Sterling, Castile, Dallas, BLM

I've gone back and forth over the last few days on whether or not to write anything about the killing of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and the officers in Dallas. I've addressed Black Lives Matter before (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 if you're interested) and I still feel the same way: the movement is righteous and we need to continue to assert that black people matter. I don't have anything very eloquent to say, but I decided I'd jot down a few random thoughts, especially since my audience is largely white. And lately there seem to be a lot of Confused and Angry White People. 

The Dallas shooting was horrific and tragic. I am heartbroken for the officers (and protesters) who were shot and for their families. I have no reason to believe they weren't good people. 

If you think less of Black Lives Matter after the Dallas shooting, you're wrong. The movement has spoken against the violence, they did not sanction or plan it, and they value all life. And even if those things weren't true... 

Black lives would still matter. No matter what happened or happens, regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about tactics, you should still know and understand and state that "black lives matter." Because for the past 300 years and even today, the law does not value or protect black lives. The first step in rectifying this problem is to acknowledge it and address it. 

It is possible to grieve for the officers and still argue that we need to radically change how policing is done in this country. 

It is possible to dislike, to hate violence but to understand how it happens. I personally wouldn't want to engage in violent actions* (unless it's in self defense or to actively defend someone else), but I also don't know what it is like to be a target of state violence. I can choose to not be violent and also not denounce an entire movement because there are some folks who think violence is the best tactic. 

Pick a method of resistance that suits your strengths and find out how you can help the larger movement.

You can understand how a person(people) is angry without wanting to justify violence born of that anger. Part of being a semi-intelligent adult with complex emotions is understanding something even when you don't particularly like it. It is entirely possible (maybe necessary?) to wish those officers were alive and that the shooting in Dallas never happened but to also understand the rage behind it. Shooting unsuspecting police officers cannot be justified in my mind. But the rage? The rage is justifiable. 

If you are sad about Dallas but didn't mourn over the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, check your priorities. 

If you think the use of war tactics and materials are necessary after the slaughtering of those officers, but didn't think protesting was necessary after the slaughtering of the 565th and 566th people killed by police this year, check your priorities.

If you were outraged at the killings of Cecil the Lion and Harambe the Gorilla but not at the killings of black men by people who were sworn to protect them, just unfriend/unfollow me. Find Jesus. (So, like, half the people I went to hs with.)

I'm angry at the killing of those police officers. I'm angry that black people continue to be unjustly targeted and killed by police. Get it through your head that you can be both. 

Get it through your head that racism is real. 

Get it through your head that not all cops are good. 

Get it through your head that change is hard but necessary. 

Stop saying "all lives matter." It's defensive, it's detracting, and it's bad logic. If I say "cheeseburgers are great" it in no way means "hamburgers are awful." A hamburger can be perfectly lovely with the right condiments.

And, the most important thing: listen to black people. LISTEN TO BLACK PEOPLE. Stop denying statistics and stop denying their very experience.    

(Also: It is not okay to kill suspects with robot bombs.)

I've been praying for Alton and Philando, and for Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarripa, Michael Krol, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Smith, and everyone else affected. But we need to do more than pray. If you're white and you've been silent so far, I'd urge you to get involved. I believe there will be a day when things like this no longer happen. 

*I don't support violence against people. Property, however? Fuck property. People>property. At this point I am all for breaking windows. Before you think I'm a loon, I'll ask you your thoughts on the men behind the Boston Tea Party. If you see them as heroes, then don't tell black people or white allies not to cause chaos. If ruining property is the way to make the state care about people, then that's what'll happen. Don't blame the protesters, blame the state which continues to undervalue human life. They/we are trying to make changes via peaceful protesting. If that doesn't work, then overboard with the tea, as it were.  

Charlotte 

Steinem and Albright on Young Women for Bernie: White Feminism in America

Many people, young women especially, are upset with Gloria Steinem. Rightfully so.

In an interview with Bill Maher, Steinem was asked why younger women favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. She responded, "When you're young you're thinking, 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.' "

To which I say:

Steinem is not the first white feminist icon to shame young women for supporting Bernie Sanders. Madeleine Albright has chimed in as well, suggesting that young women are misguided. Steinem and Albright are part of a growing group of older women invoking the idea of completion, of victory, of an end to the feminist revolution. As Alan Rappeport notes in the New York Times, Clinton herself has started "reminding voters that her election would signal the end of a long road for women." 

If you listen carefully, you can hear the echos of people in the days following Michael Brown's death: We have a black president, racism is over! 

Rather than flocking to Clinton, young women are rooting for Sanders not because we want to "find boys," but because we're not foolish or privileged enough to believe that a woman in the white house will finally mean equality. 

The problem is an old one: mainstream feminism in America is, like all things, whitewashed. In fact, it's not just "colorblind," but impervious to class struggle as well. It's easy to think that a woman in the white house would be the End. The end to a long and difficult struggle, the end to women being deemed less than. I wish it were the case. But's it's not. A black president didn't end racism in America and a female one won't end sexism and misogyny. 

I support Sanders for a multitude of reasons. And I believe that his policies will help more kinds of women. If capitalism falls, I have no doubt that we'll see every other racist and sexist institution in this country start to crumble.

Capitalism is a massive evil that thrives off of human suffering. When a country's economic system is focused entirely on making as much profit as possible, the following things are necessary:

a low minimum wage
few regulations (workplace and environmental)
a strong, large military
militarized police

All of those things lead to these things:

mass poverty
poor schools
dangerous workplaces
environmental disasters
environmental degradation
war
dead teenagers
high prison population
unfair imprisonment

...and much more. One of the questions I ask myself when deciding who to vote for (or whether or not I should vote) is, "What does this person's policies mean for women?" It's not my only concern, but it's a big one. To be honest, Bernie Sanders isn't radical enough. But he's a vocal critic of capitalism. And an end to capitalism would have an incredible impact on the lives of women everywhere:

More choice when it comes to education and work (because right now, a lot of us have to really wonder if it's worth it to get in debt knowing we might spend months or years out of work - less college debt would make that choice easier)

Ability to work (higher wages mean better ability to afford daycare)

Ability to stay at home (higher wages mean a family can survive on one income)

Better healthcare

Less violence (violence against women is a problem in every class and race, but I can't help but wonder if less dire economic struggle will lead to less violent crime in areas that are currently riddled with it)

Less grieving -

Women lose their kids every day under capitalism. Capitalism doesn't see war as a last resort, it sees it as a way to make money via weapons manufacturing and exploitation of weaker countries. If we no longer see through the lens of capitalism, I think we'll see less war. For women that means a. less dead or injured female soldiers and b. less grieving mothers and wives. I am not a pacifist; I believe war is necessary in some cases. However, America starts wars left and right for economic reasons and every time we do that we make more mothers of dead children. We make more widows. Sanders isn't going to magically end all wars, but a challenge to capitalism might strike a blow to the military industrial complex and I am all for that.

War isn't the only way capitalism robs mothers of their children. Our police force has been militarized and our prisons are made to create profit. Both of these issues are problems for all of us, but especially for people of color. I've listened to black women say they're scared to have children. They're scared to have children that will be shot by police. They're scared to have children that will be shipped off to jail for smoking pot - the same offense that leaves many white children with probation. When we cease to have a system that operates with the primary purpose of making money, maybe some of the problems with our justice system will end. I don't imagine for an instant that the election of Bernie Sanders - or even a complete end to capitalism - will make racism disappear. But I do think radical economic changes would eliminate some of the more egregious symptoms of racism in our country. Maybe there will be less dead black boys. If there's even the tiniest hope of that, then you're damn straight I'm going to vote for the person I think can make it happen.

Of course, there are a million more ways that all women can benefit from the changes Bernie Sanders hopes to make. These are just the ones that weigh most heavily on my heart.

And in case you don't ask yourself how a candidate's policies will help women, there are other reasons to vote for Sanders too:

he's better on the environment
his foreign policy (or what it could be if he articulated it better) is more in line with my beliefs
he's better on immigration
he's better on racial issues

My point is that there are a thousand valid reasons any young woman might be supporting Bernie Sanders. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are betraying the very people they've claimed to fight for all these years. No, we won't go to hell for not supporting Hillary Clinton. No, we're not voting for Bernie Sanders in the hope to find our husbands. To suggest that young women are naive or that we're making decisions haphazardly is ageist and hypocritical. Bill Maher was right - if he had suggested women are voting for Sanders simply because "that's where the boys are," there'd be hell to pay. I wonder if it's almost worse, though, that women who are known the world over as feminist icons have made these comments. Don't patronize me, Gloria Steinem. I'm not supporting Sanders to impress my man crush; I'm supporting Bernie Sanders because he is, by far, the best candidate for the job.
__
Charlotte

Sex With Just One Person... For the Rest of Your Life

Sometimes I'll read a blog post that's really open and honest and that addresses a topic that's awkward or uncomfortable that I'd be too timid to write about, and I'll think, "I wish I wasn't too timid to be that open and honest and address topics that are awkward or uncomfortable." 

And recently I decided that, uh, nothing is stopping me from doing that. Besides, Liz is basically my whole readership and there's very little I could write about that she doesn't already know.

One such "awkward and uncomfortable" topic that's been swirling around my head for a hot minute? Sex. The reason? I follow a lot of pages aimed at millennials; sex-positive article appears in my newsfeed at least once a day. I also follow a lot of Catholic pages; an article about abstaining until marriage appears in my newsfeed at least once a day. I usually find something misguiding or problematic in both kinds of posts. Two days ago, and this was really the driving factor in deciding to write this post, I read an article that said, "You have to have sex with a lot of people while you're young. You'll get invaluable experience and really learn about your body."

Let me tell you what. You have to have sex with exactly as many or as few people as you want. You do not have to have sex with a lot of people to learn about your body. (Conversely, you do not have to have sex with no people to stay a good and responsible person.)

The article I mentioned probably contained the most straightforward language, but the sentiment it expressed is often found in sex positive articles, and I think it's problematic. And those Catholic articles I've read? They've got good stuff in them just like the sex-positive posts. ...But often, they're aimed at women and only women. Why are only female bodies temples that ought to be protected? Why is virginity a gift to give to your husband? WHY CAN'T WIVES BE GIFTED VIRGINITY, HUH? In all fairness, there are quite a few Catholic bloggers I follow who aren't sexist - self described "hipster Catholics" who dole out Christian sex ethics to both men and women, and who aren't all about that shaming game. I can dig that. 

Now obviously, one person can only have one perspective, and sex is a personal matter. I can only offer my thoughts on this (though if you want to write a post about your thoughts and experiences, do let me know - I'm all for guest posts [subtle hints to Dana and Liz re: Books to Read With Friends posts] and I'd be happy to share it here). 

Personally, I am in the latter camp - sex with one person and just one person is where it's at. I have nothing against people who have had multiple partners or who don't wait for marriage. I'm saying it's what I want. I remember my friend and I sitting at a red light while we were in high school. We were talking about sex and I believe it was our senior year, so we were both about to go to college, which obviously - hotbed of immorality. ;) Somehow our conversation turned to numbers. How many people will you let yourself sleep with? (Yes, I know it's an arbitrary bs thing, but we were 17 so whatever.) I said something along the lines of, "I really only want to sleep with my husband, but I usually fall short of my goals, so I'll give myself 3." And my friend said, "30." Approximately twenty seconds later she sighed and let out, "Dammit, I've limited myself to so few!" And we laughed and moved on to better conversation.   

Funnily enough, my reasoning has nothing to do with religion. I've always been Catholic but I didn't start practicing until I was around 22 (I still am a total novice, too). Before religion was an active part of my life, I decided I didn't want to have many sexual partners. Now that I actually know the Church's teaching on sex, yes, I mostly agree with it. But my original thought process has nothing to do with God or creation, it just has to do with... romance. 

I know, I know. 

But here's the thing. I really, really like the idea of my husband being the closest person to me. There's an emotional closeness between life partners that is different from the closeness between friends. I imagine my husband will be the person I am emotionally closest to throughout my life. I'd like it if he were the person I am physically closest to as well. For me, the idea of one person - the person who I'll build a life with - being the only person I've ever reached maximum emotional and physical closeness with is perfect. I know the phrase "making love" solicits eye rolls and fake gagging, but having sex is being physically closest to the person I'm emotionally closest to, and I think that's terribly romantic.

Of course, there's no guarantee I'll get married, in which case I will have wasted a perfectly good vagina. But let's not think of such calamitous things.

I know sex with one person FOREVA is not for everyone. I get that. But people make it as though it's insane or oppressive to only have sex with one person. That's your choice. There are as many ways to be sex-positive as there are people, and this is just my way. I have friends who have had multiple partners - some have loved it, some have regretted it. I have friends who waited until they were a certain age or until they thought they were in love - some loved it, some regretted it. It's different for everyone.

My personal experience of waiting? Eh. 

For one, my friends. They're simultaneously the most supportive and the most annoying about my decision. They all tell me it's great that I know what I want, yada yada, but.. they can unknowingly be patronizing as well. I've been told I'm adorable for waiting. I don't get mad at reactions like that, but I do get a little internal eye rolling going on. Many have also suggested that I'll change my mind once I'm in a relationship. Maybe, but maybe not. Probably not, actually. I haven't been in any serious relationships, but that doesn't mean I haven't been in situations where I've wanted to have sex. Hello, college. I've come close to having sex. I think there's an assumption among my sexually active friends that if you haven't had sex, you don't get tempted. It can be frustrating when my friends act as though I'm just totally oblivious to sexual desire. It is not easy waiting to have sex. I imagine it'll be ten times more difficult when I'm in a serious relationship. 

Probably the most anxiety-inducing part about having sex with only one person is the thought of how guys will respond to that. I know that it's possible I'll really like a guy, maybe even see a future with him, but that things won't work out because he wants to have sex. I have two guy friends that know I don't have sex (and, um, I guess more now that I've posted this) and they don't think it's bad or weird, but they're also not romantically interested in me, so.. it's different. I'd be lying if I said I don't sometimes wonder if I'm getting to a point where the men my age are not going to be interested in waiting until marriage. We'll see, I guess. 

Another really crappy thing is that society at large acts as though not having sex means you're not an adult. I had a friend literally tell me I wasn't really an adult because I haven't had sex. Mother effer, I've been through more in my life than most 40 year olds I know. I am definitely an adult. I am mature, I am responsible (mostly), I am 24 years old, and I certainly have adult bills. I'd like it if this friend tried telling some 60 year old nun or priest s/he wasn't an adult.

I do get a lot of questions from my sexually active friends. Probably the most frequently asked question is if I'm going to teach my kids that they should only have sex within marriage. Which... I'm like years and years away from dealing with that, but can I give it a tentative yes? I haven't planned it out, and obviously my future hypothetical kids will also have a father and this would fall under the umbrella of things parents decide together. I guess my best answer is that I'd teach my kids that I believe sex is best when it's with someone you love (which happens to be what most of my friends have told me). I'd want them to be sex-positive and to know that I'm going to love them whether they wait for marriage or not. I don't know! I get that my friends are curios, but this is a weird question to think about since it's not even close to being a real situation for me yet. 

The second thing almost all of my friends have asked is if I'd marry someone who has had sex. While of course I've already laid out my feelings on the romance of one person, the answer is yes, I would marry someone who has had sex. I don't think I'd be comfortable dating someone who has a completely opposite idea of sex from my own idea, though. I have friends who think sex is just some great fun thing to do for pleasure, and nothing more. That's fine! But I'm not going to marry or build a life with my friends, so there are certain differences that truly don't matter. It's a little different, I think, with a husband (or serious boyfriend). I don't need him to have never had sex, but I would prefer that we value sex similarly - both seeing it as something that's important. Does that make sense? 

As not fun as it is to try and wait, there are a few "add on bonuses" as I call them. Little advantages to only ever having sex within marriage. None of these things would make me decide to wait, but they're silver linings, I guess. Like, I don't have to worry about antibiotics screwing up my birth control! Also, unless future husband has something, I don't have to worry about catching things. I also have horrible luck - so you know how bc is deemed 99.9% effective? I wouldn't put it past myself to be the .1% that gets pregnant. I'm glad I don't have to worry about that (not that I don't want kids, but you know, I wouldn't be able to handle a baby right now). I have endometriosis so my period is irregular. If I was having sex I would always think I might be pregnant. It would be scare after scare and it wouldn't be good for my blood pressure. 

It aggravates me that society simultaneously acts as though people who wait to have sex until marriage are the pinnacle of morality (we're not, and I'm perfectly capable of being an asshole sometimes) while also mocking us for waiting. Neither of those things are right. When it comes down to it, people should do what they think is best for them. This is best for me. Even if I have to endure the occasional friend balking at me when I say a guy is sexy or, God forbid, I say I want to look sexy. Even with that. 

__

Charlotte  

Space Exploration Should be a Public Endeavor

I haven't been feeling well these last couple of days, so I've been spending a lot of time on Netflix. Since one of my goals for the year is to watch more documentaries, I pretty much immersed myself in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. I also made time for some Ted Talks: Space Trek, though. I've enjoyed both, but one of the Ted Talks irked me a bit. The man giving the talk, Bill Stone,* suggested that the private route is the best route for space exploration; that a business endeavor is more likely to advance in space travel and science, since there is competition. (I believe it was episode 3 on Netflix.)

Here's the thing, though. The competition might fuel discoveries and action (while the public programs move at a slower pace, because we give them no money). But when it's a private company, the motive behind that competition is often money. Profit. So as these discoveries are made - when we get to the moon again, when we build a fuel station that can help us achieve further travel - that motive (money) will manifest, probably in greed. 

I don't want space travel where money is the driving factor, the only thing that matters. Some of the private organizations pursuing the idea of space travel have already talked about hotels, about tourist flights, about mining. If private organizations lead the way into deep space, it won't be accessible to everyone. The people won't be put first. What do I see when I think of private companies taking the lead? I see projects with narrow vision. I see the buying and selling of resources that ought to be free for the public (I mean, it baffles me that water is not free on Earth). I see another playground reserved for the ultra rich (but some of us mere mortals could be shipped up there to do the work). I see public ideals being thrown away, and corporate greed taking over. This is, nearly always, the outcome of private endeavors. Corporations have already wreaked havoc across the globe; are we really going to let them ruin the galaxy for the rest of us, too? 

Don't get me wrong, great things can come from private work. I think Steve Jobs was brilliant. But the purpose of private industries is to specifically look for those things that will entertain consumers. When it comes to space travel and exploration, that's not enough. The purpose needs to be broad. It needs to look not just for what we want, but for what we don't know yet. Or what we can't even fathom yet. Much of what scientists find is stuff they weren't looking for in the first place. The benefit, other than knowledge itself, is that good things come from exploration. The amount of beneficial discoveries that are made entirely by accident is staggering... and it's less likely to happen if you're exploring through a narrow lens of "What Here Can Be Turned Into Profit?" 

Naturally, the episode immediately following was a talk from Brian Cox on the importance of public funding for science, and for what he called "curiosity-driven science." Perfect. You can view it on Netflix (it's episode 4) but you can also see/read it here. That's the difference. Curiosity-driven exploration can and will benefit the world and all of humanity. Profit-driven exploration is less likely to benefit all of us, as the nature of anything driven by profit is that there's a problematic supply-demand scheme. We need broader ideas. 

Even if there wasn't an intrinsic flaw in profit-driven anything, I don't trust corporations. I think I share that feeling with a large chunk of people. They deplete resources, treat people as disposable items, and follow a means to an end philosophy. And even if there's a benevolent rich person out there who really does want what's best for everyone... it's risky. What happens when that man dies and a conglomerate of money hungry board members take over decisions? Inevitable? Maybe not. Likely given the nature of capitalism? Yes.     

Space exploration is too big, too important for us to let fall into the hands of corrupt rich people. Greed and exploitation are natural (horrific) results of capitalism, and they have no place taking the lead on something as paramount as space exploration. 

"Pale blue dot." That's us. This is way too big to be driven by money.

(I acknowledge the fact that private companies exist. That doesn't mean they ought to be leading things of public interest. I'm not opposed to hearing about private partnerships, so long as public interest will be preserved.)

I'm not pretending I fully trust the world's governments. I certainly don't fully trust our own. (And woop - ours is basically a corporate cheerleader, all the more reason to revolt and/or implement publicly funded elections, hey.) But I do think there's a tad more accountability. And while I think it'd be ape-shit crazy to have, say, the pentagon lead it (last thing we need is an expansion of the military industrial complex...), I trust NASA's intentions. 

Stone was right that NASA and other government and public organizations aren't doing enough. But his suggestion of business ventures to get the process going is an ironic one, since the problem is that too many public dollars are given to private companies (through corporate subsidies and through contracts with weapon manufacturers). 

It seems that the proper solution is to just better fund science. Scientists - those at NASA, at universities, at centers across the world, are just as motivated as corporations. In fact I'd argue they're more driven, since the science itself is motivating them. They're passionate. Public organizations are more than capable of the job. It's not motivation or ability that public organizations lack, it's funding. Instead of fueling the privatization of space we should cut back on corporate subsidies and on defense, and maybe throw NASA another penny from every tax dollar collected.

When it comes down to it, space exploration should be a worldwide endeavor. It shouldn't be something done by a few for profit. Space travel has the potential to answer questions that people have been asking for thousands of years. It's got the potential to change history for all of humankind and for our planet. It's therefore only right that public institutions are the ones that lead the expeditions.    

Deep space travel isn't a business venture. It's an exploration by and for all of humanity. 

__

Charlotte

*Based on the talk, Stone seems like a good guy, and he's obviously very smart. I do think he's misguided on this one, though. Also I love that a man who explores caves has the last name "Stone."

The Right to Life and Family

This isn't a post on abortion, though I fall on the unpopular side of that debate. It's a post about how people want to have children, but can't. Or how people want to have children, but are too afraid. It's about how we, as a country, prioritize everything material and disposable over everything sacred and eternal. It's about a few of the ways we're tragically misguided. Specifically, it's about how gun violence, police brutality, and poverty are robbing people of their inherent right to life and family.
  

I've mentioned before that the idea of having kids in this country scares me because of the gun violence. I won't let the fear stop me from having kids, but it's infuriating. Parents have enough to worry about without mass shootings. I don't know if stripping everyone of their guns is the answer, but I do know that it's unacceptable to leave things as they are. People are more important than arsenals. It sickens me that there are people who refuse to just have a conversation about gun laws meanwhile lives are being taken every single day. It always hurts more when the victims are kids, but a 40 year old who is killed in a shooting is just as precious. He's someone's kid.

I guess I just have to wonder: to the people who refuse to talk about stricter gun laws, many of whom are parents - are you willing to let your kid be sacrificed? Because that's what it takes. Maybe it's not your kid today, but 10,000 kids are shot each year in the US, and many of them - about 8 a day - are killed. And that's just children. That doesn't count the 27 year old adult who is still someone's baby.

When I have kids I'm going to read stories to them, true and fictional. They'll read about Harry Potter and how he was Christlike by sacrificing his life for his friends. They'll read about Frodo and Sam accepting their seemingly inevitable death in a quest to end evil. They'll know the true stories of saints and martyrs across time who died for others, or who were killed for their beliefs. As a parent, I'll have to reconcile teaching my kids these virtues and hoping that a situation that puts them in such danger never arises.

I will not, however, willingly sacrifice my kids to the gun lobby, nor will I sacrifice other people's kids by refusing to talk about gun laws.

I believe we can all agree that we have a right to life. We also have a right to family - to create or foster life. Those are natural rights afforded to every single person. Natural! There is nothing "natural" about the right to tote a man-made weapon created solely for the purpose of inflicting harm on others. 

With every shooting, with every bogus NRA lobbying session, we're chipping away at someone's right to have a family. The world will never be completely safe, nor should it be. But there's a difference between natural danger and risk and a deathtrap. (Even I, while writing this, felt like "deathtrap" was an exaggeration, but there are bulletproof blankets and mats specifically made for schoolchildren to wear, so it's really not.)

The vast majority of my friends are still unmarried or without children. (Though some have started families.) Whenever the topic of kids comes up, someone at some point mentions the fear of it all. It's too much. Parenthood will always be scary, it will always be hard. But it shouldn't be scary for these reasons. No one should have reason to say, "I'd like to have kids but how can I? People are being killed every day and nowhere is safe. How can I have kids in a world like that?"

Bottom line: Even if we're just talking about child deaths, thousands are killed. Kids are killed in their homes because of lax storage laws. They're being shot at school. Just typing that sentence - children are being shot to death in their schools - feels wrong, and yet, we're doing nothing about it. In this country, toddlers are killed by guns more often than police officers are.

Maybe you're getting mad at me for politicizing the deaths of so many innocent people. But I'm angry at everyone who refuses to politicize it. It's a national problem and we need national solutions. It's not that I give a damn about politics, it's that I have seven little brothers and sisters; it's that one day I want to get married and have a bunch of kids and take them to football games without them getting shot.

It is about life and about families. 

Which brings us to the issue of police brutality. Because while gun violence is a threat against everyone with a pulse, black parents in this country are bearing a burden like no other. They have to worry about the same things white parents worry about and then they have to worry about things no person should have to worry about: will my child be hurt by police?

Yesterday a video went viral. It shows an officer violently throwing a black girl to the ground, hitting her, dragging her across the room. Her offense? She was being "verbally disruptive." Short of saying, "I have a weapon and am about to kill you," there was no justification for that kind of violence.

(I think I've done a good job being civil so far but I'm going to put that aside for a second. Why the fuck do we think it's okay to arrest a schoolchild for being verbally disruptive? How is that normal? Even if the cop never became brutal, there's no reason the girl should have been arrested. You misbehave in school, you go to the principal's office, not the penitentiary. But we'll talk about the school to prison pipeline, the profits of prisons, and all that jazz in another post.)

Now, I know that cops will abuse anyone, not just black people. Cops tased and strangled my handcuffed, barefoot brother (why was he getting arrested? for back-talking to a cop.). But I don't worry about them killing my brothers. Are white people ever killed by cops? Yes. But not the way black people are. (I've written about this before.) A police officer's job is dangerous, yes. Many of them are honorable, yes. But when so many of them are killing so many people (and a specific race of people, at that), we need to ask ourselves what's wrong with the institution as a whole. It's clear there's a problem, and if you deny it, you're either ignorant, defensive of your privilege, or complicit.

If you refuse to talk about police brutality in a completely honest way that acknowledges the systemic racism, you're ignoring the rights of others. Because again:

We all have a right to life. We also have a right to family - to create or foster life. Those are natural rights afforded to every single person. Natural! There is nothing "natural" about a state-created and state-sanctioned force of highly armed officers being allowed to kill whomever they feel doesn't deserve to live.

Black mothers are cradling their dead sons. Black parents are trying to teach their kids to be strong and independent, but to navigate a world that is against them. And don't try telling me this world - at least, this country - is not against them. If you saw a man throwing a teenage girl around at the mall, you'd intervene. If you saw a father slam his daughter to the ground and beat her, you'd intervene. If a teacher beat up his student for being disruptive, you'd be furious. (And I'm willing to bet that had this been a white girl, no one would be making excuses for the cop.) But we've given cops a free pass to torment black people. I say "we" because laws are largely written by and for white people. There are laws against teachers hitting their students, but we put cops in black schools and let them hit students.

I have black friends and black cousins who don't want kids for one reason only: they don't want to have kids just so they end up being killed by police or vigilantes. 

If you can't see how that's anti-life or anti-family, then you're not looking hard enough.

It's totally about politics and it's totally about racism and it's completely, totally about life and about families.

Which brings us to poverty. I'll keep this short, I just wanted to mention a few things: we've got an ungodly amount of children living in poverty. They're hungry, and we're not feeding them. Parents can't afford to send their kids to college, where even the public universities are increasing their tuition every year. And students who do go to school are met with such high debt that they can't gain independence after graduation. Social mobility is a myth. While the idea of a voluntary military sounds great, it's often poor kids joining because it's their only chance of getting a paycheck, health benefits, and even an education, if they don't die in one of our many wars.

And we try to solve these problems by cutting taxes on the rich.

And we demonize anyone who questions capitalism.

Really, we all have a moral obligation to question our economic policies. Maybe communism and socialism have failed elsewhere (though we could argue that it was because they were fascist, but hey, another post). Maybe capitalism is the "foundation of our economy" in America. But that's not reason enough to NOT resist it. Slavery was once the foundation of our economy in America, and if you support that, there's a 97% chance you're swine. I don't have all of the answers, but I know that there are people not getting married because they can't afford it. I know there are people working 80 hours a week so that they can survive. I know there are people putting off having a family (or never having kids at all!) because they can't afford it.

Is that an acceptable price to pay for capitalism? And for no reason other than capitalism is all we know? I don't think so. The kind of sick distribution of wealth we have is only achieved through the oppression of others. The only way one man can make billions of dollars a year is by the suffering of others - sweatshops, long hours for little pay, a minimum wage far below the living wage, and other unfair labor practices. I think it's alright to be rich. I just think there's a limit to how much money you can make while remaining moral.

And so one last time:

We all have a right to life. We also have a right to family - to create or foster life. Those are natural rights afforded to every single person. Natural! There is nothing "natural" about an economic system that doesn't pay people fairly for work. 

We need to rethink a system that leaves people tired and sick. It sounds corny, but really, in this kind of economic environment (and oh my God don't get me started on the gross degeneration we allow our environment to suffer in the name of profits), it's not easy to find love, nonetheless to nurture relationships. A system that leaves people unable or afraid of having kids isn't a good system. And this isn't just about politics or economics, it's about life and about families.

I guess my point is that I'm sick and tired of people putting kids on the line. You're a gun owner and love your automatic weapons, so it's okay that someone's kid might be shot. That's the price you're willing to pay just so that you don't need to have a conversation about gun laws. You're a white person and your kids go to private school, so you're okay with armed police officers being stationed in poor public schools even if it means someone else's kid might be brutalized. You're middle class, so you're okay with anti-poor policies even if it means some other man's kid goes to bed hungry or can't go to college or joins the army out of desperation.

I've known for a while now that power lies in the hands of a few. But this is never clearer to me than when I'm with my other friends, many of whom are women, talking about starting families. Our kids - the ones we're often scared to even dream of, are the ones that get sacrificed to America's unholy gods: guns, false traditions, and money. Not every rich person is bad, not every gun owner is dangerous, not every cop is corrupt. But the ones that refuse to change? The ones that refuse to even entertain the notion of progress or of debate - they are treading on the rights of others.  

Being a Catholic and a Progressive

is FUN.

I'm by no means an expert on Catholicism, and I've only recently jumped back into it.  What I write here is what I believe to be true based on everything I've read and researched, but if you're a better Catholic than I and you see that I've gotten something wrong (or right!) feel free to let me know!   

In all honesty, I think being Catholic is really compatible with being progressive.  Many of my positions on social and political issues are heavily influenced by my faith and my belief in the authority of the Church.  There are two issues that make it difficult, but more on that in a minute.  First I want to talk real quick about why it makes sense.  

The Role of Money/Economics

Every true progressive I know adheres to a sort of Keynesian economics, at least.  They believe the government ought to invest in people.  Many progressives - including myself - would go so far as to support a sort of socialism.  This sounds ridiculous in this context because historically, religion has been attacked by socialists.  Of course I don't support that.  Everyone should be free to worship, and I think religion plays an invaluable role in society.  I do believe, however, that people should be paid fairly for the work they do.  That workers should have more control over what they produce.  Do I think people should have private property? Yep!  Should people with specific training and education be paid higher wages?  Yep.  But...   

Can someone make billions of dollars a year and remain morally intact?  

Probably not.  In order to make that much money, someone else is suffering.  A worker isn't being paid fairly, a child is in a sweatshop, a woman is working for thirty cents less than a man per hour.

Progressives - true progressives - resist this economic model.   

Look:   

"Money has to serve, not rule." 

"We don't want this globalized economic system which does us so much harm. Men and women have to be at the center (of an economic system) as God wants, not money."

-Papa Francisco 

Jesus called Saint Peter the rock upon which the Church would be built.  Pope Francis is a successor to Saint Peter.  As Catholics, we believe the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.  

The Vicar of Christ is telling us that people, not money, should be the center of our economic system. 

Best believe I'm gonna fight for that.  

(The argument that people matter more than money makes sense outside of faith, too, but that's another post.)

So we have a couple of options (I'm generalizing): 

1. Fiscal conservatism, which says poor people should be taxed the same as rich people (or more, for that matter) and that the government has no place spending money on social services; or 

2. Progressivism, which says the government should tax on a scale and that money should be invested into social services.  

(I want to add real quick - you cannot be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  Many people claim these titles together, but they are contradictory.)

For a hot minute let's keep in mind Pope Francis' words, but also look at the Corporal Works of Mercy: 

To feed the hungry.

To give drink to the thirsty.

To clothe the naked.

To shelter the homeless.

To visit the sick.

To visit the imprisoned.

To bury the dead.

In government and politics, it might look like this: 

Supporting food stamps. 

Supporting food stamps.

Supporting EBT cash/public assistance.

Supporting section 8/public housing. 

Supporting medicaid/medicare.

Supporting prison reform. 

Supporting veteran affairs. 

And so on.  Or, better yet, it might look like *a fight for a living wage, so that no one needs social services.*  

Either way, as a Catholic (and as a person with a moral compass that doesn't point straight to hell), I won't campaign or vote for politicians that threaten to cut social programs or who don't support better wages.  Historically, austerity has never worked, and I believe the path to a society where people are fed and clothed involves a fair tax system, a high minimum wage, and support for social services.  

All progressive stances.

Work - Unions, Hours, Leave, etc

Every single person is unique and has dignity and worth.

Employers should treat them as such.

When conservatives argue for keeping the minimum wage low, or for minimizing the power of unions, for stripping collective bargaining rights, or for less vacation time, for longer hours, etc, they are arguing against a culture of life and of goodness.  People can't thrive when their entire lives are spent at work.  They can't share their gifts with the world.  They can't offer themselves to others.  They can't spend time with their families.  I think God meant for us to do those things, and I keep that in mind when I vote, I keep it in mind when I sign petitions calling for higher wages, I keep it in mind when I decide which rallies to attend.

In all honesty, when it comes to the economy and to workers, democratic politicians, for the most part, are only a little better than republican politicians.  Bernie Sanders is an exception, but President Obama is a capitalist.  Hillary Clinton is a capitalist.  Joe Biden is a capitalist.  I think their policies are fairer and more aligned with my faith than the policies of republicans, but they're not great.  That said, I think most ordinary people (the non-politicians) who consider themselves progressives have ideals that match Catholic values.

But money isn't the only thing.
__________________________

For God so loved America, that He gave His only begotten Son..

Oh wait, that's not how it goes.

Here it is: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son"

Immigration.

Countries are a thing, and I love America and apple pie and rooting for our soccer team but God made the world and I'm pretty sure He loves all of its humans equally, so let's go ahead and treat immigrants, illegal or not, like they're our own (because, uh, they are).

The Catholic Church is pro-life in every sense of the word, and that means that every single person on earth is important and has value and dignity, and the conservative view on immigration is quite the opposite of that.

Now, progressives aren't all terrific on the issue, either.  But as a whole, they're better than conservatives on immigration.  I feel confident that many Catholic priests would advise against calling children of immigrants "anchor babies."  Also I doubt they'd be supportive of detaining entire families.  Catholics have been some of the leaders in the fight to create more just, humane immigration policies.

As far as I can tell, if you're Catholic, you can't think that Americans are the best/most important people in the world.

source

__________________________

The Environment

There's been talk about this a lot lately thanks to Pope Francis' Laudato Si.

Again, the Pope (THE POPE) is telling us that we cannot remain apathetic to environmental degradation, that we cannot continue the habits of consumerism that we currently do, and that the changes brought by humans will adversely affect the poor.  Conservatives on a national scale aren't even in agreement that climate change and global warming are real.  To me, living my faith (and taking care to follow Pope Francis' lead) means acknowledging this serious problem, and working to fix it.  And voting for politicians who will take action.

Laudato Si is not just about science and global warming.  It's about rampant consumerism and the destruction of God's creation.  When I look to see which side of the spectrum will take more care to conserve and preserve earth's wonders, it's the left.  Are they doing it because they feel called to by God?  Maybe some of them, but no, not all of them.  But whether for secular or nonsecular reasons, the motives are right and the goals are admirable.  It happens to align with my faith.
__________________________

Education Policy 

I wrote a post with my thoughts on education here, if you want to check it out.  But basically (and probably due to the fact that schooling has been so badly corrupted by the drive for profits), I think most politicians have got poor education policies.  One of the main reasons I prefer *most* progressives on education is that they tend to offer less support to charter schools.  I just can't get behind charters, man.  I think that the teachers who work at them are good people, the students are great, the parents are terrific... but the concept?  No.  I'm not all about using public funding on privately-run schools that have little oversight.

But, staying on topic with how Catholicism influences my stance on education...

I think God gave us intellect and curiosity for a reason.  I think we are meant to explore everything around us, that we are meant to learn about art and music and great literature.  I firmly believe God purposely gives everyone different talents and interests.

Which means I think we should spend much more money on education, that public schools should be in beautiful buildings that inspire teachers and students alike, and that love for learning should be the goal rather than good test scores.  I believe that teaching for standardized tests means educators can't spend enough time on books, on helping students pursue their passions, on instilling curiosity instead of great memorization skills.

There aren't many politicians on the national scale calling for these things, but this kind of education system would require more money and a separation from corporations like Pearson - two things that most progressives support.
__________________________

Black Lives Matter/Policing in America

In general, it seems pretty clear that most conservatives are hesitant to support the Black Lives Matter movement.  Many of them, in fact, feel the urge to silence black people by shouting, "all lives matter!"  Not okay, man.  Similar to the capitalism/education problems, national liberal politicians are not much better.  They may not show outright opposition, but many of them fall into the category of conveniently colorblind.  (Which might be why Black Lives Matter hasn't yet endorsed anyone for president?  Makes sense.)

I do, think, however, that most progressives have better policies when it comes to the police.

Why does this matter to me as a Catholic?

I'm pro-life.  Police keep killing black people.  Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Dontay Ivy, Michael Brown, and too many more.  These men, women, and children are just the first to pop into my head.  It's easy for most people to just spit out numbers, be horrified for a minute, and move on.  (I sometimes do this.)  But really - each of those people were made in the image of God.  Each was a brand new person who has never existed on Earth before and will never exist here again.  There literally is no one like them.  They were priceless and their lives were priceless and they were murdered by police.

So I try and vote for the politician who wants to do something about it.
__________________________

And if those were the straight-forward, Catholic-very-compatible-with-progressive positions, here are the NOT so easy issues to deal with: 

Gay marriage 

I think this might make me a not-great Catholic, but I find it really, really difficult to accept the Church's position on this.  ("But, you said you accept the Church's authority?!"  Yes.  So imagine how crappy this dilemma feels.)

I've heard all of the reasoning behind it, and it still feels wrong.  And it's like.. sometimes you rely on the Holy Spirit to help you out and give you the grace to understand... and, well, it's like I feel the opposite.  No part of me begins to feel right about banning gay marriage.  I know the Church's position and I want to always follow Church teaching, but........ ah, it just doesn't seem right.  

(Also, I 100% support the idea of government not making laws based just on religion, so I'm not comfortable voting for politicians who are against gay marriage.) 

And while I find it hard to accept the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage... 

__________________________  

I find it harder to accept the democratic position on abortion.  Don't get me wrong, I find the republican dialogue on the issue horrific.  The women-shaming, welfare-cutting positions are wrong and probably don't help to actually stop abortions from occurring.  

But I'm also kind of flummoxed that so many people support abortion.  (Though I understand why many women feel like they need them.) 

I think there's a real inconsistency on the left (many of my friends were furious about the killing of Cecil the Lion - but are fine with "ending a pregnancy" which is literally ending a human life).  Progressives are "pro-life" in so many other ways: acknowledging the moral worth of immigrants and POC, supporting labor policies that make it possible for people and families to thrive, wanting to save the earth.  Of course, many people don't believe a fetus is a human yet.  But I'm not going to throw science in the face of conservatives when we're talking about global warming and then completely ignore it when we talk about abortion.  A fetus is a human.  It is one of the earliest stages of development in a human, yes, but it's still a human.  Sure, it's how I feel as a Catholic, but it's also just science.  The dna is already there, the sex is already determined - it is already a unique human.  (Do I feel like a little bit of an asshole for writing this?  Yes - I don't want to make any of my friends who have gotten abortions feel bad.  But I think they know I love them and don't think poorly of them - I just think that we're getting this topic wrong and it's an important discussion to have.) 

I think this topic deserves its own post in light of recent events, so maybe that's something I'll hash out later this week or next.  But for now I'll say it's the one progressive stance that gives me pause.  

__________________________  

When it comes to deciding how to vote, it seems pretty clear to me.  I vote for the people I believe will fight for the right values - the dignity of every person and every worker, the preservation of the earth, the right of immigrants to build a life here, the right of black people to live.  I take gay marriage and abortion into consideration, of course.  Usually the candidate who shares my position on the economy and the environment also shares my position on gay marriage.  Almost always, we disagree on abortion.  But when I vote, my hope is that there will be less women seeking abortion (because of better wages, better maternity leave policies, better hours, etc.).  I don't like the democratic position on abortion, but I do like voting for the people who don't want to take food stamps away from the poor families (including their babies, planned or unplanned).  I do like voting for the people who want to keep everyone fed and clothed.  And in the meantime I guess the best thing to do about abortion is to keep having the conversation.  

Overall, I feel pretty comfortable being a Catholic and a progressive.

***I just realized I forgot to include war.  I think war should be a last resort, not something we idolize.  Which means I won't be supporting anyone like Mike Huckabee, who in the GOP debate said the point of the military is "to kill people and break things."

Yeah, nope.

__

Charlotte 

Baltimore Riots: White Contradictions

Alternate title: Little White Lies
heh.

Listen, I'm white.  And it was, admittedly, very uncomfortable to accept that white privilege is a thing in America.  A few years ago I would have been one of the people telling rioters in Baltimore to stop ruining things.  But I read probably my #1 most recommended book - A People's History by Howard Zinn.  And more importantly, I met great people in college who were down to have conversations about topics that were challenging.  And so I started to open my mind a little bit. 

Over the last year we've seen an escalation in clashes with police.  Black people are killed every 28 hours in America by security, vigilantes, or police.  (According to FBI reports, a white police officer kills a black man twice a week.)  

Unfortunately, media and large segments of the population harbor more anger at the clashes and protests and riots than they do at the systemic killing of black people.  And they've offered up all sorts of "advice," "solutions," and criticisms.  I thought I'd point a few of them out because really, we need to stop thinking like this. 

(This shouldn't need to be said but I know people are sensitive so... obviously there are exceptions to every rule.  This isn't an attack against other white people, it's a criticism of the way we, as a group, tend to interpret the events that are taking place.)

1. "Peaceful protests are the only way to change things!  MLK said so." 

Not quite.

In a little over two months, middle class America is going to be out in troves at the grocery stores, stocking up on beer and hot dogs for the 4th of July celebratory barbecues.  That's fine.  I too will be consuming hot dogs and soda.  

But on that day, we'll be rejoicing in the Declaration, celebrating the day that the colonists finally said, "enough," and proclaimed to the world that we were a free nation.  

We'll be celebrating a day that led to a bloodbath.  

Yes, the war had already started and yes, July 2 was the day when independence was voted on.  But the declaration was read aloud to patriots and loyalists/Tories alike, and it incited celebration on the one hand and anger on the other.  It lead to destruction of statues and buildings in cities, and it meant more war.  The colonists weren't backing down.  

Celebrating the declaration is celebrating violent resistance.  

My point is, while I hope and pray that the revolution that is coming is a peaceful one, I hardly think it's right for white people to tell black people that peaceful protests are the only way to win change.  This country was founded in a violent war.  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" wasn't achieved just by holding hands.  It cost us dearly.  It was bloody.  It was destructive.  

Discourage and condemn the looting, fine.  But don't say that peaceful protest is the only way to make change.  Or if you do say that, you better pass on the hamburgers and potato salad this 4th of July.

And please, stop softening MLK's image to use him against black people.

I don't think burning buildings is the best plan, but MLK understood why riots happened.  He understood why people become violent.  He acknowledged that there are valid reasons people act in non-peaceful ways.  He said, "riot is the language of the unheard." 

You want an end to riots?  Then maybe try listening to the experiences of black folks before another man is slain by police.  (At this rate, you have a few days.) 

(Another related thing to think about: it was a riot that helped begin the larger fight for LGBTQ rights in America.)

2.  The Boston Tea Party was heroic.

I remember learning about the Boston Tea Party in a positive light.  I remember being told Samuel Adams and the other men who boarded the ships were American heroes.  

Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty destroyed someone else's property.  

White men do it and it is heroism.  Black men do it and it's disgusting.  

Look, I don't think burning CVS down to the ground is a good idea.  But don't call the rioters animals and don't dare suggest that they don't understand what they're protesting.  These are kids, sure, but they're kids living in impoverished areas with underfunded schools and streets patrolled by police officers who racially profile.  Their grievances are valid. 

I consider Samuel Adams a hero.  One day I'll teach my own children that he was a radical, someone who was fed up with injustice, someone that stood up.  

Most of white America does the same, making the idea that "rioting isn't okay" a contradiction.  Do I think the people looting CVS will be seen as heroes one day?  I don't know.  But probably not, because it's a CVS.  But I think this young man will be seen as a valiant fighter for justice, even if he resorted to violence: 

Sometimes, when people are shooting at you and tear gas is being used, and rubber bullets are flying, you need to fight back. 

It's possible to question the need for violence without calling protesters "animals" and "thugs."  If you're going to use those names, I fully expect you to teach your own kids that Samuel Adams was a hellbent criminal. 

3.  I understand the anger, but change needs to come from within the black community.

Side eye.  

Can the black community stand to change?  Maybe, it's not really for me (or white masses) to say.

I grew up in poverty, and I know that there's a lot of internal crime and despair.  There tends to be a lot of overlap between poor people and black people (ahem, institutionalized racism), so while I will never fully understand the experience of poor black people, I understand some of the problems that come with poverty.  The people I grew up around, including some of my family, should try to change their behavior.  

Here's the thing though.  The vast majority of problems that exist within the black community are a direct result of oppression, white supremacy, and institutionalized racism.  Gang violence doesn't exist because everyone really likes dressing in nice colors.  It exists because we've created a system where it is damn near impossible for people to escape poverty, especially if they're people of color.  I was born into less than stellar circumstances, but I happened to be white and to move into a good area right before high school, meaning I had resources that other kids don't.  Even still, I find it extremely hard to hold my temper, to not start doing drugs, and to not go back to a place where the environment is toxic but at least I'd have a little camaraderie.  Because the middle class doesn't want anything to do with you until and unless you've made it (another contradiction - pull yourself up, work hard - but they hate you as you try to do those things).  There are so many physical, financial, and yes, psychological roadblocks to changing a bad environment.  

So yes, I'd say white people tend to contradict themselves when they suggest black people change while encouraging cuts in social security, cuts in food stamps, cuts in education.  Don't suggest changing from within while simultaneously withholding the resources to make that happen. 

**Also, this isn't a contradiction so much as something that should just be taken as fact, but: 

It is not the responsibility of black people to change their behavior in order to stop racism against them.  It is solely the responsibility of the perpetrators of racism to stop it.  

4. The rioters are ruining their own neighborhoods.

Similarly to the argument that change needs to come from within, I want to point out the hypocrisy of suddenly caring about black neighborhoods.  Before Freddie Gray was killed, were the people making this claim sharing scathing statuses on the injustice of urban poverty?  After his death but before his funeral, were you fuming about the rate of homicide committed by police officers? 

Look, if you felt the need to speak out about the murder of Freddie Gray and about your dislike of rioting and looting, I could respect that.  

But if, like most people, you said nothing about Gray (or Brown, or Rice, or Garner, or Scott...) but felt the need to speak out about the rioting, your priorities are off.  You're contradicting yourself by scolding black people for "ruining their own neighborhoods" while standing idly by as police, capitalism, and racism ruin black neighborhoods every day. 

Also, I want to copy and paste from someone smarter than me: 

Excuse me? Now it's "their own" city. Like suddenly they own it? It's not theirs! Nothing in this country belongs to poor black folks. Those aren't "their shops." Those aren't "their houses." You think they have the deed to the projects? You think they own stock in CVS? You think they are employed by that nursing home, or could even afford to send their grandparents there to retire if they wanted to? If Black people were really destroying "their own" things nobody would care. If a man ran in his own house, grabbed his own TV and threw it out the window, would America give a fuck?

5.  Instead of rioting they should be going to college or

     While all this rioting is happening, not one of these people are in school

This kills me.  

There is something sick and twisted about telling black kids to fix their problems by going to college when a good number of those kids won't be alive to go to college because they're being killed by the people sworn to protect them.

Also, I'd just like to reiterate - it is not up to these kids to do things to prevent being killed.  It is up to the people who are killing them to stop. 

It's important to add that college is not a possibility for everyone.  There are many, many reasons for this, but educated white people often refuse to see them. 

"Okay, but how is any of this contradictory to other actions?" 

Over the last day or two, it's been the same people who ignore economic problems that have made this suggestion.  It's been the people who were able to go to college without worrying about money.  It's been the people who say things like, "Student debt shouldn't be forgiven - they knew they were taking out loans when they signed!" 

If you're going to have the audacity to suggest going to college will end police killings, then at least fight to make college accessible for everyone. 

**Another point: When we're specifically talking about being followed, pursued, or killed by police, evidence suggests level of education makes no difference. 

**Just can't stop so... I don't think it's prudent to say, "these kids should be in school."  The schools are underfunded, the basic needs aren't met, and teachers are forced (thanks to standardization and the influence of companies like Pearson) to use textbooks that give a white-washed account of history.

6.  Get jobs and make the community better instead of burning it down. 

On April 15th, fast food workers went on strike demanding $15/hr and a union.  

On April 15th, many many educated, middle class white people condemned fast food workers for going on strike and demanding $15/hr and a union.  

You need to choose.  You can either tell black people to get jobs and fix the community (though you'll sound like a patronizing if you do) OR you can be against giving all workers a living wage (though you'll sound like a patronizing if you do).  

Many of those fast food workers were people of color.  Intersectionality is a thing.  You can't tell protesters to get jobs but then refuse to support living wages for those jobs.  

And so 

My suggestion is to try and understand where the rioters are coming from and to stand in solidarity with the peaceful protesters.  Lives are on the line.  

__

Charlotte 

Girl Power: Go to Your Doctor

You should know, dearest reader (hi Liz...), that writing this post is painfully difficult.  Sometimes I procrastinate and sometimes I'm lazy but I'm not those things by default.  That is something a lot of people in my life have a hard time understanding.  But, my mood is basically shot right now and it's taking effort to do anything.  

So this post that is supposed to be my hobby/fun is like ripping teeth out.  But I keep trying to remind myself that I'll be glad later when I think about the fact that I did something today.  After this comes a cover letter.  (By the way, I'm regretting not making a pact before graduation with friends that we'd just do each other's resumes and cover letters.  We're all better at talking each other up than we are at boasting about ourselves.)

But yes, this post.  Stay on topic, Char. 

I just read this article on NPR.  It's about how women often wait to seek medical attention when they're experiencing troubling symptoms.  

"But even when women suspected that they were having a heart attack, many said they were hesitant to bring it up because they didn't want to look like hypochondriacs." 

Grrr. 

This is no joke.  Not counting family pre-college, I've lived with five women and most of my closest friends are women.  And I've seen this mentality often, in all of us, though it manifests in different ways.  I'd say two-thirds of the time, we're hesitant to go to the doctor because we don't want to be thought of as drama queens.  The other, almost scarier third is when we discourage each other from going.  

"It's probably nothing." 

"You're most likely fine." 

"Are you really in that much pain?"

Now, if you stub your toe (though that's the effing worst), I will probably roll my eyes if you want to go to the doctor.  Unless your nail came all the way off and you want that prescription lotion or something.  You know. 

But if you're having consistent pain?  Abnormal pain?  I shouldn't tell you you're exaggerating.  And you shouldn't say it to me, either.  

We talk a lot about women being tougher than men, namely because men do not give birth.   

"They couldn't deal with sciatica for months and months and months!"  

"They couldn't be nauseous for weeks at a time." 

"They couldn't push something the size of a watermelon out of a hole the size of a lemon." 

(Did you cringe at the last one?  I cringed at the last one.  God bless women.)

And based on those super scientific video-studies of men "experiencing" birth, I'd say that yeah, most men probably could not handle the physical pain, whereas most women can and do.  Their bodies haven't evolved with the need to.  (This is not to say men aren't tough or strong.  Many are.  And I'm not a fan of judging the seriousness of one person's pain or struggles based on another's.  I just bring this up to point out the irony of society thinking women can't handle pain.)

So we've got this fun little scenario where women can handle the trauma and pain of childbirth, but we're also thought of as weak, and we're also... worried about looking like drama queens.

It doesn't really make sense whichever way we look at it.  If the claim is that most women can tolerate pain, you'd think that the threshold of pain is raised, so women should always be taken seriously when they say they're in pain.  Someone who deals with 3-9 days of excruciating cramps every single month probably isn't going to exaggerate her pain.

On the other side of the spectrum, if women were as weak as everyone thinks, why would you not take our complaints seriously?  Obviously not agreeing that women are weak.  Just looking at the logic of this fairly common thought process.  The patriarchy often views women as children.  If a child, clearly not as strong or tough as a grown ass man, said they were in serious pain, would it make sense to ignore them or to roll your eyes?  Probably not.  It would likely be cause for concern.

Somehow, society has managed to patronize us, then hold us up to these weird ass standards of pain, then scoff at us when we say we're sick.  And it's become internalized.  And that is infuriating.

For me personally, I think there's an added dimension because I didn't have the most supportive family, and on top of many other not nice names, I was constantly called a hypochondriac and a drama queen.  (Which is even sadder because I was told I was sick when I wasn't, that I had life threatening conditions when I didn't, etc. etc.)  So now, I feel like an idiot whenever I have something physically wrong.  I hesitate to tell even the people I am closest to when I'm not feeling okay, and when I do, I often start it with something like, "I hate complaining about this, but...."

I shouldn't have to qualify my honest-to-God problems.  I shouldn't worry that I'll be called a hypochondriac, nor should any of my other friends.

Once I finally got health insurance, I found a doctor and thankfully, he's terrific.  He has never once questioned the validity of a complaint or the reality of my symptoms.  I have some great specialists, but no one can top my primary.  A few months back, I went to the ER.  I had terrible pains that I could not physically handle any longer.  No OTC pain meds were cutting it on the pain management scene.  The kicker is that I had these same pains the month before.  I told two people about it, and both said to go to the ER, but I didn't listen.  I thought that I'd go and they'd roll their eyes at another girl having cramps on her period.  So another month passed and the next time, I couldn't NOT go to the hospital.  It turns out, there was a mass on my ovary.  I was told to see a specialist immediately for imaging and possible biopsy.  I ended up having surgery, and the damage was extensive.  I'm fine now, but had I not put off seeking medical attention, I could have had the diagnosis sooner, the surgery sooner.

I'm not going to dwell on that bad decision forever, but it's another example of the widespread issue of women fearing judgement for seeking medical help.

When I did go to a specialist two days after the ER visit, the doctor literally rolled her eyes, told me the ER technicians probably didn't know what they were talking about, that it was most likely fine, and that I just have to deal with the cramps.  She gave me birth control and called it a day.  That wonderful primary of mine?  I called him after the appointment, he told me to come in, and we discussed everything.  He assured me that the specialist was out of line and that if he had something in his body, he would want it out as soon as possible.  He told me not to think I was being over-dramatic for wanting a second opinion, and he and the secretaries found another OBGYN to see.  That specialist and his whole practice were very helpful, and if anything were more concerned about my symptoms than I was.

That NPR article quotes a doctor who says that they need to find ways to make women feel empowered when it comes to health.  I think doctors who currently don't take complaints seriously should start.

As for society, I don't know.  I mean smash the patriarchy, yes, but I don't know what we could do right this second to fight this problem.  I suppose the first step would be for men and women alike to take the women in your life seriously when they express concern over something health-related.  This is probably harder than it seems psychologically, but that doesn't matter.  Fake it.  Keep telling yourself your friends aren't hypochondriacs.  Tell yourself you are not a hypochondriac.  It might feel like a lie at first (it definitely did with me, but after tons of tests confirming real problems, I'm starting to understand that no, I'm not just a drama queen).  Yeah, it'll feel like a lie at first, but it's actually the truth and it'll eventually sink in.  And that's important.

Oh, and go find a really great doctor, if you're able.  (I know, health insurance in this country sucks.)

__
Charlotte