Happy Pride Month! #LGBTPride365

4 06 2013

June is LGBT Pride Month!  (It’s true — even the President recognizes it.)  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer communities in the US have come a long way, with so much progress toward equality that remains.  So, there is a lot to celebrate and an infinite number of reasons to be proud.  (See my 2012 post at Kinsey Confidential.)

Here’s a little treat to kick off the month — Heather Small’s “Proud.”  It was used for the 2012 Olympics in London, but has been used quite a bit for LGBT audiences and celebrations.  The lyrics are below, including my favorite: “Realize that to question is how we grow (to question is to grow).”


“Proud” by Heather Small

I look into the window of my mind
Reflections of the fears I know I’ve left behind
I step out of the ordinary
I can feel my soul ascending
I’m on my way
Can’t stop me now
And you can do the same (yeah)
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
It’s never too late to try
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
You could be so many people
If you make that break for freedom
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
Still so many answers I don’t know (there are so many answers)
Realize that to question is how we grow (to question is to grow)
So I step out of the ordinary
I can feel my soul ascending
I’m on my way
Can’t stop me now
You can do the same (yeah)
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
It’s never too late to try
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
You could be so many people
If you make that break for freedom
What have you done today to make you feel proud? (yeah)
We need a change (Yeah)
Do it today (yeah)
I can feel my spirit rising
(change, yeah) We need a change (yeah)
So do it today (yeah)
‘Cause I can see a clear horizon What have you done today to make you feel proud? (to make you feel proud)
(let me hear ya X3)So what have you done today to make you feel proud?
(yeah) ‘Cause you could be so many people
Just make that break for freedom
So what have you done today to make you feel proud?




Beyond King: A Call For More Dreams And Dreamers

19 01 2013

MLK

With Monday’s recognition of the birth, life, and legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., coupled with the re-inaguration of President Barack Obama, there is a lot celebrate.  And, this is an important time of reflection, as well.  Does the election and subsequent re-election of our first (half) Black president signal the full realization of Dr. King’s dream of racial equality?  In some ways, Obama’s presidency extends beyond King’s dream — a Black president???  But, in other ways, the country is a far cry from racial equality.  Given the immediate sigh of relief that white Americans breathed upon President Obama’s election – the belief that we live in a “post-racial” society – it is fitting that we continue to ask whether we have achieved King’s dream, and, if not, in what ways should it be updated for the 21st century.

Dr. King’s work to improve race relations and the lives of people of color and working-class people is of tremendous significance in world history, and even today.  So, it is unsurprising that his words and tactics, and the practices of the broader Civil Rights movement have been used to advance the rights of other marginalized communities.  By all means, civil rights are not exclusive to Black people, nor are they denied solely on the basis of race.  But, I worry that a focus on Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement to understand the world today is too limiting.

Martin Luther King And LGBT Rights?

Dr. King has been one of my heroes since an early age.  I grew up wanting to become him for a new generation, fighting not just for racial equality, but also for an end to sexism, homophobia and transphobia, classism, and so forth.  I am not alone in admiring Dr. King.  But, increasingly, I see others want more from him than he offered.

One alarming trend is the annual blog posts and articles around MLK Day that debate whether Dr. King was an ally for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people during his life.  And, oddly enough, some have asked whether he would advocate for LGBT rights, especially same-gender marriage, if he were still alive todayKing’s support (or not) for LGBT rights has often been the topic of very ugly, public fights within his own family.

Two facts about Dr. King and LGBT issues are typically noted in these discussions:

  1. “King commented on homosexuality in an advice column he penned for Ebony magazine in 1958. A young man had written him for advice about homosexual feelings he was struggling with, and King replied that he considered such feelings to be problematic, ‘probably not innate,’ and in need of psychiatric care.” (From HuffingtonPost Gay Voices).
  2. And, one of King’s key advisors, and the co-organizer for the 1963 March on Washington, was Bayard Rustin — an out gay man, socialist, and pacifist.  King and Rustin’s relationship was rough at times, and King was forced to distance himself when others threatened to out Rustin publicly.

Frankly, these questions are irrelevant and distracting.  Dr. King was assassinated in 1968 — a year before the 1969 Stonewall Riots that sparked the national gay rights movement.  Given his work to eliminate racism and poverty, it is irrelevant whether he would support today’s fight for marriage equality or other rights for LGBT people.  And, it is inappropriate and unfair to debate whether he was a homophobe by today’s sociopolitical standards.  During a time when his fellow activists wanted to publicly out Bayard Rustin’s sexual identity, King befriended and worked closely with Rustin.  If anything, he might have been ahead of his time on some aspects of LGBT rights.

Additionally, questioning King’s views on LGBT rights distracts from the work of other important activists and leaders of today and his day.  On the same day that we celebrate King’s birthday, the first sitting president to publicly support same-gender marriage will be re-inaugurated.  Coretta Scott King (Dr. King’s wife), Julian Bond, and other activists who continue to promote civil rights today have also advocated for LGBT rights.  Maybe questioning King’s stance on homosexuality, same-gender marriage, and LGBT rights is merely a product of regularly analyzing and criticizing homophobia within Black communities (but ignoring it among white Americans).

Beyond King

Was Dr. King a homophobe (much like the rest of majority of Americans in his day and today) or an early ally for LGBT rights?  It does not matter.  King gave his “I Have A Dream” speech 50 years ago!  It is time that we have a new dream for the 21st century.  For example, Vice President Joe Biden noted that fighting for the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming people is the “civil rights issue of our time.”  We continue to see threat after threat posed to the rights and opportunities of women and girls.  Roe v. Wade and efforts to include gender identity and expression in federal non-discrimination laws were components of a future King could not predict.

Beyond dreaming a new dream, it is time to complicate our vision for equality.  The fights for racial equality, gender equality, LGBT rights, equal opportunity, accessibility, access to health care, and so on are not separate causes; rather, they are fundamentally related and intersecting.  Somewhat similar to film Inception, the notion of a “dream within a dream,” we need to recognize that many people are disadvantaged by these multiple, intersecting systems of oppression and inequality.

Finally, while still celebrating the amazing legacy of Dr. King, we need to begin making room for other dreamers.  In one way, this means uncovering components of history that have been lost, forgotten, or erased.  It is great to see, for example, more and more discussion about the activism of Bayard Rustin, especially that he was the CO-organizer of the March on Washington.  Also, it is important to challenge the narratives of the Montgomery Bus Boycott that tells of Rosa Parks as a tired woman who refused to give up her seat on the bus; Rosa Parks was an activist and member of NAACP.  Beyond recognizing and remembering the work of other civil rights activists, it is critical to acknowledge important work of today’s activists, scholars, and politicians.





The Curious Case Of “Evolving” On LGBT Rights

11 01 2013

Outside of conversations about science and technology, we rarely make reference to something or someone “evolving.” So, it struck me as odd when we celebrated that President Barack Obama’s views on same-gender marriage were “evolving” last summer.  I thought this might be the product of odd phrasing, and decide to focus on the significance of his support rather than the language used.

I have since seen this phrasing a few more times, including an article posted yesterday at The Advocate magazine about Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.  He has been criticized for “flip-flopping” in his views on marriage equality; but, the Mayor insists that he has actually “evolved.”  That leaves me to wonder why such language is used, and what is actually meant by “evolving” on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.  I propose three possibilities:

  1. Change: To “evolve” on LGBT rights simply means to change.  I suppose saying that attitudes “shift” leaves too much possibility for them to shift back; for them to “evolve” may imply a shift that is permanent or at least very difficult to undo.
  2. Slow change: For some, particularly politicians, “evolving” on LGBT rights is a way to signal change that will occur slowly and incrementally.  It may be politically unwise to create drastic changes overnight, especially for an issue as divisive and contentious as LGBT equality.  For President Obama, his evolution may be promising enough to pro-LGBT voters and donors, yet slow and incremental enough to avoid losing anti-LGBT voters and donors.  Indeed, he was successfully re-elected this past November.
  3. Advancing: Finally, some may use the term “evolve” to reference a shift to a more advanced state of being.  To support LGBT rights, particularly marriage equality, is to be an enlightened individual that believes in equality, civil liberties, and democracy.

Obama's Evolution

Ironically, less than half of adults in the US believe in the theory of evolution; so I hesitate to believe that most who allude to evolution imply the third meaning when speaking about LGBT rights.  However, for some time, Black Americans have been stereotyped as conservative, maybe even “unevolved,” on LGBT rights.  This seemed especially heightened after the split in America over same-gender marriage shifted to majority support.  Thus, despite the persistence of homophobia in America, opposition to LGBT rights is deemed as a primitive position.

Of course, I am not arguing that this terminology — evolved, evolving, and evolution — is exclusively used in reference to LGBT rights.  But, I have observed a consistent, frequent use of the term over the past few years.  Unfortunately, I do not have more to offer beyond this anecdote!





Reflections On The Murder of Trayvon Martin: Racist Stereotypes, Hypervigilance, And State-Sanctioned Racism

15 03 2012

Trayvon Martin (Credit: Family Photo/CBS Miami)

On February 26th, 2012, around 7pm, Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Black man, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, the white captain of the neighborhood watch where Martin’s father lived.  Martin was unarmed, carrying only the bag of Skittles and an iced tea that he purchased when he briefly left his father’s house.  Zimmerman, suspicious of Martin’s presence in the gated Sanford, Florida neighborhood, called 911 about Martin.  He was told by the 911 operator not to interact with Martin in any way.

Zimmerman followed him anyway, getting into an altercation with Martin when he questioned why Zimmerman was following him in his SUV truck.  By the end of the incident, Martin was face-down in the grass, dead, just 70 feet from his father’s house.  Zimmerman currently walks a free man proclaiming the incident to be self-defense, thus justifying the murder — an excuse that, at least on the surface, is legal under Florida self-defense laws.  However, many are calling for Zimmerman’s arrest for the murder, pointing to the role of racist stereotypes that can play out under these expansive self-defense laws.

Racist Stereotypes

Given Martin’s undeniable innocence in this tragic incident, the only thing he seemed guilty of was being a young black man.  As Dr. Rashawn Ray, a University of Maryland sociology professor, has pointed out, this incident, and many others like it, are evidence that black men are too often, and almost automatically presumed to be criminals.  He notes, drawing on sociological research on race, crime, and punishment:

[S]ociological research continues to show that blacks and Latinos are more likely to be disciplined in school and stopped by the police. While some may anecdotally argue that black kids are badder than white kids, studies show a more pressing problem — teachers and police officers monitor, profile and police black and Latino youth and neighborhoods more than white ones.

The arrest of Harvard University professor, Dr. Henry Louis Gates, in 2009 for trying to enter his own house gives us evidence that any Black man, no matter how wealthy, educated, or even respected in white America, may fall prey to being treated as a common thug or criminal.  In 2010, I was witness to a similar incident, when a fellow member of the Diversity Fellows Program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Dr. Calvin Warren, was hassled by UW-M campus police because he was thought to fit the description of a young black man who police were looking for.  (It goes without surprise that the two look nothing alike, the police never apologized for harassing him, and an internal investigation of the incident dismissed Dr. Warren’s behavior as uncooperative and hostile while the police were just doing their job.)

Additional research by sociologists like Dr. Devah Pager points to other consequences, besides the potential for violence, unfair arrest, and harassment by police, of these racist stereotypes.  In her work, she examines differential treatment in hiring practices by race and criminal record.  In one study using audit methodology, “The Mark of a Criminal Record,” Dr. Pager found that men who were Black, and men with a criminal record, were less likely to receive callbacks for jobs than men who were white, and men without criminal records, respectively.  However, the most shocking finding was that these race and criminal record differences interacted, wherein white men with criminal records were still more likely than Black men without criminal records to receive job call backs.  Black men with criminal records were the least likely to be called back, and white men without criminal records were the most likely to be called back.  You can see the graph below:

"The Mark of a Criminal Record"

Figure 6 from Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." American Journal of Sociology 108: 937-75.

So, in the event that there is any question as to why it matters that racist stereotypes still exist, the unjustified murder of Trayvon Martin, the racial discrimination in hiring, among other outcomes that constrain the livelihood, success, health, and well-being of Black people is your answer.  People’s beliefs, including prejudice, shape their behaviors.  This might even explain the consistent hostility toward President Barack Obama — criticism that has, at times, seemed greater than is warranted for his (perceived) failings.

The Other Consequence For Blacks: Hypervigilance

How do Black people navigate the stereotypes in everyday life they face — those assumptions that may lead to limited opportunities for work, unfair arrest or hostile treatment by the police, violence, unfair treatment in public service, and so forth?  These stereotypes range from the view of young Black men as criminals, young Black women as sexually promiscuous (“jezebels“), older Black women as comforting “mammies,” and so forth.  Dr. Ray, likely expressing the concern of many Black people, spoke frankly about these concerns for his children on The Young Turks.

For some Black folks, hypervigilance is the product of living with such (racist) realities.  One must constantly be alert and self-aware, ensuring that one is safe and avoiding fulfilling whites’ stereotypes about Black people.  Watch how you speak, dress this way, avoid these areas at these times, sit like this, etc.  Setting aside the debates between assimilating to white norms and challenging them momentarily, these are real matters to consider given the concerns for one’s safety and well-being.

In this era of modern racism, where racial prejudice is covert, even unconscious and implicit, it can feel like one is walking on a field covered with landmines of little (or big) racially-tinged events.  Unfortunately, the hurt of these events, ranging from microaggressions (e.g., “you’re not like other Black people!”) to racist violence is compounded by the denial that racism continues to be a problem today.  This makes for conditions similar to schizophrenia, I would argue; you do not know who might harm or offend you in terms of race and, once hurt, you might be told you are being hypersensitive or playing the “race card.”

State-Sanctioned Racism

How does one’s prejudice, even if implicit, translate into the death of an innocent, unarmed 17-year-old Black man?  Without attempting to assess the racial attitudes of Zimmerman, especially given his history of criminal behavior, we can at least talk about how racist attitudes are allowed to become racist behaviors.  Today, with civil rights and non-discrimination laws, discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, health care, and so forth, is illegal; hate crime laws sometimes tack on harsher sentences in the case of bias-motivated violence and property damage.  Of course, more minor, everyday forms of discrimination are not illegal, for they are not seen as damaging to marginalized groups’ well-being, despite evidence that suggests otherwise when these events accumulate.

There are some laws and policies that are blatant in their intent to discriminate against people of color, for example, the new law in Arizona that allows the racial profiling of Latina/o people or those perceived to be Latina/o in an effort to crack down on illegal immigration.  Other laws, like the self-defense law in Florida, may not explicitly implicate race, but can be exercised in ways that facilitates racial discrimination and racist violence.  A post at Feministe does a great job of explicating this point:

A “reasonableness” standard is important in evaluating a self-defense argument. The key, though, is reasonable to whom? In many jurisdictions, deadly force is only justified if a reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. What’s interesting — and troubling — about the Florida statute is that it doesn’t include any duty to retreat (instead allowing force to be met with force), and it doesn’t require that a “reasonable person” would find the circumstances potentially life-threatening. It requires that the individual who used deadly forced “reasonably believed” that the use of force was necessary. It’s a small distinction, but an important one (and it’s Bernie Goetz all over again). A “reasonable person” would not think that a young black man walking down the street was a threat to his life. But an individual with a particular set of experiences and views might be able to convince a jury that he reasonably believed that. In a racist society, you can find a racist person who “reasonably believes” that the existence of a black kid is dangerous, and that a confrontation with a black kid — even if the white adult started it — is life-threatening.

One point that has come up time and again in my dissertation research (on the health consequences of discrimination) is that when laws and policies are less standardized and rigid, there is more room for people in power (e.g., managers, supervisors) to use their own discretion.  This may mean that their biases may sneak in.  For example, in an audit study comparing hiring practices of gay male compared to heterosexual male potential employees, sociologist Dr. Andras Tilcsik found preference given to heterosexual men because they are assumed to be more decisive, aggressive, and ambitious than gay men.  However, when policies and laws are more standardized, leaving little room for personal discretion, there tend to be fewer reports and complaints of discrimination.

Things We Can Do

Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin is dead.  So, what can we do now?

  • You may consider signing the Change.org petition to arrest and try George Zimmerman for murdering Trayvon Martin.
  • As Dr. Ray points out, we could work within ourselves to challenge our stereotypes and assumptions:

Socially, when individuals meet a “good” black man, they can be seen as the rule and not the exception. Most black men are not criminals or untrustworthy; they are law-abiding citizens. People need to start recognizing social class cues that signal professionalism and decency instead of ubiquitously categorizing black men as dangerous.

It is high time that individuals see not just a black man, but a man who could be a doctor, lawyer, neighbor or even the president. These changes in individuals’ perceptions will a go long way to solve the criminalization of nonwhite bodies.

  • Also, we can challenge others’ assumptions and stereotypes.
  • We can assess whether the expansion of self-defense laws may lead to greater protection or greater harm.  In particular, we should ask whether these laws open the door for greater violence against marginalized groups.
  • We should ensure that the media paints a holistic picture of Black people in America, rather than promoting the usual stereotypes of Blacks as criminals, stupid, lazy, or, on the “positive” side, only good at entertaining.
  • Rather than remaining complacent, we can continue to advance discrimination and hate crime laws to protect marginalized groups from differential treatment, especially in this era of covert prejudice.
  • We must begin to talk more frankly about race, rather than skirting these conversations in this so-called post-racial era.  President Barack Obama’s presidency should be seen as re-sparking the conversation on race and racism, rather than ending it.




Wow! People Sometimes Date “Outside Of Their Race”

16 02 2012

Hearing or reading about Mildred and Richard Loving — the “Loving” half of Loving vs. Virginia – always warms my heart.  In the midst of fierce racism and on-going legal and political battles over the legal status of interracial marriages, the couple fought to be recognized as married in Virginia.  I don’t like their story just because I, myself, am the child of an interracial couple; and, I tend to cringe when I hear “same-sex marriage is just like interracial marriage” (which misses the unique, yet intersecting, manifestations of racism, sexism, and homophobia).  I appreciate their story because they made history in the process of fighting simply to be recognized as a married couple.

New Media Attention

For a number of reasons, interracial and interethnic couples have caught the media’s attention in the past week or so.  A documentary about the Lovings, “The Loving Story,” aired on Valentine’s Day, coinciding with the release of a Pew Research Center report on the rising number of interracial marriages in the US.  It seems fair to suggest that this attention also stems from the recognition of a growing number of multiracial and multiethnic people since the 2010 Census, and the election of President Barack Obama (who is multiracial).  As I noted elsewhere about some recent attention on the lives of Black women, it seems the media is suddenly interested in people who have existed throughout history.  I welcome the new attention, of course, but a few glaring matters seem overlooked.

But, What About…

The biggie, of course, is how the media talks about interracial and interethnic couples as though they never existed before the Lovings, and multiracial and multiethnic people were never born before Barack Obama.  I would venture to say that so long as there has been “race,” there have been relationships and identities that transcend the boundaries between distinct racial groups.  And, relatedly, some seem to talk about legal interracial marriages as though none existed before the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the remaining 20 state laws that banned interracial marriage.

Second, little is discussed about the variation among interracial and interethnic couples.  The numbers and growth/decline of such couples vary by racial and ethnic pairing, as well as gender.  For example, the percent of whites who marry someone of a different race or ethnicity is the smallest, while that among Asians is the largest.  White-Black pairings make up a smaller percent of interracial and interethnic couples than white-Asian and white-Hispanic.  If we were to talk about these differences by race and ethnicity, we would need to talk frankly about the differences in relations between whites and people of color, and how they are gendered, classed, and the role of immigration.  (Maybe that’s asking too much for quick splashes about “the soaring rates of intermarriage!“)

Third, there seems to be an absence of discussing race and ethnic relations, and racial and ethnic identity.  Yes, the increasing number of interracial and interethnic couples is due, in part, to increasing acceptance of such couples.  But, what does this say about race and ethnicity today?  Why aren’t there more couples like this?  And, how interesting, the primacy of race.  Heterosexuality (what we could call “intergender marriages”) is assumed.  In fact, some use “intermarriage” (which doesn’t suggest what is being crossed — is it race? religion?  class?  gender?) and “interracial marriage” interchangeably, indicating the exclusive focus on racial and ethnic boundaries.  And, though, in the same discussions, we acknowledge the growing number of multiracial and multiethnic people, we fail to ask about the cross-racial and -ethnic relationships for them.  (Mildred Loving was multiracial — Black and American Indian.)

Finally, in such a great focus on the increasing accepting of interracial and interethnic couples, the higher divorce rate for these couples compared to intraracial and intraethnic marriages is glossed over, if mentioned at all:

The Pew study also tracks some divorce trends, citing studies using government data that found overall divorce rates higher for interracial couples. One study conducted a decade ago determined that mixed-race couples had a 41 percent chance of separation or divorce, compared to a 31 percent chance for those who married within their race.

Another analysis found divorce rates among mixed-race couples to be more dependent on the specific race combination, with white women who married outside their race more likely to divorce. Mixed marriages involving blacks and whites also were considered least stable, followed by Hispanic-white couples.

The actual Pew report gives a little more detail, suggesting that it is Black-white marriages that are most likely to end in divorce, though this may be largely among Black men-white women pairings.  Again, this relates to the importance of talking about the variation in relations between whites and people of color.  But, it also warrants further inspection — what is unique about these couples?  Arguably, despite such growing social acceptance, these couples are less stable because of lower levels of support from friends and family and integration into each other’s lives.

Ideally, there will be more reflection on what this means for the future of racial and ethnic relations, racial and ethnic identities, and racial and ethnic communities.  I hate to admit that I share the pessimism of others — the supposed blurring of racial and ethnic lines will probably not translate into the end of race and ethnicity, rather simply a reformulation of racial and ethnic boundaries and hierarchies.





To A Country Sick With Sex Addiction, Get Well Soon… A Note On Elena Kagan

14 05 2010

“Is she or isn’t she?”  I admit that the potential of our first lesbian, gay, or bisexual Supreme Court justice excited me when I first heard rumors about Solicitor General Elena Kagan‘s sexual identity when she first topped President Barack Obama’s list for potential nominees to replace Justice John Paul Stevens.  I am angry that unsubstantiated rumors about her sexual orientation were released, and now the debate about “is she or isn’t she?” rages more intensely than the debate about her qualifications.  But, I am disappointed and hurt that the response to “is she or isn’t she?” has sounded like a defensive response whether she is a demon, leper, or serial killer.  The White House itself responded with “of course not, and how dare you say such a mean thing!” Today, Karen Tumulty at the Washington Post wrote:

“False charges,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said after a conservative blogger wrote last month on a CBS News Web site that Kagan would be the “first openly gay justice.” LaBolt’s description of the rumor as “charges” was itself awkward, coming from a pro-gay-rights Democratic administration. His statement almost begged for a Seinfeld-esque not-that-there’s-anything-wrong-with-that qualifier.

Why the White House chose to engage on this question at all is telling of the currency and the potency of the innuendo. In an age when the Internet sometimes ignites the burners of the mainstream media, “a rumor unaddressed becomes fact,” said Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who has reenlisted to advise on the Kagan nomination.

A few things have been made clear about sexuality from putting Kagan’s sexuality on trial:

  1. Sexuality matters, whether positively or negatively.  While the US constantly says “keep it in the bedroom,” it demands to know the intimate details of your sex life, especially if they are not the boring stories of monogamous intraracial heterosexual couples who don’t know sex outside of the missionary position.  Somehow, even the anti-LGBT, conservative American Family Association, while still reducing non-heterosexuality to homosexual behavior, recognizes that sexual orientation is an important aspect of an individual’s life, to the extent that it shapes one’s life experiences and values.
  2. Heterocentricism prevails; that is, the assumption that everyone is heterosexual until proven otherwise continues, even in the face of greater visibility of sexual minorities.  While fewer are adding to this assumption that everyone should be heterosexual, it seems more and more are only interested in your sex life when you aren’t heterosexual.
  3. Heteronormativity prevails; that is, the privileging of heterosexuality (e.g., heterosexual identities, relationships, people, and sexual behavior) over homosexuality and bisexual.  Included in heteronormativity are guidelines, not only to be heterosexual, but also how to be a convincing heterosexual.  This is seen, at least partly, in the focus on Kagan’s bachelorette-hood.  (What woman isn’t married with children by the age of 50?  She must be a lesbian!)
  4. Stereotypes live on, shamelessly.  So many shouted out confidently that she must be a lesbian – just look, she played baseball.

Sex Addiction

I have been hesitant to chime in on the debates about sexual addictiondoes it exist, or doesn’t it?  (See my post on Tiger Woods for an exception.)  I am not trained as a sex therapist, not even a sex educator, so I have relied on my critical perspective as a sociologist to conjecture that the existence of sexual addiction may be overstated.  (The medical institution and the field of psychiatry does not have the best history when it comes to classifying social deviance as pathology.)  Without saying it does not exist at all, I am willing, at this point, to admit that sexual addiction exists, like any form of addiction, when the behavior is compulsive and interrupts one’s life.

The United States of America suffers from sexual addiction, it shows signs of “being unable to manage [its] sexual behavior.”  We, as a society, are obsessed with sex – with consuming it, with controlling it, with selling it, and with censoring it.  Pornography is one of the biggest markets in the world and non-erotic arenas of marketing endlessly use sex to sell its products (shampoo makes women want to sex your hair!).  And, in following my definition of sexual addiction, the US’s obsession with sex is so intense and pervasive that it disrupts other aspects of everyday life.  Right now, and I fear for the next few months, we will focus more on whether Justice-nominee likes boys or girls (not both, of course) than on her qualifications as a judge.  (Yes, I acknowledge that founded or unfounded threats of “outing” someone is used as a political strategy, but, even with confirmations from the White House, friends, and Kagan herself, some want more proof that she’s heterosexual – show her get busy with someone of the male variety!)  I am sorry to say that the mere rumors that Kagan is a lesbian, compounded by the ambiguity of her political views and lack of experiences as a judge, may lead us to skipping to the next person on the list.  In this case, her punishment will not be that she is a lesbian, but that she is not clearly lesbian or heterosexual.





Justifying Racism In The Name of National Security

6 01 2010

This past Christmas day, a young Nigerian man failed to set off a bomb on Northwest Airlines flight 253, traveling from Amsterdam to Detriot.  In response, President Barack Obama has criticized the break down of communication, as there were warnings about the young man’s increasing radical views, and security (how did he get on the plane with a bomb?).  Also, a new set of stringent security guidelines have been set by the Transportation Security Administration.  I want to first note that if it is terrorists’ goal to create terror and fear, then that failed bomb was actually a success, considering the chaos that has now been caused in the US.  This chaos includes thorough and invasive screenings of travelers to the US from 14 different countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  This guide of profiling by nation of origin is a thin veil for profiling by perceived religion, race, and ethnicity, though some conservative politicians don’t even bother with the veil:

Well, it seems I’m not tech savvy enough to figure out how to embed this video, so you can see it at Colbert Nation.

Is profiling at airport security checkpoints new?  No.  Is racial profiling in the US new?  No.  In this case, racists and xenophobes and other bigots are capitalizing on this failed attack to freely broadcast their racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Middle East views.  The stereotypes of these groups as terrorists and anti-American did not emerge out of recent terrorist attacks – they already existed, but now they are spoken openly as though the Christmas day failed bombing justifies such prejudice and discrimination.  Here’s a hypothetical: if a white man from Ireland attempted to bomb a US-bound plane, would all Irish people receive the scrutiny Muslims and other Arabs are now receiving?  Would the attention on the Irish spread to 13 other predominantly/majority-white countries?  Though the Colbert video is funny, he raises a good point: must we sacrifice freedom from prejudice and discrimination in the name of national security?  Remember when we placed thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps during WWII?