Some Things Really Are Priceless

"English? English? Shit, I thought you went to school for something. English ain't nothing."

The above quote is the response I get from people 90% of the time when I tell them that I am a Ph.D. candidate in English. In addition to that quote, I work with a gang of Education professors who look upon my graduate work with condescension because, as one Education professor put it, "You never have to do any quantitative studies. You just read and write, and what you all read and write really aren't pragmatic at all." Well, I can't argue with that. Anybody who has ever tried to read Lacan or Spivak knows that the obfuscate nature of their writing is difficult enough to read, let alone apply them to real situations.

It is true that since the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and other hardline conservatives painted humanities and social science professors as a bunch of ex-hippies looking to badly influence students with their Communist-inspired ideology, these majors have been on a steady decline. It seems that everyone who was anyone who went to college ran to the MBA programs. Those who really wanted to major in something that mattered took hardline sciences such as Biology, Physics, or Chemistry in order to obtain entrance into medical or nursing schools. Still others who wanted a quick, guaranteed job after college majored in elementary education. For the most part, by the time I enrolled in college in the late 1990s, people only majored in other Humanities/Liberal Arts courses to help them pass their LSATs and enter into Law School.

Thus, at this late date in the year of our Lord, most people ask me, "What in the Hell did you major in English for?" My answer is simply, "I like to read." Most people do not understand the purpose behind a humanities/liberal arts major because they cannot easily translate these majors into six-figure jobs. Most college undergraduates attend college to make money. The formula goes: 4 years of college + self-deprivation of the college life = big bucks, authority, and prestige upon matriculation. Since the 1980s, fewer and fewer jobs have been awaiting Humanities/Liberal Arts majors -even at the Ph.D. level. The degrees are equally difficult to obtain, since theories relating to human culture are never as simple as even the most difficult calculus equations. Humans just aren't that predictable. The purpose of a humanities/liberal arts education is to expose students to other cultures and other times in the human famiy through art/literature/anthropology/music/theatre/dance/philosophy/psychology/history, etc. And hopefully, along the way, we learn something about ourselves. We learn, through an engaging study of history, that it does not have to always repeat itself, and that people do not fit into neat little labels. But most of all, a degree in the humanities/liberal arts teaches us how to think about our world. LIBERAL ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES TEACHES US HOW TO THINK.

And seriously thinking about problems before we try to solve them really is priceless. If I have any criticism of American culture at large is that it is anti-intellectual. We continue to be the dumb jocks of the world -all muscle and no brain. Our current political discourse encourages all emotion and no reason. Other countries laugh at us because they can. Let me provide some prime and contemporary examples of where more liberal arts/humanities course would help our world reputation.

1. During last year's Presidential election, the Right accused Barack Obama of being a "Muslim/Islamic terrorist," and then proceeded to play clips of a very militant sermon from his long-term pastor, Jeremiah Wright. People were calling and twittering in to various political pundit shows saying how they were afraid of this "Muslim terrorist" who sat in church all of those years and listened to hatred from that antiwhite pastor. Sigh. When was the last a Muslim regularly attended your local churches? I've never known a Muslim to attend a Christian church regularly, seeing as how they have mosque sevices to fill their spiritual needs.

2. Not simple enough for you? Let's look at the healthcare debate. Why should we listen to people who use government/tax-payer funded healthcare tell us that government/tax-payer funded healthcare is bad? In case you don't know, all government workers/Congressmen use government/tax-payer funded healthcare...including Republicans. I was so embarassed for old people when they said, they don't want government-funded healthcare and the government had better not touch their Medicare. I can hear the French and Canadians laughing even in South Mississippi.

3. It's not American to pay taxes, but it is American to send soldiers to foreign countries to take natural resources. If not for taxes, who pays for wars?

4. Somehow, being gay has become a cardinal sin in America, but we're the fattest country in the world. Do I have the only Bible in the world that lists gluttony, not homosexuality, as one of the seven abominations before the Lord?

5. Celebrating Halloween is fine, but Harry Potter is witchcraft? How are the two different?

6. Wow, here's a good one. Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin tell people to watch out for liberal news bias and liberal news agendas. Those poor conservatives are always under threat, even though 91% of all talk radio is conservative talk radio and they have an entire news network devoted to their agenda. I guess the other 9% is REALLY dangerous.

These are just a few examples. I could go on and on. But hey, I'm writing to Americans, and you're tired of reading by now. Thanks for sticking around this long. Think about this, most of our greatest leaders, presidents, and thinkers were liberal arts majors. However, George Bush II had an MBA from an Ivy League school. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, studied in three liberal arts areas before attending law school: Philosophy, Economics, and Political Science. One left a surplus. The other left a deficit. THINK about it.

Disappearing White Privilege?

I must say, I hate when people relegate racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia to Mississippi. I hate it because I travel extensively. I follow the news extensively. I'm a history bug. I consider all of the above -hatred - an American problem; not one exclusive to any state or region of the country. From Watts, to Detroit, to Chicago, to Memphis to Jackson to Dallas to Washington D.C., senseless acts of violence have erupted in this country, taking the lives (or in the case of Reagan, attempting to take the lives) of some of our most promising leaders.
When historians write of these times, most of them talk about the politico-economic uncertainty that produced flames of fear and hatred. What they don't talk about is the importance of the hot air coming out of people's mouths that whipped those flames into 5-alarm fires of violence. Case in point: the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 was not a random act of violence. It was carefully planned and orchestrated. Could it also be that Mr. McVeigh, and other domestic terror groups are being given signals to use extremism and violence against opposing points of view from Conservative -often Republican -leaders?
With the passage of the health care bill, the secret service has seen an increase in terror threats against Democratic lawmakers. In Ohio, New York, and even in Washington D.C., seemingly random acts of violence and racial/sexual epithets have been hurled at lawmakers. In Pinson, Alabama, a Mr. Mike Vanderboegh is calling for like-minded patriots to break the windows of Democratic lawmakers before rifle owners have to resort to pulling guns in a new revolution. Mr. Vanderboegh is not patriotic enough, however, to turn down his government-issued social security disability checks which support his suburban lifestyle. Michelle Bachmann, giving an interview earlier this week, described herself as a "foreign correspondent on enemy lines." I saw senior Republican Party members fan the flames of angry Tea Party members by waving their flag back and forth. Meanwhile, on the floor of government, Republicans are just now proposing some sane amendments to the health care bill. Why now? We don't even know what's in the health care bill. Neither does Mr. Vanderboegh. And I'm willing to bet that most of those Tea Party members don't know, either.
So, what's the real issue here? We know that the Congressional Budget Office said that the new health care bill actually reduces the deficit, and is not guaranteed to grow the government. So, what are these people really wailing about? Most of them receive Medicare/Medicaid or some form of assistance. Those who are not already receiving this benefit, will certainly qualify for it in the future. So, I ask again, what's really going on here?
It is my belief that domestic terrorism and anger at government increase from those who stand to benefit the most from government increase is a screen for a more American problem: that of hatred. These people are terrified of losing what they feel is some sort of white privilege. In America, whiteness is a property that comes with not only a form of normalization of life and experiences, but with a certain intrinsic value protected by legal, social, and economic institutions. J. W. Cash called it the Proto-Dorian bond, and it is to be guarded and watered by the "blood of tyrants" who dare take it away. One of the cornerstones of white privilege is that it is exclusive. In order to enjoy this white privilege, one needs first and foremost, white skin. I think that may be all, because certainly the throngs of poor white people gathered in Washington D.C. and who live and benefit from government intervention, have nothing to gain under Republican rulership, which leans toward big business. According to W. J. Cash, the Proto-Dorian bond is a feeling of unity and support that unites whites across all class lines in a common culture of white supremacy. So, it was no slip of the tongue when Pat Buchanan, when being interviewed by Rachel Maddow, claims that white men alone built this country and its theirs.
All of this violence, protesting, screaming, and yelling is not about Big Government. It's not about health care. It's not about the deficit. If you ask me, these are just code words in a common culture of white supremacy. White supremacists feel like they are under attack, and may very well lose the white privilege they've enjoyed for more than three centuries in the United States of America. They are angry at the white people who voted for Barack Obama. They are angry at the white lawmakers who would betray them by guaranteeing immigrants and minorities a share of that seemingly shrinking American Pie. Most of all, they are afraid, and their leaders are stoking that fear every day. People like John Boehner, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, John McCain...good white American people who stand up to this "socialist/communist takeover" are their last hopes. In true American fashion, they react the only way they know how: with hateful words and equally violent actions that follow. If this violence results in tragedy, I think the people who are fanning the flames should also be held accountable, not just the participants of the protests and acts.

Barack Obama, Political Chess Master II (Special Commentary)

Last night, I watched as this historic healthcare reform passed. There was much drama and action. The procedure itself has the making of a very good movie: the Tea Party members spitting on members of Congress and calling them racial/sexual epithets, Jessie Jackson Jr. having to bang that gabble and raise his voice to call for order during a very heated verbal exchange, John Boehner invoking scripture trying to shame a few more Democrats away from the "Yes" box. I tell you. I was on the edge of my seat.

The highlight came when a cool President Obama, standing in front of a very emotional and passionate Vice President Biden said, "This is what change looks like." As cool and as calm as expect any Black man to be, he looked square into the eyes of his political adversaries and he said in so many words, "Checkmate."
I bubbled over with laughter. My eyes brimmed with tears as I remembered the Lion of the Senate, a rich man who devoted almost his entire career to attaining healthcare for those less fortunate than himself. Then, I became uncontrollably angry because the public option/expansion of Medicaid for everyone is not in this bill. Why in the Hell would they take out such a huge victory for the American people? I mean, it's such a big bill that includes....

Then, exactly ten minutes after Barack Obama declared "checkmate," I realized that I don't know what is in this bill. Yes, I am a political junkie who watches at least four hours of political commentary every day, and I don't know what the heck is in this bill. I know if I don't know what's in it, all of those fanatics out there yelling about socialized medicine don't know, either.
So far, the coverage of this historic change has not been on the specifics of this bill. We saw the sausage making process, but not the ingredients of the links. Media focus has been on the strategy of the game, the coaches' game plays on each side, rather than what was happening on the field. Who wins? Who loses? Who's going to suffer at the polls? Who's going to benefit? What's Obama going to do next? How have the Republicans been so effective at controlling the message? What message? Aside from scaring the hell out of folks about death panels and "socialized medicine," there hasn't been a message.

So, the public option is out, but what's in? I don't know. The opposers of the bill don't know. This factor, including the ramping up of the rhetoric of fear and the constant referral to this bill as "Obama care", further affirms my view that this whole ordeal has been more about fear of what this Black man, leader of the free world, can do than about policy-making. Inciting violence against Barack Obama and the Democrats smacks of the jealous jouissance of Southern lynch picnics. What was that dark day in America's history all about? Power play dynamics and phallic authority. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh...you don't have to take my word for it.

Sadly, our public discourse is stil informed by white supremacy and jealous sexual projections. Sadly, those people who were out there spitting on lawmakers and taunting them probably need that help the most. Sadly, those people out there probably cannot even define the very words that very rich, white men like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh told them to use. Sadly, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh know exactly what they are doing. Sadly, those folks do not know that they are being used in a powerful class war and a fear of redistribution of wealth and elitism. They are no better than those young, poor white boys who died in the Civil War to enrich the pockets of wealthy plantation overlords, a class they could never belong to. Sadly, those people and their children will also benefit the most from the passage of such a bill, in spite of their manifest hatred.

So, even though President Obama cannot directly say it to his adversaries, I will. Check mate. "On to the next one" in the words of Jay-Z.

Some advice for all political pundits -liberal and conservatives - get used to a new, cooler style of leadership. We are dealing with a very calculated political genius, not someone prone to egotistical, masculine posture. There's actually some substance behind his exterior, and nobody can rush him. He's the chess master. You don't rush a chess master before he makes his move. He must study the board from every angle. He must study his opponent's peices from every angle, anticipate his move, and be prepared to counter it. That takes more than posturing. That takes brains. And brains is what we have back in the White House after an eight year vacuum.

President Obama, the Political Chess Master

President Obama has occupied his current post for about 15 months now. For 14 of those months, he has aggrevated his base to no end...even myself, an African American woman who is a Southerner to boot. He has made me regret voting for him, and left me wishing that I'd voted for Hillary Clinton instead. As the "birthers," including Lou Dobbs, questioned his citizenship, we asked, "Why doesn't he do something?" As the Tea Party members showed up to his rallies with loaded weapons, we asked, "Why doesn't he say something?" As the antireform factions interrupted town hall meeting after town hall meeting, we shouted, "When are you going to take the lead?" As we watch Republicans controll the healthcare debate message, every one from Chris Matthews to Bill Maher challenged President Obama by telling him, "Lead, damn it Lead! You are the president of the United States! Act like it and lead."

Which is exactly what Barack Obama, current president of the United States, wanted us to do. Barack Obama the candidate played down race. He ran as an American man, not a Black one. He quoted Abraham Lincoln as his favorite president, and failed to mention the works of Frederick Douglass (an "overlooking" that garnered him criticism from some in the African American community). He stayed out of sight as Republicans and Conservatives concocted fake Kenyan birth certificates. He sat "idly" by and let the Democratic Congress and Nancy Pelosi mop up after the "death panels" windfall. Like a political chess master watching a three-dimensional chess board, he let everyone say what they wanted to say when they wanted to say it, and when everybody ran out of steam about everything, he moved. He went directly to a Republican meeting and took unscreened questions with no teleprompter, and had it televised -a first for our nation. He held a boring, seven-hour press conference on healthcare, calling out Republican incentives and naming names. When he'd done all of that, Daddy came back home and gave Congress a deadline for a bill, giving them the go ahead for reconciliation. To date, no Republicans have made an effective rebuttal.

Check mate.

Though Barack Obama the candidate played down his race, he has conducted himself like the level-headed Black man that he has to be in order to operate in America. He gave us the old ideological rope-a-dope as long as he had to in order to obtain a signed permission slip to lead (Right now, the letter supporting a public option in the Senate has up to 40 signatures). He knows that as a Black man, he's always already perceived as an angry Black man. He is always already perceived as less than capable of being in a position of leadership. As a Black man, he is always already perceived as someone more interested in chasing tail than chasing enemies. As a Black man, Barack Obama could not come out swinging and jabbing. Like Richard Pryor's character on Harlem Nights, he had to play it smooth and he had to play it sweet.

Now we're begging him to lead. Lead damn it! We're begging him to cease being a Black man, and be our president. Exactly what he wanted to hear. To his opponents I say:

"Check mate!"

The Perceived Hypocrisy of the Republican Party

In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran for president against Lyndon B. Johnson. Goldwater leaned heavily to the right of the Republican Party. He championed free enterprised and ranted against large government. He was a strict constitutionalist who also believed in the moral health of Americans. He was also a gun rights advocate. Many Southern and midwestern Democrats switched parties; thus, began the Goldwater Movement. It joined social conservativism and the Republican Party. The tenants of the Goldwater Movement were simple: socially, the followers were conservative; economically, the followers believed in free enterprise and libertarianism. Social conservatives and Economic liberals joined together under the same tent.
Though Goldwater did not win his bid for presidency, he opened the way for every Conservative's champion, Ronald Reagan, who gave a speech for Goldwater in the 1964 campaign. Today's GOP prides itself in being "The Party of Reagan." Ronald Reagan preached smaller government, lower taxes for corporations to spark job creation, deregulation of the banking and finance sectors, fewer dollars spent on social benefits, cuts to education spending and mental health services, looser gun laws, and individual responsibility for crime (tougher crime penalties). That was 1980-1988. Fastfoward to 2010.
The problem with the Republican Party is that it looks hypocritical. Young people, who are not well-versed in history or political theory and who have never heard of Barry Goldwater, were born after Ronald Reagan or even George Bush elder served, do not understand how social conservativism and economic liberalism can exist together. For instance, most conservatives are against abortion but support the death penalty and war. So, conservatives would save an unborn life but take away another's who they may not like or regard highly? So, when the rich have to pay more taxes to support social/infrastructure improvement project it is "redistribution of wealth," but giving the banks and other Fortune 500 companies a tax-payer funded bailouts is not? Medicare and a public option are forms of socialism and that's bad, but allowing a few private companies to determine who is worthy of healthcare, what kind of treatments they can receive, and whether someone lives or dies is not a form of tyranny or even terrible? So, people should be free to choose when it comes to healthcare and medical treatment, but gay couples are not free to choose to be married? If Sarah Palin were truly a Conservative woman, why isn't she supporing her husband in the background while he commands the spotlight?
To younger voters, it seems as if the Republicans want things both ways. It seems like mass hypocrisy to a younger generation. How do they remedy this? If they do not remedy this perception problem, the party will dissolve as old, white male voters die and leave confused and angry younger voters who see their ideals as hypocrisy.

The Problem with the postBaby Boomer Generation

Detroit is in ruins. Unemployment amongst African Americans is well past that of other nationalities. Suicide rates amongst African American males between the ages of 18 and 35 is also increasing. Most people, who live inside Wayne County, have to drive an hour for fresh fruits and vegetables. Even on Black in America, it was revealed that it is easier to obtain a gun in some Black neighborhoods than a fresh tomato.
How did this happen? When did this happen? How could we just sit by and let it happen?
It has been my privilege to spend my days teaching and discussing African American/diasporic literature. For the past two semesters, I've been focusing on Black people and our quest to achieve the American Dream. First, I ask my students, who are normally between the ages of 20 and 60, what they think the American Dream is. The answers include: a nice home in the suburbs, plenty of designer clothes, and at least one luxury car. Next, I ask them if they think the myth of American prosperity is true. If my class consists of mostly middle class white students, the answer is overwhelmingly "no." If my class consists of mostly Black and poor white students, the answer is "yes." These students really and truly believe in the American Dream. And they believe that it is achievable, one way or the other.
The next sector consists of me teaching them several texts written by Black people that are related to the American Dream. My major text is "A Raisin in the Sun," the groundbreaking play by the late Lorrain Hansberry. Here's the thing about their answers and the play that disturbs me the most, and these notes are also part of my lecture to the students.
I notice that in their answers, nobody said anything about getting a better education. Nobody says anything about having more time to properly raise their children. The answers were solely materialistic and having the ability to buy bigger and better material goods. "A Raisin in the Sun" also has an interesting subplot. There is a generational/geographical shift between the mother, Lena Younger, and her children, Walter and Beneatha. Lena Younger and her husband, Walter Younger Sr. migrated from the South to one of our Northern industrial centers. Like the millions of African Americans to do so during the Great Migrations I and II, they were filled with hope and joy at the prospect of earning fair wages. But like so many, their hopes turned into the nightmare embodied by the ghetto in which they lived. Walter Younger, Sr. had to die in order for his family to earn enough money to even think of leaving that ghetto. I notice that, in the play, neither one of the children mourned their father. They were totally focused on that $10000 pay check, and what it meant for them individually. Lena sees this tendency in her children, but cannot quite articulate the trouble with them. Asaigi, the African boyfriend of Beneatha, did. He, like so many readers of the play, found it odd that the children argued over money that their father died for, with no mention or thanks to him.
Here's where I come in. With the Great Migration II, African Americans became mostly urban people for the first time in history. People were glad to get away from the cotton fields of the Mississippi Delta and the sugar cane farms of Louisiana. I cannot blame them. Share cropping is another name for volunteer slavery. These people took with them horror tales of white supremacy, Blues, jazz, quilting, church, spirituals, hair braiding, soul food, and jive. They told their children stories of how they were so poor that they could not afford new shoes and clothes; how they could not get their hair pressed every week; how they did not even have enough to eat most days. Suddenly, it became fashionable to poor and Black from Mississippi. Children, once seen as sources of wealth because added hands meant added labor for the farm, became an inconvenience. Women, like Ruth Younger, did not want added mouths to feed because they had to think about the children that were already here. Abortions became a blessing, and not a taboo.
What these people failed to take with them was family history. Yes, Jim Crowism was bad, but what about the uncle that always outsmarted the white man or the passive aggressive aunt that told her white woman employer, "I don't know about this strike Ms. Dorothy, but I'm gone stay off them buses until this mess get straightened out." What these people failed to take with them was a sense of pride and dignity. Yes, people were share croppers, but walking with your shoulders rounded is not worth anything man can offer. No, people did not have the best houses or the trendiest clothes. But the houses and the clothes that they had were kept clean and neat. Being poor does not give us a reason to live like animals. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
So the thing that came down between Lena Younger and her children was a lack of teaching and too much teaching. The South was bad. Mississippi was everybody's nightmare, but being next to the soil taught survival skills, dignity, family unity, and pride. The Baby Boomer generation, most of them having grown up in the South, or least visited with their grandparents from the summer, still have some of these skills. In the name of "progress," or in the name of achieving the ever-elusive American Dream, either wanted to forget these things or failed to pass them on. And look at what the forgetfulness, the lack of teaching has wrought. Look at Detroit. Look at Chicago. Look at Memphis. Look at New Orleans. Look at Houston. Look at Richmond. Look at Oakland. The next time a Baby Boomer asks, "What's wrong with the young people?" Look in the mirror.
In breaking the glass ceiling, in becoming the first this and the first that, in becoming middle class, in achieving the American dream, in racing to be my competition because you do not want to retire and become irrelevant, have you failed to teach me, my elder?

Gender is Still THE Issue; That Old Vaginal Tax

My colleagues and I pride ourselves on being very liberal, intelligent and tolerant people. After all, we have chosen the humanities as our focus. We have chosen to become professors of humanities as our career paths. We have chosen to dedicate our lives to enlightening students to the value of others' cultures through literature. And let me just say, we did not do it for the money.

I said all of that to say this, I am guilty, I think, of being hypocritical. Though I consider myself to be very tolerant, there is one group of people I cannot stomach. It is the group of young ladies who call themselves "lesbians," who walk around with three sports bras on and shave their heads or wear cornrows. They sag their pants and walk with a wide stance like a male. Some of them even wear dildos at all times. I have seen them challenge men to outward shows of physical prowess, and heard about them beating their girlfriends...just like abusive men. They are not transgender. They do not want to become men. Yet, they want to be treated and looked upon as men, especially in their relationships.

Let me be clear, here...I'm not homophobic. I have many friends who are gay and lesbians. But the above group of "lesbians" really get beneath my skin. I have placed this group in quotation because I am questioning their sexuality. It seems to me, that these people are not really lesbians at all. Before I get a ton of hateful emails, please finish reading what I'm saying and think about it.

Maybe these women are not lesbians. For them, lesbianism is not a function of sexuality. I feel that these women suffer from plain old penis enny. Now, I'm no dummy. I know Freud and his theories have been thoroughly debunked by feminists, but I'm writing about what I see. I feel that these women are mascarading as lesbians in order to get the same respect they feel that men sometimes undeservingly receive in our society.

Everything from teaching, to nursing, to the WNBA is devalued in monetary compensation as well as respect because they are female-dominated positions. Have you heard RAP lately? Are there any female rappers out there? Surely, when RAP first started and was marketed by African Americans to African Americans, there were many female RAP artists. With RAP's explosion on the mainstream market, came the disappearance of female rappers.

Have we in America created an atmosphere conducive to penis envy and "lesbianism?" Perhaps the only way many of these women feel that they can be taken seriously as human beings is to cloak themselves in masculinity. Walk like a man, talk like man, wear a man's penis, and beat another woman like a man. Does that truly garner respect?

Let me take this out of the gay/lesbian community and make it national. I recently posted an article claiming that I'm waiting on derogatory remarks toward Michelle Obama from the Right. Less than one week later, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was introduced as Obama's Supreme Court pick. The vile hatred and claims of reverse racism coming from the Right has been repulsive...absolutely repulsive. This woman has been called racist, stupid, and affirmitive action pick by men of the Right. The women have been fairly silent.

Racism aside, I wonder how much of this has to do with Sotomayor's gender as well. After all, C. Gordon Liddy did imply that the woman's menstrual cycle would inhibit her ability to render justice. Beck refered to her as "hispanic chick lady." Dennis Miller did a crude impersonation of her as a female Spanish dancer. With all of this derogatory activity, I wonder how long it will take some sick joker on the Right to come out with a Sotomayor nutcracking doll. I recall the whole Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco. The amazing thing about that case was, his intelligence never came into question -only his sexual prowess.

It has been disheartening, as a young, Black, female aspiring academic to hear this kind of criticism thrown at a woman who became the editor of Yale's Law School Journal. It has proven to me, that the according to the Right, the American Dream is not only prohibited to those with skin of color, but also to those who happen to have been born with a vagina. And I can offer this word of caution to the "lesbian" community...wearing a fake penis won't make things any easier.