V-Day Values
Thanks for your article "V for Vendetta" (2/14/07). I was hurt and disappointed to hear about efforts to oppose events like "Take Back the Night" and "The Vagina Monologues." I spent the better part of my college career advocating for gender equity and sexual health awareness. I was in a campus production of "The Vagina Monologues" at the University of California-Berkeley, and there were many women in the cast who valued heterosexual gender roles but were not conflicted by the message of V-Day.
I think the idea of a "date-night" and selling roses to raise funds for local domestic violence shelters is a great idea, but in all honestly, that kind of effort pales in comparison to the global impact of V-Day. Have these opposing groups seen the effect that V-Day has on women throughout the world? You would think they would be willing to hear the word "vagina" a few times so that a community of sexual slavery survivors ("Comfort Women") can get recognition from their government and support from people who care, or so that women who are survivors of acid-throwing can find ways to support themselves and their families in a society that regards them as invisible, or so that women across boundaries and cultures might take the time to think about a part of them that usually goes without much thought at all. If we can't say "vagina," how can we talk about female genital mutilation? Heck, I couldn't even draw a very accurate picture of a vagina until I joined the play -- and I have one!
I have my own issues with the script of "The Vagina Monologues," because it is a bit outdated, doesn't include a transgender monologue and can generalize about men a bit unfairly at times. But I just don't see how V-Day and Take Back the Night threaten "what it means to be a woman" (or a "lady"). No one participating in these events (at least in my experience) would question a preference for chivalry, but we all believe in promoting options when it comes to sexual expression. There are many choices, and you are empowered when (and because) you make them -- as long as what you choose is conscientious and consensual.
Thanks again for your article. It really got me riled up.
Mindy Friedman
Berkeley, CA
* * *
Peace Candidate
I would like to remind Robert Kuttner ("Democratic Stars Aligning," 2/26/07) there is a perfect candidate for president at this time, and his name is Dennis Kucinich. He is the only one outside of those in the Black Caucus who sees war as an abomination and seeks peace. Not only that, Dennis understands the issues facing the neglected segments of our population -- employment, health, hunger, homelessness and respect.
Helen Crowe
Claremont, NH
* * *
Interpreting the ERA
The question in the subhead of the article "The Gay Grenade" by Keely Savoie (2/27/07), "Are ERA proponents agitating for women's rights at the expense of gays and lesbians?" is easy to answer. No, they are not. Regardless of how hard Savoie's article tries to convince otherwise, I have not seen ERA supporters agitating or advocating anything other than equality of the sexes.
The point of my article in Women's E-news, "The ERA Has Nothing to do with Same Sex Marriage," was that the Equal Rights Amendment was written, passed by Congress, ratified by 35 states, and duplicated in the constitutions of several states as a means of providing legal equality for men and women. That is the plain and simple truth, not my interpretation. I didn't write the ERA, pass it, or cast a vote to ratify it. But I would like to see it fully ratified with its meaning and intent intact. In fact, that is the only way it will be.
Savoie accuses me of being no better than a racist when she credits me with saying "a ban on gay marriage does not constitute sex discrimination because the ban applies equally to women and men." Actually, that statement in my article referred to the wording in the decisions rendered by the state Supreme Court of Washington 1974 and again in 2006 (which oddly enough Savoie claims didn't address the ERA). She's wrong again. Even Vermont and Massachusetts judges similarly ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage doesn't constitute sex discrimination. Attempts by the attorneys for gay couples to re-interpret the ERA to include sexual orientation are disingenuous. The word sex in the amendment means gender, just as it does in the 19th amendment.
Contrary to Savoie's claim, the ERA and same sex marriage have NOT had a long entanglement. The ERA was written as a next step in the women's rights movement. Eliminating widespread sex discrimination was the intent of its author Alice Paul and all its endorsers since 1923. The 60 million Americans -- including many gays and lesbians -- who supported the ERA during the 1970s did so because they, too, wanted to eliminate discrimination based on gender. One of the reasons the National Organization for Women dropped its support for the ERA is because it doesn't address rights for gays and lesbians. My pointing to these facts doesn't imply an opinion one way or the other about same sex marriage and it certainly doesn't constitute "agitating for women's rights at the expense of gays and lesbians."
When Savoie attempts to agitate gays and lesbians against ERA advocates by likening us to racists or casting us as enemies, she does these two separate struggles a grave disservice. Sadly for ERA advocates working so hard in the conservative unratified states and for those lawmakers in New York and Kansas who have introduced state ERAs, Savoie's article, just like the article by Julie Enzer also in Women's E-news, will end up in the Christian right press as "proof" to their readers that the ERA will legalize same sex marriage.
I would hope one day Savoie might realize that no group's rights should be obtained at the expense of another's.
Idella Moore, Executive Officer
Keely Savoie responds:
Idella Moore is right in noting the Washington State court did address the ERA. But what Moore did not mention is that the justices were sharply divided in their interpretations of the ERA as it applies to gay and lesbian rights. This simply serves to illustrate the problem: as it is currently worded, the ERA is ambiguous. The impact of the ERA on equal marriage is an open legal question and has been decided differently in various courts around the country.
Moore points out that the original intention of the ERA's authors no doubt excluded consideration of gay and lesbian rights. I again must agree. However, times have changed, and Constitutional amendments must be constructed so as to able to endure the shifting moral and social landscape of this country. Unfortunately for us, rhetoric cannot settle these legal issues, so the question remains open. Embracing such an ambiguously worded amendment ensures that the courts will be tied up -- as they have been for several decades -- in parsing its implicit meanings.
The ultimate question is: would it be preferable to rewrite the ERA so as to explicitly include equality for all, or to continue to pursue full ratification while dodging the open issue of gay and lesbian rights? If, as Moore contends, the only issue at stake is equality for women, then perhaps single-issue ERA advocates should lobby to add a footnote to the amendment: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex*. *(excluding gays and lesbians)
As for Moore's contention that articles such as mine "will end up in the Christian right press as 'proof' to their readers that the ERA will legalize same sex marriage," I can say only that it is sad indeed that those fighting for equality should be divided against one another by the specter of intolerance. I wish to point Moore to her own words: "no group's rights should be obtained at the expense of another's."
The American Prospect welcomes and publishes letters to the editor for both its print and online versions. To respond to an article, email:
letters@prospect.org
.