This will be quite brief- I'm tired after taking (and passing!) the social work licensure exam this morning and then working on my latest article for GoGirl Magazine (which you should all start reading, by the way). But before I head to bed, here are some articles I think you all might find interesting to read. Please do feel free to bring comments here and start a discussion about what you see/like/dislike about them!
First, there's a new book out that looks at how the criminal justice system- in particular incarceration- has had a disproportionate impact on African-American individuals, families, and communities and has essentially created a new system for Jim Crow.
Then, there's an interesting study that's finding widespread discrimination against Asian-Americans in undergraduate programs, especially elite schools in the northeast.
There's also a good post out from Apophenia, who points out the power disparities in equality advocacy- especially in terms of who we hear and why.
And last but not least, as always, the U.S. military makes headlines with its extraordinarily high rates of sexual assault. In this article, though, the subject isn't just that noteworthy topic- instead, it focuses on one former member of the Air Force who is using her experience to advocate for cultural change in the military and better prevention of sexual assault. Personally, I find this article fascinating, but that's also because sexual assault prevention and response in the military is likely to be my career for the next decade or so.
Anyway, enjoy!
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
From Erica: in the news lately
After my unexpected absence due to intense legal term papers to write, I'm back! With some recent news items, no less. Check them out:
The Episcopalian Church has elected a lesbian woman to be the new bishop for the archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is causing a massive schism in the broader Episcopalian community. You can imagine my two cents on the issue: homophobia is far from over in our country, and extends way beyond the issue of gay marriage. But another question that comes to mind when I consider the issue is this: why are people of faith so much easier to convince of the veracity of an interpretation of a religious text when it's interpreted in a hateful, bigoted, or restrictive manner?
In acronym-land, news organizations and scientists are starting to pick up on yet another letter in meaning of LGBTT2IQQA. While for most people the acronym is just LGB or LGBT, the long version (standing for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersex, queer, questioning, asexual"- and it's STILL underinclusive) has acknowledged for a long time that there are folks out there who simply aren't interested in sex, or sex with other people. Science is finally catching up as researchers acknowledge that asexuality is, in fact, a real state of being. Welcome to the 21st century, science, where sexuality isn't as easy as looking for biological imperative.
In Orlando, Florida, a trans teen was harassed by the manager of a McDonald's to which she was applying when she was forced to check male or female in an optional application question. The manager apparently thought it was acceptable to point out that the sex she checked and her gender presentation didn't match his idea of the binary, and used various slurs to refer to her before kicking her out. Thankfully, Zikerria has a spine of steel, and has sued for discrimination. The manager's been fired, and hopefully her lawsuit draws attention to the continued inequalities our society forces upon trans folk. Good luck, Zikerria- you'll need it.
We also highlight a whole can of worms when we celebrate the fact that Huston, Texas is the first major American city to elect an openly lesbian mayor. Not only is she a lesbian, but she's also conservative- which may seem like an oxymoron, but is exciting solely for the reason that it demonstrates to the broader populace (we hope!) that sexuality and politics are not synonymous. The newspaper that brings us this story also brings us a summary of the year's landmark events for "gay rights," as they call it, from Proposition 8 to this mayoral election. It's been quite a year, folks, and while we've brought a lot of visibility to queer rights, we've also lost a lot of ground.
Finally, Nevada state officials have approved a method for testing male prostitutes for STIs, which means that soon male prostitutes will be able to be work with a license. The current regulations permit prostitutes to do sex work if they are approved for licensure, and the license requires regular testing for STIs- that is, it requires regular cervical testing. The new law permits urethral testing for men, which sounds quite uncomfortable but is a step in the right direction for protecting males who wish to be sex workers. I have to admit, though, I'm curious why the language had to be so specific in the first place as to require cervical testing. Did the legislators of the state renowned for its Sin City honestly think that they didn't have trans or male prostitutes?
That's all for now, folks!
The Episcopalian Church has elected a lesbian woman to be the new bishop for the archdiocese of Los Angeles, which is causing a massive schism in the broader Episcopalian community. You can imagine my two cents on the issue: homophobia is far from over in our country, and extends way beyond the issue of gay marriage. But another question that comes to mind when I consider the issue is this: why are people of faith so much easier to convince of the veracity of an interpretation of a religious text when it's interpreted in a hateful, bigoted, or restrictive manner?
In acronym-land, news organizations and scientists are starting to pick up on yet another letter in meaning of LGBTT2IQQA. While for most people the acronym is just LGB or LGBT, the long version (standing for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersex, queer, questioning, asexual"- and it's STILL underinclusive) has acknowledged for a long time that there are folks out there who simply aren't interested in sex, or sex with other people. Science is finally catching up as researchers acknowledge that asexuality is, in fact, a real state of being. Welcome to the 21st century, science, where sexuality isn't as easy as looking for biological imperative.
In Orlando, Florida, a trans teen was harassed by the manager of a McDonald's to which she was applying when she was forced to check male or female in an optional application question. The manager apparently thought it was acceptable to point out that the sex she checked and her gender presentation didn't match his idea of the binary, and used various slurs to refer to her before kicking her out. Thankfully, Zikerria has a spine of steel, and has sued for discrimination. The manager's been fired, and hopefully her lawsuit draws attention to the continued inequalities our society forces upon trans folk. Good luck, Zikerria- you'll need it.
We also highlight a whole can of worms when we celebrate the fact that Huston, Texas is the first major American city to elect an openly lesbian mayor. Not only is she a lesbian, but she's also conservative- which may seem like an oxymoron, but is exciting solely for the reason that it demonstrates to the broader populace (we hope!) that sexuality and politics are not synonymous. The newspaper that brings us this story also brings us a summary of the year's landmark events for "gay rights," as they call it, from Proposition 8 to this mayoral election. It's been quite a year, folks, and while we've brought a lot of visibility to queer rights, we've also lost a lot of ground.
Finally, Nevada state officials have approved a method for testing male prostitutes for STIs, which means that soon male prostitutes will be able to be work with a license. The current regulations permit prostitutes to do sex work if they are approved for licensure, and the license requires regular testing for STIs- that is, it requires regular cervical testing. The new law permits urethral testing for men, which sounds quite uncomfortable but is a step in the right direction for protecting males who wish to be sex workers. I have to admit, though, I'm curious why the language had to be so specific in the first place as to require cervical testing. Did the legislators of the state renowned for its Sin City honestly think that they didn't have trans or male prostitutes?
That's all for now, folks!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
From Erica: in the gay news
So, readers, in the last week we've had some interesting things crop up in the news, especially as they pertain to LGBTQI folk and their civil rights. I thought I'd link a couple of them here.
First, after his talk to an LGBQ pride group- during which he was criticized for not making good on his campaign promises for our civil rights- Congress passed and Obama signed the revised Hate Crimes Bill, which now identifies sexual orientation and gender identity as categories under which someone can be targeted for a hate crime. This has been a long time coming, folks.
Second, the Ryan White Care Act, which provides a lot of funding for HIV- and AIDS-based programs throughout the country, including treatment for about 500,000 folks who can't afford treatment on their own, was reauthorized in the House last week and should be headed to Obama's desk soon. Is the bill perfect? No. It doesn't provide a lot of the medical subsidies until a person's immune system qualifies them for AIDS, at which point treatment becomes a lot more expensive and complicated. By way of contrast, Canada's medical support system starts treating those with HIV much earlier in the diagnosis, which significantly slows the virus's progress through the body and reduces costs in the long term. At least the law in the US will increase funding somewhat, rather than cutting it back as has been happening for the past several years.
Finally, the sad news I woke up to this morning: Maine voters turned out against gay marriage yesterday, overturning the bill that had been passed earlier in the year. I can't even begin to tell you all how sad this makes me. In the LGBTQI camp, there's a lot of discussion about whether marriage is something "we" even want- it perpetuates discrimination against polyamoury, it's a system set up by a heterocentric society, it expects us to buy into the "one perfect person for everyone" line- but beyond these arguments, I think, is the most important fact that underlies the whole debate: whether or not we "need" our relationships validated by the state, having so many people turn out against us is disheartening because that's representative of how many people think our relationships are wrong, are worthless, aren't good enough. That's the number of people who believe it's okay- or, in some cases, morally right- to deny us access to legal rights and parental rights that should be ours as people and as citizens. I'm confident that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the laws that bar us from getting married, but I'm getting tired of waiting for that day.
That's all I have to say for now.
First, after his talk to an LGBQ pride group- during which he was criticized for not making good on his campaign promises for our civil rights- Congress passed and Obama signed the revised Hate Crimes Bill, which now identifies sexual orientation and gender identity as categories under which someone can be targeted for a hate crime. This has been a long time coming, folks.
Second, the Ryan White Care Act, which provides a lot of funding for HIV- and AIDS-based programs throughout the country, including treatment for about 500,000 folks who can't afford treatment on their own, was reauthorized in the House last week and should be headed to Obama's desk soon. Is the bill perfect? No. It doesn't provide a lot of the medical subsidies until a person's immune system qualifies them for AIDS, at which point treatment becomes a lot more expensive and complicated. By way of contrast, Canada's medical support system starts treating those with HIV much earlier in the diagnosis, which significantly slows the virus's progress through the body and reduces costs in the long term. At least the law in the US will increase funding somewhat, rather than cutting it back as has been happening for the past several years.
Finally, the sad news I woke up to this morning: Maine voters turned out against gay marriage yesterday, overturning the bill that had been passed earlier in the year. I can't even begin to tell you all how sad this makes me. In the LGBTQI camp, there's a lot of discussion about whether marriage is something "we" even want- it perpetuates discrimination against polyamoury, it's a system set up by a heterocentric society, it expects us to buy into the "one perfect person for everyone" line- but beyond these arguments, I think, is the most important fact that underlies the whole debate: whether or not we "need" our relationships validated by the state, having so many people turn out against us is disheartening because that's representative of how many people think our relationships are wrong, are worthless, aren't good enough. That's the number of people who believe it's okay- or, in some cases, morally right- to deny us access to legal rights and parental rights that should be ours as people and as citizens. I'm confident that the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the laws that bar us from getting married, but I'm getting tired of waiting for that day.
That's all I have to say for now.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
From Erica: in the news this past week
Here are a few more items I found in the news this week that had me intrigued, critical, thoughtfully upset, and enraged, respectively. Here they are, for your enjoyment!
The first item is an article from the Daily Mail, a UK newspaper, that discussed the meltdown of "supergirls"- the middle-class, White, seemingly ideal adolescent females who find themselves struggling with all kinds of psychological problems as they deal with the enormous pressures of their lives. I find it intriguing for several reasons, my personal experiences with such meltdowns notwithstanding. One worrisome trend I've noticed in anti-oppression work, from theorists and activists of all sorts, is the tendency to minimize or deny the very real problems that privileged folks can (and do) have. And while it's important to acknowledge the fact that some problems might appear to be objectively more pressing or serious than others, a complete denial or de-legitimization of someone's distress is unhelpful and wrong.
The second item, from CNN, looks at the mixed reception to Mattel's latest line of African-American Barbies. The dolls were created by an African-American designer who wanted to offer African-American girls the chance to play with mainstream toys that more accurately reflected their own appearances. The dolls have thus been designed with fuller lips, curlier hair, and other features that are typically defined as African in origin. The controversy now a-brewing is that the dolls aren't viewed as being "Black enough" by some folks, mostly because the dolls retain a lot of Caucasian-influenced features (especially, as one person described it, "long, straight hair"). My two cents? African-American children (and children of Colour in general) grow up in the US with fewer toys available that offer them reasonably accurate, culturally flexible, and positive representations of themselves and their identities. This needs to change. That being said, it's not like Barbie's always been a positive representation for White children, either. While White kids can expect to buy a Barbie with their combination of hair and eye colour, they can also expect to buy a Barbie that idealizes and fetishizes the female form into some gross parody of humanity. Bottom line, Barbie's problematic. As usual.
The third item comes out of Australia, where the government is considering what to do about a proposed ban on Uluru climbs. Here's the background: Uluru, also known as Ayer's Rock, is a monumental...well, rock in the Great Australian Desert. It's a popular tourist site, but more importantly, it's a sacred space for the Aboriginal groups who live in the desert. For a long time, the Australian government has permitted tourists to climb Uluru in spite of Aboriginal protests, and this ban would seek to restore the sanctity of the space from its current tourist status. I'm highlighting this controversy for a number of reasons, but the biggest is the all-too-common story of struggles between original inhabitants of an area and current dominant groups using the area for their own purposes. I visited Uluru when I was seven, and even at that age it was impressed on me by my parents- who tried to balance our tourism with a respect for the sacredness of the space in Aboriginal cultures- that, no matter how much money we paid for our tickets to be there, we were guests of the Aboriginal groups who valued Uluru, not the Australian government. Since I know not all tourists tried to strike that balance- and it can be argued that being a tourist there eliminates all possibility of balance- I would argue that a climbing ban, out of respect for the traditions of the Aboriginal people who live there, is completely reasonable.
Finally, again from the UK, we have a story about a Muslim woman who was denied entry to Burnley College because she wears the burkha. As usual, the readers of the Daily Mail felt compelled to comment on the article, or rank the comments in accordance with "agree" or "disagree," and overwhelmingly their opinions were bigoted, narrow-minded, and ignorant. Between cries of "go back to the Middle East!" and "you should just adjust to Western life!" were other remarks about how no self-respecting woman could choose the burkha, how her choice of dress is a safety concern because of what she could be hiding "under there," and how we can blame liberals (especially Prime Minister Gordon Brown) for this issue. I suppose this makes another victory for hate-mongering, Islamophobia, and a bipartisan view of the world. How depressing.
That's it for the news of the past week, at least as far as I felt like bringing it in. Tomorrow will be our final Domestic Violence Awareness Month "how-to," and we'll bring in a couple of extra posts on the side for that. We're also looking forward to bringing in a guest contributor sometime in the next few weeks as well. Stay tuned!
The first item is an article from the Daily Mail, a UK newspaper, that discussed the meltdown of "supergirls"- the middle-class, White, seemingly ideal adolescent females who find themselves struggling with all kinds of psychological problems as they deal with the enormous pressures of their lives. I find it intriguing for several reasons, my personal experiences with such meltdowns notwithstanding. One worrisome trend I've noticed in anti-oppression work, from theorists and activists of all sorts, is the tendency to minimize or deny the very real problems that privileged folks can (and do) have. And while it's important to acknowledge the fact that some problems might appear to be objectively more pressing or serious than others, a complete denial or de-legitimization of someone's distress is unhelpful and wrong.
The second item, from CNN, looks at the mixed reception to Mattel's latest line of African-American Barbies. The dolls were created by an African-American designer who wanted to offer African-American girls the chance to play with mainstream toys that more accurately reflected their own appearances. The dolls have thus been designed with fuller lips, curlier hair, and other features that are typically defined as African in origin. The controversy now a-brewing is that the dolls aren't viewed as being "Black enough" by some folks, mostly because the dolls retain a lot of Caucasian-influenced features (especially, as one person described it, "long, straight hair"). My two cents? African-American children (and children of Colour in general) grow up in the US with fewer toys available that offer them reasonably accurate, culturally flexible, and positive representations of themselves and their identities. This needs to change. That being said, it's not like Barbie's always been a positive representation for White children, either. While White kids can expect to buy a Barbie with their combination of hair and eye colour, they can also expect to buy a Barbie that idealizes and fetishizes the female form into some gross parody of humanity. Bottom line, Barbie's problematic. As usual.
The third item comes out of Australia, where the government is considering what to do about a proposed ban on Uluru climbs. Here's the background: Uluru, also known as Ayer's Rock, is a monumental...well, rock in the Great Australian Desert. It's a popular tourist site, but more importantly, it's a sacred space for the Aboriginal groups who live in the desert. For a long time, the Australian government has permitted tourists to climb Uluru in spite of Aboriginal protests, and this ban would seek to restore the sanctity of the space from its current tourist status. I'm highlighting this controversy for a number of reasons, but the biggest is the all-too-common story of struggles between original inhabitants of an area and current dominant groups using the area for their own purposes. I visited Uluru when I was seven, and even at that age it was impressed on me by my parents- who tried to balance our tourism with a respect for the sacredness of the space in Aboriginal cultures- that, no matter how much money we paid for our tickets to be there, we were guests of the Aboriginal groups who valued Uluru, not the Australian government. Since I know not all tourists tried to strike that balance- and it can be argued that being a tourist there eliminates all possibility of balance- I would argue that a climbing ban, out of respect for the traditions of the Aboriginal people who live there, is completely reasonable.
Finally, again from the UK, we have a story about a Muslim woman who was denied entry to Burnley College because she wears the burkha. As usual, the readers of the Daily Mail felt compelled to comment on the article, or rank the comments in accordance with "agree" or "disagree," and overwhelmingly their opinions were bigoted, narrow-minded, and ignorant. Between cries of "go back to the Middle East!" and "you should just adjust to Western life!" were other remarks about how no self-respecting woman could choose the burkha, how her choice of dress is a safety concern because of what she could be hiding "under there," and how we can blame liberals (especially Prime Minister Gordon Brown) for this issue. I suppose this makes another victory for hate-mongering, Islamophobia, and a bipartisan view of the world. How depressing.
That's it for the news of the past week, at least as far as I felt like bringing it in. Tomorrow will be our final Domestic Violence Awareness Month "how-to," and we'll bring in a couple of extra posts on the side for that. We're also looking forward to bringing in a guest contributor sometime in the next few weeks as well. Stay tuned!
Friday, October 16, 2009
In the news...
Here are some stories that have been making the news recently:
First, in Louisiana, a judge refused to sign a marriage license for an interracial couple, saying he was "concerned for the children" of such a marriage because "most interracial marriages don't last." He then went on to assert that his decision isn't racist because he is willing to do "ceremonies for Black couples right here in [his] house." News flash, Judge Bardwell: being willing to marry People of Colour but not interracial couples doesn't make you non-racist. It just makes you a eugenicist.
Then we've got the "Rape-Nuts" issue. Seen in this clip, Jon Stewart discusses the shocking news that 30 Republicans want the government to have the right to do business with companies that require employees to sign away their rights to sue over gang rape.
I'm almost speechless over this issue, especially since New Hampshire's very own Judd Gregg was one of the congress members to vote against the bill. This kind of hypocrisy just underlines the disjoint between how we respond to crimes that involve money and crimes that involve the types of abuse we associate with "domestic disputes." Frankly, I think it should be illegal for a company to place that kind of clause in their contracts in the first place. If the company was in any way responsible for the gang rape, they should be held accountable for it. But this bill wasn't even trying to prevent companies from creating these kinds of contracts - it was just trying to prevent the government from doing business with them if they choose to practice such unconscionable methods.
Then, finally, we get the deliciousness that is the GOPs recent attempts to revamp its image in America- especially its image with African-Americans and other racially marginalized groups. Not only did they mistakenly list Jackie Robinson as a "great Republican" and then fail to address their continuing stances on projects that act to the detriment of marginalized Americans (i.e. maintenance of the current health care system; laissez-faire approaches to education and the economy; idealization of a heterosexual, two-parent family format), but they do so in a way that clearly aims to recruit as many young, marginalized people as possible- sick of your "old white guy" image, Republicans? Snappy website design isn't enough to fix your problems.
We'll be back, I'm sure, with more news as it happens.
First, in Louisiana, a judge refused to sign a marriage license for an interracial couple, saying he was "concerned for the children" of such a marriage because "most interracial marriages don't last." He then went on to assert that his decision isn't racist because he is willing to do "ceremonies for Black couples right here in [his] house." News flash, Judge Bardwell: being willing to marry People of Colour but not interracial couples doesn't make you non-racist. It just makes you a eugenicist.
Then we've got the "Rape-Nuts" issue. Seen in this clip, Jon Stewart discusses the shocking news that 30 Republicans want the government to have the right to do business with companies that require employees to sign away their rights to sue over gang rape.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
| ||||
I'm almost speechless over this issue, especially since New Hampshire's very own Judd Gregg was one of the congress members to vote against the bill. This kind of hypocrisy just underlines the disjoint between how we respond to crimes that involve money and crimes that involve the types of abuse we associate with "domestic disputes." Frankly, I think it should be illegal for a company to place that kind of clause in their contracts in the first place. If the company was in any way responsible for the gang rape, they should be held accountable for it. But this bill wasn't even trying to prevent companies from creating these kinds of contracts - it was just trying to prevent the government from doing business with them if they choose to practice such unconscionable methods.
Then, finally, we get the deliciousness that is the GOPs recent attempts to revamp its image in America- especially its image with African-Americans and other racially marginalized groups. Not only did they mistakenly list Jackie Robinson as a "great Republican" and then fail to address their continuing stances on projects that act to the detriment of marginalized Americans (i.e. maintenance of the current health care system; laissez-faire approaches to education and the economy; idealization of a heterosexual, two-parent family format), but they do so in a way that clearly aims to recruit as many young, marginalized people as possible- sick of your "old white guy" image, Republicans? Snappy website design isn't enough to fix your problems.
We'll be back, I'm sure, with more news as it happens.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
From Erica: in the news
To make up for the past couple of weeks of being gone on the vacation, here are some of the news articles that have been catching my eye since I returned 24 hours ago.
First, an article from the New York Times on the CIA interrogations investigation (if the link doesn't work, go to the Times website, click on the Politics link, and look for the article entitled "CIA Abuse Cases Detailed in Report on Detainees"). The article lists the types of interrogation techniques uncovered in the investigation, including setting up fake execution scenes, scrubbing with grout brushes, threatening to kill a detainee's children, waterboarding, and threatening to sexually assault the detainee's female relatives. While the article also mentions that some of these techniques yielded information on terrorist activities in spite of their questionable legality, it's horrifying to know that "information at any cost" includes psychological brutality that probably equates to the physical brutality of the Spanish Inquisition. Whether or not that's an exaggeration, it's worth it to ask what it means that threatening sexual abuse of non-suspects is 1) potentially effective and 2) potentially legal. Also worth it is asking what happens if the detainee is "uncooperative." Does the threat get carried out? What's the point of a threat that one doesn't intend to pursue?
Also (back) in the news is Chris Brown's assault on his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, as he was sentenced about half an hour ago. There was a lot of media hoopla when he assaulted her earlier this year, but most of it asked questions about "was she provoking him?" and "but he only did it once; can't she go back to him?" While his sentence is reasonable- a five-year restraining order, five years' probation, and mandatory domestic abuse classes- our society desperately needs to reexamine its approach to domestic abuse. First, mandatory classes on abuse are rarely effective. No one wants to be there, and no one thinks they did anything wrong. Second, this assault happened in February; the delay in the sentencing is concerning beyond reason (although, to be honest, not unexpected). Third, assaults that result in the kinds of wounds Rihanna is described as having, including bite marks, usually result in jail time- something that Brown will be avoiding. Fourth, we need to start talking about how seriously we take victims and survivors of abuse. But that's a post for another day.
Finally, since I've been awake since 4 AM and am already fading, I bring you this article on the difficulties Afghanistan has been facing lately in getting women to the polls. Aside from the cultural bias of the article, which refers to the status of Afghan women as "advanced" since the US invasion in 2001, I find it hard to choke down the medicine from the US media about concerns that a low female turnout will lead to "token" female representations in the Afghan government (instead of the two running for President and the 333 running for provincial council positions). I'm not saying that it's bad or wrong to be concerned about Afghan women and their ability to mobilize themselves for their own rights; rather, I'm saying it's more than hypocritical that Afghanistan is being criticized by the US on this matter. Hillary Clinton made history in 2008 by running for President in the US, and found herself faced an unbelieveably gender-biased media and society telling her, effectively (and sometimes literally), to get back in the kitchen and stop being a bitch. Countries that the US considers to be backwards, primitive, and other negative terms have had female leaders and heads of state and have succeeded in taking steps to reduce their sex- and gender-based inequalities. Until we can say we've done the same, I think we need to quit preaching.
That's all for now, folks. I've got a bar of chocolate waiting for me and then a bed to sleep in.
First, an article from the New York Times on the CIA interrogations investigation (if the link doesn't work, go to the Times website, click on the Politics link, and look for the article entitled "CIA Abuse Cases Detailed in Report on Detainees"). The article lists the types of interrogation techniques uncovered in the investigation, including setting up fake execution scenes, scrubbing with grout brushes, threatening to kill a detainee's children, waterboarding, and threatening to sexually assault the detainee's female relatives. While the article also mentions that some of these techniques yielded information on terrorist activities in spite of their questionable legality, it's horrifying to know that "information at any cost" includes psychological brutality that probably equates to the physical brutality of the Spanish Inquisition. Whether or not that's an exaggeration, it's worth it to ask what it means that threatening sexual abuse of non-suspects is 1) potentially effective and 2) potentially legal. Also worth it is asking what happens if the detainee is "uncooperative." Does the threat get carried out? What's the point of a threat that one doesn't intend to pursue?
Also (back) in the news is Chris Brown's assault on his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, as he was sentenced about half an hour ago. There was a lot of media hoopla when he assaulted her earlier this year, but most of it asked questions about "was she provoking him?" and "but he only did it once; can't she go back to him?" While his sentence is reasonable- a five-year restraining order, five years' probation, and mandatory domestic abuse classes- our society desperately needs to reexamine its approach to domestic abuse. First, mandatory classes on abuse are rarely effective. No one wants to be there, and no one thinks they did anything wrong. Second, this assault happened in February; the delay in the sentencing is concerning beyond reason (although, to be honest, not unexpected). Third, assaults that result in the kinds of wounds Rihanna is described as having, including bite marks, usually result in jail time- something that Brown will be avoiding. Fourth, we need to start talking about how seriously we take victims and survivors of abuse. But that's a post for another day.
Finally, since I've been awake since 4 AM and am already fading, I bring you this article on the difficulties Afghanistan has been facing lately in getting women to the polls. Aside from the cultural bias of the article, which refers to the status of Afghan women as "advanced" since the US invasion in 2001, I find it hard to choke down the medicine from the US media about concerns that a low female turnout will lead to "token" female representations in the Afghan government (instead of the two running for President and the 333 running for provincial council positions). I'm not saying that it's bad or wrong to be concerned about Afghan women and their ability to mobilize themselves for their own rights; rather, I'm saying it's more than hypocritical that Afghanistan is being criticized by the US on this matter. Hillary Clinton made history in 2008 by running for President in the US, and found herself faced an unbelieveably gender-biased media and society telling her, effectively (and sometimes literally), to get back in the kitchen and stop being a bitch. Countries that the US considers to be backwards, primitive, and other negative terms have had female leaders and heads of state and have succeeded in taking steps to reduce their sex- and gender-based inequalities. Until we can say we've done the same, I think we need to quit preaching.
That's all for now, folks. I've got a bar of chocolate waiting for me and then a bed to sleep in.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
From Erica: June in the news
I've got a few entries swimming around in my head, but since I haven't made the effort to translate them from head to paper yet, I've decided to bring some news stories to the blog that I think highlight some concerning, interesting, and cool issues and events impacting the anti-oppression paradigms we're bringing to light here and in other blogs.
The first one is a story about a woman named Betty Makoni, who was raped at age six as part of the "virgin myth" that's been circulating in countries like Zimbabwe since HIV/AIDS became an issue. The myth, for those who've never heard of it, is that having sex with or raping a virgin will cure HIV. Makoni is an incredible survivor who uses her experience to assist and empower other survivors of "virgin rape," and to draw attention to the issue to put an end to it. The full story can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/04/cnnheroes.betty.makoni/index.html.
In less appetizing news, the Supreme Court's decision to rule in favour of the white firefighters of New Haven, CT constitutes, as one editorial puts it, "a blow to diversity in the American workplace." The majority's opinion in the 5-4 ruling argues that the decision on the part of the town of New Haven to throw out a firefighting exam that caused racially disparate results was a "race-based decision" that deprived the white firefighters of their civil rights. Racism, whether conscious or unconscious, is still a major problem in our country and in everything from our hiring practices to our housing options. The ruling of the Supreme Court fails to acknowledge this, and thus gives legal support to discrimination against people of colour. An editorial on the subject can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01wed1.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig, and a news article using the term "reverse discrimination," which is a pretty stupid term in my opinion, can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html?eref=rss_politics.
In related news, analysts are picking apart the rulings of the Supreme Court to get an idea of how each justice tends to rule. In a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01scotus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig), analysts concluded that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is conservative, which should come as no surprise to anyone. What the article concludes, however, is that Roberts' opinions have a right-winging effect on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who tends to be an unpredictable judge. The article notes that, with such an alliance, "the Court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era." Let's see what the addition of Judge Sonya Sotomayor does to that balance.
On the LGBT2QI front, the Obama administration is hoping to make the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law (DADT) "less draconian" in its effects by only selectively enforcing it. While the situations the administration cites include individuals who have been outed against their will (i.e. through blackmail or by "a jilted lover"), I think it's important to remember that selective enforcement of a law, at least in this country, tends to end very badly. Rather than attempting to achieve "flexibility" in the law's application by applying it only to certain groups of people, it needs to be achieved through an actual revision (or, better yet, a retraction) of the law itself. For the full story, check out http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/gates.gays/index.html?eref=rss_politics.
Finally, I'm linking you all to a speech by Jonathan E. McCoy, a ten-year-old African-American boy with unbelieveable oratory skills. This is a speech he wrote himself, calling for the deletion of "the n-word" from our language. While the goal is high, McCoy's speech is brilliant in its outlining of the history of the word, its effects on the consciousness of people of all colours in this country, and is incredibly persuasive. Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM
That's all for now. I hope the next time I post news, there are fewer stories that have me cranky!
--Erica
The first one is a story about a woman named Betty Makoni, who was raped at age six as part of the "virgin myth" that's been circulating in countries like Zimbabwe since HIV/AIDS became an issue. The myth, for those who've never heard of it, is that having sex with or raping a virgin will cure HIV. Makoni is an incredible survivor who uses her experience to assist and empower other survivors of "virgin rape," and to draw attention to the issue to put an end to it. The full story can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/04/cnnheroes.betty.makoni/index.html.
In less appetizing news, the Supreme Court's decision to rule in favour of the white firefighters of New Haven, CT constitutes, as one editorial puts it, "a blow to diversity in the American workplace." The majority's opinion in the 5-4 ruling argues that the decision on the part of the town of New Haven to throw out a firefighting exam that caused racially disparate results was a "race-based decision" that deprived the white firefighters of their civil rights. Racism, whether conscious or unconscious, is still a major problem in our country and in everything from our hiring practices to our housing options. The ruling of the Supreme Court fails to acknowledge this, and thus gives legal support to discrimination against people of colour. An editorial on the subject can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01wed1.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig, and a news article using the term "reverse discrimination," which is a pretty stupid term in my opinion, can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html?eref=rss_politics.
In related news, analysts are picking apart the rulings of the Supreme Court to get an idea of how each justice tends to rule. In a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01scotus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig), analysts concluded that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is conservative, which should come as no surprise to anyone. What the article concludes, however, is that Roberts' opinions have a right-winging effect on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who tends to be an unpredictable judge. The article notes that, with such an alliance, "the Court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era." Let's see what the addition of Judge Sonya Sotomayor does to that balance.
On the LGBT2QI front, the Obama administration is hoping to make the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law (DADT) "less draconian" in its effects by only selectively enforcing it. While the situations the administration cites include individuals who have been outed against their will (i.e. through blackmail or by "a jilted lover"), I think it's important to remember that selective enforcement of a law, at least in this country, tends to end very badly. Rather than attempting to achieve "flexibility" in the law's application by applying it only to certain groups of people, it needs to be achieved through an actual revision (or, better yet, a retraction) of the law itself. For the full story, check out http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/gates.gays/index.html?eref=rss_politics.
Finally, I'm linking you all to a speech by Jonathan E. McCoy, a ten-year-old African-American boy with unbelieveable oratory skills. This is a speech he wrote himself, calling for the deletion of "the n-word" from our language. While the goal is high, McCoy's speech is brilliant in its outlining of the history of the word, its effects on the consciousness of people of all colours in this country, and is incredibly persuasive. Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM
That's all for now. I hope the next time I post news, there are fewer stories that have me cranky!
--Erica
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)