Scooters, Women's Bodies, and Male Anger

[Trigger warning for Male Anger manifesting in misogynistic language, threats of violence, and verbal harrassment]

Bluejay and I got a scooter back in the spring which we have been using daily as our main mode of transportation. Scooters are excellent, especially in the city. In the city no one can go much faster than 30 mph (the speed that a scooter tops out at) for long stretches anyway. In the city there are often long lines at lights where scooters can mosey up the right side and then scoot off into the sunset when the light turns. In most municipalities, scooters have rights to the bike lanes, thus making us potentially safer than otherwise. Scooters look cool (ours is creamsicle-like, white and orange), and they awesome gas mileage (on a tank of gas from a crappy gas station we only get 50 mpg but on a tank of gas from a high end station we get like 90 or 100 mpg).

One thing that isn't so great about scooters though is Male Anger. Scooters (and bikes) tend to make men in SUVs cranky. A few months back when Bluejay and I were going somewhere (yep, it fits two people), we stopped at the red light. Seems pretty normal, right? Other than the asshole in the SUV (actual bumper sticker: Got Oil?) behind us apparently wanted us to continue out into traffic. He honked, (Bluejay gave him the finger, he doesn't like the tendency of Boston drivers to honk at you for following traffic laws). I took the right on red I was planning on taking moments ago anyway (after having actually deliberated on whether another car would hit us if I did... you know, following those pesky traffic laws). He of courseb sped up, pulled around us into another lane, yelled curse words out the window at us, (I gave him the finger, not realizing that this was the second finger of the encounter), and proceeded to pull into the lane in front of us and weave back and forth from lane to lane when I tried to get out from behind him. Male Anger. Sort of terrifying. You know, what with us being on an open to the elements motorized bicycle, and him in a fucking Hummer (no joke). The best that could be said about him was that he had absolutely no respect for the fact that his actions could have killed us, the worst that could be said is that he was actively attempting to get us to crash.

Last night, on my way home from class I got another taste of the way that scooters elicit male anger. You should know that Boston has a notoriously large community of bicyclists that a) almost never follow traffic laws (as in passing lines of cars stopped at a red for the past minute, and then proceeding to somehow make a left on the red through oncoming traffic), b) rarely wear safety gear (brakes?!? who gives a shit about brakes! helmets? pah! they'll mess up my carefully mussed hair). Perhaps you've noticed from my rhetoric a slight disdain for that type of "loose"ness with one's safety? As in, that even if I meander towards the front of a stopped line I don't actually breeze through reds, and that I wear a helmet, and not a "brain bucket" helmet, but a full helmet with a clear eye guard that I put down in inclement weather.

So I'm stopped at the light waiting for an opening to take my left when a guy pulls up to me (I don't notice him, focusing on oncoming cars) and hisses out the window "put your face mask down, Bitch," just as there is an opening/I'm leaving. Usually in encounters like this I'm too flabbergasted, but in this case I knew exactly what I wanted to say but the coward/asswipe had already sped off.

Does this guy give such helpful safety tips to all the guys around town who think that little half-melon helmets are sufficient? Does he hiss "buy a better helmet, MAN (said with derision)" when he passes them? Does he perhaps verbally assault the male bicyclists he sees around town as they go from place to place without any protective headgear? I mean, really, what exactly is he trying to accomplish here. Did my facemask offend his delicate sensibilities?

I'm not a woman, but he clearly thought I was. I feel (just maybe) that he found the idea of a woman scooting as intimidating. Why? The experience got me to thinking about a town I used to live in where the entire biking community knew about this person who would drive around and while passing them (while they were being entirely safe and legal) would shout obscenities at them (calling them "bike faggots," among other things), and the police refused to do anything because they never "caught her in the act" and she would explain that she was just doing it for bicyclists' "safety" (uh huh? pull the other, it's got bells on it). What is it about bikes and scooters that scares people? What is it about them that is coded as "feminine" (the use of "faggot" I feel like is pretty indicative of a desire/belief that bicyclists are somehow effeminate or less manly if they aren't already women)? And why this need to police the bodies of those who are assumed to be women (or are just assumed to be feminine men)?

Kokopelli, Mohawks, Appropriation, and White Racism/Privilege

This is a sort of scattered post today.

I've been thinking about Kokopelli recently because of two events. The first event (though chronologically second) is that my partner and I visited the house of one of his good friends, who has a woven rug/runner thing tacked to the wall with like 20 Kokopellis woven along it basically in a conga line. The second event (chronologically first) is that a couple weeks ago, while over at my parents house, my sister mentioned that her friend had a tattoo (I believe, I can't think of the context, but I can't think of what else it would have been BUT a tattoo) of Kokopelli. Apparently I made a face, because my sister found it necessary to explain that Kokopelli is a "Native American god*" (again, I'm not certain that was exactly what she said, but I AM certain she didn't specify either: what tribes worship(ped) him or what his powers are believed to be). I stated that I knew exactly who Kokopelli is and that my face was for the fact that I think it's really screwed up for white people (her friend is a white person, just like my whole family) to appropriate meaningful symbols/gods from other cultures.

My sister countered that I didn't know how meaningful Kokopelli is to her friend. I don't care how meaningful Kokopelli is to white folks... pick a fertility god from a culture you have a background in... oh wait, what's that?, you didn't know that Kokopelli is a fertility god?, wow he must be SUPER meaningful to you I suppose! (Sorry, angry rant done). We dropped it soon after because regardless of whatever we'd say, it wouldn't change the fact that her friend had that tattoo** (they're permanent you know).

I thought back to that argument (which my partner was there for) when we entered his friend's house. I looked at the wall hanging, and was made intensely uncomfortable by it, but we were there to ask for a favor (or something), so I didn't say anything. Which makes me feel cruddy. I think the difference was that my sister brought it up in conversation the first time, whereas just seeing a wall-hanging isn't exactly an invitation to talk about it. But I still wish I'd said something (perhaps next time we're over I'll ask what her interest in fertility gods is?).

So obviously appropriation of Native cultures has been on my mind a lot recently.

Which brings me to Native Appropriations, and Adrienne's most recent post about white people wearing "Indian"/"Indian-style" headdresses. Now there are some things I don't love about her posts on the topic, well, really just one thing. It's that she calls them "Hipster Headdresses." Yes, most hipsters are white/come from upper-middle class backgrounds, but not all. Appropriation that those (privileged) individuals do they do as privileged white/rich people, not as "hipsters." Hipsters are not defacto privileged, there isn't "hipster privilege," so it seems stupid to say it's a "hipster" thing instead of (say) a "white thing" or a "rich thing." This is a common naming that happens in liberal/radical groups where I'll hear people talk about "hipster racism" as though it isn't the same damn racism that other white people do. It's white racism, and rich classism, it isn't special to hipsters, and they aren't a specially protected/privileged group (in my analogies on this subject I've pointed out that tea drinkers are probably predominantly white/privileged just like hipsters, but we don't call racism perpetrated by them "tea drinker racism"). Anyway.

One of the things that happened the other day while I was reading her post (wherein she describes having a clothing designer come to an old post to harrass her about being opposed to white people using headdresses as a cool new "accessory") was that I was struck with revulsion at the privileged asshole-ishness of E. Starbuck. Fuck that noise.

Which brings me to mohawks (the hairstyle, not the tribe).

I'm a white person, so I have white privilege. In high school I had dreads (not something I'm proud of these days, but at the time it didn't seem like a big deal). In college I had a mohawk. For a long time I've mourned that I "can't" have a mohawk anymore. For a while I felt I couldn't because I was out in the world where people would judge me negatively for having hair that didn't conform to "appropriate" standards (but I was going to find a job and then settle in and then shave it again). More recently (the past year and a bit) I've been feeling like I "can't" wear one because of the appropriation aspect of it. But I've been fighting that. I didn't feel like it was a choice I was making for myself, but one that was made for me, and it made me upset and sad (boo hoo, I know). I'd see a person (usually white, sometimes black) walking down the street with a mohawk and sigh longingly, and then Bluejay (my partner) had to remind me that it's appropriative and such. And I keep/kept saying "but hair! it's... anyone could think up shaving a stripe onto your head! plus! all the white hairstyles are boring" and then he'd (very smart, my partner is) point out that the reason that mohawks and dreads and such seem "cool" and "not boring" is because of uh, white privilege, appropriation, and racism. So then I spent weeks/months whining (not often) about how I guess I'd just have to come up with a "not boring" hairstyle that wasn't appropriative.

Bluejay pointed out to me that maybe I could use this as a learning experience to acknowledge how difficult it can be for other white folk to give up something that they think of as dear to their hearts (Kokopelli, sweat lodges, "moccasins," whatever) "just" because of white privilege. He pointed out that the things that I've "given up" because they were racist (not going to see Avatar, being opposed to conflict diamonds, etc.) are things that I either don't care about (like clothes/jewelry) or was anti-racist before I heard about them, and thus didn't find appealing (like Avatar), so it wasn't a very big sacrifice. I'm not sure Bluejay's idea worked in making me more sympathetic to people who cling to privilege, but it is helping me acknowledge that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but instead flawed (gasp! shock! horror!).

But hey! luckily for me (and my fragile white psyche), E. Starbuck has made it oh-so-easy for me to give up my fantasy for oppression-free mohawks. How? Because the second I read zir screed, I said to myself "oh fuck, I NEVER want to act like that privileged a wanker, that's probably what I sound like about mohawks." And I was (very close to) cured of my desire for one. I mean damn but that's a jerkish thing to do: seek out a Native person to harrass because they are opposed to you stealing their culture. Ugh.

So, I don't have a really good wrap up to this, other than I guess to acknowledge to myself and the world that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but with a little help from friends (and racist assholes) I can work to be less oppressive to others. Who knows, if I talk with Bluejay's friend about Kokopelli perhaps we can move together towards a less oppressive future.

------------------------
*Using a non-capitalized "god" is not meant as a disrespect to Native cultures, but is instead due to my desire to not give a false reverence which I do not feel for any religions' god(dess)(es).

**For full disclosure I should mention that for 3 or so years in undergrad I seriously believed I'd get a full back tattoo of Quan Yin and Kali, two archetypes/goddesses/symbols that I really appreciated. At some point during that time I was talking with a Hindu friend of mine who apparently told me he thought it was fucked up that I was going to get a tattoo of a Hindu goddess even though I wasn't Hindu. I don't remember that conversation, but I do remember the one following it when he brought it up later as I mentioned some hugely disrespectful toilet paper with Hindu gods on it (I believe). He implied that what I was planning (still at the time interested in the tattoo) was only slightly less disrespectful than the toilet paper. I'm pretty sure I behaved in a privileged white way as a response (blabbing on about how she was meaningful to me, etc.). I don't know if I ever apologized to him for that (we no longer chat much). So, just to say that I'm not immune from having felt like appropriation is a-ok, but luckily I did take long enough figuring out who to design it and tattoo it and everything that I stopped wanting it.

Trigger Warning for Transphobia

This article made me gasp in horror, fear, and revulsion. (Synopsis, a Texas firefighter died on the job, his parents are suing to stop his widow from getting any benefits because she is trans).


Some things that made me rather sick:
The article/picture captions seem to LOVE qualifying "wife" with "born a man" and "transgendered."
The bigotry of the lawyer for the mother saying that his wife is "attempting to make a huge money grab" when to any person with any sense of fairness in this world would acknowledge that the parents are the ones making a money grab, since you know, they SUED to stop their daughter-in-law from receiving any benefits.
Texas law.
and of course the comments. Don't read the comments.

I really don't know what to say about this, it's just so heartbreaking that at this most vulnerable time for her his parents are trying to cut her off from the help she could get. She's having to spend her time in court being told that she wasn't his wife for the past years (and obviously being told she isn't a woman), all to make his parents richer. Shame. Shame on them. It's days like this that make me despair for myself and the world.

Compare and Contrast: A Study in Two Blogs

Oh blog reading folkz, I'm rather pissed right now. The other night I noticed that a queer/gay blog I usually like had posted yet another post about Tiwonge Chimbalanga that said she was a man.
So, being pissed at the time, I wrote a comment on slap upside the head saying as much (and explaining that it was angering to have her misgendered and having the struggle of trans* people coopted and erased by queer/gay people).
The comment was in moderation (it was technically in a "guestbook" area since the blog doesn't have commenting enabled), so I went to bed.
I check my email last night and get:

Hi there!

Aw, give me the benefit of the doubt before you chew into me, alright? :)

I do trans* stories whenever I see them, and certainly would have
mentioned that Tiwonge isn't a man if I had known. As it stands, I've read
multiple mainstream news stories about the couple, but your angry letter is
the first I've heard of this, so I think it's unfair to say that I'm
"misgendering" or "falling into the erasure" of anyone. I haven't met the
two, after all. :)

I'll look a lot more into this tonight; having the mainstream media
misidentify Steven and Tiwonge's relationship is a story in itself!

So I wrote back in INCREDIBLY even tones. I didn't call him on the tone argument, or the "but be nice to the 'allies' or else we can't possibly be allies,"-ing or the fact that the story isn't that the "mainstream" media is reporting badly, but that ALL MEDIA (other than explicitly trans* friendly media, and frankly including lots of "GLB, supposedly T" media) has been doing this, OR the fact that maybe he needs to learn to read trans* friendly blogs to learn true information about trans* people (dude, if you want to be an ally, GO TO WHERE THE OPPRESSED ARE).
Nope, I recommended a blog post that would clear up his misconceptions and then wrote:

It's great that you're interested in doing perhaps a post about misgendering by the mainstream media (and just about all the activist orgs that publicized this in the first place).

However, you did misgender Tiwonge (since you said she was a man, and she isn't), and you did contribute to the erasure of trans* identities/people (since she's a trans woman and you implied she was a cis man), even if you didn't intend to. It sucks (I'm sure you're not someone who likes to think you're contributing to oppression), but it happened, and saying it was unfair of me to point it out doesn't make it better, and ignores that truth.

I will say that my tone last night was angry. It was angry because yours is one of the few explicitly queer/gay blogs I read with any regularity, (since I generally enjoy it, and generally don't enjoy many others for their explicit and implicit transphobia), and it was a big frustration for me to realize after seeing this "gay marriage" narrative played up in Every Single media report on the topic of Tiwonge that you were doing it too, and that all the gay media seemed to also be doing it. So I suppose you could see it as unfair that *your* particular blog became the "straw that broke the camel's back" but I see it as far more unfair that even on a blog that I normally feel comfortable on, I (and presumably any other trans* person who knew about the truth of the story) was made to feel unwelcome.

In other words: you stepped on my metaphorical foot (and quite a few others), it's great that you didn't mean to, but that doesn't make it stop hurting.

Thanks for listening,
The Deviant E

This morning I awake to this piece of flaming pile of nonpology crap:

Hey there,

Factual errors happen now and then on the site; particularly ones like this which are present in multiple, reputable news sources.

Blogging is not terrifically rewarding for the amount of work involved, especially when it involves original full-colour illustrations, paid hosting, etc. I admit there was an error, but the accusitory language is unfair.

I do welcome all factual corrections, and unfortunately there will be opportunities for more, but please be friendly about them and give me the benefit of the doubt. (At least until I prove otherwise. ;)

AND I go to check the website and find that
A) my initial comment was not approved from moderation, so no one knows that he was called out on this
B) he has posted another post about Tiwonge, this time burying her gender till the end to make a dramatic reveal about "mainstream media"
C) he has not posted an apology or acknowledged that this was information he could have had weeks ago, had he *looked*
D) he has said that "word has gotten out" that Tiwonge identifies as a woman, without mentioning where possibly such word could have come from (it's like magic "word" that appears on it's own)!

Contrast that my friends with something from Shakesville:
On a blog post about a study finding that children raised by lesbian couples are more well adjusted then their peers raised by straight couples, someone wrote something talking about how fundies would hate it because there needs to be "penis owning person" in the house.

I wrote a comment reminding people that penises and xy chromosomes do not a man make (and lack of penises and xx chromosomes do not a woman make). It was published.
The response?

TheDeviantE:Thanks,for the privilege check,comment fixed now.-;-@ a rose to say sorry.

And what do you know, but the comment has been changed (to indicate cis-male manly man man-ness as opposed to "penis having"ness) but the person very explicitly put in there a tag saying "Edited for gender-essentialist language"

There was no foot stamping, no "but we're on the same side, [smiley that feels really insincere because I'm rejecting your points]". The comment *went through*, it was fixed! and in a way that acknowledged the fuck up in the first place.

It's almost like... on this *other* blog, people are actually allies and respond accordingly when called out.

So, what to do folks?
I've already posted in public some of the private correspondence (not that the email address of his is secret or anything), which some might deem a breach of ettiqutte. I do so because slap upside the head won't acknowledge his own culpability in his blog either by posting my original comment or by acknowleding it in a post of his (oh, in my comment I asked him to please post a *retraction*, you know, something that acknowledges information was wrong by saying "we done screwed up"?). So I really feel like any ettiquette breach is a tiny little piss beside his ocean of othering.
So question time: Do I continue trying to dialogue being OH SO FUCKING REASONABLE? Do I remain silent and stop reading his blog, since I doubt he'll acknowledge my reasons if I give them? Do I tell him off in an email, getting angry again and telling him I'll not be reading his blog (and a whole other set of things), in the hopes of giving him a parting shot of information and a reminder that it isn't all just peachy? Do I juggle elephants?

You tell me.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga Is A Woman

Ok folks, I'm a little tired, a little behind on schoolwork (ok, a lot behind on school work), needing to have laid my head down on the pillow hours ago, and more than a lot pissed.

Because: Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman and she has been for years.
Say it with me folks! Tiwonge Chimbalanga, the (sole) female partner in a couple who were recently convicted of "homosexuality" in Malawi is a woman. Her nickname is "Aunt Tiwo." Notice the "aunt" in "Aunt Tiwo?" Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman.

FUCK. I mean, how many times do I need to repeat this until it sinks in in the mainstream, (and more importantly damnit, gay) media? I'm so sick of this cooptation of the struggles of trans* people (and let's be honest with ourselves, it's actually mostly the struggles of trans* women that are being coopted, and it's mostly trans* women of color who are at greatest risk of physical violence).

10 times? 100 times? I'll do it! You won't like it but I will. Because Tiwonge Chimbalanga deserves to not have one more slight thrust upon her. It was wrong of the Malawi government to attempt to jail her and her partner Steven, and it would *also* be wrong for the government to have done that if she was man. But she isn't. She's a woman. Tiwonge Chimbalanga is a woman.

Should I write a fucking song about it? I'm afraid it's pretty boring, I haven't really worked out the chord structure, melody line, or the verses, so far it's just aproximately 20 choruses of "Tiwonge is a woman" (3 times each chorus) and then at the end when performing you're required to get really angry and throw a vase full of flowers against the wall on the last line. The flowers represent humanity's attempts to pretty up bigotry. Ok, so it's mostly a performance piece. It'll be opening in NY in a month, along with my other piece "ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH: A Musing on Things that Piss Me Off"

A partial rundown of what I'm talking about: Questioning Transphobia quotes numerous articles that totally misgender Tiwonge Slap upside the head continues to repeatedly post about "gay" couple in Malawi that Tiwonge is part of (which is what set off this particular tirade), and now a random list of blogs that are queer/gay identified that just popped up when I ran a quick search that all either report on the "gay" couple without explaining the truth, or actively call Tiwonge a man.

Why yes. I am angry I just searched and found not a single LGBT (a lot of them say they are fucking LGBT on them!) blog that even mentioned preferred pronouns or the fact that "gay" is the wrong way to describe a straight relationship between Tiwonge Chimbalanga (who is a woman) and Steven Monjeza.

Today in Racist Sexism

As Renee of Womanist Musings often points out, Black women in our society are in the double, (triple, I can't even figure out how many) bind of being constantly sexualized while also having the standard of beauty be explicitly based in Whiteness. They are accused of looking ugly and "masculine," but are assumed to be available at all times for sex (which feeds into rape culture). They are stereotyped as angry, but also expected to be "Mammy" figures who care for all around them.

This comes out in particularly horrifying ways when Black women athletes are reported on in the media. Caster Semenya comes to mind for me, and so does Venus Williams, and it is the treatment of Venus Williams in the linked article that I want to look at.

The title of this banal (but still incredibly offensive) "article" is "Venus Williams wears a racy dress..." and the actual website address calls her dress "see-through." Which is to say, that she designed (I've read elsewhere that she designs all her tenis outfits, correct me if I'm wrong) a dress where she has black lace overlaying brown cloth where the brown of the cloth shows through. The brown of the cloth is matched exceedingly well to her skin tone (given how off "skin tone" things usually are, regardless of the pigmentation of the wearer, I feel this is no small feat, just think of those ice skating outfits where the "skin tone" bits are just an entirely different color, even with White skaters). So of course, the first major error of this short (5 sentence) article is in the website address, and it is that the dress is "see-through". It is no more "see through" than my pants I am wearing right now.
(I also remember that a while ago, a similarly ridiculous article was written about another outfit that she wore where she again matched her skin tone and the cloth color in order to not show her underwear (I believe). Again they described this as "shocking" or "scandalous.")

Another error of the article is referring to the outfit as a "can-can" outfit, given that it does not share the key requirement of can-can outfits in that it doesn't have a long flouncy skirt (with frills underneath) for the high kicking necessary to rate her activity as the can-can.

The next bit of offensiveness is in the first sentence, where they state that Venus Williams could "find work" at the Moulin Rouge. They then clarify that they mean the historical Moulin Rouge in the third sentence when they reference her "auditioning for a spot at a 19th century cabaret."
For context, the wikipedia article on the Moulin Rouge euphemistically refers to the original dancers at the Moulin Rouge as "courtesans." Of course, it also describes them as the originators of the striptease, and states that the can-can as developed by the courtesans was "an attempt to seduce potential clients" (ummm, what type of clients could they possibly be referencing?) and that in the course of the dance, the revealing of genitals sometimes happened (because that happens all the time at the ballet!). To really hit home what the Moulin Rouge was (and what the dancers were considered to be), even though the article doesn't *explicitly* state that it was a whore-house, it nevertheless refers to when the Moulin Rouge suddenly became a "legitimate nightclub" and that it had a "reputation as a 'high-class brothel'" (which would hardly be necessary to state if it was truly a nightclub in the beginning). So let's just acknowledge it for what it was at the time: a strip club where the workers probably often had sex with the clients.

So, back to the article (sorry for the digression), they are explicitly referring to the historical Moulin Rouge and saying that she could "find some work" there. So they are saying that a strong Black woman athlete is equivalent to a prostitute (or at "best" a stripper).

I want to state for the record that I do not view sex work as an immoral thing/profession. I do not believe that individuals who engage in non-coercive sex work (so, leaving out pimps for instance) are immoral for doing so. However, in our society it is extremely stigmatized to be a sex worker of any stripe, and the most stigmatized group are prostitutes.

And this article compared Venus Williams to a sex worker/prostitute in an effort to shame her.


ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH.

That is all in: Today in Racist Sexism.

Some more privilege from the social work front lines

Something that gets discussed a lot in the "helping professions" (and specifically I'm going to talk about those who work as or plan to work as, therapists) is "disclosure."

"Disclosure" (as I'm going to talk about it, and as mostly discussed in social work) is the act of telling a client/patient something about oneself which is personal/not physically obvious (sort of, we'll get to it a little more in a sec). Freud believed that therapists (well psychoanalysts) should be a totally blank slate for their clients/patients and therefore it was necessary to not tell them anything humanizing/personal.

Now, Freud's an asshole, and most social workers (thank goodness) that I've met also agree that he's an asshole (though apparently there are far too many who think that "yes, but, for the time he wasn't"... no no, really, he rather was), but the field still tries to keep things a little more professional, a little more aloof than a friendly relationship would make, in keeping with some of his ideas about disclosure.
Which makes sense, it's harder emotionally to try to bill a friend than it is to bill a client/patient. Plus, some of our clients have a tendency to take the things they learn about us and sometimes use them in inappropriate ways (not that this isn't often the case for friends and family). Lastly, there's the fact that telling a client all about our father's recent death (or whatever) takes the focus off of them and places it onto us, which makes it harder for both client and social worker to you know, figure out what's going on for the client. So, lots of potentially good reasons to not disclose too often, or without some solid thought behind the reasons for doing it.

However, let's think for a second here about what constitutes "disclosing." Being straight? Not something usually disclosed. Being cisgender? Also rarely if ever disclosed. Being socially normative in a desire to have children? Not generally disclosed.

And it isn't that they aren't disclosed because straight people and cis* people, and people who fall into socially normative desires to have children are really good about keeping those things hidden/secret. HAH! (I laugh at the thought).
No no, they aren't disclosed because there is literally NO NEED to disclose in our society. It'd be like me disclosing to my clients that I'm human.

REALLY??? My social worker is HUMAN!?! I had NO IDEA (They would say).

They aren't disclosed because, except for in very specific situations (working at a center for trans/queer youth, for instance), everyone assumes those things to be true. Some identities are already known, and you have to prove them otherwise, by disclosing.

I'll give another example. I was chilling with a client the other day (like ya do) when she asked me whether I have children. My only decision at that point in time was "do I tell her or not?" It didn't include "do I tell her I don't want to raise children?" I didn't even think of the second idea, because it's a) "normal" to want to raise children, and b) I do want to raise some, maybe, someday. I have that privilege, of being able to let people assume I want to have kids, without even thinking about the fact that they are assuming it.

So in class we're talking about Freud, and someone in the class thinks he's just a peach, and had really ground breaking ideas, blah blah. And I mention that I think he's rather an asshole. And then later as we're about to move on from a discussion of disclosure, I bring up the fact that though I agree that it's important to not overshare with clients, that it seems really unfair to me that only certain groups are asked to be constantly on guard like that.

Which is when "Freud is awesome" classmate pipes in that it isn't the case that only certain groups are meant to not disclose, but that everyone is meant to not do it. She then goes on to tell me that as a former teacher, she also had to keep certain things about her life hidden from her students and that "you just have to get used to the idea of putting certain things about yourself up on the shelf".


As if I didn't just say that disclosure is a touchy subject. As if I was a wayward child who just is greedy, wanting to not feel like I have to keep my trans status, my sexual orientation, my atheism, the fact that I'm poly, hidden.

Yeah. Social workers sometimes don't talk about their kids with their clients, but a lot mention that they have them. (And, as a kid of a teacher I call TOTAL bullshit on just about ANY teacher not talking about their kids, my mom has a picture of me and my sister up on her door ya'll). And when you say you have kids, the client assumes you're straight. So if you're straight and have kids you just disclosed that you're straight, without even realizing it. Because you have that privilege.

My classmate is certain that she'll be a better social worker than me because she doesn't have all this "baggage." She understands that when you're a social worker you have to hide parts of yourself and keep identities hidden and not put lots of stuff on your clients by telling them all about yourself.

But the fact is, she's already told EVERYONE that meets her that she is straight/cis/what have you. She just doesn't realize that she did it.

So who's the overly disclosing one now, asshole?

Last Week

Last week, the two bills up for public hearing in Massachusetts (for the two relevant legislative bodies) addressing the discrimination of trans people in housing, jobs, and (as the right wing bigots love to flail about:) bathrooms, came up. In Massachusetts there are a handful of cities that protect trans people from discrimination. They include: Boston, Cambridge, Northampton, and I believe Amherst (maybe another).

The courthouse in which the bill was being heard? Boston of course, after all it is the capital.

A funny (hah. hah. fucking hah.) thing happened though at the courthouse. With scores of trans rights activists (and just regular old Janes and Joes) running around and testifying on the discrimination they've faced because of being trans, a woman at the courthouse was thrown out of the women's bathroom.

Apparently after entering the bathroom, another woman at the courthouse ran out of the facility to get a state trooper. And that state trooper told her that if he ever saw in that bathroom again he'd arrest her.

What was this devious woman doing in there? Peeing while trans.

I know, it's not much of a punchline, what with the fact that people like to flip the fuck out because of this all the time. What with the fact that trans women are routinely harrassed when they go in the bathroom. What with the fact that women have been followed to the bathroom and threatened with bodily harm and murder, and when police show up, they SIDE WITH THE PERPETRATORS of violence.

I wasn't there (Bluejay was). I wonder if that woman had already given her testimony, I wonder if anyone spoke about what happened that day in the court. I mean: that was illegal wasn't it? She WAS in Boston wasn't she? Isn't that the whole point of the law that already exists in Boston?

An Open Letter to Sascha Baron Cohen

Mr. Cohen,

We need to have words. Namely we need to talk about this "humor" of yours. Mr. Cohen, I've heard somewhere that the humor in your movies is in showing the bigotry in seemingly otherwise nice individuals. That the point of Borat is to show hidden racism and the point of Bruno is to show hidden homophobia.

Mr. Cohen, give me 10 minutes and the internet and I promise I can show you all the bigotry you want. Here, an example: by Womanist Musings, an article about two separate cases of latino men who were attacked by otherwise "nice" people. One of them is dead. In both cases the perpetrators got off with a laughable sentence.
Perhaps if you're in the mood, you can scroll down to the comments where I talk about the recent case in Massachusetts where 4 queer friends were attacked by a group of men who screamed "die faggot" at them and beat and kicked one of them unconcious, and left another also with brain damage. In case you're wondering, the only man charged with the crime will never serve time because the judge decided to give him probation. Mr. Cohen, is that hilarious enough for you?

Or, in case those are too far removed, too distant for you, I can tell you about some things I know personally. I know personally that as a queer youth, I was subject to the most hilarious situation when I was basically told by a lady in a restaurant that my affectionate kiss of my partner was X-rated. We were told to not kiss in front of her kid. Perhaps you could put that in your next movie meant to show exactly how funny bigots are.
Or maybe, you'd like to talk to an acquaintance of mine who had the hilarious experience of having someone she thought of as a friend cross the street to get away from her. See, it was halloween, and she's black and she was dressed as a man. HILARIOUS huh? I mean, you can't MAKE SHIT LIKE THIS UP, it's just SOOO GOOD when you realize that people you know and thought of as friends apparently find your race terrifying.

So basically Mr. Cohen, if you want to show homophobia and racism, you actually don't need to get dressed up in characters. All you need to do to find hilarious bigotry is follow around someone who is actually a target of it. And if you want to show how bigoted other people are, you DEFINITELY don't need to do it in supposedly "funny" characters.

Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure I think bigotry is all that funny.

Maybe that's your problem.

Sincerely,
The Deviant E

Prop 8 (and religiously related child abuse)

So, as many of you may have already heard (if you're U.S. based), Proposition 8 was upheld by the supreme court. Yay for voting on other people's rights. I'm excited to start legislating against olive eaters any day now.

However, since apparently they (the Supreme Court) didn't want a shit storm, they are not invalidating the marriages of the 18,000 couples who were married prior to the homophobic referendum passing.

Yay?

Whatever. I'll be at the local rally/"angry queers get angry"-fest in Boston tonight. If you're in the area, think about stopping by. It'll be at Copley Square at 7.




I've been trying to write this past week, but everything is just too enormous, for instance: have you heard about the Minnesotan 13 year-old with cancer whose parents (and he) cited their religious beliefs to say he doesn't have cancer, as a reason for why he shouldn't go to a doctor? A judge ruled that not taking the kid in for chemo and radiation (which would give him a 90% chance of living) was tantamount to child abuse (because if they don't he has a 5% chance). The mother fled with the son after the court mandated appointment (which showed the tumor had grown since when he was first diagnosed, gee I wonder why), but turned herself in a couple days ago. It just makes me angry to see 13 year old kids dying because their parents are brainwashed idiots.

You want to kill yourself through refusing medical treatment? FINE! Just don't drag your kids down with you, assholes.


On the topic of religious inspired/related child abuse, the report on child abuse in Catholic run schools during the 1930s-1970s in Ireland just came out. I haven't read it, but have been lucky enough to get the gist from Bill Donohue (that's pure snark, some actual writing about it is at Shakesville), who frankly I couldn't hate any more right now. According to him, the "miscreants" and "delinquents" there shouldn't be complaining about "only" being groped and made to shiver themselves to sleep. See that isn't real child abuse, not like breaking people's limbs and rape. And if it isn't the most horrible thing we could imagine, clearly it isn't horrible. *eyeroll*

Indeed, Donohue does in fact call the abused children miscreants and delinquents. Way to stand up for the poor, beleaguered Catholic Church, Donohue. I mean it isn't like they knowingly shuffled around child abusers and had people in positions of power who would SPY ON THEM AS THEY SHOWERED. Not at all. Clearly, all this bad press for the Catholic Church is totally baseless.

Not to mention, I've heard that this isn't even the whole shebang, and that they will soon be putting out another VOLUME (in July, if memory serves)

So yeah, it's been a crappy little while.

Poly People: One of these things Does Not Belong (One of these things is Different, so obviously Wrong)

Argh argh argh.

I know I shouldn't read these types of threads, but I always do.

I am, of course, referring to Jezebel's recent thread about triads.

So, let's do a take down of some of this frustrating, saddening, and bigoted stuff. Shall we?

"Next thing you know, people will be marrying their dogs!"

No. No they won't. You know why? Consent. Say it with me "consent pitches my tent". That's right folks, dogs can't consent (novel concept, no?), adult people can. So: any number of adult people should be able to get married.

I think a lot of feminists in particular are iffy about polygamous marriage because of its generally misogynistic underpinnings.

So how do you feel about the misogynistic underpinnings of heterosexuality? I mean, the vast majority of straight relationships are pretty much steeped in the misogynistic culture which surrounds us. If you want to argue this, then you'd better be willing to outlaw all straight marriages too.

I'm perfectly content being narrow-minded with regard to polygamy (which is the form most of this would take if legalized).

There's really nothing to respond to here other than to say that I suppose it's refreshing that you're so open about your bigotry? Good for you?

Same here! I don't support it at all. I support gay marriage because I basically believe people are born gay. I don't believe people are born to be romantically committed to two or more individuals.

And it goes against my romantic tendencies of there being this one person in the world whom you are committed to above all others.

And it's hard enough for two people to stay married...I can't imagine how hard it must be for 3 people to do it.

So, if gay people weren't born gay, they shouldn't be able to marry their partners? This is a perfect example of why the meme "but we were born that way" makes no sense. You know what, I don't know if I was born queer and trans or not (or, more accurately, born with a definite predisposition towards these identities), but I think I should have equal legitimacy in my identity even if I wasn't. You know why? 'Cause there's nothing wrong with being queer and there's nothing wrong with being trans. When you say shit like that, it makes it seem like you're saying that "gay is bad, but it's not their fault". I've said it before, I'll say it again, religion is a choice, but nevertheless people of faith should be allowed to get married. Also choices: love for NASCAR and olives (uck!). Olive lovers still deserve that right. They even deserve the right to eat olives. If they really really want.

And this: "it goes against my tendencies" bullshit? I hate olives, you know what I do? I don't. eat. them. Pretty simple actually. Same trick works with abortion and gay marriage and polygamy. Don't want to do it? Then DON'T.

Ok. So multi-person marriage would be difficult. I guess everything that's difficult should be verboten. We should definitely get out there and stop letting people become Bio-Chem majors, I've heard it's tough shit. Hey, here's an idea, instead of telling other people "that sounds hard, you shouldn't be allowed to do it", maybe we could tell people "that sounds hard, I guess we'd better help you figure it out". Just a thought.

If this is their thing, fine, do your thing, but it just seems kind of...greedy to me.

Greedy? Yeah. I guess it is greedy to want visitation rights to your loved ones. I guess it is greedy to want to have legal recognition on owning a home with the people you love. Really, think of the single people! (no really, do! read: "Singled Out" for a super interesting look at the way that single people are stigmatized in our society, and put at a social and economic disadvantage) If you go through life wanting to pool your resources with a second person, you're just being greedy compared with all the people who are single and therefore can only use their own resources. Outlaw Marriage! Or, maybe we could extend various benefits to people using something other than marriage. Just saying.

My question back to you is, if you can establish all of these legal items and marriage is so controlling, why do individuals in polyamorous relationships need a piece of paper to tell them that they are "married"?

Why indeed! Why do straight people need pieces of paper telling them they are married? Why do white people need pieces of paper telling them they are married? Here's a thought, I'll take away your right to get married (or tell you it never existed in the first place) and then tell you that if you want the protections of marriage you have to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and hundreds of hours crafting legal work arounds (and even then, perhaps your spouse will be deported because ze isn't a legal citizen), and then you can skip along "tra la la" through the fields and that'll make perfect sense.

So, based on your argument, if I wanted to marry a dog, I should be able to?

This again? Yawn.

There is nothing preventing someone who is in a polyamorous relationship from marrying ONE PERSON that they love and receiving tax breaks, etc.

Yeah. I guess if there were three people in a totally equal relationship, it'd feel really awesome if two of them got married and the third was left out to dry. That'd totally feel wonderful. Oh, and so would being the sole person who didn't have health insurance, or who was about to be kicked out of the country because you aren't considered a legal citizen, or who was barred from seeing your ailing partner in the hospital. I mean, I guess the other two could legally adopt the third, but that might be a little creepy. Maybe the triad could decide which two should marry based on who needs it the most! YAY! And then they'll have awesome practice for when they later have to choose between which of their kids they can afford to send to college (sorry Ephraim, but you're just not cost effective enough, Oswald's gonna go instead).

People can enter polyamorous relationships all they want - they just are not given the financial breaks given to married couples.

This is from someone who repeatedly states ze is for gay marriage. The irony, it burns!

The whole point of marriage is to dedicate yourself to one person.

If you wanna have more mates, then don't get married...

Also, one must consider the effects of legalizing a 2+ marriage. How would spousal benefits work? Insurance benefactors? Child custody?

Indeed. The whole point of marriage is to dedicate yourself to one person. If you want to have children, don't get married. 'Cause then you'd need to divide your love!!!!

And seriously, a "Think of the CHILDREN." Anita Bryant, is that you?

I'm just confused as to why polyamorous folks want to marry anyway, why they're interested.

Maybe you could actually ask one? Instead of saying they shouldn't be able to get married because you say so?

I always took marriage to be "this is the one person I'm happy with, the one person I'm willing to dedicate myself to" and those that cannot limit themselves to one person, well, marriage isn't their fit then.

Oh, perhaps you can tell that to people who remarry, clearly if they didn't get it right the first time, they shouldn't be allowed to try again.

I would argue that polygamous (no idea about polyamorous so I can't speak to that) marriages are damaging/harmful to society.

And *I* would argue that asshats who talk out of their ass/hat are harmful to society. Here, you can be my sample size of 1. What's your statistically representative sample?

If a person has made the choice to be polyamorous, they've made the choice to exclude themselves from a group marriage, as it is illegal.

And everything that is illegal should be illegal for evermore. And maybe everything that at one time was illegal should continue being illegal. Ooh, I know! Restrictive gender norms and party hats for everyone!

Women
Gay people
Black people
People w/ disabilities
People in romantic relationships with > 1 people at a time

One of these things is not like the others.

Religious people
Tea drinkers
Bloggers
Old People
People in romantic relationships with > 1 person at a time

One of these things is not like the others. Guess how? One of them means you aren't allowed to marry a person you love. They are all a choice though. Funny that.


Ok. I'm getting to be a broken record. But they are driving me to it!

Tomorrow: "Meet a Poly Person"

Casual Racism

Being a white person, I am not on the receiving end of racism all that much (oh sure, if I'm in a masochistic enough mood to go to stormfront's website they're all about hatin' on the Jews, but I only did that for a class one semester, years ago... and believe me, I experience enough toxicity in my daily life, not to need an excuse to have nightmares). So that means that to be a good ally I have to try to be aware of what happens even when it doesn't affect me. I don't know how I'd grade myself. Probably a B or B- (some good ideas, but the effort needs work). This is of course, using grade inflation of the standard type at the various schools I've attended.

Some of the ways I try to be aware are by visiting blogs of people of color (PoC) and especially women of color (WoC), by paying attention when I hear racist shit around me (and calling it out whenever possible), by understanding that all people of color are NOT interchangeable, and just trying to listen when PoC talk about racism.

So, over the past week I noticed:

On the subway on a friday or thursday evening, two drunk white girls (with barely concealed alcohol) get on the train and sit on either side of a latino man. You know, rather than find two adjacent seats. They then harrassed him under the guise of being "friendly" and called him "Cheech". Up until then I wasn't sure about the racism (maybe they were just obnoxious drunks), but right when the "Cheech" reference happened I decided to ASAP offer him the seat next to mine/tell them to quit the racist shit. But I didn't get time to say/do anything, he got up and (oh-so-graciously, because clearly the wasn't the point of the harrassment all along /sarcasm) offered them the seat he was sitting in, and then they all got off at the next stop.
I'm upset that I didn't stand up earlier/at all, it's hard because public transit is such a weird space in general, but it certainly doesn't excuse it, I was thinking about what asses they were almost as soon as they got on the train, and their bullying was something I think all of us on the train should have dealt with.

On Saturday, at a team-related party, the one african american on the team was presented with an "award" that apparently for the first time in the 3 years she'd been there, didn't have to do with her afro. You'd think in a team environment, everyone would have more to say to her than "you have exotic hair," but apparently not until this year has that been true.

On Sunday, overheard at an IHOP a (latina) woman told her coworker about sneezing and having someone tell her to go back to Mexico. You know, 'cause that flu thing is totally being brought to the U.S. by Mexican immigrants. Oh wait, sorry? It's not? The disease vectors are privileged U.S. citizens on vacation? Do Tell.

Just (over)hearing these things happen was enough for me to feel stressed and on edge, I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to have them directed at me. And even more, to have similar casual racisms directed at me on a never-ending basis. That I don't have to pay attention to shit like this every day is one of the basic symptoms/side effects of my privilege.

If I did, I'd probably spend my days screaming.

Breaking News...

Agreeing with me is like agreeing with HITLER!!!


Everyone may commence pointing and laughing now.

But seriously, it's nice to know that our resident troll thinks I'm as charismatic and persuasive as Hitler. A little creepy yes, but I promise that I will be a benevolent dictator when I use my army of atheist sympathizers to take over Europe through violence. Anyone want to buy me a plane ticket so I can get started?

Angie Zapata was "deceptive", in other news, her killer's defense team can kiss my ass

Please Please Please. [Bit of a trigger warning] This is both one of the most upsetting and most important things you could do today. Go to the link here:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10511/are-trans-people-like-angie-and-me-deceptive

If you need me to repeat the link, I will. The defense is (of course) using the tired ol' "gay panic" routine, but now it's "trans panic" and the murderer was "duped". They have been refusing to use the correct name and pronouns when talking about her. Her family, being questioned on the stand, had to correct the lawyer every. single. time. That they should stand up to such bullying shouldn't be considered amazing and brave, but I nonetheless feel it is.

Because I spent part of the weekend with my relatives. Every single one of whom knows my gender identity. Not once could they manage to get my pronouns right (nor did they try, or correct themselves). The best they seemed to manage was to not use pronouns at all (when actively called on it). Today I told someone I that I didn't care anymore. But it was a lie. I care every fucking time, but since my entire life is one giant fuck-you to my identity, I feel defeated and beat down and unable to do anything.

But help is on the way. Because every time I read posts like this, every time I hear and read people say something, I get that much better at being able to stand up for myself and everyone else. Every time I read a hilarious troll stomping post (I swear this time it's not the same link), I'm that much more able to tell off creepy sexist patrons at my work.

Oh, so story from work: I'm sitting at my computer, as I do, when a patron/resident tells me the printer is out of paper. Which is frustrating 'cause we're damn near out. So I saunter on over to replace the paper. As I pass his chair he tells me "good girl," as though I'm a fucking puppy doing a trick or something. I tell him "I don't appreciate that and that's inappropriate. I'm changing this paper because it's my job, I get PAID to do it, I don't need you to tell me that I'm a 'good' anything." As he leaves he apologizes and tells me that he didn't mean to be rude. I tell him thanks, but it was rather patronizing.

As I was saying: every time I read feminists standing up for themselves, every time I read trans people standing up for themselves, I am that much more able to stand up for myself as well. Because telling someone off is a practiced skill, and the -isms of this world thrive on the fact that no one bothers to tell them off, so we never get practice, and by the time it's a Big. Fucking. Deal. we just don't know what to do.

So, stand up for yourself (and others, damnit!) today. It does the body good.

Rape Culture and the Misogyny Olympics

The definition of rape culture: One in which someone can actually type this* on the internet:

You posit that the fact that she is very drunk signals that the guy should not make a sexual advance. this is contrary to the prevailing social norm, however.

"Now folks at home should know this is a very advanced form of victim blaming, not everyone can accomplish it. Mitch has been in training for weeks, and while we saw him pull it off at the qualifying event in Salt Lake, we don't know how it'll go here in Atlanta. Here it comes, there's the set up, and..... ..... AND HE STICKS IT!!! Mitch for the gold medal in misogyny!!!!!! For the thousandth year running the men's team will take home all three medals! The crowd is wild with excitement, back to you Bob."

*[Edit] "this" is meant to refer to the various victim blaming rape apologists on the thread, not the actual body of the review, which is in general quite interesting

Catchy Songs, Misogyny and Racism, Oh MY!

It's almost as offensive with the sound off, so feel free to watch it that way!

Transcript:

[White girl]: Sometimes a girl can’t help feeling a little blue. [Petting a fluffy cat] When everything’s a mess, my favorite thing to do: is mow the lawn, mow the lawn.
[Chorus]: Mow it! Do it! Cut it! trim it!
[Black girl]: Some bushes are really big,
[Asian girl]: some gardens are mighty small,
[White girl] whatever shape your topiary, it’s easy to trim them all. Whenever I see a weed, I mow that rascal down [cut to footage of black woman] so all that’s left for me to see are [two lips] on the mound [two tulips]
[Asian girl]: So mow the lawn,
[White girl]: mow the lawn! Toolshed’s equipped, my flora’s clipped. Never feel untidy, just spruce your Aphrodite,
[Chorus]: and mow the lawn!
[White girl]: Feeling rough around the edges?
[Chorus]: And mow the lawn!
[White girl]: It feels great to trim the hedges! [Hairless cat being pet]
[Chorus]: and mow the lawn!

I just want you to know that watching that long enough to transcribe the whole thing was... a zen challenge, too bad I don't get any useful karma from it.
So let's examine this one, shall we?

First off let's start with a partial list of the creepy sexism?

• There's a fluffy cat, oh haha, I get it. It's a "pussy"!!! Just like women! Good one advertiser Dave! Hey Dave, after they've all "mowed the lawn" perhaps we could have a hairless cat. Oh we can?! Saawweeettt. (Doesn't anyone think this is a bad analogy? When I pet a cat, I like it to have fur, am I the only one?)
• Anyone else find it creepy that they are singing into the clipping shears as though they are mics, but it just looks like they are about to cut their own heads off?
• I'm not sure when heart-shaped pubic hair became a standard. Anyone want to clue me in?
• Tulips! haHA. Two Lips. Two Tulips. The Wit, it burns.

Ok next for the creepy racism?

• I don't think I need to mention that the "gardens are mighty small" oh so conveniently references the fact that asians are considered "petite" and that includes assumptions about their cunts*, or that the comment about "really big bushes" could be seen to be referencing the fact that black people are assumed to be bigger, also including their cunts, do I?
• Similarly, does anyone need a primer course in why having the sole black woman in the video using a POWER TOOL to cut her "bush" perhaps push buttons surrounding how white people have "nice, easy" hair and black people don't? Even though, come to think of it, I don't know many people whose pubic hair is long and flowing and straight... just sayin'
• Perhaps an astute watcher might also notice that the black woman is the only woman in the video who shows anything but unabashed cheerfulness. This surely has nothing to do with the fact that black people are portrayed as "angry" Surely not!
• And DEFINITELY they forgot to put the asian girl in with any power tools, not because of weird assumptions about the "daintiness" of asians and assumed ideas about power tools, but because, maybe she just didn't want to stick around for the whole day of shooting! *shrug* who knows???
  

Just a reminder, that's Schick with an S-C-H-I-C-K for all your gardening needs.

*I use the word cunt because of the book: Cunt by the talented Inga Muscio

Craptastic Past 3 Days

So, this post has nothing to do with anything other than how absolutely crappy my weekend/Monday turned out to be.

Saturday was without note (other than I had a B-day party I wanted to go to, but couldn't get it together enough to leave the house).
Sunday was the day I was going to do my taxes, so I spent close to 30 minutes looking for my W-2 only to finally call my father who apparently got it sent to him instead..... (frustrating).
Then, Bluejay and I were going to go grocery shopping. I've been perilously close to overdrawing my bank account so I checked before leaving.
What greeted my eyes when I checked was somehow simultaneously having -300 dollars as a "balance" but in my transaction area having a surplus of enough to cover rent and bills.
So, I called up my bank thinking that it was some minor website glitch. Only when I had to enter my card number, I couldn't find the card.
Now this is suspect, since I am fanatical about putting my cards in the same place every time in my wallet, and then putting my wallet in the same place every time in my pants, and then always putting my pants on before leaving the house (what can I say, I'm a creature of habit), and immediately upon exiting any building, I check all pockets for their respective contents (wallet in back right, keys in front left, cell phone in front right, handkerchief in back left).
I frantically figured out my number and got to talk to a living person at my bank, who calmly explained to me how it's totally possible for me to have both a negative and positive account balance. He starts saying: "yeah, see when you went to [insert crappy department store here] and spent 100+ dollars, and then [insert 15 more stores here] and spent multiple hundreds more, you had a deficit of 300 dollars".

Around about when he started listing all the stores I've never even heard of, I started panicking. Suddenly I had to wonder if I was having breaks from reality and was going on a spending spree. They asked me when I might have "lost" my card, and my first thought was when I was in the bank (where I live), but then Bluejay (genius, intelligent, lovely Bluejay) thought to have me ask them where all these purchases were being made.

Turns out, one of the patrons/residents at my job swiped my debit cards from my wallet from my backpack, from behind my desk,..... while I was briefly out of the room. I know this, because almost all of the purchases were made in the town where my job is.

I immediately went into damage control: I asked them to cancel my card, asked whether I'd be charged for the overdraft fees (of which there will be many) found out that I WILL be charged, but, oh hey, if they investigate and decide that I DIDN'T spend the money, then I'll get it all back, additionally found out that they won't start any damn investigation for at least a couple days because "the amount has been deducted from your account but it hasn't yet been POSTED", realized that since whoever did this also saw my credit card (even though it wasn't taken) that I needed to call my CREDIT people, had to stop my old card, realized that my bill was due in literally days and there was no way I was going to be able to pay it, had to call my landlord (since they hadn't deposited my rent yet) and hope that someone heard my message on monday before they cashed my check, called the police (in the town where I work), got told that they'd take my statement monday, finally went to my parents house, called the police again (mistakenly thinking that maybe since they'd interupted me last time, they hadn't heard enough) got interupted again and told that "if it really mattered to you, you'd have come in the second it happened" told off the police (I know, stupid) saying: "EXCUSE ME, I found out 20 minutes ago" followed by some inarticulate griping about how a thousand dollars is important and does matter to me, and how could you think that it doesn't matter to me, and that is my RENT, and argh (and hung up).
Today I: got a new bank account, called my landlord again, deposited a loaner check from my parents (into said new account), found out that the person who used my card used it less than an hour after I got in to work, went to one of the stores and asked them to save the video from that day, called the police, called them BACK when they didn't actually send an officer, realized that it had to have been only one of the patrons, went to the store (with the police officer) and found out that the tape doesn't have anyone I recognize at all!!!!

ARGH.

Now I'm just about certain that I know who stole my cards, but I can't do ANYTHING to them, since we don't have them on tape making any purchases. I'm sure I could go to multiple other stores they shopped in to get a picture with better quality (and hope somehow I do recognize the person), other than those stores won't show me the footage probably unless the police are accompanying me, and they aren't going to want to do that.


Half the time I wish I could have caught them and they could go to jail and I could feel safe again, half the time I realize that it's a fucked up world and that I'm never safe and so it's silly to think that would help, and the third half of the time I think about how screwed up the legal system is, and how I generally view it as racist and classist, and wish that I didn't want it to protect me, why didn't it protect me, fucking hell, just protect me! Since I'm of the opinion that it directly hurts those most oppressed in our society anyway, and most protects those who already have privilege.



I'm tired and scared, I feel violated and confused (how could they do this to me? I didn't realize that someone here could hate me that much) and I'm at work for another hour.

"A Boy's Life" or "My Seething Hatred of Bigots"

So I was reading my mission statement post. Apparently I'm happy on this here blog a lot less than I previously indicated I would be.

I was gonna try to change that too, you know? I thought I'd post some awesome recipe or something that made me gleeful and happy.

And then I had the misfortune of hearing about this odious little piece of shit "news" article.

It's called "A Boy's Life" and is (surprise) about a young trans girl. She had apparently told people that she was a girl SINCE BEING ABLE TO TALK. Yet the author of this horror uses the wrong pronouns and names for the entire story. That is, up until the young girl's mother decides that she's going to quit fighting the inevitable. So, just more proof that children aren't actual people, but tiny mobile extensions of their parents.

Here's a gem from the end:

It’s not impossible to imagine Brandon’s

Her name is Bridget, which we find out in the last damn page, and which the author obviously knew well before printing the damn article

life going in another direction. His

"Her" you fucking idiot

early life fits neatly into a Zucker[rhymes with Fucker] case study about family noise. Tina describes [Bridget] as “never leaving my side” during [her] early years. The diagnosis writes itself: father, distant and threatening; mother, protector; child overidentifies with strong maternal figure.

Oh yeah,that's totally what happened, since the kid was identifying as a girl since age TWO. I personally base all of my gender identity on my memories of being two, don't you? Hello, paging Dr. Fucker, Freud's a crackpot, and you are too.

If Tina had lived in Toronto, if she’d had the patience for six years of Dr. [F]ucker’s therapy, if the therapy had been free, then who knows?

"Who knows" indeed!, perhaps 'poor' Bridget could be 'cured'. Especially if her mom had just had the patience. What a tragic fate to be subjected to, just because her mother didn't live in range of a psychopath with a degree. Come to think of it, how did you Ms. Hanna Rosin, manage to get a journalism degree? Did you??????

Yet [F]ucker’s approach has its own disturbing elements.

Other than refusing to acknowledge a child's gender identity? Do tell!

It’s easy to imagine that his methods—steering parents toward removing pink crayons from the box, extolling a patriarchy no one believes in

tell that to the hundreds of survivors of sexual violence that posted in the past 49 hours on Shakesville's survivor thread, or how about the women of fucking Afghanistan, who currently have legislation making it possible for their husbands to refuse to them medical treatment, oh and gives them no legal recourse against rape. Yeah NO ONE believes in the patriarchy.

—could instill in some children a sense of shame and a double life. A 2008 study of 25 girls [trans boys] who had been seen in [F]ucker’s clinic showed positive results;

What do you think of as "positive"?

22 were no longer gender-dysphoric, meaning they were comfortable living as girls. But that doesn’t mean they were happy

oh, silly, I thought that "positive" and "happy" were related!

I spoke to the mother of one [F]ucker patient in her late 20s, who said her [son] was repulsed by the thought of a sex change but was still suffering—[he’d] become an alcoholic, and was cutting [him]self. “I’d be surprised if she outlived me,” [his] mother said.

You heard it folks, apparently none of these young transmen are trans anymore! They just want to/are trying to kill themselves. Sounds like a peachy fucking cure.

I literally couldn't read through this entire article. Maybe one day I'll have the stomach to give it the editing (for intelligence) it so clearly deserves.

The Devaluing of Women

The Male Privilege Checklist: 31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

"Sir, do you see in the courtroom, the man who mugged you?"
"Yes. Over there, the defendant."
"And tell us in your own words what happened"
"Yeah um, I was at Mulligan's at Fifth and 24th and he, I mean the defendant, came over to me and asked about the game. Um, the Peacocks were winning. Since I'm a Penguins fan, I was sort of bummed. And he and I talked for maybe 10 minutes about the lousy season they've been having. Maybe an hour later, after the game was over, I started walking home, I had work in the morning, you know? Anyway, maybe 10 blocks from home is where he mugged me"
"He mugged you? can you be specific?"
"Yeah, his hand was in his pocket and it looked like he had a gun and he told me to give him all my money. I sort of froze, so I just got out my wallet and gave it all to him."
"And how much did he take?"
"Objection your Honor, relevance?"
"Sustained."
"What happened next?"
"I ran to my apartment and when I got there I called the police, told them I'd been mugged. They, they, didn't believe me. I still had my wallet and my watch. They told me to call back the next morning if I still wanted to make a formal complaint, but told me that since it was a 'he said, he said' situation, it'd be hard to pin it on him."
"Thank you. That'll be all. Defense, your witness."
"So, you were at the BAR Mulligan's when you met the man you accuse of mugging you?"
"Uh, Yes."
"But you DID know him right? You know that he works at the same company you do, right?"
"Yeah, but it's a big company..."
"Your Honor, I have evidence showing that the witness and the defendant had a prior relationship. Exhibit G is videotape footage of them both at the company picnic. See right there? During the Frisbee game they were on the same team, and again here: you see they are shown chatting at the buffet. Mr. Smith, did you, or did you not say after the game: 'Good job Steve, nice catch'?"
"Objection! Whether or not the victim had a prior relationship with the the defendant doesn't have any relevance to whether or not Mr. Kibner stole money from Mr. Smith"
"Your Honor, the witness tried to hide their prior relationship, it goes towards credibility."
"Overruled. Answer the question Mr. Smith."
"Yes. But...."
"In fact, isn't it true that on June 24th, 2009 you in fact lent Mr. Smith some money?"
"It was a dollar for the snack mach..."
"Please answer yes or no."
"Objection! Relevance?"
"Your Honor! Mr. Smith and the defendant had a prior monetary relationship!"
"Overruled."
"Fine. It seems Mr. Smith that you in fact have a HISTORY of monetary relationships. Isn't that right? In fact, did you, or did you not, in the last year give several donations to Bluepeace, Planned Childhood, Habitat for Ocelots, Heifer Intranational, The Red Crucifix, Psychologists without Borders, and Okaywill? And that's just what we found talking to your family. According to your neighbors and friends, it seems you gave to MANY people, isn't that right?"
"Objection!"
"Withdrawn. Mr. Kibner claimes that you told him you wanted to give him some money."
"I didn't!!! I never told him I wanted to give him any of my money!"
"So you just HAPPENED to meet Mr. Kibner in the bar. Mr. Kibner who you had a PRIOR monetary relationship with. And when walking home late at night, you just HAPPENED to run into Mr. Kibner. Mr. Smith, where was your wallet that night?"
"What?"
"I'll repeat it, Mr. Smith: where do you keep your wallet?"
"In my front pants' pocket, why?"
"Mr. Smith, did you, or did you not, take OUT your wallet, MULTIPLE times during the night and flash your money in Mr. Kibner's face?"
"I was paying for my drinks!"
"You were drinking? Mr. Smith, did you get drunk that night?"
"I don't understand..."
"So you admit that you were drunk, and had given Mr. Kibner money in the past. Tell me, If Mr. Kibner was mugging you, why didn't you fight back?"
"I thought he had a gun, his hands were in his pockets and he told me to give him money."
"But he didn't have a gun. And you never said 'No', you never yelled or did anything to indicate that you didn't WANT to give him that money."
"I didn't!!!"
"For all WE know, you really DID want to give Mr. Kibner your money, and only after you got home, you realized that it'd been a mistake. And that's when you called the police. AFTER you realized you wanted your money back. Your Honor. I'd like to suggest that Mr. Smith had an 'unfulfilling giving experience' and is using this farce to cover up his shame."


Does this make sense to anyone? I didn't think so. Yet everyday people suggest these exact same things to rape survivors. On a recent blog post/comment thread at Shakesville one commenter actually described having a a therapist call her rape an "Unfulfilling sexual experience."

UNFULFILLING SEXUAL EXPERIENCE?!!!!!!!

Discuss.

It makes me feel ill...

When I started this blog, I assumed that I would primarily write about the communities that I'm a part of. It felt presumptive to try to write about racism, able-bodiedism, and classism (if I'm forgetting any, I'm of course sorry, but more importantly would like to hear about it). Though I try to be an ally to these communities, I never want to put myself out there as being able to speak for them.

But I'm sick of this. I'm sick of reading about an unarmed, black, 73-year-old-cancer-surivor shot dead by police (in Louisiana). And I'm sick of this: Police in Tenaha, Texas pulling over black drivers in order to extort money, jewelry, cars, cellphones, and anything that looks valuable, from them. I'm sick of black men being shot in the back while handcuffed and on the ground (in California). *

But more than I'm sick about reading about these things, I'm sick of only reading about them on one blog, only hearing about them for a day in the news (if at all). I'm sick of knowing that 1 in 3 missing/kidnapped children are black, but the media reports on them only a fifth of the time (Missing Children in the News).


It was a mistake to not make a commitment to blog about the discrimination that other communities face. It was a mistake that I am going to try to rectify from here on out.** I cannot and will not speak for others, but I can try to draw attention to oppression as it happens around me. Please, if you have a blog, friends, family, a zine, or really any way to communicate with others, Let Them Know what is happening.



*Please go to Pam's House Blend for the complete Louisiana article and story. No seriously, go. And go here for the Texas article. And here for the California article.

**In that vein, please, please, send me suggestions for blogs. At the moment, my regular blog list is primarily composed of blogs devoted to atheism, queer communities, feminism, and one or two about racial privilege.