As a dominant member of society, I'm very confused: it seems you people can't make up your mind when you'd like to be discriminated against. As an educated, well-off white male, this is an area I need some kind of policy decision or white paper on. Someone better show me the Rules of Oppression Handbook, or Your Guide to the Delicate Sociopolitical Economy, because you've all lost me with this brain damaged shit. And one would imagine that — being oppressor in chief — I would be an important recipient of whatever message you care to deliver. I know, with some help from you, I could become a great oppressor. It's in my blood — white men have oppressed pretty much everyone else in the world at one time or another, and still continue to do so today. And I know that, with your support, I could flood your shanty towns with cheap alcohol, send your children to substandard schools, and put a gun shop on every corner in your neighbourhood better than anyone else. All I need is a clue — but I'm getting more mixed signals than a drunken Japanese businessman in a Gay Pride parade from you lot.

Explain this to me: how is it that we're told that we're all equal, and that's a terrible thing to discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but then praise someone for being the first black man to climb Everest, or the first female uniped to helm an advertising agency? Either you discriminate, or you don't. You can't discriminate when you fucking feel like it. My overwhelming impression when you start all this "first lesbian mayor", "first quadriplegic chess champion", "first black pilot" bullshit is that dykes suck at politics, cripples need help to play games and blacks can't fly for shit. Otherwise, why the distinction? You obviously feel the need to heap praise on people you feel sorry for when they perform pretty much the same as everyone else. Which is so fucking patronising, it gets me pissed off. Recently I heard an interview on the radio with "the best African matriculant", who had garnered 5 distinctions (more than I got, by the way). What the fuck is this? Rate people on a different scale, and you entrench discrimination. Simple.

"But DBM," says the liberal in you, "this guy had to walk 20 miles to school and did his homework on toilet paper. It's a great achievement." What about the dyslexic kid who passed Grade 12? What about the girl who was molested by her alcoholic father on a daily basis while trying to study for her maths exam? What about the depressive who tried to commit suicide 2 months before finals? Do we suddenly apply a different standard based on the hardship you experience at home or elsewhere? Why no interview with "the best matriculant whose parents are alcoholics" or "the best matriculant who has had to have reconstructive surgery after being sodomised with a garden rake"? Soon exams will have a front page where you have to fill in all the difficulties you overcame to be there with a pen in your hand. Will the passing grade for someone who is short-sighted be 5% lower than someone who has 20/20 vision? This is just plain bullshit... am I the only one who notices?