It's always good to see our presidents* on stage together, isn't it? What a nice way to kick off Pride Month.
In other news, I've been watching The Real L Word, which originally premiered in 2010. I have so many thoughts, some of which I may even share at some point, because it's only the most breaking pop culture news here in Fannie's Room. I guess for now, I'll just observe, with zero judgment, that some sort of tiny dog appears in approximately 87% of scenes in Season One.
Talk about stuff if you want!
*In some parallel universe far far away, wherein they lead together by consensus, and Tig Notaro is Chief of Dry Observational Humor and they all meet Wanda Sykes and Kate McKinnon at Lezzies for lunch once a week. How do I find the wormhole to get to there?
Showing posts with label I See Gay People. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I See Gay People. Show all posts
Friday, June 1, 2018
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Anti-LGBT Group Changes Tune on Role of Judiciary
Over at Shakesville, I have a piece up regarding the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) apparent new strategy for overturning same-sex marriage.
After years of railing against the judiciary and "unelected judges" supposedly overturning "the will of the people," it seems they're now banking on a conservative replacing Anthony Kennedy on the US Supreme Court so that person can eventually help overturn Obergefell.
Head over to Shakesville to read the whole thing!
After years of railing against the judiciary and "unelected judges" supposedly overturning "the will of the people," it seems they're now banking on a conservative replacing Anthony Kennedy on the US Supreme Court so that person can eventually help overturn Obergefell.
Head over to Shakesville to read the whole thing!
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
The Cheese Stands Alone?
Hillary Clinton is too distant, says conservative man using his New York Times platform to pen an intimate, humanizing portrayal of an authoritarian predator.
I've seen even liberals approvingly cite David Brooks' recent column on Trump, cited above, but my summary is really the big take-away I get from it.
Brooks asks us repeatedly to imagine that we are Trump and how pathetic and sad that must be, and that, if/when Trump loses he'll be all alone in his isolated misery.
No.
Let's take a step back.
Shortly after California's anti-gay Proposition 8 passed in 2008, a professional class of "marriage defenders" started increasingly framing themselves as a "civil" voice of opposition to marriage equality, in contrast to, say, Fred Phelps and his more obviously hateful clan. The role of these groups, such as National Organization for Marriage, seemed to be, in part, to convince courts, legislatures, and the populace that opposition to marriage equality was not rooted in bigotry but, rather, in a mere nicey-nice belief that all children deserved a mother and a father.
An expression of this purportedly non-bigoted belief can be found in the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson. Sample: "Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act."
While perhaps sounding innocuous, it wasn't really one that most non-professional, non-paid, non-academic opponents of marriage equality would cite for opposing same-sex marriage. Rather, such "regular people" were more likely to express varying levels of disapproval of homosexuality or, what we often think of as, bigotry. (Sample: Homosexuality is wrong and society shouldn't condone it by allowing gays to marry).
I have a long, 10+ year, history of engaging with anti-equality folks on Internet. And, it's my strong belief that the professional class of marriage defenders knew that their base was bigoted, leveraged this bigoted base in support of various anti-gay measures, and simultaneously acted outraged at all suggestions that their base was bigoted. (Sample: some writing I did at Family Scholars Blog awhile back on civility in the context of same-sex marriage debates).
With Supreme Court doctrine articulating that animus toward homosexuality could no longer be an acceptable basis for law, it was incumbent upon professional marriage defenders to gaslight LGB people about the very real bigotry we experience. And, these marriage defense think-tankers often did so while pulling down six-figure salaries, book deals, and speaking gigs themselves.
You know what else they did? Convinced their poor- and middle-class bigots that same-sex marriage was going to doom the country.
Hmmm, we have marriage equality now so what happened to all that?
I think many people are realizing that same-sex marriage has had little, if any, tangible impact on the lives of most of its opponents, other than that people now live in a society that is more accepting of it. So what benefits, if any, did the marriage defense establishment tangibly provide for its base, in the long run?
So, coming back to the present.
In a similar vein, Republicans have long articulated deplorable beliefs in subtle, dog-whistle ways, knowing that their base has various bigotries. Racism. White supremacy. Anti-Muslim sentiment. Misogyny. Transphobia. The Republican establishment has leveraged these bigotries for their own benefit, giving cover to a base that holds more explicitly deplorable views, while also doing very little for this base. They've effectively stoked rage and, because they've done nothing to assuage it, have also created the conditions for anti-establishment sentiment.
Republicans and conservatives now seek to distance themselves from Trump. As David Brooks does, they fantasize that Donald Trump is perhaps an uncommon, rogue, lone wolf not representative of the base they've long catered to.
Yet, he's exactly who Republicans have enabled to become the leader of their raging pack.
And, if/when he loses, the Republican establishment may abandon Trump to his incompetent, man-child misery. It seems doubtful, however, that Trump's millions of supporters and fans will also do so.
I've seen even liberals approvingly cite David Brooks' recent column on Trump, cited above, but my summary is really the big take-away I get from it.
Brooks asks us repeatedly to imagine that we are Trump and how pathetic and sad that must be, and that, if/when Trump loses he'll be all alone in his isolated misery.
No.
Let's take a step back.
Shortly after California's anti-gay Proposition 8 passed in 2008, a professional class of "marriage defenders" started increasingly framing themselves as a "civil" voice of opposition to marriage equality, in contrast to, say, Fred Phelps and his more obviously hateful clan. The role of these groups, such as National Organization for Marriage, seemed to be, in part, to convince courts, legislatures, and the populace that opposition to marriage equality was not rooted in bigotry but, rather, in a mere nicey-nice belief that all children deserved a mother and a father.
An expression of this purportedly non-bigoted belief can be found in the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson. Sample: "Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act."
While perhaps sounding innocuous, it wasn't really one that most non-professional, non-paid, non-academic opponents of marriage equality would cite for opposing same-sex marriage. Rather, such "regular people" were more likely to express varying levels of disapproval of homosexuality or, what we often think of as, bigotry. (Sample: Homosexuality is wrong and society shouldn't condone it by allowing gays to marry).
I have a long, 10+ year, history of engaging with anti-equality folks on Internet. And, it's my strong belief that the professional class of marriage defenders knew that their base was bigoted, leveraged this bigoted base in support of various anti-gay measures, and simultaneously acted outraged at all suggestions that their base was bigoted. (Sample: some writing I did at Family Scholars Blog awhile back on civility in the context of same-sex marriage debates).
With Supreme Court doctrine articulating that animus toward homosexuality could no longer be an acceptable basis for law, it was incumbent upon professional marriage defenders to gaslight LGB people about the very real bigotry we experience. And, these marriage defense think-tankers often did so while pulling down six-figure salaries, book deals, and speaking gigs themselves.
You know what else they did? Convinced their poor- and middle-class bigots that same-sex marriage was going to doom the country.
Hmmm, we have marriage equality now so what happened to all that?
I think many people are realizing that same-sex marriage has had little, if any, tangible impact on the lives of most of its opponents, other than that people now live in a society that is more accepting of it. So what benefits, if any, did the marriage defense establishment tangibly provide for its base, in the long run?
So, coming back to the present.
In a similar vein, Republicans have long articulated deplorable beliefs in subtle, dog-whistle ways, knowing that their base has various bigotries. Racism. White supremacy. Anti-Muslim sentiment. Misogyny. Transphobia. The Republican establishment has leveraged these bigotries for their own benefit, giving cover to a base that holds more explicitly deplorable views, while also doing very little for this base. They've effectively stoked rage and, because they've done nothing to assuage it, have also created the conditions for anti-establishment sentiment.
Republicans and conservatives now seek to distance themselves from Trump. As David Brooks does, they fantasize that Donald Trump is perhaps an uncommon, rogue, lone wolf not representative of the base they've long catered to.
Yet, he's exactly who Republicans have enabled to become the leader of their raging pack.
And, if/when he loses, the Republican establishment may abandon Trump to his incompetent, man-child misery. It seems doubtful, however, that Trump's millions of supporters and fans will also do so.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Important Ghostbusters Update
[Content note: Spoilers-allowed thread; discussion of abuse, racism, sexism]
Okay, consider this post an open Ghostbusters thread!
I saw it over the weekend and loved it! Where I saw it, the people in the packed theater laughed pretty much non-stop and, broke out into applause twice, once after Holtzman's fight scene (if you've seen it, you know which one probs) and at the end of the movie.
Highlights for me include:
No one should have to endure this shit. But, such is the outrage that women and people of color so often face when white men aren't the center of pop culture.
It's like they can't just let the people who like this movie like it, they have to try to spoil it for everyone. It's reminiscent to me of the MRAs who do no actual advocacy for men, but who instead just sit back and rail at feminists for not doing enough to solve all of the problems facing men. Free labor on gender issues is apparently feminist work, while they just constantly throw obstacles and harassment in our path to increase the difficulty setting in our lives.
Got entitlement?
Okay, consider this post an open Ghostbusters thread!
I saw it over the weekend and loved it! Where I saw it, the people in the packed theater laughed pretty much non-stop and, broke out into applause twice, once after Holtzman's fight scene (if you've seen it, you know which one probs) and at the end of the movie.
Highlights for me include:
- In general, I enjoy portrayals of female friendship. Such portrayals in TV and film are relatively rare. Ghostbusters does more than a bare-bones passing of The Bechdel Test, it portrays women as part of team, working together instead of fighting one another for status or male attention;
- I liked each of the female leads and what they brought to their characters (especially Kate McKinnon, obvs); and
- It's just a fun movie - gadgets, ghosts, jokes, action - yes please;
I mean, I really don't have anything deep to say, because like the original, it's not a super deep movie. So, imagine all of the people outraged by it, such as the raging nerd man-boys who have all the sads and mads that the movie didn't bomb its opening weekend (it came in at about $46 million, number two, right behind The Secret Life of Pets).
Apparently, but not surprisingly if you follow Internet culture at all, men are tanking the Internet ratings of Ghosbusters, because that's how they're gonna spend their free time apparently. Via Walt Hickey at 538:
Here are a few stats I collected early Thursday for the new “Ghostbusters” movie:
IMDb average user rating: 4.1 out of 10, of 12,921 reviewers
IMDb average user rating among men: 3.6 out of 10, of 7,547 reviewers
IMDb average user rating among women: 7.7 out of 10, of 1,564 reviewers
The movie isn’t even out in theaters as I’m writing this, but over 12,000 people have made their judgment. Male reviewers outnumber female reviewers nearly 5 to 1 and rate “Ghostbusters” 4 points lower, on average.And, one popular misogynistic garbage fire wrote a bitter, scathing review of the movie, contending (as other MRA-types have) that the movie unfairly portrays men as morons and villains. To prove how non-villainous men are, a bunch of (primarily) men began sending racially-abusive Tweets to Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones:
If you're up for it, a hashtag in support of Jones was started: #LoveForLeslieJOk I have been called Apes, sent pics of their asses,even got a pic with semen on my face. I'm tryin to figure out what human means. I'm out— Leslie Jones (@Lesdoggg) July 18, 2016
No one should have to endure this shit. But, such is the outrage that women and people of color so often face when white men aren't the center of pop culture.
It's like they can't just let the people who like this movie like it, they have to try to spoil it for everyone. It's reminiscent to me of the MRAs who do no actual advocacy for men, but who instead just sit back and rail at feminists for not doing enough to solve all of the problems facing men. Free labor on gender issues is apparently feminist work, while they just constantly throw obstacles and harassment in our path to increase the difficulty setting in our lives.
Got entitlement?
Friday, July 15, 2016
Commencing Ghostbusters Viewing
I am seeing Ghostbusters this weekend and am quite excited about it. Just to further piss off the MRA crowd, thought I'd also throw in another donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign and do some Title IX advocacy.
Anyway, while I have an appreciation for all of the women in Ghostbusters, Kate McKinnon has held a special place in my heart ever since her days on Logo's Big Gay Sketch Show cracking it up with Julie Goldman.
I will furthermore note that her SNL parody of Justin Bieber, and I'm not going to try to explain this, makes me feel.... things... as in, slightly .... sexually confused.... things.
Judge. IDGAF.
Anyway, while I have an appreciation for all of the women in Ghostbusters, Kate McKinnon has held a special place in my heart ever since her days on Logo's Big Gay Sketch Show cracking it up with Julie Goldman.
I will furthermore note that her SNL parody of Justin Bieber, and I'm not going to try to explain this, makes me feel.... things... as in, slightly .... sexually confused.... things.
Judge. IDGAF.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Celebrate the Victories
I've been doing a re-watch of Queer As Folk and I'm finding that it's still entertaining, perhaps surprisingly, still relevant, at least insofar as it possibly represents a white gay male experience.*
Token lesbians Mel and Lindz aren't half as annoying as they were when I first watched the series 10 years ago (or so), perhaps due to my being, ahem, older now and finding myself relating more to them.
Emmett has remained my favorite of the gay male characters and I alternate between rolling my eyes at Brian Kinney and respecting his moral code. He is unashamedly an ethical slut, honest about his open relationships, as opposed to who I think of as The L Word equivalent, Shane, who is both promiscuous and capital-D-for-drama dishonest about it.
During a recent episode I watched, I appreciated a quote from PFLAG Mom Extraordinaire, Debbie. In context, the gay community was out in the streets celebrating the defeat of an anti-gay politician on election day. She says, to Emmett:
I won't begrudge the dreamers of the world their dreams. In many respects, I stand with them. What I've been struggling with as of late are are those who, with every victory, are the first to remind us that there are always more important things we should immediately be worrying about.
It's important, at least to my ability to think about this stuff on an ongoing basis, to take time to acknowledge progress when it happens, no matter how incremental it is, even if shitty other things are still happening.
By the way, two favorable SCOTUS opinions yesterday (one on reproductive rights and one regarding gun control) AND Elizabeth Warren fully endorsing Hillary Clinton in the same day?! (*cough* Bernie who? *cough*)
Be still my heart.
(*Signal boost: Logo's Noah Arc, focusing on the lives of a group of black gay men in LA, is also entertaining if you haven't seen it yet! It doesn't seem to be streaming on Netflix though, unlike QAF).
Token lesbians Mel and Lindz aren't half as annoying as they were when I first watched the series 10 years ago (or so), perhaps due to my being, ahem, older now and finding myself relating more to them.
Emmett has remained my favorite of the gay male characters and I alternate between rolling my eyes at Brian Kinney and respecting his moral code. He is unashamedly an ethical slut, honest about his open relationships, as opposed to who I think of as The L Word equivalent, Shane, who is both promiscuous and capital-D-for-drama dishonest about it.
During a recent episode I watched, I appreciated a quote from PFLAG Mom Extraordinaire, Debbie. In context, the gay community was out in the streets celebrating the defeat of an anti-gay politician on election day. She says, to Emmett:
"Mourn the losses, because they are many. But celebrate the victories, because they are few."This sentiment seems to be where I'm at in my political thinking at the moment.
I won't begrudge the dreamers of the world their dreams. In many respects, I stand with them. What I've been struggling with as of late are are those who, with every victory, are the first to remind us that there are always more important things we should immediately be worrying about.
It's important, at least to my ability to think about this stuff on an ongoing basis, to take time to acknowledge progress when it happens, no matter how incremental it is, even if shitty other things are still happening.
By the way, two favorable SCOTUS opinions yesterday (one on reproductive rights and one regarding gun control) AND Elizabeth Warren fully endorsing Hillary Clinton in the same day?! (*cough* Bernie who? *cough*)
Be still my heart.
(*Signal boost: Logo's Noah Arc, focusing on the lives of a group of black gay men in LA, is also entertaining if you haven't seen it yet! It doesn't seem to be streaming on Netflix though, unlike QAF).
Friday, May 20, 2016
Gender Role Friday
Hey, remember But I'm a Cheerleader?
Made in 1999, the movie remains one of my favorite queer films to this day. Not only is it an apt parody of the "ex-gay" conversion therapy, it's funny - more in a dark humor sort of way, if you're into that.
Despite her gender conformity (she's a stereotypical feminine cheerleader), protagonist Megan is actually a lesbian and therefore is forced to go to straight camp. At this camp, we see the anxious gender policing behind so much anti-LGBT advocacy. For instance, the "patients" are to become heterosexual mostly by learning how to conform to gender stereotypes and force themselves to be attracted to people they aren't attracted to.
As you can imagine, all of that goes swimmingly.
The joke, of course, is that Megan is already "properly" "feminine" but is still somehow, inexplicably attracted to women. That doesn't change by the end of the movie. The other characters have a range of gender presentations, and mostly the film shows the absurdity of trying so hard to force people to be what they inherently are not or do not want to be.
Oh, and did I mention the film stars Clea DuVall (mmmm) and Natasha Lyonne? Most importantly. I mean, Clea DuVall playing a broody soft butch is like lesbian/bisexual catnip. More please.
Enjoy this fan-created music video of the film, below:
Made in 1999, the movie remains one of my favorite queer films to this day. Not only is it an apt parody of the "ex-gay" conversion therapy, it's funny - more in a dark humor sort of way, if you're into that.
Despite her gender conformity (she's a stereotypical feminine cheerleader), protagonist Megan is actually a lesbian and therefore is forced to go to straight camp. At this camp, we see the anxious gender policing behind so much anti-LGBT advocacy. For instance, the "patients" are to become heterosexual mostly by learning how to conform to gender stereotypes and force themselves to be attracted to people they aren't attracted to.
As you can imagine, all of that goes swimmingly.
The joke, of course, is that Megan is already "properly" "feminine" but is still somehow, inexplicably attracted to women. That doesn't change by the end of the movie. The other characters have a range of gender presentations, and mostly the film shows the absurdity of trying so hard to force people to be what they inherently are not or do not want to be.
Oh, and did I mention the film stars Clea DuVall (mmmm) and Natasha Lyonne? Most importantly. I mean, Clea DuVall playing a broody soft butch is like lesbian/bisexual catnip. More please.
Enjoy this fan-created music video of the film, below:
Friday, February 5, 2016
Femslash February: Giant Lady Houses
When I was but a wee lesbian, I think I often imagined that as an adult I would live in a large house with a bunch of other women.
Sort of like a sorority for grown-ups where one did not have to attend frat parties or "rush" to get into (is "rush" the right lingo, I don't know). Honestly, I'm still not entirely convinced that one day I won't find myself living in such a situation. Even if it's at a retirement home for queer women. Which would be entirely amazing.
Anyway, some of my favorite examples of group female living scenarios from TV/Film include:
Sort of like a sorority for grown-ups where one did not have to attend frat parties or "rush" to get into (is "rush" the right lingo, I don't know). Honestly, I'm still not entirely convinced that one day I won't find myself living in such a situation. Even if it's at a retirement home for queer women. Which would be entirely amazing.
Anyway, some of my favorite examples of group female living scenarios from TV/Film include:
- The Rockford Peaches' house from A League of Their Own. Sigh. All those baseball players and not one lesbian or bisexual gal? I don't buy it! You know Doris was tip-toeing to Ellen Sue and/or All the Way Mae's bedroom after their nights out at the Sudsbucket
- Nonnatus House from Call the Midwife. Nuns + Nurses + Uniforms + Simple, Communal Living + Do-Goodism = queer lady catnip. I just started Season 4 of this series and am glad the show is finally introducing an overt same-sex relationship. But will it end well?!
- The Barden Bellas' house in Pitch Perfect 2. When Beca briefly left Chloe for the Kommisar, do you think they made the giant German sled down the steps? Ja/Nein.
- Miss Robichaux's House in American Horror Story: Coven. A Caveat. Imagine a different version, in which Queenie is the obvious Supreme and, instead of competing with each other, the witches join forces with Marie Laveau and legit take down the patriarchy. In this scenario, I would also write myself in as Mary Sue/Advisor/Lover of Cordelia Foxx.
Additions?
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
TV Series Signal Boost: Her Story
Are people watching Her Story? You should be watching Her Story.
You can watch the first 6 episodes (and hopefully more later!) here, on Youtube. It's a series that "looks inside the dating lives of trans & queer women as they navigate the intersections of desire & identity."
The focus of the series is primarily on Violet (Jen Richards) and Paige (Angelica Ross). Violet is a trans woman who is coming to terms with her attraction to women, and in particular, her attraction to a lesbian reporter whom she has befriended.
I'm a fan of the presentation of the trans/cis female same-sex relationship because (a) such a portrayal is so rare in TV/film; (b) it doesn't shy away from acknowledging transphobia within lesbian/bisexual women's communities; (c) it explores why a trans woman might be hesitant to enter into such a relationship; and (c) did I mention Violet is completely adorable? She is. She is completely adorable. I would watch Game of Thrones with her all the Sundays.
Paige, meanwhile, is a heterosexual trans woman who is getting back into dating. She struggles with when/how to tell the man she's dating about her identity, and she's also an attorney for Lambda Legal. I love her character and, well, here's a good summation of her, below. In this clip, she confronts a transphobic lesbian, and it is kind of amazing (content note: transphobia):
BAM!
Take my advice: binge-watch ASAP.
You can watch the first 6 episodes (and hopefully more later!) here, on Youtube. It's a series that "looks inside the dating lives of trans & queer women as they navigate the intersections of desire & identity."
The focus of the series is primarily on Violet (Jen Richards) and Paige (Angelica Ross). Violet is a trans woman who is coming to terms with her attraction to women, and in particular, her attraction to a lesbian reporter whom she has befriended.
I'm a fan of the presentation of the trans/cis female same-sex relationship because (a) such a portrayal is so rare in TV/film; (b) it doesn't shy away from acknowledging transphobia within lesbian/bisexual women's communities; (c) it explores why a trans woman might be hesitant to enter into such a relationship; and (c) did I mention Violet is completely adorable? She is. She is completely adorable. I would watch Game of Thrones with her all the Sundays.
Paige, meanwhile, is a heterosexual trans woman who is getting back into dating. She struggles with when/how to tell the man she's dating about her identity, and she's also an attorney for Lambda Legal. I love her character and, well, here's a good summation of her, below. In this clip, she confronts a transphobic lesbian, and it is kind of amazing (content note: transphobia):
BAM!
Take my advice: binge-watch ASAP.
Friday, September 5, 2014
7th Circuit: Same-Sex Marriage Bans Unconstitutional
Bam!
As expected due to Judge Richard Posner's blistering, and quite wonderful, questioning of "marriage defense" attorneys during oral arguments, the 7th Circuit has found that Indiana and Wisconsin do not have a reasonable basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry (PDF of opinion).
I've read the entire opinion, of which no doubt NOM and company are already issuing their reactionary cries of judicial activism gone awry. But, it's a paragraph at the very beginning that I want to highlight today:
So many "pro-family" conservatives wring their hands about the hoards of purportedly irresponsible heterosexuals, particularly men, who have children out of wedlock and yet their top policy solution is, "I know, let's make life more difficult for a subset of the parents who adopt the resulting children!"
If these people were sincere in their desire to actually help the families that exist in the real world, they would be grateful to same-sex couples and looking for ways to work with us to provide the best environments for all families, not just those families they deem to be the bestest most supreme families of all.
In their zeal to prevent same-sex couples from marriage, they also present one of the worst PR campaigns for marriage ever:
But seriously, combined with their correlative opposition to abortion, same-sex adoption and parenting, no fault divorce, and sex ed, it's almost like some social conservatives are intentionally trying to create the world's most unhappy, miserable people. Or, at least, more babies in orphanages.
Yet, their policies they refer to as "good old-fashioned common sense." And, policies that acknowledge the other families that exist in the real world, they dismiss as political correctness gone awry, as though we exist primarily to annoy them and not because we have life aspirations of our own. This kind of self-centeredness of privileged folks is the worst.
Also, one of the plaintiffs in the above-cited case is named Virginia Wolf. Which is awesome and why is no one talking about that?!
As expected due to Judge Richard Posner's blistering, and quite wonderful, questioning of "marriage defense" attorneys during oral arguments, the 7th Circuit has found that Indiana and Wisconsin do not have a reasonable basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry (PDF of opinion).
I've read the entire opinion, of which no doubt NOM and company are already issuing their reactionary cries of judicial activism gone awry. But, it's a paragraph at the very beginning that I want to highlight today:
"The argument that the states press hardest in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only reason government encourages marriage is to induce heterosexuals to marry so that there will be fewer 'accidental births,' which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to the mother (unaided by the father) or to foster care. Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married."This observation is, for me, what has always made "marriage defenders" seem particularly cruel and oblivious to the reality.
So many "pro-family" conservatives wring their hands about the hoards of purportedly irresponsible heterosexuals, particularly men, who have children out of wedlock and yet their top policy solution is, "I know, let's make life more difficult for a subset of the parents who adopt the resulting children!"
If these people were sincere in their desire to actually help the families that exist in the real world, they would be grateful to same-sex couples and looking for ways to work with us to provide the best environments for all families, not just those families they deem to be the bestest most supreme families of all.
In their zeal to prevent same-sex couples from marriage, they also present one of the worst PR campaigns for marriage ever:
Marriage: It's for pressuring straight men into sticking around and raising the unintended children that they don't even want!Brilliant strategy, folks! Put these people in charge of all the things! /sarcastic thumbs up sign
But seriously, combined with their correlative opposition to abortion, same-sex adoption and parenting, no fault divorce, and sex ed, it's almost like some social conservatives are intentionally trying to create the world's most unhappy, miserable people. Or, at least, more babies in orphanages.
Yet, their policies they refer to as "good old-fashioned common sense." And, policies that acknowledge the other families that exist in the real world, they dismiss as political correctness gone awry, as though we exist primarily to annoy them and not because we have life aspirations of our own. This kind of self-centeredness of privileged folks is the worst.
Also, one of the plaintiffs in the above-cited case is named Virginia Wolf. Which is awesome and why is no one talking about that?!
Friday, May 2, 2014
Ellen Squared and Friday Lesbian Stuff
I think back to my life growing up as a lesbian and, specifically, my feelings of isolation in the world, and, well, this video of Ellen Page on Ellen DeGeneres' show makes me really happy.
The video is as adorkable as it sounds.
I have to admit I had no inkling at all that Ellen Page might be a lesbian before she came out. Sure, with attractive famous women, I sometimes engage in a fair amount of wishful thinking that they maybe just maybe might possibly be bisexual or lesbian, even though I'm civil union'ed and would have absolutely no chance with them anyway. My point, I guess, is that my "gaydar" is quite awful.
And, on a much smaller scale, I can relate to the panic-attack-like feelings of that moment right before coming out, that Page refers to. In my case, the first time I said out loud that I was gay was to another young woman I had a hunch might also be gay. We were sitting in my car and, after 20 minutes of silent courage-building, I blurted, "I'mgayandIthinkyouaretoo, soareyou?"
So, that's wasn't at all awkward. It turns out she was gay, too, but didn't admit it that night. So my gaydar isn't that horrible, I guess.
In other queer lady news, I watched the movie Fingersmith again for the first time in like 6 years. Have you seen this - (or read the novel by the brilliant Sarah Waters)? Anyway, maybe I'm just at a different point in my life now, but I don't remember the movie being so campy the first time I watched it. I think it's a great movie, but also kind of hilarious, perhaps unintentionally.
The two female main characters show a lot of lesbian feelings. The "Gentleman" character was so very villainous, and we knew this from the menacing music and his leering looks that accompanied his every scene. When I got to this part, featuring all three of them, I could not stop laughing (note: For context, if you haven't see the movie, the two up against the tree are pretending to be in love and meanwhile the two women actually are in love, so the scene isn't as sinister at it looks). It was the culmination of all the campiness, and I loved every second of it.
Lastly, I've been noticing that movies and TV shows with strong lesbian themes are consistently among the most popular on Netflix, including Blue is the Warmest Color.
Now, mathematically speaking, the people who are making these films and shows so popular must surely be more than just LGBT people. Which of course makes me wonder how many bigots and opponents of LGBT equality are closet-watchers of LGBT media, leering at what they abhor and oppose, from the safety of their own living rooms.
Basically, I picture them as being like Gentleman, in the clip, above.
The video is as adorkable as it sounds.
I have to admit I had no inkling at all that Ellen Page might be a lesbian before she came out. Sure, with attractive famous women, I sometimes engage in a fair amount of wishful thinking that they maybe just maybe might possibly be bisexual or lesbian, even though I'm civil union'ed and would have absolutely no chance with them anyway. My point, I guess, is that my "gaydar" is quite awful.
And, on a much smaller scale, I can relate to the panic-attack-like feelings of that moment right before coming out, that Page refers to. In my case, the first time I said out loud that I was gay was to another young woman I had a hunch might also be gay. We were sitting in my car and, after 20 minutes of silent courage-building, I blurted, "I'mgayandIthinkyouaretoo, soareyou?"
So, that's wasn't at all awkward. It turns out she was gay, too, but didn't admit it that night. So my gaydar isn't that horrible, I guess.
In other queer lady news, I watched the movie Fingersmith again for the first time in like 6 years. Have you seen this - (or read the novel by the brilliant Sarah Waters)? Anyway, maybe I'm just at a different point in my life now, but I don't remember the movie being so campy the first time I watched it. I think it's a great movie, but also kind of hilarious, perhaps unintentionally.
The two female main characters show a lot of lesbian feelings. The "Gentleman" character was so very villainous, and we knew this from the menacing music and his leering looks that accompanied his every scene. When I got to this part, featuring all three of them, I could not stop laughing (note: For context, if you haven't see the movie, the two up against the tree are pretending to be in love and meanwhile the two women actually are in love, so the scene isn't as sinister at it looks). It was the culmination of all the campiness, and I loved every second of it.
Lastly, I've been noticing that movies and TV shows with strong lesbian themes are consistently among the most popular on Netflix, including Blue is the Warmest Color.
Now, mathematically speaking, the people who are making these films and shows so popular must surely be more than just LGBT people. Which of course makes me wonder how many bigots and opponents of LGBT equality are closet-watchers of LGBT media, leering at what they abhor and oppose, from the safety of their own living rooms.
Basically, I picture them as being like Gentleman, in the clip, above.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Illinois Bishop Exorcises the Demons!
In response to Illinois Governor Quinn signing Illinois' marriage equality bill (woop!), some absurd Catholic Bishop staged an exorcism, saying:
And, is it at all considered unbecoming or, say, a breach of confidentiality and boundaries to exorcise people publicly without their consent? I mean, trusty Wikipedia notes that an exorcism should "never be broadcast in media but treated with the utmost discretion," so.
Rude!
"I exorcise you, every unclean spirit, every power of darkness, every incursion of the infernal enemy, every diabolical legion, cohort, and faction, in the name and power of our Lord Jesus Christ. Be uprooted and put to flight from the Church of God from souls created in the image of God and redeemed by the precious blood of the divine lamb."Now, 90% of what I know about Catholicism I learned from Sister Act, Wikipedia, a Catholic ex-girlfriend, and feminist critics, but does this Bishop think that gay people are actually possessed by demons? Doesn't that literally demonize us? Or, is it a super important, totally civil distinction to clarify that gay people aren't demons, it's just that there are demons inside us. Making us be gay.
And, is it at all considered unbecoming or, say, a breach of confidentiality and boundaries to exorcise people publicly without their consent? I mean, trusty Wikipedia notes that an exorcism should "never be broadcast in media but treated with the utmost discretion," so.
Rude!
Monday, November 11, 2013
NOM Makes Another Prediction - Illinois Marriage Edition
In response to Illinois' recent move to approve marriage equality for same-sex couples, Brian Brown of the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM) chimed in with a prediction:
Now, if what's happened in other states is any indication of what will happen in Illinois, I have a prediction of my own.
Let's see here, maybe a few employees in the Secretary of State's office will refuse to do their jobs, citing their "sincere religious beliefs," by refusing to process the marriage licenses/applications of same-sex couples. These employees would likely either be transferred to a different department, given a special workplace accommodation to discriminate against some Illinois residents, or they would be fired.
Likewise, maybe a handful of business owners will likely, say, refuse to rent space, bake a cake, or sell rings to a same-sex couple for their wedding and will consequently be sued or reported to a government entity like the Illinois Department of Human Rights.
Certain anti-gay groups will monitor these incidents and subsequently cast these individuals as martyrs who have practically been subjected to horrific human rights abuses and unfathomable religious persecution because of their "sincerely held religious beliefs" about homosexuality.
"It’s disappointing but not surprising that the House has voted to redefine marriage. The losers will be the people of Illinois who will see that redefining marriage will unleash a torrent of harassment toward those who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman/ Once the law goes into effect in June of next year, we will see individuals, businesses and religious groups sued, fined, brought up on charges of discrimination and punished simply for holding true to the traditional view of marriage.
The legislation that has been adopted contains no meaningful protections for religious liberty. We will see a torrent of actions aimed at people of faith and religious groups."
It's not super clear exactly how many incidents qualify as a "torrent" here, and I personally wouldn't have made the editorial decision to use a noteworthy word like that twice in the same prediction, but I'm guessing a "torrent" means more than a handful here.
Now, just for some historical context, before President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Act into law in 2009, anti-LGBT groups like the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Concerned Women for America predicted that this hate crimes law would give special protections to pedophiles and other, what they dubbed, "sexual orientations." Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber also predicted that Christians would be on "high alert" and that pastors would begin to be "prosecuted" for anti-gay speech.
Welp, 3 years later and NOPE. Nope nope nope nopedy NOPE. That hasn't happend, nor does it seem likely or realistic any time soon.
Now, just for some historical context, before President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Act into law in 2009, anti-LGBT groups like the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Concerned Women for America predicted that this hate crimes law would give special protections to pedophiles and other, what they dubbed, "sexual orientations." Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber also predicted that Christians would be on "high alert" and that pastors would begin to be "prosecuted" for anti-gay speech.
Welp, 3 years later and NOPE. Nope nope nope nopedy NOPE. That hasn't happend, nor does it seem likely or realistic any time soon.
But wow! NOM sure loves its nature catastrophe-based predictions, yeah?
Remember this, from Prop 8:
Now, if what's happened in other states is any indication of what will happen in Illinois, I have a prediction of my own.
Let's see here, maybe a few employees in the Secretary of State's office will refuse to do their jobs, citing their "sincere religious beliefs," by refusing to process the marriage licenses/applications of same-sex couples. These employees would likely either be transferred to a different department, given a special workplace accommodation to discriminate against some Illinois residents, or they would be fired.
Likewise, maybe a handful of business owners will likely, say, refuse to rent space, bake a cake, or sell rings to a same-sex couple for their wedding and will consequently be sued or reported to a government entity like the Illinois Department of Human Rights.
Certain anti-gay groups will monitor these incidents and subsequently cast these individuals as martyrs who have practically been subjected to horrific human rights abuses and unfathomable religious persecution because of their "sincerely held religious beliefs" about homosexuality.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Allen Study on Children of Same-Sex Couples
Let's start with the under-stated question that Allen asks near the end of his recently-published study, "High school graduation rates among children of same-sex couples" -- "the question is: why?"
I begin my discussion of economics professor and Ruth Institute board member Doug Allen's study with this question because, despite explicitly asking this question and thereby acknowledging that gaps exist in this area of inquiry, many of those promoting this study act, through their promotion of discriminatory policies, as though this knowledge is, in fact, certain.
As you may remember, the National Organization and Mark Regnerus, writing at The Witherspoon Institute's Public Forum, have promoted this study uttering variations of the platitude that moms and dads matter! That's why!
True, the soundbite itself is so broad as to be largely uninformative.
Although it suggests that pro-gay forces might actually be claiming that parents are unimportant to the lives of their children, an absurd argument that has never actually been on the table, it is premised upon the more specific notion that mothers as women, and fathers as men, each provide unique, separate, and vital traits to parenting that same-sex couples, by their very nature of excluding one gender, cannot and do not provide to children. Indeed, Allen notes this theory in a footnote by citing an episode of Modern Family in which a gay male couple take their daughter to her aunt to discuss "girl issues" because they, being men, ostensibly are physically incapable of talking about "girl issues."
That premise is going to be important for same-sex marriage advocates to understand as they read and critique this study, as it's an argument about the inferiority of same-sex parents that is gender-based, rather than sexual-orientation-based. Women, it is argued, are inferior at the act of being a father - whatever that tangibly consists of - than men are. And likewise, men are inferior at the act of being a mother - whatever that tangibly consists of - than women are. (What each role tangibly consists of is rarely clearly articulated. I guess proponents of this argument "know it when they see it.")
Now that we have anti-equality advocates' "why" articulated as a context for this study, we can progress to the overarching conclusion Allen puts forth, which is that "the odds of a child with gay or lesbian parents completing high school are lower, by a considerable margin, compared to children of married opposite sex parents."
To reach this conclusion, Allen used a limited data file from the Canada Census, from which Allen selected data for a percentage of children aged 17-22 living with their parents. Sociologist Phillip Cohen estimates that the sample probably contains 85 kids of gay fathers and 194 kids of lesbian mothers. Allen himself says that Canadian law doesn't permit him to release the sample size.
In his analysis, with our "why?" in mind, we can further note Allen's terminology. Throughout, he uses the phrase "opposite sex" couples to refer to couples comprised of a woman and a man, suggesting an assumption about the purportedly "opposite" and/or "complementary" nature of women and men.
For instance, following his Table 4, which estimates population averages of certain variables, he includes this explanation in a footnote:
In his general discussion of Table 4, Allen highlights some of the results he finds particularly "fascinating." For instance, he finds it "striking" how few same-sex couples with children within the 17-22 age range are living in Canada, estimating that such couples make up 1% of all couples with children within that particular age range.
That factoid prompts me to ask a different why: Why then are such massive amounts of resources, time, and effort to deny such a fascinatingly-small percentage of the population equal rights?
I suspect that this why is substantially related to the first why. Namely, that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the notion that men and women are complementary, "opposite" beings who, by their very inherent nature, fulfill separate roles in marriage and parenting - with fathers, as men- being the head of it all. Secondly, it's also politically safer for researchers to espouse sexist "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus" stereotypes than for them to reference explicitly anti-gay "homosexual predators are a danger to children" stereotypes in today's political climate.
Moving along, Allen goes on to discuss his data in Table 4:
Well, sure, okay - but he still doesn't know adoption rates because that information wasn't included in his data set. So, if we ignore the whiff of racial wedge-creating in his statement, it's still true that gay couples likely adopt more frequently than male-female couples, you know, since most gay couples can't generally procreate together. It's actually quite odd to see a researcher of Allen's ilk minimize that reality given that it's often a Top 3 Talking Point that purportedly-civil "marriage defenders" use to oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples.
What I find interesting is that Allen doesn't highlight how other large discrepancies might also be "interesting" or "fascinating" in this section- like how children living with lesbian couples and children living with single mothers are far more likely, at 91% and 88% respectively, to live in urban settings than children living with hetero married couples (78%), common law male female couples (74%), gay couples (72%), and single fathers (79%). In addition, both lesbian mothers and single parents have quite lower average incomes than other family types, ranging from $49,874 for single mothers, $88,600 for lesbian couples, and a whopping $119,172 for heterosexual married couples.
As another interesting point, he also skims over the part where, once all controls are used, children of cohabiting (ie- unmarried) male-female couples seem to do the best of all when it comes to high school graduation - even better than the much-touted "married opposite sex" so-called Gold Standard Family.
He buries that lead by acknowledging that point in a footnote diss of same-sex couples: "Compared to children of opposite sex cohabitating parents, the children of same-sex parents do even worse." Well, yes, because compared to children of "opposite sex cohabitating parents," children of all other parent types do worse. But saying that would be highly damning to prominent "marriage defense" narratives.
From an analytical/discussion standpoint, I don't see a ton to this study, and it's disappointing that Allen only raises mostly one uninspired direction for future research, writing:
Like:
As a final note, I want to draw attention to Allen's footnote 24, where he discusses how small sample sizes in previous studies result from low response rates to surveys of gay parents:
I purport that when some researchers seem hell-bent on determining that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples, results that will eventually be promoted as reasons to deny same-sex couples rights and further marginalize and malign us in society, I can imagine that many same-sex couples would be reluctant to respond to surveys, thereby impacting the quality of many studies about same-sex families.
Related:
Sociologist Philip Cohen's Critique of Allen's Study
Same-Sex Marriage, Feminism, and Women
Regnerus: Same-Sex Marriage Will Change Hetero Marriage
I begin my discussion of economics professor and Ruth Institute board member Doug Allen's study with this question because, despite explicitly asking this question and thereby acknowledging that gaps exist in this area of inquiry, many of those promoting this study act, through their promotion of discriminatory policies, as though this knowledge is, in fact, certain.
As you may remember, the National Organization and Mark Regnerus, writing at The Witherspoon Institute's Public Forum, have promoted this study uttering variations of the platitude that moms and dads matter! That's why!
True, the soundbite itself is so broad as to be largely uninformative.
Although it suggests that pro-gay forces might actually be claiming that parents are unimportant to the lives of their children, an absurd argument that has never actually been on the table, it is premised upon the more specific notion that mothers as women, and fathers as men, each provide unique, separate, and vital traits to parenting that same-sex couples, by their very nature of excluding one gender, cannot and do not provide to children. Indeed, Allen notes this theory in a footnote by citing an episode of Modern Family in which a gay male couple take their daughter to her aunt to discuss "girl issues" because they, being men, ostensibly are physically incapable of talking about "girl issues."
That premise is going to be important for same-sex marriage advocates to understand as they read and critique this study, as it's an argument about the inferiority of same-sex parents that is gender-based, rather than sexual-orientation-based. Women, it is argued, are inferior at the act of being a father - whatever that tangibly consists of - than men are. And likewise, men are inferior at the act of being a mother - whatever that tangibly consists of - than women are. (What each role tangibly consists of is rarely clearly articulated. I guess proponents of this argument "know it when they see it.")
Now that we have anti-equality advocates' "why" articulated as a context for this study, we can progress to the overarching conclusion Allen puts forth, which is that "the odds of a child with gay or lesbian parents completing high school are lower, by a considerable margin, compared to children of married opposite sex parents."
To reach this conclusion, Allen used a limited data file from the Canada Census, from which Allen selected data for a percentage of children aged 17-22 living with their parents. Sociologist Phillip Cohen estimates that the sample probably contains 85 kids of gay fathers and 194 kids of lesbian mothers. Allen himself says that Canadian law doesn't permit him to release the sample size.
In his analysis, with our "why?" in mind, we can further note Allen's terminology. Throughout, he uses the phrase "opposite sex" couples to refer to couples comprised of a woman and a man, suggesting an assumption about the purportedly "opposite" and/or "complementary" nature of women and men.
For instance, following his Table 4, which estimates population averages of certain variables, he includes this explanation in a footnote:
"For gay and lesbian households the 'father' is the survey respondent who self-identified as the household head"Telling. But on the bright side, we do have one tangible characteristic of "being a father" clearly articulated.
In his general discussion of Table 4, Allen highlights some of the results he finds particularly "fascinating." For instance, he finds it "striking" how few same-sex couples with children within the 17-22 age range are living in Canada, estimating that such couples make up 1% of all couples with children within that particular age range.
That factoid prompts me to ask a different why: Why then are such massive amounts of resources, time, and effort to deny such a fascinatingly-small percentage of the population equal rights?
I suspect that this why is substantially related to the first why. Namely, that same-sex marriage poses a threat to the notion that men and women are complementary, "opposite" beings who, by their very inherent nature, fulfill separate roles in marriage and parenting - with fathers, as men- being the head of it all. Secondly, it's also politically safer for researchers to espouse sexist "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus" stereotypes than for them to reference explicitly anti-gay "homosexual predators are a danger to children" stereotypes in today's political climate.
Moving along, Allen goes on to discuss his data in Table 4:
"There are a higher number of visible minority children for gay households (28 % compared to 13 % for common law couples), and a higher number of disabled children (13 % compared to 6 % for opposite sex married parents)."Oddly, he somewhat hand-waives away the possibility that this discrepancy might be explained by gay couples choosing to adopt children who might experience more challenges, saying, "This may imply a high number of adopted children in gay households, but interestingly there are no cases of inter-racial same-sex families within the 20 % sample."
Well, sure, okay - but he still doesn't know adoption rates because that information wasn't included in his data set. So, if we ignore the whiff of racial wedge-creating in his statement, it's still true that gay couples likely adopt more frequently than male-female couples, you know, since most gay couples can't generally procreate together. It's actually quite odd to see a researcher of Allen's ilk minimize that reality given that it's often a Top 3 Talking Point that purportedly-civil "marriage defenders" use to oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples.
What I find interesting is that Allen doesn't highlight how other large discrepancies might also be "interesting" or "fascinating" in this section- like how children living with lesbian couples and children living with single mothers are far more likely, at 91% and 88% respectively, to live in urban settings than children living with hetero married couples (78%), common law male female couples (74%), gay couples (72%), and single fathers (79%). In addition, both lesbian mothers and single parents have quite lower average incomes than other family types, ranging from $49,874 for single mothers, $88,600 for lesbian couples, and a whopping $119,172 for heterosexual married couples.
As another interesting point, he also skims over the part where, once all controls are used, children of cohabiting (ie- unmarried) male-female couples seem to do the best of all when it comes to high school graduation - even better than the much-touted "married opposite sex" so-called Gold Standard Family.
He buries that lead by acknowledging that point in a footnote diss of same-sex couples: "Compared to children of opposite sex cohabitating parents, the children of same-sex parents do even worse." Well, yes, because compared to children of "opposite sex cohabitating parents," children of all other parent types do worse. But saying that would be highly damning to prominent "marriage defense" narratives.
From an analytical/discussion standpoint, I don't see a ton to this study, and it's disappointing that Allen only raises mostly one uninspired direction for future research, writing:
"This study suggests further work is necessary to narrow down the source of this difference. This will require an exceptional data set that not only identifies sexual orientation of parents, but also has a retrospective or panel design to completely control for marital history."Well, yes, further work is indeed necessary, as this paper seems to raise more questions than it answers, although opponents of marriage equality certainly won't treat it as such. Indeed, if I were approaching the question "why" might we be seeing any disparities between children of same-sex couples, I would be asking many questions and positing many more directions for future work.
Like:
- Allen's sample is only of children between the age of 17-22 and who are living with their parents. Yet, what is the average age of high school graduation in Canada? I really don't know much about the Canadian education system (so chime in here if you do!), but trusty Wikipedia notes that ages at graduation can vary by province and can range from between 17-21. Given that his data set notes an average younger age of children of lesbian couples, might it be that some children have not yet, due to their age, had the opportunity to graduate?
- Relatedly, let's think for a second about the population of 17-22 who are living with their parents? Would such people be more or less likely to have graduated from high school than 17-22 year olds who are not living with their parents? What would happen to the graduation rates if we included the population of 17-22 year-olds who are not living with their parents, a population that would presumably be more independent and likely to have graduated high school? By only including 17-22 year-olds who are living with their parents, Allen's sample seems as though it would disproportionately include non-high-school graduates.
- What are the differences among the children, when accounting for the circumstances of their birth and possible adoption? Might same-sex couples adopt children, and adopt older children, who have more challenges or disabilities than those raised by their biological parents? Might that contingency account for differences? What about children of same-sex couples who were created through alternative reproductive technologies, or who are the product of failed heterosexual unions? How do these variances impact child outcomes?
- How might living in a society that privileges heterosexuality and marginalizes homosexuality contribute to any differences among children of same-sex couples? It's true that Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, but given that the children in this study ranged in age from 17-22, they also lived in a country in which their parents were second-class citizens during most of the children's early, formative years. Social justice doesn't work in a way such that once same-sex couples have marriage equality 100% of discrimination, bigotry, and prejudice is entirely erased from society. I question the informativeness of comparing same-sex couples to heterosexual couples in a way that erases a social context in which these families are not, in reality, given the same social, moral, and familial supports to thrive.
- Since this study only looks at children of same-sex couples who are married, what proportion of same-sex couples in Canada, especially those with children, are legally married? Could the numbers be different if children of cohabitating same-sex couples were included? For most same-sex couples in Canada of the legal age to marry, same-sex marriage wasn't even a cultural norm, let alone allowed, until very recently. It still seems early to start drawing conclusions about same-sex couples and their children.
- If these differences in high school graduation rates are legitimate, what can be done to better support same-sex families, given that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people exist in the real world, establish same-sex relationships, and raise children? What is the impact on child outcomes when organizations like National Organization for Marriage and The Witherspoon Institute publicly favor policies that promote the marginalization of same-sex families and families other than married hetero so-called Gold Standard?
- If we take these findings as legit, what's up with children of cohabiting heterosexual parents doing better than children of the so-called married hetero gold standard? Maybe Team Opposite Sex Is The Best should get on that finding STAT!
As a final note, I want to draw attention to Allen's footnote 24, where he discusses how small sample sizes in previous studies result from low response rates to surveys of gay parents:
"Often the problem of small sample size comes from low response rates. Many of the fifty-two studies are silent on the question of response rates to their surveys, but when information is provided it often shows that response rates are very low. For example, in Bos (2010) the gay males were recruited from an Internet mail list for gay parents. Although the list had 1,000 names, only 36 replied and participated in the study. This amounts to a 3.6 % response rate. Other studies (e.g., Chan et al. and Fulcher et al.) have reductions in their samples similar in relative size to Rosenfeld. Response rates lower than 60 % are usually taken to mean the presence of a strong selection bias—even when the initial list is random."Why?
I purport that when some researchers seem hell-bent on determining that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples, results that will eventually be promoted as reasons to deny same-sex couples rights and further marginalize and malign us in society, I can imagine that many same-sex couples would be reluctant to respond to surveys, thereby impacting the quality of many studies about same-sex families.
Related:
Sociologist Philip Cohen's Critique of Allen's Study
Same-Sex Marriage, Feminism, and Women
Regnerus: Same-Sex Marriage Will Change Hetero Marriage
Friday, September 13, 2013
Women's Sports No Haven For LGBT Athletes
Jessica Luther has written an important piece over at ThinkProgress, in which I'm quoted, about the perhaps-counterintuitive reality that women's sports, and female athletes, are not always super welcoming to non-heterosexual and transgender athletes.
In the piece, she references WNBA player Sophia Young's confused-seeming tweet regarding her opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples. "Confused-seeming" because she tweeted an image of herself at a rally against an a anti-discrimination ordinance that, actually, wasn't a marriage ordinance.
Whoooops!
Anyway, the larger point is that women's sports, of all levels, aren't the haven of acceptance that mainstream audiences might believe they are. I was reading the recent obituary of a former player in the All American Girls Professional Baseball League, the league featured in the movie A League of Their Own, and the player, a lesbian, recounted both the the league's firing of her for getting a "butch" haircut and its active exclusion of so-called "freaks" and "Amazons." (And, to its credit, League actually did somewhat portray this gender policing).
Even today, coaches at major colleges are widely known or rumored to engage in lesbian baiting of other coaches during athlete recruitment, trying to dissuade players from going to certain schools that are more accepting of LGBT students. Lesbian coaches are numerous, but rarely allowed to be officially "out" to players, parents, fans, and the media.
Girls and women often actively police the gender conformity and sexual orientations of their teammates and ridicule other players for not looking, or being, "sufficiently" feminine.
And, well, Anna Kournikova is, like, maybe okay, for the Male Gaze that purportedly comprises all of sports fandom, and it's a fun parlor trick for some dudes to watch Jenny Finch strike out professional baseball players. But, largely, male sports fans often demean female athletes of all orientations as being too manly, dykey, and/or sucky to warrant the status of an authentic athlete worthy of something other than ridicule and contempt.
I wonder, too, how a desire for mainstream and male acceptance plays into the bigotry expressed by some female athletes. It's as though some female athletes view non-heterosexual female athletes as a lavendar menace of women's sports, hamstringing the ability of all female athletes to be taken seriously by the real power-brokers of sports - heterosexual men.
Luther notes:
Welp, she is awesome.
And while I'm at it, Doris and "All the Way" Mae always struck me as being girlfriends. There, I said it.
In the piece, she references WNBA player Sophia Young's confused-seeming tweet regarding her opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples. "Confused-seeming" because she tweeted an image of herself at a rally against an a anti-discrimination ordinance that, actually, wasn't a marriage ordinance.
Whoooops!
Anyway, the larger point is that women's sports, of all levels, aren't the haven of acceptance that mainstream audiences might believe they are. I was reading the recent obituary of a former player in the All American Girls Professional Baseball League, the league featured in the movie A League of Their Own, and the player, a lesbian, recounted both the the league's firing of her for getting a "butch" haircut and its active exclusion of so-called "freaks" and "Amazons." (And, to its credit, League actually did somewhat portray this gender policing).
Even today, coaches at major colleges are widely known or rumored to engage in lesbian baiting of other coaches during athlete recruitment, trying to dissuade players from going to certain schools that are more accepting of LGBT students. Lesbian coaches are numerous, but rarely allowed to be officially "out" to players, parents, fans, and the media.
Girls and women often actively police the gender conformity and sexual orientations of their teammates and ridicule other players for not looking, or being, "sufficiently" feminine.
And, well, Anna Kournikova is, like, maybe okay, for the Male Gaze that purportedly comprises all of sports fandom, and it's a fun parlor trick for some dudes to watch Jenny Finch strike out professional baseball players. But, largely, male sports fans often demean female athletes of all orientations as being too manly, dykey, and/or sucky to warrant the status of an authentic athlete worthy of something other than ridicule and contempt.
I wonder, too, how a desire for mainstream and male acceptance plays into the bigotry expressed by some female athletes. It's as though some female athletes view non-heterosexual female athletes as a lavendar menace of women's sports, hamstringing the ability of all female athletes to be taken seriously by the real power-brokers of sports - heterosexual men.
Luther notes:
"As I’ve written elsewhere, there is evidence to suggest that even if coming out may be easier for female athletes than it is for men, that doesn’t mean it is easy. Only 6 years ago, Penn State forced the resignation of their women’s basketball coach, Rene Portland, because of her known 'no-lesbians' policy. Three years before [out lesbian Brittney] Griner arrived at Baylor, Sophia Young was the star of that team. Young led her squad to the national championship in 2005. Unlike the WNBA, Young’s position on gay rights put her in a clear majority at Baylor, where Griner also won a national title but did it while living a less open life than she does now. Openly gay women’s college basketball coaches have said that homophobia hurts their recruiting. Sue Wicks, a former player, said she was asked to deny interview requests to lesbian publications while serving as an assistant coach. Others have identified a 'homonegative environment' as one factor in the decline of female coaches in women’s collegiate sports."Have I mentioned before that I think Brittney Griner is awesome?
Welp, she is awesome.
And while I'm at it, Doris and "All the Way" Mae always struck me as being girlfriends. There, I said it.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Today in Definitely-Not-Bigotry
[Content note: anti-gay violence]
This tactic, of course, is one that anti-equality advocates in the US have long engaged in, from Anita Bryant to the National Organization for Marriage's ridiculous and infamous "Gathering Storm" ad during the original Prop 8 campaign. The Russian law takes this tactic a step further, by just outright imposing a punishment on pro-gay speech. And, notorious American anti-gay advocate, and Holocaust revisionist, Scott Lively has taken some of the credit for this law being passed in Russia.
Interesting to note about Sylvia Thompson's quote, though, is the way she implicitly characterizes moderates and conservatives. To her, it is only the most "rabidly liberal" person who would oppose this anti-gay infringement on free speech. To her, it seems a given that moderates and conservatives would applaud the law and find it sensible, perhaps even worthy of emulating here in the US.
It's interesting because supposedly it's the Mean Homosexualists who are hell-bent on unfairly calling equality opponents bigots and haters. Yet, if we accept that supporters of this law are supporting a bigoted law, a proposition I certainly accept, then Thompson is basically admitting that people who hold bigoted opinions about gay people are, actually, quite numerous. That is, the people who think homosexuality and gay people are a threat to children, and who want us to basically shut up and go away, are all but a handful of liberal extremists.
Last year, Moscow banned also gay pride parades for the next 100 years. I'm sure that's a move some (many?) moderates and conservatives would applaud as well.
Also doing their part to, ahem, "protect the children" is a group of violent, anti-gay bigots who are alleged to post fake ads on dating sites to lure gay teens to them so they can then torture the teens. The group then proudly posts pictures of them on social networking sites posing with their victims.
I'm *sure* that sort of anti-gay violence all happens in a vacuum, though.
Perhaps the biggest failing of anti-gay movements in the US is the nearly complete failures of all of those purportedly So Nice and Civil "marriage defenders" and traditionalists to condemn the rhetoric of their more overtly anti-gay peers and to condemn horrendous laws that their peers applaud.
When people who dedicate their livelihoods and blog presences to opposing the gay agenda, whilst protesting too much that they aren't bigots, can't take a few minutes of their day to publicly and explicitly condemn Russia's law, or Uganda's Kill the Gays bill, I think it would be foolish to give such folks a "charitable" benefit of the doubt that they disagree with such laws.
"For any but the most rabidly liberal, the decision of Russian lawmakers is about as sensible as it gets."
-Sylvia Thompson, a self-described "black conservative whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture," in an article praising Russia's anti-gay lawsThe Russian law she is referencing punishes "propaganda of homosexualism among minors," and its text in English can be read here. As you can see, the law itself is incredibly vague, but its Explanatory Note speaks of "protecting children from the effects of homosexuality propaganda."
This tactic, of course, is one that anti-equality advocates in the US have long engaged in, from Anita Bryant to the National Organization for Marriage's ridiculous and infamous "Gathering Storm" ad during the original Prop 8 campaign. The Russian law takes this tactic a step further, by just outright imposing a punishment on pro-gay speech. And, notorious American anti-gay advocate, and Holocaust revisionist, Scott Lively has taken some of the credit for this law being passed in Russia.
Interesting to note about Sylvia Thompson's quote, though, is the way she implicitly characterizes moderates and conservatives. To her, it is only the most "rabidly liberal" person who would oppose this anti-gay infringement on free speech. To her, it seems a given that moderates and conservatives would applaud the law and find it sensible, perhaps even worthy of emulating here in the US.
It's interesting because supposedly it's the Mean Homosexualists who are hell-bent on unfairly calling equality opponents bigots and haters. Yet, if we accept that supporters of this law are supporting a bigoted law, a proposition I certainly accept, then Thompson is basically admitting that people who hold bigoted opinions about gay people are, actually, quite numerous. That is, the people who think homosexuality and gay people are a threat to children, and who want us to basically shut up and go away, are all but a handful of liberal extremists.
Last year, Moscow banned also gay pride parades for the next 100 years. I'm sure that's a move some (many?) moderates and conservatives would applaud as well.
Also doing their part to, ahem, "protect the children" is a group of violent, anti-gay bigots who are alleged to post fake ads on dating sites to lure gay teens to them so they can then torture the teens. The group then proudly posts pictures of them on social networking sites posing with their victims.
I'm *sure* that sort of anti-gay violence all happens in a vacuum, though.
Perhaps the biggest failing of anti-gay movements in the US is the nearly complete failures of all of those purportedly So Nice and Civil "marriage defenders" and traditionalists to condemn the rhetoric of their more overtly anti-gay peers and to condemn horrendous laws that their peers applaud.
When people who dedicate their livelihoods and blog presences to opposing the gay agenda, whilst protesting too much that they aren't bigots, can't take a few minutes of their day to publicly and explicitly condemn Russia's law, or Uganda's Kill the Gays bill, I think it would be foolish to give such folks a "charitable" benefit of the doubt that they disagree with such laws.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
For Religious Reasons
I've seen a few opponents of same-sex marriage quote an article by Richard Garnett, warning of the purported threats to religious freedom that the recent DOMA decision poses. From the article, I highlight this portion:
The first sentence, you notice, pertains to Justice Kennedy referencing the harm experienced by same-sex couples and gays and lesbians, and the harm intended, which was also clearly illustrated in DOMA's legislative history wherein the House Committee on the Judiciary clearly stated in 1996 that the law's purpose was to enshrine the disapproval and moral inferiority of homosexuality into law.
Garnett's second sentence, though, includes adjectives that do not reference acknowledge that harm.
Instead of using the descriptor "injurious" he uses "unsound." "Unreasonable." "Unenlightened." "Unattractive." He does so even though DOMA, whether "marriage defenders" admit, acknowledge, or intended it or not, inflicted real injuries on real people - a fact which was demonstrated by the circumstances of the actual plaintiff in Windsor.
As explicit bigotry is less of a winning argument now than it was in 1996, it is interesting to note the shift in strategy in how "marriage defenders" talk about their opposition 1 to same-sex marriage. Legal arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are caricatured and simplified. Rarely, especially in pop conversations by advocates, are pro-equality opinions analyzed for legal substance that evidences an understanding of the ways the legal system has historically marginalized and denigrated gays and lesbians. The pro-equality rationales supporting same-sex marriage are instead cheaply, dog-whistle-y likened to a fashionable garment that, maybe, a swishy trendy man might wear. Justice Kennedy is accused of practically doing nothing but crafting an opinion that utters the word "bigot" over and over and over again.
And yes, of all that's within Justice Kennedy's opinion in Windsor, it is the suggestion that "marriage defenders" enacted it to harm and disapprove of same-sex couples and gays and lesbians that most seems to rankle those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage.
Yet, doesn't the quest and fear-mongering to grant religious opponents of same-sex marriage special exemptions from having to recognize legal same-sex unions even outside the context of having them performed in their religious places of worship give away the game?
We see Christian employers, "for religious reasons," refusing to provide benefits to same-sex couples in violation of state law or public contracts.
We see a Catholic adoption agency, "for religious reasons," refusing to place children in homes of same-sex couples.
We see some county clerks, "for religious reasons," refusing to do their jobs and issue state marriage licenses to same-sex couples in states where such marriages are legal.
If one believes that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is a thing that can and should only exist between one man and one woman, it is most definitely not a stretch for us to imagine that such a person would want to use special religious exemption laws as a means to express their moral disapproval of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Their very argument for these exemptions, in fact, is that that they don't want to be "forced" to recognize that which they disapprove of - "for religious reasons."
I can tolerate having to have an argument about whether special laws granting religious folks special exemptions from complying with laws like everyone else has to should exist.
What I refuse to tolerate is the gaslighting insistence that we all pretend that such laws are not about their expressions of moral disapproval of homosexuality, same-sex couples, and same-sex marriage. I refuse to pretend that homobigotry is over when it's not, just because it happens to be some people's firmly-held religious belief that they believe is good and true.
1 I have no idea what Garnett's position is on same-sex marriage, I've just seen multiple opponents of same-sex marriage quote this piece approvingly, citing the purported harms to "religious freedom" due to state recognition of marriage equality.
"At the end of the day, Section 3 of DOMA was struck down not so much because it intruded upon the policymaking prerogatives of the sovereign states but because—in Kennedy’s words—it 'humiliates,' 'demeans,' 'disapprov[es],' and 'seeks to injure.' It reflects, he charged, a 'bare congressional desire to harm' and 'writes inequality into the entire United States Code.' It is unconstitutional, really, not because it imposes a 'one size fits all' definition and thereby hamstrings state-level experimentation, but because the Court majority thinks it reflects unsound, unreasonable, unenlightened, and unattractive opinions about marriage and family.."Putting aside Garnett's interpretation of Kennedy's reasoning, his second sentence does not follow from the first sentence of "Kennedy's words."
The first sentence, you notice, pertains to Justice Kennedy referencing the harm experienced by same-sex couples and gays and lesbians, and the harm intended, which was also clearly illustrated in DOMA's legislative history wherein the House Committee on the Judiciary clearly stated in 1996 that the law's purpose was to enshrine the disapproval and moral inferiority of homosexuality into law.
Garnett's second sentence, though, includes adjectives that do not reference acknowledge that harm.
Instead of using the descriptor "injurious" he uses "unsound." "Unreasonable." "Unenlightened." "Unattractive." He does so even though DOMA, whether "marriage defenders" admit, acknowledge, or intended it or not, inflicted real injuries on real people - a fact which was demonstrated by the circumstances of the actual plaintiff in Windsor.
As explicit bigotry is less of a winning argument now than it was in 1996, it is interesting to note the shift in strategy in how "marriage defenders" talk about their opposition 1 to same-sex marriage. Legal arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are caricatured and simplified. Rarely, especially in pop conversations by advocates, are pro-equality opinions analyzed for legal substance that evidences an understanding of the ways the legal system has historically marginalized and denigrated gays and lesbians. The pro-equality rationales supporting same-sex marriage are instead cheaply, dog-whistle-y likened to a fashionable garment that, maybe, a swishy trendy man might wear. Justice Kennedy is accused of practically doing nothing but crafting an opinion that utters the word "bigot" over and over and over again.
And yes, of all that's within Justice Kennedy's opinion in Windsor, it is the suggestion that "marriage defenders" enacted it to harm and disapprove of same-sex couples and gays and lesbians that most seems to rankle those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage.
Yet, doesn't the quest and fear-mongering to grant religious opponents of same-sex marriage special exemptions from having to recognize legal same-sex unions even outside the context of having them performed in their religious places of worship give away the game?
We see Christian employers, "for religious reasons," refusing to provide benefits to same-sex couples in violation of state law or public contracts.
We see a Catholic adoption agency, "for religious reasons," refusing to place children in homes of same-sex couples.
We see some county clerks, "for religious reasons," refusing to do their jobs and issue state marriage licenses to same-sex couples in states where such marriages are legal.
If one believes that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is a thing that can and should only exist between one man and one woman, it is most definitely not a stretch for us to imagine that such a person would want to use special religious exemption laws as a means to express their moral disapproval of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Their very argument for these exemptions, in fact, is that that they don't want to be "forced" to recognize that which they disapprove of - "for religious reasons."
I can tolerate having to have an argument about whether special laws granting religious folks special exemptions from complying with laws like everyone else has to should exist.
What I refuse to tolerate is the gaslighting insistence that we all pretend that such laws are not about their expressions of moral disapproval of homosexuality, same-sex couples, and same-sex marriage. I refuse to pretend that homobigotry is over when it's not, just because it happens to be some people's firmly-held religious belief that they believe is good and true.
1 I have no idea what Garnett's position is on same-sex marriage, I've just seen multiple opponents of same-sex marriage quote this piece approvingly, citing the purported harms to "religious freedom" due to state recognition of marriage equality.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
On Privilege and Fear
Melissa at Shakesville has written a great post on privilege and fear.
She articulates so much of what's been going around in my mind since the Zimmerman verdict, noting:
[Content note: guns]
I remember last year when a gunman shot a guard outside of the Family Research Council, a moderately-well-known, very privileged, and conservative white woman articulated to me how she suddenly felt a real fear of violence because of who she was and what she stood for.
It was as though, now that the violence had happened once to someone she could identify with, the state of living in fear was suddenly very important. Suddenly, civility and toned-down rhetoric, at least to and about people like herself, became very important. Yet, previously, I hadn't seen her express a care in the world that people like me, LGBT people, are a bit more frequently victims of violence and that lots of really awful stuff gets said about us, too.
As the weeks went on, even as she continued to defend, befriend, and ally herself with people who say horrible things about LGBT people - things that I believe contribute to hostility and violence toward LGBT people - she urged the LGBT community to tone down our rhetoric lest people like herself become victimized.
Anti-gay conservatives like her felt attacked and threatened and scared.
Some purported LGBT allies further entitled these anti-gay conservatives' mentality that it's primarily they who are under attack, suggesting that LGBT people and other allies need to take it easy on individuals and organizations that dedicate themselves to degrading the dignity of LGBT people - while not also suggesting that, say, maybe the Family Research Council needs to take it easy on us for once.
I don't doubt that the feelings of people of privilege are authentic when they express fear. Sure, sometimes it's probably a facade, but other times they likely are feeling fear. Fear is not a fun thing to experience, but I agree with Melissa that it's a part of daily life. What we are or should be entitled to is to actually be safe, not to never feel fear.
Yet, mainstream narratives condition the privileged to fear the marginalized, and to feel justified in attacking the marginalized because of this fear.
In the context of gay rights, the exchange with the woman above demonstrated to me how very manufactured the anti-gay movement is. The fear of pro-gay politics, after the shooting, seemed new for them. It seemed new despite the many years of fear-mongery blustering about saving the children, saving the family, saving marriage, and saving "Judeo-Christian" values, and saving society.
It was as though this woman hadn't already been truly, legitimately scared.
How nice for her.
She articulates so much of what's been going around in my mind since the Zimmerman verdict, noting:
"...[T]he sustained fear of being hurt, being victimized, being exploited—unexpectedly, at any moment, and most frequently by people one trusts—is something that the very privileged do not know intimately, the way the rest of us do.
Privileged men's lives and the lives of marginalized people are very different in that way—and that difference underlines privileged men asserting that they have a right to feel safe. And law enforcement, and the courts, agreeing with them.
Because of this difference, most marginalized people learn how to live their lives against a backdrop of present threat, to a soundtrack of the dull roar of constant fear. For the most part, we learn to ongoingly process fear as we move through our days on such a subconscious level it's as natural as our hearts beating without conscious thought—women, for example, position our keys in hand as a potential weapon and scan deserted parking lots for signs of danger and size up dates in search of anything dangerous with the ease that we execute any one of thousands of other routine daily tasks."It seems as though, because of this implicit right to feel safe, many privileged folks end up articulating their aggression as "self-defense," whether they are acting out because they "feel threatened" by scary young black men or are inventing social movements that purport to defend "traditional marriage" from scary same-sex couples.
[Content note: guns]
I remember last year when a gunman shot a guard outside of the Family Research Council, a moderately-well-known, very privileged, and conservative white woman articulated to me how she suddenly felt a real fear of violence because of who she was and what she stood for.
It was as though, now that the violence had happened once to someone she could identify with, the state of living in fear was suddenly very important. Suddenly, civility and toned-down rhetoric, at least to and about people like herself, became very important. Yet, previously, I hadn't seen her express a care in the world that people like me, LGBT people, are a bit more frequently victims of violence and that lots of really awful stuff gets said about us, too.
As the weeks went on, even as she continued to defend, befriend, and ally herself with people who say horrible things about LGBT people - things that I believe contribute to hostility and violence toward LGBT people - she urged the LGBT community to tone down our rhetoric lest people like herself become victimized.
Anti-gay conservatives like her felt attacked and threatened and scared.
Some purported LGBT allies further entitled these anti-gay conservatives' mentality that it's primarily they who are under attack, suggesting that LGBT people and other allies need to take it easy on individuals and organizations that dedicate themselves to degrading the dignity of LGBT people - while not also suggesting that, say, maybe the Family Research Council needs to take it easy on us for once.
I don't doubt that the feelings of people of privilege are authentic when they express fear. Sure, sometimes it's probably a facade, but other times they likely are feeling fear. Fear is not a fun thing to experience, but I agree with Melissa that it's a part of daily life. What we are or should be entitled to is to actually be safe, not to never feel fear.
Yet, mainstream narratives condition the privileged to fear the marginalized, and to feel justified in attacking the marginalized because of this fear.
In the context of gay rights, the exchange with the woman above demonstrated to me how very manufactured the anti-gay movement is. The fear of pro-gay politics, after the shooting, seemed new for them. It seemed new despite the many years of fear-mongery blustering about saving the children, saving the family, saving marriage, and saving "Judeo-Christian" values, and saving society.
It was as though this woman hadn't already been truly, legitimately scared.
How nice for her.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
New Anti-Equality "Primer" Published
And they say it's us with the agenda, LOL.
Nathan Hitchen, an alunmus of the conservative Christian John Jay Institute, has collaborated with Brian Brown to create a neat, very cool "new primer for the marriage debate." (PDF).
Here's how the document describes Brian Brown:
Nonetheless, the purpose of this document seems to be give opponents of marriage equality (whom the document calls "marriage advocates"- see what they did there?) new ways to frame the national conversation so they can persuade more people to oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples. The primer also, for your reference, refers to same-sex marriage advocate as "marriage revisionists" (see what they did there, too?).
Key take-aways from this propaganda manual, er, "primer" include "elevat[ing] as spokesmen" gay people who oppose same-sex marriage, "telling bigger stories" that reverse who the victims and victimizers are, and subverting the "marriage equality" meme with "stickier" anti-equality memes.
I guess these tactics are..... new for them?
After reading through this "primer," I'm reminded of why this national conversation is so tiresome and so polarizing. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that this document is publicly-available, what with it's up front, creepy discussion of the "exploitable narrative vulnerabilities" of Americans and so forth. The document also includes a sample op-ed piece (see page 50) demonstrating how "one could implement some basic techniques" outlined in the document (funnily enough, it's largely illegible because of the giant brain graphic that's in the background, whooooops!).
It all seems like such an admission of the grave desperation of some anti-equality advocates. It seems they used to be more covert about these strategies.
These tactics it outlines, after all, are of course not new.
Even since Prop 8, in 2008, anti-gay groups have been promoting so-called "gays against gay marriage," like David Benkof, who eventually dropped out of publicly advocating against same-sex marriage roughly that same year, although he did submit a strange amicus brief with other purported gays against gay marriage, Robert Oscar Lopez and Doug Mainwaring, in the pending US Supreme Court Prop 8 case in January 2013 (PDF). And, recently, Jeremy Hooper of G-A-Y noted that NOM has been buying domain names around the theme of "gays against gay marriage."
And, when this new "primer" suggests finding gay people opposed to gay marriage to be elevated as "spokesmen," I'm reminded of NOM's revealed agenda to, their words, "drive a wedge between gays and blacks."
So, that's fun.
Then, on the theme of switching who the victims and victimizers are, after Prop 8 passed, all of these, ahem, allegedly "grassroots" blogs called the "Digital Network Army" (DNA) sprung up from the aether. After noticing that these bloggers often seemed to be posting articles that were incredibly similar to each other's articles, I got myself on the "DNA" email list and saw that these bloggers were largely being fed content from mysterious "Team Captains." #seemslegit
While these "DNA" bloggers were pretty active for a year or so after claiming to be totally outraged by how mean gay people were to them post-Prop 8, nearly all of these blogs petered out when these Totally Outraged Straight People seemed to get bored talking amongst themselves (while banning actual gay people from their conversations) once they realized marriage equality actually has no real effect on their lives. This scenario suggested to me that the "DNA" blog ring was likely actually coordinated by at least one anti-gay organization, and that the key narrative the organization was interested in pushing was, "OMG the Normal People are being oppressed by the gay mobs!"
The Heritage Foundation even put a Very Official Report out about how mean gay people are to people who oppose same-sex marriage. The whole narrative, of course, has nothing to do with the substantive merits of same-sex marriage, but getting people to think they are being persecuted by a minority group is a historically key strategy in helping a privileged majority feel justified about oppressing a minority group.
I'm also reminded of NOM defector Louis Marinelli's claim that NOM's Brian Brown sought "crazy pictures" of pro-equality advocates, pictures that would discredit the pro-equality movement and frame us as unhinged, angry, and totally mean.
So, that's all fun too.
Although, what I'm most struck by in this "primer" is its utter lack of concern for its effect on same-sex couples and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. It's as though our lives, relationships, and aspirations for equal rights and dignity are little political footballs to be deflated and stomped upon. As though our lived experiences are stories that need to be reversed, and written over, to make heterosexuals feel okay about opposing our rights.
A snippet:
Anyway, I will likely post more on this new "primer" later, especially as I see anti-gay groups conitnue using the methods this document describes, but I wanted to give readers a heads up to be on the lookout for shifting tactics and narratives in the anti-marriage-equality movement.
Oh, and "kudos" to this Nathan Hitchen dude. What a great career move for him! Sounds like he learned some really neat things at that John Jay Institute.
Nathan Hitchen, an alunmus of the conservative Christian John Jay Institute, has collaborated with Brian Brown to create a neat, very cool "new primer for the marriage debate." (PDF).
Here's how the document describes Brian Brown:
This Brian Brown doesn't seem to be the same Brian Brown who's the President of the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM)."With a background in political science and nonprofit management, Narrator principal and John Jay Institute alumnus Brian Brown has spent 10 years observing changes in the way people share information, approach social issues, and get involved. Brian founded Narrator in 2011 with other marketing and policy professionals to provide a communications consultancy that helps organizations take advantage of these changes."
Nonetheless, the purpose of this document seems to be give opponents of marriage equality (whom the document calls "marriage advocates"- see what they did there?) new ways to frame the national conversation so they can persuade more people to oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples. The primer also, for your reference, refers to same-sex marriage advocate as "marriage revisionists" (see what they did there, too?).
Key take-aways from this propaganda manual, er, "primer" include "elevat[ing] as spokesmen" gay people who oppose same-sex marriage, "telling bigger stories" that reverse who the victims and victimizers are, and subverting the "marriage equality" meme with "stickier" anti-equality memes.
I guess these tactics are..... new for them?
After reading through this "primer," I'm reminded of why this national conversation is so tiresome and so polarizing. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that this document is publicly-available, what with it's up front, creepy discussion of the "exploitable narrative vulnerabilities" of Americans and so forth. The document also includes a sample op-ed piece (see page 50) demonstrating how "one could implement some basic techniques" outlined in the document (funnily enough, it's largely illegible because of the giant brain graphic that's in the background, whooooops!).
It all seems like such an admission of the grave desperation of some anti-equality advocates. It seems they used to be more covert about these strategies.
These tactics it outlines, after all, are of course not new.
Even since Prop 8, in 2008, anti-gay groups have been promoting so-called "gays against gay marriage," like David Benkof, who eventually dropped out of publicly advocating against same-sex marriage roughly that same year, although he did submit a strange amicus brief with other purported gays against gay marriage, Robert Oscar Lopez and Doug Mainwaring, in the pending US Supreme Court Prop 8 case in January 2013 (PDF). And, recently, Jeremy Hooper of G-A-Y noted that NOM has been buying domain names around the theme of "gays against gay marriage."
And, when this new "primer" suggests finding gay people opposed to gay marriage to be elevated as "spokesmen," I'm reminded of NOM's revealed agenda to, their words, "drive a wedge between gays and blacks."
So, that's fun.
Then, on the theme of switching who the victims and victimizers are, after Prop 8 passed, all of these, ahem, allegedly "grassroots" blogs called the "Digital Network Army" (DNA) sprung up from the aether. After noticing that these bloggers often seemed to be posting articles that were incredibly similar to each other's articles, I got myself on the "DNA" email list and saw that these bloggers were largely being fed content from mysterious "Team Captains." #seemslegit
While these "DNA" bloggers were pretty active for a year or so after claiming to be totally outraged by how mean gay people were to them post-Prop 8, nearly all of these blogs petered out when these Totally Outraged Straight People seemed to get bored talking amongst themselves (while banning actual gay people from their conversations) once they realized marriage equality actually has no real effect on their lives. This scenario suggested to me that the "DNA" blog ring was likely actually coordinated by at least one anti-gay organization, and that the key narrative the organization was interested in pushing was, "OMG the Normal People are being oppressed by the gay mobs!"
The Heritage Foundation even put a Very Official Report out about how mean gay people are to people who oppose same-sex marriage. The whole narrative, of course, has nothing to do with the substantive merits of same-sex marriage, but getting people to think they are being persecuted by a minority group is a historically key strategy in helping a privileged majority feel justified about oppressing a minority group.
I'm also reminded of NOM defector Louis Marinelli's claim that NOM's Brian Brown sought "crazy pictures" of pro-equality advocates, pictures that would discredit the pro-equality movement and frame us as unhinged, angry, and totally mean.
So, that's all fun too.
Although, what I'm most struck by in this "primer" is its utter lack of concern for its effect on same-sex couples and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. It's as though our lives, relationships, and aspirations for equal rights and dignity are little political footballs to be deflated and stomped upon. As though our lived experiences are stories that need to be reversed, and written over, to make heterosexuals feel okay about opposing our rights.
A snippet:
"Marriage revisionists also tell stories implying that mothers and fathers together offer nothing unique—marriages built on sexual difference are not special and homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents (i.e. Creativity plots)—or that homosexuals couples are not as abnormal as people think (i.e., Connection plots)....
...The best response for advocates of conjugal marriage is to tell better, bigger stories that subvert who the “protagonist victim” is and reposition who the heroes are. Advocates could make children—and specific children—the protagonist victims of Challenge plot stories, mothers and fathers the heroes, and identify their villains as the mindsets and public policies that obstruct their path to important goals."Maybe someone needs to tell Nathan Hitchen that the whole "Save Our Children" gimmick isn't actually a new thing.
Anyway, I will likely post more on this new "primer" later, especially as I see anti-gay groups conitnue using the methods this document describes, but I wanted to give readers a heads up to be on the lookout for shifting tactics and narratives in the anti-marriage-equality movement.
Oh, and "kudos" to this Nathan Hitchen dude. What a great career move for him! Sounds like he learned some really neat things at that John Jay Institute.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Conversion Therapy Group Exodus International "Sorry"
Exodus International, "the oldest and largest Christian ministry dealing with faith and
homosexuality, issued an apology to the gay community for years of undue
suffering and judgment at the hands of the organization and the Church
as a whole."
This news broke last week, but I wanted the apology to marinate a bit in my head before writing about it. See, as I'm sure most of you know, not all apologies are created equal.
I'm a lesbian who, when I was first coming out many years ago, considered suicide, going so far as to contemplate actual ways I could have done it. When anti-gay folks have harassed me on the Internet, they have sometimes played on the notion that the world would be better of without gay people, by giving me explicit directions on how I could and should kill myself.
I had suicidal thoughts even though I was almost always okay with being gay and knew for much of my life that I was. It was greatly problematic to me that other people, pervasively powerful other people at that- like the most dominant religion in the US, who seemed to be not okay with me, or anyone else, being gay.
So, that's my filter, my personal background, when I read Alan Chambers', Exodus President, apology. And, that's my filter, quite frankly, when I read any person's apology or purported change of heart for their prior anti-gay, anti-equality advocacy.
These apologies, retractions, and changes of opinion, I think, are going to perhaps become more frequent as Opposing Everything Gay becomes more of a political liability. The extent to which people own their harmful advocacy, even if they did not intend to harm people, is something that I, at least, will notice. The extent to which the apology looks like a sincere, thoughtful change of heart, as opposed to a politically calculated "harumph!" sort-of resignation to the reality that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are increasingly accepted in our society, is also something I notice. The extent to which formerly anti-gay folks go on to engage in dialogue and understanding with members of the communities they previously hurt, is also something I notice. And, the extent to which these publicized announcements, which are purportedly about apologizing to a harmed community, also serve as ways to self-promote New Projects and New Fundraising Appeals is also something I will note.
Accordingly, Chambers writes, in part:
I can graciously accept the apology of Exodus. However, I do so with extreme caution, perhaps as a defense mechanism from years of this organization hurting people. For, the harm Exodus inflicted may have been unintentional, but Chambers does admit that harm was happening and that it was harm that Exodus was responsible for. What leadership and moral authority in this arena do these people think they still have? Maybe slow down before starting and publicizing another big project, yeah?
For, from my reading of Chambers' apology, I believe that Chambers and Exodus also still hold, and may still spread, problematic views that can still contribute to the marginalization of LGBT people and same-sex relationships.
I'm certainly not looking for a softer bigotry of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I don't see a great need in the world for a ministry that teaches people how to continue opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage while also knowing the right words to parse so as to "not appear" bigoted or hateful.
I don't want gay people's forgiveness of Chambers and Exodus to embolden them to think of new ways to continue to, even if unintentionally, hurt us. Maybe we've heard enough of the Exodus folks for now, and it's time for them to really listen and understand better where they went wrong.
So, time will tell in what direction this new ministry goes.
Related:
Not a Christian, But
To Forgive Without Apology
What Would You Do If You Witnessed Bigotry?
SPLC Sues Conversion Therapy Provider
An Open Letter to Exodus International's Super-Remorseful Alan Chambers
This news broke last week, but I wanted the apology to marinate a bit in my head before writing about it. See, as I'm sure most of you know, not all apologies are created equal.
I'm a lesbian who, when I was first coming out many years ago, considered suicide, going so far as to contemplate actual ways I could have done it. When anti-gay folks have harassed me on the Internet, they have sometimes played on the notion that the world would be better of without gay people, by giving me explicit directions on how I could and should kill myself.
I had suicidal thoughts even though I was almost always okay with being gay and knew for much of my life that I was. It was greatly problematic to me that other people, pervasively powerful other people at that- like the most dominant religion in the US, who seemed to be not okay with me, or anyone else, being gay.
So, that's my filter, my personal background, when I read Alan Chambers', Exodus President, apology. And, that's my filter, quite frankly, when I read any person's apology or purported change of heart for their prior anti-gay, anti-equality advocacy.
These apologies, retractions, and changes of opinion, I think, are going to perhaps become more frequent as Opposing Everything Gay becomes more of a political liability. The extent to which people own their harmful advocacy, even if they did not intend to harm people, is something that I, at least, will notice. The extent to which the apology looks like a sincere, thoughtful change of heart, as opposed to a politically calculated "harumph!" sort-of resignation to the reality that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are increasingly accepted in our society, is also something I notice. The extent to which formerly anti-gay folks go on to engage in dialogue and understanding with members of the communities they previously hurt, is also something I notice. And, the extent to which these publicized announcements, which are purportedly about apologizing to a harmed community, also serve as ways to self-promote New Projects and New Fundraising Appeals is also something I will note.
Accordingly, Chambers writes, in part:
"Never in a million years would I intentionally hurt another person. Yet, here I sit having hurt so many by failing to acknowledge the pain some affiliated with Exodus International caused, and by failing to share the whole truth about my own story. My good intentions matter very little and fail to diminish the pain and hurt others have experienced on my watch. The good that we have done at Exodus is overshadowed by all of this.....
....Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly “on my side” who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.....
....I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself."Exodus International is closing down and is beginning a separate ministry with the purported goal to "reduce fear."
I can graciously accept the apology of Exodus. However, I do so with extreme caution, perhaps as a defense mechanism from years of this organization hurting people. For, the harm Exodus inflicted may have been unintentional, but Chambers does admit that harm was happening and that it was harm that Exodus was responsible for. What leadership and moral authority in this arena do these people think they still have? Maybe slow down before starting and publicizing another big project, yeah?
For, from my reading of Chambers' apology, I believe that Chambers and Exodus also still hold, and may still spread, problematic views that can still contribute to the marginalization of LGBT people and same-sex relationships.
I'm certainly not looking for a softer bigotry of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I don't see a great need in the world for a ministry that teaches people how to continue opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage while also knowing the right words to parse so as to "not appear" bigoted or hateful.
I don't want gay people's forgiveness of Chambers and Exodus to embolden them to think of new ways to continue to, even if unintentionally, hurt us. Maybe we've heard enough of the Exodus folks for now, and it's time for them to really listen and understand better where they went wrong.
So, time will tell in what direction this new ministry goes.
Related:
Not a Christian, But
To Forgive Without Apology
What Would You Do If You Witnessed Bigotry?
SPLC Sues Conversion Therapy Provider
An Open Letter to Exodus International's Super-Remorseful Alan Chambers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
