I work in a bookstore at a big, busy international airport and, thus, encounter many bizarre people. Bizarrely normal. The past two days, two irksome incidents occurred and they are more similar than may appear at the surface.
The other day, a straight, white, middle-aged, upper-middle-class man came in to the bookstore. He browsed around, then bought something by John Grisham or Vince Flynn or someone else along those lines. While I was ringing up the book, he rambled about the author; I was politely maintaining my end of the conversation "ok...yeah...uh-huh" He told me with an awed grin "you're very agreeable. That's rare in a woman." ...I'm sorry, what? I clamped my mouth shut as he left, not wanting to spew out what was on my mind. Like, maybe he's the disagreeable one!
Yesterday, a couple of the same mold as that guy fought in the bookstore. They made up by talking about their money. Yes. Then they checked out the magazines stacked next to me. Cher is on the cover of Vanity Fair, the text beside her saying "Cher on her daughter-turned-son, Chaz." The couple talked about how Chastity was turning into a man, had a sex change, etc. Not the most p.c., but not that bad. Then, they began referring to Chaz as "it." As politely as I could muster, I interrupted "excuse me, he is not an it." The husband acted like I wasn't there and the wife said "sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry" until I stopped talking. I look very androgynous myself, so they walked away muttering about me.
Had just one of these encounters occurred, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But the two in a 24-hour period are symptomatic. These three people of the same age and class, probably unknown to themselves, work as gender police. They probably had no idea that the messages they were conveying were that women should be agreeable and that transpeople are "it"s. They probably have never thought about it. Under different circumstances - the couple shut down immediately, especially - a simple discussion could have planted a seed.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Homophobia, from Glee to Uganda
In a recent episode of Glee (if you're not a fan of the show, plow on anyway, this reference is brief), a lumbering jock bullied Kurt, the only openly gay character in the show. When Kurt confronted him in private, the bully kissed him and ran off. Chances are that the message of this episode isn't new to you: most violent homophobes are afraid of their own gayness and lash out to keep others from suspecting them. We've all seen this happen in politicians, religious leaders, and probably the homophobes in your own life.
Individual homophobes are usually pretty easy to figure out, particularly if you're of the school of thought that most people are at least a little bisexual/pansexual. And when a small group of homophobes band together, they're still rather transparent. Terrifying and even more difficult to turn over to the fabulous side, but transparent. And at least two of the people in the group probably have a steamy history anyway.
But then there are entire populations. Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is retiring, the stress of all the constant death threats on his and his family's lives has become unbearable. I can't blame him. A message or two is alerting but not hard to deal with, but thousands? Maybe all those individuals alone are lashing out because of what they fear in themselves, but they, together, have made a horrifying force. How can anyone tolerate that?
Uganda is among the countries that consider homosexuality a capitol offense and a Ugandan newspaper recently released information of a hundred gay people. Violent homophobia on a national scale, gay genocide. I had the misfortune to see a video of a Ugandan “professor of homosexuality” lecture. The basic anatomy, stuff that you can check on your own body, that he taught was way off. Students, journalists and reporters still ate it up. Hatred on a national level involves poverty, miseducation, fear and propaganda.
From an individual to an entire nation, homophobia is still strong. Many people have claimed that, due to the recent increase in violence (or it's just getting reported more), homophobia is in its death throes. There is little comfort in that thought when a bishop must wear a bulletproof best beneath his consecration vestments. I wish I could come up with some kind of solution to homophobia, on any scale, but it's beyond me. We must, above all, though, accept our differences and work together.
Individual homophobes are usually pretty easy to figure out, particularly if you're of the school of thought that most people are at least a little bisexual/pansexual. And when a small group of homophobes band together, they're still rather transparent. Terrifying and even more difficult to turn over to the fabulous side, but transparent. And at least two of the people in the group probably have a steamy history anyway.
But then there are entire populations. Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is retiring, the stress of all the constant death threats on his and his family's lives has become unbearable. I can't blame him. A message or two is alerting but not hard to deal with, but thousands? Maybe all those individuals alone are lashing out because of what they fear in themselves, but they, together, have made a horrifying force. How can anyone tolerate that?
Uganda is among the countries that consider homosexuality a capitol offense and a Ugandan newspaper recently released information of a hundred gay people. Violent homophobia on a national scale, gay genocide. I had the misfortune to see a video of a Ugandan “professor of homosexuality” lecture. The basic anatomy, stuff that you can check on your own body, that he taught was way off. Students, journalists and reporters still ate it up. Hatred on a national level involves poverty, miseducation, fear and propaganda.
From an individual to an entire nation, homophobia is still strong. Many people have claimed that, due to the recent increase in violence (or it's just getting reported more), homophobia is in its death throes. There is little comfort in that thought when a bishop must wear a bulletproof best beneath his consecration vestments. I wish I could come up with some kind of solution to homophobia, on any scale, but it's beyond me. We must, above all, though, accept our differences and work together.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
I'm too busy being FABULOUS!!
What's that? You disagree with my "lifestyle choice"? Oh and you voted for candidates who want to restrict gay and transgender rights? ...No, I won't respect your opinion!
See, queerdom doesn't actually hurt anyone. It doesn't cause harm, it doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms, and it makes the world a more fabulous place. The root of my "same-sex attraction" (which is all sorts of wrong) is none of your business, but I wouldn't change it if I had the opportunity.
Your "opinion" disrespects people who have done no ill. Oh, yeah, it's so great that you haven't ACTUALLY bullied anyone...you enable it. Anti-bullying legislation, employment and housing laws don't block your freedom to your opinion, they protect people from the destruction you allow. When you vote for candidates who want to remove that protections, you bring about more pain than anyone has just by being queer.
No, this isn't political and this isn't religious. This is cruelty.
See, queerdom doesn't actually hurt anyone. It doesn't cause harm, it doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms, and it makes the world a more fabulous place. The root of my "same-sex attraction" (which is all sorts of wrong) is none of your business, but I wouldn't change it if I had the opportunity.
Your "opinion" disrespects people who have done no ill. Oh, yeah, it's so great that you haven't ACTUALLY bullied anyone...you enable it. Anti-bullying legislation, employment and housing laws don't block your freedom to your opinion, they protect people from the destruction you allow. When you vote for candidates who want to remove that protections, you bring about more pain than anyone has just by being queer.
No, this isn't political and this isn't religious. This is cruelty.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Impact of Background
There is apparently a popular Irish joke of this guy coming to a roadblock during The Troubles. The militants at the roadblock as him his religion and he says "atheist." The militants talk amongst themselves, then ask him "Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist?" It may be a sad joke but it sums up how important one's background is. A Protestant atheist (an atheist of a Protestant background) would have different values, at least when it comes to disbelieving, than a Catholic atheist. And a Hindu atheist would be radically different! Where you come from, no matter how far away you are from it, affects how you approach things now.
The impact of background affects more than just religion, it works with fluid gender and sexual orientation. I strongly identify as genderqueer and my background of woman/lesbian affects my approach today, so I'm most accurately a female-to-queer. Had I come from the background of a man, I'd approach things differently. Coming from an intersexed or gender-free background would have been...optimal. Anyway, I'm usually most comfortable with feminine pronouns, the women's washroom, etc. because I'm used to it. Sometimes I'm frustrated that there are too few non-binary options; it's frustrating enough being perceived as a woman in the first place since this isn't exactly an egalitarian culture! A lot of transsexuals who "successfully pass" experience culture shock as they have to change how they approach things.
I'm usually comfortable functioning as a lesbian since that's my background and it's a lot easier to give the short answer "I'm a dyke" to n00bs than the long explanation "I'm genderqueer and I'm primarily attracted to fellow genderqueers...oh, you haven't heard the term before...etc." And then they get confused when I ogle Chris Colfer...I mean...what?
The impact of background affects more than just religion, it works with fluid gender and sexual orientation. I strongly identify as genderqueer and my background of woman/lesbian affects my approach today, so I'm most accurately a female-to-queer. Had I come from the background of a man, I'd approach things differently. Coming from an intersexed or gender-free background would have been...optimal. Anyway, I'm usually most comfortable with feminine pronouns, the women's washroom, etc. because I'm used to it. Sometimes I'm frustrated that there are too few non-binary options; it's frustrating enough being perceived as a woman in the first place since this isn't exactly an egalitarian culture! A lot of transsexuals who "successfully pass" experience culture shock as they have to change how they approach things.
I'm usually comfortable functioning as a lesbian since that's my background and it's a lot easier to give the short answer "I'm a dyke" to n00bs than the long explanation "I'm genderqueer and I'm primarily attracted to fellow genderqueers...oh, you haven't heard the term before...etc." And then they get confused when I ogle Chris Colfer...I mean...what?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
All -isms are Bullying
In the second edition of her book, CUNT, Inga Muscio admits “I am most often aware that I am a woman when I feel threatened...” In the same vein, Simone de Beauvoir quipped that one is not born but, rather, becomes a woman. What unites roughly half the population is not genitals, chromosomes nor hormones and what turns a child into a woman is not menstruation, penetration nor childbirth. No, it's the shared experience of playing second banana, as it were.
Whether you're overlooked because you're a woman or you're picked because you're a pretty woman, the problem remains the same. And this problem has been rampant the world over for millennia; it unites generations of women more strongly than any reproductive function. In this harsh world of competitive and weak human beings, man* needs to make somebody #2 in order to keep himself #1. Who better than not-man? And there are many women who push someone else, a masculine woman or a feminine man or someone else entirely (or even a prettier, more feminine woman!), into #3. This is what puts the “sexism” into “heterosexism”: insecure people pushing down queer people just to ensure that they're the ones rising up. It's bullying, all the -isms are just bullying on a larger scale!
There are women who claim to never have experienced sexism. They're either extremely privileged and cloistered or blind to, well, everything. It begins when parents proclaim upon birth “that's not a penis, bring out the dolls and pink frilly dresses!” for one and “that's a penis, give him a toolbox and blue overalls!” It is a privilege, usually tied to class, to have been brought up and then to continue in adulthood otherwise: not as a #1, a #2 or as any rank at all.
* I don't mean all or even most men, nor even just men in general. Clearly, Phyllis Schlafly has done more to perpetuate heterosexism than RuPaul.
Whether you're overlooked because you're a woman or you're picked because you're a pretty woman, the problem remains the same. And this problem has been rampant the world over for millennia; it unites generations of women more strongly than any reproductive function. In this harsh world of competitive and weak human beings, man* needs to make somebody #2 in order to keep himself #1. Who better than not-man? And there are many women who push someone else, a masculine woman or a feminine man or someone else entirely (or even a prettier, more feminine woman!), into #3. This is what puts the “sexism” into “heterosexism”: insecure people pushing down queer people just to ensure that they're the ones rising up. It's bullying, all the -isms are just bullying on a larger scale!
There are women who claim to never have experienced sexism. They're either extremely privileged and cloistered or blind to, well, everything. It begins when parents proclaim upon birth “that's not a penis, bring out the dolls and pink frilly dresses!” for one and “that's a penis, give him a toolbox and blue overalls!” It is a privilege, usually tied to class, to have been brought up and then to continue in adulthood otherwise: not as a #1, a #2 or as any rank at all.
* I don't mean all or even most men, nor even just men in general. Clearly, Phyllis Schlafly has done more to perpetuate heterosexism than RuPaul.
Women Leaders of the World
Countries that have had women prime ministers: Sri Lanka, India, Israel, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the Caribbean, Norway, Poland, Netherlands Antilles, Pakistan, France, Bangladesh, Turkey, Burundi, Rwanda, South Korea.
Countries that have had women presidents: Argentina, Bolivia, Iceland, the Philippines, Ireland, Haiti, Guyana, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Chile, Liberia.
What's keeping us behind?
Countries that have had women presidents: Argentina, Bolivia, Iceland, the Philippines, Ireland, Haiti, Guyana, Latvia, Panama, Finland, Chile, Liberia.
What's keeping us behind?
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Literacy
If you're female and can read this, thank feminism.
If you're nonwhite and can read this, thank civil rights activism.
If you're below the upper-middle class and can read this, thank socialism.
Literacy is extremely powerful and privileged. Tyrannical ruling classes know well to either limit the literacy of their peons or provide brainless propaganda to them. Out of the oppressed classes, the educated effectively rebel (as opposed to those with nothing left to lose, who lash out and make everyone look bad).
If you can read this, thank the minute probability that you were born into the right time period, location and culture. It is class privilege that allows you to read this now.
If you're nonwhite and can read this, thank civil rights activism.
If you're below the upper-middle class and can read this, thank socialism.
Literacy is extremely powerful and privileged. Tyrannical ruling classes know well to either limit the literacy of their peons or provide brainless propaganda to them. Out of the oppressed classes, the educated effectively rebel (as opposed to those with nothing left to lose, who lash out and make everyone look bad).
If you can read this, thank the minute probability that you were born into the right time period, location and culture. It is class privilege that allows you to read this now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
