Oh, I promised y'all it was coming, and it wasn't a lie. As someone who travels in feminist/queer/polyamorous/anti-oppression circles, I run into a lot of angry atheist types, as I'm sure most of you do as well. And what I want to say is this:
Athiests, get the fuck out of my scene.
Oh, I don't mean all atheists. In the same way when you condemn Muslims (especially Muslims), Jews, or Christians, you don't mean all those people, just the "fanatical" and "intolerant" ones. Well, the same goes for you. I know it's cliche as hell to say that some athiests have become as fanatical as the religions they reject, but it's not wrong. I have dealt with with so many obnoxious, wrong-headed athiests in progressive circles that I am ready to throw the gauntlet down and call this behavior for what it really is:
Cultural supremacy.
Please explain to me, progressive atheists, how your adherence to what we call "Western Humanism" or "Rationalism" is any less a product of imperalistic, racist views than anything else white westerners have come up with?
To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that non-belief in a deity is racist. At all. As a lifelong agnostic (Holy shit, how can one convert to Judaism while remaining an agnostic? I don't know, ask a Jew, they'll explain it to you) I syampthize with your lack of belief. And I understand that discourse in this country favors a Christian viewpoint. (Don't use the term "Judeo-Christian" or I'll cut you - there's nothing "Judeo" about it).
But honestly? The mocking, the pretension, and the derailing I see done by athiests in progressive spaces has little to do with a personal belief or lack thereof and a lot more to do with basic Western cultural supremacy. I am rational, you are not. I believe in logic, you believe in superstition. Religion is the only reason why women/gays/people of color are oppressed and if you just came around to the obvious truth, you'd be liberated.
How fucking condescending and offensive is that? What these western, mostly white athiests fail to realize is the incredible impact that religious movements have played with regard to the history of anti-oppression work. I almost hate to invoke him, but the sainted Martin Luther King Jr. was, in, fact, a Reverend. As in, a minster. Of a Christian church. And his religion informed, not conflicted his work. (And fuck you Hitchens for saying otherwise). Liberation theology has been the movement upon which pro-democracy forces have accomplished much in Latin America. And even if Communism was first dreamed up by atheist Jews, you'd be ignorant if you didn't realize to what degree Jewish philosophy played a role in the idea that that movement.
And even without the credentials, the fact remains that if we, as white, western people committed to anti-oppression work, want to engage and support oppressed peoples, we must understand respect their cultural and religious beliefs. When a Black woman speaks honestly about her conflicting feelings about her own faith, the response of white would-be allies should not be, "LOL SKY FAIRY" or some tale of woe about how oppressed you were because you had to go to church as a child.
Yes, religion has been and is still used as an oppressive force. One can question it and be critical of it. But writing it off is shallow and self-serving. Intersecionality matters, and in many cases, whether it's Islam and feminism or even Israel and Palestine, you're not going to be able to even remotely approach the issue unless you have a basic grounding in the issues. The militant, dismissive, obnoxious form of atheism I see all around the 'tubes makes no allowance for the complexities and gray areas inherent to them.
I'm happy to engage with atheists who are willing to acknowledge a basic or even grudging respect for faith and the wealth of philosophy that has resulted directly from religion (i.e. most of the values that we use in anti-oppression work). I think the split between "rationality" and "religion/culture" is mostly a false one that wouldn't have to be an issue if progressive atheists didn't make it one by claiming the same kind of oppression that most of us actually face. But I am sick and tired of privileged white kids using this label to derail and mock others in a culturally supremacist way. So again: sit down, learn something, or get the fuck out of my scene.
I'm going to finish with quoting a religious oppressor:
"If I am not for myself, who will be?
And if I am for only myself, what am 'I'?
And if not now, when?"
Oh, those silly religious folk.
4/28/10
Take Your Boobquake And Shove It
I'm sure anyone reading this has heard about Boobquake, which is just a self-aggrandizing bit of culturally problematic slacktivism in response to an Iranian cleric's remarks that womens' immodesty causes earthquakes.
There are a lot of good posts about why Boobquake is both stupid, racist, and offensive, but the best is probably this at SwitchingToGlide:
"I was initially intrigued by the idea as a sort of campy and playful way to collectively disprove an idea, but after about 5 minutes of perusal, it became glaringly apparent that this North American response to an Iranian cleric was more about Islamophobia and ethnocentrism than the rights of Muslim women. The events are a vector for the co-option of feminist rhetoric to further objectify women, and a demonstration of the smug North American sense of moral and developmental superiority over those “other” brown folks in the Middle East."
The author made a very good point about the huge amount of viral support for Boobquake compared to the lack of attendance at a protest against Quebec's racist, sexist Bill 94 which bans the niqab in a ton of situations and is basic religious oppression at its worst. I saw a lot of western feminists whine at this comparison - obviously we can't all get our asses to Quebec to protest, whereas clicking on a Facebook link is easy - but the author's point still stands. Boobquake isn't just popular because it's easy "activism" - it's popular because it cuts across ideological lines to condemn and mock another culture and religion, one that is widely feared and derided in the west.
It reminded me of a recent episode in the Polyamorous community where an Ugandan columnist derided polyamory and all of our favorite Polyweekly contributors such as Datan0de and Joreth went to comment in the most wrong-headed, culturally-insensitive, and privileged way possible.
The issue isn't whether or not in both cases the remarks that spawned the furor weren't bigoted or sexist, as they obviously were. I'm not a complete cultural relativist. But the way largely-white, western activists single out displays of misogyny from other countries instead of critiquing the far more accepted versions in Canada and the US is seriously problematic. It is of no surprise to me that the instigator of Boobquake identifies as an atheist activist, as does Joreth - if there is ever a group that will engage in racist cultural supremacy in the name of their (lack of) religion, it's that one. I know that's quite a bombshell to drop at the end of the post, but trust me, the post about how atheist activism needs to get the fuck out of my feminism and anti-oppression work will be coming shortly.
There are a lot of good posts about why Boobquake is both stupid, racist, and offensive, but the best is probably this at SwitchingToGlide:
"I was initially intrigued by the idea as a sort of campy and playful way to collectively disprove an idea, but after about 5 minutes of perusal, it became glaringly apparent that this North American response to an Iranian cleric was more about Islamophobia and ethnocentrism than the rights of Muslim women. The events are a vector for the co-option of feminist rhetoric to further objectify women, and a demonstration of the smug North American sense of moral and developmental superiority over those “other” brown folks in the Middle East."
The author made a very good point about the huge amount of viral support for Boobquake compared to the lack of attendance at a protest against Quebec's racist, sexist Bill 94 which bans the niqab in a ton of situations and is basic religious oppression at its worst. I saw a lot of western feminists whine at this comparison - obviously we can't all get our asses to Quebec to protest, whereas clicking on a Facebook link is easy - but the author's point still stands. Boobquake isn't just popular because it's easy "activism" - it's popular because it cuts across ideological lines to condemn and mock another culture and religion, one that is widely feared and derided in the west.
It reminded me of a recent episode in the Polyamorous community where an Ugandan columnist derided polyamory and all of our favorite Polyweekly contributors such as Datan0de and Joreth went to comment in the most wrong-headed, culturally-insensitive, and privileged way possible.
The issue isn't whether or not in both cases the remarks that spawned the furor weren't bigoted or sexist, as they obviously were. I'm not a complete cultural relativist. But the way largely-white, western activists single out displays of misogyny from other countries instead of critiquing the far more accepted versions in Canada and the US is seriously problematic. It is of no surprise to me that the instigator of Boobquake identifies as an atheist activist, as does Joreth - if there is ever a group that will engage in racist cultural supremacy in the name of their (lack of) religion, it's that one. I know that's quite a bombshell to drop at the end of the post, but trust me, the post about how atheist activism needs to get the fuck out of my feminism and anti-oppression work will be coming shortly.
Why Don't We Talk About The Sex We're Going to Have?
Most people are really bad about talking about sex. While I can't say this definitively, I have had enough sex partners to know that this lack of communication is far too common. I've spent five hours sitting on the couch with a person who I'd agreed to meet explicitly for the purpose of casual sex, all while struggling to bring up sex and instead being talked to about food and movies. When it comes down to the act of fucking, I want to know more how one feels about rimming than the works of Quentin Tarantino. Why give attention to the wrong asshole?
A while back, I met a couple through an online hookup site. They seemed nice. We talked at length in e-mails about what we were into. One was a top, one was a bottom, and both wanted to get into a wild nasty threesome. I was stoked. When I arrived at their house, I was given a tour of their art collection and then spent an hour in the kitchen talking about politics, art, and interior design. Both got coy when I brought up the topic of sex, so I stopped trying. Once the hour had passed, one finally asked if I wanted to go “play”. I have to admit, that put me off. I wasn't there to play. I wanted to fuck. I was there for sex, which I view as more than just play. Play is “Monopoly”. Play doesn't require an hour of awkwardly standing in a kitchen talking about the merits of mid-century modern light fixtures.
What resulted was blah at best. One person laid on the bed and stroked himself while staring at the ceiling while the other kept tweaking my nipples and telling me how nice my genitals looked. I finally asked the nipple-tweaking self-professed bottom if he'd like to bend over, he told me that I looked hot and went back to tweaking my nipples. Yes, I finally got off, but it wasn't really hot. It certainly wasn't what we'd talked about for the previous week. In a follow up e-mail, the bottom told me he really wished we had done more and would like to do that in the future. He said it would be “hot”. No, hot would be having sex that includes what we want, not the drabness that we had.
The best sex I've ever had has been with my current partner. We talk about sex. We use dirty words and tell each other about naughty fantasies and the most amazing thing is that we act on those fantasies because we put them out there and made each other aware of them. We've delved into our deepest, most fucked up fantasies and come up with really great bed-rocking sex. It works because we open ourselves up about the sex we want to have.
How can we expect to be good lovers if we never seek out what our partners want? We've come to believe that sex exists apart from the rest of our interactions. We talk to get people into bed, but once they're there we expect it be like it is in movies. It's supposed to be organic. Our partner's body moves with ours, his or her response is tremendous and the other person responds to your actions as if they are doing what the person has most longed for.
That's not realistic. One would never walk into a restaurant and expect the waiter to bring exactly the right dishes and beverages that would make the meal we dream of without ever placing an order. How can we treat sex like it's psychic help? We have to engage our partners, even if it's just a one-night hookup. Critical to decent sex is that we understand what the other person wants. It's why sex improves in relationships. We slowly learn what the other person wants. Is it so unreasonable to just ask?
Beyond asking, can't we just talk about it beforehand? I think this is born out of of lack of respect for fucking. It's something we should talk about. We can want it. Even when it's the reason for us getting together, we still treat it as being unfit for discussion. Sex is primary. It is crucial. In a society suffering a the tyranny of acceptable mediocre sex, we have to take the revolutionary stand that we're going to talk our way into sex, not just into bed.
A while back, I met a couple through an online hookup site. They seemed nice. We talked at length in e-mails about what we were into. One was a top, one was a bottom, and both wanted to get into a wild nasty threesome. I was stoked. When I arrived at their house, I was given a tour of their art collection and then spent an hour in the kitchen talking about politics, art, and interior design. Both got coy when I brought up the topic of sex, so I stopped trying. Once the hour had passed, one finally asked if I wanted to go “play”. I have to admit, that put me off. I wasn't there to play. I wanted to fuck. I was there for sex, which I view as more than just play. Play is “Monopoly”. Play doesn't require an hour of awkwardly standing in a kitchen talking about the merits of mid-century modern light fixtures.
What resulted was blah at best. One person laid on the bed and stroked himself while staring at the ceiling while the other kept tweaking my nipples and telling me how nice my genitals looked. I finally asked the nipple-tweaking self-professed bottom if he'd like to bend over, he told me that I looked hot and went back to tweaking my nipples. Yes, I finally got off, but it wasn't really hot. It certainly wasn't what we'd talked about for the previous week. In a follow up e-mail, the bottom told me he really wished we had done more and would like to do that in the future. He said it would be “hot”. No, hot would be having sex that includes what we want, not the drabness that we had.
The best sex I've ever had has been with my current partner. We talk about sex. We use dirty words and tell each other about naughty fantasies and the most amazing thing is that we act on those fantasies because we put them out there and made each other aware of them. We've delved into our deepest, most fucked up fantasies and come up with really great bed-rocking sex. It works because we open ourselves up about the sex we want to have.
How can we expect to be good lovers if we never seek out what our partners want? We've come to believe that sex exists apart from the rest of our interactions. We talk to get people into bed, but once they're there we expect it be like it is in movies. It's supposed to be organic. Our partner's body moves with ours, his or her response is tremendous and the other person responds to your actions as if they are doing what the person has most longed for.
That's not realistic. One would never walk into a restaurant and expect the waiter to bring exactly the right dishes and beverages that would make the meal we dream of without ever placing an order. How can we treat sex like it's psychic help? We have to engage our partners, even if it's just a one-night hookup. Critical to decent sex is that we understand what the other person wants. It's why sex improves in relationships. We slowly learn what the other person wants. Is it so unreasonable to just ask?
Beyond asking, can't we just talk about it beforehand? I think this is born out of of lack of respect for fucking. It's something we should talk about. We can want it. Even when it's the reason for us getting together, we still treat it as being unfit for discussion. Sex is primary. It is crucial. In a society suffering a the tyranny of acceptable mediocre sex, we have to take the revolutionary stand that we're going to talk our way into sex, not just into bed.
4/25/10
More Biphobia News!
This has not been a good week for the bis. Gregg Kravtiz is a young bi man in Philadelphia who is challenging incumbent Babette Josephs in a primary race for a state legislature seat. It's not every day you see out bi people running for any kind of office, but apparently Kravtiz's sexual identity hadn't been an issue in the campaign for the 182nd district until his opponent made it one.
Josephs, who is straight but considered to be a strong supporter of LGBT rights and enjoys the endorsement of the mainstream gay organizations in her district, was caught on audiotape at a fundraiser claiming that Kravitz was actually straight, and was lying about his sexuality to get votes.
"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said on the recording..."and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."
“There will be cheating if he can get away with it, because he already has tried to lie to people about a whole bunch of stuff, including his sexuality."
Oh, those treacherous, traitorous, slippery bis! How did Josephs know he's straight? Apparently he has been dating a woman since January. So once again, a bi person's identity is judged only by who they are currently sleeping with, and nothing else.
Kravtiz sent the audiotape to local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer. Of Joseph's comments, he said, “That’s completely inappropriate. The way in which my opponent mocked me is very damaging to members of the LGBT community questioning whether to come out. It sends the message that you are subjecting yourself to ridicule, even from allies.”
While the straightwashing of Kravtiz is infuriating, the response by some publications reporting on the story are downright annoying.
"We've hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat," said Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News and a pioneering civil rights advocate. "I've been doing this for 40 years, and I never have heard of this kind of charge in any race in the nation," he said. "I take that as flattery. It shows how far we've come."
It may be a new high point for gay and lesbian identity politics, but having gay leaders refer to Kravitz' identity being policed as "flattery" or even "humorous" is a low point for biphobia. Other publications reporting on the story have managed to out their own ignorance, with headlines like: "PA Congressional Candidate Outed For Pretending to be Gay," and LGTB blog Qweerty closing the story with more musings about how great this inappropriate and offensive treatment of Kravitz is for "the movement":
"It would be most interesting if Kravitz were actually straight, and using a bi identity to pull in votes. But what a statement about acceptance of LGBTs that, by itself, would be making."
What a statement Qweerty is making in refusing to accept Kravtiz's identity at face value. Comments on all articles are as predictable as they were with the Gay Softball League discrimination story, with claims that bisexuality doesn't exist, that Kravtiz is the person who made sexuality an issue here, and that it's just too "convenient" that he is currently dating a woman. All this in a week where longtime bi activist Kyle Schniker, complaining about lack of bi visibility in an (poorly written, trans-othering) article he wrote about the recent GLADD awards, was met with hostile comments by other queers about how "bisexuality is a useless identity," and "biphobia does not exist."
Clearly, the suspended players of D2 and Kravtiz might be hard-pressed to agree at this time.
"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said on the recording..."and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."
“There will be cheating if he can get away with it, because he already has tried to lie to people about a whole bunch of stuff, including his sexuality."
Oh, those treacherous, traitorous, slippery bis! How did Josephs know he's straight? Apparently he has been dating a woman since January. So once again, a bi person's identity is judged only by who they are currently sleeping with, and nothing else.
Kravtiz sent the audiotape to local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer. Of Joseph's comments, he said, “That’s completely inappropriate. The way in which my opponent mocked me is very damaging to members of the LGBT community questioning whether to come out. It sends the message that you are subjecting yourself to ridicule, even from allies.”
While the straightwashing of Kravtiz is infuriating, the response by some publications reporting on the story are downright annoying.
"We've hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat," said Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News and a pioneering civil rights advocate. "I've been doing this for 40 years, and I never have heard of this kind of charge in any race in the nation," he said. "I take that as flattery. It shows how far we've come."
It may be a new high point for gay and lesbian identity politics, but having gay leaders refer to Kravitz' identity being policed as "flattery" or even "humorous" is a low point for biphobia. Other publications reporting on the story have managed to out their own ignorance, with headlines like: "PA Congressional Candidate Outed For Pretending to be Gay," and LGTB blog Qweerty closing the story with more musings about how great this inappropriate and offensive treatment of Kravitz is for "the movement":
"It would be most interesting if Kravitz were actually straight, and using a bi identity to pull in votes. But what a statement about acceptance of LGBTs that, by itself, would be making."
What a statement Qweerty is making in refusing to accept Kravtiz's identity at face value. Comments on all articles are as predictable as they were with the Gay Softball League discrimination story, with claims that bisexuality doesn't exist, that Kravtiz is the person who made sexuality an issue here, and that it's just too "convenient" that he is currently dating a woman. All this in a week where longtime bi activist Kyle Schniker, complaining about lack of bi visibility in an (poorly written, trans-othering) article he wrote about the recent GLADD awards, was met with hostile comments by other queers about how "bisexuality is a useless identity," and "biphobia does not exist."
Clearly, the suspended players of D2 and Kravtiz might be hard-pressed to agree at this time.
4/20/10
Calling Two Strikes On Gay Sports Organization
For the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, a softball league that defines itself as an "organization that promotes amateur sports competition, particularly softball, for all persons regardless of age, sexual orientation or preference, with special emphasis on the participation of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community," one's on base percentage matters less than the side from which one bats. During the 2008 Gay Softball World Series in Seattle, WA, San Francisco-based team D2 had its eligibility challenged by another team. Subsequently, five members of the team were subjected to interrogation by the league and three of the five were found to not be gay enough to play ball. The men were asked intimate details about their sex lives in front of a panel of 25 people, most of whom were strangers. Quoting from the National Center for Lesbian Right's press release:
Ultimately, the predominantly-white committee voted that Charles, Russ, and Apilado, all men of color, were not gay. The committee voted multiple times on at least one player. The committee also declared that the other two players, both white—one of whom had given precisely the same answers as Russ—were gay. The committee recommended disciplinary measures against Apilado, Charles, and Russ their team, and the San Francisco Gay Softball League, including forcing their team, D2, to retroactively forfeit their second-place World Series win."
There are two major issues at the core of this fight. Policing bisexual identity is deeply problematic. Is being attracted to some men enough, or should we let a cadre of gay male sports fans dictate who is or is not bisexual enough to be in their company? The way sexual identity in this case is reduced to "gay" and "not-gay" is a clear erasure of bisexuality. Bisexuals/pansexuals/queers are not "not-gay" but are actively queer people deserving of a voice and presence in queer spaces. In addition, there is the problem of racial typing in regard to sexuality. This is obviously problematic with regards to how queer men (and people) of color are marginalized and made invisible for not conforming to the mainstream (i.e. white) notion of queerness.
Can this really be a serious stand as we enter the second decade of the 21st century? That this occurred is troubling. That 25 adults sat in a room and participated in this tribunal is staggering.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights has taken this on as a legal case, but if you are still angry, feel free to e-mail each and every one of the board members to eloquently voice your disgust.
(This has been a tag-team post by the Girl and Boy)
4/15/10
Retrosexuality's a Drag
There's an annoying trend in journalism these days toward trend reporting. The New York Times leads the pack in this dubious field. In fact, back in the April 1998 issue of GQ, Daniel Radosh wrote a trend piece about the rise of trend pieces. Kinda hurts the brain. In that vein, The Philadelphia Inquirer recently ran a piece called Manning Up, that claimed there was a trend afoot for men to dress like Jon Hamm's character in Mad Men. Supposedly these guys are in search of genuine masculinity and are using an AMC drama's characters as templates.
Not only is this basically a form of asinine cosplay, as Aaron Traister pointed out on Salon, but it has been done far better for years by the English. The Chap magazine has been selling to men who wish to permanently live in the English countryside in the days before Churchill could muster any respect and after the Kaiser had lost his.
This is simply Don Draper drag. It has as much to do with a real search for masculinity as women drinking cosmos with friends after watching "Sex and the City" had to do with feminism, despite what Caroline Hagood has to say. Dressing in sharkskin suits is just as much cosplay as urban guys driving pickups and wearing cowboy hats. These are not expressions of masculinity, but grown men playing dress up. There just happens to be a tendency among men to try to ascribe certain values to their costumes. Wearing wranglers and driving a F-150 shows that they're rugged western individualists but sporting a gray homburg tells the world that they believe in their grandfather's values. One can practically hear the Sam Elliot and Wilfred Brimley narrative voices going through their heads as they walk by. Wearing a hat, be it a ten gallon hat or a trilby, will not connect men to society in a meaningful way, and isn't that what all this horseshit is supposedly about, men's role in modern society?
Traister made a good point about how his father would have been a retrosexual role model, but was unhappy. Hell, GQ is constantly telling men to put on suits and act like their grandfathers, but this was a magazine that was thought of for years (and by many still is) as a gay men's magazine. In the early 60's when the Don Drapers walked the earth, they still thought people telling them to get their suits tailored seemed queer. Look at the way the Beats shunned those oh so retrosexual ideas of masculinity while sneering at convention. In short, men have always been fucked up about about their masculinity, and no trend piece in the New York Times is going to change that.
I have a feeling that these trends are nothing more than hipsters passing out of their skinny-black-jeans-and-vinyl-phase. They know they're too old to rock that look forever, but have never existed without a posture. Don the accoutrement and strike the pose, it's just as easy as riding a fixed-gear bike and primping bed-head was after college. Maybe it's a trend.
This is simply Don Draper drag. It has as much to do with a real search for masculinity as women drinking cosmos with friends after watching "Sex and the City" had to do with feminism, despite what Caroline Hagood has to say. Dressing in sharkskin suits is just as much cosplay as urban guys driving pickups and wearing cowboy hats. These are not expressions of masculinity, but grown men playing dress up. There just happens to be a tendency among men to try to ascribe certain values to their costumes. Wearing wranglers and driving a F-150 shows that they're rugged western individualists but sporting a gray homburg tells the world that they believe in their grandfather's values. One can practically hear the Sam Elliot and Wilfred Brimley narrative voices going through their heads as they walk by. Wearing a hat, be it a ten gallon hat or a trilby, will not connect men to society in a meaningful way, and isn't that what all this horseshit is supposedly about, men's role in modern society?
Traister made a good point about how his father would have been a retrosexual role model, but was unhappy. Hell, GQ is constantly telling men to put on suits and act like their grandfathers, but this was a magazine that was thought of for years (and by many still is) as a gay men's magazine. In the early 60's when the Don Drapers walked the earth, they still thought people telling them to get their suits tailored seemed queer. Look at the way the Beats shunned those oh so retrosexual ideas of masculinity while sneering at convention. In short, men have always been fucked up about about their masculinity, and no trend piece in the New York Times is going to change that.
I have a feeling that these trends are nothing more than hipsters passing out of their skinny-black-jeans-and-vinyl-phase. They know they're too old to rock that look forever, but have never existed without a posture. Don the accoutrement and strike the pose, it's just as easy as riding a fixed-gear bike and primping bed-head was after college. Maybe it's a trend.
4/14/10
Dan Savage's Racism: Ruining It For Everyone
As regards the agreeable everyone acknowledges that his judgment, which he bases on a private feeling and by which he says that he likes some object, is by the same token confined to his own person. . . . It would be foolish if we disputed about such differences with the intention of censuring another's judgment as incorrect if it differs from ours, as if the two were opposed logically.
- Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Immanuel Kant
If we look at commercial gay sexual representation, it appears that the antiracist movements have had little impact: the images of men and male beauty are still of white men and white male beauty. These are the standards against which we compare both ourselves and often our brothers - Asian, black, native and Latino. Although other people's rejection (or fetishization) of us according to the established racial hierarchies may be experienced as oppressive, we are not necessarily moved to scrutinize our own desire and its relationship to the hegemonic image of the white man.
- "Looking for My Penis: The Eroticized Asian in Gay Video Porn", Richard Fung
sorry but, NO ASIANS unless you are REALLY HOT
WM 35yo 5foot eight 170 and I LOVE DICK IN MY MOUTH
- "Skull Fuck Victim Takin Loads Tonight (san jose downtown)", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/m4m/1635287989.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:04AM.
vers here and could possibly be open to flip flop if you're hot and muscular too. Sorry not into Asians and no PNP or drugs of any sort. neg for neg.
- "shorter built TOP ready to plow (the city (sf))", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/m4m/1633679711.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:09AM.
Horny guy looking for regular HOT fun with Asians. . . . Be clean, safe and drug/disease free. Cute+++. Hairless+++
- "VGL White looking for HOT Asian guys - m4m - 28 (sunnyvale)", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/m4m/1633305340.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:11AM.
Human fate still rides upon ancestry and appearance. The characteristics of our hair, complexion, and facial features still influence whether we are figuratively free or enslaved. Race dominates our personal lives. . . . In short, race mediates every aspect of our lives.
- "The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice", Ian Haney-Lopez.
Yes, it hurts when someone rejects you for your race -- just as it hurts to be rejected for your age, weight, gender, or dick size. But what can you do? Everyone has an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason at all, however unfair or arbitrary the reason may seem to the rejected party. We can't say, "That's not fair, you have to fuck me!" when someone tells us to buzz off because of our race, weight or gender. I assume you've rejected guys -- you can't be attracted to all men, correct? Well, your reasons for rejecting a particular guy may feel just as hurtful to him as "I'm not into Asians" feels to you.
- "Savage Love" February 2, 2001, Dan Savage
we can see that all groups think, theoretically, that interracial relationships are acceptable, yet again whites are the least willing to have such a relationship themselves
- "Same-Sex Data for Race vs. Reply Rates" okCupid trends blog, available at http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/same-sex-data-race-reply/ retrieved 3/9/2010 8:27AM
- Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, Immanuel Kant
If we look at commercial gay sexual representation, it appears that the antiracist movements have had little impact: the images of men and male beauty are still of white men and white male beauty. These are the standards against which we compare both ourselves and often our brothers - Asian, black, native and Latino. Although other people's rejection (or fetishization) of us according to the established racial hierarchies may be experienced as oppressive, we are not necessarily moved to scrutinize our own desire and its relationship to the hegemonic image of the white man.
- "Looking for My Penis: The Eroticized Asian in Gay Video Porn", Richard Fung
sorry but, NO ASIANS unless you are REALLY HOT
WM 35yo 5foot eight 170 and I LOVE DICK IN MY MOUTH
- "Skull Fuck Victim Takin Loads Tonight (san jose downtown)", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/m4m/1635287989.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:04AM.
vers here and could possibly be open to flip flop if you're hot and muscular too. Sorry not into Asians and no PNP or drugs of any sort. neg for neg.
- "shorter built TOP ready to plow (the city (sf))", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/m4m/1633679711.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:09AM.
Horny guy looking for regular HOT fun with Asians. . . . Be clean, safe and drug/disease free. Cute+++. Hairless+++
- "VGL White looking for HOT Asian guys - m4m - 28 (sunnyvale)", author unknown. Available at http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/m4m/1633305340.html, retrieved 3/9/2010 8:11AM.
Human fate still rides upon ancestry and appearance. The characteristics of our hair, complexion, and facial features still influence whether we are figuratively free or enslaved. Race dominates our personal lives. . . . In short, race mediates every aspect of our lives.
- "The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice", Ian Haney-Lopez.
Yes, it hurts when someone rejects you for your race -- just as it hurts to be rejected for your age, weight, gender, or dick size. But what can you do? Everyone has an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason at all, however unfair or arbitrary the reason may seem to the rejected party. We can't say, "That's not fair, you have to fuck me!" when someone tells us to buzz off because of our race, weight or gender. I assume you've rejected guys -- you can't be attracted to all men, correct? Well, your reasons for rejecting a particular guy may feel just as hurtful to him as "I'm not into Asians" feels to you.
- "Savage Love" February 2, 2001, Dan Savage
we can see that all groups think, theoretically, that interracial relationships are acceptable, yet again whites are the least willing to have such a relationship themselves
- "Same-Sex Data for Race vs. Reply Rates" okCupid trends blog, available at http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/same-sex-data-race-reply/ retrieved 3/9/2010 8:27AM
Q: What the hell is happening?
A: I've decided to do this post as a kind of Socratic dialogue/Montaigne-esque quote-fest. Sprinled with netizen neologisms like "Montaigne-esque" and "quote-fest"Q: Oh that's precious.
A: That's not a question, and also, shut up and let's keep this moving. It's seriously getting more precious by the minute.Q: Fine. Question one. Is this post really an excuse to tear into Dan Savage? And also, do you secretly find him DILF-y?
A: It's no secret, I think Dan Savage is a total DILF. As for my motivations, yes, I have wanted to revist this rant for ages. "Who the fucking fuck does Dan Savage think he is?" was my alternate title.Q: What's the problem?
A: Where to start?Q: Why don't we do a close reading? Stop cackling with glee, you dork. What's wrong with the first line of the quote from Savage: "Yes, it hurts when someone rejects you for your race -- just as it hurts to be rejected for your age, weight, gender, or dick size."?
A: Actually, that line isn't so bad. At least it acknowledges the pain of racism, though it then goes on to equate that pain with ageism, fatphobia, sexism (or maybe transphobia?) and oh yeah, that last one, dick size, IS ALSO ABOUT SEXISM. But it's okay because under a charitable reading, what that sentence is saying is "oppression hurts," and who would argue with that?Q: The second line... "But what can you do?"
A: Yeah. Thanks for the message of hopelessness, Dan. Like queer men of color don't get that message all the damn time already. "Oh, something racist happened? BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO?"Q: Then that next one, wow!
A: "Everyone has an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason at all, however unfair or arbitrary the reason may seem to the rejected party." Racism isn't an "arbitrary" reason. It is a systematic, pervasive oppression that functions both institutionally and through its effects on individuals' conscious and unconscious minds. Also, the "rights" language is thoroughly unhelpful when it comes to things like sex and dating. We have the "right" to say racist, hurtful things, but we also have the "right" to call people on that shit and hold them morally accountable.Q: What about "We can't say, "That's not fair, you have to fuck me!" when someone tells us to buzz off because of our race, weight or gender."
A: Actually, first of all, we can say that (though it's probably a losing strategy for getting to have sex with that particular person, it might bring its own satisfactions). Second of all, saying something like that is NOT the only alternative to remaining silent and swallowing your hurt.Dan's assumption here is that the injury is merely not getting to have sex. In fact, there is an added injury to being explicitly told "I am rejecting you because of your race." The fact is that, as Ian Haney-Lopez notes, race mediates every aspect of our lives. This is as true for white people as it is for people of color, it's just that for many white people, the way that racism operates is to make them completely unaware that this is the case (invisibility of privilege blah blah blah is it just me that is bored of explaining this to people?).
On the other hand, most people of color in the U.S. are reminded multiple times each day that our lives are mediated by race, and not to our advantage. For gay Asian men, one of the ways this hits us is through devaluation in the realm of sex. Gay Asian men are either seen as sexless and undesirable or as a fetish (and constantly sexually available), in either case, we are denied sexual agency (our own sexual desires are seen as unimportant or important only insofar as they are a complement to white men's sexual desires). Not only that, but the ideology that Dan Savage buys into demands silent complicity with this sorry state of affairs, almost as a precondition to being allowed into the gay male sexual community.
On the other hand, most people of color in the U.S. are reminded multiple times each day that our lives are mediated by race, and not to our advantage. For gay Asian men, one of the ways this hits us is through devaluation in the realm of sex. Gay Asian men are either seen as sexless and undesirable or as a fetish (and constantly sexually available), in either case, we are denied sexual agency (our own sexual desires are seen as unimportant or important only insofar as they are a complement to white men's sexual desires). Not only that, but the ideology that Dan Savage buys into demands silent complicity with this sorry state of affairs, almost as a precondition to being allowed into the gay male sexual community.
A: Nice minimizing again, Dan. Nice.
Q: Are you watching Special Victims Unit right now instead of finishing your thoughts on this subject?
A: Sadly yes.
Q: That show is sexist!
A: [watching SVU]
4/13/10
Where Are The Good Blogs? And! I Got Called Out!
Ah, my first brush with e-fame. In the (sigh) third post at Tiger Beatdown on the Sady Vs. Freddie drama, Sady goes into a rant about how she is being perceived as egotistical because women are not supposed to trumpet how awesome they are. As a woman myself, boy do I get that. But! She uses a quote from a comment I left on Freddie's blog to illustrate the point: "...self-obsessed even for a blogger..." Of course, she doesn't attribute the quote to me, and lumps me in with threats of physical violence from male-identified commenters, and fails to mention that I use the quote in the process of telling Freddie that he's acting like a sexist douche. I guess being somewhat underwhelmed by the degree to which Sady Fuckin' Doyle manages to make both feminism in general but also other people's oppressions All About Her puts me in the same camp as dudes getting annoyed at women having a little bit of self-esteem.
Now it's not my intention to make this about some imaginary, Kathy Griffin-equse feud between me and what I am often told is now one of the best and most popular feminist blogs on the Internet (it's a good hook though, isn't it?) As I said here, on TigerBeatDown, and in Freddie's blog is that I think Sady is funny, and the opinions on the blog more thoughtful than not, but for the aforementioned reasons, I'm not really a fan. I don't quite get why that bothers Sady, since she has really more than enough fans to outweigh my lonely, bitter old voice. But this brings me to my point: where are the really good blogs?
Frankly, I'm not much of a blog reader. A post on ontd_feminism on LiveJournal discussing the best feminist blogs reminded me of why. I was generally familiar with the majority of blogs listed, but aside from the ones that we link to her, I have been underwhelmed. I think the LJ user DraperyFalls puts it well:
"i find blogs that just regurgitate other blog posts or quote liberally from news articles and post predictable thoughts extremely dull. unfortunately, many blogs like feministing, feministe, pandagon, theangryblackwoman, womanist-musings, etc. fall into that category."
I do like some of these blogs (as I link to them, obviously) and I cerintaly don't feel like Womanist Musings falls into that category, as it's chock-full of great content and commentary, but ze's overall point resonates: there are a ton of blogs that relate to the issues we're interested in here at SexOrTelevision that are largely link fiestas, drawing you into a recursive and yeah, boring loop. Somewhat problematic blogs like TigerBeatDown and I Blame The Patriarchy are exceptions, as in they often provide lots of real, meaty content, which is great. Of course, content means opinions, and some of those are tiresome or in the case of IBTP, difficult to defend, given the history of commenters' transphobia on IBTP and Twisty's ignoring of it, among other issues.
When it comes to writing about sex, a huge number of sexuality blogs seem to be filled with bad erotica and personal tales of deviancy. Which is great and there's certainly a place for that, but when that's all you've got, it's yawn time. Where's the analysis?
So I'm going to ask you, dear readers, all three of you: what are YOUR favorite feminist/trans/queer/gender-examining/sex-obsessed/anti-racist/kinky blogs? And why do you like them? I've discovered a few more the other day that I do want to add to our blogroll, but I am open to suggestions. Alternatively: why do you think this part of the blogosphere is the way it is, and what would you like to see change?
I'm not trying to be super-critical here (even though that's our nature over at SOT) - but I do think that when you have literally thousands of followers and get brought up of as "the best" in your field, you open yourself up to some nitpicking from the (secretly jealous) peanut gallery. We can only hope that one day we're widely read enough to have peeps rolling their eyes at us, saying, "I just don't understand why it's so popular," with a derisive snort.
Semi-relatedly, in our ongoing effort to make SexOrTelevision awesome, I am extremely pleased and excited to introduce our newest guest author, GirlAboutChiTown! My association with Chi goes back many years, as her writings on sex, kink, queerness and culture inspired me to start writing about these things myself. She's one of those real writers (i.e. published!) and just all-around awesome. She talked me into attending International Ms. Leather convention with her on Thursday, and I cannot wait to read what she has to write about the event. In the meantime, I'm going to be trying to figure out what to wear.
Now it's not my intention to make this about some imaginary, Kathy Griffin-equse feud between me and what I am often told is now one of the best and most popular feminist blogs on the Internet (it's a good hook though, isn't it?) As I said here, on TigerBeatDown, and in Freddie's blog is that I think Sady is funny, and the opinions on the blog more thoughtful than not, but for the aforementioned reasons, I'm not really a fan. I don't quite get why that bothers Sady, since she has really more than enough fans to outweigh my lonely, bitter old voice. But this brings me to my point: where are the really good blogs?
Frankly, I'm not much of a blog reader. A post on ontd_feminism on LiveJournal discussing the best feminist blogs reminded me of why. I was generally familiar with the majority of blogs listed, but aside from the ones that we link to her, I have been underwhelmed. I think the LJ user DraperyFalls puts it well:
"i find blogs that just regurgitate other blog posts or quote liberally from news articles and post predictable thoughts extremely dull. unfortunately, many blogs like feministing, feministe, pandagon, theangryblackwoman, womanist-musings, etc. fall into that category."
I do like some of these blogs (as I link to them, obviously) and I cerintaly don't feel like Womanist Musings falls into that category, as it's chock-full of great content and commentary, but ze's overall point resonates: there are a ton of blogs that relate to the issues we're interested in here at SexOrTelevision that are largely link fiestas, drawing you into a recursive and yeah, boring loop. Somewhat problematic blogs like TigerBeatDown and I Blame The Patriarchy are exceptions, as in they often provide lots of real, meaty content, which is great. Of course, content means opinions, and some of those are tiresome or in the case of IBTP, difficult to defend, given the history of commenters' transphobia on IBTP and Twisty's ignoring of it, among other issues.
When it comes to writing about sex, a huge number of sexuality blogs seem to be filled with bad erotica and personal tales of deviancy. Which is great and there's certainly a place for that, but when that's all you've got, it's yawn time. Where's the analysis?
So I'm going to ask you, dear readers, all three of you: what are YOUR favorite feminist/trans/queer/gender-examining/sex-obsessed/anti-racist/kinky blogs? And why do you like them? I've discovered a few more the other day that I do want to add to our blogroll, but I am open to suggestions. Alternatively: why do you think this part of the blogosphere is the way it is, and what would you like to see change?
I'm not trying to be super-critical here (even though that's our nature over at SOT) - but I do think that when you have literally thousands of followers and get brought up of as "the best" in your field, you open yourself up to some nitpicking from the (secretly jealous) peanut gallery. We can only hope that one day we're widely read enough to have peeps rolling their eyes at us, saying, "I just don't understand why it's so popular," with a derisive snort.
Semi-relatedly, in our ongoing effort to make SexOrTelevision awesome, I am extremely pleased and excited to introduce our newest guest author, GirlAboutChiTown! My association with Chi goes back many years, as her writings on sex, kink, queerness and culture inspired me to start writing about these things myself. She's one of those real writers (i.e. published!) and just all-around awesome. She talked me into attending International Ms. Leather convention with her on Thursday, and I cannot wait to read what she has to write about the event. In the meantime, I'm going to be trying to figure out what to wear.
4/11/10
Gossip! Or: How To Be A Privilged Ass
So being new to the blogosphere I haven't really had the chance to throw myself into the kind of rough-and-tumble arguments I'm used to having spent 10 years (ugh, really?) on LiveJournal. The thing you kids have to understand is that LiveJournal is different - it's basically the rough yet ridiculous high school of the Internet. People are mean there - me included. It's the kinda place where a simple disagreement over terminology ends with phrases like, "Fuck you and your mother, you racist cunt!" Rough and tumble, you get the idea. Having spent my e-adolescence (i.e. my real-life 20s) in such an environment, I tend to come off as a bit hostile to the more sheltered parts of the Internet, such as the horrible PolyWeekly forums, where the response to genuine disagreements over issues like silencing of queer voices or transphobia is a lot of weird passive-aggressive versions of "Fuck you and your mother." No, really, at this point I pretty much dare any reader of this blog to go to the PolyWeekly forums and try to start a substantive conversation about identity issues and see how far it gets you. No, I AM FUCKING SERIOUS, I will pay you ten dollars, I just want to watch.
Oh, the point! So unlike the drama of LiveJournal or the faux-niceness of a lot of message boards, the blogosphere (I will never not un-italicize that, not ever) seems to be about a sort of refined politeness, a salon, if you will, where we all meet and exchange ideas and recursively link to each other endlessly because really, 80% of serious blog content is just linking to another blog. Social status in the blogosphere, as I understand it, seems to be about three things: how many people link to you, how many people comment to your posts, and how many new blog posts an argument on your blog can inspire. Obviously under this rubric, we're doing pretty poorly (which is not our fault, as nobody is arguing with us in the comments! Get with it, kids!).
But I did find myself drawn into one particular drama-fiasco by two bloggers I'm not particularly fond of. What's fun is I can be impartial observer. The two blogs in question are the feminist blog Tiger Beatdown (already winning points for best name) and L'Hote which is a really boring blog by some dude.
Here's the rundown:
Sady at TigerBeatdown makes a funny although rambly post with another blogger about men, uh, sort of.
Our man Freddy from L'Hote gets offended at Sady's humor (which is really what makes her blog appealing) and her characterization of men who identify as feminist and wear "This is what a feminist looks like!" t-shirts and attend Take Back the Night rallies with the intent of getting laid. So he makes a stupid comment:
"Look, I have to tell you: your whole enterprise here, the whole long and short of it, appears to be an edifice designed to give you a platform that paws at discourse while denying the possibility of you ever getting called on anything. I mean the whole apparatus of the place. It’s like this constant recursion of LOLspeak/serious speak/LOLspeak, this Russian dolls style thing you’re so enamored with. It’s just a mechanism to introduce a self-limiting aspect on what you want to say; you want to be heard and to be taken seriously, but you want the out to be able to say that you were just goofing. Well, goof away, it’s the Internet, and it’s your dime, but understand that you are denying intellectual rigor when you do so."
Look, peeps, I don't need to see your eyeroll, because no matter how many times I read this comment, I DO IT TOO. Even better, in the same comment he linked to this bit of brilliance about the sad, sad tale of men in the feminist blogosphere.
OK, so here's where I'm going to out myself: I'm a misandrist, straight up. On the whole, I am not a fan of straight, white, cis men as I do not like their version of masculinity, and I generally find them tiresome and obnoxious at best: at worst they are violent, harassing, and dangerous. This isn't to say I don't like men. When I say I'm a misandrist, I mean I hate popular male culture and the behavior that it engenders, and that I do not automatically assume men are my friends or allies until they prove themselves to be so, regardless of how they identify. I don't think men and women are considered equal in our culture so any attempts to equate this to misogyny or any other form of harmful prejudice are not going to resonate with me because that would be facile and stupid.
Despite my misandry and my years of e-experience, I chose to engage with Freddy, because, why the fuck not? I guess I was bored. So let's have a quick rundown, my lovelies, of how not to act if you are a man displaying sexist behavior in a feminist space - and really, let's remember this applies to anyone who is attempting to be an ally in a space where we have privilege, right?
Freddy said something stupid, wrote a stupid post about it (already previously linked) and then Sady decided to slap him a new one. And he whined, because HOLY FUCKING SHIT some feminists were not nice to him even after he told them he was a feminist and he cared! THE GALL OF THOSE BITCHES. So he writes a new post about how insecure Sady must be and how mean they were to him but he wants to know if he did really fuck up, well, please tell him, but also, he's a nice feminist guy and they were mean because they made jokes about his peen.
OK honestly, I did, for a brief moment in all this, feel bad for the guy. Getting called out on your privilege is hard, making an ass of yourself in front of hundreds (thousands?) of readers is hard, and being defensive is a natural reaction. A small part of me wanted to believe Freddy when he claimed he really wanted to know if he was doing something wrong, and if so, how to fix it. So I wrote several comments to him - frank, but not particularly mean - explaining how he'd fucked this up and what he could do to un-fuck it, as did many other nice feminists.
Freddy continues to make stupid, whiny posts because Freddy is not particularly interested in examining his own behavior and luckily he has an echo chamber of high-fivin' bros to reassure him that any feminist - regardless of whether we're fans of Sady's or not - who finds fault his his ridiculous behavior is just a goose-steppin' idealogue spewing our hatred of men all over the 'tubes.
I guess they're not wrong, in which I mean, this kind of behavior really does reinforce for me why I happily, cheerfully identify as a misandrist. I get to live in a wonderful bubble called the Bay Area which already means I've pretty much weeded out the conservatives and libertarians for the most part. Better yet, I get to choose my own circle of friends which means that although I do in fact surround myself with men socially, I never have to hear in my real life the kind of shit that Freddy spews. And it's funny, because Freddy clings to his feminist label as a way to bludgeon actual feminists, while I only think maybe one or two out of a dozen guys in my social circle would actually identify themselves as feminists. But the thing is, these guys have proven themselves to be loyal, trustworthy, listenin', right-on dudes, even if they don't have a background in women's studies or really care about identity politics.
And that's what Freddy and his ilk - and let me tell you, they are Legion - will never understand. For them, "feminism" as a label is seen as a shortcut to the kind of acceptance and validation they crave from women, yet they don't understand that is earned through actions and behavior, not by what you claim to be.
Oh, the point! So unlike the drama of LiveJournal or the faux-niceness of a lot of message boards, the blogosphere (I will never not un-italicize that, not ever) seems to be about a sort of refined politeness, a salon, if you will, where we all meet and exchange ideas and recursively link to each other endlessly because really, 80% of serious blog content is just linking to another blog. Social status in the blogosphere, as I understand it, seems to be about three things: how many people link to you, how many people comment to your posts, and how many new blog posts an argument on your blog can inspire. Obviously under this rubric, we're doing pretty poorly (which is not our fault, as nobody is arguing with us in the comments! Get with it, kids!).
But I did find myself drawn into one particular drama-fiasco by two bloggers I'm not particularly fond of. What's fun is I can be impartial observer. The two blogs in question are the feminist blog Tiger Beatdown (already winning points for best name) and L'Hote which is a really boring blog by some dude.
Here's the rundown:
Sady at TigerBeatdown makes a funny although rambly post with another blogger about men, uh, sort of.
Our man Freddy from L'Hote gets offended at Sady's humor (which is really what makes her blog appealing) and her characterization of men who identify as feminist and wear "This is what a feminist looks like!" t-shirts and attend Take Back the Night rallies with the intent of getting laid. So he makes a stupid comment:
"Look, I have to tell you: your whole enterprise here, the whole long and short of it, appears to be an edifice designed to give you a platform that paws at discourse while denying the possibility of you ever getting called on anything. I mean the whole apparatus of the place. It’s like this constant recursion of LOLspeak/serious speak/LOLspeak, this Russian dolls style thing you’re so enamored with. It’s just a mechanism to introduce a self-limiting aspect on what you want to say; you want to be heard and to be taken seriously, but you want the out to be able to say that you were just goofing. Well, goof away, it’s the Internet, and it’s your dime, but understand that you are denying intellectual rigor when you do so."
Look, peeps, I don't need to see your eyeroll, because no matter how many times I read this comment, I DO IT TOO. Even better, in the same comment he linked to this bit of brilliance about the sad, sad tale of men in the feminist blogosphere.
OK, so here's where I'm going to out myself: I'm a misandrist, straight up. On the whole, I am not a fan of straight, white, cis men as I do not like their version of masculinity, and I generally find them tiresome and obnoxious at best: at worst they are violent, harassing, and dangerous. This isn't to say I don't like men. When I say I'm a misandrist, I mean I hate popular male culture and the behavior that it engenders, and that I do not automatically assume men are my friends or allies until they prove themselves to be so, regardless of how they identify. I don't think men and women are considered equal in our culture so any attempts to equate this to misogyny or any other form of harmful prejudice are not going to resonate with me because that would be facile and stupid.
Despite my misandry and my years of e-experience, I chose to engage with Freddy, because, why the fuck not? I guess I was bored. So let's have a quick rundown, my lovelies, of how not to act if you are a man displaying sexist behavior in a feminist space - and really, let's remember this applies to anyone who is attempting to be an ally in a space where we have privilege, right?
Freddy said something stupid, wrote a stupid post about it (already previously linked) and then Sady decided to slap him a new one. And he whined, because HOLY FUCKING SHIT some feminists were not nice to him even after he told them he was a feminist and he cared! THE GALL OF THOSE BITCHES. So he writes a new post about how insecure Sady must be and how mean they were to him but he wants to know if he did really fuck up, well, please tell him, but also, he's a nice feminist guy and they were mean because they made jokes about his peen.
OK honestly, I did, for a brief moment in all this, feel bad for the guy. Getting called out on your privilege is hard, making an ass of yourself in front of hundreds (thousands?) of readers is hard, and being defensive is a natural reaction. A small part of me wanted to believe Freddy when he claimed he really wanted to know if he was doing something wrong, and if so, how to fix it. So I wrote several comments to him - frank, but not particularly mean - explaining how he'd fucked this up and what he could do to un-fuck it, as did many other nice feminists.
Freddy continues to make stupid, whiny posts because Freddy is not particularly interested in examining his own behavior and luckily he has an echo chamber of high-fivin' bros to reassure him that any feminist - regardless of whether we're fans of Sady's or not - who finds fault his his ridiculous behavior is just a goose-steppin' idealogue spewing our hatred of men all over the 'tubes.
I guess they're not wrong, in which I mean, this kind of behavior really does reinforce for me why I happily, cheerfully identify as a misandrist. I get to live in a wonderful bubble called the Bay Area which already means I've pretty much weeded out the conservatives and libertarians for the most part. Better yet, I get to choose my own circle of friends which means that although I do in fact surround myself with men socially, I never have to hear in my real life the kind of shit that Freddy spews. And it's funny, because Freddy clings to his feminist label as a way to bludgeon actual feminists, while I only think maybe one or two out of a dozen guys in my social circle would actually identify themselves as feminists. But the thing is, these guys have proven themselves to be loyal, trustworthy, listenin', right-on dudes, even if they don't have a background in women's studies or really care about identity politics.
And that's what Freddy and his ilk - and let me tell you, they are Legion - will never understand. For them, "feminism" as a label is seen as a shortcut to the kind of acceptance and validation they crave from women, yet they don't understand that is earned through actions and behavior, not by what you claim to be.
4/9/10
We're Not The Only Ones Thinking About "Out"
I was really gratified to read this post on Feministing regarding the judgements people in general and the "blogosphere" (I really, really, really hate that word) in particular regarding celebrities who come out, citing Ricky Martin's situation in particular.
Yes, of course most people's reaction to Martin coming out was, "DUH," and I think I even said something along those lines in conversation myself. But I thought about it some more, and two different issues came to mind:
1) In the U.S. we think of Ricky Martin as a two-hit-wonder has-been. But he's still incredibly popular in Latin America, where the politics of him being an out gay sex symbol occur in a different cultural context than it does in the U.S. Nobody has noted that in his self-outing blog entry, Martin first wrote it in Spanish and then in English. I really don't think white Americans were necessarily the audience he was primarily speaking to here, yet our reactions to his self-outing act as if we were, because, well, we're white Americans - that's what we do.
2) Intersecting with my previous entry's point about Anderson Cooper, Ricky Martin wasn't closeted. One of the realizations the Boy and I came to the other night is that "closeted" is not the opposite of "out" although people who are highly vested in the outing of public figures pretend that it is. Being out is a public statement, but being closeted implies lying, secrecy, and shame. Based on the quick research I did, Ricky Martin never said he wasn't gay. If he was trying to pretend to be heterosexual, he did a bad job of convincing people, given that he decided to have children via a surrogate and was widely known to hang out around Miami with his boyfriend. That's not a closeted life, folks.
Anyway, Lori says it right:
"As a bi-racial cis-gender able-bodied woman in a heterosexual relationship, I may not be able to say I know what it is that Ricky Martin went through before deciding to come out. But I can't help but be struck by the hypocrisy of an America that forbids disclosure from their armed servicepeople and demands it to the point of issuing a frenzied media mandate from everyone else. Whether the criticism was coming from other gay men and women or not, rushing to judge the timing or impact of his decision fails to acknowledge his humanity and undercuts the ownership of his decision."
Just another area where identity politics are tricky, as they intersect with the personal and the political, and above all, a largely straight populace either demands people come out, assume they're already out, or demand they stay closeted based on entirely arbitrary modifiers to the situation. At this point, can we really blame some queer people for deciding they don't necessarily want to play that game?
Yes, of course most people's reaction to Martin coming out was, "DUH," and I think I even said something along those lines in conversation myself. But I thought about it some more, and two different issues came to mind:
1) In the U.S. we think of Ricky Martin as a two-hit-wonder has-been. But he's still incredibly popular in Latin America, where the politics of him being an out gay sex symbol occur in a different cultural context than it does in the U.S. Nobody has noted that in his self-outing blog entry, Martin first wrote it in Spanish and then in English. I really don't think white Americans were necessarily the audience he was primarily speaking to here, yet our reactions to his self-outing act as if we were, because, well, we're white Americans - that's what we do.
2) Intersecting with my previous entry's point about Anderson Cooper, Ricky Martin wasn't closeted. One of the realizations the Boy and I came to the other night is that "closeted" is not the opposite of "out" although people who are highly vested in the outing of public figures pretend that it is. Being out is a public statement, but being closeted implies lying, secrecy, and shame. Based on the quick research I did, Ricky Martin never said he wasn't gay. If he was trying to pretend to be heterosexual, he did a bad job of convincing people, given that he decided to have children via a surrogate and was widely known to hang out around Miami with his boyfriend. That's not a closeted life, folks.
Anyway, Lori says it right:
"As a bi-racial cis-gender able-bodied woman in a heterosexual relationship, I may not be able to say I know what it is that Ricky Martin went through before deciding to come out. But I can't help but be struck by the hypocrisy of an America that forbids disclosure from their armed servicepeople and demands it to the point of issuing a frenzied media mandate from everyone else. Whether the criticism was coming from other gay men and women or not, rushing to judge the timing or impact of his decision fails to acknowledge his humanity and undercuts the ownership of his decision."
Just another area where identity politics are tricky, as they intersect with the personal and the political, and above all, a largely straight populace either demands people come out, assume they're already out, or demand they stay closeted based on entirely arbitrary modifiers to the situation. At this point, can we really blame some queer people for deciding they don't necessarily want to play that game?
4/6/10
"Post-Out" Post #1: Johnny Weir as Post-Out Poster Child
Despite our open-mindedness, there is definitely a dogma that exists as an undercurrent to almost any discussion on sexuality within progressive, queer-friendly circles. I'll name a few: biology is destiny; identity is orientation and vice-versa; there are three distinct, non-overlapping categories of sexual orientation; female sexuality is fluid, whereas male sexuality is not; queer celebrities "owe" it to "the movement" to be out yet every out queer celebrity has been accused and will continue to be accused of using their identity for attention.
It's obvious that I don't agree with many of these "truths" - the intersection of what we call "orientation" - assumed to be inborn (and probably is in many cases) with "identity" (a social category if there ever was one) is so complicated, yet due to the gay rights movement shaping the language of visibility, the distinction between these two separate markers and what they mean has often become blurred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the gay rights movement as we know it started in a time, not all that long ago, when visibility was very low, due to culturally-enforced messages of shame and the ever-present threat of violence (which still exists today). Having a movement that dared to state that "we're here and we're queer," was incredibly important when most same-sex behavior was conducted secretly. And as a result, we get the concept of being "out."
This will be the first of several posts examining the concept of being out and how it relates to identity and a changing cultural landscape. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that personally, neither one of us are one of those assholes who claim that identity politics are pointless or useless. Without identity politics, we wouldn't have any of the modern liberation movements. I think we can acknowledge identity politics as a tool that is still useful, while also critiquing what aspects are limiting or no longer applicable to everyone. Hence: Johnny Weir.
For those of you living under a rock, Johnny Weir is a world-class figure skater and phenomenal athlete whose "flamboyant" style and "outrageous" personality get more attention than his actual performance in various competitions. Weir is androgynous - not in the the sexless, aloof sense, but in the visceral "Mick-Jagger-and-Alan-Cumming's- lovechild-but-with-more-sequins" kind of way. He exudes sexuality, masculinity, and yes, femininity as well. He's not the "safe" kind of male figure skater who attempts to butch up his routines and costumes in an attempt to prove how very "not gay" figure skating is (and in the process, makes it seem perhaps even more gay - Evan Lysacek anyone? Regardless of Lysacek's orientation, there's something macho yet queer about his Village People style of masculine performance).
The problem, however, is that Weir is not "out" in the traditional sense. He has never said, "I am a gay American," or "I am proud to say I am a fortunate homosexual man."
And yet the reaction in the queer blog world is not to condemn Weir for not being out, the way recently out Ricky Martin and Sean Hayes, or not-yet-out Anderson Cooper have been condemned, but rather to celebrate his snazzy yet thoughtful statements on the media's attempts to categorize him.
In response to critics who claim he's too gay or feminine, Weir has said:
"I hope that more children have the same opportunities as me, with the same parents as me, that let me be an individual, who gave me freedom, and taught me to believe in myself before anyone else would believe in me.
I hope more young boys and girls can grow up to have that love and support from their families, and it's very clear to me that those two men talking on that program did not have that kind of upbringing."
He has also said:
"Figure skating is thought of as a female sport, something that only girly men compete in. I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice, so speculation is speculation. I like nice things, and beautiful things, so if that is the only way people are determining that I swing one way or the other, then to me, that's sad. You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever. I never get angry about things because it's human nature to be jealous and rip people to shreds if you don't like them, regardless of the subject. I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone."
There's multiple awesome examples across the Internet of Weir defending his right to be his own bad self, and plenty of examples of the media fixating on his orientation and gender presentation as well. I haven't seen a single gay site demanding that Weir out himself, however, yet plenty of sites do the same for other rumored gay celebs. The difference? I suspect it has something to do with Weir's "flamboyance" and "fierceness" - that is, his lack of conformity to masculine gender norms. The idea is, nobody who wears that much fur and poses in heels could be straight. And it's apparently irrelevant that Anderson Cooper's reasons for not commenting on his orientation are as valid as Weir's - Cooper is gender-conforming, Weir is not. The former is perceived as having a responsibility to out himself, the latter isn't seen as needing to, we already know - have you seen the photoshoots? OMG!! He wears mascara, like, ALL THE TIME!
Of course, the notion that an androgynous or feminine gender expression automatically renders a man gay is an inherently problematic one. For all we know, Weir is bisexual, or has a serious political aversion to labels, and who knows, he could even possibly not like the cock. It would not be the first time a flamboyant guy was into pussy. The aforementioned Jagger, Bowie, and half of my high school drama club all fit into that category. As a woman long known for loving, in the biblical sense, men who don't conform to gender roles, I can assure you there are many flamboyant guys who dig the vag, regardless of how they identify. The conflation of gender expression with sexual orientation and/or identity is a useless trope yet still ever-present.
I don't know Weir's motivations for not commenting on his orientation - I can only guess. But in a world were people are still assumed to be straight unless their expression of gender deviates slightly in which case they're the gayest thing to ever have gayed, it looks like he's giving the mostly-straight sports world, as well as the media, the middle finger. After all, they're the ones going nuts attempting to comment on his sexual orientation without the ability to actually identify him as a homo. Weir has positioned himself to be a role model to every gender non-conforming kid out there, but actually declaring himself "out" while already being perceived as gay wouldn't benefit him, or even the queer rights movement - it would just benefit a straight society and media intent on categorizing him. And he doesn't seem particularly interested in giving them the satisfaction.
So the question shouldn't be, "Is he?" or even necessarily, "Does it need to be said?" but rather, "Does it matter?" Celebs and people in general are not expected to comment on how straight they are unless they are perceived as being gay - Hugh Jackman and his famous love for musicals comes to mind, and the rumors swirl despite a decades-long marriage to a lady. It's true that people are more likely to care about queer civil rights if they know someone who is out, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that it matters to gay liberation if someone as non-conforming as Weir is out or not. So does it matter when queer celebs such as Cooper, or pre-outting Rick Martin live their lives without hiding their queerness, if they're not shouting it from the rooftops? I'm not sure, yet, but I think the more important question at this point is who, exactly, does the outing of assumed-gay or unofficially-gay celebs serve?
More importantly, this video is basically the best thing of all time:
It's obvious that I don't agree with many of these "truths" - the intersection of what we call "orientation" - assumed to be inborn (and probably is in many cases) with "identity" (a social category if there ever was one) is so complicated, yet due to the gay rights movement shaping the language of visibility, the distinction between these two separate markers and what they mean has often become blurred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the gay rights movement as we know it started in a time, not all that long ago, when visibility was very low, due to culturally-enforced messages of shame and the ever-present threat of violence (which still exists today). Having a movement that dared to state that "we're here and we're queer," was incredibly important when most same-sex behavior was conducted secretly. And as a result, we get the concept of being "out."
This will be the first of several posts examining the concept of being out and how it relates to identity and a changing cultural landscape. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that personally, neither one of us are one of those assholes who claim that identity politics are pointless or useless. Without identity politics, we wouldn't have any of the modern liberation movements. I think we can acknowledge identity politics as a tool that is still useful, while also critiquing what aspects are limiting or no longer applicable to everyone. Hence: Johnny Weir.
The problem, however, is that Weir is not "out" in the traditional sense. He has never said, "I am a gay American," or "I am proud to say I am a fortunate homosexual man."
And yet the reaction in the queer blog world is not to condemn Weir for not being out, the way recently out Ricky Martin and Sean Hayes, or not-yet-out Anderson Cooper have been condemned, but rather to celebrate his snazzy yet thoughtful statements on the media's attempts to categorize him.
In response to critics who claim he's too gay or feminine, Weir has said:
"I hope that more children have the same opportunities as me, with the same parents as me, that let me be an individual, who gave me freedom, and taught me to believe in myself before anyone else would believe in me.
I hope more young boys and girls can grow up to have that love and support from their families, and it's very clear to me that those two men talking on that program did not have that kind of upbringing."
He has also said:
"Figure skating is thought of as a female sport, something that only girly men compete in. I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice, so speculation is speculation. I like nice things, and beautiful things, so if that is the only way people are determining that I swing one way or the other, then to me, that's sad. You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever. I never get angry about things because it's human nature to be jealous and rip people to shreds if you don't like them, regardless of the subject. I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone."
There's multiple awesome examples across the Internet of Weir defending his right to be his own bad self, and plenty of examples of the media fixating on his orientation and gender presentation as well. I haven't seen a single gay site demanding that Weir out himself, however, yet plenty of sites do the same for other rumored gay celebs. The difference? I suspect it has something to do with Weir's "flamboyance" and "fierceness" - that is, his lack of conformity to masculine gender norms. The idea is, nobody who wears that much fur and poses in heels could be straight. And it's apparently irrelevant that Anderson Cooper's reasons for not commenting on his orientation are as valid as Weir's - Cooper is gender-conforming, Weir is not. The former is perceived as having a responsibility to out himself, the latter isn't seen as needing to, we already know - have you seen the photoshoots? OMG!! He wears mascara, like, ALL THE TIME!
Of course, the notion that an androgynous or feminine gender expression automatically renders a man gay is an inherently problematic one. For all we know, Weir is bisexual, or has a serious political aversion to labels, and who knows, he could even possibly not like the cock. It would not be the first time a flamboyant guy was into pussy. The aforementioned Jagger, Bowie, and half of my high school drama club all fit into that category. As a woman long known for loving, in the biblical sense, men who don't conform to gender roles, I can assure you there are many flamboyant guys who dig the vag, regardless of how they identify. The conflation of gender expression with sexual orientation and/or identity is a useless trope yet still ever-present.
I don't know Weir's motivations for not commenting on his orientation - I can only guess. But in a world were people are still assumed to be straight unless their expression of gender deviates slightly in which case they're the gayest thing to ever have gayed, it looks like he's giving the mostly-straight sports world, as well as the media, the middle finger. After all, they're the ones going nuts attempting to comment on his sexual orientation without the ability to actually identify him as a homo. Weir has positioned himself to be a role model to every gender non-conforming kid out there, but actually declaring himself "out" while already being perceived as gay wouldn't benefit him, or even the queer rights movement - it would just benefit a straight society and media intent on categorizing him. And he doesn't seem particularly interested in giving them the satisfaction.
So the question shouldn't be, "Is he?" or even necessarily, "Does it need to be said?" but rather, "Does it matter?" Celebs and people in general are not expected to comment on how straight they are unless they are perceived as being gay - Hugh Jackman and his famous love for musicals comes to mind, and the rumors swirl despite a decades-long marriage to a lady. It's true that people are more likely to care about queer civil rights if they know someone who is out, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that it matters to gay liberation if someone as non-conforming as Weir is out or not. So does it matter when queer celebs such as Cooper, or pre-outting Rick Martin live their lives without hiding their queerness, if they're not shouting it from the rooftops? I'm not sure, yet, but I think the more important question at this point is who, exactly, does the outing of assumed-gay or unofficially-gay celebs serve?
More importantly, this video is basically the best thing of all time:
4/2/10
My Problems With Pansexual
The term "pansexual" is cropping up more and more, both online and off. I've gotten in some pretty heated discussions about the term. For those unfamiliar, the idea behind pansexual is that it defines an identity in which a person has the capacity to be attracted to all genders, or any form of gender expression. Hey, cool. The problem is that when questioned about it, 9 times out of 10, it seems a pansexual-identified person will define it in opposition to bisexuality, and it goes a little something like this:
"Bisexual means you're only attracted to men or women, but pansexual means you're attracted to transgendered, genderqueer, androgynous, and intersex people."
Cliche record scratch time!
There are two glaring problems with this definition of pansexuality. The first is that it "third-genders" or "other genders" all trans people, by defining them as not men or not women, but something else - a nebulous third category. While there are plenty of people who identify as trans who also identify as genderqueer or outside a gender binary, there are also many, many trans people who find this other-gendering to be extremely invalidating and offensive. I've been told I'm "reading this into" pansexuality but if you do a quick Google search on pansexual definitions, defining trans people as automatically outside "man" or "woman" comes up over and over and over again. Not cool.
The other problem is that it incorrectly defines the attractions of people who consider themselves bisexual. For a long time, and for many to this day, "bisexual" is a sort of catch-all term that encompasses anything inbetween "straight" or "gay". It was a term created in a time where notions of genderqueerness didn't really exist, nor did people spend a lot of time differentiating between the biological concept of "sex" versus the social idea of "gender." However, the term stuck, and became useful as both a personal and political identity.
This does not mean that all or even most people who identify as "bisexual" are invested or only believe in a gender binary or that they are only attracted to cisgendered people, and it is actually pretty fucking offensive to suggest otherwise. Most people would agree that an acceptable modern definition of "bisexual" means "attracted to more than one gender."
"But 'bi' is in the title! It must mean two!"
That's just facile, overly-literal interpretation that serves little purpose. For the most part, the definitions of "bisexual" and "pansexual" can and are the same. Some people choose "bisexual" because it's the word the heard first, because it's more commonly accepted than "pansexual", because they feel it already has a political or social movement behind it. Some people choose pansexual because they feel it's more inclusive, or it better describes them, or because they want to emphasize being especially attracted to people who fall outside a gender binary. And that's all cool. It's not cool to pit the terms against each other in an attempt to define other people's orientation. I'd say the same applies to "omni" or "ambi" (both less common than pansexual, but both also used).
Identity is complicated enough without drawing artificial boundaries around "bi" because you're stuck in a binary way of thinking yourself. Identification markers serve as shorthand and aren't always going to be able to fully encompass the complexities of a person's attractions and behavior in a single word, so why try? Aside from the terminology, as bi/pan/omni/flexible/whatever people we have bigger fish to fry - like the assholes who say we don't exist in the first place - to spend time shitting on people who are in the same boat you are.
"Bisexual means you're only attracted to men or women, but pansexual means you're attracted to transgendered, genderqueer, androgynous, and intersex people."
Cliche record scratch time!
There are two glaring problems with this definition of pansexuality. The first is that it "third-genders" or "other genders" all trans people, by defining them as not men or not women, but something else - a nebulous third category. While there are plenty of people who identify as trans who also identify as genderqueer or outside a gender binary, there are also many, many trans people who find this other-gendering to be extremely invalidating and offensive. I've been told I'm "reading this into" pansexuality but if you do a quick Google search on pansexual definitions, defining trans people as automatically outside "man" or "woman" comes up over and over and over again. Not cool.
The other problem is that it incorrectly defines the attractions of people who consider themselves bisexual. For a long time, and for many to this day, "bisexual" is a sort of catch-all term that encompasses anything inbetween "straight" or "gay". It was a term created in a time where notions of genderqueerness didn't really exist, nor did people spend a lot of time differentiating between the biological concept of "sex" versus the social idea of "gender." However, the term stuck, and became useful as both a personal and political identity.
This does not mean that all or even most people who identify as "bisexual" are invested or only believe in a gender binary or that they are only attracted to cisgendered people, and it is actually pretty fucking offensive to suggest otherwise. Most people would agree that an acceptable modern definition of "bisexual" means "attracted to more than one gender."
"But 'bi' is in the title! It must mean two!"
That's just facile, overly-literal interpretation that serves little purpose. For the most part, the definitions of "bisexual" and "pansexual" can and are the same. Some people choose "bisexual" because it's the word the heard first, because it's more commonly accepted than "pansexual", because they feel it already has a political or social movement behind it. Some people choose pansexual because they feel it's more inclusive, or it better describes them, or because they want to emphasize being especially attracted to people who fall outside a gender binary. And that's all cool. It's not cool to pit the terms against each other in an attempt to define other people's orientation. I'd say the same applies to "omni" or "ambi" (both less common than pansexual, but both also used).
Identity is complicated enough without drawing artificial boundaries around "bi" because you're stuck in a binary way of thinking yourself. Identification markers serve as shorthand and aren't always going to be able to fully encompass the complexities of a person's attractions and behavior in a single word, so why try? Aside from the terminology, as bi/pan/omni/flexible/whatever people we have bigger fish to fry - like the assholes who say we don't exist in the first place - to spend time shitting on people who are in the same boat you are.
Paquin Steps Out; Internet Responds
Anna Paquin outs herself as bisexual and people across Internet out themselves as assholes. She took part in an anti-hate PSA wherein she said that she is bisexual. According to people at the taping, they had no idea that she was going to say that. Todd Wright of Technorati wrote this:
"It defies credulity to suggest that such women are the object of discrimination. Based on an abundance of movies, sitcoms, men's magazines, women's magazines, teen magazine's, talk shows, websites, porn sites, and idle male conversation, civilizations from other galaxies have long since decided that such women rule our world."
That paragraph made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Yes, because being objectified in men's magazines, pornography and male bullshiting sessions means one cannot be the object of discrimination. So if Anna Paquin wanted to marry a woman, she can because she's wank material for readers of Maxim. Take that, Prop 8!
Wright goes on to say, "The danger here is not in discrimination but in the creation of an identity out of this now rather commonplace behavior. This is Paquin's ego telling her, 'I am not enough.' She's bisexual because she feels she's lacking."
Wow. Luckily, he didn't stop there. "This is true of all sexual identities: straight, gay, bi, transgender. We are not categories." So straight people are also straight identified because they're lacking. Now I'm at a loss.
The comments section of virtually every site featuring the news of Paquin's bisexuality are infuriating, but that's the Internet for you. What really stings is when people who should know better prove they can be bigoted assholes too.
Luckily, Todd Wright isn't the only asshat on the web this week. We also have long-time defender of the bisexuals, Dan Savage. In his blog for The Stranger, Dan said, "Paquin is engaged to be married to her "True Blood" co-star Stephen Moyer. Which pretty much proves that she's bisexual." This echoes his usual sentiments about bisexual people. He makes a biphobic comment, then gets angry e-mails, claims he doesn't have an issue with them, and the cycle repeats. He's consistent if not honest.
It's worth noting that Spike TV's celebrity blog was far less obnoxious. Go figure.
"It defies credulity to suggest that such women are the object of discrimination. Based on an abundance of movies, sitcoms, men's magazines, women's magazines, teen magazine's, talk shows, websites, porn sites, and idle male conversation, civilizations from other galaxies have long since decided that such women rule our world."
That paragraph made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Yes, because being objectified in men's magazines, pornography and male bullshiting sessions means one cannot be the object of discrimination. So if Anna Paquin wanted to marry a woman, she can because she's wank material for readers of Maxim. Take that, Prop 8!
Wright goes on to say, "The danger here is not in discrimination but in the creation of an identity out of this now rather commonplace behavior. This is Paquin's ego telling her, 'I am not enough.' She's bisexual because she feels she's lacking."
Wow. Luckily, he didn't stop there. "This is true of all sexual identities: straight, gay, bi, transgender. We are not categories." So straight people are also straight identified because they're lacking. Now I'm at a loss.
The comments section of virtually every site featuring the news of Paquin's bisexuality are infuriating, but that's the Internet for you. What really stings is when people who should know better prove they can be bigoted assholes too.
Luckily, Todd Wright isn't the only asshat on the web this week. We also have long-time defender of the bisexuals, Dan Savage. In his blog for The Stranger, Dan said, "Paquin is engaged to be married to her "True Blood" co-star Stephen Moyer. Which pretty much proves that she's bisexual." This echoes his usual sentiments about bisexual people. He makes a biphobic comment, then gets angry e-mails, claims he doesn't have an issue with them, and the cycle repeats. He's consistent if not honest.
It's worth noting that Spike TV's celebrity blog was far less obnoxious. Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
