An Exploration of Deaf Culture

Recently, Talk of the Nation on NPR had an interesting discussion on the Exploration of Deaf Culture. Neal Conan (of TotN) talked to Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, authors of the new book Inside Deaf Culture, and King Jordan, President of Gallaudet University (who, btw, became the first deaf President of Gallaudet in 1988 after a student-led protest demanding a deaf President).

For those who missed the show, NPR has provided the transcript, free of charge. I highly recommend taking a look at it. It's a fascinating interview about a fascinating subject. I don't think most people are aware of the richness, diversity, and the long history of deaf culture, and I think that's a shame.

The millions of Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing form a unique community, a culture, they say, shaped by their shared experience and their shared language. ASL, American Sign Language, is currently the second most taught language on college campuses. A major Broadway play using deaf and hearing actors is touring the country. At the same time, deaf culture is both changed and challenged by technology. There are plenty of divisions and arguments within deaf culture, but the deaf and hard of hearing share another universal trait--the incomprehension of the hearing world around them that sees their condition as a disability, as a handicap. For those who live without sound, that absence is the starting point of an identity.

For a while, back when I lived in Rochester, NY, I was somewhat involved (although, as an outsider, it was more of a peripheral involvement) in the very strong deaf culture that exists in that city. The knowledge that I gained has greatly benefitted my life, and I truly value all of the experiences and friendships I gained through that involvement.
While not everyone will be able to get involved with the deaf culture, I do believe it would be highly valuable to everyone to learn at least a bit about it.

Feminism and Civility and Communication (Oh My!)

Over on Alas, there has been an on-going discussion about "civility." Since the thread has been closed before I could make a few comments of my own, I figured I'd go ahead and re-open the discussion here.

Over the years, a number of studies have pointed out that, in the "real world," men tend to interrupt women more often than other men, and far more often than women interrupt either men or other women.

Theoretically, in the world of the internet, this will happen much less frequently. On a blog or discussion board, there's simply no way to interrupt a person, right? No one can even read what they've had to say until they've written it out entirely, proofread it, and so on.

In practice, however, it seems that men have simply found a new way to interrupt -- the all too common "thread drift" (or "derailment"). Now, I'm not saying that thread drift, to one extent or another, isn't natural (in many cases it is). Nor am I saying that women never engage in it (directly or indirectly). But, in my experience, the most egregious offenses have been done by men. In fact, I pretty much gave up posting any threads about a month back (and then went on to create this new blog) because I was so sick of the flagrant disregard for what I was saying, and the constant need to dramatically drift the thread onto an entirely different subject within the first couple of posts. Admittedly, this was due to a particular man at the time, but it made me take a closer look at other instances where it had happened, and sure enough, it was primarily men. Some of the men were self-proclaimed anti-feminists, others were self-proclaimed [pro-]feminists.

As I said, there are definitely times when thread drift just naturally occurs during the course of a conversation. And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about total thread derailment. What I see happening, more often than not, is a few men who suddenly feel that they are not a part of the conversation -- either because they don't have enough knowledge about the subject matter, or it is simply of no interest to them. Rather than simply sitting back and listening for a change, they attempt to change the subject entirely. Their feelings of entitlement allow them to do this without nary a shred of remorse. Hell, in most cases, I'd suppose, it allows them to do this without nary a shred of recognition of what they are doing.

In the "civility" thread (ironically), this happened again -- with Rad Geek and Foolish Owl leading the way. It started out pretty typical -- men, unable to join the conversation as it is, change the subject in order to be able to engage in some conversation. This time, however, they were asked (politely) to stop their derailment, and even given an alternative thread in which to discuss their obviously important discussion. (Yes, this polite request was made by a man -- credit where credit is due.) Yet, that still didn't seem to be enough. Foolish Owl had to continue on with his oh-so-important response, ending it with a suggestion that they take Amp's advice (thereby acknowledging that he did, in fact, see the request, and simply chose to ignore it).

Funnie responded:

Jesus Christ this is so fucking classic.

Either the thread drift is distracting or it isn’t. How very goddamned male to go ahead and DO WHAT YOU WERE JUST ASKED NOT TO DO in order to get a word in and then SUGGEST THAT YOUR OPPONENT BE THE FIRST TO PLAY BY THE RULES.

So civil! So polite! No personal attacks in Owl’s posts, nosirree! Just the classic war of attrition against women, in which space is taken up by “reasonable” men who say things like I don’t think it makes sense to argue that civility or debate are inherently patriarchal, or otherwise inherently oppressive and then politely continue doing whatever the fuck they feel like doing, wherever and however they feel like doing it.

Hostile? Yeah, but I can understand. It is "fucking classic." Some men (Owl and Jake Squid) have gone on to say that they don't understand where the hostility is coming from -- that they honestly don't understand what the serious offense is, and therefore the hostility is unwarranted and instead, Funnie (or women, in general, perhaps) should have spent more of her/our energy on even more handholding and explaining.

Frankly, I cannot understand why this isn't as plain as day -- but then, I don't have the male entitlement that would allow me not to see what is so incredibly rude about Owl's actions. And, even more importantly, I'm sick to death of spending more time and energy on handholding and educating than anything else. Funnie did explain what was wrong -- what pissed her off. Maybe men should spend more of their time and energy really listening to what is being said. It's really not a different language.

This is but one example (among many) of the double standards of "civility" enforced by men; of a civility that by and large benefits the oppressor and keeps the oppressed silent.

Male Guards / Female Inmates

In another thread, the topic of sexual abuse of female prisoners by male guards came up. There is one particularly ill-informed particpant in that conversation who seems to be under the incredibly misguided notion that male guards are not allowed to work in female prisons. This could not be further from the truth (at least, not in the US). In fact, in the US, 70% of guards in female prisons are male. Not only are men allowed to be guards in female prisons, but the majority of the guards are male.

Further, there are very few states that limit male guards' access in these prisons. According to the Amnesty International report, Abuse of Women in Custody: Sexual Misconduct and Shackling of Pregnant Women (A State-by-State Survey of Policies and Practices in the U.S.), the only states that have limitations on access for male guards are:

• Arizona: As the result of a settlement with the DOJ, the Arizona DOC must provide privacy screens for shower and toilet areas in the Tuscon-Manzanita Unit or alternatively schedule two daily 15 minute time periods for inmates to shower and/or dress under the supervision of only female guards. Additionally, male guards must announce their presence in areas where female inmates could be in a state of undress.
  
• Connecticut: DOC Directive 6.7 states, "Reasonable accomodations shall be made to provide for same gender strip searches."
  
• Georgia: Gender specific posts have been created; for example, transport officers posts in female prisons are reserved for female. All men entering female units must announce themselves. All pat searches and strip searches are governed by the DOC same-sex regulations.
  
• Michigan: Due to a settlement with the DOJ, male guards must "knock and announce" their presence when entering areas where female inmates could normally be in a state of undress. The DOC Director recently (as of this report) announced a new policy of not assigning male guards to female housing units.
  
• North Carolina: According to the written response from the NC DOC, some duties are gender specific.
  
• South Dakota: No cross-sex pat-down searches or strip searches allowed.
  
• Wisconsin: According to the written response from the Wisconsin DOC, the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) places restrictions on pat-down searches, strip searches, and unannounced bathroom/shower entries; it also covers when a medical condition is likely to require disrobing.
  
• Wyoming: According to the written response from the Wyoming DOC, male guards are not permitted to perform strip searches on incarcerated women.

While we are on the subject, here are some other interesting findings regarding sexual assault of women in prison. For a simplified chart of the various laws, you can go to this table. But, for those who cannot open or who do not want to bother with a .pdf file, the info is summarized below.

States with no custodial sexual miscoduct law:

• Oregon
  
• Minnesota
  
• Alabama
  
• Wisconsin
  
• Vermont
  

States where custodial sexual misconduct is not considered a felony (only a misdemeanor):

• Arkansas
  
• California
  
• Iowa
  
• Kentucky
  
• Maryland
  
• North Dakota
  
• Tennessee
  
• US Bureau of Prisons
  

States that do not cover all forms of sexual abuse (for example, threats or oral sex, among other things):

• Arkansas: The law only covers sexual contact. It does not cover acts involving penetration.
  
• Delaware: The law only covers sexual intercourse and deviate sexual intercourse.
  
• Florida: Limited to penetration.
  
• Idaho: The law is limited to specific specific sexual acts involving penetration, and does not cover all sexual contact.
  
• Indiana: The law covers only specific sexual acts involving penetration.
  
• Iowa: The sexual acts prohibited are limited to penetration.
  
• Maine: The law specifies that sexual contact is not included in the prohibited acts.
  
• Maryland: The law specifically does not cover sexual contact.
  
• Mississippi: The law is limited to sexual penetration.
  
• Missouri: The law requires that the person "knowingly injures" the inmate by sexual contact in order for it to be covered.
  
• Nevada: The law covers sexual contact with the genital area only.
  
• North Carolina: The law does not prohibit sexual contact.
  
• Ohio: The law only covers sexual penetration.
  
• Rhode Island: The law is specific to sexual penetration.
  
• South Carolina: The law is limited to sexual intercourse only. All other acts, including other acts of penetration, are not prohibited.
  
• South Dakota: For prison employees, the only prohibited act is penetration. Jail employees are also prohibited from sexual contact.
  
• Texas: The law does not prohibit sexual contact.
  
• West Virginia: The law is limited to sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion, and does not include contact.

States with cutodial sexual misconduct laws in place that allow "consent" as a defense:

• Nevada (consent is presumed)
  
• Wyoming: The law requires proving the custodian "used" their position of authority in order to get the victim to submit. Consent if a valid defense.
  
• Colorado: Penal codes 403 (Sexual Assault in the Third Degree) and 404 (Unlawful Sexual Contact) allow consent as a defense. Penal code 701 (Sexual Conduct in Penal Institutions), however, does not.
  
• Missouri: The law requires that the officer "knowingly injures the physical well-being" of the inmate, which allows the defense of consent.
• New Hampshire: The law does not allow the defense of consent for cases involving penetration. The law does not specify as to whether consent can be raised as a defense to other sexual contact.

States Where the current custodial sexual misconduct law imposes a criminal penalty on an inmate:

• California (in the case of oral copulation)
  
• Nevada: the inmate is considered guilty of the same offense. The law presumes the sexual contact was voluntary and consensual.
  
• Arizona: In order for an inmate to complain about alleged abuse, she would have to admit to committing the same offense. Arizona makes no issue of the inmate's lack of consent, so even an inmate who was raped could be charged under this law.
  
• Delaware: An inmate would be guilty of the same offense.

States where cross-gender pat-downs are routine:

• Kansas
  
• Michigan: Scheduled searches are same-sex. Random searches can be cross-gender.
  
• Pennsylvania: Practice is managed at individual institutions. At Muncy, cross-gender pat-downs are routine. At Cambridge, pat-searches are predominately same-gender.
  
• New York: a class-action suit was filed in 1998.
  
• Connecticut
  
• New Hampshire

Only Florida, Michigan, and South Dakota disallow cross-gender pat-down searches. All other states say that the majority of searches are done by someone of the same gender, but allow cross-gender pat-down searches in emergencies (but "emergenies" is never defined).

States where the law covers all staff and custodians (e.g. vendors, medical or kitchen staff)

• Arizona
  
• Arkansas
  
• California
  
• Indiana
  
• Iowa
  
• Kansas
  
• Kentucky
  
• Nevada
  
• North Carolina
  
• Oklahoma

States where the statute does not cover all correctional facilities and locations:

• Arkansas: While the law protects state prisoners, it requires that the custodial sexual misconduct within a city or county jail for non-state inmates
  
• Colorado: 701 applies only to employees of the correctional facility or jail. 403 and 404 apply to hospitals and other institutions, but require the actor to have "supervisory or disciplinary authority" over the inmate.
  
• Delaware: The law does not cover employees of private prisons, contractors, or non-employee staff.
  
• Florida: The law only covers employees of the Florida DOC. Does not currently cover employees of jails, private facilities, or others.
  
• Hawaii: The law is specific to state employees, and adds "law enforcement officers" for penetration only
  
• Idaho: The law prohibits employees, officers, and agents from sexual acts, but does not include persons such as service providers who are affiliated with contractors.
  
• Louisiana: The law specifies public employees; it does not include private contractors or ancilliary service providers.
  
• Maryland: The law specifies who is covered. It does not cover jailors, service providers, or others who are not correctional employees.
  
• Michigan: The law does not cover municipal or local jail employees, nor does it protect those convicted who are detained in local or munipal institutions, unless they are juveniles convicted as adults.
  
• Missouri: The law is specific to employees of the Missouri DOC.
  
• Montana: The offender must have supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim. The law provides different standards of who is covered for each offense.
  
• Nebraska: The law is limited to employees of the DOC or Office of Parole Administration and contract employees and agents.
  
• New Hampshire: The only protects against a person "supervisory disciplinary authority" and that offender has to use this authority.
  
• New Mexico: The law requires that the person has to be in a supervisory position over the inmate.
  
• North Dakota: The law only covers those who have "supervisory or disciplinary authority" over the inmate.
  
• Pennsylvania: The law only applies to state and county employees and specified agents.
  
• Rhode Island: The law is specific to state employees or state contractors.
  
• South Carolina: The law only covers employees of the state or local correctional facility.
  
• South Dakota: Both laws require the person to have custodial, supervisory, or disciplinary authority over the victim.
  
• Tennessee: The law only covers law enforcement or corrections officers.
  
• Virginia: The laws require the actor to be in a position of authority over the person in custody.

DV and men

Over the years, I have heard a number of arguments (usually by men's rights and father's rights activists) that those of us who work in the domestic violence field are "sexist" because we are not offering equal shelter for men escaping domestic violence situations. While I have not seen this explicit argument stated in the recent comments on this blog, I have seen what could be the very beginnings of them...so, I thought I'd go ahead and comment on it now.

I will state upfront that while the vast majority of DV victims are women, I do recognize and acknowledge that male victims exist. The majority of those male victims are in same sex relationships, but there is a small minority who are in heterosexual relationships as well. I do believe that these men deserve help and support. But I also recognize the very real difficulties in providing this help through the already existing support system.

As many of you know, I currently work at a DV shelter in my area. At this one shelter, we get approximately 5,000 calls a year from women seeking shelter because they are escaping DV. We have to turn away 85% of these women due to a lack of space. There are 6 other shelters in my city, and they all have about the same rates.

In my time at the shelter, I have never received a call from a man seeking help. My coworkers have received calls from men seeking help -- but sadly, all but a very few turned out to be "sex calls" (quite frankly, probably one of the most disturbing "fetishes" or "perversions" I have ever witnessed). But I cannot say that our shelter, or the other shelters in the area do not receive legitimate calls for help from men. We cannot provide help for them, but we try to put them in contact with a number of agencies in the area that work with men.

A shelter designed to house women simply cannot also house men. These shelters are supposed to be safe places -- and sheltering a man in there would be problematic for 2 reasons:

• the mere presence of a man living in such close quarters to women in crisis makes it feel much less safe. That may be hurtful for men in crisis to hear, but it's a fact.
  


• These shelters are confidential. Abusers often try everything they can to find out the location of the shelter. In the few cases where a shelter has taken in men, there have been instances where it turned out that the man was actually an abuser, simply trying to track down his victim. It's simply not a safe thing to do.
  

Now, some shelters have enough funding where they can provide temporary hotel vouchers for men fleeing domestic violence, thereby helping the man without risking the safety of the women in shelter. Many shelters have begun to do this. At this point, the shelter I work for cannot do this -- keep in mind, though, we cannot offer hotel vouchers for women, either. We simply do not have the funding.

Along with the argument that we are "sexist" for not taking men into our shelters, it has also often been argued that NOW and/or other feminist organizations have tried to block funding for research or for shelters for men. This is an out and out lie. Many have blocked (or attempted to block) forcing women's shelters that are already in existence to start accepting men, or to turn one or more of them into a shelter exclusively for men. And hell yeah, they're going to this. When 85% of women seeking shelter are being turned away, the last thing in the world we need to be doing is diminishing the limited resources we already have.

Neither NOW nor any other feminist group has tried blocking men from starting their own shelters. They have fought losing their funding for this cause, but have not -- EVER -- fought men from getting their own funding.

And here's the important part -- one of the reasons that men's shelters have not been successful (in addition to the fact that so many men's rights activists would rather bitch and moan than actually do anything, and would rather take away from women than actually do anything for themselves) is that men simply don't seek out the help. Part of this is because fewer men actually need this sort of help. Even if one was to accept the 30% rate of abused men (that I have seen argued by men's rights activists; although, I've yet to see the proof for this number), not all of those men need shelter; therefore it is not correct that 30% of the shelters should be for men. The vast majority of abused men are abused by men (that is, they are gay men who are being abused by their male partners). The majority of these men do not have children. That, in itself, lessens the barriers to leaving (although does not eliminate them), and therefore lessens the need for shelter. Also, these men tend to have more financial security, and are therefore in less need of shelter.

The other part is that abused men are simply not as likely to seek shelter -- perhaps out of shame. I'm not saying, in any way, that this is OK. Certainly, something should be done about it. But the fact remains, it's harder to get funding for something that is simply not used as often.

Men's rights groups -- if they were really interested in helping abused men -- would do better to actually get off their complaining asses and start doing something. Do some outreach to abused men. Start more programs addressing abuse of men (without taking the hard-earned resources from women). Start their own shelters (want some hints on doing so? -- look at the damned hard work of the feminists who started women's shelters in the 70s and 80s, feminists who didn't have public support or public funding, but did it anyway). And most important of all -- work with men who are doing the abusing. Because regardless of the gender of the abused, the vast, vast majority of abusers are men.

DV and the Single Girl

Over the last 4 decades, feminists have made significant strides in getting society to realize and acknowledge the devestating effects of domestic violence. By 1983, 10 states recognized domestic violence as a criminal offense. Also by the early 1980s, 29 states began appropriating funds for services to survivors of domestic violence. By 1987 there were approximately 1000 domestic violence shelters opened across the country. In 1994, we won the hard-fought battle for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the first federal law to address the issue of domestic violence by providing funds for shelters, a national domestic violence hotline, rape education and prevention programs, training for federal and state judges, and new remedies for battered immigrants. In 2000, VAWA was expanded to include dating violence.

All of this is, of course, great. It shows that while we still have a long way to go in the battle against domestic violence (and abusers), we are making significant progress. But not all of these changes over the past few years have been for the better. The VAWA budget is currently before Congress, with both the House and the Senate proposing budgets that fall over $100 million short of the 2000 authorization [.pdf file].

One of the biggest shifts in domestic violence policy came about with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, HR 3734, also known as Welfare Reform -- or, as I prefer, the more accurately descriptive term, Welfare Deform). Prior to PRWORA, victims of domestic violence could receive financial aid through the Emergency Assistance (EA) Program, which provided up to $1,200 to be used for housing and/or moving expenses in order get away from an abuser and was a program independent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or General Assistance (GA -- the public welfare program that provided cash assistance to poor individuals without children). In other words, EA was not considered "welfare." After PRWORA, GA was effectively dismantled (only allowing those adults with long-term disabilities to collect aid) the Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) became Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) which included new formulas for work incentives and time limits. Funds for domestic violence victims became part of the TANF program, now known as Temporary Assistance to Domestic Violence Survivors (TA-DVS) rather than the EA program. This means that only those women who qualify for TANF can qualify for TA-DVS (also known as the "domestic violence grant").

In many ways, the switch from the EA program to TA-DVS required few changes. Recipients still receive up to $1200 to be used to ensure safety. For those who are not familiar with the DV grant, the following is the description of "program benefits" as defined by Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS):

TA-DVS benefits will pay the minimum needed to stay safe, up to $1,200 maximum, for families fleeing abuse or to assist families in remaining free from abuse.

Benefits are used to pay for safety-related needs, such as:

• Payments for housing-related costs (rent, move-in costs, mortgage payments, utilities)
  
• Payments related to setting up a household (furniture, household items, etc.)
  
• Payments to increase safety (locks, post office box, etc.)
  
• Payments to replace personal items left behind when fleeing abuse, if not available from other sources (clothing, etc.)
  
• Other payments related to safety-focused case plan.

Note: benefits are generally paid directly to the landlord or service provider.

Payments can be made for child care, transportation, etc. to support completion of this case plan.

The program will remain open for 90 days to allow time for domestic violence survivors to stabilize their living situation and to address immediate safety concrs. Payments (up to $1,200 maximum) may be made at any time during these 90 days. In addition, domestic violence victims may access this program more than once per year if needed for safety.

While the general guidelines for qualifying for TA-DVS (in addition to being a DV survivor) are the same as the guidelines for qualifying for TANF, some elegibility requirements can be waived on a case-by-case basis. For example, some income may not be counted (for example, if the abuser has exclusive control over all finances). In addition, if the elibility requirement puts a person at risk of harm by domestic violence, those requirements will be waived (for example, the requirement to obtain a child support order or citizenship requirements for battered immigrant women).

But the one requirement that will NEVER be waived is the requirement that the beneficiary be pregnant or have dependent children in their custody. Unlike the former EA program, single women* are entirely ineligible for TA-DVS, regardless of their situation. And there is no other program out there that provides financial assistance for these women.** On top of this, getting safe housing can be a major obstacle for single women. Because they are viewed as less of a priority for social housing than women with children, they are less liely to be re-housed by local housing authorities. In addition, most domestic violence shelters provide mostly for families. Very few shelters have more than 1 or 2 spaces available for single women. (The shelter I currently work has space for up to 6 single women, by far the most space available in the state -- and that is divided between 2 facilities.) The majority of homeless shelters take only families. Of the few that take singles, they are often co-ed and can be as dangerous for women as living on the street.

Over the past few years, we have seen a number of programs for single women eliminated, while programs designed to promote and encourage marriage and motherhood are cropping up everywhere. Women who do not go this route, whether by choice, by chance, or simply because they have grown older are being pushed out to the margins more and more. Certainly helping children is of utmost importance. But it is imperitive that we do not make women invisible in the process.

While programs for domestic violence victims were orginally designed to help women (and by extension, their children, if they had any) escape and recover from domestic violence, examination of more current policies shows that these programs are designed to provide services primarily for children and only secondarily for mothers of those children.*** Under the current programs, single women who are survivors of domestic violence have become invisible, and this invisibility is producing dire consequences for these victimized women.

---

[NOTE: I would like to thank my coworker, C, for the research and work she has done on this issue, much of which I used in this post.]

*For the purposes of this post, the term "single woman" refers to women without dependent children (i.e. women who have never had children, women who do not have sole custody of their children, and women who have grown children).

**Much of what is discussed in this post refers to Oregon. These programs vary from state to state. For example, New York has established a form of Safety Net Assistance (funded through state and local sources) that provides emergency assistance to people who do not qualify for TANF, including benefits identical to TA-DVS. On the flip side, there are states that offer
far fewer benefits than Oregon, even to mothers.

***Since this is a post about single women, I haven't bothered to discuss the problems of even mothers of children obtaining the DV grant. But I should make a note that this can still be a difficult process. Some DHS workers refuse to acknowledge the economic abuse that exists in some families, thereby refusing to acknowledge that a woman may not have actual access to family money. In addition, there are far too many DHS workers who use the lame-ass excuse "well, you're in a safe place now, so you don't need the grant" when talking to women who are in a temporary shelter.

Privilege

A question in a different thread made me think of this, so I figured I'd just post it here for all to read.

Privilege

by D.A. Clarke

privilege is simple:
going for a pleasant stroll after dark,
not checking the back of your car as you get in, sleeping soundly,
speaking without interruption, and not remembering
dreams of rape, that follow you all day, that woke you crying, and
privilege
is not seeing your stripped, humiliated body
plastered in celebration across every magazine rack, privilege
is going to the movies and not seeing yourself
terrorized, defamed, battered, butchered
seeing something else

privilege is
riding your bicycle across town without being screamed at or
run off the road, not needing an abortion, taking off your shirt
on a hot day, in a crowd, not wishing you could type better
just in case, not shaving your legs, having a decent job and
expecting to keep it, not feeling the boss's hand up your crotch,
dozing off on late-night busses, privilege
is being the hero in the TV show not the dumb broad,
living where your genitals are totemized not denied,
knowing your doctor won't rape you

privilege is being
smiled at all day by nice helpful women, it is
the way you pass judgment on their appearance with magisterial authority,
the way you face a judge of your own sex in court and
are over-represented in Congress and are not strip searched for a traffic ticket
or used as a dart board by your friendly mechanic, privilege
is seeing your bearded face reflected through the history texts
not only of your high school days but all your life, not being
relegated to a paragraph
every other chapter, the way you occupy
entire volumes of poetry and more than your share of the couch unchallenged,
it is your mouthing smug, atrocious insults at women
who blink and change the subject -- politely -- privilege
is how seldom the rapist's name appears in the papers
and the way you smirk over your PLAYBOY

it's simple really, privilege
means someone else's pain, your wealth
is my terror, your uniform
is a woman raped to death here, or in Cambodia or wherever
wherever your obscene privilege
writes your name in my blood, it's that simple,
you've always had it, that's why it doesn't
seem to make you sick to your stomach,
you have it, we pay for it, now
do you understand

Choices or Otherwise...Why Does It Matter?

Ironically, I've already written about my thoughts on the "choice" of being gay -- back in the spring of 2003 (you'll have to scroll down to the post titled, "Random Thoughts").

Perhaps one of the more pertinent quotes from that long-ago post (IMHO) is from feminist humorist (aka fumorist) extraordinaire, Kate Clinton:

"So what if a gene or a gland causes gayness? Would that make the coming-out-to-parents conversation a health report? 'Mom, Dad, I've got the gay gene.' Would protest signs that say 'we're here, we're queer, get used to it' become apologies - 'we've got the gay gene, we couldn't be more sorry' or 'I wish my hypothalamus were bigger'?"

Is being gay a choice? I guess that's going to depend on individuals and exactly what is meant by "choice." But in the end -- why should it matter? Should the woman who makes a concious decision to become a "political lesbian" be deemed more worthy of discrimination than the girl who "knew she was a lesbian" at the age of 5? Should the bi-sexual who "chooses" to fall in love with another woman be less worthy of protection from discrimination than the bi-sexual who "chooses" to fall in love with a man?

In the end, we may never know if there is some sort of "gay gene" -- and even if there is, there will still be people who may "choose" to live a "straight" lifestyle even with the "gay gene," and those who may "choose" to live a "gay" lifestyle even without the "gay gene." It really doesn't matter.

The same goes for fat people. There are, without a doubt, some people who are fat because of a genetic predisposition to being fat. There are some who are fat because they eat too much. There are some who are fat because they've "dieted" their way up to their current weight (oh yes, they do exist). There are extremely unhealthy fat people and there are extremely healthy fat people -- and you cannot tell just by looking at the person which one s/he is.

As Elkins said earlier:

There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to take better care of their health, but I don't think that's really what anti-fat discrimination is all about. It is an appearance-based prejudice, and it has far more to do with fat itself than it does with "health."

The fact is, when you look at a fat person, you have no way of knowing if that person is healthy or not. Similarly, you have no way of knowing whether a random thin person is healthy or not.

When you see a fat person in McDonalds, you have no way of knowing whether that is the first time s/he has eaten at McDonalds in a year, or whether s/he eats there every day. Same with the thin person who is next in line.

When you see a fat person walking down the street, you have no idea how much they eat or how much they excercise. For all you know, they may have just lost over half their body weight over the course of the previous several years. Maybe they do weigh 250 lbs., but maybe 3 years ago they weighed 500 lbs.

When you see a person -- fat or thin -- you have no idea what their blood pressure or cholesterol level is.

If it's really about a concern over "health" -- shouldn't the emphasis be on whether that person is eating a healthy diet and getting enough excercise; whether their blood pressure is through the roof or at a healthy range? There is absolutely NO WAY to know this by looking at the person.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about the 145 lb. athlete who eats nothing but saturated fat and simple carbs and has a cholesterol level of 300 than the 300 lb. person who eats balanced meals, excercises regularly, has a cholesterol level of 100 and a blood pressure of 100 over 80?

Of course, in the end, you can advocate a healthy lifestyle as much as you want -- but it still doesn't matter. It's not your health or your life.