Gay Woman wins Houston mayoral race !

check out the article!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34399468/ns/politics-more_politics/

Last night ( December 12, 2009) Annise Parker, who is openly a lesbian, defeated Gene Locke ( former city attorney) in Houston's mayor election. This is not only a huge story in terms of the fact that Parker is making history for being elected as a homosexual- but a homosexual WOMAN as well. These are two factors today that are looked upon as deviant in our society. Parker is acting an inspiration for all minorities. I think this story would have been looked upon under as less significant even if it was representing a gay man who won the mayor election. Needless to say, the city of Houston is mostly democratic, which illustrates more liberal perspectives. Do you think this had something to do with it? I think that had a large part do to with the factor that Parker won the election. Houston also has a large Black, Hispanic, and Gay population. Did the amount of diversity effect this election? I think so. Diversity enables people to think " outside the box", and it also emphasizes the idea of acceptance. The more diverse an area is, the more likely the " norm" will be pushed aside. It is inevitable. Do you think that this election will start a trend and help lesbians gain status in our society? I think it is a start of more acceptance, but I still think our society has a long way to go in general of fully accepting what is different.

Corduroy Skirts Are A Sin

I personally don't care if SU is undefeated in basketball. It's protests like these that truly make me proud of my campus.

This protest happened about a month ago on Waverly Avenue. When I read about it the day after, I was so upset that I hadn't been on campus that day. Now it is getting national attention and I couldn't be more proud. Read the story and join the facebook group with the same name!

Go Orange!

YES WE CAN!

Senate narrowly rejects abortion coverage! Yay for equality!

Read the story from The Washington Post

The Lady and the Tiger

OP Ed Columnist Maureen Dowd expressed her opinion on the Tiger Woods scandal by parallelling it to Desiree Roger's, the White House social secretary who purported to stand on constitutional principle as she refused to talk to Congress about the White House gate-crashers.
Down more so criticized Desiree Roger's actions of dealing with public admittance and Congress, rather than the actual culprit himself: Tiger Woods. How Rogers situation parallels Woods I do not know.

It's so ironic to me that when most men are caught cheating on their wives (i.e Bill Clinton and half of our past presidency), the mistress is always the central focus. Here, another "mistress," if even an appropriate choice is victimized up against Woods, who committed a moral sin. God forbid we could put down Woods for once without comparing him to someone else.

Dowd argues that, "The smart thing would have been for Desiree to sail up to Congress, wearing designer sackcloth and pearls of remorse, apologize for the oversight at her first state dinner and promise it wouldn’t happen again." Coming from Maureen Dowd, a female journalist, I find it hypocritical for her to perpetuate her own stereotype of the female gender Why is it necessary to use designer clothes and pearls of remorse (which is a dumb metaphor if you ask me?)

The the column switches back to Tiger's affair and a whole load of bullshit on how athletes are not meant to be role models.

"Both Tiger and Desiree hid and stayed silent because they mistakenly thought they were protecting the Brand. But despite their marketing savvy, these two controlling players spiraled out of control. They made the same colossal error in opposite ways."

In my opinion, this is beyond false. Obama is not a brand. He is a lading figure in our history. Woods' actions within his personal life will not affect Nike and other ads he promotes such as AMEX and general mills. We associate Tiger Woods with golf, not with relationships, as argued by most media. People won't protest Nike sneakers or AMEX just because of Tiger Woods. People have been buying clothes for centuries that are made by child labor abuse in third world countries. If that doesn't stop them, a man who committed adultry sure won't-- let's be real.

Dowd also calls Roger's weak for not RSVPing to the Homeland Security dinner and refusing to take blame to the public for her actions; however, Tiger's faults toward his family, is merely labeled as an amateur adult with a puffed up ego. Weak and amateur or two very different adjectives; not surprising, the more demeaning one is geared towards the woman in this article.

Still, I do not see the parallel of Woods with Rogers. What's worst of all is that she ends her column by of course focusing on the dominant male figure, stating: "But once he served up the fairy tale wedding with the Swedish beauty and had two kids, his value was in family and his projection of family values. Now all we have left to look up to is Derek Jeter."

Derek Jeter?? I'm sorry but what happened to the millions of women role models out there. Are there no women's sports players, actors, singers, olympic medalists, and even congress women? So now is Jeter happens to have a personal life slip up, our world is left with no one to admire, as implied by this narrow-minded columnist. What a joke! And the "Swedish beauty", Elin Woods has a name and a personality.

Dowd tries to compare two of society's figures in the worst way possible, arguing against both, yet still ends her piece with praise for a single MALE sports figure. Why?

Although she fails in making any sense whatsoever in the article, she does succeed at further demeaning women and continues to put male athletes on an unjust pedestal for the world to gravitate toward. Thus proving, both men and women are responsible for a stereotypical society in a patriarchal dominant world.

What's the deal with sexting?

I'm not surprised that this is happening. There are ups and downs to all technologies, but I think that sexting is just a side effect. Sexting is a new trend that is emerging in our culture where people send via text message and e-mail naked pictures of themselves.

A recent poll done by MTV found that a quarter of our youth have been involved with texting in one way or another. This story from The Associated Press has been circulated all over the internet. But what is the big deal? Is it the actual naked texts or the fact that we live in a society that views nudity as shameful? From the AP story, I believe it has a lot to do with how society views young people expressing sexuality.

It's not just teens that are doing it, you know. AARP also says that senior citizens are getting their groove on through text.

For teenagers, the results can be deadly--literally. As the story shows, some teens have commited suicided over leaked pictures of themselves. And there are of course issues on the legality of sexting. We are still not sure if having minors texting naked pictures of themselves qualifies as child pornography. Personally, I believe a teen leaking a naked picture of a schoolmate doesn't do it with the same mentality as an adult who does it to get off of or profit from it.

But what is wrong with sexting, exactly? Is it that they are not aware of what they are doing? Because if that is the case, there is a lot of 65 year-old in that AARP story that have not gotten wiser with age. Is it that the pictures are getting into the wrong hands? Or is it that they are doing it in the first place?

What do you think? Would you ever send a naked picture of yourself?

Stopping Stupak!

So! As you can see from the picture post yesterday, a bunch of us went down to DC for the National Day of Action against the Stupak Amendment on Wednesday. It was one of the coolest things I've ever done, and one of the most empowering days I've ever had. You can read all about my experience at Sex.Justice.Change, the blog for Planned Parenthood Rochester/Syracuse.

But here on this blog, I'll just raise a few issues that have been on my mind regarding the day.

• When we first got to DC, we were waiting to cross a street, and I noticed the man standing next to me was an official, in a uniform (I'm not sure what, some kind of security guard or something). I said hello, and he asked if we needed any help with directions (which were helpful). He then asked us where we were from, and welcomed us to the city. He then said "It's always nice to have beautiful ladies in the city."

We all looked at one another, not knowing whether or not to burst out laughing. We didn't really respond, but we were all thinking the same thing: We aren't here for you to ogle, Mr. We're here to freaking protest and rally and lobby and make change and save the world. We aren't just your eye candy, and we don't appreciate that kind of objectification. We're not here for you to feel like the city is nicer just due to our presence - we're here to start trouble! It was pretty ironic, considering we were feeling so empowered and excited, carrying our signs and walking toward the Senate building…

• Then, at the Rally, a bunch of girls from Syracuse were standing directly behind the podium, which was awesome. They got to be on TV - I could see Andrea (another CM blogger!) the entire time from the overflow room we were watching in. But apparently, there was some tension about the signs people were holding. I noticed in the beginning, a sign that read "Immigrants are not the Enemy." It's pretty relevant - the Stupak amendment would unfairly affect lower class women, a disproportionate number of which are immigrants. A latina woman even spoke at the rally about how Latinas would be affected by it. But apparently, the woman holding that sign was asked to switch it out for a more generic one - one of the ones printed by Planned Parenthood. When she refused, and insisted on holding her sign, I understand that someone was told to stand in front of her, blocking her sign with an ever bigger one. Our group didn't agree on whether or not that was fair. Was it just about good PR, representing the organization's goals? Or was it because were in a federal building? Or was it an infringement of first amendment rights? If its the latter, it kind of adds insult to injury when you think about how we were sticking up for our rights just by being there.

• In that same vein, one of our girls was holding a sign that read "Erections get insurance, why don't unplanned pregnancies?" (It's true - Viagra is covered almost universally, but birth control often isn't, and if Stupak goes through, abortion never will be covered. Nobody is pushing an amendment through saying we don't want tax dollars funding erections though…hmm). She was asked to switch her sign out, and she obliged. But it raises good questions - Is erection an innaproriate word here? It shouldn't be - we're talking about abortions! And the sign-maker said to us "It's not like I said some word like 'boner;' erection is the clinical term." It raises the same questions as the Immigration sign.

• And then lastly, when we were entering the Senate building to see Senator Gillibrand, we were waiting on the stairs for some of our party to get through security. Two men and a woman walked by toward the elevators, and the woman said "oh look, the crazies are here!" to a girl from our party. Our girl retorted with "yep, that's us!" as the woman got into the elevator, but all of us were appalled that someone would say that to us IN the senate office building. How rude! And I don't know, I really don't feel like the crazy side of this argument. But I'm biased.


Any thoughts? Am I totally in the wrong?

Conscious Media goes to DC

Here is a picture of two of our bloggers (with other SU students) after the Stop Stupak Rally held yesterday in DC.

Closing the Racial Gap

Earlier this semester, we talked about a study that distributed identical resumes to numerous jobs with only one difference between them - One had the name Todd Allen, and one Tyrone Allen. And the disappointing outcome is the one you have begrudgingly learned to expect - this one difference had an impact on the number of callbacks and interviews scheduled.

I'm not sure when that study was conducted, but not a lot has changed. The NY Times printed an article yesterday that said the same thing - there is a racial divide in job hunting, and not even a college degree can level the playing field.

What does this say about the world we live in? I have a lot of responses to an article like this. First of all, if someone gets your resume, and disregards it because your name is "too black," would a black person feel comfortable working there in the first place? That isn't a good answer or argument, because accepting this discrimination tacitly approves of this behavior. The article says that many black men are wiping any racial evidence from their resumes to be sure that any rejections aren't because of race. I don't know what this is like, as someone who benefits from white privilege - if I get turned down from a job, race isn't one of the factors I fear the reasoning was. But I do have a strange connection to this discrimination.

I'm a feminist - a loud, proud feminist. When we made our resumes last semester in graphics, I wasn't sure how to incorporate this into my resume - or if I even should. If anyone balked at my feminism, screw them - I wouldn't want to work for them anyway. But are there some things that shouldn't be mentioned in a professional resume? Aside from the fact there was no real place to put it, no rules about how to show it. I want my feminism to speak through my resume - it's an undeniable part of my identity. I guess that's vaguely comparable to this race argument. On the whole, I shouldn't have to think about being discriminated for my feminism, just as people of color shouldn't have to face discrimination for their race. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

One of the black men quoted said “If they’re going to X me, I’d like to at least get in the door first.” And there's something to be said for that. Nobody wants to be preemptively judged. But whitewashing your resume seems almost equally problematic to me, and this Times article doesn't bring that up. No white people have to alter their resumes in the same way, taking out race to seem more appealing (but I suppose gay people make theirs straighter at times, and disabled people make sure not to allude to their disability, for these same reasons).

This article kinda stresses me out - I wish it addressed larger issues about discrimination and what whitewashing actually says about racism in America. But at least its framed in a way that makes it clear that this isn't right, and that this shouldn't happen. Even though it keeps saying none of this racism is overt - what does that mean? Isn't that just excusing it?

Anyway, I'm headed to DC tomorrow to lobby against the Stupak amendment - so expect a post about that!

Patriarchy comments on video!

The video we made just got a comment on Youtube. It says: "Abortion is not really health care."

I though about responding, then saw that whoever posted was named Patriarch. Obviously not worth the drama. It's moments like these that remind me it's easy to be a feminist.

Abortion Fight becomes the Central Focus

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34205801#34205801

Check out the link to this video that I posted above !

- It is my feeling that the debate regarding abortion presents many contradictions within the various policies and ideologies that are being presented within it. I think this topic is very sensitive in the way in which people have extreme opposite opinions, and a final decision on whether the government should intervene or not will be extremely difficult to decide. I am interested to see other peoples' opinions on if they feel as though the government should take part in controlling abortion. Is it even fair to not allow tax dollars to go towards the cause? I think that if tax dollars are not contributed that this it is going to make it really hard to not so well of individuals to receive abortions...

College Women React to Stupak

Surprise: Men Dominate Late-Night TV

Turn on your TV - right now.
Its 11:53 PM as I write this, and I can almost guarantee that you won't see any women when you turn that thing on. I've noticed this before - late night TV is owned by dudes.
Anyone on any "late show" (even the late late shows!) is a dude-- even our favorite satirical late night shows feature men - Colbert and Stewart.

OK, maybe things are changing. Slowly. I'm vaguely thinking of Katie Couric and the increase of women news anchors on evening news. That's cool, and that's important. And I'm thinking of Rachel Maddow, who is freaking awesome. But my thoughts about the View and the Ellen DeGeneres show cloud my brain. These shows are kinda great - they touch on a lot of good stuff and have gained respectability…yet they're relegated to daytime.

And then let's think about the recent news about Letterman's affairs with women who work for him. We don't know the details, but there's something going on in this late night world that needs some more attention. No, not that kind of attention.

The New York Times just ran a story about the lack of female writers on late-night TV.

There are no female writers on the new “The Jay Leno Show,” none on “Late Show with David Letterman,” none on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien.”

How can this be? Are women not watching late night? Well, that's not it - the Times reports that more than half of viewership for each of those programs is made up of women.

Maybe women just aren't applying for these positions? Could be. In that Times article, one woman says that less than %5 of submissions from writers were from women. But the Herald (The Arkansas State University newspaper) puts it eloquently: How can little girls grow up and want to be something they don't even know exists? It can't just be that women don't want to be writers for late night - more likely that they don't even realize this is open to them. And well, that's because it kind of isn't.

I know lots of funny women. Really good, snarky, biting comedy coming out of women. We can think of a few mainstream ones - Sarah Silverman, Margaret Cho, and all my favorite women from SNL (for decades!), and women like Sarah Haskins, the coolest woman ever - but in general, comedy is man's territory. Just think of….everything.

But to lighten things up, here's a post on feministing about funny women - check the comments for everyone's recommendations
And here's a funny song about how feminists have no sense of humor (boo hoo hoo)

I'm not sure I've got it figured out though - why is "funny" just for the dudes? I'm not sure I see the connection. Comment with your hypothesis!

Why does it have to be one or the other?

On November 10, former Miss California Carrie Prejean shocked the world, yet again, when footage of her sex tape was leaked. For those who don't know, Prejean supposedly lost the crown after the controversy she created during the pageant when she stated that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Fast forward a few questionable photos and eventual dismissal--she was fired because she needed to support "marriage" (whatever that means). Her sex tape (apparently one of many)--were she masturbates for her boyfriend when she was 17 and all hell breaks loose. Again.

Now as a feminist, I do not support Prejean's believes on marriage. Not even a little bit. But it really bothers me the coverage that this sex tape is receiving. Yes, she was 17. Sure, she is supposedly a good Catholic girl who by definition shouldn't be having sex (did anyone even believe that after those first pictures came out?), but I don't think that this is the underlying issue.

Why is it that society is so scared of a woman's sexuality? Why couldn't she make a sex tape for her boyfriend, or for herself for that matter?

Ruben Diaz Sr: No to gay marriage, but it's nothing personal

This past week, Governor Paterson urged the NY state senate to finally vote on a gay marriage bill. On Tuesday, when I didn't get any news all day, I wasn't sure what had happened - but after a quick Google News search, I learned that the state senate had, once again, moved the vote to a later date. (Since Tuesday, Paterson says the bill will pass in upcoming weeks)

My Google search also brought me to this article, profiling Rubén Díaz Sr., a state senator representing New York's 32nd District which includes parts of the Bronx. It details how he is a Democrat who is adamantly against gay marriage, and says it's "nothing personal." His religion is what leads him to say he doesn't believe in gay marriage, and he makes it clear that he loves gay people and has lots of family and friends that are gay.

This New York Times article astutely (although in an unavoidably partisan way) points out the incongruities in Díaz's argument, and shows how radical he seems - in saying that the Gay Games would spread AIDS, and opposing the expansion of the Harvey Milk School. He also said that stem cell research is worse than Hitler making bars of soap out of the ashes of Jews - The NY Times obviously uses that to demonize and radicalize Diaz (rightfully so?).

I'm not sure I take issue with the way this story was reported - I understand that a newspaper can't necessarily take sides and say that gay marriage is good and ought to happen - and I understand that the reporter can't just come out and say "The personal IS political!" and throw his hands up. But this senator and his beliefs definitely need more attention and more scrutiny.

Díaz directly points to his acceptance of gay friends and says "So how could I be a homophobe?" As if to say "Look at me! I have gay friends so that means I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people!" But if this was indeed the case, and he didn't think there was anything wrong with gay people and the idea of gayness, there wouldn't be any reason not to support gay marriage. Being cordial and friendly to gay people isn't an excuse for actively lobbying to restrict their rights.

In 1994, when he spoke out against the Gay Games, Díaz said "the games could lead children 'to conclude that if there are so many gay and lesbian athletes then there is nothing wrong, nor any risks involved.'" If he actually had no problems with his gay friends, and loved them (not in that pitying, patronizing 'let me help you' way), this quote would've never been uttered.

I'm not sure it's enough to point out the conflict raised by Díaz excuse of "it's nothing personal" because obviously, it is. Restricting rights is always personal - He might think it's politics or religion, but this is people, people's rights, people's lives, people's love that we're saying is invalid. Of course it's personal.

Here's the article again, take a look - and then comment your opinion!

The endless cycle: Legalizing Gay Marriage

Although gay marriage has been an issue for quite some time now, yet another article was published by NY Times pushing or states to legalize gay marriage.

Gay marriage is defined by same sex couples; thus women are as much victims to this push for equality as men. I find it incredible that states such as New York, New Jersey, and our own capital, the District of Colombia, have "promise" to appeal/legalize gay marriage in the near future. It is absurd to me that our own capital, founded on the principles of the pursuit of happiness, and individual freedoms , still has not established the legality of same sex marriage. Am I the only one who see's something wrong with this...hypocritical America if you ask me. Who's going to be responsible for the change? We the people need to start using our power for the right reasons for once. In my mind, this is an essential reason.

Playboy - Celebrating Women Who Look Like Cartoons

Did you know Marge is gracing the cover of Playboy for the November issue?

In the spirit of Christie Hefner's buzz-inducing visit to Syracuse this Wednesday (7:3o at the Herg!), check out this fascinating article over at Feministing.com. Chloe dissects what it means to have a cartoon on the cover of Playboy - and how it isn't as new or shocking as you might think!

"For years, mainstream porn films and online porn have brought us a vision of women, and particularly of women's sexuality, that is little more than a caricature."

Legalizing gay marriage in Maine

Tomorrow, November 3rd 2009, the state of Maine will vote to decide whether to repeal a gay-marriage bill that would be implemented to law in may of 2010. This is a huge deal because if voters decide to essentially provide equality in regard to marriage, it will be the first time ever gay-activists in the U.S. will have defeated the ballot box.

*What are your predictions on how this will play out?

* Do you think gay couples in the U.S. will ever be seen as " equally normal" to heterosexual couples?

* If voters in Maine vote in favor of gay marriage could this potentially start a trend for even more states to do the same?

Florida Dem. apologizes for "whore" comment

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/27/grayson-apologizes-for-whore-comment/

How does stuff like this still fly?

I mean, OK, his apology is right up at the top of CNN.com, so I guess it doesn't necessarily "fly," but this guy thought, at least for a split second, that calling a woman a whore was the right thing to do.

What does that say about the society we live in? Instead of pointing fingers directly at Alan Grayson (an elected official!) maybe we should be thinking about how on earth this can still happen?

Thought you'd like to read...

A hotel owner in California orders his Hispanic employees to stop speaking Spanish and anglicize their names.

Read the story here

It's sad that this type of thing still happens. Spanish is their native language and they should be able to speak it among themselves.

I love the irony in the hotel's name too. Whitten Inn. Should be Whitened Inn?

Share your comments below...