Politics or Pussy?

For me there is always this period in a relationship where I try to suss out what kind of politics a person might have. I don't know that I necessarily think that everyone I date must be on the exact same page as me in terms of our political views but I do know that I'd likely have a hard time finding anything sexy or long-term about a fundie Christian, for instance. However, I try to remain open minded when I find myself having a connection with someone who doesn't sing the praises of composting, or see the need to be on every activist listserv in the city.

Like many people, I often find the potential dates (or more casual encounters) via activities centred around our shared views. I am not the first--nor the last--dyke who's tried to pick up on the bus to a rally. It just kind of happens like that. But I also recognize that those kinds of things take serious time commitments, and that there's a whole legion of lesbians who don't necessarily show up to every community potluck or forum. Plus I think it might be healthy to look outside these frequently incestuous dating pools. I suppose that's how I ended up in the situation I'm currently in.

I connected with this beautiful gal rather unexpectedly, particularly considering the debacle that was my last romantic escapade. We met through some mutual friends some months ago and made plans to connect in a business sense (she makes music videos, and I am a musician). However, contacts were lost and we did not cross paths again until this past weekend, via the same mutual friends. She is unbelievably cute. And very flirtatious. And an excellent dancer. She's also smart, and has her own (successful and growing, I might add) company at a remarkably young age. She is motivated and responsible, and good. So when she asked me out, I obviously said yes. I figured that with mutual friends as great as ours, she had to be a safe bet. But I've recently found out that I am now facing down a "politics or pussy?" kind of scenario; she's the kind of hipster-y girl who uses words (acronyms?) like "AZNs" in reference to any people of Asian descent. This is not in everyday conversation, mind you, but more in the envelope-pushing "ironic" hipster way that seems to be so trendy right now*.

I don't get this. This otherwise smart and cute and interesting and funny and sweet girl thinks this is funny. But to me (and countless others, I'm sure) using racial slurs casually or ironically isn't cool. It just fucking isn't. And what is so bizarre about this fad (at least, I hope it's a fad, which would imply that it's going to go away soon) is the kind of gradient attached to the Ironic Hipster Racial Slur. That is, it seems that the more shocking the epithet, the more it establishes a Hipster cred, like there's some sort of competition going on amongst moneyed suburban kids living in the city doing important Art Things or Music Things as to who can drop an n-bomb with the least trace of a smile.

I mean, I kind of understand the idea of it. I think the underlying notion is, "if I can use this awful word in all seriousness then I am calling attention to how incredibly offensive it is and that's funny", but the exclamation that seems to follow, whether spoken or implied, is "I'm not actually racist guys, I have all kinds of black friends!". These (almost exclusively white) kids don't seem to get that there is a huge amount of power in what they're saying that really, really overthrows any kind of irony they may be getting at.

I'm sincerely hoping that this girl is not one of those hipsters I am referring to, and that she is on the lower end of the Ironic Racial Slur Hipster ladder, which to me indicates that there is hope for her yet. Truly, I think she's kind of young, in the sense that she maybe hasn't had exposure to the kinds of politics my friends and I live (out of necessity, not aesthetic, which I think also explains my distaste for ironic hipsterdom). Yet writing that makes me feel like I'm being condescending, not to mention making the fatal early relationship mistake of thinking "Oh, that will change with time" (which can actually be interpreted as "I will change them" and as far as I'm concerned, is relationship suicide).

Still, as much as I hate to admit it, I often wonder about the accessibility of anti-oppressive politics. To some extent I believe it is every individual's responsibility to educate hirself about what kinds of privilege zie holds. But I also think that there's a part to this about having access to that kind of self-reflection and self-criticism as a form of privilege. I'm not sure I know how that fits in to the overall idea of being anti-oppressive, but I know that I want to give this girl the benefit of the doubt. Truthfully, I (and everyone else) had to go through a process of awakening, and I'm certainly hoping it's not far off for my ladyfriend.

*for evidence of this, please see sites such as You Tube and Hipster Runoff

(...to the full post)

Transexualism, Feminism, and Gender

As aggressively vitriolic and hurtful as radical feminist criticism of transexuals often is, I believe that transexuals do themselves a grave disservice by dismissing that criticism as entirely rooted in blind transphobia. There is certainly a very strong element of transphobia in certain quarters of the feminist movement, but even a broken clock is right two times a day. It is hardly surprising that the majority of transexuals are heteronormative in terms of their chosen gender presentation and behavior, but this becomes exceedingly problematic due to the extremely loud and highly active minority of transexuals who are militantly heteronormative.

Due to the disparity in visibility between different types of transexual, there is a very unfortunate illusion that female-to-male transexuals don't exist at all and that male-to-female transexuals are mostly overcompensating super-macho males transitioning into oversexed, hyperfeminine females who insist on absolute conformity to patriarchical norms and the "Madonna-Whore Complex". Given that perception, it's no wonder that radical feminists tend to brand transexualism as nothing more than a particularly crazed attempt to invade and subvert the women's rights movement. This ugly misunderstanding is exacerbated by the small but extremely vocal minority of transexuals who condemn nontraditional gender expression as "perverting" or "diminishing" the meaning of gender itself. While the vast majority of transexuals do not agree with this militiant conformist position, many of them also do not speak out against it because they are personally comfortable with traditional gender roles and often fear the lack of structure involved in a gender deconstructionist world.

It is important to point out that those who are not familiar with the psychological treatment protocols for transexuals often fail to realize that a lot of the gender policing in the trans community originates from behavioral requirements imposed on transexuals by the medical gatekeepers who control our access to treatment. The Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders mandate that transexuals go through a "real life test" to demonstrate their gender identity prior to recieving hormone replacement therapy and sexual reassignment surgery, and the majority of psychologists use this requirement to demand and enforce gender policed behavior throughout the transition period.

Those who have completed the gender transition process are largely free of the mandates of psychologists, but the intense social and legal discrimination against them often pushes them into continued gender policing as a defense mechanism. The safety provided by "stealth" status is in many ways only an illusion, but its very fragility tends to make "passable" transexuals extremely reactionary towards anything which has the slightest possibility of outing them. Exercising passing privilege is a double-edged sword in that living in stealth is living in constant terror of discovery, and that terror may cause transexuals to betray everything they should believe in. This is why stealth transpersons often hypocritically adhere to social conservativism or the transphobic flavor of radical feminism; in their persecution-induced paranoia, they decide that no one would suspect an outspokenly transphobic man or woman of being a transexual.

The fearful silence of the "stealth majority" has given the militiant conformists a disproportionate voice within the American transexual community, and this has produced an distinct tendency towards both internal and external gender policing behavior. Relatively few step forward to challenge the conformists' dogmatic assertions that that anyone who exhibits gender variant behavior is "not really transexual", that only transexuals merit treatment because they are "normal", and that transexuals who cannot pass should "be realistic" and not transition because it would trigger witch hunts against those who do pass. To be perfectly blunt, the militant conformists have chosen to sell out to the very society which oppresses them, spurning the deconstruction of rigid gender roles which would set them free, and instead embracing a traitor's thirty pieces of silver in the form of passing privilege.

Most transexuals are distinctly uncomfortable with the extremism of the gender conformists, but they also seem to be unwilling to completely distance themselves from it. This is probably because the clear lines and standards drawn by the conformists are reaffirming to those who are themselves comfortable with gender normativity in the first place; they may not necessarily agree with excluding others, but they still feel reassured of their own "belonging". This is extremely unfortunate because as long as moderates do not clearly distinguish themselves from extremists, they will inevitably be smeared with guilt by association. As long as the bulk of the transexuals who make themselves visible to outsiders are the militiant conformists and those conformists have (or are perceived to have) tacit support from the majority, it is going to be nearly impossible to refute the assumption that all or most transexuals are the same way.

The long term solution to these issues is for the current generation of transexuals to reject the vicious orthoxody of conformist gender policing and to embrace in its place the freedom of gender deconstruction. This does not mean that all of us must reject traditional gender expression or stealth concealement as personal decisions, only that need to cease imposing them on others as moral imperatives. Just as a feminist may choose to be a housewife while fighting society's attempts to force all women to be housewives, so also can a transexual chose to be gender normative while fighting misguided attempts to force all transexuals to be gender normative. The bottom line is that there is no one "correct" form of gender expression which all males or all females should be required to adhere to; gender expression is a choice, and no form of it is more valid than another.

(...to the full post)

Housekeeping, 4.13.08

+ news +
Queer woman in NYC?,
feminist porn,
and gender inequity in Whoville for the week.

Ubergratz to tokenstr8dude for his post; please welcome him to BTB!

Sincerely,
ts

(...to the full post)

Believe it or not...

Believe it or not I can go through the day without seeing a scantily clad woman.

I was confronted recently with a leftist newspaper that featured various female models for fashion and a nude woman advertising an event (with her breasts and vagina covered by items for that event). Shaking my head at another product of manarchists (it’s a great word, use it) I set before myself the following question: as a heterosexual male is my need to constantly see hot ladeez on par with my need for food? Answer: no. It fucking isn’t. So why do I see more advertising and more references to ‘sexy’ women on a regular basis than I do for food? Or for that matter seemingly anything else? I can’t go outside without getting bombarded by marketing pornography.

I can only assume the rainbow of negative effects this has on women which has often been detailed by great feminist writers more talented than myself, but how does it affect me and me fellow str8dudes? Now here I’m going to be really honest and hope to foster the kind of environment that really gets all the shit out. Cuz, in case you didn’t notice, us hetero guys got a lotta baggage. All this constant temptation, all these ludicrously unattainable bodies, sexual imagery, wanting eyes, and subjugated individuals really does a number on my psyche. The relentlessness of it makes me feel lonely and miserable. It reminds me that I’m not currently dating anyone or who I am dating is not nearly as hot as this perfected digitally created courtesan and by the time I see it 100 times on my way home from work it starts to get to me and make me think about three words: women, bodies, and sex. It ingrains in me this need for more, more porn, more women, more ads. That’s a big part of it, the wanting more, the feeling like all these hundreds of women I see daily want me and I SHOULD want them. Maybe I’m weak, maybe I’m just pathetic but you know what? I prefer to blame the corporate empire smothering me in hypersexualized advertising for 24 years rather than blame myself. (And if it seems like I’m exaggerating I’d just like to point out that I live in New York City so no, I am not).

Now, onto more gritty honesty. One terrible thing that seems to be happening to me after such a long saturation of immoral representations of women is that I get agitated when I see the ads. I get annoyed. I think look, I get it, I’ll never date a woman that hot, so why are you fucking shoving this into my face? No one looks like this! They’re all photoshopped! You’re making me become more and more critical of actual people! There’s only so many millions of perfect photoshopped models I can see before the imperfections of real women start comparing and losing. I want to be attracted to real women ok? I really do - but this bullshit is making it harder and harder. I don’t want to turn into an asshole. I don’t want to, 20 years from now, not be turned on by my life partner (if I have one) because she’s ‘too old’ or ‘not thin enough’ or doesn’t have ‘perfect skin’. I don't want to judge women on their looks! This is how hetero men become assholes, people. Take note.

All this stress contributes to the general difficulties that come with all romantic relationships and perhaps my greatest fear of all is that one day, in a fit of anger, I’ll blurt out some subconsciously implanted misogynistic desire for the supermodel aesthetic in the form of an insult to a current partner. Could this happen? I hope not but I’m not holding my breath. Shit, I grew up on Baywatch people.

So what’s the answer to all this? First of all, men need to realize the reality of this situation. We have to love women for who they are, not what they look like. Second of all we need to take a stand in our personal and public lives - we need to not purchase products made by misogynistic companies and we need to reject negative representations of women and the representations of drooling men associated with them. Perhaps most importantly when in a relationship we have to be honest: we have to listen to women when they think we are being assholes, when we're being sexist, and we need to be open to critique.

Simply put: we need to reclaim our gender! I’m not a stereotypical meathead – are you? Are your friends? Are you sold on something because a woman in a bikini tells you to buy it? Do you really want to be that dumb pawn? I doubt it. So just opt out of our sexist society as often as you can. Don't buy into the game. Be honest about your troubles like I’ve tried to be in this post. Just getting it out makes me feel a little bit better but you know what feels really good? Having open and honest feminist relationships to all the women in my life. Feeling real love from family, friends, and lovers. Nothing is more fulfilling than love!

Oh and there's one more thing you can do: get a graffiti marker and fuck up those ads! Not only will it fill you with a justified sense of righteousness (something us guys usually feel, except unjustified) but it will let men and women who walk by feel somewhat less alone in our divided and materialistic world.
Epilogue: well then...epilogue sure is an official sounding word! Anyway, expect more articles from me under the maniker (ha haaa jk it's moniker wow i'm hilarious) of tokenstr8dude in the future! I'll be talking about masculinitiy, male sexual problems, men relating to society and people, men's role in patriarchy, and a variety of other issues that the heteronormative male populace I hail from rarely talks about! Sound exciting? Hell yes it does!

(...to the full post)

Secret life of a soccer mom

TLC has a new show, The Secret Life of Soccer Moms, that “celebrates stay at home mothers” by giving them a chance to leave their families for a week to live the dream careers that they gave up to be a stay at home mom. The pilot episode featured a would-have-been fashion designer who was able to spend a week working for a designer, creating three dresses that were shown in a small fashion show. In the end, the designer offered the mom a full-time job, which she accepted, even though that means getting outside care for their kids. Yay, episode ends and women rejoice. Right?

Upon perusal of the TLC website, I came across the message board for the show. Whoa, stay-at-home-mom backlash! The majority of the posts proclaimed the show to be a horrible encouragement of ripping apart the [wonderful nuclear] family and branded this mother as utterly selfish for choosing her dreams over her children. Accusations flew – including that their hired sitters/day care workers will probably beat their children, and that there’s something wrong with this woman for not finding total fulfillment through raising her children. And yes, someone even blamed the feminist movement for all the world’s problems today. OK, maybe just violence in schools. Yes, that’s the feminist movement’s fault.

Uh, what?

Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that fathers also “abandon” their children when they work full-time outside of the home? Just because the female births the babies does not automatically mean they are the only ones who are capable of raising them. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but when I look at my married/coupled friends (mid-to-late 20s), in over half of them the woman makes more money. Will we ever stop automatically assuming that the woman is in the better position to be the primary care giver? Because at this rate, when my friends start making babies, from a financial perspective, if anyone’s going to stay at home, it should be the fathers.

Moving on … why am I even surprised that the feminist movement still gets blamed for personal shortcomings? The feminist movement gave women choices – to focus on their career, motherhood, both, or neither. But at the end of the day, it’s all about choice. Yet reading this message board, it sounds like women have the freedom of choice – but something’s wrong with the women that don’t choose to be stay-at-home mothers, because that’s the most rewarding thing a woman can do. What would these women say to a woman who chooses to never have children? That she’s ignoring her natural instincts? That there’s clearly something biologically wrong with her?

Oddly enough, only one person on the message board pointed out that these women (as in the women on the show, no finger pointing to the other women on the message board) were privileged to even have the choice to be a stay at home mom, and suggested TLC instead do a show helping out mothers who have to work outside the home. But, other women came right out and said that regardless of your financial situation, mothers shouldn’t work outside the home. If you can’t afford one income, be creative! Find a paying job you can do at home. As if it were that easy.

Newsflash: some families can’t afford to live on one income. Some mothers have no husbands to help them out. Work-from-home jobs are hard to come by, and unless you luckily have a combination of degree and on-the-job experience, most work-from-home jobs won’t support a family.

But believe it or not, some women don’t feel complete satisfaction when focusing 100 percent of their energy on raising children. But this isn’t a feminist issue. This is an issue for all people, regardless of gender. We all should have the freedom to figure out what makes us happy, and pursue those dreams, regardless. Millions of children go to day care or have baby-sitters during their youth while their mothers work, and believe it or not, they turn out fine. I happen to know many, personally. Some women who can afford to stay at home choose not to because they see the benefits in pursuing their own dreams – not only for their personal enrichment, but to set a good example for their children. Don’t you think a child would turn out much better if the child had happy, fulfilled parents, even if there parents were away at work half the day, than a stay at home parent who was unfulfilled, sad and possibly ultimately resentful? I think well-rounded, happy parents are much more beneficial than having someone you share DNA hovering over you 24/7 just because someone thinks that’s their “natural” role.

(...to the full post)

Viejos groseros

The other day I was in a really bad mood. All this stuff had piled up on my desk at work and on my shoulders outside of work and it was just one of those days. One bad look or the wrong type of comment and it's all over. So naturally, as I was walking outside to get something out of my car, a man happened to be driving by in his old beat-up pickup and decided he should let me know his opinion by specifically rolling down his window at the moment I was heading back into the house and give his best "hey baby" whistle he could muster followed by a couple "tst tst!" in case I hadn't got his drift. That's it, buddy. Wrong day.

Now maybe you're thinking I turned around, marched over to his car, and gave him a good ol' piece of this young, liberal, feminist's mind. On top of the day I had already had, the last thing I needed was some skeezy old man thinking there was anything positive that would come out of his spontaneous and unacceptable actions. Sorry to disappoint you. But for me, at that moment, the energetic middle finger I threw back at him was sufficient enough to quench my thirst for a retort. Didn't turn around, just flipped him the bird and headed back toward the house. Right before I made it to the front door, I heard him yell out in response "Double back to you!" (the translation takes away from its effect), slam on the breaks, and I was able to catch a glimpse of him sitting in his truck staring back before I entered the house.

In writing, I don't think this story should necessarily be traumatizing or cause for concern. But my immediate reaction would prove otherwise. As soon as I got into the house, I realized my heart was pounding, my stomach felt weird, and I didn't know what I was feeling. I went into the bathroom and realized tears wanted to come to my eyes. Why? Probably because the day was so overwhelming even a little kid givin' me the eye would have freaked me out. But why else? Because this man chose to rob me of the security that I thought I could have at least in front of my own house. He stopped outside my house and not only knew which car was mine, but which house was mine. He knew what I looked like and he knew I had an attitude. He thought that he had every right to express himself in that manner because hell, why not? And I had to give him that right.

Why? Because if I choose to deny him that, I have no idea what his response could be. When he yelled back at me, obviously surprised by my outward expression of disapproval, something he was fully not accustomed to, maybe it was all in jest. He did it with a smile and got a kick of out of this young guera who thought she was badass. Then again, because I didn’t see him when he did it, maybe he did it pissed off. Maybe he was so appalled by a woman who thought she could respond to a man in that way. Maybe all he wanted to do was get out of his truck, run over to where I was, and respond to my reaction in whatever way he chose and the only thing holding him back was the fact that it was broad daylight and neighbors were all around. Maybe that was the only thing that kept me from "getting what was coming to me".

Maybe it's an overreaction. Maybe absolutely nothing could have or would have happened. But should I be willing to take that risk? Should a guy pissing me off be worth the possible result of his own response?

Did this happen because I live in Mexico? For those of you think the answer to that question is yes, wake up. Get real. Perhaps it's more plausible for it to happen in Mexico because the cultural norms do not perceive his behavior to be as offensive as that of the United States. Does that mean there aren't men that want to do it every day and the ONLY reason they hold back is because of the social criticism they know they would have to deal with? So for me, a young woman who wants to feel comfortable walking alone outside my house, what am I supposed to do when there is only one reason standing between me and a violation of my personal freedom and that one thing, like the daylight, something that changes from one moment to the next, or a neighbor, someone who could just as easily walk back inside, changes in the blink of an eye? As of now, what do I do? I deal with it. Why? Because I have to.

(...to the full post)

Do We Need A Fourth Wave?

The history of feminism in the West is a familiar one. And yet, despite many complaints about the current lack of organized direction in feminism, there is little or no discussion about where feminism should proceed next, no vision of what a ‘Fourth Wave’ should look like. Perhaps this is because of feminism’s diverse reach: since it is now an ideology, a social movement, and an academic discipline, it may be more and more difficult to come up with a new, unified direction. Indeed, when feminists were a small minority, organized in tight-knit groups, and rallying against a proudly patriarchal society, finding a common approach must have been considerably easier than in the current conditions of institutional and organizational dispersion. My contention, however, is that feminism has failed to engender “a Fourth Wave” for ideological reasons: feminists have not yet come to grips with the legacy of the Third Wave, which questioned many of its taken-for-granted assumptions shook the ideology to its core. Indeed, if we take seriously the contributions of the Third Wave, then the very need for more ‘waves’ and definitive directions is placed seriously into doubt.

The main contribution of the Third Wave was to question feminists’ claims about representation. Second Wave feminists claimed to speak for all women, to represent the interests of all women. And yet, ‘woman’ is a diverse and unstable category – do the claims of the white, middle-class, heterosexual feminists living in the West (who dominated the Second Wave) necessarily apply to all women? Certainly not. For example, a classic feminist claim for much of the 20th Century has been that the patriarchal family is the primary locus of women’s oppression: the authority exercised by male “heads,” and the domestic labor that only women are expected to do, have fatally undermined women’s autonomy and have placed them in a subordinate position. Black feminists challenged this claim: in the face of a racist society, in which Black women could not expect to exercise autonomy or authority, the “household” was actually a place where they had considerable freedom. Black women were usually the main breadwinners, and for them, families served as a source of strength against structural racist oppression, a locus where they could exercise authority. Thus, the White feminist critique of the family/household does not apply unproblematically to Black women. Furthermore, Second Wave feminists have focused almost exclusively on altering and reforming Western state structures – they have portrayed (necessary) policy changes, such as free state-sponsored child-care and equal pay as essential ‘women’s’ demands. And yet, how can this resonate with Third World women? Their needs may well include other issues, such as reduction of infant mortality, access to clean water and access to education. Moreover, the fact that they live in a different kind of cultural context may require a more flexible feminism, with some fundamentally different core assumptions.

Overall, the Third Wave resisted the homogenizing and universalizing tendencies of feminism and criticized the notion that men and women are always already constituted as subjects. After the 1980s and 1990s, claims to speak for ‘all women’ are no longer so easily accepted and more care is taken to specifically address the needs of women of color, lesbian women, disabled women, Third World women, transgender women and working-class women. It is no longer possible to portray the demands of Western, middle-class, White and heterosexual women, as the essential expression of women’s needs and interests. And this is where the confusion comes in. If feminism needs to be so radically diverse, if it needs to adjust itself and question its core assumptions every time that a different subject position is invoked, then how can it maintain internal unity? How can it claim to be a unified perspective? Indeed, this intellectual dispersion of feminism has disturbed many of the ideology-discipline’s practitioners, with feminists such as MacKinnon, calling for a return to an “unmodified” feminism, united in its approach and centralized in its direction.

What kind of form would such a united and centralized feminism take? How would it be possible to avoid the racist, ethnocentric, heteronormative and classist biases of Second Wave feminism, whilst maintaining a central direction? Few scholars and activists have provided effective answers to these questions, although there has been much clamoring about them. One possible alternative for a “new direction” in feminism is Mohanty’s argument that feminism must “begin from and be anchored in the place of the most marginalized communities of women – poor women of all colors in affluent and neo-colonial nations; women of the Third World/South” (Mohanty 2003). She believes that this kind of anchor would provide the most inclusive paradigm for thinking about social justice and would focus feminists towards areas where they are most needed.

On the other hand, some have criticized the very need for “a definitive new paradigm” in feminism as not being exactly congruent with the lessons of Third Wave feminism. As Judith Butler points out in Undoing Gender, attempts to create a reified feminism with a firm direction may in fact be succumbing to oppressive, phallocentric tendencies. Third Wave feminism taught us about the difficulty of making blanket statements and about the value of democracy within a movement. Would it be possible for the feminist movement to actually be strengthened by a commitment to diversity within it, by an emphasis on dialogue and difference, rather than a programmatic adherence to a particular direction? Why does feminism even need to be centralized and united? This is the key question for feminists and the answer to it is likely to have a major impact on the future of the movement.

***For More Information***
There are many books that provide excellent overviews of the history of feminism. I would particularly recommend Bonnie Smith’s Global Feminisms Since 1945. For critiques of racism and ethnocentrism, definitely check out anything by bell hooks or Angela Davis, as well as Levine and Campbell’s Ethnocentrism: theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behaviour. For works about the future ‘direction’ of feminism, have a look at Mohanty’s article “Under Western Eyes” from Signs (issue 28, Volume 2), Judith Butler’s Undoing Gender, as well as Catherine MacKinnon’s Feminism Unmodified.

(...to the full post)

Our approach to our opinion

The last blog I wrote and the response it received got me thinking- where do our opinions come from anyway? Sociological analysis aside, how do we form our opinions and for how long do they last? I'm thinking from a more rudimentary level, here. Why are there some things you are 100% sure of your entire life and others that change with each new person you meet? For someone who not only rivals all the burros in Mexico with her level of stubbornness but who at the same time cherishes her ability to learn from people, I am thankful to have seen, met, and experienced what I have so that my opinions could change and develop such a great deal.

I have said it before and I will say it again: I can't stand people who are a. convinced they're right all the time or b. "too much" of anything (too liberal, too conservative, too preppy, too punk, too much of a partier, too much of a bookworm). It's not the most impartial way to be but I've accepted that it's how I see it. I just feel very strongly that it only limits one's perspective and does not allow a person to experience life to the fullest. Our society is how we've made it and ignoring it will only perpetuate its imperfections. I used to be so afraid of saying that. That I was supposed to desperately want to be one of those ultra-liberal, I-believe-anything-is-ok, being politically incorrect is the worst sin I could commit, I should wear only hemp clothing people. One thing is being in absolute agreement with the idea that a person's life is their own and can be lived in the style he or she chooses. Another is being so set in one way or one idea that you are incapable of seeing another, seeing the logic or the root of that perspective. Enter – my life in Mexico.

Now I write this because I am with the understanding, and with complete acceptance, that plenty of people that read what I write do not feel I reach their level of what they would call a "feminist". I'm over it. But it got me thinking- how much have my ideas and opinions changed since I adapted to my life here? How has my definition of what's ok and what's not, how I see my own life, what I want for myself, the role of women vs. the role of men changed? The answer is- a lot. Those things have changed a lot. I've had to get used to hearing things that would make my blood turn cold and the only thing that softens the blow is the fact that in Spanish my brain doesn't, or won't, capture the full meaning. I have had to become ok with the idea that gender roles just don't matter to as many people as I thought they once did. That I enjoy being feminine a lot more than I used to allow myself to admit. But most importantly- that I can't always let my ideas flow freely if I really want them to make a difference.

I've thought the following things more times than I'd like to count:

"Wow. Wow? He actually thinks that."

"She has no idea she doesn't have to put up with that."

" Mmhmm. In another time and place, I would have had fire coming out of my ears to hear that word. Now I just have to bite my tongue"

"Idiot."

So why do I put up with these things? If in the past it was all arguments, discussions, and learning experiences, why have my opinions changed? I think I've just realized that it's not necessarily the opinion that has changed but the way I choose to approach it based on the environment I'm in- whether that be the country, city, party, or coffee shop. I think a lot of people get used to being in a world, however small or limited it may be, that supports them and the way they think. I was one of them. But now, I'm surrounded by some of the most amazing people I've ever known- and I couldn't disagree more with them on certain issues. These issues used to be deal-breakers for me. Now, I see them as opportunities. As ways to slowly, but oh-so-surely, get a new idea or a different perspective in there. I'm not sure if this is living in Mexico or just leaving my comfort zone in general but I think it's a good thing.

So if now your response is that I am losing sight of the whole pint, or maybe that I never even understood it to being with, go on wit ya bad self. I'm gonna stick with this method. I think, for now, that it's ok and it's how I've learned to approach things. But don't worry, ask me tomorrow and maybe I'll have a completely different response.

(...to the full post)

AskFannie: Sexist Feminists!

Dear Fannie,

I'm a 19 year old college student. I'm a self-avowed feminist and activist. I'm emailing you with an issue I've been wrestling with. One of my best friends has recently decided to transition from male to female. While I am in full support of her transitioning to her true self, I am a little put off by her hyper-feminine gender performance. She feels compelled to wear high heels, skirts, and heavy make-up every day. Before she transitioned she was serious and thoughtful, and now I find her ditzy and spacey. I feel like in her transition, she's trying to play female so much that she's lost herself. How do I tell her that she doesn't have to act like a girly-girl to be a woman?

Not-a-Girl-Not-Yet-a-Woman

Not a Girl,

So, you’re best pal is on her way to becoming a gal pal, and you’re concerned that she’s too much of a gal. I think your concerns and discomfort with your friend is emblematic of the longstanding tensions between trans women and feminists. Now, I’m all for gender equality, ending violence against women, and women’s reproductive rights, but for all the good that Feminism seeks to achieve, they have been nothing short of beastly to trans people, especially trans women. When one would assume that people as concerned with gender as feminists are, would be accepting and welcoming of their transgender sisters. However, some of the most acclaimed feminists like the Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, and Janice Raymond are some of the most transmisogynistic and cissexist people I know.[1]


I know that you mean well, but frankly… how is this in any way your business? Being a feminist myself, I understand why you may feel that your friend, in enacting gender conforming behavior for a woman, is reinforcing the gender binary by reproducing conventional femininity. I would agree that reinforcing gender binaries only serves to marginalize one half of that binary i.e. women, and those that don’t fit into either category, but by claiming that your friend is performing “hyper-feminine” gender transforms the pursuit of her sex and gender, into the pursuit of feminine things. By suggesting that your friend is constructing herself as woman via the use of high-heels, skirts, and make-up, you reduce her pursuit for a livable body into an obsession with material goods.

I also think you need to consider how your repudiation for her feminine performance speaks to a broader disavowal of femininity in general. Many feminists are very keen on women becoming equals with men. How will this be accomplished? Clearly, by allowing and empowering women to do everything that men do. But… in doing that, how have we challenged the gender binary? All we’ve done is to encourage both men and women to enact masculinity, or at the very least masculine traits. Now that feminists value traits like assertiveness, leadership, bravery, and logical intellect amongst women, it continues to play into a sexist system of gendered personality traits. Those traits that are affiliated with femininity, like passivity, cooperation, being emotional, etc. are still disrespected and disavowed. Femininity in any context, whether performed by men or women, sexuality and gender identity aside, is a marker for difference and devaluement.

And who died and made you the Arbiter of Gender? I’m sure that your trans friend who is probably going through some of the most difficult times of her life, really needs her feminist , britney-spears-referential, “friend” telling her what her appropriate gender performances as a woman are. I get the feeling that your feelings of concern for your friend are more rooted in a sense of disconnect in someone you once held close. You’re friend’s transition has transformed them into a different person, perhaps a person they had been hiding for a very long time. I think it would be more productive to get to know and love this person who you haven’t taken the time to really know.

It should be noted that these ideas are not exclusively mine. After taking Bookmonkey’s suggestion, I read Julia Serano’s Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Many of these beliefs can be ascribed to Serano, who is a fantastic, beautiful, and well-spoken person.

++
fiercely,
fannie

Send your questions to askfannie@belowthebelt.org

[1]
transmysogeny - the hatred or devaluation of transsexual women
cissexism - the idea that cissexual people (people who's biological sex and subconscious sex are aligned) are naturally superior to transsexual people

(...to the full post)

health care and time travel

It seems Below the Belt is on a literate kick of late. But then, I’m a librarian; my nose is perpetually stuffed in at least one book or movie.

So, let me now link a relatively recent article on how patient care continues to suffer in the area of reproductive health with a 1976 sci-fi novel that manages both to describe the appalling nature of health care—particularly toward women—in our past and to envision a compelling utopia in which gender becomes just one more attribute.

Okay, then. So. The article discusses how not only pharmacists, but also physicians, are claiming their moral/religious beliefs require them to refuse involvement in various aspects of birth control, the morning-after pill, fertility assistance, and abortion. Although a few states have laws to protect patient rights in this arena, laws and medical policies typically privilege the medical professionals. This priority holds particularly true regarding the ever-controversial issue of abortion; Congress allows federally-funded health providers to refuse to provide abortion services, and of the 46 states with their own physician opt-outs, 27 recently broadened the refusal policies. But lest our anti-abortion readers think the legislation stops there, 16 states have refusal clauses for performing sterilization and 8 for prescribing contraception.

"This is about the rights of the individual, about our constitutional right to freedom of religion," says Frank Manion, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group in Washington, D.C. Founded by minister Pat Robertson, the organization has represented health care providers and lobbied for laws that protect them. "We're not trying to deny anybody access to treatment," Manion adds. "We're saying, 'Don't make your choice my choice.'"

This is particularly problematic when insurance and income prevent some patients from seeking more comprehensive services elsewhere. Thankfully, some legislation seeks to protect patient rights. About one-fifth of states now require or strongly encourage emergency rooms to counsel about and/or offer emergency contraception to rape survivors. Although the effort failed, Virginia’s HB2842 would have required pharmacists to, oh you know, fill prescriptions. Obviously we have a long way to go, but people are wrestling with these issues.

And that bring me back to how far we’ve come since Marge Piercy wrote Woman on the Edge of Time. We aren’t quite as bad about putting (poor, minority) women into mental health facilities just for challenging the patriarchy in some way. Yay, us. Survivors of domestic abuse are now much better-supported, on the whole, in both medical and legal fields. The ethics of medical experimentation have vastly improved, although there remain concerns about the overparticipation of underprivileged groups.

But we still treat gender and race as significant, innate categories. We still glorify a tough masculinity. We still mistrust people’s ability to understand their own bodies and be involved in their medical and psychological assessment and treatment. We still tend to blame the individual for society problems. (Go back another century and we have Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s "The Yellow Wallpaper.")

So, not to sound like I don’t appreciate the progress we’ve made, but…that’s all pretty depressing to me.

I was, however, rather delighted by the utopia Piercy offers. Fluid, self-chosen, yet communal identity. Self-chosen, changeable names. Person/per for pronouns. Sexuality however consenting parties like it. The only real taboo is violence. Work enough to support the community but not so much to prevent growth and creativity. Respect the power of rituals. Value both inward and outward knowledge. Keep technology around to do what makes people miserable. Use resources responsibly. Don’t worry much about luxuries until everybody’s needs are met. Realize that beauty is productive. Teach by doing. Discourage competitive materialism. Encourage diversification of strengths. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

You know you’re intrigued.

I just wish the book gave more suggestions for how society moves toward even an imperfect utopia. (Yes, yes, seeming paradox, I know. But utopia’s not a final state; it’s a way of moving.) With all the dissatisfied radicals I know are out there, are we all stuck in some Field of Dreams waiting period? Dude, somebody’s got to start building. The conservative Christians already realize this. Enough with criticizing, let’s get to creating.

(...to the full post)