Mahayana's Amplify Diary

Midwest Unite + Fight Conference is This Weekend

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:47:00 -0500

This weekend, activists and allies from all over the Midwest will meet at Columbia College for the Equality Across America: Unite + Fight Midwest Conference. Equality Across America is the organization formed after the passage of Prop 8 in California that organized the National Equality March last October in D.C.

I am on the host committee for the conference and will be leading a workshop discussion called “Beyond the Ballot Box: How to Win Votes Before You Have To.” My idea for it was inspired by the Question One campaign in Maine last fall. After learning about Question 1 at the Netroots Nation conference in August, I covered the campaign extensively here on Amplify, and while at the time I wasn’t in the position to donate to the campaign financially, I gave a few hours of my time to calling Maine voters urging them to vote No on One and to vote early. Unfortunately, we didn’t win. It was a hard loss to take, but situations like that, instead of getting us down, must inspire us to fight even harder next time. So that’s why I wanted to do a workshop for Unite + Fight.

It has been a great experience being on the host committee for this conference. Even though I haven’t been the most active member, I love knowing that when change happens, it will be in part because of the incredible dedication of these people I’m working with and those that their efforts bring together.

I will update everyone next week with how the conference went. I know we have a few Chicago-area readers/writers here, so I hope to be able to meet you. I am very excited about this and the opportunity that we have to build a strong Midwest network for full federal LGBTQ equality.

~ Samantha

Who cares that Patrick Murphy is married?

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:09:00 -0500

Patrick Murphy, a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania and a veteran of the war in Iraq, is leading the effort in the House to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Last month on Huffington Post, Jason Linkins commented on an article from the New York Times on Murphy’s efforts. He shows us this quote:

"I served with great soldiers who were thrown out just because they were gay," said Mr. Murphy, who is married. "I was disheartened that the Constitution that I took an oath to support and defend was really being abused by that policy."

He then goes on to make this point:

I'm having a hard time believing that any journalist anywhere would write something like:
Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors broad reform of our nation's health care system.
Or:
Patrick Murphy, who is married, favors tax breaks for first responders.
Or:
Patrick Murphy, who is married, broke with his fellow Democrats in opposing their proposed budget.

There's no other mention of any party's marital status in the article, save for the subject of the article -- Murphy -- who is spearheading the repeal effort. It's strange and it's creepy and it's frankly condescending in the way it suggests that Murphy's efforts are legit because it's a straight man sticking up for gay and lesbian soldiers, whose own judgments on the issue are biased, I guess? As if we can't completely trust the opinion of a Lieutenant Dan Choi or a Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach without a heterosexual co-signing it?

I want to thank Jason Linkins for pointing this out. What do you guys think it means or implies that Murphy’s marital status was thought to be relevant enough to mention in an article on DADT? Do you agree with Linkins’s assessment?

~ Samantha

Nicaragua's Anti-Abortion Law Becomes a "Death Sentence" for Women

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:06:00 -0500

In 2008, the Central-American country of Nicaragua passed a law that made abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, and even when the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. Doctors could face prison sentences even for providing information related to abortion.

Now, Change.org is sponsoring a petition to reverse this incredibly dangerous law. The petition highlights the story of a woman they call Amelia.

A pregnant 27-year old Nicaraguan woman, "Amelia," with metastatic cancer has been denied medical treatment on the grounds that it might harm her baby.
Amelia has effectively been handed a death sentence by her government. Each day she is denied treatment, she edges closer to death; in a tragic irony, she will most likely die before the baby is even born. Her 10-year old daughter will be left without a mother, since the Nicaraguan government values the life of an unborn fetus over that of a mother.

[More]

More on the Stupak Anti-Abortion Amendment

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:03:00 -0500

Jessica Arons recently wrote an article for The Nation that very clearly explains the Stupak anti-abortion amendment in the House health care reform bill. It explains this somewhat confusing amendment very well, and explains what it would mean if the amendment was included in the final bill.

I highly recommend reading the full article (The World According to Stupak), but, to summarize…

It forbids insurers from selling plans that include abortion coverage to any people who receive help from the government in paying their premiums--a restriction that would apply to approximately 85 percent of customers in the new health insurance exchange and thus virtually eliminate abortion coverage from the exchange.

Federal funding is already banned from going toward abortions, but that fact wasn’t enough for Congressman Stupak.

Money in Stupak's world is "fungible," or interchangeable, meaning whatever money the government gives you frees up private money for you to use on something else. So every dollar the government pays toward your health insurance premium allows you and the insurer to spend private funds in that plan that you might not otherwise have had on abortion. To Stupak, that subsidization is the equivalent of a direct payment.

This is where his “logic” falters.
[More]

Abortion: A Personal Choice, or A Conspiracy of White Supremacy?

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:19:00 -0500

Abortion: A medical procedure that is legally available to help all women; or a conspiracy set up by White America in order to “kill” as many black babies as possible in order to maintain a legacy of white supremacy?

Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation would like you to believe the latter. Their recent billboards, which Sarah wrote about last month, have been set up through Atlanta. Their message: “Black children are an endangered species.”

According to them, abortions are “womb lynchings.” From the LA Times reporting on this:

Catherine Davis, minority outreach director for Georgia Right to Life, visits black college campuses, bringing the message that abortion is a destructive force for blacks. She often screens a movie called "Maafa 21," made by Texas antiabortion group Life Dynamics, alleging that blacks have been targeted for abortions since the end of slavery by white elites fearful of uncontrolled population growth.
(emphasis is mine)
------
"I know for sure that the black community is being targeted by abortionists for the purpose of ethnic cleansing," said King, a Georgia Right to Life board member
(emphasis is mine)

Paranoid, much?
[More]

Responsible Sex? What About Responsible Pregnancy?

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:09:00 -0500

A lot of people say “If you’re responsible enough to have sex, then you’re responsible enough to deal with the consequences (i.e., a baby). But here’s the glaring thing- you don’t have to be responsible at all to have sex. Anyone can have sex at any time. Wearing a condom is not required to be able to have sex. You should use a condom, and your decision to have sex should be considered responsibly, but irresponsible people have sex all the time. But the real problem is that too many people still think that the only, or main, reason to have sex is to make a baby.

You do have to have sex to get pregnant, but that is not why people have sex. There are a lot of reasons why people have sex, but I bet that “to make a baby” isn’t even in the top five. So, really, if someone has sex and unintentionally gets pregnant, why should they have to stay pregnant when that’s not what they intended or wanted to be? Why should they be stuck with a HUGE unexpected side effect?

Now, many will say, “If you have unprotected sex, you should expect to get pregnant.” And that’s true. But even if someone had been thoroughly educated on how to have safe sex and how women get pregnant and how to talk with their partner about protecting themselves, even then, is it really rational to force that couple to, at least, carry to term a baby they don’t want? Anyone who thinks that’s a rational, reasonable idea has never been pregnant.

Even if you decided to give the baby up for adoption, you still have to endure nine months of pregnancy. A lot of anti-choice people seem to forget that. They breeze right over the pregnancy part, as if they’re thinking, “Why wouldn’t a woman want to be pregnant?”

That’s so ridiculous. Being pregnant takes an enormous toll on your body, and that’s assuming that nothing goes wrong and that both mother and baby are healthy. It effects your personal and social life, your relationship with your partner and possibly your family (especially for teen moms), and your education and/or career. And what?- none of that matters because in the end the baby will be adopted?
[More]

First Impressions of the 2nd Season of MTV's "16 and Pregnant"

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:47:00 -0500

Recently, MTV launched their new season of “16 and Pregnant.” Usually, I avoid MTV, but I like this show. I wrote about their first season last July. I have seen two episodes so far, featuring Nikkole from Michigan and Jenelle from North Carolina. The thing that stood out to me the most was the same for both episodes- the boyfriends, Josh and Andy. Aside from being on track to be exceptionally poor fathers, they were both emotionally abusive boyfriends. They were selfish, demanding, disrespectful, rude, irresponsible boys who called their girlfriends names. They broke promises, cheated with another girl, and threatened physical violence. They wanted the girls to spend time with them instead of their friends. (Note: Some examples apply to both boys, some to just one, but I believe both were capable of all examples.)

The mothers of both girls wanted their daughters to have nothing to do with these guys. Both daughters, however, felt differently, and that was so sad to me, even more so than their poor decisions to not use condoms. They kept forgiving these guys for being complete jackasses, or kept ignoring or overlooking or “rationalizing” their reprehensible behavior. I can understand that they wanted to make an effort to work things out because these men (boys, really) are the fathers of their (super adorable) children. But, as their friends said again and again, “Do you really want to raise your baby with someone who treats you like that?”

I agree that children benefit when they’re raised by two parents, but at a certain point, having one parent is better than having an abusive second parent. Judging only from what I saw in each of the hour-long episodes, Nikkole and Janelle (and their sons) are better off without these guys. I understand that letting go of a bad guy is easier said than done, but if these young moms want to teach their sons how to respect themselves and how to treat the person you’re in a relationship with, they’re going to have to find the strength to get rid of these guys. If they want to show their children what a healthy relationship looks like and feels like, they’re going to have to end these unhealthy ones.
[More]

New Hampshire Supports Equality...Again!

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:50:00 -0500

Last year, New Hampshire passed a marriage equality law that went into effect January 1st of this year. In the few weeks since then, hundreds of gay and lesbian couples have legally married in the state.

But, on Wednesday, two bills were voted on in the House that would have 1) amended the state constitution to say that they would “only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage,” and 2) repealed the marriage equality law.

CACR 28, the bill that basically said “I don’t want to amend the constitution to ban equal marriage,” passed with a vote of 201 to 135. (Which means that 67% of the New Hampshire House voted in favor of equality.)

HB 1590, the bill that basically said “I don’t want to repeal the marriage equality law,” passed with a vote of 210 to 109. (Which means that 52% of the New Hampshire House voted in favor of equality.)

Way to go, New Hampshire! I am very glad to see these legislators doing the right thing.

To read more about the bills, and to read related articles, check out the post on Pam’s House Blend.

~ Samantha

Standards of Masculinity in Pornography and the Military

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:42:00 -0500

Gary Mucciaroni has written a brilliant book called Same Sex, Different Politics: Successes and Failures in the Struggle Over Gay Rights. It was published in 2008. I’m not even done reading it yet, but I feel like I have learned so much, which is saying something, considering how often I write about LGBTQ issues. The book, as the title suggests, covers the successes and setbacks (and the reasons behind them) in the areas of homosexual conduct, adoption, military service, marriage, civil rights, and hate crimes.

Right now, I’m reading the section on the military ban/ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and it’s coinciding with what I’ve been reading in Robert Jensen’s book, Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen’s book (I’m about halfway through it) is about how pornography devalues female sexual desire and promotes violence toward women, and how such portrayals are challenging males to “live up to” a debauched and dangerous vision of masculinity.

The place where Jensen’s book and the section on the military in Mucciaroni’s book connect is the theory and standard of masculinity. In pornography and in the military, men are expected to be aggressive, in control, dominate, forceful, and, above all, never to be submissive or in any way considered feminine. Such expectations led to the homophobic Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military (which attempts to cover the fact that gay men- whom they consider to be un-masculine- are serving right beside them as part of an institution they consider to be “for real men only” and look to as their own proof that they are themselves “man enough,” based on their inclusion and participation) and the violence against women in pornography (as men prove their dominance by using women as objects- objects with no desires of their own, making them worth only what men chose to make of them).
[More]

What I Need to Say About LGBT Suicides

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:05:00 -0500

It is not okay with me when a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person kills themselves because the pressures, actions, or discriminations from friends, family members, and/or social/political/religious institutions reach the point of becoming unbearable. It’s not okay with me because it doesn’t have to happen. LGBT people should never be intentionally or unintentionally made to feel that their sexual orientation and/or gender expression is something which makes the value of their lives questionable. No one has control over who they are attracted to, so no one should be judged by it.

From nearly 24 years of experience, I do not believe that any amount of “therapy,” familial guilt, or social shame or stigma could ever make me feel sexually attracted to and have romantic feelings for a woman. I’m straight. I’m attracted to men. That’s just the way it is. I can’t change that. I don’t want to change that. I enjoy being attracted to men. I don’t feel that this attraction indicates that there is anything wrong with me. I’ve just always been this way. I didn’t decide to be straight.

I can’t imagine the horror of feeling that my sexual orientation was something to kill myself over. I have always been straight. It’s a big part of me that has influenced so many events in my life. How would it be possible to suppress that? How could I ignore my sexual orientation?

But what if I tried to? What if society told me I had to? What if they said the only way I could be happy was to be sexually attracted to a woman? What if they said my value as a person depended on it? What if they said I would go to hell if I couldn’t change? What if I was socially expected to marry and spend my life with a woman when what I want to do is marry and spend my life with a man?
[More]

Questions About the Line Between Prostitution and Pornography

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:57:00 -0500

Where do you draw the thin line between prostitution and pornography? Does the presence of a camera really make that much of a difference? At the end of the day, aren’t you still getting paid to have sex with someone? If a female prostitute films herself having sex and then gets arrested for prostitution, could she really get the charges dropped if she said she was an independent film maker? Seriously, what’s the difference? Why is one illegal and the other isn’t? Why is getting paid for sex okay when it’s on a film set, but not okay when it’s in the back of a car.

Why are “adult film actors” seen as stars while prostitutes are seen as dirty? Why has pornography become so mainstream and destigmatized while prostitution remains relatively taboo? Why is being a porn star viewed as glamorous (even a fashion trend) while prostitution isn’t more than skanky? Could it just be that porn “actors” make more money?

Also, are porn “actors” considered sex workers, and if not, why not? Why is Hugh Hefner a hero, but a pimp is a villian? Why do so many people know Jenna Jameson’s name? Why do porn stars get their own awards show while prostitutes get their own jail cell? What is the difference? Where do we draw the line?

I’m really confused and curious about this. Am I missing something? If someone can come up with an explanation, please tell me.

~ Samantha

The Divorce Analogy

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:00:00 -0500

I was thinking about marriage the other day, and I realized something- I am pro-divorce. Being pro-divorce does not mean I am anti-marriage. I am in fact pro-marriage. But, if the marriage becomes abusive or otherwise intolerable, I would want a divorce. A safe and legal divorce. (Get where I’m going with this?)

I of course wouldn’t want my life circumstances to lead to me deciding to get a divorce, but if they do, I want to be able to get one. If I feel I need to divorce my husband, I don’t want anyone else to make that decision for me, or to assume that I am incapable of making the decision or that I don’t really realize what a divorce will mean for me. And so, I am pro-divorce because I believe that it can be the right choice. And, even if I was morally or religiously opposed to divorce, I wouldn’t assume that 1) all women felt that way, or 2) that I had any right to make that decision for another woman, or 3) that even though I personally was opposed to it, that there was no possible reason that the decision would be justifiable or beneficial for another woman.

In our current society, making divorce illegal is unthinkable. It must be an option. People (not just women) must be able to decide to leave a relationship, and they must be allowed to do so safely and legally. Think about what it would mean if divorce was illegal. Really, take a minute or two to image what that would be like. There was a time, not too long ago, that divorce was illegal. Do we really even want to consider going back to that time?

Now, replace the word “divorce” with the word “abortion.” See what I mean? I wish that more people understood the significance and necessity of legal abortion. I wish that more people understood that legalizing abortion is as important as legalizing divorce. It’s about freedom and choice, and trusting women to be able to make those choices for themselves.
[More]

Real Men, Bad Boys, and Nice Guys: What's a Girl to Do?

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:19:00 -0500

I recently finished reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman (our very own “Yes Means Yes” columnist here at Amplify) and Jessica Valenti (author of another Amplify favorite, The Purity Myth). The book is amazing. You’ve really got to read it. So many of the essays in the book stood out to me, but right now I’d like to focus on an idea talked about in an essay written by Julia Serano called “Why Nice Guys Finish Last.”

I found this quote to be very thought-provoking:

…I would argue that “nice guys” are generally read as emasculated or effeminized men in our culture. In a world where calling a man “sensitive” is viewed as a pejorative, the very act of showing respect for women often disqualifies a male from being seen as a “real man.” I believe that this is a major reason why many heterosexual women are not sexually interested in “nice guys.” -p. 238

Isn’t that interesting? And sad?

Heterosexual women always say they want to meet a nice guy who treats them with respect, but then somehow they end up dating some loser jackass who only cares about his own needs. We’ve seen this play out in movies and in real life. Our friends have done it. We’ve done it. Our single moms have done it. One may ask, “Why do guys act that way?” but it may in fact be better to ask, “Why do women allow men to act that way?”

If relationship after relationship finds you with a series of men who act like assholes, you need to ask yourself why you acquaint yourself with these men long enough to call what you have a relationship. You should ask yourself why that great guy that you’ve known forever but only see as a friend hasn’t made it on your “sexually attracted to” list. Why are the rude, moody, aggressive guys so appealing? Why are the nice, respectful, understanding guys so unappealing? Why is your idea of a “real man” not so nice of a guy?
[More]

Cindy McCain Poses for NOH8

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:14:00 -0500

Yes, that Cindy McCain; the wife of former Presidential hopeful Republican Senator John McCain. The NOH8 campaign is “photo project and silent protest…in direct response to the passage of Proposition 8 [in California].”

In a statement on their website, NOH8 made the following statement:
[More]

Why Men Rule the World: A Serious Look At Why Feminism Still Matters

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:47:00 -0500

As much as it pains my feminist heart to say this, I do not believe that women rule the world. Let me say that, as a feminist, I do not want women to rule the world- that’s not what feminism is about. Feminism, most basically, is about equality between the sexes. So really, I don’t want either sex to “rule the world.” Yet, again, I am disappointed. As much as I don’t want it to be true, as I see it now, men rule the world. And I hate that. Not because I’m an “angry feminist”…or wait…maybe that’s exactly what I am. And maybe that’s exactly what I should be.

As much as I want to believe that equality between the sexes really does exist, I have come to realize that, in the most important ways, it does not. And until it does, I will continue to be an angry feminist because I cannot and will not accept being seen as less than just because I am a woman. Inequality will never be okay with me. So, until people realize that one sex does not rule the world (or, in other words, until people realize that one sex does not rule over the other) I will continue to be angry.

I think that we have two big problems in the United States when it comes to combating this issue. The first, simply, is that because of our successes in certain areas of this struggle, we forget that there are huge, though possibly less visible, issues that still need significant attention. Our second problem is our difficulty in seeing and comprehending the world outside our borders. We think that the whole world is like us, and if they’re not, they don’t matter anyway. I believe it is this kind of thinking that has allowed the worst inequalities against women to continue.
[More]