feminist blogs

Love Won Out (LWO) is the traveling ex-gay roadshow put on by Exodus International and Focus on the Family. Elizabeth Fregiato and Jean-Marie Navetta from PFLAG, who attended an LWO conference, presented an eye-opening view of the increasingly complex messaging used by the ex-gay movement. As someone who grew up a Christian fundamentalist I was particularly interested in hearing how this movement has evolved.

LWO's approach has shifted based on the fact that people, you know, don't turn ex-gay. And that polarized, hateful messaging isn't reaching all the populations they want to convert. Their focus is not on reparative therapy. They use language like "gay identity" rather than "homosexual lifestyle" to make themselves more acceptable to potential allies or members of the LGBT movement. They're telling folks not to use the language LGBT organizations have critiqued. They use the language of addiction, saying someone is born gay but can choose not to live that identity. In fact, members of the ex-gay movement are attending different "Anonymous" groups to pull in folks when they're at their most vulnerable.

LWO conferences are very structured and professional-seeming, not the sort of fringe event we might expect. The themes that come up in their presentations sound pretty familiar: absent fathers and overprotective mothers encourage gayness, not liking the games members of your gender are supposed to play is an early sign a child is gay, experiencing sexual harassment pushes women toward gayness, etc.

They present on what "The Homosexual Agenda" is, and don't get it too wrong either - normalizing, being out and proud - which are apparently insidious tactics to get kids to think their gayness is acceptable (I know, the horror!).

They tell conference attendees it's not a good idea to kick their children out or beat them - but they also shouldn't support them by, for example, using the word "partner" when they bring their partner home. In other words, they're listening to our critiques and their messaging is evolving in pretty smart ways.

One of the more disturbing reports back from the LWO conference is that there are youth-only sessions that are completely closed doors - folks over 18 are not allowed in. And this is in a space with a lot of young people who seem like they've been dragged there. I'm scared to know what's really going on behind those doors - maybe PFLAG can send some (very prepared and with clear plans for safety) teenagers to infiltrate?

After a day of breaking conference attendees down emotionally (Fregiato and Navetta explained the day is full of intense emotions, sobbing, folks falling to their knees...) conference attendees are told at the closing plenary to repent of their hatred toward the gay community and recommit to helping these people, not shunning them. Christians should repent of their own immorality, especially looking at internet pornography (sounds like they're realizing a lot of their parishioners look at porn). But if they don't respond to widespread immorality it hurts the Body of Christ (a common term in Christian churches that refers to both the community and the deity who's already suffered and died for our sins).

The tactic of treating gay folks with love and compassion (to a point) instead of overt hatred is pretty smart, and pretty disturbing. They talk about the AIDS epidemic, for example, as a "missed opportunity," a time anti-gay Christians could have reached out to gays instead of shunning and condemning them. They shouldn't accept the label "homophobic" because apparently they're not - they have to stand against homosexuality while actively showing gay people love. They even talk about moving beyond "love the sinner, hate the sin," to really walking with and offering consistent support to gay folks. See, apparently being gay makes someone very unhappy, and showing them they can walk in God's love is a great ministry.

These tactics are deeply insidious because it's not the extreme approach we've come to expect. It sounds like the message is really powerful, really moving, and really speaks to conference attendees. Even the PFLAG staffers were emotionally devastated. It's important we understand the message the ex-gay movement is presenting so we can respond accurately and speak to these new tactics. We need to put the right folks front and center, including representatives of LGBT-affirming faith communities. And we need to take the high road and present our truth in a positive way so we're not the negative, angry, militant opposition to a message that's supposedly about love.

I thought I was going to love Jeff Sharlet's The Family. I collect anti-fundamentalist books and read them all the time. Evangelical fundamentalism is a horrible threat to democracy, and everybody needs to be aware of its perils. Sharlet's book, however, disappointed me. The main reason why I don't like it is that the author never manages to acquire enough critical distance from the subject of his research.

The Family offers an incredibly detailed analysis of the lives of the most important evangelicals, going back centuries. Sadly, it never occurs to the author to take the self-serving accounts of these fanatics about their so-called conversions with a grain of salt. For Sharlet, if the fundamentalist in question tells that he had a vision and was converted, it must be the truth. Instead of giving so many boring details of these so-called conversions, Sharlet would have been better off analyzing the actual - often extremely self-serving - reasons for the fundamentalist "conversions."

I had a scary experience with an evangelical student a couple of days ago. One of the most disturbing things about fundamentalists (which Sharlet does touch upon, albeit too briefly) is that they have a language of their own. Often, these fanatics do not realize that the rest of the world does not know what certain words and expressions mean in fundamentalist-speak. Imagine my horror when late at night I received an e-mail from a student informing me that he has "decided to lay down his life for the Lord." I honestly thought he was threatening to commit suicide or engage in a massacre on campus. When I finally got over my fright and continued reading, I discovered that the student was trying to say that he was dropping out from college to join some Bible camp, or whatever. Apparently, he had a religious experience while he was studying in the library that told him it was the right thing to do.

In my place, Sharlet would go into a painstaking description of this alleged religious experience. I, however, keep thinking that the student's conversion just happened to take place right before the first essay was due and the first midterm exam was scheduled for next week.

Another problem with Sharlet's writing is that he takes these religious kooks way to seriously. He believes that they are all-powerful and omnipresent. While there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that evangelical fundamentalists have an unduly big influence on our society, one cannot analyze their movement without realizing how outdated and pathetic they are. It is precisely their growing irrelevance that makes them so desperate and angry. The best way to counteract their influence is by bringing to light how ridiculous they are. Instead, Sharlet reinforces the myth of their power and invincibility.

I cannot, in all honesty, recommend The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power to anybody. It is plodding, uninspired, and very counterproductive for the purposes of limiting the influence of religious fanatics on life in this country.

by Pam Spaulding

When the “kill gays” bill in Uganda was denounced today by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton at the National Prayer Breakfast, everyone knew it would fire up the bigots— and Cliff Kincaid (usasurvival.org) was quick to hit the send button on this hate-filled press release. You won’t believe the defense—the execution and “cleansing” by Uganda of its gays is all about ensuring national health.* I sh*t you not.

Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, Inc., and editor of Accuracy in Media, says the legislation is designed to save lives by discouraging homosexual practices which spread disease and death.

“The purpose is completely at variance with what the U.S. media have reported,” he said. “It is not a ‘Kill the Gays’ bill. Rather, it is designed to kill the disease that some homosexuals spread through their reckless and irresponsible conduct and lifestyle.”

Kincaid said that the much-publicized death penalty provision in the bill is for deliberately spreading AIDS and engaging in homosexual behavior that threatens children and society.

“Uganda’s people and government deserve support, not criticism, from the United States,” said Kincaid. “They are up against the international homosexual lobby, the money of George Soros, and the Obama Administration. They are trying to create a Christian culture that is protective of families and children.”

Would Kincaid support the execution of heterosexuals who engage in unsafe sex or who engage in pedophilia as well, since AIDS on that continent is mostly spread through heterosexual sex? I didn’t see him proposing that anywhere. As Joe Jervis said, Kincaid is

defending the bill as necessary to prevent “homosexual imperialists” from continuing their campaign to fuck as much AIDS into the children of Uganda as possible.

Kincaid and the rest of these defenders of this execution and “queer cleansing” bill are completely morally bankrupt, repugnant—and proud of it.

--
* Note that in this universe of eliminationism, lesbians and the demographically lower rate of STD transmission than heterosexuals conveniently never comes up.

Check out my friend Rodney's amazing new More Life vlog, starting with this entry about his HIV misdiagnosis as a teenage boy in Texas. Rodney is a longtime community organizer, activist, and most recently, minister-in-training. He blends the political with the spiritual in really rare and important ways for a whole new generation.

Transcript after the jump by Maggie Froelich. Thank you Maggie!

Hi. My name is Rodney McKenzie and I am here. I live in New York City, in Brooklyn, and I am here to talk about the lies I told myself, the lies I believed. When I was 16 years old I decided to give blood, because that, I was told, in Lancaster, Texas, was the civic duty of all people, and I gave blood, and two weeks later a letter came into the mail, saying that I had tested positive for this rare strand of HIV, it was called HIV 2, and I freaked out. I shut down. And I freaked out and I shut down for a variety of reasons, but one of the reasons I shut down, was because where I grew up, in Dallas, Texas, I went to churches that told me that because I was gay I was going to hell. And this letter, this letter that I saw--for me--at 16, was an indication that what they said was true, I was going to hell. And that HIV had came into my life to usher in my death. I got retested. I never got the test results, because I couldn't deal with that truth. So I decided, at 16, that I would move. I decided that as soon as I could I would go to New York City, and that I would die before I was 30. I would die alone, away from my family, so they wouldn't have to deal with my death. You know, 10 years later I got retested, because there was a moment, at 26, where I realized, I can't live like this anymore. That I have to at least know, and get the best health, get the best doctors, get the best people in my life to help me prolong my life as long as possible, as far as possible, and I remember being in the doctor's office, and the doctor giving me my test results, and he said, "you're negative, you're not positive," and I got retested again and he said, "you're negative, you're not positive. You're not HIV positive." you know, for 10 years of my life I believed I was HIV positive. For ten years of my life I believed that God hated me, and that I was going to go to hell, and that I was going to burn in eternity. For ten years of my life I made decisions and choices which I will go into years and years on this video blog. But I made decisions and choices and was in relationships because I believed that I wasn't worthy of being loved, because God, I believed at the time, because of what I was told as a child, because of what I chose to believe as a young man, I believed that God didn't love me. I believed that I wasn't worthy of love, and that who I was was wrong. But that day, when I decided to take the hero's journey, and see myself, and to deal with the results, whatever they were, and to realized that I was loved and not wrong, changed my life. And my life wasn't changed because my results were negative. But my life was changed because I realized in a moment that I could be loved, that I was loved, that god did not hate me. And because of that, my whole life, my whole existence, my whole experience since then has been brand new. We have told ourselves lies that are not true. We have believed someone else's thoughts and ideas about god that are not true. We are loved. God is love. God is right where we are as beings within us. And this blog is about exploring that truth. This blog is about accepting that we are loved and going within ourselves and revealing the splendor or who or what we are. So welcome to more life channel, where we're going to explore who we are and what we are, and I am going to tell the stories of my life, tell the lessons I have learned, and figure out how to use spiritual principles and spiritual laws practically so that our lives can be lived fully. Thank you. Look forward to seeing you. Holla.

Tilly R. sent in the clip below of Bill Maher attempting to illustrate the oppressiveness of the burqa by staging a fake fashion show in which every model comes out in an identical burqa. You only need to watch the first couple models to get the idea (starts at about .20 sec.):

The comedy is tasteless, at best. And it brings out two interesting assumptions: that measures of women’s liberation include (1) the right to show skin and/or your body’s shape and (2) the choice to express your individuality through your clothes.

It is with a focus on the latter that I introduce a website submitted by K.L. The website, Zarina, sells burqas. While most of the burqas we see in Western media are blue or black, this website sells burqas of all stripes.

A blue, embroidered burqa:

A “hot pink” burqa:

A saddle brown burqa:

A Turkish flag burqa:

An Afghan flag burqa:

An American flag burqa:

A camouflage burqa:

I have no idea if this website is legitimate (though it seems to be) and I have no idea whether women in (which) different burqa-requiring/encouraging societies can actually choose to wear these. I really have no idea.

But I do think it prompts us to interrogate our own assumptions about what women’s liberation looks like and if being able to choose your own style really is a good measure of it.

I’d bet that most Western women feel like being able to choose her clothes is a central part of her sense of freedom. Does that translate in this context? That is, if women were required to wear burqas, but could wear any burqa they like, does this mediate how oppressive the burqa seems to you? Conversely, does the seeming freedom that comes with choosing your clothes become less convincing once you think about it in this context?  I know this is tough to think about, but I think it’s an interesting thought experiment.

————————————

For related posts asking us to think about the relative freedoms represented by the burqa and the power of the male gaze, see here, here, and here.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

Below are three examples of the caricature of Jews promoted by Nazi Germany.  I borrowed them from this collection, where you can find many more if you scroll to the bottom (thanks to Kat, monosonic, and Lisa for the translations!).

“The Eternal Jew”:

“The Eternal Jew”:

Jews- make wars longer, start wars:

See our other posts on Nazi Germany: comparing German remembrance of the Holocaust and U.S. remembrance of slavery, Nazi symbolism, Nazi celebration of motherhood, the racialization of the Jews, Jim Crow-like segregation during the Nazi regime, and this sympathetic memorabilia website.

(View original at http://contexts.org/socimages)

On Sunday, Americans will unite in front of television screens across the county, but two things will divide them: team affiliation and abortion. Yes, abortion will be part of this year’s Super Bowl festivities because Focus on the Family, the uber-conservative “family values” group, has purchased an advertising slot allegedly featuring quarterback Tim Tebow’s mom discussing her decision not to terminate her pregnancy despite her doctor’s recommendation. The message being: “If I’d had an abortion, my son never would have won the Heisman.”

Although Americans are used to taking sides on Super Bowl Sunday, how will they react when they’re asked to take sides on one of our nation’s deepest cultural divides during the Big Game? Some national women’s and reproductive rights organizations, including LSRJ, have already reacted–they’re petitioning CBS to pull the ad. This seems like a reflexive, even if justified, reaction. Though I haven’t seen the ad, I’m relatively certain that if it crossed my screen on Sunday, my TV and I would have it out–as we often do when I’m blindsided by bigotry and intolerance wrapped up in American flags, bald eagles, and yes, football uniforms. However, reproductive justice organizations aren’t being blindsided by the ad, so we have the time to formulate a well-reasoned, articulate response. (more…)

Nazia Quazi, a citizen of Canada, is being forcefully detained in Saudi Arabia by her father. The Canadian government is not doing anything to help Nazia leave Ryadh and go home. According to The Nation's brilliant Katha Pollitt

More than one person I've talked with has suggested that the fact that the Quazis are Muslim is relevant: the embassy in Riyadh doesn't want to get involved in what it apparently views as a Muslim family dispute.

A country is supposed to protect its citizens even - or especially - when they find themselves overseas. This is not the first case, however, when Canada refused to defend the rights of its citizens:

Nazia's case offers the Canadian government a chance to redeem itself after its shocking refusal this past October to help Nathalie Morin, a Canadian living in Saudi Arabia whose husband refuses to let her and her children out of the country.

This insanity is a result of Canada's notorious fear of anything having to do with "religion". I put "religion" in quotation marks because it is extremely easy to sell any kind of insanity as a valid religious experience to the Canadian government. Canadian governments are always so terrified of the word "religion" that they are willing to bend over backwards to accomodate any kook claiming to be religious. For a while, the Supreme Court of Canada actually considered the introduction of Shariah laws in Canada because apparently some people's rights to stone women are more important than the rights of the rest of the population not to witness such horrors. A Sikh boy won the right to carry a dagger at school because his right to have a scary weapon in class is more important than the right of other children to safety. Who cares about your safety if you are not "religious", anyways? Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women almost succeed in forbidding other, non-religious women to have their husbands and partners present in birth preparation classes.

And now a citizen of Canada is being detained in another country against her will but nobody cares because her abusive father is claiming that this is a religious matter. If there is truly a separation between Church and State in Canada, the "we-are-religious-so-the-government-owes-us-special-treatment" arguments should not work.