In light of hokumandhex’s previous post, which discussed the pervasive erasure of working class gays from public consciousness, I thought it might be interesting to continue a discussion about the relationship between economics and queer issues. Unfortunately, economics has long been ignored in queer theory circles, and Below the Belt has not been immune to this tendency (see, for example, the few posts that come up when searching for ‘capitalism’).
Nevertheless, given the huge impact of the global financial crisis, now might be the best time to begin a conversation about how different economic systems have impacted queer people around the world. Which type of economic order has been, or has the potential to be, most conducive to sexual and gender liberation? Is it some form of free market capitalism? A Keynesian social democratic economy? Socialism? Nationalist protectionism and mercantilism? Or is it communism?
At least one group of scholars has a ready answer to these questions. Among some of the most prominent contemporary U.S. conservatives and libertarians, it is an article of faith that the most unrestricted form of free market capitalism is inherently conducive to human rights and civil liberties. As Francis Fukuyama wrote in his notorious Cold War victory article, “The End of History”:
“…the spectacular abundance of advanced liberal economies and the infinitely diverse consumer culture made possible by them seem to both foster and preserve liberalism in the political sphere…that state of consciousness that permits the growth of liberalism seems to stabilize in the way one would expect at the end of history if it is underwritten by the abundance of a modern free market economy” (6).
Charilaos Peitsinis, a scholar of F.A. Hayek, has similar thoughts: “Free markets provide a successful counterweight to central planning and governmental decision-making, thus mobilizing uncontrolled social forces which tend to seize power from the ruling elites and distribute it to the masses.” Radical free market capitalism is thus a profoundly anti-authoritarian doctrine. If governments are less involved in economic life - if they own fewer companies, provide fewer services, abandon price controls, deregulate the market and open their countries up to free trade- then their capacity to control citizens’ lives will significantly reduced. Furthermore, as Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty website states, the free market “is the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.” And as they become awash with money, societies will care less about ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual divisions. “Post-material” values - such as, individual autonomy, self-expression, and human rights - will finally be allowed to flourish.
These ideas have largely trickled down to some gay conservatives, who believe as an article of faith that unrestricted free market capitalism is the best promoter of the LGBT cause. Richard Tafel, a former executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, argues in his book, Party Crasher, that gay rights are inseparable from capitalism and free markets. Brian Miller of Outright Libertarians also takes a similar view in a series of blog posts titled, “Free Markets, Free Gay People.” He swoons at the “power of free markets to solve complex social and economic problems quickly and often ingeniously.” And, of course, the free market is definitely “far ahead of the pack” when it comes to LGBT issues, a claim that Miller backs up by providing information about how well gay people are treated by the U.S.’ biggest companies: by 2006, 80% of Fortune 500 companies banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, over one half of them provided health benefits for domestic partners, and many also allowed their gay employees bereavement leave, adoption assistance, and childcare benefits. As one glowing Fortune article puts it, “gay marriage – an idea that has been banned by all but one of 27 states that have voted on it – has become a fact of life inside many big companies.” Keeping productive workers at the workplace by satisfying their lifestyle needs is seen as leading to greater profits, while ejecting successful queer employees has the potential to seriously harm company profitability in the long run.
Andrew Sullivan, in many ways a figurehead of the gay conservative movement, is not immune to this kind of thinking either. Even though he adheres to a more pragmatic version of conservatism, which is skeptical of F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, he has not hesitated to cite examples of LGBT successes within America’s biggest corporations as evidence of a connection between free markets and gay rights. Overall, much of the Gay Right is enthralled with the idea that unrestricted free market capitalism provides the best social context for the promotion of LGBT rights, and human rights as a whole: all around the world, “free markets mean free people.”
Naomi Klein’s Challenge
In her book, The Shock Doctrine, Canadian author and activist, Naomi Klein, provides a severe, scorching attack on this idea. Given the massive body of evidence she compiles, it is difficult to argue with her central contention: that radical free market reforms have, in many cases, been enabled by systematic human rights abuses. She essentially describes the fostering or creation of a [Carl] Schmittian “state of exception” as being absolutely pivotal to the success of core neoliberal economic policies, such as the privatization of state-owned companies, deregulation of financial markets, and opening up to unrestricted free trade. According to Klein, after World War II, most societies adopted different versions of regulated capitalism, Keynesian social democracy, Third World economic nationalism, socialism and communism. But since the 1970s, there has been a strong movement, led by Milton Friedman, Chicago School economists, the IMF, the World Bank, and large multinational corporations, to dismantle all of these economic systems and replace them with a “purer” model:
“In the U.S., and in all supposedly capitalist economies, the Chicagoans saw interferences everywhere. To make products more affordable, politicians fixed prices; to make workers less exploited, they kept minimum wages; to make sure everyone had access to education, they kept it in the hands of the state. These measures often seemed to help people, but [Milton] Friedman and his colleagues were convinced – and they “proved” it with their [mathematical] models – that [these policies] were actually doing untold harm to the equilibrium of the market and the ability of its various signals to communicate with each other. The mission of the Chicago School was thus one of purification – stripping the market of these interruptions so that the free market could sing” (Klein, 53).
Privatization, deregulation, and free trade were advised for all economies, regardless of the specific conditions prevailing in each country. And since the 1970s, these policies have been rammed down societies’ throats worldwide through a variety of mostly undemocratic methods. This thesis is definitely not deterministic: there have certainly been cases in which Chicago School-style reforms have been implemented peacefully and democratically. But the sheer number of countries in which that has not been the case clearly suggests that there is no necessary connection between human rights, civil liberties, and radical forms of capitalism. In my view, Klein basically destroys the notion that free markets inevitably lead to free people.
What examples does she provide to buttress her argument? There are far too many to discuss here, so I will focus on the following specific cases: Chile under Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship, Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, and George W. Bush’s America. In all three cases, major free market reforms were accompanied by massive human rights abuses, suspension of civil liberties, and the invoking of Schmittian “states of exception.” All these policies would be portrayed as a response to a shocking crisis or emergency, which justified all kinds of measures that would have not even been considered outside the normal spectrum of legal political action. While the relative scope and severity of human rights violations, repressions, and extra-legal political practices varied considerably in each of these three cases, there is no doubt that they figured prominently in each country’s attempts to privatize publicly-owned companies, outsource key government functions, deregulate financial markets, and open borders to unrestricted free trade.
Pinochet’s Chile is remembered in U.S. public discourse for its nasty torture chambers, mass extermination of political opponents, and tight-fisted rule over a cowed population. In fact, the depravity of the regime and its seemingly wanton blood-letting have been so overemphasized that it has become easy to forget the purposes behind the brutality. In The Shock Doctrine, Klein redresses this imbalance by showing that one of the goals of the disappearances, tortures, and mass exterminations was the need to pummel through a comprehensive economic program that “bore a striking resemblance to Milton Freedman’s Capitalism and Freedom: privatization, deregulation, and cuts to social spending – the free market trinity” (77). The “Chicago Boys,” a group of Chilean economists trained by Friedman at the University of Chicago, had tried to sell these ideas to various politicians and to the public at elections, but they had failed to gain traction: Keynesian, social democratic, nationalist, and socialist ideas were highly popular, which is one of the reasons why Salvador Allende was elected in 1970.
Nevertheless, with Allende deposed by a CIA-backed military coup, which had the stated aim of ridding Chile of alleged Marxists, the “Chicago Boys” finally had the opportunity to impose the so-called economic “shock therapy” that had proven so unpopular at the ballot box. Luckily for them, the military junta, some of Chile’s upper class elites, and multinational corporations were highly receptive to their ideas. Hence, during the 1970s, Chile underwent one of the first radical free market revolutions in the post-WWII era: Pinochet even received advice from Milton Friedman several times. And in sync with the "Chicago Boys," the purpose of the tortures and human rights abuses became to clear out “the people whom the juntas had identified as posing the most serious barrier to their economic program…the military government used the initial chaos of the coup to launch vicious attacks on the trade union movement,” leftist university students, and intellectuals (Klein, 106). Thus, in Chile, the implementation of free market capitalism was not accompanied by improvements in human rights. In fact, it depended on human rights abuses for its implementation and led to the creation of one of one of the most brutal right-wing dictatorships of the late 20th Century.
While Margaret Thatcher’s Britain was certainly nowhere near as brutal as the Pinochet regime, in a relative sense, her imposition of major free market reforms was also accompanied by human rights abuses. It was also made possible by the shock of a war that produced an emergency “state of exception” in the country. According to Klein, “it was the Falklands War that gave Thatcher the political cover she needed to bring a program of radical capitalist transformation to a Western liberal democracy for the first time” (137). With the UK swept up in a jingoistic fervor, and Thatcher’s popularity soaring as a result of the war victory, she finally gained sufficient political capital to privatize on a grand scale, break-up public housing, lay off workers, and downsize unprofitable public sectors, such as mining. Policies that were previously highly unpopular (Thatcher’s approval rating before the Falklands War was 25%) were now almost ignored by a public completely enthralled with the war-winning “Iron Lady.” It was in this context that the 1984-5 coal miners’ strike (in response to potential layoffs and closer of mines) was broken up. According to Klein, Thatcher “unleashed the full force of the state on the strikers…[including] eight thousand truncheon-wielding riot police in one confrontation” (Klein, 138). Thousands of people were injured in the violence. In parallel, Thatcher also launched what has been called “the most ambitious counter-surveillance operation ever mounted in Britain,” which featured major MI5 infiltration of the union, bugging of union members’ homes and places where they frequently met (Klein, 138). Clearly, in Thatcher’s Britain, radical free market reforms and respect for civil liberties did not exactly go hand in hand.
A much worse situation was created by the George W. Bush administration in the United States. It implemented one of the most sweeping privatizations of core government functions in U.S. history, buying crucial state functions, such as defense and disaster management, from private companies. The outsourcing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to companies such as Blackwater (now Xe Services) and Halliburton is the most infamous case of the government privatizing its key functions. To fight its wars, it is now wholly dependent on private contractors:
“During the first Gulf War in 1991, there was one contractor for every hundred soldiers. At the start of the 2003 Iraq invasion, the ratio had jumped to one contractor for every ten soldiers. Three years into the U.S. occupation, the ratio had reached one to three… [Four years into the occupation], there was one contractor every 1.4 U.S. soldiers” (Klein, 380).
The results were similar in disaster management. FEMA outsourced its hurricane contingency planning for New Orleans to a private contractor. And while the contractor came up with detailed plans for how to address a potential flooding of the city, the government ended up not having enough money to put the plan into action. And thus, very little was done to prepare New Orleans pre-Hurricane Katrina, since the FEMA simply did not have the money to pay the contractor (Klein, 409).
Overall, the Bush administration engaged in a major privatization drive of some of the government’s core functions, and if given a free hand, it would have also completely marketized social security. This puts it in the position of being one of the U.S. administrations most committed to the free market in history. But contrary to the expectations of some conservatives, this has not translated into a positive human rights and civil liberties record for the Bush administration. In fact, it performed abysmally in that department. The USA Patriot Act allowed for unprecedented levels of spying on American citizens, the CIA set up clandestine torture camps (“black sites”) for proven and suspected terrorists, and a whole new category of persons was invented in international law (“enemy combatants”) so that captured suspected terrorists would not have to be treated according to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. A state of de facto emergency was invoked after the September 11th attacks, which allowed all of this to happen. Overall, under the Bush administration, radical free market reforms went directly along with human rights abuses and the invoking of a "state of exception."
Klein’s thesis is, of course, not absolutely watertight. She definitely does not prove that free markets inherently come with restrictions to civil liberties, or that they always require the invoking of a national emergency or extralegal political action to put them into place. She also does not address Milton Friedman’s economic and social theories in a very detailed way, but at the same time, she excoriates them for being responsible for the impoverishment of millions of people. Furthermore, she does not even mention the numerous abuses and extralegal political activities that have been committed in the name of other economic doctrines – communism, socialism, fascism and mercantilism. Nevertheless, The Shock Doctrine is convincing in simply putting to rest the myth that radical free market capitalism, human rights, civil liberties, and democratic processes necessarily go together, as some conservatives would have us believe. In many cases around the world, “free markets [have not meant] free people,” and Klein is highly adept at proving this point.
Free Market Revolutions & LGBT Rights
To what extent is it possible to adapt Klein’s thesis to queer issues? Does the gay conservatives’ and libertarians’ contention that a free market ideology is more likely to lead to successes for LGBT rights hold up? How has the LGBT community been dealt with in Thatcher’s United Kingdom, Bush’s United States and Pinochet’s Chile? Has these leaders’ commitment to the free-marketization of society fostered concrete successes for queer people?
At least in the case of Thatcher’s Britain and Bush’s America, the answer is definitely “No.” Aside from some who ridiculously embrace her as a camp gay icon, she is mostly remembered for her staunch opposition to gay rights and her government’s passing of Section 28. A clause within the Local Government Act of 1988, it states that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any [government funded] school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.” This nasty clause characterized the relation of mainstream heteronormative society to homosexuality during the Thatcher years. And as we all know, George Bush’s America was similarly hostile. Throughout the 2000s, Bush’s party supported a Federal Amendment to ban same-sex marriage and managed to pass bans on gay marriage in more than 20 states. The marriage issue can be seen as a proxy for the general disdain with which his party and his administration viewed gay issues and sexuality in general (abstinence only sexual education programs, for example). The mantra of the 2000s can be summed up with the following Bush quote:
“I believe marriage has served society well, and I believe it is important to affirm that — that marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal…And the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal.”
Chile’s Pinochet is a somewhat more complex case. There was, of course, no chance of an organized LGBT movement emerging under his rule, since the military regime did not accept any kind of organized campaigning or opposition. However, the free market reforms did allow for the establishment of gay clubs and for the development of a gay community in the capital, Santiago. As Victor Hugo Robles writes:
“The heavy regulation of sexuality that has always existed in Chile intensified during the Pinochet dictatorship as society became increasingly militarized. At the same time, however, the rise of free market ideology allowed for the emergence of the first gay dance clubs” (38).
Nevertheless, this was definitely not a reflection of “official tolerance towards homosexuality, but [only] the tacit recognition of homosexuals as a potential economic market” (Robles, 38). In this sense, capitalism does provide queers with an opportunity: if they provide an economic demand, and if having venues and enterprises that cater to them has the potential to be profitable, then it is likely that gay-friendly night clubs and gay-friendly stores will flourish. Hence, people will be forced by the profit motive to at least tolerate the existence of alternative sexualities and genders. Queers can effectively use the lack of morality embedded in the market to stake a place in society.
This was one of the strategies employed by Harvey Milk, who managed to convince homophobic storeowners and business people in the Castro to tolerate the homosexuals simply by reminding them of how well their businesses were doing in the increasingly gay-populated neighborhood. The businesses that accepted gays as costumers flourished, while those that did not suffered and had to shut down (see these two previous posts for more details on Milk’s approach to gay activism). Nevertheless, there are huge problems with encouraging tolerance/acceptance of queers solely on the basis of the profit motive – it sets the stage for marriages of convenience based on common economic interests, but completely ignores the need for wholesale transformation of the dominant sexual and gender order. It promotes begrudging tolerance by those who profit from gays, but does very little to foster acceptance by society at large. It also makes queers vulnerable to future economic shocks – what if their community stops being profitable? And what if business owners find some other means of making a profit? The risk that society would revert to full-on homophobia would certainly be palpable.
If not the radical free market…?
Overall, it seems that the gay conservatives and libertarians are wrong in simply assuming that “free markets mean free gay people.” Many governments committed to radical forms of free market capitalism have not adopted gay-friendly policies. And while their championing of marketization may have facilitated the opening of gay-friendly clubs and enterprises, this purely lays a foundation for tolerance based on economic interests, not for major transformations of values about sexuality. The point that has to be made about the disconnect between free markets and gay rights, though, is that the same probably applies to every economic ideology. Indeed, if we look at the track record of socialist and communist regimes around the world, they fare quite poorly on LGBT issues as well. For example, take a look at the abysmal situation for LGBT individuals in Castro’s Cuba and in other communist-in-name regimes around the world, or for example, the fact that Chile under Allende was more-or-less the same for homosexuals as Pinochet’s regime (Robles, 38).
It seems to me that progress for queers may not be linked to any specific economic ideology, that it is possible under a variety of economic regimes, and largely influenced by a variety of other cultural and political factors. Or is it? As a crude experiment, I looked up the history of gay marriage legislation and found that all of them had been most fiercely promoted (and usually implemented) by left-of-center political parties, who at least nominally profess a social democratic or Keynesian ideology: the Social Party in Belgium, the Democratic Party in some U.S. states, the Canadian Liberals, the Socialist Left Party in Norway, Spain’s Socialist Party, the Social Democrats in Sweden, and South Africa’s ANC. Perhaps there is something then about Keynesian social democracy that is particularly amenable to supporting LGBT rights? Perhaps its ideological vision of cooperation between different strata in society, and of social solidarity, is inherently the most favorable context for the promotion of the queer agenda? It is extremely difficult to provide answers to these questions, but it would be very interesting to look into them.
***For More Information***
You can purchase Naomi Klein’s book here. Also have a look at the following gay conservative books: Richard Tafel’s Party Crasher, Bruce Bawer’s A Place at the Table, and Andrew Sullivan’s Virtually Normal. For more details on gay conservatives’ economic views, see Paul Robinson’s Queer Wars: The New Gay Right and its Critics, Richard Goldstein – Homocons: The Rise of the Gay Right, and Michael Warner’s, The Trouble with Normal. For more on Milton Friedman and Chicago School economics, see this wikipedia page and the book, Capitalism and Freedom.
(...to the full post)
In the mid part of the last decade, a phenomena crept into prominence, that of the ‘metrosexual.’ What is a ‘metrosexual,’ you ask? The simple definition was a “straight man who acts gay.” However, that definition simplified the concept far too much: a metrosexual is a man who takes pride in himself and in his appearance, to the degree that he would engage in activities commonly seen as ‘feminine’ or ‘non male’ in order to keep up a pristine appearance. So the metrosexual plucked his eyebrows and had his hair styled, not cut. He was lauded by some, and abhorred by others, but he was there nonetheless: an urban cowboy in Abercrombie chaps with Kenneth Cole boots. Some stated it was the evolution of the idea of “male.” Some said it was too good to be true.
History has proven that the latter won out. As quickly as the word hit the common parlance, it was struck down as dead by the contemporary media. Some mourned that the metrosexual was just “too pretty” to live. Some felt the metrosexual was just a NYC/LA/Chicago scenario that didn’t really impact the rest of the country. It is far too easy to recognize the metrosexual as the “other,” a male that had all of the benefits of heterosexual AND homosexual men from the point of view of many women (“he dresses up AND he likes women! He’s a human Ken doll!”). But just because the fairer sex were enamored with the metrosexual as the other doesn’t mean that the less well coifed kin of the fair haired boys were in any way pleased to see him on the scene. Here’s four reasons for the murder, ahem, disappearance of the metrosexual:
(a) the metrosexual is regional – a cosmopolitan male who drinks cosmopolitans could do very well in New York, but might only last 5 minutes in a ”beer only” bar in central Tennessee. The fact is, to many males, there was nothing “male” about the metrosexual. The gay man could be a non-threatening cohort for a heterosexual woman (and a roadblock for heterosexual men). But the metrosexual, who to your beer drinking “real man” ACTS like a gay man (because he portrays the ‘I relate’ charm to women) but is more than willing to sleep with a woman. That has ‘bar fight’ written all over it.
(b) the metrosexual is expensive – keeping yourself in tip top shape and well adorned is quite an ordeal. There are socio-cultural systems that allow women to take advantage of this “self maintenance”, not men. In other words, if Kelly wants to leave work early to get her hair done, her peers (and perhaps supervisor) would be fine with that; Paul, on the other hand…is a different story.
(c) the metrosexual might as well be gay – the metrosexual got the same bad rap that bisexuals continue to get in our society; nobody believes them. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are torn on whether bisexuals are “confused”, “in process of coming out”, or “just damn greedy”. Nether side of the sexual spectrum fully embraces bisexuality, and some contingents even doubt its existence. Metrosexuality faced the same uphill battle. Straight men thought many metrosexuals were “practically gay” or “on the road”. Gay men in significant numbers shared this feeling. Both sides bought into a concept of heteronormative behavior, and frankly the metrosexual didn’t fit. The ultimatum was “either turn gay, or start biting your nails and going to a barber like every other guy!”
(d) the metrosexual is just the ‘sensitive guy’ in better clothes – every generation had a concept of the ‘sensitive guy’ that was much more attractive to women (in social settings) than the rough and tumble alternative. In the ‘90’s it was the “guys who cried”. Before that it was the guys who “shared their feelings”. The metrosexual is simply an aspect of this. The problem is that just like the sensitive guy, the metrosexual is situational. Some guys might be sensitive under some conditions, but heartless under others.
Let us not think that men (gay and straight) played a part in this “murder” alone; women had their fair part. The heteronormative idea of the male wins out in some scenarios; he may be hot in that blazer and those loafers, but if there’s danger, I don’t want him waving his Prada umbrella at someone. Further reinforcing this heteronomativity is the idea that the metrosexual could be ‘pretty’ but not ‘too pretty’…he still had to be a man. When the oil needs to be changed, Banana Republic shirt my ass, you do your job.
Will a condition like “metrosexual” rear its head? Already has! Yes, the metrotextuals have entered the scene. Now, let’s see how long they exist before they are killed….
(...to the full post)
My previous (and first post) dealt with the concept of femme gender and whether or not it needs to be legitimized. An excellent suggestion was made that I make myself clear on what I mean by gender and the terms that I’m using and that I do a little Gender 101.
Usually with a 101, we start with vocabulary so that we can understand the words being used. Here are some common terms that are used when talking about sex and gender:
Sex: A term used to describe a type of physical body, can be based on primary and secondary sex characteristics, hormones, and/or chromosomes.
Primary Sex Characteristics: Sex characteristics that are directly related to the reproductive system and encompass genitals
Secondary Sex Characteristics: Sex characteristics that are not directly part of reproductive organs and develop during puberty (such as breasts)
Genitals: External sex organs that are directly related to the reproductive system
Reproductive System: The organs of a body that allow a species to reproduce
Gender: A social and psychological identity
Gender Roles: Sets of behavior and assigned by society that are supposed to correspond to traditional ideas about gender
Male Sex: Usually assigned at birth based on primary sex characteristics, such as the presence of a penis, scrotum, and testicles. The assignment can be based on hormones, other primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes
Female Sex: Usually assigned at birth based on primary sex characteristics, such as the presence of a clitoris, vagina and vulva. The assignment can be based on hormones, other primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes
Man: A gender identity socially assigned to those who are assigned with the male sex at birth as well as a gender identity that one may come to through experiences and identification.
Woman: A gender identity socially assigned to those who are assigned with the female sex at birth as well as a gender identity that one may come to through experiences and identification.
Gender Fluid: A person whose gender identity and presentation fluctuates
Third Gender: A person whose gender identity and presentation does not fit within concepts of man or woman
Intersex: Intersex bodies are that do not fit within the concept of an exclusively male or female sexed body.
Biological Sex: A term used to describe the sex of the physical body – a controversial term
Cisgendered: A term used to describe those whose gender identity matches that of the sex they were assigned at birth
Transgender: An umbrella term to describe those whose gender identity falls outside of the normative assignment of male sex = male gender and masculine behavior and gender presentation, or of female sex = female gender and feminine behavior and gender presentation
Transsexual: A term originating in the medical field to describe one who has through medicine changed a part of their sex either through hormones or surgery
Feminine: Characteristics of a person that are associated with femaleness and female gender roles
Masculine: Characteristics of a person that are associated with maleness and male gender roles
Butch: Can be used to mean a masculine gender identity for a person assigned female at birth, or a masculine gender identity for a gay-identified man or a gender identity that encompasses some masculine or what is defined as butch characteristics originating in the lesbian community
Femme: Can be used to mean a feminine gender identity for a person assigned female at birth that identifies as a lesbian, or a feminine gender identity for a gay-identified man or a gender identity that encompasses some feminine or what is defined as Femme characteristics originating in the lesbian community
Boi: Usually a term for a young masculine or gender fluid identified person who was assigned female at birth, also commonly used among young gay-identified men
Boy: Used as a term for a young masculine or male-identified person, sometimes used by anyone with a young masculine gender identity
Girl: Used as a term for a young feminine or female-identified person
Grrl: A term originating among third-wave feminists to replace traditional ideas of young girls as tender and passive
Effeminate: Gender characteristics associated with the behavior of gay men
Normative: Follows cultural and social norms
We are usually taught that there are two sexes – male and female-and two corresponding genders to the two sexes – man and woman, in some circles, that is considered the end all and be all of sexed bodies and gender identities. In other circles it is acknowledged that there are more than two sexes, that there are those who are intersex, and that the range of sexed bodies is quite large with no clear demarcation between the two. Historically and currently in some areas, the concept that there are two sexes has been considered a simple fact of biology and that there are two corresponding genders a simple organizing principle of society.
Recent developments in gender studies, and findings in anthropology and sociology have challenged both viewpoints. Several theorists, namely Anne Fausto-Sterling have challenged the idea that sex as we know it is a biological fact. She points out that the range of sexed bodies is far larger than simply male or female and that historically and currently our concepts of what constitutes ‘male’ or ‘female’ hormones, the penis and/or the clitoris as well as secondary sex characteristics have been socially influenced for as long as the concepts have been around. Other challenges on Western concepts of gender can be found in comparative Anthropological gender studies show that many other cultures have a different gender structure, they may have more than two genders or entirely different characteristics assigned to the genders they have, even if they two follow the male=man and female=woman taxonomy.
However, one does not necessarily need to look to academia to understand and know that many people’s lived experience differs from what is considered normative in terms of sex and gender. Communities of differently sexed and differently gendered folks, and other sexual minorities such as the BDSM-Leather-Fetish and LGBT communities, have a wide variety of gender identities that are created, celebrated, contested and that move into other communities. The world at large includes a plethora of sexed bodies and gendered experiences and the ways in which I have experienced the world as someone who identifies as a Femme, but not necessarily a woman, and the experiences of others all across the sex and gender spectrum are the types of experiences I would like to examine, celebrate and delve into in my writing. This is just the tip of the iceberg – it is Gender 101 and I look forward to Gender 201 and beyond.
(...to the full post)
I call myself transfeminist, because I identify as trans (with a little help from our wonderful society which does so much to keep me from forgetting it) and feminist. Usually this isn't a problem: I identify as a woman, and feminism is about furthering the causes and rights of women, and I am. so. there.
But at the same time it has to be acknowledged that feminism and transgender activism often have found themselves in at best an uneasy alliance, and at worst completely divorced from each other. A certain strain of radical feminism (see: Heart, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, and my friends at AROOO) maintain a richly transphobic tradition of never seeing trans women as women (or trans men as men, for that matter; that's why so many trans men have had no problem getting into MWMF), using such all-time hits as "mutilated men," "colonizers," and still number one with a bullet, "rapists." (I always like that one. I once went looking for statistics on how many trans women get raped a year. The numbers proved very elusive--it seems most trans victims are either killed instead of being raped, or killed right after being raped.)
I'd love to say that this tradition is an out-of-the-mainstream offshoot of more mainstream feminism, but I think we should confront and be honest about heritages--that in fact, this transphobia is almost genetic to the modern feminist movement that began in the '60s and is usually called Second Wave feminism. Consider how many of the leading lights of that movement--the heavy-duty theorizers--have proven to be extremely transphobic: Germaine "ghastly parody of women" Greer, Janice "morally mandating it out of existence" Raymond, and Mary "Frankenstein Phenomenon" Daly. (Andrea Dworkin will get an Incomplete on this excercise--she seemed to feel that transition was the best thing for us poor deluded souls until the Genderpocalypse would come and we'd advance into the genderless utopia.)
Mary Daly's recent death has highlighted that split again. Many feminist blogs picked up the story and either presented Daly as completely laudatory with maybe a few distracting foibles, simply ignored the transphobia that was a not insignificant part of her career (she was Janice Raymond's thesis advisor, fercryinoutloud), or both. Sadly, that even included Shakesville, where Melissa McEwan posted an uncritical obit of Daly from the Boston Globe (theologian, radical, wouldn't teach men, etc.) without any mention of her transphobia or problems with feminists of color (see Audre Lorde's famous "Open Letter to Mary Daly", to which Daly never publicly replied.) Normally Shakesville is both very trans-friendly and usually quite quick to correct oversights--and Liss did put up an update that addressed the problems with Daly. And I have no reason to doubt her statement that she simply did not know about the darker side of Daly. (Although the only reason I can think of for that is that she simply didn't know much of anything--like me, though at this point I pretty much assume a Second Wave feminist is anti-trans until proven otherwise--about Daly; the Lorde-Daly feud, at least, was a famous controversy of late-Second Wave feminism.)
And that probably rated more than just an update to the original entry. Certainly Liss's own eulogy of Teddy Kennedy (a terrific piece of writing) remained ambivalent, and Kennedy did much more for many, many more people than Daly ever did. And it's frustrating to not see a similar kind of piece right off the bat for Daly--as one of the commentators at Shakesville said, "how horrible DOES a feminist (or other activist supposedly on 'our' side) have to be before we (the general we, humanity, not necessarily Shakesville) condemn hir rather than laud hir?"
The thing is, to someone like me Daly wasn't a mostly good person who had some regrettable flaws; to me, she was the enemy, and all the economiums by feminist women who were so positively influenced by Daly's erudition and the real sisterhood she gave people during her life--all those stick in my throat, because Daly would never offer them to me. To her, I am a monster. She not only didn't want to be my sister, she wanted me to not exist.
That doesn't mean, like some trans activists, I'm ready to give up on feminism. (I love Genderbitch's writing and I groove on her radicalism, but I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel myself on either Shakesville or feminism.) Not the least because there are feminists out there who do feel that trans women are integral to feminism--the irrepressible Sady of Tigerbeatdown (who had hands down the best and most balanced obit of Daly), the way that Feministe has tried to increase its trans awareness after some spectacular failures last year, and Laurie Penny's recent remarkable post at The F-Word:
"Many otherwise decent and sensible cis feminists have fallen prey to lazy transphobic thinking. In the vast majority of cases, cis feminist transphobia does not stem from deep, personal hatred of trans people, but from drastic, tragic misapprehension of the issues at stake. Recently, outspoken feminist Julie Bindel declared in an article for Standpoint magazine: “Recent legislation (the Gender Recognition Act, which allows people to change sex and be issued with a new birth certificate) will have a profoundly negative effect on the human rights of women and children.” Her views are founded on the assumption that “transsexualism, by its nature, promotes the idea that it is ‘natural’ for boys to play with guns and girls to play with Barbie dolls… the idea that gender roles are biologically determined rather than socially constructed is the antithesis of feminism.”
Bindel and others have, initially with the best of intentions, misunderstood not only the nature of transsexualism but also the radical possibilities for gender revolution that real, sisterly alliance between cis feminists and the trans movement could entail."
Articles, and feminists like these, are what keep me a feminist; because they keep alive bell hooks' maxim that "Feminist movement is vital both in its power to liberate us from the terrible bonds of sexist oppression and in its potential to radicalize and renew other liberation struggles." That kind of solidarity--that kind of movement against all kinds of oppression--are kept vital by many feminists today, and are why I still choose to call myself a feminist.
The trans part I just have to live with.
(...to the full post)
As loud as a newborn baby’s cry, our gender screams, “Name me!” Our society is so defined by gender, that we must gender-ize everything. Every single thing that we do, wear, and own has been given a pre-determined, societal driven gender stereotype.
Let’s all consider the fact that when you enter or leave a store someone is going to call you ma’am or sir at least once. While checking out, you may receive something such as, “Thanks ladies.” The cashier, floor workers, and other shoppers have all assumed you a gender in their five minutes of meeting you.
Colors often set a tone for gender, as we’re told from the beginning of our lives that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. The same sets in as we wrap our newborn babies in gender defining blankets of blue and pink. Occasionally, you’ll find a gender-neutral baby blanketed in yellow or green, yet the first thing someone says in that instance is, “aww, how cute. Is it a boy or a girl?” Why is everyone so fixated on knowing what is below everyone else’s belts?
From the hobbies we choose to the types of vehicles we drive, they’ve all been given a gender. For example, societal thinking is if you like to work on cars, you must be masculine. If you like to cook or sew, you must be feminine. If you’re into watching sports, you’re definitely male and if it’s gardening or baking that you’re into, you have to be female. If you drive a truck, that slaps masculinity right on your back, but anybody can drive a car.
Career choices also affect the way people judge your gender. This aspect is opening up a bit more, where you see more male nurses and more female construction workers, however there is still that gender-based stereotype behind everything we do.
The two things I can’t quite grasp the gender labels on are socks and bicycles. I cannot possibly imagine why we have socks packaged separately for men and women, boys and girls. Socks are for feet, all of which have ten toes. I can understand sizing differences, but gender, I just don’t get. I feel the same about bicycles. How is the position of one simple bar gender defining? If you look at men and women’s bikes, they’re exactly the same, minus that one bar. Again, sizing makes perfect sense, but gender still doesn’t fit a bicycle.
One of my least favorite gender-named areas: A PUBLIC RESTROOM. You’ve got to be kidding me! We seriously still have this separated? I thought this debate was going to end in favor of uni-sexed bathrooms. It’s a nightmare trying to go anywhere, while hoping I don’t have “to go.” I stand there between the two doors, trying to figure out which one is the best choice for today. I know deep inside myself that neither choice is right, yet I have to make a quick decision. Typically, no matter what choice I make, I’m going to get a confused, intimidated look from one random stranger or another.
Clothing departments are pretty comparable to bathroom experiences. I get the look, which translates to me that I am too masculine to be female and too feminine to be male. I am going to assume that it is our society’s influence on me as I find myself playing this gender tug-of-war game. I often find myself trying anything to fit into one gender confine or another. I, too, have fallen prey to this whole, “battle of the sexes” charade. I think, “well you do this like a girl and that like a boy.” I try to name myself a butch lesbian, but then argue that I’m too masculine for the term, “lesbian” because it re-iterates gender. I worry that if I were to transition to a male gender, I would then be mistaken for a gay man. It’s frustrating to not fit into either category because our society has put a gender on everything. However, I feel it’s only right to be who you are and for me, that’s somewhere in the middle. We don’t have to be afraid to step outside of the box.
(...to the full post)
interesting article about Westernization and conceptualizations of mental illness,
and BTB's 2009 Reader is published! (yes, this is news alright?) for the week.
Remember, if you love BTB and its writers, please donate $5 via our Donate page. And if you're feeling sassy, a $20 donation will get you a hard copy of our beautiful reader!
(...to the full post)
Responsibility.
It's not a word you hear often in the circles of fandom. And admittedly, on a list of people suited to pontificate on such a theme, I come pretty low, perhaps just above FEMA grande queso Michael D Brown (linguistic humor and cultural references? Yeah, you better gasp collectively, I'm too legit to quit).
We don't like to associate responsibility with comics, games, and other things that nerds get excited about; such “flights of fancy” (and ultimately, all venues of art and entertainment) would appear to be a deliberate shirking of responsibility in favor of expression and the gratification of creative venture. But society and media has curved in a way the abstract language centers of our brain could not have predicted. We live in an environment where media is not only consumed, but emulated.
The “monkey see, monkey do” nature of humanity has driven us to isolate from the real world in favor of recreating the fiction we read (...to help escape the real world...huh...that seems so obvious when we think of it, I don't know why I didn't see that coming...I never should have played God!), a phenomena that, despite its similitaries to the ancient human tradition of organized religious practice, is but a newborn when compared to the chronology of human existence. As far as I know. I took two history/anthropology classes and cosplay, fanfic, and translating culturally relevant writings into imaginary languages never came up.
Allow me to do the time warp and re-read my last sentence: basing your life off the bible isn't that much different from Star Trek fandom, when you consider the fictitious nature of the source material. Yes, I just said the Bible isn't real.
Come on. Flame me 'til I love you.
We are all tangled in a web of misinformation and sleight of hand, where even the most empirical , materialistic of knowledge and fact can be lost in a sea of baseless uknowns. And now for the non-poetic description: nobody knows anything because we're all SHOUTING OVER EACH OTHER to get our point across.
But Jetta...you say...you're a Discordian, surely you must favor such a disorganized system of information. To which I reply nay...voice inside my head...such a system is actually representative of order, because this “system”, if you can call it that, gives all opinions (and the facts that are misfiled as opinions) equal weight. This facilitates the layer cake that provides the foundation of western society, where “white” people are given more opportunities than people of color, where religious fundamentalists can vote down the restoring of human rights to groups of non-believers, and (insert your own misjustice here). In such a system, everyone is responsible for maintaining the integrity of their own background and community. It only takes one gaffe, one slip up to get our “we have our shit together” card revoked.
In a society where teachers have to respect parents keeping their children home from field trips because it doesn't jive with a Biblical understanding of science, you can bet your ass that a writer can be held accountable for what they say, even if its fiction.
GET TO THE POINT!
Stephanie Meyer and J.K. Rowling, authors behind the Twilight and Harry Potter books respectively, are irresponsible and should be held accountable for the marketing the reinforcement of patiarchal stereotypes to children (and adults for whom Pahlaniuk is too much to ingest).
Say what?
I will preface my onslaught of unwarranted criticism by saying this: I don't think the system is fair. In a perfect world, Stephanie Meyer could continue to promote the marginalization of women without meanieheads like me poking their noses in and saying “hey, that's demeaning to women everywhere...can't you show a little pride for your own?” But life isn't fair. As a trans writer, I am expected, to a degree, not to embarrass the trans community with my ignorance or oppressor apologism. And just as I can't come on here and say “doof doof we're the best of both worlds doof doof”, Meyer and Rowling, as women, should not be allowed to get away with marketing their gender de-powering fiction to a patriarchal audience (many of whom are young women hoping to see strong female characters to identify with). Maybe when women make as much as a man does in the same position, when an abortion does not require armed security, we can write Meyer as a mere peddler of subpar fiction and be done with it. Until that day, however, we are all charged with the task of not hurting the credibility of our respective communities.
Twilight is an easy target because it sucks. Meyer's writing style, if it can be called a style, most resembles a composition notebook of gothic poetry written by a group of teenagers who upon pooling their literary background together would come up with an improperly quoted Edgar Allan Poe poem, some Robert Smith lyrics, and a half-finished Mad Libs book with “blood” or some variation of filling every blank line. The dialog is pedestrian, the characters are negative one-dimensional, it easily undoes the work Bram Stoker and Anne Rice did to establish a solid literary vampire mythos, and oh god if I keep this up the article will never be finished. It sucks, sucks, sucks. If anyone believes I am speaking in too broad and dismissive critical language I will be happy to write an even longer article just about the inequities of Mrs. Meyer's literary suckage. Don't. Tempt. Me.
I will not mince words (or meat, since I prefer pies with cream filling): Twilight is gender mutiny. It's female protagonist is a submissive, spineless basket case who longs for the love of a brooding, possessive pedophile. Bella is incapable of fending for herself in any way, even relying on Edward to protect her from herself (see also: lose her virginity because even blood-sucking cannibals know it feels great to wait). When Edward up and leaves her because he grows tired of having to be her constant protector, she simply latches onto another supernatural hearthrob, thus igniting one of the most anti-feminist social trend (Team Edward vs Team Jacob) since “should we a)drown b)hang or c)burn these witches”? Admittedly, Meyer is probably not entirely at fault. I'm sure that's some advertising Machiavelli's idea, and when Joe Lieberman brings forth the apocalypse, Lady Gaga will punish him for his sins.
Meyer could, perhaps, be forgiven for such a problematic premise, if it not were for her highly publicized Mormon faith. Mormon author. 108 year old man and teenage girl who cannot be trusted with her own sexuality. Awkward descriptions of intimacy, as if written by someone who's either 1) never done it or 2) never enjoyed it. I'm sorry, if you don't see the parallels here, if you can't see where the story of vampires ends and the Mormon morality story begins, if you can't see the Joseph Smith watermark (metaphorically speaking, don't your book to the light), then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can do for you. Crawl back into your parent's basement and read the nearest religious scripture until the world ends. Which should be relatively soon, if all these articles and stories I read on the internet about girls leaving their boyfriends and “holding out” for someone more like “their” Edward are indeed true and not some elaborate hoax. Twilight is fitting the women of our generation with a psychological chastity belt, encouraging them to reserve themselves for someone who doesn't exist, in both a very literal and metaphoric/philosophical sense.
People like Edward Cullen do not exist. If they did, instead of writing this article I would be huffing smelling salts in a bunker gripping a shotgun that I've named Lilith and a case of silver bullets that I've drawn various emoticons on to give me some semblance of company. Because if human history has proven anything, it's that people with power will use it for their own gains, and for immortal cannibals “their own gains” that would mean tearing out every jugular from here to Istanbul. If vampires existed, they would not be benevolent and loving. Society can hardly handle the people who think they're vampires.
Now, I'm not arguing that this was all Meyer's plan. But I would argue that if such a scenario were to happen, if women everywhere sought to emulate Bella, if the book inspired more women to sexually repress themselves and reject relationships with other people in favor of “holding out” for some imaginary prince charming, then Meyer and those like her would experience a feeling of validation. And there's no hint that this phenomenon will fade anytime soon. People are making money every day by feeding this fad to women, women who have not been properly educated on their own herstory, who couldn't tell you who Susan B. Anthony is or what Helen Keller did with her life other than be deafblind and the butt of so many ableist jokes. Like the digital sexism mentioned in my Misnintendogny article, Meyer is just one of many people who make a profit from the undereducated, underdeveloped, and underappreciated female population in our society, and have few if any ethical qualms by promoting female submission and sexual repression. And Meyer is one of just many people who should be held responsible, though her more than others because she is the one who hath released the hounds, so to speak, by allowing her work to be snatched up by merchandise peddlers.
When the patriarchy is overthrown and women are restored (not granted) their equal standing in society, I want it made perfectly clear that Stephanie Meyer is not invited to the Lilith Fair on PPV viewing party. But beyond that, there is no further retribution necessary. One day every women in this country will have a destiny free from the constraints of male interest. But her books will always suck.
I saved J.K. Rowling for second because apart from the troubling “downtrodden protagonist who still manages to have every advantage (and people who are trying to kill him for it)” premise, I really liked the Harry Potter books. Up to Goblet of Fire, after which I went back to casually reading them on long flights and waits in the doctor's office as opposed to the “walking home so I can read this chapter on the way” setting that was my default. Rowling is an exceptional writer, and I make no reservations about giving her credit for getting kids re-interested in reading again. That's what makes her patriarchal pandering all the more heartbreaking.
When asked what attribute is most essential for wizardry, most would respond with intelligence/brain power/chutzpah. Culturally we link brain function to wizardry, like strength to warriors and glitter to queens. So it should follow that of the main characters in the Harry Potter series, Harry should be the smartest wizard, being the “chosen one” and all that. But not so. The smartest wizard of his clique is clearly Hermione, who on more than one occasion uses her wits to save Harry and Ron from some bullshit situation they probably put themselves in the first place. And what does all that studying and “applying herself” get her in the end? Third banana to a scarface over there with the complex. Oh, and married to the second banana, Ron.
So after all those adventures, after standing up against the forces of evil and assisting the prodigal hero on his quest that we all knew from Book One he was going to complete, she ends up married to the comic relief in another one of those “we're always at each other's throats because we love each other” that is so my mother's first marriage. Why couldn't she have married Harry? Because Pothead needed to end up with Ginny, his damsel in distress of choice. Better yet, why even marry within the trio to begin with? Can't a sister go on some adventures without marrying one of the males in her party? She's the only one of the trio to complete her seventh year, and the only one to pursue a viable career after that final fiasco with the Death Eaters. Harry and Ron become Aurors (magical cops). Oh gee, how convenient, becoming Aurors after you've defeated the most dangerous wizard you will ever encounter, ever.
Hermione goes on to have a career and uses her position to improve the quality of life for magical creatures, and H & R Blockhead eat donuts and bore themselves to death with war stories. Who's gotta kill your parents for a gal to get a break around here?
I have argued in the past, and will continue to in the future, that Harry's loss of parents is a form of privilege. He gets a reputation that doesn't really earn until later in the books, has quite a long list of people who are willing to risk their necks to keep his ass off the chopping block, and, if I remember correctly, was fucking loaded in the books. Oh, and he's full-blooded (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me). Hermione, despite being smarter than Harry, saving him on a few occasions, and being so vital to the story that Rowling herself admitted that she was used a “plot dump” to explain the HP universe in-story, does not get the recognition she deserves because she does not possess Harry's reputation (privilege) of surviving Voldemort's curse, an incident that Harry had almost no control over.
This is not to say that Hermione is not a dynamic character. She is, in fact, one of the best in the story, and one of my personal favorites. But with that admiration and identification comes the tragedy of realizing that no matter how smart she got or how many dark wizards she slayed in battle, she would always remain confined in some infernal cursed glass ceiling because not only was she a girl, but not “chosen”.
Unlike Meyer, I don't really believe Rowling was intending to make a message with her restained female protagonist. But she set out to make a series of books about a prodigal male protagonist, one who would overcome evil and become the most powerful wizard of his day and use that power for good for blah blah blah, and by sheer design, these types of stories regulate women to be sidekicks and the occasional love interest. Rowling could have broken that mold and had Hermione branch out and become her own woman and forge her own destiny, but instead she ends up married into the same family Harry does (hmmmm....remind you of Song of Roland, aqueertheory?). To tell little girls that they could one day grow up to be like Hermione is, in the grand scheme of things, only mildly different from telling her that she could be a very very well liked receptionist.
I'm not suggest that Rowling be flogged in public (despite my proclivities for BDSM and British ladies) or put through the critical ringer. But as a woman author, even if only a “children's” author, I think she is susceptible to a certain amount of criticism for simply telling the same old “boy with destiny eventually grows up to earn it” story when the public could have really used something a little more empowering for the female readership which makes up a considerable amount of the fandom. There are no statistics available as far as I know, but of all the HP readers I know, 80 percent of them are women, easily. I'm sure if I did the math I'd get a bigger number, if I did the math right, which there is no guarantee of. It's not hard to imagine that if more women are going to college than men, than more women are reading than men. And if you're a woman writing for an audience that is comprised muchly (if not mostly) of women, perhaps it's not outrageous to demand a little better gender sensitivity from you. Just a thought.
So what does any of this mean? That female authors should be held to a higher standard in regards to their portrayal of women and the female condition? Yeah, I think that's fair to say.
Also, I think it's fair to say that I'm blowing this up, and that I'm over-analyzing two series of fantasy books that were intended for kids and teenagers, and that I'm just finding shit to complain about, and that I shouldn't be, because I'm the comic book and video game person, and this is a little out of my league.
You may be right on all acounts. Especially that last one.
But in a period of inequality, in the age of the layer cake, we must hold everyone accountable for the advancement of their oppressed communities. Even if every women becomes an avowed feminist, if every queer become an activist, even with fronts united we would still be fighting an uphill battle, and we cannot afford, nobody can afford, for people like Meyer and Rowling (but Meyer mostly) to profit from underselling the capability and spirit of women, even if only through fiction. Blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah.
No one is going to make room for feminism.
We must make room. Boycott, criticize and expose the truth of patriarchal religious propaganda disguised as vampire stories. Kindly remind decent writers that they could and should be doing a lot better, considering those same people they're underestimating are the ones who put her ass in that nice-ass house she's got.
In the end we are all responsible.
Just as I chide Meyer and Rowling for failing women, I will chide anyone, including myself, who simply shrug off this mainstream babble as damaging and stupid but does not seek to replace it with something better, by either promoting/distributing/spreading the word or creating it ourselves. But I'm an artist. That's my solution to everything.
So, fight the good fight.
Yo, I like your video game stuff a lot better.
In the meantime I'll try to get my own works published so I have other things to do than bitch about people who are more successful than I probably ever will be.
And you'll be posting them on here because it's the only way you could get people to read it.
One day, I'm gonna afford healthcare and medicine, and you're gonna wish I didn't.
(...to the full post)
Find below the Letter from the Editor from the 2009 Reader. Hard copies of the Reader are available for a small donation. Please contribute!
As I enter my fourth year of managing BelowtheBelt.org, I cannot think of myself as more than a mere guide for this complex and evolving forum. While Queeriously and I play a role in the structure and format of content, Below the Belt has grown into an informed and supportive community due in large part to the strength and creativity of its writers and readers. It is with great confidence that I can say that this forum is a leading voice in dialogue surrounding identity and its intersectionalities. In particular, I am proud of how we, as a diverse and opinionated community, have approached trans topics with grace and thoughtfulness. I am truly thankful to be part of this community.
I look at our site and our avatars and conceptualize its participants as a rag-tag group of heroes: all underdogs, all simultaneously proud of and at odds with our statuses along lines of politics and power. I will never forget the times in my life when I have felt like I had to take a stand, not only for myself but for others, as well. These are the moments that define our approach to social change; in spite of the threat of exclusion or violence, we are compelled to take a stand. The cape goes on, and we become heroes in our own right.
But I think the problem with many heroes is that eventually, after finally overcoming the odds and achieving success, they become something different. When many heroes become mainstream, blindly celebrated and woven into the fabric of our society, we lose sight of their original purpose. We have witnessed how many of the heroes of the gay rights movement have become oppressors themselves as they make political progress. In many ways, this oppressed-into-oppressor narrative is tied to our political structure; as we gain rights for a specific group, those rights are dependant on our ability to maintain a static collective.
The criteria of group membership becomes less flexible as many of the same oppressive tactics once used against them by the existing political regime are invoked against the margins of the collective. The tactics may include, but are certainly not limited to, prioritizing political progress for majority members within the group (and ignoring other members of its “umbrella”); invoking normative practices that serve to isolate minority identities within the group; and encouraging intra-group segregation across other lines of difference, such as race/ethnicity, class, nationality, ability, sexuality, gender, and everything else.
So this is why we are important. We are here because we recognize the importance of acknowledging the privileges and oppressions that we experience whether we are perceived to be marginalized or not. We recognize that heroism in its essence is a struggle against the status quo. Heroes do not leave the world as they found it. They change it. When we stop considering oppositions to the norm our capes lose their once-resilient glimmer. We recognize that a real community is formed by making the welcoming of difference a pillar of its foundation. And most importantly, we know that people from all walks of life bring meaningful contributions to our work.
Thank you for everything, 2009, and we look forward to what 2010 will bring.
(...to the full post)
Today is a momentous day in Below the Belt history. As we approach our fourth anniversary in 2010, we are publishing the first annual Below the Belt Reader, a compilation of selected contributions from the past year that we firmly believe exemplify our work.
We are immensely proud of the work and sense of community that our contributors and readers have achieved, and the Reader is a culmination of that achievement. I hope you'll join me in celebrating this milestone by checking it out. The Reader will always be available to read for free on our Press page linked at the top of the blog.
As the first decade of the new century draws to a close, I am so excited at the prospect of a new year full of continued coverage and dialogue on gender, sexuality, identity and their intersectionalities. All of the contributors at Below the Belt donate their time, energy, and thoughtful contributions to improve the community on this forum. As the main administrator for this site, I can attest to this blog being a labor of love. However, every year the overhead costs to running this site steadily rise.
If you're reading this, you're one of the thousands of readers who comes through our neck of the interwebs every day. Chances are, you'll never have to pay a cent for the content you see here. The contributors, queeriously, and I do this because this is what we love to do. If you want to help support us in our effort in providing a thoughtful safe space for dialogue on gender and its intersections, than I hope you'll lend a hand and pitch in. Give whatever you can, be it $5 or $50. Every gift in support of Below the Belt means so much to us. You can click the Donate button on the menu bar to make a gift. As a special thank you, for every gift of $20 or more, we'll send you a free hard copy of the Reader.
A hearty congratulations to everyone who has touched this community in one way or another and made it what it is today. You deserve it.
(...to the full post)
regulars
