Last week I attended a PTA meeting with my friend Dorthea. She is a black, single mother who has kids the same age as mine. After the meeting, we were talking and she said, “Girl, I’ve known you for a couple of years now and you’ve always had those god awful blonde dreadlocks on your head. What is it with you lesbians? Why don’t you try being a white chick for a while?” Of course, I immediately got offended, told her “like they are worse that having my hair glued to my head like you do? Oh, and at least MY spouse stuck around when I got pregnant.” Then I told her to screw off and left in a huff.
Once I cooled off, I called her and apologized. She told me that she was just trying to make a little joke because I’m the only white chick she knows that has dreads. It is all cool now, but it got me thinking about where the hell do I get off saying and thinking things like that in the first place?
I started looking at all of my own racist, bigoted or prejudicial behaviors, comments and thoughts. So, as an exercise to acknowledge and work on my own intolerant thoughts I’ve decided to list them here for all to see:
Immigrants: I will veer across three lanes of traffic to keep from being behind a pickup truck with a lawn mower sticking out of the bed and that has a Piolín bumper sticker. I do this because I just KNOW that they are going to pull away from the light slowly and that it will take them 2 miles go reach the speed limit, while carelessly throwing McDonald’s wrappers out of the window.
I KNOW that this isn’t true. The immigrants that I personally know are kind, wonderful people who are neat as a pin and drive as if banshees are chasing them.
Men: I just KNOW that all men are sexist pigs (including the gay ones) and that if I don’t immediately get in their face and bitch slap them first, they will treat me like I’m a ditzy blonde without a brain in my head.
Not fair; not right; and a gross generalization, as is proved by many of the people who post here.
Religious People: Homophobes! Each and every one of them! They hate me, my orientation, my lifestyle choices and will gleefully take my children away from me. They don’t REALLY believe in all of the nice things that Jesus dude said and they just spout the bible to sound “morally” superior. They also ALL oppose gay marriage and support Fred Phelps.
One of the nicest people I know is a devote Christian. He has stuck with his faith in spite of the distention gay rights has caused in his particular church. He recently sent me an article about how his church voted to sanction and perform gay marriages. They also were a very loud voice against Prop 8. Another is a member of the Knight’s of Columbus. He is working from the inside out and has told me on several occasions that it isn’t his place to judge and the people that do are wrong. Our across the street neighbors quit their church when the pastor tried to make them post “Yes on Prop 8” signs in their front yard. All of them have strong religious beliefs, hate Fred Phelps and his ilk and are kind, loving people.
Straight People: Obviously, think that I’m a pervert and that being gay is only about sex. They, along with the “Fundies”, want to take my children away and break up my family because we might make our daughters turn “queer”.
Not even close. Stupid generalizations that insult people who work very hard for what’s right.
Republicans: Power junkies. Homophobes. War mongering baby killers. They are all about preserving the status quo and screwing people in the name of the almighty dollar.
Amy, my spouse, was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans for years. She is socially liberal, but WAY fiscally conservative. I need to realize that MANY Republicans feel the same.
Politicians: Cynical asshats that never do what they say and will tell you one thing to get your votes then will do the exact opposite with a straight face.
I’ve got a LOT of work to do on this one.
My list can go on and on, but this is a start. I an going to try… no! I will change my thinking to eliminate all of my gross generalizations, unfair prejudices and insulting condescension.
It’s going to be a slow process that will require the help of my friends (including my God fearing, straight, male, Hispanic, Republican friends… don’t worry, I don’t have any politician buddies).
Feel free to call me on my "crap", because I am STILL going to be calling you on yours. ;)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
sagemerlin
Daniel Geery
Eljekar
Man Talk Now
Naithom
OS Readers' Picks
Salon.com
Comments
bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
The "fiscal conservatism" of the so called fiscal conservatives is just prettied up racism. Government and social institutions are inventions of civilization which are an evolutionary step beyond the money and power dominated institutions of the church, and wealthy dynasties like the Medicis, etc. Bleeding govt. dry of funds, and eliminating secular social institutions is anti ethnic, and exclusive. Fiscal conservatives seek to eliminate, and oppose the thrust of public health and safety, public schools and libraries, public transportation and conveyance, social safety nets for the sick, the elderly, the unemployed, the elimination of regulations which restrict or eliminate the economic viability of the less than wealthy in favor of those able to withstand frequent, and volatile business cycle fluctuations, all discreetly costumed as parsimony. "Fiscal conservatism" is merely a justification for rolling up the public sidewalks before "those people" can use them to approach.
The "fiscal conservatism" of the so called fiscal conservatives is just prettied up racism. Government and social institutions are inventions of civilization which are an evolutionary step beyond the money and power dominated institutions of the church, and wealthy dynasties like the Medicis, etc. Bleeding govt. dry of funds, and eliminating secular social institutions is anti ethnic, and exclusive. Fiscal conservatives seek to eliminate, and oppose the thrust of public health and safety, public schools and libraries, public transportation and conveyance, social safety nets for the sick, the elderly, the unemployed, the elimination of regulations which restrict or eliminate the economic viability of the less than wealthy in favor of those able to withstand frequent, and volatile business cycle fluctuations, all discreetly costumed as parsimony. "Fiscal conservatism" is merely a justification for rolling up the public sidewalks before "those people" can use them to approach."
Okay, Bill, I went to the well on this one and sat down and asked Amy to define a “Fiscal Conservative” for me. She, very succinctly stated, “you pay for what you use, BEFORE you use it”.
She went on to say that her fiscal conservatism (not the BS currently proposed by the Republican Party) had the exact opposite effect on government than you stated. It doesn’t “bleed the government dry” it REQUIRES the government to make the funds available (supported by the appropriate taxes) to FULL fund healthcare, social programs and things like schools and libraries. What she works to eliminate is the unfunded mandates to the states and the “pie in the sky” hollow promises that have no funding to make them a reality.
She also asked you a question back. What is more advantageous for the sick, the elderly, the unemployed: REAL social safety nets that have the proper amount of funding to be TRULY effective? or A whole lot of social safety nets that are un/under funded and ineffective and are actually just a bunch of codified lies thrown out to placate the masses?
Bottom line, “Our” brand of fiscal conservatism (yeah, I got converted last night) jives perfectly with my ideas of social liberalism (I’m also a semi-pinko) because it actual pays for, and therefore makes REAL, all of the things that my heart wants to give people in need.
My opposition was keyed by the "log cabin" qualification, which places the "fiscal conservatism" in the Republican context. The G.O.P. brand of fiscal conservatism is as I stated before. "Unfunded mandates" are a conservative tactic to eliminate or make ineffective the program.
Influence in government essentially runs on two things, ballots and money. The situation is a zero sum game for primacy. When one is elevated, the other is diminished. Government will always have expenses, even when most efficient. If the citizen abdicates his/her authority thru taxation, the authority gets picked up by special interests. These are usually corporations. Corporations are immortal, and dont have health issues, children to educate, or flesh that is vulnerable to weapons. Corporations are given the legal weight of being a person without the vulnerabilities. The result is that they are squeezing the human element, and priorities necessary for humans out of the town square in favor of their own. This fiscal conservatism aids them, and not the general populace. After a time, the balance of legislative initiative is owned and funded by the special interest rather than driven by the ballot and taxation.
Pay for it before you use it means no railroad construction in the Americas, no travel to America. No explorers expeditions. No research. Fee for service fire departments and police departments.
"Pay for it before you use it" eliminates the need for government ultimately. And taken to its fullest extent, the world population would have to be reduced to what it was in the middle ages when city states were the norm. Pay for it before you use it would make this form of communication that we are using impossible. Pay for it before you use it eliminates all finance. That means no municipal bonds, no stocks, nothing. Pay for it before you use it is essentially a barter economy with currency. No one really wants to live in that world. They didnt want that in the 15th century, which is why they invented finance.