Monthly Archives: November 2012

Pgh City Council Redistricting – Developments

In a stunning denouncement of democratic process, Pittsburgh City Councilors Darlene Harris, Daniel Lavelle, Ricky Burgess, Patrick Dowd and Theresa Kail-Smith voted to approve a new City Council district map without time for well, much of anything. Thanks to Bram for the map.

Bloggers are waiting for Chris Briem to weigh in on what it means statistically.

Here’s what seems to be the immediate impactors (is that a word? it should be)

  • Bruce Kraus (District 3) lost a key ward(s) which could be problematic for those of who like having representation on Council (ie, the gays) Don’t tell the gays I said that. Some of them think Luke is all the gay we need, right?
  • Natalia Rudiak’s district was gerrymandered around her. Surprise! She’s up for reelection this year. Wow. What a coincidence.
  • While word on the street was that some of the contenders for District 8 (Peduto’s seat) might be jeanne gerrymandered out of the district, that does not seem to be the case. Ahem.
I’m sorting thru the little known facts. Here’s my questions
  • WTF? Lavelle and Burgess. We’ve spent months (I live in 6 – Lavelle) being dragged around while so much attention was paid to creating the appropriate majority black districts – rightfully so. I agree with the principal even though a lot of the decisions make for an even more divided Northside. So you just sacrifice the women and the gays once you get your way? Without even a conversation or giving the public a chance to READ the maps? How is that democracy?
  • Is Cory  O’Connor the Councilor we thought Patrick Dowd would be?
  • Why didn’t I pay closer attention in stats class?
  • Does anyone have a copy of the previous maps?

Bram has the tweets over at The Pittsburgh Comet.

 

Please share this content.

Think pink (not)

Honda Fit She's

 

In Japan, Honda has introduced its “first car exclusively for women.” “Honda Fit She’s” (sic) have pink instruments on their dashboards, hot pink stitching on their seats and steering wheels, and are painted in colors “inspired by popular eyeshadow shades.” They have windshields and “plasma cluster” air conditioning systems designed to prevent wrinkles.

I know, I know, it sounds like satire from The Onion, but it’s true, and being widely mocked on blogs throughout the world.

“Fit She’s” really aren’t the “first cars exclusively for women.” In 1955 and 1956, Chrysler Corporation sold “Dodge La Femmes.” These pink-on-pink tail-finned bombs came with color-coordinated purses and accessories that matched their paint jobs, plus special compartments containing raincoats, rain bonnets and umbrellas made to match their seat covers. Could I make this up? No, I could not!

Brochures claimed La Femme was made “By Special Appointment to Her Majesty … the American Woman.” Ugh, gag me with a gear shift.

The Dodge La Femme was a flop, maybe because even in 1955, “Her Majesty” could see what an enormous crock of condescending crap that was.

Look, I’ve gone car shopping with a lot of women friends, and they all seem interested in things such as reliability, comfort, gas mileage, warranty options … you know, things most men are interested in, too.

I have yet to hear any woman say, “Oh, I would buy that car … if only it came in pink!” (Although a car dealer in Canonsburg once tried to sell me a Dodge Neon in pastel purple, and I passed on it, because it looked kind of like a giant plastic Easter egg.)

I understand Japan has high demand for “cute” products, and gender roles in Japan seem to be sharply defined (yet Japanese society sometimes seems much more open to people who transgress gender).

But it wouldn’t be unthinkable for American or European car companies to pull this kind of crap. For instance, you can easily find “pink power tools for women” and “pink handguns for women.”

(Have you ever compared “men’s” disposable razors with “women’s” disposable razors? Someone wanna tell me what’s different besides pink handles?)

This whole idea that you can just paint products “pink” and call them “for women” really was passe in the 1950s, and that marketing departments are still peddling pink things as “women’s versions” tells me most marketing departments are brain-dead and have no real interest in trying to reach women.

(And speaking as someone who deals closely with marketing departments, I am not at all surprised.)

If there’s any good news, it’s that companies like Honda who still try to appeal to women by painting products pink generally get the ridicule they so richly deserve.

On the other hand, who cares? Pink’s just a color, right?

Yes and no, because our whole outdated “pink is for girls, blue is for boys” mentality helps steer young women into traditional gender roles. Our culture tells girls they can’t do “boy” stuff, like work with tools or technology, unless, maybe, they know it’s OK because it’s painted pink and covered in delicate fabrics to protect their pretty hands. (And please don’t get me started on what happens to boys who express an interest in pretty and delicate things. That’s another rant for another time.)

Is it any wonder why women hold only one out of seven engineering jobs—jobs that typically pay higher wages than low-tech jobs?  Or why the percentage of women in science and technology careers has been going down, not up, since 2000?

There’s no harm in liking pink or any other color, and no harm in liking pretty things. There is harm in only giving women societal “permission” to like something when we make those things pink and pretty.

Please share this content.

“Kill the Gays” Bill Faces Imminent Vote in Uganda

Uganda’s much promised “Kill the Gays” bill has made its way on to the legislative agenda with the sponsor urging the legislative body to pass this bill as a “Christmas gift” to the nation. 

The law will broaden the criminalization of same-sex relationships by dividing homosexuality into two categories; aggravated homosexuality and the offense of homosexuality.

‘Aggravated homosexuality’ is defined as gay acts committed by parents or authority figures, HIV-positive people, pedophiles and repeat offenders. If convicted, they will face the death penalty.

The ‘offense of homosexuality’ includes same-sex sexual acts or being in a gay relationship, and will be prosecuted by life imprisonment.

Originally put to government in 2009, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill had been temporarily shelved because of international criticism.

(h/t Gay Star News)

So understand this – under this bill, Ledcat and I would possibly receive life imprisonment. For being together. Many of our friends who have children would face the death penalty.

This is clearly not good.

Let me please make something else crystal clear to you both as a message and a practical reality.

  • You spend money on a sandwich, waffle fries and milkshake at Chick-fil-A franchise near your home.
  • The franchise pays a licensing and other fees to the corporate offices.
  • The corporation donates money to the WinShape Foundation.
  • The WinShape Foundation makes a grant to the American Family Association and others.
  • Meanwhile, Congress considers a resolution condemning the above named legislation.
  • The AFA and others use their funding to lobby against the resolution.

That’s how it works. It doesn’t matter if 1/10 of a cent you spent ends up in the grant. It doesn’t matter how you rationalize and justify it. The line is clear. You most likely are on the side of the line that would not end up in jail. Or dead. Is it really worth it? Can you look me in the eye and explain this? Can you begin to imagine what would happen to people if this discussion, much less the legislation gains traction?

What does this mean?

I don’t want to wake up tomorrow and have to add “not going to be imprisoned for being gay” to my gratitude list.

 

Please share this content.