Disappointed

So, it's graduation day, and, naturally, I'm not tired. I've been tired all day, and now when it's time to sleep so that I can get up early...

I wrote a few posts ago about how I had a rough path to graduation. Several things snowballed until I just did not have enough credits at the last minute, but I worked it out. But it was hard work, and I had to pay a lot for everything that led to my graduating today. The biggest price has actually turned out to be my friends.

Now, this is weird to me, because this was not how college ended. With college, I think I was 100% ready to leave. I wasn't attached to the city or the university, nor anybody except maybe one person. I was very tired of school. And I'm tired of school now, but I love the university, where I live and the area...and there were several people I wanted to spend time with before I left because we're all going to be in different places.

I don't know what I was thinking. I don't know if I thought I'd have time or if I was just so focused on getting everything done so that I could graduate. But I didn't attempt to get in touch with anybody this semester. I spent time with BFLS and BRF--oh, and with my Korean friend--because they contacted me to hang out. But I kind of forgot everyone else. Last weekend, BFLS and I were hanging out, and I told her that I wanted to see several people before leaving but there was one person I had to see. Other than BFLS and Angel, this person has been there for me the most. He's essentially the only gay friend I have and the only gay person who has tried to understand or help me with issues surrounding that part of who I am. He's the only person I've been able to talk to about being queer.

I can't believe I'm not going to get to see him before I leave. I haven't seen him in months--not at all this semester, I don't think, and only once last semester. Graduation is bittersweet for me in so many ways, but this is the worst. I go through a range of emotions concerning graduation, but never excited. It has usually been sad, but right now I am just really upset and disappointed.

To top it all off, I'm not even moving to Chicago. So, I kind of feel like Angel is...not happy about that. Even though I visit Chicago, every time I've gone during this school year has not been for long enough to see any of my friends there. And when I start to work, it's not going to be easy to go to Chicago like it has been during law school. So, for me, it feels almost like we'll never see each other again. I don't know how she feels about it. I don't think she has given up on ways of getting me to Chicago permanently. Like me, she's not an emotional person, so she's not going to say how she feels. But from the questions she asks me, I just get the sense that she wanted me to move there or at least spend the summer there to prepare for the bar exam.

Some of my other friends, I'm sure we'll see each other if I do actually move to NY. Nikki will be there, and my Asian Indian friend loves NYC to death so I'm sure she'll be visiting. BFLS is moving to DC, and I can actually practice there if I score high enough on one section of the NY bar exam...I might do that instead. My Korean friend was actually hoping I'd decide to move to CA instead because she hates LA (I don't blame her) and wants people she likes there to hang out with and kind of make it better. I guess I'm hoping my friends who will be in NY or who will visit will make it better for me.

There are all these articles and news stories on TV about unemployment and Bush's approval ratings. I know there are people having to follow the jobs, but this is not really being discussed in the news while I've seen a few people online writing about it being an unfortunate possibility or reality for them. I think there's only two people in the bunch who are happy about my possibly moving to NY, neither of whom are me. My family is unhappy, my friends are unhappy, I'm unhappy--because I couldn't stay here, where the unemployment rate is high, and I couldn't go to Chicago where the legal market is bad if you don't already have a job. I couldn't believe that the issue related to the economy that has most Americans up in arms is gas prices. It seems trivial to me, at least relatively speaking.

Finding a job is not the issue for me; it's where the job probably will be. I'll be far away from the majority of the people I care about, and I don't know if some of those relationships will survive. If it was hard to keep in touch with people when they were right here, just imagine. If I could have stayed here, I would have had a very reliable person nearby. If I could have gone to Chicago, I would have had an extremely reliable person nearby as well as family. Nikki and some of the others are cool and everything, but they are not really the best friends to me...and, let's face it, friends also usually aren't anything compared to family.

On the brighter side, at least I've completed one thing that I've really hated for approximately 2 & 1/2 years. The thing about being so busy, though, is that I've been going crazy with having nothing to do even though it really has only been a few hours of having nothing to do.

The Double-Edged Sword

People have gotten up in arms about the accusation that Obama has gotten this far in the election because he's black, and I just read a piece that I suppose was meant to be a clever critique of that point. However, I don't disagree with the statement, or automatically assume a white person is racist for saying it while a black person is some kind of sellout for saying it. Hell, I say it. And I'm not saying it to be upset about it, or because I think it's wrong, as this piece suggests. In fact, I partially say it because I somewhat agree with the piece.

You see, oftentimes being black or any kind of minority is a double-edged sword. The best example of how being black is both a blessing and a curse is seen by examining the black male. Black men are both the most accepted blacks and the most hated blacks at the same time. How could that be?

Well, despite Whitehead's claim in the piece that black guys can be invisible sometimes--and I suppose in certain kinds of environments, they can be--they are the blacks that white people think are cool, whom whites will date, whom white guys will talk about sports with and white females will befriend the quickest despite the fact that they essentialize women and sometimes claim to think we all are/should be united, whose music whites buy and mimic, whom whites will support on the football and basketball fields, whom whites have "positive" stereotypes about. Even Asians and Latinos get in on the act, especially Asians more and more. It's getting to the point where it's unbelievable how many Asian women I see dating black men.

Yet, they are also the ones who deal with white (and other) people locking car doors as they pass, clutching purses, crossing the streets, labeling them thugs, blaming all the crime in the US on them and claiming their rap music is the reason for all the problems with today's youth, falsely incarcerating them for crimes, stopping them for little or no reason as police officers.

With GLBTs, lesbians are the best example. Now, I know white gays never like to admit that gays have any privilege in the world whatsoever. However, you've got to admit that I'd probably have more women AND men chasing me if I were out. Even though in a guy's fantasy a lesbian might have to be hot, in reality all he has to do is be able to tell or learn that you're one, even if you look kind of manly or unattractive. You might not like that attention, but there are plenty of straight women dying for it. Basically, I'm saying you constantly get "sexy" points from the general population just for liking women--even from "straight" women who are curious or sexual--and my observation is that it's easier for out and/or obvious lesbians to get attention from women, too. Furthermore, so many people in the US think it's okay for women to like and have sex with women but think it's completely disgusting for men to do the same things.

At the same time, many people don't believe that any gay person--male or female--should get married or adopt kids, and some rights aren't even legally recognized as protecting GLBTs though they protect other groups. And people in the US are not yet to that point where PCness regarding gays has been shoved down their throats like it has for blacks, making them keep their bigotry about homosexuals inward for the most part like they do with blacks...except when they're on the internet.

Basically, Obama is in the process of benefitting from the double-edged sword, because the majority of people who support him do so at least in part because he's black. It's likely that he'll even win the Democratic nomination because of it. However, being black is also why he probably won't win the general election. The majority of Latinos, Asians and whites are not going to support this guy. Several of them would probably support Clinton if she got the nomination, though, but will swing to McCain or possibly an independent if she doesn't. Many gays are not going to support him, either, because, as I've written before, a black person who is not the perfect gay advocate is going to be criticized much more harshly by white gays than a white person who is the same way (and so it is with Obama and Clinton). Working class whites weren't supporting Obama before in many states, and now after he has "insulted" them, more of them will refuse to support him.

And even if he does manage to become President, being black will bite him in the @ss several times during his Presidency. This is probably the worst time for a black person to be trying to be President, with all the problems Bush has created for the next President to clean up. People will not soon forget or stop criticizing Bush, but the next President will also inevitably find him or herself the target of criticism for stuff relating to what Bush has done. Inevitably, Obama will find some white people criticizing him, yet finding some way to tie it to the fact that he's black and how a black person should never have been President, how incompetent blacks are for the position, etc. Sure, Clinton would get the same in relation to her sex, and some people will use it to make sweeping generalizations about women. However, most people do truly believe that blacks are incompetent and unintelligent, including many blacks.

In addition, being white can counteract criticisms commonly associated with sex more effectively than being a man can counteract criticisms associated with being black, partially because there are more white women in society than black men or even black people. There are a lot of more famous examples that [white] women are capable per societal standards than exist for blacks, and with blacks even when an example exists it's often dismissed as an exception. Hell, Obama is that example and exception. And yet, the first sign of a screw up, whites will throw him to the wolves. It doesn't work that way for women. Furthermore, all those white male superdelegates, mayors, senators, congressmen and governors who back him now will surely leave him hanging when he runs into a problem that results in criticism of him. Right now, many people are saying he's not qualified. Imagine what they'll be saying when he's in office and stuff goes wrong or he does something a huge group of people don't like, as happens for every President at some point. Only with him, it'll have something to do with race.

I don't think it's totally the case that Obama is being handed the nomination, though I'm sure some people do perceive that to be the case. The thing about blacks being handed anything, though, is that there's always tons more that is taken away to the point of the handout being worthless sometimes (this is one reason why he should have just let Clinton run for and win the Democratic nomination). Affirmative action can be like this, for example. You might be able to attend a better college, but that doesn't mean you'll get the same kind of job as white classmates, the same pay as white classmates, the same kind of treatment on the job as white classmates or even reach your full potential on the job in terms of promotion or the fast track like white classmates. You get just one thing that non-blacks can perceive as discrimination while you're still left to battle discrimination that they don't get, from all corners. This leads to your getting blamed when things don't work out for you as well as they do for others who don't battle the extra discrimination.

This is ahead for Obama whenever he becomes President.

The Black Student Org is Anti-Western

Apparently, a bill in Arizona started by--naturally--a Repughblican seeks to do away with groups like the Black Business Students Association because all they do in those kinds of groups is sit around, talk about how they hate America and how to take America down. Oh, you didn't know they did that in the Black Business Students Association? Oh, yeah, man. I know when I went to the Black Law Students meetings, we'd just sit with a dry-erase board, take ideas for how we're going to murder everyone working for the US government and then take over, changing all the American values that whites--err, all Americans--have worked hard to instill in everyone, including people in other countries who think the US is so much better than everywhere else.

Yep, sometimes we even went into elementary schools or invited kids to the campus so that we could teach them all things "anti-Western," from how baseball sucks to inequality is real in the US to how Columbus didn't really discover America because you can't discover something when other people are already there once you get there. Nah, eff the West, man. We're going to take over and force everyone to get "authentic" African hairstyles, all guys have to walk around with their clothes hanging off--you know, because that's what they do in Africa. All women have to roll their necks, get up in your face and yell all loud with a finger about to poke your eye out--also done in Africa. All kids have to get up and sing every...single...word straight from memory when "their song" comes on the radio or TV but still go to school and flunk their reading and spelling tests because they can't read. Again, Africa.

Hopefully, in time, whites, Asians and Latinos will see what we've done as American values. Hey, why not? It worked for whites when they "discovered" America. Apparently, whites figure that if their ancestors did it, why would it be so far-fetched that blacks, Asians and/or Latinos are sitting around in their racial/ethnic organizations planning to do it? Hmmm, but they're the only ones allowed to do stuff like that. It's "manifest destiny" or "survival of the fittest" and all that when they do it--it's something great to be taught in the US History. But if another group is teaching anything like that, then it's anti-Western, cause for concern, to the point of passing bills and doing anything possible to keep others from doing it. It's basically all here.

First of all, as much as I think racial & ethnic organizations should sit down and come up with ways to either smash so-called American values because they're really nothing but white standards or figure out how to get into power in the US, this is not what people do in these organizations. Second, this has been an issue for a long time now--whites have opposed these kinds of organizations for a long time. Now I'm finally starting to see why--it's fear. Apparently, they have no idea what goes on in these meetings, but because whites have done the worst they assume we're trying to. It's also an indirect admission that whites have more status and power, and they're worried one of the less powerful races is plotting to take all that away.

The funny thing is it seems usually whites are, at the very least, told they're welcome at these meetings. The overwhelming majority just never come. If they really wanted to know what went on, they'd come to a meeting. Then they'd see orgs like the Black Business Students Whatever are usually never more than, at worst, some kind of "let's see who is black enough because they're here and who's not black enough because they're not so we can talk crap about them after the meeting" thing...at medium, a "holy sh!t, hardly anyone at this school is of my background, and experience tells me that unless I find some black people quick I'm not going to have very many people to socialize with" thing...and at best, 1) it's about planning and having social events that are the black equivalent to those little drunken parties or bar-hopping events white people have but don't invite us to--or sometimes do but we feel incredibly awkward at them--and 2) it's about half-hearted efforts to get us in touch with alumni and other networks, and give very basic career advice, study advice, etc. You can argue that racial pride fits in somewhere, but I don't even buy that--these organizations are almost strictly social. Trust me, nothing deep comes up most of the time, let alone "seditious teachings." And, honestly, this is part of the reason why I don't participate in these kinds of organizations. If they had real discussions about ANYTHING, I'd be there...but since they just want to socialize I say, hey, I've found the few people I like and want to hang out with here.

The medium reason for racial & ethnic organizations is important, though, because it, once again, demonstrates the fact that we're not all just American. To me, there's no such thing as American values. If there were, they'd need to be about more than shoving white ideals down everyone's throats and trying to make everyone conform to and assimilate into whiteness. This bill is yet another example of that. However, I will grant you that a few American values really do exist. Probably the first and biggest one is anti-difference. If that's true, then that encompasses racism. In addition, it encompasses homophobia, sexism, classism and every other identity issue from which the US suffers.

One could make an argument that if racial & ethnic orgs are stripped away, then the next thing will be GLBT orgs, women's orgs, and so on. However, if you look at the reasoning for the "anti-Western" bill...I'm not sure anyone would believe gays or women are sitting around teaching people to hate America. Furthermore, men benefit more from sex-exclusive anythings than women do...being that men are the ones who come up with dumb stuff like this bill, I don't think they're going to want to bite themselves in the @ss by coming up with something that will keep them from being able to segregate from women whenever they feel the need or to bestow benefits on other men as many all-men things do. Finally, gays and women are not cast outside of American identity the way racial minorities are, unless the gay person or woman is a racial minority. It's also because of this reason that gays and women don't really have as much of a reason to form groups to undermine white American ideals, and not many people think they do.

The fact that racism is the American way necessitates a need for racial & ethnic orgs. These groups are not the reason we're segregated; we formed these groups because of segregation. Most blacks know that you can put racial minorities in one small place together and that's not going to make us all mix. I can imagine how many blacks attend Arizona State vs how many whites do. When blacks are in environments like that, it's just a fact that the majority of them will not have as many friends as whites in those environments, and race has a lot to do with that.

Although whites complain about racial & ethnic orgs and claim that they'd never be able to have a White Student Org--which, yeah, almost every org on campus is the equivalent of a White Student Org with the parallel phony "all are welcome" extension that black student orgs offer--the majority of blacks AND whites would tell you essentially that there's nothing wrong with segregation. Most whites see nothing wrong with living in all-white neighborhoods, attending all-white schools, having all-white friends and dating only whites. A lot of blacks concur. I can't tell you how Asians or Latinos feel about it. But if this is the case, then why not let blacks, Asians and Latinos have these seperate orgs? As a matter of fact, at my school, we have several Jewish orgs and I think even an Irish org. Or is it that you think we're supposed to be dying to hang out with you because you're a white God or Goddess, but you can take or leave us? Basically, doing away with these orgs will not make us become one with whites, and that's generally going to be white people's fault.

And, believe it or not, take the orgs or not but you'll still have the black table, the Asian table, the Latino table. You'll still see groups of blacks clumped together, groups of Asians together. Could we not, in those instances, be denigrating America? Actually, it's more often in these kinds of gatherings than in organizations where you'll find us talking sh!t about the US. So, what to do about that? Basically, as long as you segregate from us, we'll segregate from you. If you're not going to send a white transplant over to our gatherings every single time, then you're not safe from knowing that we're not plotting against white Americans and America as we know it.

And the point about "go back to that culture"--as I was hinting at, most of the things that are stereotypical of blacks in the US have nothing to do with Africa, which people usually consider our only place of ancestry. They have nothing to do with any of my ethnicities or cultures. So, going back to Africa won't work on that one--there's nowhere we could go if our only choices were to be who we are or be like white Americans, because we are unlike any other culture. As far as Asians and Latinos who keep part of their heritage alive in the US, people can argue this is a melting pot and that different cultures is what makes America so great. I'm not disagreeing, particularly with the argument about different cultures making things better, but the fact of the matter is most people who say those things don't mean it, as demonstrated by their daily actions. The bottom line for me is everyone has the right to be who they are or who they want to be, especially without some white jackass stepping in all the time as the culture police. Besides, Asians and Latinos who grew up in the US are stuck in the middle culturally almost as much as blacks are.

Finally, I usually don't use the Constitution to back up any of my arguments because I think its an imperfect document, almost to the point of being worthless. But there's another thing a lot of Americans, especially Repughblicans, like to throw in all of our faces when they're saying something others don't like--it's called the First Amendment. Once again, it's whites trying to change the rules mid-way through the game to suit their needs (which, actually, is how the courts use the Constitution, which is one reason I think it's kind of worthless). People can speak freely on their issues with the US and acknowledge that the US isn't perfect just like whites can claim all black mothers are on welfare freely and skinheads can go on hate marches in Ohio. In general, speech is protected.

Finally Surprised Me

Since I can't sleep, I've been thinking about this experience I had this past weekend and decided to come share.

Some friends of mine and I went out. This particular group of friends is great because we always end up having real conversations, whereas with some of the other people I know they always want to talk about the same empty twenty-something nonsense. Closer to the end of the conversation, we somewhat did that by talking about guys. One of my white friends, whom I've referred to here before as my best friend in law school (BFLS), said that she thinks black men are the most attractive men in response to my mentioning that another one of my white friends (my best friend in music, BFM) thinks black people are the most attractive. And since she was speaking to two black women, she assumed we would agree with that. I guess my black friend agreed, but I didn't see her response because she was sitting beside me and I was looking at BFLS, who was across from me. Plus, I just figure she probably would agree--I can't really see her dating interracially, though we've never talked about that.

When BFLS kind of asked us if we agreed that black men were the most attractive, I was thinking, "HELL NO!" and just shook my head no. She was kind of like, "You don't?" And I could feel that the next thing would probably be to assume I thought white guys were the most attractive, because that's what so many people do, i.e. the only options are black or white. At the same time, this is a friend of mine who should know better, because I tend to carry on about white men and not in a good way. I've been doing that with her almost ever since I've known her, so 2 & 1/2 years. So I just said, "I like Asian guys."

And then both of my friends went crazy. How? I guess just out-of-this-world couldn't believe I said that or could think Asians are more attractive than white or black people. Now, with the black female, I'm not necessarily surprised. I know how most black women are about Asians, especially when thinking about blacks and Asians dating--it's weird to most. But with BFLS?!?! White females actually do date Asian males. And, though I know Asians still do experience racism from white people, I have just never seen it, at least not in real life. To me, white people generally love Asians and have no problems with dating or doing anything else with them, so this was really amazing to me. And it still is. And, you know, I'm not ever surprised by racism, but this has really caught me off guard.

I kind of want to ask BFLS what that was all about. Chances are the whole thing will get lost in the hustle to graduate and figuring out what to do about the Bar exam. But I have a hard time resisting attempts to answer questions like this. And the other reason why her reaction surprised me is I know she would have something to say if someone acted like that in response to blacks. Usually, I hate when people try to act like everyone in the US gets way more up in arms when bad things happen to black people and just 100% won't tolerate unfair treatment towards blacks while they will do so with every other disadvantaged group and sometimes even with whites--it's not true. But with her, I think it is; she would have poo-pooed someone if they had acted shocked that anyone thought blacks were hot.

And this isn't the first time this has happened, but I guess I'm more shocked because I know her better. The other time was actually when BFM told me that her fiance--white guy--said he doesn't find Asian women attractive. Now, I was really surprised at that, too, and still think about that comment in amazement. But with that comment, it's not the racism I find in it so much as...you know, I've never heard of a white guy not liking Asian women, HAHA. And with him, I think he wouldn't totally dismiss dating a black female, so that's also interesting. I'm pretty sure many Asians have these experiences as teenagers and younger with white people, but I didn't really think it kept happening after that because the majority of white people appear to grow into a point where they accept Asians as almost no different than they are.

And the funniest thing is after her reaction, BFLS got back on her liberal (though she denies being a liberal) throne and started talking about how Asian men are hurt by interracial dating. As always, she was correct and knowledgeable with what she was saying. But still, you're going to act like I told you I was going on "Flavor of Love" so that I can date Flavor Flav at the idea that Asian guys can look better than black guys, and then talk about how much harder it is for Asian guys than other guys to find women. With people reacting like that, uh, YEAH it's harder!!

I guess another thing that surprised/bothered me was this idea that one race is better-looking than another. For some reason, it seems like black men are the flavor du jour while Asian women are the counterpart flavor du jour. I'm tired of that. While I have my preferences, I know there are times when a white guy will be the best-looking in a room, a black man will be the hottest, etc. In the past year, I've gone from being interested in a lily white-looking female to a dark black female to a half-Asian/half-white female. This weekend, I stayed up all night watching re-runs of "I Love New York 2" on VH1 and just thought the black guy Buddha was the sexiest thing. She picked this wimpy white guy called Tailor Made because he would allow her to run the relationship, and I get that--I applaud her for that one, not to mention find it hysterical. But the white guy had nothing on the black one. Buddha was just sexy. I'm not one of those people who exalts one race; I see beauty where beauty exists, and it could be in anybody.

So, I just can't stand when people make a blanket statement that one race is the most attractive, or act like a couple of races are acceptable but others aren't. Part of the reason I was like, "HELL NO!" was because I was rejecting the blanket nature of BFLS's statement. In other words, no, I don't think black men are more attractive than other men--I think there are all kinds of attractive men. Generally, I don't want to date them. But I notice good-looking guys. Furthermore, I feel like this sudden fashionability of black men is, yet, another symptom of this mass movement occurring in the US entitled "White People Dying To Demonstrate We're Not Racist." I know this is not true of BFLS. She's marrying a white male, and she said she wouldn't date black men because 1) that hurts black women, and 2) she would be afraid of black women, HAHAHA. Oh, man, I love that woman! HAHAHA. Plus, you can't be friends with me unless you acknowledge your racism, which she did a long time ago. But I think some of these other women are silently self-congratulatory, thinking they are waging their own modern-day civil rights movement or some such crap with their black boyfriend or husband and a Barack Obama sticker on the car or whatever. With Asian women, who knows...perhaps white men are being "revolutionary," too, but are generally too wimpy (or shall I say too fond of white male power?) to go too low on the social totem pole.

Anyways...

Meanwhile, they've got a little problem with Asian men and black women, gasping at dinner tables when people find them attractive or completely acting like they don't exist. Yep...definitely not racist. You see, I've kind of noticed that white women who get with black men tend to not have black female friends or even associates, and white guys who get with Asian women tend not to have Asian male friends or associates, HAHA. Not all, though, but I've seen it too many times.

Race: Playing The Victim

I have often found that sometimes things seem worse than they really are. For me, when things go wrong, there is usually a really good reason that leads to a much better outcome than if things had gone the way I wanted them to.

I'm not going to go into details as to what I went through this week, but the bottom line is now I can say a little more confidently than I could all semester that I will graduate soon. And that was really, really hard to say all semester. Things fell completely apart first. It was one of those times when if someone asked you how you feel, you couldn't answer. I guess it was a combination of emotions and thoughts, no single one prevailing except, perhaps, the survival instinct. I didn't have time to sit around angry or depressed.

And, actually, someone did ask me how I feel, at least about graduating. And that's another question that brings up different emotions that are hard to put into words. It's one of those questions people expect you to answer the same, that you're happy or ecstatic because you're finally done with schoolwork or because you're now going to make money. Schoolwork is not what law school has been for me; it's a lot more complicated than that. And I've been so caught up in dealing with graduating that I have barely searched for a job, so one thing I can say for law school is that I seem to jump one hurdle and immediately encounter another one. This has been so for, actually, approximately four years of my life now, starting with the law school admissions process and won't stop until I pass the Bar exam or get a job, whichever comes first. Now that I have the graduation thing pretty much squared away, I have to focus more on finding employment.

My friend Angel asked me how I felt about graduating. Excited? Nervous? I responded that it was neither of those things. I think my latest experience has been a case in psychology and have thought this for a long time. The truth is I don't want to leave. There are two reasons why, despite this, I worked hard to graduate: appearances and money. By appearances, I mean how would it look to get this far and not graduate? Or to graduate and then immediately enroll in another program at this school just so that I can stay at this school, in this town...which is really what I want to do? By money, I mean law school costs too much to spend another year here, and another program here would also cost too much. I have to move on.

Thus, the story has been a tale of conflicts: sadness over leaving, worrying about not being able to. But perhaps the reason that I had to worry all along was because I didn't want to leave, i.e. I was subconsciously sabotaging myself. And then there's the fact that I want to stay here, but, on the other hand, I want to go to Chicago. It is probably the case that neither will happen. I am thinking of taking either the California Bar or the NY Bar, because they both have way more job opportunities. If I don't get a job where I'd like to before I graduate, then I will have to choose California or NY because the deadline for registering for the Bar exam will be really close at that point. Although I don't want to go to NY and certainly don't want to go to CA, I already have the feeling that if this is what happens it will be because it's better for me somehow.

By the way...the reason I say that the struggle to graduate turned out for the best is I ended up getting probably the easiest path to graduation that I could, at this point. The path I was trying to take would have been more difficult. And with the newer, simpler path, I wondered why I'd never thought of it before. So, this leads me to believe that the job thing will go the same way.

I've been reading a little about the fallout from Obama's speech on race, and I was going to write a separate post about it...but. I think the most important part of my reaction to white people's reaction fits here, because a lot of white people seem to partially take Obama's speech as yet another black person playing the victim all because he essentially said racism still exists and is still a problem in the US. What I want to say is some people really are victims. It's not exactly the same, but I wonder if white people think it's okay to tell a rape victim to "get over it" or stop acting like a victim just because she tells her story and says rape is a problem in the US. Rape is a problem in the US, and this woman really did get raped--what's wrong with admitting it? The rape is over and done with, but the effects still live on and her story is still important. Some people really are victims. There are more victims in the US than not.

But that's not the point. The point is how do you let being a victim affect you. Obama is a victim because of race, even though he's mixed. But he went to Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He's running for President and is beating a white female who went to Yale Law School and has way more political experience. And he's running on a cheesy campaign of "change" and "hope." He makes one speech, probably the truest speech he's ever made, and to whites and Asians like Michelle Malkin, it's a vital mistake that could be the undoing of his campaign. He never stands up and speaks honestly about racial problems; it's always about uniting people rather than pointing out what's really wrong. And yet, to a lot of people, he is now just like "every other" black person, playing the victim and blaming white people (neither of which he really did). Tell me, who sounds more irrational and delusional--him or these people?

Obama is successful, no doubt, but being successful doesn't mean you don't have more difficulties because of some group to which you belong, and being successful from one of these groups doesn't mean others in that group don't experience more difficulties. Obama knows race is a problem, but, clearly, he has not sat around and let race destroy him or his efforts to succeed. Still, apparently, any time a black person gives their perception of race in the US, unless it is something people from other groups want to hear, they are being the victim. I see nothing wrong with telling it as you see it, or even with complaining and getting angry at times; what I do see a problem with is not taking action. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I discuss this latest turn in Obama's quest for the Presidency because I do complain and get angry, and I do think all blacks are victims whether they want to see it or not. The same is true for gays, Asians, Latinos, the poor, the elderly and many other groups of people in the US. Furthermore, I agree with the ideas motivating parts of the speech by Pastor Wright that I saw quoted. I haven't seen the whole speech, and I can't find right now the article that I saw. I just remember that the basic idea was that blacks are not treated fairly in the US, and, for that, we should condemn the US. I'm not sure I would use the word "condemn," but if you've read enough of my blog you know that I am not all sunshine-y about this country, in large part because of race. So what I'm saying is I agree with what led him to make that part of his speech, that what drove him truly is a problem here (and this might be what Obama was basically saying in his speech).

But despite the problems the US deals all those groups of people I listed, we also have opportunities and, at least, ways to fight for our rights. Obama knows that. I know that. If being black was a problem in every situation, then I wouldn't have been able to go to [white] people at my university and work out my graduation issue just the way that white students can and do. If being black was always a problem, I wouldn't feel that if I keep looking for a job I will get one. If being black was always a problem, I wouldn't have several [white] people out there helping me find a job the way I do now. If being black was always a problem, I wouldn't be where I am. Just because it's not always a problem doesn't mean it's never a problem. But being a problem sometimes doesn't mean that you shouldn't try.

If a black person isn't where Obama is or where I am, it doesn't always mean they haven't tried or that they are just blaming race without it being a factor. I believe I have run into numerous times since I've been in law school where race has been a negative factor, most importantly in the many job interviews I've done over the past three years. I've seen many fake smiles, critical eyes, intimidated demeanors, and once even got hostile tones--to my surprise, more so from white women than white men--followed by rejection letters. Making the claim is not what tells you that I "play the victim" in a way that unfairly blames all my problems on others; giving up looking for jobs after a few of those experiences is. I could go home and live off my parents. They are paying my undergraduate loans; why not let them pay the law school ones? Or I could work harder to find a man who will take care of me, which I actually hear more white women at universities discuss as their plan than black women. But I will not do these things. I will consider places I don't want to live and apply for jobs there, whether law-related or not. It's hard, especially right now with the economy, but I will make the effort.

If you read this blog, then it's no secret: I hate law school. It was a mistake. However, coming here was not. Out of everything bad comes something good. I love the university. It's hard to explain, because you never think someone could love a school. But I do; it could be a person. It's going in my will, and not just the law school. I will be trying to encourage my nieces and nephews to attend this university, and if I ever have kids I will be one of those parents whose kids will grow up having the school shoved down their throats. They will watch every football game, every basketball game and they will attend some. They will visit the school, wear the school's shirts/jackets/hoodies/hats/etc and they will be forced to apply. It's true; it has already spread to others in my family.

This is something I thought only happened on TV sitcoms until I came here and saw it. I'm not the only person who is like this. I know of no school other than Harvard that inspires pride, fanaticism and loyalty to this degree. I see families wandering around with their really little kids all the time and have heard of kids being raised to attend this school all their lives, which could be a lot of pressure since this is one of the hardest schools to get into in the nation. One day, I tried to count how many students I saw walking around wearing some article of clothing bearing our school's name, and I couldn't keep up. And those people who have been eager to give me advice and/or help me find a job have generally been graduates of this university. I can contact anyone else out the blue, including other blacks--most of them don't respond. And I haven't even mentioned the friends I've made that I wouldn't have made otherwise.

I jumped hurdles to get here, and I jumped hurdles to get out. As I said, this has been my life for four years. When something goes wrong, I come up with solutions and move on to the next issue. As with the graduation situation, sometimes the hurdles are solely my fault. Other times, as with some job rejections and the situation I described about a year ago in my blog with LA Girl, race plays some role. But the response, for me, is always the same, regardless of the situation. Everyone has to do what simply needs to be done, no matter the reason. This is not me saying "get over it" because I know better. Keep your struggle with you. It makes you stronger, and it makes you appreciate what you have more than those people who somehow expect you to get over inequality when they (if they're white) also complain when they perceive themselves to be the victims of it. You don't have to try to convince anyone, because if a black person like Obama can't convice white people then no one can. If you wonder why I say unity cannot be achieved in the US, why we'll never eradicate race and/or why racism will never go away, our best symbol of the possibility of all these things played a part this week in demonstrating why.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Okay, so about two weeks ago, I found myself pleased with one--and, trust me only one--of "The L Word" storylines, i.e. showing the alienation trans individuals can experience in the queer community. One step forward. However, last Sunday the show took two steps back, in my opinion, by doing something the white queer community has a habit of doing--making blackness the face of homophobia. Interesting that they did this, too, given that not too long ago I'd also written about how the media portrays blacks and Asians, pointing out that one of the roles Hollywood likes to cast blacks in is, what I like to call, the "@sshole of the show" or "the b!tch of the show."

Well, that's exactly what "The L Word" likes to do with their more black characters--Jennifer Beales not exactly counting given that she hardly ever seems to identity with her blackness on the show. For example, there's a black female character who is on the show now for her second season, though, clearly, she will not be a mainstay of the cast. When she first came on the scene, she was known amongst the white girls as "angry." Although she's a bit more accepted now and has herself a white girlfriend, there are still times when she's "angry"...

Like when her white girlfriend, the professional homosexual I wrote about in the post linked to above about trans issues on the show, outed this black male athlete on the show. Seems the writers of the show--you know, the ones who can't bring themselves to write the only permanent black character on the show as a black character and writes pretty much all the temporary black characters the show brings on in stereotypical ways--decided to make the black male athlete a closet gay at a party one night and then a ranting homophobe to the media the next day. Fine--there are black homophobes, sure; I'm not saying there aren't. But the stereotype goes something like--and white queers, in particular, completely buy this--blacks are the only homophobes, or the most homophobic and, thus, deserve all of white queers' hate versus--oh, I don't know--the tons of Asians and Latinos who happen to think a lot like black homophobes or the conservative white homophobes who are always getting busted on the down low or just the significant percentage of the white hetero population in general that has a problem with queers.

What, were they worried that nobody'd believe a white, Asian or Latino as an athlete-slash-homophobe, thus adding another stereotype to the mix? Or were they just trying to mimmick the Tim Hardaway situation in every way except imposing their fantasy that every homophobe is really a closet case (not to mention every closet case is really a homophobe)? Can't they be more original than stereotypes and ripping other stuff off (btw, does "Les Girls" conjure up the idea of a lesbo ripoff of "Dream Girls" to anybody else?!?! If not, recall the episode from last season where they did this little fantasy musical-type thing out of "Les Girls," then answer that question again)? The most interesting thing is how this perpetuates the idea out in the world of whiteness as the face of queerness, not to mention the new and "only" wronged group left in society, from the show's blindingly white cast in addition to blackness as the face of homophobia...and blacks as the new oppressors rather than any longer an oppressed party, let alone part of the oppressed queer community. It allows queer whites to justify being racist, as if they weren't all along.

And then, to top it off, the white chick who outed the athlete got into a fight with her black girlfriend--the black girlfriend wanting to know why the hell the professional homo (PH) had to go and out the black dude. Frankly, the black female was right--it was not PH's place, and the way the situation came about could be harmful to the black female's future as she, herself, is not out...and if her girlfriend had used her head, she would have realized that outing an athlete would make her famous, garnering a lot of scrutiny of her, her background and, thus, scrutiny of her closeted girlfriend who is in the homophobic military (the reason she's closeted). But...the situation makes PH a heroine to white queers watching the show because white (and white-washed) queers have a tendency to think everyone should be out--indeed, every queer owes them the relinquishing of this private decision--and it's okay to out people, especially hypocrites who say things they don't like.

This is really what bothered me about the Isaiah Washington scandal. I don't get mad about slurs, but I see where people who do are coming from. So, it's not like I agree with Washington's behavior or choice of words. What got to me is the way white queers simply get mad at and protest other bigots whereas they make an example out of black bigots. The black bigot has got to get fired after a studio scuffle and be held up to say, "See? We told you blacks were more homophobic than everyone else." Meanwhile, some white guys can be to blame for the most famous hate crime against a homosexual as of yet in the US and Latinos can have more derogatory terms for queers than every other culture put together...still, blacks are more hateful than everyone else. And so, when it comes time to cast the homophobic bigot, let's make 'em black most of the time. And then we'll just have the angry black b!tch stick up for 'em.

Asian Males, the Media and Interracial Dating

So, I've touched on black/white and Asian female/white male interracial combinations. Let's talk about one of the least discussed match-ups: Asian men interracially dating.

Whenever I do read something about this topic, it usually puts Asian men in the same boat as black women. However, I think the Asian male case is more bleakly forecast than what's happening in reality simply because of the perceived influence of media portrayals of Asian males and the comparison to how Asian females are doing in relationships. Admittedly, I wouldn't know what's really going on. My perception just has been that, in heterosexual relationships, though Asian men are less in demand than Asian women, whites as always and now even black men, they are still able to attract white women and some Asian women, as I see Asian men with white or Asian women all the time. In queer relationships, it seems that the script is almost entirely flipped--Asian men are very much in vogue, essentially getting the same kind of attention as Asian females get in hetero relationships.

Another thing I must admit is I'm not very educated on the media stereotypes of Asian men. I can count on one hand the number of movies or TV shows I've actively watched that had Asian males in them. I do notice, though, that Asian males don't play leading roles and that they are often somehow involved in martial arts. What is this all about? Is it white racists in Hollywood? Is it a lack of Asian male actors or Asian males trying to succeed as actors? Is it typecasting?

Here's what I've noticed about how Hollywood--and, essentially, much of the US--works: you have to complain. White people hate it, but complaining seems to work for minorities in some cases. While there are many differences between Asians and blacks, one of the biggest differences I've noticed is that blacks complain, complain, complain publicly...and Asians don't. In fact, I've found that in order to find out about certain Asian issues and general sentiments/opinions among many Asians on various issues and current events affecting their group and others, it has really taken digging deep, going into spaces that are very specifically Asian...whereas if you don't know some of the things going on with blacks or how many blacks think on a topic, it's because you're not listening. With blacks, you're gonna hear it, whether you want to or not! With Asians...ehhhh...visit an Asian American message board, an Asian American journal/magazine, a blog about Asians by an Asian or a site devoted to Asian American issues.

So, when blacks aren't seeing enough blacks on TV, they let everyone know this is a problem...and then, sometimes, they demand to see a black character on a really popular show. This has happened with shows like "The O.C.," "Friends" and "Sex & the City." Oftentimes, blacks have their wishes granted...but not quite the way we wanted. For example, usually when "white" shows or movies stick a black character on, it's a black male--not a black female. And then these white writers and producers proceed to create storylines for these characters that kind of piss many blacks off, such as having the black male strike up a romance with a white or Latina leading lady rather than bringing a black female in (and worse yet, race is never an issue in these storylines), having the black character play a stereotypical role and/or meet a tragic end, portraying the black woman as needing a white male to save her or sex her up, having the black character play an extremely minor role such as the janitor/Principal/waiter or a character that is kind of like the @sshole or b!tch of the show, and so on.

Roles that seem perfectly harmless to the average white person result in all kinds of things that black people see. The black guy's a cop, but the cop is basically this nuisance to all the white characters, harassing your favorite characters unfairly rather than helping them. He's this dumb@ss who won't listen when the white characters, who always know more and are more proactive than the black cop, tries to tell him what's really going down. Ultimately, some white guy saves the day in the end, and the idiotic, useless black cop shows up a second too late to be the hero or just do his job. If you've never seen this before, just turn on pretty much any soap opera. These seem to be the only kind of black characters these people can keep on the show. Blacks in love, enjoying a normal relationship? Forget it. As soon as their contract is up--if they're even lucky to get a contract in the first place--their @sses are blown to kingdom come.

I've gotta tell ya, this is just like everything else with whites in this country--they do these racist things unintentionally and subconsciously. The average white person doesn't know anything about blacks or Asians other than the mass-produced images and stereotypes, so that's what they keep putting on TV and in movies (though because of Asian fetishes, whites tend to have more accurate information about Asians than blacks). They think they're doing something good by putting black men and Asian women opposite white characters in love stories. They think they're showing race no longer matters...which is, in itself, an ignorant thing to show since it's not true. This is not what they're showing us, though, right? They're telling us black women and Asian men are undesirable or incapable of playing lead roles (except black women who look white enough).

You can ask viewers and people in Hollywood who is sexy, and you might get a Lucy Liu or Sandra Oh on the list. You'll get the same standard black women, i.e. Halle Berry and Beyonce, but not Gabrielle Union or Angela Bassett. You'll definitely get black men like Will Smith, Denzel Washington and Taye Diggs. And, for sure, countless numbers of white men and women will make the list--in fact, all you have to do is say their first names and everyone knows who you mean: Brad, Angelina, Ben, Cameron. You'll even have Latinos (which I know Cameron is part-Latina), such as J.Lo, Jessica Alba and Mario Lopez on some lists. But how many times have you heard an Asian male counted among the hot? Aside from Jet Li and Bruce Lee, how many Asian males in Hollywood can you even think of? And by that, I mean men people know and acknowledge as Asian males, i.e. not Keanu Reaves or even Tiger Woods (not that he would make a "hot" list)?

Back to the Asian fetish thing. That tends to be more prevalent among white males, no? And white males are predominantly in charge of the entertainment industry, right? So, sure, they'll put an Asian woman on TV and have her be their sexual and romantic interest. After all, this is both consciously and subconsciously what white men want anyway. And these women are usually not all that "Asian." In fact...I'm not all that into TV and especially not into movies, but I can't help but notice that Lucy Liu plays a lot of "sexy" roles where she's always around whites and involved with white men. She's not that submissive Asian stereotype; she's the other one, the same thing Hollywood tries to do to black women every now and again. She's the sexual fantasy come to life, the f*ck toy. No doubt, once again, whites probably are off somewhere congratulating themselves for doing something good and "right" by showing an Asian woman as just as attractive to white men as white women are. So, Asian women get these stereotypes while Asian men get to either be martial artists or plain invisible, maybe sometimes breaking the mode to be that nerd-boy stereotype.

Oh, and let's talk about those nerd-boys! See, TV and movies aren't the only effed-up media. You know, it's sad when there are Asians out there who can really sing, but the one Asian to get a record deal and actually get the necessary exposure is William Hung from "American Idol." Asians have tried out for that show every season. One even made it to the top 3--Jasmine Trias. And Jasmine put out a CD (which I actually like, btw, and I usually don't like mainstream-sounding CDs that come out nowadays, so...) that, if you live on the mainland and watched "American Idol" when she was on it, you probably never knew anything about it...unless maybe you're Asian. But people in Hawai'i (where she's from), particularly the hapas and "full" Asians who live there, knew. Her music and voice were good enough to fit in with the pop/R&B that has been coming out over the past few years, but...oh, we get William Hung and Sanjaya. And then there are other talented Asians who have secured record deals here, but the record labels let them flop, like Coco Lee.

Kind of funny that the Asians they wanted to put out there were Asian males--the kind of Asian male that is "typical" in white and black people's eyes. William Hung was an engineering student at the University of California-Berkeley and totally looked like a geek. He had absolutely no singing talent. Sanjaya, while less typical of the Asian male in America's eyes, fit those stereotypes of Asian males being feminine and not having any creative abilities/talents. But, as I basically said, Sanjaya and Hung have gotten more love from "American Idol" and the American public than pretty much any legitimate Asian singer who has ever tried anything in the US. Why? It was funny to people. The Asian male is a joke to the US. They don't want to see any Asians who can sing R&B, but especially not an Asian male since there have been many Asian males who have tried out for AI but none of them make it to the top 10. Or do they?

What's the excuse for not showing Asian males as actors and good singers, other than wanting Asian females all to the white-man self and thinking all Asians can't do much more than math and science? Well, I do suspect that some of it is career selection among Asians. But that has been changing; the question is has/will the industry? Ask people who run Hollywood, and I suspect their explanation will be something along the lines of the public not wanting to see Asian males or to support their music, just like they try to justify releasing the kind of rap music they do and canceling shows that actually deal with racial issues by saying the public wants this and doesn't want that.

As someone who used to work in the music industry, all I can say is: it's a lie. The public doesn't really care who entertains them. They might care who's in their boardroom or even in their bedroom, but...make good music or good TV, and it's all good. None of us who were trying to make it in the industry as some kind of musical artist cared creatively what race someone was, and we all recognized talent when we heard it, regardless. I chased down several Asian singers, trying to get them to work with me, and I heard/interacted with Asian music producers who were intelligent and talented, not to mention had white clients. And, to me, the public does this weird thing where anyone who is a celebrity immediately becomes hot...which means get more Asian males on TV, and, like with Latinas when J.Lo first really got on people's radar with "Selena" and her own music, Asian males will probably be the new thing...both in the media and in society.

The industry has this totally new source of revitalization and trendiness, and they don't even realize it! J.Lo is the reason why I am forced to keep seeing Jessica Alba and Eva Longoria everywhere I turn around or why people care that Eva Mendes is now allegedly an alkie, and one Asian male actor or singer really could do the same thing for Asian men. Whether or not whites will get hip and cast more Asian males or if Asians will start to complain loudly enough about this issue, I think the same problems blacks experience after complaining about the media will happen to Asians, i.e. more Asian males in the media but in stereotypical and degrading roles.

Is the lack of Asian males--and the way Asian males are portrayed to date--in the media the reason for their lower position on the interracial dating hierarchy, at least for heteros? Well, I'm not a white woman, the group of women Asian men seem most interested in attracting interracially (and, for some, regardless), so I couldn't say. But I've seen a lot of talk over the past ten or so years that black women and Asian men should get together because they are the ones being left out in the cold. As I said, I don't think the situation is quite as bad for Asian men. But when I say I find Asians among the most attractive, that does include Asian men. I can't see how anyone would think otherwise of Asian men, despite the stereotypes (getting everything you know/believe about a group of people from the media is unfathomable to me).

But, as a black female, I never really think of them as realistic options because they seem to show the least amount of interest in black women of all the men from every racial & ethnic groups. I dated two Asian males roughly 10 years ago, but it's different when you're a teenager. The more conscious people become of race and racial issues, the more that seems to result in narrowminded-ness. Obviously to anyone who reads my blog, that includes me. Ten years ago, I wasn't hesitating or thinking anything of dating Asians at all. Now it just seems so impossible.

I've noticed that Asian males aren't free from the double standard I've discussed in other posts, though, i.e. they seem to feel negatively towards Asian women dating white men but they, themselves, would like to date white women. It makes me wonder, for the Asian men to whom this applies, would they feel differently if white women were as interested in them as white men are in Asian women? Although a lot of Asian women don't seem aware of/to mind/to believe that many white men who approach them have a fetish (and though some are aware and do mind, many seem not to attribute that to why guys approach them or to their fathers, if they're hapa, or their own boyfriends/husbands), I've noticed that men pretty much never care if a woman is not truly interested in him for who he is (perfect example being the way so many men try to use their socioeconomic status to attract women, essentially encouraging women to use them for money or their position in society, i.e. many white male/Asian female and white male/Asian male relationships, in fact). So, it seems, then, that white women having a fetish for Asian men would be quite ideal for Asian men.

It's Not Always About Choosing

With both a woman and a black man both running for President and being the frontrunners for the first time ever, an incessant amount of discussion, blogging, news reporting and commentating has been going on...to the point where I'm tired of hearing about the whole thing. Of course, it's not going to stop--it's only going to get worse. But one thing that really bothers me, perhaps the most, is this idea of choosing identities...and not just in the context of the election.

For one thing, take the fact that Oprah is endorsing Obama. Okay, everyone has to make this about Oprah choosing race over sex. Well, as I commented on AOL once to that argument, Oprah doesn't care about black Americans. I mean, she'll go build a school in Africa, but she'll also disparage black Americans in the process. I do suspect that race is part of the reason why she endorses Obama, but I also think it's the kind of black person he is. She wouldn't endorse just any black person because Oprah herself is not just any black person. Oprah is the kind of black person black people hate, and, indeed, most black people really can't stand Oprah.

In case you don't get it, it's the fact that she did go build a school in Africa and talks about helping blacks in Africa when there are all kinds of blacks in the US who could easily benefit from her assistance. It's the fact that she has a nearly all white [female] audience...because of the fact that her show has topics, guests and features books that basically cater to white women. So, no, we don't get the sense that she cares about or identifies with black Americans. Unfortunately, white people, being white people, can't see this and they yell "racism" towards whites and ignore that if she supported Clinton--as many seem to want her to do, or, at least, want her to have Clinton on her show--she would be doing...what? Would she being doing, in their eyes, the same thing, only this time choosing sex over race? I mean, could the woman possibly win for losing? Yet, some white people have the nerve to be angry with her over this or somehow think she's automatically supposed to side with sex.

Let's get this straight--the "normal" (read: not famous or rich) black people who support Obama overwhelmingly do so simply or predominantly because he's black. This is not Oprah's game. She has never supported a black candidate before, as far as I know and even by her own comments. She's supporting him because he's a "good black," or as I like to call him Goodblack Obama (pronounced much like "Barack," i.e. goodBLACK)...and I believe also because, like so many non-black people, she is, in my opinion, putting something new and "hope"--and for non-blacks their desire to prove they're not racist and neither is this nation any longer--above looking at political experience/longevity and who actually can beat a Republican. To me, the more I hear about Clinton and Obama going at each other, the less appealing either of them look...and the less "new" Obama looks than anybody else who has ever run for President. But, you know...the undertone of his being a change agent and taking things in a different direction relates a lot more to his race than anybody wants to admit. Suddenly, white is the face of evil and stagnation, even if it's feminine.

Even so, how would Oprah or my endorsing one or the other automatically translate into our choosing either our race or sex? First of all, Clinton nor Obama are Oprah or me. So choosing them isn't choosing my anything. Other blacks might identify with Obama solely based on race, but I don't. And I haven't planned on voting for Clinton simply because she's a woman. I just don't care that she's a woman. Honestly, if there were a white man running who had the best chance of beating a Republican into the White House, that's who I'd be supporting instead. There's not one running. And there's not a black female running--if there were, that way maybe Oprah and I could keep the public from sawing us in half, because her supporting Obama then wouldn't have to be about choosing race or sex and my supporting Clinton wouldn't be about that to everybody. The way things stand, if you're a black female you can't help but make the "wrong" choice to somebody, even if you're not making the choice they think/say you are.

And then there was this piece I read today. Now somebody's got to bring the sexual orientation angle into it! I mean, please! So what, now because I don't support Obama I've chosen sexual orientation over race? What...the...hell???? First of all, there is no way to make that choice, because none of these candidates truly care about gays or gay rights. So, much like with the example of the non-existent black female Presidential candidate, there is not the option of a solid candidate who represents us fully. You have no choice but to pick someone who doesn't care about that, regardless of race, sex or anything else. Just because other candidates might not have made that explicit, as Monroe claims Obama has...it's a silly distinction.

Second, there are so many other issues of importance than to make voting and endorsing all about one, even if that one issue is incredibly important to you. We all have to make choices when it comes down to voting in terms of having issues that don't neatly fit with a candidate's issues. Nobody is strictly partisan. I have many conservative beliefs, and yet I buck all those to vote Democratic--why? My liberal slants matter more to me, personally. I can live just fine without abortion being illegal or the right to shoot a gun at someone who invades my property, but I can't say the same about no affirmative action and high rates of unemployment.

And queers have to know that conservatives will do a lot more damage to the queer agenda in office than any Democrat--whether that person is Obama or not. And yet, much like 2004, a lot of queers will not see the forest for the trees and will refuse to vote...but will have the nerve to whine and whine and whine if a Republican gets back in office. Seeing the forest for the trees, though I can't say that I like or agree with any of the Democratic candidates, is the main reason I vote Democrat. I didn't like John Kerry, and I voted for him. If Obama somehow beats Clinton out...hey, I don't want him to be President, but I will vote for him because he's better than having McCain or Romney in office. All these minority groups who can't think beyond themselves or one issue shoot themselves in the foot ultimately.

Third, when will the dumb parallels between Asians and blacks and gays and blacks stop? I mean, sometimes the parallels make sense. But I don't think that because Obama is mixed and there used to be a law against interracial marriage that he somehow magically is supposed to get and support gay people. I get so tired of these dumb, overly-simplistic arguments. First of all, people act like mixed kids are, what, supposed to be ever-so-grateful to the Supreme Court? What do non-mixed people know about it? Many mixed kids, at some point in their lives, wanted to just be one race, and many more mixed people than that generally tend to identify themselves as one race only, as does society. It's not like we don't love our parents, but at the same time--more races more problems is a motto many mixed kids really could run around using. The major problem with a lot of these analogies is that the person raising them usually doesn't know much of anything about one part of the analogy, only seeing what's positive about it but never having to live the negatives of it. It's like white [gay] people with Brown vs Board of Education.

Second, I don't understand people's mentality on thinking being in the same/similar boat as someone else means you automatically understand or support them. Besides, Obama technically is not in gay people's boat. He was the beneficiary of an interracial marriage--he didn't engage in one, per se. As I've explained my theory several times before, it usually tends to mean the opposite because we create so many hierarchies based on differences and being treated differently ourselves. I wouldn't automatically attribute any opposition Obama has to gays to his being black, as approximately half the white population has a problem with homosexuality, as well, and so do many Asians and Latinos--facts that white gay racists conveniently like to forget or ignore.

And you can argue that being a racial minority should somehow breed more sympathy for gays on his part. It's just that, from my perspective, since being gay isn't exactly like being black, it's easy for a black person to take what's different about being gay--i.e. the sexual act--and say that makes something gross or unacceptable about it that isn't there with blackness or interracial relationships. The fact that it's similar to arguments made about blacks and interracial marriages in the past doesn't matter--it's still a different type of people wanting something that is different in some way from what these people wanted in the past. I'm definitely not saying it's right, but I'm not bothered if he can't relate to me as a queer person because I recognize that's it's not as similar as so many people would like to think. After all, white gay people don't understand blacks, and I don't understand white women, but we all had/have our struggles for equality. The bottom line--the fact that rights are involved and being treated badly based on differences--is similar, but that's about it.

And then, not dealing with politics--being multiracial is often, to other people and sometimes to the multiracial individual, about choosing one identity over another. And being a queer minority is often, to white gays, about choosing race or sexual orientation. And, last year, when I was involved with a Women's organization on campus, they framed the lack of black, Asian and Latina female membership in terms of choosing race over sex. As one black woman angrily pointed out to me, the black women were not "choosing" race over sex. If they wanted to be involved with the Women's organization, they would be. They hadn't even thought about the sex aspect, and this is often true with black women.

We don't arrive on campus saying, "hmmm, do I want to join the Women's org or the Black org? I pick the Black org!" It's not like we can't be involved in both. Many black women will arrive on campus and automatically not even think about the Women's org. While the white women are sitting around acting like this is a big problem or wondering what they've done alienating, the black women are off happy as can be at the Black org event. And if the Women's org has an event that's interesting, the black women will go--not because it's about women, but because it's interesting and personally relevant.

Another reason why it's not a choice--and this is true with sexual orientation and multiracial identity, as well--is that we already have an idea that we're not truly welcome in these spaces. In that sense, we haven't really even been given a choice, i.e. it's the black female President again. Face it, the best chance for a black woman to fit in somewhere is a black space; a queer black person, a queer black space; and a mixed person, a mixed space. Out of these three groups, mixed people probably do more "choosing" than anybody, but they probably wouldn't if people weren't asking them to so frequently. For these other people, why everything has to be a grand, indirect statement of choosing identities is beyond me.

Educating Queers: TV As A Mirror

I seriously thought about not watching "The L Word" this season. I realized I don't feel anywhere near the same way many lesbians seem to about the show. In fact, I had to admit that I don't really even like the show. It seems the more I watch it, the more problems I find with it. Yet another reason why white queer females and I simply can't do business.

However, while watching the latest episode, I realized that, despite the show's many flaws, there is one thing it is starting to do right: give a glimpse into the alienation trans individuals get from the queer community. I guess asking them to also show the way the queer community alienates blacks and sometimes other "people of color" is asking too much, but this is a start as the show is finally doing more than brief, shallow explorations of racial & ethnic issues, being stereotypical, depicting most queer women as prettier and more feminine than most of us [queer women] usually see and generally being all about sex and relationships. I must say I'm very surprised to see the show do this with trans people, and I hope they won't be as shallow and fleeting with this as they have been with race.

What I like is how realistic the depiction seems, although I'm speaking as someone who is basically an outsider to the queer community and doesn't really know trans people/trans experiences with the queer community/etc. Even as that kind of person, I could tell pretty soon upon starting to explore the queer community a bit more that trans people are alienated just like bisexuals are. Trans issues always seem to be discussed in separate forums than lesbian and gay issues, and not as often. Everything about the "LGBT" community and being LGBT tends to focus mainly on the 'L' and the 'G.' I'm also sure I had read things about trans alienation, such as the piece from my Critical Race Theory course about how some queers consider trans people traitors to gays and lesbians for changing genders and oftentimes sexual orientations in the process, and the piece from my class on queer minorities that discussed LGBT activist Sylvia Rivera's unreturned support for gays and lesbians.

On "The L Word," there is a character who was born a woman but lives as a male, has taken hormones but hasn't had surgery. The show has explored some of those trans issues and the fallout that can result around it, such as losing a girlfriend you had/met before you started going through hormone therapy and were a woman, or people not knowing what sex to call you during/after the transition or identify you as when looking at you. But until recently, the show had never really gotten into the actual alienation. What I liked was, in this episode, entitled "Let's Get This Party Started," they showed, what seem like, two very real types of alienation trans people get--"to the face" and "behind their backs."

One of the women on the show is what I would call a "professional homosexual," i.e. not only her personal life but basically her professional life and image is centered around being a lesbian--or bisexual...these days, who knows what she is. Since I'm not all that into the show, I couldn't give exact specifics, but basically the lesbi character, who has a huge web presence as a professional homosexual on the show, ended up telling the trans character that she didn't want the trans woman blogging on her site/blog about trans issues because the site is really for lesbians and lesbian issues only. The trans character tried to point out that there is an identity intersection and/or intersecting issues there, but the lesbi character basically wasn't hearing her. The trans character's blog entry had upset some lesbians and those lesbians let her know that her discussion of trans issues wasn't welcome via comments to her blog post, and the lesbi character basically indirectly sided with them by choosing to not upset lesbians rather than be inclusive and acknowledge that the trans character's issues were relevant as someone who used to be a lesbian female.

Then there was another issue. A gay male character on the show has a huge crush on this trans character, and they ended up dancing together in a scene in the episode. These two women who are main characters on the show as of right now and are in a relationship with each other noticed and started talking about it with each other. One of them said she was happy for the gay male because she knows he wants a boyfriend. And the other woman responded with something like "you mean girlfriend," and they both started laughing. In other words, it was a refusal to recognize and respect the trans character's gender identification and transition.

What I also liked about this scene is this: the show is centered around this group of friends, but, to me, there are certain people who have been brought into the group but never exactly included. There are some characters the group appears more to simply tolerate than actually like or have a friendship with. One of these people, to me, is the woman who brought the trans character into the group's life in the first place, although there are one or two people in the group whom she's closer to than others. Interestingly enough, this woman's character initially was depicted as this confused, messed-up bisexual. Still, she is and has been more accepted than the trans character ever has been. The trans character has never fit into the group, though the group generally tends to treat her with a fake politeness but tempered with distance. He has never really been welcomed or included.

Honestly, this is what I feel when I have been in queer environments, as well, as a black person. I have also suspected that some of these people would talk about me behind my back, particularly in relation to my bringing up racial issues. In a way, I feel the show's depiction of the trans character and his lack of acceptance goes toward confirming that feeling alienated isn't always in a person's mind, even if no one is even remotely doing anything all that out-in-the-open that is wrong or alienating. Sometimes when you're around people, you just get a feeling. I can recall other scenes in other seasons of the show when the trans character has been out with the group but has felt awkward with them...because an awkwardness was, or at least should have been, visible to the audience. Sometimes the people in the situation, well-intentioned as they may be, don't notice that they are sending out negative or alienating signals/vibes.

At my university, I am aware of trans individuals on campus, but I don't get the sense that they are alienated by the school's queer community--just the opposite. That doesn't mean that this alienation isn't going on elsewhere, or even here at this school. As I've written in other posts, I believe my university is genuinely accepting in terms of sexual orientation and identity but fake-ly accepting in terms of race...the fakeness being that lack of awareness of or willingness to admit to their own racism that white Liberals tend to possess. I am also sure that trans people here have experienced this alienation shown on "The L Word" and then some prior to coming here, and surely they will experience it once they leave.

I hope what this show will do is open some queer people's eyes to one of the community's real problems. To me, this is the kind of thing a LGBT TV show should do, instead of just being sensationalist, escapist and "sexy." If you have the power to get this kind of show on the air, use that power for good instead of using it the way heterosexuals do with their shows. Expose people to real issues in between make-out scenes. Straight people aren't the only ones who need to learn a thing or two about what queer people are like or queer problems. After all, I don't think I've ever known a group of people to watch a show more closely and remember every little thing about it than lesbians with "The L Word." Mixing that fanatical devotion with efforts to open their eyes and minds is the best thing the writers/producers/creators of the show could possibly do--maybe we could change the queer community for the better. Maybe one day, I could finally feel comfortable in LGBT environments.

Reflections on Affirmative Action

I've been mentioning sports a bit in my blog lately, which I think is a very good topic to intersect with the topic of affirmative action. You see, apparently, along with missing the story about the trans sports commentator, I also missed a story about former NFL football player and current Stanford football coach Jim Harbaugh accusing the University of Michigan, his alma mater, of lowering academic standards for athletes--particularly in admissions and steering them towards "easier" majors. Another interesting thing, though, is several football players from several colleges have not and will not be playing in this season's bowl games because they are academically ineligible or are involved in academic scandals. This is not the first time, either.

These are big stories in the sports world, for sure, but how many people outside of sports who would claim to care about academics or fair admissions standards know about these stories (you see how I didn't know about the Harbaugh story?) or are up in arms about them, using them to say that this is the reason why we should stop admitting "dumb jocks" or lowering the standards for them? I mean, other than Harbaugh?

All I really want to know is--why is it okay for someone--usually black, but often white and occasionally Latino or Asian--who may or may not care about a good education to make 1000 (on the old 1600 scale) on the SAT I or a 17 on the ACT and have a 2.8 GPA but be given a scholarship to schools out of their academic league, such as Michigan, Duke, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, UCLA, UC-Berkeley, USC and so forth all because he can play football or basketball...but a black kid who has, say, a 3.7 GPA in an advanced curriculum, a 1250 SAT I (on the old 1600 scale) or a 25 on the ACT, has written a great personal statement about his or her life struggles, has strong recommendations from teachers, leadership positions in organizations, community service experience and such a strong desire to attend one of the best universities in the nation that he/she is willing to borrow $30000 a year...should be denied admissions to these same schools? And why do some of us complain when the latter student is admitted but we have nothing to say when the first student is, with a scholarship to boot?

The same can be said--and is more often said--with legacies, i.e. people with a parent who attended the school, often having donated money to the school or being famous. But I think using athletics sinks in better with people who are dead-set against affirmative action, because many of these people will not be sports fans and getting into schools that one academically doesn't deserve to happens more with sports or, at least, is more visible. Athletes play games, representing their universities, weekly for months, oftentimes on TV.

Sure, there are positives to the practice of admitting athletes who don't make the grade academically. But the same can be said for minorities who, by many people's very narrow standards, don't appear to make the grade academically. There are just different lines of reasoning to support each. Athletes contribute to the school. Their sports bring in a lot of money, and they entertain people. You don't get that with black students who don't play sports, sure. Indeed, most people don't really feel there is a benefit to them, personally, in having minorities at university--and that's what matters. Remember, everyone's selfish. The US is about "what does this do for me?" Okay. But minorities who attend universities contribute, too--to society. Nowadays, it seems that everyone has something to say about blacks and crime, blacks and hip hop culture, blacks and sexism.

Look--black people who attend and graduate from good schools generally don't commit crimes, generally don't fit in with hip hop culture nor become rappers, generally don't even agree with so-called hip hop culture and generally are more aware and understanding of gender issues. So, perhaps...if you really want this stuff to slow down, you'll want to make good education as accessible to blacks as possible. People love to generalize that education doesn't matter to blacks. Well, education doesn't matter, in general, to the majority of people in this country. But if you really knew, you'd know that racial & ethnic minorities take education for granted a lot less than whites do. That's because whites can spend their days as a teenager skateboarding and getting drunk, then spend college days getting drunk and hooking up, and still fall into a good job. The difference with blacks than with everyone else is that blacks don't see college as a possibility, not just because of admissions but because of affordability and--believe it or not--simple things that everyone else takes for granted such as knowing how to apply for financial aid, knowing all the different forms you have to fill out, knowing how to fill out those forms and then having to pay for many of those forms on top of everything else you have to pay for.

I saw personally when I was applying to law school--and continue to see now that I'm trying to figure out how to pay for the Bar exam and the Professional Responsibility exam (not to mention how I will get to those exam designations or how I will afford to live this summer as I prepare for the Bar exam)--that everyone else, but especially whites, take so many expenses and hurdles that are present in application processes for granted and are clueless that these things are not simple for everyone else. My brother-in-law's sister and brother could not get the help they needed in trying to apply for financial aid, and they have the kind of parents who refuse to help with those things and who don't know when their kids are in danger of failing until the last minute. But all kinds of people have bad and/or uninvolved parents, especially today, not just black parents. And it's hard to expect people who never went to college and never thought of attending college because they didn't have to opportunity to, to understand the importance of it or know enough about the process of applying to help their kids do it.

Yet, the obstacles remain, and non-blacks remain clueless or uncaring about them. Everyone should be treated the same in admissions, only we're not treated the same in every other aspect of life. We should forget the past, only the past still affects the present. Martin Luther King Jr says people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin...only taking race into account in admissions is about judging people by their character, not their skin color. For so many minorities, their race shapes their character. Those admissions officers at Michigan or Harvard who read the personal statements blacks submit will tell you that, because a lot of blacks cannot write about the person they've become without writing about how race played a role in getting them there. It's not as if admissions officers see that an applicant is black or Latino and admits them on the spot just because of that. All the factors I mentioned above in comparing an athlete to a black academic student play a role, which means admissions officers look at the totality of the person--every person. It is society that still judges people by their skin, not their character...which is the main reason why I consider racial stereotypes and generalizations racist.

I realize that I am not discussing affirmative action and Asians & Latinos (or women and queers, etc), pretty much just blacks. I am also using "minorities" at times, but this is not really an inclusive discussion. As a black person, I know more how affirmative action affects blacks, and I do believe that it is more--if not solely--necessary for blacks than others. However, I do believe that "affirmative action" is not the correct term for what colleges and universities do, particularly the more prestigious universities. "Affirmative action" is the guarantee that those schools will not discriminate on the basis of race. Schools use a diversity policy. In using such a policy, I believe that it is absolutely correct to consider each and every applicant on an individual basis, using several criteria in order to assess each person's total background. I am quite familiar with some schools' admissions process, particularly Michigan, Michigan Law and Harvard & Harvard Law.

Before the affirmative action ban in Michigan, Michigan Law had the best admissions process of any program in the nation, because, the way they did things, a white or Asian student who had a compelling total package but a low LSAT score had as good a chance of being admitted as a black student who did--and, indeed, Michigan Law has admitted many white students with lower GPAs and/or LSAT scores. Michigan Law doesn't have perfect racial & ethnic representation, but they have really good diversity in the true sense of the word because diversity to them was not and is not just about race.

Unfortunately, now diversity will likely continue in every sense but racially--they will still have tons of white queers and white women, white kids who grew up poor and white kids who were adopted by minorities, white kids who are from places as diverse as Germany, Montana, Canada, Alabama and New York, and Asian kids, too...but they won't have that many black or non-white Latino kids. In other words, anyone can go to Michigan Law except blacks and Latinos, unless they're [likely] an (speaking in terms of social class) uppity black or Latino, many of whom will choose Harvard or Columbia instead now because Michigan Law will not be the best school they get into. This is not what admissions policies should be in the US; the way Michigan Law did things prior to 2007 is the way every school and every program in the US should do things.

I have a joke about schools like Michigan now, or schools in lily white states (or states I tend to think of as white) such as Idaho, Delaware and West Virginia: the only black people there are the schools' athletes (or in Michigan's case, I say "the only black people who will be there after a while are the black athletes"). It's sad, but that's probably not all that far off. As much as I love college football, if I could choose between affirmative action and great but academically unqualified athletes, I would choose affirmative action. I just don't know how it makes sense that a black guy who doesn't care about the school's academics, prestige or job appeal can be more embraced by the university and the entire country than a black male or black female who will work hard and give 100% to the classroom...all because the former can throw a ball but the latter didn't perform as well on a test made predominantly by white males with a historical purpose to demonstrate that some groups of people are superior to others. I believe that blacks who want to be in college for college's sake should be the ones who have the doors opened and the red carpet rolled out for them...not athletes.

I think this phenomenon picks up where I was starting to go before, which is that many blacks don't view college as accessible or helpful...unless you're a black male going to play a sport. Because, in truth, unless you're upper-middle class+ and black, and/or have parents with a college+ degree, college is not that accessible to most blacks. But if you can play a popular sport, as I said, it doesn't take much for a college to call you. Suddenly, you don't have to know anything about researching colleges, financial aid forms, application fees or how you might go about paying back college loans. Suddenly, you don't have to worry whether or not you can get a job upon graduation, because you have the chance to go Pro and make millions if you can just stay healthy and at the top of your game. Is it any wonder that paths such as athletics and music are such popular choices for black males? To many, they seem like the only paths for black males.

By the same token, is it any wonder that black females outnumber black males in college? After all, if black women didn't rely on college...there's not much else out there they can do. Going Pro isn't the same for us, and, as women, we're taught about needing stability and security...so we're more practical than to run around trying to score record deals or an agent who will get us auditions for movies/TV shows, even if we can sing or act. Besides...how hard is it to make a hit rap song, do you think? Now answer the same question for black women. Becoming a rapper might be harder than it seems, but I believe the reason so many black males want to do it is because they also believe it's not that hard. Still, more black women might attend college, but the best schools still don't see anywhere near as many black women as schools held in less esteem do--and, as I said, black females at schools like Michigan and USC tend to be from the middle and upper-middle classes+. Those schools still remain much more accessible to black male athletes whose application package would be much less impressive than the non-high-falutin' non-athletic blacks' application packages.