Obama and the Nobel Prize

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) issued the following statement on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama:

“Opponents may scoff at the early award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama until, perhaps, they look more closely at its title ‘Peace Prize.’ The use of the most powerful armed forces in the world to invade another country unnerved virtually every country in the world. The insistence of the world’s leading power that climate change was not real made the world more vulnerable than the wars of the past. For more than a generation, no president has made nuclear disarmament a signature issue. Unilateral actions and attacks had made the ‘Ugly American’ not only ugly, but feared, given our enormous military power.

“Re-establishing diplomacy as the premier way for a great power to use its great power has caused the world to breathe a sigh of relief and has led to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. This prize re-establishes a country weakened by economic crisis that was laid at our door step and could re-establish confidence in the leadership that the U.S. enjoyed after World War II.”

via We Love DC

I could not agree more.
I know it's hard, but why don't we all just sit back and be proud that for the first time in a long time OUR President is respected and revered.

Women, Lesbians, and Don't Ask Don't Tell

A new article on MSNBC posits that Lesbians, or women presumed to be lesbians, are more likely to be kicked out of the military under DADT:

"Women are far more likely than men to be kicked out of the military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against gays in uniform, according to government figures released Thursday that critics said reflect deep-seated sexism in the armed forces.

Women accounted for 15 percent of all active-duty and reserve members of the military but more than one-third of the 619 people discharged last year because of their sexual orientation.

The disparity was particularly striking in the Air Force, where women represented 20 percent of all personnel but 61 percent of those expelled."

This does not surprise me. The military and issues of military service have been discriminatory toward women in general for as long as women have expressed interest in serving. Not only through policies prohibiting and policing women on the frontlines, but also through high rates of harassment and assault on women who are enlisted. The article sites two of my immediate thoughts as to this particular situation with DADT - that this could be a result of lesbians being a large percentage of enlisted women, or that it stems from straight men in the military seeking payback or retribution for women (lesbian or straight) who refuse their sexual advances:

"Nathaniel Frank, a researcher at the Palm Center, a University of California, Santa Barbara, center specializing in gays and the military, said one partial explanation is that homosexuality is more common among women in the service than among their male comrades."

"But Frank and some women who served in the military said the gap could also be a result of "lesbian-baiting" rumors and investigations that arise when women rebuff sexual overtures from male colleagues or do not meet traditional notions of feminine beauty.

"Often times the lesbians under my command were under scrutiny by the same men who were also sexually harassing straight women, so it was this kind of sexist undercurrent of 'You don't belong here,'" said Anuradha Bhagwati, a former Marine who founded the Service Women's Action Network, an advocacy group."

I think it is possible that the percentage of gay women in the military is proportionally higher than the percentage of gay men, but I've never seen any statistical or sociological explanation for that idea and there is no denying that lesbians come in all sizes, personalities, colors and ambitions. I also think that DADT offers those in the military, which is an historically male-dominated establishment, an additional easy-out to deny women entry and acceptance into their 'boys club.'

The military isn't an anomaly in having this attitude - most institutions established and dominated by men exhibit these behaviors and the women in them face the same battles over and over again as they work to gain equal participation. Take for example, the US Congress - Is it not ironic that the 111th Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have proportionally similarly percentages of women (17.7% in the House and 17% in the Senate, compared to this study's 20% in the military)? And can we expect women's issues in the military to be a priority when we have not yet had a female Commander in Chief or Defense Secretary?

The most fascinating thing about articles like this that pop up sporadically on major news sites is that despite the clear insight into the intersection of discrimination based on sex, gender, and sexual orientation people seem either surprised and baffled by this kind of information or generally apathetic. It demonstrates that acceptance of one sort of discriminatory behavior only invites more discrimination, and apathy toward one sort of discriminatory behavior only invites apathy toward other discrimination.

Illinois: Senator Introduces Equal Marriage Act

Illinois State Sen. Heather Steans introduced the Equal Marriage Act last last week:

The proposed legislation, a companion bill to state Rep. Greg Harris’ House Bill 178, would allow the state to legally recognize same-sex marriages while still allowing religious institutions to refuse performing them. The bill will mark the first time the State Senate will discuss marriage for gays and lesbians.

There is a lot of talk back and forth in Illinois, in political groups, and in the blogosphere about this - both supportive and critical. I won't comment on it other than being excited that the discussion has been formally begun in another state. If nobody introduces the legislation, if nobody within our governing bodies will formidably stand up with this issue, then it will be no trouble for us to go on for another 10, 15, 20 years and not make any progress. Visibility is everything, both on a personal level and politically.

I'll try to add links to some pieces of the discussion as I find them. Otherwise, woohoo!

Discussion:
-North by Northwestern - Gay marriage bill in Illinois: more political than progressive?
-Are We Married? - Marriage (and Other LGBT) Rights in Illinois and Indiana

Florida: Groups Aiming to get Personhood Legislation on 2010 Ballot

Pro-Life groups in Florida are working to get an amendment on the ballot that would alter the state's constitution to state "the beginning of biological development" as personhood. The effort is headed by Pat McEwan, a leader at the Personhood Florida group; the amendment also has the support of the American Life League.

From the Central Florida Future:

“Florida’s constitution gives rights to persons, but it doesn’t say who a person is,” McEwen said. “We like to say [the amendment] is pro-life. It gives rights to all sorts of people.”
According to McEwen, the group wants to be able to have the amendment placed on the ballot in 2010.

To do so, they would need to collect 678, 811 signatures by Feb. 1. If placed on the ballot, the group would then have to gain 60 percent of the vote to become constitutional law, McEwen said.

“Just by saying that unborn babies, disabled people, African-Americans, everybody has rights as a person, it will start changing the minds of people,” she said. “We understand you can’t legislate morality.”

According to the amendment, the words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

It is the wording of the amendment that has critics opposing not only its legality, but its intentions as well.

The problem lies with the line “the beginning of biological development,” which McEwen defines as the moment the sperm and the egg meet.

It could lead to the banning of most forms of female contraception, specifically birth control.

I am always fascinated by repeated attempts by exclusive groups to try to use legislation and policy, originally intended to ensure individual rights, to restrict the rights of those whose decisions they disagree with. Previous attempts at similar ballot initiatives and policy changes in other states have been distinctly unsuccessful, and were they to be successful they would be in direct violation of Roe v. Wade.

I also have to offer for thought how such legislation, defining personhood so specifically, would affect further civil rights issues like gay marriage and immigration reform. If "a person is a person, no matter how small" we must then face the issue of dealing with children, infants, and fetuses conceived in the US by illegal immigrants (if you're a person and you are 'born' in this country you are a citizen..will we be changing that to say conceived if we perceive unborn persons to have the same rights as born persons?). We would have to get into the fiery debate pit about denying any civil rights to any person for any reason other than lack of personhood or citizenship. Gay marriage? The rights of the disabled?

Personhood legislation, as I understand it (being of the pro-choice persuasion) is intended to ensure that every legitimate person is recognized as such and thus treated as an autonomous being. That's actually an idea that I can get behind, principally. But the problem is that the effort behind this legislation is to subsequently restrict the rights of women (autonomous beings in and of themselves) to make decisions that affect their bodies and their health. It's a uniquely woman-oriented issue in that ultimately no man who is refused the right to condoms or spermicide is going to find his body overtaken by the results of that decision for 9 months, with additional medical bills, long-term physical effects, potential loss of control over the direction and success of his career, the disrespectful invasion of personal space by anyone who feels entitled to touch a pregnant belly or empart their personal diatribe on proper parenting/child rearing decisions, and the monetary and emotional expenses that go with the decision to keep or not keep a child.


This sort of effort may seem like the elusive pot of gold for pro-lifers, but it seems more like a can of worms to me. That isn't to say that I wouldn't be happy to engage in these debates about personhood and civil rights, but I hope that our route to those serious discussions isn't through this sort of personhood legislation. I'll be interested to see where this goes in Florida.

Gender and Sexual Equality in the DSM

In regards to the impending revision of the DSM -The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders- and the concern over the expansion of the Section dedicated to Paraphilia and Sexual Disorders (presentation on this expansion can be found here).

This is a long post, and I definitely encourage you to supplement by reading Jessica's post - written by Julia Serano - at Feministing. This is choc-full of information more specific to this topic, more links, and broader discussion.

I know a lot about psychology. I studied it for the entirety of my undergraduate education, and while I chose not to complete the final semester for the Bachelor's degree I can confidently say I have a solid quantity of knowledge on the subject:
Psychology 101, 102
Research Methods in Psychology, 207, 208
Learning (and Lab), 304, 304L
Health Psychology, 313
Psychology of Women, 214
Developmental Psychology, 212
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 314
Child Abuse, 256
Abnormal Psychology, 302

It's not a complete list, but that gives you an idea of some of the courses I've taken.

Now, the idea of the DSM is to provide psychologists and psychiatrists - those who may be making a diagnosis for the purpose of treatment and counseling - with a textual resource for the general guidelines of the known disorders. Now, "general" means that just like with physical illness or any other aspect of everyday life, people experience things differently and that disorders may not (I dare say often do not) present in exactly textbook fashion. The DSM is a guideline for diagnosis.

It is NOT a reference book of theorems, hypotheses and psychological concepts. It is not a place to list "things I think should be a disorder" or "behavior that seems abnormal to me and i might want to diagnose as a disorder because i don't understand it". It is not a place for proselytizing or exploitation of any group of people, be it a group of conservative psychologists who would like to promote a more rigid and comprehensive list of behaviors they deem as disordered, based on their morals/ethics/religion/social structure, nor is it a place to target specific groups of people who deviate from society's concepts of what is normal on the basis of "we can't explain it so it must be a problem."

From my education, moving from a normal event to an abnormal (disordered) event occurs when an everyday behavior/thought/action/belief occurs or is carried out in such excess that it becomes disruptive to an individual's daily life. An example - with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder individuals become so consumed with counting their steps, washing their hands, doing their activities so precisely in such a particular order that they do them over and over again. This disrupts their lives because they may be so focused on doing the routine in just a specific way that they repeat the process continually and never make it out of the house. That isn't the most eloquent explanation, but you get the idea. Disorder occurs when an individual can no longer function in their environment due to a particular tendency, behavior, belief, thought, fear, obsession, or other mental (or mental/physiological combination) feature.

The field of psychology is about studying why people do the things they do, the way they do them, and what the brain/mind/body connection is in the process. Psychology as it relates to diagnoses and treatment is about helping people. It is valuable because it deals with the less tangible aspects of human beings - our thoughts, our concepts of self, our beliefs, our emotions, our conscious and conscience, and our minds (not to be confused with our brains, which are obviously tangible).

If the new revision of the DSM adopts these expanded classifications of paraphilias, who is it helping? By classifying more people as being disordered we not only put more work on psychologists, but we also put the great burden of societal stigma and personal struggle on perfectly functioning individuals and, most importantly we detract time and attention away from those individuals who truly need help the most.

My post is prompted not only by genuine interest and concern for this situation, but by the recognition of the need for feminists to circulate this story and increase our response. Any situation which perpetuates the societal dominance hierarchy, leading to depression or oppression of any group(s) of people, is relevant to feminism.

When it comes to issues of gender, gender non-conformity, transgender and transsexuality, cisgender, pansexuality, and any other non-heterosexual-man-woman-male-female spectrum sexual action or identification, the psychological community has a responsibility to provide a structure for our society to differentiate between true disorder and diversity. They should be acting to break down the barriers of society's dominance hierarchy, which leads us to stigmatize those behaviors or ideologies we don't understand and which teaches us that there must always be one group superior and one group lesser in every relationship. They should seek to educate the greater academic community about the diversity of people and their mindsets and behaviors, and about the value of embracing these differences in research and practice. They more than any others realize how destructive social stigma and intolerance can be on individuals, groups and communities. This proposed expansion would serve as an inevitable point for provocation of violence, abuse and exploitation of those who don't fit into the most specific and exclusive definition of 'normal' and would offer a free pass (nee a twinkie defense) for those who execute such abuses.

In the same regard, those psychologists, both practicing and academic, who cannot commit themselves wholly to the ethical and compassionate treatment of their fellow humans - through objective and unbiased research and diagnoses, and consistent focus on edifying their science - should not be granted the privilege of holding influence and authority over distinguishing such crucial structures within the field.

From the post at Feministing-
What you can do to help:

1) raise awareness about this issue in feminist circles.

2) contact the American Psychiatric Association and share your concern with them.

3) if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, please come out to the protest of the upcoming American Psychiatric Association conference on Monday, May 18th between 6:00pm to 7:30pm in front of the Moscone Center. This protest will focus primarily on the removal of the trans-focused DSM diagnoses Gender Identity Disorder (GID) and Transvestic Disorder. While the GID diagnosis is of great concern to trans activists (including me), I did not discuss it here because it is not listed as a Paraphilia, and because (to the best of my knowledge) no information has been released regarding proposed revisions to GID in the next DSM.

Feminism and Social Structure

"Women in lower-class and poor groups, particularly those who are non-white, would not have defined women's liberation as women gaining social equality with men, since they are continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do not share common social status. Concurrently, they know that many males in their social groups are exploited and oppressed. Knowing that men in their social groups do not have social, political, and economic power, they would not deem it liberatory[sic] to share their social status. While they are aware that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have privileges that are denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as stemming from the male's sense of himself as powerless, rather than an expression of overall privileged status."

"The lack of any emphasis on domination is consistent with the liberal feminist belief that women can achieve equality with men of their class without challenging and changing the cultural basis of group oppression. It is this belief that negates the likelihood that the potential radicalism of liberal feminism will ever be realized."
-Feminist Theory


I'm reading bell hooks. Someone should have given me this book when I was 15.

Marilyn French, 1929-2009

(photo via Andersen Photographic)

"Anyone determined to find another person or group inferior can always find whole lists of grounds that demonstrate inferiority because we are all inferior to the ideals of humanness we have erected."

We should all be so fortunate to have such audacity in our feminism.
We'll miss you, Marilyn.