Discrimination and Identity

In many areas, such as laws and job listings, there seems to be an ever-increasing list of things people, government, company, or organization does not discriminate against, such as religion, gender, race, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, etc. And as we find new things to not like about each other, we add to the list, usually with at least some people disagreeing about whether anything new needs to be added.

So, instead, why don't we just say something like "does not discriminate on the basis of identity"? That would cover everything, including things we haven't thought of yet, and I can't really think of a reason why we would need to retain the ability to discriminate against some unforseen future identification.

Sure, there are times when a person's values or perspectives do no align with that of the group that they may potentially join, but that's not so much discrimiation as, say, not fulfilling the requirements of the job. And that would only be if the person actively goes against what is being asked of them, wouldn't it? I've seen a job listing for a reaserch assistant asking for someone with a preference for "conservative feminism." That's not discrimination against actual feminists, is it? I don't think so since it's asking for someone who supports a particular perspective because that's what they're going to be working on. It makes sense to me, just as requiring someone working in a warehouse to be able to lift 50 lbs isn't descrimination because it's something relevant to what they're going to be doing.

Or am I missing something here about why we need to explicitly state what characteristics of identity can not be discriminated against, implying other things can be?

Cartoon Females and Feminism

I often encounter complaints about non-human female cartoon character appearance that focus on one of two features: the “problem” of “nakedness” or lack of clothing on certain female furry anthropomorphic cartoon characters and the stylistic human-like rather than cartoony proportions and body shapes drawn by some artists (cartoony look was first for the characters).

I dislike the argument for clothes on these female cartoon characters and feel conflicted about the overly-human proportions for the same reason: they both are based on sexualizing the female body. The human-like detail on female characters is presumably the artists sexualizing the characters (but this is not unique to the female characters as some of the male characters from the same series have been drawn overly muscled or, at a minimum, with broader shoulders/less-cartoony-oval-shaped bodies, generally corresponding to the exaggerated female form’s use in their art), and it does bother me, although I do usually like the overall look aesthetically. However, complaints about the “inappropriateness” of female cartoon character “nakedness” despite the lack of anatomical details beyond what would be visible through clothes also suggest sexualizing the female body because, when contrast with the accepted lack of clothing on male characters, imply that the female body is inherently sexually inappropriate. Wanting clothing when the non-human character has already been sexualized to me doubles the problem of sexualizing, by simultaneously accepting the “inappropriateness” of the female body by coving it (especially paradoxical when “cover” amounts to a simple recolor) and rejecting the option for a more “appropriate” less-sexy or cartoony body.

To me, insisting that they “cover up” or having a noticeable clothing-level contrast (in either direction) between what is acceptable for male and female characters puts the focus on sexuality or suggests that there is something inappropriate much more so than showing that there is nothing inappropriate about female cartoon characters by leaving them “naked” as their male counterparts are, or, more accurately, with the same range of degrees of clothing.

Not to discount the facts of biology or that most adult males (and arguably many females too) are going to find the female figure sexually attractive. But what I find inappropriate in children’s cartoons is a focus on that type of attractiveness through both exaggerated physical features and personality/behavior, not that an “attractive” female (or male) character exists, because how do you define “sexually attractive”? “Sexualized” figures tend to over-emphasize “sexy” traits such as narrow waists and large hips and breasts on females or broad shoulders and large muscles on males (or, alternatively, perfectly toned muscles on a more slender, athletic body), often combined with attractive facial features and either revealing or fancy clothes, and this I find questionable in children’s entertainment. But this is different from the fact that even a realistic or underemphasized female (or male) figure can be found sexually attractive, even if the character is animated or not intended to be “sexy.” Thus, it seems like trying to cover female characters because someone may find sexually attractive amounts to blaming the reality of a female body for “undesirable” or contextually inappropriate adult feelings that a child likely doesn’t even have. And it doesn’t necessarily “fix” anything because clothing can be “sexy” or inappropriate too, and often are, within the same series, such as skin-tight black leather bodysuits. To me, that double-standard is worse than some artists giving non-human cartoon characters unrealistic-human proportions because it implies not only a responsibility for other’s behaviors, but defectiveness – that there is no "outside of sexuality," and females should be ashamed of their bodies beyond the already invisible/covered anatomical details, while males should not.

To quote Jessica Rabbit, “I’m not bad; I’m just drawn that way.” Maybe, but owning that perception is as much the responsibility of the viewer as it is the artist.

Keep Laws and Morality Separate

Laws and morality are two different things. Morality has a spiritual context, guidelines for how best to exist in the world, how to interact with other people and things around you, rules for person fulfillment and wellbeing, for an existence beyond the physical. Out in the world, morality comes in different forms; different people will follow different moral codes and will disagree about which, if any, are correct, true, best. Morality is internalized and self-enforced; no other person can impose a particular moral code on you, no one but you can enforce what is in your heart.

Laws are external; if you believe in freedom and equality, they are rules that exist to protect you from others and others from you, they establish a balance between the freedoms of the many interacting people in a society. Laws should prohibit murder not because murder is immoral but because it is an assertion of one person’s freedom over another. Laws should not pick a particular moral code and enforce that; if you believe in freedom and equality, governments have no business dictating morality. What if they pick the “wrong” one? What if they pick the “right” one? Laws cannot tell a person what to feel, only morality can. Laws can only specify what to do or not do.

Laws cannot dictate what to believe; doing so only creates insincerity. Laws can be followed without sincere belief in them. Morality cannot. Laws cannot dictate values, but may be influenced by them; morality dictates values. Laws should be minimal to allow for different ways of being, different values; laws should not tell you how to talk to your parents. Morality is all-encompassing; morality does instruct you on how to treat your family, but you’re free not to follow it and accept the consequences instead. Laws come from people and societies trying to find a way to function as a group as a group and protect individuals. Morality can come from many places: religion, introspection, personal experience, nature, logic.

In much of Europe, hate speech and genocide denial are illegal because of the continent’s history with the Holocaust; hate speech is harmful to the survivors of the genocide. In the US, hate speech is mostly protected under the First Amendment. The laws are different because of different societal experiences and needs; mainstream morality on the topics of hate and genocide, however, is likely very similar between the different countries. The laws may change as situations and understandings change, but this is how it should be.

Stream of Thoughts, World Perceptions

Halloween is not a pagan Holiday. Samhain is a Celtic (pagan) holiday, and Halloween incorporates some of those traditions (as Easter and especially Christmas incorporate non-Christian traditions), but Halloween, or All Hallow's Eve, is the eve of All Saint's Day, a Christian holiday since the 700s. Halloween was brought to the US by Christians, not pagans, and is still official recognized by the Catholic Church, the largest religion (not just Christian denomination) in the world, with about 1 billion followers. It's a Christian holiday, even if it's not universally recognized by all Christians. I doubt anyone would argue the various Saint's feast days aren't Christian even if they're rarely celebrated anymore.

For that matter, calling things (religions, holiday, etc) "pagan" really bugs me...I never heard that until I moved to NC. When people call things pagan in the US, they usually really mean Celtic and English/Scottish/Irish traditions. They exaggerate the dichotomy of Christian vs Pagan; that "rivalry" concept doesn't exist for everyone within the US because not all of us share that history. Not everyone in the US has that Brittish heritage (it's a very small island after all), not all of the original colonists even, even if the colonies were controlled by Britain.

Likewise, 100 years ago, I would not have been considered white, even though by today's standards, I don't think there's a person in the US who would even consider I'm anything but white. So what it means to be "white" is just as complex as what it means to be "Asian" or any other race, so please, fellow white people, don't make assumptions about me just because you think I look like you. Back in NY, many people can tell my heritage immidiately and can be just as biased based on that as on race, so it's really all just silly perceptions anyway.

Actually, 100 years ago is when my ancestors first came to the US. That means I'm not a "Yankee" despite what some Southerners insist on calling me. I'm not from New England (NYC is not New England), not a WASP, have no family connection to the Revolutionary War or Civil War, and I don't play baseball, nor am I a candle. So if you simply must be predjudiced towards Yankees, don't take it out on me because I'm not one, and if you're still mad about the Civil War, well, again, don't take that out on me just because my Great-Grandparents all settled in New York.

And for the record, "Northerners" don't think of themselves as such. We identify by city, borough or county or immediate community, state, region (as in New England or Mid-Atlantic or Tri-State area), ethinic group, cultural heritage, political position, generation since immigration (like, I'm a 3rd Generation American by birth), immigration status, religious group, language...lots and lots of things, but almost never "Northerner". See the 2 above paragraphs; many of us have no connection to the Civil War, where that division arose. So don't call me that and don't judge people who's history you know nothing about.

Actually, you shouldn't judge people who do have ancestry from the Civil War either. Whether they were right or wrong, don't take out your hatred of long dead people on their decendants. That's not very nice or fair and isn't going to solve anything or make those living people think any better of you.

And as per the last two paragraphs, people from other parts of the US don't hate Southerners or think any less of them than they do of any of our other fellow Americans. At least, not until they insist on calling us things we're not or hating us for things out of our control. Until that point, we don't grow up with those perceptions of the world, so we can't judge people for those things be cause we don't think of the world and people in it that way.

Everyone has their own cultural biases; the categories we divide up the world into and make judgements on are all different. Don't think your perceptions of reality are universal, don't think everyone eats your foods, or sees religion and spirituality the same way, or has the same biases and preferences, or that there's only one right way to see things and judge others for that (or if there is only one correct "true" way to see things, don't assume you're the one who must be correct; use that for making decision in your own life, not for judging others). If you do, you just end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you're a jerk to someone "preemptively" because of your expectations of where they're from or how you categorize them, they're probably just going to respond by being a jerk back. That's just how most people are if you don't give them a chance and some initial level of respect and decency.

I'm sad that I even need to say any of this, but I've encountered it all to often since 1997 and I want to finally get it off my chest.