April 2006 – Page 2

Moron of the Day

I don’t usually go around calling people stupid (ok I do, but usually only in my head), but Charlotte Allen has really taken idiocy to a new low by writing about Blogging Against Heteronormativity. Prepare yourself. It’s just… wow.

Hey, betcha you don’t even know what “heteronormativity” is!

Well here’s what: It’s the belief that, just because 97 percent of human beings have strong attractions to the opposite sex and like to do heterosexual things such as get married, we have no right as a society to view those 97 percent as normal and the remaining 3 percent as a bit off the beaten path.

And by “off the beaten path” I actually mean “So depraved and wrong that I personally enjoy advocating against giving them the basic rights that all other Americans have.”

“Like to do heterosexual things such as get married.” Fancy that. Apparently there are some gays and lesbians out there who want to do heterosexual things, too! But that wouldn’t do, because if they wanted to get married then that would mean that they fit Charlotte Allen’s narrow little idea of “normal,” and everyone knows that teh gays are nothing if not abnormal. And so we must not let them marry. Or something.

I do love how she attacks “blogging against heteronormativity,” and then makes cartoonishly heteronormative statements in order to demonstrate that heteronormativity does not need to be blogged against.

Also, do 97% of human beings get married? Fact-check!

And here’s Maia, a New Zealander, complaining about her country’s heteronormative paid-leave laws:

“Under the Holidays Act you get 3 days’ paid bereavement leave on the death of a set of named people, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, spouse and spouses parents. For a friend you can get one day’s paid leave if your employer accepts a bereavement.

“Our society does not value, or even really recognise friendships, particularly friendships between women.”

Isn’t that awful? Imagine deciding that most people’s parents are more important to them than their friends! What’s next to complain about: no paid bereavement leave when your dog dies?

Yo, dumbass, I think her point was that if your same-sex partner dies, they’re technically only a “friend” under New Zealand law and you don’t get the same leave that you would if they were your legal spouse. And Maia gave a few examples of women who really are “just” friends but who operate essentially as family members — raising children together, etc. What she was trying to say, I think, is that people have all kinds of domestic arrangements, and priviliging categories like “spouse” doesn’t really speak to the situations that many people live in.

And comparing female friends to dogs. How sweet. And what an independent little lady she is!

I’m Never Washing this Keyboard Again!

Comments tend to get lost after the post is a few days old, so I thought I’d put this one up in the foreground:

This article was very light-weight, and it was simply my hope that problematic as it might be, it would drive people to my memoir. My memoir is being published by Seal Press, and is the result of many years of labor and love — it is called, The Testosterone Files and will be in bookstores in May, and available online at the usual outlets before the end of April.

The article is in no way truly representative of me, although she did interview me — and frankly, was quite respectful and excited about the book. However, again, I would prefer that people dig into the book, which, is one of the first of it’s kind — certainly the first written by an American Indian/Hispano – Sephardic transman (to my knowledge) — and a memoir that I am hoping will have an impact, in it’s own small way — on sexual politics and translives. Also, it is my own authentic story, told from a perspective of adventure and intensely lived experience…

Thank you for your thoughts and wisdom.

Max Wolf Valerio

Max Wolf Valerio actually commented on my post! Thank you!

I should take this opportunity to clarify: I really don’t think Valerio is a big old misogynist essentialist neanderthal John-Tierney-rimjob-giver. (I think getting an essay published in This Bridge Called My Back grants you a little bit of protection from that charge, yes?) I hold Valerio the activist and writer in the highest esteem and am very glad to have the opportunity to read his work.

My complaint was with the article, and with its reversion to type; I had the strong suspicion that the author was writing more from her preconceptions than from Valerio himself. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that distinction clearly enough, and I hope that I haven’t offended anyone. Um, Mr. Valerio included.

Nor would I ever begrudge a writer his publicity. In fact, I should have included more specific information about The Testosterone Files in my post.

I’m also holding this up here as a pretty decent impromptu vision statement for communication. Over on the thread about ignorant questions, people seem to be getting the sense that I think transpeople should stop answering them, or that every non-knowledgeable person is deeply lazy. Not at all! It’s simply impossible to go through life without explaining, for one thing–to doctors, ER staff, pharmacists, receptionists, government employees, small children, dates, family members, gym managers, coworkers, and so on. For another, I honestly don’t mind answering respectful questions asked in good faith.

The issue is one of reciprocity. I expect people to use common sense–to understand, for example, that a swarmed buffet table might not be the best place to ask me what “the surgery” entails, or that I might prefer not to be outed without warning, or that a discussion should be allowed to continue unmolested even if it goes over their heads. I also expect people to do a little bit of the work themselves–to do things like search online, visit libraries, and read memoirs like The Testosterone Files when writers like Valerio go to the trouble of producing them.

I should also point out that it isn’t merely burdensome to require every member of a minority to recapitulate phylogeny for every ignoramus who can’t be bothered to do their homework. It’s impossible.

(Speaking of things to read, here’s Valerio’s obituary for Gloria Anzaldua. I’m ashamed to say that she’s one writer I’m not as familiar with as I should be; I read Bridge way before I was completely ready for it and have seen a few interviews, but that’s it. I have to return John Henry Days to the library tomorrow; looks like I have some homework myself.)

Carey Roberts, Plagiarist

Well this certainly sounds familiar.

If I was Carrie Lukas — or Harvey Mansfield — I’d be pissed.

New Black Panthers to Vist Duke

I’m hesitant to comment too much on this one, because I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon that says the Black Panthers of the 1960s were violent hate-filled pushing-it-too-far dangerous black men who we should universally renounce.

But these aren’t the Black Panthers of the 1960s. These guys sound more than a little bit… off (to put it gently). And I think it’s fair to say that their presence in Durham probably isn’t especially helpful to the situation. Thoughts?

Thanks to Will for the link.

“His Manly Characteristic”

If you can stomach it, Media Matters has a look back at the fawning coverage of Commander Codpiece’s “Mission Accomplished” flight-deck moment. It includes this gem from G. Gordon Liddy:

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this broadside against the USS Abraham Lincoln and its chief visitor last week?

LIDDY: Well, I — in the first place, I think it’s envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man. And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know — and I’ve worn those because I parachute — and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those — run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count — they’re all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.

Remember, folks: Clenis bad, Manly Characteristic good.

Friday Random Ten

The “Yay, my bathtub is finally fixed and I can shower at home instead of at the gym!” edition. (It’s a good day).

1. Radiohead – Life in a Glass House
2. Ani Difranco – 32 Flavors
3. Mindy Smith – One More Moment
4. Gipsy Kings – Trista Pena
5. Tom Waits – A Sight for Sore Eyes
6. Elliott Smith – Going Nowhere
7. Fiona Apple – Tymps
8. Pixies – Where Is My Mind
9. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah – Over and Over Again
10. DJ Shadow – Six Days

Why a “Contraceptive Mentality” Can Save Lives

Seems the Converts’ Zeal thread has attracted one of the “contraceptive mentality” types who can’t seem to see any value whatsoever in the Vatican’s recent tentative moves to recognize that maybe their absolutely-no-condom policy is harmful to people in countries ravaged by AIDS. Seems Tony can’t quite believe that there could be any value whatsoever to relaxing the Church’s position on condoms where one spouse has AIDS or HIV; he feels that the spouses should just suck it up and never have sex again.

But, via Qusan at State of the Qusan, here’s an example of why that might not work out so well in practice:

Kenyan women’s rights activists have condemned an MP who told parliament that women usually say “No” to sex, even if they mean “Yes”.
During a debate on a new sex crimes law, Paddy Ahenda said Kenya women were too shy to openly say “Yes” and warned the law could prevent marriage.

Twelve of Kenya’s 18 female MPs walked out in protest, saying Mr Ahenda and other MPs were “trivialising” rape.

Many Kenyans are alarmed by a huge rise in the incidence of sexual abuse.

“This is a nation that should be in shame because its leaders are laughing at offences committed against women and children,” said Kenya National Commission on Human Rights official Catherine Mumma.

‘Impediment to marriage’

Several male MPs feared that the bill went too far and could lead to a spate of false accusations by women. *

“If the bill is adopted the way it is, it will prevent men from courting women and this will be a serious impediment to the young who would want to marry,” said Mr Ahenda.

“In our culture, when women say ‘No’, they mean ‘Yes’ unless it’s a prostitute.”

The AFP news agency reports that many of his male colleagues laughed and applauded his comments.

So here we have an example of a culture in which women aren’t really going to have the option of nobly foregoing sex with their husbands lest they fall prey to a “contraceptive mentality.” Oh, no — this is a culture where forced sex is considered “courting,” because “no” really means “yes,” so even if she refuses, there’s no such thing as rape, because of course, of course she really meant yes!

Erm, unless she’s a prostitute. Which means, apparently, that she can mean no when she says it. I’m still trying to figure that one out.

But back to this condom thing. The Catholic Church is an enormously powerful institution and has its hands in all kinds of relief organizations serving the countries and continents most affected by AIDS. Yet until recently, they wouldn’t even entertain the thought that condoms could have any value in prevention, so they stood in the way of AIDS education that promoted condom use. As a result, you have a lot of women in countries with fucked-up attitudes like those on display in the Kenyan Parliament at the mercy of men who view them as property. Women are expected to be pure, but men can fuck whomever they please — which means that even good girls who remained pure until their wedding nights and faithful to their husbands are contracting AIDS from those very husbands — who visit prostitutes with impunity. And without any contraception, these women are also getting pregnant and passing HIV to their children.

Outside of abstinence, condoms are the single most effective form of AIDS prevention available. Comprehensive AIDS education that takes into account cultural taboos and the disparity of power between men and women can be effective in controlling the spread of the disease (Thailand, for instance, home to a large sex-tourism industry, has had success in doing so). It is enormously damaging to the very populations the Church is trying to assist with poverty relief, vaccinations and sanitation programs to discourage the use of the one truly effective weapon against uncontrolled HIV infection.

_________
* This doesn’t really have anything to do directly with the subject of the post; I just wanted to highlight this as a perfect example of the whole “those lying sluts” phenomenon. If we acknowledge that women have autonomy and can say no, if we then make it a crime to violate that autonomy by forcing a woman to have sex against her will, men will be the real victims because women will falsely accuse them of rape. So, better not make rape a crime, then.

Sigh.

Read this AP account of a horrific attack on a Hispanic teenager in Texas by two slightly older white teenagers, and think about what they’re avoiding saying:

SPRING, Texas – Two white teenagers severely beat and sodomized a Hispanic 16-year-old boy who they believed had tried to kiss a Hispanic 12-year-old girl at a party, authorities said.

The attackers forced the boy out of the Saturday night house party, beat him and sodomized him with a plastic pipe, shouting anti-Hispanic epithets, said sheriff’s Lt. John Martin.

Could it be the word “rape,” by any chance?

This boy was raped, but the AP squeamishly avoids the term. The story goes on to say that the attackers were charged with aggravated sexual assault, which is the charge that seems to cover forced penetration with an object rather than a penis. Had the victim been female, the story would have said that she was raped.

What could the reason be for the AP to use the term “sodomized” rather than “sexually assaulted” or “raped?” Some belief that men can’t be raped? Or that rape is a crime of sex rather than of violence, so that if there wasn’t any possibility that the victim invited it by dressing provocatively or some such?

Also, the use of a term that also describes consensual sexual relations between gay men to describe a violent sexual assault serves only to perpetuate the myth that there’s something unseemly and deviant about consensual homosexual sex (not to mention the acts that heterosexual couples indulge in that also fall under the definition but few associate with the term anymore). You certainly never hear of the press using the terms “intercourse” or “sex” or “lovemaking” to describe a rape of a woman by a man.

And it’s not just this case that the press avoids the term — I remember that in the Abner Louima case, the press used the “sodomized with a broomstick” formulation. Perhaps, by avoiding the term “rape,” the press can distance itself from the blame-the-victim narrative it lapses into so easily in coverage of women who’ve been raped. In this case, there’s a bit of that, but it’s quickly displaced — first to the rapists themselves, then, sadly and probably predictably, to the girl that the victim tried to kiss:

Sheriff’s Lt. John Denholm said investigators believe the attack was prompted by the age difference between the 12-year-old girl and the 16-year-old boy.

“The two suspects were being mean and vicious and looking for any excuse to stomp somebody,” he said.

Denholm said the 12-year-old girl and her older brother witnessed the attack, but made no effort to stop it.

Because it always has to be a woman’s fault. She’s twelve, for God’s sake, and these two thugs beat, raped and poured bleach on a 16-year-old boy, and somehow, she or her older brother (age not specified, note), were supposed to stop this?

The victim, sadly, has only a 50-50 chance of survival due to the severity of his injuries.

My Latest Obsession

Well, not exactly “latest.” I’ve been obsessed with Shakira since high school spanish class, when we used to listen to her and sing along (I got her spanish-language albums for christmas when I was in 10th grade). But during my morning run at the gym today, I had the pleasure of seeing her latest video, My Hips Don’t Lie, on VH1. And I almost died. SO. HOT. I want to dance like her. I want to go barefoot in a long skirt and a t-shirt and no make-up and look perfect. I want to be earthy and goddessy and sexy in such a terrestrial way. Sure, she’s got the sparkles down her back, but she’s so much the anti-Britney that I have to love her. And perhaps I’m reading too much into her persona, and I realize that she’s made up and on MTV and looking to sell records, but I feel like she embodies the kind of raw female earth-mama sexuality that I find really powerful. She’s performing, but she isn’t over-done or high-heeled or hair-straightened. Yes, she’s conventionally beautiful, but her draw is something beyond the standard push-up-bra chin-down-eyes-up stalking-kitty version of sexiness that I’m used to seeing on MTV.

Or maybe I’m just standing up for her because I really love her and want to believe that she’s something of feminist role model, even though she never asked for that title and may not want it.

Either way, I don’t think I’m the only one with this obsession. The treadmills at the gym I go to face a mirror, and you can see everyone else in the cardio room when you’re running — and when this video was on, every single person was staring at TV #1, jaw-dropped. It’s amazing. If I could be any woman in the world, I would be Shakira (but not so everyone could stare at me). Just watch the video.

*Fun sidenote: My best famous-person sighting in New York was freshman year of college, when I was at a club, dancing with a tiny little curly-haired girl. We danced for ten minutes or so, and then I looked around and saw all these huge men in black t-shirts with earpieces staring at me. I got nervous, and looked down at the person I was dancing with, only to realize that it was Shakira, who had done TRL earlier that day to promote her first English-language album. Highlight of my life.

Asked and Answered

First of all: calling all card-catalogue junkies. I would like to open this comments thread up to any and all resources and good reads on normativity, prejudice, privilege, unexamined assumptions, and anything else anyone can name.

Second: Over on the feministing thread where a PhD candidate was just told to go take an English 101 class (not that the former circumstance precludes one from being a lousy writer, but I think she’s seen a few argumentative essays in her time, am I wrong?) and also to modulate her tone by someone who’s not racist at all, this hoary old chestnut just rose from its shallow grave again:

(Quoted by justine)

Audre Lourde in, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”

Whenever the need for some pretense of communication arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppresssed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. I am responsible for educating teachers who dismiss my children’s culture in school. Black and Third-World people are expected to educate white people as to our humanity. Women are expected to educate men. Lesbians and gay men are expected to educate the heterosexual world. The oppressors maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions.

And the response, coming this time from a David Thompson:

we read a piece by a woman who said essentially, it’s not the job of the oppressed to teach the oppressor–go out and learn that shit yourself.

Um, who are the “oppressors” supposed to learn that stuff from?

It’s hard to put into words exactly why this diffident little question makes me so mad. Maybe it’s that so much of it is implied rather than explicit.

I hear it a lot, usually after I express frustration with the burden of education. While it is annoying to be treated like a human filmstrip, the problems with this question go beyond the immediate disparity it sets up.

Look:

Q. [reference to Audre Lorde, one of the most brilliant women who ever breathed, who spent her whole life providing some of the most incisive answers yet articulated.]

Q (cont.): [profound yet accessible chapter-and-verse from Audre Lorde, one of the most brilliant women who ever breathed, who spent her whole life providing some of the most incisive answers yet articulated.]

A: [“But how am I ever gonna learn any of this stuff if you all complain when I ask my ignorant questions?! I gotta start somewhere!”]

So start with her. Is she invisible?

Obviously, yes. To David Thompson, Audre Lorde is a nonentity and her writing is so much gibberish. That paragraph probably didn’t even register; the key it provided wasn’t even picked up, let alone plugged into a search engine. Audre Lorde does not exist.

That’s what I find so infuriating about this question. People like Audre Lorde have been struggling, usually against Promethean odds, to bring their answers into the light since centuries before David Thompson and I were even thought of. There are answers to questions we are not capable of asking. There is more material out there to read and learn from than one person could tackle, and–most shamefully of all–most of it is accessible through the teensiest amount of effort. The only thing standing in the way is the one question no one really needs to ask.