excuses

instead of writing about perfectly logical explanations, i want to write about excuses...
today, i was playing softball. i have been playing for about 15 years and can acknowledge that i am pretty good. we were playing a team that had their stand full of heckling fans. as happens when playing softball, someone hit it to third base, i caught it and threw them out. let me clarify, a man hit it and me, a woman, got him out. end of inning.
next thing i hear is--you better check her for testosterone.
this was jarring for me to hear. it makes me cringe a little just to write it. but, that is what happened.
what i know, is that what was said is less about me and more about the person who said it. my perception is that there are multiple explanations for feeling the need to say that:

1. masculinity is delicate and needs to be cared for because it will break

2. fear of approval from colleagues

3. embarrassment of being showed up by a woman

4. intimidation of me as a player

5. strict adherence to gender norms and hierarchy

6. anger for getting out

7. intimidation of that a woman can show a man up

8. displaced emotions related to gender roles/norms/expectations

what gets me is that the comment that was made was an excuse in and of itself. an excuse for poor behavior. an excuse to belittle someone (me). an excuse to blame external forces, when there were no external forces.
excuses are weapons. they hurt, injure, and destroy. if they feel they need weapons like that to win a softball game, so be it.

they lost. 21-8. i guess excuses don't work after all...

nuclear peace

while driving to work about a month ago, i heard a news piece on iran and their need for "peaceful nuclear technology." i laughed. what an oxymoron!
i come from a perspective that does not understand war, violence, and revenge, so it is difficult for me to understand the need for nuclear technology at all--peaceful or war-ful. then, i thought i would try to read a little bit on it before jumping to conclusions. turns out there is a peaceful nuclear explosions treaty that outlines the limitations of using nuclear explosions peacefully. after reading this, i realized that within the treaty (and the countries who signed it) peace is when people are not harmed and when the nuclear explosions are not used as a test of weaponry. the explosions could, however, destroy the earth.
peace is not really a concept that has exclusions. peace includes people and the earth equally. peaceful nuclear technology is not all that peaceful, and is destroying the idea of peace itself. also, it negates the importance and volatility of the earth. if we continue to mistreat it, the earth will not sustain us.
just because harm does not befall on humans directly does not mean actions are peaceful. a "peaceful nuclear technology" is just a perfectly logical explanation for destruction.

open letter

to whom it may concern:
as the days pass without a budget in california, my mind turns to the well being of others--of people i don't know and probably never will. fear often accompanies my thoughts. what will happen to people with disabilities, families on welfare, people without health care coverage, homeless people, and communities of color who continue to live in depressed areas? when we are asked to find cost-saving measures by cutting unnecessary or "wasteful" programs, i fear for the gaping hole that is left from such cuts. i fear that through the only lens of budget, we lose sight of our values and see people as waste.
when california has no budget, who suffers most? when a budget is accepted, to what degree will the most underserved populations diminish and die--in spirit and in the flesh?
while we are in such a dismal time, i feel like an outsider to the state of california, my native and current home. it is hard to fathom the hypocrisy of our state, our governor, and the messages we put out about who we are as a state. so little is being done, real solutions and governmental decisiveness is so slow. accountability and responsibility seems lost in the current system. the california public universities are held in such high esteem, yet continue to receive less and less state monies. commercials invite people to work in california, yet our unemployment rate is among the highest in the country.
these are the current issues. poor planning, little action, and the apparent need for social status quo is what has turned california spiraling into a downfall.
unfortunately, people who get the least amount of support will get less and the systems that tend to bring the most equity socially, culturally, and economically (namely, schools, community colleges, and universities) are being whittled down, unable even to strive for equity. while people who directly contributed toward california's political and economic decision-making still have jobs.
it saddens me that when the economy slips, so does the value for equity. how can we be the land of opportunity when we can't offer any? how are we the golden state; progressive, aware, and multicultural when we are lackluster in our standards?
we are not who we say we are, and that saddens me the most because we have such great potential.
i hope for our potential to be realized even in the face of adversity.
--concerned california citizen

white normativity

it occurs to me that white normativity exists although i have never heard this term. i was just at a conference about race, at a workshop on a theory of "silent racism." this theory is essentially that all white people are somewhat racist--that white people's actions/behaviors/thoughts are more or less racist or somewhere on that continuum. "not racist" doesn't exist in this theory.
now, i am not going to argue for or against this theory, but i do want to mention that during the workshop, the person leading it kept saying "we." usually this is not a big deal, however, someone asked who the "we" was and the response was white people. language, namely "we," the presenter used was never altered after this question was asked.
the presenter assumed the audience was white, as that is the meaning of "we." the audience was not white. in fact, the audience was mostly people of color. to me, the inherent message of the continuation of using "we" is that people of color should be disregarded, even if they are in the room.
this was the moment during the conference that i began to think about white normativity. i began to connect concept to practice. to me, white normativity is when we reference the world from a white perspective and (un/consciously) assume that everyone agrees with and has this perspective.

in this situation, the perfectly logical explanation (ple) for the presenter using "we" and really only meaning white people, was simply that it was difficult to find an easy way to make clear that the theory was in reference to white people. to me the ple is pretty pathetic. also, it tells me that the presenter is not doing their own work, just reporting their research. if the presenter had done their own work, this ple would not exist.

pronouns

really, i just have one thing to say. in the absence of knowing the appropriate gender pronoun--she/he--the person should not be referred to as "it."
the sad thing is i hear this often enough to realize that it is said often. people are always people; they should be treated as such. no one, not one person, should be referred to as a thing, an it, whatever, or nothing.
what made me especially disappointed today was that one of the people who off-handedly called someone "it" was a person who attended a training about how to be an ally for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) community. calling someone "it" certainly is not a good start or positive reflection of this person's ability to be an ally to the lgbtq community.
that is all.

institutional racism

sometimes, there is no perfectly logical explanation (ple), no excuses at all.
it was wonderful to sit in a training and have the trainer, a white man, say that institutional racism is the primary factor in the disparately high numbers of children of color in the foster system. i was astonished. it was refreshing to hear such honesty. he didn't want to beat around the bush or have us believe that there was some other "logical" explanation. when we play off stereotypes, believe that a person's worth is less than another because of their race, and act according to our belief in that person's lower worth, then we have racism on individual level. when our beliefs shape our systems--schools, policies, laws, social services, then that initial active use of racial stereotypes is institutional racism.
i think he is right. institutionalized racism has engrained in us that when children of color are in the foster system that somehow that is acceptable. or more acceptable than white children. how does this belief continue so rapidly for so long? the thought that some children deserve to be in the foster system (while others do not deserve to) is the ple that must stop.

i wish there were more moments like today's training.
kudos to you, trainer. thank you for keeping it real.

blame

can blame be a form of a perfectly logical explanation?
socially, we, this current generation of which i am a part, have been brought up to put ourselves first. to believe we are special, unique, and different from other people. that we should stand out and be rewarded for merely being ourselves. for meeting expectations. with exterior messages that affirm all of this--including school curricula and this new social norm of giving certificates/medals/memorabilia to everyone despite one's abilities or talents, we believe and expect to be treated as the special people we are.
i hear a lot --a precise number is completely beyond me-- of people within my generation who put blame onto the outer world about what they (we) are and are not able to do. for instance, "i didn't pass the test because the professor isn't a good teacher." or, a blame that centers on the greatness of oneself--"i didn't learn anything new because i already knew everything that was being taught." i find myself lost in these statements. i don't know what to say or how to have conversations. i am astounded that people, college students specifically, actually believe these things. also, i am astounded that these explanations have been considered acceptable.
i do wonder though...when this blame is present is it a ple? or is placing blame on people/sources other than our selves an expectation of this (my) generation? is it an outcome of the environment and culture in which we have been brought up? funny, the last two questions sound like blame! i do, however, mean it in all seriousness. in my mind, externalizing blame is the most primary ple because it can be seen as perfectly logical that something/someone outside of myself is responsible for what happens to me. meaning, my life is not my life. what happens to me is not of my own making or contributions. then, i think about a contrasting perspective--blaming the victim for their being a victim, and for the crime for which they are a victim. this is where some of my struggle comes with the use of blame and ples.
the concept of generational cultural norms and expectations is another situation in which i struggle to decipher concepts of blame and providing (perfectly logical) explanations for injustice. is using blame as a strategy just a tool in our tool belts? yep. sad, but most likely true. there are many outside sources to blame too. we, each and every one of us is important, which means that attention should be paid to us. individual attention should be paid to us, and when it's not, that simply indicates an error in the system. a system in which we are not responsible.
in california proposition 8 passed, which gave voters the right to block gay marriages from being recognized in the state. what i hear from people (specifically in my generation) who voted no is blame of communities who did not turn out to vote. blame for the advertising tactics of the voting yes camp. no critical dialogue about their own in/action around educating and promoting the no on prop 8 vote. no responsibility for not working hard enough. just a "it's not my fault" response and attitude.
what i saw was not very much work at all. there seemed to me to be gaps between what people said they stood for, the actions they took, and the outcome altogether. there was another gap still--between all of those things and the responsibility for the injustice. is blame here deserved, or is it just being used as a shield to block our sense of self-importance and self-esteem?
what do other, older, generations expect from us? how can we have responses that connect outside of our own experiences when we don't know how to do that and when it's never been a cultural value/ideal? my initial question remains...can blame be yet another ple, or in the case of generations, does its use have a deeper (or just plain different) root?

judgement and action

forgive me for judging...
i am starting to think that a ple for people whose awareness about social justice issues is high centers around action. or lack of action to be precise. for a socially-aware person, the perfectly logical explanation for inaction is the simple fact that they are aware. somehow having heightened awareness and knowledge of information about the world is enough.
if ignorance is not an excuse, then when you do know (when awareness/knowledge is present), inaction is not an excuse either.
try telling a police officer after being pulled over: "i didn't know that was a law." that is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. furthermore, when you do know the law and are pulled over for breaking it, whose responsibility is that?
knowledge alone does not solve problems. in the case of being pulled over, knowledge that the law exists does not mean you follow the law. with social justice, knowing the "laws," or statistics, experiences, cycles of oppression does not mean that you are affecting social justice change.

yesterday i had started this same blog but it came out much more angry than now. and, in a very me fashion, riddled with pointed questions that i would never actually ask someone. just think and occasionally write.
i do think, however, it is important to share a little of where i was at yesterday when i sat down to type my thoughts...
please practice what you preach.
help me understand the gaping hole between what you say and what you do.
why is it that you say you understand about sweatshops, but make no effort to not buy their clothes? what is the knowledge worth then? show me. show the clothing manufacturers. show the workers behind the clothes. show your values. show how knowledge affects your choices. make new choices.
you want to know what you can do?!? use your knowledge! think critically AND act critically. have your actions connect directly to your thoughts. my gosh. is it really that difficult to figure out what to do?


help me understand how you can expect respect, but have no idea how to demonstrate it? how can you expect something you don't really understand yourself? the congruence of expectation and demonstration should be apparent. i can show you respect when you can also show it.


how can you say you want an advanced version of a training when you can't say one thing you gained from it in the first place? i have to say, as a trainer, this is frustrating. what it sounds like you are saying was those few hours you and i both spent were pointless. what value was your time if you did not gain something? then, you have the gall to request a more advanced training on the same topic? why would i waste my time on developing, planning, and implementing it when there is a possibility you will disregard it as well?

don't tell me something is broken when you have the knowledge and tools to fix it. freaking fix it yourself, then tell me you fixed it.

tolerance

tolerance is not the same as acceptance. acceptance of a person inclusive of their identity takes an act of intent, of will, of understanding. tolerance means a person is someone to put up with.
like a rude customer, for instance. i could tolerate a rude customer because perhaps they will only be there a short while, or i know we need their business. i tolerate the rude behavior they demonstrate, but i do not want more of it, i don't seek to have it, and i don't want it to be in my life--i could live without the rude behavior and the rude customer.
to accept a person means that i have put effort into them in some way. i can see that we are intertwined. my life is affected by that person and i am, in fact, the person i am because--in part, of them. i intentionally might seek this person out. seek out their opinion, their experience. their presence is valuable to my life. i accept who they are and what they believe because i can see that these aspects of them make life richer, deeper, and more full.
acceptance does not have parameters. there are not borders and restrictions to acceptance. there is no asterisk. no fine print. acceptance just is. tolerance just is, except...

muslim world

the other day i heard a news anchor say that president obama is "extending a hand to the muslim world..."
i just want to inform the news anchor, the president, and the rest of the country who doesn't know already---muslims live in this country. they live all over the world. there is not really a muslim world. muslims, like all people, live in this world. i know i am picky about semantics, but come on.
what does this statement mean then? what does it imply?
to me, it implies that muslims are not here. they are there. they meaning, muslims are not among us. they are not the normal, not really a true part of this country. there meaning muslims are in other countries; countries that we can choose to have a relationship with or choose otherwise.
it seems like people from the u.s. fear muslims. for example, there was an uproar and media frenzy when there was false information circulating about the president being muslim. it was an accusation. it was reason not to vote for him. it was controversial. all out of fear, and quite possibly hatred.
fear that muslims are out to destroy the country. fear that muslims are terrorists. the fear and assumption that muslims cannot (and should not) lead this country. fear around the potential of a muslim leading the country. fear that allah is something/someone different than god. might i suggest, fear of upsetting the status quo.
it's not wrong to be muslim. it's not a crime. muslims as a whole are not terrorists. muslims as a whole are not fanatics. islam is not a religion based on hate, or war, or revenge.
these fears and assumptions have stacked one on the other, making it impossible for muslims to be seen as people in this country. muslims are stuck under the thickness and weight of such fears. instead of being of a peaceful religion, muslims are described as being in their own world. that's a ple i would like to change as i am an american muslim woman and i live right here.

words with meaning

i am amazed by the numerous meanings and contexts of words. with intention or not, words and phrases can be taken as harmful, oppressive, and bias.
like today...i said that i was the master quilter. not really harmful in and of itself. however, i was talking about leading a group of people who would quilt under my direction. calling myself the "master" quilter was reminiscent of times of slavery with masters and their slave workers. wow. that's not what i meant at all, but it is a meaning that could definitely be understood in that moment. and i have to own that.
now that someone else pointed it out, i feel a bit sheepish. that, however, i can live with. in the future (which starts right this second), i will need to be more aware of that term as well as to other relational/hierarchical terms that i may use in harmful manners. slavery is not okay in my book, and it is important to me that my language is consistent with my beliefs. this is my overarching reason for seeking to use inclusive language. it is important to me for my beliefs and actions to align and demonstrate consistency.

we all mess up. we all need to be okay with messing up and being messy in general. social justice is a tough thing to work on/toward. it is messy and that is a fact. every day is a journey. i need to remember that as much as the next person...especially when i am feeling a bit sheepish.

what is privilege?

simply put, privilege is when one person/group has unfair advantage due to opportunities available only to that person/group. people can have privilege because of laws that are passed (or still on the books), bias presented in news stories, hiring practices, personal cultural capital, and countless other ways. power is having (either personally or through group affiliation) privilege through ideological control, control of resources in society, ability to determine "normal," "real," and "correct," and the imposition of culture onto other groups. typically, when we have power and/or privilege, we are blind to it.
it is easy to see what we don't have and quite difficult to see what we do and how we got it. we have to re-train our brains, our biology and psychology to acknowledge our privilege, as well as the effects of our privilege. from a young age, we are taught to ignore differences and believe in equality. with such teachings, we successfully ignore advantage because we have been told too often it does not exist. we only notice this advantage when we do not have it or when we use it to taunt others.
i am reminded of the "survival of the fittest" theory...biologically, any advantage we have as humans will help us survive. that is biologically though, not socially. advantage given to us socially does not mean we are biologically fittest. social advantage is based on choice and hierarchy. the choice to exault one group over another. the choice to advantage some and simultaneously disadvantage others. biologically, we have all survived. socially, we have not accepted this survival as the biological sign that we all should be here--equally.

i am tired of hearing privilege is having a job or that a person should feel privileged to have a job. unless the job was given based on unfair hiring practices...for instance, if a job was never posted and the owner of the company is having dinner with friends, the friends mention their child doesn't have a job, and the owner agrees to hire this person because their families have been friends so long. something like that is privilege. where people who were qualified for the job didn't even get the opportunity to apply for such a position. instead, a person's social capital granted them this job unfairly. in this case, having this job is an example of privilege. not a privilege as in it's an honor.
i am tired of hearing examples like this because the fundamental definition is different. when you use an example under a different definition yet apply it to the original situation, you are just creating chaos. in the messiness of such chaos, it is easy to dismiss having privilege.
changing the definition of privilege to avoid acknowledging you have it is just a perfectly logical explanation (ple) and more specifically, an excuse. this ple is like an ostrich who just sticks its head in the sand--it doesn't work and it doesn't take away reality. end of story.