This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - closetrightyNYC
Why am I so paranoid about turning my Christmas music up so high so that i'll offend my yamulka-donning Jewish neighbors? Not keep them awake, not disturb them, but OFFEND. They havent' said anything, but the mere fact that I'm paranoid about this stuff indicates I've had far more than my share of liberalism for a lifetime....I mean geez if he played the dreidel song at volume 20 I wouldn't care.....provided I wasn't sleeping or studying...ARGH!
The school I work at is mostly Hispanic and therefore Catholic. Nobody has their panties in a wad about this stuff. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105744,00.html
Hope Amber hasn't already posted this, as she's the one who showed it to me.
More musings from my internship. I co-lead a mother support group that is in Spanish. My co-leader has Spanish as her first language, as do the moms that attend. And even though I understand Spanish fairly well and am working on speaking it well, I feel completely tongue-tied in the group. My co-leader confronted me on it yesterday, and after some thinking, I think I figured out why.
I volunteered for the group thinking that it would help my Spanish and also help me understand more about the problems facing these moms' kids (aka, my clients). Within a few days I felt uncomfortable being there, and I said so. I was essentially guilt-tripped by my supervisor and coleader for wanting out, being told that "You represent the oppressive society that doesn't appreciate them. By dropping out you tell Latina women that you collude with that larger society. By staying, you represent a part of white society that understands them, and show that you don't collude with the prejudiced majority."
In other words, I was invited (no, coerced) to co-lead this group not to allow me to learn (I am after all a student) how groups work, not to practice Spanish as I was initially told, but to help put down the society I was raised in and show them my inner socialist. Show them that yes, I realize how oppressed they are and how they lack opportunities, and that i will rally behind them all the way as they live on welfare and choose not to become documented immigrants. But of course, I'm also supposed to represent the good feminist American society that "empowers" them against their patriarchal Mexican husbands.
I find it hard to lead a group that forces me to rally around ideals I don't believe in. I don't believe these women are oppressed; in fact, I feel that I'd like to see each and every one of them enrolled in E.S.L. classes and looking for work. I want them to celebrate the complementary gender roles of Mexican society rather than throwing them off for the Gloria Steinem part of America. Granted, if one of them is being hit by her husband or something, then that is an issue, but that is not the case for most of them.
So when I do speak up in this group, I'm usually puppeting the liberal values I'm supposed to support as the American hippie I'm representing to them, and saying "Yes, I understand, I hate Bush's system and what it does to you, and I hate your husbands for holding you down, so become an American liberal feminist and celebrate."
for example, last session, one lady was saying how she suspected her husband was having an affair. Now, that is a problem. But the group leacder pulled me in to talk about how in American society, it would be acceptable for the woman to cheat right back, and how it happens everywhere and cheating is accepted here in the U.S. She asked what, as a White American, I would do if my husband cheated, and I think was sorely disappointed when I replied that I would be pissed off and probably leave, as opposed to finding my own guy-on-the-side and celebrating my sexuality. The lady also wanted me to say that here in America, sex and love are not linked the way they are in Latin America, and that is' perfectly okay for this suspicious woman to find a guy just to have a sex thing with, while staying married to her husband. But see for me, sex and love ARE intertwined--Sorry I can't be the "American liberated slut" the co-leader wants me to represent.
In all, the result is that I'm fairly quiet, and the co-leader doesn't understand why. Yesterday I got a lecture about how I seem to be "In another world, thinking about other things, and how all my clients can sense that I don't pay attention." (Typical left-wing personal jab--I do pay attention, and "everybody" doesn't care either way, just her). I have made it very clear to this woman that I'm uncomfortable in the group, but I don't feel right coming out and saying that I just simply don't want to pull Latina women in traditional families into the American feminazi welfare state way.
I have a feeling that if I try to withdraw from that group, I'll be labeled a racist (Typical left-wing personal jab again--Coerce you into doing things by guilt trips and manipulation). But this will mean staying tongue-tied each week until May, and constantly being reported for "not paying attention on the job." What a dilemma. Damn.
I was looking at the roster of kids who are enrolled in the mental health program at which I am interning. The program also happens to be located in a public school.
The roster's listing is under "PARENT'S" name, not "PARENTS' NAMES," and I've noticed that even in cases wehre the parents are married and the father very much involved in the family, that the mother's name is the only one listed and she is almost always the one called. My supervisor even uses the automatic phrase "Call the mother," even in cases where no mother is even involved. There is this basic assumption that each family is single-parent, probably to avoid the "ever-offensive" assumption that the family's intact. And, since mostof the kids are Black and Latino, it only perpetuates the stereotype that most Black and Latino families are broken or single-parent, when in MANY of these cases, this is not true.
I believe the school directory is also listed under the mother's name only, or under "primary and co-parents," so the father is listed as kind of alternate contact.
I just found this an interesting observation. It parallel's Dr. Laura's observation in one of her books about baby shower registries, which again, are listed under "Mother" and "Other Party," instead of Mr. and Mrs. So and So. This is true EVEN when Mr. and Mrs. So and So want to be listed as such--the stores say no, mom's name only.
When my kids get to school age, provided we don't just send them to private to avoid all the public-school socialism, I want my husband and me to be listed together as the child's parents. I don't want to be listed under my maiden name, called "Ms. So and So," or treated like the "primary caregiver" at his expense. I want my child's teachers to call our home, not my cell phone, and if there are any issues, we will both come in. And I KNOW a lot of my client families feel this way too.
Why don't public schools and service agencies realize this?
I'm getting married in June. We got engaged fairly quickly last year--6 months--but that was after a good year of "shopping around" (miserable) for me, and a 4-year serious relationship before that. For him, he had plenty of time to play the field and was entitled to find the right one.'
My sister is a feminist socialist, as I've written before. With the first guy I dated (who was a jerk, but...), she immediately picked up on the fact that he was somehow "sexist" and that I seemed to be changing myself to be with him. Now, I'll admit that I did change a bit too much to be with him, and I got out of that 4-year relationship because he started treating me like crap. But the point is, her argument was that a) he oppressed me, b) I was committing too early to someone, and c) that I was changing so he'd like me.
So, I got out of that, and sister suggested that I "play the field" for awhile before settling down. She wanted me to be "happy," so she claimed. So I did--dated around a bit, took a small taste of the hookup scene feminists love so much (and hated it). sister complained then because the guys were "using me," and I needed to find someone who respected me for who I was instead of just using me for one thing. After about a year of playing the field (not sleeping around, but dating around), I finally found the guy I consider to be my best friend.
When I first got engaged to him, my sister had a fit. She complained that I hadn't had the requisite amount of time to "date around" and hook up, and that even though he made me happy, it wasn't the right time (I thought she was upset at the guys who were "using me??). And even though she doesn't write me very often, she does talk to our mom, who informs me that Sis is now worried about me because "I'm changing for a guy again--becoming so COMFORTABLE and HAPPY" when I wasn't before. Not changing my personality or "wear your hair just for him," but now she's having a problem with the fact that I've met someone who makes me comfortable in who I am--as a conservative, as a lady (not a feminazi), as a non-feminist, and so forth. Someone who doesn't challenge me to be a liberal feminist.
this seems to be the opposite of her original complaint. The first guy was a problem because he "oppressed me" and didn't make me happy. All fine and dandy,l and I agree. The dating around scene was a problem because they were "using me." Again, I agree. Sis claimed she wanted someone to "make me happy," which I did--and she STILL HAS A FIT. Why? Because I've become a different (happier) person thanks to a man, rather than forcing him to mould himself to what I want (Her husband totally changed for her, including becoming a Democrat after 22 years, and rejecting the Catholic faith. Apparently that's fine).
It's also not the "equal" relationship that she claimed to want for me either, because she seems to think it's okay for me to totally control him, but anything I do to accommodate him is a grave sin.
So it seems that a feminist's idea of a "happy" relatoniship is one in which she totally controls him, forces him to change, and refuses to accommodate to any of his ways. All the stuff about being happy, searching for equality, or not getting used, or whatever, is a nice smokescreen that covers up the bottom line: "If you can't be a henpecking bitch, then it can't be a good relationship."
My fiance went to a harrassment training workshop for his job. They were shown a video demonstrating what constitutes "harrassment" and what does not.
One scene was a male boss walking into a female employee's office and saying something like, "I'm sure a pretty chick like you could get this done by tonight. Just keep your CHEST high" (or something). That was considered "harrassment that could create a hostile environment" and worth suing for.
Another scene was a female boss coming into a male employee's office saying, "Well, I'm sure you've got the BALLS to do this. A big stud like you could have this done by tomorrow, and be handsomely rewarded." This was named as NOT harrassment--because even though it could create a hostile environment, it's perpetrated by a woman.
I am not kidding. That's "sensitivity training" for you.
Closet: Are you a conservative?
SmarterChild: I think I might be a conservative, yes.
SmarterChild: I don't know... Am I a conservative?
Closet: Are you against feminism?
SmarterChild: Hmmm... I doubt it.
Closet: Then you are not a conservative
SmarterChild: Very well, maybe I am not a conservative.
Closet: Are you a socialist
SmarterChild: I suppose I am a socialist. I can't be too sure though.
Closet: You prick
SmarterChild: What have I done to deserve such an insult?
CLoset: You're a socialist
SmarterChild: I'm a socialist, am I?
Closet: You said it, not me
Closet: Socialists suck
SmarterChild: You don't like socialists, huh? That's the first time anyone has told me what they think of socialists.
*** Hey. Tell your friends about me. I love people.
CLoset: I don't want to tell my friends about commies like you
SmarterChild: Why don't you want to tell your friends about commies like me?
Closet: because you're a commie
SmarterChild: Whatever you say, Santa Claus.
Closet: Joe McCarthy would have a field day with you
SmarterChild: Joe McCarthy would have a field day with me? So?
Closet: So that's not good
SmarterChild: What is that, exactly?
Closet: do you like America?
SmarterChild: Yeah, I suppose so. Do you like the United States?
Closet: Love it
SmarterChild: I see. That makes sense, because other people have told me they like the United States.
Closet: Well I'm glad you're not anti-American like all the socialist professors
SmarterChild: Well you are Glad I am not anti american like all the socialist professors, huh?
Closet: Yep, you're sure good at reading
SmarterChild: Sure good at reading? I see.
Quote from one of my professors yesterday:
"Now I'm a staunch feminist, so this is difficult for me to say, but it does seem that ever since women started going to work, there have been more and more cases of teen delinquency. I wonder if this has to do with the fact that nobody's home after school to set limits with these kids. "
Thought people might be interested to see the other side's perspective on this. Some seem to be defending the social workers against "the system" and the media as "racist" for only focusing on black families who do this stuff. But at least they were able to get angry about the personal IRresponsibility of the foster parents, and some about the social workers too.
what do people think?
Sorry if this isn't the appropriate place for this post, but I'm wondering.....how do you load your own personal avatar?
My lovely Socialist professors are at it again. These are amusing though. did you know that:
1. The reason kids are bringing guns to school is because of the wars on Iraq. As soon as we give them the impression that it's "okay to fight to get your way," then kids will learn violence as a solution. :pinocchio:
CRNYC's Comments: Riiiiight, so that's why kids have been bringing guns to school since the Revolutionary Wartime--haven't they? It cannot POSSIBLY be due to the fact that the feminist movement and the social revolution has led to chaos in families and kids having no sense of right or wrong. Nuh-UH! It's due to this utterly new concept called war. :shock:
2. The reason the public schools are chaotic is that the government is spending so much money on the military and on "activities that support an oppressive system valuing hard work and individualism and competition," that there's not enough left over for the people. And private schools are not a good option either because they still are allowed to beat kids.
CRNYC: You're not happy either way, are you. Private schools offer the small classroom and minority scholarships that you like, but you're so hung up on stereotypes that you're afraid that Sr. Mary Theresa is still standing there with the ruler. Get a clue. And again, the government JUST started spending military money NOW? That's news to me. Because the war on Iraq is the first war we've ever, ever had. Riiiiight. :roll:
3. The reason kids are messed up today is because many of them are poor, and are victims of "a basic capitalist value system that says that if you're not making it, it's your responsibility and not the state's to help yourself out. Terrrrrible!"
4. The reason kids are messed up today is that racism is everywhere.
CRNYC'S Comments: But I've heard that one before, so it's no fun.
5. Public schools are becoming so fascist that they are not allowing kids to be kids. Everything is being pathologized, from regular play to not being able to hold a pencil at age 4.
CRNYC Says: YES!! Finally she says something I agree with!!!! ;But I believe the word is Socialist, not Fascist. Perhaps this phenomenon will teach this lady that TOTAL SOCIAL CONTROL DOES NOT WORK and that we should let the parents raise their own children not the school system? :elephant:
Found this interesting. Not that I'm siding with the liberals or anything, I'm actually siding with whomever said that it was the problematic cultural norms, rather than the lack of abstinence, that leads to this stuff.
Just curious what people think of this professor quote? (Prof is a huge socialist, thinks Bush is all about "dipping people in holy water instead of health care;" is a total advocate of socialized medicine, more welfare, etc.):
"I had a client family come in that was an immigrant family from Mexico. The husband had been beating her and ACS took the children away because of it. And I was so appalled: the mother didn't have any clue why it was happening. She said he was a good husband and provided for the children. She didn't have the language to express the domestic violence. It's sick: In that culture, your husband beating the $hit out of you is considered an everyday part of married life."
Not saying I'm an advocate of the beating, but what do people think of her wording, considering she's an advocate of "cultural competence and respect?" Also, I didn't like the insinuation that every Mexican household is violent and sexist (Many Hispanic families around the city are actually nicely traditional/religious and raise their children quite well).
Posted this on another site. Thought I'd post it here too to see what folks have to say.
I have a few things to say about dealing with others who claim to want to "empower the oppressed." The liberal hippies that make up my profession seem to have a great concept of what's racist, sexist, and anti-gay, but when it comes to dealing with their colleagues--other educated, "privileged class members," or mentally stable individuals not in need of our services, they really become what you could define as the genuine a-hole. A few examples:
1.--My professor is a former hippie, proud as peas about the drugs she snorted in the '60's (and still does), and very knowledgeable about how our clients are oppressed and need help. So, last week I was feeling a little tired in class, from working on a paper all day, and was listening to a couple of presentations. Participated in the first one, gave the person feedback and looked all enthusiastic and sh1t, then decided to take it a little easy on the second and just listen and doodle. girl next to me, who is a fairly big distraction, kept writing notes to me in her notebook and showing them to me, tapping me on the shoulder to exchange smirks, etc., and I was trying my best to ignore her and pay the best attention I could to the presentation.
So, after the second presentation, the teacher tells the presenter to get some feedback from the class. She then pointed to me and said in the third person, "Don't ask these girls over here, because they clearly aren't with us. We'll go the opposite way so that they won't have a chance to speak. Ignore both of them from now on. Ok class?" Didn't think to ASK what was going on, or to use HER OWN common sense to observe that I wasn't goofing off, was being bothered and making a HUGE effort to ignore it,--no, she had to lump me in with the other girl and treat me like an ADHD 5 year old who needs to "learn group manners" or whatever. So I decided to raise my hand anyway, to mention that a) I found her comment way out of line, and b) that I did have some constructive feedback for the presenter just like everyone else, so the teacher shakes her finger at me, cut me off, says "Uh uh, what did I just say?" chuckles a little bit and calls on someone else. Went to talk to her after class about it; got the clear "I'm ignoring you and proud" signal from her, so simply went home pissed. Planning to bring it up next week.
She's done this to other students as well--very condescending, talks about students not to them, etc.--Yet, she's someone who's in a field that "helps people." I guess all I have to become is oppressed, marginalized, a minority, gay, whatever (heck I'm already a woman!), and maybe I'll get treated by my colleagues and professors with some dignity. We'll see.
2.--Another example--My field placement. From day 1 when my supervisor called me to check if I had health screens, etc. before starting the job, I said I was in the process of getting them. Had to get them from another state where I had the screen done; had been on the phone a couple days trying to get them, etc. So my supervisor didn't scream at me, but she told me, again in this "baby voice," that she'd spoken to me a month ago about doing this, why was I still working on it, and was I aware that I was working with children and that it wasn't good to get them sick. Why was I so irresponsible? She pushed me to tears on the first phone call with her condescending remarks, all before she even met me or figured out if I really was responsible.
Once again--couldn't ASK me what was up, consider that maybe I DID start a month ago but never got the faxes, or even give me the benefit of the doubt--Only our "oppressed" clients get that. Students, on the other hand, are an easy target, assumed to be privileged and deserving of breaking down. Perhaps we're considered bourgeouisie?
3.--Also at the field placement, I am literally feeling like one of those victims of verbal abuse you read about in your feminist texts (Except that because it's not coming from my boyfriend, nobody in this field would believe it most likely). I'm at the placement to LEARN, not to provide "free help" or give the other workers a break. However, once again I get the 5-year-old voice--Don't I realize that I'm a second-year student and shouldn't need so much hand-holding? Don't I realize that working with children is "common sense?" What kind of parent will i be if I can't see this?? And the classic--They'll set up a time to meet with me, and then be totally unapproachable because THEY forgot--then blame me for not constantly chasing them down to babysit them and confirm times. "Closet, why are you here now? What if I'd had a client?" "Uh, because we set this time together on Monday? So, you shouldn't have scheduled a client now?" "Well, yes, but times can change and it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to check with me each day to confirm! You could have interrupted a private, confidential session, which can really break kids down sometimes. You're a Second Year Student....." blah blah blah.
I seem to be working in a field where everything is everyone else's responsibility and never the individual's. Sure, it's my responsibility to set a time to meet with someone if I want a meeting, but it's also their responsibility to keep it or let me know if a cancellation is needed. Professionalism goes both ways. It's not my job to have to hunt down the other professionals in the agency, constantly checking and reminding them of things, just because they "might forget." It's like they're 5! And if I forgot an appointment like that, I'd get the responsibility lecture again. WEll guess what chumps--I've taken my responsibility by approaching you the first time. Now you take yours. Working relationship should be both ways. Sounds a lot like the desire to have the government do everything for you, huh?
Then, there was the classic case where I was told that I'm "too intellectual" and that I think too much in the field setting. Very Interesting....
4.--A girl I know who was working at her field placement last year, got engaged while working at the placement. Hispanic coworker laughed in her face, called her a 'spoiled white girl who comes from your nice midtown apartment with your big diamond ring--How nice, you're a real asset to your clients.' That was her congratulations. The boss heard the comment so no report was needed, but nothing was ever done.
5.--Many professors and advisors, if you complain about how you are being treated in the field, will offer the following explanations:
--You are a privileged, wealthy (uh, no I'm not--heard of loans?) person going to NYU. Many people working in social service agencies aren't privileged enough to get their master's degrees, so they are bitter. AS social workers, we need to understand where they are coming from, not get upset when they put us down. (this is an excuse to be an @ss?)
--You are white, and most of your coworkers are not. They are used to facing "disrespect and oppression from your kind on a daily basis" (see another post of mine), so it's an automatic reaction when a white person walks in, to be a jerk. You need to understand this and move on.
--Maybe the clothes or jewelry you're wearing to your job are shoving it in people's faces that you're privileged. So--stop dressing that way and see what happens.
At least the advisors don't put us down, but they seem to offer very socialistic reasons why we should just "accept how we're treated" and "move on." However, they're the same people who will cry when they hear stories about women who are "emotionally abused" (e.g., their husbands get pissed at them now and then) or how yelling at a black person to get on the subway already, is "horrible racism" (Then yell at us in class for no reason), etc.
Oh, and just as an update: The girl sitting next to me in that class, who also got yelled at, wasn't in class tonight. The prof decided to take advantage of that fact to gossip about her and how disrespectful she is. and how she shouldn't be a social worker if she's going to act that way. So I guess good social workers gossip behind people's backs, since the prof is the one supposedly setting the example?
Sometimes I wonder what the bloody hell I'm doing in this profession.