From the front lines of the global fight for equality...

Evening, all! I promise you I've not completely fallen off the face of the earth. As fate would have it, SEU Feminist's only male blogger is also its least prolific poster. *Cue the wailing, ashes, and sackcloth of repentence* Seriously, though, I'll be better about that in the future.

Anyhow, just wanted to share this beautiful ad from Ireland that's sure to render some conservatives speechless. Slainte!

"My time will come": Another milestone in the global struggle for political equality

Yesterday, former Icelandic Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security Johanna Sigurdardottir became her nation's first female prime minister and the world's first openly gay head of government. This comes after months of widespread malaise in the country, and many look to her as a sign of better times to come.

She entered politics in 1978. Since then, she has held several prominent positions in Iceland's government. Much has been made of her former occupation as a flight attendant, perhaps not without cause: her rise to power is all the more inspirational considering where she began. In 1995, she ran for her current position without success. "My time will come," she famously remarked.

Along with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, her election has made January one of the most groundbreaking months in the history of the fight for human equality.

For more information, there's a great article at TIME.com on the subject.

Guest Blogger: A Mormon Feminist’s Perspective on Prop 8

A few weeks ago, I read this post on Feministing and thought of my Mormon feminist friend, Chris. I asked him what he thought about the Mormon church’s involvement in proposition 8, which led to a long discussion over the internet. I asked if I could post some of his thoughts on the issue to our blog, so he wrote this guest post:


There are a lot of factors that play into this issue, not all of which I feel qualified to fully discuss, so I’ll link where I can to more knowledgeable sources.

Personally, I think a lot of it is just misunderstandings and different ways of viewing the world, what definitions of gender, etc. really mean. Here is a good discussion of this from a Mormon perspective. I also think on some level it comes down to the fact that the Church has outwardly stated it supports traditional ideas of gender/family (there's a famous thing called The Proclamation on the Family-- I understand if you don't agree with it, but it has become official doctrine of the Church and should help you understand a little better why this is an issue for us) and feels like it should back that up when it's directly challenged, as with Prop 8. I've heard so many arguments on both sides and I don't like how they're playing out on either side (the anti-Mormon talk or the anti-gay sentiment some people strike up in order to explain to themselves why the church would speak directly against this), that I'm quite torn, precisely because this is such a hard issue.

Personally, I support giving full partnership rights for everyone who wants them, but marriage I think is a religious institution and should be defined individually by each religion. I think we should adopt the European model, where everyone goes and gets a civil union from the state and then goes and does whatever religious marriage they might want, and then individual churches can decide to perform or not perform gay marriages. Those who still want “marriage” without the religious context could maybe have separate ceremonies of their own, but marriage would be individually or institutionally based and recognized. But we're a long ways from that. One reason I was a little against Prop 8, though, is because I think any state definition of marriage, whether for or against gay marriage, is abuseable and dangerous. But I think I'm a little in the minority there.

One small clarification which I'm not sure is true but might clarify why so many Mormons were scared: on the objection that many had that the issue doesn’t directly affect Mormons, there was a lot of buzz going around that if gay marriage were legally sanctioned then it would be legally required to accept/perform gay marriages and institutions which refused to perform such would no longer be licensed for marriage, i.e. the Church might lose the ability to performs marriages and they might even shut down our temples in California, which is scary beyond all reason to Mormons. That immediately reminds us of burning temples, being driven from homes/cities/states, massacres, and other really nasty things that happened to us during the early days of the Church, when it was made legal by the "Extermination Order" from Governor Boggs to kill Mormons in the state of Missouri, etc. (Funny thing, the Extermination Order was only officially repealed in 1976.)

The really ironic part of this whole thing to me is that the gay and lesbian community thinks the Church is trying to stamp out their rights but on some level the Church is afraid of the exact reverse: losing their rights again. It's two completely opposite but similarly marginalized groups fighting each other instead of getting mad at the greater society.

I'm not saying this paranoia is warranted (because I really don't know if they could shut the Church down like that, though the idea scares even me a bit) but it's one of the reasons why Mormons really went in on this one.

It’s obvious there are a lot of views that differ about the nature of what gender, orientation and relationship mean, and how we should react to those on a societal level. I consider myself a feminist because I do believe in gender equality and in the freedom of choice, but I definitely think anywhere where the law gets involved is messy, because the law is there to limit freedom for the greater good (we don’t have the freedom to kill people so that others don’t have to worry about being killed). How that greater good is defined is up to the majority. So freedom of choice is a complicated issue, as is gender equality. On some level I do believe that men and women are inherently different, but I believe that makes both more valuable rather than less, because both are unique. I don’t understand everything, or even very much, about to what degree we are the same and to what degree different, but learning more is one of the main quests of my life. Mostly, with this post, I hope you see that Mormons are 1) not all of the same mindset, 2) still people, even if you very heavily disagree with them, 3) trying to do their best to stand up for things that are important to them, even if they might do it in ways that do more harm than good.

-Chris Straubhaar

Call in gay and take the day off.

In the same vein as A Day Without a Mexican, Join the Impact has organized a nation-wide boycott for International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2008 entitled A Day Without A Gay. 

"LGBT workers, business owners, consumers, and taxpayers contribute over $700 billion to the U.S. economy each year and should not be treated as second-class citizens" - A Day Without A Gay Facebook event page

"Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love." - A Day Without A Gay Website

This is probably the best excuse for calling in sick (er, well, you know what I mean) to work you'll ever have!

One Catholic's perspective on Prop 8

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...

I am a devout, practicing, traditional Catholic, and I am against Proposition 8.

This might seem like a paradox, and may not be conservative enough or liberal enough depending on your views, but bear with me. The Roman Catholic faith, to which I am a fervent adherent, maintains the following official position on the matter of same-sex relations:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They... close the sexual act to the gift of life...Under no circumstances can they be approved...This inclination [however]...constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357-2358

The Catechism goes on to state that LGBT people are "called to chastity". This is the case because the Catholic Church teaches that sexual activity must be both an expression of eternal love and an act open to procreation. Since same-sex relations cannot be procreative, practicing Catholics are bound not to engage in them. Some Catholic theorists go so far as to say that romantic love cannot exist between two people of the same sex.

I can't disagree with the Church on the point that practicing Catholics cannot engage in homosexual acts without committing a sin. And I believe that any form of sexual activity in which a child cannot be created is also sinful (including masturbatory, oral, anal, or "safe" sex between people of any gender). However, I strongly disagree with the latter point: I have seen many same-sex couples who are more loving than a substantial number of their heterosexual counterparts. While I believe that the Church cannot permit her members to be joined in same-sex marriages, American civil law is, or should be, a completely different ball game.

First of all, what ever happened to separation of Church and state? At the end of the day, I'm glad I live in a nation where not everyone agrees with me. Freedom is what makes this country great. Secondly, since when does a government have a right to declare who its citizens can and can't marry? If John Doe can marry Suzy Smith, why can't Jane Doe marry her? In a democracy, the citizens are supposed to have true sovereignty over their government. So how can we let our political leaders tell us who to love, to honor, and to cherish 'til death do us part? I've always felt that part of the American dream was being able to love whomever you love, without apology. No matter what anyone says, I will never be convinced that love is a choice.

I encourage people to be true to their beliefs, whatever they are, and I especially urge all Catholics to follow the Church's teachings. That said, the matter of your sexuality is very personal. Share it with your partner, your friends, your family, trusted members of the community, your confessor, anyone, everyone, or no one at all if you don't want to. Whomever. But who you love is none of Uncle Sam's gosh darn business.

Some relevant links...

Courage, a Church-approved ministry to LGBT and questioning Catholics

The Trevor Project, a non-religious, non-profit resource for LGBTQ youth

Prop 8 Protest in Austin!

This is a long picture post, so I'm sorry if it loads slowly.

Here are a few of the photos I took at the proposition 8 protest yesterday at City Hall here in Austin. We had a much bigger crowd than I expected-- about 2,000 people!


These guys offered me some "homo-made" pumpkin bread.

People lined up along the curb outside City Hall after the speeches were done.



After the rallying outside City Hall for a while, we marched up to the Capitol and around downtown.

Favorite picture of the day.

Passing by Oilcan Harry's, a gay bar downtown.

Wanda Sykes is out!

Wanda Sykes, one of our favorite funny feminists here at SEU Feminist, publicly came out as a lesbian yesterday at a prop 8 protest. She announced to the crowd in Las Vegas that she and her partner were married in California on October 25th. She said she is coming out now because "I felt like I was being attacked, personally attacked-- our community was attacked." I just want to say congratulations and thank you to Ms. Sykes for having the courage to declare your love to the world and speak up for yourself and other members of the queer community.

I was at the prop 8 protest here in Austin yesterday and should have some photos to post later today.

Funny Feminist Friday: Wanda Sykes on same-sex marriage

Happy Friday, everybody! I know I just did a Wanda Sykes post two weeks ago, and there are so many other funny feminists to show you, but tomorrow is the Join the Impact rally, so I thought this clip was particularly relevant:



Austin people, please please please come to City Hall tomorrow, November 15th, at 12:30pm for the Join the Impact rally against prop 8. You can find more information, including a map to City Hall, here. If you're not in Austin, please check out the Join the Impact website to find details about the rally in your city.

Funny Feminist Friday: Ellen!

In light of all the same-sex marriage bans passing on Tuesday-- prop 8 in California, prop 2 in Florida, and prop 102 in Arizona-- I thought I'd share a few clips of one of my favorite queer comediennes, the fabulous Ellen DeGeneres. In this clip from her 2000 show, The Beginning, Ellen shares an interpretive dance about her coming out experience.



Maybe Ellen should start a campaign to protest prop 8 through interpretive dance?
This next clip is sad in light of recent events, but here you can watch her totally trump John McCain on the subject of gay marriage:



And to cheer you up, here's a clip of Ellen dancing with President-Elect (!!!) Barack Obama:

Ms. Information

As we all know, this election season has been an important one for women in politics. It's been a particularly exciting election year for one woman who entered the American political sphere early this fall and has gone on to excel in a male-dominated job. Don't worry, I'm not a Palin supporter. I'm talking about Rachel Maddow, the host of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, which premiered September 8th.

Dr. Maddow's show offers political commentary with a liberal bias and a healthy dash of wit. Also a radio host, her television career began when she was a commentator on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. She is the first out lesbian to host her own cable news show and she identifies as a butch dyke. It is refreshing to see a show hosted by an intelligent and opinionated woman who not is not only a rare female face in the overwhelmingly male world of cable news, but who also challenges the Barbie-doll ideal that has been the standard for female newscasters and pundits. Even more impressive, MSNBC's ratings in her time slot are now twice what they were before her show's premiere.

As an avid watcher of The Daily Show (the best fake news show on TV), I'm overjoyed to have found a real news show with an equally smart, funny, feminist perspective.

Gender Programming.

In other news, here are some thoughts that occurred to me today after attending my Marriage & Family class (I love college.)

Why are people so afraid of children being raised by gay/lesbian parents? We learn much from our parents, I'll readily agree, and the argument I hear most against children being raised in such an environment is that they will learn homosexuality from their parents despite studies that show children raised by gay/lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than a child raised within a heterosexual coupling. As I read more of the argument against adoption of children by gays and lesbians, one popped out at me as incredibly significant: children will not learn appropriate gender roles because both of their parents are same-sex, which will result in confusion.

I'm sorry, but I honestly think that we could all do with a little less programming in that area. Gender roles put unfair pressures on BOTH sexes, not just women. Men are socialized to be providers, and women caretakers; men are stoic, women emotional (and so on and so forth.) I could probably go on for this for hours because I'm into the meaning of gender and whatnot, but my point is, I think we've all felt like we don't belong somewhere at least once in our lives. What if how we feel or what we do doesn't coincide with our assigned role?

I would assume (and this is just a prediction, because limited research has been done on same-sex couples who have children anyway) that children raised by same-sex couples would have more egalitarian attitudes in their own relationships, and perhaps benefit from negative "gender programming".

Having no radio in my car coupled with a 45-minute drive home from school definitely facilitates these thought processes. ;)

Health care is a women's issue

When I started this course, I wasn't sure I could connect my passion for women's health with a feminist objective through my service-learning. I know that there is very limited federal funding for family planning (the Bush administration cut funding 30% in the 2009 budget plan) which is a problem in and of itself- but past that, I hadn't really considered how sexism, which has already permeated our society, also affects women's health care negatively.

Some interesting links:

Provider Ignorance, Bias Turn Lesbian Patients Off Healthcare (@ RH Reality Check)

Go Ask Alice: Should I tell my gyn I'm having lesbian sex? (Short answer: "YES!")

Transgender Health: Overview, Guidelines, Gender Identity Disorder (LGBT HealthChannel)

Gender Inequalities and HIV (World Health Organization)

After Caesareans, Some See Higher Insurance Cost (NY Times)

Insurance May Not Cover Preventive Surgery for High-Risk Women (American Cancer Society)

I'll add more later... but you get the picture. If you're a woman (even worse, a lesbian, transgender, or of color) you're probably receiving less-than-perfect care. Ain't that a bitch?