Diane Von Furstenberg: “All women should have children”

I was going to blog about FOX News contributor Liz Trotta, who made light of the fact that sexual assaults in the military have increased. What Trotta said was disgusting, sexist and needs to be roundly denounced by not only this country’s military officials, but soldiers and lay men and women alike.

No woman should expect to be raped in their homes, when they are out running, when they are at work, much less in the military just because they are in close quarters with a bunch of burly men. Trotta needs to be dropped from the network for her anti-woman, rape apologist mindset.

Shifting gears…

An interview with Diane Von Furstenberg with CNN’s Out Front with Erin Burnett caught my attention in which she responded to Rick Santorum’s bashing of “radical feminists” who he claimed ruined the traditional family model.

The fashion pioneer responded with: “I believe really that all women should have children. I think that our body is made for that and think we should all have children. If we can’t somehow, (then) I think we should adopt them. I think women are made to have children and to be mothers, for sure.”

She also went on to say that it’s important women need to have an identity outside the home, which helps women have better relationships with themselves, their husbands and with their children.

One step forward, two steps back…

What’s ironic about Von Furstenberg’s comments is I had this same conversation with two male associates earlier today via email. When I told them I didn’t plan on having children, one responded with, “Talk to me when you’re 30,” and the other responded to his comment by saying, “Good one!”

I think it’s high time people take their hands off women’s reproductive organs.

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in ableism, children, cissexism, class privilege, women | 10 Comments

Anti-racist billboards spark outrage

Some residents in the overwhelmingly white city of Duluth, Minn., are up in arms over Un-Fair Campaign‘s anti-racist billboard blitz. One billboard residents are greeted with include:

The organization has partnered with a number of organizations to promote its message.

The campaign’s supporters, including mayor Don Ness, have taken a lot of heat for the campaign. However, Un-Fair Campaign is sticking by its message and points to Duluth’s glaring poverty as the culprit for such inequalities:

The Un-Fair Campaign, which launched with the billboards last month and so far has spent $4,600, didn’t set out to shock or offend people, although organizers are glad they got the community’s attention, said Ellen O’Neill, executive director of the YWCA of Duluth, one of the campaign’s 15 sponsors.

She said the sponsors, which also include several colleges, worked with a PR firm to come up with the messages, which they hope will help white people try to imagine what it’s like to be non-white in a place like Duluth, which is 90 percent white.

It’s possible to never interact with a person of color here,” O’Neill said. “It makes the problem more invisible.”

O’Neill said the campaign is directed at people 18 to 30 years old because market research indicated that people of that age group were more likely to lead behavior-changing movements, such as anti-smoking or recycling campaigns.

She said the stakes are high because only 25 percent of Duluth’s black students and 34 percent of American Indian students graduate from high school in four years, compared with 80 percent of white students. Similarly, she said, census data indicate that only 18 percent of the city’s whites live in poverty, compared to 67 percent of blacks and 56 percent of American Indians.

“How is our community going to prosper and grow if such disparities exist?” she wrote in a recent op-ed article in the Duluth News-Tribune. “How can we accept such inequality?”

It’s hard to be surprised by such backlash. In this day and age of an alleged post-racial America, not only is it a sin to call white people racist, white privilege allows white people to view racism as individual, sporatic acts of overt offenses that are not tolerated by fair-minded people. 

Any person of color will tell you we rarely encounter that form of racism, as we are routinely placed in situations where we have to negotiate subtle, racist acts of white people on a daily basis.

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in racism, white privilege, whiteness | 2 Comments

Before diversifying, white LGBT groups need to check their privilege

The Advocate published an opinion piece by Jimmy Nguyen, which calls for LGBT groups to consider diversifying their leadership. Part of the piece reads:

At the executive director position, LGBT groups have historically been led almost exclusively by white men.  A step down at the board level, gay non-profits have tried for years to recruit members who better match the racial diversity of America. After all this time talking about the need for greater racial inclusion, it’s time LGBT entities did better in finding leaders who represent the full spectrum of colors.

The figures are troubling, especially at the very top.  In 2008, only 4% of executive directors of LGBT organizations were people of color. That figure comes from The Pipeline Project, a group formed to develop LGBT leaders who reflect our multicultural, multiethnic community.  It is a far cry from the 36% of the U.S. population who self-identifies as a racial minority.  And our 4% is one-third less than non-profit groups in general.  While I have not come across more recent statistics, it’s hard to imagine racial diversity among executive directors has dramatically improved in the past few years.

Executive directors act as faces to the public of their organizations and the overall LGBT movement; it is critical that those faces be as diverse as possible. Because the LGBT population is itself a minority group, it is sadly ironic that our organizations need their own diversity initiatives.

In the boardroom, the picture is better but still lacking.  At the major LGBT non-profit entities, only 25% of board members are racial minorities, according to the 2011 annual National LGBT Movement Report released by the Movement Advancement Project, which studies the health of LGBT organizations.  Despite efforts to improve board diversity, the 25% figure has not materially changed from the prior year.  While the MAP study does not capture data from all gay non-profit entities, it represents a good cross-section. The 2011 report (summarizing 2010 data) covered 40 of the most prominent groups that collectively control 71% of the budgets from known gay organizations.

Luckily, LGBT non-profit entities are doing well at the staff level.  MAP found that 32% of staff members at participating organizations identify themselves as people of color.  This more closely tracks with the 36% figure for the U.S. population.

Why is the leadership of our LGBT organizations so awash in white?  Let’s begin with the elephant in the room.  The gay community needs to be more racially inclusive – not just in its organizational structures and political strategies, but in its social fabric.

Ethnic minority groups still are not as integrated into the gay world as they should be.  That isn’t to say Caucasian people have no racial minority friends, but it is a fair observation that their social circles tend to be less racially diverse.  This spills over into the milieu of “A-gay” charity events, where the people who historically run the show (often gay white men) invite people they know (usually more gay white men than racial minorities) to attend, contribute money or support in other ways.  Trust me, I’ve showed up at many gay fundraisers to find myself as an Asian man just one amongst a limited number of racial minority people in the ballroom.  That results in fewer people of color getting exposure to the good work of LGBT organizations.

In turn, this affects boardroom composition. With leaders of LGBT entities being less diverse, so too are their social circles, which they reach out to for recruiting prospective board members.  This leads to a spiraling cycle that makes it difficult for non-profit groups to improve their ethnic diversity.

Adding to the challenge is the money factor.  For executive directors and board members, a big part of their job is to solicit donations from people who have money or strong business relationships to leverage.  That immediately starts filtering out some people of color from the contact list.  There are, of course, many LGBT racial minorities who are professionally successful.  But it’s the cold hard truth that an income disparity still exists in America between whites and racial minorities (irrespective of sexual orientation) even with the same level of educational attainment.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with having gay, white men at the top (just as there is nothing inherently wrong with straight, white male leaders).  But we need more color not just for atmospherics; we need it to help win the gay civil rights movement.

Everything was going fine until I read the following paragraphs:

To achieve full equality, we need straight allies, especially racial minority groups such as the NAACP and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center that help frame gay issues in the historical context of other civil rights movements.  This bestows particular resonance toamici curiae briefs from these allied groups in impact litigation, such as briefs supporting marriage equality in the Ninth Circuit appeal of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proposition 8 case.

Backing from these other minority organizations also makes it safer for straight politicians and voters to support gay causes.  Perhaps most importantly, they can help overcome antigay prejudices that can be uniquely harsh within African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American cultures.  If our own LGBT organizations had more diverse leaders, we could build stronger partnerships with these straight allies and better appeal to voters in communities of color.

Nguyen follows with encouraging people of color to join LGBT organizations, “even if it’s just to attend an event or volunteer a little time.  A small amount of exposure now might intrigue you into pursuing leadership opportunities in the future.”

Easier said than done.

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in discrimination, diversity, GLBT rights, racism, white privilege, whiteness | 2 Comments

In 2012, women’s emotions, birth control remain controversial

Apparently, women’s emotions may not be in the “best interest” of combat missions, according to Rick Santorum.

Politico has a transcript of what Santorum responded to when CNN’s John King asked him how he feels about women on the front lines of combat missions.

“Look, I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. They’re a great addition to the – and have been for a long time – to the armed services of our country,” Santorum said. “But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat.”

He added, “I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably – you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

*Sigh*

This comes on the heels of the U.S. Department of Defense unveiling a plan to allow thousands of women to serve in roles closer to the front lines.

Defense officials say the new rules will still mean that woman are barred from serving as infantry, armor and special operations forces — considered the most dangerous combat jobs. But the changes will open the door for more opportunities and promotions for women by allowing them to perform jobs they are already performing, but in battalions, which are closer to the fighting and once considered too dangerous for women.

A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and often include top command and support staff, while the battalions are usually in closer contact with the enemy.

In the past decade, the necessities of war propelled women into jobs such as medics, military police and intelligence officers, and they were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn’t be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.

I can’t help but to wonder if Santorum believes women are inherently incapable of serving on the front lines in active combat due to his belief that our roller coaster emotions make us more susceptible to making decisions that aren’t in the best interest of the military.  I guess by stability he means having soldiers who think before photographing themselves urinating on dead Taliban soldiers, pillaging Iraqi villages and raping Iraqi women before killing them.

Santorum’s comments got me thinking, though, about how women in general continue to be viewed as the weaker, less capable gender. Women’s emotions and our priorities when it comes to health care are debated and analyzed by Santorum and politicians like him as if we are the red-headed step children of real, meaty, pressing issues that plague the country.

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in politics | Leave a comment

Arizona state lawmaker suggests holiday to celebrate white people

No joke! State Rep. Cecil Ash is suggesting it’s time for whiteness to get its formal recognition in lieu of all these brown and black folks getting their own holidays and special months. The lawmaker supposedly made the recommendation during a debate with a democratic lawmaker in Arizona’s state house:

“I wanted to speak to you all about Latino Americans here in Arizona,” said state Rep. Richard Miranda on the House floor Monday, starting the conversation that sparked the controversy.

Miranda said Arizona should have a Latino American day in Arizona.

After some heated debate, Rep. Cecil Ash stepped up to the mic.

“I’m supportive of this proposition. I just want them to assure me that when we do become in the minority you’ll have a day for us,” Ash said.

Ash isn’t backing down from his claims, adding he thinks the idea is “appropriate.”

“It was appropriate for the mood that was in the House and I think that if and when the Caucasian population becomes a minority, they may want to celebrate the accomplishments and the contributions of the Caucasian population the same way.” 

I can’t be surprised with this type of nonsense–this is a state where they have banned ethnic studies; where local law enforcement agencies have been given the green light by the state government to engage in racial and ethnic profiling people of Hispanic origin.

So after proclaiming to the world that Arizona is not friendly to racial and ethnic minorities and are ambivalent to their contributions to the state, this Arizona lawmaker wants the state to formally give whiteness a pat on the back for its historical contributions. Considering this state’s track record in putting racial and ethnic minorities on notice that they are no longer welcome in Arizona, I feel pretty confident this type of legislation, if drafted, would be approved and signed into law.

Posted in Arizona, racism, whiteness | Leave a comment