I’m a lesbian mom, and I’ve always known I was a good parent to my two kids. I’ve also admired the parenting of other lesbian moms, so I wasn’t surprised by the recent study released in Pediatrics (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) that noted how well we are parenting.
Adolescent children of lesbians "rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts," the study concluded.
This flies in the face of public opinion against same-sex marriage and parenting. Conventional wisdom holds that a married heterosexual couple is the model for raising kids. And some zealots taunt us by saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" - or in this case, "Eve and Eve." But the claim that married heterosexuals make the best parents - or the converse, that same-sex parents can't do a good job - is no longer sustainable.
The study gathered data between 1986 and 1992 with 77 lesbian families who had raised children since birth. It focused on "key developmental outcomes, psychological adjustment, peer relationships, family relationships and progress through school."
The study suggests that since lesbian parents use less corporal punishment and are more actively involved with their kids, their children are better adjusted.
The arguments against same-sex marriage are collapsing, one after another.
By the time today's kids are grown up, may we all have the right to marry the person of our choice and to raise our children without prejudice.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Juneteenth
June 19, or Juneteenth, is Independence Day for many Americans of African descent.
Also known as Emancipation Day or Freedom Day, it commemorates the end of slavery, the seminal event in African-American history.
President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, but the word did not spread instantly. According to one account, the Emancipation Proclamation was read to slaves in Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865, more than two years after it officially went into effect. As word of the end of slavery spread, Juneteenth was created to commemorate that day.
There are several different accounts of why the news of freedom took so long to arrive.
One story has it that slaves were intentionally kept ignorant about their freedom in order to allow crops to continue being harvested.
Another has one messenger traveling by mule to deliver the news, and it simply took more than two years to arrive from Washington D.C., to Texas.
Yet another story has the messenger being murdered before he could deliver the message.
No matter the origin of Juneteenth, the end of slavery is definitely worth celebrating.
And while much has happened in the nearly 150 years since slavery officially ended, its legacies still remain in the form of disparate salaries, educational levels and incarceration rates.
Juneteenth, which is now observed in 36 states and the District of Columbia, is a time to take stock of our progress — and of the work that remains.
Last year, for Juneteenth, President Obama said: “African Americans helped to build our nation brick by brick and have contributed to her growth in every way, even when rights and liberties were denied to them.”
We’re still building it.
Happy Juneteenth.
Also known as Emancipation Day or Freedom Day, it commemorates the end of slavery, the seminal event in African-American history.
President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, but the word did not spread instantly. According to one account, the Emancipation Proclamation was read to slaves in Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865, more than two years after it officially went into effect. As word of the end of slavery spread, Juneteenth was created to commemorate that day.
There are several different accounts of why the news of freedom took so long to arrive.
One story has it that slaves were intentionally kept ignorant about their freedom in order to allow crops to continue being harvested.
Another has one messenger traveling by mule to deliver the news, and it simply took more than two years to arrive from Washington D.C., to Texas.
Yet another story has the messenger being murdered before he could deliver the message.
No matter the origin of Juneteenth, the end of slavery is definitely worth celebrating.
And while much has happened in the nearly 150 years since slavery officially ended, its legacies still remain in the form of disparate salaries, educational levels and incarceration rates.
Juneteenth, which is now observed in 36 states and the District of Columbia, is a time to take stock of our progress — and of the work that remains.
Last year, for Juneteenth, President Obama said: “African Americans helped to build our nation brick by brick and have contributed to her growth in every way, even when rights and liberties were denied to them.”
We’re still building it.
Happy Juneteenth.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Kwanzaa still relevant today
Kwanzaa is a weeklong celebration beginning on Dec. 26 but this time, the occasion is different than in past years. This Kwanzaa, we have a black man in the White House.
Kwanzaa, which was first observed more than 40 years ago and is often mistakenly called the "Black Christmas," is undeniably about race. But it is also about cultural heritage, as it recalls the fact that millions of Americans came to this country from Africa as slaves.
The word "Kwanzaa" itself means "first fruits" in Swahili. It has seven principles: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith.
During this year's celebration, which runs through Jan. 1, we will try to honor those principles, since they are still relevant. We are not yet in a post-racial world. Professor Cornel West has it right: Race does still matter.
You can see it reflected in the unemployment numbers and in the foreclosure statistics. It's still harder to get a job or rent an apartment if you're black, even if your qualifications are the same. And blacks are arrested more often, convicted more often and incarcerated for longer periods of time than whites accused of the same crimes.
But Kwanzaa is not just a black holiday. Many of its principles are universal. Take "creativity." Here is the official Kwanzaa explanation of this principle: "To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it." That is something we all can get behind.
Happy Kwanzaa.
Kwanzaa, which was first observed more than 40 years ago and is often mistakenly called the "Black Christmas," is undeniably about race. But it is also about cultural heritage, as it recalls the fact that millions of Americans came to this country from Africa as slaves.
The word "Kwanzaa" itself means "first fruits" in Swahili. It has seven principles: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith.
During this year's celebration, which runs through Jan. 1, we will try to honor those principles, since they are still relevant. We are not yet in a post-racial world. Professor Cornel West has it right: Race does still matter.
You can see it reflected in the unemployment numbers and in the foreclosure statistics. It's still harder to get a job or rent an apartment if you're black, even if your qualifications are the same. And blacks are arrested more often, convicted more often and incarcerated for longer periods of time than whites accused of the same crimes.
But Kwanzaa is not just a black holiday. Many of its principles are universal. Take "creativity." Here is the official Kwanzaa explanation of this principle: "To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it." That is something we all can get behind.
Happy Kwanzaa.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
"Black in America 2" Good Discussion About Race
Race matters, and not just where there is racism. You need no further evidence than the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, the controversy surrounding that arrest and the diverging perspectives on it, depending on whether you are white or black.
The Gates incident surfaced just as CNN was continuing its discussion on race with Black in America 2.
I asked the reporter on the series, Soledad O’Brien, to give me her post-airing thoughts via Twitter. Here’s what she said: The “timing of Gates arrest makes me realize examining experience of black Americans is timely and relevant.”
It couldn’t have been more so.
Some black folks were critical of the series, stating that it added nothing to the discourse. I disagree. Many of us have the notion that we know more about “them” than they do about “us.” But it’s not just black and white, and that’s what I enjoyed about the series.
I am black, and I experienced many an “ahah” moment from the profiles presented. I also enjoyed the socio-economic diversity within the series. It didn’t just focus on the downtrodden black person trying to rise up from the so-called ghetto. There were affluent blacks, and not so affluent ones. There were young and old, and the older group is one that many of us are not familiar enough with. One group noticeably missing, however, was the black gay community.
Black in America 2 didn’t try to tell the whole story, and no one can. But it showed some snapshots of the lives of black folks, and these are part of the American family album that all of us should enjoy.
I am looking forward to Black in America 3 from CNN, and Latinos in America in October 2009. There is a rumor that Gay in America is coming in 2010. I hope that’s true, too.
We need to know more about each other in this country. And the more we know, the less likely we are to react to events in ways that correspond only to who we are on the surface.
The Gates incident surfaced just as CNN was continuing its discussion on race with Black in America 2.
I asked the reporter on the series, Soledad O’Brien, to give me her post-airing thoughts via Twitter. Here’s what she said: The “timing of Gates arrest makes me realize examining experience of black Americans is timely and relevant.”
It couldn’t have been more so.
Some black folks were critical of the series, stating that it added nothing to the discourse. I disagree. Many of us have the notion that we know more about “them” than they do about “us.” But it’s not just black and white, and that’s what I enjoyed about the series.
I am black, and I experienced many an “ahah” moment from the profiles presented. I also enjoyed the socio-economic diversity within the series. It didn’t just focus on the downtrodden black person trying to rise up from the so-called ghetto. There were affluent blacks, and not so affluent ones. There were young and old, and the older group is one that many of us are not familiar enough with. One group noticeably missing, however, was the black gay community.
Black in America 2 didn’t try to tell the whole story, and no one can. But it showed some snapshots of the lives of black folks, and these are part of the American family album that all of us should enjoy.
I am looking forward to Black in America 3 from CNN, and Latinos in America in October 2009. There is a rumor that Gay in America is coming in 2010. I hope that’s true, too.
We need to know more about each other in this country. And the more we know, the less likely we are to react to events in ways that correspond only to who we are on the surface.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Happy Mother’s Day, Michelle
By Akilah Bolden-Monifa, May 10, 2009
On her own merits, she is an accomplished, three-dimensional modern black woman. Even with all the privileges of the White House, she still has to balance the conflict between work and family life. And by bringing her mother to the White House, she acknowledges that all families need support.
This Mother’s Day is the first time we’ve had a woman of African descent as the nation’s most famous mother.
I’m referring, of course, to Michelle Obama, who shatters stereotypes. An Ivy League graduate and successful attorney, she is as far from the “welfare queen” stereotype as you can imagine.
Neither does she fit other stereotypes of the overbearing black woman, or the “mammy” of all-too-many Hollywood depictions.
Nor does she fit the stereotype of the abandoned black woman, who has to do all the work because the black man in her life has left her.
On her own merits, she is an accomplished, three-dimensional modern black woman. Even with all the privileges of the White House, she still has to balance the conflict between work and family life. And by bringing her mother to the White House, she acknowledges that all families need support. At the same time, she properly preserves her daughters’ privacy while raising her family in the most public of houses.
Although Michelle Obama should not have the burden of representing all mothers, she can certainly help with the image of black mothers.
She is a role model for all women and mothers.
So Happy Mother’s Day, Michelle.
And on this day, let us move beyond stereotypes — and value women and mothers for who they are.
They all deserve it, today and every day.
On her own merits, she is an accomplished, three-dimensional modern black woman. Even with all the privileges of the White House, she still has to balance the conflict between work and family life. And by bringing her mother to the White House, she acknowledges that all families need support.
This Mother’s Day is the first time we’ve had a woman of African descent as the nation’s most famous mother.
I’m referring, of course, to Michelle Obama, who shatters stereotypes. An Ivy League graduate and successful attorney, she is as far from the “welfare queen” stereotype as you can imagine.
Neither does she fit other stereotypes of the overbearing black woman, or the “mammy” of all-too-many Hollywood depictions.
Nor does she fit the stereotype of the abandoned black woman, who has to do all the work because the black man in her life has left her.
On her own merits, she is an accomplished, three-dimensional modern black woman. Even with all the privileges of the White House, she still has to balance the conflict between work and family life. And by bringing her mother to the White House, she acknowledges that all families need support. At the same time, she properly preserves her daughters’ privacy while raising her family in the most public of houses.
Although Michelle Obama should not have the burden of representing all mothers, she can certainly help with the image of black mothers.
She is a role model for all women and mothers.
So Happy Mother’s Day, Michelle.
And on this day, let us move beyond stereotypes — and value women and mothers for who they are.
They all deserve it, today and every day.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thirty Years after Milk assassination, we need to further his vision
By Akilah Bolden-Monifa
On the 30th anniversary of Harvey Milk's assassination, we need to make good on the promise of equality that he died for.
Born in New York, Milk moved to San Francisco when he was 40 and quickly became a community activist. He dubbed himself the "Mayor of Castro Street," and he and other gay folks were abused by the police.
So he started organizing and then ran for political office unsuccessfully three times. The fourth time in 1977 he won a seat on the board of supervisors in San Francisco.
He became the first openly gay man to be elected to a public office in the United States.
Ironically, Dan White, his assassin, won a seat at the same time.
Back then, anti-gay sentiment was rampant. Anita Bryant was in her prime in Florida, campaigning luridly against civil rights for gays and lesbians. There was even a ballot initiative in California to get rid of gay and lesbian teachers.
Milk helped defeat the initiative and went on to get the city of San Francisco to pass an ordinance ensuring that gays and lesbians have equal rights.
Less than one month later, on November 27, 1978, he and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White.
Milk would have been outraged that California voters just passed a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. This was a huge blow for gay and lesbian civil rights. And it was a personal affront to the 18,000 folks (including this author) who were able to enjoy the right to same-sex marriage in the four months prior to the November election.
Milk properly equated gay and lesbian rights with other civil rights. And he saw the recognition of all these rights as part of the American tradition of equality and fairness.
We need to recall his courage and his vision. Fortunately, the just-released movie "Milk," starring Sean Penn, should help us do so.
Harvey Milk inspired hope.
We needed it 30 years ago.
And we need it today if we are to achieve full civil rights for all.
On the 30th anniversary of Harvey Milk's assassination, we need to make good on the promise of equality that he died for.
Born in New York, Milk moved to San Francisco when he was 40 and quickly became a community activist. He dubbed himself the "Mayor of Castro Street," and he and other gay folks were abused by the police.
So he started organizing and then ran for political office unsuccessfully three times. The fourth time in 1977 he won a seat on the board of supervisors in San Francisco.
He became the first openly gay man to be elected to a public office in the United States.
Ironically, Dan White, his assassin, won a seat at the same time.
Back then, anti-gay sentiment was rampant. Anita Bryant was in her prime in Florida, campaigning luridly against civil rights for gays and lesbians. There was even a ballot initiative in California to get rid of gay and lesbian teachers.
Milk helped defeat the initiative and went on to get the city of San Francisco to pass an ordinance ensuring that gays and lesbians have equal rights.
Less than one month later, on November 27, 1978, he and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White.
Milk would have been outraged that California voters just passed a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. This was a huge blow for gay and lesbian civil rights. And it was a personal affront to the 18,000 folks (including this author) who were able to enjoy the right to same-sex marriage in the four months prior to the November election.
Milk properly equated gay and lesbian rights with other civil rights. And he saw the recognition of all these rights as part of the American tradition of equality and fairness.
We need to recall his courage and his vision. Fortunately, the just-released movie "Milk," starring Sean Penn, should help us do so.
Harvey Milk inspired hope.
We needed it 30 years ago.
And we need it today if we are to achieve full civil rights for all.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama, McCain should support same-sex marriage
By Akilah Monifa, October 20, 2008
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see eye to eye on one issue: same-sex marriage. They’re both opposed.
They should have met Del Martin.
For 55 years, she and Phyllis Lyon were partners. Together, they helped establish the nation's first lesbian rights organization, the Daughters of Bolitis, back in 1955.
Martin and Lyon were the first couple to be married in the city of San Francisco in 2004 and again in the state of California on June 16, 2008. Martin died two months later, on Aug. 27. She was 87.
Neither Obama nor McCain has offered a rational, secular reason why these two women should not have married each other.
Lyon is eligible for California state benefits of inheritance and insurance but is denied over 1,000 federally granted benefits, including Social Security.
But now the citizens of California may posthumously annul their marriage. Same-sex marriage in California is in jeopardy because of a proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot that aims to overrule the California Supreme Court's recent granting of the right of all to marry. Same-sex marriage is also legal in Massachusetts, as well as Connecticut, after the state Supreme Court ruling there on Oct. 3.
On such a civil rights issue, I would have hoped that the presidential candidates would have taken a stand.
Instead, they ducked it, even though they made comments that seemed to recognize the validity of same-sex relationships. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said regardless of how folks feel about same-sex marriage, there is universal agreement on allowing visitation rights in a hospital and not discriminating against gays and lesbians.
McCain has echoed this, as did Sen. Joe Biden and even Gov. Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate.
Del Martin spent her life fighting for equality. Early on, she understood the parallels between discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays and lesbians. And she opposed all discrimination.
I’m confident that had Obama or McCain known her, they would have come around on this issue.
Our sons and daughters should be eligible for the full slate of state and federal rights should they chose to marry.
Del Martin’s dream should become reality.
Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see eye to eye on one issue: same-sex marriage. They’re both opposed.
They should have met Del Martin.
For 55 years, she and Phyllis Lyon were partners. Together, they helped establish the nation's first lesbian rights organization, the Daughters of Bolitis, back in 1955.
Martin and Lyon were the first couple to be married in the city of San Francisco in 2004 and again in the state of California on June 16, 2008. Martin died two months later, on Aug. 27. She was 87.
Neither Obama nor McCain has offered a rational, secular reason why these two women should not have married each other.
Lyon is eligible for California state benefits of inheritance and insurance but is denied over 1,000 federally granted benefits, including Social Security.
But now the citizens of California may posthumously annul their marriage. Same-sex marriage in California is in jeopardy because of a proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot that aims to overrule the California Supreme Court's recent granting of the right of all to marry. Same-sex marriage is also legal in Massachusetts, as well as Connecticut, after the state Supreme Court ruling there on Oct. 3.
On such a civil rights issue, I would have hoped that the presidential candidates would have taken a stand.
Instead, they ducked it, even though they made comments that seemed to recognize the validity of same-sex relationships. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said regardless of how folks feel about same-sex marriage, there is universal agreement on allowing visitation rights in a hospital and not discriminating against gays and lesbians.
McCain has echoed this, as did Sen. Joe Biden and even Gov. Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate.
Del Martin spent her life fighting for equality. Early on, she understood the parallels between discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays and lesbians. And she opposed all discrimination.
I’m confident that had Obama or McCain known her, they would have come around on this issue.
Our sons and daughters should be eligible for the full slate of state and federal rights should they chose to marry.
Del Martin’s dream should become reality.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Interracial or same-sex marriage: same core civil-rights issues
By Akilah Monifa, June 12, 2008
We’re in the midst of Gay Pride Month, and we have much to celebrate and much yet to achieve.
In May 2008, California became only the second state following Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriage. Currently, 26 states have constitutional amendments stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. And 43 states have statutes restricting marriage to two people of the opposite sex.
When I consider this issue, I think of Mildred Loving, the black woman who had to leave her home state of Virginia to get married to a white man. To avoid a jail term after their return and arrest, they were forced to leave the state again.
Before 1964, 17 states prohibited men and women of different races from marrying.
But the Lovings kept fighting — all the way to the Supreme Court.
And on June 12, 1967, the court ruled in their favor and outlawed miscegenation laws. The court said they had a fundamental equal protection right to marry across race.
Mildred Loving, who died this May 2, simply wanted to be able to marry the person she loved.
That’s all that gays and lesbians want, too.
Fortunately same-sex couples are no longer arrested for being together. But the fundamental right to marry eludes us in 48 states,
The prohibitions against marriage based on race and same sex are the same core civil-rights issues. It is a fundamental equal protection right.
May California and Massachusetts lead the way.
Happy Gay Pride Month.
We’re in the midst of Gay Pride Month, and we have much to celebrate and much yet to achieve.
In May 2008, California became only the second state following Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriage. Currently, 26 states have constitutional amendments stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. And 43 states have statutes restricting marriage to two people of the opposite sex.
When I consider this issue, I think of Mildred Loving, the black woman who had to leave her home state of Virginia to get married to a white man. To avoid a jail term after their return and arrest, they were forced to leave the state again.
Before 1964, 17 states prohibited men and women of different races from marrying.
But the Lovings kept fighting — all the way to the Supreme Court.
And on June 12, 1967, the court ruled in their favor and outlawed miscegenation laws. The court said they had a fundamental equal protection right to marry across race.
Mildred Loving, who died this May 2, simply wanted to be able to marry the person she loved.
That’s all that gays and lesbians want, too.
Fortunately same-sex couples are no longer arrested for being together. But the fundamental right to marry eludes us in 48 states,
The prohibitions against marriage based on race and same sex are the same core civil-rights issues. It is a fundamental equal protection right.
May California and Massachusetts lead the way.
Happy Gay Pride Month.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Oklahoma state representative engages in intolerance
By Akilah Monifa, April 3, 2008
Elected officials should stop demonizing gay people.
Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern is the latest to fan the flames of intolerance.
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Oklahoma City Republican Club, she stated that homosexuality is “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”
She also said, “They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle. … If you have cancer in your little toe, do you just say that I'm going to forget about it since the rest of you is fine? It spreads! This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.”
After her speech leaked out on the Internet, gay and lesbian rights groups demanded that she apologize.
She refused to do so, though she denied she was “anti-gay” or “gay-bashing.”
And she attended a “Rally for Sally” at the capitol in Oklahoma City on April 2.
Kern told the more than 1,000 demonstrators: “This is not about me. It’s about the church having the right to speak out about the redeeming love of Jesus Christ who died to set us all free from our sins.”
But that’s not the issue at all. Kern and her church can say whatever they want. And in their parochial schools, they can teach children whatever they want. But as an elected official, she has an obligation not to engage in hate speech. And that’s what her comparisons to terrorism and cancer are.
What she so despises about our public schools I applaud. We should teach tolerance there — and throughout our society.
There is too much intolerance going around.
Elected officials should stop demonizing gay people.
Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern is the latest to fan the flames of intolerance.
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Oklahoma City Republican Club, she stated that homosexuality is “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam.”
She also said, “They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle. … If you have cancer in your little toe, do you just say that I'm going to forget about it since the rest of you is fine? It spreads! This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.”
After her speech leaked out on the Internet, gay and lesbian rights groups demanded that she apologize.
She refused to do so, though she denied she was “anti-gay” or “gay-bashing.”
And she attended a “Rally for Sally” at the capitol in Oklahoma City on April 2.
Kern told the more than 1,000 demonstrators: “This is not about me. It’s about the church having the right to speak out about the redeeming love of Jesus Christ who died to set us all free from our sins.”
But that’s not the issue at all. Kern and her church can say whatever they want. And in their parochial schools, they can teach children whatever they want. But as an elected official, she has an obligation not to engage in hate speech. And that’s what her comparisons to terrorism and cancer are.
What she so despises about our public schools I applaud. We should teach tolerance there — and throughout our society.
There is too much intolerance going around.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A Call for tolerance education
By Akilah Monifa, February 21, 2008
The murder of gay teenager Lawrence King should wake us all up to the fatal condition of homophobia that still afflicts our nation.
King, 15, was in his classroom in Oxnard, Calif., with 20 other students on Feb. 12 when a fellow student shot him. King died a day later.
He had come out as gay, and there were reports of bullying and harassment because of his sexual orientation and gender expression of wearing make-up and dressing in "feminine attire.”
For all the progress we’ve made in the movement for gay rights over the last 40 years, the hatred of sexual minorities still takes its terrible toll. High-profile murders have not halted the lethal assaults.
Fifteen years ago, Brandon Teena, 21, was raped and killed in Nebraska. His murder was later the subject of the movie “Boys Don’t Cry.”
Ten years ago, Matthew Shepard, 21, was murdered in Wyoming, and his story became immortalized in the “Laramie Project” play.
Five and a half years ago, Gwen Araujo was only 17 when she was murdered in northern California for being transgender. Her story was made into the movie “A Girl Like Me.”
Despite the cultural attention, and despite efforts in the schools to raise awareness, the violence persists.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students are particularly at risk at school and are more likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon than other students, according to a survey by the California Department of Education.
Why in 2008 are there still hate crimes against sexual minorities? What is it about a young boy in make-up or coming out as gay man or a transgender woman that makes bullies believe they can harass, attack, assault or even kill the person?
Yes, we need better laws.
What’s it going to take to get meaningful gun control is in this country? The same week that Lawrence King was shot dead we had the terrible mass murder at Northern Illinois University.
Enough is enough.
We also need additional hate crime legislation, both on the state and federal levels.
But what is even more essential is ongoing, broad-based tolerance education in the schools.
And this education should be proactive, a core component of secondary education for all students and their parents.
Expressing our sexuality should not put a target on our backs.
The murder of gay teenager Lawrence King should wake us all up to the fatal condition of homophobia that still afflicts our nation.
King, 15, was in his classroom in Oxnard, Calif., with 20 other students on Feb. 12 when a fellow student shot him. King died a day later.
He had come out as gay, and there were reports of bullying and harassment because of his sexual orientation and gender expression of wearing make-up and dressing in "feminine attire.”
For all the progress we’ve made in the movement for gay rights over the last 40 years, the hatred of sexual minorities still takes its terrible toll. High-profile murders have not halted the lethal assaults.
Fifteen years ago, Brandon Teena, 21, was raped and killed in Nebraska. His murder was later the subject of the movie “Boys Don’t Cry.”
Ten years ago, Matthew Shepard, 21, was murdered in Wyoming, and his story became immortalized in the “Laramie Project” play.
Five and a half years ago, Gwen Araujo was only 17 when she was murdered in northern California for being transgender. Her story was made into the movie “A Girl Like Me.”
Despite the cultural attention, and despite efforts in the schools to raise awareness, the violence persists.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students are particularly at risk at school and are more likely to report being threatened or injured with a weapon than other students, according to a survey by the California Department of Education.
Why in 2008 are there still hate crimes against sexual minorities? What is it about a young boy in make-up or coming out as gay man or a transgender woman that makes bullies believe they can harass, attack, assault or even kill the person?
Yes, we need better laws.
What’s it going to take to get meaningful gun control is in this country? The same week that Lawrence King was shot dead we had the terrible mass murder at Northern Illinois University.
Enough is enough.
We also need additional hate crime legislation, both on the state and federal levels.
But what is even more essential is ongoing, broad-based tolerance education in the schools.
And this education should be proactive, a core component of secondary education for all students and their parents.
Expressing our sexuality should not put a target on our backs.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Candidates must rise above racist appeals
1/6/2008 published in The Gulf Times and others
By Akilah Monifa: My New Year’s wish this year is an election campaign shorn of bigotry. But it may be too late for that already.
Last year, Mitt Romney’s campaign said Senator Barack Obama was calling for jihadists to rally in Iraq. Actually, that was Osama bin Laden. What a difference a consonant makes. The Romney campaign fobbed it off as a simple, inadvertent gaffe.
But some gaffes are harder to explain away.
A new report by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley shows the prevalence of racial appeals. The report is titled Race-Bait ‘08: Lessons Learned from the Political Dirty Dozen - 12 Cases Playing the Race Card 1983 -2007.
One classic example is the TV ad in 2006 against Harold Ford, a black member of the House of Representatives who was running for the Senate in Tennessee. The ad, by the Republican National Committee, had a blonde saying, “I met Harold at the Playboy party”, and ended with her saying, “Harold, call me”.
Then there was the infamous Willie Horton ad, which was used against presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. The ad showed a mug shot of this convicted murderer, who committed another murder while on furlough. Horton is black.
And if you live in North Carolina, it’s hard to forget the 1990 ad that Senator Jesse Helms ran against his black challenger, Harvey Gantt. The ad, which was against racial quotas in hiring, showed someone’s white hands crumpling a letter denying the person a job.
Playing the race card is not limited to white candidates against people of colour.
In 2006, Ray Nagin, the black Democratic mayor of New Orleans running in a post-Katrina election, seized on race to revive his campaign. At least twice in public he referred to New Orleans as “Chocolate City” and added that one day it would be “chocolate again”. Nagin won by taking 80% of the black vote; in his 2002 election, he had won only 40%.
Sometimes, the intrusion of race doesn’t appear to be so calculated.
For instance, in 1984 the Rev Jesse Jackson, a Democrat, had called Jews “Hymies” and New York “Hymie-town”. He later apologised for it.
In 2006, then-senator George Allen of Virginia destroyed his own campaign by calling an Indian American “Macaca”.
And last year, Senator Joe Biden’s candidacy sputtered after he said about Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Biden’s and Jackson’s comments may have revealed bigoted thoughts that aren’t usually aired in mixed company or on the record.
The amazing thing to me in 21st century America is that many people running for public office can’t resist the bigoted stumble. I almost prefer the blatant racism of Jesse Helms than having the truth come out in an excited or bumbling utterance that is excused as a gaffe.
I expected it from Jesse Helms. But I didn’t expect it from Jesse Jackson or George Allen or Joe Biden. I had hoped we were beyond that.
And I still hope that the candidates this time around can rise above racist appeals, whether intentional or inadvertent.
We’ve seen enough of these already. – The Progressive Media Project/MCT
By Akilah Monifa: My New Year’s wish this year is an election campaign shorn of bigotry. But it may be too late for that already.
Last year, Mitt Romney’s campaign said Senator Barack Obama was calling for jihadists to rally in Iraq. Actually, that was Osama bin Laden. What a difference a consonant makes. The Romney campaign fobbed it off as a simple, inadvertent gaffe.
But some gaffes are harder to explain away.
A new report by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley shows the prevalence of racial appeals. The report is titled Race-Bait ‘08: Lessons Learned from the Political Dirty Dozen - 12 Cases Playing the Race Card 1983 -2007.
One classic example is the TV ad in 2006 against Harold Ford, a black member of the House of Representatives who was running for the Senate in Tennessee. The ad, by the Republican National Committee, had a blonde saying, “I met Harold at the Playboy party”, and ended with her saying, “Harold, call me”.
Then there was the infamous Willie Horton ad, which was used against presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988. The ad showed a mug shot of this convicted murderer, who committed another murder while on furlough. Horton is black.
And if you live in North Carolina, it’s hard to forget the 1990 ad that Senator Jesse Helms ran against his black challenger, Harvey Gantt. The ad, which was against racial quotas in hiring, showed someone’s white hands crumpling a letter denying the person a job.
Playing the race card is not limited to white candidates against people of colour.
In 2006, Ray Nagin, the black Democratic mayor of New Orleans running in a post-Katrina election, seized on race to revive his campaign. At least twice in public he referred to New Orleans as “Chocolate City” and added that one day it would be “chocolate again”. Nagin won by taking 80% of the black vote; in his 2002 election, he had won only 40%.
Sometimes, the intrusion of race doesn’t appear to be so calculated.
For instance, in 1984 the Rev Jesse Jackson, a Democrat, had called Jews “Hymies” and New York “Hymie-town”. He later apologised for it.
In 2006, then-senator George Allen of Virginia destroyed his own campaign by calling an Indian American “Macaca”.
And last year, Senator Joe Biden’s candidacy sputtered after he said about Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Biden’s and Jackson’s comments may have revealed bigoted thoughts that aren’t usually aired in mixed company or on the record.
The amazing thing to me in 21st century America is that many people running for public office can’t resist the bigoted stumble. I almost prefer the blatant racism of Jesse Helms than having the truth come out in an excited or bumbling utterance that is excused as a gaffe.
I expected it from Jesse Helms. But I didn’t expect it from Jesse Jackson or George Allen or Joe Biden. I had hoped we were beyond that.
And I still hope that the candidates this time around can rise above racist appeals, whether intentional or inadvertent.
We’ve seen enough of these already. – The Progressive Media Project/MCT
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Juneteenth is "independence day" for many African-Americans
Few Americans know that June 19, orJuneteenth, is Independence Day for many folks of African descent.
Also known as Emancipation Day or Freedom Day, it commemorates the end of slavery, the seminal event in African-American history.
President Lincoln's EmancipationProclamation took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, but the word did not spread instantly.
According to one account from published slave narratives of how the holiday began, the Emancipation Proclamation was read to slaves in Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865, more than two years after it officially went into effect. As word of the end of slavery spread, Juneteenth was created to commemorate that day.
Folklore tells why the news of freedom took so long to arrive.
One story is that slaves wereintentionally kept ignorant about their freedom in order to allow crops to continue being harvested.
Another has one messenger traveling by mule from the date of the Emancipation Proclamation to deliver the news, and it simply took more than two years to arrive from Washington, D.C., to Texas.
Yet another story has the messenger being murdered before he could deliver the message.
Juneteenth has been a state holiday in Texas since 1980, and it is either an official holiday or an observed day in at least 17 other states -- Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Wyoming.
Juneteenth is also celebrated in other parts of the world, including China, Ghana, Israel and Japan, to name a few countries, according to Juneteenth.com, an educational Web site.
Why should anyone celebrate the holiday?
"With its lighthearted name andtragicomic origins, Juneteenth appeals to many Americans by celebrating the end of slavery without dwelling on its legacy," wrote Julie Moskin in a 2004 article in the New York Times.
"Juneteenth, its celebrators say, is Martin Luther King's Birthday without the grieving."
No stats prove how many people celebrate Juneteenth every year, but those who do usually treat it like most holidays: filled with parades, speakers, plenty of food, family, dancing and laughter.
Happy Juneteenth.
Also known as Emancipation Day or Freedom Day, it commemorates the end of slavery, the seminal event in African-American history.
President Lincoln's EmancipationProclamation took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, but the word did not spread instantly.
According to one account from published slave narratives of how the holiday began, the Emancipation Proclamation was read to slaves in Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865, more than two years after it officially went into effect. As word of the end of slavery spread, Juneteenth was created to commemorate that day.
Folklore tells why the news of freedom took so long to arrive.
One story is that slaves wereintentionally kept ignorant about their freedom in order to allow crops to continue being harvested.
Another has one messenger traveling by mule from the date of the Emancipation Proclamation to deliver the news, and it simply took more than two years to arrive from Washington, D.C., to Texas.
Yet another story has the messenger being murdered before he could deliver the message.
Juneteenth has been a state holiday in Texas since 1980, and it is either an official holiday or an observed day in at least 17 other states -- Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Wyoming.
Juneteenth is also celebrated in other parts of the world, including China, Ghana, Israel and Japan, to name a few countries, according to Juneteenth.com, an educational Web site.
Why should anyone celebrate the holiday?
"With its lighthearted name andtragicomic origins, Juneteenth appeals to many Americans by celebrating the end of slavery without dwelling on its legacy," wrote Julie Moskin in a 2004 article in the New York Times.
"Juneteenth, its celebrators say, is Martin Luther King's Birthday without the grieving."
No stats prove how many people celebrate Juneteenth every year, but those who do usually treat it like most holidays: filled with parades, speakers, plenty of food, family, dancing and laughter.
Happy Juneteenth.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Biden should apologize to all black Americans
By Akilah Monifa
Joe Biden owed an apology not just to Sen. Barack Obama. He also owed an apology to previous black presidential candidates -- living or dead -- including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Shirley Chisholm, former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton. And he owes an apology to all African-Americans.
Biden, who is white, called his fellow Democratic presidential contender "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Although Biden later issued an apology, he initially claimed he was misquoted and then tried to say that by "clean," he really meant fresh.
Biden's description of the former African-American presidential candidates revealed some of the racist thoughts that many have and don't articulate in mixed company or on the record.
I'm not calling Biden a racist, and, quite honestly, I doubt the thoughts are even conscious. But his comment uncovered the old split between the so-called "good Negro or black" and the bad one -- the house "n" word versus the field "n" word.
The controversy over the quote has centered on Biden's use of the words "clean" and "articulate," since the assumption behind it appears to be that blacks are naturally dirty and unintelligent. But his use of the word "mainstream" is almost as harmful. Is "mainstream" tantamount to "white"? Or is it that Obama is a more palatable African-American than, say, Sharpton or Jackson?
As an African American, I would not have been so publicly forgiving as Obama was at first blush when he stated, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend. But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little too unfortunate."
That is putting it mildly.
Most Americans don't want to think that they may be racist and don't want to acknowledge harboring racist thoughts. But the insidiousness of Biden's choice of words reveals far more than if he had used the "n" word.
Both Biden and Obama should do more to clear this up. We'd be a better country if they did.
Joe Biden owed an apology not just to Sen. Barack Obama. He also owed an apology to previous black presidential candidates -- living or dead -- including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Shirley Chisholm, former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton. And he owes an apology to all African-Americans.
Biden, who is white, called his fellow Democratic presidential contender "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Although Biden later issued an apology, he initially claimed he was misquoted and then tried to say that by "clean," he really meant fresh.
Biden's description of the former African-American presidential candidates revealed some of the racist thoughts that many have and don't articulate in mixed company or on the record.
I'm not calling Biden a racist, and, quite honestly, I doubt the thoughts are even conscious. But his comment uncovered the old split between the so-called "good Negro or black" and the bad one -- the house "n" word versus the field "n" word.
The controversy over the quote has centered on Biden's use of the words "clean" and "articulate," since the assumption behind it appears to be that blacks are naturally dirty and unintelligent. But his use of the word "mainstream" is almost as harmful. Is "mainstream" tantamount to "white"? Or is it that Obama is a more palatable African-American than, say, Sharpton or Jackson?
As an African American, I would not have been so publicly forgiving as Obama was at first blush when he stated, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend. But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little too unfortunate."
That is putting it mildly.
Most Americans don't want to think that they may be racist and don't want to acknowledge harboring racist thoughts. But the insidiousness of Biden's choice of words reveals far more than if he had used the "n" word.
Both Biden and Obama should do more to clear this up. We'd be a better country if they did.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Pressure to Keep Quiet Extends to Team Sports
by Akilah Monifa
Sometimes not only do I get confused about what day of the week it is, but also the year. I recently received an e-mail from a friend which directed me to an article that began: "Should gay athletes, more particularly, should gay men be accepted as teammates? Should they have the same privileges of a heterosexual person in a locker room, or the same shower privileges? Should they be allowed to sleep in the same hotel room with their teammates?"
At first I thought it was some article from the 50s dredged up and reprinted. But somewhat to my shock, but mainly my dismay, the article was written in November 2002. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was at least a throw back to the 1993 U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
As an out African American lesbian and mother, sometimes I think that the world, or at least the rest of the United States, sees life through my lenses, which are accepting of folks regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other identity.
But then I am snapped back in to reality. The quote above was written by Demetrious Johnson for the St. Louis American, a free weekly newspaper (circ. 68,500) covering the African American community. Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."
The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds. Far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. This guy was in the closet during his nine years of professional play, and of course long before that. In a print interview he spoke of his fear of coming out while an active player and said: "I'd wind up cut or injured. I was sure that if a GM didn't get rid of me for the sake of team chemistry, another player would intentionally hurt me, to keep up the image, because the NFL is a supermacho culture."
Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms. Certainly a lot of journalists, athletes and other folks feel that way. But actions speak louder than statements. Johnson and others do have a problem with gay athletes and for that matter, gay people.
Somehow if you are gay and talk about your relationships or even have a picture of your partner you are "flaunting your lifestyle" but it is perfectly acceptable to talk about heterosexual relationships, even inappropriate ones. Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk -- but just don't be gay.
Tuaolo came out in October 2002 in a media blitz on HBO's "Real Sports" and "Inside the NFL," CNN, and ABC's "Good Morning America." But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions.
Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player, put it best: "First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad."
Sad indeed, but Barkley is right, it's not just sports. Is there any wonder folks from all walks of life are reluctant to come out? I applaud Tuaolo for coming out and remain saddened that a 34-year-old man cannot be out as a gay man. No professional athlete has come out while playing a team sport. I don't blame them.
For until we all see that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered folks have a "life" not a "lifestyle," "sexual orientations" (as do heterosexuals) not "preferences" we will continue to be driven into the closet. And that certainly is no way to live one's life.
One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements. Another very simple thing is to question language used to describe LGBTs and apply that same language to heterosexuals. For example, one sees the term gay "lifestyle" but there is no heterosexual "lifestyle."
LGBTs are like heterosexuals in how we live our lives and form our families. Using distinguishing words lessens our lives. Journalists covering gay athlete issues or who want to seek further education should also look to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for a style guide as well as the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) LGBT Media Reference Guide for Fall 2002/Winter 2003.
As for Tuaolo, hopefully he will have the last laugh. He is out of football and out in life and lives with his partner and their 23-month-old twins. Thank you Esera for breaking the silence and coming out of the closet. Here's to hoping that others will see the importance of being out and not be threatened by someone else coming out.
Sometimes not only do I get confused about what day of the week it is, but also the year. I recently received an e-mail from a friend which directed me to an article that began: "Should gay athletes, more particularly, should gay men be accepted as teammates? Should they have the same privileges of a heterosexual person in a locker room, or the same shower privileges? Should they be allowed to sleep in the same hotel room with their teammates?"
At first I thought it was some article from the 50s dredged up and reprinted. But somewhat to my shock, but mainly my dismay, the article was written in November 2002. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was at least a throw back to the 1993 U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
As an out African American lesbian and mother, sometimes I think that the world, or at least the rest of the United States, sees life through my lenses, which are accepting of folks regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other identity.
But then I am snapped back in to reality. The quote above was written by Demetrious Johnson for the St. Louis American, a free weekly newspaper (circ. 68,500) covering the African American community. Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."
The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds. Far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. This guy was in the closet during his nine years of professional play, and of course long before that. In a print interview he spoke of his fear of coming out while an active player and said: "I'd wind up cut or injured. I was sure that if a GM didn't get rid of me for the sake of team chemistry, another player would intentionally hurt me, to keep up the image, because the NFL is a supermacho culture."
Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms. Certainly a lot of journalists, athletes and other folks feel that way. But actions speak louder than statements. Johnson and others do have a problem with gay athletes and for that matter, gay people.
Somehow if you are gay and talk about your relationships or even have a picture of your partner you are "flaunting your lifestyle" but it is perfectly acceptable to talk about heterosexual relationships, even inappropriate ones. Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk -- but just don't be gay.
Tuaolo came out in October 2002 in a media blitz on HBO's "Real Sports" and "Inside the NFL," CNN, and ABC's "Good Morning America." But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions.
Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player, put it best: "First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad."
Sad indeed, but Barkley is right, it's not just sports. Is there any wonder folks from all walks of life are reluctant to come out? I applaud Tuaolo for coming out and remain saddened that a 34-year-old man cannot be out as a gay man. No professional athlete has come out while playing a team sport. I don't blame them.
For until we all see that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered folks have a "life" not a "lifestyle," "sexual orientations" (as do heterosexuals) not "preferences" we will continue to be driven into the closet. And that certainly is no way to live one's life.
One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements. Another very simple thing is to question language used to describe LGBTs and apply that same language to heterosexuals. For example, one sees the term gay "lifestyle" but there is no heterosexual "lifestyle."
LGBTs are like heterosexuals in how we live our lives and form our families. Using distinguishing words lessens our lives. Journalists covering gay athlete issues or who want to seek further education should also look to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for a style guide as well as the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) LGBT Media Reference Guide for Fall 2002/Winter 2003.
As for Tuaolo, hopefully he will have the last laugh. He is out of football and out in life and lives with his partner and their 23-month-old twins. Thank you Esera for breaking the silence and coming out of the closet. Here's to hoping that others will see the importance of being out and not be threatened by someone else coming out.
Have You Seen Us? News organizations need to cover missing kids -- regardless of ethnicity or economics
by Akilah Monifa
Approximately every week I receive a flyer from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are always two pictures of missing folks, usually children. Years ago missing children's pictures used to be on milk cartons. Rarely are any of the missing people folks of color. Likewise much media attention has recently been given to the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart, as well as the disappearance and killing of Samantha Runnion. That any person much less a child is missing, molested and/or murdered is truly tragic. But it is interesting to note the media coverage of these events and the interplay of race.
Alexis Patterson, an African-American girl, was kidnapped a month before Elizabeth Smart and has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. According to Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News, in the same time frame stories about Smart versus Patterson ran 1,000 to 100. Heck, even JonBenet Ramsey some five-and-a-half years later gets more press than a missing, kidnapped or murdered child of color.
So clearly the mainstream news media depictions in terms of both coverage at all and airtime do not accurately reflect what is happening. If so, only white kids are missing, kidnapped and/or murdered, and only African-American men get beat up by the police (particularly if there is a video camera present to record the beating.
What does the mainstream news media coverage of these children say about how kids of color are valued in our society? And why don't kids of color get similar coverage. Is it racism? Classism?
Of course the real answer is complicated. I certainly don't believe that there is a conspiracy to cover only white kids and not kids of color, but rather an intertwining of race, class, access and privilege. Missing children who get press coverage are more like the decision-makers of the news. Moreover it is about the destruction of our fantasies around safety and our expectations.
Are we surprised when a child of color living in the inner city gets harmed in some way? But what is the shock value of a kid like Elizabeth Smart getting kidnapped from a gated community in Salt Lake City, Utah? Salt Lake is supposed to be safe, particularly gated communities. The inner city is supposed to be dangerous, so the fact that children are harmed there isn't the breaking news.
And certainly the Smarts have available a full barrage of legal counsel and communications folk along with the access to the mainstream news media. So they can tell their story with ease and maximum print and broadcast coverage. As a general rule both race and class exclude folks of color from accessing the same press machinery.
But of course ultimately the responsibility for coverage, airtime and column inches falls back on the decision-makers of the news, almost all of whom are white. The few remaining media outlets can decide to examine their own race and class biases and look for stories beyond those easily presented to them by families of those privileged to have easy access to the press. They can go beyond Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas and Amber Schwartz and look for and give equal coverage to Alexis Patterson, Sherrice Iverson and countless other anonymous children of color who are missing or killed.
The privileges afforded by media access cannot be changed, but the media's self-critique and inclusion around race and class can be. It is about balance and examination. Here's to hoping that no child, regardless of color will need press coverage because they are missing, but if they do, let's not just cover the white kids.
8/12/2002
Approximately every week I receive a flyer from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are always two pictures of missing folks, usually children. Years ago missing children's pictures used to be on milk cartons. Rarely are any of the missing people folks of color. Likewise much media attention has recently been given to the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart, as well as the disappearance and killing of Samantha Runnion. That any person much less a child is missing, molested and/or murdered is truly tragic. But it is interesting to note the media coverage of these events and the interplay of race.
Alexis Patterson, an African-American girl, was kidnapped a month before Elizabeth Smart and has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. According to Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News, in the same time frame stories about Smart versus Patterson ran 1,000 to 100. Heck, even JonBenet Ramsey some five-and-a-half years later gets more press than a missing, kidnapped or murdered child of color.
So clearly the mainstream news media depictions in terms of both coverage at all and airtime do not accurately reflect what is happening. If so, only white kids are missing, kidnapped and/or murdered, and only African-American men get beat up by the police (particularly if there is a video camera present to record the beating.
What does the mainstream news media coverage of these children say about how kids of color are valued in our society? And why don't kids of color get similar coverage. Is it racism? Classism?
Of course the real answer is complicated. I certainly don't believe that there is a conspiracy to cover only white kids and not kids of color, but rather an intertwining of race, class, access and privilege. Missing children who get press coverage are more like the decision-makers of the news. Moreover it is about the destruction of our fantasies around safety and our expectations.
Are we surprised when a child of color living in the inner city gets harmed in some way? But what is the shock value of a kid like Elizabeth Smart getting kidnapped from a gated community in Salt Lake City, Utah? Salt Lake is supposed to be safe, particularly gated communities. The inner city is supposed to be dangerous, so the fact that children are harmed there isn't the breaking news.
And certainly the Smarts have available a full barrage of legal counsel and communications folk along with the access to the mainstream news media. So they can tell their story with ease and maximum print and broadcast coverage. As a general rule both race and class exclude folks of color from accessing the same press machinery.
But of course ultimately the responsibility for coverage, airtime and column inches falls back on the decision-makers of the news, almost all of whom are white. The few remaining media outlets can decide to examine their own race and class biases and look for stories beyond those easily presented to them by families of those privileged to have easy access to the press. They can go beyond Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas and Amber Schwartz and look for and give equal coverage to Alexis Patterson, Sherrice Iverson and countless other anonymous children of color who are missing or killed.
The privileges afforded by media access cannot be changed, but the media's self-critique and inclusion around race and class can be. It is about balance and examination. Here's to hoping that no child, regardless of color will need press coverage because they are missing, but if they do, let's not just cover the white kids.
8/12/2002
Thursday, December 28, 2006
By Race Divided
By Akilah Monifa
I'm literally an American; I have a passport issued by the United States of America. I am, in fact, a citizen, born in the state of Kansas. But I am not an American, not figuratively.
I was born in 1957, three years after the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision that purportedly made segregation in public schools illegal. You know, ``separate but equal is inherently unequal.'' Yet it was 1968, a full 14 years after the Supreme Court ruling, before I attended a public school that was integrated. And I alone provided that integration.
To this day I do not stand for the national anthem at sporting events or elsewhere. I sit quietly in protest. I refuse to ignore the ``pink elephant'' of racism and inequality so pervasive in this country. I do not deny that things are better in 2000 than when I was born, but change has been slow in coming, and we still live in a largely segregated society.
I am constantly mistaken for other black people who look nothing like me -- most recently for a friend who is four inches shorter, has longer hair and much darker skin. I am not an American, because if I were not so akin to Ralph Ellison's ``Invisible Man'' or Audre Lourde's ``Sister Outsider,'' Americans of European descent (read: white people) would see me, and I mean truly see me, and acknowledge in word and deed that we do not all look alike.
I am not an American and will not be an American until people of color are accurately depicted and reflected in the media. Likewise for government representation and corporate and nonprofit ownership.
I am not an American and will not be an American until folks recognize that race and color are not synonymous. That the term ``people of color'' is not literal and that people of color come in a multitude of shades, from very light-skinned white to very dark-skinned black and all shades in between.
Our differences and similarities based on race, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic class/status should be recognized, acknowledged and celebrated. The melting-pot theory robs us all of this wonderful diversity, and I refuse to participate in that assimilation.
I will be an American when diversity based on race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, national origin, sexual orientation, gender and disability is valued, accepted and pursued.
Until then I will remain a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, holding citizenship and a passport. I do in fact recognize my privileges and choose not to live elsewhere. But I also see how far we as a society have to go to ensure full rights and access to all.
Akilah Monifa is a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, who is a free-lance writer living in Oakland.
July 2, 2000
Page ED - 9 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/02/ED98504.DTL
I'm literally an American; I have a passport issued by the United States of America. I am, in fact, a citizen, born in the state of Kansas. But I am not an American, not figuratively.
I was born in 1957, three years after the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision that purportedly made segregation in public schools illegal. You know, ``separate but equal is inherently unequal.'' Yet it was 1968, a full 14 years after the Supreme Court ruling, before I attended a public school that was integrated. And I alone provided that integration.
To this day I do not stand for the national anthem at sporting events or elsewhere. I sit quietly in protest. I refuse to ignore the ``pink elephant'' of racism and inequality so pervasive in this country. I do not deny that things are better in 2000 than when I was born, but change has been slow in coming, and we still live in a largely segregated society.
I am constantly mistaken for other black people who look nothing like me -- most recently for a friend who is four inches shorter, has longer hair and much darker skin. I am not an American, because if I were not so akin to Ralph Ellison's ``Invisible Man'' or Audre Lourde's ``Sister Outsider,'' Americans of European descent (read: white people) would see me, and I mean truly see me, and acknowledge in word and deed that we do not all look alike.
I am not an American and will not be an American until people of color are accurately depicted and reflected in the media. Likewise for government representation and corporate and nonprofit ownership.
I am not an American and will not be an American until folks recognize that race and color are not synonymous. That the term ``people of color'' is not literal and that people of color come in a multitude of shades, from very light-skinned white to very dark-skinned black and all shades in between.
Our differences and similarities based on race, gender, sexual orientation and socioeconomic class/status should be recognized, acknowledged and celebrated. The melting-pot theory robs us all of this wonderful diversity, and I refuse to participate in that assimilation.
I will be an American when diversity based on race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, national origin, sexual orientation, gender and disability is valued, accepted and pursued.
Until then I will remain a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, holding citizenship and a passport. I do in fact recognize my privileges and choose not to live elsewhere. But I also see how far we as a society have to go to ensure full rights and access to all.
Akilah Monifa is a lesbian of African descent, born in the United States, who is a free-lance writer living in Oakland.
July 2, 2000
Page ED - 9 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/07/02/ED98504.DTL
Kwanzaa turns 40, remains misunderstood holiday
by Akilah Monifa
I celebrate Kwanzaa, a holiday that honors family, community and culture. My family and I have done so for years. But five years after Sept. 11, in this climate of religious and cultural intolerance in America, I can sympathize with Muslims here who feel like outsiders.Many white Americans are suspicious and fearful of Kwanzaa. Like other holidays that are celebrated predominantly by people of color -- such as Ramadan, Juneteenth, Holi, Hispanic Heritage Month -- Kwanzaa ought to be an opportunity for those who are unfamiliar with it to learn more.It is a seven-day, Pan-African, secular holiday that has cultural roots. Because of its Swahili name and because it begins the day after Christmas, many folks think Kwanzaa is a religious holiday. Many refer to it as the "black Christmas."Its origins are from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But because of founder Ron Karenga's former ties to the United Slaves Organization, a black nationalist group, Kwanzaa is constantly attacked for being separatist and black nationalist.It is neither.Over the years, there have been quite a few non-African-Americans present at our gatherings, and the atmosphere has been celebratory. People who are not of African descent are happy to be included because they often have family members or friends who participate.Kwanzaa's seven principles -- of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith -- are ones that many people, irrespective of background, can appreciate.Millions of people, regardless of race or religion, now celebrate Kwanzaa worldwide. But even as our communities become increasingly multicultural and cross-cultural, acceptance has diminished for those who don't follow mainstream traditions around this time of year.In the age of terror, we would all benefit to learn more about one another, and to embody Kwanzaa's ideals of happiness, unity and peace.Akilah Monifa is a freelance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
I celebrate Kwanzaa, a holiday that honors family, community and culture. My family and I have done so for years. But five years after Sept. 11, in this climate of religious and cultural intolerance in America, I can sympathize with Muslims here who feel like outsiders.Many white Americans are suspicious and fearful of Kwanzaa. Like other holidays that are celebrated predominantly by people of color -- such as Ramadan, Juneteenth, Holi, Hispanic Heritage Month -- Kwanzaa ought to be an opportunity for those who are unfamiliar with it to learn more.It is a seven-day, Pan-African, secular holiday that has cultural roots. Because of its Swahili name and because it begins the day after Christmas, many folks think Kwanzaa is a religious holiday. Many refer to it as the "black Christmas."Its origins are from the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But because of founder Ron Karenga's former ties to the United Slaves Organization, a black nationalist group, Kwanzaa is constantly attacked for being separatist and black nationalist.It is neither.Over the years, there have been quite a few non-African-Americans present at our gatherings, and the atmosphere has been celebratory. People who are not of African descent are happy to be included because they often have family members or friends who participate.Kwanzaa's seven principles -- of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith -- are ones that many people, irrespective of background, can appreciate.Millions of people, regardless of race or religion, now celebrate Kwanzaa worldwide. But even as our communities become increasingly multicultural and cross-cultural, acceptance has diminished for those who don't follow mainstream traditions around this time of year.In the age of terror, we would all benefit to learn more about one another, and to embody Kwanzaa's ideals of happiness, unity and peace.Akilah Monifa is a freelance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
A Matter of Words
by Akilah Monifa
When covering complex issues, start small and watch your language.Parenting by folks in the LGBT communities is a hot media topic. Rosie O'Donnell came out and is also a spokesperson in particular for the rights of LGBTs in Florida as foster parents. This has sparked a great deal of renewed conversation about LGBTs and parenting. Ted Koppel's "Nightline" (ABC) had a five-part series on gays in America beginning May 20 titled, "A Matter of Choice?: Gay Life in America," which was delayed from Sept. 11. The use of the word "choice" in the series is sure to annoy many in our communities. Particularly those who live in a major media market, who are knowledgeable about the issues, don't think it is a matter of choice. But therein lies the problem: we want to educate while simultaneously using politically correct language. Since O'Donnell is both a lesbian and an adoptive parent, consider this: if adoption issues are out in left field for most folks, then gays and lesbians adopting are not even in the same town, much less in the ballpark. Folks are not familiar with issues around adoption and don't know the correct language to use unless they have been impacted by adoption or educated on the issues. Likewise with the LGBT community - even the term LGBT doesn't play in most media markets. LGBTs are perceived differently by both the media and the consumers of media when we are out of the five major media markets, which are all in urban areas. So a national show like Koppel's must play to middle America and the so-called "fly-over" states. If such a show were directed exclusively at a major media market with a large and active LGBT community, then the word "choice" would not be in the frame at all. Decisions need to be made. We must first educate the masses on the simplest issues before demanding that the correct language be used. If folks can't at least understand the basic issues then mere use of the correct terminology makes no sense and doesn't enhance our cause. Without education, two men adopting a child are seen by most in this country as two "fags" taking away a child from his/her "natural" mother rather than a couple forming their family. Here the education is both around adoption issues and LGBT issues. Journalists aren't the only ones who have difficulty knowing what language to use when speaking of "the other," which can be anyone from someone of a different race/ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or gender. When "the other" is seen and viewed as "the other," we are dehumanized. To borrow from San Francisco Chronicle TV columnist Tim Goodman, shows like the "Nightline" series for those in "urban gay-familiar areas" are "... not even Gay 101. It's gay kindergarten." Therefore, more stories need to be generated about LGBTs and specifically LGBTs who are parenting, and not just the sensationalistic stories. Having a celebrity come out the closet does nothing to help folks see that me, my partner and our daughter as a family are virtually no different than another two-parent heterosexual couple with a child. Certainly LGBTs using adoption as a way to form our families is but one tiny piece of the media and education puzzle. Journalists and activists must constantly address the concerns and educate folks about other folks who they may have never seen. The complete stories need to be told with all diversity factors included. When our stories are less of an anomaly and our presence is known throughout the country then, despite the religious right, we will cease to be seen as "the other" and merely be another family in the neighborhood in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's largest pediatricians' group, estimates that more than 9 million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent. For me, what really matters is family, not how it is formed nor the specific characteristics of the parent(s). We must continue to find ways to tell our stories to the press and celebrate our families.
June 2003
When covering complex issues, start small and watch your language.Parenting by folks in the LGBT communities is a hot media topic. Rosie O'Donnell came out and is also a spokesperson in particular for the rights of LGBTs in Florida as foster parents. This has sparked a great deal of renewed conversation about LGBTs and parenting. Ted Koppel's "Nightline" (ABC) had a five-part series on gays in America beginning May 20 titled, "A Matter of Choice?: Gay Life in America," which was delayed from Sept. 11. The use of the word "choice" in the series is sure to annoy many in our communities. Particularly those who live in a major media market, who are knowledgeable about the issues, don't think it is a matter of choice. But therein lies the problem: we want to educate while simultaneously using politically correct language. Since O'Donnell is both a lesbian and an adoptive parent, consider this: if adoption issues are out in left field for most folks, then gays and lesbians adopting are not even in the same town, much less in the ballpark. Folks are not familiar with issues around adoption and don't know the correct language to use unless they have been impacted by adoption or educated on the issues. Likewise with the LGBT community - even the term LGBT doesn't play in most media markets. LGBTs are perceived differently by both the media and the consumers of media when we are out of the five major media markets, which are all in urban areas. So a national show like Koppel's must play to middle America and the so-called "fly-over" states. If such a show were directed exclusively at a major media market with a large and active LGBT community, then the word "choice" would not be in the frame at all. Decisions need to be made. We must first educate the masses on the simplest issues before demanding that the correct language be used. If folks can't at least understand the basic issues then mere use of the correct terminology makes no sense and doesn't enhance our cause. Without education, two men adopting a child are seen by most in this country as two "fags" taking away a child from his/her "natural" mother rather than a couple forming their family. Here the education is both around adoption issues and LGBT issues. Journalists aren't the only ones who have difficulty knowing what language to use when speaking of "the other," which can be anyone from someone of a different race/ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or gender. When "the other" is seen and viewed as "the other," we are dehumanized. To borrow from San Francisco Chronicle TV columnist Tim Goodman, shows like the "Nightline" series for those in "urban gay-familiar areas" are "... not even Gay 101. It's gay kindergarten." Therefore, more stories need to be generated about LGBTs and specifically LGBTs who are parenting, and not just the sensationalistic stories. Having a celebrity come out the closet does nothing to help folks see that me, my partner and our daughter as a family are virtually no different than another two-parent heterosexual couple with a child. Certainly LGBTs using adoption as a way to form our families is but one tiny piece of the media and education puzzle. Journalists and activists must constantly address the concerns and educate folks about other folks who they may have never seen. The complete stories need to be told with all diversity factors included. When our stories are less of an anomaly and our presence is known throughout the country then, despite the religious right, we will cease to be seen as "the other" and merely be another family in the neighborhood in America. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's largest pediatricians' group, estimates that more than 9 million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent. For me, what really matters is family, not how it is formed nor the specific characteristics of the parent(s). We must continue to find ways to tell our stories to the press and celebrate our families.
June 2003
5 Subjects White People Should Never Initiate in a Conversation with People of Color
by Akilah Monifa
It used to be that most white people would start a discussion with me, a woman of African descent, by referring to someone or something they thought they knew about another person of African descent, or about my culture.For example, in the 1980s folks would often mention someone they saw on television (or heard about), like Bill Cosby. Those who thought of themselves as hip might lead off with a musical reference -- "that Stevie Wonder is talented," "Lena Horne sure looks good for her age." And, of course, sports were also popular.People would feel free to initiate these discussions, but accepting for their limited knowledge of these folks from the media, their lives were not racially or ethnically diverse. These conversations were always awkward for me and never satisfying. For years, I have denied this, but now that white people are a certified minority, I have devised a list of five subject areas white people should never bring up in conversation with people of color.In no particular order, they are:1. Color, Race and/or Ethnicity -- White people, like people of color, are obsessed with it. (By the way, the term "people of color" is not literal. People of color come in various shades, tones, and hues.) We are aware of this. We don't enjoy you putting your arm next to ours and remarking how you are darker than we are.The prejudice linked to being a person of color is not solely generated by the color of the skin. There are definitely some links, such as how police stop disproportionate numbers of people of color while driving or shopping.But many people of color are discriminated against even though they are not initially seen as a person of color. Most white people would not accept discrimination associated with being a person of color as a fair price to pay for being "exotic" and darker.2. Hair -- Another area considered exotic, and a reason for envy. Plus white people must unconsciously believe that if you rub or touch our hair/head, you will have good luck.You can certainly admire my hair, but if you saw someone of your own race with a nice hair cut, you might compliment or ask where they got it done, but never would you touch it.I also get white people arguing with me about how I groom my hair, particularly after they have seen a documentary on the topic.If the terms "nappy," "kitchen," or even "Jew fro" are not from your particular culture, believe me it is inappropriate and often insulting to approach someone from a different race or ethnicity and use these terms in reference to their hair.3. Clothing --- A huge quagmire.Again, compliment the person just as you would if you saw a polo shirt in a color you like that was particularly flattering on the person.If you choose to wear clothing that is indigenous to another culture, you should not approach someone from that culture and initiate a conversation about how you now "look like them." Remember the expression "a sheep in wolf's clothing." Clothing does not define your race or ethnicity.Nor should you question whether or not someone is wearing clothing associated with her culture.4. Age -- Many people will note that it is difficult to determine the age of people of color, in particular women.Many a comedian of color has made sexist and ageist jokes about white women. The aging process and its effects on looks are not attributes of race and ethnicity, but of a multitude of factors including genetics, luck and individual maintenance.5. Class -- Many a white person mistakenly assumes that all people of color came from a lower socio-economic background and live in their neighborhoods only because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.The days of that Booker T. Washington mentality are over. The statement is ridiculous on its face. The reality is that race and/or ethnicity does not solely define us.But when we are initially approached in this way, the walls that divide us continue to grow. Stereotypes dehumanize people so we relate to one another as caricatures instead of human beings.There are many ways to approach folk who are different without initially and awkwardly commenting on those differences.Differences have no intrinsic value. They are neither good nor bad, they just are. So if you wonder about the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in your life, could it be you are inadvertently dehumanizing and/or exoticizing folk rather than reaching out on a more basic human level?As my late grandmother Lizzie used to say, the weather is always a safe topic of conversation and if that goes well, you can move on to another subject area.
April 11, 2001
It used to be that most white people would start a discussion with me, a woman of African descent, by referring to someone or something they thought they knew about another person of African descent, or about my culture.For example, in the 1980s folks would often mention someone they saw on television (or heard about), like Bill Cosby. Those who thought of themselves as hip might lead off with a musical reference -- "that Stevie Wonder is talented," "Lena Horne sure looks good for her age." And, of course, sports were also popular.People would feel free to initiate these discussions, but accepting for their limited knowledge of these folks from the media, their lives were not racially or ethnically diverse. These conversations were always awkward for me and never satisfying. For years, I have denied this, but now that white people are a certified minority, I have devised a list of five subject areas white people should never bring up in conversation with people of color.In no particular order, they are:1. Color, Race and/or Ethnicity -- White people, like people of color, are obsessed with it. (By the way, the term "people of color" is not literal. People of color come in various shades, tones, and hues.) We are aware of this. We don't enjoy you putting your arm next to ours and remarking how you are darker than we are.The prejudice linked to being a person of color is not solely generated by the color of the skin. There are definitely some links, such as how police stop disproportionate numbers of people of color while driving or shopping.But many people of color are discriminated against even though they are not initially seen as a person of color. Most white people would not accept discrimination associated with being a person of color as a fair price to pay for being "exotic" and darker.2. Hair -- Another area considered exotic, and a reason for envy. Plus white people must unconsciously believe that if you rub or touch our hair/head, you will have good luck.You can certainly admire my hair, but if you saw someone of your own race with a nice hair cut, you might compliment or ask where they got it done, but never would you touch it.I also get white people arguing with me about how I groom my hair, particularly after they have seen a documentary on the topic.If the terms "nappy," "kitchen," or even "Jew fro" are not from your particular culture, believe me it is inappropriate and often insulting to approach someone from a different race or ethnicity and use these terms in reference to their hair.3. Clothing --- A huge quagmire.Again, compliment the person just as you would if you saw a polo shirt in a color you like that was particularly flattering on the person.If you choose to wear clothing that is indigenous to another culture, you should not approach someone from that culture and initiate a conversation about how you now "look like them." Remember the expression "a sheep in wolf's clothing." Clothing does not define your race or ethnicity.Nor should you question whether or not someone is wearing clothing associated with her culture.4. Age -- Many people will note that it is difficult to determine the age of people of color, in particular women.Many a comedian of color has made sexist and ageist jokes about white women. The aging process and its effects on looks are not attributes of race and ethnicity, but of a multitude of factors including genetics, luck and individual maintenance.5. Class -- Many a white person mistakenly assumes that all people of color came from a lower socio-economic background and live in their neighborhoods only because they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.The days of that Booker T. Washington mentality are over. The statement is ridiculous on its face. The reality is that race and/or ethnicity does not solely define us.But when we are initially approached in this way, the walls that divide us continue to grow. Stereotypes dehumanize people so we relate to one another as caricatures instead of human beings.There are many ways to approach folk who are different without initially and awkwardly commenting on those differences.Differences have no intrinsic value. They are neither good nor bad, they just are. So if you wonder about the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in your life, could it be you are inadvertently dehumanizing and/or exoticizing folk rather than reaching out on a more basic human level?As my late grandmother Lizzie used to say, the weather is always a safe topic of conversation and if that goes well, you can move on to another subject area.
April 11, 2001
My Mother's Day wish is for an end to unfair adoption laws
by Akilah Monifa
This year, my partner and I will celebrate our second Mother's Day together, and we are grateful to our daughter, to each other and to our families. We adopted our daughter as a simultaneous same-sex adoption. We are fortunate to live in California where such adoptions are allowed.Unfortunately, many lawmakers and others in our society discriminate against lesbian, bisexual and transgendered mothers. Some women find it more advantageous to stay in the closet about their identity rather than risk losing, or being threatened with losing, parental rights. Some fear never being able to become parents at all because of unfair adoption laws.Florida, Utah and Mississippi currently ban same-sex adoptions, while only six states and the District of Columbia expressly permit them. The remaining states have no express laws regarding same-sex adoptions, although some states deny anyone who is not legally married the right to adopt.Participation in foster care is similarly off-limits in many states and counties, which place limits on who can be a caregiver based on identity, rather than competency. While hundreds of thousands of children nationwide await placement through a foster-care or adoption system, they are prevented from entering loving homes because of laws fueled by ignorance and bias.These laws fail to recognize that millions of children are being raised by so-called nontraditional families, including single parents, unmarried couples and extended families, as well as by gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, according to the recent census.Good news recently emerged when the American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's largest pediatricians' group, called for legislation that would allow gays and lesbians to adopt their partner's children, known as second-parent adoption. The academy estimates that more than 9 million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent.What's more, the American Psychological Association recently published a report saying that "there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents, or that psychological development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relevant to that among offspring of heterosexual parents."This confirms what I already know. We are proud mothers who are also lesbians. For us, what really matters is our family, and that our family is protected under the law.This Mother's Day, like every day, we will celebrate being together and refuse to live with the fear that unfair laws could one day pull us apart.
May 2, 2002
This year, my partner and I will celebrate our second Mother's Day together, and we are grateful to our daughter, to each other and to our families. We adopted our daughter as a simultaneous same-sex adoption. We are fortunate to live in California where such adoptions are allowed.Unfortunately, many lawmakers and others in our society discriminate against lesbian, bisexual and transgendered mothers. Some women find it more advantageous to stay in the closet about their identity rather than risk losing, or being threatened with losing, parental rights. Some fear never being able to become parents at all because of unfair adoption laws.Florida, Utah and Mississippi currently ban same-sex adoptions, while only six states and the District of Columbia expressly permit them. The remaining states have no express laws regarding same-sex adoptions, although some states deny anyone who is not legally married the right to adopt.Participation in foster care is similarly off-limits in many states and counties, which place limits on who can be a caregiver based on identity, rather than competency. While hundreds of thousands of children nationwide await placement through a foster-care or adoption system, they are prevented from entering loving homes because of laws fueled by ignorance and bias.These laws fail to recognize that millions of children are being raised by so-called nontraditional families, including single parents, unmarried couples and extended families, as well as by gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered people, according to the recent census.Good news recently emerged when the American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation's largest pediatricians' group, called for legislation that would allow gays and lesbians to adopt their partner's children, known as second-parent adoption. The academy estimates that more than 9 million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent.What's more, the American Psychological Association recently published a report saying that "there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents, or that psychological development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relevant to that among offspring of heterosexual parents."This confirms what I already know. We are proud mothers who are also lesbians. For us, what really matters is our family, and that our family is protected under the law.This Mother's Day, like every day, we will celebrate being together and refuse to live with the fear that unfair laws could one day pull us apart.
May 2, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
