Disqus - Latest Comments for rika_p

Re: “I’m for gay rights but…”

rika_p — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:14:42 -0000

Ah, what a great deviation from all the probability and survival analysis I've been doing all week (man, I'm even using common stat words-'deviation'-for my nous! =P). I love social scientists and all the soft parameters that make up their work. Leaves plenty of room for an interesting debate.

Ok, here are some of the thoughts I wanted to address:

I can clarify this even further: Think of the example of the two mutually exclusive events of being male or being female (now, I didn't say 'man' or 'woman' as those are socially constructed, where are 'male' or female' are biologically constructed- and you also have the third category as 'hermaphrodite'- but let's skip this for simplicity's sake). So when you say, "You can't compare being male to a female (or ‘Black to a gay’)" you're implying that we don't have a male female 'thing' (or ‘Black gay folk’). That's RIGHT! We all know that if you're male, you're def not a female (and vice versa) because there’s no overlap btw these two mutually exclusive events. Get it? I just illustrated here how the statement "You can't compare being black to being gay" is treating 'Black' and 'gay' as two mutually exclusive events, and therefore leaving no room for 'Black gay folk' (the overlap).

Now, keep in mind that everything I just wrote above is under the assumption that Dumi meant the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events. If this isn’t what he meant, then I have no idea what logic he’s using…

2. About the statements that read along the lines “we should do away” w/ categories or distinctions (and similarly statements that call us lazy for making such categories/distinctions in the first place): I don’t think these commentators literally mean we should do away with categories/distinctions, but instead mean that we should REDEFINE the current categories/distinctions we have.

This subtle difference (btw “do away” and “redefine”) is important to make because some readers may actually think the process of labeling and categorizing is a bad system. The procedure itself isn’t bad. What’s ‘bad’ is some of the categories/distinctions that have created and put into practice and have infringed upon people’s rights (and, of course, what you label as ‘rights’ here is arbitrary), and it’s these that are disputed (and that the commentators want to ‘do away’ with).

So again, human beings can’t process without categories, but since we’re imperfect and have a great tendency to miscategorize (and therefore give rise to ‘bad’ categories), we should be open to redefining our categories (or recategorizing). :)

And to extend this phenomena to the discussion at hand: At the moment we have a lot of categories- gay rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. And I believe as Dumi is suggesting, these rights are NOT mutually exclusive events, and to think so would be detrimental a group of people! Therefore, he writes when considering ‘gay rights’ we should also think about ‘civil rights.’ (Like the connection we’ve done with ‘women’s rights’ and ‘civil rights’.) I agree. (And thumps up on highlighting the historical note that MLK learned from Gandhi who learned from Bayard Rustin- a Black gay man! WOW. Really??)

3. Mad props to ‘Concerned Reader’ for clearly delineating that it’s more accurate to compare gay rights (concept) to civil right (concept) versus gay rights (concept) to the CRM (movement).

That is, if you’re going to connect a concept to movement, don’t compare the concept directly to the movement, but compare the concept (gay rights) to the concept (civil rights) that UNDERLIES the movement (CRM). This distinction wasn’t clear from the blog, probably because it seems like an obvious thing to Dumi, but not to an amateur like me!

Anyway, good stuff. Now back to stat. =/

Re: “I’m for gay rights but…”

rika_p — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:08:46 -0000

Ok, here are some of the thoughts I wanted to address:

1. When Dumi says, "When someone believes that "you can't compare being black to being gay," it means "you’re implying that we don’t have Black gay folk.""(I believe) he means the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events (God, I'm speaking stat again. Forgive me, though it may act do the trick!) and when you have two mutually exclusive events, there's no overlap btw the two (this is the key part: two mutually exclusive events mean no overlap btw the events), so hence the former statement implies "we don't have any Black gay folk." (ie: no overlap btw the two events ‘black’ and ‘gay’)
I can clarify this even further: Think of the example of the two mutually exclusive events of being male or being female (now, I didn't say 'man' or 'woman' as those are socially constructed, where are 'male' or female' are biologically constructed- and you also have the third category as 'hermaphrodite'- but let's skip this for simplicity's sake). So when you say, "You can't compare being male to a female (or ‘Black to a gay’)" you're implying that we don't have a male female 'thing' (or ‘Black gay folk’). That's RIGHT! We all know that if you're male, you're def not a female (and vice versa) because there’s no overlap btw these two mutually exclusive events. Get it? I just illustrated here how the statement "You can't compare being black to being gay" is treating 'Black' and 'gay' as two mutually exclusive events, and therefore leaving no room for 'Black gay folk' (the overlap).
Now, keep in mind that everything I just wrote above is under the assumption that Dumi meant the former statement implies that being Black and being gay are two mutually exclusive events. If this isn’t what he meant, then I have no idea what logic he’s using…

2. About the statements that read along the lines “we should do away” w/ categories or distinctions (and similarly statements that call us lazy for making such categories/distinctions in the first place): I don’t think these commentators literally mean we should do away with categories/distinctions, but instead mean that we should REDEFINE the current categories/distinctions we have. This subtle difference (btw “do away” and “redefine”) is important to make because some readers may actually think the process of labeling and categorizing is a bad system. The procedure itself isn’t bad. What’s ‘bad’ is some of the categories/distinctions that have created and put into practice and have infringed upon people’s rights (and, of course, what you label as ‘rights’ here is arbitrary), and it’s these that are disputed (and that the commentators want to ‘do away’ with). So again, human beings can’t process without categories, but since we’re imperfect and have a great tendency to miscategorize (and therefore give rise to ‘bad’ categories), we should be open to redefining our categories (or recategorizing). :)
And to extend this phenomena to the discussion at hand: At the moment we have a lot of categories- gay rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. And I believe as Dumi is suggesting, these rights are NOT mutually exclusive events, and to think so would be detrimental a group of people! Therefore, he writes when considering ‘gay rights’ we should also think about ‘civil rights.’ (Like the connection we’ve done with ‘women’s rights’ and ‘civil rights’.) I agree. (And thumps up on highlighting the historical note that MLK learned from Gandhi who learned from Bayard Rustin- a Black gay man! WOW. Really??)

3. Mad props to ‘Concerned Reader’ for clearly delineating that it’s more accurate to compare gay rights (concept) to civil right (concept) versus gay rights (concept) to the CRM (movement). That is, if you’re going to connect a concept to movement, don’t compare the concept directly to the movement, but compare the concept (gay rights) to the concept (civil rights) that UNDERLIES the movement (CRM). This distinction wasn’t clear from the blog, probably because it seems like an obvious thing to Dumi, but not to an amateur like me!

Anyway, good stuff. Now back to stat. =/

Re: 30 Mosques in 30 Days : Day 9: Masjid Aqsa

rika_p — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:25:30 -0000

I love Masid Al-Aqsa! I pray there often as they're pretty sister friendly. :)