"Couple Privilege" is a Bullshit Concept

There's been a trend in the last several years, in mainstream polyamorous culture – be it the most popular blogs, or podcasts, that is increasingly dogmatic – that there's a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do polyamory. This dogma is also increasingly restrictive and as a result, exclusionary. A lot of this dogma started out as what was actually very good advice on how to build successful poly relationships based on the kind of poly relationships the advice-givers themselves engage in, and what they personally need and desire in relationships. Which is great – for them. It's become a huge problem in the community for those who fall outside that particular box.

At it's heart, polyamory simply refers to the idea that people can have romantic relationships with more than one person at a time. This basic premise leads to a nearly infinite number of different relationship models, from the dreaded polyfi triad of the “unicorn hunters” (in which a preexisting couple attempt to find a bisexual woman to join their and only their relationship) to a completely open structure of any number of people with almost no rules or guidelines allowed and everything inbetween. What's been happening, however, is that anything that resembles the triad model is increasingly seen as the “wrong” kind of poly, and countless articles and podcasts are focused on trying to convince preexisting couples to move to practicing poly in as open and rule-free a way possible. To resist this, the mainstream poly culture says, is an exercise in the laughable notion of “couple privilege”

Lately there's a concept that's been gaining a lot of ground in what I'll just refer to as “mainstream polyamorous culture” as defined by the most popular and well-read blogs, articles, and forums, and most-listened to podcasts. This insidious injustice is referred to as “couple privilege.”

“Privilege” is a concept that comes out of what's generally referred to as the social justice community, and was specifically a concept first used in terms of how racism in the United States gives unearned, hidden privileges to white people, leaving people of color at a disadvantage that white people often don't realize or understand. The concept was quickly used by feminists, who coined “male privilege” and gay activists, who coined the term “straight privilege.” It then continued to expand in usage in social justice circles, with “cis privilege”, “passing privilege”, “neurotypical privilege” “thin privilege” and other uses, some of them appropriate and necessary, others misplaced.

The basis of the privilege concept is oppression. In the U.S., people of color experience oppression, and lack privilege based on the color of their skin and/or race. (This isn't really up for debate here at SoT). Women experience oppression in relation to men, who automatically receive male privilege on the basis of their gender. Privileges and oppressions intersect – a white woman does not receive male privilege, but she is granted white privilege.

“Couple privilege” doesn't work as a concept. You are not born as a couple. You are not guaranteed to remain a couple for the rest of your life. Being in a couple is a conscious choice. A gay person may not be out, but they still are not recipients of straight privilege, because the nature of anti-gay bigotry affects their internal sense of self, their ability to be out in the first place is a decision that largely results from anti-gay oppression. The analogy doesn't work. Coupledom, as a choice people make, doesn't function in a similar way at all to inborn traits that lead people to be privileged or oppressed.

One of the problems with the popularization of social justice ideas and lingo outside of the rigorous academic setting in which it originated is that complex concepts are often reduced to simplistic, black and white thinking by people who don't have a good understanding of the basics behind how oppression and privilege function. Anything that confers social, legal, or other benefits on a group is seen as a privilege, and any negatives that result from being part of a group is thereby explicitly or implicitly understood to be an oppression – when often it's not.

For instance: I completely agree with the idea, behind couple privilege, that “our” (U.S., western, etc) society encourages couple-based relationships. For that matter, so do the vast majority of other cultures and religions. Most societies have expectations that a coupled relationship – preferably legally and/or religiously sanctioned, with children resulting from the union, until someone in the relationship dies – is what everyone should aspire to. It's just expected. It's a clear socio-cultural norm.

Furthermore, being in a couple confers all kinds of benefits on the people in the relationship. Social approval, pooling of resources, and if legally sanctioned, a vast number of economic and social benefits. There is a reason, after all, why same-sex couples want marriage rights.

Based on that, it seems reasonable to say that couples are privileged. And if the people using the term “couple privilege” were basing their arguments on these clear social benefits, I'd be more inclined to take the term seriously, although even with this model there are still problems. Most legitimate uses of the privilege term as described above are based on inherent truths about yourself that you cannot change – your race/ethnicity, your sexual orientation, your gender (understanding that most trans people say they were always the gender they identify with – the issue of non-binary trans people is beyond the scope of this post). Whereas couplehood is far more complex and based more in choice than any of these other identifiers. Almost anyone can choose to be part of a couple, if coupledom is what they seek. (Whether they can find the ideal partner is another matter, but it is not difficult for almost anyone to find another lonely soul with low expectations who wants to be in a relationship. Think of some of the most awful people you know who happen to be married.)

If one voluntarily chooses not to be in a relationship – whether that's because they don't enjoy being part of a couple, or they are having trouble finding a partner that meets their standards – they are still choosing to be single, at least for the time being. There's also the reality that most people are part of a couple at some points during their life. From my point of view, the concept of privilege doesn't work well when it's an attribute that is something nearly everyone on the planet goes through, or is a result of choice. (This is also why I don't buy into the idea of “adult privilege” with regards to children/teenagers as an oppressed group, or “youth privilege” with regards to older people. There are severe disadvantages in various societies with being young, or old – and often legal issues that should be advocated for these groups. That doesn't mean they fit the oppression model.)

But I'm willing to grant that if a person is using the term “couple privilege” to refer exclusively to the important, wide-ranging benefits that couples receive legally, economically, and socially from the culture at large that my disagreement with the concept does rest almost entirely on the semantic argument between “advantages” and “privileges” and a healthy debate could follow.

But no. If you read the definitions and descriptions of couple privilege that are routinely linked to and discussed in the poly community, it becomes clear that the majority of it is based instead on relationship dynamics. Which is a preposterous misunderstanding of the concept of privilege.

“Couple privilege” pushers argue from two fronts: the emotional/practical benefits that couples receive versus single people, and specifically within polyamory, the ways that couples can supposedly use their “couple privilege” in placing the needs of their relationship above that of other partners.

Privilege/oppression is a concept that functions on large dynamics – things that affect an entire culture/society. Couple privilege pushers use the term almost exclusively to refer to things that affect individuals, and confusingly throw in a few examples of the larger disadvantages non-couples face in society as justification for complaints that at their heart, are based entirely on individualistic dynamics.

From the couple vs. single aspect of “couple privilege”, many people have made lists of what privileges couples receive that single people do not. Unlike valid concepts of privilege which rest on irrational, unfair bigotry against a particular group, much of the “privileges” put forth are simple issues based in practicality that has little to nothing to do with seeing singles as an inferior class of people. Examples include the idea that package travel deals are based on double occupancy and singles have to pay more – despite the fact that my single mother takes advantage of such deals for “couples” by traveling with a friend. Or the idea that larger living spaces are afforded to couples who can pool resources, ignoring that groups of people have been choosing to live together to afford nicer places by pooling their resources since forever. Another one, laughably, was the fact that single people may be relegated to sleeping on a cot when visiting family for the holidays, because the bedrooms are afforded to couples. The idea that this family arrangement is based on “oppression” is so ridiculous that I shouldn't have to even mention it, but it makes sense that if two people are willing to share a bed, they will get to sleep in that space to make more room for more people! The minor inconveniences that singles face under these situations are not benefits that only couples can enjoy, but based entirely in practical space concerns.

The other issue put forth by the couples versus singles model are emotional. Being part of a couple means you have someone to rely on for emotional support, to back you up in an argument, to take care of you when you're sick. But again, none of these functions are or should be relegated to romantic couples only. Friends and family can fulfill nearly all of these emotional roles, if the author had bothered to cultivate and treat non-romantic/sexual relationships as seriously as romantic/sexual ones.

It's also worth noting that these couple privilege checklists don't assess the many downsides of being part of a couple. If you don't believe me, stay tuned for our single privilege checklist.

Within specifically the polyamorous concept of couple privilege, the same individualistic error is applied. In this context, “couple privilege”, generally, refers to any action that results from the couple privileging their relationship above any other romantic/sexual relationships. You can argue that this is a bad or even “wrong” way to do polyamory (which I disagree with but that's a matter for another post) but it's not privilege as is understood within a social justice context. All a single poly person has to do to avoid couple privilege is to not enter into relationships with couples! A woman can't escape sexism, even if she doesn't date men, and a Black person can't escape racism, even if they don't socialize with white people. Real oppression is not something you can escape via a simple choice, but couple privilege, as defined by polyamorous people, can simply be avoided. Problem solved!

I hope you made it through this rather pedantic wall of text. I apologize for the dryness of this post, but when dealing with social justice concepts I prefer to err on the side of boring clarity rather than entertaining snark. Rest assured that my next post, which will explore in greater detail the problems with anti-couple thought in modern poly culture, will be a lot more fun, both for me to write and for you to read.  

iGive Up: Even in death Steven Jobs provides distraction

In the span of one week, we saw the deaths of two civil rights pioneers, one of whom defined the modern gay rights movement, and the other a cornerstone of the last century's fight for racial equality. In that same week, a former CEO of a tech company died. Two gave hope and voice to millions. The other marketed shiny tech toys.

One could argue that Mr. Jobs' impact was as great as that of both Rev. Shuttlesworth and Frank Kameny. Based on press coverage of their passing, though, one would get the impression that commercialization of the computer mouse stands head and shoulders above the fight for basic civil rights. The goals of a man driven to make his company number one in the marketplace must be more noble than the two who gave their lives and their safety so that others could live without fear, if media coverage is the barometer.

Slate would get some credit for at least memorializing Frank Kameny, if only the piece they published had not served to demonstrate their complete indifference. Not only does it say little about his life, but it appears to have been completely ignored by Slate's copy editors. One paragraph features the sentence, "They then and force the shrinks to listen to their claims that they were not crazy." The previous paragraph tells us that he founded the Mattachine Society. He did not. He founded the Mattachine Society of Washington. A week after the readers pointed out the error, Slate still
had not corrected it.

Farhood Manjoo eulogized Jobs for Slate in an article titled "The Man Who Invented Our World". He also deified the man, going so far as to say "Jobs had no patience for evolution. He was the intelligent designer." The writer even took his family on a pilgrimage to Jobs' house.

Slate's Rachel Larimore wrote "Steve Jobs Baby-Sat My Kids", about how Pixar, and by extension Jobs, raised the bar for children's entertainment. Thanks. Until that, few people had been aware that Pixar puts out good family movies.

On the same day, Aaron Lammer reposted a Longform.org collection of Job's speeches and interviews. Not to be left out of the dogpile, William Saletan wrote about how one should become an organ donor to honor Job's memory. Seriously, if you became an organ donor only to honor Steve Jobs, you should probably consider expediting the process.


Ron Rosenbaum's article on how Jobs was inspired by early phone hacking was published by Slate the day after Larimore's piece. Jobs was clearly inspired by the idea of using technology to circumvent paying for phone service so much that he created devices like the iPad where you are captive to the company store for content.

There was more in Slate about Jobs and Apple that week, but the point stands. And how many pieces about Reverend Shuttlesworth did Slate publish? Zero. Its African-American spin-off, TheRoot, had an announcement, a decent piece on the man's life and work, and a section of Al Sharpton's piece on HuffPo, but apparently didn't think his passing relevant to the general interest. Slate's editorial staff decided that its readers had no interest in Shuttlesworth's life. In keeping with the rest of their coverage, they could have at least tied it back to Steve Jobs, "Civil Right Leader Inspired Millions, Despite Failing to Impact Cell Phone Market."

What is clear is that they were judged based on how their efforts impacted us today. Largely straight, white fans of iPhones carried the moment because their interests dominate our view. This is a small part of the larger picture of how groups must continue to fight for basic rights in an environment of apathy and distraction. It isn't enough to say that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is over, or that people can no longer be fired explicitly because of the color of their skin. The fight for equality is far from over and it never will be as long as we fail to value freedom from oppression over the latest touch screen baubles.

What I learned from SlutWalk and Big Freedia

(X-posted from School For Scandal)

This was a helluva weekend- SlutWalk on Saturday, and a Big Freedia show on Sunday. For the unacquainted, Big Freedia is an incredible Transgendered "Bounce" rapper from New Orleans- a genre of music almost exclusively dedicated to shaking your ass. The mostly white, hipster crowd at the Do-Division Street Festival didn't quite know what to make of the glorious Queen Diva and her crew of rump shaking dancers, but before long, an ass-shaking dance-off was going down on stage.

So here's the thing. People- all kinds of people of all genders and colors, are on stage, doing incredibly lewd, sexy dancing- bent over, humping the stage, flashing panties and boobs as a self proclaimed "dick eater" spurs them on with a chant of "AZZ EVERYWHERE, AZZ EVERYWHERE!"

Is it sexy? Damn right. Are they showing off for attention? Of course. Are they only doing it for the attention? Maybe some of them are, but I suspect a lot of them are doing it because it FEELS GOOD.

Is it exploitation? Not really, going on stage is totally optional, anyone who wants to dance can dance and no one can tell them not to, and they dance because it's fun. Is it "Girls Gone Wild?" Not really, unless GGW had a "queer multicultural edition with occasional stretchmarks, cellulite and hairy armpits."

Nevertheless, there's a whole lot of scantily clad ass and crotches in the air. So what makes Big Freedia show different from your average hip hop video? It's the fact that the dancers are doing it for themselves. They are taking pleasure in the fact that shaking your ass does feel good, and it feels AWESOME to do it in public if you feel like you're not going to get raped/groped/harassed for doing it.

And yes, I shook my ass, and yes, I roamed around the street fair in a pink teeshirt, a pair of hot pink tights, motorcycle boots and black ruffle butt panties during and after the Big Freedia show. Because I feel awesome and sexy when I wear this kind of outfit in a place where I feel safe. I felt safe because I've got a big strong body, a confident kick ass attitude, friends by my side, and I was in a place where I knew harassment would not be tolerated. (And as soon as I left, I put my skirt back on, because I didn't feel safe outside of the confines of the event. Reality bites.)

To give an analogy: it's the difference between me kissing a girl at a gay bar vs. a straight bar. If I kiss a girl in a gay bar, nobody cares. It's a safe space to enjoy myself in this way. However, if I kiss a girl in a straight bar, all of a sudden men come out of the woodwork, wanting to take pictures, propositioning a threesome, staring, etc. The problem here is not that I enjoy kissing girls sometimes. I shouldn't stop kissing girls when I want to because it "asks for trouble." The problem is if I kiss a girl at a bar where an uneducated straight man thinks that I'm kissing a girl to entertain or titillate him (and to be fair, some girls DO but this should never be the automatic assumption), instead of doing it for my own pleasure, and assumes it's an invitation to harassment. Even if a couple of straight girls are making out with the sole intention of turning on straight dudes, it shouldn't be taken as blanket consent for creepy behavior.

My friend K. put it pretty succinctly when she said "the creepers ruin it for the gentlemen." As long as creepers are creeping, ALL straight men are going to run up against Schrodinger's Rapist.

So here's the thing.

A lot of people told me that I shouldn't dress sexy for SlutWalk. "Well, of course you can if you want to," they said. "But do you really want to enforce the notion that this is about titillation, and detracting from the anti-rape message of the rally?"

UGH, you're missing the point.

Don't get me wrong- I think everyone should wear what makes them feel comfortable, and I don't feel that dressing sexy is a requirement for SlutWalk at all. But you're just bad as that notorious Toronto policeman if you tell me "Don't dress slutty (AT FUCKING SLUTWALK!) because you'll attract the wrong kind of attention."

As a teenager, my mom discouraged me from wearing tight clothes, red lipstick, etc. because I looked old for my age and she didn't want me to attract the "wrong kind of attention." I know her heart was in the right place and she just wanted me to be safe. But it is only through questioning the idea that I must hide my beauty, my sexiness, and my spirit from others that I have found confidence and self love. If I'm gonna wear sweats, it's because I'm feeling lazy, not because I want to hide my fabulous ass (and trust me honey, nothing really succeeds in hiding my ass). As a grown woman, I'll wear a tight skirt if I damn well please. As a curvy woman, my body is OBJECTIFIED no matter what I wear. Nothing short of a burlap sack will hide my breasts, and I refuse to wear a burlap sack. I will take control of my sexuality and my appearance and wear what turns ME on. Being a woman in a sex negative society is never "safe" regardless of what you wear, but I refuse to be ruled by fear.

How often am I allowed to walk down the street in Downtown Chicago in a super short rainbow minidress and gartered fishnet stockings and feel TOTALLY SAFE AND CONFIDENT AND FREE? I am sure that some people considered what I wore to Slutwalk to be "slutty" but it was hardly playboy bunny gear, and as a fat girl, baring my thighs in public feels like an awesome fuck you to a culture that wants me to believe I am undesirable when we know it just AIN'T TRUE. I don't mind being looked at, flirted with, whatever as long as it is done in a way that is respectful and consensual. And Slutwalk gave me a glimpse of what society would be like if I could wear whatever I damn pleased without thinking "will this get me harassed if I wear it in public." And it was a DAMN GOOD feeling.



My point here, is the problem isn't shaking your booty for a crowd, or showing your thighs in public. It's the idea that doing these things means you're "asking" to be violated. So honestly, I think the MORE we create safe, inclusive spaces do these things that make us feel good (and no judgement if you don't enjoy dressing scanty and lascivious dancing- it ain't for everyone) the more we are moving away from rape culture and towards a sex positive culture where we can do what FEELS GOOD- even if it's *gasp* SEXY- without fear of shame, assault, or humiliation.

Slutwalk Chicago DIY Poster Contest: Yr Doing It Wrong

(This article also appears on School for Scandal)

So, I'm pretty stoked about SlutWalk Chicago.

For the uninitiated, Slutwalk is an international feminist movement that began in Toronto, that promotes dissolution of "Rape Culture" by emphasizing that men should be taught NOT TO RAPE instead of all the emphasis on teaching women how to "protect themselves from rapists" with advice ranging from don't wear a ponytail, don't go out alone at night, and most horrifying "don't dress like a slut," the comment that sparked the movement in the first place.
This sort of mindset teaches women to view themselves as "victims waiting to happen" (reminds me of that horrible "potentially pregnant" fracas a few years ago.) I think that self defense education for women is important, but so is anti-rape education for EVERYONE.

All around awesome chick Diamanda Galas once said something along the lines of "Women need to stop thinking like prey and starting thinking like predators," and I think that's what SlutWalk is all about. Driving home the point that even if you're walking down the street in a G string and lucite heels, it doesn't mean you "deserve" to be raped. Nobody should be blamed for their sexual assault. Our culture needs to shift in a way that rape is never considered ok, and that there is more support and less victim blaming and stigmatization of survivors.

The following is a list of things that SlutWalk aren't about (to my understanding):

1. Reclaiming "slut" as a positive label or celebrating "slut pride"

2. Dressing/acting "slutty" in public Girls Gone Wild style (participants are encouraged to wear whatever they feel comfortable in, whether that's a mini skirt or sweatpants)

3. Speaking out against labeling women as sluts. (Well, this one is a gray area because of #1. I think this movement is very anti-slut shaming but not necessarily dismissive of positive sluthood and general sex positivity. But people are still wildly divided on whether or not being called slut is a good thing, and I don't think SlutWalk is intended as a debate on the validity of the slut label.)

None of the above are necessarily bad things and possibly incidental to this event, but I don't think they should be the emphasized in promoting this event. I think a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of this event because "slut" is such a loaded word. That's why I'm a little perturbed by the results of the SlutWalk DIY Poster Contest.

I feel bad picking apart the entries, because to be fair, I DIDN'T enter a design. And it's unfair for me to criticize the works of people who did, because they took the time and effort and put themselves out there, but I do feel like I need to speak out when images seem inappropriate/problematic to the aims of a movement I am a part of. I realize this is my subjective opinion, and if you want to argue WHY you think these posters are great, be my guest as long as you are willing keep dialogue open and respectful.

I will not be reposting images here, but you can click here to see them. I like the idea of a DIY poster contest instead of hiring an ad firm, but I am sad to say that I feel like the majority of these posters miss the point of SlutWalk entirely, and some are just flat out creepy to me.

Of the ten submissions, six feature sexualized images of women's bodies where you cannot see her face. With one exception, they are pictures of extremely thin "conventionally attractive" white women. Four are of women with their lingerie-clad asses in sexually available positions, two ONLY show the ass and no other part of the woman, with catchy taglines like "I think you're sexy but I don't want to rape you," and "Slut Yeah Fuck Yeah." I might be ok with pictures of a sexy REAL people where you could see faces as well as bodies, but these pictures appear to be lifted from mainstream advertising/pornography and I suspect that other people might find them alienating/triggering as well.

I am saying all this as sex positive feminist who loves porn, lingerie, and copious fucking. I don't currently identify as a slut, but I have in the past. I probably will wear something sexy to Slut Walk, because I enjoy dressing up. All this said, these posters leave a bad taste in my mouth. This imagery might make *some* sense if the event was actually focused on "slut pride" instead of rape prevention, but instead I see a feminist movement getting the American Apparel treatment, and it bugs me.

The other side of the coin is a poster that says "Don't call me a slut/other perjorative implying promiscuity" (which flies in the face of the women who do self-identify as sluts, and I don't believe SlutWalk strives to takes a hard stance either way.) Another poster features yet another headless woman in a demure, girlish powder blue dress clutching daisies (it's objectification of a different flavor) with the catchphrase: "Virgin or Slut? Love Who You Are." I understand the positive message that the slogan is trying to convey, but it falls down the Madonna/Whore rabbit hole all over again. Many of us fall outside of that limited dichotomy altogether.

This is about the only poster that I feel accurately represents SlutWalk, so it got my vote. I confess I am let down by the way entrants chose to interpret the meaning of SlutWalk (especially since the movement has been so distorted by the media already) and I hope the winning entry will accurately reflect a movement of women who don't necessarily wish to be labeled in black and white as hyper-sexualized "sluts" or sex-negative "prudes", but complex human beings committed to creating a culture without rape.

San Francisco Pride: As Queer As A Five Dollar Bill

So this is what the same-sex marriage has wrought. The homonormative white moneyed gay male collective has worked very hard to put up images of gay life as a series of set pieces depicting happy wealthy white men pedaling bicycles and smiling benignly. Pride, once a radical public casting-off of fear and shame, it is now street party in which vendors hock astroturf and pricey Smirnoff coolers.

The Saturday before the Pride Parade is focussed around Dyke March. This one day may contain the vast majority of true Pride spirit, and well, pride. People congregate in Dolores Park, drinking beer and mingling, looking for old friends striking up conversations with strangers. And queuing up for the Port-a-potties. Later in the day, people take to the streets, marching, dancing, and celebrating queer pride.

Saturday's vibe is much more community and queer focused. It's truly celebratory and that's what is really missing from the big show on Sunday. While Sunday has the parade, stages and booths, it feels out of sync with the grass-roots nature of the communities represented and their struggle for representation. It feels straight. It's a rainbow flag painted on any generic street festival. The parade feels like a presentation for straight people. “Hey folks, marvel at the queer zoo, and when you're done, go grab some brochures about vinyl siding!” Dyke March works because it is their march, not a function of the local tourism board or straight out-of-town gawkers looking to stare at crazy SF queers.

Maybe it's time to take the whole Pride festival back to its roots. Replace the show with more focus on issues and the people fighting for recognition. The big issues should not be reduced to bumper sticker political messages held up on floats. What I'm saying is, call the dykes, we need their help.

Atheists: Stop Trashing My Scene

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.

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.