Often in online conversations about poly people's relationships, real lived experiences of poly people, (or people in open relationships, or swingers, or anyone else who isn't monogamous) are ignored. There will be a strawperson (or strawrelationship) set up for the blogger or commenter to knock down in their quest to show how very bad and no good we non-monogamous people are. This series was set up in order to combat that. People in non-monogamous relationships aren't all the same, so our experiences aren't.
Hi, I'm Melusin, blogger at And What Was Ze ... I'm a pansexal trans man, a newbie activist, poet, playwright and director for a small theatre company. I live with my fiance, Roland, in the English Midlands, and we're polyamorous.
There is an old friend of mine for whom I had feelings for a long time. She is the first person I ever fell in love with, causing all sorts of angst and drama in my late teens. She's still a very good friend and every now and then I realise I'm still attracted to her, still sometimes have romantic feelings towards her. (She's made it very clear she isn't interested, and as such I wouldn't act on them).
When Roland and I were monogamous this caused me no end of grief. In fact, my entire sexual identity caused me no end of grief- I was lesbian identified at the time, and my partner is a man. I would be attracted to someone (quite often the aforementioned friend) and constantly feel like I had betrayed Roland, if in thought only. I'd be furious at myself for dreaming about women, or noticing someone I found attractive. It was exhausting.
Roland was bewildered by this. He was accepting of me being attracted to women, and sometimes we'd semi-seriously talk about having sex with another person together, sometimes discussing it more seriously than others. We were concerned with liking the person in question, and there being interest on all sides, and other things that might suggest we'd be amenable to polyamory. But when we discussed polyamory outright we were sure that it "just wouldn't work for us."
We were trying to stick to the structure, to the identification of monogamy, even though it didn't really fit us.
One day I realised that I had a very strong attraction to another person, and commenced the standard "feeling awful about this and that I was a terrible person." I blurted this out in confused fashion to Roland, with much focus on how guilty I felt and how terrible it was. A couple of days later I was in the pub with him when he said that he was okay with me telling the person this, and making advances towards and sleeping with zim. A while later that did happen, and we had a very nice, loving, one night stand. This was followed by a second occasion, and then Roland and I had the "are we poly now?" conversation and decided we were.
My relationship with my secondary partner was the first obviously queer relationship either of us had had, and then ze left the country and we're now not sure whether it will resume when ze returns, but we have enjoyed flirting and similar for most of the year. And if it doesn't resume, that doesn't mean that it doesn't count. Like Jadelyn said in a previous post in this series "Our culture would have us believe that jealousy is the natural state of a relationship, that affection is a zero-sum game and our partner enjoying the company of another somehow diminishes their love for us. But I learned otherwise."
Poly has given my partner and I a chance to appreciate the many different forms of sexual attraction and love, and realise that they are all valuable. My feelings for the old friend I mentioned at the beginning are not a threat to my feelings for Roland, and certainly don't invalidate them. Mine and Roland's other relationships, which sometimes intersect, are valuable in their own right. Poly has meant that we've both come to appreciate many things a great deal more: our past relationships, temporary relationships, single incidents of kissing with an old friend after several years of sexual tension, and our own relationship with all the details and pleasures unique to it.
And the acknowledgement of that, the discussion of current crushes and loves and anxieties and whatever else, has meant that my constant fear of slipping up, of breaking some "unseen rule," has faded. It has meant that when I'm worried about something I tell Roland about it, and that then we are able to work out "seen" rules together. There has been drama over the past year, and tensions, but it is such a bloody relief to be able to talk about it.
Poly means that we're able to create our own mould for relationships, rather than forcing ourselves into tropes and moulds that don't fit us.
-------------------
If you think you or someone you know would be interested in submitting something for the Today in Meet a Poly Person series, please check out this here post with guidelines for submission. Thanks!
Showing posts with label Queer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Queer. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 21, 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.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Words Matter, So Use Them Correctly
I've got a pet peeve folks.
Well, to be honest I've probably got a lot of them, but this one in particular is making me cranky today. I'm sure other people have written extensively about it (though cursory googling does not produce any results).
It's this: Don't use "GLBT" or "LGBT" (which are the two most common iterations of that particular acronym) if you don't actually mean Gay. Lesbian. Bisexual. and Transgender. Each. Specifically.
I'm frankly pretty sick of the label being used when really it should be "white cis gay men, and maybe a few lesbians."
Things that are not *actually* GLBT friendly: the Human Rights Campaign (when the only trans person on your board quits in protest of how thoroughly you fuck over the trans community, you are NOT an organization focusing on the GLBT community, you are, at best focusing on the GLB community), the Advocate (when only 1 of the past 21 covers you put out have a picture of a lesbian on them, and none have pictures of anyone identified as trans, or even bisexual... this is not a magazine for anyone other than the G in GLBT, let's not delude ourselves here), "LGBT panels" (that are invariously described as being about writing "gay" characters, that focus on slutty evil bisexual male characters, and that have no mention of lesbians or, wait!, this seems to be a theme!, trans people... OK, sure sounds REALLY LGBT friendly, uh huh, do you happen to have any bridges?, I'm especially interested in purchasing the Brooklyn one I've heard it's pretty), you get the idea.
Apparently some time a while ago, after Gay orgs got called out for being exclusionary, they decided that calling themselves GLBT (or LGBT) would do to fix that particular problem. And it probably helped for about 5 minutes. Trans and Bisexual folks would walk in the door and be struck by the fact that it had an acronym that included them. Yay!
These days, I think it does a whole hell of a lot more harm than good, because like Gender Bending fiction that doesn't actually depict our lives, it gives the veneer of respect and inclusion. It tells allies (or potential allies) who don't yet know about the issues going on, that "this" (whatever "this" it is, which is almost invariably a more powerful organization, and thus less likely to actually be engaged with the more marginalized of our populations) is what is trans-friendly, or bisexual inclusive looks like. So that people working on a project about the trans community use statistics from an organization that had their only trans board member quit in protest of their transphobia.
So please. If you are a safe space for gay men, fine, call yourself that. If you are a safe space for gays and lesbians, say that. But if you tack on an extra letter, MEAN IT. Don't insult us by using our letters to pad your inclusive cred.
Well, to be honest I've probably got a lot of them, but this one in particular is making me cranky today. I'm sure other people have written extensively about it (though cursory googling does not produce any results).
It's this: Don't use "GLBT" or "LGBT" (which are the two most common iterations of that particular acronym) if you don't actually mean Gay. Lesbian. Bisexual. and Transgender. Each. Specifically.
I'm frankly pretty sick of the label being used when really it should be "white cis gay men, and maybe a few lesbians."
Things that are not *actually* GLBT friendly: the Human Rights Campaign (when the only trans person on your board quits in protest of how thoroughly you fuck over the trans community, you are NOT an organization focusing on the GLBT community, you are, at best focusing on the GLB community), the Advocate (when only 1 of the past 21 covers you put out have a picture of a lesbian on them, and none have pictures of anyone identified as trans, or even bisexual... this is not a magazine for anyone other than the G in GLBT, let's not delude ourselves here), "LGBT panels" (that are invariously described as being about writing "gay" characters, that focus on slutty evil bisexual male characters, and that have no mention of lesbians or, wait!, this seems to be a theme!, trans people... OK, sure sounds REALLY LGBT friendly, uh huh, do you happen to have any bridges?, I'm especially interested in purchasing the Brooklyn one I've heard it's pretty), you get the idea.
Apparently some time a while ago, after Gay orgs got called out for being exclusionary, they decided that calling themselves GLBT (or LGBT) would do to fix that particular problem. And it probably helped for about 5 minutes. Trans and Bisexual folks would walk in the door and be struck by the fact that it had an acronym that included them. Yay!
These days, I think it does a whole hell of a lot more harm than good, because like Gender Bending fiction that doesn't actually depict our lives, it gives the veneer of respect and inclusion. It tells allies (or potential allies) who don't yet know about the issues going on, that "this" (whatever "this" it is, which is almost invariably a more powerful organization, and thus less likely to actually be engaged with the more marginalized of our populations) is what is trans-friendly, or bisexual inclusive looks like. So that people working on a project about the trans community use statistics from an organization that had their only trans board member quit in protest of their transphobia.
So please. If you are a safe space for gay men, fine, call yourself that. If you are a safe space for gays and lesbians, say that. But if you tack on an extra letter, MEAN IT. Don't insult us by using our letters to pad your inclusive cred.
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.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Advertising that Makes Deviant E Get All Cranky
Sorry for the long absence.
So let's jump right in with two examples of advertising that creeped me out and pissed me off (for very similar reasons) without them showing or saying a single negative thing.
We'll start off with a Brawny Towel ad with an animated lumberjack singing "Lean On Me"
Opening shot in the most creepy supermarket ever, where they have only two brands of paper towels all in single packs: colorful Brawny (red, yellow, black and white) and a brand apparently called “Paper Towels” in monotone blue and lighter shades of blue. Not only do they have merely two brands of paper towels, but the White woman in business casual, with a full shopping cart of food loaded willy-nilly (vegetables and fruits on the bottom getting *crushed*) is apparently standing in an aisle whose sole purpose is to show off these two brands of paper towels on every single shelf for as far as the eye can see. The red and blue dichotomy of the paper towels cuts down the middle of the screen, where she is standing making a decision between brands.
White woman goes to get Paper Towel brand paper towels.
[Cue modified “Lean on Me” with lone male voice: “Lean on me, when you need something strong”]
She looks delightedly up and over towards the Brawny towels, apparently she has heard the cued music as well.
Cut to close up shot of Brawny cartoon/icon (White man in red plaid, looking somewhat “lumberjack-ish”) on the front of a paper towel package singing. Yes, creepy little icon man is the one singing “Lean on Me”
Cut to wider shot, showing 6 or so identical animations singing: “and I’ll be your friend” as they gesture in unison.
Cut to still wider shot, now showing 3 shelves full of identical gesturing/singing animations on the fronts of paper towel packages all singing and gesturing in unison. White woman watches them, somehow not in abject terror. As she scans all of the animations we see the back of her head. [Chorus continues with: “I’ll help you carry on”]
Cut to woman of indeterminate race/ethnicity (dark curly hair, skin that isn’t pasty white) in kitchen. She has just started walking away from blender full of pink liquid. Blender is on and liquid gushes up, forcing top of blender off and spilling pink everywhere. Woman looks back and belatedly attempts to get to blender before it spills.
[“so call on me brother when you need a hand”]
Cut to hand of woman with paper towel wiping up pink liquid.
Cut to Black woman (mom?) and Black boy (son?) in kitchen. They are at sink and son has paper towel in hand as he cleans caked-on egg off of nonstick pan. Mother is standing behind him holding onto pan as well, smiling down at pan/him as he cleans.
[“we all need somebody”]
Cut to hand holding paper towel going in circles continuing to get remaining egg off.
Cut to White man (father?) and White girl (daughter?) near some stairs. He has a paintbrush in hand and the wall is taped with painter’s tape. Daughter is wiping his face with a paper towel for no discernible reason.
[“to lean on”]
Cut back to front of single paper towel where lumberjack-ish White animation now speaks (music without words continues in background): “Brawny now comes with a money back guarantee.”
Cut to White woman (mother?) and White girl (daughter?) at kitchen sink. Voice over continues: “When you want a paper towel that can do it all,”
Girl is holding paper towel outstretched over sink. Mother has colander of grapes which tips onto paper towel, without towel tearing. Text at bottom says: “Approximately 10 oz seedless grapes, moistened.” Mother and daughter smile as grapes are caught.
Cut back to lumberjack-ish icon pointing at himself, he continues: “Lean on me”
Cut back to shelves full of animations as they finish singing/song: “something strong”.
Cut back to White woman in store picking out a roll of Brawny and placing it in grocery cart in a satisfied manner, she then walks off screen.
Cut to picture of single Brawny roll on tile with information about the money back guarantee in text on screen. Creepy animation says: “Brawny never lets you down”
as always, click on the cut link for as complete a transcript as I can make.
Next we have a Macy's ad for jewelry, with the song "Seasons of Love" being sung in the background.
Opening screen: Black with white star
Music starts, singing throughout:
“five hundred twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes,”
Cut to picture of tiny baby hand holding adult thumb in that cute way babies hold thumbs.
Cut to (presumably) same baby and father (both Black or Latin@), as baby cuddles onto father’s chest and father holds zir close.
Cut to White older heterosexual couple (white hair) at presumably anniversary party (white balloons) while White child arms hand them a white box. White man has arm around White woman’s shoulder as she accepts box.
Cut to same couple in black and white footage from slightly different angle as they hug and kiss each other on the cheek. White woman has prominently displayed matching earrings and necklace and is holding gift box.
“How do you measure, measure a year?”
Cut to color footage of White rugby playing man in rain coming up to woman. They embrace in a romantic manner. They are smiling.
Cut to close up of her chest where a heart shaped pendant is hanging on a chain.
Cut to White girl in pink walking carrying tray filled with a fork and knife, plate full of food, orange juice, a card saying “Mom” (with a heart and two stick figures drawn in crayon) and a box in a gift bag. Girl looks up at camera smiling.
Cut to same girl and White mother lying in bed together. Mother is holding a star shaped pendant on a chain, and daughter is playing with it. They are looking at each other and the necklace.
“In daylight, in sunsets?”
Cut to first obviously interracial couple. We see two held hands, one Black, one White. Both arms have some type of bracelet on them.
Cut to same couple as they run on the beach towards the surf. It is a heterosexual couple. The sun is low in the sky. White woman is in two piece bikini, Black man is in swimming trunks.
Cut to same couple as he holds her and she leans back, seemingly joyfully. They are still on beach with setting sun.
“in midnights in cups of coffee?”
Cut to black and white footage of mixed race group of women in fancy clothes. White woman in middle has cup of champagne in hand. There is a chandelier in background. All of the women are dancing.
Cut to color footage of Black dancer (from previous shot) up close, as she dances/shakes her head. We see matching earrings and necklace.
Cut to White woman with prominent ring and necklace drinking a cup of coffee.
“In inches, in miles?”
Cut to black and white footage of Black male barber cutting White boys head. Barber has prominently displayed watch.
Cut to color footage of Black woman jogging while pushing Black child in stroller. She has something shiny on her wrist.
“in laughter, in strife?”
Cut to White couple in wedding regalia. Man is wearing tux and bow tie, woman is wearing white wedding gown. They are smiling, she has a bouquet of flowers. Prominently displayed jewelry (shocking, I know).
“How do you measure a year in the life?”
Cut to black screen with information about Macy’s jewelry. Female voice over says: “Fine jewelry for over a hundred and fifty years. For every celebration. ”
Cut back to White couple getting married. Man holds woman in arms while woman shows off wedding ring.
Cut to black screen as voice over continues: “That’s the magic of Macy’s.”
as always, click on the cut link for as complete a transcript as I can make.
So, what creeps me out and pisses me off about these two ads? It has something to do with the idea of taking songs from oppressed groups and putting them into your advertising, and in the process making invisible their origins.
"Lean on Me" was written in 1972. It is a song written by a Black man, in the Soul genre, at a time just following the organized Civil Rights movement. It's a song about community and the strength and power that can be found when people rally together.
The voice in the advertisement sounds stereotypically "Black" and is singing in the genre that the song comes from. Yet they have a White lumberjack as the animated icon portrayed as singing it. They took a song that could reasonably be seen as a song about the strength of social movements, and erased the Black origin of it, and put it into a fucking Paper Towel ad. I suppose I'm meant to be grateful that they included a Black family in the footage? That pisses me off and creeps me out. And of course, they screwed around with the lyrics in the process so that they could do this.
"Seasons of Love" was written for the musical Rent. It's a musical about AIDS. It has numerous gay characters. Seriously, out of a main cast of 7-8 people, 4 of them are in same-gender relationships.
In the advertisement, is there a single gay couple depicted? Nope. There are numerous romantic couples depicted, and not a single gay one amongst them. The ad writers took a song that is couched in the AIDS epidemic (at the time it was written, primarily associated with gay men), and somehow manage to take away all reference to gayness in the advertisement.
Neither of the ads was explicitly racist or homophobic. But by their decision to make things more "universally appealing," they took songs from particular oppressed groups and put them in the mouths of their oppressors. They took something away from the Black community and the Gay community and gave it to Whites and Straights. If we(gays)/they(Black people) aren't good enough to be the icons of your feel good advertising, then you get no fucking right to our creative endeavors.
So let's jump right in with two examples of advertising that creeped me out and pissed me off (for very similar reasons) without them showing or saying a single negative thing.
We'll start off with a Brawny Towel ad with an animated lumberjack singing "Lean On Me"
Opening shot in the most creepy supermarket ever, where they have only two brands of paper towels all in single packs: colorful Brawny (red, yellow, black and white) and a brand apparently called “Paper Towels” in monotone blue and lighter shades of blue. Not only do they have merely two brands of paper towels, but the White woman in business casual, with a full shopping cart of food loaded willy-nilly (vegetables and fruits on the bottom getting *crushed*) is apparently standing in an aisle whose sole purpose is to show off these two brands of paper towels on every single shelf for as far as the eye can see. The red and blue dichotomy of the paper towels cuts down the middle of the screen, where she is standing making a decision between brands.
White woman goes to get Paper Towel brand paper towels.
[Cue modified “Lean on Me” with lone male voice: “Lean on me, when you need something strong”]
She looks delightedly up and over towards the Brawny towels, apparently she has heard the cued music as well.
Cut to close up shot of Brawny cartoon/icon (White man in red plaid, looking somewhat “lumberjack-ish”) on the front of a paper towel package singing. Yes, creepy little icon man is the one singing “Lean on Me”
Cut to wider shot, showing 6 or so identical animations singing: “and I’ll be your friend” as they gesture in unison.
Cut to still wider shot, now showing 3 shelves full of identical gesturing/singing animations on the fronts of paper towel packages all singing and gesturing in unison. White woman watches them, somehow not in abject terror. As she scans all of the animations we see the back of her head. [Chorus continues with: “I’ll help you carry on”]
Cut to woman of indeterminate race/ethnicity (dark curly hair, skin that isn’t pasty white) in kitchen. She has just started walking away from blender full of pink liquid. Blender is on and liquid gushes up, forcing top of blender off and spilling pink everywhere. Woman looks back and belatedly attempts to get to blender before it spills.
[“so call on me brother when you need a hand”]
Cut to hand of woman with paper towel wiping up pink liquid.
Cut to Black woman (mom?) and Black boy (son?) in kitchen. They are at sink and son has paper towel in hand as he cleans caked-on egg off of nonstick pan. Mother is standing behind him holding onto pan as well, smiling down at pan/him as he cleans.
[“we all need somebody”]
Cut to hand holding paper towel going in circles continuing to get remaining egg off.
Cut to White man (father?) and White girl (daughter?) near some stairs. He has a paintbrush in hand and the wall is taped with painter’s tape. Daughter is wiping his face with a paper towel for no discernible reason.
[“to lean on”]
Cut back to front of single paper towel where lumberjack-ish White animation now speaks (music without words continues in background): “Brawny now comes with a money back guarantee.”
Cut to White woman (mother?) and White girl (daughter?) at kitchen sink. Voice over continues: “When you want a paper towel that can do it all,”
Girl is holding paper towel outstretched over sink. Mother has colander of grapes which tips onto paper towel, without towel tearing. Text at bottom says: “Approximately 10 oz seedless grapes, moistened.” Mother and daughter smile as grapes are caught.
Cut back to lumberjack-ish icon pointing at himself, he continues: “Lean on me”
Cut back to shelves full of animations as they finish singing/song: “something strong”.
Cut back to White woman in store picking out a roll of Brawny and placing it in grocery cart in a satisfied manner, she then walks off screen.
Cut to picture of single Brawny roll on tile with information about the money back guarantee in text on screen. Creepy animation says: “Brawny never lets you down”
Next we have a Macy's ad for jewelry, with the song "Seasons of Love" being sung in the background.
Opening screen: Black with white star
Music starts, singing throughout:
“five hundred twenty-five thousand, six hundred minutes,”
Cut to picture of tiny baby hand holding adult thumb in that cute way babies hold thumbs.
Cut to (presumably) same baby and father (both Black or Latin@), as baby cuddles onto father’s chest and father holds zir close.
Cut to White older heterosexual couple (white hair) at presumably anniversary party (white balloons) while White child arms hand them a white box. White man has arm around White woman’s shoulder as she accepts box.
Cut to same couple in black and white footage from slightly different angle as they hug and kiss each other on the cheek. White woman has prominently displayed matching earrings and necklace and is holding gift box.
“How do you measure, measure a year?”
Cut to color footage of White rugby playing man in rain coming up to woman. They embrace in a romantic manner. They are smiling.
Cut to close up of her chest where a heart shaped pendant is hanging on a chain.
Cut to White girl in pink walking carrying tray filled with a fork and knife, plate full of food, orange juice, a card saying “Mom” (with a heart and two stick figures drawn in crayon) and a box in a gift bag. Girl looks up at camera smiling.
Cut to same girl and White mother lying in bed together. Mother is holding a star shaped pendant on a chain, and daughter is playing with it. They are looking at each other and the necklace.
“In daylight, in sunsets?”
Cut to first obviously interracial couple. We see two held hands, one Black, one White. Both arms have some type of bracelet on them.
Cut to same couple as they run on the beach towards the surf. It is a heterosexual couple. The sun is low in the sky. White woman is in two piece bikini, Black man is in swimming trunks.
Cut to same couple as he holds her and she leans back, seemingly joyfully. They are still on beach with setting sun.
“in midnights in cups of coffee?”
Cut to black and white footage of mixed race group of women in fancy clothes. White woman in middle has cup of champagne in hand. There is a chandelier in background. All of the women are dancing.
Cut to color footage of Black dancer (from previous shot) up close, as she dances/shakes her head. We see matching earrings and necklace.
Cut to White woman with prominent ring and necklace drinking a cup of coffee.
“In inches, in miles?”
Cut to black and white footage of Black male barber cutting White boys head. Barber has prominently displayed watch.
Cut to color footage of Black woman jogging while pushing Black child in stroller. She has something shiny on her wrist.
“in laughter, in strife?”
Cut to White couple in wedding regalia. Man is wearing tux and bow tie, woman is wearing white wedding gown. They are smiling, she has a bouquet of flowers. Prominently displayed jewelry (shocking, I know).
“How do you measure a year in the life?”
Cut to black screen with information about Macy’s jewelry. Female voice over says: “Fine jewelry for over a hundred and fifty years. For every celebration. ”
Cut back to White couple getting married. Man holds woman in arms while woman shows off wedding ring.
Cut to black screen as voice over continues: “That’s the magic of Macy’s.”
So, what creeps me out and pisses me off about these two ads? It has something to do with the idea of taking songs from oppressed groups and putting them into your advertising, and in the process making invisible their origins.
"Lean on Me" was written in 1972. It is a song written by a Black man, in the Soul genre, at a time just following the organized Civil Rights movement. It's a song about community and the strength and power that can be found when people rally together.
The voice in the advertisement sounds stereotypically "Black" and is singing in the genre that the song comes from. Yet they have a White lumberjack as the animated icon portrayed as singing it. They took a song that could reasonably be seen as a song about the strength of social movements, and erased the Black origin of it, and put it into a fucking Paper Towel ad. I suppose I'm meant to be grateful that they included a Black family in the footage? That pisses me off and creeps me out. And of course, they screwed around with the lyrics in the process so that they could do this.
"Seasons of Love" was written for the musical Rent. It's a musical about AIDS. It has numerous gay characters. Seriously, out of a main cast of 7-8 people, 4 of them are in same-gender relationships.
In the advertisement, is there a single gay couple depicted? Nope. There are numerous romantic couples depicted, and not a single gay one amongst them. The ad writers took a song that is couched in the AIDS epidemic (at the time it was written, primarily associated with gay men), and somehow manage to take away all reference to gayness in the advertisement.
Neither of the ads was explicitly racist or homophobic. But by their decision to make things more "universally appealing," they took songs from particular oppressed groups and put them in the mouths of their oppressors. They took something away from the Black community and the Gay community and gave it to Whites and Straights. If we(gays)/they(Black people) aren't good enough to be the icons of your feel good advertising, then you get no fucking right to our creative endeavors.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Today In Meet A Poly Person
Often in online conversations about poly people's relationships, real lived experiences of poly people, (or people in open relationships, or swingers, or anyone else who isn't monogamous) are ignored. There will be a strawperson (or strawrelationship) set up for the blogger or commenter to knock down in their quest to show how very bad and no good we non-monogamous people are. So, in order to combat that, I would like to start a series about the real lived experiences and desires people who are non-monogamous. We aren't all the same, so hopefully I'll be able to find people willing to write about their different experiences regarding their relationships and lives.
Hi, my name is TheDeviantE. I am a poly person.
What do I want in my life?
I want to have a loving and committed relationship to my current partner Bluejay until one or the other of us dies. I want to find one or more other partners with which to also share a loving and committed relationship until one or the other of us dies. What I'd love most of all would be to find one or two other partners who also wanted to have a loving and committed relationship with both me and Bluejay (and each other, if more than one). A relationship like this is often called a Triad (or Quad). Besides my loving and committed relationships to Bluejay and some as yet unfound other partner(s), I am interested in sometimes going on dates and making out with and maybe having sex with other people, people who perhaps I like but don't think I want to live with forever.
I also want to adopt children. I mean, unless our as yet unfound other partner(s) wanted to and were able to gestate and birth a child, in which case that'd be cool too. I want to raise children in a loving and caring home, with multiple adults able to look out for them and teach them. If Bluejay and I wanted to go on a date alone, our other partner(s) could watch the kids for the night, or vice versa. If little Bluejay Jr's play was on the same night as little DeviantE's basketball game, we'd all split up and give our children as much attention as they needed and wanted. We'd have 3 incomes instead of 2, or 2 incomes instead of 1 (if one of us were to stay home with the kids). We'd have different skills and abilities, so I could teach them math, and Bluejay could do awesome art with them, and our as yet unfound other partner could show them how to fix a car or do plumbing.
I want to have more partners because it means more people to support me and more people to support our children, and more people for me to love. I want to go on dates because... dates are fun! and new love (or lust) is too! I want to have children and raise them because I'll be a good parent, and I want to especially foster and adopt children who are rejected by others because they are queer or trans like I am, because I'll be extra good at not rejecting them. I just sort of want to settle down with some people and make an awesome life with them.
Basically, I'm just interested in nesting. I'm a nesting poly person, I suppose.
Oh, and I want to marry all of my partners because I want to be able to see them in the hospital if they get sick and have them automatically be entitled to my estate when I die, and so that our children will be recognized as being all of ours, and so that if they (or I) are/am immigrants then we will have the ability to stay together as a family. I want to have the right to be married to all of my partners because only marrying one will make our other relationships seem that much less valid to the eyes of the government, and how am I supposed to decide which partner I will love more and cherish more? I want to be able to get married to my partners because I want to nest and in our society nesting is often related to marriage.
So that's me.
Hi, my name is TheDeviantE. I am a poly person.
What do I want in my life?
I want to have a loving and committed relationship to my current partner Bluejay until one or the other of us dies. I want to find one or more other partners with which to also share a loving and committed relationship until one or the other of us dies. What I'd love most of all would be to find one or two other partners who also wanted to have a loving and committed relationship with both me and Bluejay (and each other, if more than one). A relationship like this is often called a Triad (or Quad). Besides my loving and committed relationships to Bluejay and some as yet unfound other partner(s), I am interested in sometimes going on dates and making out with and maybe having sex with other people, people who perhaps I like but don't think I want to live with forever.
I also want to adopt children. I mean, unless our as yet unfound other partner(s) wanted to and were able to gestate and birth a child, in which case that'd be cool too. I want to raise children in a loving and caring home, with multiple adults able to look out for them and teach them. If Bluejay and I wanted to go on a date alone, our other partner(s) could watch the kids for the night, or vice versa. If little Bluejay Jr's play was on the same night as little DeviantE's basketball game, we'd all split up and give our children as much attention as they needed and wanted. We'd have 3 incomes instead of 2, or 2 incomes instead of 1 (if one of us were to stay home with the kids). We'd have different skills and abilities, so I could teach them math, and Bluejay could do awesome art with them, and our as yet unfound other partner could show them how to fix a car or do plumbing.
I want to have more partners because it means more people to support me and more people to support our children, and more people for me to love. I want to go on dates because... dates are fun! and new love (or lust) is too! I want to have children and raise them because I'll be a good parent, and I want to especially foster and adopt children who are rejected by others because they are queer or trans like I am, because I'll be extra good at not rejecting them. I just sort of want to settle down with some people and make an awesome life with them.
Basically, I'm just interested in nesting. I'm a nesting poly person, I suppose.
Oh, and I want to marry all of my partners because I want to be able to see them in the hospital if they get sick and have them automatically be entitled to my estate when I die, and so that our children will be recognized as being all of ours, and so that if they (or I) are/am immigrants then we will have the ability to stay together as a family. I want to have the right to be married to all of my partners because only marrying one will make our other relationships seem that much less valid to the eyes of the government, and how am I supposed to decide which partner I will love more and cherish more? I want to be able to get married to my partners because I want to nest and in our society nesting is often related to marriage.
So that's me.
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!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Are Babies Straight?
One of my coworkers* brought her baby boy** in right before Valentine's Day with a themed t-shirt: "All the Ladies <3 Me" it said.
When I saw it, I laughed. The surprise of it made it funny, and then once I'd started the laugh, I realized it was the appropriate thing to do. Afterall, this is a baby; a pre-verbal, pre-walking, pre-anything baby. So clearly anything he's wearing is something his parents want him to wear (and in this case, his mother said: "I'm having him wear this shirt on Valentine's Day"). So it was only socially polite to laugh at a t-shirt she thought was cute.
But I sort of wish I wouldn't have laughed.
Just think of what "All the Lads <3 Me" would have evoked in viewers. Or "All the Men <3 Me," even worse! I mean, crud, if you put your kid in a shirt like that, you'd have people flipping a shit about pedophilia.
But a baby boy in a shirt implying heterosexuality and "ladies' man" status. Totally Ok. 'Cause babies totally have a sexual orientation, yo! (And that orientation is "straight").
It just really speaks to how heterosexist and sexist our society is that my first reaction to a t-shirt implying an under 1-year old's straightness was laughter at how "cute" it was.
*I'm going to start just writing "job" and "coworker" in all my posts about this, because my placement-internship feels like that.
**Whenever I hear about little children's genders I always sort of wonder, but you know, whatever I'll trust that the kid will grow up cis*.
When I saw it, I laughed. The surprise of it made it funny, and then once I'd started the laugh, I realized it was the appropriate thing to do. Afterall, this is a baby; a pre-verbal, pre-walking, pre-anything baby. So clearly anything he's wearing is something his parents want him to wear (and in this case, his mother said: "I'm having him wear this shirt on Valentine's Day"). So it was only socially polite to laugh at a t-shirt she thought was cute.
But I sort of wish I wouldn't have laughed.
Just think of what "All the Lads <3 Me" would have evoked in viewers. Or "All the Men <3 Me," even worse! I mean, crud, if you put your kid in a shirt like that, you'd have people flipping a shit about pedophilia.
But a baby boy in a shirt implying heterosexuality and "ladies' man" status. Totally Ok. 'Cause babies totally have a sexual orientation, yo! (And that orientation is "straight").
It just really speaks to how heterosexist and sexist our society is that my first reaction to a t-shirt implying an under 1-year old's straightness was laughter at how "cute" it was.
*I'm going to start just writing "job" and "coworker" in all my posts about this, because my placement-internship feels like that.
**Whenever I hear about little children's genders I always sort of wonder, but you know, whatever I'll trust that the kid will grow up cis*.
Friday, June 19, 2009
An Open Letter to Sascha Baron Cohen
Mr. Cohen,
We need to have words. Namely we need to talk about this "humor" of yours. Mr. Cohen, I've heard somewhere that the humor in your movies is in showing the bigotry in seemingly otherwise nice individuals. That the point of Borat is to show hidden racism and the point of Bruno is to show hidden homophobia.
Mr. Cohen, give me 10 minutes and the internet and I promise I can show you all the bigotry you want. Here, an example: by Womanist Musings, an article about two separate cases of latino men who were attacked by otherwise "nice" people. One of them is dead. In both cases the perpetrators got off with a laughable sentence.
Perhaps if you're in the mood, you can scroll down to the comments where I talk about the recent case in Massachusetts where 4 queer friends were attacked by a group of men who screamed "die faggot" at them and beat and kicked one of them unconcious, and left another also with brain damage. In case you're wondering, the only man charged with the crime will never serve time because the judge decided to give him probation. Mr. Cohen, is that hilarious enough for you?
Or, in case those are too far removed, too distant for you, I can tell you about some things I know personally. I know personally that as a queer youth, I was subject to the most hilarious situation when I was basically told by a lady in a restaurant that my affectionate kiss of my partner was X-rated. We were told to not kiss in front of her kid. Perhaps you could put that in your next movie meant to show exactly how funny bigots are.
Or maybe, you'd like to talk to an acquaintance of mine who had the hilarious experience of having someone she thought of as a friend cross the street to get away from her. See, it was halloween, and she's black and she was dressed as a man. HILARIOUS huh? I mean, you can't MAKE SHIT LIKE THIS UP, it's just SOOO GOOD when you realize that people you know and thought of as friends apparently find your race terrifying.
So basically Mr. Cohen, if you want to show homophobia and racism, you actually don't need to get dressed up in characters. All you need to do to find hilarious bigotry is follow around someone who is actually a target of it. And if you want to show how bigoted other people are, you DEFINITELY don't need to do it in supposedly "funny" characters.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure I think bigotry is all that funny.
Maybe that's your problem.
Sincerely,
The Deviant E
We need to have words. Namely we need to talk about this "humor" of yours. Mr. Cohen, I've heard somewhere that the humor in your movies is in showing the bigotry in seemingly otherwise nice individuals. That the point of Borat is to show hidden racism and the point of Bruno is to show hidden homophobia.
Mr. Cohen, give me 10 minutes and the internet and I promise I can show you all the bigotry you want. Here, an example: by Womanist Musings, an article about two separate cases of latino men who were attacked by otherwise "nice" people. One of them is dead. In both cases the perpetrators got off with a laughable sentence.
Perhaps if you're in the mood, you can scroll down to the comments where I talk about the recent case in Massachusetts where 4 queer friends were attacked by a group of men who screamed "die faggot" at them and beat and kicked one of them unconcious, and left another also with brain damage. In case you're wondering, the only man charged with the crime will never serve time because the judge decided to give him probation. Mr. Cohen, is that hilarious enough for you?
Or, in case those are too far removed, too distant for you, I can tell you about some things I know personally. I know personally that as a queer youth, I was subject to the most hilarious situation when I was basically told by a lady in a restaurant that my affectionate kiss of my partner was X-rated. We were told to not kiss in front of her kid. Perhaps you could put that in your next movie meant to show exactly how funny bigots are.
Or maybe, you'd like to talk to an acquaintance of mine who had the hilarious experience of having someone she thought of as a friend cross the street to get away from her. See, it was halloween, and she's black and she was dressed as a man. HILARIOUS huh? I mean, you can't MAKE SHIT LIKE THIS UP, it's just SOOO GOOD when you realize that people you know and thought of as friends apparently find your race terrifying.
So basically Mr. Cohen, if you want to show homophobia and racism, you actually don't need to get dressed up in characters. All you need to do to find hilarious bigotry is follow around someone who is actually a target of it. And if you want to show how bigoted other people are, you DEFINITELY don't need to do it in supposedly "funny" characters.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm not sure I think bigotry is all that funny.
Maybe that's your problem.
Sincerely,
The Deviant E
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Hate Crimes
On Saturday I went to Pride with Bluejay. We marched with the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition. Pride was fun, but at the same time somewhat unfullfilling. We walked past, people cheered: "Yay trannies!" or "Trans Rights!" etc. etc. But it's sort of hollow isn't it? The gay community in general isn't all that good about trans issues.
For an example, yesterday Bluejay called me up really pissed: a gay news feed that he reads had an article about a "gay couple" that "snookered" New York into marrying them, because they had a food stamp card that indicated one of them was female. Never minding that this woman was trans, that they used the wrong name to refer to her (and then put her preferred name in those fucking quotation marks of disrespect), or that her husband explicitly does not consider himself gay.
Anway, at Pride we're marching we're marching. We've got signs that say: "Support HB 1728 and S 1687" But how the hell do you make that into a chant? Are people at Pride even there to be educated? I sort of doubt that. I think Pride's supposed to be really feel good. But it's hard to feel good about marching when you realize that most people who see your signs aren't going to bother to remember to actually DO anything, they'll feel like they supported us just by cheering, as though cheering will make our community's homelessness and joblessness go away.
So, on the topic of protests/rallies that have actual purpose, I bring you: "On Thursday at 4 PM at the Boston Municipal Court (corner of Merrimac and New Chardon Streets), protestors will gather to denounce the lenient sentence imposed on convicted gay-basher Fabio Brandao. Join us in demanding that the legal system punish anti-gay violence." Facebook event with more information
I'll be going. See you there?
For an example, yesterday Bluejay called me up really pissed: a gay news feed that he reads had an article about a "gay couple" that "snookered" New York into marrying them, because they had a food stamp card that indicated one of them was female. Never minding that this woman was trans, that they used the wrong name to refer to her (and then put her preferred name in those fucking quotation marks of disrespect), or that her husband explicitly does not consider himself gay.
Anway, at Pride we're marching we're marching. We've got signs that say: "Support HB 1728 and S 1687" But how the hell do you make that into a chant? Are people at Pride even there to be educated? I sort of doubt that. I think Pride's supposed to be really feel good. But it's hard to feel good about marching when you realize that most people who see your signs aren't going to bother to remember to actually DO anything, they'll feel like they supported us just by cheering, as though cheering will make our community's homelessness and joblessness go away.
So, on the topic of protests/rallies that have actual purpose, I bring you: "On Thursday at 4 PM at the Boston Municipal Court (corner of Merrimac and New Chardon Streets), protestors will gather to denounce the lenient sentence imposed on convicted gay-basher Fabio Brandao. Join us in demanding that the legal system punish anti-gay violence." Facebook event with more information
I'll be going. See you there?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Ignorance is No Excuse
Someone at the Prop 8 protest/rally had a sign that at first glance I found really funny and touching. It said up top (paraphrase):
"Why are we still having to fight for this?"
And on the bottom was: "Women's Rights, Black Rights, Gay Rights"
But then I noticed the check marks next to "Women's Rights" and "Black Rights."
I know this will shock you, but the kid holding up the sign implying that sexism and racism don't exist anymore, was a white male.
SHOCKER.
After the protest I went up to talk to him about how his sign is really alienating, and more over false, and how the top was good, but implying that gays are way more oppressed is totally bullshit and does nothing to further gay rights.
I tried to not get angry, and I think I did a good job at that, though I wish I had been more on top of pointing out to him the LEGAL effects of racism and sexism (he said that he hadn't meant it to say that sexism and racism don't exist, just that they aren't legislated, which also isn't particularly true).
I was still fuming about it this morning when I got up.
As Teh Portly Dyke at Shakesville* said: Even if you could win the Oppression Olympics, all the prizes SUCK.
*as to the actual post, I haven't read it thoroughly, so in this particular instance this is not an endorsement
"Why are we still having to fight for this?"
And on the bottom was: "Women's Rights, Black Rights, Gay Rights"
But then I noticed the check marks next to "Women's Rights" and "Black Rights."
I know this will shock you, but the kid holding up the sign implying that sexism and racism don't exist anymore, was a white male.
SHOCKER.
After the protest I went up to talk to him about how his sign is really alienating, and more over false, and how the top was good, but implying that gays are way more oppressed is totally bullshit and does nothing to further gay rights.
I tried to not get angry, and I think I did a good job at that, though I wish I had been more on top of pointing out to him the LEGAL effects of racism and sexism (he said that he hadn't meant it to say that sexism and racism don't exist, just that they aren't legislated, which also isn't particularly true).
I was still fuming about it this morning when I got up.
As Teh Portly Dyke at Shakesville* said: Even if you could win the Oppression Olympics, all the prizes SUCK.
*as to the actual post, I haven't read it thoroughly, so in this particular instance this is not an endorsement
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Prop 8 (and religiously related child abuse)
So, as many of you may have already heard (if you're U.S. based), Proposition 8 was upheld by the supreme court. Yay for voting on other people's rights. I'm excited to start legislating against olive eaters any day now.
However, since apparently they (the Supreme Court) didn't want a shit storm, they are not invalidating the marriages of the 18,000 couples who were married prior to the homophobic referendum passing.
Yay?
Whatever. I'll be at the local rally/"angry queers get angry"-fest in Boston tonight. If you're in the area, think about stopping by. It'll be at Copley Square at 7.
I've been trying to write this past week, but everything is just too enormous, for instance: have you heard about the Minnesotan 13 year-old with cancer whose parents (and he) cited their religious beliefs to say he doesn't have cancer, as a reason for why he shouldn't go to a doctor? A judge ruled that not taking the kid in for chemo and radiation (which would give him a 90% chance of living) was tantamount to child abuse (because if they don't he has a 5% chance). The mother fled with the son after the court mandated appointment (which showed the tumor had grown since when he was first diagnosed, gee I wonder why), but turned herself in a couple days ago. It just makes me angry to see 13 year old kids dying because their parents are brainwashed idiots.
You want to kill yourself through refusing medical treatment? FINE! Just don't drag your kids down with you, assholes.
On the topic of religious inspired/related child abuse, the report on child abuse in Catholic run schools during the 1930s-1970s in Ireland just came out. I haven't read it, but have been lucky enough to get the gist from Bill Donohue (that's pure snark, some actual writing about it is at Shakesville), who frankly I couldn't hate any more right now. According to him, the "miscreants" and "delinquents" there shouldn't be complaining about "only" being groped and made to shiver themselves to sleep. See that isn't real child abuse, not like breaking people's limbs and rape. And if it isn't the most horrible thing we could imagine, clearly it isn't horrible. *eyeroll*
Indeed, Donohue does in fact call the abused children miscreants and delinquents. Way to stand up for the poor, beleaguered Catholic Church, Donohue. I mean it isn't like they knowingly shuffled around child abusers and had people in positions of power who would SPY ON THEM AS THEY SHOWERED. Not at all. Clearly, all this bad press for the Catholic Church is totally baseless.
Not to mention, I've heard that this isn't even the whole shebang, and that they will soon be putting out another VOLUME (in July, if memory serves)
So yeah, it's been a crappy little while.
However, since apparently they (the Supreme Court) didn't want a shit storm, they are not invalidating the marriages of the 18,000 couples who were married prior to the homophobic referendum passing.
Yay?
Whatever. I'll be at the local rally/"angry queers get angry"-fest in Boston tonight. If you're in the area, think about stopping by. It'll be at Copley Square at 7.
I've been trying to write this past week, but everything is just too enormous, for instance: have you heard about the Minnesotan 13 year-old with cancer whose parents (and he) cited their religious beliefs to say he doesn't have cancer, as a reason for why he shouldn't go to a doctor? A judge ruled that not taking the kid in for chemo and radiation (which would give him a 90% chance of living) was tantamount to child abuse (because if they don't he has a 5% chance). The mother fled with the son after the court mandated appointment (which showed the tumor had grown since when he was first diagnosed, gee I wonder why), but turned herself in a couple days ago. It just makes me angry to see 13 year old kids dying because their parents are brainwashed idiots.
You want to kill yourself through refusing medical treatment? FINE! Just don't drag your kids down with you, assholes.
On the topic of religious inspired/related child abuse, the report on child abuse in Catholic run schools during the 1930s-1970s in Ireland just came out. I haven't read it, but have been lucky enough to get the gist from Bill Donohue (that's pure snark, some actual writing about it is at Shakesville), who frankly I couldn't hate any more right now. According to him, the "miscreants" and "delinquents" there shouldn't be complaining about "only" being groped and made to shiver themselves to sleep. See that isn't real child abuse, not like breaking people's limbs and rape. And if it isn't the most horrible thing we could imagine, clearly it isn't horrible. *eyeroll*
Indeed, Donohue does in fact call the abused children miscreants and delinquents. Way to stand up for the poor, beleaguered Catholic Church, Donohue. I mean it isn't like they knowingly shuffled around child abusers and had people in positions of power who would SPY ON THEM AS THEY SHOWERED. Not at all. Clearly, all this bad press for the Catholic Church is totally baseless.
Not to mention, I've heard that this isn't even the whole shebang, and that they will soon be putting out another VOLUME (in July, if memory serves)
So yeah, it's been a crappy little while.
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)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Fix her Flux Capacitor!
Now for something that made me smile.
And for those who can't watch it right now (though I really suggest doing so),
And look! he didn't need to resort to fucked up sexist insults or slurs(*cough cough Perez Hilton, and all you others, I'm looking at you cough cough*). Which as we all know aren't extra bad because they're extra mean, they're extra bad because they use a person's status in an oppressed group as the sole reason that the insult works.
And for those who can't watch it right now (though I really suggest doing so),
Ill Doctrine: I'm making a video every day for the rest of this month. Some of them will be regular videos like yesterday, some of them will be a little more... random. So for those of you that might be uncomfortable with randomness, I will now institute a labeling system. From now on, when you see the words "mini-doctrine" in the title, you'll know that this video is something kind of random that might not be for you. And speaking of random things you might want to skip [awkward segue, no really it says that on the screen], the Miss USA pageant!
Perez Hilton caused a scandal at the Miss USA pageant asking Miss California how she felt about gay marriage.
[Video clip]Miss California: Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that, you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage, and you know what? In MY country, and in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be: between a man and a woman. Thank you.
Ill Doctrine: Watching that clip raises a lotta questions for me. Questions such as: Why do beauty pageants still exist? This whole ritual just seems so out of place to me in 2009, it feels like watching a Renaissance fair. My twitter friends pointed out that beauty pageants are a leading source of scholarship money for young women, which is something? But I mean if that scholarship's coming along with such crazy messages about how women are supposed to be valued... that's kinda like: "we're pulling you up as a reward for letting us push you down" Do you really come out ahead at the end of that? It's like a patriarchal, metaphysical conumdrum.
But in the meantime, right-wingers across the land are already heralding Miss California as their new champion: the Joan of Arc, and/or Joe the Plumber [fist shake] of the anti-gay marriage movement. And on the surface I guess that does make sense. But I don't know, when I take a closer look at her answer I start to wonder what side she's really on. Like, for example: most people in her position, when they talk about heterosexual marriage, they just call it "normal" marriage or "regular" marriage. But she didn't do that, she called it opposite marriage. Do you see what she did there? She struck a blow against heteronormative nomenclature. And she started out her answer by telling us how proud she is to live in a land where everyone can choose what kind of marriage they want.
Now of course, that's not true about this land that we live in. But she never said she from this [pointing] land! Do you see where I'm going with this? My theory is that Miss California comes from another land that exists in the Future! A land where she's free to have her personal religious beliefs without them being legislated on anyone else! Perez Hilton! Listen to me, all you need to do is go to Miss California and tell her that she's been teleported back to present day America without her knowledge, and she will Join Your Side! She will lead you to victory! And then you can fix her flux capacitor and send her back home to the future! The truth is out there.
click for a Transcript!:Perez Hilton caused a scandal at the Miss USA pageant asking Miss California how she felt about gay marriage.
[Video clip]Miss California: Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that, you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage, and you know what? In MY country, and in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be: between a man and a woman. Thank you.
Ill Doctrine: Watching that clip raises a lotta questions for me. Questions such as: Why do beauty pageants still exist? This whole ritual just seems so out of place to me in 2009, it feels like watching a Renaissance fair. My twitter friends pointed out that beauty pageants are a leading source of scholarship money for young women, which is something? But I mean if that scholarship's coming along with such crazy messages about how women are supposed to be valued... that's kinda like: "we're pulling you up as a reward for letting us push you down" Do you really come out ahead at the end of that? It's like a patriarchal, metaphysical conumdrum.
But in the meantime, right-wingers across the land are already heralding Miss California as their new champion: the Joan of Arc, and/or Joe the Plumber [fist shake] of the anti-gay marriage movement. And on the surface I guess that does make sense. But I don't know, when I take a closer look at her answer I start to wonder what side she's really on. Like, for example: most people in her position, when they talk about heterosexual marriage, they just call it "normal" marriage or "regular" marriage. But she didn't do that, she called it opposite marriage. Do you see what she did there? She struck a blow against heteronormative nomenclature. And she started out her answer by telling us how proud she is to live in a land where everyone can choose what kind of marriage they want.
Now of course, that's not true about this land that we live in. But she never said she from this [pointing] land! Do you see where I'm going with this? My theory is that Miss California comes from another land that exists in the Future! A land where she's free to have her personal religious beliefs without them being legislated on anyone else! Perez Hilton! Listen to me, all you need to do is go to Miss California and tell her that she's been teleported back to present day America without her knowledge, and she will Join Your Side! She will lead you to victory! And then you can fix her flux capacitor and send her back home to the future! The truth is out there.
And look! he didn't need to resort to fucked up sexist insults or slurs(*cough cough Perez Hilton, and all you others, I'm looking at you cough cough*). Which as we all know aren't extra bad because they're extra mean, they're extra bad because they use a person's status in an oppressed group as the sole reason that the insult works.
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!
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
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Magic Penis
This alternately should be titled: If You Don't Want to Hear About My Sex Life in College, You May Want to Stop Reading (But Don't Really Stop Reading, Because There is an Important Philosophical Point to be Made).... oh fine, do whatever you want
I don't want to step on anyone's precious, precious toes but.....
Newsflash: Penises are not magic.
As some of you who are familiar with this blog may indeed know, I briefly sort of dated a bioboy while in college (and identifying as not-het). I had with him, probably what I'd consider my first positive sexual experience(s) with a guy. I can't remember ever feeling unduly pressured, and while thinking of our relationship as straight totally fucked with my head, it had nothing to do with the fooling around, which was on the whole very enjoyable (as sex/relationships should be). Which is why it was so damn ironic he told me in all honestness that Penises Are Magic.
Ok. Those weren't his exact words. It was something a lot closer to: "see, I don't want to have [penetrative penile/vaginal]* sex with you because I've heard that the first time a girl has [penile/vaginal] sex, she becomes really attached to the guy. It's a chemical thing."
Uh. Yeah. So orgasms, shared affection, respect, intelligence, whether or not you are cute.... None of that is as important to whether a "girl" (nevermind that not everyone with a vagina is a girl and that not everyone who is a girl has a vagina) becomes irrationally "attached". "Attached" for those keeping score at home, is code word for Clingy, (when reading this aloud, please be sure to say this in a sing-song voice).
What does it say when an all-around cool (I'd say feminist, but I don't know if he identifies as such), somewhat gender non-conforming, politically engaged guy, honest-to-Loki believed that his Magic Penis would turn me "clingy"?
To me it says that something is wrong with society. Whoever originally told him this (he passed it on not as opinion, but as semi-scientific fact imparted by others) believed that lesbians, gay men, and apparently straight men, all can't become attached to their partners. Because they don't have the magic formula of 1 penis + 1 receiving vagina.
To me, it says that we as a culture view Penises as the be-all and end-all, so much so, that any sexual pleasure one derives from non-penile pursuits (including of course, orgasms derived from oral sex, manual sex, anal sex, self-love, or just thinking really hard) couldn't begin to emotionally affect an individual the way that sticking a penis in a vagina can.
Which brings me to another point. This idea is inherently anti-women's pleasure. While there are definitely women who orgasm through solely penetrative vaginal/penile sex, many if not most (I'll have to look it up in I <3 Female Orgasm when I get home) women CANNOT orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Some can't even orgasm while being penetrated (or do so much less easily). So in effect, this idea implies that the act of penetration is more central to sex than the actual orgasm of the woman engaging in the damn relationship. Does this mean that women who are raped are then going to go through this "chemical process"????? I mean, if it's the first time a penis is inside of them!!!! Who knows?
Plus, it seems the height of disrespect to men, implying that they are so callous, that they won't get overly attached to the first partner they have sex with. Especially since boys are taught that they should shuck their virginity at the first possible moment. You'd think then that it'd be some amazing gift someone else could give them: helping them lose their virginity. Instead, someone is out there floating the idea that chemical reactions take place only in female bodies only in the context of having a penis attached to a male bodied person stuck into only the vagina for only the first time, and that these chemical processes will override just about all rationality.
Let's hear it for thinking women are irrational!
For real.
*As an attempt to make the world safer for queer and trans folk, I am constantly using "penetrative penile/vaginal sex" as the way that I refer to what everyone else thinks of as "real" sex/"sex". You'd be fucking surprised at how many MEDICAL DOCTORS have been like "oh, that's a handy way to describe it!/I've never thought of it that way" when I try to answer their questions about whether or not I have "sex". And yes, I DO believe it is a safety thing, because for every doctor/person who believes that only some types of sex are "sex" that's one less person who acknowledges the presence of us queerbos, and who thinks to include our experiences as a normal medical issue.
I don't want to step on anyone's precious, precious toes but.....
Newsflash: Penises are not magic.
As some of you who are familiar with this blog may indeed know, I briefly sort of dated a bioboy while in college (and identifying as not-het). I had with him, probably what I'd consider my first positive sexual experience(s) with a guy. I can't remember ever feeling unduly pressured, and while thinking of our relationship as straight totally fucked with my head, it had nothing to do with the fooling around, which was on the whole very enjoyable (as sex/relationships should be). Which is why it was so damn ironic he told me in all honestness that Penises Are Magic.
Ok. Those weren't his exact words. It was something a lot closer to: "see, I don't want to have [penetrative penile/vaginal]* sex with you because I've heard that the first time a girl has [penile/vaginal] sex, she becomes really attached to the guy. It's a chemical thing."
Uh. Yeah. So orgasms, shared affection, respect, intelligence, whether or not you are cute.... None of that is as important to whether a "girl" (nevermind that not everyone with a vagina is a girl and that not everyone who is a girl has a vagina) becomes irrationally "attached". "Attached" for those keeping score at home, is code word for Clingy, (when reading this aloud, please be sure to say this in a sing-song voice).
What does it say when an all-around cool (I'd say feminist, but I don't know if he identifies as such), somewhat gender non-conforming, politically engaged guy, honest-to-Loki believed that his Magic Penis would turn me "clingy"?
To me it says that something is wrong with society. Whoever originally told him this (he passed it on not as opinion, but as semi-scientific fact imparted by others) believed that lesbians, gay men, and apparently straight men, all can't become attached to their partners. Because they don't have the magic formula of 1 penis + 1 receiving vagina.
To me, it says that we as a culture view Penises as the be-all and end-all, so much so, that any sexual pleasure one derives from non-penile pursuits (including of course, orgasms derived from oral sex, manual sex, anal sex, self-love, or just thinking really hard) couldn't begin to emotionally affect an individual the way that sticking a penis in a vagina can.
Which brings me to another point. This idea is inherently anti-women's pleasure. While there are definitely women who orgasm through solely penetrative vaginal/penile sex, many if not most (I'll have to look it up in I <3 Female Orgasm when I get home) women CANNOT orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Some can't even orgasm while being penetrated (or do so much less easily). So in effect, this idea implies that the act of penetration is more central to sex than the actual orgasm of the woman engaging in the damn relationship. Does this mean that women who are raped are then going to go through this "chemical process"????? I mean, if it's the first time a penis is inside of them!!!! Who knows?
Plus, it seems the height of disrespect to men, implying that they are so callous, that they won't get overly attached to the first partner they have sex with. Especially since boys are taught that they should shuck their virginity at the first possible moment. You'd think then that it'd be some amazing gift someone else could give them: helping them lose their virginity. Instead, someone is out there floating the idea that chemical reactions take place only in female bodies only in the context of having a penis attached to a male bodied person stuck into only the vagina for only the first time, and that these chemical processes will override just about all rationality.
Let's hear it for thinking women are irrational!
For real.
*As an attempt to make the world safer for queer and trans folk, I am constantly using "penetrative penile/vaginal sex" as the way that I refer to what everyone else thinks of as "real" sex/"sex". You'd be fucking surprised at how many MEDICAL DOCTORS have been like "oh, that's a handy way to describe it!/I've never thought of it that way" when I try to answer their questions about whether or not I have "sex". And yes, I DO believe it is a safety thing, because for every doctor/person who believes that only some types of sex are "sex" that's one less person who acknowledges the presence of us queerbos, and who thinks to include our experiences as a normal medical issue.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
"A Boy's Life" or "My Seething Hatred of Bigots"
So I was reading my mission statement post. Apparently I'm happy on this here blog a lot less than I previously indicated I would be.
I was gonna try to change that too, you know? I thought I'd post some awesome recipe or something that made me gleeful and happy.
And then I had the misfortune of hearing about this odious little piece of shit "news" article.
It's called "A Boy's Life" and is (surprise) about a young trans girl. She had apparently told people that she was a girl SINCE BEING ABLE TO TALK. Yet the author of this horror uses the wrong pronouns and names for the entire story. That is, up until the young girl's mother decides that she's going to quit fighting the inevitable. So, just more proof that children aren't actual people, but tiny mobile extensions of their parents.
Here's a gem from the end:
I literally couldn't read through this entire article. Maybe one day I'll have the stomach to give it the editing (for intelligence) it so clearly deserves.
I was gonna try to change that too, you know? I thought I'd post some awesome recipe or something that made me gleeful and happy.
And then I had the misfortune of hearing about this odious little piece of shit "news" article.
It's called "A Boy's Life" and is (surprise) about a young trans girl. She had apparently told people that she was a girl SINCE BEING ABLE TO TALK. Yet the author of this horror uses the wrong pronouns and names for the entire story. That is, up until the young girl's mother decides that she's going to quit fighting the inevitable. So, just more proof that children aren't actual people, but tiny mobile extensions of their parents.
Here's a gem from the end:
It’s not impossible to imagine Brandon’sHer name is Bridget, which we find out in the last damn page, and which the author obviously knew well before printing the damn article
life going in another direction. His"Her" you fucking idiot
early life fits neatly into a Zucker[rhymes with Fucker] case study about family noise. Tina describes [Bridget] as “never leaving my side” during [her] early years. The diagnosis writes itself: father, distant and threatening; mother, protector; child overidentifies with strong maternal figure.Oh yeah,that's totally what happened, since the kid was identifying as a girl since age TWO. I personally base all of my gender identity on my memories of being two, don't you? Hello, paging Dr. Fucker, Freud's a crackpot, and you are too.
If Tina had lived in Toronto, if she’d had the patience for six years of Dr. [F]ucker’s therapy, if the therapy had been free, then who knows?"Who knows" indeed!, perhaps 'poor' Bridget could be 'cured'. Especially if her mom had just had the patience. What a tragic fate to be subjected to, just because her mother didn't live in range of a psychopath with a degree. Come to think of it, how did you Ms. Hanna Rosin, manage to get a journalism degree? Did you??????
Yet [F]ucker’s approach has its own disturbing elements.Other than refusing to acknowledge a child's gender identity? Do tell!
It’s easy to imagine that his methods—steering parents toward removing pink crayons from the box, extolling a patriarchy no one believes intell that to the hundreds of survivors of sexual violence that posted in the past 49 hours on Shakesville's survivor thread, or how about the women of fucking Afghanistan, who currently have legislation making it possible for their husbands to refuse to them medical treatment, oh and gives them no legal recourse against rape. Yeah NO ONE believes in the patriarchy.
—could instill in some children a sense of shame and a double life. A 2008 study of 25 girls [trans boys] who had been seen in [F]ucker’s clinic showed positive results;What do you think of as "positive"?
22 were no longer gender-dysphoric, meaning they were comfortable living as girls. But that doesn’t mean they were happyoh, silly, I thought that "positive" and "happy" were related!
I spoke to the mother of one [F]ucker patient in her late 20s, who said her [son] was repulsed by the thought of a sex change but was still suffering—[he’d] become an alcoholic, and was cutting [him]self. “I’d be surprised if she outlived me,” [his] mother said.You heard it folks, apparently none of these young transmen are trans anymore! They just want to/are trying to kill themselves. Sounds like a peachy fucking cure.
I literally couldn't read through this entire article. Maybe one day I'll have the stomach to give it the editing (for intelligence) it so clearly deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
