Maryland is now the 8th state for marriage equality!
Yeah Maryland! Way to go!!!!
Now let's get our equality on in the other 42 states....
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Friday, March 2, 2012
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Don't Ask Don't Tell, don't come back!
Don't Ask Don't Tell is officially over!
All I will say on this most happy and historical day is that I hope that terrible law never, ever, ever comes back!
Although I am something of a pacifist and although I do wish that the DADT repeal also included a non-discrimination clause and protections for transgender men and women serving in the armed forces (I'm all about equality for everybody, not just a few), I am really happy to see this inhumane and discriminatory law gone and finally relegated to the dustbin of history. Nobody should ever have to hide who they are to serve our country.
All I will say on this most happy and historical day is that I hope that terrible law never, ever, ever comes back!
Although I am something of a pacifist and although I do wish that the DADT repeal also included a non-discrimination clause and protections for transgender men and women serving in the armed forces (I'm all about equality for everybody, not just a few), I am really happy to see this inhumane and discriminatory law gone and finally relegated to the dustbin of history. Nobody should ever have to hide who they are to serve our country.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Happy Pride Month!
Well, this is surely a wonderful piece of news...
On the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots* that got the whole gay liberation movement started off, marriage equality is finally the law in New York! (Which is the same place the riots occurred and got the ball rolling.)
This is the biggest state where this has happened, and I'm super-excited for my sisters and brothers in the Big Apple. Let's hope ALL the other states follow soon, or better yet, that DOMA is finally repealed so we all can enjoy equal marriage rights!!
On the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots* that got the whole gay liberation movement started off, marriage equality is finally the law in New York! (Which is the same place the riots occurred and got the ball rolling.)
This is the biggest state where this has happened, and I'm super-excited for my sisters and brothers in the Big Apple. Let's hope ALL the other states follow soon, or better yet, that DOMA is finally repealed so we all can enjoy equal marriage rights!!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
In memoriam
Although the shocking news about Tyler Clementi's suicide broke last week, I've been feeling an overwhelming sense of anger and emotional draining over it. I did not know Mr. Clementi personally, nor did I know the other LGBT students who have taken their lives as a result of bullying. But as an ally and as a person who believes in the dignity of everybody, I feel compelled to write about it.
I can't get over how people seem to think that bullying and harrassment is somehow OK, as long as it's directed at certain individuals and groups. I just don't understand who decides which people somehow aren't deserving of basic human dignity, and I don't understand how that sort of nonsense just is perpetuated. What is it that marks one group an easy target and another off limits? What is it that gives people the feeling that they can do something this cruel?
Part of me feels it has to do with the de-humanizing of certain groups. If you mark certain people as somehow less than or not even human, it makes it a lot easier to perpetuate cruel acts against them. If you see your own group as the default or the "norm," it makes anyone else come across as different and less than. In my previous post, "Same Old Song and Dance," I described a heartless "fake prom" that was put on to discriminate against the LGBT and disabled students at a high school in Mississippi. Clearly, the cowardly and mean-spirited folks who hosted it saw this group as less than the rest of the student body and wanted them out.
What we need to do is NORMALIZE EQUALITY. We have come a long way, certainly, but we cannot stop. We need to make things like bullying a thing of the past by recognizing that EVERYONE is valuable and EVERYONE deserves respect. It doesn't matter what your political party or holy book or parents may say. We are all people and we all deserve respect.
I can't get over how people seem to think that bullying and harrassment is somehow OK, as long as it's directed at certain individuals and groups. I just don't understand who decides which people somehow aren't deserving of basic human dignity, and I don't understand how that sort of nonsense just is perpetuated. What is it that marks one group an easy target and another off limits? What is it that gives people the feeling that they can do something this cruel?
Part of me feels it has to do with the de-humanizing of certain groups. If you mark certain people as somehow less than or not even human, it makes it a lot easier to perpetuate cruel acts against them. If you see your own group as the default or the "norm," it makes anyone else come across as different and less than. In my previous post, "Same Old Song and Dance," I described a heartless "fake prom" that was put on to discriminate against the LGBT and disabled students at a high school in Mississippi. Clearly, the cowardly and mean-spirited folks who hosted it saw this group as less than the rest of the student body and wanted them out.
What we need to do is NORMALIZE EQUALITY. We have come a long way, certainly, but we cannot stop. We need to make things like bullying a thing of the past by recognizing that EVERYONE is valuable and EVERYONE deserves respect. It doesn't matter what your political party or holy book or parents may say. We are all people and we all deserve respect.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Friends are NOT accessories!!
Readers, I am going to draw your attention to a phrase I've been hearing quite often that is really starting to sound just like nails on a chalkboard. Have you ever heard someone make an unbelievably bigoted remark about [insert minority group of any sort here]? Sure, you have. Bigots are unfortunately everywhere. Then, when you call the bigot on the inappropriateness of that comment, his or her first response is pretty much universal:
I didn't mean it that way! I have lots of [insert minority group of any sort here] friends!
Honestly, it's just ridiculous! I have heard it so much that I have begun to take the first words someone says about their Black or Hispanic or female or LGBT or Asian (or any other group they were previously disparaging) "friends" as a warning sign that they might be a bigot. Because no one who is truly open-minded or an ally would say that. You know why? Because they wouldn't make disparaging comments in the first place, and they would have those friends around them in the first place. Those folks who talk about their little rainbow coalition of buddies? I highly doubt they even have one minority they consider a friend. If their attitude is so prejudiced, I don't think that (a) any member of that group could stand them and (b) they would want any member of that group around them. I just don't believe they do.
Friends are NOT accessories. They are NOT there for you to put on display of "proof" of how awesome and open-minded and tolerant you supposedly are, when your actions are say the exact opposite. Actions speak louder than words. They are NOT for you to show off because it's supposedly going to make you look good. Treating someone as an accessory, as something that's not even human, is just as bad as being outright against them for their identity. In both cases, you've denied their humanity and made them into what you assume them to be.
I have a lot of different kinds of friends. Many don't look, talk, or act anything like me. And I like that. But you know one of the many reasons why we are close? Because we don't treat each other like accessories! We don't act like those friendships are simply there to make us look good, and we know that a relationship is a give and take. I'm not saying that race or gender or orientation or religion is something I don't notice. I do notice aspects of someone's identity. In fact, I do think identity matters in my friendships in the sense that anyone who mistreats my friends because of their identity WILL be faced with my wrath! We treat each other like the awesome folks we are.
I didn't mean it that way! I have lots of [insert minority group of any sort here] friends!
Honestly, it's just ridiculous! I have heard it so much that I have begun to take the first words someone says about their Black or Hispanic or female or LGBT or Asian (or any other group they were previously disparaging) "friends" as a warning sign that they might be a bigot. Because no one who is truly open-minded or an ally would say that. You know why? Because they wouldn't make disparaging comments in the first place, and they would have those friends around them in the first place. Those folks who talk about their little rainbow coalition of buddies? I highly doubt they even have one minority they consider a friend. If their attitude is so prejudiced, I don't think that (a) any member of that group could stand them and (b) they would want any member of that group around them. I just don't believe they do.
Friends are NOT accessories. They are NOT there for you to put on display of "proof" of how awesome and open-minded and tolerant you supposedly are, when your actions are say the exact opposite. Actions speak louder than words. They are NOT for you to show off because it's supposedly going to make you look good. Treating someone as an accessory, as something that's not even human, is just as bad as being outright against them for their identity. In both cases, you've denied their humanity and made them into what you assume them to be.
I have a lot of different kinds of friends. Many don't look, talk, or act anything like me. And I like that. But you know one of the many reasons why we are close? Because we don't treat each other like accessories! We don't act like those friendships are simply there to make us look good, and we know that a relationship is a give and take. I'm not saying that race or gender or orientation or religion is something I don't notice. I do notice aspects of someone's identity. In fact, I do think identity matters in my friendships in the sense that anyone who mistreats my friends because of their identity WILL be faced with my wrath! We treat each other like the awesome folks we are.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Same old song and dance
So, by now I'm sure you've all heard the story about the fake prom that was held in Mississippi. After Constance McMillen, a senior at the Itawamba County High School, wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom, the school cancelled the prom altogether. She later was invited to a private prom with her girlfriend...and discovered that there were less than 10 students there (and some of those students had learning disabilities). The rest of the school went to a prom that was held in secret by the parents, and that the 10 students at the "fake prom" were not invited to.
The story's gone viral all over the blog community, and for good reason. Most people seem to get it for what it is--a really blatant and incredibly ugly display of discrimination. What really bothers me especially is that this fake prom was created to keep all the people who didn't fit in with the school's desired image out, like a way to remove anyone they didn't see as "worthy." (The original prom was cancelled on the grounds that a same-sex couple would be "distracting and disruptive"--but with a couple hundred kids at a prom, who's really going to be distracted by one couple??) Which is just so disgusting.
People may say that we as a nation may have come far, but in matters of civil rights, we still have a long way to go. As most of you know, I identify as mostly hetero (I use the term mostly because I don't think that anyone is exclusively one orientation or another but that we all fall into a continuum of sorts, like the Kinsey scale), but I am a HUGE ally. That's because I think freedom means freedom for everybody, not just a few.
And I am a huge history buff, especially with the history of social movements. What I have noticed, though, is that many of the same old excuses and the same old hate just keeps getting recycled. It's the same old prejudice, just in different hands. Think about how, as recently as the early twentieth century, interracial relationships were considered societally unacceptable. Many of you would find that archaic, and rightly so. Some states even had "racial integrity acts" (don't believe me? google it) that CRIMINALIZED an interracial marriage or relationsip on the grounds that it would lead to problems with the couple's children and later on, the entire human race. It wasn't until the 1960s, in a case called Loving Vs. Virginia that such laws were struck down once and for all. That's less than fifty years ago! Now imagine some of the opposition to marriage equality. A lot of folks who don't support same-sex marriage use the grounds that it will be harmful to their kids, and later on, to the entire human race. Same old excuses. (Although I know a LOT of same-sex couples with kids, and their kids seem fine to me. That's because it's more about how the couple parents than what gender the couple is.) Same old prejudice.
Some might say a prom might not mean a whole lot, since it's something that happens in high school, but this kind of exclusion is nothing less than discrimination and creating nothing less than a hostile educational environment. If a student is noticeably excluded from something because of their identity, what message does that send? What kind of environment does that create? Really, this kind of exclusion is just the cousin of that institutionalized prejudice I was discussing. Both should have no place in this world. At. All.
Well, I am hoping for the best for Ms. McMillen and for the other kids that apparantly weren't good enough to be at Itawamba County's "real" prom. My heart goes out to them.
The story's gone viral all over the blog community, and for good reason. Most people seem to get it for what it is--a really blatant and incredibly ugly display of discrimination. What really bothers me especially is that this fake prom was created to keep all the people who didn't fit in with the school's desired image out, like a way to remove anyone they didn't see as "worthy." (The original prom was cancelled on the grounds that a same-sex couple would be "distracting and disruptive"--but with a couple hundred kids at a prom, who's really going to be distracted by one couple??) Which is just so disgusting.
People may say that we as a nation may have come far, but in matters of civil rights, we still have a long way to go. As most of you know, I identify as mostly hetero (I use the term mostly because I don't think that anyone is exclusively one orientation or another but that we all fall into a continuum of sorts, like the Kinsey scale), but I am a HUGE ally. That's because I think freedom means freedom for everybody, not just a few.
And I am a huge history buff, especially with the history of social movements. What I have noticed, though, is that many of the same old excuses and the same old hate just keeps getting recycled. It's the same old prejudice, just in different hands. Think about how, as recently as the early twentieth century, interracial relationships were considered societally unacceptable. Many of you would find that archaic, and rightly so. Some states even had "racial integrity acts" (don't believe me? google it) that CRIMINALIZED an interracial marriage or relationsip on the grounds that it would lead to problems with the couple's children and later on, the entire human race. It wasn't until the 1960s, in a case called Loving Vs. Virginia that such laws were struck down once and for all. That's less than fifty years ago! Now imagine some of the opposition to marriage equality. A lot of folks who don't support same-sex marriage use the grounds that it will be harmful to their kids, and later on, to the entire human race. Same old excuses. (Although I know a LOT of same-sex couples with kids, and their kids seem fine to me. That's because it's more about how the couple parents than what gender the couple is.) Same old prejudice.
Some might say a prom might not mean a whole lot, since it's something that happens in high school, but this kind of exclusion is nothing less than discrimination and creating nothing less than a hostile educational environment. If a student is noticeably excluded from something because of their identity, what message does that send? What kind of environment does that create? Really, this kind of exclusion is just the cousin of that institutionalized prejudice I was discussing. Both should have no place in this world. At. All.
Well, I am hoping for the best for Ms. McMillen and for the other kids that apparantly weren't good enough to be at Itawamba County's "real" prom. My heart goes out to them.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The bad moon arose
Well, this revel is not revelling now.
One of the prevention educators just emailed me on this, and I know she's usually informed and all up in arms on things like this. They upheld Proposition 8 in California! WHY?? This is not at all how it was supposed to go! That damn thing was supposed to go the way of the Briggs initiative and other ordinances designed to curtail human rights and NOT get passed by a landslide. Sooo many people opposed it too! If all those demonstrations against it were any indicator of the mass opposition to it, keeping the thing in place would only be opposing the majority will of the people. But what happens? They uphold the damn Prop 8 (in a dispiriting vote of 6 to 1), but say that the marriages performed before it was passed are valid. That is such cold comfort, even for a hetero ally. Cold comfort is no comfort at all. This isn't about special interests, it's about basic human rights (see my post, "Holy matrimony!"). And we have seen a breach in that, thanks to that awful Prop 8!
One of the prevention educators just emailed me on this, and I know she's usually informed and all up in arms on things like this. They upheld Proposition 8 in California! WHY?? This is not at all how it was supposed to go! That damn thing was supposed to go the way of the Briggs initiative and other ordinances designed to curtail human rights and NOT get passed by a landslide. Sooo many people opposed it too! If all those demonstrations against it were any indicator of the mass opposition to it, keeping the thing in place would only be opposing the majority will of the people. But what happens? They uphold the damn Prop 8 (in a dispiriting vote of 6 to 1), but say that the marriages performed before it was passed are valid. That is such cold comfort, even for a hetero ally. Cold comfort is no comfort at all. This isn't about special interests, it's about basic human rights (see my post, "Holy matrimony!"). And we have seen a breach in that, thanks to that awful Prop 8!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Maine Event!
YES! Go Maine, go!!!
Five states to recognize marriage equality, forty-five more to go. And Washington DC too!
Holy matrimony! Let's keep up the good work!
Five states to recognize marriage equality, forty-five more to go. And Washington DC too!
Holy matrimony! Let's keep up the good work!
Holy matrimony!
Well, you've read my marriage-equality posts, so I'm sure you have a gist of what this one is about. I'm really happy about Washington DC recognizing all marriages, including the same-sex ones, performed elsewhere. I know it's not quite full marriage equality, but hopefully the remaining 45 states will go the route of Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa.
What bothers me is the way several conservative groups and individuals (Ms. Prejean, I'm lookin' right atcha) have been saying that legalizing gay marriage will infringe on their own religious freedom. Or by saying that they are being "forced" to watch as all these things contrary to their own beliefs are unfolding. Some even say that they should be able to refuse service to a same-sex couple because they personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Only.
Well, from the way they talk, you'd think someone was forcing them to follow a state-sanctioned religion or having the state meddling around with their church's affairs. That is, after all, what "freedom of religion" protects against. Or that they're being "forced" to marry someone of their own gender. Sheesh. But no, it's just the heightened visibility and rights of the gay community that bothers them. And honestly, I think their reactions are completely wrong.
What they're basically saying, instead, is that their "right" to discriminate against someone because of his/her orientation is being eroded. If marriage rights are granted for both hetero and same-sex couples, it's making the same-sex couple just as visible as the hetero one. And I can see that that clearly scares some folks. As Harvey Milk said way back in the 1970s, "a homosexual with power...that's scary stuff."
And frankly, I don't think that they have much cause to complain. NO ONE should discriminate, let alone have the right to discriminate, against who they can and cannot serve. The reason why we have anti-discrimination laws in this great country is to make sure that everyone is treated with dignity, that all men and women are treated equal. Should every church have to perform same-sex weddings? No, because that is a matter left up to them (remember the separation of church and state?). But should someone have the right to refuse service to a same-sex couple simply because the couple contains two men or two women? A big fat NO. That's not a right. If you are basically asking for permission to discriminate against people you don't like or whose very existence bothers you, then you don't have that right. Sorry.
Let's look at it in another way. Suppose a Christian photographer thinks that every relationship should be a "good, Christian marriage." Well, if that photographer is hired to take pictures at a Jewish wedding, s/he would be taking pictures of a couple whose relationship certainly isn't a "Christian marriage." Should s/he have the right to say no after taking the assignment? Should s/he be able to walk out if all those yarmulkes and stars of David freak him/her out? Of course not. If you have a job, the most logical (and dare I say it? moral) thing would be to DO that job, no matter who your clients are. And no one is being "forced" to see their "morals" eroding away. If they don't agree with same-sex marriage, well, then they don't have to go to Maine/Iowa/Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts and marry someone of their gender. No one is making them do that. They are welcome to believe what they want about whomever they want, but it crosses the line when they try to take that right away from someone else.
What bothers me is the way several conservative groups and individuals (Ms. Prejean, I'm lookin' right atcha) have been saying that legalizing gay marriage will infringe on their own religious freedom. Or by saying that they are being "forced" to watch as all these things contrary to their own beliefs are unfolding. Some even say that they should be able to refuse service to a same-sex couple because they personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Only.
Well, from the way they talk, you'd think someone was forcing them to follow a state-sanctioned religion or having the state meddling around with their church's affairs. That is, after all, what "freedom of religion" protects against. Or that they're being "forced" to marry someone of their own gender. Sheesh. But no, it's just the heightened visibility and rights of the gay community that bothers them. And honestly, I think their reactions are completely wrong.
What they're basically saying, instead, is that their "right" to discriminate against someone because of his/her orientation is being eroded. If marriage rights are granted for both hetero and same-sex couples, it's making the same-sex couple just as visible as the hetero one. And I can see that that clearly scares some folks. As Harvey Milk said way back in the 1970s, "a homosexual with power...that's scary stuff."
And frankly, I don't think that they have much cause to complain. NO ONE should discriminate, let alone have the right to discriminate, against who they can and cannot serve. The reason why we have anti-discrimination laws in this great country is to make sure that everyone is treated with dignity, that all men and women are treated equal. Should every church have to perform same-sex weddings? No, because that is a matter left up to them (remember the separation of church and state?). But should someone have the right to refuse service to a same-sex couple simply because the couple contains two men or two women? A big fat NO. That's not a right. If you are basically asking for permission to discriminate against people you don't like or whose very existence bothers you, then you don't have that right. Sorry.
Let's look at it in another way. Suppose a Christian photographer thinks that every relationship should be a "good, Christian marriage." Well, if that photographer is hired to take pictures at a Jewish wedding, s/he would be taking pictures of a couple whose relationship certainly isn't a "Christian marriage." Should s/he have the right to say no after taking the assignment? Should s/he be able to walk out if all those yarmulkes and stars of David freak him/her out? Of course not. If you have a job, the most logical (and dare I say it? moral) thing would be to DO that job, no matter who your clients are. And no one is being "forced" to see their "morals" eroding away. If they don't agree with same-sex marriage, well, then they don't have to go to Maine/Iowa/Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts and marry someone of their gender. No one is making them do that. They are welcome to believe what they want about whomever they want, but it crosses the line when they try to take that right away from someone else.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Ain't nothin' but a she thing
Wouldn't you know it, I'm getting really excited about my conference on Thursday. I've been working my booty off this whole week with that paper (don't try condensing 20 years of history into 5 minutes at home, kids!), planning the last hurrah of my Feminist Majority, reading two novels and studying for an exam on them, and figuring out my postgrad plans.
I am so doing something on Friday or Saturday to let loose and celebrate! Yes, I know I have an exam and some papers due that coming week, but knowing my mad time management skillz, I can get those done. Maybe use up one of those nice gift cards I got at ROAR and then attend Rock for a Refuge? Who's coming with me?
I am so doing something on Friday or Saturday to let loose and celebrate! Yes, I know I have an exam and some papers due that coming week, but knowing my mad time management skillz, I can get those done. Maybe use up one of those nice gift cards I got at ROAR and then attend Rock for a Refuge? Who's coming with me?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Number Four! Yes!
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and now....Vermont!
Let's hear it for marriage equality! Four down, forty-six to go--which state is next? Hopefully ALL of them! This is going pretty quickly. I remember how on National Coming Out Day last year (October of 2008), they announced that Connecticut recognized same-sex marriages. Then within this month, two more states joined on. Let's keep this progress going!
And 2009 is the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, like I said before. Isn't it fitting to see quite a bit of progress since that time?
Let's hear it for marriage equality! Four down, forty-six to go--which state is next? Hopefully ALL of them! This is going pretty quickly. I remember how on National Coming Out Day last year (October of 2008), they announced that Connecticut recognized same-sex marriages. Then within this month, two more states joined on. Let's keep this progress going!
And 2009 is the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, like I said before. Isn't it fitting to see quite a bit of progress since that time?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Let's hear it for Iowa!
Well, this is certainly exciting! Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa now, and that makes it the third state now to allow it (technically, it's the fourth one, but CA passed that dumb Proposition 8 in November, so I am not including CA).
I know that there are now three states down, forty-seven more to go, but if you think about it, there might be many more that might follow the example of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Massachusetts legalized it in 2004, Connecticut in 2008, and Iowa in 2009. So that just might mean that we can expect to see more people talking about it and more states legalizing it. And how fitting, too, that it's in 2009, since 2009 marks the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.
Let's hear it for marriage equality! Which state will be next?
I know that there are now three states down, forty-seven more to go, but if you think about it, there might be many more that might follow the example of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. Massachusetts legalized it in 2004, Connecticut in 2008, and Iowa in 2009. So that just might mean that we can expect to see more people talking about it and more states legalizing it. And how fitting, too, that it's in 2009, since 2009 marks the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.
Let's hear it for marriage equality! Which state will be next?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
200 unaccompanied women!!! OMG!!!
More fun in the microfilm room for today!
So for my Queer Studies class, I decided to look up some of the LGBT student groups of the 1970s. Since radicalism is somewhat fascinating to me (I might not identify as a radical feminist anymore, since I am now a material one, but I still find 'em cool), I decided to look up the really wildly extreme ones. So what did I find? Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis started as somewhat moderate but then began to get strong and powerful. But the one that really held my attention was the Lavender Menace. Named for a terribly derogatory term for lesbians (coined by Betty Friedan when she tried to limit NOW membership to hetero women), the Menace was a radical lesbian group. And they apparantly had a following on the U of I campus.
Now here is where the fun begins. So I found an article about the Lavender Menace in the Courier newspaper of Urbana, and it dealt with a conference they held for feminists and lesbians at the U of I. I kept reading, I attended a women's conference soph year, was the entertainment at the LGBT conference last year (woohoo! go monologues!), and have presented papers at conferences before. Tres intersante, to be sure...
Then I saw it. The editorial.
Some guy (presumably a student wrote in), shocked to discover "two hundred unaccompanied, unchaperoned women on the U of I campus!" He was going on and on about how shocking it was to find so many women there! He closed the letter by saying that "soldiers to the cause are needed." Poor poor unenlightened soul. Apparantly he doesn't know:
(1) They're college age. They can take care of themselves.
(2) Girls exist. Yes, they are real and in great numbers.
(3) Most of those women wouldn't want a man in the first place! Lavender Menace is a group for lesbians.
That just about cracked me up.
So for my Queer Studies class, I decided to look up some of the LGBT student groups of the 1970s. Since radicalism is somewhat fascinating to me (I might not identify as a radical feminist anymore, since I am now a material one, but I still find 'em cool), I decided to look up the really wildly extreme ones. So what did I find? Mattachine Society and Daughters of Bilitis started as somewhat moderate but then began to get strong and powerful. But the one that really held my attention was the Lavender Menace. Named for a terribly derogatory term for lesbians (coined by Betty Friedan when she tried to limit NOW membership to hetero women), the Menace was a radical lesbian group. And they apparantly had a following on the U of I campus.
Now here is where the fun begins. So I found an article about the Lavender Menace in the Courier newspaper of Urbana, and it dealt with a conference they held for feminists and lesbians at the U of I. I kept reading, I attended a women's conference soph year, was the entertainment at the LGBT conference last year (woohoo! go monologues!), and have presented papers at conferences before. Tres intersante, to be sure...
Then I saw it. The editorial.
Some guy (presumably a student wrote in), shocked to discover "two hundred unaccompanied, unchaperoned women on the U of I campus!" He was going on and on about how shocking it was to find so many women there! He closed the letter by saying that "soldiers to the cause are needed." Poor poor unenlightened soul. Apparantly he doesn't know:
(1) They're college age. They can take care of themselves.
(2) Girls exist. Yes, they are real and in great numbers.
(3) Most of those women wouldn't want a man in the first place! Lavender Menace is a group for lesbians.
That just about cracked me up.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Be still, my heart
What's this again? I didn't hear it right...could you repeat it?
In April, towards the end, there's gonna be...
ANOTHER Big Fat GWS Conference!
(Well, actually, it's not quite a big fat GWS conference because it is put on by the Ethnography of the University Initiative and not the GWS program. It's more like a big fat history conference, and my LGBT studies class is allowed to present as long as we have a ten-minute-or-less speech prepared.)
Needless to say, I'm already petitioning to present there! We don't need to submit our proposals until March, so I have time to prepare. I just really want to present something I've created again.
You know, sometimes I wonder why I'm not interested in teaching college as a profession. Then I can talk all I please, and get paid for it!
In April, towards the end, there's gonna be...
ANOTHER Big Fat GWS Conference!
(Well, actually, it's not quite a big fat GWS conference because it is put on by the Ethnography of the University Initiative and not the GWS program. It's more like a big fat history conference, and my LGBT studies class is allowed to present as long as we have a ten-minute-or-less speech prepared.)
Needless to say, I'm already petitioning to present there! We don't need to submit our proposals until March, so I have time to prepare. I just really want to present something I've created again.
You know, sometimes I wonder why I'm not interested in teaching college as a profession. Then I can talk all I please, and get paid for it!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
In observance of the Day of Silence
I am observing the day of silence for the first time. All I have to say is this:
WOW
I haven't talked since the time I got up. It goes from 9 to 5, and I have about an hour left. I have not talked at all, and when people have talked to me, I show them my response cards that explain the day and what it's all about. Most of them have been nice about it. There's a lot of participation. The standard dress code for the day of silence is to dress completely in black except for a rainbow ribbon. So I am wearing all black, even down to my makeup and jewelry (only no black lipstick, that stuff dries up my lips fast). Whenever I see another individual observing the day, I open up my jacket, show them my ribbon, and we exchange a smile or nod. That doesn't sound like much, but it really is profound to see all of the people I am allied with.
It feels like a fast of sorts. I have never starvation-dieted or fasted much for a religious occaision, so I don't have much experience with that. But I think fasting from food would be easier. I love to talk and my mouth moves faster than my mind sometimes. Instead of talking, I was able to reflect and think about the issues that I am protesting. I was able to think deeply about the issues that the day of silence stands for. The reflecting made me realize this. I will never completely know what it is like to be part of the LGBT community, since I am none of the four mentioned. But I think that it's important to learn all I can about it (most importantly by talking to the people one-on-one) and not be judgmental. I think that being part of a "dominant" culture, I have a responsibility to help others who may not have their voices heard as easily as I do. It's not being condescending, it's using what I've got to help. There's a lot that is taken for granted. I can't just use that to my advantage--I have to use that for everyone's advantage. The day of silence is one such way.
WOW
I haven't talked since the time I got up. It goes from 9 to 5, and I have about an hour left. I have not talked at all, and when people have talked to me, I show them my response cards that explain the day and what it's all about. Most of them have been nice about it. There's a lot of participation. The standard dress code for the day of silence is to dress completely in black except for a rainbow ribbon. So I am wearing all black, even down to my makeup and jewelry (only no black lipstick, that stuff dries up my lips fast). Whenever I see another individual observing the day, I open up my jacket, show them my ribbon, and we exchange a smile or nod. That doesn't sound like much, but it really is profound to see all of the people I am allied with.
It feels like a fast of sorts. I have never starvation-dieted or fasted much for a religious occaision, so I don't have much experience with that. But I think fasting from food would be easier. I love to talk and my mouth moves faster than my mind sometimes. Instead of talking, I was able to reflect and think about the issues that I am protesting. I was able to think deeply about the issues that the day of silence stands for. The reflecting made me realize this. I will never completely know what it is like to be part of the LGBT community, since I am none of the four mentioned. But I think that it's important to learn all I can about it (most importantly by talking to the people one-on-one) and not be judgmental. I think that being part of a "dominant" culture, I have a responsibility to help others who may not have their voices heard as easily as I do. It's not being condescending, it's using what I've got to help. There's a lot that is taken for granted. I can't just use that to my advantage--I have to use that for everyone's advantage. The day of silence is one such way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
