Editor’s picks week ending 1/13

Here’s an interview with Indigo Girls about the longtime role of activism in their music.

Judith Warner of the NYTimes commenting on the role of gender and emotion in the New Hampshire primary.

Here’s a link the special issue of the journal Signs on “Feminist Art and Social Change.”

“Coming out” for Pizza

Revealing sexuality to immediate family can only happen once in life. At a certain point it is difficult to not involve family who is very much a part of one’s life.

There came a time after moving away from home where I felt the need to tell my parents about my personal preference of sexual attraction, and my life.

It always seemed strange to me that I had to tell my parents, “I’m gay.” It is a very interesting statement because no heterosexual child tells their parents that they are straight. It is assumed in our society that children are born attracted to others of the opposite sex, they will grow up, lead lives of marriage and have babies. No parents seem to think when their child is born, “my baby must be gay.”

With all of this in mind, I felt the need to clue my parents in on what was going on in my personal life, seeing as though I had a pretty serious boyfriend at the time. I wanted to be comfortable with myself, and be comfortable with talking to them about my relationships in the way that my brother would talk about his girlfriends. I thought, in many ways it would be different for me because I was not having a relationship with a girl. It was intimidating to think about how I was not leading the same relationship life as my brother, and I couldn’t help but wonder how my parents would take my big news, especially knowing that they are fairly strong Catholics. I kept my head up, tried to hold in my butterflies and nerves, and continued to work up the guts to word vomit my gay announcement.

I could not figure out for the life of me what was holding me back and scaring me so much to not tell them about my boyfriend. I would practice what I was planning on saying so many times that I began to feel ridiculous and pathetic. The words ran through my head, over and over again like a broken record. Finally, my mom, my step dad Richard and I went out for pizza one of the last nights I was visiting them at home in California. I felt dinner was the time to tell them and I told myself there was no backing out. We ate dinner, finished, and I still hadn’t spit the words out. I knew they could tell I had something to say, it was spelled out on my face. At last, my mouth opened and I told them: ”Mom and Richard, Kevin and I are…daaaating.”

My parents had met my boyfriend Kevin when coming to visit me in New York, but I had never told them he and I were together. Surprisingly enough, they didn’t act any different and wanted to know everything from where he was from to how long he and I had been dating for. It caught me off guard in many ways because I had no idea that my mom and stepfather would be so understanding and accepting. To this day, I am able to talk to them about my relationships and they treat me no different than they treat my brother and his heterosexual relations.  

Its about the Children

I recently read an articled titled “Looking Straight at Gay Parents” in USA Today.  The controversy over same sex families has become a mainstream issue in contemporary American society. Gay parenting is a major issue in our news and media, and since it is election year, many candidates are on the hot seat when it comes to the question of civil unions and gay marriage. According to the article, Kim Musheno is about to give birth to a child in April, thanks to Victor Zaborsky, a gay man who is the child’s biological father. When the baby is born, both Zaborsky and Kim’s partner will be there. Zaborsky stated, “We are forging new territory here. There are no role models.” As complex as this situation is, it is not impossible to achieve. The more the child is around people who care for him/her, the better everything will turn out. As this issue is getting more and more attention, it is certain that same sex parents are capable of taking care of a child together. It is estimated about 3 million children being raised by gay parents.  Gay men have come to adopt children more than lesbians.
            The article mainly looks at the concerns for children. David Jolliffe, a gay father to an orphan, states, “There are a lot of children who need families and love, and a parent’s protection and guidance.  I think that can be provided by people regardless of their sexual orientation.”  There are many children who are left in shelters and foster homes in America; they are moved from site to site, never finding a family (usually heterosexual) that wishes to keep them.  Now that gay men are willing to take them in, it allows all parties to be fulfilled. Musheno has some concerns about her children when they grow up. When the children are playing with others, will they get picked on about their parents? She said she realized that children get picked on for many reasons, for example because they are short, or fat, or walk funny. Children are children.   If our educational institutions become more complex and less binary, children will be able to accept anything and anyone as “right.” 
            On the other hand, Abigail Garner said that there actually is a difference with children raised by homosexual parents.  She was raised by her father and his partner shortly after her parents divorced. She loved her father and his partner and had a lot of fun with them. The problem she faced was not one that was obvious. As she stated, she felt that she had to be perfect. How can a child be perfect? Children are supposed to make mistakes and learn from them.   Garner feared if she was not perfect, others may find her flaws are reasons to object to her father’s care. She also feared that her father would be attacked by someone who objects to homosexuality. Even though she was not a lesbian, she had to constantly be reminded about homosexuality. Many of us do not have to remember that our parents are straight because it is all we know. When a child has to keep that in their mind, it adds a lot of pressure on them. As a consequence, they can isolate themselves from others.
            Another gay-raised child is Courtney Puckett. Her mother was the love of her life. Courtney later became a lesbian herself. She states that the hardest person to come out to was her mother. Not because her mother would not approve, but rather because her mother would be disappointed that she could not raise a “normal” child. Courtney’s mother will be looked at by others and will be blamed for Courtney’s identity. 
President Bush is trying to ban same sex marriage and civil unions. Gay parents feel that they would like to be considered as equals with straight couples. They need to be able to support their children and have health insurance coverage. If their child goes to the hospital, they need to have to right to be with their child. All of these things are of huge concern if Bush passes a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

            Same sex parents are capable of taking care of a child; they have proved to promote positive things for their families. It might be hard for the child and they might have to carry more baggage than other children, but with education, society will become more accepting allowing these children to be free and accepted as “normal.”

For Everyone, Female Dancers

The dance world is mostly made up of gay men and straight women. It is a world in which the men have, in general, received a great deal of encouragement because there are fewer of them. As the majority, women in dance have a far different experience from men; women often start their training at a younger age and must be extremely proficient to be successful. It seems that this culture of strongly encouraging men allows for a certain level of freedom and power in male dancers that is often lacking in their female counterparts. It is often assumed that positions of power are to be held by men. While certainly there are exceptions to this observation, I see that the dance world can have negative effects on the expectations and aspirations of female dancers.
I know many female dancers who after having wonderful careers as dancers decide to become Pilates instructors or drop dance altogether. While there is nothing wrong with becoming a Pilates instructor, what bothers me is that there are so few women in the contemporary dance world who choose to be in leadership roles as directors or choreographers. This phenomenon makes me wonder whether this is in fact a choice and or if is it a result of lack of encouragement in their creative efforts.
I feel that the modern dance world is one with very strong female figures who have made enormous impacts on dance. However, in the world of contemporary movement there are fewer models. Here at Juilliard, over the past three years I have been at the school, there have been nine choreographers brought in for the New Dances project and only two of them have been women. As an aspiring dancer/choreographer I find this discouraging.
The undermining of female sense of power at Juilliard is subtle, but present. In the December New Dances I was in a piece in which a woman, my friend, gets passed from man to man for the majority of the second movement. I don’t think the choreographer gave a moment of thought to the implications of this simple act. To a female audience member this action stands out as a statement of female powerlessness. That the male choreographer had no point of view on this statement (he unintentionally made) was revealing; it revealed underlying male control. I’m positive that if someone were to ask the choreographer about his piece he would be shocked to hear this type of interpretation. However, the most offensive part is that this interpretation never crossed his mind.
Female dancers need to expect more and be upset when they don’t get it. In a small world of strong male relationships, it often feels as though gay men are not aware of the female experience. While I feel my generation of dancers will change this dynamic, there are things that cannot wait. There are a few strong female models in my life that are invaluable to my generation and I am grateful for them; their influence is liberating. Women need to feel fully supported and encouraged to be able to be as creative as they can be. Half of any creative endeavor is having the guts to try something without fear. Some are born gutsier than others, but it often comes down to encouragement.

Candidates take questions from gay people

I found myself watching Logo the other day. For those who have never seen it, Logo is a channel devoted to gay programming. On this particular day, I happened upon the channel’s interviews with the leading democratic presidential candidates. The moderator announced that the republican candidates were also invited, but none of them returned the phone calls. The candidates I saw were Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Bill Richardson, and Hilary Clinton. There were questioned by panel that consisted of a writer for the Washington Post, a director of GLAAD, and Melissa Etheridge. What most interested me about this was not what the candidates said, but how they answered the questions they were dealt.

Kucinich was overwhelmingly fawned over by the panel. Most of the questions given to him seemed to be opportunities for him to make speeches about how wonderful a person he is. Out of all the candidates on the show, he seemed to have the gay-friendliest politics, and we learned that for Kucinich, it’s all about bringing more love into the world. This whole interview was slightly bizarre to watch, as it seemed like Kucinich was just trying to make a campaign speech for the camera, and these adoring fans were interrupting him with questions that he sometimes felt like answering. The man clearly has a lot of passion, but seeing him disregard the people on the show in favor of the camera was uncomfortable.

Both Gravel and Richardson had a similar agenda: I’ve always been on your side; now give me some credit for it. Whereas Gravel gave a grandfatherly chuckle while talking about how long ago it was when he was passing equal rights bills in Alaska, there was a little animosity in Richardson’s voice when he talked about the initiatives he had passed, as though he was reprimanding the audience for not congratulating him on his efforts. Both men suffered from a mild case of Kucinich’s speech-making syndrome. Of the three men, Gravel seemed to be more comfortable saying the words “gay marriage.” Kucinich was too busy making speeches and Richardson seemed to think those words contained poison. His focus, as he said repeatedly, was on what is achievable, and apparently that is not gay marriage.

This was probably the only forum in which these candidates were interviewed by two openly gay men and a lesbian. One could sense the varying levels of comfort. Kucinich looked mostly at the camera – to make speeches and perhaps also to avoid looking the panel in the eye. Richardson mainly looked at the panel but seemed edgy and defensive throughout the entire interview. Gravel, perhaps too old to be insecure about what people would think about him conversing with gay people like they were normal people, or maybe just a little more used to conversing with gay people, was the most conversational and congenial of the men.

Finally, a few words about Hilary Clinton. Hers was the only interview that actually felt like an interview. She directly engaged the panel and answered the questions she was given. She didn’t make promises of gay marriage, but she was upfront about why she supported the federal DOMA. She seemed by far to be the most comfortable in that setting. This is possibly because, as she mentioned, she has lots of gay friends.

To see that almost all of the democratic presidential candidates (I missed Obama and Edwards’s interviews) wanted to participate in a gay-focused interview was encouraging. Four years ago, appearing at such a function would have probably been seen as campaign suicide, as gay issues were so divisive then. Fortunately, they are not as blown out of proportion anymore. It seems like at this point, the progress left to make is learning how to treat gay people like everyone else. This can only come with more exposure. Clearly, those presidential candidates need to make some gay friends, fast. It could be why Hilary is ahead.

Philadelphia

I recently watched the movie Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. Directed by Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs), the film depicts the courtroom struggle of Andrew Beckett, a gay man dying from AIDS (Hanks), defended by his homophobic attorney, Joe Miller (Washington). Beckett was fired from a conservative law firm for his condition and sought justice for the allegations against him. Set in Philadelphia, PA in the early 1990’s, the film tested the validity of the law and the morals of humanity.
I found this movie to be incredibly intense, powerful, and moving. The film complemented the homosexuality unit, namely the period after the Stonewall Riots, and provided me with a better understanding of the fear conjured up by AIDS in the early 1990’s. Often referred to as “the gay disease” in the 1980’s, people in the 90’s were absolutely terrified of the notion of contracting the disorder. After developing AIDS, Andrew Beckett plummeted from a distinguished and esteemed lawyer to an outcasted and despondent individual. A powerful scene in particular portrayed Tom Hanks sitting in a library researching AIDS discrimination laws when, upon realizing that Hanks had the disease, a librarian asked him if he would feel more comfortable in a private research room. Seeing the awkward and uncomfortable looks of others sitting near him, Hanks replied, “No, would it make you more comfortable?” To me, this situation really demonstrates the fear that people had of the AIDS virus and of homosexuality in general during that time period.
Another interesting aspect of the film was the transformation of Denzel Washington’s character, Joe Miller. As seen in the Stonewall videos, many Americans were appalled by the notion of homosexuality; moreover, two males having a passionate and sexual relationship. Joe Miller represented a dynamic change in that conservative and uneducated opinion from intolerant to respectful. His change was important because it allowed the public to witness acceptance of homosexuality among people representing the law. Furthermore, after saying a plethora of disrespectful and inappropriate comments regarding homosexuals, he later responds to a reporter by saying, “We’re standing here in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, the birthplace of freedom, where the founding fathers authored the Declaration of Independence, and I don’t recall that glorious document saying anything about all straight men are created equal. I believe it says all men are created equal.”
Most importantly, I was extremely affected by the character of Andrew Beckett. Through the contraction of his disease and all the animosity that came with it, he represented pride, compassion, diligence, and beauty. The most moving scene to me was the night before he was to take the witness stand in his trial and he and Joe Miller were reviewing their questions and answers. Beckett, realizing that he did not have much time to live, connected himself and his struggles to a beautiful aria sung by Maria Callas from the opera Andrea Chenier by Umberto Giordano (1896). Incorporating art, especially instrumental/vocal music, made this connection very accessible to me. As the music played, Andrew translated Callas’ words in a manner that reflected his genuine heartache; however, at the end of the aria, Callas repeatedly declares “I am love!” To me, this represents the strength of the human spirit, despite dismal circumstances and an unrelentingly judgmental society.
If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend getting a hold of it and giving it a good view. It is powerful, emotional, and inspiring. Much of the controversy surrounding the trial and the concept of AIDS relates directly to classroom discussion and really portrays the clash between the progressiveness of humanity and the backlash of age-old stereotypes.

“Are Your Kids Safe at Home?”

When reading, “On the Web, Pedophiles Extend Their Reach” (The New-York Times, August 21, 2006), I was utterly appalled with the increase of Internet-related cases of child abuse, in the midst of the so-called “chat room” trend. Due to the difficulty in monitoring and controlling the material presented in chat rooms, bulletin boards and Web sites set up for adults attracted to children; self-proclaimed pedophiles have found a way to continue their horrific doings without receiving some sort of legal punishment. Ironically, who thought that the incredible cyberspace technology, we are witnessing as we continue further into the 21^st Century, would come to the aid of a gradually growing social epidemic in the United-States.

What began on the internet almost twenty years ago as a means of swapping child pornography, has altered in recent years into a more intricate and diversified community, which uses the virtual world to advance its interests in the real one. Nowadays, according to online discussions, the main reason child-predators go on the web is to receive reinforcement from one another through conversations in exclusive chat rooms, regarding their perverted attractions, and their need to sleep with young children without feeling guilty. Moreover, they seek each others’ tips on how to get closer to kids in countless real-life occasions such as: camps, foster care, community gatherings, etc; and exchange stories about day-to-day encounters with minors. In one chat room, as the article states, a  member posted an internet “help wanted” announcement from a single mother seeking an overnight baby sitter for her 4-year-old daughter; in another, a person suggested shopping at weekend estate sales, since plenty of bored minors showed up accompanying inattentive parents. The conversations themselves might not be illegal – as awful as that sounds – but the fact such a community exists, creates a disturbing reality in which children need to fear what has once been a harmless experience, in which one entered a chat room and conversed with a friend from a different country or city.

Furthermore, as dreadful as it may be, pedophiles sometimes view themselves as victims of predatory minors. Everyday images are portrayed as sexual come-ons, Such as: A little girl in a skirt reveals her underwear by doing a cartwheel; a boy in a bathing suit sits on a bench with his legs spread apart; a child playfully jumps on a man’s back.

Incongruously, according to the pedophiles’ world view which is published in these chat rooms, minors are set to be psychologically capable of consenting to intercourse with adults, and parents are deemed to be cruel people, who stand in the way of their children’s sexual freedom. Here is where I stand in sheer astonishment; how on earth can prepubescent children be mentally and emotionally prepared to have intercourse with adult men and women?

Law officers are fighting child abuse on a day to day basis. However, it seems as though they are having difficulty maintaining leverage while the Internet ensures online anonymity and the encryption of images; thus serving as an easy outlet for pedophiles’ sexual fantasies and frustrations. One of the examples stated in the article is that in June of 2007, Internet service providers announced plans for an alliance that will use new technologies to locate child pornography traders. However, Pedophiles were not concerned. Within hours of the declaration, the pedophile online community was filled with guidelines on how to carry on swapping illegal photographs while avoiding detection. Sadly, by trying to protect their children and keep them away from the hands of strangers, it seems as if parents, and society at large, have introduced an even bigger threat to the household – “The Cyber World”. An interesting debate arises; are the prepubescent youth of America actually in good hands in their own household, networking on the computer?

‘It feels like a nightmare I’m a boy’

In the article, “Supporting Boys and Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear” (New York Times, December 2^nd, 2006), the idea of whether adults should support gender varied youngsters is questioned. A recent trend shows that more and more parents, teachers, and psychiatrists are allowing children to express themselves in whichever gender role they choose, whether it is their biological one or not. This support is believed to help these children feel more secure and confident which will then lead to decreased instances of depression and suicidal feelings; a problem that many transgender children have had in the past.

Doctors and psychiatrists across the country have been divided on the best way to handle a child who wants to live as the opposite gender. Should the parents allow their child to act as they wish and risk being socially exiled or should the parents step in and stop such actions until the child is old enough to truly question their gender identity? It seems that many doctors are tending to recommend that the parents support the child’s gender variance, rather than forcing their biological gender. Dr. Edgardo Menvielle, a child psychiatrist from Washington, supports this theory. He believes that “the goal is for the child to be well adjusted, healthy and have good self-esteem. What’s not important is molding their gender.” However, there are doctors who do not agree and believe that these children should be shown, through counseling, how to be happy with their biological gender. Dr. Kenneth Zucker, who disagrees with the approach of letting kids act out whatever gender they choose, believes that children should be taught that they need to act in the way their biological gender is meant to. He believes that this can be done through “encouraging same-sex friendships and activities like board games that move beyond strict gender roles.” There is no clear answer as to which approach is the right one, but there is evidence that supports allowing children to live as whichever gender they choose. Dr. Robin Dea, who works with several transgender children under the age of fifteen, has done research that shows that children who are supported in their gender play “are much happier, and their grades are up.” Based on her research she says that she is “waiting for a study that says supporting these children is negative.”

Support in school systems has also been on the rise, with many states passing laws that protect the rights of transgender students. For example, in Oakland, California, teachers use vocabulary that is gender neutral and they focus on not making students feel that they must be one gender or the other. These teachers even line students up by shoe color rather than by gender. Forward steps like these are being taken across the country, but there is still some hesitation about abolishing the gender binary in schools. Jennifer Schwartz, an assistant principal for an elementary school in Illinois, thinks that in her school system it would be very hard to have such an open atmosphere. She states, “I’m not sure it’s worth the damage it could cause a child, with all the prejudices and parents possibly protesting. I’m not sure a child that age is ready to make that kind of decision.” This thought leaves many parents questioning what they should do with their child who insists on dressing as the opposite gender. The article discusses several families that are dealing with gender-varied children and how they have decided to take on this sensitive issue. One family decided that they are going to support their 5-year-old son who wears dresses to school and insists on being referred to as “she.” They work very hard to make sure their child’s life is as easy as it can be. They have chosen a school that is open and supervise his playmates and their parents to ensure that those who would judge do not surround their child. The mother expressed how difficult it has been allowing her son to live as a girl. She says “every social encounter, every time you go out to eat, every day feeling like a balance between your kid’s self-esteem and protecting him from the hostile outside world.” As hard as it has been for these parents to support their son, they know that they are doing the right thing, especially when they hear him say, “It feels like a nightmare I’m a boy.” The efforts they make to shield him from criticism are great, but what is even more outstanding is the fact that they are allowing their son to live, as he feels comfortable, not forcing a gender on him simply because of his biological make-up.

It is hard to say who is making the correct choice in how to raise a child that is transgender. There are positives and negatives to both methods of handling children who choose to live as the opposite gender. I believe that parents, teachers, and doctors should mainly focus on the child’s development as a human, in example, their self-esteem and social skills, and worry less about what gender they play. If the child is happy acting like the other gender, then they should be supported in that, not forced to fit into a mold of how little boys and girls should act. Everyone is an individual, regardless of age, and they should be allowed to express themselves however they choose. The steps towards acceptance in schools and from parents is reassuring that one day our society may break free from the gender binary that suppresses us.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Upon reading, “A New Push to Roll Back on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (New York Times, Nov. 30th, 2007), I was horrified to learn that a law prohibiting the manifest homosexuality of American soldiers is still in existence. For the United Sates government to begin to show tolerance by allowing homosexuals to enlist, but then to prevent them from expressing their identities openly is despicable. These actions serve as proof that the archaic notion of homosexuals being in some way perverted and a negative influence on the heterosexuals in their surroundings is still eminent. Republican candidates who support the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy are said to think “that it is a sensible approach or that it would be a distraction to integrate openly gay service members into the armed forces at a time of war.” I cannot believe that people in America still view homosexuals as a threat to the proper functioning of an organized group, as if their “unnatural” sexual preferences make them unable to focus on the tasks at hand and to dutifully complete their responsibilities. Even the remarks of General Shalikashvili, who took part in the initial ratification of this policy, but who is now working to have it abolished, are infused with a sense of prejudice towards homosexual soldiers. He is quoted as saying that, “Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.” I’m glad that he has recognized the errors in his earlier thinking, but there is still something wrong with implying that openly homosexual soldiers should be allowed to fight out of desperation. If the War in Iraq were not depleting American forces, would General Shalikashvili still be so supportive of new gay-friendly legislation?

Ultimately, the article made me realize that many American military and political officials still view a person’s sexual orientation as the dominating aspect of their personality. In their minds, to pronounce one’s self as a homosexual is to abandon all other facets of one’s character to a constant preoccupation with sexual desires and lustful advances. They refuse to understand that the sexual identities of gay men and women are just one part of who they are. Homosexuals should no longer be viewed as gallivanting nymphomaniacs. This may be a strong statement, but there is definitely still evidence of this belief being expressed in American politics, as well as in daily American life. Just a few weeks ago, one of my friends said that a somewhat sexually explicit position repeated quite often in the choreography we were working on was “so gay”. Immediately, my homosexual friend who was present at the time quickly pointed out the prejudice nature of the remark. This prompted the first person to withdraw the comment. Instances like this one are examples of how ingrained stereotypes and prejudices are in American society. My friend was not intending to offend those around her or to take a stab at homosexuals, but the image of gay people being more overtly sexual was a standard reference to her. By asking the people in our immediate life to rethink the usage of certain terms, we can begin to break down such references that are outdated or that may not have even been valid to begin with. How long it will take before these small steps create an impact on legislative affairs is impossible to say, but as seen with General Shalikashvili, even the most high-ranking officials can bee convinced of their mistakes.

Editors’ Picks Week of 12/9

Click on the links below to read the articles.

Girls Make Science History

 

India Lets Women Bartend

 

Males with a Female Twin Might Be at Higher Risk for Anorexia

 

Princeton Picking Up Costs of Birth Control Price Spike for Students

 

Wisconsin Father Challenges Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Kansas Students Ask School Board to Expand Protections for Gays and Lesbians

 

GLAAD’s Best and Worst of National News, November 07

Giuliani on Homosexuality

Hunter College Poll Finds Clinton the Favorite of Gay and Lesbian Voters