on spokespeople

i’ve been binging on podcasts about race. one of these is intersectionality by jamil smith.

episode 7 is an interview with janet mock, a journalist who happens to be trans. somewhere near the middle of the show, jamil asked janet, “how does it feel to be a spokesperson?” she responded that it sucks to only get asked questions about identity. she wished that she was asked more about what she’s trained at doing: journalism and storytelling.

and yet, for the rest of the show, jamil asked questions exclusively dealing with her identity as either trans, black, a woman, some combination of those things, or all of them at once.

that’s weird, right?

but janet herself explained that she’s using her voice now as activist. and if an activist isn’t a spokesperson, i don’t know what is.

so what to do?

liberation from monogamy in the gays

i’ve noticed a curious thing on hookup apps. and now that i think about it, i’m noticing a thing other people noticed. this question is showing up more and more on people’s profiles: “why so many coupled guys?" 

it can be nasty and shameful "don’t come to me looking to fill a void your partner can’t fill because they’re terrible.” it can also be neutral or even tactful: “i appreciate that you have a long leash. i’m looking for someone who is currently unattached.”

my thoughts? monogamy is dying. it never actually worked, but due to power, it persisted for centuries. sexism and religion were/are primary perpetrators of upholding marriage because it allowed for a stable society.

as power shifts, in west and not, the desirability of monogamy is diminishing. queers, as always, are at the forefront of exploring and claiming this understanding. the system as it stood never worked for us anyways, so why not explore what else could be?

is it complicated? of course. is it less complicated than monogamy? unclear. but we’re sure as hell gonna figure that out.

viva la revolución!

anxiety

this morning i finished an onbeing episode with david steindl-rast. one somewhat random direction the conversation took was on the subject of anxiety.

steindl-rast explained that the root of the word anxious has to do with the struggle of giving birth. it deals from what the mother and the child feel.

however, he goes on to explain that anxiety itself isn’t bad. it feels bad but getting through it creates new life and preserves old (mother and child).

what is bad, though, is fear combined with anxiety. in the worst case, it causes death. i.e. when a mother or child is unable or too afraid to move through the discomfort of birth, the outcomes can be deadly for one or both.

the trick is to embrace the anxiety while moving forward through the fear.

this analogy carries through on so many levels, including racial anxiety. our nation and communities are racially anxious… but new birth is coming.

it must…

right?

how does oppression hurt the oppressors?

the idea of oppression hurting the oppressors as well as the oppressed isn’t new. and in anti-oppression circles, it’s an idea that is popular.

yet, the next step of identifying how oppression hurts oppressors is rarely taken. and if it is, the examples usually pale in comparison to the damage done to the oppressed. for example, sexism hurts men because it keeps them from understanding their feelings… but it kills women.

and still, it feels necessary that the only path forward is to have the oppressors understand their own damage. and then enlist them in tearing down their own systems of oppression (via the leadership of the oppressed).

today, i finished the intersection podcast episode about football. in it, i heard a powerful example of how masculinity hurts men. young boys are often forced to play football. many of them go on to then experience head trauma (concussions). they are then often penalized (by having to sit out) when they are honest about their concussions. so they don’t. in the end, they could even end up with CTE. in essence, they are causing physical damage to themselves in order to perform masculinity as societally understood.

:O

designing systems with feedback

i think what i do well is design systems with feedback. i feel pretty good at creating an initial solution to a problem that includes room for feedback so it can improve over time. 

now all that said, this process isn’t new by any means. defining just enough structure so an idea can get off the ground and then improve over time is the core of design-thinking, lean product development and probably more. all which i’ve been significantly influenced by.

so what i bring (i think) is personal level implementation. i’ve created a system for managing my own calendar that has evolved over the past year into a comprehensive time management protocol. it is by no means perfect but it keeps me feeling sane, making progress, and has clear indicators built in to trigger re-evaluation when necessary.

i’m sharing the lessons i’ve learned with one of the guys i mentor and he’s said it’s been illuminating. in 2016, i’m learning a lot about where my tools and systems come from and how they might apply or not to someone else. more learning to come soon.