So, I've obviously been quite absent here lately. I would write out a whole long explanation, but I think these two words will both explain everything and evoke a twinge of empathy from every other high school student out there:
Final exams.
I'm almost done with them, and after that I'll get back to my (semi sort of) regular posting schedule. However, there is one thing I should explain.
Remember my "the worst health textbook in history" series? I really did intend to continue it, because there is so much more wrong with that book, but unfortunately I had to return the textbook on the day of the health exam. Which was yesterday.
Whoooops.
I don't want to pay money for that piece of offensiveness, so I can't do more than one more post about the book. Because I had one drafted out, which I'll try to complete soon.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
I'm In Luck!
Great news I found a while ago over at Sociological Images - a graph of the gender compositions of different academic areas, from 2009. Check out Linguistics (click and then zoom in for full size):
About 61 % women in one of my dream professions? I'm there!
(It does sadden me to see how few women are represented in Physics, Computer Sciences, and Engineering. Oh well - take small victories when you can get them.)
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
What Would Happen If A President Said He* Didn't Believe In God?
There have been many, many things written about how people will use the fact that America has a non-white president to "prove" that racism is "over" in America, or no longer an issue, and how that's wrong as hell. When I heard these arguments almost every day, and shaking my head, I was later thinking about what other things we need represented at the forefront of politics. We still need:
1.A female president. (See, this is what the * is for.)
2.A transgendered president.
3.An openly non-heterosexual president.
4.A president of all the other races we still have not had yet.
5.An atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious president. (Or even an openly non-Christian president.)
Most people I've mentioned this to agree with me on only one and four. Unfortunately, most people say either "No" or "Maybe...I'm not so sure" to two and three. But the one that gets outright opposition everywhere? Five.
When our history teacher was having a discussion about the "Obama is president - racism is GONE!" argument in class, I mentioned my little list to her. She asked the rest of the class "Ooh, yeah - could you imagine what would happen if our president said he didn't believe in God?"
The reaction from the class astounded me. I heard at least five people mutter "I would never vote for him", or some variation thereof. There was a general "*Hiss* Ooh, no..." reaction, but it was hard for me to tell if that was from people thinking they would react badly if the statement was made, or from their acknowledgement that most of the population would react badly.
The conflation of religion and goodness - the "good Christian" law, as I like to call it. We have a positive reaction to our black president, so long as he's Christian. (I don't have to mention the stupidity of the idiots insisting he was Muslim, right? Good.) The thing is? I think everyone knows exactly what would happen if a presidential candidate said "I don't believe in God" - they would have no chance whatsoever. Because, for too long, religion has been good, and nonreligion bad. I imagine the smear campaigns against the nonbelieving candidates would use the word "heathen" or "godless" like it's goin' outta style. Don't believe it? I have an upcoming post about a political campaign against a (religious) woman who *GASP* had the support of the majority of the atheists in the area that actually used the phrase "godless Americans".
Because being godless is such a bad thing...
1.A female president. (See, this is what the * is for.)
2.A transgendered president.
3.An openly non-heterosexual president.
4.A president of all the other races we still have not had yet.
5.An atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious president. (Or even an openly non-Christian president.)
Most people I've mentioned this to agree with me on only one and four. Unfortunately, most people say either "No" or "Maybe...I'm not so sure" to two and three. But the one that gets outright opposition everywhere? Five.
When our history teacher was having a discussion about the "Obama is president - racism is GONE!" argument in class, I mentioned my little list to her. She asked the rest of the class "Ooh, yeah - could you imagine what would happen if our president said he didn't believe in God?"
The reaction from the class astounded me. I heard at least five people mutter "I would never vote for him", or some variation thereof. There was a general "*Hiss* Ooh, no..." reaction, but it was hard for me to tell if that was from people thinking they would react badly if the statement was made, or from their acknowledgement that most of the population would react badly.
The conflation of religion and goodness - the "good Christian" law, as I like to call it. We have a positive reaction to our black president, so long as he's Christian. (I don't have to mention the stupidity of the idiots insisting he was Muslim, right? Good.) The thing is? I think everyone knows exactly what would happen if a presidential candidate said "I don't believe in God" - they would have no chance whatsoever. Because, for too long, religion has been good, and nonreligion bad. I imagine the smear campaigns against the nonbelieving candidates would use the word "heathen" or "godless" like it's goin' outta style. Don't believe it? I have an upcoming post about a political campaign against a (religious) woman who *GASP* had the support of the majority of the atheists in the area that actually used the phrase "godless Americans".
Because being godless is such a bad thing...
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Some Happiness About Female Vocalists
I'm a huge metalhead, so of course I'm familiar with the latest metal craze of "female-fronted metal". For those who don't share the headbanger way of life, it's basically, all the music is played and written by guys, and the women only sing.
And the thing is? They sing in one way: Pretty. It was initially defended by the fact that the uniqueness of symphonic metal and opera metal was coming from the juxtaposition of heavy metal music and delicate vocals. But, as it's been almost 15 years since the most popular symph. metal bands have gripped audiences, things are becoming more and more clear that there's still a huge double standard about singing.
To explain the whole thing would be time-consuming, and I cannot say it any better than this post. It explains excellently how men have the privilege and freedom in music to do whatever they want, to not be confined to one genre or subjected to rigid standards, while women are only allowed to be one thing: The sexy, sweet-sounding frontpiece.
And the thing is? They sing in one way: Pretty. It was initially defended by the fact that the uniqueness of symphonic metal and opera metal was coming from the juxtaposition of heavy metal music and delicate vocals. But, as it's been almost 15 years since the most popular symph. metal bands have gripped audiences, things are becoming more and more clear that there's still a huge double standard about singing.
To explain the whole thing would be time-consuming, and I cannot say it any better than this post. It explains excellently how men have the privilege and freedom in music to do whatever they want, to not be confined to one genre or subjected to rigid standards, while women are only allowed to be one thing: The sexy, sweet-sounding frontpiece.
"The prettiness problem excludes women from rock ‘n roll in a three-phase process.
1. The prettiness imperative is self-inhibiting. I can only speak from personal experience here, but I’m guessing a lot of women agree: not-pretty is hard. I’m a trained singer with an incredibly versatile voice. I can imitate just about anyone’s singing style. But my own voice, my own sound? It’s pretty, and therefore boring. I can imitate non-prettiness, but I can’t come up with it on my own. Making music is a physical act, and it’s very difficult to let your body do things that aren’t pretty when you’ve spent your entire life trying to make your body be as pretty as possible. Especially because (and I can’t find a link for this, so you’re gonna have to take my word on it) women artificially raise their voices around the time of puberty, limiting their vocal range and depriving themselves of full use of their from-the-gut voice. Ever known a woman who seemed to find it literally impossible to speak loudly enough to fill a room? It wasn’t a physical problem. Also, the thing that teens start doing where you are constantly sucking in your stomach? Not good for talking loud and singing in interesting ways.
2. Defying the prettiness imperative gets you punished. If you can manage to do something that’s experimental, interesting, and against the prettiness imperative (or, even crazier, subvertsthe prettiness imperative, see, e.g. Joanna Newsom) then, you are ridiculed, your music is weird, and you are a fairy/witch/slut/whore/weirdo. Or it’s just simply not good. Because people don’t like the way it sounds, since they are not used to women doing things that are not-pretty, and they don’t like it.
3. Not defying the prettiness imperative is boring. See how that works? You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Because if you violate the standards, go outside your comfort zone, and do something really new and interesting, people don’t find it palatable. But if you don’t, then what you’re doing isn’t noteworthy."
I actually can speak to that artificial voice-raising thing: Having been in choir all my life, when I turned 11 and was finally recognized by those around me to actually be in puberty (I had been in it for about a year and a half, actually, but no one had noticed until then), my choir teachers immediately threw us all into higher music. In warmups, we stopped going below a middle C, and went up to treble As regularly. Despite my status as an alto-verging-on-contralto, I was just told to go higher, go sweeter, go prettier, go softer, stay away from those ugly masculine low notes. I was the only girl to step up and say "I'll do this solo", that went down to a (*GASP*) G, and the teacher repeatedly told me "You're crazy!". People told me that singing too low "hurt my vocal cords". (I know: What? I can't see how singing in my natural range would hurt any more than going unnaturally high for myself.) And now, two years later, I realized something. I was looking at a baritone solo in our choir (that I was told would be too low for me to sing.) It went down to a low E, generally staying above the F mark.
When I first tried singing all of it, I couldn't. My voice sounded to quiet and weak.
So, I threw it all out. For those minutes, I threw out the "sweet" tone I had been taught to aspire to, the "feminine" voice quality I was supposed to "naturally" have. I sang as naturally as I possibly could.
And guess what? It was easy. I reached the E with no problem. I sounded like a singer, as opposed to just "a woman".
So yes, there is definitely an inhibiting value instilled in female singers that prevents us from singing in our natural ranges.
Anyway, back to the prettiness in metal thing. It's incredibly frustrating to me to see how the metal is left to the guys, and the prettiness is left to the one woman. There are a couple bands that have harsh female vocalists (the best known are probably The Agonist, Arch Enemy, and Cadaveria), but there are two problems with them: The musicians are still all male, and the women still have to be pretty - if not vocally, then physically.
Look at the singers of these bands:
They are still conventionally sexy. And they promote their image too, not personally - their advertisers do it. Because hey, who cares if they're good unique vocalists, so long as they're hot, right?
There are two bands I have found which break this all-male except the singer mold: Astarte and Kittie. (Very awesome) all-female black metal bands. However, still...they have to promote their images in order to be taken seriously. Because these groups refuse to do this as often as other bands, they have reached virtually no popularity.
And on singing "not pretty" - so far in metal, I've seen the two opposites: The pretty symph. metal vocalists, and the growlers. There seemed to be no in between - and that is what guys can get away with doing. They can whine-sing, shout without growling, nasally drawl, sing however the hell they want to and still be considered good.
However, I discovered a band recently. Ebony Ark. The musicians are all male, which of course disappointed me. But, the vocalist actually has a strong, aggressive, unique voice that is awesome, while not being conventionally pretty. Ebony Ark is not perfect in this regard - she often switches to a "pretty" voice in the middle of songs. But still, they're a step ahead.
Because Religious Whining Is SO Much More Important Than Women's Lives
So, lately I've been more and more concerned with how much power anti-choice is getting in government and legislation, and how fiercely they're limiting women's rights. (A quick search for the "War On Women" or "Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood" can give a quick idea of how disgusting these people are.) But, perhaps the thing that has shocked, angered, and simply disgusted me the most is the fact that hospitals can refuse to perform abortions, even if they are completely legal in the state, because...wait for it...they have moral objections to it.
For example, an excerpt from this LRB brief from 1999 (I can't find any information that says the law has changed since then), "Hospitals and Medical Staff Not Required to Perform Abortions. Section 253.09 (Chapter 159, Laws of 1973) states that hospitals may not be required to perform abortions and they are not liable for civil damages or discrimination complaints for refusal to do so. Physicians and other medical providers who work in a hospital in which abortions are authorized may not be required to participate in abortion procedures if they have stated in writing their objection to the procedure on moral or religious grounds. Medical staff may not be subjected to employment discrimination on the basis of their beliefs regarding abortion."
Before I even begin my rant, what I have to point out is the part that really scares me: Hospitals can't be complained about discrimination...after discriminating against a woman. That's really, really scary.
Now, the rant. I'm going to try to keep this short, because honestly, Jill says it best. "Ah yes, the cruelty of forcing someone to violate their religious objections. So much less cruel to make an emergency patient sit and wait for six hours as she faces possible death or serious bodily harm!"
Here is the thing. It is not a complicated thing. It is an obvious thing. It is an understandable and easy thing. Ready to hear it?
You are a goddamn medical professional, and it is your job to save people and provide medical help. It is your job, and your religious whining should not matter when it comes to saving a woman's life, or providing her an abortion even when she is not at risk of dying.
Remember my vegetarianism. Now, let's say I got a job as a chef at a non-completely vegetarian restaurant. What would happen if I whined "I HAVE MORAL OBJECTIONS TO MEAT! I'm not making these morally-objectionable dishes, even though it's my job!", then sued the restaurant for forcing me to cook meat. You know exactly what would happen: I would be dismissed as whiny, unrealistic, and selfish.
And yet this woman is doing that exact thing: Crying "I HAVE MORAL OBJECTIONS TO ABORTION! I'm not saving this woman's life, even though it's my job!", then suing the hospital. And anti-choice people are sympathizing with her.
If religious people are so damn selfish that they will not perform their job because of "moral objections", and hospitals aren't required to perform abortions if they have those objections, and then can't get sued for it, I am really, extremely worried.
Listen, lawmakers: My health should not be in the hands of someone's religious morals. I should be able to get an abortion without worrying that some idiotic hospital turning its back and saying "Nope, RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS!" What if these laws said that hospitals could refuse to treat cancer patients because they object to helping people with cancer? People would be up in arms immediately, crying discrimination. And yet these laws are allowing discrimination against women.
...Can you tell I am not happy with religion or government right now?
For example, an excerpt from this LRB brief from 1999 (I can't find any information that says the law has changed since then), "Hospitals and Medical Staff Not Required to Perform Abortions. Section 253.09 (Chapter 159, Laws of 1973) states that hospitals may not be required to perform abortions and they are not liable for civil damages or discrimination complaints for refusal to do so. Physicians and other medical providers who work in a hospital in which abortions are authorized may not be required to participate in abortion procedures if they have stated in writing their objection to the procedure on moral or religious grounds. Medical staff may not be subjected to employment discrimination on the basis of their beliefs regarding abortion."
Before I even begin my rant, what I have to point out is the part that really scares me: Hospitals can't be complained about discrimination...after discriminating against a woman. That's really, really scary.
Now, the rant. I'm going to try to keep this short, because honestly, Jill says it best. "Ah yes, the cruelty of forcing someone to violate their religious objections. So much less cruel to make an emergency patient sit and wait for six hours as she faces possible death or serious bodily harm!"
Here is the thing. It is not a complicated thing. It is an obvious thing. It is an understandable and easy thing. Ready to hear it?
You are a goddamn medical professional, and it is your job to save people and provide medical help. It is your job, and your religious whining should not matter when it comes to saving a woman's life, or providing her an abortion even when she is not at risk of dying.
Remember my vegetarianism. Now, let's say I got a job as a chef at a non-completely vegetarian restaurant. What would happen if I whined "I HAVE MORAL OBJECTIONS TO MEAT! I'm not making these morally-objectionable dishes, even though it's my job!", then sued the restaurant for forcing me to cook meat. You know exactly what would happen: I would be dismissed as whiny, unrealistic, and selfish.
And yet this woman is doing that exact thing: Crying "I HAVE MORAL OBJECTIONS TO ABORTION! I'm not saving this woman's life, even though it's my job!", then suing the hospital. And anti-choice people are sympathizing with her.
If religious people are so damn selfish that they will not perform their job because of "moral objections", and hospitals aren't required to perform abortions if they have those objections, and then can't get sued for it, I am really, extremely worried.
Listen, lawmakers: My health should not be in the hands of someone's religious morals. I should be able to get an abortion without worrying that some idiotic hospital turning its back and saying "Nope, RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS!" What if these laws said that hospitals could refuse to treat cancer patients because they object to helping people with cancer? People would be up in arms immediately, crying discrimination. And yet these laws are allowing discrimination against women.
...Can you tell I am not happy with religion or government right now?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bible: God. Personal Relationships: God. Everywhere Else: God. Church: Jesus...?
I found the Community Christian Church's website yesterday. It's been a long time since I set foot in a church (being in choir = having to sing as guests in churches which = having to listen to sermons), so all the capitalized 'He's and 'Him's were a little overwhelming to read. The thing I found most...interesting, I suppose is the right word, was the "What We Believe" page.
There's a lot to talk about here. First, I can't resist being a little snarky. There's a section called "About a Relationship with God", which is naturally about a relationship with God (and, weirdly, Jesus - I'll get to that in a minute). Then, there's a section called "About the Christian Life" which is about...a relationship with God. I don't see why they couldn't have merged those two things, seeing as they're telling you to do the same thing (worship God and Jesus - again, coming back to that).
And to be honest, I'm a little worried. Because I've seen this in a lot of other Christian writings - telling people that they should not only worship God, but dedicate their entire lives to pleasing him. This is not a "Wow, those Christians are batshit crazy" expression - it's one of honest worry. I would not want to live for a single (dual?) abstract concept. Churches like this are telling Christians that your entire world should revolve around God - what about, I don't know, yourself, other humans and animals, the environment? I think it's a little dangerous that people are told to not do things for themselves, rather only for God. What if, for example, a woman has grown up in a church that tells her that abortion is "immoral" "a sin", etc. (we all know what assholes Catholic churches are when it comes to THE ALMIGHTY FETUS!) Now, that woman is pregnant and suffering from complications, and she needs an abortion to save her life. Since she's spent her life being told to do things not for herself, but for God, and being told what God "wants", she will most likely not get an abortion, and die.
This is, I think, one of the biggest reasons I am against religion as a whole. Because I feel it is dangerous to tell people they don't belong to themselves, but to some abstract god(s).
And on that thing I wanted to get to later: This is where I have to ask for help. Because, if there is one thing that has mystified me about Christianity since I can remember it, it is this: You call yourself a monotheistic religion, you worship God, say that he is the only god....but then you also worship Jesus. I just...don't understand it, honestly do not get it. If you classified yourself as polytheistic, I would get it - there's God and there's Jesus, and you worship them both.
But the way I see it over and over again, I hear the same message: "God is the only true savior...now let's worship Jesus!"
For example, take this quote from CCC:
Our inability to re-establish our relationship with God leaves us dependent on God's mercy. God graciously provided the means to reconcile this relationship through faith in Jesus Christ.
Hooooold up here... you're telling people to form a relationship with God (which you just said THEY CANNOT DO), and worship Jesus Christ...and then saying that that relationship with Jesus is a relationship with God?
I am, in all serious, confused as to how Christians can find their way around in this confused, paradoxical, faith doctrine. If any Christians could help explain, I would appreciate it.
...Isn't Norse Paganism so much simpler? (Sorry, couldn't resist that, because people around me keep saying that Paganism in general is "So complicated", when they're Christian.)
There's a lot to talk about here. First, I can't resist being a little snarky. There's a section called "About a Relationship with God", which is naturally about a relationship with God (and, weirdly, Jesus - I'll get to that in a minute). Then, there's a section called "About the Christian Life" which is about...a relationship with God. I don't see why they couldn't have merged those two things, seeing as they're telling you to do the same thing (worship God and Jesus - again, coming back to that).
And to be honest, I'm a little worried. Because I've seen this in a lot of other Christian writings - telling people that they should not only worship God, but dedicate their entire lives to pleasing him. This is not a "Wow, those Christians are batshit crazy" expression - it's one of honest worry. I would not want to live for a single (dual?) abstract concept. Churches like this are telling Christians that your entire world should revolve around God - what about, I don't know, yourself, other humans and animals, the environment? I think it's a little dangerous that people are told to not do things for themselves, rather only for God. What if, for example, a woman has grown up in a church that tells her that abortion is "immoral" "a sin", etc. (we all know what assholes Catholic churches are when it comes to THE ALMIGHTY FETUS!) Now, that woman is pregnant and suffering from complications, and she needs an abortion to save her life. Since she's spent her life being told to do things not for herself, but for God, and being told what God "wants", she will most likely not get an abortion, and die.
This is, I think, one of the biggest reasons I am against religion as a whole. Because I feel it is dangerous to tell people they don't belong to themselves, but to some abstract god(s).
And on that thing I wanted to get to later: This is where I have to ask for help. Because, if there is one thing that has mystified me about Christianity since I can remember it, it is this: You call yourself a monotheistic religion, you worship God, say that he is the only god....but then you also worship Jesus. I just...don't understand it, honestly do not get it. If you classified yourself as polytheistic, I would get it - there's God and there's Jesus, and you worship them both.
But the way I see it over and over again, I hear the same message: "God is the only true savior...now let's worship Jesus!"
For example, take this quote from CCC:
Our inability to re-establish our relationship with God leaves us dependent on God's mercy. God graciously provided the means to reconcile this relationship through faith in Jesus Christ.
Hooooold up here... you're telling people to form a relationship with God (which you just said THEY CANNOT DO), and worship Jesus Christ...and then saying that that relationship with Jesus is a relationship with God?
I am, in all serious, confused as to how Christians can find their way around in this confused, paradoxical, faith doctrine. If any Christians could help explain, I would appreciate it.
...Isn't Norse Paganism so much simpler? (Sorry, couldn't resist that, because people around me keep saying that Paganism in general is "So complicated", when they're Christian.)
Vegan Marshmallows!
Yes, you heard that right: Marshmallows that are finally vegan and vegetarian friendly. And guess what? They're also delicious!
The company is Sweet N' Sara, and the marshmallows are apparently also kosher. I picked up a batch of these when I spotted them at a local grocery store, because I was somewhat addicted to marshmallows and smores before my diet transition, and I really missed ones I could safely eat. And the best part for those people who are always wary that the vegetarian "substitute" of something won't taste as good is that these are simply amazing. Yummy, filling - even non-vegetarians I've given them to said they taste almost better than regular marshmallows.
So support Sweet N' Sara! It's rare that you can find good, vegan desserts, and the company needs all the support it can get. The variety of treats is encouraging (I'm eyeing those coconut marshmallows and strawberry marshmallows...), and you can order them online.
The company is Sweet N' Sara, and the marshmallows are apparently also kosher. I picked up a batch of these when I spotted them at a local grocery store, because I was somewhat addicted to marshmallows and smores before my diet transition, and I really missed ones I could safely eat. And the best part for those people who are always wary that the vegetarian "substitute" of something won't taste as good is that these are simply amazing. Yummy, filling - even non-vegetarians I've given them to said they taste almost better than regular marshmallows.
So support Sweet N' Sara! It's rare that you can find good, vegan desserts, and the company needs all the support it can get. The variety of treats is encouraging (I'm eyeing those coconut marshmallows and strawberry marshmallows...), and you can order them online.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
The First Step When Thinking About Privilege...
...Is openly admitting to yourself what privileges you have. You can't have discussions about any sort of -ism until you realize which of those -isms you're protected from. Most people in America have at least one privilege, but the problem is that so many people who have plenty of privilege refuse to admit that they have them, and that those privileges will color their opinions and discussions. For example, while I'm at some disadvantages because of my bipolarity, gender, and sexuality, I know that I have a whole huge whopping bag of privileges. For example:
1.I'm white, with completely European heritage as far as my family can look back.
2.I'm cisgender.
3.I was born in America.
4.I'm middle class, and was born that way.
5.I'm able-bodied. (Vision does not count.)
And these are only a few. So yes, I know that I'm privileged, and thus it may sound like I'm whining sometimes when the little white kid is talking about ageism instead of racism. But that's because I want to operate on fields that are most personal to me - ageism is rarely talked about, because adults don't realize that they are automatically part of a somewhat privileged group, and people simply forget about it when they exit their teens. (Unlike race or sexuality, which is a lifelong thing.)
I feel like I should take this time to address something: I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying that ageism is more serious than, or more rampant than, racism, sexism, ableism, or any other form of discrimination. But people need to pay attention to it, and I'm going to try to help that.
But anyway, yes, I am privileged in many ways. And that's what people need to do first when they're tackling issues: Simply confess their privileges, to themselves or anyone they'll be talking to. This goes for white people talking about racism, adults talking about ageism, men talking about sexism, straight people talking about homophobia, and anything else.
(Although, I've never seen a religious person stick up for an atheist/agnostic/non-worshipper. Have you?)
1.I'm white, with completely European heritage as far as my family can look back.
2.I'm cisgender.
3.I was born in America.
4.I'm middle class, and was born that way.
5.I'm able-bodied. (Vision does not count.)
And these are only a few. So yes, I know that I'm privileged, and thus it may sound like I'm whining sometimes when the little white kid is talking about ageism instead of racism. But that's because I want to operate on fields that are most personal to me - ageism is rarely talked about, because adults don't realize that they are automatically part of a somewhat privileged group, and people simply forget about it when they exit their teens. (Unlike race or sexuality, which is a lifelong thing.)
I feel like I should take this time to address something: I don't want anyone to think that I'm saying that ageism is more serious than, or more rampant than, racism, sexism, ableism, or any other form of discrimination. But people need to pay attention to it, and I'm going to try to help that.
But anyway, yes, I am privileged in many ways. And that's what people need to do first when they're tackling issues: Simply confess their privileges, to themselves or anyone they'll be talking to. This goes for white people talking about racism, adults talking about ageism, men talking about sexism, straight people talking about homophobia, and anything else.
(Although, I've never seen a religious person stick up for an atheist/agnostic/non-worshipper. Have you?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)