Sorry for the absence. Posting will continue to be infrequent, since I'm a college student doing too much stuff. Today I was inspired to share many of the insightful things I've been reading.
Great post on sex-positive feminism.
I am glad to see that Dr. Pepper's popular opinion seems to be suffering because of its blatantly sexist ad campaign.
Dr. Pepper is often my go-to soda (I don't drink it very often), but I haven't bought any since learning of the campaign.
I think you should read this piece on the popular myths in the media about Occupy Wall Street.
I am slightly intrigued by reading about this book. I have been interested in thinking more about feminism in relation to relationships.
Post from Shakesville about disturbing social experiments being performed on prisoners. At the end of the post are things you can do to take action.
Finally, a reminder that cultural appropriation, misrepresentation, and racism do not make for a good Halloween costume (or costume at any time).
Monday, October 24, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
My Views on the President
Disclaimer: If we had a more progressive congress we would not have nearly as many problems as we do now and the Republicans in office deserve most of the blame (at least if talking about politicians) for the current political mess. However, I do not think the president is effectively dealing with them and not all of my issues with President Obama stem from the Republicans. Also, I am not citing sources on my information here because, frankly, there are too many things. If anyone questions facts I present, let me know in comments and I will find sources (though if you wish to further question that I ask that you also back up your point). Also, I welcome different opinions and I invite you to share other things that you think Obama has done well.
There is quite a lot of back-and-forth about President Obama in progressive circles, at least the feminist and queer/trans ones that I follow online. I have also noticed many of my friends calling out people on the left who dislike Obama. So, I would like to weigh in on my specific views on President Obama.
First and foremost, in 2008 I supported and voted for Obama. I would have voted for him in the primaries had I registered in time.
My feelings now are a little different. First and foremost, I must acknowledge that I am more left-wing than I was in 2008. Obama the candidate would now be too moderate for me and Obama the president is certainly not progressive enough.
I support many of the things Obama has done. He was working to improve our international relations. He has done many things to support LGBTQ people. Examples include DADT (though I am very anti-military), stopping the defense of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act must go, regardless of my views on marriage) and supporting its repeal, changing passport regulations for trans people, attempting to change hospital visitation policies (I have heard that it didn’t do much—I would love if people could weigh in on that), allowing HIV+ people to come to the U.S. (not exclusively queer/trans, but significant), appointing queer and trans people to his cabinet, and more. He also signed the hate crimes bill (though others before him did most of the work on that), but I have mixed views on hate crimes that I may discuss later. These are, regardless of what many queer bloggers might say, significant to the LGBTQ community—they are more than “cookie crumbs.” I think he could do more to advocate for LGBTQ people, but, all-in-all, I am not displeased with the LGBTQ-related work that he has done.
However, my politics go beyond LGBTQ-focused legislation. Here is where I have issues with the things Obama has and has not done. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and has sent troops into Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. We are still engaged in combat in Iraq. Though he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, it is still active. While he was trying to improve our international relations, which we really need, I am under the impression that he has not done too much more on that front since early in his presidency (please correct me if I am wrong—I am relying on the oh-so-reliable media for this). He has not nearly taken a hard enough stance on offshore drilling, even immediately after the oil spill in the Gulf. In general, his public stance and effort on energy is not nearly where it should be. Obama also extended the “Patriot Act.” His administration defended the epically failing “war on drugs,” even after a UN group detailed why it is not working.
I think health care was kind of a disaster. Yes, most of the blame lies with Republicans and much of it on “blue dog Democrats.” However, he was attempting to negotiate with people who would not negotiate. I hate politics and don’t know too much about them, but the fact that he took the public option off the table with nary a fight was ridiculous. In the end, I hope the bill paves the way for better health care later, because I don’t think it does much right now. Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts is also inexcusable. Yes, again the Republicans deserve much of the blame, but his negotiations started in the middle while the Republican negotiations started much further right. That is NOT the way to negotiate. I am very nervous about the negotiations regarding the debt ceiling—I will acknowledge that changes to Medicare and Social Security aren’t necessarily terrible, but Obama’s track record on negotiating with the Republicans is. I appreciate his attempt to be bipartisan, but it’s not working. He should change his strategy. When the U.S. becomes LESS progressive in ways, yet we have a purportedly progressive president, there is a major issue.
I also think Obama should lend more of his voice to issues like reproductive rights, racial justice, and immigration justice. I seem to recall a major part of his campaign centered on access to higher education—I have seen minimal aid to students seeking higher education in the last four years (were Pell Grants increased, decreased, or both?).
One could justifiable argue that Obama is better than McCain, Palin, Bacchmann, etc. That is DEFINITELY true. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t call Obama out on his shit. I ALSO don’t think “better” is necessarily “good enough.” Yes, the legislative branch of the government has made things very difficult for Obama, but I don’t think he has responded as well as he should.
People may wonder what I plan to do in 2012. I want a president who fights hard for justice—as hard as if not harder than opposing sides. I want a more progressive president. I don’t want one who is ready to expand conflict, cave to oil companies, or not do enough to help the lower classes of this nation. I also want to change the two-party system (as well as the voting system) in this country. Will it actually change? Who knows? More people seem to vote for third-party candidates every election. So, I will vote for the candidate who most represents my views. Will that deny my vote from the more progressive mainstream candidate and give it to someone who has no hope of winning this cycle? Most likely. But, things are not changing as I want them to (not simply “moving too slowly”), and I have a right to vote for the candidate who most represents me.
There is quite a lot of back-and-forth about President Obama in progressive circles, at least the feminist and queer/trans ones that I follow online. I have also noticed many of my friends calling out people on the left who dislike Obama. So, I would like to weigh in on my specific views on President Obama.
First and foremost, in 2008 I supported and voted for Obama. I would have voted for him in the primaries had I registered in time.
My feelings now are a little different. First and foremost, I must acknowledge that I am more left-wing than I was in 2008. Obama the candidate would now be too moderate for me and Obama the president is certainly not progressive enough.
I support many of the things Obama has done. He was working to improve our international relations. He has done many things to support LGBTQ people. Examples include DADT (though I am very anti-military), stopping the defense of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act must go, regardless of my views on marriage) and supporting its repeal, changing passport regulations for trans people, attempting to change hospital visitation policies (I have heard that it didn’t do much—I would love if people could weigh in on that), allowing HIV+ people to come to the U.S. (not exclusively queer/trans, but significant), appointing queer and trans people to his cabinet, and more. He also signed the hate crimes bill (though others before him did most of the work on that), but I have mixed views on hate crimes that I may discuss later. These are, regardless of what many queer bloggers might say, significant to the LGBTQ community—they are more than “cookie crumbs.” I think he could do more to advocate for LGBTQ people, but, all-in-all, I am not displeased with the LGBTQ-related work that he has done.
However, my politics go beyond LGBTQ-focused legislation. Here is where I have issues with the things Obama has and has not done. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and has sent troops into Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. We are still engaged in combat in Iraq. Though he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay, it is still active. While he was trying to improve our international relations, which we really need, I am under the impression that he has not done too much more on that front since early in his presidency (please correct me if I am wrong—I am relying on the oh-so-reliable media for this). He has not nearly taken a hard enough stance on offshore drilling, even immediately after the oil spill in the Gulf. In general, his public stance and effort on energy is not nearly where it should be. Obama also extended the “Patriot Act.” His administration defended the epically failing “war on drugs,” even after a UN group detailed why it is not working.
I think health care was kind of a disaster. Yes, most of the blame lies with Republicans and much of it on “blue dog Democrats.” However, he was attempting to negotiate with people who would not negotiate. I hate politics and don’t know too much about them, but the fact that he took the public option off the table with nary a fight was ridiculous. In the end, I hope the bill paves the way for better health care later, because I don’t think it does much right now. Obama’s extension of the Bush tax cuts is also inexcusable. Yes, again the Republicans deserve much of the blame, but his negotiations started in the middle while the Republican negotiations started much further right. That is NOT the way to negotiate. I am very nervous about the negotiations regarding the debt ceiling—I will acknowledge that changes to Medicare and Social Security aren’t necessarily terrible, but Obama’s track record on negotiating with the Republicans is. I appreciate his attempt to be bipartisan, but it’s not working. He should change his strategy. When the U.S. becomes LESS progressive in ways, yet we have a purportedly progressive president, there is a major issue.
I also think Obama should lend more of his voice to issues like reproductive rights, racial justice, and immigration justice. I seem to recall a major part of his campaign centered on access to higher education—I have seen minimal aid to students seeking higher education in the last four years (were Pell Grants increased, decreased, or both?).
One could justifiable argue that Obama is better than McCain, Palin, Bacchmann, etc. That is DEFINITELY true. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t call Obama out on his shit. I ALSO don’t think “better” is necessarily “good enough.” Yes, the legislative branch of the government has made things very difficult for Obama, but I don’t think he has responded as well as he should.
People may wonder what I plan to do in 2012. I want a president who fights hard for justice—as hard as if not harder than opposing sides. I want a more progressive president. I don’t want one who is ready to expand conflict, cave to oil companies, or not do enough to help the lower classes of this nation. I also want to change the two-party system (as well as the voting system) in this country. Will it actually change? Who knows? More people seem to vote for third-party candidates every election. So, I will vote for the candidate who most represents my views. Will that deny my vote from the more progressive mainstream candidate and give it to someone who has no hope of winning this cycle? Most likely. But, things are not changing as I want them to (not simply “moving too slowly”), and I have a right to vote for the candidate who most represents me.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Open Thread on the "Respect for Marriage Act" Senate Hearing
This blog probably doesn't have enough following to warrant an open thread, but to avoid spamming Facebook too much, I'll try it anyway.
I would like to point out that DOMA prevents relationship recognition beyond marriage for LGBTQ folks. For that reason, I think it should be repealed, regardless of my views on marriage and the emphasis that is placed on it.
[Edit 1:25 PM]
Of course just after I post this the hearing is over...
I would like to point out that DOMA prevents relationship recognition beyond marriage for LGBTQ folks. For that reason, I think it should be repealed, regardless of my views on marriage and the emphasis that is placed on it.
[Edit 1:25 PM]
Of course just after I post this the hearing is over...
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Stuff I've Been Reading (7-13-11)
Like many blogs, I think I will post things that I have been reading around the internet. This way I can share things without making an entire blog post about them and I don't have to spam my Facebook friends.
Oh, in case you were wondering about Holly Tree: she is busy attempting to be an adult in the real world, so at least for now is still taking a break from the blog.
Awesome coverage both of the U.S. vs. Brazil women’s soccer game and the responses to it.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/rachel-maddow-on-womens-soccer-amazingness/
Thank you! http://www.bilerico.com/2011/07/you_are_not_transsexual.php
We should not be fighting over terminology so much. Nor, might I add, fight to split up a trans movement that has enough pressure from the outside.
I particularly like this post because, on the same blog, another blogger has recently written several posts insists upon terminology and separating binary from non-binary trans folks (not linking).
Kate, a blogger from Shakesville (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/), is raising money for her new vagina and is educating people about trans folks as well.
http://acuntofonesown.org/2011/07/11/introducing-a-cunt-of-ones-own/
Jos thinks Google+ has a gender problem. I agree (though my gender is listed publicly as “other”), and Google seems to be listening. Their current solution is to give users the option to make gender private. Not self-identification, but a necessary step regardless.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/google-has-a-gender-problem/#more-35848
Oh, in case you were wondering about Holly Tree: she is busy attempting to be an adult in the real world, so at least for now is still taking a break from the blog.
Awesome coverage both of the U.S. vs. Brazil women’s soccer game and the responses to it.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/rachel-maddow-on-womens-soccer-amazingness/
Thank you! http://www.bilerico.com/2011/07/you_are_not_transsexual.php
We should not be fighting over terminology so much. Nor, might I add, fight to split up a trans movement that has enough pressure from the outside.
I particularly like this post because, on the same blog, another blogger has recently written several posts insists upon terminology and separating binary from non-binary trans folks (not linking).
Kate, a blogger from Shakesville (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/), is raising money for her new vagina and is educating people about trans folks as well.
http://acuntofonesown.org/2011/07/11/introducing-a-cunt-of-ones-own/
Jos thinks Google+ has a gender problem. I agree (though my gender is listed publicly as “other”), and Google seems to be listening. Their current solution is to give users the option to make gender private. Not self-identification, but a necessary step regardless.
http://feministing.com/2011/07/12/google-has-a-gender-problem/#more-35848
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Polygamy?
I know, I know, more marriage-related stuff. What can I say, it's still in the news. =P
I read a very interesting post by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on The Bilerico Project about someone who is challenging the Utah law against polygamy.
Before getting into that post, allow me to share my views on polygamy. First, some terminology. Polygamy means marrying multiple people. Most examples of polygamy are polygyny (hence the conflation of terms sometimes), having multiple wives. Then there is polyandry, having multiple husbands. Finally, polyamory is, based on its prefix and root, multiple loves (marriage is not necessary for polyamory). Polyamory is often more complicated than that, but that’s a post for another day.
I don’t care for polygamy because I don’t care for marriage. However, if polygamy was a legal option, I would dislike marriage less than I do now. Marriage would be open to a wider range of relationship types, though it would still ignore many living arrangements and not provide many people rights they deserve. In the mainstream, at the moment, the best I can hope for regarding things related to polyamory is polygamy. Ideally, as I said before, civil marriage wouldn’t exist and the rights associated with it would be given more justly. The next-best alternative for me (and what may be more likely—though I won’t give up) is that marriage is opened up to more living and relationship arrangements (I find this much more complicated and sill problematic). I also want to point out that many people who practice polygamy have misogyny issues. Misogyny is not a requirement for polygamy, however.
I think Dr. Weiss gets things right here, morally speaking (I don’t know much about the legal issues she’s talking about). She states “I think Mr. Brown has as much of a right to his relationships, as do his wives, as same-sex couples, or people who have multiple sex partners.” This is a much different tone from many advocates for “marriage equality” who respond to the claim that “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” with “NO! Polygamy is bad!” That is a direct affront to many people in polyamorous relationships, many of whom are queer. In this and other ways, I don’t think the current fight for same-sex marriage is doing anything to help (and is in fact hindering) polyamorous people from having their relationships recognized.
I don’t have much more to say on this note, though I do have a few requests. 1) Read the rest of the post. It’s short and Dr. Weiss makes a few more good points. 2) Don’t forget the poly people when fighting for relationship recognition. 3) Don’t respond to the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy with disgust.
I read a very interesting post by Dr. Jillian T. Weiss on The Bilerico Project about someone who is challenging the Utah law against polygamy.
Before getting into that post, allow me to share my views on polygamy. First, some terminology. Polygamy means marrying multiple people. Most examples of polygamy are polygyny (hence the conflation of terms sometimes), having multiple wives. Then there is polyandry, having multiple husbands. Finally, polyamory is, based on its prefix and root, multiple loves (marriage is not necessary for polyamory). Polyamory is often more complicated than that, but that’s a post for another day.
I don’t care for polygamy because I don’t care for marriage. However, if polygamy was a legal option, I would dislike marriage less than I do now. Marriage would be open to a wider range of relationship types, though it would still ignore many living arrangements and not provide many people rights they deserve. In the mainstream, at the moment, the best I can hope for regarding things related to polyamory is polygamy. Ideally, as I said before, civil marriage wouldn’t exist and the rights associated with it would be given more justly. The next-best alternative for me (and what may be more likely—though I won’t give up) is that marriage is opened up to more living and relationship arrangements (I find this much more complicated and sill problematic). I also want to point out that many people who practice polygamy have misogyny issues. Misogyny is not a requirement for polygamy, however.
I think Dr. Weiss gets things right here, morally speaking (I don’t know much about the legal issues she’s talking about). She states “I think Mr. Brown has as much of a right to his relationships, as do his wives, as same-sex couples, or people who have multiple sex partners.” This is a much different tone from many advocates for “marriage equality” who respond to the claim that “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” with “NO! Polygamy is bad!” That is a direct affront to many people in polyamorous relationships, many of whom are queer. In this and other ways, I don’t think the current fight for same-sex marriage is doing anything to help (and is in fact hindering) polyamorous people from having their relationships recognized.
I don’t have much more to say on this note, though I do have a few requests. 1) Read the rest of the post. It’s short and Dr. Weiss makes a few more good points. 2) Don’t forget the poly people when fighting for relationship recognition. 3) Don’t respond to the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy with disgust.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Why I Could Not Celebrate
We're back from the unannounced hiatus! I apologize to anyone who followed the blog. I'm hope to say active this time. Now to jump back in!
(Disclaimer: This post focuses on civil marriage. Because the government is not supposed to force religion on anyone, I don’t think religious arguments fit with civil marriage.)
On June 24, 2011, around 10:30 p.m., the New York senate passed bill 8520, a marriage equality bill, it was called. Thousands of people celebrated that night, crowding bars, streets, and rooftops. But I found it difficult to join them. I couldn’t feel everyone's joy even though I tried. Part of the problem was circumstantial; I was running around Manhattan trying to find a friend with whom I lost contact that night. However, two other things tainted what many LGBT people were claiming as a “victory” (I will concede, for many people it was). The first was the repeated failure of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA). It passed the NY Assembly before marriage, but most politicians and political groups ignored GENDA and focused on marriage. As a result, GENDA has been delayed yet another congressional term. Trans people were forgotten yet again. My other issue is with marriage itself.
First, allow me to share my views on marriage. My view is that marriage should carry no legal weight. Government should not regulate anyone’s relationships and anyone should have access to the benefits associated with marriage (if the benefit fits their situation). For example, there should be universal health care. Many of the tax breaks that are associated with marriage serve little to no purpose other than promoting the institution and should either be made universal or scrapped. Rights associated with raising children should be able to go to anyone or any group raising children, whether it is a single parent or a commune with shared child caring responsibilities. Name another benefit and I could probably state my opinion on it. I think that anyone should be able to get married as a personal ceremony for whatever reason (religion, tradition, etc.), but the rights should be completely separate. I don’t think domestic partnerships or civil unions that are modeled after marriage, as is often the case, should be regulated by the government, either. They should be expanded beyond monogamous, romantically involved couples or something new should be put in their place.
I feel that way because marriage will probably not benefit me and it will not benefit many others. I am polyamorous. I have the potential to be romantically attracted to multiple people at once and I am willing to enter into relationships that reflect that fact. Marriage, as it is now and as the movement is fighting for it, does not respect that. While I know poly people who are married, I do not feel I could and I certainly would not want to. Marriage does not help people such as myself who refuse to get married for whatever reason, whether for ideological or practical concerns (I think their decision should be respected and they still deserve rights associated with marriage). Marriage does not help cohabiting friends who are not romantically involved and do not marry, yet they deserve rights associated with ownership, hospital visitation, etc. Marriage does not or only slightly benefits people who are homeless, unemployed, or working minimum wage with no benefits. Tax breaks aren’t much help if you don’t have enough of an income to tax in the first place. The ability to share insurance isn’t much help if neither partner has insurance.
People might argue that I could still support marriage while also fighting for other relationships to also be recognized. However, I feel that they way the LGb“t” movement is fighting for marriage is not only pointless for many people, it further de-legitimizes those who cannot or will not marry. For example, in Massachusetts after marriage was legalized for people of any gender, people in domestic partnerships, which often include a wide variety of types of relationships, started losing their rights (I encourage you to read the entire article). I am sure this is not exclusive to that state. I bet the same thing will happen in New York, though I hope it will not. It seems to me, as marriage is pushed forward, it is increasingly seen as the only legitimate kind of relationship.
I would like to engage people on what I presented in this post. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong. I want to believe that the LGBT movement is truly working for the benefit of everyone. I want to believe that marriage will help us all. I want to believe that, after getting marriage, the allies of trans people, poly people, homeless people, and others I named before will come back for us. Meanwhile, I will be working to abolish the institution of civil marriage, to pass non-discrimination measures that benefit everyone, and to get everyone affordable health care (to name a few).
For more information on re-framing the marriage debate, visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
(Disclaimer: This post focuses on civil marriage. Because the government is not supposed to force religion on anyone, I don’t think religious arguments fit with civil marriage.)
On June 24, 2011, around 10:30 p.m., the New York senate passed bill 8520, a marriage equality bill, it was called. Thousands of people celebrated that night, crowding bars, streets, and rooftops. But I found it difficult to join them. I couldn’t feel everyone's joy even though I tried. Part of the problem was circumstantial; I was running around Manhattan trying to find a friend with whom I lost contact that night. However, two other things tainted what many LGBT people were claiming as a “victory” (I will concede, for many people it was). The first was the repeated failure of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA). It passed the NY Assembly before marriage, but most politicians and political groups ignored GENDA and focused on marriage. As a result, GENDA has been delayed yet another congressional term. Trans people were forgotten yet again. My other issue is with marriage itself.
First, allow me to share my views on marriage. My view is that marriage should carry no legal weight. Government should not regulate anyone’s relationships and anyone should have access to the benefits associated with marriage (if the benefit fits their situation). For example, there should be universal health care. Many of the tax breaks that are associated with marriage serve little to no purpose other than promoting the institution and should either be made universal or scrapped. Rights associated with raising children should be able to go to anyone or any group raising children, whether it is a single parent or a commune with shared child caring responsibilities. Name another benefit and I could probably state my opinion on it. I think that anyone should be able to get married as a personal ceremony for whatever reason (religion, tradition, etc.), but the rights should be completely separate. I don’t think domestic partnerships or civil unions that are modeled after marriage, as is often the case, should be regulated by the government, either. They should be expanded beyond monogamous, romantically involved couples or something new should be put in their place.
I feel that way because marriage will probably not benefit me and it will not benefit many others. I am polyamorous. I have the potential to be romantically attracted to multiple people at once and I am willing to enter into relationships that reflect that fact. Marriage, as it is now and as the movement is fighting for it, does not respect that. While I know poly people who are married, I do not feel I could and I certainly would not want to. Marriage does not help people such as myself who refuse to get married for whatever reason, whether for ideological or practical concerns (I think their decision should be respected and they still deserve rights associated with marriage). Marriage does not help cohabiting friends who are not romantically involved and do not marry, yet they deserve rights associated with ownership, hospital visitation, etc. Marriage does not or only slightly benefits people who are homeless, unemployed, or working minimum wage with no benefits. Tax breaks aren’t much help if you don’t have enough of an income to tax in the first place. The ability to share insurance isn’t much help if neither partner has insurance.
People might argue that I could still support marriage while also fighting for other relationships to also be recognized. However, I feel that they way the LGb“t” movement is fighting for marriage is not only pointless for many people, it further de-legitimizes those who cannot or will not marry. For example, in Massachusetts after marriage was legalized for people of any gender, people in domestic partnerships, which often include a wide variety of types of relationships, started losing their rights (I encourage you to read the entire article). I am sure this is not exclusive to that state. I bet the same thing will happen in New York, though I hope it will not. It seems to me, as marriage is pushed forward, it is increasingly seen as the only legitimate kind of relationship.
I would like to engage people on what I presented in this post. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong. I want to believe that the LGBT movement is truly working for the benefit of everyone. I want to believe that marriage will help us all. I want to believe that, after getting marriage, the allies of trans people, poly people, homeless people, and others I named before will come back for us. Meanwhile, I will be working to abolish the institution of civil marriage, to pass non-discrimination measures that benefit everyone, and to get everyone affordable health care (to name a few).
For more information on re-framing the marriage debate, visit http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Everyday Ethicist roundup
A new column in the Cornell Daily Sun reeks of heterosexist privilege.
This. Yes.
One of the worst and most insidious ways that homophobia manifests itself in our culture is isolating GLBT people from the rest of the world and attempting to regulate when and how they’re allowed to interact with straight people, because their weird, unnatural attractions make it unsafe and uncomfortable for the majority group. It’s a fallacy of hetero privilege that straight people should be allowed to choose exactly how much time, if any, they ever have to spend around a gay person. We aren’t dangerous, and no one needs to be protected from us. This is, in essence, what this poor student is asking – “Am I a threat to the people around me? Do I need to warn them?” and this columnist should be ashamed for answering “Yes, you are, and you do.” - Rachel K.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
I am about 3/4 of the way through Susan Faludi's groundbreaking work, Backlash. It gives a riveting account of how the media, government, New Right, and other American institutions used sexist messaging, policy, medicine, and other means to roll back the gains of the women's movement. As a book, it is painstakingly researched, witty, frightening in places, and pertinent to feminists today. However, there was a moment yesterday where I almost tossed the book across the room.
On page 325, in the midst of an account of an antifeminist woman's rise, Faludi describes how Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book is poorly researched and full of dishonesty. She then writes, "Based on these informative encounters with the average woman on the street, Hewlett concludes that feminism has gypped her sex" (emphasis mine). The tone of the sentence is sarcastic, but the slur remains. To "gyp" someone means to steal or cheat them, and it comes from the word "gypsy", against whom there is still rampant discrimination. Though this book is dated (it was fish published in 1991, I am reading the 2006 edition), as an advocate of feminism, Faludi should have known better than to use an ethnic slur in a book that is otherwise brilliant in advocating the rights of all women in the United States. It should be noted that this book is not particularly focused on racism as a problem for women of color that certainly intersects with other aspects of the backlash. Nevertheless, to use a slur so casually casts a shadow on this book. Using a different word, such as "cheated", would have kept the same tone and meaning. In the next edition, perhaps Faludi should consider a few revisions.
On page 325, in the midst of an account of an antifeminist woman's rise, Faludi describes how Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book is poorly researched and full of dishonesty. She then writes, "Based on these informative encounters with the average woman on the street, Hewlett concludes that feminism has gypped her sex" (emphasis mine). The tone of the sentence is sarcastic, but the slur remains. To "gyp" someone means to steal or cheat them, and it comes from the word "gypsy", against whom there is still rampant discrimination. Though this book is dated (it was fish published in 1991, I am reading the 2006 edition), as an advocate of feminism, Faludi should have known better than to use an ethnic slur in a book that is otherwise brilliant in advocating the rights of all women in the United States. It should be noted that this book is not particularly focused on racism as a problem for women of color that certainly intersects with other aspects of the backlash. Nevertheless, to use a slur so casually casts a shadow on this book. Using a different word, such as "cheated", would have kept the same tone and meaning. In the next edition, perhaps Faludi should consider a few revisions.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
bell hooks is for everyone
I have recently finished bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody and am currently finishing Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. This is by no means a complete review, as there is much to be gained from a second or even a third reading, but these are just some thoughts on these books.
Feminism is for Everybody is an excellent Feminism 101 book. It is written in high-school level prose with minimal academic jargon. The books is divided into short chapters, each focusing on a different feminist issue eg. race and gender, feminist parenting, or ending violence. The book itself is only about 120 pages long, so it is an easy read for anyone on a long commute or after work. I found this book very engaging to read, and easy to understand. It affirms hooks' own principle of making feminist materials accessible to non-academics, which she discusses in Feminist Theory from Margin to Center.
Feminist Theory from Margin to Center is a more challenging read. It contains more theory than Feminism is for Everybody, and is written at a college level. It contains many of the same ideas as Feminism is for Everybody, but they are considerably more fleshed out. It also contains strong, thoughtful critiques of the mainstream feminist movement. This book was written in 1984, while Feminism is for Everybody was written in 2000. Nevertheless, the critiques in this book still stand, and white middle-class feminists could always benefit from a critique and examination of their privilege. This book is an excellent text for those who want to expand upon their 101 learning.
My main issue with hooks' arguments is that she consistently uses the Marxist terminology of bourgeois (not so much the word proletarian) and advocates socialism, or something that looks very much like socialism, for a feminist economic system. This to me simplifies class hierarchy and struggle. There are more than two socio-economic classes, there are many. Furthermore, socialism as it has been executed worldwide has many flaws. Even in communist societies, there are class hierarchies and sexism. While I agree with hooks that feminist revolutionists need to find an alternative to capitalism (which is exploitative and often degrading), I don't think socialism is the answer. I will not attempt to posit a feminist economic system here because I am not educated enough in economics.
These books are also very Western or US-centric, so readers who are looking for a discussion of global feminism may want to look elsewhere.
I highly recommend these books to anyone who is a budding feminist, is interested in feminism, or is looking to deepen their understanding of feminism.
Feminism is for Everybody is an excellent Feminism 101 book. It is written in high-school level prose with minimal academic jargon. The books is divided into short chapters, each focusing on a different feminist issue eg. race and gender, feminist parenting, or ending violence. The book itself is only about 120 pages long, so it is an easy read for anyone on a long commute or after work. I found this book very engaging to read, and easy to understand. It affirms hooks' own principle of making feminist materials accessible to non-academics, which she discusses in Feminist Theory from Margin to Center.
Feminist Theory from Margin to Center is a more challenging read. It contains more theory than Feminism is for Everybody, and is written at a college level. It contains many of the same ideas as Feminism is for Everybody, but they are considerably more fleshed out. It also contains strong, thoughtful critiques of the mainstream feminist movement. This book was written in 1984, while Feminism is for Everybody was written in 2000. Nevertheless, the critiques in this book still stand, and white middle-class feminists could always benefit from a critique and examination of their privilege. This book is an excellent text for those who want to expand upon their 101 learning.
My main issue with hooks' arguments is that she consistently uses the Marxist terminology of bourgeois (not so much the word proletarian) and advocates socialism, or something that looks very much like socialism, for a feminist economic system. This to me simplifies class hierarchy and struggle. There are more than two socio-economic classes, there are many. Furthermore, socialism as it has been executed worldwide has many flaws. Even in communist societies, there are class hierarchies and sexism. While I agree with hooks that feminist revolutionists need to find an alternative to capitalism (which is exploitative and often degrading), I don't think socialism is the answer. I will not attempt to posit a feminist economic system here because I am not educated enough in economics.
These books are also very Western or US-centric, so readers who are looking for a discussion of global feminism may want to look elsewhere.
I highly recommend these books to anyone who is a budding feminist, is interested in feminism, or is looking to deepen their understanding of feminism.
Follow-Up to my Target/Best Buy Post
I want to address some concerns that I have had and that other people have pointed out after my last post. First, I am not solely focused on a single issue. I simply happen to express my views about LGBTQ stuff more than others, partly because LGBTQ issues have long been ignored. However, it now seems other issues are being ignored. I can't say I support one thing about Tom Emmer, after looking at his platform (which I read over before contacting anyone or posting about his anti-LGBTQ views). I also, to use a cliché, jumped on the bandwagon of criticizing Best Buy and Target.
I read an enlightening post from the Bilerico Project today, which I encourage you to read if you have time.
To highlight some of the key points, Tom Emmer wants to cut several departments, including the Department of Human Rights, and subsidies for peoples' homes (i.e. programs that help people find places to live). After those cuts, Emmer would be able to afford giving big businesses tax cuts.
And, all in all, this is supposed to create jobs. Hah!
So, Emmer is bad for everyone except the big businesses. Now that corporations are considered people (more so than before) and their political contributions are speech (therefore protected under the first amendment), things like this are bound to happen again. Big corporations will continue to donate to candidates that will help their profits the most, which is generally republicans who are generally less on the side of equality and fairness.
I have known that big corporations have many issues. But, I have continued to give them business (with exceptions--I have not spent money at Wal Mart in years, for example). From this point forward, I will minimize the money I spend at large businesses and try my best only to support businesses that have my interests in mind.
I read an enlightening post from the Bilerico Project today, which I encourage you to read if you have time.
To highlight some of the key points, Tom Emmer wants to cut several departments, including the Department of Human Rights, and subsidies for peoples' homes (i.e. programs that help people find places to live). After those cuts, Emmer would be able to afford giving big businesses tax cuts.
And, all in all, this is supposed to create jobs. Hah!
So, Emmer is bad for everyone except the big businesses. Now that corporations are considered people (more so than before) and their political contributions are speech (therefore protected under the first amendment), things like this are bound to happen again. Big corporations will continue to donate to candidates that will help their profits the most, which is generally republicans who are generally less on the side of equality and fairness.
I have known that big corporations have many issues. But, I have continued to give them business (with exceptions--I have not spent money at Wal Mart in years, for example). From this point forward, I will minimize the money I spend at large businesses and try my best only to support businesses that have my interests in mind.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Anti-Racist Thought Bubble: Kids and Costumes
A post on anti-racism remains incomplete if I do not mention that it is the 14th Amendment's birthday today! Happy birthday, #14!
I work as a substitute teacher at a large day-care center near my university. This day-care center is one of the best in the area and I love working there. Yesterday, something happened that caught my attention, but I was surprised that no other caregivers noticed.
The children were having their faces painted in the afternoon by one of the afternoon TAs. I was attending to other things, so I only saw them after their faces were all painted. One boy, age 4, was going around telling the parents as he arrived that he was an "Indian Tiger". He has a Latina mother, but he appears white. His face was painted in white, orange, yellow, green, and black stripes. Other kids were also tigers with traditional orange and black stripes. The parents were all saying things like, "Yeah!" or "Cool." Some of the other children started repeating this: "He's an Indian tiger." Each time, the parents provided some kind of non-committal positive response.
My initial response was, "Oh no, we have inadvertently taught this child that a racial identity is something you can put on and take off!" After speaking with my friend who is Native American last night, and my co-teachers this morning, I have a few more thoughts in my head:
1) Indian tigers are a real animal. They are tigers that live in India. It is possible that this is what the child was thinking of.
2) The TA who painted the faces does not have a higher education. It is possible that she projected her stereotype onto this child.
3) The child may not be old enough to understand how dressing up as someone of another race or ethnicity is racist.
So what to do?
The other teachers and I came up with the following ideas:
1) Ask the children to clarify their pretend play. Are they only being animals, or are they actually pretending to be Native Americans?If the former, focus on the animal aspect of the play to keep it neutral. If the latter, explain that we don't play that in this classroom.
2) Make Native American people concrete instead of abstract by doing a project about them, e.g. building canoes out of paper and learning about how they were made in real life (this was my friend's suggestion).
I'm still worried about the possibility of a child dressing up as an Indian come Halloween, but I figure that bridge can be crossed when we come to it. The classroom is very diverse for a small town (about half the children are non-white), and there have been no or very few racialized incidents as far as I know. My biggest concern is that as a (white) educator in a white supremacist society, how I can convey anti-racist thought/education to the children without appearing PC or hoity-toity. Most of the other staff are from white working-class backgrounds, and I do not want to alienate them. I am still going to try my best to stay true to my anti-oppression politics in the classroom while teaching and caring for these kids to the best of my ability, because I really love them all, and I want their minds and bodies to be free.
I work as a substitute teacher at a large day-care center near my university. This day-care center is one of the best in the area and I love working there. Yesterday, something happened that caught my attention, but I was surprised that no other caregivers noticed.
The children were having their faces painted in the afternoon by one of the afternoon TAs. I was attending to other things, so I only saw them after their faces were all painted. One boy, age 4, was going around telling the parents as he arrived that he was an "Indian Tiger". He has a Latina mother, but he appears white. His face was painted in white, orange, yellow, green, and black stripes. Other kids were also tigers with traditional orange and black stripes. The parents were all saying things like, "Yeah!" or "Cool." Some of the other children started repeating this: "He's an Indian tiger." Each time, the parents provided some kind of non-committal positive response.
My initial response was, "Oh no, we have inadvertently taught this child that a racial identity is something you can put on and take off!" After speaking with my friend who is Native American last night, and my co-teachers this morning, I have a few more thoughts in my head:
1) Indian tigers are a real animal. They are tigers that live in India. It is possible that this is what the child was thinking of.
2) The TA who painted the faces does not have a higher education. It is possible that she projected her stereotype onto this child.
3) The child may not be old enough to understand how dressing up as someone of another race or ethnicity is racist.
So what to do?
The other teachers and I came up with the following ideas:
1) Ask the children to clarify their pretend play. Are they only being animals, or are they actually pretending to be Native Americans?If the former, focus on the animal aspect of the play to keep it neutral. If the latter, explain that we don't play that in this classroom.
2) Make Native American people concrete instead of abstract by doing a project about them, e.g. building canoes out of paper and learning about how they were made in real life (this was my friend's suggestion).
I'm still worried about the possibility of a child dressing up as an Indian come Halloween, but I figure that bridge can be crossed when we come to it. The classroom is very diverse for a small town (about half the children are non-white), and there have been no or very few racialized incidents as far as I know. My biggest concern is that as a (white) educator in a white supremacist society, how I can convey anti-racist thought/education to the children without appearing PC or hoity-toity. Most of the other staff are from white working-class backgrounds, and I do not want to alienate them. I am still going to try my best to stay true to my anti-oppression politics in the classroom while teaching and caring for these kids to the best of my ability, because I really love them all, and I want their minds and bodies to be free.
Responses to my Boycott of Target and Best Buy
This week I discovered that Target donated $150,000 ($50,000 in-kind donations) and Best Buy donated $100,000 to the Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, through the Minnesota Forward PAC. Emmer is a staunchly anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, pro-Arizona-style immigration bill, pro-gun, pro-small-government candidate. He has received the most flack for his anti-LGBTQ stances on a variety of issues.
I refuse to spend money that contributes to anti-LGBTQ candidates any longer (this is my largest issue, however I have been branching out), and I have shopped at Best But and Target rather frequently, so I sent emails to both Target and Best Buy letting them know about my boycott.
Target sent me a generic response that they sent most people who expressed similar concerns. See http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/emmer.html#comments for that response.
I sent Best Buy a more thoughtful response, and in fact received two thoughtful answers from two different people in the company. While these were not enough to make me break my boycott (and indeed one made me angry), I appreciate the responses and I think I will share them here.
To Best Buy, I sent the message:
I first received this response from the Executive Resolution Specialist:
The first thing I noticed about this email was that it addressed me as "Mr." The second was that it was from Best Buy.
So, I first chewed out the sender for assuming my gender. I also don't care for his defense, just as I said about Target's defense. Candidates are not, or should not be, elected for a single issue. I also find equality much more important than business. I realize that people need jobs, but there should be alternatives (e.g. green energy) and I think taxing people who can afford it and putting that money into programs to help people who need support is more effective than the arbitrary claim that "high taxes mean fewer jobs."
After sending my response, I noticed another email from Best Buy, this time from someone in Public Relations:
This email was much more friendly and sympathetic, but in the end will not make me shop at Best Buy in the near future.
My decision to only support stores that have my values in mind both in policies and in donations will probably force me to spend a bit more money on individual products and will certainly cost me in convenience. But, it will hopefully help me curb my consumerism and, hopefully, I will make an impact. If nothing else, I think sending the emails was a good move.
I refuse to spend money that contributes to anti-LGBTQ candidates any longer (this is my largest issue, however I have been branching out), and I have shopped at Best But and Target rather frequently, so I sent emails to both Target and Best Buy letting them know about my boycott.
Target sent me a generic response that they sent most people who expressed similar concerns. See http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/emmer.html#comments for that response.
I sent Best Buy a more thoughtful response, and in fact received two thoughtful answers from two different people in the company. While these were not enough to make me break my boycott (and indeed one made me angry), I appreciate the responses and I think I will share them here.
To Best Buy, I sent the message:
Hello,
I recently was debating between buying an mp3 player at Target vs. Best Buy, and I chose Best Buy because of the excellent customer service I experienced. However, I now realize that I should not have gone to either. Today I read that Best Buy has donated $100,000 to Tom Emmer who is running for Governor of Minnesota. Tom Emmer is very anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) equality, and I care deeply about LGBTQ issues. Therefore, I no longer plan to shop at Best Buy, or any store that contributes to such anti-LGBTQ politicians' campaigns.
When I emailed Target, I received a mass-produced response stating that they only consider their "retail and business objectives" when contributing to a candidate. Frankly, especially as an anti-capitalist individual, I find that a ridiculous way to conduct politics. I don't know if I will receive a mass-produced response from you, but I want to let you know that I don't care for similar defenses.
Trey
I first received this response from the Executive Resolution Specialist:
Hello Mr. XXXXXXXX,
Thank you for taking the time to contact the executive offices at Best Buy’s corporate headquarters. Your email has been forwarded to my attention to review and respond.
With global operations headquartered in MN, Best Buy has a strong interest and stake in the success of MN’s business climate. MN Forward is an important opportunity to support candidates with policies that will encourage job creation and economic growth as the state and nation work to foster an economic recovery.
Best Buy does not support candidates or campaigns based on party affiliation, but rather based on their support of issues important to the company and retail industry. Best Buy’s political activity policy and annual report is available on our Web site at www.bby.com
Does Best Buy Support Tom Emmer?
No – As a company we do not directly support any individual state candidates in these races.
We support MN Forward’s objective, which is to elect candidates from both parties who will put job creation and economic growth at the top of the legislative agenda.
Thank you again for contacting Best Buy to share your concerns. Your feedback will help us build a better customer experience for all our customers. We appreciate your patronage and hope you will let us know of any future questions.
The first thing I noticed about this email was that it addressed me as "Mr." The second was that it was from Best Buy.
So, I first chewed out the sender for assuming my gender. I also don't care for his defense, just as I said about Target's defense. Candidates are not, or should not be, elected for a single issue. I also find equality much more important than business. I realize that people need jobs, but there should be alternatives (e.g. green energy) and I think taxing people who can afford it and putting that money into programs to help people who need support is more effective than the arbitrary claim that "high taxes mean fewer jobs."
After sending my response, I noticed another email from Best Buy, this time from someone in Public Relations:
Hello.
Best Buy’s CEO, Brian Dunn, asked me to respond to your email. I hope I can give you some context as to why the decision to support MN Forward was made.
Best Buy’s political giving strategy – and its decision to support MN Forward - is based solely on the need to help elect candidates who will make jobs and economic issues a top priority this election. As a business in an industry highly sensitive to consumer uncertainty, unemployment and market instability, a successful economic recovery is critical.
We sincerely appreciate and understand the concerns raised regarding the governor’s race. The reality is candidates across the political spectrum have a lot of different positions on a lot of different issues – and Best Buy may not necessarily agree with all those positions - but from a jobs and economic perspective, Best Buy joined other MN businesses in supporting the objectives of MN Forward. Consistent with Best Buy values, we also believe our employees, shareholders and customers have a right to know how Best Buy engages politically which is why we informed employees of the contribution and publicly post our political policy and annual activity report on www.bby.com/advocacy.
Please know that Best Buy remains completely committed to creating a diverse and inclusive workplace in which employees are encouraged to bring their whole self to work. For the past six years Best Buy has received a perfect 100% rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index recognizing our commitment to GLBT workplace equality. In addition, Best Buy supports policies and organizations committed to diversity and has worked closely with Best Buy PRIDE (our GLBT employee network) to support issues including working with the Human Rights Campaign and other businesses in advocating for the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) .
And we always encourage our employees to make their voices heard on issues and decisions that are important to them and give them the tools to do so. They have multiple channels to express their points of view – in person, via social media, etc. – and the ability to join in our grassroots political action work.
I know you have a choice of where you can shop for consumer electronics and I am sorry that we may lose you as a customer because of this political contribution.
This email was much more friendly and sympathetic, but in the end will not make me shop at Best Buy in the near future.
My decision to only support stores that have my values in mind both in policies and in donations will probably force me to spend a bit more money on individual products and will certainly cost me in convenience. But, it will hopefully help me curb my consumerism and, hopefully, I will make an impact. If nothing else, I think sending the emails was a good move.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
One of my few Posts about Marriage
The National Organization for Marriage is making rounds along the eastern United States trying to convince people that marriage is between one man and one woman (probably in that order of importance). So, I feel that I should say something about marriage equality.
Frankly, I dislike marriage. It has many of its roots in men owning women, there is often a [non-consensual or problematic] power imbalance, it promotes assimilation of the LGBTQ community, and, in its current mainstream U.S. form, it is not inclusive of polyamory. It also often has religious connections that make it a murky political issue.
But, I still support marriage equality. First, I believe in reclaiming things in a positive and progressive manor. I use and identify with the word “queer,” which even now is sometimes used in a degrading and derogatory way. Similarly, today marriage, for many people, is much different that it was at its roots. Civil marriage, meaning the marriage recognized by the federal government, has little to do with religion, though many people fail to realize that. Besides, the government should not be dealing with matters of religion, for that would be denying people with other views their freedom of religion. Finally, there are so many rights that LGBTQ couples deserve that the federal government only grants to married couples. I think many/most[/all?] of these rights should not be tied to marriage and some of them are perhaps unnecessary, but that is too many battles and too many bills/laws/orders to attempt to pass to be effective. Besides, many of the same people who argue against “gay marriage” also argue against “marriage-like rights.”
To sum up my views, if civil marriage is an option for heterosexual couples, it should be an option for all consenting couples. At the moment, I don’t see myself as taking that option. This is my view on many things. For example, I strongly oppose war. But, I realistically do not see the U.S. completely disbanding the military in the near future. So, since heterosexuals and cisgender individuals can be open about their sexuality and gender identity in the military, LGBTQ individuals should be able to do the same.
For me, both of these issues are less important that, for example, a fully-inclusive Employee Non-Discrimination Act, helping homeless LGBTQ youth, and addressing homophobia and transphobia in the police force. Unfortunately, most of the large organizations’ money and time seem to be going toward these things.
As always, feel free to express similar/differing opinions or to start a conversation about something I said. I like hearing other, respectfully stated ideas and I like to be well-informed on issues.
(Note: I realize I only mentioned assimilation. I may explore it further in the future.)
Frankly, I dislike marriage. It has many of its roots in men owning women, there is often a [non-consensual or problematic] power imbalance, it promotes assimilation of the LGBTQ community, and, in its current mainstream U.S. form, it is not inclusive of polyamory. It also often has religious connections that make it a murky political issue.
But, I still support marriage equality. First, I believe in reclaiming things in a positive and progressive manor. I use and identify with the word “queer,” which even now is sometimes used in a degrading and derogatory way. Similarly, today marriage, for many people, is much different that it was at its roots. Civil marriage, meaning the marriage recognized by the federal government, has little to do with religion, though many people fail to realize that. Besides, the government should not be dealing with matters of religion, for that would be denying people with other views their freedom of religion. Finally, there are so many rights that LGBTQ couples deserve that the federal government only grants to married couples. I think many/most[/all?] of these rights should not be tied to marriage and some of them are perhaps unnecessary, but that is too many battles and too many bills/laws/orders to attempt to pass to be effective. Besides, many of the same people who argue against “gay marriage” also argue against “marriage-like rights.”
To sum up my views, if civil marriage is an option for heterosexual couples, it should be an option for all consenting couples. At the moment, I don’t see myself as taking that option. This is my view on many things. For example, I strongly oppose war. But, I realistically do not see the U.S. completely disbanding the military in the near future. So, since heterosexuals and cisgender individuals can be open about their sexuality and gender identity in the military, LGBTQ individuals should be able to do the same.
For me, both of these issues are less important that, for example, a fully-inclusive Employee Non-Discrimination Act, helping homeless LGBTQ youth, and addressing homophobia and transphobia in the police force. Unfortunately, most of the large organizations’ money and time seem to be going toward these things.
As always, feel free to express similar/differing opinions or to start a conversation about something I said. I like hearing other, respectfully stated ideas and I like to be well-informed on issues.
(Note: I realize I only mentioned assimilation. I may explore it further in the future.)
Monday, July 19, 2010
GenderQuery wants your Gender Queries!
Dear lovely readers,
The world of social justice can sometimes be a confusing one to navigate, and Trey and I want to help! As part of our new feature, "Gender Queries", we want to answer your questions! They don't have to be gender related, but they should pertain to social justice and/or feminism in some way. For a guideline on what might be an appropriate topic for a question, see "Who We Are/What We Stand For", or past entries. Send your queries to genderquerii@gmail.com
We look forward to hearing from you!
Regards,
Holly Tree and Trey
The world of social justice can sometimes be a confusing one to navigate, and Trey and I want to help! As part of our new feature, "Gender Queries", we want to answer your questions! They don't have to be gender related, but they should pertain to social justice and/or feminism in some way. For a guideline on what might be an appropriate topic for a question, see "Who We Are/What We Stand For", or past entries. Send your queries to genderquerii@gmail.com
We look forward to hearing from you!
Regards,
Holly Tree and Trey
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Why David Brooks is Wrong, Again
*TW for discussion of abuse*
Warning: This may degenerate into a rant.
Melissa and Eastsidekate have done an excellent job so far of lampooning the ridiculousness that is David Brooks' column in the New York Times. Rather than waiting for Liss to blast this latest one out of the water, I thought it would be much more fun to do it myself (I won't even address the comments on the column, since they too are [mostly] full of fail).
Brooks begins his column with the following statement:
*ETA* Brooks has been blasted.
Warning: This may degenerate into a rant.
Melissa and Eastsidekate have done an excellent job so far of lampooning the ridiculousness that is David Brooks' column in the New York Times. Rather than waiting for Liss to blast this latest one out of the water, I thought it would be much more fun to do it myself (I won't even address the comments on the column, since they too are [mostly] full of fail).
Brooks begins his column with the following statement:
Let us enter, you and I, into the moral universe of the modern narcissist.
Oh goody, I was in the mood for a good mansplaining tonight.
The narcissistic person is marked by a grandiose self-image, a constant need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy for others. He is the keeper of a sacred flame, which is the flame he holds to celebrate himself.
There used to be theories that deep down narcissists feel unworthy, but recent research doesn’t support this. Instead, it seems, the narcissist’s self-directed passion is deep and sincere.
Sure, I get that, if by "sacred flame" you mean white cismale heterosexual Christian privilege, and by "celebrate himself", you mean "go on bigoted tirades and beat your girlfriend". Furthermore, I don't think "self-directed passion" is exactly right, since Gibson has directed his passion at tons of marginalized peoples.
His self-love is his most precious possession. It is the holy center of all that is sacred and right. He is hypersensitive about anybody who might splatter or disregard his greatness. If someone treats him slightingly, he perceives that as a deliberate and heinous attack. If someone threatens his reputation, he regards this as an act of blasphemy. He feels justified in punishing the attacker for this moral outrage.
And because he plays by different rules, and because so much is at stake, he can be uninhibited in response. Everyone gets angry when they feel their self-worth is threatened, but for the narcissist, revenge is a holy cause and a moral obligation, demanding overwhelming force.
This is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Seriously, NYT, get it together. How on earth could Oksana, someone whom I had never heard of until this incident, seriously present any kind of threat to Gibson's body, work, talent, or reputation? Oh wait, she did that by REVEALING HIS ABUSE OF HER. And this, my friends, is a prime example of victim-blaming.
Mel Gibson seems to fit the narcissist model to an eerie degree. The recordings that purport to show him unloading on his ex-lover, Oksana Grigorieva, make for painful listening, and are only worthy of attention because these days it pays to be a student of excessive self-esteem, if only to understand the world around.
Narcissist model? Possibly, but only a psychologist or psychiatrist can make that diagnosis. Abuser model? Definitely. By explaining Gibson's behavior away with mental illness, Brooks is also absolving him of responsibility for his words and actions. He was not "unloading", he was verbally abusing his girlfriend. This is unacceptable.
The story line seems to be pretty simple. Gibson was the great Hollywood celebrity who left his wife to link with the beautiful young acolyte. Her beauty would not only reflect well on his virility, but he would also work to mold her, Pygmalion-like, into a pop star.
After a time, she apparently grew tired of being a supporting actor in the drama of his self-magnification and tried to go her own way. This act of separation was perceived as an assault on his status and thus a venal betrayal of the true faith.
How can anyone possibly know if this is true? In these two paragraphs, Brooks is sticking his head into the narcissism sand and ignoring the much more likely, much more common explanation: Gibson is an abuser.
It is fruitless to analyze her end of the phone conversations because she knows she is taping them. But the voice on the other end is primal and searing.
That man is like a boxer unleashing one verbal barrage after another. His breathing is heavy. His vocal muscles are clenched. His guttural sounds burst out like hammer blows.
He pummels her honor, her intelligence, her womanhood, her maternal skills and everything else. Imagine every crude and derogatory word you’ve ever heard. They come out in waves. He’s not really arguing with her, just trying to pulverize her into nothingness, like some corruption that has intertwined itself into his being and now must be expunged.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...its verbal abuse. Period.
It is striking how morally righteous he is, without ever bothering to explain what exactly she has done wrong. It is striking how quickly he reverts to the vocabulary of purity and disgust. It is striking how much he believes he deserves. It is striking how much he seems to derive satisfaction from his own righteous indignation.
Rage was the original subject of Western literature. It was the opening theme of Homer’s “Iliad.” Back then, anger was perceived as a source of pleasure. “Sweeter wrath is by far than the honeycomb dripping with sweetener,” Homer declared. And the man on the other end of Grigorieva’s phone seems to derive some vengeful satisfaction from asserting his power and from purging his frustration — from the sheer act of domination.
She hasn't DONE anything wrong. That's why we call it abuse. Furthermore, the language of purity and disgust, the belief of deservingness, the righteous indignation, the assertion of power...these are symptoms of male privilege gone amok, not NPD.
And the sad fact is that Gibson is not alone. There can’t be many people at once who live in a celebrity environment so perfectly designed to inflate self-love. Even so, a surprising number of people share the trait. A study conducted at the National Institutes of Health suggested that 6.2 percent of Americans had suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, along with 9.4 percent of people in their 20s.
In their book, “The Narcissism Epidemic,” Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell cite data to suggest that at least since the 1970s, we have suffered from national self-esteem inflation. They cite my favorite piece of sociological data: In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an “important person.” Twelve percent said yes. In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes.
As I stated above, only a psychiatrist or psychologist is qualified to diagnose NPD. Brooks is neither of these, and so has no business lumping Gibson in with what are probably pretty legitimate statistics on the prevalence of NPD. Furthermore, diagnosing a psychiatric disorder involves much more than one symptom. NPD is not a trait, it is many traits. In addition, the research that shows that kids consider themselves to be important is a marker of improved self-esteem, not abuse in the way Gibson has perpetuated it.
Whew, I am exhausted. Brooks seems to think that Gibson's behavior is the result of too much love for himself. It's not. It's the result of a lifetime of privilege. Gibson is not ultra-confident, he simply views himself as better than women, gays, blacks, and Jews. I'm sure if we give him time, he'll reveal many more prejudices to us. It is his privilege that gives him the chutzpah (best word I could think of) to verbally and physically abuse the woman who is the mother of his child. Instead of excusing Gibson's behavior with fancy pseudo-diagnoses, I hope Brooks will have the wherewithall to step up and acknowledge the very real problem of abuse in the US and worldwide. I'll probably be waiting a long time.That doesn’t make them narcissists in the Gibson mold, but it does suggest that we’ve entered an era where self-branding is on the ascent and the culture of self-effacement is on the decline.
Every week brings a new assignment in our study of self-love. And at the top of the heap, the Valentino of all self-lovers, there is the former Braveheart. If he really were that great, he’d have figured out that the lady probably owns a tape recorder.
*ETA* Brooks has been blasted.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Feminist Mythbusters I: Feminists Hate Men
As part of beginning a serious blogging experience, I want to start some features. I have other ideas, but one I particularly want to do is Feminist Mythbusters. Many myths proliferate about feminism, and they are frequently reinforced by the mainstream media. In short, digestible bits, I would like to debunk these myths and make feminism more accessible to everyone.
Without further ado, I bring you...
Feminist Mythbusters!
Myth #1: Feminists hate men.
This myth is wrong by a number of accounts. First off, it presumes the existence of only two groups: men and women. The existence of two and only two sexes/two and only two genders is a deep-seated idea that has been blown out of the water by the existence of intersex, transgender, genderqueer, and other people that do not fit neatly into a binary system. Furthermore, it presumes that only women are feminists, which is false. Feminists are ciswomen and cismen, transmen and transwomen, and everywhere inbetween.
Secondly, the myth is extremely simplistic and reductive. One thing that feminism has taught me is that rarely are issues black and white, and feminist beliefs range from easy to understand to extremely nuanced. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to reduce nuance to simplicity, and in doing so, the meaning is lost. (Most) Feminists do not hate men. We do, however, recognize that there is a system of power in place that pits cismen over all women in a hierarchy. This hierarchy is referred to as "patriarchy", but it is not the only hierarchy that exists. In the US, we also rank straight over gay, white over black, cis over trans, and able-bodied over disabled, to name a few. A system of many hierarchies is called a "kyriarchy". Many feminists get angry at cismen for perpetuating the patriarchy. But we also get angry at women who perpetuate patriarchy. In general, the perpetuation of any hierarchical system within the kyriarchy by any person is enough to make me mad. However, anger is not the same as hate. Anger is a motivator for change, and that is why I became a feminist in the first place: to create change in the US.
Thirdly, I, as well as many feminists I know, have cismen in our lives that we love very much (shocking, I know). I have a father, cousins, friends, and of course my partner, all of whom are cismale, all of whom I love dearly. In fact, I love them so much that I want them to be free of the kyriarchy just as much as I want to be free of it. This entails the loss of cismale privilege, which can be extremely threatening. But it also means that I wish for them the freedom to live their lives free of a constraining prototypical masculine ideal.
To sum up, feminists do not hate men. Feminists work to end the perpetuation of hierarchies on an individual and group scale. One motivator for working for change is anger, which can be mistaken for hate. Feminists want everyone to be free of the kyriarchy, including cismen. Kyriarchy also hurts the privileged, and feminists want freedom for everyone.
ETA: I have tried, and retried, and tried again, to use the most inclusive language possible in this post. However, if I have misused a term or excluded anyone, please please please let me know in the comments so that I can do better next time.
Without further ado, I bring you...
Feminist Mythbusters!
Myth #1: Feminists hate men.
This myth is wrong by a number of accounts. First off, it presumes the existence of only two groups: men and women. The existence of two and only two sexes/two and only two genders is a deep-seated idea that has been blown out of the water by the existence of intersex, transgender, genderqueer, and other people that do not fit neatly into a binary system. Furthermore, it presumes that only women are feminists, which is false. Feminists are ciswomen and cismen, transmen and transwomen, and everywhere inbetween.
Secondly, the myth is extremely simplistic and reductive. One thing that feminism has taught me is that rarely are issues black and white, and feminist beliefs range from easy to understand to extremely nuanced. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to reduce nuance to simplicity, and in doing so, the meaning is lost. (Most) Feminists do not hate men. We do, however, recognize that there is a system of power in place that pits cismen over all women in a hierarchy. This hierarchy is referred to as "patriarchy", but it is not the only hierarchy that exists. In the US, we also rank straight over gay, white over black, cis over trans, and able-bodied over disabled, to name a few. A system of many hierarchies is called a "kyriarchy". Many feminists get angry at cismen for perpetuating the patriarchy. But we also get angry at women who perpetuate patriarchy. In general, the perpetuation of any hierarchical system within the kyriarchy by any person is enough to make me mad. However, anger is not the same as hate. Anger is a motivator for change, and that is why I became a feminist in the first place: to create change in the US.
Thirdly, I, as well as many feminists I know, have cismen in our lives that we love very much (shocking, I know). I have a father, cousins, friends, and of course my partner, all of whom are cismale, all of whom I love dearly. In fact, I love them so much that I want them to be free of the kyriarchy just as much as I want to be free of it. This entails the loss of cismale privilege, which can be extremely threatening. But it also means that I wish for them the freedom to live their lives free of a constraining prototypical masculine ideal.
To sum up, feminists do not hate men. Feminists work to end the perpetuation of hierarchies on an individual and group scale. One motivator for working for change is anger, which can be mistaken for hate. Feminists want everyone to be free of the kyriarchy, including cismen. Kyriarchy also hurts the privileged, and feminists want freedom for everyone.
ETA: I have tried, and retried, and tried again, to use the most inclusive language possible in this post. However, if I have misused a term or excluded anyone, please please please let me know in the comments so that I can do better next time.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Why are you asking for my gender, again?
My laptop battery stopped working last weekend, so on Saturday I was trying to figure out how to get it replaced (it is still under warranty). When I went to the computer company’s website (ASUS), I saw that I could register my product online for tech support. When I opened the online registration form, I saw something that made me rather frustrated: one of the required fields of information was “gender.” And, as is usually the case, the only options were “male” and “female.” Normally at this point I would simply leave the website. However, I needed to fix my laptop. I answered based on my legal sex, male, in case for some random reason they needed to see my ID, which has a delightful (sarcasm) little “Sex: M” on it. Unfortunately, the website was no help and I had to call ASUS. On top of that, the company representative told me to go to the store where I bought it, and when I arrived the store told me to contact the company. FML
In case it wasn’t already clear, I am genderqueer. I do not identify as male nor female, but as something else altogether. Legally and medically my sex (biological gender) is assigned “male,” though I also take issue with there being a binary sex model. Furthermore, I find gender much more relevant to my life. By my model of sex and gender, my gender includes how I express myself (clothing, behavior, speech, pronouns, etc.) while my sex includes certain biological traits (presumably XY, flat chest, genitalia, hormones, etc.). The only people who need to worry about my sex are my sexual partner(s), my doctor(s) (sometimes), and me. With regards to my gender, I express myself however I want, as long as no one is hurt in the process. I wear what I want, I walk how I want, I talk how I want, etc.
Getting back to the laptop incident, to a degree I realize that most people in the U.S. follow the gender binary. Many people are unaware that people identify outside of the binary. I will excuse and educate those individuals. However, why on Earth would one make “gender” or “sex” a required question? There is absolutely no reason my laptop company needs to know my gender. That company is by no means alone in requiring that question to be answered. And further, I have never seen a choice for anything other than “male” or “female” except in a few LGBTQ forms.
There is usually little or no reason to require gender or sex, though here are the ones I have observed. Sometimes the “F” or “M” serves as an added layer of identification, such as occasionally with the government (when they aren’t regulating who one can marry, etc.), though that is a sketchy defense at best. Sometimes I think the identification is simply for the company to know how to address someone. The ASUS website refers to me as “Mr. [last-name]” which really annoying (the fact that the representative on the phone assumed I was a woman and called me Ms. [last name] partially makes up for it), and Facebook uses third-person pronouns on their news feed. I could go on a tirade about pronouns, but I am going to simply say that there are non-gendered ways to address someone. Perhaps gender is for demographic information, such as on surveys and the census. If that is the case, it should be optional. Sometimes it may be for marketing, but I find marketing way too gendered as it is. I buy whatever I wish from whatever section I wish--it could be a skirt, it could be a PC Role-Playing Game, it would probably be natural (for toiletries), and it could be so much more that is not limited to a male/female dichotomy. The only other use for one’s sex or gender that I could think of, but that is usually illegal (at least as far as the government defines “sex”) or at least frowned upon.
There is no much more I could have said and so little time. Sorry about the long rant as my introduction in this blog. I’ll try to make the next one happier and shorter.
In case it wasn’t already clear, I am genderqueer. I do not identify as male nor female, but as something else altogether. Legally and medically my sex (biological gender) is assigned “male,” though I also take issue with there being a binary sex model. Furthermore, I find gender much more relevant to my life. By my model of sex and gender, my gender includes how I express myself (clothing, behavior, speech, pronouns, etc.) while my sex includes certain biological traits (presumably XY, flat chest, genitalia, hormones, etc.). The only people who need to worry about my sex are my sexual partner(s), my doctor(s) (sometimes), and me. With regards to my gender, I express myself however I want, as long as no one is hurt in the process. I wear what I want, I walk how I want, I talk how I want, etc.
Getting back to the laptop incident, to a degree I realize that most people in the U.S. follow the gender binary. Many people are unaware that people identify outside of the binary. I will excuse and educate those individuals. However, why on Earth would one make “gender” or “sex” a required question? There is absolutely no reason my laptop company needs to know my gender. That company is by no means alone in requiring that question to be answered. And further, I have never seen a choice for anything other than “male” or “female” except in a few LGBTQ forms.
There is usually little or no reason to require gender or sex, though here are the ones I have observed. Sometimes the “F” or “M” serves as an added layer of identification, such as occasionally with the government (when they aren’t regulating who one can marry, etc.), though that is a sketchy defense at best. Sometimes I think the identification is simply for the company to know how to address someone. The ASUS website refers to me as “Mr. [last-name]” which really annoying (the fact that the representative on the phone assumed I was a woman and called me Ms. [last name] partially makes up for it), and Facebook uses third-person pronouns on their news feed. I could go on a tirade about pronouns, but I am going to simply say that there are non-gendered ways to address someone. Perhaps gender is for demographic information, such as on surveys and the census. If that is the case, it should be optional. Sometimes it may be for marketing, but I find marketing way too gendered as it is. I buy whatever I wish from whatever section I wish--it could be a skirt, it could be a PC Role-Playing Game, it would probably be natural (for toiletries), and it could be so much more that is not limited to a male/female dichotomy. The only other use for one’s sex or gender that I could think of, but that is usually illegal (at least as far as the government defines “sex”) or at least frowned upon.
There is no much more I could have said and so little time. Sorry about the long rant as my introduction in this blog. I’ll try to make the next one happier and shorter.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Mel Gibson World's Biggest D-bag Blogaround
The first time I became aware of Mel Gibson's heinous attitudes towards Jews, I was 15 and the Passion of the Christ had just been released. Even before my feminist awakening, I was aware of the power of the dollar, and I resolved to never give any of mine to Mel Gibson. To this day, I have never seen a film with Mel Gibson in it, and I am 21. Since then, Mel reinforced my disdain and utter contempt with his anti-Semitic rant to a police officer in 2006, and now he has verbally and physically abused his girlfriend, the mother of his child. As Renee of Womanist Musings so succinctly puts it, Gibson is "cruel, abusive and drunk on privilege". I am even further resolved not to see his movies, and to encourage my friends to do the same.
Below is a summary of links to other blogs who have covered the story (warning: some of these links may be triggering):
Feministing: Mel Gibson: Bonafide Abusive Asshole
Womanist Musings: Now Mel Gibson Admits to Hitting Oksana, How Long Until We Forgive Him?
Shakesville: Mel Gibson Is A Vile Racist Douchebag Of Epic Proportions... But You Already Knew That
The Sexist: When the Threat of Stranger Rape Facilitates Acquaintance Rape
Slog: Stay Classy, Mel
Feel free to leave other links in the comments.
Below is a summary of links to other blogs who have covered the story (warning: some of these links may be triggering):
Feministing: Mel Gibson: Bonafide Abusive Asshole
Womanist Musings: Now Mel Gibson Admits to Hitting Oksana, How Long Until We Forgive Him?
Shakesville: Mel Gibson Is A Vile Racist Douchebag Of Epic Proportions... But You Already Knew That
The Sexist: When the Threat of Stranger Rape Facilitates Acquaintance Rape
Slog: Stay Classy, Mel
Feel free to leave other links in the comments.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Importance of Women's Entrepreneurship, or My Super Secret Hobby
I love bath and body goods. Specifically, I love bath and body goods made by independent all-natural companies that are headed or co-headed by women. Here are some reasons to buy independent:
1) Limited or no artificial ingredients.
2) Incredible quality.
3) Environmentally conscious.
4) You're actually supporting a small business, rather than a huge toiletry conglomerate.
5) Great customer service.
6) The customer is assumed to be intelligent.
7) Supporting women financially is an important tenet of feminism, and until the day we have mandated maternity leave, universal day care, and other services women need, one of the most effective ways you can support women is with your dollar.
Here are some of my favorite companies from which to purchase:
Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab: Founded by Elizabeth Barrial (nee Moriarty), this perfume oil company sells concentrated oils that you can wear straight on your skin, or use to make your own scented products. They have a general catalog with scents based on Shakespeare, Alice in Wonderland, Neil Gaiman, and more. They also have seasonal and monthly limited edition scents. I recommend joining a community such as Sin and Salvation or bpal.org to get started. The turnaround time is a little slow, but always worth it, and the lab is very communicative.
Villainess Soaps: My favorite B&B company, hands down. Brooke Stant is the owner of this one, and everything is handmade by her and her staff. With clever names and a beautiful site design, this company appeals to anyone with a spark of adventure. There are limited edition seasonal blends here as well. The turnaround time is extremely rapid, and the communication is fabulous. Plus, if you order $100 worth, shipping is free!
The Soap Box Company: This is an amazing woman-owned etailer that sells items from many woman-owned companies, including Arcana Soaps (a personal favorite), Villainess, Bunny Butt, Bella Lucce, and more. The company is currently readjusting after a move and site revamp, but the quality of goods just keeps getting better, the turnaround time is rapid, and the customer service is great. Orders over $100 ship free, and you can frequently get free stuff!
LUSH: The most mainstream of the companies I'm going to list (this one has actual storefronts), LUSH is also the most up front about their environmental concerns. Founded by a husband-and-wife team, LUSH recently pledged to stop using palm oil, and proceeds from select goods go to different charities worldwide. Most (if not all) of the wrappings they use are recyclable, and their shampoo bars (a personal fave) require no plastic bottle. All LUSH products are vegetarian, and some are even vegan. The quality is incredible, and the retail customer service is amazing.
1) Limited or no artificial ingredients.
2) Incredible quality.
3) Environmentally conscious.
4) You're actually supporting a small business, rather than a huge toiletry conglomerate.
5) Great customer service.
6) The customer is assumed to be intelligent.
7) Supporting women financially is an important tenet of feminism, and until the day we have mandated maternity leave, universal day care, and other services women need, one of the most effective ways you can support women is with your dollar.
Here are some of my favorite companies from which to purchase:
Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab: Founded by Elizabeth Barrial (nee Moriarty), this perfume oil company sells concentrated oils that you can wear straight on your skin, or use to make your own scented products. They have a general catalog with scents based on Shakespeare, Alice in Wonderland, Neil Gaiman, and more. They also have seasonal and monthly limited edition scents. I recommend joining a community such as Sin and Salvation or bpal.org to get started. The turnaround time is a little slow, but always worth it, and the lab is very communicative.
Villainess Soaps: My favorite B&B company, hands down. Brooke Stant is the owner of this one, and everything is handmade by her and her staff. With clever names and a beautiful site design, this company appeals to anyone with a spark of adventure. There are limited edition seasonal blends here as well. The turnaround time is extremely rapid, and the communication is fabulous. Plus, if you order $100 worth, shipping is free!
The Soap Box Company: This is an amazing woman-owned etailer that sells items from many woman-owned companies, including Arcana Soaps (a personal favorite), Villainess, Bunny Butt, Bella Lucce, and more. The company is currently readjusting after a move and site revamp, but the quality of goods just keeps getting better, the turnaround time is rapid, and the customer service is great. Orders over $100 ship free, and you can frequently get free stuff!
LUSH: The most mainstream of the companies I'm going to list (this one has actual storefronts), LUSH is also the most up front about their environmental concerns. Founded by a husband-and-wife team, LUSH recently pledged to stop using palm oil, and proceeds from select goods go to different charities worldwide. Most (if not all) of the wrappings they use are recyclable, and their shampoo bars (a personal fave) require no plastic bottle. All LUSH products are vegetarian, and some are even vegan. The quality is incredible, and the retail customer service is amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)