When I came to the US in 1993, I was an emotional and psychological wreck. I just finally realized I am gay and the initial shock from American culture left me feeling like a fish out of the water and in the frying pan. I avoided friends and I was planning how to die. I came to the US as a liberal. I still am but there are many elements in American liberalism that I detest as either kind-hearted naivete or downright reactionary.
When I arrived, Political Correctness was at the height of its Orwellian reign and it would be years after that before it became a late night show punchline. I tried to embrace American liberalism but I felt dirty doing it, and even dirtier still that I couldn't embrace it. I felt like a traitor. I was ashamed. I attributed all that to my state of mind, after all, I was undergoing a major identity reconfiguration at the time. So, there I was, running away from heterosexuals and trying to embrace an ideology I didn't believe in but felt I should. I felt like an impostor either way. I was neither good at acting straight nor at believing someone else's faith. I couldn't be the person I was discovering I am in either one.
Camille Paglia's book, Sexual Personae and Dinesh D' Souza's Illiberal Education were the first to reassure that I wasn't alone and that it's alright. Two other mavericks inspired me not too long later - Andrew Sullivan and Ward Connerlly. Paglia is an anti-gay, anti-feminist lesbian feminist who constantly skewers trendy queer and gender theories that dominate in gay and women's studies. She became an instant hero to me. D 'Souza was an instant inspiration as well when I learned about the horrific inversion of justice that affirmative action had become and its chilling effect on the discussion on race and gender. Just as D'Souza described the fate of the politically incorrect, both he and Paglia have been denounced as reactionary, even racist and sexist. But by then I was already convinced that witchhunts characterized the weather in the current Orwellian climate.
Andrew Sullivan is a pioneer in marriage and military service rights for gays. An anti-gay homosexual himself, he is also an anti-conservative conservative who argued with homosexuals and straights about the primacy and urgency of the right to marry and serve in the military. His position was both radical and old-fashioned and directly conflicted with anti-heterosexual queer theory which held that marriage and the military are sexist, patriarchal, hetero-centric institutions that must be dismantled, and certainly not to be encouraged by homosexuals least of all. I cringed when the homosexual intelligentsia attacked him and I cheered when he debated Richard Goldstein. Sullivan won over the crowd by the end of that debate and exposed how ridiculously out-of-touch the ruling homocrats are. It may have also heralded a changing tide for in the next few short years after that, gay marriage had become a major civil rights issue with the last remaining pockets of whimpering opposition coming from doomsday christian evangelists and the queeriest theorists, creating a rather apocalyptic union that probably marked the coming of the gay messiah.
Ward Connerly, a black civil-rights activist successfully overturned affirmative action in California and Michigan and is leading the campaing against affirmative action in several states.
These four provided so much support and inspiration when I felt like I were a depressed Asian-racist, sexist-homosexual loner.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A Post-Race, Post-Gender Dawn
If not for any of the changes promised in this election cycle, the dynamics on the discussion on race and gender is certainly already turning our previous assumptions on racism and sexism, racists and sexists upside down, so far. This tectonic shift can only advance our understanding of racial and sexual relations eventually, but it is far too early to assess its impact in the short term. For now though, the narrative is undergoing a major revision while the roles are being recast, adding a new twist and a new level of drama to an already emotionally charged issue.
In the rewrite, Obama, the media, and the Democratic Party, the last remaining heroes, in the old narrative have been recast as the racist and the sexist. This major shuffle is probably the most significant experiment in cognitive deprogramming since the Tunnel of Tolerance - that trendy experiment in role-playing where suspected and potential thought criminals, as determined by subjective tolerance police through politically correct markers of intolerance, are immersed in the evils of racist and sexist abuse to effect thought and behavior modification. The new roles certainly extend our range of understanding and reset the limits of our tolerance.
Watching the old guardians defend and rationalize the old markers of hate as the old villains adopt the voice and the behavior of the old heroes before the recast in the villain role is an epic political soap opera shot on location in a mental asylum. The wanton firing of accusations of racism and sexism long before this election cycle had always struck me as self-destructive, opportunistic, and obscene for pandering to the sensibilities of emotionally unstable race and gender-mongers and disrespectful to the real suffering of real victims of racism and sexism. This comedic-tragic charade will only further expose the vacuity of race and gender victimology - a lawless, petty, schizophrenic world locked in an eternal search for offense and grievance. With this world now collapsing under the weight of its own shifting arbitrariness, it is turning into a massive blackhole that swallows all our poisoned assumptions on race and gender. Suddenly, everyone is a racist and a sexist so no one is racist and sexist at last. This could be the beginning of a post-race, post-gender world.
In the rewrite, Obama, the media, and the Democratic Party, the last remaining heroes, in the old narrative have been recast as the racist and the sexist. This major shuffle is probably the most significant experiment in cognitive deprogramming since the Tunnel of Tolerance - that trendy experiment in role-playing where suspected and potential thought criminals, as determined by subjective tolerance police through politically correct markers of intolerance, are immersed in the evils of racist and sexist abuse to effect thought and behavior modification. The new roles certainly extend our range of understanding and reset the limits of our tolerance.
Watching the old guardians defend and rationalize the old markers of hate as the old villains adopt the voice and the behavior of the old heroes before the recast in the villain role is an epic political soap opera shot on location in a mental asylum. The wanton firing of accusations of racism and sexism long before this election cycle had always struck me as self-destructive, opportunistic, and obscene for pandering to the sensibilities of emotionally unstable race and gender-mongers and disrespectful to the real suffering of real victims of racism and sexism. This comedic-tragic charade will only further expose the vacuity of race and gender victimology - a lawless, petty, schizophrenic world locked in an eternal search for offense and grievance. With this world now collapsing under the weight of its own shifting arbitrariness, it is turning into a massive blackhole that swallows all our poisoned assumptions on race and gender. Suddenly, everyone is a racist and a sexist so no one is racist and sexist at last. This could be the beginning of a post-race, post-gender world.
Why I am not a Republican
Gay rights. At its best, the Republican Party is the better champion for individual rights. I am not just an non-believer in group rights; I oppose it as a serious attack on liberty and dignity and the root cause of ethnic, racial, and sexual divide. The party then should be a natural home for rugged individualism and the non-conformist spirit. It is after all, the party of the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. But at its worst, the Republican Party can also be blinded by religious superstitions and overweening confidence in God and the self.
I have tremendous respect for people of faith. They do invaluable and often dangerous work for charity and social justice that is rarely, if ever, matched by secular commitment. And I have a deep appreciation in knowing that most of our cherished secular human rights began as spiritual insights into the dignity of the soul at a time in political history when the physical body itself was held with very little value. But the religious, which forms the base of the party, can be a scary bunch of close-minded, judgmental, bigoted zealots when animated by the false spirit of god. That sounds like a caricature. It often is until you actually have a talk with a fanatic. Just as spiritual insights often leads to the elevation of human life, it is also often the greatest obstacle to the dignity of homosexuals and other moral outcasts.
I have tremendous respect for people of faith. They do invaluable and often dangerous work for charity and social justice that is rarely, if ever, matched by secular commitment. And I have a deep appreciation in knowing that most of our cherished secular human rights began as spiritual insights into the dignity of the soul at a time in political history when the physical body itself was held with very little value. But the religious, which forms the base of the party, can be a scary bunch of close-minded, judgmental, bigoted zealots when animated by the false spirit of god. That sounds like a caricature. It often is until you actually have a talk with a fanatic. Just as spiritual insights often leads to the elevation of human life, it is also often the greatest obstacle to the dignity of homosexuals and other moral outcasts.
Why I am not a Democrat
Affirmative Action. The Democratic Party's sense of community is often the more powerful and effective agent for large change than mere self-interest as self-interest is always the enemy of sacrifice and service. Group rights can sometimes be where the individual is freest...unless you belong to the wrong group, then it becomes the most serious threat to individual diversity and the most negligent caretaker of individual liberty.
A political calculus based upon skin pigmentation that valuates Oprah's daughter (if she has one) above a Vietnamese refugee in the hierarchy of victimization is profoundly obscene and immoral and belies a deep disdain for the individual. Groups don't suffer; individuals do. Compensation for pain not personally suffered and punishment for pain not personally inflicted is an inversion of Martin Luther King's dream where our sons and daughters are not "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". To that end, affirmative action is a huge failure in eliminating the impositions of race. It is the triumph of racism for not only has it impersonated fairness, its new ability to shift the curse of skin color to a different object of racism has guaranteed its perpetuation.
Thriving upon victimization, affirmative action is a self-destructive fetish that subverts individual sovereignty and institutionalizes the very inequality upon which group identity can only be meaningful. Therefore, the group cannot be but deeply interested in remaining an eternal victim or risk extinction. If self-interest is bad, group-interest is a giant self among giant selves.
A political calculus based upon skin pigmentation that valuates Oprah's daughter (if she has one) above a Vietnamese refugee in the hierarchy of victimization is profoundly obscene and immoral and belies a deep disdain for the individual. Groups don't suffer; individuals do. Compensation for pain not personally suffered and punishment for pain not personally inflicted is an inversion of Martin Luther King's dream where our sons and daughters are not "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". To that end, affirmative action is a huge failure in eliminating the impositions of race. It is the triumph of racism for not only has it impersonated fairness, its new ability to shift the curse of skin color to a different object of racism has guaranteed its perpetuation.
Thriving upon victimization, affirmative action is a self-destructive fetish that subverts individual sovereignty and institutionalizes the very inequality upon which group identity can only be meaningful. Therefore, the group cannot be but deeply interested in remaining an eternal victim or risk extinction. If self-interest is bad, group-interest is a giant self among giant selves.
The Pro-Life Homosexual
It's amazing how we come to be who are in ways that defy what we want to be. I've always had different views, at least, against the views of my childhood time and place.
In high school, we had an informal debate on abortion in my Public Speaking and Argumentation class. My dear friend Sheila and I were probably the only two in the class who were in the affirmative side. The rest of the class, 40 or so, were against. There were no winners and losers as the debate was informal, but in my mind, I was pretty sure we won that debate.
However, in the years after that, my assumptions about my life were rocked at their foundations. I became suicidal and I discovered that I am gay. Perhaps, I was suicidal then because I was gay. Certainly, there were many times later when I wanted to die because I am gay.
Those were the times I realized the fickleness of personhood. Those were the times I was most scared I had become less than human in the eyes of my family and friends. But those too were the times I believed most that I am as human as I have ever been.
That was how I became pro-life. I needed a stable and reliable presumption of personhood, a premise that is secular, self-evident, self-standing, constant and unchanging, and absolutely independent of the whims of any human power. It was no longer enough that we should be human because a benevolent human society confers upon us our humanity. Human law must reflect the ultimate, immovable, eternal truth of our humanity. The presumption of personhood must be a universal principle. It is the only way that homosexuals can claim equality because our personhood does not derive from human law but in the universal presumption of personhood.
In high school, we had an informal debate on abortion in my Public Speaking and Argumentation class. My dear friend Sheila and I were probably the only two in the class who were in the affirmative side. The rest of the class, 40 or so, were against. There were no winners and losers as the debate was informal, but in my mind, I was pretty sure we won that debate.
However, in the years after that, my assumptions about my life were rocked at their foundations. I became suicidal and I discovered that I am gay. Perhaps, I was suicidal then because I was gay. Certainly, there were many times later when I wanted to die because I am gay.
Those were the times I realized the fickleness of personhood. Those were the times I was most scared I had become less than human in the eyes of my family and friends. But those too were the times I believed most that I am as human as I have ever been.
That was how I became pro-life. I needed a stable and reliable presumption of personhood, a premise that is secular, self-evident, self-standing, constant and unchanging, and absolutely independent of the whims of any human power. It was no longer enough that we should be human because a benevolent human society confers upon us our humanity. Human law must reflect the ultimate, immovable, eternal truth of our humanity. The presumption of personhood must be a universal principle. It is the only way that homosexuals can claim equality because our personhood does not derive from human law but in the universal presumption of personhood.
The Pro-Life Feminist
Pro-life working mothers represent a subversive and dangerous threat to the fragile feminist glass ceiling on abortion. Over the years, abortion has successfully developed into an inextricable principle of modern feminism. No other cause commands the same commitment from the modern feminist establishment than abortion nor is there a more unforgiving litmus test for men and women seeking public office than a record of support for this newfound women’s right.
The pro-life working mother is thus a logical contradiction in the current and dominant feminist logic. She is a radical evolution representing a major shift from both traditional motherhood and modern feminism. Conceived in feminism, the working mother is an outward extension of old motherhood into the labor market once previously closed. But the pro-life feminist is also feminism’s unwanted and unintended child, the kind that should have been aborted long ago, but survived into a rebellious black sheep undermining the single, most defining doctrine in modern women's liberation theory.
The success of the women’s movement to remake abortion as a fundamental woman right was accompanied by the marginalization and eventual ouster of pro-life feminists from the movement. Consequently, no pro-life woman has risen from modern feminist ranks because abortion – now redefined and so central to female power - is only central because of the forced absence of the competing power of pro-life women. The established sisterhood has been the most committed and effective obstacle for the achievements of pro-life women in politics particularly because the logical contradiction of female power despite and because of motherhood is a direct and profound invalidation of a crucial and defining interest in the modern strand of feminism.
Pro-life feminism then seems at once an incoherent step, taken simultaneously towards women's future and past as well as the graduation of feminism to a much larger humanism. It is an incoherent step only in so much as this new pro-life feminism is a return to classical feminism that resurrects older insights into human equality that once provided the philosophical inspiration for the early feminists. In so far as the corollary of the abandonment of the newfound woman right to abortion is the introduction of the unborn into the community of persons, pro-life feminism far from restricting women’s freedom, is the expansion of freedom into those previously not free.
Potential is only meaningful within personhood. Women cannot reach their full potential, however great it may be, unless women are first fully recognized as persons. But for the pro-abortion feminist, the denial of abortion rights is a limitation on the personhood of women, as affirmed in the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision stating that " the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." Thus, women can only be fully persons if the unborn may not be, and the unborn may not be only when women have choice over the personhood of the unborn.
On the other hand, for the pro-life feminist the denial of the personhood of women is merely a different manifestation of the same injustice that denies the personhood of the unborn. Thus, women can only be fully persons if the unborn can be too - when the injustice that enslaves them both, enslaves no one anymore . It was this conviction raging in Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton that insipired their fight for women's birth into the world ruled by men declaring, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." The early pro-life feminists like Alice Paul, Victoria Woodhull, and Mary Wollestonecraft, who fought and paved the way for women in politics, ironically, will find no place in politics under the new feminist autocracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
