tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5 2012-03-12T04:40:07Z Dr. J. W. Wiley has possibly orchestrated and engaged in more conversations about diversity & social justice than anyone else in the North Country of New York. He is as eager to get in your ear as he is to have you share your thoughts. Movable Type 3.33 tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1126 2012-03-12T04:36:01Z 2012-03-12T04:40:07Z

This is why U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell’s statement that the G.O.P.’s number one goal was to assure that Barack Obama would only be a one term president could not have been associated with race.

J.W. Wiley I know, just like most Americans, that the Obama presidency has not been inhibited by his race, that his being a bi-racial president, and as a result, also construed by many as a Black president, hasn’t affected him one iota. That is why I am asking my readership to assist me in proving that America is finally colorblind to our leaders racial difference. This is why U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell’s statement that the G.O.P.’s number one goal was to assure that Barack Obama would only be a one term president could not have been associated with race. After all, Kentucky’s history of race relations could not have adversely influenced McConnell’s perspective on the ascendance of a two-term Senator to the highest political position in the U.S. Just in case you somehow missed it though, recently Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich attempting to appease their audiences made statements about their perspective on America. I was wondering where did these statements take you? Romney’s statement about living in the “real streets of America,” is no less problematic than Santorum’s statement that “there are no classes in America. We are a country that doesn’t allow for titles, We don’t put people in classes,” and Gingrich’s referral to President Obama as a “Food Stamp President.” So my questions are: 1. Is it possible to disassociate their comments from African American culture/history? If so, how? 2. To what varying degrees and relative to what dimensions/themes of African American culture are any of these statements problematic and/or justifiable? 3. How does a country like America ever move beyond its racial scars when some in this country complain about the same racial bias that others vehemently deny and/or are in denial about? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2012:/weblog5//5.1116 2012-01-16T16:40:55Z 2012-01-16T17:01:17Z

You tell me, have we gotten past the sentiment in the poem below, a wish for leaders that are capable of helping us advance diversity & social justice, and not just in terms of racism, but all the other socialized ills that we buy into blindly, or use to justify some of our own inadequacies? Is it too much to ask for leaders, hopefully beginning with parents, but also friends and neighbors that are committed to building a world free of hate? Is it too much to take the time to consider what we ultimately are doing to one another by not finding ways to promote love instead of acquiescing to jealousy, stupidity, or duplicity?

J.W. Wiley COACH KING Martin, Where is it that you placed your dream and why is it that as a team we always appear to be in a game we cannot win. How badly we need you to return and coach again. Our squad needs direction Some type of game plan. We have yet to learn how to score on “The Man,” who blitzes us often and stunts quite a bit, intentionally roughs the passer and doesn’t give a shit as to the penalty flags that might be thrown on the play. He knows all close calls will be called his way. With the referees on the take the commissioner too, it’s no surprise player loyalty may not remain true. Many feel that a victory is just a momentary thing. It hurts me how soon you are forgotten Coach King. I have faith that we’ll discover the plays you would have called, that we’ll pick up the fumble and run with the ball, where even if we don’t score, the yards we will have gained will at least tell the world you coached not in vain! -- J.W. Wiley (1987) As a young man in Southern California looking for answers to how people can treat others so poorly, if not hatefully, years ago I wrote a tribute to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At the time I was relatively obsessed with sports, so the poem I ultimately wrote to honor Dr. King’s memory was written as a sports metaphor. On this day that the United States celebrates his memory, it is ironic and actually quite sad that the poem I wrote about him 25 years ago, still applies today. As I write this blog post I have in the backdrop of my mind four recent and local occurrences that remind me of how much work is still required to advance Dr. King’s mission. 1. An ex Teacher’s Assistant of mine walks to her car and finds a brochure affixed to her car window. She kept it and ultimately passed on a copy of this document to me. It is a six paneled marketing piece titled: “’N….’ Owner’s Manual.” It is quite an extensive document and is proof of the racial enmity that continues to exist in our society. 2. A White middle school student at a local school, who has African American friends, is so-called dating an African-American, nonetheless attempts to teach another middle school student how to say a dysfunctional sentence that includes the N-word, as entertainment amongst other ill-advised goals. 3. One high school teammate (who happens to be White-American), attempting to joke with another (who happens to be Black-American) is comfortable asking if the Black teammates’s prior city with an odd name was a “plantation.” When laughing about it afterwards, he was totally comfortable with having used the joke, though he acknowledged that he wouldn’t have said it if he was in the midst of a racial majority as a minority, instead of being a member of the racial majority speaking to a minority. 4. A White high school student who attends a local school posts on FB a conversation with his father that reveals his father’s ignorant attempt at wit, his father’s racism, and the student himself’s cluelessness about how he paints himself with a whole lot of people who he may think are laughing with him, but sadly are laughing at him. However, conversely, the fact that he would/could post such a thing on a social network with no apparent compunction also reveals how acceptable it still is to publicly use hateful language. You tell me, have we gotten past the sentiment in the poem above, a wish for leaders that are capable of helping us advance diversity & social justice, and not just in terms of racism, but all the other socialized ills that we buy into blindly, or use to justify some of our own inadequacies? Is it too much to ask for leaders, hopefully beginning with parents, but also friends and neighbors that are committed to building a world free of hate? Is it too much to take the time to consider what we ultimately are doing to one another by not finding ways to promote love instead of acquiescing to jealousy, stupidity, or duplicity? Can we huddle on this...or at least take a time out? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1115 2011-11-19T06:39:39Z 2011-11-19T06:54:45Z

Am I saying that even when a couple decides to chat about their day or opt for a not so silent massage as opposed to silent ones there may be some social justice overtones?

J.W. Wiley When you hold hands, situate yourself for a kiss with a potential lover that doesn’t happen though both want it, badly; when you actually do kiss, or don’t allow foreplay to become an afterthought; or actually put some thought into the style of love making that is apropos this coming Friday as opposed to last Sunday; do we really consider any and/or all those intimate gestures related to notions of diversity & social justice? How so? To what varying degrees and relative to what dimensions/themes of diversity are any of these actions? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1114 2011-10-18T08:59:40Z 2011-10-18T09:22:25Z

Who knew that change would come as a result of some of his mistakes, some of the political games others played against him, after some Tea Parties that left no one sober,

J.W. Wiley Occupy Wall Street! Presently, is there a phrase more spoken in the world? Because of Steve Jobs and Steve Zuckerman it isn’t hard to believe that people who have reached the threshold of what they can endure would one day refuse to be oppressed anymore. More-so, that they would launch an international movement by occupying a high profile street to make a socio-political statement-is visionary at its best, and gangsta as a quest. I must admit that I myself have also been preoccupied. Even prior to the occupation of Wall Street I had become preoccupied by Steve Jobs contribution to technology, not just from the uniqueness of the I-phone, but the user friendliness of most technology now-a-days within what now feels like a Jobless universe, making it so simple for the world to be connected. Zuckerman—who was no sucker man—figured out early what no one else had done up to that point; that people’s vanity and curiosity would be a potent two-some to recruit, cultivate, and somehow continue to associate with your product, especially if one wanted to define and capture a new market. Apple technology, FaceBook, Skype, are only some of the things that have contributed to the occupational hazards. Then inspired people would find their way into a unified struggle to dispel perhaps the one true universal, greed. How intriguing it is that greed unfed will leave many dead, but greed fed creates more hunger instead. Though what the hungry then want surprisingly is not to eat, but to just ensure that they won’t ever be hungry. It is this mentality that as a consequence, birthed the 99% Movement in response. The 1% Movement, The Wall Street Tyrants, the Wall Street Proprietors, the Manipulative Capitalists, the Inconsiderate Citizen, or any other name that could be given a group of individuals that have finally been caught without a yarn to spin. There are no rocks for them to crawl under, no shadow to hide in. The so-called Wall Street Tyrants exhibit a mentality that has no qualms standing on the chests of others too ignorant to question the lack of rent control. It is not a problem for these so-called Wall Street Proprietors to be the one out of a hundred to benefit so inequitably. It is a shame that everyone else relative to the duped citizenry (the other 99 individuals) should all be comfortable with the manipulative capitalist having a grossly disproportionate slice of a pie that, even when thinly sliced, may not consistently feed everyone expecting a slice as an adequate meal. Instead, with the disproportionately oversized slice there is no doubt that others will not receive a slice. What I find myself also preoccupied with is how Occupy Wall Street so resonates with what will one day be the Obama legacy. Come on, you can’t disconnect the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon from Obama. Yes, critics will forever link him to it as the president of the U.S. when/where it started. But his legacy is greater than that, relative to that. Obama is the president that made much of this technology “cool,” and/or “hip” to use. He is the technology (FaceBook, I-Phone, Skype) president.. His swagger, intellect, and youthful vitality, especially in contrasts to Bush’s outgoing persona, and McCain’s as the other choice, made his election a no brainer, a non-issue. He said he was going to bring a change that they believed in, but people thought he was going to do that work himself. No, he is in the trenches, and while fighting conspiratorial efforts (Mitch McConnell) to deny him any type of political victories, battling overt classism (Joe Wilson) packaged inadequately as covert racism, while living as a bi-racial man who can only be seen as Black, just in case he actually did want to be seen as White, or Bi-racial, he still made it happen. Yes, don’t get it twisted, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is proof of the change he said he would bring. Perhaps his Black presidency, his previous political inexperience, the Birther movement, something inspired McConnell to make his comment, Joe Wilson to blurt out to the President of our country, “you lie,” but I think it is sheer folly to believe that this cool catalyst, this cool cat, A-list Obama wasn’t invaluable in getting our youth interested in, if not passionate about politics. As a result, perhaps consistent with Obama’s posturing against the Republican resistance to his jobs plan, finally seeing that the quest for wealth has cost some in our country its soul while others have found their heart. This is an interesting time in American history. The Republican party, so committed to correcting what DuBois years ago identified as “the problem,” is creating its own “Ruckus” (check out Boondocks, the animated series) by parading around Herman Cain, who might as well be John McCain, except McCain couldn’t Mac, and Cain is Black, or is he? The black experience is widely conceived in this country, but like a gendered experience, or hetero-sexist experience, there are some universals experienced within every collective that are undeniable. How it appears that Herman Cain can’t relate to that pain, or abstain from gloating over his gain will remain outside of my domain, of understanding. If Cain were a democrat he would be respected far less by the Republicans if he weren’t more than ready to shuck and grin up in the big house, a house he hasn’t fully entered and may be more likely to clean. But Cain isn’t the only one I’m preoccupied with. I’m curious about how many of the so-called “occupants” are going to grow from this experience beyond the thought that they took into the protesting. There are so many agendas to be served in any given moment, but has someone taken to naming the common theme that they can all operate towards achieving. How about themes? Respect! Consideration! Awareness of Unearned Privileges! Call me an idealist, but if every one of Wall Street’s so-called inhabitants had been educated from their youth to consider how their privilege oppresses someone our country would not be leading the world in the overthrow of dysfunctional governmental behavior. It would have been eradicated long ago. Lastly, Obama promised upon his arrival in the White House that there would be change. He promised it would be significant. Who knew that change would come as a result of some of his mistakes, some of the political games others played against him, after some Tea Parties that left no one sober, and a group of disenfranchised people that decided to stand in line for days on end, only this time to not receive tickets, but to instead hand out walking papers. If I were Boehner, Cantor, and others that have bet against Obama I would be seriously considering ways to make some things happen before the next election. I would find some way to support his support of people who now have a movement behind them that transcends political parties about nothing more than maintaining the status quo of politicians instead of starting quixotic revolutions for its people. Every one continues to wonder how this is all going to turn out once the Occupy Wall Street Movements wind down. Who knows, but it could end up that a group of angry American just may be cantankerous enough to grant a second term to a president that is slowly convincing a populace that at the very least he cares. Yes, I’m preoccupied! I think I’ll hold onto my change for a while longer… tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1113 2011-09-25T18:30:49Z 2011-09-25T18:37:19Z

First, if I were bi-racial I’d be very upset about the fact that the first bi-racial president is being put into a box that eliminates the richness of his identity.

J.W. Wiley It’s been a while since I’ve blogged. I wanted to really be passionate about the next thing I wrote so that the words would just flow. I’ve had many topics that I’ve considered but dismissed them almost as soon as they popped in my head because of their already being overtly discussed. The Obama presidency is always an easy route to go because whether we want to believe it or not, we are undergoing a period in American history that historians further down the road will be salivating over. The fact that people want to downplay this bi-racial president’s Black presidency is almost as comical as it is tragic. First, if I were bi-racial I’d be very upset about the fact that the first bi-racial president is being put into a box that eliminates the richness of his identity. Secondly, bi-racial or Black, anyone, including Obama himself, who doesn’t want to discuss his racial reality is ignoring the biggest elephant to ever saunter though our political discourse. As well, the fact that we have political legislative bodies more invested in the return of their political party to prominence than the good will of the people is the epitome of dysfunctional if not exceedingly selfish. And to know you are doing dirt to thousands, no, millions of people who count on you to do the right thing is abominable. But I don’t want to talk at length about that or I’ll just get pissed off and morph into another rendition of the angry Black man. So, I’ll just admit to being peeved. I could talk about the recent execution of a so-called convicted killer, after the recanting of testimonies by many of the witnesses who initially contributed to his being placed upon death row. While I understand how long this case had been on the books and bureaucrats need to clear their coffers for other so-called more pressing concerns, it doesn’t escape me that if one of their family members were the one perhaps being falsely accused of a crime now being reconsidered, they would have found some way to be more considerate. But this reeks of the type of consideration given to people speeding 11 miles over the speed limit in contrasts to the citing officer’s favorite niece being verbally chastised, but not cited for the same offense. I could even talk about relationships, those that perhaps we should have never entered, those that could have been greater than inadequately synchronized watches allowed, those that failed because the lovers talked to each other—but not with each other, those that we stay(ed) in too long, those that we are in to leverage escape from the ones we stayed in too long, and those that we might still be in if we hadn’t bought into a degree of hype that prevented us from seeing what was before us. But we’ve talked about those topics before and are now blue in the face as a result. Because I’m Black and now blue, it may appear that I’ve taken a bit more of a beating, but not necessarily, so don’t fret over me too much. However, understanding that the depths of diversity resonate just as profoundly in romance as anywhere else, it always helps to listen carefully enough to be better equipped to explore the grey areas that at first glimpse seem black and white. I could talk about my current visit and stay in NYC. It was initially supposed to be me primarily teaching a diversity & social justice class across a weekend. Instead it became more about a personal epiphany I experienced seeing a billboard for the play Wicked, which affected me as much subconsciously as professionally. Shortly thereafter I found myself visiting the jazz club Birdland and processing what the club’s tribute to jazz giant John Coltrane, essentially a celebration of what would have been his 85th birthday, did to me. I should have known I was headed towards trouble when I chose to let down my guard and listen to music that I only listen to when seeking my deepest level of cogitation. As a result it reinforced the fact that I’m probably not alone thinking I have everything figured out. Then I turn a corner and almost instantaneously it becomes apparent that all the logical thought I thought I had situated logically was illogically situated in a context so loaded with pretext that it is hard to even consider the subtext. [I suggest you reread that prior sentence slowly, but not aloud or you could lose your mind]. Suffice it to say, when you start to consider how the Wicked Witch of the West was not an evil bitch to detest nor a human glitch of whom to make jest, but a person that challenged us to be our best, it becomes apparent that we failed miserably. It is all too easy seeing someone who is unceasingly framed as a perpetrator as a criminal and nothing more. Postulating what motives others have for accusing someone who is verbally under siege as being defensive when they have every right to defend themselves, is like not considering the reasons a so-called criminal who has been systematically disenfranchised might have a criminal response. These assertions are as ridiculous as: 1. A so-called elected leader publicly avowing to make a newly elected country’s leader a one term leader (and yet everything that follows is not supposed to be consistent with that earlier avowal). How does this happen? Are we stupid or what? 2. People who don’t know anything about someone professing insight into their reality based totally on hearsay and hype (as if there aren’t other motives in place). Why don’t we just ask the simplest of questions, like “so, how do you know this for a fact?” 3. Only caring about the welfare of those related to us, or only caring about news that directly impacts us, until something directly does affect us..only then we’ve already assisted in the construction of a world that is so desensitized that nobody cares (and yet we claim we don’t know why things always seem so bad). If we don’t care about what’s happening outside of our homes, down the street, and/or around the corner, why should anyone else? 4. Claims of loving someone that you never could possibly love because you never knew her/him, and were too busy loving whom you wanted that person to be. More so, until we know ourselves in our current context, are we even capable of loving another, romantically? It would behoove those of us who posture as if we know ourselves, or care about making this world a better place to try being the only Green person in the country. Labeled inadequate, aberrant, deviant, different, dare I say, wicked just because someone can label us, knowing others will buy into it. One day perhaps after experiencing the hype of being the unfathomable prototype we will, though self-reflection come to recognize the assault on our psyches that we must engage before we can see how we see. Additionally, perhaps we will all see who is going out of their way to invite us into their world, not to mention caring enough to understand ours. Until then, though, we are in jeopardy of not recognizing something is rotten in Denmark. That lack of recognition often makes a “mark” out of you…and me. tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1112 2011-08-11T18:32:17Z 2011-08-11T18:43:02Z

Yet in the not forsaking of our dreams for what we deem for what society deems as reality we may come to realize the finality of the fact that maybe, just maybe, we are sleeping through our reality and awake in our dreams

J.W. Wiley I recently had a friend tell me that when I was asleep I had said to her that “I can see myself in my dreams.” I wondered what I could have meant when I said that. Was it my vanity revealing itself, some preoccupation with seeing myself? Was it a throwaway statement, so obvious it wasn’t worth unpacking beyond the fact that everyone probably stars in their own dreams. But then I realized that, because of the work I do it might resonate a bit deeper if I dared to go there. So, I dare to go… Dreams of Reality by J.W. Wiley It's okay to dream for dreams are silver lined hopes and if we have wisely learned the ropes we will not dwell on them upon awakening. Yet in the not forsaking of our dreams for what we deem for what society deems as reality we may come to realize the finality of the fact that maybe, just maybe, we are sleeping through our reality and awake in our dreams and things are never what they seem which makes it even more okay to dream Now, no doubt there are so many dimensions to the various ratios that reflect the probability that most of my dreams will be more positive than negative. I could lose energy over an argument with a friend, an academically struggling child of mine, heartbreak from love or what I thought was love, a job loss, and carry that tweaked energy into any given night’s thought. However, losing energy to those types of moments is called being human. At some point the experience of some degree or variation of that type of energy loss will occur and hence, should be expected by everyone. But I wondered how it must feel to go to bed with the possibility of any of these occurrences looming in your subconscious—threatening to morph into a dream—along with the reality that beginning the next morning, you have the possibility of those occurrences occurring, alongside something more daunting. That thought threatens to shatter the sensibilities. If you are born very different, and understand that you live in a society that far too often sees and even worse, has framed you as less than, is it possible for you to be free in your dreams? I know an oppressed person can dream of freedom, but these dreams of freedom don’t guarantee them freedom from experiencing images of their disenfranchisement when their eyelids close. I’ve never had a dream about struggling to walk, or drive, or reproduce/make love, or read, or write, or laugh/cry? If I had I’m sure I would have considered it a bad dream/nightmare just because I couldn’t do something or lived in a society that said I couldn’t. I’ve never had a bad dream about expectations of my intellectual ability or courage, physicality or economic means. Have you ever considered what types of dreams different people have? If you know the peace you find in slumber, why have you not stopped and considered how peacefully others may/may not sleep? I know, most of us just haven’t done that, but does that mean we shouldn’t? Wouldn’t we want others to reflect on that part of our reality? Is it possible that if we all attempted to consider the serenity of one another’s dreams, awakening to genuinely care how each other slept, rested, refreshed, that we might walk more “awake/aware” through our intersecting lives, resulting in a consciousness that defaults to care. ]]> tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1103 2011-06-22T15:02:00Z 2011-06-22T15:16:19Z

She acknowledged that she was perturbed from his lack of contact with her immediately after such a great evening. He then asked her was it not the case that he had driven over an hour to see her including border crossing drama, brought her a bottle of wine as a gift, took her out to an expensive dinner and picked up the entire bill. With that effort, was he still obligated to also be the one to make the “morning after” phone call? If so, why? Her response was that her visceral reaction was inexplicable to her, she actually owned the fact that she didn’t know why.

J.W. Wiley Sexism is an intriguing thing in our current society. You can see this in the way many people responded to ex Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and are now responding to Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. Both of these women are often mocked as intellectual lightweights, as if all men who are seeking forms of higher office are intellectual giants. Somehow Hillary Clinton avoided the complex criticism of her aptitude to do the job that both of her female Republican counterparts couldn’t avoid. It could be related to her ability to answer both complex and simple questions with a level of clarity that the others often appear to struggle with. However, no matter how you see what should not be seen as the phenomenon of women in politics, the evaluation of a female candidate will always require teasing out sexist’s views. But a question that might be quite intriguing for you to consider is exactly to what extent does this work both ways in our society? For example, New York State has a female politician that appears to be so invested in entering the good-old boys club that she continues to throw a disenfranchised group under the bus in terms of their civil rights to marry the one they love, even though she herself belongs to a group (women) whose civil rights were denied along similar rationale (it’s always been this way). Another example is how some feminists with scars from their interactions with some men (not all) still default to seeing most men (if not all) as overtly oppressive/sexist while they try to convince themselves they can’t be racist, classist, etc. because of their level of sophistication/expertise with one “ism.” Is this just an instance of the pot calling the kettle black? Regardless, the sexism card, like a similarly powerful card—the race card—often is played as a wild card when it serves the purpose. Some time ago a friend of mine mentioned he was dating a woman who was quite brilliant. Foreign born and reared, she was one of the best communicators he had ever met, actually quite a linguist, having literally mastered five languages (German, French, English, Italian, and Spanish). Seldom was there a joke, quip, conundrum, or display of wit from anyone within her range of hearing that she didn’t totally understand and/or have a response to. This woman was quite the social commentator having a familiarity with so many cultures she could easily juxtapose the best/worst of any culture with another. As a result, her depth was unparalleled relative to the people that he said he had met in his lifetime. But she was still a woman in contemporary society who carried scars that were quite surprising to witness, admittedly, even to her. Case in point, once when he traveled to Quebec to see her they spent an evening together. They had wine at her place, then went out to a very nice dinner and practically closed the restaurant they stayed there so long, chatting one another up in a dark corner. The next morning he left her place early to return home to attend to some time-sensitive family commitments. It turns out that they didn’t talk that day at all, nor the next day, or the next. He said he did however, text her once during that period to wish her well on her son’s first communion. She responded with a thank you, and nothing more. He said he should have recognized her very brief reply as a harbinger of things to come. He said he actually thought about calling her many times, but also thought she could have taken the initiative to contact him just as much as he could her. Up to that point, he had seen her twice and both times he had made the effort of driving to her town. Both times he had picked up the tab. And after the first meeting he claimed he had called her afterwards. So, he said he wanted to see if she would take some initiative to acknowledge their evening. Well, after a few days she finally broke the ice and sent him a text message that had no amicable salutation within it. It simply requested that he return a film to her that she had loaned him. He then responded to her that he was curious about her tone and wondered if the undertone was in response to their lack of conversation after a very romantic evening. She acknowledged that she was perturbed from his lack of contact with her immediately after such a great evening. He then asked her was it not the case that he had driven over an hour to see her including border crossing drama, brought her a bottle of wine as a gift, took her out to an expensive dinner and picked up the entire bill. With that effort, was he still obligated to also be the one to make the “morning after” phone call? If so, why? Her response was that her visceral reaction was inexplicable to her, she actually owned the fact that she didn’t know why. She honestly stated she just felt bad having shared an intimate evening with him and not received a call from him for closure on that evening. After pressing her a bit further, she admitted she was a bit nervous about contacting him afterwards, a bit uncertain about how he would process the romance that had occurred that evening. They eventually laughed it off because they were both cool with the fact that they were finally at least talking, but he later admitted to me that he couldn’t get past the fact that somehow, in her mind when she hadn’t heard from him, he had become a “dog,” the stereotypical designation many men receive when they don’t conform to some women’s expectations. He had become just another typical male whom after the so-called conquest that had taken place in her mind was done with her. At that point I weighed in, saying to him, “So somehow, due to her lack of courage, you had acquired fleas.” We then both pondered what dysfunctional amorphous stereotype could be affixed to women who also don’t acknowledge an exhilarating evening with a man, and then label that man something that they themselves might aptly resemble. We mutually agreed that the wisest course of action was to just leave that thought alone! At what point will women—claiming to want equality long denied them—put away the “gender card” and step into that equality by moving beyond the hypocrisy of certain realities that continue to undercut their movement. Or is it okay for a woman in today’s society to continue to believe it is okay for her to be the victim when it serves her purpose. While Palin and Bachmann should not be held to a higher standard, they should not be held to a lower one either. Neither should my friend's engaging companion be able to suggest that he's carrying fleas that she isn’t. Ultimately, or perhaps even more so, ironically, if the deck of cards that represent life is stocked with an array of cards in it that one must play, if we don’t play the ones we are fortunate enough to have been dealt, do we have any chance of winning? After all, how many of us are ever truly in the position to deal, or even cut the cards? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1102 2011-05-07T13:51:03Z 2011-05-07T14:32:00Z

My colleague revealed how much Donald Trump’s insistence on seeing Barack Obama’s birth certificate had racist overtones not dissimilar to the scene we had watched, or the fact that Black men, during slavery time, had to show their papers at the bequest of any White man. Was this racist?

J.W. Wiley I often refer to a very close personal female friend of mine as “a voice of reason,” because she always has tremendously insightful things to share. When I am lost at sea she finds ways to guide me back to shore, and for that I very much appreciate her. Recently, I was drifting, floating, and reached out to her to assist me in pondering the Obama-Osama conundrum, the awkwardness that abounds relative to the celebration of Osama Bin Laden’s demise at the hands of a Navy Seal covert operations team sanctioned by President Barack Obama in response to 9-11. During that conversation I shared with her a conversation I had with my daughter who was taken aback by what she saw as bizarre adult behavior. My daughter felt that many adults should be admonished for their overt celebration of the end of Bin Laden’s life. In that regard I have a couple of philosophical points to make before I crescendo into a Churchill (Winston or Ward, you decide) conclusion. First, why is it that we call Osama Osama? We don’t call Barack Barack! Bin Laden’s not a rock star or entertainer, so he hadn’t earned the single stage moniker that Cher, Sade, Sting, and Michael (both Jordan and Jackson), though he did infamously alter people’s worlds with his heinous crimes and other attempted felonious acts. I recall him being called Bin Laden a lot earlier in his career. Is there a relationship between Bin Laden being identified as Osama and President Obama’s middle eastern sounding name? Is it possible that the media took advantage of this and lyrically leveraged the Obama-Osama rhetoric to further play up the angle of his citizenship? After all, in our capitalist culture it is about ratings, and news isn’t news unless its news. Secondly, one of my nursing colleagues in a NYSNA workshop I conducted recently in NY city on racism dropped a pearl that I thought I should share. We watched a scene from Rosewood, a John Singleton film that frames the decimation of a Black township in 1923 over the false accusation by a White woman of abuse followed by insinuations of rape by a Black man. The scene featured Ving Rhames as a Black war veteran—being asked after bidding at an auction for a price of land deemed beyond his reach—to show his papers which verified his identity. Within the scene it was apparent that the White men saw him as uppity and making him show his papers was a more subtle move of showing him his place in society. My colleague revealed how much Donald Trump’s insistence on seeing Barack Obama’s birth certificate had racist overtones not dissimilar to the scene we had watched, or the fact that Black men, during slavery time, had to show their papers at the bequest of any White man. Was this racist? Who knows what truly occurred in Trump’s mind. The possibilities of it being an instance of subconscious racism looms about as large as Mitch McConnell’s assertion that the one goal of the Republican party was to ensure that President Obama was a one-term president, or the vocal assertion that President Obama was a liar by Joe Wilson. But perhaps I’m overstating the case here, though the saying “just because you are paranoid does not mean you aren’t being chased” definitely comes to mind. And finally, in considering the vitriolic hatred for the mass murderer Osama Bin Laden, and overwhelming glee at his subsequent execution, is it okay for Americans to hate Bin Laden based upon the rationale that he was responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans as well as his other global terrorists acts? If your answer is yes, then how does America reconcile the contempt Japanese Americans must hide for an American government that publicly humiliated a very proud people by interring them in response to Pearl Harbor? Before you say that the Japanese Interment during WWII was a completely different situation, the murder of a people (9-11) and murder of a culture (Japanese Internment) may not be siblings, or even cousins when we think of the subtleties of the social injustices that are occurring, but they are related. How deep are the wounds of being uprooted from not just your house, but your home? How deeply scarred is someone who must cast off the specter of not being a loyal citizen? Not every American will ever fill the sting of such a designation, but isn’t it nice that we now have a President who can relate to that feeling? If that doesn’t do it for you, then how does America reconcile the disdain that Native Americans must manage when considering the systematic defilement of their culture and mass murder of their people at the hands of an American government hungry for land and too impatient to identify with its indigenous population. Native American scholar Ward Churchill was taken to task when he inconsiderately, while a nation was reeling/mourning from the 9-11 attacks, implied that the “chickens had come home to roost.” He was admonished by many including then Governor George Pataki who called him “a bigoted, terrorist, supporter.” While this is understandable, what would Pataki have me say to my precocious daughter if Native Americans started celebrating something horrible that occurred to America in response to how they were treated (which is essentially what Churchill did). How does America reconcile the scorn born out of forlorn acts of brutality, rape, and murder, followed by covert codes, segregation, and duplicitous acts that sadly/retrospectively don’t leave many duped. The once so-called Negro, so-called Colored, so-called Afro-American, is still struggling to move beyond an ideal framed and accentuated by Muhammad Ali when asked why he wouldn’t go to fight in the Vietnam war, which ultimately cost him three years of his fighting career. His response was “No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger.” Oh really champ, well nowadays you wouldn’t be called that either in America. You’d just have to show your birth certificate in a way no other president has done. Far too often people will say we need to forget the past and move on. They will argue that it serves no purpose to remember things we can’t change and that carrying that type of anger is energy misspent. But our children just had a front row seat to the epitome of American hypocrisy, celebrations of the demise of the orchestrator of one of the worst calamities in U.S. history, while similar celebrations by victims in this country would be frowned upon if not ostracized. So, tell me, what advice do you have for me on counseling my eleven year old about the exuberant celebrations of the unarmed murder of a man that (I agree) needed to die, when in a few years she will begin to understand the relative exoneration of her own government for its orchestration and complicity in what could be construed as equivalent to Bin Laden’s actions, only strategically and systematically implemented over a longer duration of time so as to go almost unnoticeable. I told her that he was an evil man that got what he deserved, but that he didn’t deserve people celebrating his death, unless it was totally in a context of the fact that he couldn’t/wouldn’t kill any more. I also told her to refer to him as Bin Laden, so that we could do our part in eradicating any subconscious association with our current President as a result of their names. She said, okay Daddy! tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1101 2011-04-05T03:35:03Z 2011-04-05T03:57:08Z

Personal prejudices rear their ugly heads inadvertently as a result of our blind spots, or sometimes deliberately as a result of how we play the game of leveraging ourselves at other’s expense. This is often called playing the ______ card (insert the identity construct that applies). Get this through your head though, everyone carries a deck, but some or just more adept at playing it.

J.W. Wiley It dismantles my sensibilities (essentially blows my mind, but that saying has become a bit trite, don’t you think?) when people immediately want to fight off the accusation that they are racists. They’ll own the fact that their thoughts on women may be limiting, disrespectful, or antiquated. They somehow find a way to attribute their thoughts and behavior to the way they were raised and somehow also find a way to rationalize their sexism as not so much of a problem because they don’t really mean anything by it. Have you found this to be true? Yes, it obliterates my rationale when people immediately will often own to varying extents the fact that they are homophobic or heterosexist, but not want to own the fact that they are racist. Their discomfort or unintended biases towards people with a different sexual orientation are often framed as having been served to them in sermons, or biblical canon, or subtly situated in language that they’ve grown accustomed to using (sissy, act like a girl, soft, etc.) and therefore, it isn’t really their fault that they’ve acquired the habit(s) of being inconsiderate of others. Is this the case, or not? Obviously I could go on. People are wrapped up in their classist behavior and comfortable with it, with the underclass striving to become middle class, the middle class striving to become upper class, and the upper class, when not with others of their ilk, often downplaying their class status. Off handed comments about this or that, inconsideration of the privileges that they have strictly by the luck of the draw, and they therefore are dismissive of others less fortunate. People are ableist along some of the same routes. Posing as if they are empathetic, but rolling through life as inconsiderately of people who are differently-abled as they do the homeless when they have just exited a shopping spree having purchased frivolous goods that probably won’t even be worn while the homeless person they just passed has only the clothes on her back and is scrambling for tonight’s meal. I have never minced words when I speak to audiences on the subject of race/racism. I firmly believe that if you were socialized in this country, educated, or mis-educated around the subject of race, you are as racist as you are sexist, heterosexist, and ableist. How can you not be if you have never really participated in a discussion about how it feels to be oppressed, or the many ways that we disrespect others. There is a misconception however that if you are a kind person, or someone educated in doing work in the field of Cultural studies, Jewish Studies, Women and/or Gender Studies, LGBT Studies/Chicana-Hispanic/Native American/African American/ Asian-American Studies that you automatically get it because you know and have studied the oppression of one group and logically wouldn’t purposely put that onto others. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! People in every one of these camps have scars as profoundly deep and troubling as the ones non-educators sometimes carry. Just because you are the director of a Diversity Studies program doesn’t mean you don’t see Gay men as less manly even though you may purport to being an advocate for equal rights. Just because you are the chair of a Gender Studies program doesn’t mean you’ve been introduced to Angela Davis’ Myth of the Black Rapist and are capable of seeing underrepresented men in a light that doesn’t automatically frame them as sexual deviants if they deviate slightly from your expectations. Just because you are the director of a educational enterprise (consultant), a dean, provost, president, principal, or superintendent, you are not absolved from succumbing to your own biases, albeit at times subconscious biases. Personal prejudices rear their ugly heads inadvertently as a result of our blind spots, or sometimes deliberately as a result of how we play the game of leveraging ourselves at other’s expense. This is often called playing the ______ card (insert the identity construct that applies). Get this through your head though, everyone carries a deck, but some or just more adept at playing it. So, what’s my point? Well, what is the point? Why do we accept a certain amount of ownership around our ill-treatment of others in these other problematic identity categories, but are ready to fight the accusation of racism? Does racism trump the other isms? Somebody please explain to me how it is possible to not be racist in American society if you are a product of our educational system? Oh, and when we own the fact that we may be sexist, homophobic, and yes, even racist, we then can start to entertain some of the other problematic dimensions of our socialization/indoctrination and examine even deeper how we may have dysfunctionally responded to some of society’s other poorly taught/strategically implemented lessons (what might those be?). After all, as Albert Camus once said: “beginning to think is beginning to be undermined...” tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1095 2011-02-25T16:07:42Z 2011-02-25T16:18:26Z

As the discussion ensued, it was pointed out to her and of course the rest of the class that the reason they often don’t/can’t see their racial privilege is that it is a dominant attribute and we are less apt to focus on those qualities that give us unearned privileges.

J.W. Wiley In the Examining Diversity through Film class I co-teach with colleagues at SUNY-Plattsburgh we had a very intriguing moment arise as we exited our much less anxiety ridden "ability" theme and cautiously entered our "race" theme. A young woman, who often is very much in the game in terms of the energy and insight she brings to a conversation, admitted that she struggled with the notion that because she is White she is privileged. She argued that she has never felt that way and that when she accomplishes something of merit she doesn’t want it undercut by assertions that her race might have been a factor in her achievement. As the discussion ensued, it was pointed out to her and of course the rest of the class that the reason they often don’t/can’t see their racial privilege is that it is a dominant attribute and we are less apt to focus on those qualities that give us unearned privileges. They were then asked if they thought men had an advantage (privilege) over women in our society. They were then asked did they think it was more advantageous to live a heterosexual lifestyle, or to not have a so-called disability. Upon agreeing with the fact that some cultural groups in our society do have advantages (privilege), why would the dominant race in our society be any different? The other day a 14 year old Black boy in a local school was sitting in his class, when a rarity occurred in the North Country, another Black boy entered the classroom. Now, before you start to act as if I’m being racist (because I know some of you love putting that jacket on the diversity guy), catch your breath and realize that still, to this day, the majority of the time I am in a restaurant, I am the only Black man in that restaurant the entire time. However, just yesterday I was in Kotos at the bar, sitting with Matt Salvatore, director of the SUNY Plattsburgh Fitness Center, who I just happened to encounter there. All of a sudden two other Black men entered the restaurant within a five minute period of one another and flanked Matt and I. Okay, so I'm name dropping a bit, but the other two men were Bill Price, president of Plattsburgh Ford, and Shaun Smith, new V.P. of Human Resources for CVPH. Yes, Matt was surrounded by three professional Black men, all craving Sushi, but discovering a rarity, that the stars don’t necessarily have to converge for three Black men from different places and locally different spaces to share social graces while they meet and touch bases. We kicked it with Matt,giving him honorary (albeit temporary) “brother” status while everybody was getting their grub, or should I say, “sushi” on. We , discussed this, that, and the other thing (you don’t really think I would tell you), and for me I must admit it was one of the best impromptu moments I’ve ever had in Plattsburgh. Now, be real with me, other than a crew of college students, how many of you have ever seen three professional black men sitting and dining in a restaurant? How about two? How about three Black women? How about three Latinos? Latinas? Asian men or women? How many times have you even considered the fact that the person(s) you are dining with understand some dimension of your struggle? Perhaps you've never had the thought because in terms of race you've had no struggle. Do you think it is significant or cause for celebration for racially underrepresented people to have access to one another? If not significant, why not? What would be some reasons people wouldn’t see it as significant? Back to the 14 year old Black boy story. So, the other Black boy comes into the class and the one already there greets him with these words, “What’s up, my Negro?” That’s right, his salutation to the other Black boy entering the classroom was a slight twist on the popular culture greeting that has permeated Black vernacular for years, “What’s up my Nigger?” So, while all he said was hello to his friend in a very informal, comfortable manner, the response from the teacher was to send him to the principal’s office. Please tell me your theory on why? Was he wrong in extending this greeting to the other teenage? From what I understand he didn’t yell it out, but definitely said it with no shame. Is there a problem with expressions of culture like this that are not profane? If an Italian had said to another Italian, “What’s up my Italian?” would the student have been sent to the principal’s office? Come on, be real? Were there any implications of unearned privilege being given or denied in this scenario? Lastly, in terms of privilege, I was saddened recently to hear that President Obama has been mentioned as stating his position on same-sex marriage is challenging for him. I applaud his earnestness in identifying the fact that as a leader he is not always clear on the issues he must engage. Far too often our leaders act as if uncertainty on an issue is something to be ashamed of. And in this economical/political climate with countries going bankrupt and nations clamoring for democracy, many of the positions Obama takes are greatly influenced by keeping America situated in a safe, resourceful space. However, as a Black man (or at the very least, a Biracial man) you would think that his understanding of the struggles of Blacks to entertain an egalitarian status within American society would make him not just more sympathetic to other’s struggles to achieve the same with the U.S., but more committed to being an ally in assisting others to overcome their struggles. Is his hesitance to support the eradication of homophobic practices political posturing, or earnest angst? If I’ve quoted soulful song stylist Marvin Gaye once before I’ve quoted him a thousand times, all this inconsideration “makes me want to holla, throw up both my hands…” tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2011:/weblog5//5.1045 2011-01-16T12:48:15Z 2011-01-16T13:18:45Z

How do we avoid/avert the type of hurt inflicted on little Lara in Crash, or ironically, the innocently politically curious Christina Taylor-Green in Tucson? Are their shootings more about the randomness of the universe, or inconsiderate references and disrespect within our language?

J.W. Wiley Recent events in Tucson, Arizona got my attention in a way that was quite disturbing. The wanton murder of six people and wounding of 13 more at the hands of a deranged assailant was hard to ignore, especially when they were gathering to discuss democracy. Undoubtedly, because Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll were two of the shooting victims, it ensured that the visibility of this heinous crime would be more than that given some drug related drive-by shooting in an impoverished neighborhood. However, the tragedy became even greater when one of the victims was a child, a 9 year old, who was only in attendance because of her love for politics and desire to acquire insight into how our democracy works. What would she think of our democracy if she were home watching the aftermath of Tucson instead of becoming one of its victims. After all, no matter how we slice it, the shooting occurred at a political gathering, which makes it some sort of statement about our politics. Whether the shooting occurred because of a crosshairs map, because of heated political rhetoric that disturbingly reflects violence, like “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” “don’t retreat, reload,” or something as inconsiderate of a economically bereft populace as a politician publicly stating the number one goal is to make sure that a sitting president only serves one term, when/where does it stop? When President Obama, in his closing remarks at Tucson’s event memorializing the victims, stated that “We should do everything we can to make sure that this country lives up to our children’s expectations,” the film Crash came to mind for me. There are only a handful of films that every time I watch them, they invoke in me emotion. The ending scene of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” saturates my sight, especially when George Bailey realizes that his life had much deeper meaning through his journey of witnessing how the world would have been without his loving, unselfish presence. The scene in “Castaway” when Helen Hunt is responding to the ultimate dilemma, being restrained by her new husband from her first true love, who she has just recently discovered is actually alive after being thought dead for years. And the most powerful one for me, the scene from Crash, where the little Mexican girl is shot trying to save her father because he isn’t wearing the invisible cloak he had recently transferred to her to protect her from the random violence that far too often occurs in their neighborhood. Unfortunately, I must watch the “Crash” scene every semester during the Race theme in our Examining Diversity through Film course. We show it because it symbolizes how pathetically inconsiderate we are of our children when we constantly put them in harm’s way as a result of our actions. Prior to that scene, the little girl’s father, a locksmith, and a Persian store owner have a disagreement that actually is over more than whether the lock on the Persian man’s business can be fixed. What they are actually arguing over is the stereotype in the Persian man’s mind associated with the Mexican man’s trustworthiness, exacerbated by the frustration of the Persian man being stereotyped himself earlier by a gun store owner. It is stereotypes like these and the frustration accompanying them that contributed to the attempted murder of the Mexican father in “Crash,” resulting in his daughter using her body to shield her dad. How do we avoid/avert the type of hurt inflicted on little Lara in Crash, or ironically, the innocently politically curious Christina Taylor-Green in Tucson? Are their shootings more about the randomness of the universe, or inconsiderate references and disrespect within our language? Is there a cause and effect relationship between our inability to systematically eliminate our propensity towards negativity when we frame those different from us as “the other” and our then somehow justified or rationalized actions? In schools all across the country educators are working feverishly trying to eliminate bullying and the language that exemplifies it. “Trailer trash,” “retard,” “ the F-word,” “the B-word,” “the G-word,” and “N-word” have all been thoroughly engaged and targeted as problematic in their further perpetuation of dysfunctional attitudes and behavior. Finally we are focused on the bullying that takes place in our society, obviously as a result of school shootings. At what point will we stop to ponder the fact that it may be virtually impossible to end bullying at the adolescent level if we are clueless about our modeling of it at the so-called adult level? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2010:/weblog5//5.1016 2010-11-29T17:32:07Z 2010-12-01T06:31:28Z

My laughing at some man disrespecting a woman I am not connected to very much can affect me. My endorsing someone ridiculing a gay person ten years ago could very well have been the foundation for my grandchild of the future one day becoming the victim of a homophobic person that is a direct descendant of the homophobes I endorsed years before.

J.W. Wiley I remember back in the day often hearing friends of mine say that the only way they might do certain things that they didn’t really find attractive (befriending a gay person or someone of another race, dating beneath their class status) would be if they were paid a million dollars to do it. Sometimes, dependent upon how far fetched they were in their thinking, I would challenge them to unpack it. I began my challenge by asking if a million dollars was the benchmark for when they would do it. It was an arbitrary benchmark that they had created and they needed to truly think about the dimensions of their arbitrariness. Puzzled, they often would challenge me to take my point further, which I graciously did. I said to them, if you would do whatever for $1,000,000 dollars, then you would do it for $500,000 thousand. Without hesitation, most of them would own up to the fact that they would. I then confronted them about the fact that if they would lower their so-called standards from a million to half a million, we could further half that half and they ultimately would still do it for a quarter of a million. After a moment or two of thought, they once again concurred. I then pointed out to them that half of a quarter million, which is $125,000 was also a great deal of money that could solve many financial woes for many people and therefore would also be enough monetary compensation to entice them to do what they had earlier stated they would only do for a million dollars. From that point on, I continued to half the amount: $125,000 down to $62,500, down to $31,250, down to $15,625, down to $7,812.50, down to $3,906.25, down to $1,953.12, down to $976.56, down to $488.28, down to $244.14, down to $122.07, down to $61.04, down to $30.52, down to $15.26, down to $7,63, down to $3.81, down to $1.91, down to $.95, etc. At some point, as I’m sure you’ve already surmised, the law of diminishing return plays a large part in forcing us to face the hypocrisy of certain aspects of our thought process and how we actually articulate some of the most ridiculous assertions that we truly have not unpacked. Can you think of any other assertions that reflect this? What does this "relative measure of value" have to do with diversity and social justice? Well, it is the same type of logic that we often succumb to when we consider different people. What do they have to do with us? Why should we care about people that look, act, or originate from realities different from ours? Why should we care about wealthy people? Doesn’t their wealth solve all of their problems? Or must we be concerned with so-called poor people, or poverty outside of our own community, or poverty outside of our own homes, or poverty outside of ourselves? If it doesn’t affect us directly it doesn’t affect us at all, right? Wrong! Very wrong! When we aren’t enlightened enough to understand that inconsideration of others breeds inconsideration of us, when we encounter a moment where someone is doing or has done us wrong we must stop and reflect on how we may have set the table for our receipt of that wrongdoing sometime earlier. My laughing at some man disrespecting a woman I am not connected to very much can affect me. My endorsing someone ridiculing a gay person ten years ago could very well have been the foundation for my grandchild of the future one day becoming the victim of a homophobic person that is a direct descendant of the homophobes I endorsed years before. My mother was correct when she once told me that I shouldn’t laugh when people tell Polish jokes, or Jewish jokes, or Hispanic jokes, because when I walk away, they probably are telling Black jokes. However, what my mother would also impart to me was the more important fact, that when I stopped to consider my actions, what is really the case is that I know right from wrong, and the bottom line is that laughing at other people’s realities is just that, wrong. On the other hand, taking constructive action to value people for their uniqueness is an opportunity, not a chore. Our inability to see valuing others as an opportunity, instead of a task, is not far removed from requiring a million dollars to accept a certain onerous challenge. A million dollars—in the grand scheme of things—breaks down to a whole lot less money, given the context of our need at any given moment. How logical is it to require or expect a million dollars on a Monday for something you would do for $976.56 ten days later? Does the arbitrariness of asserting a worth towards something that you would or would not do as a result of what probably is peer pressure threaten to leave us looking more like we don’t deserve a dime? As a matter of fact, if the word gets out that we are that immature and petty, perhaps it will take a million dollars for someone to want to experience us! Your thoughts??? tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2010:/weblog5//5.1006 2010-11-08T22:54:39Z 2010-11-08T22:59:15Z

After all, to deliberately attach such a problematic label to another person, knowing full well its impact, is not a gesture of kindness or consideration, unless you are of the mindset that even inconsideration is a form of consideration.

J.W. Wiley A young male college student who I have had the pleasure of building an excellent rapport with during his exemplary college career dismantled my sensibilities recently when he shared with me how he was being seen around the campus by many. He vented a concern that he was being viewed and labeled as a predator because of his dating a variety of young women. Now, he wasn’t being seen as a “cheater,” because he had successfully articulated and established himself as non-monogamous. Like George Clooney, a confirmed bachelor, he thought there was no problem with him honestly having his choice of women as companions as long as everything was out in the open. Somehow though, the moniker of “player” that stereotypically gets attached to a male who determines he doesn’t want to be in a monogamous relationship isn’t being used as much on some college campuses. Like the term “whore” or the more abbreviated slang term “ho” that has been used as a mechanism to manipulate women into conforming to Judeo-Christian values, predator appears to carry similar weight and now be the preferred accusation. The male college student then went on to share with me that some other young men who also were dating multiple women with no interest in a monogamous relationship were also being framed as predators. I couldn’t believe what he was telling me. Since when did our college campuses become Nazi Germany? Granted, we could discuss until we are blue in the face whether our young men and women should be in college looking for their life partners with their education as the secondary focus, or whether they should be in college focusing on their education with their romantic life secondary. Yes, and of course there are those who are capable of finding the perfect balance with their education being nicely augmented by their romantic partnering with someone. But in any of these cases, should there be a judgment accompanying one pattern of dating behavior over another? Oh, and why is it that only the young men are being called predators? I was once publicly called a predator myself. Actually, it was a “sexual predator” in response to a blog I once wrote for Wiley Wandering. That attempt to publicly humiliate me with such language was an inept attempt to besmirch my reputation by someone who never spoke with me one-on-one, yet somehow must have acquired quite a bit of insight into me, far beyond that of all the people who really know me. As an adult I’ve come to realize that haters hate because they lacked dates, don’t like their fate, have few things to celebrate, seldom feel great, and often just can’t relate. But young men who are honestly and unabashedly just starting to live their young lives shouldn’t’ have to deal with such stigmatization should they? But before we put the cart too far in front of the horse, what exactly is a predator? Well, the dictionary essentially defines it as someone who preys on others. Ironically, wouldn’t the deliberate misuse of the term by a person or group make her/them the predators? After all, to deliberately attach such a problematic label to another person, knowing full well its impact, is not a gesture of kindness or consideration, unless you are of the mindset that even inconsideration is a form of consideration. And how does a young man in his early twenties prey on a young woman in her early twenties if he isn’t doing something dubious or criminal. Outwardly announcing no interest in a monogamous relationship and then at times experiencing intimacy with different women across a given weekend would make him no less a predator than it would make a whore/ho out of a woman who had multiple lovers across a period of days, right? As long as both parties are of legal consenting age, is she a predator if he is 18 and she is 24? How about if she is 19 and he is 25? Before we go too far down this road why does it change when she is 29 and he is 35? The six years difference in age should have been somewhat negligible with the 19 and 25 year old couple, especially since women mature faster than men anyway, right? As a matter of fact, is predator a term that is gender specific? Of course not, because if men can be whores/hos, then women can be predators, right? Somehow it would not seem fair if lesbians couldn’t be predators too. Okay, so then can men be predators against other men if they don’t want a monogamous gay relationship? This is confusing stuff! Could predator be a mechanism of manipulation to control the previously framed player’s behavior, making him mindful of the negative connotation and thus self conscious of his moves? But wait, with the sexual revolution having passed and returned too many times to keep count we can’t be really thinking now that it is okay for people outside of relationships to become the moral majority, approving or disproving relative notions of promiscuity. Which is it? It was once not okay for two women to be lovers, but until some sanctioned political body sanctions the arrangement it isn’t okay for three women to be lovers? Then I need not even discuss threesomes because coming from me, a once publicly accused sexual predator it couldn’t be a philosophical conversation, but predatory posturing. On an ideal college campus Residence Life, Fraternity & Sorority Life, Women Studies, Diversity Centers, Education and other academic departments within Humanities and Social Sciences departments, as well as student organizations are all working diligently to challenge the students to be leaders in a global society. These organizations are also, ideally, working collaboratively to make sure that all their students are being academically enriched by one another so as to better ensure the best academic experience, right? So, how does it happen that we can challenge our students to not buy into the hype associated with the privilege that accompanies the facilitation of able bodies, non-egalitarian gender bias, irrational racism, self serving socio-economic class consciousness, and heterosexism/homophobia, and yet want to take them to task when they don’t conform to a socially constructed dating ritual? As a Black person I find it difficult to become comfortable turning a blind eye to Black people who are biased towards other races but ready to scream bloody murder at the racism they experience. As a heterosexual I find it difficult to identify myself as “straight” when I know to many it may imply that members of the GLBT community are “crooked,” or in essence, “deviant.” And I wonder how it must be for women who have worked so hard for egalitarian status to then sit and watch other women, many of whom carry varying societal scars inflicted by men and who have come to understand the power they have in unfounded accusations against men, play their language games with veiled but nonetheless dubious messages that cloak a covert double standard simply because as a once oppressed group without a voice, everyone is overcompensating to now hear theirs. Is the reason these young men are now being called and framed as predators simply because the terms player, whore/ho were ineffective in inducing conformity? What’s the next term that will be used to curtail their activities? Let’s see, womanizers already been used. Oh, I know, how about “single?” tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2010:/weblog5//5.1001 2010-10-29T20:28:51Z 2010-10-29T23:48:21Z

Do you think it would be helpful/beneficial to find a way to include middle school student’s parents in these conversations about diversity & social justice, and bullying?

J.W. Wiley So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? After you consider that, then answer this, which occurs first, bullying because of our ignorance on how to respond to differences, or inconsideration of differences that contributes to bullying? If any middle school students actually read this blog, my questions to them are: 1. What was the most personal thing that you got from the diversity/bullying session today? 2. If you were to describe to your parents what you experienced today, how would you describe it? 3. Why was it important for you to have a session on bullying/diversity? 4. Do you think the bullying/diversity session will make a difference with your classmates, and why/why not? 5. Do you think all students would benefit from more diversity sessions like the one you had today? Why/why not? 6. Do you think your parents would benefit from participating in a session on bullying/diversity? My questions to adult readers of this blog are: 1. Do you think it is possible for a middle school student to truly process (significantly grow/mature) from a message that challenges them to respect “everyone,” no matter how different the person appears to be? 2. Do you think it is possible for a middle school student to become a leader when they’ve never really thought about leading before? 3. Do you think it is possible for a middle school student to tune out the dysfunctional messages that their parents, siblings, friends, etc., constantly expose them to and hold on to the positive messages? 4. Do you think it would be helpful/beneficial to find a way to include middle school student’s parents in these conversations about diversity & social justice, and bullying? 5. Why is it that we emphasize, promote, and fund sports and academics, but have so little emphasis on the development of our character through respect/consideration of our differences? I am really curious as to how students and parents might process a session like this. What do you think? ]]> tag:blog.pressrepublican.com,2010:/weblog5//5.979 2010-10-10T01:09:51Z 2010-10-11T05:26:38Z

What does it really mean? Does it give people a pass to say anything they want to say? Is it similar to “I’m just joking?” Hmmm? Well, when people say I’m just joking, it often is following an insensitive statement that they aimed at someone and they are trying to mitigate the extent of the damage by rationalizing it away as meaningless. Could it be that these two statements are something akin to first cousins, or even siblings?

J.W. Wiley Have you noticed recently how the saying “I’m just saying” has propagated throughout pop culture communication? It was actually just a few months ago that an extremely lovely woman friend of mine first said it to me in a way that made me focus on it. Since then, I hear it everywhere. Even on my way home today from Burlington, Vermont I heard hip-hop artist The Dream in his song “Love King” give this advice to a woman he was interested in: “N….a” keep playin, change where you layin, I’m just saying.” While the advice seems admirable, it does appear to benefit him to give it, so once again there is more weight to the "I'm just saying," than meets the eye. Someone answer this for me: has this saying been around for years and I just didn’t notice it, or did it actually just expand throughout our vernacular? What does it really mean? Does it give people a pass to say anything they want to say? Is it similar to “I’m just joking?” Hmmm? Well, when people say I’m just joking, it often is following an insensitive statement that they aimed at someone and they are trying to mitigate the extent of the damage by rationalizing it away as meaningless. Could it be that these two statements are something akin to first cousins, or even siblings? So what type of statement is “I’m just saying” punctuating? I heard a woman tell another woman that she saw her man whispering in another woman’s ear, and punctuated telling on him with “I’m just saying.” My daughter recently criticized my attire as not effectively matching with “I’m just saying.” An educator I know recently criticized both a school superintendent and principal’s seeming indifference to the struggles of the underrepresented students they are supposed to care about with an “I’m just saying.” (Fortunately these two administrators were from two different districts, and yes, I'm just saying.) I was watching a news show and thought I heard one of the contributors take a pot shot at the Tea Parties, saying something about a hidden agenda, then attempting to walk away from it with an “I’m just saying.” And I think it was on MSNBC the other night that I heard wannabe congressman and so-called politician Ben Quayle (son of the seldom decried best Vice President ever) declaring that President Obama was the worst president in U.S. history, something that the extremely rationale, never over the top congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has also articulated. I actually couldn’t believe that neither of them accentuated their claims with an “I’m just saying.” I mean, really, though on some level, I’m just saying… Interestingly enough, is it truly “just” to say “I’m just saying,” somehow exonerating oneself from the weight of owning a statement that arguably is quite unjust? So, what is it that she and he, you and I, all of us are “just saying?”