Why We're Fighting

Some days, days like today, all I want to do is curl up on my couch and cry and hide and hug my wife.  Apparently in Missouri, a gay man was arrested for trying to see his partner in the hospital.  The sick man's family didn't want him there, and the nurse refused to look at the power of attorney papers they had.  He was handcuffed and removed from the hospital.  Now he can't return at all because the hospital has placed him under a restraining order.  You can read the full story here.

I am constantly told by straight people, both ally and enemy to the gay community, that full marriage is not required.  That we have the capability of being just as protected as any hetero couple out there if we just have the correct legal papers in order.  Well, here's a newsflash for those who agree with that idea:

THEY HAD THE LEGAL PAPERS IN ORDER.

One more time in case you didn't quite understand:

THEY HAD THE FUCKING PAPERS IN ORDER AND STILL WERE NOT PROTECTED.

Regardless of the fact that Obama signed something "guaranteeing" that we would not have to deal with situations like this, apparently we still do.  Full legal marriage would prevent things like this.  A stack of papers "simulating" marital status does not.  This poor man just wanted to see his partner, who was lying sick in the hospital, probably just wondering where his partner was.  There is no telling what the stupid family told him about the absence.  They were obviously not the most supportive of the relationship from what I can tell.

THIS is why we keep fighting for marriage. Not civil unions or domestic partnerships, but full, protected marriage.  Yes, we take these lesser items when offered because any protection is better than none at all.  I will sure as hell be in line May 1 when Leon County, Florida starts letting us register as domestic partners.  We need the protection.  Just last year my partner had to have a surgical procedure, and I damn near gave myself an ulcer being terrified and worried that if (Goddess forbid) something happened I would be denied access and decision making ability.  That her family, which is 6 hours away and Jehovah's Witness affiliated, would be the only ones allowed to choose what happened.  I live my life this terrified.  What if I get hurt at work or somewhere, and they don't let her in to see me or make decisions for me?  What if...what if...what if... 

I'm tired as hell of living life terrified.  I decided long ago that my orientation and relationship were not secrets to be hidden.  I have not once changed a pronoun or deferred a conversation because I was worried about the consequences.  I am proud to be who I am, and I am certainly proud to be with my awesome wife of 15 years.  She's amazing and beautiful and brilliant and wonderfully geeky, but my pride will not protect us.  It will not grant either of us the power to control decisions if the worst happens.  And apparently neither will those papers of approximation. Think about that the next time you want to tell me a union or partnership or talk with a lawyer will be enough.    

Waxing Poetic the Ninth, Poetry Month Day 8: "We Didn't Vilify White People..."

Continuing with my spoken word series here, I present you the amazing Suheir Hammad, a woman of Palestinian heritage with more talent in her little finger than I have in my whole head.

Adventures in Women's Studies: Purity-Mongers Strike Again

Earlier this week, I guest lectured in a Gender and Pop Culture class using the research I did for my honors thesis--the Duggars, Quiverfull, purity movements, and the like. It went quite well as usual, and we ended the class by watching the new 45 minute documentary of Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth. She analyzes the obsession with a woman's purity and how this in fact sexualizes women and girls even more by placing their entire worth between their legs. Excellent watching. Find a way to view it.

In any case, it just so happens that Valenti was also just on Anderson Cooper debating with Randy Wilson, who is the male half of the couple that created the infamous Purity Balls, ample footage of which can be found on you tube. The usual arguments were made (brilliantly on Valenti's part, weak and insane on Wilson's in my humble opinion), and much merriment was had by all the feminists. Then they discussed a you tube vlog that went viral at the end of last year, posted by a 13-year-old Canadian girl about slut shaming.

Slut Shaming: the act of shaming a woman as a slut for her actual or perceived sexual activity based on rumor, attire, or knowledge of her personal life; most important to note is that it is solely aimed at women

She should be explaining this to a majority of the grown women I know. She breaks down how it contributes to sexism and rape culture and basically does the universe a service by putting this out there for her audience. The after-show "continued discussion" featured several audience members quietly losing their shit over how this 13-year-old was discussing sex and sluts. "She's so young." "She's advocating sex at 13." "She's too young to know anything about this." Okay, I usually have some issues with the current youth movement's insistence on supporting youth rights as extensively as they do. Don't get me wrong. I do think that young adults should be taken seriously, but they are still young adults, which means they do still need guidance and not all of them are as capable and mature as the movement would have you think. However, this girl is obviously quite knowledgeable, and the fact of the matter is that she never advocated sex for 13-year-olds. Not once. She never said she was having sex. Not once. She never even said that all her friends were having sex. Again, not once. What she advocated was well-informed, consensual, safe sex for those who are mentally and physically prepared to deal with the act and its possible consequences--an excellent thing to stump for as far as I can see. These women (and notice that it was only women) who basically attacked her mentally blocked everything she said except "have sex," instantaneously morphing a mature, well-thought-out, brilliant message that should be standard fare in any household into a blanket endorsement of child sex. In the process, they absolutely lost the message, one that they would have done well to absorb. There are kids having sex at 13 (and younger in some cases), and they have internalized the larger culture's ideals that a woman having sex at any age is a slut but a man is a stud. This is not new, but it is still a problem and needs to be addressed as such by women of all ages.

Valenti's main argument is that by focusing our attention completely on whether or not a girl or woman has had sex or not is painting her as nothing more than a sexual creature, which is exactly what the purity movements claim that larger society does and what they claim to be fighting by shoving the purity ideal down the throats of people at every turn. What they need to understand is that no one is attacking the idea of not having sex. That's fine. But they also need to understand that they need to stop attacking the idea of having it, which is also fine. A woman is not only the area between her legs, not just the number of times she's been intimate, and not solely the length of time she remains celibate; she is a complex creature with wants and needs every bit as important as her sexual activity or lack thereof. In short, can we please start telling our daughters and sons that the body is an amazing thing that houses the wonders of the mind and soul, which are truly the markers of a person's worth, and that there are better things to worry about than how many times the kid in the next row has or has not done the deed.

Adventures in Women's Studies: *Facepalm* Ad Infinitum

What a way to start a morning...So, Summer's Eve has a new set of commercials promoting their wash and on-the-go wipes, and oh dear Goddess. What's the big deal?, you ask. Well, go check them out at Huffington Post. I'll wait...

Summer's Eve Hail to the V Commercials

Done? See what I mean? What in the world made them think these were a good idea? The Black woman goes to the club, the Latina is having kids, and the white woman is apparently the reason for the entire world. I would love to meet the person in advertising who created this mess. Between these and the Klondike bar fiasco (read my response to that here), I feel like I've fallen through some portal into the 1950's. What's next? Hoover commercials telling us that wives want a vacuum for Christmas or a woman caressing a shiny new refrigerator?

What has happened, people? I know that fads and time periods come and go; just look at fashion. But really? Fifties' style sexism? I could do without that one returning. The worst part of all this is that it isn't just advertising. Take a look at politics. Michele Bachmann has fully admitted that she follows old school biblical submission in her household, which of course, calls into question who exactly would be running the country should she be elected (Goddess forbid). Would her commitment to submission become a serious problem were she to be the most powerful person in the country? (And a question for another blog: how does being president even work with that ideal?) Regardless, it shows how prevalent these sexist ideals have become, and frankly, I am really worried. We are presenting the next generation of girls with these fragmented and outdated templates of how they are "supposed" to be. If this continues, no one should be surprised when teen pregnancy stays the same or increases (child bearing being an ideal job), when domestic abuse and rape become just another minor problem (more so than they already are seen as), and college stops being a means to a life of one's own and starts being just a way to get an Mrs. degree.

And yes, all this from poorly conceived advertising...

Step Right Up!: (Reluctantly) Weighing in on the Casey Anthony Circus

I cannot believe I'm writing this blog. I have ignored the entire Casey Anthony debacle as much as possible, and I wouldn't even have known they reached a verdict had every news source not been blasting it. Of course, as soon as the verdict was read, Facebook blew up. In fact, there are already two of those re-postables in honor of the little girl going around, after only about 45 minutes. By the way, this post is probably going to piss some people off, just to warn you.

First of all, I am making no judgments on whether she did or did not kill her daughter. I was not there. I did not see anything, was not present in the courtroom to see evidence or hear testimony, nor do I even know any of the people involved even remotely. Therefore, I have no reason to think my judgments would be correct. If she did do it, she should have been punished, though the death penalty would never have been reasonable in my opinion. If she didn't, I'm glad she was acquitted.

I am not writing this to yell and scream about her not guilty verdict. Nor am I writing it to proclaim her innocence. As I said, who am I to say? I was not on her jury. What this is about is the public response to the whole mess. Since it began, the public has been collectively losing its mind over this case. Yes, it is sad that a small child died. Is she the only one that died at that time? No. Is she the only one who died under odd circumstances? No. Do I think that if she had been a child of color or someone much poorer the media would have jumped on this? No. The Casey Anthony circus reminds me a great deal of the Jon Benet Carnival several years back, and I have the same opinions about that mess as well.

I continue to be depressed and aggravated by my fellow human beings. You would think the woman had come into their homes and murdered their child from the tone and comments. The comment (from Facebook, of course) that bothered me the most was: "I have never been so disappointed or disgusted with our legal system." Really? Never? Not once? While I do believe that murder is a serious and terrible offence, this particular case is certainly not one that made me lose faith in the legal system. That happened years and years ago and continues to happen repeatedly. Rapists walk the streets, women are still forced to pay for their own rape kits in some areas, children are taken away from loving parents because of sexual preference, a homeless man is given years in prison for stealing $100 because he was hungry (which he later returned on the grounds that "he was raised better") yet a person who steals billions (literally) in corporate America is given mere months, Leonard Peltier is still in prison, poor people and people of color are disproportionately jailed for minor offences that the wealthy and white continually get away with....

So, do I mourn the fact that a young life was ended, possibly violently? Of course, but I also mourn the thousands who die homeless and hungry, who are killed by bullets and bombs in idiotic wars, who suffer needlessly everyday. The point is that if the Casey Anthony case is the first thing that made you question the justice of our legal system or anything else in this world, you have not been paying attention.

Adventures in Women's Studies: Klondike Drops the Bar

We don't have cable, so we watch all the shows we're obsessed with online--hulu, fox, etc. Despite the fact that they're online, there are a tone of ads, and the same ones play over and over during the Kitchen Nightmare seasons we've been watching: Axe and Klondike Bars. It should come as no surprise that Axe commercials are ridiculously misogynistic; they've always been that way. I still hate them, but at least I know what to expect from them. Klondike Bars, however, has started running one that I didn't see coming. They've been doing the "What would you do for a Klondike Bar?" thing for years and years, but the new one is the problem. The scene is a man and woman sitting on a couch; the man is watching tv, the woman is talking. It's titled "Mark vs. Actually Listening to His Wife." He listens to her talk for 5 seconds (literally) and is rewarded with a Klondike Bar, streamers, and two scantily clad blondes jumping around. I see this thing at least 10 or 15 times a day lately, and it never fails to piss me off. It's as if we've reverted to the '50's.

"To the moon, Alice!"

Advertising has never been feminist by any means, and it seems to be one of the last few remaining areas in which misogyny is perfectly acceptable. Take the Axe commercials: each one features a man who becomes an instant "chick magnet" by using the body wash, hair product, or whatever else they've started producing. The women are presented as being completely unable to control themselves or stop themselves from crawling all over the man. (That's all we need, more men who believe they're a gift to women.) The point is it's the year 2011, people. Are we really so pathetically uninteresting that we are still using these antiquated tropes? And are we really so pathetic that we like them or they work?

I went to Klondike's web site to complain and got back an initial form letter stating the following:

Unilever Ice Cream markets its various brands in ways that are meant to entertain and engage our target audience. The Klondike advertising appearing on AOL and other internet sites was developed to generate interest among our core users, adults 45+, for a “What Would You Do For A Klondike Bar?” contest recently launched by the brand. It was only intended to be humorous.

You may be interested to know that all of our commercials and advertisements are pre-tested and various techniques are used to evaluate consumer reactions. Based on the results of our pre-testing procedures, the presentations are chosen for their majority appeal. Please let us assure you that your comments are extremely important to us in evaluating the success of our commercials and advertisements.We have a long history of presenting "tasteful" advertising to the public. Our ads must be informative and truthful. The agencies creating our advertising adhere strictly to these guidelines.We certainly do not wish to offend anyone. In developing product messages, Unilever and its agencies may not always anticipate all possible implications of an advertisement or television commercial.

Pardon me, but truthful and tasteful? So every man in the U.S. needs to be bribed with ice cream in order to listen to his wife for a few seconds? I call shenanigans. Then they follow that with the old "we didn't want to offend." My standard reply to that is, well, then you shouldn't have said it.

Was your last job with IHS?: A Feminist Rages

A friend of ours recently had an ultrasound done and found out she has a cyst. She shuffled off to the gynecologist to follow up and the following ensued--reconstructed from what I was told. (It is salient to note that she is African-American and of a lower socio-economic status.)

Dr: Do you have children?

Friend: Two.
Dr: Where do you work?

Friend: (insert low paying job here)

Dr: Okay, we need to go ahead and take out both ovaries and tubes as soon as possible. (He meant next week, and keep in mind here that he has no blood work, no biospy, and the ultrasound people told her to just come back in 6 months.) You already have two kids, and you don't need to bring anymore "into this society."

WHAT? This doctor has no reason whatsoever to think that the cyst requires any further scrutiny, and yet he suggested fairly radical surgery and told her only after asking about her job that she didn't need to have anymore. And this was not some weird, ancient clinic doc. No, he's part of a well-known and (I thought) well-respected women's health care group here in town. My first thought was of the sterilization of poor women of color on reservations and elsewhere. If she had been white or had a better paying job, would he have suggested this? My guess is no, no he would not.

Regardless of my own personal beliefs about overpopulation, etc., this is ridiculous and unacceptable. Aside from the fact that he immediately suggested surgery for something that may not even need any intervention, he took it upon himself to decide that she shouldn't have more children apparently based on nothing more than her race and SES. 2011, and we're still at this point...

Status Updates: A (Very) Short Discussion of Bullying

A 15-year-old girl holds her one-year-old son. People call her a slut. No one knows she was raped at 13. People call a girl fat. No one knows she has a serious disease which causes her to be overweight. People call an old man ugly. No one knows he had a serious injury to his face while fighting for our country during the war. Repost this if you are against bullying and stereotyping.

I've seen the above posted all over Facebook at various times, and I must say I am 100% behind the sentiment. But can we talk about the silent implications of this? The way it is written makes it seem as though it would be perfectly fine to insult these people if the 15-year-old had actually been sleeping around, the girl had an unfortunate attachment to McDonald's fries, or the old man was simply not attractive by current social standards. While I do not mean that solutions to rising teen pregnancy, obesity, etc should not be addressed, it needs to be understood that bullying does not need to be tolerated in any circumstance, whether the social norm deems it "deserved" or not. I don't care why the teenager is pregnant, the girl is larger than people think is okay, or the old man is less attractive than some think he should be--No One Should Be Bullied. Period.

These Phrases You Keep Using, I Do Not Think They Mean What You Think They Mean: In Which I Will Likely Alienate Half of My Acquaintances

Mother of Love and Compassion, bestow your wisdom upon me. Help me see humanity through your eyes. Help me master the love and compassion that you hold near your heart of Gold. Help me shine like a beacon in the night and see my reflection in your tear of love.Quan Yin, I thank you for your tireless love and your patience and hope for humanity.

As the entire world is likely aware by now, the U.S. claims to have killed Osama bin Laden, the boogeyman for whom the entire mess in Afghanistan, etc. was started. As soon as the news broke, people here were dancing and celebrating in the streets outside the White House, and Facebook blew up with status update after status update proclaiming the wonder of his death and the prowess of the American military. All I could do was stare at the screen in disbelief and horror, not because I am supporting terrorism or any such thing but because I was watching little pieces of humanity shrivel and die in the pixels. I'm already quite unpopular for saying similar things on Facebook and in this blog (now and in times past), and it is probably about to get worse. If you read this or any of my comments on the subject and feel that I am no longer worthy to be your friend, that's sad, but if you're reading this, you also likely already know me and know that I am not one to hold my tongue. As I have gotten older, I have also learned not to apologize for expressing myself, so no, I'm not sorry if any of this offends you.

First let me say that I do not blame the women and men who are daily being carted in and out of war zones for this "cause". For the most part, they are just people trying to work and take care of their families; their jobs simply happen to be much more dangerous and morally complicated than any of mine have been. I wish every single person who has been sent to the Middle East could come home safe and sound right now, or even better, that they had never been sent in the first place. What this also means is that I think we never should have gone at all. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you'd like, but...well, that would be an entirely different post. Suffice it to say that I find the entire endeavor ridiculous.

But this is not a post about the military or war or the government. There are plenty of political blogs out there who are doing and have done much better jobs of those topics than I could. No, this post is about the aftermath of the proclaimed death of bin Laden. I was snapped at (or as much as that is possible in normal sized type of Facebook) repeatedly for what have been variously called pacifist and anti-American views, depending on the respondent. If the death of bin Laden meant a swift and immediate end to all this crap, I might be able to understand the rejoicing; I would still not agree with it, but at least I could see the reasoning. As it is, all that's happened is one man has been killed; arguably he can be called a figure head, making it a death significant in terms of morale if nothing else. However, regardless of who this person was or what they may have done, it is no excuse for ignoring common human compassion. At some point in his life, there was a moment, or many moments, that twisted the mind of this man so that he became what he did. Instead of celebrating his destruction, the truly human thing to do would be to recognize the loss of what could potentially have been a beautiful and wonderful person. Lack of opportunity and positive, compassionate support in his life created the angry individual over whose death so many of my friends have been quick to party.

For years now, the extremely zealous "patriots" have cited the celebrations in our "enemy" countries at the 9/11 attacks as reason enough to be outraged and hate them. People claimed to be shocked and appalled at this blatant lack of respect for human life, but then lookie here, these same people are hooting and hollering in the streets at bin Laden's death. Just because he is perceived as evil does NOT make it the moral high ground to applaud his death.

When we’ve seen video footage of foreigners cheering terrorist attacks against America, we have ignored their insistence that they are celebrating merely because we have occupied their nations and killed their people. . . Indeed, an America that once carefully refrained from flaunting gruesome pictures of our victims for fear of engaging in ugly death euphoria now ogles pictures of Uday and Qusay’s corpses, rejoices over images of Saddam Hussein’s hanging and throws a party at news that bin Laden was shot in the head. This is bin Laden’s lamentable victory: He has changed America’s psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he’s helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history -- the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed. --David Sirota on Salon.com

I may very well be nearly alone on this, but I will never celebrate the death of anyone. If that person happened to be less than wonderful while alive, I can only offer up prayers to the Goddess that in his/her next life he/she will have less desire to cause pain and will make the world a better place for having existed. By rejoicing in the death of anyone, despite whatever violent or evil acts they may have committed, we are simply perpetuating the evil and becoming as bad if not worse than them.

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dispatches from a Refugee in the Land of Privilege, Episode 2: Drugs, Welfare, and Other Unrelated Issues

Florida House Passes Welfare Drug Testing Requirement

An acquaintance posted this article on facebook with the comment "NICE!" I was immediately enraged, as I still am. This was, of course, backed by the GOP, and opponents cited a similar case in Michigan in which this sort of bill was struck down. I can only pray that the same happens here.

Let's take this apart piece by piece: the welfare applicant would be forced not only to take the drug test but to PAY FOR IT themselves! They claim that the people would be reimbursed, but can we discuss how ridiculous the entire thing is? If you are applying for welfare, disposable income is not really a known universe to you. Therefore, you would not be able to take the test and, as a consequence, to receive assistance. So what we have here is a situation in which the poorest are being doubly punished for being that poor. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is NOT what the welfare program is meant to do.

While I don't think my family was ever on welfare, we did receive food stamps on a number of occasions. If this regulation had been in place them, I know that if my mother had applied, we likely would not have had the cash for her to take the test. She wasn't on drugs, but without the test, no welfare. So she and her family (including 2 kids) would have suffered.

The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people.

-Avram Noam Chomsky

What this is is yet another example of the over-privileged dictating what happens to the least privileged of all. How is this okay? On what level is this supposed to be right? And there are a lot of people in this misbegotten state who likely support this travesty in the name of "protecting the interests of the taxpayers." What this translates to in normal language is: "further lining the pockets of the already rich by preventing the poor from having anything." WAKE UP! Defending this bill with the "there are drug users abusing the welfare system"card is the exact same as "I won't help the homeless because there are those who want to be where they are" (for my rant on that topic, see this blog post). You are not protecting anything except those who do not need protecting.

Fixing Samantha: Beauty, Imperfection, and Cowardice

Seven-year-old Samantha Shaw of South Dakota recently underwent cosmetic surgery to "fix" her ears, which stuck out a bit and one had a small fold. Her mother claims it was to prevent future bullying. There had apparently been comments made in front of the girl by kids and adults about her ears, and her mother decided it would be a good idea to alter the "problem." As cosmetic surgery is rather expensive, the Little Baby Face Foundation covered the cost, and the doctor who performed the surgery was quoted as saying Samantha's surgery was not cosmetic but necessary. (If you go to Little Baby Face, the "deformities" they usually cover are listed, things like cleft palettes, for instance. Not usually ears that stick out.)

Am I the only one who sees a serious problem with all this? Her mother has, by doing this, stated unequivocally to her child that anytime the outside world finds fault with her, she should alter herself in any way possible to "fix" it. This sort of belief system is the basis of eating disorders and women who stay in abusive relationships. The problem is not the girl or her ears. The problem is the bullies.

Why is it that we are so ready to alter the world to suit those who are in the wrong? Samantha Shaw should not be made to feel that she is somehow defective because others find her imperfect. The defect lies in the bullies and ignorance of the people who made her feel this way. Instead of seeking out the surgery, maybe her mother should simply have stood up for her daughter when these comments were made instead of taking the coward's way out. Catering to the ignorant will only make it easier for them to operate. She should have taken the opportunity to teach her that no one is perfect, but everyone is beautiful in some way--even the bullies.

One down, too many to go...

Today Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Prop 8, declaring that it

"the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses while failing "to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license...Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling." (from the Yahoo News article, from which the picture is also taken).

My first reaction is a crazy dance around my living room, all-caps responses to the texts alerting me, and a facebook status filled with many, many exclamation points. This is amazing news!! After all, if the California ban can be shot down by the Constitution, all the others can too, right? I hope so. But I have learned in this fight that it is never a good idea to assume anything...I assumed Florida voters would have enough sense not to pass Amendment 2. I assumed that humans would have more sense and sympathy for their fellow creatures not to protest and say nasty things at funerals. On both counts, I was sadly mistaken.

However, as incredibly sad and beaten-down as I feel everyday about these things, I am given hope today by Judge Walker. SOMEONE sees that we are not trying to destroy anything; all we're doing is trying to build lives and protect those we love, to make those shiny rings on our left hands a true symbol of solidity. Thank you Judge Walker.

Now, please excuse me while I dance!

Let's Talk About Sex: Abstinence and the Preachers of Doom

I've talked about my research on the Quiverfull movement on this blog before, but I haven't gone into one of the more tangential areas related to it--abstinence education. The reason this is on my mind today is a) I just finished a paper a few weeks ago on born again virginity, and b) I'm watching The Education of Shelby Knox on Netflix. Shelby Knox is a documentary about a high school girl in Lubbock, Texas who fought the school's abstinence only policy to try to lower the pregnancy and STD rates there, which were some of the highest in the country. The filmmakers interviewed Ed Ainsworth, a True Love Waits speaker and abstinence proponent; during the course of this interview, AInsworth commented that while he talked about STD's in detail in his presentations, he would never demonstrate how to put on a condom. Then he compared this to showing kids how to use guns.

Okay, first of all, let me say that I am well aware that the only 100% effective way to prevent STD's and pregnancy is abstinence; that is a no-brainer. However, it is incredibly naive to believe that all teenagers are going to save themselves for marriage, and let us not forget that since we in the LGBTQ community cannot, for the most part (depending on where we live), get married, this is effectively saying that we should live completely celibate lives. Neither is realistic. Yes, it would be a perfect world if all teenagers (and adults) for that matter were more careful with their sex lives. STD's, like AIDS, would not be as widespread, and there wouldn't be as many teen and unplanned pregnancies. BUT this is not going to happen. It simply isn't, but these "abstinence warriors" do not want to admit this.

I am not saying that kids should be told that as long as they use protection, it's free love for everyone. However, they should be taught the proper way to use protection, the risks involved in multiple partners, how their bodies function, what STD's are and what they do to you. Unfortunately, many kids don't know the first thing about any of this. Abstinence only proponents claim that if this sort of education were available, there would be more teen pregnancies and STD's, but the evidence shows otherwise. In schools, such as Lubbock, where abstinence is the only line, the rates are much higher than in schools with accurate sex education. Many say that it should be left up to the parents to teach kids these things. Maybe in a perfect world, yes, it should, but the sad fact is that many parents are either unwilling or unable (being products of the same close-mouthed systems as their kids) to provide the education that kids need. As I said in my Mr. Rogers post, kids are exposed to a lot of things, and parenting should be one of those. It is a sad fact that this is not the case, and yet these same parents who are neglecting to tell their kids anything are the ones screaming that parents should have the final line on sex ed at home. Make up your mind. Either parent or allow the school to do it for you, but don't leave these kids to their own devices with no information available. That is dangerous.

The High Price of Being Gay...a commentary on the NYTimes

NYTimes article

Okay, so I read this article this morning through a blog I frequent. In theory, I love that they took the time to run all these numbers and show the world the financial hardships associated with being a non-existent couple. Health insurance, taxes, etc...they covered it. BUT I have an issue with their calculations. They based the numbers on a best-case and a worst-case scenario: best--both partners make $70,000 a year, worst--one makes $110,000 and the other makes $30,000. While they say that these are based on averages in the three states most full of gayness (California, Florida, and New York) for college-educated couples in their 30s-40s raising kids under 18, I would have to venture a guess and say that a segment of the gay population lucky enough to be making gobs of money skewed those averages. None of the gay couples I know make anywhere near that amount of money. What I would like to see is an analysis of the problems of gay couples living in near-poverty or at least in low-income circumstances. You get into a whole 'nother set of problems there--none of which I am sure they examined....i'm just saying...

Republicans Do Facebook Too...Unfortunately

Apparently South Carolina GOP activist and former head of state elections Rusty DePass decided to make a Facebook status on a zoo escapee. He said somethimg to the effect that people shouldn't worry about the escaped gorilla because it was just one of Michelle Obama's ancestors and was probably therefore harmless. WHAT?

It is 2009, people! Shouldn't we have begun to move past this race bullshit by now? I mean, I grew up in the Deep South and know that there are plenty of ill-bred people still flying their racism proudly, but stuff like this never ceases to amaze me and piss me off. The only positive thing I can say is at least he wasn't from Alabama...And just one question: does the use of monkey epithets by usually conservative Christian racists like DePass indicate a grudging acceptance of evolution, an intended jab at liberal belief in such, or just your run-of-the-mill "other races aren't human" stance? just a thought...

We already know the back of the bus sucks...

Recently I was castigated for saying that the LGBT community is treated as a group of second class citizens. Teh offended party (an extremely white man, btw) claimed that I was ridiculous for comparing gay people's problems with those of African Americans, which I never actually did. I find the aforementioned person unworthy of anymore personal replies, but I wanted to address this clearly if in a slightly disjointed way.

First, I recognize that African Americans (and all minorities actually) have suffered and still suffer many, many indignities to say the least. It is a long, painful, and complicated path to civil rights. I do not deny this. I applaud all the women and men who have worked so hard to ensure that their respective groups have the freedoms they deserve and desire.

Second, I will never retract or apologize for my use of the term "2nd class citizens". It is completely appropriate. The LGBT community faces evidence of this daily; trust me, I know.

A 2nd class citizen is someone who holds citizenship in a country but is denied rights considered basic based solely on membership in a group one does not choose to be a member of. (I know, I know...Most of our opponents maintain that gay is a choice. Well, whether you believe it or not, gay is genetic. I never chose who I was attracted to...I just was.) I am well aware that we can vote, etc., but what straight person do you know who doesn't consider love, marriage, and family a right? None that I know of.

The opposition's major claim is that civil unions are the same thing as marriage and that "marriage" is a religious institution. If this is true, explain why you need a license from the government for a marriage to be official. If "marriage" is only religious, the government would not be involved. As for the civil union thing, if they're the same thing, why don't straight people get them? Because they know they aren't the same. We are being handed the idea of a partnership that is separate and supposedly equal. Doesn't that sound familiar to anyone? We don't want separate but equal, we want motherfucking equal!!! End of discussion.

Roy Moore rises again, or why is it always Alabama?

For those who do not know, I am originally from Alabama. Despite its many problems, I love my home state. It has some of the most beautiful land ever, not to mention most of our family and friends. But there are times when I am almost ashamed to even acknowledge my place of birth...one of those is when Roy Moore appears in the news. Roy Moore, also known as the 10 commandments judge, is best known for placing (and fighting to keep up) the ten commandments in his courtroom in Gadsden and a mammoth stone version of the same in the AL Supreme Court rotunda. (He was eventually forced to remove them both, thank goodness.) He failed once to get the Republican nomination for governor, but he's at it again. (I do have to give some credit, though: even the Republicans realize that the man is a psycho. For Jeebus' sake, James Dobson supports the guy...) The next election is 2010, at which time I will hopefully have been accepted to UA and will be eligible to vote against him IF he manages to get the nomination this time. Who knows, they may try it simply in a conservative backlash against the present presidential administration. I only hope that they have the good sense to deny him a second time. I will be forced to transfer grad schools if he gets elected.

Any state in which he basically has supreme power is not a state safe for anyone in the LGBT community. For example, he once removed a child from the home of her biological mother and her partner to give her to the father that had been accused of molesting her. The whole lesbian thing was apparently a much worse environment than daddy having his way with her on the dl. I don't know of any concrete examples of his stance on women and women's rights, but I can't imagine that they would be very promising given his supporters and very vocal EXTREME right leanings. So, women beware as well....

I will be following this as closely as possible. Stay tuned for more dispatches from the Alabamian in exile...

Here's an article at Religion Dispatches: "By the Way, "Ten Commandments Judge" to Be Alabama's Next Gov?"

Multicultural Musings

This summer in addition to the aggravating Spanish class, I am also taking Global Women's Issues with one of my favorite professors. In reading the first couple of chapters for this week's class, I came across a discussion that is stuck in my head--multiculturalism. I have no problem with the base theory. I do think that other cultures need to be viewed in their own context without the imperialist biases of our own society. But I must agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's critique of multiculturalism at least in part. Accepting it completely allows turning a blind eye to certain practices simply because they're traditional or cultural.

I started thinking of this because of the recent development in Sweden (see earlier post: "yo, Sweden, wtf?!"), which Anna and I have been sort of debating over the last few days. Quite rightly, she says that by denying sex-selective abortions, you open the door to denial of all abortions. This is very true. However, I don't think that a liberal, pro-choice society has to accept them as valid just because we are a liberal, pro-choice society. Human rights are never negotiable. This is the line we have been repeating to the rest of the world for years, and it is unconscionable that we would ignore this in our own societies at the same time we are promoting it in others. Just a thought...

yo, sweden, WTF!?

I have taken to reading the Huffington Post through their fabulous app on the iphone. Today, I stumbled across this: "Sweden legalizes gender-based abortion". It's actually from babble.com, and as it is not very long, here it is:

Don’t like Your Baby’s Gender? Sweden Rules 'Gender-Based' Abortion Legal
Posted by Cole Gamble
Now, according to a Swedish medical ruling, if a mother or couple discover the gender of their baby and decide “that’s not what we were hoping for” they can get an abortion on that basis.
Here’s how it broke down. A Swedish mother of two girls requested two abortions in a row after learning the gender of her fetus. It became apparent to doctors her decision to abort was based on the discovery of gender, which obviously was not the one she was aiming for. Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the fetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.
The board found such requests cannot be refused, and neither can abortions, thus medical staff cannot refuse to perform an abortion based on gender.
Now the idea of isolating a “gay” gene in fetuses and therefore “eliminating” it has been bandied about by rather tacky political pundits. But before we get to that moral maelstrom, pick-and-choose baby gender is already here. Sure, the day when doctors can fudge your baby’s DNA to increase the probability of a boy or girl is possibly coming sooner than later, but for now, if you don’t like what you got, scrap it and start again.
Does this already happen discreetly in America? I can’t imagine anyone would ever openly admit to their doctor or otherwise that they want to abort the baby because “I really had my heart set on a girl” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Do you think this is more common that people are admitting?

Okay, so women's studies majors and feminists worldwide have been arguing for YEARS against this very practice in India, China, and other "non-Western" nations who are supposedly not as "enlightened" as we are. Now, Sweden has gone and fucked the curve. No self-respecting "western" feminist can talk to gender-based abortionists from any sort of high ground any longer. One of our own has gone to the dark side.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am pro-choice to the hilt. Whether you wish to terminate your pregnancy because it is a health risk, the result of a rape, or simply because you know full well you can't raise a child right now, I will walk you through the clinic doors. But there is a limit to everything, and this is it. I understand that this legalization would make it just as easy for someone to abort a boy as a girl, but...What started this was a woman who had two abortions because she didn't want another GIRL. I am all for the rights of the woman first, but where does common sense begin? As a pro-choice feminist, it's hard to talk about something that would in all technicality limit abortion rights, but if this is wrong for women in India or China or wherever, it is wrong for women in Sweden. The argument is that they do it because of how their societies devalue women, but just what do you think is the reasoning of a woman in Sweden? The "West" may have slightly better views of women, but that does not equal truly valuing them. And this just proves it.

the flaming liberal weighs in

I will be the first to admit that I am not the most politically savvy person, hence the reason I am a women’s studies/religion major and nota political science major. I also do not follow the news as closely as I probably should. When something seems particularly important or I happen to catch something that pisses me off inordinately much, whoever follows me generally knows it. But in general, I do not take up blog space with much political commentary. I am about to make an exception. Kathleen, my apparently much more politically aware friend, tagged me in a face book note, and I shall respond. (To read the original note, go to www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=92822465849 )

It is no big secret or surprise that I voted for Obama. At the very least, he was the lesser of two evils, and at best, I thought he might possibly make good on at least a few promises. (Of course, anyone with half a brain cell functioning should realize that no politician does everything s/he says s/he will do while on the campaign trail.) I am under no delusion that he will actually do a great deal to improve my immediate situation in which I find myself classified basically as a second-class citizen. However, I must agree with Kathleen on at least one point.

From the moment Obama chose Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration, I felt trouble brewing. Rick Warren is an odious creature I have not one positive comment about, and I will therefore continue on my way. I will say that it was a huge slap in the face to the glbt community, much of which backed Obama from day one, to have someone so opposed to our welfare presenting anything significant at any government function. He also, as Kathleen pointed out, has not even made mention of the atrocity known as the defense of marriage act. I never believed he would walk in and throw same-sex marriage at congress on day two, but bare minimum, I did expect some sort of civil union talk by now.

In short, I am still hopeful about the Obama administration. Michelle planted a vegetable garden at the white house and refused the agri-business suggestion of chemicals--pure organic, baby. I heard he replaced some government vehicles with hybrids. But on the issues closest to my interests, he has yet to show much promise. All the gay community can do now is watch and wait…