September 28, 2009 § Leave a comment
DISCLAIMER: I love Sutton Foster!!
Please check out what our favorite leading lady on Broadway has to say about gay marriage, AND what she’s going to do about it.
PS- Sorry I couldn’t figure out how to post the clip directly.
September 24, 2009 § Leave a comment
A guest post by Joel of Citizen Obie.
I don’t know if this is really Women’s Glib material, but frankly, y’all get better exposure than my blog so I thought I’d try it here.
So basically they’re trying to do in Maine what they did in California over Prop 8. Literally, they’re using the same hateful ads designed to scare residents that marriage equality means all the children are going to be indoctrinated in school about the “Gay Agenda.”
I’m not from Maine but I’ve got a lot of affection for the state, and I also realize that we need as many state victories in the game if we’re going to succeed more broadly. Ohio managed to pass nondiscrimination legislation in the state house of reps this month. It may not get past the Republican-dominated senate, but the fact is it’s on the agenda and we need broader movement success to keep the momentum going. I can’t vote in Maine but I can contribute money (yep, from my $8/hr nonprofit job) to make sure my allies can mount a decent counter-ad. I urge you to join me and tell your friends: NO on Question 1.
Obviously if you can vote in Maine that works really well too. But don’t forget that voting with money is equally important and necessary in this gar political system we’re stuck with.
August 3, 2009 § 1 Comment
Miranda kindly sent me this Bust article via Facebook, which reminded me of something I was thinking about posting a while back.
Like the Bust blogger, I must explain my opinions of the show before I post. I LOVE SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE. The show is pure entertainment. I love being exposed to great dances every week (albeit usually choreographed to less great music). I particularly love how the show doesn’t encourage unhealthy competition. The dancers all genuinely seem to enjoy being around each other, and are not manipulated in to saying nasty things about each other. With that being said, I had a BIG problem with one of the audition episodes earlier this season.
During the auditions back in June, So You Think You Can Dance saw its first ever male ballroom dancing partnership. Here is what happened, according to “TV Squad”:
Misha and Mitch are same-sex ballroom dancers. Mitch had a female partner, but it didn’t work out. Mitch is straight and Misha is gay. It’s like the odd couple, except with sequence. It’s funny because the two have strong lines and good legwork. Nigel just had this look on his face (we know how he feels about gays). In one move they messed up a lift and land on the floor. Nigel has no clue what to say and compares it to Blades of Glory. He thinks that they alienate audiences. He thought that they were strong. Mary was confused because they were both male and female in dances. The lead/follow was strong, but the technique needed help. Sonya sees a lot of female qualities but is confused with classical form. The two are sent off to choreography.
For a show that is supposedly all about embracing new ideas in the dance world, breaking down barriers and accepting people of all backgrounds, these judges were very narrow-minded when it came to gender roles. They managed to throw in some remarks about the dancers’ lines and general technique, but on the whole, could NOT get passed the guy on guy dance action. They all claimed to be thoroughly “confused” by it all, and felt that they could not judge the dancers properly because they strayed so much from conventional ballroom dancing. What a FUCKING STUPID excuse!!!! Alienating America? Like the media doesn’t alienate all the Americans who don’t fit into their cookie cutter gender roles every damn day.
I never really cared for Mary Murphy and her ridiculous pitch and volume, but I have certainly lost a huge amount of respect for the three judges that day, who could just not get over a man ballroom dancing with another man. As far as I’m concerned, dancing is about art. Art doesn’t have to abide by conventional gender roles, in fact, great art is often created by challenging those roles!
I still love SYTYCD, and I do approve of the kick ass lady routines created by Sonya (also, Nigel did mention the ridiculous treatment women get in most dances), but it broke my heart a little to hear these two poor men get shut down immediately because of who they chose to dance with!
June 25, 2009 § Leave a comment
My dad passed on this really sweet NPR segment about two young women who were voted “Best Couple” at their high school, and their families’ homophobia.
I wanted to win best couple, but I didn’t know how people [would] react. I thought they would discriminate. But Deoine and Maribel went around to every class telling them to vote for us. When the papers came out for people to vote, it said “best couple: pick a boy and a girl.” Deoine asked if I voted and I said “no,” but then I was thinking about President Obama and I told myself “one vote could make a difference,” so I scratched out boy and I put girl.
March 23, 2009 § 1 Comment
I have to say, I was a little angry when she married Ellen because it meant that I couldn’t marry Ellen. Now I’m disappointed that I can’t marry Portia too.
March 15, 2009 § 3 Comments
Like Miranda, I wrote an editorial for our English class. Mine is a direct address to the voters of Proposition 8, an issue that I hope will get the attention it needs from all of the feminist community. This concerns equality. In my book, that means it’s a feminist issue worthy of some action and blogging!
November 4th, 2008. Election Day. Same-sex marriage, which was legalized in California less than six months before, is banned once again.
Proposition 8, a ballot measure, passed with a surprising 52 percent of the voting population. 18,000 same-sex couples married in California in those six measly months and now, because of that extra three percent of the population, that number shall not rise.
In the past, California has been a hub for national progress. Innovative politics such as the unionization of migrant workers have spread from cities like Berkeley and Oakland to New York and Connecticut. California, the state where Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man elected into public office, has now banned same-sex marriage. This act will effect the rest of the nation. Its legacy was already enacted when Arkansas and Florida passed ballot measures that took away rights from same-sex couples on that same day, but there is more injustice to come. Proposition 8 reflects the values of the 52 percent of people who voted for the elimination of civil rights for a group of people on the basis of who those people love.
The people who voted for Proposition 8 are not bad people. They are not uneducated or uninformed. The difference between them and me is that I, a liberal New Yorker who believes in equal rights, do not have my vision clouded by a popular myth. What myth clouds the vision for equality these 52 percent of voters have the potential to see? It is the age-old myth of the sanctity of marriage.
When innumerable churches, synagogues, mosques, and individuals deem that allowing same-sex couples to marry destroys the sanctity of marriage, I wonder where this ubiquitous myth comes from. In the bible, sex is ordained as a method for reproduction. To have sex without the intention of reproducing is biblically considered sodomy. If marriage is the key to holy sex, to sex that is approved by God, to sex in fidelity, marriage is therefore a union for the purpose of reproduction…according to religious interpretations, that is. Therefore, same-sex marriage does not have a purpose if same-sex couples cannot sexually reproduce. If same-sex couples got married under the same rights that opposite-sex couples married under, would neither union be considered holy? This means that if same-sex couples could not get married, the sanctity of marriage would be restored to American society, right?
WRONG. To think that there is any sanctity of marriage in this country in the first place is preposterous. Marriage is definitely not a holy union in a country where that union is broken 50 percent of the time. Marriage is not a holy union in a country whose lawmakers make headlines with stories of their own infidelity. To consider marriage as holy does not promote the definition marriage anymore; it now abases the definition of holy, of sanctity.
In the U.S. Constitution there exists a separation between church and state. This separation exists in order to grant everyone, as stated in the Declaration of Independence “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When the Bible is quoted to deny rights to a specific group of people, the principles upon which this government is founded are defiled. To use religion as an excuse to ban same-sex marriage is an abuse of power and of privilege. The people creating these ballot measures are often heterosexual and follow the word of the Bible literally. To pursue their religious agendas via government power is anti-democratic. It is revealing of how a dominant ideal that has vast representation in the government can take away the rights of a minority that deserves the representation they seldom obtain.
In order to dispel this myth of sanctity, look at where this myth of marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman comes from. When it comes from a religious document that is not adhered to by all, how can it dictate the fates of loving couples that embrace their right to marriage? Why should a right that has been granted to opposite-sex couples for centuries be denied now to those wishing to marry someone of their own sex?
Now, let’s get some perspective here. Forget all that I have said for a moment and answer these questions truthfully. Have you looked at an American history textbook recently? Have you seen the documented legislation that said a white person could not marry a black person? This was the case in 1967, when the Supreme Court questioned the Constitutional value of religious beliefs. “The fact that [God] separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix,” said a Virginia judge regarding interracial marriage in 1967, before his ban was overturned in the federal Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia. Does this sound familiar? Can we replace “races to mix” with “same-sex people to marry?” Are the unjust mistakes of history repeating itself?
Is this legislation not provided under the Civil Rights section, taught to billions of students as emblematic of this country’s injustice? Are gay people next? Will you see men marrying men and women marrying women on the pages of your child’s textbook in that same Civil Rights section? Will these same-sex couples be shouting, “Ha! We finally got justice! We are equal in union under the law!” just as those interracial couples do now?
Same-sex couples are not only next in line to covet these textbook pages, but their fight for civil justice has already begun. Proposition 8 was received by same-sex couples as living, breathing proof that injustice is fighting its way through the marginalized in society. What makes this denial of a universal human right to a certain group of people different from the racist acts of the past?
The California Supreme Court is currently considering overturning Proposition 8, though a just verdict is unlikely. The protests, articles, and commercials have yet to permeate the hearts of those who believe their definition of marriage is holier-than-thou, “thou” being the human beings persecuted for whom they love. I have a question for you, 52 percent of voters for Proposition 8. Is it in the interest of the sanctity of your country, your Church, even your karma, to deny your fellow human beings the universally respected right to have their love recognized?
March 4, 2009 § 1 Comment
At my school, every Friday there’s a Gender Studies Round table during lunch. Usually a guest speaker comes and students convene in a room (at a table) to discuss a topic, ranging from homosexuality to white privilege. I’ve only been to a few, but I definitely want to go to this week’s.
This week’s topic is porn. While I’ve never been a fan of porn myself, I don’t judge those who do enjoy it. I just think that it’s important for people who watch it to understand exactly how realistic the situations in porn are (as in, not realistic at all). I also think that the way in which women are portrayed in porn has the potential to be an extremely interesting topic and debate. (Perhaps for another post, once I’ve gone to the Round table.)
But what really made me want to attend was a quote posted on one of my school’s bulletin boards about this week’s topic. It was a quote by none other than the infamous Hugh Hefner. While I’m unable to find it right now, it stated that anti-sexual beliefs were deeply rooted in feminism.
Because we all know what an expert Hugh Hefner is on feminism. I thought feminism was about equality no matter your gender, which includes sexual empowerment. Since when have feminists shunned sex? And here I thought it was the crazy feminists’ faults for fueling the so-called “hook-up culture” with their damned insistence on equal rights! Silly me.
Forgive me for the ramblings; just trying to organize my thoughts. There will be a follow-up Friday or Saturday after I go to the Round table. Opinions anyone?
Update: Did Hefner forget that feminist porn exists?
February 25, 2009 § Leave a comment
This is going to be quick. Did anyone catch Dustin Lance Black’s (writer of the film Milk about the gay politician Harvey Milk) emotional acceptance speech? I think it’s beautiful and touching and extremely hopeful. So much love.
For your viewing pleasure: