More Thoughts & Critisism of Little Brother (contains SPOILERS)

okay. so this book rocked pretty hard. if i could write a blurb for the back of the book it would say "cory doctorow: i didn't finish your book because i was too pumped up and freaked out to keep reading so i went out and overthrew the government and incited mass rebellion in the middle of the night."

of course i did finish the book though. it was awesome in a lot of ways. read this book. then give it to everyone you know. i haven't quite worked out how to give it to everyone at the same time yet, but Cory Doctorow has it for free download on his website so that should help.

here's the thing though. the book fails the bechdel test abysmally. (for those that don't know, the Bechdel Test measures how women are treated in a particular piece of media. it deliberately sets a really low bar in order for the work to pass the test. all that's necessary is for the work to have 1. two female characters with names 2. who talk to each other 3. about something other than a man. Easy, right? The horrifying thing is that most movies/books/etc fail the Bechdel test. Not only do they fail, they also pass the anti-Bechdel test with flying colors. That means that the proportion of books/movies/whatever that feature men talking to each other about things other than women is WAY out of proportion to the number of books that feature women talking about things other than men). So the book sends awesome messages about not sacrificing your personal freedoms for the sake of security, not letting the government cease to represent you, and defending yourself by refusing to be silent. However, it sends this message in a vehicle that ultimately recreates the same power structures that oppress people who struggle against the same sort of tyrannical governmental policies.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!

BrownBetty (on goodreads) hit it right on when she said that Marcus's success depends on his access to upperclass white privilege. There are few women or people of color in the book. Doctorow clearly has good intentions, but it is not enough to simply have a strong female main character (Ange), it's not enough to have an of-color sidekick who helps critically (Jolu). Imagine the power of a book like this which, instead of being written about a white upperclass boy, was written about a couple of chicana lesbians, or a group of workingclass black people.

Doctorow sort of addresses this issue with Jolu. He says "I hate to say it, but you're white. I'm not. ...White people see cops on the street and feel safer. Brown people see cops on the street and wonder if they're about to get searched. They way the DHS is treating you? The law in this county has always been like that for us" (160). Maybe that's the point. To say to the upperclasswhiteboy, hey this can happen to you too. Not just to brown people who have the "wrong" religion or the wrong "ethnic" name. But the portrayal of women (or rather lack thereof) still makes me uneasy. For a book that's all about challenging authority and social norms, it could push a little harder in challenging the norms in the way it's written.

Maybe this book will have wider appeal because it's protagonist is your typical whiteuppermiddleclassmale. Maybe people wouldn't read the same book if it was about a group of girls, or gay people, or people of color. Am i willing to overlook that for the sake of the overall theme/message of the book? i'm not sure. MLK Jr said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," I'm not sure that I want to sacrifice some of my views to help spread other of my values. I don't think we really want to get into playing a game of whose issue is "more important."

Damnnit Cory Doctorow. Help me out a little here. Your book rocks hard, really it does, but THINK BIGGER!

Oppose the DSMV Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorder

Here's the link to the petition again. In case you need convincing, or know someone that does, here's a letter I wrote to get people to pay attention:

Hi Guys,

I don't for the most part send out mass emails because I think it's really annoying. However I just signed the petition "Objection to DSM-V Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorders" and it's really important to me that you at least know what this issue is about. Signing the petition would be great too, but telling other people about what is going on would be better. People need to know. Please at least read:

Here's the deal. The American Psychiatrist's Association is rewriting the DSM-V (manual that describes mental illnesses, etc). They've appointed to the committee a bunch of people who think that gay and transgendered people should be treated with "aversion therapy" to "cure" them of gayness/transgenderism. There was a show on NPR about Kenneth Zucker, one of the appointees, a couple weeks ago if you happened to hear it. It described (among other things) a 6 year old biologically male child whose parents had been counseled by Zucker to punish the kid if he played with dolls, hung out with girls, or showed any interest in the color pink. Listen here. It's heartbreaking.

Not only would Zucker and the others reclassify transgenderism as a mental illness to be treated with "aversion therapy," they would reclassify it as a form of homosexuality which they also think is pathological. Meaning, if they get their way, a gay or trans person could go to their local friendly psychiatrist for help with depression/anxiety disorder/whatever, and end up being "treated" so as to reverse their gayness/transness. Basically Zucker wants to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness. In case we need some reminding of what that means, here's a direct quote from the NPR story on what used to happen when homosexuality was defined as a mental illness: "According to Jack Drescher, former chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay and lesbian issues, one treatment was to try to condition homosexuals out of their sexual preference by attaching them to electrical shock machines and shocking them every time they were aroused by homosexual pornography."

This is a really big deal and it is not getting enough attention. Please sign the petition and talk to other people about why it's important. Imagine the queer people you know. If they were in a bad spot and needed help from a professional, would you want them to be able to get that help without being judged? Or would you want the people who are supposed to be helping them subjecting them to more degradation and forcing them to twist their own identity?

Thanks for reading,
~Sarah

Books for Raising Revolutionary Children (more to come & seriously in need of revision)

"The world is not respectable; it is mortal, tormented, confused, deluded forever; but it is shot through with beauty, with love, with glints of courage and laughter; and in these, the spirit blooms timidly, and struggles to the light amid the thorns."
--George Santayana

Tired of reading anachronistic picture books to your kids featuring farm animals and lots of little white boys (or perhaps too many princessy girls slathered in pink)? Me too! Kids aren't stupid. They know the world's not perfect. condescending books just turn them away from reading. here are some tips for raising radicals and revolutionaries.

when harriet met sojurner:
absolutely beautiful picture book about what might have happened during the undocumented meeting between Harriet Tubman and Sojurner Truth.

as good as anybody:
this is a gorgeous picture book about Martin Luther King Jr and Abraham Joshua Heschel growing up and meeting each other. the reason it's so awesome is because it doesn't sugarcoat history for kids. both martin and abraham as children rage against the injustices they face. "things won't always be like this," their parents tell them, "maybe things will be better in the next world." "i dont want to have to wait for the next world" they say. this book inspires not only activism, but also the uniting of all oppressed groups. shockingly, it's published by Random House (the corporate scourge of consumerist conformity).

americans who tell the truth
i haven't read this, but it looks awesome.

evolution me and other freaks of nature
hilarious YA novel about a christian girl ostracized by her church for defending a gay classmate. but that all happens before the book starts. the actual plot is about her and her lab partner fighting for their science teacher's right to teach them evolution against all the religious fundies.

memoirs of a bookbat
harper loves to read, but her parents are conservative christians who travel around the country, enrolling her in different school districts so that they can ban as many books as possible. she has to sneak her books home and hide them under her mattress.

his dark materials
okay everyone knows about these books by now. but they are seriously revolutionary as I've pointed out before. in how many books do we get to hear a positive description of a female main character being dirty, conceited and arrogant? awesome. also features gay angels and sustaining mutual friendships between powerful women. the whole theme of the books is that experience and knowledge are better than innocence and purity. hott!

the family book
todd parr is way cool. i'm not very into his illustrative style--kind of cartoony and neon--but he talks about ALL kinds of families from ALL kinds of backgrounds. awesome. also, THE PEACE BOOK is neat too.

Hope for the Flowers
"A different sort of book for everyone except those who have given up completely. (and even they might secretly enjoy it.)" this book is about two caterpillars (Yellow and Stripe) who met each other while making the arduous soul-sucking climb to the top of the caterpillar ladder. it's every caterpillar for itself with faces getting stepped on and caterpillars being shoved off the top. but what's the point in all this struggling to get to the top, they wonder. so they stop climbing and instead spend their days snuggling together in the sun. awww!

why war is never a good idea
i haven't read this yet either, but its a new picture book by alice walker and it looks awesome.

the great kapok tree
a man comes to cut down the great kapok tree in the jungle. he falls asleep in the heat before his work is done. as he sleeps, all the animals and chidren of the forest come and tell him how they depend on the kapok tree for survival.

hero
okay, not that activist-oriented. but it's about gay superheroes, and its an excellent way to sneak The Gay into kids hands. who doesn't want to read about superheroes?

Not one damsel in distress
collected stories from jane yolen featuring self-sufficient heroines. good for bedtime reading.

the hero and the crown, and the blue sword
women warriors. hot. hot hot hott. and newberry award winning. better than the Alanna books because the main characters aren't constantly obsessing about the fact that they're women and therefore can't possibly be as strong and heroic as men (gag).

woolbur
this book seriously rocks. it's about a sheep that doesn't fit in with the rest of the herd. he wont let the farmer shear his wool and he cards the wool on his body instead of the wool he's supposed to be spinning. then he dies himself blue, instead of the yarn and tries to weave his own forelock. finally his parents tell him that he has to act just like all the rest of the sheep--no more individuality! so instead of conforming, Woolbur gets the rest of the herd to be individualistic too!

paper bag princess
"you are an ungrateful bum!"

dealing with dragons
"princesses dont cook. princesses dont fence. princesses dont juggle." cimorene does not WANT to be a princess if she cant do these things and she certainly doesnt want to marry some ditzy prince. so she goes to work for Kazul the dragon. but the princes just don't seem to understand that she doesn't WANT to be rescued. she's perfectly happy right where she is, thank you very much.

herstory
i had this book when i was little and i cant say that i found it crazy inspiring but it was fairly cool at least. basically its a bunch of essays about the history of notable women.

burning up
macy and austin start investigating the history of a building that was burned down 50 years ago when the first black family in town moved into it. but what was their own grandparents role in the burning?

armageddon summer
marina and jed's meet when their respective parents take them to the top of a mountain to await what their pastor assures them will be the end of the world. searing criticism of religious fundamentalism

if you come softly
this is a really amazing and devestating novel by jacqueline woodson about what happens when a white jewish girl and a black boy start dating each other.

the book thief
another devestating book, this one about the holocaust and a little german girl who makes friends with the jewish man her family is hiding in their basement. oh yes, and she steals some books too.

it's so amazing / it's perfectly normal / it's not the stork
so cute cartoony books about puberty, pregnancy, baby making, sexuality, etc. very inclusive, liberal, gay friendly, multiracial. nice. also: my body, my self for girls (or boys) and the what's happening to my body book for girls (or boys).

background reading:
Packaging Girlhood by Lamb & Brown, How to Get your Child to Love Reading by Esme Raji Codell, and Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood by William S. Pollack

I'm not a Racist but. . .

Every time I hear someone utter that phrase, I have to suppress the urge to slap them. Instead, next time that happens, I am going to say,"No," quite loudly. Hopefully that will stop them before they have a chance to utter another word. Know why?

When someone puts that in front of anything they say, it immediately implies what the speaker knows but does not want to admit. They are racist and what they are about to say is racist. This isn't the Jim Crow era, in-your-face racism that most people have in their minds as the definition of racism. NO, this is the quiet, slips in through the back, brain-washing, color blind-claiming, (DO NOT get me started on that bullshit), 'reverse racism' believing, false statistic- quoting, self-reliance touting, stereotype-trusting kind of racism that has been institutionalized and ground into American culture for decades- no- centuries. It makes me sick every time someone utters those foul words, "I'm not a racist but," because it means that they are going to say something absolutely horrific but it's OK because they are "not a racist."

Racism did not die with the Civil Rights movement. It did not die with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1968, or affirmative action. As much as some people would like to believe, legislation does not a societal change make. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, take them out for a walk.

Go to the nearest drugstore, to the first aid aisle. Pick up a box of 'flesh' colored bandages. Ask them, "Whose skin tone is this?" If they don't say, "A white person's," they need a slap from reality. Go up to the magazine aisle. Pick up a copy of Vogue and flip through. Ask the person to count the number of people of color in the magazine. I'm guessing the count is going to be pretty damn close to 0. Then go to the nearest department store and find a security guard. Stand about 30 feet back and watch. Who does this security guard follow? Who does the guard stop? $10 says a person of color. Now take this racism-denying person outside. If in an urban area, walk around. Ask them to take notice of the homeless people that they see on the street. Who are they? Now ask this person, "What do all of these things that you've seen have in common?"

Every single thing is a sign of racism, the institutionalized white privilege, the pigmentocracy running rampant in American culture and society.

Read White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack and do me a favor: next time someone says, "I'm not a racist, but. . ." call them out on their bullshit. Someone needs to stop this willful ignorance and it might as well start with the racist you know.

Let's Not Put the Cart Before the Horse, People

While driving home from work today I heard the news about the passage of the non-inclusive, certain-veto ENDA in the house. I couldn't help thinking "Is this really as far as we've come? All around us we hear daily shouts about the possibility of gay marriage, and yet I can still be fired for being queer?"

A couple months ago I asked why we focus so damn much on marriage equality when people can still be fired for being queer. Sure, we just had a month of drama over ENDA, but in the mainstream, whenever you hear about queer rights, all you hear about is marriage. Right-wingers ranting on about the sanctity of marriage. Brad Pitt saying that he wouldn't marry Angelina until everyone who wanted to could get married. Constant articles about this or that state that legalizing civil unions or outlawing marriage (Type "gay rights articles" into Google, and 6 of the first 10 results are about gay marriage. None mention employment). But we can still be legally fired for being queer! Why isn't there more attention focused on this, by the mainstream media certainly, but from our advocacy groups especially? I hope that I have not just realized what the answer is.

Are we pursing marriage equality more vehemently because it is an issue that is very important to upper class queers, while employment discrimination is more likely to affect poorer LGBTQ folk? The HRC's Corporate Equality Index rates companies on their "policies and practices pertinent to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors." Their 2008 report shows that 98% of the companies rated provide employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation (only 58% on the basis of gender identity).

Well, super. Sounds like employment discrimination (at least for GLB folk) is on the way out the door, right? Think again. The companies rated are the largest 200 privately owned firms, the top 200 law firms, and Fortune Magazine's list of the largest 1000 publicly-traded businesses. In other words, the most successful, corporate conglomerates who can afford to pay their laywers, investment-bankers CEOs, CFOs, etc plenty of money. No mention of how employment discrimination affects the queer people who work lower-paid jobs.

So what have we got here? A whole bunch of upper-class queer folk for whom employment discrimination isn't much of an issue, and who have money to contribute where they see fit. The queer folk who work at such corporations most likely have more money to donate to advocacy groups like the HRC, than those who work at smaller independently owned businesses and get paid minimum wage.

Understandably, these upper-class folk might not see employment discrimination as being a big issue, and thus might encourage our advocacy groups to focus less on employment, and more on marriage equality. Marriage, besides being something that these people might want because of commitment reasons, is an especially important issue to upper-class queers because of it's relation to money. Marriage rights include taxes, retirement accounts, social-security benefits, pensions, and home protection--issues vital to the upper-class, but less important to poorer queers that the more immediate prospect of being fired.

Are our advocacy groups bowing to the well-funded interests of upper-class queers, and thus emphasizing the need for marriage equality over the more basic need for employment rights? I would like to think not; however, let's not forget that a non-profit must always be thinking about how it's going to get the money to fund it's next initiative. If their wealthy donors are putting pressure on them to lobby for marriage equality, then it is very much in the interest of the advocacy groups to do so, despite more pressing and basic problems.

So please, if you happen to be one of those wealthy queers, be sure to emphasize to the groups you fund how important it is that they stick up for the poorest and most discriminated against in our community. Just as our GLB folk must speak out for the protection of our trans folk, our upper-class people MUST fight for the protection of those less well-off than they. As they say, money is power. And it is absolutely incumbent upon those with power to be responsible for the way they use it.

*Giggle* Bill O'Reilly is funny

I know this is a bit old but every time I think of this it cracks me up. I have to suppress the giggles at while at work.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=274 :

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly offers up an 'expert' to claim that pink pistol-packing lesbian gangs are terrorizing the nation.

Fuck the blender/toaster/food processor, I want a pink pistol!

Thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

EDIT: I forgot to add this most recent gem from the radio, which has been all over the blogs, in which dear, sweet Bill is surprised that black people aren't iced tea crazies but actual people.
http://feministe.powweb.com/blog/2007/09/21/shocker-black-people-act-like-people/

On a minor note, I had Feministe and BillOreilly.com open at the same time in explorer and felt like my computer should explode. Don't ask. It's the juxtaposition. I do feel like I need to wash my hands after typing BillOreilly.com. And now again.

Anyway, check it out on Feministe because you have to pay to hear the clip on Billo's site. *Tttttbbbbbppt!*

Senator Craig: Read the F-ing Police Report

It is not at all clear to me what Larry Craig did that was so awful. If you read the police report, you can see that all he did was use some (rather circumstantially identified) code to allegedly indicate that he was interested in having sex with someone. He did not actually have sex with anyone. He didn't touch, grope or in any other way harass anybody. He didn't even talk to, see, or make eye contact with the guy. All he did was tap his foot, wave his hand along the bottom of the stall and touch his shoe to someone else's shoe. What he did in no way bothered anybody else in the bathroom (other than the police officer he allegedly came on to, who apparently indicated he was interested in sex by using the same code).

There are so many reasons why this whole thing bothers me. It seems pretty clear that he is being attacked solely upon suspicion of queerness. Which, clearly, is unacceptable. But I think what bothers me more is a). the way that it's being justified, and b). the comments I've heard from queer people, which have been just as nasty.

The whole affair is being portrayed as if Senator Craig actually had sex with someone in a bathroom. Not only that, but the labels "lewd conduct" and "disorderly conduct," as well as the way that Senate Republicans are reacting, leads one to believe that he did something really heinous (e.g. harassing someone, sex with children, prostitution, rape, etc). However he did none of these things. All he did was inoffensively, nonverbally, and without any physical contact ask someone for consensual sex. There is no indication that he planned to have sex in the bathroom (and even if he had, so what, ppl have heterosexual sex in bathrooms all the time and it's laughed off as being nontraditional but still sort of accepted. Witness the Friends episodes where Monica and Chandler have sex in the bathroom or in the hospital broom closet).

Republicans are reacting to this as if he did something morally reproachable, but I'm at a loss as to see what he did that was worthy of reproach. The only thing that I can see is that he allegedly wanted to have sex with someone even though he was already married. However this issue is completely not within the realm of what the country needs to be concerning itself about. That is a personal issue between him and his wife. It's not the business of Senator McCain, or anyone else who is calling for his resignation. You can't get arrested for cheating on someone. And you certainly can't fire someone because of it. Besides, how are we to know that his wife didn't already know about it? Just a thought, but maybe they have an open marriage. In any case, the issue is not anyone's business besides his and his family's, so I see no reason why he needs to be dragged through the muck and then be forced to resign over it.

The other thing that bothers me about this affair is the way that the queer people I know have been reacting to it. I have heard him being torn down for saying "I am not gay. I have never been gay." I heard one person say, very derogatorily "I guess he thinks it's something that comes and goes." Well, yes, actually, for some people it might come and go. Namely those people who aren't completely 100% gay or 100% straight. Basically what's being said here is that he's "not gay enough" to be accepted and treated with decency.

I've also heard the point of view that queer people shouldn't care what happens to him because he's been historically anti-gay in his legislative choices. Yes, it is true that he isn't not particularly pro-equality. However, attack him for his positions then. Don't attack him for "lying about who he is" or not being "gay enough." Personally, I don't think that we should force unwanted labels onto anyone. Maybe Senator Craig doesn't identify as gay. Maybe he's attracted to men AND women. Maybe his sexuality has changed over time. Maybe his sexuality still varies. There's really no way for anyone other than Senator Craig to know these things, so I really don't think it's appropriate for us say that he is definitively gay (and here i mean 'gay' in it's use as being attracted EXCLUSIVELY to men), and therefore lying to the country. *Sigh* Just one more example of the queer community ripping into it's own when it should be supporting those who are having a hard time...

I'm not saying that Senator Craig is a great person. I'm just saying that he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he currently is. It seems pretty clear that he's being attacked solely because he's suspected of being queer. However, instead of being outraged at the way he is being treated or giving him any kind of support, the queer community is turning around and attacking him as well. Disgusting.

EDIT: Just found something else. I saw it implied that this was an excellent opportunity for the Democrats (and thus queer people) because it will turn the Christian right against Republicans in Idaho so that some Dems can get elected. Well, super! Damn, I know I'M excited about the idea of sacrificing a possible queer person for the sake of getting some Democrat elected who may or may not ultimately support equality. Sounds like a GREAT plan to me!