Wow....here's a video that everyone has to see:
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Wednesday Assignment #2: Hot Topics: Gay Marriage
Hello everyone,
In this Wednesday’s blog will focus on figureheads. For consistency, I will remain on the topic of gay rights/ gay marriage. Also, I will also briefly talk about Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks as figure heads during the civil rights movement.
If I were to choose a figurehead for the gay rights movement, that is going to be a difficult task to do because this protest encompasses a wide variety of people in the categories of race, gender/sex, age, religion, political stance, etc. (i.e. a wide variety of intersectionality). As mentioned in a previous blog, and by Kimberle Crenshaw in her article, “Women Of Color At The Center: Selections From The Third National Conference On Women Of Color And The Law: Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”, defines intersectionality as “I used the concept of intersectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women's employment experiences” (Crenshaw 2). In this case I am going to use the slightly more expansive version of this definition to, not only include race and gender, but also age, religion, political stance. It is because the experience of the gay community can fall and can be looked into any of these categories; all of which make up a person regardless of their sexuality. I want to make sure that the experiences of the gay community as well as a figurehead to be included. Similarly with a huge and diverse community of the GBLTQ group, I feel that there cannot be a truly one good figurehead in the sense of one individual person.
Regarding intersectionalities, it does seem very difficult to really and truly find a figurehead. Then, it now occurs to me that there are many people who are figureheads and can also be the face of this movement. These people can be classified into two different groups of these unsung heroes. The first group, and most importantly, is those who have been murdered just because of their sexuality. One such example is a politician named Harvey Milk. He was a politician who was elected in 1977 and took office in 1978 as a city supervisor. In November of 1978, he was assonated. It was because that, not only because he was gay, but the first openly gay man to be elected to government. Many people are killed every year because of their sexuality. There are students like Matthew Shepard, a college student (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/video-progress_since.asp), or 15 year old Lawrence King (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/lawrence_king.asp). The other group is the people who the living people who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered (and transsexual), and Queer people. These people are your every day Joes (in or out of the closet) who are gay. These people deserve your utmost respect because they live in a society that treats them as second class citizens. In that society, it can be filled with hatred, unacceptance, knowing they do not have the same rights as same couples, worrying about losing their jobs or health benefits for themselves and partners, and, most importantly, worried of being a victim of violence or death only because of their sexuality.
This section is going to explore the benefits and drawbacks of having a figurehead for your group. If there were figurehead(s) for the gay community, then there would be some benefits to it. They would be able to direct the community to help prompt rallies, protests, and other kinds of activity. Also, they would have some credibility to direct change in legislature to help promote legalizing equality to the GBLTQ community. They would be able to encourage the community and supports to help educate the rest of society that homosexuality is not a bad thing and something that you cannot get rid of. Another benefit is that a figurehead such as Rosa Parks (but for the gay community) can spark an entire movement. In this case, it would provide many demonstrations and other kinds of “awareness” tactics that would allow a higher likelihood in getting equality. On the other hand, there are some pitfalls that come along with being a figure head. One scenario with being a figurehead, it can spark riots, violence, and other acts of criminal activity. For example, in the case of Rodney King who was assaulted by 4 white police officers. After their acquittal, many African Americans protested, rioted, and other violent acts of criminal behavior to show the injustice of prejudice. In the case of gay marriage, if a figurehead comes about, it may spark the wrong kind of actions as in engaging criminal behavior. Another pitfall for being a figurehead, it is that you are a martyr. If like Rosa Parks, you may be arrested for breaking the law by civil disobedience and breaking the law.
There is also one more topic I would like to address. That topic would be about the Civil Rights movement. The question is: would the Civil Right movement have been different if Claudette Colvin was the face for their protest? According to the article, “The Ladies before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women” by Paul Hendrickson. He says, “…[Claudette Colvin] was a small, modest, ascetic-looking, wholly untainted 42-year-old seamstress and civic activist and youth leader: a perfect and righteous symbol for igniting not just a year-long boycott but an entire movement” (Hendrickson 289-290). Also, she was also taken off the bus kicking and screaming. She was arrested because of her civil disobedience. This took place nine months before Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat and got arrested herself for the same thing. If Claudette was the icon for the Civil Rights movement, I would not know how different it would be. The protests could have died out, especially before its time or we could see African Americans equal of every single way as a white person. I feel that all the events during the Civil Rights movement should remain the same because it dramatically influenced and positively affected their status quo as United State citizens.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
In this Wednesday’s blog will focus on figureheads. For consistency, I will remain on the topic of gay rights/ gay marriage. Also, I will also briefly talk about Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks as figure heads during the civil rights movement.
If I were to choose a figurehead for the gay rights movement, that is going to be a difficult task to do because this protest encompasses a wide variety of people in the categories of race, gender/sex, age, religion, political stance, etc. (i.e. a wide variety of intersectionality). As mentioned in a previous blog, and by Kimberle Crenshaw in her article, “Women Of Color At The Center: Selections From The Third National Conference On Women Of Color And The Law: Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”, defines intersectionality as “I used the concept of intersectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women's employment experiences” (Crenshaw 2). In this case I am going to use the slightly more expansive version of this definition to, not only include race and gender, but also age, religion, political stance. It is because the experience of the gay community can fall and can be looked into any of these categories; all of which make up a person regardless of their sexuality. I want to make sure that the experiences of the gay community as well as a figurehead to be included. Similarly with a huge and diverse community of the GBLTQ group, I feel that there cannot be a truly one good figurehead in the sense of one individual person.
Regarding intersectionalities, it does seem very difficult to really and truly find a figurehead. Then, it now occurs to me that there are many people who are figureheads and can also be the face of this movement. These people can be classified into two different groups of these unsung heroes. The first group, and most importantly, is those who have been murdered just because of their sexuality. One such example is a politician named Harvey Milk. He was a politician who was elected in 1977 and took office in 1978 as a city supervisor. In November of 1978, he was assonated. It was because that, not only because he was gay, but the first openly gay man to be elected to government. Many people are killed every year because of their sexuality. There are students like Matthew Shepard, a college student (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/video-progress_since.asp), or 15 year old Lawrence King (see http://www.hrc.org/sites/hatecrimes/lawrence_king.asp). The other group is the people who the living people who are gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered (and transsexual), and Queer people. These people are your every day Joes (in or out of the closet) who are gay. These people deserve your utmost respect because they live in a society that treats them as second class citizens. In that society, it can be filled with hatred, unacceptance, knowing they do not have the same rights as same couples, worrying about losing their jobs or health benefits for themselves and partners, and, most importantly, worried of being a victim of violence or death only because of their sexuality.
This section is going to explore the benefits and drawbacks of having a figurehead for your group. If there were figurehead(s) for the gay community, then there would be some benefits to it. They would be able to direct the community to help prompt rallies, protests, and other kinds of activity. Also, they would have some credibility to direct change in legislature to help promote legalizing equality to the GBLTQ community. They would be able to encourage the community and supports to help educate the rest of society that homosexuality is not a bad thing and something that you cannot get rid of. Another benefit is that a figurehead such as Rosa Parks (but for the gay community) can spark an entire movement. In this case, it would provide many demonstrations and other kinds of “awareness” tactics that would allow a higher likelihood in getting equality. On the other hand, there are some pitfalls that come along with being a figure head. One scenario with being a figurehead, it can spark riots, violence, and other acts of criminal activity. For example, in the case of Rodney King who was assaulted by 4 white police officers. After their acquittal, many African Americans protested, rioted, and other violent acts of criminal behavior to show the injustice of prejudice. In the case of gay marriage, if a figurehead comes about, it may spark the wrong kind of actions as in engaging criminal behavior. Another pitfall for being a figurehead, it is that you are a martyr. If like Rosa Parks, you may be arrested for breaking the law by civil disobedience and breaking the law.
There is also one more topic I would like to address. That topic would be about the Civil Rights movement. The question is: would the Civil Right movement have been different if Claudette Colvin was the face for their protest? According to the article, “The Ladies before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women” by Paul Hendrickson. He says, “…[Claudette Colvin] was a small, modest, ascetic-looking, wholly untainted 42-year-old seamstress and civic activist and youth leader: a perfect and righteous symbol for igniting not just a year-long boycott but an entire movement” (Hendrickson 289-290). Also, she was also taken off the bus kicking and screaming. She was arrested because of her civil disobedience. This took place nine months before Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat and got arrested herself for the same thing. If Claudette was the icon for the Civil Rights movement, I would not know how different it would be. The protests could have died out, especially before its time or we could see African Americans equal of every single way as a white person. I feel that all the events during the Civil Rights movement should remain the same because it dramatically influenced and positively affected their status quo as United State citizens.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Friday Assignment 2: Hot topics: Gay Marriage
Hello everyone,
This next blog on gay marriage is about the framework, as in how the movement frames itself to those who support gay marriage and who has framed them (through intersectionality and other factors). Comparing and contrasting the framing of the gay marriage movement with that of the pro life and the environmental movements. And, finally, the last section will focus on the consequences of framing the issue and how the gay movement can be “re-framed” so it can be more inclusive.
In this first section, I will be focusing on the framework of gay marriage and who framed it. Now the idea of framing a social movement, protest, or conflict, is to make it inclusive to a specific group of people (in my blog’s case: the gay community and their supporters). The issue must be framed and resonate with the beliefs, feelings, and desires of potential recruits of the specific cause. These frames can take the FORM of anything including appealing stories, powerful clusters of symbols, slogans/ catchy words, attributions of blame for social problems, etc. A form in the gay community is the rainbow flag symbolizing their pride as being Gay Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender, or Queer. Another form of framework of the gay rights movement is your sexuality as being political, and civil as well as social as the three components of equality. What does that mean? The political aspect of the gay rights movement is asking politicians and legislators enforce equal rights and disallow discrimination as well as having the same benefits as heterosexuals. They want to be a legally recognized group to be allowed to married and be afforded the same rights as straight people. It is a civil and social issue because of the discrimination involved with this issue. As people looked at African Americans, women, etc. before their movements is how the gay community is looked at currently. They are looked as second class citizens, not worthy of equal status as straight couples. Next, is how intersectionality is involved with this movement.
Those who usually frame this protest are gay community and supporters are the ones actively leading this protest. It is difficult to pin down any real salient characteristics such as race, sex/gender, socioeconomic class, religion, or political affiliation. It is difficult because they gay community are comprised of different races, sexes, class, religion or political affiliations. If your gay, you’re gay it does not matter which of these categories you fall in. People who are not only gay, but their supporters are spread in all these intersectionalities as well. The challenges and difficulties that are posed by intersectionalities of gay rights is that there are people from all of these groups and all are asking for equal rights for the gay community.
Now I am going to compare and contrast the pro life and environmental movements with the gay rights movement. Comparing and contrasting different movements are vital in the study of different movements because it allows to see the strengths and weaknesses are involved with each movement and what can be improved. In comparison to the pro life and environment movements, they all have their target audiences like the religious people and women in the pro life issue and for those who are conscious about making the Earth better in environmentalism. They all try to provide awareness and educate the public by the means that suits their need. Typically, these means go from education to protesting in public. On the other hand, these protests are obviously different because they are different protests and trying to reach different goals. One difference is faces. In the environment movement, the prime face is Al Gore who is the one who is working day and night to try to try to improve the environment. Similarly, in the pro life movement, the “real” face there is the unborn child because they are claiming that they are alive and deserve equal rights and should not be murdered. But in the gay movement, the “real” face is really the community. Recently, the runner up in American Idol came out as gay and he claimed they he did not want to be the poster boy for the gay community. For personal reasons, there may not be a poster person for gay rights and it’s just defaulted to the community at large. When these movements, particularly the gay rights movement, the way they try to get support is to going out to the public and gain support from the public. Some strategies include donations, signing people up as members to the cause, talking to politicians and legislators, campaigning for equality and advertising that to the public.
At least one consequence of the gay rights movement being framed this way is that there are people who hate gay people (not that every person in opposition hates gay people). These are the people who passionately are fighting against the gay rights movement are the kind that are shaken up to their core. These people include, but are not limited to fundamental/evangelical religious people and homophobia people. These groups and others they gather to support their cause tries to suppress the gay rights movement. An example of that is proposition 8 in California in 2008 elections. I do not think that anyone is excluded from this movement because it does affect everyone.
One last thing is there any in which the gay marriage can be re-framed to be more inclusive. It could be more inclusive if there most prominent group that is by gay people for gay people. This group will work closely with other organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to not only fight for equal rights, but this group would help the gay community financially (reasonably of course), help gay folks come out to their family, and just over all help the gay community and their families. Adding this kind of framework would be useful if there was one centralized organization.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
This next blog on gay marriage is about the framework, as in how the movement frames itself to those who support gay marriage and who has framed them (through intersectionality and other factors). Comparing and contrasting the framing of the gay marriage movement with that of the pro life and the environmental movements. And, finally, the last section will focus on the consequences of framing the issue and how the gay movement can be “re-framed” so it can be more inclusive.
In this first section, I will be focusing on the framework of gay marriage and who framed it. Now the idea of framing a social movement, protest, or conflict, is to make it inclusive to a specific group of people (in my blog’s case: the gay community and their supporters). The issue must be framed and resonate with the beliefs, feelings, and desires of potential recruits of the specific cause. These frames can take the FORM of anything including appealing stories, powerful clusters of symbols, slogans/ catchy words, attributions of blame for social problems, etc. A form in the gay community is the rainbow flag symbolizing their pride as being Gay Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender, or Queer. Another form of framework of the gay rights movement is your sexuality as being political, and civil as well as social as the three components of equality. What does that mean? The political aspect of the gay rights movement is asking politicians and legislators enforce equal rights and disallow discrimination as well as having the same benefits as heterosexuals. They want to be a legally recognized group to be allowed to married and be afforded the same rights as straight people. It is a civil and social issue because of the discrimination involved with this issue. As people looked at African Americans, women, etc. before their movements is how the gay community is looked at currently. They are looked as second class citizens, not worthy of equal status as straight couples. Next, is how intersectionality is involved with this movement.
Those who usually frame this protest are gay community and supporters are the ones actively leading this protest. It is difficult to pin down any real salient characteristics such as race, sex/gender, socioeconomic class, religion, or political affiliation. It is difficult because they gay community are comprised of different races, sexes, class, religion or political affiliations. If your gay, you’re gay it does not matter which of these categories you fall in. People who are not only gay, but their supporters are spread in all these intersectionalities as well. The challenges and difficulties that are posed by intersectionalities of gay rights is that there are people from all of these groups and all are asking for equal rights for the gay community.
Now I am going to compare and contrast the pro life and environmental movements with the gay rights movement. Comparing and contrasting different movements are vital in the study of different movements because it allows to see the strengths and weaknesses are involved with each movement and what can be improved. In comparison to the pro life and environment movements, they all have their target audiences like the religious people and women in the pro life issue and for those who are conscious about making the Earth better in environmentalism. They all try to provide awareness and educate the public by the means that suits their need. Typically, these means go from education to protesting in public. On the other hand, these protests are obviously different because they are different protests and trying to reach different goals. One difference is faces. In the environment movement, the prime face is Al Gore who is the one who is working day and night to try to try to improve the environment. Similarly, in the pro life movement, the “real” face there is the unborn child because they are claiming that they are alive and deserve equal rights and should not be murdered. But in the gay movement, the “real” face is really the community. Recently, the runner up in American Idol came out as gay and he claimed they he did not want to be the poster boy for the gay community. For personal reasons, there may not be a poster person for gay rights and it’s just defaulted to the community at large. When these movements, particularly the gay rights movement, the way they try to get support is to going out to the public and gain support from the public. Some strategies include donations, signing people up as members to the cause, talking to politicians and legislators, campaigning for equality and advertising that to the public.
At least one consequence of the gay rights movement being framed this way is that there are people who hate gay people (not that every person in opposition hates gay people). These are the people who passionately are fighting against the gay rights movement are the kind that are shaken up to their core. These people include, but are not limited to fundamental/evangelical religious people and homophobia people. These groups and others they gather to support their cause tries to suppress the gay rights movement. An example of that is proposition 8 in California in 2008 elections. I do not think that anyone is excluded from this movement because it does affect everyone.
One last thing is there any in which the gay marriage can be re-framed to be more inclusive. It could be more inclusive if there most prominent group that is by gay people for gay people. This group will work closely with other organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to not only fight for equal rights, but this group would help the gay community financially (reasonably of course), help gay folks come out to their family, and just over all help the gay community and their families. Adding this kind of framework would be useful if there was one centralized organization.
Sincerely,
Steven Weingarten
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
