GLEFAS- Grupo Latinoamericano De Estudios, Formacion Y Accion Feminista

Founded in 2007, the Grupo Latinoamericano de Estudio, Formación y Acción Feminista (GLEFAS) is a leading regional group that is initiating important dialogues, conversations, and political actions within the feminist and lesbian feminist movement.

Founded in 2007, the Grupo Latinoamericano de Estudio, Formación y Acción Feminista (GLEFAS) is a leading regional group that is initiating important dialogues, conversations, and political actions within the feminist and lesbian feminist movement in Latin América and the Caribbean, as well as other social movements and land struggles in the region, looking to join efforts for more comprehensive policies to confront different forms of oppression. As Caribbean and Latin American anti-racist and decolonial feminists, one of their goals is to produce autonomous knowledge from their own positioning as black, indigenous, and lesbian activists from the South. They collaborate with non-white and mixed-race women (or women of color, as it is commonly used in the United States) who are committed to intersectional politics and views in Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil, the United States, and Europe. In response to the regional context of war, militarization, and violence, GLEFAS seeks to produce a political analysis from an anti-racist, anti-military, anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, feminist lesbian perspective. GLEFAS seeks to support the creation of collectives in different countries of the region. *** En Español*** Fundado en 2007, el Grupo Latinoamericano de Estudio, Formación y Acción Feminista (GLEFAS) es un grupo regional líder que está iniciando importantes diálogos, conversaciones y acciones políticas dentro del movimiento feminista y lésbico feminista de América Latina y el Caribe, así como con otros movimientos sociales y de luchas territoriales en la región en la búsqueda de aunar esfuerzos para políticas más integrales que impliquen enfrentar diferentes formas de la opresión. Una de sus metas como feministas antirracistas y descoloniales latinoamericanas y caribeñas es producir un conocimiento autónomo desde sus propios posicionamientos como activistas lesbianas, indígenas y negras del sur. Colaboran con mujeres no blancas y mestizas comprometidas con una mirada y una política interseccional (o de color, como se dice comúnmente en Estados Unidos) en Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Perú, República Dominicana, México, Ecuador, Brasil, Estados Unidos y Europa. En respuesta al contexto regional de guerra, militarización y violencia, GLEFAS busca producir un análisis político desde una perspectiva feminista y lésbica antirracista, antimilitarista, anticolonial y anticapitalista. GLEFAS busca apoyar la formación de colectivos en diferentes países en la región.

Astraea Named Top Gay Charity by Qweerty.com

The Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice has been named the “#1 Top Gay Charity” by Qweerty.com. The rankings were based largely on ratings by CharityNavigator.org, where Astraea has the highest rating–—4-stars—–for organizational efficiency, organizational capacity, and overall financial health. As a public foundation with a global reach, last year Astraea awarded more than $2.2 million to 198 organizations and 21 individuals in 120 cities and 47 countries around the world.

Read the post here: Qweerty.com

“Astraea’’s holiday party was an evening full of warmth and inspiration.”—Astraea Donor

Over 100 people filled Astraea’s paper-snowflake bedecked offices last Thursday, December 4th. Pockets of conversation and laughter sprang up as donor and grantee partners, staff, board, and new friends came together to celebrate. Whether you were able to be with us in person that evening or not, we thank you—–you are an important part of Astraea and Justice in the Making the world over.

Join us for a Holiday Appreciation Party!

Hear about Astraea’s groundbreaking work over the past year and what’s planned for 2009.

Join us for a Holiday Appreciation Party! Catch up with old Astraea friends and connect with new ones. Enjoy delicious food, drink, and fabulous people. And hear about Astraea’s groundbreaking work over the past year, and what’s planned for 2009.

Thursday, December 4th 2008

5pm – 8pm
At the Astraea Offices
116 E 16th Street, Floor 7 [map]
RSVP

Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Organizing in China – Report from Lala Camps 2008

In October 2008, five groundbreaking regional Organizer Training Camps took place across China in Chengdu, Kunming, Beijing, Anshan and Shanghai.

In October 2008, five groundbreaking regional Organizer Training Camps took place across China in Chengdu, Kunming, Beijing, Anshan and Shanghai. Now, New Yorkers who were there discuss current LBT organizing efforts in China – recent victories, highlights and challenges raised by queer Chinese activists from a wide range of experiences and geographical regions.

Wednesday, December 3rd
7 – 9PM

At the Astraea Offices
116 E 16th St, 7th Floor, NYC [map]

Q N R W L 4 5 6 trains to Union Square

 

RSVP

The “Gay Adoption Ban” in the Chicago Tribune

Astraea Grantee Partner, Center for Artistic Revolution (CAR), is a founding member of Arkansas Families First, which is documenting how Act One is affecting alternative families and the more than 1,000 children languishing in foster care. More about CAR.

Next skirmish in culture war: Gay parenting

Arkansas adoption ban passes despite shortage of homes for needy children

By Bonnie Miller Rubin for the Chicago Tribune

Anne Shelley and Dr. Robin Ross are unwinding after a jampacked day of ferrying 4-year-old daughter Eva Mae from preschool to ice-skating lessons to speech therapy.

““It’’s pretty much your mundane American family,”” said Shelley, 46, over a dinner of barbecue at their home near the Ozarks.

But not everyone sees their domestic situation as a hefty slice of apple pie. Arkansas residents recently voted to ban people who are “cohabitating outside of a valid marriage,” as Shelley and Ross do, from being foster parents or adopting children as these women did.

The measure was written to prohibit straight and gay people who are living together from adopting or becoming foster parents, but it’s real objective, child welfare experts say, is to bar same-sex couples like Shelley and Ross, 52, from raising children—even if it means youngsters who desperately need families will wait longer.

““We don’’t have enough quality homes as it is, and now we’’re going to place more restrictions?”” asked Susan Hoffpauir, president of the Arkansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. “”A lot of us are still shell-shocked by this.””

While the Nov. 4 vote to ban gay marriage in California grabbed the headlines, it is same-sex parenting that is heating up as the next skirmish in the nation’s culture wars. Last week, a Florida judge struck down that state’s decades-old law preventing gays and lesbians from adopting.

Nationwide, laws on the issue are a grab bag. Florida had been the only state that had a law specifically disallowing gay individuals from adoption, although they are allowed to be foster parents. In Utah, only heterosexual, married couples can adopt. North Dakota law permits child-placement agencies to rule out prospective adoptive parents based on religious or moral objection.

Conversely, in Illinois, prospective foster and adoptive parents can be single or married, and the state’s Department of Children and Family Services cannot use sexual orientation as a basis for exclusion.

Still, many Americans are opposed to placing kids in gay households, and social conservatives hope the issue will rally voters in the same way that same-sex marriage has in recent elections.

In Arkansas, some 3,700 children are in state custody, taken from their homes because of abuse and neglect. “Of those, 960 kids (average age: 8.5 years) are available for adoption,” said Julie Munsell of the state Department of Human Services. Of the 1,100 foster homes, one-third are headed by single people.

But beyond the state system, the ban set to take effect Jan. 1 will thwart private adoptions of children like Eva Mae, left at a Vietnamese orphanage with nothing but a yellow blanket and a gaping hole where her upper lip should have been. Moreover, opponents say the new law could jeopardize a wide range of non-traditional living arrangements, such as co-habitating grandparents raising grandchildren, and are not sure how far-reaching the impact will be.

“However, such scenarios are a “smokescreen,”” said John Thomas, vice president of the Arkansas Family Council, a conservative group that pushed to get the initiative on the ballot after it had failed several times in the legislature. “The real issue,” he said, “is that the state has to set the bar higher when it comes to finding homes for children.”

“”I understand that there is a lack of homes, but I refuse to believe that the choice is between a horrible situation and a so-so situation,”” Thomas said from the group’s Little Rock headquarters. “The council took its message directly to churches, speaking out against “the gay agenda.””

But finding potential homes for foster children is a continual challenge across the country—especially for children who are older and have special needs. Some 129,000 U.S. children are in foster care, and the only criteria should be who can best provide a loving, permanent home, according to Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

In a recent report, the non-partisan group concluded that a national ban on gay adoptions could add $87 million to $130 million to foster care expenditures annually because these children would then be living in other types of institutional care, such as group homes.

“On its face, this [Arkansas] law is just crazy,” Pertman said. “I fear what will happen if other states see this as a model.”

Social conservatives say the state could alleviate the shortage of foster and adoptive parents by stepping up efforts to recruit better candidates. “We have the opportunity to create the very best families,” Thomas said. “That’s what we should be aiming for.”

Still, a broad coalition of child-advocacy organizations—including the American Academy of Pediatrics—came out against the ban, as did Gov. Mike Beebe and former President Bill Clinton. Polls, too, predicted its defeat.

So, on Election Night, Shelley and Ross—who have been together for nine years—were cautiously optimistic. Then they were stunned. The measure passed in all but two counties.

“Do I believe that most people in this state hate me and my child? No,” said Ross, a psychiatrist. “Do I believe that the Christian right is more organized here? Yes.”

Eva Mae is sprawled out on the living room floor, intently working a puzzle, oblivious to all the adult anxiety.

The two women traveled to Vietnam in 2007, returning with a lethargic 2-year-old, who, because of a cleft lip and palate, could not swallow or talk and had not been outside since she was born.

Eva Mae endured several surgeries—and while her speech is still difficult to understand, she has all but caught up to her peers in other developmental areas. “She is very smart,” said Shelley, a former community organizer turned stay-at-home mom.

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing a legal challenge to the ban. But people are afraid to bring attention to their families, said Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas.

brubin@tribune.com

SLRP Celebrates Legal Victory for Self-Determination

Astraea Grantee Partner, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, achieved a victory for gender self-determination. After a year long struggle, New York courts upheld a transgender woman’s right to change her name, reversing an earlier denial of her legal name change related to lack of medical evidence and the possibility of “confusion.”

Press release as posted on: http://www.srlp.org/namechangevictory

Read Newsday.com’s account http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–court-namechange1126nov26,0,3360898.story

The New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, held that a transgender petitioner cannot be denied a name change simply because she seeks to adopt a feminine name in the place of a traditionally masculine name.

Elisabeth Golden, a 57-year-old transgender woman, initially filed her name change petition with the Supreme Court in Broome County in October 2007. Ms. Golden has been using the name Elisabeth in her personal life since 2004, and in her professional life since 2006; she wanted a legal name that reflected her female gender identity. Her petition was heard by the Hon. Jeffrey Tait of the Supreme Court, who initially suggested that Ms. Golden supplement her petition with affidavits from physicians or therapists. After Ms. Golden refused to provide such affidavits, believing them to be private, Justice Tait denied her petition, stating that “the proposed change of name from a male to a female name is fraught with possible confusion…” Upon reviewing the decision, the Appellate Division, Third Department ordered Ms. Golden’s petition to be granted.

Writing on the behalf of a unanimous panel of five justices, Presiding Justice Anthony Cardona stated that the petitioner had the right to change her name “under common law… at will so long as there is no fraud, misrepresentation or interference with the rights of others,” The decision goes on to hold that any potential confusion arising from a transgender name change “is not, standing alone, a basis to deny a petition…” and points out that any name change, regardless of gender, has a reasonable and ordinary potential for confusion.In overturning the Supreme Court decision, the Third Department also rejected Justice Tait’s suggestion that the submission of medical or psychological affidavits were necessary to supplement Ms. Golden’s petition.

Franklin Romeo, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project attorney who represented Ms. Golden, echoed Justice Cardona’s ruling: “This decision confirms what SRLP has long argued is the law of New York: judges cannot deny a person’s petition to change their name simply because they seek to adopt a feminine name rather than a masculine name, or vice versa. Nor can they request medical evidence regarding a petitioner’s gender that is irrelevant to a name change proceeding. This is an important victory for transgender people throughout New York State.”

Ms. Golden’s petition was the first opportunity for any of the Appellate Division courts in New York to address the issue of transgender name changes. It is now binding in the Third Department (which covers most of western New York other than New York City and Long Island), and is expected to be highly persuasive across the state.

Though Ms. Golden was ecstatic when learning of her victory, she also found the entire situation bittersweet. “It is somewhat comforting to know that our rights as citizens can still be protected, but sad that it has to go this far.” She went on to say that she hoped that the ruling in her case “furthers the lives of transgender folks and helps prevent others from going through this.”

Many transgender people seek legal name changes in order to accurately reflect their gender identity and the gender they live as. By exercising their legal right to change their names, transgender people can surmount potential barriers in workplaces, education, and many other institutions that require a legal name on file.

Although many trans people do seek medical treatment and/or psychiatric counseling as part of a gender transition, not all do, especially since access to health care is far from universal. Furthermore, many trans people begin the process of transitioning socially and legally before starting medical treatment.

The Sylvia Rivera Law Project (SRLP) is a non profit legal organization dedicated to serving low income transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming people of color. SRLP works to guarantee that all people are free to self-determine their gender identity and expression, regardless of income or race, and without facing harassment, discrimination, or violence.

Press release as posted on: http://www.srlp.org/namechangevictory

Katherine Acey on Putting the Movement First in Grassroots Fundraising Journal

I have been a fundraiser for nearly three decades, but I fancy myself an activist, organizer, political thinker, manager, leader of sorts – they all have become inseparable identities for me. There have been times when, called a fundraiser to my face, I’ve even cringed, felt a jab to the heart.

Putting the Movement First

By Katherine Acey as seen in Grassroots Fundraising Journal

I have been a fundraiser for nearly three decades, but I fancy myself an activist, organizer, political thinker, manager, leader of sorts — they all have become inseparable identities for me. There have been times when, called a fundraiser to my face, I’’ve even cringed, felt a jab to the heart. Why? I didn’’t want to be seen only as a fundraiser. I wanted to be seen as a political being doing work to change the world in some small, significant way. I, like many others, had unconsciously associated this very important political act–fundraising–as devoid of politics, lacking substance, not the real work the side dish.

Me, a one-dimensional, technical functionary? Never. But I got through that phase. I know that fundraising is an important and essential part of my goal to actively seek social change in the world and a redistribution of resources, including cash.

At the last Raising Change Conference, Sonya Garcia-Ulibarri said, ““You do not have to sacrifice your politics to fundraise. You have to fundraise in order to live out your politics.’’” Embracing that simple principle takes work, demands intentional practice for the individual and for any social change organization or group. It means undoing deeply entrenched attitudes that separate our work into differently valued compartments, which serves to undermine the social change we so passionately pursue.

How can we begin to make some small shifts in how we think about and structure our work so that fundraising is cast as a key component rather than an appendage of our social change work? We may have to experience some personal discomfort, deal front-on with contradictions, as we do in all aspects of our political work.

There are small, incremental ways that we can shift the cultures of our organizations and even the functions of our various positions — volunteer or paid staff — so that the various functions that go on in our organizations — fundraising, program work, organizing — inform and support each other. We have to get over our feelings about not liking/wanting/knowing how to ask for money and that asking is only for the bold and gifted few.

Everyone — from the bookkeeper to the office manager to the organizer and the person who has the title of fundraiser — can and should be raising money. This applies to groups with no staff, too. It is not only about the fundraising committee bringing in the dough.

I am not suggesting that everyone do everything the same or spend the same amount of time doing the core functions, including fundraising. That’s not efficient or effective. What I am suggesting is what Sonya instructed: “We have to fundraise in order live out our politics,” and that we make space within organizations and our prescribed roles to see it and live it as an act of organizing and engagement.

A light bulb went off at the Astraea Foundation, where I work, this past year when we decided that our grants programs should collaborate with grantee and donor and communication projects to inform and support the fundraising efforts. This may seem obvious, but there’s a subtle, important shift of emphasis in that statement. More often than not the dominant thinking is that fundraising supports the program. In reality both things are true.

We need to pause and think about what stops us from shifting our thinking and how we structure our work. No time, too much pressure to do too much, and so on, are no longer, if they ever were, sufficient reasons. Together we can help each other see some different ways forward.

One example at Astraea is our annual house party fundraiser. Everyone on staff does something to make it happen, and everyone asks friends, colleagues, and current Astraea members for a gift, whether they can attend or not. People feel good about working as a team and seeing the results in terms of dollars and people supporting the organization.

When we make a thoughtful and intentional decision to see fundraising as integral to our work it can and does bring results. The more people we have asking for money — gifts of all sizes — the better chance we having of reaching more people. If we reach more people, we will get more money. Most of us, as generous and political as we are, don’t give unless asked.

Imagine the results if we behaved as if fundraising was an integral part of our organizing, that donors and constituents were one — ready to be mobilized at any moment. I would trade any one big gift from an individual or a foundation (and I like big gifts) for smaller gifts from hundreds of people.

We face inherent dilemmas and contradictions when we talk about fundraising for social change and building a social justice feminist movement. One major contradiction for nonprofits (and public foundations like Astraea that fundraise for their budget) is that we are simultaneously trying to build a movement as we build institutions. While many of us may feel that we are building the institution to build the movement, there are hard realities that we have to resolve. We believe that the institution is just a vehicle to achieve a greater good, and we know we are in constant peril of its taking on a life of its own. In doing all we need to keep those doors open, the mission and the vision to support movement building can sometimes disappear from focus.

How many of us have had felt we had to distinguish our groups by saying we are the first, we are the only, we are the biggest, we do it the best, as opposed to admitting that we would like to be out of business in ten years and here’s our plan to do that? How many of us realize that we can’t move ahead without these five or ten other groups moving with us?

The way nonprofits are structured, including public foundations of which Astraea is a part, is that we work mostly alone, perhaps occasionally sharing information, networking, or occasionally working on a project together. There are not many organizations whose primary goal is to collaborate and of those that do collaborate, few have a well-thought-out strategy for it, including fundraising. Can we break out of this old model? It’s a direct hindrance to movement building, which is all about collaboration and collective process.

Just as we’re at a moment of possibility for political change, let’s keep our hearts and minds open to change within ourselves, our organizations, our movements. Let’s each of us resist the “Yes, but” when a new idea comes up that feels hard and instead figure out how to make it possible and who needs to be at the table. Let us use the power we have in order to get all the power and money that is needed to transform — not merely make minor adjustments — to our world.

KATHERINE ACEY IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ASTRAEA LESBIAN FOUNDATION FOR JUSTICE.

Women’s Night at the Asia Society Museum

Meet intriguing people, enjoy free exhibition admission and exhibition tours, and pick up a great martini.


Art and China’s Revolution: “Chairman Mao Inspects the Guangdong Countryside” (1972) by Chen Yanning

 

Hosted by Astraea, Asia Society, FSIX, LYNX/Out Professionals and q-wave
Women’s Night
at Asia Society’s Leo Bar

Friday, November 21, 6 – 9pm
Asia Society and Museum
725 Park Avenue at 70th Street [Map]
New York City

Happy Hour prices from 6 – 7pm
Take a free exhibition tour at 7:15pm or 7:45pm.

Asia Society invites FSIX, LYNX/Out Professionals, q-wave and Astraea members and friends to LGBTI Women’s Night at Leo Bar. Drink, chat, and mingle–in a museum! Meet intriguing people, enjoy free exhibition admission and exhibition tours, and pick up a great martini.

Leo Bar is a cash bar with no cover charge

Free exhibition tours:
Art and China’s Revolution

This groundbreaking exhibition is the first-ever to focus on three of the most tumultuous and catastrophic decades in China’s recent history–the 1950s through 1970s.

Read New York Times review