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

Terrorism-Islamo-Fascism-Hatred Awareness...

I've been troubled that last few days, and while I'm having a difficult time firmly articulating my anxiety, I want to share it with you all anyway.

A few days ago on campus a friend of mine came back from the bathroom saying, "You won't believe what was posted on the bathroom wall! A flyer for 'Terrorism Awareness Week' - October 22-26 here on campus!" Uh, 'cuse me? What? Terrorism awareness? My first thoughts were a mix of confusion and anger. Are we all not sensitively aware of terrorism? Isn't it piped into our every waking breathe day in and day out? Haven't we heard it as every fifth word or so for over six years now? What exactly is it that the event sponsors would like us to become aware of? My fear is that their response would be closer to propagating hatred than I feel comfortable with.

So, we looked the event up online. Apparently the DePaul Conservative Alliance are the folks sponsoring DePaul's event, which will feature speakers Robert Spencer and Amir Abbas Fakhravar on the topic "War with Iran?", a screening of the film Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West (for a longer, 12 minute preview go here and scroll to the bottom), and an info table.

But we also realized that it's not just DePaul, but a whole network of over 200 universities and colleges across the nation and a few overseas, that are running Awareness Weeks. But most everywhere else, it's not called "Terrorism Awareness Week." No, it's called "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." That was enough to make me choke a little bit.

On the website "A Student’s Guide to Hosting Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" it says that the purpose of this "wake-up call for Americans" is as follows:

The purpose of this protest is as simple as it is crucial: to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat. Nothing could be more politically incorrect than to point this out. But nothing could be more important for American students to hear. In the face of the greatest danger Americans have ever confronted, the academic left has mobilized to create sympathy for the enemy and to fight anyone who rallies Americans to defend themselves. According to the academic left, anyone who links Islamic radicalism to the war on terror is an "Islamophobe." According to the academic left, the Islamo-fascists hate us not because we are tolerant and free, but because we are "oppressors." Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is a national effort to oppose these lies and to rally American students to defend their country.

Sigh... It may be me and my "leftist" views, but I honestly, truly, and deeply believe that calls to rally against "the enemy" to "defend my country" is a call to hate, not peace. (I also think calling global warming a distraction against the bigger threat of terrorism is bullshit. Apples and oranges. Why the competitive nature to rank the value of two serious concerns? It's kind of like the "Don't yuck someone's yum" adage. If people want to work to lessen global warming, don't tell 'em they can't cuz YOU wanna focus on terrorism. The world and the world's concerns are bigger than YOUR agenda. We've all got work to do. Peace, brother. Damn.) And, I believe that efforts like "Terrorism Awareness" and "Islamo-Fasicm Awareness" are some very dangerous spaces with a high potential for inciting additional harm. I feel more fear because of their existence then without.

But it gets more complicated. (Life aways does.) "Islamo-Fascim Awareness Week" is a project of the Terrorism Awareness Project which, to the best of my understanding, was created by David Horowitz and his folks at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Horowitz and his Center are the primary folks working to organize all these events. Horowitz is also the editor of the online conservative political magazine FrontPageMag where one can read more of his perspectives and thoughts, particularly in his blog, which I personally find disturbing but would certainly encourage folks to evaluate for themselves.

But what really strikes me is reading Horowitz' bio, which identifies him as a lifelong civil rights activist. Among other things, it says

David Horowitz is an outspoken opponent of censorship and racial preferences, and a defender of the rights of minorities and other groups under attack -- including the rights of blacks, gays, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians and white males.

(And this coming on the heels of giving Ann Coulter a thumbs up for wishing for the "perfection" of Jews, aka - that they'd become Christians. I mean, isn't that what ALL good Christians want?!... Apparently not this Christian.) And I think "opponent of censorship" is his way of saying I shouldn't speak out against his encouragement of hatred as unwanted, distasteful, and dangerous. (And, from my own opinionated soapbox: since when did most white males need defending? I don't want to hurt any feelings, but have you ever heard of the history of institutionalized oppression we all live in, in which all BUT white males have experienced SOME level of right restrictions?! I mean, I'm all love-love for my male brothers, but it's time for a change. I'm not wishing any male any ill, but in order for others to receive the rights they are currently being denied, some of us (including myself) must make change in our own lives.) I guess it just goes to show the sheer power of words. One person may call me a bigot and another label me a revolutionary. It all depends on their vantage of my consistent behavior.

A DePaul student spoke about this same power of language when considering the "Terrorism Awareness" events coming up. She said

Last year, I took a class "Islam and Global Contexts." My professor asked us what “terrorism” was. We were all a little taken aback. We had heard this term so often, yet none of us could pinpoint what it actually was. Phrases were formulating on the tips of our tongues, but none were specific enough and others were too vague.

Most people mentioned Islam in connection to it, others correcting them by saying, “No, you mean fundamentalism, or fundamental Islam”. My professor had a retort for this, too. She asked us then, “What does fundamental mean?”...

That conversation re-entered my thoughts [when considering the meaning of Islamo-Fascism]. I thought about the word fascism, about what that little dash connecting it to my own religion was meant to convey. Nothing positive, I assume.

Words carry power. And a lack of critical attention to their meaning and intended meaning is hugely dangerous. While I am not sure if it is in response to "Terrorism Awareness Week," several organizations also on campus (UMMA, OMSA, Religious Studies, University Ministry, Islamic World Studies, and Student Affairs) are sponsoring another event called "The Rhetoric of Terrorism: Language is Power. Strive for Peace." which invites students to "explore how we can build a stronger and more hopeful future by understanding the -isms, their usage and their power."

It seems a more hopeful start to me...

As I said, these are issues I'm struggling with. While I have few certainties in the complexity of our political world, I know that "Terrorism Awareness" and "Islamo-Fascism" give me a sick feeling in my stomach and instills in me an undeniable fear that the only thing to be gained by them is increased hatred, which is not where I want to be heading.

And so I'll keep moving forward, working to increase my understanding, listening to everyone's thoughts and critically, openly considering them, and do my very best to do right in the world. It's hard work for us all.

Hugs anyone?

A lot of days the world feels like a pretty melancholy, sad, sick place, full of undeserved hardship and sorrow. On those days, it's hard to feel okay about much at all. Recently I was introduced to the work of Juan Mann, a gentleman from Australia who took his sad day and did something really, really good about it; he started the Free Hugs Campaign.

His story is as follows:

I'd been living in London when my world turned upside down and I'd had to come home. By the time my plane landed back in Sydney, all I had left was a carry on bag full of clothes and a world of troubles. No one to welcome me back, no place to call home. I was a tourist in my hometown.


Standing there in the arrivals terminal, watching other passengers meeting their waiting friends and family, with open arms and smiling faces, hugging and laughing together, I wanted someone out there to be waiting for me. To be happy to see me. To smile at me. To hug me.


So I got some cardboard and a marker and made a sign. I found the busiest pedestrian intersection in the city and held that sign aloft, with the words "Free Hugs" on both sides.


And for 15 minutes, people just stared right through me. The first person who stopped, tapped me on the shoulder and told me how her dog had just died that morning. How that morning had been the one year anniversary of her only daughter dying in a car accident. How what she needed now, when she felt most alone in the world, was a hug. I got down on one knee, we put our arms around each other and when we parted, she was smiling.


Everyone has problems and for sure mine haven't compared. But to see someone who was once frowning, smile even for a moment, is worth it every time.

And you can see his work in action in this video, with music by Sick Puppies.


Since its beginning, the Campaign has spread -- all over the world. Abrazos gratis. احضان مجانية. Câlins gratuits. フリーハグズ. But the Campaign has not been without tribulation. In some cities it has even been banned (though non-violent resistance in the form of petitions and such have allowed some hugathons to be reinstated). I guess in our day and age it can be hard to believe that someone would be willing to give a hug with the request of nothing in return. Nothing at all. But I think it's pretty wonderful.

If you're interested, check and see if there's a Free Hugs chapter in your city; there's one in mine. And if not, you can still show support. Visit the Free Hugs Campaign website, or friend them on MySpace or Facebook.

If you'd like to see more about the spread of the Free Hugs Campaign and additional things you can do, check out this video.

Only 24 homeless in downtown Chi. So you say...

I was made aware this morning of a census report that the City of Chicago released earlier this month stating that

a city census of people living on the street in the downtown area has produced a surprisingly low number: 24.

Call me pessimistic, but upon reading this I (like many others) did a double take. Was this a typo? Did they forget a zero or two? How was "homelessness" being defined? What geographic area did the census cover? Over what length of time was the counting done?

How could the number of homeless in ALL of downtown Chicago be ONLY 24 people? That struck me as utterly absurd. Had the census takers actually walked through downtown Chicago?

The Sun-Times article went on to say:

The downtown count was released on the same day Mayor Daley claimed homelessness across the city was down 12 percent -- from 6,715 in January 2005 to 5,922 at the same time this year -- marking progress in his 10-year Plan to End Homelessness.

"Many people say, 'Are you gonna do it?' I say, 'There's nothing wrong with being on a mission -- a mission of saving souls,'" the mayor said.

Despite my abhorance of anyone on "a mission of saving souls" (it's a power struggle/dominance thing that rubs me the wrong way -- but that's a personal vexation to be dealt with another time), I was interested by this 10-year plan, which I had not heard of previously. Apparently, "The Plan" is a three-front effort begun in 2003 that targets homelessness through up-front prevention, getting homeless persons into permanent housing, and providing wraparound support services that help people address elements in their lives that may lead to homelessness. And the goal is that within ten year's time (by 2013) that homelessness in Chicago will be eliminated. (And we claim our city officials don't have vision!)

By some the 10-Year Plan is already being touted as a success. Mayor Daley said within the last two weeks,

"In short, our plan is working. We're making real progress in helping people find a way out of homelessness -- and preventing them from becoming homeless in the first place. This is exactly what I envisioned when I endorsed Chicago's Plan to End Homelessness in 2003, because I knew we could do better for Chicagoans who find themselves homeless."

What do you say to that? Personally, I don't know if it holds truth or is a political manipulation. But, when the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless is claiming that over the course of a given year approximately 166,000 people experience homelessness in the great Chicago area, and other advocacy groups are claiming that the nightly number of homeless in the Chi is over 21, 000, it makes you wonder the real significance of this current, City-sponsored count of 24. Homelessness is incredibily difficult to count, but the disparity in estimates is alarming.

Some are claiming that the City's report is part of a greater effort to "sanitize" Chicago's downtown image in efforts to bolster their bid for the 2016 Olympics. (Because any of the other city's vying for the spot can claim to have no homelessness...) While this may be true, my concerns are, I think, more grave. (Cheerful thought, eh?) On my personal assumption that the City's data is faulty, I hold great concern that our community's problems are being manipulated merely as progress points on City official's measurements of popularity and "progress," rather than being addressed as serious issues to be dealt with candidly without pandering to a positive voter opinion. (If you ask me, honesty wins my vote more than your doing nothing and claiming you did.) I question if this "24 homeless" is a manifestation of the City's interest in hiding or refusing to recognize the scope of problems including homelessness and poverty in the city. Ignoring the problem does not make it disappear but merely creates additional barriers to positive change. To me this report is a warning siren that the City is preparing to turn its head on homelessness as a "problem solved." Scary thought.

Interestingly enough, less than a week after info about the City's census report first hit the public, the Sun printed a follow-up article that answered some of the original questions concerning the collection details of the census data.

Apparently the census was taken in only a 12-block area of the downtown (because surely downtown Chicago is only 12 blocks big...).

Acting Housing Commissioner Ellen Sahli said a separate count conducted between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. on a cold night in January -- in a much broader swath that includes all four community areas that take in parts of downtown -- turned up 995 homeless people.

And to the best of my knowledge, that near 1000 people does not include the roughly 6000 that utilize shelters on a nightly basis, nor those that "double-up" (stay in housing with someone else for the night). (Surely if you are staying in a shelter or with a friend you are not really "homeless," right?)

All that said, what is the truth in all this? And who (if anyone) has information that can be utilized to really address this problem and not merely neglect the reality of its graveness? On the Chicago Olympics 2016 webpage they say,

In the words of Daniel Burnham, the pioneering architect of the World's Columbian Exposition who embodies the spirit of Chicago, "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood. Make big plans; aim high in work and hope. Remember that our children and grandchildren are going to do things that will amaze us."

If we really believe these to be inspirational words by which to guide the future of our city, shouldn't that mean that as we make big plans we should rely on honest, politically unmotivated evaluations of the situation to guide our efforts, with a concern for betterment not just a good public image? What's the purpose of a beautiful surface if the core is rotting away?

Are Oompah Loompas an incarnation of Mexican gods?

Apparently I am veering away (at least momentarily) from the generally "focused" approach I try to bring to the blog. Today I have been pondering the undeniable likeness between Deep Roy (of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - the remake - fame) and an artifact I saw at the Museo Nacional de Antropologia while in Mexico City. (I honestly cannot remember which time period or region of Mexico from which the figure came. I'll pay better attention next time. Promise.) Now, Roy was born in and has spent much of his life living in Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya, and his parents are Indian. Thus it's all the more striking, and satisfying, to me that his stone likeness would come from a third continent. Maybe he's related to the gods of Mexican mythology. Who knows. But it's worth pondering, don't you think?