Reversed Discrimination

Recently one of my cousins posted a picture of a white male WWII veteran who'd been beaten by two black males on FB with a statement wondering why we aren't outraged by this. I was quick to respond as this is a topic that has been bugging me often since starting back to work 3 years ago that I'm seeing not just in the workplace but in society as a whole.  No one is outraged over the WWII vet because the pic isn't circulating and the media isn't picking it up for one simple reason.  We don't care about white males. Nor do employers. In the guise of diversity, 'we' only care if someone is a minority through race, religion or sexual orientation. The rest can bugger off. Lovely state of affairs isn't it? And this is from a someone who in the 90's was a white, jewish woman (total minority) hitting the glass ceiling... you'd think I'd be advocating for the equality that should exist - well, I am.  Equality should exist.  For all.  I think we've gone way to far to the other side where reverse-discrimination prevails.  I work at a place that is so determined to be anti-racism that they've actually become the complete opposite.  There is a mentality at my work that the only way to get hired or a promoted is if you are not a white male.  2nd in line to be passed on is a white woman unless she has some form of 'minority' that can be tapped into such as religion or sexual orientation.  Which employers shouldn't even know anyways.  That said, an ordinary white woman still has a much better chance at being hired or promoted than a white man.  It's not just where I work... I've talked to white male friends who have commented that there is no chance they would get a promotion even if they had seniority in years and better work performance.  Minorities can make clubs and events that exclude those that are not of the same minority but we would definitely hear outrage if there was a club of white males that excluded those that were not the same.  To be clear... I am not advocating a club for white males only I think that would be just as bogus as all the minority clubs currently circulating.  I also want to be clear, since I have previous posts advocating equal rights, that I do see where an inequality exists (such as marriage previously in Minnesota) and completely, 100%, believe in equal rights for all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.  Believing in equality is why I'm disparaged by the inequality that is starting to prevail in the name of equality.  Equality means all are judged or treated the same based on their own accomplishments or actions, not on their race, religion or sexual orientation.  Is there a prevalence of minorities being passed over or ignored? I can easily say that there used to be - but I'm not so sure about that any more.  Being a plain, white female, I can't presume to truly know what barriers still exist in the workplace.  But I do wonder.  

Back to the picture though... why aren't we outraged?  Why isn't this circulating? Firstly, this crime hasn't been classified as a hate crime.  Neither was the story of a couple that were kidnapped and tortured.  We aren't outraged by ordinary violence and mayhem.  Something sensational has to happen around it.  No one is picketing or speaking out.  Crime happens multiple times daily.  Another interesting statement about our society today...  we've all desensitized ourselves to it.  But... we are totally interested in what the latest celeb is doing.  Really?  Who cares about narcissistic media hounds.  Really... you have to be somewhat narcissistic to want a life in the public eye.  I believe that every politician and celebrity has a very narcissistic ego.  They'd have to to purposely submit themselves to that life.  And we should thank them for it as they provide us the entertainment we are looking for.  But... I've wander off topic again.  Back to the picture... we should be outraged.  We should be outraged about the 'normality' of crimes, we should be outraged that people care more about a sensational story or reality TV show than the multiple crimes that occurred that day, we should be outraged by a society that is apathetic.  We should be outraged whether the victim is white being perpetrated by black or a black by white; a man being beaten by a woman should get as much time in the public as a woman beaten by a man (and by this I do not mean in self-defense... there is domestic violence against men, just the same as women, that we never see - but that is a whole different rant).  There should be an equal amount of media attention regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation and we should have an equal amount of rage regardless of the victim or perpetrators.  I'll say it again America... we should have an equal amount of rage over this!

Whether you blame them or thank them... the plankton are responsible!

A friend posted a post-election link on Facebook that caught my eye... the gist of it is  that you can either thank the plankton for Obama's re-election or blame them for Romney not winning.  It's actually doing a comparison of the past two elections, so McCain can be thrown in the pot too.  It's an interesting concept (follow along with me in If You Give A Mouse A Cookie style):

• If you had a plankton bed that follows a line through the deep South (which we do), it would result in richer soil;
• If the soil was richer soil along this line, it would make for better cotton growing; 
• If the cotton grew better along this line, there would have been more slaves; 
• If there are more slaves, it would result in a predominately black population running across that line still today, 
• If there is a predominantly black population running across the 'plankton' line, it would put the vote to President Obama.
• If it put the vote to President Obama, then you should be thanking or blaming the Plankton for the past two election results. 

It's an interesting concept that I'm sure SpongeBob Square Pants villian Sheldon J. Plankton revels in!

Another recent Facebook link was one tying free states and slavery states during the Civil War to the election results (picture to the right, credit goes to Michelle Lawrence on Facebook whom I do not know but was re-posted by a friend with Lawrence giving credit for the second picture to an online reference).

This all makes me sad to think that the division between races is still such a predominant issue.  Both articles lean toward a mentality that we, as a Nation, have not made much progress forward since the Civil War or Civil Rights movements - which I do not think is true.  Unfortunately though, it frankly makes me wonder if underneath some of my Republican friends might also unknowingly still be racist and if some of my black friends only voted for Obama because he is black.  Broad generalizations based on who won/lost the election and the correlation these two posts evoked, so don't get your panties in bunch - I'm just sharing what they caused me to think.

That line of thought though, of course, then led me to the current discrimination that is prevailing against the gay community.  Is doesn't seem all that different to me.  It is discrimination toward a select group of people because they are different (first by race, now by sexual orientation).  It seems to me that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should protect us from this but realize that actually there has been a great history of different interpretations of it's intent.  Although this last election with the same-sex marriage victories in Maine and Maryland, the state of Minnesota not enacting legislation that would define marriage as one man and one woman, and the election of an openly gay Senator do speak to the growth of our country and provide hope for a less judgmental and condemning populous.  I find it interesting that the Republican party, who is very much so about not wanting government involvement are also the faction that is predominantly bringing forth legislation to discrimination against the gay community.  Here of late there has been a huge push by the Republican party to 'educate' the public that they were on the right side of the Civil Rights Movement while the Democrats were on the discriminating side - yet at the same time as yelling out how pro-Black they are, they are anti-Gay.  Seems a tad bit hypocritical.  While I don't agree with them, my friends who are against Gay Marriage do so because of their religious organization's interpretation of the bible and are, and should, be allow to have their opinions.  My issue is when that religious opinion is used to enact laws that are a civil discrimination - as the good majority of these religious factions are in alignment with the Republican party that has put forth the anti-Gay actions.  Please note: I purposely say 'their religious organization because not ALL Christians interpret God's Will as anti-Gay, I also generalize in regards to the Republican party based on the majority as they also are not ALL anti-Gay either.  Bottom line is that while I respect your different of opinion and right to voice it or vote based on it, I have a fundamental issue with a civil discrimination being on a ballot.  The law, in my mind, should encompass all regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. The flip side of that though is that while, in my opinion the law should stay out of if, the religion institutions should also then have the right, without penalty, to make their decisions regarding what they will or will not allow.  Meaning, the law should not define or limit 2 parties, regardless of gender, to engage in a civil union that allows them the financial and societal benefits it brings but religious entities should have the right to not perform the marriage, or recognize the marriage, if it goes against their doctrine.  Some religions wouldn't, some would.  Either way, it would be a foundation on their beliefs and separate from the government rights.  Two things that I see as very different.

Just food for thought this morning...

And for the record... I'm neither Republican or Democrat so don't try to dispel what I think as being with the 'other' party.  I vote based on the individual and the issue and will never be a party-liner.

Marriage Amendment Misinformation

This is a rant regarding the upcoming vote on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.  If you don't want to hear my opinions or are sick of politics, wait for my next post - I promise to attempt light and fluffy there!

Today I heard a radio ad that just completely irritated me as it is total misinformation.  The ad targeted parents claiming that in other states - particularly Massachusetts - that allowed marriage to be redefined allowing same sex marriage led to children in schools being taught about same sex marriage and that parents would have no rights to have their children not be exposed to it then urging to not let marriage get redefined here.  This is so incredibly misleading... This amendment is not about allowing gay couples to get married.  The redefinement that is happening in this proposed amendment is to define marriage as one man-one woman.  So the people who are talking about the bad in redefinement of marriage are actually the one's attempting to make the actual definement of it in the amendment.  The question on the ballot is not should we allow same sex couples to marry - the question on the ballot is "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman. Yes or No" and if passed would add a section to Article XIII of the Minnesota Constitution to state "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.".  So... the only redefinement going on is the one that would define marriage as a man and a woman.  This amendment is not asking to allow same sex marriage.  It is not about gay rights.  It is about fundamental religious factions wanting to limit marriage and write that constraint into our State Constitution.  The State Constitution.  I'll say that one more time - this amendment is not about a law - it is about a modification to our State Constitution.  The State Constitution is intended to be the foundation of our laws and 'non-changeable'.  If you want something changed, the correct course of action is by law - not an amendment to the State Constitution.  Not that I want a law defining marriage either, but that would at least be the correct course of action for this.  The bottom line is that it is promoting government intrusion in personal lives, depriving a specific set of people their freedoms (this is pretty subterfuge for the word DISCRIMINATION!) and it is mixing religion and politics in our Constitution.

That all said... here's the kicker in the whole targeting parents strategy... writing a definition of marriage being one man and one woman is not going to suddenly change the reality of our society.  There are still going to be gay couples, there are still going to be books about same sex couples and your kids are going to meet other kids that have two mommies or two daddies regardless of whether this amendment passes or not.  This amendment is not going to 'save' your children from exposure to the dynamic of what our community is made up of.  They will, if they have not already, come into contact at some point in their lives with someone who is gay or related to someone who is gay.  Considering the population ratio - I'd be shocked if it is only one person.  

And here is my religion attack... how very UN-Christian to be passing judgement based on your churches interpretation of the Bible.  By promoting this amendment based on your religious principles you are saying that you have the right to stand in judgment of other people.  You don't.  You are merely a (wo)man.  Only God has that right.  How does the relationship of two strangers affect you personally? How is that an affront to your religious views? How does it change what you believe, how you believe or where you believe?  How does it affect your marriage?  It doesn't.  All of these things can remain strong and in tact because of your faith - irregardless of how another couple chooses to live their lives.

And here is the biggest kicker in this all that I hope people are asking themselves before they checkmark a box... if at some future date my child or grandchild, niece or nephew, cousin or sibling were to come to me and tell me they are gay how will I reconcile that with myself that I personally made certain that they were never able to marry the person they love.

You might be surprised by who in your life is gay and just unable to tell you.