Outside New York, five states, along with Washington, DC, already permit same-sex marriages. Twenty-one states, along with DC, outlaw anti-gay discrimination. And both numbers will grow. This issue will increasingly transcend partisan politics and hinge less on party affiliation or archaic religious doctrine than on the intimate, everyday dynamics of family and friendship.
As Michael Barbaro and Nicholas Confessore have reported in The New York Times, the biggest and most influential donors to the New York campaign were Republicans. A New York mayor without any huge strategic stake in the matter devoted considerable money and muscle to it. And public-service announcements in favour of it were recorded not just by actors and artists but also by athletes such as the hockey player Sean Avery, and by the city's former police commissioner William Bratton.
Why such widespread backing from such surprising quarters? One major reason is that the wish and push to be married cast gay men and lesbians in the most benign, conservative light imaginable, not as enemies of tradition but as aspirants to it. In the quest for integration, saying ''I do'' is much more effective - not to mention more reflective of the way most gay people live - than strutting in leather on a parade float. We're not trying to undermine the institution of marriage, a task ably handled by the likes of Tiger Woods, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards and too many other one-time role models to mention. We're paying it an enormous compliment.
But an even bigger reason is how common it now is for Americans to realise that they know and love people who are gay. AIDS had a lot to do with that. This month is the 30th anniversary of the disease's emergence. If we wanted people to take up arms against a scourge associated primarily with gay men, we had to make them appreciate how many gay men they were close to.
Over the past quarter-century the love that dared not speak its name turned into a veritable motor mouth, to a point where the average American, an astonishing Gallup Poll last month showed, thinks that about 25 per cent of the population is homosexual. Hardly. But that perception underscores how visible gay people have become. And familiarity changes everything.
Same-sex marriage is personal for the Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, whose longtime companion, Sandra Lee, has a gay brother. It is personal for Paul Singer, the most impassioned of the Republican donors. At a fund-raiser for same-sex marriage last year, he recalled leafing through the wedding album of ''my son and son-in-law'', married in Massachusetts.
It is personal for the New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser, who on Monday wrote, ''I give in.'' She recounted the recent Massachusetts wedding of her niece and another woman and said: ''Despite abstract discomfort over normalising gay unions, I don't know of a soul who would discriminate against the nice guys next door. Nor would I deny my niece happiness that is evident in the size of her smile.''
In voicing his support for same-sex marriage, the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, has mentioned - and appeared with - his niece Rachel, who is lesbian.
To reckon with the gay people right in front of you is to re-examine your qualms. I have seen that in my father, a 76-year-old Republican.
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Esther Anderson: ultimate beach babe
Living it up ... Esther Anderson. She does, after all, work the beat in Summer Bay for her Home and Away role in the day and slips into Sydney's Bondi Beach restaurant and bar scene at night.
"My style during the day is pretty casual and sometimes a bit edgy," she says, admitting to a more casual wardrobe since her move to Sydney. "But for night time I ditch the comfortable clothes and it's a dress and heels or nice blazer and shorts, maybe."
Advertisement: Story continues below
Especially now she's single, Anderson has every reason to turn up the flirt factor a notch."I've been dating ... its been fun," she admits. "I'm not seeing anyone at the moment."
And there's no itchy feet just yet. In relation to her job, that is. "I feel very fortunate that I've had such strong storylines on Home and Away," she says.
"I've been on the show for a few years now and I'm still getting great stuff to sink my teeth into. There is still a lot of really good storylines coming up for my character, so I'm happy where I am but I also look forward to new challenges in the future."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/people/esther-anderson-ultimate-beach-babe-20110627-1gmwm.html#ixzz1QRv6UxDf
What's holding women back?
There are times when it feels as if Australia is the natural habitat of the successful woman. In September 2010, for instance, when our female governor-general swore in our female prime minister. Or last month, when Gina Rinehart, the mining magnate who has trebled her personal fortune to a cool $10 billion over the past 12 months, officially became the country's richest person. We've got women running our banks, editing our newspapers, heading up our scientific bodies and leading our academic departments. Even the word Australia (provided you're reading in Latin) is feminine.
Then somebody meows at a female government minister, or suspends a young female military cadet just as she learns that her sex life has been broadcast over the internet by her male colleagues. And you have to wonder whether we're doing as well as those super-successful women's achievements might suggest.
Look beyond those few glitteringly powerful women leaders and glum statistics present the broader picture. Just a quarter of Australian MPs are women; for university professors, the figure is also about a quarter, and for company board directors, it's only about 10 per cent. (It's not just at the senior levels that women get a raw deal, either: across the country, women working full-time earn 17 per cent less than men - the equivalent of working an extra 63 days for the same pay.)
"It's madness - not just in terms of fairness and equity, but also in terms of productivity and increasing our national competitiveness - not to be better utilising the leadership abilities of Australian women," agrees Kate Ellis, the federal government's Minister for the Status of Women. And the very top jobs, she believes, are not the only ones we should be looking at. "I think it's really important that we also focus on women's promotion right through the middle ranks of organisations into middle management, into senior management."
Ellis's ministerial powers are vital to redressing the balance, but she readily admits "legislation alone can't bring about change". The tangle of issues that challenge women's career progression is much too complex for that.
Straightforward misogyny still exists, although to a great extent it has withered in the face of years of legislation. "Early in my career, I think it was just assumed that if you were the woman coming into the room you'd be making the cups of tea for everybody," says Katie Lahey, a director of David Jones and the managing director of executive-recruiting firm Korn Ferry (Australia and New Zealand). "I think that's changed now." But subtle, often unintended gender bias still exists: "Companies still encourage golf days when the majority of women don't play golf, so they're excluded from those sort of things."
Naseema Sparks, who holds three directorships and is former managing director of M&C Saatchi, insists that "women are very well respected in leadership positions - there just aren't that many of them". But she also describes the kind of casual pre-meeting conversations that leave out those who don't, for example, follow the AFL - more often women than men.
Nicknames also allow stereotypes to creep in. "Julia Gillard has joined the throng of wonderful women who have been called 'Iron Ladies'," says Lucy Taksa, the head of Macquarie University's business department. "Of course, we know Margaret Thatcher. There's [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel, 'the Iron Frau'. Vice premier Wu Yi was referred to as the 'Iron Lady of China'. Liberia's president, Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, and her cabinet were called the 'Iron Ladies' ..." Then there are variations, like former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the "Titanium Lady".
Female leaders' nicknames often mix masculine and feminine elements, says Taksa. "Women [leaders] are in a really awkward position," she says. "If they adopt some of the masculine traits, they get criticised for being masculine and less than women. But if they don't, they are not conforming to our expectations of an assertive, 'masculine' model of leadership."
To make matters worse, how women are perceived isn't always a reflection of the way they act - as US researchers discovered when they asked students at Columbia Business School to appraise the CV of entrepreneur Howard Roizen.
Roizen is the kind of director every ambitious company wants. He's worked for Apple, launched his own software company and been a partner at a venture capital firm. He's outgoing, an incredible networker (Bill Gates is a personal friend), and described by colleagues as a "catalyst" and a "captain of industry". The students judged him to be effective, likeable and someone they would hire. The only thing is, Howard doesn't exist. Heidi Roizen, on the other hand - the CV's real owner - does. But students who read Heidi's CV judged her more selfish and less hireable than Howard, even though she was viewed as equally effective.
Underlying this sort of judgment, says federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, is a "belief barrier", to which mothers are susceptible. "We believe that good mothers are always with their children. It doesn't matter what you're doing when you're there - if you're with your children, that's what a good mother looks like." In addition, she says, we believe the ideal worker "is available 24-7, has no visible caring responsibilities and is usually male".
Then somebody meows at a female government minister, or suspends a young female military cadet just as she learns that her sex life has been broadcast over the internet by her male colleagues. And you have to wonder whether we're doing as well as those super-successful women's achievements might suggest.
Look beyond those few glitteringly powerful women leaders and glum statistics present the broader picture. Just a quarter of Australian MPs are women; for university professors, the figure is also about a quarter, and for company board directors, it's only about 10 per cent. (It's not just at the senior levels that women get a raw deal, either: across the country, women working full-time earn 17 per cent less than men - the equivalent of working an extra 63 days for the same pay.)
Advertisement: Story continues below
Diversity gives an organisation more perspective on the world, and it's also good for profits: the US organisation Catalyst found that Fortune 500 companies with high levels of female management perform, on average, more than 30 per cent better than those with the lowest. So why, when there are women at the top of virtually every Australian profession, are their overall numbers still so small?"It's madness - not just in terms of fairness and equity, but also in terms of productivity and increasing our national competitiveness - not to be better utilising the leadership abilities of Australian women," agrees Kate Ellis, the federal government's Minister for the Status of Women. And the very top jobs, she believes, are not the only ones we should be looking at. "I think it's really important that we also focus on women's promotion right through the middle ranks of organisations into middle management, into senior management."
Ellis's ministerial powers are vital to redressing the balance, but she readily admits "legislation alone can't bring about change". The tangle of issues that challenge women's career progression is much too complex for that.
Straightforward misogyny still exists, although to a great extent it has withered in the face of years of legislation. "Early in my career, I think it was just assumed that if you were the woman coming into the room you'd be making the cups of tea for everybody," says Katie Lahey, a director of David Jones and the managing director of executive-recruiting firm Korn Ferry (Australia and New Zealand). "I think that's changed now." But subtle, often unintended gender bias still exists: "Companies still encourage golf days when the majority of women don't play golf, so they're excluded from those sort of things."
Naseema Sparks, who holds three directorships and is former managing director of M&C Saatchi, insists that "women are very well respected in leadership positions - there just aren't that many of them". But she also describes the kind of casual pre-meeting conversations that leave out those who don't, for example, follow the AFL - more often women than men.
Nicknames also allow stereotypes to creep in. "Julia Gillard has joined the throng of wonderful women who have been called 'Iron Ladies'," says Lucy Taksa, the head of Macquarie University's business department. "Of course, we know Margaret Thatcher. There's [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel, 'the Iron Frau'. Vice premier Wu Yi was referred to as the 'Iron Lady of China'. Liberia's president, Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, and her cabinet were called the 'Iron Ladies' ..." Then there are variations, like former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, the "Titanium Lady".
Female leaders' nicknames often mix masculine and feminine elements, says Taksa. "Women [leaders] are in a really awkward position," she says. "If they adopt some of the masculine traits, they get criticised for being masculine and less than women. But if they don't, they are not conforming to our expectations of an assertive, 'masculine' model of leadership."
To make matters worse, how women are perceived isn't always a reflection of the way they act - as US researchers discovered when they asked students at Columbia Business School to appraise the CV of entrepreneur Howard Roizen.
Roizen is the kind of director every ambitious company wants. He's worked for Apple, launched his own software company and been a partner at a venture capital firm. He's outgoing, an incredible networker (Bill Gates is a personal friend), and described by colleagues as a "catalyst" and a "captain of industry". The students judged him to be effective, likeable and someone they would hire. The only thing is, Howard doesn't exist. Heidi Roizen, on the other hand - the CV's real owner - does. But students who read Heidi's CV judged her more selfish and less hireable than Howard, even though she was viewed as equally effective.
Underlying this sort of judgment, says federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, is a "belief barrier", to which mothers are susceptible. "We believe that good mothers are always with their children. It doesn't matter what you're doing when you're there - if you're with your children, that's what a good mother looks like." In addition, she says, we believe the ideal worker "is available 24-7, has no visible caring responsibilities and is usually male".
X-rays 'unethical, inaccurate' test of asylum seekers' ages
THE world's top expert on determining the ages of children has slammed the use of wrist X-rays on which federal police have relied to keep dozens of Indonesian boys in adult jails.
Sir Al Aynsley-Green, Britain's founding Children's Commissioner, said the federal police's use of X-rays to assess the ages of Indonesian crew members of asylum seeker boats was "unethical, inaccurate, not fit for purpose proposed and potentially unlawful".
"There are aspects of the current process of assessing age in Australia that should cause grave concern," Sir Al told The Age. "Injustice is likely when a decision on age is driven by using a method involving wrist X-ray which has been rejected elsewhere."
Advertisement: Story continues below
Federal police have relied on an X-ray process that was established in the 1950s to determine that more than 60 Indonesian crew members of asylum seeker boats who claim to be under 18 are adults and must face mandatory five-year jail terms under people-smuggling laws.
Doctors compare X-rays with those taken from largely white middle-class children in the United States in the 1930s.
In the cases of three Indonesian boys held with adult criminals in Brisbane, federal police ignored evidence such as extracts of birth certificates and assessments by immigration officers - choosing to rely solely on X-ray examinations.
About 10 other Indonesians claiming to be under 18 are in custody waiting to undergo X-rays, the only prescribed method available to the federal police under legislation to determine the ages of children.
Sir Al - who is Professor Emeritus of Child Health at University College London and has led several major inquiries into the circumstances of children and families seeking asylum in England - told The Age the use of radiology deserved vigorous public, professional and ethical scrutiny: "Australian society, professional organisations and its courts need to define as a matter of urgency which methods of age assessment are acceptable, what limits of uncertainty are valid and how a consensus can be reached in individual cases."
He said children's commissioners or other statutory bodies in Australia should be given the power to enter premises to witness screenings and age assessments on individuals claiming to be children, including asylum seekers.
Sir Al, who was knighted for his services to children in 2006, has been asked to give expert evidence in the cases of three Indonesian boys snatched from their impoverished Indonesian village by people smugglers to work on an asylum seeker boat that arrived in Australian waters last year. Based solely on the evidence of wrist X-rays they had been held for months in a
high-security adult Brisbane jail with murderers, rapists and paedophiles.
The boys were freed on bail from jail and put under the care of the Immigration Department after The Age revealed lawyers had obtained birth extracts and other evidence from their village proving they are aged 15 and 16.
Under federal policy, Indonesian crew members who are under 18 are supposed to be flown home without charge.
Sir Al's comments will intensify pressure on the Gillard government to free from adult jails all of the Indonesians who claim to be under 18.
The Merry Widow
The Australian Ballet
State Theatre, until July 4
IT MAY be light and fluffy, but this sumptuous souffle of a ballet is possibly one of the best the Australian Ballet has produced.
First presented in 1975, The Merry Widow was adapted from the well-known operetta for the then fledgling national company by Sir Robert Helpmann and his talented artistic team.
The lavish sets and costumes complement fine acting and great stage direction, enabling the loveable characters to deliver a complex storyline with humour and clarity.
It's a heightened, romanticised world, but one which we all recognise, and perhaps even long for.
As Valencienne and Camille, Madeleine Eastoe and Andrew Killian are passionately sweet in their extramarital flirtations, and Colin Peasley and Paul de Masson are charmingly hilarious in their comic roles. Kirsty Martin and Robert Curran are romance itself in the lead roles of Hanna (the widow) and Danilo, twirling and embracing as though dancing on air.
Martin's exuberant performance is bittersweet: this season is her last with the company before she retires.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/dance/the-merry-widow-20110626-1glld.html#ixzz1QRu6oBHw
State Theatre, until July 4
IT MAY be light and fluffy, but this sumptuous souffle of a ballet is possibly one of the best the Australian Ballet has produced.
First presented in 1975, The Merry Widow was adapted from the well-known operetta for the then fledgling national company by Sir Robert Helpmann and his talented artistic team.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Helpmann's genius can be seen in the scintillating scenario and entertaining theatrics, which make this opulent tale a well-cut ballet classic. Desmond Heeley's stunning designs fizz with colourful Belle Epoque glamour, John Lanchbery's creative arrangement of Franz Lehar's music sparkles, while Ronald Hynd's choreography is swept along by swoony waltzes and dizzying ballroom scenes.The lavish sets and costumes complement fine acting and great stage direction, enabling the loveable characters to deliver a complex storyline with humour and clarity.
It's a heightened, romanticised world, but one which we all recognise, and perhaps even long for.
As Valencienne and Camille, Madeleine Eastoe and Andrew Killian are passionately sweet in their extramarital flirtations, and Colin Peasley and Paul de Masson are charmingly hilarious in their comic roles. Kirsty Martin and Robert Curran are romance itself in the lead roles of Hanna (the widow) and Danilo, twirling and embracing as though dancing on air.
Martin's exuberant performance is bittersweet: this season is her last with the company before she retires.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/dance/the-merry-widow-20110626-1glld.html#ixzz1QRu6oBHw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)