It's Alive! (also known as "Transphobia!")

Oy! So, recently I have been having all these thoughts. Thoughts are good, yes, yes. But then, I think I should put them up on the blog and then I think "no, no, it's been far too long since you posted anything, best to just let the blog die, a natural, slow, and painful death where you think about it once every couple days but don't post." but like Frankenstein, I will play god and create life from nothing (only I won't go spurning it, eventually leading to this blog killing a small child.... what? oh the point seems to have gotten away from me!) and thus I bring you this post.

Which in turn brings me to transphobia. No really.
Well, you see, because Mary Daly died, and I didn't know jack-all about her works (I'd heard the name but only enough to say "that sounds vaguely familiar") until her death, when a few feminist blogs I frequent (and many I don't) a-sploded . What with Daly apparently having written some virulently transphobic works during her life (none of which she publicly recanted), and one of which had a chapter about trans women with a title referring to Frankenstein*. So that's how this blog coming back to life and Transphobia are linked.

But instead of the transphobia of Mary Daly, I want to talk about the most pointlessly (and thus astoundingly) transphobic book I read over my winter break.

It's the third book in Mercedes Lackey's Bardic Voices series (The Eagle and the Nightingales). The book's plot is long and winding, but to sum it up, a Gypsy (Lackey's characterization) Bard is sent by lots of her friends off to a far away city/nation to find out why the High King (king o' all the kings) is letting governance slide and all of the countries under his purview are slowly going to shit. When she gets to this city she quickly becomes a performer at the local hot spot for non-humans, and then begins a romantic relationship with a non-human.
Meanwhile the Church is basically evil and saying that non-humans don't deserve rights, oh, and it's totally trying to destroy all creativity and spirit and fun (in the form of the Free Bards, which are the focus of this series, ps Mercedes, I'm a cranky atheist who gets yelled at for being too "atheist pride" or whatever, and I thought the Church-hatin' was a little ham-handed, just saying). (Keep this theme of "intolerance is bad!" in mind, it makes the transphobia even more of a doozy). So the main character quickly goes about trying to figure out how to fix whatever's ailing the King so that he can govern well and all can be peachy keen again.

But, this is 400+ page book, there is a rather lengthy set up and all where she's traveling and then getting set up in town and little side-plots etc., which is why the transphobia that jumped at me on page 155 was a little surprising. That's almost halfway into the book. And it was done so absolutely pointlessly, making a joke about a character we haven't even met yet, who I believe only actually shows up once in person to be reacted to, and who is only mentioned (tops) 5 times during the story.

Here's the first instance (emphasis mine):

"Well, Lyrebird, you're eating like a bird indeed today - twice your weight in food! You're eating like dear little Violetta!"
He winked at that; most of the staff found Violetta amusing. The name was female, and surely the little misfit dressed like a woman, but there wasn't a person on the staff who was fooled.
No matter. Freehold was full of misfits, and if "Violetta" wanted to dress in fantastic gowns and gossip like one of the serving-wenches, no one here would eve let "her" know they had seen past the disguise.

And then, just as quickly as it came in to ruin my day while reading, all mention of Violetta disappears again. Why, if I didn't know better I'd think this exchange was merely shoe-horned in in order to set us up for later random transphobia!

Oh wait, it was! 4 pages later we get this gem

nothing happened - other than Violetta showing up, as if Derfan's earlier mention of "her" had conjured "her"

'Cause if there's one thing I love it's having trans people's gender identities questioned every time a writer puts scare quotes around their fucking pronouns. Not.

Then we find out on 178 that a generally non-communicative snake-man thinks that Violetta is "exquisite" Why? We don't know since we haven't actually had any character have a single line of dialogue with her. I guess we're supposed to think that if some weirdo snake-man (who unlike other characters can't tell that she isn't "really" a woman) likes Violetta, she must really be a freak, or something.

And then, so far as I noticed, we don't get a single other mention of this Violetta until page 407 where SPOILER, it turns out that she's secretly the killer traitor!

She had seen this "Lord Atrovel" before - but not here.
In Freehold. And "he" had been--
Violetta...

Ok, so wait, what? Now we've decided that Violetta really is a girl? I mean, that's what the scare quotes on "he" mean, right??? I'm confused.
But wait, there's more! Not only is the trans/cross dressing/Merceds-Lackey-just-decided-to-cobble-together-"evil male bodied person in a dress"-stereotypes person the killer traitor, ze's also a PERVERT! (How the main characters gleaned this just by realizing the dual identities is beyond me) See!:

Hunt through his private papers, his suite, and question his servants, and you will probably find a trail of sabotage and evil as vile as the man himself. And you will likely find lace hankerchiefs that match those left by the mysterious gaol-raider. As well as a--" he coughed "--remarkable selection of female garments made in his size"

Oh Main Character! How did you ever restrain yourself from making a joke about how ze probably has lace panties by the gajillion and masturbates every night into them while cackling evilly? I mean, that's what I'd do in your situation. It must be that you are far too genteel to talk about such a thing, even though we've been reading about how as a bird you don't understand human prudery.


So to review: totally pointless introduction of a trans character for the sole purpose of mocking her. Which we learn is in fact vitally important because Mercedes Lackey really wanted to try something new and risky, which is having the trans person actually be a bad guy in disguise. I've never heard of that. Have you?


*(little recognized fact, the monster in Frankenstein is not called Frankenstein, he sadly doesn't have a name... poor widdle monster)

"On the Verge of An Affair" (Why Redbook can kiss my furry ass)

What the fuck? (All emphasis mine)

So... despite any obvious signs of cheating in your so-called friendship, ask yourself: Are you having an emotional affair?

You've Probably Crossed the Line if You...
1. Touch your male friend in "legal" ways, like picking lint off his blazer.
2. Pay extra attention to how you look before you see him.
3. Think crush-like thoughts like "He'd love this song!"
4. Tell him more details about your day than you do your partner.
5. No longer feel comfortable telling your mate about this person and begin to cover up your relationship.
6. Experience increasing sensual tension; you admit your attraction to him but also insist to yourself that you would never act on it.

It's About to Get Physical When You...
[7]. Find yourself feeling vulnerable and turn to the other man for support rather than to your mate or a trusted relative or girlfriend.
[8]. Accelerate the level of intimacy through sensual or suggestive talk over email or the phone.
[9]. Put yourself in a situation where the two of you could be alone.

You Can Avoid the Potential Affair if You...
[10]. Stay honest with your partner. Share with him all your hopes, triumphs, and failures -- as well as your attractions and temptations, which will help keep you from acting on them.
[11]. Make time for just the two of you on a regular basis -- away from the kids, your friends, and family.
[12]. Surround yourself with happy couples who don't believe in fooling around. Having positive, emotionally connected role models will help you stay on track.

I believe we have found the mother lode folks! But let's start at the top and work our way down.

1. So if you touch a guy in a "legal" way that means it's crossing a line. I suppose touching him in an "illegal way" means that you're not? No? Oh. So you mean that the "legal" in that sentence was to indicate that this is ostensibly allowable while in a relationship?
So basically this one should read: if you ever have physical contact with a man other than the one you are officially connected to, you're crossing the line. Thanks for the heads up!
2. I love this. See, this is directed at (straight, because all people are straight) women. Never mind that women are constantly told in our culture that they should pay attention to how they look. See, they said "extra" attention. You can tell it's "extra" because it's "crossing the line"! and you can tell it's "crossing the line" because you're paying "extra" attention! LOVE IT.
3. For realz???? Thinking that someone would like a song is a "crush-like" thought? Damn. I always thought "wouldn't it be cool if he liked me" was a crush-like thought. Righto.
Now off to formally retract every time I suggested a book, movie, song, television show, author, comedian, or performer to someone else (not to mention food! oh god, the formerly happy couples I may have ruined!!!!). Guess I'd better get going since that's a WHOLE LOT of people that I've apparently had crushes on who need to be informed of my cheating, cheating ways.
4. I don't even know what to say to this. Half of what you see on television implies that men are supposed to not give a fuck about the daily lives of their (female) partners.
5. When did "mate" become synonymous with "partner"? I see "mate" and I think: animals. Animals mate. Humans don't really "mate".
Plus, now we're just being confusing to non U.S. readers, since "mate" in the UK (I don't know about elsewhere) means friend.
6. Now the reader isn't allowed to have a libido. Great. I wonder, wouldn't the writer consider it appropriate/"normal" to have a crush on Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Jude Law, some other famous heartthrob? But I guess only if you don't know them, eh?

7. Ok. Fuck you. Officially. Basically we have just erased every lesbian in the world. A) I hate this "girlfriends" crap when talking about straight women. They're called friends. Apparently oftentimes they are girls, because if they aren't (and are instead sometimes boys) you're going to get hit over the head with how you're a BAD girlfriend (because being friends with a boy is impossible.... don't you know all men want is to have sex with every woman around them????). B) When did it become acceptable to have RADICALLY different meanings for words when said by women versus men. If I say 'fish sticks", I mean a breaded fish product made into a "stick" shape, if a cisgendered person says "fish stick" I assume they mean the same thing, not, oh "broccoli quiche". So when I say "girlfriend", I mean a person who I'm dating who identifies as a woman who I like to kiss, and maybe even have sex with. Not, oh, "someone who is absolutely no threat to my boyfriend because they don't even register as a sexual person to me". Those definitions are mutually exclusive. GAH.
This is always extra frustrating because when I hear a straight woman say that, I am suddenly overcome with confusion. Oh my, I assumed she was straight (I'm such a jerk to assume she was straight, I should know that assuming only butch looking women are queer erases femininity and femmes and is totally not ok), oh wow! she's out and poly, that's awesome. Oh wait. She was just talking about "quiche," silly me, thinking she meant the word she actually said.
9. Clearly it is always the woman's responsibility to make sure that she never strays, or is in a compromising position. Didn't you know? Hey.... you know, if you stay late at work you could be alone with someone else at work. Holy SHIT. I guess I better get my ass out of here at 5 everyday. I love this. Not even "avoid being alone" but "avoid the POSSIBILITY of being alone". Ok, I lied. I hate this.

10. This is the same as 4. Teach women that they should never have any secrets from their partners, that they should constantly talk to their partners about everything they feel and think and do, and then on the other hand, teach men that they should be as uninterested as possible in what women feel and think and do. Great. I'll put it on my to do list: irreparably damage my relationship(s) by having unrealistic expectations for myself and partner(s). CHECK!
12. Surround yourself with happy couples who don't believe in fooling around. Having positive, emotionally connected role models will help you stay on track.
Do I have to say more? don't be friends with single people, don't be friends with poly people, you clearly are so incompetent that you can't figure out if your relationship is working so try to just stay out of trouble by being friends with the "right crowd". (Oh and don't be friends with lesbians because then your "girlfriends" will be a threat to your virile virile boyfriends)

Anyone else notice that this is for women? And SURPRISE! so are articles about how to spot a cheating partner. So women should be constantly vigilant that THEY never cheat, and should be constantly vigilant that their (male) PARTNERS never cheat. yeparoo. Women are the sole bastions of responsibility in relationships.

So: disrespect of women, disrespect of men, erasure of lesbians, disrespect of single people, outright disgust with poly people, am I missing something?

And people wonder why I hate pop. culture.

PS. For a super interesting read about the ways that single people are Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After I suggest you check out the forementioned book by Bella DePaulo.

Women's Clothes

One of the major reasons I finally got off my butt to start this blog was wanting to explore some of the ideas in a book I've been reading, Whipping Girl: A Transexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity by Julia Serano.

Towards the end Ms. Serano makes a point about how we view masculinity as "normal" and femininity as "unnatural", saying: "[t]hose feminists who single out women's dress shoes, clothing, and hairstyles to artificialize necessarily leave unchallenged the notion that their masculine counterparts are 'natural' and 'practical'" (339).

Which got me to thinking. About how in the current (U.S. based) society, humans are one of the few species in which the plumage of the male is so much less impressive than the female. Take this

He is one of the "best dressed" according to the Yahoo or something. Impressively stylish, yes? What a powerful figure he makes (or some such gobbledy gook). Gosh, he's so... so.... well dressed.

Ok. Now to look at a "best dressed" woman (same source). Wow, she sure pops off the page, yes? If the two of them were in the same picture, I sure know who MY eye would tend towards.

"But" you say, "she's in bright colors! How could he possibly hope to compete with such a stunning example of neon color!!!"

Ok, you probably don't say that. You probably realize that I am setting you up. Perhaps your eye has even strayed to my next image (oh, to be able to keep this second image hidden until the appropriate time! what fun it would be!) .

Look here! A woman, dressed all in black and white! And she too is so much more vivid a figure.

Ok, seriously, snark aside: women clearly get more exciting clothes. Frankly, even though I'm very very VERY happy in my dull grey pin-stripes and my dark/somber button up shirts, sometimes I look at my female roommate, in her vivid turquoise and her exciting shapes and sigh in envy. I mean LOOK at them. Women's clothes say something. They say: "I have a dead swan draped over my neck" (it they are Bjork) or "I am VERY shiny and pink" (if they are our first female example). Not just famous people either. My roommate seriously has fashion options far surpassing mine (and not just because I don't shop).

My glib summary of fashion is this: men get pockets, women get pizzazz!! (with two Z's and two exclamation marks). Isn't it strange that the male of the species doesn't look as POWERFUL as they supposedly are?

I want to do a little thought experiment. Think of every type of clothing, shoe, accessory and make up that we have (you started only thinking of women's clothing, didn't you?). Now try to think of them, as what they can be: ways to draw attention to yourself. Can you think of a way to make lipstick be not a "feminine" thing but just a decoration? How about eyeshadow? Metal bits with sparkly stones?

When I squint my mental eyes, I can see these things as what they truly are, not just what meanings we've given to all of them.

To go back to Ms. Serano's point: If clothing is meant to be a way to distinguish one's self (which I believe it is) how "practical" can it be to have men's clothing so incredibly BORING? And it seems pretty "artificial" that we look at the bright colors in women's clothing and don't immediately connect that to the natural world (butterflies, dart poison frogs, flowers, birds, take your pick). Basically I'd like to see a day where (more) men could feel comfortable wearing bright colors. And also a world where women's clothes had pockets. (I never got why they seemingly couldn't put pockets in a skirt).

I'm going to end with Julia Serano's "Barrette Manifesto" which is wickedly funny. But more importantly, it's also wickedly true. Which is why even though this post is long enough, it needs to be here*.

18

Barrette Manifesto

Hey girls, did you hear the news? It's just been scientifically proven that barrettes are dangerous! So are bracelets and bric-a-brac. It's a fact. And don't be fooled by thick-necked macho men who pretend that "girl stuff" is boring or frivolous, because that's just an act. Because as soon as you ask that guy to hold your purse for a minute, he will start to squirm, as if your handbag were full of worms, as he holds it as far away from his rugged body as possible. Because "girl stuff" is made with the gender equivalent of Kryptonite!

That's right, just watch fathers in Sanrio stores standing like petrified trees, like deer caught in Hello Kitty headlights. Or teenage boys buying their girlfriends flowers, acting as disinterested as possible as they ask the florist for a dozen "whatever"s. That's why they always buy roses, that's why engagement rings are always diamonds. These things are not romantic, they are just cliches-the only types of flowers and jewelry that most men will admit to knowing the names of. And god forbid you were to ask your husband to pick you up a box of tampons. (And men, it's true, the cashier really does think you're buying them for yourselves.)

"Girl stuff" is dangerous, and I should know because I'm a secret double agent. See, I lived as a boy for most of my life and I have insider information straight out of men's locker rooms and college dorms. Hell, I even went to a bachelor party once, so I know this stuff firsthand. And I have a battle plan for absolute sexual equality, but you have to trust me on this. See, feminists have made it okay for girls to explore what used to be an exclusively boy world. But true equality won't come until boys learn to embrace girl stuff as well.

So here's the deal: If you want your boyfriend to treat you with respect, then tell him that you won't sleep with him until he starts putting barrettes in his hair. And I'm not talking about secret bedroom kinky shit. Make him wear them to work! The next time he buys a pair of shoes, make sure they're Mary Janes (and don't forget the white lacy anklets to go with them). Because as soon as he realizes the pure bliss of wearing a frilly, pink, poofy, party dress, maybe he'll finally relax a bit and loosen up that uptight male swagger. And maybe one he lets his guard down, he'll look around and realize that the world doesn't revolve around him.

You may think this is funny, but it's no joke. "Girl stuff" is dangerous, so let's use it to our advantage. We truly can change the world! Because if construction workers were man enough to wear skirts and heels, they wouldn't whistle at women who walk by. And if misogynistic rockers and rappers were man enough toe cry while watching tearjerkers, they wouldn't need to masturbate all over the mic. And if presidents and generals were man enough to wear lip gloss and mascara, they wouldn't have to prove their penis size by going to war all the time. Because male pride is not really about pride. It's about fear--the fear of being seen as feminine. And that's why "girl stuff" is so dangerous. And as long as most men remain deathly afraid of it, they'll continue to take it out on the rest of us.

*all typos are entirely mine

The start of a blog

Here are my thoughts: no one in the world is quite like anyone else, to suggest otherwise would be fallacious. However, there are people, many in fact, who are perfectly content to believe that they are in the Norm. Normal. I don't know any of them personally, but I'm positive they exist.

Why?

Because they have blogs. And they comment on youtube videos and internet articles. We see them (as characters) in movies, tv shows, and books, and listen to their love songs. Clearly there is a Norm because there are top ten and top 100 lists. Cultural norms are pervasive.

I want to look at the things that we: read, write, listen to, watch, and supposedly love. And study them. I want to question why I am a deviant from the norm. I want to have those who do not deviate in the ways that I do be informed, and those who do have one more voice speaking for them.

This blog will be a: review and summary of media made for and about trans populations. It will be a critique of straight society's (un)spoken rules. It will be angry and sad and often happy. It will discuss my opinions much and my life sometimes. It will offer information. It will do a whole lot more that I don't even know yet.



Hopefully.