blueAlto

More easy as pie website applications! 

Never one to get especially excited about new applications in the social networking realm, I took on Twitter after some prodding. Yeah, what a complete cult like drinking game flashback to second year that was. I'm sorry, it makes me nervous, very nervous. Because really, I don't care what you are wearing when you do your laundry, before you groom your cat!

And no facebook people, I don't want to be your friend. Go away strange cling on person. Even if we do have two contacts in common from thirty years ago.

Evil, Facebook person breathlessly says. "How cool is that?

Sorry to put a damper on it, but ~ not very.

And then came tumblr.

In the case of blueAlto (reloaded), very simply, tumblr, is a combination of media formats, all taken directly from published work on bluealto, but presented in an extremely different style, one that previews work through various site boxes. Turns out is a real innovative blog application that allows users to post text, images, videos, audio, quotes, chats, and a multitude of other features. The best thing in my opinion? The original, minimal, yet alternative and divergent theme choices available to a completely free site.

Check out the blueAlto (reloaded page). Maybe even get one of your own!

Like many gay men who have enjoyed a rich and multi colored experience with their own sexuality, I have had some memorable experiences. Translated, that is polite code for my way of referring to the obligatory "sluttish phase". In my case, a rather lengthy and experience laden time period. That, however, is another story.

In my most active period of "sowing my oats" I had more than a few profiles on the on line dating sites. For many reasons, priority changes, personal confidence increases, finding more stable and permanent outlets, I learned that an ability to accomplish the same ends does not always require itself to be garnered while Online. Because of that, most of those profiles have now been canceled, or the dominant text has been changed to indicate interests more friendship based, less sexually focused.

Therefore it is always a bit of a shock when I receive a message from one of the Internet's current X rated gay welcoming committee members. You know the type. Their primary picture is....let's just say usually never the face, and the descriptions of what they like to do, how they like to do it, and whom they like to do it to, frequently run close to novella length.  One element I always find particularly amusing, is the oh so similar carnally focused, run on sentence narrative, liberally peppered with terms such as nasty, raunchy, pig, twisted, hell yeah, etc. etc! The infinite combination of no more than twelve words, seven grunts, and eleven hundred ways to say "twisted".

So it is usually no surprise when I receive a certain style of email from one of these guys. Usually never a hello, or an introduction, or a name offering. No, apparently it is much easier, and one would assume more successful, to describe in detail how they would enjoy it if they could "nail my ass into next week".  Usually I just see these emails as inappropriately funny and annoyingly bold, and respond with a quick but polite note explaining that they may wish to move on to other trees and begin a new round of barking. And that, is normally all it takes. Normally.

However there is one specific type of response that will do an exacting job of making my blood boil, and launching me into one pedantic, defensive, and overbearing asshole. That would be a response which is even remotely suggestive of murky consent barriers, or sometimes even the bolder suggestion of rape. The "rape is hot" crowd, who reach their sexual Nirvana through scenes with obvious or implied power dynamic differences.

Let me be clear here.  If that is how you and your partner both freely decide to sexually engage, then I have nothing to say on the matter.  However when you email a stranger making those suggestions, "freely decide" is out the window.  When I, or anyone else opens that email, you have absolutely no idea as to my or their history of, politics around, or personal experience with the reality of rape. That is not simply rude or bad manners. In my mind, it can be a form of assault.

Harsh? You bet! Have I been raped myself?  No I have not. Though I have experienced the shock, pain, grief, anger, debasement, and collective chaos that those close to a rape victim will, to some extent, always go through. Which is why, when you send me an email such as the one below, do not be surprised at my response.

This is only a very small portion of the manic, run on screed that awaited me in my inbox this morning.

Hey Hot Fucker,

....OINK! U and your bud are hot! How about you watch me tie (name of friend) up in a dog cage, and then when I rape the whore and split open his nasty ass, then you could .....

Mr. Best Social Skills of 2008 then offers a lovely closing of "Twisted, hey fucker", signing off as FilthRaunchBBPigFkr.

Lovely. As I have said, inappropriate, I will dismiss. Vapid, I will laugh at. Rude, I normally ignore.  A suggestion of a form of assault and violence that carries the current and historical baggage that rape carries? I will never let that go lightly. This was today's response.

Dear FilthRaunchBBPigFkr

In your recent email to me you stated:

"Twisted hey". Here you were referring to your descriptions of the rape of a friend of mine.

Actually no, not twisted at all. Lame, insecure, suggestive of pathology, anti social, illegal, and not to mention, intensely misogynist. Clearly, you are about as socially aware as Charles Manson. But when you describe and articulate common rape narratives that involve people I care about, I will view that as

1.  Aggressively rude and disrespectful.
2.  About as far removed from anything to do with sex as one can get.
3.  A very passive aggressive style of mind game that is usually based in severe and discordant power dynamics.

For whatever reason, you have completely misread my vibe. So I need to be clear. I have no doubt that we are in every way socially and sexually incompatible.  You may view that as harsh and "not getting your joke", or feel that my views are aggressively and prohibitively PC.  Fine, your opinion I suppose. 

However when it comes to rape - joking or not joking, it is a vibe I will *always* take seriously, and *never* find funny.  Period.  Perhaps after this email is copied to this sites administration, you will have reason to view it as I do.

All the best.

So here are a few questions to ponder.  Was I wrong to copy the site?  What would you have done? What, if anything, should site management do?

Did I think I would be saying or writing the following sentence.  Ocountymommy, for once you are right.  Yes, you heard me correctly.  Our resident Concerned Woman For America, the woman who shares a personal relationship with Jesus that is infinitely better than yours is or ever will be, has made a declarative statement (in the comments section of this post), that is factually accurate.  Unfortunately, that is the only way it is accurate, and then only with some needed clarification.

The statement?  Men do not have children.  And in case the concerned woman was looking for an answer beyond "it isn't done", it would be because the lack of ovaries and a uterus will preclude a man from female procreative ability.  Though the last time I checked, the ability to become pregnant, to carry a child to term, and to vaginally give birth to said child, is never germane to the definition of a woman.

When I was six years old, my mother lost her ability to ever conceive again due to a preventive, radical hysterectomy.  How, specifically, is she any less of a woman?  I will offer that she is not, and those who would choose to define her gender in such rigid and essentialist ways, need to understand that in the both the somatic and psychiatric realms of medicine, much is still being learned regarding both gender and sex.  It is fair to say that the definitive text on the matter is far from being written.  So until then Ocountymommy, might I suggest a swim in the deep end a bit more often.

Conversely, simply because Thomas Beatie was born with normal female secondary sex characteristics, in no way implies that he does not completely realize himself as male.  The fact that he delayed his transition to the accurate gender he knows himself to be at his core, all in order to realize his ability to biologically parent, speaks to resolve, empathy for another, and an open, willing heart.  Not to gender, not to stability, and not to anything but his desire to ethically raise another human being with the person he has committed his life to.

I'm surprised and a bit confused ocountymommy, because that sounds exactly like a person you would normally be very proud of.

What is it?  In this context I refer to dealing with intention and need. An approach which offers assistance based on need, not a loopy, circuitous attempt at ones own personal redemption via assistance to another. My opinion here is arrived at through personal observation, and could be seen as unfairly cynical in the description. Stay with me.

I think most people who do not regularly give of themselves, when they do get involved, have a very internal motivation for helping those in need. That is often to “show they care”,  show they realize the inherent inequity in our cultural mosaic, and they just need to "give something back". That's one very common, usually transparent, rallying cry you hear from the do gooders at say, Christmas. 

I have always been a fan of Ann Richards, that big haired and equally big mouthed former governor from Texas. When I say big mouthed, I am in no way saying it as a pejorative; the woman always spoke her mind and I had great respect for her. Time and time again, this unabashedly liberal woman's opinions hit the mark.

The following is something I came across when looking for daily quote inspiration. As you will read, it was too good to simply be a daily quote, so it has become today's post. Enjoy.

With my thesis defense set for less than two weeks away, posting will be relatively light until then. I am using it as a chance to finally fill up the archives with older posts. On that note, here are some ruminations from last year on the concept of North American success and celebrity.

*** 

We North Americans are a funny bunch. The power, the trust, and the loyalty we give to mass media and pop culture opinion, is, given our relatively high educational levels and capacity for independent thought, rather perplexing. Nowhere is that dynamic more pronounced than in our perception of celebrity and fame. Just as fast as we catapult an unknown to fame, one supposed transgression will see them in a rapid descent. And expectedly, much harder and faster than the ascent.

Below, I take a look at two recent events which ask some insightful, and ultimately disturbing questions around the idea of personal domain, and the expectation of safety, for those we place on a pedestal. Before aggressively knocking them off.

The Grammy Awards is a show that, if on when I happen to be channel surfing, I'll give a cursory view to.  Not being a major fan of up to the minute popular music trends, I can take or leave the awards and self congratulatory recognition fest.

I know, I know, one should never say never.  Since last night, for a few moments anyway, I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere but sitting in front of my TV, watching The Dixie Chicks take home an unprecedented five awards.

Seeing three talented, strong, and proud women, achieve excellence and peer recognition, in spite of the PR nightmare the last few years has been for them, was inspiring. It wasn't long ago that their CD's were being burned in public venues. And while the press was engaging its arrogant mode of justified vilification, and the women were subject to relentless harassment, actually culminating in death threats, the reality based among us were left asking why.  And how, in a democratic America, could that be the response to three individuals expressing sincere, albeit harsh, criticism of our leader.

As the tide has slowly turned in our collective response to the situations we find ourselves in half a world away, public consensus has experienced a paradigm shift. If you reference what I described in the opening of this piece, and apply The Dixie Chicks five time win, broadcast live to millions, the true nature of how we form and shape popular opinion can be seen as the fickle and inherently flawed application it often shows itself to be.

In closing this thread, as far I'm concerned, The Dixie Chicks can "make nice" whenever the hell they are ready, not being guided by the current tide of popular opinion, but rather by their core beliefs. I don't really know what can be more American than that.

A more sobering example of fame, expectation, and the culpability of popular culture and media can be seen in the recent events leading up to the death of Anna Nicole Smith. In a culture that elevates one to celebrity, not on talent, but on a"market share of the minute" mentality, what role do we have, if any, as consumers and providers of that quest for the elusive fifteen minutes of fame?

As sudden and tragic as her death was, a retrospective view would suggest a woman in a serious state of unbalanced crisis.  The death of a son, the paternity of a newborn still in question, rumored heavy drug use, and the ever present on cue media intrusion add up to quite the heavy emotional tole. True, the limelight is where she wanted to be, in an almost obsessive fascination with her own celebrity. But I think the question becomes, when do we, once again as consumers and producers of that celebrity, say enough is enough?

A recent edition of Larry King Live had an almost incoherent Anna Nicole, attempting, and I stress attempting, to talk about her departed son, as well as her recent troubles. In one particularly visceral moment that was clearly not meant to see air time, a stage hand adjusted her microphone, and attempted to "prop her up", as she was literally sliding off the chair.

Do we ever reach a point as a culture, that we view examples such as these with a genuine concern, not only a morbid fascination with personal troubles? In an environment of ratings, and harsh competition for the "exclusive", is something getting lost? Would it have been so difficult to take a stand, and not provide a platform for this troubled woman's public self destruction? In a popular culture where many want a piece of the gold known as celebrity, the human in that equation is often sadly overlooked.

As consumers, questioning, looking beyond the glossy stills and sound bites, then articulating our own ethical standards in relation to what is mass marketed down our throats, is a practice that we will hopefully engage. As sensationalism at all costs, has levied quite the price.

I know myself well enough to know that at the moment, anything constructive I could hope to offer in explaining to the seemingly vast number of vacant and clueless white "progressive" bloggers, how they are actively silencing voices of women of color bloggers, would come off as nothing less than a smug, pedantic, lengthy and fucking fed up screed, I'm going to pass on that option. For today.

No, not because I just couldn't live with myself if I perhaps hurt a stupid white persons feelings. Instead, because anything I hope to constructively add, is going to take some time to decrease the current level of boil.

So, in a very intentional departure from the negative, I'm going to take the higher road and tell you about some great sites you probably haven't seen before. Funny enough, they all discuss issues of race in America very candidly, and through a frame and lens that actually mirrors the reality in which we live. Though I will warn you. For all the sites I am going to recommend, if you want it to be a good and productive experience, you need to allow yourself to be open to the following.

1. Above all else, make a real and honest attempt to listen, and to hear what it is the author is saying.
   
2. Understand that what they are telling you is something they know on a personal level.
3. If you still feel the need to discuss and engage, and if someone tells you that your perspective may in fact be racist, remember; they are not calling you Hitler! Don't bring on the fucking histrionics. What they are asking you, is to consider the possibility that your perspective may contain an inherent bias. A blind spot. If they suggest that to you, please, trust me on what I say next. If someone says that to you, you need to consider it a gift. Then you need to sit down and listen.
   

I will say again, if you truly want to begin to understand racism in America, the only way that will occur, is to listen to the people who know something about it.

The following are all blogs I link to, and they are ones I recommend as excellent places to begin to listen, and to learn. These blogs are written by smart, engaged women and men of color who are passionate, focused, and making a difference in the things they care about. I highly recommend you give them a read, because you will be better for it.

Though I will ask that if you have something negative to say; just don't! But, if you simply must, then please do it here. They are more than capable of sparring with you, yes, but on your first visit, you have to agree, it's just bad form.

Well, you can thank RealSanDiegoWoman for this one. Consider it the straw that broke this camels back, with regard to the ignorant assertions that suggest everyone but Andrea Dworkin knew what it was that Andrea Dworkin was apparently saying, every time the issue of intercourse came up. No pun intended.

So let's start with a tough one. What do you get when you put right leaning, Republican "real women", men with feminist "issues" (translated out to usually mean their all encompassing blissful maleness was not noticed by an attractive woman who makes decisions for herself), and the mere mention of anything, dare I say it "feminist"?

The answer sadly, is along with all of the other vitriolic bullshit that is engaged when the issue of a movement that works for a woman's full humanity is brought up, is what I have dubbed the "Dworkin derail". The type of assertion that is meant to invalidate the idea of full human rights for women, because the object of the statement, Andrea Dworkin, one of the most notable second wave and anti pornography feminists of the past century, dared to be....fat. She also dared to not shake her hair, blink her eyes, and say "tehe", every time she made a declarative statement.

But that is not all the Dworkin Derail is meant to do. No, it is not bad enough that we invalidate the woman's opinion on the basis of her weight. Which, really isn't the issue anyway. The real kick in the pants with Andrea Dworkin  is our cultural unease with Andrea's perceived complete lack of concern over how she comes across to men. "Fat", it seems, is not really the issue. The rub, is fat in addition to not attempting to mitigate that supposed deficit.

Of course no one will admit that, but it's the underlying dynamic present in all of the anti Dworkin narratives that occur in feminist discussion. The fact that her feminist scholarship includes twelve non fiction books, five books of fiction and poetry, eight peer reviewed academic articles, seven speeches before a national audience, and four critical film reviews, is apparently irrelevant. Because even if that were the case, it doesn't matter, since the anti Dworkin crowd will then unleash their smoking gun, the "fact", that Andrea Dworkin says all intercourse is rape! A fact that in one foul swoop has labeled every men, both figuratively and essentially, a rapist.

Interesting. Especially since I have never seen or been given a reference for this sweeping indictment of the male species. In any of the books and articles and speeches Ms. Dworkin wrote and made, she never once suggested that idea by statement, by tone or by inference. Instead, those with an anti feminist agenda have misused her words with a fair amount of artistic license. A problematic scenario, given the amount of feminist theory most with an agenda hold. These are the people who would miserably fail a feminism 101 exam. If we were measuring just ideology alone. When it comes to the language and politics of feminist discourse, these people have usually been around the block more than once.

So, once and for all, let's deal with the age old question: 

Did Andrea Dworkin ever say all intercourse is rape?

No, she did not.

I realize that a simple assertion to the contrary is a somewhat weak refute, therefore allow me to offer the following five points. Teaching cultural studies, I have found I often need to come up with a relatively contingent refute to the assumptions about Dworkin's words on rape. This is a framework that I use for discussing the issue, and hopefully, it meets the mark.

1. The Set Up: Perhaps what Ms. Dworkin was suggesting on the topic of intercourse, was that because heterosexual women live and exist in a culture that is and always has been structured on a patriarchal framework, heterosexual intercourse then, becomes the default or paradigm activity for all sexuality; other forms of sexuality are typically treated as “not real sex”  (an interesting connection to the Frot movement theory base), or as a type of foreplay, a mere precursor to intercourse, and they are al;ways framed in words and terms that analogize them to intercourse. So we have the framing of sex, and through a tacit understanding then becomes the assumption that "sex" = intercourse
2. The Cultural Depiction: both academically and culturally, heterosexual vaginal intercourse is and always has been depicted in ways that are first and foremost male-centric, and phallic based, suggesting the activity is initialed by and for the man, and is most often based in power dynamic of entitlement. Consider our descriptive terms here. Penetration is quite the descriptor, and one with a  high amount of cultural assumption and carry over. If we can consider that view, then we must also consider that the male is being “engulfed” by the woman, or if we want to be particularly egalitarian about it, we can see them as “joining” together. But we don't see intercourse that way. We never hear of intercourse as anything beyond penetration, or a man, "giving it" to a woman.To be fucked, to be screwed, to be nailed to the wall.
3. The Lived Reality: Taking the two points above and placing them in the context of our culture is key. In general, cultural attitudes are reflective of, but also serve to reinforce, the actual and theoretical lived realities of women. Realities which always include, therefore must take into account the prevalence of violence against women committed by men, and the very real and vulnerable circumstances of many women to extreme poverty. Poverty and need have the potential, and in this culture often do, substantially constrain women’s sexual choices, available options, and level of power with regard to heterosexual intercourse.
4. Connect The Dots: Consider that points one through three must be seen as a serious obstacle for women to effect power and change over their own lives and identities. Escaping that is something that is multi layered, and for most women to whom it applies, most often difficult.
   
5. Consent Is More Than A Soundbite:  When we look at how intercourse as it actually happens between the men and women you see everyday on the street, it is not something practiced in a vacuum. There is always a social context, and for the vast majority of American women, that context is in varying degrees, laid out in the points above. Intercourse then, is a real social institution and a real experience in individual women’s lives. Therefore, we arrive at the crux of the issue The framing of the issue of consent as simply *choice*, is false. It is always shaped and constrained by political-cultural forces, never merely by individual choices; It is important to note, this is not some weird, post modern relatively new theoretical deconstruction. It is classic and textbook social anthropology!

So now we tie all this up. When we draw ethical lines that view our sexuality in line with what we call personal agency, it can never be solely on the basis of individual formal consent, as opposed to a viewing which will always consider the important social, cultural, and economical based conditions on which sexuality, negotiation and formal consent occur. Individual agency is never a solid line in the sand. It is contingent on, as well as references, varying degrees of circumstance and context. Decisions born out of inequity which are based in survival, fundamentally limit agency. When we steadfastly take issue with, or never acknowledge that when it comes to sexuality and the idea of consent, we then become a society where intercourse, by mandate, must always be viewed in a context of potential rape

In my "offline life", one of the things that I have done over the past four years, is help facilitate anti racism awareness sessions. Mainly an introduction to the topic for people who are interested in the idea of racial justice and ending oppression on the basis of race and  / or skin color.

It's something I am planning on doing more of. Because one, it's needed, and two, it can be highly rewarding as well. Seeing someone "get it" for the first time, whether it be finally understanding a concept that had been difficult in the past, or more often, hearing for the first time, an experience of discrimination in the first person. There is huge power in that. Our personal stories of differences, and much of the pain and misunderstanding that ignorance of those differences can unintentionally cause, when worked through, can be intensely liberating.

One thing that has become clear to me when doing this type of work, is that it can go along way to help us work through all that, when we are at least talking the same language, and using the same terms. The language and meanings behind the terms that are inherent to anti racist work are specific, and often, they don't carry the same meaning or level of importance the word may be given in general society. In going over several of the comment threads for as long as I have been discussing the issue here, one thing became overwhelmingly clear. Some of us are talking the same language, and many of us are not. 

Where this became concerning, was when I considered the idea that several of the misunderstandings and comment thread flame wars, could have potentially been avoided if we had perhaps clarified terms. This is a problem that is universal across the online world, and it is even a bigger problem in the field of anti racist work. We are all opinionated and strong minded people, and we want to get our points out there and be heard. I'm as guilty as anyone, I'll be the first to admit it. Though i am realizing now, there may just be a better way to be seen and heard.

Therefore, I have decided to start what I'm calling the Defining Terms project. An ongoing thread with an open and very specifically directed comment thread that speaks to one thing - definitions of terms frequently used that have the potential to lead into misunderstanding. There is no right or wrong answer here. My point, is to seek clarification regarding exactly what people mean when they use certain words. My hope is, that the answers we see when this thread is over may help all of us have better and more effective discussions over the important things we need to talk about.

Please, if you comment here, often or hardly ever, or even if you don't, your participation would be appreciated and defiantly of value.If you choose not to identify yourself, please be assured your comment will be kept confidential.

My goal is at the end of this, is to have a working definition of racism that we (all of us) can agree we are using, when we engage in discussions that reference race.

Please comment on the following word, both in terms of what that word means to you when you hear it used, as well as when you use it yourself.

What does the term(s) "racist / racism" mean to you? 

Guidelines:

1. The comments need to address the specific question being asked in terms of how *you* understand the question and how *you* define the word. Not "some people in society think", the amswer is meant to reference only what you think.
2. Please do not use specific groups of people identified by race in your answer. For example racism is not "X race doing this to Y race". If you need to reference things like dominant culture, oppressed minority, please do so without identifying a specific race.
   
3.  The purpose of this specific comment thread is materially different from others. This is not meant to be a debate or discussion of responses. Consider it to be a poll.
4. You can sign your name, not sign your name, or create an identity. That is up to you. All that is being asked, is that you answer the question honestly.
5. All answers that don't follow the guidelines above will be deleted. I will say in advance, this is not a comment thread for racist attacks or pontification of any stripes. It is meant to define a term, in the hopes we can all participate in discussions, and be heard more effectively. Specifically when those discussions are by nature, sensitive and personal ones.

Thanks for commenting. If you haven't commented yet, please do.

If we hold the view that cinema can be a lens into the world in which we live, then with regard to anti racism dynamics and white liberal intellectuals, Manderlay is a most revealing, if not troublesome film.

Picking up where the Lars Van Treer film Dogville left off, that film being one of my favorites, Manderlay asks fundamental questions about motivation, assumptions, and ally affiliations that American cinema is neither equipped nor positioned to ask. Suggesting perhaps, that the white, liberal, progressive score card has some potentially concerning, and sometimes racist, agendas. At least in the way our race issues currently play out in 2008. While not completely agreeing with what I take as the answers to the questions posed, the questions are in fact, being posed.

The following video showcases the song used to close Dogville and open Manderlay, David Bowies Young Americans. Another in the "Al's favorites" category. The photographic stills shown while the song opened and closed the films were a wise and interesting addition, as they hint at a class distinction being fundamental to those oppressed by race, and also to the oppressors, who more often than not have been disenfranchised economically. A clear feeding for scraps narrative, it maintains an appropriate ethical line through not either excusing, nor being overly simplistic via attempting to explain the problem away.

Trigger Warning:

Video contains photographic stills of 1950's racist realities, ie. KKK images, race demonstrations etc. Nothing overtly violent. 

And Other Modern Day Fairy Tales

One of a few notably positive things this presidential race is potentially offering the country, besides the opportunity for some substantial change, is an opportunity to re engage, or, depending on your perspective, begin to engage, the dialog on race relations. Something that as a country, we have collectively failed on each and every time we have made the attempt.

So I find it very interesting that with every call for a new discussion on race, there seems to be a louder, more reactive cry. In the last several weeks, often in response to "the speech", there have been increasing rumblings on conservative blogs and web sites, and sound bites popping up in the MSM that, yes, we do need a new discussion, but one where we look at the new oppressed minority in America - the straight, white, able bodied male.

Can we please take a few moments, spending time with our thoughts and quiet reflection, while we remember these oppressed, victimized and exploited white men from all across this land. Thank you.

Interesting theory I suppose, but if you talk to Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., he will disagree with the idea of the new American victim. Vehemently. In late 2001, Devah recruited 250 recent college graduates for a study. Half were white, half were black, all were conservative in style and presentation, possessing a personable demeanour. Each man was considered to have equal qualifications and similar backgrounds, and would have been considered a model candidate as a companies new hire.

The study sent pairs of these men (one white, one black) out to a range of low skilled employers in the region, each applying for the same position. As I indicated, all variables were considered equal, with the one exception being a criminal conviction assigned to one of the men, but not the other. The history was considered serious; a felony conviction for the sale of cocaine.

The recently released study had some very telling results regarding this new era in Americas racial understanding, and alleged white, heterosexual male oppression. The study showed that the black men with no criminal history experienced call backs for a second interview significantly less often than the white ex con drug dealer. Who, it would seem, is thriving, despite the suffocating choke hold of oppression.

My own hope is that any discussion this country has over race, will be mindful of this and other studies that demonstrate very clearly, that while we may be having a discussion, it is only helpful if we are willing to acknowledge the reality of the current, and past experience of which black men in this country have been acculturated into. And lastly, if that discussion is not a comforatable one for White America, then good, we are at least begining in the right direction.

Thought that would get your attention. Fooled you! Well, not really. Let me explain....

The "pro life movement" has done an exacting job of positioning their cause against most other progressive causes. The pro life movement, or as I've taken to calling them, the forced pregnancy contingent, relies on their position coming from a place that is seen as life affirming, pro personal responsibility, and family centered. The reality being, the systemic effects of anti choice legislation and policy, combined with the spill over effects of these anti empowerment decisions on women's (particularly poor women's) lives, have far reaching effects that are routinely and purposelly never addressed.

This video by Quinn Gorges is a wonderful and passionate example of how taking a pro choice position with regards to reproductive freedom and bodily integrity, is actually something that would be more effectively called; pro life!

Let me be clear; institutional misogyny and the various offshoots of, are huge issues in academic circles. And while that is a reality that is personally well known to any woman ever to enter graduate studies, the response I give to many of these nerdy windbags is offensively dismissive. Since really, their opinion deserves little else. Welcome to the first edition of Sexist Fun Wednesdays!

I direct your attention to the two teenage girls in the picture below, bottom of the page. Now people, don't let their freshly scrubbed, girl next door looks fool you. You need to be shrewd, you need to read between the lines. Because what those calculating young girls are doing, the little sluts, is nothing less than committing the atrocity which goes unchecked daily in this country. They are blatantly and with a decided fuck you edge, systematically raping the English language.

Or so says the academic nerd David Gelerenet, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, a far right think tank where the hoods and white sheets are replaced by polite society connection, Brooks Brothers suits, and class privilege.

We have allowed ideologues to pocket a priceless property and walk away with it. Today, as college students and full-fledged young English teachers emerge from the feminist incubator in which they have spent their whole lives, this victory of brainless ideology is on the brink of becoming institutionalized. If we mean to put things right, we can't wait much longer.

By that quote you would assume that Gelerenet's hand is uncomfortably close to the red button, though it's in the following little snippet where he does a better job than any deconstruction could hope to in identifying the  "I've been wronged by a cold hearted feminist bitch" motivation present in his vitriol. If you can stomach it, the full article is a treat unto itself. Though I was disappointed there was no comment section. No doubt because of all the screaming, horny feminists out to get a hot piece of Gelerenet ass. I know I'd be first in line.

But the real problem goes deeper. Why should I worry about feminist ideology while I write? Why should I worry about anyone's ideology? Writing is a tricky business that requires one's whole concentration, as any professional will tell you; as no doubt you know anyway. Who can afford to allow a virtual feminist to elbow her way like a noisy drunk into that inner mental circle where all your faculties (such as they are) are laboring to produce decent prose? Bargaining over the next word, shaping each phrase, netting and vetting the countless images that drift through the mind like butterflies in a summer garden, mounting some and releasing others--and keeping the trajectory and target always in mind?

In 2008, I really find it shocking that there are gay men and lesbians who still assert that what they do, who they are, and who they choose to love, is a "private matter".

In so far as the right to disclose ones sexual orientation to those in their own lives and the public at large, I support that premise. While not viewing it in any way as a healthy option, I realize the closet is a place we have all come from, and timelines will obviously vary. It's important that we give others whatever time they need to find that comfort in asserting who they are publicly.

Though it's the ones that maintain the double life, and have no desire to work towards an integrated existence that I really don't understand. The ones that will loudly pronounce "Gay is something that I do, not something that I am", or "I'm fine with who I am, I just don't need to shove it down everyone's throats". The fact that such a haphazard narrative quite clearly suffers from faulty construction, assured to blow over in the slightest wind, is a reality they seem intent to remain blind to.

The following is something I use in the first year identity and experience course that I teach. While the exercise has a target focus of those in the class who are straight, with the goal being to introduce the concept of heterosexual privilege, I use it here to demonstrate just how dangerous the "gay has nothing to do with who I am" narratives are, when we objectively look at how they specifically play out in greater society.

Whatever your orientation, ask yourself the following questions and answer honestly.

1. I can go into a music store and find the language of my sexual orientation represented in the lyrics.
2. Television and movies reflect my relationships in widely diverse and non stereotypical ways.
3. My children are given texts and information at school that validates my sexual orientation.
4. Society encourages me to marry and celebrates my commitment.
5. As a responsible and loving parent, I won't lose my children in a custody battle because of my sexual orientation.
6. I can easily buy postcards, books, greeting cards, and magazines featuring relationships like mine.
7. I don't have to worry about being fired or denied housing because of my sexual orientation.
8. I can be sure that if my spouse is in the hospital and incapacitated, I can visit and will be consulted about any decisions that need to be made.
9. Insurance provided by my employer covers my spouse and my children.
10. Hand holding with my love is seen as acceptable and endearing.
11. I can serve my country in the military without lying or keeping silent about my family.
12. I can keep pictures of my loved one on my desk at work without fear or reprisal.
13. I will receive all of my deceased spouse's estate, tax-free.
14. I never need to change pronouns when describing the events of my life in order to protect my job, my family, or my friendships.