Categotry Archives: Your RDA of Outrage

by

Mass Resistance Made Me Mad Enough To Vomit

Categories: i get around, shakesville rocks, the transsexual empire strikes back, transphobia: now in blog format, Your RDA of Outrage

In the spirit of spring training, I am apparently having an Away week, as all most posts so far have originated elsewhere!

Today’s offering appears at Shakesville:

First Event is an annual conference held in January by the Tiffany Club of New England, a transgender support group. Like any conference, it consists of workshops, cocktail parties, and banquets with awards ceremonies and occasionally pompous keynote addresses. About the only difference between it and, say, a Linux convention is that there will be slightly more trans people at First Event. (There may also be more computer engineers, for that matter.)

But that’s not all. According to Southern Poverty Law Center-certified hate group Mass Resistance, First Event is what America will look like in the horrifying post-Homosexual Agenda world soon to be imposed upon the honest, godfearing citizens of These United.

And to prove their point, they made a video….

 Fight the power!

by

Monster Rat: A Gallery of the Rape Culture

Categories: douchebaggery, hiram monserrate watch, media tool kit, politicians have penises, your rda of misogyny, Your RDA of Outrage

Hiram Monserrate is a douchebag.

Need proof? Consider the lovely legislative record of the freshman NYS senator: he not once, but twice threatened to caucus against his own party–which for the first time in over 40 years was in control of the upper house of the New York State legislature and had an ambitious progressive and reform agenda, including legalizing gay marriage–making good on his threat the second time and throwing the entire state government into chaos (and costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.) And both times, he couldn’t even stand steadfast to his own dirtbag principles (well, except the most important: look out for Hiram first)–he turned coat on his turncoat companions and slunk back to the Democrats.

And that’s not even what earned him his nickname: Monster Rat.

That comes as a result of the “incident” of December 19th, 2009. Monserrate brought his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, to an emergency room over a half hour from his apartment. She had been slashed down to the bone by a broken glass. Monserrate claimed he had tripped in a darkened room and accidentally smashed the glass into her face. Giraldo disagreed, although she would later recant and say that his version was correct. But that night she called him “crazy” and said, “I can’t believe he did this to me!”

It seems that he had been driven into a jealous rage by finding another man’s business card in her purse. A security camera would later show images of him beating her in the hallway, dragging her by her hair. She tried to get away from him but nobody opened their door.

He was indicted, but once Giraldo changed her story, it proved impossible to convict him of anything but misdemeanor assault.

Now, I can leave it there: yet another case of a powerful man using his privilege to abuse a woman and get away with it–as Joanna Molloy did in the New York Daily News:

In the hallway after the verdict, women in jeans and lawyers’ suits clustered in groups and shook their heads. “This sets women’s rights back a long time,” said one female court officer.

Forgive us if we find the couple’s story the most incredible coincidence since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same Fourth of July.

Erlbaum did find Monserrate – who courthouse wags have been calling Monster Rat – guilty of reckless assault, for forcibly dragging Giraldo out of the apartment in a scene caught on videotape.

It’s a misdemeanor, so Monserrate gets to keep his job in Albany.

So for your enjoyment (read: rage), here is a gallery of Bramhall’s cartoons, which are disturbing and triggering enough that (in a Second Awakening first) I present them after the jump.


A Gallery of the Damned

Politics
Most often, Bramhall used Monserrate’s image as a commentary on politics, albeit one divorced completely from anything having to do with women’s politics:

Don’t you just love the terrified woman in that last cartoon? Way to exhibit sensitivity as well as your usual perspicacity, Bill!

The Cartoonist’s Chore

A few times, Bramhall includes an image of Monserrate in cartoons commenting about how hard/easy it is for him to do his job, i.e. come up with cartoons:

Almost, But Not Quite

Once or twice, Bramhall almost shows some sensitivity to the underlying issue of violence towards women–but then as usual completely smothers that in a smug blanket of privileged fuckery that uses images of that violence to make a crude joke:

The Big Finish

This last cartoon ran during the height of the Senate leadership crisis. It is so full of douchebaggery and misogynistic imagery that it practically makes up its own genre: douchedy, maybe, or WTF-tire.

For those uninitiated into New York State politics: in addition to Senator Douche, you can see former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (presumably with a prostitute) at upper center, and in a nice homophobic touch former Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith dressed in the little Lord Faunteleroy outfit. The horse’s ass at lower right is Assembly leader Shel Silver (and an assessment of his character I tend to agree with.)

by

Now Let Us Abhor Wicked Men

Categories: the patriarchy: you can't live with it....that is all, your rda of misogyny, Your RDA of Outrage

I haven’t had much to say about the Rihanna incident–where for “incident”, I invite and encourage you to read “vicious beating inflicted upon her by an depraved, jealous boyfriend.” Like a lot of folks I was appalled at the light sentence he received, incensed that once again money and fame insulate men from the consequences of their actions (but said money and fame didn’t do squat for Rihanna) and moved on to the latest outrage.

Turns out, today everything old is new again! Because Chris Brown has kicked off his rehabilitation tour! (You know, the one where a douchebag guy goes on the talk shows, displays a vetted-level of contrition, promises to never do that again, mentions Jesus somewhere, and is immediately rehabilitated in public opinion so you never have to feel guilty about listening to/voting for/paying $12 bucks* to watch him again.)

Chris has hit upon an interesting rehab tactic, however: he claims he doesn’t remember assaulting Rihanna:

King, whose interview airs on Wednesday night on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” asked Brown if he could remember the event, and the singer told him “no.”

“I just look at it like, wow, I’m in shock, because, first of all, that’s not who I am as a person, and that’s not who I promise I want to be,” Brown said in a video posted on CNN’s website. “So when I look at the police reports or hear about the police reports, I just don’t know what to think.”

Hey, dude, guess what: that fucking is who you are as a person. A person who beats his girlfriend viciously and repeatedly. Even if you “can’t remember” doing it.

Separately, Brown told People in a story for the issue on newsstands Friday that he still loves Rihanna. “I never fell out of love with her. That just wouldn’t go away,” Brown said.

Well, that seems to be the problem, since the assault started

…when Rihanna found a text message on Brown’s phone from “a woman who Brown had a previous sexual relationship with,” according to CNN’s story.

Yeah, he never fell out of love with her, provided he could get some on the side. And when the woman he “loved” argued with him about that, he attacked her. He assaulted her. He choked her. He bit her.

Brown, 20, said he was distraught the night of the event and “broke down” after he told his mother, who herself was a victim of an abusive relationship.

His mom, Joyce Hawkins, told People that Brown’s confession was “the most painful moment of my life,” and sitting with her son on Larry King’s program, she said she was “totally shocked.”

“I know that Chris has never, ever been a violent person. Never,” Hawkins said.

I’m supposed to say something sympathetic here about the cycle of abuse. And honestly, I am sympathetic–there’s no question that children who are abused, or whose parents have an abusive relationship, are more likely to abuse other people. But that sympathy kind of sputters to an abrupt halt when it includes putting a horrific beatdown on a woman. One that you claim you love.

I mean, it’s not like Chris Brown was without resources to help him get over the abuse he’d suffered.

As for Ms. Hawkins…well, see above. And below:

But a story accompanying CNN’s video cites a probation report for Brown stating he and Rihanna had two other abusive incidents: one a verbal argument in which Rihanna slapped him and he shoved her, and a second in which he broke the windshields of a rented car while she was with him.

Yeah. Never violent at all.

Of course, the thing is…the thing is. Bloggers like me will write about this. Lots of women and well-thinking men will get outraged. People will be upset. Hell, Rihanna will even do a revenge song about Chris Brown.

And he’ll probably go on ultimately like it never happened. And the next time some rich and powerful douchebag beats his girlfriend, he’ll go on TV and do his contrition waltz and the rich and powerful douchebag interviewers will pronounce their absolution and it will all go on and on and on again.

Because they know they can wear us down with all the other outrages they throw at us every day, while their patience seems unlimited.

by

I Get Around (and Around and Around…)

Categories: i get around, Your RDA of Outrage

Howdy, ducks! Sorry no posts recently…I plead being busy writing this bit about Caster Semenya for the Guardian’s Comment Is Free section!

And while a sex test sounds benign enough, it won’t be anything as simple as a DNA test – as Meloncye McAfee points out, there are a variety of conditions that can lead to a man having two X chromosomes, or a woman having a Y chromosome. No: Semenya will not only have her DNA checked, her urine and blood sampled and her genitals examined, but will even be required to have an interview with a psychologist – hopefully to help her get over the trauma of having all these tests done in a media fishbowl.

The irony is that had she not been born female, she could compete perfectly legally.

The rest of the article can be found here.

by

How To Lose Your Sense Of Humor

Categories: all about me, invasive kyriarchy, Your RDA of Outrage

Greetings, Ducks! So I had a super bad day yesterday–one of my depressive episodes, just didn’t want to do anything–which explains why there wasn’t a post. (Also: why I still haven’t touched some work for one of my clients, yikes.) I slept late and blew off most of my responsibilities besides feeding the cats, and watched some TV.

One of the things I watched was an old movie–I shudder to think how old, because I remember when it came out: Uncommon Valor. In case you never heard the name before, it was a Reagan-era film about a mission to rescue POWs still being held by the Vietnamese.

As a movie, it’s not bad: it has a decent cast (Gene Hackman, Fred Ward, a pre-Dirty Dancing Patrick Swayze among others) and gives the idea an above-average treatment. I won’t comment too much on the circumstances of the era the movie was made–Reagan-era macho posturing, the very real question about whether there were any POWs still in Indochina, and the overall wish-fulfillment the whole back-to-Vietnam genre invoked.

What was interesting to me, watching the movie for the first time in, hmm, over 20 years, was my reaction to it now as opposed to how I might have viewed the movie at different points in my life.

I first saw Uncommon Valor when I was in a, a, um, Scouting organization. Okay? Nuff said. So it was a decidedly masculine environment, we were all kids–I was 11, there were some teenagers–and we probably grooved off the well-done action sequences. (And the foul language–it was an R-rated film.) The film became a favorite of mine, and my brother and I borrowed it several times from the local library.

Since then, many things have changed, of course: I’ve grown up, I’ve changed genders, I’ve lost a lot of my taste for war movies. But maybe most important of all, I’ve become politically awakened. And that has radically changed how I see–everything.

Now, I know I’m caught up in the first flush of all this activism, that there’s nothing so zealous as a new convert, and that I could be a bit of a prig under the best of circumstances. But at the same time, having begun to look at the world in terms of dominance and oppression, privilege and denial–well, it’s like eating one potato chip: you just can’t stop yourself.

So, watching Uncommon Valor brought up a lot of thoughts that frankly might not have occurred to me even after I transitioned, but do occur to me now, such as (spoilers follow):

Is it really true that men have to fight each other to resolve their issues? Early on in the film, Patrick Swayze–a skilled soldier with no combat experience–ends up fighting Randall “Tex” Cobb, the toughest of the Vietnam vets on the team. The vets resent Swayze for treating them like recruits while he trains them; he feels he has to prove to them he won’t fail in combat. So they fight, as custom, law, and generic Hollywood screenwriting all demand.

But seriously? Is that the only way he could have proved himself to them? Why do we just assume so? Why do men think that’s so? Isn’t that a poisonous thing to indoctrinate our children with? Aren’t there alternatives?

Wait a minute, you’re the good guys?: When Hackman’s outfit arrives in Thailand to pick up their weapons, they are seized by the CIA and the Thai police. Hackman, obsessed with rescuing his son (whom he believes is held in the prison camp that is their target) decides to continue on anyway, buying weapons in the Golden Triangle. He sends out some of his men to get a vehicle, instructing them to “Steal it!”

So they come back with a truck that is clearly owned by a Thai–it’s decorated with Buddha imagery. And clearly not a rich Thai, because the back of the truck is covered with plastic, not the tarpulin it comes with. So WTF? They just stole some local poor guy’s livlihood? Presumably, somebody used that truck to feed their family, earn a living, escape from poverty. Yet we’re supposed to overlook this, because our “heros” are on a noble mission…that will involve killing some more poor people. Nice.

Speaking of the locals: Depsite spending the last half of the movie in Thailand and Indochina, the only people of color our heros have any interaction with is a porter/guide, Mr. Chang, and his two daughters. Purpose: to die (two of them are killed in the mission), and serve as a sex interest for one of the white characters. No other people of color have any major interactions with the main characters except to get shot or provide a service–even the arms dealer they meet in the Golden Triangle is French. (And a poorly-done stereotype he is as well.)

And speaking of people of color, who are we rescuing?: In the end, the mission succeeds, and four American POWs are rescued. All of whom are white.

Say what?

It’s not exactly a secret that the Vietnam War was proportionally worse on African-American than on white soldiers:

African Americans often did supply a disproportionate number of combat troops, a high percentage of whom had voluntarily enlisted. Although they made up less than 10 percent of American men in arms and about 13 percent of the U.S. population between 1961 and 1966, they accounted for almost 20 percent of all combat-related deaths in Vietnam during that period. In 1965 alone African Americans represented almost one-fourth of the Army’s killed in action. In 1968 African Americans, who made up roughly 12 percent of Army and Marine total strengths, frequently contributed half the men in front-line combat units, especially in rifle squads and fire teams. Under heavy criticism, Army and Marine commanders worked to lessen black casualties after 1966, and by the end of the conflict, African American combat deaths amounted to approximately 12 percent—more in line with national population figures. Final casualty estimates do not support the assertion that African Americans suffered disproportionate losses in Vietnam, but this in no way diminishes the fact that they bore a heavy share of the fighting burden, especially early in the conflict.

So the odds are that at least one of those POWs should have been black, unless there was some Vietcong/NVA policy to not capture black soldiers. (There may have been, perhaps motivated by both Vietnamese and American racism–white prisoners would have been more valuable, sigh.) But somehow I don’t think a movie to go in and rescue black, Latino, or even Asian-descended POWs would have sold as well, especially not in Reagan-era America. Instead, a bunch of white guys (plus one African-American, who to give the film its due, is a highly decorated helicopter pilot and an officer) recuse some other white guys, and kill a bunch of brown people along the way.

This isn’t to come down too hard on Uncommon Valor, which is what it is and is very much a movie of its times. Rather, I wanted to show you what my thought processes look like now–how becoming more engaged keeps me from just letting things slide; how learning about my own privilege makes it difficult for me to just ignore it and go with the flow.

Maybe this has made me “humorless” or “shrill” or “a pain in the ass.” Actually, it probably has. And that makes me sad; I don’t want to be those things, I don’t want to alienate people or always be harping about things.

But we live in a violence soaked world, filled with oppressions and petty tyrannies, and they drive me to distraction. How can I not be outraged? How can I not feel sympathy with the downtrodden? How can I not acknowledge how I am complicit with these horrors?

I don’t know. But it seems to have cost me my sense of humor. If that’s what it was.

by

Womyn Born Better…Than You

Categories: don't get your panties in a bunch, teh tranz, Your RDA of Outrage

Over on Below The Belt there’s this piece about the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.

If you’re trans, the festival is fairly notorious. This is because of its “womyn-born-womyn” policy: only those people born female are allowed to participate; trans women need not apply.

Now, I’m all for safe spaces for women, and I can even see having places and services that might deal with the stresses of having grown up female. But I’m not sure that a music festival has much to do with it, at least not everywhere, at all times during it.

What makes it even more fun is that, much like Lu’s Pharmacy in Vancouver, the festival has historically included trans men. So the “born womyn” thing obviously trumps the “womyn” thing.

Like I say, biology equals destiny is such a feminist point.

Supposedly the festival now allows trans women to attend, although still (in the words of organizer Lisa Vogel) “If a transwoman purchased a ticket, it represents nothing more than that woman choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this Festival.”

Nice.

While I believe in community spaces, and even in community leadership for groups that advocate for a community even if the group doesn’t restrict its membership (for example, I think a male president of NOW would be…disturbing somehow), I’m not a fan of separatists of any stripe–not even trans separatists. (For a taste of how that looks, check out this thread of fail at Bilerico.) Too often, in my experience, separatism and division only leads to each group acting out a shadow play of their own oppression against other groups–like they were building sandcastles instead of tearing down real castles.

Of course, I won’t attend MWMF. But that’s not about politics; I just hate camping.

by

Monday Media Watch: Special Chan(n)eling Edition

Categories: monday media watch, Your RDA of Outrage

Ducks! I almost forgot this bit of bizarreness in the upcoming September issue of Harper’s Bazaar:

From “What Would Coco Do” in the September issue of Bazaar, wherein designer Karl Lagerfeld was asked to “channel the original fashion wit,” Coco Chanel:

HB: Your clothing liberated women in the 1920s. Are you still a feminist?

CC: I was never a feminist because I was never ugly enough for that.

Um. Wow. I know why they chose Lagerfeld (he’s headed Chanel in the past) but still…a man being asked to channel one of the first major female designers? One of the first women to head her own house? And then to say she wasn’t a feminist because she wasn’t ugly?

Heh. Well you know what they say: ugly is as ugly does, Karl.

by

It’s a Crime

Categories: invasive kyriarchy, the patriarchy: you can't live with it....that is all, Your RDA of Outrage

Richard Cohen, writing on Tuesday, had this to say about James von Brunn, the man who attacked the Holocaust museum earlier this year:

He also proves the stupidity of hate-crime laws. A prime justification for such laws is that some crimes really affect a class of people. The hate-crimes bill recently passed by the Senate puts it this way: “A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim . . . but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.” No doubt. But how is this crime different from most other crimes?

First, let us consider the question of which “community” von Brunn was allegedly attempting to devastate. He rushed the Holocaust museum, which memorializes the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis and their enablers. There could be no more poignant symbol for the Jewish community. Yet von Brunn killed not a Jew but an African American — security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.

So which community was affected by this weird, virtually suicidal act? Was it the Jewish community or the black community? Since von Brunn hated both, you could argue that it does not matter. But since I would guess that neither community now gives the incident much thought, the answer might well be “neither one.” So what is the point of piling on hate crimes to what von Brunn has allegedly done? Beats me. He already faces — at age 89, remember — a life sentence and, possibly, the death penalty.

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups — blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. — that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That’s nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what’s being punished is thought or speech.

Actually, the real purpose of hate crime laws is to punish terrorism.

Yes, I used the t-word. A hate crime is one where the victim was a target only because of membership in some group (frequently a disprivileged or discriminated against group.) Hate crimes have the effect (even if the intention is not always so far-reaching) of terrorizing that group; of reminding them that they are in danger by virtue of who they are; of reminding them that violence remains the prerogative of the powerful.

Cohen sarcastically asks, “which group was terrorized?” which seems so disingenuous coming from a Jewish person. Can he not see that one of the effects of von Brunn’s attack was to remind people that just being at a Jewish cultural institution is dangerous? If even one person decides not to go to the Holocaust Museum because of von Brunn’s actions, doesn’t that make what he did terrorism?

People forget, I think, what the purpose of terrorism is: it’s not to kill people. September 11th remains the worst terrorist act in history, and the casualty count would barely make the list of interesting battles of the American Civil War. No. The point of terrorism is terror: the use of asymnetric violence to break the morale of a militarily superior society; to make all people, not just soldiers in combat, afraid of violent death; to cause people to change they way they live, to bring the battle home to them.

Cohen understands this, even if he doesn’t seem to appreciate it–maybe because he doesn’t think his example affects him:

If there’s a murder in a park, I’ll stay out of it for months. If there’s a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there’s another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

Indeed, why not? as Liss at Shakesville ponders. Especially in light of a story like this:

Four people are confirmed dead and nine others were wounded when a gunman opened fire inside the L.A. Fitness in Collier Township Tuesday night.

The shooting happened shortly after 8 p.m.

The county coroner’s office has identified the gunman as 48-year-old George Sodini from Scott Township. […] Sodini was keeping an online diary where it appears as if he was planning the shooting for about nine months. He also detailed on the site how he attempted to carry out the shooting once before, but backed out.

Right now, there’s at least one woman worried about going to the gym because she might be cornered there and shot simply because she’s a woman. (I know that for sure, because she is me.) This isn’t a random crime, or an act of desperation by a criminal: this is a cold-blooded act of mass murder, an act of “revenge” for a mythical wrong, a crime designed to make a whole group of people feel afraid.

It’s terrorism. And we shouldn’t stand for it.

by

The Varieties of Transphobic Experience

Categories: kyriarchy, the transsexual empire strikes back, Your RDA of Outrage

Let’s wade once again, ducks (good thing you can float!) into the wonderful world of…transphobia.

Let us consider the case of Lily McBeth.*

In 2006, after her transition, she beat back protests and bigotry to keep her job as a substitute teacher in New Jersey. It was widely and rightfully hailed as an important victory for tolerance.

That, of course, was then.

Recently she announced that she was retiring, frustrated at not getting many assignments. There is the appearance of transphobia, although the article cites other possible explanations. Explanations that make perfect sense.

The thing is, they always do. There’s always some excuse when a disprivileged person tries to call people out on their privilege.

There was a nice column about the situation by Joseph Wardy that concludes with this uplifting paragraph:

What is the reason for the opposition of transsexuals in the workplace or in society? A person born black has no choice. Neither is a transsexual who was also born that way. The range of bias from rejection to physical violence is punishing these people for their condition and not their behavior. A transsexual is a person equal to the rest of society who happened through no fault of their own to be born in the wrong body. What don’t we get about this reality?

Of course, the comments are something else entirely.

I have to tell you, in my 60 plus years, I have never heard a transsexual being bashed. It just never happened in my presence. Is this really a serious societal issue or a one in 100 million type problem? I feel sorry for anyone that is born so far out of the mainstream that it requires surgery, but there is a fix apparently, so why can’t we leave it at that?

This stuff makes me want to puke. Transgender is a made up word about nothing. You are a man or a woman. You either have a penis or a vagina. There is NO other option. If you have a penis, then you are a man. If you have a vagina, then you are a women. THAT’S IT. This I am a man, but feel like a women crap is disgusting. What the eff is wrong with these people. My kids are not going anywhere near these perverts. Forget having them be my kid’s teacher.

Cutting off your wang voluntarily is just wrong. And no, I don’t want that freak teaching my children.

So far, your garden-variety hate. But then there’s this:

You have done a great job of differentiating between homosexuality and transsexuality, so now would be a great opportunity to differentiate between classic transsexuality and trangenderism; there is a huge, huge difference.

Most transsexuals abhor the term transgender…

Well, now, whoa there. Most? Is there a survey on that? I personally know a bunch of transsexual women who gladly use the name transgendered.

..When Mara Keisling says:

“A survey her group helped to conduct this year of 6,500 transgendered Americans found 91 percent had faced bias at work.”

I don’t doubt it, but most transgendered are crossdressers, transvestites, gender queer, and every other conceivable form of gender variance on the planet…transsexuals are simply female, nothing more or less. The vast majority of that group transition, have their surgery, and then blend into the mainstream leading exceedingly normal lives, suffering no more discrimination than the next person.

Which, you know, can be quite a bit: that’s why there’s such things as feminism, the civil rights movement, gay pride…

The truth of the matter is that though there have been some attacks on gender variant people under the scenario you allude to, history has revealed that is an extremely small percentage of them. A review of the Transgender Day of Remembrance stie, which tracks deaths of anyone transgendered, (you can Google it if interested) shows that most of the attacks are on sex workers and others who put themselves at extreme risk. Most are not transsexual, but transgender. There is no excuse for murder or violence in society, regardless of who it is, where they are, or what the circumstances…nonetheless, it is prudent that one takes responsibility for their own safety and not put themselves in situations in which puts that safety at risk…many on the DOR site didn’t heed that warning.

“You see your honor, the bitch was asking for it!”

Now that’s a feminist defense! No privilege showing there, nope!

Of course, many people on the DOR website did identify as transsexual, or would have. If they’d only had time. (It’s tragic to see so many young faces there.)

I’ve run into this kind of transsexual separatism around the Net, and it always seems to be about division: I’m not like them, those awful crossdressers/transgenders/folks who don’t pass/whatever–I was born differently, I’m intersexed, I’m a classic transsexual, I have Harry Benjamin Syndrome. It’s a kind of sandcastling, building yourself up at the cost of others who are more or less like yourself: of stressing division instead of unity, of accomplishing the tasks of the kyriarchy, not resisting it.

Maybe it’s because I spent so much time as a crossdresser, but I just don’t get it; I’ve talked to a lot of different trans people in my life, and most of them were gender dysphoric, whether or not they were transsexual. And I’m not really convinced how pushing some people under the bus is going to help anyone–HRC did that to trans people in general (yeah, including you classic transsexuals) last year in the ENDA debacle, and look how well that worked out.

Plus it seems to me that the transsexual separatists seem perfectly content to let the umbrella-definition (i.e., transgender includes transsexuals, crossdressers, genderqueers, people who transition socially but not surgically, etc.) trangender people go out and do a lot of the activism, win rights for trans people (almost invariably favoring transsexuals, at least at first) without doing much activism of their own. (There are some exceptions.) And I think that’s ultimately what I don’t get about them: it’s this need to retrench privilege, rather than letting it go, to come through the crucible of transition and only want to build kyriachies-in-miniature.

But there’s one thing I know: separating yourself from people on the basis of accidents of birth has never really done a damn thing to help make people free.

*Here at TSA we will not mention the birth name of a trans person unless it is of vital interest to the story

by

Letter to a Young Commentor

Categories: i heart oppression, mailbag, the patriarchy: you can't live with it....that is all, vive le feminisme, Your RDA of Outrage

Greetings, ducks! In today’s edition, I answer comments, specifically this comment from new reader Tamogochi! Hello, Tamo–let’s hear what you have to say:

I’ve followed to your blog from INFJ forum. It seems that feminism is quite a big portion of your life and the article you cited is indeed stupid.

You are correct on both counts–I congratulate you on your perspicacity!

My comment is more on the general topic.

Uh-oh. Nothing good ever follows a lead-in like that.

What I don’t get about that whole feminist attitude is why are you so infuriated (as it’s in a subtitle of your site)? The aggressive feminism worked a 100 years ago, but now is quite outdated.

Why am I so mad?

Well, first, am I all that mad? I don’t think I come across as indiscriminately angry. No. I choose my words (or try to) with great care, and there’s a reason I chose infuriated. For me, my fury is a low-grade, constant resentment of how messed up the world remains, of how we continue to play primate dominance games imported out of our misty prehistory, of how our culture plays lip service to the ideas of equality, justice, and change while trying to keep everything the same.

That is the source of my fury, as I documented previously, here and here, and it is why I am an implacable foe of unearned privilege.

Also, we live in a world where an ESPN reporter is filmed changing inside her hotel room and it gets thrown all around the internet (and the coverage never fails to note that But She’s Totes Hot and Playboyz Luvz Her so she kinda was asking for it, right?) and you’re telling me that my fury is out of date? That I shouldn’t be outraged a lot? That given the racist, sexist, classist imagery spoon-fed to us every day on television and radio and the internet that I shouldn’t be–I dunno, upset?

Perhaps this will clear a few things up:

That aggressiveness is the very thing that turns men away instead of trying to help women with their problems. It actually acts as an excuse. And a lame one.

Oh, Tamo.

It’s amazing what you managed to do there–pack so much privilege into a few short sentences. You are to be commended!

OK. First. Women aren’t asking men to “help them with their problems,” as if feminist concerns are issues that apply only to women. Feminism is not the “Sanitary Aids” aisle at the supermarket; it–or at least, the feminism I believe in–is a movement that must by its very nature try to bring true freedom and equality to all humanity, male and female. Feminist women need the help of feminist men, sure–we need everyone to realize they are trapped in a system that is forever geared towards generating inequality and systemic discrimination. But feminists are not begging for help, not wheedling like a 50s sitcom character trying to get her husband to buy her a new dress. Feminists are standing up as proud activists trying to realize their dream.

Second–seriously, dude, weak is just as good a four-letter word, conveys the same sense, and doesn’t offend anybody. Using lame is pretty weak.

(See how easy that was?)

How can you ever achieve anything genuinely positive if you just fight for one side and treat the other as disposable objects? That seems so wrong to me because feminists repeat the same old mistakes of patriarchalism. The only thing different is that roles are reversed now.

And how are we supposed to achieve anything genuinely positive if we hide our anger, stay meek and demure, and never demand anything? How the hell are we supposed to become equal if we stay subservient?

As for repeating the mistakes of patriarchalism–speak for yourself. That’s not the kind of feminism I support and advocate for, and it never has been on the short history of this blog. I firmly believe we have to tear down the entire privilege system and find something better–and soon, before the human race lurches into its final chapter.

And seriously, roles reversed? Are you saying women are more powerful than men? Cause that might actually make me mad.

Given the horrors our mad world continues to lurch through–the endemic poverty, the billions who are hunger, the millions who are starving, given how the First World continues to support itself on the slavery of the Third, given how even here in the Wonderful West we are plagued with massive amounts of sexism, racism, religious bigotry, looksism, and countless other oppressions, I think the question isn’t: why am I outraged?

It really should be, why aren’t you?

1 2