OK, mods, bear with me on this one--I'll explain why I don't feel this is a 'political thread' though I'll pepper this post with my political views, I'm sure.
This is a non-rehearsed, obviously non-proofread post, so I'm not sure what hot mess it'll end up being.


Elizabeth is a co-host in a TV show called The View which I never watch--as a matter of fact, watching women argue with each other when you could just have a good topless jellow fight instead, is a "must miss" event in my book.

However, I keep hearing about this Elizabeth character.

One of her later controversies involves an argument she had with Whoopie Goldberge about the use of the "N" word. Apparently the African Americans in the discussion felt that using the word in some circumstances could be a term of endearment, so long as one of the whites didn't use it. Whether this is arguably valid or not is NOT the point of this thread so please don't jack my shit up here and make this discussion about that .
But Elizabeth's entire beef with the argument is that "We all live in the same world". Whoopie than quickly countered with "no, we DON'T live in the same world."...and so forth...

but being that Elizabeth has openly opposed gay marriage and the like, I wonder if she understands we don't really live in the same world at all? Do some people just not realize that subdivisions are everywhere to be seen?

I mean, the argument that gay marriage is wrong, and that civil unions are ok, is just silly in the eyes of bi, gay, and transgendered individuals. Indeed , we don't live in the same damned world, if you're disadvantaged. In Elizabeth's world, marriage is an institution between man, woman, and God and there is no difference between this union and what is legally recognized by the state. In the eyes of homosexuals or those who don't subscribe to organized or Abrahamic religions, the state sould recognized marriage as a contract and the religious mumbo jumbo can take care of it's own--what's God's is God's, and what's Caesar's is Caesar's so to speak.

But politics and religion aside, it raises a bigger question in my mind. When I look at people around me, do they really see us all as being part of the same "experience"? That we are all sharing some communality?
Is it a circumstance or viewpoint of those in privilege whether it be racial, social-economic, or otherwise? I have always, being minority every place on earth I've ever been , felt a little bit outside of the mainstream experience. When I speak or open my mouth, I'm VERY aware that people study me...I always feel a bit like the outsider.


Does anyone feel we all exist in this "same world"? I'm in no way, shape or form going to say it's bullshit--but I am interested to see your point of view if yours is different from mine.


.
]
[Edited 8/19/08 19:51pm]

i think we are moving slowly - SLOWLY - toward "living in one world" and the more we are able to acknowledge that no, we currently do NOT live in one world, we can start discussing those differences and the commonalities we'd like to have, and start moving toward something more universal. i think the machine is slowly grunting in motion with that, but it also feels like for every inch forward society goes, we end up getting pushed two inches back.

unless this whole rant was some kind of big, elaborate metaphor for your balls or something. in which case it went over my head, as your balls are wont to do.

I don't agree with Whoopi on the use of the N word but I do agree that we do not all exist in the same world.

which one is she? the old lady with the reddish brown hair? or the girl with the blonde hair?

Stymie said:

Agreed.

No we don't, but I'm waiting for a certain response to this thread with bated breath.

That said,
WRONG FORUM!

Anxiety said:

Well, I hope and PRAY we move to one world. I've seen flashes and glimpses of it from time to time in certain limited pockets in certain cities in the world--but even then it's razor thin and fragile.

The verdict is about how I feel about the "n" word, as most of my distaste (I'm just being honest here) is in the fact that if one person shouldn't say it, it's weird that another feels they can say it.
But then I think to myself, well since I'm fucking a man right now, I have a right to say fag. Which is why I say it all the time. I love the word fag. But lawd help me if one of the straight males on this site called you a fag--I'd stomp their trade asses!

horatio said:

Honestly, she's the one on the show I'd fuck.

Mars23 said:

Dude, thanks for the email!!

Imago said:

sometimes your hetero holidays are a little gross.

Stymie said:

When you hear it used , do you correct the person using it? I've seen sosgemini do that, which struck me as odd. Folks in the gay community NEVER correct other 'girls' for using queer/fag/dyke/ etc. etc.

Imago said:

Well, if people want to use the N word, I believe they have no right to be upset if someone else uses it. Same with the F word.

Anxiety said:

Anxiety said:

Imago said:

the old lady with the red/brown hair

horatio said:

HER:





She's sort of like the "Dani" of The View , only you could never talk Elizabeth into voting against Rick Santorum.



.
[Edited 8/19/08 19:50pm]

Imago said:

in a way, i hope people of different persuasions - be they racial, subcultural, national, what-have-you - are able to retain an individual sense of identity and community away from any larger "mainstream" melting pot environment. but i also hope that all of our cultures and communities can get to a place where they don't feel a need to struggle in order to retain a sense of individuality while seeking acceptance beyond the borders of their community. ya know? so i guess i'm saying i hope we have "one world" but in a way i kinda don't. i hope the parts can happily define the whole someday, i guess.

as for the "n" word, i have balanced my opinion of it. i feel that people should have the freedom to use any word they want, if they honestly feel it is the most effective word to convey what they need to communicate; saying that, i also believe that just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD say it. i've seen the "n" word used very effectively in music, poetry and literature, and i've heard it rattled off stupidly as well, to the point where the word doesn't even register as a word anymore. it's just a noise that keeps coming out of someone's mouth every three seconds in a song or a movie.

it's weird...i've been thinking a lot lately about the things that were racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise intolerant in the past, like when i was a kid. movies, books, tv shows...there was so much that we dismissed as harmless in the 70s and 80s that by today's standards would be considered hate speech. it makes me wonder what "tasteless but harmless" content we're all looking at now that in 20 years time we'll all be shaking our heads disapprovingly at.

Anxiety said:

Girlfriend, I agree with that point of view.
I've said it over and over and over again, but the AIDs jokes that Eddie Murphy did in his Delirious skit were terribly tasteless. It exasterbates a perception that gay people were all AIDs stricken and that a simple kiss on the cheek could spread AIDS.
Unfortunately, that same skit today, would probably still make people howl with laughter no matter how damaging I feel it is.
But now that 1 out of every 2 AIDS cases in the US is African American, I could only imagine the uproar of an off color joke like that involving a person of color. And the uproar would be well deserved as no body needs to be boxed into a stereotype of that nature with those kinds of social ramifications--you can get passed up for a damned job over a stereotype--just cause there's a law out there to protect you doesn't mean it wont' happen, you know?

But back to the point of my thread....

Do you know anyone who actually thinks we share the same basic experience? I know a couple of people who take the "people are people" approach and although idealistically, it's true--we are all people. Realistically, we filter information differently based upon our own experiences and options in life.

I just find it fascinating there are people out there like Elizabeth who are (for lack of a better term) so black and white about this.

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

From your experience how do you view us as being in different worlds, per say?
You're one of the most accepting persons I know of all races, orientations, and creeds.

Elizabeth, in my mind, is a bit of a yahoo.

i agree with whoopi, and i saw that episode and almost every ewpisode of the view period from rosie day one on...

i don't think we life in the same world, and i agre with anx that we are SLOWLY inching towards that.

Imago said:

sure i know people like that. hell, i think *I* used to be like that.

i think it's pretty easy to come out of a sheltered environment with a lot of idealistic thoughts about the world, and a lot of pie-in-the-sky naivety that is just simply based on not knowing any better.

i'm glad i spent a good chunk of my adult life living in different places and talking to a lot of different people. i still can't say that i'm any great expert on anything (lord knows), but i know a little bit more about how the world works at this point in life and i can totally relate to what whoopi said without throwing a tantrum and screeching "But we should all be the saaaaame!!!"

In 1955 Edward Steichen organised the Family of Man exhibition in New York. Held at the Museum of Modern Art, the exhibition consisted of 508 photographs from sixty-eight countries. The photographers who took part included Dorothea Lange, Robert Capra, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Jack Delano, Margaret Bourke-White, Esther Bubley, Bert Hardy, Edward Weston, Matthew Brady, Frank Scherschel, Wayne Miller, Eva Arnold, Irving Penn, Consuelo Kanaga, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Bill Brandt, Russell Lee, Carl Mydans, Ben Shahn and Marion Palfi, The professed aim of the exhibition was to mark "essential oneness of mankind throughout the world." During the time it was open, the Family of Man became the most popular exhibition in the history of photography.

i'm opposed to gay marraige personally.

ehuffnsd said:

then i think you should not get marraied.

Anxiety said:

i'm still voting no against prop 8 in nov... i just don't believe in it for myself.

I hope one day to live in a world without colour lines, xenophobia, war, hatred, homophobia, discrimination or Imago's threads.

ehuffnsd said:

That's fair enough, but does that mean you don't believe in it for others too? I mean, I don't like to take sugar or milk in my coffee but since I have this choice and others doing it won't hurt me in any way I'm quite happy for them to do so if that's what they wanna do.

NoodleSoup said:

prop 8 in california is to amend the consitution to ban marriage equality. a vote no is a vote to supprot the rights of people to marry who they chose.

Vow To Vote No
This November, Californians will vote on Prop 8, a ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. Prop 8 is trying to change the California constitution to only recognize marriages "between a man and a woman."

Our challenge is clear. Those who oppose the dignity of our love and relationships are determined to deny us the fundamental freedom, fairness and equality we have worked so hard to achieve. We must get Californians to vote "No," and it all starts with you. Take the Vow today!
http://eqfed.org/campaign/vow
[Edited 8/19/08 21:34pm]

Still, I think it's absolute genius that Barbara Walters keeps Hasselbeck in there.

The uber-cute, blonde Hasselbeck represents a privileged naivete that America -- particularly the America that ABC's advertisers want to keep drawing -- yearns for. She represents the Reagan America, the one too busy enjoying deregulation to worry about the plight of the poor who are just too morally deficient to change their situations.

And, the ultra-conservatives rally around TV icons such as Hasselbeck, which helps the show garner even more underground buzz among that aforementioned conservative viewing market. You can just see it in the slight furrow EH gets in her brow before she let's fly with a, "That's just not RIGHT!" or a "My values must prevail because... why, because they're RIGHT!"

She's certainly not the most representative of the views most commonly represented on the Org, but she's representative of a prize market. And, Walters -- with the quarterly recurrence of EH vs. Rosie/Whoopie/whomever flare-ups -- has a winning strategy.