It has been almost a month since my last post. Excuses range from election exhaustion to too much real world stuff to manage.
But since last post, I have had the privilege of speaking to a number of college classes regarding race and gender discrimination. Normally I talk on lgbt issues, so I found it a bit odd to be addressing race and gender in a broader sense. Odd, because I am a white female of middle class origins from a metropolitan southern suburb and really, what do I know of race issues and from my experience what do I really know of gender bias?
But on the other hand it is not odd. Race and gender discrimination are rampant in the lgbt community just as they are in the at-large communities. And as a white woman I can speak to other whites and say we are not done, though I also can speak to the fact that it is not our burden alone. I can also speak to the gender bias which is thick in our community. But not only in a way one would expect. There is a minority, but strong ideal of separitism in the lesbian community- very anti-male or XY chromosome. I frankly find it limiting, counterproductive, and highly discriminatory. Indeed women hold up half the sky...but only half.
There, I said it.
I have experienced far more racism for being white now living in the north than I ever experienced living in the southwest and that was a good bit as well. Is this a complaint, no. Do I stretch my experience and say that I can relate to others who feel persistent race bias? No, absolutely not. What I experienced is mine and cannot be weighed against anyone else's. That would be arrogance maxed out. I am white and living in a white dominant society. The advantages of that to date can not be erased or negated.
As to gender bias, I have expereinced it once, overtly. Other incidences may have also occured, but they were so subtle, they passed beyond my recognition.
Nevertheless, I have given the isms thought and enter the fray for discussion.
My best friend happens to be a woman of color and soon after our friendship began I remember her commenting on "entitlement": that I moved about as though entitled. She attributed that to race and privilege. I hadn't given it any thought but once pointed out, I determined that it wasn't out of race or even gender, but personal entitlement that I did these things. I still believe that. I believe that if anyone else can have, or get, or access, then I should be able too, as well. Though on occasion I have used white and/or gender entitlement when advocating or helping someone and recognized I was doing it for that purpose. It was my own anecdotal social experiment.
I, one day, suggested that there was no reason she should not also use entitlement. If I believed it was not borne of race or gender, then she should be able to, right?
I think the idea that someone else is entitled directly places one in the position of have-not. The idea that some country-club system allows for this to happen and that only members can exercise the right is an acceptance of being a have not and seeing others as the have's. This is a stance from limits and lack. For this to continue, those on either side, the have's and the have not's must remain where they are and maintain this belief.
But it just may be only that- a belief.
If we look at entitlement as a self-accessible advantage then we stand in abundance. That anyone can be entitled. That entitlement to having needs met, getting service, having access can be expected to occur.
My friend, a few months ago stated that she got it. But what it took was someone thought to be of the entitlement country club to give her permission or rather enlightenment.
A pretty, white, slim, accomplished straight woman who she greatly admires, told her she just needed get over it and act entitled or she was not going to get where she needed to be in her career. In essence she was given "permission" to act on what she wanted all along. This woman said the light is better out here and my friend walked out from Plato's cave.
It was as though the light burst forth from the clouds for my friend. Someone viewed as part of an upper echeolon of those entitled gave her the key. This freed her up to access what she wanted from beyond a barrier of gender and race as never before.
Now, I have used the words "permission" and "gave" which continue to reinforce that entitlement is a club and that a secret handshake or knowing the right person is how to rank-in. But its not. Those words were used to convey how this story came about, but not how it has to be or is, really.
The "get it" part of this is that one can. One can access what one wants. Will it change everything immediately, no, of course not. But will it begin to shift what we all experience and expect, yes, most definitely.
Holding an expectation of having needs met, having access and getting service is all about intention. And intention is action. It is seen and palpable. It is not awarded or bestowed nor is it limited.
For much of a woman's historical memory-conditioning and subsequent brain adaptation has shackled us from thinking and acting this way. Women often do not start at salaries as high as men because men ask, women do not. Men risk being told no and move on. Women, broadly stated, fear rejection and do not risk as often. Particularly for themselves. Ask a woman to risk for her child and she will be indomitable. Ask a woman to risk solely for herself and hesitation is the first answer. Men act on entitlement, women do not. Men assume they have power and stand in it. Women assume they do not have power and leave it for someone else to use. Whose paradigm is most beneficial to us all?
Intention says we will push to stand in discomfort, to admit when we hold to and operate from old beliefs and stereotypes, to stretch ourselves into risks, charting new territory getting beyond the already always way of being we have created for ourselves.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Do one thing every day that scares you."
Where do we go from here?
OHMIGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is just far too much for one person to enjoy! Soy is making kids gay. Not soy sauce though, because of fermentation, but look out for milk and tofu! OHMIGOD!!!!!!!!!
no, really it was 7 and a half pounds. Thiiiiis Big
So your cockles are cozy. How 'bout your "brass ovaries"?
You say "An amendment is not what is needed nor advisable to correct bad actions. Legislation, yes."
The purpose of Amendment E is the to hold judges accountable for misconduct in the course of their proceedings. If we had put this forth as legislation it could easily be re-legislated "from the bench" by a single judge! Yes, if was deemed unconstitutional. Judges do not pass legislation or even re-legislate. They measure laws and actions versus the constitution. What does not match up gets judged as such. It is up to the legisltors and law enforcement to enforce. At times in our history that has not happened; which supports the point that judges do not legislate.
In roughly paragraph seven you say "Beyond that what happens here is that judges are now no longer able to deliberate with immunity." Yes, because that is what it does. The Amendment is so poorly written that folks will be able to sue without burden. The amendment, as I stated previously, instructs jurors to favor the plaintiff from the beginning. Favortism is not justice. It will influence how a judge proceeds therefore how he/she deliberates.
You appear to be implying that Amendment E has something to do with a judge's final decision. It does not. It has everything to do with how the judge conducts his proceeding on the way to his final decision. And this DOES NOT influence the decision process? The steps to the decision do not influence the end result? Are you nuts? Re-read section 2. It says "Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute." But the South Dakota Constitution already has means to combat judicial misconduct. Its called the appeal process and liberally, all citizens of South Dakota can access the Supreme Court to have their case heard. There also is the Judicial Qualifications Commission and last but not least ELECTIONS!
It's how the judge conducts his proceedings, not his final decision. Again, I say
In roughly paragraph ten you say "The people have no business having power over the courts." Yup and especially you, Bill. I wish this had been alot of energy toward an issue you and those in your state need help with. But by your own acknowledgement this amendment isn't based on evidence of need. Its precient in a way, right? You looked into your crystal 8 ball and saw that this was not evidenced yet but might be, so lets amend the constitution for something that might happen sometime?
If not the people, who? The King? Well you sexist devil, you. It could be a Queen. It is the process which has power over the judges. Please avail yourself the information out there on how the judicial process works. And Bill, it does work, even in your state, which again, leads me to ask 'why the hell this is being done anyway?'
You're and elitist, aren't you? Jeez Bill, you say that like its supposed to hurt. The only people I've ever hear use that term negatively were sadly ill-educated, righteous in their ignorance and afraid of the smart people.
Bill Stegmeier
Sponsor of Amendment E