Compare and Contrast: A Study in Two Blogs

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

Hi there!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for listening,
The Deviant E

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

Hey there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You tell me.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga Is A Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today in Racist Sexism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH.

That is all in: Today in Racist Sexism.

Search Engines Say the Darndest Things

Ok friends, I generally try to not post more than once a day, because so often I post less than once a day, so I figure: "why not spread out the joy* a little?"
But, today, I just couldn't help myself, because there is something that is absolutely necessary for you to know.

I have a little widget that lets me know how many people stop by the blog/read what posts/etc. It also tells me what searches brought my visitors to The Deviated Norm. One of most recent searches that landed someone here was...

"transgender AND gender bender AND rock fucking AND porno web sites"

I like to think that I'm a pretty open minded guy, but I seriously have to ask something. What the hell is rock fucking?
I identify as kinky, even though there are certainly kinky things that people do that I'm not interested in, I usually know about them. I know about the more regular BDSM fetishes, I know about leather and latex fetishes, I know about Furry communities and people who really enjoy dressing up as babies and get sexual satifaction from that. I know about golden showers and coprophilia. I know about people who are into surface piercing as foreplay, and flogging, and foot fetishes. I know people who are necrophiles. I know even that all of these things I've mentioned are *somewhat* common, if not super common. But rock fucking? I have no idea what the hell that is.

I mean, I honestly feel a little bad for whoever it was that searched for that and got this, because it seems highly unlikely that they found what they were looking for: I'm a pissed off trans* guy (hardly titilating, I mean, unless you really like pissed of trans* guys in a sexual way), one of my most linked to/read/commented on posts is about my deep dislike for gender bending fiction, and there isn't any pornos to be seen here. I also don't think I have any pictures of rocks up on the site.

So, I'm sorry anonymous reader interested "rock fucking" pornos, perhaps you could explain what you were looking for?


*or whatever

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.