An Open Letter to the Guy who Catcalled me Last Week.

Dear Sir,
 I don't know you very well, and I hope you don't know me, so let me tell you a little about myself. I am a student, I like popcorn and good books, and I love puns, and I am a human. I was walking home last night at 12:55 AM because I was tired. I was not looking for companionship, romantic or otherwise. I was not open to talking to you, not that you asked or cared enough to wonder. I do, however, honestly appreciate that you found me physically attractive, but that appreciation is overshadowed by the disgust you instilled when you shamelessly and ignorantly perpetuated rape culture.
 Living as a girl in society today, I have been taught to fear men. Stories of kidnapping, rape, and murder flood the news constantly. You were probably taught to be wary of criminals, not half of humanity, so I don't know if you understand my hesitation to engage with you, a stranger.
 However, even if we had met under better circumstances, there's no way in hell I would ever consider you for a romantic partner, based on what little I know about you. One of the first things you asked was if I had a boyfriend. Bravo on respecting commitment, but you demonstrated that the only way you would leave me alone, no questions asked, was if I "belonged" to another man. You can't respect my choices, especially if that choice was to have you leave me alone. You could, however, respect me as a possession. No.
Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, you then pleaded with me to take your number. When I refused, you asked why. Apparently, "because I don't know you, and it's the middle of the night," isn't a good enough answer. In fact, it's so rude of me to refuse you that the only feasible response is "Fuck You!" You got angry at me as if I owe you something, and I'm a bitch for not servicing you.
You, sir, make me sad.
Not because I am displeased with you in particular, but because you are a reflection of the society I live in. One that demeans women as being a species created for men. A society that will tell me I could have been nicer, or that I shouldn't have been walking home so late. A society that tells me that you were only joking, and I shouldn't take it so seriously. A society that tells me that I am at fault for my peers indiscretions. I am so sad that I somehow created a situation where I apparently provoked you into harassing me by simply walking. I didn't ask for this, but I guess that never mattered.
So, fuck you, too, guy. Fuck you, too.

Action vs. Dialogue

This article that Tyler brought to my attention is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

The time has come to rethink our methods of eliciting social change.  

There are, I assume, many people that believe if you are not "taking action," then you are wasting time.  Okay, but does this mean protesting? Making signs and gathering friends and shouting clever slogans?  

This is great for drawing attention in the attempt to raise awareness of an issue.  But then what?

After attention and awareness needs to come another form of action: coming up with an actual plan for change.  Is this done with a piece of posterboard written in block letters with a giant Sharpie?

No.  It's done with conversations in which thoughts and ideas are exchanged until an idea becomes a plan.  Action is great, but it needs to include a Plan of Action.  

Another method of change is continual conversation within the social body itself.  This has a specific, but integral goal: to exchange ideas until you change minds.  

I believe that most people, when seeing a picket line or hearing those clever slogans being chanted on the steps of this or that public building, go deaf and blind.  I'll admit that I do.  

I roll my eyes, and roll up my window, and think, "Oh boy, what are these people all worked up over today?"  Because I know that today's issue-du-jour will become next week's faint memory to most people, including the ones doing today's chanting and marching.  This is how we do things.  We get emotionally charged, wound up like toys, and then when the next big thing comes along we abandon our current bandwagon for the new one.  

The people who are truly passionate about the issue were never holding a sign; they were holding meetings with community members or organizations, or proposing plans and taking action at the policy level all along. They were discussing the issue in a meaningful way, not just chanting slogans, and they were working to change minds.

Don't get me wrong, the people doing the protesting are an important part of the process, but they are just a part.  That can't be where it ends.  But I've heard many times that if you aren't willing to get arrested for your issue than you aren't really a believer.  I'm saying that this type of action isn't the only option for those of us who are seeking true social change.

Besides, if we're all in jail, who will be left to talk about the issues?  The people who oppose social change are the ones who truly benefit from our voice being taken away (which is what going to jail does), so perhaps this idea was started by the other side to begin with. 

Bottom line: I believe that every time you have a conversation about an issue you are starting a ripple, and the more we are willing to talk about things - in a rational and effective way - the more of an affect we are going to have on society as a whole.

It's all a part of the process, and every little bit helps.

Freedom Isn't Free(dom)

This has been an ongoing theme for me over the past several days.

I would really like to put an end to the perpetuation of the creation myth of the United States that says that it was founded on "freedom" and "equality" for all.  This picture of America as a shining example of all things free and equal since its creation in the late 18th century is a fake.  It's not even a good fake.  It's like the Mona Lisa drawn with crayons.

The Constitution of the United States is spoken of as a religious text (American Civil Religion is another post for another day); one that lays out the beautiful notions of equality and freedom for all!

Cue Maury Povich:

The Declaration of Independence - another sacred text - begins with the sweeping statement 

"... all men are created equal, ..."

But we know this didn't literally mean ALL men, did it? I mean, we can ignore the fact that women were still unable to vote, hold office, or own property for the moment (it does say MEN), but can we ignore the fact that equal status was not given to Jews, Catholics, Africans, Native Americans, or other non-Europeans?

So then what does this statement even mean?  Which term is relative? Is it the "all?" The "men?" Or is it the "equal?"

Introduction

I started this blog to be a place of discussion, where we can share ideas and have deep conversations in a more substantial way.  I have noticed that while posting a lot of my more serious thoughts and philosophical musings on facebook does spark conversations, these threads are quickly lost in the stream of likes and shares, family selfies, and restaurant check-ins that is the constant flow of social media.

I decided that I needed one place to hold all of these ideas, so that I can return to them, reread them, or perhaps build on them as new ideas come as a result of new stories and experiences.

I am excited to start an ongoing dialogue with the other contributors as well, as good ideas are often made better when you can share and exchange them with others.

~E. Lee