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.
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Recent Searches and What they Mean to Me
I've been looking at the search terms that get people here to this fine blog (still a WHOLE LOT of hits on my post about why I don't like gender bender fiction. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that years from now I'll be known as "that guy that wrote about gender bender fiction").
While I think that the person searching for gender bending rock fucking pornos is by far my most confusing of searchs, I want to talk a little about 2 general types of searches that I've been getting recently that really strike home for me.
The first is a couple with searches about like so:
"what is it called when u dont like any gender"
So, since I think this is important information to get out into the world: the word you are looking for is asexual. It's a growing movement, of which I am not really a part ('cause I sure do like sex and I haven't really put in the hours/energy to count myself an ally), which isn't exactly a situation where you don't like any gender (I know that some people who identify as asexual nevertheless have romantic relationships and inclinations towards certain genders of non-sexual partner, etc.). I don't know a whole lot more, because, as I said, I am not asexual or really an ally*. I suggest looking for some of their blogs. Here, I'll get you started (I do not vouch for these, I just googled and found them): Love from the Asexual Underground, and AVEN: the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network.
If you are typing words to the effect of "someone who doesn't like people of any gender" into a search engine because you feel like they describe yourself: awesome! Naming what you feel is a great first step to recognizing and loving yourself.
If you are typing those words because a loved one has told you they aren't attracted to people of any gender, also great (that you're taking the time to learn about this), though again, I would suggest not looking to me for answers.
The next major search result that I want to talk about is less happy fun times and more crankyness. That is "ffm." I get a lot of these (ffm marriage, ffm poly, ffm triad, etc). I guess they all go to Jadelyn's guest post Drama Does Not Define Us. The thing is, FFM relationships are the stereotypical poly triad that people (read: straight cis men) talk about.
All the jokes about "oooh, threesomes" are based on the idea of male pleasure/sexuality and about how "hot" it would be to have TWO WOMEN who were having sex with you at once (if you were a straight cis man). There's an assumption that women in these relationships are "able" to have queer relationships at the whim of a man but that men should never be expected to put up with another GUY in their relationship, OH NOES (and certainly not that a guy could be attracted to a man)! It's a frustrating meme, that is frustratingly common.
I really enjoyed the book Opening Up except at those times where Taormino seems to very uncritically take at face value those relationships that fall into the "one penis policy" ("OPP"). I hate that fucking policy. It's a terrible, sexist thing that apparently happens with some frequency.
The "OPP," as I've heard it described is basically as such: a straight (cis) couple is going to open up their relationship. The woman is bi/bi-curious and the man is not. Therefore, he states that it is fair that they both get to have sex outside of the relationship with women. But no men. Afterall, he can't enjoy having sex with men, so how is it fair for her to have sex with men? Not to mention that it'll make him jealous (of course SHE won't be jealous of him having sex with other women because... ummmm.... because women are magical non-jealous people! and because, like, duh, she'll be getting to have sex with women too, so it's totally fair!), and that she might leave him for another penis. It's often offered as a "stepping stone" to a more fair situation where she isn't artificially limited by her partner's genitalia, but that "just for the moment" he isn't comfortable with it. Only, very rarely does it seem that the "moment" ever ends. I mean, why would it? He gets to sleep around with whoever he'd want to sleep with, while he controls his partner/girlfriend/wife! What's not tolove hate?
I don't know why people are searching for "FFM poly" and "FFM marriage" on my pretty lil' blog. It might be that they are all happily in such an arrangement. It might be that they are a woman and are actively seeking out such an arrangement. It could be a multitude of things. But you should know, if you don't fall into those aforementioned categories, if you are, say, a straight single (or currently coupled) cis guy fantasizing about how poly chicks are all about the FFMs, or how awesome a threesome would be? Stuff it. I'm sick of poly being envisioned as this field of pussy for the penises to frolick amongst. Poly relationships take work. Queer relationships are as meaningful/"real" as straight relationships (frankly, I feel like sometimes they are more meaningful/real, but I suppose I'm just biased what with being queer). FFM triads and threesomes and V relationships should not be about making the man happy, but about making EVERYONE happy.
Also, in case you're wondering? Any triad I'll be in will probably be QQQ (or possibly QQF, or QQM). Where are the searches for those types of relationships?
*Besides acknowledging that it is a: real, b: not bad, and c: not inherently a "phase." I do consider myself to have gone through a year long phase of asexuality where I didn't have crushes on people, I didn't fantasize about sex, and I was just plain asexual. However me saying that it was a phase for me is no more implying that asexuality is "just a phase" for others, than me saying that since I happened to go through a 10 year phase of assumed heterosexuality, that heterosexuality is "just a phase" for the rest of the world (that is heterosexual). Just because something was/is a "phase" for some people doesn't mean that the identity was/is any less valid. Though I do note that the phrase is almost entirely used by our society when referring to identities that we want to discredit or mark as "bad," so see point "b" for how I feel about that.
While I think that the person searching for gender bending rock fucking pornos is by far my most confusing of searchs, I want to talk a little about 2 general types of searches that I've been getting recently that really strike home for me.
The first is a couple with searches about like so:
"what is it called when u dont like any gender"
So, since I think this is important information to get out into the world: the word you are looking for is asexual. It's a growing movement, of which I am not really a part ('cause I sure do like sex and I haven't really put in the hours/energy to count myself an ally), which isn't exactly a situation where you don't like any gender (I know that some people who identify as asexual nevertheless have romantic relationships and inclinations towards certain genders of non-sexual partner, etc.). I don't know a whole lot more, because, as I said, I am not asexual or really an ally*. I suggest looking for some of their blogs. Here, I'll get you started (I do not vouch for these, I just googled and found them): Love from the Asexual Underground, and AVEN: the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network.
If you are typing words to the effect of "someone who doesn't like people of any gender" into a search engine because you feel like they describe yourself: awesome! Naming what you feel is a great first step to recognizing and loving yourself.
If you are typing those words because a loved one has told you they aren't attracted to people of any gender, also great (that you're taking the time to learn about this), though again, I would suggest not looking to me for answers.
The next major search result that I want to talk about is less happy fun times and more crankyness. That is "ffm." I get a lot of these (ffm marriage, ffm poly, ffm triad, etc). I guess they all go to Jadelyn's guest post Drama Does Not Define Us. The thing is, FFM relationships are the stereotypical poly triad that people (read: straight cis men) talk about.
All the jokes about "oooh, threesomes" are based on the idea of male pleasure/sexuality and about how "hot" it would be to have TWO WOMEN who were having sex with you at once (if you were a straight cis man). There's an assumption that women in these relationships are "able" to have queer relationships at the whim of a man but that men should never be expected to put up with another GUY in their relationship, OH NOES (and certainly not that a guy could be attracted to a man)! It's a frustrating meme, that is frustratingly common.
I really enjoyed the book Opening Up except at those times where Taormino seems to very uncritically take at face value those relationships that fall into the "one penis policy" ("OPP"). I hate that fucking policy. It's a terrible, sexist thing that apparently happens with some frequency.
The "OPP," as I've heard it described is basically as such: a straight (cis) couple is going to open up their relationship. The woman is bi/bi-curious and the man is not. Therefore, he states that it is fair that they both get to have sex outside of the relationship with women. But no men. Afterall, he can't enjoy having sex with men, so how is it fair for her to have sex with men? Not to mention that it'll make him jealous (of course SHE won't be jealous of him having sex with other women because... ummmm.... because women are magical non-jealous people! and because, like, duh, she'll be getting to have sex with women too, so it's totally fair!), and that she might leave him for another penis. It's often offered as a "stepping stone" to a more fair situation where she isn't artificially limited by her partner's genitalia, but that "just for the moment" he isn't comfortable with it. Only, very rarely does it seem that the "moment" ever ends. I mean, why would it? He gets to sleep around with whoever he'd want to sleep with, while he controls his partner/girlfriend/wife! What's not to
I don't know why people are searching for "FFM poly" and "FFM marriage" on my pretty lil' blog. It might be that they are all happily in such an arrangement. It might be that they are a woman and are actively seeking out such an arrangement. It could be a multitude of things. But you should know, if you don't fall into those aforementioned categories, if you are, say, a straight single (or currently coupled) cis guy fantasizing about how poly chicks are all about the FFMs, or how awesome a threesome would be? Stuff it. I'm sick of poly being envisioned as this field of pussy for the penises to frolick amongst. Poly relationships take work. Queer relationships are as meaningful/"real" as straight relationships (frankly, I feel like sometimes they are more meaningful/real, but I suppose I'm just biased what with being queer). FFM triads and threesomes and V relationships should not be about making the man happy, but about making EVERYONE happy.
Also, in case you're wondering? Any triad I'll be in will probably be QQQ (or possibly QQF, or QQM). Where are the searches for those types of relationships?
*Besides acknowledging that it is a: real, b: not bad, and c: not inherently a "phase." I do consider myself to have gone through a year long phase of asexuality where I didn't have crushes on people, I didn't fantasize about sex, and I was just plain asexual. However me saying that it was a phase for me is no more implying that asexuality is "just a phase" for others, than me saying that since I happened to go through a 10 year phase of assumed heterosexuality, that heterosexuality is "just a phase" for the rest of the world (that is heterosexual). Just because something was/is a "phase" for some people doesn't mean that the identity was/is any less valid. Though I do note that the phrase is almost entirely used by our society when referring to identities that we want to discredit or mark as "bad," so see point "b" for how I feel about that.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
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:
Nope, I recommended a blog post that would clear up his misconceptions and then wrote:
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?
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.
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!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).
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!
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).This morning I awake to this piece of flaming pile of nonpology crap:
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
Hey there,AND I go to check the website and find that
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. ;)
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.
Monday, June 7, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Search Engines Say the Darndest Things
Ok friends, I generally try to not post more than once a day, because so often I post less than once a day, so I figure: "why not spread out the joy* a little?"
But, today, I just couldn't help myself, because there is something that is absolutely necessary for you to know.
I have a little widget that lets me know how many people stop by the blog/read what posts/etc. It also tells me what searches brought my visitors to The Deviated Norm. One of most recent searches that landed someone here was...
"transgender AND gender bender AND rock fucking AND porno web sites"
I like to think that I'm a pretty open minded guy, but I seriously have to ask something. What the hell is rock fucking?
I identify as kinky, even though there are certainly kinky things that people do that I'm not interested in, I usually know about them. I know about the more regular BDSM fetishes, I know about leather and latex fetishes, I know about Furry communities and people who really enjoy dressing up as babies and get sexual satifaction from that. I know about golden showers and coprophilia. I know about people who are into surface piercing as foreplay, and flogging, and foot fetishes. I know people who are necrophiles. I know even that all of these things I've mentioned are *somewhat* common, if not super common. But rock fucking? I have no idea what the hell that is.
I mean, I honestly feel a little bad for whoever it was that searched for that and got this, because it seems highly unlikely that they found what they were looking for: I'm a pissed off trans* guy (hardly titilating, I mean, unless you really like pissed of trans* guys in a sexual way), one of my most linked to/read/commented on posts is about my deep dislike for gender bending fiction, and there isn't any pornos to be seen here. I also don't think I have any pictures of rocks up on the site.
So, I'm sorry anonymous reader interested "rock fucking" pornos, perhaps you could explain what you were looking for?
*or whatever
But, today, I just couldn't help myself, because there is something that is absolutely necessary for you to know.
I have a little widget that lets me know how many people stop by the blog/read what posts/etc. It also tells me what searches brought my visitors to The Deviated Norm. One of most recent searches that landed someone here was...
"transgender AND gender bender AND rock fucking AND porno web sites"
I like to think that I'm a pretty open minded guy, but I seriously have to ask something. What the hell is rock fucking?
I identify as kinky, even though there are certainly kinky things that people do that I'm not interested in, I usually know about them. I know about the more regular BDSM fetishes, I know about leather and latex fetishes, I know about Furry communities and people who really enjoy dressing up as babies and get sexual satifaction from that. I know about golden showers and coprophilia. I know about people who are into surface piercing as foreplay, and flogging, and foot fetishes. I know people who are necrophiles. I know even that all of these things I've mentioned are *somewhat* common, if not super common. But rock fucking? I have no idea what the hell that is.
I mean, I honestly feel a little bad for whoever it was that searched for that and got this, because it seems highly unlikely that they found what they were looking for: I'm a pissed off trans* guy (hardly titilating, I mean, unless you really like pissed of trans* guys in a sexual way), one of my most linked to/read/commented on posts is about my deep dislike for gender bending fiction, and there isn't any pornos to be seen here. I also don't think I have any pictures of rocks up on the site.
So, I'm sorry anonymous reader interested "rock fucking" pornos, perhaps you could explain what you were looking for?
*or whatever
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Comics that Get Stuff Right
So in the comments for "Why I Don't Like 'Gender Bending' in Fiction" people seem interested in reading comics with a transgender slant/storyline.
I thought I'd let ya'll know about another one that I do like quite a bit. It's called Khaos Komic.
It's the intertwined stories of a bunch of high school students. Told from the point of view of each of the characters one at a time.
Some problems up front: it is very "couple" focused, which is to say that all of the storylines are about people finding that the person they like likes them as well, and the subsequent twists and turns of their budding relationships. It's also a litle tokeny, as in there is one cis gay boy couple storyline, one cis lesbian couple storyline, right one trans/cis gay boy storyline, and (as far as I can tell) one upcoming cis/trans straight couple. However, that is already a cast of at least eight main characters, so it can be hard to not have character overload in this set up if one were to try to make them less tokeny.
In the positive categories: it deals with many of the difficulties and frustrations of being gay or trans in a sympathetic and I'd say non-cliched/accurate way, and it has a a cast of main characters that is multi-ethnic (however the cast is all very currently abled, skinny, and I don't see class being dealt with either). Also, I have a character crush on Tom, the trans guy (mmm, piercings and tattoos!).
So, a comic that I really like that has gay and trans themes! Drop more comic or story links in the comments!
I thought I'd let ya'll know about another one that I do like quite a bit. It's called Khaos Komic.
It's the intertwined stories of a bunch of high school students. Told from the point of view of each of the characters one at a time.
Some problems up front: it is very "couple" focused, which is to say that all of the storylines are about people finding that the person they like likes them as well, and the subsequent twists and turns of their budding relationships. It's also a litle tokeny, as in there is one cis gay boy couple storyline, one cis lesbian couple storyline, right one trans/cis gay boy storyline, and (as far as I can tell) one upcoming cis/trans straight couple. However, that is already a cast of at least eight main characters, so it can be hard to not have character overload in this set up if one were to try to make them less tokeny.
In the positive categories: it deals with many of the difficulties and frustrations of being gay or trans in a sympathetic and I'd say non-cliched/accurate way, and it has a a cast of main characters that is multi-ethnic (however the cast is all very currently abled, skinny, and I don't see class being dealt with either). Also, I have a character crush on Tom, the trans guy (mmm, piercings and tattoos!).
So, a comic that I really like that has gay and trans themes! Drop more comic or story links in the comments!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Nostalgia for things that don't exist
So looking at my recent youtube videos, someone might think that I tend to like Tim Minchin's work. Which is... true? I enjoy those songs of his which seem more heartfelt and less just to be jokes on piano.
I also have listened to some of his stuff that frankly I find troubling, such as a song of his where he starts out the song stating that it's about prejudice and including the letters of a specific slur that he finds troubling. For people (unlike myself) who quickly catch onto this particular opening, he seems to be referencing the N-word. However as soon as the song starts instead he says "only a ginger can call another ginger 'ginger'." Which, ya know, seems to be making light of racism directed against Black people and the history of how Black Americans have been treated by white society, and the very complex struggles that go on within and around Black communities in regards to the ability or desire to reclaim a word used throughout its life in an oppressive way, by comparing it to being a redhead. So that's, um, not so cool?
Anyway, which is all to say that I find him very hit or miss (for my tastes), and that this following song of his, which has been making the atheist blog rounds (and other people's? I don't know) for the past couple months is another hit.
Sort of.
It's certainly very moving, being about the importance of connection and love and well, I'll just let you hear/read it yourself and then get to my personal difficulties with it:
[visual for the entire video is: a picture of comedian/pianist Tim Minchin standing on top of a black grand piano at one of the side edges. He is looking behind himself over the edge of the right side of the piano. The piano's keycover is up, showing us the keys. Tim is wearing all dark blacks and browns, with his customary teased/"messy" hair. He is white and skinny.]
[piano, quiet, with quiet lyrics sung in Australian accent] I really like Christmas, it's sentimental I know, but I just really like it.
I am hardly religious:
I'd rather break bread with Dawkins than Desmond Tutu, to be honest. [audience laughter]
And yes I have all of the usual objections to consumerism,
to the commercialization of an ancient religion, to the westernization of a dead Palestinian press-ganged into selling Playstations and beer.
But I still really like it.
I'm looking forward to Christmas,
though I'm not expecting a visit from Jesus.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
[piano swells, violins added and lyrics sung more strongly]
I don't go in for ancient wisdom,
I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious it means that they're worthy.
I get freaked out by Churches:
some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords, but the lyrics are spooky.
And yes I have all of the usual objections to the miseducation of children who in tax-exempt institutions are taught to externalize blame,
and to feel ashamed, and to judge things as plain right or wrong.
But I quite like the songs.
I'm not expecting big presents.
The old combination of socks, jocks, and chocolates is just fine by me.
'Cause I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
[piano builds again, and violins swell]
And you my baby girl, my jet-lagged infant daughter,
you'll be handed 'round the room, like a puppy at a prim'ry school,
and you won't understand, but you will learn some day,
that wherever you are and whatever your face,
these are the people who make you feel safe in this world, my sweet blue-eyed girl.
And if my baby girl, when you're twenty one or thirty one,
and Christmas comes around,
and you find yourself nine thousand miles from home,
you'll know whatever comes: [violins drop out momentarily]
your brothers and sisters and me and your mum will be waiting for you in the sun, whenever you come [violins building again, it's quite a tear-jerking moment, which I say in full honesty], your brothers and sisters, your aunts and your uncles, your grandparents, cousins, and me and your mum will be waiting for you in the sun, drinking white wine in the sun,
darling when Christmas comes,
we'll be waiting for you in the sun,
drinking white wine in the sun,
waiting for you in the sun, waiting for yoouuu.... [violins swell]
waiting... [violins come to a close with piano]
[quiet, as in beginning] I really like Christmas, it's sentimental I know... [piano slowly plays a few arpeggiated chords] [audience applause]as always, as complete a transcript as I can make
When I listened to it the very first time, I found myself feeling nostalgic and heartwarmed, until it got to the bit about his infant daughter. Which I think is also supposed to be very heartwarming and inspiring and what-not, and probably for a lot of people does manage that. But I was suddenly struck by "these are the people who make you feel safe in this world," since for so many children in the foster care system, or who are neglected or abused or who are witnesses to family violence (which technically in MA is considered neglect), family isn't this thing that makes you feel safe. For them it can be terrifying.
It's so beautiful and moving that he thinks of this tiny human life as something worth protecting and nurturing, but all I could think of was my clients, and the clients of all the many other workers in my office, and all the clients of all the workers in all the many other offices even just in the Boston area, and all the clients of all the workers in all the offices in MA, and across the country, and you get the idea. And how (some/many) of their parents just don't, or can't, protect and nurture a child so they feel safe and loved by their parents.
Which is heartbreaking.
Really, I'm tearing up because I work in an office with tens of cubicles, each filled with 4 or more social workers, each worker with approximately 20 cases, so at a very conservative estimate there are 800 families at this moment involved with just the DCF office of Dorchester. And most of these families have more than 2 kids. So we'll say 1600 kids at any time involved with us for anything from the fact that they have literally no family, to them being sexually assaulted by family members.
Which is terrifying.
And then to a lesser extent (and after writing the other stuff, this feels so petty, but it's also true) I was also struck by wondering how he knows that this infant child of his will grow up to be a girl/woman, and the fact that I even though I love my family and appreciate them and know that they care for me, they aren't the people in this world that I feel safest with. Because I'm always on edge and anxious about how right they'll get stuff. And I thought of lots of other gay/trans kids around the world who have loving families that they love as well, who might also just not feel safest with their family. Because they're always on edge and anxious. And all the other groups of people, who for whatever reason are the odd-ones out of their families, who may still love their family, but still have to worry about whether THIS family gathering they're going to have to deal with something huge that'll emotionally knock them on their asses. I don't know.
I guess this song just makes me nostalgic for a family that I don't even know if it exists. Does it? Are there families where all the children grow up and feel unconditionally loved and cared for and *safe*? It scares me that I have to ask.
But the song sure is pretty.
I also have listened to some of his stuff that frankly I find troubling, such as a song of his where he starts out the song stating that it's about prejudice and including the letters of a specific slur that he finds troubling. For people (unlike myself) who quickly catch onto this particular opening, he seems to be referencing the N-word. However as soon as the song starts instead he says "only a ginger can call another ginger 'ginger'." Which, ya know, seems to be making light of racism directed against Black people and the history of how Black Americans have been treated by white society, and the very complex struggles that go on within and around Black communities in regards to the ability or desire to reclaim a word used throughout its life in an oppressive way, by comparing it to being a redhead. So that's, um, not so cool?
Anyway, which is all to say that I find him very hit or miss (for my tastes), and that this following song of his, which has been making the atheist blog rounds (and other people's? I don't know) for the past couple months is another hit.
Sort of.
It's certainly very moving, being about the importance of connection and love and well, I'll just let you hear/read it yourself and then get to my personal difficulties with it:
[visual for the entire video is: a picture of comedian/pianist Tim Minchin standing on top of a black grand piano at one of the side edges. He is looking behind himself over the edge of the right side of the piano. The piano's keycover is up, showing us the keys. Tim is wearing all dark blacks and browns, with his customary teased/"messy" hair. He is white and skinny.]
[piano, quiet, with quiet lyrics sung in Australian accent] I really like Christmas, it's sentimental I know, but I just really like it.
I am hardly religious:
I'd rather break bread with Dawkins than Desmond Tutu, to be honest. [audience laughter]
And yes I have all of the usual objections to consumerism,
to the commercialization of an ancient religion, to the westernization of a dead Palestinian press-ganged into selling Playstations and beer.
But I still really like it.
I'm looking forward to Christmas,
though I'm not expecting a visit from Jesus.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
[piano swells, violins added and lyrics sung more strongly]
I don't go in for ancient wisdom,
I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious it means that they're worthy.
I get freaked out by Churches:
some of the hymns that they sing have nice chords, but the lyrics are spooky.
And yes I have all of the usual objections to the miseducation of children who in tax-exempt institutions are taught to externalize blame,
and to feel ashamed, and to judge things as plain right or wrong.
But I quite like the songs.
I'm not expecting big presents.
The old combination of socks, jocks, and chocolates is just fine by me.
'Cause I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my dad, my brother and sisters, my gran and my mum:
they'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
[piano builds again, and violins swell]
And you my baby girl, my jet-lagged infant daughter,
you'll be handed 'round the room, like a puppy at a prim'ry school,
and you won't understand, but you will learn some day,
that wherever you are and whatever your face,
these are the people who make you feel safe in this world, my sweet blue-eyed girl.
And if my baby girl, when you're twenty one or thirty one,
and Christmas comes around,
and you find yourself nine thousand miles from home,
you'll know whatever comes: [violins drop out momentarily]
your brothers and sisters and me and your mum will be waiting for you in the sun, whenever you come [violins building again, it's quite a tear-jerking moment, which I say in full honesty], your brothers and sisters, your aunts and your uncles, your grandparents, cousins, and me and your mum will be waiting for you in the sun, drinking white wine in the sun,
darling when Christmas comes,
we'll be waiting for you in the sun,
drinking white wine in the sun,
waiting for you in the sun, waiting for yoouuu.... [violins swell]
waiting... [violins come to a close with piano]
[quiet, as in beginning] I really like Christmas, it's sentimental I know... [piano slowly plays a few arpeggiated chords] [audience applause]
When I listened to it the very first time, I found myself feeling nostalgic and heartwarmed, until it got to the bit about his infant daughter. Which I think is also supposed to be very heartwarming and inspiring and what-not, and probably for a lot of people does manage that. But I was suddenly struck by "these are the people who make you feel safe in this world," since for so many children in the foster care system, or who are neglected or abused or who are witnesses to family violence (which technically in MA is considered neglect), family isn't this thing that makes you feel safe. For them it can be terrifying.
It's so beautiful and moving that he thinks of this tiny human life as something worth protecting and nurturing, but all I could think of was my clients, and the clients of all the many other workers in my office, and all the clients of all the workers in all the many other offices even just in the Boston area, and all the clients of all the workers in all the offices in MA, and across the country, and you get the idea. And how (some/many) of their parents just don't, or can't, protect and nurture a child so they feel safe and loved by their parents.
Which is heartbreaking.
Really, I'm tearing up because I work in an office with tens of cubicles, each filled with 4 or more social workers, each worker with approximately 20 cases, so at a very conservative estimate there are 800 families at this moment involved with just the DCF office of Dorchester. And most of these families have more than 2 kids. So we'll say 1600 kids at any time involved with us for anything from the fact that they have literally no family, to them being sexually assaulted by family members.
Which is terrifying.
And then to a lesser extent (and after writing the other stuff, this feels so petty, but it's also true) I was also struck by wondering how he knows that this infant child of his will grow up to be a girl/woman, and the fact that I even though I love my family and appreciate them and know that they care for me, they aren't the people in this world that I feel safest with. Because I'm always on edge and anxious about how right they'll get stuff. And I thought of lots of other gay/trans kids around the world who have loving families that they love as well, who might also just not feel safest with their family. Because they're always on edge and anxious. And all the other groups of people, who for whatever reason are the odd-ones out of their families, who may still love their family, but still have to worry about whether THIS family gathering they're going to have to deal with something huge that'll emotionally knock them on their asses. I don't know.
I guess this song just makes me nostalgic for a family that I don't even know if it exists. Does it? Are there families where all the children grow up and feel unconditionally loved and cared for and *safe*? It scares me that I have to ask.
But the song sure is pretty.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
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):
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
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 thekiller traitor!
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 thekiller traitor, ze's also a PERVERT! (How the main characters gleaned this just by realizing the dual identities is beyond me) See!:
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)
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
She had seen this "Lord Atrovel" before - but not here.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.
In Freehold. And "he" had been--
Violetta...
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
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)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
You say "Funny" I Say "Beautiful"
I have found one of the best, most beautiful and moving love songs to ever grace the internet ("If I Didn't Have You" by Tim Minchin. I'm totally serious when I say that listening to it repeatedly for the transcription was hard because I kept almost tearing up.
Now, this is technically a "comedy" song. Or by "technically", I guess I mean that the singer is among other things a comedian and that the audience has reason to laugh periodically during it.
However, this is indeed an absolutely beautiful love song.
as always, click for as complete a transcript as I can make:
Some notes:
Everyone I've shown this to so far, has found this silly or funny. And I get it, I really do, the humorous aspects of it. But mostly when I watch it I think of living my life with someone I love. Knowing that the fact that we met and got together was a random chance, that any of a number of things could have gone entirely differently, and that our relationship, as all relationships, is a gamble.
My and Bluejay's getting together story isn't simple (though no one's really is): we met because his ex-girlfriend went to the same college as I did, and she in turn started dating someone who lived in my dorm, and that significant other of hers became friends with Bluejay, and she was invited to visit our college. I was in a (new) monogamous relationship with (the here-after named:) the estraNged*, and it would be a stretch to imply that I was immediately attracted to Bluejay, I was so wrapped up in being with the estraNged. Months later, after the estraNged and I decided to move to Boston (itself a haphazard choice) for the summer, ze had to just about drag me to the Dyke March here, which is where Bluejay and I re-met, and when Bluejay asked for my number, (and there were still further twists).
I tell this not just because I like to hear myself speak/see myself write (though that's true too), but also to illustrate how really truly much I appreciate the ability to find beauty in random chance love. Because I think that's honestly the case: that all love is a happy accident, making this song profoundly true, and sublimely beautiful to me for speaking that truth.
*This name was decided on jointly by us, thus making "estranged" actually, patently untrue
[Edited to fix bad coding]
Now, this is technically a "comedy" song. Or by "technically", I guess I mean that the singer is among other things a comedian and that the audience has reason to laugh periodically during it.
However, this is indeed an absolutely beautiful love song.
*Background vocals are in parentheses
[Spoken, low voiced and breathy]: So, uh, I'm married. And, uh, the woman I'm married to I met in High School, and this is a song I wrote for her. It's called: "If I Didn't Have You"
[Sung, Romantically, "Spanish" Guitar in Background? with R&B beats]:
Yeah, yeah,
If I didn't have you.
If I didn't have you to hold me tight,
(If I didn't have you)
If I didn't have you to lie with at night,
(When I'm feeling blue)
If I didn't have you to share my sighs,
(Share my sighs)
And to kiss me and dry my tears when I cry,
Well I, really think that I would...
Have somebody else.
[Laughter]
(If I didn't have you)
If I didn't have you, someone else would do.
Your love is one in a million,
(One in a million),
You couldnt buy it at any price,
(Can't buy love).
But of the 9.999 hundred thousand other possible loves
Statistically some of them would be equally nice
(Equally nice).
Or maybe not as nice but say:
[gester/half shrug]smarter than you,
or dumber but better at sport or...
tracing.
I'm just saying,
(I really think that I would),
Probably,
(Have somebody else).
Yeah. [Shimmies down and up]
(If I didn't have you),
If I didn't have you someone else would do, [shrugs]
(Someone else would surely do).
["Spoken Word"ish]: And look, I'm not undervaluing what we've got when I say that given the role chaos inevitably plays in the inherently flawed notion of "fate" [air quotes], it's obstruse to deduce I found my soulmate at the age of 17. It's just mathematically unlikely that at a university in Perth I happened to stumble on the one girl on earth specifically designed for me.
And if I may conjecture a further objection--love is nothing to do with destined "perfection" [air quotes]--the [gestering] connection is strengthened, the affection simply grows over time:
Like a flower
Or a mushroom
Or a guinea pig
Or a vine
Or a sponge
Or bigotry
[Laughter]
... or a [wide eyed] banana (banana).
And love is made more powerful by the ongoing drama of shared experience and the synergy of a kind of symbiotic empathy or something.
[Sung]: So I trust it goes without saying,
That I would feel really very sad
if tomorrow you were to fall off something high [raises arms],
Or catch something bad.
But I'm just saying:
I don't think you're special.
I mean, I mean... I think your special
But you fall within a bell curve [shows a bell curve with hands].
[Laughter]
I mean, I'm just saying I
(Think that I would)
Probably
(Have somebody else).
["Spoken Word"ish]: I mean I reckon it's pretty likely that if for example my first girlfriend Jackie hadn't dumped me after I kissed Winston's ex-girlfriend Nia back at Steph's party in 1993, and our variables would probably have been altered by the absence of that event to have meant the advent of a tangential [gestering indicating other timeline] narrative in which we don't meet.
[Sung]: Which is to say there exists a theoretical hypothetical parallel life
Where what is is not as it is and I am not your husband and you are not my wife.
And I am a stuntman living in LA [arms up, as though weighing things/dancing]
Married to a small blonde portugese skier [downhill skiing motion]
Who when she's not training
Does abstract painting
Practises yoga
And brews her own beer
And really like making home movies
And suffers neck [gesters to below neck] down alopecia.
[Laughter]
[Predatory, or perhaps mischevious smile]
But with all my heart and all my mind I know one thing is true
I have just [holds right hand at waist level with index finger sticking up] one life and just [holds left hand at waist level with index finger sticking up] one love and my love [open handed toward audience/"you"] that love is you.
And if it wasn't for you
Baby
(really think that I would)
Probably
(Have somebody else).
Yeah. [Shimmies up and down]
(If I didn't have you)
If I didn't have you someone else would surely
(Someone else would surely do)
Dooooooooooooo.
[Applause]
Some notes:
- Tim Minchin apparently always performs barefoot, this indeed makes me happy.
- Additionally, there are lyrics online for this that seem to indicate that there is a longer version. However, I am going to say that I feel the other version is decidedly less good. In the excised portions, he goes for, shall we say, "easier" laughs. Eh.
- Greta Christina's Blog is the sole reason I saw this. Thanks Greta!
Everyone I've shown this to so far, has found this silly or funny. And I get it, I really do, the humorous aspects of it. But mostly when I watch it I think of living my life with someone I love. Knowing that the fact that we met and got together was a random chance, that any of a number of things could have gone entirely differently, and that our relationship, as all relationships, is a gamble.
My and Bluejay's getting together story isn't simple (though no one's really is): we met because his ex-girlfriend went to the same college as I did, and she in turn started dating someone who lived in my dorm, and that significant other of hers became friends with Bluejay, and she was invited to visit our college. I was in a (new) monogamous relationship with (the here-after named:) the estraNged*, and it would be a stretch to imply that I was immediately attracted to Bluejay, I was so wrapped up in being with the estraNged. Months later, after the estraNged and I decided to move to Boston (itself a haphazard choice) for the summer, ze had to just about drag me to the Dyke March here, which is where Bluejay and I re-met, and when Bluejay asked for my number, (and there were still further twists).
I tell this not just because I like to hear myself speak/see myself write (though that's true too), but also to illustrate how really truly much I appreciate the ability to find beauty in random chance love. Because I think that's honestly the case: that all love is a happy accident, making this song profoundly true, and sublimely beautiful to me for speaking that truth.
*This name was decided on jointly by us, thus making "estranged" actually, patently untrue
[Edited to fix bad coding]
Thursday, May 7, 2009
More Joy
I know I know, there's been far too much posting of videos that are wonderful and bring a smile to people's faces?
No? LOVELY!
(PS, this video is NSFW, the chorus is comprised primarily of "Fuck You"s, so go forth with headphones!)
(As usual click for)
Lyrics! (that I promise won't take you away from the page!)
Some notes:
The woman in the rainbow scarf, is apparently the mother of the person who put it all together!
A whole hell of a lot of people on that video were not just cute, but very hot.
I wish I knew just about everyone that was part of the video, 'cause it was so lovely and adorable. It almost makes me want to become some type of video-making person! (Almost)
No? LOVELY!
(PS, this video is NSFW, the chorus is comprised primarily of "Fuck You"s, so go forth with headphones!)
(As usual click for)
Look inside, look inside your tiny mind
Then look a bit harder
'Cause we're so uninspired, so sick and tired
Of all the hatred you harbor
So you say it's not okay to be gay
Well, I think you're just evil
You're just some racist who can't tie my laces
Your point of view is medieval
Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
'Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don't stay in touch
Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
'Cause your words don't translate
And it's getting quite late
So please don't stay in touch
Do you get, do you get a little kick
Out of being small minded?
You want to be like your father
It's approval you're after
Well, that's not how you find it
Do you, do you really enjoy
Living a life that's so hateful?
'Cause there's a hole where your soul should be
You're losing control a bit
And it's really distasteful
Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
'Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don't stay in touch
Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
'Cause your words don't translate
And it's getting quite late
So please don't stay in touch
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Lyrics! (that I promise won't take you away from the page!)
Some notes:
The woman in the rainbow scarf, is apparently the mother of the person who put it all together!
A whole hell of a lot of people on that video were not just cute, but very hot.
I wish I knew just about everyone that was part of the video, 'cause it was so lovely and adorable. It almost makes me want to become some type of video-making person! (Almost)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Miltary Fairy
My partner Bluejay and I were discussing the normalizing of heterosexuality in our culture, in response to some readings that he'd been doing. It got me to thinking about humor, and how subversive humor can be, if done right, and how utterly not funny it can be when done totally wrong.
For instance: Miltary Fairy from Monty Python
Right! Now let's see something decent and Military. Some Precision Drilling.
Sergeant: Squad... Camp it ... up!
(chanting like a military march drill, they mince in unison)
Oooh get her! Whoops!
I've got your number ducky.
You couldn't afford me, dear. Two three.
I'd scratch your eyes out.
Don't come the brigadier bit with us, dear,
We all know where you've been, you military fairy!
Whoops, don't look now girls,
The major's just minced in
With that dolly colour sergeant,
Two, three, ooh-ho!
Transcript
Monty Python was active in the early 1970s. That's more than 3 decades ago. Yet watching this today it still packs a similar punch.
Why? Because it takes the assumed heterosexuality of men, and specifically, explicitly military men, and turns it on its head. The company is doing "precision drilling," of the campiest sort. This joke wouldn't be funny if the assumption of heterosexuality weren't part of our culture, and if machismo wasn't tied so tightly to that expectation.
For an example of totally unsubversive gay "humor", feel free to see "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry". I certainly didn't, but surprisingly, feel no need to worry. After all, it has Adam Sandler, and the guy who plays the husband/father in King of Queens.
For instance: Miltary Fairy from Monty Python
Right! Now let's see something decent and Military. Some Precision Drilling.
Sergeant: Squad... Camp it ... up!
(chanting like a military march drill, they mince in unison)
Oooh get her! Whoops!
I've got your number ducky.
You couldn't afford me, dear. Two three.
I'd scratch your eyes out.
Don't come the brigadier bit with us, dear,
We all know where you've been, you military fairy!
Whoops, don't look now girls,
The major's just minced in
With that dolly colour sergeant,
Two, three, ooh-ho!
Transcript
Monty Python was active in the early 1970s. That's more than 3 decades ago. Yet watching this today it still packs a similar punch.
Why? Because it takes the assumed heterosexuality of men, and specifically, explicitly military men, and turns it on its head. The company is doing "precision drilling," of the campiest sort. This joke wouldn't be funny if the assumption of heterosexuality weren't part of our culture, and if machismo wasn't tied so tightly to that expectation.
For an example of totally unsubversive gay "humor", feel free to see "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry". I certainly didn't, but surprisingly, feel no need to worry. After all, it has Adam Sandler, and the guy who plays the husband/father in King of Queens.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
NOM Parody. They Just Keep Getting Better
Loki, each time I think that I have a favorite parody, someone makes an even better one.
Check it out
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: There’s a storm gathering.
[Jason Lewis, Sex and the City]: That’s why there are these clouds behind me. They represent a storm that’s gathering.
[Lynne Stewart]: And it’s gathering fast.
[Alicia Silverstone, from Clueless]: (tearing) And I, am afraid… ‘Cause I have a fear of storms.
[Lance Bass, from *NSYNC]: I’m also afraid
[Liz Feldman, director and producer of this video]: And I am afra….wait did someone say that? Oh he did? My Bad.
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: Some who advocate for same sex marriage, take the issue far beyond, same sex marriage.
[Sophia Bush, from One Tree Hill]: Like, really far.
[Drew Droege]: They’re trying to force the issue into my life. And it’s just stupid
[Mike Hitchcock, from MADtv]: The storm is getting worser, and worser.
[Daniele Gathier, from MADtv]: Stop it storm.
[Alicia Silverstone, from Clueless]: Stop it storm!
[Mike Hitchcock, from MADtv]: STOP IT STORM
[Jason Lewis, Sex and the City]: I’m a California doctor, who must choose between my faith and my job. Because doctors hate gay marriage.
[Alicia Silverstone, from Clueless]: I’m a Massachusetts mother, helplessly standing by as the schools teach my children that Gay Marriage is OK. I also have an issue with their hot lunch program.
[Jay Lay]: I’m a Connecticut weatherman, and there’s a cold front coming in! And it’s gay people! ‘K they’re here, and we’re here, the Not Gay People. Ok. They ARE trying to get us, be careful, and wind chill will definitely be a factor, so bundle up.
[Erin Foley, from Almost Famous]: The storm is getting bigger.
[Daniele Gathier, from MADtv]: This storm is being caused by Gay marriage.
[George Takei, from Startrek]: That’s what’s up there, married gay people. And they’re doing all this!
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: Soon, gay people will start falling out of the sky.
[Lance Bass, from *NSYNC]: Onto our homes.
[Sophia Bush, from One Tree Hill]: Onto our churches.
[Lynne Stewart]: And onto our families.
[Jay Lay]: A downpour of gay people, threatening the way we live (falling gays)
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: And this gay rain army, won’t stop.
[Lynne Stewart]: They’ll come at us, marching
[Liz Feldman, director and producer of this video]: Not marching, more like a dance. They’ll dance at us
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: And it’ll be choreographed, it’ll be good
[Daniele Gathier, from MADtv]: But they won’t stop until all of us, AND our children, are gay married
[Mike Hitchcock, from MADtv]: I’m so angry!!!!
[Actually, no idea who, was it one of the earlier guys?]: The storm, is, coming (fake accent)
[Jane Lynch, from fucking everything]: But we have hope. People of every creed, race and color are coming together to build a giant umbrella of faith, morality, and righteousness. That will protect us from this gay, rain, army. And that’s not just a metaphor, we’re actually building um, an umbrella. So if you want to protect marriage, and if you have any experience building a giant umbrella, join us at www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com
I'd love ya'll's opinion on which are the funniest bits, right now I'm leaning towards the weather-man.
Oh, anyone else love how the gay actors are just sprinkled around in there. As in, lots of straight allies. WOOOO go you straight allies, go!
Check it out
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: There’s a storm gathering.
[Jason Lewis, Sex and the City]: That’s why there are these clouds behind me. They represent a storm that’s gathering.
[Lynne Stewart]: And it’s gathering fast.
[Alicia Silverstone, from Clueless]: (tearing) And I, am afraid… ‘Cause I have a fear of storms.
[Lance Bass, from *NSYNC]: I’m also afraid
[Liz Feldman, director and producer of this video]: And I am afra….wait did someone say that? Oh he did? My Bad.
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: Some who advocate for same sex marriage, take the issue far beyond, same sex marriage.
[Sophia Bush, from One Tree Hill]: Like, really far.
[Drew Droege]: They’re trying to force the issue into my life. And it’s just stupid
[Mike Hitchcock, from MADtv]: The storm is getting worser, and worser.
[Daniele Gathier, from MADtv]: Stop it storm.
[Alicia Silverstone, from Clueless]: Stop it storm!
[Mike Hitchcock, from MADtv]: STOP IT STORM
[Jason Lewis, Sex and the City]: I’m a California doctor, who must choose between my faith and my job. Because doctors hate gay marriage.
[Alicia Silverstone, from Clueless]: I’m a Massachusetts mother, helplessly standing by as the schools teach my children that Gay Marriage is OK. I also have an issue with their hot lunch program.
[Jay Lay]: I’m a Connecticut weatherman, and there’s a cold front coming in! And it’s gay people! ‘K they’re here, and we’re here, the Not Gay People. Ok. They ARE trying to get us, be careful, and wind chill will definitely be a factor, so bundle up.
[Erin Foley, from Almost Famous]: The storm is getting bigger.
[Daniele Gathier, from MADtv]: This storm is being caused by Gay marriage.
[George Takei, from Startrek]: That’s what’s up there, married gay people. And they’re doing all this!
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: Soon, gay people will start falling out of the sky.
[Lance Bass, from *NSYNC]: Onto our homes.
[Sophia Bush, from One Tree Hill]: Onto our churches.
[Lynne Stewart]: And onto our families.
[Jay Lay]: A downpour of gay people, threatening the way we live (falling gays)
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: And this gay rain army, won’t stop.
[Lynne Stewart]: They’ll come at us, marching
[Liz Feldman, director and producer of this video]: Not marching, more like a dance. They’ll dance at us
[Sarah Chalke, from Scrubs]: And it’ll be choreographed, it’ll be good
[Daniele Gathier, from MADtv]: But they won’t stop until all of us, AND our children, are gay married
[Mike Hitchcock, from MADtv]: I’m so angry!!!!
[Actually, no idea who, was it one of the earlier guys?]: The storm, is, coming (fake accent)
[Jane Lynch, from fucking everything]: But we have hope. People of every creed, race and color are coming together to build a giant umbrella of faith, morality, and righteousness. That will protect us from this gay, rain, army. And that’s not just a metaphor, we’re actually building um, an umbrella. So if you want to protect marriage, and if you have any experience building a giant umbrella, join us at www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com
I'd love ya'll's opinion on which are the funniest bits, right now I'm leaning towards the weather-man.
Oh, anyone else love how the gay actors are just sprinkled around in there. As in, lots of straight allies. WOOOO go you straight allies, go!
Rectifying the Atheist Problem
So... I've been realizing that we have a small little problem on this here blog.
In order to fix the overly atheistic slant of this blog, I give you my side project: http://www.thedeviatednorm.blogpsot.com/
HaHA. Just kidding. Even though it says up at the top that I identify as an atheist (and then again in the little red atheist A on the right, and in the textbox at the bottom), I'm clearly not doing enough to shout it to the world.
I mean look:
In 22 posts: only TWO have been about my atheism. Damn, I'm losing grip on reality here, posting so much about gender and feminism, racism, and transphobia, and my life, and music, why straight culture makes no sense, and television. It's less than 10% of what I crankycrankypants about! What was I thinking? This should be angry atheist 24-7!
In order to TRULY rectify that, I give you "Dear God" by XTC.
Lyrics are on the actual video.
Now, now, some may say this means I wholly support their message. But I gotta say, every time I watch it, the end always irks me. The anger directed at god seems silly even. I hardly get pissed when the tooth fairy doesn't visit, do I? Why should they be so frustrated at a social construct not fixing the world. However, I do rather love that opening line:
It certainly would be nice to be able to ask to have the world get fixed and have it happen. Oh well, since there doesn't seem to be anyone who can do that, guess I'd better wade in myself and do it.
In order to fix the overly atheistic slant of this blog, I give you my side project: http://www.thedeviatednorm.blogpsot.com/
HaHA. Just kidding. Even though it says up at the top that I identify as an atheist (and then again in the little red atheist A on the right, and in the textbox at the bottom), I'm clearly not doing enough to shout it to the world.
I mean look:
In 22 posts: only TWO have been about my atheism. Damn, I'm losing grip on reality here, posting so much about gender and feminism, racism, and transphobia, and my life, and music, why straight culture makes no sense, and television. It's less than 10% of what I crankycrankypants about! What was I thinking? This should be angry atheist 24-7!
In order to TRULY rectify that, I give you "Dear God" by XTC.
Lyrics are on the actual video.
Now, now, some may say this means I wholly support their message. But I gotta say, every time I watch it, the end always irks me. The anger directed at god seems silly even. I hardly get pissed when the tooth fairy doesn't visit, do I? Why should they be so frustrated at a social construct not fixing the world. However, I do rather love that opening line:
Dear God, Hope you got the letter and I pray you can make it better down here. (I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer.)
It certainly would be nice to be able to ask to have the world get fixed and have it happen. Oh well, since there doesn't seem to be anyone who can do that, guess I'd better wade in myself and do it.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Cure for the Blues
This song [Edit: Grace Kelly, by Mika /Edit] is the PERFECT pick me up. There are songs that I like, there are songs that I love, and then there are songs that I fervently wish I had been the one to write. Because they are just so damn good.
And because I love you, Lyrics!
So yeah. This song is the cheerfullest, sunniest, "Fuck You" the world has ever seen. He wrote it because he was denied an opera role. Now it's his number 1 hit.
And because I love you, Lyrics!
[Mika Speaking/Voice Over]: I wanna talk to you
[Little Girl Voice Over]: The last time we talked Mr. Smith you reduced me to tears, I promise you it wont happen again
[Singing]: Do I attract you? Do I repulse you with my queasy smile? Am I too dirty?
Am I too flirty? Do I like what you like?
I could be wholesome, I could be loathsome, guess I'm a little bit shy. Why don't you like me? Why don't you like me without making me try?
I try to be like Grace Kelly. But all her looks were too sad. So I try a little Freddie, mmm. I've gone identity mad!
I could be brown, I could be blue, I could be violet sky. I could be hurtful, I could be purple, I could be anything you like. Gotta be green, gotta be mean, gotta be everything more. Why don't you like me? Why don't you like me? Why don't you walk out the door!
[Little Girl Voice Over]: Getting angry doesn't solve anything
[Singing]: How can I help it? How can I help it? How can I help what you think? Hello my baby. Hello my baby. Putting my life on the brink. Why don't you like me? Why don't you like me? Why don't you like yourself? Should I bend over? Should I look older just to be put on your shelf?
I try to be like Grace Kelly. But all her looks were too sad. So I try a little Freddie. I've gone identity mad!
I could be brown, I could be blue, I could be violet sky. I could be hurtful, I could be purple, I could be anything you like. Gotta be green,gotta be mean, gotta be everything more. Why don't you like me? Why don't you like me? Walk out the door!
Say what you want to satisfy yourself. But you only want what everybody else says you should want, you want!
I could be brown, I could be blue, I could be violet sky. I could be hurtful, I could be purple, I could be anything you like. Gotta be green, gotta be mean, gotta be everything more. Why don't you like me? Why don't you like me? Walk out the door!
I could be brown, I could be blue, I could be violet sky. I could be hurtful, I could be purple, I could be anything you like! Gotta be green, gotta be mean, gotta be everything more. Why don't you like me? Why don't you like me? walk out the door!
[Little Girl Voice Over]: Humphry were leaving
[Mika Speaking]: KaCHING!
So yeah. This song is the cheerfullest, sunniest, "Fuck You" the world has ever seen. He wrote it because he was denied an opera role. Now it's his number 1 hit.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Anti-Atheist Bigotry and Being an "Ally"
You are not an ally of trans people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-trans bigotry, that we need to be less out, but have no idea who Angie Zapata is.
You are not an ally of queer people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-queer bigotry, that we need to be less out, but haven't heard of the 11 year old Massachusetts boy who committed suicide less than a week ago, after months of homophobic bullying.
You are not an ally of atheists if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-atheist bigotry, that we need to be less out, but don't know about the various laws that say we can't even give testimony in court (in some U.S. states), don't know about what happens to out atheists in the military, and haven't even heard of the recent (2007) Gallup Poll which says that of all of these groups: Catholics, African-Americans, Jews, women, Latinos, Mormons, people married more than twice, people over the age of 72, homosexuals, and Atheists, that Atheists alone are the group that a majority of people in the U.S. would refuse to vote for, regardless of our qualifications (by the way, that list, it's in order of decreasing "electability").
You just aren't. Even if you're a family member of us. Even if you think of yourself as an "ally." Until you not only know about the various prejudices and dangers out there, but are plugged into our communities, until you can literally run circles around the knowledge that I have just bouncing around in my head (because yes, I DO pay attention to the way that my communities are stigmatized, and victimized, and implying otherwise if fucking patronizing as hell), then you can tell me fuck-all about how dangerous it can be out there.
Because this is the shortest fucking post I could write about the hatred out there for queers and trans people and atheists. That's right. At this moment, I could call up 10s, maybe hundreds more stories and factoids and statistics about MY communities. So don't tell me that I don't understand. Because I do.
This next bit is a nice little display of more anti-atheist bigotry put out by our friends the AiG.
Trigger Warning
You are not an ally of queer people if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-queer bigotry, that we need to be less out, but haven't heard of the 11 year old Massachusetts boy who committed suicide less than a week ago, after months of homophobic bullying.
You are not an ally of atheists if you tell us that we need to be careful, be more aware of anti-atheist bigotry, that we need to be less out, but don't know about the various laws that say we can't even give testimony in court (in some U.S. states), don't know about what happens to out atheists in the military, and haven't even heard of the recent (2007) Gallup Poll which says that of all of these groups: Catholics, African-Americans, Jews, women, Latinos, Mormons, people married more than twice, people over the age of 72, homosexuals, and Atheists, that Atheists alone are the group that a majority of people in the U.S. would refuse to vote for, regardless of our qualifications (by the way, that list, it's in order of decreasing "electability").
You just aren't. Even if you're a family member of us. Even if you think of yourself as an "ally." Until you not only know about the various prejudices and dangers out there, but are plugged into our communities, until you can literally run circles around the knowledge that I have just bouncing around in my head (because yes, I DO pay attention to the way that my communities are stigmatized, and victimized, and implying otherwise if fucking patronizing as hell), then you can tell me fuck-all about how dangerous it can be out there.
Because this is the shortest fucking post I could write about the hatred out there for queers and trans people and atheists. That's right. At this moment, I could call up 10s, maybe hundreds more stories and factoids and statistics about MY communities. So don't tell me that I don't understand. Because I do.
This next bit is a nice little display of more anti-atheist bigotry put out by our friends the AiG.
The entire ad is a kid in an *ahem* A-Frame shirt coming up on a dusty road to shoot you, the viewer. The voice over helpfully explains: If you don't matter to god, you don't matter to anyone.
So the ad is implicitly condoning violence against atheists, while explicitly implying we are all murderers.
Here are some peachy fucking comments:
cadborasaurus (3 months ago): "crisis123456789", what's horrible is that because of evolution this is true. If we are just a product of chance and are accidents, then what is the standard of good? We are. We make our own standards of good and are no different then animals. If evolution is true, then there is nothing wrong with something like murder because it is just an accident eliminating another accident. tumordoctor (7 months ago): Kids are bombarded with the ideology that they're nothing but animals. So they see nothing inherently wrong with behaving like animals. This is a product of 20th/21st century secular humanism.
zogshill (2 days ago): If the soul has no place in the kingdom of chirst, what rights can the body have on earth?
And for some old school, straight up hatred:
ChrisWestaway(2 days ago): this is fucking awesome, kill all atheists
cassetteaddict (2 days ago): athiesm is evil and the truth path of monotheism is far from finished... even in western europe we will come back and make you all pay for creating sin and lechery
all the evil in the world was done by athiests - stalin hitler kissinger - two hundred years ago christians would hang you for not believing and our time will come again just you wait and see
X0XPWNER123 (2 days ago):fuck you athiest peices of crap.
God will make sure you all burn in hell
muldurag (2 hours ago): Nice stance and good handling of a beautiful weapon...what's the problem here?
The upside? The vast majority of people who commented on it weren't bat-shit insane. The downside, these people spent quite a bit of money to make this, it all came from someone/where, and those someones believe this crazy.
So the ad is implicitly condoning violence against atheists, while explicitly implying we are all murderers.
Here are some peachy fucking comments:
cadborasaurus (3 months ago): "crisis123456789", what's horrible is that because of evolution this is true. If we are just a product of chance and are accidents, then what is the standard of good? We are. We make our own standards of good and are no different then animals. If evolution is true, then there is nothing wrong with something like murder because it is just an accident eliminating another accident. tumordoctor (7 months ago): Kids are bombarded with the ideology that they're nothing but animals. So they see nothing inherently wrong with behaving like animals. This is a product of 20th/21st century secular humanism.
zogshill (2 days ago): If the soul has no place in the kingdom of chirst, what rights can the body have on earth?
And for some old school, straight up hatred:
ChrisWestaway(2 days ago): this is fucking awesome, kill all atheists
cassetteaddict (2 days ago): athiesm is evil and the truth path of monotheism is far from finished... even in western europe we will come back and make you all pay for creating sin and lechery
all the evil in the world was done by athiests - stalin hitler kissinger - two hundred years ago christians would hang you for not believing and our time will come again just you wait and see
X0XPWNER123 (2 days ago):fuck you athiest peices of crap.
God will make sure you all burn in hell
muldurag (2 hours ago): Nice stance and good handling of a beautiful weapon...what's the problem here?
The upside? The vast majority of people who commented on it weren't bat-shit insane. The downside, these people spent quite a bit of money to make this, it all came from someone/where, and those someones believe this crazy.
Trigger Warning
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Passing Online, Passing in Person
I have to get a shameful secret out of the way. I know this might come as a shock. Perhaps even a surprise, but....
I am a feminist.
Have you had a chance to pick your jaw up off the floor? Ok good. Now that my non-revelation is done with, I can commence with the actual post.
One of the frustrating facts of my life is that I don't pass. Not only do I not pass, I don't cause confusion for people, even for a second. Seriously. The name I go by is a male name (obscure though it apparently is), and I can't even count the number of times I've had someone say: "Oh, that's so pretty". Once a guy looked it up online, found out that it was biblical in origin, presumably saw the little tag next to it saying that it was a male name, and still later came up to me and said: "it's Hebrew, I mean biblical right? It's really pretty, maybe if I ever have another daughter I'll name her that".
It's gotten to the point that I think that if I told people my name was Bob they'd say: "oh, that's really beautiful, is it short for Roberta? (perhaps I'll name MY daughter that)"
So that means that it should be a relief to me to be able to go on the internet, where people aren't looking at my non-masculine body, or listening to my too-affable-to-be-a-guy vocal patterns, or watching my femme-y mannerisms, and have people just judge me based on my name and my (genius) commentary on (fill in the blank).
Except for when it sort of sucks. When I want to post a comment about something that a (female identified) feminist has said, that I disagree with. Because then I run into all sorts of self-imposed confusion. This happened to me twice in the past week.
One of those times, it really didn't matter. I read a lot of (internet) comics, and one that I have recently added to my daily rollcall is Planet Karen (a diary of a UK goth gal). One of the commenters on the forum complained that the artist wasn't feminist enough in her comic*. I disagreed, but didn't say anything because some of Karen's fans already did a fairly good job responding to the comment.
However, I still haven't written the comment that I so desperately want to write regarding the blog post The Porn Industry is Ready to Exploit Nadaya Suleman in part because I am concerned that my legitimacy ("cred" if you will) as a feminist will be questioned because of my name.
See, I take being an ally fairly seriously (or I like to think I do). If a person of color points out something racist to me, I file it away as useful ally information. And if my privilege of being able-bodied is something I overlook (which I'm sure I often do), and someone calls me on it, I try to keep it in mind in the future. Same with my class privilege. But the thought of being an "ally" to women seems weird (not just because I've never heard it used that way). At least right now anyway. Online I may be able to pass as a guy, but in person, I never do.** Why should I be an ally to a group that I am assumed to be of? I have shared, and will continue to share the experiences of women for quite some time. But will this be seen as a co-optation?
I hate outing myself in every comment I make on another person's wall. It feels too much like trying to post my qualifications. But the truth is, I identify as genderqueer for a reason. I don't want to have people look at me and unequivocably think I'm male any more than I like having them assume I'm female. I don't currently, nor do I ever WANT to have male privilege.
So what's a guy like me to do in situations like these? Do I make a post with my name and hope that I don't have to get into some sort of feminist pissing contest? Do I "pre-empt" any pissing contest by being all: "me trans man, hear me roar"? Do I use a fake name that accurately identifies how others see me in the world (and therefore how I'm treated in terms of gender), if not how I see myself?*** Apparently I've opted to not make any comments 'cause it's all too frustrating to even deal with. At least in this instance.
I don't know. Looking at my last blog post, apparently I don't know the answer a lot. But at least I ask interesting questions. Right?
*(oversimplification of the comment)
**My lived experiences have twice, twice! (that I know of) included male privilege. Once in a store a clerk said: "for guys like us..." when trying to sell me a knife, and once a man yelled epithets out the window of a car and neglected to yell any female derogatory slurs. Both of these moments are some of the weirdest little treasures of my life.
***for the record, my reaction to that is an overwhelming: "Ugh!"
I am a feminist.
Have you had a chance to pick your jaw up off the floor? Ok good. Now that my non-revelation is done with, I can commence with the actual post.
One of the frustrating facts of my life is that I don't pass. Not only do I not pass, I don't cause confusion for people, even for a second. Seriously. The name I go by is a male name (obscure though it apparently is), and I can't even count the number of times I've had someone say: "Oh, that's so pretty". Once a guy looked it up online, found out that it was biblical in origin, presumably saw the little tag next to it saying that it was a male name, and still later came up to me and said: "it's Hebrew, I mean biblical right? It's really pretty, maybe if I ever have another daughter I'll name her that".
It's gotten to the point that I think that if I told people my name was Bob they'd say: "oh, that's really beautiful, is it short for Roberta? (perhaps I'll name MY daughter that)"
So that means that it should be a relief to me to be able to go on the internet, where people aren't looking at my non-masculine body, or listening to my too-affable-to-be-a-guy vocal patterns, or watching my femme-y mannerisms, and have people just judge me based on my name and my (genius) commentary on (fill in the blank).
Except for when it sort of sucks. When I want to post a comment about something that a (female identified) feminist has said, that I disagree with. Because then I run into all sorts of self-imposed confusion. This happened to me twice in the past week.
One of those times, it really didn't matter. I read a lot of (internet) comics, and one that I have recently added to my daily rollcall is Planet Karen (a diary of a UK goth gal). One of the commenters on the forum complained that the artist wasn't feminist enough in her comic*. I disagreed, but didn't say anything because some of Karen's fans already did a fairly good job responding to the comment.
However, I still haven't written the comment that I so desperately want to write regarding the blog post The Porn Industry is Ready to Exploit Nadaya Suleman in part because I am concerned that my legitimacy ("cred" if you will) as a feminist will be questioned because of my name.
See, I take being an ally fairly seriously (or I like to think I do). If a person of color points out something racist to me, I file it away as useful ally information. And if my privilege of being able-bodied is something I overlook (which I'm sure I often do), and someone calls me on it, I try to keep it in mind in the future. Same with my class privilege. But the thought of being an "ally" to women seems weird (not just because I've never heard it used that way). At least right now anyway. Online I may be able to pass as a guy, but in person, I never do.** Why should I be an ally to a group that I am assumed to be of? I have shared, and will continue to share the experiences of women for quite some time. But will this be seen as a co-optation?
I hate outing myself in every comment I make on another person's wall. It feels too much like trying to post my qualifications. But the truth is, I identify as genderqueer for a reason. I don't want to have people look at me and unequivocably think I'm male any more than I like having them assume I'm female. I don't currently, nor do I ever WANT to have male privilege.
So what's a guy like me to do in situations like these? Do I make a post with my name and hope that I don't have to get into some sort of feminist pissing contest? Do I "pre-empt" any pissing contest by being all: "me trans man, hear me roar"? Do I use a fake name that accurately identifies how others see me in the world (and therefore how I'm treated in terms of gender), if not how I see myself?*** Apparently I've opted to not make any comments 'cause it's all too frustrating to even deal with. At least in this instance.
I don't know. Looking at my last blog post, apparently I don't know the answer a lot. But at least I ask interesting questions. Right?
*(oversimplification of the comment)
**My lived experiences have twice, twice! (that I know of) included male privilege. Once in a store a clerk said: "for guys like us..." when trying to sell me a knife, and once a man yelled epithets out the window of a car and neglected to yell any female derogatory slurs. Both of these moments are some of the weirdest little treasures of my life.
***for the record, my reaction to that is an overwhelming: "Ugh!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
