I hardly know what to say about this:

Dozens of schoolgirls and teachers were sickened Wednesday by poison gas in Afghanistan, medical and government officials said.

Dr. Kabir Amiri said 59 students and 14 teachers were brought to the hospital, and were faring better.

The latest incident, this one at a high school, is the ninth such case involving the poisoning of schoolgirls, said Asif Nang, spokesman for the nation's education ministry.

The ninth incident. Will women and girls ever be safe, in this world?  Or will it always be a matter of vicious attacks and systematic oppression against them simply because they are female?

In the last five years we have seen pharmacists refuse to give out a legal medication to women in need (emergency contraception) because of their personal beliefs. We’ve learned that if a woman goes to a Catholic hospital she may be denied an abortion even if it would save her life. We saw an attempt to pass legislation allowing doctors to refuse treatment to GLBTQ people if the doctors are opposed to homosexuality.

 And now this. (From RH Reality Check) 

“…one particularly disturbing obstacle that was mentioned in city after city: doctors refusing to care for women who have had abortions. Mind you, these are not doctors refusing to perform abortions. What we heard, in three separate communities, was that there are doctors who refuse to perform routine post-abortion check-ups or even to provide care for completely unrelated ailments to women who previously had abortions.” 

This is a chilling turn of events: refusal to see patients who have previously had a COMPLETELY LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE the doctor happens to disapprove of.

Imagine a young woman of 19 who gets headaches. Or stomachaches. Or has a lump in her breast. She’s told the doctor won’t see her because she had an abortion at 16.

Imagine a young woman who is experiencing PID (pelvic infammatory disease). She goes to the doctor (one of a very limited number who accept Medicaid patients), and knowing of his policies, simply conceals the information that she had an abortion a year ago – information vital to proper diagnosis and treatment.

In either case the woman is shamed and dehumanized; her health, well-being, future, and even life are endangered – all over, again, a legal medical procedure. It’s sick and it’s sad. It is a stain on the medical profession and on the nation.

How can a person who has entered a profession centered on healing the sick and ensuring wellness, deny someone the care they need as punishment?   What’s next on this slippery slope – policemen not answering calls to those who don’t support their preferred political party?   Teachers simply ignoring students whose parents don’t support teacher unions? 

Or hey, let’s stay on doctors – why not refuse patients who don’t like the same sports team as you? Or are members of a race you’re not a member of? 

These ideas all seem unthinkable. But the dialogue around reproductive and sexual health and rights has shifted so far right that outrages like the one in Illinois barely have the power to surprise anymore. These are the consequences of the extremist views that politicians and far-right activists promulgate – and which we MUST work to counter.

NOTE: This story is still new, so we’ll update as more information becomes available. If you or someone you know has been denied medical care or experienced harassment from a health care professional because of an abortion in your medical history, please get in touch with us at info@advocatesforyouth.org.

Rihanna has made some controversial artistic choices in the time since the nature of her relationship with Chris Brown became violently public. Her album Rated R was dark, explicit, and perceived by many as angry. Her single Russian Roulette seemed to condone suicidal behavior. But pairing with the notorious Eminem for a video that graphically depicts a violent relationship is the most challenging move yet for a star whose singles used to be sunny dance floor stuff.

 “Love the Way You Lie” has been #1 on the billboard charts for three weeks and also won a 2010 Teen Choice Award for best rap/hip hop track. Its video depicts a violent relationship and a series of alcohol-fueled confrontations between the couple, as the lyrics describe escalating anger and physical abuse; Eminem describes the addiction to the cycle of rage, violence and making up as Rihanna sings sadly “I like the way it hurts.” The song ends with Eminem saying that the violence will continue or even worsen:  "If she ever tries to leave again I’ll tie her to the bed and set this house on fire."

Many can’t get past the fact that the song is by Eminem, known for violent and homophobic lyrics. Eminem is also known for his brutal honesty, some might even say oversharing, and on his new album Recovery he addresses his dark past and his attempts to move forward. Still, you can hardly blame those who aren’t ready to forgive a guy who has threatened in song to murder his ex-wife AND his mother  - why is THIS threat to murder a woman somehow different?   (And threats to murder loved ones are really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Eminem lyrics.)

There’s also the fact that Rihanna and Eminem are both uniquely positioned to comment publicly on this issue and make a lot of money from the controversy, and I gave some thought to that aspect – is it truly an artistic vision or just a cynical attempt to get publicity. But the song and the video both feel honest to me – it doesn’t ring false. 

But Rihanna’s presence on the song and video, and its depiction of the troubled relationship, have mostly led to questions about its value and message. Can it be used as a teaching tool? Does it romanticize emotional and physical abuse? Is it a force for good, or evil?

More...

"Itawamba County School District officials agreed to have a judgment entered against them in the case of a recent high school graduate who sued her school for canceling the prom rather than let her attend with her girlfriend,"  says today's press release from the ACLU. 

The suit has far reaching ramifications:  the school also agreed to establish a "policy banning discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the first policy to do so at a public school in the state of Mississippi."

Read more about the shameful lengths this school went to to prevent the lesbian student from bringing her girlfriend to prom:

In March, after the Itawamba County School District refused to allow McMillen to bring a female date to the prom, the district canceled the event altogether. McMillen and her lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union challenged that decision in court, and a judge ruled the district could not bar McMillen and her date.

 

The judge declined to force the school district to hold the prom because a parent-sponsored, private prom was being organized — and the understanding was that McMillen and her date were invited to that event. But Hampton says McMillen was never invited and organizers made it very difficult for her to find information on the time and location. That prom was later mysteriously canceled, with the Friday night event at the country club officially replacing it. 

1) Family structures differ
2) GLBTQ people exist
3) Gay bashing is wrong.

Would you characterize these statements as controversial enough to derail a school district's entire education plan?  If you answered yes, then you have a pretty good read on the climate in Helena, Montana.  The Associated Press has the story:

The proposed 62-page document covers a broad health and nutrition education program and took two years to draft. But it is the small portion dealing with sexual education that has drawn the ire of many in the community who feel it is being pushed forward despite its obvious controversial nature.

Parents appeared most worried about pieces of the plan that teaches first-graders about same-gender relationships, fifth-graders that sexual intercourse includes "vaginal, oral, or anal penetration," and high school students about erotic art. The curriculum would also teach kindergartners anatomical terms such as penis, vagina, breast, nipples, testicles, scrotum and uterus. 

First of all, don't be fooled by claims that they are teaching your five year old about BJ's!  or whatever.  “Sex education” in the early grades consists of age-appropriate things like learning about good and bad touches and how to avoid sexual predators and learning the names of body parts, as well as beginning to develop relationship skills like self-esteem, good communication, and assertiveness.   It’s building the framework so that when a child is old enough to hear about actual sexual acts, STDs, pregnancy, consequences, etc, they’re incorporating that information with the relationship and communication skills they’ve already been taught.

Fifth graders would learn about sexual acts in the context of safety and consensuality; it might sound young, but since there were 14,000 cases of chlamydia among those aged 10-14 in 2008, can one really object? As for "erotic images," let's consider the increasingly hige and troubling role pornography plays in the lives of teens.  Don't "images" merit SOME discussion?

Read the standards for yourself here and while you're at it, observe for yourself the emphasis on abstinence.

But what I, and believe me what they, really want to talk about is Gay Stuff.

The Associated Press article mentions it three times in 500 words: the excerpt above and these two quotes:

A proposed sex education program that teaches fifth-graders the different ways people have intercourse and first-graders about gay love has infuriated parents and forced the school board to take a closer look at the issue....

"They made this more controversial by adding in all this stuff like same-gender relationships to small children, ..." Mikal Wilkerson, who has five children in the school system and a husband who sits on the school board, said Wednesday in an interview.

That's also the aspect conservatives are highlighting; see:  Hannity  and O'Reilly.

Hannity even provides a helpful infographic:



Again, that's the source of the controversy, folks, this is the information so outrageous that Hannity has to employ Power Point to fully convey the horror. 1) Understand that family structures differ  2) Understand that gays exist  3) Understand that gay bashing is wrong.   

I have to say it gives me a lot of feelings when I hear parents and anti-sex education activists objecting to their children learning that I exist, much less objecting to them learning it's wrong to gay bash me.

But my feelings aside, the fact is I do exist!  I do, my WIFE does, millions of GLBTQ people around the world do, including some in Helena, Montana.  How is it wrong to inform a child that a type of person exists?  How is it right to hide that knowledge from a child, or teach them to be accepting of the diverse types of people they will meet in their lives?

Hannity's guest throws around the morality/legality issue, but again, regardless of others' "morals" and regardless of the law, GAY PEOPLE EXIST!   Some parents of children are same-sex parents.  Some students in every school district, including Helena, Montana, grow up to be GLBTQ.  Just like the tone of the Hannity and O'Reilly segments, to deny these people the right to be acknowledged as full equals in society, or really just people in society, is cruel and bullying. 

Children shouldn't be taught to stigmatize GLBTQ people.  They shouldn't be taught to fear and loathe their fellow students   - or themselves.  Removing these lessons from the curricula inflicts harm on GLBTQ and heterosexual students alike. 

If you live in Helena, please, please contact the Board of Education and tell them you support this curriculum.   

 Friend of Amplify Eric Jost  caught an item in Teen Vogue that isn't at all uncomfortable or patronizing:

The always insightful Teen Vogue published an article describing the hottest new trend for teen girls: gay best friends!

Long story short, Teen Vogueis letting girls know that gay men are "fun, trust-worthy, and supportive, plus you don't have to compete with [them]."

Well, that last part may or may not be true, depending on the girl's boyfriend.

But careful girls, because GBFs are hot items! "'It's a little ridiculous how in demand a gay best friend has become in the past year,' Mimi says."

Personally, I enjoy the editor's note that  "no one deserves to be treated like a passing fad or arm candy"   - just a little ways down from the information that "you'll see [high school girls] in hallways with a Mulberry bag on one arm and a Johnny Weir look-alike on the other."   

Read the ridiculous Teen Vogue article here

Check out the rest of Eric's commentary here. 

Or visit the archive of Eric's former Amplify column: 
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/culture_voyeur

A couple of news hits today I just wanted to draw your attention to:

A British soap opera introduces a transgender teen character  (Guardian)

The show is consulting with a FTM trans teen, and the article talks about many issues facing teens and the special situation with British transgender people and the NHS.

Early next month, Hollyoaks will follow the character of Jasmine, a 15-year-old girl, on exactly this journey. Jasmine has always felt like a boy and dresses as one in secret. The storyline will chart her transition towards becoming "Jason", coming out to friends and family and taking hormone-blocking treatment.

Benson agreed to help out in the hope that the show will convey what it is really like to be a trans teen. Although Benson has not started the hormone treatment that could lead to gender reassignment, he is able to live as a boy and his friends have considered him as such for the last two years. But his family still sometimes refer to him as a girl. "I respect them for it, but they don't accept me at all," he says.

A writer answers questions, including some strangely hostile ones, about GLBTQ youth in New York. 

Q:Is this such a wide-spread issue in New York or in America for that matter that commands our attention? I don’t think so. This is your typical NY Times “agenda” article that is exclusively a Manhattan topic for discussion. Get real – there are more important issues that affect our daily lives than the supposed victimhood by individuals who base their existence on the sexual orientation and choice of lifestyle in the epicenter of American liberalism, NYC.

— Posted by William L. Esposito

A: .....Mr. Esposito’s question suggests a deeper issue than numbers. Why should others care about gay people and our lives? The simple answer is, of course, that we are your neighbors and family members and part of the inescapably collective enterprise of living in and developing our cities. And here’s the thing: We have a great deal to offer in that process. Too often gay people and communities are discussed solely as problems to be addressed — political problems, health problems, hate-crime problems — Mr. Esposito’s “victimhood.” To be sure, there are problems to spare. Gay rights advocates have demanded, for instance, protection from being thrown out of our apartments because a landlord doesn’t like gay families; it remains perfectly legally to do so in many cities and states. But I’d argue all sides of the public conversation on sexuality — gay rights advocates included — have too often looked past the many incredible positive facts about both individual gay lives and the communities we have built. Gay politics got on the defensive long ago. A little offense could go a long way (though, I’m sure there’s a Beltway pollster ready to argue the contrary!).

The New York Times comes out in favor of a bill that would make it a felony to take a girl out of the country to have a female genital cutting procedure.

Female genital mutilation has been banned in the United States since 1996. Representatives Joseph Crowley of New York and Mary Bono Mack of California are now sponsoring legislation that would make it a felony to take a girl out of the country to have the procedure, punishing violators with fines and a five-year prison term. Supporters hope the law will be a deterrent and embolden more young women or their mothers to resist family or community pressure and defend themselves.

A federal judge says that the city of Philadelphia cannot evict the Boy Scouts from their city-owned offices even though they are in violation of the city's non-discrimination policy.

As the Boy Scouts of America Legal Council puts it, the national organization believes that homosexuality is inconsistent with the requirements that a Boy Scout be "morally straight" and "clean." 

In the Scout Oath, a Scout promises to be “morally straight,” and in the Scout Law he promises to be “clean.”

The Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) explains “morally straight” as “To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.”

The Handbook explains “clean” as “A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by high standards. He helps keep his home and community clean.” 

The Boy Scouts have defended this claim time and time again in court (as the link above provides ample links to prove). They recommitted to it in 2002: 

The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.

The national organization is serious about the "local option choices" aspect of this policy. This is how much they are not budging on it, according to Philadelphia Weekly:

The local Boy Scout Chapter, Cradle of Liberty Council, said it’d change its policies regarding homosexual membership if the Boy Scouts of America changed its policy – and that isn’t some cheap excuse, either. Cradle of Liberty began admitting homosexuals in 2003, though after this, the Scouts’ national office sent Cradle of Liberty a cease-and-desist letter, threatening dissolution. Afterwards, the local chapter had no choice but to again ban homosexuals.

Emphasis mine. They threatened to DISBAND the very local chapter yesterday's court decision was about if it continued to admit homosexuals!

I wondered what the Scouts were telling their young people about this "Moral Straightness" they're in court to defend, so I went to the Boy Scouts of America Handbook website. The site doesn't have the full handbook and is very carefully set up to prevent direct linking, copying, etc. But in the section called "Staying Mentally Awake and Morally Straight " there are two links:  one to a weird page about reviving chivalry, and one called "Become a Person of Character." The latter resource includes the following statements under the category "Respect": 

Tolerance and Acceptance

DO: Judge others on their character, abilities, and conduct without regard to race, religion, gender, where they live, how they dress, or the amount of money they have • Be tolerant, respectful, and accepting of those who are different from you • Listen to others and try to understand their points of view

So...??? What's up, Boy Scouts. You think GLBTQ people aren't morally straight and are unclean. You're in court over and over to defend your right to exclude GLBTQ people from your organization. How does this fit with tolerance and acceptance of differences? Is that just lip service to a culture that has evolved past your hateful policies? 

Let's ask them on their Facebook wall, shall we?  (Or Twitter about it to #BSA)
 

This article in USA Today isn't ostensibly about comprehensive sex education, but it's sure supporting the cause:

That's when it seems this generation of young people is giving new meaning to the words "long-term relationship." Many are "a couple" for years, and some approach a decade of dating. They're just shy of the altar for so long that parents and grandparents are a bit bewildered.

"It's good to get to know your partner before marrying, but one wonders how long you need," says sociologist Andrew Cherlin, 61, of Johns Hopkins University.

...The world has changed so drastically that experts say today's young adults have a lot to ponder, much more than decades ago. More education has meant delayed financial independence, which is a major reason young adults say they aren't making their relationships official.

 - Dating for a decade? Young adults aren't rushing marriage, USA Today

There is also a helpful infographic reminding us that the median age of first marriage for men is 28, and women, 26.  The median age of first sex in the U.S.  is 17.  And ninety percent of  people have sex before they are married.  

So we're looking at around decade of sexual activity before marriage.  

Yet the abstinence-only lobby's position continues to be that the only appropriate thing to teach young people is "Don't do it." 

Like, come on, National Abstinence Education Association, wake up:  it's not WORKING. Young people are in serious, intimate relationships for years.  Understanding sexuality and negotiating sexual activity and protection are definitely a part of those relationships.  Young people deserve to be prepared to face questions like "How can I talk about and assert what I want and don't want with my partner? When is it the right time for us to [whatever]?  What is the best way to keep myself from getting pregnant or sick?"  

Depriving young people of those tools doesn't prepare them for their young adulthood.  It just creates murkiness and denial around something they should be approaching with thoughtfulness, care, and the mutual happiness borne of meaningful consent.

In the New York Times today columnist Nicholas Kristof addresses the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride, a nun who allowed an abortion that would save a mother's life.  Kristof asks for support for Sister Margaret, and condemns the Bishop for excommunicating her, printing this scathing email by a doctor at the hospital:

“True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that they make the right decision in the context of Christ’s teachings. Only a group of detached, pampered men in gilded robes on a balcony high above the rest of us could deny these dilemmas.”

I certainly support Sister Margaret and I will be sending a letter of support as Viviana suggests.

But as Viviana also points out, the bigger question is:  are women safe at Catholic hospitals? In this case, the hospital faced an emergency in which the mother's life was at risk. Doctors, the mother, and her family all felt they should proceed with this entirely legal and safe medical procedure, yet an "ethics community" and Sister Margaret, hospital administrator, were the ones who ultimately made the decision.  Had Sister Margaret been a less compassionate or more dogmatic woman, or had she followed the actual rules she was supposed to follow,  the mother and child both might be dead, (but Sister Margaret would still be in good standing!).

It is all gravely wrong and horrifying.   And this from the supposed arbiters of morality for millions of people around the world.  

A quick hit from the National Review today:  Maggie Gallagher on contraceptive "failure" rates:

What are the odds that that a young woman will get pregnant during her first year on the Pill?

The answer is: At typical rates of contraceptive failure, nine out of 100 of these young women will get pregnant. (Actually, that's the average for all Pill users; young users probably have higher failure rates.) Among condom users, 17 young women will get pregnant for every 100 who rely on this method (IUD's and implants are the most successful methods in "typical use"). That's just the risk in the first year.

Newsflash: Sex makes babies.

Um....OK, thanks for that newsflash, I guess, but  Gallagher neglects to share the extremely pertinent information that for those who use no method, 80 out of 100 will experience pregnancy in the first year.  That's 9 or 17 vs.  EIGHTY.   Let's get that on the table.

Doubling up contraception, by using condoms as well as the pill, Depo, etc, increases your protection against pregnancy even more. And let's not let her gloss over the implant and the IUD either - only one couple in a hundred experiences pregnancy while using these methods. Doesn't that kind of shoot down the whole "contraception is a failure" theory? 

But secondly, this is typical social conservative emphasis on the failure of contraceptives.  I have said it before and I will say it again:  They disguise their anti-contraception agenda as a pro-abstinence agenda.  This is the messaging they want for young people, too:  they emphasize contraceptive failure rates to bolster abstinence, not because they want the best for young people's health, but because they believe contraception is immoral. 

Newsflash: Contraception prevents babies. So if you're sexually active but don't want a baby you don't have to have one.  It's not about the end of culture and separating the holy act of sex from the miracle of blah blah blah.  It's about making choices and planning your life the way you want it to be. Cutting the odds of unintended pregnancy from 80/100 to 9 out of 100 or less doesn't seem so bad to me.

Hey, and while we're watching videos about Mark Souder's morals, The Advocate has posted a Souder rant in which he waxes indignant that anyone would dare call him a bigot, since all he said was that gays aren't good enough for marriage. "I personally have deeply held moral views, obviously shared by the Catholic bishops...." he observes, and then repeatedly refers to his morals, and how he is trying to defend these moral values our country has always held.

IDK.  Maybe he means morels.  Or murals? 

The Louisiana House has shot down a valiant attempt by Rep. Pat Smith to pass legislation permitting comprehensive sex education in schools:

By a vote of 23-67, the House opted to keep current law that makes sex education optional for each school district and concentrates the lessons on abstinence. Smith said 24 of 70 local districts participate.

Great, so 24 percent of Louisiana's youth receive abstinence-only programs, and the other 70 receive no sexuality education at all. Meanwhile the proposed legislation was hardly radical:

Smith's bill, which was opposed by Gov. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Louisiana Family Forum, would have required the state to approve age-appropriate curriculum for grades 4-12, the same levels that are included in the existing optional curriculum.

The proposed law would have allowed parents or guardians to remove their children from sex education instruction. It also would have left in place a specific ban on discussing abortion.

Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, asked whether Smith's bill "would require the teaching of masturbation and homosexuality." It would not.

I had to wonder — why so opposed to a relatively conservative approach? What IS being taught in the quarter of LA's schools that dare broach the topic at all, that the House is so desperate to preserve?  

Taking a look at their SIECUS profile, it seems Louisiana has some issues in the abstinence-only department (which they literally have). One major provider of abstinence-only programs is under investigation for misspending federal funds and other financial misbehavior, consistent with the pattern of the "abstinence gluttons". But the corruption isn't just in private companies:

....This is the only abstinence-only-until-marriage program in the country run by the state’s executive branch....Under limits imposed by the Constitution, the GPA’s funds may not be used for activities, events or materials that include religious messages or otherwise promote or advance religion. 

And yet I am sure we are all shocked to hear that these programs do continue to include religious messages:

For example, in a section entitled “Ask the Experts,” a young woman asks how she should convince her friend to remain a virgin. The GPA’s “expert” responds, “Tell your friend that abstaining from sex until entering a loving marriage will give her the freedom to achieve (sic) true self-esteem–to be really, truly, ‘cool’ in God’s eyes as well as yours and mine.”

According to the ACLU’s letter, the website also refers readers to scripture in linked articles and includes summaries of articles that advance religion. For example, an article by the American Life League is included in the website’s “Library.” The article states, “the condom’s biggest flaw is that those using it to prevent the conception of another human being are offending God.” It continues, “Furthermore, each and every act of marital intercourse must be both unitive (sic) and open to procreation. Any action, including condom use, which has as its purpose to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

And there it is. Scratch any abstinence-only program and you will find the idea that contraception violates religious law. That's what the Louisiana legislature wants its young people to take away, and they care about it more than they care about protecting these young people's lives. Better to get gonorrhea than 'offend God' with a condom, I guess??

From ESPN, a disturbing story about so-called "corrective rape" of female athletes:

PLEASE NOTE, both the video and print versions contain descriptions of sexual violence.



"Corrective rape," often accompanied by vicious beatings or even murder, is intended to punish lesbians for not being heterosexual.  Female athletes are at higher risk because they are more likely to be out lesbians.  

It is a growing phenomenon in South Africa - one that expresses a seemingly endemic homophobia and contempt for women.  

Despite liberal policies and the legality of gay marriage, GLBTQ people and women face stigma and discrimination not only from their peers but up to the highest levels of government:

 On paper, South Africa is among the world's most progressive countries; its constitution emphasizes the rights of the individual, and gay marriage is legal. But South Africa's constitutional aspirations run up hard against certain realities. Before his election, President Jacob Zuma was tried for raping (not corrective rape) an 18-year-old family acquaintance. He was acquitted, but his attitudes about gay marriage -- which he has condemned -- and gays and lesbians in general reflect the prejudices of many of his constituents.

"When I was growing up, [a homosexual] would not have stood in front of me," Zuma said. "I would knock him out."

But the persecution isn't just national, it's local:

...Rape often is difficult to prove, for a variety of reasons, but South Africa's laws, more than those of most nations, vigilantly protect the rights of the accused, which is unsurprising in a country in which most people were denied their rights for so long. This vigilance has resulted in extremely low conviction rates.

..."If I walk with my partner, my girlfriend," Mkhuma says, "the very same people from where I stay, boys, they will say things, they will say, 'Please don't walk like a guy because the guy proved to you that you are a woman, you know.' They would laugh. They make that as a joke."

No person should have to face this emotional and physical abuse.  South Africa has the honor and responsiblity of hosting Soccer's World Cup in just under a month.  Its goverment surely owes it to their female athletes, and to all women and GLBTQ people,  to condemn and eradicate this disgusting crime.   

On Daily Kos yesterday, a truly horrifying account of one young woman's "Don't ask don't tell" ordeal: "The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Law Let Them Rape Me."

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Tracey Cooper-Harris.  I served in the Army for 12 years, reaching the rank of Sergeant.  As a soldier and a non-commissioned officer (NCO), I performed my duties with honor and distinction.  I was lauded by my peers and superiors for going above and beyond the status quo to complete the mission.

And, I am gay.

I lived in constant fear serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  I was always looking over my shoulder, censoring what I said and keeping as much physical distance as possible between my military life and my personal life.

Even with this vigilance, I was found out by some male “friends” at my first duty assignment.  I was just 19 years old.  The deal was simple: Perform sexual favors and my secret was safe.

I had a choice: report these men for “sexual harassment/cohesion” and end my military career or submit to their demands.

Despite the military’s “zero tolerance” policy on sexual harassment, it doesn’t apply to those forced in the closet under DADT.  I was sexually blackmailed and just a teenager. 

I hardly know what to say about the disgusting, outrageous, heartbreaking treatment this soldier suffered.  I am sick that these male soldiers would blackmail a fellow soldier for sex (rape her) and sick that the system supports this foul crime. 

I feel like my constant refrain on this site is:  is this the best we have to offer young people, GLBTQ people, women?  When will it end?  Supreme Court Justice nominee correctly termed Don't Ask Don't Tell "“a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order."  It is causing irreparable harm to young people who are putting their very lives on the line in defense of their country. 

Please read the whole DailyKos entry  and take the actions there.

Several heartbreaking articles about AIDS in Uganda and other developing nations appeared in this Sunday's New York Times.

At Front Lines, AIDS War Is Falling Apart (New York Times)
Cultural Attitudes and Rumors Are Lasting Obstacles to Safe Sex (New York Times)
After Long Scientific Search, Still No Cure for AIDS (New York Times)
As the Need Grows, the Money for AIDS Runs Far Short (New York Times)

Uganda is often regarded as a model or microcosm of the fight against the HIV pandemic in Africa, and two of these articles address the situation there.  In sum:

1) "Casual sex" is on the rise
2) Condom use rates are decreasing and condom use is stigmatized
3) Not enough condoms are available
4) Few are fully educated about HIV and AIDS
5) High-risk situations like transactional sex and cross-generational sex contribute to the epidemic
6) The lack of a method that would combat HIV but not prevent pregnancy prevents many couples from using condoms
7) Funds to treat AIDS grow ever more limited as the world economy continues to falter.
8) A cure or vaccine seems to be nowhere in sight.

What can solve this terrible problem?

Uganda was once famous for its ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Use Condoms) public education approach, but the socially conservative Museveni administration placed the emphasis on abstinence-only programs for all but those at highest risk.  File that under "Not helping," along with the "Anti-Homosexuality Bill," which under the guise of HIV prevention would make homosexuality a crime punishable by life imprisonment or even death. 

Also not helping?  Social conservatives and the Bush administration, who engineered both the segmented ABC approach and the Uganda bill.

It seems that once more it comes down to science vs ideology.  Will we, and Uganda, invest in systematic, pragmatic  HIV prevention, including education about abstinence and partner reduction ;  information about and access to condoms; and an investment in microbicide research? Or will we keep on this anti-condom, anti-gay road that substitutes one group's religious beliefs for proven methods for combating HIV and AIDS?   Millions of lives depend on the answer. 

Speak out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

A story out of Harford County, Maryland, shows us that for some GLBTQ youth, merely gaining access to websites with health and advocacy information is a challenge:

Earlier this year the county school board ‘un-blocked’ several web sites that provide information about the gay and lesbian lifestyle. That's sparked complaints and protests from some parents, who say they should have been consulted before the change was made.

Web sites like ‘The Human Rights Campaign’ contain everything from news updates, to how do deal with 'coming out.’

‘I was shocked that something like this would happen; a decision would be made without any meetings or public notice about it; without any parental input on the situation,’ said Del. Rick Impallaria, a Republican whose district includes portions of Harford County. ‘In a time when so many predators are out there, I think it's wrong for a school system to advise children if they have questions about their sexuality that they should visit web sites.’

Del. Impallaria  is not only a homophobe but is completely in the dark about this thing called The Internet. His comment seeks to link homosexuality to being a sexual predator and implies that if young people are allowed to visit The HRC's website, assault is surely to follow. 

More...

In a New York Times op-ed about something else entirely, columnist Ross Douthat uses this example of the state of our culture:

In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. 

Emphasis mine.   

Is Douthat really saying that - that a pedophile could be lured, seduced, baited into sexually abusing a child, if she wears certain outfits? That by wearing these outfits, little girls are baiting pedophiles - that they know these outfits are something pedophiles might enjoy and have selected them for that purpose?  That a pedophile is but a fish led to the hook by the bait?

In fact, the movie is very careful not to sexualize the young Hit-Girl. Her own costume covers her entire body -  in MULTIPLE layers!  The point is that she is a tiny child swearing at, torturing and killing people, NOT that she is a tiny child seducing them. 

So, given that information, what does this mean for a definition of "pedophile bait outfits"?  Does it mean:  an outfit that covers a child's entire body? "An outfit that is intended as a superhero costume"?  

Isn't a "pedophile-bait outfit" any outfit a child wears?

But, I'm pretty sure Douthat means "an outfit that involves a plaid skirt." Sorry, Hit-Girl: despite the fact that you are 11 and an actual schoolgirl,  by daring to don the tartan, you have become a naughty schoolgirl.  (BTW, Hit-Girl does wear a schoolgirl uniform at one point, it's as a "lost, crying child" disguise, not as some kind of sexual temptation.)

What I don't understand is how this even saw print. This article is not in, like, Victim Blamers Post-Sentinel. It's in The New York Times. A writer has commented in the nation's foremost newspaper that a child can deliberately sexually entice an adult, can bait them.  It's the kind of  remark that makes you want to put on a superhero costume and start meting out some justice.  But watch your hemlines, kids!

Don't let Douthat off the hook. Email the New York Times or comment on the article.

Many of you probably know this, but Ryan White was a young man who acquired HIV through a blood transfusion in 1984.  He was expelled from school for his HIV positive status.  His story and subsequent activism changed the way Americans thought about AIDS at the time, helping us to understand that HIV is a disease anyone can acquire, not only gay men.  Ryan White died in April of 1990.

Shortly after his death, Congress passed the Ryan White Care Act.  The act provides funding for low-income people living with HIV/AIDS. 

The singer Elton John met Ryan White and was friends with him until his death.  He has written a moving letter to the editor of the Washington Post about Ryan white and his legacy.

Ryan, when you were alive, your story sparked a national conversation about AIDS. But despite all the progress in the past 20 years, the dialogue has waned. I know you would be trying to revive it if you were here today, when the epidemic continues to strike nearly every demographic group, with more than 50,000 new infections in the United States each year. I know you would be loudly calling for the National HIV/AIDS Strategy that was promised by President Obama but has not yet been delivered. I know you would reach out to young people. I know you would work tirelessly to help everyone suffering from HIV, including those who live on the margins of society.

It would sadden you that today, in certain parts of the United States, some poor people with AIDS are still placed on waiting lists to receive treatment. It would anger you that your government is still not doing enough to help vulnerable people with HIV and populations that are at high risk of contracting the virus, including sexually active teenagers. It would upset you that AIDS is a leading cause of death among African Americans.

This is an era where financial difficulties have led politicians to believe that cutting care for low-income people living with HIV/AIDS is a great way to save money.  Utah and South Carolina have already put these funds on the table. California slashed HIV/AIDS programs last year.   As a culture, we need to examine where our values lie.  These are some of our most vulnerable citizens, facing daily challenges many of us could never imagine.  They deserve our support and protection.  Basic morality demands that we support and protect them.  

A completely bananas conservative activist claims Lindsey Graham's position in immigration reform is due to his being a closeted gay man.  Good times.

Here's a great link I got from Jaclyn Friedman, who for newbies is the author of Yes Means Yes and of the Amplify column of the same name:

Groping, Sexual Assault Policies and the Hypersexualization of College Students
by Amanda Hess, Washington City Paper

Hess comments on dismissive attitudes towards Duke's new sexual assault policy, and the way in which we hypersexualize young college women and therefore tolerate sexual assault.

Duke's sexual misconduct policy

I'm with Hess here.  I see nothing unreasonable about the policy.  I would say I see nothing remarkable, but we all know it is somehow remarkable when young a women's right to bodily integrity is codified.

I am old enough to remember how much national ridicule Antioch College's sexual offense policy met with in 1993.  Late night hosts mocked and newspaper columnists (including the one I just linked to above!) marveled at such OUTRAGEOUS requirements as "Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual conduct in any given interaction regardless of who initiates it," describing it as laughable, impossible, the height of politically correct mumbo-jumbo.

And yet what was Antioch asking of its students other than "make sure both parties have consented to sexual activity"? And what is Duke asking now other than the same thing?

I was mad about media reaction then and am still mad about it 18 years later.   And yet the Duke story tells me that nothing has changed.  Still critics claim the policy bows to "political correctness" and puts absurd restrictions on regular ol'making out.  

But, the thing is, it doesn't.  Asking before you grope somebody:  it's not such a hard CONCEPT.  I don't see a downside!  Why would anyone put themselves in the position of arguing against it??  

I think both young men and young women need more, far more, training in the meaning of "consent."  I'm not even sure consent is strong enough a word at this point.  Both parties should want the groping (or whatever)  that's happening.  Not tolerate, not allow:  want.  Or it shouldn't happen.  That's not difficult or even mildly confusing.  Pretending it is is gross! 

Mike Huckabee is on a gay-bashing roll, having recently:

1) Said that gays should not be allowed to adopt because "children are not puppies"
2) Compared homosexuality both to drug addiction and to polygamy 
3) Observed that gays have to "prove" that their marriages are on par with heterosexual marriages if they want to change marriage laws.

First point:  Yes.  Gay people are aware that children are not puppies.*  Gay people have shown to be loving parents equally successful at parenting as straight people.   Wanting to raise children isn't a whim. It's part of a desire to share a loving home and be a contributing and functioning member of a community. Do not question a GLBTQ person's love, committment, or understanding of the gravity of the undertaking of raising children. We know. 

Second point:  Drug addiction has terrible effects on both the individual and on society.  Homosexuality does not, is in fact a natural part of some people's lives.  As for polygamy, whether this deserves legal recognition is a separate argument, but advocating for same-sex marriage and for the rights of same-sex couples is not the same as advocating for polygamy.  That's because words mean things, and different ones have different meanings! 

Third point: um, I've been legally married for 2 weeks and I am pretty sure I've already proven my marriage is on par with any number of hetero ones.  (See:  Britney, etc)  Heterosexuals should prove to ME that they deserve the sanctity of marriage, quite frankly.  But also, how can we "prove" that gay marriage is "equally defininable" to straight marriage if we are...not allowed to get married? 

All of Huckabee's comments simply serve to marginalize and de-humanize GLBTQ people.  He has to do this because he knows his side is losing.  This generation understands that GLBTQ rights are human rights.  No ridiculous overstatement from a desperate politician can change that.

*Though some including this writer may occasionally forget that puppies are not children.

I just want to make sure everyone on the East Coast knows about Momma's Hip Hop Kitchen - happening this Saturday!

Here is the word from its cofounders.  For those who don't know,  co-founder Kathleen is a longtime member of the Young Women of Color Leadership Council at Advocates for Youth!

---

Momma’s Hip Hop Kitchen, Volume 3: "Back to Our Roots"

Join us Saturday, March 6th, for what's sure to be an amazing event!!!

Momma’s Hip Hop Kitchen (MHHK) is a concert, platform and showcase of socially conscious female artists focused creating awareness on the impact of Environmental Injustices and Educational Inequalities on women of color.
MHHK Volume 3, Back to Our Roots, will be honoring International Women’s Month by bringing together educators, students, environmentalists, djs, emcees, b-girls, poets, visual artists, dancers, healers, pastors, organizers and activists to collectively express our solidarity with women’s rights!

We hope that you can join us at this free and family-friendly event. Local organizations and businesses focused on these and/or related issues are encouraged to participate by tabling or simply attending.

When and Where: Saturday, March 6th, 2010 @ the Hostos Center for Arts and Culture 450 Grand Concourse (at 149th St.) Bronx, NY (Main Theater)

Time: 2-5pm

This event is FREE and open to all ages.

For more information about the event, please visit our website @ http://www.mhhk.org or email hiphopkitchen@gmail.com. Organizations interested in tabling can register here. >Cookin' up a storm!
-Kathleen and Lah

Hey folks, I just wanted to pass along this opportunity!

---

My name is Stacy Buchanan, Project Marketing Coordinator for The WGBH Lab (lab.wgbh.org).  I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself, and a new project that we have started that I’m hoping will be of interest to the youth that participate in your program.

Quick background on us:  The WGBH Lab is a space for filmmakers and media makers of all kinds, to connect, interact, watch, create, and collaborate on work. Our most successful outlet is our Open Call series (http://lab.wgbh.org/open-call), in which where we partner with an influential team, create a compelling theme, invite media makers to submit completed video shorts in relation to this theme, and choose potentials for future PBS broadcasts.

In our latest Open Call, we’ve partnered up with MASTERPIECE Classic, and have launched The Video Diary Project (http://www.thewgbhlab.org/masterpiece), inspired by The Diary of Anne Frank. We’re asking young media makers (ages 13 and up), to submit video diaries telling us about their lives – specifically areas where certain aspects of intolerance may be involved. How have they overcome being bullied or disrespected for the way they look, think, or for what they believe in – that kind of stuff.  Portions of the diaries submitted may be selected for broadcast on MASTERPIECE Classic’s PBS airing of The Diary of Anne Frank on April 11th, 2010.  

Do you think that you could help us spread the word on this event to your teen participants? Amplify is such a great resource and outlet for teens – we would love to hear their stories.  We have a hard deadline of getting video diaries in by March 8th, in order to be considered for broadcast.  Video diaries will also be accepted until the end of May for a separate PBS broadcast component.   In the meantime, please visit us at: http://www.thewgbhlab.org/masterpiece to learn more about the project (and us), and I do hope to hear from you soon!