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.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Quick Thought of the Day
Why the f— are we focusing so much on marriage rights when GLBTQ ppl can still legally be fired for being queer?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Senator Craig: Victim of Entrapment Targeting Queer People
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.
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.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Link-er Cabinet (yuk yuk yuk)
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!
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
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.
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.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Senator Craig: Read the F-ing Police Report
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!
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!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Ani Difranco concert review
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
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
Monday, August 20, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Can't I Just Be Attracted to PEOPLE, Not Genders?
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."
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'!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
