This delicious after-Thanksgiving gem comes to us via Huffpost's Gay Voices section. National Organization for Marriage is a kooky bunch. Basically, this woman from NOM made a video as a message for college students to see over the Thanksgiving break, telling them that they should tell their families if there were any "gay events" or if there were "gay RAs" at whatever school they dorm at. She went on to theorize that young people are being pressured to "accept" gays because they have gay peers.
You like your friends. You want them to be protected under the same laws you are, so they can find jobs and have health coverage appropriate for them? Well now...PEER PRESSURE! Or not. Could just be realizing that discrimination is totally jacked, regardless of religion, color, creed, or whatever? Who was this really directed at, students from "Straight-Protestant-Men Rule The Roost-White-SmallTown, USA?
Hold on...we are talking about NOM. It never ends.
Bisexual turkey, anyone?
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Something Really Good is Going On.
It has been a really long time since I've kept up on this blog. My apologies. Good news though, I do see coming back here and writing more often again!
I have a very cool thing to talk about today. The main campus of Philadelphia's Community College, which serves thousands of students from all over the city, officially has an activist Gay-Straight Alliance. The GSA was formed both as a "safe space" and as a center for resources and student rights for our LGBT and ally staff and students. We have some very high hopes for this group. We already have almost one hundred standing members, a full executive board, and full support from the staff GSA and allies.
I see some very cool things happening with this group. We've already reached out and made contact with the HRC, the GSA National Network, and You Can Play. It's getting very big, very fast. I am happy to be a part of the executive board of the first ever official LGBT campus group with a focus on real change as well as social interaction.
As can be expected, we've already started facing opposition from others. It's not clear whether or not it was something organized or individually motivated, but not even a week after it was set up, our office was littered with religious groups' material. People have objections that we are even on campus. Personally, I expected this kind of ignorance. Look at everything the LGBT community has faced over time, just like this. The fact that such ignorance is on display does nothing to me other than prove that this group and safe space NEED to be at CCP. I am irked that our office was vandalized, that is a clear violation of our students' rights. But whatever- we aren't here for people who use God as an excuse to be ignorant and hateful. We are here to promote tolerance and unity for our student body, gay or not. We will get through this, and whatever other b/s we get handed. It just proves our point!
I am also very happy to be an out bisexual on such a group's board. Anybody who's read this blog with any regularity knows that it really pisses me off when bi and trans-identified people get marginalized within the community. Everyone always says that the B and the T aren't really part of the fight, and they couldn't be more wrong. You know who was at Stonewall? Drag Queens, T-girls, gay guys, and bi men! We all have a reason to be here, fighting for our safety and civil rights. And I am PROUD to be putting the B in LGBT.
Happy Thanksgiving, Everybody!
I have a very cool thing to talk about today. The main campus of Philadelphia's Community College, which serves thousands of students from all over the city, officially has an activist Gay-Straight Alliance. The GSA was formed both as a "safe space" and as a center for resources and student rights for our LGBT and ally staff and students. We have some very high hopes for this group. We already have almost one hundred standing members, a full executive board, and full support from the staff GSA and allies.
I see some very cool things happening with this group. We've already reached out and made contact with the HRC, the GSA National Network, and You Can Play. It's getting very big, very fast. I am happy to be a part of the executive board of the first ever official LGBT campus group with a focus on real change as well as social interaction.
As can be expected, we've already started facing opposition from others. It's not clear whether or not it was something organized or individually motivated, but not even a week after it was set up, our office was littered with religious groups' material. People have objections that we are even on campus. Personally, I expected this kind of ignorance. Look at everything the LGBT community has faced over time, just like this. The fact that such ignorance is on display does nothing to me other than prove that this group and safe space NEED to be at CCP. I am irked that our office was vandalized, that is a clear violation of our students' rights. But whatever- we aren't here for people who use God as an excuse to be ignorant and hateful. We are here to promote tolerance and unity for our student body, gay or not. We will get through this, and whatever other b/s we get handed. It just proves our point!
I am also very happy to be an out bisexual on such a group's board. Anybody who's read this blog with any regularity knows that it really pisses me off when bi and trans-identified people get marginalized within the community. Everyone always says that the B and the T aren't really part of the fight, and they couldn't be more wrong. You know who was at Stonewall? Drag Queens, T-girls, gay guys, and bi men! We all have a reason to be here, fighting for our safety and civil rights. And I am PROUD to be putting the B in LGBT.
Happy Thanksgiving, Everybody!
Friday, September 28, 2012
Outing Myself in World Cultures
So it has been some time since I last posted. It's been really crazy lately. I just started a new job that has pretty much swallowed up my life outside of school, and my laptop is still totally wrecked, so blogging hasn't really been high up on my to-do list.
Speaking of school, one of the classes I'm taking this semester is a humanities course that focuses on ancient cultures. Basically, this class uses time-relevant literature as a measuring stick and discussion point for the study of ancient societies. Last week we opened up the discussion on the ancient Greeks. Anybody who has knowledge of that era and culture knows that in those days, bisexuality was not only socially acceptable, but people were very open about those tendencies. It just wasn't really "anything" back in their time. One of my classmates, on hearing that, loudly crops up with "and that's why they BURNED". Nobody said a WORD. I just sat there staring at her, trying hard not to flip out and trying to observe the reaction of my classmates.
I was furious. I live in a country that is supposedly free, so I accept that not everyone here is going to understand or respect people in my situation. What really irked me wasn't the kernel of bi bashing I'd just had to deal with, it was that nobody said a thing about it at all. If we would have been discussing gays or lesbians, it's safe to assume that there would have been a lot more of a reaction to what was said. At the very least, some teeth would have been clicked, or somebody would have muttered something about 'bigotry' or 'ignorance'. Somebody most likely would have responded even just to save face- not being homophobic is almost straddling the line of political correctness now, it looks bad socially to be anti-gay.
But biphobic? The message that was sent with that room full of silence was crystal clear: saying hateful things about gays is wrong, but bisexuals...by all means! Not one person in that room, hetero or homo, stood up. Not to save face, not to look good, not to legitimately care. This was a subtle, but loud, reaffirmation that switch hitters don't get accepted as straight and don't get accepted as gay. They are somewhere in between, leaving many people to wonder why the "anti-hate measures" don't seem to include them. Yet again. And yet again- I say BIPHOBIA is HOMOPHOBIA in disguise.
So a week after that debacle, we were dissecting the poetry of Sappho. There were a lot of cracks about Sappho and the Isle of Lesbos. (hardy har...get some new material, geeze...), and for whatever reason many people in the class were convinced that Sappho was a man. When asked about what I thought about the poetry, I was honest in saying that the way Sappho wrote sounded like lesbian communication. When I was asked why I thought that, I pretty much couldn't get around saying that it sounded familiar and from my own experience. The looks on the classmates' faces were priceless. I got a lot of the disapproving looks from older Protestant women and gross, seedy responses from the males in earshot.
Needless to say, I'm not loving this class at ALL. It saddens me, because this is something totally up my alley. I should love this course. But in all honesty, it's immensely uncomfortable for me and I am counting down the days until finals.
Speaking of school, one of the classes I'm taking this semester is a humanities course that focuses on ancient cultures. Basically, this class uses time-relevant literature as a measuring stick and discussion point for the study of ancient societies. Last week we opened up the discussion on the ancient Greeks. Anybody who has knowledge of that era and culture knows that in those days, bisexuality was not only socially acceptable, but people were very open about those tendencies. It just wasn't really "anything" back in their time. One of my classmates, on hearing that, loudly crops up with "and that's why they BURNED". Nobody said a WORD. I just sat there staring at her, trying hard not to flip out and trying to observe the reaction of my classmates.
I was furious. I live in a country that is supposedly free, so I accept that not everyone here is going to understand or respect people in my situation. What really irked me wasn't the kernel of bi bashing I'd just had to deal with, it was that nobody said a thing about it at all. If we would have been discussing gays or lesbians, it's safe to assume that there would have been a lot more of a reaction to what was said. At the very least, some teeth would have been clicked, or somebody would have muttered something about 'bigotry' or 'ignorance'. Somebody most likely would have responded even just to save face- not being homophobic is almost straddling the line of political correctness now, it looks bad socially to be anti-gay.
But biphobic? The message that was sent with that room full of silence was crystal clear: saying hateful things about gays is wrong, but bisexuals...by all means! Not one person in that room, hetero or homo, stood up. Not to save face, not to look good, not to legitimately care. This was a subtle, but loud, reaffirmation that switch hitters don't get accepted as straight and don't get accepted as gay. They are somewhere in between, leaving many people to wonder why the "anti-hate measures" don't seem to include them. Yet again. And yet again- I say BIPHOBIA is HOMOPHOBIA in disguise.
So a week after that debacle, we were dissecting the poetry of Sappho. There were a lot of cracks about Sappho and the Isle of Lesbos. (hardy har...get some new material, geeze...), and for whatever reason many people in the class were convinced that Sappho was a man. When asked about what I thought about the poetry, I was honest in saying that the way Sappho wrote sounded like lesbian communication. When I was asked why I thought that, I pretty much couldn't get around saying that it sounded familiar and from my own experience. The looks on the classmates' faces were priceless. I got a lot of the disapproving looks from older Protestant women and gross, seedy responses from the males in earshot.
Needless to say, I'm not loving this class at ALL. It saddens me, because this is something totally up my alley. I should love this course. But in all honesty, it's immensely uncomfortable for me and I am counting down the days until finals.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Party Politics Under the Rainbow
In one way, I think I'm finally getting tired of all of the political chatter that has been front and center in our society lately. The ultra negative campaigning done on behalf of both major contenders in the presidential race are both annoying and, at times, infuriating.
In a lot of other ways, I can't help but be interested in hearing the thousands of other political perspectives out there. It seems like there are as many political wavelengths as there are religious or cultural, and people take all of the above extremely seriously. In reading through what felt like a trillion op-ed pieces today, I came across this gem: Why Are We So Afraid of Gay Republicans?
The gay community has very often been noted as a wealthy contingent in buying power and in political backing. This idea has been challenged, but somehow the view of the "pink dollar" still holds some weight. It is a safe assumption that workplace/hiring equality, marriage laws, and adoption policies are at the forefront of LGBT political issues. I read in a compilation book a few months ago an essay arguing the point of American LGBT people as being "the ultimate conservatives because they are fighting for the rights to marry and have family-centered lives, as well as the right to serve openly in the US military".
I think that's a pretty interesting concept, considering people tend to view the Republican party the same way: Either it's the illusion (or actual presence) of plenty of income OR it's about "traditional"/family-centered values with a heavy nod to the armed forces. That in mind, I don't think the idea of a gay Republican is too far fetched. I would go so far as to say that the presence of such right wingers is perplexing mainly due to the media slant from the Left. (I don't doubt that there are networks that have a liberal bias to mirror the much-lamented bias of FOX.)
I wonder what this concept would mean for voters that identify as bisexual. Like everything else, studies and polls don't seem to include solely that very fluid group of people. For the record, THIS one doesn't really like the idea of running a country by party politics. It seems childish and counterproductive to me.
On a somewhat lighter note, At least Google doesn't immediately associate the word 'bisexual' with porn anymore.
In a lot of other ways, I can't help but be interested in hearing the thousands of other political perspectives out there. It seems like there are as many political wavelengths as there are religious or cultural, and people take all of the above extremely seriously. In reading through what felt like a trillion op-ed pieces today, I came across this gem: Why Are We So Afraid of Gay Republicans?
The gay community has very often been noted as a wealthy contingent in buying power and in political backing. This idea has been challenged, but somehow the view of the "pink dollar" still holds some weight. It is a safe assumption that workplace/hiring equality, marriage laws, and adoption policies are at the forefront of LGBT political issues. I read in a compilation book a few months ago an essay arguing the point of American LGBT people as being "the ultimate conservatives because they are fighting for the rights to marry and have family-centered lives, as well as the right to serve openly in the US military".
I think that's a pretty interesting concept, considering people tend to view the Republican party the same way: Either it's the illusion (or actual presence) of plenty of income OR it's about "traditional"/family-centered values with a heavy nod to the armed forces. That in mind, I don't think the idea of a gay Republican is too far fetched. I would go so far as to say that the presence of such right wingers is perplexing mainly due to the media slant from the Left. (I don't doubt that there are networks that have a liberal bias to mirror the much-lamented bias of FOX.)
I wonder what this concept would mean for voters that identify as bisexual. Like everything else, studies and polls don't seem to include solely that very fluid group of people. For the record, THIS one doesn't really like the idea of running a country by party politics. It seems childish and counterproductive to me.
On a somewhat lighter note, At least Google doesn't immediately associate the word 'bisexual' with porn anymore.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Well, I guess I'm going to have to weigh in now that this is blowing up....
Chik Fil A. Yes, I am talking about chicken sandwiches, waffle fries, Constitutional Amendments, and Christianity.
The big thing with this company is that the CEO of Chik Fil A made some pretty strong comments about how his company supports heterosexual marriage only because of their religious beliefs. You know what? I don't have a problem with that statement in the least. This is supposed to be a free country, where all private citizens are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. It's not really a secret that Chik Fil A was founded by, and is run by, a very strict Christian family. In the grand scheme of things, I agree with Cathy that his operation is family owned and (for the most part) family run, at least on the corporate level. That's like a super-large scale version of a family store/eatery in my eyes, so he's free to blab about whatever he wants to. It's not only his business, it's his right as a citizen to do such things, even if I think he's hypocritical.
My beef (ha) with Chik Fil A has always been that they use direct customer profits to fund not only the WinShape foundation camps...but also groups like NOM and Focus on the Family. These groups are extremist and badly sourced, they're pretty much the PETA of gay rights. That set aside, I have always felt that if a person wants to use his or her private money to support their beliefs and politics...go ham. It's your money, I have no right to tell you not to do things with it. For every right wing nutcase who donates to NOM, there are plenty of others who do the same thing for the opposite view organizations. I know I won't support Chik Fil A so long as the dime from my purchase goes to corporations who would rather see a Hollywood divorce than a successful gay marriage. When the direct profit funding stops, if Cathy wants to back the NOM mobile for the next sixty years...if it's his own money off of his direct earnings, he can do whatever he wants. Business and beliefs can merge to a certain degree, but in my opinion they're best left separate to avoid things just like this.
The big thing with this company is that the CEO of Chik Fil A made some pretty strong comments about how his company supports heterosexual marriage only because of their religious beliefs. You know what? I don't have a problem with that statement in the least. This is supposed to be a free country, where all private citizens are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. It's not really a secret that Chik Fil A was founded by, and is run by, a very strict Christian family. In the grand scheme of things, I agree with Cathy that his operation is family owned and (for the most part) family run, at least on the corporate level. That's like a super-large scale version of a family store/eatery in my eyes, so he's free to blab about whatever he wants to. It's not only his business, it's his right as a citizen to do such things, even if I think he's hypocritical.
My beef (ha) with Chik Fil A has always been that they use direct customer profits to fund not only the WinShape foundation camps...but also groups like NOM and Focus on the Family. These groups are extremist and badly sourced, they're pretty much the PETA of gay rights. That set aside, I have always felt that if a person wants to use his or her private money to support their beliefs and politics...go ham. It's your money, I have no right to tell you not to do things with it. For every right wing nutcase who donates to NOM, there are plenty of others who do the same thing for the opposite view organizations. I know I won't support Chik Fil A so long as the dime from my purchase goes to corporations who would rather see a Hollywood divorce than a successful gay marriage. When the direct profit funding stops, if Cathy wants to back the NOM mobile for the next sixty years...if it's his own money off of his direct earnings, he can do whatever he wants. Business and beliefs can merge to a certain degree, but in my opinion they're best left separate to avoid things just like this.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
A Sad Loss for Minds and Queers, And Mindful Queers too.
"There is no such thing as a homosexual or a
heterosexual person. There are only homo- or heterosexual acts. Most
people are a mixture of impulses if not practices.""Now you have people in Washington who have no
interest in the country at all. They're interested in their companies,
their corporations grabbing Caspian oil."
Just two of my favorite quotes from the recently departed Gore Vidal.
Just two of my favorite quotes from the recently departed Gore Vidal.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Creepster Brewer.
Good morning people!
I am back up on my soapbox for a moment. The governor of Arizona is pushing to have employers not cover domestic partners in benefits packages, and that just about burns my bum like a three foot flame. It is my belief that when it comes to employment-related things of this nature, an employee is an employee regardless of orientation. Therefore, gay employees should be covered under the same family benefits as straight ones are. It is not your employer's business who you go home to. It doesn't cost more to cover a gay person's insurance costs. (Wow can you believe that, we're not all AIDS liabilities after all!)
Things like this drive me up a wall. In a country where it's hard enough to find decent work, let alone decent work with good benefits, this type of issue should really be a nonpoint. What you do for a living has no connection to what your orientation is. Unless of course, you're gay for pay. Then...well, that's a different story.
I am back up on my soapbox for a moment. The governor of Arizona is pushing to have employers not cover domestic partners in benefits packages, and that just about burns my bum like a three foot flame. It is my belief that when it comes to employment-related things of this nature, an employee is an employee regardless of orientation. Therefore, gay employees should be covered under the same family benefits as straight ones are. It is not your employer's business who you go home to. It doesn't cost more to cover a gay person's insurance costs. (Wow can you believe that, we're not all AIDS liabilities after all!)
Things like this drive me up a wall. In a country where it's hard enough to find decent work, let alone decent work with good benefits, this type of issue should really be a nonpoint. What you do for a living has no connection to what your orientation is. Unless of course, you're gay for pay. Then...well, that's a different story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)