Possibly an unpopular opinion.

But I just think it’s mildly unfair for people (perhaps mainly social liberals) have this whole thing with thinking men shouldn’t have a say in the birth control debate, yet scorn the men who leave their female partners who are carrying/raising their children.

It’s just a double standard. Men certainly shouldn’t have more of a say in the matter of contraception than women do, but they should be able to have some say, especially if they are basically ostracized if they don’t remain 100% faithful and attentive to their child’s mother during the child-rearing process. Women can’t just say “my body my baby my choice” half the time and say “support me and our baby” the other half.

This is all meant to come off as very egalitarian as far as contributions of the sexes to the issue of reproduction, not as any rejection of a woman’s right to her body. I’m very pro-choice, I’m just pointing out where I see a problem with the way things are sometimes viewed by those who are deeply entrenched in this contraception debate.

CNN: Why Warren Buffett is wrong

I was just reading this article and it got my blood boiling, as CNN opinion articles tend to do. It’s basically a response to some comments Warren Buffett made about increasing capital taxes for the super-rich. Jeffery Miron, the author of the article, argues that this is not the way to go, and he gets into a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that I really don’t agree with about why this method of boosting the economy won’t work. But I won’t go in to that.

What I will go in to is this:

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Am I the only person who sees the atrocity of this mindset?

First of all, I really don’t think anyone should be concerned about people forming a negative attitude towards success because of a little tax hike. People aspire to financial success, and they always will.

But the second, and really the more pressing issue I have with this is just the complete selfishness of what he’s saying. Essentially, he’s saying that people who already make a lot of money should be further rewarded for their “hard work” and achievement. WHAT THE FUCK??!?!?!?! Do not even try to tell me that a single mother who works two or three jobs does not work as hard as a CEO. Did she choose her station in life? My guess is no. She probably didn’t have a privileged childhood, and she probably didn’t have an opportunity for education, and she probably is a perfectly nice and respectable person. But, according to this guy, she deserves no reward. She doesn’t have the means to get health care? Sucks. No food? Sucks. You don’t make as much money as the corrupt, scheming, slimy CEO, and here in America, the only thing that we should care about is money, so you can go on living your shitty life while us rich people just mill about like nothing is wrong.

And then he goes on to say that hiking the taxes for the super-rich would be “demonizing” them. Could that be a more selfish viewpoint? This country is obviously in desperate need of money. Every single government program at the state and federal level is JUST getting by, if that. I understand rich people don’t use public transit or welfare or public education, but they sure as hell drive on the roads, have a police force and penitentiary system to protect them, and consume FDA/USDA approved products. Where does it make more sense to get the funds for such programs? From the single mom who barely gets to sleep at night or the CEO who’s vacationing in Barbados?

My ultimate point is that the individuals who make up this country are too self-absorbed. There is far too much focus on personal means and not enough focus on the welfare of the country as a whole. Rich and poor depend on each other for a living, and every single person in this country depends on the government for all different aspects of day to day life. Poor people can’t give much… they’re poor. But the super-rich can, and in doing so will improve the quality of life and the economic stability of the US. Money isn’t everything, and people don’t realize that the belief that it is will be our ultimate downfall as a nation.

There’s a difference between being sexually active and being a (man)whore.

I’m all for people having sex. As long as it’s safe and consensual, I think people should be able to have sex until the cows come home. If someone wants to have sex with a few or more different people, then that is totally their prerogative and I won’t say a single bad thing about them. However, in my humble opinion, a person is only a (man)whore if he or she doesn’t distinguish between people who are acceptable to sleep with and people who are not. What I mean by this is that if you have sex with people who are completely single and have absolutely no romantic, emotional attachments to anyone else (at least as far as you’re aware), then that’s not whore-ish. But if you have sex with someone who has other stuff going on (they are the object of someone else’s affections, for example), then just back the fuck up! If you need sex that badly, there are plenty of other people for you to sleep with. Go find them. It’s better for the person you don’t sleep with, and it makes people hate you less.

This is probably one of my more poorly written rants… it’s much more convincing in person. Nonetheless, I encourage sexual freedom. Just do it with the right people. Not that hard.

Just doing some thinking out loud.

A few days ago, I posted this article from CNN.com about whether whites are facing racial oppression. The group of whites specifically discussed was poor whites. A friend of mine posted this article on Facebook where it received a significant amount of scorn for its content. While there is a lot of bull in this article coming from Glenn Beck and the like about white Republicans being an oppressed minority, there are also some points which I do not think should be so easily dismissed.

Poor whites, for example, are not benefited by any of the numerous minority scholarships that are available to nonwhite people. So, if a poor white wants to go to college but cannot afford it, their only hope lies in either getting a grant, a merit scholarship or going to a cheaper community college with less resources and fewer opportunities. This places them at a clear socioeconomic disadvantage as a result of their race than their rich and poor minority peers, one which is only magnified by the institution of affirmative action. Is this not somewhat unjust?

I am not suggesting by any means that poor whites have endured the same social, political, or cultural oppression that other racial minority groups have. I am saying that it is entirely possible that the situation is headed in that direction.

Following years of reinforcement, whites in America have come to see themselves as the norm rather than just another, slightly larger racial entity. Thus, this concept of white privilege has developed. The idea that, since white is considered by whites to be the norm, whites have constructed society in a way that they are the privileged ones. But now there is a growing demographic of whites who live at or below the poverty line. And where are they to turn? Who will be their advocate?

The way I see it, they have no advocate. Among whites, some have the desire to help, but not the means or the power. Those who have the means and the power often fall into the category of those individuals or groups who hold prejudices against the disadvantaged. Or, they fall into such categories as colleges who are so focused on creating racial and ethnic diversity that they let socioeconomic diversity fall by the wayside. Rare is it that a person possesses the desire, means, and power to make significant changes in the social landscape. There is a large reliance on individuals for this. Of course, there also exists a looming caution among whites when it comes to advocating for their own race (when race is the issue) that any self-proclaimed support of the white race is equivalent to white supremacy or the like. And few racial minority groups are likely to advocate for poor whites by sheer fact that they are white, part of the privileged majority.

Here we see a group that is both powerless and friendless, a group that is at a clear disadvantage in society. For poor whites, there is a strong likelihood that they will become severely oppressed as a semi-direct result of their race. I am not proposing that we should expend large amounts of resources in order to remedy this situation, as I am aware that there are much more pressing issues at hand and many other oppressed groups to be addressed. I am only saying that racially oppressed whites DO exist and it is not something to be ignored, just as no other form of oppression should be ignored. Race is, after all, merely a social construct, and those persecuted on such a basis deserve attention and assistance.

NOTE: I refer to whites as “them” throughout this post, while in reality I am white as well. The words were just coming from an academic/conceptual place in my brain so I didn’t feel like saying “we” was quite right. But I am aware that I am included in the white race.