Monday, November 14, 2011

Odds 'N Ends

1. Apparently the International Boxing Association may soon require female boxers to wear skirts. Via Sociological Images

"The President of the Association, Dr. Ching-Kuo Wu, argues that it will allow viewers to tell the difference between the men and the women who currently wear the same uniforms, including headgear. Right now the skirt is an optional variation on the official uniform but, Dr. Wu says, 'After we hear about its comfort and how easy it is to compete in the uniform, it may be compulsory.'

At the European Championships in Rotterdam last week, female boxers from Poland and Romania adopted the new uniform. A coach of the Poland team said: 'By wearing skirts, in my opinion, it gives a good impression, a womanly impression.'”

One is led to wonder, why the big need to distinguish between men and women? If they're so comfortable and easy to compete in, why aren't we suggesting men wear them as well? I think Lisa Wade answers these questions for us: "Discomfort with the lack of actual differences between men and women sometimes leads individuals to encourage or enforce artificial ones."


2. I'm not a big reader of Huffington Post, but Mignon R. Moore recently posted there about some of the findings in her book Invisible Families: Gay Identities, Relationships, and Motherhood Among Black Women, in which she followed 100 middle-class and working-class black lesbians:

"The women I interviewed are the types of lesbian families that are 'invisible' to many LGBT scholars, activists and organization leaders, and one consequence of this invisibility is a failure to understand how they differ from more visible members of the LGBT community and determine which issues are important for their happiness and success. By ignoring LGBT people of color and their families, the movement stifles its own growth and leaves behind significant populations that are very much in need of visibility, advocacy and equal treatment.

Many public policy implications emerge from these data. Because black same-sex couples are more economically disadvantaged on average than are white same-sex couples, at the same time that they are more likely to be raising children, they are disproportionately harmed by laws that limit access of sexual minorities to certain rights, like the ability to foster and adopt children or to include children they co-parent with a same-sex partner on their health insurance plans. Such laws are most prevalent in Southern states with the largest black populations and the highest rates of parenting among black same-sex couples. When we do not understand the totality of who our families are and the needs they have, we reduce the effectiveness of the larger strategies we promote for LGBT empowerment."


It's not a big secret that the white male dominated "GLBT" movement suffers from serious intersectionality failures. I see these failures regularly dismissed as "Just a bunch of self-centered PC whining that makes 'us' look bad." So yeah, no big surprise either that 100% of QUILTBAG people aren't all on board with Team Tolerance's agenda (which seems to be, IMO, securing same-sex marriage rights and not criticizing Dan Savage).

So, yeah. I liked Moore's ending suggestion: LGBT people of color "might be more active in promoting LGBT advocacy efforts if they felt those efforts included their voices and incorporated more of the issues that are important to them."


3. This article for sure made me more of a vegetarian.

No comments: