Tag: lgbt

Working in Anti-LGBT* Countries

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

With the Prime Minister of Uganda  signing the anti-homosexuality bill into law I feel like I need to talk why I work in a country that isn’t friendly to LGBT* individuals. The country outside of the United States that I work in is not on the same level as Uganda or Russia, but it would be hazardous to be openly gay there.

It’s a complicated issue. I have heard professors, teachers, and friends refuse to financially support organizations that are working in anti-gay countries like Uganda and Russia. Which is very understandable.

I’m lucky in the sense that the country I work in isn’t extremely anti-LGBT*. Yes there is a culture of homophobia, but I cannot personally draw a line in the sand and say I’m not willing to work there.

Is there a line that we as gay humanitarians have to draw? I’ll give/volunteer/work in country X only if the government doesn’t discriminate against the LGBT* community and if there isn’t a culture of homophobia? Does a country like that exist?

Sometimes, it is hard to justify working in a homophobic country (especially to myself). Why work in a country that would kick me and my organization out if they knew I was a lesbian? For a lot of the LGBT* community – they wouldn’t participate, and that makes a lot of sense. Supporting your own discrimination does seem counter intuitive.

For me, my reasoning lies with the people I am working with, the constituents. I have an emotional connection to the families, children, schools, and communities. I am constantly reminding myself that the people are not the government, and the government is not the people.

I won’t be outing myself there anytime soon. I don’t want to find out whether people would still like and accept me regardless, and I don’t want the government to kick my organization out of the county. I guess that is cowardly.

Maybe I’m also naive – but I believe someday I’ll be able to talk about my girlfriend to the people I work with here and abroad.

Will I be donating to a Russian or Ugandan aid organization any time soon? Probably not. Will I give up my organization? Definitely not. What is driving me despite everything is the emotional connection I have to the people, the country, and the mission.

We all have to draw our line somewhere.

The ‘Hat Theory’ : How I Deal with My Anxiety in the Non-Profit Sector

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

Working in the non-profit sector means that you have to network, talk to volunteers, educators, constituents, and donors. A lot.

Right after starting my non-profit, I couldn’t talk to a new person without reminders to breathe. Speaking in front of people or with large groups of people was borderline debilitating. Even now, years later, my co-founder and I usually divide tasks into what requires talking to people, and what doesn’t.

When I have to talk to people about the non-profit, I do enjoy it- but it drains me considerably. I have tried various techniques and coping skills to help me through these situations, and I have finally come up with something that allows me to enjoy the networking and social interactions required of me.

I call it the Hat Theory.

The Hat Theory let’s me go into specific characters in specific situations. The hats in this theory are invisible, but if real hats work for you, great!

Need to talk to a donor? Without my hat I am extremely anxious and shy, but when I wear my Financial Hat (which I usually imagine as a top hat), I can answer any questions with enthusiasm. Need to present a workshop to volunteers? My trusty volunteer cap turns me into a pumped up motivator read to rally the group together.

Get the picture?

In a perfect world, I wouldn’t need my Hats. But as someone who has Panic Disorder, these Hats allow me to step outside of ‘myself’ to do the work for the organization that I have created and fallen in love with.

Being anxious doesn’t need to stop you from making a difference.

You just have to find the right hat.

Assuming Does Make You an Ass

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

Culture isn’t real- at least what most of us think of when we hear the word culture. The “homophobic culture” of a country (i.e. Russia) is not the entire country. Saying that there is only one culture in a country or geographic area is ridiculous. Yes, there are features that are unique to specific countries, but saying there is only one homogeneous American culture would negate the differences that the North, South, East , West, and Midwest are proud of.

I think it is getting better, but a large amount of the aid/non-profit/government workers still treat countries and regions as having one collective mindset. Going into City A with locked in expectations is counter productive to whatever your mission is.

Assuming that a group of people in any aid/non-profit/government situation has nothing to offer will also decrease the chance of your program making the most positive impact. We are not the true experts, and utilizing  every resource, even if it’s not an obvious one, is crucial.

I do need to remind myself of these things quite often: every time I travel, give a workshop or work with volunteers. Assuming that a person, group of people, or entire country hates who I am closes me off from creating the most positive impact.

I’m not saying that every gay humanitarian should tattoo the word “Queer” on their forehead, but putting every Russian, Ugandan, or American in the same homophobic box discredits the diversity of opinions that exist in humanity’s spectrum.

When going into a new location, we need to remind ourselves that politics and political agendas are not people.

And it’s not why we do the work we do. It’s the people.

Why its Actually a Good Idea that Clay Aiken is Running for Congress

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

I was pleasantly surprised when researching the topic of LGBT* politicians. I was not aware that all 50 states have been served by an out LGBT* member in some capacity, and 41 states have elected openly LGBT* politicians to one or both houses of their state legislature. REPRESENTATION!

But… on a Gubernatorial and  Federal level…

Only one governor has come out, and no openly LGBT* has been elected as governor or president. And there are only 8 out LGBT* members in Congress (Representatives Jared Polis, David Cicilline, Sean Patrick Maloney, Kyrsten Sinema, Mark Pocan, and Mark Takano ; Senator Tammy Baldwin). This is a record high; I’m glad that the number has increased, but with the United States having 100 Senators and 435 Representatives in the House, the LGBT* community is grossly underrepresented.

I think there are many obvious reasons for this (mainly homophobia and discrimination), but I want to talk about liability. There are many in the Democratic party who view backing an LGBT candidate as too risky, especially in swing states or in districts that lean Republican. Obviously in any election these places are risky. My guess, if someone isn’t going to vote for an openly gay candidate, they probably wouldn’t vote for a Democratic candidate anyway… especially one with “San Francisco Views“.

This past Wednesday, Clay Aiken announced his candidacy for Representative of the 2nd District of North Carolina. Regardless of how you feel about Aiken, if he wins the primary, it should lead to an interesting battle with Tea Party member Renee Ellmers. When in comes down to it, and openly gay man is running for Congress in North Carolina. That alone should help put future LGBT* politicians into the national spotlight.

Obviously the LGBT* community needs more than a white skinny guy from American Idol for representation in Congress, but he is certainly far from being the worst candidate that could be elected. (And he actually has a decent platform – mostly liberal with a touch of North Carolina politics).

As I have said many times in the past – visibility is the key to the LGBT* movement; true and diverse representation on the national and global stage is crucial.

SO LGBT* community – run for office! Be politically active! Be socially conscious!

We are NOT a liability. We should not be considered a political risk.

And shit… if Clay Aiken can run for Congress, maybe someday I can too.

Young and Sportastic – Visibility in the LGBT* Community

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

Honestly my first temptation was to rant about the lack of LGBT* representation in the State of the Union last Tuesday, but as I promised my girlfriend and my readers  last week , I won’t turn my blog into a rant fest. (Though I really want to… all I wanted was ONE ENDA mention…)

…Anyway, I want to focus on the increase of youth representation and LGBT* visibility. Many of the kids /young adults that are coming out are active in sports culture, and that’s fantastic. Between Olympians worldwide, and people like Conner Merterns in Oregon, many current players are at the forefront of the LGBT* movement. I can’t speak for the sports culture outside of the United States, but here in the USA the culture surrounding athletics could easily be compared to religious ideology.

The You Can Play project is an example of the decrease of homophobia in sports (even if it’s slow). I love that people are challenging what it means to be strong, and that LGBT* individuals can challenge current perceptions. But gay athletes in the Olympics, college sports, and major sports teams prove that being queer does not fit into a nice hetero-normative picture.

Queer kids can play hockey, football, baseball, or soccer. Go for the Gold (I mean just getting to the Olympics sounds pretty rad).

The thing that I think is the most important about this trend in sports is the spirit of athleticism. Pride in teamwork, hard work, perseverance, etc. are all lauded in American society. The LGBT* community are of course capable of expressing these virtues already, but having kids be able to see these virtues openly expressed in people like themselves is powerful.

Telling kids not only does it get better, but they are amazing, unique and strong in their own way is quintessential. Recognizing your own personal strength is one of the first steps into empowering yourself and making the world a more positive and better place. With more visibility in sports, it’s becoming more of reality for queer kids.

Visibility matters. We’re here, we’re queer, and we can be whatever we want to be.

An Experiment in Optimism – My Hope for the LGBT* Community and the Olympic Games

Amanda Malamut1 Comment

Last week I was originally going to post a very negative and rant filled blog. Luckily I have a  girlfriend who reminded me that this blog (for the most part) is to be a positive space for LGBT* aid/ development /government / non-profit workers. I’ll write criticism when it’s due, but I will do my best to focus on the good, or try to find the good in the rubble.

We all know the negative aspects surrounding the upcoming winter games in Sochi, Russia. I’m going to try to write my first (of several) posts about the Olympics as positively as possible. I don’t have rose-colored glasses on, but I feel like ignoring  possible outcomes that would be favorable to the LGBT* diminishes the ideals of the Olympics are supposed to be.

So this is going to be my idealistic hope for the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi:

  • I hope that everyone is safe throughout the games.
  • I hope that there are some great LGBT* athletic moments – heart warming and medal winning.
  • I hope that ignorant minds are changed. That people can see a gay Olympian as a hard-working athlete that deserves honor and respect. And if that person deserves respect, maybe everyone in the LGBT* community should be awarded the same.
  • I hope that Obama not going and by sending a LGBT* filled envoy sets a positive precedence in the United States and Russia.
  • I hope LGBT* Olympians get on cereal boxes and on Subway commercials.
  • I hope that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans* kids all over the world can see out athletes and know they aren’t alone.
  • I hope these kids also will feel empowered and inspired to become an Olympian, or work towards making a difference in their local and global communities.

The Olympics should be about visibility, world unity, and hope.

I hope that EVERYONE can experience these things in the upcoming weeks.

Even If They Are Assholes: Do You Have the Right to Out People?

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

Warning: This post is full of conflicted feelings and was written in a stream of consciousness fashion. I don’t apologize.

Like I mentioned last week –  visibility is important. However, when journalist Italy Hodd basically outed Rep. Schock (R-IL), I couldn’t help but feel uneasy. Yes, Schock is a raging homophobe, his political history pretty much sums it up:

  • Schock voted against adding sexual orientation to the already-existing hate crimes law.
  • Schock opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
  • Schock opposes the repeal of DOMA.
  • Schock is against gay marriage; and
  • Schock is for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would add language to the US Constitution banning gay marriage and likely striking down every gay rights law and ordinance in the country.

Some of the arguments supporting outing him I find ridiculous and nonsensical. The America Blog states:

Now, one could argue that being gay can bring with it scorn and prejudice, thus the newly-outed gay person could be harmed by the revelation about their sexual orientation.  But don’t blacks and Jews and Latinos face scorn and prejudice?  A reporter wouldn’t hide any of those features of a congressional candidate, so why hide the fact that he’s gay?

If people don’t want the gay rights movement compared to racial and ethnic equality movements, then we shouldn’t use the same logic as a way to out people. Racial oppression and queer oppression are two separate entities. And if one more person compares being LGBT* to having red hair, I will run screaming into the night.

Obviously I don’t want a self hating gay to be in a position to continuously oppress me, but outing him doesn’t make any past differences, or change that he’s a douche. Yes, he is in the public eye, and in turn has an obligation to not play into the terrible notion that being gay is something that is shameful. Does the revenge of outing him equal out his past transgressions? A lot of people are saying yes, but I’m not so sure.

Being out not in the public eye can be difficult. My non-profit is definitely not even close to being a household name, but that would ultimately be the goal. Do I have an obligation to out myself then (I would actually want an answer to this)? Should we shame Sally Ride for coming out posthumously because she wanted to protect her organization?

I wouldn’t want to be outed because someone views me as technically being hypocritical by working in anti-gay country. Yes I’m not actively working on anti-gay policies, but I am working within a system of government that actively oppresses LGBT* individuals. Someone could easily argue that my hypocrisy should be ‘outed’. I definitely do not compare my work to Schock’s work in Congress. But it could be if one was so motivated.

I don’t have a clear definite feeling of Right or Wrong when it comes to this topic. Some days I have thought ‘Just out the bastard’ while other days I have been more concerned about the societal implications of free-range outing ‘famous’ people, whether they are homophobic or not. I guess the closest thing to a  reasonable conclusion would be:

Outing a famous person is never an obligation, nor should be avoided it at all costs. It is an opportunity that comes with a great deal of responsibility attached. Dragging someone through the mud because they are gay is just as bad as the person hiding ones orientation as something shameful.

Making someone’s sexual orientation into a national pariah story should not be the goal- positive visibility  should be.

Why Visibility Matters: Why Robin Roberts is Awesome and A+E Sucks

Amanda Malamut2 Comments

I hate entertainment news.

A lot.

I don’t care about 99% of the dribble that the American (meaning USA) media passes off as something I need to know or care about. See: Duck Dynasty.

I just don’t care. I mean I care that some ass-hat is getting paid by an hypocritical TV company. Maybe saying that I’m not surprised is more accurate than not caring. Homophobic douche-nozzles are a dime a dozen, and TV channels who talk out of both sides of their mouth are the same.

Which is why I thinking that people coming out should still be news. Robin Roberts coming out this past weekend was extremely important. There is a case for wanting coming out to be “non-news”. And I agree with that, if we didn’t live in a world with Phil Robertsons and companies wanting to profit off of them. Don Lemon stated in perfectly:

Lemon said he was “afraid of people like Phil Robertson who claim to love everyone while simultaneously thinking that everyone’s love is unequal.” Lemon expressed hope that in Roberts’ case, “empowerment will quickly replace fear,” and concluded that if people like Robertson have their rights and those rights should be celebrated, then openly gay anchors like Lemon and Roberts “should be celebrated as well,” and “that’s why it’s still important to come out and say, very simply, ‘I’m gay.’”

We still live in a society where companies and organizations preach tolerance while benefiting off of known bigots.  We still live in a world where LGBT* people are the punchline. In most parts of the world, it’s not safe to be out of the closet. Until people stop getting discriminated against or killed on an institutional level, we need nigh profile individuals to announce their queerness to the world.

Visibility is important. especially in news casting, especially with a show that millions of people watch. We need more Robin Roberts.

I am aware that talking about visibility makes me a hypocrite. I don’t feel comfortable outing myself on this site. I hope to, some day, stand up and be who I am openly and honestly – and do the work that I love. Until then, I look to people like Robin Roberts, Don Lemon, and Billie Jean King for inspiration.

With them, I can see a world where I can be gay and a humanitarian without fear or consequence.

The Toxic Closet

Amanda MalamutLeave a comment

When it comes to the ‘closet’ construction, I don’t think my straight friends and peers get the whole picture, especially in reference to the non-profit sector. I mean, how could they really? My heterosexual friends have described the closet as simply ‘not coming out’,  ‘just not mentioning your girlfriend’, or ‘ not mentioning anything gay’. When I have tried to explain the emotionally complexity I felt, I have been met with blank faces. Honestly, I thought that I was starting to over-extrapolate how terrible I felt being in the closet, especially when working with my organization.

And honestly, I would be lost within that inner conflict if it weren’t for my mentor extraordinaire. When we were discussing my trip abroad, she said:

“I don’t think straight people understand how toxic the closet it.”

As far as I have researched (and please correct me if I’m wrong), there really isn’t any data on the workings of LGBT* aid/development/non-profit workers. What does being in the closet mean for different people? How does the LGBT*humanitarian interact with donors, constituents or volunteers when they know they can’t be out? What are the safe spaces, abroad and domestic?

Is there even a way to study these questions if we are all stuck in the closet?

The closet doesn’t just hide us from people who may hurt us, it also prevents us from making valuable personal connections. I can think of one LGBT* colleague who works in general non-profit sector, but they aren’t out in their work. I’m sure I know more, but if I don’t share that I’m a lesbian, I’m just another person they have to hide their sexuality from.

The closet is toxic for many reasons, but for me one of the worst aspects has been the lack of queer humanitarians in my life. There are many out and proud individuals working within LGBT* non-profits, and that’s fantastic. But I would love to have someone in education development to talk to who’s  traveled to county X,Y, and Z, and we could swap stories, and the best practices within non-friendly environments (domestic and internationally).

I know that putting on my non-profit ‘hat’ also means that I have creep back in the closet, but maybe if I knew who was stuck in the closet with me….. I don’t know…. maybe it would be less toxic.

Finding the Good in Gay

Amanda Malamut1 Comment

Who is a good person? How do we learn what makes up a good person?

As I was writing last week’s blog, I couldn’t help but think about my own Catholic education. I attended Catholic school for 12 years. Now while I’m not a practicing Catholic, there were lessons like “do unto others as you would have done to you…” that have shaped my judgement and ethos. But looking back, all of the role models that were presented to me (i.e. Mother Teresa, St. Francis, etc) were from several hundred years ago and/or very very Catholic.

Which makes sense, I’m aware. Going to a Catholic school would tip the scale in that direction.

But thinking through this, I am finally understanding why I have had a hard time reconciling my lesbian identity with my humanitarian one. I never learned about Harvey Milk or Bayard Rustin. Understanding Stonewall was through own research whilst in college. (I know this history is lacking across the board… but I can only speak to my experience).

My Catholic school experience tended to lean towards gay invisibility instead of prejudice. If no one talked about gays, then gays didn’t have to exist or be dealt with. I know that this policy is definitely a lot better than blatant, constant bullying and homophobic remarks; I wonder what if my the idea of who was good was expanded to LGBT* people?

Would acknowledging gay individuals who reflect Catholic teachings would be detrimental to the church? Why is it so difficult for some people to think that LGBT* and humanitarian identities can coincide?

I know that this isn’t just a Catholic school problem. There are 77 countries in the world that criminalize homosexuality. How can LGBT* feel empowered to do good in their micro and macro communities if there are told that who they are is criminal? How can someone see themselves as good-doer if one of their main identities is ostracized by their government and society?

When coming to terms with my own sexuality, there were times when I tapped into my one latent institutionalized homophobia, doubting that I could make a difference or be a good person because I am attracted to girls. Since I am a lesbian, does that mean even if I do good, being gay cancels it all out?

Obviously no. (Most of my Catholic guilt has been eliminated, thank the universe). But there are many LGBT* people who are told that aren’t good people, and don’t have to support to breakaway from their homophobic surroundings.

Wouldn’t it be great to live in a world where a queer kid could say they wanted to be the next Harvey Milk, Bayard Rustin, Sally Ride, or any of the amazing *LGBT that have shape history?

Wouldn’t it be better to just teach children that being a good person can mean many things, and that they sexuality doesn’t have to influence their moral compass, but it is a part of them that is good?