eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)

While reading the Atlantic after dinner--specifically, the article "What Interracial and Gay Couples Know about Passing," by Angela Onwuachi-Willig, about racial and gender passing in the past and present--I came across the old same-sex-marriage-opponents' claim, that straight partnerships may make life and queer partnerships don't, so therefore straight sex should be privileged by the state by granting it the special civil/religious status of marriage.

I don't know about other people, but my various queer partnerships (and I have to say that I
 believe all of them are queer in some way, because I'm in them and I'm queer!) have certainly been one of the things that not only made my life continue, but made it worth living, especially during the times when I was depressed. Isn't saving a life just as much a miracle as engendering one? The rescue doesn't have to be dramatic or instant, but isn't less real for all that.

Has anyone else seen this take on that argument? I haven't and wonder if it's out there. I think it deserves to be.


This entry was originally posted at http://eredien.dreamwidth.org/1934.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)

While reading the Atlantic after dinner--specifically, the article "What Interracial and Gay Couples Know about Passing," by Angela Onwuachi-Willig, about racial and gender passing in the past and present--I came across the old same-sex-marriage-opponents' claim, that straight partnerships may make life and queer partnerships don't, so therefore straight sex should be privileged by the state by granting it the special civil/religious status of marriage.

I don't know about other people, but my various queer partnerships (and I have to say that I
 believe all of them are queer in some way, because I'm in them and I'm queer!) have certainly been one of the things that not only made my life continue, but made it worth living, especially during the times when I was depressed. Isn't saving a life just as much a miracle as engendering one? The rescue doesn't have to be dramatic or instant, but isn't less real for all that.

Has anyone else seen this take on that argument? I haven't and wonder if it's out there. I think it deserves to be.


eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
[I'm trying out Dreamwidth's crossposting feature; if you're getting errors on either LJ or DW please let me know.]

The many books which I find to read often change me. The few books which find me to read them change the me who I am.

Tell the Wolves I'm Home by Carol Rifka Brunt, is such a book.

Detailed summaries are everywhere, so I'll only touch on the plot: in the late 80's, the main character is fifteen, and her favorite uncle--a gay man semi-closeted by the kind of silent family agreement that with time becomes a silent family dispute--dies of AIDS. The grief in this book is large, and real, with the quality of startling mundanity that real grief has.

The other characters in the book feeling the fact of the uncle's absence from their lives is what creates the character of the uncle, or more accurately the character of the uncle's absence, for the reader. The book's prose and the characters' emotions are the tools that Brunt gives the reader to feel around for the edges of the hole, the space--once filled, and now empty--in the structure of the story. One miracle of this book is that this whole writing structure is totally unforced, almost invisible, effortless and agentless as heartbreak. A second miracle in prose: this theme of negative space is explored literally in the book by the device of a painting, and that doesn't feel forced either: having the metaphor made concrete in the book seems the most natural of devices, evolving solely from the characters' interests, memories, and conversations.

This theme of negative space is, of course, a metaphor for the secret surrounding AIDS and the family's individual secrets surrounding the larger, half-spoken truth of the uncle's life with his longtime partner before his death. Wolves doesn't shy away from using that metaphor with precision and great sensitivity--and even better, eventually drops all metaphor when confronted with such human, impossible, life-changing, grief as AIDS. The grief in this book is gloriously, purposefully, deliberately angry, made political by personal necessity, and so, so valuable for that: the fact that it evokes the political and moral climate surrounding American queer people in the late 80's and early 90's, and the way that it does so, made me remember watching Philadelphia as a closeted 14 year old and realizing at the time that it was considered an act of award-winning cultural daring for famous people with thousands of dollars and corporate backing to act out love in the way I actually loved, or to act out dying in the way I understood that people like me were probably going to die.

I can't imagine what it would have been like to read this book as a straight person, or even as a younger LGBTQ person (as fascinated as I would be by hearing those perspectives), because the angry grief this book contains made me more happy to be myself and be no one else. Even though I was personally done feeling apologetic, guilty, homophobic, or self-hating about coming out and being out as a queer person, I didn't even know that I still felt apologetic, guilty, homophobic, and self-hating over having closeted myself in the first place. Wolves' finely detailed examination of personal, historical, and cultural grief surrounding the AIDS epidemic allowed me to see myself, my choices, and my unhappiness with those choices in context. I'm able, finally, to show compassion to the closeted queer girl I was half a lifetime ago, am amazed that I have such a capacity for compassion and love, and feel thrilled that it's necessary to continue to show myself such compassion.

Wolves, being built around death and secrets, may seem depressing. But this novel is a truly amazing coming to terms with the necessity of life's eventual end and the loss of loved ones, via the recognition that there is so much joy, color, love, art, capacity for self-exploration, and forgiveness bursting out of a merely fictional loss that it gives one immense amounts of hope for the nonfiction of life.

Please, please read this book; I'd love to discuss it with you, my friends.

This entry was originally posted at http://eredien.dreamwidth.org/267.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
[I'm trying out Dreamwidth's crossposting feature; if you're getting errors on either LJ or DW please let me know.]

The many books which I find to read often change me. The few books which find me to read them change the me who I am.

Tell the Wolves I'm Home by Carol Rifka Brunt, is such a book.

Detailed summaries are everywhere, so I'll only touch on the plot: in the late 80's, the main character is fifteen, and her favorite uncle--a gay man semi-closeted by the kind of silent family agreement that with time becomes a silent family dispute--dies of AIDS. The grief in this book is large, and real, with the quality of startling mundanity that real grief has.

The other characters in the book feeling the fact of the uncle's absence from their lives is what creates the character of the uncle, or more accurately the character of the uncle's absence, for the reader. The book's prose and the characters' emotions are the tools that Brunt gives the reader to feel around for the edges of the hole, the space--once filled, and now empty--in the structure of the story. One miracle of this book is that this whole writing structure is totally unforced, almost invisible, effortless and agentless as heartbreak. A second miracle in prose: this theme of negative space is explored literally in the book by the device of a painting, and that doesn't feel forced either: having the metaphor made concrete in the book seems the most natural of devices, evolving solely from the characters' interests, memories, and conversations.

This theme of negative space is, of course, a metaphor for the secret surrounding AIDS and the family's individual secrets surrounding the larger, half-spoken truth of the uncle's life with his longtime partner before his death. Wolves doesn't shy away from using that metaphor with precision and great sensitivity--and even better, eventually drops all metaphor when confronted with such human, impossible, life-changing, grief as AIDS. The grief in this book is gloriously, purposefully, deliberately angry, made political by personal necessity, and so, so valuable for that: the fact that it evokes the political and moral climate surrounding American queer people in the late 80's and early 90's, and the way that it does so, made me remember watching Philadelphia as a closeted 14 year old and realizing at the time that it was considered an act of award-winning cultural daring for famous people with thousands of dollars and corporate backing to act out love in the way I actually loved, or to act out dying in the way I understood that people like me were probably going to die.

I can't imagine what it would have been like to read this book as a straight person, or even as a younger LGBTQ person (as fascinated as I would be by hearing those perspectives), because the angry grief this book contains made me more happy to be myself and be no one else. Even though I was personally done feeling apologetic, guilty, homophobic, or self-hating about coming out and being out as a queer person, I didn't even know that I still felt apologetic, guilty, homophobic, and self-hating over having closeted myself in the first place. Wolves' finely detailed examination of personal, historical, and cultural grief surrounding the AIDS epidemic allowed me to see myself, my choices, and my unhappiness with those choices in context. I'm able, finally, to show compassion to the closeted queer girl I was half a lifetime ago, am amazed that I have such a capacity for compassion and love, and feel thrilled that it's necessary to continue to show myself such compassion.

Wolves, being built around death and secrets, may seem depressing. But this novel is a truly amazing coming to terms with the necessity of life's eventual end and the loss of loved ones, via the recognition that there is so much joy, color, love, art, capacity for self-exploration, and forgiveness bursting out of a merely fictional loss that it gives one immense amounts of hope for the nonfiction of life.

Please, please read this book; I'd love to discuss it with you, my friends.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Dancing)

My Grandma's Letter
Originally uploaded by Eredien


My grandfather and grandmother moved from their home in FL last year into an assisted-living facility, when my grandfather's Alzheimers' finally got too much for my grandmother to deal with on their own.

That means that we get mail for them here, at our home, and usually bring it up to my grandmother at her current home, a long-term nursing unit where she lays slowly slipping into decline; my grandfather died in May at the age of 96. I visit her as often as I can, and sit with her as she struggles to breathe.

I won't be bringing her the letter from the FL Focus on the Family affiliate we got today, urging her to vote for Romney as "the candidate who shares your values": Florida Family Action and Citizen Link may think that my grandmother is a bigot, but she loves her queer granddaughter. And I love her.

A few years ago, while living in Boston, I met a wonderful person who cared for me and whom I cared for very much, and came out to my parents after almost a decade of being in the closet. My parents, who had previously seemed neutral on LGBT rights in general and quite supportive of other queer family members, told me I was wrong and should never get married. I was crushed.

They told me never to tell my grandparents: "you'd kill them." I'd been forming a close relationship with my grandparents--the kind I'd never been able to have with them as a child, since they lived so far away and we saw them so rarely--via letter. Rather than elide my partner and my life with them from my letters, I simply stopped writing to them. They were hurting, and I was hurting.

I wrote to them anyway. I told them I was queer. I told them I wasn't supposed to tell them. I told them I was angry at my parents and that I didn't have the family support I had hoped for. I told them that I loved them whatever their response was. I told them that if we were to stop talking to each other, we should at least know why. I told them I was terrified. I sent the letter, and I waited.

My grandmother wrote this letter back.
It's gotten me through the really bad times--the subsequent three-year battle for respect for my relationship from my parents, the loss of a job, my untreated clinical depression, my breakup with my partner mentioned in the letter, my move back to my hometown, my grandfather's death this May and my grandmother's subsequent decline, and the guy today who sat next to me in a government office and called me a carpet muncher to see if he could gay-bait me (it didn't work).

I am really glad that my then-partner, and my current partner, got a chance to meet my grandparents. I am glad to be their granddaughter. I am glad to be their queer granddaughter. And my grandmother is glad to have me, just as I am. I remember that when I'm tempted to give up on love, or frustrated with the daily, exhausting work of being an out queer person, and it makes my life a lot better every day.

I wrote to Florida Family Action, CitizenLink, and Focus on the Family, and asked them to take my grandmother off their mailing list.

She doesn't want your letter. She loves me.

If you are a queer person or an ally, and have received a similar election-year flyer, I ask you to do just two things:

- Write to the group that sent you the flyer, and its affiliates, and ask them to take you off their mailing lists. You have the power to stop their bigoted, ill-informed fears from coming into your mailbox and your home. Stand up and tell them you don't want any part of it.

- If you have a similar story or letter, please write about it. Talk about the hope that gets you through. Be honest with your family, whether they're blood or chosen.

Let them love you as you are and it might save your life. I know my grandma's letter saved mine.

Tasklist

29/8/12 20:05
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Dancing)
Taking a page from [livejournal.com profile] rax:

To buy sooner rather than later:
New SSHD for eee
Glasses (closeup and distance)
Digital Hygrometer/Therm. for Tokai's tank
Printer paper and Ink or professional business card printing 250 cards on order from vistaprint
Updated shade + finial + bulb adapter for restored antique lamp from great-grandmother K-Mart, of all places!
Sheets for my bed
Notary Public Exam Fee

Video games to buy eventually:
Wario DIY Wii
Replacement Pokewalker for the one I lost at the farmer's mkt
Pokemon Black or White?
Okami Wii/DS?
Fire Emblem Gamecube/Wii/GBA?
Gamecube controller for wii

Other stuff to buy eventually:
Silicon Dawn tarot 2x
An apartment
New modular bed+awesome futon mattress of awesome
Mac Webcam xBox Live webcam works natively in Mac for $10. Awesome.
Butterfly Socks

To find:
DS Charger Yeah it was in my DS case ...

To sew:
Dog coat + Hem B.'s jeans
Doll clothes
Baby hat for B. and L.
Bike basket
Redo world's worst-diagrammed crossstitch
Winter hat pack items
Mending

To list on ebay/craigslist:
Freaking model horse collection argh just break into your own storage unit by remembering that your parents' good intentions will never actually lead them to put aside the time to do things they said he would do with you
Spare piano (don't ask); remember shipping deal w/local piano movers Report craiglist scam to craigslist

To write:
Absinthe Writeup
TY notes to people for whom I have petsitted, for asking for a review
WWIA notes digitization
WWIA chap 5
WWIA chap 6
Email replies to friends
Write 3rd stanza Tesla in Love, don't worry about 1st stanza rewrite yet
Writeup and Submit Sumptuary to GURPS company
Movie/Book writeups: Philadelphia Story
Movie/Book writeups: all the crap I read this spring in the hospital (The Picture of Dorian Gray, Winter Triptych, Bird Friendly Building Design, Washington: A Life, Sex on 6 Legs, Jack Reacher novels, Sew-What Pattern Free Bags, Battle Hymn of Tiger Mother, Sound of a Wild Snail Eating, Animals Make us Human, A Fair Maiden, Goon Squad, America: You Sexy Bitch, Off the Cuff, One Man's Garden, At Home)
Ulysses writeup one good book
Gecko article
Revise sword in the hand
write up sword in the hand
post sword in the hand
Review of Dog Stars
Peachberry pie, 3-tomato eggplant parmesan, and stirfry recipe writeup + carrot-saffron risotto and sweet potato soup
Salty Mango Lassi Ice Cream recipe writeup + photo to flickr, LJ
Writeup of MWPAI exhibits

To read:
Finish Hare w/Amber Eyes
Restart Ulysses
Find public-domain bilingual copy of Brothers Dostovesky, read once Ulysses is done

To website:
Catification writeup + submission
Website design - doesn't have to be fancy, check pininterest re: color schemes
Addon website for Paws & Claws petsitting
Twitter design - should mirror website
LJ design - should mirror website - embed?
Upload final foxes video to Youtube, Flickr
Upload historical local house photos to Flickr in new set, email url to historic preservation people
Upload baby shower photos to Flickr, email url to C & B
1 hr Help mom with photo upload/CD burn
Upload B. bd party photos to Flickr, email URL to Bethany
Get Genderplayful setup with winter hat pack items
Email butter lady for mom
Fish photos, drop off camera to process scan in photos, upload to Flickr
Upload cat show photos to flickr
KeePassX

To design:
Business cards for Paws & Claws petsitting

To post:
Business cards for Paws & Claws
Return ASL DVD to library, get ASL book instead

Games:
Take Go books out of the library again, but this time one at a time
Continue playing through chapter-end book questions on Goban
Play Glitch again, determine if I still want my acct. there This game looks awesomer than ever; too bad it's too slow and keeps crashing my browser.

Jobs:
Notary Public Exam
MCPHS? list pro and con, talk with Peg J.
Check w/BMC CDO
IDG Copy Editor Framingham
Cooking vegan shit in Boston
Call back NH library though chances of hiring are slim since budget did not pass Yeah they hired people already
Catsitting gig 13th-Oct 1
Syracuse Public TV
Check out Peace Corps as a committment for various mental health and dietary reasons I don't think this would be a good idea for me at this time; something to keep in mind for future.
Sub. teaching
Hamilton Editing Position
Spring farm cares

Places to volunteer:
Call back zoo Docent Orientation Oct 14th
Call Boston zoos re: volunteer program http://www.zoonewengland.org/page.aspx?pid=242 apply for Keeper Aide when I am in the area
Get back in touch with BMC gender activism people - try emailing admissions again; get in touch with Wellesley & Holyoke alums
to this end call Rachel D. in Albany

Other things to apply to:
Financial aid for NBSS
Application for NBSS for spring 2013 pres. carpentry program
Tufts summer school session again should I again find myself in Somerville
Clarion 2013
Traditional Building Master's Deg. class at Boston Architectural College

Music:
Perform Für Elise for A. and B. while they are here This didn't get done
Finish composing "TimesNR" in Wario DIY & output to interwebs
Relearn Moonlight Sonata
Call Tina re: piano/organ lesson swap for vegan food? Left email for B.
Fix iTunes (Japanese & Russian transcription error correction, add correct composers for Holst & other classical for sort error correction. Upload entire CD library. Transfer cassettes not avail. on Amazon to MP3. Otherwise buy slowly w/change off of Amazon MP3. Sync iPod to use at gym.)

Exercise:
Go to the gym everyday. Use the time to listen to new music and relax. You don't have to prove any damn thing and if someone tries to make you guilty for spending time on yourself screw it.

Health:
Call foodstamps people and say your father is withholding necessary application info from you out of, apparently, sheer and total personal incompetence. Ask for next steps. Don't be embarrassed; It's not your fault the information has been withheld. Remember that getting rid of food insecurity and into food security will help you. You deserve to eat healthily. Read this article as many times as you need to to make the call.

Consult lawyer (K.?) to ask about statute of limitations on ENT doctor in Indiana who pumped me full of allergens after hospitalization Email K. again Look up stuff K advised me to

Call dojo that offers 1st month free + women's discounts to sit in on a muy tai or taichi class 6 pm beginner's class today Save up $ to restart martial arts

Call Alicia for Coffee

Pin down Brenda and mom for cat show times on 16th Sept. Hahaaa this is so not going to be decided until day of, but I try.

Call P. tomorrow re: catsitting 3 pm appt Sun done

Call D.K. re: fixing broken earrings Call Goldmine or Wilcox's jewelers & get rates Bring earring by, get estimate. Pick up fixed earrings

File:
Remaining stuff in filing cabinet.
Remaining email update list.
Combine buystuff email and personal email
Get new addresses for friends; update in Address book. Sync AB with iPod.
Sync AB with Google
Sync email list between private + personal email addresses.
Update all the accounts.
Stop Serbian hacker

Money:
List all accts in Manilia setup
List all accts in Mint
Balance checkbook + savings accts
Begin paying back remaining interest-bearing debts - call if necessary DONE
Begin paying back personal debts

Gender:
Tarot from Orion?
Consult self re: pronouns at end of year?
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
Yay! Aqueduct Press' The Moment of Change feminist speculative poetry anthology is released and ready to order!

My poem "The Last Yangtze River Dolphin" is reprinted in it, but even if it wasn't, I'd be urging you to get this book. It's full of absolutely incredible poems by a hugely diverse group of people--women, men, genderqueer people, transgendered persons, straight people, queer people, people of color, and people who refuse to self-define.

The poems are mythic and simple; beautiful and complicated; bright and dark. Please read this book. If you are at Wiscon, you can get it there and go to a reading as well.

Notes

1/9/11 20:52
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
Why I never returned your email:
If you have tried to contact me via email in the last month or so, I did not get your email, as I am locked out of all my gmail accounts due to a long and complicated story involving unrecoverable files on a laptop, a backup which failed, a phone which lost the program I needed to recover my files, and the fact that the gmail guardians of last resort will never be convinced that I am really the owner of any of my email addresses, since I cannot remember facts like the specific date on which I first activated my gmail account lo these many years ago. I am currently in the process of trying to figure out what to do next in terms of email communications, and in terms of my Google Plus identity.

TL;DR: I do not recommend implementing google 2-step authentication.

How to contact me now:
Texting me on my cellphone is best. Calling is ok too. When I get an email again I will post it here.

Where are you living now?:
I have settled into the new house. It is good. There are trees, and a small river nearby, and also the city is nearby. I have gotten used to Boston again. I am kind of starting to enjoy living here again.

What are your roommates like?:
Roommate E. went goth clubbing with me and some friends this Monday. It was exhausting but really fun. She is awesome. Roommate J. is almost never here, and he is sometimes very confusing in how he relates to people, although he is also nice. We are looking for a roommate to replace J.

What is your job like?:
My contract with Nokia was not renewed--I made a decision to pursue a career I liked better instead. As far as that goes I was very happy indeed though....recently though through nothing that could have been predicted my job description and responsibilities were changed at a very rapid pace, twice in two weeks, and that has recently thrown me off balance. I hope to work there for some time to come, as long as I continue to really enjoy the job and manage it well, and continue to learn my own strengths/weaknesses as an employee.

Are you staying in Boston for the forseeable future?:
Probably, unless I apply elsewhere for grad school and get a scholarship. I have found there is a food sciences program at Harvard Extension school and am considering figuring out if the program there seems as good a fit for me as the one at IU did. I am still really interested in getting my masters' degree, but need to make sure I pick the right program and right choice and have the resources at hand to back me up.

What is happening with your family?:
My sister is still awesome, as is my brother-in-law.

I attempted to reconcile with my family, with the help and assistance of my therapist, in late June. It did not go well. My father absented himself for half the session, and my mother told me that she was offended on behalf of the truly abused when I claimed I was abused. Some things that they told me make more sense now--I understand now why my mother hurts when I pull back from physical contact with her. But I also understand why I pull back from physical contact. I wish I had understood both of those things sooner. But I am glad I understand them now.

It took me a while to figure out what to do with my family relations after that. I visited my hometown in August, and had a good time with the rest of my extended family, and mourned a cousin who died, and finally came to realize and articulate to myself about a half-month ago that the best course for me would be to let my parents go, finally, because of the fact that they use friends, family, and loved ones to critique and hurt me. They also used me to hurt my friends, family and loved ones by constantly querying my timelines, decisions, choices, efforts and timetables until I started distrusting my own daily choices and hard-won self-knowledge and confidence in my own joy and the joy I found in my loved ones, family, and friends. I became so distrustful of most of my own desires that I questioned away my joyful, confident, knowledgeable, brave, self-assured, and kind self every time I was asked to make a decision. Because I was going through the insidious self-undermining cycle of mental self-flagellation caused by my abusive relationship with my parents--at a time when my partner and I already needed me to stronger, kinder, more effective, and clearly decisive on a daily basis--eventually every single daily decision I made on my own or was asked to make on behalf of the relationship became a process of desperately struggling to trust and express my own needs and wants, or rejecting my own needs and wants and expressing them as selfish, foolish, petty, or undeserving of being met.

I couldn't see the self-abuse, and didn't really know what was happening at the time, other than to know that I knew profound joy and love and respect when I allowed myself to follow my own heart's deepest promptings, and profoundly hurt when I did not allow myself to follow them. I decided to follow my own heart's deepest and most joyful promptings even though I was scared to let myself trust myself. Then, I was so proud to find that trusting and expressing my own joys again made myself and others happy. Then, I was profoundly terrified to learn that my decision to trust myself had not made my partner feel as happy as she said she was, but had made her feel scared and manipulated instead. In learning that, I felt had finally done what I had been taught that trusting my own decisions would inevitably do--cause a lot of hurt. I was taught that expressing my own needs was selfish. I was taught that trusting myself to love people and be loved was foolish because the people who loved me would always eventually admit that though they loved and cared for me, they ultimately felt trapped and constrained by my love and joy and presence in their lives but had felt obligated to lie to me about it because they couldn't bear to see me hurt when they told me the truth--that I was being selfish when I dared to express my love for them.

I stopped making decisions for a long while after that, and just accepted the decisions of others--whatever would make them happiest or most convenient, I did. I was hurt. That's what I do when I'm hurt.

Later, I realized that the above was the opposite of what actually happened. I realized that I could trust myself and my own decisions, I realized the interpretation of what would happen if I trusted myself was colored and twisted by my abuse and my hurt. I feel really proud and happy I realized that.

In the time between trusting my first decision, and knowing with the sick logic of the abused that I had hurt people by trusting myself and daring to have the audacity to love someone and be loved back, and realizing that that incorrect interpretation of events was formed by the patterns of self-doubt and questioning-abuse that bringing my joyful relationship to my parents had re-started in my own head, there were a few months where I felt a great self-loathing for my own capacity for love and joy.
There were a few months where I really believed that by allowing myself to trust myself, by being proud of my ability to do so, and by being proud of my ability to love others and be loved, I had been utterly selfish, and bore direct responsibility for the breakup. I felt that if I hadn't ever given in to allowing myself to selfishly love and trust her and trust myself to be with her, she would never have felt constrained by my love, never felt she had to lie to me about her perspective on my choices, never had to feel as if she had to tell me she was happy with me when she wasn't, and never needed me to leave. I hurt a lot.

I said a lot of things about myself that weren't kind that I regret. I said a lot of things about others that weren't kind that I regret. I don't think I could have gotten here today without having gone through that period of hating myself for being able to trust in my choices, hating that I could trust that my partners were telling me the truth, and hating myself for loving myself enough to allow myself to express my needs, which finally showed itself up as the foolishness it was all along.

It is good to trust myself. It is good to express my choices. It is good to love and be loved. What wasn't good was letting my self-confidence get undermined by my parents' insidious questioning of all my choices, such that I myself began questioning those things and hurt myself and the people I loved.

I can't think of a way to have a relationship with my parents that won't ultimately end in their raising objections and tiny undermining critiquing questions about everything I do, am, want to be, or who or what I love. I can't talk with them without talking about those things. They don't have the willpower to resist getting me to question every decision I make, and I believe they don't fully understand what they are doing. I don't have the ability, even after a decade of being on my own and learning--and being taught--to love myself and others better and better, to fully evade the abuse pattern. I don't know if any amount of self-love and self-confidence would ever be enough, because the more I have of it the more they use it as a weapon to convince me I am selfish and ungrateful, and turn me against my own best self. So, I am not talking to them any more.

I should have cut off relations with them fully last summer for my own health, but I had to be sure that I was making a decision that was good for me and not just good for my relationships--if it had been good for my relationships but bad for me it would ultimately have been a bad decision for my relationships as well.

TL;DR: I am cutting off relationships with my parents: the better I get, the more they use it against me and the people I love. They use the love I have for others to critique and hurt me and get me to doubt myself, and they use the love others have for me to critique and hurt others and get them to doubt themselves through my doubt. They have even done it to themselves, with their own love. This is unacceptable. They cannot stop. The better I get, the more ammo I give them. This is unfortunate, but I am not even really sad about it anymore; it's been more than a year coming slowly to this decision, since even mid 2009 I think, at the engagement party my parents threw for us: they didn't care if I or my partner wanted it. They were throwing it for themselves in a very real sense. I started to try and convince myself that they were doing it for me and my partner because I wanted to convince myself of that so badly, and I succeeded. When they did not call her when I was sick the summer of 2010, I tried to convince myself that it was because I had never done a good job of showing my family what I loved about her, because I so badly didn't want to admit that they would never respect me and the choices I made in my life, and I succeeded. From there, a whole host of doubts flowed and paralyzed my every move. No more.

I feel a vast sense of relief and the beginnings of a new life.

How is your health?:
Generally pretty ok, though often I have to go off antidepressants as I do not have enough money to pay for my psych services out of pocket and they do not take the state healthcare plan (no health insurance at job). However, I am still getting antidepressants and going to counseling when I can afford it, and enjoy it. It has been really helpful. I got a new doctor early this spring. I have not yet visited her; when I do for my yearly October visit I plan on introducing myself and asking for new hormone level tests, as well as discussing the fact that my psych medication noticeably interacts with my PMS in somewhat confusing ways. I also plan on asking for an allergy referral and a sleep study, as I have been having problems with my sleep cycle for years now and might finally have the resources to get help for myself.

I am tentatively trying out going vegetarian for health reasons, as I suspect I might have the beginnings of a latex-fruit reactivity problem. I am also putting it off for health reasons, as I know I have a lactose intolerance that makes me ill and uncomfortable for days at a time. I am also putting it off for ethical reasons, as I am really uncomfortable eating the commercially-produced milk, cheese and eggs that appear in so many processed food products now.

What have you been doing?:
Reading, writing, and healing. The fey novel is going to be about abuse, recovery, and its complexities: I cried when I realized that. I have also been hiking and swimming a lot. There is a lake about a mile from my house in one direction. There is a bookstore about a mile in the other direction. Life is, generally, good.

How are your pets?:
Tokai is finally eating on her own again. I am thrilled. She is a mighty huntress! Oolong is herself. She is adorable and fluffy and somewhat dopey. She's also 3 next month.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
A new bill recently introduced in the Maine Legislature would repeal the protections that transgender people have already had for five years under the Maine Human Rights Act. Maine Rep. Ken Fredette (R, Newport) says,
"The concept here is that there is not an absolute right for the transgender to go into a bathroom, there's not an absolute right for the transgender to go into a locker room of the sex that they simply identify with," Fredette said. I mean, that's it: "that they simply identify with." I wish somebody'd make Fradette go into the ladies' room for a month and see how that made him feel, since he apparently has no right "to go into a bathroom...a locker room of the sex that he simply identifies with"--oh wait, I forgot that it's only cis people who have the right to use the right bathroom or changing room in Maine.

The bill is LD 1046. According to this article on the website of the Maine Public Broadcasting Network, (which I think is an NPR affiliate) and which also has an audio clip about the bill: "Fredette's bill, LD 1046, says that--unless otherwise indicated--a restroom or shower facility designated for one biological sex is presumed to be restricted to that biological sex and that a transgender person would no longer be able to claim discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act if denied the use of the facility of their choice."

It's a gross article--people are using the term "transgender" left and right (and not just in quotes, either, but in the article text itself) instead of "transgender person," but people need to hear about this. There are hopeful quotes from cis gender advocates, and people like Jennifer Finney Boylan,
who gave testimony to the legislature, and is a very public transgender person and trans activist who teaches and lives in Maine. But they are going to need more than hopeful quotes to get this thing passed; it looks like there's a fair amount of popular/political/organization support.

People in Maine, and people who know people in Maine, please write your legislators and let them know that they shouldn't support this bill. Write the governor, who supports this bill, and let them know that Maine shouldn't be known for taking away its citizens' rights. If your legislator already supports this bill, let them know your're pissed off. And feel free to link to this post as much as you like.

Here is information about the bill from the Maine Legislature Website, plus full text, current action status, sponsors, and other information. The text of the bill is specifically crafted to remove a right transgendered people have already had for five years under the Maine Human Rights Act.
As if that weren't problematic enough, the criterion for bathroom/locker room allowal/denial is "Unless otherwise indicated, a rest room or shower facility designated for one biological sex is presumed to be restricted to that biological sex." So...what bathroom do intersex persons use? You gonna post cameras or people by the door to make sure that everyone who pisses passes? I sense a lot of undesignated restrooms in the future, except that a lot of time building codes require bathrooms to be designated--not sure how it is in Maine.

This is nasty,in terms of how it's being supported politically as well as in terms of the language being used to report on it.

I want to go to Maine in a little while and give them my tourist dollar, but will plan on staying out of the state if this bill passes and so long as it is in effect.

Maybe that sounds like an overreaction, but if I take a roadtrip to Maine, I know I'm gonna need to stop at some roadside diner to pee, or decide to eat in a restaurant my friends from college recommended to me, and if I'm not dressed "right" that day (ie, in accordance with the gender roles of whoever I ask to tell me where the bathrooms are), I really don't think I should have to get into a public fight with the staff and have to drag out my license to prove I'm a woman--no matter what the waitress or the guy behind the counter at the gas station thought about me when I walked in the door. I especially shouldn't have to get into a fight in order to fulfill a basic biological need, wash my face, and comb my hair. Nor do I want to.

If you would like to support the work being done to fight this bill, please volunteer or give to organizations working for rights for transgendered and queer people in Maine, such as Equality Maine.

Please, please repost this. Mainers, we're counting on you.

Update: After reading Boylan's testimony to the judges, I have to say that my initial impression that the bill is about passing people vs. non-passing people (I assume that both trans and cis people who didn't pass would be equally screwd over) was absolutely right. Here's Boylan's conversation with a legislator:
A supporter of the bill (remember that “supporting” means being against trans rights; “opposing” means being for them) said as much. One of the Senators asked, “If a trans person has had surgery, and appears to be female in every sense, how would you be able to know they were in violation of the law?” And the supporter of the bill–another Republican legislator–said, “Well, if I have no way of telling, the person wouldn’t be in violation.” He then looked around and said, “I mean, if you can’t tell, what’s the difference?”

If you meet his standards, whatever they happen to be, then you're not the person this bill is aiming for. Everybody's standards are assumed to be the same. Everybody's understanding of "male" and "female" is assumed to be the same. And if your standards aren't the same? If your understanding isn't the same? If you're a dykey dyke or a really slender guy? If you're wearing the "wrong" clothes or walking the "wrong" way or your facial structure makes people come up to you and ask what's between your legs? If your head is shaved and you're dressed in a hat and coat because it's winter and all the person can see is the tip of your nose, and your eyes and they have to guess your gender because you're all bundled up (not that such a thing would ever happen in sunny Maine)? Well, this bill's for you!. Specifically and deliberately.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
The recipe for Tropic Sunset Peach Bread Pudding is up.

The rest of this post consists of three questions, two of which are for Boston-area or potential Boston-area people, and one of which is about clothing. Boston-area questions first:

- Does anybody have a space where they could take in a cat for a month or two? I'm hoping to get at least a part-time job soon, and have had an interview lined up for two weeks now which I am really hopeful about, but due to crazy circumstances that interview has been rescheduled twice--instead of knowing if I'm going to get this job, I've been on tenterhooks. I don't know when I'm going to be able to get an apartment of my own, and the current situation with Oolong is temporary. I'd pay for food, litter, any vet bills, etc, and come by to see her every other week or so. I'd hoped to have an apartment by now, and I've been in talks with realtors and job people, but it's been slow going. There's no lack of non-paying volunteer opportunities, and there's no lack of administrative positions, but I know I'm no good at doing that particular task-set and need something else to be happy; I'm not really willing to compromise my job-related happiness at this point since it looks like my job is going to be the biggest part of my life for a good while, and it's important for me to get this right, and as soon as possible.

- Is anyone in the Boston area (or anyone interested in moving to the Boston area) interested in splitting an apartment with me? I don't drink at all right now but am generally a fan of liquor, don't smoke but don't care if you smoke outside, and am looking for a place where I can have my cat and a lizard. I'm not interested in living with dogs or other csts, and Oolong is probably not a safe bet for birds, but other pets would probably be fine. I am thinking maybe I would like to live in the Teele Sq area or up near Alewife, or maybe real close to the Camberville border in Arlington. I don't have a car and don't plan on getting one. I plan on setting up a mini artstudio space for making and selling my artwork, wherever I end up. I'm LGTBQ, poly, and generally alternative-lifestyle-friendly. I am interested in cooking and gardening and would be happy with a farmshare or actually growing some food outside or inside. I'm vegan. Another vegan or vegetarian roommate would be ideal, but I'm happy to live with meat-eaters. I'm hoping to find a kind of quiet place to relax most of the time, but the occasional loud and noisy party is great. I kind of hope to host a big friendly dinner/movie night once a week or maybe once a month, and enjoy actually knowing and liking my roommates instead of just kind of passing each other in the hallway.Video gaming, RPGing, anime, music, artistic creation, writing, cooking, general nerdliness, graduate school, etc. are also neat.

If interested, or have questions, please email me, call or text, or private message me on lj. Or you can just leave a comment here and I will get in touch with you.

- For genderqueer, queer, transgender, gender-head people, people who aren't satisfied with what "men's clothing" and "women's clothing" is, and other kinds of people who were interested in the clothing marketplace idea that I posted about a while back--it looks like the Genderplayful Marketplace is raising itself up by its black and purple pleather boostraps. I'd like to sell clothing and accessories there. I already have some ideas for shirts, pants, etc, maybe some accessories. I'd like to do a dress with a built-in tie/vest top, for instance. Does anybody have any suggestions of anything they'd really like to see in that space? I'd love to actually, you know, create what you want and what I want, and market it to you.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
You could get one of these to go with your Gay Angel Therapist Ken, [livejournal.com profile] gaudior. It looks like poor Bob could use a good therapist.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
I had an extra bit of energy today. I called my parents. The call was going pretty well until I told them I was going to drive back to Indiana to pick up my stuff and they weren't going to be involved in any way, because I didn't want them to be.

It is really very, very useful to be able to understand the exact tropes and language that your parents are using to dismiss your legitimate concerns and problems about your relationship with them.

Today I got:
- I know what your life was like better than you because I happen to have some privilege you don't which of course allows me to see everything that ever happened to you more clearly than you yourself see it ("we're older than you and we have experienced more of life so you should listen to us")

- Don't Ask Questions You Don't Want the Answers To/I Had Problems Too/Tone Argument ("When weren't were there for you?" "Well, how about when you didn't pick us up from school? When you didn't drop us off on time? When you didn't build the treehouse? When you didn't build the dollhouse? When you didn't go skiing or play backgammon?" "When dad didn't come into our apartment and I had to explain to Rachel that he wouldn't tell me why he wouldn't come in, and how that hurt both of our feelings?" "Well...my parents also didn't do things with me that I wish my parents had done. I'm not upset or angry. And your father totally came in and toured the house [lie].")

- Outright denial of my lived experience ("I feel like you weren't always there for me." "We were there for you 110% percent!")

- My personal failings couldn't have impacted you at all, and certainly not in the way that you say they did ("we recognize that we have a problem with procrastination, but that's our problem, not yours")

- I Will Privilege My Interpretation of Events Over Yours, which allows me to Discount Your Point of View as Irrational so that I Won't Have to Solve the Problem that Hurt You ("We had problems with procrastination, but that stuff about being late happened way less than you think it did!")

It's sometimes necessary and good, even if it doesn't feel very nice, to say "Fuck you," and hang up the phone.

Thank you, anti-racism and anti-sexism and anti-homophobia and anti-cisgenderism, and all my friends and family who have encouraged me in my learning even when it's hard. By learning how to get rid of my own prejudices and bigotry, I am also gaining the tools to help myself heal.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
I've been reading this piece about the Eddie Long scandal [summary: yet another anti-gay pastor accused of having gay sex with young adults in his pastoral care], and how the idea of the "prosperity gospel" of Long's church feeds into the scandal, over at Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog (the piece itself is written by Coates' friend Jelani Cobb though it's on Coates' blog).

In the comment thread there, people have been discussing the idea, the historical roots and the absurdities, of the "prosperity gospel" idea. For those of you not up on your Christian dogma and theology, this is basically the idea that you should pray to god for literal wealth, which makes you better able to reflect the glory of God to others who see you and know you've got it together because of God, which reflects well on God, etc. This great Chick-tract-esque comic about "Supply-Side Jesus," co-authored by Al Franken, pretty much sums up the whole movement.

Another commenter, Maretha2, summed up a dissertation she'd edited, giving a concise summary of the historical and social reasons why White Christians and African-American Christians interpreted, and still interpret, the idea of the "prosperity gospel" somewhat differently. Of the African-American interpretation of the "prosperity gospel," she wrote, The world says you can't get ahead--but with God you're more than a Conqueror. And the King wants his children to live well--it reflects well on God if his children aren't poor and pitiful.

And I thought about that, and realized how and why that theological idea,
it reflects well on God if his children aren't poor and pitiful, was drummed into me as a child in church in terms of clothing and appearance. I've never quite believed it, and always thought it patently ridiculous, but the conflict between this "it reflects well on God if you dress up for church" idea I was taught and how I actually felt is, as far as I can tell, pretty much the entire root of my conflicted thoughts about clothes, and my ambivalence about and joy in clothes, and a lot of my ambivalence and conflicted thoughts about the beauty inherent in my own body. I feel like I've just dug up one huge dandelion, and can see how ridiculously long the root was.

Here was my response to Maretha2's post, which made me realize all the above as I was writing it. I swear it gets back to general theology eventually. )
--
And that is why I am going to get a tattoo of a deep-sea fish on my body, as soon as I can afford it, to remind myself, when I forget, that I am beautiful, until I don't forget anymore. Because I am beautiful, and I deserve to know that.

I might put some of the text in, too, about the bees or about the fish or about "didn't even have the eyes to see them," but I haven't decided on that yet. However, I am definitely getting a fish. I haven't decided which fish yet, though. Can you help me? (Vote is non-binding, since this is going to be on my body and not yours.) :D

Candidates include both glowing and non-glowing fish:
- Lanternfish
- Anglerfish (though maybe not, because damn those things are toothy)
- Daggertooth, which looks pretty awesome (this is a new species of Daggertooth discovered in '08 in Antarctica. The record-setting specimen of the Nettled Daggertooth species was hermaphroditic.)
- A Barracudina
- Rattail
- Tripod Fish [this is a video]
- Coelacanth, a fish of which I am terminally fond
- Stoplight Loosejaw, a kind of deep-sea dragonfish which hunts with a red (essentially invisible) beam of light and synthesizes chorophyll from its prey in order to see [damn!]

Feel free to point me toward other deep sea fish I've missed here (fish only please, no other deep-sea glowy things. Stingrays are ok, since technically they are fish. Also, I like stingrays).

In short: there's a seriously worthwhile discussion over at Coates' blog; go and read it!
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
The Indianapolis Farmers' Market vendor "Just Cookies" just won't make cookies for gay IU students. Fun fact: the cookie order was eventually placed with the "Flying Cupcake" bakery on, get this, Massachusetts Ave.

I would have volunteered to make them cookies. In fact, here, here's two cookies. Pass them around, folks:









Quote from the article by the local Fox affilate: IUPUI's spokesperson said the school has no formal complaint against the bakery and added embracing diversity means allowing the business owners the right to their opinion and the right to choose how to serve its customers, as long as those customers are not discriminated against.

I think this is an interesting question. When you are running a food-related business and choose not to serve someone because, "We have our values, and you know, some things ... for instance, if someone wants a cookie with an obscenity, well, we're not going to do that," when does choosing not to serve someone because you disagree with who the person is once they have told you become discrimination, and when does that become a business owner simply turning away a customer? Can it, legally, be treated as discrimination? I mean, it seems to me like the customers are being discriminated against by the act of not being served, because they likely would have been served if they had not identified themselves as queer, or had lied and said they wanted the cookies for some other event. Any lawyers want to clear this up?

I wonder how many queer students Just Cookies unknowingly served because they didn't know they were gay; there's evidence they served at least one queer student previously (unknown to them). I bet they won't get many now.

Oh, and Indiana was one of the states to file an amicus brief against same-sex marriage in the prop 8 appeal in CA.

...I can't believe I still want to move back.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
I don't really engage in many fandoms, and what engagement I do is generally literary- or costume-based, rather than TV- or movie-based.

However, after having read a discussion in [livejournal.com profile] rm's blog, I find that there's an important theoretical and artistic point lurking within her recent critique of the lack of gay characters in a new TV show.

After watching the pilot of a show, [livejournal.com profile] rm basically said that she couldn't tell if the heterosexual relationship in the pilot would be relevant to the plot--but I bet that before she even watched the pilot, she knew that any heterosexual relationships in the show probably wouldn't be very relevant to her personal romantic interests, as a self-described queer person.

This got me thinking about craft and the failure to entertain as related to craft and audience.

Tere are two main ways that a romance plot can hold an audience's interest:
- it can be personally, romantically relevant.
- it can be artistically relevant (plot-relevant, artistically portrayed, wittily written, etc.)

Modern media privileges depictions of straight people's romantic interactions in a way that queer romantic interactions are rarely privileged: through enabling straight people to ignore bad writing in a way that queer people cannot.

Straight people might forgive a straight romantic subplot's irrelevance to the plot due to the fact that they can take a personal interest in the relationship portrayed. But, for many queer persons, artistic interest is usually the only interesting thing that a straight romantic interaction has going for it. (Note: people who define as bi- or pan-sexual may also find heterosexual romantic relationships interesting on a personal and an artistic level, but even then I believe that many bi- or pan-sexual people may find the portrayal of straight gender roles and sexual roles problematic. I'm pan-sexual, and I know I and my boyfriend find many such portrayals problematic!)

Creators are required to entertain media consumers.
Audiences 'require' entertainment.

If creators focus on the "personal interest" side of a straight romantic relationship to the extent that there seems to be no artistic element to the relationship, that means that, for whatever reason, creators assumed that audiences' "personal interest" in the relationship would be all that was needed to entertain viewers.

That is an incorrect assumption. By making it, they left all audiences who do not have such an interest, and/or those who have that interest and find it problematic, and/or those who do not have that interest and find it problematic, out of their calculations.

Here's the worst part--the creators probably didn't even realize they were making that assumption, because they probably didn't even realize that they had that audience to alienate. Even if did realize, they might not care that they were alienating that audience.

When a queer person finds themselves in that situation (which is common), stating, "gee, I was worried that this particular show wouldn't be entertaining for me, because I couldn't be entertained on a personal level and the creators made no effort to entertain me on an artistic level," isn't strange. It's saying "this show didn't entertain me, its audience. The creators didn't do their job, in terms of craft, in terms of entertaining the audience of which I am a part. Do they care about this portion of their audience? It would be nice if they showed that they did, by entertaining me."

When the queer person goes on to say, "I wish more creators would consider the fact that there are many people out there who are not going to be entertained by portrayals of straight romances solely because they are straight romances--maybe there should be something more there, even for those straight people who are entertained by the fact that straight romances are straight romances," that's not crazy.

When they say, "the fact that Hollywood can make the assumption that everyone in their audience will care about straight romances as straight romances (if nothing else), and even cater to that assumption without realizing it, shows that our media still has a long way to go in making media entertaining for everyone," that's a pretty basic summation of the problem, with a lot left unsaid.

I find that a lot of straight people have huge problems with media that features even one gay character (the "Dumbledore didn't need to be gay!" problem), saying that now they can't relate to that character.

Welcome to reading or watching TV or movies as a queer person, where you can't relate to 90% of fictional characters' romantic relationships, and grow up thinking that's normal!

If you're a straight teenager and you're left without real-life role models, or are actively deprived of real-life role models, you need only watch television to see that your emotional desires and sexual needs are normal, should be made available to you, and are endorsed by the culture around you.

If you're a queer teenager and you're left without real-life role models, or are actively deprived of real-life role models--both of which are quite likely to happen by accidents of birth and deliberate mechanations of religion/politics, if nothing else--you need only watch television to see that your emotional desires and sexual needs are not represented anywhere--or are represented as quirky, disturbing, evil, controversial or depressing abnormalities. You see that people are working to make sure that your emotional desires and sexual needs should not be made public, much less available to you, or anyone else. You see that your emotional desires and sexual needs are not widely endorsed, and are in fact mocked or villified, by the culture around you.

So, Dumbledore's gay. Asking, "does a story need to be queer?" misses the point: real queer people need to be queer, and part of the way they are queer is by telling and listening to stories about themselves.
In that sense, it's good to know that Dumbledore is in my corner--not because I think he's particularly hot (my money is on Snape or Tonks), but because his fictional sexuality is a creator's acknowledgment that the very real sexuality of people like me should exist, and needs to exist, in both the fictional and non-fictional worlds. (It's even nicer to see queer characters having romantic and sexual lives.)

What is it like when creators don't acknowledge that people like you should exist in their creative works?

Here's a selection of sobering mass media moments (these are familiar to people of any marginalized group, I suspect):
- Realizing that you have never seen a representation of someone like you on television or other media, despite having consumed media for 15 or 20 years.
- Realizing that the first time you saw media representing someone like you, they were a comic character, an inoffensive nobody, or a cliched and offensive stereotype.
- Realizing that the first time the media represented someone like you who wasn't a caricature, people stopped watching the show because they were offended that people like you were represented, or said that they couldn't relate to you or care about you.
- Realizing that it is considered prime-time, CNN-worthy news when important or popular creators decide to feature a fictional representation of someone like you.
- Realizing that a lot of people find it offensive when creators decide to feature a fictional representation of someone like you, and mobilize to make the creators stop representing you.

Fictions are the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. When we exclude queer people, or people of color, or people who don't speak our language or pray to our God from our fictions, especially our mainstream, mass-media fictions, we tell ourselves false, impoverished stories.

If people we meet only tell us stories we already know, we are not going to know what to do when we meet people whose stories are different from the ones we know. We might ignore their story, or we might try and fit them into our story, or we might outlaw their story--but all of those options are, in the long run, generally unworkable.

More importantly, if people we meet only tell us stories we already know, we are not going to know what to do when we are the people whose stories are different from the ones we know. We are not going to know what stories to tell ourselves. We are not going to know what stories to tell others about ourselves. We are going to have people telling us it's better for us that we don't have our own stories to tell. We are going to have people telling us that it's better for them that we don't have our own stories to tell. We are going to have to learn to speak again--and when we learn to speak, when we have stories to tell, we are going to have to learn the necessity of speaking loudly, because when we speak, we are going to have to do it despite the many powerful voices telling us that we shouldn't be allowed to speak at all.

Fiction can help us speak; fiction is necessary for us to learn how to speak for ourselves; but to the extent that the creators of fiction do not recognize that we are even there to be entertained, we and fiction are both worse off for it.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
From an article about a presidental straw poll at the recent Values Voters Summit:

Abortion was the leading determinant, followed by government spending, repeal of healthcare reform, protection of religious liberty and national security.

In a speech earlier Saturday, Gingrich outlined what he described as the two greatest threats to the nation: a "social secular machine" and radical Islamic extremism.


I find these these events, and the articles about them, interesting not so much for tracking what values they people who attend these events espouse, but because the people at these events are often in a position to use terms describing said values. You see a lot of newer coinages--words known in back rooms and in the halls of congress, but not on the street--brought into the public sphere for the first time during events like this.

Look at "social secular machine." That's going to take off on CNN soon, if it hasn't already. The GOP has talked a lot in the past few decades about what constitutes a social unit, what should constitute a social unit, the decay in the social unit, etc. But here, the idea of being "social" is becoming tainted through association with that bad-boy adjective, "secular," and the vaguely uncomfortable connotations of "machine." (Not to mention "socialism." It wasn't explicitly mentioned in Gingrich's threat-list, but the echoes are contained in the roots of the word themselves, and if people weren't talking about socialism as evil at the Values Voters Summit I'll eat my hat). There's no recognition that people are the ones who possess the quality of secular-ness; there's just this idea that groups of secular people are a machine. The word "machine" conjures up a lot of images--ants, production lines, shiny metal rivets--but none of the connotations of the word "machine" are particularly human, or particularly friendly. After all, humans create machines to do the work that they, as humans, don't want to do. So, as far as I can tell, the first danger is "groups of people who don't have a religion."

The second group of people, radical Islamic extremists, seems more forthright, but since this country can't decide what, exactly, constitutes radical Islamic extremism as opposed to normal Muslim belief or practice, in the meantime there's a panic about everybody who's Muslim. Nobody is paying much attention to the people who say, "I'm not a radical Muslim," except for the the people whose job it is to discuss the idea that those moderates may not be telling the truth. So, as far as I can tell, the second danger is "pretty much all Muslims, at least until we can figure out what our definition of radical is, which hasn't happened in the last decade."

Where does this leave us? We have "Christians," "Jews," and "other religions that are too small to matter to us in terms of votes and/or that have not yet committed acts of terrorism against America and hence come to our attention."

I don't understand how this same Values Voters Summit made "protecting religious liberty" a priority...

...Oh, wait. That's totally code for "we can't say 'oppose the homosexual agenda' anymore, because we have a few gay friends now, so we've started saying that our religion is attacked whenever those gay friends want to do something our religion tells us it's wrong for them to do."

That's what's been happening in the news and in the point/counterpoint columns we've been seeing for the past few years: once the cultural window shifted from "doing this is objectively gross" to "doing this is subjectively gross," the people who subscribe to that particular brand of subjectivity as part of their cultural identities gradually shifted to arguing for that cultural identity's right to retain that subjective assessment of grossness.

Here's the thing: I agree that people who subscribe to that particular brand of subjectivity as part of their cultural identities should have the right to retain that cultural identity's subjective assessment of grossness, even if I vehemently disagree with their particular cultural identity's assessment of grossness.

However, I do not think that the assumption of a cultural identity should shield the people who assume that identity from criticism of that identity's subjective assessment of grossness, or from criticism of that identity as a whole in terms of the policies and ideas it spreads as a group.

I also think that one religious cultural identity's subjective assessment of grossness should not take precedent over:
- all other religious or secular cultural identities' subjective assessments of grossness
- any other religion's cultural identity's subjective assessments of grossness
- any other secular cultural identity's subjective assessments of grossness

In America, separation of civil and religious law should ensure that:
- there are a multiplicity of secular cultural identities and their subjective assessments of grossness
- there are a multiplicity of religious cultural identities and their subjective assessments of grossness

However, this is not currently happening. Instead, we are being told that one (or maybe two?) historically and emotionally important and widespread religious cultural identities' subjective assessments of grossness (the Christian right's assessment, or possibly the "Judeochristian" right's assessment) should take precedent over all and any other secular and religious cultural identities' subjective assessments of grossness--because that one religious cultural identity is historically and emotionally important and widespread.

The members of that one historically and emotionally important and widespread cultural identity feel free to tell the members of all other religious and secular cultural identities that:
- their religious or secular cultural identities' subjective assessments of grossness are wrong
- their religious or secular cultural identities have no or harmful values in terms of the policies and ideas they spread as a group
- that particular religious cultural identity's subjective assessments of grossness should be given primacy over all other religious and secular cultural identities.

And the members of all those other religious and secular cultural identities would feel free to refute those ideas.

If that was what was actually happening, we would be having a debate on somewhat more equal footing. The historically and emotionally important and widespread cultural identity of Christianity would still have more of a foothold because of its historical roots and its widespread adoption, but that problem is at least a known bug.

But that's not all that's happening.

What is actually happening? If members of any other religious and/or secular cultural identities object to the cultural primacy of one religious cultural identity, they are told that because the people in question also have a right to their religious cultural identity and its subjective assessment of grossness (which is true). But they are also told that people with any other cultural identities, religious and/or secular, have no right to question:
- that religious cultural identity's subjective assessment of grossness
- the religious cultural identity's value as a whole in terms of the policies and ideas it spreads as a group
- the primacy of that particular religious cultural identity's subjective assessments of grossness over all other religious and secular cultural identity's subjective assessments of grossness.

That is untrue.

And that one religious cultural identity? It's already got power, enshrined in politics, law and culture, and is doing its best to ignore or defame all other religious or secular cultural identities in those arenas in order to retain its primacy and keep the other cultural identities from not only obtaining primacy, but from obtaining much power at all.

So we have Unitarians (for instance, among other religious cultural identity groups) unable to religiously marry (a religious cultural action) religious queer people (a religious cultural identity group), due to the political power of the primary religious cultural identity group.

We have judges (a secular cultural identity group) unable to civilly marry (a secular cultural action) atheist queer people (a secular cultural identity group), due to the political power of the primary religious cultural identity group.

We have Christians (the primary religious cultural identity group in the US) using their political power and cultural primacy to ~successfully argue that it is unfair that queer people are able to question their religious cultural identity's subjective assessment of grossness, their religious cultural identity's value as a whole in terms of the policies and ideas it spreads as a group, and the primacy of their particular religious cultural identity's subjective assessments of grossness over all others.

Yet what does the Christian right do when arguing for the retention of their cultural primacy and political power in secular American law? They question queer people's subjective assessment of grossness, queer people's secular cultural identity as a whole in terms of the policies and ideas they spread as a group, and try to argue that queer folks' particular secular cultural identity's subjective assessment of grossness has primacy over their own understanding (at the same time, they use language that implies that their own subjective assessment of grossness is still, and still should be, the most powerful).

Do I think that people in America have freedom of speech, such that the people with the culturally dominant religious subjective assessment of grossness may insinuate that I am a danger to children, and religion, and a menace to society, in their TV ads? Yes, but I should also have freedom of speech, such that I can shout about their lies.
I have this right as a queer person in this day and age and location, but I am consistently told, in words and in actions, that it is unsafe to shout too loudly, and I am constantly reminded that I just got the ability to speak.

Do I think that people in America have freedom of religion, such that the people with the culturally dominant religious subjective assessment of grossness may refuse to marry me to the person I love in a particular place of worship with a particular policy of believing that I am a sinner? Yes, but if I am religious, I should also have the freedom of religion such that I can go to another place of worship with a particular policy of believing that I am not a sinner, and they should be able to marry me to the person I love.
I do not have this right as a queer person, in this day and age and location, because the people with the culturally dominant religious subjective assessment of grossness have successfully used their power to defend their position that I should not be able to marry the person I love in a religious ceremony.

Do I think that people in America have freedom of religion, such that the people with the culturally dominant religious subjective assessment of grossness may refuse to marry me to the person I love in a particular place of worship with a particular policy of believing that I am a sinner? Yes, but if I am not religious, I should also have freedom of religion such that I can go to a place where civil marriages are performed, and they should be able to marry me to the person I love.
I do not have this right as a queer person, in this day and age and location, because the people with the culturally dominant religious subjective assessment of grossness have successfully used their power to defend their position that I should not be able to marry the person I love in a non-religious ceremony.

This is the most ridiculous, and dangerous, definition of "protection of religious liberty" I've ever seen.

And it's already becoming a buzzword, a shorthand.

Watch for it, and defend against it wherever you see it.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
Safe lives have the same end as extraordinary ones: sport death.

Note to non-MIT people: this isn't a suicide note. Rather, it's a rallying cry. I think I'm finally getting a message.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
So, Tampax is sponsoring this website. Main character: teenaged boy who wakes up one day with a vagina and gets his period. Yes, I know that reads like a crazy manga plot.

There's video diaries, and a twitter feed. It's...really, really strange and a bit unnerving.

Is it misogynistic? Anti-feminist? Trans-phobic? None of those things? All of them, by turns? Is it actually...useful? Is it going to talk about TSS, given that a tampon company is sponsoring it? I can't tell.

Is it a brilliant piece of viral market research so that young teens will talk on the message board about getting their first period? Probably.

Is it interesting that they're providing a forum for young teens to talk on the message board about getting their first period at all? Definitely.

[Edit: Update from "Zack's" twitter stream: applied to a couple all girl colleges on the East Coast. will they let a neutered fox into their henhouse?

I think the most amazing thing about that is the word "neutered," when the whole point of the ad campaign is that he's getting his period. Yeah, getting your period is totally disconnected from the onset of sexual maturity. It's really just an excuse to buy tampons in fifteen different sizes. And then, the lovely man=predator, women=prey implication. The assumptions behind that two-line tweet/ad are fascinating/disturbing/actually pretty disappointingly normal.

Oh yeah. When this starts really hitting the blogs in 24 hours it's going to get...interesting.]

Edit: "Zack" isn't the only sensitive man trying to sell you feminine products.
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
Sometimes you just read an article that makes you go, "Holy shit, really, universe?"
Such an article is this column where a woman writes in complaining that her 7-year-old daughter's unibrow makes her uncomfortable.

The professional advice columnist gives the following advice:

When I first held my darling in my arms and gazed on her mass of black hair, I whispered to her, "you're beautiful and amazing, baby."

If your child has an easily fixed cosmetic problem, it's best to avoid her wanting to take a razor to her face, and she's more likely to do something stupid to get rid of unwanted hair if she thinks she's ugly.

I suggest for now that you stop counting hairs and relax. As the brow fills in, or she starts complaining that other kids comment on it, you can say that she has eyebrows just like Daddy, and that's ok.

Oh, wait, that was the sensible advice I wish she'd given. She actually said:
when I first held my darling in my arms and gazed on her mass of black hair, I whispered to her, "Don't worry, baby girl, I will take care of you when the time comes to get some of your hair removed."

If your child has an easily fixed cosmetic problem, it's best to avoid her wanting to take a razor to her face. Fortunately, today a little girl with a brow like Bert the Muppet can have it transformed almost instantly into something more like Brooke Shields.

I suggest for now that you stop counting hairs and relax. As the brow fills in, or she starts complaining that other kids comment on it, you can say that she has eyebrows just like Daddy. Explain that he takes some of his out with a tweezer, but you're going to do something better for her that will mean the extra hair is gone for a long time or maybe forever. It's OK, Mom, that you want a clear path for your daughter's inner beauty to shine.

Did I...miss something about where hair grows, inner-beauty wise? Are there removal creams for the hairy soul, or razors for the heart? Because, well, otherwise that sounds like a totally *outer-body* procedure.

If you're really hairy, and you feel uncomfortable with it for whatever reason, and you're 15 or 25 or 65, and you want to get rid of your own hair, ok, sure. I'm all for getting rid of hair you don't want--I shave my arms and my legs and my feet, and have a short haircut, because I don't like having hair on my body for spiritual reasons. But that's you, dealing with your own hair.

Don't subject your kid to lasers and hot wax because you think that her seven-year-old unibrow isn't ok, and you can't bring yourself to show her Frida Kahlo's self-portrait and talk about inner beauty without thinking, "God, that woman would have been regarded as even more brilliant if she hadn't been so damn hirsute."

I sort of went to town in the comments, and emailed the columnist, and wanted to talk about why: it feels like my mom wrote into that columnist 10 years ago, and took her advice, and it fucked me up. Maybe this is a case of people being Wrong on the Internet, but I don't think so--I think it's a much, much larger problem about who is allowed to police whose body image, and who is allowed to have and develop a body image of their own, and how casually we cut others down for being different, without even realizing it, and what it does to the people who think it's ok, and what it does to the people who've been cut down.

I used to self-harm. Sometimes I still do. These last few weeks have been really, really hard, and I'm proud that today--as of ten minutes ago, even--I can look in the mirror, and see only one tiny scab from the past few weeks, and think that my skin looks ok, and realize that what I need for it to look better is not a half-hour long session staring into the mirror and digging at my nose with a nail file, but more sleep and a walk outside and the realization that I just had my period, so of course I'm going to have a flare-up.

It is really hard for me to believe, with all the hand-wringing that advice columnists do about teens self-harming and the double standards and beauty standards that women face, that they cannot see letters like these as what those problems stem from, and I think more problematically, what problems like rape, eating disorders, and the perception that women do not know their own minds come from. (Not that self-harm isn't problem enough). I feel like there's a huge emphasis on it being culturally ok for women, especially, to not know and own their own bodies--women's standards are expected to be someone else's standards, and women don't know or care what those standards are, or have their own standards for themselves, they are wrong. This happens most obviously in fashion/beauty and in the workplace and in the family, but it happens everywhere else, too: food, news, everywhere. I can't think of anywhere it doesn't apply. Think of the "we girls can do anything, right, Barbie?" slogan from the 80's. (I had that Barbie, and I hated it. Pink stole, yuck. She was always the one to get run over by the mini Ferrari). Sounds empowering at first, right? But it's not just "we girls can do anything"--"we girls" have to turn to Barbie, of all things, and ask her if she agrees with us, and wait for her approval. And then, then it's ok to do anything. (Not asking Barbie does not fall under the category of things we girls can do, apparently. Apparently Barbie never said "no," either.)

I wonder if this is why so much porn, kinky or otherwise, places such an emphasis on consent or lack thereof;
the idea that women can consent alone of their own free will to wanting things that they are supposed to want is scandalous, and the idea that women can consent alone to wanting thing that they aren't supposed to want is more scandalous, and the idea that women can consent to forego consent is incredibly scandalous. All these stories put women in a place where they gave up consent, or get consent from others, but maybe consent or lack thereof isn't the scandalous thing--maybe the scandalous thing is how they're setting their own standards for themselves, and aren't allowed, by the plot or maybe the gag, to talk about it with anyone else. It's always all a big secret. (To be fair, I think that there are probably cases in which these conventions apply to porn with men in it, too, but I think there one of the big ideas about consent is that the men in porn often seem to be interested in the ways they can have their agency restricted like women. Asking for permission, being humiliated or physically bound due to clothing or social situations, responsibility for cleaning the mansion without having the ability to have sex whenever they want...man, someone needs to write a kinky Austen takeoff with the genders switched and everyone wearing pleather and PVC, just so this can all be seen a little bit clearer for what it is, because I bet it would come out like really generic kinky porn.

Anyway.

Through my whole life, I've been holding myself up to what I thought were my own standards, but I realized today--after spending much of last evening in an agony of fear that I would move ahead with my life only because I was afraid, because I was broke, because of all the wrong reasons, and make bad decisions--that they weren't always actually my standards. I think some of them have been. I think my academic performance was largely my standard. I think that many of my hopes and dreams for the future are largely my standard. I think that my coming out and much of my relationship with [livejournal.com profile] rax was largely my standard (and hers). But in the larger parts of my life that continue to dog me--my ability to be on time for things, to set long-term plans to achieve those long-term goals/dreams, to be able to trust other people to set standards for themselves that I and they can live with, to form a healthier relationship with myself and food that isn't based on denigrating my body, to form a healthier relationship with myself that isn't based on denigrating my accomplishments and very real progress thus far, to form a healthier relationship with my work that focuses on what I can do rather than what I can't, to form a healthier relationship with others that isn't based on putting myself down to build others up--I realize that I haven't been doing those things much because I was trained to look to others to tell me how to act, and punished emotionally if I didn't look to others to tell me how to act, and/or punished emotionally if I looked to others to tell me how to act and then decided that their advice wasn't for me. I think that's why I was so afraid to do things on my own--all the times I'd done that before, it hurt a lot because it necessitated me cutting myself off from the people who were around me, because I knew they would not approve of whatever it was I was doing, whether it was reading or not shaving my legs. If I'd just been able to go off and do more things on my own, without worrying about whether it was right for me to do so or not, without worrying whether my going and doing things on my own was destroying the relationship between me and [livejournal.com profile] rax, that would have saved me, I think, and I bet it would have saved our relationship, too. I think I was starting to get there. I understood that [livejournal.com profile] rax kept pushing me to do my own thing because she wanted/needed space and privacy, but I thought she kept pushing for that space and privacy because she thought that my being with her made me unhappy. So I just kept trying harder and harder to show her and tell her that being with her made me really happy, and gave her in the process, less and less space and privacy, and worked on my own things less than I liked or should have. Because I wasn't sure if working on my own things was really okay with me because I thought that setting my own standards for working on my own things would make me lose the relationship, I had constant relapses into worrying whether my doing things on my own was destroying the relationship, relapses that were just way, way too much for both of us, and way too intense. Relapses which of course destroyed the relationship I loved.

Well, no time like the present, I suppose. My decisions need to be made out of love for myself, rather than fear for myself.

read my reply to the lady who wrote into the advice column )
eredien: Dancing Dragon (Default)
Yay. PA no longer requires transsexual people to get SRS before changing the gender designation on their drivers' licenses.
I am actually a little suprised this happened in PA, as its politics are sometimes contentious, with Philadelphia itself being a little contentious and Philadelphia vs. the Rest of PA also being differently contentious. But they did the right thing!

Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] rm.

March 2016

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page generated 15/7/25 16:13

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags