TN SB49 “Don’t Say Gay” and George Takei

Yesterday the Tennessee State Senate passed Republican Senator Stacey Campfield's Senate Bill 49, the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill, by a vote of 20-10. (Some are reporting the final vote as 19-11. I’m unsure of the official results. Either way, the bill passed.) The bill has received controversial attention over the past several weeks (months and years) over the appropriate place of government to limit dialogue in classrooms. The bill’s original language (pdf, one page – very short) stated that "No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." The bill was then amended such that it could only be adopted after a review by the state board of education of "the current curriculum standards for the teaching of sex education or for the teaching of other subjects in which the discussion of human sexuality may occur incidental to the subject" (pdf, 1 page).

On Friday an amendment (for which I cannot find the official text) was submitted, and then adopted – leading to the passing of the bill – with at least two changes from the original. First, the phrasing "sexual orientation other than heterosexuality" was stricken and replaced by limiting discussions to only "natural human reproduction science."  (This change was fine with Campfield who said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat.… I got what I wanted.… Homosexuals don't naturally reproduce.") In addition, the amendment loosened the scope of the bill such that educators could respond to student questions about homosexuality without punishment, but still cannot offer materials or engage curriculum or instruction inclusive of homosexuality.

According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, "Companion legislation in the state House of Representatives has not advanced out of committee, and supporters of the bill do not intend to bring it up again until 2012."

As a practicing teacher of Kindergarten students, my concerns and fears about this bill are stacking up. Limiting the possibility for discussion and dialogue on any subject typically has dangerous results. Even hypothesizing the consequences of this bill, the following are a few of my concerns. If I were teaching in Tennessee (which I am not):

• The bill would prohibit my inclusion of curriculum and dialogue that acknowledges the lived experiences of my current students who have gay parents or other gay family members or friends.
• The bill would prohibit my colleagues who work with older elementary and middle school students from including dialogue or curricular material that acknowledges and supports students who may be gay or questioning or who have gay family members or friends.
• The bill would limit our inclusion of curriculum in which sexual orientation or identity is relevant to understanding. For example, a discussion of race, ethnicity, and power is relevant to understanding slave narratives or narratives by native peoples (both of which are currently part of our third grade curriculum, by the way). This bill prohibits a similar discussion of sexuality and power as it relates to understanding  historical and cultural events, social structures and consequences, literature, poetry, other creative works, and so on.
• The bill severely limits and/or prohibits teachers and counselors from sharing gay-positive materials with gay and questioning students (who do exist in middle school, and sometimes even late elementary school).
• The bill severely limits and/or prohibits both offensive and defensive efforts to address bullying around issues of sexuality or perceived sexuality.

In addition, the bill seems reliant on at least two faulty assumptions. First, the bill suggests that sexuality is a non-issue before ninth grade. As anyone who knows anything about human development can confirm, sexuality has a place in the lives of all people at all points in their life, both personally and contextually. This looks very different at different ages, but has a presence nonetheless. For example, my students are four and five. Generally, they are not dealing with issues of their own sexuality, but the sexuality of their parents, older siblings, extended family members, family friends, and so on, plays an important role in shaping the cultural and social contexts in which they live. I have a responsibility to help my students understand the world they see around them – a world in which diversity has an active presence (as relates to sexual orientation and a billion other identity markers). Sexuality has consequences for our social structures and the lives of my students. As such, sexuality is a relevant issue prior to ninth grade and being able to address it in age-appropriate ways is vital for supporting healthy students, families, and communities.

Second, the bill seems to suggest the idea that NOT talking about homosexuality means it doesn't exist or will disappear. Sorry to say, that’s not true. Campfield says his bill is morally and ethically neutral, but banning the discussion of one thing while allowing continued discussion of another is not neutrality. It is blatant bias. And, looking through the examples of history, intentionally creating silence around an issue won’t silence those fighting the injustice of hatred.

And in times of blatant hatred, sometimes a little tongue-in-cheek comedy is a helpful way to take action. Thus, props to George Takei. I’m on board. "It's OK to be Takei!"


Plus, as an ironic side note, yesterday (before I knew about SB49 passing) I read And Tango Makes Three with my students. It’s a children’s book that’s been banned all over the place because it “promotes the gay agenda.” It’s a true story about two male penguins in NYC's Central Park Zoo who adopt an egg in need of care and raise the resulting chick, Tango. We read the book because it integrated perfectly into our current curriculum. We’ve been talking for months about families – what a family is, who’s in a family, and really working to acknowledge the idea that no two families are the same, that all family compositions and identities are ‘real’ families, and that we can find similarities between ourselves and others, just as we can find differences. In addition, this week we were talking about zoos – as we focused on the letter Z, continued investigations about animals, and visited the zoo one block from our school. AND, we’ve been preparing the children for their eventual transition to the next grade level. We’ve been visiting the classrooms they may be in next year and the students in those rooms have been studying bird life cycles, so have been hatching chicken, duck, and quail eggs. My kids loved hanging with the baby birds. As such, And Tango Makes Three touches on all these curricular topics – families, zoos, animals, baby birds. How could I possibly have found a better curricular match?! “Gay themes” be damned. And what did the kids want to talk about when we finished the book? How cute penguins are and how parenting penguins prepare and then care for their baby chicks. Very controversial stuff.

For other (blatantly anti-SB49) videos, you can check out Jon Stewart and the folks at FCKH8.

Video Spotlight: Lead with Love

Lead with Love is a 35-minute documentary film created to support parents and families struggling with the news that a child is lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  It includes interviews with real families, answers to several commonly asked questions, and suggested action steps for parents working to deal with their emotions after hearing the news that their child does not identify as straight.  The film also includes interviews with psychologists, teachers, and religious clergy.

The film is not perfect, but offers a much needed resource for familes.  It is definitely worth watching, supporting, and spreading to others who may gain from its message of support.  In addition, the film is VERY new (like, it just come out this week), so spreading the word is a much needed action.

This is the 2.5 minute trailer, but you can watch the entire video for FREE here.  Go watch it!

Queering pop culture

I like Glee.  It’s my guilty pleasure and the only TV show I watch faithfully. 

And this week’s episode struck a chord with me.  To catch you up, in case you aren’t a regular watcher, Kurt Hummel is the only openly out gay student at McKinley High.  And he faces relentless bullying, overt and subtle – gay jokes and taunts, getting thrown in the dumpster, being slammed into lockers, the whole gamut.  This week’s episode in particular really highlighted the overwhelmingly oppressive darkness that results from being treated with less than your full humanity, and how sometimes even the most well-meaning friends, teachers, and family-members can’t quite get past the “Sorry you’re having a hard time, but if you’re gay, things are gonna be rough” into a place where they reject the norm of intolerance, declare it unacceptable, and live that resistance in word and deed.

This week, in the midst of feeling utterly alone, Kurt met a new ally in Blaine, an openly out student at another high school, who offers Kurt courage, hope, and assurance that change is possible and life gets better.  Plus, Blaine can SING.  (And DANG, can he sing!  We know how I have a ridiculously intense sweet spot for men’s a cappella, and the Dalton Academy Warblers bring it, singing a cover of Katy Perry’s “Teenage Dream.”  I’m fairly certain this pushes my previous Glee favorite song – Lea Michele and Idina Menzel’s rendition of Lady Gaga’s "Poker Face" to number two!) 


As you may have noticed, I titled this post “Queering pop culture.”  In the realm of feminist theory and resistance, to ‘queer’ something means to change the way it’s seen, to shake the assumptions that hold social constructions in place, to deviate from what is socially understood as normal, and sometimes to even try to redefine what normal is.  For me, to queer something can be a very positive thing – it can jolt folks out of their ‘normal’ experience long enough to (sometimes, we hope) be critical about why we do what we do, who it benefits, and who it limits.  When we queer our understanding of the world, it can free up space for all people to freely be more wholly who they are.

What I like about this episode of Glee (and several others – several with Kurt’s dad come to mind), is that it (intentionally or unintentionally) has the potential to queer viewers’ ways of understanding the world (which, I believe, is a good thing).  Merely because of its willingness to place marginalized experiences, like Kurt’s battle with bullying, at the center of the public’s view, those stories can be told through the eyes of those living them rather than through the eyes of those who fit into the social norm.  (For feminist theory folks, we’re talking margin-to-center stuff here, and pushing into the power of standpoint theory.)  Listening to marginalized voices tell their own stories tends to show the deep complexities of oppression, power struggles, and lived experiences in ways that are often erased when dominant voices frame the story.  (This is the same concept often talked about in the context of history.  “The victor writes the history books.”  How is Columbus’s arrival in the Americas told differently through the eyes of native peoples?  How would understanding change if racism were talked about as not merely individual, but also historical, structural, and institutional? You get the idea.)

So, I am grateful that this piece of Kurt’s story, as told through his eyes and his experiences, (alongside and in conjunction with other stories in other places) has the potential to complicate general understanding of the human experience.  While Kurt’s story is not necessarily unique, nor the first time that such material has been on television, its presence on a popular, prime time, network television show is noteworthy and worthy of recognition.

Plus, they sing and dance! 

Even so, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a few of the frustrations I felt in watching how Kurt’s story played out on Tuesday’s episode and how those things relate to larger concerns in society.  In the show, after Kurt sees the Warblers sing, he has a short conversation with Blaine and two other Warblers over coffee. 

First, one of the students explains that at Dalton everyone is treated the same because they have a zero tolerance harassment policy.  While I understand the impulse to suggest ‘easy’ fixes to issues of bullying, harassment, and abuse, adopting a zero tolerance policy is not enough.  To create a safe environment for all students requires the changing of minds, the disruption of prejudices and biases, and a communal commitment to holding one another accountable to treating all people with their full humanity.  And those efforts require continual work to learn how to think and act differently (because it does NOT come naturally in a society like ours built upon prejudice and inequality).  So, adopting a zero tolerance policy is not a cure-all.  It is surely a beginning step, but does not and will not create safe spaces for all students without intense, committed, and continuous work.

Second, when explaining how the school’s zero tolerance policy works, one of the students said, “Everybody gets treated the same, no matter what they are.  It's pretty simple.”  In the ideal world, it would be simple.  In the real world, it’s not.  Even in his statement, the student uses language that can feel dehumanizing.  My hope would have been that he said, “Everybody gets treated the same, no matter WHO they are.”  While this could be chalked up to a simple grammatical slip-up, it is important to be thoughtful about language use.  We want to always aim to use language that honors individuals’ full humanity, rather than reduce people to objects (WHO you are vs. WHAT you are).

Third, Blaine offers Kurt some advice.  He says, “You can refuse to be the victim. Prejudice is just ignorance, Kurt.  And you have a chance right now to teach him.”  I agree; prejudice is ignorance.  But, prejudice is often backed by power.  In our society, individuals, groups, institutions, etc. get away with homophobia, racism, sexism, and so many others, because our social systems support them.  Society is not inherently neutral.  Lines were drawn long before we showed up on the scene, and while we didn’t pick the setup, it’s been laid out for us.  Battling ignorance IS about education and about sharing information that changes the ways the world is understood, but we’re already starting on biased ground.  The battle truly is an uphill climb.  Plus, the battle is bigger than changing individuals.  It involves changing individuals and seeking to change the larger culture that places limits and restrictions on those who don’t conform to a socially built idea of ‘normal.’  So, while perhaps Blaine’s advice is accurate and appropriate for Kurt, for Glee, and for the audience, I feel the need to acknowledge some of the complexities in accomplishing what Blaine suggests.

Okay, enough of my being down on the details. 

As Emma Pillsbury would say, “Yay, Glee!”  Plus, I must offer a shout out to actors Chris Colfer (who plays Kurt Hummel) and Max Adler (who plays Dave Karofsky).  You gentlemen are amazing in your attention to detail.  You knock my socks off!

Also, if you’re interested in other pretty mainstream examples of queering pop culture, a good example is the video below.  The men of the University of Rochester's YellowJackets filmed a parody of the video to Taylor Swift’s “You Belong with Me.”  Much like Glee’s version of “Teenage Dream” could be interpreted as a musical conversation between two same-sex participants (Blaine and Kurt), the YellowJackets reimagine a song originally written about a hetero- couple in a queer context.  (The video below has Swift’s voice as audio.  If you want to hear the YellowJackets sing it, go here.)


From my perspective, the more we queer pop culture, the more space exists for everyone to feel safe and comfortable being exactly who they are.  There has been a lot of news coverage in the past few months about young people who have taken their own lives as a result of bullying focused on the victim’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.  Information from The Trevor Project tells us that suicide rates have not gone up, only the level of media attention they are receiving.  Young people all over the country, and all over the world, are feeling hopeless, voiceless, and alone.  Queering pop culture is one (of many) ways to help people feel less alone.  Seeing media representations of characters and experiences to whom and with which they can relate matters.

If you’re unfamiliar with The Trevor Project, check them out here.  Also, the It Gets Better Project, founded by writer and media pundit Dan Savage, is a space designed to give voice to experiences often pushed to the margins.  Their tag says, “Many LGBT youth can't picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can't imagine a future for themselves. So let's show them what our lives are like, let's show them what the future may hold in store for them.”  There are many great videos in their archives.  If you haven’t seen the video by Fort Worth, Texas City Councilman Joel Burns, it is especially worth watching.

And, on a final, final note, if you feel the need to hear more delicious a cappella, give this a try.  It’s the Leading Tones from The Ohio University (Ohio represent!) singing Ben Folds' "Brick."  (Did you know Ben Folds pulled together a WHOLE album of collegiate groups singing vocal arrangements of his songs?!  It's called Ben Folds Presents: University a Cappella!  Hell to the yeah!)

Peace.

Responding to Focus on the Family's "back-to-school tools to... push back against the gay agenda"

Earlier this month, CitizenLink (a Focus on the Family affiliate) did a report that offered "back-to-school tools that'll help you identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom." (Note: Typically in my posts I link to organizations and groups I reference, but I’m not particularly fond of Focus on the Family and their affiliates, so if you’d like to see their sites directly, I encourage you to do so, but you will need to seek them out directly. They will come right up when you search for them by name.)

As a classroom teacher and an active LGBTQ advocate and ally, the CitizenLink broadcast makes me disheartened, sorrowful, angry, and hurt. Originally I sat down to write a satirical, comedic blog post on this topic, but I think I need to offer a sincere response. (Even so, comedy can be a great tool when confronting homophobia and bigotry. Bryan Safi over at Current TV has a great comedic response to Focus on the Family’s broadcast on his regular segment That’s Gay, which I enjoy thoroughly. You can watch his response here.)

Two things in particular about the CitizenLink report concern me:

First, CitizenLink’s Education Analyst (and I cringe at that title because it sounds so impartial and unbiased, but no one is truly objective and I’m trying to be respectful, so…) Candi Cushman makes a suggestion that concerned parents should check their child’s school library catalogue and search for key terms such as ‘homosexuality,’ ‘gay,’ and ‘lesbian.’ She says that if lots of items come up in the search then the school probably supports ‘the gay agenda.’ She argues that school libraries reflect school philosophies and if a library has a lot of ‘gay books’ then kids can check them out and teachers can use them as classroom resources. My thought is that libraries are meant to be the storehouse of available knowledge, which suggests that all ideas and opinions should be represented. If the ‘gay books’ are absent or restricted, then the library has failed to do its duty as a holder of knowledge and, at its worst, is participating in censorship. To blame a school for having books and resources is to deny trust or respect to its users – teachers, staff, students, and families – to be self-selective and judicious about material use. It also suggests that ‘gay books’ make people gay which, shockingly, is not true.

So, first, I’m concerned that Focus on the Family is suggesting a censorship of books and resources.

Second, CitizenLink’s anchor (or whatever) Stuart Shepard talks, along with Cushman, about ways to “identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom.” He says,

“Teachers send a lot of things home in the backpacks. It's important to read what's in there and kinda look for language that might be suggestive [of the gay agenda]. Often bullying is one of the ways that it's disguised. It talks about a Safe Schools Week or a Bullying Seminar."

In my experience, bullying takes many forms and attacks many people for many different reasons. Sexual orientation and gender identity, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of your friends or family, are only some of those reasons. At some point EVERYONE is the victim of bullying. I promise. To suggest that schools’ efforts to confront bullying supports ‘the gay agenda’ (whether you agree with that statement or not) denies the reality that ALL students can benefit from having less bullying in their lives – as protagonists and as victims. Cushman goes on to talk about ways to confront ‘real’ bullying, but as a professional educator I am shocked that ‘safe schools’ and ‘bullying’ are apparently buzz words synonymous with ‘gay activists’ and ‘gay supporters.’ I can pledge, proudly, that I will continue to actively fight bullying in my school and community and that INCLUDES fighting to protect LGBTQ folks and their friends and families. Mark me down as a ‘gay activist’ and ‘gay supporter.’ I welcome the label. And apparently families should now fear me. Though I’m still confused as to why. Bullying, in all its forms, hurts everyone, and we should do everything in our power to actively confront it.

Cushman goes on to talk about ways that “cute little pictures of furry animals” are used to “sneak… homosexuality lessons into things with innocent sounding titles.” She references the children’s book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson and illustrated by Henry Cole, which tells the true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins at New York City’s Central Park Zoo, who adopt an egg in need of nurturing and hatch and raise their daughter Tango. I’ve read the book. It’s lovely. And for the children in my classroom who have same-sex parents, it made them feel a little more recognized and understood in the world, and for my students who came from families put together in other ways (and there are many ways to build a family), the book gave them one more way to understand what it means to be a family.

At the end of the day, it sounds like Focus on the Family thinks bullying is okay and books/furry animals encourage being gay. All of this is simply a crock of shit. And as I teacher I will proudly, adamantly, and unapologetically stand against bullying and utilize any and all books and resources (though not as likely cute fuzzy animals) to help my students understand the complex reality of the world around them. My intention is not to make Christians or others who don’t condone homosexuality or gender variance to feel unwelcome, but it is my responsibility to create an environment where all people feel welcome, valued, seen, and heard – including folks who identify as LGBTQ. Rather than censoring access to knowledge or promoting one idea of the world, my job is to help students and their families develop critical thinking skills that allow them to make their own life choices while honoring the freedom of others to do the same.

If you’d like to see the full video of the CitizenLink broadcast, it’s here (9min30sec).
(Image from here.)

Making space for the truth of family diversity.

I just read a lovely story penned by Jennifer Finney Boylan in The New York Times titled 'Maddy' Just Might Work After All. An excerpt:

[M]y two children and my wife and I were sitting around the kitchen table, eating dinner. I was mid-transition. My older son, Zach, gave me a look.
“What,” I said. He was 7.
“We can’t keep calling you ‘Daddy,’ ” he said. “If you’re going to be a girl. It’s too weird.” ...
“Well,” I said to my sons. “My new name is Jenny. You could call me Jenny.”
Zach laughed derisively. “Jenny? That’s the name you’d give a lady mule.”
I tried not to be hurt. “O.K., fine. What do you want to call me?”...
“I know,” he said. “Let’s call you Maddy. That’s like, half Mommy, and half Daddy. And anyhow, I know a girl at school named Maddy. She’s pretty nice.”
His younger brother, Sean, who was 5, said, “Or Dommy.’
We all laughed. Even Sean. Dommy! What a dumb name for a transsexual parent!
After the hilarity died down, I nodded. “Maddy might work,” I said.

I spend a lot of time with kids, and one thing I am frequently reminded of is the beautiful diversity of who makes up our families and the strength that we draw from those foundations.

A year or more ago I saw a wonderful traveling exhibit called Love Makes a Family: Portraits of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People and their Families. (On a side note, the exhibit was sponsored by a church - the Berry United Methodist Church in Chicago, a reconciling congregation and proud member and supporter of the Reconciling Ministries Network. Not all churches are exclusionary of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.) The exhibit was put out by the great folks at Family Diversity Projects who currently have six traveling shows, including their newest project Pioneering Voices: Portraits of Transgender People. Family Diversity Projects works to use the images and stories of real families to create exhibitions that show and advocate for the true diversity of families, along lines of race, sexuality, gender identity, disability, mental illness, family composition, and so forth.

At the end of the day, it is truly heartening for me to see more and more voices speaking out in love of the community we can build in our differences.

Two thumbs down for PETA

While I am a (more than) happy supporter of vegetarianism and veganism, I can't get behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Hasn't happened yet. Can't see it happening anytime in the future. I agree with their stance that animal rights are vital issues in our contemporary society, especially when so many of our "interactions" with animals and animal products are mediated through factory farms, animal product processing centers, product testing on animals, and the clothing trade. Seeking changes that protect animals from cruelty, inhumane conditions, and abuse are issues affecting not only the animals themselves but also our human population. While I do not have a problem with people naturally eating meat because of my personal beliefs about our evolutionary position on the food chain and our natural design to be omnivores, I think we as a culture have worked really hard to pull ourselves out of the natural way of things. There is little that is natural about the production of much of our food, especially meat and meat products. As such, I fully support the many reasons people choose to become vegetarian or vegan -- be it concern for their own health due to the unnatural conditions that intercede in the production of our food (including the use of antibiotics, chemicals, synthetics, etc.); disdain for the cruelty inflicted upon animals in their journey to our grocery stores, food establishments, and stomachs; a deep respect for animals as living creatures worthy of living those lives to their full and natural ends; a contempt for the conditions endured by human laborers as they power the food industry at all levels (including fields, slaughterhouses, and the service industry); an economic unwillingness to financially support any of the harmful practices in our food industries; a simple dislike for meat or animal products; or any number of other valid and worthy reasons.

But, when it comes to PETA, the organization's utter and repeated failure to recognize the intersections of social justice issues prevents me from having any willingness to support their work. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, their continual focus on animal rights, to the extent of perpetuating and reinforcing other social problems, serves (they think) to advance their cause while actually harming the equally vital efforts of other social movements. Allow me to give a number of examples to help clarify my frustration:

I.
Most recently PETA wrote a letter to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

asking to buy space at each of the nine southwest border sectors [of the U.S./Mexico border fence] for our new ad. Those considering entry will then read this message: "If the border patrol doesn't get you, the chicken and burgers will. Go vegan" (or, in Spanish, "Si no te agarra la migra, te atraparan el pollo y las hamburguesas. Sé vegano").

Linsday Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns, said:

We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. [that] they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables.

PETA spokeswoman Ashley Byrne added:

America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave; it's becoming the land of the sick and the home of the obese.

In his Houston Chronicle article, reporter James Pinkerton described the proposed ad (see the picture), saying:

PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."

While the government is expected to reject PETA's offer because it would limit visibility through the fence (a whole other topic I'm not touching today), the fact that PETA would be so ignorant of the larger social issues at play baffles me. Do they really believe that their "target audience" (which is who exactly? folks scaling the wall?) are going to be interested in their message? Or that it would deter them from crossing? I would think folks crossing the border have other things on their mind. Plus, does PETA think Mexican and other immigrant populations never eat meat or cook with meat products (uh, lard, anyone?!), or that they have the resources to eat healthily all the time, or even that healthy eating is not possible within U.S. borders? No offense, but I tend to believe that people desire to move across borders for a reason, and I think those reasons probably outweigh the food warning on a billboard. While I appreciate PETA's apparent concern for immigrant's diet and health, I am confused by their choice of actions. Rather than addressing the exploitation and dehumanization of immigrants and people of color working in the food processing industry, or addressing economic conditions that encourage people to leave their home nations to begin with (where apparently they have a better diet), instead PETA wants to put up an advertisement. I'm honestly lost. They are volunteering to participate in racist and economically oppressive action to further their cause.

II.
PETA has a history of using women's bodies as sexual symbols to grab folks' attention and sell their message. In their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" and "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur" print campaigns, as well as a number of public protests, they've featured attractive women -- nude or nearly nude -- selling their message. Setting aside the sexist reality that they feature only conventionally attractive women and no men in their ads or public displays, when called out on the misogynistic nature of their ads and public protests, their response seemed to echo a "we'll do whatever works" ideology.

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said

While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn. ... Forgive us our bikinis and our shock tactics, but our message that all beings — both human and nonhuman — deserve compassion and respect is one that we must work hard to make heard.

So, if understand correctly, what they're saying is that sex sells. Well, no shit, but that doesn't mean you should use it. Disrespecting woman to promote animal rights does not seem like a progressive, forward-moving approach to me.

(And on an equally depressing side note, did you hear about the world's first vegan strip club? Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club in Portland. According to Fox News coverage (of course, and caution: totally raunchy website for video link), the club's motto is "Vixens not veal, sizzle not steak. We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate." Sick. As Ann at Feministing says so well, "[They're] using the 'ideal' female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.")

III.
On July 31 of this year, Tim McLean, a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Winnipeg, was brutally stabbed and beheaded by a fellow bus passenger, a stranger. Apparently the assailant, Vince Weiguang Li, began eating part of McLean's body. And PETA's response was an attempt to run a newspaper ad with the following text:

"Manitoba... An innocent young victim's throat is cut... His struggles and cries are ignored... The man with the knife shows no emotion... The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of... His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!" ... "If this ad leaves a bad taste in your mouth, please give a thought to what sensitive animals think and feel when they come to the end of their frightening journey and see, hear, and smell the slaughterhouse. Try switching to a healthy vegetarian diet and save lives every day, including your own."

I don't know about you, but as much as I support a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, using such a tragedy to get people to eat more veggies doesn't sit well with me. I understand what PETA wants to say and the passion with which they're trying to say it, but I think they went about it in a pretty insensitive, disrespectful way. (That's an understatement.)

And PETA's comment on the situation:

While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is…

Now, to the best of my knowledge, the ad was rejected by the local paper, but even the thought that trying to run it was a good strategy just doesn't work for me.


All that said, where do we stand? In efforts to support animal rights PETA uses racism, sexism, and the exploitation of tragedy to further their cause. Ignoring the trade-off they are willing to make to further their intentions does not, and will not, convince me to support their version of "social justice."


UPDATE: These people never stop. 2 quick hits:
1. PETA recently submitted a commercial they hoped to air during the Superbowl. It got rejected by NBC for "depict[ing] a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The commercial is part of PETA's "Veggie Love" campaign. When will they learn that there are better ways and means to promote vegetarianism than using sex(ism) and women's bodies? They really, really suck at understanding the whole intersectional exploitation thing. (To read more, Melissa over at Shakesville has laid out the argument quite clearly.)

2. PETA is using KKK imagery to protest the American Kennel Club, meaning that PETA protesters are dressing up like the KKK in both video campaigns and live protests (standing on the street outside Madison Square Gardens handing leaflets to passersby -- the ones who stop to strangers dressed like the KKK). I am not shitting you. I am trying to understand how dressing up like the most notoriously racist terrorist group in American history is okay and I just can't figure it out. As Cara over at Feministe suggested:

This is not progressive. Do you hear me? This is not progressive. And the progressive movement needs to cut off this organization entirely and let reasonable, smart animal rights organizations that fight just as hard without sacrificing the dignity of humans take over. Now.

-2/10/09

Video Spotlight: "My Address: A Look at Gay Youth Homelessness"

As summer is finally beginning to dawn, many LGBTQ indviduals and their allies from around the country, and around the world, will come together in Pride events to publicly celebrate and honor who they are as a community and their continuing struggles in seeking justice and equality, rights often denied by a larger society that holds to heteronormativity as if persons of other identifications are fictitious and scary (they aren't, on either account). (And note: when I say "society" that means WE need to take responsibility. Society is made of individuals – aka YOU & ME – who discriminate or are willing to blindly allow discrimination. Our individual actions contribute to societal norms. Don't be passive.) As my tiny contribution to bringing awareness and a more concrete understanding to LGBTQ struggles, I wanted to share this video, produced over a year ago by the lovely folks at OurChart.com. This is the second of a five episode series narrated by Katherine Moennig exploring homelessness among gay youth. To see the rest of the web series, you can visit OurChart.com, or to read the report put out by The National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce on which much of the cited statistics are based, you can go here. Peace.

Video Spotlight: Barbie & Ken 101

Let's round out the month with a shout out to spoken word with a side dish of feminism.

I think Rafael Casal is the shit. His flow is sick, and his message critical. (And there I go again cross-breeding two language sets that are too often kept in separate corners.) Rafael's a talented young voice that gives thoughtful, heart-felt attention to very real issues through the fresh eyes of a generation seeking their (our) way in a mixed up world. He just came out with a hip-hop/rap LP – "As Good As Your Word" – at the end of January. And if you want to read "Barbie & Ken 101" in its final form (the piece was only about a week old in the vid) go here.



UPDATE: I recently read a short chapter written by Rafael entitled "Teaching Poetry Workshop" in Handbook of Social Justice in Education (2008) edited by Bill Ayers, Therese Quinn, and David Stovall. Good read. -- 8/2009

why Unilever isn't so squeaky clean

Hey y'all. It's been a bit. I hope the new year is bringing good things your way. As for me, I've had a bit of a bee in my bonnet as of late (honestly, when do I not?). So, back in June I shared a short digital video I really dig -- Dove's 'Evolution.' (It looks like the original link is outdated. Here's where you can check out the video.) As part of their Campaign for Real Beauty, Dove released a follow up video a little while back entitled 'Onslaught.' Here it is:

Essentially the film highlights (subliminal-speed style) the advertising industry's common portrayal of women -- a highly sexualized version of womanhood -- and they close with the message “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does.” Rock on, right?

In and of itself, yeah, maybe. But, here's the part that gets my goat (not that I have a goat to be gotten, but for the sake of literary flow...): Dove's parent company is Unilever who, as we'll get to, seems to have some conflicting intentions. In describing the Dove brand, Unilever say things like:

In a world of hype and stereotypes, Dove provides a refreshingly real alternative for women who recognise that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.

and

Our ground-breaking campaign for our new Dove Firming lotion, which features women of all shapes and sizes, ... underlines our commitment to breaking down stereotypes and enabling you to celebrate your beauty.

Yay! A brand that cares about me as a REAL woman -= no supermodel, no 100 pound, flawless youth decadently pretending the world is mine because of the body I've got to master it with. A company that believes women are more than boobs and asses. Finally. Woohoo! Raise a flag, do a dance, sing a song, and for the love of all that is good, buy Dove! Right? Perhaps not...

Unilevel is parent to a large number of brands, including Slimfast, Bertolli, Pond's, Country Crock, Hellman's, Knorr, Sunsilk, Vaseline, and Axe. You know Axe, right? It's the world's most popular brand of male grooming products (sold as Lynx in the UK, Ireland and Australia). On the Axe website, they describe the 'work' of their brand as follows:

The Axe Effect is the internationally recognized name for the increased attention Axe-wearing males receive from eager, and attractive, female pursuers. Regardless of where you live (shout-outs to Cindy and Diane in Dawson City, Yukon!) you can "get you some" Axe Effect by going to a store near you and purchasing one of our fine products.

And on Unilever's Axe brand site, they say,

With its coolly seductive fragrances and packaging, the brand has established itself as the world's top male grooming brand by coming up with a constant stream of new ideas to keep guys a step ahead in the mating game.

Um, uh, what? Axe is body spray (and other products for men) to help the male members of our species get a little leg up on the "mating game." You got that "get you some" innuendo, right? Yeah. Thought so. Hard to miss. Axe is a brand that's sole purpose is to help men get into girl's pants. Awesome. I feel so clean and wholesome now. And a bit objectified. Just a bit.

And, just to stress the point, if you visit the Axe website, you get an even clearer image of their view of women. After you get through Flash loading, oh, excuse me, I mean "Your mojo is loading," you have a couple options. You can watch a video about The Axe Vice Naughty to Nice Program designed to 'rehabilitate' all those unfortunate sweet women who have fallen victim to the irresistible lure of Axe products and as a result committed crimes. (It's the 'good girl gone bad' scenario, 'cuz really, does anyone want a bad girl who's already been bad? Seems not.) You can watch The World's Dirtiest Film. (I'm sure you get it. What more do I need to explain about that?) You can play the Dirty Rolling game to see 'how much dirty fun you can get into.' Mind you, if your digital giggling self and lip-locked partner roll over women to join your rolling trout in the mud you get bonus points. If you roll over men, you lose points. We only want one guy per dirty game, apparently. Or, and this may be my 'favorite,' you can download a "Long Lasting Axe V.I.X.E.N.S." (Very Interactive Xtremely Entertaining Naughty Supermodel) for your online pleasure. Is it fair for me to say yet that I hate these people?

(Okay, and for my own satisfaction, I also have to highlight that Unilever introduces Axe saying, "In the film The Matrix, Keanu Reeves is given two choices. He can either take a blue pill and wake up in the morning as if nothing has happened or pop a red pill and enter the unpredictable 'wonderland' of the Matrix. As millions of guys around the world know, Axe has taken the red pill." Just so we all know, The Matrix was inspired in part by a book written by Jean Baudrillard called Simulacra and Simulation. Simulacra and Simulation, like Baudrillard's other works, is a critique of contemporary consumer society, suggesting that our obsession with material things and the societal meanings we ascribe them (example: body spray makes you irresistibly sexy) leads to our own apathy, nihilism, and eventual destruction. We live in a world of constructed lies -- false images obscuring the truths of our existence. Essentially, everything we come to believe is in a falsehood. In The Matrix, Neo's acceptance of the red pill doesn't take him to a 'wonderland' where deodorant makes him every woman's sex dream; it takes him to a reality stripped of the images we place upon it -- exactly the opposite of the result Axe suggests. Just needed to point that out. Yeah, I'm a nerd. And I'm cool with that.)

And, just to make it more fun, Axe has fronted this 'band' called The BomChickaWahwahs who taut themselves as "the world's naughtiest band." And who are they? Well, a group of four lingerie-clad Axe minions whose theme song (uh, only song?) includes the lyrical anthem:

Bom chicka wah wah. It’s the labido’s mantra.
Yeah it goes bom chicka wah wah. Mmm, baby come to mama.
The scent goes up through the nose and then into the brain
Attacks the common sense, whose always super lame...
It invades a woman’s mind. Her limbic region goes insane.
She’ll start aching for a man and acting so profane.
It’s a sexual turrets. Strange words break out your mouth.
We’re here to warn all you girls: there’s a monsoon headed south. ...
How to explain this sensual feeling,
Somehow my panties end up on the ceiling.
Even guys we cannot stand have us eating from their hands. ...
Bom chicka wah wah...

(There is also a music video, which I can't quite bring myself to post here, but if you want to see it, go here. It's also on the band's website.)

Have I highlighted enough examples yet to demonstrate the demeaning way women are portrayed by the Axe brand? So, then how do we (you, me, whoever cares) reconcile the reality that Unilever actively promotes Dove, a brand claiming a desire to break from the traditional messages of women as sexual objects and promote a more realistic view of women, while also pushing Axe, a brand centrally grounded in the promotion of women as sex-objects to be mastered/owned/conquered (whatever language you prefer) through the purchase of products? (This is the stuff that keeps me up at night, folks. Seriously.)

So, what do we do about it? Do we deny the value of Dove's messages? Well, no. If they impact positive growth or change, I wouldn't deny them that power, nor would I want to. But, recognizing the purpose-serving motives of advertisers is important as well. Unilever, through Dove, promotes 'real' women as a marketing ploy, just as Unilever, through Axe, promotes women as sex-objects as a marketing ploy. They create the same material they warn us to save our daughters from. Unilever's mission says

Our mission is to add Vitality to life. We meet everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that help people look good, feel good and get more out of life.

And regardless how it is framed, the company's purpose is to stay in business, to make money. And apparently it doesn't matter whether you do that by portraying me as a 'real' woman or as a sex object. Whatever sells. And it's too bad, really, because I've got this soft spot for companies that are interested in serving real people, not the almighty dollar. And my cash follows my interest.

P.S. - If you'd like to do something about Unilever's hypocrisy, one option is to join a letter writing campaign being led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. You can encourage Unilever to consider the mixed messages they endorse in their expressions of concern for girls' and women's well-being while also positioning women as sexual objects.

Some girl-on-girl action...

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but...

In the last few weeks an interesting trend seems to have developed on the pop music airwaves. I'm not actually sure it can be called a trend, in that this "trend" consists of two songs (that I know of). But the fact that both songs are out now and have a pretty consistent and generally uncommon theme interests me. The two songs (drumroll, please):

1. Ray Lavendar - My Girl Gotta Girlfriend
2. Pittsburgh Slim - Girls Kiss Girls

See the theme forming?

And here's what gets me most about these songs: I think they're hilarious. Not so much in their objectification of women (I'm setting that one aside for just a moment, though I think it still holds undeniably true), but more so in their founding on some utterly unlikely, Little Boy Blue pipedream.

Let's look at some lyrics, just for fun:

Ray L. says

My girl got a girlfriend
I just found out, but its aight, long as I can be with her too
My girl got a girlfriend
It really is not a problem cause imma make it do what it do
Cause havin' 2 chicks is better than no chicks, I'd rather the join in,
Keep my girl and keep the other one too
My girl got a girlfriend...
But i'm so cool wit it, both of y'all in my bed watch what I do to it

And Pittsburgh Slim...

Ya’ll know what's hot to me?
When she tongue tied - can’t talk to me
Not with a man, not with the band,
with the best girlfriend and the shit ain’t planned
so unscripted, unpredicted who would of thought
they’d both be with it...
i like when girls kiss girls
late at night
i like when girls kiss girls
aint that right...
not to brag
but i'll knock your socks off
i'll be glad to make the three way pop off...
let's bring fantasies to life

In case you didn't catch it, both of these men have this perhaps faulty understanding that the women of their affection, while interested in other women, will somehow maintain an interest in them, because, really, all queer women (even if they're bi) deep down still want a man. Right? Sure they do. (Hear my dripping sarcasm?)

But maybe even more important is that I don't really think these songs are about queer woman. I think they're about dudes who want to have more than one woman serving them at the same time. So in reality, the sexuality of the women isn't even part of the picture. It's not considered relevant or valuable information. (And yes, I use the language 'serving' intentionally, 'cuz this is really an issue of dominance and subjugation.)

Similarly, it's interesting that in Ray L.'s music video the women never actually lock lips. Mind you, they don't kiss Ray either. Lots of suggestion and innuendo throughout the video, but no actual lip to lip contact. I'm curious about the artistic decisions made on this front. Did the label (Geffen) not want "that kind of relationship" on film? Does not showing the women kissing maintain the illusion that they'd want to get with Ray too? Was someone not comfortable with putting kissing women on TV? Or afraid the video wouldn't get aired? Was it simply a decision of creative license (though you've got to have a reason for all your artistic choices)? Or something else? It could be ANY number of things anywhere in the production process. I don't watch a ton of music videos (hardly any), but I wonder if an authentic queer relationship of any kind has been the positive feature of a mainstream video, ever. I couldn't tell ya. I don't know.

In the Pittsburgh Slim video (Def Jam), on the other hand, the women do kiss. In fact there's a whole strip tease thing going on. With Krista Ayne of Penthouse fame (it says so in the credits). It's kind of like soft porn, really. But, Slim's video scenario is different than Ray's. The dude (Slim, I presume?) is webcamming with a girl three time zones away. So there's screen separation. No threesome happenin' today. But, it's on his mind. And is the girl-on-girl action considered video "kosher" cuz the girl is doing it at the guy's request (and because she's a sexy Penthouse model)? Couldn't tell ya.

At the end of the day, all I can tell you is that NONE of this would fly if it were two men and a chic singer. Never in a million years. And THAT should set off some alarms about the not-so-helpful things being promoted by these videos. And I'm NOT talking about queer relationships. I'm talking about the objectification of women. (I couldn't hold back any longer.)

Anyway, that's all I've got to say about that. These songs (and videos) are laughable in their absurdity. Why not write songs about real relationships (of whatever variety), with real run of the mill people doing what real run of the mill people do? Oh yeah, that kind of song doesn't sell...

UPDATE: So, this little rant has been rolling around in my brain for a few months now and I figured it was time to put it down for digital posterity. In the last while singer Katy Perry has gained some pretty quick fame, most notably for her queer curious "I Kissed a Girl" which flew up the Billboard Hot 100 tracks to hit #1 on June 25, 2008. Some people love it. Some people hate it. I for one am somewhat undecided. On the one hand I appreciate that Katy openly writes about her own sexual curiosities. (She says in an interview with The New Gay, "I love my men. I’m not a lesbian, but I can appreciate the beauty of women. That’s what the song is about: me opening up a magazine and seeing Scarlet Johansen and saying “if she wanted to to kiss me I wouldn’t say no. ... Yeah, [the song] it’s fantasy, it’s a song about curiosity.") (By the way, just to jump on the gossip wagon, Katy's currently dating cutey Travis McCoy of Gym Class Heroes.) On the other hand, I felt pretty strongly even the first time that I heard the song that it's very much about garnering attention (from whoever - men, women, audiences worldwide...), not really about meaningful relationships (but then again, how much of pop-culture is?), and in the song and the video she always returns to the safety of her hetero- relationship. While I'm cool with anyone who says, "Yeah, it's true, I'm hetero," (not like anyone really has to say this; it's generally assumed unless a person's sexuality is called into question for some reason -- just a reminder about where our society's biases lie...), I do worry a bit when the message says something like (and I'm quoting the song lyrics directly here): "I kissed a girl and I liked it./ ...It felt so wrong. It felt so right./ ... It's not what good girls do. Not how they should behave." This merely reinforces that being gay is a misfunction, a failure, a misbehavior -- none of which is true. Now, we know Katy grew up with two pastor parents, her first album (Katy Hudson) was released as a Christian gospel album, and she's said, "I came from a very strict household, where any of that taboo stuff was wrong. I don’t say I hate where I came from, I love my parents and was happy to... have that opportunity to grow, but I came from a strict, suppressed household where that was wrong. Now I’ve been in LA for seven years and realizing there’s nothing wrong, there’s nothing wrong with anybody. If you love someone and you’re a good person that's what counts." Hurrah for growing and building new understandings of the world, and if I accept "I Kissed a Girl" as a process piece in that journey, then I can just shut my mouth and let it go. But, not without mentioning Katy's first single "Ur So Gay," a send-off to an ex-boyfriend. Now, getting your emotions out about your ex is probably a good thing. Saying "I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf/ While jacking off listening to Mozart./ ... You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys." -- that, yeah that might be going too far. But reviews are mixed. Slant Magazine writer Sal Cinquemani says, "Perry's casually derogatory use of the word 'gay' is emblematic of how the word has been optioned by straight youth. And what does it say that Perry has gotten famous doing it—and thanks, in part, to the reigning queen of the gay community?" (Madonna endorsed Katy and the song on the radio back in April, and again in May.) On Out.com one reader says, "Using the term 'gay' as a put-down in any way is just plain offensive, and while Katy might do this amongst her clique, re-enforcing this phrase for the masses only makes it OK for people to continue to associate being gay with something negative, or at the very least, to be laughed at. " On the flip side, another reader says, "Katy has this thing called.. A sense of humor. Having the ability to laugh at yourself?? She is absolutely not meaning any offense to the LGBT community and is in no way trying to contribute to the discrimination that said community faces everyday. I honestly think that her debut will work to desensitize the masses to such 'taboo' words/topics/communities. This girl is here to stay!" While I tend to believe that the song, while catchy, doesn't say anything positively supporting the gay community, it's hard to say how the song will affect the wider listener community. Hmm. Thoughts? - 7/19/08