Some thoughts on General Pace

A few days ago, the Bloomington Faculty Council at IU passed a resolution “regretting” that General Peter Pace had been appointed the Poling Chair, a prestigious leaders-in-residence program offered by the Kelley School of Business. Pace’s appointment was deemed controversial because of his bigoted views on homosexuality. In a Chicago Tribune interview, he said the following-

My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct, that are immoral. … I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.

My opinion has always been that it was a pretty dickish move to appoint Pace, mostly because it was a slap in the face to GLBT students in the Kelley School. I’ve actually met Pace and in our conversation, he came across as very funny and interested in my lowly college life, not the caricature associated with him. Still, his appointment was a mistake but I’m not sure the BFC resolution accomplishes anything.

That being said, there was one argument being propounded by detractors of Pace that I found interesting and it had to with race. Even one of our Indiana Daily Student op-eds made the claim that if Pace was a racist, he wouldn’t have been appointed to the Poling Chair. Coz you know the gays have it so much worse than the blacks. How I loathe such arguments!

There are two problems here with the if Pace was a racist argument, the more obvious one being that it proposes some sort of oppression hierarchy, where the discrimination faced by gays is far more acceptable than that faced by blacks. The other issue here is that such an argument assumes that racism has officially ended and that only a fool would admit to harboring racist sentiments. False on both counts. I’m not about to engage in some oppression Olympics myself but suffice to say that the legacy of racism remains etched in our institutions. To assume that we are somehow less tolerant of racism is to dismiss the vocalized incidents of racism, whether it be the highly charged NY post cartoon or the acts of violence directed against undocumented immigrants. Moreover, I would contend that minorities are often taught to internalize bigotry in order to appease the racist structures around them. So, it’s not that racism has decreased, it’s that minorities don’t want to talk about it for fear of appearing too whiny.

When gay rights activists endorse the whole racism vs. homophobia debate, they are also denying the intersection of oppression. In doing so, they are silencing the voices of GLBT individuals who identify as people of color and the whole point here is to work together, not against each other.

And while we’re at it, just replace the word gays with white women in this post and I’ve just written on the failings of second wave feminism as well.

-Indira

Burning bridges, not building them

This is fucked up. Evangelical pastor Rick Warren will be giving the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration. I don’t know what’s worse about this choice- that he’s anti-gay, anti-choice or anti-peace. Or all three. While we’re on the subject, what is the deal with Obama’s spiritual leaders? First, there was Donnie McClurkin and his “cures” for gayness, Rev. Wright (who needs no introduction), Rev. Pfelger and his generous use of the race card against Hillary Clinton and now, this.

And please, please spare me the grief about how this isn’t Obama’s choice to make. It’s true that a bipartisan Congressional committee makes the final arrangements regarding Inauguration Day but I have a hard time believing that as the President, you have no say over who gets to attend.

But the part that really kills me about Warren’s choice is that it overshadows the fact that civil rights leader (and one of my personal heroes) Rev. Joseph Lowery will deliver the benediction. Lowery is a devout Christian and supports both equal marriage and reproductive rights, a wonderful rejoinder to Warren’s hate-filled messages. But now, we have this huge distraction and people are (rightfully) upset about this.

For the past few weeks, some prominent liberals have been urging others to temper their criticism of Obama over his administration picks- the choice of Tim Geithner as Treasury Sec. comes to mind. But, this is precisely the sort of thing we criticize Republicans for- mind numbing adherence to leaders and authority and here we are, doing it again. Why shouldn’t we hold ourselves to the same standards? I understand that Obama campaigned on an agenda of unity and change but let’s be clear here- bipartisanship does not mean providing a national platform for bigotry and religious extremism. Episodes like this demonstrate that Democrats are going to have to figure out if it’s worth burning old bridges in order to build new (dangerous) ones.

-Indira

Quick Hit

My case for Political correctness. An excerpt-

Political correctness happens to be an often misunderstood word. The P.C. movement isn’t about denying free speech rights or imposing a uniform mode of thinking. In reality, the movement forces individuals to think about what they’re saying and its consequences, especially for others. Essentially, political correctness promotes civility and emphasizes the consideration of others’ feelings.

Read the whole thing here.

-Indira

Hate wins out

I was initially going to say a bit about the significance of yesterday. Obama’s win, in a very small but necessary way, attempted to heal the racial divide that has plagued both Republicans and Democrats this election cycle. His win is also an acknowledgement of the civil rights movement and everything MLK fought for and for that, we should all be proud.

That being said, this news is a little bittersweet. California voters yesterday approved Proposition 8, effectively banning equal marriage rights and legalizing hate (which is what the prop. represents). Opponents of the proposition are beginning a legal fight but I’m really not sure how successful that will be. Sadly, California isn’t the only state that passed some hateful legislation yesterday. Anti gay-marriage initiatives were approved in Arizona and Florida and now, it is illegal for gay couples in Arkansas to adopt children.

The ultimate irony is that while African-Americans turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama, they also overwhelmingly (70-30) backed Prop 8. The disconnect here is mind numbing and illustrates precisely why basic human rights shouldn’t be decided on by voters (or politicians, for that matter). That’s the Courts’ role.

Andrew Sullivan has a very moving piece about his reaction to Prop. 8 and what this means for GLBT equality. Read it all here.

-Indira

Reflections on Marriage in 2008

First, I should apologize for disappearing off the face of the blogosphere for several weeks (months?) there. I’ve discovered that once out of the writing loop, lethargy stealthily crept like a slow moving disease over my brain. Also, I got a job (GASP!) which leaves me less time for mining the annals of the internets every day.

But anyway, I’ve been thinking about marriage a lot lately. My young friends–young feminist women, young Christian minded individuals, and one friend who straddles a line between those two categories–keep getting married (or at least threaten to do so soon, and ask me to be in their weddings).

The concept of marriage currently enjoys a national scrutiny that threatens to make, break, or at the very least shake the cultural institution from its foundations.

The big news this summer was, of course, California’s overturning of a gay marriage ban. Also, the Federal Marriage Amendment has been revived, as Indira noted earlier.

Therefore this is a unique time to re-evaluate the social value of marriage. And recently a few commentaries have been published by single modern people–one man, and two women–that grapple with the difficulties of committing to marriage.

First we have America’s favorite self-important, sassy, single woman columnist, that is, Maureen Dowd. (In the time of feminist consciousness-raising, Dowd scoffed at her ’sisters,’ pined for real love, designer heels, and cosmos just like her small screen doppelganger Carrie Bradshaw.) Dowd has a complicated relationship with feminism, to say the least.

Dowd’s recent article, “An Ideal Husband,” lasted on the most emailed list of the NYT for more than a week. For those of you who didn’t read it, let me summarize it by saying that Maureen Dowd does not believe in any such thing as an ideal husband, or even a man suitable enough to marry.

And neither does Lori Gottlieb, who wrote an article for The Atlantic back in March about ’settling‘ for a husband. Gottlieb expected much flack for proposing something so unromantic, something so downright “un-American” (her words, not mine) as ’settling’ (that is, not reaching for the stars, not achieving the unachievable, not striving for the purest and brightest burning true love).

But Gottlieb is merely being utilitarian (if you evaluate her premises, which I may or may not agree with). She presents an unmarried woman over 30 with two choices: either wait for ‘the one’, or marry someone who isn’t perfect and get over yourself. She ventures to say that ‘the one’ doesn’t exist and if you wait for him, it will be an eternal wait. Therefore you will be alone and sad your whole life. Or you can settle for someone less than perfect and have a pleasant future with the security of companionship. So, ladies over 30: eternal loneliness or pleasant mediocrity?

The chauvinist perspective (far from Dowd and Gottlieb’s world of Sex and the City allusion and pop psychology for the modern woman) was presented in the New English Review. “Bachelorhood and Its Discontents” is a long and dreadfully uninformed article marriage and gender roles. I do not recommend reading this unless you have a penchant for torturing yourself (I do, especially when it comes to people misunderstanding feminism.) So this guy actually lists a group of famous bachelors–among them famous philosophers, scientists, musicians, etc–and he remarks that wives substantially limit the productive output of their husbands. Men are better off without the vulgarity of the private sphere interfering with their Big Ideas.

Anyway.

All authors of the recent commentaries assume an irrevocable distance between the sexes. The story goes a little like this: Men and women are different. (I even recall a former male editor once say: “I mean, if we can’t agree that men and women are different, what CAN we agree on?” So true.) They remind us: Men and women want different things from relationships (commence rolling out tired gender stereotypes [womenz want financial security, small mammals to love/men want to provide security, small mammals to protect]) , or the new stereotype in-the-making for women, the Carrie Bradshaw career woman who pines for true emotional connection, while her antagonist, the aloof career-oriented man, only wants a body in expensive lingerie and someone to boost his status).

But I wish that the recent court rulings allowing for gay couples to marry would cause everyone to stop mystifying over marriage.

Marriage isn’t such a difficult institution because it is the attempt to unite the irrevocably different sexes; it is difficult because it binds two people together (who, if they happen to be a man and a woman, do indeed have a lot of cultural distance to overcome, even if the distance be culturally constructed). Seems really obvious, right? But somehow the advantages and disadvantages of marriage touted in the popular commentary always devolve to a bloody and stupid battle of the sexes. But srsly: It’s hard to dedicate your life to getting along (and even loving) another person. It might even be an impossible goal.

For my next post I’ll evaluate why people get married and if it’s still (or ever was) a good idea. Thanks for reading.

Happy gays are here again!*

Yesterday, California performed same-sex marriage ceremonies after the Supreme Court ruled that the State’s ban on same-sex marriages violated the equal protection clause. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, both in their eighties, were the first and only couple to wed in San Francisco. They’ve been together for more than 50 years. More on these amazing women here.

In an interesting prelude to this day, the NYT recently published a piece detailing the importance of same-sex couples in shaping the discourse around gender.The article only confirmed what we feminists have been saying for years- that hetero relationships tend to reinforce stereotypical gender roles, thus failing to account for an individual’s real potential/needs. Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, are far more egalitarian, as concluded by researchers in Vermont.

In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

The concept of an equal partnership is taking form in other facets of a relationship, as well. The expansion of marriage as an institution has also led to some interesting changes in the economy. Local bakeries in California are expanding their product line in order to please the diverse clientele. Macy’s even took out a full page ad welcoming the ruling, all while marketing its bridal registry. Of course, California’s ruling isn’t simply a giant exercise in symbolism. Democrat and Republican politicians who support civil unions often forget that equal marriage rights will offer some very real benefits to same-sex couples. 

Obviously, the nature of same-sex relationships is being challenged by some, like the Fred Phelps nutsos (his Church is like an hour from where I live, ugh!) The response of GLBT groups to such protests has been quite interesting. According to several officials, there is a coherent attempt to emphasize “mainstream unions” and make the weddings look as “normal” as possible- perhaps, it was no coincidence that two eighty year old women were the focal point of news coverage. Nevertheless, this is a great day for equality everywhere.

Here’s to California and all the happy couples!

* Borrowed from the Economist (I loved the headline!)

-Indira