Twilight--Beauty and the Beast on Heroin

Greetings,

So I reluctantly just finished the first book of the Twilight series, after being forced to read it for one of my classes. It is probably some of the worst writing and editing I have ever been so unfortunate to read, but for some reason it draws you in like black magic and won't let put the dang thing down.

As this 498-page novel sucked out my soul and replaced it with a pre-pubescent girl with the intellect of an orange, I couldn't help but think about how much this story reminded me of a sick and twisted version of The Beauty and The Beast.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the story of the Disney classic, Belle gets captured by this monstrous beast that treats her like absolute crap, but because she stays with him, he of course turns into prince charming. Well Twilight features Bella (hmm... name bearing any resemblance here?) a quiet, "ordinary" girl with low self-esteem and Edward, a gorgeous, harsh vampire. Surprise surprise, Edward makes Bella fall for him, and she refuses to leave him.

There are many times where he is down right misogynistic and violent towards her. He routinely has to fight the urge of killing her by his strong need to suck her dry. Does she leave him or run away? Of course not, because if you stay with abusers you'll have a fairytale love.

Edward saves her life on numerous occasions, which makes him seem like a hero. I want to make this very clear, Edward is NOT a hero. Yes, he got Bella out of some tight spots, but on every encounter he is condescending, cruel, and usually forceful (both physically and emotionally) with her. He uses his vampire powers to hypnotize her, to get her heart to stop beating and cause her to faint, or to beat crazily fast. He puts her in danger not only by wanting to make her a human bloody mary, but by his actions and temper with her. Like the Beast, he falls in love with Bella and is portrayed as "prince charming." Like I said previously, this is NOT the case no matter how many heart strings Stephanie Meyer (the author) pulls.

What's worse than the classic story of The Beauty and The Beast, where little girls are taught to stay with abusers, knowing that their charm and beauty can cure, change them, is that Edward isn't expected to change... SHE is. This story line has a clear message.... Men are the way they are, aggressive and violent, and women are meant to alter their motions and behaviors as not to egg them on. Throughout the whole book Bella is constantly trying to be careful of what she says or does, changing who she is in order to please Edward and hopefully spare her life. She calls this love. I call this a trance-like death wish that not only her, but many women in society get convinced to have. In the end she even tries to convince Edward to make her a vampire (supposedly an extremely painful and unforgiving process) so that she can be good enough to stay with him forever and not be in imminent danger. There is no expectation that Edward is going to always be able to control himself, as is constantly portrayed by her constant fear of his sudden movements.

I should also note that the female vampires don't treat Bella aggressively in any sort of physical fashion, it is only the males.

It scares me to think this is what our youth are reading, slowly being brainwashed by these gender roles strung through the entire book. If you're a boy, you need to aspire to be dead-looking (the vampires are wickedly pale with large circles under their eyes... much like meth addicts I would assume), harsh, and violent in order to be appealing to women. If you're a girl, you need to aspire to be frail, in perpetual damsel in distress mode, and change to conform to the aggressions your "man" imposes on you. We are setting our youth up for a pattern of domestic violence and abusive relationships.

Nonetheless, even while I was hyper-aware of the implications and messages of this book, I felt myself completely absorbed, unable to stop reading. This is a bad sign. Abuse is being turned into a pleasingly entertaining atmosphere to be sucked in with a crazy straw. What does this say about our society, and the future of our society for that matter, that this book can be written and absorbed with such delight? I would be lying if I said it didn't terrify me, the thought that our youth are growing up reading novels and watching movies with such subliminal smut, learning how to interact with one another. In a culture of terrorism against women, I shouldn't be surprised that this book exists, or even that it was written by a woman. Women have learned to take abuse as romance in order to survive, which ultimately is a terribly sad existence.

It's up to both men AND women to overcome this timeline of abuse and violence. We need to start recognizing these forms of media for what they are, harmful propaganda fed to us in order to maintain a societal hierarchy of gender. Do a bit of research before you decide to buy a book or movie, know the themes and messages. Consumer power should never be underestimated. Don't go to movies that feature rape (which is 1 in 8 of them last time I checked), don't buy books that tell you to change yourself for someone else, and don't buy action figures representing abusive characters as the protagonist.

Chilled with rage and teenage angst,

Rae

Texas--Home of the Oppressors Part 4: Education

Hey All,

I hope you can all get out and enjoy one another's company on our Nation's birthday. I will personally be spending it in a parking booth because apparently the university like to observe holidays the day after they happen. Oh well. Anywho, I am finally posting part 4 of 6 on Education and how it is impacted by the Texas GOP Platform.

"Ten Commandments – We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols."

This one is pretty obvious, they want to let the Ten Commandments be said in everyday school settings without punishment. While I 100% support freedom of speech, I see this as a ploy to get parents and church goers emphasized permission to encourage their children to evangelize in schools. This I do have a problem with, public schools are a place for learning, protected by the Separation of Church and State. I don't mind if kids talk about their religion, but when they start pressuring other students that's when I get frustrated. Every child deserves to go to public school without fear they are going to have a bible pushed at them.

"Support of Parental Authority - We support parental authority and the teaching of moral values in the home. We oppose school–based clinics and/or youth impact centers located at, sponsored by, or funded by any state agency or public school district, whether or not they dispense condoms and contraceptives or refer, aid, or advise minors to have abortions."

Yes, I believe parents should be involved in teaching their children about sex and their feelings about it. I do however resent the idea that there should be no services or help offered to these kids. They are at the ages of curiosity, raging hormones, and peer pressure. You can't expect that every kid is going to be "good" and stay abstient. STI's happen, pregnancy happens, and rape happens. If you don't have places for kids to go, you're basically isolating them, putting them on an island to get information from unverifiable sources, and leaving them to a potentially doomed fate by not giving them the resources to prevent against HIV and other STI's, among other things.

"Basic Standards – We favor improvements on the quality of education and a return to the traditional basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic with sufficient discipline to ensure learning. We support standardized testing to ensure minimal standards are met. Bilingual Education – English is the language of commerce, therefore a successful tiered language instruction program with the following provisions is recommended:

• Year 1: 70% English / 30% Native language (Year 1 indicates first year of U.S. based education)

• Year 2: 80% English / 20% Native language

• Year 3: 90% English / 10% Native language

• Year 4 and thereafter: 100% English (No bilingual education after year 3)

All students must pass recognized standard tests that verify each student’s English ability for their grade level before advancing. No research based evidence exists that a dual language program promotes the language of commerce."

As a English as a Second Language teacher, this really frustrates me. First off, standardized testing is a sham. It's geared to native English speakers and puts unnecessary pressure on students and teachers. The school years are so rushed and packed with information that students don't get much attention to really firmly grasp all the topics.

Secondly, bilingual education isn’t as simple as tiered percentages. Every individual learns language differently and at different paces at that. When you limit education based on a rigid structure, you leave students behind resulting in higher drop-out rates. Especially if you prohibit a student from moving forward a grade (even if they did well in all their classes) just because their English isn’t to a level you deem appropriate. But maybe that’s the goal, get all the immigrants out of our schools so we can reign with our American-born glory. News flash, your ancestors immigrated here, and chances are they didn’t speak English.

“College Textbooks – We support Texas’ colleges and universities use of the same or substitutable textbooks for ten or more years in order to bring costs to students down and maintain some residual value for used books. We oppose restrictions on use of textbooks for multiple years, such as requiring annual access codes.”

This is one of the few stances I actually for the most part support. I do think it’s ridiculous to force students to buy new books because of access codes. I do think that if a new textbook comes out that is infinitely better than the previous edition, it is important to switch to that book. But I like that they are advocating for cheaper textbooks for students.

“Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.”

I think this is beyond ridiculous. Yes, parents should help their children grow and develop in their early (and later) years. However pre-school and Kindergarten are extremely important. This stance is focusing on middle and upper class families who can afford to have a parent not work in order to teach their children. What about single parents, low-income families, and everyone else inbetween who need to have their children in these programs because they work two full-time jobs just to make sure that their kids can eat? By taking away these resources you will not only see a drop in literacy skills in lower-income households, but also potentially greater poverty due to childcare costs and tuition to private pre-schools and kindergartens.

“Educational Entitlement – Given that education is reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, we encourage legislation that prohibits enrollment in free public schools of non-citizens unlawfully present in the United States. We encourage the Texas Attorney General to challenge the Federal provision of residency verification.”

Again, this is ridiculous. Yes, these illegal immigrants need to pay taxes that will help fund schools. But it is not in the best interest of the children to deny them schooling because the citizenship process takes YEARS (sometimes more the 10). Most of these immigrants are here because their people were being slaughtered in their country, poverty destroyed their lives, or they are being persecuted by big corporations or their government. They are here to better their lives, and seeing how that’s what all OUR ancestors came here for, we best live up to our civic duty to help these people.

“Multiculturalism – We support teaching the principles articulated by Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that we be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character and we celebrate positive contributions to our society by members of all cultural groups without emphasizing their differences. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences among racial and ethnic groups.”

This is really a disgusting standpoint living in this masquerade of equality. If we are going to say everyone is the same, we’re all American and thus have the same experiences we are setting ourselves up for bigotry and lack of sensitivity. It is a fact that different racial and ethnic groups experience the world differently. When we fail to acknowledge these differences we falsely say we can relate to eachother on levels that we really can’t. This lack of sensitivity will lead eventually lead to the end of affirmative action, lack of cultural understanding, and eventually, it is this author’s belief, white supremacy to a greater degree than it exists today. In this country we are not all created equal. It’s only through education that we can change that, and if we ignore it, the gaps between races will grow larger and true equality will never be had.

“Sex Education – We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We support policies that mandate parental notification and consent before any sex education program is presented to their child. Parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage.”

So I have a huge beef with sex education in the United States. When over 53% of middle school children are already having sex, you know abstinence-only education isn’t working. There has been studies done that prove that absitence-only education doesn’t decrease sexual activity in youth, but it does prevent a majority of them practicing safe sex or using contraception. Comprehensive sex ed doesn’t increase levels of sexual activity, but it does improve the numbers of of participants using contraception and practicing safe sex.

I do agree that parents should be notified if their child is going to be taught sex-ed, and they should be able to decide what’s best for their child. However this idea that heterosexual abstinence-only education should be the only thing taught is appalling. With teen pregnancy on the rise we need to be preparing our children to protect themselves, rather than hearing myths from their friends.

“Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on Judeo-Christian principles (including the Ten Commandments) upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.”

Let me break this down for you.... They want to TEACH our children the Ten Commandments in school. Last I heard, this was crazily illegal. I’ve written at length the implications of announcing that our country is a Christian nation in Part 3: Separation of Church and State. If we want to alienate our non-Christian students, this is the way to do it. And I in absolutely no way support this method of teaching.

“School Health Care – We urge legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services, including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception through public schools. We support the parents’ right to choose, without penalty, which medications are administered to their minor children. We oppose medical clinics on school property except higher education and health care for students without parental consent.”

No counseling... So what happens if a child is raped by their father and they have no one to talk to but the school nurse or counselor? We want to take away the only resource they have available to them? This is disgusting and just plays into the culture of silence.

Like I said above about sex education, students need access to protection. At the very least condoms are important. If kids are going to have sex (which, they are, nothing you say or do is going to prevent it) do you want them to have the option to prevent disease and pregnancy? I would hope you would. There is really no other place for these kids to get these products, and it’s important that they are available to them AND they know how to use them.

Education in this country is already severly lacking. This platform is calling for regression, not progress. We owe it to our youth to fight this and ensure that they receive the education they deserve. I think it’s also important to note that this isn’t just a Texas issue. Texas is the largest distributor of text books in this country. That being said, what happens in Texas is what happens in schools everywhere. If you don’t want your children being taught that our country is a strictly English-speaking, Christian nation, you need to help rally against this platform. Urge your local senators to take up bills like California did, asking your state government to have restrictions on what can go into these textbooks so unfair, biased sentiments aren’t woven into your children’s texts.

All the above stances were taken in full context and can be found here.

Peace, love, and the Right to Equal Education,

Rae

Queerland--The Culture of Hooking Up

Hey Folks,

In my summer class we've been reading various chapters from the book Guyland, which discusses the rules, codes, and culture associated with being a man between the ages of 16 and 26 in American society. While reading this book I was constantly finding things that reflected how I felt queer culture worked. Despite all of the relatable characteristics, I would say the most profound one is by far hookup culture.

In the queer campus environment it seems that everyone is ranked on social status. You have the baby dykes and fags, the B crowd, and the studs and power dykes. I should note this is my own rigid description of queer hierarchy, and any other person experiences this hierarchy differently and therefor might add tiers, subtract tiers, or rename them entirely.

So let's start out by defining what these categories are. The lowest tier being the baby dykes and fags. These are the folks that are just coming to grips with their sexuality, embracing it, and/or walking around proudly trying to make sure everyone and their mom knows they are queer. Their enthusiasm is taken in by everyone surrounding them. To those of their same level they are looked at as people to experiment with, enjoy, and date. The people involved in the higher tiers instead look at them as fresh meat, the prey. I'll explain this further in a minute.

The B crowd contains the majority of queers. These folks are for the most part at peace with their sexuality and understand who they are. It has been my experience that these people date on occasion, hook up on occasion, but for the most part just enjoy life. They may be somewhat idolized by the baby dykes and fags, but not nearly to the extent of the highest tier.

The elite, top level of campus queerdom is to be a gay stud or power dyke. These folks are on top, shown as being the most desirable. These are the queers that sleep with a LOT of different partners. They truly embody the hookup culture that is found in the culture of straight white college men. Many people strive to make it to this tier, to show their true gayness. Since these folks are on top, whenever fresh meat (aka the baby dykes and fags) come into the picture, they tend to jump on them like a fresh kill. They take advantage of their curiosity and want to explore in order to continue to increase their social ranking.

I personally fit into the middle category. I'm long passed my coming out stage where I feel like I need to makeout with every woman that moves. I will admit, in the beginning I wanted to be the power dyke, the most desirable of the crowd, the one in charge so to speak. So initially, I hooked up, it was part of what it meant to be a queer in college.

So what happens when I'm sick of pointless, sloppy, drunk sex? I coast in the middle, B crowd. I've come to grips with this and am completely comfortable in this situation. I'd much rather date someone I'm actually interested in, rather than score (and really, it is scoring, you keep track of your partners and whomever has the most points wins status) with a woman I just think is attractive but have no clue what our brain chemistry is. This is all hunky dory until you realize the reality of the environment you're in when you live in a campus culture.

This makes dating extremely difficult. You meet someone you actually like, but before long it is expected that your relationship is based on sex. The concept of taking it slow, getting to really know a person is rapidly being erased. This perplexes me.

How much value can you really put on a relationship that is almost solely based on sex? I think the answer to that question varies from person to person, but overall I think that any value couldn't be whole based on the imbalance within the relationship. If we stop caring about the connections we are making with people, what does that say about us as humans? While sex is an extremely personal and intimate act, I think it is being robbed of some of its power in that regard. Rather than being a way to link to people together on a profound level, it's being used as a tool to further ones social status.. a tactic used since the dawn of time (Remember those Greeks and Romans that looked at sex as holding power over the recipient?).

The only difference I would say, is that in queer culture both parties generally get a rise in status, rather than only the "man" in the hookup. While I think the "top" in the situation generally gets more praise, there isn't as much of a stigma of being "bottom" and hooking up and being a slut as it would be in a heterosexual encounter.

I have no real solution to this, I just find it extremely fascinating. We're using each other in this large game of keeping score and seeing who comes out on top. Just some food for thought.

I also recognize I didn't discuss politics in terms of bisexuality. This is partly due to the general exclusion and mistrust of most bisexuals which possibly gives them their own tier in the hierarchy altogether. I also think that in terms of how in tune they are in queer culture, they can still rank in any of the three tiers, but this is solely based on the community and environment they are in.

I'd be really interested in hearing your views on the topic, as I in no way claim to be the expert.

Cheers,

Rae

Racial Profiling--Ensuring Safety or Perpetuating a Culture of Racism

Hey All,

So I know that I already posted earlier today and am potentially breaking the blogging etiquette of letting readers keep up with you, but tough. Work is a wonderful place to remind you of all the things that happen in society, that much is for sure. So today I came across a particularly blatant social issue, racial profiling.

Let me set the scene for you.... Every once in awhile the parking garages get an email with pictures and names of wanted criminals, people to look out for and when we see them we are to call the authorities. Earlier this week we got one such email, with the pictures of a black man and a white woman, we're told they are drug dealers.

So today, a coworker of mine called 911 to notify them that he had seen the man in the picture. Now this would be perfectly legit if it had been true. The man had a patient visitor pass (meaning he is a direct relative of a patient and has parking privileges). These passes have the name of the person parking as well as the patient, and the names were not the same. So this man who is coming to the hospital to provide support for his sick loved one was about to have a really bad day. Essentially the only crime this man had committed was being black in the United States.

When I confronted the coworker about the situation he expressed no remorse. He said that first of all he had to racial profile, secondly that to him all black people looked the same. My coworker is a middle-class, middle-aged, white man. I was dumbstruck. I asked him if he had seen a brunette woman (the woman in the picture was white and had brunette hair) if he would call the cops on her because all brunettes look the same. He chuckled and said "Of course not!" and walked back to his booth.

I've heard this sentiment before... "Oh, all those Asians look the same!" or the assumption that all brown people are Mexican. But every time I hear it, I'm as dumbfounded as I was previously. This is systematic racism at it's best, and it's rampant within our society.

The only reason anyone would think that an entire group of people who share a skin pigment look the same is because they don't care to actually look at them as individuals. The people who say these things are those who don't take the time to get to know people of color, who don't take time to appreciate other cultures. This is a dangerous slope to be on. When we generalize who people are based solely on how much melanin they have, we fall into the hands of harsh stereotypes and prejudices.

All blacks are on welfare and in gangs, selling drugs. All brown people are illegal aliens. All Asians are really good at math and can't drive. All white people are rich and have morals.

When people tell me they aren't racist, I often chuckle. I'm not saying that racism is funny, it's just so ingrained into our society and how we are raised that it would be highly unlikely for anyone not to harbor even the faintest racist tendencies. Like when my coworker told me he wasn't racist, I couldn't help but laugh because he doesn't realize how embedded his racism is, it's natural and normal to him. When you can't tell that one person doesn't look identical to the next solely because they don't share your same skin tone, chances are you've got some racism deep down in your gut, the result of living in a racist society that likes to pretend its not.

Saying "I'm not racist!" and then talking about how all the Mexicans are stealing our jobs is a contradiction in the simplest of terms. Saying you're not racist but then the only people you will talk to are people who share your same skin town is a contradiction. When someone isn't racist they don't care what color a person is when they talk to them, they don't assume they're going to steal their purse because of their race, they don't make hefty generalizations, and they take strides to learn about others' experiences. Now a lot of this isn't just racism, it's classism and sexism and all other sorts of isms intertwined into the scenarios as well.

As a society we need to be better about realizing that racism is still alive and well, and just saying that you're not racist doesn't make it true. It's time we start doing some real soul searching and call each other out on things that embody this culture of racism in a means of progressing our nation to a truly racist free state. And I want to make it clear that I'm not just pegging this on white people, people of all races generalize and discriminate against each other. I've had black friends talk about those damn Mexicans, and Asian friends talk about those poor, unintellectual blacks. I've even heard people of their own races generalizing themselves. We need to work together to combat this. Acknowledge that everyone plays into this and that the solution is not simply one sided.

We need to see people as individuals, not as overgeneralized groups of people. I can guarantee that there countless people that are exceptions to these stereotypical boxes we put them in, but we'd never know it unless we didn't assume. Who knows, the person you've been so sure was stealing your jobs also happens to be a US citizen and makes an excellent friend. Don't be so quick to judge.

Racial profiling is a way of incriminating an entire group of people for the crimes of one. If you take nothing else from this, just remember to treat everyone as individuals. Think of that poor man getting pulled over and needlessly questioned after a traumatic day at the hospital solely because someone assumed he dealt drugs because he was black. We're not all the same, and we should start reflecting that in how we view one another.

Peace, Love, and Social Clarity,

Rae

Human Trafficking--The Truth We Choose to Ignore

Greetings,

So last night I finished reading an excerpt from the book Half The Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide for a class I'm taking this summer. It made me recall the various educational events and fundraisers that I did with UNICEF to bring awareness to the issue of human trafficking, more specifically, the trafficking of women and girls as sex slaves.

What people don't realize is that millions of young girls and women are taken from their homes and forced into prostitution by force of beatings, rape, and countless other forms of abuse. These brothels often don't give them clothes, shoes, or wages for fear that they'll run away.

Furthermore customers rarely use condoms, thus contributing to pregnancies (where if not aborted right away, they take the children from their mothers to keep them from running away as well as to raise the children to be new prostitutes) and disease. As this book points out, one of the leading causes of death amongst these sex slaves is AIDS. They even pointed out that in some parts of the world, predominantly in Africa, there is a myth that you will be cured of AIDS if you have sex with a virgin, thus triggering and increase in abductions of young girls.

This is a horrific occurrence and many people, even the authorities, just turn and look the other way. What's more, many Americans think "oh, this only happens in OTHER countries, it's not like it's in my backyard." The fact of the matter is, it IS in our backyard. Madison, WI alone has estimates of at least 200 sex slaves, trafficked from all over. There isn't a major city (or even suburban, smaller cities) that isn't affected by human trafficking. Hundreds of thousands of people (predominantly women and girls) are trafficked into the US as mail-order brides, person masseuses, or underground brothel workers.

So denying that this is happening, that millions of women are girls are being forced into slavery, should not be an option. We are all linked together by being human, by the capacity to feel and love, the innate need to survive and have freedom. Ignoring millions of people for the sake of your own privileged existence is crime to yourself as a human being.

It's time to start taking action, get involved with organizations that combat human trafficking, travel abroad and volunteer at schools and shelters for women and girls, or at least do your research and remain aware of what's going on so you can spread the word. Unless the masses start speaking up, nothing is going to change. Not only should we be helping rescue women and girls from all over the globe, providing them with education and job opportunities, but we should be rescuing our sisters that live in fear right under our noses. It's also important to note that we have to be mindful of the cultures of each of these places that are plagued with this problem. We need to find a way to allow them to figure out their own means of combating this issue and supporting them in those endeavors. We're not here to be the happy-go-lucky white middle-class folk that just throw money at them, we need them to take feminism and figure out what it means to them and the best means of achieving an equal world.

I'm not saying this is an easy process by any means, but we need to stop living in the dark. Host events on your campuses or in your communities about what is actually happening here in our backyards. Never underestimate the power of education. Even if you don't have the money to spare to help the cause, that doesn't mean you're useless. Talk about these issues, tell your neighbors, friends, coworkers, and families.

If you do come across someone whom you think might be the victim of trafficking, tell the authorities or find a rape crisis organization and notify them. They can help from there. It's time we start fighting sexism within our own societies, and support others in their efforts. Anytime a wombyn anywhere in the world is oppressed, we are all oppressed.

More Information:

http://www.womensfundingnetwork.org/resource/past-articles/enslaved-in-america-sex-trafficking-in-the-united-states

http://abcnews.go.com/US/domestic-sex-trafficking-increasing-united-states/story?id=10557194

http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/trafficking.html

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/fact_sex.pdf

http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=965

http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf/vw-sublinks/B5DD72A243A1150B80256E49006C621E?opendocument

Now go out there and get active!

Rae

Texas--Home of the Oppressors Part 3: Separation of Church and State

Greetings to Internet Land,

Part 3 of the 6 part series on the Texas GOP Platform is dedicated to the implication of the Separation of Church and State. For those of you who might not be familiar with this, it's basically where the constitution says that religion and the Church have no power or influence in legislation or court rulings. While this is a fundamental part of the founding of our nation, it is trampled on in countless ways. This platform does a good job of taking it and dragging it through the mud.

"Remedies to Activist Judiciary – We call Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges. We urge Congress to adopt the Judicial Conduct Act of 2005 and remove judges who abuse their authority. Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights."

Alright, there's a lot wrong with this stance. The first being that the fastest and most efficient (note, by most I don't mean it is that efficient, it's just better than proposing a bill) way changes in government are made are through cases in that occur in federal and state supreme courts. Their ruling judge what is or isn't constitutional and how the law should be enforced. What they are wanting to do is get rid of any progressive judges that help this country progress, hence leaving room for digression and removal of personal rights for anyone who isn't a white middle-class male.

To go farther, they want to take away the reason we have the Supreme Court. If you cut out anything having to do with abortion, religious freedom (which we do indeed technically have according to our founding fathers), and the Bill of Rights. Those three categories cover almost all of the cases that would be seen in cases that make it to the Supreme Court. They want to eliminate progress and make sure rights aren't granted where they don't think they are deserved (when more than likely they are).

"Free Speech for the Clergy – We urge change of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send government any personal information about their contributors."

So tax benefits should be given to organizations who openly promote discrimination, hate, and violence. Yeah, that seems really appropriate. I'll pay my full taxes, and the West Borough Baptist Church can squeeze by tax free, because after all, they stand for everything the Texas GOP loves. And maybe, just maybe, they can get rid of all those fags and people of color without financial or criminal consequence.

Whether people like to admit it or not, churches are businesses. The fact they are tax-exempt in the first place is beyond me. When they don't have to provide information on who and what is giving them money, there is no way of truly knowing what they are doing (from a governmental standpoint). If you have a terrorist organization feeding millions of dollars into a super church in the faith that they'll promote hate, you have problems. If hate organizations can fund churches, churches don't deserve tax breaks. Enough said.

"Religious Freedom in Public Schools – We urge school administrators and officials to inform Texas school students specifically of their First Amendment rights to pray and engage in religious speech, individually or in groups, on school property without government interference. We support and strongly urge Congress to pass a Religious Freedom Amendment, which provides: “Neither the United States nor any State shall prohibit student–sponsored prayer in public schools, nor compose any official student prayer or compel joining therein.” We urge the Legislature to end censorship of discussion of religion in our founding documents, and encourage discussing those documents."

If you're speechless after reading that, you're in good company. For starters they are promoting open Christianity in schools. Reading this, you would think any religion could have their rights to prayer in school, but after reading the entire platform, I have no doubt in my mind that they would encourage schools to quiet any students who express faith in a religion or lack of religion that wasn't an acceptable form of Christianity. By openly supporting religious speech in schools, they are essentially promoting evangelism or spreading the word.... no matter how much hate that word involves.

Now don't get me wrong, I firmly support freedom of speech for everyone in all settings. I just think if they want to emphasize freedom of speech, they best emphasize allaspects of it, not just religion. Perhaps what upsets me the most is that they want our government to say "We are a Christian Nation and all our laws reflect this." While it is possible that Judeo-Christianity helped inspire some of the documents, our country was founded on the basis that anyone can worship or not worship any religion they please.That means we are NOT a government of faith, and should not be proclaiming such things in order to alienate a large percentage of our population.

"Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice."

Again, they are saying that everyone can choose to worship whatever religion they please, but they best keep in mind that the only religion that the US really accepts and promotes is Christianity. Not to mention that "under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until World War II and in this author's opinion, done wrongfully so. I see this as nothing more than a scare tactic to push other religions (or lack thereof) underground for the fear of persecution. Cool texas, real cool.

"Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties – We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state. We urge the Legislature to increase the ability of faith-based institutions and other organizations to assist the needy and to reduce regulation of such organizations."

Huzzah, they sure like to end things with a big shabang. I can't tell you how upset this last stanza makes me. First, they're saying that if we don't acknowledge the fact that their Christian God (which, I remind you is not everyone's God) is the driving force in the founding of this nation, our freedom and futures will be in jeopardy. The way I see it it's just the opposite. If our government gets bullied into taking such a stance, our nation will go from being an already big bully on the world front, to an evangelist nation that plans on starting wars to protect the sanctity of the Christian God. Who's going to get hurt by this? Any nation that doesn't have an official religion that can't be considered Christianity, oh, and all the people here in the US who don't believe in the Christian God.

Furthermore, they want to completely eliminate the separation of church and state, claiming it's a bunch of poppy-cock. While I agree the separation of church and state has been trampled all over, it is still potentially the most important document that exists in our constitution. It's what is supposed to guarantee that people of all believing natures are represented in the law and not discriminated against because of their choices in faith.

In addition, reducing regulation of religious organizations that help the needy would produce devastating effects. In New York (I'm pretty positive it was New York, if not it was Washington DC) a Catholic organization cut all of its services to the homeless in protest of a bill that was going to be passed to give same-sex couples the right to marry. That sent 10,000 people out on the streets without food or shelter. When we don't regulate these organizations, they use their influence to persuade voting. As many of you know, the bill was rejected.

The Separation of Church and State is a fundamental block in our government. If we choose to cast it aside, it is my firm belief that everything is going to be going to the figurative fires of hell in a hand-basket. Discrimination will be able to run rampant with full permission and little remorse or consequence. If we really want to secure freedom and morality (humanity even) for our nation, we need to fully enforce the Separation of Church and State and elect more officials that aren't of a strictly Christian background. I want to see people of every faith in our government. It's up to us to make it happen, we have the voting power, time to start using it.

And as always, all the above stanzas of the platform were taken in full context and can be viewed here.

Cheers,

Rae

How I Met Your Mother-Fact or Fiction?

Hey Folks,

In-between designing my next piece of ink, I indulged myself with watching a couple episodes of How I Met Your Mother. Despite many of its heteronormative contexts, I still as a whole enjoy the show. Call it a guilty pleasure if you will, but it's the truth.

That was until a scene came up where Barney (the hypersexual male character in the show) is trying to replace his (ex-) best friend Ted by being the wingman of this nerdy coworker. Throughout the scene they show how his coworker is incompetent with women, sometimes appearing schizophrenic due to anxiety, and entirely unmanly because he hadn't had sex in 13 years. In order to combat this man's obvious "faults," Barney gives him three rules on picking up women...

1. Get them alone, that is isolate them

2. Say their name repeatedly in conversation

3. Subtly put them down

This got me thinking, is this how people really view women and how to get them into bed? This scene seemed a little too much like animal planet with a side of rape for my tastes. Think about it... "Let's draw her away from the pack, do a dance to make her think we care, then put her down so her self esteem is so low you can nail her!"

It takes away female humanity and reduces them to a game. What bothers me more is that because this is in this show, it's obvious that this is relevant in today's society, otherwise they wouldn't have it on display for million of people who couldn't relate.

Is this how we're training our young boys, men, and everyone else how to approach women? Like the prize buck that transforms into your species so you can fuck them and leave them? It's episodes like these that reinforce our rape culture. Subtle, yes, and probably not the intention of the producers, but by reinforcing this attitude towards woman they are inherently excusing these actions as normal and okay.

As a society we need to start being more mindful of these images that are constantly being portrayed in the things we watch, do, and hear. I once read the fact that 1 in 8 movies have a rape scene in them. And more than that, the way most of them are done are to inspire arousal in its viewers. I shouldn't have to say why this is a problem, but for the sake of being thorough I'll say it anyway. Making rape sexy in films creates the idea within the general public (generally men) that forced, aggressive sex in the real world is sexy. If she wore a slutty dress and says no and fights you, she's just playing, after all she's just there for your sexual satisfaction.

As viewers we need to start demanding that shows and films reflect the world we want to live in, not the one filled with terror. By doing mass boycotts of shows or movies that reflect negative views towards women, producers will have to start changing scripts. They don't make money unless we give it to them. That being said, we need to be more conscious consumers.

Until next time....

Peace, love, and revolution,

Rae