Originally published in Socialist Worker.
By Gary Lapon | June 18, 2008 | Issue 674
NORTHAMPTON, Mass.--Hundreds of people joined the first-ever New England Transgender Pride march on June 7 as it streamed past enthusiastic onlookers with the slogan "Remember Stonewall? That was us!"
The march's slogan refers to the 1969 "Stonewall Rebellion," when a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, a bar frequented mainly by lesbian, gay and transgender people in New York City's Greenwich Village, sparked a three-day response from people sick and tired of years of discrimination, harassment and police brutality.
Stonewall led to the formation of the Gay Liberation Front and gave a major boost to the growing gay rights movement that looked to the Vietnamese struggle against U.S. imperialism, as well as the militant Black power and women's rights movements for inspiration.
A 2000 study conducted by the District of Columbia Health Department found that 43 percent of transgender people had been victims of violent crime, 75 percent of which were motivated by transgender bias. Studies of urban transgender populations have found HIV prevalence rates ranging from 14 to 69 percent, a result of a deadly combination of anti-trans stigma, racism, homophobia, lack of access to health care and sex work as the only means of economic survival.
Recent academic studies have found that 16 to 37 percent of transgender participants have attempted suicide, and a 2006 study by the San Francisco Guardian and the Transgender Law Center found that 60 percent of transgender people in San Francisco earn less than $15,300 per year, only 25 percent have a full-time job, and 10 percent are homeless.
The New England Trans Pride march called for full civil and human rights for all people regardless of gender identity, and organizers sought to "unite with one another and allies to speak out for social, economic and political justice of under-represented and marginalized communities, and support the right of all communities to be heard."
Chants on the march ranged from statements of trangender pride and support from allies to demands for "money for jobs/education/health care/hormones, not for war and occupation!"
Marchers also protested the dropping of protection for transgender people in the version of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3685) passed by the House of Representatives in November--the legislation now would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, but not gender identity.
Marchers linked their demands for transgender rights to those of all oppressed and exploited peoples, including all LGBT people, immigrants, the people of Iraqi and Afghanistan, Katrina survivors and the poor.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The role of marriage and the family
Originally published in Socialist Worker.
June 18, 2008
I AGREE with Peg Rapp's point that the institution of marriage is used to pass the burden of raising the next generation of workers on to working-class couples and single parents ("Marriage is a patriarchal institution").
It's important to point out that this is done not to avoid the responsibility of child-rearing falling on society as a whole, but on the ruling class, those who seek to exploit that next generation without having to bother to pay to raise it.
The burden of reproducing the working class already falls on the working class itself, although some individuals and couples face a greater burden than others. And social services like welfare, child care and public education that socialize some aspects of reproduction are under attack.
To a certain degree, child-rearing is collectivized by workers on a local level in order to make it bearable. For example, when I was little, my mother received baby supplies from neighbors with older children, and she and other single mothers helped each other out with child care.
As long as we live in a society where workers are robbed of the value that we collectively produce and do not have a say in societal-level decisions like whether or not to raise children collectively, arrangements such as these, even though they do not fit the norm of the heterosexual nuclear family as the unit of reproduction, remain survival mechanisms and do not effectively challenge sexism or homophobia.
Gay people who decide to marry are not the ones responsible for the stigma or the extra burden and discrimination placed on single parents, especially single mothers. Individual working-class people (or couples) do not have the power to shape policy or ideology. That power is held by those who control the media, and by politicians like Clinton, Bush and their financiers--who demonize single mothers as "irresponsible" while slashing social services like welfare and child care.
Whether or not individual workers emulate "the patriarchal values and institutions of traditional patriarchal marriages," the notion of the nuclear family endures because of its usefulness to the ruling class that controls the media and institutions such as schools, which manufacture the ideology of our time. And this ideology will be used to justify the oppression and exploitation of women, gays, single parents and working-class people generally.
Finally, although gay marriage is a reform and not a revolutionary solution, the two are not entirely separate. Homophobia, like racism, sexism, xenophobia and transphobia, is used to divide the working class so that it doesn't unite to face the real enemy: the ruling class. Reforms that guarantee equal rights, such as gay marriage, are vital stepping-stones on the path to revolution, because they break down these divisions and give workers a greater sense of their own power.
Because of struggle, in a few generations, gay people went from being classified as mentally ill to being able to marry in two states. Not only does winning the right to gay marriage challenge homophobia and thereby make it easier for workers to unite across lines of sexual orientation, it shows us that struggle can change the world.
This can help inspire the future struggles that can create a world where people are free to love whoever they want, and where no parent or child is forced to go without simply because they exist.
Gary Lapon, Northampton, Mass.
June 18, 2008
I AGREE with Peg Rapp's point that the institution of marriage is used to pass the burden of raising the next generation of workers on to working-class couples and single parents ("Marriage is a patriarchal institution").
It's important to point out that this is done not to avoid the responsibility of child-rearing falling on society as a whole, but on the ruling class, those who seek to exploit that next generation without having to bother to pay to raise it.
The burden of reproducing the working class already falls on the working class itself, although some individuals and couples face a greater burden than others. And social services like welfare, child care and public education that socialize some aspects of reproduction are under attack.
To a certain degree, child-rearing is collectivized by workers on a local level in order to make it bearable. For example, when I was little, my mother received baby supplies from neighbors with older children, and she and other single mothers helped each other out with child care.
As long as we live in a society where workers are robbed of the value that we collectively produce and do not have a say in societal-level decisions like whether or not to raise children collectively, arrangements such as these, even though they do not fit the norm of the heterosexual nuclear family as the unit of reproduction, remain survival mechanisms and do not effectively challenge sexism or homophobia.
Gay people who decide to marry are not the ones responsible for the stigma or the extra burden and discrimination placed on single parents, especially single mothers. Individual working-class people (or couples) do not have the power to shape policy or ideology. That power is held by those who control the media, and by politicians like Clinton, Bush and their financiers--who demonize single mothers as "irresponsible" while slashing social services like welfare and child care.
Whether or not individual workers emulate "the patriarchal values and institutions of traditional patriarchal marriages," the notion of the nuclear family endures because of its usefulness to the ruling class that controls the media and institutions such as schools, which manufacture the ideology of our time. And this ideology will be used to justify the oppression and exploitation of women, gays, single parents and working-class people generally.
Finally, although gay marriage is a reform and not a revolutionary solution, the two are not entirely separate. Homophobia, like racism, sexism, xenophobia and transphobia, is used to divide the working class so that it doesn't unite to face the real enemy: the ruling class. Reforms that guarantee equal rights, such as gay marriage, are vital stepping-stones on the path to revolution, because they break down these divisions and give workers a greater sense of their own power.
Because of struggle, in a few generations, gay people went from being classified as mentally ill to being able to marry in two states. Not only does winning the right to gay marriage challenge homophobia and thereby make it easier for workers to unite across lines of sexual orientation, it shows us that struggle can change the world.
This can help inspire the future struggles that can create a world where people are free to love whoever they want, and where no parent or child is forced to go without simply because they exist.
Gary Lapon, Northampton, Mass.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A tax that punishes the poor
Originally published in Socialist Worker.
July 10, 2008
THE TAX on a pack of cigarettes in Massachusetts went up by $1 per pack this month, making the state's tax one of the highest in the country at $2.51 per pack.
Arguments for the tax increase include that it will raise $174 million in revenue this year to pay for the skyrocketing costs of health care under the new "Commonwealth Care" plan, which mandates that the uninsured purchase private insurance (high premiums and co-pays for sub-standard insurance, typically), and that the tax will encourage smokers to quit.
Think about that for a moment: health care costs are supposed to be paid for in part by a tax on smoking, an addiction that kills hundreds of thousands of people per year, makes people sick and leads to much higher health care costs!
In addition to the absurdity of paying for health care with revenue from an addiction responsible for a huge chunk of the nation's health problems, a flat sales tax is by nature regressive. This means that it disproportionately affects people with low incomes. For example, a pack-a-day smoker who makes $100 per day ($26,000 per year) will pay an extra 1 percent of their income in taxes under the increase, while a pack-a-day smoker making $500 per day ($130,000 per year) will pay only 0.2 percent more because of the hike.
And smoking is more prevalent among low-income people. According to a 2006 study by the Centers for Disease Control, 30.6 percent of adults in the U.S. who live below the poverty line smoke, compared to 20.4 percent of those at or above the poverty line.
Why don't people just quit, and why are the poor more likely to smoke? Well, cigarette companies spend millions on advertising that specifically targets low-income and minority populations.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances people consume. Additionally, smoking is a way to cope with stress, and, in a society plagued by exploitation, oppression, poverty and violence, it's understandable why so many--especially those closer to the bottom of the income scale--use substances like tobacco as a way to deal with depression and stress.
The cigarette tax hike, a 67 percent increase, amounts to a transfer of wealth from the pockets of working-class Massachusetts residents suffering from an addiction to those of health insurance industry bigwigs. It's amazing that there is any room left in the pockets of the latter, now that every Massachusetts resident is mandated to buy their inadequate insurance. For many workers hit by skyrocketing gas, food and health care costs, this could be the straw that breaks their back (if it's not already broken).
According to research by Physicians for a National Health Program, a single-payer universal health care system in Massachusetts would save taxpayers over $9 billion per year by cutting out insurance company profits and bureaucracy. Not only that, it would provide better access and better care than we currently receive with private insurance.
So if Massachusetts' politicians were really interested in providing health care for all, they'd be pushing for single payer, not raising cigarette taxes.
It's not fair to make smokers pay for handouts to insurance companies, nor is it fair to penalize people suffering from an addiction. Instead, more resources should be available to help people quit if they want to. Perhaps some of the $9 billion saved with a single-payer health system could go towards smoking-cessation programs. Even more could go towards removing the stress that goes along with a life of poverty.
As long as our society is run by capitalists and politicians who grind people up as disposable in the production of profits, and see no value in us beyond that, millions will turn to smoking and other drugs to get by.
Massachusetts politicians have shown that they will stop at nothing to squeeze another drop of blood from our battered bodies to quench the thirst of the wealthy.
Gary Lapon, Northampton, Mass.
July 10, 2008
THE TAX on a pack of cigarettes in Massachusetts went up by $1 per pack this month, making the state's tax one of the highest in the country at $2.51 per pack.
Arguments for the tax increase include that it will raise $174 million in revenue this year to pay for the skyrocketing costs of health care under the new "Commonwealth Care" plan, which mandates that the uninsured purchase private insurance (high premiums and co-pays for sub-standard insurance, typically), and that the tax will encourage smokers to quit.
Think about that for a moment: health care costs are supposed to be paid for in part by a tax on smoking, an addiction that kills hundreds of thousands of people per year, makes people sick and leads to much higher health care costs!
In addition to the absurdity of paying for health care with revenue from an addiction responsible for a huge chunk of the nation's health problems, a flat sales tax is by nature regressive. This means that it disproportionately affects people with low incomes. For example, a pack-a-day smoker who makes $100 per day ($26,000 per year) will pay an extra 1 percent of their income in taxes under the increase, while a pack-a-day smoker making $500 per day ($130,000 per year) will pay only 0.2 percent more because of the hike.
And smoking is more prevalent among low-income people. According to a 2006 study by the Centers for Disease Control, 30.6 percent of adults in the U.S. who live below the poverty line smoke, compared to 20.4 percent of those at or above the poverty line.
Why don't people just quit, and why are the poor more likely to smoke? Well, cigarette companies spend millions on advertising that specifically targets low-income and minority populations.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances people consume. Additionally, smoking is a way to cope with stress, and, in a society plagued by exploitation, oppression, poverty and violence, it's understandable why so many--especially those closer to the bottom of the income scale--use substances like tobacco as a way to deal with depression and stress.
The cigarette tax hike, a 67 percent increase, amounts to a transfer of wealth from the pockets of working-class Massachusetts residents suffering from an addiction to those of health insurance industry bigwigs. It's amazing that there is any room left in the pockets of the latter, now that every Massachusetts resident is mandated to buy their inadequate insurance. For many workers hit by skyrocketing gas, food and health care costs, this could be the straw that breaks their back (if it's not already broken).
According to research by Physicians for a National Health Program, a single-payer universal health care system in Massachusetts would save taxpayers over $9 billion per year by cutting out insurance company profits and bureaucracy. Not only that, it would provide better access and better care than we currently receive with private insurance.
So if Massachusetts' politicians were really interested in providing health care for all, they'd be pushing for single payer, not raising cigarette taxes.
It's not fair to make smokers pay for handouts to insurance companies, nor is it fair to penalize people suffering from an addiction. Instead, more resources should be available to help people quit if they want to. Perhaps some of the $9 billion saved with a single-payer health system could go towards smoking-cessation programs. Even more could go towards removing the stress that goes along with a life of poverty.
As long as our society is run by capitalists and politicians who grind people up as disposable in the production of profits, and see no value in us beyond that, millions will turn to smoking and other drugs to get by.
Massachusetts politicians have shown that they will stop at nothing to squeeze another drop of blood from our battered bodies to quench the thirst of the wealthy.
Gary Lapon, Northampton, Mass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)