Mar. 12th, 2017

elfs: (Default)
Last night I attended a pro-am dance exhibition, part of a fundraiser for a homeless shelter in our state capitol, and as I watched the young men on stage, many of whom hoped someday to dance for a living, I saw a phenomenon that I don't think I'd ever actually seen in the wild before. The further one of the men was from white or male, the more he allowed his face to express emotion.

The sample group was small, less than a dozen, with seven of them white. The white guys were positively stone-faced, only allowing themselves the briefest hints of triumph at the end of their performances.

The five darker-skinned guys were alive with emotion. Even in their complicated routines, they remembered that they were there to show the audience something. They smiled, they laughed, they were positively joyful in the face of a very friendly crowd.

This morning, I read an article in the Boston Globe about how the real threat of middle aged men isn't drinking or obesity, it's loneliness. One of my friends pointed out that the article highlights the line, "... until your wife gets all the friends in the divorce" and said, "That's because they let their wife do all the emotional labor of maintaining friendships. Without a wife, they don't know how to do it."

But what struck me about the article, and this may be an artifact of last night, is how white the article is. The illustrations are about white guys; the activities described are the stereotypes of white guy bonding activities (baseball, not basketball), the lifestyle described is the whitest one you could possibly imagine.

The training to be reserved, to repress any hint of emotion, comes early for white guys. Maybe they're terrified, in this era where we've fought to acknowledge the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, that any such expression might lead to, you know, that. We've somehow created a culture where being reserved and unemotional is privileged. They get to treat the fact that they're at the top of the food chain, the ones who don't have to express themselves loudly or forcefully or emotionally to get what they want. I'm reminded of the critique that there is no such thing as "white culture"; it's simply a marker for a position of power and privilege, and exists for no reason other than to preserve and defend it.

The young white men I saw last night aren't being taught how to express themselves, how to communicate their pleasure to an audience, perhaps even how to communicate their pleasure to themselves. They seemed to be onstage mostly to express their mastery of the subject. It's rather too sad that they didn't succeed.
elfs: (Default)
I hate tweetstorms. I'm too wordy for it. So let me expand on this:

Rothman's contention is that, somehow, the Democrats have managed to coerce the GOP into a situation where the latter cannot admit that it's real, "principled" stance is that the goverment cannot and should not provide universal health care.

Let's consider the argument against "cannot" as a given. Arguing out of ignorance is no excuse.

The "should not" is different. In 1986, Reagan pushed for, and Congress passed, The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). It did this not out of love for America's citizens, but out of shame. As cable news spread, a spate of news articles throughout Reagan's administration highlighted a phenomenon that had only once been a local issue: people dying in hospital parking lots, unable to pay. White people. White women giving birth in the back of cars in hospital parking lots, and then dying of completely treatable complications. The EMTALA exists because it was shameful to see in this, the greatest nation on Earth, the wealthiest nation on Earth, our ordinary citizens dying with an "Emergency Room" sign in the background.

The problem the GOP has is that, if they took Rothman at his word, we'd go back to that. We'd go back to people dying in hospital parking lots. Instead, what we have now is a weird, artificial distinction between acute and chronic conditions. Right now, they're perfectly happy to let people die where no camera is watching.

We have cameras everywhere. People are still dying of completely treatable causes, and now they're taking selfies of themselves as it happens.

Rothman's case is an absolute one: America should embrace the vision of people dying in parking lots as a sign of America's real moral value: If you're not rich, or can't demonstrate an ongoing return on investment to the rich, you may as well just die.

I really don't understand why the GOP can't just come out and say that.

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 13th, 2026 10:13 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios