Most people experience overwhelming emotional stress or sadness at some point in their life, so why it’s so difficult to comprehend that life-consuming strife can lead one to substance abuse, depression, suicide or suicidal thoughts, I don’t understand. Our society is very judgmental of those whose struggles lead them to a dark path, especially those who are suicidal or commit suicide. They’re pegged as weak, selfish, insane or over-reacting. All of those assumptions are false and unfair. Today, I’m going to try to dispel some misconceptions about suicide ideation. Misconception thought: Suicide is so selfish. How can one not think about their family and friends who will be affected? The truth: a feature of suicide ideation is feeling hopeless and worthless. Some suicidal and/or depressed individuals feel that they are unloved or unlovable and that they’ll be doing those around them a favor by no longer living. If there are additional issues in which family has had to take care of or be concerned about the individual, they might feel they’re lifting a burden from their loved ones by ending their life. Misconception thought: Those who want to commit suicide are weak or insane. The truth: Everyone responds to life situations differently and emotional pressure manifests itself in different ways. NO ONE experiences pain or stress unaffected. While some may have trouble sleeping, others may exhibit anger, withdraw from friends, cry or lose their appetite. Some take on additional hobbies or interests to cope with distress or put some extra focus into their job. Suicidal thoughts are often a symptom of depression, and going into a depression can also be a result of distress. The bottom line is that we ALL express our stress in some way, and this expression-whatever that expression may be- does not make us weak or weaker than anyone else. Insanity. Those with severe cases of emotional or mental disorders like schizophrenia are sometimes suicidal, but not all suicidal individuals have severe disorders or are ‘insane.’ There are many fully functioning adults and young people with depression or are depressive with suicide ideation. Misconception thought: If one feels suicidal, it’s usually for one specific reason or over one specific experience. The truth: Suicide or suicide ideation is NOT about an event; it’s about a feeling. Those who want to die are trying to desperately escape OVERWHELMING pain, anguish, anxiety and suffering that can be the result of a CULMINATION of events or the physical or biological factors that cause depression (Genetic dispositions and chemical imbalances are among the physical factors of depression. One doesn’t have to experience a difficult life event to have depression). Misconception thought: Suicide is a choice. The truth: No one chooses to be so depressed that will want to end their life. Yes, for those not deemed incapacitated, to initiate the act is a choice, but suicidal feelings or depression isn’t. If it were as simple as making a different selection, people would put themselves in a better position instantly. Misconception thought: Some people pretend to be suicidal and just want attention. The truth: All suicidal claims must be taken seriously. Those who later claim to be kidding or ‘just fine’ may have alternative reasons for retracting their statements and may still want to commit the act. And so what if someone ‘just wants’ attention? Clearly, if someone is behaviorally crying out for attention, they feel ignored or neglected, and no one wants to feel that. It is better to try to figure out why someone desires attention so badly, than to condemn them for wanting to be visible. There are many more suicide myths and misconceptions; I wanted to highlight these few because they are the misconceptions I hear the most when discussing this topic with others. As I encourage in some of my other articles and video blogs, seek more understanding when something perplexes you. More understanding makes it easier for us to love others like they wish to be loved and for us to receive the love we need. More information: Suicide Myths Suicide Risk and Protective Factors American Association of Suicidology Last week, singer and actress Beyonce` was caught in the middle of yet another controversy about skin-color airbrushing in media when a new promotional photo for her album ‘4’ surfaced (to the left, no pun intended). Suspecting that her complexion was lightened, some journalists and blog readers accused the singer of lacking racial pride and the company who released the photos of racism and bias. The response was similar in the first controversy over a 2008 L’Oreal Feria advertisement. I have much to say about this. First, I don’t feel that the ‘4’ photo was altered, but the issue of skin-lightening in media is a very real issue. Second, if we want to combat racial bias in media, attacking the celebrity in question is not the answer. In most instances, celebs have NO control over the editing of company advertisements and photographs. It makes more sense to hold the BUSINESSES accountable. Beyonce's 2008 L'Oreal Feria ad: Racism? In an effort to make everything appear seamless and perfect, printed photo media uses technology to delete blemishes, cellulite and other perceived flaws. Thighs get thinned, breasts are enlarged and hips get sucked in. Many organizations for women and girls assert public images, especially those in beauty/fashion magazines, set an unrealistic standard of beauty that can lead to insecurity, eating disorders or plastic surgery addiction. Skin-color airbrushing, a sign of racial and cultural bias, can lead to a different set of image issues. In American society, European and/or Caucasian descent dominates; therefore everything in American mainstream is based on Caucasian cultural patterns, values and beliefs. In application to defining attractiveness, it is the same. The features of racial minorities are viewed as less attractive or pale in comparison. Subsequently, models of color are far less used in advertisements (unless they are well-known celebrities like Beyonce`) or their features are altered. Elle Magazine came under fire twice after covers of actresses Gabourey Sidibe and Aishwarya Rai appeared to be lightened. In a February 2008 “Glamour” magazine panel discussion on race and beauty, celebrity makeup-artist Mally Roncal stated “I work with celebrity clients at video shoots and on album covers and I’ve had execs say, ‘Can we just soften the ethnicity a little bit?’” Gabourey Sidibe's lighter 'Elle' cover (2010) This rejection and devaluing of ethnic features in media can cultivate or influence self-image, self-resentment, cultural denial or cultural identity issues in women of color. In Asian-American culture, eye-slant removal surgery is a hot-button issue as women who seek the surgery are charged with changing a prominent ethnic feature to “look more white.” In the black community, chemical hair processes to straighten naturally curly or thicker tresses are viewed by some as assimilationist. Within both the Latino and black populations, discussions about external and internal favoritism towards lighter-skinned individuals are a regular occurrence. Part of the results of a 2010 CNN study with elementary-school children about racial image perceptions revealed that minority children prefer to have a lighter-complexion and feel adults dislike dark skin. Beauty products and magazines are designed for and targeted to women, but arguably does them more of a disservice. Products advertised to men display exaggerated and prejudicial attractiveness standards as well, affecting how we all view and evaluate ourselves and each other. Write to offending companies and state your grievances. Protest by spreading the word and withholding your financial support. We have a choice in what our media feeds us. For more information on how to fight negative gender media, visit MissRepresentation.org.
Chesca Leigh of Youtube (youtube.com/chescaleigh) did a video about the politically incorrect things that Caucasians tend to say to their black female friends. Some people don't understand why the comments Chesca highlighted are offensive, so I'm gonna break it down for you. I’ve had multiple discussions with various people about the origins, impact and application of traditional gender roles and I always end up feeling the same way about them: I kind of think they should be abolished. I feel they do more harm than good, and that might be because of how they’re typically applied, but that’s how I feel. In terms of their usual function in marriage and family dynamics, traditional gender roles can be counteractive to familial bonds, border on being oppressive or paralyzing and build resentment between partners and family members. Under a conservative gender-role model, men are supposed to be the main (if not the only) source of income, manage all the finances/business matters of the home (ex. insurance) and perform any remote physical labor involved in maintaining the household (ex. mowing the lawn or taking out the trash). Women are to handle the child-care, cook and clean. Resentment can easily build as partners may feel burdened by having to be the only one to do a certain task and desire additional help and/or feel like their contributions are taken for granted, underestimated or undervalued (for example, a man being viewed as an inadequate caretaker because family income is low or some feeling that being a housewife is not “real” work). Resentment can also develop if partners feel forced into or limited by their roles, and judged if they seek to step out of them (ex. a woman being made to feel guilty or that she’s a less efficient mother if she has a demanding job, or a man being labeled as weak for being a house-husband). Counteraction to familial bonds can occur with this model as fathers may be more emotionally detached or distant from their children due to mothers taking a more involved, daily role. Also, children can feel neglected by or detached from their opposite sex parent if parental involvement is delegated by gender (ex. things related to Bobby are handled by daddy and things related to Laura are handled by mommy). Strictly-implemented gender roles can lead to paralyzation in the event that the other partner is not available to perform their designated duty due to death, disability, incapacitation or abandonment (ex. if a woman has never handled the family’s finances nor has any knowledge of how to do it, and her husband is incapacitated, major complications may arise). It only makes sense to me to gender assign responsibilities if it’s based on the physical differences between men and women. Men are generally stronger than women; there are tasks that women will have an immensely difficult time performing. Other than that, if both individuals are capable of completing a task, I don’t see why both can’t do it. In our society, traditional ideas about gender permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives to excess. Children can’t even willfully choose what toys to play with because of such stringent ideas on what’s a “boy toy” and a “girl toy.” Not to mention “boy toys” and “girl toys” are hard-lined gender-role reinforcers: girls get accustomed to child-care early with urinating baby-dolls and boys get the notion that they’re the only ones that can serve the country with G.I. Joe “action figures” (forbid they’re called dolls instead of action figures). This saturated application is why I find rigid gender roles to be more harmful than helpful. They’ve created a sense of competition between men and women and an obsession with power as individuals ferociously seek to avoid being in a subordinate position. It’s also at the root of inferiority/superiority complexes and self-esteem issues (ex. why a male feels less than if he hasn’t had sexual intercourse by particular age or why females are so obsessed with reaching beauty standards). Why is it that when a male is sexually-assaulted or domestically abused, no one believes him or he's labeled as frail? Gender role ideas. Why was Nancy Pelosi asked who would take care of her children when she was seeking a governmental career? Male politicians don’t get asked that. Gender role ideas. Why was there a male heckler with a sign that read “Iron My Shirt” at a Hillary Clinton rally? Gender role ideas. Behind sexism, misandry, misogyny, gender-bias and gender-stereotypes are traditional roles. When confronted with the concept of altering the gender-role model or eradicating it, some people fight it tooth and nail. I think some fight against it so hard because they don’t know life without gender-roles. People are afraid of or confused by what they’re not familiar with. Transitioning to a more egalitarian model won’t be easy, considering how conditioned we are, but it can be done. It begins with openness. There are two kinds of evil people in the world... those who do evil stuff, and those who see evil stuff being done and don't do anything about it.-Janis (Mean Girls, 2004) Opening an article with a quote from the teen film “Mean Girls” might imply shallowness or juvenileness, but it illustrated my point, so read on before you click away. I had long dinner with a friend in which we discussed a little bit of everything: race relations, politics, gender roles, music and life events in general. I couldn’t help but notice that after every topic, she said something to the effect of “I don’t know why you care so much.” Towards the end of the dinner she said “I think you stress out too much about things that don’t affect you directly.” To give a more specific instance, when were discussing gender roles she said “Who cares if there are couple of super-traditional men with sexist views? You just don’t marry that guy and you’ll be fine.” Considering sexism can affect how women are viewed & treated personally and institutionally, yeah, I should care. Even if sexism doesn’t blatantly damage my life specifically, I should care about how other women are treated simply because I too am a woman. I’ve come across a lot of people with a similar approach as my friend to societal issues, and I just don’t get it. Maybe it’s because I’m very touchy about human suffering or that I came out of a counseling program that encouraged social awareness, sensitivity and advocacy, but it’s not in me to have a “not in my backyard” attitude. Just because something isn’t overtly impacting me, doesn’t mean it’s unimportant or that it will never get around to impacting me. Many young people have that attitude when it comes to politics. Even though they’re old enough to vote, they don’t participate in the process because the political issues don’t seem to affect them currently. They’re not thinking about it, but one president’s decisions can affect the country’s well-being for years to come, eventually affecting their livelihood as they get older. In my opinion, a selfish “not in my backyard” attitude is part of the reason why our society is so jacked up and social injustice continues to exist. When you advocate for someone else, you advocate for yourself because it could easily be you that’s getting the short end of the stick. Furthermore, if you ever do hit an obstacle, you’re going to wish someone gave a darn to stand up for or help you. Anytime you turn a blind-eye to injustice or inequality, you ARE potentially responsible for human suffering. It IS your problem. We are all humans. What goes around comes around. Realize and embrace the power of the energy you put out (or don’t put out) into the world. It’s the ripple effect at its best. Below is a video about a social issue that many turn a blind-eye to. Watch the effect of blindness. What if YOU or someone you loved were the young man in this clip? Just last week, I wrote an article about how some people use social media, like Twitter, to bully and be cruel to others (http://bit.ly/usEAjA). Last week, I saw someone tweet “Happy Birthday @Ciara; you’re still a flop, though.” By putting “@Ciara,” this person intended for the R&B singer, Ciara, to see their condescending message. Appalled yet again by intentional malice and hoping to encourage at least one person to be kinder, I responded “That was mean and I hope Ciara doesn’t see this. If someone did that to Beyonce` (the person was a fan of hers), you’d be livid.” Nonchalantly, the person said “You mad? Oh.” I said “YES, because people do the EXACT same thing to her (Beyonce`). Unnecessary negativity is the reason why people abuse drugs and commit suicide.” With yet another unremorseful reply, I said “Clinging on to negativity. You don’t even care that your actions could hurt someone’s feelings.” They then said “I don’t. But you can stay pressed as I block your bitch ass.” Children don't share & love by default. This exchange just further fueled a belief that I have. I believe that human beings are 70% selfish/evil and 30% selfless/good. From the beginning, our automatic response as humans is not to be selfless/good; it’s the opposite. Small children: you have to TEACH them to share. They don’t do that on their own. If you believe in the biblical story of Adam & Eve, they could’ve easily just followed the rules and not eat the forbidden fruit, but guess what…they did. And it didn’t take much for the good ole’ serpent to convince Eve to bite, either. People always say that it’s hard to do the right thing all the time. Why is it so hard? If we were more good than we are evil, then doing “the right thing” would be a piece of cake. We spend thousands of dollars trying to regulate and control man’s evil with laws, law enforcement and court systems, but laws don’t cease man’s incessant evil nature and law enforcement systems are corrupt within themselves. Daily I see examples, like the Twitter story, where people go out of their way to mean and negative. My friend, whose homosexual, sees hateful comments on his YouTube wall on a regular basis. It’s one thing for someone to take issue with homosexuality and another to tell someone they should be beaten, castrated and shot by a firing squad; especially when you didn’t have to comment at all. Why is it a difficult choice, Homer? One might say “Well, what about all the do-gooders, philanthropists and humanitarians?” These people contribute positively to society in part because of their potential for good (which is 30% in my theory), but their efforts are centrally the result of selfish motives. There is no such thing as altruism. Mother Teresa, a catholic nun famously known for her humanitarian work with the ailing and homeless, ministered to those people because she felt it was her duty as a heaven-seeking servant to God. John Walsh, the host of “America’s Most Wanted,” stated that he became an anti-crime activist after his son was murdered. If not for the loss of his child, would he have been involved with “AMW,” which assisted in the arrest of 1,000 criminals? Both Mother Teresa and John Walsh had something to gain with their “selfless” efforts. Like Walsh, most advocates and activists are motivated by their personal connection to those they support, or there’s something in their background that lead them to their activism. Beyond that, simple good-doing, such as letting someone know they’ve dropped $20, is done because it makes us feel like we’re kind, productive citizens and, in public, it’s more socially acceptable to do nice things. Even my attempt to reform that mean Twitter user was based in selfishness. I hate it when people do similar things to Beyonce` and despise the concept of bullying in general because I was bullied. I might not have cared about mean tweets, otherwise. As for what we give emotionally and tangibly to our loved ones, we only give because we expect reciprocation in exchange-or else we wouldn’t distance ourselves from those who don’t return the favor. There’s also no such thing as unconditional love, but that’s another post for another day. So kids, the moral to my story is that when comes time to choose between right and wrong, we choose wrong. If we choose right, we have an ulterior motive. That’s just my theory. Not gospel. What do you think? When I would hear of people deleting their Facebook or Twitter accounts because of “drama”, negativity or personal intrusion/or ridicule, it would puzzle me. I assumed I never had that problem because I didn’t surround myself with people who were distrustful, negative or seemed to get a thrill out of gossip. I managed to avoid the cruel, crazy circus that was the dark-side of social media. And then I started a blog. This spring, I opened several social media accounts to expand promotion for this site and immediately got hit in the face with human ugliness and ignorance. While I wasn’t personally attacked (for a period) and Jsaysonline.com benefitted from the internet networking, I witnessed cyber-bullying (of both celebrities and non-celebrities), brash political-incorrectness, cultural insensitivity, mindlessness, superficiality, self-exploitation and people being just down-right mean; and most of the time it was unwarranted. It’s like people muster up all of their potential for hate and negativity and take it to the internet because the web is the only place where you can be unabashedly malevolent without being criticized. Beware of death by Twitter In fact, it seems the more harsh and condescending you are, the more people gravitate to you. Disgusting behavior is reinforced by “likes,” “retweets,” “thumbs up” and “LOL’s (laugh outloud).” The sharp-tongued (or sharp-typed, rather) exalted by their “fans,” “followers” and “subscribers.” It’s almost as if social media is abused so people can feed their need to continue high-school after high-school; where self-empowerment, an over-abundance of attention and some sort of celebrity can all be easily attained by cultivating a support base with a pretentious persona and mercilessly excluding those deemed less-than. Internet networking can be used for many positive things, but more often than not, it’s used for evil and tom-foolery. If you want to get an idea of what the current generation is all about, get really involved on a social media site. My experiences online led to my post “Today’s Ticking Time-Bomb Youth” (http://bit.ly/pxE1eN) last month. It all both saddens and angers me. How can people lavishly swim so deeply in arrogance and ignorance? My attempts to encourage more positive behavior have only succeeded once. Someone said something unnecessarily critical about another person, and in response to my “Hey, let’s be nice. Spread Love. That doesn’t have to be said,” the user said “You’re right. Sorry.” When a male Twitter user posted “Dr. Oz has these bitches telling their biz on TV,” I replied “Hey now, why bitches?” He subsequently unfollowed me and never answered the question. In another similar case, a guy tweeted me “You got something to say, faggot?” When I explained that “faggot” is a rude, offensive and unnecessary term, he replied “Ok, faggot. You don’t pay my bills. I do what it takes homie.” A friend of mine was telling me about a man who complained that Beyonce’s music, in the midst of strongly empowering women, didn’t make him feel like he was “wanted and needed” and described the ferocity of her message as “thrown at my face” and male bashing. This infuriated me. This was the 1,000th time I’ve heard a man accuse Beyonce` of male bashing and criticize her music because it proposes ONLY a female perspective. This man and others are under the mistaken impression that feministic messages have something to do with them, be it bashing or otherwise (Cue Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain...I Bet You Think This Song is About You”). Feminism and/or female empowerment is NOT about ridiculing men. It’s NOT about men AT ALL. In short, it’s about encouraging women to do what’s best for their well-being and success and to pursue justice in the face of discrimination. I’m sorry your feel disadvantaged because Beyonce` is so busy trying to cater to women, that she doesn’t write songs that make you feel “wanted and needed;” she isn’t for you to begin with. She’s for us. Women. For us by us. This man’s reaction to Beyonce’s feministic messages is a part of the selfish, egocentric thinking that comes with being a “social dominant” and not a “social subordinate” (the central topic of this article). A “social subordinate” is someone who is a part of a community plagued by social injustice (ex. the poor, the disabled, homosexuals, racial minorities, non-Christians/Catholics, women). Social dominants, although often being the facilitators of injustice (either overtly or covertly), sometimes fail to realize that they’re more privileged. Living daily in an advantaged world among fellow social dominants, feeds into the illusion that social adversity is almost non-existent. When coming across material that’s in support of only social subordinates, (ex. Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” or James Brown’s “Say it Loud, I’m Black & I’m Proud”), social dominants feel left-out and discriminated against, crying foul and claiming that there is no such material for them. This reaction stems from both egotism and a presumed aloofness of their privilege. Egotism, because in their advantaged experience, they’re used to being catered to and respond negatively to anything that excludes them. Privilege aloofness, because they don’t see that most material and support is already in their favor. For example, a Caucasian peer of mine purported that the existence of BET (Black Entertainment Television) was racist and if there was a “White Entertainment Television” there would be an uproar. Aloof to her privilege as a member of the dominant race, she failed to understand that racial minorities are still severely underrepresented in mainstream television, giving reason for a channel like BET to exist. Outside of channels like BET and TV One, everything else IS white entertainment television. Hispanics, Asians and other racial minorities are even further underrepresented. There wouldn’t be a need for a “Born This Way” if the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community wasn’t prosecuted and ridiculed. There wouldn’t be a need for Beyonce` to remind women that they can “Run the World” if they already felt like they could. It angers me when social dominants complain about supports for social subordinates, as if they don’t already have enough advantages. Social subordinates just can’t be great. |
Society/CultureMy personal commentary on politics, race, gender, religion, social class, news media and several other things related to our society and culture. Archives
May 2014
Tags/Categories
All
|