The Gender Binary Is Stupid: Early Childhood

It all starts with the idea that you must be either male or female. The inability to allow for an "other" option (indeed, even the need to ask at all) already alienates people who don't fit into the easy either/or boxes we shove infants into before we even wash the slime off them. It's not common, but it's a lot of people.

Then, society keeps attaching assumptions to those categorizations based on genitalia. If you stray too far from those assumptions, you'll probably be a target for bullying, which is often a way for the gender police to "keep you in line."

Snips and snails and puppy dog's tails. Cooties. Boys don't cry. Girls shouldn't be too tough. Girls get in that line, boys get in the other line. No, no, not defined by how you identify, but by what's between your legs. Let's make it clearer: Vaginas in this line, penises in the other line. That is your primary classification.

It's insane. Actually, it's fucking insane, but I'm trying to curse less these days.

Free Speech on Campus Pt 2: Is Violence Ever OK?

Copyright: 123RF Stock Photo

[Click here to skip the series intro and go straight to the column regarding violence]

I believe it was way back in college that I first heard of some finding it controversial that there are few right-wing university faculty and staff members. The reason for that seemed obvious to me even at the time: It's all about money. A right-wing ideology tends to go hand-in-hand with a pursuit of profit. The life of an academic involves years or decades of the opposite of profit, so it is a path that few profit-motivated people pursue.

I learned a few other things when I worked on a college campus for ten years. One notable item was that business and engineering programs often charge higher tuition than arts and sciences programs in large part because professors in those fields tend to come from industry rather than academia, and therefore command higher salaries than their Ph.D. counterparts in other disciplines. The same is true of law schools. This is of course a chicken-or-egg cycle in which those fields command high salaries so that the people in those fields can pay for their education which is so expensive because universities have to compete with industries that command high salaries.

The research generally supports my assertion that the left-leaning university phenomenon is more a product of self-selection than of bias in hiring. Right-leaning people don't flock to university environments like left-leaning people do. It's no surprise, then that right-leaning speakers, especially those who are more about entertainment than politics, have poor receptions at universities. Nevertheless, the right prefers to characterize this phenomenon as an infringement on said speakers' individual - and, in general, the right's - free speech. This recently-published column clearly and succinctly summarizes why I think that argument is bogus.

I appreciate being challenged, and my sharing of the above-referenced column on Facebook resulted in a challenge. Thoughtful arguments were raised by a person who disagrees, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. These six speakers are representative of the phenomenon I believe we are discussing.

Before addressing the questions, I would like to underscore the fact that the column focuses not on "conservatives" or "Republicans," but on "modern conservatism," otherwise known as the Party of Donald Trump. People who identify with what's generally known as the right really need to examine whether they want to identify with what this president stands for, in ideology and in deed. Those who continue to support - even revere - him are making a statement that they need to be prepared to be judged for.

Is Violence Ever OK?

The Revolution Starts in Colorado

I have to start by confessing something: I didn’t caucus. I never updated my voter registration to my mountain address, so caucusing would have meant a day on the road each way that I didn't want to spend. Plus, I justified to myself, I’m in the same precinct as a bunch of friends, plus students, all of whom I know plan to caucus for Bernie. So even if it’s close in the state as a whole, my area already leans in the direction I would go.

It turns out I was right about that, as no one seems to have been surprised that Bernie carried Boulder County by a large margin. Besides which, Bernie won the state by a very large margin, losing only a few small counties. So many people showed up that the caucus locations were overwhelmed. So it was just as well that I didn’t go, but I do feel bad about failing to exercise my privilege and I don't intend to be this negligent again.

If anyone needs to unfriend me or judge me or chastise me or otherwise sanction me for failing to caucus, I understand. But I hope you will forgive me one day.

Ultimately, though, this is positive for all of us. Bernie Sanders crushed in Colorado, and I think that demonstrates that no matter what happens, there is a critical mass of us in this state committed to change. We can lead the way.

No matter what happens, the people of Colorado have shown that we are ready to jump into the deep end and pursue the ideal. I was skeptical of it at first; I succumbed to the “I love his policies, but he’s not realistic and he’s not electable” mantra for a while. Many thanks to my many friends who encouraged me to support Bernie Sanders not by yelling or shaming or calling me dumb, but by directing me toward resources where I could learn more about the histories of the candidates and make up my own mind. It still frustrates me that it’s another old white guy, but it turns out that he’s the real deal as an ally, and he would be the first non-Christian president (second if one doesn’t consider Catholics to be Christians), as well as the first Jewish president. And I was absolutely persuaded that “I would support him except...” never had a satisfactory conclusion.

Hillary Clinton is an admirable woman who deserves to be lauded for what she has managed to accomplish in a hostile system. The problem is that she’s too entrenched in that system to be able to be the way to break the next wall. It is true that Bernie’s white male privilege has allowed and probably still allows him to get away with things that Clinton can’t (yelling; messy hair), and that's unfortunate, but Bernie's longtime mission is good for everyone. Hillary Clinton can’t be faulted for succeeding in the system. But that system has been tried and it’s failing, and we’re ready to pay attention to that thing this other guy has been yelling about for thirty years.

Here in Colorado, we’ve already led the way in marijuana legalization. And now, whether Bernie Sanders wins or not, we’ve shown that we’re ready to lead the way in some other policies that might be considered radical. It does start making strange bedfellows; I realize that I sound like a total states’ rights flag-waver right now. 

Regardless, something happened today that makes Colorado stand out from the rest of the country, and I am so proud to call it my home. Thank all of you on the left for having my back when I was negligent in updating my registration and failed to fulfill my civic duty. I won’t let you down again.

What's the Super Bowl Halftime Show for Anyway?

Apparently, Beyoncé’s performance at Super Bowl 50 drew some ire from establishment types. Most notably, former New York City mayor RudolphGiuliani characterized it as “an attack on cops.” He went on to note that “What we should be doing in the African-American community, and all communities, is build up respect for police officers, and focus on the fact that when something does go wrong, okay, we’ll work on that.”

Say what?

I’m comfortable saying that anyone who would tell African-Americans, particularly urban African-Americans, to “build up respect for police officers” is terribly ignorant. Keep in mind that “ignorant” isn’t necessarily an insult; it simply means that the ignorant person lacks information. Because anyone who looks at the raw numbers regarding police violence and homicide against African-Americans has to understand that there is a problem.

But Rudy says that “when something [goes] wrong, we’ll work on that,” right? I wish I could see where the work was happening, considering that institutionalized police violence against African-Americans is nothing new. Take a look at excerpts from Jack McCoy’s closing argument from a 1998 Law & Order episode:

How could such a horrifying thing happen in our city? It may be comforting to simply point at these two officers and say that Mr. Michaels's death was solely the issue of their sick, hateful minds, or to lay some of the blame on the police department. . . . [T]he police department did nothing, except issue reprimands. So other, well-meaning officers got the message. The department tolerates racists. It's OK to use racial slurs, to use excessive force, to use racial profiling. Not only that, it's OK to do it in front of your fellow officers. Don't worry, the buddy-buddy system will protect you. The blue wall will shield you from civilian authority. . . . As long as crime is down, as long as the streets are safe, as long as these abuses by police officers happen in someone else's neighborhood, we're content to look the other way. That's what these officers were counting on. That our failure to police them manifests our indifference – even our acceptance – of their methods. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here's your chance to send a clear, unambiguous message to every police officer, good or bad, that we will not tolerate racism. That we will punish every abuse. And you can do it today by exacting from these two individuals the most extreme punishment under the law. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution recognizes our right to be secure in our persons, and protected from unreasonable seizures. No police officer can take those rights from us. Not unless we give them away.

Indeed, racism in police forces was a matter ripped from the headlines nearly twenty years ago. Charming.

OK, so even if it’s a really serious problem, maybe the Super Bowl isn’t the forum to address it. Mr. Giuliani commented that the Super Bowl is for “decent, wholesome entertainment.” I presume that by “decent” and “wholesome,” Mr. Giuliani means “non-controversial.”

Well, that’s simply not going to happen as long as the Super Bowl wants big acts on the field at halftime. Music has always been a way to rebel, to express discontent, to give disaffected youth something to grasp onto when they feel no one else understands.

In just the past ten years, the Super Bowl halftime show has featured the Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” a scathing political critique; Madonna’s religiously controversial “Like a Prayer,” and Katy Perry’s lesbian experimentation anthem, “I Kissed a Girl.” And probably other controversial songs that I’m too out of touch to know are political.

Beyoncé addressed an issue that is literally a matter of life and death for her people. She addressed it in a way that social issues are often addressed, and in an environment where her words could reach a large number of people. That’s exactly what the forum is for.

As for the cops who don’t want to be questioned, well, stop brutalizing and killing black people. And those of you who aren’t doing it, speak out against your associates. Fix your damn house before you get indignant about being called out. Then we'll talk.

Privilege and Representation: The Real Implications of Tuesday’s Women-Only Senate

After major snowstorms hit the nation’s capital city last week, the morning of Tuesday, January 29, in the Senate was unusual. Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski noted that every single person in the Senate that day, from Senators to pages, was female. The revelation sparked predictable commentary of the “girls rule, boys drool” ilk. Senator Murkowski herself suggested that the phenomenon “speaks to the hardiness of women.” CNN’s coverage ended with the reporter rhetorically asking what the story says “about if you want a job done properly.” The popular message is clear: that only women showed up to Tuesday’s senate shows that women are inherently tougher, harder working, and generally better than men.

Or perhaps it suggests something entirely different. Perhaps it suggests exactly the opposite: it is learned behavior reflective of the fact that women have been historically excluded from the political space.        

When you're already a minority in the position of "representing," you can't risk being judged as lesser. A former co-worker of mine, the only other Latino/a in our office, told me on my first day of work, “Remember, you have to do twice the work to get half the credit.” Indeed, pioneers face significant obstacles. When you’re first, you’re carrying the weight of the entire group on your shoulders, and if you fail, you’ve shown that your minority group can’t hack it. That’s just part of the inevitable cultural aftermath of breaking down barriers. Women, even at the highest levels, still need to prove themselves in ways that men do not.

And so, if you’re one of a handful of women in the Senate and you wake up to waist-high snow but find out the Senate isn’t closed, you show up. It is a manifestation of the privilege the men had that they didn't need to fear being negatively judged by staying home.

People often bristle at the word “privilege,” thinking that the assertion that male privilege exists suggests that all men spend their lives lying on lounge chairs with buxom women serving them beer and fanning them with palm fronds. That isn’t what privilege means. Privilege refers to those little niceties that one takes for granted because one never had to think about being on the other side of them.

           

It did not have to occur to the men in the Senate that their absence might speak negatively of all men, because it wouldn’t. Society simply has never considered one white man as representative of all other white men. And while the pressure of “representation” is slowly lessening as we have these dialogues and better understand the implications of our assumptions, it is very much alive and well. The risk that one misstep will serve for some as proof that women (or Latino/as) can’t do the job is enough to keep me on my toes. It would have been enough to get me to the Senate on Tuesday if I worked there.

While it’s appealing to wave a female-superiority flag because of Tuesday’s Senate phenomenon, it is dangerous. It is at least as dangerous as any other belief that you can identify an individual’s talents and strengths by what is or is not hanging between their legs. It is perhaps more dangerous because it takes a phenomenon that probably is due to weakness by oppression, and recasts it as an innate strength. This sleight-of-hand prevents us from seeing and addressing the real issues facing pioneers of all kinds.