21 December 2013
Yes, this is going to be one of those postings where I again provide an in-your-face view of hot-button issues. First my demographic disclosure: I am male, Caucasian, and heterosexual. I have no plans to change any of those. Typically I don't disclose my sexual preference as I feel that is no one's business but here I feel it may be a relevant feature. Second thing I have to say is that I intend to provide an objective analysis but it will be upon you to determine if it is presented in an objective manner. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
So a chickie calls me earlier today and says she and her sisters are going out dancing tonight and she wants me to come along. I am always up for a night out with a pack of vixens so 'take me I'm yours' prevails over prior plans. Then I get the call that some of the gals want it to be a “girls' night” and I am now uninvited. Apologies and rationalizations abound but it's unnecessary. Were apologies offered to these two young men in Marion, Indiana before they were lynched?
Let me just jump in with race since I have strong associations with that in my past. It was back in high school that I first became very perceptive of the race game and people's prejudices. Being an activist type person I took a stand opposing racism and sexism and spoke out. I was invited to and attended various meetings of groups to which I apply the blanket term “civil rights organization.” I soon learned that there is no better way to alienate yourself from a room of people than to say that you want to end discrimination against everyone – including white males – not just against their particular demographic group. One sector of the broader civil rights sphere actively courted me. That was the collective “skinheads”. They were very open to someone who advocated for eliminating discriminatory practices against whites. Unfortunately as I got wrapped up in that I lost focus of the broader objective – eliminating government sponsored discrimination. I soon was an advocate of civil rights, but only for my demographic. Sound familiar?
In a magazine article about me the writer interviewed an administrator from my high school who was bewildered by my skinhead activism as I had so many black friends. Always have and still do. In one incident I was out with the skins and the counter server at an establishment was black. One of the skins asked for a white server and the young black man promptly complied. I said to that skin, “You are %$#@!& up. That white dude could be filthy.” But I will always advocate for someone to have the right to chose who serves him or who he associates with regardless of how illogical it may seem to me. Likewise, my party has been the only white guys in a club on 87th Street in Chicago – a predominately black area – where if I wasn't welcomed because of my race I would fully support the proprietors of that private establishment banishing me. There are places like that where you will be let known by inference that you are not welcome.
Whether it is that social setting or an activist organization there is, at best, only an implicit discrimination. The purveyors of this may have a perfectly logical reason for this. Often times foods, music, language, religion and other customs are particular to racial or ethnic cultures. So does it seem logical that there should be an establishment that caters only to them so they can feel completely at ease, almost as being at home – not on display, not a curiosity? Likewise it seems logical that they have organizations that know the subtleties of discrimination against their demographic advocating for non-discrimination policies.
Way back when during my youthful days I got to see the power of using race first hand. When I was in prison I was naturally thrust into the position of leading that institutions loosely assembled Aryan Brotherhood. As a general principle in prisons inmates are not to assemble in groups in the yard. Whenever I was seen in the yard meeting with the hierarchy of another racial group I got yanked in for an interrogation. Racial groups in prison not fighting each other is the security threat. The government wants racial groups to fight each other. This produces demands for the government to take action. This means deny liberty as government cannot provide freedom.
Just as in the racial realm gender politics is based upon maintaining discriminatory practices. While advocates purport to seek an end to discrimination, again, the reality is exactly the opposite. No where have I seen this more clearly expressed than in the area of Domestic Violence. Discriminatory practices are blatant, especially at the government level – The Violence Against Women Act. Of course this is clearly consistent with the principle upon which the United States declared its independence, that all men are created equal. There the term “men” had to be carefully defined though as to avoid including anyone the Founders didn't wish to have similar freedoms bestowed upon as those they declared for themselves. I have said it before that these gender-based advocates are the most insidious. They actually choose to have have children killed to advance their agenda. The agenda by it's very nature is not to end violence but to increase violence by one demographic while at the same time encouraging, de facto, violence against that demographic.
A common interest among the varying advocates and organizations, be it those associated with race and gender issues, medical research, crime prevention and child wellness is their survival. If the stated objective of any were to be achieved then their purpose for existence would cease to exist. This internal conflict is what leads them to perpetuate rather than solve the problem. It is inconsistent for the subconscious to seek to end that on which it survives.
Contrary to the assertions by the conspiracy theorists I counter that there is no grand plan to perpetuate any of these social or bodily ills. Rather, there is no intrinsic incentive to not do so. That is, there is a great financial payoff for the effort to combat the ill but none once victory is achieved. The victory, in effect, threatens their survival.
Thus, people adapt behaviours that ensure their survival. When men going through child custody battles were overwhelmingly losing based on little more than maternal preference they organized into “men's rights groups” as a way to combat gender discrimination. That new found power and the resulting legal victories led to mother's fighting back with the Domestic Violence claim. The gender stereotyping of that issue intentionally left men without legal recourse while being abused. A law enforcement officer, by inference, told me that when my wife was abusing me to hit her back. My options were leave or defend myself. As another officer said, “No judge in Boone County is going to issue [a DVPO] against a woman.” Logic then tells us that providing only those two options is going to perpetuate violence not reduce it. Perpetuating social ills through demographic based power difference is a basic principle that I have long realized. This is why I have avoided the aforementioned “men's rights groups” as their existence generally promotes discrimination against men. It is my steadfast adherence to gender neutrality that has evoked extreme vitriol by women's groups as well as being shunned by men's groups.
So this brings me back around to the “girls' night out” and how it promotes sexism and racism. The rationalization is that they can be girls without the imposition of a male presence. This is the same rationalization used by female only health clubs. However, straight arrow as I am sexually, I like wearing my clothes designed for women, tending to babies, talking about feelings, having silky smooth shaved legs – that the girls do like – and doing typically girls' activities while avoiding the male culture beer drinking sports scene.
While this “girls' night out” may seem innocuous enough a deeper understanding of the long history of race and gender politics in America reveals the true harm. It explicitly states that discrimination – based on birth traits -- is acceptable, but only because it is rational. That is, it is based upon behaviours common to, but not exclusive to, women or men. People who share traits of both are what Bem called “androgynous.” Recall that earlier I spoke about cultures. In larger cities there has generally existed a China Town section that caters specifically to the needs of the southeast Asian culture. That seems quite rational. It is convenient. It is efficient. Likewise a community of only white American Christians would be convenient and efficient. Everyone would say Merry Christmas in English without concern for offending anyone. Stores would only stock religion specific greeting cards for Christians and have no need to stock hair care products for African-Americans. Grocery stores wouldn't stock ethnic foods. Employers would not have to go through that bothersome and expensive cultural sensitivity training. All language usage would be in English.
If you are thinking that there is a big difference between some women getting together for a night out and a group of people establishing a community based upon race and religion I contend otherwise. There is no drawing a line of distinction between these. The discrimination against me as a man is based upon presumed norms, values or techniques that may seem odd, irrational or even inferior to the prejudiced woman. Those are the same criteria used by xenophobes to discriminate based upon race. Either an action acknowledges the characteristics of a person individually or is based upon an extrinsic trait – gender, age, race – or class membership such as religion.
Everything I heard about why I was uninvited out this evening presupposed me. I was discriminated against solely because of my gender based upon someone's ethnocentric view of me. I was not given the respect of being a person but was instead seen only as a manifestation of a class – men. I have been “out with the girls” numerous times since high school and fit right in. Sometimes so well that I was told that my presence was appreciated more than some other particular female. But tonight there can be no such acknowledgment. I am already judged – judged not good enough.
What this woman may have missed is that her discrimination against me, her prejudice, her rationalization is the exact formula for institutional racism. If she wants to be that way, I have no problem with it. I support her right to be bigoted. I just don't want her or anyone else to deny it. More tragic though it appears that she is going to poison the mind's of her children just because she recently got divorced and the guy she was dating told her today that he wants no further contact with her.
Now back to my original plan of studying “Sociology: Your compass for a new world” so I can be more knowledgeable while pursuing gender-neutral laws and policies for the State of Indiana.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Yes, this is going to be one of those postings where I again provide an in-your-face view of hot-button issues. First my demographic disclosure: I am male, Caucasian, and heterosexual. I have no plans to change any of those. Typically I don't disclose my sexual preference as I feel that is no one's business but here I feel it may be a relevant feature. Second thing I have to say is that I intend to provide an objective analysis but it will be upon you to determine if it is presented in an objective manner.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Make a suggestion for me to write about.