Freshman at Rutgers Kills Himself Internet Exposure

This upsetting video clip was forwarded to me by a student in CSP 20. This incident hurts me deeply; the fact that this college freshman, so close to me in age, was compelled to take his own life after being exposed in such a vindictive way by his roommate makes me question whether we are making any progress whatsoever in regard to the gay rights movement. I am truly frightened by the potency of teenage malice. 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/tragic-end-online-spying-rutgers-student-tyler-clementi-suicide-11764232?&clipId=11764232&playlistId=11763784&cid=siteplayer

Dan Savage's It Gets Better Video Project To End Gay Suicide

Openly gay activist and sex-advice columnist Dan Savage has been encouraging LGBT people who have had bad experiences in high school to post videos to YouTube.com called the "It Gets Better" project. The first one, made by Dan and his husband Terry is below.

The idea is stop gay teen suicides by letting them know if they can just make it through high school, life gets better.

What an increasing number of interracial citizens means

An article in the LA Times writes about how the emergence of an increasing interracial population may bring the end of identity politics. 


I looked up the term "identity politics" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where it defines it as meaning "a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups" or, as WiseGeek said in a much simpler way, it is "when members of a specific subgroup unite in order to affect political or social change."


The author writes that the upcoming generation could have as many as 1 in 7 interracial children, or on the western states, as many as 1 in 4. This new generation will "find itself at odds with America's divisive identity politics" and could end these politics by, instead of becoming part of an existing subgroup, finding a different, less divisive way to get involved with issues. 

I don't know if interracial people will end identity politics all together, because race isn't the only thing you can identity with and group with others on. There's also gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, religion, geographic location, etc. I do hope, though, that it will be a beginning to "bypass[ing] labels and embrac[ing] individualism."

The author also makes another point, that people will ask his multiracial kids, "What are you?" wanting to know their specific racial makeup. He writes, "In the age of identity politics, it is not stories but race that matters." I don't know if asking "What are you?" directly correlates to identity politics, though. Some people are just curious. As a biracial person, I have never taken offense to the question, "What are you?" On a side note, some Latino people have assumed that I was also Latino and were very surprised to learn that I have not a drop of Latino blood in me. I don't find that offensive; I find that fun and, in a way, flattering. 


The author also writes about choices multiracial people have when "they enter into a world where no choice is clean-cut." I think the great thing about being multi/biracial is that you can choose whatever you want. I went through a very brief time period where I would whine about how I would never be fully accepted into white culture or in Asian culture, but my dad offered the idea that being multiracial meant that you wouldn't awkwardly stand out in any culture. You look different, but not in an obvious way. You could fit in anywhere. I like that idea much better.

Roommates, Web Cams, Homophobia, Twitter and Another Gay Suicide

The story of an 18-year-old Rutgers University college student named Tyler Clementi who is missing and presumed dead after his roommate streamed a sexual encounter Clementi had with another man live on the Internet is related to all the things we are talking about in this class: gay identity, technological devices and Web 2.0.

The New York Times reports today:

It started with a Twitter message on Sept. 19: “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.”

That night, the authorities say, the Rutgers University student who sent the message used a camera in his dormitory room to stream the roommate’s intimate encounter live on the Internet.

And three days later, the roommate who had been surreptitiously broadcast — Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old freshman and an accomplished violinist — jumped from the George Washington Bridge into the Hudson River in an apparent suicide.

The Sept. 22 death, details of which the authorities disclosed on Wednesday, was the latest by a young American that followed the online posting of hurtful material. The news came on the same day that Rutgers kicked off a two-year, campuswide project to teach the importance of civility, with special attention to the use and abuse of new technology.

Read the whole article and other stories about Tyler Clementi online, then feel free to provide your thoughts about the issues this news brings up in the comments.

make your own damn sandwich!!!!

Gender equality is awesome. 

On that note, 

don't forget the talk on

Lesbian Art and Perspectives

in the Gender Equity Center 

Stewie Lower Lounge

Wednesday September 29th

12:30 to 1:30

!!!!

AND we get extra credit if we go!!!!

(just kidding)

speakingggg of gender equity

 

The Ethics of (en)Forcing the Gender Binary

In "The Meaning of Difference," the authors write that hermaphrodites are commonly thought to be 

"accidents of birth".

This is one example of the very little consideration to the ethics of the standard "forced sex" surgical policy for born hermaphrodites. Furthermore (aside from the surgery itself), as in the case of the "girl" in Drecher's "From Bisexuality to Intersexuality", s/he is kept totally ignorant of the fact that she had been surgically assigned his/her gender. 

To me, this is absurd.

my opinion:

--> Personally, I think that an individual's reproductive rights are their most fundamental, untouchable rights because their reproductive organs and sexuality are the deepest, most untouchable part of self. I think that no one but that individual should have the ability to control their sexuality/sexual organs, including parents. 

-->This is why I support freedom in all that this position encompasses (provided no harm is done to any party (no bestiality, nonconsentual sex, or incest, thanks...)). So, yes, I support birth control, marriage for all, abortions without parental consent or notification, etc. 

-->Meanwhile I oppose clitorectomies, circumcision, arranged marriages, forced chastity, and even imposing views on others about what sex should be.

-->I also oppose nonconsentual sex assignment surgery. 

"Passing"

While I was working on my paper, my roommate Zabia and I got into a long discussion about identity. I was using my perspective based on the works we've read, including the Social Construction of Gender, La Conciencia de la Mestiza and Intersectionality to the Rescue. She discussed works from her class, and the one that drew my attention was the novel, Passing. It discussed, specifically, two black females where, based on their phenotypes, could pass as white and could get where they wanted in society because could pass as being white. This was back in the days where there was still segregation. It was funny that this concept directly applied to me and is something I would like to discuss in my paper. My mother is Chilean and my father is Italian (or white), but I am seen as a Caucasian girl, and am treated differently than if i looked more like the latter. It was nice to discuss this with my roommate which helped get my brainstorming going!

WATCH: MI Public Official Cyber-Bullies Openly Gay UM Student

This is one of the most bizarre stories you will ever see. A public official, Michigan Assistant Attorney General Tom Shirvell, has been electronically harassing the 21-year-old, openly gay, elected student body president of University of Michigan, Chris Armstrong. CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Shirvell. Watch what happens.




Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

NAACP leaders reach out to LGBT community

On Friday, we discussed the concept of Leapfrog Paranoia which was defined as the "fear that if you acknowledge another's oppression, your status is reduced, superseded by that group's". I thought a nice exception to this theory is the NAACP's president recent support for the LGBT community. 


President Benjamin Jealous said, "The NAACP is opposed to discrimination in all its form. We recognize that many of our members are also members of the LGBT community, and just as the LGBT community counts on us to stand with it for basic civil rights protections, so we count on the LGBT community to stand with us in our unified struggle for the broader civil rights agenda."


Instead of dissociating from each other, the NAACP president has acknowledged the common ground that both groups share. There is no mention of any sort of the "who has it worse?" dispute, as Hancock states is common among minority civil rights groups. She writes, "I call this the additive oppressions argument, and it is easy to see where this question leads - directly to the Oppression Olympics question of, 'Who has it toughest?'"


Unfortunately, some members of NAACP are very much opposed to same-sex marriage, including the Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. He is a national NAACP board member and has demanded Iowa lawmakers begin the process of amending Iowa's Constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

The NAACP national board has not taken a side on this issue.

Gender Bias leads to "Missing" Statitstics

For my DWA class, I recently read Amartya Sen's famous article More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing. Here, Sen publicly presents his thesis that due to gender-biased opportunities, like access to health care and jobs, men outnumber women when biologically there should an equal ratio. Basically, Sen notes that in some places of the world, the ratio of women to men is very low, and in those places, women are looked on by society as unequal or less desirable (like in China, where sons have long been preferred over daughters), which indirectly causes the population shift because it becomes harder for women to access the same opportunities. In relation to our class, Sen points the cause of statistically over 100 million unexplainable missing women to social construction. I found the article extremely relevant because it shows just how much an idea, a social notion, can impact the world. Sen estimates 6-11% of the expected population of females does not exist. Because of the way the world looks at the role of women, there are more men in the world than women because women are not given the same chances of simply living. Sen also proposes as a solution a strong emphasis on gender equality, aka social deconstruction. It is mind-blowing to me how ideas, good or bad, shape lives and opportunities.

Angelic Androgyny

Angels, the winged messengers of God, are artistically depicted in numerous ways from the peaceful forgiving angel to the warlike avenging angel. Yet, one concept that developed during the Renaissance is the depiction of angels as androgynous beings.

In the image above is a commonly artistic representation of the Archangel Michael defeating Satan. Unlike other paintings however, Michael's gender is somewhat ambiguous such as his soft facial features  yet masculine torso. Artistic depictions of the gender in angels have come up before such as Paradise Lost. In Paradise Lost Adam laments over the sexual indifferences he shares with the angels because they can have the sexual pleasures of both men and female. He reasons that because Angels are not human to begin with, they are without gender. It is this reasoning that angels are inhuman why artists sometimes do away with the usual masculine features of an angel to that of a sexless being. 

PSA of the Future... and President Chuck Norris

This is a video that I watched a few weeks ago. I laughed and showed it to anyone who would watch, but other than that did not really think about it. Analyzing this video now, I can't figure out if this is offensive or enlightening. This is a parody of those in today's society who have a tendency to take things to the extreme, but it could also be a disturbing look into what homosexuality means to those who are against homosexuality or very defensive about their own sexuality. I personally would like to think of it as a satirical remark on certain extremists who advocate against anything to do with homosexuality. But I can't help but think about the whole "grain of truth" thing. With all of the advances with gay rights in the past few years, could this be a fear that extremists actually have?

Thinking Gender 2010: Plenary Session: Intersectionality Acts from the M...

I found this video while searching for intersectionality on YouTube. I found it really interesting because it brings up points that we have discussed in class before. This video is based on rap/hip-hip culture and how it is controversial. It talks about sex, pornography, race, femenism, gender roles, and society in the African American communities. On Monday we brought up the the dichotomy of whore vs. virgin. This speaker talks about how men expect women to be sexy and seductive but also be virginial. The artisit Lil' Kim, is being used as an example. Her infamous lyrics and public image are criticized widely especially by men. She is seen as a whore and a disgrace to African women because of her attitude and carefree persona. This video gives a clear explanation of the rap culture and how it is criticized by using Lil' Kim's life, image, and music. It is very interesting, gives many facts and important details about these social issues.

Cities Divided by Race

I found these images of some of the U.S.'s biggest cities and how they're racially segregated. The U.S. has comes a long way since the racism of the early 20th century and before, but as a nation, it seems that overall, we are still segregated from each other. 

One dot = 25 people

Color is based on race:

White = pink

Black = blue

Latino = orange

Asian = green

San Antonio has a majority white and Latino population. While there is still a division between the two, we can see that the two races are still pretty integrated with each other. 

(Click for a larger size.)

Washington D.C. has a clear line between white and black, but there are still some areas in the city where colors are blended, marking more racially integrated areas.

Detroit, however, is very obviously segregated, with very little racial integration. According to the website, "the infamous Eight Mile beltway... serves a precise boundary for the city's black and white populations."

It's no surprise that the San Francisco bay area is one of the most racially integrated cities. 

New York City, known for its rich cultural communities, is very divided, but according to the website, "the sheer number of people in those areas means that the boundaries become intensely rich areas of cross-cultural ferment."

And our own city of Los Angeles, widely recognized to be very racially and culturally diverse, shows off how the homogenous white race isn't the majority here.

American Night: The Ballad of Juan Jose

During Wednesday's class, as we discussed breaking down the border between binary oppositions, there was a phrase that I couldn't get out of my head even though I have only ever seen it once before.  But particularly in the context of Anzaldua's article about mestiza consciousness, I thought it was appropriate.  "LAS FRONTERAS SON CICATRICES EN LA TIERRA" : Borders are scars on the land.

This phrase, scrawled in graffiti on the back wall of the set, is the prelude to American Night: The Ballad of Juan Jose, a play I saw at Oregon Shakespeare Festival last summer.  American Night is the first of 37 (equal to the number of Shakespeare shows in rotation) plays commissioned by the festival meant to commemorate exceptional events in American history.  It was created by L.A. native Richard Montoya and the improv group Culture Clash.  And also of note, in my opinion, is the fact that it is the first show that OSF has ever had to add performances of in order to satisfy ticket demand.  Considering that the show is running the same season as what everyone I know (who saw it) considers the best performance of Hamlet they have ever seen, this is no mean feat.

American Night focuses on the struggles of character Juan Jose, a Mexican immigrant and permanent legal alien, as he studies on the eve of his U.S. citizenship exam.  Despite his best efforts, he falls asleep in the wee hours of the morning.  With this premise, he falls into dreams of the highest and lowest moments of America, from the Treaty of Guadalupe, to Lewis and Clark, to Woody Guthrie and the Great Depression, culminating in a Town Hall meeting and wildly strange Japanese game show.  Moving and irreverent and completely un-politically correct, the play offers an earnest look at America's past and present, and a form of patriotism unlike any other shines through.

One of the many traits I admired about the play, and one particularly relevant to the breaking down of boundaries, was its unwillingness to treat any of the groups it portrayed in an unfair light.  Nobody was made a laughingstock.  Certainly there were laughable characters, but still, they were treated fairly.  In attending a post-play talk with Richard Montoya, this was a point he stressed, specifically citing the two Mormons who come to help Juan Jose study at the beginning of the play.  I remember Montoya was adamant that they not come off as a joke, and they did not.  Nor for that matter did the hippies at Woodstock or the tea baggers at the Town Hall meeting.  Absurd though they might be, their humanity was not compromised.

Though I don't think Montoya is much of a social constructionist, and the phrase "Las fronteras son cicatrices en la tierra" (at the end of the play, it has been translated, as the graffiti is actually a lighting effect) clearly refers more to physical borders between countries, specifically to America and Mexico, than it does to metaphorical/theoretical boundaries, American Night clearly demonstrates a desire to treat people not as blacks, whites, Mexicans, males, females, etc., but as people.  And in a basic way, this is what dissolving binary oppositions is about: seeing people on the basis of who they are, not what they are.  Another poignant moment in the play, Juan's visit to a Japanese internment camp, also illustrates  this idea.  Along with the Japanese-Americans, Juan Jose finds a hispanic teenager who went along to the camp on the grounds that he is no more or less American than those contained there, so if the Japanese are to be sent to camps, you might as well send him as well.  And along with him, there is a middle class white woman who went along because she was unable to stand the fact that no educational services had been provided for the youth of the camp by the government.  Voluntarily, she teaches them herself.  The solidarity exhibited by these individuals and others in the play crosses borders of race, gender, religion, and political ideology to show that none of these things defines whether or not you are an American and, in a larger context, a human being.

Anyway, here is a review of the play, and here is some information on it from OSF's own site.  If you're really interested, can afford it, and have the time (as if, we're all college students) the show plays till the end of October.  (More realistically, being that Culture Clash is an L.A. based group, they may perform it here some time in the future, so this is their website).

Legislating Morality.

You are a loyal buyer of Ford. In your eyes, no other company could possibly make cars the way Ford does—sleek, shiny cars built to be aerodynamic and long-lasting. You’d never buy anything but a Ford, and you can’t imagine why everyone else doesn’t share your opinion. Your best friend always buys Toyota—what’s with that? But while you will certainly try to talk your friend into buying a Ford instead of a Toyota, you’d never dream of legally limiting her car-purchasing options. Though you can’t imagine anyone making the choice your friend made, you recognize that she has different, though still valid, opinions than you. An individual’s personal choices, therefore, should never legally limit another person’s individual choice.

A car analogy makes this principle seem relatively simple, yet citizens all over America try to limit personal choices for other people each and every day. Apparently, when it comes to same-sex marriage, all bets are off.

I believe that one of the fundamental problems with the same-sex marriage debate-- though there are several key issues-- is the question of whether or not this a country where we legislate the choices of others. Once upon a time, in a high school history class, I heard a quote from James Madison-- that his right to express his anger with his fist ended where the other man's face began.

The idea is relatively simple: we are allowed our choices and our decisions and our opinions, insofar as they do no harm to another person. We can express displeasure at the customer service of a large corporation, but we cannot go so far as to inflict damage through slander. Similarly, in this country, we can believe virtually anything we like.... as long as it doesn't aversely affect another.

Same-sex marriage ought to fall into this category. Why did we attempt to legislate it in the first place? Another's morality shouldn't necessarily be considered a good reason. Should we, can we, attempt to legislate morality? 

I've heard arguments that morality is merely distinguishing what's right and what's wrong-- and that all laws legislate morality as they set a legal standard for "right" and "wrong", but it seems to me that this argument misses the point. The point is this: should we attempt to tell an entire culture or group of Americans what to do, simply because we wouldn't do it? Should I tell you not to wear jeans because I find them atrocious? Or, better yet, is it my right to tell you (and this is what parallels the situation) that you can't date someone... becuase I wouldn't? How is that okay? When it comes down to it, same-sex marriage laws are too often decided on one group's insistence on morality, rather then the group's needs and the individual's rights.

We have separation of church and state for a reason. I believe Austin Cline sums up the legislating morality based on faith issue very nicely:

"Having a Christianity-based reason for a law is fine, but if that's all you have then you shouldn't vote for it. To become law, there must be some secular reason as well.

"The claim 'we shouldn't legislate morality' doesn't mean 'we shouldn't legislate anything for which there might be a moral argument.' This is much the same as noting that 'we shouldn't legislate Christian beliefs' doesn't mean 'we shouldn't legislate anything for which someone might happen to have a Christianity-based argument for supporting.' What is meant by such claims is that if there is only a religious/moral argument on behalf of the law, then it shouldn't be passed. If there is also some other, secular/civil reason for the law, then maybe it is a good idea."

(If you want to read more of this article, click here.)

I'm sorry. We don't all buy Toyota. In the United States, the beauty of the system is supposed to be about freedom of choice. So stop trying to make us live in your boxes. Some of us don't like your brands, and some of us don't like your gender norms and morality complexes and ALL OF US hate your interference. It's time to get back on the right track.

Google Instant

Google has a new feature out which we talked about in class today. When you are searching in the google search box, google will bring up the page that would come up had you hit enter before you even do it. Its reaction time can be as fast as 30 milliseconds. If you do not like this feature it is easily turned off. Check it out here.

EQCA Tries To "Shame" Whitman and Cooley For Prop 8 Support

In light of statements by Republican candidates Steve Cooley and Meg Whitman that they would defend any court ruling in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, Equality Califorina is launching the following television ads.

Whitman's gubernatorial opponent, Jerry Brown, is the current Attorney General and has refused to defend Proposition 8, as has current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is running against Cooley for Attorney general and has said she would not defend Proposition 8 in court because she feel it is unconstitutional.






The ads are set to begin airing on Monday, September 27, and will run on the CNN, FOX and MSNBC affiliates in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego and Palm Springs metropolitan areas.

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures.

Recent news: DADT is not old news

.............

I am surprised that this political cartoon is still relevant. I thought DADT was old news.

After the failure of the DADT repeal in the Senate, the United States REMAINS one of the only countries that still has a discriminatory policy in its military. According to this site, the United States and Turkey are the only countries in NATO that do not allow gay servicemen/women to be military members. 

"Among the armies in the Western industrialized world, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK allow gays and lesbians to serve freely and openly"

(same website)

Riddle Me THIS

In case any of you missed the link in sophia_mt's tweet the other day, it was to this video (sorry, I can't figure out how to embed here) where Good Morning America posed this age-old riddle to children:

Q: “A father and son are in a car accident. The father dies instantly. The boy, in critical condition, is rushed to the nearest hospital for emergency surgery. The surgeon looks at the child aghast and says, "I can't operate on him! He's my own son!" Who is the surgeon?”

A: His Mother.

Generally, the children that were surveyed were stumped by this riddle. Good Morning America did not give the exact percentage of kids that got it right/wrong but they did point out that the youngsters created a “new answer”  - they proposed that the child had two gay fathers.

This is remarkable, as sophia_mt tweeted, because this riddle has never been answered this way before.

I also find it remarkable that so many people cannot fathom a female surgeon. (probably partly because the word “surgeon” has a male connotation. Maybe if the riddle used the word “doctor”, people would not have such sexist assumptions?)

I was curious as to just how many people were stumped by this riddle (..admittedly, I was). Online, I could not find immediate statistics, so I took some of my own J. Conveniently I was in the library where I found 10 different people, about half female and half male, who had not heard the riddle before. I read each of them the riddle and got the following responses:

Correct response “mother”: 1 person

New category of responses “other father”: 3 people

Could not answer the riddle: 6 people

My results seemed to mirror Good Morning America’s observations. No one seemed to be able to immediately associate “surgeon” with the female (even the person who answered “mother” took time and a couple of incorrect guesses)

So, since more people found “other father” as a faster solution to the riddle than “mother”, is the assignment of gender roles harder to overcome than the possibility of gay marriage?

Even Lady Gaga Couldn't Convince the Senate...

The US Senate's Tuesday vote ended in a decision that left gay-rights campaigner's still gnashing their teeth. The Republicans blocked attempts to debate the repeal of the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (hereafter referred to as DADT).

For those of you who've been living in a hobbit-hole for the past seventeen years (don't you wish?), DADT was a measure introduced in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton. Intended to be a compromise measure, it forbade openly-gay/lesbian persons from serving in the military. It both requires that military authorities not ASK the sexual orientation of any military person, as well as that the servicemen/women don't TELL. I realize that this is a fairly simple summary of a very complex issue, but just go with it :)

While the American public originally endorsed the bill, we've since become to see it as it truly is: a dramatic loss of rights to the homosexual community. According to Wall Street Journal, nearly 60% of Americans favor the repeal of DADT. While military support is at only 49%, huge strides have been made in the last 7 years, raising military support over 13 percentage points.

President Obama promised during his 2008 campaign, that he would work to scrap the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The House voted to repeal DADT back in May, but only five Republicans voted in support. The party-line division was particularly devastating to Tuesday's decision-- out of the 60 votes needed for debate, only 43 Senators, all Democrats, voted in favor. Not a single Repulican voted to allow debate on the bill. NPR hypothesizes that, with the return of Republican control to the Senate (as is expected in November's election), chances that the repeal will reach Senate floor will grow even slimmer.

Republican leaders, most notably John McCain, stated that they believed no debate could occur on the measure until December, when the Pentagon's lastest study will be available. The Pentagon is currently amassing data as to whether or not the repeal is likely to harm military cohesion.

Lady Gaga used her star-power on Monday at a rally in Portland, Maine, to raise awareness and pressure the DADT repeal. She specifically targeted Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of whom voted against debating a repeal on Tueday.

Does this mean the end of debate on the repeal? Probably not. Gay-rights activists and Democratic leaders alike say it's only a matter of time. Time, however, is of the essence. Lame-Duck Season is quickly approaching, and it doesn't look like debate will be opening any time soon. We'll see.

Mestiza Continued

I find it interesting that the author of Borderland La Frontera, Gloria Anzaldua, says this: "Or perhaps we will decide to disengage from the dominant culture, write it off altogether as a lost cause, and cross the border into a whole new and separate territory" (79). I feel like if white is a part of who you are, then how can you write it off altogether? You should be proud of who you are no matter who you are or where you come from. I thought it was good, but very strongly opinionated. Here is more analysis of this piece if you want to check it out.

Afghan girls pretending to be boys

I read an interesting article in the New York Times about how many Afghan families are fooling society into thinking that they have a son by treating treating their daughters like boys. They are not referred to as son or daughter, but instead "bacha posh" which means "dressed up as a boy." 

In Afghan, boys are seen as much more important and are highly prized. Mothers face immense pressure to conceive a male child, and people will pity them if they have only daughters. Mothers who don't want to have another child, like a woman named Azita Raffat, who wanted instead to advance her political career, decided to change her daughter into a son. She introduced the idea of being a boy by saying, "Do you want to ... do more fun things like boys do, like bicycling, soccer, and cricket?" 

The gender roles in Afghanistan are much more pronounced and strict than they are in the U.S., and these girls-turned-boys are able to practice "masculine" traits such as athleticism, aggressiveness, and defiance without fear of breaking cultural norms. Mrs. Raffat says of her daughter, "[She has] adopted all the boys' traits very soon ... the attitude, the talking. She has nothing of a girl in her." This of course implies that "girl" traits are submissiveness, obedience, and subdued.


It was interesting to read about how these girls, raised as boys, had to eventually change back as they went through puberty and their bodies changed. They had to start wearing burqas and learn how to socialize with women. The girls interviewed in this article were not particularly happy about changing back. A woman named Shukria Siddiqui was raised a boy until her parents arranged a marriage for her.  She refers to her male years as her "best times" because she was able to be more outspoken. The man she married allows her to wear trousers around the house sometimes because he knows it makes her happier (cue for the "aww"). He once tried to beat her, but never tried it again after she hit him back. Retaliation is seen as a masculine trait and is taboo for a woman to exhibit. 


Unlike in the United States where defying gender roles is becoming more of the social norm and can have more to do with personal choice and preference, in Afghanistan, your gender identity can make or break your economic welfare. A ten year old girl named Miina dresses like a boy and works to earn money for her family. Being a boy is the only way for her to work, as girls are not allowed to. Having a son also increases the family's status in society, if only temporarily. 


To be a male in Afghanistan is to command respect, be able to work and earn money, to have more freedoms. One girl-turned-boy says she would rather be a boy and doesn't want to change back: "People use bad words for girls. They scream at them on the streets. When I see that, I don't want to be a girl. When I am a boy, they don't speak to me like that." She is the same person; it is just her gender that decides how society will treat her. 


Pictures here.

Why Haven't we Developed Mentally?

In Borderlands La Frontera, Gloria Anzaldua explains how the search for identity is difficult in a world that refuses to allow one. When reading this article I was impressed at the amount of poetic writing there was, and the use of metaphors. Though this article was directed towards Indians and Mexicans who have been psychologically "fenced" from the American culture.
When reading this I could not stop thinking about how similarly the issues in this article reflected the current issue with Homosexuality in the army. When reading this article yesterday, all I could think about was how similarly, the gays were being "fenced" as well and being forced to socially drop their identity as homosexuals in order fight for their country. One line in the article we read really stood out to me. "Awareness of our situation must come before inner changes, which in turn come before changes in society. Nothing happens in the "real" world unless it first happens in the images in our head." (Anzaldua) The intolerance that the military is experience at the moment just makes the think of that quote and if that quote is truly real, then the world has not developed mentally enough for there to be any sort of tolerance and change.

National Poll Shows Majority Support For Marriage Equality

A new nationwide poll from Associated Press of 1000+ individuals (pdf) is yet another poll to confirm Maggie Gallagher's worst nightmare: "A majority of Americans support marriage equality."

The headline is that in response to the question "Should the Federal Government give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, or not?" 52 percent say yes, 46 percent say no.

This is now the second poll in as many months which indicate majority support for marriage equality. Last month, the CNN poll similarly showed majority support for marriage equality (again 52 percent yes, 42 percent no) when the question was "Do you think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?"

It should also be noted that as recently as May 2010, Gallup showed that there was majority opposition to marriage equality nationwide (44% yes 53% no) in response to the question "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

Urinary Segregation

I'm starting to sense a trend....is my brain just constantly in the toilet? Oh gracious, let's not think about it, shall we?
Slightly different take on gendered bathrooms:

Urinary Segregation

"When I was 25 years old I was in New York’s Guggenheim Museum. As I started walking into the women’s bathroom, a security officer put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Hold on there a minute, you (expletive) pervert, you can’t go in there' ...I literally had to go to the security office to convince him not to throw me out of the museum.
This sort of gender policing is extreme, but at a daily level, many people find going to the bathroom a similar ordeal....public bathrooms, a product of modern technologies and anxieties, are no longer built to withstand our postmodern blurring of binaries.
We should remember that urinary segregation is not just a site of oppression, but a site of privilege and people with privilege will fight to keep it. If we look at urinary segregation as symbolic violence, we can see that it will take a lot more than legal arguments to take it away. By insisting that all bodies must divide into “Men” or “Women,” “Gentlemen” or “Ladies,” or even “Dudes” and Dudettes,” public toilets are able to erase the messiness of bodies and gender.
Whenever I bring up urinary segregation in my gender class, white women will say “rape.” When I point out that their bathrooms at home are not segregated by gender and that sexual violence is far more likely to be committed by people we know, they resort to “but men are gross.”"

All my life, I've used the bathrooms of both genders with impunity (hey, it's more efficient) and that, combined with being both biologically and personally female, has resulted in me never even thinking about the choices people have to make when they choose bathrooms, or the reactions they receive.

The section about the female reaction to mixed gender bathrooms, however, was fascinating. Relating back to my earlier bathroom-related post (why can I even claim authorship of two), there is a view expressed (mostly by heterosexual women, as far as I can tell) that male is equivalent to violence, and violence equivalent to rape, and when males are in bathrooms they get violent and rape is the outcome. In no way do I want to discount the very real danger of rape in public restrooms, it's a risk and one everyone should be mindful of, but there is also the danger of associating all men with danger all the time.

The coffee shop down the street from my high school wins points, not only for being awesome, but for their gender neutral bathrooms. I couldn't find a picture online, but but their bathroom signs feature Ken and Barbie dolls with a twist: Kenneth is wearing an extravagantly lacy red tank top, offset by his fabulous turquoise man-purse and floral jeans. Barb has a black tux and hot pink sneakers. Anyone can go into any bathroom. I don't know how either of my bathroom-writers would react to these signs (I'm sure you could have another year long discussion about how the exaggerated differences are non-representative of the behavior of actual gender-neutral people), but I personally love them.

I'll leave you with the lovely Andrea Gibson and her piece, Swing Set:

"Then of course there’s always the somehow not-quite-bright enough fluorescent light of the public restroom, “Sir! Sir, do you realize this is the ladies’ room?” “Yes, ma’am, I do, it’s just that I didn’t feel comfortable sticking this tampon up my penis in the men’s room.”"

Who's a family?

Who's a family? Some say pets in, same-sex couples out

"in 2006, when asked if gay couples and pets count as family, 30 percent[of poll participants] said pets count but not gay couples.
"The sheer idea that gay couples are given less status than pets should give us pause," Powell said in an interview.
Even though five states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages, the federal government doesn't recognize them. The Census Bureau definition of "family" remains traditional: "A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together."
Many religious conservatives hope the government sticks by that definition, even in the face of shifts in public opinion.
"Same-sex marriage is a dangerous social experiment," said Glenn Stanton, director of family formation studies for Focus on the Family. "A lesbian couple who legally married in Massachusetts — are they family? We would say, 'Absolutely not.'"

While this article's hook is enough to keep you thinking for a while ("straight people with cats are families but gay people with cats, dogs, and two kids aren't? hmm...") it also has a nice overview of current feelings around marriage, families, and adoption issues. The interests of many groups, gay or straight, are brought to light in a pretty well rounded way, which i appreciate.

Quite often the debate in America is over how 'marriage' should be defined, but this article also brings up how the definition of 'family' ties into that debate. People opposed to the idea of same sex marriages, for example, oppose not only the change in the definition of 'marriage' but the change in the formulation of a traditional 'family' (the 'think of the children!' card is played rather often, despite multiple research studies).

This article also mentions a whole book on the subject, and I do love book links.

GOOGLE Images.



When I saw this picture of google searches, I was astonished by the search suggestions that google gives in this picture. When I clicked on the picture to view it, the site from which it is taken from came up with the title, "Is Google Making Us Dumber"? I thoroughly thought about this title and considered that google might be making us dumber. Google is part of media, which is part of society and society is the social structure of our communities. It is an ongoing chain that evolves around us.

I was searching through google images and I found this picture. I though it was interesting how the illustrator portrayed a hermaphrodite. This illustration makes hermaphrodites seem awkward and excluded, the same way society views them.

Androgyny: Creating a Modern Middle Line

Throughout our class discussions, we've established the Masculine/Feminine code: traits and characterisitics that are traditionally associated with one sex/gender or the other. We've realized that splitting the board down the middle with traits overly identified with one, but not both, sexes is not very difficult. Generally speaking, the societal perspective places any given ideal in one category or another, but never both. This pattern has repeated through our discussions-- biological sex, as determiend by society, determining a "fitting" sexual orientation, identity, or plain ol' personality traits.

We, as a society, both consciously and unconsciouly place people in one gender category or another (or sex category, but usually gender during day-to-day interactions). It goes without saying that this is a problem. That our continued use of stereotyping and instant judgment will only lead to negative consequences.

However, to play devil's advocate, I think modern society has arguably begun to move in the correct direction. Our continued fascination with and acceptance of androgyny is a perfect example. The term didn't even exist until the mid 70's, but has recently become both widely used and somewhat accepted.

The word "androgyny" comes from the Greek; Andro meaning man and gyn woman. The premise of androgyny is that those lists of purely masculine or purely feminine traits no longer exist. Society has a way of forming boxes and stereotypes of what it expects from either gender, but androgyny, while not being a different biological sex, is a new take on gender identity. Androgyny assumes that one does not have to be either blunt OR tactful, dominant OR submissive, dependant OR independant; rather, that different traits are applicable at different times.

This trait androgyny is often referred to as psychological anydrogyny, but physiological androgyny also exists when one exhibits physical traits (not necessarily sexual traits) of both sexes. Some people look androgynous but are not true androgynes. True androgyny is not merely a fashion statement or a look-- many androgynes do not look so. Androgyny is a new movement, a more non-polarizing gender identity.

I don't think we're anywhere near to solving the gender-box problem, but I think recognizing the spread of androgyny and other movements like it that blur the lines between genders is important :)

Effeminacy. Too Feminine?

While I was browsing Twitter this morning, I saw a link to an article that claims that there should be a line between those who are effeminate (and male identifying) and homosexual and those who are effeminate and claim to be heterosexual. The article (found here), pictures Bill Kaulitz from the German band Tokio Hotel. Bill is the lead singer, and self-identifies as a heterosexual male. He does, however, have a very soft face, and can often be seen wearing eye makeup, which I've come to realize is a signifier of femininity.

This is Bill. He doesn't, however, wear traditionally feminine clothing. He dresses in jeans and t-shirts, but he chooses to wear his hair long. I fail to see how this makes a person "too feminine to be straight."

Intrigued, I started thinking about the different ways that the media affects what people think of a person's sexuality. For example, Adam Lambert is openly homosexual, but his bass player, Tommy Ratliff (on the right), is heterosexual. During the "Glamnation" tour, there are multiple homoerotic moments between the two, and there are many different kisses throughout the night. Does this make Tommy Ratliff homosexual, or is it a part of the desire for more attention? Maybe it's just fun?

So then, where do we draw the line? At what point does typically homosexual behavior make a heterosexual man seem gay? Who decides?

A Villain's Sexuality

As I read fellow blogger Hanna White's post "Homosexuality in the Media of Different Cultures" I recalled a comic book character whose sexual actions are somewhat ambiguous. His name is Daken and he is the long lost son of Wolverine, the infamous 120 year old mutant member of the X-Men and the Avengers.

Daken's history is a tragic and violent one. He was born with the name Akihiro in the 1940's as the illegitimate son between Canadian Wolverine (also known as Logan) and a Japanese woman named Itsu. His mother was killed by an assassin who was targeting Logan at the time and he was cut from the womb of the dying mother by a shadowy villain named Romulus. Romulus, who had tormented Wolverine from behind the scenes, gave him up to a Japanese family in a small village where he was tormented by other children for his biracial heritage. They gave him a racial slur which became his nickname "Daken". Because of the hate and prejudice he encountered, he grew up with a resentment of the world. His hatred of the world combined with his mutant powers (genetically inherited by his father) of bone claws and his healing factor led him to becoming a dangerously violent villain. He killed his parents when they tried to abandon him and he worked as an assassin for decades never aging thanks to his healing factor. He also had a burgeoning hatred for his father Wolverine, who was unaware at the time that he had a son because his memories of the past were wiped out by government program Weapon X. It would be years later when he met his father (who regained his memories) and the two confronted each other. In the mean time Romulus manipulated through torture and training Daken turning him into a relentless killing machine.

Daken is not the first LGBT comic book character introduced but he is the most fascinating. For example, in one issue he emotionally pushes a woman to commit suicide when he reveals that he had sex with her husband. His homosexuality is also evident when he kisses his Dark Avengers teammate Bullseye in an effort to calm him down while they fight the Asgardians. Later when he fights the Fantastic Four's thing, he manipulates him through pheromones while goading him with homoerotic remarks. Readers can assume that Daken is obviously homosexual but this might not be the case. For example, when teammate Hawkeye (Bullseye in disguise) questions Daken's dual membership in the Dark Avengers and the Dark X-Men Daken simply responds "I always did like playing for both teams". This double entendre is evident when he is sexually involved with women in other issues only to manipulate them into doing his bidding.

To explain Daken's sexuality one must understand his personality. He is a victim of society's prejudice against mutants and a victim to emotional manipulation by a shadowy being he could not resist. He has been for his entire life subject to the bidding of Romulus. So, Daken simply uses his sexuality to manipulate others into doing his own bidding. Like his master he is not above cruelty as he has sadistically damaged the emotions of his victims often forcing them to commit suicide. As "Wolverine" writer Daniel Way explains, "He is no more homosexual than heterosexual. It's about control." Because Daken never received love from anyone and only experienced pain and suffering, he is completely incapable of giving love. As a result, his sexuality is not an expression of love or desire, but simply a weapon he uses for cruelty and sadism.

The Big Black/White Binary

I have just recently read fellow blogger Tracy's post Discrimination Against Black Women and the article attached to it. While I am inclined to agree to everything said on the blog I am somewhat disturbed by this prevailing social binary of race relationships being simplified to either black or white. The article mentions how black women are discriminated against but  The "Black/White Binary"tends to exclude other races such as Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and countless others from the conversation of race and ethnicity. Now, let us be clear, I do not blame Tracy nor accuse her of enforcing this social binary because she obviously is not. I am simply pointing out how we unintentionally simplify race as a black/white issue. Instead of asking the question "why are black women discriminated against?" we should instead ourselves "why are black, hispanic, and other minority women discriminated against?"

Discrimination Against Black Women

As I read Free Papers by Daniel J. Wideman I realized that the piece concentrated on the issue of young black men being discriminated against. Not once was discrimination against young black women mentioned. Discrimination against black women isn’t only disregarded only in this piece but in many other places in society. Since this issue is so ignored I decided to do a bit of research and find out in what ways black women were most discriminated against and how they dealt with it. I was also curious to learn if they were more heavily discriminated against than black men because of their gender.

The most useful and informational article that I found was Black Women: The Unfinished Agenda by Cecilia A. Conrad in The American Prospect. This article explained how black women are discriminated against both because of their race and gender. Hence, even though black women have advanced so much in the fields of education they still earn less than black men, white women, and white men. The unemployment rates are also a lot higher for black women than all the previous categories mentioned. The article goes on to explain the detrimental effects of discrimination against black women. It’s a very interesting and enlightening article, I recommend everyone to read it.

Homosexuality in the media of different cultures

Okay, obviously, I am not the first person to ever have an opinion or a question about this subject.  How homosexuality is portrayed, if it is portrayed, in popular media is a subject of constant discussion, particularly what that portrayal means about society.  However, something I have always enjoyed discussing and thinking about is how that portrayal and what it means about society changes in the media of different countries.  To be fair, I don't watch a lot of mainstream television, and I'm not a scholar or anything, so these opinions are completely unqualified... but I would love to hear what you guys think on the subject.

Primarily, the TV show that gets me thinking about this is the British program "Doctor Who," a long-running science fiction series dating back to the 1960s (it's sort of a British "Star Trek," in my book).  All I have actually seen of "Doctor Who" is the new series, which started in 2005, so that is all my comments can be applied to.  But insofar as the new series goes, something I have been extremely impressed with is the willingness of the show to feature homosexual characters and couples.  This is not really any big news, since there's a good number of American shows that do the same nowadays.  What impresses me about "Doctor Who" specifically is that it doesn't really make a point out of the presence of homosexuality on the show... it's just there.  For example, in the first 15 seconds of this clip from the episode "Gridlock," we meet the so-called "Carsidi Sisters," in reality a married lesbian couple.  The couple are not main characters and do not appear for more than 3 minutes total screen time in this single episode.  This is not to say that the show's writers or the BBC are afraid of giving too major a nod to homosexuality, as seen by the example of Captain Jack Harkness, a major character for several episodes in multiple seasons as well as the star of his own spin-off show, "Torchwood," who is described multiple times as "omnisexual" - a word that takes on an even broader meaning in a science fiction context.  The Carsidi Sisters, then, do not demonstrate a lack of willingness to feature homosexuality in a major role, but a lack of need.  What I find impressive about them, and other characters in the show like them (there are several) is that they demonstrate homosexuality as just a part of everyday life.  "Doctor Who" shows that it condones homosexuality not by making an example of having gay characters, as is in my opinion the tendency of American shows (Kurt from Glee is a good example), but by treating homosexuality casually.  To me, this is in many ways a more powerful way of proving a point than featuring homosexuality deliberately.  And though I'm not actually sure what the public opinion of homosexuality is like in Britain, I find that "Doctor Who" points towards something very positive.

Aside from American and British TV, the only other example of homosexuality in different countries' media that I am familiar with is in Japanese animation, or anime.  This however is an example of the cultural gap not because anime reflects Japanese values about homosexuality, but because it doesn't even remotely.  In many anime and manga (Japanese comic books), gay individuals and couples are common. How open the individual or couple is varies, but it's certainly there.  What's odd about this is that in Japanese culture, homosexuality is not condoned at all, even frowned upon strongly.  There is a complete disconnect in Japan between media and reality.

As I said, any other opinions on this subject are heartily appreciated.  I'm certainly not the ultimate source of knowledge on this subject, and there are tons of holes in what I know, so if somebody knows more I would love to be corrected.