some cliche about the battle and the war

I spent all of yesterday in mourning. I had planned on writing a big ol' entry on my work with No on 8, complete with refutations of Yes's arguments. However, I've come up with something much more succinct. That entry is in the works, but right now, I do have a few points to make.

First of all, kudos to the city of Irvine for being, out of all the cities in Orange County, the only to have a majority No on 8. It surprised me almost more than Obama's win surprised me.*

Secondly, I have good reason to assert that voter confusion played a big role in 8's small margin of victory. Many voters to whom I spoke in the educated, white, conservative Huntington Beach neighborhood in which I volunteered on Election Day were confused -- imagine how bad it could have been for voters who are less educated and of lower socio-economic status. So many voters simply follow a voter's guide and do not ever read the actual text of propositions. The information assessed on the part of average voter in making his or her decision about voting usually consists of the number of signs he or she sees, the often inflammatory ads broadcasted on television and radio, and his or her own personal tastes and distastes -- in other words, the situation is utterly appalling. I am not even referring to the twists on truth favored by some of Yes on 8's proponents, I am referring to pure confusion as in what Yes or No on 8 means in the purely legislative sense, which manifests in two ways. Some people think that gay marriage is the change to the California Constitution, whilst in reality, 8 is new legislation that changes the current state of affairs to favor heterosexuals. The other way is that some people were called by deceptive Yes on 8ers who told them to vote Yes on 8 when they responded that they were for gay marriage. Double negatives really are confusing.

Thirdly, the entire point of a constitution is to protect minorities from being handled rough-shod by the tyranny of the majority. A simple vote is not what is required to change it -- there has to be a super-majority as well as approval by the state congress. 8 is being challenged on these legal grounds.

Fourthly, 8 is not a "restoration to traditional marriage" and actually hurts the cause of families. The tradition of marriage, in the vast majority of human society, was founded to ensure paternity in children and to create a system in which to exchange women, who were considered property. Additionally, marriage helped to keep religions stocked with new members, as it was unthinkable to marry outside one's community and religion and thus marriages (in the vast majority of cases) produced people of the same faith as their parents. Marriage has since evolved into a contract between two people and the state, which is why interracial, interreligious, and intercommunity marriage is allowed. Marriage in the United States is a secular affair in which even those without a religion can participate; the only people not allowed are couples who happen to be of the same biological sex. The gay community is often criticized for being promiscuous, flamboyant, juvenile, and rash. Much of this stems from the fact that people who are LGBT do not have the option of a more mainstream lifestyle, i.e. "settling down"; not allowing them to marry essentially forces them into the fringes again.

This brings me to my fifth and final political point. Whether 8 is allowed to be instated or not is almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Something to bring it down can be a proposition for the next election, which gives those on the side of equality time to educate voters as well as simplifies voting (Yes for agreeing with equal rights, No if you disagree). If that fails, well, the fight for rights will never end and will hopefully bleed the intruding Utah Mormon church of the funds on which they pay no taxes (don't even get me started on that). On another topic, We have a Democratic majority congress, which hopefully means that another fight for rights will be more successful. I am referring to equality in hiring (and firing). It's legal in 30 states to fire someone for being gay, and the Human Rights Campaign is actively working to make that history. Additionally, 8 might be found to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits targeting minority groups for discrimination.

Finally, I will breathe in a nice hint of humanity. Whatever those who want legislate based on personal distaste and ancient religious texts do, human nature will win out. Non-hetero people will continue to reproduce and adopt (if not in a marriage if 8 wins) and their kids will turn out to be the strongest sort of Ally -- ones with personal and loving links -- to the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) community. Additionally, those Ally kids will grow up next to kids who are the products of "traditional" marriage, and 10-20% of kids from either background equally will grow up to be LGBT themselves. More and more people are choosing to live out of the closet, and in a manner authentic to themselves instead of conforming to straight-created gay stereotypes. I predict that the day is coming soon where everyone will have a friend, neighbor, loved one, teacher, employer, or coworker who not only is LGBT or the product of an LGBT family, but is "normal" but for that part of their life. Exposure to good role models and examples always helps with such causes that relate to minorities.

So again, that cliche about the battle's outcome versus that of the war. 8 has simply hardened my stance and reactivated my long-dead love of politics and activism. I am planning on working, volunteering, and doing all that I can to promote the recognition of the humanity of non-straight people. Someday, I'll see you in a more tolerant world.

* I'll admit it, I was a complete cynic about Obama's chances until I heard McCain's concession speech. I knew about Obama's presidential aspirations long before the election, but dismissed him because he, like me, is a non-white kid with Muslim-ish origins, a few years of life abroad under his belt, at least one immigrant parent, and a very funny, hard-to-spell-and-pronounce, terrorist-sounding name. Even when pre-election polls showed him in the lead, I believed in the Bradley effect and was sure that people's secret racism would come out in the privacy of the voting booth. I was, mercifully, quite wrong. I suppose that I quite underestimate my fellow Americans sometimes.

Horrifying Stereotypes Ideas

This entry is not for actual analysis, it's a list with a function. If you do not know that function, i.e. you didn't land here for that reason, well then, you are not meant to know, and you must accept that.

Stereotypes that have already been "called" (that doesn't mean you can't do it, but try to think of something else):
- a Frenchman from the early 50s (hyper cheeseball style)
- hippy/flower child
- backwards Muslim/Arab woman
- over-the-top metalhead
- wannabe goth
- skinhead
- dumb blonde (not technically taken, but you know someone is coming as that)

Stereotype Ideas:
- Catholic schoolgirl = little skirt, big cross wedged in between breasts pushed up by unbuttoned blouse, socks, "cute" shoes, acting sweetly and yet naughtily
- that Christian girl that comes on campus = conservative clothing, Bible, proselytizing
- Frenchwoman = dressed immaculately and in black, beret, cigarette in holder, nihilistic and cynical attitude
- academic nerd = big backpack loaded with books, glasses that constantly need adjusting, use of only big words
- geek, Internet version = Mountain Dew, Twinkies, unkempt look, obscure reference on t-shirt, sloppy, socially inept yet obviously horny
- geek, super version = snorting noises, D&D, Magic cards, acts as if in a fantasy film or video game
- emo kid = depressed, scars on wrists, hair over face, glasses, whining, Chuck Taylors, skinny jeans
- grunge kid = flannel, apathy, long nasty hair, muttering, Chuck Taylors, love of Nirvana/worship of Kurt Cobain
- over-trendy Japanese = weird-colored hair streaks, liquid eyeliner, absolutely ludicrous and costume-like clothing
- delicate Asian flower = sweet and feminine demeanor, very conservative but girly clothing, lots of giggling, clutching at a stuffed animal
- wannabe G = bling, grillz, hos, 40s, rimz, misogyny, etc.
- wannabe rapper = old school baggy clothes, athletic wear, pretentiously expensive sneakers, talks constantly in rhythm and thyme
- uber-Feminazi = mannish clothing, solid shoes, loud and rough-sounding voice, hatred towards all men and males, disdain for sexually liberated women
- fraternity guy = loud, raucous, beer-drinking, hits on all "hot" women, annoying, douchey
- sorority chick = slutty, fake, pretends to like everyone, overly "spirited" about school/her particular affiliation

You get the idea. And if you get a brilliant one you are not going to use, comment if you have an account or email me if you don't.

and, with the promise of updating

Movie Reviews

I made a video!

It's my first one ever, so be nice. Or send it to people mockingly, so that my viewcount goes up, either works.

the slope really isn't so slippery

Ah, election time approaches. A time for Indecision and Decision, youth activism, and feelings of importance (rather unwarranted) mingled with despair at the futility of it all (more on-target).

This is the most wonderful time of the four-year span for logicians. I am not a logician, but I love advocating for logic. People hate me for always wanting a reason, but even more so for constantly asking, "What exactly do you mean by that?" which is the main weapon for a student of philosophy.

This brings me to the fallacy I hear most and which I consider the most ridiculous: the slippery slope.

The main context in which it is used against me in an argument is in regards to my secular tendencies. The claim is that without religion, there would be no morality, and the world would degenerate into anarchy. One problem with that is that the theist definition of morality and what morals are most important is usually quite different from the construction of humanist morality. The Ten Commandments are a great example, since all of the Commandments are considered highly important.

1) I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5) Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So, essentially, the Judeo-Christian theist perspective is that worshiping something besides the Hebrew God, creating art that depicts living creatures, cursing, working on Sunday, dishonoring your parents, murdering, cheating on a spouse, stealing, lying, and being jealous are all on the same plane of badness. Leaving aside the fact that most Christians violate at least one of these, I really can't believe that worshiping a non Judeo-Christian god, creating art, cursing, working on Sunday, or thinking jealous thoughts are truly crimes. Besides, how would the last one be regulated? Additionally, I don't think that adultery and murder are really on the same plane of evil, and American law is on my side, as adultery cannot be prosecuted.

More simply stated: the vast majority of the world's population claims to be religious, and yet not only does man-made evil exist, but certain reprehensible acts are committed using religion as a justification. Secularism only causes immorality if you define immorality via dogmatic instead of rational means.

Another example of the slippery-slope model is one argument that has been adapted by homophobes. Some claim that without religious injunctions against homosexuality, the human race would die out because everyone would "turn gay" and would no longer participate in procreative sex acts. Three simple facts call this assertion into question: the world is overpopulated as it is, modern heterosexuals can live non-procreative yet sexually fulfilled lives, and some LGBTQ community members engage in occasional procreative acts (or turn to artificial insemination) in order to have children. The funniest part of such an argument, to me, is that it would suggest that every person, or at least a majority of people, would "turn gay" if loosed from religious bonds. I love asking people who use this argument if they would "turn gay" if they weren't religious, as they tend to flounder or avoid the question with a great measure of awkwardness.

Some more slippery slopes that aren't accurate:
- Having sex at a young age leads to other socially deviant behavior.
- Marijuana use necessarily leads to the use of harder and harder drugs.
- Legalizing euthanasia would lead to the disenfranchised seeking out death.

BS Factor:
The steepest street in the world (Baldwin Street, Dunedin, New Zealand)

It has a grade of 35%. Impressive, no?

why Bollywood doesn't suck.... much

As I mentioned in my previous entry, I'd recently seen the Indian movie called Fanaa, and it sparked a lot of thought re Bollywood in my mind.

I watched the movie with some people, and one of them was displeased with the film for a number of reasons, reasons with which I agreed in the past and have by no means ceased to comprehend. I will describe her main three reasons.

Firstly, the portrayal of Muslims in the film is distasteful. All the main characters are Muslim, including the protagonist, who has sex with the hero (whom she has known for but three days) in a night of agreed-upon no-string-attached frolicking before they decide to marry, and the father of the protagonist, who falls into alcohol as a cure for his grief after his wife dies. Such portrayals are propaganda that normalize such un-Islamic behaviors as premarital sex and the consumption of alcohol.

Secondly, the signature song of the movie utilizes the Islamic phrase "Subhanallah", which can be translated as "Exalted is Allah." To hear a phrase used to worship reduced to what can be essentially described as a pick-up line is jarring to the Muslim ear and mind.

Thirdly, the melodramatic plot-line of the movie is utterly unrealistic. They fall in love, have sex, and decide to marry within the span of a few days. The next day, she gets eye surgery whilst he carries out a terrorist attack (which is not portrayed as a Muslim thing, thankfully, but a Kashmiri freedom fighter affair). Seven years later, he just happens to get injured close to her house. The implausibility causes unrealistic expectations.

All of these are valid concerns, and I have shared some of them and still do.

As for the first, i.e. the portrayal of Muslims, it is true that seeing things in movies does tend to desensitize people to them. I'm not sure, however, if a film like Fanaa could be counted as "propaganda," as that word is defined by Merriam-Webster as such

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Definition 1 is easy to dismiss, and the third is a very political definition. #2 is probably the definition used in the criticism, with the damaged party being Muslims. Viewed in a vacuum, the movie could be seen as deliberately designed to hurt the image of Muslims and Islam. However, viewed in the broader context of Bollywood, it follows a formula in which are inserted Hindus (and, to a lesser degree, Parsis and Christians) as well as Muslims. Of course, Muslims are a minority in India, and thus more prone to stereotyping.

As for the portrayal of pre-marital sex, it might not be so disparate from reality as many Desis would like to believe, as Nita J. Kulkarni blogs.

No matter how much parents rave and rant about the evils of western influences, and the decline of Indian culture, the facts are that the desire to interact and romance the opposite sex is natural and has always existed in India! By denying the existence of such natural feelings parents are alienating their children. In fact I did not include an interview due to a lack of space, that of an eighty year old gentleman. He told me that too much fuss was being made about premarital sex. It was not a modern affliction, he said, it existed in his day and age too. He lost his virginity at age 17 he said, several years before marraige and it wasn’t with a prostitute. This was the first time he was confessing it to anyone though. The only change now (he told me) is that sex has been dragged out into the open and youngsters do not pretend its wrong. This is a good thing according to him because it could be the beginning of the end of hypocrisy.

What the old man calls hypocrisy is, actually, so embedded in the Desi community (including the Desi diaspora of which I am a part), especially the Muslim Desi community, that a young Pakistani who drunkenly murdered a white man in 2005 actually said, in reference to drinking and being a in a premarital romantic relationship, that "In our religion you don't tell your parents. They might get upset." He didn't say that drinking and romance prior to marriage were forbidden in the religion, he said that talking about it was forbidden. This, to me, represents the embedded gag order under which Desis, especially Muslims, live. Taking the dichotomy of appearance (i.e. "we don't talk about that") vs. reality into consideration, the criticism is a poignant example of cultural synecdoche.

Alcohol is perhaps even more stigmatized than sex, but even that is changing. The consumption of alcohol by young Muslims is called a plague here, and yet the stigma is still real, as Austin Cline details in several interviews with young Muslims.

The second criticism, that of the use of Islamic phrases in Bollywood soundtracks, is not an easy one to tackle. I've heard other Indian songs use the word "Allah" and found it jarring. Theologically speaking, it's irreverent, but I know of no one who regularly watches Indian movies who cares. It could simply be a desensitization on their part, or a lack of exposure to Bollywood on mine. In any case, my knowledge of Hindi is not enough to know whether or not Islamic Arabic phrases are used in day-to-day life in a manner to which I am not accustomed.

The third criticism is easily answered via a quick glance at Bollywood. All the movies are ludicrous and over-the-top. Every single movie is a romance or is romantic in nature in a society in which most of marriage is arranged (more than 95% according to this, and 80-90% according to this). Bollywood films are intended to be romps in escapism more than a realistic depiction of reality.

In the end, no matter how much I might dislike Bollywood, there is a flip side of the story. Even though media portrayals might deride true feminism, there was a movie that sent an empowering message for women, and Indian soap operas seem to help rural Indian women develop more feminist attitudes. India's feminist scene is also quite vibrant, with groups such as the Gulabi Gang taking matters into their own hands. I suppose that since Bollywood is here to stay, even "haters" like me would better serve others by offering constructive criticism instead of hoping that Bollywood stops making movies, or completely revamps everything.

BS Factor:
The number of bangles I own...

I'll admit it, I imagine myself as graceful as some of the Bollywood actresses when I wear Desi clothes. Also, this is an old picture. I own a lot more bangles now.

why Bollywood does suck

Last weekend, I watched a Bollywood movie (this one is called Fanaa) for the first time in four years or so. The last movie I'd seen before that was Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, during the summer in which I spent a month in London with relatives. Not only did I fall asleep three quarters of the way through it, I only saw the part of it I did because I was resting in the room in which the other girls were watching television. The last movie I'd seen before that was probably sometime during early childhood.

So, it goes without saying that I am not exactly a big fan of Bollywood movies.

Firstly, they're all inevitably musicals. I hadn't developed an enjoyment of Western musicals until my senior year of high school, and then I quickly tired of the clichés of musical theatre. I do like some musicals now, but I'm quite picky as to the ones I'll sit through with any measure of enjoyment. Bollywood musicals are even worse than Western ones as far as clichés go. For example, each song must include scene shifts that incorporate the Swiss Alps (although that might presumably be due to the fact that the Alps are less troubled than the similar-looking Kashmir), many outfit changes, and endless posing, culminating with what a friend of mine once dubbed the infamous "affectionate hug:" where a Hollywood film would put a kiss between the leads, Bollywood uses its supposedly-chaster substitute. At least in Fanaa, the movie was set in Kashmir, so the gorgeous setting (if actually the Tatra Mountains, not Kashmir itself) was justified plot-wise.

The hug brings me to my second point: the seemingly arbitrary censorship of sexuality in the films. Fanaa's pivotal love scene involves a lascivious (no other word will do) dance in the rain, followed by a scene where the hero and heroine kiss each other all over the neck and shoulders and then are seen lying in bed together. It's obvious what has happened, especially considering the fact that they essentially agree to no-strings-attached love in the scene before and they agree to marry in the scenes to come (not to mention the kid she has later on, but that's not the point). Aside from the very sexy dancing that occurs in Bollywood films, the costuming is quite sultry as well. Fanaa's heroine is a blind Muslim girl and so is usually quite conservatively attired, but in other movies, skimpy attire is often the rule rather than the exception. Here's the kicker: kisses on the lips are not considered "decent" and so are almost banned from Indian cinema. So, writhing around in revealing little outfits is OK, but not even a brief liplock is allowed (of course, all this is changing)? Mmkay.

Thirdly, in spite of the implicit (if flexible) ban on displays of consensual affection, the thwarted rape scene is a standard of Bollywood cinema. It goes something like this: a girl is nearly raped by the villain and is saved by some male hero bursting in. She usually falls in love with the man who saves her. A woman screaming for help as she is about to be violated by a mustachioed man leering over her nubile form isn't obscene, but a kiss between two happy people in love is?

I'm sorry, I was puking a bit there. Onward, since I think the point is made.

Stereotyping is the fourth reason I dislike Bollywood films. Hollywood does this too, but in the flat fantasy world of Bollywood films, it seems more heavy-handed somehow. Suketu Mehta writes in his article:

Growing up in Bombay with the movies, I had come to understand Muslims as lovable, Christian girls as flirtatious, Sikhs as loyally martial, Parsis as endearingly cracked. The movies trafficked in broad stereotypes, but they were, for the most part, good-natured stereotypes.

As many a sociologist has pointed out, even a "good" stereotype is actually bad. The harm in stereotyping is not so much that it casts a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or other group in bad light, but in that a stereotype is an over-generalization that can be true or untrue depending on the individual. Additionally, the descriptions that Mehta describes are all of minority groups within India; the majority group in India in general is Hindu. Thus, Hindus are cast as the norm whereas minorities have labels thrust upon them, similar to the way in which white heterosexual maleness is the norm in Hollywood against which all difference and deviance is measured. Fanaa, for all its flaws, doesn't seem to do this much. The demureness of the heroine is more attributable to her blindness and sweet nature than to her religion, and, oddly enough, her father is portrayed as a drunk (or at least a drinker) in the latter half of the movie.

Fifthly, the sexism inherent in the Bollywood film industry is unsettling to me. Siliconeer put it very well back in 2001:

Bollywood is nothing if not sexist. Male stars can grow old but can still cavort with adolescent nymphets, but just let a female star get married and tongues are wagging. Some wonderful female stars have managed to buck this double standard with the sheer heft of their talent—Dimple and Rekha, for instance, but the double standard is well and truly alive.

Shahrukh Khan, an actor who's been in the industry as long as I've been alive, still gets cast as the "hero" in recent films, whereas older women in Bollywood (as in over twenty five) are left, as this blogger says, "playing elder sisters or spinster aunts, relegated to the background where younger (but talentless) leads steal the limelight. Roles for women are much better now than they were a decade ago, but sexism and marginalization still exist." It's a reflection of unfortunate reality: women are valued in Desi society mainly for their beauty and youth prior to marriage, since such attractiveness leads to marriage and motherhood (i.e. further propagation of the culture).

Last, but not least, I dislike the sheer predictability of the movies. Their plotlines are as follows, according to this Facebook group:

1. "I want to hook up with this girl but she's rich and I'm poor and our families hate each other."
2. "I want to hook up with this girl but she's Muslim and I'm Hindu and our families hate each other."
3. "I want to hook up with this girl but she's already in love with my best friend."

Pretty accurate, if you ask me.

BS Factor:
All the back-up dancers that no one ever sees again (pretend Aishwarya Rai isn't there)


Coming soon: a response to a conservative Muslim's criticism of Fanaa and, by extension, other Bollywood portrayals of Muslims or why Bollywood doesn't suck