Let's Get TALKIN

I apologize for my disappearance. For the past two weeks, I have been touring and competing but now I am back and ready to Feminewz you all.

One of the events I competed at was the Soundbites Poetry Festival in Times Square. I was on a team (The Meta-Four) with three beautiful poets: Kerri Shaffer, Miles Sandler and James Merenda. As teammates, we write and perform various pieces together and I was lucky enough to have the experience of creating a piece with James that questions sex and gender within literature and writing. We call it “Pseudonym”.

Since it’s a spoken word piece, I won’t transcribe it for you here but I will post the video of the performance when it is put online. I do want to, however, explain the piece and dive into its social questioning, especially in relation to feminism.

The premise of the piece is that I am a woman in the 1850s that is unable to write because of society’s expectation of women during that time. Women were not supposed to be high in academia and although there were women writers during that period, there were also many women who had to take male or androgynous pseudonyms to get their voices heard (most women, of course, were just silenced) . (Not-so-fun fact, I have read that Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre was rejected five times by publishers until she changed her name to the androgynous Currer Bell). On the other hand, James took the stance that male poets (especially spoken word poets) in 2009 are expected to be hard and overly-masculine (aka REALLY LOUD); most aren’t supposed to write sappy, emotional poems and if they do the reaction is mostly “awwwwww” instead of a reaction out of respect and appreciation.

By relating these historical experiences, we came to a conclusion that both women and men, both now and then (I rhymed) have had their voices silenced. And James and I, as people who rely on our words, wanted to show how sex/gender (although it should not be ignored because there are beautiful aspects to those things when they are not used in an oppressive manner) isn’t a clear cut device on deciding what words to use and who should be allowed to say what. Most of us, whatever gender we consider ourselves to be, have logic and emotion. We have language, whatever language we consider ourselves to use, at our disposal. And, if you see the scope of it, you can see language as this entity that encompasses the masculine, the feminine and all that in between. Everyone has and can use all the words we want, not just the ones society tells us are supposed to come out of our throats due to what we have down below (and we all know even what we have down below doesn’t always constitute us as feminine or masculine anyways).

It has been said that language can be oppressive and in every community, there are words that can be hurtful and disenfranchising. Women know this very well. One example: the female genitalia being called an axe wound. There is no way anyone could tell me naming the vagina that to those exploring and getting comfortable with their bodies is a shot of confidence.
So there is of course weight in language but the majority of the time, I find that weight beautiful. I am conscious of it; I feel it heavy on my tongue as I think everyone should.

As people, as feminists, we should dive right into language and explore it from every which way we can. No one owns the sentences you are allowed to put together and even with all those things America can be criticized for, we have freedom of speech which is no doubt a magnificent privilege. And although those who live in countries without that freedom may possess the mind and capabilities to question and speak from the entire language spectrum, but it is much more difficult for them to do so openly. So I think it’s time for us who have the privilege to dialogue openly about dialogue to…well…dialogue.

We need to speak about the expectation of both women and men when it comes to language and literature. In our poem, James and I question how dangerous history can be to the stories of our women and the present can be to the emotions of our men. And I want to know what everyone thinks. How dangerous is it? How many voices have been lost? How has that shaped what women and men are expected to discuss and how they are expected to verbally carry themselves. If we all look really deep, we can see how all of these questions affect our day to day lives.

And honestly, it’s a really important topic to break down because there are people all over the world who have and still have to hide under a pseudonym. So let’s get talkin’!

Anyone can start by e-mailing me at TracySoren@gmail.com and I will get KT in on it too!

paterson to be asked to stepped down by religious senator

I'm about to head out of my office for a week to go on vacation (finally), but here's some news from the same-sex marriage front, and I think, I THINK, I'm the first to break it. (Too bad the Gazette is a weekly. Also too bad no one reads this. Whatever.)

From the article I'm writing:

Sen. Ruben Diaz Jr. said today he plans on asking Gov. David A. Paterson not to run for governor in 2010.

Paterson introduced same-sex marriage legislation last Thursday, a move Diaz, a Bronx democratic who has been notably opposed to same-sex marriage, said shows the governor is “not taking into consideration the Evangelical and the Christian religion.”

According to Diaz, he and over 100 ministers are “in the process in the next few weeks to organize a demonstration of the Hispanic community to ask Gov. Paterson not to be a candidate for governor.”

“He’s not representing us,” said Diaz. The senator held a meeting of the NY Hispanic Clergy Organization last Thursday at the same time of Paterson’s announcement.

When asked about other plans to oppose the same-sex marriage legislation, Diaz said the bill wouldn’t pass because there are at least “six democrats in the Senate that will not vote for it."

Diaz declined to say who the six were. He did say, however, “Whenever [Sen. Thomas Duane] gives [up] the Republicans he has, I give [up] the Democrats I have.”

I called over to Duane to see if he'll tell me who his Republican supporters are, but he just about never returns my phone calls. And, it wouldn't be likely for him to divulge that info with me anyway.

Paterson is tanking in popularity rankings; I think his last numbers showed only 19 % of people still support him. Being elected gov again is not looking so good for him, and people have been speculating that the democrats would collectively ask him not to run in 2010 so as not to eff everything up for the party. But this is the first time anyone has publicly announced it. It's a shame (not to mention an obvious tactic) that Diaz is doing it in response to Paterson being gutsy enough to introduce pro-gay legislation.

If the democrats do ask Paterson to step down, and I think they will, I hope they note that it's not because of what he said last Thursday. They have their reasons, I just hope his support for GLBT rights isn't one of them.

NY and tying the same-sex knot

SO!

It's been a while. The past two weeks were pretty stressful at work for some reason, and I got really burnt out on writing. Anything. But we're experiencing some downtime during copyediting, so what better time to get back in the game, eh?

So in the past two weeks, two more states legalized gay marriage. Iowa's Supreme Court ruled the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, while Vermont's Legislature (I find this very badass)overrode a veto from the guvnuh to legalize it. I enjoy when Democracy manifests itself......even if it's still being voted on by the powerplayers in state legislatures, it's something.

In order to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the Legislature would have to pass the bill in both the Assembly and the Senate, then Guvnuh Paterson would have to sign off on it. It passed in the Assembly in June 2007 by a long shot, and Paterson had said time and time again he's all for gaybee rights. He even said this past week he was going to introduce the legislation to the Senate this session However, there's not enough votes to pass the measure in the Senate right now, or so says the Senate's leader, Malcolm Smith. Introducing it right now would be driving it over a cliff in flames.

But because politicians are slimy, it's not clear whether ol' Malcom is saying that because he actually doesn't want to see the measure voted down or because he has too much riding on his position to be the Majority Leader who let gay marriage pass. I tend to believe that he actually doesn't want to send it to a sure death, because he wouldn't be alone in supporting gay marriage; Paterson does, Sheldon Silver does, Schumer and Gillibrand do, along with a sleu of other government VIPs.

Am I hopeful New York will pass the marriage equality act this sesh? Yes and no. For one, you always gotta have hope--if IOWA can do it, we can. Secondly, if the legislators see their leaders on the boat, they might jump on too. (I dont think thats even a saying but you get my drift.) BUT, as I've come to see, Albany is BALLS dysfunctional, and it's really hard to get legislation passed that actually benefits people in need of help. We shall see.

In other news, it's friday, my 22nd birthday and I just got paid. HOLLA.

My Apologies

I must apologize for my lack of updates, I have been on a poetry tour and haven't been near a computer. So, I promise a long blog filled with feminism once I get settled again. See (Talk? Blog?) you guys soon!

holla Iowa

I must admit that I have totes been neglecting this blog, but that's what happens when you have a book report due in a week. (Yes, I'm soon to be 22 and still writing book reports.)

But here's some great news for gaybees everywhere! or at least in Iowa-- the state has ruled a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, meaning it's now LEGAL in the state!

I must admit, I didn't expect Iowa to be one of the forerunners on this, but I'm all for it. Congrats to Lambda Legal for winning the case.

way to go, chuck

Chuck Schumer, one of New York's two senators, announced today he supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 96 and says the federal government recognizes marriage as only between one man and one woman.

This is from the article I'll be writing for Monday's edition of the Gazette:

****

Charles Schumer became the highest ranking member of the U.S. Senate to endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples last Monday.

According to the Empire State Pride Agenda, an organization that fights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights, Schumer, who is Vice Chair of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Conference, called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which says the federal government recognizes marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, thanked Schumer for his support. “Like a majority of New Yorkers, Sen. Schumer recognizes that only marriage equality provides same-sex couples the status, protections and rights afforded to all other Americans.” Capelle added that his organization looks forward to “working with him to win marriage equality in New York state and around the country.”

Schumer, according to the Pride Agenda, pledged his support of LGBT issues last night at a meeting with a group of New York LGBT elected officials and leaders of LGBT organizations. At the meeting, according to Capelle, Schumer also pledged to work on providing federal recognition and portability of benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriages cannot be legally performed in New York, but a May 2008 directive by Gov. David A. Paterson called for all state agencies to recognize valid same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries, and a state Appellate Court ruling, stemming from a lawsuit filed in Rochester, upheld this directive in February.

Cathy Marino-Thomas, board president and communications director for Marriage Equality New York, a nonprofit group that advocates for full marriage rights for same-sex couples, expressed excitement at Schumer’s support and said “it’s about time.”

“We’ve contacted the senator many times in the past,” said Marino-Thomas, “and we’re happy to know he’s given [the issue] another look and decided to stand on the side of equality.”

At the meeting with Schumer, Capelle also said continued funding for HIV care was discussed, as well as the appointment of openly LGBT people to the federal branch. In addition, the passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, proposed federal legislation that would prohibit employees from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

***

This is good news for same-sex rights, ya'll. I mean, Kristen Gillibrand saying she supports same-sex rights is one thing, but Schumer's a bit of a big deal down in Washington. I do have to wonder, though, what prompted Schumer's "evolution" (as they're calling it in the media) on the issue--he voted FOR the DOMA in 96, and has previously said he thinks marriage should be between one man and one woman. Granted, it's been over ten years since then, and politicians are allowed to change their minds. But from what I've heard about Schumer, he tends to be an opportunitist, and I think this may be one of his moves. Nevertheless, it's a good one for the gay community

Also, check out the article I wrote on the Family Planning Advocates' teen conference that appeared in this week's Gazette. I was really impressed by the young people I got to talk to; they're doing a hell of a lot more than I did in high school.

Maybe this is just a rant, but...

Last night, I, along with my best friend Jessica who was home for the weekend, decided to go to meet some of our friends in the village for a night on the town. Although we encountered some subway mishaps (meaning we missed our stop because a group of awesome teenagers with one adorable four year-old boy with purple glasses were chanting and calling people out to dance on the subway. Jess and I both got down…so down, we almost ended up in Brooklyn), our friends were still late.

So, Jess and I head to the bar and pass by two guys who were standing in the way of ordering. That’s my favorite, when people have already been served but stand by the bar in a crowded place when everyone and their mother are trying to order drinks. We make our way past them and they place themselves right behind us. I hear one whisper something that gets the other one to look our way. Then they start talking generally about girls in bars (not verbatim):

Gross Guy: “Girls aren’t drunk enough until 12 or 1.”
Lesser of the Two Evils*: “What about these two.” (reference to me and my homegirl)
Gross Guy: “They aren’t drunk enough yet.”

*Assumed lesser of the two due to the distance of my ear from his mouth and the awesome music that was playing.

I informed Jessica of this conversation while she was ordering our drinks. In utter disgust, we ranted and I secretly wanted some opening for me to call him out. He didn’t say anything to us (obviously, we weren’t at the intoxication level that he finds suitable to put on his nice face and pretend to treat women with some interest) and maybe it was better to avoid a confrontation or maybe someone needs to verbally slap him with some intelligent, feminist banter.

So here I go. It may not be intelligent, feminist banter but it’ll be banter by an intelligent feminist who is annoyed by such people (women as well) and their mating techniques.

I understand people are sexual. I understand when people drink, that sexuality is intensified. I don’t hate. You do you; your bedroom is not my problem.

I do, however, think it is utterly disgusting that those men last night, as well as many men in bars, as well as some women, need someone to be so intoxicated so they can just use them for what they like.

So to Gross Guy…what happens around 12 or 1? Do these "girls", not women, get drunk enough so they would actually go for a pig like you? Are you so insecure that you need to wait for a girl to have significant beer goggles and beer ear-muffs (that’s right, ear-muffs) so she can slur everything you say into sincerity.

It’s not about your want for pleasure. It’s about what you said and how you said it…not with insecurity but with conviction that you want a wasted girl so you could get whatever you want. Who cares about the her? She only has a mouth for drinking and a body for sex.

Can’t us women go out and enjoy ourselves without having people like you watch our drink count just so you can feel we are privileged enough for you to slither your way on up to us!

Get with it, child. That comment does not put you on the right path with women. Maybe some, but I hope those women are in the right mindset to handle their own and are safe and smart with their bodies and feelings when it comes to someone, and doing something, like that. Trying to get a girl with that tone is like honking from a car or passing a woman on the street and saying “DAMN, NICEEEEEEEEEEEE”(which also happened last night). I heard you. And like the car and street-call, I ignored you.

And, I’m hoping, you will continue to be ignored.

And I know I’ll see you out next week, Gross Guy. Around 12 or 1...you are always sleazing yourself in someone’s way.