An open letter for our congress critters

Dear US Senators and Representatives,

Well, now it looks like HR 4970 may be advancing to be voted on next week. This is the House version of VAWA that strips away the provisions for LGBTQ, Native, and immigrant survivors. Let me ask you just one request:

For the real VAWA, please stand up! I do not want this to be the version that passes for the sake of being "bipartisan." Don't gamble with people's safety and well being.

Please don't divide the issue. We're talking about women's lives here, and we have to care about all the women's lives.

Thanks,

Revel

An Open Letter to "Concerned" Women for America

It's open letter time! And I am not linking to the original source that gave me this information, as I don't wish to give them the publicity. But as both a crisis worker and as a pro-choice activist, I couldn't let this slide. As a side note, unless otherwise specified, the sexual assault survivors I am referring to are female. While I know that men are also victims of abuse, women are primarily the ones who are victimized by it.

Dear "Concerned" Women for America,

Who do you think you're kidding when you say that abortion is a "cure-all for rape"?!

I mean it. Honestly, do you really think anyone is fooled by your stating to be "concerned" when your actions and words say the exact opposite? And who in their right mind would see anything as a "cure-all" for rape?

I'm a professionally trained rape crisis worker. In April, I will have been one for five years. I've provided support and guidance to nearly one hundred women and men seeking assistance in the aftermath of abuse, helped with support groups for traumatized populations, and have trained victims' advocates to do the same. My thesis was on the history and politics of the anti-rape movement, and I have successfully planned and facilitated two panel discussions surrounding reproductive justice. So, in other words, "concerned" women, I am no lightweight when it comes to both of the subjects you are discussing.

And I do have some empathy and concern for women in America. However, judging from your language in that letter, I think that what you mean by concerned and what I mean by concerned are two very different things. As a crisis worker, I have a lot of concern for the women I work with every day. After all, rape is a crime that takes choice and consent away from its victims. Who wouldn't feel concerned about that? However, as an advocate, I know that there is no "cure-all" for rape. The only cure for rape that I see is if it never happened, ever.

But let's look at your reasoning, "concerned" women. No one is doubting that a pregnancy as a result of rape is difficult, and no one would disagree on the importance of preventing the crime and punishing perpetrators. Those are things that you and I can agree on. However, your saying that abortion merely deals with the "physical consequences," is really doing a huge disservice for women who may be traumatized, scared, AND pregnant. For many (I understand, not all) women, ending a pregnancy that they in no way wanted or planned for can be a HUGE relief and a huge saving grace for them. Try thinking a mile in their shoes. Can you imagine being traumatized due to sexual assault...and living with the reminder of the rape for nine months? Can you imagine keeping the child and dealing with a living reminder of the assault? For the women who may be pregnant due to rape, it can be a nightmare dealing with this additional issue. Abortion is not simply "dealing with the physical consequences." For many women, it can help them to restore their choices. You even said it in your letter: "pregnancies under these difficult circumstances need an extra measure of compassion and support." Compassion and support includes not judging a woman's choice, even if that choice doesn't involve carrying a pregnancy to term.

A welfare rights group once said it best: "The right to choose is a poor woman's right to life." The welfare rights organizations were among some of the first pro-choice allies in the days when abortion was illegal. They knew the importance of making one's own decisions, especially for women who did not have the needed resources to either keep their child or the connections needed to secure a safe illegal abortion. They also knew the tremendous importance of promoting all women's autonomy. You may do well to think on that.

And for the record, I would be much more open to my tax dollars paying to assist one of my low income sisters get a safe, LEGAL medical procedure than for my tax dollars to pay for killing already-born, full grown adults in two wars.

Trusting women always (in the words of the martyred Dr. George Tiller),

Revel

It's your choice

Well, now I am done posting lyrics to one obscure song (listen to the cover of it though!) and one big classic (listen to the original!). I'm ready to talk about an issue that has really been on my mind all throughout 2011.

I've really come down to a simple conclusion on a lot of social issues. You can't call yourself a progressive and say that you support the empowerment of different groups unless you promote everyone's equal access to them. I'm talking to the progressive governor or member of Congress who decides to slash funding for social services for the poor and downtrodden (while they enjoy a hundred-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinner). I'm meaning the "pro-choice" president or congressperson who decides to vote for a law restricting abortion access in the name of "bipartisanship" (in particular if they're cisgender men and cannot get pregnant). I'm also criticizing the hetero politician who says that of course they're an ally for the LGBT community because they support civil unions rather than full-on marriage.

Now do any of these examples sound at all like allies or as if they believe in the positions they supposedly espouse? Not at all! And I'm not just talking about politicians either (though many of them have recently drawn my ire). I'm also talking to the lay folk who back down as soon as possible when they feel as though others don't share their belief.* It's just so ridiculous. If you support something, and if you call yourself a progressive/liberal/some other varient, you have to support equal access to it. Progressivism is about equality.

*A quick word. If it's not safe to do so, you don't have to be all vocal about your beliefs. I can understand if you're worried about your own personal safety and well-being. However, if the situation poses no danger or risk to you (like a conversation or something), the most progressive thing would be to say what you believe. Not cover it up or act like it's something only people like you should have.

The Unkindest Cut

Okay, if my advocacy posts are boring you, then please skip this one. However, if they don't, keep reading and take note (please).

You might remember the previous post a few months ago, "La Vie En Teal," in which I discussed budget cuts affecting many of the social service programs in Illinois. Well, last summer, Governor Blagojevich was considering a bill cutting funding for the social services, which would have affected things like counseling centers, speech therapy, nursing homes, halfway houses, drug rehabilitation services, hospitals, and many other health and human services. Things like the domestic violence shelters and crisis centers were also on this metaphorical chopping block, as these cuts could send several of them out of business. Thankfully, the cuts didn't go through, and most of these programs stayed in existence.

Well, flash-forward to a year later, and Governor Quinn has been presented with a budget from the state Senate. This bill is lovingly termed the "Doomsday budget" by my friends at ICASA, and its official name is Senate Bill/SB 1197. The Governor cannot make tax/spending decisions but has the power to veto them. This budget includes some heavy cuts for these same social services--at LEAST 50%. If you don't think 50% is a lot, consider that will be closing many of the free clinics and services in lower-income areas. A small crisis center like RCS in Champaign would have to close its doors permanently. A free clinic or government-sponsored program (like therapy for a returning Iraq War veteran) would be gone as well. And for a person living in a lower-income area, they might not even get the medical treatment they need if they happen to get sick. Although programs like advocacy are my own personal link to this problem, I am also worried about all the other social services. Cutting them will only cost the state more than it will save.

I know the budget problem is a pretty deep-rooted one, and I'm not an economist or anything. But I do think that there has to be a better way for the state to save money than to cut programs it so desperately needs. Many of my conservative readers (yes, this flaming-liberal revel has conservative readers; you know who you are!) might lambast me for saying this, but even raising taxes just a little would be more helpful. IL is a big state, so even a small tax raise would help. Or cutting back on programs that aren't needed.

But for you readers, if you haven't already done so, please call Governor Quinn's office at 217-782-0244 and tell him to veto Senate Bill 1197. You will most likely reach a voicemail, so if you don't like talking on the phones, you don't have to have some long involved conversation (I already called; it's pretty quick and painless). Or send a message by clicking here: http://www.illinois.gov/GOV/contactthegovernor.cfm. We think the decision will be made on July 1, but I am really hoping that the cuts don't go through. Right now, it feels like that fabled sword of Damocles, dangling over our heads and completely nerve-wracking.

This isn't just for me. It's for everyone who has ever or will ever need those services. If you want to know more, contact me, and I will give you any and all information you need to know about it.

Change has come

I really do identify with what Michelle Obama said, that this time, I really feel proud to be an American.

Regardless of what side you're on, you can't deny that this was truly a historic election and a historic inauguration. I watched the inauguration, and I was really crying when Obama gave his speech. Obama's story is one that many people can relate to, a lot more so than the previous Presidents! Barack really had to work hard to get his education and his jobs. He formed alliances with community groups such as churches and social services, ones that many ordinary Americans also are a part of. He wasn't born clutching a silver spoon, and he didn't get to be president by pandering to special interests. This was an election that everyone was excited about, and it wasn't some unrelatable gray-haired guy versus another unrelatable gray-haired guy. This campaign and election were energetic, dynamic, and upbeat.

And my post about my concerns over Pastor Warren giving the invocation? As wrong as wearing socks with sandals or getting worked up over Y2K! Yep, even the revel can be wrong at times! Warren's speech was actually pretty classy. I was pleasantly surprised. The guest speaker I was most impressed with was Senator Feinstein. She really knows how to please a crowd! But, of course, the star was the President. Not President-"elect." President Obama. It sounds good. It is good. I'm excited about seeing what he does during his time in office.

Oh President Obama, what WERE you thinking???

Maybe it's not particularly nice or appropriate to make a judgement based on one stupid decision. No one is perfect, but...this just goes TOO FAR!

Apparantly President Barack Obama has selected Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation speech at his inauguration. For those of you who don't know, Pastor Warren is affiliated with the Saddleback Church of California. He's been a preacher for a long time, has a large following, and is considered a charismatic figure who can speak well and work a crowd.

HOWEVER...

Pastor Warren stands for a lot of things Obama's supporters are against and vice versa.
He supported Proposition 8, which denied gays the right to marry in California (after they had recently won that right this summer). He's compared gay marriage to incest, which is just an awful metaphor and not at all true.
He's anti-choice. Obama and his supporters are pro-choice.
He supports the use of torture.

While I'm okay with a politician being bi-partisan (and in fact am all for being bi-partisan), I think there would've been better choices than Warren for the inauguration. And apparantly Aretha will sing after Warren's talk. The combination of a liberal president, liberal musician, and bigoted preacher leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I mean, Warren is like the anti-Obama. It's like having the late Jerry Falwell be the grand marshal at a gay pride parade. Or Phyllis Schafly speak at a NOW or Feminist Majority event. Or, if you would like to turn the tables, having Robin Morgan address the Concerned Women for America (actually, Morgan did do a speech in front of a similar conservative group, and it was so scathing that they were appalled and asked her to leave. But what were they expecting when they invited her?).

Well, maybe I might be overreacting. Maybe Warren will just do a simple speech and work the crowd, and he might make it non-religious in nature. Sometimes people can surprise. I mean, McCain's concession speech was surprisingly classy (can't say the same about his audience). Guess only time will tell. And if Warren's speech is unlistenable, then at least the Aretha performance will be enjoyable.

My next-door neighbor has become my enemy.

My first thoughts upon hearing those lines were, "How DARE they change the original?"

Let me explain.

I grew up on a wide variety of music. While my first concert was James Taylor (love his music, to this day!), a lot of the music I remember hearing as a kid was contemporary folk stuff. Acoustical, Americana, folk-rock, alternative, whatever you choose to call it. Contemporary artists (mostly guitarists, but sometimes there was a bassist thrown in) like Nanci Griffith, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Shawn Colvin, Laura Love, and Lucy Kaplansky were all on the mix tapes my dad made when driving me to school. I liked all of them just fine, but currently, the type of music associated with me is rock stuff. Which is fine, I certainly don't mind it, but it's important to remember my roots in my early audiophilia. Well, I was just recently reminded of those early days of musical development when I was listening to a podcast from NPR. A band called Domestic Science Club was playing on NPR. It's three girls who play and sing just about every kind of music. One of the songs they did was a cover of Nanci Griffith's "Time of Inconvenience." If you ever have the opportunity to hear it, I suggest taking it. It's so apropo for now, and it details the cruelty and ambivalence found in daily life. But I noticed they changed a phrase in it, and I was immediately reminded of those early days. I will post the changed stanza here, but you can find the full lyrics at http://www.actionext.com/names_n/nanci_griffith_lyrics/time_of_inconvenience.html.

Here is the original stanza, with the changed part in bold.

We're living in the age of communication
Where the only voices heard have money in their hands
Where greed has become a sophistication
And if you ain't got money
You ain't got nothin' in this land
And here I am one lonely woman
On these mean streets
Where the right to life man has become my enemy
Cuz I'm living in his time of inconvenience at an inconvenient time

Because the singer of Domestic Science Club is pro-life, she changed that line to:

Where my next-door neighbor has become my enemy.

These, of course, carry two different connotations but are equally scathing. Both totally fit with the message of the song, though I am a tyrannical purist who prefers the original. The whole song is most excellent, and it really reminded me of the early days. Of course, when you're a little kid in grade school, you probably don't know how deep the lyrics really are until you're older and can understand what their connotations are. Even though I went to a Catholic school, I didn't get the bolded line about the right to life man until I was in fourth grade or so. So this got me to thinking about all of those acoustical songs played during my grade school days. Now that I can appreciate them, I think I'll be getting the CDs or the MP3s. They still sound just as good as before.

And if your policies aren't good enough, whip up a batch of cookies!

(Hey, I'm sorry if I'm boring you readers with tons of rantings in one night. The thing is, I'm writing a thirty-page paper about a rather disconcerting subject, and if I don't take little breaks from it, I may just be in serious need of Prozac tonight.)

With all the strides we as women have made, why is the "Presidential Cookie Contest" (which pits the wives of Presidential candidates against each other in baking cookies) still around?

I think it originated during the middle of the 20th century. But really, most first ladies are intelligent and successful enough in their own right. They don't need to re-assert their "values" by playing the happy housewife heroine. Plus, you are voting for the presidential candidate, not their spouses. If a woman were the nominee, would her husband have to make cookies? I don't know, but something in me tells me not.

I remember in fourth grade when Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole were in that contest, and I remember feeling really put off by it. Both women, regardless of which side you're on, are very strong and intelligent and wildly successful (they're both Senators and have had long careers in government, regardless of their famous husbands). While I have nothing against knowing how to cook, I remember thinking that I would never want to bake anything to placate a bunch of sexist pigs (unless it was their dead brain matter). Sounds harsh, but I am not here for proving my womanhood in outdated ways. Plus, knowing me, I'd more likely be the candidate myself and my partner would have to make the cookies. Or the two of us would skip 'em all together, and once I won the election, we'd whip up a batch to celebrate (and NOT share them with any sexist pigs and have 'em all to ourselves!).

I still believe

Well, I've been out on the highway.
I've seen the damage done,
I've seen the pain and I've seen the hunger
In the eyes of everyone.
Yeah, I know that tomorrow
Will be cloudy and it's all in vain.
They say nothing's gonna make any difference.
It will just be more of the same.

But I feel something turning in my heart.
I feel something about to start.

Call me a fool,
Just call me blind.
I do believe this is our time.
I still have hopes.
I still have dreams.
Call me a fool,
But I still believe.

We've been out in the wasteland,
So many years goin' by.
There's been so much war, so much greed
And so many lies.

Cryin' out in the wilderness,
Hopin' for some relief,
Fearing like something is never gonna change--
It will just lead to sadness and grief.

Well, what's the point of living if you're just giving up?
I ain't drinking anymore from that hopeless cup.

Call me a fool,
Just call me blind.
I do believe this is our time.
I still have hopes.
I still have dreams.
Call me a fool,
But I still believe.

It all comes down to me and you.
The whole world's watching what we do.

I'm going down to my dorm lounge
Take a ballot in my hand
I know when I put it in the ballot box,
We will be one step closer to the promised land.

It's not coming tomorrow,
It's not coming today,
But I know when we all make our voice heard,
Some things will not be same.

I feel something turning within my heart.
I just know something is about to start.

Call me a fool,
Just call me blind.
I do believe this is our time.
I still have hopes.
I still have dreams.
Call me a fool,
But I still believe.

Call me a fool,
Just call me blind.
I do believe this is our time.
I still have hopes.
I still have dreams.
Call me a fool,
But I still believe.
--Bill Harley

Yes we can? Yes we DID!!!

With all apologies to The Second City

You know what day it is...

It's your right to vote!

So go out and vote!

Cause if you don't vote--

Alex WILL search you out and you WILL regret it!

Two more days...

In two days, it will be....

ELECTION DAY!!!

My message to you all is...

GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

I am serious. I really don't care who you vote for, as long as you vote. This election has two candidates who couldn't be more different if they tried to be (although I sure saw a lot of Obamas and McCains out on Halloween night!), so it's much more than just a lesser-of-two-evils comparison. This is a really important, historic election, so you had better do your part and cast your ballot. Plus, if you don't vote and the results turn out like that Swing Vote movie where the election is undecided by one vote, I WILL personally hunt you down and never let you hear the end of it! And I am not kidding. So don't make me do that. For both of our sakes please.

Constant revelling: Of k. d. lang, the Amasong girls, and Sarah Palin

Okay, please forgive my pun on "Constant Craving." It's a good song that I don't do nearly enough justice to.

A conversation I had recently inspired this blog post. I was discussing all the concerts I had been to with two of my Feminists after we saw the divine Cherrie Moraga give a speech on campus. I was talking about how I saw k. d. lang last week and how I'm seeing Amy Ray next week. (If you can't see both Indigo Girls, then check out the harder-rocking of the two!) I love kathryn dawn and Amy. Their music is roots-rocking yet heartfelt, and they have beautiful voices and wicked guitar skillz. One of the girls, Danielle, said, "You know, I never really got into k.d. lang or the Indigo Girls. They're a little too influenced by country for my taste." I said, "Oh that's fine" since everyone's tastes are different. I don't expect everyone to like them (hell, if that were the case, I wouldn't have gotten my second row seats!). Then she continued, "But I like the fact that all three of them are out. Geez, I feel like such a bad lesbian--we're all supposed to like the Indigo Girls."

Now this was a little weird, seeing that every group is diverse enough to allow different tastes. (And I know some non-lesbians who like that group--heck, my dad owns all of their CDs and is constantly playing them. Although he's more of an Emily fan than an Amy one. Oh well.) I was going to say something, but then Christine spoke up. "Well, I consider myself a feminist and politically active," she responded, "but I've never gotten into Amasong. I think those girls have talent, but I don't really like world beat and think they could use their talents for something better." Amasong (http://www.amasong.org), for those of you who aren't from CU, is an all-girl chorus that does mostly international music, and they identify as some pretty hardcore feminists.

Now aren't we a little more varied than that? If our promotional phrase, "Feminists are the majority" is true, then we definitely have more diversity than one-size-fits-all tastes.So then I had to speak up. "Well, ladies, we're all women, right?" They agreed that this was so. And so I continued, "Well, one of the VP nominees is also a woman. But do any of us like Sarah Palin or want her in the White House?" Their responses were as expected--"Eeeeewww! No way!!" "Only as a visitor!" "How can you say that??!!" My response? "Well, in that case, I think we can agree that there is no one size fits all preference for any group!" Not every [insert category here] is alike. And who decides which group likes which things?

[Insert group here] Unite!

How do you rally a diverse group of people and unite them?

Every effort that can be made to stir up solidarity and pride will invariably leave someone out. There has never been a social movement that has included everyone that it tried to involve. The early American feminists stemmed from the abolitionist movement, but they did very little to address the concerns of black women. Even today, feminism is dismissed as a white, middle-class women's movement and many minority feminists have had to be larger-than-life speakers and activists like Audre Lord and Angela Davis to get any much-needed attention. Any nationalist movements in countries all over the world have left out people who didn't fit the definition of being a patriotic citizen. Labor unions, though claiming to be about workers' rights, have had histories over being selective about who they let in, who they left out, and how they treated their members. Hell, the first sexual harrassment lawsuit was filed against a union by one of its own members (watch the film North Country to learn all about it!). Americans were all in a tizzy about being "patriotic" after September 11th, but this led to a huge amount of backlash against liberals (by saying they weren't patriotic) and a surge of hate speech and crimes against Arab Americans and Muslims (by falsely linking them with terrorists, even though Muslims are one of the largest religious minorities in the country).

So how do you unite any group successfully? Or are there always some people who will be left out? And how do we decide who is left out and who may stay?
And who decides, anyways?

Oil to the World

I was watching a news report, and it really made me aware of the huge power the oil industry has over this whole world.

The US Government decides that it should invade Iraq, saying that the people need to be "liberated" and that they need our help. In reality, we've only managed to protect the oil fields and not the people or any semblance of order.

In the Sudan, there is a real and actual genocide (this is a real crisis--one that's been ongoing for far too long) going on, and no one steps in or does much of anything. Why hasn't anyone stepped in? The Darfur region is full of (you guessed it) oil that much of the world needs.

Oil's well that ends well, I guess.

I love politics!

I am an election judge for the city council election.

Now that I am a judge, you must refer to me as "Your Honor."

He he he...;)

I love being involved in my community.