America’s Next Bill Clinton!


My disenchantment with the military

It’s a one-percent chance, but I could get out of the Army as early as next week. It was a decision made in the heat of emotions – and it’s a decision, if the paperwork goes through, is one of the best decisions in my life.

This morning at work, I was asked again, about my re-enlistment and whether or not I planned on signing it. In short, I told them that the Army was no longer my passion – that there are changes I’d like to see in the world, and that I found the military to be useless in my vision for the world.

A co-worker shot up and said that that I wasn’t honoring my commitment and that if it wasn’t for the military, I wouldn’t be able to be able to do the activism for the “stupid feminism and gay rights shit” that I do.

It turned into a screaming match, me telling the Army people to go fuck themselves and them telling me that I am cutting and running, and that I don’t truly believe in America or freedom.

I’d argued that I spent the past six years of my life wasting it away in the military, when I could have done so much more for the world. They shot back in saying that the military is an honorable profession and that they were the true defenders of freedom. I told them they were stupid and hypocrites, for getting angry over the flag being trampled upon, but do nothing when the Constitution gets trampled upon.

To make a long story short, I was asked if I could get out of the Army right now, whether I’d agree to it. I did.

It was supposed to be a challenge to me – I was supposed to say it was only my emotions. But it’s not. It’s truly how I feel.

The easy way in life would be for me to spend the rest of my career in the Army. The money would be good. I am good at what I do – I am well known and respected – and I can get a job anywhere I want. In fact, I was once offered a job as the press secretary to the Secretary of the Army. So, yes, I know I’ve got the skills.

But in the end, it’s not about me. It’s about changing the world. It’s about making other people’s lives better. Too often, people get caught up in their American Dream that they forget about others. My America dream is to ensure that others get theirs.

So, yes, the Army can take its God and country and values and religion and go fuck themselves with it.

I doubt the paperwork will go through, but if it does, then good. If not, then by January or February, I’d be a civilian anyway.

Too often, people make the safe decisions in life. Decisions that benefit them and their lives.

A girl once told that I need to think of myself more – and not to be so selfless. What she didn’t understand – and what very few people understand – is that in working for human rights and social justice, I AM thinking of myself – because I wouldn’t be able to live with myself or be emotionally satisfied if I did anything else.

Besides, I am talented. I’ve got jobs lined up. An ambassador today said to give him a call if I needed help with looking for a job, too. I don’t fucking need the military. It can go fuck itself.



I am not a flirt! I am just a (3rd wave) feminist!

Recently, I’ve been told – by more than just one woman – that the actions I take when around them tend to me misleading – and that I tend to be, according to some, a “flirt.”

I find this problematic and interesting because I am a pro-feminist male, and as such, I tend to treat everyone equality without regard to gender, but I cannot help but think somehow, because of my behavior, I am ending up confusing the shit out of some people, and in a sense, “leading them on.”

Because of my activism on and off campus in the feminist as well as progressive politics movements, I often dine with a lot of women – and have a lot of what I call “friendly outings” with them.

That’s certainly not the problem. The problem comes in when, in our interaction, I may say things that – in a gendered society as we know it, be considered flirting.

A touch on the shoulder here, a brush on the lap there, a “you’re amazing here,” a “you’ve got a beautiful mind,” there. Just compliments – and just friendly touching – all of which are welcomed. But then I’ve been accused that, because of this, women are taking it as a sign of a come on, and that I somehow don’t “follow through” with my actions, because I then go on and gloat about Emily and how wonderful she is and how much she means.

Perhaps that’s what bothers me the most about the gendered world as we know it – people can’t appreciate and show affection for one another – albeit a very platonic and friendly one, without having to feel as though they are somehow showing signs of romantic interests.

It’s not that I feel bad for myself – I live in a world with male privilege and have absolutely no rights to bitch or complain. I just feel bad that I may be leaving people with the wrong impression.

Really, in the end, is a brush on the lap, stroking someone’s face, or a compliment about how much you like them as a person, really a sign of a come on?

I mean – as a straight male, I do that to male friends, too. It’s a sign of affection. It’s a sign of closeness.

I don’t know. Maybe I’ll just be a robot, sit there and show no signs of emotions or affection whatsoever. Maybe then, no one would accuse me of being “well on [my] way to be America’s Next Bill Clinton – in behavior.”



The reason I am a feminist.

At feminist conferences or during the first few days of the new semester, often times I’d get the inevitable question of: “You’re a man, why do you care so much about women’s rights?”Often times, because I am at these events to network, exchange ideas and build for a political future, my answer is always something like: “Because it would be a profound and utter act of immorality for me to idly stand by as half of my fellow human population is being discriminated against.”When speaking to a woman of interest, the story of my passion for feminism is one that is based on my religious background: I grew up a Unitarian, and we didn’t know any differently.  

But just last night, I realized the very reason why I am a feminist, and I will, for as long as I live, devote my life to fighting for women’s rights. Coming home at around midnight, I heard yelling and screaming and two burley men in suits and ties wrestling down a man, and pointing guns at the apartment downstairs from me. It turned out the men were undercover police officers who staked out the area because they’d received a call of a suspicious person in our neighborhood, and had observed the intruder jump over the porch and break into my neighbor’s house. The undercovers yelled at me and told me to call my neighbor (a female) to get out of the house.

 When I made that phone call, she had already locked herself in her room and refused to open the door for the officers. It took some coaxing from my roommate for her to eventually open up. My neighbor, whom I’ll call Sue, is a single mother. When the intruder was trying to break in, the three-year-old child was sleeping on the couch and I was told that the intruder saw the child, too. Obviously, my neighbor is shaken. One of the reasons for this is we’d spoken a few days ago about how the screen door was taken down by the landlord, and when she raised the issue, she was told, “Look, if someone wants to rape you, a screen door isn’t going to help stop that.”

It upsets me. It upsets me that the landlord passes off her concerns about being raped as just a trivial matter, and that those who truly are concerns about women’s lives and experiences don’t have the means to change things.  It upsets me that the patriarchy still exists, and the ruling class has no knowledge or concerns for women issues. It upsets me even more that in America, in 2007, women are still having to worry about certain acts of violence directed toward them, just because they are women.

 It upsets me that women have to live in fear for their livelihood, and are treated differently simply because of the nature of their biology. More over, it upsets me that we still need feminism in 2007 here in the most powerful and supposedly progressive nation on earth.  

For me, feminism isn’t sexy. It’s not supposed to be a good time. It’s not supposed to be enjoyable. It should be fought with vigor and passion – the same passion that’s devoted to fighting terrorism. After all, sexism is a form of terrorism.

 As a pro-feminist male, my fight for feminism isn’t about earning the attention or affection of women. It’s not about getting laid for standing up to fight for women. For an aspiring politician, it shouldn’t be able earning votes or tapping into a certain group of voters.

I fight for feminism because the world isn’t fair. I fight for feminism because gender terrorism still exists. I fight for feminism because I know I wouldn’t like to be marginalized and harmed, objectified and trivialized, simply because of my gender. In short, I fight for feminism because of this reason: because I believe while we were all born very differently, some with more strengths and intelligence than others, we should all we treated the same. We may not have been born equal and into the same situation, but we all should be recognized equally, based on our individual worth and dignity, and not on the body parts nature has given us.  



Want to be president? Sorry, you’re not a black or woman enough!

In 2004, I thought I had heard the stupid reason to not vote for a candidate. In the general elections, a woman was asked for whom she voted for by a reporter, and her answer was that she voted for George W. Bush? Why? Was it because she liked George W.’s foreign policies or because she was against John Kerry’s voting records? No. Her answer was that she voted for Bush because she didn’t like the way Kerry’s wife looked. As if, somehow, a politician’s success is depended upon whether his wife is a MILF.

Oh, but it gets better. With the 2008 Primary and General Elections just around the corner, that question that’s being asked, and a silly one at that, is: can Barrak Obama get the black votes, and can Hillary Clinton get the women votes? Excuse me, but I’ve always thought that we’re supposed to vote for candidates based on policies, and not just the color of skin they have, or whether they stand up or sit down to pee. It’s a pretty novel idea, isn’t it? Voting for candidates on issues that matter, but that’s kind of lost for most Americans.

But here’s the shocker, folks: some black voters are refusing to vote for Obama and some women are refusing to vote for Clinton because they are, respectively, neither black nor women enough.

Did I miss the shortbus heading for Partriarchy-ville or Idiotville driven by the Idiot of Seville? Let me get something straight: we’re supposed to be PUNISHING Obama for not being “black enough” or Clinton for not being “woman enough?” First of all, what the hell does that even mean? I am all for common experience, but a politician needn’t live on the “bad side of town” or have to bleed every month in order to share your experiences and plight, and fight for your rights. But, of course, people seem to think different – as if there is a shared common experience for all blacks and all women.

Secondly, why are you bitching about the lack of representation now? Why all the sudden, with actual viable candidate that you’re going to bitch and complain? Surely, for the last 50 years, you’ve not complained about how old, white men aren’t black or women enough, but now that Obama and Clinton are running, you’re bitching about them? If I had any hair, I’d be pulling them all out now (note: since writing that statement, I’ve found a few strings of hair under my armpits.)

Oh, yeah, because Bob Dole was more “black” than Obama, huh? And because guys like, oh, I don’t know, GWB, are more women and concerned about women more than Sen. Clinton, huh?

Go ahead – if you don’t think Obama or Clinton are black or women enough, then vote for Romney – he should be considered woman enough for you. At least you’ll get perspectives from Romney and his 25 wives, which I am sure, will only be officially introduced after he wins the presidency. Or better yet, vote for McCain over Obama – McCain has a black, adopted son. So, yeah, he’ll be more in touch with the experiences of blacks than will Obama, right? Go ahead, do it, and see your civil rights get set back 50 years.

The point is this: when you’re voting, please vote for the positions and the policies, and not just whether a person is not “black” or “woman” enough. Obama may not know what it’s like to grow up in the ghetto, and Clinton doesn’t like to show cleavage (nice attempt, though), but that shouldn’t matter; because I guarantee you, they’re more interested in your rights than McCain and Romney ever will.



Scientists: only human females can get pregnant

It’s my intention that on Fridays, blogs will be light-hearted, yet still dealing with feminist issues. This here, then, is the first light-hearted post. It’s an article I wrote a few months back while in the shower. 

 NORFOLK. Va. – A 10-year study on human sexuality and reproduction showed that in the human species, 100 percent of those who get pregnant are women, while the percentage of pregnant men remains at zero, scientists from the National Organization for Scientific and Health Institute Technology announced Thursday.

Although the result of the study had always been widely speculated and believed by the majority of the population, NOSHIT leading scientist, Dr. Henry Anderson said the organization set out to do the study to prove conclusively that pregnancy is an ability inherently connected with the female gender, and  males have very little to do with the carrying and birthing of the fetus.

“While there were certainly no disagreements in the scientific community that this was how human sexuality and reproduction worked, there were many organizations that showed characteristics of resisting such a belief,” Anderson said. “So we set out to prove it once and for all.”

The result came from a 10-year study, spanning across five continents that consisted of both field and clinical studies of more than a million couples of child-bearing age. In every case, regardless of whether the pregnancies were planned or a surprise, the pregnancy was carried out by the female half of the couple.

While the results won’t change any contemporary findings in the scientific community, both the religious and political communities are reacting with passionate responses.

“This proves that we’ve always tried to tell the world – that the responsibility and privileges of pregnancy belong to women,” said National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy. “Because of that, the choice of whether to carry out or terminate the pregnancy also belongs to women.”

Gandy went on to point out that while 100 percent of those getting pregnant will always be women, legislatures who make laws regarding a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body are mostly men.

“Even with the current Congress, 77 percent of those making decisions about reproduction are men,” she said. “There’s a discrepancy, and we hope to change that.”

Armed with the new scientific findings, Gandy said she hopes to work with legislatures and local communities to ensure the reproductive choices of women remain in the hands of those to whom they matter most – women.

Not everyone, however, reacted to the findings with opened arms. Long-time science-denier and televangelist Pat Robertson, speaking at a prayer breakfast in front of a group of Biblical Science students at Regent University, said he is still skeptical about the study.

“Science has done many great things for the world,” Robertson said. “But it’s also created the atomic bomb, gas chambers and tanks and other weapons, all of which have caused pain and sufferings to God’s children.

“I see this finding as being similar to the creation of those weapons. It’s using something that is inherently good to do evil – by that I mean the mass murders of millions of God’s children each year.”

 “To make such a bold proclaimation is to mean that rather than being humbled as we ought to be, we’re being prideful stating we know how God works, and that we know more than God. That leads to a society’s downfall.”

Along with Robertson and other religious organizations, the Christian Wives of America has also spoken regarding the findings.

“I don’t see what it proves,” said CWA president Bertha Green. “The fact of the matter is that we marry through the grace of God, and become one; so because of that, my body is my husband’s body, thus he will always have a say over what I do with my body and the choices I make.”

The mentality of those sharing Green’s belief, said Marc Lloyed, Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance of ODU’s, is the reason the battles for women’s rights continued to be take a step backward.

“It’s not a matter of politics, and it’s not a matter of religion,” Lloyed said. “It’s matter of what’s logical – the logic here is this: you can’t make decisions on what doesn’t belong to you.

“It astounds me how some women are still letting the men in their lives make decisions about their bodies. It makes about as much sense as letting a stranger decide who you’re going to marry or what you’re going to name your kid.”

What concerns him even more, the long-time ally in the women’s rights movement said, is that there are men who, despite the study, still think it’s their rights to make decisions about women’s reproductive choices.

“That line of thinking is as silly as going into another country, taking down its government and telling its people what kind of government they really want,” he continued. “Perhaps we also need to do a study that will find that Americans aren’t Iraqis and don’t know what Iraqis think.”

The findings are expected to bring about months of fighting between the left and right, and although it probably won’t settle anything permanently, will restart the debate between America’s pro-choice and-life.

“We’re ready,” Robertson said. “The feminist movement is the lifeblood of the AntiChrist. We’ve always had God on our side, and this time it won’t be any different. Science may be to answer certain questions, but it’ll never be able to answer how God came about. For my money – and I have lots of it, I’ll always pick God over science.”