Although this isn’t specifically gender-related, this is a progressive blog, and I think it is without warrant that we should be actively engaged in what is going on. Media literacy as a method of examining our daily intake of messages is a productive format, and in all fairness the State of the Union was a huge media event. I’m not going to make a bunch of grandiose connections between a more gender liberal society and any of the proposals put forth tonight, but at the same time, I think we can see how becoming a more progressive, well-educated society can benefit change in many directions, so i’ll note a few of those.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Alleviation

This is probably the closest to home for gender progression. Although, it is true I often try to separate sexual orientation, sex, and gender, I think it is a valid point to bring across that the military (which is very gendered towards masculinity even for women) will be absolved of their policies in order to allow openly gay and lesbian people join the military. Although this may not breakthrough as a gender win specifically, I think the more liberal the nation becomes surrounding gay issues, the further they become open to transgender, gender bending, and gender neutral though processes. On a completely separated from gender side of things, this is a great stress and weight lifted off of gays and lesbians living in the closet in the military. This doesn’t come as a complete surprise as Obama has elected a transgender to the commerce department of government. Although he didn’t make a comment on gay marriage. I have a feeling he is for it (given his current mode of thinking and decision-making), but at this point in the game a decision like that could be political suicide.

Education

There were a few announcements in regard to education surrounding loans, grants, and public service loan forgiveness. Although these policies do not directly relate, I think education is key to a liberal environment (or at the very least open-mindedness). This isn’t a fact by any means, but I know from growing up in a very rural setting with a conservative high school education, I did not start thinking overly progressive until I stepped outside of that education system into alternative environments. But, also coming from a low income background, I would not have really been submitted to other viewpoints (where I could choose how I felt), without the Upward Bound program (that helps first-generation, low-income, high school students get to college). With the options to make education more accessible, I think this will pull the nation into a place that remains more open-minded (which hopefully would open up to other expressions – I know its a stretch, but its on my wishlist).

On the very straight-forward side, all his plans go very deeply and intelligently together between jobs, spending, education, etc, and I think it all connects to this really elegant quote :

“In America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college”

There you have it, I really feel like education is a key part of this journey. A lot of the concerns raised in this blog are about how to read the media, how to digest messages, how to have conversations, and I think those are all abilities we construct through education, discussion, and involvement. I think that is the key point in relation to the purpose of understanding culture and raising media literacy (although a tangential goal)

Just some thoughts for the day, if you have any let’s hear them!

I was listening to Rachel Maddow this morning, and I didn’t get 3 minutes in when she spoke about one of the very odd things Scott Brown said at his victory speech about his daughters.

He suggests after he was kidding, but why make such a preposterous joke at a victory speech, and you can tell it was a backtrack, as his daughters seemed appalled (although publicly appropriate). Now, “Daughters for Sale” is going a little far, but it just reminds me of how some Republ….”Independents” hold on to such old values in our country. It wasn’t that long ago where the days of suitors were the only option in town, which were normally decided by the father of the family (who his daughters were good enough to marry). We aren’t living in medeval times, and even if it were “a joke” aren’t there thousands of other jokes that don’t involve his (very traditional) beautiful, college-aged, daughters? At the very least it was tasteless, and not really appropriate to publicly open that can of date worms.

Okay, I am going to break my own rule today about splitting gender and sexuality (although i’ve done it before to) because I found this article (from a Dr. nonetheless) to be rather on the ridiculous side. I will post it, and write my comments within the article itself (as quoted text)

Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?
Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)
Argument #1.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today’s children are born out of wedlock.

• Out of wed-lock, well it seems as though it would be better to be in a committed couple regardless of their sexual orientation, yes? NO? Hmm…that’s some ill logic.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (v. 29-31, NIV).

• Bringing religion into the argument, hmm.. that doesn’t so much “AFFECT ME”. It also does not affect all of the other religions that do not use the bible are their book of choice.
  

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

• Children do tend to feel devastated when they are in a home of loving parents who care for them, the kinds of intentional families that gay and lesbian parents are trying to provide to their children, rather than the millions of children in broken homes, foster homes, and orphanages around the world in abusive and less than perfect conditions, that is a lot better!

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

• The last time I remember, the gay marriage debate was about allowing 1 person marry 1 other person of the same sex, not 2 or 7. This argument is not an argument at all, just subterfuge to battle tangent hypothetical that have no place in this debate.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

• none of this even relates to this debate (and again does not affect me – other people’s marriage does not specifically affect me, or at least their ability TO marry, if anything the lack of ability affects me more because it is filled with intolerance and tries to sanctify marriage with hate).

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

• OH I FOUND THE LOGIC! here it is right between murder and rape, why did I not see it!

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.”

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

• If people wanted that, they would be fighting for it, and they are not.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

• The addition of gay marriage does not change the process of marriage, so this is again illogical. They are not being redefined as a process, but as the boundaries that are allowed to be contained within the parameter of it’s definition. Divorces will not be instant, again side logic that is thrown in to make people think that would happen, when does not relate or part of the debate at hand. Also, “with the family gone” that also makes no sense, redefining something does not destroy the spirit of the (in this case) institution.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

• You are right it is a HORRIBLE idea to show people that come from all walks of life, why don’t we just ban all minority groups from having a place in the classroom or education all together. This kind of logic suggests that Abraham Lincoln fought in vein as well as any other person fighting against opression. “Equal Space” — that is not an ARGUMENT, that is unadulterated intolerance for a group of people that this author does not like. That would be like saying, “The Mentally Handicap should not be allowed to be in regular classes” because you have a problem with them as a group of people, it has nothing to do with an argument of how it affects me , unless of course I adopt an intolerant and hateful attitude like these “arguments” are portraying.

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

• That is another horrible idea — the law being tolerant to minorities. It would suck if people’s status and positioning in this society as part of this hierarchy was broken down so all people could have equal opportunities. This argument assumes that 1 mother and 1 father (despite any other factor other than their GENDER — not their sex in this position – because it’s about the way the child is raised – showing proper norms in society) is superior than 2 same-sex (engendering) parents. Look at the statistics of single parents, they are only getting one gender perspective as well, so then in this case the fact that homosexual activity is involved becomes part of their “argument”, but the fact is homosexuality is in our society, and it’s not going anywhere, they will learn about it whether they have 2 dads or whether they watch will and grace or they ….. are gay.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

• Again – lack of tolerance is not “an argument” – it is prejudice and hate is illogical by nature. Even if you DO NOT accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, it does not make it right to actively hate any person in this life, and I know at least potential adoptive parents are asked about their views about certain issues. But, to hop on the gender wagon – it would be atrocious to teach people to be sensitive to other’s depending on their situation – we really SHOULD be teaching hate and opression so some people are better than others. Now, I won’t try to battle this by being just as irrational (on the liberal side of things) and say “I JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY COULD BE THIS NUMB” (although the thoughts are there), but when someone has power over another group they will have status in our society, and “to have a higher social position than ’some gay’” is not really a good “arguement” against gay marriage. This argument wants some people to have power over others, and makes it seem like those people should be wiped off the earth (or saved by some religious context) – and i’m sorry, genocide or mass injection of religious ideology is never a good argument.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new “spouses and other dependents”?

• LOL. Okay that isn’t a good counter-argument, but let’s be serious, it would be in the same vein as these other arguments. This provides that one person’s love is better than another’s once again (even if they are a murdering rapist), and if our government is going to adopt a policy that allows people’s love to have legal council, then that should not be part of a discriminate policy because marriage is a religious concept, and the government adopted it, so the government could just as easily abandon that concept, vote for civil unions for all people, leave marriage alone, and give benefit based on peoples habitation status. It digs deep into irony that atheists can get married (mind you atheists are the #1 most hated group in America – above homosexuals) and enjoy benefits that two same-sex people in love cannot. The “argument” seems to break down again. Survivor benefits should be able to be chosen by the person in my opinion – if i want to give my benefits to my best friend, i should be able to.

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

• “Filth and Immorality” — not an argument again, but an opinion based in intolerance and religious opinion. I would really love to see a non-religion-centric argument against gay marriage (and not marriage in general – as I have seen a lot of those). I suppose America would rather be the leader in hate and inequality rather than “United We Stand” — (I call poppycock on that one).

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

• Not every country has America up their ass, but the one’s that do look to America as a role model, it’s nice we want to be the bully on the playground saying “no you can’t use this swingset because you have cooties” rather than the one that gets off the swing so that others can have a turn.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth” (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

• I’m sorry, the arguments have been pretty weak up until now, but I refuse to consider any arguement fueled by religion in an article entitled “Why would it affect me”. This does NOT affect me as I do not believe this, but the fact that they use terms like “God-fearing families” allows this to fall apart on it’s own. Now, I don’t want to totally disregard religious reasoning because it is the majority in our country, but I am sick of people throwing their bibles at every piece of society they choose to hate. All I have to say is that if we want to believe all of this above, then we better get out our stones and start throwing them at hookers — literal interpretations of the bible get old, fast.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

• Two great points in one — religion returns and this time we want to perpetuate WAR! That has nothing to do with marriage. War does not preserve families. I think this last war proves it rips them apart, kills members of them, and severs the bonds that create close and loving families.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I’m alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

• More religious banter that is not a reason how this affects me, and it doesn’t really affect Christians either because I know plenty of good (liberal) christians who somehow find it in their brains and hearts to accept gay marriage, weird, and contradictory.

~~~

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

REMEMBER TO VOTE TOMORROW NOV. 4th!

This election has very apparently been one that has been shrouded with gender opinions across the board. From Hillary’s crying game to Palin’s moose shooting tactics, the battles of gender have been brought into the spotlight of politics more than ever (at least at the presidential level).

In a recent article on Galesburg.com, it was suggested that gender does play a role in this current election. One older woman in the article suggests that Palin has murky views on the role of women, thinking they should just sit in their homes all day. This, too, is what bothers me about Sarah Palin. Going back to the idea that she believes that women should have to pay for rape kits, her views on femininity feel overflowed with contradiction. On one hand she lives the very stereotypical ‘beauty’ role of women in society (pagent, etc.), but then on the other hand is a women who ‘could be’ a strong politician (with more experience), and is very pro-gun (a typical male recreation). The point is that even though she sits back and defies some gender roles, she is quick to throw other women even further in the bucket of their ‘place in society’.

Not A Kiss I Want

One point of take-off that I find very interesting is that men and women are voting rather equally in this election. 52% of women projected for Obama and 49% of men for McCain. Although my tendencies would be to lean that women are more liberal (historically more oppressed groups are more liberal), but it seems pretty even. I just find it very hard to believe that women could vote for an administration that would make them pay for a rape kit. The very notion of such a law is a slap in the face to victims, which surprises me the % of women is not higher as women statistically care more about health care in this election. Even though I feel like the divides should be bigger, it is kind of nice to see women and men equally thinking the same about the issues.

I also read a recent article about women in politics and how they may need a little extra than a good platform to win over the people (i.e. a good looking face or body). A study done by Northwestern University found :

• Voters perceived the faces of male politicians as more competent and dominant relative to female politicians.
• Female politicians were perceived as more attractive and approachable relative to males.
• Candidates who were perceived as more attractive by men were more likely to win votes in the actual Congressional election.
• Gender stereotypes may bias voters to value male politicians over female politicians because they possess facial features associated with effective leaders.

Although, I take a very sociological stance on just about everything I read, watch, or observe, the last point sends out an interesting psychological message as well as one that could be contradictory. It may be true that we associate male facial features with success, which may aide to some of the discrimination that Obama has faced. We have to wake up to our biases because they are holding down people who can create change for us. Just because Sarah Palin has a pretty face does not mean she has any competence. I would argue the contrary — That women who meet the standards of beauty for our society are less percieved to do a good job because women in this setting are percieved to have lower intelligence. Even though this is not true, it seems to be antithetical to the logic behind the facial arguement.

Although I am sure Sarah Palin being VP would raise some interesting gender issues for politics, I can only hope that she does not make it to that seat because this would mean setting the thoughts of feminism back moreso than the counter-party.