Hopeful peice on AIDS

from the economist:
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14952992&source=features_box_main

"ALL epidemics run their course. AIDS will be no exception."

"The most important figure in the report, which was published on Tuesday November 24th, is 17%. This is the estimated drop in the annual number of new infections compared with 2001, the year that the United Nations Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS was signed."

"Over the five years to 2008, the report claims, the number of AIDS-related deaths around the world fell by 10%, though it still stands at about 2m annually."

"the strategic deployment of antiretrovirals to pregnant women has, the report estimates, stopped some 200,000 mother-to-child infections in the 12 years to 2008."

The report is only "cautiously optimistic". Strangely, the rate of infection has been on the rise since 2001 in the Americas:



Be careful, guys!
-Plymouth, England. _____ County

Glimpse of the Future

Hey, I saw this article on CNN.com. It discusses climate change and the fact that globally women will be affected first and affected most severely. It goes along with my current event that I did (women and agriculture), considering that women are the primary laborers for much of the subsistence agriculture in the world, they will inevitably feel notice the changes that are occurring to their water supplies and growing season lengths, as well as being hit the hardest by random and severe weather events.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/11/18/climate.change.women/index.html

Check it out.

~Shawna (aka CompostQueen)

there's hope!

After watching the movie the other day, and prior to the movie I went and observed a very depressing divorce mediation at the courthouse, I was feeling completely uninspired. I came home and was talking with my partner/boyfriend, still figuring that one out, and told him about the movie we watch about Juarez. He showed me a music video made by one of his favorite bands about Juarez. At the drive in- is the name of the band. Invalid litter department-is the name of the song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wR1MVdDmUA

that is the link to the music video.

This made me start to think. I was really happy to know that there was attention being brought to the women of Juarez and I wanted to know if anyone else knows songs or music videos that bring attention to important issues. The concept of there being a music video about Juarez gave me hope because this video has been looked at 78,000 times, which means 78,000 people know about Juarez and hopefully that will provoke change.

Recently I have been feeling like I'm majoring in oppression. Please respond with more hope!

Sarah Roisman

where's your sense of humor?

Heeere's an interesting & articulate take on using humor to shame and silence feminists...
This can be applied nicely to female chauvinist pigs as well. Especially those who watch oh, say, the man show?

"Humour – the final frontier of colonialisation. You really now you’ve co-opted someone into the frame of dominance from which you work, when you can get them to laugh at jokes insensitive at the least, vicious in the usual. Which is why it’s so important to berate those humourless one who fail to laugh or worse still dare to complain – they’re obviously not with the programme.
On that note, one of the most common themes among the emails I get is gratitude for expressing frustration or contempt or anger at something of which, women have been told in explicit or implicit ways, our jovial and uncomplaining acquiesce is expected. 'Thank you for saying it’s not funny. That's something that has always bothered me.' It’s an expression of relief that someone has said publicly what they’ve felt privately—and maybe never said to anyone for fear of reprisal, for fear of being told they are humorless, hypersensitive, over-reactionary, boring.
For fear of hearing in those words, “Oh, you’re such a girl,” and feeling that thing, that awful thing, in your gut, the shame of being a girl—and then the twisting horror at the realization that you’ve let self-loathing grip you.
It’s a terribly effective silencing strategy, which is why the conveyance of patriarchal norms is so often closely associated with humor. Anyone who dares complain is just No Fun—hence, we find ourselves mired in a culture in which women who don’t laugh at seeing parts of their body routinely used as demeaning gags, and the men who are disgusted by such objectification of people they’re meant to love and respect, are the ones considered weird.
It can be really daunting to go up against all that, especially in one’s everyday life, on one’s own, just one woman against someone(s) equipped with such an effective institutionalized mechanism for shaming and silencing.
It’s so very girly to get all worked up about novelty boobs. Oh, you’re such a girl.
You’re fucking right I’m a girl.
I’m a girl with no sense of humor about anti-girl things—go figure.
I’m a girl with absolutely no interest in participating in my own subjugation, thank you very much."


Also on this theme there's a sweet song by Nellie McKay "Mother of Pearl" y'all might wanna check out... if you cruise on over to grooveshark.com and search mother of pearl it'll be there. hooray musical feminism!


-kelsey

p.s.
Why did God make woman last?
He didn't want someone telling him what to do.
hahahhahaa....oh wait.

copied from Feministing.com 11/17, vanessa

Not. Okay.
*Strong trigger warning*

I'm sorry, but how the fuck could a game titled, "Hit the Bitch" be anti-violent?

Apparently the game was created by a Danish anti-violence organization, and allows the user to use either their mouse or hand (through the webcam) to hit this woman virtually enough times to the point where she is so bloody and bruised that the screen tells the person they're a "100% Idiot" and gives some information about intimate partner violence. I don't really care what words you throw out after the game is over - the main message is the game and that message is straight up glorifying violence against women. Jill has more.

If you think this campaign is more damaging that it is advocating, email the organization that created the game and tell them so. [http://www.familievold.dk/english]

posted on Feministing.com 11/13/2009

Catholic Church threatens to put D.C.'s poor and homeless out in the cold over gay marriage

Catholic Church leadership seems to be stepping up its role in actively oppressing women and queer people. First came the Vatican's appeal to Anglicans who do not want women or openly gay people as priests. Then the United States Council of Catholic Bishops used their influence to build support for the Stupak amendment. Now the Catholic Archdiosese of Washington is threatening to abandon its social services work over a proposed same sex marriage law.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.


D.C. social services are in bad shape. The closing of a major homeless shelter and budget cuts have worsened the situation in a city already struggling to serve its poor and homeless residents. As someone who organizes for access to abortion I have obvious problems with gaps in the services provided by Catholic Charities. But that does not discount the vital work they do for the 68,000 D.C. residents who rely on Catholic Charities for shelters, health care, and food programs.

The Archdiosese is making a clear statement: it considers keeping rights from same sex couples more important than the needs of this city's most vulnerable. Their willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less. I hope the Archdiosese can put aside the politics of hate for a moment to recognize what I would think they would consider a moral obligation to do vital life saving work.


(-addie)

Self-Protection

In reading the articles for this class I want to bring up the importance of self-protection….
It’s so goddamn frustrating that in our society females must negotiate what feels like a psychological and sometimes physical battlefield of harassment, and must ultimately sacrifice our freedom of expression & behavior to some degree to feel safe (and if we don’t, we’ll probably be blamed for whatever violence/ harassment occurs as a result).
I’m willing to bet that every wommin in our class has had numerous experiences with some form of sexual harassment (and that the men have witnessed some form of it) and not known what to do about it. Whether is is some guy on a bus staring at you inappropriately, someone at a party subtly feeling you up, a stranger on the street catcalling you, the possibilities are endless. I know I’ve had countless experiences where I wanted to, but didn’t, confront the perpetrator. And some in which I have. I’m wondering if y’all have had any empowering experiences with standing up to sexist jerks in these kinds of scenarios. Do y’all know of any go-to verbal remarks to retaliate with? How do you deal with these situations when they happen to you or you witness them happening? How can we protect ourselves & each other proactively? I have a few ideas… but I want to hear yours first.


_kelsey

Gay Marriage Goes to Federal Court!

Whoaaa I dunno how old this news is but I just found out a few days ago. Pretty exciting and nerve-wracking!

Here's a summary of what's going on via good ol' Facebook:


"a court hearing that is in fact occurring, waiting to be the next shot heard around the world. For the first time in the United States' history, same-sex marriage will be debated, let alone mentioned, by the federal courts-- it basically will make it straight to supreme court after its obvious pass-along through all lower courts preceding.

Let me break it down for you:

WHO: Ted Olson and David Boies are high-profile lawyers (who worked the Bush v. Gore 2000 opposing one another) representing two same-sex couples who were denied the right to marry.

WHAT: Olson and Boies are challenging proposition 8's federal constitutionality and believe that it should be repealed. “This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” their suit states.

WHEN: January 11th, 2010 is the set date to begin

WHY: To finally work our way to full equality rights for all under the law one day at a time.

CONTROVERSY: Some say this is much too soon and that we need to enter the federal issue slowly (as in Brown v. Board, if he had went in any sooner than he did, he most likely would not have won the case). ACLU and other advocacy groups tried to intervene and prevent this lawsuit, unfortunately they were denied any intervention and the case is set to trial. How can this hurt? It will be nearly impossible to federally reinstate same-sex marriage if the case is lost. The two prominent lawyers are confident it will pass, so since this is the direction our movement is heading we have to support and back them up 100%!!

FACT: 70% of our nation was opposed to interracial marriage when Loving v. Virginia passed! It's time to hold hands and hope our highest courts do the right and constitutional thing. "



More Info:
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/pressDownloads/AFER_courtDate_PR.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Federal-Prop-8-trial-set-for-January-11

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/unite-the-fight/1d7cbafa2ede4a2cea252e568ef49a6f


-the silva bullet

HILARIOUS

Feeling some anxiety after doing some f-word reading? Relieve your stress with videos like this! The ever-clever Mystery Science Theatre 3000:



with love,
paddie mayonaise

Contemporary Christian and Theist Privilege in the US

In my last post about Christianity I made a lot of inappropriate, unfair comments about the religion and those who identify as Christian. This is unacceptable and will not happen again. I hope that everyone considering posting on this will feel completely safe in posting their beliefs and feelings on the matter without the fear of being personally attacked or that their views will be dismissed or disrespected. While the things I posted are my personal beliefs, simply stating them is not conducive to an educational and productive discourse on the topic. I would like to open up and start this discourse; partially because I think it really needs to be examined and partially to redeem myself from the emotional outburst which was my last post on the matter.

I’d like to start by affirming everyone’s personal, individual experiences with Christianity. Christianity, on the personal and even community level, can be a religion of love, understanding, peace, hope, faith, and so much more. These experiences are real and need to be acknowledged, but they do not negate the larger systems and structures of religion as a social institution.

I’d also like to set a parameter of this discussion as limiting it to discussing contemporary Christianity and theism within the United States. Christian and theist privilege in the (very recent) past was not hidden, subtle, or illegal – it was institutionalized and very much out in the open. Yes, even in the land of so-called religious freedom we have a history of laws on the books which are openly discriminatory of non-theists (atheists).

Before reading any further, I would like to ask all Christians reading this – do you feel like you have and experience privilege as a Christian? To non-Christian/non-theists do you ever feel discriminated against (dare I say – oppressed?) for not being Christian? Hold that thought in your mind, and please continue.

Some facts:
-“The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76%) while non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and others) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population.[3] Another 15% of the adult population identified as having no religious affiliation.” (Wikipedia)
-“In a 2006 nationwide poll, University of Minnesota researchers found that despite an increasing acceptance of religious diversity, atheists were generally distrusted by other Americans, who rated them below Muslims, recent immigrants and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society". They also associated atheists with undesirable attributes such as criminal behavior, rampant materialism, and cultural elitism.[22] “; “48% would not want their child to marry an atheist. In both studies, percentages of disapproval of atheists were above those for Muslims, African-Americans and homosexuals” (Wikipedia)
------------------------------------------

“The concept of “nonconscious ideology” was created to describe those ideologies whose implicit, unreflective, and uncritical acceptance help maintain their dominance in society. Sexism and racism are nonconscious ideologies in which the inferiority of one group is reinforced through a multitude of assumptions and interactions that occur outside our conscious consideration. The same is true with Christian Privilege: Christians are continuously told that they are special and deserve privileges.” (about.com)

I don’t know about anyone else (and this certainly is not an irrefutable fact or anything) but I would agree with this assertion. I’m not saying that every individual Christian feels they are superior to people of other faiths or non-theists but I do think that our language and cultural messaging reflect a Christian-normative society. How many of you are familiar with the idiom of someone being “a good Christian” in the sense that we are then supposed to trust them – think of what goes through your head when you hear that and then think of what goes through your head when you hear that someone is a “a good Muslim”. What about “a good atheist”?
The central issue of this whole Ft. Hood tragedy seems to be the religious affiliation of the shooter (a Muslim) – do you think that would be the case if he was a Protestant?

In the article “White Privilege and Male Privilege” the author Peggy McIntosh listed all the ways she could think of that she was privileged for being White. I found this similar list of Christian privileges online (strangely enough, at about.com) “

• Many stores take the Christian sabbath into account
• Most Christians don’t have to work on their holiest days
• Christians can assume they will see TV specials and hear music related to their holidays
• Christians can erect Christian holiday displays without fearing vandalism
• Christians expect to be greeted with references to their holidays (Merry Christmas)
• Christians can ignore and be ignorant of other religions’ holidays
• School events will probably address Christian holidays
• When traveling, Christians can assume they'll find churches of their denomination
• It’s easy for Christians to find a religious site to marry
• Christians easily find Christian movies, radio programs, and TV shows
• When someone talks about or thanks God, Christians can assume it’s their god
• Christians will find Bibles in their hotel rooms
• Christians have many Christian charities to donate to or get assistance from
• Christians needn’t worry about finding foods to meet religious dietary requirements
• Christians can assume that they won’t be discriminated against because of their religion
• Christians can assume that their opinion won’t be ignored because of their religion
• Christians need not worry about moving to a place where Christians aren’t welcome
• Christians rarely encounter groups that exclude Christians
• Christians don’t worry about revealing their religion to parents, friends
• Christians can discriminate in ways not otherwise allowed & avoid members of other religions
• Christian children will see other Christians in lessons about history
• Christian children will participate in events relating to Christian holy days
• Christian children will find or easily start school clubs dedicated to Christianity
• Christian athletes are encouraged by Christian coaches
• Christian children might avoid being exposed to foreign religions
• Public school space is often shared with Christian churches
• Christians can easily find private schools that cater to their religion
• Christians can wear Christian clothing or jewelry without fear
• Christians can promote their religion on cars or houses without fear of vandalism
• Christians don’t have to educate their kids about persecution for their own protection
• Christians can ignore the language and customs of other religions without censure
• Christians need not worry if their religion will hinder their professional ambitions
• Christians don’t have to worry about hate groups dedicated to wiping out Christianity
• Many communities have names with Christian origins
• Christians can assume that most neighbors & coworkers are Christian
• Christians have directories of Christian-owned businesses
• Christian businesses can hire all Christians without trying
• Christians can criticize Christianity & Christian Privilege with more authority than non-Christians and without their motives being questioned
• Christians can assume that almost anywhere they go and anything they do, they’ll feel normal
• Christians aren’t expected to speak for all Christians or everyone in a denomination
• Whatever Christians do, they need not worry that it will reflect poorly on Christianity
• Christians easily shop for items related to Christianity, even in specialty Christian stores
• Successful Christians aren’t told that they are greedy because of their religion
• The word “Christian” is treated as a label representing the best human attributes
• Where relevant, laws take the Christian sabbath (Sunday) into account
• Laws & regulations come with built-in exemptions for Christians & Christian beliefs.
• Christians can assume that most politicians are Christians who represent Christian interests
• Christians can criticize the government or society without being labeled cultural outsiders
• Christians can assume that politicians won’t attack their religion
• Christians assume that government prayers will be Christian in nature (they usually are)”
I’m curious as to people’s (especially Christians) feelings about this list. Would you agree with them? Are there some you would not? Why? Again, be careful not to only consider your individual experiences, but Christianity as a whole within the US.

While freedom of religion was the major impetus of migration to this country by the people who founded it, and has been a law almost since the beginning of the US – do you all think that we live in a country where everyone feels safe to practice their religious beliefs? I do not.

“In 2007, the Nation’s law enforcement agencies reported that there were 9,535 victims of hate crimes”
“17.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.” (the second largest category, 1,477 total offenses due to a bias against a religious belief)
“Of the 1,628 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:
• 69.2 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 8.7 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 4.3 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 4.1 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.5 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 9.1 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
• 4.1 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).” (FBI)

The FBI provides data on the Race of hate crime offenders, but not on their religion. I was really surprised at these numbers - to find that such a significant portion of hate crime victims were of Christian sects, also at the extreme rate of anti-Jewish hate crimes, but mostly at how low anti-Islamic hate crime rates are. I’m leaving the realm of facts and entering the realm of speculations here – but I wonder how much the high rates of anti-Judeo-Christian hate crimes and the low rates of anti-Islamic hate crimes have to do with how well-connected Judeo-Christian citizens are to legal resources as opposed to Muslim citizens. I’d also be very curious to see what religious affiliation the offenders of anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant hate crimes had – whether it is Muslims or other Christians committing these anti-Christian hate crimes.

Of course, I characterize the anti-Christian hate crime rates as “low” but 8.4% is not really low when you think about the fact that Christians comprise 76% of the religious identity in this country. Muslims, who comprise about 2% of the population (Wiki), shoulder 8.7% of hate crimes due to an anti-religious bias!

Some more interesting numbers: “87% of the Senate is Christian (compared with 79.8% of the population) and 13% of the Senate is Jewish[citation needed] (compared with 1.4% of the population[citation needed]). According to the data, no Senator falls under the category "No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" - a category embodied by 15.0% of the U.S. population according to the 2001 Census. “ (Wikipedia)
Non-theists (15% of the population) get NO representation in Congress – and whats really sick – I’m not at all surprised.

-------------------------
In no way, shape, or form am I attempting to demonize people who identify as Christian; no more than our discussions of male privilege are intended to demonize men. I am simply attempting to discuss an issue which has not yet been discussed in depth in our class because, well, one of the ways through which dominance is maintained is by remaining unexamined. Until Christian privilege is examined it will remain to be “the waters in which we swim” within this country.

On a personal note you may have noticed that I really tiptoed through this post and tried not to add any of my personal beliefs. My personal belief is that in the discussion of religion – as a lifetime non-theist (I was raised in the Unitarian Universalist church – a non-creedal church – and I never developed an unwavering faith in “God”) I don’t think I’ll ever be truly able to engage in a discussion of religion and be present on all the levels a theist or at least former theist is operating on. In my experience there is absolutely no topic on Earth which can immediately evoke so much emotion, people’s defenses, and passion as religion. The truth is that I have almost no concept of faith; I have a cold, unfeeling, reason-driven mind when it comes to this and I don’t have much patience for what I consider “nonsense” – and that is something that I really, really need to work on. Partly because I don’t know everything and partly because I know that I hate it when people call my scientific beliefs nonsense. The only thing I tell myself that’s different is that I have logic to back my beliefs up, whereas religious people only have faith. Who is to say which is better – logic or faith? Not me. I would like to acknowledge the strength of anyone who has held on to their beliefs and faith even when they have come under fire from science; I would also like to acknowledge the strength of people who have moved toward logic away from faith even if it meant discrimination from their communities or even families. I wish it didn’t have to be faith vs. science so much in our society because the truth is, the truth is that no one has the truth. The issue here isn’t about what the truth is - it’s about accepting other people’s beliefs.

I would like to publically admit that I am extremely guilty of being intolerant, dismissive, and derogatory of the beliefs of theists on a regular basis. I am working on changing that.

Thanks for reading,
-Devin

words...

BIRDCAGE
just watched this car commercial that was engaging and funny. it was about this guy in the backseat who wouldn't shut up and was going off about conspiracy theories, and the woman in the front turned up the stereo, which was so awesome and a great reason to buy the car. What does this have to do with anything? For me it says a lot about critique, and the birdcage idea from an earlier reading. yes, the audio in that car looked awesome. yes, it was successful in muting the irritating guy in the backseat, BUT: if you didn't buy a car at all, then you wouldn't be trapped with this guy to begin with, and you could buy sweet headphones and listen to that song on your own time, on your bike.

it's always important for us to back up back up back up, and intentionally examine the cage, the wires, the bird, and ourselves as audiences.

LANGUAGE
I said I would write about this and I’m a little behind. Jordana’s presentation, to me, is pure genius. It’s a powerful, intellectual analysis of the way we create our worlds and paradigms through language. I love the part about language being our most prevalent form of symbology. And the part we saw reflected in Tough Guise tonight about forgetting the dominant groups (ecology is plants and animals, etc).

This topic has interested me for some time. Long ago I removed “that’s gay” from my language, shortly after I also removed “that’s retarded” and finally, “b*tch.”

B*tch was a tough one because I had felt very empowered in saying for a long time. It wasn’t until several of my male allies confronted me that I realized the implications of the term. I support womyn who use it, and I strongly support Bitch magazine and their critiques of popular culture (by the way if you’ve never read Bitch Magazine it’s in the Prescott College Library – check it out!), however I no longer can use it myself because I have come to regard it as disrespectful, violent, and oppressive. To me, it’s the equivalent of F*g and N****r. Looking at the word it’s quickly apparent that it’s a euphemism for a female dog. This holds some importance for two reasons: it equates womyn with animals, the most highly abused creatures on the planet, the second reason is taking this one step further and realizing that the female dog takes a sexually subordinate position. This is pretty far out, but it’s powerful to consider.

Speaking of other animals, animal rights activists are also proponents of change around language. Think about the implications of the following phrases/terms:
Bullshit
Horseshit
Sweating like a pig
Kill two birds with one stone

Interestingly gender and animal rights have a strong intersection in oppressive contorted language and imagery.
He’s a dog
She’s a tramp
Sex kitten

This extends to the sexualization of animals. Rabbits are highly sexualized. Cats are (sexualized and) gendered to be female, dogs – male. Riding a horse is often likened to riding a man…




Actually in my home town a police officer who watched the crosswalk at our upper elementary school was put in jail for raping a baby cow. I’m not kidding. This strange hypersexuality and degradation through language is physically threatening to all oppressed groups.

In class I also mentioned other interesting sexuality vernacular:
I’m turned on
I’m turned off
Two things on this.
1. This form of expression implies that the power is external, that someone is DOING this TO you, without your control or participation. This form of expression lacks personal responsibility.
2. It implies that arousal is a binary. Black or white, male or female, turned on or turned off – like a radio or something!
I do not care if people use these phrases at all, I use them, and I also think deeply considering the implications and meaning of our words is accessible and important.

I’m turned on vs. I’m attracted to you

LANGUAGE AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Consideration to this subject is entrenched in my studies as a psychology student, and for now I’d like to share two ideas from this field.

The first is around the word “self”
Myself
Himself
Herself


My self
His self
Her self

What is the difference here? I have some thoughts but I’d love to hear from you all on this. How do they strike you as different if at all?
Self is an important word in English, it’s everywhere.
I have to take better care of myself
I love myself
I’ve gotta do it myself
Self-actualizing
Self destruction
Self mutilation
Self discovery
Selfish
You’re kidding yourself
Do it yourself
Self sufficient
Who can think of some more??

I’m not making a heavy point on this one, I’m still figuring out what this all means to me. What does the prevalence of “self” mean in our culture? With the focus on self, are we more caring toward our selves/ourselves because of it? Less caring? Etc.

Something I do have strong feelings about in regards to language and personal responsibility are the words “make” and “made.”

“That makes me happy.”
“That makes me sad”
“When I heard that, it really made me think about this.”
“She makes me so fucking angry when she does that stuff.”
“It made me really uncomfortable.”
“How does that make you feel?”
Think about these phrases. Where is the power and control? The answer is that the power and control in all of these phrases, lies outside the individual speaking. This implies that we are powerless, choiceless creatures whose emotional, psychological, and cognitive responses are dictated by outside forces. And this simply isn’t true. We do have choices. We are the ultimate decision-makers on our attitudes and emotions. Even when I am deeply triggered by something or some words, I have the power to decide how I feel about it, whether I am going to react or respond (which are very different), what attitude I will have for the rest of the day, how I’m going feel about the person or the words, etc.

The bottom line is that outside of physical interactions, nothing and no one can MAKE us anything. This comes back to I statements. I statements are powerful translations of sentences where we formerly said “make/made”:

“I feel happy.”
“I feel sad.”
“When I heard that, I really thought about this.”
“When she does that stuff I feel so fucking angry.”
“I feel really uncomfortable.”
“How are you feeling?”

What does this have to do with feminism? To me, it has absolutely everything to do with feminism and social change. By changing the way we express our responses to the world, we have the opportunity to take true accountability for ourselves and our feelings. We acknowledge the beauty of choice, and the power we hold as people. We actively shape our reality in a more honest way. We remove the power from the external force, and reclaim it as our own empowerment.

Will we still have strong reactions to things? Yes. When sexist pigs make violent comments I still feel that they have MADE an unsafe space, but I know that the strongest way to combat this psychologically and dialogically is to remember my power of choice is not the think “I hate her, that made me so uncomfortable and mad,” but rather to come to think “I HATE what she just said, I feel so uncomfortable and mad…” Instead of falling victim to the oppressor, I am able to use those moments as opportunities to recognize my own strength as a survivor in an oppressive situation, and I am better able to take honest, accountable action based on feelings that are MINE.

This is a concise/brief version of my long thoughts and opinions on “make” and “made” and it’s funny because probably no one would ever notice that I don’t use these words (in these contexts) but now you know! And I hope you think about it. Our language is a powerful tool in the construction of our worlds.

Keep your eyes out for a post about Spitboy soon.
Your friend,
addie

aka baddie.

Child Beauty Pageants.

So I was mentioning this to a few people after we watched Tough Guise together and wanted to share this quick little clip I'm using for a paper in another class....I really want to know what everyone thinks about it and how it applies to some of the things we have been talking about in class and presenting on oour mural...
-Syd aka "Yo-Yo Mama" (Too Cheesey? haha)

Health Care Hold-up about.... women's rights?

There has been much internal conflict among congressional democrats, as you may have heard, about whether or not federal money should subsidize abortions or ANY health care plan that would cover abortions. Pro-choice House dems have said they would vot against any bill with anti-abortion legislation (enough to kill the bill), pro-life'ers have said the opposite thing basically.

Uh-oh.

Either way, this "Stupak amendment" got passed in the House: “No [government] funds… may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of any of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion”
the full text: http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=1

And I'm gonna be late for class if I keep writing stuff, so heres the NY Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=2&8dpc

Another interesting column about possible political repurcussions and threats of them: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/10/stung-by-setback-abortion-rights-backers-threaten-primary-chall
makes the claim that under the current health care system "Two major studies show that most Americans now have coverage for abortion services"

hmmmm....

This is more of a news update than anything I needed to process personally. You are either pro-choice or pro-life I suppose, we've hashed this one out before. Talk amongst yourselves, I gotta go to class.

Peace!
-middle paleozoic pro-choice poster (lets see who can figure this one out...)

Communication

Hey folks. Sydnie here. I've been feeling like there is a bit of a shut down latley in regards to communication within the classroom(and as I am becoming more acquainted with it, the blogspace). I wanted to first own up and apologize for the last statement I made in class today about how "the discussion was just going around in circles"...I do feel that way, however, I should have owned that statement as a personal feeling and not an assumption...sorry for the way that was phrased.
I guess the point of this post is to air some things out...I feel like the way we have been addressing each other latley hasn't been coming from a place of respect or understanding. This isn't to say that I expect everyone to understand or agree with everyone else's beliefs or opinions, but I do think that in order to create an effective and safe learning enviornment, people should feel like they can share their opinions openly in the classroom with limited hostility. This isn't just about today's class...I have felt this many times before and I have been feeling lately that the ways in which we have been communicating with one another have been somewhat limiting...I am having a hard time allowing myself to open up and share my deep personal opinions about some issues we address in class...I feel like I have a lot of triggers I am afraid to address publically in class because I don't know how they will roll with you all...I am totally owning this little blurb as my personal feelings about our communication stuff...but I was curious if anyone felt the same way? Or maybe you might feel opposite? I don't know...How do you all feel about the space we have created for one another?

"Thats What Every Girl Should Know...."

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS??? Thank you, Walt Disney...?

Gay parents and skirts on boys

2 interesting articles in the Sunday Times this past week:

The Way We Live Now - What Gay Parenting Teaches All of Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08fob-wwln-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

"There are data that show, for instance, that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to aspire to professions that are traditionally considered male, like doctors or lawyers — 52 percent in one study said that was their goal, compared with 21 percent of daughters of heterosexual mothers, who are still more likely to say they want to be nurses or teachers when they grow up. (The same study found that 95 percent of boys from both types of families choose the more masculine jobs.) Girls raised by lesbians are also more likely to engage in “roughhousing” and to play with “male-gendered-type toys” than girls raised by straight mothers." There is also data to support that "adult children of gay parents appear more likely than the average adult to work in the fields of social justice and to have more gay friends in their social mix"

Apparently the people who compiled the data seem to chalk this up to the differences in the domestic roles of heterosexual and homosexual couples, "lesbian mothers (there’s little data here on gay dads) tend not to divide chores and responsibilities according to gender-based roles" and have "fewer worries about conforming to perceived norms." - wouldn't that be nice?

Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/fashion/08cross.html?ref=fashion

This one doesnt have any good figures to quote but I did find it really interesting - just because I went to a high school that had a dress code like the one described and I never questioned the gender-charged nature of it.

argument: " “This generation is really challenging the gender norms we grew up with,” said Diane Ehrensaft, an Oakland psychologist who writes about gender. “A lot of youths say they won’t be bound by boys having to wear this or girls wearing that. For them, gender is a creative playing field.” Adults, she added, “become the gender police through dress codes.”"

woah: "safety is a critical concern. In February 2008, Lawrence King, an eighth-grader from Oxnard, Calif., who occasionally wore high-heeled boots and makeup, was shot to death in class by another student." , "“There are other places where there are real safety issues,” said Barbara Risman, a sociologist at the University of Illinois who studies adolescent gender identity. “Most boys still very much feel the need to repress whole parts of themselves to avoid peer harassment.”"

reasonable counter-argument: "All this is too much for some educators, who say high school should not be a public stage to work out private identity issues. School, they say, is a rigorous academic and social training ground for the world of adults and employment.

“It’s hard enough to get kids to concentrate on an algorithm — even without Jimmy sitting there in lipstick and fake eyelashes,” said Kay Hymowitz, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Because schools are communal, she wrote in an e-mail message, “self-expression will always have to be at least partially limited, just as it is in the workplace.” Principals need leeway in determining how students present themselves, she added. “You can understand why a lot of principals get fed up with these sorts of fights and just decide on school uniforms.”"

the reality: "But generally, courts give local administrators great latitude. In Marion County, Fla., students must dress “in keeping with their gender.” Last spring, when a boy came to school wearing high-heeled boots, a stuffed bra, and a V-neck T-shirt, he was sent home to change."

interesting: "When a principal asks a boy to leave his handbag at home, is the request an attempt to protect a student from harassment or harassment itself?"

poor emo kids: "“The emo kids get a lot of grief,” said Marty Hulsey, a guidance counselor at a school near Auburn, Ala. “Even teachers say things and I had to stop it.""

"What do you mean by 'Christian'?"

Sometimes I think the Divine is a woman and She is the moon and her children are fairies. Sometimes I think the Divine is God, male, and that His son was Jesus Christ. These both are so real to me that neither can possibly be false. Here at Prescott College I feel so much safer telling people about my first belief. In the Christian community, I feel safer telling my second belief. Maybe you are thinking I must be full of contradictions, but to me, these things are not mutually exclusive, they are just reality.

I use this example because I am so often torn between identities I have. Today in class we were discussing gay marriage and religion. I am so sick and tired of being met with surprise or hostility when I say “I am gay and Christian”. I am no longer solely Christian, but that is a more complicated matter for another time. I have heard really weird stuff from people about being gay and Christian. Like, from certain anti-gay religious groups, if I was MORE Christian, if I loved God more, He would take away homosexual desires. And I’ve heard from anti-religious folks that I should just give up on being Christian, or remarks that I wasn’t “like other Christians” because I am a same-gendered-loving-woman.

I am in no way targeting anybody in our class as I write this: I believe that the discussion we had ultimately educated people. It is the broader community I am still having issues with. Our class is curious, respectful and open to hearing new information. That is not always the case.

I am many things. I’m a feminist, I’m Queer and I love fairies and mythical creatures (maybe a bit obsessively). I also smile when I think of my First Communion, I still say the Hail Mary in times of struggle and the spiritual experiences I have had in a church setting have been experiences of deep connection with Divinity. I do not want to limit myself, stick a label on and say “this is what I am!” because I am more than one thing and it is all real and beautiful and part of my humanity and I won’t choose because, why should I have to! It is time I stop having to defend my religious beliefs and my sexuality. LGBT Christians/persons-of faith-traditions-conceived-to-be-anti-homosexuality really get caught in the middle of “Us” and “Them”.

I would like to close by encouraging you all to go to a website that saved my faith: whosoever.org. This website is not flawless, and it highlights only the Christian faith (so it does not really speak to those of other faith traditions that are typically believed to be anti-LGBT). But it is a start. Go there, expand your mind.

Whosoever.org

Pink Vigilantes!

YO here's the videos on the infamous, wonderful, fucken rad Gulabi Gang... one is a news story and one is a mini documentary a young woman from India made. Both are definitely well worth your time.

Two-part news story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opZz87S2v6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46q5UfLSewg&feature=channel


Mini-doc:

http://current.com/items/88939424_gulabi-gang-the-pink-women-of-india.htm


We can learn a lot from these womyn-- especially Sampat Pal-- about radical compassion, self-reliance, mutual support, and solidarity. We can live lives in honor of people like Sampat Pal by taking care of each other, educating one another & practicing empathy, woohoo!

-Kelsey