The Name Game

In an equal world there would be no difference between you and I. In an equal world, a person's gender wouldn't matter.

We do not live in an equal world, and we all receive the most fundamental piece of this unequal world right at birth, a name.

Giving people gendered names instantly classifies a baby as a male or female. This identity then dictates what the child will play with, what will be his favorite color, what games she will play on the playground.

As the child moves into adulthood, the gender pressure will only increase. She will be given a range of acceptable careers to choose. He will be expected to show some emotions in a specific way and hide others altogether. She will be told that she can be strong, but expected to still display an underlying of weakness. And when this person dies, the tombstone will have the name that started this whole social process engraved on it, etched in stone.

'Men' and 'Women' are just caricatures. In a manner that is nothing short of totalitarian, our over-culture dictates to us how we are to behave and think based upon our gender. All the while, this tyranny of sorts masquerades as 'normal' and 'human nature.' There has rarely been a more insidious form of oppression. This whole process starts with a person's name-the presumed core of their identity.

I wonder how many couples sitting around me at Thanksgiving will be little more than unions of two gender stereotypes rather sincere unions of two individuals? What will happen to them when their role-playing runs stale? If a person is truly committed to liberation from the dictatorship of culture, then he or she should not give his or her child a name that symbolically sets all the social expectations in motion. They don't say that one in the parenting books.

Obviously we live in a time when some social gender norms and expectations are less rigid. I acknowledge our advances and the increased right to choose our own paths. However, progress must never be mistaken for resolution. Huge gender norms have yet to be dismantled and the need, no the requirement, to give a baby a name that is either a man's name or a woman's is one of them. Actually, it is the first big one.

Will We Ever Get a Millitary Cut?

Included at the end of this three paragraph post is an open letter addressed to Senators Bowles and Simpson of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficient reduction. Any plan to reduce the crippling national deficit must include military cuts. The letter elaborates on the fact that the origin of our nation's strength lies not in the military but rather the economy.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has called for a rather conservative reduction in military spending to the tune of $200 billion over five years (the federal stimulus was about $800 billion). Given the current political climate, any politician would be hard pressed to convert this recommendation to a bill.

Still, defense cuts and maintaining our absolutely necessary global military dominance are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has studies American military capabilities knows that our nation is so far ahead of all the others that we can stand to safely make cuts. Anyone who argues against defense cuts is simply not serious about reducing the deficit. Also, frankly, those who would cut health care benefits yet not insist on defense cuts posses a cruel outlook and do not understand what really makes America strong.

"Dear Co-chairman Bowles and Co-chairman Simpson:

We are writing to you as experts in national security and defense economics to convey our views on the national security implications of the Commission's work and especially the need for achieving responsible reductions in military spending. In this regard, we appreciate the initiative you have taken in your 10 November 2010 draft proposal to the Commission. It begins a necessary process of serious reflection, debate, and action.

The vitality of our economy is the cornerstone of our nation's strength. We share the Commission's desire to bring our financial house into order. Doing so is not merely a question of economics. Reducing the national debt is also a national security imperative.

To date, the Obama administration has exempted the Defense Department from any budget reductions. This is short-sighted: It makes it more difficult to accomplish the task of restoring our economic strength, which is the underpinning of our military power.

As the rest of the nation labors to reduce its debt burden, the current plan is to boost the base DOD budget by 10 percent in real terms over the next decade. This would come on top of the nearly 52 percent real increase in base military spending since 1998. (When war costs are included the increase has been much greater: 95 percent.)

We appreciate Secretary Gates' efforts to reform the Pentagon's business and acquisition practices. However, even if his reforms fulfill their promise, the current plan does not translate them into budgetary savings that contribute to solving our deficit problem. Their explicit aim is to free funds for other uses inside the Pentagon. This is not good enough.

Granting defense a special dispensation puts at risk the entire deficit reduction effort. Defense spending today constitutes over 55 percent of discretionary spending and 23 percent of the federal budget. An exemption for defense not only undermines the broader call for fiscal responsibility, but also makes overall budget restraint much harder as a practical economic and political matter.

We need not put our economic power at risk in this way. Today the United States possesses a wide margin of global military superiority. The defense budget can bear significant reduction without compromising our essential security.

We recognize that larger military adversaries may rise to face us in the future. But the best hedge against this possibility is vigilance and a vibrant economy supporting a military able to adapt to new challenges as they emerge.

We can achieve greater defense economy today in several ways, all of which we urge you to consider seriously. We need to be more realistic in the goals we set for our armed forces and more selective in our choices regarding their use abroad. We should focus our military on core security goals and on those current and emerging threats that most directly affect us.

We also need to be more judicious in our choice of security instruments when dealing with international challenges. Our armed forces are a uniquely expensive asset and for some tasks no other instrument will do. For many challenges, however, the military is not the most cost-effective choice. We can achieve greater efficiency today without diminishing our security by better discriminating between vital, desirable, and unnecessary military missions and capabilities.

There is a variety of specific options that would produce savings, some of which we describe below. The important point, however, is a firm commitment to seek savings through a reassessment of our defense strategy, our global posture, and our means of producing and managing military power.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have required our military to prepare for and conduct more types of missions in more places around the world. The Pentagon's task list now includes not only preventive war, regime change, and nation building, but also vague efforts to "shape the strategic environment" and stem the emergence of threats. It is time to prune some of these missions and restore an emphasis on defense and deterrence.

U.S. combat power dramatically exceeds that of any plausible combination of conventional adversaries. To cite just one example, Secretary Gates has observed that the U.S. Navy is today as capable as the next 13 navies combined, most of which are operated by our allies. We can safely save by trimming our current margin of superiority.

America's permanent peacetime military presence abroad is largely a legacy of the Cold War. It can be reduced without undermining the essential security of the United States or its allies.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed the limits of military power. Avoiding these types of operation globally would allow us to roll back the recent increase in the size of our Army and Marine Corps.

The Pentagon's acquisition process has repeatedly failed, routinely delivering weapons and equipment late, over cost, and less capable than promised. Some of the most expensive systems correspond to threats that are least prominent today and unlikely to regain prominence soon. In these cases, savings can be safely realized by cancelling, delaying, or reducing procurement or by seeking less costly alternatives.

Recent efforts to reform Defense Department financial management and acquisition practices must be strengthened. And we must impose budget discipline to trim service redundancies and streamline command, support systems, and infrastructure.

Change along these lines is bound to be controversial. Budget reductions are never easy - no less for defense than in any area of government. However, fiscal realities call on us to strike a new balance between investing in military power and attending to the fundamentals of national strength on which our true power rests. We can achieve safe savings in defense if we are willing to rethink how we produce military power and how, why, and where we put it to use."

Sincerely,

Gordon Adams, American University
Robert Art, Brandeis University
Deborah Avant, UC Irvine
Andrew Bacevich, Boston University
Richard Betts, Columbia University
Linda Bilmes, Kennedy School, Harvard University
Steven Clemons, New America Foundation
Joshua Cohen, Stanford University and Boston Review
Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives
Owen R. Cote Jr., Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michael Desch, University of Notre Dame
Matthew Evangelista, Cornell University
Benjamin H. Friedman, Cato Institute
Lt. Gen. (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr., Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
David Gold, Graduate Program in International Affairs, The New School
William Hartung, Arms and Security Initiative, New America Foundation
David Hendrickson, Colorado College
Michael Intriligator, UCLA and Milken Institute
Robert Jervis, Columbia University
Sean Kay, Ohio Wesleyan University
Elizabeth Kier, University of Washington
Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives
Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress
Peter Krogh, Georgetown University
Walter LaFeber, Cornell University
Richard Ned Lebow, Dartmouth College
Col. (USA, Ret.) Douglas Macgregor
Scott McConnell, The American Conservative
John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
Steven Metz, national security analyst and writer
Janne Nolan, American Security Project
Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College and Harvard University
Paul Pillar, Georgetown University
Barry Posen, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
Daryl Press, Dartmouth College
David Rieff, author
Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland
Jack Snyder, Columbia University
J. Ann Tickner, University of Southern California
Robert Tucker, Johns Hopkins University
Stephen Van Evera, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stephen Walt, Harvard University
Kenneth Waltz, Columbia University
Cindy Williams, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

**This letter reflects the opinions of the individual signatories. Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.**

(No Title)

I was volunteering my time at an GLBT organization in my state when a recruiter asked me if I was interested in joining a random health spa. He claimed that gay males over 18 and under 30 become free members. I neither trusted the individual nor the 'spa' for which he was recruiting. I was instantly put off because not only was his proposal risky, but I do not appreciate as an individual being socially typecasted. It makes me feel more like an object than a person.

That said, I know how a man trying to convince a young woman into joining such a spa would be perceived. I feel this particular comparison puts this ordeal into perspective.

Now just to make sure that I do not paint an entire community with the same broad brush, I know that many in the gay community do not accept behavior such as the above (obviously!!).

All the same, I think a dialogue is in order-at least in that one organization.

Why Do You Say That?

At work tonight, I had a discussion with my co-worker (more like a venting session) about having to implement a very specific telephone survey geared towards African-American males over 18. It was hard because no one was getting respondents easily over the phone.

In the course of the conversation I said to my white co-worker "the fact that we are only asking for African-Americans makes this number of respondents so small" to which she interjected "yeah as if they would even own phones."

Upon realizing the topic of this conversation now took a racist turn, I simply remained calm and ask "what do you mean by that?" I thought asking that simple question would simultaneously maintain decorum and reveal the statement for racist comment it truly was.

It worked, the woman apologized and the awkward situation ended.

I firmly believe that just calmly asking "why do you say that?" to a person who has just made a bigoted statement is the best way to begin to get your message across. Effective dialogues can only begin through benign patience by the person initiating it, even if the bigoted person isn't worthy of it.

Ray of Light

Lately, I've had an on-again off-again relationship with the Queen of Pop because I felt that she doesn't care anymore. Well, I think I may have been mistaken. On Ellen today she decided to send a message to everyone and to the Gay Community in particular about bullying. At first I thought that her statement was a little behind-the-curve. Then I found out that on November 5 Brandon Bitner, a 14-year old Freshman who had braces and loved music by artists like Madonna, killed himself as a result of gay-related bullying. Icons of the gay community have and obligation, not an option, to speak out, so I was pleased that she took the time to say the following:

Ellen Degeneres: I appreciate that you wanted to speak to this cause here because it is a very important cause to me and I understand for you. So speak to us.

Madonna: Well, I just feel it would be incredible remiss of me to not say something. I’m incredibly disturbed and saddened by the overwhelming number of teen suicides that have been reported lately because of bullying. Suicide in general is disturbing. Teenagers committing suicide is extremely disturbing but to hear that teenagers are taking their lives because they are being bullied in schools and dormitories, what have you, is kind of unfathomable. I know a number of people have spoken out about it but I feel like I need to say something. The gay community has been incredibly supportive of me. I wouldn’t have a career if it weren’t for the gay community…I have a teenage daughter and I have ongoing discussions with her about this topic so I feel like I need to say a few words…

Ellen Degeneres: Were you bullied as a kid? Did you feel different than other people when you were younger?

Madonna: Yes, that’s an understatement. I still feel different. I can totally relate to the idea of feeling isolated and alienated. I was incredibly lonely as a child, as a teenager. I have to say I never felt like I fit in in school. I wasn’t a jock. I wasn’t an intellectual. There was no group that I felt a part of. I just felt like a weirdo…It wasn’t until my ballet teacher who was also gay took me under his wing and introduced me to a community of artists of other unique individuals who told me it was good and okay to be different and brought me to my first gay disco and ironically made me feel I was part of the world and it was okay to be different.

Ellen Degeneres: What do you say to your children, Madonna? You said you started having these conversations when you talk about bullying. What do you say?

Madonna:..We talk a lot about the importance of not judging people who are different. Not judging people who don’t fit into our expected view of what’s cool and what isn’t. Think about it across the board. The concept that we are torturing teenagers because they are gay. It’s kind of like I said earlier. It’s unfathomable. It’s like lynching black people or Hitler exterminating Jews. Sorry if I’m going on a rampage right now but this is America. The land of the free and the home of the brave….

Madonna: I think it would be interesting for everybody to try one simple experiment. If you want to talk about solutions or how can we solve this problem? Try to get through the day each and everyone of us…without gossiping about somebody. Without gossiping about anybody. And not only that. Not even listening to gossip. Walking away from it. Can you imagine what your day would be like? How much more free time you’d have? I also feel like you’d feel about better about yourself…

Pretty good statement. I think there is hope for Madonna. This statement reminds me of the Madonna who used her career to help fight homophobia when many other artists were distancing themselves from gays during the bad old days of the 80s and 90s AIDS crisis. It reminds me of the singer who not only wrote songs like "In This Life" and "Why's It So Hard" to commiserate with the victims of homophobia in all its guises, but also "Deeper and Deeper" to remind people of the joys of living an out gay lifestyle.

I must say as probably the most visible gay icon, she is long overdue. But then again this whole dialogue about bullying was long overdue.

Natural Selection

The "unnatural" argument against homosexuality is truly the cleverest of all the stupid points raised by anti-gay forces. I believe it is so clever because the argument really summarizes homophobia at a very visceral level: we hate you because you are not like us.

To a person who does not really analyze his or her culture, homosexuality may actually seem unnatural. There is even a twisted logic to the argument. They say Men and woman are biologically complimentary, therefore heterosexuality is proper. They also make the claim that most people are heterosexual, so then it must be nature's norm. Finally, they point to Western Culture and how it has been built around Judeo-Christian values, the traditional family unit and a basic definition of a given individual that is inherently based on the man/woman divide. You are given a name at birth, and it is either intended to be masculine or feminine. In short, being heterosexual is just expected.

So if a person is not heterosexual, then he or she is falling short of traditional cultural expectations and is not following the natural order of things. But when a person really thinks critically of what constitutes the natural, this mentality should rapidly fall apart.

After all human behavior is not unchanging. By which standard to you measure a lifestyle in order to call it "natural"? A life of mansions and plastic surgery must surely be as unnatural to a nomad as a life of collapsible huts and fur skins would be to an heiress. they have different lifestyle standards. Or are both of their lives equally natural, as any anthropologist would claim?
Is the meat heavy diet of the paleolithic hunter-gather unnatural, or is the neolithic farmer, with his diet of mostly grains, truly representative of the natural human diet? Which invention is more natural, the Ipod or the hammer, and which paint colors are closer to nature, pink shades or earth tones?

Since there is not one universal measurement, when we start to pick and choose which aspects of human life to consider natural, we can easily start sounding absurd.

Some people actually believe that nature itself is that one universal standard. They go to great lengths, and spend a considerable amount of money, on trying to prove that homosexuality does not exist in the animal (even insect!) kingdom. Well it doesn't. How could it when the very word itself describes a group of human beings? However, Same-sex behavior is recorded among animals and yes, insects too (Still, these cases are purely in terms of mating because life forms obviously can't experience true love, a human emotion). In any case, nature is value-neutral and should never become the standard by which human beings judge others. After all, there is no constitution, or Bible for that matter, in the middle of the jungle.

And besides, why would human beings want to restrict themselves to behaving in ways that are defined by arbitrary social or biological norms. Isn't the sentient ability to overcome the confines of our environment and become more than the sum of our parts what really makes us human in the first place? Our very ability to grow to be more seems to be in our nature.

Tax, Spend, Arm

Two choices are for certain if America is to effectively combat its debt and spending. First we are going to have to up the retirement age. obviously no one wants to do this, but what's a viable alternative? The second is large military cuts.

We will bankrupt ourselves if we continue down our present course. But why do we have to make so many cuts to our social programs when we have such an extravagant war machine?

The real question is how will our military respond to the proposed cuts if they can't even handle civilians telling them to end Don't Ask Don't Tell?