It's not like the topic is bland or anything: development psychology and queerness, basically. I'm working with a classmate on a paper and class presentation due on Thursday. What have I done today, my last free day to work on it?
- dustbustered the stairway
- installed a coat rack in the hall
- ate oatmeal w/ Astrid
- played around on Myspace, Friendster, and Orkut (and deleted my account on the latter)
- took a bath
- read Rolling Stone.
It's the last week of the term. I have an interview for a clinical internship next week. It's at a hospice program, which is one of the areas in which I'm most interested in working. Scary, though--the idea of several or all of my clients dying during the course of the year I'd be working with them. Strangely enough, working with dying and grieving people seems to me some of the work that I'm most suited for. I have yet to grasp how many of my old emotional buttons this will push.
Off to waste more time before sitting down with the paper.
xo
Bree
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
My Gripes with the GLBT Movement (or, really, one of the most visible representatives of it)
Some of you out there know that I used to work for Human Rights Campaign. I helped open their San Francisco Action Center Store in the Castro, and, thanks to my background fundraising for Peace Action back in the day, I was able to recruit for them a nice li'l pile of members during the year I worked there.
Ultimately, I think the organization plays an important role in the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender equality--they're well-funded, well-organized, and media-savvy. Their core issues: marriage equality and LGBT family issues, workplace discrimination, health and other human rights issues related specifically to GLBT folks are all crucial issues needing organized advocacy.
But I find that too often, they fall to the right of where I am politically, and I know that I'm not the only one with this complaint. The classic examples are their focus on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, their disproportionate focus on the marriage issue which many progressive queers have no interest in, and famously, their willingness to endorse conservative candidates, sometimes in "lesser of two evils" strategies and sometimes simply to endorse incumbants so as to appear more in line with their perception of how "most GLBTs might vote" (HRC endorsed Bob Casey in PA, who I've blogged about, Joseph Lieberman, and even GOP candidate Alphonse D'Amato against Charles Schumer in the 1998 senate race in New York).
Any old way, the following is a letter I wrote to HRC this week about the hubub around Ann Coulter calling presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot." As you'll see, I don't fundamentally disagree with HRC's strategy on this issue, but I am appalled by the language they use to frame this debate. First, I present to you the letter, then HRC's response, then, navel-gazingly, my response to their response. Bonus: I also included a letter to them I sent two years ago about the gays-in-the-military issue, to which they'd never gotten around to responding. HRC's email to me this week addressed both letters. Enjoy, and of course, feel free to add your two or three cents.
xo - Bree
* * * * *
March 6, via email:
Hi there,
I'm contacting you regarding the goal of your message on Ann Coulter. I am shocked and disappointed at the wording of your take-home message:
"It's time to remove Ann Coulter from public discourse!" (emphasized by appearing in your action alert in large, bold, blue font).
There is no question that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" to demean John Edwards was wrong, and that HRC should take action on this issue. I do not disagree with the tactic of alerting HRC members and the public at large and encouraging a consumer boycott of companies who publish her and sponsor her site. But in suggesting that Coulter should be "removed from public discourse," we are playing right into the hands of those who would discredit us: this is the cry of censorship, and, taken out of context (and I promise you, that pull quote will be taken out of context) it is a dangerous sentiment to espouse. Not only will conservatives jump all over HRC as "un-American," this statement will be seen by progressive GLBT folks (myself included) as a telltale sign that HRC does not represent their/our interests. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right, even when the speaker is an inarticulate asshole.
As an HRC member and a former Action Center staffer (San Francisco store), I am invested in the goals of the Human Rights Campaign, and I want to see the organization continue to grow and become a more inclusive, diverse, and effective agent for change on GLBT rights. To that end, I feel that I have an obligation to be critical of the organization when I see it veering in the wrong direction. I also feel that I have a right to a thoughtful response on this issue, and I would appreciate just that (I contacted you on a different issue previously, and received nothing back. Below, please find a copy of that message, which I sent originally in March of 2005, even before I worked at the HRC store in the Castro.)
As always, I appreciate your hard work in the fight for GLBT equality.
Thank you for taking the time to read this message.
Bree
San Francisco, CA
Previous email from March, 2005:
To the program staff at Human Rights Campaign,
Hi. I hope this message finds you well.
I'm a member of HRC and also, myself, a pacifist and a firm opponent
of U.S. military aggression around the world. I understand the
importance of eliminating discrimination against gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgendered armed service members, and I support HRC's
policy to work on this issue. But I also feel strongly that GLBT
organizations must come out decisively against U.S. militarism, the
so-called "War on Terror," and against the inherent racism, sexism,
and homophobia embedded in the culture of militarism. We are natural
allies to cause of peace and global justice, and we need to start
treating this issue as the core value it should be in all our work to
combat homophobia.
GLBT Americans share a bond with every innocent Iraqi being targeted
by U.S. armed forces abroad, and we share a bond with every Arab and
Muslim in our own country being subjected to hate crimes, illegal
detentions, and the undue disruption of their lives on a daily basis
as a result of this brutal, endless war. We share a bond with every
human being who has been labeled "The Enemy," and I cannot, in good
conscience, actively take part in a campaign that, while right-minded,
is essentially helping to bolster the ranks of the U.S. military. I
do not want to see my gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered brothers and
sisters turned into agents of a hateful, murderous foreign policy, not
to mention turned into cannon fodder in the process.
Please respond, and let me know what HRC is planning to do to denounce
U.S. militarism and the racist scapegoating being carried out in our
names as GLBT Americans.
Thank you so very much for your work, it does not go unappreciated.
Sincere regards,
Bree
San Francisco, CA
HRC's response
March 7, 2007
Dear Bree,
Thank you for contacting the Human Rights Campaign regarding censorship and the First Amendment.
We take freedom of speech and First Amendment issues very seriously, and we understand your concerns.
We believe that this is not a question of censorship. There are plenty of other people on the right who share Coulter’s values and views but understand the value of civility and respect.
Ann Coulter is free to spew her vile and hateful speech but as a community we are also free to exercise our collective power. And when Coulter defends herself on Fox News by saying “‘faggot’ isn’t offensive to gays,” it is our responsibility to make sure she, and those who carry her columns, understand that we know otherwise. “Faggot” is a loaded word — a word that too often is used as a weapon to demean and wound our community.
If she had made a racist or anti-Semitic remark, there would not have even been a question of whether a newspaper should continue carrying her columns. We must speak out in order to move the “F word” into that same column of universally understood hate speech.
I also want to address the email you sent us 2 years ago, I truly apologize that you never received a response as member services does attempt to answer all inquiries. As you know HRC’s mission and statement of purpose due to your work experience I’m sure you know that HRC works specifically on GLBT issues and securing equality. The war in Iraq and the atrocities occurring there are certainly sad and difficult for the entire nation to accept however commenting on the status is not within HRC’s domain. However, HRC is working to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the U.S. policy on gays in the military that forces people to be dishonest about their personal lives or be fired. You can learn more about our campaign by visiting: http://www.hrc.org/alva/dadt.html
I hope I answered your questions and concerns.
Thank you again for contacting us and if you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Respectfully,
Lisette
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278
Phone 202.216.1525
Fax 202.216.1505
hrc@hrc.org
And here is MY response to THEIR response: (which has, of course, not been responded to)
March 8, 2007
Hi Lisette,
Thank you so much for the quick response. As I had said in my original letter, I support HRC's action on this issue, and agree that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in this incident should be condemned. I also made clear that I agreed with your tactic of calling for a consumer boycott, a strategy that has been effective time after time in movements for social change. I appreciate your response, and will think more about the implications of language and the responsibility that publications have in shutting down the use of hate speech.
But I still take issue with the conceptualization that informs this phrase, "to remove Coulter (or anyone) from public discourse." Sure, other conservatives are "civilized" (as civilized as, say, a right-wing preacher can be when condemning gays to hell, for example). Is that not "hate speech?" Where do we draw the line, in engaging in this "public discourse," between "hate speech" and "speech" or "beliefs?" And again, your tactics are not what I have issue with, but the way you approach the issue is what alarms me. We can still send a strong message to combat hate speech without calling for the outright elimination of speech we disagree with. I feel that your response failed to capture this subtle distinction. Remember, I'm not arguing with the tactics or goals; I'm at issue with the way the message has been crafted.
Thank you also for responding to my previous letter. I'm well aware of the limitations of the organization's mission, and of course I understand the strategic reasons that HRC won't take positions on issues it defines as beyond its purview. Again, though, I feel my main concern is being glossed over and not really acknowledged. Homophobia (along with racism and sexism) are at the core in a militaristic culture such as ours. Working for the inclusion of GLBT folks into the ranks of the military is, of course, one way to address homophobia. But it seems rather beside the point when we are not asking the question: why are we sending our people to kill and die in the first place?
When I attended the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender March on Washington in 1993, the issue of gays in the military was first entering into the national consciousness. I saw a sticker on someone's jacket there that read, "Don't join the military - dismantle it!" I loved that moment. Of course we must fight against discrimination in every sector of society, including within the military. I understand that that's your job, and I applaud you for it. But there must be some voice from inside the organization, inside the movement, calling for a reprioritizing of issues. I know I'm not the only one.
Thanks again for your time on this. If there is anyone in the national office who can speak further to these concerns, I would love to hear from them.
Take care,
Bree
Ultimately, I think the organization plays an important role in the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender equality--they're well-funded, well-organized, and media-savvy. Their core issues: marriage equality and LGBT family issues, workplace discrimination, health and other human rights issues related specifically to GLBT folks are all crucial issues needing organized advocacy.
But I find that too often, they fall to the right of where I am politically, and I know that I'm not the only one with this complaint. The classic examples are their focus on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, their disproportionate focus on the marriage issue which many progressive queers have no interest in, and famously, their willingness to endorse conservative candidates, sometimes in "lesser of two evils" strategies and sometimes simply to endorse incumbants so as to appear more in line with their perception of how "most GLBTs might vote" (HRC endorsed Bob Casey in PA, who I've blogged about, Joseph Lieberman, and even GOP candidate Alphonse D'Amato against Charles Schumer in the 1998 senate race in New York).
Any old way, the following is a letter I wrote to HRC this week about the hubub around Ann Coulter calling presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot." As you'll see, I don't fundamentally disagree with HRC's strategy on this issue, but I am appalled by the language they use to frame this debate. First, I present to you the letter, then HRC's response, then, navel-gazingly, my response to their response. Bonus: I also included a letter to them I sent two years ago about the gays-in-the-military issue, to which they'd never gotten around to responding. HRC's email to me this week addressed both letters. Enjoy, and of course, feel free to add your two or three cents.
xo - Bree
* * * * *
March 6, via email:
Hi there,
I'm contacting you regarding the goal of your message on Ann Coulter. I am shocked and disappointed at the wording of your take-home message:
"It's time to remove Ann Coulter from public discourse!" (emphasized by appearing in your action alert in large, bold, blue font).
There is no question that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" to demean John Edwards was wrong, and that HRC should take action on this issue. I do not disagree with the tactic of alerting HRC members and the public at large and encouraging a consumer boycott of companies who publish her and sponsor her site. But in suggesting that Coulter should be "removed from public discourse," we are playing right into the hands of those who would discredit us: this is the cry of censorship, and, taken out of context (and I promise you, that pull quote will be taken out of context) it is a dangerous sentiment to espouse. Not only will conservatives jump all over HRC as "un-American," this statement will be seen by progressive GLBT folks (myself included) as a telltale sign that HRC does not represent their/our interests. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right, even when the speaker is an inarticulate asshole.
As an HRC member and a former Action Center staffer (San Francisco store), I am invested in the goals of the Human Rights Campaign, and I want to see the organization continue to grow and become a more inclusive, diverse, and effective agent for change on GLBT rights. To that end, I feel that I have an obligation to be critical of the organization when I see it veering in the wrong direction. I also feel that I have a right to a thoughtful response on this issue, and I would appreciate just that (I contacted you on a different issue previously, and received nothing back. Below, please find a copy of that message, which I sent originally in March of 2005, even before I worked at the HRC store in the Castro.)
As always, I appreciate your hard work in the fight for GLBT equality.
Thank you for taking the time to read this message.
Bree
San Francisco, CA
Previous email from March, 2005:
To the program staff at Human Rights Campaign,
Hi. I hope this message finds you well.
I'm a member of HRC and also, myself, a pacifist and a firm opponent
of U.S. military aggression around the world. I understand the
importance of eliminating discrimination against gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgendered armed service members, and I support HRC's
policy to work on this issue. But I also feel strongly that GLBT
organizations must come out decisively against U.S. militarism, the
so-called "War on Terror," and against the inherent racism, sexism,
and homophobia embedded in the culture of militarism. We are natural
allies to cause of peace and global justice, and we need to start
treating this issue as the core value it should be in all our work to
combat homophobia.
GLBT Americans share a bond with every innocent Iraqi being targeted
by U.S. armed forces abroad, and we share a bond with every Arab and
Muslim in our own country being subjected to hate crimes, illegal
detentions, and the undue disruption of their lives on a daily basis
as a result of this brutal, endless war. We share a bond with every
human being who has been labeled "The Enemy," and I cannot, in good
conscience, actively take part in a campaign that, while right-minded,
is essentially helping to bolster the ranks of the U.S. military. I
do not want to see my gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered brothers and
sisters turned into agents of a hateful, murderous foreign policy, not
to mention turned into cannon fodder in the process.
Please respond, and let me know what HRC is planning to do to denounce
U.S. militarism and the racist scapegoating being carried out in our
names as GLBT Americans.
Thank you so very much for your work, it does not go unappreciated.
Sincere regards,
Bree
San Francisco, CA
HRC's response
March 7, 2007
Dear Bree,
Thank you for contacting the Human Rights Campaign regarding censorship and the First Amendment.
We take freedom of speech and First Amendment issues very seriously, and we understand your concerns.
We believe that this is not a question of censorship. There are plenty of other people on the right who share Coulter’s values and views but understand the value of civility and respect.
Ann Coulter is free to spew her vile and hateful speech but as a community we are also free to exercise our collective power. And when Coulter defends herself on Fox News by saying “‘faggot’ isn’t offensive to gays,” it is our responsibility to make sure she, and those who carry her columns, understand that we know otherwise. “Faggot” is a loaded word — a word that too often is used as a weapon to demean and wound our community.
If she had made a racist or anti-Semitic remark, there would not have even been a question of whether a newspaper should continue carrying her columns. We must speak out in order to move the “F word” into that same column of universally understood hate speech.
I also want to address the email you sent us 2 years ago, I truly apologize that you never received a response as member services does attempt to answer all inquiries. As you know HRC’s mission and statement of purpose due to your work experience I’m sure you know that HRC works specifically on GLBT issues and securing equality. The war in Iraq and the atrocities occurring there are certainly sad and difficult for the entire nation to accept however commenting on the status is not within HRC’s domain. However, HRC is working to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the U.S. policy on gays in the military that forces people to be dishonest about their personal lives or be fired. You can learn more about our campaign by visiting: http://www.hrc.org/alva/dadt.html
I hope I answered your questions and concerns.
Thank you again for contacting us and if you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Respectfully,
Lisette
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278
Phone 202.216.1525
Fax 202.216.1505
hrc@hrc.org
And here is MY response to THEIR response: (which has, of course, not been responded to)
March 8, 2007
Hi Lisette,
Thank you so much for the quick response. As I had said in my original letter, I support HRC's action on this issue, and agree that Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in this incident should be condemned. I also made clear that I agreed with your tactic of calling for a consumer boycott, a strategy that has been effective time after time in movements for social change. I appreciate your response, and will think more about the implications of language and the responsibility that publications have in shutting down the use of hate speech.
But I still take issue with the conceptualization that informs this phrase, "to remove Coulter (or anyone) from public discourse." Sure, other conservatives are "civilized" (as civilized as, say, a right-wing preacher can be when condemning gays to hell, for example). Is that not "hate speech?" Where do we draw the line, in engaging in this "public discourse," between "hate speech" and "speech" or "beliefs?" And again, your tactics are not what I have issue with, but the way you approach the issue is what alarms me. We can still send a strong message to combat hate speech without calling for the outright elimination of speech we disagree with. I feel that your response failed to capture this subtle distinction. Remember, I'm not arguing with the tactics or goals; I'm at issue with the way the message has been crafted.
Thank you also for responding to my previous letter. I'm well aware of the limitations of the organization's mission, and of course I understand the strategic reasons that HRC won't take positions on issues it defines as beyond its purview. Again, though, I feel my main concern is being glossed over and not really acknowledged. Homophobia (along with racism and sexism) are at the core in a militaristic culture such as ours. Working for the inclusion of GLBT folks into the ranks of the military is, of course, one way to address homophobia. But it seems rather beside the point when we are not asking the question: why are we sending our people to kill and die in the first place?
When I attended the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender March on Washington in 1993, the issue of gays in the military was first entering into the national consciousness. I saw a sticker on someone's jacket there that read, "Don't join the military - dismantle it!" I loved that moment. Of course we must fight against discrimination in every sector of society, including within the military. I understand that that's your job, and I applaud you for it. But there must be some voice from inside the organization, inside the movement, calling for a reprioritizing of issues. I know I'm not the only one.
Thanks again for your time on this. If there is anyone in the national office who can speak further to these concerns, I would love to hear from them.
Take care,
Bree
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)