Saturday, May 16, 2020

Guilty as Charged

I struggle deeply with guilt. It's a fundamental aspect of my being.

I am far from a perfect individual. I have lied, hurt people, centered my feelings in a situation where it did not belong and made a number of embarrassing, problematic and outrageous drunk decisions (along with drunk comments). 

But I do try, especially as I am older, to live a life I can be proud of. I do want my legacy to be one of a person who was kind, thoughtful and caring. 

But one thing I've struggled with my entire time life is dealing with internal feelings of guilt. I accept that I have imposter syndrome. But to make matters worst, I am psychologically more far gone than that!

I believe everyone is talking about me--and planning to expose me for this horrific person I am. And interestingly enough, more often than not, what I am imagining is based on events that did not take place. So I spend a bunch of time worrying about being exposed for actions/words that never happened. I know that sounds "crazy" but its part of my experience with intrusive thoughts.


"People have accused me of being scheming, untrustworthy, mean, rude, stuck-up, and bitchy because they’re put off by my private, cautious, and contemplative nature. “Hot and cold” is another term often used to frame me as someone without the ability to regulate my moods, because others have failed to understand my need for quiet time and personal space after long bouts of social interaction." - Sherronda J. Brown

I, too, am often accused of being scheming and untrustworthy--and this only validates both my imposter syndrome and my intrusive inner dialogues even further. 

If attention is on me, whether positive or negative, its very possible I will turn beet red. I will stammer a bit and I might sound off-track. I tend to look away and feel very shamed and embarrassed. Because of this, I have been accused of lying in situations where I am not lying. I am often told I look and sound like "I got caught". Added to my generally guarded demeanor, it makes plenty of room for people to think I am lying and concealing information.

I'm actually not that great at lying, especially on the spot. Of course I've done it, we all have, sometimes it was for safety, other times to maintain negative peace.

But I have "tells" when I am on the spot. What I am truly experiencing is the awkwardness of being in any "spotlight". I also have a tendency to over-explain, as a result of continuously being accused of being schemey is my mechanism to defend and defend. This only perpetuates more of an attitude toward me that I am lying and concealing. 

Further, I am afraid of making mistakes. I'm afraid of making them because when addressed, I will respond as I described (turning red, stammering, looking away). This means, often times, that my mistakes will be interpreted as something more deviant, and while impact means more than intent, intent can still matter when determining how to approach the mistakes.

I do my best to stay clear of being in any type of conflict or behavior that might lead to me being in the spotlight. Insomuch, I once had a hilarious post get 500 shares and I locked it at that point to stop it. 500 is nothing compared to some of the friends I have with 10s of 1000s of shares. But to me, it was putting me in a digital spotlight. And since (in my nonsensical mind) everyone is planning and talking about me behind my back, the more exposure my digital footprint has, the more ammunition for my ultimate shame and demise.

I could never be a public figure because I could not survive the scrutiny. If I was in the trial of public opinion, my "tells" and awkwardness would surely "expose" me.

So much so that I would probably just not respond. 

Living with this anxiety is frightening and it has led me to devalue and distrust my own position and hold myself far more accountable for any actual lies and mistakes I've made than, I suspect, the average person would.

It can make it difficult to be "convincing" when I am truly telling the truth and my it makes me even more apt to want to hide any actual mistakes or perceptions of possible wrong-doing, to a degree that I start to perpetuate the schemey behavior I am being accused of. 

I struggle with the person who did not know better, who laughed at inappropriate jokes, did not understand emotional or physical boundaries to the same degree. Because I believe I am non-redeemable.

This a tough balance to live considering my ardent beliefs in restorative justice--but we don't live in that society. We live in a "once a criminal, always a criminal" society with a sense of purity politics and irredeemability.

All these pressures, on top of my intrusive thoughts, imposter sydromes and inabiliy to look "truthful" when on the spot make it very difficult to move and navigate through life as an imperfect person, but alas, I must. 

Friday, May 8, 2020

The Life of the Party

Cw: Sexual activity/assault, intoxication

When I was in my early 20's, I learned about partying.

Actually I learned about partying much younger. I was raised in an alcoholic home and as such, I was introduced to chaos and partying very early on. But I digress.

When I was in my early 20's, I went to this party at a close friends house. It was a bunch of people there, mostly 19-24. 

Somehow the way the liquor hit me, I wound up completely nude.

There is no one I hate more than drunk me and how humiliating I am to the more introverted sober me. 

Nonetheless, it happened.

I barely remember the evening.

I do remember somehow going to the community pool and "skinny dipping". I don't know how we got away with that. It's somewhat freeing when you think about it.

My next memory, I had a guy on top of me, performing very rough (with teeth) oral sex on me.

When I say with teeth, I mean with teeth. It took weeks to heal.

I woke up to that.

I never thought of it as a strange experience until years later, when I realized, I had no cognitive say in that action.

Perhaps the highly drunk intoxicated me "wanted it" but that wasn't a cognitive choice.

And that disturbs me.

And to think, the next day I apologized to him about it because I somehow felt guilty and responsible.

I don't know what I intend of making this writing but rather, I just needed to say it. 

Writing heals. 

Regretful Goodbye

As I write this, I am going through this in my memory. I'm writing this because it helps me deal with pain and guilt. I am NOT writing this to vilify myself or my ex-boyfriend. Although I use false name for him in this posting, it may be obvious to anyone who was in my life at the time as to who I am discussing. He and I are on good terms, I've apologized, he's apologized. I was trash at times, so was he. I am only writing this because it helps me close doors that aren't naturally closed. 

I am happily secure in a new relationship. Almost 2.5 years and we share our first apartment together. Everything's fine and the love is flowing! But among this global pandemic that is the coronavirus, there is a ton of time to think...and one thing I thought about is how my last relationship ended and how I have and have not dealt with that.

For the backstory, I met Paul in the very end of 2015 and we wound up spending the New Year together moving into 2016. We were both in our mid-20s and it just seemed to mesh well. Much of it is blurry now--but by January 2016 we were officially boyfriends and then by February I was already professing my love. This isn't surprising because I am historically codependent. Codependent or not though, it was genuine love. I loved Paul with all my being but what I did not do well was balance that love to scale for the reality I was in.

Paul lived with his family and worked nearby them. He did not have a vehicle and his family was 45 minutes from me. Because he had no car, and a low-paying job, I had to make it a point to visit him. A 45 minute drive isn't bad during the honeymoon phase. But when the relationship develops and especially when the codependent feelings form, 45 minutes becomes a problem. To make matters worse, although his family knew he was gay, they didn't like it. They tolerated him but they had no interest in tolerating me and they made that no secret. It eventually became awkward and uncomfortable to be there, so I would drive the 45 minutes to pick him up, take him to my home with my then roommates (and drag family), who were welcoming, even in our own shady way. It did not help that occasionally we would have to make trips back to walk his siberian husky, so as you can imagine, this got frustrating. But I continued to deal with it.

I guess I always figured, and this is codependent thinking, if you do for others, you will eventually get yours.
and I should note, Paul is not a bad guy. He isn't a bad guy now and he wasn't a bad guy then. I have no reason to believe or ever state that he intentionally was causing harm to me. And while I am not blaming myself either, I also did not set the appropriate boundaries, as codependents often don't. As such, this process continued well into the year and a half relationship.

Most of our relationship was good. No, it was great, actually. We had lots of fun together, he was an upcoming performer in the local drag circuit as a male entertainer and I was his number one fan. I was at almost every show. I was gaining traction in activism, to the point of running protests and workshops: he was almost none of those events--despite me having asked him to be.

After eight months, we decided to be poly. By poly, we were monogamous romantically but poly sexually. To explain further, we only "dated" one another but we would have sex with other individuals. It was usually something we did together, either at sex parties or hook-ups, but occasionally we did it separately. We always communicated and it worked out very well. This may sound like the part of this story that leads to the relationships demise but it wasn't. The poly life did not cause us any distress and if anything, brought us together closer for the most part.

In 2017, after the devastation of the Trump win, we all went into a collective depression and the activist life became more stressful and demanding. To make matters worse, tragically in March 2017, my sister-in-law was killed in her home, rendering my older brother a sudden single parent to a 3 year old girl overnight. I felt I had no choice. I left my home and moved into a spare room in his home and I jumped in as a co-parent to my niece. I am still happy I did that. But as you can imagine, this increased my stress and I needed more support than ever from Paul.

But nothing had really changed. I still had to transport him and when I was too tired to do that, I would pay for Lyfts to do it, which adds up quickly. I kept doing it though. Now I was starting to vocalize it.

Paul couldn't keep his income together because he kept losing jobs. A person can get fired, hell, I have been. But in a year and a half together, he went through at least five jobs. It's difficult to believe its unfortunate luck by that point.

I continued to rack up credit card debt helping him out with bills. I remember at one point, I paid over $500 to catch him up and we agreed he would pay me $75 every paycheck until the debt was settled. When it came time for a paycheck he sent me $25 and I demanded the other $50. It was an argument I wish I hadn't had to have because honestly, why couldn't Paul just live to his end of the bargain? He complied, though, and gave me the $50. But it left me feeling very sour.

My birthday in 2017 was not pleasant. By this point, we'd been together a year and three months. He said he was handling it and we went out with a bunch of my friends which was nice. I regretfully, however, paid for my own meal and drinks and Paul's meals and drinks. I also, for some drunken reason, decided to share a video of a sexual nature with someone I used to flirt with (before our relationship). We had exchanged stuff like this before. I suppose I didn't conceptualize it as a problem back then because we were poly but because the person was someone I had some previous emotional connection with, it was naturally uneasy for Paul. He was upset and rightfully. I remember telling him I was very disappointed with being responsible for my own birthday cost and that I was tired of being neglected. I said that wasn't an excuse for crossing that boundary though and I apologized. It wasn't an excuse, it was trashy to do that. It was acting out. There is a reason, for sure, but not an excuse. We worked through that.

Honestly, though, that's when we should have broken up. Doing all this for him, jumping through emotional hoops, financial hoops and all of that and at the very least I should have been able to felt special on my birthday.

But we didn't. Because when I say I loved Paul, I truly loved him and as a codependent I was willing to let that be my detriment. However, the relationship never truly recovered from that night.

In July, things came to a head. I remember I was so in the zone when he came over (via a Lyft funded by me). I wasn't in the mood. I wasn't excited to see him. He was building a Sims family, and I remember it was an imaginary us in the future with a child and a dog. I scoffed at it because I was annoyed how nurturing that was. I went to lay down and we cuddled, which would be for the last time. He had a show that night, I went, as always and I had some wine, as always. The show went amazingly, in my opinion, it was some of his best work.

Somehow, he didn't think so and his anxiety was very high. I had him drive us back to my home in my car. He was complaining about the show and I was trying to use positive and affirming language. He yelled at me. I don't remember what he said but I lost it. I started yelling back and told him to just drive. I was fuming. I was mad. I was already feeling many feelings and I had complained about the lack of emotional attention, the costs adding up of transportation, the lack of secure income, the neglect, the problems so many times. I guess I wasn't interested in what his concern was this night at that point.

We're heading back into my house and I tell him to stay outside that his Lyft will come get him. He was confused but then mentioned his laptop was upstairs, so I told him to "hurry his ass up and get out here, you have 30 seconds." I told him I've set the houses alarm and that the system is connected and monitored & I didn't want any trouble with the alarm company, so hurry up and get out so it doesn't go off. I also did not want it to blare and wake up my niece. He walks outside and I tell him to wait for the Lyft, he said something back, whatever it was, I didn't like it, so I closed the door.

I canceled the Lyft.

It was a petty thing to do. I see from my upstairs window the Lyft arrive. They talk and then I get a Facebook message. See, Paul's phone was off because, well, he didn't pay the bill. But he could Facebook through his laptop. He messages me that the Lyft was cancelled. I told him to pay for his own Lyft because he's a grown ass man. He said he would give me the $50 from the show he had just done. I don't know why he didn't just give the Lyft driver the $50. I refused though because I as being petty intentionally. I'm not proud of that.

I waited, and spoke with a friend on the phone. Maybe 20 minutes pass and I re-order the Lyft. The guilt starting to get to me. I get a text from a "mutual friend" telling me to think rationally and that he doesn't want to see anyone get hurt over fight. I told the friend I re-ordered the Lyft already to which the friend says, "not from what I am being told." I told that friend they can come pick them up if they're so concerned but I ordered the Lyft for this grown man and it's on its way.

In order to not deal with it anymore, I walked outside. Paul looked shaken and upset. He told me he was overheated and that he is sensitive to heat, so he might pass out. It's funny, in a year and half I wasn't aware of that, and he never had a hard-time walking to and from where-ever non-essential errand/friend visit/cigarette run in the midst of a hot summer day, but 3am sitting on a bench outside my door was "overheating". Nonetheless, I went in and got him water. I told him I was sorry and that I was acting out of anger, the Lyft arrived and I saw him off.

I went back inside and cried myself to sleep.

The next morning I messaged him and I apologized again, I said I was unkind and that I acted out of anger. It was then we officially confirmed the relationship was over. He asked me to mail him back a key necklace he had gotten me, which I thought was petty. But whatever, I mailed it back.

I don't regret ending the relationship.

I do regret how I ended the relationship.

Here's the thing. Paul is one of the best human beings to ever cross my life. I loved him. But I acted strictly out of anger. I made him feel unsafe in that moment, even though it was only perceived, and I am certain it was humiliating. It probably was very painful being dejected by someone he (says he) loved and someone who loved him. I know it hurt.

I guess that WAS the point at the time.

I apologized for it then and the day after. I apologized for it again. A week later he asked if we could still be friends, I said yes but we would need to stay back for some time, while we heal. I unfollowed him on my social media.

I did not just fall OUT of love immediately. It doesn't happen like that.

He eventually vaguebooked me claiming I (though I wasn't tagged) wasn't true to my activism because I was going to leave him at risk by "making" him walk from my home in Riverview to Citrus Park. In his post, it was a "good thing my friend stepped in" to prevent that. I'll never forget that. That friend, by the way, texted me about 2-3 minutes AFTER I re-ordered the Lyft. I was under no obligation to pay for an adults Lyft ride. I still believe that today. But I hate that I hurt Paul that way and made him feel unsafe or that I did not care about his safety.

We talked about the not-so-vaguebook post, he said he did not know I re-ordered the Lyft before the friend's unnecessary intervention and apologized for the post. I told him it was fine, of course, but that he was the one who reached out to me to be friends--so we either are friends or you want to trash talk me, it can only be one or the other.

We worked it out.

I still wasn't out of love and I think that's why it bothered me. In fact, I still struggled with it and in 2018, I actually reached out. I did. I said I hadn't stopped feeling those feelings and wanted to try to build a friendship again and see if that goes anywhere, romantically or platonically. He said while he had no resentment and we were good, he felt our friendship was best placed in the digital realm it was at the time, only communicating (seldomly) online. I said I respect that and I went on my way.

Today, we don't really interact. We're still connected on Facebook and it's been almost 3 years since it ended. I have no hard feelings toward him and we've had some good digital conversations since then. I let him know some of the things he's taught me and he's told me some of the wonderful things I taught him.

Paul's presence in my life was a gift--and I hope I was one in his overall.

It ended poorly. And that's where my regret is. If I could do it all over again, I would have not let it got to the point it did. I would have been tender in how I said goodbye. I would have told him everything I think about him but that I needed my boundaries because it was toxic. Not that he was toxic. It was toxic. I wish I had given him the respect he deserved instead of that dramatic, painful and anger-ridden goodbye. But I am human. And that's a reason, not an excuse. I have told him this, if you're wondering. I think he believes me. I think he understands, looking back, as to what happened and why. I'm sure he has acted out of anger and you, the reader, have. It's not about excuses.

This isn't intended for mass consumption nor is it intended for Paul to read. If he did, that would be fine, but I am writing this for my own healing.

I regret the way I said goodbye. I regret that I acted so petty. Because although the love was not meant to be, it was genuine, it was strong and it was passionate. I don't regret loving or knowing Paul.

I only regret the goodbye.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Prohibition: How Racism and Xenophobia Turned America Dry

CONTENT WARNING: Discussion of racial, immigrant and gendered violence, slurs and epithets, outdated language, addiction, violence

When you think of Prohibition, the most common stories told today revolve around women and suffrage. Women who were subjected to the brutality of the working class man, who stopped by a rowdy saloon before coming home and at best, neglecting his family and at worse, completing acts of domestic violence.

These stories are true. Alcohol was the scapegoat to the toxic masculinity and sexism that women faced--and these stories were usually told by white women. 1800's society barely cared about white women and certainly didn't care about any other women. While alcohol caused an array of problems, the actuality was the issue was far more insidious than any substance. Laws at the time gave women virtually no rights. Once she was married, she was her husbands property. At the time, women had almost no rights to divorce, no custodial rights over children and no rights to own property. The 19th amendment hadn't passed yet, until 1919, so women couldn't vote in most states.

This is why Prohibition and Suffrage is often linked. When told in this context, it makes Prohibition almost a glamorize feminist movement, a win for an oppressed underling, hated and disrespected by society.

But Prohibition, like all movements, is far more complex than that.


And like all movements in the United States, one of the most successful driving forces for the cause was xenophobia (hate of immigrants) and racism. These two famous causes tied together Prohibitionists of all political affiliations. Prohibitions who opposed suffrage supported it because xenophobia and racism. White suffragettes were willing to use xenophobia and racism to further push their agenda, almost seamlessly.

Throughout the 1880's, the United States started to see massive changes. Black Americans were theoretically removed from servitude due to the 13th Amendment in 1865. Reconstruction had ignited the racial fears of Americans, mainly in the South but across the country (the "good" North was not in any stretch of the imagination absent racism--and many abolitionists ardently opposed slavery but still supported racism.)

In addition to this, the 1880's saw an influx of Southern European immigrants. These immigrants were very different from the Anglo Saxon normative colonizers the country was designed to support. And now, 100 years after the independence of the United States, the White Anglo Saxon Protestants felt their country that they knowingly and intentionally built just for them was at risk. This is the crux of American xenophobia.

Today, white immigrants are welcomed with open arms, whether Northern or Southern European. Black and brown immigrants from Africa, the Islands, the Middle East, Central America and Latin America are not so well received. Many factors drive these prejudices. Socialism or communism is used as a reason to oppose these immigrants. Sharia Law is used, with a fear of the Muslim religion and "terrorism". Drugs are used, with a fear of cartels and criminals.

This wasn't true in the 1800's. Southern Europeans, such as Ashkenazi Jews, Italians etc. were not welcomed. At the time, Catholicism was the religion of fear--with the Protestant nation claiming it was an assault on the American way of life. Mediterranean culture, Latin languages, non-Protestant beliefs were all non-desirable at the time.

"Their form of Catholicism was also seen as different. All Catholics faced prejudice in America, but in the Mediterranean, faith was blended with other kinds of beliefs, some of them pre-Christian, such as belief in the evil eye, and in good and evil spirits. The Italian Festas — annual public celebrations and parades of the saints — were also glaring novelties at the time."


Irish, also heavily Catholic, were at one time largely discriminated against (but were never slaves--white Americans today try to use anti-Irish sentiments of the past to "justify" why Black Americans need to get over it--and that is never okay.) Nonetheless, 19th Century Irish immigrants faced their own brand of discrimination, mainly due to their Catholic roots.


In the 1890's, New Orleans saw a case of Anti-Italianism involving the death of a Police Chief David Hennessy.  As he died, he allegedly put the blame on the Dagoes, an Anti-Italian slur. Suddenly, the Italian population found themselves at the hands of an angry mob, wanting justice. The population there, specifically Sicilian, was of about 300,000 Italian immigrants. Based on growing animosity towards these Sicilian immigrants, and a widely known feud between two immigrant families, newspapers freely reported that Italians were to blame for this chief's sudden death. Suddenly, hundreds of Italian immigrants were rounded up, even though there was no clear evidence they had anything to do with it, and taken into the jails. Protests began forming around the jail from Anglo Americans, demanding immediate justice. Several were eventually tried for the crime, all of which were not adjudicated guilty.



Known today as the 1891 New Orleans lynching, the eleven defendants were killed extrajudicially by an Anglo mob--and many Sicilian immigrants deflected, abandoning New Orleans. (Some of which came to Tampa, Florida's own Ybor City.)

So wait--what does all this have to do with Prohibition? Well, everything.

Today, we have an understanding of the very racist intentions of the War on Drugs and the Drug Enforcement Agency.  Prohibition was not without anti-Blackness, and although there were Black prohibitionists, there were also white supremacist prohibitions (it was a very complex movement...)

White women and purity was an often discussed intention behind racist and xenophobic laws, especially after the abolition of slavery. Long before abolition, any white woman who was part of the abolition societies was accused of having sexual desires toward Black men--which was considered abhorrent. As such, many anti-abolition minds used the anti-miscegenation mindset as a reason to oppose abolition, for it would surely weaken the pure Anglo bloodline.

When the 13th amendment passed, reconstruction began...and when the federal troops were withdrawn, an uptick in extralegislative and extrajudicial lynchings increased to restore an Anglo white America, or "American values". Popular theories began to emerge, including eugenics. Prohibition was another popular value. The Ku Klux Klan propagandized Black men as "brutes" and insisted that alcohol brought out the beast within him, making him an ardent threat to white women. Racist white women and men, even those who weren't concerned about the women's rights angle, began to support Prohibition for their "safety."



Sound like the War on Drugs--because it is very similar. 



Mary Hunt, a leader in the Women's Christian Temperance Union, similarly said: " “the enormous increase of immigrant population flooding us from the old world, men and women who have brought to our shores and into our politics old world habits and ideas [favorable to alcohol].’ Her writings made frequent references to this “undesirable immigration” and “these immigrant hordes.”


Racism and xenophobia has not come close to ending. While the immigrant we are trained to hate has changed and the way we communicate and codify anti-Blackness looks different and supposedly more discreet, these two tools exist in every movement we have that intends to preserve "American values", the largest example being the War on Drugs.












Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Pink Triangle: Homosexual Victims of the Holocaust Deserve to be Remembered

January 27th is International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The Holocaust was an act of extreme genocide toward Jewish members of German and European society with an intent of perceiving an Aryan culture. While we know in history, Jewish people faced abhorrent violences through death camps, segregation and oppression in Germany and throughout the WWII European land, it is often forgotten or minimized that gay and queer folks (namely men), disabled folks, Black folks, Roma folks and even certain Christian sects like Jehovah's Witness faced horror and death as well. Oppression is never a contest. Where ever it exists, it is abhorrent. Whether it is the mass incarceration and police brutality faced by Black Americans, the killings of transgender Black women, the missing and murder Indigenous women, the Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism throughout the land or the gender pay gap, oppression must be addressed and eradicated at all costs. My saying Black trans women are the most likely to be a victim of a fatal hate crime doesn't negate that I could one day become a victim of a fatal crime. Just as well, Jewish victims were the most likely to be targeted and acknowledging that non-Jewish victims existed and deserve to be acknowledged doesn't change these facts.

I recall being "reemed out" by white Jewish members of a "intersectional feminist" group for declaring that if I had existed and lived in Nazi Germany, it is possible that I, too, would have landed victim in the Holocaust.

Acknowledging other victims doesn't take away from another's victimhood. And to this day, gay victims (pink triangle) of the Holocaust are still misunderstood and unheard about. The individual in the group informed me that non-Jewish gays were not included in these roundups, so I'd have been safe, but that is historically inaccurate. Rest assured, I have no desire to take anyone's place in oppression and the oppression Olympics yield no results that I've seen worthy of writing home about. As such, for this Holocaust Remembrance Day I will center the victims of the Pink Triangle. I can honor these victims, both queer Jews and queer non-Jews who faced victimization within the horrors of the Holocaust and continue to face victimization at the hand of Neo-Nazis today.

And if that makes someone upset, all I can say is "oh well". Hopefully they'll find a Neo-Nazi to take it out on.

Why were non-Jewish gay victims targeted? The theory was even Aryan gays were a threat to the Aryan nation because they would not be able to reproduce, thus threatening the growth of the "pure white bloodline." This theory still exists among Neo-Nazi groups. (And no, the existence of gay Neo-Nazis and white gay Nazi apologists doesn't change that fact.)

Below are some articles about the Pink Triangle and snippets of interest in relation to each article. These articles center specifically gay victims of the Holocaust, which could be Jewish or non-Jewish. It's important to know that other victims existed by virtue of who they were, as referenced above, but they won't be centered in the snippets, they may be referenced in the articles:

The Faces of Auschwitz: Non-Jewish Victims
"Under the Weimar government, centuries-old prohibitions against homosexuality had been overlooked, but this tolerance ended violently when the SA (Storm Troopers) began raiding gay bars in 1933. Homosexual intent became just cause for prosecution. The Nazis arrested German and Austrian male homosexuals—there was no systematic persecution of lesbians—and interned them in concentration camps, where they were forced to wear special yellow armbands and later pink triangles." -Yad Vesham

Jewish Virtual Library
"Because Hitler’s plan for a great Master Race had no room for any homosexuals, many males from all nations, including Germany, were persecuted, tortured and executed. Hitler even searched his own men and found suspected homosexuals that were sent to concentration camps wearing their SS uniforms and medals. The homosexual inmates were forced to wear pink triangles on their clothes so they could be easily recognized and further humiliated inside the camps. Between 5,000 to 15,000 homosexuals died in concentration camps during the Holocaust."-Holocaust Forgotten, Yad Vesham

Pink Triangles and Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals
"Even before it was built, Phillips says, USHMM made a conscious decision to remember all the victims of the Holocaust, a category that includes non-Jewish Poles, Soviet prisoners of war, the disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma and homosexuals in addition to Jews."

"In the eyes of the Nazis, homosexuality weakened the Aryan race, in part because gay men did not contribute to the effort to increase the Aryan birthrate, having "physically withdrawn their 'generative power' from society," reads another panel. They "feared [homosexuality] as an 'infection' that could become an 'epidemic,' particularly among the nation's vulnerable youth." One Nazi diagram, for example, showed the "contagion" moving from one individual to another 28 people by means of "seduction."

"During the Nazi regime, Phillips says, roughly 100,000 men were arrested under section 175, and roughly half of those received prison sentences after appearing in court. Some men were institutionalized in mental hospitals and some, "perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion."

Between 5,000 and 15,000 men were sent to concentration camps, which fell outside the legal system. There, they were made to don pink triangles to identify them as homosexuals. In German camps, where there were few Jews (most Jews were sent to camps in the eastern territories), gay men were at the bottom of the camp hierarchy and other prisoners feared association with them."

"Because homosexuality continued to be criminalized after the war in Germany and elsewhere and even when and where it was not considered criminal, stigma persisted, very few gay victims of Nazi persecution came forward to tell their stories. "That's a large reason why," says Phillips, "we know very little about the gay survivors." -Stav Ziv

The Pink Triangle
"WHEN I WENT to high school in the 1960s in New York City, history classes did not teach us that the Nazis persecuted gays. In fact, I remember being taught that the Nazis were homosexuals. I also remember seeing a U.S. government propaganda film, produced with the facilities of Hollywood during World War II and shown to American moviegoers, that included a description of the Nazis as homosexuals."

"THE EXHIBIT OPENS with a history of section 175 of the criminal code, imposed in 1871, that criminalized homosexual relations by men. (It was never illegal to be a lesbian). After World War I, many gay Germans gravitated to Berlin, where there was a prodigious underground gay community and culture. The most prominent figure of that time was Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld, a gay Jewish sexologist who was founder of the Institute of Sexual Science. The notorious Nazi book-burning of 1933 was started with Hirschfeld’s library and institute."

"The Nazis were concerned with the decreasing German birthrate as well as what they considered un-Aryan behavior of homosexuals. They also believed that while men might not be able to change their behavior, lesbians could still be forced to produce children for the Reich. "

" As the Nazis expanded their territory across Europe and Africa, they did not expand the persecution of gays outside ‘Greater Germany.’ As far as the Nazis were concerned if non-Aryans were homosexual, that meant less procreation for “inferior races.”

" While lesbians were not persecuted per se, they were forced into the closet in order to survive. There is only one known case of a lesbian sent to a concentration camp, and she was a madam in a prostitution ring, so was given the black triangle of the habitual criminal."

"AFTER THE WAR, the Allies repealed many laws promulgated by the Nazis. However, they left the Nazi version of Section 175 on the books in West Germany. So little is known about those persecuted, and so little ephemera exists, primarily because gays were still considered criminals. Some with the pink triangle were not released in 1945 and had to serve the remaining years of their sentence in prison. Most remained closeted for the rest of their lives and never told about their persecution by the Nazis.

AFTER THE WAR, the Allies repealed many laws promulgated by the Nazis. However, they left the Nazi version of Section 175 on the books in West Germany. So little is known about those persecuted, and so little ephemera exists, primarily because gays were still considered criminals. Some with the pink triangle were not released in 1945 and had to serve the remaining years of their sentence in prison. Most remained closeted for the rest of their lives and never told about their persecution by the Nazis."-Jeffrey Kassel









Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony Are Considered Suffragette Heroes: But They Shouldn't Be

Cw racism, xenophobia, discussions of slavery, misogyny and dom viol/second class citizeny for women

Like all movements in the United States, the Women's Suffrage movement is complicated. Also like all movements in the United States, it is extremely whitewashed and sanitized. If Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are who come to your brain when you think of the women's suffrage movement, its important to know that is by design. And full offense, they are over-credited and undeserving of their history's mark because it is well known they were white supremacists.

I once read a thoughtful post on facebook and I regret not taking note of by whom but it was a criticism of us as white Americans and who we chose to honor. While we could chose to honor anti-racists who actively worked to dismantle white supremacy, we instead honor slave-owners like George Washington, abhorrent colonizers and genocidal pillagers like Christopher Columbus and even racist women like Anthony and Cady Stanton. But this isn't because of a lack of better women, including Black and Brown women and white women who at least made their best effort to be anti-racist (none of us who are white are devoid of racism). Yet, to this day, the women's suffrage movement still centers Anthony and Cady Stanton.

In one part, it is probably because ultimately Anthony and Cady Stanton stand for the crux of what America is about: protecting the racial hierarchy. White women were undoubtedly marginalized by the system and this was truer the poorer they were. Bound to the sharp tongue and rule of their husbands, white women were subjected to second-class treatment, unable to vote, unable to own property and could not sign into contracts without a husbands permission. Many women were subjected to remain in marriages, even with horrific domestic violence, which is why the temperance, and later prohibition, movements are so strongly tied to suffrage. (Prohibition is also a complicated movement--and also is whitewashed and sanitized.) Despite this, though, many white women, like Cady Stanton and Anthony, were not so worried about the equity of all--instead, they yearned for their rightful place in a white supremacist society, so they thought, as to be equal to white men. And as long as they were equal to white men, it did not matter to them what happened to Black and Brown women.

But what's important to note is Cady Stanton was born to economic privileges, being the daughter of an attorney and then later the wife of the founder of the Republican party (Henry Stanton), Cady Stanton only saw through the lenses of a wealthy white woman. Very often, Cady Stanton would refer to the struggle of the "educated woman", which she meant to exclude poor white women and Black women, freed or not freed, due to the systemic denial of their access to equal education. Cady Stanton was also quite the writer and completed a six volume History of Women's Suffrage,  co-produced by Anthony, Ida Harper and Matilda Gage.

History of Women's Suffrage is a large part of why Cady Stanton and Anthony, and their colleagues, remain the darlings of the movement. Volumes were released between 1881 to 1922.

These women centered the History of Women's Suffrage around their own work, with an organization known as National Women's Suffrage Association. Founded in May of 1869, the organization came to be after Cady Stanton and Anthony voiced their concerns over the American Equal Rights Association decision to support the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment was, of course, the amendment to the Constitution that enfranchised Black men. Cady Stanton, Anthony and their followers created NWSA, whereas the remaining members created American Woman Suffrage Association.

Cady Stanton does mention the word of AWSA and the women behind it--but only seldomly and not in a fond light--to further paint her and her group as the forefront of the suffrage movement.

Going back to 1866, the American Equal Rights Association was clear to focus, at least in intent, of the struggle faced by Black women, subjected to chattel slavery and discrimination. Frances Ellen Watkins Harper addressed the committee and said: "You white women speak here of rights. I speak of wrongs. I, as a colored woman, have had in this country an education which has made me feel as if I were in the situation of Ishmael, my hand against every man, and every man's hand against me." Harper was clear to address issues that faced someone who was both Black AND woman, a concept we now know as intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). As such, the AERA's intent was to fight for the rights of all Black people, including Black women, as well as the rights of all women, which would include Black women.

However, it was evident Cady Stanton and Anthony were weary of the idea of enfranchising anyone other than themselves. Early on in AERA's founding, they formed committees with a focus on what they said was "universal suffrage" Of course, universal suffrage is great! But it could be easily discerned that their primary intent was the suffrage of educated white women.

All of this came to head in 1867, when the AERA began to support the Fifteenth Amendment. Most of the members had full support behind them but Cady Stanton argued that she would only support it if a Sixteenth Amendment would follow that guaranteed the suffrage of women. She referred to the Fifteenth Amendment was an "aristocracy of sex". In this, we observe that Cady Stanton is unaware of (probably willingly) of her position in society as a wealthy white woman. All of the marginalization's that Cady Stanton faced was faced by Black women as well on top of the additional marginalization's Black women faced for being Black and poor, as most were. Further, Black men faced marginalization's that Cady Stanton would only dream of ever facing. Despite this, they were unwilling to concede on this point and that is when the dramatic shift occurred.

Cady Stanton took her writing to The Revolution with racial and classist language to express her frustrations. She also took to xenophobia when she wrote: "American women of wealth, education, virtue and refinement, if you do not wish the lower orders of Chinese, Africans, Germans and Irish, with their low ideas of womanhood to make laws for you and your daughters ... demand that women too shall be represented in government." Throughout the next couple of years, tension would mount between the members of the AERA.

Then came the alliance of George Francis Train. Train was an entrepreneur and a white supremacist Democrat. Cady Stanton and Anthony were willing to abandon their previously proclaimed beliefs against white supremacy and slavery to receive financial help from Train. Disgusted by this alliance, Lucretia Mott resigned from her post with the AERA in 1868.  (Train was actually a Presidential candidate who had ran against President Lincoln in the election.)

But the climax ultimately came about in May 1869. In May 1869, Cady Stanton and Anthony's officership with the AERA was challenged when Stephon Symonds Foster (whose wife, Abby Kelley Foster is one of my favorite activists on record) stated their dedication to "Educated Suffrage" was at odds with the organizations stance on universal suffrage. Frederick Douglass then chastised Cady Stanton's anti-Black language in her work. At the time, the majority of the AERA agreed that the Fifteenth Amendment was in line with their mission and they supported it.

As such, the AERA saw its ultimate dissolution as the incapability in beliefs could no longer be reconciled. Cady Stantion and Anthony went onward to found the NWSA, where they continued to push for suffrage at a federal level through coded and sometimes direct xenophobic and racist language. Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe and others formed AWSA.

The two groups continued to operate separately until the 1890's.

The AWSA focused more on state-by-state campaigns and was a single-issue campaign, focusing on suffrage, and no other issues. Their efforts were responsible for creating suffrage for women in Wyoming (1869) and Utah (1869).

The AWSA had many prominent members who deserve to be recognized for their suffrage work and who have been left out and ignored by history that continues to yield to Cady Stanton and Anthony as authority's on the work. Also, some women were not part of either group and still deserve recognition.

Black Women Leaders in Suffrage
Abby Kelley Foster

https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/celebrate-womens-suffrage-dont-whitewash-movements-racism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Woman_Suffrage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Woman_Suffrage_Association

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage

https://www.wesleyan.edu/mlk/posters/suffrage.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opinion/sunday/suffrage-movement-racism-black-women.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/04/how-racism-almost-killed-womens-right-vote/

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/06/01/weekend-read-challenging-whitewashed-history-womens-suffrage

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/womens-suffrage-leaders-left-out-black-women













Thursday, November 28, 2019

The Manifestations of Codependency

CW: discussion of mental illness and addiction, racism, sexism, colonization, gentrification, incarceration, etc.

My name is D'Angelo and I am codependent. And there's actually a good chance you are too, at least to some extent, especially if you are part of a marginalized or otherwise displaced community. I should advise that I am not a medical professional and nothing in this document constitutes medical advice.

I argue we live in a codependent society. But when I say codependent--what do you think of? Probably someone (usually a woman) staying in a toxic, unhealthy relationship with a no good man she thinks she can fix. That's a valid image and actually is the root of the term--but it is an oversimplification. [This shouldn't be confused with someone, usually a woman, who is forced to stay in a toxic relationship due to financial or socio-economic restraints--that's another discussion entirely and can exist both with and without psychological codependence.]

Codependency is often described as one-sided relationship, usually involving someone caring for or coddling someone with substance use disorder. Again, valid, but not far enough. However, because there is no medical consensus on codependency, and it is absent from the DSM, there doesn't tend to be common agreement on the terminology.

Fact is, codependent behavior can exist within a variety of different dynamics. I argue that codependency is actually the parent of substance use order. And for that matter, I will argue that substance doesn't necessarily mean intoxicants. Rather, it has a deeper meaning.

Substance is whatever device or devices a codependent uses to fulfill their void. It could be drugs, alcohol, family members, partners, children, careers, volunteer work, pets, money, wealth, fame, celebrity worship, sex, gambling or a combination thereof.

Codependence is described by psychologist Bruce K Alexander as a powerful dedication or devotion to a habit or pursuit that may interfere with one's life.

Does Alexander's description fit in the above substances? Can someone have a powerful dedication or devotion to alcohol which will interfere with one's life? A powerful dedication or devotion to a partner? Their own child? A dog? Their career? The answer is, quite frankly, yes.

According to Alta Mira Recovery, the term codependency was initially created to describe the wives of alcoholics, for their tendency to need to fix their husbands. They state that codependency is born out of dysfunctional family dynamics, mental health or physical health disabilities and/or child abuse.

And when we look at the traits of codependency by Darlene Lancer, JD, MFT, we can see these types of behaviors and feelings in people across the spectrum of substances listed above:

  • Low self-esteem (✓)
  • People pleasing (✓)
  • Poor boundaries  (✓)
  • Reactivity (✓)
  • Caretaking (✓)
  • Control (✓)
  • Dysfunctional communication
  • Obsessions (✓)
  • Dependency (✓)
  • Issues with intimacy (✓)
  • Painful/overwhelming emotions (✓)
(✓) indicates that it is something that I experience. Certainly, you could be codependent and not experience ALL of these symptoms. Additionally, you could be experiencing some of these symptoms and not have codependency. Everything psychological exists on a spectrum--but this opens some guidance to commonalities. For example, caretaking isn't inherently codependent behavior. Sometimes its an obligation due to your relationship (such as a parent) and sometimes its just the humane and decent thing to do. But there are healthy models of caretaking and destructive models--because again, spectrums. 

Now, many of us (although not many enough) have an understanding of how addiction plays into this when it the substance is alcohol or drugs. Sadly, addiction is criminalized deeply and stigmatized and that is rooted deeply in racism. That is important to acknowledge and will become relevant again later during this discussion. 

I like to define codependency into two categories: respectable codependence and non-respectable codependence. Respectable codependence is romantic relationships, parent to child, pets and career. These are considered good things--and our society has a very unhealthy image of what these SHOULD look like, so often dangerous codependence is seen as something to be proud of. (Slight sidebar, but think about the language we use about love: "you are my world', "I need you", "you complete me"....not healthy...but it's in every movie or popular song in one way or another). Nonrespectable codependence is alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex or other "seedy" fixes. Though society will still glamorize them through our media.

Dr. Marie-Line Germain, PhD in Leadership with a Specialization in Human Resources did a fascinating dialogue with Codependency No More. In her discussion, she mentions the lack of information on the subject by the American Psychological Association. She then goes on to talk about the codependent employee and how it is detrimental to all involved. 

Dr. Germain brought forth some incredibly insightful discussion pieces, one of which was the traits of the codependent employee. Seeking approval, low self-esteem, dependency in boss or co-workers, oversensitive to feedback, excessive feelings of being overworked and higher stress levels. These can lead to an inability to not delegate work and, of course, burnout. Have you ever worked with an employee like this? Is this you? It's me.

Have you ever known someone who is "married" to their job? What are some things you see? Let's go back to Lancer's symptoms of codependency. Do these people that are "married" to their jobs seem to have people pleasing elements (people could be their bosses or customers), lack of boundaries (sure I'll stay late on my daughters birthday), caretaking mentality (I'll fix it!), control (never delegates or when they do, nitpick or micromanage), dysfunctional and inconsistent communication (tone is always variant, overcommunicates, IMs you the same thing they just emailed you), obsessive behavior (got to meet the goals!), issues with intimacy (never sees spouse, children or friends...because work) and painful or overwhelming emotions (actual feelings hurt when there is performance feedback, takes issues at work personally). 

Many people whose substance is career suffer with meaningful relationships, if they have them at all. They see friends drop off and their partnerships fail--or suffer greatly. Career codependents may also take to additional substances, like alcohol or drugs, to take the edge of. It will not be uncommon for career codependents to be identified by their job (such as, Carol the Accountant) because there isn't much else known of their identity. 

But can you see Lancer's symptoms in parents? Unfortunately, usually mothers due to the misogynistic gender roles imposed upon the parental roles. This one is complicated, of course, because parenting is a huge responsibility but far too many mothers lose their identity when they become parents. Now they are so-and-so's mom to everyone. Ever met a parent that was a people pleaser with their children--sure, they should want to make their children happy but even with children you have to assert boundaries at SOME point. I know parents who have no boundaries with their ADULT children. That's where both poor boundaries and unhealthy caretaking come in. OF COURSE a parent should be a caretaker of their young children--but when the means are available, a codependent parent might obsessively call Grandma to check in when she's supposed to be on date night or out with the girls--because of her desire to be the caretaker and her feeling of needing to be in control. Ever met a parent that was obsessed with their child? I don't mean like loving their child. I mean their child signs up for activities or wants to go hang out with their friends and there is Dad, going along with them, every time. The parent finds themselves unable to detach in a healthy way--and then when the child finally does break away, the parent obsessively checks in, even when there is no indication of worry. While empty nest syndrome is perfectly natural--it will be particularly detrimental to the codependent parent.

And so on and so forth.


The War on Drugs was started with a clear and evident racist intent, "declared" only six years after the end to legal de jure segregation via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since the declaration, drugs have been criminalized and have impacted black communities across the country at alarming rates, despite the fact that white and black people do drugs at the same rate. Of course, white people have been locked up and criminalized as well, but as Dr. Michelle Alexander explains in her book The New Jim Crow, they are casualties of war rather than the target. While addiction stigmatization (for nonrespectable codependence) exists toward many, it is particularly noticeable that when and if compassion for addiction is ever shown, it i usually toward a cis white person, whereas black people suffering from addiction are considered criminals and lost causes by almost all onlookers, which allows dominant society to remain, in their minds, "better than them."

But is [Bruce] Alexander's assertions that community is a key competent to addiction recovery lie only within the Rat Park? No. Look at Alcoholics Anonymous. While not successful for everyone, it has made an impact, as well as it's sister organizations for other addictions (and for supporting loved ones of addictions, who usually are codependent). Following the 12 steps might have something to do with it, but ultimately, AA brings a sense of community. Community brings a sense of belonging, pride and purpose. The community theory isn't limited to AA. Researchers Jerome and Halkitis (2014) discovered that black gay men suffering from substance abuse tend to perform better in recovery when in support group communities with other black gay men, as it builds not only community but mutual trust. 

But now it's time to dive deeper in Alexander's research "Healing Addiction Through Community". 

Alexander states that addiction is a way that people with unmet needs respond to what is missing or causing trauma within their lives or communities. Alexander also does not limit addiction to intoxicants but rather includes sex, wealth, power, gambling, love, shopping, hoarding, social media, etc. And his belief, as cited earlier, contends that addiction is the powerful dedication or devotion to a habit or pursuit that is damaging to one's life. 

I was interested when I saw Alexander begin by talking about Christopher Columbus, a well-known Genoa born colonizer who lead to the genocide and pillaging in the Americas in his "voyage" from the Crown of Spain. In Alexander's text, he brings up fragmentation of societies. With that, he means the literal destruction of communities through forces such as disease, enslavement, religious indoctrination, economic or resource exploitation and ecosystem destruction. All of these horrific actions tore communities apart violently, and of course, Columbus is only one example of colonizing. As a result of fragmentation, communities experience dislocation, which is  an experience of void or multiple levels of alienation. 

And as such, dislocation leads to an absence of an enduring or sustaining connection between individuals and their families, communities and/or societies.

How truly connected are most people to society? In this capitalism? It's pretty much a rat race to be better than the other with a survival of the fittest attitude.

Now, let's think about fragmentation in a more modern context. The enslavement and trafficking of African people. The war on drugs which took over and destroyed entire communities. Gentrification. The exile and exclusion of gay, bi and lesbian people from society. The further exile of transgender people from both dominant society and the niche gay communities. Even poverty through middle class working lives--with one or both parent working 40+ hours, how can families develop true, sincere bonds, let alone communities?

Alexander states that prolonged dislocation (which I refer to as our individualistic attitudes) undermines the societal bases of belonging, identity, meaning and purpose. This creates an empty and dismal life experience. Think back to AA--a community which has belonging, identity, meaning and purpose. While imperfect, think about the gay scene--belonging, identity, meaning and purpose. Even think about churches--belonging, identity, meaning and purpose. 

Alexander cites several contributors to codependent and by extension addictive behaviors, including intrauterine stress due to overworked and/or underresourced pregnant parents-to-be, lack of attachment and bonding during infancy (common due to parents being required to return to work or go without pay), child abuse or trauma due to fragmented families (divorce, incarcerated parents, poverty, overworked parents, death of a parent), lack of stable housing and lack of community within neighborhoods. Certainly that is not an exhaustive list.

So--how does this relate to codependency? Well, fragmentation leads to dislocation which leads to a void and emptiness. And one's substance can help make someone feel like that void is being filled. So, being the star employee fills the void or being the cool dad. Being the wife that holds the family together. Or drugs, alcohol and party life fill the void. In essence, it creates at least an illusion of belonging, identity, meaning and purpose. 

Not surprisingly though, codependency only leads to further dislocation. And one particularly troubling aspect is how Alexander acknowledges that society knows and understands the true, deeper impact of dislocation. It's seen as unbearable. That is why it exists as a punishment (solitary confinement, excommunication from communities or religion, exile).

I think most people in the United States land somewhere on the codependent spectrum. Some may be less chronic or severe than others but somewhere. The lack of emotional connection and the absence of community makes it almost impossible avoid--and if you exist in a marginalized identity, your likelihood of codependence is even stronger. It is easy to look into marginalized communities and blame them for their plight. Because they stay in bad relationships. They chose to get high or drunk all the time. They chose to this or that. The hard work is examining how this society's ill permeates throughout all of the society--and how we all are impacted by it, directly or indirectly, in our familial relationships, friendships, romantic relationships, careers and our daily lives.