A New Kind of Family: The Gay-dy Bunch

I don't know if you all have heard about this, but there is a new show called The Fosters which airs on ABC Family. It is basically (although I don't know why I use that word because there is nothing "basic" about it)...but anyway...the show is about this family composed of a biracial lesbian couple, one biological son from one of the moms previous heterosexual marriage, 2 adopted children (Latino twins), and 2 foster children.  See what I mean? Nothing basic. There's a white police officer named Stef and a biracial (black and white) school principal named Lena who have come together. Of course they have their own "baggage." Stef has previously been married, and conceived a child with this man. They work in the same police force, and actually wind up being partners by the guy's request (WHOA!). Oh, and she also has a super religious kind of homphobic dad.  Lena, who has a black mother and white father, has a great relationship with her mother, and her mother loves all of Lena and Stef's kids, BUT Lena has to deal with the fact that her mother illegitimatizes her experience as a black woman because she has fairer skin.  And that's just the parents...

Bottom line, this show exemplifies the different family. Well, not really different, but the kind of more realistic, and the new kind of family that we may very well see in real life nowadays. I say kind of realistic just because c'mon...the kids go to this school literally 5 steps away from the beach, and the parents seem to always be discussing money but one of the kids has a keyboard, they all have smartphones, and they have all of the latest electronic gagdets..like Beats headphones. **insert side-eye here**

Although I absolutely love the show, and think the storyline and messages are awesome...oooffffffff cooouurrrsseee there is going to be criticisms of the show and what it's about. There's homosexuality, multiraciality, and teenage love storylines- y'all know how the conservatives operate.  As I was researching the show a little deeper for this blog I ran across an article on Blaze.com and I think they said it well that...

"Many liberals likely want shows like “The Fosters” to spawn greater acceptance of non-traditional families, while many conservatives would prefer to shield their children from content that has an agenda or that seeks to transform or even form their children’s views on complicated issues like homosexuality and gay marriage."

I mean paranoid much?? Seriously. Why is it that conservative, heterosexual, and/or deeply religious people think that gay peopla are always out to get them? That we are trying to come for their children? Like we are some vampire suffering because there is no more TrueBlood and we just HAVE to feed..and children taste so sweet. like c'mon. Get YOUR life, because we aren't stuntin you boo (I feel like that was in my Crissle voice O_O). Like really.

Case and point is one of the comments in response to the article. I mean of course you can imagine how plentiful these ignorant comments were, and poor HarryPotter (screen name) was trying to stand up for the gays but they just kept coming....here it is:

This is a perfect example of one of the many subtle ways Satan uses the media to do his work. He makes the whole thing look so nice and wonderful and people buy into to it.
The real story is that this is a very bad program and people need to make better use of their time – like not watching TV at all and going to a park or doing something else with their family like spending quality time together. We have not had TV in our home for over 15-years and that one change has made all the difference in the environment and productivity of our children.
This show, like so much other garbage out there, is a direct attack on the family as God intended it to be – between a man and woman. There is absolutely nothing uplifting about a program that tears down the traditional family unit. Again, they make it look and sound good but it is not.

Now, upon further research I learned that the ABC Family channel itself

actually started off as an extension of Pat Robertson's television ministry, then it was Fox Family, and then Disney bought it...go figure that's when the channel became more inclusive with shows such as The Secret Life of the American Teenager, Switched at Birth, and now The Fosters.

Ok. Pause. YES I did say Pat Robertson. I had no idea that he had any kind of anything to do with this channel at any point in time, and I must say I am soo glad that that is not still a factor today. Now, I am not sure if everyone knows who this nutcase is but he is the WORST kind of man..shoot PERSON that I can possibly imagine ever being created. This is a man that thinks all gay people were molested by someone, and that if we come to know Jesus we will immediately be healed. Sir...there are plenty of Christian gays and they are plenty gay still. Calm down. Words seriously cannot describe the craziness of this man, but I found a recent article where he "addresses" the issue of homoexuality on the 700 Club--a show that I would never actually choose to watch other than education on the tomfoolery of this man smh. Please read this and watch the video at the end, just for a snippet of what he is about.

Long story short, I am glad that Jenny from the block chose to produce a show like The Fosters, and hopefully it sticks around longer than the first season's 10 episodes so all the Foster haters can get a virtual slap to the face.

Dream Board

I have a Dream Board now. I have not really been able to put anything on it yet. This morning however, I was able to run across a couple magz. Star and People. So nothing necessarily inspiring lol. I was able to find 2 things though. One says "Live" big, and in all caps. And the other says "rewrite the rules" which I feel is like my goal in life...so it's fitting that it go on my board. What am I trying to create with this board? Hmmm, I want it to encompass the things I want, the things I want to achieve, people and/or things that inspire me...maybe even some photographic prototypes of what I am going to accomplish in my life. The things I want to start, the causes I want to support and advocate for. I want people to look at the board and have a clear sense of who I am, what type of person I am, and what it is that I want to do. I want to look at it and be encouraged and inspired to live up to everything that is on it. I am questioning whether or not I want to take the things I get or achieve off of the board, or if I should just put a big red check over them so that I can still see it, and see exactly what I have accomplished....that is the question.

I haven't blogged in a while, and I thought this was an appropriate simple topic to get back into the swing of things.

On Bisexuality...

bisexual...

Definition 1

bi·sex·u·al

[ bī sékshoo əl ]

ADJECTIVE

1.

attracted to both sexes: sexually attracted to both men and women, or engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual activity

2.

both male and female in character: having both male and female characteristics

3.

having male and female reproductive organs: describes something such as a flower that has both male and female reproductive organs

 

Definition 2

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward males and females. The term is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward men and women

 

I identify as a bisexual woman, and with that comes some hardship. It seems like when you are a lesbian, you at least have the support of the lesbain community, but when you are bi...then, you are not ok with the hetero people nor the lesbo people.  It's like with heterosexual people they say "How can you like both? You are just confused." They call it a "phase." That goes for the lesbians too. It's like you are a traitor for being attracted to men as well as women. If you decide to date a guy you are ex-communicated and no longer considered to be a person truly attracted to women.  Also, there is this assumption that all bi women date women for a while, then they decide to settle down and marry a man and are now "straight."  While it is true that this does happen..Bi women do sometimes marry men, but that doesn't make them straight. Just like now because I'm with a woman, it doesn't make me a lesbian. One of my close friends was actually shocked, and kind of disappointed, when I said I still have an equal "preference" for both even though I'm dating a woman in response to her asking me if I liked women more now.

 

It's simple. Just because I'm with a man it doesn't make me straight, and just because I'm with a woman it doesn't make me a lesbian. Now, I plan on marrying the woman that I am with now so I won't wind up marrying some guy but hypothetically if that did happen then I would still consider myself bisexual. And I actually told guys that I talked to in the past that I am bi despite the fact that they were men.  I don't know. I don't think it is one of those things you can really understand unless you actually identify in this way. I like who I like, and I can't make myself love someone because one side of the spectrum (hetero/homo) is saying I have to "decide"

 

And that's just the bottom line

 

 

The Invisible War. What may be an interesting take...

I don't know if you have heard about it, but I finally saw the documentary The Invisible War.  Yeah sure I am going to tell you what I thought about it, but I also plan on sharing with you, more importantly, the conversations I had with people after I watched it.

It seemed the purpose of the documentary was to delve into the lives of people who had been sexually assaulted/raped while in the US military; they explored the difficult aftermath of having to go through such an ordeal (which in a way seems like an inappropriate word to use...most of the time when we use it, it's describing an exaggerated instance of something, and what these people went through was by no means an exaggeration).

I was deeply touched by everything that the ladies and man said about what they had been through. Equally, I was appalled at how uneducated the people that were supposed to be helping the issue were (but then again it was presented from a biased POV).  It documented one woman in particular. She had been raped and as a result suffered damage to her face, but the VA has been doing little/nothing to help her (this is super summarized). She teamed up with a bunch of other women, and they have been working to getting things changed legally.

Now, as I said, I was deeply touched by everyone's story, and I really could only imagine their pain but the more interesting fact is an underlying reaction I had....

The next day I was at my service site (MSH: My Sister's House) and I brought it up with some of the case managers because I knew they had seen it.  2 have served in the military before, and they both had seen the documentary.  They both explained their experiences while they served. 1 loved it, and 1 not so much (mostly because of how young she was).  The one that loved it, like I, really felt for the women in a very genuine way, but commented on how women who have been through some of the things that The Invisible War brings to light do not like her, because she still loves the military after hearing their stories. She says she understands where they are coming from, and understands their contempt for the institution, but she does not regret her service and would never discourage anyone from joining (as the woman I mentioned before did).

Before the case manager had said this, I hadn't really said much about my feelings about the documentary. But here's the thing. I have wanted to be in the military for a long time, and that definitely came about when I lived in Beaufort where Marines are pretty much everywhere.  That feeling has not gone away. So, as I watched The Invisible War I actually felt guilty, because even though I was watching and listening to these horrible things that happened to these people, it did not change how I personally felt about the military.  I do think things should be done, and I would hate for things like that to happen to me if I were to ever actually go into the military, but I wouldn't let what happened to these women stop me from going through with it.  I even feel that letting that stop me from joining is giving the men that hurt these women even more power.  That's what they want right? To be in control? And if no women are joining because they are "scared" of these men, then that's what they are getting. They are getting confirmation that they are in charge; they determine who is in the military; they determine if women are "allowed" and that is something that I do NOT agree with. While I see why the woman in the documentary was telling the waitress not to go into the military when she overheard her telling some other patrons that that's what she was going to do, I do not think she should push her personal experiences on to others. Inform? Yes! Please tell the world what it was like for you, but everyone has the RIGHT to make their own decisions, especially women.

So, do I actually have anything to feel guilty about? You could argue either way, but I personally think that a woman willing to serve her country, despite what challenges she may face on top of what naturally comes with serving, is stronger than any rapist in a uniform claiming to do the same.

Hate Crimes Investigated

**Insert Law & Order tune here**

So, what exactly is a hate crime? I mean, what qualifications must be met in order for a "crime" to be called a "hate crime"? And is calling a "crime" a "hate crime" another way to discriminate against the parties that would be placed in the category of people able to have a "hateful crime" committed against them?? This is all very confusing..and in a lot of cases controversial stuff.\

A hate crime is defined as:

"criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Whereas a plain ol crime is defined as:

1

: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law

Now, where the controversy comes in....

Why do the crimes committed against certain groups have to be considered a "hate crime"?? Doesn't that increase the instance of discrimination? Doesn't that make them even more of an outcast?? I personally do not think so because the punishment for a hate crime is more severe than that of a regular crime, since a hate crime is driven by hatred...but then...don't you commit a crime against a person BECAUSE of hatred..or at least a strong dislike??

And that's where we get into the woman issue. Why is gender not included? Aren't rapes hate crimes? Especially if you do it more than once??

Gender was not included in the original Hate Crimes Statistics Act  and women advocates have begun to speak out about the alarming rate of violent physical and sexual assaults against women.  A lot of the time, women are blamed for the violence committed toward them, but it is obvious that some of these attacks are not random; women are attacked primarily because they are a woman..therefore, they meet the criteria to be included in the act.  They are being attacked based on bias. 

Take this case:

"One of the most horrific examples of a gender-based hate crime is the 2006 shooting of 10 young Amish girls at the Georgetown Amish School in Bart Township, Pa., about 60 miles west of Philadelphia. Armed with three guns, two knives, and 600 rounds of ammunition, Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, burst into the one-room schoolhouse and shot the girls at close range in the back of the head. Five were killed: Lena Miller, 7, and Mary Liz Miller, 8; Naomi Ebersol, 7; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; and Marian Fisher, 13. Five others were seriously wounded. Although Roberts lived in the area, he was not Amish, and reportedly did not know his victims personally. After Roberts arrived at the school, he separated the boys, ages 6 to 13, from the girls, and allowed the boys to leave. He then lined the girls against a blackboard and bound their feet with wire ties and plastic handcuffs before shooting them. Local authorities reported that "[A]pparently there was some sort of an issue in his past that he, for some reason, wanted to exact revenge against female victims."

This was clearly an act of HATE against girls/women because he purposefully separated the boys from the girls, let the boys leave, and shot the girls. What sense does this make? Of course, just like most of the other mass murderers, the man responsible killed himself before he could have been brought to justice.

Now, back to the point I mentioned earlier about how calling a crime a hate crime can in itself be discriminatory. I can see how that particular point can be made (see above), but there are such strict guidelines to qualify something as a hate crime. Say, for example, a man rapes a woman, but this is his forst time ever raping a woman.  In that particular instance, it would not be a hate crime. He would have to have been a repeat offender in order to get a greater charge associated with commitrted hate crimes. But then, is that fair to the one woman that he raped?? It can get so sticky!!

Angry Much???

As a prerequesite to this blog, I ask that you watch this video (could be disturbing):

Although I was late in learning about this incident, it did not change how shocked and bothered I was by the situation.

First, a father comes to the daycare and hits a child, and then a child becomes the one doing the hitting.  And then, as it turns out, the father came to the daycare and hit the child who up until that point he THOUGHT had been injuring his daughter (because she had been coming home with busted lips and bite marks).  The 9 year old child in this video was actually the one doing the damage to the father's daughter and to several other children at the daycare.

In the video you can see how he punches, chokes, and kicks the little girls, and even goes as far as trying to soothe/console the girl he had been choking once she started crying. 

Then, when a reporter spoke to someone who deals with this little boy on a daily basis she said "he bad" and kind of in a way tried to justify his behavior by saying he takes medicine everyday and he only fights the bigger kids (which according to the video is not true; the girl he choked was in a walker--I am pretty sure that qualifies her as a "little kid").

To go even further, I took a look at some of the comments under the video. I wanted to see what people who had seen the video before me thought. People said the kid is definitely not normal, if they were the parents of the children they would beat his @$$, if they were his parents they would beat him, give him a little of what he is giving, and from the comments I read, maybe 1 or 2 people actually said in response to other people that treating his violence with violence is not the way to go. They could have a point. Of course, as a human being, my first thought was OMG this boy is crazy, and why is he doing this to these babies that aren't doing, and aren't even capable, or doing anything to him? But then, I just thought "what in the world is going on with this boy at home?" I mean think about it. This type of behavior is learned, it does not just come from nowhere.

That got me to thinking about My Sister's House (MSH). There is a strict rule about violence in the shelter. It just is not allowed. PERIOD. Not toward the staff, not between residents, and not between a mother and her children. Mothers are showed other ways to discipline children, and expected to comply, or they will get kicked out with a red dot.  The children have already been exposed to some kind of abuse, they are already statistically more likely to engage in these behaviors, so why would people think it's ok to "punish" this boy with a beating? Does that really make sense? It bears the potential of making things worse.

So, let's look at the bigger picture:

*There's this boy
*This boy takes some unknown medication everyday
*This boy lives in an unknown environment
*This boy comes to daycare and hits babies...only the girls..and then he even tries to soothe her afterwards and then he's back at it again

This looks like the cycle of abuse.

Yes, the boy was wrong. He inflicted pain on innocent kids. But maybe he's the innocent kid when he gets home. Or maybe mom is the innocent one and he has to watch. We don't know.  I have a thing for untold histories..you know the pink triangles of the world. Sometimes, you have to delve deeper, and think about what the underlying issues are. No, I'm not saying that they boy's behavior should be advocated for; I'm just saying that we simply DO NOT KNOW the whole story.

I LOVE MY MOMMIES!

 There seems to be an issue with some people in regards to gay/lesbian couples raising children.  Apparently, 2 people of the same sex are not capable of raising a child because the child isn't being exposed to the general socially constructed gender roles and norms and inevitably they are going to raise a gay/lesbian child. Right? I mean of course this whole sentiment is absolutely ludicrous, but who am I to say anything against the idea. RIGHT? Hmm, I guess I'm just the typical bi chick, that plans to have kids with a woman. I mean, I honestly do not understand what the big deal is.

A lot of straight people do not understand how many of us there are around here. As in on the planet. And being exposed to our crazy big number is scary. But just because we are gay or queer or whatever we want to call ourselves does not make us any less human, or more importantly, it doesn't make us any less hormonal. We still have that biological clock...WE STILL WANT BABIES! Think about it! Seems like straight people are having less babies, while gay people are having more. But the fact that it's something we want, and our human right to be "allowed" to do (sad how we have to ask for permission isn't it?) is not enough. Adoption agencies (Catholic adoption agencies) refuse to operate because their funding will be cut if they deny adoptions to same-sex couples. Is it really that real? Are you that bitter that you will refuse a child a good loving home JUST BECAUSE you aren't familiar with gay couples and how our parenting REALLY works/operates? Don't punish us and our potential children for YOUR ignorance!


****NOTE: I am using "gay" as a blanket term....listing the alphabet soup gets old***

Is there actually any difference between being raised by a straight couple and a gay couple?  Does the child of a gay couple have all this "screwedupness" about him or her that defends the notion of gay parenting being corrupt and/or corrupting?  I don't think so, but that doesn't stop people from trying to prove the opposite. Apparently there was a new study that paints a negative portrait of gay parenting, suggesting that the children are far more likely to be the victims of unfortunate circumstances during their lives. However, this study did receive a lot of criticism because of how the data was actually collected, and how the methodology was flawed:

Several experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother - who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood - is an unfair, flawed comparison. (From the above link)

According to the article "Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents" it definitely seems like being the child of a gay couple has more benefits than naught. In fact, it seems like the only negative to being the child of a gay couple is the reaction of the people outside of the family, the reaction of the outside world to this atrocity known as "gay parenting." I don't think people opposed to gay parenting have any kind of merit. There is not VALID proof suggesting that their claims are accurate.

1. Gay couples are more egalitarian
2. Gay couples are more likely to adopt
3. Gay couples are more likely to adopt children that are more difficult to place with typical families
4. Gay couples are more likely to adopt children with disabilities
5. Gay couples are more likely to adopt children that do not look like them (i.e. a white gay couple is just as likely to adopt a black child as white one)
6. The children of gay couples are more exposed to open-mindedness and acceptance

I mean....I'm seriously trying to see the negatives..but there don't seem to be any.

People who have a problem with gay people just need to get a life, or worry about their own life they have, and move on.

Minstrels and Vaginas

My lovely girlfriend brought a museum to my attention. The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia. When she first mentioned this to me I was pretty bothered. I didn't understand why something like this would be ok. Why is it ok to put on display all of these racist things? Things that have caused so  much pain for so many generations of black families. I didn't get it. I really didn't. And then I went to the website, and on the website it says that they are "using objects of intolerance to teach tolerance and promote social justice." Now, I fskw about the word tolerance; it just does not have an altogether positive meaning because to tolerate something is like you are just putting up with it. Like, you know it's there, you don't like that it's there, but you are going to set those feeling aside and "tolerate" the existence of this said thing. It's like a silenced dislike for something, and I do not think that is or should be the goal of anything in regards to civil rights.

****http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/index.htm****

With that being said, I think I would actually go to this museum. Yeah I said it. I would. I feel as though there is a lot to be learned there, and I have SOME knowledge but I am not an EXPERT by any means on the Jim Crow Era. So, yes, I would go to the museum, and I would suggest that others go as well, specifically those who are not black, so that they too could see and experience what it was like to live in America during those years.

Apparently, because my girlfriend's best friend ran across this museum, they began talking about minstrel shows. I'm sure most of you have heard of the minstrel shows...black face.  It was basically white people, with black painted faces, making Black people look and sound stupid, in order to make their white counterparts chuckle.  Then, this expanded into Black people also being minstrels. Painting their already black face even blacker, making their lips bigger, and making themselves stupider to make white people laugh. It was not a good way to live.


Of course, these minstrels are in the Jim Crow Museum. The so-called father of minstrelsy was Thomas Dartmouth Rice.

 Here is a compilation of "Darkening Up" clips:

Do I really need to say anything about this? I really question the minds of the people that thought this was a good idea. Or good entertainment!!! I mean c'mon, they obviously did not value black people, they were still thought of as property, or as savage animals (which is exactly how the Black Man was portrayed).

As horrible and crazy as all of these things are, a lot of people do NOT know anything about this part of our history, and in a sense this museum can really do something to change that. I don't see anything wrong with people increasing their knowledge as long as these people do not actually have malicious intentions.

On to the vaginas.......

In my Gender & Violence class we talk about a lot of interesting things...even though we haven't actually gotten into the meat of the content yet (We have only met 2 times, and it's a once a week class). One of the interesting things we talked about was the Vagina Monologues. Now, I have always wanted to go, but I never had the guts to ask anyone to go and it just never worked out. So, I am making it my GOAL to make it there this year. Some students came and presented about some people in the class volunteering, and after they showed this video, for some reason I knew that I just REALLY wanted to go. IDK this stuff is just right up my alley!

***NOTE: The video goes black for a little while at the beginning, but just be patient lol

Judge me all you want, but it is what it is!!

LGBT Politics

OK, so Wednesday, January 9th was my first day in my LGBT Politics, and I must say I absolutely loved it!! It is going to be a lot of work, and a lot of reading, but I am honestly looking forward to every second of work and every single word that I will have to read. YES!! It is THAT real!!!

Even the way he walked up to the waiting class in the hallway was amazing. He was this chipper jolly ol' guy (who happens to resemble Santa Claus--NO LIE) and he greeted the people who had been one of his prior classes and he said hello to everyone else. EVERYONE gets a nickname! I think that's so cool. I don't know he is just so interested in the subject, and I know it's going to be amazing.

Even in out introductory class we got a lot of information, and he added his own anecdotes--which are as equally cool and GAY as he is!! 

He quickly mentioned a few things, and I jotted them all down because I knew I would want to research them later..which is what I'm in the process of doing now.

And the topics of interest are::::

* LGBT rights in Spain and South Africa 

http://blog.outtakeonline.com/2007/07/welcome-gay-spain_23.html

OK, so in Spain they went from burning people at the stake for even being SUSPECTED of homosexuality to having one of the highest degrees of liberty in the world for its LGBT community. I mean c'mon!!!! If they can do it, what is the HOLD UP here in the U.S.ofA???


Today, Spain is one of the eleven countries around the world that allows same-sex marriage and has the most progressive laws, since they also permit adoption by same-sex couples.

Same-sex sexual activity legal	(since 1979)
Equal age of consent
Anti-discrimination laws in employment
Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services
Anti-discrimination laws in all other areas (incl. indirect discrimination, hate speech)
Same-sex marriage	(since 2005)
Recognition of same-sex couples
Both joint and step adoption by same-sex couples
Gays allowed to serve openly in the military
Right to change legal gender
Equal access to IVF (in vitro fertilization) and surrogacy for all couples and individuals
MSMs (men who have sex with men) allowed to donate blood
Commercial surrogacy for gay male couples

Meanwhile in America...........RIGHT!!! Still working on the MAJORITY of these things!I mean, basically in Spain being gay = being straight in the legal sense, which is how it should be!!!!! Reasons I would NOT mind living in another country! We are supposed to be the "land of the free" and all that rubbish when that is no where near the truth.


Now, as far as South Africa goes:
South Africa's post-apartheid constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and on December 1, 2006 South Africa became the fifth country in the world, and the first in Africa, to legalize same-sex marriage.

During apartheid, the LGBT community was punished very harshly. Homosexuality was punishable by prison for up to 7 years, not to mention the harassment that came from common people around them.

Because they can be out in S. Africa!

LGBT right are protected by Section 9 of their Constitution, and it forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, gender OR sexual orientation, and applies to government and private parties.  This section also must be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of transsexuality! In 2012 there was an attempt to remove LGBT rights from the Constitution but the parliamentary caucus of the African Nation Congress rejected the proposal! Because they have BRAINS!

Not to mention the fact that LGBT awesomeness is able to marry, adopt children, serve openly in the military, and all this lovely stuff...

Same-sex sexual activity legal	(since 1998, retroactive to 1994)
Equal age of consent	(since 2007, retroactive to 1994)
Anti-discrimination laws in employment	(since 1995)
Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services	(since 1997)
Anti-discrimination laws in all other areas (incl. indirect discrimination, hate speech)	(since 1997)
Same-sex marriage(s)	(since 2006)
Recognition of same-sex couples as de facto couples	(since 1999)
Recognition of same-sex couples as civil partnerships	(since 2006)
Both joint and step adoption by same-sex couples	(since 2002)
Homosexuals allowed to serve openly in the military	(since 1998)
Right to change legal gender	(since 2003)
Equal access to IVF and surrogacy for all couples and individuals	(since 2003)
MSMs allowed to donate blood	6-month deferral

Now isn't that something? Honestly, when I think of LGBT(insert rest of alphabet soup here) politics in Africa, I just think about the Kill the Gays Bill in Uganda, and just think about how Africa as a whole is just NOT there yet when it comes to this issue. Meanwhile, In South Africa, they have made MAJOR advancements!! Definitely moreso than the U.S.ofA. I feel like there really is no excuse for the United States to be so behind. Spain...maybe, but S. Africa...c'mon (no shade).

*ENDA & Obama's nonchalant response
Chorlton made a point to mention that just because its an LGBT Politics class doesn't mean that it's going to be a worship Obama class. While he is a supporter of Obama (although he voted for the Green Party Candidate in the 2012 election) he does recognize flaws in his response to LGBT issues, the biggest of which seems to be the handling of ENDA.

Now, according to good ol' Wikipedia ENDA is legislation proposed in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.

According to Chorlton, and the reading I have been doing, President Obama could sign an Executive Order and ENDA would be a done deal, but Obama will not. 4 openly gay members of Congress signed a letter on April 3, 2012 urging him to sign an Exec Order, but White House officials said that he would not. Apparently Obama finds it important that the focus be the passing of ENDA in Congress, which depending on your standpoint could be admirable.

I feel as though Chorlton may be a little impatient. After reading a few things, and seeing WHY Obama will not sign the Executive Order, it makes sense. Take this excerpt for example:

ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is more comprehensive than the proposed executive order. ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in both public and private employment. The executive order would prohibit such discrimination for those employed by federal contractors.

The executive order does not carry as much weight as the passing of ENDA in Congress would. In my personal opinion, I really do think that Obama is trying to get us as much as he can, and signing that Exec Order would add a stipulation to ENDA that doesn't necessarily have to be there. Chorlton has been dealing with gay rights for a long time; maybe he is just getting tired of waiting and wants what he can get as soon as he can get it.

But then I read excerpts like this, and I understand where Chorlton is coming from:

“The reality,” said Stachelberg, “is we’ve been working on ENDA for 18 years and only in two of those years was there what I would call a pro-ENDA Congress, and we still couldn’t get it done. It’s an enormous challenge to pass any kind of civil rights legislation, so our best chance is to have an executive order first. … Suggesting that an executive order needs to wait for passage of a piece of legislation is not a good strategy.”

(Both excerpts received from:  http://www.dallasvoice.com/obama-enda-executive-order-dont-expect-anytime-10107053.html)

ENDA is obviously a touchy issue, especially with the very temperamental Congress. We just have to wait it out and see I suppose. 

* National Gay Democrats--apparently he is the boss of this group, and one of his tasks is to update all of the Democratic presidential candidates on gay issues/rights 

As far as this group, I can't really find too much. I don't really know what that means, but it seems like the group actually has another name. Or maybe it is just a spinoff of the National Stonewall Democrats. Who's to say?


* AFFA (Alliance for full Acceptance)-- he talked about how he hated the name because it implies that we are all out for acceptance.. He said, "I don't give a S*** about acceptance, I want rights!" Then, he went on to say how he could not care less about people liking him, in some cases that's not going to happen regardless, but he DOES care about having the rights he deserves. Now, how awesome is that!! And based on his view on Obama and ENDA, he wants those rights NOW!

* We discussed tolerance and the origin of the word: It apparently was introduced in reference to the Jews to say not killing and letting live= tolerance...interesting aye?

* We then briefly talked about some gay NFL players, and how they are definitely his type. Haha. So he has a lovely round belly  but loves the muscular tall big guys! I think that's so cool! Yet, somehow hard to imagine O_O lol

*Study of Gender & Sexuality at NYU  

 OK, so this program really does exist!!! OMG. I just think that's crazy. NYU was on my list of colleges at 1 point in time, but let's face it my mother barely wanted to let me apply to Spelman, which is just in ATL, so I knew New York was out of the question ='(

I seriously can't find my Blog....

I really did used to blog. I remember the last post I did. It was an epic..but not really..post about moving out of my parents' house and going to college here at CofC. I am pretty sure I went on this ridiculous rant about the disaster that took me a whole month to clean up while I was packing, and then how amazingly clean my room was when I finished. Yeah, it was really good quality stuff. An interesting read by ANY standards.

Here's the thing!...I went to go find that blog, and I have NO IDEA where it is. That last post was 4 years ago, and somehow the internet and blogosphere have changed significantly. I am pretty sure it was on Blogspot, which is just "Blogger" now, but I have no clue what my log in was. It is actually pretty aggravating.

Anyway, I figured I would make a comeback. A great deal has changed since that last AMAZING post I wrote, that was so full of relevant content. HA. Gotta love sarcasm.

Now to the real stuff--enough reminiscing.

Whenever I get on my FB I see things like this ----------------------->
and I just can't even stop myself from reposting. It is just so true, and on so many levels. Beyond that of just politics. This can be as simple as issues in the household--those common double-standards.

 For example:

There is this married couple, and the wife INSISTS that the husband put the toilet seat down after he is finished using the bathroom. Instead the husband refuses, and in turn, INSISTS that the wife put the toilet seat UP after she uses the bathroom. 

Why is it that when men ask women to put the toilet seat up for men it is so offensive?? All they are doing is asking you to do what they have done for you for who knows how long. And you can judge me all you want but this IS an example of what the pic says. Women complain and make a big deal (become oppressed) over this, yet it is over having to do something that men have already been doing (another group gaining rights you've always had).

Of course, it can be a lot bigger than that, I'm just saying that this statement is true in even the smaller arenas of life as well, and a lot of people fail to realize/understand that.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a good morning, and all of my fellow CofCers...Have a good first day of class!!!

Until next time....