Tyra Takes on Same Sex Marriage

I have a hard time talking with people who believe sexual orientation is a choice. Literally, i shut down and am unable to further "debate" with them about rights because i recognize that they see gays and lesbians as "lesser than," "other," and nothing i say will ever change their mind. I am all for tolerating opinions different from my own but this isn't a topic i can tolerate a range of values on because for me, it's so basic and so essential. Denying someone human rights because you think their sexuality is something they should "control" or something they can "change" is absurd. Did you wake up one morning and "decide" to be straight? Seriously, is this something you thought about and made a conscious decision on? No.

Tyra Banks did an episode yesterday that i want to post here, because i thought a lot of it was really good. But more than that, it presents a very real display of bigotry, intolerance, and people who claim to be "Christians" when in fact they are just using the bible as an excuse to hate, which is very very not Christian of them. They are the same people who think homosexuality is a choice and a sin. For example, in one of the segments the woman says, "I see emotional and mental instability" as one of the audience members emotionally shares the discrimination and violence he has faced in his life for his sexual orientation. She does not show empathy, she does not show love or support. She laughs, on stage, and tells the world he's emotionally and mentally instable. Shame on you, lady.

Tyra had Sandy Rios on (who IS this woman?!) who had lots of quotable gems, such as:

"You can stop being gay, you cannot stop being black"

"As a fully heterosexual female i can tell you how difficult it is not to have sex, too. So i can understand that dilemma" She was asked, "is celebacy the answer?" Her reply: "yes, as apposed to acting out homosexuality or adultry or pedophelia, yes.

"When you talk about discrimination and the misery of being a lesbian, gay upfront is the wrong name for that. It's broken hearts, it's disease, it's unnatural." (just for the record, the woman she was talking to never said being a lesbian made her miserable...)


If you have time, and can tolerate Tyra, watch the show, "Gay is the New Black." If nothing else I want you to see the "arguments" that same sex marriage opponents make. I want you to hear the intolerance, bigotry, and hatred that they spew and I want you to see exactly why i have such an unbelievable difficult time "debating" with people like this in my own life. Primarily because there is nothing i can say that will ever make them hate less, love more, and celebrate diversity.

I posted it here from youtube which had it split up into four video. I only included the last part of the show because that's the one that had a lot of what i discussed above:



Just don't read the comments on youtube, or else you're get lots like this one:

Ginne86 (12 minutes ago)
"Being gay IS a choice, just like fat people can choose to eat fast food or you can choose to eat healthy. even though healthy food dont tastes as good as fast foods."

This Year at Passover

Last year I wrote about feminist Passover Seder alternatives, such as an orange representing the inclusion of all genders and sexualities at the table:

Susannah Heschel, a leading feminist scholar, is the woman responsible for popularizing the custom of an orange on the Seder plate. The story goes that during one of Susannah Heschel's lectures at a synagogue in Miami, an elderly rabbi stood up and said, "A woman belongs on the bimah like an orange belongs on the Seder plate." "To show support for the changing role of women in American Jewish society, the tradition of placing an orange on the Seder plate began, and Heschel became a household name at many Passover celebrations around the globe."But don't be fooled... this isn't the actual story of the orange. In the early 80's a feminist Haggadah instructed that Jews place a crust of bread on the Seder plate to represent marginalized Jews, particularly Jewish lesbians and gay men, in the Jewish community. Although Heschel liked the notion of reintroducing oppressed groups into Passover, she did not agree that the symbol should be bread. Heschel felt that by putting bread on the Seder plate we would be indicating that gay men and women are violating Judaism like leavened foods (the bread) violate Passover. Heschel instead chose an orange to symbolize the inclusion of gays and lesbians (as well as others who are marginalized and oppressed within Jewish law and tradition). Heschel chose an orange for two reasons: 1. to symbolize the "fruitfulness of all Jews" (aka it's better when EVERYONE gets a chance to participate, and everyone benefits when all are included) and 2. the seeds, as they are spit out, act as a symbol of the homophobia and discrimination we are protesting.

Additionally, Heschel was more than a bit (rightfully) peeved when the story about the elderly male rabbi began to circulate because (she writes) "somehow the typical patriarchal maneuver occurred: My idea of an orange and my intention of affirming lesbians and gay men were transformed. Now the story circulates that a man said to me that a woman belongs on the bimah as an orange on the seder plate. A woman's words are attributed to a man, and the affirmation of lesbians and gay men is erased. Isn't that precisely what's happened over the centuries to women's ideas?"

Don't forget to bring an orange to your first seder tonight. And definitely pass along the story of why it's there.

This year at Passover i find myself feeling differently about Judaism and Israel, especially during a holiday that celebrates "freedom" and the story of the Jews' Exodus from Egypt to our "promised land." So much of the story this year is entangled with increased conflict in the Middle East and the basic human rights of the people living there, the Palestinians and Israelis alike. Rights like safety, shelter, food, education...

This year at Passover i am forced to consider the real meaning of the holiday, a time to remember and re-tell the story of my people. At my house though, we've never kept to the haggadah word for word, and even more rarely have we waited to eat until the final blessing. You see, the first night of Passover (tonight) is celebrated by the first seder, a time for families to come together and retell the story of the Exodus and think about how it affects each of us uniquely and the Jews as a whole. To do this we use a haggadah, a short book or pamphlet from which we read prayers, stories, and instruction. My family always tries (and fails) to read through the haggadah in it's entirety and instead we dive into the amazing spread that my mom miraculously creates. Matzah ball soup, chicken (free range chicken the past few years because she's good to me like that), kugel, charoset, apple pie, and lots lots more, all without flour. No one realizes that she spends days, if not weeks, preparing for this event.

My cousin, Mia, sent me an updated haggadah today that her dad found that incorporates feminism and even vegetarianism into the holiday's traditions. This version of the haggadah even includes a poem by Adrienne Rich:

Freedom. It isn’t once, to walk out
under the Milky Way, feeling the rivers
of light, the fields of dark—
freedom is daily, prose-bound, routine
remembering. Putting together, inch by inch
the starry worlds. From all the lost collections.

It also includes an interesting look at the Exodus:

"Passover celebrates freedom, exemplified in the story of our Exodus from Egypt. That story leads our entry into Israel—not exactly a simple redemption tale. Especially not now, as Israelis and Palestinians continue to fight for their mutual Promised Land, and to shed blood in pursuit of its ownership. In light of that situation, some of us may have complicated feelings about identifying with Israel. But “Israel” doesn’t refer only to the Land. “Israel” is the name which was given to Jacob after he spent the night wrestling with an angel of God. Therefore “the people Israel” can be interpreted as “Godwrestling people”—“people who take on the holy obligation of engaging with the divine.”

I've often felt the traditional haggadah was dated and often irrelevant, referencing the importance of sons (not "children" to include daughters) and fearful of the plagues that include lice, frogs, hail, and boils. These don't pose the same threat for us today as they did our ancestors. This updated haggadah urges us to consider the plagues of our time, such as:

Apathy in the face of evil
Brutal torture of the helpless
Cruel mockery of the old and the weak
Despair of human goodness
Envy of the joy of others
Falsehood and deception corroding our faith
Greedy theft of earth’s resources
Hatred of learning and culture
Instigation of war and aggression
Justice delayed, justice denied, justice mocked...

This haggadah also explains the tradition of the orange, "representing the radical feminist notion that there is—there must be—a place at the table for all of us, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. As Jews we constantly re-create ourselves; our symbol is a fruit that carries within the seeds of its own rebirth" and also the importance of an olive, which i had never heard before:

"The final item on our seder plate is an olive. After the Flood, Noah’s dove brought back an olive branch as a sign that the earth was again habitable. Today ancient olive groves are destroyed by violence, making a powerful symbol of peace into a casualty of war. We keep an olive on our seder plate as an embodied prayer for peace, in the Middle East and every place where war destroys lives, hopes, and the freedoms we celebrate tonight."

"substantial adverse consequences"

Ken Starr, the dean of Pepperdine University's School of Law, is arguing before the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8. His goal is to nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages and has argued that by allowing same-sex marriage we as a people have "diminished a public commitment to protecting the welfare of children."

Starr argues against gay families by claiming that there are "substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements."

Yesterday, lawyer David Gibbs, "told rally participants gay marriage would 'open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina. Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?' Gibbs asked. 'Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots'."

What's with these lawyers?! I always thought lawyers needed hard facts and evidence to back up their claims and their agendas? Forgive me for valuing research but studies to date have shown that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and adults of both sexes and are fully engaged in social life. Their happiness is not affected by their parents' sexual orientation and they develop strong relationship with hetero and homosexual family members, peers, and friends. The only "substantial adverse consequences" that i can think of includes the hatred, intolerance, and discrimination that kids of gay and lesbian parents encounter from people like Ken Starr. The way i see it, Ken Starr is the "substantial adverse consequence" that he is trying to "protect" children from.

Sign the petition and tell Starr that his, "attempt to nullify the marriages of 18,000 loving couples in California is misguided and malicious. The rights of a minority should never be stripped by a simple majority vote, and the idea that divorcing parents could help the welfare of children is disgusting."

It's Been a Long Time Coming

After an inauspicious start to our D.C. journey, my 6 days there left me inspired, exhausted, and hopeful for the future of our country. On our way to catch the bus from NYC, we got a flat in New Haven, sped down the Merritt, and jumped on a train we weren't sure was destined for Grand Central. Thankfully someone replied to my cat-lady like screams, "is this train going to NYC!?!?!!?" and we were on our way, a bit off but that much more determined. Dave and I backpacked through Europe a few summers ago and are used to public transportation. We also lied to almost everyone we met there about being Canadian. We were embarrassed to be U.S. citizens and wanted to avoid the snarky comments and dismissive glances from fellow travelers disappointed with Americans for "re-electing" Bush and invading Iraq. Standing among a sea of people chanting, "O-BA-MA, O-BA-MA" during the inauguration left me proud to be an American and hopeful for a future in which the U.S. is respected and esteemed locally and abroad. Each time the jumbotrons showed our new president, the 2 million people surrounding me on the National Mall cheered, applauded, chanted, and whistled with tears streaming down their faces. America was more than ready for this, we've been craving it.

Inauguration week in D.C. was not a place for those who feel claustrophobic easily. Everywhere we went there were lines, crowds, and people. The metro was jam packed. I took photos on Monday of the escalator in the L'Enfant Plaza metro stop - people were only getting out, going towards the National Mall, no one was coming into the metro at that stop. We didn't even attempt to metro in on Tuesday morning, we walked the 3 miles to the inauguration, attempting to avoid closed streets and excitedly greeting the military personell lining every block in twos. They smiled apprehensively but you can tell everyone was on alert, waiting for something to go down, hopeful it would not. My brother and sister-in-law live in NYC. They called and texted all of Monday about the importance of us having an escape plan, a place we'd meet at least 5 miles out of the city in case of an emergency. A safe place we can walk to, in case we were split up. I'll admit that we were a bit afraid, but the fear never outweighed our excitement and anticipation to experience the most historical and significant event of our lives to date.

We spent Monday fighting through crowds and waiting in lines. Dave and I went to the Holocaust museum because i had only been to the one in Boston and have heard amazing things about the one in DC. I was glad to see sections on Rwanda and Darfur and incredibly moved by the many exhibits on the Jews during and prior WWII. There was a room dedicated specifically to the people who aided Jews during that time, ones who hid neighbors in their attic, took in children as their own, stood up against the hatred. I also gained a new understanding of Jewish as a race/ethnicity. I always felt that being Jewish is more than a religion but had a difficult time intellectualizing or explaining it. Hitler had come up with a system to determine Jewish race. It was a list of characteristics and determinants of blood line. Jewish blood equaled evil blood, thus we became an ethnicity, not just a religion. But i digress... We met two very nice teachers from Tennessee in line for the Holocaust museum, we talked with them about politics, race, economy, Sarah Palin, education, and mostly our hope for a new tomorrow. It was touching how open and genuine everyone around us was. We don't get that much up here in the North East, it was a welcomed change.

We got to the National Mall Tuesday morning around 6:30. Still, we were so far back that all we saw of the Capitol was its silhouette. We didn't mind too much, we made sure to secure a spot near a jumbotron. After the 4 hour wait, everyone was cold, wind blown, and eager to celebrate President Barack Obama get sworn in. The anticipation was palpable. As Reverend Rick Warren took the stage, everyone around me remained polite. Though i heard some distant "boos" most onlookers listened respectively and a few nodded along. The woman in front of me praised the lord in prayer along with the Reverend's words. She raised her hands and let out a cry of "Hallelujah" when he said, "Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood but by our commitment to freedom and justice for all." Though he would not have been my pick for obvious reasons, his message was much more unifying than i expected. I was grateful for that, i did not want him to ruin this for me like the protesters outside the event tried to with their posters and chants of hatred and intolerance.

The crowd DID "boo," however, each time they showed Bush on the jumbotrons. Was it disrespectful? Sure. Ungrateful? Maybe. But it sure as hell was honest. Each time the screens panned across his face the sea of people broke out in hisses and boos. At one point everyone began singing, "nananana nananana hey hey heyyyy, goodbye."

I suppose it's better that we unite over a positive and beautiful example like President Obama than over our mutual hatred for a man unwilling to apologize for his actions or take responsibility for the circumstances our country is in. Still, the emotion and energy for both is powerful, empowering, and telling of what America is ready for. As President Obama took the oath and gave his speech everyone around me listened silently. The crowd hung onto each word. Nodding, tearing up, and eventually cheering; they began chanting "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!"

Needless to say it was a week of emotions. Hope and progress filled the D.C. air and the prospect of a brighter future was on everyone's mind. Though i realize President Obama will not be perfect 100% of the time, and he will make decisions that i disagree with, i do think he is exactly what our country needed. Not to mention he has already made some great calls. As a nation we have been craving a uniting force and a positive example who carries a message of peace, compassion, and hope. I am eager to see what our new administration, with the help of newly empowered Americans, is capable of.

We spent Wednesday walking around D.C. trying to get on TV. We followed around CNN cameras and walked behind newscasters without much luck. Finally we decided to go to the White House and wave to Barack on his first official full day in office, wish him luck if you will. I bought a button outside the White House on our way back to Jackie's. The button was black and white, with photographs of African American leaders. It summed up the week for me perfectly. The text across the top read, "It's been a long time coming."

It sure has.

How Dare I be Jewish During Christmas Time!?

I stopped by the Christmas Tree Shop yesterday on my way home from work. I thought, "maybe they have a Chanukah corner? Even grocery stores give us a quarter of an aisle..." And they did! They had a whole section of Chanukah stuff and because it was already the second day of the holiday, it was all 50% off! Score. I picked out a few things and went to the cash register. I got in line behind two shoppers, one who asked for a price check that took forever, and one who paid by check. While we waited to pay, the four of us (the cashier and the two other women) were joking around, talking about the craziness of the holidays, the lines, small talk. Then came my turn. As soon as i put my basket down on the counter, the cashier's face and tone completely changed. During the whole wait my basket was on the floor, by my legs, so no one saw what i had. But as soon as i started pulling out Chanukah plates the cashier went from jovial to flat affect and then to rude. It started with an "Oh!"

"Oh what?" I thought. I realize i'm a bit more hyper-sensitive to discrimination than the average person so i thought i might be reading into it. I kept up a friendly demeanor. As she starting ringing up my purchases i realized the items weren't going through as 50% off. I told her so. To which she responded, "Ugh! Of course!" Here i couldn't help but wonder what she meant by "of course." Did she mean, "Of course, you're Jewish, buying Jew products, Jews are cheap, and you want a discount!" Or did she mean "Of course, way to hold up the line, lady!" I would have absolutely defaulted to the latter had i not been in line after the other two shoppers that held the line up for WAY longer than me. One waited on a price check that took 10 minutes and the other paid with a personal check... The cashier's "of course" could have been in reference to customers always having an issue in her line... or it could have been anti-semitic. There's no real way to know.

I told her, "there's a sign, right there, it says '50% off,' i can see it from here"
"I can't see it! I don't have my glasses" She snapped back
"Oh ok, sorry about that... do you think you can ask someone to check, please?" I was half upset at being treated so rudely, half still wondering if i was reading into it more than i should.
She asked the manager to check and wouldn't make eye contact with me while we waited. The manager told her it was, indeed, 50% off and she rung me up. I paid for my purchases and said "Happy holidays" as i walked away. She grunted back, "Merry Christmas!"

Ok, i get it, there are people who think it's all my fault they can't have Christmas trees up in public places and have to wish each other "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." But honestly, living in a predominantly Christian country i am WAY beyond carrying if someone wishes me a "merry Christmas." I don't correct them, i don't wish them a "happy Chanukah" back, and i certainly am not bothered by it. I swear, I don't interfere with your Christmas spirit. I sing along to carols on star 99.9, i wear lots of red, and i really love eggnog. Though i avoid the malls this time of year like the plague, i am very not bothered by Christmas spirit, in fact, i enjoy it when (IF) people are slightly nicer to one another. I wonder if that's what the cashier was annoyed by? That i had the audacity to shop in the Christmas Tree Shop and purchase only Chanukah items! Maybe it wasn't Jews she had a problem with but me, for representing the politically correctidness that she now has to trouble herself with? Who knows. I don't. Because maybe she was just anti-semitic.

Either way, treating me differently, and rudely, for being Jewish was wrong and discriminatory - i don't care what her rationale for it was. I wish i had the chutzpah* to have said something, or to have asked to speak with a manager. But again, i couldn't tell if i was being overly sensitive or if it was prejudice at its best. But i guess that's a lot of what discrimination is. Trying to figure out why what happened is wrong and how to rationalize it.

The only other time i was taken aback by blatant antisemitism was the first week of college, freshman year. We went to the dining hall with some new friends from the floor and one of them told a Holocaust joke. I just sat there, baffled that people still did this. I grew up in a very Jewish community, these types of things didn't happen. Everyone laughed until one of my gentile** friends from high school said, "that's not funny." The person who told the joke said, "yes it is! It's just a joke." And my friend said, "No, it's not. Not when you have a Jewish person sitting at the table, and not ever in general." They never said anything anti-semitic around me again for the four years i knew them.

I walked away from the Christmas Tree Shop experience thinking, "yes that sucked, but it's pretty easy for me to hide being Jewish if i really needed to, like if my life was in danger." Many other minorities don't have this option.

*chutzpah: gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, guts.
**gentile: non-Jewish

Congratulations CT Newly Weds ;)

May your lives together be filled with love, happiness, and health :)
via.

NEW HAVEN — Bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses festooned City Hall here Wednesday morning, as one of the eight couples who successfully sued the state to allow same-sex marriage became the first to obtain a marriage license as the law took effect.

“Today, Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a Boston group that litigated the Connecticut case. “It is living proof that marriage equality is moving forward in this country.”

Olbermann: Gay Marriage is a Question of Love

If you watch nothing else today, please watch this:



My favorite part:

With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it.

via season of the bitch

Undoing Some of the Damage

The new Obama administration has put together a list of over 200 policies and executive orders that they hope will begin to undo some of the damage the Bush administration has caused. They hope this will begin to move our country into a more progressive direction. These new actions include administration on climate change, stem cell research, and reproductive rights to mention a few. The one that is especially exciting to me is President-elect Obama's commitment to lifting the "global gag rule" that Bush reinstated on his first day in office in January 2001. The gag rule bars speech and action in reproductive health and endangers women's lives.

THIS is exactly why we elected him!

For more steps in the right direction, see this article in the NYT.

Limited Time Offer: Rape Kits on Sale!

Thanks to reader, Bobbi, for sending me this video with the following message:

"Made me angry, made me laugh...made me ready to vote on Tuesday"

Bobbi, i couldn't agree with you more! Video below shows the ridiculousness of Palin's legislation in Wasilla that required rape survivors to pay for their own rape kits, costing $1,200:

Just In Case

In case you are turned away tomorrow, and told you are unable to vote for whatever reason, make sure you ask for a provisional ballot:

A provisional ballot is used to record a vote when there is some question in regards to a given voter's eligibility. A provisional ballot would be cast when:

* The voter refuses to show a photo ID (in regions that require one)
* The voter's name does not appear on the electoral roll for the given precinct.
* The voter's registration contains inaccurate or out-dated information such as the wrong address or a misspelled name.
* The voter's ballot has already been recorded

Don't let them turn you away from the polls. If your eligibility is questioned, make sure to fill out a provisional ballot. This way, your vote will be counted upon verification of your eligibility. The Help America Vote Act passed in 2002, guaranteed voters provisional ballots if they believed they were eligible to vote. I recently changed my address but my driver's license still has my old address so i became nervous that i'd be turned away, this way i know i still have a right to vote...

Also, ONLY IN CT AND RI, if you are not registered to vote but still want to vote for president, you can. Only Connecticut and Rhode Island permit a resident who is not a registered voter to use the presidential ballot. You'll have to go to your local town hall and ask to vote in the presidential election by casting your vote on the presidential ballot.

ETA: Minnesota has same-day registration as well :)

Also, if you're voting in CT: VOTE "NO" ON QUESTION ONE!!!

Vote "NO"

Here are some important videos and links for voters in various states:

Colorado and South Dakota (but EVERYONE should watch this video):



Oppose Bill C-484, "Unborn Victims of Crime Act"

Connecticut:
Vote NO on Question 1 - Lindsay beat me to writing this post :) More info here and here

California:
Vote NO on 4 and 8, here for more

I'll update this as i find more info for various states...

Friday Feel Good: CT Equalizes Same Sex MARRIAGE!!!

Today i am proud to be a CT resident! The Connecticut Supreme Court just ruled that the state will now allow same-sex couples to marry. That's right, MARRY :) We're now the third state allowing gay marriage (along with Massachusetts and California).

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding. "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling. "The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success."

More info here.

She was 14 last year and now she's 16?

Some believe that China has been forging passports for two of their top gymnasts, Jiang Yuguan and He Kexin.

Several online records and reports show He Kexin, the host nation's top competitor on uneven bars, and Jiang Yuyuan might not yet be 16, the minimum age for Olympic eligibility. Both were chosen for China's team.

There is also the question of Yang Yilin, a medal favorite, who may be 14 based on registration records. Yilin's date of birth was changed on the 2007 registration list, making her eligible.

Why is this a feminist issue? Because children's rights are human rights and child labor laws should not be violated, here or internationally. But China is notorious for violating child labor laws.

Sexism Masked as Tradition

I realize i haven't touched much on politics over the past week but i've encountered some outrages people and have been a part of several shocking conversations that need to be highlighted here. Frankly, personal is political so these "real life" situations are just as if not more valuable than writing reactions to the news and society. Right? Right! :)

I had a hard time deciding whether or not to write this post because of the high likelihood that it would be read by the person it is about. After reading a couple of hollywoodenflames' posts i realized that i have the freedom to write about people in my life and they should understand that whatever they say to me is fair game ;) Is that a bit cold? Maybe. But honestly, if everyday sexism and inequality occurs in everyday conversations with family, friends, and co-workers i not only have the right to write about it but would be doing a disservice not writing about it. Real life *isms* need to be addressed. They exist, they oppress, they silence. And left unsaid they perpetuate the status quo.

Thursday afternoon i had a ridiculous conversation with a 22 year old male coworker. I think age is relevant here because i haven't encountered this type of sexism from young men in a long time (since i was in college, really). Usually i have a harder time explaining discrimination and the importance of feminism to older men which i chalk up to them being "stuck in their ways" and turning it into a "generational thing." That's why this particular situation stung more than others.

Anyway, i was siting in my office as a counselor talked to the receptionist across the hall about the disappointment he felt because he was having a baby girl. He said he really wanted a boy so that he can raise him to be a "manly man" like his dad. I get that lots of guys want little boys, that's not what bothered me. What bothered me was how he talked about his future daughter. Mostly because he was already disappointed in her, before she was even born. My sister-in-law is 8+ months pregnant. We were so unbelievably grateful that this is a healthy baby, boy or girl was irrelevant. IMO, everyone should hope for a healthy, happy, child, not be disappointed in the sex; boy, girl, trans, it's your future child you're talking about. Thinking about this a little further, being "disappointed" with baby girls is not a new concept.

For example, China's preference for male babies is ingrained in both culture and politics. The Chinese government set into place a one-child-only policy as an attempt to target overpopulation which significantly increased the number of female infanticides. The Communist Party took power in 1949 and outlawed this practice. However, in the 1980's the Chinese government census continued to show hundreds of thousands of missing baby girls each year. The practice of female infanticide in China is most prevalent in rural areas where boys are valued for their ability to help with the land and take care of their parents later on in life. Girls, however, traditionally move in with their in-laws and cannot further help their birth family. Baby girls are often "abandoned, suffocated, or drowned soon after birth." Aside from being an inhuman, unethical, and sexist practice, female infanticide effects the Chinese culture in many ways, "in 1997 the London Telegraph quoted ...a Chinese journal... which warned the male-to-female ratio in China has become so unbalanced that there will soon be an 'army of bachelors' in China - an estimated 90 million Chinese men in search of a spouse."

Female infanticide is an old practice dating back to 200 B.C. in Greece. It still exists today mostly cited in China and India.

Tying this back to overhearing my coworker being disappointed and "pissed" about having a girl: Was he hoping for a boy to have extra hands on the farm? No. Was he hoping for a boy to take care of him when he's old? Probably not. Was he hoping for a boy because he was only allowed one child by the government? No. As he walked by i congratulated him on the great news of an addition to his family and asked why he was disappointed to have a girl. He told me he was hoping for a boy to carry on his family name. He was hoping for a boy to raise as a "manly man like his daddy." He was "disappointed in having a girl because girls are nothing but trouble." I tried to get into to it further with him. I told him that if it's the family name that meant so much to him lots of women keep their name. This turned into an incredibly heteronormative and sexist conversation.

Firstly, he assumed his future daughter would be attracted to men and when i suggested the alternative he because outraged. Secondly, he said that she will not keep her own name because it is tradition that women take their husband's name. I said that if it's important to her to keep her name, she should be with a person that values equality and respects her decision. He disagreed and very clearly explained that "tradition is much more important than equality." This is a 22 year old. I was so so sad.

We talked some more about his unborn daughter's future husband (ugh) and how she will not be with a man that would "allow" her to keep her name. This poor girl. Not only will she be controlled by her dad but then once she finds a partner (who am i kidding, a man) that is just like her dad, she will then be controlled by him. I asked him if he hopes for her to be in a loving, equal relationship rather than a controlling one and he said again, "tradition is more important than equality." Ouch. He then tried to argue that he was in an equal relationship. Now i have no idea whether or not he is. I don't know his wife, i don't know their relationship. All i know is what he's saying to me at that point. So i asked him a few question:

Me: "How is your relationship based on equality?"
Him: "I love and respect her"
Me: "That's really good, i think love and respect are very important in strong relationships. What if she wanted to keep her own last name?"
Him: "I would say no"
Me: "So you usually have the final word on things?"
Him: "Yea, i'm the man in the relationship"
Me: "Doesn't that mean that you have more power and thus you are dominant?"
Him: "Yea, men should be"
Me: "So your relationship is not equal then, right?"

I don't think that keeping/taking a last name is really the important part of that conversation. What IS significant is why a last name was so important to him. He kept referring to tradition and i kept explaining about control and power. A girl has her dad's name, then her husband's. She's first her dad's property, then her husband's. This concept appealed to my coworker, it doesn't appeal to me. If someone chooses to take a last name based on family, personal choice, or even preference for the name itself, good for them. If they have no choice and are forced to take a name based on "tradition," power, or control, that is not okay by me. "Tradition" is drenched in patriarchy, inequality, and oppression. Tradition is never a good answer in my book.

Once he realized he was being more than a bit hypocritical trying to explain he was in an equal and respectful relationship but valued male dominance and "tradition" he backed off and left. The story is not over, however. He stopped by again on his way out to say, "Bye Miss Chauvinist, have a nice afternoon." Here is the conversation that followed that comment:

Me: "I think you are mistaken, a chauvinist is someone who is unreasonably bias towards a group to which s/he belongs, this particularly refers to men who believe they are superior to women."
Him: "What should i call you them?"
Me: "Um, Galina. Or if you need a social term, a feminist. I value and work towards equality."
Him: "Haha, a feminist! You need to broaden your horizons!"
Me: "Um, i think you do...?" (i was so confused...)
Him: "No."
Me: "Ok..."
Silence... cricket, cricket...
Me: "You're a substance abuse counselor, don't you think equality is important?!"
Him: "Not as important as maintaining tradition"
Then he laughs and says: "What if your boyfriend wanted to stay home and raise the kids?"
Me: "Firstly, why do you assume i'm straight? Secondly, why do you assume i even want kids? Thirdly, if my partner wanted to stay home to raise the kids and we didn't need a second income i would be absolutely fine with that arrangement. I think if it's important to the couple that one parent stays home with the children, it should be the one who makes less money, regardless of their sex."
Him: "WHAT? What type of family were you raised in?"
Me: "Actually, a very traditional and conservative one. But once i learned to make my own decisions and think for myself i realized that the 'traditional' lifestyle is actually incredibly oppressive, patriarchal, and only beneficial if you're a white man, which i'm not."

The conversation went on like that for a while, i won't type it all out because it's a bit boring and i'm sure we've heard it all before. Except for that i haven't! I mean, on TV, yes, in jokes, yes, in radio, in stereotypes, etc. But to actually have a conversation like this with a substance abuse counselor who is supposed to be open minded and forward thinking? No.

I wrote down the name of my blog on a post-it for him. I said if he reads it i'm sure he'll disagree with 90% of what i write. Then i contemplated whether or not to put this conversation up. In the end, i think i did the right thing by publishing it because of how shocked i was/am that this degree of sexism (masked as "tradition") still exists, especially in my peers... I'm several years older than him, but not too too many. I thought our generation was better than that...

Holocaust Remembrance Day

Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. I'll let Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous quote (inscribed at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston) speak for me.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

In light of Holocaust Remembrance Day, here's a NYT article from yesterday.

Thomas Beatie on Oprah

Let's talk about Thomas Beatie. My mom excitedly emailed me yesterday that Thomas would be on Oprah so i TiVoed it... Oprah's show was Thomas' first TV interview.

If you're unfamiliar with Thomas' story, here's a brief recap in his own words via Advocate.com:

"I am transgender, legally male, and legally married to Nancy. Unlike those in same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions, Nancy and I are afforded the more than 1,100 federal rights of marriage. Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.

Ten years ago, when Nancy and I became a couple, the idea of us having a child was more dream than plan. I always wanted to have children. However, due to severe endometriosis 20 years ago, Nancy had to undergo a hysterectomy and is unable to carry a child. But after the success of our custom screen-printing business and a move from Hawaii to the Pacific Northwest two years ago, the timing finally seemed right. I stopped taking my bimonthly testosterone injections. It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle, so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly. My body regulated itself after about four months, and I didn’t have to take any exogenous estrogen, progesterone, or fertility drugs to aid my pregnancy."


Lots of people are really bothered by this... let's talk about why.

Before we get into anything, I will preemptively answer some questions that i've either heard or read over the past few days:

Q. But doesn't that mean he's actually a she?
A. Well no. Gender and sex are two very different things. Gender is how you act. It's how you present yourself and how you want to be viewed by others. Sex is your genitals and reproductive organs. (In Thomas' case, just to be clear, he has a penis - his clitoris enlarged as a result of taking testosterone, he does not have a surgically constructed penis - as well as female reproductive organs sans breasts). Maleness and femaleness include many different things such as: reproductive capabilities, the way a person presents him/herself and acts in the world, the person's ability to "pass" and mostly, what the individual feels and believes s/he is. Long story short, No, Thomas is not a woman. Thomas is a man. He is also transgender.

Q. Ew! Isn't that weird?!
A. No. Just because it's not something you have come across before does not make it "weird," "gross," or in any way "wrong." Wrapping our brains around something unfamiliar to us is a wonderful thing, allow this to challenge your notions of maleness and femaleness instead of disregarding it. Also, dichotomous thinking is dangerous, wouldn't it be better if we all viewed life on a spectrum - right Jacks? ;)

Q. Oh my goodness, isn't the testosterone Thomas takes to keep his facial hair dangerous for the baby?!
A. No. Thomas has actually been off testosterone for two years before even trying to conceive. His hormone levels were absolutely normal when he got pregnant and are where they should be as he progresses in the pregnancy. On Oprah, when Thomas' doctor was asked this question she responded by saying, "this is a normal pregnancy." Which it, very much, is.

Q. (All very similar) 1. What about the poor child? This is absolutely sick. 2. What terrible parents! 3. I truly wonder what sort of problems the child will have in the future. This is going to be a mine field of problems I believe. Posted by: Dr. Ray of Cairns...
A. Well since Dr. Ray of Cairns, Australia says so, it must be true... Or not. But for real, folks, "love makes a family." This child is going to be raised in an open minded, accepting, and loving household. Isn't that all we can ask for any child being brought into the world? Nancy (Thomas' wife) has two gorgeous daughters from a previous marriage that were on the show yesterday as well. Oprah asked one of the daughters how she felt when Tracy made the decision to transition to Thomas, the daughter said, "He actually got to be who he is and there wasn't much confusion after that." Honestly, it's pretty simple. The daughters talked a lot about Thomas and Nancy's great relationship and that the they model their marriages after Nancy and Thomas. The daughters, like Nancy and Thomas, were very honest, straight-forward, and sincere. This is the type of family i want a child brought into. I don't think those "worried" about "this poor girl" need to fret, she will be brought up in a loving household where being yourself and being open minded towards others are valued characteristics. She will be loved. She will be educated. And (hopefully) she will be armed with the tools she needs to defend herself and her family's lifestyle from those individuals that can't accept anything out of the "ordinary."

Q. Why on earth would this couple want all this sensationalist publicity? (AKA "Fine, whatever, they're pregnant, but why are they making this such a big deal and going public with it? Couldn't they have just been pregnant in their own home and kept quiet about it?)
A. Silence is never the answer. "Keeping it quiet" may be a fine solution for you but most people are extremely proud of their children and want to share with the world when they are pregnant. Why should this couple be any different? You have no right to silence anyone else simply because they don't fit in your definition of normal. Also, Thomas explained that they went public with this because they rather be the ones to tell their story than to have their story told by the tabloids and gossiping neighbors.

Q. (I don't want to link her post and thus give it more traffic but here's a question i found searching for info on the case) The day she decided to be a male and started artificial interference in her own body was the day as far as I am concerned that she ceased to have the right to carry a child as a mother. if she cared about having a child then she should not have artificially interfered with her sexuality.
A. Who the fuck are you to decide who "has the right" to carry a child and who doesn't? Also, Thomas made a statement yesterday regarding sexuality: "Sexuality is a completely different topic than how you feel, that's your gender. The gender role in society that i felt most comfortable being or gravitating to was the male gender role. It's hard to explain how it is a different issue. When i woke up in the morning, i felt like a man. it was difficult for society to respect me the way i felt on the inside if my outside didn't match it."

Q. Who the F cares? Why is this a big deal?
A. Well for Thomas and Nancy this pregnancy includes political, legal, and social consequences. They are legally married and Thomas is legally male. Because of this, Thomas' pregnancy may set political and medical precedents that don't only effect them but will effect others in the future. They have experienced discrimination not only from the community but also from health care professionals (I believe they said on Oprah that it took 9 doctors before finding one that accepted them and would take Thomas on as a patient). Not only that but Thomas expressed, due to their religious beliefs, "health care professionals refused to call him by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as his wife."

Now that we got all of that out of the way, what's the problem? Why does Thomas and Nancy's nontraditional life bother so many people? Why is it so difficult for us to broaden our notions of sex, gender, and normalcy to allow Thomas and many others like Thomas (because even though they may not be pregnant, there are many transgender individuals trying to fit into these strictly binary definitions of sex and gender) in to our minds? Let's rewind pre-pregnancy for a second. Before Thomas become pregnant, his friends, family, community, and on lookers did not question his sex for a moment. He "passed" as a man. Why does that now change? Why do so many now disregard this story as, "so what, it's just a butch female having a baby?" My opinion? He is NOT a female having a baby. He is a male - legally, socially, (and for the most part) physiologically. Yes, Thomas may have the physical capabilities of a woman to give birth but he also does not have breasts. Does one outweigh the other? Well no. Thomas is a man. Thomas relates to himself and to others as male. Thomas is legally a male and before Thomas got pregnant, no one denied him of his "malehood." Why deny him now? Yes, i understand it's easier to reject what we are uncomfortable with than to expand our notions of categories but it is important to understand that not all people neatly fit into a category. Like i said, dichotomous thinking is dangerous. Don't deny Thomas the right to be what he is simply because you can't accept him into a binary or a social norm.

Male/Female argument aside, let's especially not ostracize Thomas and Nancy (as well as tons of other "nontraditional" couples) for making the choices that best fit into their lives. My vote is to not only accept and "tolerate" others but to celebrate everyone's differences, after all, isn't that how we all grow and learn from one another?

I'll end with a statement Thomas made yesterday on the show. In response to a question Oprah posed, Thomas asked the world to, "embrace the gamut of human possibility and to define for [yourself] what is normal"

What are some of your thoughts?
Let me just quickly say that ya'll know i moderate comments. Genuine questions and statement are always appreciated but just so you are forewarned, bigotry will not be tolerated.

The Complete Persepolis: A Book Review

I didn't realize The Complete Persepolis was made into a movie (currently in theaters) until i was recommended the book. I would think seeing the movie would essentially be very similar to reading the book because the book is a graphic novel and the movie is subtitled (it's in French). At first i didn't think i'd get through this book for two reasons: 1. the only other graphic novel i've read is Maus (which I also loved) and 2. I'm not at all a "history buff." I usually avoid books on or mostly about history altogether. Persepolis was a very different story.

Persepolis is a coming of age story about Marjane, a young girl growing up in Tehran, Iran during the Islamic Revolution. It is actually a retelling of the author's childhood and as such, deeply moving. Granted not a story of the average Iranian girl, Marjane is the child of progressive activist parents who teach her early on about the value of freedom, education, and independent thought. The book chronicles her life as she grows up in a war-torn country. Marjane's struggle for freedom is beautifully and creatively illustrated in every challenge from the veil to wearing make-up and nail polish to showing an inch of skin (on her wrist!) Despite the heavy subject, Marjane Satrapi's sense of irreverent humor shines through - there were several points in the book that i couldn't help but laugh, despite the seriousness of the situation.

The history in Persepolis is also really important. I didn't know much about the Islamic Revolution, America's involvement with Iraq against Iran, or the fall of the Shah. Through Persepolis i was able to learn how the Iranian religious fundamentalists came to power and what that meant for the people (especially women) of Iran. I knew the oppression Iranian women suffered but this helped me understand how it all came about.

But for me, the most important topic in Persepolis is Marjane's struggle for independence within a religiously oppressive government and country. Through the text, we can't avoid the countless examples Marjane sights in which women are marginalized and oppressed. One example is from the character's college years where she went to art school and had to draw a woman who posed as a model for their class in traditional Iranian clothes, head to foot (literally). There was absolutely no way to make out her form or to even imagine what was underneath the drapes. Marji and some of her friends got together after school and posed for each other, minus the drapery, and handed in those drawings, which got high marks and later worked as an example of how creativity was not stifled through religious oppression (ha!)

Clothing and the veil were major topics throughout the book. By law, women had to wear clothes that covered their entire body and it had to hang loose so that the shape of their body was not seen. One example of Marji finding this law more than annoying was when she was running late for a doctor's appointment and had to sprint to catch the bus. In general she had a hard time moving around in the traditional clothes but she also got in trouble for running - because when she ran, her butt moved in an obscene way that caused men to look at her...

Marji spunk and outspoken nature were probably due to her parents political involvement. She even had family that were imprisoned, tortured, and killed for being anti-government. Persepolis is grim at times and provides explicit examples of what life was like during the war in Iran but it is also an uplifting and honest depiction of one girl's struggle to fit in. Marji's parents sent her, as a teenager, to Vienna during the war to keep her safe. In Vienna Marji navigated between staying true to herself and fitting in among new friends. When she returned to Iran Marji still had a hard time fitting in due to her more Western ideals and lifestyle (sleeping with her boyfriend, saying what she was thinking, not believing everything she was told, etc).

All in all, Persepolis is a phenomenal account of a young girl's struggle to find herself in general, let alone within religious oppression. Maji is a perfect example of a strong female character which we should see more of in books and movies. Check out this book, it's really worth the read.

Guantánamo Bay

Friday is the six-year anniversary of Guantánamo Bay. Why is this incredibly important? Because Guantánamo Bay is not only a blaring violation of human rights, but also undermines the constitution. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) unconstitutionally eliminated the right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This means that our government can hold prisoners of Guantanamo Bay for more than five years without charges.

Basically, the "justice system" set in place at Guantánamo Bay allows the president to decide who is an enemy combatants, who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime, and define what is and what is not torture and abuse.

There are many human rights concerns. The legal system in place at Guantánamo Bay:

• Deprives defendants of independent judicial oversight by a civilian court.
  
• Restricts the defendant’s right to choose his lawyer.
  
• Prosecutes prisoners-of-war in a manner that violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
  
• Fails to guarantee that evidence obtained via torture or ill-treatment shall not be used.
  
• Allows wide latitude to close proceedings and impose a “gag order” on defense counsel.
  
• Provides lower due process standards for non-citizens than for U.S. citizens.
• Prejudges the detainees as “enemy combatants,” thereby keeping the tribunals from making determinations with full independence and impartiality.
  Place severe limits on detainees’ ability to make their claims, including denial of assistance of counsel.
  
• Erroneously adopts the U.S. government position that all enemy combatants at Guantanamo can still be held under the laws of war.
  
• Does not recognize any legal obligation on the part of the U.S. government to conduct reviews of their detention nor any legal right of the detainees to such a review process.
• Reflects the U.S. government’s assumption that all those detained at Guantanamo are “enemy combatants” and that none are entitled to prisoner-of-war status.
  
• Assumes, erroneously, that all those held at Guantanamo can be detained under the laws of war; an unknown number of detainees were taken into custody where the laws of arm conflict did not apply.
  
• Provides for only an annual review when the laws of war require reviews for security detainees at least every six months.
  
• Places the burden of proof on the detainee to demonstrate why s/he is no longer a threat to the United States.
  
• Limits the detainee’s access to relevant information.
  
• Requires family members to provide information through their governments even in cases where doing so would place the family at risk.

The image above is of detainees upon arrival in January 2002

On an international note, Guantánamo Bay is an abomination of American values and continues to shame our country. Detainees have been held for years without fundamental legal and human rights. Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken out against Guantánamo Bay, “we have shaken the belief the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantánamo open and creating things like the military commission.”

Because justice is almost entirely about activism, here are some things you can do:

• Sign the petition to close Guantánamo
• Wear orange Friday
• Learn more about Guantánamo Bay
• Download and administer the fact sheet to help educate and outrage others
• Download the "toolkit" here
• Find more stuff to do here or here