Why most of the criticism levied against TFA is done to maintain the status quo

By Raymond Arroyo, Senior, University of Michigan, New York City Public School Student, Accepted TFA member NYC 2014

disclaimer: This is my personal blog and I do not speak for the Corps in any capacity. My opinions are only my own.

                Many people have a lot of valid criticisms of Teach For America. Many of these students are being implanted into neighborhoods they have basically no experience with (true in some sense). These students are just using it as resume padding (moot point in my opinion, but nonetheless true in some cases). And that many of these kids are just idealist who don't actually understand the gravity of the situation they are entering (very true). But among the most invalid criticisms are these two: TFA corps members are unprepared to teach and TFA corps members are taking jobs from actual teachers. The former is invalid because plenty of studies have shown that TFA corps members either do better than normal first year teachers (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/Education/TFA_snapshot_9_2013.pdf) or do just as well (http://educationnext.org/what-you-should-know-about-tfa-and-the-value-of-experience-2/). So when people discuss how unprepared TFA corps members are, they are making a factually untrue statement. The fact of the matter is TFA corps members are being placed in the toughest schools with the students who need the most help. If someone expects teachers from even the best programs to do exceptionally well in these districts, then perhaps they are the naive one. Secondly, the claim that TFA corps members take the jobs of experienced teachers is partially false. It takes two to tango and the schools need to first get rid of veteran teachers for TFA corps members to "take their positions". Many argue TFA corps come at a cheaper price tag, thus explaining why schools are dumping veterans for TFA corp members. But this is an overly pessimistic view of the system, which doesn't even assign blame to TFA, it assigns blame to administrators. A perhaps more realistic picture is that budgets are being cut drastically due to the slow recovery, causing schools the need to dump veteran teachers who come at a higher price tag. To insinuate that schools simply want to save a buck is overly pessimistic. These schools might have to save a buck. The reason they are taking TFA members over young teachers is because TFA members are out performing these young teachers and are cheaper. 

          So now that I've disarmed some of the harshest criticism let's look at the purpose of TFA. It integrates very successful students from top universities into the education system. The idea is that most of these students are going to end up in other sectors: business, law, policy, engineering, etc., that determine many of the policy decisions and technologies afforded to education. However the massive disconnect between those in power and those working "in the trenches" was wide. Thus TFA provides a bridge, allowing a student who would normally just enter a lucrative job at wall street a chance to see how difficult things really are. The result is hopefully a life changing experience that turns the student into a TFA alum who is devoted to the fight for education equality. This trend doesn't mean that students just resume pad and then leave. Many TFA members stay on as teachers, many of the becoming administrators and opening up their own schools. 

        The valid criticism. Aside from ad hominems (i.e. TFA members are idealistic) there is some actual constructive criticism to be made about the program. First, TFA seems to be very focused on test based success, which some could argue maintains a system of standardizing testing that is outdated and ineffective. Furthermore, the culture gap is a real thing that can be argued to gentrify and culturally invade spaces for people of color and low SES. Also, the large partnership with charter schools also sends a jaded message, but charter schools like TFA are typically criticized with what I dub as "status quo maintenance". This sort of criticism will only argue against change and refuses to admit glaring issues with the status quo first. This approach makes no sense because policy changes take time for reform to get it right (e.g. the ACA), especially if policy changes are largely achieving their main goal such as programs like TFA. 

     In the end the criticism doesn't hold much water for grounds of boycotting the program similar to what this haughty Harvard student suggested in this biased article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandra-korn/why-i-said-no-to-teach-for-america_b_4151764.html. There are definitely changes that should be made to prevent TFA teachers from "replacing" veteran teachers, but that cannot come from the program itself, but from the government who needs to stop cutting budgets. Furthermore, we can see a trend in new policy and reform being resisted in almost all history. It doesn't surprise me that there is such harsh criticism being levied against TFA because TFA is actually trying to be bold. TFA rejects the culture of poverty and inserts a strong belief that kids can be taught and their recruits can teach them. A TFA member enters expecting to fight a war for their students and many of them do so successfully. I can't say anything for certain about my experience that's upcoming with TFA, but I do know I refuse to give up and to accept that my students can't learn till the very last day of the year. People might think this is arrogant talk but as someone who went through the public education system in NYC (which is where I will be teaching at), I think I have pretty good handle on how difficult and how bad things can get in schools.

Questions that should be asked about the status quo:
Why are veteran teachers who outperform all incoming teachers being dumped?
Why are TFA members outperforming incoming teachers with formal training?

Why when you think about it, you realize Elysium is idiotic

I hate lists, but I know most people won't read things unless it is a list, so to stoop down to the average medium of choice for college students, I decided to list this off.

1. Appropriation- There's a fine line between careful political allusion and out right appropriation. Elysium is the latter. Honestly, if anyone could say Matt Damon didn't look out of place, speaking spanish, living in a predominantly latina/black/people of color neighborhood, while also claiming the very same plight as the people around him, then you are buying into the color blind future the movie wants you to believe in. Also, the hot button they are clearly pushing on is "illegal" immigration, which is an issue predominantly faced by latinos. The main love interest is Latina. The best friend is Latino. In fact everyone in Matt Damon's world, who's on his side seems not to be white, so why on earth is Matt Damon white? And when I say white I don't simply mean skin color, I'm also asking why you couldn't get a light skin Latino to play the role. I mean if you're gonna white wash the cast that's the the least you can do. Some of you might be up in arms, crying out "why does it matter if he is Latino or not". Welp because immigration laws and policy in the United States is a very real issue for many Latinos. To see it shamelessly thrown into a movie for a predominantly non-Latino audience is kind of a jerk move. Also, if he doesn't seem out of place, then I think you might believe society is colorblind too.

Two clearly Latino men discussing the deets with Matt Damon

2. Technology Dues ex Machina hurts more than helps- 

The entire time the movie explains the disparity via cool technology and asshole robots. I mean there's even a machine that changes your atomic structure to cure cancer. The efficacy of these machines are astounding. They can comprehend verbal orders, carry out complex tasks and are physically and intelligently smarter. So if this is the case, then why do we see this?

Instead of having robots make robots, we'll just have humans do it for low wages

Honestly if technology is so advanced, then why don't they just have machines do most labor. Especially for something as technical as machine building. Yet you see Matt Damon work in the factory as if it were an assembly line... you know a rote action that could be easily taught to a machine. We could even have some human supervisors (oops I meant white human supervisors, because that's all we see in the movie). Did they expect me to believe that a society that has cured cancer and pretty much lives in complete lackadaisical bliss can't come up with a way to compensate for their poorer citizens? This is never addressed. The movie seems to just want you to believe that this is the new normal and if it isn't happening today, then it will soon. The issue is the technology doesn't align with the policy. 

3. We'll give you a bad white character, but we need to distinguish him- Did you notice that the main bad guy has a bit of an accent (unsure if it is Irish or Scottish, but I guarantee you it doesn't sound English. This just continues the racial stratification. You have the latino/people of color community at the bottom rung of importance. Then you have the clearly ethinically distinguished baddie enter into the fray. With Matt Damon as the White anglo saxon savior to save the day. 

Verdict: Elysium is fun to watch, but if you're sensitive to this kind of stuff, you might think it's a bit dumb. 

The badge of inferiority known as Affirmative Action

                  Affirmative action is the tool of much of society to undermine the achievements of many minority students on campus. Often times when a minority is successful or if their presence is even acknowledged in an institution of higher learning, people can't help but bring up affirmative action. It's funny because people say minorities would stop being tokenized if affirmative action didn't exist. While I find that to be unlikely, my rebuttal to that is "why does the minority need to be tokenized in the first place." Implicit in the statement that minorities wouldn't be tokenized if affirmative action didn't exist is that every minority didn't earn their way into the University. You can even make this a weaker statement, but at the very least for their rationale to be solid you must think a considerable amount of minorities or at least a simple majority of minorities got into their institutions (we can assume minorities in top institutions, if that makes the conversation more amicable towards naysayers) because of their race/gender. This is an unfair assumption. Regardless of what your opinion of affirmative action is, it does not give anyone the right to decide which minorities deserve to be at an institution and which don't. To even engage in that kind of behavior is despicable.
                But Affirmative action is being employed in a more subtle way. It's being used to hijack conversations concerning minorities. This can be seen in the #BBUM thread, where articles concerning the twitter trend are riddled with affirmative action debates. These debates are not the message of #BBUM, but when we discuss only affirmative action on their pages (which is what tends to happen when affirmative action is brought up) a multitude of experiences are lost due to the selfish tendencies of a few individuals. Why is affirmative action the favorite talking point of many white and asian students? The discussion of affirmative action typically reinforces notions of white superiority and asian superiority over other groups such as black and latino students. Constantly the message that is given is that blacks and latinos are lazy individuals, who don't work hard enough, which is why they don't get into top universities. It is masked behind fake good intentions such as arguing that getting rid of affirmative action would help black students, it won't (as evidenced by current statistics of black enrollment here at the University). People will claim it will end the tokenizing of minorities. Unfortunately they don't realize that minorities aren't tokenized by affirmative action, but by people. People assume minorities couldn't get into their universities without the help of affirmative action and treat the program as poison that taints even the brightest of minorities. Instead people could stop passing judgement all together and only judge minorities based on the merit of their actions, but that is a foreign concept for individuals who want to feel like they've been cheated in the world.
        I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss affirmative action. I'm just saying that we need to stop bringing up affirmative action where it is not warranted. If a student of color brings up affirmative action in a value based framework (i.e. affirmative action is good or bad), then feel free to engage in a conversation about your thoughts. If you want to discuss affirmative action on your personal site or publication, go ahead, knock yourself out. But if affirmative action is mentioned in passing or as a historical context for some larger point, then you only serve to make the conversation about you when you decide to prattle on about affirmative action. Minorities don't have time to argue affirmative action every time someone decides they want to discuss it. Some minorities don't even care about the program. The point is that when people bring up affirmative action in contexts that have very little to do with it (or where affirmative action is one of many points being discussed) they typically only do so to degrade the minority they are talking to or to make the conversation about their needs, rather than the minority's needs. It's selfish and childish. Please stop. 

White allies exist

            BBUM# is trending and race conversations are beginning to bud everywhere. The response from many non-black students: feelings of isolation, rejection and unfair criticism. Regardless, there are some non-black students, specifically white (other non-black allies exist, this post just speaks specifically to white allyhood), who have respected and listened to what black students on campus are saying. However, this has brought back murmurs concerning the genuine nature of white allies. In the minds of many minorities, white allies are fraudulent and unable to ever be there for minority students. These murmurs need to stop.
           I cannot speak for all minorities. Hell, I can't speak for all Latinos. All I know is that I don't see an end game in an isolationist mentality. I don't see a possible world where we excise the White in our life. Nor do I ever want to see that kind of world. White can be a beautiful shade and while that goes without saying (White typically is considered to be beautiful), to think that we don't lose anything meaningful by denying white experiences in our lives is a bit short sighted in my opinion. The opportunity cost is high when we allow the majority of the unchecked white privilege flood into our lives, but our allies don't do that. Our allies are mindful of their privilege and work hard to learn more each and everyday, just as we work hard to learn each and everyday. Our allies understand the distance, but don't let the distance prevent them from engaging with us holistically. Our allies don't only see black, but aren't color blind. Our allies sing with us, dance with us, cherish us, live with us, love us. We are apart of their lives and they are apart of our community. They aren't Latino to be sure, but they aren't complete strangers. If you wish to take the route of nationalistic hubris, where you section yourself away from constructions of whiteness in general and as a result regrettably disassociate yourself with many white allies, then that's your prerogative. But I believe that to fight inequality and to build a better society we should make no compromises. This means my white friends won't be necessary causalities in my struggle against oppression.  

A Minority politic and the rejection of Neo-liberalist co-option

                       The term minority is a problematic one because it typically refers to all who aren't white male heterosexual, Protestant. However minority in the way I'm going to employ it, is going to refer only to racial differences. So a minority in the sense of this article is essentially only someone who isn't white. White is another term that's problematic because white can mean a whole host of things. Perhaps we can designate according to skin color or using heritage. For the matter of this article I will not construct some prerequisite. If you don't consider yourself white, then that's good enough for me. I feel that most minorities don't openly state they are white because it's a falsehood. White culture and white people don't have ties to them, except for that of the oppressor. Forcing them to take on that identity for the sake of their skin color would be inappropriate.
                     But the term minority even in a racial sense is a problematic term. Minorities do not coalesce well politically, making the "minority agenda" a complete fantasy in terms of actual political capital. Instead we often operate within our own particular racial groups (i.e. latinos, blacks, asians, etc). These political groups have an easier time realizing policy goals and demands, then the blanket bloc "minority". I am here to suggest a few things that will make the minority coalition much more tangible and also to warn minorities about the threat of white Neo-liberalist co-option.
                     Neo-liberalist go under many names. Typically they'll regard themselves as "bi-partisans" or even try to approach minorities through an age group such as "millennials". Neo-liberalist are the bastion of moderate politics, which will never recognize true racial difference. The Neo-liberalist agenda is one that subordinates the minority, especially people of color, for the sake of compromises that in the end help whites disproportionately more. The Neo-liberalist only acts in tandem with the minority when it benefits them, which is why their policy goals typically have huge economic pay-offs attached to them. I'm not asking to reject the policy goals of the Neo-liberalist. Instead I'm asking for a rejection of their coalition as one that we can be apart of. We cannot ever share with their political coalition because they are blind to how their coalition is still dictated by white leaders and white voices. Furthermore, no amount of token minority leaders within the group will change the fact that normative policy goals are oriented with whites in mind. It's not that they are brainwashed into believing a white normalcy is normal, it's that we are all brainwashed into believing that white normalcy is normal.
                    When we reject the white normative framework, we become self aware of how we were being duped and are allowed to make policy that is truly in our own best interest. But as I stated before, minorities don't coalesce. This is because most coalitions work within an affirmative framework. Most coalitions work within the context of what they want, not what they don't want. Latino's typically emphasize immigration legislation, while African Americans argue for structural changes concerning their neighborhoods. In an affirmative framework we have different policy goals, which leads us to not realize any particular policy suggestions as a minority bloc. However, if we move to a negative framework, then it becomes possible for us to collude and make unilateral demands. This comes via a "if it happens to them, then it can happen to me rationale". Policies like stop and frisk are damaging because they unfairly target minorities, specifically people of color. Once this is allowed, then the bar for what is unacceptable is moved and can easily move further. While I'm not suggesting that we will return to the days of Jim Crow, where cops had the social backing to call out people of color with loud voices (now they just do it with whispers and ambiguous language), I am suggesting that the problem will only become more pervasive. We can agree that disproportionate application of laws are also bad (e.g. drug sentencing laws). These are all issues as minorities we can put our foot down and make demands to end.
                 Our racial coalitions will compete from time to time (e.g. affirmative action is typically supported by African Americans and Latinos, but not by some Asians). That's fine. The political process is supposed to be one of competition. However, we cannot allow competition be the wedge for a Neo-liberalist co-option. A Neo-liberalist agenda would probably take the policy goals of a certain group and herald it as their own in order to break the impermeable minority bloc. For example, making affirmative action so that it's based completely on income. This will seem like it will take away stigma from Asians, when in actuality it will only serve to allow poor whites to be allowed into University at a much higher rate. The Neo-liberalist bloc isn't a conniving bloc that aims to hurt minority goals. If that's the characterization you're getting then you fail to recognize that the normative policy goals of white culture are inherently at odds with that of people of color. They are inherently appropriating and subordinating.
              Minority blocs will serve us well in the coming years as the political capital of the country shifts from a white majority to a minority majority. It's time we create a political group sophisticated enough to represent our goals, while not accidentally undermining our own goals by supporting a white Neo-liberalist agenda. Our individual coalitions can bicker and compete, but not at the expense of our group as a whole. Until we've dismantled the normative white super structure, the minority voter must be vigilant and cast their ballet only when they have a clear shot at equality.
                  

Repair don't Reclaim

               The Oatmeal recently posted this article http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day , which encourages people to stop celebrating Christopher Columbus and instead celebrate Bartolome de las Casas  during Columbus Day. Bartolome was similar to Columbus in the sense that both were white European explorers, who exploited natives for resources and labor, but Bartolome in an act of guilt and true disgust, turned a new leaf and fought for natives' rights and against rampant imperialism. The rationale given by the Oatmeal is pretty simple. Columbus was a jerk and this guy wasn't and he did good things for natives, so why not replace Columbus with him? Well it seems the Oatmeal didn't ask the question "how does this help repair relations with indigenous people?" While it's nice that  Bartolome served as an activist for indigenous people's rights and he should definitely receive praise for his actions, replacing Columbus with him only replaces one White European male with another.In this seemingly appropriate re-patronizing, the indigenous person is silenced yet again. The indigenous person is instead given this liaison, who only serves to make Western culture feel good again. The unspoken rationale behind this is "well Columbus was a jerk, but not everyone was a jerk."  It leaves the gate open for rationalizing the imperialistic tendencies of Western society as positives, rather than leaving the floor open for critique. What I'm advocating for is not a "I hate Christopher Columbus day", that would be inappropriate as well for the same reason Bartolome day was inappropriate, it ignores indigenous people. Instead using this day to focus on indigenous peoples' (specifically from the Caribbean, which are the ones typically forgotten when one uses the catch all phrase Native Americans) and their culture and how they were unfortunately oppressed is a much better use of time than to continue to think about White European men, an activity we have been forced to do for 12 years of our lives in history class. 

Must I bite my tongue forever?

             Overt racism isn't dead, it's sleeping. And whenever an intelligent and determined minority asserts themselves into the public sphere, overt racism is brought back as the final defense against an inevitable turning of the tables. My English Professor at the University of Michigan told us that the two amendments we should be most grateful for are the 13th and 14th amendment because soon the majority group in the country will change and those amendments are the only thing protecting and guaranteeing rights when those changes come about. Well the change is coming and though some of the white community is welcoming it with open arms, there are plenty who find themselves "tired of the talk" and are gathering up their chutzpah for a showdown they will most likely lose. This showdown will be fought with words. We are going to shoot up white neighborhoods with ballots as bullets and people are going to decry the massacre. They will claim that we only vote for ourselves. They will argue that our political savvy is lacking. They will deny most of our candidates and find even more overt ways of blocking us from the vote. They will fail.
              One might think, I'm a white ally, why does it seem as if you don't want me around. Well my friend you are wanted. You have been our vanguard for centuries and I can only hope that minorities who eventually come into power retain a sense of humility that allows us to realize when our own bias may affect us. However, this antagonistic tone isn't one of all out war. It is a calculated reconfiguration of the superstructure of race that has plagued this country. It is more complicated than us vs them, but for the sake of the battle that's how the lines are going to be drawn.
             To be clear I'm not advocating for actual violence against any group. I'm merely pointing out that as power is transferred, we are going to face a class of people who struggle to come to terms with their own mortality. While financially we cannot pry wealth from the hands of the elite (which is predominantly white), we can at least assert our own political capital in meaningful ways. And just to be clear when I say pry wealth, I don't mean a hand out. I mean winning out in the free market without all of the legislation that makes them untouchable. I'm talking a return to a freer market. The trust busters will come riding back in, but this time they will speak Spanish and Ebonics.
           This might make you feel uncomfortable. This might even make minorities feel uncomfortable. I honestly don't care because I'm done with negotiating when I can't even make it to the dinner table. We need to be at equal footing to make fair demands. This is what you call leverage and minorities still have very little of it. We have been fed a philosophy of tolerance and docility that the dominant group isn't even following. Why should we follow it? There is no moral high ground in exploitation.
           Also, this isn't a vindictive struggle. I can honestly care less about getting back at my oppressors. Instead I just want to live a good life. I want my kids to walk around badge-less. And when I turn on the TV I want to see a rainbow in the rows of congress. The law will protect me and cops won't harass me. My mother won't be questioned at the border when she says her son goes to the University of Michigan. These are things I want. They are bold and pernicious, I know. So I have decided I'm just going to take. 

Misogyny is misogyny: Reinforcing the original interpretation of Blurred lines

           Yep I read this post http://polemiqueoccasionelle.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/blurring-the-lines-of-feminism-a-criticism-of-the-criticism-of-blurred-lines/ . This post is hard for me to speak against as a man. I feel the discourse surrounding women's rights should be driven by women and men have a role in that conversation, but its a reflective one. Men shouldn't be imposing their own privilege on the conversation. I keep quoting the same person, but I really like this expression: "Be mindful of the space you take up in the room." However, when talking to the person who told me that about whether she could speak out for minorities as a white woman, I told her that I personally felt she could. That's because you shouldn't let misconceptions about your friends and family be perpetuated if you could stop it. So I really seem myself as stepping in not for women, but for my friends, my sister and my mother, who don't need to be ashamed for proudly demanding a world where they are respected, not objectified.  The criticism laid out by the author here is twofold. She first argues that feminist have misinterpreted the language of Blurred lines for rape culture rather than sexual liberation. Secondly, she attacked the "Defined lines video", which parodies the song via role reversal. Her criticism of defined lines is that "two wrongs don't make a right" and the parody goes much farther in its objectification of men, then the actual blurred lines does of women. I will start first by defending Defined lines as a clear satire of the misogyny frequently shown in videos with women. Then I will move to strike down some of her interpretation and also draw from other articles, which have shown how Blurred Lines perpetuates rape culture. Finally, I will indict the criticism from the article as perpetuating the negative stereotype of Feminist being self obsessed matriarchal dictators.

Satire not sexism: Exaggeration as a strategy for emphasis 
        To start with the criticism of the "Defined lines" video, she begins by claiming that the song insinuates rape like behavior. What the author misses is that this video was intended as a parody. The video is supposed to be in bad taste because by doing so it brings emphasis to the sort of objectification women regularly see in the media. The exaggeration in the video is meant to capitalize on the already unsettling prospect of seeing this happen to men. What isn't being examined is why the male community seemed to respond with such outrage over the video. If you are full of outrage, good, then you should direct that outrage towards the music companies that do this to women on a regular basis, as opposed to one of the rare examples of this happening to men. This role reversal isn't even akin to that seen in the videos from Beyonce or other singers. Instead it's clearly being used to draw attention to how problematic the portrayal of women in the media is. The song even says this when it states, "What you see on TV/doesn't speak equality/ it's straight up misogyny." Those who chuckled at the video do so because they see the irony and satire at play here. But these chuckles weren't hearty chuckles. Instead people awkwardly laughed as they recognized that anyone who has this kind of stuff done to them is being degraded. The logical connection from that was supposed to be about stopping this kind of portrayal where it happens the most: the music industries portrayal of women. Finally, the author admonishes the creators, claiming that women should empower themselves, not weaken men. Such a statement is true in most situations. It shouldn't be the goal of the women's rights movement to weaken men. However, if women need to hurt patriarchy, then there is a good chance that men might have to suffer the drawbacks from that. It's not intentional. In fact it's usually brought about by the lack of practical strategies to fight against misogyny.

A bunch of naked women is a sad man's fantasy
               The author suggests that the reason the song was misinterpreted is because it misses the mantra of sexual freedom being preached by the song. I could definitely see this if it weren't for a few red flags. First, the video suggests a man's fantasy, not an equal sexual fantasy. It's not the fact that there are several naked women in the video (unrated, actually first think about why an unrated video even fucking exists), but the fact that they find themselves being oogled at by Thicke and his crew (who seem quite comfortable being cloth). This signals to me that this isn't about the sexual freedom of the woman. She's already at this visible state of vulnerability, while the man is still clothed and in control. Those who claim the woman's body is a symbol of power are correct, but not when it's being subjugated by a male dominated environment. Women in this video are clearly attending to men and their needs. They are framed doing menial tasks and are completely silent, while men tell them what their sexual nature is. This is a sad man's fantasy of sexual freedom and unfortunately is a sexual prison for women.

Disentangling sexual freedom from the hypersexualization of women: a woman is not an animal
            Even if you disagree with me that the author's framing of the video is awry, hopefully you can see that the interpretation of Thicke's lyrics are completely off the mark. The author claims that this verse: "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you/But you're an animal, baby it's in your nature/Just let me liberate you/You don't need no paper/That man is not your maker" is a "women's lib anthem." First, before we start interpreting the lyrics, we need to interrogate the narrator of the lyrics. This is Robin Thicke, a white well chiseled man, who clearly wants to have sex with this girl. His end goal is for some sort of sexual relations and so his rhetoric is going to be for that aim. So when he says, "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you", I'm immediately suspect of what this "domestication" entailed. Perhaps domestication is Thicke's way of putting a negative spin on a faithful relationship. It would certainly behoove Thicke to portray the woman's relationship as limiting, regardless of how true it is. If anything Thicke is using the woman's sexual freedom against her, by suggesting that she is less of a woman for engaging in a monogamous relationship. But even if we ignore the clear conflict of interest with the narrator and assume that Thicke was being truthful (i.e. the woman's love interest was indeed trying to limit her sexual freedom), then one must immediately be off put by Thicke suggesting that the woman is animal. To compare her to an animal completely takes away her control over her sexual drive. Animals don't have sex because they want to, but because they need to (except for dolphins apparently). By suggesting that her engaging in sexual relations with Thicke is her state of nature draws connotations of a primal like sexual appetite (which is also visually represented in the song via the goat and humping of the fake goat). A good example of this is when one of the singers points at the goat being held by the woman and says "you the hottest bitch in this place" directly towards it. In that small second the woman is being reduced to the animal and to make matters worse that is when they feel comfortable invoking a derogatory designation for the woman.
         But I'm not even done, there's still more poor interpretation to be dealt with. The fact that the woman needs Thicke to "liberate her" is a clear position of subjugation. The woman isn't a free entity without Thicke's sexual liberation in this universe. The author doesn't even address this, in fact the author seems to take no issue with it, citing it as an example of pro women language in the song. I don't see how being reliant on a man to gain sexual freedom is in any way pro women. Then we return to the final line, which the author claims is Thicke's claim to a pro woman platform. Given all the context of the previous lines, I hope such a deduction seems laughable to you. The woman has been reduced to a sexual animal. Her relationship has been caricatured by Thicke. And she's given a sexual freedom ultimatum by him. Of course he wants to end it by creating the facade of control in the situation. This has been the new operation of sexism for men. We deal with women not by actually giving them the equality they want, but by appeasing them with fictional notions of equality. So instead of making a statement like "do what makes you happy, or what pleases you sexually", Thicke cleverly frames it as if her leaving her relationship via sex with him will liberate her from her prison.

Lower case f Feminism is a cop out
       I've been particularly free of ad hominems in this post so far, but I think this author deserves to face the repercussions of her writing. When she decided to analogize (insert inside joke here) the accurate feminist critiques of the song to slut shaming, she made herself look like a fool. Her first piece of evidence for this charge was her critique of the "Defined lines" videos, which I already addressed, so I won't do so here. Then she claims the feminist critique of the line regarding spanking, makes that kind of sexual behavior deviant. Again, context is everything. In  a video where the woman is completely in control of her own sexual experience this would be a different story, but as shown in the previous section, women are not in control in this video. So when Thicke insinuates that he could meet the woman's sexual desire via these violent acts, the context isn't sexual, but instead one of subjugation. Finally, her first two points about women never saying yes to sexual advances completely misses the point I made earlier about interrogating the narrator. In Thicke's mind this woman "knows she wants it", but I would bet some money that the woman herself probably feels differently about the situation. Furthermore, to validate Thicke's thinking would be to validate the rationale given by many people who rape women. This article http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/09/17/from-the-mouths-of-rapists-the-lyrics-of-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-and-real-life-rape/ shows the connections to rape culture the song has far better than I can, however a huge trigger warning, it uses actual testimonials from survivors.

Feminism is spelled with a capital F
   Women who have a high standard for the society around them aren't nuisances, they are liberators. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, friends, aunts. They deal with our male privilege when they shouldn't have to and many of them graciously educate us when we clearly are ignorant to the "space we take up". And when someone attacks these women for being too zealous, then all I have to say is shame on you. Shame on you for not being brave enough to continue the conversation when nobody wants to hear it. Shame on you for being a hindrance to those who want a full equality and who intend to not only change law and policy, but hearts and minds. Shame on you who think that I am less of a man for writing this because I know there is nothing more manly then standing up for the people I love. I write this to draw my lines in the sand. I hope the author thinks about doing the same.
       

The model minority isn't a myth: why people don't want to admit that all prejudice isn't created equal

                         There has been buzz about the recent Miss America winner and I'll admit I was outraged at the enormous amount of ignorance spewed onto the interwebs, especially since Miss America is from my home state and my soon to be Alma Mater. However, people have been making outlandish arguments about racial dynamics in this country by claiming the ignorance response given to her proved that Asian Americans were stigmatized just as much as other minority groups. Many have argued that this is definitive prove that the idea of a "model minority" is a myth that doesn't exist. These statements can be true depending on what someone means by them, but in their literal sense they are are complete falsehoods that ignore white privilege and how white privilege was afforded to Asian and Indian American workers far more than their Black and Latino counterparts. This goes back to policies dating to the late 1800s moving forward all the way to the mid 1900s. Regardless of the perpetuation of whiteness, racial doctrine written at the time explicitly drew distinctions between Blacks and Latinos and Asians, making a hierarchical difference between the two. This can be seen clearly in 1950s as Asians were portrayed to have successfully assimilated into the U.S., while blacks and Latinos were considered to be failed Americans.

Quantifying stigmatization 
           Clearly one cannot quantify stigmatization. It can never be objectively proven that certain minorities are treated "worse" than others and any attempt to do so would be biased and unproductive. Instead we need to make the critical shift of understanding how identities are being targeted, rather than immediately jumping to the results of said prejudice and having an all out statistical throw down. For example, the effects of Islamophobia cannot be translated into some quantifiable number. Attempts to do this in social sciences tend to find a close proxy, but the proxy is never expansive enough for the horrible experiences that stem  from Islamophobia in this nation. To then make the next step a comparison to the systemic racism faced by Blacks is completely outlandish. We need to accept that these are two different forms of prejudice that require different forms of support.

The Model Minority
      I am not arguing that Asian Americans don't face prejudice. What I am cautioning against is this quick instinct to lump all experiences of oppression into one giant collective. Asian Americans don't face the significant economic and educational barriers that African American and Latinos face. They may face educational barriers (i.e. the way policies favor white students over Asian students), but these barriers aren't the same ones faced by African Americans. Furthermore, the sentiment of "never being a true American" differs from the sentiment faced in the black community which unabashedly makes claim to legitimate American citizenry (as they should), but finds themselves forever being a lower standard of American. These two psychological prisons aren't the same. They are both horrible in different ways. The creation of a Model Minority distinction isn't a falsehood, but it certainly isn't a blessing either. Both the Model minority and the downtrodden minority are in positions of subjugation. When an Asian American rejects the label of Model Minority, they are freeing themselves of that subjugation and rightfully so. However, the history behind that label cannot be tossed aside. It needs to be analyzed and scrutinized. It must be acknowledged especially when it had led to institutions giving specific benefits to certain groups and not others.

Together, but distinct 
    Minorities can be allies for each other, but must respect the distinct nature of what each other is going through. Sure we can bond over the similarities of oppression, however as stated by a friend of mine, we need to be mindful of the space we take up and how that could possibly prevent others from having their stories heard. I am not advocating for the disenfranchisement of Asian American experiences. I am respecting the unique nature of the Asian American experience. I think when we can recognize that we are different, then we can take the actual first steps to being allies for each other. 

Bitch ain't bad: recognizing male privilege

       It's easy as a man to read a few texts (typically labeled as "feminist texts", I like to think of them as "keeping it real texts") and then profess your personal disgust for your own gender. Ironically enough, instead of professing this disgust to men (you know the people who should probably be educated about these topics), you immediately seek out a woman, typically so you can subconsciously fish for reassurance that men aren't that bad and even if they are, you are now enlightened and therefore exempt of all negative association. Well you aren't.
      Male privilege is a thing and whenever men make statements like "I get it, but..." or "I don't think it's that bad", I know to just ignore them because typically something ignorant is about to be said. And that's not to absolve myself of this ignorance. I say stupid shit like this all the time and while I typically catch myself and backtrack, there are sometimes where I (and even some of my friends who are women) miss how my patriarchal framework blurs out my male privilege.
     For example, let's take Lupe Fiasco's popular song "Bitch Bad", which received mix reception among people. Some people thought Lupe was simply telling it how it is and was actually doing a service for African American women by making necessary commentary on how African American women were negatively perceived and expected to act in the current culture. Many feminist disagreed vehemently (with good reason too), but were promptly ignored. This is because on it's face, "Bitch Bad" is a song that rails against the negative stereotypes typically ascribed to women and instead advocates for a positive outlook. However, if one were to listen to the song a few more times it's clear that the song was written by a man for women.
    I won't give an in-depth analysis of why this particular song is problematic, but I'll leave this here http://www.policymic.com/articles/16236/lupe-fiasco-bitch-bad-sexist-single-makes-hip-hop-women-look-bad for anyone who's interested. Hopefully you've read the article and agreed (if you just took my word for it, then that's pretty foolish of you) and realize how problematic Bitch Bad really is. Now to be fair, Bitch Bad is more than just making commentary on women, but more specifically African American women. I think this key difference changes some of the rules of engagement rhetorically, but doesn't do much to blunt the clear misogyny or as one critic described it "mansplaining" that Lupe engaged in.  And yet when I first heard this song I thought it was incredibly progressive. One might wonder how could I? Raymond clearly women are made powerless in this song, why couldn't you see that? That's because when oppression isn't overt, it's essentially invisible to those who aren't looking for it.
   So I guess this a charge to the men who aren't being morons. We need to do better and be better about having a critical eye. A part of wrestling with our male privilege is taking an impact calculus on how it affects the world around us. Furthermore, we cannot look to women for explanation. An ally doesn't offer support, then immediately ask the person being assisted to do it for them (well sometimes this does happen, the mantra typically goes "help me help you", but that's besides the point). Still, even with all of this, I know that it will be a struggle. There will be slip ups and times where we let ourselves down. To say that's ok and we could try again next time is unacceptable. We need to be better. Plain and simple.

A note on the title: The title of this post can be read in various ways. First I could be saying it in a literal sense, insofar that the individual in question isn't bad. Or I could be siding with women who aim to reclaim the word bitch. The final explanation is a simple repudiation of Lupe's song title. I won't admit to which one I intended as I think that all three of those interpretations can provide for good discussion alone.

A simple break down of the misogyny of the song:
I realize that many of you won't read the article so to explain misogynistic nature of the I'll just give two key examples.

First, the chorus blunders through feminist issues in order of magnitude from slight ignorance to complete disregard for agency. The first line, "Bitch Bad", again comes into conflict with any attempts to reclaim the term. Women good being spoken by Lupe reaffirms the patriarchal tendency to ascribe value to women as if they were an object. Continuing with this trend of objectification, Lupe imbues the normative lady, by stating "lady better", but what constitutes a lady is never explored, leaving only the prototypical explanation for lady as the only possible interpretation. Finally, he says "they misunderstood, primarily talking about the women in the song. Why can't men be included in this. Why isn't it we misunderstood, signifying society's disillusioned state?  Then he completely butchers it with "I'm killing these bitches", continuing the unfortunate tradition of violence being directed at women who have been determined to be sub-par.

Second, the premise of the song is a young girl and young boy meeting later as young adults. Both go through this disillusionment process as children. But for some reason the girl is the one that is "caught in an illusion", but the boy miraculously was able to pick up what a positive woman is supposed to be. This is an unaware microcosm for the ignorance of this song. Just as Lupe thinks he knows what a woman should be like, this young man also thinks he knows what a woman should be like, with any input being given my woman either being completely discounted or ignored. 

I'm not Detroit and neither are you.

     I don't have course hands, so I won't be laying brick. Yea, I'm a fucking coward and a weakling at that. Instead I have an imaginary pedestal, hoping that some ignorant soul stumbles upon my site and reads about the minority's plight through the eyes of a sheltered college student. I am not good enough to be their speakerphone, yet I find myself cringing with every "well intentioned" white girl who wants to announce to the world how amazing Detroit is going to be once gentrification has taken it's full course. Of course they won't be the ones laying the brick for that either. And when I step back I realize how foolish this entire engagement is. Two people, far removed from the very community and people we claim to be advocating for, are indirectly clashing over who has true agency. Neither of us has agency. So I guess if we're going to call me a fraud, then we'll call both of us frauds and I'm ok with that.
    Instead I want to hear from my friend Samantha, who has been laying brick since she stepped on this campus. Why not have her write an opinion piece where she talks about the people of Detroit? I don't even know why I ask stupid questions. There is no answer to that question that makes anyone happy. So we'll keep it unanswered and as long as there's a bone thrown every now and then, our newspaper can continue to uphold the Michigan facade of diversity. And just to be clear it has everything to do with race.
   We can toss the blame on minorities. Perhaps they have no journalistic drive or interest. A theory I hold is that the journalistic space has always been printed in white and black and minorities don't easily fit within normative culture. We are forced to take rigid spaces and creatively conform to them, while maintaining our out of bent message. Clearly what is produced is akin to watered down soda (or pop), so no one wants to read our writing. Once in awhile, if the stars align and several blue moons and double rainbows fill the sky, a minority is given a soapbox, while a non minority audience gathers around to be moved by a pathetic appeal. If logic and scathing criticism is given, then expect them to be labeled deranged and bitter (as I expect many of you will think of me after this).
   Still, the fact remains that Detroit, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas, Flint, etc are never talked about by their true inhabitants. This is especially true of New York, where you'd have a higher likelihood of finding someone like me rather than a typical New York Michigan student, among a random sample of New York City youth. Does that mean we need to get into a shouting match of the true New York experience? Probably not, but the fact remains that the experience a majority of people live through is kept silent, while I read article after article (and this isn't only in our Newspaper) written from the perspective of a one percenter's offspring (or at least someone trying to be). I'm sick of it.
    Ignore me please. Ignore her please. Listen to the people of the city. Let them decide whether they're city moves them. Make them the builders and the architects. And please ignore the prattle given by us.
    

A higher purpose

        I can't give you an adequate break down of the pros and cons of a strike on Syria. While I know a lot, I am not well versed in the military, political and economic factors that go into making a fully informed decision. So what I can only talk about is the moral implications of a strike (or refusing to strike) as I see them. The Geneva protocol is a protocol that finds its roots in the Hague conventions, which was one of the first modern day attempts at brokering peace and setting limitations for war. One of these limitations is a strict prohibition of projectile objects being used as weapons for the purpose of suffocation (i.e. chemical weapons). This was passed in 1899, 114 years ago. The Geneva conventions adopted it as protocol and the general assembly has passed several resolutions reaffirming the United Nations commitment to this particular piece of doctrine. In other words, most of the world is in pretty much agreement that chemical warfare is simply unacceptable and inhumane. Yet Assad has been allowed to amass large amounts of chemical weaponry and use said weapons on his own people. This is unacceptable.
        I don't know what the United States is going to do, but the world needs to respond to this travesty. If the United States is the only responder, then shame on the world for not responding. As humans, chemical weaponry should be taboo. If we idly look the other way as these weapons are used right in front of our faces, then why do we even have a Geneva protocol? Why do we have any sort of international code, if it can be nonchalantly broken with no expected penalty? This is possibly one of the most clear cut decisions out there. Either we are a country and a world of ideals or we aren't. If we find ourselves in the former group then we must strike. If we find ourselves in the latter, then a strike isn't in our future.
     We need to strike for our ideals. Have there been chemical attacks where the world has looked the other way, yes I'm sure there has been. But this is different. We can watch people dying on video from these weapons. We aren't just looking the other way with blissful ignorance. We are abandoning what has been considered a moral standard all around the world. So please, don't talk to me about petty politics of this "being another Iraq" or "none of our business" because it is our business. It's everyone's business. And the entire world should be doing something about it. Unfortunately America and France seem to be the only two countries at the vanguard of our humanity. 

Your internship in New York doesn't make you a New Yorker

                I love how some people believe they are so open minded that they can become legitimate members of every city, culture, and place they visit. It reeks of arrogance. In their mind, going to a few tourist attractions, living in a posh refurbished house they were given for an internship and eating NYC cart food makes them undergo a magical transformation that allows them to be a "New Yorker". Well I'm here to remind you that you are not a New Yorker, Bostonian, DCer or what ever city you happened to intern at. And it's not because you weren't born there. It's because I believe, and at least I know this is true for New York City, that the drudgery of the city, the unspectacular moments of being on the train, taking the bus, having your train canceled, missing your favorite halal cart guy before he goes to lunch and other sort of mundane things are what makes up the bulk of NYC. You can't properly appreciate the oddities that can only exist within the city until you've lived through the monotonous hum of what the city is made of.
             Also, when you live in a place temporarily, you only make short term investments in that place. Perhaps you decided to give a few dollars to a homeless man when walking down the street. Or you decided to buy a starburst from the teen selling it on the train to keep himself "out of trouble". These gestures, while kindhearted in nature, aren't long term investments. Compare this to those who have spent hours helping rebuild NYC for free after Sandy. How about the mentors who day in and day out mentor troubled kids in the city, accepting no compensation but smiles and brightened futures. These people are making long term investments because they realize that when they put more into the community they live in, their lives become richer. When you have felt that NYC has given you so much that you want to give it all back, then call yourself a New Yorker.
          New York is a safe haven for so many that it would be irresponsible of me to not mention those who have fled to the city for its open minded culture. Many irresponsible teenagers and college dropouts come to a city where they know judgement won't be passed, and even if it were, then you're fully within your right to tell that person to fuck off. Those people are New Yorkers by default. They have no where else to go and so they call New York City their home because that's all they have.
        And right along with them are all the workers and everyday people who aren't fortunate enough to go to an elite University. These are the people who serve hot dogs. Fix your roads. Unclog your pipes. Clean your hotel rooms. Basically anything you think seamlessly goes on in the city is in some part facilitated by them. For them New York City is just a place. They don't mindlessly take part in the revery we can clearly see in your poor photography of skylines and waterfronts. They don't have time for such merrymaking. Instead they have to make a living. But once in awhile they'll go over to Coney Island on a friday night. Exhausted and feasting on sandwiches they had prepared beforehand, you see them sit down with their family on the sand, while fireworks illuminate the sky above them. This is their vacation. This is their New York City.
        New York and any city is an actual place. Not some fanciful wonderland, where with business savvy and a blind eye, you can live the "good life". There are plenty of people who have lived in the city all their lives and will never be New Yorkers. That's because the final step to being New Yorker isn't the flat out rejection of all of the wonderful things you are currently experiencing, but instead the acceptance of everything else the city has to the offer, good and bad.
    

Where do we go from here?

                   We are upset. We are outraged. We want blood and some of you might have been thinking that this time it isn't enough to just put up a facebook status. Some of you might have thought that perhaps now is the time for some retribution. This retribution comes in various forms. Many want to protest and are protesting. Many want to riot and destroy things (typically their own neighborhoods, which is a shame). And some just want to live out the Hammurabi code to its fullest extent. A life for a life, specifically a white life for a black life. And all of this want is justified. Those of you who look down on this, need to be quiet. You don't know. You don't know the disappointment a minority feels as they think about this "colorblind" justice system. You don't fully comprehend the fear blacks and other minorities now feel as they see yet another young man die because he "looked suspicious". You don't know the anger minorities have, since their country and justice system has failed them. Yet you expect us to adhere to a sense of honor, stewardship, and overall justice. Where were those virtues for Trayvon?
                But this post isn't about you. We've been far too focused on you and it's time for us to take back what is ours. But we need to do it on our own terms. That's why I plea for those of you who choose to react emotionally, do so with words. For those of you who wish to cry, sing out to the community. For those of you who wish to shoot and kill, fashion bullets out of ballots and euthanize this unjust system. If you want to start a war, then let us charge with a well coordinated brigade, not a haphazard militia. I am not promoting inaction. I am not asking us to put our pitchforks away. I merely want us to succeed in the most effective way possible, if not for our community, then for Trayvon.
            Does this mean no violence? Well, some of you might find a well coordinated way to perpetrate violence in response to all of this. And that would be terrorism. I am not at full liberty to pass judgement on you for doing so. While I am outraged about this situation, my pale skin makes it so that the brunt of this tragedy doesn't sting quite as much as it does for those of you who are people of color (this doesn't mean that I am not stereotyped based on other physical attributes). I don't know if you feel these acts of violence are necessary just to regain your sanity and security. But before you do, I want you to think about our morals. I want you to think about your children and your loved ones. I want you think about us in a  colorblind sense for a second, so that you might be able to empathize for a second for all those who you are intending to harm. Then if you really feel it is necessary, I will ask you to shoot me first, not because I love the people I'm protecting, but because I love our dignity as a community. And for those of you who feel dignity has gone to the wayside, I urge you to think of the innocent lives that might be caught in the crossfire. Such lives cannot be weighed less than Trayvon's. For when we begin picking and choosing the value of human life based on color, we are no better than those who oppress us. Also let's not forget our white brothers and sisters, who stand with us in unity, not only when it is convenient, but also when it is necessary. Will you risk harming them for a misguided sense of justice?
            This post is for minorities and our allies. If you do not fall within that group and feel threatened by this post, then good. We are threatened all the time and the fact that we have finally decided to take action should be unsettling for you. I am not going to say I don't condone violence. Such a message would distort the complicated feelings I have towards violence. I personally would never engage in it and I believe the previous paragraph outlined my plea for those who intend to do so. But when it comes to talk of violence and it's possible ramifications, immediately ostracizing people isn't the answer. We need the thought of this violence out in the open that way we are all honest with how much this has hurt us.
          Some of you might think that none of us actually consider violence a viable option, and I hope that is true. But unfortunately something this triggering and this horrible is bound to have negative ramifications. To assume violence will not happen would be careless. That is why I wrote this post. To not only stop any small conflagration of violence, but also to re-purpose it into a meaningful cry for social change.
        

The African Double Standard

            The international community and American political sphere has went crazy over the recent coup/revolution that occurred in Egypt. Everyone with a little political savvy or people who don't know when to keep their mouths shut (I consider myself in the latter group) have either picked sides or felt a need to keep close watch on the political future of Egypt. And I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't admit I was doing the same. I immediately sided with the democratic process (i.e. sure Morsi may have sucked, but you voted him in), while saving my own ass by claiming ignorance to how bad things are, therefore withholding judgement on the actions of the Egyptian people. Honestly as I said before, people like me and many others seriously needed to say absolutely nothing. Specifically http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/opinion/brooks-defending-the-coup.html?hp this nytimes article by David Brooks is a perfect example of the exact opposite opinion to mine, but just as presumptuous and patronizing. I won't get into the specific details on why David Brooks is completely out of line, but I can acknowledge that we're both making asses of ourselves with each comment. So instead of discussing the merits of the situation, I want to bring up the fact that this very occurrence has been happening in Africa for the past 3 decades and yet most African countries only get a small fraction of international attention in comparison to Egypt. Sorry western countries of the world, your bias is showing a little.
       One might argue, " Raymond, African governments are getting toppled over all the time, if Egypt makes this a habit, we'll stop caring about it as well." Such an argument is of course incredibly ignorant, seeing that there have been many successful African governments with steady turnover and healthy political elections, but a good recent counter example to this would be that of Mali. Remember when Mali suffered a coup? No? Really because it was a pretty big deal, seeing that at the time Mali was considered the golden standard for African democracies (some people still think it is, but the coup definitely hurt its perception). And while the Mali coup certainly made it to the front page once, it immediately faded in the background of typical American hooplah (some of that hooplah was important mind you, but there's important hooplah happening now, yet Egypt still  remains the talk of the town).
     I don't know what I'm asking for by writing this. The point is I feel like a hypocritical asshole and misery enjoys company. And I'm kind of tired of people who parade as politics lovers, when in fact they just like being able to talk about the latest political events and don't really care about politics equally. Own up to your bias and realize that most of us don't honestly care about what happens in Egypt. The majority of us are just using it as a spectacle. 

Fuck off Neo-Liberalist American

           My facebook feed is flooded with congratulation posts about the recent decision of the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is unconstitutional. They've said it. It's one huge victory for the LGBTQ community and basically anyone who believes that individuals should have the right to choose to be with whoever they love. But if we look at the arduous journey for equality in this country, this victory is just a foot in the door. I can only imagine that individuals from the LGBTQ community rejoiced with deep breaths and affirming tears. The fight has been won. They can finally rest for an hour or so. But the war on inequality, the everlasting struggle to allow targeted identities to be the people they want to be without any hindrance is still persistent and menacing. And they understand that, just like I understand how alienated me and my friends felt when we saw the Supreme Court affirm a post racial reality that is only real for white Americans. Yet my newsfeed is filled only with rejoicing particularly from people who aren't from the LGBTQ community. And that's fine. But rejoice with an inside voice because that's not your victory. It isn't my victory either. While I am an ally, I could never say that I fought as hard as I could have for the LGBTQ community. I didn't shed tears when prop 8 was put into place. I didn't stand alongside protesters and I didn't risk my life and livelihood to be associated with the LGBTQ community. Instead I scolded a few friends for misusing the term gay and wore a fucking button. And that's ok. But now that the time has come from celebration, please leave me off the invite list. I don't deserve to take part in any grandiose celebrations and honestly I don't want to right now since my community and my rights have potentially taken a drastic step back.
         But what bothers me the most is that all around the country, in upper class cities and college towns, hordes of neo-liberalist predominantly white Americans will turn this into a spectacle. They will throw parties and write superficial facebook statuses. They'll have a pseudo political conversation with their one gay friend about "how they feel". And then afterwards it'll be business as usual. They'll go back to their bias free lives, while some of their gay friends will find themselves wondering why so much hatred and discrimination still exists. The LGBTQ community won today, but tomorrow the same thought I have now will pop into their heads: "I thought we got passed this." Indeed we did think that. But now that's it's tomorrow, we've realized that there's so much more to do. 

Poor People don't want to hear about the struggle

            While I appreciate the intellectual conversation that surrounds: race, socioeconomic status, sexual preference, gender roles, and other social justice topics, sometimes I feel as if people forget that they are privileged to even be able to sit back and ponder these inequalities. I'm included in that group. I'm a privileged minority student at the University of Michigan and while I do face inequality and racial stigmas on campus, I don't have to feed a family, work 12 hrs a day and forgo health care. And when I try to have candid conversation about what course of action should be taken for those who are from a low socioeconomic status, I find that most activist refuse to budge and will only accept unrealistic concessions. Activist are quick to say that the poor needs x, y and z, and they won't budge till they get it, but when you're reality is barely paying the bills, sometimes just x is enough of a victory for you. So honestly, while I don't want to shut down conversation about these issues, I think we need to recognize when we sound like complete ass hats when we talk. No one cares about the capitalist machine. No one cares about the theoretical implications of identity negotiations after a given election. No one cares about media bias. No one cares about how the American lexicon is designed to oppress minorities. Now it's a tad unfair to say no one cares. Poor people do care. They're not stupid. They know that the current system and nation isn't right. But when you're starving and rent is 3 weeks past due, sometimes all you care about is getting that extra paycheck. And if you need to appease the white patriarchal capitalist system to get it, then so be it. 

You are the biggest loser

        I am so tired of people who take body issues lightly. In their world obesity is just another hurdle one needs to get passed in life and the only reason fat people don't make it over is because they're too lazy to get up from the couch. What they don't know is the psychological prison someone can develop from being fat. I'm going to be honest. I have some meat on me and not all of it is white. So pardon my pathos in this post because I'm tired of the hypocritical nonsense I get from people regarding my weight. First to any mean spirited person who might want to reply to this post, I know that I'm fat. I know that my weight isn't healthy and my body image isn't where I want it to be. I also understand that I potentially put myself at risk by not lowering my body weight. I also know that I have the physical capability to do so. I say this because I honestly get tired of people who are in good shape harping on about how getting back into shape is just a mindset that needs to be developed. Sometimes it's a little bit more than just a switch of determination that needs to be flickered. There are habits and insecurities that have been ingrained in our minds that a quick motivational speech and training montage theme song (left on rerun) won't fix. Often it's a struggle because with every single pound you drop you feel like you're negotiating between two selves: one that you hated but wanted to love and another that you love the idea of, but find yourself hating. Society gives us a skewed sense of body image, which makes it impossible for us to ever trust our own evaluation of our body. It's funny because some people claim that the media shows images of people who have chosen a certain lifestyle. ; a healthy, able bodied one. Of course when news of anorexia and bulimia come out, they begin to talk about rehabilitation and therapy, as if their lifestyle needs to be repaired with the utmost care, while our lifestyle simply needs a gym membership card. And what's worse is that the most insecure in our ranks are recruited to drop a ton of weight and compassion. Then they're given a microphone so that way our newly reborn brother or sister can lead us back to the promiseland, while regurgitating the same dismissive crap we've always been hearing. They are the worst because they honestly believe that because they were able to do it, then we're able to do it as well. They are completely ignorant to the fact that everyone's weight problem is different. It's not even only a weight problem. It's a body problem. We're not happy with our bodies and those who say they are tend to be among the most insecure. I have no doubt it's a natural part of self improvement that drives our slight dissatisfaction with our current body. But the media and culture exacerbates that small insecurity we all share.
  I recognize that my body issues, while at times very tough for me,don't even come close to some of things I've seen my friends deal with. I recognize that my sister and mother have it so much harder than I do because fortunately my body doesn't always need to be a prime asset to prove my manhood. But that doesn't mean I can't be supportive of the people around me. It doesn't mean my struggle is any less important than theirs. It means that we need to collectively tell those who are quick to judge to shut the fuck up. It means that our weight problems, from just a few extra pounds you regret to severe obesity, need to be treated with the utmost care. So no don't tell me to just lose the weight. Don't tell me I'm lazy either. Just don't say anything until I ask you. Then give me your sought after opinion, while remembering that we can walk in each other's shoes, but not each other's bodies.
     

Now you're sorry you're up there

I feel I often only rant about other people and it'd be hypocritical of me not to be able to rant about myself from time to time. Naturally this rant won't be as pointed ( gotta have some bias right?) and coherent (no reason to pull out the big rhetorical guns for an argument against myself), but instead more free flowing and personal. I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, but I do understand some people might take huge offense with how candidly I speak to myself about these issues. I want to stress that these are my internal thoughts, never intended to be expressed as a formulated opinion of mine.



Raymond you fucking hypocrite. Don't even dare talk about what it's like to be poor because you don't know. And don't shun the very class that you belong to. You're as rich as anyone else who can talk with long words and pretend to play the game. You're just a lazy fuck, who doesn't want to get his hands dirty to make money. But as you study for that pathetic LSAT exam, you begin to realize that perhaps you have finally caved in. Oh keep onto your fantasies of human decency. Keep telling yourself that things won't turn out that way. Tell me how many people you call a corporate sell out after giving up the forbidden fruit yourself. Then talk to me about what it's like to have integrity. You're crooked. Probably even more crooked than most of them because you're not ignorant to the plight. You know it's there because you're just a few feet from rock bottom. I think that's why you've been so aggressive. Nobody deserves this as much as you right? You self pretentious asshole, don't think that your ravenous behavior justifies you in anyway. You're just like them. Carnivorous monsters who use huge magnifying glasses to make us squirm, shrivel, shriek and die. But your time is gonna come. It'll hit ya when you're older and then all of a sudden we'll hear you spouting that neo-liberalist nonsense that you so often deplore. Yep, you'll be a phony, but what's worse is you'll be a 55 year old Holden. So stop it with the rants. Stop it with the pretentious disapproval of anything and everything that's just a little self serving because if anyone's a self serving fuck it's you. Don't pretend to be noble. Don't pretend to be poor. Don't pretend to be disadvantaged. Don't pretend you aren't just buying into the very system you criticize. Sorry there ain't no secret agents among the rich. They exist only among the poor and they come in the form of smart ass minority college students who are white washed and pretentious. Guess you fit the bill pretty well. So just shut up. Stop it with your trill and get on to studying for that test and making your money and buying your mom a house and buying Mets season tickets and donating money to your Alma Mater, which receives one of the largest endowments in the world. Don't forget to lie on your way there. Hold your tongue so the white people who aren't down won't fret. And remember to keep your eye on how the poor problem becomes a small blimp in your rear mirror. Sure back when you were nearly at risk of falling into poverty it became a huge issue. Once your safety net has been made, then we'll see you not care. Now go ahead, give me your rebuttal. Tell me you're right. Show the world that I'm wrong. It'd get you ready for your future job as the rich invisible hand that ensures that my voice is discredited and ignored.

Raymond: You're right.

Vaunted Virginity

      I just recently read a post by a woman who decided to hold off having sex before marriage. She titled the piece "wait was well worth it"and insists that she's writing the post as a beacon of support for those who are currently refraining from having sex before marriage. I was legitimately curious about how that experience might have felt and wanted some introspection into how something that seemed so unimportant to me (whether someone had sex or not) could be so important to her. Sadly, instead of introspection I only got the talk of an insecure person. I applaud her for being honest about how the sexual experience went, which she describes as "awkward and painful". However, that's about the only honesty you'll get in terms of her describing the experience. Instead she projects her own insecurities onto the experience. But before I get into why her post does very little in the way of describing the significance of "waiting til marriage", I want to make it clear that I don't think her narcissistic take on refraining from sex before marriage invalidates the significance of doing so. If you feel like the only way you can comfortably engage in sex is by waiting till the commitment of marriage is present, then I encourage you to do so. I pass no judgement on what one decides to do with their body or their sexuality. I will however pass judgement on a post that parades the significance of a particular act, without giving any reason that is intrinsic to the act itself.
      The first perk the blogger throws out there is the relative ease of having sex when both partners have refrained from sex. She begins with how comforting it is to know that she isn't going to be saddled with an STD. This completely ignores the fact that her husband could have received a disease from birth or unclean needles, that could very well be passed on to her. Even if the likelihood of that being true is really low, the comfort she is feeling can be felt by a sexually active person, if  the person in question is responsible before engaging in sexual activity. Talking with someone about their sex life and their health before engaging in sex isn't something that is only relegated to those who are sexually active, but something that anyone considering sex should do regardless if they believe both of them are virgins. While you want to trust your spouse, to assume that they wouldn't lie to you (especially after you've made virginity a vaunted trait) can lead you into engaging in risky sexual activity.
    Furthermore, she also attributes that her husbands virginity took away pressure from her to feel like she needed to have sex in the relationship. While this might have been true, such pressure could just have easily been dispelled between one person who is sexually active and one person who isn't, by having an honest conversation about expectations when the relationship starts. Just because someone has had sex before doesn't mean they assume that their new partner is ready or would ever be ready to do the same. People who do pressure their partners into sex typically aren't good relationship material to begin with. So maybe the reason it was so comfortable for the blogger to be with her husband wasn't because he was virgin, but instead was a very good and understanding boyfriend.
    Now the insecurity begins. After the blogger admits to the aforementioned description of her sexual experience as "awkward and painful", she tries to differentiate her sexual experience from the ones depicted in movies. She assumes that movie sex scenes are an accurate depiction of how sex would be before marriage (of course she is referring to sex scenes between two unmarried people), but never explains how her experience differs. She claims that she didn't feel the need to be "sexy" and that she wasn't "unsure" and implies that's how sex scenes in movies are. While, some sex scenes in movies definitely fit this bill, there are plenty of others where the two participants are willing, confident and can be completely goofy. Furthermore, actual sexual experiences differ from how it's portrayed in movies. Movies intend to capture the ideal moment and sex can sometimes be a sloppy obstacle course, especially the first time. If anything, the expectation that a movie scene would accurately capture anyone's sexual experience is ludicrous. The real reason the author is even bringing up this parallel is to try and reassure herself that what she had was "special" and someone who didn't abstain as she did could never have it. Instead of focusing on why the moment itself was special, she decides to emphasize that it was not like the sex other sexually active unmarried people have (a point she makes ignorantly, seeing that she has no way of knowing).
    She furthers her projection by claiming her sexual experience was special because her husband "...was loving [her], adoring [her], enjoying being with the whole..." This could easily be true of a sexual experience someone has outside of marriage. The only time she describes something that can only be obtained sexually, while married, is when she states,"He was giving 100% of himself to me.  Only me.  Always me.  Looking into my eyes, wanting only me forever." While to some this might seem beautiful, I personally just think it's selfish. I don't believe the power of a relationship comes from exclusivity. In fact, I think when you emphasize the exclusive nature of a relationship as its only saving grace, you degrade everything else that makes a relationship special. The same applies to an exclusive sexual relationship. I think more can be said about sex, when one is able to choose you over many others. But during marriage sexual choice is gone. Commitment replaces it.
   What she is relishing is the fact that her insecurity has finally been dispelled. She knows this sexual experience and all future sexual experiences will only be between him and her. What's left unsaid is that the thought of him sharing a sexual experience with anyone else would have completely ruined this. It isn't purely the commitment that makes her find this so special, but instead the fact that no one else has had or can have what she has. Otherwise what she just described should be true for anyone who has sex while married, regardless of them being a virgin or not. Her emphasis on giving her "whole self"implies that it isn't possible for someone who has already had sex to give "their whole self." She is implying that non-virgins have somehow degraded themselves through per-marital sex. She is projecting her own insecurities about waiting and sexuality in order to justify her decision. This produces the illusion that her sexual experience was special because she was a virgin and not special because she was having sex with someone she loved.
    Her insecurity comes full circle in her next paragraph, where she talks about how she would never have to worry about being compared to another woman. This bellows back to her obsession with exclusivity in the previous paragraph. It's not enough that he loves her, but instead he needs to not entertain any possibility that he could love anyone else. She admits that if he had sex with his previous fiance it would have made her incredibly uncomfortable. This is only the case because of insecurity and insecurity is ok. But when you project that insecurity as affirmation for a decision, then you're engaging in denial.
   One might wonder why I have decided to come out and shame this woman, which is essentially what I did. That's because while she claims she had no intention of shaming those who aren't virgins, her post only serves to differentiate between sex before marriage and sex after. It doesn't expound on the significance of sex and how that was amplified by marriage, but instead focuses on how one type of sex is inferior to the other. These claims made me upset primarily because they are based off of the selfish insecurities of the author, which she now forces onto all of her readers. Furthermore, she put a ridiculous article on the post, which had nothing to do with sex before marriage. The article is a NY Times piece that speaks of the possible downsides of cohabitation (i.e. living with your partner before marriage). The article cites a specific type of cohabitation and doesn't indict the practice, but instead indicts poor relationship planning and lack of communication. The author implies several things by posting this article on this particular post. First, that people have sex when they live together, which may be the prevailing truth, but can be false. Second, that the underlying reason behind the dysfunctional marriages in the article were because of the mere practice of cohabitation and in part sex before marriage. Both of these assumptions are simply not true. People choose to have sex. And marriages don't fail because of not waiting. Again the author leaves the reader with the mantra "I dodged a bullet" when she had sex, instead of emphasizing how gorgeous her experience was. I want to reiterate one more time that I am not advocating for a particular stance on sexual activity. What I'm fighting against is the implicit shaming of those who have engaged in sex before marriage, specifically when that shaming is coming from a narcissistic insecure source. 
     But her clearly deluded and insecure state might not be her fault. Abstinence education is often taught with a message of insecurity and fear mongering. Perhaps this woman was simply passing on insecurities that were forced upon her due to the incredibly sexually repressive policy of the church. Maybe she went to a high school that preached abstinence. The point is I simply don't feel right throwing all the blame on her. I feel this the product of a patriarchal society that forces women to judge their self worth based on their own sexuality and how exclusive it has been is pervasive and unfair. She tries to make this logic work both ways by applying the same standard to her husband, but something tells me that if he had written this post it would have been completely different.

Original post: http://learningtobeanewlywed.blogspot.com/2012/05/wait-was-well-worth-it.html
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You can't be a corporate sell out and then claim soul

              I'm sorry. I heard the soundtrack in Great Gatsby and I hated it. Not all of it, but bits an pieces from really famous pop culture hip-hop that used to make me cringe every single time I'd listen to them on the radio. To make matters worse, self proclaimed king of the world Jay-Z was the executive producer of the soundtrack. One wonders why Jay-Z didn't decide to just forgo Leonardo DiCaprio and cast himself as Gatsby (which would have been scarily appropriate given Jay-Z's history). But my real issue isn't with Jay-Z, but really the music. When it came to depicting shallow materialistic party scenes, the music was spot on. That's exactly what most of the music was. Beyonce, Jay-Z, Fergie are all sell outs and make music that's safe and appeals to large audiences. I have no issue with this, but you can't have it both ways. You can't make popular shallow music and then expect people to be moved by it. So when I heard "Crazy in love" playing in the background of the scene where Gatsby's true obsessive nature was finally coming out, I felt conflicted and confused. This was a powerful scene because as an audience member I'm feeling with Gatsby on many of these things. His anxiety is my anxiety. Or at least I can sympathize with it. But when I hear "Crazy in Love" I just think this is one huge joke. "Crazy in love" uses the trope of love sickness to be popular. It doesn't add any depth or insight to what it might feel like to be "Crazy in love". Instead it repeats it over and over again, as if by turning it into a mantra, the cheap trick of repetition will transform into obsession.
             Furthermore, I'm fucking tired of New York being associated with Jay-Z. I don't want to hear "Empire State of mind" playing in the background of an extended shot of the city skyline. That song only serves to reinforce popular romanticized notions of New York City. It doesn't speak any truth about the city. It's just a chronicle of NYC according to Jay-Z, then it goes into that ridiculous chorus, where Alicia Keys claims that New York City has some intrinsic ability to transform people. New York State of Mind by Bill Joel is a far better representation because it's honest and doesn't do much representing. It literally encompasses the nostalgia those who have visited the city feel when they leave. It invites the listener to project their nostalgia for the city into the song. The song is definitely New York according to Billy Joel, but it's main message is that we all miss the city when we leave and sometimes we have the urge to come back. Look at Empire State of mind, which just objectifies the city, leaving it to be possessed by Jay-Z and eventually you the listener. In New York State of mind, the city possesses you.

The choice of using modern music, regardless of the adaptation, was a risky one. Every time a popular song went on I was immediately reminded we weren't in the 20s. This is a fine trade-off when the pay off from the parallel is worth it. And for the party scenes, the pay off was perfect. Everything else sounded out of place and cheesy. 

I am not a person of color: how color is used to mask the implicit model minority

           For awhile, I've been struggling to see where I stand in what is still a Patriarchal White America. The term minority is definitely accurate, but that doesn't fully express the extent to which my own identity is oppressed. While I believe all minorities are oppressed, I don't believe all minorities are oppressed equally. And this is a talking point that people simply don't want to talk about. The reason why is because it has the potential for causing a rift between identities within the minority community. Soon we'll find ourselves lumping into camps and blame will be thrown from one community to the other, arguing  over "who has it worse". Such a debacle would be self defeating for minorities everywhere and hurt the movement for greater equality for all minority groups. However, this doesn't excuse us from addressing the issue and within minority groups a dichotomy has been created to mask this potential sticking point. We have masked this issue by denoting people as "people of color" and leaving a silence for those who are not.
          The term "people of color" has a long history and I have no doubt that it probably existed just as long as the term "minority", but the question of who "is a person of color" (and subsequently who is a minority) is one that changes according to modern conceptualizations of race. I do not intend to argue the historical construction of the term. Instead I'm merely forwarding that the word in its current use has become ambiguous to the point that many people won't agree with who has a legitimate claim to the identity.
           I often find that the way the term is employed usually has very little to do with a "lexicon" sense of the term. For example, people have accepted me as a person of color, yet my skin can be lighter than many of my Asian friends. I have heard the term used to circumvent what people really want to say, latinos and blacks. The reason Latinos and blacks fit so perfectly together is because they often are the ones doing economically and educationally the worst. There are definitely some smaller minority groups that join Latinos and Blacks (South Pacific Asians, Native Americans, etc), however Latinos and Blacks make up a majority of the demographic. Naturally the big minority group being left out are Asian. One might argue that Asians aren't people of color, however this simply isn't true. And not only because South Asians tend to have dark skin. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and other "Asian" groups that aren't typically identified as South Asian have noticeably different skin tones from Whites. These skin tones have led to racial designations such as "the yellow man", which are clearly based on the physical appearance of Asians. Are they not people of color? The use of color was done specifically to distinguish between those who are white and those who aren't. It's clear that Asians typically don't have White skin. Yet they find themselves consistently lumped with White people when it comes to whether they are a "person of color".
     One might think that this is using a darker is color approach. For example, one could argue that some Asians (typically not South Asian, though some South Asians are very light skin, so don't take this as a sweeping generalization) have very light skin tones, thus making them free from the stigma that comes from the "darker is bad" perception in this country. However, I've had people who have referred to me as a person of color. The issue with this is my skin is far lighter and paler than most Asians. If you asked me to describe my skin tone without any racial bearing in mind I'd call my skin tone white (or light peach). Yet I'm afforded membership to color, while those who can actually be racially discriminated against based on color are excluded.
      It's clear that color isn't being used as an actual physical designation, but instead is embodying many of the racial stigmas of our current system.  The term "person of color" is a way of masking the concept of the "model minority" that has existed for a very long time. The "model minority" is the belief that certain minorities are the good minorities who contribute to America, since they are docile and subservient to normative American culture (i.e. white male patriarchy). The "model minority" was also employed to fuel further racism towards blacks. The point is that we use people of color often to make this distinction, without acknowledging who we're leaving out and without justifying why we're leaving them out. And while some Asians can care less (just as some blacks, latinos, and pretty much any kind of person could care less about race, which is sad because it truly has pervasive effects on your life), many of them take notice to this kind of exclusionary behavior.
         Now, I'm not going to argue whether the model minority distinction is deserving. I'm not going to even claim that African Americans and Latino's "have it worse". Instead I want to open up the floor for people to discuss this. I know sometimes my opinions can be strong and dismissing. I want to avoid this kind of dismissal. Instead I just want people to know that I don't consider myself a person of color. I am not discriminated against based on my skin tone, but instead based on my last name. I write this as an attempt to point out the ambiguous nature of the term "person of color" and instead suggest that the minority community needs to address the issue of a perceived "model minority" before the distinction divides us from our goal of achieving equality.