something satisfying, when really it's pretty empty as far as actual nutritional content and ability to keep you alive and healthy.
Eating meat must also make people feel powerful. It puts humans in the position of being at the top of the food chain. It makes humans have dominion over all other creatures, because "Man is almighty," forget about god. We like the idea of being Man the Hunter because, well, humans have huge egos and are incredible narcissists. None of the other creatures on earth give a shit about this, yet humans are NUMBER 1!!! in a contest that doesn't even exist. Tearing into a sentient being's flesh with your teeth is a very powerful image, and does create a power dynamic... but the problem is that that dynamic has been bastardized in our society, and is becoming more so in societies all over the world. My opinion is that all living creatures should be respected and equal, and that that dynamic should not exist, but that is probably too radical or something.
Meanwhile, as we're horrified by dogfighting, we allow factory farms to continue to be legal (there is so much information about factory farming beyond that link, which is pretty expansive. Try here for an introduction). In fact, these factory farms are encouraged to be treat the animals poorly in order to increase efficiency. And actually, those which are corporately owned are legally obligated to make more money, no matter the sacrifice.
Dogfighting is a form of entertainment, but so are commercials
There is a commercial on TV right now where a manic-looking grandfather tied strings to two dead chicken bodies, making them dance, and the grandchildren are making the music for this puppet show of HORRORS!
Just watch:
But seriously, it's pretty disgusting, once you think about it. At first I was just bemused. Then, it made me disgusted. Then, it made me angry... and reminded me of something: Remember when American soldiers in Afghanistan were taking pictures with the dead bodies of the Afghans they had killed and the Afghani suicide bombers, smiling and laughing? This has happened a few times. Those soldiers had been forced into an environment were the people from the country we're fighting are no longer seen as being human. They had been forced to lose some of their own humanity. This always happens in war: in order for soldiers to kill, those other people have to be dehumanized, and usually demonized. This is the exact same way we treat the animals in our lives: chickens are not thinking, feeling, calculating creatures that want happiness and comfort, and want to avoid pain and suffering. They are bodies, and those bodies do no deserve respect.
When those pictures came out of the soldiers, the country was shocked and disgusted. We discussed what war does to soldiers, and if there is a way we can fix the situation, and what we should do with the soldiers, because what happened was wrong. I argue that these soldiers were doing the same thing with those human bodies that our greater society does with non-human animal bodies. We as a society have lost that same piece of our humanity that those soldiers did, but since humans are on some higher level, it became noticeable with them, and is not with this commercial.
There are examples of it everywhere, but I chose this commercial is because of the subtlety and the normalcy of it. Once the subtle and the normalized become noticed as wrong, then the more obvious becomes glaring. Dogfighting is one of those examples. We consider there to be something wrong with people that abuse dogs and cats. It is a recognizable wrong in our culture. It has been linked to human abuse. We know it's morally wrong. But the most subtle has always been more confusing.
I know you're thinking, 'why should I care?' (and I know this because you're human and that makes you a selfish jerk). The thing is, all animal abuse is linked to human abuse, not just the abuse of the animals we choose to respect. In fact, that lack of respect may be one of the major problems in the US today, and we learn it first from the animals in our lives, then from out peers, and then from the greater society. Of course we respect our elders, but why respect something or someone you consider lower that you on the "food chain?" And eventually, that means that the CEO billionaire dehumanizes the poor person in their mind, and economically abuses them. Let's be real, our economy isn't getting better. The only way it will is if the ones at the top reclaim that part of their humanity that they have lost, and do what they need to do to fix the economy, and that requires respecting all people and all creatures.
Dogfighting is disgusting and horrible and sad.
But the way we treat many of the other animals in our society is disgusting and horrible and sad. It is hypocritical to care about one and not the other. If we start thinking about these other instances as the same lacking in morality, only then can we start fixing ourselves as people, because it cannot be denied that something is seriously and deeply wrong.
I am a loyal listener to Citizen Radio, which is a more or less political, mostly comedic, progressive podcast. I do agree with most things they say, as a progressively-minded person, but I do also take issue with some stuff. For example, they say everyone should stop smoking for political, financial, and health reasons, and I'm a smoker, yes, but they are right. I think they're not focusing on the right issue in this aspect. However, I think the issue is very complicated, obviously with the history of advertising and they way the tobacco companies function, but people should have the choice to be a cigarette smoker if they choose without the government or society looking down on them for that choice. But that's just because I like being able to choose my actions in a country that prides itself on freedom.
The main thing I take issue with, though, is that they are the kind of White progressives that are racist against White people. I'm not saying that White people haven't really fucked with minorities in serious ways that have carried over to today's landscape. I'm also not saying that I'm not privileged simply for being White, because I am. But I do think that the blanket statements of saying all White people are essentially evil is very offensive. I am very not racist, am very socially and politically aware, but the fact that I am White does not make me an asshole. Though, their language implies that it does.
But this is a problem with a lot of progressives that I have dealt with. I felt it for a while in high school, too. It goes along with a blanket hatred for living in the United States and being a United States citizen and fantasizing about moving to a better place without even wanting to make this place better. Those other places that you want to move depended on their citizens to make that place what it is. The United States deserves that from us, as well.
It's almost as if these White people that hate White people are jealous that a lot of "minorities" have had a rough time of it, and they haven't, and they feel that that makes their experiences less valid. I mean, one of the things the hosts basically bragged about for the majority of the time I've listened to the show is that they were homeless and lived in their car for a while, as if that made what they have to say more respected. It wasn't until one of their listeners emailed in concerned that someone they loved was considering being homeless that it actually came out that they were not really homeless, they only slept in their car once or twice the whole time (a year or more), they mostly stayed at friends' houses, and that it isn't something that they would really recommend. Progressives, a lot of the time, value hardships. I guess that's a thing in US culture, though. We always root for the underdog, and being the underdog and coming out of it is something to respect.
Last night I was listening to Friday's episode of Citizen Radio, "A minor meltdown, followed my Domes.org's Heather McGhee", where they had a guest talking about affirmation action. Heather McGhee, the guest, basically said that one of the reasons affirmative action is important, or the most important, is because it provides a diverse college experience for people going to college. Jamie, one of the hosts, excitedly said, "You don't want to be around the table with, like, the bosses, and like, some giant corporation and that's when you learn that's not appropriate for a White person to quote the Chris Rock difference between White people and n-word bit." But, would anyone do that? Diversity is obviously something that is very important, but it shouldn't be the reason a person gains experience or prestige. In fact, I would find that pretty insulting (which is addressed in the 30 Rock episode "Lee Marvin vs. Derek Jeter"). The issue isn't race, and people who don't want affirmative action don't want all races or ethnicities to be literally seen the same. No. Diversity is super important, but we're looking at the issue from the wrong side. The issue is CLASS. Economic class. Period.
The thing is, minorities do tend to come from poorer neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods don't have as good schools as richer neighborhoods. Look at No Child Left Behind. Public schools that do well on their tests get more money and schools that don't get less. Before NCLB, the rich schools probably were better funded because of the rich neighborhoods they existed in, and vise verse. It would make sense if the schools that were not doing as well got more money because they would be able to afford better facilities, more and better teachers and IAs, more up to date textbooks, more and better college prep courses, and better extracurricular activities that would benefit the students. These students are the ones that need this because it's more likely that their parents won't have the time or educational background to enforce educational achievements or the money to pay for private tutoring, whereas in rich neighborhoods their parents are more likely to have the time and educational background and money to devote to their child's education. They are less likely to have to have three jobs in order to house and feed their kids, you know.
But this is what we should be focusing on. I agree, diversity is important. Yes, that was one of the best parts of my going to New Mexico State University. Yes, if you're from a poor neighborhood, you should be provided with more scholarship opportunities, but even then, if university is so important, it should be free. I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that at this point; that college has become so important that it should become a public and private situation in the same way as public and private schools function, at least initially. Everyone should have the opportunity to go to college, anyway. However, my experience trying to find an undergraduate medical internship should not have been so hard simply because I'm White. I can't help my background just as much as anyone else. If we want the playing field to be even, we need to start with public elementary, middle, and high schools, not college. The mindset of affirmative action is inherently racist, whether it benefits minorities or puts them down, because it depends solely on the person's race/ethnicity.
The opportunity to go to a good school should start at public schools, evening out the competitive edge rich people have, whether they are Which or Asian or Black or Hispanic or Whatever.
Update: The Citizen Radio hosts addressed this issue by basically saying that the institutional racism by people of minorities has been a problem for so long that Affirmative Action still needs to happen. Ok, that makes sense, except for the fact that it is illegal to not hire someone for being a certain race/ethnicity. It is totally legal, though, to hire someone because they're of a minority. It's also legal to not hire someone of a certain culture, because those people represent your company, and if they don't have the correct appearance or style of language they can not be hired. Those kinds of things are like tattoos and piercings and a style of language, all of which are more common amongst people who feel disinfrancised for whatever reason... usually because they are of a lower class.
Allison, the other host, says, "I'm confused as to why it's an either or thing. Why can't we give a leg up, if you will, to both poor people and Black people who happen to be overwhelmingly, uh, [systematically oppressed (Jamie)] poor as well, though. I just don't see why we have to have the Suffering Olympics and help one group without... you know, I think..." And then she gets cut off by Jamie and they start talking about Pell Grants. (Where, might I point out, they started talking about how the benefit of Pell Grants was that it was focused on poor people, regardless of race, and that it needs to be better funded now. This seems a little hypocritical to me, if race is such an important issue.)
The thing is, Allison, it is not an either or thing. If Affirmative Action was aimed and giving poor communities in general a leg up, race and ethnicity would never be an issue. Yeah, there would still be racists, but having a different kind of racism does nothing to help the actual issue.
Then Jamie says, "One of the reasons I tend to put race a little above class is because at the same time poor people of all colors were being fucked, I mean, you gotta remember that Black people weren't allowed in the same college, I mean, pretty recently. You know, Black people, like, there was segregated schools, there was segregated everything." Notice how it's all in the past tense? Sounds like our host here has a bit of White guilt himself. Seriously, I think that's what defending Affirmative Action is about, the reason it was put into place in the first place, especially when his co-host says this:
"And this is a great way to keep the 99% fighting. Because we are fighting over crumbs were as if we tax the 1% at a slightly higher rate there would be enough funds for everyone to go to college! But! If the poor White are too busy fighting the poor people of color then there's never a collision, there's never organization, there's never direct action." I agree completely, Allison! Affirmative Action is a way to keep people of lower classes fighting against each other over something as stupid as race and ethnicity! Poor people of all races and elasticities should be standing together as a way to tell those in power that what is happening to them and their communities is not ok.
I was talking to my father, who is a scientist for the government, about this, and he was complaining that because of Affirmative Action so many people get raises because they are "Hispanic" (remember, I live in New Mexico where the majority of the minorities is "Hispanic"). That's probably true, but the thing is, those people are scinetists for the government, where everyone has at least a B.S. Their getting a raise based solely on their ethnicity is unfair because at that point, isn't everyone on equal footing? They don't really need a leg up on White people, do they? And wouldn't it be more satisfying to get a raise based on how hard you work or the quality of that work apposed to a government requirement for more minorities in managerial positions?
As sort of an aside, I read an ethnography called In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, by Phillippe Bourgois. Basically, Bourgois pointed out that the best choice for the people in this neighborhood is to sell crack because not only do they have respect in their community as a crack dealer, but they also stop using when they sell. There was a section of the book talking about when people tried to go straight, that is, getting a job that is legitimate legally; when the did, they had little to no respect in their jobs, were talked down to by their employers on a regular basis, and had no opportunity to move up in the company because they did not have the correct representation of what the company wanted. These people were minorities, obviously, but they also were not Black, they were Mexican or Puerto Rican (I don't remember), and were put down for how they were and how they spoke and how they acted. These are the issues that need to be addressed - socioeconomic issues. If these people weren't raised in a culture or selling crack and understood that there is a way to gain respect without it, and actually had the opportunity, means, and motivation from those around them to follow through with this alternative, they wouldn't have had the go-to of selling crack. And their public education was step one. It's not a race thing. We should send money to these schools because there are Latinos there. We should send money to these schools because they don't have any. (Also, fixing the whole War on Drugs thing would be nice, but that's a separate issue.)
I also think I should point out that, after high school, I do not have "White guilt." Yes, a lot of White people were assholes in the past, but I had nothing to do with that. So, no, I don't feel guilty for something I didn't do. Sorry to disappoint.
Daniel Tosh likes to joke about rape. Someone in his audience did not think it was funny, as was written about here. So, I posted about it on facebook, and this is the awesome conversation that ensued:
And this is why I have awesome friends. Not one person decided to try to defend Daniel Tosh for being a total douche-bag. Speaking of which! You should definitely read the article that was posted called "Douchebag Decree: Daniel Tosh and the "Comedy" of Rape Culture". It's really, very good. And ok, maybe she shouldn't have called out during his set. I realize that constitutes "heckling," and is therefore looked down on. And yes, comics deal with hecklers in their own way. But calling on your audience (a lot of whom really look up to you) to act violently or in an invasive way is not the way to deal with it, because they probably will, since they have in the past. Would Daniel Tosh have really laughed if five of his audience members raped that woman right there, right then? Probably not. I would hope not. But it would be in his name, anyway.
Unfortunately, though, my friends do have a bit of the rape culture blinders on. When the Lara Croft rape thing was a big deal a month ago, some of my gamer friends, who are pretty aware of gender politics, became complete dick-wads and basically said "You're a tight-ass, frigid, hysterical woman who will get offended by anything," and no matter what I or those who agreed with me said, no matter how solid and academically backed our argument was, it would always come back to that. That or that I'm not as big of a gamer than them, so therefore I don't know anything about media and rape culture.
But that's the thing with people who will defend media or people who make light of rape culture: they are so invested in it that either 1) they don't think it's a problem but have heard about it or 2) think that it doesn't exist/don't know what it is. Either way, they will see any criticism as a criticism of the media and, by extension, a criticism of themselves. Calling for something to be better by no way suggests that everyone that enjoys it is a rapist or a rape apologist.
Personally, I watch movies and TV and like stand-up comedy and enjoy games and listen to music and sometimes watch music videos. That in no way means that I don't think it should be better, more self-aware, or not perpetuate the most disgusting parts of our society. Take hip-hop or rap, for example. I enjoy that kind of music quite a lot, and that kind of music is pretty misogynistic and rape-y and demeaning to women a lot of the time. When it's too much, I avoid it, yes, because at that point it's hard to overlook the lyrics for the sake of the music, but it's impossible to avoid ever an instance of misogyny in rap and hip hop. Or any media, for that matter, if you enjoy the media. That in no way means it can't get better. In fact, if you love the media and/or identify with it, you should call for it to become better.
Probably the main reason I love dead prez.
It's the same mentality as neo-conservatives who say, "You're with us or you're against us!" to imply that no one can be a patriot who disagrees with what the government does. And I disagree. I believe that one of our responsibilities as citizens is to call on our country to become a better and more moral place.
Or comedians like Patton Oswald who bitched on twitter that someone was offended by a rape joke. Or when comedians were pissed that Tracy Morgan had to apologize for saying he would stab his son to death if he came out as gay. That wasn't funny either.
The thing is that it isn't just a joke or just a game or just a whatever. What we are exposed to in media will affect the way we think and the way we feel about the subjects presented to us. Media teaches us what is funny, what is acceptable, and what is not funny and acceptable. Being aware is the first step, and the second step is calling out that joke or game or whatever as offensive, because a lot of what is called out as offensive is offensive because it trivializes rape and violence against gay people and violence against abortion doctors and violence in general, which in turn will cause that violence to occur and then the greater society will not care.
We do live in a rape culture. We should not. And people who perpetuate that culture should not be put on some sort of forgiving pedestal because they exist within a certain cultural context.
First, I'll say I do not take
issue with the term "slave" in this case. These robots are meant to
act like the machines they are, and are never meant to become sentient,
unlike many of the science fiction issues with robots that have arisen. "Slave" similar to they way our computers and cell phones are slaves. So, ok, tools, I guess.
The idea is: we create robots to do all of the work so
that we don't have to. That way, we can have food, products, free
time, health... it would be great! Then humans can spend all of their
time worried about whatever they want to worry themselves with. This
does not mean that we could not also contribute to the work-system that
would be put into place, but the thing is, we would only be contributing
because it would make us happy to, say, own and run a farm or well,
maintaining the robots. There would be no need for government or
money. It would be for the pure joy of hard work, which is essential to
the human experience. We could get out from under the thumb of Big
Banks, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Oil, Big Corporations. We could feed
ALL of the hungry people in the world. We could house all of the
homeless. We could travel anywhere, at any time. We could worry about
being good people instead of being assholes for the cash. Fabulous.
Moreover,
the environment would no longer be an issue. Without the constant
squashing of earth-friendly energy by the oil company money, scientists
would be free to work on and develop there energies freely. There would
be no issues with funding or exposure. We would just implement the
most sustainable lifestyles with no cost to anyone.
And
since we are no longer constantly trying to gain resources, and no
government means no more need for reinforcing power structures; there
would be no more war, no more civil rights abuses, not more genocide.
And on those notes, classes would be meaningless.
Now, as we have all been warmed be the science fiction
thought experiments that have been presented to us, the issue of robots
becoming self-aware, epithetic, feeling, or thinking is an issue that
needs to be addressed before we take this idea seriously.
The Asimov Laws of Robotics
These
laws are presented assuming that the laws can be programed into the
robots as we understand them in English and that robots are not used as
military weapons.
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Problems with the Laws
The language of the laws requires very specific
definitions. "Human," for example, needs to be able to be applied to
every single Homo sapien on the planet. Perhaps some sort of DNA
analysis could be the indicator. This is assuming the the androids we
come up with are nothing like the cylons, and are very clearly
machines. Robots must have a very clear distinction between robots and
humans and never confuse the two terms. Period. Why we would make
sentient robots in the first place is beyond me. Just because you can does not mean you should.
There
have been many other Laws presented; these are the most famous. We
should be open to others, and decide on that upon creating the robots.
The greatest minds of the field should work on this, provided they think of the tools here as entirely egalitarian and without any learning or empathy loopholes.
Plus, we probably won't get it right the first time, so it'll be a
learning process. I just don't want the next great war (or the one
after) to be humans against machines. We would probably lose.
Problems with the Solution
Similar to people's issues with communism, a
potential problem with this solution is that people will become lazy
because they have no reason to work hard. Perhaps this will happen with
some people, but maybe that's just how those people will choose to live
their lives. Others will be adventurers and travelers, philosophers,
doctors, artists and writers. In fact, people would have the ability to
do whatever they loved at any time. I do not believe the meaning of
life would be lost, it would just change. Maybe. I guess that depends
on what you think the meaning of life is for you. Problem solved.
Well,
ok, I'm not naive enough to think that those in charge of distribution
and
creation initially would have equal power to those who have little or no
involvement in this. I suppose this issue would come to the "divine
beauty of the human heart," as it were. Eventually, ideally, this would
no longer be an issue because some sort of formula would come into
place that would distribute robots as needed. We would also need some
way of identifying and closely watching the sociopaths of society so
that no one would be able to change any programing in favor of total
domination, and those people would have no connection to the robots at
all in any way other than the layman's interaction. So, as long as that
whole thing worked out, problem solved.
So, you're welcome. We'll see if the politicians will implement this... The jerks.
Obviously, there is something wrong with our country.
Maybe we would all disagree on what is the cause and what could be the fix, but in general, we all know that the government is completely corrupt and that this needs to change. We are no longer for or by the people; we are now for and by the cash.
People from all sides of the spectrum are aware of this, but there is no real solution to the problem in sight. Occupy is doing some really great and interesting things, but really, how is legislation going to be passed to end the corruption by those who benefit from it most? Occupy can't guide their hands any more than calling our representatives can. That's not to say neither has impact or that we need to stop trying, by god do we need to continue to try, but neither will convince an unethical person to be ethical.
Dan Carlin, my favorite political commentator (listen to his show Common Sense with Dan Carlin), agrees that this is the main problem with our government at the moment and other problems there may be stem from this. He discusses it frequently. But in his most recent episode (and every so often before), Dan Carlin expressed concern that he's all talk and no action and it's getting depressing. I don't agree that it's depressing just because I've come to terms with the whole deal. Frustrating, yes. And I hope to direct action against the corruption of the government with my career some day, so I'm just being patient. But Dan Carlin has an idea, and I feel that it would be beneficial to promote it.
"Voting.
Legislation. Protests. These are the traditional methods historically
used to fill that action-verb void. Those were the “B” in our A
to C transition. When those fail, what should be tried?"
Because, really, if corruption did not exist in our system things like marijuana would never have been illegal, for example. And it definitely would be legal now, federally. So, we need to do something. And Dan Carlin is trying to do something to figure out the missing step in fixing our political system, which is more than most people can say.
Check out his twitter to stay updated, @dccommonsense. It's still in the baby steps, it's pretty foggy, actually, but it could potentially be an exciting thing to be involved in.
Earlier this month, I read an article about how it's becoming more commonplace for police to use groping of female protesters as a method of getting people to get arrested. The first story is pretty disgusting. I mean, the kind of situation you wouldn't expect in this country, because we like to think we have freedom and act bravely. Like, the kind of thing you would expect in a movie about oppressive states. Or like that scene in The Labyrinth, which you should watch if you don't know what I mean. Read it here:
And we don't live in/ on the way to a police state. And this isn't a rape culture. And women have total equality. And women aren't objectified on the daily. Seriously.
Everyone hates the police when they get caught doing something bad. Like taking a cookie without asking or intentionally disobeying the rules. But for Occupy protesters in the United States, and for peaceful protesters throughout the world, police brutality has become the main reason to be rather upset and let loose a little "Fuck the police."
Since the Occupy movement is based on being peaceful and changing the system (for whatever reason you think it needs to change), and claiming that the movement represents the 99% of the population, police need to be on the side of Occupy. I know that they have been a little testy. I mean, in one protest the a window was broken by a cop smashing a peaceful, non-resisting protester's head through a window. I'm sorry, I meant protester medic. I don't mean to qualify this guy as more important than the average peaceful, non-resisting protester, but it is pretty ironic that someone there to help people who get hurt gets smashed into a window.
But the cops need to be behind Occupy is Occupy is going to be successful. Period.
Allison Kilkenny on her and Jamie Kilstein's podcast Citizen Radio said that it would take a Buddhist calm to be able to protest in favor of cops. Well, too bad, that's the point: forgiveness and calm and having a right-mind.
And a perfect opportunity has presented itself. The Chicago PD who worked during the NATO protests may not be getting paid their overtime. I guess specifically, the police officers' contract states that the officers can be paid
either in money or in time off. However, the officers that worked
during the NATO summit in Chicago were issued overtime slips with the
"money" box already checked, giving the officers no option for time off.
Occupy should demonstrate in their favor.
The officers that worked the NATO Summit's protest were not all super. Citizen Radio did have a great three episode series talking about the NATO protests, if you would like to hear specifically how the cops behaved, including multiple cops attacking one journalist and telling people to get off the sidewalk while pushing people onto the sidewalk and then arresting them. And all that.
But if we want to avoid pushing our country further toward a police state, we need to have the cops on the side of the citizens. Unfortunately, the cops work under the mayor, and the mayor is a politician, and politicians are in the pockets of the evil Monopoly Men.
I enjoy watching sports, and sometimes playing them if I'm not too horrible at it. Professional sports, however, very much get under my skin. The main reason for this is the ridiculous amount of money that is being made, and how that is never enough for even the highest paid athletes. It seems very frequent that I hear about one sport or another bitching about who's going to get the fucking billions of dollars being made. Trillions, probably.
And I think that is selfish.
Mario and Luigi would never pull that shit.
Maybe Wario.
Definitely Bowser.
Given, I've never had that much money, so I don't know how it could corrupt one's mind. But I would like to think that any decent and reasonable person (both of which I assume I am), would not just be absurdly rich and whine for more money and that be that. They would give the money away to those in need. We all know that these days, many, rather, most are in need. The vast majority, actually.
I was having this conversation the other day with some people that do know and enjoy watching sports. Each one of them agreed that the pay system is ethically wrong, and it needs to be changed. One person suggested that we change it so that everyone starts with about $100,000 for the year and if the team wins, they get a bonus, and if they lose, they get a pay decrease. This was the "socialist solution." Well, even though we know that this is just a different way of working within the rules of capitalism and he probably misspoke, the idea of a socialist solution is intriguing.
So here's what I was thinking: Sports players and their posse do deserve to be payed for what they do, as entertainers. The amount of money is far too high, but it is based on supply and demand, so theoretically, if they were paid less there would be a surplus, and that would have to go somewhere. As sports teams are meant to represent a specific region of the country or world, why should that money not go back into those communities? There is always a use for more public hospitals, homeless shelters, infrastructure repair, mental health support, support for our veterans, jobs programs and so on, that the government doesn't have the money for because that money is too preoccupied killing people and destroying cities over seas. Oh, and bailing out companies that are too big to fail... And some other unethical thing that makes no sense.
I know we have to start small with the whole restructuring our society so it doesn't collapse on itself thing, but why not start with something that the best part of the country loves and respects and idolizes? I mean, the majority of the inspirational films that have every come out in the United States are based on sports.
If sports are supposed to bring people together, where class and race lines are erased and we are all part of the American family, it needs to show the rest of the country how that is done. If we are supposed to take this idea that "people who are good at
football can achieve their dreams and so can you" seriously we need
something other than a good soundtrack and a white woman saving a black
man.
Because is that not the point of following a sport - feeling like you belong, like you are a part of the team, and that you have a community? As far as I understand it, that is the most important reason people participate in spectating.
Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! knows what I'm talking about.
I really do feel that this would be an amazing step in the right direction. And so symbolic, too. If the behemoth that is the sport industry, that is something that people talk and think about probably more than any other kind of entertainment, made this change, it would lead the way in changing the way we think. We need to start thinking in terms of "we" and "community" instead of "I" and "individual."
I had two thoughts upon the completion of the documentary Miss Representation, written, directed, and produced by Jennifer Siebel Newsom; 'I really need to volunteer for an organization that impacts the lives of young people,' and 'I really need to send this to my parents.'
The DVD isn't out yet, so the documentary can be watched here:
This post is to be a sort of summary/review of the documentary. Hopefully, it'll interest some to view the film, and for those who have, maybe my take can be of interest to you, too.
I feel like I should give a little, baby warning for those with easily upset stomachs: there are a lot of generalizations in this post. It may at times seem like I'm saying "all women" or "all men," but I'm not. I realize that there are exceptions to every rule. I'm writing in generalizations because it's easier. You can de-bunch your panties, now.
You can't be what you can't see!! What a great poster.
"The only two choices for women: witch
and sexy kitten." - Miranda Hobbs "Oh you just said a mouthful there, sister." - Carrie Bradshaw
As a culture, women are brought up to be and being fundamentally
insecure. To be a woman means a constant strive for an unattainable level of beauty, and every woman in this culture has a unique but common experience in the attempt to achieve this unattainable goal. This essentially causes women to focus all of their energy toward their physical appearance, placing all of their worth on their bodies. We are distorted in what we see as beauty, we get conditioned to think anorexia is the norm, and this conditioning begins at an early age. Why do we think this? What is the motivation? Let's find out...
"How long is it going to take for someone to take a stand?"
When children are 7-years-old, girls and boys equally want to be
President, but by age 15, there's a huge gap, where boys want it more frequently. Girls are both told they cannot be President and not shown a reality were this occurs and is therefore possible (maybe little girls need to start watching more Battlestar Galactica). After all, "You cannot be what you cannot see," according to Marian Wright Edelman. This is why varied female representation in Hollywood is so important. As it is, stereotypes about women are what is portrayed in film. Only 16% of protagonists in movies are women, and a woman is only the protagonist when her life is centered on getting a
man. Chick flicks, for example,
revolve around getting into a relationship, getting married, and getting
pregnant. And when there is a woman in a movie whose main motivation is not to catch her man, she's a bitch. She's the Bitchy Boss, for another example, where the movie based around taking her down,
usually by a subordinate male.
The thing is, media isn't representing a person with these female characters, they're making cartoons of what a "good female" should be, and punish her when she does not embody that representation. That cartoon female is not as culturally relevant as her male counterpart, and in fact only exists to make the male more relevant; in this way, the female body becomes phallic. Phallic symbols represent power, like the Washington Monument. Therefore, when the female body is only valued for it's beauty, the more beautiful a woman is increases the power the man that won her has. In this way, the female body is used to establish power for a man and her body becomes a phallic symbol (I bet just femininismed the shit out of your mind).
The cartoon females are less intelligent, weaker, their needs in a relationship aren't as important, etc, and men are seeing this in film and television and learning this to be true as well. If a
man is taught that he's supposed to be better than women in every way
yet sees women who are smarter or more powerful than himself, what does it
mean to be a man? What can it mean to be a man? Men are trained to be emotionally constipated and are left without a healthy way to express
themselves because emotions are feminine, and to be feminine is to deny masculine, and this is unacceptable if one is to be a man. And so men lash out at women for emasculating them.
And this can be seen in how the abuse against women's bodies is commonplace in the United States (i.e. we live in a rape culture).
Statistics: 1 in 4 women are abused by a partner in their lifetime, and 1 in 6 women are raped in their lifetime. 16% of those raped are under the age of 12 at the time of the abuse.
"The Fighting Fuck Toy"
This is one of the most interesting concepts presented for me. "The Fighting Fuck Toy" is essentially one of those bad ass women that kicks ass while being sexy as shit. But the thing is, even though it seems like she's
doing things on her own terms, she is still objectified and exists for
the male viewer, just as a different flavor of fuck. Some like sweet, strawberry, Girl Next Door, and some like spicy, chili, Fighting Fuck Toy. It was interesting for me because I think I fell into this trap myself. My greatest concern is that Charlie's Angels is a representation of this. I really hope not because it's one of my favorite movies. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize how problematic it is... Oh well, those ladies kick ass and that's that. But Tomb Raider does suck. And so does Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, so, I'm cool... no, it's fine. I'm still a good feminist.
But they are bad ass and sexy.
"When you're not treated the same, you are de-humanized. When you're
not given the same opportunity, you're de-humanized. When people look
at you differently because you happen to be a women and you happen to be
in a position of some influence that someone who is a man would
naturally be in based on tradition or history and people question your
qualifications, that's de-humanizing." - Gavin Newsom
Now, advertising. It's based on making you feel anxious: women are told to be more beautiful, obviously, and men are told they are not powerful enough. These anxieties are not only caused by advertising, but what society tells us in general (which is hard to say because the question of whether media controls minds or minds control media is just as difficult to answer as the nature versus nurture debate. Safest to say it's both.) So, women now spend more money on beauty products to perpetuate the beauty myth shoved on them than their own education whereas men feel it necessary to have products that represent power, like the right kind of car. But in both cases, women are the ones objectified. Girls and women are seen as objects in these advertisements to make the products more desirable (you can be this body or you can fuck this body if you buy this product). This causes self-objectification for women and girls, which leads to depression, lower GPAs, women are less likely to run for office and vote, et cetera.
Meaning this democracy we're so proud of is not representative of half the population. Actually, according to the documentary, the national leadership in the United States is, on average, chosen from 6% of the country: male, white, straight and married, over 35, college educated, and with a professional degree.
To fix this lack of representation, we both need to have the female candidates (that is, women that can see themselves in powerful positions) and need Americans to be able to see a woman in powerful positions. Of course, this isn't all our fault (or our fault at all?); just look at the way powerful women are talked about in pop news. Female participation in the political process itself creates a
backlash in the media, regardless of their political stance because powerful women are only valued as far as they can be fucked. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh are perfect examples of this, even with Sarah Palin, who the GOP thought could be their saving grace in the Obama - McCain race. Some examples of the quality of commentary about powerful women are as follows: "ugly skank," "ugly hag," "fat moron,"
"wicked witch of the west," "[it's] rare to find a woman worthy of serving
political office", "[what problem with a woman President] besides the PMS and the mood swings?" and it goes on. That last one is one of the most disgusting interviews I've ever seen, actually. Of course it was on The O'Reilly Factor, and the man being interviewed was Marc Rudov, who didn't even have to think about that response. But it's because media (and/or society) treats
power as its defined by men, and power is therefore masculine. Any woman who attempts to have power is therefore attempting to be masculine, and therefore she needs to be put back in her place. She needs to be trivialized, become powerless, so that she can be feminine again. There are many ways media does this, and it all has to do with the way we speak about powerful women in order to perpetuate the stereotype of irrational and emotional, fuckable or not,
women.
Even though John Boehner is Mr. Emotional. But I guess he was feminized in the commentary about him. Hm...
"The media is the message and the messenger"
I'm pretty sure, at this point, that this whole thing - the way women are represented in media, the government trying to take away our rights and own our bodies, the way the media makes us believe that our bodies don't even belong to us in the first place anyway, etc - is a backlash to the Women's Rights movement. In the documentary, reality TV is pointed out in this regard. It feeds on the notion that women are natural enemies: conniving and manipulative bitches. But this is counter to real life (and this is also one of the reasons I love Sex and the City.) And since it's counter to real life, the woman's view has to be squashed in order to perpetuate this frame of thought. Space in the media realm is taken away from women as a backlash to women challenging men's power in the concrete realm.
Media is in the hands of men. That is, 97% of what you know about yourself and world is from the male perspective, and the male perspective says "Sex sells!... Well, fuckable females sell, penises are either gross or funny, depending on how afraid of sex the viewer is." People who employ other people tend to hire those who are a reflection of themselves, and media is a creation of what the people in charge know (read: white males). Obviously the glass ceiling exists.
And even though women have made progress, and I am not denying that in the slightest, to reiterate, media still defines who we are and
men are the ones who hold the positions of power and attempt to keep women out of power. And the thing is, even though women have made progress, and I am not denying that in the slightest, it has always been
problematic when women gain power. During the 1st wave, after WWII was
over, women were fired in droves and with a strong push by the government and with the use of capitalism, media was used to try to "re-domesticate"
women. During the 2nd wave, awesome shit
went down. But then in the 1980s, Reagan started his propaganda of the demonization of
the word liberal, and the feminist was a perfect representation of that. Feminists were seen as posing the greatest
threat to the social order at that time because they denied the role of the American female as wife and mother and therefore destroying the nuclear family. Isn't that what's happening today? Well, hot damn, that is interesting.
Media influence isn't all bad...
Too bad they just pretended this didn't happen to put us back in the home
where we belong.
But that is true in a way, the whole sex sells thing. The exploitation of women's bodies sells products to men 18 to 34. Apparently, men 18 to 34 are the hardest demographic to get to watch something. Throw some tits on it, make it viewable, because apparently, women will watch stories about men but men will not watch stories about women. Apparently, one half of the population just is not interested in the other half. Well, I guess, the sex part, but the talking and the stories and the human connection or relationship? No thank you. I'm sorry, but this can NOT possibly be true. Men have just been trained to think they shouldn't be interested in anything but sex, or at least not act like or speak like they are. Studies came out in 2009 that support the idea that "exposure to sexually explicit video games and music videos is linked to men's acceptance of rape myths and sexual harassment." This is the closest thing to proof that people who are exposed to violence are more likely to be violent. And that men who are exposed to sexual abuse as acceptable are more likely to abuse. So, maybe if men were able to see something other than "women are sex objects," and are able to think of them as humans, this whole rape culture thing wouldn't be such a big deal.
"These images are part of a cultural climate where women are seen as things, as objects, and turning a human being into a thing is almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person." - Jean Kilbourne
This music is in the film and is just perfect. Metric.
1) Measure yourself by your
accomplishments and not by how you look.
"If you and I, every time
we pass a mirror, downgrade on how we look or complain about our looks,
if we remember that a girl is watching us and that is how she's
learning." - Gloria Steinem
2) Reflect on the ways you
might contribute to sexism.
"I think that as women we need to stop
that destructive behavior that we inflict upon each other and
ultimately onto ourselves."
3) Support media that shows accomplished and complex women characters.
4) Boycott media that objectifies women.
5) See movies written and directed by women.
6) Create your own media showing women in complex roles.
7) Teach those around you to look at the media critically.
Which I tried to do when my friends went to see Transformers 2 and I had to explain to them why I would never see that movie, for example.
8) Challenge friends when they say fucked up shit about women.
9) Find healthy role models and be a healthy role model.
10) Support women in power.
If you agree with they way they're using their power, otherwise, to the wolves with them!
To be specific, I mean shit talking about someone that you consider your friend, not shit talking about a person you dislike. If you say something negative about someone you don't like, that isn't really shit talking, that's just what your opinion is. But when you say negative things about someone you otherwise will hang out with on a regular basis, enjoy their company, respect their opinion, and love (or really just like), it's a little more complicated, but I think I figured it out.
"Hold on, Man, I need to make sure no one
can hear what we're talking about."
I realized the other day that the reason why I, personally, talk shit about people I consider to be close friends or whom I love is because I care about them. I think that I see these things that are negative parts of their personality or something that they have done that is going to or is negatively affecting them, or other people, and it makes me feel bad. Instead of expressing my concern to the person, because confrontation is scary and overly confrontational people are very scary, I just go talk to someone else about it. People judge each other for a lot of reasons, but one of them must be concern for the other person, right? This is especially useful when the judgment isn't constructive, it's just a thing you feel and need to express somehow.
It's just too bad that's it's so negative.
But it's like complaining about your family to your friends. And I'm sure everyone has heard this before, but when a person bitches about his or her family, it's just getting something off his or her chest. As soon as another person starts saying negative things about your family more likely than not you'll kick the shit out of them. I know I do. I've gone to jail a few times for that reason. (jk, lol).
Hopefully this isn't just me trying to make up for being an asshole. Maybe it is... I guess we'll never know.
First of all, shut up, I know. I call them "cancer sticks," too. It has been beaten into me from elementary school that cigarettes will make my tongue hairy and my skin yellow and my teeth brown and my lungs will fill with tar and the filters have fiber glass and rat poison and that I will probably die of asphyxiation. Ok? I know. But despite this, I smoke and I will continue to do so as long as I damn well please. And this is why.
1. I started smoking cigarettes when I was in Barcelona, Spain. The best bar that my friends and I could find was an Irish pub (run by real Irish people!). We went there to watch the futbol games because it was the Super Bowl for soccer, and people yelling makes sports fun. Anyway, smoking: In Spain it's legal to smoke inside! So everyone was smoking and since I had smoked a few times before and I knew I liked how it made me feel (it used to give me a crazy rush when I was drunk... oh, how young I was), I smoked along with everyone else. I mean, I was breathing it in anyway and drinking Irish beer and cider and watching futbol, so what is a better compliment than a cigarette?
I love beer, I love cider, om nom nom nom...
2. Back in the states, I started smoking more as I started hanging out with people who also smoked. This was a useful tool to form some of my relationships because if we were at a party someone can say, "Let's go outside and smoke," and you get to take a break from the action and have a smaller conversation with smaller people. Well, people with smaller lung capacity, anyway. It's a shared activity. It forms bonds. Even with people you don't know. Wanna meet someone? Bum a cigarette, Dumby!
3. The brain has nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which basically means God wants us all to smoke cigarettes. In fact, every receptor that a drug compliments in our brain is one we are meant to do. Yep.
4. On that note, it makes you feel good. I totally smoke when I'm stressed and it totally calms me down. Those chemicals definitely know what they're doing because even if I don't have a noticeable chemical change in my body, I will feel a little bit better. Even if things aren't actually better. A cigarette can't fix any of your problems, get real... Unless that problem is that you aren't smoking a cigarette.
Yummy....
5. The ritual of lighting the cigarette, bringing it to your mouth, breathing smoke, exhaling smoke is satisfying and calming. In the same way, I imagine, doing any repeated motion is calming. But smoking is more fun.
6. I have an addictive personality even though I deny it all the time. I didn't realize this at all until I started smoking because it caused me to stop binge eating on chocolate. Chocolate, cookies, and sweets in general, actually, are not nearly as appealing they used to be, and I credit the cigarettes for that one. It's like quitting any bad habit: just pick up a different bad habit and it'll be no problem. And besides, if you're going to play to your addictive personality and oral fixation, you might as well be doing something that looks cool instead of shoving an entire bag of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups down your gullet.
Want to eat... :(
7. Speaking of which, the coolness factor actually is pretty important. I'm not going to lie. I feel sexy sometimes when I smoke a cigarette. Even if you hate cigarettes, you can't really deny how cool someone looks while smoking. I mean, it's been enculturated into you from day one when Doc Cottle smacked your ass and handed you to your mother just to light up a ciggy. But of course, this may have to do with the fact that I am a woman and a cigarette is my torch of freedom. Oh, how far we've come.
Common, Ladies, you'll be superheros if you smoke!
1. The moment I realized I no longer have body issues. It was an amazing moment. I was taking a shower and looked down at myself and realized that I love my body. It is truly the only thing in the world that I have, that I can or can't count on. It is my home. And as a female in the US, this is something that doesn't always even happen. In the media, such as What the Bleep Do We Know? and in Eat Pray Love (one is awesome, the other is a piece... you make the call), women don't have a chance to experience this until they are older: late 30's or 40's, and only after they have had important life experiences. The fact that this happened when I was 19 is something of an anomaly, and if I am to understand the conversations with other women and the media at face value, body-acceptance is something that should be, but is yet unattainable for all women (and all men, for that matter). It is too often that I see and meet amazing, beautiful people who have these detrimental mindsets, and I think it is the responsibility of all people to attempt to quell this. No, I am not perfect, nor do I think I am, and neither is anyone else. But this isn't the point. The point is that we are all human and that requires love toward each other and toward ourselves. Anyway, I'm really into Dead Prez right now, so enjoy, and keep doing you, Baby.
"Beauty exists not just on the surface."
2. Concerts and music festivals. There's always at least one moment during a festival or concert where it becomes clear how beautiful the energy of a crowd of people all celebrating the same thing, all experiencing joy, really is. I experienced this most intensely when I saw MGMT at Austin City Limits in 2008, when they started to play Kids. The crowd of hundreds, maybe thousands of people lost it and everyone was singing and dancing. It was very much a spiritual experience. But maybe this feeling is why humans have religion, if we want to think about it in that way. If anyone has experienced this at a concert, they know the feeling I mean. How could humans back in the day having the same feeling or similar experience not take some spiritual opinion out of that? And since it is based on mutual experience with other humans, a group is formed. The feeling is attributed to something outside of themselves. Rituals are created in order to continue to have the experience. Stories are thought of, visions are had, to explain it. It goes from there, and eventually it becomes stale and gay people aren't allowed to get married and women are closer to evil than god. Unfortunately, I have not studied this at all, but it seems to make sense, so, I think it's the case.
3. When someone notices something about you that you think is special, without prompt. For example, I have a freckle/mole on my forehead that I've always thought was unique. My high school boyfriend and I were making avatars on the Wii, I made his and he made mine, and he made a point to put that freckle on it. It was small, and something stupid, but it meant a lot that someone saw something that I loved about myself that they also thought was important, or to be presumptuous, special.
4. Anytime a deep and pure emotion is experienced. It can be for any reason, positive or negative. Pure sadness is just as positive as a feeling of pure joy, as ironic as that may sound. But think about it. To feel is to be alive, and pure emotions are beautiful.
5. The first time I felt like a woman (or I guess, a man, if that's how you swing). When I shaved my head, the first time I looked in the mirror afterward, I felt more like a woman than any other time in my entire life. A woman's hair is one of her most important expressions of femininity, and frequently, women shave their heads in times of mourning, or their heads are shaved as a form of torture. Mine was sort of in mourning, it was a strange time in my life, but when my hair was gone, it was very therapeutic. This must be due to the social import of looking and being feminine for a female, and having the ovaries to break through that, and to be strong for myself. And to be strong is to be woman. You go, Grrl.
Everything here rocks, right? And why do we experience these? Why do we experience all the awesome things not listed here, like watching a really beautiful sunset, or chilling with really close friends, etc? Because of the god in each of us, as the Dead Prez would probably agree...
I realize it's probably tacky to have two music videos
