Yesterday I posted a video showing what happens to women everyday as they walk down the street.
I think it was in March of 1969 when I went for my first appointment at the Center For Special Problems in San Francisco.
I had been out in public mostly with friends maybe half a dozen times prior to that day.
I got off the bus at the East Bay Terminal and walked over to Union Square. It was the first time I experienced all the catcalling as a woman. I was so excited, it was so different from the catcalling I had experience as a presumed gay androgynous person. The filth I had experienced before had always had a strong dose of verbal violence and threat.
When I got back to Berkeley and told some women, who lived in the collective, they rolled their eyes and said, You’re going to get tired of it really quickly.”
Part of being a politically aware hippie woman with a blossoming level of feminist awareness meant that what was fun the first few dozen times grew stupider and stupider with each passing incident.
After I was raped in 1974 I started studying the martial arts and learned to move with alertness and confidence, like a woman warrior. I dressed like a dyke and wore feminist t-shirts, a combination that armored me up when it came to the street bullshit.
Over the years the street harassment has become far more vicious and threatening. Hiphop culture has made thuggish behavior acceptable while the right wing has seriously pushed misogyny as part of the cultural wars.
I’m old and mostly travel by car, I live in suburbia and that sort of bullshit would have neighborhood watch up in arms. It has been some 15 years or so since I was last harassed. The last couple of incidents were rather threatening.
When one happened I was out early in the morning, power-walking and involved a gang of young black men. When I ignored them they whipped out the catcalls accusing me of being a man. One of those incidents where I would have felt a great deal safer with a handgun in my fanny pack.
Then a drunken Latino man grabbed me and groped me as I was coming home from the grocery store. My martial arts skills kicked in and I kicked him several time. Didn’t even drop my groceries.
We are coming up on the Day of Remembrance Ceremonies around the world. Some of the violence done to trans-women starts off as street harassment and escalates from there.
Lessons in how to deal with street harassment should be part of the counseling given women coming out as trans early in their transition. It could save their lives.
That and convincing sisters to do safer forms of sex work other than working the strets.
Some things you shouldn’t assume.
Don’t assume that just because I’m an old dyke I want to go to the Michigan Wymonz Muzack Festival. As much as I like the country I haven’t any desire to sleep on the ground when there are perfectly good beds to be had.
Besides which I pride myself in having really eclectic musical tastes and while I might well listen to some of the artists who play the MWMF there are many I have never heard of.
I also like to support local music and musicians.
I haven’t a clue as to local lesbian bars. My partner and I don’t drink.
I don’t do Pride Day. It is generally really freaking hot, parking is non-existent and I am usually at work. Besides I’m old and I’ve been there and done that… Way too many times.
I don’t know any trans-bars or local organizations/rap groups. I had SRS well over 40 years ago and every traumatic transition story is basically the same. Time to give young folks the pride of doing their part and being activists.
What’s a “genderqueer”? (Snark) We used to say people doing “genderqueer” were doing “Gender Fuck”. Back in the post-1960s people understood camp and detournement, today everyone is so freaking deadly serious and expect you to automatically know and use proper pronouns even when they made those pronouns up.
I’m a vanilla crunchy old hippie dyke. I think all the emphasis on gender is really retro and conservative. I don’t do BDSM… If it floats your boat… Whatever… I too have hobbies that some think are strange, like going to a gun range and shooting my 9mm.
Same sex marriage is more important to me now I am old than it used to be. I used to think it reactionary but I’ve seen how the powers that be fuck over unmarried people, particularly old folks when one partner dies.
I vote Democratic. I’m pretty much a working class Democrat. Don’t assume I embrace “identity politics”. I don’t. I think they are a curse that keeps people from supporting progressive politics.
I don’t like the police state. I think it is time to end the drug prohibition, in part because I think pot might help with the pain in my hands and other joints. I oppose most progressives on matters of gun control and think many of the roots of gun control are both racist and classist.
I believe in unions and I am skeptical of the efficacy of anti-discrimination laws in a world where workers have no real rights. In that sort of world anti-discrimination laws seem like a diversion.
I know it is trendy for progressives to be anti-Israel. I support Israel, I think it is the only real democracy in the Middle East, the only place in the region where women and LGBT people have any real rights. Besides Israel is one of our strongest and best allies.
Don’t assume I like pop music or give a rat’s ass about various divas. Or cable shows featuring TG-folks. I’ve never seen Orange is the New Black. Yes Laverne Cox is a great advocate for TS/TG folks but I could barely put up with “The L-Word” and prison dramas… Well there are way too many folks actually in prison and I doubt any dramas do them justice.
I’m an old hippie. I like roots music, interesting food. I work to be able to live. I don’t live to work and earn lots of money for my employer. I do art, play music and the like because I like doing it, not because I’m really good at it and can make lots of money.
I may be post-transsexual but I don’t own any high heels, I prefer athletic shoes and Birkenstocks. I don’t wear make-up and consider fashion a bore. Actually I consider fashion rather stupid, “Vogue on the outside, vague on the inside.”
I’m not a member of the Transgender Community… It came along long after I was post-transition. I have TS/TG friends. I support the rights but the drama and fighting gets to me. I think calling transsexuals who claim that label elitists is fucked up Everyone else gets to pick their own labels why not transsexuals?
While I’m at it transsexuals have the right to experience life after SRS as individuals and not according to the ideology of some committee made up of transgender authorities.
Stop assuming we are all the same. I’m working class, a hippie, a crunchy dyke. My experiences make me different than a middle class person who came in middle age after a marriage and fully developed career. We don’t have all that much in common.
By Don Hazen
October 25, 2014
As the editor of AlterNet for 20 years, I have read and seen the entire range of horrendous and growing problems we face as a society and a planet virtually every day. It is not just climate change, or ISIL, or Ferguson, or poverty and homelessness, or more misogynistic murdering of women, or the Democrats about to lose the Senate as Obama gets more unpopular. It is much, much more. Every day, it passes by before my eyes. At AlterNet, there are no issue silos—there is just the open faucet of depressing political information coming and going every hour of every day (with the occasional story of success and inspiration).
So I am sorry to share my deep-seated opinion, which should jibe with anyone who is paying attention. After decades of engagement in progressive politics and media, it is very clear to me: we progressives, liberals, common-sense people, are losing badly to the conservative business state, the tyranny of massively expanding tech companies, theocratic right-wing forces and pervasive militarism, home and abroad. By virtually every measure, things are getting worse. And things are trending much, much worse in ways we can easily measure, like inequality, climate, militarization of police forces, etc., and in ways that are more psychological and emotional.
Americans are very pessimistic: 76 percent of respondents in a Wall Street Journal poll did not feel confident that their children’s generation will have a better life than theirs. That’s up from 60 percent in 2007. Optimism for Americans peaked in 2001. The percentage of American adults who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped eight percentage points just this summer, to 71 percent, the WSJ poll found.
And Americans’ dark views of the future are rational, as their lives have become so much more difficult and depressing. People are working longer hours, working far past previous retirement age—if they can retire at all. Many Americans do not take vacations. And many Americans of all ages can’t find good jobs, or can only find low-paying and often part-time work, which causes their lifestyles to plummet. College graduates are burdened with heavy debt.
Younger generations know that the perhaps romantic notion of the American Dream, for most people, lies in the trash bin. Over the past 15 years there was more than a 50 percent increase in people thinking there is a lack of opportunity in America (it is now just about half of all Americans). And 59 percent of Americans believe the American Dream is impossible to achieve for most people.
In terms of inequality, the Huffington Post wrote: “more than 45 million people, or 14.5 percent of all Americans, lived below the poverty line last year, the Census Bureau reported.…The annual income threshold for being counted as living in poverty was $11,490 last year for a person and $23,550 for a family of four.”
Poverty is particularly dire for single mothers: A third of all families headed by single women were in poverty last year—that’s 15.6 million such households. The black poverty rate was 27.2 percent.… More than 11 million black Americans lived below the poverty level last year. About 42.5 percent of the households headed by single black women were in poverty. The Hispanic poverty rate was 23.5 percent.”
The Long March Toward Conservative Corporate Dominance
Sunday, Oct 26, 2014
That we are living through an endless repeat of the 1970s is becoming more apparent all the time. Nostalgia and retro culture burn as brightly today as they did in the era of “Happy Days” and “American Graffiti,” while distrust and suspicion of government hover at near-Watergate levels. Disaster dreams are everywhere, just as they were in the days of “The Towering Inferno” and Three Mile Island. The culture wars, the 1970s’ No. 1 gift to American politics, still drag on and on, while the New Right, the decade’s other great political invention, effortlessly rejuvenates itself. Jerry Brown is governor of California again. The Kansas City Royals are a good team.
No reminiscence of that decade of malaise would be complete without mentioning Jimmy Carter, the president who—fairly or not—will be forever associated with national drift and decline and all the other horrors that were eventually swept away by the Reagan magisterium. Indeed, comparing the hapless Carter to whoever currently leads the Democratic Party remains a powerful shibboleth for American conservatives, and in 2011 and 2012 Republicans indulged in this favorite simile without hesitation.
I pretty much ignored the Carter-Obama comparison in those days because it was so manifestly empty—a partisan insult based on nothing but the lousy economy faced by both Carter and Obama as well as the recurring problem of beleaguered American embassies in the Muslim world. (Get it? Benghazi=Tehran!) More important for Republican purposes was the memory that Jimmy Carter lost his re-election campaign, which they creatively merged with their hopes that Obama would lose, too. Other than that, the comparison had little connection to actual facts; it was a waste of trees and precious pixels.
What has changed my mind about the usefulness of the comparison is my friend Rick Perlstein’s vast and engrossing new history of the ’70s, “The Invisible Bridge.” The book’s main subject is the rise of Ronald Reagan, but Perlstein’s detailed description of Carter’s run for the presidency in 1976 evokes more recent events so startlingly that the comparison with Obama is impossible to avoid. After talking over the subject with Perlstein (watch this space for the full interview), I am more startled by the similarities than ever.
In 1976, when Carter shocked the political world by beating a field of better-known politicians for the Democratic presidential nomination, the essence of his appeal was pure idealism—idealism without ideology, even. He presented himself, Perlstein writes, as an “antipolitician,” a figure of reconciliation who could restore our best qualities after the disasters of Vietnam and Watergate.
Jimmy Carter’s actual politics were ambiguous, however, in a way that should be very familiar. His speechwriter James Fallows wrote in 1979 that he initially signed up with the candidate out of a hope that he “might look past the tired formulas of left and right and offer something new.” As with Barack Obama, who promised to bring a post-partisan end to Washington squabbling, Jimmy Carter’s idealism was not a matter of policies or political ideas but rather of the candidate as a person, a transcendent figure of humility and uprightness.
Continue reading at: http://www.salon.com/2014/10/26/thomas_frank_we_are_such_losers/
Author and activist Naomi Klein was awarded Canada’s top annual prize for non-fiction writing this week, the Hilary Weston Prize presented by the Writers’ Trust of Canada, for her recently published book, ‘This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.‘
According to the citation offered by the jurors:
Klein’s This Changes Everything is a ground-breaking work on how climate change changes everything. Written with an elegant blend of science, statistics, field reports and personal insight, it does not paralyze but buoys the reader. The book’s exploration of climate change from the perspective of how capitalism functions produces fresh insights and its examination of the interconnectedness between our relationship with nature and the creation of better, fairer societies presents a radical proposal. Klein’s urgency and outrage is balanced by meticulous documentation and passionate argument. Heart and mind go hand in hand in this magisterial response to a present crisis.
Klein admitted being quite surprised by the award—saying from the podium that “this wasn’t suppose to happen.” Directly after receiving the award, the author explained the nature of her surprise to Brian Bethune at MacLean‘s by saying, “The book is a really radical thesis and this is an establishment prize.” Hilary Weston is a former liutenant governor of Ontario and is married to Galen Weston, who runs a food and retail empire in the country. The family is recognized as the second-wealthiest in Canada.
”I suppose I have [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper to thank for the book’s success,” Klein told Bethune. “Every day, he tells Canadians they have to choose between economic prosperity and environmental and climatic protection, and Canadians know that’s not true. They know they don’t have to make that choice. But we do have to talk about change; we need this conversation.”
In a post-award interview with CBC Books, Klein said that perhaps the award would allow “even people who disagree with my politics” to engage with the book. “For me, I want the book to stimulate debate, I don’t just want the book to entrench people’s positions,” she said.
In a subsequent televised interview with the CBC‘s Andrew Nichols on Wednesday, Klein said that while it was very nice to be recognized for her writing and the quality of the work—the prize is decided by a jury of writers—she thinks the real strength of the book, and readers’ attraction to it, ultimately hinges on its subject matter.
What the book is really calling for, explained Klein, is having a more “strategic economy” in which the sectors that are fueling climate change—with special focus on the fossil fuel industry—are wound down and the sectors that have lesser negative impacts on the planet’s natural systems are revved up. “We know what we need to do in the face of this crisis,” she said. “It’s just that we have an economic system that seems to be locking us into this one particular road. So we need to talk about that system, not just the carbon.”
And when Nichols asked if she was essentially advocating for a new economic system, Klein quickly answered, “I am.”
By Dahr Jamail
Monday, 20 October 2014
As we look across the globe this month, the signs of a continued escalation of the impacts of runaway anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) continue to increase, alongside a drumbeat of fresh scientific studies confirming their connection to the ongoing human geo-engineering project of emitting carbon dioxide at ever-increasing rates into the atmosphere.
A major study recently published in New Scientist found that “scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate,” and said that ACD is “worse than we thought” because it is happening “faster than we realized.”
As has become predictable now, as evidence of increasing ACD continues to mount, denial and corporate exploitation are accelerating right along with it.
The famed Northwest Passage is now being exploited by luxury cruise companies. Given the ongoing melting of the Arctic ice cap, a company recently announced a 900-mile, 32-day luxury cruise there, with fares starting at $20,000, so people can luxuriate while viewing the demise of the planetary ecosystem.
This, while even mainstream scientists now no longer view ACD in the future tense, but as a reality that is already well underway and severely impacting the planet.
It is good that even the more conservative scientists have come aboard the reality train, because a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led (NOAA) study published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has provided yet more evidence linking ACD with extreme heat events.
To provide perspective on how far along we are regarding runaway ACD, another recent study shows that the planet’s wildlife population is less than half the size it was four decades ago. The culprits are both ACD and unsustainable human consumption, coupling to destroy habitats faster than previously thought, as biodiversity loss has now reached “critical levels,” according to the report. More than half of the vertebrate population on the planet has been annihilated in just four decades.
Let that sink in for a moment before reading further.
By> Lynn Stuart Parramore
October 21, 2014
According to a new report, the richest one percent have got their mitts on almost half the world’s assets. Think that’s the end of the story? Think again. This is only the beginning.
The “ Global Annual Wealth Report,” freshly released by investment giant Credit Suisse, analyzes the shocking trend of growing wealth inequality around the world. What the researchers find is that global wealth has increased every year since 2008, and that personal wealth seems to be rising at the fastest rate ever recorded, much of it driven by strong equity markets. But the benefits of this growth have largely been channeled to those who are already affluent. While the restaurant workers in America struggled to achieve wages of $10 an hour for their labor, those invested in equities saw their wealth soar without lifting a finger. So it goes around the world.
The bottom half of the world’s people now own less than 1 percent of total wealth, and they’re struggling to hold onto even that minuscule portion. On the other hand, the wealthiest 10 percent have accumulated a staggering 87 percent of global assets. The top percentile has 48.2 percent of the world wealth. For now.
One of the scary things about the wealth of the supperich is what French economist Thomas Piketty pointed out in his best-selling book, Capital in the 21st Century. Once they’ve got a big chunk of wealth, their share will get bigger even if they sit by and do absolutely nothing. Piketty sums up this economic reality in a simple and horrifying formula: r > g.
Basically, this means that when rate of return on wealth is greater than the overall rate of growth of the economy, as it has nearly always been throughout history, the rich will grow inevitably richer and the poor poorer unless there is some kind of intervention, like higher taxes on wealth, for example. If r is less than g, the assets of the super-wealthy will erode, but if r is greater than g, you eventually get the explosion of gigantic inherited fortunes and dynasties.
This is happening now: If you look at the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people in America, you see a lot more inherited fortunes in the upper ranks than you did a couple of decades ago, when the policies that held inequality at bay began to get dismantled. In today’s top 10, there are more scions of the Walton family than entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. These people have essentially done nothing of value for society, and yet their undue influence shapes our political landscape with the wave of a wad of cash.
Carlos Maza & Joe Strupp
October 22, 2014
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat apologized for appearing at a fundraising event for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an extreme anti-gay legal group working to criminalize homosexuality.
On October 16, Douthat spoke at “The Price of Citizenship: Losing Religious Freedom in America,” an event held by ADF and aimed at drawing attention to a number of popular right-wing horror stories about the threat LGBT equality poses to religious liberty. Douthat spoke alongside radio host Hugh Hewitt and the Benham brothers, who are notorious for their history of extreme anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-Muslim rhetoric. The event ended with explicit solicitations for donations to support ADF’s legal work.
As Media Matters noted, ADF is one of the most extreme anti-gay legal groups in the country, fighting against even basic legal protections for LGBT people and working internationally to repress LGBT human rights, including supporting Belize’s draconian law criminalizing gay sex.
On Wednesday, Douthat explained that he did not know ADF’s event was a fundraiser and said he plans to decline the honorarium he received from the event.
“I was not aware in advance that this event was a fundraiser and had I known, I would not have agreed to participate,” he said in a statement issued to Media Matters through the Times Wednesday. “I was invited by an events organizing group, not by ADF directly. I understood this to be a public conversation about religious liberty. This is my fault for not doing my due diligence, and I will be declining the honorarium.”
“Douthat’s helping ADF raise money is disturbing,” said Richard Rosendall, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. “I am not inclined to jump all over the Times for it, as they feature a range of columnists and a columnist needs some room to say and do the wrong thing, and then be duly criticized for it. But ADF does not merely engage in polite disagreement. It is relentless in its attacks on equal protection of gay people and families. If this is the company that Douthat is happy keeping, it says unfortunate things about him.”
Times officials declined to comment.
From Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/14/top-1-own-half
The top one percent of the wealthiest people on the planet own nearly fifty percent of the world’s assets while the bottom fifty percent of the global population combined own less than one percent of the world’s wealth.
Those are the findings of an annual report by the investment firm Credit Suisse released Tuesday—the 2014 Global Wealth Report (pdf)—which shows that global economic inequality has surged since the financial collapse of 2008.
According to the report, “global wealth has grown to a new record, rising by $20.1 trillion between mid-2013 and mid-2014, an increase of 8.3%, to reach $263 trillion – more than twice the $117 trillion recorded for the year 2000.”
Though the rate of this wealth creation has been particularly fast over the last year—the fastest annual growth recorded since the pre-crisis year of 2007—the report notes that the benefits of this overall growth have flowed disproportionately to the already wealthy. And the report reveals that as of mid-2014, “the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest decile hold 87% of the world’s wealth, and the top percentile alone account for 48.2% of global assets.”
Campaigners at Oxfam International, which earlier this put out their own report on global inequality (pdf), said the Credit Suisse report, though generally serving separate aims, confirms what they also found in terms of global inequality.
“These figures give more evidence that inequality is extreme and growing, and that economic recovery following the financial crisis has been skewed in favour of the wealthiest. In poor countries, rising inequality means the difference between children getting the chance to go to school and sick people getting life saving medicines,” Oxfam’s head of inequality Emma Seery, told the Guardian in response to the latest study.
In addition to giving an overall view of trends in global wealth, the authors of the Credit Suisse gave special attention to the issue of inequality in this year’s report, noting the increasing level of concern surrounding the topic. “The changing distribution of wealth is now one of the most widely discussed and controversial of topics,” they write, “Not least owing to [French economist] Thomas Piketty’s recent account of long-term trends around inequality. We are confident that the depth of our data will make a valuable contribution to the inequality debate.”
According to the report:
In almost all countries, the mean wealth of the top decile (i.e. the wealthiest 10% of adults) is more than ten times median wealth. For the top percentile (i.e. the wealthiest 1% of adults), mean wealth exceeds 100 times the median wealth in many countries and can approach 1000 times the median in the most unequal nations. This has been the case throughout most of human history, with wealth ownership often equating with land holdings, and wealth more often acquired via inheritance or conquest rather than talent or hard work. However, a combination of factors caused wealth inequality to trend downwards in high income countries during much of the 20th century, suggesting that a new era had emerged. That downward trend now appears to have stalled, and posssibly gone into reverse.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
On Friday, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen warned that “income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred years”. On Saturday, Senator Elizabeth Warren called for federal student loan refinancing, and declared: “The game is rigged, and the Republicans rigged it.” On Sunday, along with a secret memo that threatened “crushing” defeats, there was the headline on the front page of the New York Times: “Black Vote Seen as Last Hope for Democrats to Hold Senate”.
Inequality: it’s all anybody can talk about … except Democrats on the campaign trail who, with two weeks before Election Day, desperately need to turn out the very people so disproportionately affected by it – young and minority voters.
Sure, the teacher-backed Super-Pacs are hitting Republicans from Arkansas and North Carolina to Hawaii and back again for wanting to “shut down” public education. Yes, ignoring affordable housing is the stuff attack ads are made of.
But housing and education are issues of inequality that have solutions, not just stump-speech lines or YouTube-ready complaints. And if Democrats have any hope left in the midterms, they cannot be this shamefully muted on bold progressive policies that could dramatically improve the lives of voters who just happen to hold the keys to a majority of the United States Senate.
Barack Obama’s neglect on foreclosure has been well-documented. The housing crisis turned countless former homeowners into renters and, now, into would-be voters in dire straits. More than four in 10 of very low-income US households have no access to subsidized housing, and are instead paying more than 50% of their income in rent, living in horrific conditions or both. We have about as much public housing today as we did in the mid-1970s, losing 10,000 units per year, even though the US population is now 47% bigger.
An easy fix would be to simply expand the stock of affordable housing, especially units available to low- and moderate-income households. And believe it or not, the Obama administration has the unilateral authority to do so, without Congress. The National Housing Trust Fund, a program created during the second Bush administration, was never actually funded. But the National Low Income Housing Coalition believes we could end homelessness in America in 10 years if it was funded now. So what are Democrats so afraid of?
Money for the fund is supposed to come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but their regulator – the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) – has been preventing the cash from flowing. Now Fannie and Freddie are profitable, and putting all of those profits towards deficit reduction, instead of setting aside a small portion for people who need somewhere to live.
Monica Roberts can send me up the wall. That said she is one damned powerful advocate.
Just as folks helped Tina and I avoid foreclosure last month Please try to do the same for Monica if you can.
Alright, Bilerico family, we need your help.
Many of you know former contributor Monica Roberts. She’s a force of nature: the award-winning blogger behind TransGriot; a founding member of the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition; an accomplished writer, lecturer, organizer, conference speaker, and activist; a proud trans woman of color, and a passionate advocate for transgender civil rights.
And today, she was this close to being homeless, after being unjustly evicted from her home in Houston, Texas by an intolerant family member.
In the 20 years I’ve been transtioned, while I’ve dealt with unemployment, I’ve always managed on one level or another to keep a roof over my head and avoid being part of that trans homeless narrative. Until now.
Due to a confluence of events, I’m about to get bounced from the place I’ve called home for the last four years, and one of the relocation options I was counting on fell through.
So I’m staring at the prospect of being part of the transgender homeless stats…
Those stats Monica’s talking about are sobering: one in five trans people have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives due to discrimination and family rejection. Trans people even face discrimination when they seek help at homeless shelters: 29% of trans people facing homelessness report being turned away due to their transgender status, and 42% say they’ve been forced to stay in a shelter living as their wrong gender.
We can’t let this happen to Monica. She’s been there for so many of us, and now it’s time for us to be there for her.
Thankfully, the online queer community found Monica a place to stay in Houston during the month of November and a guest bedroom to crash at between now and then. (Yes, she literally had to leave today.) But because she’s been an unpaid, live-in caretaker for her grandmother, she doesn’t have cash for the basic everyday living expenses that she’ll need now that she’s on her own.
I know how amazingly generous the Bilerico family is, so I’m asking you to direct that generosity over to our sister Monica during her time of need.
Please join Bil and me in sending some cash Monica’s way — click the button below to donate. Let’s show this fierce advocate that we’ve got her back.