How do you write women so well?

I think of a man. and take away reason, and accountability.

Male Female dynamics revisited.

Aright, it's happened again, another SM thread got closed too early.

This one is on the often discussed phenom of interracial relationships, and yes once again, it's the desi woman attempting to defend their actions,

when really a defense is not required. Rather just an honest look and admission

Now, the person with whom this exchange was carried out with, Ak, is actually a very honest and forthright person, she's willing to actually challenge most gender norms and has hinted at real belief in equality between the genders, this already puts her in the top 1%. So just wanted to make that clear, but her last contribution in this exchange had really exposed her lack of understanding on certain basic issues. Let's go over them:

link

my statement:

"It's not towards them, it's toward their inability to realize how they've been socially manipulated and disneyfied, and more so than that, how most of them get burned in the long run (many data points to prove this). but in the end, maybe they deserve it."

her response:

please. maybe if there is a racist attitude involved, they 'deserve' it. but when many guys say this, it is sour grapes - at their core, many of these men who comment about such inter-racial couples are not upset over the racist element, if any - they are upset because they feel they are directly affected by it b/c they lost out on yet another potential desi girl. i don't see (as many) desi men lamenting when black or latina women date outside their respective races. "


Of course, here is where she tries to compartmentalize things in an impractical way. Of course there will be an element of racialized thinking. the entire white race is *defined* by racialized thinking. The white race wouldn't exist as a group, if not for superiority and racial heirarchies. Her point of the guys major complaint being "losing out a potential desi girl" is not supported, by her OWN STATEMENTS!

her statement: "have many a desi guy friend who have felt desi women being 'stolen' from them by white guys, but no such sentiment when the women they desired (or didn't desire, as the case may be) were dating somebody else who happened to be desi.."

link here

you can't have it both ways. first you say desi men only get pissed off when whiteboys take our 'sisters', then you go on to say desi guys are only pissed because they lose a potential option. So which is it? are us desi guys pissed that we are getting once again shafted for not being white? or are we just pissed we can't fuck a potential "one of our own"

Now, I wont discount your point entirely, there is an element of a 'lost shot' but the reason it irks us when you go white instead of to another desi guy, is precisely because you must acknowledge the nature of what it means to BE white, ie, a notion of superiority to other races.

her statement continued:

"so, what is this - revenge via marriage? just because you have some grudge against white people and history doesn't mean that everybody else has to. and have we learned nothing that we should continue such practises in our generation and time? it's a very slippery slope to continue attributing to individuals the actions and crimes of their race and ancestors. if i want to marry a white guy, i really don't give a toss what anybody else thinks - don't try to second-guess the thinking - consciously or sub-consciously - of everybody that doesn't conform to your approved practises. "

Ah, now here's some real errant thinking. the ol' "grudge against white people" argument. Of course, anyone who points out historical fact, all of a sudden has a 'grudge'. Secondly, by pointing out that history and suggesting action or at least acknowledgement of that history, we are "continuing such practices in our generation and time"? Was MLK "continuing such practices" when he demanded rights for black people, and demanded SPECIAL TREATMENT to help the 'shackled runner'? To neglect a power hierarchy and its translation into the sphere of relationships is, to put it plain, naive. Seriously this is like 2nd grade stuff here.

As for you marrying a white guy, go right ahead, and don't give a toss what anyone thinks, just don't delude yourself into thinking you arrived at that choice in a complete vacuum - and were able to 'think beyond race'

"and of propensities towards white people - this may be so, but i don't know what says that we shouldn't have a propensity towards white people, or "

nothing, yearn for that white, circumsized dick as much as you want, just acknowledge the reasons why such a propensity would exist, and realize that it's not some coincidence pieced together independent of the racial history and the images of who and what we define as attractive. it's the same reason I shriek when I hear desi guys say, " I just dont find black girls attractive" and don't have the guts to understand why such a preference would come to fruition in the first place.

"that we should have a propensity towards desi people. each person is a result of their circumstances, be they geographical, socio-economic, ethnic, religious, academic or otherwise. and these may very well make them have more in common with somebody who is of a differet race or ethnicity, but nonetheless they have - not just think they have - more in common with such people, whether or not other desis think that is 'right.'""

Sorry, but I dont care if you're a desi living in the biggest podunk redneck town in the world, if you think you have "more in common" with someone outside of your race, that's simply ridiculous on a large scale level. No white person has ever been mistaken carte blanche for a terrorist. No white person has been denied anything for that matter, or been made to feel like a complete outsider simply because their skin is the wrong tone.

Say you don't like your culture, or your history, or you think all Indian guys have small dicks, or whatever, but quit trying to sugar coat what's going on behind the curtain here.

Especially for us as 1st generation immigrants. for most of us, our parents are all from India, (or south asia), we are at a unique point in time where our experiences easily translate. Its the reason why a blog such as SM gets so much readership in the first place! Is this really so difficult to process?

I'm going to give it a try.

Don't ask me why.
My goals might be high
A new blog, it might fly,
Just wait for more to go awry.

The new blog:

link here

Constitute This.

From a discussion that ensued on SM:

"i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you're completely ignorant about const law and you're just trying to fake it, or you're not ignorant and just weird. i mean, "congress" does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i'd be happy to elaborate on but you don't seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates. "

Constitute this.
Alright. So let me be upfront, I have no formalized law credentials, most of my legal insight has come from watching movies and self-study, and discussion with law professionals.

Part of my "keep it real" persona is to state what I do not know.

I asked for an example of a state government enacted-law being overturned or challenged within a state court system because they infringed on freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution. What I got in return was a Supreme Court document, which by my understanding, is a federal court.

On this I may be "dead wrong" however, it wasn't clearly explained in the example presented.

But even if the state takes the place of "Congress" as stated in the 1st amendment, barring someone from saying "Merry Christmas" or making any references to religion in a gov't/public workplace is not infringing on free speech or curtailing "free expression" because it's speech that if allowed could lead to preferential treatment and understanding of one religion over the other. US history is replete with examples where 'harmful' speech has been disallowed.

It all depends on context. if a person says "Merry Christmas" to a co-worker he knows is Christian, in passing through the hallway, it's probably not a big deal, in the sense of, it doesn't constitute "establishment of a religion."

If one of the groups has a meeting, let's say, and the boss says to his team, "Have a Merry Christmas everyone!" while he didn't mean anything negative by it, it could distance those people who do not celebrate Christmas, and, at its root, is a religious holiday. Anecdotally, I remember while growing up, wanting a tree, presents, etc... Why? Not because of some deep seated desire to celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas, or to be Christian, rather just to "fit in" We should be living in a society where no one feels they have to partake in someone else religion in order to feel comfortable. It's the bedrock principle of a gov't not establishing one religion as superior to the other.

This is similar to the case of an RA in a state school running Bible classes from the dorm. The RA is in a position of authority, and generally a point of contact for incoming freshman to a new school. Given the nature of what a religion is, and its purpose and usage in society, someone in a position of authority, using state resources to show preference to one religion over another is ultimately not what the constitutional architects wanted.

Now while separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's architects in reference to the 1st amendment clause barring Congress from establishing a religion.

So, as I see it, clamping down on behaviors which could be interpreted as preference for one religion over another in a gov't work place is completely in line with the 1st amendment's call for "no establishment of religion." Separation of church and state is something they obviously believed in, and intended on being upheld.

Secondly, calling it "a war on Christmas" is just plain stupid, and also clear evidence of a Christian-centric mindset. For, if it is indeed a "War" on anything, it's a war on all religions, not just Christmas.

And using free speech to defend it, is again a huge stretch, as the free speech clause at its root exists to make sure minority voices in a debate or exchange of ideas, are not suppressed. From a practical point of view, Christmas will not be "forgotten" or "mistreated" because gov't employees are unable to say it while in the workplace.

By the way...

The last two posts are directly related. (post 9 and 10)

O, Bama, why are thou?

I feel it absolutely necessary to comment on the Obama factor.

A lot of what I'm hearing in the media is of the variety, "This is already a historic election, because the two democratic front runners are a woman and a person of color." Now, there's no reason to further delve into the the United State's record on racism and it's intrinsic nature to the very foundation of this nation.

There's no reason to once again quote MLK's statement (this one rarely makes the elementary school textbooks):

"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society..... We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population."

Link

But I'll do it anyway.

But the nay sayers will ask, how do you explain Hillary? How do you explain Obama?

Here's what I say. George Bush has just f)(#$)@(#cked up that bad. He's screwed up SO bad, that it's fueled the popularity of both these candidates. No matter how hard the republicans try, any person they put up will be seen as a Bush surrogate. Even the hated by right-wing McCain will at some level be seen as a Bush surrogate. Hell, even a "Clinton Surrogate" aka Hillary, is losing ground to the "vote for change" campaign.

Speaking of Hillary, she's obviously trading on her last name. So in some sense, she cannot be part of any signal that America's perception of it's national leaders are changing. In fact, on SM, it's been guessed that many elderly Desi democrats will vote her way as they remembered the "good times" of Bill's presidency. So obviously, she's being carried quite a bit by it. Does this mean she's not a candidate or person of merit, worthy of a presidential campaign? No, but you cannot make the argument that she's just some Jo Blo (Josephine Blo?) woman proving that electoral politics are changing. She's not just "a really smart woman" with a vision and a this or a that.

Obama, on the other hand, gained his popularity by his distance from the current administration (both in physical appearance and in verbal description) Obama is riding the "hope" and "change" wave so cleanly now, because now is when it will be strongest. Mark my words, if Obama doesn't secure the nomination this year, popularity for him will most likely decline for future election years (2012, 2016, what have you) Why? Because it's Bush's gigantic screwup of a presidency that has fueled all this Obama energy in the first place. Eight, or even four years from now, the anti bush energy that fuels Obama, will have all but completely dissipated.

However, I will say this. In the event that Obama secures the nomination and the presidency. I, HMF, will say the US collective consciousness has made some strides in changing its old ways of thinking.

Half Breeds will take over the world

My prediction for 2008. Half Breeds will take over the world. 'Half Breeds' will always have the 'I'm so confused, I'm stuck between two cultures' thing going for them, but (especially for women) their 'exotic' look will be the new kryptonite to white racist hollywood producers in particular.

Here's the logic. They're confusing. People look them and think, "oh is she A or B? I don't know what to think?" Uhh. she's not white, but she's not asian either. So the standard stereotypes won't immediately kick in, but the thought process of "oh ho hum, just another boring fake plastic britney spears white chick" thinking doesn't kick in either.

In confusion, the brain will lose all its logical capacity, and simply emotion will kick in, emotion being, the evolutionary brain sensors (symmetry, youth, etc..)

Watch out for these cats, they're primed to take over the world.