Race Issues != Gender Issues

Ladies and Gents, I've been wanting to post an opinion on this for a long time.

This is due to a slew of comments of the form "You're a person of color, so you understand white privilege and race issues well, but being a male you do not understand how you benefit from male privilege"

So lets start at the beginning. The gender issue and race issue are not completely synonymous, they have certain overlaps I agree, but to simply graft over points that I make on the race debate and say, "see it's just the same as gender" is lazy and incorrect.

Here are the differences:

Race is completely, unequivocally concocted and socially defined. Numerous efforts were there to "scientifically" prove that certain races were genetically inferior to other races, all of this evidence however is racially motivated, to keeping (what was at that time) the status quo of white superiority.

Any study during that time cannot be extricated from the social temperament extant. Secondly, in the US in particular, race has a very specific history. Blacks were herded like animals on ships for the sole purpose of forced labor. They weren't allowed to learn, read, write, or advance intellectually in anyway. This reality is entirely, 100% socially concocted. Whites and blacks have no reason to be together or interact other than societally motivated causes (ie. we brought you here on ships)

Men did not go to Oprah-land to bring women to serve as their laborers, to bolster the "male" economy. Men and women also have that little thing called "evolutionary impulse" that keeps us together. This trait, if it was really detrimental would not pass on from generation to generation, rather it would die out because it doesn't serve survivability & replication of the human race. In fact, exactly the opposite: men and women interacting is what DEFINES survivability of the human race.

Now, one might imagine a reality that men and women don't actually interact, rather live in separate societies and only engage in replication via in-vitro fertalization. If male privilege were really as absolute as females would like to think, why haven't we seen a push in this direction? Because our evolutionaray impulses exist as they did 1000's of years ago, where technology & economics couldn't support a separate male and female society. I believe these impulses are keeping us together.

The female separatist movement does exist, but I'm a bit unclear as to their end goal. are they suggesting a society of just women? or are they just lesbos that don't want to be around men?

Now, is there male privilege? Yes. of course there is, but there's female privilege as well. I could go through the laundry list of cases and categories, but I'll save that for another time. The biggest example of female privilege is in dating/relationship situations - seemingly trivial, but upon further inspection, a cornerstone for the very relationships that sustain our society.

If one supports the removal of male privilege, then one should support the removal of female privilege as well.

Indian Independent Cinema - checklist

I've caught a lot of Indian Independent Cinema of late, as almost everything else, there's a formula behind it all. Even chaos, rebellion and movement against the status quo has a formula behind it.

For an Indian indep (really, a non-Bollywood) film to be successful or even exist, it usually has one or
more of the following components:

1. One character must have a relationship with a non-Indian. Usually it's an Indian female hooking
up with a white male.

2. One character will invariably be gay.

3. One character must whack off (no matter how irrelevent to the story line it is)

(Icing on the top is jabs and criticism on the caste system, but this isn't always included)

Let's do a quick rundown.

Fire - points 2 & 3
Bend it like Bekham - points 1 & 2
Bride and Prejudice - points 1
Dharm - points 1 & caste system
Bavandar - points 3
East is East - points 1
Loins of Punjab - points 1

I'm open for any more additions to the mix.

Keeping it Real

I keep it real

I used to say that a lot in high school. Maybe to some who read my posts, I might as well still be in high school. That's fine, not everyone has to like, agree or even tolerate what I have to say.

But understand this, I do keep it uncategorically real. And what I mean by this is, I do say things rooted in what I believe to be true and logically sound, and I do respect the opinions of others when I truly find merit in them.

I was recently called out for ad hominem attacks rather than engaging the points and arguments. Truth be told, I only do that to those who have first engaged me in such a way.

I won't go into the background, because frankly, anyone who's reading this would already know it. but here are some excerpts from a rant against me on SepiaMutiny:

.............
if a guy actually makes some statements against your usual misogynist frothing, it is because he wants to get in women's pants, and women of course are incapable of contributing effectively to the discussion since you and you alone have had the unique vantage to explore both male and female behaviors

Instead of jumping on the bandwagon and dismissing what I say as misogynist, how about actually engaging the point? Because nearly 100% of the time, the evidence to call me "misogynist" is out of an exaggerated or misrepresented interpretation of what I truly said. Instead of actually engaging my points, you do exactly what you accuse me of doing.

Believe it or not, there *are* women who have enough sense to look past the easy "misogynist" conclusion and have actually answered my points and engaged in a dialogue.

and are specially qualified to posit laughable theories that sound like they have been extracted from reading the equivalents of self-help books written by pick-up artists like mystery and the game.

Hah. If you're going to soapbox against someone at least get it right. The *book* is called 'The Game' the author is Neil Strauss. You may find the theories and observations laughable, but I would say you may perhaps live in a privileged reality, where perhaps you don't experience the things the average male might, in a standard male/female interaction.

and if none of these work, adopt the age-old strategy of ad hominem against the commenter. it seems an easy way to just dismiss arguments that don't agree with your contorted world views without actually engaging with the points in them.

As I said before, I never or rarely make any statement against someone without them striking first blood. I challenge you to find an instance.

i am sure your analysis of human interactions that constantly focuses on the follies of whites and women has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are a male person of color

Yes, and MLK focusing on the follies of whites because he was a person of color too. That's what we as human beings do, we record into our memories much more deeply the events of us as victims rather than not. Does this mean men and people of color are not culpable of anything, in any way? No of course not, it would be silly to state that, which is why I didn't state it.

you seem to confuse being wrong, obnoxious and unpopular with actually being correct and courageous.

I don't care if I'm classified as wrong, obnoxious or any other words, as all of the above or none. Nor do i care about how 'unpopular' I am. As I said before, I'm not constantly wondering if people will classify me as a moderate democrat with conservative tendencies or a blue peacock. I say what I see, hear, read, observe and pontificate on. Feel free to say I'm wrong or obnoxious. but, I keep it real.

"you are either with me or against me",

Dont know where this is coming from (other than your head) There have been many times where i've conceded various points made by others.

but seem to be left without a response when actually shown an instance where you spewed your hate filled spitballs with absolutely no reason. as usual,

I already showed you where you made an unprovoked jab at me. Here's the link again, in case you forgot:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004756.html#comment169251

But I don't care that people make snide jabs at me, hell I dish it out, I can take it, I dont care. Here's where you lack a certain consistency, you say here:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004774.html#comment171352

that you dont want me to "pull my punches" yet in the super-rant you ascribe it as "hate filled spitballs" for no reason. so make up your mind, I personally thought it was a jab equivalent to the one you levied at me. I didn't say I wished for your sister to come down with a case of ovarian cancer, nor would I ever.

if anything you come off as very whiny by making little jabs at others, then calling them 'hate filled spitballs' when it's done right back to you. That's hypocrisy.

sm intern, you might want to consider why hmf's quoting misogynist lyrics with a sham apology was considered acceptable, but a esponse with similar lyrics was not.

For the record, I had no problem with Tara's lyrics, I thought it was a funny response, as well as indicative of her "alpha/beta male dichotomy" - which she didn't denounce right away, so I can only assume there's truth to it

University of Texas

This is school has seen some rise in membership lately. In fact, I used to be enrolled deep in their program, one could say I was even head of the class at one point. Then I realized their program really didn't offer the benefits that seemed so attractive from the outside.

Sometimes it's hard to see why some people stay enrolled, but in some ways its actually easy. Everyone of course has the right to enroll in any academic program they qualify for. But with this school in particular, it's just sometimes oh so confusing why?

Who the (#$@)(#$ is reading this?

There's no post here.

No raving on the hypocrisy of women in the dating scene.

No cleaning the clocks of right wing rush limbaugh worshippers that read some wiki articles on Malcolm and Martin and think they know what they're talking about.

None of that.

Just a simple quetsion.. who the Fu- is reading this?

Fem-aggerations.

I'm still on the tight assumption that no one's reading this sh*t I write, so I'll be brief.

For the small minority of people out there that maybe are reading, and even smaller subfraction of those that actually care, I hereby nickname you Casper (yes it's corny and lame, but its nearly 1 am so give me a friggin break).

Casper, a discussion on a SepiaMutiny thread erupted here that somehow meandered into the realm of "married women's dressing habits in social environments." The entire discussion is available here, however I will snip the relevant points without naming names (as the purpose of this post is to describe the phenomenon and not single any one person out)

[my comments in blue, 3rd party in magenta]

The background is pretty simple, a woman commented that she doesn't go to bars and clubs anymore, to which I asked a general question about why married or [seriously/long term] dating women still engage in the same activity as they did pre-LTR (wearing makeup, wearing designer/"club" clothes) when logically speaking, those activities were done primarily to attract men (or women, if that's your thing):

Which actually brings up sort of another point. why do married or dating women still wear all the makeup and designer clothes and go out?

A discussion went back and forth about how being 'off the market' doesn't preclude one from desiring to be attractive, but importantly the woman offered an anecodote about how repeated approaches from men in clubs are making her less and less interested in going to these types of places.

Again, looking at it from a practical point of view, I suggested in a half joke/half serious way (the preceeding comment was about spending too much time on the toilet):

"...you're just a serious hottie that screams 'come talk to me' in her mannerism/body language in the alone time window when your fiance leaves your side..."

And now Casper, the response I got from this particular person with respect to these points was perfectly sound, however, it's the response from a 3rd party that I endearingly call a

'FEM-aggeration'

And by no means is this an indictment specifically on the particular responder, rather I use it as an example of something I've observed in many, but not all women.

Here it is in part by part, with my response, and reasoning why I categorize this as I have:

Part 1:
"It sounds like you have a really specific idea of how married/taken women are supposed to behave. My decision to have a lifelong partner in crime didn't come with riders on how I'm supposed to dress!"

I never made any claim on what married/taken women are supposed to do. Only asked a question based on logical flow.

Part 2:
Yeah, and let me list some of the behaviors I've seen men read as "screaming 'come talk to me/grab my @ss/make obscene gestures at me'": Talking to a friend Reading in a coffee shop Walking down the street

Notice the effortless conflation of "come talk to me" with "grab my ass" as if the two undeniably go hand in hand. This is the heart of fem-aggeration. It's the assertion that any statement on female complicitness is blaming the 'victim.'

Casper, if you think I'm being disingenuous with my quoting, go back to the original thread and tell me where I ever made mention at physical touching or obscene gestures.

Part 3:
The whopper:

Because being alone in a bar (even if it's just because your husband is running late or in the bathroom) is like wearing a neon sign that says 'I NEED SEX', right? Yeesh.

This is the fem-aggeration gold medal. I don't even know where to begin on this. how did:

"or you're just a serious hottie that screams 'come talk to me' in her mannerism/body language"

equate to:

"...is like wearing a neon sign that says 'I NEED SEX'" ??

Again, the person to whom the original comment was directed responded accordingly, however it's the third party that in this case, practiced blantant fem-aggeration.

If any serious discussion is to proceed on these matters, the fairer sex has to try their darndest to not misrepresent statements of female contributions to the process in this way. In particular, augmenting the 'authorized' (eg speaking = grabbing) is something that's done all to seamlessly and all too often.

A distincion has to be made between a genuine, pre-relationship approach, and a run-of-the-mill crass comment, or drive by honking, etc...

There are many guys out there (for example, me) that do not approach at all if :

1. there's even a slight indication she's taken (wedding ring, dancing with guy on shoulder, etc..)
2. the female doesn't at least show some slight interest or 'receptiveness' to a potential approach.

With many men who think this way, it's not an outrageous thought to consider that the women who are being approached are actively doing something to encourage it (by dress, mannerism, body language, etc..)

Oh ya, that's me being brief, good night casper.

The fast walk-stomp

More notable than some other views I've held, it seems my views regarding 50% of the population garners the most attention. And no, I'm not talking about 50% who install their toilet paper so it rolls counter clockwise (vs clockwise), I'm talking about the 50% that are women.
While people watching in a certain place in NYC, an acquantance made an observation as a very fertile young woman walked acrossthe street:

"Look it's the fast walk-stomp, with a little ass shake",

first I thought he was mentioning some type of criminal con codename, a la Ocean's 11/12/13/14/15/however high they go, but no he was serious. He followed up the thought with, "she must be amazing in the sack"

But he made sure to differentiate the fast walk-stomp from just simply "walking fast" in walking fast, the person actually accelerates in the direction movement, you actually move faster to get from point A to point B. With the fast walk-stomp, some energy is actually directed downwards into the ground (hence the stomp) This effect is accentuated if the woman is walking indoors, with high heels, the sound will echo.

His theory was, these women just have excess energy running around, and it just needs to get dissipated somewhere. The ass shake is just a little flair that's added to the fast walk-stomp.

But is there a correlation? How much can you glean from a person's gait, also are women aware of this fast walk-stomp? I've certainly noticed the fast walk-stomp (as opposed to just walking fast) much more after this discussion and explanation from my acquaintance, however have yet to verify the other part of his claim.

I'm not a blogger, nor do I want to be

I have no intention of blogging.

Let me just make that clear. However, I've found myself having my opinions mangled and tangled, as well as making various slipson a bunch of blogs. In addition, I've had more than once people say to me, "I've followed your posts..." and usuallyfollow that up with some type of criticism or negative attack.

I'm a pretty private person, maybe a bit more so private than the average person, so even though it's just text, this is a bit strange for me. My prediction is no one will read this, or give two sh*ts, and that's fine, but it's more for me to clear the airabout a some certain points.

I was involved in a discussion recently that included the Nation of Islam (NOI) and found myself defending them and in particular their current spiritual head, the Min. Louis Farrakhan. This was a discussion that I had no intention of engaging in, as I hadn't brought up either topic.

If one looks at the core message of the NOI during its inception, it has nothing to do with the current characteristics and "dead weight" lets say that it's bogged down with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20AWmX0SN-w

Now, I understand posting a youtube clip will not sell my case completely, after all, it's black and white, the sound is a little off, the color temperature is not perfect. the onVP6 Flash Codec may come off as creepy, the intraframe compression might generate too many artifacts, people might want a high fidelity bit rate, or perhaps MPEG4 part10 compression scheme.

Viewers might not be able to handle it. Malcolm's voice might just be so daunting that, no matter what he's actually saying, people may hear "go kill every white person you see"

Still, I stare these potential obstacles in the eye, and hope that it's clear why I don't think it's cool to outright dismiss the organization as a hate group. Because the NOI wasn't formed for the purpose of intimidation, or extermination of any one group. That was never (and really still isn't) a component of its plan of action.

My apology if this is poorly construted, as I said before,

I have no intention of blogging.