Making Fists

Maybe I’m wrong with this comparison, and if I am, please call me out.

But I’m really annoyed when people tell American/Western feminists to shut up because not having access to affordable birth control, not getting equal pay, and rampant street harassment does not mandate a “war on women” like there is a war on women in other countries (and then bringing up horrible cases of abuse on women in often Muslim and/or third world countries).

I feel like this is the equivalent of telling African Americans to shut up about poverty, poor education, police brutality and many other stigmas they face because, hey - at least slavery is over!

Just because another country is mistreating it’s citizens does not mean we cannot strive for equality closer to home. The fight’s not over. Sexism is still rampant and racism is institutionalized in western culture and no amount of, ”Well, you have it better than so-and-so” helps anyone out in the long run. 

If you have a problem with the way other countries are treating their citizens - you do something about it. But don’t tell people who are trying to make progress closer to home to shut up because you don’t think their realities are horrible enough to mandate your support. 

The moment they learned it was rape…

[TW: Rape]

Read More

Why I Hate People

I was talking to someone privately and I said the phrase, “I hate people” (which is something I actually say quite often in reality), and I guess that doesn’t come across in my blog (which is probably a good thing?), so I thought it would be easiest to just make a post explaining why I personally do not really enjoy other human beings. 

Read More

Gendering Nonviolence

I did another post on the gendering of nonviolence under the phrase, “I’d never hit a woman/girl.”

But now I want to talk about the acceptance of female abuse on males.

Because, it really bothers me. It seems to me that there are lots of accounts in television and movies of women slapping or throwing drinks on men after men say/do something that offends them.

Maybe I’m the only one who is annoyed by this, but I really hate that this behavior is shown as acceptable. 

I am not as much of a pacifist  as I would like to be - I honestly do believe there are times for violence - but I think they are last resorts. In my study of karate, I was always taught to only respond with violence when first met with violence. I believe violence should not be the knee-jerk, go-to response. It should be used in defense.

We came out of the fields and down from the trees to create civilization. Now lets act like we are civilized.

I really hate this idea that is “okay” for women to hit men because men are big and strong and can take it and women are weak and passionate and unable to control their emotions.

I call bullshit. 

I think if we really want to end violence we need to teach our young women that it is not okay to slap a guy because he pisses you off. It is violence and it is not okay.

We need to teach our young men that they shouldn’t hit people not just women. Because hitting anyone is wrong, regardless of what gender they are (or aren’t). 

Because our men are being beaten up by other men and this is a problem. (Not to downplay the violence of women against men, because that does happen and it is serious, but to attack the idea that nonviolence is gendered for the sole purpose of preventing men from assaulting women).

The truth is this - any man who is abusive will probably hit a woman regardless of how many times he gets told, “Never hit a girl.”

And no one ever seems to say - ladies, don’t hit the guys. That’s not cool.

I don’t pretend to be perfect. There was a time a coworker said something I took extreme offense to and, without thinking, I slapped him.

And everyone’s response was to laugh. They thought it was funny. I hit a guy and it was funny to everyone.

But I don’t even have to tell you if the roles has been reversed, that guy would’ve been shunned or worse. 

I was mortified at myself and my behavior and I wish I could take it back. I didn’t him him particularly hard - but that’s not the point. I hit him because society says that is acceptable behavior and he just has to take it because I’m a woman.

I disagree. I was wrong. Society is wrong. 

I am ashamed of myself.

We have language and intelligence and agency and we need to learn to settle differences through thought and debate and discussion.

We need to strive towards nonviolence collectively, without putting gendered guidelines into place because as long as their is tolerance for violence - someone will get beat up.

The “Lesbian” Experience

I really, really hate this phrase.

You know it - the one straight girls use to describe that one time in college they got drunk and made out with another woman. That was so totally their lesbian experience!

No. Fuck off.

This statement only says: you don’t know what the word “lesbian” means.

And you want the men you are trying to date to find you hot. Because, you know, fetishizing lesbians is hot nowadays.

Lesbian is a sexuality. It is the sexuality of female identified people who are attracted solely  (or mostly) to other female identified people.

It is an identity - not an action or a behavior.

Yes, it gets expressed in action and behavior. But, some women are lesbians without (or before) having had an sexual contact with another woman. They are still lesbians.

Sleeping with/kissing/hitting on another woman does not make you a lesbian unless you identify as a lesbian.

And I highly, highly doubt you rehauled your entire sexual identity for the five minutes you kissed another woman and had your “lesbian experience.”

I also hate this phrase when applied to young, college women who want to date another woman, basically for the experience, before going on to a more “traditional” heterosexual relationship.

That is not a lesbian experience. That is a same-sex experience. I mean, I’m not going to begrudge you figuring out what you like, or even just want to have an experience as long as everyone involved knows it’s just that - temporary - and are consenting to being your “experience.” 

But this phrase is insulting to the women who are actually lesbians. Who have to deal with being fetishized, not having equal rights, getting harassed on the streets, having to deal with being unsure if they are going to be able to visit their significant other in the hospital, afraid their benefits from work won’t apply to them… And you are taking that entire life and all the good and bad in it and singling it down to one make-out session with another woman. You are belittling people who do identify as lesbian.

I find it insulting as a bisexual woman because other women using this “lesbian” experience phrase make it so society and other people don’t have to take my experiences with the same sex as valid. They can say things like, “oh, that’s just a phase,” or, “you just want attention.” 

Fuck off. 

I’m experiencing attraction to multiple genders.

I do not have a “lesbian experience.” A simply kiss/date another woman I am attracted to. 

I do not have “heterosexual experiences.” (Someone once said this to me after I kissed a guy!). 

No. No I just kissed a guy. No need to freak out. 

So, stop using this phrase.

A sexuality is not an experience - it is an identity and you are insulting people with that identity every time you minimize their lives to one “experience” you had. 

The Day of the Eclipse

It was the day of the eclipse
And I was with the girl I love.

The moon was riding high in the summer sky,
So close to the sun that she couldn’t be seen.

My mother laid out a picnic in our driveway
Invited us all, and I brought her along.

I have the memory cut out so cleanly - 
My brother sitting on the mailbox with his girlfriend gathered in his arms,
So blatant and easy, so sweet and so pure.
And me and the girl I love keeping space between us,

Feet between us

A buffer to keep us safe.

I’m riding with the gun pressed to my chest - 
The muzzle hot, searing my breast bone, leaving a sizzling scar,
When I bring her - guised best friend - to my parent’s door.
To the spaces that come so nicely, so neatly to my brother and his girl.

This is what it’s like - 
The moon too close to the sun to be seen - 
Where every smile and laugh and accidental touch
Is magnified tenfold and every shared expression
And mirrored behavior
Is refracted and reflected inward
Until I’m analyzing her and myself and us,
And turning and twisting and burning it inside
Looking for the gap, the hole, the truth in the lie,
Feeling out the empty spaces like a tongue tests teeth
To see if we slipped up this time, if I’m going to be caught this time,
If I will be cast out this time.

If I will hurt my family this time.

That is what it is like:
Riding too close to the sun to be seen.
My brother with his girlfriend pressed to his chest,
Out in front of our house
As the moon finally appeared, crossed our star
And began to cast shadow, cast doubt.
Turned the infinite summer light into a murky twilight,
Tinged the wold in shadowed browns,
Only the corona caught in the sky,
Hanging above my parent’s driveway.

It was the day of the eclipse,
And I was with the girl I love.

We stood with our hands at our sides.
Too close to the sun to touch.

Maybe Michael is a Woman

My mother and I were just talking about sex and gender and the Bible, and we were discussing the fact that king David’s first wife was named Michael.

I had commented that in one of my Bible classes in high school (I attended a private, Christian high school), my class thought it was really funny that David’s wife was named Michael because Michael is a boy’s name. Get it? haha.

We even were debating that maybe David’s wife’s name was spelt “Michael” but pronounced “Michelle.” Because we were private, Christian schoolers with an inability to see beyond our constricting, heteronormative culture.

My mother was saying, maybe “Michael” like “Ashley” and “Leslie” was a name that changed which gender it denoted through the years.

But the thing is, everyone assumes “Michael” is a male name because there is an archangel named Michael and all the archangels are male (Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Lucifer, etc.). Or at least, they are genderless and considered to be male (given that the are, in fact, spiritual, incorporeal beings). Humans might need to assign a gender to them to better understand them.

Then my mother and I finally, finally reached the obvious conclusion that maybe the archangel Michael is actually female and it’s the patriarchal structure of both society and Christianity that made us assume that a powerful creature of God had to be male. (or, perceived to be male because angels probably don’t have a gender). 

(As a Christian woman and a flaming feminist, it had always bothered me and made my faith rocky that all of the angels are or appear to be male, so I think I like this idea that Michael is actually female.)

Elementary (tv series)

nothingman:

quicksummary:

They decided to make Dr. Watson an asian female and everybody subsequently lost their shit, despite the fact that Watson has also been a mouse, Gareth David-Lloyd, and a tomato. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has gone on record as saying absolutely nothing because he is dead and does not care about this.

and a Robot too (anyone remember Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century?)

Okay… I happen to be a huge(!) fan of BBC’s “Sherlock” and when America decided to hop right on that bandwagon (instead of leaving well enough alone), I was one of the people who freaked out.

I subsequently freaked out even more when they decided to cast the lovely and talented Lucy Liu as Watson. (I adore her and her character on “Southland.” She’s a brilliant actress). My problem is not that they cast an asian woman to play Watson. Genderbending is a-okay in my book. And I really think we need more nonwhites in the general media because we simply do.

My problem is that there is a fantastic, well-developed love story in Sherlock Holmes (in the original ACD) that is between two men. 

My problem is that someone is, once again, forcing a heteronormative plot onto a wonderful plot line and set of characters.

I know, I’ve read the articles where people involved say that this show “Elementary” is about showing how a man and a woman can work together and not be romantically involved.

I say - fuck you. You’re lying.

Because that’s not what it’s about. We already have shows that could’ve or even do show that men and women can work together and not be romantically involved. It happens. It’s been done. (What about “Monk” and his two female side kicks? He was not for one moment interested in either of them. The new show “Perception” seems to be based upon the same premise. What about the Doctor and Dona? All of these already show that men and women can work together without it being about a sexual relationship.)

I promise you, this show will probably be another “Bones” or “X-files” sort of show where the audience is strung along in the created or imagined sexual tension between the leading characters.

BBC’s “Sherlock“‘s fandom shows that a lot of people have absolutely no problem whatsoever getting on board with same-sex sexual tension. (And the “Supernatural” fandom takes it a step further by die-hard shipping homosexual incest). Of course, we all know no mainstream media is going to actually allow Watson and Holmes to peruse a relationship because we must perpetuate heteronormality at all costs (sarcasm).

My problem with casting Watson as a woman is that it really looks (to me) like an attempt to heterosexualize Sherlock and Watson. Because we can’t dare have the mainstream media have a show with actual (instead of fandom perpetuated) homosexual tension.

There have been countless attempts to make Sherlock a heterosexual character; from forcing Irene on him every chance they can get (and for those of us who have read the original ACD canon, we all know Irene is both in love with someone else and married. In fact, Sherlock is a witness at her wedding. She’s in exactly one story.) to making Watson a woman, they can’t let sleeping dogs lie and show this for what it actually is: a beautiful love story between two men (romantic or platonic). 

Sherlock could even be a strong, asexual character (in the original ACD, he doesn’t even notice beautiful women and Watson has to point them out to him). But some writer is constantly forcing a woman on him any chance they can in many of his recreations in recent years.

But anyway you flip it, in my opinion, casting a woman as Watson is just another way someone is trying to shove the brilliantly complex character of Sherlock Holmes into a box labeled “heterosexual.”

And guys, he doesn’t fit in that box.

My brother is a highly educated, very down-to-earth, aware of white, cis and male privilege kind of guy and we often get into huge discussion on society (he’s one of the few people in reality I can talk to about social issues).

He’s also enlisted in the navy. And by virtue of being male, he is privy to the interactions of males in a way I never will be.

I once asked him what the men he worked with really thought about women and he replied,

“The men I work with think of women as the most intelligent of the great apes.”

Part of me wishes I’d never asked because I have never gotten that out of my head.