First, I'd like to call attention to Greta Christina's excellent article about whether being queer is a choice, and why "...for any practical, political, social, or moral purposes, it absolutely doesn't matter".
While I devoutly wish it didn't matter, I think it does, for several reasons.
If being queer isn't a choice, then we will "have" to be given rights in the interest of nondiscrimination, but the overall attitude of society won't change, at least not very quickly. Especially if the biological aspect of being queer is highlighted by the queer community and used as a reason why we deserve equal rights, it will be seen as something shameful, and while we will have secured legal rights, I think it could well help uphold the general kyriarchal attitude society has towards sex and relationships.
If the queer community chooses to use "we're born this way" as a rallying point and the foundation of their argument for equal rights, it will leave bisexuals/pansexuals/omnisexuals/whatever-you-want-to-call-them-sexuals in the dust. Again. Because we do have a choice. We can choose to pursue conventionally appropriate relationships with their nice dollop of privilege, or we can choose to pursue queer relationships. So if queers secure rights because we "can't help it", what will happen to all of the people who are somewhere in between? And I'm speaking not only of bisexuals, who have the choice of pursuing socially sanctioned relationships, but also of people who look at tickboxes marked M and F and think it quite silly but don't experience gender dysphoria "good" enough for society to think them anything but confused at best, malicious and attention seeking at worst, or who otherwise are seen as having a choice about their identity.
Perhaps, even if we end up discovering that being queer is a choice, the community will have the foresight to not use it as the reason for deserving to be treated equally, and make it our business to ensure that anyone can love whomever they wish, however they wish, as long as it is done so in a consensual and humane way. But I'm not sure I have that much faith in us. So for now, I'm going to hope that we're forced into it. That we do have a choice in being queer, and therefore assert the right for us to do so regardless of biological imperative.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
On Letting the Man Pay
1. Make sure it's acceptable for you to be seen in public.
There are girls who are fit for public consumption, and girls who aren't. If you are not of the right age, sex/gender combination, sexual orientation, race, class, weight, or simply don't look and act like a Good Girl, then get your hands off that man and stop taking advantage of him!
2. Make sure it's something that he "should" pay for.
Don't let him pay for anything that doesn't directly lead to his pleasure and enjoyment in a socially acceptable way. If it's anything other than this, don't spend his hard-earned money on it, you leech.
3. Don't be so presumptuous as to pay for your own way.
Your Man needs to know that you depend on him. The only thing you can handle is the housework. Otherwise, an aura of helplessness should be cultivated. If he's not interested in whatever it is you're considering buying, then you don't need it.
4. Whatever you do, don't offer to pay for things for him.
How could you dare to imply that he's helpless and incompetent and emasculated?!
5. Shower constant praise upon him for being gentlemanly and considerate.
That fragile male ego needs constant stroking, women!
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Even heathens deserve to be loved before they burn in hell!
I'm probably going to be AFK more than I like for a while. Thoughts brewing though...
In the meantime, go support Skepticon by buying their wonderful Valentine's Day cards!
In the meantime, go support Skepticon by buying their wonderful Valentine's Day cards!
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
"So...are you single?"
Why are we, as a society, obsessed with knowing whether or not people are single, and whether they're interested in your sex/gender combination, preferably in the first five minutes of conversing with them?
Okay, obvious of obviousness. It's so that they can treat people differently depending on the answer. Because it's something that will shape their interaction. Or because they won't talk to someone at all if they're not a potential date or conquest. Now, I imagine that right about now, if anyone were actually reading this, they would object to the word "conquest". But if you're only approaching someone because they're available, if you wouldn't have been willing to spend the time or effort to talk to them if they hadn't been, then you're placing their only value in whether or not they're going to be sexually satisfying to you, and that makes them a conquest instead of a friend or lover. By only talking to people who might be available for you to have sex with, then you're undermining their worth as a person. And say you still talk to them, but treat them differently... How? By not hitting on them? Then that means your default mode of communication is hitting on people, which is also a problem. At best, it means that you should probably re-evaluate the way you make friends and view people, and at worst you expect every member of whatever sex/gender combinations to which you are attracted to be available for sex at your demand.
I'm being deliberately gender-neutral here, because I've seen this sort of thing happen to both men and women, by both men and women. Often, the context and nuances are different because heaven forbid men and women actually approach sex and dating the same way, but the objectifying nature of what's occurring remains the same.
Yes, knowing if someone is single or not can be useful, but as the first thing you need to know? I like knowing so that I can say "Oh, and say hi to [partner(s)] for me" or remember to inquire as to their health and well-being, but that's about it. I think that we, as a culture, need to fundamentally redesign the way that we gather and prioritise information about other people. Because really, their sex, gender, orientation, age, and attachment status have far less to do with who they are than their hobbies, favourite media, opinions, goals, and personality. Yet, in this supposedly highly individualised society, we often have to battle to be seen as more than "that gay guy", "that old lady", "so-and-so's girlfriend", or "that cute single dude".
This kind of behaviour is reinforcing the idea that sex is (one of) the most important thing, about a person as well as in general. And not just sex, but a certain kind of socially acceptable sex. Where you haven't just just met, but the other person is new and fresh and interesting. Where it's exciting without being *gasp* kinky. Where gender roles are adhered to religiously. Where both parties are single and young and conventionally attractive, as well as preferably heterosexual. Where it's passionate but slow and moving at the same time. Where there's absolutely no communication necessary, and where communication doesn't occur even if it is necessary. In short, this attitude is reinforcing ideals that are basically screwing everyone over. Because seriously, no one can live up to the oxymoronic ideals of sex that are so disgustingly prevalent in our world.
Okay, obvious of obviousness. It's so that they can treat people differently depending on the answer. Because it's something that will shape their interaction. Or because they won't talk to someone at all if they're not a potential date or conquest. Now, I imagine that right about now, if anyone were actually reading this, they would object to the word "conquest". But if you're only approaching someone because they're available, if you wouldn't have been willing to spend the time or effort to talk to them if they hadn't been, then you're placing their only value in whether or not they're going to be sexually satisfying to you, and that makes them a conquest instead of a friend or lover. By only talking to people who might be available for you to have sex with, then you're undermining their worth as a person. And say you still talk to them, but treat them differently... How? By not hitting on them? Then that means your default mode of communication is hitting on people, which is also a problem. At best, it means that you should probably re-evaluate the way you make friends and view people, and at worst you expect every member of whatever sex/gender combinations to which you are attracted to be available for sex at your demand.
I'm being deliberately gender-neutral here, because I've seen this sort of thing happen to both men and women, by both men and women. Often, the context and nuances are different because heaven forbid men and women actually approach sex and dating the same way, but the objectifying nature of what's occurring remains the same.
Yes, knowing if someone is single or not can be useful, but as the first thing you need to know? I like knowing so that I can say "Oh, and say hi to [partner(s)] for me" or remember to inquire as to their health and well-being, but that's about it. I think that we, as a culture, need to fundamentally redesign the way that we gather and prioritise information about other people. Because really, their sex, gender, orientation, age, and attachment status have far less to do with who they are than their hobbies, favourite media, opinions, goals, and personality. Yet, in this supposedly highly individualised society, we often have to battle to be seen as more than "that gay guy", "that old lady", "so-and-so's girlfriend", or "that cute single dude".
This kind of behaviour is reinforcing the idea that sex is (one of) the most important thing, about a person as well as in general. And not just sex, but a certain kind of socially acceptable sex. Where you haven't just just met, but the other person is new and fresh and interesting. Where it's exciting without being *gasp* kinky. Where gender roles are adhered to religiously. Where both parties are single and young and conventionally attractive, as well as preferably heterosexual. Where it's passionate but slow and moving at the same time. Where there's absolutely no communication necessary, and where communication doesn't occur even if it is necessary. In short, this attitude is reinforcing ideals that are basically screwing everyone over. Because seriously, no one can live up to the oxymoronic ideals of sex that are so disgustingly prevalent in our world.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
In this year.
Another year. I guess that's a cue for a gratuitously introspective and/or nostalgic post. Or maybe a cheery hopeful "next year is going to be so awesome" vibe. I don't know. I'm not distant enough from last year to know. But things did happen.
January
I did this to the soles of my socks, thus raising myself to yet higher peaks of nerdiness.
February
I wreaked LEGO destruction with Middle Brother.
March
I took creepy pictures of my eye. Huzzah for silly trends on internet fora!
April
I bought a gnome pendant and named him Reynolds.
May
I don't even know. Probably the doing of letting Littlest Brother use my camera.
June and July
I was obviously too busy with my life falling apart to take pictures.
August
There was cake!
September
I started sleeping with Fumpy II again.
October
I acquired lots of good books for my AFONAL.
November
I was attacked by a cat.
December
I dreamed up disturbing Spike/Shakespeare slash fiction.
The end.
January
I did this to the soles of my socks, thus raising myself to yet higher peaks of nerdiness.
February
I wreaked LEGO destruction with Middle Brother.
I took creepy pictures of my eye. Huzzah for silly trends on internet fora!
April
I bought a gnome pendant and named him Reynolds.
May
I don't even know. Probably the doing of letting Littlest Brother use my camera.
June and July
I was obviously too busy with my life falling apart to take pictures.
August
There was cake!
September
I started sleeping with Fumpy II again.
October
I acquired lots of good books for my AFONAL.
November
I was attacked by a cat.
December
I dreamed up disturbing Spike/Shakespeare slash fiction.
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)