For the entirety of my blog, I have been playing a sort of game with myself– how long can I go without making a post about LGBT rights? I have finally lost, but perhaps my readers will find it a winning topic.
On December 6th, President Obama issued a memorandum with seven points on protecting LGBT rights abroad, saying that gay rights were an important part of human rights and stating that they were a major part of the human rights and foreign policies of the United States. A short time after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a speech in Switzerland to celebrate December 10th, which marks both Human Rights Day and the signing of the Geneva Convention. She expanded upon President Obama's memo and also announced that the U.S. is making a $3 million "global equality fund" to support organizations who advance these goals around the world.
(Fun fact, which I didn't know before looking at Sec. Clinton's speech: Before the 6-3 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, there were still "sodomy laws" in place in thirteen states. Oh yeah, that was in 2003. 2003!)
The response to this speech was overwhelmingly positive. Dan Savage, creator of the "It Gets Better" campaign (and admittedly under fire for some controversial remarks about trans*-people) echoed the sentiments of many LGBT activists when he said "The check I was planning to write to Obama's reelection campaign just acquired another zero." Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT rights organization, said that "Today's actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people." Clearly, some big names in LGBT rights are really happy about this new development in gay rights and foreign policy.
The favorable reaction shocked me. Sure, I'm glad that our administration is paying attention to human rights and gay people. But it seemed to me to be kind of a backhanded move concerning domestic politics. Remember, folks, President Obama supports civil unions, not same-sex marriage. This seemed like an almost hypocritical way for Obama to pander to the LGBT crowd without actually taking any decisive stance on the freedoms of his own citizens. The more that I think about it, of course this action is going to be popular– few people are going to say that they think defending human rights is a bad thing. But it really rubs me the wrong way to see an inconsistency between actions at home and abroad, especially when it is so obviously a tactic to get gays to the polls.
I hope that if President Obama is elected for a second term, he will take a more decisive stance on the rights of LGBT people in America.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
"Happy Holidays!"
Recently, I turned on the radio in my car, and something compelled me to turn on 93.9 FM, which around my parts is Lite FM. This station is not on my regular presets, but it is one click away from 94.3, which I call Jesus Radio. In between songs, I heard a prerecorded message that said something along the lines of, "From all of us at Lite FM, have a Happy Holidays!"
I actually said out loud, "I am so sure."
I found it ironic that a station that makes a point to play nonstop Christmas music would still say "Happy Holidays." Perhaps I missed something on their website?
It's even on their Google result!
This perhaps-mildly-amusing anecdote hopefully provides a segue into the idea that Christmas in America has really become more of a commercial or secular holiday than a religious one, and this really freaks some people out. Securalization of the season has even been called the "War on Christmas." The timeline for the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate is difficult, because there are Christians who say "Merry Christmas" as a first instinct, Christians who say "Happy Holidays" to try and be inclusive, and there are Christians who say "Merry Christmas" with secularization in mind who are purposefully trying to "Keep the 'Christ in Christmas'" or something of the sort.
As it turns out, around 60% of surveyed Americans prefer "Merry Christmas" to 23%'s "Happy Holidays, although when given an option, 45% said it didn't matter. The results followed along age, party, and religious lines, with older people, Republicans, and Evangelical Christians more likely to be supportive of "Merry Christmas" or public displays of religious symbols (although even President Bush wished people a "Happy Holidays" in office). One author quoted in The Huffington Post suggested saying "Merry Christmas" where the vast majority of people are Christian and "Happy Holidays" in more diverse areas.
Yes, the majority of Americans are Christian. But as one 2004 Reason Magazine blogger put it, instead of complaining about secularization, "the answer is in giving more time and attention to religious and charitable activities, not in demanding more Christian symbolism at the place where you shop. Macy's is not a temple." Indeed, the effort in "Happy Holidays"– in what some people perceive as a culture war –is not to belittle or take away Christmas from Christians. The effort is to try and recognize and account for the one-quarter of Americans who aren't Christian.
I identify as Christian and even I find this a little ridiculous. Christians are hardly an oppressed minority in America. We saw it recently with Rick Perry's infamous and homophobic advertisement, in which he proudly stated that "I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Christian." Big deal! Although he said this before the Rick Perry spot came out (which may be a testament to the extent and ridiculousness of Christians' perceived oppression in America) I think Jon Stewart put this one best– "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe — dare I dream it? — maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."
And to all my readers, Happy Holidays.
I actually said out loud, "I am so sure."
I found it ironic that a station that makes a point to play nonstop Christmas music would still say "Happy Holidays." Perhaps I missed something on their website?
It's even on their Google result!
This perhaps-mildly-amusing anecdote hopefully provides a segue into the idea that Christmas in America has really become more of a commercial or secular holiday than a religious one, and this really freaks some people out. Securalization of the season has even been called the "War on Christmas." The timeline for the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate is difficult, because there are Christians who say "Merry Christmas" as a first instinct, Christians who say "Happy Holidays" to try and be inclusive, and there are Christians who say "Merry Christmas" with secularization in mind who are purposefully trying to "Keep the 'Christ in Christmas'" or something of the sort.
As it turns out, around 60% of surveyed Americans prefer "Merry Christmas" to 23%'s "Happy Holidays, although when given an option, 45% said it didn't matter. The results followed along age, party, and religious lines, with older people, Republicans, and Evangelical Christians more likely to be supportive of "Merry Christmas" or public displays of religious symbols (although even President Bush wished people a "Happy Holidays" in office). One author quoted in The Huffington Post suggested saying "Merry Christmas" where the vast majority of people are Christian and "Happy Holidays" in more diverse areas.
Yes, the majority of Americans are Christian. But as one 2004 Reason Magazine blogger put it, instead of complaining about secularization, "the answer is in giving more time and attention to religious and charitable activities, not in demanding more Christian symbolism at the place where you shop. Macy's is not a temple." Indeed, the effort in "Happy Holidays"– in what some people perceive as a culture war –is not to belittle or take away Christmas from Christians. The effort is to try and recognize and account for the one-quarter of Americans who aren't Christian.
I identify as Christian and even I find this a little ridiculous. Christians are hardly an oppressed minority in America. We saw it recently with Rick Perry's infamous and homophobic advertisement, in which he proudly stated that "I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Christian." Big deal! Although he said this before the Rick Perry spot came out (which may be a testament to the extent and ridiculousness of Christians' perceived oppression in America) I think Jon Stewart put this one best– "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe — dare I dream it? — maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."
And to all my readers, Happy Holidays.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Veteran's Day
(Cartoon from the AAEC).
I was thinking of how I could fit Veteran's Day into the theme of my blog– women veterans? Integration of the military? Don't ask, don't tell? Then I figured, why not just veterans in general?
It seems kind of strange to think of veterans as a minority group. Then again, veterans make up less than 1% of the general population of the United States, and veteran status is protected in many university nondiscrimination policies.
The state of veterans, especially today, is rather depressing. It hardly matters whether or not one supports the United States' current military action in foreign countries. Clearly, life is a lot worse for veterans than for non-veterans. The suicide rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans using VA (Veterans Affairs) healthcare is more than triple that of the general population. The unemployment rate for the general population is 9.1%; for veterans, 12.1%. This number only gets worse when we look at only veterans aged 18-24, who have a 30.4% unemployment rate. Perhaps the previously mentioned suicide numbers are exacerbated by the fact that there are so few prospects available for young veterans, a hopelessness which only adds on to the trauma of going to war.
How could this be? What is happening in our country that veterans suffer so much, especially from unemployment? Well, one answer is that the current employment crisis has been particularly hard on those in rural areas, those with only a college education, and/or those who work for the government– demographics that represent quite a few recent veterans. Few of those people are eligible to work in computer programming jobs, or other positions in currently booming industries.
Luckily, there is some hope for veterans. The Senate just passed a bill that offers tax incentives to businesses that hire veterans, and the House is expected to pass it as well. Then again, with the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, we could see another unexpected influx of primarily young, high school-educated men and women into the job market, and many of them will still have a hard time finding jobs.
Veteran's Day has passed. However, the problems facing veterans occur every day. If you know a veteran, take the time to thank them for their service. The battle is not over when a veteran comes home.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Race and Class in College Admissions
Recently, college applicants all over the country breathed a sigh of relief as November 1st passed, and the nearly-universal Early Decision deadline was behind us.
Now, what does that have to do with this blog?
First of all, many of the people reading this blog are either applying to college or college-educated. Even if they are not, tax dollars still go to fund public universities. Second of all, race is a controversial subject in college admissions.
At many colleges, there is an optional portion where you can identify yourself as belonging to a certain race. Different colleges have different levels of specificity for races. With all other things being equal, it is easier for people of African-American and Hispanic descent to be accepted into college than people of White or Asian descent (although that particular site's graphs do not show it, Native Americans are also noted for race). This is an affirmative action policy that is based on the premise that people of certain races face more obstacles than other races in life, and are therefore given a boost in college admissions to combat any inequality or obstacles that people of other races do not face.
This assumption– regardless of whether or not it is true –has caused a lot of uproar. The state of California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which said that public colleges could not consider race or ethnicity in their admissions process. There have been recent, failed attempts to overturn this measure. On the flip side, a 2003 Supreme Court court case regarding the University of Michigan Law School, Grutter v. Bollinger, stated that while there should not be quotas for race, race could be considered in college admissions to create a "critical mass" of minority students. The case was brought up by two White students who thought that their race directly contributed to their denial from the university. In essence, Grutter v. Bollinger stated that the University of Michigan was allowed to use affirmative action.
There has also been some talk of affirmative action for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. These students cannot take the SAT or ACT prep courses that other students can, they cannot afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they cannot even necessarily afford college. Some colleges The Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University argues that "[i]f we limit working-class students’ access to selective colleges, we also limit their access to the best jobs and to social networks that have significant power in American politics and business." Indeed, it is often said that poverty is a cycle. Those who cannot afford to go to college will often be denied the chance to acquire skills to move up in the world.
Critics of affirmative action might actually accuse it of discriminating against white people. Keep clutching those pearls, because African-American students still make up less than 10% of the population of most of the nation's top schools. Yes, minority students are being given some advantage. But it is completely paranoid and inaccurate to picture White and Asian students as being somehow shut out of elite colleges. Just under 60% of Hispanic students enroll in college right after high school, compared to 92.2% of Asians.
Clearly, there are those who are being under-served. As one Columbia sociology professor put it, "There is a missing revolution in our nation: one in which poor and average Americans can have a fighting chance of acquiring the kind of education and advantages that elite education provides."
Now, what does that have to do with this blog?
First of all, many of the people reading this blog are either applying to college or college-educated. Even if they are not, tax dollars still go to fund public universities. Second of all, race is a controversial subject in college admissions.
At many colleges, there is an optional portion where you can identify yourself as belonging to a certain race. Different colleges have different levels of specificity for races. With all other things being equal, it is easier for people of African-American and Hispanic descent to be accepted into college than people of White or Asian descent (although that particular site's graphs do not show it, Native Americans are also noted for race). This is an affirmative action policy that is based on the premise that people of certain races face more obstacles than other races in life, and are therefore given a boost in college admissions to combat any inequality or obstacles that people of other races do not face.
This assumption– regardless of whether or not it is true –has caused a lot of uproar. The state of California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, which said that public colleges could not consider race or ethnicity in their admissions process. There have been recent, failed attempts to overturn this measure. On the flip side, a 2003 Supreme Court court case regarding the University of Michigan Law School, Grutter v. Bollinger, stated that while there should not be quotas for race, race could be considered in college admissions to create a "critical mass" of minority students. The case was brought up by two White students who thought that their race directly contributed to their denial from the university. In essence, Grutter v. Bollinger stated that the University of Michigan was allowed to use affirmative action.
There has also been some talk of affirmative action for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. These students cannot take the SAT or ACT prep courses that other students can, they cannot afford to live in neighborhoods with good schools, they cannot even necessarily afford college. Some colleges The Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University argues that "[i]f we limit working-class students’ access to selective colleges, we also limit their access to the best jobs and to social networks that have significant power in American politics and business." Indeed, it is often said that poverty is a cycle. Those who cannot afford to go to college will often be denied the chance to acquire skills to move up in the world.
Critics of affirmative action might actually accuse it of discriminating against white people. Keep clutching those pearls, because African-American students still make up less than 10% of the population of most of the nation's top schools. Yes, minority students are being given some advantage. But it is completely paranoid and inaccurate to picture White and Asian students as being somehow shut out of elite colleges. Just under 60% of Hispanic students enroll in college right after high school, compared to 92.2% of Asians.
Clearly, there are those who are being under-served. As one Columbia sociology professor put it, "There is a missing revolution in our nation: one in which poor and average Americans can have a fighting chance of acquiring the kind of education and advantages that elite education provides."
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Privilege Checklists
I suppose since the first "real" post was so topical, this is an opportunity to take a step back and look at the broader theme of being a minority. Just by existing, we are assigned certain traits or labels that help determine our place in society, which is what this blog is all about. Skin color, gender, appearance, gender identity, etc. Sometimes it is difficult for a person in a majority category, like a white person or an able-bodied person, to imagine what it's like to be in the minority category– a person of color or a disabled person.
Enter privilege checklists. Privilege checklists are essentially a way for people who have some sort of privilege to try and understand people who do not have that privilege. The first privilege checklist was introduced in 1988 when Peggy McIntosh published a paper called "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies." An important excerpt to which I will refer can be found here. In the paper, McIntosh listed several things that most white people don't think about that make their lives easier, and which people of color may have to deal with on a regular basis. Some of these things include:
"6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."
"18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race."
"21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group."
"35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race."
These are issues and obstacles which white people don't have to think about; indeed, they may not even know exist. It's a sobering list.
But wait, there's more! Obviously, skin color is not the only indicator of privilege. There are a lot of different types and degrees of privilege– so, naturally, there are a lot of different lists. This post on adult privilege has several links to other good checklists: white, male, able-bodied, average-sized, cisgendered (that is, not transgendered), and neurotypical (that is, without neurological disorders, sometimes specific to autism). The link to the heterosexual privilege one does not work. One of many straight privilege checklists can be found here.
Privilege checklists are not to show people of privilege how mean they are or how they are bad people. It's just to show someone "how the other half lives." There are so many things to think about when dealing with the complicated issues of marginalized or minority people, and checklists are a way to remind people of the different experiences that others have based on who they are.
I encourage readers to take a look at a checklist or two. If you can, look at one where you are the minority and one where you are the majority. Do you agree with the aim of privilege checklists? Did you know they existed at all? Do they apply to you?
Enter privilege checklists. Privilege checklists are essentially a way for people who have some sort of privilege to try and understand people who do not have that privilege. The first privilege checklist was introduced in 1988 when Peggy McIntosh published a paper called "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies." An important excerpt to which I will refer can be found here. In the paper, McIntosh listed several things that most white people don't think about that make their lives easier, and which people of color may have to deal with on a regular basis. Some of these things include:
"6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."
"18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race."
"21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group."
"35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race."
These are issues and obstacles which white people don't have to think about; indeed, they may not even know exist. It's a sobering list.
But wait, there's more! Obviously, skin color is not the only indicator of privilege. There are a lot of different types and degrees of privilege– so, naturally, there are a lot of different lists. This post on adult privilege has several links to other good checklists: white, male, able-bodied, average-sized, cisgendered (that is, not transgendered), and neurotypical (that is, without neurological disorders, sometimes specific to autism). The link to the heterosexual privilege one does not work. One of many straight privilege checklists can be found here.
Privilege checklists are not to show people of privilege how mean they are or how they are bad people. It's just to show someone "how the other half lives." There are so many things to think about when dealing with the complicated issues of marginalized or minority people, and checklists are a way to remind people of the different experiences that others have based on who they are.
I encourage readers to take a look at a checklist or two. If you can, look at one where you are the minority and one where you are the majority. Do you agree with the aim of privilege checklists? Did you know they existed at all? Do they apply to you?
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Classism - Occupy Wall Street
No war but the class war.
Because, ultimately, that's what a lot of oppression comes down to-- when people are marginalized financially. It makes sense, on a basic level. First, have the ability to hold a job and feed a family. Second, voting rights and the like.
Spurred by an anti-consumerist magazine’s call to action (and operating under the slogan of "We are the 99%), for the past three weeks around 5,000 people have marched on America's most famous symbol of the higher-ups in finance.
But why did they start this? What do they want?
The first question is not terribly difficult to answer. Most of the United States is not in its happy place, economically. People are not very confident in the economy's future, and unemployment is at an undesirable 8.7%. It is certainly not unfathomable that a large amount of people would take to the streets in protest. Again, back to the nucleus of a lot of oppression-- the ability to provide for oneself and one's dependents. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
This leaves the second question: Why? What do they want?
The protest movement has been criticized as unfocused. It is modeled after the Arab Spring, yet the recent Middle Eastern protests seem to have the pretty clear goal of government overthrow/reform. It would be easy to dismiss 5,000 people in the largest city in the country as ignorant, disenchanted youth.
But anyone who calls these protests unfocused is clearly not listening. Occupywallst.org, the "unofficial de facto" voice of the protesters, released both a list of grievances (cleverly modeled after the Declaration of Independence) and a popular but unofficial Proposed List of Demands. The grievances are very broad but include workers' rights, education, and how money is handled; the demands, while equally far-reaching, are mostly for legislation for responsible banking and to minimize the influence of corporations of lobbyists on elections and the democratic process.
Of course, the protests are not as simple as that. There has been some debate over the role of unions in the protests, and many Republican politicians have expressed their contempt for the movement. But is there anything really all that reprehensible in the Occupy Wall Street sentiments? Don't most people agree with the basic tenet that corporate greed is bad? Or are they asking for too much?
I'd love some feedback concerning your personal feelings regarding the protests. Feel free to leave a comment. =)
Because, ultimately, that's what a lot of oppression comes down to-- when people are marginalized financially. It makes sense, on a basic level. First, have the ability to hold a job and feed a family. Second, voting rights and the like.
Spurred by an anti-consumerist magazine’s call to action (and operating under the slogan of "We are the 99%), for the past three weeks around 5,000 people have marched on America's most famous symbol of the higher-ups in finance.
But why did they start this? What do they want?
The first question is not terribly difficult to answer. Most of the United States is not in its happy place, economically. People are not very confident in the economy's future, and unemployment is at an undesirable 8.7%. It is certainly not unfathomable that a large amount of people would take to the streets in protest. Again, back to the nucleus of a lot of oppression-- the ability to provide for oneself and one's dependents. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
This leaves the second question: Why? What do they want?
The protest movement has been criticized as unfocused. It is modeled after the Arab Spring, yet the recent Middle Eastern protests seem to have the pretty clear goal of government overthrow/reform. It would be easy to dismiss 5,000 people in the largest city in the country as ignorant, disenchanted youth.
But anyone who calls these protests unfocused is clearly not listening. Occupywallst.org, the "unofficial de facto" voice of the protesters, released both a list of grievances (cleverly modeled after the Declaration of Independence) and a popular but unofficial Proposed List of Demands. The grievances are very broad but include workers' rights, education, and how money is handled; the demands, while equally far-reaching, are mostly for legislation for responsible banking and to minimize the influence of corporations of lobbyists on elections and the democratic process.
Of course, the protests are not as simple as that. There has been some debate over the role of unions in the protests, and many Republican politicians have expressed their contempt for the movement. But is there anything really all that reprehensible in the Occupy Wall Street sentiments? Don't most people agree with the basic tenet that corporate greed is bad? Or are they asking for too much?
I'd love some feedback concerning your personal feelings regarding the protests. Feel free to leave a comment. =)
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Meet the Blogger
Hello to my family and classmates. =) As most of you know, I’m Alex. I’m 17. I like politics, traveling, and playing music. This blog was started as part of a yearlong, ongoing English project where we supplement our curriculum by blogging about a particular lens or umbrella. For my lens, I chose social inequality and conflict.
This topic first started to interest me in the spring and summer of 2010, when I came out to my family and friends as bisexual. The reactions of people I knew varied greatly. This really started to make my head spin. I never felt like I had been “other-ized” or inherently different before. Sure, we all feel socially awkward or excluded at times. But now I had a particularly striking label attached to me. When I started to dive into the LGBT+ community, I became interested in a lot of other social divides, like those of race, class, and gender. As a white, upper-middle class person, this experience was extremely eye-opening. Needless to say, I still have a lot to learn. Hopefully this blog will serve as a thought-provoking way to both get inside my head, and generate some interesting ideas about minority groups.
This topic first started to interest me in the spring and summer of 2010, when I came out to my family and friends as bisexual. The reactions of people I knew varied greatly. This really started to make my head spin. I never felt like I had been “other-ized” or inherently different before. Sure, we all feel socially awkward or excluded at times. But now I had a particularly striking label attached to me. When I started to dive into the LGBT+ community, I became interested in a lot of other social divides, like those of race, class, and gender. As a white, upper-middle class person, this experience was extremely eye-opening. Needless to say, I still have a lot to learn. Hopefully this blog will serve as a thought-provoking way to both get inside my head, and generate some interesting ideas about minority groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)