Don't Ask Don't Tell: Ask, Tell, Study, Repeal
by KentuckyKat
President Obama's State Of The Union address gave hope to opponents of DADT and those who seek equal rights for GLBT Americans in general. President Obama said:
My administration has a civil rights division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.
Since the SOTU, there has been a lot of conflicting
information being reported about how and when the repeal will be accomplished.
So, I have been waiting (rather nervously) to hear the details of the proposed repeal. Tuesday Congress held a hearing on DADT. While WGLB will be giving you a comprehensive look at DADT tomorrow, I will try here to give you a summary of what happened at the hearing and what we can expect in the future.
Here are some highlights:
Has this policy been ideal? No, it has not. But it has been effective. It has helped to balance a potentially disruptive tension between the desires of a minority and the broader interests of our all-volunteer force.
Ah, Senator McCain, such a charming fellow! Equality is merely a desire... how could I have missed that? Nevermind, please disregard all my previous calls for equality under the law. I have learned the error of my ways!
Now, this next one is what I have been waiting for (from Gates):
To ensure that the department is prepared should the law be changed, and working in close consultation with Adm. Mullen, I have appointed a high-level working group within the department that will immediately begin a review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. The mandate of this working group is to thoroughly, objectively and methodically examine all aspects of this question, and produce its finding and recommendations in the form of an implementation plan by the end of this calendar year.
Adm. Mullen made me tear up a little bit with this:
Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt.
He then promptly lost me with this:
We would also do well to remember that this is not an issue for the military leadership to decide. The American people have spoken on this subject through you, their elected officials, and the result is the law and the policy that we currently have.
I agree that there will be implementation issues (there will be soldiers who are not okay with the repeal and there will be fallout; in the reality-based world, we must accept that some will cause problems and seek to derail progress). I must admit that I would love to see implementation begin sooner, but I can handle this, SO LONG AS the goal (repealing DADT) is set in stone and this study will not have the ability to turn us from the path that President Obama set us on in the State of the Union. My remaining concern with the study is that I question how open GLBT soldiers can really be in such a review when they could still be discharged for admitting their orientation.
I think that the final take-away from the hearing is mixed. The witch hunts will end. Only those service members who disclose their orientation will be kicked out, not those ratted out by others. However, there will still likely be discharges and the policy will remain intact for at least a year. Senator Levin tossed out the idea of legislation to prevent discharges during the review period, but I am not holding my breath for that to happen. * Note to Sen. Levin: please make me eat those words!
◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇
PROMISES, PROMISES: Good News Instead of Blues
by LeanneB, SheKos editor
So far, this column has mostly been about busting the chops of the Democratic party for failing to keep promises expressly made to women. This week, let's look at an area where Democrats have actually managed to deliver, or are in the process of delivering.
Under the "Criminal Justice" section of the 2008 Democratic platform, there is a paragraph that includes the following:
Ending violence against women must be a top priority. We will create a special advisor to the president regarding violence against women. We will increase funding to domestic violence and sexual assault prevention programs. We will strengthen sexual assault and domestic violence laws, support the Violence Against Women Act, and provide job security to survivors.
The MSM took very little notice, but Lynn Rosenthal was named White House advisor on violence against women. Vice President Joe Biden, longtime women's advocate and author of the original Violence Against Women Act of 1994, made the announcement on June 26, 2009. In addition to advising the president and vice president, Rosenthal also acts as a liaison and coordinator among Federal, state, and global agencies and organizations dealing with domestic violence and violence against women.
Job security for survivors of domestic abuse would be strengthened with the passage of the Healthy Family Act, introduced in May 2009. Currently, the bill is in committee in both the House and the Senate. It requires employers who don't already offer sick days to allow employees to earn them. It also specifies that domestic violence survivors can use sick leave to seek assistance for their situation. So attending a hearing about a restraining order doesn't also mean taking a personal day or an unpaid day off. Granted, it's not a lot, but it's more job protection than abuse survivors have had up to now.
And there’s further good news on the horizon about funding for programs dealing with violence against women. An appropriations bill drafted in late 2009 included generous allotments for the Office on Violence Against Women:
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW): $418.5 million, $29.5 million above 2009, to prevent and prosecute violence against women and strengthen services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This includes $210 million for STOP (Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors) formula grants, $15 million for sexual assault victims services, and $41 million for civil legal assistance. All other Violence Against Women Act programs meet 2009 funding levels.
◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇
THIS WEEK IN WOMEN'S HISTORY: First Steps
by joedemocrat
- This week in 1821, Elizabeth Blackwell was born. She became the first female doctor in the United States. She was also an abolitionist.
- This week in 1913, Rosa Parks was born. She was an instrumental part of the civil rights movement and best known for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger, leading to the Montgomery Bus boycott.
- This week in 1921, feminist, author, and first NOW President Betty Friedan was born. She also died this week in 2006.
- This week in 1940, Ida May Fuller was the first American to receive a social security check under the Social Security Act. The check was for $22.54. She died in 1975, having received accumulated benefits of $22,888.89 while paying in only $24.75!
- This week in 2006, the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down.
◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇
WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE: Work vs Family
by pat of butter in a sea of grits
This week, Joan Williams of the Hastings College of the Law Center for WorkLife Law, and Heather Boushey of the Center for American Progress issued a report (pdf) on "The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Professionals and the Missing Middle." In this report, Williams and Boushey discuss the conflicts between work and family experienced by many American women. American families work longer hours with fewer laws to support working families than families in other nations. Family supports such as paid sick days, limits on overtime, work flexibility, and part-time work are all more common and better legislated in other countries. Here in the U.S., 90 percent of mothers and 95 percent of fathers experience work-family conflict.
The American workplace is well designed for the workforce of 1960, say the authors, a time when only 20 percent of mothers worked outside the home. In those days, employers found it easy to assume that their employee could work whatever hours the employer desired, because someone else was available to take care of the home and children. This outdated model doesn't make sense today, which explains the work-family conflicts so common now. For one thing, less-educated men are unable to find the manufacturing jobs today that could support a family, as they could 50 years ago. An additional employee - the wife - is needed to support a family. For another, far more households are headed by a single parent, usually a mother.
Workplace flexibility is beneficial not only to employees but also to employers, who have lower rates of employee turnover when their employees are able to align their work life with their home life. Turnover is much higher in businesses that do not allow their employees the flexibility they need to run their own lives. American workers desperately need the kinds of advances in employee legislation enjoyed by those in other developed nations.
◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇
RECOMMENDED READING
by dirkster42
The recommendation is short and sweet this week (though the book is neither):
Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1970) is an important theoretical formulation of Second Wave Feminism. This text is important for its articulation of micro-power as political, a revolutionary insight in its day.
◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇
MEDIA REPORT
by chicating
Kind of an eclectic sample of topics in SheKos Media this week, everything from finding new TV pilots created by women to diet-by-photoshop.
- Forbes shows us that in order to be a trusted celebrity, you still have to look like somebody's dad.
- Why aren't there more films about abortion?
- Jezebel offers up the latest in its ongoing series "Photoshop of Horrors", showing how OK! magazine "helped" Kourtney Kardashian lose nine months of baby weight in three days.
- In case you think the nature of Kourtney's fame left her uniquely vulnerable to Photoshop abuse, here's a recent incident featuring Demi Moore.
- Turning our attention to the action behind the camera, Melissa Silverstein tracks the number of television pilots created by women.
◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇◆◇
LITTLE THINGS: A Thing of Beauty
by earicicle, SheKos editor
When I finally caved and started doing the Facebook thing, my awesome teenage nephews were among my first friends. College Nephew’s delightful girlfriend and I got to know each other over the holidays, and so we’re now also FB friends. The other night, my home feed showed that the lovebirds are both attending an upcoming event called Tell Her She’s Beautiful. Hmm...how? They go to school 1000 miles from each other.
So I clicked.
Wow. Well, now I’m "attending" too. The event’s location is listed as "ENTIRE WORLD." So if this description piques your interest, you can also take part:
It has come to my attention that as I grow older, girls get more and more self conscious of themselves. This hurts me, because every girl is beautiful in their own way. They all want to live up to standards that the media has set for them, like being paper thin or double Z breasts. It really breaks my heart to see all of the girls to wallow around and hate who they are and think they aren’t worth something.
I’m making this event so everyone can tell anyone that they think is beautiful, that they are beautiful. Just tell them. They don’t hear it enough, and they want to hear it. Tell anyone; tell your friend, your mother, your sister, your cousin, your dog for all I care. Let’s show girls that we don’t care about the standards that they set for themselves and that we like them the way they are.
Let’s show every girl that they really are beautiful. So tell them, it’ll make their day.
Girls, you ARE beautiful.
The ebullient tone (and slightly imperfect grammar) tipped me off that the organizer might be young. But it took a few clicks to confirm that creator Joshua Amar is a teen: a Toronto high school senior. "This event was inspired by my friends that don't think that they're enough," he says. He’s categorized Tell Her She’s Beautiful as a global rally, running from Thursday February 11 to Sunday February 14, Valentine’s Day. The span of a few days "gives you time to work up the nerve for that special someone." As I write this, the page lists 612,443 confirmed guests and 208,280 who are "maybe attending." The RSVPs come mostly from smiling young teens.
I am gobsmacked. That a teenage boy has so much insight, and so much heart. That he already sees how airbrushed images of impossibly "perfect" models condemn girls (and women) to battle weight and self-esteem. That he wants to take positive action to help girls love and appreciate themselves just the way they are. That he is getting hundreds of thousands of others to join him.
And I am truly moved. By a Facebook event created by a teenage boy! These issues are deeply personal to me. Anorexia at 12. Body dysmorphia--well, I still struggle to see what’s actually in the mirror. It still really helps to hear the words: you are beautiful. They are still rare in my life. And in many women’s lives, I fear.
Josh, I wish this series of ‘tubes was big enough for me to reach through and give you a big hug. Because you, my dear, are beautiful.