Cancer Awareness

As pink begins to pervade the media in preparation for National Breast Cancer Month, Amanda at Blogher offers an important reminder that September was both Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and Leukemia and Lymphoma Awareness Month. She also suggests some ways people can help fight these diseases.

My family has been hit by both lymphoma and childhood cancer, among others. Awareness months won’t in and of themselves find cures, but they are important as a way to spread knowledge and support further. Please take the time to explore the links above, and consider contributing in whatever way you can, even before you don your pink ribbons for October. Let’s work to make all cancers things of the past.

The Advocate’s “Best Companies” List Includes Discrepancy with HRC Index

The corporate rankings just keep rolling in. After HRC last week and Working Mother yesterday, The Advocate today released its 2006 list of 10 companies it feels are good places for LGBT workers. This year’s 10 join 85 others (all unranked) that the magazine has picked in the past.

It’s notable that three companies fell off the full list this year: Donna Karan International, which dropped to a 57 on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index; Mobil, after rescinding its domestic-partner benefits after merging with Exxon; and Fannie Mae, which, despite its perfect 100 score on HRC’s list, contributed money from its corporate foundation to anti-gay causes, including $50,000 to the Traditional Values Coalition. Kudos to The Advocate for spotting this.

Just goes to show once again that corporate ratings may serve as useful guidelines, but shouldn’t be used in isolation.

Working Mother Names Best Companies for Parents

Last week, I mentioned Working Mother magazine’s list of 100 Best Companies, in the context of HRC’s Corporate Equality Index. Today, Working Mother just put out its updated 2006 list.

It’s useful to look through the list and see whether the company you want to work for or buy from is family friendly. It’s also worth reading through the Working Mother feature to gather ideas from some of the specific programs in place at various firms. PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, offers parents up to five years (unpaid) off to raise their children. During that time, they will be expected to keep in touch with a few named colleagues, may participate in training and licensing programs as well as social and networking events, and can rejoin the company at the end of their leave. (The program is, however, only available to “high-performing senior associates and above.”) This isn’t just a touchy-feely move, though. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that when an employee leaves, it costs the firm $80,000 in recruiting expenses and lost productivity.

For those who wish to come back to work sooner, Principal Financial Group offers Working Caregiver Leave. Employees work a reduced schedule at reduced pay for 12 weeks but with full benefits, allowing them to transition back more easily. “In 2000, two years before the program began, 74 percent of those who took maternity leave left the company within 12 months. . . . In 2004, only 9 percent of those who took Working Caregiver Leave did so.”

The trend towards flexibility for working parents, particularly mothers, seems to be moving in the right direction. Yet as organizations like Moms Rising and Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights remind us, there’s still plenty of room for improvement. There’s also room for lesbian moms to get involved in these organizations and make sure the “mothers’ movement” includes our perspectives and needs. LGBT benefits and parental benefits go hand in hand to create more productive workers and happier families.

The Changing Shape of the American Family

To pique your interest in the online chat with sociologist Rosanna Hertz I’m hosting tomorrow night, I wanted to share some statistics she sent me about the changing shape of the American family.

• Less than 25% of all families consist of a married, opposite-sex couple living with their own (biological or adopted) children—down from 40% in 1970.
• While most children do live with two parents today (including stepparents), most will also at some point live with only one parent.
• One third of all births are to women who are not married. Half of them are not teen mothers, but rather women over the age of 20. This number doesn’t distinguish between those cohabitating with a partner and those living alone— regardless, it shows that marriage and family are no longer the coterminous institutions they once were. (The one third also does not include women who adopt, since we do not know how many women adopt on their own.)
• For women over 30 years old, 8% birthed children on their own in 1970, but today the proportion has jumped to 12%.
• Finally, a figure pointing to the continued need for childcare: “Among children living with single parents, 69% have an employed parent. . . . The women in these families are not selfish careerists, as they have often been (and still are) characterized. Women seek employment for the same reasons men do: they need a paycheck, they want personal rewards, and they wish to do meaningful work.” (From Hertz and Marshall, Working Families.)

Join us here tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. EDT to learn more about these demographic and social changes and to discuss practical advice for single moms and others.

Weekly Political Roundup

• Republicans may not be able to count on the support of evangelical Christians to the extent they have done, the New York Times reports, saying “There is an undercurrent of concern that some evangelicals, unhappy that the GOP-led Congress and President Bush haven’t paid more attention to gay marriage and other ‘values’ issues, may stay home on Election Day or even vote Democratic.” At the same time, religious progressives are also taking the offensive, and speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage.
• The New York Times called for the state to recongize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, despite the Court of Appeals ruling last July that said it was constitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
• The Borough Council of West Chester, Pennsylvania voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It will apply to the workplace, housing and public accommodation, and is the fourth such ordinance passed this year in the state.
• The Washington Post slammed Virginia’s proposed same-sex marriage ban, saying it is “muddle-headed and absurdly broad, duplicates what is already in state law and carries the germ of a thousand unintended consequences.” Separately, the Associated Press reported that opponents of the ban raised more than twice as much money this summer as its supporters.

And internationally:

• Ontario Premier Dalton MyGuinty named openly gay health minister George Smitherman the province’s deputy premier.
• The city assembly of Miyakonojo, Japan is debating proposed changes to the city’s antidiscrimination ordinance that would eliminate “sexual orientation” as a protected category. The group Human Rights Watch has written to the mayor asking him not to take away rights from any citizens.
• Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga will sign new national labor legislation that includes protections for gay and lesbian workers. Latvia had been the only EU member state without legislation specifically outlawing labor and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Vike-Freiberga pressured her parliament to pass the new laws.

Read a Banned Book

Tomorrow begins the 25th annual Banned Books Week (BBW), which “celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.”

Despite the event’s title, the majority of the books featured during the week were not banned, but “merely” challenged. As the American Library Association (ALA) explains, however, “Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.” Even challenges, therefore, go against fundamental First Amendment rights.

The most-challenged book of the past year, according to the ALA, was It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health “for homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion and being unsuited to age group.” The same author, Robie H. Harris, also had the tenth most challenged book, It’s So Amazing! A Book About Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families.

Yep, sex scares some people. Same-sex sex scares them even more. LGBT-themed books get challenged every year. Michael Willhoite, author of Daddy’s Roommate, even made the list of Top Ten Challenged Authors 1990 to 2004. Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, Leslea Newman’s Heather Has Two Mommies and Nancy Garden’s Annie on My Mind also rank high.

Classic older works, not necessarily LGBT themed, received their share of challenges, too, The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird among them. Harry Potter shows up as well.

As a parent, I believe there are some books that are not appropriate for children at certain ages. I also believe it’s a parent’s right to make that decision for her or his children, and not have it made by someone else.

The ALA site has a lot more information about challenged and banned books, censorship, and what you can do if you experience book censorship in your community.

Act OUT: the National LGBT Family Conference

The Family Pride Coalition is hosting Act OUT: the National LGBT Family Conference, October 27-29, 2006, at the LGBT family-friendly Fairmont Hotel in Dallas, Texas. The conference is a three-day event focused on advocacy, education, and community building for LGBT-headed families and allies. Family Pride expects hundreds of families to attend from across the country.

Highlights include the presentation of research and information about LGBT-headed families gathered since Family Pride’s Academic Symposium this past spring; special workshops and leadership training for youth and adults with one or more LGBT parents led by COLAGE (Children of Lesbians & Gays Everywhere); plus regional breakout sessions that include training in Family Pride’s “OUTspoken Families” Speaker’s Bureau initiative.

On the fun side, families who attend will have the chance to win a spring family cruise in the Bahamas valued at $6,000, courtesy of R Family Vacations. Act OUT will also feature a Halloween costume party and family dance, all-expense-paid meals for the whole family, and an LGBT family expo. If you stick around on Sunday you can even take the kids trick-or-treating at the nearby Dallas Zoo.

Space is limited, as is the special discounted rate of $139 at the Fairmont, so interested families should register online or call (202) 331-5015.

Icons, Images, and Invisibility

Less than 25% of all U. S. families consist of a married mom, dad, and their children, according to the 2000 Census. (Thanks to Rosanna Hertz for pointing this out to me.)

Why then, is it so hard to find depictions of other types of families?

I wrote a few weeks ago about finding a family bathroom sign that portrayed an opposite-sex couple, and wondered if there were a more inclusive way to draw it. Some commenters agreed that such icons could be more inclusive, though several were resigned to the fact that while the sign may not be accurate for everyone, it’s easily understood. Others interpreted the sign loosely, as indicating “members of the opposite sex can enter together.” (Thanks, Roger.) One assumed I was arguing for a literal interpretation, and said sarcastically, “I for one am offended by these signs. My legs are more proportionate to the rest of my body than these signs are depicting.”

In truth, I’m really with the moderates on this. I don’t want some rigid, “politically correct” sign police coming through and making sure all signs are fully inclusive of every possible family permutation. But the bathroom sign is only one of any number of family depictions I encounter that exclude my family, and the cumulative effect is beginning to wear on me.

Case in point. My dentist (whom I in fact like quite a bit) has a business card with an image of an opposite-sex family on it. (See image to the right. Yes, it could be a brother and sister taking their respective kids to the dentist, but I think it’s reasonable to assume it was meant to be a father, mother, and kids.) OK, another isolated example. I shouldn’t get too upset. It would be ridiculous to want a ban on depictions of opposite-sex families. When I fill out a patient form for my son that asks for “Mother’s Name” and “Father’s Name,” however, I really start to feel invisible. “Parent” and “Parent” is an easy alternative that could have counterbalanced the depiction on the business cards.

The examples pile up. Easter eggs. Mobile phones. (Thanks, Abigail.) All with easy inclusive alternatives.

Today, LesbianDad mentioned a related issue, found in a New York Times article about the dearth of baby-changing facilities in men’s rooms. The Times spoke with Chuck Ault, who runs Boot Camp for New Dads:

Several years ago Mr. Ault began noticing something on newer airplanes. The signs on the restrooms’ changing tables, which previously had a triangle-shaped-dress character hovering over the baby, now featured a gender-neutral figure. It made the skies seem a little friendlier.

“I think those airplane signs are really symbolic and interesting,” Mr. Ault said. “I think universal symbols are powerful indicators of what is believed.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

One final point. The more depictions of non-traditional families or roles we see, the less we’ll twitch over any given image of a traditional one. I don’t want a homogenous world where every image and ad shows as much diversity as possible. That would be way too crowded. Just mix it up a little, though, and we’ll all feel better.

Reminder: Chat with Rosanna Hertz Here on September 26

I will be hosting an online chat with Rosanna Hertz, author of Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women are Choosing Parenthood without Marriage and Creating the New American Family, on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, from 9-10 p.m. EDT. You can read my review of the book here.

Even if you’re not a single mother, I encourage you to join us. I’m not a single mom, but found that many of her insights into family creation through donors or adoption, building support networks, and rethinking the role of men in our children’s lives resonated with me, too. If that’s not enough to tempt you, consider that Hertz’s findings confirm that the old model of the American family is transforming, with or without LGBT Americans. Traditional marriage is no longer the only framework for having children, for any number of reasons. Her book is likely to scare the socks off many right-wingers. That’s reason enough for me to be interested.

Stop back at Mombian shortly before the chat, and I’ll have a post up with a link to the live chat site. If you wish, e-mail me in advance, and the day before the chat, I will send you a reminder. (I will only use your e-mails for this purpose, and will not sell or share them.) In the meantime, Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women are Choosing Parenthood without Marriage and Creating the New American Family is shipping from Amazon (even though the official release date isn’t until October 2), so you can read it in advance and jot down the questions you’d like to ask. You may also e-mail me questions ahead of time (or leave a comment at the end of this post) and I will forward them to Professor Hertz.

HRC’s Corporate Equality Index: One Facet of a Broader Picture

The Human Rights Campaign released its fifth annual Corporate Equality Index (CEI) today, ranking companies based on their benefits, protections, and outreach to the LGBT community. The number of companies scoring a perfect 100 rose to 138 from last year’s 101. HRC reports:

Among the companies surveyed in the new report, this year:

• 75 percent more companies than in 2005 prohibited discrimination against transgender employees in employment practices;
• 64 percent more implemented at least one wellness benefit for transgender employees;
• 35 percent more extended COBRA, vision, dental and dependent medical coverage to employees’ same-sex domestic partners; and
• 14 percent more engaged in philanthropic or marketing activities directed toward the GLBT community.

Almost all of the companies rated — 436, or 98 percent — include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination polices.

That’s good news. For many of us, however, LGBT friendliness is only one factor to consider in employment or purchase decisions. Treatment of non-white employees, working mothers, other women, and the disabled are also important. For example, three companies on Working Mother’s 2005 100 Best Companies list (2006 is not yet out)—Abbott, Avon, and Bayer, scored a low 50, 30, and 15, respectively, on HRC’s list. FedEx and Kellogg are on Black Enterprise’s 2006 40 Best Companies for Diversity list, but only scored 55 and 50 on HRC’s Index. On the flip side, half the companies on Black Enterprise’s list also scored 100 on HRC’s scale, and eight are on Working Mother’s list as well. Three are on Career & the disABLED’s list of the top 50 companies for people with disabilities.

One needs to treat such cross-references with care, however. The fact that a company doesn’t appear on any given list could be because of how the list is defined. HRC and Black Enterprise only look at large companies, whereas Working Mother allows private or public firms of any size, except for those “in the business of providing work/life or child-care services.” Career & the disABLED ranks its list based on the number of readers who named a particular company, not on a set of empirical standards. Also, while HRC and Career & the disABLED rank companies from best to worst, Black Enterprise and Working Mother simply name the best.

Diversity, Inc.’s Top 50 Companies for Diversity list is probably the best apples-to-apples evaluation of companies across multiple “diversity” categories, and includes the important factor of CEO commitment. It also produces separate “Top 10 Companies” lists for African Americans, Asian Americans, Executive Women, GLBT Americans, Latinos, and People with Disabilities. (Most of its Web content is members-only, however.) Yet Abbott Labs, eighth on its list, gets a mediocre 50 percent from HRC.

No list is perfect. Everyone is going to have a quibble with one or another of them. One big gap I see is that none of the publications above look at political contributions by companies and their executives, which may support candidates whose positions run counter to companies’ internal policies. (General Motors, for example, is an HRC 100-percenter, yet makes 74% of its political contributions to Republicans. Without knowing specific recipients and their positions, I can’t be certain, but on the surface, this doesn’t seem good for the LGBT cause.)

Furthermore, diversity lists don’t even go into other factors people may care about, such as environmental policies or overall business ethics. (Abbott Labs again, for example, has come under fire for jacking up the price of one of its AIDS drugs.) Good policies are also not proof of enforcement. Diversity ratings are a reasonable starting point for potential employees and customers, though, especially those willing to dig a little deeper.

I’ll close by highlighting some of the companies that scored particularly low—below 50—on HRC’s list, but which many of us may come across in our daily lives as parents:

• ExxonMobil Corp.: 0
• J. C. Penney Co.: 50
• Hershey Co.: 50
• Kellogg Co.: 50
• Domino’s Pizza: 45
• Kroger Co. (Grocery chain): 35
• H. J. Heinz Co.: 15
• Meijer Inc. (Grocery chain): 0
• Nestle Purina PetCare Co.: 15
• Nokia: 50
• Scholastic Corp.: 50
• Toys ‘R Us Inc.: 45

Caveat emptor.