This is a sort of scattered post today.
I've been thinking about Kokopelli recently because of two events. The first event (though chronologically second) is that my partner and I visited the house of one of his good friends, who has a woven rug/runner thing tacked to the wall with like 20 Kokopellis woven along it basically in a conga line. The second event (chronologically first) is that a couple weeks ago, while over at my parents house, my sister mentioned that her friend had a tattoo (I believe, I can't think of the context, but I can't think of what else it would have been BUT a tattoo) of Kokopelli. Apparently I made a face, because my sister found it necessary to explain that Kokopelli is a "Native American god*" (again, I'm not certain that was exactly what she said, but I AM certain she didn't specify either: what tribes worship(ped) him or what his powers are believed to be). I stated that I knew exactly who Kokopelli is and that my face was for the fact that I think it's really screwed up for white people (her friend is a white person, just like my whole family) to appropriate meaningful symbols/gods from other cultures.
My sister countered that I didn't know how meaningful Kokopelli is to her friend. I don't care how meaningful Kokopelli is to white folks... pick a fertility god from a culture you have a background in... oh wait, what's that?, you didn't know that Kokopelli is a fertility god?, wow he must be SUPER meaningful to you I suppose! (Sorry, angry rant done). We dropped it soon after because regardless of whatever we'd say, it wouldn't change the fact that her friend had that tattoo** (they're permanent you know).
I thought back to that argument (which my partner was there for) when we entered his friend's house. I looked at the wall hanging, and was made intensely uncomfortable by it, but we were there to ask for a favor (or something), so I didn't say anything. Which makes me feel cruddy. I think the difference was that my sister brought it up in conversation the first time, whereas just seeing a wall-hanging isn't exactly an invitation to talk about it. But I still wish I'd said something (perhaps next time we're over I'll ask what her interest in fertility gods is?).
So obviously appropriation of Native cultures has been on my mind a lot recently.
Which brings me to Native Appropriations, and Adrienne's most recent post about white people wearing "Indian"/"Indian-style" headdresses. Now there are some things I don't love about her posts on the topic, well, really just one thing. It's that she calls them "Hipster Headdresses." Yes, most hipsters are white/come from upper-middle class backgrounds, but not all. Appropriation that those (privileged) individuals do they do as privileged white/rich people, not as "hipsters." Hipsters are not defacto privileged, there isn't "hipster privilege," so it seems stupid to say it's a "hipster" thing instead of (say) a "white thing" or a "rich thing." This is a common naming that happens in liberal/radical groups where I'll hear people talk about "hipster racism" as though it isn't the same damn racism that other white people do. It's white racism, and rich classism, it isn't special to hipsters, and they aren't a specially protected/privileged group (in my analogies on this subject I've pointed out that tea drinkers are probably predominantly white/privileged just like hipsters, but we don't call racism perpetrated by them "tea drinker racism"). Anyway.
One of the things that happened the other day while I was reading her post (wherein she describes having a clothing designer come to an old post to harrass her about being opposed to white people using headdresses as a cool new "accessory") was that I was struck with revulsion at the privileged asshole-ishness of E. Starbuck. Fuck that noise.
Which brings me to mohawks (the hairstyle, not the tribe).
I'm a white person, so I have white privilege. In high school I had dreads (not something I'm proud of these days, but at the time it didn't seem like a big deal). In college I had a mohawk. For a long time I've mourned that I "can't" have a mohawk anymore. For a while I felt I couldn't because I was out in the world where people would judge me negatively for having hair that didn't conform to "appropriate" standards (but I was going to find a job and then settle in and then shave it again). More recently (the past year and a bit) I've been feeling like I "can't" wear one because of the appropriation aspect of it. But I've been fighting that. I didn't feel like it was a choice I was making for myself, but one that was made for me, and it made me upset and sad (boo hoo, I know). I'd see a person (usually white, sometimes black) walking down the street with a mohawk and sigh longingly, and then Bluejay (my partner) had to remind me that it's appropriative and such. And I keep/kept saying "but hair! it's... anyone could think up shaving a stripe onto your head! plus! all the white hairstyles are boring" and then he'd (very smart, my partner is) point out that the reason that mohawks and dreads and such seem "cool" and "not boring" is because of uh, white privilege, appropriation, and racism. So then I spent weeks/months whining (not often) about how I guess I'd just have to come up with a "not boring" hairstyle that wasn't appropriative.
Bluejay pointed out to me that maybe I could use this as a learning experience to acknowledge how difficult it can be for other white folk to give up something that they think of as dear to their hearts (Kokopelli, sweat lodges, "moccasins," whatever) "just" because of white privilege. He pointed out that the things that I've "given up" because they were racist (not going to see Avatar, being opposed to conflict diamonds, etc.) are things that I either don't care about (like clothes/jewelry) or was anti-racist before I heard about them, and thus didn't find appealing (like Avatar), so it wasn't a very big sacrifice. I'm not sure Bluejay's idea worked in making me more sympathetic to people who cling to privilege, but it is helping me acknowledge that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but instead flawed (gasp! shock! horror!).
But hey! luckily for me (and my fragile white psyche), E. Starbuck has made it oh-so-easy for me to give up my fantasy for oppression-free mohawks. How? Because the second I read zir screed, I said to myself "oh fuck, I NEVER want to act like that privileged a wanker, that's probably what I sound like about mohawks." And I was (very close to) cured of my desire for one. I mean damn but that's a jerkish thing to do: seek out a Native person to harrass because they are opposed to you stealing their culture. Ugh.
So, I don't have a really good wrap up to this, other than I guess to acknowledge to myself and the world that I am not Super Anti-Racist, but with a little help from friends (and racist assholes) I can work to be less oppressive to others. Who knows, if I talk with Bluejay's friend about Kokopelli perhaps we can move together towards a less oppressive future.
------------------------
*Using a non-capitalized "god" is not meant as a disrespect to Native cultures, but is instead due to my desire to not give a false reverence which I do not feel for any religions' god(dess)(es).
**For full disclosure I should mention that for 3 or so years in undergrad I seriously believed I'd get a full back tattoo of Quan Yin and Kali, two archetypes/goddesses/symbols that I really appreciated. At some point during that time I was talking with a Hindu friend of mine who apparently told me he thought it was fucked up that I was going to get a tattoo of a Hindu goddess even though I wasn't Hindu. I don't remember that conversation, but I do remember the one following it when he brought it up later as I mentioned some hugely disrespectful toilet paper with Hindu gods on it (I believe). He implied that what I was planning (still at the time interested in the tattoo) was only slightly less disrespectful than the toilet paper. I'm pretty sure I behaved in a privileged white way as a response (blabbing on about how she was meaningful to me, etc.). I don't know if I ever apologized to him for that (we no longer chat much). So, just to say that I'm not immune from having felt like appropriation is a-ok, but luckily I did take long enough figuring out who to design it and tattoo it and everything that I stopped wanting it.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Today in Racist Sexism
As Renee of Womanist Musings often points out, Black women in our society are in the double, (triple, I can't even figure out how many) bind of being constantly sexualized while also having the standard of beauty be explicitly based in Whiteness. They are accused of looking ugly and "masculine," but are assumed to be available at all times for sex (which feeds into rape culture). They are stereotyped as angry, but also expected to be "Mammy" figures who care for all around them.
This comes out in particularly horrifying ways when Black women athletes are reported on in the media. Caster Semenya comes to mind for me, and so does Venus Williams, and it is the treatment of Venus Williams in the linked article that I want to look at.
The title of this banal (but still incredibly offensive) "article" is "Venus Williams wears a racy dress..." and the actual website address calls her dress "see-through." Which is to say, that she designed (I've read elsewhere that she designs all her tenis outfits, correct me if I'm wrong) a dress where she has black lace overlaying brown cloth where the brown of the cloth shows through. The brown of the cloth is matched exceedingly well to her skin tone (given how off "skin tone" things usually are, regardless of the pigmentation of the wearer, I feel this is no small feat, just think of those ice skating outfits where the "skin tone" bits are just an entirely different color, even with White skaters). So of course, the first major error of this short (5 sentence) article is in the website address, and it is that the dress is "see-through". It is no more "see through" than my pants I am wearing right now.
(I also remember that a while ago, a similarly ridiculous article was written about another outfit that she wore where she again matched her skin tone and the cloth color in order to not show her underwear (I believe). Again they described this as "shocking" or "scandalous.")
Another error of the article is referring to the outfit as a "can-can" outfit, given that it does not share the key requirement of can-can outfits in that it doesn't have a long flouncy skirt (with frills underneath) for the high kicking necessary to rate her activity as the can-can.
The next bit of offensiveness is in the first sentence, where they state that Venus Williams could "find work" at the Moulin Rouge. They then clarify that they mean the historical Moulin Rouge in the third sentence when they reference her "auditioning for a spot at a 19th century cabaret."
For context, the wikipedia article on the Moulin Rouge euphemistically refers to the original dancers at the Moulin Rouge as "courtesans." Of course, it also describes them as the originators of the striptease, and states that the can-can as developed by the courtesans was "an attempt to seduce potential clients" (ummm, what type of clients could they possibly be referencing?) and that in the course of the dance, the revealing of genitals sometimes happened (because that happens all the time at the ballet!). To really hit home what the Moulin Rouge was (and what the dancers were considered to be), even though the article doesn't *explicitly* state that it was a whore-house, it nevertheless refers to when the Moulin Rouge suddenly became a "legitimate nightclub" and that it had a "reputation as a 'high-class brothel'" (which would hardly be necessary to state if it was truly a nightclub in the beginning). So let's just acknowledge it for what it was at the time: a strip club where the workers probably often had sex with the clients.
So, back to the article (sorry for the digression), they are explicitly referring to the historical Moulin Rouge and saying that she could "find some work" there. So they are saying that a strong Black woman athlete is equivalent to a prostitute (or at "best" a stripper).
I want to state for the record that I do not view sex work as an immoral thing/profession. I do not believe that individuals who engage in non-coercive sex work (so, leaving out pimps for instance) are immoral for doing so. However, in our society it is extremely stigmatized to be a sex worker of any stripe, and the most stigmatized group are prostitutes.
And this article compared Venus Williams to a sex worker/prostitute in an effort to shame her.
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH.
That is all in: Today in Racist Sexism.
This comes out in particularly horrifying ways when Black women athletes are reported on in the media. Caster Semenya comes to mind for me, and so does Venus Williams, and it is the treatment of Venus Williams in the linked article that I want to look at.
The title of this banal (but still incredibly offensive) "article" is "Venus Williams wears a racy dress..." and the actual website address calls her dress "see-through." Which is to say, that she designed (I've read elsewhere that she designs all her tenis outfits, correct me if I'm wrong) a dress where she has black lace overlaying brown cloth where the brown of the cloth shows through. The brown of the cloth is matched exceedingly well to her skin tone (given how off "skin tone" things usually are, regardless of the pigmentation of the wearer, I feel this is no small feat, just think of those ice skating outfits where the "skin tone" bits are just an entirely different color, even with White skaters). So of course, the first major error of this short (5 sentence) article is in the website address, and it is that the dress is "see-through". It is no more "see through" than my pants I am wearing right now.
(I also remember that a while ago, a similarly ridiculous article was written about another outfit that she wore where she again matched her skin tone and the cloth color in order to not show her underwear (I believe). Again they described this as "shocking" or "scandalous.")
Another error of the article is referring to the outfit as a "can-can" outfit, given that it does not share the key requirement of can-can outfits in that it doesn't have a long flouncy skirt (with frills underneath) for the high kicking necessary to rate her activity as the can-can.
The next bit of offensiveness is in the first sentence, where they state that Venus Williams could "find work" at the Moulin Rouge. They then clarify that they mean the historical Moulin Rouge in the third sentence when they reference her "auditioning for a spot at a 19th century cabaret."
For context, the wikipedia article on the Moulin Rouge euphemistically refers to the original dancers at the Moulin Rouge as "courtesans." Of course, it also describes them as the originators of the striptease, and states that the can-can as developed by the courtesans was "an attempt to seduce potential clients" (ummm, what type of clients could they possibly be referencing?) and that in the course of the dance, the revealing of genitals sometimes happened (because that happens all the time at the ballet!). To really hit home what the Moulin Rouge was (and what the dancers were considered to be), even though the article doesn't *explicitly* state that it was a whore-house, it nevertheless refers to when the Moulin Rouge suddenly became a "legitimate nightclub" and that it had a "reputation as a 'high-class brothel'" (which would hardly be necessary to state if it was truly a nightclub in the beginning). So let's just acknowledge it for what it was at the time: a strip club where the workers probably often had sex with the clients.
So, back to the article (sorry for the digression), they are explicitly referring to the historical Moulin Rouge and saying that she could "find some work" there. So they are saying that a strong Black woman athlete is equivalent to a prostitute (or at "best" a stripper).
I want to state for the record that I do not view sex work as an immoral thing/profession. I do not believe that individuals who engage in non-coercive sex work (so, leaving out pimps for instance) are immoral for doing so. However, in our society it is extremely stigmatized to be a sex worker of any stripe, and the most stigmatized group are prostitutes.
And this article compared Venus Williams to a sex worker/prostitute in an effort to shame her.
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH.
That is all in: Today in Racist Sexism.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
"How Many Different Fathers?": On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism
At my agency, families are supposed to be our clients. However, since children are not expected to change their behavior (so long as they are under 16, I believe), the onus of responsibility in ensuring that a case closes generally falls on the mother. Almost always the mother. Regardless of whether the case opened because the father's neglect of the children, and even sometimes regardless of whether it opened because of his abuse of them. Which is a whole other enraging post.
I have yet to have a case where a single father is raising children with the mother out of the picture, whereas the majority of my cases are ones where a woman is raising her children on her own, sometimes due to death of the father, more often due to the relationship ending and the woman "naturally" being given responsibility to raise the children. I often have cases where the father, who is still with the mother, doesn't live with the children, and as such his participation is seemingly only "encouraged" rather than "required" by the Department.
But, I wasn't intending to talk about my feelings about the Department's sexism. Or at least not about that particular iteration of its sexism. Instead I wanted to talk about the judgement that my clients receive about how many different fathers of how many different children they have.
It is, frankly, infuriating that social workers give a rat's ass about some other social worker's client's number of current or former partners. It's bad enough when I have to hear about some other worker's client who *OH NOES!* has 3 children from three different relationships, but to have people begging to know the details of my clients' sexual relationships? IN. FUR. IATE. ING. As it is when I'm complaining about a case to someone other than a coworker, and totally unrelated to what I'm saying, they need to know how many kids/fathers there are in the picture.
The thing is, I seriously don't give a shit how many partners someone has had, other than to get important information about familial relations between siblings and their parents. It is very relevant to me when I find out that one child's father is in jail, but the other child's father lives nearby and comes over once a month. It is relevant to me when I hear that a father of one of the children says that he "wouldn't mind" taking the other children if custody is taken away from the mother. These things matter to me because they say something potentially about how each child feels cared for in their family. They don't matter to me so that I can judge the mother better.
You know what literally never crosses my mind when talking to a mother who has had multiple sexual partners, and children with more than one?
That she doesn't respect herself.
That she is promiscuous and therefore less moral.
That she is out of control.
That she is stupid.
I had trouble writing that list because a) since I don't think those things automatically, it's hard to dredge them up when I try to, b) I fucking hate that these are considered appropriate things to think about someone else's choices to have children or not (or more likely, sex or not, because lots of people would just as harshly judge a woman who has had 3 abortions due to multiple sexual relationships as they would a woman with three children from multiple partners).
But I can see these thoughts scurrying across the faces and hear them embedded in the tones of those who ask me salaciously for my clients' relational details. And you know what? My clients all know that people judge them for these things. I know they know because on the few occasions where I've been able to convince (through my tone, body language, and probably some verbal cues) a client that I am not judging them for their sexual choices (or their father's or mother's sexual choices), they have invariably opened up to me emotionally and physically (less guarded posture, giving me details of their family lives, etc.) more than they had before, and more than they have with other workers.
So, this happens. Where does it come from? Perhaps you've noticed that I titled this post "On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism".
Most of my clients are poor (ok, all of my clients are poor).
Most of my clients are people of color (I was going to get my first white family this week, but another case came back so I still have a history of only families of color).
In our culture, poverty and non-whiteness are treated as though they are synonymous. This isn't the case, but you'll notice that my clients are all poor and they have all been people of color, so they *are* linked.
In some ways, I think the judgement is mostly a facet of classism, because there is an assumption that more wealthy people's relationships have been deliberated on (regardless of how long they lasted prior to marriage or children), whereas there is an assumption (and I can't say whether it's based in fact at all) that poor people are less likely to be married when they have children (I could see this being based in fact because it costs money to marry, and costs even more to divorce), which codes as "less likely to have thought about the relationship, prior to having children" (regardless of whether they've been together for 10 years) according to our society.
However, at the same time, since whiteness = money in our culture, a white family is not assumed to be poor as readily as family of color is. So, when we talk about "poor people" having lots of children "recklessly," as a society we are to be more honest as to our underlying thought processes, talking about "people of color" having lots of children "recklessly." As such, a random family of color* will be more likely to be assumed to have been the product of multiple relationships, as compared to a random white family. Related to this is the fact that since the majority of clients at my office are families of color, a "default" family that is being talked about, unless specified as white, will be assumed to be black (or maybe latino, depending on the social worker's experiences), and as such questions about sexual histories will be mapped onto a "default" family of color.
So that takes care of the classism and racism aspects of what I see going on when people ask "how many fathers?" (incredulously or certain of the answer, take your pick).
What about the sexism and polyphobia?
Well, as mentioned above, the vast majority of childraising parents are women. So, while fathers do get judged for having multiple children, just as often, I hear the mothers being judged for being in a relationship with a man with other children. Additionally, fathers often visit their children at their children's mothers' houses. As such, they have an ability to deny certain children if they wish, and social workers have an ability to neglect to wonder about other children, since there aren't any children in front of them requiring explanations. It's like a magic trick: "No children to see here!" And of course, in those instances where a woman has had multiple children with multiple partners, I NEVER hear judgement of the father for getting involved with a woman with other children. Usually, so long as he doesn't treat the other children like crap, he's just about lauded as a hero for having the courage and kindness to be able to love a woman with other children. Or something.
I trust I don't need to say that women's sexuality is highly stigmatized and denigrated in our society, and that children are the ultimate proof of sexuality. Do I? Because it is. So of course, that's another layer on the judgment cake.
And lastly, the thing that all ties it together with a big fucking bow is the fact that as a society, monogamy is viewed as moral whereas anything else is not. There is a book called The Ethical Slut, which for some in the poly community was their first introduction into polyamory. There is no book that I have heard of (and certainly none which are known in the monogamous community with the same type of recognition) called The Ethical Prude. Because, *obviously* prudishness is ethical. It's like when I heard the criticism of the phrase "white trash" where someone pointed out that specifying someone is "WHITE trash" implicitly assumes that people of color are trash, so you don't even need to put an identifying marker when talking about them. Same goes for The Ethical Slut, but in reverse: in our culture there is no need to write a book about how to ethically be monogamous, because it is assumed to be the case by default(even though lots of mongamous people treat their partner's terribly, or hurt their partner in petty little ways without noticing).
A couple months ago, in a paper to talk about one of my cases, I chose one where I had fucked up. I had assumed that someone had been raised by hir mother, because I have had the privilege of having been raised by an intact family, and my parents never were in a situation where they were too poor to feed themselves and their children, my parents never *needed* to give me to someone else to raise in order for me to eat. My privilege got in the way of my discussion with that client.
With hir partner, however, I was immensely prepared, because as zie was telling me (somewhat shamefully) about hir father and his multiple children, and how zie had 12 half-siblings (or whatever the number was), I was able to to bypass the step my supervisor would have needed, of judging and then working around that judgment. Because that's the topping on the cake for me, while my colleagues might (and many don't) acknowledge that classism or racism play a role in how they treat their clients, NONE of them seem to acknowledge how monogamism** plays a role in how they treat their clients.
I have classism that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have racist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have ableist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients.
What I don't have? Polyphobia. And unlike my coworkers and peers, I know that it exists and that it hurts people.
*in this case I believe Asian families would be partially immune
** like it? I just made it up. Do people know of a better word?
I have yet to have a case where a single father is raising children with the mother out of the picture, whereas the majority of my cases are ones where a woman is raising her children on her own, sometimes due to death of the father, more often due to the relationship ending and the woman "naturally" being given responsibility to raise the children. I often have cases where the father, who is still with the mother, doesn't live with the children, and as such his participation is seemingly only "encouraged" rather than "required" by the Department.
But, I wasn't intending to talk about my feelings about the Department's sexism. Or at least not about that particular iteration of its sexism. Instead I wanted to talk about the judgement that my clients receive about how many different fathers of how many different children they have.
It is, frankly, infuriating that social workers give a rat's ass about some other social worker's client's number of current or former partners. It's bad enough when I have to hear about some other worker's client who *OH NOES!* has 3 children from three different relationships, but to have people begging to know the details of my clients' sexual relationships? IN. FUR. IATE. ING. As it is when I'm complaining about a case to someone other than a coworker, and totally unrelated to what I'm saying, they need to know how many kids/fathers there are in the picture.
The thing is, I seriously don't give a shit how many partners someone has had, other than to get important information about familial relations between siblings and their parents. It is very relevant to me when I find out that one child's father is in jail, but the other child's father lives nearby and comes over once a month. It is relevant to me when I hear that a father of one of the children says that he "wouldn't mind" taking the other children if custody is taken away from the mother. These things matter to me because they say something potentially about how each child feels cared for in their family. They don't matter to me so that I can judge the mother better.
You know what literally never crosses my mind when talking to a mother who has had multiple sexual partners, and children with more than one?
That she doesn't respect herself.
That she is promiscuous and therefore less moral.
That she is out of control.
That she is stupid.
I had trouble writing that list because a) since I don't think those things automatically, it's hard to dredge them up when I try to, b) I fucking hate that these are considered appropriate things to think about someone else's choices to have children or not (or more likely, sex or not, because lots of people would just as harshly judge a woman who has had 3 abortions due to multiple sexual relationships as they would a woman with three children from multiple partners).
But I can see these thoughts scurrying across the faces and hear them embedded in the tones of those who ask me salaciously for my clients' relational details. And you know what? My clients all know that people judge them for these things. I know they know because on the few occasions where I've been able to convince (through my tone, body language, and probably some verbal cues) a client that I am not judging them for their sexual choices (or their father's or mother's sexual choices), they have invariably opened up to me emotionally and physically (less guarded posture, giving me details of their family lives, etc.) more than they had before, and more than they have with other workers.
So, this happens. Where does it come from? Perhaps you've noticed that I titled this post "On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism".
Most of my clients are poor (ok, all of my clients are poor).
Most of my clients are people of color (I was going to get my first white family this week, but another case came back so I still have a history of only families of color).
In our culture, poverty and non-whiteness are treated as though they are synonymous. This isn't the case, but you'll notice that my clients are all poor and they have all been people of color, so they *are* linked.
In some ways, I think the judgement is mostly a facet of classism, because there is an assumption that more wealthy people's relationships have been deliberated on (regardless of how long they lasted prior to marriage or children), whereas there is an assumption (and I can't say whether it's based in fact at all) that poor people are less likely to be married when they have children (I could see this being based in fact because it costs money to marry, and costs even more to divorce), which codes as "less likely to have thought about the relationship, prior to having children" (regardless of whether they've been together for 10 years) according to our society.
However, at the same time, since whiteness = money in our culture, a white family is not assumed to be poor as readily as family of color is. So, when we talk about "poor people" having lots of children "recklessly," as a society we are to be more honest as to our underlying thought processes, talking about "people of color" having lots of children "recklessly." As such, a random family of color* will be more likely to be assumed to have been the product of multiple relationships, as compared to a random white family. Related to this is the fact that since the majority of clients at my office are families of color, a "default" family that is being talked about, unless specified as white, will be assumed to be black (or maybe latino, depending on the social worker's experiences), and as such questions about sexual histories will be mapped onto a "default" family of color.
So that takes care of the classism and racism aspects of what I see going on when people ask "how many fathers?" (incredulously or certain of the answer, take your pick).
What about the sexism and polyphobia?
Well, as mentioned above, the vast majority of childraising parents are women. So, while fathers do get judged for having multiple children, just as often, I hear the mothers being judged for being in a relationship with a man with other children. Additionally, fathers often visit their children at their children's mothers' houses. As such, they have an ability to deny certain children if they wish, and social workers have an ability to neglect to wonder about other children, since there aren't any children in front of them requiring explanations. It's like a magic trick: "No children to see here!" And of course, in those instances where a woman has had multiple children with multiple partners, I NEVER hear judgement of the father for getting involved with a woman with other children. Usually, so long as he doesn't treat the other children like crap, he's just about lauded as a hero for having the courage and kindness to be able to love a woman with other children. Or something.
I trust I don't need to say that women's sexuality is highly stigmatized and denigrated in our society, and that children are the ultimate proof of sexuality. Do I? Because it is. So of course, that's another layer on the judgment cake.
And lastly, the thing that all ties it together with a big fucking bow is the fact that as a society, monogamy is viewed as moral whereas anything else is not. There is a book called The Ethical Slut, which for some in the poly community was their first introduction into polyamory. There is no book that I have heard of (and certainly none which are known in the monogamous community with the same type of recognition) called The Ethical Prude. Because, *obviously* prudishness is ethical. It's like when I heard the criticism of the phrase "white trash" where someone pointed out that specifying someone is "WHITE trash" implicitly assumes that people of color are trash, so you don't even need to put an identifying marker when talking about them. Same goes for The Ethical Slut, but in reverse: in our culture there is no need to write a book about how to ethically be monogamous, because it is assumed to be the case by default(even though lots of mongamous people treat their partner's terribly, or hurt their partner in petty little ways without noticing).
A couple months ago, in a paper to talk about one of my cases, I chose one where I had fucked up. I had assumed that someone had been raised by hir mother, because I have had the privilege of having been raised by an intact family, and my parents never were in a situation where they were too poor to feed themselves and their children, my parents never *needed* to give me to someone else to raise in order for me to eat. My privilege got in the way of my discussion with that client.
With hir partner, however, I was immensely prepared, because as zie was telling me (somewhat shamefully) about hir father and his multiple children, and how zie had 12 half-siblings (or whatever the number was), I was able to to bypass the step my supervisor would have needed, of judging and then working around that judgment. Because that's the topping on the cake for me, while my colleagues might (and many don't) acknowledge that classism or racism play a role in how they treat their clients, NONE of them seem to acknowledge how monogamism** plays a role in how they treat their clients.
I have classism that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have racist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have ableist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients.
What I don't have? Polyphobia. And unlike my coworkers and peers, I know that it exists and that it hurts people.
*in this case I believe Asian families would be partially immune
** like it? I just made it up. Do people know of a better word?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Double Standards: Racism and Classism
My experience of whiteness is intimately tied in with a sort of "woo" or hippie type of community. My mom's family were hippies when it was both popular and a little dangerous to be hippies (we know for instance that my grandparents were on government watch lists for their anti-social tendencies towards pacifism).
So I grew up certainly ensconced in a community that was hugely "pro-natural [insert thing here]". Which totally applied to children. Natural childbirth, breast feeding, and co-sleeping. I mean I can't say whether they were all practiced by everyone in my family, but they were certainly not derided, and there was a sort of feeling that (if you didn't do things "naturally") at the least you should look up to those who did. My whole family is also white.
With my clients who I visit, we are told to always (always) give the families packets on child safety: one about the dangers of shaking babies, one about the dangers of not putting bars in your windows (called "Kids Can't Fly", really? you don't say!) and one, (which I'm sure you were expecting) about the dangers of co-sleeping. All of my clients are people of color.
Shocking.
Now, some of this is classism obviously, some of it is racism, some of it is maybe that white subcultures that co-sleep are also putting their children in just as huge amounts of danger as DCF involved parents who co-sleep. Whatever the case, it's just one more instance where what's good enough for me (as a DCF worker), for instance: leaving disgusting amounts of dishes lying around or not getting around to the laundry for weeks at a time for instance, is no good, bad, bad, bad, when a DCF involved parent does it. Because if I came to a house like mine in terms of dirtiness, I would DEFINITELY be expected to write all about the mess of the place, 'cause after all it shows that the parents aren't caring for the kid!... or something.
I guess certain behaviors become magically OK when presumably well-off white people do them?
So I grew up certainly ensconced in a community that was hugely "pro-natural [insert thing here]". Which totally applied to children. Natural childbirth, breast feeding, and co-sleeping. I mean I can't say whether they were all practiced by everyone in my family, but they were certainly not derided, and there was a sort of feeling that (if you didn't do things "naturally") at the least you should look up to those who did. My whole family is also white.
With my clients who I visit, we are told to always (always) give the families packets on child safety: one about the dangers of shaking babies, one about the dangers of not putting bars in your windows (called "Kids Can't Fly", really? you don't say!) and one, (which I'm sure you were expecting) about the dangers of co-sleeping. All of my clients are people of color.
Shocking.
Now, some of this is classism obviously, some of it is racism, some of it is maybe that white subcultures that co-sleep are also putting their children in just as huge amounts of danger as DCF involved parents who co-sleep. Whatever the case, it's just one more instance where what's good enough for me (as a DCF worker), for instance: leaving disgusting amounts of dishes lying around or not getting around to the laundry for weeks at a time for instance, is no good, bad, bad, bad, when a DCF involved parent does it. Because if I came to a house like mine in terms of dirtiness, I would DEFINITELY be expected to write all about the mess of the place, 'cause after all it shows that the parents aren't caring for the kid!... or something.
I guess certain behaviors become magically OK when presumably well-off white people do them?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Apologies
I've been feeling sort of guilty because my resurgence of blog activity is so me, me, me focused. Which is silly, because who else would write this blog if not me? (If I were cool, right now I'd introduce a new guest blogger/co-blogger, but I'm not, so.... life sucks and then everyone dies, eh?)
I guess I mean that recently most of my blogged about thoughts have been about straightness and queerness, transness and cisness, and well, that's about it. But actually I've been spending a whole lot of time thinking about able-ist crap (Amanda Palmer's new project comes to mind, as do the awesome writings of FWD/Forward), and some racism stuff (I have thoughts about why Tiger Wood's whatever has become such a big fucking deal, and guess what, they relate to him being a person of color), and then of course there are other thoughts, like my incessant nagging depression, and the fact that the house needs to get cleaned, and what's going on with the dog, and how the hell do I expect myself to be a good social worker/foster parent/force for social justice/insert positive thing here, when I'm plagued with a constant hatred of myself and the idea that I'm basically a pretty worthless person who might be better off if I were, say, non-existent (oh hey, I just repeated myself, this is my depression in a nutshell!), and what to make for dinner.
I'm also spending a good chunk of my time thinking about all the things I want to do once I get my (apparently magical?) Masters in Social Work, like: set up a kitchen where people who are homeless/temporarily homeless can cook their own food free of charge and eat a meal without it being this big deal (because generally food that is easy to eat standing up/while moving/without a stove or even a microwave isn't all that healthy/nutritious, and while some people who can prove they are homeless can get "special" food stamps benefits letting them buy premade warm mac & cheese or mashed potatoes, lots of people can't and therefore can only buy needing-to-be-boiled pasta, even though they don't have a stove/running water), or set up a "pro-bono" type of thing where licensed therapy type people go into jails where mentally ill criminals are basically just stored, and give them real honest to goodness therapy to help them, and having a really good home-based therapy program especially for people suffering from PTSD and those who are dealing with sexual assualt/rape, (because hey, I know I won't be a victim blamey jackass, unlike apparently the vast majority of other therapists in the world), and how about a really actually non-judgmental drop in place for pregnant people who may not have intended to be pregnant where we'll give totally even-handed information about adoption and abortion and keeping a child, (and regardless of what you choose we'll help you do it, including months of therapy after whatever decision you make comes to fruition, and if you want to give a child up for adoption we'd also help you find prospective parents and be non-classist and not transphobic and ok with polyamory and such, and if you want to keep the child and funds are a problem we'll work our asses off to find you clothing and services and food and housing and, and if you want an abortion we'll drive you to the place), and yeah, I have a lot of ideas.
I just sort of want to fix the world and be perfect. Which, I've been told is not possible, and hoping/expecting that from myself may in fact be a problem.
So, I guess this is a "sorry" for not writing enough about racism and able-ism.
And even though I know you think is silly: sorry for not being perfect and fixing the world.
I guess I mean that recently most of my blogged about thoughts have been about straightness and queerness, transness and cisness, and well, that's about it. But actually I've been spending a whole lot of time thinking about able-ist crap (Amanda Palmer's new project comes to mind, as do the awesome writings of FWD/Forward), and some racism stuff (I have thoughts about why Tiger Wood's whatever has become such a big fucking deal, and guess what, they relate to him being a person of color), and then of course there are other thoughts, like my incessant nagging depression, and the fact that the house needs to get cleaned, and what's going on with the dog, and how the hell do I expect myself to be a good social worker/foster parent/force for social justice/insert positive thing here, when I'm plagued with a constant hatred of myself and the idea that I'm basically a pretty worthless person who might be better off if I were, say, non-existent (oh hey, I just repeated myself, this is my depression in a nutshell!), and what to make for dinner.
I'm also spending a good chunk of my time thinking about all the things I want to do once I get my (apparently magical?) Masters in Social Work, like: set up a kitchen where people who are homeless/temporarily homeless can cook their own food free of charge and eat a meal without it being this big deal (because generally food that is easy to eat standing up/while moving/without a stove or even a microwave isn't all that healthy/nutritious, and while some people who can prove they are homeless can get "special" food stamps benefits letting them buy premade warm mac & cheese or mashed potatoes, lots of people can't and therefore can only buy needing-to-be-boiled pasta, even though they don't have a stove/running water), or set up a "pro-bono" type of thing where licensed therapy type people go into jails where mentally ill criminals are basically just stored, and give them real honest to goodness therapy to help them, and having a really good home-based therapy program especially for people suffering from PTSD and those who are dealing with sexual assualt/rape, (because hey, I know I won't be a victim blamey jackass, unlike apparently the vast majority of other therapists in the world), and how about a really actually non-judgmental drop in place for pregnant people who may not have intended to be pregnant where we'll give totally even-handed information about adoption and abortion and keeping a child, (and regardless of what you choose we'll help you do it, including months of therapy after whatever decision you make comes to fruition, and if you want to give a child up for adoption we'd also help you find prospective parents and be non-classist and not transphobic and ok with polyamory and such, and if you want to keep the child and funds are a problem we'll work our asses off to find you clothing and services and food and housing and, and if you want an abortion we'll drive you to the place), and yeah, I have a lot of ideas.
I just sort of want to fix the world and be perfect. Which, I've been told is not possible, and hoping/expecting that from myself may in fact be a problem.
So, I guess this is a "sorry" for not writing enough about racism and able-ism.
And even though I know you think is silly: sorry for not being perfect and fixing the world.
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
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
Monday, May 4, 2009
Casual Racism
Being a white person, I am not on the receiving end of racism all that much (oh sure, if I'm in a masochistic enough mood to go to stormfront's website they're all about hatin' on the Jews, but I only did that for a class one semester, years ago... and believe me, I experience enough toxicity in my daily life, not to need an excuse to have nightmares). So that means that to be a good ally I have to try to be aware of what happens even when it doesn't affect me. I don't know how I'd grade myself. Probably a B or B- (some good ideas, but the effort needs work). This is of course, using grade inflation of the standard type at the various schools I've attended.
Some of the ways I try to be aware are by visiting blogs of people of color (PoC) and especially women of color (WoC), by paying attention when I hear racist shit around me (and calling it out whenever possible), by understanding that all people of color are NOT interchangeable, and just trying to listen when PoC talk about racism.
So, over the past week I noticed:
On the subway on a friday or thursday evening, two drunk white girls (with barely concealed alcohol) get on the train and sit on either side of a latino man. You know, rather than find two adjacent seats. They then harrassed him under the guise of being "friendly" and called him "Cheech". Up until then I wasn't sure about the racism (maybe they were just obnoxious drunks), but right when the "Cheech" reference happened I decided to ASAP offer him the seat next to mine/tell them to quit the racist shit. But I didn't get time to say/do anything, he got up and (oh-so-graciously, because clearly the wasn't the point of the harrassment all along /sarcasm) offered them the seat he was sitting in, and then they all got off at the next stop.
I'm upset that I didn't stand up earlier/at all, it's hard because public transit is such a weird space in general, but it certainly doesn't excuse it, I was thinking about what asses they were almost as soon as they got on the train, and their bullying was something I think all of us on the train should have dealt with.
On Saturday, at a team-related party, the one african american on the team was presented with an "award" that apparently for the first time in the 3 years she'd been there, didn't have to do with her afro. You'd think in a team environment, everyone would have more to say to her than "you have exotic hair," but apparently not until this year has that been true.
On Sunday, overheard at an IHOP a (latina) woman told her coworker about sneezing and having someone tell her to go back to Mexico. You know, 'cause that flu thing is totally being brought to the U.S. by Mexican immigrants. Oh wait, sorry? It's not? The disease vectors are privileged U.S. citizens on vacation? Do Tell.
Just (over)hearing these things happen was enough for me to feel stressed and on edge, I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to have them directed at me. And even more, to have similar casual racisms directed at me on a never-ending basis. That I don't have to pay attention to shit like this every day is one of the basic symptoms/side effects of my privilege.
If I did, I'd probably spend my days screaming.
Some of the ways I try to be aware are by visiting blogs of people of color (PoC) and especially women of color (WoC), by paying attention when I hear racist shit around me (and calling it out whenever possible), by understanding that all people of color are NOT interchangeable, and just trying to listen when PoC talk about racism.
So, over the past week I noticed:
On the subway on a friday or thursday evening, two drunk white girls (with barely concealed alcohol) get on the train and sit on either side of a latino man. You know, rather than find two adjacent seats. They then harrassed him under the guise of being "friendly" and called him "Cheech". Up until then I wasn't sure about the racism (maybe they were just obnoxious drunks), but right when the "Cheech" reference happened I decided to ASAP offer him the seat next to mine/tell them to quit the racist shit. But I didn't get time to say/do anything, he got up and (oh-so-graciously, because clearly the wasn't the point of the harrassment all along /sarcasm) offered them the seat he was sitting in, and then they all got off at the next stop.
I'm upset that I didn't stand up earlier/at all, it's hard because public transit is such a weird space in general, but it certainly doesn't excuse it, I was thinking about what asses they were almost as soon as they got on the train, and their bullying was something I think all of us on the train should have dealt with.
On Saturday, at a team-related party, the one african american on the team was presented with an "award" that apparently for the first time in the 3 years she'd been there, didn't have to do with her afro. You'd think in a team environment, everyone would have more to say to her than "you have exotic hair," but apparently not until this year has that been true.
On Sunday, overheard at an IHOP a (latina) woman told her coworker about sneezing and having someone tell her to go back to Mexico. You know, 'cause that flu thing is totally being brought to the U.S. by Mexican immigrants. Oh wait, sorry? It's not? The disease vectors are privileged U.S. citizens on vacation? Do Tell.
Just (over)hearing these things happen was enough for me to feel stressed and on edge, I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to have them directed at me. And even more, to have similar casual racisms directed at me on a never-ending basis. That I don't have to pay attention to shit like this every day is one of the basic symptoms/side effects of my privilege.
If I did, I'd probably spend my days screaming.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Craptastic Past 3 Days
So, this post has nothing to do with anything other than how absolutely crappy my weekend/Monday turned out to be.
Saturday was without note (other than I had a B-day party I wanted to go to, but couldn't get it together enough to leave the house).
Sunday was the day I was going to do my taxes, so I spent close to 30 minutes looking for my W-2 only to finally call my father who apparently got it sent to him instead..... (frustrating).
Then, Bluejay and I were going to go grocery shopping. I've been perilously close to overdrawing my bank account so I checked before leaving.
What greeted my eyes when I checked was somehow simultaneously having -300 dollars as a "balance" but in my transaction area having a surplus of enough to cover rent and bills.
So, I called up my bank thinking that it was some minor website glitch. Only when I had to enter my card number, I couldn't find the card.
Now this is suspect, since I am fanatical about putting my cards in the same place every time in my wallet, and then putting my wallet in the same place every time in my pants, and then always putting my pants on before leaving the house (what can I say, I'm a creature of habit), and immediately upon exiting any building, I check all pockets for their respective contents (wallet in back right, keys in front left, cell phone in front right, handkerchief in back left).
I frantically figured out my number and got to talk to a living person at my bank, who calmly explained to me how it's totally possible for me to have both a negative and positive account balance. He starts saying: "yeah, see when you went to [insert crappy department store here] and spent 100+ dollars, and then [insert 15 more stores here] and spent multiple hundreds more, you had a deficit of 300 dollars".
Around about when he started listing all the stores I've never even heard of, I started panicking. Suddenly I had to wonder if I was having breaks from reality and was going on a spending spree. They asked me when I might have "lost" my card, and my first thought was when I was in the bank (where I live), but then Bluejay (genius, intelligent, lovely Bluejay) thought to have me ask them where all these purchases were being made.
Turns out, one of the patrons/residents at my job swiped my debit cards from my wallet from my backpack, from behind my desk,..... while I was briefly out of the room. I know this, because almost all of the purchases were made in the town where my job is.
I immediately went into damage control: I asked them to cancel my card, asked whether I'd be charged for the overdraft fees (of which there will be many) found out that I WILL be charged, but, oh hey, if they investigate and decide that I DIDN'T spend the money, then I'll get it all back, additionally found out that they won't start any damn investigation for at least a couple days because "the amount has been deducted from your account but it hasn't yet been POSTED", realized that since whoever did this also saw my credit card (even though it wasn't taken) that I needed to call my CREDIT people, had to stop my old card, realized that my bill was due in literally days and there was no way I was going to be able to pay it, had to call my landlord (since they hadn't deposited my rent yet) and hope that someone heard my message on monday before they cashed my check, called the police (in the town where I work), got told that they'd take my statement monday, finally went to my parents house, called the police again (mistakenly thinking that maybe since they'd interupted me last time, they hadn't heard enough) got interupted again and told that "if it really mattered to you, you'd have come in the second it happened" told off the police (I know, stupid) saying: "EXCUSE ME, I found out 20 minutes ago" followed by some inarticulate griping about how a thousand dollars is important and does matter to me, and how could you think that it doesn't matter to me, and that is my RENT, and argh (and hung up).
Today I: got a new bank account, called my landlord again, deposited a loaner check from my parents (into said new account), found out that the person who used my card used it less than an hour after I got in to work, went to one of the stores and asked them to save the video from that day, called the police, called them BACK when they didn't actually send an officer, realized that it had to have been only one of the patrons, went to the store (with the police officer) and found out that the tape doesn't have anyone I recognize at all!!!!
ARGH.
Now I'm just about certain that I know who stole my cards, but I can't do ANYTHING to them, since we don't have them on tape making any purchases. I'm sure I could go to multiple other stores they shopped in to get a picture with better quality (and hope somehow I do recognize the person), other than those stores won't show me the footage probably unless the police are accompanying me, and they aren't going to want to do that.
Half the time I wish I could have caught them and they could go to jail and I could feel safe again, half the time I realize that it's a fucked up world and that I'm never safe and so it's silly to think that would help, and the third half of the time I think about how screwed up the legal system is, and how I generally view it as racist and classist, and wish that I didn't want it to protect me, why didn't it protect me, fucking hell, just protect me! Since I'm of the opinion that it directly hurts those most oppressed in our society anyway, and most protects those who already have privilege.
I'm tired and scared, I feel violated and confused (how could they do this to me? I didn't realize that someone here could hate me that much) and I'm at work for another hour.
Saturday was without note (other than I had a B-day party I wanted to go to, but couldn't get it together enough to leave the house).
Sunday was the day I was going to do my taxes, so I spent close to 30 minutes looking for my W-2 only to finally call my father who apparently got it sent to him instead..... (frustrating).
Then, Bluejay and I were going to go grocery shopping. I've been perilously close to overdrawing my bank account so I checked before leaving.
What greeted my eyes when I checked was somehow simultaneously having -300 dollars as a "balance" but in my transaction area having a surplus of enough to cover rent and bills.
So, I called up my bank thinking that it was some minor website glitch. Only when I had to enter my card number, I couldn't find the card.
Now this is suspect, since I am fanatical about putting my cards in the same place every time in my wallet, and then putting my wallet in the same place every time in my pants, and then always putting my pants on before leaving the house (what can I say, I'm a creature of habit), and immediately upon exiting any building, I check all pockets for their respective contents (wallet in back right, keys in front left, cell phone in front right, handkerchief in back left).
I frantically figured out my number and got to talk to a living person at my bank, who calmly explained to me how it's totally possible for me to have both a negative and positive account balance. He starts saying: "yeah, see when you went to [insert crappy department store here] and spent 100+ dollars, and then [insert 15 more stores here] and spent multiple hundreds more, you had a deficit of 300 dollars".
Around about when he started listing all the stores I've never even heard of, I started panicking. Suddenly I had to wonder if I was having breaks from reality and was going on a spending spree. They asked me when I might have "lost" my card, and my first thought was when I was in the bank (where I live), but then Bluejay (genius, intelligent, lovely Bluejay) thought to have me ask them where all these purchases were being made.
Turns out, one of the patrons/residents at my job swiped my debit cards from my wallet from my backpack, from behind my desk,..... while I was briefly out of the room. I know this, because almost all of the purchases were made in the town where my job is.
I immediately went into damage control: I asked them to cancel my card, asked whether I'd be charged for the overdraft fees (of which there will be many) found out that I WILL be charged, but, oh hey, if they investigate and decide that I DIDN'T spend the money, then I'll get it all back, additionally found out that they won't start any damn investigation for at least a couple days because "the amount has been deducted from your account but it hasn't yet been POSTED", realized that since whoever did this also saw my credit card (even though it wasn't taken) that I needed to call my CREDIT people, had to stop my old card, realized that my bill was due in literally days and there was no way I was going to be able to pay it, had to call my landlord (since they hadn't deposited my rent yet) and hope that someone heard my message on monday before they cashed my check, called the police (in the town where I work), got told that they'd take my statement monday, finally went to my parents house, called the police again (mistakenly thinking that maybe since they'd interupted me last time, they hadn't heard enough) got interupted again and told that "if it really mattered to you, you'd have come in the second it happened" told off the police (I know, stupid) saying: "EXCUSE ME, I found out 20 minutes ago" followed by some inarticulate griping about how a thousand dollars is important and does matter to me, and how could you think that it doesn't matter to me, and that is my RENT, and argh (and hung up).
Today I: got a new bank account, called my landlord again, deposited a loaner check from my parents (into said new account), found out that the person who used my card used it less than an hour after I got in to work, went to one of the stores and asked them to save the video from that day, called the police, called them BACK when they didn't actually send an officer, realized that it had to have been only one of the patrons, went to the store (with the police officer) and found out that the tape doesn't have anyone I recognize at all!!!!
ARGH.
Now I'm just about certain that I know who stole my cards, but I can't do ANYTHING to them, since we don't have them on tape making any purchases. I'm sure I could go to multiple other stores they shopped in to get a picture with better quality (and hope somehow I do recognize the person), other than those stores won't show me the footage probably unless the police are accompanying me, and they aren't going to want to do that.
Half the time I wish I could have caught them and they could go to jail and I could feel safe again, half the time I realize that it's a fucked up world and that I'm never safe and so it's silly to think that would help, and the third half of the time I think about how screwed up the legal system is, and how I generally view it as racist and classist, and wish that I didn't want it to protect me, why didn't it protect me, fucking hell, just protect me! Since I'm of the opinion that it directly hurts those most oppressed in our society anyway, and most protects those who already have privilege.
I'm tired and scared, I feel violated and confused (how could they do this to me? I didn't realize that someone here could hate me that much) and I'm at work for another hour.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
It makes me feel ill...
When I started this blog, I assumed that I would primarily write about the communities that I'm a part of. It felt presumptive to try to write about racism, able-bodiedism, and classism (if I'm forgetting any, I'm of course sorry, but more importantly would like to hear about it). Though I try to be an ally to these communities, I never want to put myself out there as being able to speak for them.
But I'm sick of this. I'm sick of reading about an unarmed, black, 73-year-old-cancer-surivor shot dead by police (in Louisiana). And I'm sick of this: Police in Tenaha, Texas pulling over black drivers in order to extort money, jewelry, cars, cellphones, and anything that looks valuable, from them. I'm sick of black men being shot in the back while handcuffed and on the ground (in California). *
But more than I'm sick about reading about these things, I'm sick of only reading about them on one blog, only hearing about them for a day in the news (if at all). I'm sick of knowing that 1 in 3 missing/kidnapped children are black, but the media reports on them only a fifth of the time (Missing Children in the News).
It was a mistake to not make a commitment to blog about the discrimination that other communities face. It was a mistake that I am going to try to rectify from here on out.** I cannot and will not speak for others, but I can try to draw attention to oppression as it happens around me. Please, if you have a blog, friends, family, a zine, or really any way to communicate with others, Let Them Know what is happening.
*Please go to Pam's House Blend for the complete Louisiana article and story. No seriously, go. And go here for the Texas article. And here for the California article.
**In that vein, please, please, send me suggestions for blogs. At the moment, my regular blog list is primarily composed of blogs devoted to atheism, queer communities, feminism, and one or two about racial privilege.
But I'm sick of this. I'm sick of reading about an unarmed, black, 73-year-old-cancer-surivor shot dead by police (in Louisiana). And I'm sick of this: Police in Tenaha, Texas pulling over black drivers in order to extort money, jewelry, cars, cellphones, and anything that looks valuable, from them. I'm sick of black men being shot in the back while handcuffed and on the ground (in California). *
But more than I'm sick about reading about these things, I'm sick of only reading about them on one blog, only hearing about them for a day in the news (if at all). I'm sick of knowing that 1 in 3 missing/kidnapped children are black, but the media reports on them only a fifth of the time (Missing Children in the News).
It was a mistake to not make a commitment to blog about the discrimination that other communities face. It was a mistake that I am going to try to rectify from here on out.** I cannot and will not speak for others, but I can try to draw attention to oppression as it happens around me. Please, if you have a blog, friends, family, a zine, or really any way to communicate with others, Let Them Know what is happening.
*Please go to Pam's House Blend for the complete Louisiana article and story. No seriously, go. And go here for the Texas article. And here for the California article.
**In that vein, please, please, send me suggestions for blogs. At the moment, my regular blog list is primarily composed of blogs devoted to atheism, queer communities, feminism, and one or two about racial privilege.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The start of a blog
Here are my thoughts: no one in the world is quite like anyone else, to suggest otherwise would be fallacious. However, there are people, many in fact, who are perfectly content to believe that they are in the Norm. Normal. I don't know any of them personally, but I'm positive they exist.
Why?
Because they have blogs. And they comment on youtube videos and internet articles. We see them (as characters) in movies, tv shows, and books, and listen to their love songs. Clearly there is a Norm because there are top ten and top 100 lists. Cultural norms are pervasive.
I want to look at the things that we: read, write, listen to, watch, and supposedly love. And study them. I want to question why I am a deviant from the norm. I want to have those who do not deviate in the ways that I do be informed, and those who do have one more voice speaking for them.
This blog will be a: review and summary of media made for and about trans populations. It will be a critique of straight society's (un)spoken rules. It will be angry and sad and often happy. It will discuss my opinions much and my life sometimes. It will offer information. It will do a whole lot more that I don't even know yet.
Hopefully.
Why?
Because they have blogs. And they comment on youtube videos and internet articles. We see them (as characters) in movies, tv shows, and books, and listen to their love songs. Clearly there is a Norm because there are top ten and top 100 lists. Cultural norms are pervasive.
I want to look at the things that we: read, write, listen to, watch, and supposedly love. And study them. I want to question why I am a deviant from the norm. I want to have those who do not deviate in the ways that I do be informed, and those who do have one more voice speaking for them.
This blog will be a: review and summary of media made for and about trans populations. It will be a critique of straight society's (un)spoken rules. It will be angry and sad and often happy. It will discuss my opinions much and my life sometimes. It will offer information. It will do a whole lot more that I don't even know yet.
Hopefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
