feminist blogs

Ok, I had wanted to write a song/rap to go with Andy Burnham’s Aspirational Socialism manifesto, but I decided that a more ‘traditional’ blog would better suit the purpose. Whilst the name is very catchy, the manifesto is in places, dangerously vacant of real socialist ideas. Also, this whole “I hate elites” attitude, whilst being an ex-Cambridge student, for example, is rather tedious.

That is not to say that because he went to Cambridge it makes him a non-socialist, or an elite himself. There are many who have been a part of very elitist practices and institutions who have become rather revolutionary, take Karl Marx for example. This is why I have a problem with the whole, we hate anyone who doesn’t come from a ‘normal’ ‘ordinary’ background – so Burnham’s current message. Whilst I agree the system and society needs to be totally reformed so that elitist practices are removed, and so that we no longer have such a clearly undemocratic and unfair system – I equally don’t like class war, where groups of people are generalised and stigmatised. There are many in the upper class who do deserve to be stigmatised for being very elitist, there are many who have got to Oxbridge through knowing people or having lots of money, but not everyone.

And this is where socialism comes in. It is not about constructing hatred between people who are better off and those who aren’t – it is about reforming society so we have less marked divisions, and so we don’t have people living in such extremes. This is where Andy Burnham’s socialism, for me, is off the mark. He is reopening divisions between classes – where instead, we need to create a greater consensus. Of course, you wont get everyone on board, but we cannot ignore the people in the top and middle classes who want to become involved in changing the system so it is fairer for everyone. We can’t just stigmatise everyone, even if it is fair to apply it to a large or semi large group of people.

I myself, can often fall into the trap of generalising those at the top or whatever. Even though generalisations can sometimes be correct, we have to also try to move away from this often unproductive way of doing things, so more productive alliances and policy can form.

I do like Burnham’s focus upon the grassroots however, and the need to construct a party movement has been a dominant and prevalent issue amongst all leadership candidates. To his credit, there is definitely a strong level of personalisation to his campaign, and it does add something different. But again, it can sometimes fall into the trap of constructing an ‘us’ and ‘them’ society – and for me, there is nothing aspirational about that.

But what’s Burnham’s substance?

Overall, in terms of socialism, it is pretty tame. I mean, he speaks good rhetoric regarding education, talking up the importance of comprehensive education. But then he fails to throw his weight behind grammar schools abolition, instead saying that they should be open to a ballot of all parents in the catchment area. If he seriously wants to stop education being determined by who you know, and the wealth and cultural capital of your parents, then grammar schools, followed by private schools – should be both on his agenda for removal. However, in terms of education and employment, his ideas for making internships paid is a very good idea – however, again, his commitment for that to be minimum wage, even though he supports a living wage (eventually), again shows his reluctance to commit to socialism.

Burnham does offer other very socialist and inspiring policy ideas – such as his commitment towards more council housing, for better mental health provision and for legalising gay marriage. However, again, there are concerns around how far he would be able to go when it comes to real reform. Take gay marriage, there was an interesting article on Pick News that illustrated how there are many concerns regarding his overall attitude towards gay rights. For example, he is scared by very homophobic scientific claims that we should stop gay men and bisexuals from giving blood because they are more likely to have AIDs. This is such a clear form of discrimination, and I think it should be a key aspect of socialism to stand up and have the ability to reform life so that people are respected and provided opportunities fairly, not in terms of bias and prejudiced propaganda.

Whilst he holds some very aspirational ideas such as furthering trade union rights, he doesn’t go far enough when it comes to pay reform, such as not even talking about the need for a high pay commission (even if supporting elsewhere, this should be clearly stated here), and he also proposers a very unnecessary slow introduction of the living wage (also note the internship living wage idea earlier). Also, take his views around immigration, whilst arguing he is all for immigration and free movement, he wants to actually undermine (even though he thinks the current law is undermining it) free movement by changing benefit rules – this will only further send out the message “immigrants aren’t welcome here”, and will detriment free movement, not promote a more positive image towards it.

It is also not very socialistic to propose to cut the deficit as fast as Labour had promised before the election. This is something that Ball’s is probably winning on, and is one of the reasons for why he is most likely to land the chancellor job when it comes to cabinet decision time. He was right to argue that Labour’s plans for halving the deficit as fast as they said was wrong, and that there are better ways to deal with the deficit. However, Burnham’s tax policies are very socialistic – as he rightly states that Labour needs to focus more on the importance of tax increases on the wealthiest instead of public spending cuts – and also talks about the need for taxes such as the robin hood tax and a land tax.

So, Burnham does have some very good socialist leaning progressive ideas – but equally, many of these ideas don’t go far enough, and there is still a strong hint of the many detrimental attitudes and aspects of New Labour that poisoned the very thought of socialist policy. Probably one of Burnham’s more impressive ideas however, is the national social care system and this is something I hope happens regardless of who wins the leadership election. Whilst I think that Burnham is on the right track, there are many issues that would need resolving to call this a real progressive manifesto.

It was only last December that the HRC released its “Buy For Equality” report on corporate equality practices, highlighting Target’s 100% rating on LGBTQ rights. But now the gay rights group has issued a clear repudiation of the retail giant, calling on them to seriously reevaluate their donation policies, or lose all support of “fair-minded individuals.”

The fallout occurred when the HRC uncovered Target’s donations to a vehemently anti-gay rights politician. Apparently the company gave $150,000 to a group that supports Tom Emmer, a Republican candidate for Minnesota governor. Tom Emmer, as is the case for many Republican politicians, does not support gay marriage; in fact, it’s an issue that’s even made it onto his campaign website. But what’s disturbing about Emmer is that he goes a step further. In a political climate where many candidates, even conservative, are attempting to walk the line and avoid being labeled as bigoted, Emmer shows no real concern in this area. In 2007, he authored a constitutional amendment to block same-sex marriage and civil unions. He also attempted to alter language in legislation to block same-sex partners from receiving any benefits in a variety of circumstances– including employment, parenting, and death.

Emmer also has had a controversial relationship with an extremist Christian group, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide (YCR) Ministry. This group isn’t just concerned with blocking political and societal equity for LGBT citizens— but has expressed support of violent measures against gay people. Advocating the recent Ugandan push to execute LGBT people, YCR leader remarked:

“[Any Muslim country that executes homosexuals] seems to be more moral than even the American Christians do…They know homosexuality is an abomination.”

Emmer has apparently donated money to the group, and has made public statements expressing his approval for the organization. Even when confronted with this particularly extreme language, Emmer commented:

“These are nice people. Are we going to agree on everything? No….but I really appreciate their passion and you know what, I respect their point of view… “

Target’s financial support for this GOP candidate has surprised many. I wrote last December on Target’s 100% approval rating from the HRC, which stood in stark contrast to competitor Wal-Mart’s 40%. In order to get this endorsement from the HRC, a group must score perfectly on inclusion of LGBTQ langauge for diversity policies, EEO policies, and also offer domestic partners benefits. Target additionally has supported gay rights within the community, including sponsoring Twin Cities Pride, and a Minnesota AIDS walk that conservative organizations shy away from.

Target’s CEO has issued an apology and explanation, confirming that it makes its donation decisions based on business interests, not social causes. But after weeks of negotiation with HRC, Target has chosen to take no corrective action, and not to offer an equivalent payment to a pro-gay organization.

That Target’s primary objective is to look out for business interests makes sense. But LGBTQ-rights advocates have a right to feel thrown under the bus by an organization they thought was socially progressive. I find Target’s lack of concern for this issue disconcerting. A symbolic $150,000 to an equality organization is a drop in the bucket for a company consistently reaching earnings higher than analyst projections, even in hard economic times. Unknowingly supporting a candidate who is anti-gay marriage is one thing– but supporting one who appears complacent with extremist, hate crime violence is indeed another.

(Crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA.” Arguments against SSM should be taken to “TADA,” please.)

Judge Walker has refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8. Unless a higher court intervenes, same-sex couples in California will again have the right to marry beginning on August 18th. (pdf link)

I don’t know how likely a higher court is to intervene. But hopefully, this will create another window of opportunity for marriage equality — and yet another real-world demonstration that, contrary to the claims of SSM opponents, the sky will not fall. No matter what, this is good news for whichever happy couples choose to get married.

Walker’s ruling argued that the opponents of proposition 8 are unlikely to win on appeal, because they might not even have standing to appeal. In order to have standing to appeal a decision like this, you need to either (1) be the designated representative of the State of California, or (2) demonstrate that not issuing a stay will cause the person filing the appeal “a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent.”

So once again, it comes down to straight people trying to explain to a court how gay couples marrying causes them harm. And once again, no dice.

The two funniest part of Walker’s ruling:

In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates.” 33 Cal 4th 1055, 1080 (2004). Still less, it would appear, do private citizens possess authority regarding the issuance of marriage licenses or registration of marriages.

An anti-gay legal ruling used as precedent to deny a stay of gay marriage… that’s sweet. As Kip tweeted, “Oh you know that rhetorical knife? Let me twist it for you.”

And this made me giggle (bold by me):

Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse. …proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay.

(Crossposted on Alas and on TADA. Comments defending NOM or arguing against marriage equality for same-sex couples should be taken to TADA.)

A week ago I went to a wedding. It was the wedding of my college roommate, the girl with whom I discovered girls. She married her longtime girlfriend, the girl with whom she has bought a house and a car, built a garden and a career and a life, all over the past 10 years or so they’ve been together. They are each 30. They are endlessly in love.

The wedding was lovely. I know that’s what everybody says about everybody’s wedding…”it was lovely”… but I don’t. In fact, I have never said such a thing about anybody’s wedding. I hate weddings, actually. I think they are uncomfortable and spooky examples of how people just do what they think they’re supposed to do and not what their intelligence would have them do. I don’t cry at weddings. Weddings are robotic and soul-less, as a general law.

But when the general law is skirted, it is amazing how much soul and humanity can be shared at a wedding. The two brides wanted all of their very closest friends and family to come to the wedding. They sent out invitations. Some people told them they were sorry but they had to decline because of personal religious beliefs. But the people who did what their intelligence would have them do, we came and supported the young couple with all our soul and humanity and with respect for the couple’s bravery and for their right to kiss in private.

Photo by Helen Stoilas

I didn’t tell them this at the time, but if I could have spoken through those obnoxious tears I would have:

Unfortunately, we have lawmakers who are not representative of good people like us. But good people in love and determined to be happy do exactly what they want. Especially when we all know that love came far before politics anyhow.

happyfaceofhate-cc-by-burns.jpg

Let's repeat that:

Gay couples don't have equal rights. Gay people do.

As far as I know, couples are not mentioned in the US Constitution. However, people are. We the people (etc etc etc). So when the mainstream media, stuck in their tired old frames, too stuck in their ways and prideful of their privilege, go on and on about a "victory for gay couples," you need to step back and think about what's really happening.

The court ruled that gay people have equal rights.

And when you think about this, it's a no-brainer.

Example: If I want to marry Jane, and the government says, "No, you can't," what it's really saying is, "No, you can't marry Jane because you are a woman." Of course, if I were a man, sure, I could marry Jane.

That is plain and simple sex discrimination. It's not about gay-ness. It's not about couples. It's about the government requiring that I be of a certain sex in order to marry Jane.

This is why the right-wing hysteria over gay marriage is so misplaced and overblown — all the more so when it's a tea bagger. Tea baggers are big on saying how they're for shrinking government, but they sure want the government to protect them from their own homophobia.

For an eloquent post on this topic, see Derek Powazek's post:

In much of the news coverage today, I’ve seen the phrase “Pro-Gay Marriage” used to describe the people who are celebrating Judge Walker’s ruling. But this rubs me the wrong way.

I’m not Pro-Gay Marriage, I’m Pro-Equality. I’m not Pro-Gay Rights, I’m Pro-Common Sense. I’m Anti-Discrimination. I’m Anti-Enshrining Your Queasiness About Buttsex In My Constitution. I’m Pro-When The Constitution Says We’re All Equal, It Means We’re All Equal.

I’m married, and it matters. It changes the way I look at the world, and the way the world looks at me. It comes with state and federal benefits and rights. Withholding those things from same-sex couples is discrimination, pure and simple. If you support withholding rights from people because of who they are, you’re a bigot. Period.

My grandmother taught me two important lessons. The first was tolerance. Enjoy people who are different from you. It’s the variety that makes life wonderful. The second was to always look out for the rights of others. Because if you sit by and let discrimination happen, you’ll be next.

So if you're against gay marriage, here's the easy solution: Don't do it. Now wasn't that easy? (If not, maybe you should ponder a bit on the source of your opposition.)

[Photo: Happy face of hate, by Burns! (cc)]

(Crossposted on Alas and on TADA. Arguments in against recognizing SSM legally should be taken to TADA, not posted on Alas.)

1) First reaction: HELL fuzzy yes!

2) As nice as this feels now, like Scott Lemieux, I’m not optimistic about where this case is going. In the end, the Supreme Court will decide, and the Court historically tends to be a follower rather than a leader on civil rights. (For example, interracial marriages were already legal in most of the US when the Court ruled on Loving vs Virginia).

3) Speaking of the Court, Dahlia Lithwick argues persuasively that Judge Walker wrote his opinion primarily for an audience of one person, Anthony Kennedy. The rest of us are all just sort of reading over Kennedy’s shoulder. “I count—in [Walker's] opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy’s 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas’ gay-sodomy law).”

4) Speaking of Judge Walker, right-wingers are saying that Walker only ruled against prop 8 because he’s gay. (Walker, who was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan and then by George Bush sr., was at the time opposed by Democrats who believed Walker was anti-gay.)

5) The award for least reality-based reaction goes, not for the first time, to Maggie Gallagher, who predicts this result: “Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values.”

6) Speaking of stupidheads¹ without coherent positions, President Obama is still acting like a stupidhead without a coherent position. (Not exactly a shock, I know.)

7) The cliff notes versions: A Quick And Easy Summary of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Or, for a more detailed nutshelling of the ruling, try Prop 8: The facts vs. the fears. And in either case, I’d recommend reading the take on it at Hunter of Justice, as well.

8) I entirely agree with the legal basis of this ruling. The opponents of SSM marriage have failed, once again, to establish a rational basis for barring same-sex couples from equal treatment by their government.

In the end, it always comes down to one question: “How will straight, married couples be harmed if same-sex couples can also marry?” And in the end, opponents of equality are unable to come up with any reasonable, fact-based answer to that question. Because they are so unable to make a reasoned argument, in the long run equality will win.

Unfortunately, that may still be a decade or two away. And a loss in the Supreme Court at this point could push that eventually victory further down the road. I desperately hope I’m wrong, but I think that a few years from now we’ll be wishing that this particular lawsuit hadn’t been brought.

On the bright side — as Scott said, I think — even if the Supreme Court strikes this decision down, all that really means is that we’ll be doing this fight state by state, instead of in Federal courts. And that’s where we are right now, anyway.

1. I’m using the term “stupidhead” in honor of my niece and nephew. Also, I don’t want to use either “douche” or “dick,” and I can’t really think of a satisfying substitute term.

Obviously, it was a great decision by Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker to rule that California’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  The ruling will certainly be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (the NY Times gives reasons why the Supreme Court will have difficulty in reversing Judge Walker’s ruling) and, therefore, the important point now will be whether he allows same-sex marriages in California to resume during the appeals process.  Because of the length of time of the appeals process, the only fair decision on his part will be to lift the temporary stay he granted and allow the same-sex marriage process to resume immediately.

I found the following quote from his ruling to be particularly on point for not just same-sex marriage, but gender equality in general:

[The exclusion of lesbians and gays] exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.  That time has passed.

(And BTW, there is a new documentary about the role the Mormons played in the passage of Prop 8.)

[Crossposted on "Alas" and on "TADA." If you want to argue against same-sex marriage, or against homosexuality, please take it to TADA.]

This post, from conservative law prof Eugene Volokh, is three years old but very worth quoting in full, in light of some of the discussions we’ve seen on “Alas” recently:

A commenter on the Usage and Marriage thread perfectly illustrated what I see as the One True Inherent Meaning error as applied to sexual practices. Someone else had written, “I think that gay sex is in fact natural for gay people. Therefore, I think that gay sex, and gay marriage, would not violate natural law.” The commenter responded, “You are simply wrong based on human biology. Tab P goes into slot V not slot B.”

Well, tab P goes into slot V, except when it doesn’t. My guess is that, as a purely descriptive matter, tab P goes into the P-owner’s hand many more times, on average, than it goes into slot V. If the most common use (i.e., the norm) defines the One True Inherent Use, then any sex other than masturbation is unnatural.

Ah, the commenter might respond, but that’s not the purpose of the penis. The purpose of the penis, either in the sense of what its biological function is, or in the sense of how God designed it (I don’t know the commenter’s philosophy, so I’m not sure which he’d focus on), is to be inserted into a vagina so as to procreate.

But biology doesn’t have “purposes,” except in a metaphorical sense. Biology has developed the penis into a multi-functioned organ — it can be used for urination, for sexual pleasure, for emotional bonding, and for reproduction (I list these in what I guess to be decreasing order of actual frequency of use). Likewise for the multi-functioned vagina, though replacing urination with delivery of babies. More broadly, the sexual act is likewise a multi-functioned act. Likewise, biology has developed the mouth into a stunningly multi-functioned organ: It can be used for (among other things) breathing, communicating, consuming sustenance-producing substances, tasting substances to see whether they are wholesome, expelling vomit, kissing, licking stamps, and at least four different kinds of production of pleasure in oneself and others — singing, eating tasty food, stimulating others’ nongenital erogenous zones, and stimulating others’ genitals.

The anus is a less multi-functioned organ. Still, it can be used not just for elimination of wastes, but also for prostate exams, for gynecological exams, for the administration of medicine to people (often babies) who can’t easily keep it down when the medicine is administered orally, and for the relatively accurate determination of body temperature. The latter four functions are of course artifacts of modern medicine, but I doubt that any of us would condemn them as violations of natural law, especially since learning, thinking, and developing new processes is natural for humans. Likewise, the anus can be used for sexual pleasure, and has been used that way by humans for millennia (and is used that way by some animals). Why then treat the anus, the mouth, or the penis as having One True Inherent Purpose rather than recognizing that they can be used in multiple ways, each of which is fully consistent with our biology.

Likewise if one sees the human being as part of God’s design, and tries to deduce proper conduct from such design. (I set aside the separate argument that proper conduct should be deduced from supposedly authoritative religious works, such as the Bible — that’s not the argument I’m responding to here.) God seems to have designed the human body in such a way that the penis, the mouth, and the anus can be used in lots of different ways; why should we infer, simply from the fact that one use (penile-vaginal sex leading to reproduction) is so important, that it’s the One True Proper Use of genitalia? Likewise, God has designed humans in a way that allows some of them to be attracted to members of their own sex; even if you believe that this preference isn’t innate, but is caused in part by upbringing or by personal choice, it’s clear that the possibility of this preference is indeed present in humans (and, as I said, other animals). This too casts doubt on the theory that penises or the sexual act have One True Inherent Purpose or One True Inherent Mode Of Employment.

Words can have many functions (in the sense of many meanings). Institutions, like marriage, can have many functions. Parts of the body can have many functions. Human practices can have many functions. One can certainly argue that some functions are beneficial and some are harmful. But I see little reason to assume that there can only be one true inherent metaphysical natural function, or to infer that just because one function is very important, all other possible functions are improper or violations of natural (or linguistic) law.

I like the connection Volokh makes in the last paragraph; that just as it’s ridiculous to claim that a penis has a One True Function, it’s ridiculous to claim that marriage has only One True Function. Indeed, if you read a book like Maggie Gallagher’s The Case For Marriage, clearly marriage benefits individuals and society in a myriad of ways. The notion that the penis, or the vagina, or marriage, has only One True Function is a desperate post hoc rationalization with virtually no connection to reality.

[Crossposted on "Alas" and on "TADA." Any comments against same-sex marriage should be put in the "TADA" thread, please. --Amp]

Noah Millman is a conservative blogger whose argument against same-sex marriage I’ve occasionally seen cited on discussions of the best anti-SSM arguments (such as this thread on Crooked Timber).

Noah has since changed his mind and now favors marriage equality. Interestingly — especially from a feminist point of view — he now explains his former opposition to SSM as mistaken concerns about manhood — what I’d call gender insecurity. In his anti-SSM argument, he wrote:

How do you explain to an ordinary straight 14 year-old - not explain; how do you build it into his deep assumptions about the world, such that it is second-nature - that he will fully become a man not when he beds his first woman but when he weds her, if we can no longer talk about weddings in terms of men and women, but only in terms of people in love?

Responding to himself, Noah now writes:

There’s no magic man-dust you can sprinkle on yourself, no path of life that will make you a man if you aren’t one. I understand the intentions of the marriage ideology in this regard. Its adherents just want to raise the psychic rewards for being good, for being true, to stand some ideal up against the myriad other false ideas of manhood that seduce young men, ideologies that can be more directly destructive. But the only effective opposition to these false ideas is good people. You can’t make men of these boys by saying: here, do this and you’ll be a man. You can only make men of them by showing them actual men, and giving them the time to learn from them, and from their own experience, how to be one.

I’ve got a son myself. I want him to grow to be a man. I hope to do my small part to teach him what that means, by example. I want him to marry when he already knows he is a man, and ready to make mature choices and assume mature responsibilities, not to marry in order to prove to himself that he’s a man.

I’d like to move away from the ideology of manhood altogether — this idea that we have to teach boys how to be men. Men are the grown-up form of boy; if boys are kept healthy and physically safe, they become men automatically. So unless Noah’s son is transgendered, he will grow into a man.

Framing manhood as something which can be achieved, or not achieved, or lost, is in my view inherently destructive. It teaches those who don’t measure up to common conceptions of manhood — those who are bullied, those who are sexually insecure, those who earn low incomes, those who need help — to damage themselves with self-contempt. It also encourages some guys who are determined to prove their own manhoods to act in destructive and violent ways towards others.

Nonetheless, I admire Noah’s willingness to change his mind for the better.

There’s a lot of gender insecurity in arguments against same-sex marriage. Listening to folks who oppose SSM, it seems like a miracle that anyone grows up to identify as a woman or as a man. Elizabeth Marquardt, for example, argues against equal rights for lesbians and gays because it might lead to changing how birth certificates are worded, which, she suggests, will make it unlikely that children will understand how to be mothers and fathers:

In Spain birth certificates for all children, not just for those raised by same sex couples, now say Progenitor A and Progenitor B. [...] Will today’s children be inspired to grow up and be good Progenitors “A” and “B” for the next generation? Or will it all be a little too vague for them to figure out?

This is, frankly, a ludicrous straw to clutch. Heterosexual marriage — and good parenting — existed long before birth certificates. But both Elizabeth’s and Noah’s positions indicate the extreme gender insecurity at the heart of the anti-SSM position. Well, I can relate to that; lots of us grow up with gender-related insecurities. The problem is, anti-SSM folks deal with their gender anxieties by insisting on saddling queer people with second-class citizenship. That’s deeply unfair.

In his current, pro-SSM post, addressing the argument that straight marriage cannot survive without a ban on SSM, Noah writes:

…honestly, if our own marital commitments really did depend on excluding gay people, that would just mean we’ve got a whole lot of work to do in our own corner of things; we can’t ask gay couples to bear our burden for us.

Let’s hope that Noah won’t be the last SSM opponent to realize that.