On Equality

For the last the several presidential elections, hopeful candidates have used the rights of homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people (also referred to in this post as the LGBT community), as a ploy for votes. Republicans use it to appeal to Christians and other religious groups, who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Democrats use it to strengthen their image as the peoples’ party.  I admit to leaning to the left on most political and social issues, but I usually see value in every viewpoint. Equality for all American citizens, including gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual citizens, however, is a topic that forces me to stand firmly on one side of the proverbial fence. I respect an individual’s right to unique religious beliefs, but this is America. America is not a theocracy. Our people are afforded rights, not based on what other people think is correct or moral, but because they are alive.

The LGBT community is attacked from all angles and one of the biggest problems they face is that countless Americans oppose their right to marry. This, because of the special privileges awarded to married couples, means that same-sex partners have trouble supporting and building families together. In thirty states, they cannot share health insurance, retirement funds or even care for each other on their death beds.   

President Barack Obama recently told the world that after years of supporting civil unions for same-sex couples, he now believes that they should be able to marry. Many democrats, like Kathy Galdrisi, who wrote to CNN.com, were overjoyed. Galdrisi was such a big fan of Hilary Clinton, that she chose to sit out the last election, but Obama will have her vote in November. (Gladrisi, 2012)  Not everybody was so moved, however.  Shortly after he made this public declaration, New York Time Columnist, Maureen Dowd, appealed to other liberals when she wrote “The president finally did something humanizing.”  (Dowd, 2012)  Ms. Dowd, like a lot of constituents, was impatiently waiting for the president to be passionate about one of the many ideologies he ran on in 2008. Support for this particular lifestyle was  a commitment he made.

Maureen Dowd, and those of like mind, are not the only ones who believe that president Obama’s statement came too late. Texas senator Ron Paul, who personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman is quoted as saying, “…the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument.”   As always, Paul is holding true to the Libertarian idea that government should not only stay out of our personal lives, but out of just about everything (Johnson, 2012).

He may not have jumped on the marriage-equality bandwagon fast enough, but Barack Obama did do something wonderful for the LGBT community. He repealed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and, now, openly homosexual people can, as of December 2010, serve in the United States military.

Of course, ultra- conservative Rush Limbaugh mocked the decision by saying “If the decree to getting open homosexuality is so vital to the defense of the nation, why has it taken 234 years to get around to it?” (Limbaugh, 2011)  Although most conservatives probably do not enjoy being represented by somebody as caustic as Limbaugh, he is staying true to one socially conservative ideal, the idea that we should honor tradition and do things the way we have always done them. Several other conservative writers and pundits said that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, is bad for our troops because straight men will be worried about being hit on, and gay man will be terrified of being physically harmed. This is no less offensive to the LGBT community than what Mr. Limbaugh said, and I really hope that all of them were just trying to be provocative.       

 I understand that kindness is not a good enough reason for most of us, and that equality being the humane thing to do, is not a valid argument. So, in response to those who let their political loyalties or religious convictions overshadow their empathy, I have to quote the incomparable Nelson Mandela who once proclaimed, “All men are not truly free if one is oppressed.”  The United States will not be the greatest country in the world until we all realize how true that statement is. It is not only a liberal ideology that doing things for the good of some of us is eventually good for all of us. It is simply common sense.

I believe that the behavior in which members of the Westboro Baptist Church engage, when they picket soldiers’ funerals and stand on college campuses shouting “God hates fags” is disgusting and shameful. In my perfect world, hateful cults like that would not exist. Still, the Supreme Court was right, on March 2, 2011, to rule that they are allowed to nonviolently picket anywhere (Sherman, 2011). If they are not allowed to express themselves, what is to stop the government from suppressing my right to tell my future children that people who shout those obscenities are incorrect and mean-spirited?

      Our ancestors, wherever they may be from, came to this land for the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, regardless of what others believe. The minute we deny anybody the right to do that, we are risking everybody’s right to do that. None of us can live without fear until all of us are accepted.      

WORKS CITED

Dowd, M. (2012, May 12). Seeking original bliss. NEW YORK TIMES. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/dowd-seeking-original-bliss.html

Gladrisi, K. (2012, May 10). View shift. Retrieved from http://www.fdlreporter.com/viewart/20120627/FON06/120627032/Views-shift-little-after-backing-gay-marriage?odyssey=nav|head

Johnson , B. (2011, November 29). Ron paul: Personally opposed to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but….. Retrieved from http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

Limbaugh , R. (3, January 2011). Bigoted "don't ask, don't tell" policy finally repealed. Retrieved from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/12/20/bill_clinton_s_bigoted_don_t_ask_don_t_tell_policy_finally_repealed

Sherman, M. (2011, March 02). Westboro baptist church wins Supreme Court appeal over funeral protests. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html 

On explicit ads ( post rated PG-13)

I have to begin  this post by  stating that I am writing with two biases:

1. I am, obviously, a woman.

2. I hate censorship.

I am writing this post after a lively online debate on sexism in the media. Is there sexism in the media?

Check this out:

I do not necessarily agree with every word this woman says, she's a little bit into blaming the media for my taste, but she makes some exceptionally valid points. Abuse is not sexy, stupidity is not adorable, and it puts a lot pressure on woman when men expect them to look virginal and act sexually-experienced.

We are all (myself included) desensitized to these types of ads. Personally, I do not necessarily think that is always  bad. I do not believe that any kind of sex (heterosexual, homosexual, gentle, rough, oral, anal, etc.) should ever be demonized. Anybody who has taken a basic psychology course knows that sex is one of a human's four major drives, and that we are all aroused by different things in different ways. To paint any of it as unnatural is simply untruthful.
That being said, rape and violence,  is not the same thing as S & M.  Play with chains and handcuffs all you want.  It is deplorable  to leave a woman bruised and bleeding and tell people she liked it rough. It is unacceptable  fair for an advertiser to portray a woman as beautiful, and show her apparently beaten. Children are not the same as adults. Act like a little girl in your bedroom if that's what floats your boat. Do not dress your little girl up like she belongs in the bedroom and parade her around for the world to see. The whole thing comes down to choice. When you dress a little girl  like she is 25, you destroy her choice to be little. You put her in the position of having to act like an adult and deal sexual glances, gossip and judgement. That is abuse. When partner says a sexual act is ending, it should end, if it doesn't, that is abuse. For the media to project that is good or desirable to engage in either of those kinds of abuse is ridiculous. For ads to be  made implying that a woman is an inadequate partner for having an opinion, is just insulting.

It is well less than half the media's fault, however. They supply what we demand. It starts with your kids. Teach your sons to listen to women. Teach your daughters to mean no when they say no and that knowing how to stand up for yourself is not only good but necessary. 

On a Medical Soapbox

I had an appointment today at Michigan Neurology.  I was dreading it this morning. I honestly hate all things medical, and over the past couple of years , I have not had very many positive experiences in doctors' offices. When I walked in, I was instantly reminded how immensely blessed I am. So many of the people around me seemed to be in horrible pain, or close to fatally ill. I joked with the receptionist, ("I'm baaaack and soooo original") while a woman behind my dad shook so hard she could barely sit down. Next to her was a man  so hunched over, you'd guess he's eighty at first glance. His face looked thirty.

My mom was a public school teacher for 35 years. As a result, she, my sister, dad and I always had great health insurance. Without it, I am not exaggerating, my parents and I would probably be dead and my sister may be blind. It makes me so sad that millions  of  citizens of the most fortunate country on earth, suffer or die because doctor's won't see them. Most of my friends know  my politics. I will not deny that while I know, respect, and love lots of conservative people, republican ideals and ideas, for the most part, do not make sense to me. This isn't about conservative versus liberal for me though. I am not even attempting to offer a solution to this problem. I would be moronic to claim to be educated enough to do so. I am asking: What if that woman was your mother and they turned her away, shaking and sick? What if your baby boy grows up, and becomes afflicted with the same condition as that man? Is it  acceptable to you that they will help him because they wanted more money? I know some readers truly believe, that this will never be a problem for their family because they instill good work ethic in their children. I get it. Having a well-paying job that you preform well, will probably decrease the chances of these situations arising. So, I pose another question. Imagine if your sister or brother, takes risks , screws up and loses your money and his or her own.  Does that mean your sibling deserves to die of a curable aliment? 

It is just devastating to me that as much as they were hurting, the man and woman I wrote about at the beginning of this post were actually lucky. At least they were deemed rich enough to help.  

On Summary

For one of my class's finals, I have to write a two page paper in one hour, on what an addict is. This bothers me,and  not because I have to write a paper in  one  hour. Admittedly,  I have done that before. It bothers me because an addict is a person. A person who may have made and gotten caught up in some poor choices. A person who may have had a very difficult childhood.  A person who may have done some very selfish and stupid things, or a person trying to cope with secrets. Who knows?
Any one of us could develop an addiction. Life is complex and we often get addicted to things while trying to escape. We are all different, and thus  we act differently when struggling with addiction. Asking me to summarize is asking me to generalize. I know and love a lot of addicts; I am not comfortable lumping them together. I try my hardest not to lump any group of people together. I know that my readers are probably thinking that the professor wants the clinical definition of an addict, and I realize the importance of having such a definition. Look it up, though. It is three sentences long.  We are doing people with addictions a disservice by saying that if you do ABC you are not an addict , but if you do XYZ , you are one. It makes treatment difficult to individualize, and closes the minds of helping professionals.

I think this is just an example of problems that come from a society that thrives on summary and black and white answers. I have spent a lot of time working with children with Autism. People would ask me "What are they like?" I responded "Which one?" Yes, kids who are autistic have similar tendencies, but they are all different people with different interests and issues. Overemphasizing their similarities and down-playing their uniqueness sets them up for failure. If new teachers believe, coming out of college, that they will be able to tell with one interaction whether or not a kid has Autism (or ADHD, or Dislexia, etc.) , they will be completely unprepared to provide them with an adequate education. This is also true for someone who may try to give them psychological or physical assistance. You cannot help someone who you are trying to label, you're too busy labeling. There isn't enough time to figure out what they need from you.
Remember that  the VAST majority of teachers, therapist, doctors, nurses, and social workers enter those fields because of a desire to greatly improve peoples lives. So by teaching them to generalize, we are selling them short, too. They deserve to feel satisfied with their work.
I've scratch the surface of the danger of summary. Other than causing problems for  individuals who need treatment and our workforce, generalizing of course, also, causes  intolerance. This is in my opinion, is  its worst side-affect. That's a whole other post.

We all just need to slow down and deal with people rather than diagnoses. Stop summarizing, and observe.