Joanna Russ

The other day I was just telling someone an excellent collection of essays called Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans, and Perverts by the lesbian-feminist science fiction writer Joanna Russ. Yesterday, before my Contemporary Feminist Thought class, I looked up Joanna Russ in the Bizzell Library catalog, hoping the book would be available. I thought it would be a great counterpoint to the Helene Cixous essay we were going to be discussing. (Cixous says some interesting things, but seems to have a penchant for academic jargon and sweeping generalizations, both of which Russ manages to do without.)

Anyway, when I did the catalog search on Joanna Russ, I discovered that the library has 10 books by Joanna Russ (but not the one that I was looking for). And because the catalog listing referred to "Russ, Joanna, 1937-2011," I realized for the first time that Joanna Russ is dead. Darn it. I'd always wanted to meet her.

Maybe I should pay more attention to mainstream news -- she had an obituary in the New York Times.

This essay by Brit Mandelo on tor.com is also well worth reading. It's part of Mandelo's series on Reading Joanna Russ.

Oh, cool.

Really, this won't crack my cynicism about Facebook, but I just found this on Facebook, which led me to the annotated online version of Dyke, A Quarterly.

Kewl.

A complicated mess

I'm actually rather cynical about Facebook, and don't log on there much. But when I do, I often find some amazing stuff. For instance, Kathleen Barry and Feminist Peace Movement both linked to this extraordinary post. Here's a short sample:

We, the undersigned 1960s radical feminists and current activists, have been concerned for some time about the rise within the academy and mainstream media of “gender theory,” which avoids naming men and the system of male supremacy as the beneficiaries of women’s oppression. Our concern changed to alarm when we learned about threats and attacks, some of them physical, on individuals and organizations daring to challenge the currently fashionable concept of gender.

Recent developments: A U.S. environmental organization that also calls itself radical feminist is attacked for its political analysis of gender. Feminist conferences in the U.K., U.S. and Canada are driven from their contracted locations for asserting the right of women to organize for their liberation separately from men, including M>F (male to female) transgendered people.

Deep Green Resistance (DGR) reports1 that queer activists defaced its published materials and trans activists threatened individual DGR members with arson, rape and murder. Bookstores are pressured not to carry DGR’s work and its speaking events are cancelled after protests by queer/transgender activists. At “RadFem” conferences in London2, Portland3 and Toronto4, trans activists accuse scheduled speakers of hate speech and/or being transphobic because they dare to analyze gender from a feminist political perspective. Both M>F transgender people and “men’s rights” groups, operating separately but using similar language, demand to be included in the Rad Fem 2013 conference in London called to fight against women’s oppression and for liberation.

I'm too tired to do justice to this topic tonight. In some ways, I have a lot of empathy with trans activists. In my own life, the question "Are you a boy or a girl?" has been a life-or-death issue. I don't doubt that trans people face violence and threats. But ultimately, I think the idea of "transgender" reinforces gender instead of undermining it. And I believe that people born into female-sexed bodies have the right to organize female-only space as a matter of resistance to our oppression.

That's not hate. That's a political opinion that trans activists strongly disagree with.

My admiration for the radical feminist post is tempered by a peculiar circumstance. it seems that the current operators of www.pandagon.net may have scooped up a Web address that the original operators inadvertently allowed to expire. The original Pandagon now appears at www.rawstory.com.

One of the original Pandagon folks, Amanda Marcotte, reacted with outrage to this. (Hat tip to Feminist Peace Network on Facebook for that link.) It's not clear exactly what connection the current operators of pandagon.net have to the authors of the radical feminist post, but it's a disquieting situation. I'm sad to see this difficult issue of gender politics blurred by this sort of confusion. It almost looks as if some radical feminists tried to get attention for their position (which I very much support and admire) by trying to make it appear that it came from people who are actually their political opponents.

I can't at all agree with Amanda Marcotte's characterization of radical feminists as "transphobic bigots," but I don't blame her for being pissed off that her url was swiped.

Julia Penelope

I just discovered the other day that radical dyke theorist Julia Penelope died in January. Author Victoria Brownworth has this remembrance. Here's a small sample:

Julia Penelope was from another era, an era that is truly bygone. Unlike those other theorists, her work was so controversial, so revolutionary, so for lesbians only that what she said often created outrage, even among other lesbians and feminists. Julia Penelope was never an assimilationist, she never approved of assimilation and she built her whole world–a world into which she tried to draw as many other women as possible–around lesbocentrism. She was a lesbian separatist–something anathema in our mainstreaming, assimilationist LGBT world where straight acceptance is often more important than queer freedom.

The entire post is well worth reading.

You can find more of Victoria Brownworth's excellent prose here and here.

Happy birthday to me

Only four more years until I'm old enough to join Old Lesbians Organizing for Change.

What is marriage?

About a month and a half ago, President Obama announced that his position on gay marriage had "evolved" to the point that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to marry. Depending on the perspective of the commentator, this meant Obama was defying the will of God, had committed a serious political blunder, had made a wishy-washy statement that "sold out" gay rights, or had done something "historic and brave."

Despite the controversy over the president's statement, it seems that same-sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted. According to blogger Richard Kim of thenation.com, we have reached the point that "it is increasingly untenable for anyone bidding for mainstream credibility to remain opposed to same-sex marriage."

Kim said this in an essay about the changing position on same-sex marriage of one David Blankenhorn. I've never heard of David Blankenhorn before now. He seems to be the founder of something called The Institute for American Values. He appeared as an "expert witness" as part of the legal defense of California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Recently, Blankenhorn very publicly recanted his opposition to same-sex marriage. Richard Kim used this occasion to share some thoughts on the issue of marriage that are much closer to my own than what I usually see in the gay or progressive press:

Back in 2005, in the wake of a rash of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, Lisa Duggan and I argued that the gay movement—and progressives at large—should focus on advocating for a range of household recognitions, for “decentering” marriage as an institution even while fighting for legal equality. Here’s what we wrote:

For gay activists, and indeed for all progressive activists, it would be far more productive to stress support for household diversity—both cultural and economic support, recognition and resources for a changing population as it actually lives—than to focus solely on gay marriage. By treating marriage as one form of household recognition among others, progressives can generate a broad vision of social justice that resonates on many fronts. If we connect this democratization of household recognition with advocacy of material support for caretaking, as well as for good jobs and adequate benefits (like universal healthcare), then what we all have in common will come into sharper relief.

Of course, Lisa and I lost that argument, at least when it comes to setting the strategies of gay and progressive organizations. The fight for same-sex marriage has scored some significant victories in the intervening years, including Obama’s recent “evolution,” but those wins have come within the framework of same-sex marriage as an isolated right granted to a minority group, the equality/dignity line that Blankenhorn acknowledges has become the dominant framing of the issue. In some cases, the passage of gay marriage has actually eliminated alternative forms of household recognition like domestic partnerships and reciprocal beneficiary statuses. And despite our perhaps outlandish wishes, no progressive movement has risen up to champion the proliferation of diverse forms of household recognition, despite the fact that Americans increasingly continue to live outside of marriage (see Eric Klinenberg’s excellent new book, Going Solo, for example, in which he documents the rise of living alone as the predominant residential pattern). Indeed, in the years since we wrote that article, I’ve often felt as if the debate over same-sex marriage has raged on the national stage while queer radicals like myself and marriage advocates like David Blankenhorn were off to the side, hosting our own tangential debate. We lost the war over issue framing—and in a way, so did Blankenhorn.

My opinions and feelings about marriage are not quite the same as Richard Kim's. For one thing, despite his unease with marriage as an institution, Kim says he's been a consistent supporter of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I have taken the stand that I don't need the right to participate in an oppressive institution. But as an old-school radical lesbian feminist, I can certainly identify with his feeling of simply being cut out of the entire national discussion.

I think the biggest question here is, what is marriage? Is it a commitment between two loving adults to engage in a lifelong relationship, and the commitment of the larger community to support them in this? Or is marriage an institution designed to enforce a set of social patterns and norms that society finds desirable? Richard Kim offers an excellent illustration:

The primary difference, of course, is that Blankenhorn and I fundamentally disagree about what marriage should mean—for gays and straights alike. As the founder of the Institute for American Values, Blakenhorn has attacked single mothers, championed federal marriage promotion as welfare policy, railed against cohabitation and no-fault divorce and opposed access to new reproductive technologies. One of his institute’s latest crusades has been against anonymous sperm donors because it leads to “fatherless” children, an abiding preoccupation of his. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with any of this. I think divorce can be a great thing—as anyone leaving an abusive marriage might confirm. And I think all the debates over which type of family produces the best outcomes for children ought to be meaningless as a matter of state policy. Gay or straight, single or married, let’s try to create the conditions in which all families can succeed. Blankenhorn sees an inner circle of honor and benefits that should be attached to marriage, and he’s now extended that circle to include gays and lesbians. I want to scramble that circle.

Richard Kim seems to believe that some version of "marriage" is possible without this kind of patriarchal baggage. I disagree. But I'm pleased to see that on the edges of the oversimplified national debate about same-sex marriage, there are thoughtful and complicated voices such as Richard Kim's.

Adrienne Rich dead

Adrienne Rich died a couple of days ago, at the age of eighty, due to complications of rheumatoid arthritis. Why did I think that she was going to live forever? Death is part of life, but the death of someone wonderful always seems to come too soon.The Advocate notes that she had been with her partner Michelle Cliff (a notable feminist writer in her own right) since 1976.

Adrienne Rich was that rare poet who made an impact both in the mainstream world of arts and poetry and among radical lesbian feminists. She had an obituary in The New York Times and John Nichols wrote an analysis of her life and work for thenation.com. My favorite was this remembrance by a woman whose life her work had touched.

For myself, I will always remember Adrienne Rich as someone who pushed the feminist movement to be its best self, who pushed women with privilege to challenge their own racism, classism, antisemitism. Rich was a leader in the best sense--someone who inspired all of us to find and express our own ideas and ideals. She had a broad understanding of feminism as a movement that challenges all forms of oppression.

I will miss her.

More on Occupy Wall Street

If you missed it, my first post is here.

Betsy Reed at The Nation has an interesting analysis of the march and its supposed lack of demands:

t’s not that the demands being suggested by OWS’s volunteer policy advisors in the blogosphere are not worthy ideas. At a time when we desperately need to rein in financial speculation and change the incentives on Wall Street, a financial transactions tax is a terrific policy proposal. Dean Baker has been talking about it for years. The thing is, we on the left don’t have a scarcity of policy ideas. We are positively bursting with them. Create a housing trust fund! A national infrastructure bank! And, yes, sure, eliminate the carried interest loophole so fat cats don’t get a bigger tax break than working people. (Some even have more radical ideas, which are quite sensible too.) But at best, we get a polite hearing for these ideas, which then fade away or are hopelessly watered down. We simply lack the power to put them into practice.

And in the recent past, even the most smoothly organized, expertly messaged mass demonstrations have not made a whit of difference in this regard. Consider the last big march on Wall Street this past May 12. The coalition behind it was admirably diverse, including unions like the teachers and SEIU’s 1199, as well as local community organizations such as Citizen Action NY, Coalition for the Homeless and Community Voices Heard. The “May 12 Coalition,” which turned out thousands of protesters on the appointed day, presented the Bloomberg administration with a proposal that exhibited great thoughtfulness in its rigor and detail, asking banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley to take a 20 percent cut in their contracts to handle functions like child support disbursements or income tax remittances for the city. This would have saved $120 million, part of $1.5 billion that could have been extracted from the banking sector to prevent the city from having to slash education and social services, according to the coalition.

I would also like to nominate this song by Bonnie Lockhart as the movement's unofficial anthem:

The down side to DADT repeal

This post on Truthout just brightened my morning. Blogger Jess Guh gives a cogent analysis of the drawbacks of  the recent repeal of the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. As Guh observes, "yet another oppressed minority group has been pulled into being exploited by the American military-industrial complex."

Guh asks whether she is the "only queer person in the country that is sad about the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'?" I would like to assure her that she is not. Whether she knows it or not, Guh's principled criticism of the US military is not something new. Once upon a time, there was a radical lesbian feminist movement that worked to make the world very, very different.

Like most stories that begin "once upon a time," this one is an oversimplification. For one thing, that movement isn't really gone. (That's a blog post for another time.) For another thing, it wasn't just one movement, it was at least 30 of them. We argued about sexuality, about the best way to get rid of racism, about whether to work with male allies, about dozens of other things. But we were clear that we wanted the world to change in fundamental ways. We didn't just want a piece of the pie, we wanted a whole new recipe. We wanted to get rid of patriarchy, capitalism, US imperialism, and to create an egalitarian world. (I pause after writing that sentence. My Facebook friends--some of whom don't know me very well--are going to see this post. Okay friends, if you didn't know about my radical past, I suppose it's time you found out.)

Sometime during the early 1990s, something shifted. As I recall, it started with the first Gulf War, which, if nothing else, was a great propaganda victory for then-President George H.W. Bush. Or maybe the change was inspired a rash of anti-gay ballot measures in places like Colorado and Oregon. All of a sudden, it seemed that instead of working for radical change, everyone wanted to join the army and get married. In such dangerous and rightward drifting times, I suppose it was a natural response for many activists to try not to appear too subversive to the established order.

But the established order has some fundamental problems of injustice and unfairness, and now new generations of activists are discovering this. As Jess Guh writes:

The American military's track record of inclusion is poor by even the lowest of standards. Black Americans were first allowed to serve in the military during the Revolutionary War, when Lord Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, promised freedom to any runaway slave that fought for the British army. George Washington, needing more soldiers, followed suit. I'll let you guess how many of them actually received their promised freedom. Due to fears of giving Black folks weapons and racist doubts that they were mentally capable of being good soldiers, they were not even allowed to officially serve and enlist until 1862 during the Civil War, despite having fought courageously since the revolutionary war. During WWI, US military leaders decided they would rather use black units for suicide missions where they would likely die, instead of sending their white counterparts. For their valiant efforts, no awards or citations would be given to those soldiers of color until 1996, nearly 80 years later.

This philosophy of contempt and "we'll let you serve, but only on our terms" is not limited to race. Women, even those who meet the physical ability requirements, are officially banned from ground combat. But once again, when bodies are needed, the military conveniently changes its mind. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it's been well known that due to manpower shortages,women have been serving in front-line positions identical to those of men, yet there has been no budge in the official policy. And lest you even entertain the notion that the ban represents some sort of arcane but well-intended form of chivalry, consider that a 2003 survey of female veterans found that 30 percent reported being raped while in the military (women serving in Iraq were reportedly being hospitalized for and even dying of dehydration because they would avoid drinking water in order not to have to make runs to the lavatory alone at night). That's not even counting cases of sexual assault and harassment. In 2007, only 181 out of 2,212 reported sexual assaults were referred to courts martial. The equivalent arrest rate for these charges among civilians is five times that.

It's well worth your while to read Guh's entire post, and then to visit her blog.

Don't know if this is really so wonderful

According to a story posted on t r u t h o u t, former Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that excludes open lesbians and gay men from military service.

Meanwhile, Katherine Franke at the Gender and Sexuality Law blog has a post that expresses some of my difficult feelings about this issue. As Franke notes, the end of DADT "comes with no small measure of discomfort on the part of more progressive members of the community in so far as this civil rights issue marries lgbt politics with the values of militarization, state violence, and enormous human suffering." Her thoughtful post explores the changing ways the US military is dealing with sexuality as it struggles to find recruits willing to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, and is well worth reading in its entirety.

Trivia

The other day, Feminist Peace Network on Facebook posted a link to Issue 9 of the online journal TRIVIA - Voices of Feminism. This is the issue on goddesses from March 2009. It looks really interesting. I've read the editors' introduction and an article by Carolyn Gage on how the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by US forces in 1898 might have been stopped if Queen Liliuokalani has listened to her native shamans instead of  following Episcopalian teachings.

This is how I discovered that the feminist journal Trivia still survives after all these years. Or, more accurately, it was revived in 2004 as an online publication. Their dedication to their most recent issue, Are Lesbians Going Extinct? tells the story:

This issue of Trivia is dedicated to Mary Daly, without whom this online journal simply would not be. Trivia, a Journal of Ideas, its predecessor, published in print from 1982 to 1995, grew out of a study group that spun off from Mary's classes at Boston College. It was named after the Triple Goddess TRIVIA—whom we first encountered in the pages of Daly's Gyn/Ecology. While the journal developed its own identity over the years, it remained, and in this online version remains, rooted in her steadfast vision of female power and possibility. The word "lesbian" did not go far enough for Mary. She preferred to talk of "Terrible Women"—women who break the "Terrible Taboo: the universal, unnatural patriarchal taboo against Women Intimately/Ultimately Touching each Other."

Not only do they have an archive of all of their online issues, but you can order copies of most of the old print issues as well.

As I've said before, the existence of small independent feminist periodicals played a crucial role in creating radical feminist and lesbian movements that challenged patriarchy and all forms of oppression. Each time I discover another surviving feminist or lesbian periodical, I gain new hope that those movements can continue to move forward.

US lesbian soldier seeks asylum in Canada

Womens eNews reports that after suffering through months of anti-lesbian verbal and physical abuse, Private Bethany Smith received the anonymous death threat that convinced her to leave her post at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky in 2007, and head for Canada in the hopes of receiving asylum there.

"It said that they were going to break into the supply room and get the keys to my room and beat me to death in my bed," Smith said, adding that the letter came only a couple months after she learned the Army was deploying her to Afghanistan. "It was at that point that I knew I was more afraid of the people who were supposed to be on my side than people we were supposed to be fighting overseas."

More than 12,000 service members have lost their jobs because of the U.S. military's so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy. A disproportionate number of those discharges are women, according to 2008 statistics gathered by the Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network from the government under the Freedom of Information Act.

After two years in Canada, Smith is still fighting to receive asylum. In November, Canadian Federal Court Justice Yves de Montigny ruled that the country's refugee board should reconsider Smith's case, which it had earlier denied.

The entire article is short and well worth reading.

And I still ain't satisfied

It is a beautiful gray October morning, and the inside of my head this morning is still gray and foggy, because of the weather, because I work nights and it takes me a while to get going in the morning. So I'm sitting at my desk with my front door open, and absent-mindedly browsing my blogroll, when I come across this post on Open Left. It's basically a link to this video:



Sometimes the sun burns through the clouds a little bit, and I think I'd like to sit out on the porch and play the harmonica, or maybe sit right here at my desk and re-write a few poems, or maybe do some day-dreaming and note-taking for the novel I'm going to write next month. But instead, here's this interesting and complicated issue about a domestic partnership referendum in Washington State sitting in front of me.

And for me, this could get really complicated. I'm an old-fashioned lesbian feminist with lots of reservations about the old-fashioned patriarchal institution of marriage. And thinking about this ignites the burning nostalgia for a time in which we were going to change the world, really change it, so that everyone was equal and free, and not just try to take our equal place in a fucked up oppressive system. Maybe nostalgia is the wrong word, because I try to live every day of my life to do my part to make that free and equal world possible.

I'm not talking about utopia. I'm not talking about a world free of sorrow or pain. I am talking about a world without the rulers or the ruled. I don't think it's easy, but I think it's possible.

I'm not explaining this very well. I don't know if I can.

So I will confine myself to a much more limited goal. I will give you links to a couple of Wikipedia entries to help you understand the situation in Washington State, and keep my ambivalence and my complicated feelings to myself.

The first entry describes domestic partner laws in Washington State, and the second entry explains Referendum 71.

The wind is still blowing and the sun is still trying to break through. I'm going out now to sit on the portch.

Health care and consensus decision making

Last night I went to the beautiful Belle Isle Public Library to watch President Barack Obama address a joint session of Congress on the topic of health care reform. Call me a socialist if you will, but I really enjoy and appreciate this excellent government-run service (both the wi-fi in particular and the library in general). I sat there with my laptop and my earphones, and frantically took not-very-good handwritten notes. Which probably wasn't necessary, given that it's possible to read the transcript here or view the video here.

I need to start by saying that I have a lot of policy disagreements with the president about health care. I think we need single payer. I'm disappointed that the proposed public option is only open to those who don't already have health insurance. The version of the public plan originally proposed by Jacob Hacker would have covered anyone who wanted it, and would have done a lot more to control insurance costs. And despite the president's assurances, I'm worried that people without much money would be required to pay more than they could afford for the health care insurance that they'll be required to have. Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus's framework is particularly worrisome in that regard. And frankly, I think it's a bad thing that federal money can't be used to pay for abortion.

That being said, I think that it was a masterful speech by a masterful consensus builder. The word "masterful" makes me want to get out some Julia Penelope on the topic of patriarchal language, but that is a topic for a different time.

I do want to talk a little bit about consensus.

Watching the president, I was reminded of old meetings of, oh, say, the Oregon Women's Land Trust. If you've ever been part of a lesbian feminist organization that runs on consensus decision making, you will know that the US Congress has nothing on lesbian activists when it comes to getting into down-and-dirty political fights. The Senate, in particular, has rules that are very reminiscent of consensus decision making used by lesbian feminist collectives. Having a simple majority is enough to get something passed. While one person can't shut down the Senate (and I have more than once seen a single dissenter shut down a lesbian collective from taking any action), you need to have 60 votes to cut off debate in order to proceed with a bill.

By its nature, it's a conservative process. The way the Senate operates probably has most of the same advantages and disadvantages of consensus decision making. One big disadvantage is that a minority can bolix up the works and keep actions from being taken that have majority support. This is what's happening in the Senate right now. Especially after the death of Ted Kennedy, the president and the Democrats can't count on 60 votes to move forward without courting Republicans and conservative Democrats.

But the disadvantage is also an advantage. The truth is, if you have a substantial minority of the population that opposes a law that has passed, that law has much less chance of succeeding. It seems to me that the most successful movements of our times--the civil rights movements, the feminist movements--have been the most successful when campaigns to pass legislation were combined with campaigns to achieve popular support. Changing laws is not enough without changing people's hearts and minds. Sometimes the piece of legislation fails, but the change in popular attitudes that came about by fighting for it makes an enormous positive difference. I'm thinking of the Equal Rights Amendment here.

Okay, okay, I'll try to get back on track. Health care legislation is not the same as civil rights legislation, and to make a change, we do need to pass a law. I'm just trying to make the point that to pass the legislation and to have it succeed, President Obama needs to bring people together and build a broad base of support for it, including from moderate and conservative members of the population. And I think that's exactly what he succeeded in doing with his speech last night. He took the things that just about everybody agrees about, and used that as a basis for moving forward.

He gave an eloquent description of exactly how broken our current system is. How we are the only advanced democracy that doesn't offer universal health care. How people who don't have insurance--because they are self-employed and can't afford it, because they have a pre-existing condition that won't allow them to get coverage--can be just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. How people who have insurance can find that their coverage has been dropped just when they need it the most. How we spend one and a half times more per person on healthcare per person without that making us any more healthy. How health insurance premiums are rising in cost three times faster than wages, and how this puts workers and businesses at a disadvantage. How increasing health care costs are putting "an unsustainable burden on the taxpayers."

When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

What the president did with the first part of his speech was to demonstrate that we do have a national consensus about what is wrong with the way we pay for health care. What he did next was to address what we need to do to fix it. His strategy was to position himself as being what he always has been, a centrist.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's...where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

(Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has also proposed a plan that would end employer-based coverage and retain a private market, and might have been surprised to hear himself classified as being "on the right," but I suppose that is also a topic for another time.)

At any rate, having established that there is widespread agreement about what is wrong with our healthcare system, Obama argued that there is also widespread agreement--within Congress, at least--about many steps that need to be taken to correct the situation. And he argued that there has actually been significant progress toward creating reform legislation.

We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

According to the president, these points of agreement are:

• People who already have health insurance through an employer or through Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, would get to keep what they already have. (Although, as Matt Taibbi points out, if the insurance you get through your employer now is really awful, you would still be stuck with it.)
• People who have insurance could not have their coverage canceled or "watered down." There could be no yearly or lifetime limits on coverage. There would be a limit on out-of-pocket expenses. Insurers would be required to cover routine checkups and tests such as colonoscopies or mammograms.
• Individuals and small businesses that don't currently have access to affordable insurance would have access to something called a health insurance exchange. Because all these people would be pooled together as one group, they would have (at least in theory) the kind of collective bargaining power that government and large businesses now have. Insurance companies would participate in this system because it would give them access to millions of new potential customers.
• Individuals and small businesses that still couldn't afford the insurance offered by these exchanges would receive subsidies based on their ability to pay.
• Large businesses would be required to provide insurance for their employees. Most individuals would be required to purchase health insurance. There would be hardship waivers for individuals who couldn't afford insurance, and 95 percent of small businesses would be exempt.

While I continue to have serious reservations about the health care policies he's proposing, I have to admire the way he is putting his experience as a community organizer to good use. His strategy here seems almost like a page out of Building United Judgment. I think he's absolutely correct that even most conservative Republicans already agree with much of what he's proposing. For instance, when I attended Mary Fallin's town hall meeting back in August, one thing that struck me was how many of the things she said she supported were actually in the one of the existing health care bills, whether she was aware of this or not.

After showing how much agreement Congress already has about health insurance reform, the president openly confronted the orchestrated right-wing backlash to reform that developed over the summer.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause.)

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.)

THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.)

The heckler in this excerpt was reported to be Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.

The president went on to confront claims that his plan represented a "government takeover" of health care. Here is where I had my most ambivalent feelings. I'm as skeptical of government as the next person, but I think there are some services that don't operate well as private industries, and I think health insurance is one of those. The president actually made a similar point in his defense of the limited public option that four of the five committees working on health care have included in their bills:

My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works. (Applause.) Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

I don't think the limited public option in the healthcare bills before Congress does much to address the relentless profit-seeking of private insurers. It's only available to people who don't have insurance who are shopping for coverage through the exchange, and the president himself says that maybe five percent of people will be covered by it.

I think it's proper and necessary that some essential services--like health care--need to be made available for the public good, and not for the relentless profit expectations of Wall Street. I agree with Jeff Cohen that if Obama--or at least the liberal groups who are his allies--has started out pushing for a single-payer plan, we might have been able to win a strong public option that would have helped provide quality care at an affordable price. Now we are left with a situation in which Obama gives a ringing endorsement of a limited public plan, but says he's willing to trade it away.

Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. (Applause.)

Okay. There was more of the president's speech that I haven't addressed. I don't have a grand concluding statement. But I think I've gone on about long enough, and it's almost time for me to go to work. My reaction to the president's speech remains contradictory.

On the one hand, I have serious concerns about what the president has proposed, and don't think the final bill will address those concerns. I think if progressive groups had worked harder and smarter for a more far-reaching proposal, we would have gotten a better result.

On the other hand, there is the reality of powerful right-wing opposition to health care reform to deal with, and we can't ignore that or merely wish it away. The right wing in this country remains extremely powerful, not necessarily because of whatever popular support it might have, but because it is extremely wealthy, well-organized, and well-connected. Obama's plan may be a realistic way to deal with that. I was moved by his sincerity last night, and impressed by his skill. Maybe what we have here is a good starting place. He says he hopes he is the last president to deal with health reform, but I hope he's wrong. What we have is a good first step on a very long journey.

Which Biblical morality are we talking about?

I kind of hate to take potshots at Sally Kern. It's not exactly rigorous intellectual exercise. I would like to say that my mother told me never to undertake a battle of wits with an unarmed person, but my mother never actually said that. OK State Rep. Kern (R. Oklahoma City) may be sincerely bigoted, or she may be your typical cynical politician who knows how to fire up her base, but her statements are so outrageous, and have been so ably dissected by so many commentators, that it seems unnecessary to chime in.

But the recent controversy surrounding her "Oklahoma Citizens' Proclamation for Morality" reminded me of an old poem of mine that I meant to read during OKC pride, but didn't get around to. Kern was not actually so tactless as to refer to Sodom and Gomorrah in her proclamation, but she did opine that "our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis." She also begged God to "to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment." Given that this old story from the nineteenth chapter of Genesis is often used as an example of God's response to homosexuality, I think it bears retelling from a feminist perspective.

So here's the poem. It's a poem about Lot's wife.

Sodomy

Turned to stone
just like that
left alone for all eternity
for all the gawking tourists
to photograph and talk about.

How did she get mixed up with that Lot, anyway?
He, known as the one righteous man in Sodom,
the kind whom angels come to visit.
He was a pillar of the community
before she was.
He wore his righteousness like a shroud.

His neighbors were not so neighborly.
"Intercourse" is a work that also means "to talk"
but the neighbors didn't want to talk with the angels.
"Take my wife, please,"
a phrase remaining to be invented by some much later wiseass.
But Lot was not about to put his own butt on the line.
"Do not be so wicked," he told the neighbors.
"Take my daughters, they are virgins, you can do as you please to them."
He pulled his righteousness around him like a shroud.

He had offered his dearest possessions.
His neighbors, not deterred, tried to break down the door
only to be driven back by an angelic lightning flash.
Those Sodomites didn't care who they fucked with.
This town could not be saved.
Only the family of the righteous Lot could escape with the angels.
But they must trust in righteousness
and not look back.

What was her name, anyway?
Was she not ready to leave behind
the grief and sorrow of this place
or did she know what tragedy lay ahead?
She could not trust.
The river of salt flowed from her eyes.
She knew what was underneath the shroud.

Flowing powerless like a river of salt,
she could go no further.
She could not conceive
how to protect her daughters from righteousness.
She looked back.
Frozen, now, for all eternity as a bad example.

Lot took his righteousness and her daughters
and made camp in the mountains.
Later, he said the daughters were seductive.
He said they got him drunk.
We've heard that excuse many times since then.
The daughters heard it many times before
and blamed themselves as damaged goods
the neighbors would not accept.
Lot's line went on
to prove a paradigm of righteousness.
The daughters wept many bitter tears.
And their mother, whoever she was
stands alone for all eternity as the first bad example.

Why not just get rid of marriage?

Yesterday, as most everyone seemed to expect, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of last November's anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8. Feminist Law Professors cross-posted Katherine Frank's interesting analysis of Marriage in California After Strauss v. Horton, which also appeared on the Gender & Sexuality Law Blog. On this second blog, after a bit of exploration, I found a wonderful post from the same author which argued that it would make the most sense for the California Supreme Court to disestablish marriage.

So is marriage more than a word?  Did the justices of the California Supreme Court simply not “get it” when they asked why Prop 8 didn’t just deny same sex couples a word, a label, the nomenclature of marriage? The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case insisted that the fight is not simply over a word.  It is a fight for dignity and respect.  They claim and indeed insist that denying the label marriage to the unions of same sex couples is an insult, a degradation, and a dignity harm.  Yet to do so is to take for granted that marriage is something sacred, something to be honored and something that dignifies those who earn its blessings.  It is to argue from within a normative universe whose values you take for granted and embrace.  And it is to base your legal arguments on the legitimacy of those values - the recognition of the harm alleged in the Prop 8 case depends on it.

Hear, hear.

Update on email hoax case

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that a Massachusetts judge has ruled that a dorm room search for evidence of a "prank" email was illegal.

I reported on this case a about a month ago. While the email in question wasn't criminal, it wasn't exactly a "prank," either. It involved outing a gay student to a campus electronic mailing list. Unfortunately, the student whose dorm room was searched was identified as a suspect on the dubious grounds that he had computer expertise.

Retreating

You won't see any posts for a few days because I've gone to the Herland Spring Retreat. See you there?

What's a lesbian civil libertarian to think?

Okay. It's my gut feeling that outing people is kind of rude and uncalled for. But is it a criminal offense? And how far should an institution go in trying to catch someone who does this?

If accurate, this story, courtesy of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is truly bizarre.

On Friday, EFF and the law firm of Fish and Richardson filed an emergency motion to quash and for the return of seized property on behalf of a Boston College computer science student whose computers, cell phone, and other property were seized as part of an investigation into who sent an e-mail to a school mailing list identifying another student as gay. The problem? Not only is there no indication that any crime was committed, the investigating officer argued that the computer expertise of the student itself supported a finding of probable cause to seize the student's property.

According to another EFF report:

Some of the supposedly suspicious activities listed in support of the search warrant application include: the student being seen with "unknown laptop computers," which he "says" he was fixing for other students; the student uses multiple names to log on to his computer; and the student uses two different operating systems, including one that is not the "regular B.C. operating system" but instead has "a black screen with white font which he uses prompt commands on."

I wondered if there was an "opposing point of view," and did a quick web search on "boston college gay email investigation". Every reference to the story that I found seemed to be computer tech web sites that were repeating the EFF angle. Another quick search of mainstream news organizations found no reference to the story. I posted a request for information on the Boston College web site, and held this post for a few days to see if they responded. They didn't.

It sounds to me as if Boston College has gone way overboard in trying to punish the student they think was responsible. And the idea that using a command prompt is suspicious behavior would be funny, if it weren't so frightening. (Just as an aside, here, you don't need to use Linux to get a command prompt. Your Windows machine has one if you just look under "Accessories.") But maybe the story is more complicated than EFF is letting on. EFF seemed to gloss over the nature of the email in question. Was it ugly, vulgar, threatening?

Ironically, Boston College, an institution run by the Jesuits, is no haven for gay rights. At one time, it seems to have made a list of the nation's most homophobic campuses, although another article in the Boston Phoenix suggests that this reputation is not entirely deserved.

Radical feminists may remember Boston College as the one-time employer of philosopher Mary Daly. In 1999, Daly left Boston College after settling a lawsuit before it went to trial. Daly had sued BC for violating her tenure and free-speech rights, after the institution tried to force her to admit men to her regular classes.

off our backs alive, kicking

Or at least that's what they say on their web site.

The link above is not a permanent link, but here is what the oob site is reporting as of this writing:

Our newly reorganized, re-energized gathering of enthusiastic, talented and committed radical feminist women is dedicated to oob's continuation as the beacon and source of feminist journalism and activism it has been since 1970. We plan to survive and thrive! Look for our next issue to hit your libraries, bookstores and mailboxes in mid June 2009!

This is very good news. Founded in 1970, off our backs is the oldest surviving feminist periodical in the US. You may remember that last fall, oob was in such difficult financial shape that they suspended their print edition and took time to re-group. But now the print edition of off our backs is back, and they've also started a blog as well.

Congratulations, sisters.