Catcalling

“Wowza!” “Damn!” “You lookin’ fine!” “Hey girl, you got a boyfriend?” and of course we can’t forget the familiar whistle.

I HATE catcalling. I hate it. It bugs me; it always has and always will. I’ve had multiple conversations about how catcalling is disrespectful towards women, and while other women agree, the response I get most often from men is, “you should take it as a compliment.” So I got to thinking the other day about just why I hate catcalling so much. What if I should take it as a compliment? I don’t, but why not? Why is this such an irritating act?

It boils down to objectification. By catcalling, I am constantly reminded of some creepy stranger staring at me. Someone I don’t know and don’t feel comfortable around is looking at my ass, my boobs, waist, legs, or maybe (if I’m lucky) even my face. That person is reminding me that they have control and that I am the object of their stares. This person doesn’t care that I don’t want to be looked at. They don’t care that I would prefer to be anonymous. They aren’t even thinking about me at all; they are literally breaking me down and disassembling me into nothing but body parts to be gawked at. That’s not okay.

I am okay with people looking at me. It’s a sort of given situation that people will, in some regard, notice my presence when I leave the house. But noticing my existence is completely different than staring at me like a delicious piece of pie, and then commenting on it. I am not pie. I don’t need to know the thoughts travelling through someone’s head when I’m standing in front of them in line for the elevator. I don’t need to know whether or not you think my ass is hot, because frankly, I don’t care. If you think my shirt is nice, or you like my purse, that’s okay, because that doesn’t add or subtract value from me, the person.

That’s what it’s really about; value as a person. By catcalling me, you are doing nothing but tell me that I am incapable of doing anything other than being the object of your gaze. You’re asserting dominance by means of saying, “I am looking at you, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” You are making me feel vulnerable, subordinate, and downright worthless. You’re treating my body like an everyday object, with no regard to the personality that resides within it.

I should take is as a compliment? No, I don’t think so. I’m sorry I don’t want to be looked at and examined like a new piece of furniture. Oh wait, I’m not sorry at all. Next time I walk past, keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

Jesus was Badass

Jesus was badass.
I mean that in the best way possible. I love Jesus. He’s an awesome guy, and after studying early Christianity, I only have more respect for him than I did previously.

Now, I’ll say outright that I do not consider myself Christian. I approach religion from an academic and historical standpoint, and while I attend church with my husband on occasion, I usually analyze the sermon from a Divinity School perspective rather than a spiritual one.
Regardless, Jesus was a badass.

I have noticed a few things according to my (somewhat limited) experiences. I have noticed that many people take the “everything is love” perspective. I have noticed that some people take the bible quite literally and try to adhere to its somewhat arcane laws and bylaws. I have also noticed that while Christians claim Christianity revolves around Jesus, very few people really seem to understand just what that means.
In no means whatsoever am I trying to claim an authoritative role on what Christianity means. Or Jesus. That’s not my place or my goal. I’m just trying to shed some light on some things that people may or may not have picked up on in the bible.

First off, Jesus hung out with some sketchy people. He was all about helping women, the blind, the disabled, the elderly, and even the dead. In that place, at that time, that was social suicide. It’s amazing that anyone chose to be in his company, and how he ended up with 12 disciples, I have no idea.

Next, Jesus pretty much upended any rules that he came across. Don’t work on the Sabbath? His response, “but what if I have something important?” It’s better to do good work than to obey the rule to not work. A valid point looking back, but at the time, what was this random dude thinking?

And, my personal favorite, Jesus was against wealth and greed. That doesn’t seem so terrible now, but how was a person supposed to get what they need in life if not through money? Jesus literally chased away livestock from the sellers and then threw money in their faces. He also started throwing tables.

People thought he was crazy. Nobody hangs out with hobos, doesn’t follow the rules, and literally throws money (and tables) at other people. Who was this guy, and why was he getting attention? He got attention because he can’t not get attention. His goals were peace and love and harmony, but in a time of law and very little personal autonomy, Jesus was a badass. That’s why we love him now.

 

Tribute to Robin Williams

The recent suicide by Robin Williams last week has brought a lot of media attention to issues of depression. He fought his whole life with issues of addiction, depression, and general sadness. Yet, he always seemed happy. He entertained for a living, he loved his family and friends, and he still took his own life at the age of 63.

I’ve been reading about it and seeing the world’s reaction to the death of a great man. I’ve been reading articles on depression and how it is a chemical imbalance in the brain. I’ve been reading articles on how at least 1 in 10 people suffers from depression. I’ve been reading articles on how depression is not selfish, it’s not a feeling that can be controlled; it happens and it consumes the person until there’s no way out. I’ve also been reading about the stigma attached to depression and mental health.

Now, I hang out in very liberal circles. Everyone I’ve heard, read, or had a discussion with maintains these definitions of depression. It’s not their fault, it happens to a lot of people, it’s tragic but as a society we need to be more accepting of the way the world works and try to raise awareness. While I’ve heard all about this “stigma” with depression and mental health, I have yet to witness it…

Until recently. I was with a group of friends, and I was talking to a guy, having a very nice, casual conversation. I asked a guy how his girlfriend was; she was absent from the occasion and I wondered why. It was an innocent question. But, while his voice during our previous conversation was rather loud and somewhat boisterous, for this one he came in close and whispered. Apparently she was having anxiety issues, and he thought she was depressed. She wasn’t acting herself around their house, and was having trouble attending social events. He was worried, but he didn’t really want to talk about it. It was between them, and he didn’t want everyone knowing about it.

I also talked to another friend, that same night. I was talking to her about communication; texting, calling, visiting, etc. I asked why I hadn’t heard from her in awhile. She looked away from me, deliberately avoiding eye contact, and said maybe her depression was flaring up. “It flares up sometimes,” she said, still avoiding eye contact.

These two minor cases tell me more about a stigma that I had previously been ignorant toward. The fact that depression is “supposed to” be discussed in hushed tones; the fact that it is secret, or shameful, and the fact that no one can even look a friend in the eyes when talking about it … those are indicators of our overall social norm. I’m probably guilty of it myself, but just haven’t paid attention before now.

Well that brings me here, now. Depression and other mental health issues are not something that should be discussed in whispers with a tone of shame. These issues deserve the right of making eye contact and having a real discussion, instead of a mere mention and then moving on to a new topic of conversation. Depression is a real thing. It’s an okay thing. It happens to lots of people, and there is no reason, whatsoever, to feel ashamed of it. So this is me, writing in order to compensate for the whispered tones and sideways glances of so many people. It’s okay to be depressed. Talk about it. Seek help if necessary. But whatever you do, remember that it is okay to feel the way you feel.

 

Sir, You Just Don’t Get It

So, last week I decided to take the light rail to my doctor’s appointment. I’m sitting on the train, tucked in a little corner somewhere, and I happen to overhear a conversation several seats behind me. A man was telling his wife, “It was A BILLION dollars, there’s no way it’s worth it. Those are our taxpayer dollars paying for this, and no one is even using it! It was ONE BILLION dollars and the train can’t even take people to [insert name of some random suburb]. I can’t believe the government wasted all of our money on this shit.” He was indignant, and while his wife raised a few valid points in support of the light rail, he refused to be swayed.

This conversation irritated me. (Un?)Fortunately, I am a non-confrontational person, and I got off the train at my stop without interrupting their conversation with my thoughts; after all, I am a complete stranger. However, I would like to share my views on public transportation and the light rail here.

First off, I’d like to say that I have epilepsy. I was officially diagnosed at age 21, after dealing with it for about a year. I learned to drive at 14, got my license at 16, and had it revoked at 20 after some medical disasters. I was then officially diagnosed with epilepsy, but allowed to have my license validated again because my seizures were too minor to be an issue. I continued driving for about 15 months, and then had it revoked again after a minor accident caused by a larger-than-normal seizure. That was Halloween of 2012, and I haven’t driven since. This means that I am perfectly capable and aware of how to drive. It also means that for upwards of 5 years, I have had an on-again-off-again relationship to public transport. So that’s me.

I view the fact that I live in the Twin Cities as an incredible stroke of good fortune. The Twin Cities has an EXCELLENT public transport system; much better than Nashville, where I lived for two years, or any smaller cities in the state. In my opinion, one of the reasons that our transport system is so successful is the fact that the buses intersect with each other at places other than major transport hubs. For many other cities, buses rarely intersect. You’d have to get on a bus, go all the way downtown, and then get on a bus again to go wherever you want to go. In the twin cities, you can get on a bus, and if possible, you are able to meet up with a variety of buses whenever major streets are crossed. There is no “spiderweb” layout; it’s more of a grid pattern.

So, now on to this man’s argument. First off, he was not a man who takes public transport often. This was evident by his conversation (obviously), but also his demeanor, body language, and attitude towards others around him. These factors spoke loudly that this was a guy who had driven all his life and did not understand why anyone would choose otherwise. He also mentioned that no one was taking the light rail. It was a Tuesday afternoon at 2pm. I can guarantee that if he would try to board 2 hours later, he would barely be able to stand among the crowd.

Second, the most recent light rail project connecting St. Paul and Minneapolis did not cost 1 billion dollars. It was still a very large amount of money, coming in at a final cost of 957 million, and yes, rounded up, that is a billion. But, it’s still 43 million dollars short. And, it is hugely revitalizing the neighborhoods through which it goes, which also contributes to the positive economics of its construction. The man was acting as though we completely wasted a billion dollars, and that’s simply not the case.

Third, as for your taxpayer dollars, they barely contributed to the funding. An average taxpayer in Minnesota pays about $1,400 in income tax (as of 2011). Regardless of whether you pay more or less than that, it’s a drop in the bucket of taxes. The citizens within the top 1% of the income bracket would have payed for approximately 57% of this project. Your measly $1400 wouldn’t pay for anything, and combined with the other 99% of people, would still pay less than half of what this project cost. Your “taxpayer dollars” aren’t worth shit unless you make so much money that money doesn’t mean anything anymore.

Fourth, the fact that the train runs along the central corridor, an 11 mile stretch between St. Paul and Minneapolis going through some of the busiest areas of the city, including the University of Minnesota (pop. 50,000) means that whoever planned it did well. If you want to visit [whatever random suburb he was talking about], you can take a bus, or, at worst, carpool.

He also made comments as to how the train wasn’t worth it because “no one can pay for this shit,” and “it doesn’t even go through nice areas.” I will readily admit that some areas along the green line are poverty-stricken areas. That’s why these residents need public transport. That’s why they take the bus or train; these are people who can’t afford cars and probably haven’t learned how to drive. Plus, many are teenagers or immigrants who also have not yet learned to drive. Plus, many areas along the light rail line are quickly rehabilitating because of the easy access to public transport. Buildings and neighborhoods are becoming nicer, businesses are moving in, and the economy has been on the rise in those areas. Sir, we did not build the light rail for your pleasure; we built it to assist people, and that is precisely what is happening.

His wife raised several valid points in defense of public transport. Having buses or the train helps eliminate environmental issues caused by cars, helps save space and free up traffic by reducing the number of cars on the road, and can be significantly faster during rush hour.

Finally, he said it wasn’t worth it. It wasn’t worth all our money to build this infrastructure that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to, doesn’t help the neighborhood, and is rarely used. I object to your assertions, Mr. Pompous Ass, and I still can’t figure out why you’re on the train in the first place. Was it worth it? Of course! It is a huge infrastructure, changing the face of a difficult neighborhood of St. Paul, and providing means of transportation to a huge segment of the populace. He would have quickly learned this if he had known what sort of impact a well-run bus or train line has upon its people. The train is usually on time; it’s always predictable; it houses more riders than buses; and it is revitalizing an 11 mile stretch of the city. Was it worth it? Sir, if you have ever had to go grocery shopping and didn’t have the means to drive, you’d understand.

 

The Israel Palestine “Conflict”

I know, right? The words themselves bring exhaustion. At this point in American history, there are two possibilities – you either know enough about it to have a relatively interesting conversation with someone, or else you have given up and know jack shit. And right now, if you’re the latter, you’re about ready to stop trying because, as I mentioned, it’s exhausting, complicated, and not worth the effort. If the former, than you’re probably wondering what my stance on the issue is, whether or not I have any vested interests, and why I’m writing about it. Regardless, read on (even if you know nothing, we’ll hopefully fix that).
So, before we go any farther, I’m going to say that I’m pro-Palestine in theory, but I don’t think I know enough about it to have a recognizable bias. But before I get into my issues, let me give a history lesson to anyone who is new to the conflict.

In the late 1800’s, a teeny tiny group of European Jews decided they wanted to spark a “return to the religious homeland” movement. They’re called Zionists. The Zionist movement was internal to the Jewish people, and only supported by a very small percentage of Jews. They thought that because the Middle East is the birthplace of Judaism, and there are all sorts of significant religious locations, that they should return to this homeland and establish a presence there.

Now, this was all fine and dandy because the population of Zionists was so small that it didn’t matter. … Until Hitler. WWII comes around, and suddenly Jews are being persecuted by this nutjob in Germany and his allies, so suddenly this Zionist movement becomes a big thing. Jews don’t want to be in Europe anymore, so where do they go? How ‘bout back to Palestine, their religious homeland? (Note, Palestine is not a country, it’s simply an area in the Middle East.)

But the problem with all the Jews fleeing Europe and re-establishing themselves in Palestine is the simple fact that Palestine wasn’t empty. If you buy a house to live in, it’s supposed to be a house in which someone else has moved out. That’s not the case here. While the Jews were in Europe, and America, and all over the place, native Arabs had settled in Palestine, and about 90% of them were Muslim.

So now the Jews were making a religious claim to the land that they wanted to settle, and we all know that makes things infinitely more complicated. The Jews were saying, “Hey, we were here first, and even though you live here now, we still have a right to live here too.” The Arabs didn’t particularly care at this point because, hey, well, they’ve still got space and the majority numbers. It was concerning, but not a desperate situation.

Until 1947. So, WWII is done. Hitler is gone. Over 6 million Jews (and others) died in the camps controlled by Nazi forces. Now, even though they were against it, the United Nations is feeling pretty crappy about all the shit that happened to the Jews. So what does the UN do? It decides to make amends for the Jewish people, by establishing a Jewish state. Where to do this? Well, we’ve got this Palestine place where everyone went during the war and seems to like; we’ll do it there. So Israel was formed.

So now, not only do a whole bunch of Jews live in Palestine alongside a whole bunch of Arabs, but now, they have official endorsement from the UN. Think about the house metaphor, except the people who move in get the title of ownership, while the people who were already there are considered squatters. But, the UN recognizes that there’s 2 peoples living there, and they give a significant chunk of the land (almost 50/50) to the Palestinians. This is what people talk about when they say 2 state solution- Palestinians get their own space, and so do Jews, and no one has to share anymore. It’s like telling the squatters in the house, “it’s ok, we’ll give you a bedroom and the basement.”

So now it sucks, but it’s still livable. They’ve got their space, the others have their space, we’re all good, right? Nope. In 1967, Egypt decides to invade and take some of the Arab space, while Jordan invades from the other side and takes more Arab space. Luckily, Israel has an awesome military and quashed that idea. But, as a result, in order to thank themselves for their generosity *sarcasm*, Israel took some of that space instead of Egypt/Jordan. So the Palestinians lost more land. In the house metaphor- Owners shoot a robber coming in, which stops the robber, but then says “since I did such a good job, I’m going to take your bedroom, and you can sleep on the couch.”

Well, the Palestinians don’t like losing a space that was already theirs at the beginning. They don’t like the fact that Israel just came in and took over. They don’t like the fact that their religious and cultural identity has been in crisis, and they don’t like the fact that they keep losing land! So, the two parties have been fighting since the state of Israel was created. Lots of bombs, lots of massacres, lots of “territory disputes.” Oh, and did I mention that a war cannot legally take land from another? Yah, so this is all under the title of “occupation.” It’s the longest lasting “occupation” in the history of the modern world as we know it.

In other words, the original owners of the house are pissed off and trying to kick out the new owners of the house, but they keep losing, and the very best they’re going to get is the possibility of having a room or two. But hey, better to have a room than be sleeping on the sidewalk in a shopping cart, right?

Well then the USA got involved. We’ve been attempting to sort out this conflict since it arose, and Israel is our ally because we are part of the UN that established its existence. Then 9/11 happened, and shit hit the fan. Now, everyone who wears a turban, hijab, or speaks Arabic is suddenly a suspect for “terrorism.” I’ll give them a smidgeon of credit, there are a lot of bombs going off, but not for the reason to “cause widespread terror;” their cause is to get their land back, and there are even bigger bombs coming from the other side. There have been multiple attempts at the 2 state solution, and the last time the leaders met to discuss it was in 2008.

And finally, in the latest installment of the “conflict,” in reaction to violence on both sides, Israel has re-invaded Palestinian territory and are blowing everything up. But, since Israel is our ally, the USA isn’t doing squat.So that’s the history lesson from my point of view. I am left with a lot of anger and a lot of questions. I think that what’s going on in the Middle East is bullshit, in basically every country (I mean, Israel/Palestine isn’t the only place that’s bat shit crazy right now). Here are a few of my issues:

• I’m wondering why America has the stances it has – why is Israel our ally?
• Why do we feel the need to get involved with every country just because they have a conflict raging, even if it doesn’t involve us? I get it, we’re a superpower so we care about this sort of thing, but as far as I know, we’re the biggest military idiots ever, so what the hell are we doing over there?
• What’s wrong with a two-state solution, and why do people keep rejecting it?
• Did no one validate the Arabs’ right to the land before Israel? Why not?
• I mean, the Jews aren’t the only people with religious history in the area. Jerusalem is home to all three major religions, so why not at least acknowledge it?
• I get that a lot of the conflict now is in response to violence, but there has to be an end sometime right?
• Is the USA’s bias toward Israel a thing started in ’47, or is in now in response to “terrorists”?
• And lastly, why is this continued to be called a “conflict” when it’s basically been war for the last 50 years?!
• In other words, when is this going to end?

I hope you took the time to read at least my history lesson, because people have feelings about this. The only neutral party is ignorance.
Also, please let me know if I missed anything of crucial importance; educating myself on this has been a relatively new thing.

 

Obligatory Post on Feminism

So apparently this is a thing now, writing about feminism, so I’ll jump on the bandwagon and do it too. Apparently, there are people trolling the internet and making a huge thing about how feminism isn’t a thing, isn’t valid, or is a negative attribute. Honestly, I wouldn’t know, because these people don’t come anywhere near me. I grew up in a liberal-leaning household, I went to college at the most liberal school in Minnesota, and I went to grad school in Nashville, which is apparently the liberal city of the south. These anti-feminists are nowhere to be seen in my world, and if you’re me, it’s the pro-feminism that is dominating my news feed, my twitter account, and basically every other aspect of my online existence. If you’re me, rather than having anti-feminism sentiments, it’s all about having anti-anti-feminism sentiments.

That’s okay with me. It’s really not too difficult to get on board with feminism. You don’t have to be a bra-burning hippie; you don’t have to not-shave your legs or armpits; you don’t have to hate men, and you don’t have to be a lesbian. In fact, you don’t even have to have a vagina; men can be feminists too. It’s an incredibly simple concept – treat women the same way as you do men. Done. Over. That’s it. You’d think that it would have happened a long time ago, but it didn’t.

So why is it becoming an issue now? It’s not. It’s already been an issue, and for a long time (note the bra-burning hippies were almost 50 years ago). But somehow, we’re still struggling with the concept. Treat women the same as men. Somehow, this is difficult to grasp, and somehow, we’ve still got lots of issues to work through. For example:

The wage gap. It’s still there. 50, 60, 70 years ago, it was normal for women to be householders, and men to be breadwinners. This is not normal anymore (and even if it was, I’d still be advocating for equal treatment of the genders). Now, women have been in the workforce for at least 30, 40 years, and yet, we still make less money than men. Generally, the gender wage gap has been advertised as women making 77% of what men make – 23% less than a man makes over the course of a lifetime. Now, being a bit more realistic, taking in factors such as discrimination, the fact that women often don’t work as many hours as men, and maternity leave, that number CAN drop to between 5-7% (according to US Dept of Labor, according to Wikipedia – yes, I was too lazy to read the scholarly articles). BUT, the feminist concept means we should be earning the same. The. Same. Amount. So even if we drop from a difference of 23% to a difference of 5%, where is that 5% going? What are the reasons for the 5% difference? Even that, even 5%, is inexcusable. That’s why we advocate for feminism.

Reproductive and LGBT(QIA) rights. These are the hot-button issue in politics right now. Remember how under feminism, we’re treating women exactly the same as men? Got it? Okay. So if that’s the case, then why can men get vasectomies and yet tubal ligations aren’t covered under some health insurance policies (Hobby Lobby issue). If we are treating women the same as men, then why can’t two lesbians (or other LGBT identifying persons) marry each other legally and have their marriage recognized in 31 of the 50 states? Why is it that our legislature – made up of over 80% men – feels the need to rule on women’s reproductive health issues without actually talking to people about it? Yeah… those are some issues.

Care of the Home. I mentioned earlier that in decades past, it was normal for women to be the homemakers. This is still the case in many homes, but even more so are women in the workplace. So you’d think there would be just as many men being homemakers now that women have gotten jobs, right? No. Not even close. Instead, families are supposed to find ways to juggle two working parents, children, and homemaking. Often children end up in daycare while Mom and Dad are at work, and women still have to do the majority of the homemaking in what little downtime they have. I understand that this is an issue that is rapidly changing as stay-at-home-dads are increasing, but nonetheless, it’s not there yet. And like we said, if we’re looking at equality, we are looking for equality, not on-its-way-to-being-equality.

Speaking of random stereotypes – sports! I’ve been assisting with teaching a gym class to teenagers in summer school for the last 6 weeks. Today I overheard, “but there’s too many girls on our team…” in reference to being at a disadvantage. In co-ed teams, there is no such thing as too many girls. There shouldn’t be a difference between whether you have boys on your team or girls. It is what it is, and neither one should have an advantage, because girls are just as capable as boys are at playing sports (especially 8th grade kickball, it’s not that hard). As a woman, I have faced athletic stereotypes for most of my life. I am not usually an athletic person, but I have done martial arts for the past 14 years. I know what I’m talking about. I’m good at it. Yet I have always heard, “but you’re a girl,” or “I can still kick your ass,” or “wait, you have a black belt? No way.” Surprisingly enough, few or none of my male counterparts have this running commentary on their activity of choice. It would be nice to not have to be questioned once in a while.

And finally, the last topic I will choose to touch on today (although there are many others) is violence and sexualizing women. How many men, on average, walk down a street or stand at a bus stop and are told they are sexy, have a hot ass, or are lookin’ fine in their daily attire? I’m going to hazard an educated guess and say not a whole lot. Women, on the other hand, get catcalled and/or harassed in public frequently. Assault, rape, and domestic violence is another huge issue. When it is reported (which is not nearly as often as it occurs), the vast majority of victims are women. Remember how we’re trying to overcome these hurdles in the name of equality for both genders? Yeah. This is a biggie. This one requires changing not one person’s mindset, not a family or community mindset, but everyone’s mindset. Women are not objects to be hooted and hollered at. We are not just there for the taking because we were/are “the weaker sex.” Everyone’s ideas have to change about our role in society – even women’s ideas have to change.

So feminism is a thing. It’s a good thing. People who disagree probably follow the bra-burning, man-hating, lesbian idea of what feminism is. It’s not necessarily those ideas. Feminism means equality. I’m a feminist because I want to be treated the same way my husband is. I want to make as much money, decide what I can do with my uterus, and if I do choose to have a family, I want the choice over who does the housework and who cares for kids. I want to do martial arts and not have people say, “but you’re a girl.” And since I’m a girl, I’d like to take the bus without being verbally abused at every other stop. Being a girl shouldn’t matter. It’s called being a person. That’s why I’m a feminist.

 

Cultural Relativity: Embracing “The N Word”

If you have gone to a liberal arts college, there are a few terms you are either familiar with, or at the very least, have heard tossed around. “White privilege” “White guilt” “Cultural relativism” and others. I knew what these meant, and I still do, but I had never really personally seen the sorts of situations we talked about in class. And I still haven’t. The scenario I am talking about today is minor compared to many. I acknowledge that, BUT, I am writing about it nonetheless because this particular instance opened my eyes to how things COULD HAVE played out versus how they DID play out. The difference is enormous, and it makes me ponder things like “cultural relativism” “normativity” and “white privilege.” So before I rattle on too much longer, let me explain.

For the last year, I have worked in a very urban high school, with a vast majority of students being of color. For the past month, I have worked with 8th graders in summer school, and again, the vast majority of students being minorities. I would say probably 8 in 10 are African-American, African, or Hispanic. Needless to say, as a girl who grew up in the middle of rural (white) Minnesota, this adjustment has been interesting for me, and I have learned a lot.

I assist with a gym class for which students get credit prior to high school. This provides a tremendous leg-up for these 8th graders as they are preparing to enter 9th grade and high school. BUT, the program is entirely optional, and if the kids get sent out of class too many times, if there are problematic behavioral issues, or they do something inexcusable, they get kicked out. They’ll still start 9th grade, but they won’t have the extra credits brought to it by our advanced program. Now that we are ending our 4th week (of 6), many of the troublesome students have been kicked out, or are on their last legs. By now, we are familiar with who can’t stop talking, who doesn’t follow rules, and who needs to just go sit in the hallway if they can’t follow directions. So that’s a bit of background.

So on to today’s issue.
We have a student who falls into the broad category of troublemaker. He never stops talking; he is always distracting the class, and basically is a pain in the ass. BUT, he has never done anything to warrant getting kicked out, although I think he is probably on warning 2 or 3 and next time he screws up, he’s going home. Naturally, the teacher I assist is completely sick of this student.
Well today, the teacher was in the middle of giving instructions for today’s activities outside, and the student walks in late, still in the midst of a loud conversation from the hall, “NIGGA, YOU GOTTA TALK TO HER…”
Immediately, the teacher looks at him, points to the door, and says, “OUT. NOW.”
The student spent a few minutes in the hallway, and then re-entered quietly, and apologized for his use of language. He was not sent to the office, and continued to spend the rest of class with us, and within 10 minutes was back to his usual obnoxious self.

As a witness to this brief exchange, I spent my afternoon thinking about “the N word” and its implications. The question that haunts me is simple, is it inappropriate to use such language, “Nigga” being the term at issue, if one is black/African American and the term is not used in a derogatory way?
The reason this bothers me is that both the teacher and myself are white, as are a small handful of students (2 in a class of 15). I don’t know if the teacher sent him out because he was late, because he was interrupting, or because of his use of the word “Nigga,” but a strong hunch tells me it’s a combination of all three. My issue becomes, if one of us had used that terminology, it would automatically be viewed as negative, as that term is not typically used by white people, and is viewed as… what? There’s the element of discrimination and the history of the word, but there’s also a sense of disconnect between “white culture” and “black culture.” Whether this cultural disconnect is because of class, history, or location, I don’t know. But it is clearly not a term that I would use (regardless of context), nor would any of the white people in the room. The fact that he was sent to hall for a few minutes COULD be attributed to other things, but I think that the “derogatory” language is a large factor.

So my thoughts gravitated toward cultural relativism – the simple belief that things mean different things according to who says/does them. For the student, it was perfectly fine to affectionately call his classmate “Nigga” in conversation. His classmate was not offended, and they were simply carrying on a conversation. For the teacher, myself, and others, the term “Nigga” carries with it derogatory implications, as well as a strong sense of social taboo with its utterance. So if we can’t say it, can he?

Of course he can. It’s his language, in his conversation, with his friend. There’s nothing to say that he can’t say it. But he did say “Nigga,” and we punished him afterwards. Are we imposing our cultural norms onto his? Is the fact that the teacher (and many teachers) is white, impose our “white privilege” onto the class, and would it be different if there had been a black teacher? Since the white teacher was in a position of power, did he have the right to impose his cultural norm, even though it was a minority viewpoint? Power and privilege are huge in this situation, and I genuinely wonder how it would be different if the adults in the room had been minorities, be it black, Hispanic, or other.

I don’t have answers. In fact, I have more questions than I did 5 hours ago, when this happened. But these are questions that need bearing consideration. Can cultural relativity change the entire circumstance of what was uttered today? Is the racial disconnect between adult and student a large factor in why he was punished? Or was he sent out simply because he was being rude by being late and interrupting? How could have the situation been different? What factors would have made it different? As white people in positions of power, can we demand a different usage of language from these students? Should we? What happens if we don’t? How can this cultural disconnect be bridged? Should it? And lastly, although I understand the implications of white usage of “Nigga,” is it possible at this time to use the term alongside our black students? Since he managed to have a conversation with it freely, can we as well? Or is that sense of taboo inherent in our racial and cultural normativity? Is it possible for us to embrace and change the meaning of “Nigga” in the way our black friends have?

 

The Christmas Story

So I know this is overdue, by 10 days, and there are a few reasons for this. First of all, I was too busy celebrating Christmas to write about it. Second, after being in Div school, a few of my friends beat me to the topic, and after them, writing about the subject seems forced, but I’m going to do it anyway. And finally, I don’t particularly like writing when it feels forced, but I’m going to do it anyway because I don’t want to put it off inevitably since I feel this is an issue that does need to be addressed. It is something I feel strongly about and I do want to address the Christmas story and I do want to put my own opinions out there; I just need to formulate them coherently, so bare with me as I attempt to do so.

I went to church on Christmas Eve, and I encountered, as I nearly always do, what I have started to refer to as the “Div school dilemma.” In other words, I over-analyzed the pastor’s sermon and tried to think about what I would have done differently. Don’t get me wrong, I greatly appreciated the sermon, and I love the pastor, but from my perspective, he sounded a little like he had a case of writer’s block when trying to come up with something. He talked about something tangential and then related it to the shepherds in Luke’s infancy narrative and how we are all outcasts in some way, and then brought it around to how Jesus saved us all. It turned into a good sermon, but it took awhile to see where it was headed. I’m sure it worked for a lot of people in the congregation; it just didn’t really work for me. A big part of it was the long tangential beginning. Another large part was the fact that I am not a particularly religious person, so the end where Jesus was born as a savior didn’t really resonate for me either. I guess the only part that I truly appreciated was that he maintained and stuck with one version of the infancy narrative, and I liked that.

Yes, there are different versions of the infancy narrative. There are different stories of the way Jesus was born. The one I listened to on Christmas Eve was from Luke, and contained shepherds as central figures. Matthew’s Gospel has magi, or wisemen, in contrast. Here are some of the other differences.

Matthew:

–       Jesus is not born said to be born in a stable.

–       Wise men come to visit, not shepherds, and they are not explicitly numbered as being three, only listed as having three gifts.

–       Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre, returning to Nazareth afterwards.

Luke:

–       Jesus was born in the stable in Bethlehem.

–       Shepherds came to visit.

–       They returned to Nazareth after the census.

–       When Jesus was 12, he was found in the temple, answering questions rabbis could not answer.

Only these two of the four canonical gospels have infancy narratives. However, there are other ancient biblical books that discuss Jesus’ birth. These were not included in the traditional bible, and are known as non-canonical texts. In these texts, some things are the same, and some things are very different. Let me explain.

In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, young Jesus, at the age of 5, fashions twelve sparrows of clay that come to life. He is a prodigy at school, knowing letters and numbers far before his classmates.

In the Protoevangelium of James, Mary gives birth to Jesus in a cave, with Salome acting as midwife. Salome doesn’t believe that Mary is a virgin, and goes to check Mary’s hymen. Salome’s hand falls off because of this disbelief, thus verifying Mary’s perpetual virginity.

These non-canonical books share many similarities with the familiar stories of Jesus’ birth: the engagement to Joseph, divine messages from angels, the census, visits from shepherds or magi, Herod’s massacre… they clearly called upon one or both prior stories to develop, but these books never made it into the bible. As a historian, this is not a problem. There are many, many texts floating out there in the world that are just as valid as any other. The fact that in the middle of the 4^th century some group of Church fathers got together and decided that one text is better than another, in my opinion, does not make the “other” text any less valid. A book is a book is a book.

So when it comes to reflecting upon the life and times of Jesus, we have multiple attestations. Who can say who’s right and what happened? We have millions of copies of two stories (Matthew and Luke) and a handful of copies of another story (Protoevangelium of James) and maybe no copies of yet another. Does the number of copies we have of a story make it more or less true? Does the fact that someone canonized it and put it in the bible make it more or less verifiable?

That’s my issue with the Christmas story. First, there are many people who don’t know there are variations within the Christmas infancy story. Second, those who know, don’t seem to care. And third, those who know and care, don’t seem to validate the authenticity of other texts for fear of losing their own. I’m not trying to take away your faith; I’m just trying to ask “Who put it there?”