tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44973284055228943392024-02-20T18:02:52.123+00:00A Radical CentristRedirecting you to http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.comHeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-46541124907215449282012-07-05T00:29:00.000+01:002012-07-05T03:28:33.910+01:00To Wordpress, And Beyond!I'm moving the site to Wordpress, <a href="http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/">here</a>. Basically, the User Interface is just better. Plus, it makes posting stuff on social networking sites so much easier.<br />
<br />
So, if everything goes to plan, at some point tomorrow, I'll be switching over. Then anyone who goes to this site should be redirected to the wordpress site: radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com.HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-42558302410698751332012-07-02T21:04:00.000+01:002012-07-05T02:31:00.789+01:00Surprise: Anderson Cooper is Gay<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;">Following
a host of other out celebs (such as Matt Bomer, Jim Parsons, and Zachary
Quinto) Anderson Cooper came out as gay today in a published e-mail to Andrew
Sullivan at the Daily Beast. You can see the email </span><a href="http://www.afterelton.com/people/2012/07/anderson-cooper-comes-out" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;">here</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;">.
I almost didn’t write anything about it, because even the novelty of coming out
quietly is starting to wear off, and that’s really quite encouraging.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Celebs
don’t seem to be coming out in defiance of ‘conventional wisdom’ about show
business anymore, or at least not primarily. As Cooper states in his e-mail, he’s
coming out publicly simply to add to the visibility of queer people. Great
visibility helps make homosexuality be perceived as more normal by the
mainstream. The more normal homosexuality is the more equal gay people can be
in our society.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And
interestingly, the more low-key coming out stories also contributes to making
society perceive homosexuality as normal. Being gay and a celebrity doesn’t
mean having to do a huge interview in a major magazine anymore. It’s not career
ending, or even career altering anymore. For the most part, a celeb can talk
about being gay in the same way they might talk about any other aspect of their
personal lives. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Maybe
someday soon we will live in a world where ‘coming out’ means nothing more than
showing up at the Oscars, or whatever, with a date that happens to be the same
gender as the celeb. And maybe no one will look twice at that person’s date, (unless
of course that date qualifies for best-dressed or worst-dressed). I think more
celebrities coming out quietly will help us reach that rather ideal future
sooner rather than later.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/surprise-anderson-cooper-is-gay/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-51020587582019472512012-06-30T02:52:00.000+01:002012-06-30T02:53:52.369+01:00If You’re Into Vanilla Sex, the Kink Community Has a Lesson For You<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">So I
was reading through a bunch of blog articles a few days ago, and ended up at
this </span><a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/05/kinky-philosophy-for-vanilla-sex.html" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">article</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
on Pervocracy about how the rules of consent in kink culture could translate to
“vanilla” sex. It’s about a month old, which in internet years is like a
decade, but I still want to discuss it because I think it’s awesome.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
basic premise of the article is that because kink can involve extreme and
potentially painful behaviour, consent is extremely important in kink culture. It
is absolutely essential that everyone involved knows exactly what the limits
are, and that they all have complete veto power at any point during a “scene,”
because without consent what is happening would be on par with torture. If you
think about this, this is actually sort of obvious. I mean of course, the only
thing that makes tying someone down and flogging them moral, let alone legal,
is because they said “yes,” when you asked them if they wanted you do it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">I am
aware that in reality, even people in the kink community aren’t always perfect
when it comes to consent. As Pervocracy says, “While kinksters may not perfect
consent and communication…at least we know we’re supposed to.” That, right
there, is the big difference between kink culture and mainstream culture when
it comes to sex. For some reason, when we discuss consent during vanilla sex,
we come up with all sorts of different reasons why getting enthusiastic consent
is a problem. And yet, the danger is just as great in vanilla sex versus kinky
sex. After all, without consent, vanilla sex is rape.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">And
yes, I totally get that there are plenty of reasons why people have such a
difficult time communicating openly about sex in western society today. But,
instead of using those reasons as excuses, let’s find ways to work around them,
or better yet, tear them down. After all, kinksters come from the same set of
social norms as the rest of us, and yet they have developed a culture which
emphasizes the importance of enthusiastic consent. We would do well to
incorporate kink philosophies about consent into mainstream culture.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Now,
I’m not saying that you have to stop everything every couple of moments during
sex and unemotionally ask, “Do you still want to keep going?” I totally get
that would not really be all that sexy. But there are certainly sexy ways to
keep communication open during sex. I mean, who doesn’t like a little dirty
talk now and then? I also totally get that not everyone may be aware of what
enthusiastic consent actually means. Well, there’s a great article by Julie
Gillis about it, <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/lets-really-really-talk-about-sex/">here</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Pervocracy’s
article lists a few rules that the kink community has whenever entering a
“scene” (and even vanilla sex is a “scene”). Basically it boils down to a few
things: be aware of your partner(s) responses to what you’re doing; respect
safe words (such as “No,” unless another word is designated), and discuss what
you are going to do in advance. In other words, don’t assume that you know what
your partner(s) wants to do sexually. Talk about it first, and remember that at
any time during sex you and your partner(s) are equally allowed to bring the
whole scene to a halt for whatever reason. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Kinky
or vanilla, everyone has to be able to say “no” and have that be respected.
“No” trumps “yes,” every time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/whether-youre-kinky-or-vanilla-consent-is-still-king/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-68261978142716106252012-06-22T21:30:00.000+01:002012-06-22T21:30:57.656+01:00When Preventing Rape is Too Costly<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">I was
absolutely at a loss for words when I came across this </span><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/20/503226/american-action-forum-prison-rape/?mobile=nc" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">article</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
at Think Progress about talking about how the American Action Forum was against
new policies proposed by the Obama administration aimed at preventing rape and
sexual abuse in the U.S.’s prisons. They complained that the measures were too “complicated”
and “costly.” I was quite enraged by the response. We’re talking about
preventing </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">rape</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">, for crying out loud,
and they’re complaining it’s too complicated and costs too much. What the hell
is going on?!</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Well, I
think two things are happening. First is the way that Obama’s administration
can’t win with conservatives, regardless of what he does. You can argue all you
want about whether it’s because of his race (it is), and whether it’s just
because the Republicans are just playing politics and trying to make their
opponents look bad (it’s that too). Regardless of why it’s happening, it is
happening. No matter what Obama does, Republicans will find something to
oppose, even when it’s something as inhumane as suggesting that the Obama’s
plan to prevent rape shouldn’t go forward.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Second
though is the way in which the U.S. has stopped prioritizing spending money on
social issues. For the sake of argument, let’s say that we don’t actually have
the money necessary to implement these new policies. That should, in itself
spark some outrag. The proper response to that is to question and decry a
system that is financially unable to protect the people it has forcibly imprisoned.
That is a broken system. We should be demanding that the system is fixed, not
attacking people who are trying to fix it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Let’s
take a look at where we can cut spending and be more financially responsible (I’m
looking at you wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), and let’s find the money we need
to protect our prisoners. If the problem with implementing necessary social
policies is “we don’t have the money,” then the next step should be to figure
out how to find the money. "It's too costly," is not an acceptable argument against implementing policies that will keep people safer. After all, even the Republicans would agree that protecting
its populace is one of the most important roles of government. I’d say that
should include protecting prisoners from sexual assault.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-49832833291865648972012-06-14T16:57:00.000+01:002012-06-14T16:57:17.465+01:00Queer Dictionary Revisited<i style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Below is something I wrote at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/uncategorized/queer-dictionary-revisited/">The
Good Men Project</a> after writing a three-part “queer dictionary.”</span></i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Wait
just a minute, you say. There were only meant to be three parts to the queer
dictionary. Well, I lied. Okay, not really. I didn’t lie; I just needed to revisit<sup>1</sup>
a few terms in <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/spelling-queer-with-l-g-b-t-and-a-i-p-part-2/">Part
2</a>. Oh, also I need to admit and apologize for screwing something up, which
I’ll do in just a second. (My haters are rubbing their hands together in glee,
and my lovers are...well never you mind what my lovers are doing just now).</span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Okay so
which terms will I be looking at today? Answer: transman, transwoman, transgender,
transsexual, cis-woman, cis-man and cis-gender. (If you’ve picked up on my
mistake already, I award you 10 Internet Points to do with what you will).
Anyway, I won’t be redefining any of these terms, as my definitions were quite
accurate, particularly for an introductory article. However, I will be
discussing the spelling of these terms, namely whether they should be treated
as two word phrases (trans man), single words (trasman) or hyphenated words
(trans-man). In case you were wondering, Microsoft Word 2010 prefers the third
option; just throwing that out there.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">So in
my queer dictionary, I spelled transman and transwoman like I just did, as
though it is a single word. There were some <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/trans-man-and-trans-woman-are-new-ish-terms-but-the-trans-community-has-spoken-a-space-is-warranted/">comments</a>
pointing out that many people in the trans* community prefer the terms to be
spelled trans man and trans woman, as two separate words. I read those
comments, and of course I debated it in the original article. (I’m an internet
blogger; it’s what I do). And I stand by what I said, which is that there is no
consensus as to how those terms should be spelled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Then
Jameseq made this <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/spelling-queer-with-l-g-b-t-and-a-i-p-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-213709">comment</a>,
which I was going to reply to with something like this: “I’m still resisting it
because I treated cis-gender the same…” At which point my brain clicked; I had
a “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0512879/quotes">eureka moment</a>,” and
I swear an energy-saving light bulb appeared over my head…Oh, crap. Actually, I
hadn’t treated cis and trans the same, and I hadn’t even realized it until days
after I’d written the article. For what it’s worth, I was using the spelling I’d
seen most often and in my brain they were the same. <a href="http://translate.google.com/#en|ar|same%20thing%0A%0A">الشيء نفس</a> (Nafs as-shay; translated: same
thing), I thought to myself. (Yeah, I did use the Arabic phrase in my brain
and I am not apologizing for that too).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">I am,
however, apologizing for the inconsistencies in my spelling of cisgender,
transgender, trans-man, cis-man, etc. And here’s where I get serious for a
moment, because I think this is important. Part of the reason I included
cisgender in my dictionary at all was to highlight that cis and trans* are two
sides of the same coin. They are equally rooted in biology and/or culture; they
are equally valid; they are equal and should be treated as such.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Even
something as small as the grammar used when discussing these terms can
challenge or perpetuate the social inequalities between cisgendered and transgendered
individuals. It’s a bit like the problem with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal">separate water fountains</a>.
One is considered normative (cisgendered) and thus any differences between the
use of cisgendered and transgendered results in treating trans* individuals as
somehow less than or other than cis individuals. Heteronormativity strikes
again! (Guess I’m back to making stupid jokes).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">If you
couldn’t tell, my spelling of these terms has been all over the place even in
this article. Mostly that’s because I’ve been using my old spelling of the
terms until I pointed out my mistake. So, if you’re curious where I sit on this
issue, I’ll tell you. Personally, I think I’m with Microsoft Word 2010 (because
Bill Gates is better than Steve Jobs, or something): transgender, transsexual,
cisgender, cis-man, cis-woman, trans-man, and trans-woman…though I’m still
using “cis individuals” and “trans* individuals,” without a hyphen. And, of
course, “man” and “woman” are terms which, when not modified, should include
both cis and trans* individuals who identify as men or women. (£10 says that I
use the term men or women in place of cis-men or cis-women at least once in the
next day. Who wants to take that bet?)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/queer-dictionary-spelling-queer-with-l-g-b-t-and-a-i-p-part-1/" target="_blank"><em><span style="color: blue;">Read </span></em><strong><i><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;">Part 1</span></i></strong><em><span style="color: blue;"> of the Queer Dictionary</span></em></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/spelling-queer-with-l-g-b-t-and-a-i-p-part-2/" target="_blank">Read <strong><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;">Part 2</span></strong> of
the Queer Dictionary</a></span></em><i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/spelling-queer-with-l-g-b-t-and-a-i-p-part-3/" target="_blank"><em><span style="color: blue;">Read </span></em><strong><i><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;">Part 3</span></i></strong><em><span style="color: blue;"> of the Queer Dictionary </span></em></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">1. <o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a data-mce-href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083390/" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083390/">Jeremy Irons version</a>. There can be only
one!</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-65908666962029535982012-06-06T02:13:00.000+01:002012-06-09T19:47:48.337+01:00Feminism, “Manning Up,” and the Zero-Sum Game<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">As a woman
and a feminist I have a very specific perspective on the term ‘man up.’ It’s a
highly gendered phrase, for one thing. The phrase implies that manhood is
something that is achieved beyond simply being male. It also implies that
certain characteristics, such as stoicism and strength, are masculine traits.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It’s also a
phrase I’ve always been denied access to. As a woman, it is assumed that I am
not capable of ‘manning up.’ What’s more, if I do exhibit characteristics
usually associated with ‘manning up,’ I am perceived as behaving outside of the
norm for my gender. Considering how highly western society values being able to
‘man up,’ this is problematic. Most jobs, for example, value someone who will
get the job done regardless of whether they are ill or injured. We want
employees who won’t let their personal lives affect their professional lives. Essentially,
we want our employees to be able to ‘man up.’ So, as a woman in a job
interview, I have to jump through that extra hoop and go that extra mile to prove
that I am actually capable of all of these qualities. I have to exhibit enough
characteristics that indicate I’m not like ‘most’ women, when it comes to my
ability to ‘man up.’</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Now, if
you’re a man reading this, you may very well be frustrated by what I’m writing.
You may be forming a comment in your mind right now that reads something like
this: the term ‘man up’ puts undue pressure on men to remain stoic in even
extremely difficult situations. It’s a phrase that tells men to deny their
emotions, and that their actions are more important than what they are feeling.
It also emphasizes our society’s assumption that men don’t have strong
emotions, or at least not strong enough that they shouldn’t be quashed for the
sake of finishing a task. It is also a phrase that can be used to imply that a
man is not performing his gender well enough. To tell a man to ‘man up,’ is in
essence telling him that in that moment he is not actually a man. Having access
to the phrase ‘man up’ is actually quite a burden. Men aren’t just assumed to
be <i>capable</i> or manning up, they are
pressured into manning up, even when it’s detrimental to their wellbeing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">If you were
thinking of writing a comment like that, you’d be right. That is all true. Now
if you’re a woman reading this, you may very well have read the above paragraph
and thought, “That’s all well and good, but it still doesn’t take away from the
way in which women are assumed to be incapable of ‘manning up.’” And if you’re
thinking that, you’d be right too. Back to the men, “Alright, but that still
doesn’t mean that being pressured to ‘man up’ is any less problematic.” Guess
what, guys, you’re right too. ‘Round and ‘round and ‘round it goes, where it
stops nobody knows.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This is where
the zero-sum approach to gender issues often rears its ugly head, and the
conversation often devolves into “women/men have it worse,” and record-breaking
Oppression Olympics. But those sorts of arguments largely miss the point, which
is that the term ‘man up’ is problematic and harmful to individuals in our
society. Arguably it’s harmful to our society as a whole. So I say, let’s focus
on figuring out how to get rid of that phrase entirely. Let’s focus on actually
solving the problems with our gender system. To get metaphorical: let’s focus
on fixing the forest, instead of arguing about which trees are worse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So then what
is the metaphorical forest in this issue of ‘manning up?’ As with so many
social issues the focus should be on the systems that create and perpetuate the
concept of ‘manning up.’ In this case, it’s only partly connected to our
outdated gender norms. Our society has gendered a human behaviour that is not
inherently tied to maleness or femaleness. This means that women who do prove
their ability to ‘man up’ are perceived as being less feminine and womanly. On
the other hand, men who don’t ‘man up’ are perceived as being less manly and
masculine. If we took away the gendered aspect to this behaviour, it would
become something that everyone had equal access to. It would be something that
was judged on an individual basis, which really keeps in line with western
culture’s emphasis on individuality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However, even
if we did somehow eliminate gender from the concept of ‘manning up,’ I question
whether it’s really a trait worth valuing at all. Now the system we’re looking
at is economic and work related. The way that capitalism has manifest in the
west, particularly the U.S., results in placing a higher value on output than
on the welfare of the employees. In effect, that’s what the term ‘manning up’
is asking people to do. The entire concept is borne out of an assumption that
it is more important to suffer in silence and get the job done, than it is to
work through negative emotions. It treats emotions as a luxury, and a not
particularly useful luxury either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">When it comes
to the concept of ‘manning up’ and the problems associated with it, gender is
really only part of the equation. When we focus on which gender is affected
worse, we end up completely missing the root causes of the idea. And if we fail
to see the actual social systems in place that created ‘manning up,’ then we
will be unable to truly change it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was also
published on <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/feminism-manning-up-and-the-zero-sum-game/">The Good Men Project</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-38048443877804566262012-05-27T13:08:00.002+01:002012-05-27T13:12:53.858+01:00The Endless Cycle of Oil Dependance<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">When I was
growing up in California, pretty much everyone drove everywhere. When I was 16,
I was the odd one out as someone who didn’t have a driver’s license and a car. Ten
years later in the U.K., I only know three people who have their own cars. A whole
lot of people I know don’t even have a driver’s license. I think a large part
of that is to do with public transportation. Brits complain about their bus and
train system a lot, but it’s a sight better than what we get in much of the
U.S.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However, it’s
also due to the cost of oil in Europe versus the U.S. As </span><a href="http://news.discovery.com/autos/psychology-gas-prices-120429.html" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">this
article</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> explains, most of Europe is paying at least twice as much per litre
than the U.S. And yet, the cost of oil in the U.S. is a much bigger political
issue than it is in much of Europe. Part of why it’s a bigger political issue
is because the U.S. uses so much more oil than any country in Europe. And part
of why the U.S. uses so much oil is because it costs less and because public
transportation is lacking. So it turns into something of a cycle. The U.S. uses
more oil because it costs less, but now it’s dependent on that oil use and so
people want the cost to stay low.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I’m of the
opinion that the cycle has to be broken on multiple fronts. Better public
transportation would certainly help. The U.S. could also take a step back and
realize that the price of oil is actually something it doesn’t have direct
control over. And I’m a progressive liberal, so of course I’m all for
alternative fuel sources.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was also
published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/the-endless-cycle-of-oil-dependance/">The
Good Men Project</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-27649963566161666782012-05-23T11:57:00.001+01:002012-05-23T11:57:20.338+01:00Palestinian Hunger Strike<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I’ll be
upfront about my opinions about Palestine: I’m for a two-state solution. In
part because I think that’s the only way to solve a lot of the conflict in that
region. I also recognize that the Palestinians have as equal a claim on the
land as the Israelis. Mostly though, Israel lost the upper hand with the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Six-Days War</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> and the
subsequent treatment of Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, which
isn’t to say Hamas’ actions have been great either. Both sides have committed
horrible acts of violence against each other.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However, a
large number of Palestinians took a more peaceful approach recently. A </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/palestinian-prisoners-end-hunger-strike?intcmp=239" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">reported</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
2,000 Palestinian prisoners went on a hunger strike to protest prison
conditions as well as “administrative detention orders.” Basically
“administrative detention order” is the term used when a prisoner hasn’t been
charged with anything but is being held anyway. The positive to take from this
story is that a deal was reached. Israel agreed to provide better conditions
and that anyone currently held on an “administrative detention order” wouldn’t
have their sentence renewed without new information or evidence to support
that. In return the prisoners agreed to “completely halt terrorist activity
inside Israeli prisons.” If both sides actually hold up their end of the deal,
then this is really a step in the right direction.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was also
published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/palestinian-hunger-strike/">The
Good Men Project</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-64146378062660349852012-05-20T03:41:00.000+01:002012-05-23T11:58:48.857+01:00Privilege the Video Game: Version 1.1<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Among my
e-mails, the other day, I found something from </span><a href="http://www.juliegillis.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Julie
Gillis</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> with a link to
</span><a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">this article</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> about privilege. Basically it
compares privilege (social inequality) to the difficulty setting of a video
game. It acknowledges that other factors (such as individual personalities and
abilities) influence what effect privilege has on a person’s life. In the case
of the linked article, the other, personal factors are represented by ‘stats’
in video games. Basically the analogy is like this: difficulty setting
(privilege) is about how the world perceives and interacts with your character,
while the stats (personal circumstances) are about how well you are
individually equipped to deal with the world.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Of course I
immediately posted the article to Facebook, and I was immediately told that
comparing life to a video game is too simplistic. My answer to that was, yes,
of course it is. Analogies and metaphors are (hopefully) useful tools used to
help understand a complicated idea. Often that means the metaphor itself is
much simpler than the reality of the complicated idea you’re trying to explain.
In this case, the video game metaphor is meant to provide a very basic
framework to help explain social privilege. I certainly do not think that a
video game can really simulate real life, but hopefully video games can provide
a useful (if simple) metaphor to help us understand life, specifically social
privilege.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I was also
hit with a comment about how economic status is far more important factor in
how easy or difficult the “game of life” really is. After a bit of thought, I’d
have to say I agree to some degree. The metaphor of difficulty setting for
privilege is a bit off. If life were a video game, then economic class would be
the difficulty setting. After all, in the west we have what are mostly
capitalist economies, particularly true in the U.S. Everything is affected by
what economic class you belong to. Also, like difficult, economic class, can
theoretically be changed; albeit, not as easily as hitting Esc and shifting
through some options. Though, that’s not a perfect metaphor either, I suppose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Anyway, I
don’t think that’s quite the end of the video game metaphor for privilege. To
my mind, privilege could be better compared to all the invisible systems in a
video game that affect the game world but that you, the player, don’t even see.
It’s like the random number generator (RNG) or the mob spawner. It’s like the
bits of code that determines what a randomly generated dungeon will look like or
which bits of dialog an NPC will say to your character. For the non-gamers out
there: it’s like bits of code in Tetris that determines which shape appears
next. The player doesn’t see the calculations made that determine what will
happen; the player just sees the results. Similarly, it’s often difficult to
see privilege at work. We may see the results, but sometimes we don’t recognize
that it’s privilege.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Mostly
though, the reason I think my analogy works a bit better, is because having
privilege (or not) doesn’t necessarily translate into having an easy or hard
life. What having privilege does mean is that in many situations, a person who
belongs to a privileged group will have certain advantages over someone who
does not belong to that group. So to bring it back to the video game metaphor
for a moment: it’s as if your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
nationality, etc. determined how often you landed a critical hit, or how often
the simpler tetris pieces appeared. If you have more critical hits (or more
simple tetris pieces) does that make the game easier? It can, but it doesn’t
necessarily make the game easy. The player can still end up coming up against
an enemy that’s just too powerful (or end up with a mess of tetris pieces that
appeared in an unfortunate order). And whether a player is good at the video
game or not matters, of course. A player’s individual abilities also determine
how far in the game s/he gets.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So then, how
does this translate back into the real world? I’ll try to provide an example: a
transwoman and a cis-woman both apply for a job. The fact that one is trans and
the other is cis-gendered is known by the employer. The cis-woman, in this case
has privilege based on the fact that she’s cis-gendered. Does this mean she
will necessarily get the job? No. Does it mean that the cis-woman hasn’t had a
hard time landing a job until that point? Nope. It doesn’t even mean that the
cis-woman has had an easier life than the transwoman. What it means is that in
this case, the cis-woman is more likely to land a ‘critical hit’ (and get the
job), based on stereotypes and discrimination against transwomen. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Society (invisible systems) has been set up in such a way as to be
biased against certain groups and then people often perceive that bias as a norm.
That is what privilege is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/privilege-the-video-game-version-1-1/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-29028108899195206752012-05-17T05:30:00.001+01:002012-05-17T17:31:48.765+01:00Obama and VAWA<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) has been a controversial bill since it was first
passed in 1994. It has been up for reauthorization multiple times since then,
as well as facing a Supreme Court hearing. It’s been modified and changed along
the way, including creating more gender-neutral language, including same-sex
couples, and even eliminating some parts of it on the grounds that those parts
were unconstitutional.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The bill is
up for reauthorization in 2012 and Obama’s administration has </span><a href="http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/obama-admin-issues-veto-threat-on-vawa-bill-calls.html" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">announced</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
Obama may veto it. Currently the version in the House differs from that in the
Senate in one very important way: the House version fails to protect LGBT
individuals from discrimination in VAWA funded programs. It looks as though
Obama is putting his money, or his veto, where his mouth is with regards to his
support of recognizing same-sex couples.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">If this is a
political ploy to gain votes from LGBT individuals, it’s working on me. If this
is an attempt to force the Republicans to protect LGBT individuals in VAWA,
well I hope that works too.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/obama-and-vawa/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-86840598265786755782012-05-14T18:58:00.001+01:002012-05-16T23:15:45.148+01:00Newsweek Declares Obama First Gay President<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1hUlCK9bu90/T7FGYq4atPI/AAAAAAAAAD0/afCdUzsTIw0/s1600/Obama+Newsweek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1hUlCK9bu90/T7FGYq4atPI/AAAAAAAAAD0/afCdUzsTIw0/s320/Obama+Newsweek.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-20120514,0,5001068.story">Obama Newsweek Cover</a><br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Same-sex
marriage has been in the news a lot lately. North Carolina voted to ban it,
along with civil partnerships, and a day later Obama held an interview where he
voiced his personal support for same-sex marriage. Although I am <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/obamas-personal-support-for-same-sex-marriage/">frustrated</a>
at the limits of the support Obama gave, I also understand that it is a pretty
big symbolic victory, particularly considering the fact that we’re right in the
middle of election season. I also understand those people who are heaping
praise on Obama and are unwilling to criticize his statement as perhaps not
going far enough. I get it.</span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What I do not
get is the new Newsweek </span><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/newsweek-cover-obama-gay-president/story?id=16338110#.T7ARoOtYs4Q" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">cover</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
and the article by Andrew Sullivan declaring that Obama is the “first gay
President.” Obama is the first black President, except that actually apparently
Clinton was first given that title. And that, right there, illustrates the
problem with tossing around such titles. It implies that no </span><i style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">actual</i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> gay man (or in Clinton’s case, no
actual black man) will be able to become President within our lifetimes. It
implies that the flack Obama is getting for supporting same-sex marriage is
somehow equitable to the crap a gay man would have to put up with while trying
to run for President. Similarly, when Clinton was called the “first black
President,” it implied that his situation was somehow similar to the situation
a black man (such as Obama) would be in when he tried to run for President.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I understand
these labels are meant as praise, but really they just seem to be attempts at
grabbing media attention. And I suppose that by writing this I’m just giving
them what they want.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/is-obama-the-first-gay-president/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-83332967199981990922012-05-14T00:24:00.002+01:002012-05-14T00:25:36.786+01:00Matthew Shepard’s Mother Speaks About Romney’s Alleged Bullying<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Perhaps the
most tragically famous mother of an LGBT individual is Judy Shepherd. She’s
been fighting for LGBT rights for the past 14 years, ever since the tragic
murder of her son, Matthew Shepherd, because he was gay. If anyone can
understand the emotional impact of having one’s personal life thrust into the
media, it’s her. And if anyone can understand the tragic impact homophobic and
anti-LGBT actions can have, it’s certainly her. Her </span><a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/mother-of-matthew-shepard-comments-on-romney-bullying" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">reaction</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
to the news that Mitt Romney apparently bullied a kid when he was in high
school being perceived as gay was understandably strong.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I am in
partial agreement with what she says, particularly with regards to Romney’s </span><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/romney-offers-apology-for-high-school-pranks-says-homosexuality-was-not-on-his-mind/" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">dismissal</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
of the incident. Bullying someone is not a prank, regardless of why you were
bullying them. Forcibly holding someone and cutting off their hair is not a
harmless prank. Romney made a serious mistake in dismissing it as such. And
that, to me, is why this story is important.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Should
Romney’s actions in high school be under scrutiny like this? I’d have to say,
no. High school bullies can see the error of their ways and grow as people,
just like we all do. However, we can’t put that cat back into the bag. The
story is out there, and Romney responded. And that is what is problematic.
Romney failed to recognize how potentially </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">serious an incident
like that could have been. He literally laughed it off, while ‘apologizing’ for
it. Even if he didn’t actually remember the incident, he could have at least
discussed the seriousness of bullying, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">When Judy Shepherd said:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">“</span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">This incident
calls into question whether Mitt Romney can be an advocate for the nation’s
most<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">vulnerable children.”</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;">I imagine she was probably
talking about the incident in high school. I would argue that really, it’s
Romney’s response to this incident that calls his ability to advocate for vulnerable
children into question.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/matthew-shepards-mother-speaks-about-romneys-alleged-bullying/">The
Good Men Project</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;">Note: Judy Shepherd made her statement before Christine
Lauber spoke to </span></i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/"><i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; line-height: 115%; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;">ABC</span></i></a></span><i><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;">.</span></i><i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-38317975552378666842012-05-12T02:18:00.001+01:002012-05-12T21:31:28.623+01:00Obama Personally Supports Same-Sex Marriage<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n78jUfh7R9k/T61cCpEvmAI/AAAAAAAAADo/qksrjWOLiQ8/s1600/Obama.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n78jUfh7R9k/T61cCpEvmAI/AAAAAAAAADo/qksrjWOLiQ8/s200/Obama.jpg" width="146" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama">Barak Obama</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The
relationship between federal and state laws in the U.S. is surprisingly
complicated. Sometimes state and federal laws </span><a href="http://www.mpp.org/legislation/state-by-state-medical-marijuana-laws.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">clash</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. Sometimes the federal government has
to persuade state governments to enact certain </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act_of_1984"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">laws</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. Rarely is the relationship as simple as </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">federal trumps state</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. In many ways it’s a good system. The
U.S. is geographically and culturally quite diverse, and the federal system we
have helps ensure that the cultural and political norms of one region don’t
overshadow the norms of another. However, as it’s a system that was created by
people, it’s not perfect. There is one aspect to our system that I wish was
more national instead of federal, and that is with regards to civil rights.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Historically,
civil rights issues have started at the state level and only slowly made their
way to the federal level. Slavery, women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws and interracial
marriage all started out as issues left up to the individual states to work
out. Presidents and other federal representatives are often initially hesitant
to announce their position on these issues. Then they might make their own
personal feelings known, but they will still firmly place responsibility at the
hands of individual states. It’s only after a great deal of political action
and lobbying that they finally come around to admitting that the issue should
be addressed on the federal level and taken out of states’ hands. </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Woodrow Wilson’s</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
position on women’s suffrage is a prime example of this. He hedged around
actually voicing support for a national amendment until, finally, in 1918 when
he supported the 19<sup>th</sup> Amendment.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I’d include
Obama’s position on </span><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-obamas-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">same-sex marriage</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> as another example of a President shuffling
responsibility for civil rights onto the individual states. On Wednesday, Obama
became the first sitting President to voice </span><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/president-obama-comes-out-in-favor-of-same-sex-marriage/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">support</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> for same-sex marriage, sort of. What
a lot of news outlets failed to report on is the fact that he mentions it’s
only his personal opinion. He still thinks individual states should be able to
decide whether they want to make it legal or not on their own. The buck,
apparently, stops at state government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The argument,
so I’ve been told, is that marriage has always been a state issue, and so the
federal government has no business interfering. Well, I call bullshit on that. What
was </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Loving v. Virginia</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> if not the federal government
imposing itself onto state laws regarding marriage? Let’s go back even further.
What was </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Reynolds v. United States</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> if not the federal government butting
its head into marriage law, and arguably into religious freedom too? Even
same-sex marriage hasn’t always been a state issue. </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">DOMA</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> itself is an example of the federal government
legislating marriage, same-sex marriage specifically. What’s more, all of that
doesn’t even take into account the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1,000+</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> federal rights and privileges that
are associated with marital status.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">So, no, marriage is not a state issue. It’s a national issue, and what’s
more it’s a civil rights issue. I think it’s time that the U.S. recognized that
and started treating it as such.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">This was also published at the <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/obamas-personal-support-for-same-sex-marriage/">Good Men Project</a>.</span>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-85737454638546673312012-05-08T02:33:00.000+01:002012-05-08T20:32:31.022+01:00Marriage Map<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">On November
4, 2008 I sat in a pub in Durham, U.K. with a bunch of other U.S. students
watching the election results come in with anticipation. However, unlike most
of those other students, my attention wasn’t really focused on whether Obama
would be elected or not. I kept waiting to hear about the results from the
three states that had ballot measures banning same-sex marriage. I was
particularly anxious about my home state of California. Up until just a couple
weeks before the election I had been sure that the ban would be shot down. It’s
California, one of the most liberal states in the country. Yet as I sat in that
pub, refreshing a website with election data every 30 seconds, I was really
worried. The Yes on 8 Campaign had seemed to be so much more successful than I
had thought it would be.</span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">With the time
difference (California is 8 hours behind the U.K.) I stayed up extremely late,
not wanting to miss the results. I don’t remember exactly what time the results
on California’s Prop 8 were officially announced. It might have even been the
next day. What I do remember is that when I saw that it had passed, my heart
sank.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It wasn’t
long before people in California started protesting, and then that protest
became nationwide. Not long after that the NOH8 campaign was started,
specifically in response to the passing of the ban on same-sex marriage in
California. On the one hand it was heartening to see such a reaction. On the
other, I was left wondering where such an outpouring of support was before the
elections had even happened. And I realized that I wasn’t the only one who had
thought California would never pass the ban. We were surprised, shocked and now
we were ready for action.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">--------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Fast forward
to today and the Pewstates.org's <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_771815363">Marriage Map</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> and four more states have upcoming elections in which a
ban on gay marriage will be on the ballot. What initially struck me about it is
the fact that the majority of states actually have a ban in place. Also, it’s interesting
that after the passage of DOMA, states still feel the need to pass an explicit
ban. It’s not as if without the ban, same-sex marriage is legal. Same-sex
couples weren’t getting married in the U.S. prior to these marriage bans. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In countries
where same-sex marriage is legal, it’s only legal because of a change in the
law or because of the ruling in a court case. Something had to <i>change</i> to make same-sex marriage
recognized by the state. It suggests to me that a lot of these bans are based
on fear, specifically a fear that if a same-sex couple wanted to get married in
a state without a ban, it might be possible for them to find a way to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Also, I think
it’s amazing how different states seem to be in completely different places. Seven
states are trailblazing by passing laws which explicitly make same-sex marriage
legal, and 41 other states are firmly sticking to the old nuclear family model.
It’s as though different parts of the country have different ideas of where
best to look for guidance. Seven states seem to be looking to the future,
embracing change. The other 41 seem to be nostalgically looking into the past,
trying to force U.S. culture and society to stop, and turn back the clocks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Don’t get me
wrong, I think it is part of the beauty of the U.S. that each region is not
overshadowed by another, but at the same time same-sex marriage is a matter of
human rights. For my mind, regional differences in morals and cultural norms
should not overshadow human rights.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was also
published at the <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/the-marriage-map/">Good Men
Project</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Update May 8: For a more comprehensive look at LGBT rights in the U.S. look </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states?CMP=twt_gu&fb=native" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">here</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.</span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-2537497946421076072012-05-07T00:49:00.001+01:002012-05-07T00:52:18.252+01:00Stephen King Wants to Be Taxed More<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Apparently
Stephen King, along with a few other rich Americans, wants his taxes <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html">raised</a>.
The whole article is a pretty good read, which is no surprise considering it’s
written by a major award winning author. He makes what I think are some pretty
good points throughout, but what I want to </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">focus on is the part
at the end where he says this, “I want you to acknowledge that in America, we
all should have to pay our fair share!”</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">I often hear from people who don’t want to
raise taxes that, in America, we’re a capitalist economy in which we should be
able to keep what we earn. I’d argue that is only partly true. We all remember
and like to talk about the Boston Tea Party and about how it was a protest
against unfair taxes. It’s proof, we say, that even during the Revolution, we
were against taxes. What we often forget are the Articles of Confederation, the
short-lived government in place among the newly independent colonies after the
Revolution. There were a few problems with it, and a few reasons why it failed,
but one of them was that it had no ability to levy taxes. Turns out having no
taxes are just as detrimental as unfair taxes.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">As much as we
might not like it, taxes are necessary for a strong federal government. Money
is power, as they say, so without any money our federal government wouldn’t be
able to do anything. After the Great Depression, the social responsibilities our
government took on expanded, and kept expanding. Health care, retirement,
building infrastructure, national security, military, welfare, and a myriad of
other public services have all been put in place as a means to create a better
society. And these services need funding, and that funding largely comes from
taxes. So, as Stephen King says, tax the rich more. Let’s keep the important
public services that help underprivileged or disadvantaged groups in our
society. Tax the rich so that those programs can stay in place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Of course,
along with this is the responsibility for the government to cut down on
spending that’s excessive. And we certainly have a problem in the U.S. of
over-spending. I just don’t think it’s an either/or situation. The solution to
our financial woes isn’t to tax the rich more <i>or</i> cut down on spending. The solution is to do both.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">This was published at the <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/stephen-king-wants-to-be-taxed-more/">Good
Men Project</a>.</span>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-33382857920649870972012-05-05T01:59:00.001+01:002012-05-05T02:09:45.155+01:00Homophobia or Heteronormativity?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3df3aD6tq1rumogjo1_500.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3df3aD6tq1rumogjo1_500.png" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px;"><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3df3aD6tq1rumogjo1_500.png">via Tumblr</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align: left;">As an LGBT advocate I often consume media with a concern for LGBT representation and perception in the back of my mind. When I am watching, reading, and listening to media I’m also looking to see whether it reinforces, challenges, or ignores anti-LGBT stereotypes. So when I first read </span><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/7-rules-of-mens-bathroom-etiquette/" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">this article</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align: left;">, I immediately viewed it through that lens. To me, it seemed quite obviously and blatantly homophobic.</span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">According to the article, when men use a public restroom there are certain rules they should follow. Some, like #5: Keeping things clean, make sense. The ones I had a problem with were the following: #2: Announce your presence; #3: Ignore my kid; #4 No eye contact, no talking; and #7: Don’t linger. To me, those rules implied a fear that the other men in the restroom were potentially gay, and thus there for something other than urinating. Why would you worry so much about someone talking to you, unless you were concerned that their conversation was actually an attempt to hit on you? Why would it be a problem to see someone linger, unless you’re worried that they’re actually waiting to pick someone up? That’s what I was asking myself as I read it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">The article also seems to take a lot of these rules a bit too far. The idea that you shouldn’t look over at someone while at a urinal makes sense to a certain degree. I would feel strange if someone were watching me while I was urinating. However, the list also continues to say that a man should never make eye contact with another man, even at the sink. That, to me, smacks of homophobia. Washing your hands at the sink is hardly a private activity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">-----------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However, seeing as I’m not a man, I realize that my perception of male bathroom etiquette is slightly skewed. I’m left relying on second-hand information. So I asked other LGBT men and women to give me their opinions on the article. Interestingly, the replies I got back were quite diverse. They ranged from someone who couldn’t finish reading it because he found it to be so homophobic, to someone else who actually liked the rules. Instead of paraphrasing all of them, I’ll just provide a few quotes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial;">It's the same sort of typical backhanded homophobia I see a lot just in everyday life.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“Personally, the article would make me feel unwelcome at the website (and I'm bisexual).”</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc; color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“I actually don't think it is out and out homophobic. Just skimming it, the theme seems to be: ‘how to avoid uncomfortable homosocial contact.’”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc; color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“One wonders if there is not a whiff of the old homophobic paranoia.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc; color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“Actually it’s more pedantic than anything, hence the perceived homophobia.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc; color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“I like the rules – keeps the bathroom clean and efficient.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc; color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: #ead1dc;">While those rules are actually good for busy toilets in many public places, they're something that does get pushed into men’s heads as a standard way of functioning.”</span><span style="background-color: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“I don't think straight guys being uncomfortable with homosexuality is the same as homophobia. If they're so insecure they run into a cubicle instead of using the urinal in the middle, it's their problem.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">And in reply to that:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ead1dc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">“Guys being uncomfortable with and wanting to avoid homosexuality is literally homophobia…what's happening here is that the writer is telling men they<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>should</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>feel uncomforta</span><span style="background-color: #ead1dc;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">ble.</span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #073763; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">”</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Another aspect to this issue is in comparing it to public restrooms for women. After all, women all use completely enclosed stalls in order to keep from seeing other women urinate, and yet there isn’t any suggestion of homophobic undertones. So what’s the difference? Well for starters, because everyone in the women’s restroom is using private stalls, the sink area is a more public space. So when men are washing their hands they’re still in the same space as people who are urinating. Standing at a sink, talking, could be seen as being as embarrassing as standing outside the open door of a bathroom stall, talking. Plus, if the bathroom is small enough, standing around just makes the space crowded and makes access to the urinals more difficult.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">-----------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">So after thinking about all of this, I guess I would have to agree that it’s not actually, blatantly homophobic. The problem with the article, however, is that it has left itself open to a homophobic interpretation. Perhaps unknowingly, the author has conformed to the “old homophobic paranoia” with these rules. It wasn’t so long ago that it was considered a legitimate response to physically attack a man if you thought he was coming onto you. And while this article certainly doesn’t advocate for physical violence, it does seem to include quite a bit of fear and anger at those who don’t follow the rules he sets down.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Throughout there is a not-so-subtle suggestion that the people who aren’t following these rules are somehow deviant or creepy. The article doesn’t just talk about privacy and keeping the space clean and tidy for its own sake. Instead it insinuates that anyone who loiters, or casts a glance at another man in the mirror, or deigns to talk to another man, is somehow creepy. And though the article never says it outright, it makes it very easy to infer that the author is worried that the men who might do all these things that go against the rules he sets down might be gay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">So yeah, this article falls under the category of heteronormative. It’s also a pretty trivial subject, when you think about it. I mean, bathroom etiquette is hardly on par with world politics or marriage equality. But it’s these little things that affect people’s everyday lives, precisely because they are so mundane.</span></div>
</div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-54589226101062761632012-05-03T09:30:00.000+01:002012-05-03T14:47:31.294+01:00Guild Wars 2: Beta Edition<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wFR5iaWBnk8/T6G5TDvnmAI/AAAAAAAAADc/jj7CbWmRGfY/s1600/Meltyfox+Mesmer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wFR5iaWBnk8/T6G5TDvnmAI/AAAAAAAAADc/jj7CbWmRGfY/s320/Meltyfox+Mesmer.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://agendagw2.enjin.com/sysmodule/m/4281648/detail/60">Human Mesmer</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I am a big
nerd, from way back. From the moment I started reading </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animorphs" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Animorphs</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> in 5</span><sup style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
grade and subsequently bought every single Animorphs book ever published, my
future was sealed. Even so, it wasn’t until just a few years ago that I started
to play MMOs. I just couldn’t ever get into the idea of playing a video game
for very long. I started with the big one, World of Warcraft and I really liked
it. It took a while, but eventually the shiny newness of WoW disappeared and I
was left with a game I didn’t really like all that much. So I stopped playing.
Then along comes the weekend beta event for </span><a href="http://www.guildwars2.com/" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Guild Wars 2</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> last weekend and I
again found myself absorbed by an MMO.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I’ve been
looking forward to Guild Wars 2 for quite a while. I’d played the demo at
Eurogamer in 2011, and I really liked it. It was sufficiently different enough from
WoW that I wasn’t instantly bored, but it was familiar enough that I didn’t
feel completely lost. As much fun as I had in the short demo, the beta was even
better. That being said, the game isn’t perfect. So first we’ll start off with
my criticisms, and then I’ll end on a happy note of what I loved about it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #860000; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The starting female
cloth armour is skimpy.</span></b><span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Now, I’m
aware that there are all sorts of different armour sets in the game, and that
some of them will be skimpy and some of them won’t. My problem is that, while
playing a cloth-wearing character, I couldn’t find any. This suggests to me
that there are only a few non-skimpy choices for female clothies, or at least that
they aren’t available until many, many hours into the game. Now, don’t get me
wrong, I have no problem with revealing armour in itself. It’s just so cliché to
have cloth-wearing female characters wearing so little clothing. I mean, would
it kill ArenaNet to provide armour that covers my character up early in
the game? And, hey, while we’re at it, how about giving the male characters
some of their own skimpy cloth armour? I know some straight women and gay/bi
guys who’d appreciate it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #860000; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I was under-levelled for
a lot of my personal story.</span></b><span style="color: #860000; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I pretty
much stuck with my human mesmer throughout the beta, and I know other people
who played other races who had no trouble with their levelling. So, perhaps,
this is just a problem with the human starting area. Even so, I feel it should
be addressed. I finished the starting area and finished as much of my personal
story as I could, and I was too low a level to continue on. I ended up going to
the Norn starting area and doing some of their beginning quests to level up,
and that was fine.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It’s great
that the system allows me to go to a low level area and still get experience
for completing quests. However, I still feel like this shouldn’t have been an
issue in the first place. It was pretty jarring to have to stop anything
related to my personal story and my race’s story to go do quests in a
completely different area. I was really getting into the story of my character;
he really had no narrative motivation to suddenly start helping out the Norn,
or the Charr. Yet, in order to level up that’s exactly what I had to do. It
took me out of the game, and suddenly reminded me that I was playing a game at
all, not just experiencing a story.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #860000; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The dynamic events weren’t
quite dynamic enough.</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
Alright, that’s actually not really true, but I needed something short to put
in bold. The dynamic events were actually really amazing. The only problem I
had was that too many of them didn’t seem to actually change much in the world.
There were a lot that, once you completed it, didn’t actually start another one.
Or, if it did start another event, I wasn’t made aware of it. Also, there were
quite a few events that, once finished, reset too quickly. I’d have just
finished escorting some guy into a town, and a few minutes later I’d see that
he’s being escort again. Or a few minutes after killing some rampaging enemy, I’d
see him pop up again to be killed. Part of the beauty of this system is that it’s
okay if not everyone experiences all the content all the time. It’s alright if
you miss one part of an event, because theoretically the next part is already
happening. I’d really like just a little bit more time after an event is
finished before it restarts. Of course, I only really explored the starting
areas and the second human area, so it’s entirely possible that the dynamic
events in later parts of the game chain together better.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">And that’s it
for the bad, from me. Yeah there were a few bugs, and yes the first few hours
of the beta were completely unplayable. But beta is beta. So now for the
awesome:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #06340b; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The dynamic events are
so refreshing.</span></b><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I said I actually really loved the dynamic events, and
here’s why. When they chained together and when they didn’t reset too quickly,
they really made me feel like I was affecting the game world. I, and a horde of
my fellow humans, norn and charr, could lead an offensive against an undead
army or help defend a strategic position from the centaur, or any number of
other heroic deeds. I wasn’t stuck fetching 10 rat tails for some lazy NPC; I
was a hero saving the world! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #06340b; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The Mesmer. </span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The mesmer is my favourite profession,
by far. I didn’t get much beyond the first few levels of other professions, but
in part that’s because I thought the mesmer was awesome from the get go. I didn’t
play much PvP, but when I did the use of clones was absolutely indispensable. My
opponent would often mistake my clone for me, and start wailing on it.
Meanwhile, I’d be a relatively safe distance away, wailing on him/her. It was
great. With the shatter spells, I always had multiple control spells,
regardless of what weapon set I was using. And seeing as you can’t take too
many hits in PvE either, having control spells was invaluable in PvE too. Plus,
nothing beats poofing into a hail of purple and pink butterflies whenever you
teleport.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #06340b; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The personal story was
really engaging.</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> I’d
have liked to have a more interactive experience with the personal story, but
even so the story was well told. The cut scenes didn’t drag on, and they
provided a great sense of purpose. I wasn’t just out running an errand for an
NPC; I was investigating what happened to my missing sister or protecting the
queen, or something else equally personal and engaging. During character
creation you are given various options about your background, and it’s pretty
clear that those change your personal story in some really interesting ways.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #06340b; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The art design is
stylistic but not cartoonish.</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
I really love the art design in Guild Wars 2, in part because it’s so
different. It’s one of the first games I’ve played where the difference between
the concept art and the in-game art is nearly indistinguishable. A lot of the
character models and particle effects are of a style pretty typical for MMOs,
but mixed in there are what looks like hand-painted brush strokes. And this
combination works really well. The map, for example, starts out as a blur of colourful
brush strokes, and as you discover more and more places, the places on the map
become better defined. Yet it still retains that hand-painted look. Even with
my graphics turned down to “balanced,” it was stunning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I could go on
about other aspects of the game I enjoyed. The downed system is really the best
way I’ve seen an MMO handle character death. The fact that any character can resurrect
a dead character is a welcome change. The way that Guild Wars 2 encourages
working together and discourages ninjaing and griefing made it so I was
actually enjoying playing in groups with strangers. Pretty much there is a lot
more I like about this game than I can really put here without turning it into
some huge essay. And I just don’t have the time to write a huge essay; I’m too
busy checking my inbox to see when the next beta event will take place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-49246205859186255642012-05-02T14:03:00.001+01:002012-05-04T20:41:08.880+01:00Who in the World is Richard Grenell?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LtJXdaaZjtA/T6F7KkdAXUI/AAAAAAAAACs/v6sOAkOONlM/s1600/grennell_large_reasonably_small.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/richardgrenell">Richard Grenell</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">One of the
strange things about presidential campaigns is that they will often thrust previously
unknown people into the spotlight. I mean, how many people could name Alaska’s
governor prior to 2008? Not a lot. Romney’s not even the official nominee yet
and his campaign’s already been hit with issues surrounding one of the less
well known members of his campaign. </span><a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking-gay-romney-spokesman-grenell-quits-after-conservative-attacks/politics/2012/05/01/38842" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Until yesterday</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, Richard Grenell was Mitt Romney’s spokesperson for foreign policy
and national security. If Romney is elected, Grenell probably would have held a
high ranking position in his administration. He was going to be a major player.
Oh, did I mention Grenell is gay?</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.5468093/k.BE4C/Home.htm" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Gay
republicans</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> aren’t as rare as you might think; there’s even a </span><a href="http://www.goproud.org/" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">gay segment</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> of the Tea Party. Yet, until now
gay republicans have not been part of major political campaigns or
administrations. Well, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">not
openly</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, anyway. But this is 2012, so one would think that the Republican Party
was ready for its presidential campaign to have an openly gay man as a
spokesperson. Mitt Romney apparently thought so too, saying that Grenell’s
sexual orientation was a non-issue. I guess the rest of the Republican Party
disagreed. Well, that’s not exactly fair. I should perhaps say that some very
vocal members of the Republican Party disagreed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Brian
Fischer, a conservative radio host, is <a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/fischer-takes-credit-for-forcing-homosexual-activist-grenell-to-quit/politics/2012/05/01/38855">taking
credit</a> for “leading the charge” against Grenell that eventually forced him
to resign. What strikes me isn’t so much that Fischer got the ball rolling, but
rather that he’s taking credit for it. Apparently forcing someone to quit their
job because of their sexual orientation is something to be proud of. It sounds
more like bullying to me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I can’t help
but notice the huge difference between how Republicans dealt with having a gay
spokesperson in a campaign versus how Democrats have responded when Obama has appointed
lgbt individuals to his administration. There have been no calls for
resignations for the <a href="http://www.glli.org/presidential">225</a> out
lgbt members of the Obama administration because of their sexual orientation or
gender. This isn’t to say that the Democrats record on lgbt rights and
inclusion is flawless, but in light of the Grenell resignation it seems to be
well ahead.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What does it say about our society when what's scandalous in one party is praised and generally accepted in the other? Is the U.S. really that divided a country?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/richard-grenell-resigns-from-romney-campaign-conservative-radio-host-revels/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-66844047211534330982012-05-01T23:53:00.003+01:002012-05-04T20:41:15.399+01:00C4EM: An Acronym You’ve Probably Never Heard Of<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dxAqY6lDu5s/T6F85UZBEOI/AAAAAAAAADE/vGK28q2rK7Q/s1600/C4EM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dxAqY6lDu5s/T6F85UZBEOI/AAAAAAAAADE/vGK28q2rK7Q/s1600/C4EM.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/C4EMUK">C4EM</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Contrary to
what a lot of people outside the United Kingdom think, same-sex marriage isn’t
actually legal in the U.K. Instead they have civil partnerships, which grant
all the same rights as marriage, except for the label. There is a home office </span><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17375736" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">consultation</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> underway asking
the population its opinion on civil same-sex marriage. Pretty much the U.K. is
considering changing its policy regarding same-sex marriage and so it’s
conducting a poll, sort of.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The
anti-same-sex marriage campaign has come under some </span><a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/26/row-over-legality-of-coalition-for-marriage-presentations-in-catholic-state-schools/" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">fire</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">
recently regarding its tactics, and rightly so. As the article I linked to
indicates, the Catholic Church was actually circulating a political petition to
students as young as 11-years-old. At the very least it is irresponsible, and
perhaps even illegal. The petition that was circulated was started by a group
called the Coalition for Marriage (C4M). According to the </span><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103583/Lord-Carey-tells-David-Cameron-Letting-gays-marry-wrong.html" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Daily
Mail</a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, C4M is a “grassroots organisation,” though in reality it has backing
from a number of political and religious leaders. Grassroots isn’t really the
proper term, I don’t think.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In response
to the “grassroots” C4M, two young men set up a spoof website for the <a href="http://www.c4em.org.uk/">C4EM</a> (Coalition for Equal Marriage). It
wasn’t a real coalition; it was just two crazy kids in love, frustrated that their
country still wouldn’t let them get married. Much to their surprise, C4EM has
gone viral and has turned into something of an actual grassroots organisation. They’ve
got a bit of financial backing now, and so they put out an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a54UBWFXsF4">advertisement</a>
on Youtube. It comes complete with swelling music and a sappy ending, and I
love it. It’s exactly the sort of pro-same-sex marriage advertisement I wish
the U.S. used more often. As much as the advertisements that focus on the facts
of same-sex marriage are informative, they often lack the emotional resonance
that the C4EM advert has. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So, get to it
NOH8. Make an advert with sappy, sappy lurve. Actually, make more than one;
let’s have an entire ad campaign that highlights the emotional impact same-sex
marriage would have on lgbt individuals. Just, when you do this NOH8, try
making it a little less white-washed, and if you could include a lesbian or two
that’d be great.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-21953574591114719402012-04-27T02:18:00.000+01:002012-05-05T15:31:48.148+01:00Gay Sex on T.V.<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">***This article contains spoilers for the HBO series<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><i>Game of Thrones </i>through Season 2, Episode 3***</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In the past couple of decades, LGBT representation in mainstream
media of the U.S. has progressed in leaps and bounds. We have popular
television shows that focus exclusively on<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262985/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">gay</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all;q=the+l+word"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">lesbian</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">communities, shows with
gay<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Little"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">gangsters</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, gay<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blum"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">slobs</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, and gay<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Fields"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">teenagers</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, one Oscar winning<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1013753/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">movie</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">about a gay political figure and another one about<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">gay
cowboys</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.
As for real life people in the media, there are out<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/don-lemon-comes-out-cnn-anchor-gay_n_862308.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">news anchors</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">political
commentators</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, out<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_actors"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">actors</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://www.afterellen.com/people/2011/les-bi-list-top-50-out-women-rankings"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">actresses</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, and out<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_musicians_from_the_United_States"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">musicians</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. We’ve come a long way
from<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodie_Dallas"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Jodie
Dallas</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xena">Xena</a>; it would be easy to think
that we’ve achieved equal representation in the media. Unfortunately, we
haven’t.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">There are still some overarching issues that affect the entire
LGBT community’s representation in the media, such as the complete lack of U.S.
professional athletes who are out of the closet. However, there are also issues
that affect one section of the LGBT community more than others. In other words,
many of the problems bisexual men face in the media are different than those
faced by lesbians, and those that lesbians face are different than the issues
transmen and transwomen are facing, etc. I'd would like to focus on one way in
which gay men are treated unequally in television shows produced for a wide
audience: sex scenes. If that makes you squeamish, then I suggest you stop
reading now.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">You might be reading this thinking that, actually there’s too much
sex on television, full stop. Why add to it? Or better yet, why not put that
can of worms away and take sex off of television? I’d like to emphasize that
this article isn’t about whether portraying sex on television is a good or a
bad thing in itself. I am just arguing that if a television show 1) has gay and
straight characters and 2) portrays straight sex scenes, then it should 3) give
the gay sex scenes the same treatments as its straight sex scenes. The most
recent example of a television show that certainly qualifies for numbers 1 and
2, but fails at number 3 is <i>Game of
Thrones</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">========</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Game of Thrones</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> doesn’t just have some
straight sex scenes; it has quite a few straight sex scenes, along with a large
dose of both male and female full frontal nudity, which isn’t surprising
considering it’s on HBO. However, it’s also a show that uses that sex and
nudity as a storytelling device. This is true from the first sex scene of the
show between the twins Cersei and Jamie Lannister, all the way to the most
recent sex scene: the teenage king, Joffrey, forcing a prostitute to beat
another prostitute for his own entertainment. A lot of these scenes aren’t even
particularly enticing. Instead they are there to tell a story. What’s more,
this use of sex is consistent with the way the book series, <i>A Song of Ice and Fire</i>, uses sex: to
further a story or explain a character.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What is different between the book and the television show is the
depiction of the gay couple, Renly and Loras. The books are written from the
perspective of only a few of the characters, and neither Renly nor Loras are
POV characters. This means that their relationship, which is scandalous in the
world created by these books, is only hinted at. The television show, on the
other hand, does tell the story from Renly’s perspective. So, in episode 4 of
season 2, there is something of a sex scene between Renly and Loras.
Unfortunately it hardly qualifies as such, and worse most of the character and
plot development during this scene relies on dialogue as opposed to actions.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">A brief description: Renly and Loras make out for a bit and end up
shirtless and on Renly’s bed. Then Renly reminds Loras he was beaten at the
joust by a woman, which pisses Loras off. And that’s pretty much the end of the
physical side of their scene; the rest is dialogue and Renly trying to kiss
Loras again. It turns out, Renly is married to Loras’ sister,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">and Loras snidely suggests
he trades places with his sister so that Renly can do his kingly duty and
produce an heir. Renly protests, but Loras ends up leaving. A few moments later<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">comes in and Renly is completely unable to have sex with her.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">isn’t a fool; she knows what’s up between Renly and her brother.
She suggests that maybe she could bring her brother, Loras, back in to help
out. That’s right; she is willing to have a threesome with her brother in order
to strengthen her husband’s position, and thus her own position. There is a
brief discussion between Renly and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">about how they need to do whatever is necessary to make sure<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery becomes pregnant. Then i</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">t cuts away, and we don’t
know whether they did actually end up inviting Loras back into the room or not.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Here is where <i>Game of
Thrones</i> really dropped the ball, I think. For starters, they ended up
relying on dialogue to tell the story and create the characters. <i>Game of Thrones </i>is already a very talky
show, but what was great was that between long bits of dialogue, there’d be
violent scenes or sex scenes which would tell you so much, particularly about
character development. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then in <i>Game of Thrones</i> a sex scene is usually
worth a hundred thousand. Not so with the gay sex scene; here they opted to use
the thousand words.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Also, the show failed to even address what a threesome between<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, Renly and Loras would even be like. The show’s creators have
already shown they’re not bothered about depicting incest, as evidenced by
their inclusion of a scene where Cersei and Jamie have sex. Yet, when it
involves a gay couple and a sibling, then suddenly they become squeamish. I’m
not even interested in the scene because I think it would be sexy or because I
think it would be breaking taboos. I am interested in seeing how Renly, Loras
and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">would negotiate such a situation. Would Loras be willing? Would it
work, or just turn into something way too awkward? Have Loras and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Margaery</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">done something similar in the past? These are all questions that,
had they been answered, could have provided such depth to these characters.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">=======</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So you might be thinking that this is a single sex scene in a
single television show; it hardly constitutes a trend. However, all sorts of
shows do this, whether they’re on cable or network T.V. A show on network T.V.
that only really shows couples making out with probably treat their gay
characters particularly gingerly. A show on cable T.V. that has graphic sex
scenes will probably fit in with what happened on <i>Game of Thrones,</i> and their gay sex scenes will be watered down.
Some examples from cable television:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1586680/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Shameless</span></a></i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">,<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span></span><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1442449/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Spartacus:
Vengeance</span></a></i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758790/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The
Tudors</span></a></i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.
All of those shows are known for their use of sex, and yet they’ve all treated
their gay sex scenes with kid gloves. They were short, or out of frame, or
involved a lot less nudity. Somehow they just weren’t quite the same as their
straight counterparts.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So why does this matter? What if people just don’t want to watch
two men having sex? Well the problem is that, as with <i>Game of Thrones</i>, such a mentality ends up damaging character
development. More than that, though, is the fact that such a mentality indicates
that our society is still miles away from normalizing sex between men. If our
media is still more comfortable portraying straight sex scenes and lesbian sex
scenes, over gay sex scenes, then that is a big red flag for equality between
gay and straight men. It’s proof that heteronormativity is still alive and well
within our society.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">That is why this is important. It’s not about whether television
shows are sexy enough; if I wanted sexy I’d watch porn. It’s about what this
lack of gay male sex says about our society as a whole.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This article was also published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/arts/gay-sex-on-tv/">The Good Men Project</a>.</span><o:p></o:p></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-82729754744928537062012-04-26T12:00:00.000+01:002012-05-04T20:41:28.375+01:00Tolerating Intolerance<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15pt;">Coming
out of the closet was a gradual process for me. The first person I came out to
was a friend in 2003, but I had my biggest coming out in 2005. That’s the year
I finally told my parents, and every other little coming out since then has
been easy in comparison. Or at least, almost every other coming out has been
easy. I have gone back into the closet exactly once in my life, and this is a
discussion around that situation.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15pt;">In
the summer of 2010 I got a job doing archaeological survey for the U.S. Forest
Service in Northern California. For four months, I would spend ten hours a day,
four days a week with the same three people, isolated from anyone else in the
middle of a national forest. By the end, everyone would either love or hate
each other; either way, we would all get to know each other really well. Which
meant that at some point I would end up having an “I’m gay,” conversation with
my co-workers. It’s a conversation I’ve had a million times, and I’ll probably
have another million times. I wasn’t worried.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">My
survey team consisted of a young man from Buffalo, New York with a degree in
Biblical archaeology, a local middle aged woman who was married and had no
college degree, and our supervisor: a local man who had just gotten his degree
in archaeology and Middle Eastern Studies. We settled into our daily routine
quite quickly. During our breaks we would talk about everything from our family
lives to the politics of gang violence. Right away it became clear that my
three colleagues were extremely conservative and quite religious, which
actually just made our conversations more interesting. We were all respectful
of each other’s differing opinions and outlooks. We never once got into any
sort of shouting match or name calling; we were at work, after all, and so we
remained professional. Even so, there was one topic I never broached, and that
was my sexual orientation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Normally
I only ever bring up my sexual orientation if it’s pertinent to a conversation,
anyway. I don’t go out of my way to bring it up, but I also don’t go out of my
way to avoid it. If I’m having a conversation about the weather, I’m not going
to try to worm it into the conversation. On the other hand, if someone points
out that a particular actor is really hot, I might make a joke about how “he’s
really not my type,” or something. At this job, though, I made a conscious
effort not to out myself, which is harder than it sounds. Being a lesbian might
not be the most interesting thing about me, but it permeates and colours many
other aspects of my life. I ended up filtering everything I said about myself
to make sure I didn’t inadvertently come out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I
wasn’t only worried about their reactions because they were conservative. They
had also made anti-gay comments and used anti-gay slurs on occasion. Whenever
this happened, I would quietly mention that I didn’t think the comments were
appropriate, but I completely failed to mention that they were offensive to me,
personally. The proud, LGBT activist in my mind was shouting at me that it was
even more important I was out, now. How could I hope to change minds if I
wasn’t willing to be open? And yet I still remained firmly in the closet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I
was afraid of what might happen if I did come out. What if it all went
pear-shaped and we couldn’t work together anymore? I was spending the majority
of my time with these people; if we didn’t get along it would make the work
environment insufferable. What if things became bad enough that I’d want to
transfer to a different survey team? What if my co-workers were suddenly so
uncomfortable around me that they wanted to transfer to a different team? Would
I be blamed for having caused the problem by bringing up a controversial topic?
We weren’t supposed to discuss anything too controversial anyway, and sexual
orientation can cause all sorts of controversy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Even
if we were all still able to work together, I thought that coming out would
have changed the dynamic of the group. These were people who gave every
indication they believed homosexuality was not right. I thought that if I came
out, it wouldn’t just potentially cause problems in the working environment, it
would possibly offend my co-workers. Somehow, the truth of my existence could
be offensive to someone else, and I desperately did not want to offend anyone.
So for four months I kept a big part of my life secret, which did have one
unexpected benefit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">At
the end of the season my supervisor reviewed my work and had a little exit
interview. At the end of the interview, my supervisor told me that he really
liked working with me. He thought part of the reason our group had gotten along
so well was because I had been able to work really well with people with
different beliefs and perspectives than my own. I thanked my supervisor for the
compliment, and thought to myself, “You have no idea.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">These
four months of my life have been a source for a lot of reflection, particularly
lately. When I think back on it, I always feel resentment toward my co-workers
for making me feel like I needed to hide who I was. But then I wonder whether
that’s an entirely accurate evaluation of what happened. Did they make me feel
I had to hide, or had I made myself feel that way by assuming I knew how they
would react? Is that justified as a method to protect myself from intolerance?
Should I be ashamed of my assumptions? And perhaps the million dollar question:
if I could go back, would I do anything differently? It’s a whole lot of what
if’s and should haves to unpack, but I’m going to try by looking at these
questions one at a time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So
then, did they help create a working environment which made me feel like coming
out would cause problems? The short answer to that is, yes. The long answer is
quite a bit more complicated. Unfortunately for conservatives, the <i>public</i> and <i>political</i> face
of the Christian right is one of intolerance and homophobia. Now you’ll notice
I have not used the term ‘homophobic,’ until this point in my article and that
was not accidental. It is a term that does get overused, and often misused.
However, in this case I feel it is accurate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In
the U.S., the Christian right has been represented by people and political
campaigns that actually fear LGBT people. The anti-same-sex marriage campaigns
that suggest we need to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage,
the argument that allowing same-sex marriage would mean having to legalize
bestiality and paedophilia, the concern that out soldiers would negatively
affect the military – the element they all have in common is fear, literally a
fear of gay people and what out gay people will do. So the public image of
conservative Christians does contain an element of homophobia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">What
this means, is that when I became aware of the fact that my co-workers were
right-wing Christians; that is the image that immediately popped into my mind.
In my defence, I did try to keep an open mind. I hadn’t quite decided whether I
was going to stay closeted or not until I heard one of them use the term
“faggoty,” to describe something her husband had done that had pissed her off. That
cemented my assumption that these were people who would not take kindly to
working alongside a gay person.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So
a large part of the problem was completely out of their hands; they can’t
control the political dialogue surrounding conservatives. However, they could
control the language they used and been aware that the words they were using
could hurt someone. Even when I pointed out that terms like “faggot,” and
“dyke” were potentially offensive, they continued to use them. It created an
environment that was not welcoming to someone who was considering coming out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">As
much as I might want to end this article there, I have to admit that I also
contributed to the problem. I let my own assumptions about conservatives affect
the way I handled the situation. As a result, I potentially misjudged my
co-workers. Sometimes the only reason people use pejorative terms when they
don’t think anyone is around who will be offended. Perhaps they didn’t mean
them to be negatively associated with gay people; they just didn’t realize any
gay people were around who might be offended.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In
general, we were all quite respectful and considerate of each other. The middle
aged woman of the group had a difficult time with some of the paperwork, and we
all made sure to help her out as much as we could without being judgmental. My
supervisor and the guy from New York both belonged to two very different
Christian denominations, and their discussions about religious ideology always
remained civil. In short, we all made an effort to be considerate of each
other’s different backgrounds. When looked at in that light, it seems a bit
ridiculous for me to have assumed they would have had a problem with my sexual
orientation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">And
yet as I write this I keep coming back around to the saying: “better safe than
sorry.” <i>Maybe</i> they wouldn’t have cared that I was a lesbian. <i>Maybe</i> they
would have at least been able to get over their issues with my sexuality and
continued to work with me…but then again, maybe not. When viewed through a lens
of self -preservation, perhaps my assumptions were actually justified. Yet, if
I’d always allowed my assumptions of how I thought people would react dictate
whether I came out or not, I’d have never told my parents, and their reaction
was much more positive than I had anticipated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Needless
to say, I’m still quite conflicted on this point. I completely recognize that I
jumped to conclusions based on their political and religious affiliations
combined with their use of some choice pejorative terms. But was that a
justifiable action? I just don’t know.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So
if I could go back and do it all over again, what exactly would I do
differently? In truth, I don’t actually know the answer to that. I would like
to think that when I next find myself in a forest surrounded by conservative people,
I’ll come out of the closet. I’d like to think that I wouldn’t let my
preconceived ideas about right-wing Christians get in the way. Plus, I’d like
to think that I’d be brave enough to be completely honest about who I am all
the time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Ideally
I would find some moment in one of the early conversations we had to casually
bring up my sexual orientation. Seeing as it was during the summer, I could
have so easily mentioned Pride. I took a vacation day to go to San Francisco
for Pride anyway; I could have just told them why I was going to the city,
instead of making up a reason. Really, I could have used any number of
opportunities to mention it without making it some huge deal. I’d like to think
that is how I will handle it if this situation ever comes up again. But
actually I just don’t know; the next time I’m in the woods with a bunch of
conservatives I might end up doing the exact same thing, because I still have
many of the same concerns now that I did then.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In
the end, what I’m left with is advice for anyone who finds themselves in a
situation similar to mine:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Don’t
jump to conclusions</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. Conservative
doesn’t equal anti-gay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Give
your co-workers a chance</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. They just might
surprise you.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Be
empathetic</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. You might be the first out LGBT person they’ve
ever met.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Understand
your co-worker’s perspective</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. It might take a
while for your co-worker to become comfortable with your sexual orientation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Be
respectful</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. If you’re going to come out, find a way to casually
work coming out into a conversation without making it a huge deal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">And
to all the self-identified conservative Christians (or anyone else) who find
themselves among a group of relative strangers, I say this:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Don’t
jump to conclusions.</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Assuming
everyone is straight can make coming out more difficult.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Give
your co-workers a chance</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. Sometimes it
takes a bit of time before people feel comfortable enough to come out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Be
empathetic</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">. You might be bazillionth person they’ve come out
to; it can be nerve-wracking not knowing whether someone be accepting or not.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Understand
your co-worker’s perspective. </span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Don’t ask them to
keep it quiet or to not be obvious; romantic relationships make up a large part
of a person’s life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; margin-left: 22.5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 10pt;">§<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Be
respectful.</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Refrain from using anti-LGBT slurs; even
something you don’t mean to be hateful can be damaging.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This was originally published at <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/guy-talk/tolerating-intolerance/">The Good Men
Project</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-36274908092262806412012-04-25T21:19:00.000+01:002012-05-04T20:47:32.400+01:00HIV Testing Without Consent<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;">I’ve always been against the government protecting people from themselves. However, I definitely think that part of the government’s job is to protect its citizens from others who are attempting to harm them. So when I read this </span><a href="http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/group-indianas-hiv-law-creates-dilemma-29023/" style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;" target="_blank">article</a><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px;"> about a new bill in Indiana that would allow doctors to test someone for HIV without their consent or knowledge, I wasn’t quite sure what to think at first.</span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;">On the one hand it’s a major violation of privacy; it doesn’t get much more personal or private than a person’s blood. A person should have complete control over their body, including what tests are performed on their blood. On the other hand, the </span><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/HIVTesting/" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;" target="_blank">CDC estimates</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px;"> that nearly 1 in 5 people who are infected with HIV don’t know. If everyone were tested, then at least people wouldn’t unknowingly transmit the virus.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I think there is perhaps a better way to ensure that more people are tested for HIV that doesn’t result in violating a person’s privacy. At the moment, a lot of testing for HIV and other STIs is done in special clinics. What’s more, there is still a great deal of shame associated with having an STI, especially HIV. Instead of testing someone for HIV without their consent, I think we should be focused on normalizing getting tested.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 20px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Imagine if the blood work for a routine physical included testing for HIV and other STIs. You go in, they draw blood, and along with testing your cholesterol and blood sugar, they also test for STIs. That is what I think we should be working toward and if anything, what Indiana is doing could potentially make getting tested for HIV even less normalized and more frightening.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was originally posted at </span><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/should-the-government-test-for-hiv-without-a-patients-consent/" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Good Men Project</a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-13417957489639839212012-04-24T22:59:00.002+01:002012-06-12T21:21:37.204+01:00Somebody Shoot Me Now<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Missouri is poised to become the first state to pass
legislation which bans discrimination in the workplace against an often
forgotten and maligned political minority. No, it’s not sexual orientation or
gender identity; it’s not ethnicity or religion. The group they’re providing
legal protections for is <a href="http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/9ab347804b984da781780b2663810bfd/MO-XGR--Firearms-Discrimination/">gun
owners</a>. Apparently in Missouri, a state with some of the <a href="http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/missouri-gun-laws">weakest</a> laws
regarding firearm ownership in the country, there is a fear that the people who
own these easily obtainable firearms will be fired from their jobs without
cause. Yeah, that makes total sense.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is a state which still hasn’t passed an
anti-discrimination law protecting </span><a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/feb/11/webber-files-bill-on-anti-discrimination/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">LGBT</a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
people. I’m sure part of the rhetoric surrounding the failure of that bill had
to do with explaining away homosexuality as a choice. It isn’t actually a choice, but that’s
really beside the point. I’ve got news for you, Missouri, owning a gun is most
certainly a choice. So if you live in Missouri and you’re worried that you’ll
be fired from your job because you own a gun, here’s my advice: don’t own a
gun. And if you’re having trouble making the choice not to own a gun, we can
send you to some nice re-orientation therapy where we’ll shock the desire to
own a gun right out of you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Incidentally, I would really appreciate it if no one actually shot me. Thanks. </span></div>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497328405522894339.post-9055147707070062572012-04-24T15:25:00.002+01:002012-05-04T20:41:50.299+01:00Coming Out as a Cultural Relativist<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15pt;">Five years ago, at the age of 20,
I found myself sitting on a plane, travelling to a foreign country by myself
for the first time in my life. To say that I was a little nervous would be an
understatement. Mostly, though, I was really excited. I was going to Jordan to
participate in my first excavation! I could potentially find something that a
bona fide archaeologist might write a paper about. My hands would be the first
human hands in thousands of years to come into contact with the objects I would
find. I do not know if I can describe the excitement that stirred in me, still
stirs in me. I was practically buzzing the entire flight.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 15pt;">When I got off the plane I was
immediately struck by two things: the heat, and the number of women in
headscarves. Since high school I have been a very vocal feminist. Like any
‘good’ feminist I thought I knew that the headscarf was a symbol of the
oppression of women in the Middle East; it indicated how distant true gender
equality in the Middle East was. There was no doubt in my mind. It should
be done away with entirely. So when I got off that plane my first thought was,
“They still have a long way to go.” I didn’t even realize how ethnocentric I
was being.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">See, even though I was a hardcore
feminist, I was (and still am) also a cultural relativist. As an archaeologist,
the only way for me to understand a foreign culture is for to try to view it as
objectively as possible. That means I have to leave my own culturally informed
ideas about how the world works at the door, and attempt to understand foreign
cultures on their own terms. If I do not, my own preconceptions could hinder my
ability to fully understand a culture I am studying.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Along the same lines, I am a
moral relativist. I believe that terms like, “right,” and “wrong” do not
encompass universal truths. What I perceive to be “right,” could be completely
different to what you (the reader) perceive to be “right,” and each “right” is
equally valid. So, when two cultures disagree about what is “good” and “evil,”
they are both speaking from their own cultural norms, and neither of them is
more correct than the other. Morality can only be judged by examining it
through the lens of a specific culture.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">And yet, when I first arrived in
Jordan my cultural and moral relativist ideas left me. For some reason I was
unable to realize that I was doing exactly what my education had taught me not
to do: I was imposing my own moral and cultural values onto another culture.
Luckily, I am not as daft as I might seem. Eventually, I realized that before I
decided that headscarves were intrinsically bad, I had to look at those
headscarves in their cultural context. And seeing as I was in a country where
many women wore headscarves, I figured I should start talking to people.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">It is perhaps obvious, but
although all the women I met who wore the headscarf were Muslim, not all of the
women I met without a headscarf were non-Muslim. Jordan has a large Christian
population, compared to the rest of the region, and so it might be easy to
assume that all the women who aren’t wearing headscarves are Christian.
However, that is not the case. In Jordan, there are no laws regarding the
headscarf, and so there are Muslim women who don’t wear it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Anyway, all of the women I talked
to wore headscarves by choice. It served as an indicator of their religion, a
statement of fashion, and a symbol of modesty all in one. On a more practical
note, headscarves protected their heads and necks from the sun and wind. And
let me tell you, the sun and wind can be brutal in Jordan. By the end of my six
weeks there, I was wearing a headscarf whenever I went outside. That’s right;
I, a ‘good’ feminist, was wearing a headscarf regularly. Imagine my mother’s
surprise when I walked off the plane returning from Jordan without much of a
tan, and with a headscarf covering my hair.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">On the last day I was in Jordan,
I was taking a taxi from a hotel to the airport and the taxi driver pointed at
a woman on the street and said, “She is not Jordanian.” I was a bit surprised
by this comment, but I looked at the woman and saw that she was completely
covered in black clothing, with only her eyes showing from a slit in her veil.
The woman’s clothing was styled in a way that is more common in countries on the
Arabian Peninsula, and I thought that perhaps he might be commenting on that.
However, he continued to explain that Jordanian women don’t cover their faces
like that. Now whether that is true or not is a question I can’t answer. I
don’t have any statistics on how many Jordanian women wear a face-covering
veil.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However, what I find important
and most interesting was the way the taxi driver reacted to seeing it. In the
west we tend to assume that all Muslim men would prefer it if all women were to
walk around completely covered. Yet, from what this taxi driver was telling me,
that’s an incorrect assumption, made by yet again viewing the Middle East
through a western cultural lens. For this taxi driver, good Jordanian Muslim
women did not cover their faces. In fact, maybe only part of how the taxi
driver interpreted the headscarf had to do with gender at all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Jordanians are fiercely proud of
their national identity, or at least, the Jordanians I met were. I assume that
part of what the taxi driver was saying was meant to differentiate Jordanian
identity from other Arab nationalities. He was effectively saying, ‘that is not
who we are.’ In a sense, his comment had more to do with national identity than
it did with gender. Perhaps, for this man, seeing a woman wear a headscarf in a
particular way wasn’t just about religion or fashion. Perhaps he also viewed it
as a statement of national identity, akin to wearing a small American flag
pinned onto a jacket.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Something that is rarely
discussed is the fact that Arab men, including Jordanian men, wear headscarves
too. They’re just very different looking, symbolize different things, and have
a different name (keffiya). In Jordan, the practice probably started as a way
to protect a man’s hair and face from the sun and wind. And, as I already
mentioned, it’s certainly effective in doing all those things. However,
keffiyas have also taken on another meaning entirely.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">A keffiya is a symbol of national
identity, and the colour and style is very important for that identity. In
Jordan, for example, keffiyas have a red and white checker pattern and have
tassels on the sides. They can be worn long and draped over the shoulders, or
wrapped tight around a man’s head, and sometimes around the neck too. And
though it is true that in Islam, it is highly recommended that men cover their
heads, keffiyas represent national, not religious, identity. So for my taxi
driver, perhaps seeing a woman in a bright headscarf wrapped around her head
and neck was a symbol of national identity first and religious identity second.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">I’ll be honest, where my moral
relativism falls apart is when I come up against someone inflicting pain
(physical or emotional) on other people. To me, the ‘golden rule’ is perhaps
the closest thing you can come to any absolute moral truth. Yet, even when my
moral relativism falters, I am still culturally relativistic. More often than
not, the reason someone is inflicting harm on another person can be explained
by examining the culture in which it is happening. Unless we’re talking about
psychopaths, violence and pain, particularly when it’s institutionalized, are
often tools used to accomplish something else entirely.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Every country is not as
free-thinking about the headscarf as Jordan. There are countries (such as Iran
and Saudi Arabia) that enforce the use of the headscarf and will punish women
who do not wear it ‘correctly.’ However, this is usually indicative of a
culture that is using the headscarf as more than just a way to enforce modesty.
They are often doing it as a way to force the religious laws the headscarf
represents on the population. It might sound obvious to say it, but in places
where headscarves are mandatory, men are being oppressed too. Mandatory headscarves
are only one aspect of this oppression. The enforcement of the use of the
headscarf has become a tool used to push a religious and political agenda onto
a country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">So even when discussing mandatory
headscarves, we still need to consider cultural (not moral) relativism. We
can’t take our own culture and values and plant them onto Iran (or any other
oppressive society). To do so would be as oppressive as the policy of mandatory
headscarves we were trying to overturn. This would be akin to what </span><a href="http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2010/02/22/of-burqas-mini-skirts-and-whopping-presumption/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">France</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> has recently attempted to
do.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">A couple years ago, France tried
to ban wearing headscarves in public spaces, such as courtrooms or even public
transportation. I’m not sure whether this was done out of fear of suspected
terrorists, or whether this was a case of trying to protect Muslim women from
the perceived oppression of their society. My guess was that it was a little of
both. Either way it indicates a fundamental lack of understanding about the
cultural norms surrounding the headscarf. It’s another kind of oppression to
ban the headscarf, and it’s just as bad as making it mandatory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">----------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Perhaps it is most difficult to keep
a culturally and morally relativistic perspective when discussing your own
culture. We are all socialized from such an early age and to such a great
extent that it can be very hard to separate what is cultural from what is
biological. Plus, we know so much about human biology and evolution we can now
often examine a specific cultural or behavioural attribute and point to a
biological cause.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">However, we can also make false
cause-effect correlations. The ‘obvious’ answer is often simply the answer that
you come up with because of the culture you are part of. For example, for many
westerners the most ‘obvious’ answer to the question “What are the different
genders called,” is: men and women. However, if I were to ask 10 people from 10
different cultures that question, I would get at least 4-5 different answers.
None of those answers would be the most correct or “right.” All of those
answers would be based on their own culturally specific ideas of what
constitutes a different gender.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">That exercise could be extended
to include any aspect of gender. Something as seemingly obvious as the
oppression of wearing a headscarf can be greatly misunderstood if viewed
without an understanding of an individual culture. As has often been discussed,
gender is not strictly biological; it is culturally informed. So when we
examine gender roles, like I did with my experiences in Jordan, we should take
a look at the meaning behind the traditions of the culture we are discussing
before we draw any conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">A longer version was originally published at
the </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/headscarves-and-men-holding-hands-coming-out-as-a-cultural-relativist/"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Good Men Project</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">.</span>HeatherNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151677029083530066noreply@blogger.com0