Defying ethnic boundaries

Back when Stella was three weeks old, we had a photography session with a local photographer, Lorissa Farr. She posted a couple of the best ones to her blog. We ordered some too. One of our favorites is this:


In this image, Lorissa perfectly captured one of our favorite of Stella's features that make her unique: the birthmark on her lower back. It's not unusual, a patch of skin on her lower back that appears darker than the rest of her skin. When she was born, we thought it was a bruise and asked the pediatrician about it. She assured us it was perfectly normal. It's called a mongolian spot and it is most commonly found in children of black or latin descent. Check, Stella is both of those via her father's heritage. Perfectly normal.

At the same time, we asked the pediatrician about another mark on the back of her neck that we had noticed and were concerned about. Here's a picture of that:


The pediatrician explained, it's another birthmark, called a stork bite. Nothing to worry about. It is most common in babies of caucasian descent. Check, Stella is of caucasian decent via me. Nothing to worry about.

Stella's diverse ethnic heritage is nothing unusual; I'd guess from all the families and children I've interacted with since Grace was born that most kids in this younger generation have the benefit of a rich genetic background. Yet, apparently there are still people in our society who don't understand it, don't accept it, and don't want to see it at all.

A few weeks ago we watched Rabbit-Proof Fence together as a family. It is the true story of three girls in Australia in the 1930s. You can watch the trailer here. The three girls are forcibly removed from their mothers, Aborigine, because they are biracial -- their fathers are white. Though it's rated PG, it's not exactly a movie for children unless they are mature enough to deal with difficult topics. For instance, until 1970, Australia still had a law on the books that "half-caste" children, the children who are biracially white and aborigine, are substandard. For that matter, aborigines are substandard humans. At one point in the film, I was so appalled I spit out, "what the fuck!" I was glad that Grace was old enough to understand my righteous anger. How could a government do something so awful, so unthinkable, so hateful and evil? I believe Kenneth Branagh's character in Rabbit-Proof Fence puts it most succinctly: "Are we to allow the creation of an unwanted race?" An industrialized, 20th century government did it because those in power believed children of interracial couples were substandard and should not exist.

Lest we think for a moment that this is barbarian and behind those of us in the US and in our distant past, the gross and despicable reality of the present hits us right between the eyes. Enter Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. On Friday, the story hit national news media outlets: Judge Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. He explained his action by saying that such marriages do not stand the test of time and that children of such a couple would suffer due to not fitting into either culture. He maintains that he is not a racist for making such a decision, that he issues marriage licenses to black couples all the time. And he said, "It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong." WHAT??!?!?!?!?? I react to this with the same righteous outrage that I did to the content of Rabbit-Proof Fence. But I must be explicitly clear about how outrageous this situation is. The judge does not approve of the marriage because he feels that the children of such a marriage would suffer due to their very existence and lack of identity with the culture of either parent. In short, multiethnic children are a problem. We as a society should do everything we can to prevent their existence in the first place. If they come to exist, we'll have a horrible problem on our hands.

I'm getting to the point where I believe that people in the world who suffer the worst racial discrimination are those who are multiethnic. Contrary to this, I have a rather different viewpoint. Rather than being a hindrance, I believe having a diverse heritage actually gives one an advantage in understanding the world and coping with its various social problems. Having the benefit of more than one vantage points enables a person to realize that the world is not black and white (no pun intended).

I guess these ideas of mine shouldn't come as a surprise since I am part of a multiethnic, bi-national family. But I'd be dishonest if I led you to believe that I came to this perspective without any influence. I heard a piece on NPR's Talk of the Nation a few weeks ago about a new production of Shakespeare's Othello, produced for stage in Washington, DC. and directed by Peter Sellars (no, not the one who died more than 20 years ago, a different one by the same name). In his interview with Neal Conan, Sellars addresses the obvious talking point of Othello, that being the ethnic identity of the title character. He's a Moor, traditionally portrayed by an actor of African or Arabic descent. "Moor" does not refer to any specific ethnic group, but rather someone who is dark-skinned and from the Iberian Peninsula. In other words, someone who is likely of mixed race. He is a successful and liked military leader. The poignancy of putting on this production to Washington, DC now is directly connected to Barack Obama and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Whatever you think of the president's work so far, it is worth considering in what ways his heritage enables him to be a good leader, or at least, in what ways he is able to lead differently than all of his predecessors. Sellars addresses this point directly in the interview, at about 10:22:

We live in the age of Barack Obama and Tiger Woods. You know, what box are you gonna check? You know, the fact is, we're all more than one box. None of us fit into those boxes anymore.

It's that last line that got me. None of us fit into those boxes anymore. How many of us can neatly fit ourselves into a racial demographic? How about our children? I remember that when Grace was a little girl we went to American Girl Place in Chicago. We both looked to see if we could find a Just Like You girl that looked like each of us. Neither of us succeeded. Apparently American Girl still thought that blue eyes only go with blond hair and green eyes only go with light skin. We had difficulty fitting into an American Girl "box" despite the fact that both of us check off the box "caucasian, not hispanic." Stella doesn't check off one box on those surveys, so what luck does she have finding an American Girl that is Just Like Her?

If you find yourself recoiling at the suggestion that the "boxes" in demographic surveys are going the way of the buffalo, why is that? Is it the idea that our comfort zones are dissolving? If we can't presuppose things about people based on their appearance, maybe that makes us feel unsure and a little nervous. We might have to let go of our assumptions, the ones that make us feel knowledgeable and informed. Not all Spanish speakers are immigrants. Not all immigrants are poor and/or stupid. Not all blacks like rap. Nor do they all speak the same dialect of English. Not all whites like camping and corn bread. Nor Eddie Bauer. Need I go on?

As I have been thinking about Grace's friends throughout her childhood, I am struck by how few of them can clearly identify with one and only one ethnic group. This generation of children is, by their very DNA, more ethnically diverse. In a world that is quickly shrinking, a world in which it is an advantage to be not just tolerant of differences, but appreciative and enthusiastic, it seems that these kids undoubtedly are able to understand that world better.

Instead of focusing our energies of making lines and dividing up people into discrete groups that supposedly matter, wouldn't it be more fruitful to think of ourselves as citizens of the earth? Members of the human race? We have more in common with people once we stop and focus on the similarities rather than the differences. I, for one, am tired of the labels.

Guns and racism and censorship and drama and education. What's that? You think I'm being controversial?

Some of you may remember that about a month back I wrote about the selection of the annual musical at Grace's high school, Annie Get Your Gun, and whether the arts should be censored for teenagers. I argued that the arts should not be censored for teenagers and that parents alone should be held responsible for addressing their own values surrounding controversial issues at home. There were no dissenters in the comments. I was surprised. I expected at least one of you out there to say I was off my rocker. You really all agree with me? You believe that the public schools shouldn't limit access to the arts?

I bring this up now because one person who read the post emailed me directly and told me I was wrong. Dead wrong. On Monday, after we finished our family celebration of Children's Day, I read my email and received a message from a parent at Grace's school who had been forwarded the URL of the post. And it wasn't just any parent; it was the parent who had raised the objection to the choice of the musical in the first place. She corrected some errors I had made in the original post (there is an amendment to that post now). She also revisited the issue of how the school should be responding to Native Americans and women being marginalized in Annie Get Your Gun, as well as firearms being glorified. Since she presented her points in an email, unfortunately those of you reading the post wouldn't have the benefit of her comments. I thought it would be fruitful to revisit the issue again in order to give voice to an opposing view.

The concerned parent and I agree on the core issues, like the problems stemming from children having access to firearms and the desensitization to racial and gender-based discrimination when it arrives in subtle forms (or in any form, for that matter). Despite this common agreement, from reading what she has written to me, we disagree on how minors should be educated about these issues. I take it to be my role as a parent to educate my child at home as to what values I hope for her to take as her own. The other parent believes that some collective body should make those decisions for all students and all of them should be taught those values at school. For instance, this parent wrote to me in her email that fake firearms, such as those used as props in a play, are a public health risk, plain and simple. Since this is fact, we should never allow guns to be used as props in a school building since the presence of firearms anywhere constitutes a public health risk to all exposed (most importantly, minor students). Further, if arts containing firearms are present in the school, it is the responsibility of the school to educate students about gun control. In order for these actions to be made, some appointed authority would need to endorse these decisions as fact. If individuals hold a different opinion from that which the authoritative group decides, too bad. Now, while it is true that the majority of voting adults in our community support gun control, I'd say that the issue is a far cry from a closed-book issue. I mean, if we were suggesting that high school students in a public school located somewhere differently, like, say, in Oklahoma or Texas, should be taught that gun control is the only policy that will do, I can imagine that there would be some vehement vocal disagreement. So rather than bring controversial two-sided arguments to the school system to render a verdict on, I prefer that the educational system educate students about the issues and leave the verdicts up to parents.

So that's gun control. For me, I err on the side of protecting individual rights. I may not exercise my right to have a firearm at home, but I want to be very careful about limiting the right altogether. Maybe it's the American in me. Maybe it's the southerner in me. Maybe it's my experience in rural parts of the country that makes me feel this way, you know, places where it's useful to have a firearm because if someone untoward drives into your farm up to no good, you can meet them at the door with your rifle aimed just in case law enforcement doesn't show up before the ruffians do.

But on a broader scale, what about other topics? No one who commented on my original post indicated that they thought the educational system or some other authority should have the right to limit students' access to the arts, no matter what the content. Really? You guys think that sex and rock 'n' roll and rap and all the rest should be available to teens?

Do you think we should have rating systems on movies and television and music, keeping minors from their consumption, or do you think that kind of censorship is ok?

Birth control? Abortion?

What about argumentation that the sex industry is liberating?

What about expressions of disgust for the government?
What about expressions of disgust for opposition to the government?

War? War protests?

Gang warfare? Legalizing all mind-altering substances?

All of it? You all think that all of this information should be openly available to teens to digest for themselves, hoping that their parents or guardians will help guide their thinking in order to prevent societal chaos?

In all fairness, in the comments of my original post, Angelawd qualified her support for my position by writing "I do believe all ideas and materials should be appropriate for the age, and for the individual. Some kids are able to handle more reality than others." That sounds sensible. But now we have to ask, what is appropriate for teenagers? And what if some of those teenagers are able to handle more reality than others? How do we teach them all in the same school? I'm sure there are things that some of you think the schools should not allow students to access, aside from those things that are illegal. As you can see from my laundry list of questions above, Annie Get Your Gun is nowhere near as controversial as we could get.

I'll give you the behind the scenes to why I think parents should be the ones making these decisions at home and teaching their children those values at home. I've lived in four very different regions of the US: South Florida, Central Texas, Southeast Michigan and Washington, DC. You can imagine that the mainstream values in each of these locales differed considerably. But whether or not I shared those mainstream values, that was what my community would endorse in the educational system. Along the way, through my own education and in taking part in my daughter's, I realized that it was not the values that were taught in the schools that were important. What was most important was that no matter what the majority of concerned citizens around us valued, my daughter would learn from me the things I believed were correct. For myself, I wish I had gotten the benefit of other viewpoints and opinions than the ones I was taught at school. For my daughter, I've realized that my involvement in her life as a parent is far more important than my involvement as a mover and shaker in her community. But once someone else has taught your child a value, sometimes it is difficult to teach your child something very different.

Now, that's a more lengthy version of my stance and I'm still sticking to it. But I really want to hear from the rest of you. Think about it. Are you willing to have your children hear information that you vehemently disagree with in order for them to hear a balanced view? Or would you rather they be educated in line with your own values? Are the arts (literature, drama, music, visual) any different from social sciences or physical sciences? How does religion play into this, if at all? What do you think of the education at the college level?

~~~ For those of you out there who want more controversial discussion, stay tuned. Monday I will finally publish a post that has been rattling around inside my head and in various drafts for over a month. Annie Get Your Gun raises issues of racial discrimination; I have been wrestling with the marginalizing of biracial couples and mixed race children. ~~~

One more time, because it's a message that matters

This is the third time I've posted this video to my blog. The first two times were in December 2008 and in January of this year. The video is put out by The Girl Effect. Indeed, I put it up now, for a third time, because it really is that good.



Yesterday I got a notice on my Facebook newsfeed that Oprah Winfrey was going to mention The Girl Effect on her show that afternoon. I tuned in and, sure enough, her whole show was dedicated to real ways that each one of us can change a woman's life in a developing country. She even included a page on her site that gives direct links to numerous organizations and specific ways you can help another woman. There's also a newly released book, Half The Sky, that inspired the show Oprah put on yesterday. I'm ordering a copy today for our home and making sure Grace gets to read it.

I haven't been contacted my anyone to endorse this cause in any way. For all I know, none of these organizations even knows I exist. I am so persistent in mentioning this cause because I'm being hit smack on the head by something so important, so obvious, that I have to pay attention to. Our world is plagued by so many ills that could be solved. None of them can be solved until women around the world are no longer marginalized. How can I as a woman ignore that? I am among the most privileged group of women to have ever walked the earth; how can I ignore that most of the women on the planet do not have this measure of privilege?

There is a woman in Brazil who I think of every day. Take that back, she's not a woman, she's a girl. She is fifteen years old, the same age as my older daughter. I've never met her; I don't even know her name. But I hear about her a lot and I worry about her. She has lived in poverty her entire life. Years ago, her two older brothers stopped their education in order to work and try to make money for their family. This girl has also stopped going to school; she gave birth to her first child, a girl, the same week that Stella was born. The baby's father is in his twenties and long since gone. This fifteen year old girl is raising her baby alone. One girl the same age as my oldest daughter giving birth to another daughter the same age as my younger daughter. I wish I could take both of the girls in my arms and hold them. I wish I could make their life as good as the one my two girls have had. Instead, I think of them. Each month their family gets $100 from more fortunate people, generous people; it doesn't go far, but it gives them some of the necessities that they would otherwise do without. In the absence of anything else I can do for them, I hope that the money helps their situation get better.

That's my touchstone, the one I use to remember that every girl matters. A lot. I need to remember that I am rich, I experience the most lavish life that this planet can offer. Here in the industrialized world, the first world, we've spent the last two years navel gazing and believing that the sky is falling because we are experiencing economic downturn. Imagine a different world though, one where all the luxuries we have let go of never existed in the first place. They are impossible dreams. Just the privilege of going to school is not something you as a woman are allowing to do.

Today, today let's make a difference.

Should the arts be censored for teenagers?

The following post has been amended as of October 13, 2009, with changes and comments immediately following. A follow up post on October 16, 2009 addresses these amendments.

Last night I attended the first PTA meeting of the school year at Grace's school. I have been involved in this organization since before Grace finished 8th grade. Last year was my learning year, we could say. That is, I learned that organizations that have no profit margin or dollar amount placed on time tend to harbor lots of endless conversation and controversy. After a few months of participating, I learned how to protect my time and, to some extent, how to diffuse the energy from never-ending debates.

Last night there were several controversies. There was a 30-40 minute interrogation of the principal over her lack of sufficient communication to the school community after the first day of school regarding a potential criminal matter at a bus stop. Then there was more discussion regarding her past failure to post the daily announcements at the school's website. A last minute controversy began over how much of a voice the students have in matters like what type of food is served at the Homecoming dance and how much they should be emotionally supported by the PTA. And then one very concerned parent brought up the theatre department's choice of an annual school musical -- Annie Get Your Gun.*

The last parent, new to the school since her daughter is a freshman, expressed great disapproval of the musical. It glorifies the use of firearms and requires that we introduce weapons as props in a play. Further, women and native Americans suffer the ills of discrimination and inequality throughout the libretto.

Fair enough, these are valid points. And fair enough that the parent brought up these concerns at this point even though auditions for the musical began yesterday afternoon. When all is said and done, it's very unlikely that the theatre department will change their choice at this point. Consequently the discussion becomes one of values and opinions, rather than one that will effect real change. Still, the discussion rankled me. I was irritated. I was annoyed. I thought this woman was doing it for show, putting on airs so as to establish her superiority in the pecking order that is the PTA.

It was only later that I thought, why do I feel this way?

It was censorship. It's the idea that teenagers can't handle information.

For the purpose of my discussion here, let's abstract away from the issue that the school musical is an extracurricular activity that the kids are not required to participate in. There are plenty of things that students are exposed to in the name of education that could be construed as inappropriate along the same line of reasoning. If you've ever been in education, you know the laundry list of literature of all genres that has been subject to censorship in the curriculum. What is worse for students to read: Annie Get Your Gun or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? What about The Catcher in the Rye? The Taming of the Shrew? (Or God forbid, Kiss Me Kate.) The question of whether teenagers can handle discussion of sensitive issues has been out there for quite a long while. Some believe that all of the aforementioned titles should be banned from a school's curriculum. Others err of the side of liberalism and say none of it should be censored. And then there are the curious cases in which people nit pick on a case by case basis, reaching inconsistent verdicts for each work.

It bothers me considerably. I don't think that the school or the government or any other board should be censoring material. I think that's the job of parents. If my daughter is deeply involved in a theatrical production that has themes I don't agree with, I can take the opportunity to talk to her about those issues. That's my take on the issue.

When I was a senior in high school, I was the student director of the school's production of Oklahoma! Weapons, discrimination against women, yeah, they were in there. Heck, it was my great-grandfather's double-barreled shotgun that was used as a prop by Andrew Carnes. That's right, an actual firearm was used as a prop.** In one of the final scenes, we directed Will Parker to lasso Ado Annie and pull her to him, an act demonstrating that he had indeed won her over. No one objected. When Grace was in 8th grade, her middle school put on The Sound of Music. There, in middle of Act I, Leisl swung her body back and forth flirtatiously towards Rolf while singing the words, 'I need someone older and wiser telling me what to do. You are 17 going on 18; I'll depend on you.' I was concerned for the actress playing Leisl and hoped one of her parents took the opportunity to talk about her place in the world as a young woman. But still, I don't think the play should have been censored because of these lyrics.

If students don't encounter these works, these works that were contemporary in their time but that now are rightfully deemed discriminatory, how will students learn about the history of these issues? How will they develop the ability to recognize subtle forms of discrimination when they appear? How will they come to appreciate the progress we have made (or haven't) as a society? In short, if students have no access to these works, how will we begin a discussion with them about the issues they raise?

I don't know if my stance makes me a raving liberal or a staunch conservative. Since I want a hands off approach, that should make me conservative. But since we're talking about social issues and I'm advocating full access to information, that should make me a liberal. Who knows. But that's my stance and I'm sticking to it.


*I want to be sure to note here that the theatre director chose the 1999 revival version of the musical to put on, a revision of the script and libretto that significantly reduces the level of racial and gender-based discrimination. I'm not sure the objecting parent knows this.

**Granted, the barrel of the shotgun wasn't aligned correctly and the whole weapon weighed about 35 lbs. I doubt anyone could have used it effectively as weapon, much less even pick it up.

AMENDED ON OCTOBER 13, 2009
I received an email from the parent who voiced concern about the choice of Annie Get Your Gun as the choice of dramatic musical at Grace's high school. A colleague of hers found the blog on October 12 and forwarded her the link to this post. She notes several inaccuracies which I correct here. I always strive to accurately represent things here since bloggers get a lot of criticism for not checking their facts. In the interest of presenting the facts more accurately, please note the changes below. My apologies for any misunderstandings for any and all readers that may have occurred as a result of these errors.

• The child of this parent is a sophomore, thus she did know about the choice of the musical the previous spring. The concerns she raised in September have been brought up since last June.
  
• To clarify that my first impressions of her at the meeting were indeed incorrect, her motivation in bringing up these concerns at a PTA meeting was not to "put on a show, airs, or establish my superiority in the pecking order of the PTA." Rather, she is extremely busy and would prefer to be minimally involved in the organization.
  
• She was aware that the revised version of the musical was selected by the theatre director before making her objections.
• She reiterated in correspondence with me that she strongly disagrees that parents should have a "hands-off" approach as I advocate here.
  

Trolling about

I have a troll. Not here. The trolls have not cruised my blog. No, I have a friend on facebook who is a troll.

The funny thing is, I don't think he knows what it means for me to say he is a troll.

He's the husband of an old friend of mine, a friend I'd rather do without. The last time I had any communication with her, this is what I wrote. Since then I've had a surgery, sold one house and bought another, moved, and gotten pregnant. None of this seemed like something I wanted to share with her. I hope that all of you out there reading are coming to the same conclusion I am: there is no friendship left there.

So back to the trolling husband. He's not a loser, quite the opposite. He's someone who's had life delivered on a silver platter to him, and he likes to think of himself as better than others. He's well educated, comes from a wealthy family, and has settled into quite a comfortable life for himself and his wife and children. Everything is great. Except his personality. He's one of those people who is arrogant to a fault. He sees no reason to be compassionate.

On facebook, I am somewhat cautious with my public comments. The people I want to keep up with are disparate, to say the least. They range from my daughter and a few of her friends to my mother and sisters to friends of my husband that I know only through work to radical bible thumping conservative Christians to radical leftist ACLU-supporting liberals. There's a certain balance I want to maintain in an image that all of these people see publicly. What I say in more homogenous circles to them may be more expressive and opinionated, but I am somewhat cautious in the larger light that is my public facebook image.

Yesterday, when I heard about the decision of the California Supreme Court to uphold the decision of the voters on Proposition 8, I posted the following status message on Facebook:

"Will the state of California recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states like Massachusetts or Connecticut?"

It was actually a genuine question. I wasn't fishing for comments or trying to stir up controversy. The only comment came from the husband of my not-really-a-friend:

"Is this an issue for you and your husband?"

*sigh* Like I said, trolling. More unfortunate, it reveals a sad truth about his values system. Don't stand up for the rights of someone unless you personally stand to lose something.

I couldn't let the comment stand unanswered. I added the comment,

"On many counts, no, but it is a relevant question for other people I know."

It's also a relevant question for people I don't know. It is a relevant question period.

The only thing left to do, I resolved, is to add the application "Send Trolls" and send this guy an orange baby troll. Then I'll modify my facebook settings so he and his wife, my not-really-a-friend, will have a unique group of their own, "trolls," in which they can see very little about me and have no permissions to comment.

One more try at bringing awareness to discrimination

How much do you spend at amazon.com every year? A lot? I know I do. I spend a whole heck of a lot of money there. It's things I would buy elsewhere, but because I can find it at amazon for less money, a lot of times they get my money. This goes for everything from my daughter's books for gifts (4 so far this year) to mp3 downloads (over 100 so far this year). And I'm an academic. I've got a truckload of local bookstores I could buy from, and I buy a lot of books every year. I most recently bought a copy of the Twilight DVD for Grace from Amazon.

Check this out: Amazon is making books and media with any positive reference to gay or lesbian content, or those written by known gay or lesbian authors, invisible to searches and sales rank status. You can read a nice short synopsis of the issue here, and read Mark Probst's post about the issue on his blog here. In short, if you do a search at Amazon.com for anything about gays or lesbians, you won't find anything positive, only anti-gay propaganda.

Who cares, really? I mean, what difference does it make? It makes a huge difference. From everything to depriving authors of sales to limiting information available to the public, it makes a big difference.

Amazon.com has the right to do it. They have to right to limit their inventory, bar consumers from seeing certain things, and to classify gay and lesbian literature as "adult material." This includes things like a book by Ellen Degeneres, regardless of what the central topic of the book is.

But you have a right to know. And you have the right to choose whether you will continue to shop there. At least let your voice be heard if you find this unacceptable. Do something. If you sit back and do nothing, you are saying that this kind of discrimination is ok.

An addendum to my daughter's advocacy today

As per my last post, today Grace joined her classmates in bringing awareness to the violation of LGBT rights. By coincidence, I received an email from the Courage Campaign this afternon, bringing my attention to an ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage. Before you click on the link to find out what the National Organization for Marriage is, you'd think from the name they chose for themselves that they would be interested in helping two people who are in love be married. Unfortunately, irony in branding isn't the least of their sins. They are unabashedly trying to prevent any gay couple from having the same rights to marriage as straight couples have.

I won't embed the video of the ad campaign here. It's on youtube, but frankly I don't want to give this organization the pleasure of seeing the number of views go up. But I'll say this. It is like most political ad campaigns in that it is designed to slant the truth in order to get people to see things from the "right" point of view. They've actually named the video, "Storm Gathering," and the first 6-7 seconds of the brief 60 second tv spot only mention fear. The clear message is that you should be afraid. And this ad is designed to do just that -- make you afraid.

Since I'm on the elecronic mailing listing for the Courage Campaign, they sent me the link to the video on their site, as well as the form to make a contribution towards their own ad campaign. They also give me the option of forwarding the information on. If you'd like to know more about it, let me know and I'll email you the information from their website. Just make sure I get your email somehow, and that it's the email address you'd like this mailing list to utilize.

Just last night over dinner, our family was discussing American history. We have a way of talking about history, saying that in order to understand events in history, you have to be able to relate them to some present day situation. The topic was the Ku Klux Klan's march in Washington, DC in 1928. Grace could not understand how on earth anyone saw that event as anything but absurd and hateful. We asked her to thoughtfully consider whether there was anything done wrong; weren't the KKK just exercising their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and their right to free speech? Well, yes, sort of, but in retrospect we all know that the KKK is responsible for hate crimes as well, which puts a bit of a damper on respecting their rights and all. And then I asked her, what if 500,000 people decide to march to Washington, assemble at the Mall, and protest gay marriage? We were careful to point out the big difference between the KKK and this hypothetical group is that no such group exists that has carried out hate crimes in the way that the KKK did (and does). Suddenly she realized how something that seems absurd and hateful in retrospect could seem so acceptable at the time.

Good god, I hope that we will be able to look back some day at the actions taken by groups like the National Organization for Marriage and know that it is universally accepted that the actions were absurd and hateful.

Shhhhh...

Today Grace is observing National Day of Silence in order to raise awareness of the discrimination against gays and lesbians and to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Because her school district's spring break falls on the actually date of the National Day of Silence (April 17th, 2009), some of her peers at her high school chose to observe the day today.

Marriage

I love that first line.

"Mah-wege. Mah-wege is what brings us together today."

How benign. I don't think you could say less about marriage in one sentence.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about marriage. Yesterday on facebook, a friend of mine from middle school posted a little ditty that included 25 unfinished sentences. The task is to finish each sentence. Number 10 was "Marriage is..." Her answer was "...a nice concept." She's a single mom who's never been married. When I got to that item myself, the only answer I could come up with was "...not for everyone." A few items later I decided not to post the list anywhere or email it to anyone. I just couldn't answer all those questions in an honest way that I would be willing to share with anyone.

It's a dicey issue to talk about marriage. I don't think anyone arrives at adulthood without a preconception of what it's supposed to entail. A lot of adults end up in unhappy marriages, broken engagements, relationships that might end up in marriage or not, or divorced. There's a whole other segment of the population who says they'll never get married, regardless of how committed they are to someone. And this only touches the segment of adults who can legally get married in the first place. The right of marriage is largely denied to gays and lesbians, and it used to be denied on the basis of race. According to some state constitutions, interracial marriage is still banned, although I don't know of any recent instances in which those laws were enforced. Needless to say, I think there is a great deal of variance with regards to how each of us conceives of the institution of marriage.

For myself, I decided at a very young and naive age to enter into my first marriage. I was 18 and it as my first serious boyfriend. Though the relationship was very bumpy, indeed, a little less than 3 years later we got married. 8 years after that, we were getting divorced. And a few years after that, I was getting married again. So it seemed appropriate when my husband and I sat down for premarital counseling with the priest who performed our wedding ceremony that the first question she asked of us was, "why do you want to get married?"

There was silence for a few seconds. I sought clarification. "In what sense? Like, why do I want to marry this man? Or now? Or at all?" She said I could answer it any way I liked, with any information that seemed important to include. The point is, the answer wasn't just some cookie cutter thing I could spit out. In reality, I saw the decision to get married as my decision to enter into an avowed relationship with another person. In front of everyone we knew. Including my daughter. There really was no point in doing that unless what I said that day was something more than what I had already said to him. More than that, I had gone way past the point in my life where I believed any romantic relationship should necessarily go ahead into marriage because, well, because that's just what people do, right?

For me, I think marriage is something that is sacred, not fool-proof. You don't go into marriage thinking this is the last step and now everything is roses; you go into it realizing that now you have committed to a much deeper level of sacrifice for this other person. Luckily, if you do it right, both parties make that commitment. Though I have largely forgotten that the dialogue took place, this is how I knew my first marriage was over with no hope of real reconciliation. In the three days between my believing everything was rosy to my telling my first husband that I wanted a divorce and an end to our relationship, I asked him a lot of questions about his commitment to me and to our marriage. It was clear that the vows he took when he married me no longer applied. None of them. Regardless of how you feel about vows and their binding quality, his were null and void in his mind at that point. Thus, our marriage relationship ceased to exist. This was also how I knew later that he wasn't being as honest with others as he had been with me. When word got back to me that I was the one who had refused to go to counseling and work things out, I knew it was bunk and that someone was rewriting the situation, because no relationship existed at that point to "work out." If one's husband tells them he doesn't have any feelings about whether they live or die, that largely indicates that their marriage vows are dead.

I guess the point that I want to make now is that marriage is not a solemn vow that nothing can undo. It's a promise that two people make to each other, a very solemn promise. When I made that promise, both times I got married, I had an understanding that the promise was mutual. If the other party came to the point that they no longer intended to keep that promise, then the whole thing was gone. And so, my answer to the priest during that marital counseling session circled around this. I told her that I decided to marry this man at this time because I believed with all my heart that the vows we would take at that time were mutual and that we both had the commitment to uphold them in the way they were worded. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have married him.

I'm sure I'll come back to this again. Like I said before, I think the way each person views the institution of marriage is different. What I've said above goes for me in my marriage; I don't assume other people agree. So I'm interested to know, what are your ideas about marriage? Have you thought about it deeply? Have they changed as the result of a previous relationship you were in? Let me know, I would love to hear.

Another way for me to flip the tables

I know, I know, you have all heard about these events. What events, you ask? Well, they go by several different names, but the central concept is still the same. These formal father-daughter events in which a girl pledges her purity and her father pledges to protect her until marriage. I've read a lot about these things, really, and I have heard every angle by which this could be scoffed. If you're unfamiliar with the phenomenon, here's the most recent story I read, published last fall at abc.com.

As I read about the idea again, I found myself not incensed, but asking what seemed like the most obvious question. Why aren't the mothers taking their sons to these kinds of events?

You know, it's not that hard to imagine. She would use the event to proclaim how she has nurtured and cared and protected him since his very existence and how she intended to continue that protection until his marriage, and he would pledge to her that he wouldn't go spreading his seed around unless he first cleared it with his mom. You could even say he needed to go to her about any decisions he was considering regarding marriage.

Is that too radical? Maybe it has to do with the reversal of roles and the idea that people are uncomfortable with a mother lording over her son until he's married. Especially when it comes to his sexuality. OK, so let's see if we can accommodate that.

The fathers should bring their sons to such an event, and the sons should pledge their virginity to their fathers until they are married.

Still seems weird?

Right, that's what I thought. It's a double standard. The little girls are protected and they are little princesses because that's noble and godly, but to do so to a son would be weird and freaky. I think I'll feel better about this whole thing when I see Father-Son purity camping weekends. Still takes moms completely out of the picture as caregivers and protectors, a strange omission, but at least the sons would be overtly held to the same constraints as the daughters regarding their behavior.

Multiculturalism and being American

On this St. Patrick's Day, it just so happens that my thoughts have been primed to talk about emigration to the US. As it turns out, the most recent ancestor of mine to emigrate to the US was a great-great-great-grandfather on my father's side who came straight from Ireland. I don't know much more about it than that. I don't even know his name or what part of Ireland he came from. But I do know this: it's been a long time since anyone in my lineage faced discrimination in the US on the basis of race or language.

Not so with my immediate family. My husband is an immigrant to the US. Now when I put it that way, it makes it sounds like he scraped together his pennies from an early age, dreaming of the day he would cross the seas and arrive at the promised land where he heard that all his dreams would come true. But that would be a fairly bad characterization of the whole thing. Before he decided to come to the US, he had a good job, he had a master's degree, and he spoke three languages fluently. His life wasn't bad at all. When he decided he would leave the country of his birth, he was trying to decide whether to continue in his graduate studies in the US or Europe. The US turned out to be the better option, and so he came. Though he says the US ain't bad, it's not like he sees it through rose-colored glasses.

There were some drawbacks for him in emigrating the US. Let's take racial discrimination. He grew up as the privileged class - white male. Sure, he wasn't wealthy, but he was a good student and nothing really held him back but maybe irrational government policies. As soon as he arrived in the US, he realized he was considered to be part of a racial minority. Bummer. And there was also the thing of speaking English with a foreign accent. It didn't matter how fluently he spoke or how perfectly he understood the situation, there were always times when people assumed he was stupid or uneducated because he wasn't a native English speaker.

What must it have felt like to be Irish at the time when being Irish held some stigma? You opened your mouth and people assumed you were stupid and uneducated. Your name gave you away.

Last night my mom and I were talking on the phone. I don't know how it happened so fast, but the conversation moved from what baby furniture I was buying to how immigrants today don't teach their children the values that immigrants used to consider essential. Those values are (1) to work hard, (2) to behave properly, and (3) to do things the American way because that's why the family came to the US in the first place. She said she couldn't figure out why the hispanic immigrants' children didn't understand this. It never occurred to her in the conversation that my child-to-be would be considered one of those children she was talking about.

I'll just say this in my mother's defense -- she has a remarkable ability to maintain certain views of the world despite the fact that the current reality may conflict with that view.

I made up my mind long ago that I wasn't going to try and enlighten her on this stuff. While we were talking, I mentioned that the teens she was talking about, the ones who were bilingual and were latino, might be second or third generation Americans, having very little connection with any culture other than American. I also asked her what American culture was if it wasn't what hispanics experienced (currently more than 12% of the US population is hispanic). I also briefly mentioned that it was possible that only one of these kids' parents were immigrants, and that some of them may have ancestry in the US going back to the Mayflower. (Huh? Multi-ethnicity? Bi-racial? WHAT?)

My husband's and my kid(s) will be bilingual and have an indisputably Latin surname. It's hard to say what ethnicity they will be pigeon-holed into based on their appearance alone because in addition to having a latin background, they also will have strong northern European genes and some native (South) American and African roots. They're going to look like the new generation of American kids, the ones who don't necessarily have two parents with identical backgrounds, the ones that American Girl doesn't make a doll for. If they swear that they have Irish roots, which is true, they may be laughed at as much as Barack Obama is. But Barack Obama is more Irish than I am.

So Erin Go Bragh, or whatever they say in Ireland on this day, top of the mornin' to ya, and all the rest. Five generations have passed since my last forefather left that motherland and all I've got to show for it is a handwoven Irish wool scarf that I wore to work today. My mom ordered it for me from a catalog five years ago. For me, St. Patrick's Day in the US is really about how your culture is important to hold on to. So don't expect the Cuban-Americans and the Puerto Rican-Americans and the Mexican-Americans and the Colombian-Americans to start shedding their Latin ways and acting European just because the Irish and the German cultures are currently accepted in North America. As for us in our house, we'll celebrate with some green cupcakes tonight and then move on to the next holiday, Holy Week and Easter. Because I'll tell you one thing, the Irish Catholics don't hold a candle to the Latin Catholics when it comes to doing the Easter thing. If you're going to observe Lent, for God's sake celebrate Carnival for a week before Ash Wednesday and then live it up 40 days later on Easter. (Heeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy, how the Irish Catholics do St. Patrick's Day in such a drunken way anyways since it's always in the middle of Lent? Hmmmmm......)

God and me

I'd be remiss to not tell you guys about some thoughts I've been having about God.

We've had a complicated relationship, me and God. I've been dealing with it since before I can remember. For several years I wasn't even sure God was someone. I still don't know. But I'm reconsidering the idea. I'm trying to suspend disbelief and see if I can figure out where we stand on our relationship with each other.

Quick background: I grew up in an ultra-Christian, ultra-conservative (religiously and politically) home. We went to church every week. When I was in second grade, I started going to a private Christian school that endorsed the same ideas that my family valued. By the time I was in middle school, I realized I had a weekly event I attended at my church every single day except Mondays.

My disillusionment with parts of religion began in high school. I saw the situation as one I needed to work through with God. I looked forward to the day I could leave home for college and maybe attend a different kind of church. That I did. I went to another ultra-Christian, ultra-conservative private university in a hyper-religiously-stoked town. I met and married a man who came from a deeply entrenched Southern Baptist heritage. In the midst of this as a growing young adult, the flaws in this set of world values started becoming glaringly obvious.

But still. There was God.

I stopped worrying about God altogether after I divorced my first husband. I figured the scores of wrongs I could see with the church couldn't possibly be the result of a good God. If the Christian church in its hundreds (maybe thousands) of sects couldn't get good right, and if this church is the voice of God on earth, then I couldn't possibly imagine that God was good. More accurately, I wondered whether this God I had imagined I had been conversing with all those years even existed.

So now to the present. I started this blog thinking it would be equally about figuring out my daughter and myself. Quickly it became apparent to myself (and I suppose those of you out there reading) that the blog was really about figuring me out. And then quite unexpectedly, I realized my complicated relationship with God had a lot to do with figuring myself out.

I'll admit that this is probably one of those moments when everyone around me has known something and has been waiting for me to figure it out.

Angela and I have been having some ongoing correspondences for awhile about the true nature of God as it is presented in the bible. She posted a great bit last week about this entitled "Is God Sexist?" I highly encourage all of my readers to visit and read it, and join in on the discussion. For all those skeptics out there who think there's no way God could be anything but evil given the text of the bible, I will give my disclaimer up front: realize there is no right answer. The bible is a text that is highly convoluted. The same Torah has birthed three distinct world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and the inerrancy of that text as God's word has done no less than created ongoing bloody wars and justified all sorts of atrocities throughout history. There are as many different ways to interpret this text (whichever version you choose) as there are people on the planet. So with this disclaimer, I'll jump right in. I'm not looking for the most widely accepted truth, but rather, the truth that makes sense to me given what I know.

You can't prove whether God exists or doesn't. You can't prove that the events described in the bible are true or false. It's not a matter of debate or logical proof; it's a matter of faith.

What Angela brought to me was a picture of God that is not evil or discriminatory. It is a God who has had its image hijacked for the purposes of certain groups. The question is, who is the real God, if such a God exists?

All this to say, I've started talking to God again. God's not talking back yet, so God might be a little miffed at me for staying absent so long. I really can't say that this is unexpected. But I'm trying to figure out what place God has in my life.

Ai-yi-yi.

Stay tuned; I'm sure this is going to get interesting.

Philadelphia

Last Friday afternoon, Grace came home right after school and our chore for the afternoon before her father came to pick her up for the weekend was to pack up the Christmas decorations that had all made it to the den. I was, quite frankly, feeling like shee-ite, lounged on one of love seats in front of the tv. Since I wasn't helping with the packing at all, which was NOT part of the deal, Grace agreed to pack away the ornaments as long as she got to snack too (a big no-no in the den). While we were packing, we watched the film Philadelphia on tv. She'd never seen it before, and I thought she might like it since it was nominated for several Oscars and won two. We tuned in when Denzel Washington is examining one of his witnesses, a black woman who worked at the law firm being sued. This is the start of the court case. During the scene where Tom Hanks character and his partner are hosting a gay costume party and Denzel's Washington's character and his wife attend, Grace perked up and started paying attention.

This sequence of two or three scenes is perhaps the most moving bits of the film. I think the scene that Tom Hanks is listening to and translating "La mamma morta" from the opera Andrea Chénier was what was shown at the Academy Awards when they were announcing the nominees for the award of best actor. It is one of those scenes that I watch, and then without even realizing it is happening, the events of the scene hit me emotionally so deeply that I cannot help but begin crying.

Grace and I watched the scene together. Many times I encourage her to take in things like this to try and understand how one piece of art (the song in the opera) is used to enhance another piece of art (the plot of the film) and give it a deeper meaning. As we watched it, she asked what it meant, and I said that my best guess was that love is something that brings us such joy, but because true love is so precious, it often bring us deep pain. We talked about the way in which the narrative of the opera -- a daughter lamenting the death of her mother -- was being related to the the narrative of the film -- a gay man lamenting his own impending death in light of all that he loved about life. It brought to light that someone who was gay was not different from others. The emotions that we feel as humans are universal and transcend race, creed, national identity, age, and gender, as well as sexual preference.

The scene ends on an awkward note. The lighting returns to normal and we see Denzel Washington in solemn silence, unsure of how to react. He shuffles his papers together and while putting them into his briefcase explains that it's late and they should call it a night.

Grace asked me, "why is he so nervous?"

Wow. 16 years have passed since this movie was released. She watched the previous 15 minutes of the film: the oddity of Denzel Washington and his character's wife attending a gay party; the physical distance exercised between the two main characters; the way in which Denzel Washington bluntly told Tom Hanks that he was raised to think of gays as freaks and that he still thinks that way. Yet through all of this, she couldn't put herself back into a world in which being gay was dangerous. Just the idea that the film was made, released, watched, and awarded, was of enormous controversy outside of Hollywood. But Grace didn't live through this. She lived in a world post-Philadelphia. She was born a mere month before Tom Hanks received his Academy Awards for the role of Andrew Beckett. Her world is one where Ellen Degeneres came out on her sitcom and then went on to host the Academy Awards herself. A world where it is ok to be openly gay, even if you were a teen heart throb in a boy band.

Grace truly couldn't figure out why a professional attorney would be so uncomfortable in the situation of merely talking to a gay man. In 16 years, the world has changed so much that not only did she not find the scenario one that would be odd, she couldn't even figure out why it would be odd for anyone.

The world has changed. I know there is still a far way to go. But it is encouraging to me to see that my daughter really doesn't even have a knowledge of some of the "truths" my generation was raised to believe.

And now for something completely different...

I just heard this morning on NPR that President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Yea! I'm a member of the American Association of University Women (AAUW) who has been faithfully petitioning its audience for over a year to contact members of Congress to support this bill.

The law basically says that if an employee can show that they have received lower wages due to illegal discrimination on the basis of gender, they are entitled to lost wages without time limit. Prior to this, the Supreme Court had ruled that the maximum remittance could only be for the 180 days of employment prior to the claim of discrimination being filed.

One step closer to equal pay for equal work! I am so happy to see this!

Shameless plugs are always a good remedy to hate

Just a brief disclaimer before you start reading this post, I really am not back. When I'm really back, I have to respond to all y'all's wonderful comments, in addition to coming up with something good to say in a post. That moment has not yet come.***

OK, on to the issue at hand. There is a certain female conservative author, one who writes the craziest stuff, one who makes my blood boil. If you google her name, tons of hate messaging comes up. Well, she's out promoting a new book, so she's doing the rounds on morning shows and what not. This book talks about how everything wrong with the world is due to single mothers.

Now, at first when I saw this story and interview, I thought, I cannot be quiet. I have to talk about how much I dislike this woman and how insulting she is towards single mothers. But then I realized, if I write that, she'll only keep coming around. The only reason people like her get air time is because people like me will watch it and then rant about it, thus pushing the desirability of these kind of interview spots. I suddenly found myself angry I had even clicked on the story that talked about her interview this morning. The only way to yank the cord from this woman's bullhorn is to stop paying attention to her. So, I'm going to give attention to someone I REALLY LIKE. Since this horrid conservative hate machine in an interview this morning mentioned one of my new favorite female pundits, I'll give that favorite pundit lots of attention instead: RACHEL MADDOW.

I love Rachel Maddow. I could watch her all day. She is spicy and spunky, and smart (as in intelligent, that is). If I could convince every single person out there to watch Rachel Maddow, I would do it. I am so glad that msnbc gave her a platform to say what she wants.

Rachel, if you're out there, could you send me pictures of yourself that I could post here? Because I would love to promote you. You are my kind of woman. We are of the same generation and the same common sense mindset. I could waste my time and the time of my readers and the space on my blog by writing about people I hate, but why would I do that when I can write about someone I think is great?

I first fell in love with Rachel's style and reporting when I saw this video during the election season:



I mean, that woman has really got a way with words. You have to love her, right? There's tons more where that came from. Don't believe me? Google "Rachel Maddow" and have a fun time clicking around finding out more about her. Search "Rachel Maddow" on youtube and see what comes up. Watch the videos; she's funny...and really hits the nail right on the head.

So I'm just here to say, thank you to conservative hate-mongering female conservative pundit plugging your book this morning for mentioning Rachel Maddow in the interview. Because it gave me the opportunity not to link to you, or put a video up of you, or even mention your name here, but to promote Rachel Maddow in every way I know how. Now go shrivel up and die somewhere.

Matt Lauer, can you get Rachel back on the show?? I love nbc and msnbc!! I love Air America too!

***update - I am still pregnant, have had an ultrasound and two blood draws. My REE (reproductive endocrinologist) is ecstatic and wants to make sure SHE gets to do the second ultrasound next Friday. Meanwhile I crave coffee like a blood-starved vampire.

Searching for love

I will break for a moment from the accusing tone my ranting has taken on as of late. It is desperately needed.

I have been ranting for a few days about my frustration with religion. My background with religion is protestant christianity. I stopped going to church altogether 6 years ago.

Mostly my frustration with christianity has to do with what I perceive to be unethical acts of the church. Discrimination. Misrepresentation. Hypocrisy. Hate.

However...

Many of you know that I follow quite a few blogs written by bloggers who are faithful Christians. Like Mike at Emerging Pensees and Angela at angelawd. And Amira at Memoirs of a Single Mom. And I can't leave out Ana at The struggle within...

Lately I've been finding myself sad. No, let me take that back. "Sad" doesn't quite do it. I have been in mourning. I want so much to wake up and find that the truth of the religion I was raised in doesn't include discrimination or misrepresentation or hypocrisy or hate. I want to bring my child into a church and not worry that she'll hear the wrong message. Because I definitely heard a heapload of the wrong message. In fact, that was pretty much all I heard until I left the religion altogether at 30.

But I want the good parts. I want the charity. I want the acceptance and the empathy.

My sister shared this video that her local parish worked on:



I found it resounding of the same sentiments I shared in a post of mine a month ago. It is quite apropos that this message should come from the church to christians. Afterall, christmas is a christian holiday.

No, this doesn't answer all my concerns. Just two days ago "the leading U.S. Catholic prelate warned that President-elect Barack Obama's promise to unify the country would be shattered if he pursues policies to increase access to abortion." This from the same religion who bans any form of birth control.

Still, I wish for a day when I find a church that will throw out the prejudice and the discrimination and just follow what Jesus Christ said were the two most important commandments: "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Please give clean drinking water to all the souls on the planet. And please let women choose their own reproductive future by means other than abstinence. And please stop clinging to a few passages that damn gays to hell. Why? Because I so desperately want to believe that God is love, but all this tells me he can't possibly be the embodiment of love. If the church could just let go of these things, I could believe again.

I am not a rebel. I am not a renegade. I am someone who feels for my common man, and I so wish I could be part of a community of people who bond together under a teaching of non-discrimination and true love for all people. But I can't find it anywhere. Nowhere.

Gay marriage

So, Prop 8. Everybody's talking about it.

In one day I saw this video commentary by Keith Olbermann posted at 5 different blogs and facebook walls.

I've had notification of this national protest emailed to me and mentioned on two blogs.

My sister and I have had a little bit of a steely email exchange over this issue in the last couple days. She just converted to catholicism this year.

I have watched the actions and heard the comments of those around me, straight and gay, in response to this.

So it seems I arrive at needing to write about this.

I have been affected deeply by the comments and emotions of my friends who are gay. No, this isn't a "I'm not prejudiced; I have lots of friends who are gay" platform. On the contrary, their experiences, their emotions, their actions, and their suffering has led me to conclude that something must be done. I decided long ago that it was unethical to deny equal rights to people on the basis of sexual orientation. These equal rights include the right to marry. But now I've gone one step further in my thinking. I've now realized it is unethical to not do something about it. To sit by and enjoy certain rights while they are denied to others is wrong.

When I was getting divorced 6 years ago, I spoke to a good friend who happens to be gay. I was lamenting about how frustrated I was and how this felt so bad and how I just wanted to move past this time in my life. He said one thing that I'll never forget: "I wish I could find out what it feels like to get divorced, but I'll never know."

When I got engaged to be married almost 4 years ago, another one of my friends was joyous in the celebration. He didn't pause for a second and started making arrangements to travel to the US for the wedding. He, you see, is not a US citizen and didn't have a way to obtain a permanent residency card at the time. Part of the elation of coming to the wedding was being able to make another trip to the US to see his partner of 6 years, an American. They spent two years living apart before one of them could legally obtain a long term visa in the other's country of citizenship. To have them there at my wedding as a couple, knowing that they were celebrating with us what they so wanted and could not have, was a transforming experience for me. Realizing this, we requested that the presiding priest change the liturgy from "The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy" to "the union of two people in heart..." There was no mention of husband and wife or man and woman in the liturgy of the ceremony unless it referred to my now-husband and I.

I have many thoughts about this and I could write a whole volume on how sickened I have become over this whole issue. I've heard this: "if Prop 8 is not passed, they're going to teach about gay lifestyle in the schools." Well what's so bad about that? Do you mean to tell me that teens who are gay might actually have the experience of feeling normal during sex education? And pardon me, but is the insinuation here that gay sex practices will be taught? Because I can't believe that the opponents of same-sex marriage are in favor of teaching straight-sex practices in the school. Technique, straight or otherwise, is not something that's in the textbooks as far as I know.

I think a lot of people who oppose gay marriage have this line of thinking:

If the government legitimatizes same-sex marriage,
then gays and lesbians will feel they have a right to display their lifestyle freely.
In advertising, in movies, in children's textbooks, in public service announcements.
The public libraries would have books that present homosexuality as something normal,
just another expression of diversity.
That would be bad, because I don't agree with homosexuality.
I think it's wrong and it's a sin.
I don't want my kids growing up in a country where sin is legitimatized.
I don't want to be exposed to sin being presented as acceptable behavior.

If this is you, or someone you know, know that this is not tolerance. This is not moderate. This is not striking a balance.

This is putting a glossy packaging on discrimination.

If your religion condones this, then know that your religion endorses discrimination. My hunch is that the discrimination of said religion probably doesn't stop with gays and lesbians. It may extend to, say, women. Or foreigners. Or those who don't practice the religion. Or those who are not part of "a chosen people."

Think about it.

smooth transitions and house tours

I'm about to move. Two weeks. The whole thing has made me a little irrational. Yesterday I really did go to the websites of Crate&Barrel and Williams-Sonoma (I registered at both when I got married) looking for something new for my Thanksgiving table. It's not as if I don't already have plenty of stuff for a lovely holiday tabletop and more for decorations around the house. In fact, I have way too much stuff like this. I have so much stuff that there are still wedding gifts that my husband and I got received more than three years ago that haven't been used yet. I am probably the last person on the planet that needs to think about making a new purchase of china or serving pieces or tablecloths or home decorations.

(I will stop here to mention that I cannot possibly be more sick of this stuff than either of these two bloggers: Little Miss Sunshine State who just quit her job at Pottery Barn and Angela of angelawd who is blogging about her current stint at "Home Decorating Store." I promise I am not one of those crazy customers who acts like the world will fall apart if the subtle hues of my cloth napkins doesn't complement the rich tones in my cranberry sauce just perfectly.)

But the point is this: moving into a new house can make one a little giddy and, at time, silly. This apparently is more of an issue with the women than the men. It is with this realization that I question the sensibility of next Monday's home tour of the most famous house in this here fair country of the United States: The White House. President-elect Barack Obama and current President George W. Bush have decided upon next Monday for the date of the first of what will undoubtedly be many talks in order to ensure a smooth transition of a change of power during a time when the country is involved in two wars. While all that is well and good and not particularly interesting, what is interesting is the sub-headline to this news. Michelle Obama, of course, will be accompanying her husband to Washington for this visit. While the menfolk talk about politics and all those heavy things, the womenfolk will be discussing lighter matters in the White House residence. That's right -- Michelle Obama is getting a tour of the White House residence given by none other than First Lady Laura Bush.

Hm.

It's not that I think Michelle or Laura need to be involved in the talks about matters of state. It's not that I wouldn't want to do the same thing if I were in Michelle's shoes. It's the obvious nature in which this of course seems like the thing for the two of them to do. I mean, what else would Michelle Obama be doing? Clearly her husband can't be involved in such petty things as a house tour.

What if a woman were president? Would her husband come along for a house tour of the White House residence given by the current First Spouse?

I just bring this up to say, I feel like it will be a long time before that and many other glass ceilings are broken. I know that a lot of people got really excited that we were almost there with Hillary. But putting politics aside for a moment, realize that you've now put two women up for VP and one up for president and none have won. In contrast, the first African American MAN that made a serious run for the office won. No, I don't think Sarah Palin is the woman we wanted to see there. And the electorate revealed that Hillary Clinton, though very well-supported, was not the first pick of democratic voters in the primary. Since I was in 7th grade when Geraldine Ferraro ran for VP, I can't very well speak to that campaign season and election, so I won't. But still, when will it happen? Why is it so hard?

I know, I know, we can cite counterexamples in order to demonstrate that women really are pulling ahead. Nancy Pelosi. Madeleine Albright. Condi Rice. Sandra Day O'Connor. But I can't help noticing that these very talented women don't exactly constitute 50% of those who have held their positions, even in recent days. Before the election Tuesday, the Senate composition was 16 women, 84 men. Want a scarier statistic? Only 35 women have ever been a senator since the Senate's inception in 1789. In the House as of this past Monday, the composition was 79 women*, 356 men. Should I go on? Governors? Presidents of Universities? Supreme Court Justices? CEOs? International heads of state? How about this: Home owners. Engineers. Computer Scientists. Billionaires. What makes me sad about making this list is that I don't even have to do the research; we already know women are radically under-represented in positions of power.

Frustrated yet? I am. I'm sure that this past election will open people's eyes to the possibilities of leadership beyond white men. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for people to get over their prejudices against women in power.

I feel under-represented. It's not that I don't find men capable or that I don't want to work for them. I just don't want to have to always search for the exemplars of someone in power of whom I can think, now that person really understands my situation.

That's it.

*By the way, in case you're interested, I couldn't help noticing that 59 of those 79 U.S. House representatives are Democrats. Roughly 75%. And the number of female governors currently in the U.S.? 9, only 3 of which are Republicans. If that's not evidence of which party supports women, I don't know what is.

Taking action when the fire is inside you

Last night was the last home swim meet of the season. Grace was home sick so she didn't make it, however, I came just after the meet began with some brownies and crackers for the swimmers to have after the meet was over.

The high school building is new, and unfortunately they had one costly burglary just after some pricey electronics were delivered last spring. Consequently the building is oftentimes inconvenient to get into and navigate after hours. The staff and parents have been patient, figuring out the best ways to get in without compromising security. We all go through great efforts to look out for others who may be arriving for a meeting or event and not know the best ways to get in. We are especially helpful during home games and meets when parents from other schools are faced with a building they've never been to before.

Last night when I arrived at the school, the one door that is always reliably left open was locked. There was no way to get in. I and another parent banged keys against the windows loudly, walked around the large entrance, and then were relieved to see an equally tired-looking women coming to the door to let us in. She explained that she had walked all the way around the building to find an open door. We walked up to the pool and I asked the woman selling tickets at the door, a booster club parent volunteer, whether she knew the door was locked. She said no. I dropped off my snacks and told her I would look for a custodian to help.

About this time, another man came to the entrance of the pool and began speaking to the booster club parent volunteer. Actually, he started by yelling at her. I'll try not to be judgmental here, but he was a typical sports man -- white guy, late 40s or early 50s, decked out in sweatsuit and baseball cap of a local university's colors. He didn't really look like an athlete himself. He was yelling at the woman something like "This is a real problem for people! This is a public building! We have just gone through so much just to get into the building! There is a public event going on, a public swim meet! You have to do something about this right now!" There was more about how the police should be called immediately.

I couldn't help myself. I turned right back around and said loudly and directly, "sir, you need to be patient. We're going to ask the staff about it right now." He kept yelling. I said a bit louder, "You're not alone in this. We've all been inconvenienced." And finally, "you need to settle down sir and not take it out your anger on a parent volunteer."

He lowered his voice slightly and said to the woman, "I'm not angry with you, it's just that..." and I figured he had gotten my message.

Would he have behaved this way if the volunteer had been a man? I don't think so. Maybe, but I don't think so. I think he was pissed off and felt entitled, and took out his anger on the person he thought he could bully around, a woman.

There is a good end to the story. I found one of the operations workers who has helped me many times in the building in the past. I explained that there was no door open and then I told him about the angry man. He quickly radioed another worker in the building to unlock the door, and then, in his righteous outrage, he replied, "I don't have much authority around here, but I do have the authority to kick someone out of the building if they're speaking badly to a woman." He walked with me back to the pool deck. I left before I got to see how it all ended, but it warmed my heart to know that just as one person can be indignant and take that emotion out on someone in an abusive way, another person can be indignant and channel that emotion into seeing that injustice does not continue.

I give you all this not to show how wonderful I am, but rather to say, I need this fire in my belly to consistently fuel action. I can write about how outraged I am, but if I do nothing about the outrage and injustice, then I am a coward.

They're just too different

"I'm just concerned because the cultures are just so different."

Have you ever heard this? This was said to me a couple weeks back by a family member about her son's relationship with a young woman in Louisiana. He's white and she's black. The concerned mother has never met the young lady. The couple are in their early twenties. The mother told her son, don't bring her home for Thanksgiving. (By the way, home is in the deep north of Ohio, so don't go pointing your "stupid racist Southerners" finger.)

Sigh.

Let me put this completely into perspective. She said this to my husband and me. I don't want to point out the bleeding obvious, but we are from two different countries, speak two different languages, and yes, are from two completely different ethnic groups.

I tried not to be too offended, but rather be a little Socratic about the whole thing. I asked whether the son had a tendency to hook up with women in the past who were bad news, women of any color, that is. I asked whether it would be an option for the son to spend Thanksgiving with her family instead. I asked what they had heard about this woman - her major in college? what her family was like? In other words, I wanted to find out if there was a reason other than the color of her skin that gave one reason for such pause. I hope that in those couple minutes of conversation it became clear that there wasn't any other reason. If your tendency to be racist is not apparent to yourself, maybe someone asking the right questions might enable you to see things more clearly.

Conclusions? I could come to many. I realized this was just another example of how the world is not black and white, but black and not black. If the son were dating a woman of Asian descent I don't think there would be a concern of the two twenty-somethings differing culturally. And I guess you could say that since this was said to my husband and me, she wouldn't mind her son dating a woman of latin descent? I *think* this might be ok. It would be interesting to see. I've heard other people in my family say things like, "she's not latin, she's from Italy!" I hate to break it to them, but all the Italians I know (and there are many), they all consider themselves to be as latin as anyone in Latin America. My guess is that she'd condone a inter-cultural relationship between her white son and a Latin woman just in case she came to the United States directly from Europe with no stopover in Latin America. I also realized that racism is alive and well and people have become very adept at their phraseology in order to convince themselves that they are not, in fact, racists.

I have seen and read many commentaries of whether racism is still alive and well in the United States. Barack Obama's candidacy has created what Whoopi Goldberg termed a "national conversation" about the issue. Whether or not you believe racism will have an effect on the current presidential election and think we should talk about "race cards" and the like, I think it is important to call out racism when you see it.

I was deeply heartened to hear Colin Powell say this on Meet The Press Sunday:

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say.
And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.
He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is?
Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?
The answer's no, that's not America.
Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing
that he or she could be president?
Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion,
'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.'
This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Finally someone called this line of accusation out for what it really is -- deeply ethnic prejudice! What would be wrong with a Muslim American seeking the office of president of the United States?

There is an enormous lot that could be said on this topic. Now that I've cracked it open, I guess you can be sure to hear more. I'll pull this post close to home, though. I grew up in a country divided -- wounds were deep in the wake of the civil rights movement and the feminist movement. I lived in the south, and I witnessed the birth of the New South. I lived in a place that was being redefined by emigration, one of the truly multicultural areas in the United States - South Florida. People clashed on race, religion, language, culture, you name it. From what I've heard from others around the country, there aren't many other places that experience this in quite the same way as it has happened in South Florida over the last 50+ years. People become irate because they can't find a fluent English speaker at the grocery store. Their favorite brand of cereal is no longer on the shelf, having been replaced by some other ethnic group's staple. There's Jews and Muslims and Protestants and Catholics and Hindus. There's gays and lesbians and straight conservatives. You name it, it's there. Just on my short one block street were the following: my WASP family, 1st generation Dutch emigrants who attended high mass, the Jewish family, the Italian Americans from Brooklyn, and the Indian family who no one knew very well. There's no need to go around the corner to demonstrate the point. I remember when someone made the comment, 'the first black family has moved into the neighborhood.'

This was the environment I was raised in. Sometimes I heard horrible slurs and overgeneralizations and lies: Martin Luther King Jr. was a criminal and a communist who deserved to die. Cubans should just be grateful for what they have because they could be starving in their homeland. Blacks should be grateful to be in the United States, even with a history of slavery, because the US is way better than Africa. Pretentious Asians.

I could say all this was negative. But you know what? It wasn't. It was a world in which I learned that I couldn't just be in my comfort zone. You can't just say whatever you want and assume no one will be offended. I realized I have to check myself for prejudice and bias. Yes, I have my beliefs and my values, but I can't just go around in life assuming that differing views are to be scoffed at and ridiculed. Doggone it, I was grateful that on Christmas Day when we discovered we had no dinner rolls that the Jewish deli in the closest strip mall was open. I think it made me a person who doesn't worry about whether my friends are black or white, or whether my husband or my future children-in-laws are exactly like me. It made me realize, it is much more important to look at the character of a person and their ethics.

Through my life I grew to understand that race and language and the holiday traditions you were raised with are not the most important things to consider in building your life. You need to look deeper than this in people and overcome your first impulse to run from diversity and sit in your comfort zone. If I'm lucky, I can take this idea and extend it to every domain of my life, and hopefully I will benefit from the world around me and all its diversity has to offer to me.