Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Those words in the Declaration of Independence are a simple, yet universal reminder of what is necessary for the good human life.

Life to be. Liberty to be who you are. The pursuit of happiness to be not only happy, but to just enjoy what life is in the first place.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is also where my definition of social justice begins – and ends. Whatever threatens life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and opportunity) is a threat to social justice and must be opposed with full force. Whatever is merely offensive – well, that goes on the back burner, at most.

On November 8, 2016, the electorate of the United States (actually, 25.5% of it; 46.9% didn’t even vote, which is a whole other problem) picked a President who is a genuine threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This man is a threat to reproductive rights. To marriage equality. To people wanting to walk down the street without police harassment. To affordable health insurance. To our climate and environment, without which we could not live at all. Period.

As long as this man and his fellow travelers control Washington, I do not want to hear complaints about:

·         Halloween costumes

·         How people sit on public transportation

·         Sexy video games

·         Sexy comic book art

·         Who gets to wear what hairstyle

·         Who gets to use what slang

·         Who gets to use what emoji

·         Fans not shipping what you like

·         Fans shipping what you don’t like

·         Authors saying things you don’t like

·         Creators not apologizing for creations you don’t like

·         Legitimate criticism of Islam and all other religions

In the last few years, the definition of social justice has been stretched and distorted so much that it is has become illiberal. I’m sorry that a dangerous President may be what it takes for Americans to understand what real injustice is. I just hope we survive long enough to never forget.

My bookshelves are not an affirmative action zone

Yes, I know my pile of books to be read looks short. The rest of them are on my Kindle.

In all of my time on Earth, I’ve only had one question when it comes to deciding what books to read (required school reading excepted):

Do I want to experience this story?

That’s it. Only seven words. It’s a seemingly simple question, but it is sufficient to its task, which is nothing less than creating the best reading experience for me.

Do I want to experience this story?

Not: Is this book on a best-seller list?

Not: Has the New York Times and NPR given it good reviews?

Not: Does it have “buzz” from the right people?

Do I want to experience this story?

Not: How much melanin is in the epidermis of the writer’s and/or characters’ skin?

Not: What kind of genitalia does the writer and/or characters have between the legs?

Not: What kind of people does the writer and/or characters desire sexual contact with (if any?)

Some readers care very much about the melanin, genitalia, and sexual desires of writers and the characters they create. They are not shy about saying so. They feel they are contributing to social justice by refusing to read books by and about the big bad cisgender, heterosexual white men. 

If that’s the thing that brings you joy, have at it. But it is a choice I will never make.

First, I'd miss out on too many great books that way.

Second, there is a word for denying people things that they deserve because of their innate and immutable characteristics, and it’s a word I don’t ever want to be.

Book Riot, a blog about the book world which has a good podcast and a raft of trendy clickbait articles, once said this: 

“[If] you say “I just want to read a good story,” you’re in essence saying “Books from people from other backgrounds don’t meet my criteria for being a good story.” [source]

In other words, if you don’t care about race, gender, and/or sexual orientation when deciding what books to read, it’s exactly the same as refusing to read books based on those three factors alone. That argument is not only false, it’s a form of gaslighting. 

No discrimination on my bookshelves. No affirmative action. No KEEP OUT signs based on innate and immutable characteristics.

Just stories that I loved experiencing.

What happens IN BETWEEN

The process is finally complete.

Let me announce my trilogy of short plays, collectively titled IN BETWEEN.

These are three stories about three couples in various locations in Southern California. Each of these couples have recently made love. Each of these couples will soon make love again. The action we see within these plays is the time in between being as close as two human beings can possibly be...and the realization that their intimacy has changed them both at a profound level.

We meet an avant-garde painter and a recently liberated caretaker; two young friends learning that fun can be the gateway to true love; a military wife with needs and dreams and the head shop owner who hides his own with a jester-like persona.

Each of these plays meets these couples in between...a place where they have decisions to make. Making a decision is the heart of drama. It is decisions, both ours and those of the people around us, which shape our lives. A punch in the face or the firing of a gun are not always what drama looks like.

What is my goal in creating this set of plays? Well, besides getting my name in a program, it’s about both desensationalizing and resensationalizing sex. Sound confusing? Let me explain.

Most people, when they hear that a play will have some sexual content in it, immediately think: “Ew, it’s going to be dirty,” or “Man, this is going to make me horny.” Neither of these is what IN BETWEEN is about. These plays contain no nudity and no words that can’t be said on network television.

I aim to harness the power of suggestion. To make a gesture such as taking a partner’s hand or kissing a partner’s forehead say more than words ever can.

For the three couples of IN BETWEEN, making love is not just recreational. These magical moments take couples into another world, a world of intensified sensations and emotions. When the apartment or bedroom door closes, the characters are not the same people they are in the world where most of us can see them. The closing of the physical door is just the overt sequestration...it is the touch of skin on skin that opens the door to the new world that lovers make for each other. What the lovers do on stage is show how much traveling to that new world has changed them.

IN BETWEEN, I hope, will be a lovely night at the theater...for lovers and for those in between loves.

To learn more, please e-mail jennie@jenniebrownhakim.com

The theory and the practice

I'm feeling in an educational mood today. So let’s take a look at some common social justice terms – the reasonable theory and the not-so-reasonable practice.

Asexuality, in theory: not feeling any sexual desire/attraction

Asexuality, in practice: anyone can say they’re asexual, even when sexual desire/attraction is present in them

#BlackLivesMatter, in theory: black lives matter

#BlackLivesMatter, in practice: if you say that any lives other than black ones matter, you’re racist

Cultural appropriation, in theory: claiming that an artifact (clothing, headdress, hairstyle, food, language, slang, etc.) originated in your culture when it actually originated in another culture

Cultural appropriation, in practice: using an artifact from a culture that is not yours under any circumstances. Synonymous with “theft.”

Demisexuality, in theory: only feeling sexual desire/attraction for people you have an emotional connection with

Demisexuality, in practice: a justification for certain straight people to call themselves “queer”

Heteronormativity, in theory: treating heterosexual relationships as the only “normal” ones

Heteronormativity, in practice: any depiction of a cis man and woman in a romantic relationship

Intersectionality, in theory: recognizing the “intersections” of oppression (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc.) when two or more are present

Intersectionality, in practice: white people can never talk about their problems without acknowledging that POC have it worse

Islamophobia, in theory: unfair criticism of Islam

Islamophobia, in practice: criticism of Islam, even for practices and attitudes that Christianity is dragged for all the time

Opinion, in theory: a person’s belief which is objectively neither true nor false

Opinion, in practice: when people have the WRONG ones, it is the duty of all decent folks to shame the hell out of them

Privilege, in theory: unearned advantages enjoyed by some people and denied to others

Privilege, in practice: if you’re white, your first and only job is to check, then dismantle it. Something that is absolute, not relative

Racism, in theory: the belief that some races are intrinsically inferior

Racism, in practice: white people’s automatic belief system about all other races. Also, something ONLY white people can feel

Rape culture, in theory: a belief that the prevailing culture not only downplays the seriousness and trauma of rape, but actively encourages this crime

Rape culture, in practice: not believing this exists in the Western world is just as bad as not believing in climate change

“Shut up and listen,” in theory: be quiet and listen to what I have to say

“Shut up and listen,” in practice: be quiet and start thinking like I do

 

Tone policing, in theory: telling “oppressed” people how to express their justified anger

Tone policing, in practice: when an “oppressed” person calls you a name, or says something about wanting to kill or hurt all members of a “privileged” group, and you protest

Toxic masculinity, in theory: stereotypical “male” behaviors and attitudes which cause real harm

Toxic masculinity, in practice: when a man isn’t sufficiently “feminine”

White feminism, in theory: when a white feminist says something that is tone-deaf to the concerns of POC

White feminism, in practice: when a white feminist says something