Privilege

I've been pondering what people mean by "privilege" in the context of current affairs (civil rights, freedoms and responsibilities). And I've been pondering whether I fall into the category of "privileged," because self-examination is as important in personal growth as it is in the fight against testicular cancer.

My conclusion, so far, is that, it MUST be a privileged person who doesn't vote, and avoids educating themselves about politics, and doesn't fight with their vote for civil rights. It is an unavoidable conclusion that a privileged person must be a person who does not belong to an oppressed group of people. It must be a person who does not struggle financially everyday. It must be a person who isn’t black. It must be a person who isn’t gay. It must be a person who isn’t “of color” of any sort. It must be a person who is not female.It must be a person who never struggled with gender or sexual identity issues. It must not be children taken from their parents. It must be a person who’s civil rights are not in danger. It must not be a person who flees from violence and oppression from their own people and government. It must be a person who never experienced the fear of police brutality or profiling.

In short, people who don't vote, and avoid educating themselves about politics, and don't fight for civil rights, the people who tell us all to “play nice”, the people who are tired of Facebook posts like these, the people who think us being engaged in politics is “annoying” - they must be highly privileged. It is the only logical conclusion. They not only don’t want to fight, but have no need to fight, because their life, their safety, their livelihood, their freedom, their PRIVILEGE, is not at stake. They claim to not know about politics - but they lack motivation to educate themselves because they are not affected - they are *privileged.*

There is a short list of labels for people that fit this highly privileged group of folks - but I’ll let the reader do that math.

The rest of us, A.K.A. the minority groups, are fighting for our lives - literally. We fight for our safety. We fight for our relationships, our culture, our art. We fight for living wages and fair workplace environments. We fight for our right to unionize. We fight for our freedom, for some semblance of privilege. We fight for our dignity and respect.

There are many minority voices that are oppressed - and many reasons for that oppression - not wanting to be "out" at work for fear of losing a job or being harassed or bullied, the protection of people within our care, or perhaps fear of having our civil liberties ripped from us.

But THAT is exactly why we, the minority groups, have to be educated about politics, that is why we share strong opinions, that is why we are emphatic about elections and voting. I recognize that it is, ironically, a place of privilege that I live and work in a safe place where I can be myself. But there is all that distance traveled between work and home where I am, in fact, at risk of oppression - at the bakery, at the grocery store, at the bank, at a restaurant, in an alley or on the street. We can’t afford to be nice about it - because our oppressors aren’t nice. They are bigots and murderers and bullies, and xenophobes, and homophobes, and racists, and misogynists, and transphobic, and sexists, yes, they are politicians.

If we, the minority groups, don't vote, and don’t participate in politics, if we don't fight for civil rights, WE LOSE. If you don’t know what THEY are doing to us, WE LOSE. There are real lives at stake here - and very real civil liberties at stake.

There are many of you who say our tool, our secret weapon, is our VOTE. Although important, that is only partially true. Our real ace-in-the-hole is YOU - our friends, our family, our coworkers, our ALLIES. We are a minority, which means our votes can be oppressed by a sheer function of numbers. But our ALLIES can shore up those numbers, make our votes count. We need you.

Educate yourself. Read up on the candidates, ask your affected friends and families, ask an immigrant, ask a member of a minority group - ask how they are affected, ask how their loved ones are affected.

Please help us overcome our minority disadvantage - get out and vote this November. Vote at the local, state and federal levels to protect civil rights - vote for the candidates who will protect civil rights, who will protect minorities, who has compassion and empathy and human decency. VOTE, please, to protect that transgender child in your family tree. Vote to protect your GBF. Vote to protect the immigrant running from violence and oppression, just like many of our own ancestors.

Victory!

Simple Machines.

How can there still be people in my life who claim they love me and care about me and YET still qualify their "love" by saying crap like "I don't agree with your lifestyle," or call being gay a "choice?" WTF?
The truth is, any argument or retort I might have to offer these people tends to be a waste because their minds don't ever want to be changed, they're almighty in their assertion that they are right, and I, therefore, must be wrong. 

I suppose I'm just as guilty of that logic. 

Point me, if you will, or if you can, to any credible evidence that proves I ever had any choice in being gay. 
And don't quote me any lemming bible - that is NOT evidence. 
Because all evidence I have is to the contrary.
I know many folks who live a falsehood, by hiding their true selves in an unsatisfactory marriage or lonely bachelorhood - wishing, of course, to avoid the "consequences" of being "out." They forget that they are involving innocents in their deceptions - spouses, children, family and friends.
Had I made that "choice," I'm sure I would have committed suicide many years ago, or at the very least, have been victim to severe depression or other mental disorder.
My "lifestyle" is NOT about sex, or lust, or debauchery.
It's about identity, and about having the capacity to love a PERSON, and gender has little to do with it.
And don't tell me "don't knock it until you try it," because not only have I tried it (relationships with women), but I challenge you to find a vehemently straight person who felt the need to "try it" with a same-gendered partner before they "knew" they were straight. They KNOW they're straight, same as I know I'm gay.
And I refuse to live a lie, especially not to satiate religious, societal or moral expectations of a misled and misinformed group of people or individual.
So, I am forced to move beyond such arguments with people who might never be convinced by logic. Instead, I'm forced to examine the importance of my relationships with such people: Just how important is "family?" My assertion is that "family" is defined by people who actually ACT LIKE IT, and most times has absolutely NOTHING to do with blood ties. And in that sense, family is very important to me. 
My assertion is that love of a person is unconditional, but the degree in which I need that person involved in my life is directly related to my comfort level with that person. Obviously, if they're willing to try, so am I, and in doing so, I might gently change their minds through example - through them seeing that my relationship has richness, fulfillment, quality - and genuine love. They may be able to see that whatever prejudice or preconceived notion they may have about a gay person is changed by their willingness to care, to be involved, to be open-minded.
With such open-minded or open-hearted people, it is easy to see a clear path for association, for friendship, for quality relations.
But just how (and why) do I need a person in my life who is closed in mind and heart? Shall I just dismiss them, count them out, edit them out of my life? Should they be deleted (in modern terms) from my Facebook, my twitter, my newsfeed? Should I recognize that they are unchangeable, immovable, hopeless - in terms of their capacity for unconditional love?
One thing I know for sure: I'm NOT editing my life for their personal comfort - NOR should they. Certainly they are entitled to their opinion, and I defend their right to do so, just as surely as I defend my own right. But i don't have to compromise my integrity, my happiness or my identity.
But I have to ask, if that is their mindset - if their hearts are truly closed, why do they insist on calling me "family?" Are they relying too heavily on a deep-rooted "traditional" definition of the word?
If "family" is so important to them, why does it seem to come with conditions (I love you but I don't agree with your lifestyle...), with prerequisites (we don't talk about, or just simply ignore, the "gay" thing)?
I'm left with the only logical conclusion - and that is simply that they're leaving a door open for dialogue, whether it be locked, barred, bolted, welded or otherwise - the door is still there, and I should not give up hope. If the door wasn't there, why do they bother? Why not just simply be completely uninvolved? Why include me in their life at all?
So with that in consideration, I have to study intent. Perhaps the phrasing, the word choice, is a an accidental offense, one that comes from a lack of familiarity or association with real-live-gay-people. Perhaps they simply do not know they are being offensive.
So, I'll just continue to be myself. They can continue to be themselves. Perhaps by continued association, we will both learn the intent of the other, and it won't be so bad as it was in my head. There are keys to locks, pry bars for bolts,  the inclined plane was  invented for exactly this purpose. The gentle wedge shall prevail. 
And if it doesn't, time will solve it, eventually - TIME - the simplest machine of them all.

No-Good Samaritan

Sometimes our priorities are out of whack. Like, oh, say, when we want to save a life, or assist someone in pain, or help a person through an emotional time, or protect someone from abuse. This phenomena extends to all creatures, too.

Saving a life comes with risk, though. We might get sued. We might get arrested. We might get shunned. We might get yelled at.

Oh, come now, surely you can imagine many scenarios where the preceding statements are true. And not just true in regards to saving a life, but also true assisting someone in pain, or helping a person through an emotional time, or protecting someone from abuse or harm.

It boils down to a matter of perspective - and money.

A woman, rescued by a good-samaritan from a burning building, gets a broken hip in the process.  She sues the Samaritan!

A man ends the life of his-long suffering animal-friend. Gets the animal-rights activists fired up and now faces legal action.

A doctor gets asked by his patient to euthanize. He loses his license and must face jail time.

The perspectives of the people involved in these scenarios: surely they ALL believe THEY are right. Their belief-systems are sound, time-honored, maybe even "holy."

When faced with a moral dilemma, we often have to think quickly and decisively as to what the right thing to do is. In cool-calm-collected fashion, we all follow the right channels, right?  Report the crime, report the abuse, report the emergency - and stand idly by and wait for "the authorities" to handle it, right?

Why?

Please consider - what's different about the following statements, and how do you emotionally respond to them?


Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a person yell at another person?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a person hit another person?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a person yell at another person because he/she is black?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a person hit another person because he/she is black?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a parent yell at their child?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a parent hit their child?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a parent yell at their child because he/she is gay?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a parent hit their child because he/she is gay?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a pet owner fail to give their pet attention?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a pet owner fail to give their pet food/water?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a pet owner fail to give their child food/water?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a pet owner fail to give their child love?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a pet owner hit their pet?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a pet owner hit their spouse?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a parent yell at their spouse?
Can we (should we) stand idly by and watch a parent yell at their spouse because he/she is gay?


At what point is it okay to intercede, and what motivates us to do so, or not do so?  And what is the appropriate course of action?

Easy enough to sit at our computers and think, "I know what I'd do," but when you are facing real-life situations, with real-life consequences, real-life danger, real-life pain and emotion - DO YOU STILL KNOW WHAT TO DO?

And if you decided to "call the authorities" and place your trust in "the system," while real people or real animals suffer, ask yourself - could you have made more of a difference? Could you have saved someone pain, death, dismemberment or emotional trauma by taking more direct action?

And if so, what stopped you? Risk of getting sued? Risk of getting scorned?  Risk of losing your livelihood?

Doing the right thing is a matter of perspective. It's based on belief systems taught by society, by family, by media, by religious organizations, by radicals.  Consider the influences on YOUR perspectives carefully, and then challenge your reactions to the "can we (should we)" statements above.