Don't Box Us

An Appalling Display of Bigotry from the New Yorker

2008-07-14T17:11:00.002-05:00

Dear New Yorker Assholes,

Your cover of the New Yorker this week featuring Michelle and Barack Obama dressed up as "terrorists" is atrocious, sexist, racist, uninformed, and unbelievably offensive. I cannot BELIEVE that the NEW YORKER would agree to print such a thing. It is NOT ironic. It is NOT funny. Not only does your cover feed into the beliefs of many uninformed assholes in this country (who already privately believe that the Obamas are Muslim and therefore "terrorists"), but it also gives them the impression that, if the (formerly) well-respected New Yorker is doing so, then it must be okay to publicly assert such lies and bigotry. I would have thought that a magazine with such a large respected following would give more thought to the influence it has on people's beliefs before propagating such vile bigotry.

Don't you DARE put me on your email list.
~Sarah

Contact Info for the Editors:

webcomments@newyorker.com

themail@newyorker.com

The Mail
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036

Open Letter to Queer Alllies

2008-07-05T20:06:00.013-05:00

So it was Pride here in St Louis last weekend. I had a great time of course, but i was really struck this year by the rampant consumerism and air of assimilation about the place. I've always felt like Pride should be a protest, and in many countries it IS, but there was absolutely ZERO feeling of activism at our Pride. I was trying to explain how horrified I was by the assimilation/consumerism to my parents, but they thought that it was really great that society has gotten to the point that MacDonald's will have a stall at a gay pride event, whereas in the past they would have shunned it. Their position was essentially that queer people have arrived as a model minority in that they are now being welcomed into fold of mainstream consumer America.

But here's the thing: It's all a trick. We all know that MacDonald's doesn't give two farts who you fuck as long as you'll shell out your dough for their greasy cardboard burger. But more importantly, the assimilation of Pride by consumerist America serves to distract us from the fact that our community is constantly dehumanized and oppressed. See, you're just like everyone else now that MacDonald's will cater to you! You TOO can redecorate your big fat unnecessary summer-home by buying thermal windows and shopping at Macy's! How can you feel discriminated against when so many icons of mainstream America are willing to make a special trip to Pride just to give you a coupon? As Audre Lorde said, "Unless one lives and loves in the trenches, it is difficult to remember that the war against dehumanization is ceaseless."

But we must NOT forget that there IS a psychological — and sometimes physical — war against queer people in this country. Queer youth are forced to grow up trying to cram themselves into a social model that doesn't include them. They do not have the support of their own community because they do not KNOW that they are part of that community. They do not have the support of their family because, for the most part, their family has never had the same struggle that they have. While they are crying in their beds at night, their families have no idea that their children are going through severe psychological turmoil because their children can't express their anxiety to them, perhaps cannot even clearly articulate it to themselves. When they finally do come publicly into queerness, it is with the fear that they do so at the peril of losing their families, their friends, their jobs, and possibly their life.

Whether they actually lose their support networks and safety is immaterial, because for the rest of their lives they will not only have to deal with that isolation and lack of security — but also with the psychological baggage that comes from being a child dealing with loneliness, isolation, harassment, discrimination and fear. As the PFLAG website reports, "The average high school student hears 25 anti-gay slurs daily. Ninety-seven percent of high school students regularly hear homophobic remarks. This harassment takes its toll: Gay students are far more likely to skip classes, drop out of school and/or commit suicide."

And that's just gay students. What about all the gender-nonconforming youth? What about all our homeless queer youth who have either been kicked out or have run away from their families? As Richard Haynes reports, " Nearly 35% of Illinois' homeless youth population self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. These youth often find their access to homeless services limited by service providers who are indifferent, fearful, or not educated about this population. Left with no place to turn, homeless youth often find themselves neglected, invisible, and forgotten; at increased risk for drug addiction, prostitution, violence, HIV infection, and suicide" (emphasis mine).

And that's just queer youth. What about elderly queers? Many elderly queers lack the support of family and/or children, are denied health care, pensions, and widows rights, and are forced back into the closet when they join retirement communities or move into assisted-care facilities (read more). What about elderly queers who depend on the care of strangers? I don't have as many nice statistics here, but a gay man hanged himself after being isolated and shunned in his nursing home. A nurse in an assisted care facility refused to wash a patient because she was a lesbian. As Dr. Melinda Lantz, a geriatric psychiatrist, says “There is something special about having to hide this part of your identity at a time when your entire identity is threatened. That’s a faster pathway to depression, failure to thrive and even premature death.” In a study done by Fairchild, Carrino & Ramirez (1996), "More than half of the nursing home social workers surveyed said their staff were intolerant or condemning of homosexual activity between residents; 38% declined to answer the question." How can adult queers feel embraced by mainstream American when their youth are targeted and their elders are harassed?

Queer people have the interesting position of being a minority that is not born into it's own community. Like the Deaf community, most queer people are not raised by their own. They are not nurtured by members of their community who know what their struggle will be and who will support them through it as best they can. They have no model of queerness and are forced to undergo psychological trauma, as well as possible harassment, abuse, isolation, and physical danger in order to access their community. Both in their youth and upon joining their queer community as an adult, they have little interaction with those older than them. There are no gay grandmothers, transgrandfathers, or queer parents to mentor them. They do not see the unique struggles that queerness presents at different ages until they live them. It is all too easy too forget/avoid the psychological trauma of your youth when you are busy planning your newly legalized California wedding. And how can we truly know the discrimination we will face when we are old until we become old ourselves? Especially when we are bombarded by the trappings of approval from our capitalist society.

The assimilation of adult partnered queers into consumerist America is a trap and a distraction. — Oh boy! Adult queers can get married in California! Hurrah! MacDonald's will no longer fire you for being queer! Yippee! Now you can register your gay wedding at Macy's! — Homophobia and heterosexism is not a single point of discrimination based on adults not being allowed to marry each other. Discrimination against queers is a life issue. It is not something that you only experience when you want to get married. Just because you — an adult queer — are comfortable being out and feel embraced by mainstream America DOES NOT mean that queers as a community have arrived. You are not the prodigal son being welcomed back with a fat pig of capitalism. Do not be distracted by that pig into forgetting your past, the youth of your community, the discrimination your elders face and that you too will one day face again as well.

THAT is why it is disgusting to me to see the trappings of consumerist mainstream assimilationist America at my Pride Protest. Because it lulls us into forgetting that our youth are being beaten down and that our elders are being abused. Because it takes the place of the activism, education, and consciousness-raising that should be taking place at Pride. Because it is not enough to be reluctantly allowed to get married in two states. It is not enough that MacDonald's and other corporations no longer openly discriminate against queers. Queerness should not be an issue. We should be raised with an expectation that we will treat others with decency and humanity, that we will take care of the people we love, and that we will celebrate love without boundaries. Nothing less.

Why is Deodorant Gendered?

2008-06-15T15:36:00.003-05:00

Why? Why is deodorant gendered? I've been buying that idiotic Secret for years and it sucks ass. It gets all over your clothes, it's expensive, only comes in "ladylike" quantities and doesn't work all that well. I was fed up with it so I bought some organic, or maybe 'natural,' deodorant. It didn't work. So then i was back to buying the noxious kind. 'But!' I thought, 'I'm not going to blindly just buy Secret.' So I did a little price comparison shopping, and it turns out that if you buy men's deodorant you get a bigger stick for a smaller price. Plus, the kind I bought at least, does a much better job and--wonder of wonders!--doesn't get all over my clothes. And it smells nice. And really, why does deodorant need to be gendered anyway? We all sweat. And if must be gendered, why is the women's deodorant more expensive?

Oh Happy Day!

2008-06-07T17:32:00.004-05:00

The Straight Person's Guide To Gay Etiquette, the hilarious self-explanatorily titled article, is now back online after a too long hiatus! hooray! bring author-god The Plaid Adder the best bagels and muffins in the land!* huzzah! huzzah! And now, my good friends, you may recommence sending the link to everyone you know--gay or straight... hooray!

*bonus points if you can name this quote.

More Thoughts & Critisism of Little Brother (contains SPOILERS)

2008-05-26T17:53:00.002-05:00

okay. so this book rocked pretty hard. if i could write a blurb for the back of the book it would say "cory doctorow: i didn't finish your book because i was too pumped up and freaked out to keep reading so i went out and overthrew the government and incited mass rebellion in the middle of the night."

of course i did finish the book though. it was awesome in a lot of ways. read this book. then give it to everyone you know. i haven't quite worked out how to give it to everyone at the same time yet, but Cory Doctorow has it for free download on his website so that should help.

here's the thing though. the book fails the bechdel test abysmally. (for those that don't know, the Bechdel Test measures how women are treated in a particular piece of media. it deliberately sets a really low bar in order for the work to pass the test. all that's necessary is for the work to have 1. two female characters with names 2. who talk to each other 3. about something other than a man. Easy, right? The horrifying thing is that most movies/books/etc fail the Bechdel test. Not only do they fail, they also pass the anti-Bechdel test with flying colors. That means that the proportion of books/movies/whatever that feature men talking to each other about things other than women is WAY out of proportion to the number of books that feature women talking about things other than men). So the book sends awesome messages about not sacrificing your personal freedoms for the sake of security, not letting the government cease to represent you, and defending yourself by refusing to be silent. However, it sends this message in a vehicle that ultimately recreates the same power structures that oppress people who struggle against the same sort of tyrannical governmental policies.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!

BrownBetty (on goodreads) hit it right on when she said that Marcus's success depends on his access to upperclass white privilege. There are few women or people of color in the book. Doctorow clearly has good intentions, but it is not enough to simply have a strong female main character (Ange), it's not enough to have an of-color sidekick who helps critically (Jolu). Imagine the power of a book like this which, instead of being written about a white upperclass boy, was written about a couple of chicana lesbians, or a group of workingclass black people.

Doctorow sort of addresses this issue with Jolu. He says "I hate to say it, but you're white. I'm not. ...White people see cops on the street and feel safer. Brown people see cops on the street and wonder if they're about to get searched. They way the DHS is treating you? The law in this county has always been like that for us" (160). Maybe that's the point. To say to the upperclasswhiteboy, hey this can happen to you too. Not just to brown people who have the "wrong" religion or the wrong "ethnic" name. But the portrayal of women (or rather lack thereof) still makes me uneasy. For a book that's all about challenging authority and social norms, it could push a little harder in challenging the norms in the way it's written.

Maybe this book will have wider appeal because it's protagonist is your typical whiteuppermiddleclassmale. Maybe people wouldn't read the same book if it was about a group of girls, or gay people, or people of color. Am i willing to overlook that for the sake of the overall theme/message of the book? i'm not sure. MLK Jr said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," I'm not sure that I want to sacrifice some of my views to help spread other of my values. I don't think we really want to get into playing a game of whose issue is "more important."

Damnnit Cory Doctorow. Help me out a little here. Your book rocks hard, really it does, but THINK BIGGER!

Oppose the DSMV Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorder

2008-05-26T16:57:00.003-05:00

Here's the link to the petition again. In case you need convincing, or know someone that does, here's a letter I wrote to get people to pay attention:

Hi Guys,

I don't for the most part send out mass emails because I think it's really annoying. However I just signed the petition "Objection to DSM-V Committee Members on Gender Identity Disorders" and it's really important to me that you at least know what this issue is about. Signing the petition would be great too, but telling other people about what is going on would be better. People need to know. Please at least read:

Here's the deal. The American Psychiatrist's Association is rewriting the DSM-V (manual that describes mental illnesses, etc). They've appointed to the committee a bunch of people who think that gay and transgendered people should be treated with "aversion therapy" to "cure" them of gayness/transgenderism. There was a show on NPR about Kenneth Zucker, one of the appointees, a couple weeks ago if you happened to hear it. It described (among other things) a 6 year old biologically male child whose parents had been counseled by Zucker to punish the kid if he played with dolls, hung out with girls, or showed any interest in the color pink. Listen here. It's heartbreaking.

Not only would Zucker and the others reclassify transgenderism as a mental illness to be treated with "aversion therapy," they would reclassify it as a form of homosexuality which they also think is pathological. Meaning, if they get their way, a gay or trans person could go to their local friendly psychiatrist for help with depression/anxiety disorder/whatever, and end up being "treated" so as to reverse their gayness/transness. Basically Zucker wants to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness. In case we need some reminding of what that means, here's a direct quote from the NPR story on what used to happen when homosexuality was defined as a mental illness: "According to Jack Drescher, former chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay and lesbian issues, one treatment was to try to condition homosexuals out of their sexual preference by attaching them to electrical shock machines and shocking them every time they were aroused by homosexual pornography."

This is a really big deal and it is not getting enough attention. Please sign the petition and talk to other people about why it's important. Imagine the queer people you know. If they were in a bad spot and needed help from a professional, would you want them to be able to get that help without being judged? Or would you want the people who are supposed to be helping them subjecting them to more degradation and forcing them to twist their own identity?

Thanks for reading,
~Sarah

Happiness as a Feminist/Radical Activist

2008-05-26T16:00:00.004-05:00

This is a modified post from my personal blog. A few weeks ago my boss said something about how our workplace had always been a place for people who had their eyes open politically and then made a joke about how that's probably why three quarters of the staff is on anti-depressants. That got me thinking...

Mostly i've been of the opinion that feminists are generally happier with their lives and themselves personally because they can sort of shed all that social programmed shit. But a few weeks ago i was feeling more like i didn't want to read some of my new feminist books/feminist news sources because it's just too much. Sometimes i get in these moods where i'm all inside my head so i try to distract myself by watching Friends (which i really like, actually). But then I start thinking about the ways in which it's not actually that funny because it insults women or plays on insecurities of personal appearance (or any social insecurities, really). The other day i was wondering if the acquaintances I have who AREN'T feminists are actually happier in their bubbles because they don't spend time worrying/raging about rape victim blaming/women body hating/sexuality fearing societies/etc. They can just go on with their lives not worrying about or being aware of larger social issues.

But then again, there are so many non-feminists who participate in fucked up shit like weight-losing contests, etc. That's kind of fucked. I guess at least i don't have to worry about that kind of shit. (not because i'm perfect, obviously, but because i'm okay with my body).

thoughts? does this sound self-centered of me? i'm beginning to feel like my non-feminist acquaintances are weary of me because they think i think i'm better than them or something. but some of them don't seem to care about anything that happens to other people. I told one of them about the DSM-V Committee on Gender Identity Disorders and she just said "oh" and left the conversation. "Oh?" "OH?!?!?!?!???" "Oh, your identity as a person might get reclassified as a psychological disorder thereby subjecting you to degrading and horrific "aversion therapy should you ever need to go to a psychologist?" "OH??? No big deal. Whatever Sarah, I'm going to go make out with my boyfriend now." Or worse, "how dare you get angry and bring to my attention the fact that you are oppressed!" AGGGHHHH!!!!

on other news: i am SO EXCITED for this book: http://feministing.com/archives/008218.html

Little Brother Review (Cory Doctorow)

2008-05-26T15:55:00.001-05:00

i stayed up all last night reading Little Brother by Cory Doctorow. Everyone should read this book. i mean EVERYONE. You can get it online (legally, from the author) if you can't get ahold of the actual book: http://craphound.com/littlebrother/download/ You know I don't advocate getting around buying a book at your indie store, so you know it must be crazy important for me to tell you you can download it instead.

it's crazy CRAZY good. it's about hackers and security and surveillance and terrorism and whether you can ever be truly free when a government that no longer represents your interests terrorizes you to "protect" you from "the real terrorists." it's funny and insightful and the whole friggin thing is set in the SF Bay Area which means it's like being home all over again for me. it's the kind of book you can't read before bed at night because you get too excited. if i could write a blurb for the back of the book it would say "cory doctorow: i didn't finish your book because i was too pumped up and freaked out and i went out and overthrew the government and incited mass rebellion in the middle of the night."

some quotes:

"I missed Harajuku Fun Madness. The company had suspended the game indefinitely. They said that for 'security reasons' they didn't think it would be a good idea to hide things and send people off to find them. What if someone thought it was a bomb? What if someone put a bomb in the same spot?
What if I got hit by lightning while walking with an umbrella? Ban umbrellas! Fight the menace of lightning!"
(p.96)

"The law didn't care if you were actually doing anything bad; they were willing to put you under the microscope just for being statistically abnormal."
(p.113)

blurb on the back:

"Marcus, aka 'w1n5t0n' is only 17 years old, but he figures he already knows ho the system works--and how to work the system. Smart, fast, and wise to the ways of the networked world, he has no trouble outwitting his high school's intrusive but clumsy surveillance systems.
But his whole world changes when he and his friends find themselves caught in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack on San Francisco. In the wrong place at the wrong time, Marcus and his crew are apprehended by the department of Homeland Security and whisked away to secret prison where they're mercilessly interrogated for days.
When the DHS finally releases them, Marcus discovers that his city has become a police state, where every citizen is treated like a potential terrorist. He knows that no one will believe his story, which leaves him only one option: to take down the DHS himself."

READ! SPREAD! REBEL!

There's a Reason "Paternalism" Refers to Children

2008-03-22T20:45:00.002-05:00

It baffles me that feminists and activists don't focus more on children and education. Third wave feminism seems fairly infatuated with teens and youth culture (which is all very nice), but I don't see a whole lot of thought being put into the educational and literacy crisis. Third wave feminism is all about intersectionality, so from that perspective, we should definitely be talking about how the educational crisis feeds into issues of class and poverty. But feminism is also about uncovering the ways in which we are socially programmed. And what is more socially programming than education and the way that children are taught and treated in our society? This should be a huge issue for modern feminism. To quote bell hooks, feminism is for EVERYBODY, and that means feminism is for children too. "Children are the future," and all that, so we better be sure as hell that we're not programming our future to be racist, classist, sexist, homophobic bigots.

You know how everyone has to sort of "unlearn what you have learned" in order to not buy into patriarchy and oppression? You know how there's this whole metaphor about coming out of shame and small dark windowless spaces? Imagine how nice it would be if our children DIDN'T HAVE to unlearn everything they had learned. Imagine if what they learned was true, and fair, and not colored by political arrogance and misnamed "patriotism." Imagine if they grew up in a world where people WERE treated decently and not subjected to psychologically damaging stereotypes and oppression. Isn't that the goal of feminism, after all? To create that world? Why, then, are we not focusing on creating that world for our children NOW: in our homes, in our schools, in the libraries and movie theatres and concert venues? We can't wait around for a day in which it will be "less controversial" to teach decency and respect to young children. That day will never come if we don't start trying to create it now. To quote Phillip Pullman, "we have to build the Republic of Heaven where we are, because for us there is no elsewhere." If you care about social change, then FIGHT for children's right to be taught TRUTH and DECENCY and RESPECT. Teach them to think CRITICALLY about the world in which they live and not to blindly accept what is being shoved down their throats. I shit thee not, the most radical action comes from teaching the truth to children. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for us to have a plan for deprogramming our children, otherwise the marketers and patriarchal bigots and sexist homophobes will most definitely have a plan for them.

Vaginas? Really? (Eve Ensler, I'm Talking to You!)

2008-03-22T17:52:00.001-05:00

So. Why all this fascination with reducing women to vaginas, America? *sigh* I suppose that since there's SO MUCH of that reduction going on, I ought to be a bit more specific of what kind I mean. Let's try to forget about the objectification of women for a minute (I know it's difficult, but let's just try). And let's also try to forget about all our puritanical friends who don't want to talk about sex at all (see ya later, asshats!). No no, for now, let's just focus on the people who actually TALK about sex, and try to do so in a respectful way. Everyone talks about vaginas as if they're the female equivalent of penises. "Men have a penis, and women have a vagina." "Women aren't going to vote for Hillary just because she has a vagina instead of a penis." "My vagina would wear a leopard print bikini." Even our enlightened feminist friends like Eve Ensler: all the time, vagina vagina vagina. I don't give a shit about my vagina. If we're going to reduce women to a "down there" part of their body, uh... HELLO, shouldn't it be the clit???? I don't think I need to go into the reasons why we should be talking about the clit instead of the vagina (semi-automatic and all that...), but I would have expected better from feminists. I guess I can understand the thinking of health and sex ed teachers who don't want to talk about something as SCARY as the clit, since it's about feeling good (*gasp*) instead of procreating in the image of god and chastity and properness and all that. But come ON feminists! I know YOU'RE not scared of a little good-feeling sex, so what's with all this buying into the dichotomy of penis-vagina? It seems to me that going with vaginas (instead of clits) just buys into heteronormativity, a puritanical desire to not to talk about pleasure, and this whole fixation with women being "the creators of the life" and "moon goddesses" and so on. Fuck that shit. Thanks, but I'll take that orgasm over a baby and a bunch of reusable pads any day.

Questions & Thoughts of the Day

2008-03-18T22:29:00.001-05:00

question of the day: how do you incorporate activism into your life when you're so busy because you have two jobs because you don't want to sell out to the man, so you have your nice independent job, but it pays shit, so you have to have 2 jobs, and as a result you have no time to actually make activism any part of your life other than not actively participating in corporate culture? how can you incorporate activism that is, well, *active* into your life, instead of simply resisting passively?

another thought, has activism become too organized, rule-ified and corporate-ized by massive non-profits like HRC and NOW which are composed mainly of older, upper class white people instead of grassroots folk who are young, of color, poorer, female or lgbtq? why is activism being done by the relatively more privileged ppl on behalf of their poorer "brothers and sisters"? it feels a little paternalistic. i'm not saying that the work they do isn't valuable or coming from a good place. but when we are all affected by intersecting oppression, why are we recreating the same power hierarchies in the groups that are supposedly "fighting the forces of patriarchy," as it were.

Books for Raising Revolutionary Children (more to come & seriously in need of revision)

2008-02-22T23:30:00.002-06:00

"The world is not respectable; it is mortal, tormented, confused, deluded forever; but it is shot through with beauty, with love, with glints of courage and laughter; and in these, the spirit blooms timidly, and struggles to the light amid the thorns."
--George Santayana

Tired of reading anachronistic picture books to your kids featuring farm animals and lots of little white boys (or perhaps too many princessy girls slathered in pink)? Me too! Kids aren't stupid. They know the world's not perfect. condescending books just turn them away from reading. here are some tips for raising radicals and revolutionaries.

when harriet met sojurner:
absolutely beautiful picture book about what might have happened during the undocumented meeting between Harriet Tubman and Sojurner Truth.

as good as anybody:
this is a gorgeous picture book about Martin Luther King Jr and Abraham Joshua Heschel growing up and meeting each other. the reason it's so awesome is because it doesn't sugarcoat history for kids. both martin and abraham as children rage against the injustices they face. "things won't always be like this," their parents tell them, "maybe things will be better in the next world." "i dont want to have to wait for the next world" they say. this book inspires not only activism, but also the uniting of all oppressed groups. shockingly, it's published by Random House (the corporate scourge of consumerist conformity).

americans who tell the truth
i haven't read this, but it looks awesome.

evolution me and other freaks of nature
hilarious YA novel about a christian girl ostracized by her church for defending a gay classmate. but that all happens before the book starts. the actual plot is about her and her lab partner fighting for their science teacher's right to teach them evolution against all the religious fundies.

memoirs of a bookbat
harper loves to read, but her parents are conservative christians who travel around the country, enrolling her in different school districts so that they can ban as many books as possible. she has to sneak her books home and hide them under her mattress.

his dark materials
okay everyone knows about these books by now. but they are seriously revolutionary as I've pointed out before. in how many books do we get to hear a positive description of a female main character being dirty, conceited and arrogant? awesome. also features gay angels and sustaining mutual friendships between powerful women. the whole theme of the books is that experience and knowledge are better than innocence and purity. hott!

the family book
todd parr is way cool. i'm not very into his illustrative style--kind of cartoony and neon--but he talks about ALL kinds of families from ALL kinds of backgrounds. awesome. also, THE PEACE BOOK is neat too.

Hope for the Flowers
"A different sort of book for everyone except those who have given up completely. (and even they might secretly enjoy it.)" this book is about two caterpillars (Yellow and Stripe) who met each other while making the arduous soul-sucking climb to the top of the caterpillar ladder. it's every caterpillar for itself with faces getting stepped on and caterpillars being shoved off the top. but what's the point in all this struggling to get to the top, they wonder. so they stop climbing and instead spend their days snuggling together in the sun. awww!

why war is never a good idea
i haven't read this yet either, but its a new picture book by alice walker and it looks awesome.

the great kapok tree
a man comes to cut down the great kapok tree in the jungle. he falls asleep in the heat before his work is done. as he sleeps, all the animals and chidren of the forest come and tell him how they depend on the kapok tree for survival.

hero
okay, not that activist-oriented. but it's about gay superheroes, and its an excellent way to sneak The Gay into kids hands. who doesn't want to read about superheroes?

Not one damsel in distress
collected stories from jane yolen featuring self-sufficient heroines. good for bedtime reading.

the hero and the crown, and the blue sword
women warriors. hot. hot hot hott. and newberry award winning. better than the Alanna books because the main characters aren't constantly obsessing about the fact that they're women and therefore can't possibly be as strong and heroic as men (gag).

woolbur
this book seriously rocks. it's about a sheep that doesn't fit in with the rest of the herd. he wont let the farmer shear his wool and he cards the wool on his body instead of the wool he's supposed to be spinning. then he dies himself blue, instead of the yarn and tries to weave his own forelock. finally his parents tell him that he has to act just like all the rest of the sheep--no more individuality! so instead of conforming, Woolbur gets the rest of the herd to be individualistic too!

paper bag princess
"you are an ungrateful bum!"

dealing with dragons
"princesses dont cook. princesses dont fence. princesses dont juggle." cimorene does not WANT to be a princess if she cant do these things and she certainly doesnt want to marry some ditzy prince. so she goes to work for Kazul the dragon. but the princes just don't seem to understand that she doesn't WANT to be rescued. she's perfectly happy right where she is, thank you very much.

herstory
i had this book when i was little and i cant say that i found it crazy inspiring but it was fairly cool at least. basically its a bunch of essays about the history of notable women.

burning up
macy and austin start investigating the history of a building that was burned down 50 years ago when the first black family in town moved into it. but what was their own grandparents role in the burning?

armageddon summer
marina and jed's meet when their respective parents take them to the top of a mountain to await what their pastor assures them will be the end of the world. searing criticism of religious fundamentalism

if you come softly
this is a really amazing and devestating novel by jacqueline woodson about what happens when a white jewish girl and a black boy start dating each other.

the book thief
another devestating book, this one about the holocaust and a little german girl who makes friends with the jewish man her family is hiding in their basement. oh yes, and she steals some books too.

it's so amazing / it's perfectly normal / it's not the stork
so cute cartoony books about puberty, pregnancy, baby making, sexuality, etc. very inclusive, liberal, gay friendly, multiracial. nice. also: my body, my self for girls (or boys) and the what's happening to my body book for girls (or boys).

background reading:
Packaging Girlhood by Lamb & Brown, How to Get your Child to Love Reading by Esme Raji Codell, and Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood by William S. Pollack

In Rainbows: A Cursory Review

2008-02-03T14:35:00.000-06:00

I will admit to putting off posting this review longer than was strictly necessary. Blame it on a guilty conscience; I never thought I'd accumulate more than a handful of fightin' words about one of my favorite musical groups, but there it is.

First, let me state unequivocally that I am a huge Radiohead fan. I have spent more money to see them in concert twice than probably all of my other past shows combined, and both were spectacular. Radiohead is no studio band, despite the complexity of their sound. I have always found them to be musically exciting, the social commentary incisive and even humorous at times. So you can imagine the height of my expectations when the new album, "In Rainbows", was released online, free to those of us who like to try before we buy.

It is not what I expected, dear readers. "Bodysnatchers" smacks of a neutered "National Anthem": both are even in the same key, featuring the same decisive bassline that made the latter so structurally sound, but renders the former almost ineffective. And what, exactly, is one supposed to make of "All I Need"? I never thought I could ever describe a Radiohead song as cloying, but that's the kindest way to put it. "Faust Arp" combines the musicality of Elliot Smith with the vocal bastardizations of, say, Prussian Blue (sans the white nationalism). The result is unsettling: a troubling, icy little melody with no resolution. As for "Reckoner"? Meet Antony and the Johnsons. On second thought--don't.

What's killing me is that, in prior albums, the subject matter of each song was almost always reflected in the melody and instrumentation, or vice versa, and that's hard to pull off, and it's very satisfying and rewarding when accomplished with the finesse most fans have come to expect. If you downloaded "In Rainbows" with that in mind, well, lasciate ogni speranza. You've been warned.

Here's the thing, though: if this were any other band's album, I'd think, "Gee, this is pretty interesting stuff. I wonder where they'll go from here! Maybe I should check out their other stuff!" But this is Radiohead we are talking about. Not some second-rate, electro-pop wannabe band. This isn't innovation, it's some sort of flimsy noise-quilt stitched haphazardly from patches of past opera. It's lazy, and I'm not at all impressed, Radiohead. I expected better of you.

The only possibility for redemption that I can see is that maybe, just maybe, mediocrity was the goal. If indeed this is the case, then kudos.

A big "fuck you" to the democrats

2008-01-06T11:13:00.000-06:00

hey obama,

i notice you have a whole section on your website devoted to civil rights issues.... you talk about employment discrimination, hate crimes, and equal pay issues faced by african americans, latinos and women. that's all wonderful, but i'm wondering about the employment discrimination, hate crimes and other discriminatory issues faced by LGBT folks. I guess those aren't really civil right's issues, huh?

Then I thought, maybe he's decided that those are "family" issues, not matters of civil rights. But no. Not even in your "family" section do you even mention LGBT americans. Wtf obama? Yeah I know you went to the Logo/HRC forum just like every other democratic candidate. But if you're going to make such a big deal out of your commitment to civil rights then you need to include LGBT folk ON YOUR WEBSITE'S FORMAL STATEMENTS just like every other group you talk about. Don't talk to me about how it's not politically prudent to do that, but really, at heart, you support LGBT rights. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite afraid to come out in support of EVERYONE who has civil rights issues. At least Hillary doesn't pretend to have a substantial devotion to civil rights issues by devoting a whole section of her website to it.

~Sarah

Dear John Edwards & Dennis Kucinich,

If you're going to devote a section of your website to "LGBT Rights," please make sure that you are actually talking about the important issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual AND transgendered americans. Don't use the LGBT acronym to make us think that you do, and then only talk about marriage equality (which only benefits the upper class, dennis kucinich) or issues faced solely by lesbian and gay folk to the exclusion of trans folk (john edwards). The terms "LGBT" and "lesbian and gay" are not interchangeable. If you're only going to talk about marriage equality and adoption rights then label your section as "LGB Rights," or perhaps, more accurately "Rights for Upper Class LGB folk". Don't pretend that you support transgender civil rights when you clearly have no commitment to them. LGBT is not the new hip, politically correct way to refer to gays and lesbians. It actually means including bisexual and transgendered people too.

In short, fuck off.
~Sarah

Dear PFLAG, I love you

2007-12-28T22:33:00.000-06:00

After bitching for years about how much I wish it would occur to my parents to join PFLAG, I finally mentioned to them tonight on the phone that they ought to go. Upon reviewing PLFAG's website so that I can send the link to my parents, it's really occurring to me what a cool organization they are. How cool is it to have a group composed entirely of the privileged class advocating on behalf of the oppressed? And not just being like "oh yeah, i'm against homophobia," the way so many white people are nonchalantly opposed to racism. But there are actually straight people who are dedicating a significant portion of their time to advocating for queer people. For some of these people that's their job! Thinking about that warms my heart. Everytime I see PFLAG at pride it makes me cry because they're so wonderful and loving and unselfish and amazing. It is so admirable that they would spend so much time and be so dedicated to advocating for the rights of an oppressed class they don't belong to. Wouldn't it be cool if there were national advocacy groups like "Whites Against Racism" or "Men for Feminism"? I just checked on Google. There's not. At least not as far as I can find. Although I did just find the Men's Network Against Domestic Violence. Which is cool, but not really as established as PFLAG, or as inclusive as something like Men For Feminism would be.

I'm not a Racist but. . .

2007-12-06T18:11:00.000-06:00

Every time I hear someone utter that phrase, I have to suppress the urge to slap them. Instead, next time that happens, I am going to say,"No," quite loudly. Hopefully that will stop them before they have a chance to utter another word. Know why?

When someone puts that in front of anything they say, it immediately implies what the speaker knows but does not want to admit. They are racist and what they are about to say is racist. This isn't the Jim Crow era, in-your-face racism that most people have in their minds as the definition of racism. NO, this is the quiet, slips in through the back, brain-washing, color blind-claiming, (DO NOT get me started on that bullshit), 'reverse racism' believing, false statistic- quoting, self-reliance touting, stereotype-trusting kind of racism that has been institutionalized and ground into American culture for decades- no- centuries. It makes me sick every time someone utters those foul words, "I'm not a racist but," because it means that they are going to say something absolutely horrific but it's OK because they are "not a racist."

Racism did not die with the Civil Rights movement. It did not die with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1968, or affirmative action. As much as some people would like to believe, legislation does not a societal change make. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, take them out for a walk.

Go to the nearest drugstore, to the first aid aisle. Pick up a box of 'flesh' colored bandages. Ask them, "Whose skin tone is this?" If they don't say, "A white person's," they need a slap from reality. Go up to the magazine aisle. Pick up a copy of Vogue and flip through. Ask the person to count the number of people of color in the magazine. I'm guessing the count is going to be pretty damn close to 0. Then go to the nearest department store and find a security guard. Stand about 30 feet back and watch. Who does this security guard follow? Who does the guard stop? $10 says a person of color. Now take this racism-denying person outside. If in an urban area, walk around. Ask them to take notice of the homeless people that they see on the street. Who are they? Now ask this person, "What do all of these things that you've seen have in common?"

Every single thing is a sign of racism, the institutionalized white privilege, the pigmentocracy running rampant in American culture and society.

Read White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack and do me a favor: next time someone says, "I'm not a racist, but. . ." call them out on their bullshit. Someone needs to stop this willful ignorance and it might as well start with the racist you know.

Let's Not Put the Cart Before the Horse, People

2007-11-07T21:50:00.000-06:00

While driving home from work today I heard the news about the passage of the non-inclusive, certain-veto ENDA in the house. I couldn't help thinking "Is this really as far as we've come? All around us we hear daily shouts about the possibility of gay marriage, and yet I can still be fired for being queer?"

A couple months ago I asked why we focus so damn much on marriage equality when people can still be fired for being queer. Sure, we just had a month of drama over ENDA, but in the mainstream, whenever you hear about queer rights, all you hear about is marriage. Right-wingers ranting on about the sanctity of marriage. Brad Pitt saying that he wouldn't marry Angelina until everyone who wanted to could get married. Constant articles about this or that state that legalizing civil unions or outlawing marriage (Type "gay rights articles" into Google, and 6 of the first 10 results are about gay marriage. None mention employment). But we can still be legally fired for being queer! Why isn't there more attention focused on this, by the mainstream media certainly, but from our advocacy groups especially? I hope that I have not just realized what the answer is.

Are we pursing marriage equality more vehemently because it is an issue that is very important to upper class queers, while employment discrimination is more likely to affect poorer LGBTQ folk? The HRC's Corporate Equality Index rates companies on their "policies and practices pertinent to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors." Their 2008 report shows that 98% of the companies rated provide employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation (only 58% on the basis of gender identity).

Well, super. Sounds like employment discrimination (at least for GLB folk) is on the way out the door, right? Think again. The companies rated are the largest 200 privately owned firms, the top 200 law firms, and Fortune Magazine's list of the largest 1000 publicly-traded businesses. In other words, the most successful, corporate conglomerates who can afford to pay their laywers, investment-bankers CEOs, CFOs, etc plenty of money. No mention of how employment discrimination affects the queer people who work lower-paid jobs.

So what have we got here? A whole bunch of upper-class queer folk for whom employment discrimination isn't much of an issue, and who have money to contribute where they see fit. The queer folk who work at such corporations most likely have more money to donate to advocacy groups like the HRC, than those who work at smaller independently owned businesses and get paid minimum wage.

Understandably, these upper-class folk might not see employment discrimination as being a big issue, and thus might encourage our advocacy groups to focus less on employment, and more on marriage equality. Marriage, besides being something that these people might want because of commitment reasons, is an especially important issue to upper-class queers because of it's relation to money. Marriage rights include taxes, retirement accounts, social-security benefits, pensions, and home protection--issues vital to the upper-class, but less important to poorer queers that the more immediate prospect of being fired.

Are our advocacy groups bowing to the well-funded interests of upper-class queers, and thus emphasizing the need for marriage equality over the more basic need for employment rights? I would like to think not; however, let's not forget that a non-profit must always be thinking about how it's going to get the money to fund it's next initiative. If their wealthy donors are putting pressure on them to lobby for marriage equality, then it is very much in the interest of the advocacy groups to do so, despite more pressing and basic problems.

So please, if you happen to be one of those wealthy queers, be sure to emphasize to the groups you fund how important it is that they stick up for the poorest and most discriminated against in our community. Just as our GLB folk must speak out for the protection of our trans folk, our upper-class people MUST fight for the protection of those less well-off than they. As they say, money is power. And it is absolutely incumbent upon those with power to be responsible for the way they use it.

Very Good Summary of Mixed ENDA Feelings

2007-11-07T21:46:00.000-06:00

I very much enjoyed this article by Matt Foreman at The Bilerico Project about the passage of the non-inclusive ENDA by the House today. I'm copying it below for those of you who are to lazy to follow a link (I certainly am sometimes). I hope that's okay with all those copyright folk. Eep.

"We are frustrated, but it will not stop us"
By: Matt Foreman at The Bilerico Project

"Following six weeks of rancorous debate, the House of Representatives voted today on a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that does not include protections on the basis of gender identity. It passed by a vote of 235 to 184.

"When confronted with the possibility of Congress moving forward with a bill that stripped out protections for transgender people, the activist and grassroots backbone of our movement responded almost instantaneously in unprecedented numbers with conviction, passion and political savvy. We are frustrated with this course of action, but it will not stop us from pressing forward toward our ultimate goal: nondiscrimination protections for everyone in our community.

"When congressional leadership announced late last month that it planned to advance a version of ENDA that only contained protections on the basis of sexual orientation to the House floor, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc., took a leading role in moving to block that strategy and move forward on the fully inclusive bill. A coalition called United ENDA was created with more than 360 national, state and local organizations joining the struggle.

"We are deeply disappointed that House leadership decided to ignore the position of a vast majority of LGBT organizations, ignore the legal assessment that this bill may not even provide adequate protections for gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and ignore the fact that this vote might make it more difficult to persuade members of Congress to support a fully inclusive bill in the future. We are also disappointed that House leadership forced many members of its own caucus to choose between voting for a bill not supported by most in the LGBT community, or voting against a civil rights bill. This entire process has been painful, divisive and unnecessary. And worst of all, we went through all of this on behalf of a bill that the president has already said he would veto.

"The past six weeks have been among the most difficult and challenging our community has ever faced. When confronted with the possibility of Congress moving forward on a bill that stripped out protections for transgender people, the activist and grassroots backbone of our movement responded almost instantaneously in unprecedented numbers with conviction, passion and political savvy. United ENDA — a broad coalition of more than 360 national, statewide and local LGBT organizations, community centers and health clinics — fueled the effort. All of this has shaken the long-established order to its core and things will never be the same. While we are frustrated with the course of action that has been taken so far, we will not stop pressing forward toward our ultimate goal: nondiscrimination protections for everyone in our community.

"We are relieved this episode is behind us, and starting right now we are going to pick up where we were six weeks ago — namely, working to pass into law in 2009 the ENDA our entire community wants and deserves.

"We also applaud our champions in Congress who courageously fought in committee, in their caucus and on the floor to guarantee protections for all LGBT individuals. Many members of Congress took significant risks to buck their leadership and speak out in favor of an inclusive bill. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) fought to bring an amendment to the floor to add gender identity protections. Reps. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) voted against the non-inclusive bill in the House Education and Labor Committee. Seven members voted against the bill on the floor today on the principle that the bill should have provided protections on the basis of gender identity: Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Michael Michaud (D-Maine), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). The LGBT community will be forever grateful for their passionate support."

We're Still Alive!

2007-11-05T22:54:00.000-06:00

We're just swamped!

The other day I was like, oh dear, no one's written anything for quite some time. So I thought I should at least explain that we're not all dead and that we are, indeed, intending to come back to ye olde blogg.

I have a half-written post about the word "queer" from forever ago that I will be cleaning up and posting one of these days. And I know that C Kate has some awesomeness about the infantilization of men in the works too.

Giggle Bill O'Reilly is funny

2007-09-23T00:27:00.000-05:00

I know this is a bit old but every time I think of this it cracks me up. I have to suppress the giggles at while at work.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?site_area=1&aid=274 :

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly offers up an 'expert' to claim that pink pistol-packing lesbian gangs are terrorizing the nation.

Fuck the blender/toaster/food processor, I want a pink pistol!

Thanks to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

EDIT: I forgot to add this most recent gem from the radio, which has been all over the blogs, in which dear, sweet Bill is surprised that black people aren't iced tea crazies but actual people.
http://feministe.powweb.com/blog/2007/09/21/shocker-black-people-act-like-people/

On a minor note, I had Feministe and BillOreilly.com open at the same time in explorer and felt like my computer should explode. Don't ask. It's the juxtaposition. I do feel like I need to wash my hands after typing BillOreilly.com. And now again.

Anyway, check it out on Feministe because you have to pay to hear the clip on Billo's site. *Tttttbbbbbppt!*

Link-O-Rama

2007-09-22T01:08:00.000-05:00

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (R) announces support for Gay Marriage

Also:
Maybe everyone already knows about this, but here's the HRC's lovely, visual-aid-y, list of maps that show state-by-state GLBTQ laws. Awesome.

and, it's GLBT month at Young Adult Books Central. Check it out!

Bigamy, biga-you.

2007-09-11T20:37:00.000-05:00

Greetings! This is my first official "Don't Box Us!" contribution, provided "frequent profile tweakings" are excluded. I'll tell you right off the bat: this post isn't nearly as fleshed-out as I'd have liked it to be, but I wanted to get the bare necessities down before something bright and shiny steals my attention again.

And so, my friends, caveat lector.

Last week, Stephan Kinsella posted an article in the Mises.org blog entitled, "How Can Bigamy Be Illegal?" I'll attempt to distill it here:

The state fails to accept responsibility when an illegal second marriage has been granted. Indeed, the criminality of bigamy seems, according to Kinsella, to mean the submitting of certain documents rather than the act itself, since marriage alone is perfectly legal.

That the state plays a part in enabling illegal activity while simultaneously condemning it is a curious hypocrisy. Kinsella notes how the drug trade is comprised of what appear to be legally-recognized "sales", without being characterized strictly as "the physical transfer of money if it is somehow associated with the physical transfer of possession of narcotics." He goes on to discuss the history of the phrase "legal tender" and its place in contractual obligation, but that isn't what I wanted to get into. At least, not today.

Let me state for the record that I find the Mises blog to be one of the most intelligent blogs out there, and that I regularly enjoy Kinsella's work. In fact, I could find only a minor bone--a phalanx, perhaps--to pick with Kinsella about this one. It would have been worth mentioning that marriage, as recognized by the state, may be a legal institution, but its true nature is religious. Ergo, why does the state recognize marriage as legal at all, when religion and public policy are supposed to keep off one another's lawns, so to speak?

I used to believe that all marriages between and among consenting individuals should be recognized as legal by whichever states deem it so. The more I think about it, though, civil unions should be the basis for the rights and privileges now conferred to "married" individuals, whereas marriage should be an optional religious complement to a legally-recognized union.

I still maintain, however, that we should protest a federal mandate in either direction.

Ah, it's good to dream the impossible dream.

(I should note that I don't really believe that many things are impossible, though I do recognize the unlikelihood of, say, a nickel ever costing more to mint than it is actually worth.)

Oh, wait...

I don't CHOOSE to pass

2007-09-10T00:06:00.001-05:00

Okay, I know that I promised that my next post would be about the queer-as-choice/not-a-choice issue. But! I ended up writing quite a long response to Marti Abernathey's post at the Bilerico Project about trans people who "live stealth," which she says is "the equivalent of 'living in the closet.' " I thought I should share my response because it ended up including a lot of relevant grey ideas (i.e. is there always a dichotomy between passing and not passing? Are those who "pass" necessarily living in shame and denial? etc).

I should say up front that my familiarity with the term "living stealth" was nonexistent before today. So i can't personally address that issue. However, I object to blanket condemnations of people who pass. I seem to "pass" as straight daily, but not because I'm pathetically hiding my oh-so-shameful non-straight self. I "pass" because of two things. One: mainstream America doesn't see a "long-haired, 'femme-y' woman who doesn't wear men's clothes" as possibly being queer. And two: My sexuality isn't my main identifier. I would prefer NOT to label myself as queer actually. I'd rather go with a nice adjective like "proactive" or "irreverent," if asked to describe myself. I don't feel like my queerness is pertinent enough information that I need to change the way I dress/act so that I can scream "gay" to everyone who meets me. Thus, I was really saddened to see a post from the Bilerico Project, who I usually love, casting such a strong condemnation on trans folk who "pass".

The original article at the Bilerico Project

And my response:

Hey, Sarah here, over from Don't Box Us. I really like The Bilerico Project, but I'm sorry to say that I find this post extremely offensive. If you want to live your life Out and proclaiming your roots/who you are—awesome! go for it! I completely support you and your right not to be judged for it. However, I don't really think it's your place to be condemning other people because of the way they choose to live their lives. You do not know these people; you have no possible way of knowing why they decide to live as they do. Wasn't the whole point of the GLBT movement that we should be allowed to live our lives without being condemned because of who we are/who we love/what our original sex was? Where is the difference between your condemnation and the condemnations of homophobes? Both condemnations are based on personal feelings about the way others lead their lives.

I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm just wondering why we should be excluding/judging people who could be our allies. This sort of condemnation seems to me to only breed animosity within a group that is already facing a lot of discrimination. Why further discriminate against ourselves? I cannot disagree more with your statement that "If you aren't moving us forward, you're setting us back." In fact, I think it is exclusionary judgements like this that set us back, or rather, break us apart.

Also, you seem to be condemening people for passing, and therefore supposedly being ashamed of themselves. However, for some people, their sexual preference or gender identity ISN'T the main adjective they'd use to describe themselves. Maybe for you, it is. That's awesome. Rock it. But for others maybe it's more important to describe themselves as "jewish" or "practical, or "black-haried." That doesn't mean that they're ashamed of themselves.

I'm not trans, so I can't speak to that. However I can speak as a non-straight woman who frequently seems to pass as straight. If someone asked me for adjectives to describe myself, "gay" wouldn't even come into my head. Who I love is important to me, and my participation in the queer community is important to me as well, but it's just not something that I feel should be my main way of defining myself. I'm proud of who I am and I'm care about the equality movement, but I don't think who I love should change the way that people think about me. I just don't feel like it's pertinent information, basically. If it comes up in conversation I'm not going to hide it, but it's not something that makes me feel like I need to wear my hair in a fauxhawk just so that everyone I buy coffee from will know that I'm gay and therefore "not passing."

I'm not bashing ppl who don't pass here--if you can't pass or don't want to, then rock on. I'm just saying that I don't "decide" to pass. The way I wear my hair/clothes is not a statement about my sexuality. There is no "attempting to pass" or "attempting not to pass;" I just live my life the way I am. The assumptions that other people make about my sexuality say nothing about whether I'm cowardly or ashamed of myself. I'm completely proud of who I am. It's just that who I am doesn't happen to be someone who radiates "gay" from every pore. So please don't assume that just because I do pass, that I'm making a conscious decision to gain straight-privilege by hiding myself.

Quick Thought of the Day

2007-09-07T22:01:00.000-05:00

Why the f— are we focusing so much on marriage rights when GLBTQ ppl can still legally be fired for being queer?

Senator Craig: Victim of Entrapment Targeting Queer People

2007-09-04T00:05:00.001-05:00

Upon reflection I'd like to modify my statement that Senator Craig did nothing that wasn't consensual. Admittedly he peeked into the policeman's stall. I'm not gonna say that that was a brilliant move on his part. That's pretty gross. However I don't feel like that's something that someone should have to resign or get arrested over.

Sarah Kernshaw has an intriguing (and occasionally infuriating) article in the New York Times about the issue of entrapment and whether things like ogling/leering/peeping in person should be crimes. As she says "when is a leer too long and an ogle illegal? What is the legal standard on staring?" While peering into someone else's stall is something that people should be doing, I don't think we should be criminalizing it. What is an appropriate legal punishment for peeping? Certainly not incarceration. We already have a big enough problem with overflowing prisons in this country. Each time we decide to criminalize something, we should first take a long, hard look at what the appropriate punishment should be if someone commits that "crime."

And what "crime" did Senator Craig even commit? Asking for consensual sex is now a crime? There's no evidence that he even intended to have sex in a bathroom, and even if he did I'm not sure that that should BE a crime. As Laura MacDonald says in her awesome article in The New York Times, "Public sex is certainly a nuisance, but criminalizing consensual acts does not help." She then cites a study conducted by Laud Humphreys in 1970.

Humphreys conducted an extensive investigation into the public-bathroom-sex scene and found that there is always a call-and-response system for eliciting anonymous sex that would weed out any uninterested persons "after that first tap or cough or look went unnoticed." Thus, he concludes that "on the basis of extensive and systematic observation, I doubt the veracity of any person (detective or otherwise) who claims to have been 'molested' in such a setting without first having 'given his consent.' "

This leads me to the question of who exactly the police are supposedly protecting in this bathroom sting scenario. They can't be protecting any adult males who might be in the stalls, because in order for the rendezvous to occur, it would have to be validated several times on both sides by signals of consent.

Sarah Kernshaw (New York Times) suggests that they're protecting the hypothetical teenage boys who might be using that bathroom. First of all, let me point out that any sex occurring with underaged boys would still be consensual. However, addressing the underaged issue, I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone who was looking for anonymous sex in an airport bathroom was specifically looking for sex with an underaged boy. In fact, I think it's pretty unlikely that anyone would even look for underaged sex in an airport bathroom. Most people in airports are adults, and any underaged kids are most likely traveling with family and thus not very likely to have a lot of alone time to have anonymous sex in a bathroom. In any case, an adult policeman couldn't accuse Senator Craig of looking for sex with an underaged person because the policeman himself would have been of-age.

So if the police aren't protecting adult men (b/c the sex is consensual), and they don't seem to be attempting to protect underaged boys (because they're not making efforts to prove that that's what's going on), then who exactly are they trying to protect? And from what? The only thing I can assume is that they're trying to protect people from their own decisions to have consensual anonymous sex.

Once again, consensual sex is not against the law. Anonymous sex is not against the law. Gay sex is (thankfully) no longer against the law. So the police are protecting people from their decisions to do things that are perfectly legal. In which case, they're appointing themselves as the enforcers of personal morality, which I'm pretty sure isn't in their job description.

On another note, it seems clear to me that Senator Craig was a victim of entrapment because the call and response system would not have continued if his actions had not been reciprocated. A guy looking for anonymous gay sex would have to be crazy to push himself on someone who had shown no sign of being interested. At the very least he would probably get a disgusted look and a rude brush-off. At the worst he could be beaten bloody, harassed, stalked, etc etc. So if he continued along his call-and-response path, it must have been because the policeman responded to his advances. And if the policeman responded to his advances, then once again the question becomes: what crime, exactly, did Senator Craig commit????

However, not only was Senator Craig a victim of entrapment. He was a victim of a police sting that specifically target gay men (who, let me say again, were doing nothing except hoping for some consensual sex. I.E. NOT A CRIME!). Last time I checked, the police are supposed to be there to enforce the law and to protect people. Not to be the self-appointed morality squad and to target populations that are already the victims of hate crimes. If you want to stop sex in public places, go right ahead, just make sure that a). there's a law against it and b). that it's actually happening before you go around arresting people. In other words, wait until you know the crime is happening before you punish people for it.

N.B. Sorry no links to the New York Times articles--I read them in hardcopy. They're from the Sunday, Sept 2, 2007 Week in Review section. "When Fighting Crime Means Enticing Crime" by Sarah Kershaw and "America's Toe Tapping Menace" by Laura M. MacDonald.

Link-er Cabinet (yuk yuk yuk)

2007-09-03T23:50:00.000-05:00

Actually I don't really like that joke. It's probably for the best if no one gets it.

Anyway. Here's a link to an article from Mother Jones about sexual preference ("orientation" as they say) being a choice. The article has a lot of messing around at the beginning about anti-equality people using the gay-as-choice argument to bolster their case, however the last couple pages are quite good. I'm SUPER excited to write an article later in the week about the issue of queerness being a choice. So, SO excited!

Also, an awesome article, again from Mother Jones about the history of police targeting queer people for "indecency" crimes and how Senator Craig could have responded to his arrest in more productive way.

And, finally, much love for The Bilerico Project, a blog dedicated to LGBTQ issues and from whom I get a lot of my information/links. Yay them!

Well, not quite finally, because double-yay for Ilana and C.Kate who posted for the first time within the past week! I am so excited to be writing with all you people!

Hello my dah-links! Plus a self-realization

2007-09-03T21:46:00.000-05:00

My fuzzy kitten greets you as well with a quick suck on the earlobe, (don't ask). I though that since this is my first blog post here, I'd introduce myself. I'm Kate, a queer woman living in the DC area, working at a nonprofit trying to save the world, which is pretty damn hard work. I have a great affection for animals that gets me into trouble, a love of science fiction, graphic novels, (I worship at the altar of Neil Gaiman), politics, and general rabble rousing. As I have something in the works for later this week, I just want to start off with a small self-realization.

Having gone to a women's college that is quite GLBTQ friendly, being of the non-straight populace was never a major issue. However, having graduated and moved away, it's been interesting. I've been lucky, in fact, privileged to have grown up with, been educated with, and basically surrounded by people who have been loving and accepting of my identity and that of other non-straight people. I've been surrounded by those who have been compassionate and understanding, who understand that not everyone fits into the male/female hetero model and I am eternally grateful for that experience.

That being said, the longer I have been out of college, the more strongly I feel tied to my queer identity. Along with that is the realization that my identity may someday lead to discrimination of some sort. It's a terribly frightening idea that someone may not give me a chance based on who I am, who I was born as. I know, this is a "duh, stupid" sort of thing, but it is something relatively new to me. It's just one more motivating factor to add to my list in my quest to make a positive difference.

Senator Craig: Read the F-ing Police Report

2007-09-02T17:45:00.000-05:00

It is not at all clear to me what Larry Craig did that was so awful. If you read the police report, you can see that all he did was use some (rather circumstantially identified) code to allegedly indicate that he was interested in having sex with someone. He did not actually have sex with anyone. He didn't touch, grope or in any other way harass anybody. He didn't even talk to, see, or make eye contact with the guy. All he did was tap his foot, wave his hand along the bottom of the stall and touch his shoe to someone else's shoe. What he did in no way bothered anybody else in the bathroom (other than the police officer he allegedly came on to, who apparently indicated he was interested in sex by using the same code).

There are so many reasons why this whole thing bothers me. It seems pretty clear that he is being attacked solely upon suspicion of queerness. Which, clearly, is unacceptable. But I think what bothers me more is a). the way that it's being justified, and b). the comments I've heard from queer people, which have been just as nasty.

The whole affair is being portrayed as if Senator Craig actually had sex with someone in a bathroom. Not only that, but the labels "lewd conduct" and "disorderly conduct," as well as the way that Senate Republicans are reacting, leads one to believe that he did something really heinous (e.g. harassing someone, sex with children, prostitution, rape, etc). However he did none of these things. All he did was inoffensively, nonverbally, and without any physical contact ask someone for consensual sex. There is no indication that he planned to have sex in the bathroom (and even if he had, so what, ppl have heterosexual sex in bathrooms all the time and it's laughed off as being nontraditional but still sort of accepted. Witness the Friends episodes where Monica and Chandler have sex in the bathroom or in the hospital broom closet).

Republicans are reacting to this as if he did something morally reproachable, but I'm at a loss as to see what he did that was worthy of reproach. The only thing that I can see is that he allegedly wanted to have sex with someone even though he was already married. However this issue is completely not within the realm of what the country needs to be concerning itself about. That is a personal issue between him and his wife. It's not the business of Senator McCain, or anyone else who is calling for his resignation. You can't get arrested for cheating on someone. And you certainly can't fire someone because of it. Besides, how are we to know that his wife didn't already know about it? Just a thought, but maybe they have an open marriage. In any case, the issue is not anyone's business besides his and his family's, so I see no reason why he needs to be dragged through the muck and then be forced to resign over it.

The other thing that bothers me about this affair is the way that the queer people I know have been reacting to it. I have heard him being torn down for saying "I am not gay. I have never been gay." I heard one person say, very derogatorily "I guess he thinks it's something that comes and goes." Well, yes, actually, for some people it might come and go. Namely those people who aren't completely 100% gay or 100% straight. Basically what's being said here is that he's "not gay enough" to be accepted and treated with decency.

I've also heard the point of view that queer people shouldn't care what happens to him because he's been historically anti-gay in his legislative choices. Yes, it is true that he isn't not particularly pro-equality. However, attack him for his positions then. Don't attack him for "lying about who he is" or not being "gay enough." Personally, I don't think that we should force unwanted labels onto anyone. Maybe Senator Craig doesn't identify as gay. Maybe he's attracted to men AND women. Maybe his sexuality has changed over time. Maybe his sexuality still varies. There's really no way for anyone other than Senator Craig to know these things, so I really don't think it's appropriate for us say that he is definitively gay (and here i mean 'gay' in it's use as being attracted EXCLUSIVELY to men), and therefore lying to the country. *Sigh* Just one more example of the queer community ripping into it's own when it should be supporting those who are having a hard time...

I'm not saying that Senator Craig is a great person. I'm just saying that he doesn't deserve to be treated the way he currently is. It seems pretty clear that he's being attacked solely because he's suspected of being queer. However, instead of being outraged at the way he is being treated or giving him any kind of support, the queer community is turning around and attacking him as well. Disgusting.

EDIT: Just found something else. I saw it implied that this was an excellent opportunity for the Democrats (and thus queer people) because it will turn the Christian right against Republicans in Idaho so that some Dems can get elected. Well, super! Damn, I know I'M excited about the idea of sacrificing a possible queer person for the sake of getting some Democrat elected who may or may not ultimately support equality. Sounds like a GREAT plan to me!

Ani Difranco concert review

2007-08-22T21:33:00.000-05:00

Even the rain, which had been angrily asserting itself all day, was no match for the one woman folkie army of an Ani Difranco concert at Celebrate Brooklyn in Prospect Park. A benefit concert for the normally free series, the ticket buyers were rewarded with a blissfully rain-free sky, and a set energizing enough to make even the most committed cynics grin and dance and sing along. I stopped listening to Ani Difranco after my freshman year of college out of an unfair combination of snobbery, a declining interest in anything vaguely related to folk music, and the sense that if too many people at smith liked her than I certainly couldn't. Turns out I was just jealous. Live, she's simply a good time, equal parts warm, funny, and profane.
All that time spent singing about not being labeled paid off. Her fan base might cause the casual observer to write her off a one-trick lesbian folkie pony, but as this concert proved, the woman’s got range. She was just as engaging playing "You Had Time" with its slow, plaintive, finger-picked intro as she was with the angrier "Gravel" with its hard charging guitars. You had time is achingly beautiful, a lament from a singer just back from a tour, that was supposed to give her time, time to sort out the relationship. She’s back and tired, and knows it’s all wrong, but she just can’t make up her mind. Even though, as she’s reminded “You Had Time.”
“Gravel” is even closer to the epitome of romantic ambivalence, but instead of soft and lilting, she’s growling. An old lover shows up. Against her better judgment, she invites this person in, and spends the rest of the song trying to figure out whether they can just get on a motorcycle and run away and leave everything behind, even though “you were never a good friend, never a good lay.” So her voice and the drums and the power chords charge on, because “maybe you can keep me from ever being happy/but you’re not gonna stop me from having fun.” This was a particular treat, a deviation from her set list. Even after years and years of touring, she’s still full of surprises. It was a career spanning set, with newer songs leaning toward the acoustic, wistful reflective side. Which while less invigorating than the kiss-offs, she’s certainly earned.
Her voice was another revelation. I used to get annoyed by all the scatting and vocalizing on Dilate, but here she effortlessly switched from a rich, soothing alto to angry growl, always entirely convincing. Some of her angriest songs are sung softly, particularly Napoleon, with its outrage at someone (someones?) who try to be more than their height would suggest. It makes it all the more subtly effective, when this woman with the soothing voice just happens to be cursing you out. In key.
The between song discussion was as funny as ever. She referred to her six month old as "the titty sucker," and welcomed the audience to "Brooklyn Pride, I mean, Celebrate Brooklyn." Noticeably absent was any discussion of who she had the baby with, whether there is a man, a woman, or none of the above in her life. Does it mean she's less famous if no one cares? Or maybe, does it really not matter that much to begin with? That she can still sing politically charged songs whether or not her current life choices match the lyrics? Has the ability to make her audience have a damn good time finally the most important thing?
This particular audience was certainly in love, enough to ignore the conventional boredom stance of many New York concert goers and sing along with 32 Flavors, her ode to the joys of diversity within just one person. We were forced to admit that yes, dancing, is fun. And it shows the performer you have a pulse. It was nice to be at a concert where that was encouraged. I think everyone went home feeling just a little bit lighter that night.

Shockingly Astute: ABC Article on Bisexuality (plus some other goodies)

2007-08-20T18:09:00.000-05:00

This gets annoying towards the end, but overall it's a pretty awesome article about bisexuality.

Also: The Alternatives to Marriage Project is pretty cool.

And an amazing article from the Bilerico Project on the term 'queer."

Can't I Just Be Attracted to PEOPLE, Not Genders?

2007-08-16T19:11:00.000-05:00

At first I thought that Jennifer Baumgardner's new book Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics was rather old-hat (in addition to having a simultaneously embarrassingly euphemistic, and awkwardly labeling title). However I just finished reading it, and actually I like it quite a bit. She doesn't discuss continuums and fluidity as much as I'd like, but she has some really interesting points, once she gets past establishing that bisexuals aren't just confused straight people, and that women can have sex with each other, actually.

I particularly liked her chapters on relationships (individual and political) between bisexual women and a). straight America b). self-identified lesbians and c). straight men. Also, what was very cool was her discussion of the different relationships bisexual women have with men and women, and whether it's possible to have the kind of relationship one has with a woman with a man (and vise versa). She talks a lot about bisexual women bringing "gay expectations" of equality and lack of gender roles to relationships with men. Concurrently, she also discusses the "straight expectations" of acceptance (not just passing) that bisexual women bring to the LGBT movement, as well bringing expectations of sexual aggression/assertiveness to their relationships with women. And, of course, she also discusses at length Ani (and also Anne Heche), and the casting out of women who date men after being with women.

Perhaps the most interesting part however was her (unfortunately brief) discussion of the privilege accorded to bisexuals to not only be able to pass, but to not have to fully experience the constant oppression faced by people on the extremely gay side of the continuum. She emphasizes this point with her response to Melissa Ferrick slamming a bisexual woman for suggesting that it was unfair that she couldn’t bring her male partner to an LGBT awards ceremony. "Ferrick is right,” she says. “Bisexual women don't know what it's like to be lesbian, if there are even universal elements of lesbian experience. I didn't have a crush on my gym teacher. I didn't insist my name was Billy and wear a blazer to kindergarten. We might not have been terrified to look around the locker room in high school because someone might think we're staring too hard. We don't always have to 'watch our backs' when we're holding hands with a new love.”

I wasn’t even aware of this privilege until a friend told me that she had wanted to kill herself when she was coming out. Like Baumgardner, I don’t identify with the metaphor of “coming out” at all, and I didn’t have a whole lot of personal angst over it. I’m not gonna lie—I had a little bit of angst—but nowhere near contemplating suicide. In fact, this past January, rather than having angst over being gay, I angsted over whether or not I should go to the community college’s LGBT meeting in order to meet some friends. Such meetings, I felt with some derision, were only for people who were so unenlightened as to feel their lives were over when they realized they were gay. It really wasn’t until I had this conversation with my friend that I realized how privileged I was to never have such an extreme identity crisis and depression. My question however, is whether that is really a privilege of “bisexuals” or whether that privilege was more related to me attending Smith College, the "bisexual incubator," as Baumgardner calls it.

In any case, Baumgardner suggests that we need such semi-privileged people, who are in many ways unaware of the fear that the more oppressed experience, in order to push the movement forward. She quotes Ellen as saying that she never would have burst out of the closet so blatantly if it hadn’t have been for bisexual Anne Heche pushing for their relationship to be conducted in the same way that she would conduct it with a man (holding hands in public, etc). “A gay person would never have let me be so public because a gay person would know what would happen," Ellen says. However, Baumgarnder stops just (disappointingly) short of suggesting that bisexuals (and those attracted to people, not genders) are misunderstood as confused because they are ahead of their time and the LGBT movement as a whole.

I’ve had that feeling in the past with a new friend who self-identified as lesbian. She kept inadvertently assuming that I was lesbian and I kept awkwardly being like "No, no, I don't identify as lesbian." She understood that I didn't identify as "lesbian," but I was afraid she thought that I was just being coy and politically correct about not labeling and not liking the word "lesbian". Which is true enough, but really, I'm not a lesbian, yo. I don't want to rule out half of the population forever just because at the moment I'm primarily attracted to women. That could very easily change.

Which leads me to the primary problem I had with Look Both Ways. I felt that Baumgardner's description of bisexuality, and sexuality in general, was too static. As I said, she never really gets around to critiquing the idea that it's either gay, straight or exactly in the middle of the two. But moreover, I wasn't feeling the love for the fluidity of identity and sexuality. Of course she talks about the attraction of Anne Heche, Ani and even herself to both men and women. However I felt that the book assumes a constant attraction to both genders, rather than an ability for that attraction to change and flux in its proportions (not to mention attraction to people who don't fit into neat little gender boxes). As I said, I'm primarily attracted to women now, however I feel like it would be limitingly short-sighted of me to call myself a lesbian and completely rule out the possility of my attraction changing depending on the people I meet. At the same time, I feel it's inaccurate to call myself bisexual because at this point in time I'm NOT attracted to men. It all comes down to the people you fall in love with, I think, not the gender.

At any rate, Baumgardner’s book is all very interesting, but it doesn't make me dislike the term "bisexual" any less. Her discussion has a lot of really interesting points, but it is disappointing in it's lack of a fluid approach to gender and sexuality. Although she does sort of hint at that towards the end, with this parting thought: "If Kate Millett said that 'gay' was a term that straight America made up to deal with their own bisexuality, then maybe 'bisexuality' is a term we use to deal with our own fear of sexual fluidity and the dynamic nature of attraction."

More Interesting quotes from the book:

"Homosexuality was invented by a straight world dealing with its own bisexuality." --Kate Millett

"In the same way that I didn't recall 'losing my voice' at age ten (as "Reviving Ophelia" would have it), I don't relate to the gay catchphrase 'coming out of the closet.' I reject its implication that I have been harboring a shameful secret or have forced a part of myself to fester alone in a dark, windowless space."

"Look, I'm not a lesbian," the activist June Jordan said to me with more than a touch of exasperation during a 1996 interview. "As of 1991, I have identified as a bisexual. I resent this huge resistance to complexity."

“[But] Ferrick doesn't know what it's like to be [bisexual], and feel like her relationship with a man negates her relationships to the queer music world. And Ferrick doesn't know what it's like to be me and have to constantly crowd every conversation with sign posts ("ex girlfriend," "ex boyfriend," "baby's father") to indicate the whole person I am."

"What Anne [Heche] symbolizes to me is the great what—what if it were okay for gay people to have straight expectations? Not to 'pass,' or become palatable, or go back in the closet, but simply to expect what Heche took for granted: to not have to be careful and quiet about her love life."

Don't Be Boxin'!

2007-08-16T17:39:00.000-05:00

Ever been on facebook? Ever seen those boxes where you're supposed to check whether you're male or female? Or what about on OkCupid, where you have to check if you're gay, straight or bi? Or even the boxes on facebook where you have to check if you're interested in men and/or women. Are you ever left staring at the screen thinking, "What box do I check??? I can't check ANY of those boxes!!!"

The LGBT movement is seeing an upswing in publicity and visibility lately (which is all very wonderful), however we here at Don't Box Us are dismayed by the black and white way this issue is portrayed by all sides. Either you're gay or you're straight. Either it's a choice or it isn't. Either you're in the closet or you're out. Either you're a man or a woman. Either you had intercourse or you didn't have sex at all.

As June Jordan said to Jennifer Baumgardner,* "Look, I'm not a lesbian . . . I resent this huge resistance to complexity." We too resent this resistance to complexity, we resent it hugely. As recent graduates of Smith College, we feel rather like we're stating the obviously passé, but the world isn't black and white. It's made of lots of nice little continuums and spectrums. Clearly (and somewhat shockingly to us), this idea isn't passé to most of the world. Thus, Don't Box Us will be dedicated to all issues which don't fit into nice little boxes of 'gay' vs 'straight', "woman' vs 'man', 'white' vs 'of color', 'in' vs 'out', etc.

Consistant with the theme of not boxing, of coloring outside the lines if you will, Don't Box Us is not going to limit itself to just talking about LGBT issues. We're inclusive, yo! We're way into litereature (rebellious ad otherwise) and literary/cultural critisism so there will probably be a fair bit of that. And we all have our own little pet issues (*cough cough* independent bookselling) that will probably make their appearances as well. Also, posting will probably be pretty sporadic at first while we get things sorted out. Watch out!

PS- coauthors (i.e. badass writers) please feel free to edit this or add your own stuff if you disagree. -- Sarah

*Baumgardner, Jennifer. (2007) Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux: New York, NY.