MILK is good for You

Gus van Sant's MILK is one film I've been waiting to watch since I first read about it during summer. I had seen the trailer, watched the tele-interviews and browsed a few film commentaries. Now when the film finally released this past Wednesday, I can't help but pray it comes to theatres in my town soon. What's encouraging is the film's extra positive review from both the popular and critical groups. Particularly noteworthy are the reviews by Peter Travers (RollingStone) and A. Scott (NY Times).

Travers (RollingStones, 112508) writes, "(...) To those who say it's ancient history since Harvey's battle is no long­er an issue, I say wake up and smell the hate crimes, and the bill banning gay marriage that passed on Election Day. To those who say its focus limits its audience, I say Harvey's focus was human rights and therefore limitless. To those who say Milk is hagiography, I say Harvey is my kind of saint: a New York Jew with a screwed-up past, a lively sex life and a goal to bring the gay movement out of the shadows even if he had to be a media whore to do it. " To read the complete review, click here.

The film reviewers of NY Times have designated the film "critics pick". A. Scott in his review writes, "(...) The strength of Mr. Black’s script is that it grasps both the radicalism of Milk’s political ambition and the pragmatism of his methods. “Milk” understands that modern politics thrive at the messy, sometimes glorious intersection of grubby interests and noble ideals (...) Harvey Milk was an intriguing, inspiring figure. “Milk” is a marvel." To read the complete review and more about the film in NY Times, click here.

Additional links - To watch Campaign Revisited and see how Gus van Sant and his art department recreated the look of the 1970s for the film (NYTimes, 112608) click here. To do your bit, pledge your support and join the movement (official site), click here.

So the next time, my mum tells me, "Boy! Milk is good for you," I will not complain.

Born Free-Born Natural II

Excerpt source: For the Bible Tells Me So (2007) - a film exploring the intersections of sexuality and religion. I know many of us have seen this film and some of us have even bookmarked this cartoon story; nevertheless I thought of sharing it with my readers since in my previous post, I discussed the "choice" question. I think the creative story-telling idea is brilliant. However, there is a slight glitch. Notice how the gay and the lesbian protagonists are represented, especially Martha.

My question - Can we alongside, also fight gay stereotypes please? To visit the film's website, click here.

Born Free-Born Natural I

"(So) hug a gay today. Because you believe in gay rights. Or because you believe in democracy. Or, best of all, if you believe that the two should be part and parcel of each other." - "Gays and democracy" - Jug Suraiya, writer and columnist extraordinaire, TOI (Aug.2008).

Jug makes a compelling argument for the need of homosexuality to be sanitized off the legal and social taints from within the Indian society. From referencing health minister Ramadoss’s proposition in favor of legalizing homosexuality to defining homophobia as a “jurassic park of prejudice,” he argues that its time Indians recognized and embraced their changing social mores. What more, he goes on to claim that “gays are good for democracy” just like the “anti-globalization activists, vegans, poets, and others who belong to often misunderstood and misrepresented minorities”; and that their rainbow is an apt metaphor for describing a pluralistic society founded on the conviction that “freedom of choice is the cornerstone of democracy.” It is also here that he goes grossly wrong and overboard with comparing homosexuality to a lifestyle choice. I think every time we hear of irrational slurs such as “being gay is a choice”, we should ask back the borndifferent.org question, “when did you choose to be straight?”

Peace!
[To read the source article, click here].

From Surrogacy to Parenthood

The US and India are the only two countries that offer surrogacy to same-sex couples as found out recently by an Isreali gay couple who hired a surrogate mother to deliver their child in India. Today, both of them are proud fathers of a baby boy born October 12 this year in Mumbai. For more on the story, click here.

An interesting paradox. On the one hand, India is still reeling under the draconian law, the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalizes homosexual act if not homosexuality itself. On the other hand, the country has a law that allows gay couples to become fathers through surrogacy, thanks to the guidelines laid down by the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) in 2002. This law allows Indian clinics to treat same-sex couples with donor egg IVF and surrogacy. In fact, India’s surrogacy program is a huge hit internationally what with less cumbersome paperwork, cheap costs and easy availability of surrogate mothers.

The only concern that medical experts have had over the years is whether children raised by gay and lesbian couples are disadvantaged by that fact alone. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has repeatedly stated that there is no persuasive evidence to suggest any such disadvantage. Phew! Gay couples can now seek hot spots such as India to avail joys of parenthood. Interesting.

Non-discrimination

My recent web-browsing led me to this (acronyms instead of complete names of institutions have been used here):
Non-discrimination policy
The DT [India], D USA, Inc., and The IIGS affirm diversity of people, talents, and viewpoints.
None of these entities discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender, age, physical attributes/disability, health status (including HIV) , sexual orientation, caste, religion, creed, nationality, place of origin, or race.

Bliss.

Everytime I read of a clearly stated non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation in any part of the world, I feel elated and hopeful of a more equal and tolerant tomorrow. The Equality Forum recently reported that 94.2% of the 2008 FORTUNE 500 companies have voluntarily included sexual orientation in their employment non-discrimination policies. In fact, this year marks the 5th anniversary of Equality Forum-FORTUNE500 project - a collaboration with Professor L. Thomas, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and I. Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor, Yale Law School. To learn more about this project and view the entire list of Fortune 500 companies that protect their employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, click here.
Additional resources (click on each): Fair Employment Mark; Human Rights Campaign; PFLAG. Also, to read the Obama-Biden support plan for LGBT Community, visit the original source here or read about it in the HRC Back Story, here.

Words and Identities

Recently, local authorities in the UK directed its staff to be careful about using words, which could be considered racist, sexist, homophobic or nationalistic, including the phrase British, which implied “a false sense of unity.” This came about considering that many Scots, Welsh and Irish resist from being called British and that the country today is a land of a variety of cultures, languages, religions and identities.

On the careful use of homophobic terms consider this: Scotland's National Health Service recently told doctors and nurses to avoid using the terms ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ as they excluded same-sex couples with children. As part of their “zero-tolerance policy to discriminatory language” they recommend:
1. The use of terms ‘parents’, ‘carers’ or ‘guardians’ instead of ‘mom’ and ‘dad’.
2. The use of terms ‘partners’ and ‘next of kin’ instead of ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’.

This is serendipituous and coincidental at the same time. Last year, I had participated as a graduate student volunteer in a pre-test of questions to review the graduate admissions evaluation process in my University. As a student volunteer group we jointly brainstormed on what current questions could be amended. One thing that some of us insisted be changed was the question that asked the educational background/occupation of "Father” and "Mother.” We debated the implicit assumption in this question with regards to mainstream sexuality and gender; and asked for the terms to be replaced with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2." Our purpose was to shift the emphasis from socially constructed gender binaries and the traditional understanding of family as a heterosexual unit to a more cognizant view of alternate sexualities and changing family structures. We wanted the University to take that valuable step and become a model Institution, welcoming prospective students and their families, irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation.

Before I conclude, I think it is worth revisiting some super common gender stereotypes and the terms used for them here:
Boys = sporty, strong, decision-makers, and
Girls = emotional and expressive.
As a result, boys who are emotional and show their feelings are often called "sissy's", "girls", "faggots" and/or "poofs". Girls who are too boyish or who hold feminist views run the risk of being called "dykes" and/or "lesbians". The damaging effect of such terms on individual's psyche and personality have long been studied and known. It is reassuring to see, however, that governments and various other groups throughout the world are exercising high degree of control and thought in utterances - both public and otherwise; and also realizing that it is not enough to be careful about using words that are racist but even those that are homophobic.

Some good news:
GAY MARRIAGES OFFICIALLY BEGAN IN CONNECTICUT TODAY
The state’s highest court had ruled on Oct. 10 that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional, and a week ago it announced that gay marriages could officially be performed starting on Wednesday, Nov. 12.