I don't fit any of the labels, none of the metrics. They aren't broad enough to define me, and I'm willing to bet that with rare, narrow, self-assigned descriptions, they aren't broad enough to define any of us.
A very nice, subtle, hardly noticed little first diary yesterday got me to thinking...
Follow me over the speed bump:
In BP in NJ's diary, titled: Another Clinton "regret" she stated in part:
My 13 year old daughter asked me a question yesterday. "Do you think I'm preppy, or a Tom Boy? Or am I a girly girl?" I didn't blink an eye, "You're all those things, and more" I said.
We had a nice talk about it. It got me thinking.
Labels. They define us, but divide us. We ascribe ourselves to them, but ultimately they limit us.
What is lost is that all Americans have more in common than not.
This is what the politics of unity is supposed to be about.
Seeing that part of ourselves that we have in common when we see each other.
Labels, metrics, demographics, target groups, yadda, yadda, yadda... This is what we're doing to our children.
See, here's the thing. We all do this. We're all supposed to fit into these labels, these metrics. We also assign labels to others. The problem isn't really that we do so, or that it divides us, the real problem is that ANY label is too narrow.
For example:
According to the more hard core in the Hillary camp, Joan Walsh, Gloria Steinem, NOW, et al...I should be voting for her because we both have a vagina. To NOT do so is a betrayal of everything feminist, and a denunciation of women everywhere. I call this phenomenon "Vagikinesis" (also known as "The VaJayJay Factor" for the "hard working white Americans" "without a college education") - Akin to "Telekinesis," "Vagikinesis" can best be described as the ability of all vaginas everywhere to speak to each other, albeit in a silent, psychic sort of way.
I'm offended by this constant psychic chatter and its out-loud pundits... I'm a feminist(ish) who would give her eyeteeth for a woman president, but loathes the very idea of Hillary being that President. When a valid female candidate runs one day, it should be to the strengths that ARE woman, not to prove that her penis is bigger. Women are not men, they don't think like men, they don't react like men, they don't philosophize like men, and they don't talk like men, and they don't govern like men. Each have their strengths. EACH is important in the world scheme. EACH is equally capable, even while they come at things from different angles. I don't want a woman who has to prove something. What the feminist pundits and main spokespeople for "The VaJayJay Factor" don't seem to realize, is that they're foisting the old Freud canard of "penis envy" on us without even being aware they're doing so.
Don't get me wrong... I am a believer in the adage that a woman can do nearly anything as well as a man (physical limitations aside - deal with it girls, there ARE occasionally some physical limitations). Even be a President. But not as a woman pretending (Obliterate!) to be a man. As a woman who uses her inherent strengths, which are NOT a man's strengths - They aren't better, they aren't worse, they're just different. I, for myself, tune out the chatter... I have a degree in secondary education that I've chosen to not use, am a self taught (by choice and inclination) expert in a male dominated industry (IT) that I also don't use, but I do choose to own a business type that is diametrically opposite of my chosen skill set, and one that is 99.999997% male owned and practiced, tends to run extremely right wing and conservative, and I don't employ any women (not on purpose). I run my ship very well, but not by pretending to be "one of the guys." I am a walking contradiction. Go figure. I tune out the "VaJayJay Factor" because I refuse to be defined THAT narrowly.
I think that just makes me bitchin', not a demographic, not a label, not a metric. I dare you to define me.
Where I don't fit in:
~ I'm a blue collar worker, who owns a blue collar company, in a blue collar industry, so I should be voting for Hillary.
~ But my company nets a white collar, high 6 figure income, so I suppose I'm an elitist, who should be voting for Obama...
~ I loath Prius's, Birkenstocks, and Lattes and I love my flip-flops, I drive barefoot, my wolf dog mutt is as loved as my BKC Border Collie (I got the mildly developmentally disabled one) with the fancy-schmancy name, Tequila, Karaoke, Progressive Rock guitarists, my dogs, and pet rats, so I should be pulling for Hillary.
~ But I can't stand bowling, I hate beer & C&W music, and Crown Royal, so I guess I AM an elitist, and should be pulling for Obama...
~ I do not have a bit of "decorator," "name" furniture, "designer" clothing, or "things" to speak of, I seemingly never get off my office chair, and I got THAT on clearance, but I have a ratty old couch in my living room that is wholly owned by my wolf dog mutt, without even an argument about it (It was shameful really), so I should be voting for Hillary.
~ I DO have a massive, as-high-tech-as-I-could-get computer system & network, so I must be pulling for Obama.
But I got it on sale, hard core forcing discounts and give-always' on the poor, hapless Dell guy who had the misfortune to answer my call, so I suppose that puts me back into the blue collar Hillary camp...
~ I have a big screen Plasma TV, with HD & Home Theater, so I should be voting for Obama.
~ But it's a generic brand, bought on clearance, and I use old computer speakers and a merrily jury-rigged system of hook-ups to make it all come together, so I should be voting for Hillary...
~ I shop at Wal-Mart, and am physically and mentally incapable of passing up a "clearance" tag, so I must be pulling for Hillary.
~ But I grocery shop at Trader Joe's, and get one 6 shot venti mocha a day, so I'm obviously an elitist, and should be pulling for Obama...
~ I have a college degree, and am a Mensa member, so I must be an Obamamaniac
~ But I've never used it, and chose to own and build a blue collar business, so it's like I DON'T have one, so I must be for Hillary...
There hasn't been a metric or target group I've fit into in my entire adult life. I can't even answer a ethnicity survey because they don't have "me" on there. What if you're a mutt too? What if you are proud of ALL of them, and want to claim them all. Why should I be pigeonholed? Why should any of us? If you admit to earning a six figure income, you're placed into a specific metric. You're considered one of those foo-foo Prius driving, latte sipping, Birkenstock wearing whatevers'. But I'm not. I don't want targeted ads that ask me to shop at Macy's, or show me Lexus', and I damn well don't want to be defined by a politician, either by way of my income, or whether I have a vagina.
Hillary's campaign does this. Obama's does not, the media does it FOR him, but I don't hear too much in the way of metrics or labels coming from his campaign. But Hillary's campaign, they do it daily... In person, via spokespeople, via Bill, or Hill herself.
I look like a girl in an Irish Spring commercial, down to the congenital lack of a tan and freckles, and deep auburn hair, but I have African American and American Indian in my ancestry. Does that make me an AA Obama voter in Hillary's world? If so, are they going by the "one drop" rule? Or is it remotely possible that I made my own choices regardless of my demographic, my income, my education, my ancestry? They don't know I have a degree, so shouldn't I then fall into THEIR demographic? How narrowly defined is that? Are ALL AA's voting for Obama? No... Are all uneducated "hard working white Americans" voting for Hillary? No... But we're starting to look at each other funny nonetheless.
I'm tired of ALL of us looking at each other funny. I don't buy into any of the demographics. We're better at Kos than Taylor Marsh or MyDD or others in not defining others in a certain way, but even we aren't perfect.
I still don't forgive Hillary for the way she's treated even her own this silly season. I have a hard time buying into the let's be kind idea. But you know what? I'm just as offended by her narrowing, defining, and cementing who and WHAT her supporters are, as I am by her defining me as something I'm not. Her pigeonholing of her supporters leaves them little choice but to accept that definition of non-educated, blue collar, yadda, yadda, yadda - How wrong is it that they are left with little choice but to gather in crowds and happily chant the company line of "We are non-educated nobodies, but Hillary loves us... Err, yay?". We are ALL more than those ephemeral things. I don't grasp the reasoning of people who are being insulted by the person they're supporting, and supporting her all the harder for it, but that doesn't mean "I" need to narrow them into the demographic they are left with either. They're all capable of more, different, or better.
We need to stop looking at each other funny. We need to stop forcing definitions on each other, and we need to stop accepting the definitions of others. Let's learn to ask others who they are, not what they buy into.
Celebrate the differences that are "us"!
I am an INDIVIDUAL. I am not a metric, not a demographic, not a label, not a part of a target group. And you know what? I'm willing to bet that most of us, who have allowed ourselves to be placed into those various demographics and are now looking at each other funny, are not really any of those things either.
How 'bout you?
Cheers!
SophK