During the inauguration, I sat at a table with the staff of the National Council for Research on Women (pictured left).
Our remembrances from the day are now posted at their blog, The REAL Deal, right here.
politics
While I was disappointed by Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, and felt it was a double slap in the face to those fighting for gay rights after Prop 8, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the choice. It seemed that it spelled the beginnings of a new era where the many faces of America were recognized, no matter which administration was in power and even if that meant recognizing those who refuse to do the same for their fellow citizens. It also just seemed like a symbolic, if potentially politically beneficial move for Obama, and one not to lose too much breath over given more substantive battles ahead. A New York Times article reported the following on how the invocation choice was received in Oklahoma:
The church’s pastor and founder, Billy Joe Daugherty, said that the selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical minister from California, to give the inaugural invocation went a long way to easing fears in Mr. Daugherty’s mostly conservative congregation about a liberal social agenda. Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Warren has been denounced by many gay rights advocates and other liberal groups.
And as Bishop Gene Robinson wrote, the inaugural committee’s request that Bishop Robinson, the only openly gay pastor of a major Christian denomination, give the invocation at the opening We Are One event was “an indication of the new president’s commitment to being the President of ALL the people.”
As long as Obama’s administration still pursues that liberal social agenda (getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, shoring up abortion rights, getting rid of Bush’s 11th hour health provider “conscience” rule), I’m fine with him extending the symbolic olive branch.
But speaking of facts on the ground, in reality Rick Warren’s speech was extremely disappointing, a piece exclusionary buffoonery. First, it felt generally uninspired, an ordinary speech for an extraordinary moment. Second, while some felt it gave inclusive nods to various American religious populations, I found his invocation of Jesus and full inclusion and leading of the “Our Father” prayer as unsettling, and I was raised with both in my religious background. I can’t imagine how it felt to those for whom such prayers and invocations have no religious meaning.
But it was the contrast between Rick Warren’s invocation on Tuesday, and Gene Robinson’s on Sunday, that was the most stark. Bishop Robinson began with a explosively inclusive tone: “O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…” and continued on:
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
You should also read Gwen and Tonni’s awesome GWP post about feminism and faith from this morning.
Update:
I like this description from the New York Times of the national prayer service this morning attended by the Obamas and Bidens at the National Cathedral:
Some new traditions were also being made. The service featured no fewer than 20 interfaith clergy, including woman leaders of the Muslim and Hindu faiths. And for the first time, the preacher was a woman, the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a mainline Protestant denomination.
Live blogged from Caroline’s on Broadway
By Marco Acevedo (for accompanying pics where here it just says “IMG”, visit Marco’s front page post over at Open Salon, from which this is poached – with Marco’s permission, of course)
10:52 a.m.
I’m at our table in Carolines with my wife Dee (aka Girl w/Pen) and a happy, mimosa-fueled crowd of feminist confreres watching as the bi-Presidential caravan heads out from the White House. (This is unfortunately taking the form of an after-the-fact dispatch, since I don’t have Internet access here).
We’re here at the invitation of The White House Project (“a non-partisan organization committed to enhancing public perceptions of women leaders and advancing a richly diverse, critical mass of women into leadership positions.†Although Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show, declared herself pointedly partisan during her opening monologue. Her comment on the news that Cheney will be in a wheelchair for the inauguration: “Cheney supposedly hurt himself while moving. I guess he did let the doorknob hit him in the ass on the way out.â€)
IMG_0283
Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show
11:08 a.m.
Talk at the table: Who is acting President in the ten minutes between the swearings in of Biden and Obama? Seriously, ten minutes is a long time. A lot can happen. Why aren’t they simultaneous?
IMG_0287
My babe, Girl w/Pen
11:19 a.m.
The Carters are announced. The brand strikes up some rousing Sousa (what’s happening to me? Wearing a flag pin, tearing up to Sousa… must be middle age.)
11:22 a.m.
The Clintons are announced. The Carolines crowd goes wild. Conversation around the table: the symbolism of yellow (gold?) and purple, the vestiges of royal ritual. Everyone on the podium seems to be wearing a jot of one color of the other. Hillary particularly striking in her purple coat.
11:24 a.m.
Sasha and Malia, appear, all smiles and regal pace. Carolines erupts again. Whoops at the sight of the Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin. Regal presence.
11:31 a.m.
Cheers and gasps for Michelle resplendent in glittering yellow. Boos and hissing for Dubya as he ambles along on his perp walk. I can’t help thinking he looks alone. Interesting that the First Lady doesn’t accompany the outgoing President.
11:39 a.m.
Obama appears on the flatscreen. Cheers, applause, a scattering of Carolines attendees rising to their feet. Comments at table: the office has already aged him, and he hasn’t even been sworn in. But he looks filled with the moment, calm and accepting.
11:44 a.m.
President-Elect Barack H. Obama is announced. Thunder and cries. Closeups on the screen of black men and women in the crowd on the mall.
I feel the moment expanding.
No more time stamps.
The rest is a blur of fluid motion quickly setting as rock-solid history.
Hugs and involuntary shout outs during DiFi’s impassioned opening speech. Her words about the nonviolent roots of this triumphant moment are superimposed to dramatic effect over the visage of our outgoing President.
Boos and guffaws at the appearance of Reverend Rick Warren for the opening prayer. Loud comments throughout the prayer, hisses at its close.
Aretha blesses,caresses and weaves “My Country ‘tis of Thee†in vaults and spires over the mass of humanity carpeting the Mall. Not your white grandma’s Kate Smith.
Noon.
Obama becomes President of the United States by Constitutional decree, although he hasn’t yet taken the oath. The moment passes under the soothing and introspective tones of Yoyo Ma and Itzhak Perlman.
IMG_0290
Yoyo Ma at the Moment. Grace.
IMG_0302
The Girl w/Pen happy and proud
IMG_0303
Boy w/Pin
IMG_0310
A jumbotron in Times Square
IMG_0316
Obama Generation
IMG_0319
For posterity
IMG_0321
My cold fingers, the Flag and the Square
I was so excited bout it all this weekend, I painted my nails red and blue. Yep, I really did.
Off to Caroline’s on Broadway now to watch the festivities with a bunch of friends and colleagues. It seems there’s so much to say, and no words in which to say it.
ENJOY THIS HISTORIC DAY!
First, thanks to Aviva over at Fourth Wave for posting a roundup of links to the Great Ms. Cover Debate of 2009 (“Super-Feminist Obama to the Rescue!“), and to Yondalla, who writes in reference to the image of Obama as Super-Feminist-Man in comments here at GWP, “A man who is a feminist would not be someone who would rescue us. It would be someone who walks beside us.”
Having read the critiques, I get it now. And I respect the dissent. But I stand behind my original praise of the cover. I agree with Jill over at Feministe, who writes,
“Obama has reportedly self-identified as a feminist, and has the legislative record to back it up. Is he a perfect feminist, or a perfect progressive? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Is he going to disappoint us over and over? Yeah, he’s already started. But he’s still pretty damned good, especially for a mainstream, center-left politician elected to the highest office, and I don’t really see the point in kicking him out of the club just yet.”
The brouhaha over this cover is not generational, nor is it necessarily PUMA-related (as Megan at Jezebel snarkily and dismissively asserts). The controversy is over the rescue narrative, and how one reads visual imagery, which is often more polyglot than it seems.
Looking at the current cover next to the famous 1973 cover featuring Wonder Woman, a bunch of questions come up for me. First, wasn’t this cover perhaps intended as satire? Because next to the cartoonish Wonder Woman cover, the current one certainly strikes me as having an element of fantasy to it too.
Second, Ms. is a magazine that has tried to reinvent itself over and over again. Its current readership skews older, and I imagine engaging younger readers is now key. In putting Obama on the cover in this way, are the publishers sending a message that the feminism of Ms. is big-tent enough to encompass younger Obama-supporting feminists? Was this a move to get beyond the stereotype of Ms. as “your mother’s magazine” that some younger women continue to hold? If so, I laud the extending of this generational olive branch.
In the end, I get the critiques about how men can’t save feminism. I really do. But bottom line over here: I like the playful, subversive idea that inside the most prominent man in the world right nows lies a feminist ready to more publicly engage. Time will tell whether or not it’s true.
(Paging Marco, my laid-off graphic designer husband who thinks a lot about superheros and blogs about the narratives behind images! Weigh in, my dear Clark Kent?!)
I just had to put up a quick post highlighting some of the great articles coming out of RH Reality Check discussing what Obama’s administration will mean for reproductive rights. Over a year ago, RH Reality Check published a questionnaire filled out by Obama’s campaign staff outlining his nuanced, but firm view on reproductive rights.
Now that President Bush is doing his best to undermine reproductive rights in the last days of his presidency, how sure can we be that a President Obama will live up to the promises seen in Obama the candidate? As with much of the future Obama administration, right now we can only react and predict as his nominations and appointments unfold. So, the good, the bad, and the ugly?
The (very) good: Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen this week to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Johnsen is a fierce, pro-choice advocate who served as Legal Director for NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988-1993.
The, well, not bad, just unknown: Obama’s office announced the nomination of CNN’s Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general. Gupta’s CNN show, “House Call,” has avoided the topic of reproductive health and when talking about AIDS has never really touched on the topic of sex. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/01/08/but-can-he-talk-about-sex
Still, reproductive issues specifically rarely grace the screen. An entire episode devoted to “women’s health issues” covered only the topics of breast cancer, smoking, and heart disease. In a 2004 special on multiple births, he headed up the top of the news program with the news that pregnancies among girls ages 10-14 were on the decline, which he attributed to “abstinence programs and birth control,” a fairly ambiguous and tentative statement.
And the Ugly: Well, this may actually be a good. It seems that right-wing, anti-choice extremists are already plotting their opposition marches and rallies and false information spreading. While this is something pro-choice organizations will have to focus on combating, it is a good sign that the opposition is scared of what an Obama administration will mean for reproductive rights.
Fallout from Prop 8 continues as various organizations, who have pro-gay rights missions or are dedicated to upholding their non-discrimination policies, decide how to approach businesses and other organizations (the Mormon Church of course being a primary target) in California that gave money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.
Working in the world of scholarly organizations myself, I found Inside Higher Ed’s article on the American Historical Association (AHA)’s decision to go ahead with their conference at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego as planned especially interesting. The Manchester Hyatt’s owner, Doug Manchester, funneled a great deal of money to the campaign. Instead of backing out of their contract, which would still drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into Doug Manchester’s hands plus allow him to book the space for another function, the AHA has voted on an alternative proposal to pack their program with sessions dealing with gay rights issues. Given how much the AHA has already invested and that Manchester would get much of the money either way, I actually very much like this alternative plan. Other scholarly organizations, which have not yet signed contracts, are planning to boycott the hotel.
I am still amazed by stories of business owners in California who gave a great deal to Proposition 8 and didn’t think that their businesses would be affected by their support for a law that discriminates against many of their clients.
We’ve been marinating on 2008; what an incredible year! Turbulent, exciting and really most of our wishes seemed to be granted in one fell swoop with the outcome of the US election.
There was China’s Olympic moment of glory, the first female Mayor in Egypt and of course the highs and lows of the U.S. election and then the same sex marriage Proposition in California. For all the leaps forward there is still more to be done for gender equality globally. Next year we want more inclusion! We wanted to share our top 5 wishes en route to inclusion. Enjoy and add your own in comments.
Our Top 5:
more...
Hate is on the rise. It is. Really.
Sunday, the CNN Headline read: “New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime.â€
A 31-year-old Ecuadorean man who was beaten last Sunday in what New York City authorities say may have been a hate crime has died at a Queens hospital, his brother said Saturday.
Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother, Romel, had left a party on December 7 at St. Brigid’s Roman Catholic Church when several men approached them in a car in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, police said. The men allegedly began shouting anti-gay and anti-Latino vulgarities at the two men.
Jose Sucuzhanay suffered severe head trauma and was taken to Elmhurst Hospital. He died Friday night from his injuries.
The ironic twist? Sucuzhanay is not even gay. Evidently, the two men were walking arm-in-arm, which is likely the cause of the confusion.
It sounds more like the next Cohen Brothers movie than an actual news headline, but it is a perfect example of complete ignorance and hatred prevailing over any kind of logic or human decency—something which has become more and more frequent in our society, of late.
In October of this year, the FBI released a report whose findings showed: “6 percent increase in anti-gay hate crimes.†The report “is purely statistical and does not assign a cause,†but it certainly begs the question: what is it about this cultural moment that is causing people to act out against the gay community?
So what IS the reason behind this surge? Is it the economy? Proposition 8, or the recent election of Obama (which seems unlikely, since Obama has made no effort to align himself with the gay community)? Could it be Susan Faludi’s observations about our increased reliance on gender roles post-9/11 in her book Terror Dream
are coming to a head in a very violent, apocalyptic fashion?
One thing is for sure: the federal government is doing very little to address the issue. “Neither the federal hate crimes statute nor 21 states include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws,†reports Chip Alfred to Out and About.
In nature, a period of general chaos typically ensues before a major change occurs. I am hopeful that this, and other expressions of hatred, ignorance, and fear, are merely people’s natural response to the anticipation of change in our country (although Obama’s not painting a very hopeful tomorrow for LGBT–cough cough–Rick Warren–cough cough).
-Melinda Parrish
Rick Warren as Obama’s choice for the inaugural invocation, for reals?
The best critique I’ve seen so far is this one, by Michelle Goldberg over at Religion Dispatches. (Addendum: See also Gloria Feldt, “Say It Isn’t So, O!”)
I get the bridging of constituencies intended through this pick, but still SO not cool. Why why why?
Please feel free to post links to any organized efforts you’ve seen to send messages of outrage to Obama HQ in comments.
While I was disappointed by Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, and felt it was a double slap in the face to those fighting for gay rights after Prop 8, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the choice. It seemed that it spelled the beginnings of a new era where the many faces of America were recognized, no matter which administration was in power and even if that meant recognizing those who refuse to do the same for their fellow citizens. It also just seemed like a symbolic, if potentially politically beneficial move for Obama, and one not to lose too much breath over given more substantive battles ahead. A New York Times article reported the following on how the invocation choice was received in Oklahoma:
The church’s pastor and founder, Billy Joe Daugherty, said that the selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical minister from California, to give the inaugural invocation went a long way to easing fears in Mr. Daugherty’s mostly conservative congregation about a liberal social agenda. Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Warren has been denounced by many gay rights advocates and other liberal groups.
And as Bishop Gene Robinson wrote, the inaugural committee’s request that Bishop Robinson, the only openly gay pastor of a major Christian denomination, give the invocation at the opening We Are One event was “an indication of the new president’s commitment to being the President of ALL the people.”
As long as Obama’s administration still pursues that liberal social agenda (getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, shoring up abortion rights, getting rid of Bush’s 11th hour health provider “conscience” rule), I’m fine with him extending the symbolic olive branch.
But speaking of facts on the ground, in reality Rick Warren’s speech was extremely disappointing, a piece exclusionary buffoonery. First, it felt generally uninspired, an ordinary speech for an extraordinary moment. Second, while some felt it gave inclusive nods to various American religious populations, I found his invocation of Jesus and full inclusion and leading of the “Our Father” prayer as unsettling, and I was raised with both in my religious background. I can’t imagine how it felt to those for whom such prayers and invocations have no religious meaning.
But it was the contrast between Rick Warren’s invocation on Tuesday, and Gene Robinson’s on Sunday, that was the most stark. Bishop Robinson began with a explosively inclusive tone: “O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…” and continued on:
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
You should also read Gwen and Tonni’s awesome GWP post about feminism and faith from this morning.
Update:
I like this description from the New York Times of the national prayer service this morning attended by the Obamas and Bidens at the National Cathedral:
Some new traditions were also being made. The service featured no fewer than 20 interfaith clergy, including woman leaders of the Muslim and Hindu faiths. And for the first time, the preacher was a woman, the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a mainline Protestant denomination.
Live blogged from Caroline’s on Broadway
By Marco Acevedo (for accompanying pics where here it just says “IMG”, visit Marco’s front page post over at Open Salon, from which this is poached – with Marco’s permission, of course)
10:52 a.m.
I’m at our table in Carolines with my wife Dee (aka Girl w/Pen) and a happy, mimosa-fueled crowd of feminist confreres watching as the bi-Presidential caravan heads out from the White House. (This is unfortunately taking the form of an after-the-fact dispatch, since I don’t have Internet access here).
We’re here at the invitation of The White House Project (“a non-partisan organization committed to enhancing public perceptions of women leaders and advancing a richly diverse, critical mass of women into leadership positions.†Although Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show, declared herself pointedly partisan during her opening monologue. Her comment on the news that Cheney will be in a wheelchair for the inauguration: “Cheney supposedly hurt himself while moving. I guess he did let the doorknob hit him in the ass on the way out.â€)
IMG_0283
Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show
11:08 a.m.
Talk at the table: Who is acting President in the ten minutes between the swearings in of Biden and Obama? Seriously, ten minutes is a long time. A lot can happen. Why aren’t they simultaneous?
IMG_0287
My babe, Girl w/Pen
11:19 a.m.
The Carters are announced. The brand strikes up some rousing Sousa (what’s happening to me? Wearing a flag pin, tearing up to Sousa… must be middle age.)
11:22 a.m.
The Clintons are announced. The Carolines crowd goes wild. Conversation around the table: the symbolism of yellow (gold?) and purple, the vestiges of royal ritual. Everyone on the podium seems to be wearing a jot of one color of the other. Hillary particularly striking in her purple coat.
11:24 a.m.
Sasha and Malia, appear, all smiles and regal pace. Carolines erupts again. Whoops at the sight of the Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin. Regal presence.
11:31 a.m.
Cheers and gasps for Michelle resplendent in glittering yellow. Boos and hissing for Dubya as he ambles along on his perp walk. I can’t help thinking he looks alone. Interesting that the First Lady doesn’t accompany the outgoing President.
11:39 a.m.
Obama appears on the flatscreen. Cheers, applause, a scattering of Carolines attendees rising to their feet. Comments at table: the office has already aged him, and he hasn’t even been sworn in. But he looks filled with the moment, calm and accepting.
11:44 a.m.
President-Elect Barack H. Obama is announced. Thunder and cries. Closeups on the screen of black men and women in the crowd on the mall.
I feel the moment expanding.
No more time stamps.
The rest is a blur of fluid motion quickly setting as rock-solid history.
Hugs and involuntary shout outs during DiFi’s impassioned opening speech. Her words about the nonviolent roots of this triumphant moment are superimposed to dramatic effect over the visage of our outgoing President.
Boos and guffaws at the appearance of Reverend Rick Warren for the opening prayer. Loud comments throughout the prayer, hisses at its close.
Aretha blesses,caresses and weaves “My Country ‘tis of Thee†in vaults and spires over the mass of humanity carpeting the Mall. Not your white grandma’s Kate Smith.
Noon.
Obama becomes President of the United States by Constitutional decree, although he hasn’t yet taken the oath. The moment passes under the soothing and introspective tones of Yoyo Ma and Itzhak Perlman.
IMG_0290
Yoyo Ma at the Moment. Grace.
IMG_0302
The Girl w/Pen happy and proud
IMG_0303
Boy w/Pin
IMG_0310
A jumbotron in Times Square
IMG_0316
Obama Generation
IMG_0319
For posterity
IMG_0321
My cold fingers, the Flag and the Square
I was so excited bout it all this weekend, I painted my nails red and blue. Yep, I really did.
Off to Caroline’s on Broadway now to watch the festivities with a bunch of friends and colleagues. It seems there’s so much to say, and no words in which to say it.
ENJOY THIS HISTORIC DAY!
First, thanks to Aviva over at Fourth Wave for posting a roundup of links to the Great Ms. Cover Debate of 2009 (“Super-Feminist Obama to the Rescue!“), and to Yondalla, who writes in reference to the image of Obama as Super-Feminist-Man in comments here at GWP, “A man who is a feminist would not be someone who would rescue us. It would be someone who walks beside us.”
Having read the critiques, I get it now. And I respect the dissent. But I stand behind my original praise of the cover. I agree with Jill over at Feministe, who writes,
“Obama has reportedly self-identified as a feminist, and has the legislative record to back it up. Is he a perfect feminist, or a perfect progressive? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Is he going to disappoint us over and over? Yeah, he’s already started. But he’s still pretty damned good, especially for a mainstream, center-left politician elected to the highest office, and I don’t really see the point in kicking him out of the club just yet.”
The brouhaha over this cover is not generational, nor is it necessarily PUMA-related (as Megan at Jezebel snarkily and dismissively asserts). The controversy is over the rescue narrative, and how one reads visual imagery, which is often more polyglot than it seems.
Looking at the current cover next to the famous 1973 cover featuring Wonder Woman, a bunch of questions come up for me. First, wasn’t this cover perhaps intended as satire? Because next to the cartoonish Wonder Woman cover, the current one certainly strikes me as having an element of fantasy to it too.
Second, Ms. is a magazine that has tried to reinvent itself over and over again. Its current readership skews older, and I imagine engaging younger readers is now key. In putting Obama on the cover in this way, are the publishers sending a message that the feminism of Ms. is big-tent enough to encompass younger Obama-supporting feminists? Was this a move to get beyond the stereotype of Ms. as “your mother’s magazine” that some younger women continue to hold? If so, I laud the extending of this generational olive branch.
In the end, I get the critiques about how men can’t save feminism. I really do. But bottom line over here: I like the playful, subversive idea that inside the most prominent man in the world right nows lies a feminist ready to more publicly engage. Time will tell whether or not it’s true.
(Paging Marco, my laid-off graphic designer husband who thinks a lot about superheros and blogs about the narratives behind images! Weigh in, my dear Clark Kent?!)
I just had to put up a quick post highlighting some of the great articles coming out of RH Reality Check discussing what Obama’s administration will mean for reproductive rights. Over a year ago, RH Reality Check published a questionnaire filled out by Obama’s campaign staff outlining his nuanced, but firm view on reproductive rights.
Now that President Bush is doing his best to undermine reproductive rights in the last days of his presidency, how sure can we be that a President Obama will live up to the promises seen in Obama the candidate? As with much of the future Obama administration, right now we can only react and predict as his nominations and appointments unfold. So, the good, the bad, and the ugly?
The (very) good: Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen this week to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Johnsen is a fierce, pro-choice advocate who served as Legal Director for NARAL Pro-Choice America from 1988-1993.
The, well, not bad, just unknown: Obama’s office announced the nomination of CNN’s Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general. Gupta’s CNN show, “House Call,” has avoided the topic of reproductive health and when talking about AIDS has never really touched on the topic of sex. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/01/08/but-can-he-talk-about-sex
Still, reproductive issues specifically rarely grace the screen. An entire episode devoted to “women’s health issues” covered only the topics of breast cancer, smoking, and heart disease. In a 2004 special on multiple births, he headed up the top of the news program with the news that pregnancies among girls ages 10-14 were on the decline, which he attributed to “abstinence programs and birth control,” a fairly ambiguous and tentative statement.
And the Ugly: Well, this may actually be a good. It seems that right-wing, anti-choice extremists are already plotting their opposition marches and rallies and false information spreading. While this is something pro-choice organizations will have to focus on combating, it is a good sign that the opposition is scared of what an Obama administration will mean for reproductive rights.
Fallout from Prop 8 continues as various organizations, who have pro-gay rights missions or are dedicated to upholding their non-discrimination policies, decide how to approach businesses and other organizations (the Mormon Church of course being a primary target) in California that gave money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.
Working in the world of scholarly organizations myself, I found Inside Higher Ed’s article on the American Historical Association (AHA)’s decision to go ahead with their conference at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego as planned especially interesting. The Manchester Hyatt’s owner, Doug Manchester, funneled a great deal of money to the campaign. Instead of backing out of their contract, which would still drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into Doug Manchester’s hands plus allow him to book the space for another function, the AHA has voted on an alternative proposal to pack their program with sessions dealing with gay rights issues. Given how much the AHA has already invested and that Manchester would get much of the money either way, I actually very much like this alternative plan. Other scholarly organizations, which have not yet signed contracts, are planning to boycott the hotel.
I am still amazed by stories of business owners in California who gave a great deal to Proposition 8 and didn’t think that their businesses would be affected by their support for a law that discriminates against many of their clients.
We’ve been marinating on 2008; what an incredible year! Turbulent, exciting and really most of our wishes seemed to be granted in one fell swoop with the outcome of the US election.
There was China’s Olympic moment of glory, the first female Mayor in Egypt and of course the highs and lows of the U.S. election and then the same sex marriage Proposition in California. For all the leaps forward there is still more to be done for gender equality globally. Next year we want more inclusion! We wanted to share our top 5 wishes en route to inclusion. Enjoy and add your own in comments.
Our Top 5:
more...
Hate is on the rise. It is. Really.
Sunday, the CNN Headline read: “New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime.â€
A 31-year-old Ecuadorean man who was beaten last Sunday in what New York City authorities say may have been a hate crime has died at a Queens hospital, his brother said Saturday.
Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother, Romel, had left a party on December 7 at St. Brigid’s Roman Catholic Church when several men approached them in a car in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, police said. The men allegedly began shouting anti-gay and anti-Latino vulgarities at the two men.
Jose Sucuzhanay suffered severe head trauma and was taken to Elmhurst Hospital. He died Friday night from his injuries.
The ironic twist? Sucuzhanay is not even gay. Evidently, the two men were walking arm-in-arm, which is likely the cause of the confusion.
It sounds more like the next Cohen Brothers movie than an actual news headline, but it is a perfect example of complete ignorance and hatred prevailing over any kind of logic or human decency—something which has become more and more frequent in our society, of late.
In October of this year, the FBI released a report whose findings showed: “6 percent increase in anti-gay hate crimes.†The report “is purely statistical and does not assign a cause,†but it certainly begs the question: what is it about this cultural moment that is causing people to act out against the gay community?
So what IS the reason behind this surge? Is it the economy? Proposition 8, or the recent election of Obama (which seems unlikely, since Obama has made no effort to align himself with the gay community)? Could it be Susan Faludi’s observations about our increased reliance on gender roles post-9/11 in her book Terror Dream
One thing is for sure: the federal government is doing very little to address the issue. “Neither the federal hate crimes statute nor 21 states include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws,†reports Chip Alfred to Out and About.
In nature, a period of general chaos typically ensues before a major change occurs. I am hopeful that this, and other expressions of hatred, ignorance, and fear, are merely people’s natural response to the anticipation of change in our country (although Obama’s not painting a very hopeful tomorrow for LGBT–cough cough–Rick Warren–cough cough).
-Melinda Parrish
Rick Warren as Obama’s choice for the inaugural invocation, for reals?
The best critique I’ve seen so far is this one, by Michelle Goldberg over at Religion Dispatches. (Addendum: See also Gloria Feldt, “Say It Isn’t So, O!”)
I get the bridging of constituencies intended through this pick, but still SO not cool. Why why why?
Please feel free to post links to any organized efforts you’ve seen to send messages of outrage to Obama HQ in comments.
