It's all in the Genes

My husband just shared this link with me: The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

Near the end of the article is this quote:
"If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal."

I disagree. You're saying we're inherently unique. We have traceable characteristics from all of our ancestors. If we could trace ALL of them, then you would find that every one of us got a different mix, ignoring identical twins or cloning experiments. I don't want to get into the whole "separate but equal" debate, because anyone past 6th grade knows how well that went in US history. But you must accept that while my children and I have blue eyes, my husband has brown eyes. This makes him unique. It says nothing of the superiority of any particular eye color. If a scientist can pin down that we're looking for someone with brown eyes, that leaves the others of us out, now doesn't it? That's all it does. It doesn't say the other eye-colors CAN'T do what the one did, only that they didn't in this case.

If DNA evidence can point to a gender, why limit it from pointing to likely pigmentation, hair color, or any other visible characteristic? If the perpetrator left behind a brown hair or a fingerprint, we would use that. We don't limit our fingerprint evidence to the top half of the right index finger. "Oh, we only got a ring finger, and the bottom half at that. Leave it behind." Why should we cripple DNA evidence? An observant investigator may find that the person limped at the scene. The perp had size-10 shoes with wear on the outer heel. These are all pieces of the puzzle.

No sane person will say "This crime was committed by a white woman, therefore ALL criminals are white and female." By extension, it's idiotic to assume that evidence of a Race-X rapist or a Race-Y burglar means that all Race-X men (or women, for that matter) are rapists or all Race-Y men (or women) are burglars. Pretending that every person in the world looks and thinks and acts just like every other person in the world is ludicrous and just furthers misunderstandings. If we're all supposed to be completely blind to any factors outside of our own limited experiences, then we'll never be able to empathize with anybody. Anybody.

To take this to the ludicrous end: My brother is not female, but we're supposed to be blind to that. {But why does he never menstruate? That's just not normal. What -I- experience is the only normal, so -he- must be defective.} My brother grew up with the same parents and stepparents I did. He lived in the same houses in the same cities I did. He watched most of the same TV, got approximately equal time with grandparents, and even shared many friends with me. This does not make him just like me. We somehow managed to get somewhat differing political views. We have different social setups. He has no children, no spouse. If two full siblings can be so very different, how can we assume two people who happen to share a skin pigment or country of origin are the same?

To Marry or Not to Marry?

CNN has an article about marriage or rather, about people deciding not to wed.

My husband and I had a similar discussion before we married. He didn't like the religious overtones to even the most non-religious of American weddings, but we ended up having a JP marry us to make the INS process much easier. It's strange. Marriage really does grant invisible benefits. I can remember talking to a woman on the phone, maybe when we were changing car insurance companies, who said "now, since you're not married ..." and I said, "We ARE married." And all was well. Our car insurance went down by a huge chunk with that 3-word sentence. When I had health insurance through work, it was expected that I put my husband on. Why is this limited to heterosexual married people? Do non-religious or homosexual people not matter as much? I don't think so.

Activism

Below the Belt is a Queer activism site I've just discovered. It's very interesting with a broad range of topics. Gender/religion issues, economics, and an advice column are among the first posts I read. So far, I find it intelligently written and the comments are also well thought out and thought-provoking. This blog is going on my regular reading list.

Small Town Goodness

Inspired by an AP article
And I thought -I- grew up in a small town. Frederick, KS, is also listed as a Ghost town and in ePodunk.com, but the linked AP article is where I heard of it. At a census listing of 11, it is the second smallest town in Kansas. Freeport, coming in with a census of 7, gets the title of "smallest town" in Kansas. Frederick has 7 street lights and, the mayor and a councilman do all the public property mowing. Frederick once featured a general store, hotel, post office, two lumber and hardware tores, a blacksmith shop, a bank, a doctor's office, three churches, and a town band. What more could you ask for?

Mmmm, Okra!

I want to assure you that I'm not being sarcastic when I say I'd love to attend the Irmo Okra Strut in Irmo, SC. I love okra. I've always loved okra. It may help that I was introduced to it in its deep-fried form at Po-Folks, a severely dorkily named restaurant that I liked anyway as a child. Then I had gumbo and I was sold for life. Mmmm, Okra!

Well hello there.

Let me introduce myself.
I'm 1/4 army brat and I enjoy bawdy songs.

What, you want to know more?
Hm. I know, "how can someone be 1/4 army brat?" My parents divorced when I was tiny, so I spent my summers with my dad, who has since retired as a Major from the US Army.
I'm the second of two children.
I'm the mother of two children.

I've started this account on a lark with no plan in mind. I only have (counts in head ... 4, 5?) several others. It will probably sit and gather digital dust like almost all my others. I do expect this blog to be the repository for my more inane and fleeting thoughts, such as:
You know your family is immune to your weirdness when you sing "It's the end of the juice as we know it" and nobody looks up or even comments.