The Final Version of My Paper

Here is my final version of Elevation To Equality: A Critical Examination of Marriage Inequality Through Race and Sexuality.

http://theworldofthepino.blogspot.com/2010/12/elevation-to-equality-critical_12.html

On a side note, if you are into poetry, check out the rest of my blog "The World of The Pino".

Pino's Essay

Here is my essay guys.

Masculinity in Connection to Dwight Howard's Issues with Free Throws

Being the sports nut that I am I tend to check on the statuses of athletes in the NFL and the NBA. One article I read was about Dwight Howard and how he can improve his God-awful free throw shooting percentage, which is about 55%, far below the league average of about 72%. While reading the article I found some concepts involving masculinity and why Dwight will not improve his free throw shooting easily.

So, a famous NBA player named Rick Barry is considered one of the greatest small forwards of his era and the greatest free throw shooter of all time. He has the all-time record for free throw percentage, averaging about 90%. The reason he was able to achieve this percentage is because he shot his free throws underhanded, which are more likely to be made than the standard shooting technique. In fact, my grandfather told me that coaches required all players to shoot underhanded free throws before the sixties. That practice has virtually faded away overtime.

In the article, Rick Barry states that he will offer to teach Dwight Howard how to shoot underhanded free throws to raise his percentage, help add a few extra points to his average, and prevent the Hack-A-Howard strategy used against him. Yet, Dwight refuses to learn and apply the underhanded shot because of the modern media might perceive him in lacking masculinity; the same media that personifies masculinity in basketball as dunking, shot blocking, and shooting impossible shots. Howard is not the only horrible free throw shooter to say this. Shaq, who is considered to be the worst free throw shooter of all time, once said in Sports Illustrated that he would rather "shoot a negative percentage before I shot like that (underhanded)." Wilt Chamberlain, another notoriously horrible free throw shooter, said that he felt like a "sissy" when he shot underhanded. 


So immediately I find this dangerous view of masculinity as a detriment to one's production. What is so "sissy" about scoring a few extra points? What's so damn feminine about helping your team make some crucial free throws when the game is on the line? Honestly, Shaq could have probably surpassed Wilt's position on the All-time scoring list if he raised his free throw shooting by shooting underhanded. Wilt might have averaged 55 points per game in the season he averaged 50 if he applied Rick Barry's old time technique. 


Dwight Howard is a rising talent who has the chance to be completely unstoppable offensively if he can learn from Rick Barry's underhanded free throw techniques. Clearly, his current style is not working if he's averaging 55% percent this season. And honestly, what does it matter to Dwight's "manliness" if he's averaging more points and winning more games with underhanded free throw shots?

Where Does the Government Draw the Line?

In my Philosophy class, we are reading a book written by John Stuart Mill titled On Liberty. You can read the pdf here. In the book Mill argues on what liberty and freedom means politically and philosophically. In the first chapter, he discusses the tyranny of the government summarized as the "struggle between authority and liberty" and "the tyranny of the majority."

I want to talk about the "struggle between authority and liberty" that Mill mentions. One of the concepts involved with the "struggle" is the Government's reasoning and jurisdiction of a law. Now, we frequently debate about Gay marriage as whether it should be legal or illegal. However, we do not debate whether government should even define marriage.

Where does the Government's authority draw the line? Should the government have authority in marriage, a traditionally religious institution? And if the government should have power over marriage, would that not violate individual sovereignty as it would limit one's personal choices?

These questions I ask of our CSP. Should we be arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legal, or should we be arguing whether or not the federal and state governments even have jurisdiction over marriage itself?

No Homo: Hip Hop Homophobia or Hidden Homoeroticism?

This video is a rather humorous explanation on the phrase poplar in Hip-Hop known as "No Homo" coined by Cam'ron and popularized by rapper Lil Wayne.





It is rather fascinating how the term "no homo"is used in everyday slang. It spread like wildfire in my own community and even I said it a lot when I was in high school. The term is used to reaffirm one's heterosexuality after committing a seemingly homosexual act. When one says "suck my d**k" and follows up "no homo," then he is consciously aware of the seemingly homosexual connotations attached to that phrase. 
This brings me to question. If some is knowingly saying something that can be perceived as homosexual, then is s/he gay? Well, evidence may point to rappers engaged in possible homoeroticism, usually with them posing by themselves with their shirts off and chests glistening or with each other. Some critics point to these examples as possible homoeroticism and that using terms like "no homo" is to deny their hidden sexuality.
It is probably unlikely that the rapper that use "no homo" are gay but simply that they could be perceived as such through their lyrics. If rappers are perceived as homosexual, then they are not seen as masculine as noted in the video. In Hip-Hop culture, if anyone is seen to lack masculinity then they will lose respect because they are seen as weak. 

Gay Pride Parades: Freedom of Expression or Extreme Immorality?

As most of you are probably aware of, New York Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino is extremely homophobic as he hates the concepts of same-sex marriage and gay pride. He has gone on the record by saying,"I don’t want [my kids] brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and acceptable option- it isn't." I find this statement to be extremely intolerant and ignorant on the Tea Party supported candidate and I would be damned if he were elected governor. Yet, Paladino made comments about his opponent Andrew Cuomo appearing at a gay pride with his kids, an act he called "disgusting."While I am disturbed by most of Paladino's beliefs I agree with his questioning of the morality of gay pride parades.


You see, after seeing a baseball game, I went to a Gay Pride Parade with my cousin in San Francisco in the summer of 2009. I was appalled by what was demonstrated in the parade. This pride parade, among others, was nothing more than a campy, flamboyant, hypersexual, and sexist display of lewd conduct. It is completely non-representative of gays and lesbians because it continues to display the perception that they are hypersexual, flamboyant or effeminate human beings. It is also sexist in that it portrays a stereotypical satirical image of women. So in some ways, these Gay Pride parades poison youth's perceptions of gays and this can lead to homophobia. This is why there is a significant amount of gays who oppose these parades. 


If I were a parent I would not want my children to witness people publicly committing sexual acts with each other, heterosexual or homosexual. So, in some ways I agree with Paladino in that Andrew Cuomo bringing his kids to an inappropriate demonstration is irresponsible. Yet, I differ from Paladino in that I have another reason; I would not want my children to develop stereotypes LGBT persons as immoral or flamboyant people.


Now, there are plenty of pride parades that are not sexualized and follow a code of conduct. I would willingly attend and support those types of parades. However, the largest parades, the same kind that get the most media exposure, are the ones that perpetuate the perceptions of gays in a misrepresentative way. The government should censor these hypersexualized and sexist acts from being displayed to the youth, who could associate those characteristics with all gays and thus lead to homophobia. 

Holy Homosexuality...Batman?

Batman (Bruce Wayne) and Robin (all three of them, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, and Tim Drake) a.k.a the Dynamic Duo, are the most well known superhero-sidekick pair in comic books and other media. Writers love to focus on their bond, which has been interpreted as a father-son relationship over the year. Yet, a recurring joke that comic book fans and literary analysts sometimes focus on is a bond deeper than father and son. In fact, the two have been accused of homosexuality over the years.

It all started with a psychiatrist named Dr. Fredric Wertham who criticized the "harmful" effects of comic books in a book called Seduction of the Innocent (1954). In this book he accused Wonder Woman as being a sexist symbol, horror comics inspiring "juvenile delinquency" and Batman and Robin of being a homosexual pair after interpreting this scene. Ever since his interpretation of the Dynamic Duo as a homosexual couple, readers and the public began to consider the possibility. This drastically affected the comic book in the 50's and 60s because DC (Batman's publishers) forced changes to make the characters "appear straight." They introduced Batgirl to give Batman a new love interest (even though it never worked between them) and made Dick Grayson (the first Robin) move to college. The writers even brought Ace the Bat Hound and introduced the Bat-Mite (a trickster from the 5th Dimension like Superman villain Mister Mxyzplk) to create a "Batman Family."

These changes turned a previously gritty comic book and the gritty character Batman into a situational comedy and main punchline respectively. Because of an unfounded accusation that Batman and Robin were gay, the comic book franchise was almost ruined because of the campy "Batman Family." It was saved when the darker roots of Batman were reintroduced in the 70's and 80's. To put things in a larger perspective, our culture of over-analysis tends to place things out of context. Homosexuality was not linked with Batman until Dr. Wertham introduced the concept between specifically those two. He did not accuse Captain America and his former sidekick Bucky or Aquaman and Aqualad of homosexuality, thus their sexuality has never been questioned whereas a humorous scene involving Batman will be taken out of context and interpreted as gay.

The recurring drama of the possibility that Batman and Robin are homosexual lovers has almost ruined the franchise twice, once in the 50's and 60's, and again in the 90's when Batman and Robin hit the silver screen in 1997. Film director Joel Schumacher, who is gay, introduced campy and homoerotic concepts in the film (such as including uncharacteristic nipples on Batman and Robins' costumes) which undermined the seriousness of the characters. Since that film, no media has depicted Batman and Robin as homosexuals or in campy way, although these elements remain a recurring yet harmless joke.

Race Relations, LeBron James, and Black Protectionism

Yesterday I went about my day as normal and looked at ESPN. The news was typical, College and NFL talk, the MLB Playoff races, and as usual LeBron James and his new team the Miami Heat. In case you ddi not already know former Cleveland Cavalier superstar basketball player LeBron James abandoned his team to join fellow superstars Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh in Miami over the summer in hopes of winning a championship. He announced his decision on an hour long ESPN television special known as "The Decision", which many people and I found to be repulsive, uncourteous, and completely unnecessary (although I am satisfied he gave the proceeds earned by the special to charity). As a result of his decision to leave his hometown of Cleveland, which worshipped and deified him, LeBron has been taking negative backlash throughout the basketball fan community, especially in the city he once played for.

However, I saw an article mentioned on SportsCenter written by an ESPN sportswriter named Vincent Thomas. It is titled LeBron James and Black Protectionism. The concept of "Black Protectionism" is intriguing because for the most part it is valid. LeBron is one of the most hated athletes after Kobe, Tiger Woods, Chad Ochocinco, T.O, and Michael Vick (note what's in common with these guys) according his Q Score. However, a further in depth study reveals that blacks remained for the most part neutral in their stance against LeBron while non-blacks scores revealed a higher level of disdain against the former King. Vincent Thomas argues that the African American people has historically been supportive of black athletes because they are role models within the Black community. He further explains that while black people will feel angry against LeBron for his decision, they do not feel total resentment against him.

For the most part this argument of Black Protectionism is true and while I cannot and will not speak on behalf of the African American community, I personally feel the same way Thomas does and most of the black people I know does too. Take for example the case with Michael Vick, who after he got convicted of dog fighting and served jail, became vilified by the media. I personally was disgusted by this revelation but I did not hate Mike Vick and no black friend or person I knew and talked to hated him either. In fact, we felt sorry for him and we wanted him to have a change of character as well as a second chance in his career after he served his time. It's the same with Tiger Woods; we were disgusted by his adulterous affairs but I and the black people I knew did not hate or vilify the golfer. We also wanted him to continue his successful career while hoping he had changed.

Ultimately, vilification comes down to the name and the talent: LeBron is the most talented basketball player in the NBA. Had this been another talented player like Chris Bosh (his fellow teammate) or Carlos Boozer, they would not have received as much negative attention simply because they are not better or more marketable than LeBron. However, as LeBron continues to receive disdain and hatred by the non-black populace, racist intent or otherwise, the Black community will continue to stand by James' side as he continues an illustrious career in South Beach.

Angelic Androgyny

Angels, the winged messengers of God, are artistically depicted in numerous ways from the peaceful forgiving angel to the warlike avenging angel. Yet, one concept that developed during the Renaissance is the depiction of angels as androgynous beings.

In the image above is a commonly artistic representation of the Archangel Michael defeating Satan. Unlike other paintings however, Michael's gender is somewhat ambiguous such as his soft facial features  yet masculine torso. Artistic depictions of the gender in angels have come up before such as Paradise Lost. In Paradise Lost Adam laments over the sexual indifferences he shares with the angels because they can have the sexual pleasures of both men and female. He reasons that because Angels are not human to begin with, they are without gender. It is this reasoning that angels are inhuman why artists sometimes do away with the usual masculine features of an angel to that of a sexless being. 

A Villain's Sexuality

As I read fellow blogger Hanna White's post "Homosexuality in the Media of Different Cultures" I recalled a comic book character whose sexual actions are somewhat ambiguous. His name is Daken and he is the long lost son of Wolverine, the infamous 120 year old mutant member of the X-Men and the Avengers.

Daken's history is a tragic and violent one. He was born with the name Akihiro in the 1940's as the illegitimate son between Canadian Wolverine (also known as Logan) and a Japanese woman named Itsu. His mother was killed by an assassin who was targeting Logan at the time and he was cut from the womb of the dying mother by a shadowy villain named Romulus. Romulus, who had tormented Wolverine from behind the scenes, gave him up to a Japanese family in a small village where he was tormented by other children for his biracial heritage. They gave him a racial slur which became his nickname "Daken". Because of the hate and prejudice he encountered, he grew up with a resentment of the world. His hatred of the world combined with his mutant powers (genetically inherited by his father) of bone claws and his healing factor led him to becoming a dangerously violent villain. He killed his parents when they tried to abandon him and he worked as an assassin for decades never aging thanks to his healing factor. He also had a burgeoning hatred for his father Wolverine, who was unaware at the time that he had a son because his memories of the past were wiped out by government program Weapon X. It would be years later when he met his father (who regained his memories) and the two confronted each other. In the mean time Romulus manipulated through torture and training Daken turning him into a relentless killing machine.

Daken is not the first LGBT comic book character introduced but he is the most fascinating. For example, in one issue he emotionally pushes a woman to commit suicide when he reveals that he had sex with her husband. His homosexuality is also evident when he kisses his Dark Avengers teammate Bullseye in an effort to calm him down while they fight the Asgardians. Later when he fights the Fantastic Four's thing, he manipulates him through pheromones while goading him with homoerotic remarks. Readers can assume that Daken is obviously homosexual but this might not be the case. For example, when teammate Hawkeye (Bullseye in disguise) questions Daken's dual membership in the Dark Avengers and the Dark X-Men Daken simply responds "I always did like playing for both teams". This double entendre is evident when he is sexually involved with women in other issues only to manipulate them into doing his bidding.

To explain Daken's sexuality one must understand his personality. He is a victim of society's prejudice against mutants and a victim to emotional manipulation by a shadowy being he could not resist. He has been for his entire life subject to the bidding of Romulus. So, Daken simply uses his sexuality to manipulate others into doing his own bidding. Like his master he is not above cruelty as he has sadistically damaged the emotions of his victims often forcing them to commit suicide. As "Wolverine" writer Daniel Way explains, "He is no more homosexual than heterosexual. It's about control." Because Daken never received love from anyone and only experienced pain and suffering, he is completely incapable of giving love. As a result, his sexuality is not an expression of love or desire, but simply a weapon he uses for cruelty and sadism.

The Big Black/White Binary

I have just recently read fellow blogger Tracy's post Discrimination Against Black Women and the article attached to it. While I am inclined to agree to everything said on the blog I am somewhat disturbed by this prevailing social binary of race relationships being simplified to either black or white. The article mentions how black women are discriminated against but  The "Black/White Binary"tends to exclude other races such as Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and countless others from the conversation of race and ethnicity. Now, let us be clear, I do not blame Tracy nor accuse her of enforcing this social binary because she obviously is not. I am simply pointing out how we unintentionally simplify race as a black/white issue. Instead of asking the question "why are black women discriminated against?" we should instead ourselves "why are black, hispanic, and other minority women discriminated against?"

Black Quarterbacks Enjoy Success on NFL Sunday

Today on September 12th on Sunday I saw something I rarely ever see in the NFL; a day where all of the Black Quarterbacks play exceptionally well. Now, many will say that it is not noteworthy that black athletes are having success as it tends to happen a lot in the NFL. There are many black athletes who play all positions such as running back, wide receiver, defensive back, or any other skilled position. However, there are not as many black Quarterbacks who have enjoyed success in the NFL. In fact, only one Black QB has won a Super Bowl, Doug Williams in 1988 with the Washington Redskins. He was also the game's MVP. Ever since there have been a multitude of Black Pro-Bowl caliber Quarterbacks that have come into the NFL such as Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Dante Culpepper, Michael Vick, Vince Young, David Gerrard, and most famously Donovan McNabb. All of these QBs have had considerable success in the League most of them appearing in the post season and a few in the Super Bowl.

Yet all of these black quarterbacks, including those I have not mentioned, have struggled in the League and in College in how they are perceived and ultimately how they are used in their team's offensive schemes. Most of them have been utilized for their scrambling ability and their ability to run the ball rather than train them for passing. This utilization is not used for white Pro Bowl QBs such as Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Tom Brady who are mostly pocket passers not scramblers. This is evident in college where Vince Young used his athleticism to scramble and run the football rather than pass in the pocket. This was also noticeable in Randall Cunningham's early career where he was trained how to scramble rather than pass. Now, what difference does this make that these QB's are black? Should we not account for white QB's utilized for their scrambling ability like Steve Young or Tim Tebow?

While black QB's are not the only ones who are victim to being scramblers they are the most prevalent. This stems from the perceptions that because a QB like Donovan McNabb is black, conceivably because he is black he should be faster and more athletic than white quarterbacks. In fact, Donovan McNabb himself has tried to avoid these perceptions of being a mobile scrambling QB who runs first and passes second. Because of this he has had a successful professional career getting to the NFC championship 5 times and reaching the Super Bowl. 

But why is the prevalence of black QB's being scramblers significant to the lack of success of Black QB's in the NFL? It's simple: a running quarterback (black, white, or otherwise) who cannot pass in the pocket has no chance of success in the league. The reason is because in the NFL, the defenses are far more athletic and more complex than those in college. Because of this quarterbacks who run the ball up field tend to get injured when colliding with hard hitting linebackers and safeties. QB's like Michael Vick and Vince Young were ran like workhorses in college because they were more athletic than the college defenses. They had to create plays with their feet in space rather than using their arm and intellect to make successful more complex passes. As soon as they entered the NFL, they struggled in passing which is fundamental to running a successful offense. Vince Young threw more interceptions than touchdowns and was injury prone his first three seasons. Michael Vick has success with running ability but also had problems with passing the ball deep downfield.

Yet improvement has been seen today, which I have seen Black Quarterbacks such as Michael Vick, Vince Young, David Gerrard, and Dennis Dixon who have long struggled creating plays passing do really well in throwing the ball. Some like Vick and Young created plays successfully passing and running. All of these QBs have taken initiative in being successful pocket passers during the offseason and thus improvement has been made in their offensive game. 

The issue still remains in college and in high school where black QBs are being utilized for their scrambling and running ability rather than their pocket passing ability. Black college quarterbacks such as Michigan's Denard Robinson and Ohio State's Terrelle Pryor are examples of this as well as others. They may dominate the college game with their speed but as history has shown these qualities will not help them succeed at a high level in the pros. But as we look at the Hall of Fame careers of Donovan McNabb, Steve McNair, and Randall Cunningham, and from watching the black QB's perform today, hopefully continue to make progress in the future, it is not impossible for a black Quarterback to succeed at a high level. It will only be a matter of time before these perceptions of Black QB's as scramblers rather than successful pocket passers change for the better. Hopefully another Black QB, like Doug Williams past, can reach ultimate success: the Lombardi Trophy.

http://www.bqb-site.com/

Whiteness≠Blackness/Social Constructs=Social Chains

I found the concept of race as a social construct mentioned in both articles of Critical Race Theory to be very important as I have had the same conflict my entire life. I've been criticized as being too "white" by my own African American peers. What disturbs me more about these attacks is the meaning behind white. You see, the reason I was considered to be "too white" is because I valued my education, did not have a "thug" attitude, did not live in the ghetto, and I did not play basketball. Apparently aspiring to be something else successful other than a rapper or a ball player meant being "white" and if you are "white" you cannot be "black". Equating "whiteness" with success has always disturbed me as it has disturbed the author Ian Lopez who wrote "The Social Construct of Race".

Like the authors of Critical Race Theory I do to a certain extent blame White America for pushing this concept of "whiteness" equating to total success. However, what disturbs me most is when the Black Community simply accepts this notion of "whiteness" as being successful and "blackness" as not being successful. We only set ourselves back with the talk and in effect, we are letting the bigots and racists win. These social constructs have chained not only the African American community but all minorities as well. If we are to shatter these chains of "Blackness", "Whiteness" and race as a social construct, we have to do so together. Otherwise, the same status quo that has plagued me my entire life will affect the generations after us.

Epic Fail: Social Networking Backfires on Montana Tea Party Leader

This is yet another case where someone says something controversial on social networking sites. This time however, this was the President of the Montana Tea Party Group.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ha7H5KfK_nlUjXc-Wd8uAoiOizJgD9I38U4O0

President Tim Ravndal was voted to be removed from the Big Sky Tea Party Association after he went on a bigoted tirade against same-sex marriage. It is the Tea Party's "best intentions" (the few they have), to not tolerate "bigotry relevant to sex, ethnicity, etc.,"This apparent display of intolerance did not end there however as one Facebook user posted "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions." 

Ravndal unwisely responded: "Where can I get that Wyoming instruction manual?"

This was a reference to the death of Matthew Shepard, who was tied and beaten to a goal post because he was homosexual. 

Unfortunately for the Former President Tim Ravndal, he forgot the most important rule us citizens (and politicians especially) have to follow: what you say on social networking is public record. Didn't he learn from Trent Lott when the Senator referred to Stromm Thurmond's presidency in a good light? After all, Senator Lott had to resign from his position as Minority Leader after such comments. Either way, what Ravndal said cannot be undone. The punishment may not fit the crime perfectly but Ravndal must face the consequences of his actions. Lesson to be learned, what you say on social networking is always on record and if the wrong things are said, there are consequences for those actions, especially if they condone hate.