So says Judge Virginia A. Phillips of a federal district court.
Obviously this won't change anything immediately, but hey.
Read More......
GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski Backs Marriage
18 minutes ago
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Kagan Confirmed
The Senate voted 63 to 37 to confirm Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court justice. She is the fourth woman on the court - this is the first time three women are serving at the same time - and the sixth person who is not a white male.
The vote was mostly along party lines: all the Democrats except Ben Nelson voted for her, and all but five Republicans against.
...So how badly do I want her to suddenly come out? Read More......
The vote was mostly along party lines: all the Democrats except Ben Nelson voted for her, and all but five Republicans against.
...So how badly do I want her to suddenly come out? Read More......
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
BREAKING: Prop H8 Unconstitutional
Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, has declared the 2008 ballot measure unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
The ruling will obviously be appealed, but for now, squeeee!
Edit: And execution of the judgment is stayed pending appeal, so no one can get married yet. Ffffff.
Edit: Appeal filed, but so's a motion to start marrying people anyway. Read More......
The ruling will obviously be appealed, but for now, squeeee!
Edit: And execution of the judgment is stayed pending appeal, so no one can get married yet. Ffffff.
Edit: Appeal filed, but so's a motion to start marrying people anyway. Read More......
Thursday, July 29, 2010
You are responsible for what you do
I'm really amazed I have to say this twice in less than one month, but apparently some people are very, very attached to the idea that they can do no wrong (and very fond of banning people who suggest otherwise).
I didn't think it was a difficult concept. Someone from a historically marginalized group tells you that you're perpetuating that marginalization, you take a look at what you did and try to do better in the future. You don't go "OMG you're the sexist one! If you didn't have all that sexism in your head, you wouldn't have thought what I did was sexist!" (An example from a commenter in one of this poster's other threads: "You're sexist! If you didn't think that the mother was the one who should always be taking care of the children, you wouldn't think policies restricting children's movement were sexist!" In defiance of the fact that since, in the real world, mothers do the majority of childcare, policies about children disproportionately affect women.)
That said, the poster's being a queer woman in no way precludes her post excluding queer people and promoting an essentialist view of gender. Or have we never seen gender-essentialist women before?
I'm not really sure how to describe this mentality. It's easy enough to call it a mechanism to shift blame for oppression onto the oppressed party (because she can't really think that her culture is not informed by sexism and homophobia, I hope), and while it's obviously that as well, I'm also interested in how it works in terms of blogging specifically. Was it an overreaction, surprise that anyone took issue with what she wrote?
I wonder how much of that has to do with the difference between writing on a small blog and writing on a large one. When I wrote a guest post for Feministe, I specifically kept in mind that it would be read by people of many backgrounds and political positions. This blog doesn't have a lot of readers, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones that do come are demographically similar to the bloggers - white, middle-class, American, possibly Jewish, possibly TAB. I've probably written a lot of racist, classist, and ableist stuff here that I haven't been aware of because of a commentariat that isn't necessarily diverse enough to notice and call me out on it - and that's my fault, for not writing about issues that affect more groups. But when I wrote that post for Feministe - a reworking of an earlier post - I made sure to define my terms, tried (not always successfully) to avoid unnecessarily excluding or targeting anyone, and attempted to weigh the concerns of both sides. Because Feministe has readers who are more sensitive both to anti-Semitism and to Islamophobia than I am, and who won't take my background and terminology as assumed.
And when people called me out for fucking up - for mocking the valid concerns of a group I belong to - I apologized, rather than saying "People who think anything I've said could possibly be anti-Semitic are narrow-minded and provincial anti-Semites."
I don't think the significant thing there was the way I wrote. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone fails to estimate what the response will be like to something they say. If that post received relatively little criticism, that means I got "lucky," not that I didn't say things that were offensive. (I say "lucky" - it isn't especially, since if I make a mistake that goes unnoticed I'm likely to make it again where it could hurt someone.) I think the important thing was the way I responded.
This is not meant as "yay me, I am a good blogger." Rather, this is to say that it's not difficult to apologize and try to do better. I am a rather prickly personality, and somehow I manage.
Because I am responsible for what I do. As a writer, part of what I do is choose words and phrases and paragraphs based on what they mean to me and to my audience. But since I write publicly and not privately, some of the people who might read my pieces are people I wasn't thinking about when I wrote, and their take on it is no less valid. They can't read my mind and know that I didn't "intend" to be racist or ableist. They can only read what I chose to put on the screen in front of them. If I didn't mean to write something that marginalizes them, it's my job to remember that they're my audience, too, and not do that again. Not tell them it's their fault for daring to take part in the discussion as a person who has faced racism or ableism that sounded like that, or that they'd better shut up until they can adequately appreciate my sophisticated yet natural wisdom.
You don't tell people that they're only seeing an -ism because it's in their heads, and that you're not responsible for marginalizing that you've done. This is a cardinal rule of anti-ism work. You own what you do.
Perhaps Mai'a isn't used to considering a wider range of responses. I don't know; it's not my place to psychoanalyze, because I can't see in her head either. All I saw was what she gave me: a post that other queer people and women saw as marginalizing, and an extremely inappropriate reaction to their concerns.
--
I admit I fucked up by assuming that this poster was heterosexual, though in my defense, the "I didn't meeeeeean to be homophobic, you're the homophobic one for noticing" is typically the resort of heterosexual people called on their straight privilege (as it is the resort of other groups of privileged people). However, I will definitely be more careful in the future, and remember that I too have internalized stereotypes of groups to which I belong. I also admit that I need to do a better job of taking off the American goggles. (From the comments visible there, it also appears as if I said that the poster was not black; this is because comments that would have made it clear that I do not believe that were deleted.) Read More......
I didn't think it was a difficult concept. Someone from a historically marginalized group tells you that you're perpetuating that marginalization, you take a look at what you did and try to do better in the future. You don't go "OMG you're the sexist one! If you didn't have all that sexism in your head, you wouldn't have thought what I did was sexist!" (An example from a commenter in one of this poster's other threads: "You're sexist! If you didn't think that the mother was the one who should always be taking care of the children, you wouldn't think policies restricting children's movement were sexist!" In defiance of the fact that since, in the real world, mothers do the majority of childcare, policies about children disproportionately affect women.)
That said, the poster's being a queer woman in no way precludes her post excluding queer people and promoting an essentialist view of gender. Or have we never seen gender-essentialist women before?
I'm not really sure how to describe this mentality. It's easy enough to call it a mechanism to shift blame for oppression onto the oppressed party (because she can't really think that her culture is not informed by sexism and homophobia, I hope), and while it's obviously that as well, I'm also interested in how it works in terms of blogging specifically. Was it an overreaction, surprise that anyone took issue with what she wrote?
I wonder how much of that has to do with the difference between writing on a small blog and writing on a large one. When I wrote a guest post for Feministe, I specifically kept in mind that it would be read by people of many backgrounds and political positions. This blog doesn't have a lot of readers, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones that do come are demographically similar to the bloggers - white, middle-class, American, possibly Jewish, possibly TAB. I've probably written a lot of racist, classist, and ableist stuff here that I haven't been aware of because of a commentariat that isn't necessarily diverse enough to notice and call me out on it - and that's my fault, for not writing about issues that affect more groups. But when I wrote that post for Feministe - a reworking of an earlier post - I made sure to define my terms, tried (not always successfully) to avoid unnecessarily excluding or targeting anyone, and attempted to weigh the concerns of both sides. Because Feministe has readers who are more sensitive both to anti-Semitism and to Islamophobia than I am, and who won't take my background and terminology as assumed.
And when people called me out for fucking up - for mocking the valid concerns of a group I belong to - I apologized, rather than saying "People who think anything I've said could possibly be anti-Semitic are narrow-minded and provincial anti-Semites."
I don't think the significant thing there was the way I wrote. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone fails to estimate what the response will be like to something they say. If that post received relatively little criticism, that means I got "lucky," not that I didn't say things that were offensive. (I say "lucky" - it isn't especially, since if I make a mistake that goes unnoticed I'm likely to make it again where it could hurt someone.) I think the important thing was the way I responded.
This is not meant as "yay me, I am a good blogger." Rather, this is to say that it's not difficult to apologize and try to do better. I am a rather prickly personality, and somehow I manage.
Because I am responsible for what I do. As a writer, part of what I do is choose words and phrases and paragraphs based on what they mean to me and to my audience. But since I write publicly and not privately, some of the people who might read my pieces are people I wasn't thinking about when I wrote, and their take on it is no less valid. They can't read my mind and know that I didn't "intend" to be racist or ableist. They can only read what I chose to put on the screen in front of them. If I didn't mean to write something that marginalizes them, it's my job to remember that they're my audience, too, and not do that again. Not tell them it's their fault for daring to take part in the discussion as a person who has faced racism or ableism that sounded like that, or that they'd better shut up until they can adequately appreciate my sophisticated yet natural wisdom.
You don't tell people that they're only seeing an -ism because it's in their heads, and that you're not responsible for marginalizing that you've done. This is a cardinal rule of anti-ism work. You own what you do.
Perhaps Mai'a isn't used to considering a wider range of responses. I don't know; it's not my place to psychoanalyze, because I can't see in her head either. All I saw was what she gave me: a post that other queer people and women saw as marginalizing, and an extremely inappropriate reaction to their concerns.
--
I admit I fucked up by assuming that this poster was heterosexual, though in my defense, the "I didn't meeeeeean to be homophobic, you're the homophobic one for noticing" is typically the resort of heterosexual people called on their straight privilege (as it is the resort of other groups of privileged people). However, I will definitely be more careful in the future, and remember that I too have internalized stereotypes of groups to which I belong. I also admit that I need to do a better job of taking off the American goggles. (From the comments visible there, it also appears as if I said that the poster was not black; this is because comments that would have made it clear that I do not believe that were deleted.) Read More......
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Undermedia
"We know the undermedia has power. And it comes from positioning it against the mainstream media."
"These stories kept building, building, building in this undermedia. You can call it Fox News; you can call it Breitbart sites; you can call it the Drudge Report; you can call it whatever you like — but this undermedia builds up stories."
These are two quotes I found, from very cursory Googling and without venturing onto his site, of Andrew Breitbart, a right-wing blogger, using his favorite word, "undermedia." It would seem that it's been his favorite word for a while, but I comment on it now because I first heard it today, once again on the radio.
From the first quote, it might seem like he has a point. Blogs and other non-mainstream forms of media do have power, especially because people are getting their news more and more from the internet. Blogs often cover issues and provide information that the MSM just doesn't cover, or for which they insist on providing "balance."
Except then you look at the second quote, and you realize what a ridiculous concept is the "undermedia" as Breitbart conceives it/ Because, while he talks about Breitbart sites and the Drudge Report - sure, even the most popular blog is still a blog, and there are plenty of popular blogs with a liberal slant - he also uses, as an example of the Oppressed Non-Mainstream Media, Fox News. The network that has more viewers than all the other major American networks combined.
This is yet another example of what Fred Clark describes as the "Persecuted Hegemon" complex and what we here just tag with the "whine more" tag. (Fred uses it specifically for the Christian right wing, but I find it applies pretty well across the board.) Of course, Breitbart isn't facing actual persecution. He and his blogs don't face any political repression; indeed, the blogs get loads of visitors (far, far more than the blog you're reading right now) and Breitbart himself is a sought-after speaker.
But Breitbart calls himself part of the "undermedia." It's the phenomenon of simultaneously dominating discourse:
...while still claiming to be persecuted.
But of course Breitbart is persecuted, because other voices are speaking. The mere existence of other media - the inability of his media of choice to stifle all other media - means that his media of choice are the "undermedia." (I've covered this before: see "Country First.")
We should all be persecuted like Andrew Breitbart. Read More......
Monday, July 12, 2010
What the ever-loving fuck
[Pentagon spokesman Geoff] Morrell also insisted that the questions with which most critics took the most umbrage -- i.e., those related to lifestyle issues like socializing outside of work as well as showering and sharing barracks with openly gay and lesbian colleagues (as though that does not currently occur) -- were developed as part of a process within the department and the working group to address the "privacy" issues of concern to heterosexual members of the military. Morrell said, "We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that did not address these questions," but insisted they were asked to help the military determine what adjustments might be necessary "when DADT is repealed."The army was desegregated over sixty years ago. "Separate but equal" was struck down almost sixty years ago. Yes, there were some very sincere racists who might have had their poor feelings hurt. And we, as a country, decided that we did not care, because equal rights were more important. Read More......
In response to questions from reporters, Morrell clarified that the survey responses could lead the military to conclude that it would "perhaps need adjustments to facilities themselves," indicating that it is not outside the realm of possibility that, in order to preserve the privacy and modesty of heterosexual service members in group showers and barracks, the military would consider segregating gay and lesbian service members in some way.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tarring and Feathering
(I don't normally like to do this, but since I've been banned from commenting there, I have nowhere else. So be it. If you want to skip the interpersonal drama, you can scroll down to the double dash -- for the generalized parts.)
So, I occasionally read Womanist Musings, usually on the order of "catching up once a month or so on what I've missed." Because of this habit, I happened to read this apology post before reading the grossly cissexist and homophobic post that prompted it. (Trigger warning on the latter link.) The original post was about Perez Hilton, a gay male gossip blogger who posted an upskirt photo of singer Miley Cyrus, and generalized to other gay men who still enjoy male privilege; the apology covered the cissexism in the original post, but not the homophobia.
Of course, unapologetic -ism is nothing new at Womanist Musings, but given that Renee posted specifically to apologize for wielding her cis privilege to hurt others, I thought it was possible that I had a chance at a similar apology for the use of her straight privilege as a weapon.
Boy, was I wrong.
If you'll read the comments on the apology post, you'll see that I make my problems with the original post very clear. Namely, they are:
that Renee othered Hilton's sexual orientation by making numerous snide asides about his lack of sexual interest in women
that Renee implied that Hilton has no right to complain about homophobia (but it's totally not acceptable!)
that Renee employed offensive stereotypes of gay people
and that it's not acceptable to use homophobic rhetoric against gay people just because you don't like them, because that affects gay people whom you're not targeting
I also went into detail about each of these complaints. This included:
an illustration of the fact that yes, Renee has written about sexism in the past without othering the sexist person's sexual orientation (her coverage of the Chris Brown case was somewhat lacking in the same snark about "he wants to fuck women, right? so why would he hit a woman?") and without saying that he has no business standing up to -isms that he faces (a post on sexism from Black men doesn't say that they "scream" about racism as if "only their oppression matters," nor does it use either a stereotype of Black men that is equivalent to the "shrill" stereotype of gay men, or the "oversensitive" stereotype applied to all oppressed people)
an explanation that saying that Hilton has no business complaining about homophobia also means that Renee's transphobia negates her right to blog, as well as, in general, setting up a mythical perfect person who is the only one with the right to complain about -isms - and that the nonexistence of such a perfect person and the consequent negation of anyone's right to complain about oppression is quite handy for the people who benefit from that oppression.
Renee eventually left the discussion (after misrepresenting my objections, accusing me of sexism, saying I was erasing others' experiences because I objected to her erasing of my own, and pretending that I had asked her to give up her issues and focus on homophobia when I had, instead, asked her not to be actively homophobic), which continued for a little bit in her absence.
More recently, one of WM's guest bloggers, Sparky, posted about the importance of safe spaces. Part of the post was about when it is appropriate to speak up about an -ism in someone else's safe space, which recalled to my mind the issue of homophobia and transphobia in what was supposed to be a safe space for women at the same blog. I commented, disagreeing with Sparky's argument that sometimes it is necessary not to bring up that oppression in a space devoted to another kind of oppression, and Sparky commented back clarifying that it was different for single-issue blogs and intersectional blogs. Another commenter mentioned the past post in a way that misrepresented the views of the people objecting, so I explained what was going on as well as why I had commented - because I expect an intersectional blog to be a safe space. Fairly on-topic, wouldn't you say? Talking about calling out -isms in safe spaces in a post about calling out -isms in safe spaces?
Of course, the magic wand of privilege can make anything "off-topic," so my comments were duly tarred. And then the comment thread becomes a wonderful source for privilege bingo, hitting "But I know gay people who don't think it's homophobic!", "I didn't mean to be homophobic so it wasn't homophobic!", "You're derailing!", "You're oppressing me!" (the source of the post title), "You have no right to expect a safe space!", "THE GAY AGENDA!!1!", and the wonderful old "You're just oversensitive!"
--
Of course, WM isn't the only internet (or real-life) "progressive" place crawling with -isms. That doesn't make this any less wrong. In theory, at least, "progressive" is not a synonym for "cis heterosexual supremacist" or "white TAB supremacist" or "white male supremacist." (No matter what other marginalized communities the people in question may be part of - female, disabled, POC, gay - if you enjoy any privilege, when you are the gatekeeper of that kind of space and discussion, you take responsibility for not using that privilege against other people.)
This means that it is incumbent upon maintainers of "progressive" (inclusive, intersectional, etc.) spaces to make those spaces safe for everyone. Make a racist comment at a campus feminist meeting? Congratulations, your group is not a safe space for people of color. Offhand rape joke at Students for a Democratic Society? There goes a woman who might have made a difference to your movement. (This is part of why I have a problem with Joe.My.God. - because it is not a gay male blog, though it is run by a gay man, and though it deals with issues relating to plenty of groups, it's not a safe space for most of those groups. The comment section is often a cesspool of sexism, for example, and the habit of referring to unpleasant people as "Miss" doesn't help much either.)
And intersectionality is crucial here. One commenter at WM (who I assume is heterosexual, though I could be mistaken) explained that she felt that her experiences were validated by Renee's sarcasm. Guess what? I found that sarcasm offensive, as I found the subsequent attempts to erase my experiences. Now, I really doubt that there was no way to validate straight women's experiences without hurting queer women. This comes of weighing your options and choosing to use what may have been a slightly more effective rhetorical technique to make straight women feel better, at the cost of hurting queer women. Not caring if you're hurting queer women? Makes you homophobic. And when you make yourself out to be the maintainer of an inclusive space, unapologetically throw around your straight privilege, and ban people for pointing it out, you betray that intersectionality and inclusiveness, and your blog is not a safe space for queer people.
This is why you recognize that you are abusing your privilege, apologize, and do better in the future.
If cissexism in your "safe space for women" drives away women who need the safety you advertise, you have failed women. If your philosophy includes a recognition of the fact that "all isms affect women" and you proudly use homophobia as a tool to fight sexism, you have failed women.
--
As I explained there (partly in comments that were left intact and partly in ones that were deleted):
Part of what straight privilege means is that Renee can walk away from this and forget after two minutes about those touchy queers "tarring and feathering" her. (Yeah, pointing out someone's privilege is apparently equivalent to torture now.) For her, walking away means not having to confront her internalized biases.
For me, walking away means resigning myself to the fact that one of the most prominent progressive bloggers doesn't think homophobia is even worth acknowledging, much less apologizing for. For me, walking away means accepting second-class status in a particular space where I expected to be treated as an equal human being. Read More......
So, I occasionally read Womanist Musings, usually on the order of "catching up once a month or so on what I've missed." Because of this habit, I happened to read this apology post before reading the grossly cissexist and homophobic post that prompted it. (Trigger warning on the latter link.) The original post was about Perez Hilton, a gay male gossip blogger who posted an upskirt photo of singer Miley Cyrus, and generalized to other gay men who still enjoy male privilege; the apology covered the cissexism in the original post, but not the homophobia.
Of course, unapologetic -ism is nothing new at Womanist Musings, but given that Renee posted specifically to apologize for wielding her cis privilege to hurt others, I thought it was possible that I had a chance at a similar apology for the use of her straight privilege as a weapon.
Boy, was I wrong.
If you'll read the comments on the apology post, you'll see that I make my problems with the original post very clear. Namely, they are:
I also went into detail about each of these complaints. This included:
Renee eventually left the discussion (after misrepresenting my objections, accusing me of sexism, saying I was erasing others' experiences because I objected to her erasing of my own, and pretending that I had asked her to give up her issues and focus on homophobia when I had, instead, asked her not to be actively homophobic), which continued for a little bit in her absence.
More recently, one of WM's guest bloggers, Sparky, posted about the importance of safe spaces. Part of the post was about when it is appropriate to speak up about an -ism in someone else's safe space, which recalled to my mind the issue of homophobia and transphobia in what was supposed to be a safe space for women at the same blog. I commented, disagreeing with Sparky's argument that sometimes it is necessary not to bring up that oppression in a space devoted to another kind of oppression, and Sparky commented back clarifying that it was different for single-issue blogs and intersectional blogs. Another commenter mentioned the past post in a way that misrepresented the views of the people objecting, so I explained what was going on as well as why I had commented - because I expect an intersectional blog to be a safe space. Fairly on-topic, wouldn't you say? Talking about calling out -isms in safe spaces in a post about calling out -isms in safe spaces?
Of course, the magic wand of privilege can make anything "off-topic," so my comments were duly tarred. And then the comment thread becomes a wonderful source for privilege bingo, hitting "But I know gay people who don't think it's homophobic!", "I didn't mean to be homophobic so it wasn't homophobic!", "You're derailing!", "You're oppressing me!" (the source of the post title), "You have no right to expect a safe space!", "THE GAY AGENDA!!1!", and the wonderful old "You're just oversensitive!"
--
Of course, WM isn't the only internet (or real-life) "progressive" place crawling with -isms. That doesn't make this any less wrong. In theory, at least, "progressive" is not a synonym for "cis heterosexual supremacist" or "white TAB supremacist" or "white male supremacist." (No matter what other marginalized communities the people in question may be part of - female, disabled, POC, gay - if you enjoy any privilege, when you are the gatekeeper of that kind of space and discussion, you take responsibility for not using that privilege against other people.)
This means that it is incumbent upon maintainers of "progressive" (inclusive, intersectional, etc.) spaces to make those spaces safe for everyone. Make a racist comment at a campus feminist meeting? Congratulations, your group is not a safe space for people of color. Offhand rape joke at Students for a Democratic Society? There goes a woman who might have made a difference to your movement. (This is part of why I have a problem with Joe.My.God. - because it is not a gay male blog, though it is run by a gay man, and though it deals with issues relating to plenty of groups, it's not a safe space for most of those groups. The comment section is often a cesspool of sexism, for example, and the habit of referring to unpleasant people as "Miss" doesn't help much either.)
And intersectionality is crucial here. One commenter at WM (who I assume is heterosexual, though I could be mistaken) explained that she felt that her experiences were validated by Renee's sarcasm. Guess what? I found that sarcasm offensive, as I found the subsequent attempts to erase my experiences. Now, I really doubt that there was no way to validate straight women's experiences without hurting queer women. This comes of weighing your options and choosing to use what may have been a slightly more effective rhetorical technique to make straight women feel better, at the cost of hurting queer women. Not caring if you're hurting queer women? Makes you homophobic. And when you make yourself out to be the maintainer of an inclusive space, unapologetically throw around your straight privilege, and ban people for pointing it out, you betray that intersectionality and inclusiveness, and your blog is not a safe space for queer people.
This is why you recognize that you are abusing your privilege, apologize, and do better in the future.
If cissexism in your "safe space for women" drives away women who need the safety you advertise, you have failed women. If your philosophy includes a recognition of the fact that "all isms affect women" and you proudly use homophobia as a tool to fight sexism, you have failed women.
--
As I explained there (partly in comments that were left intact and partly in ones that were deleted):
Part of what straight privilege means is that Renee can walk away from this and forget after two minutes about those touchy queers "tarring and feathering" her. (Yeah, pointing out someone's privilege is apparently equivalent to torture now.) For her, walking away means not having to confront her internalized biases.
For me, walking away means resigning myself to the fact that one of the most prominent progressive bloggers doesn't think homophobia is even worth acknowledging, much less apologizing for. For me, walking away means accepting second-class status in a particular space where I expected to be treated as an equal human being. Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)