The Bilerico Project: Michael Kimmel - Is there a Gay "Guyland"?

Jason Tseng joins us from The Bilerico Project:

Michael Kimmel, a leading sociologist and scholar in the study of masculinity, recently released his new book, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. In his latest work, Kimmel investigates "Guyland," a new development stage in young men's lives that encompasses the years from 16 to 26, where young men experience a prolonged adolescence filled with excessive partying, promiscuity, and aimlessness.

As some of you might know, I studied Gender studies in university and am a big geek for this kind of stuff. So I was naturally very interested, especially because I think that men as a whole have not had the same opportunity to critically examine their gender and masculinity as women, to some extent, have been able to do through the various feminist, anti-patriarchy, and women's liberation movements.

I had the opportunity to attend a book reading/signing with Kimmel in New York City this week and after listening to him speak, I was left with several questions as to this supposed "Guyland" and how it effects and relates to the gay community.

I haven't actually read the entire book... which probably would prove helpful. But I've taken the liberty of summarizing Kimmel's presentation last night, and to arrange my thoughts after the jump. Be forewarned it's a bit long, but I think it'll be a great launching pad for discussion. I hope y'all will take the time and read it and respond! I'm very anxious to see what everyone else has to say!

-- Summary --

Men (he disclaims that his research is primarily inquiring into the lives of predominantly white, straight, middle-class, college educated men although he also interviewed many men across racial, ethnic, and sexual orientational lines) are experiencing a new stage in the developmental process, roughly between the ages of 16-26, where they leave the rigid and structured lives under their parental supervision and into the completely unsupervised lives as "guys" during college and onward. In this "precarious world where boys become men," we have 19 year olds telling 18 year olds how to be men, "and that can't go very well." Guyland is dominated by excessive drinking, "bros before hos" brotherhood mentality, and a pervading need to "keep up" with the imagined excesses of one's peers (be it "hooking up", consuming alcohol/drugs, partying, etc.).

Kimmel also relates this development to women's relative rise in social standing and their supposed "equality." Because women are involved in almost every area in these men's lives (administration, their classrooms, academia, student organization) and are often running circles around and surpassing them, these men retreat into the safety of the brotherhood of Guyland and drift through their studies, merely passing classes but without a great sense of direction in their lives.

Women are also forced to navigate Guyland by conforming to certain expectations. In many universities, fraternities are the only Greek organizations permitted to have access to beer/alcohol at their parties, which puts them in decisive power over women's social lives. Kimmel also cites documented instances of traumatic sorority rituals called "Circle the fat" where incoming pledges are made to strip to their underwear, blindfold themselves, and lay on the floor while fraternity brothers humiliate and use permanent markers to circle the parts of their bodies deemed "needing work." So in some ways, women are forcing each other to comport their bodies into shapes that enable them entree into Guyland.

Guys drift from colleges into what Kimmel names "serial jobonomy," or the constant employment in dead end jobs with little to no momentum or aspirations. Desiring to continue the party regimen of their college years, these Guys are unable to find themselves meaning in their work or their shallow social lives. These years result in a stagnation of emotional and social development, as they continue to live in apartments after graduation with the same group of college friends, partaking in the same college antics of Guyland. Kimmel claims that most men tend to phase out of Guyland by their mid to late twenties either through recommitment to their careers, relationships, families, etc.

-- Thoughts --

On one hand I really appreciate Kimmel's research into the development of masculinity in these formational (or rather, non-formational) years in young men's lives. I think that men on a whole have never had the opportunity to really discuss or critically think about gender as women have been able to, through the various women's lib, feminist, and anti-patriarchy movements.

However, I am a little disappointed with Kimmel's focus on almost exclusively white male middle class men. While a study in hegemony is helpful, I, personally, am more interested in how more fringe groups deal with or navigate this "guyland."

Kimmel talked briefly about this:

In regards to the culture of "Hooking Up", Black and Latino men tended not to follow the same Guyland cultural scripts as many of their white male counterparts when in communities where they were numerically weak. However, this seems to change in high minority communities like Howard University and other Historically Black Colleges and Universities, where black men do engage in more Guyland-esque behavior. The reasoning behind this is that when there are fewer black people in their communities, black men are reluctant to engage in similar Guyland behavior with their "sisters" for fear of getting a negative reputation in a relatively small pool of potential partners. These nonwhite men are similarly constrained from participating with their white friends and seeking white female partners for fear of reprise from their nonwhite male peers.

Kimmel found that Asian men and Christian students did not engage in similar scripts, but rather followed more traditional "dating" behaviors. (Although, why this is is not particularly well expounded upon. I would contend that Asian men suffer from a pervasive sexual racism that exists which labels them as unmasculine, undersirable, poorly endowed, asexual beings. I remember reading a study on Asian students at Duke University that found that Asian women enjoyed relatively unencumbered social mobility where dating behavior was concerned. But Asian men were chiefly confine to other Asian women for partners. Couple this with significant cultural and family pressure to continue the family line, especially an Asian family line, it is no wonder that Asian men are more likely to seek Asian women in a more long-term marriage/nuclear-family arrangement).

More so, I am concerned with Kimmel's assertion that the most viable exit/salvation from "this perilous world" is through a return or adherence to the pervading script of the heterosexual, nuclear family structure. While Kimmel was quick to acknowledge that the form of the family does not equate the content of the family, there still seems to be a heavy emphasis on the raising of children and the seeking of capitalistic status and stability through attainment of wealth and career as the fundamental components of "manhood."

I also am keenly interested at how this supposed "Guyland" effects gay men. Is there a GayGuyland? A Fayland, as it were?

My own experiences lend me to believe that a Fayland, if even possible, would only be viable in an environment with a certain critical mass of gay men. So, if Fayland were to exist, it could only be created in gay-enclaves, most likely centered around urban areas and larger schools where the sheer size of the institutions would mean a large enough contingent of queer men to sustain such a community. Also, given the relatively late sexual awakening in many gay men (some well into their college careers, where most heterosexual men have been sexually aware/active since their high school and middle school days), it would seem to suggest that Fayland would have a longer and more fuzzy beginning and end, perhaps extending from one's 20s to their mid to late 30s or beyond.

Some of Kimmel's findings definitely seem to relate to Fayland... Gay men, especially in gay enclaves definitely become engrossed in this extended adolescence characterized by promiscuity, excessive drinking and drug use, partying, bar crawling, etc. But additionally, Gay men also seem to exhibit many of the qualities of women navigating Guyland, with an obsession on one's body and weight, up-to-date fashion, a need to exhibit an "effortless perfection."

So, has Fayland created a double vice for gay men: caught between the privilege of a gay brotherhood of endless fun and excess, while simultaneously being the cause of their own victimhood to the endless self-policing of body image and weight issues? And what, then is our saving grace, our escape from Fayland? Is it the eventual obsolescence of our beauty that forces us to become "serious" and resign to "manhood?" How does the newfound prospect of legitimacy through marriage/civil unions as an escape from Fayland? Is the replication of heterosexual family models a viable answer to this prolonged adolescence?

Please let me know what you think! I'd love to engage in a real conversation about these topics!

(...to the full post)

Rev. Haffner: The New Seven Deadly Sins

The Rev. Debra Haffner joins us from Sexuality and Religion: What's the Connection?:

Earlier this week, a Vatican representative announced a new list of the seven mortal sins for the 21st century. As I understand it a mortal sin without accompanying confession is the route to hell. I asked my colleague Dr. Kate Ott, Associate Director of the Religious Institute and a Roman Catholic theologian, to share her thoughts on the new list:

After reading the list of new mortal sins, I wanted to applaud the Catholic Church, of which I am a laywoman and trained academic moral theologian. For the first time in years, there seems to be a focus on the systemic nature of sin. And then, I read the finer details. Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti named these at the close of a week long Vatican conference on confession. Why create a new list of mortal sins that recognize the scope of globalization and systemic oppression, all in an effort to revitalize individual confession?

A mortal sin “is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (Catechism, #1857, © 1994). But “inflicting poverty” is not done by one person, but global capitalism in which we all participate. “Environmental pollution” is the result of individual choices, but also fixed social systems of waste disposal, water treatment, and energy distribution. The confession booth is either going to be overflowing . . . or people will soon exempt themselves from these sins. Who can claim full knowledge and consent for global markets? I’m feeling sloth creeping into our psyche.

The traditional seven deadly (or mortal) sins – pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth – already seem to cover the modern evils. Isn’t gluttony, greed, maybe even pride and envy at the foundation of “accumulating excessive wealth.” It is the intention behind the sin that classifies it as mortal. Of course, Girotti does not fail to mention abortion and pedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our time. I assume he puts those under “violation of fundamental rights of human nature.” Somehow, the social nature of sin is lost on these remarks. Why not note patriarchy and the devaluing of women’s reproductive rights, instead of abortion? And why not own up to the gravity of pedophilia as a sin of power and pride motivating years of shuffling priests instead of holding them accountable?

I want to place my vote for keeping the age old sins. Most of the new sins are a result of the original list. Shaming folks into confession because they drive their cars too much, won’t result in a reversal of global warming. But people understanding how greed affects their daily choices could result in real conversion on multiple levels. Penance is intended to bring about a conversion of heart through God’s grace . . . Recognizing the fundamental rights of every human being, especially women around the world, means we take environmental, racial, economic, sexual, and reproductive justice seriously – in their systemic entirety.

(...to the full post)

SistersTalk: Sexist Jabs Are Exactly What Hillary Clinton Wants

Genia Stevens joins us from SistersTalk:

A Star Tribune analysis posted late last night discusses how women voters are now standing firmly behind Hillary Clinton after noticing what they considered was blatantly sexist treatment by the press, other politicians, and some male voters

Even Democratic women with no intention of voting for Clinton found themselves drawn into the debate and shaken by what briefly seemed like a humiliating end to the most promising female candidacy in U.S. history. The process seems to have changed a few minds.

I've already said gender will be a big issue in the 2008 election. But many female voters of a certain age range never really thought gender would be a factor in the 2008 presidential race. People like 37 year-old Allison Smith-Estelle stated, "I do want Hillary Clintom to take the White House, but until she lost Iowa, I didn't realize how much, or how much it had to do with her being a woman."

If Hillary's emotional breakdown on January 7 -- and the media's subsequent treatment of that breakdown -- was what Clinton needed to (gently) remind non-supportive female voters of her gender, then I'm thinking Clinton is patting herself on the back right now and saying "Mission Accomplished." Obama would accomplish the same thing with Black voters who don't plan to vote for him if could suddenly position himself as the victim of media-encouraged racism. Let's keep our eyes open for that one.

There's no denying Clinton is treated differently because she's a female. On the flip side, that's exactly what she's hoping for. It's rare that I read articles or blog postings written by female Clinton supporters that don't focus heavily on two things: Clinton's gender and their own desire to see a female in the White House. It's always been my belief that no publicity is bad publicity. For Hillary Clinton, negative publicity related to her gender is the best (and cheapest) publicity she could receive right now. Sexist jabs at Clinton will translate to sympathy votes from females who never planned to vote for her.

Usually when I write about Clinton, I address her by her first name -- as most bloggers do, both male and female bloggers. How often do you see bloggers calling Barack Obama by his first name only? Rarely. Some would argue that addressing Senator Clinton by her first name is a sexist move since we don't usually address male politicians by their first name. Even if it is a sexist move, it's a really good thing for Hillary. Very few of us address our friends by their last name only (unless it's an old habit you developed in the military -- my aunt still calls her husband of 30 years by his last name). In my opinion, when you're on a first name basis with someone, that person enjoys friendship status -- or a status closely resembling that of friendship.

Yes, you can argue that we often call our enemies by their first name. But how many Bush-bashers call George W. Bush by his first name?

Maybe the reason so many people call Senator Clinton by her first name is because it's the easiest way to inform our readers which Clinton we're hatin' on at the moment. That argument is flawed as well since there were two Presidents with the last name Bush and rarely did we call the latest one "George" to differentiate between the two.

It's my opinion that Hillary wants the world to see her as Hillary. As long as we continue to see her as Hillary-the-female-politi cian, she can hold on to her dream of becoming Hillary-the-first-female- President of the United States.

(...to the full post)

Questioning Transphobia: The Monotony of Bigotry

Lisa joins us from Questioning Transphobia:

After working through a handful of articles from Questioning Transgender Politics I feel like I’m repeating myself often in responses because they’re repeating themselves often. I feel like I should deconstruct all of the articles there, but I also felt - while working on part 2 of Sex, Lies, etc. yesterday that I was just running over the same ground over and over again.

The problem is just that bigotry isn’t imaginative. It draws from one poisoned well over and over again. It doesn’t matter what the motivations or the history behind discrimination against a particular oppressed group, the language used is always very similar. The paternalism, the condescension, the vicious attacks, they always take the same forms.

Similarly, the denials take the same forms: There’s no such thing as transphobia, or racism ended in the 60s. Sometimes they say you’re just being oversensitive or you won’t earn any sympathy from me with a tone like that. Maybe they’ll offer up a nasty stereotype to dismiss your voice. A favorite by transphobic radical feminists is that trans women are too assertive and take up too much space.

I know I’ve pointed to Nezua’s glosario, especially the wite-magic attax. He also wrote a series of posts* titled The White Lens. These posts explain viewing the world through a lens of white supremacy, but you can describe this in terms of heterosupremacy, cissexual supremacy, class supremacy, ableist supremacy, and so on - and since privileges intersect as much as oppressions do (as well as intersecting with each other), all of these affect how people view each other. As Nezua says,

When I say “White,” I speak of a system of oppression and bias and judgement that is inculcated into our minds from the very first days, and in ways that are amazingly subtle. All the more subtle is a teaching when it is never stated directly, and all the harder to root out.

Many who hold bigoted ideas will say “I’m not opposed to your rights,” or “I’m an ally,” or “I’m not transphobic, transgender people just say that about me because they can’t handle what I have to say.” This is on a few different levels: The basic one is that most people just plain won’t own their own bigotry. They’ll use the wite magic attax to make it your fault. Beyond that, to most people, their own bigotry is invisible to them. Their lenses won’t allow them to see it. Because being oppressive is harmless to them and rarely has consequences, there’s no point for them to even look for it.

What can be frustrating is meeting someone who experiences one form of oppression but will mimic that oppression down to the last pixel when discussing another oppression. When I see this, I want to ask “How can you not see what you’re doing here is exactly what’s been done to you?” but they always have reasons - their own wite-magic attax - as to why the oppression they inflict on you is okay, while the oppression inflicted upon them is an outrage. Donna at The Silence of our Friends discusses this particular issue with regards to white feminists vs. men and women of color vs. white feminists.

An even more frustrating kind of bigotry is when you encounter someone who is part of an oppressed group and agrees with the oppression focused on that group. In a previous post, I discuss a trans woman’s assertion that trans women can never be women. She’s decided to participate in the oppression of trans women for the sake of approval from cis women, and sets out to validate every negative stereotype they hold about trans women in exchange for a pat on the head. She tokenizes herself for conditional acceptance.

But what gets said is always the same dehumanizing, marginalizing, silencing treatment. Black women have had to deal with ungendering in ways similar to trans women - not seen as feminine enough, seen as masculine, loud, and aggressive, for example. People with visible disabilities are interrogated about their medical histories even more aggressively than trans people are about the shape of our genitals. It’s the same insults, over and over and over again. There’s nothing new, nothing interesting, and nothing exciting about this material. The same invalidation, the same appropriation, the same impositions.

The same violence.

So, if I can’t get to a new article to deconstruct every day, I’m just a little burnt out from reading it all. I’m also wondering if my analyses help to counter transphobia and transmisogyny, or of they’re only good for some catharsis.

Anyway, sorry for the short post. I’ll be back to the usual tomorrow. Hopefully I can find something about “butch flight” to tear into. It’d be a minor change of pace, at least.

(...to the full post)

Good As You: An ear to the House Floor

Good As You joins us with "Audio: An ear to the House floor":

The ENDA debate is currently playing out on the House floor, with a vote expected to come later today. So, being the mensches that we are, we thought we'd let you listen in to some of how it's played out in the last couple of hours. Get ready to be both inspired and enraged:

(Link to full article [with fun sound bites!])

(...to the full post)

QueerSighted: They're Mad at the Governor--So He Must've Done SOMETHING right

Prince Gomolvilas joins us from QueerSighted:

The gay community is outraged that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 43, a bill that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry in California. Indeed, small protests in opposition to Schwarzenegger's decision were held in different parts of the state earlier this week--including in my own home, where I subjected myself to nude self-flagellation like that albino monk in The Da Vinci Code movie.

But after noticing how some conservatives and the religious right are covering the story, I think we would be remiss if we didn't recognize and applaud the legislative strides that were made last week in California. Progress is sometimes best measured by how upset the opposition is. And it's about time I put my whips away and my robe back on.

While CitzenLink (an offshoot of the ultra-right Focus on Family organization), for example, notes on its website that Schwarzenegger's veto is "a victory for traditional marriage," the group denounces the governor for passing "several bills detrimental to California families."

Mona Passignano, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family Action (another branch of Focus on Family), said that those other bills "will likely have a devastating impact on churches and Christian families in the state for years to come." This sentiment is echoed on similarly themed websites on the Internet.

The governor actually signed seven LGBT-friendly bills into law last week, after they were all passed by the Legislature:

SB 777, the Student Civil Rights Act, is one of three youth bills that the governor signed. This legislation calls on public school administrators and teachers to fully understand their responsibilities in protecting students from harassment and bullying.

AB 394, the Safe Place to Learn Act, provides guidance to school districts on how to properly enforce existing safety standards in regard to harassment and discrimination.

AB 14, the Civil Rights Act of 2007, bans discrimination in government services based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to Equality California, "Combined with three other nondiscrimination bills that were signed into law during the past four years, the Civil Rights Act of 2007 gives Californians the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation."

AB 102, the Name Equality Act, allows California's domestic partners to choose a common family name when they register their partnership.

SB 105, the Joint Income Tax Filing Implementation Bill, streamlines the process for domestic partners filing their 2007 state income tax returns.

SB 559, the Fair and Equal Taxation for Surviving Partners Act, according to Equality California, "reverses discriminatory tax increases for domestic partners whose partner died before a 2006 law went into effect protecting them against unfair property reassessments."

Additionally, a call to Governor Schwarzenegger's office yesterday confirmed that he did sign SB 518, the Juveniles: Youth Bill of Rights Act--legislation that aims to protect LGBT youth in juvenile justice facilities. (Early reports, including the one by Equality California, were published before the governor had taken action on that particular bill.)

Not convinced of the impact that the signed bills will have on society? Just witness the horror--the horror!--of the right.

Aside from Focus on Family and its affiliates, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) has its panties in a bunch. The group claims that SB 777 "could radically favor homosexuality in schools" and will require "all California public schools to positively portray homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten."

The site says that Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, has speculated on what could happen because of this bill. "Textbooks could be forbidden from portraying marriage as only between a man and a woman; textbooks could be required to present homosexual historical figures; and sex-specific Homecoming King and Queen contests could be forced to change," the CNA warns. "The legislation might even mandate unisex restrooms."

WorldNetDaily quotes Thomasson as saying, "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms."

"Now that SB777 is law," says Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, "schools will in fact become indoctrination centers for sexual experimentation."

LifeSiteNews.com expresses concern as well. "California Governor Schwarzenegger Veto of Gay 'Marriage' Made Meaningless by Other Bills," screams a headline. The site claims that AB 14 "requires more California businesses, as well as some churches and nonprofit organizations, to support and promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality. AB 14 prohibits state funding for any program that does not support transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. This means state-funded social services operated by churches and other houses of faith, which provide essential services to children and adults, could dry up."

And in an ironic statement to end all ironic statements, Thomasson declares, "It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles. This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

That statement requires no snarky commentary from me. And despite the governor's gay-marriage veto, I kind of feel like he deserves a cigar anyway. And after all this self-flagellation, I kind of need one too.

(...to the full post)

Trans Political: Observations From A Protest

Vanessa Edwards Foster joins us from Trans Political:

“Don’t you know you’re talking about a revolution, sounds like a whisper” — “Talkin’ ‘Bout A Revolution,” Tracy Chapman

Well, finally woke up from a nap after a tough weekend protesting the Human Rights Campaign National Banquet in Washington DC. On one hand, I hate these last-minute actions where you have to travel halfway across the country.

+ They’re obviously quite expensive (not to mention no planning or chance for budgeting).

+ They’re physically taxing as sleep is minimal (you sleep on the road wherever you may find place (again, not easy at the last minute), and the events themselves can be draining if not injurious (not at this one, but at one in New York).

+ They’re stressful trying to get everything coordinated and plotted out while (in my case) getting out press, dealing with press calls and individuals’ calls wanting information.

+ They’re also a bit of a concern: you wonder how turnout will be, whether it will be effective, and even concerns over your personal safety or arrests.

* The last item above I had some concerns about as I was singled out by two of DC’s finest and also a couple of the Convention Center security for some uneven treatment. (Note to self: leave the red beret at home next time.)

On the other hand, there’s nothing like being completely incensed and having such a task ahead of you with all odds working against you. It compels the fight in you. It also certainly lets you know you’re alive.

The HRC protest was a rousing success – and the first of an ongoing campaign that will not relent, so a wrap-up is in order. We had folks from Atlanta, Raleigh, the SF Bay Area, Boston, Louisville, Knoxville and myself from Houston. The effort, coordinated by the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC), drew approximately 100 protesters out to line the front entrance, replete with signs and UnEqual stickers (the newest trend: speaking truth to power) from all of the unequally disparate portions of this GLBT alphabet soup.

Transgender Protest At HRC Dinner - 06Oct2007

My personal disappointment was the lack of music (I need to fix this for next time) for setting the mood. This required the yelling and cheers through duration, which went well. The only problem is sometimes these can get out of hand, but blessedly there were no serious breaches.

“While they’re standing in the welfare lines,Crying at the doorsteps of those armies of salvation,Wasting time in unemployment lines.” — “Talkin’ ‘Bout A Revolution,” Tracy Chapman

While I’ve not always agreed with my NTAC-alum Angela Brightfeather Sheedy who came up from NC, I gotta give her some serious high-fives. In protests, Angela is fully in her element! Singularly, Angela was an MVP here. She was mobile, was persistent, and had her message down pat (focusing on the stats of unemployed and underemployed T folk). Way to kick butt Ange!

We didn’t get Jamison Green, but we did have fellow Texan, now bi-coastal DC-Californian, Shannon Minter of National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)! I’ve watched him grow up from 1996, and I gotta say I’m proud! Yeehaw, Bubba … thanks for showing, and for wearing the unequal and being a very vocal part of this!

Donna Cartwright came out, representing both Pride At Work and NCTE, and was another star – especially with getting the crowd energized and generating the cheers for the phalanx at the steps to the entrance.

Monica Roberts (formerly of Houston) and Anne Casebeer made the drive from Louisville and were more than willing to vent the stored-up frustration, though both were on best behavior during the protest vocals. Props for keeping the eyes on the prize!

Even the Co-Chair of NCTE, Meredith Bacon, with UnEqual sign prominently displayed, was there for what may have been her first trans protest! Meredith was an active part of the gauntlet of protest cheering crew at the front steps, along with NTAC’s Chair, Ethan St. Pierre, and Transgender American Veterans Assn.’s Exec. Dir, Monica Helms.

Danielle Clarke traveled in for the effort as well. She’s been hampered by a bad rep based on past experiences, but I will say that she was much more focused and lucid for this effort. For a brief few seconds I listened in on her response to the local Fox News channel, and she did (for a layperson) a decent job. There was nothing to add to it.

Mara Keisling, Exec. Dir. of NCTE showed up to visually support the protest. Not part of the chants, or those with posters or UnEqual stickers, she was there to speak with press. From what this writer observed, she appears to be keeping her powder dry in hopes of an HRC change-of-heart.

One thing that did stick out: we had a number of signers and verbal supporters throughout this week, but only had NTAC, IFGE, NTCE, Pride At Work, NCLR and the Equality Federation folks (passing out EQUALI_Y stickers) at the protest. We also had folks joining us from the Green Fest attendees, the radical and activist segments of the unaffiliated GL community, as well as the IndyMedia activists. Conspicuously absent (from those I observed) were NGLTF, PFLAG, GenderPAC and other signers onto the newly formed United ENDA group. One wonders if they’re similarly keeping their powder dry, looking to get back in HRC’s good graces.

Another conspicuous absence was Donna Rose, though hers was in solidarity with the trans community. Principle is a precious asset, and Donna is keenly aware of that.

Message to Mara, any of the fence-sitting GL organizations, or any other hold-outs for an HRC “come-to-Jesus” moment: this game is already over. We went through this in 2000, 2002 and 2004, there is no hope here, and the trans community – certainly those of us not of the privileged few looking for personal opportunity – is moving on. Stick a fork in it.

Random observations:

There were two other events going on at the convention center simultaneously. The Green Fest had one of the events, and also ended up joining in solidarity. Once they got windfall of what happened on the ENDA bill. These young adults (anathema to the Bush/Reagan conservative paradigm) believe in egalitarian ideals. There’s no judgmental predisposition to transgenders– they’re just openly curious.

That we enjoy eager support from them shouldn’t come as a surprise. One thing I’ve noted over the years is that we have much more baggage and work to do within GLBT, but there’s a refreshing lack of that with progressive straight America! If we take the time to explain it to them, they get it! And it’s plainly obvious who’s on the inside and who’s left outside! This is one of the ready benefits of the protests: opportunity to reach out to the curious potential allies in the straight community.
The AUSA convention was also going on, and we got a couple of the military folks walking through asking questions as well. In fact, one retired gentleman walking with cane asked about the protest and was legitimately curious about why we were doing this. I gave him a brief overview and steered him towards TAVA’s Monica Helms.

We also had plenty of press coverage. Metro Weekly and the Advocate were both there covering for the GLBT community. Better yet, we had straight press coverage (finally). Both CNN (yes, Cable News Network) and the local Fox channel in DC had TV crews out to film and interview. As event coordinator, NTAC Chair, Ethan St. Pierre had his hands full with press to get our message out (save for the one I worked with CNN at the end of the evening.)

We even got major dispersal in the Indymedia press (and a big thanks to Isis for the assist!)

Having Ethan and Mara working press most of the protest allowed me and others such as Angela, Danielle and Andrea B. to be a bit more mobile, catching protesters away from the protest cheers to get a message out.

We did see two transgenders attending the event: Dana Beyer of suburban MD, and Amanda Simpson of Tucson. While most of the trans committee members, board of governors and directors have resigned, Beyer is still holding on with HRC. Both of the two recently ran for political office and enlisted help from the Victory Fund, which could explain the calculus behind their attending. At this writing, it’s unknown if there was any type of visual or verbal protest on the inside of the banquet from either of the two.

Of the GL attendees, we did have a few supporters who signaled to us while braving the picket lines, and almost the same number who were saying the words but weren’t giving a very convincing case. Even the latter, though, were better than the rest.

There were some who did the trendy keep-a-cell-phone-to-the-ear busy thing to shut out the protests. One even walked by me, intently focused on his blackberry, and after passing me I noted he had a video game of some type on! That was probably the evening’s most clever method of avoiding “having to look at the protesting trannies.”
Most however didn’t use the props to avoid confrontation. Most were either eye-rollers or the avoid-eye-contact types. A number of them engaged in more overt response. One attendee who walked up near the edge of the building saw me and decided to give a hearty thumbs down to me, then Angela and then the entire crowd assembled near the entrance. His elitist childishness was very caricatural.

One lesbian walking up the steps responded to me “you don’t understand. We’ve been at this for many years. You haven’t.” I guess she’s never heard of Sylvia Rivera or Marsha P. Johnson – either that or believes they’re confused gay men!

Yet another couple walked up, and in tones dripping icy cold, chastised me that we “don’t’ even know what they (HRC) are doing for [us]. Being that there’s few if any trans people ever in groups like HRC, it kinda stands to reason that we wouldn’t know what they’re doing that isn’t publicized. We do know what they’re doing to us, and how much they’re keen on fundraising and even using trans examples of discrimination or hate crimes for their own legislation which many times has not included the very community they cull money or anecdotal support from. How often do you see trans people raising serious money at the largest GL events, or using examples of sexual orientation discrimination to help pass a gender identity only bill?

While we’ve got some support on the inside, we’ve got about twice to three times as many of these attendees that either have no problem leaving us out, if not emotionally opposing inclusion of gender identity if it hurts their chances.

I guess none of them had thought about what the past few years worth of G&L marriage push has done to the trans community’s marriages, even in states that previously allowed post-operative transsexuals to marry – though that’s a subject for another time.

The only other observation of any note was a few of the cops who peeled off and followed me to the far end of the convention center building. At the time, I thought Officer McClain instructed them to follow me to monitor and (when they desired) limit my protests. According to Angela Brightfeather Sheedy, that wasn’t it at all.

It turns out they were (not so subtly) wondering aloud about me. “Is that one of them [trans]? Is that still a man? Or is that really a woman?”

At one point Angela added her take on their questions: “If you can’t tell and have to ask, does it really matter?” Perhaps these next few years’ of protests are going to be kinda fun after all!

“Poor people are gonna rise up and get their share
Poor people are gonna rise up and take what’s theirs” — “Talkin’ ‘Bout A Revolution,” Tracy Chapman

(...to the full post)

Single in the City: From Tops to Bottoms

Sydney joins us from Single in the City:

After a full day of work, I decided to treat myself and get a massage. The Relaxing Indian massage sounded nice. I was given this paper like g-string (at least it was large) and was told to lie down. Pretty normal. So the guy starts working on my legs and then moves up to my butt. Hmmm…I do not remember asking for the buttocks shiatsu. He puts my legs in pretty compromising positions. I can feel his hands getting close to my crotch. Again I wonder if relaxing=happy ending massage in India? Was something lost in translation?

Massages are in themselves pretty homo erotic acts. I mean you have one guy semi naked and the other guy is sensually rubbing oil all over his body. This was not the first time a massage therapist went down under on me (not fully)…you just know it does not feel right. He puts his crotch next to my face as if to say...wanna play?

I am never “up” during massages…I am way too relax. I move the towel to cover up. I mean a) I have a boyfriend b) I want a massage not a hand job c) refer to a d) my friend had an interesting body odour and e) I’m not attracted at all to him. I wonder why he thought my buttocks were under all that pressure?

While my ass was getting relaxed, I could not help but think about sex…and sex roles. I was having a conversation with my younger gay bro Shane about this last week. He was in a relationship where he had to change his sexual roles. I always say two bottoms do not make a top, but can you change your sexual role preferences? Can another person make you a top? Or a bottom?

I myself tend to believe everyone is born one or the other....sure you can be versatile...but most prefer one. I prefer one role but I must admit that from time to time I do enjoy trying something new. And can you tell who’s what? Shane reckons that emotionally driven people are bottoms. Others think that feminine guys are always bottoms. I find that is never the case…I’ve met butch muscle boys who would bend over in a second and limp wrist-ed queens who will fuck anything in sight!

In India at least roles are very defined or so says Hussein. “Total tops” in India are guys that only fuck..they won’t suck or kiss. All they do is bend you over …and total tops are not considered gay at all. Only those in the receptive role are fully considered gay in India. So if you take it up the ass..you are a true queen.

So my massage ends…and no happy ending…and no tip either! I enjoyed it but I was too distracted by where this guy was going to fully relax and that is the point of a massage…at least for me.

(...to the full post)

Queercents: Trickle-down Ho-enomics

Aundi joins us from Queercents:

A source of money that has historically fueled several tiers of the queer community and is often overlooked, ignored, and sometimes even shunned by other queer subcultures, is that which is funneled in via the sex worker contingent. For the past several weeks I’ve been talking with a variety of queer individuals who are currently or have previously been employed in various sects of the industry, including three dominatrices, an erotic dancer, an escort, and an alternative porn model.

There is certainly a financial phenomenon that occurs in relation to this line of work and its effectual funneling of resources into the queer community. Some in the industry or tied to it have called it “trickle-down ho-encomics,” and it is unique in form and effect to nearly any other money system on earth.

Ask any woman or man who has been paid — in one way or another — for a sexual presence; and she will tell you that the typical client is a straight, white, middle-aged, middle-class biological male. Of course, sex workers’ clients come in all genders, from all backgrounds, ethnicities, classes, etc; but the overwhelming majority is the aforementioned. To some degree this is a result of entitlement; certain people simply have a better grasp on what the world owes them. Others have been trained differently. The anomaly does not lie herein, but in the fact that the same socio-economic group that constitutes the bulk of sex-worker income, has historically been responsible for creating and enforcing systems that curtail prosperity and equality for queer people.

I should probably toss in a disclaimer at this point. I am not at all a lesbian separatist; in fact, many of my closest friends are straight, white men; but even the bad history books reaffirm the facts of historical power systems. A second disclaimer: with the permission of those interviewed, I will be using the words ho and whore for sex worker as they are easier to type out, are actually preferred references by my sources, and do not translate strictly into people who exchange intercourse for money. They are broad terms, T.S., a San Francisco-based professional dominatrix says, “like beautician” or DJ.

T.S. said, “I wish that there were more realistic accounts of what it is like to be a successful career whore. I feel really misrepresented by many of the “dabblers” who end up writing about their experiences. I want there to be open discussion of all kinds around sex work including the economics of it, and for sex work to be taken more seriously so that there is more understanding of the variety and range of experiences. I think people would be able to see that many women in the sex industry are making informed decisions about their work and greatly contributing to the community.”

S.L., who has been employed in a variety of facets in the sex industry, from porn to fetish modeling to working as a professional dominatrix, calls her work like being the sexy Robinhood. “Money tends to rise economically in one direction,” she said “this [sex work] is the hidden trap door where it falls back down and gets spread out in a different way,” and she says that this particular flavor of work has been an “economic overflow valve historically.”

T.S. said she remembers a sexologist referring to sex work as “the second National Endowment for the Arts,” and for many of the women I spoke with it has been just that. S.L. said, “My most important commodity is time. That’s one of the benefits of being an independent sex worker…I do a lot because my work time is condensed, and I have a very flexible schedule, so I have a lot of time to work on personal artistic projects. With a 9 to 5 job, I wouldn’t have as much energy for art…meetings, rehearsals.”
Many hos, including several of my references, are currently in or have completed school, and their work has prevented them from taking out costly school loans. Two own homes; one has financed a complete remodel via his work in the sex industry.

And the trickle-down often extends past the sex-workers themselves. S.L. says she’s been a “constant lender, mostly for partners and lovers, but also to a number of my friends. I’ve also offered housing for free or reduced rates to people who are important to me.”
R.L., a former stripper and dominatrix, paid her lover’s rent for two months while the lover began her M.B.A. studies. P.F. funded a portion of her lover’s sexual reassignment surgery. A.W. paid for her lover’s education (and then got dumped). “There’s an element of being a sugar mommy,” S.L. says and adds she’s covered many “event tickets, plane tickets, meals, and presents.”

Coincidentally, Moorea posted last week on the down-side to the economic imbalance between many sex workers and their lovers, a sugar mommy burnout of sorts. I asked several of the hos I interviewed to make generalizations about partners who might milk the income and time of a sex-work employed lover, whether they found this to skirt an unhealthy imbalance or a natural exchange. S.L. agreed that, “some people become chronic whore daters because of that phenomenon.” She quipped, “What does the stripper do to her asshole before she goes to work?”
“Drop him off at band practice.”

S.L. described this as a pre-ordained role, not just by a straight culture, but by human beings in general. There are those who are “dazzled by fancy ladies, like to experience luxury but have no interest or the means to pursue it on their own,” she said, “but plenty have partnerships in which a whore might bring in the money while the other person does all of the household work, transportation responsibilities, lawncare…economy [like any relationship] does not exist strictly in fiscal terms.”

T.S. said, “Ultimately the sugar mommy role is taken by choice and for many comes from a place of empowerment rather than default. I’ve been what some may call a sugar mommy not just to my lovers, but to my friends and members of my community who have less earning power. It comes down to my values about ownership and wealth in general, which are that (although I need to take care of myself first in order to be able to do so) I believe that what is mine belongs to my friends, family, chosen family and extended community.”

And, as many of our Sleeping With Money posts can affirm, money is often fetishized. “It has a sexual dynamic,” S.L. says, “It can be a turn on to buy lavish gifts for lovers.” A high-end professional like herself is often lavished upon by wealthy clients, and she, in turn, has the opportunity to lavish upon others. “Characteristic of radical queer culture, so many people…are activists” or work on causes or artistic endeavors for little or no money, and sometimes, “queer hos are the wealthiest queers in a given group.” She adds, “It’s not what I want solely for the rest of my life.”

But, without a doubt, sex work is fueling the queer economy. Queers often patronize queer-owned or managed establishments: restaurants, bars, event venues; and sex-workers and their partners are not unlikely invest in their people. Several report financing art shows and performances. T.S. says, “Because I am running my own business on every level, I am hyper-conscious of cash flow, in both directions and I would say that many of my friends are as well.”

I have a friend in Los Angeles who is among those queers that believe taking money for any sort of sex work furthers the negative objectification of women and that, regardless of the financial rewards and dollars into the community, the end result is hindering to the community at large and overall equality. I asked the hos what sort of thoughts they had on this.

T.S. said:

“I like to explain that it is a matter of me exercising my power to do what I want with my body. I enjoy my work, and I enjoy the freedom that comes with it. As far as objectification goes, I believe that my work and interaction with men often helps them to understand the complexities of our current societal gender crisis better which in fact fights that which many think I am perpetuating.”

S.L. said:

“Sex work is one of only labor sectors that historically and [continues to be] populated with a vast majority of women and transwomen. It’s still one of few sectors in which women consistently make more money, and it actually could be used as a labor model. It’s one of most appealing options for working class women, other than the stigma… While if you think of it as selling your body, selling a beauty ideal, yeah, that’s an unappealing picture of how women can be equal or unequal, but if you understand it as selling a service of human connection – especially in these times …— it’s a really powerful and necessary service to provide…I don’t disagree with capitalism being a barrier to ending oppression…My particular set of interests, values, skills, and talents have led me to working within the system in a subversive way. Much of the money that I get from the deep trenches of patriarchal capitalism ends up in co-ops, queer radical spaces, and funding subversive art. That’s what I am capable of right now. That’s my flavor of fight. For revolution — if that’s the goal — it takes hits from all different directions to get to a tipping point. Being a socially conscious queer whore is a powerful act against those anti-capitalist powers.”

(...to the full post)