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.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Vaginas? Really? (Eve Ensler, I'm Talking to You!)
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Questions & Thoughts of the Day
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.
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.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Books for Raising Revolutionary Children (more to come & seriously in need of revision)
"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
--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
Sunday, February 3, 2008
In Rainbows: A Cursory Review
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.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
A big "fuck you" to the democrats
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
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
Friday, December 28, 2007
Dear PFLAG, I love you
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.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
I'm not a Racist but. . .
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Let's Not Put the Cart Before the Horse, People
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.
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
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 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."
Monday, November 5, 2007
We're Still Alive!
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.
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.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
*Giggle* Bill O'Reilly is funny
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!*
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!*
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Link-O-Rama
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!
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!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Bigamy, biga-you.
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...
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...
Monday, September 10, 2007
I don't CHOOSE to pass
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
