One often never knows who is and who is not LGBT. Just one of those things we all have to live with–sometimes literally. Meet Jeffrey and Tony Perri, grandson and father. Both gay and happy and living outside of the closet.
I unintentionally made a humorous reference to parents being gay in class a few weeks ago and someone who saw the clip on YouTube sent me a story that he heard on the radio. If you don’t remember what I said, you can check it out:
The interview from the radio is touching, especially when you know some people like Jeffrey and Tony. It’s definitely worth listening to. Just click on “Listen to the Story” at the top of the page after you click on THIS LINK.
So it’s actually a very cool story, but in a way that is ironically bittersweet. Had Tony had people in his life who were open about discussing homosexuality, he’d have been out of the closet in his youth — and Jeffrey would not be here because Tony would never have gotten married. I guess denial can be a good thing. It’s all perspective.
But in truth, it’s just nice to imagine elders in our midst who are open to discussing anything that comes to mind and with which young people struggle. What a world we have when that occurs.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32
posted by Sam Richards
Some of you have no doubt heard this story pass through the media outlets. More surprising than the Justice of the Peace being unwilling to give these two a marriage license is that fact that he stands by his decision, as discussed in THIS ARTICLE.
Before you go off on how outrageous this is, I want to remind you that two weeks ago in class I discuss the number of you who would not adopt a child with ancestry other than your own or who would not use the sperm or egg of people with ancestry different from your own. And you might recall that everyone who stated that they were uncomfortable being the head of a mixed ancestry family all said it was because of the children. “The children would have a difficult go of it down the road,” was the sentiment.
So how is this judge any different? Along with “mixed race marriages often end in divorce,” this is what this guy has said (although that particular statment is not in this article). Sounds like we might have to get back to some serious thinking about what constitutes racism and bigotry. If people in SOC 119 can say it, why not the judge? Okay, so you’re actions of not starting mixed ancestry families do not impact someone else’s life, but the idea that we’re protecting those who most need “protection” is still the same. Just a thought worth pondering.
It’s unfortunate that he speaks with a southern accent. In fairness, he says that his definition of “racist” is when you treat black people differently than white people. By not issuing the marriage license he’s actually treating black and white people the same! So I guess he’s not racist. Life is complex…
So here’s an article that will surely raise the blood pressure of some of you. It’s about men and sports and accusations of misconduct and women and power and jumping to conclusions. Yeah…all of that.
You really just need to read the article, but before YOU jump to a conclusion, consider how often you do so without knowing all of the facts. In an honest society, one where people actually lived the adage “innocent before proven guilty,” you’d have no opinion when you hear that someone has been accused of some misdeed.
OK…so i just read a bunch of responses to this blog. Please consider the following: imagine how you might engage in unwanted sex (i.e., be “assaulted”) but not immediately say anything because you are trying to convince yourself that what just happened didn’t really happen, that it was really consensual, that you enjoyed it, that it’s not a big deal, and so on. Imagine that you try to supress the experience but then a week or two later realize that you cannot do that. This is extremely common and may be what happened with this woman. I say this because I’m struck by the large number of you who think this woman is “evil” but still don’t know a damn thing about what happened.
Clearly the author of the piece isn’t standing behind the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty; she is allowing her anger to drive her ideas. But then, she makes a provocative point about coming to the defense of people we don’t even know and would never know if we were not celebrity sycophants. (Okay, it’s not really the right word but it feels good.)
In any case, her main idea is one that is worth considering. Why? Just read the comments that are linked to this video:
So now check out the nine comments from this same video that I pulled from the YouTube site:
What a stupid fuckin whore. Bitches like that make it hard for real sexual assault victims to find justice. On top of that, she couldve ruined his life with this lie. If there is justice, this bitch will pay. I dont want her to get hurt, but she should spend time in prison or at least a mental ward.
She did not repor to police because they do a physical exam to confirm her claim and like craigblast said will charge her with a crime if lying. this a bogus claim. nothing can be proved here
This is a bunch of Crap! This was a casual enounter at best between a man an a woman that lead to more. He did nothing wrong but be a popular athlete and she is a gold digger! How lame is that, i was “raped” but i wont report it to police because im afraid the casino will fire me, HAVE A SPINE AND STAND UP FOR YOURSELF IF ITS TRUE
She tells the Hotel Security Guards but didn`t tell the Cops? No why? because she was smart, filing a fake police report is a crime, so what she did was tell the Hotel Security just so she can say she reported the crime. Now after the charges were dismiss she`s trying to save face and make Ben look bad by wanting him to donate money to the Abused women Association. How many women if they were really raped would just want an apology? Or just sue for $400,000, when Ben is worth a $100,000,000?
what is it with americans fucking trying to sue everybody? get your own fucking money stupid woman!
What a bitch trying to set him up like that.
set up!
she must be a browns fan
Civil suits like this should not be a loud [sic] without a criminal trail first.
Stupid fuckin’ whore? Bitch? Wow. Like these people know the truth about what happened. These comments give the author of the article a great deal of credibility. In fact, it seems to reflect exactly what she’s saying.
After watching this short video of a recent incident of racism in a high school where kids were being openly racist, it seems as though I have discovered why it is that we are all just a little bit racist…. still. Race is an open topic in many places here in America and racism must be seeping into our psyches.
In the video students were openly hating black students and there was literally nothing being done about it This is what made me think “WTF?” the most. I certainly remember there being strict rules about racism back when I was in school. But why not this school, how can these kids run wild degrading everyone that looks a little different than them into rubble? Who is to say that we don’t do the same behind our own eyes?
So why are we all racist…. still? Because parents aren’t educating their kids, or choose not to? The schools aren’t doing much to prevent this behavior either. One administrator admitted that their staff wasn’t properly trained in this area. But how much training do you need to undergo to spot such blatant racism and then to speak up?
If you were among this group of so called “administrators,” what would you do? Would you dial up your own little way to report things to the staff? Or something a more extreme?
And then I encounter this video. Another “WTF?” How about these administrators? What are they thinking. The woman won a case in court, afterall, and so her story, which sounds entirely far-fetched, must be true. How can it be? I guess the inmates really do sometimes take over and run the asylum.
No doubt a few of you know this guy, MC Hotdog. He’s been around for a minute, as they say, and is popular in Taiwan and known in Southeast Asia. He is recognized for his gritty lyrics and many supporters and critics claim that his music represents a vision of “real life.” Sound familiar? Gangsters, fast women, tough talk, fast living…you know the standard schtick.
This particular song is about perceptions of people, women in particular, that northern Taiwanese have of people from the south Of that country, and a general commentary of the nexus between the north and south Taiwan. But alas, it’s mostly about women and the fact that he prefers the Taiwanese “beauties” over those women with cultural ties to mainland China. Watch the video:
What jumps out for me is how you could use Photoshop and FinalCut and replace all the people in the video with African American actors/artists and you’d never know. You could probably keep 98 percent of the lyrics and just replace names like “Taipei” (the capital of Taiwan) with “Compton” (a community in Los Angeles) throughout it. And so I’m struck by the enormity of this globalized village in which we’re living, of how some artist on the other side of the world can take the hip-hop formula and very easily reproduce it to become a well known artist in his own land.
Here is a video from Zanka Flow, a popular hip hop group from Morocco:
I have no idea what they’re saying–they’re spitin’ it in Arabic, although they might be using some local dialects–but it sounds like it might be rather hard core. Morocco is a pretty poor country–rich in history and culture, poor in terms of resources that would help them compete in the global economy. The unemployment and underemployment rate for young men is extremely high in this Muslim land, and so I can imagine the kinds of things that young males might be saying to the world.
Any thoughts on this world wide dissemination of hip hop and rap? Personally, I find it pretty cool that people around the globe are tied together by music. They always have been, of course, though it has happened much more quickly this time around.
The cartoon is by Marty Two Bulls, Sr., a Native American cartoonist who is saying something rather instructive about the recent Senate apology–the official U.S. Apology–to American Indians. Thought it might be worth reflecting on it today–Columbus Day. It’s an odd day to celebrate and my guess is that most of us would feel extremely uncomfortable doing so if we took just a bit of time to reflect on the history and current life conditions of Native Americans in both the United States and elsewhere in the Americas.
But we don’t…because THAT would require us to rethink the official story by which we live and that allows us to get on with our lives day after day and not feel some kind of way about the blood and bones that are buried beneath the land that we now own and the structures we now call “home.” And by “we” I guess I mean those of us who do not claim ancestry to some indigenous people or culture.
Genocide. There’s that unfortunate word again. Alcoholism and addiction. Unemployment. Reservations. Suicide. Rape. Violent attacks. So the apology is just a first step???
Take a few minutes (probably 6-8 total) and read the document–the apology. Unless you are Native American, it’s coming from you, afterall, and so you probably ought to at least know what it says.
So I heard on the radio this morning that Egypt’s most powerful (Muslim) cleric, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, has spoken out against the niqab, the full, face-covering/headscarf (not to be confused with the burka–a full body covering). He has proclaimed that these should be banned from the various schools of the Al-Azhar University. He has asserted that niqab “has nothing at all to do with Islam.”
This is from the Press Trust of India:
Cairo, Oct 9 (PTI) Egypt’s prestigious Al-Azhar University has barred students from wearing face-veils or Niqab in female-only classrooms and dormitories.
The Al-Azhar supreme council, in a statement yesterday, said that it has decided to ban students and teachers from wearing the Niqab inside female-only classrooms that are taught by women.
The ban extends to women dormitories and to schools affiliated with the university.
It said that the aim of the ban is to spread the spirit of confidence, unison, comfort and sound understanding between the teachers and their students.
The decision was announced by Sheik of Al-Azhar Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, who was recently criticised for forcing a girl to take off her face-veil inside an institute affiliated with the university.
The Muslim brotherhood, the largest opposition bloc, has asked for his removal, describing his action as part of a larger plan to de-Islamise Egypt.
This struck me because it sounds rather progressive and, dare I say, “feminist.” It does not sound at all like some proclamations I’ve heard recently by other Egyptian (Muslim) clerics. Listen to this one:
Now that’s what I’m talking about. Real machismo. I’ve always thought that God/G-d/Allah wanted straight men to have a way to unequivocally express how manly they were in their own homes so as to show that he is on our side — he is a “he,” afterall, isn’t he?
So here’s the deal. This should show all of us that Islam, like all other religions, is ripe for interpretation. I mean, c’mon, god–the g is lower case now in deference to the atheists among you–either wants women to be beaten or to not cover up. Not sure if a bikini is acceptable, but these are two very different interpretations of the will of the creator and I’m struck by how anybody at all can speak for god. Reminds me of some words I read years ago: “You can be pretty certain that you’ve created god in your own image when your god hates all of the same people and things that you do.”
I guess I’d like to leave you with the following: Just like your secular and religious leaders have different interpretations for their people’s actions, so too do the leaders of other lands and cultures. Keep that in mind the next time you hear something that sounds really crazy that has been proclaimed by one of a billion or so followers of some belief system. Perhaps it’s just that one person’s sense of reality! Maybe not every so-called follower agrees with that person — like when Ahmadinejad in Iran expresses his desire to Nuke Israel, or when the Pope decides that using condoms will not help prevent the spread of HIV.
There are scores of ethnic groups in China and the majority group, the Han Chinese, make up over 90 percent of the population and remain relatively entrenched in their power to influence Chinese society. Think European Americans in the United States before the 1960s. The problem is that China has not had it’s 1960s civil rights movement and accompanying “conscientization” and so many of the Han are thinking about the rights of minorities in much the same way as many white southerners were fifty years ago–that is to say, “rights” are not on the table for a public conversation.
So remember the riots that broke out in China this past summer between minority Uighurs (who are Muslim) and majority Han? Not likely…because it’s probably not an issue for you. But do know that these riots were big news in the world’s most populated country. Many hundreds died all because of an overt racism that we rarely see on this side of the Pacific. Both the majority Han and minority Uighurs violently clashed over the issue or rights. Imagine thousands of majority Han (think white people) roaming the streets with knives and meat cleavers looking for Uighurs (think people of color) to kill after Uighurs had killed over 150 Han. The Uighurs attacked, so they said, as a response to racist attacks and policies by the Han. So yeah, big news in China.
Read this is from a James Fallows column in the New Yorker to get a sense of the racism in China. Fallows has had considerable experience living there as a Westerner/foreigner.
Regarding the “no Uighurs” sign [that is often seen in the Xinjiang region], that type of thing is pretty common in China. Many advertisements for foreign English teachers will include something like “Whites only” or a “Looking for Caucasian teachers” sentence somewhere in the text. Additionally, many a native speaker have flown from their country to China only to find upon arrival that regardless of the applicant’s qualifications, the job could only be performed by a white person. At these times the Chinese are usually polite and a little embarrassed (most Chinese are very nice people and mean no harm), but they will remain very firm in their conviction that a person with darker skin than theirs could not possibly make a good teacher.
I have experienced this on a number of occasions. But after living in China for a while I realized that what we would consider racism in the West is simply a deeply ingrained cultural characteristic of mainland Chinese people. White skin (the Chinese like to consider themselves white) and/or being a Han (the dominant ethnic group) means a person is good. Dark skin or not being Han means a person is inferior (and more likely to be a bad guy/a thief/incompetent etc.). It does not equal KKK style hatred. It does not even mean a Han Chinese wouldn’t be friends with a person from India or Africa. It simply means that if a person is non-white or a member of certain Chinese minorities [like Uighurs], they simply are to be considered less smart, less competent and less trustworthy than the average white person or Han.
On a lighter note, the Chinese are not inflexible and when exposed to nice people of color they usually will change their minds quickly, as with Obama. However, the tendency towards ethnic and racial chauvinism is a current running through Chinese culture that is unlikely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon.
These are pretty graphic scenes. I realize that there are many sides to this issue and there is no way that I can begin to present them all here. Nonetheless, these riots are not much different than the riots we have seen here in the United States in terms of their causes and consequences. What I want you to get a window into is the idea that ethnocentrism and prejudice and discrimination occur all over the world. I say this because I often hear people say something to the effect that the U.S. is the “most racist country in the world,” when in fact that know little to nothing about other countries in that world of which they speak.
This post is just a window into another culture and their struggles for civility and understanding.
I have no idea who this guy is. I guess he’s a former child actor who now works for God. As I have not watched TV in the past thirty years, he remains a mystery to me–even though he seems to be quite popular in our mainstream media outlets because I see his face a good deal on the Web.
That said, he says something here that leaves me a bit perplexed and I’d like some of you to respond. Listen to the clip and get back to me.
“When you learn how to skip to a person’s conscience and circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution disappears.” Poof. It’s gone. Someone questions you about evolution? Just change the subject. Amazing what can happen when we stop thinking.
So tell me what you do when the complicated questions that you cannot immediately answer come at you in a fast and furious way, when your world view is called into question, or when you accidentally and inevitably step into that gray area that so many of us unsuccessfully try to avoid so much of the time. Do you just stop thinking like this guy says you can do in the case of evolution so that the conundrum disappears? Or do you stay in the ring and wrestle with the challenges that are difficult to pin down?
Here’s the issue as I see it. This short little video clip might be taken out of context, to be sure. However, it doesn’t really matter for what I’m asking because I see lots of people turning off their intellect when confronted with things they can’t explain. This includes believers of all sorts of ideas, including scientists and sociologists, and not simply religious folks.
And I know what you might say. You might remind me of what I said the other day in class with regard to religious beliefs–that fealty to God comes mainly from faith. But the problem is that faith is not separate from the intellect. Most people who have faith will give you very logical and rational reasons for why they have their faith. Sure, a great deal of many people’s faith is conditional and based on convenience. Perhaps it’s “I have faith that the Pope is speaking for God but I don’t want to get my girlfriend pregnant so I’m using condoms–even though the Pope/God says it’s a sinful act.” Pure convenience to avoid the inconvenience of having a baby to take care of while taking classes.
Or people posit “There are immutable laws that govern the universe (e.g., gravity) and thus no reason to postulate some otherworldly causality.” A convenient observation until you take the time to read theoretical physics and discover the many brilliant scientific minds that have been led to God when they discover that many of these laws are not as immutable as they previously thought. Pure convenience to avoid the inconvenience of having to read another book.
It’s all faith implicated with rational thought.
So the question is as follows: If we live our lives both “believing” and “thinking,” then when is it acceptable to stop doing the latter for the sake of the former? In other words, do we abandon ALL rational thought or just when thinking would force us to confront some ideas and observations that don’t immediately make sense or mesh with what we want to believe?
The message of the gentleman in the video is that some “truths” he has discovered just happen to accompany a particularly complicated mix of riddles (like evolution) and that it’s okay to “circumnavigate” them so you don’t have to deal with what you don’t want to risk understanding. I’m not so sure I agree.
Once again, it doesn’t matter if this has been pulled out of context because that’s a message I’ve heard all of my life from people who want to avoid thinking about something–like the pervasiveness of racism or where fossils came from or whether it really does lower the morale of the troops if gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military.
By the way, those of you who are not disposed to faith persuasions don’t need to use this post as an opportunity to bash those who are. Rather, use it as an opportunity to rethink how you navigate the world of ideas.
