Jason Collins, Professional Sport, and Male Domination

Before I dive into the abyss of grading, let me welcome Jason Collins and other gay male athletes lurking around the corner to the coming out party!

What Collins did was significant and the toll staying closeted took on his life was enormous, ultimately because it prevented him from developing any sort of non-superficial relationship with most people, including, I assume, platonic friends.

This story has been reported as a great blow to gay oppression, and that is true. It is a blow to gay oppression. But while we acknowledge that, let's not trivialize what women such as Martina Navratilova (voluntarily) and Billie Jean King (involuntarily) did when they were out lesbian tennis players. It's possible to imagine that Jason Collins could not do this without them having blazed the trail in a society that was much more hostile to the notion that GLB folk could participate in sports (TQ wasn't on the radar in the late 70s in the way it is now!).

However, as we keep asking "why are men so homophobic,"we miss the fact that this story may not, in some way, be about gay oppression at all. This is a story about male domination. While it's hard for some to see, I think we all have a tiny picture of how men dominate women all of the time: cut us off in conversations, deny us promotions, wolf whistle, stare at our breasts while we're talking to them, diminish the work that happens inside of the home, pay us less, beat us, rape us (and then call us too sensitive), and kill us. It's harder to see how males dominate other males. And males dominate other males all of the time because you have to have a pecking order, right? Boys often experience this from both other men and boys, particularly if they are gender noncompliant (don't play with the right toys, hang out with **gasp** GIRLS, etc.), and men experience it from other men, including rape! Males train on each other so they can keep women in line and continue to police the boundaries of sexism. And this is no clearer than in professional sports. Indeed, no other institution, aside from the Catholic Church (of which I'm a member) has gone so far to institutionalize male domination.

The biggest and toughest, clearly not f---s and sissies, are allowed into this elite club! So when a man is willing to lie with another man and actually be an elite baller, this means that this queer could beat up the average guy?! But isn't that the province of straight men? They are the ones who should be able to "handle" the gay guy because the straight guy is uber male, right? Straight men dominate gay ones. This upsets the natural order of things and upsets the very premise of professional sporting. This is why we fear what will happen the next time Jason Collins steps out on the court with whichever team he works for, how will the men assert their dominance over him (and can they?!)?

Admittedly, I find these pissing contests tiring, and that's why I hate professional sports. But this is why it's so hard to make sure that football players are protected from getting concussions, men would rather tough it out than admit they're injured, etc. Showing physical pain and weakness undermines their status as the man on top of the pack. It undermines that they are the dominant male.

The biggest toll that male domination takes on all of us is how it undermines the most basic relationships we can have in life, both the intimate and platonic ones. That's the impact of the violence and other less aggressive forms of trivializing the lives, loves, wants, and desires of those who are not at the top of the male heap (and that a whole lot of people)!

So Jason, your coming out will send several cracks through the male dominant ceiling, whether you intended it to or not. And for that, I thank you! Just sayin'!

Newtown and the Undercurrent of Race

One week after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, let me extend my condolences to that community. 

My condolences are genuine, but consider this. I grew up in Chicago during the 1970s, the height of White flight. The inner cities (where Black people lived) were dangerous places, the schools were bad, and property values were tanking, so White people had to go where they had to to protect themselves from these problems. The South side of Chicago was considered one of the most dangerous places, although I lived in integrated Hyde Park (NOT a gated community as I heard it referred to once on CNN). The Lorraine Hansbury play and movie, A Raisin in the Sun, depicts the circumstances leading up to White flight well. Those Whites who never lived in inner cities considered themselves lucky not having to deal with those problems.

Ultimately, living patterns in the U.S. are designed to reflect both economic and racial segregation and the results are generally that Whites design things to be "safe" from the imagined threats Brown skinned people bring with them. This includes the threat of violence. 

So, piling on what Tim Wise argues, perhaps the danger isn't "those people with their inner city problems," but the ways in which White people are complicit in defining themselves. You can no longer isolate yourselves from yourselves. You cannot assume safety in perfect nuclear families. You cannot assume safety in lilly White communities with high property values and excellent schools. White, not inherently, but as a sociohistorical phenomenon, can be dangerous too.

Isolating yourselves will not provide you safety. You will no longer be able to assume that someone else's family (White or Brown) is none of your business. You need to learn to take a wayward child aside and talk to them as if they were your own. You need to visit people who look antisocial and figure out how to connect with them, no matter how awkward it feels. You will need to speak openly and publicly about the challenges you are having. You will need to speak openly and publicly about the challenges your wife is having, the challenges your children are having. You will have to embrace your siblings, your aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents, even if they're nuts. Brown families were pathologized because they weren't nuclear, yet they got us through the worst of times. You will have to ask other people for favors, like your crazy aunt or the next door neighbor, including can Jimmy crash on your couch for a while because I don't know what to do with him. Because for you, these are the worst of times.

You think we (Brown people) don't know what's going on, but it's been apparent to us, like that spray of bullets that hit Sandy Hook Elementary. It was apparent long before that happened, like during lynchings, etc. Really. Our communities felt the brunt of violent White behavior and we didn't need automatic weapons to be clear about it. You seemed to have protected yourself from the worst of what you could do.

Gun control will be useful. Personally, I don't really understand why someone who isn't hunting or fighting a war needs a gun. I hear lots of talk about an improved mental health system. But I'm not optimistic if it's being used to make sure that White males are not that kind of White male that makes you look bad. The mental health system will not get us out of that mess if it's simply a device to weed out the good Whites from the bad. The only thing I know of to abate the actions of those who are awry is connection, it's harder for them to act out on these thoughts if they are really connected to people. Isolation is the key problem that Whites face and you can afford it no more. And that isolation can't be blamed on Brown skinned people. Go talk to each other. Now. Because the people you fear most are yourselves. The victims of Sandy Hook suggests all that needs to be said . . . 

Just sayin'.

Condi for Secretary of State

I have a solution to this Secretary of State nomination problem: I think President Barack Obama should call Condoleezza Rice and have the following conversation:

POTUS: Condi, I would like to thank you for your service to your country.

CR: Thank you Mr. President. [I like to fantasize about people actually still having respect for the office of the President. Indulge me.]

POTUS: Condi, your country calls again. You know that Secretary of State Clinton plans on leaving this post at the start of my next administration, and we're looking for a good candidate. Many names are floated around, but I believe, like that great leader of your party, Abraham Lincoln, in a team of rivals. I think you would be perfectly suited for the position as you've done it before. However, ultimately the decisions made for Secretary of State end with me, so you must be willing to follow my lead.

CR: Mr. President, I really appreciate your considering me, but I'm not sure that would be workable at this point . . .

POTUS: Look, I don't think there is as much daylight between you and me as you think. For instance, I think the drone strikes in Afghanistan and over the Middle East are bloody brilliant and have not only continued them, but stepped them up. You would have LOVED to be part of an administration that killed Osama Bin Laden. Guantanamo Bay is still open and it's MY administration that has sold and delivered more arms to Israel than ever before. Further, we opposed the creation of observer status for the Palestinian people in the U.N. I think we can work things out. Besides, disagreement is good for creating policy and your perspective could truly enhance what I'm trying to accomplish.

CR: You have a point . . .

POTUS: And there would be no bruising confirmation fight. Although I think the optics of going after Susan Rice, an Oxford educated PhD, who, like yourself, is a Black woman would ultimately force the Senate to fold, they certainly can't go after you for misleading the American public for claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction . . .

CR: [Pointedly] Mr. President . . .

POTUS: I'm just being honest. Look, this would be good for you, good for your party who desperately needs brilliant people at its forefront, and good for our country as we bring all of the best ideas together for a foreign policy that most benefits our interests at home and abroad. What do you say?

My interjection: Besides, the old White men in the Senate could save face for opposing everyone with a Black face in the administration and their war on women which has now been directed at Dr. Rice (Susan). And it would leave Kerry's Massachusetts seat intact. Are they really going to throw Dr. Condoleezza Rice under the bus for Kerry's seat? How do those optics look?!

Just sayin'.

My Condolences to the GOP

Dear GOP:

I would like to extend my condolences about your recent electoral losses. Enormous amounts of time, energy, resource, and money were used trying to wrest the White House from President Obama and it certainly looks like it was dispiriting to have nothing to show for it. I won't recall the tally, others have done this.

So now, you have the task of sorting out what worked, what didn't, and what to do about it. It's only been a week since the election, so the issue is a little tender, and the post Mortems may seem off pitch. However, one theme is that people of color, women of all races, GLB people of all races, and some White men did not vote for your candidates. White men are no longer the majority, particularly when they break off and ally with other segments of society. How do you draw these other people to the party?

Immigration reform has been touted as the silver bullet to your problems.  I would argue not so fast. My medicine is much slower and, well, perhaps for the people most entrenched in 1950 USA, bitter. But this will produce the longest lived connection to the majority of the US electorate. And you can no longer afford to be this disconnected from the electorate.

I will start with my story of forming opinions about political participation. I was twelve when Ronald Reagan took office. I remember the language about Black women as welfare mothers who buy Cadillacs with their food stamp money. My Black mother was (and still is) a Registered Nurse who gave up much for herself to make sure my sister and I were in the best private schools in Chicago because she was deeply concerned about the quality of the public school system. I remember the rhetoric about students who took out loans to live the high life and never finished college. I lived with a cousin who was trying to become a registered nurse herself and needed those loans to pay tuition so she could obtain her part of the American dream (immigrants really believe in it!). I remember the refusal of the Surgeon General to utter the word AIDS because no one wanted to say the word gay. A family friend nearly died 5 years ago of the word Reagan's administration refused to utter. A conductor I knew was likely one of the people who would never have the word AIDS written in his funeral program because of the stigma attached to the word, indeed, he died of "pneumonia." 

Needless to say, the advice I'm about to offer you won't work with me because I have long been hostile to the GOP: the stories you made up about people in my everyday life drove policies that made our lives more difficult and did not reflect the reality you painted. Never mind that I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. You lost me. From my twelve year old eyes, it looked like you hated me. 

But many are more forgiving, and I suspect you don't have much time to deal with them. So here's the bitter pill. Stop talking to people you know well. This includes Rubio, Jindal, etc. You need to talk to regular folk. You need to go to, wait for it, cities. Yep, big cities. You can't just talk to the affluent folk. You actually need to visit the places that scare you to death. To the barrios, to the ghettos. To regular middle and working class areas. To non-White places. To gay neighborhoods, to barber shops, to beauty shops, to Union meetings, to grocery stores, to non-White churches, to gay bars, to neighborhood pubs, and to schools. To liberal universities, public libraries, and bookstores. And then, when you get to these places, you need to talk to people. Not about your agenda. You need to talk to them about their actual lives. Yes. 

You need to talk to us about what we do to get our kids to school and what works about that and what doesn't. You need to talk to kids about their lives and see what works for them and what they wish was different. You need to talk to people about their jobs. You need to know what they want to be different about their work situations. You need to speak with the unemployed. What happened? What have they tried to do? Do they need more help? Are things getting better for them? You need to speak with Latinos. What is their immigration story? Their particular one? Where do they work? Do they go to school? What are their hopes and dreams? Talk to Black people. What are their work histories? Do they have kids? Who do they support with their income? What is their health like? Talk to lesbians and gay men. How did they meet that special someone? Do they have kids? What are their kids like? What do they really do in bed? Do they have time to do it? Are they out? How are they within their families of origin and with their in-laws? There are so many other questions about so many other groups - Asians really do exist and have a point of view. Multiple points of view. What are they?

You will feel awkward and dorky. Don't gloss over this. You'll seem disingenuous if you do. You may just have to be in these spaces and stare at us. Really. Then you'll have to screw up the courage to speak to us. And I promise you'll say stupid things. And we'll look at you funny when you say them. Don't give up and go away! Why was what you said stupid? Don't argue with us. Follow our lead and be respectful to our communities. Some of us sprung from your loins (I was raised in a White evangelical Church, theoretically, I'm one of you), show us you care about what happened to us. 

When you're done with this extensive listening project, you need to see if the stories of our lives are really that different from the lives of the angry White men you've been hanging out with. Are our hopes and dreams that much different from theirs? Do the policies you've advocated actually match what we've said about our lives? They may be a perfect match. If that's the case, carry on. If not, the soul searching will be even worse. Ultimately, are policies or people more important? The future of your party depends on the answer to that question. And you have my permission to tell Democrats that they should do the same thing now that Barack Hussein Obama is serving his second term. Just sayin'.

Yes, women's issues (birth control, abortion) ARE economic issues

Finally pockets of the media are starting to pick up on this theme. Here's Jezebel's take on it. And I love the snarky and direct tone of the piece!

That's right Charles Blow: Women's health care IS an economic issue! Make sure you read the link in its entirety. Just saying' (again!).

Birth Control, Abortion, and Economics

I can't help but to wonder whether there is a campaign to push women out of the workforce. Let me start by addressing what some have said labeling birth control and abortion as "unimportant" issues in this election because voters are more interested in the economy.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: women's participation in the economy wholly depends on birth control. Why? Raising kids is no joke. Kids who are 0 - 5 are the least independent years. Infants can't feed themselves or go anywhere on their own; they don't have enough language to communicate their needs; and they can't articulate, beyond tears, what's bothering them. This means a parent has to communicate/handle these needs. Stunningly few of us can afford high quality child care, espeically for the youngest of kids (including nannies) and don't get paid maternity leave. Real economic considerations factor into whether to have a child and delinking the job challenges we face as a nation from trivial considerations like birth control really demonstrates a lack of undersatnding of how women's lives work. There is a profound lack of undersatnding of what child care requires. Alternatively, birth control IS an economic issue.

To add insult to injury, factor in the fact that women apparently have no judgment about their sexual encounters - indeed, we can't decide if we actually wanted sex or not and our bodies know better. Therefore, the only rape is forcible because, ladies, rape generally isn't forcible. Which implies that there's no such thing as rape. If all sex is wanted, all children are wanted and there are no emotional (or financial) reasons to terminate a pregnancy. All children are wanted! And we all want to take 5 years out of the workplace to care for those wanted children.

Which brings me back to I wonder if the real issue is pushing us out of the workplace and stop taking jobs away from men. Just sayin'.