Equal Pay -- 45 Years Later
Friday, April 18, 2008

In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, which stated:

(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions

Gee, that sounds so . . . . How shall I say it? . . . . . Egalitarian? Utopian? Lofty?

No.

How about: Simple. Logical. Fair. A No-Brainer.

The statistics below are for all women and men in the USA:

In 1970, women, on average, earned 61 cents for every dollar men earned.
In 1985, women earned 65 cents for every dollar men earned.
In 2000, women earned 74 cents for every dollar men earned.
Today, women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn.

On average, African-American women earn 63 cents, and Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men today.

Which starts to look . . . . how shall I say it? . . . . .

Oh, I know! -- Stupid. Sexist. Racist. UNFAIR.

In the nearly half-a-century since Congress momentarily snapped out of its somnambulant haze and decided to address one of the most glaring evidences of institutionalized sexism, women have gained an overall average of 16 cents/dollar in wage equity.

Before you get out the champagne and start reminding me that this is progress, let's put it into perspective, shall we?

The gains that have been made toward overall pay equity since the EPA passed in 1963 calculate out at a rise of a third of a penny per year -- and women are still making 23% less than men.

Let's talk about that in real terms.

Take the median income of the US population -- $44,334/year. Now, whack off that 23% -- which leaves you with an annual income of $34,138/year. Anybody want to take that pay cut?

Anyone want to work an extra 9.2 hours every week just to make up the difference?

Anyone? Anyone?

Right. I thought not.

I've had people (yes, usually men, but not always) tell me that feminism is no longer necessary, because women actually have equality now. I've even had people tell me that women have more rights than men in our society (yes, usually asshats Men's Rights Advocates, but not always).

What I want to say to them on this day -- Blog for Fair Pay Day -- is this:

You think that I, as a woman, have more rights than a man, and that women are now treated equally in our culture?

OK.

Let's swap.

I'll take that 23% pay increase, and you can have all my "extra" rights (along with, of course, all the other misogynist, sexist crap that I've dealt with in my life).

So, do we have a deal?

(On a serious note, there is action for you to take regarding equal pay for women -- visit the National Women's Law Center and read about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, contact your Senators, and Blog for Fair Pay today, April 18th, 2008.)

h/t to Shark-fu at AngryBlackBitch, whose blog is not to be missed.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:00 AM 14 comments  

Labels: Feminism, Gender, Politics

Orphan At The Family Picnic
Thursday, April 3, 2008

Let me begin by saying: Yes, we've made progress.

When I was born (and until I was in my early 20s), I was, by virtue of being a big old dyke, "mentally ill", according to the DSM II.

When I was 14, I still had to wear a dress to school, because I had a vagina -- even though no one was supposed to know about the whole vagina thing, except Mrs. Stains (unfortunate name, that), my phys ed/health teacher who was, apparently, the only person in the entire world who was actually authorized to use the word "vagina" out loud.

By the time I was 28, Wisconsin had become the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

So, yes -- we've made progress.

However, as this campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has unfolded, in a time when I think I should be all up and shouting "Progress!" because we (finally) have a black man and a woman vying for the nomination -- two historic "firsts" -- and we might actually have a Democratic president for the first time in this millenium -- I've realized that lately, I feel a bit like the orphan at the family picnic.

In many ways, I've actually been grateful that the process has exposed the underlying race-hatred and misogyny that I believe is alive and well in our society -- I think that having these destructive forces rear their ugly heads and become more exposed is probably helpful in the long run, if painful in the short run.

The danger of excusing "underground" racism/sexism/homopobia/classism is something I've written about many times, and exposure is probably the only way a culture in denial is ever going to really deal with the fact that we remain a society shot-through with institutionalized racism, sexism, homo-/trans-phobia, and classism.

There have been many, many discussions on the internet about the various racist and sexist tactics used during this nomination process.

I'm glad. I want those discussions!

I've noticed, though, that there really isn't much talk about LGBT rights these days. Sure, all the Democratic candidates say that we shouldn't be beaten up, or harrassed -- 'cuz that would be . . . you know . . . wrong -- but of the original candidates in the Dem race, only two supported full marriage rights for LGBT couples -- Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.

You know -- the weird ones -- the camera-starer and the UFO chaser.

In the course of various "political" discussions I've had in the past few months, I've been told, literally (by "progressives" no less) that it's "too soon" for gay marriage, that I should be patient, that if I feel concern about a candidate associating with a known homophobe, that I'm being "overly-sensitive", that I need to suck it up and vote the Party ticket even if I feel disenfranchised, and pitch in to help to put a Democrat in the White House, because they are going to be my only hope of change, etc., etc., etc..

If I put on my Political-Savvy Brain Modifier, all of those things even make sense. In a way. Sometimes.

But if I put on my Institutional Memory Stimulator, and dig into my Current Lifetime Experience Archives, I seem to remember that most things didn't actually change because disenfranchised people politely folded their hands in their laps and did as they were told.

The DSM II was changed because people (like me) started coming out, and refusing to cooperate with the code of silence, and refused to wear the mantle of shame that had been standard operating procedure for "How to Be Queer" up until the mid to late sixties.

The dress code at my High School was changed because a bunch of girls just stopped wearing dresses. They refused. They were threatened with expulsion. But pretty soon, there were enough of them that expelling all the offenders would have resulted in a an all-boy prom . . . . . and we couldn't have that, now, could we?

The State of Wisconsin passed anti-discrimination laws because there were some pushy, insistent, persistent queers who just would not STFU (to be fair -- it is possible that the majority of the straight populace may have been so busy watching the Packers and eating cheese curds that they simply didn't notice that the queers had taken over).

So, being told to shut my trap, mellow out, lighten up (yes, someone told me to "lighten up" yesterday, about the queer stuff) sounds to me exactly like: "Lie back and think of England."

At times, I've felt loathe to bring up the whole queer thing, what with all the meaty discussions of racism and misogyny that I believe actually DO need thorough discussion -- but that's when I start noticing that I feel like an orphan at the family picnic.

You know. No one wants to throw you out -- after all, you look too much like them -- but no one really wants to claim you, either. Everybody knows that it sucks to be you, but they're not really sure what to do about that. So here, kid, have a buffalo wing and some potato salad. Just don't expect anyone to be whipping out the old adoption papers.

Now, I could almost (I said, almost) understand this in the General Election. It's pretty easy for the Republicans to break out the old "Oh noees! S/He's friendly with teh Homoeees!" (Which they are probably going to do in any case, come the GE) -- but this nomination race is a race between DEMOCRATS! -- you know -- the people who are supposed to be all about Teh Freedom and Teh Equality?

The fact that most of the candidates (with the two quirky exceptions) haven't really made many strong statements about LGBTQ rights (except under direct questioning or as ass-covereage) during the run for the nomination troubles me . . . . a lot. [Update: As I was writing this, Hillary Clinton's interview with the Philadelphia Gay News was brought to my attention -- and yes, I consider that a strong statement in support of LGBTQ rights.]

As someone pointed out in a comment thread about candidates who are connected with known homophobes: "to make excuses for our candidates when they turn their backs on genuinely progressive issues---just because we've been flogged and fatigued into a place of fear and desperation---is to accept the ultimate Republican framing."

I think that maybe that's what troubles me. I seem to remember a time when truly progressive candidates were more unapologetically and vocally supportive of LGBTQ rights -- in fact, some of them actually pointed to this as one of the ways that they stood out from the crowd -- but it seems to me that the past 15 years of extreme right-wing Christianist pushback has put the fear of the fundies into our so-called progressive candidates (I believe that both the front runners are, essentially, moderates -- maybe even leaning-to-the-right moderates in some areas).

And that troubles me, too. The "political realities" for these two historic candidates almost mandate that they appear publicly moderate -- the old "fold your hands in your lap and wait your turn" thing being brought to bear -- but if I'm honest with myself, I think that, even politically, it's a mistake.

I think we need to be starting at our broadest, highest ideals, not starting from some luke-warm middle place in the hopes of acceptance. Because in the shell-game that is politics, it's very likely that there will be compromise from that broadest, highest vision -- so why start with something so diluted that it is sometimes virtually indistinguishable from conservative thought?

I often wonder: How can Hillary Clinton, a woman who's had to fight every step of the way to get to the place she is, and Barack Obama, a person of color who's had to fight every step of the way to get to the place he is -- (I believe that they both probably had to deal with a lot of shit to get where they each are, regardless of any current advantages they may have in terms of power and wealth) -- how could either of these people not understand that change comes only when oppressed people stand firm, talk back, and refuse to cooperate with the systems that are oppressing them. How can they not know this? Did they forget their own journeys?

It's at about this point in my ponderings that I often find that I just have to slap myself awake again. I mean, it's not as if I sit around everyday, all day, chanting "I'm queer, I'm queer, I'm queer." Most of the time, I don't even think about it -- I just go on living my life -- until I run into some reminder of homophobia, or I notice that teeny, tiny tick mark being made in my brain when I hear a speech that says something about "all people, regardless of race, creed, color, or class" . . . . but there's nothing about sexual or gender orientation.

For me, the entire situation brings up various spiritual dilemmas -- as a person who adheres to the concept that everything I manifest in my life is perfect -- even the stuff that may not look perfect at the moment -- I bring myself again and again back to a state of equilibrium when I get all wrought up about things political and social.

It is at these moments that I train my focus on the larger scope of things, and the smaller scope of things, attempting to remember that the political drama of one country on one planet looks much different from the stars that are shining outside my window, and from the viewpoints of the insects that are just beginning to hum lazily in the yard. I remind myself that politics is, in many ways, a form of Junior High Drama -- what is hot and bothersome today will be all but forgotten by next week, and that someday, as my friend John says: "This will all be history."

I'm really not sure where I'm going with this post. It's just that I noticed that orphan-y feeling coming up now and again, and I wanted to get it out of my head. I don't want to deny that part of me that sometimes feels as if it's standing outside in the cold, peering in through the window at the happy family gathering around Christmas dinner. I suspect that there is something informative and useful for me in that yearning.

Ah! Wait! Now I've got it! (I just knew that if I flopped around in my own language long enough, I'd get to the point.)

I don't want to wait anymore. It's a simple as that.

I don't want to scrape away at the mountains of ignorance with my needle. I want radical transformation. I don't want to be "reasonable" and "realistic", because I think the way most people in the status quo are living is not really well-reasoned, and the reality that is created by just accepting the same old shit isn't a reality I want to live in.

I want basic human rights and respectful treatment for everyone. Right now.

Because it's the only reasonable reality -- the only thing that makes sense for humans.

The only way that we all get to come in from the cold, and sit down to dinner.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 10:00 PM 12 comments  

Labels: Politics, Queers

Don't Even Bother Me, Then
Wednesday, February 13, 2008

A couple of weeks ago, I got my primary ballot in the mail.

My county moved to "all mail-in" ballots a couple of years ago.

The problem is: I actually like going to an actual voting booth -- it feels all civic-duty and shit -- but -- whatever.

Thing is, the Democratic party in Washington had already decided to assign 100% of their delegates through the caucus process.

Whatever.

But. Then. Don't. Send. Me. A. Fucking. Paper. Ballot.

Cuz, you know -- Paper=Trees? Postage=$? Huge Postal Vans=Fossil Fuels Depleted? For just a start . . . .

I'm a registered Democrat, and I know, I know, they were just trying to make sure that I didn't want to change my mind at the last minute and vote Republican. They were trying to help me out! Graciously, they sent me two ballots in my thick, heavy ballot mailing -- one Donkey and one Elephant -- and the extra-thick, extra-heavy, extra-secure ballot-return envelope gives you two boxes, so that you can sign either the Democratic or Republican Party Oath.

The Dem Oath being sort of Unitarian about it:

"I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election." (italics, mine, CAPS, theirs)

While the Repubs were a bit more demanding in the commitment area:

"I declare that I am a member of the Republican Party and I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party." (again, italics mine)

What seemed completely fucked up to me was that, amongst all of the "you must sign the Oath and check a box" and the Affidavit that I do solemnly swear, and the detailed directions for what to do if I used my blue pen instead of my black pen (I'm supposed to use a black pen -- and I can only use one of the two ballots or my vote will not be counted, and if I don't swear my party oath, my vote will not be counted, and if I falsely sign the oath, I can be punished by a maximum imprisonment of 5 years, a maximum fine of $10,000, or both!) -- what seems fucked up is that, while they found room on the ballot to print all this very clearly, they didn't bother to put on the Democratic Ballot any words like:

"It's a caucus, Shit-For-Brains! Don't bother to send this ballot in! Don't waste your stamp! Use this nice, heavy paper to make Origami instead!"

I must say that the caucus system is rage-inducing to me.

Sure, there was probably a point where it might have actually worked better than balloting -- a time when people lived in small, closely-knit villages, and everyone represented at the caucus (oh, except that, during that time, women and people of color probably couldn't vote) -- a time when babies and small children were not considered "inappropriate" as public accessories, so that parents could exercise their right to participate in the process without forking out $30-$40 to a baby-sitter (oh, except that, during that time, women stayed at home with the bairns and men did the voting) -- a time when businesses actually closed down so that workers could go do their civic duty (and if you don't think workers have to work on a Saturday, well, visit a town whose major industry is tourism) . . . . yes -- during a time like that -- well, maybe it might have worked.

The caucuses in my town are small (the town is small) by comparison to an urban caucus -- but that can actually work against people with disabilities, since few small-town caucuses provide sign-language interpretation or help for folks who have mobility challenges -- not to mention the basic issue for people who just aren't up for the fucking intensity of a caucus. I mean, really -- does a 100% caucus-based vote mean that the Democratic Party in Washington State doesn't value the votes of people with PTSD, anxiety-disorders, and elder voters who would rather be eaten alive by weevils than to sit in a room where people were shouting?

But I digress from my subject-matter -- which is: If you are going to fucking decide that 100% of the delegates in Washington State will be decided in caucus -- don't bother me with a ballot -- or at the very least, be sure to put across it, in big, red, diagonal letters: "This paper was just wasted . . . . oh -- and the stamp, too . . . . oh - and your time spent in opening it . . . . . oh, and the energy consumed in writing, printing, delivering, and eventually, recycling it. Sincerely, The Democratic Party of Washington State -- you know, the people who are worried about the Environment! Yep! That's Us!"

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:58 PM 2 comments  

Labels: Politics

Portly and the Loony Bin
Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Or "Why I Don't Want Anyone To Force Me to Buy Health Insurance."

Most of the Healthcare "reform" that's being touted by political candidates these days involves some sort of mandate that requires individuals who are not covered by their employers to buy health insurance from a private health insurer. Some of these plans include proposals for penalizing those who refuse by garnishing their wages or damaging their credit.

The following explains why I will be one of those who will face the penalty, rather than comply, if such a plan is put into law.

On April 1st of this year, I will celebrate 20 years of self-employment. Prior to 4/1/88, I had "regular jobs" with benefits and health-coverage (albeit shitty, Kaiser coverage) for my entire working life. After I became self-employed, I did the "responsible" thing and purchased private health insurance (thus foregoing any hope of long, lingering vacations in warm, sunny places, plus an arm and a leg).

I was an insurance company's cash-cow wet-dream -- the only claims I have ever made on my car insurance policy in a 36-year driving history were as a result of being hit by other drivers (which the insurance company recouped from the at-fault driver), I never made a single claim on my home insurance, and I'm generally healthy as a horse.

Except for this one thing that happened 15 years ago, which I've talked about before.

Hence the title of this post.

I'm not going to go into huge detail about my loony bin experiences in this post (hmmmm -- although I may start another series of posts -- "The Bedlam Yarns" -- what do you think?)

Suffice it to say that my first 8 day hospitalization for clinical, suicidal depression (the first time I had been hospitalized since I was born) -- cost $14,000.00.

At this time, $14,000.00 was well over half my annual income.

I didn't worry about that at the time, though -- because I had insurance, you see. Insurance that I paid upwards of $3000/year for. Insurance that was supposed to cover me if something bad happened -- like having a nervous breakdown.

Or so I thought.

Turns out that my insurance plan had a limit on any treatment for mental illness.

That limit? $1000/year.

Oh. Guess I missed that in the fine print (and it was very fine), on page 38 or so of the very lengthy policy.

Bummer.

So now, I was not only a wreck mentally -- I was also facing a $13G hospital bill. At a time when I was, shall we say -- not exactly "suited for work"? Not precisely a candidate for financial mover and shaker of the year?

It was at this point that I began to realize: Health Insurance is not about health coverage. It's about money. It's a gamble between you and a huge corporation.

They're betting that you don't get sick, and you're betting that you do.

Which is all kinds of fucked up, because the only way you "win" the bet is to do something that you probably don't want to do -- get sick.

(Life Insurance is an even weirder bet, since you're essentially betting that you'll die young -- and they're betting that you'll live to a ripe old age -- after they've sucked the bucks from you.)

During the five years I had been paying my insurance premiums before I got sick, I went to the doctor once a year for an annual check-up (which wasn't covered), and purchased a prescription drug called "Naproxen" (now known as "Alleve) for menstrual cramps (which also wasn't covered). That was it -- the entire extent of my need for medical care.

In fact, I had been taking Naproxen for cramps (as prescribed by my physician) before I purchased private health insurance, so the insurance company "rated" me on anything that involved my reproductive organs for the first 3 years of my coverage (which meant that they would not have covered any illness related in any way to my ovaries or uterus had I had a problem in those 3 years).

When I first applied for private insurance, I argued with the person who "rated" me for reproductive issues because I had taken a prescription medication.

I said: "Yes, I take it for cramps. Nearly every woman I know takes pain-medication for cramps."

She replied: "Not everyone takes prescription medication for cramps." (Note: Naproxen was de-regulated and went over-the-counter as "Alleve" about a year later, but I was still shit out of luck on my lady-bits. See how that works?)

But back to my story. I was mentally ill, suicidally depressed, owed $13,000 that I didn't have, and was unable to work. I was ineligible for any type of public assistance until I had been unemployed for four months or longer, and even after that, a social worker told me that applying for and getting medicaid assistance generally took one to three years -- if I qualified -- which meant that I would have to prove a long-term disability -- which meant that I couldn't get better if I wanted any help. The social worker told me, to my face: "You're going to have to look very sick to qualify."

During that first year, I was hospitalized again -- this time through an involuntary commitment process, as I was deeply depressed and ragingly suicidal at the time -- cuz life was looking so rosy, dontcha know.

The second hospitalization cost around $8000, which the hospital billed to me, even though I had been involuntarily committed. (They also booted me out much more quickly, because they had figured out that my insurance company wasn't going to pay up.)

I was able to work only very marginally for the next three years. I survived, during this time, through receiving generous help and support from loved ones (my ex, with whom I had purchased a house, cashed me out on what little equity I had), scaling back my life to nearly nothing (I lived in a used RV on community land where I paid $180/month for rent, and was able to raise a lot of my own food), and living on credit (which didn't last long).

Two years after my breakdown, I ended up declaring bankruptcy. Ironically, even though I had now learned the hard way that the insurance company was not my friend, I continued to pay my health-care premiums for four more years after the bankruptcy (like I said, I used to be crazy).

When they hiked the premiums to a level which I absolutely could not pay, I dropped my coverage. Since I was no longer grandfathered into a plan, and now had a history of mental illness, I became "un-insurable". To this day, I remain pretty much un-insurable -- at least in terms of insurance I could remotely afford (even though all this occurred 15 years ago).

I don't have health insurance now -- and I don't want it. For one thing, even if I had it, it wouldn't cover the type of health care that I focus on today (I see a naturopathic MD when I need a doctor, and focus on cultivating my wellness and health rather than "fighting" disease). I focus on preventative care, diet, and activities that tend to keep me away from the doctor's office.

I want to make very clear that I'm not "anti" traditional western medicine. There are some things that TWM does very well -- if I'm having a heart attack, or I cut my arm off -- for sure, take me to a well-equipped, traditional western hospital.

I'm just not convinced of the following: That the majority of western medical institutions, pressured as they are by the need to "show profit", inextricably intertwined as they are with private, for-profit insurance companies and Big Pharma interests who are more responsive to their stock-holders than to the people they are supposedly "helping" -- I'm not convinced that these institutions really have their eye on the ball concerning "health".

That's why I'm incredibly disturbed that the politicians of today, with rare exceptions (like Kucinich) seem to be focusing their health care initiatives on expanding a system (privatized insurance) that is already not working. ("Something broken? Let's do MORE of it! Yipee!!")

The only way a mandatory, privatized health plan would work for the customers/consumers would be if health insurance was incredibly regulated, and companies were forced to cover their customer's medical needs -- and if you're going to do that, why not rebuild the fucking system from the ground up?

The reason that they want everyone enrolled is that it broadens the "risk pool". That makes sense -- but in fact, it's just a form of socialized medicine, which is one of those "third rail" words that you will never hear falling out of a candidate's mouth. I'd be happy to pay into a system that honors my health choices, and let my "healthy-as-a-horse" condition subsidize someone who isn't as fortunate in their genetics or circumstances -- but not if my subsidy is doing more to line the pockets of some board-room fat-cat than to get a low-income kid an annual check-up, or a new kidney, or to help some working stiff get his back repaired after years of lifting garbage cans.

What I learned through the loony-bin insurance fiasco was this: The insurance company is not my "friend". It isn't there to "help" me. I haven't forgotten the lesson of that harsh thump against the Reality Wall -- that all those years I paid my premiums, we were just engaged in a particularly vicious little card game.

I won my bet. I got sick. Lucky me. But then, the company wriggled and squirmed and fine-printed its way out of its commitment to me.

Stupid me.
"Caveat emptor."
Let the buyer beware.

And that is why, in matters of health care, the game must not be one of sellers and buyers, but of providers and patients. Providers who are well remunerated for the invaluable service they bring (and I'm not just talking about Doctors, here), and patients whose health is the paramount focus of the entire system.

In my state alone, the biggest three health insurers nearly doubled their profit from 2003 ($243 million) to 2006 ($431 million), while the number of people that they actually covered dropped by 16.9% in approximately the same period (2002:2.37 million covered, 2006: 1.97 million covered).

Yeah. Let's take that as a national model. Yipee.

You can probably tell how moderate and calm I am about this topic -- and it is in that tone that I hope you'll receive my last sentence:

If the fucking government wants to fucking force me to buy fucking private health insurance, then they had better fucking BY GOD guarantee me that the fucking insurance company has to fucking cover my treatment -- every . . . fucking . . . . bit of it.

That is all.

(Please vote in comments if you would like to read any of The Bedlam Yarns -- don't worry, they're not all grim. The mental ward can actually be kind of funny . . . . after 15 years have passed.)

Posted byPortlyDyke at 8:20 PM 14 comments  

Labels: Health Insurance, Mental Health, Politics, True Stories, Very Personal Details

The Difference Between a Dog Whistle and a History Book
Friday, January 11, 2008

For those of you who participated in last night's Institutional Memory Quiz, the answer is: Adolph Hitler.

One commenter noted: "I didn't want to go there, as the whole Republican=Nazi narrative is insulting to many, but if I am correct I may just weep."

I agree that any sane person would be insulted to be compared to the founder of the Third Reich, and personally, I hate it when terms like "feminazi" and "fascist" get thrown around with abandon (and without any substantiating, factual evidence to back such characterizations) -- and that, my friends, is the difference between a "dog-whistle" and a history book.

You may have seen/heard the term "dog-whistle" quite a bit lately -- it generally refers to the use of a coded phrase which allows the speaker to "signal" a certain meaning to a targeted population which understands this meaning, while maintaining plausible deniability if they are called out.

I'd like to talk about what I call the "pavlovian dog whistle", which is the use of a word or phrase that touches on pre-existing enculturated fears and biases -- I believe that we see a lot of these in the news, and in political speech today.

I believe that this is why the phrase "Homosexual Agenda" works so well to inflame the radical Right.

The word "Homosexual", all on its lonesome, seems to engender a visceral response in those who have been trained, from birth, to believe that homosexuality is Teh Evil (yes, even in me, a die-hard queer).

Quite honestly, I've always found"homosexual" a fairly unpleasant word, in both sound and structure. It has too many syllables, for one thing, yet the first part of it simply cannot roll off the tongue in the light and lilting manner that the greater-syllabled "hetero-" seems to do.

Add to this the fact that, in order to pronounce "homosexual", you have to say the word "homo", which lingers in most English-speaking brains as the most withering school-yard taunt possible -- a word so awful that children had to point out that their milk was "homo"genized, and then dare each other to drink it. Yuk. Yuk.

Take this nasty, dreadful word and tack on the word "Agenda", and Voila! -- you summon the image of meetings, plans, organized action, and the dire plottings of the kids you terrorized on the playground by calling them a "homo", now bent en masse on exacting their revenge.

Now that's scary.

The thing is: There has never, in the history of civilization, been a mass take-over of any country by "homosexuals". Never. Homosexuals have never instigated executions of heterosexuals, or closed down heterosexual night-clubs, or made laws that prohibited heterosexuals from enjoying sex or marriage with their chosen partners. Never. Not once.

There are all sorts of pavlovian dog-whistles out there these days, rousing the hounds who consciously want to continue racism, sexism, antisemitism, and xenophobia -- and worse, evoking responses in people who don't consciously embrace such views, but who may be unaware that certain deeply enculturated biases are being stimulated in them.

I hear them all the time -- the most prominent being: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

This meme saturates the "news"-media. It doesn't really matter what "they" say, or imply, you "should" be afraid of -- the big black guy, the money-grubbing jew, the conniving woman, the homo who wants to molest your kids, the Muslim terrorist, the illegal-alien -- it just matters that you're afraid.

Some could argue that, by posting my Institutional Memory Quiz, I'm blowing a Bush=Hitler dog-whistle -- however, to me there is a difference, and that difference rests in what I'm asking you to do with the information. I'm asking you to take a look at documented actions of one individual, and compare them to documented actions of another individual -- not so that you will be afraid, not so that you will demonize that individual, but so that you will critically consider those actions, and draw your own correlations and conclusions.

We, as a species, within living memory, have seen actions like these before. Our parents and grandparents can speak to us about the likely consequences of such actions. They can tell us where these roads lead, so that we can take a different path.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Insanity: Doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:45 PM 4 comments  

Labels: Institutional Memory, Media Lies, No More Fear, Politics, Queers

Institutional Memory -- A Thing of The Future
Thursday, January 10, 2008

When I was younger (pre-30s), I most often hung around with people who were older than I was, because the people "my age" didn't seem all that interested in what I was interested in (poetry, politics, thinking, etc.)

Now, I find that I often hang around/resonate with people who are younger than I am, because most of the people "my age" don't seem all that interested in what I'm interested in.

I find that many people "my age" are interested primarily in their stocks and bonds, property values, retirement funds, etc. -- even though they used to be hippies (hmmm -- guess I have a judgment about that).

I'm a pretty "live and let live" kind of gal, so I tend to respect their choices, but choose to share my deepest interactions with people who are more interested in personal transformation, evolutionary thinking, etc. (no matter what that might mean for their financial "bottom line").

I know. Call me wacky.

One of the only things that troubles me about interacting with friends who are much younger than I am is this: I've actually watched a half-century pass, and I have (I believe) a few insights about certain things which are cyclic, and things that are truly new.

With my younger friends, I work very hard to not be uber-pendantic about what I affectionately refer to as "institutional memory". At the same time, I sometimes want to wave a big red flag in front of them (about one inch from their eyes) and scream: "Helloooo!!!! This is not a 'new' drama! It's been done!!!"

This relates to both personal and political situations.

I want to learn to share what I know with my younger friends without bludgeoning them over the head with my half-century of experience, and going all "elder" on their asses, because I realize that some/most of them were not even alive during the Nixon era, much less the original moon-walk (not the Michael Jackson version), or JFK's assassination. While most of my younger friends are old enough to have completed college, I realize that many of them may not have studied history in any real depth.

However --for friends who are my age or older I find that I don't have as much tolerance for their "institutional amnesia". I want to say: "Hey! Eyes up here!! Wake up! We've been through this before. Don't you remember?"

I do tend to grant some level of dispensation to those who have had "conversion" experiences over the past half-century -- people who started out as die-hard conservatives and later became die-hard liberals -- folks who used to think that life was simply suffering, but who now realize that life could just be an amazing circus ride -- people who didn't have a clue about why civil rights were important for everyone, but who had an awakening that brought them to the understanding that "if anyone is oppressed, everyone is oppressed" -- stuff like that -- because I realize that there may be nuances to past situations that were completely transparent to them at the time, and in some arenas of society, there have been a fuck of a lot of changes since 1956.

However.

If you're over the age of 30, you've been able to buy booze since 1998, and able to vote since 1995. You were at least a teenager when the first "Gulf War" was fought.

If you're over the age of 40, you were a legal adult by 1985, so you witnessed the craptacticness of "Reaganomics".

If you're over the age of 50, you were a legal adult by 1975, and . Etc., etc., etc..

If you were college-educated, you had ample opportunity to study history.

So, I thought I'd come up with a little "Institutional Memory Test", to help oldsters sharpen up their skills, and give the youngsters the benefit of my rather long and jaded memory, plus my mad history skillz.

1. Prior to George W. Bush, what other democratically elected leader of a western nation did all of the below:
   
   
   • Was elected to office without the majority of the popular vote, due to oddities of "proportional voting" schemes.
   
   
   • Circumvented previous protections in the national constitution which allowed infringement on the privacy of personal communications of the citizens of his nation (post, telegraph, and telephone).
   
   
   • Initiated a war on foreign soul against a nation that had never attacked his country.
   
   
   • Permitted the use of enhanced/sharpened "interrogation" techniques such as 1) sleep deprivation, 2) exhaustion exercises, 3) darkened cells, and 4) physical brutality as long as a doctor was present for some types of physical brutality, in the case that "the prisoner can give information about important facts, connections or plans hostile to the state or the legal system".
   
   Please pick up your pencils and begin now. You have 15 minutes.
   

Posted byPortlyDyke at 10:30 PM 9 comments  

Labels: Institutional Memory, Politics

If I Believe My Spam Filter . . . .
Monday, January 7, 2008

. . . . . Hillary Clinton is definitely going to be our next president.

Recently, I've been deluged with spam about how Hillary Clinton is Teh Evil -- the most recent spate has alerted me to the fact that Hillary is a Witch (the Horror!).

This is the thing: If "they" are working so hard to make sure that I don't vote for her (30 emails in the last three days), it must mean that "they" think that she is actually the candidate to worry about.

Oh, I find this shit endlessly entertaining.

It's just like Junior High.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:56 PM 4 comments  

Labels: Feminism, Politics, Poo in the Kiddie Pool

The Awkward, Gangly Form of Hope
Thursday, December 27, 2007

I wrote, last August, about my perception that certain audacious political acts were a sure sign of desperation in those who want to stymie progressive action in our culture.

Tonight, I commented:

"If I could give one thing to every progressive I know, it would be more confidence in the inevitability of human evolution."

This is not rhetoric for me. It represents my deepest beliefs.

I believe that progressive, expansive attitudes/action -- attitudes and action that lead us to ever-increasing connection with other humans, other beings, our planet, and the Universe that we live in -- are the natural trajectory of our evolutionary path.

I want to bottle that somehow, and give a big dose of it to every human I know.

I've noticed, lately, that many people near my own age have been popping up with the question: "What happened to us? We used to be so idealistic! We were going to change the world!"

I've noticed, lately, that many people older than I have been popping up with the question: "What can I do? I'm old. I'm glad I won't be around to see the fallout from this mess."

I've noticed, lately, that many people younger than I have been popping up with the question: "What can I do? I just have to deal with the crap these other generations have left for me."

I think that, in this culture, we are trained to believe that idealism, optimism, and hopefulness is the bailiwick of the young and the foolish.

I say: Fuck that.

For all progressives out there, regardless of age, who have swallowed the numbing drug of ennui/apathy/disenchantment, I want to say: "Buck up. Don't you recognize the screams of dying dinosaurs when you hear them? "

The people who want to drag us back to previous eras of oppression will not win the next election. They won't. They know it.

Isn't it time we know it?

Isn't it time that we stop acting like an entrenched, embattled minority, and step forward to act with the integrity and idealism that we want our government leaders to embody?

I want to encourage you to nurture your hope, your idealism, and your vision for the way the world can be -- to consciously feed this part of you, every day, as you would nourish a beloved child -- to vote, not for a candidate who is considered "electable", but for a candidate who actually represents your vision.

One of the things that I was painfully aware of during the 2000 and 2004 elections was this: Most progressives weren't really voting "for" anyone -- they were voting "against" someone.

Given what I understand of energy-dynamics, this simply isn't effective -- as the old saying goes: "Fighting for Peace is like Fucking for Birth-Control."

In my lifetime, I've witnessed: JFK's assassination, the Watts Riots, the Vietnam War, Watergate, Reagonomics, a major recession, several stock-market dips that everyone knew would destroy us, the First Gulf War, 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, etc., etc., etc..

In my lifetime, I've witnessed the vagaries of many economic and political cycles, and the surge and counter-surge of social movements that have changed the roles of people of color, women, and queers in daily life:

• When I was six months old, the Supreme Court declared that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. When I was five years old, JFK created the EEOC, but interracial marriage was still illegal in 16 states until I was 11.
  
• When I started High School, all female students at my school were required to wear dresses to school. When I graduated High School, I was wearing patched blue-jeans and leather moccasins that I made myself.
• When I came out to myself as a lesbian, Homosexuality was still listed as a mental illness in the DSM. Today, my alma-mater has an entire section on their website for LGBTQ resources.

I'm trying to say: Things do change. Things have changed.

I believe that they changed because individual human beings had the audacity to remain hopeful, idealistic, and alive -- that they practiced their integrity, and insisted upon their vision, and refused the easy out that is despair.

It doesn't matter how old, or how young, you are. It matters that you remain engaged.

The world that you want to live in is possible.

And if that strikes you as completely idealistic -- sappy -- wev -- then take a big old slug from Portly's Everlasting Jug of Possibility, and give up your fashionable pessimism, already.

The Awkward, Gangly Form of Hope

Hope is a teenager
who never learned to be cool,
or how to slouch with feigned indifference
against the lockers of my heart.

Instead, it drops its books
and stumbles into strangers --
pushes its glasses into place,
and proceeds to class despite all odds.

The popular kids may pass with derisive stares,
with skin-deep beauty that cannot hide their fear.
Hope just keeps gaffing its way along,
unfashionable, clumsy, embarrassingly authentic.
© Carol Steinel 2007

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:20 PM 2 comments  

Labels: Dying Dinosaurs, Hope, Politics, Progressives

Tidbit Por Mitt
Sunday, December 23, 2007

I promised I'd get back to blogging daily, and so I shall -- here is my daily tidbit (don't worry, I'm not going to deluge you with video nothingnesses):

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:44 PM 0 comments  

Labels: Politics, Video, Xtians

Portly Dyke's Guide to Things That Do Not Exist
Saturday, December 22, 2007

Posted byPortlyDyke at 12:00 PM 3 comments  

Labels: Advice, Freedom, Politics, Queers, Shakesville, Speaking Up, Truth, Xtians

Entertainment While I Work On a Real Post
Wednesday, December 19, 2007

I love the Internet.



h/t to oddjob -- via The Daily Dish

"Not Much of a Hunter" -- Hysterical!

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:44 PM 5 comments  

Labels: Blogging, Politics, Teh Internet, Video, Xtians

It's Always Darkest Before the Fat Lady Sings
Friday, August 24, 2007

The last couple of weeks, I've been experiencing profound ennui around blogging.

As I've sifted through news items and blogs, and watched stories of completely contemptuous behavior from the White House, failure after failure to actually support the troops that war-mongers supposedly lurv, very thinly disguised or completely undisguised preparations for implementing martial law (now with new improved theocracy sauce^[tm] !), and corporate welfare that passeth all human understanding, well, let's just say I've felt a little down. Slightly impotent. As Shakespeare's Sister said yesterday, I've been feeling the Big Wev.

I've been starting a post, and then thinking "Well, shit. This isn't going to make any difference, anyway."

Sometimes I've simply stopped typing in mid-word.

I hate this kind of apathy in myself. I think it's precisely what the asshats-that-be powers-that-be want us to feel.

I started thinking about that impotent apathy I was feeling, in light of some of the shit that I've been reading in the news. The White House will write the Petraeus report. It will refuse to release subpoenaed information. Georgie boy is suddenly unabashedly invoking Vietnam (which, until now, seemed to be a third-rail thing). All of this is being released to the MSM in a sort of flamboyant, 13-year-old way, as if the administration is trying to send the message, very obviously: "You can't stop me. Nyah, nyah, nyah!"

I'm not so naive as to think that the White House couldn't do all the shit it's doing right now, and do a better job of keeping it hushed up. The blatancy of the actions we've been seeing recently indicate to me that one of two things might be happening:

1. The asshats-that-be actually think that they have now amassed enough power that they could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, to whoever they wanted, OR
2. The asshats-that-be are doing everything that they can to present this image of omnipotence, and to convince people that they have this power.

Then, yesterday, I saw this piece at Crooks and Liars, and I thought "Hmmm. Ari Fleischer appearing as representative of a White House front group grass-roots coalition which is spending $15 million dollars to stir up support for the Iraq war. Hmmm. Now why would he be doing that?"

I could come up with only one logical explanation: Because they are desperate. Because they know that nearly 70% of all citizens oppose the war. Because they know they are losing the battle to keep the war. I think they also know they are going to lose the next election (despite the wimpitude of the new Democratic majority in Congress).

When I considered it this way, the new "in your face" defiance of the White House made sense to me. Like any self-despising bully who realizes that he's out-numbered, Bush is blustering while he eyes all possible escape routes.

Suddenly, I found new energy, and new hope.

While I have occasionally seriously worried about the preznut (and his puppeteers) declaring martial law in order to prevent a Dem from taking the White House and making himself dictator for life, I simply remind myself that two-thirds of the population would either fight this, or quietly drink hemlock rather than face a lifetime supply of GWB.

So, I'm finding a glimmer of optimism as I scan the raving of the wingers.

Even my aging midwestern parents cast a jaded eye on the MSM these days, and have begun to turn to "alternative" sources for their news. As Murdock swallows up all things media, real journalism is blossoming on the web -- a bevy of activist broad-sides flutter down my internet tubes every day, all day -- and if you think the MSM isn't worried about the real effect of those writings, think back on the prolonged hissy fit that Billy O had last month in an attempt to discredit Daily KOS. If you really think this was just the reaction of one (admittedly) crazed pundip, rather than a directive from a concerned media mogul and his minions, well, I have some ocean-front property in Kansas you might be interested in.

So, viva la desesperación! In the coming days, I'm simply going to re-framing the "bad news" into one glowing headline: "Asshats-That-Be Admit Progressive Movement is Winning."

Posted byPortlyDyke at 6:36 AM 6 comments  

Labels: Dying Dinosaurs, Hope, Politics

TTDT -- The Final Day of the 30-day Angst Loss Challenge
Monday, August 6, 2007

Yes, my compatriots, it's been 30 days, and I have one last Portly Thing to Do Today for you -- check the list below, and see if one of your House or Senate Representatives is on it -- if they are, send them one ass-whupping letter about how pissed off you are about their gutless betrayal of the Constitution.

I'm going to go on a bit before I give you the list, just to give you a reminder of how completely possible it was for Congress not to pass the "Protect America Act". In the Senate, it needed a 3/5 vote to pass, and if the 30%!!! of elected Democratic senators who voted "yea" for this bill had remembered their constitutional oath and voted "nay", it would not have passed. Do you get that? But since such liberal luminaries as Feinstein and Inouye said "Fine Mr. President, have whatever you want", we now live in a country where warrantless wire-tapping of citizens is not only legal, but part of a plan to "protect" us.

If 17% of elected Democratic House Reps hadn't copped out, it wouldn't have passed in the House, either.

I think I explained a couple of weeks ago about why I don't give a lot of head-space to "politics" -- today only validated, for me, that this is a wise choice. Still, since the Congressional debacle has occupied so much space in my head for the past two days, I am going to be as good as my word and DO something. I'm going to write Patty Murray (one of my senators) and ask her why the fuck she didn't even bother to vote on this bill (the same question could be put to John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, by the way).

So, here's the list (by state)-- check and see if any of your representatives are now members of the "Bend Over, Citizen" Club. If they are, send them a diatribe (or three, or five).

"Democrats" in the House who voted Yea to "protect" America

Cramer (D - AL)
Davis (D-AL)
Ross (D- AR)
Snyder (D-AR)
Mitchell (D- AZ)
Costa (D-CA)
Salazar (D-CO)
Boyd (D-FL)
Barrow (D- GA)
Marshall (D-GA)
Boswell (D-IA)
Bean (D-IL)
Lipinski (D-IL)
Donnelly (D- IN)
Ellsworth (D-IN)
Hill (D-IN)
Chandler (D-KY)
Melancon (D-LA)
Peterson (D-MN)
Walz (D-MN)
Taylor (D-MS)
Etheridge (D-NC)
McIntyre (D-NC)
Shuler (D-NC)
Pomeroy (D-ND)
Higgins(D-NY)
Space (D-OH)
Wilson (D-OH)
Boren (D-OK)
Altmire (D-PA)
Carney (D-PA)
Herseth (D-SD)
Cooper (D-TN)
Davis (D-TN)
Gordon (D-TN)
Tanner (D-TN)
Cuellar (D-TX)
Edwards (D-TX)
Lampson (D-TX)
Rodriguez (D-TX)
Matheson (D-UT)

"Democrats" who voted Yea in the Senate to "protect" America

Lincoln (D-AR)
Pryor (D-AR)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Salazar (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Nelson (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Conrad (D-ND)
Nelson (D-NE)
Casey (D-PA)
Webb (D-VA)

For more information on the voting record, including those who just couldn't find the time to vote on this bill (cause it's so trivial and all) -- see HERE.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:30 PM 4 comments  

Labels: angst-Loss, Politics, Progressives

Empathy for the Cultural Ulcer
Thursday, July 26, 2007

Today, a friend was was talking to me about how completely Alberto Gonzalez was screwing up, and I had the actual experience of feeling physically sick to my stomach.

Sure, I've felt sick to my stomach (a lot) when I read about/watched Gonzo's exploits. Or W's exploits, or Cheney's, or Rove's, or Snow's, or, or, or . . . . . . but today, it was a different kind of sick.

I actually had this moment of empathy. I remembered what it was like to work for a psychotic fucking boss who told you to do things that were obviously and clearly wrong/illegal/unethical/wrong/wrong/wrong, but from whose reality it seemed impossible to disengage, even while knowing that eventually, the shit was going to hit the fan.

I really don't want to feel empathy for any of them -- not a one of them -- as far as I'm concerned (rationally), they've made their beds and can lie in them. (Luckily for me, my spiritual beliefs are such that I am certain that they will actually lie in those beds, eventually, in this life or the next.)

But I did have this moment -- just a moment, mind you -- when I remembered that sick, hopeless feeling of knowing that I had become embroiled in an absolutely corrupt system. That time when I walked around in a permanent state of adrenal-shock and angst.

Here's a personal story: When I was 21, I worked as a gas-station attendant. It was one of the several jobs I did then, to "make ends meet" (what ends? meet where? as Eddie Izzard would say). My "boss" went from station to station that she managed (she was a "dyke", so I trusted her -- ha! ha! stupid me!), and was dipping from the till at every station she managed. She would tell me to short-change and over-charge customers to make up the difference. It drove me nuts. I actually put money out of my own pocket into the till to cover the difference at times, before I passed it on to the next co-worker.

I lasted about 4 months before I "turned her in" to the regional manager. I was fired. She stayed on.

Here's what prompted my empathy tonight: In those four months, I experienced a huge amount of internal conflict, physical and emotional suffering, perpetual angst, and "red-alert" adrenal states (constantly being on the verge of being "found out" can really fuck with your adrenalin quotient).

And that was a gas-station in the middle of bum-fuck nowhere, that probably did, at best, maybe $500.00 worth of business every day (remember, gas was $.59/gallon in those days).

I was trying, tonight, to imagine what it must be like to know that you're lying, and that your boss is lying, and your boss' bosses are lying, and that what is at stake is not $500/day in gas-station receipts, but billions of dollars/day and thousands of lives/day -- and I thought: You would either have to be completely disassociated from any human/sensing part of yourself (a distinct possibility, and, if true, very, very sad), or in a complete state of ongoing panic and terror (a distinct possibility, and if true, very,very sad).

Please don't mistake my empathy for excusing these people from their actions and choices. I do not excuse them, any more than I excuse myself for participating in a corrupt system for 4 months, even though I thought I "had to" in order to survive.

I want to develop my ideal of compassionate accountability -- to hold myself and others accountable for their choices, while never forgetting that we are human beings (and by this, I don't mean simply discounting "bad"behavior as "human nature", but understanding that we are animals distinctly focused on survival, and simultaneously capable of sublime transcendence from a state of mere survival).

It's very difficult for me to imagine the "humans" behind the masks that I see presented at senate and house hearings, at press conferences, campaign stops, and pundit-fests, but I think that it is essential that I continue to attempt to do so -- not so that I can be a "good" person, but from a very selfish point of view -- so that I am not scared shitless.

When I was 14, a friend's mother (who was known in our little town as a "loose woman" because her children's father was not around, and a "drunk" because she actually didn't hide her drinking) gave me some very good advice: "Hon, if you're ever afraid of anyone, just think about them sitting on the pot, taking a shit."

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:12 PM 3 comments  

Labels: Politics, True Stories

Things I Don't Spend Much Time On Anymore
Sunday, July 22, 2007

For those of you who found me through comments I've made at other blogs (such as the inimitable Shakesville), you may have noticed that I tend to comment (frequently) on some topics and leave other topics pretty much alone.

Oh, I read all the posts, even most of the comments, but there are some issues and areas that I simply don't give much of my energy to anymore in terms of outflow.

For example, you'll rarely find a comment from me on a thread that is purely confined to discussion of recent political events. That may seem counter-intuitive, since it's probably clear that I have an activist streak a mile wide (or at least the residual of same).

The reason is this: I've been around for quite a while now.

I cast my first presidential vote for Jimmy Carter in 1976 (the Bi-Centennial! Rah! Rah! Rah!). I didn't cast another vote for a president who actually won for another 16 years. I lived through the Reagan era as a social worker working for a government agency with low-income and homeless populations, and witnessed, up close and personal, the morass that is "welfare agency as a small boat manipulated by political tides".

When my "ally" Bill Clinton won in 1992, we were "standing at the threshold of a new era!^[tm]!" I canvassed and volunteered for the '92 Clinton campaign, and got a whole bunch of queers to give up a whole bunch of their money to the man who was going to champion our rights. I was so excited!

When he wrote, and then signed into the law, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", in his first year of presidency, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I never, ever, saw it coming, I swear to you.

Let's just say that on that day, my belief in political solutions was seriously eroded. OK. Massively --and perhaps, fatally -- eroded.

It's not that I'm encouraging people to ignore politics, exactly -- but I find it personally very hard to "get it up" to experience true outrage over various political shenanigans that I have, through hard experience, merely come to expect.

Like the new Congressional "leadership". Yeah, sure, I did afford myself a moment of giddy exhilaration after Election '06 -- a brief hopefulness that I was yet again standing at the threshold of some new "new era".

But I must say that I haven't been all that surprised at the slippery-slidey erosion in congressional fortitude amongst the Dems.

I'm no longer shocked when candidates, pundits, and office-holders are revealed as hypocrites, harlots, and hacks.

Frankly, I'm more often amazed when a politician is ethical, follows through on a promise, or takes a truly courageous stand in the face of popular opinion or partisan opposition.

I have paid my dues as an activist. I've protested, canvassed, sat on PACs and advisory councils, organized grass-roots actions, raised money, signed and gathered signatures for petitions, come out publically in a major newspaper, directly confronted racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, fatphobia, and classism, served as a legislative aid, marched with union workers, people of color, queers, homeless people -- I spent the bulk of nearly 30 years immersed in political activism.

After all that time in the trenches, I came to this conclusion: I don't think that changing politics will necessarily change our culture. I think that changing individuals will change our culture, because these changed individuals will vote for candidates who will change the face of politics.

So, while I occasionally allow myself a moment of strumg und drang over things political, I tend to conserve my energy and steer it into interactions and actions that I think might actually create change in the world.

People still seem astounded that George W. Bush won a second election (if he did, in fact, win a first one). One thing that I noticed, though, was that most of the people that I know (and yes, I do know some) who voted for Bush actually voted FOR him, whereas most of the people I know who voted for Democratic presidential candidates weren't really voting for anyone -- they were voting AGAINST Bush.

Energetically, I think there is a vast difference.

That was one of the reasons that I issued the 30-day angst-loss challenge. I'm more interested in actually changing things, now, than just getting myself worked up, talking myself down, and going on my merry way.

Here, at day 15 of my own angst-loss experiment, I must say that it has been helpful. I've sent over 15 written communications to congresspeople, government agencies, and advertisers, I've kept my mouth shut at times when I might not have otherwise, because I was just about to piss and moan rather than think and act, and I've generally stewed in my own juices just a bit less. I'm not sure that my communications will actually do much of anything to change the minds of the currently-installed politicos, but it has helped me to know that I did something.

In spite of everything I've experienced as a "political being", I suspect that we are now at an important crux -- that we actually are at the threshold of a new era -- on the verge, or maybe in the midst of, a great cultural change -- and I believe that this change can be a change for the better. I don't believe that I will find that reflected in the mainstream media. In fact, I think the MSM is frantically attempting to distract us away from the fact that we are changing.

In the USA, for the first time in history, we have a majority of full-grown adults who have never lived without the concept of email and the internet. (Why do you think the corporations are all so hot to control the web?) I think that this concept alone has the capacity to shatter the insularity with which this nation has clothed itself.

The capacity.

So, I want to put my energy on the web to the best use that I can think of --awareness-raising, connective dialogue, and hopefully, transformation.

(OK, that entire thing was probably distinctly unfocused and rambling. Fuck it. It's late and I'm tired.)

ps. Don't worry. I still vote -- I just don't scream and yell about it. Hurts my throat.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 2:03 PM 4 comments  

Labels: angst-Loss, Hope, Politics

TTDT -- Be Prepared to Speak Your Truth
Wednesday, July 18, 2007

I think we've all had the experience. Someone -- perhaps someone we know, love, or expect something different from -- says something, right in front of us, that we find so offensive, ignorant, discriminatory, and/or demeaning-- that we are absolutely flabbergasted.

Example: My mother (the woman who used to be all liberal and shit -- who taught me that racism was a really bad thing) says to me, during a phone call, of the Somalian refugees who are now living in her small town: "Well, they all look alike you know!"

Example: My co-workers, who work every day with my white boss (who happens to be married to a black man), and seem to love and respect her, wait until she, and every person of color, is out of the room before they exclaim over the picture of her new daughter: "Oh, thank goodness -- she's so light!"

These are only two of many (personally-experienced) examples -- examples of speech that I recognized, in the moment, as absolutely, positively, unvarnished racism-in-action.

When I heard these statements, I didn't wonder in my head (as I often do, when I receive or overhear a fat-phobic or homophobic comment, however overt) -- "Am I just being sensitive because this is 'my' issue?" I knew immediately that these comments were offensive, ignorant, discriminatory and demeaning.

Yet, in both of the examples above, I was utterly flummoxed at the moment. I did not make an immediate response. I did not speak my truth in the moment, and I lived with regret about that afterward, stewing for days and days about what I should have done in the moment, regardless of what action I took later.

In the first example with my mom, at that moment, I remember that I stammered -- my dad, lingering on the extension phone, jumped in for a quick recovery, changed the subject, and ended the phone call within the next 60 seconds.

In the second example with my co-workers, my jaw actually dropped -- I simply stared, speechless, at them over the picture of this beautiful child, and before I could think of what to say, they had already slunk away to their respective work-stations, and left me standing alone in the break-room.

In both of these encounters, and in many others -- like "Joe" (Vs. the Volcano), as he quits his "job" -- I found my mind whirling around this phrase:

"I should say something."

In truth, however, at each of these moments, I had no idea what to say. While I tried to catch my breath, my brain was, no doubt, busy calculating the risks of possible confrontation, the likelihood of effecting change in the situation, and the emotional and energetic cost of engaging with someone who could say "something like that" while I was a) totally pissed off/triggered, b) uncertain whether I ever wanted to talk to them again, and c) totally pissed off/triggered.

Would I/Should I? --

1. Launch into an educational diatribe about the heinous results of racism, whether intentional and practiced, or unconscious and entertained?
2. Simply say, in measured tones: "I can't believe you just said that," and stalk away, clothed in my outrage, hoping that they would understand what had offended me?
3. Raise my voice to match the intensity of my emotional response and emphatically state: "That is a racist comment, and I won't stand for it!" and hope that someone might actually have the guts to meet me in the crucible where my personal activation was swirling with a global human issue?
4. Shout with all my might: "You fucking hypocritical turd(s)!", and refuse to deal with them until they apologized?

I've actually done all of those things, in other situations. I haven't found them to be tremendously successful in effecting the change I want to make in the world.

Here are two of the most effective consciousness-changing actions I've ever taken (the first of which I wouldn't have even thought about if I hadn't answered a QOD at Shakesville the other night):

Action #1: Dark theater, 1995. Showing of "Higher Learning" in a cinema located in a well-known liberal west coast city. Audience of 200 or more, mostly urban, well-educated folk.

The movie is all about oppression, and the audience seems to be following along, getting the gist of it all -- until, HORRORS! -- there's a (minuscule -- like maybe three seconds, tops) lesbian kissing scene-- at which groans, retching noises, and choruses of "oh gross!" break out in the theater. I am stunned for a moment.
I can't believe what I'm hearing.

Then, somehow, without thinking, I say, calmly, in a voice just loud enough to be heard throughout the theater: "I'm a lesbian." The place goes dead fucking silent.

The woman next to me fidgets throughout the rest of the movie, but the woman who is in a seat two rows in front of me sits through the credits, as I do, and when the theater is all but empty, and I am leaving, she touches my arm, and asks: "Was it you who said that?" -- "Yes," I answer (after looking around to see who might be waiting to beat the crap out of me).

"Thank you for saying that," she says.

Action #2: I am leaving my brother's second wedding with my mom and dad. They are taking me to the airport. It's a long drive.

On the way, parental units are ripping my new sister-in-law a new asshole. I have no idea why, really.

I suspect they're really mad at my brother, for ruining the "no-divorce" streak that our branch of the family had maintained for a couple of generations, but they're ripping on the new wife, not my brother. I first engage in an educational manner, trying to appeal to "reason" -- but they're having none of it.

Finally, I said: "You know, when I hear you talk like this, I wonder what you say about me, when I'm not here."

Then there is a long, uncomfortable silence, which does not seem to portend any great shift of consciousness.

A year later, my dad takes me aside, and tells me that he remembered what I said, and has thought (and acted) differently about gossiping or complaining about people in the family, ever since.

The commonality in these two actions, I believe, was my willingness to be vulnerable in the moment.

I usually find it much easier to speak up and out on behalf of others -- to protest and confront racism, trans-phobia, hetero-phobia, religious intolerance for religions that are not my own, etc., etc. -- than it is for me to directly confront fat-phobia, homo-phobia, or misogyny, or any of the "isms" that are focused at me directly.

I think this has to do with the fact that I have a suspicion/understanding that it is actually possible for me to see things and hear things through a very subjective filter that may, or may not, provide me with an accurate view of what has just happened. (Shorter Portly Dyke: I don't trust myself.)

I spent several decades of my life perpetually pissed off -- not without reason, mind you -- but, in retrospect, I believe that there was a period during I was actually addicted to my anger -- I became more loyal to my rage than to my reason, and more attached to my identity as an oppressed person/victim than to my desire or motivation to effect change.

So, now, I keep a sharp eye on my RighteousWrath-O-Meter, especially when responding to issues that strike close to the bone for me.

I don't have judgment about feeling mad -- I think that the energy of this emotion can be (and wants to be) transformed into action very effectively. I believe that feeling "pissed off" is telling me something (but probably nothing that feeling "slightly irritated" wasn't telling me, long before I registered being pissed off).

However, I haven't found pedantic lectures, icey walk-outs, or incendiary spews to be necessarily effective.

The one thing that I have actually found to be effective is: My truth. How I feel in the moment.

I wish now that, when my mom had said that, I had responded immediately with: "Mom. I feel sad and mad when I hear you saying that. It doesn't seem to fit for me with what I've heard you say about judging people by their skin color." (Because that's what I thought when I heard it.)

I wish now, that, when my co-workers said what they did, I had responded immediately with: "I feel very bad, and very sad right now. I have the sense that I've just been included in a 'whites only' conversation, and I don't want to be a part of that. I feel scared to even say this, because I think that if I say it, you'll start treating me like you just treated our boss -- waiting for me to leave the room to say what you really think."

This post was inspired by two things:

1. Thorn's posts at Shapely Prose. Reading her story, with all the "messy" vulnerable feelings included, brought me closer to her experience, and helped me to commit again to speaking up in the moment when I witness or experience oppression.
2. An experience that I had recently, where the power of telling a personal story of my own, and including the emotional content, without trying to look all "cool", shifted a conversation/conflict dramatically.
   

So here's the TTDT:

Be prepared to speak your truth -- not "the" truth, and not some "prepared statement". Your truth, in the moment.

Be smart, witty, whatever you will -- but also -- Remember to tell people how you feel -- describe your emotions and experience -- not just the feeling of being mad/angry/rage-full, but also the sadness, the feeling of being scared to speak up, the fear of being "thrown out" or discounted, or simply the dissonant twang that arises when something has been said and you haven't yet figured out, intellectually, what exactly is bugging you about it.

You may be thinking: "Well, they don't care how I feel -- if they did, they wouldn't say what they said!"

Just try it. Try a bit of vulnerability. Sure, they may go for your throat. But hell, if they're as bad as you are projecting them to be, they're going for your throat anyway.

I'm going to be working with this through the next week.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 10:35 PM 5 comments  

Labels: angst-Loss, Fat, Homophobia, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Truth

TTDT - Teach Your ISP How To Sew Up Its Market Share
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Stay with me here -- This is a follow-up to my post on July 5th about net neutrality
If you don't understand what a TTDT is -- read HERE.

I was going to give myself (and you) a break and simply post a "Holy Grail" video, but there are only 3 days left before FCC comments close, and I got all, you know, activist, and shit . . . .

Portly Things to Do Today Option #1:

Comments to the FCC on net neutrality close this Friday, the 13th (Isn't that a great date? In my witchy little heart, I decree it lucky for net neutrality, unlucky for those who oppose it.). If you haven't done so already --
Go to www.savetheinternet.com and post your comments to the FCC about why you believe that net neutrality must be preserved.

Portly Things To Do Today Option #2:

Write a letter -- yes, a real letter (and send an email) to your ISP, telling them how they can secure their future market share (read below) by becoming the first ISP to declare that they will insure net neutrality for their customers -- I've included links to corporate info about various high-speed ISPs at the bottom of this post -- if none of these is yours, go to Hoover Profiles at Answers.com to find your ISP's corporate address and info -- and here's a template, based on the letter that I sent my ISP:
========================
Dear [ISP CEO]

I've used your ISP services for the last [insert # of years]. I would like to continue using the service that I currently purchase from you, but I have concerns about net neutrality, and whether your company will make a commitment to my rights as a customer.

I purchase service from you so that I can enjoy the wide range of content currently available on the internet. I do not want you to decide for me what I can download quickly, by implementing for-pay "fast lanes" that would prevent me from having equal access to the sites I want to see.

I urge you to take an evolutionary step -- to become the first ISP in the nation to adopt a policy insuring that consumers will be able to access what they want, when they want it, at the connection speed that they are paying for. I believe that there are thousands of internet users who would prefer your service if you provided such an assurance.

I currently have [number of different] high-speed ISP options available in my area. In the future, I will choose my Internet Service Provider based on which provider assures my full access to the entire internet. I will be sending this letter to my friends and business contacts and encouraging them to make their ISP choices based on which company makes a real and tangible commitment (via written policies) to the concept which is now commonly referred to as "net neutrality".

I believe that the first company that makes such a commitment will obtain a substantial lead in costumer loyalty and brand reputation.

This is a claim that I think any ISP could crow about proudly "Our Service -- Your Choice".

If any ISP in my area takes action to assure net neutrality, I will move my service to them immediately, even if it means paying more money. I want to know that my ISP is dedicated to bringing me the freedom of expression and choice that I want in my internet experience.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
============================
Feel free to copy and paste to your heart's delight, and if you choose to write something different, remember this salient point:

• The first ISP that commits to net neutrality in a "real" way (written policies, public announcement) will, I believe, obtain a huge customer base. It won't matter if other companies "pile on" -- they will still be able to say "We were the first. Aren't we great?"
  

Here's info about who to write to, depending on your ISP -- if none of these is yours, go to Hoover Profiles at Answers.com to find your ISP's corporate address and info.

Millenium Digital Media Chairman and Chief Strategic Officer: Kelvin R. Westbrook President and CEO: William J. (Bill) Shreffler SVP and Chief Marketing Officer: Rudy Tober Millennium Digital Media 120 S. Central Ave., Ste. 150 Clayton, MO 63105 MO Tel. 314-802-2400 Fax 314-802-2300

Comcast
Chairman and CEO: Brian L. Roberts
EVP and COO; President, Comcast
Cable: Stephen B. (Steve) Burke
EVP, Co-CFO, and Treasurer: John R. Alchin

Comcast Corporation
1500 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2148
PA Tel. 215-665-1700
Fax 215-981-7790

DirectTV
Chairman: K. Rupert Murdoch
President, CEO, and Director: Chase Carey
EVP and CFO: Michael W. Palkovic

The DIRECTV Group, Inc.
2230 East Imperial Hwy.
El Segundo, CA 90245
CA Tel. 310-964-5000
Fax 310-535-5225

Time Warner Cable
Chairman: Don Logan
President, CEO, and Director: Glenn A. Britt
COO: Landel C. Hobbs

Time Warner Cable Inc.
290 Harbor Dr.
Stamford, CT 06902-7441
CT Tel. 203-328-0600
Fax 203-328-0690

QWEST
Chairman and CEO: Richard C. (Dick) Notebaert
EVP Operations: Barry K. Allen
EVP Mass Markets Group: Paula Kruger

Qwest Communications International Inc.
1801 California St.
Denver, CO 80202
CO Tel. 303-992-1400
Toll Free 800-899-7780
Fax 303-992-1724

AT&T
Chairman and CEO: Randall L. Stephenson
SEVP and CFO: Richard G. (Rick) Lindner
SEVP Executive Operations: James W. (Jim) Callaway

AT&T Inc.
175 E. Houston
San Antonio, TX 78205-2233
TX Tel. 210-821-4105
Fax 210-351-2071

VERIZON
Chairman and CEO: Ivan G. Seidenberg
President and COO: Dennis F. (Denny) Strigl
EVP and CFO: Doreen A. Toben

Verizon Communications Inc.
140 West St.
New York, NY 10007
NY Tel. 212-395-1000
Toll Free 800-621-9900
Fax 212-571-1897

Note for those who have taken the 30-day Angst-Loss Challenge. Performing both options DOES increase your cred.

Carry On.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:10 PM 2 comments  

Labels: angst-Loss, Politics, Progressives, Teh Internet