Born: January 31, 1982
Current Residence: Brooklyn, New York, USA

4/17/02: pleased to make your acquaintance. :) i'm radicalbiboy. *yawn* i'm also very tired, so bear with me.

anyways, i am queer bi choice, n' stuff. i loooove bein' bisexual/pansexual, whatever the proper nomenclature is, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. i wrote an article for ze school newspaper in the fall about the, er, travesty that is gay gene theory and got interesting responses, though i'm sure the ones most pissed off by it didn't approach me.

ah, which nicely brings me to saying that i am a writer. mmmm, writing....

i'm also a student. i'm now 20 years old. (time flies!) :o i still haven't gotten my bisexual/pansexual membership card. i was supposed to get it in six-eight weeks, but its been a good three years now, if i reckon right. *sigh* damn government.

i also, um, read. let's see, who's on my shelf? Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Shulamith Firestone, Leslie Feinberg, Starhawk, Michael Crichton, Barbara Smith, Dunayevskaya, Marx....

ooh, ooh, and I want to read all of Emma Goldman's books! :) Especially _My Life_ and _My Disillusionment in Russia_. yay Emma Goldman, she rocks da house.

who else rocks da house? my grandma rocks da house. goddess i feel bored and silly. ;)

let's see, i was born in Brooklyn, NY. raised in Brooklyn, NY. lived in Brooklyn, NY all my life except the past six months of college.

hm, that's all i can think of right now. but, viva la queerbychoice! good to see an outpost of sanity in the midsts of the heterosexual tragedy.

5/16/02: [in response to reading of Donald Wildmon's position as leader of the right-wing group "One Million Moms"]

*curious* What is Donald Duck doing in charge of allegedly one million homophobic moms, anyway?? Do the male supremacists in the homophobic Right Wing have no confidence that a queer-bashing agenda could get along adequately without the eternal paternal presence of their persistently pompous penises at the pinnacle? Or can they simply not bear the existence of any organization that treats their moronic, muddle-minded musings as the phallic-flatulence it so clearly is?

The world may never know. But I do nevertheless find it odd that a man should be found at the upper echelons of an organization of homophobic mothers.... :?

"Here are some recent examples of the kind of filth Ford Motor Company is sponsoring on Will & Grace. (Warning! The material is extremely offensive!)"

Warning qbc'ers, the material is extremely funny. One thing I have to hand it to the politicized homophobes, they sure have an uncanny knack for self-debasing humor! :D Such that I almost prefer their blatant and vulgar antics to the stoic ruminations of closeted homophobes that usually begin something like, "I'M NOT GAY, but...."

Of course, I have forgotten to think of the poor children. May Rosie O'Donnell forbid they should get it in their innocent little heads that sexual affection for nice people with similar genitalia might be a good thing. Next thing you know the forces of evil will be telling the poor dears that the world might be more than 2000 years old! It is fortunate that we have such intellectual titans as Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, Laura Schlessinger and Jerry Falwell to remind us of the real issues here.

8/23/02: There are good and bad people in every group.... There are plenty of queers who are racist or sexist or plutocratic. The queer pride parade in Washington D.C. last year was a fiasco because it was seized by the wealthy elements and the poor were shut out of the entire planning process. Therefore it was turned into a special advertisement exposition to the middle class queer community for big companies. I won't spend a lot of time, either, going into the travesty that the supposed queer utopia in New York, called Greenwich Village, represents, when you have to spend $1500 a month just to live there and any queer who cannot afford this price apparently is still heterosexual enough to live in the rest of the city with the "intolerant homophobes." There are many ways in which socialism speaks to me in a way the queer movement rarely seems to try, and vice versa.

Everybody has shit in their backyard, and we will never have any kind of serious revolution until we all recognize in how many ways we have all failed and succeeded. No movement is perfect because no group of human beings are perfect. It does no good to point fingers at each other.

*steps down from soap box*

8/23/02: "So, you can't free labors if you don't free queers, or women, or blacks. That's what i tried to say..."

Exactly so, I agree. :)

The achievement of a classless society necessitates, I think, that all these liberations take place. I have always thought that the sentiment that all oppression will magically disappear with a single, central worker's revolution is part of a perversion of the Marxist sentiment that such a revolution couldn't happen in the first place until all of those oppressions are overthrown.

For instance, talking about the unified proletarian class—but how can we have a unified proletarian class unless first the differing lines of oppression within that class are eliminated? In other words, does not the existence of all these lines of division still constitute, in Marxist theory, the division of the proletariat against itself? And therefore wouldn't it be necessary first to eliminate those divisions in the proletariat, so that the proletariat really is a single class, before the big "final" revolution?

That is, in any case, how the theory has always struck me, and so I've always thought that those who say that women's liberation, queer liberation, etc., follows a worker's revolution, instead of the other way around, have it backwards. ;) But then I have always been an odd one.

Please excuse me, I do tend to get somewhat wrapped up in this subject, as metacarp and arsenothelys will tell you. ;)

"Other forms of oppression are not less important than class oppression, but without class oppression they wouldn't even exist."

How are we using class in this case? In the crotchety, old- fashioned way—which I much prefer—where it refers to all divisions between an oppressor people and an oppressed people (or all "dialectics" if we are to use the jargon)? Or in the shiny, new, revoltingly postmodern way of referring exclusively to the dialectic of "bourgeois" and "proletarian"? Or not even, but "wealthy" and "poor" as it has been somewhat oversimplified? (Wealthy and poor compared to what? We're all pretty damned wealthy compared to most Somalians, and all that.)

'Cause if we're using the former, I would agree quite heartily with you. In fact I'd go so far as to say that without class oppression, class wouldn't exist at all in any arena—though that's generally where I put some people's hackles up.

...Not everyone is oppressed solely *as* a laborer, and so freeing laborers as laborers leaves a lot of problems.

But again I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful to agree on a definition of "class" because it seems sometimes we are using it to signify any class, in which case "queer" is a class, "straight" is a class, "woman" is a class, and so on, whereas other times we are using it to signify solely "owners" and "laborers." I don't know, could be part of the misunderstanding.

"My boss is stalinist and he used to say that queers use the ass to think..."

A Stalinist boss!? LOL! I'm not sure yet if I consider that a paradox or a perfect truism, I'll get back to you. ;)

8/23/02: "I just wanted to know why all of these emails are still embedded in the language of 'sex' and not gender."

What's the difference? *ducks projectiles*

"Last time I checked, queer was about understanding and accepting a diverse range of gender."

Well, goddess only knows what queer's about. Ask different people, get different answers.

I myself have never been able to figure out what a queer is. I only know that people call me queer when my sentiments differentiate me from a football player or a ballerina. (with many apologies to Rebecca West!)

"Sex is simply a way of saying biological gender."

I think I'd agree with that.... so then.... what's the difference between sex and gender? Is gender "social gender"? Yes? Alright, and is sex then "biological gender"? Yes? Alright, but is there really a such thing as biological gender? If yes, then, well, that's what "sex" is. If *no*, then.... "Biological gender" and "social gender" are both the same thing.... namely, "social gender." (Since there isn't *really*, then, a "biological gender" and so "biological gender" is just another name for "social gender that we refuse to acknowledge as such.") Or, in other words, sex and gender are therefore the same thing, ultimately, in consistent social constructivism.

*takes a bow*

Or, in other words, it makes as little sense to me to say "similarly-gendered" as it does to say "similarly-sexed", because if we're to understand sex/gender as social construction, then to understand them as "similar" or "different" we need to establish a point of reference. *everyone stares at mikie blankly* Errr.... sorry, I should really translate things into comprehensible English before they exit my brain. ;)

What I mean is:

If sex/gender is biological, then the point of reference is imposed by its definition as such, right? Then, what defines sex is XX chromosomes v. XY chromosomes, or vaginas v. penises, or one gamete v. another, or genes, or whatever you like. Then women are defined, say, by capacity to give birth (ignoring or papering over the inconvenient infertile women, of course) and men by their lack of such capacity.

So then we call people "same-sex" regardless of how they appear physically, or of how they behave, say, on the basis simply of their functional genitalia. We could have, for instance, two people who are the same height and roughly the same body mass, but we'd still call them "opposite sexes" because one has a penis and testes and one has a vagina and ovaries, right? So that's our point of reference then—the functional genitalia. (ambiguous genitalia—if they're allowed to exist without being mutilated first—we also ignore as inconvenient with our paradigm)


If sex/gender is sociological, then what is our point of reference? Is it social experience? (I am identified as a woman/man, therefore I am....) And if so, how long must the social experience take place? Must it be lifelong? Must it be two decades? Is it how we are "conditioned"? And also, what defines "woman" and "man" in the sociological frame of reference? Access to gendered power in patriarchal society? Presently or pastly or both?

Biologically, we can point at something—be it genitalia, chromosomes, whatever, they're still arguing over it—but they are arguing over concrete things. Sociologically, do we point to:

1. Behavior sets? "feminine" = "woman" / "masculine" = "man"?
2. Experience? "People treat me/respond to me as a ** therefore I am a **?"
3. Conditioning? "I was raised a **, therefore I am culturally a **, therefore I am a **"?
4. A combination?

I know, I know, at first 4 seems verrrrry tempting balm for the postmodern soul—when in doubt, obfuscate. ;) But it doesn't cut the dice, because if we agree that 1, 2 and 3 are each inaccurate for reasons 1, 2 and 3, then combining them does not solve the inaccuracy, it simply combines all the inaccuracies into one BIG inaccuracy 4.

For example, identify these following people:

"People treat me as a man, I was raised as a man, I'm feminine." "I was raised as a woman, people treat me as a man, I'm masculine."

You can invoke self-identity, but you just get the same problems.

"I identify as a woman, people treat me as a man, I'm masculine, I was raised as a woman, what am I?"

Answer 1: You're a woman, because you say you are. The usual trans-movement answer.
Counteranswer: Alright, then that's it. But stay out of the women's bathroom, you aren't allowed in there, and don't worry, I won't sexually harass you in my revolting, hetboy manner, or exclude you on basis of your sex, because *I* think you're a man. And I do have power to do those things, you know. You keep him *OUT* of that bathroom, guards. You *treat* him like a man, guards. Comprende? So there's no questioning my power to be effective. So what do you do now?

Well, if you're a woman because you say you are, and solely for that reason, then why should it matter what I do? It shouldn't, no matter how much power I have. Then none of the above should matter. In fact, then you should be able to go to work in a suit and tie every day and do every single male-stereotypical thing in existence and *still* be a woman, so long as you say you are. It shouldn't matter if you can't get into the "women's bathroom" or if people don't identify you as a woman, because it doesn't matter how people identify you, but how *you* identify yourself, yes? Doesn't sound right? Let's move on....

Answer 2: You're a man, because *I* say you are.
Counteranswer: Alright, that works—how you are identified trumps how you identify. But if you look up there, you were *raised* to be a woman, you have a vagina and really the only goddamn thing that makes people identify you as a man is that you're masculine, you appear it and you behave it. So do those experiences you had growing up just mean nothing now? Are you just "a man without a past?" (reference: Stone Butch Blues—READ IT, if you haven't). If people knew about your past or your genitalia, they would treat you differently — does that potentiality change things? Certainly you can stay here and I can say you're a man, but if you go there into the locker room Joe will not. So what if I say you're a man today but tomorrow Joe doesn't.

What are you then?

Answer 3. You're a woman, because you were originally identified that way and thusly raised that way—woman-born-woman. Ftr, the Michigan Women's Music Fest answer, afaik.
Counteranswer: Okay, and if you get SRS then and people consider you a man from then on, do you remain a woman? Nope nope, 'cause then you're enough of a man that you can't get into, say, Fest anymore, or generally any women's bathroom, and then I, using my social power, make sure that you are treated with all the concurrent perks of male privilege. You can—say — get into the Promise Keepers, provided you keep quiet about where you came from.

Answer 4. Who you are depends on where you are in the gendered structure of power between women and men, where men rule over women, it being patriarchy. Generally, radical feminist answer. And a damned good answer.

It makes absolutely, positively *perfect* sense. It just doesn't tell me what you are. ;) Which is fine, 'cause it's really not meant to, afaik, it's a class politics thing.

Are you a woman because you fit into that dialectic as a woman before, or are you a man because you *now* have most of the privileges and power associated with being one, again, allowing for the silencing of your history. Or do we say that you're still a woman, because the fact that your history must be silenced, that you were locked out for any period of time, changes the nature of your present Being such that you are different than a 'genuine man'.

Alright, but then do we say the same for anyone who has had to deny their history to get ahead? Is a Jew who pretends to be Goy in the '50s always a Jew, or does he practically become a Gentile once he passes a certain privilege mark? Does the fact he had to bury his history forever mark him as Jewish, or what? Interestingly, a great many Gentiles would probably argue, "Jew!" while a great many Jews would probably say, "Gentile!" Ouch, that smarts.

And finally, what is a Jew? If you ask the Orthodox or the Nazis, they'll probably give you a disturbingly similar answer: it's a race, a genetically defined people whose traits are passed down matrilineally. But if we're tackling it from the social constructionist angle, what is a Jew? It's definitely true there is a genetic subgroup, defined by its isolation from the rest of the gene pool, called Jews. It's also true that whether or not you are a Jew affects who you are in the world.

But constructivistically speaking, those are simply incidental facts, the fact that we create "Jews" and "Gentiles" around them is our thing. The point is do Jews exist outside of human thought, the way that, say, that rocks and trees do? (for the love of Goddess, don't bring quantum physics into this, then we're *really* fucked.) Or outside of ideology, do you simply have people like this and people like that?

I would say the latter. We attach identity on. Jews and Gentiles exist because we, humans, created and continue to create them in our societies—effectively by distributing privileges and power unevenly based on them—and same holds true for all racial identities in human society, including our befavoured "women" and "men."

*takes deep breath*

Welcome to the convoluted world of identity politics, mikie style, where you get two free gallons of cynicism with every analysis. ;)

For the record, I don't believe in sex. Or gender. Or whatever the street name is these days. I don't believe in it eastwardly, westwardly, north or southwardly. I don't believe in it medically, biologically or socially. I don't believe in it earthwardly or extraterrestrially, upwardly or downwardly, or roundabouts-wardly. I don't believe in it infraredly or ultravioletly, squarely or circuitously, cubically or spherically, one dimensionally, two dimensionally or three dimensionally. I don't believe in it physically or ephemerally, corporeally or transcorporeally, humanly or transhumanly or animally. I don't believe in it literally or metaphorically, standardly, officially or idiomatically, divinely or secularly, genetically, chromosomally, psychologically or linguistically.

I do believe that people are unfailingly stupid and petty and will continue so to be for as long as they can get away with it, and that the faithful will continue therefore to impose their One True Faith on everyone for as long as they can get away with it. So our much maligned friend gender will continue to be imposed on everyone, whether we like it or would rather buy a one way ticket to the planet Pluto than deal with the nonsense any longer. I believe this wholeheartedly and completely, absolutely and undoubtedly.

Thank you and good night.

always interested in the gender faith.

8/23/02: "My experience with this people (in student's movement and autonomous movement) was: people who not ever had been working with these issues, who approach with these movements to bring support to their parties. For example, we work in a demonstration. They not work with us. When the demonstration's day is arrived they bring 10 people with 20 flags of the party. I can't agree with such a thing."

LOL, 10 people with 20 party flags, that definitely sounds like the average Trot. ;) No I know what you are talking about and I agree with you. I have also been at demonstrations before where Trotskyists (bien, and Maoists, alternately) practically took over or attempted to take over. Specifically a demonstration against the bombings of Iraq in late 1998 where varying Trotskyist groups proselytized and dominated with large banners, argued about capitalism with protesters which was very necessarily divisive to the point of the demonstration. In the demonstration in Philadelphia to secure a new trial for Mumia Abu Jamal, who is a political prisoner sentenced to death, at the end some Maoists took the podium and just would not let it go, when again, the glorious revelations of Comrade Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse Tung were really beside the point of saving the life of the prisoner.

So I can definitely empathize with your experience and those are not tactics I support either.

Afaik, there were similar experiences like that here in the USA. We called it, if I'm not mistaken, "Entryism." The process of entering another group en masse until you get a majority and then using the democratic processes within it to take it over and make it basically an organ of one or another self- proclaimed Trotskyist party. However now this really doesn't happen anymore around here, I can only assume because the Trotskyists are no longer much of a force in the US, they are far too divided and busy fighting with each other.

This is, I think, one of the worst things you can do—not to respect the autonomy of another group (or another person)! It's of utmost importance to do that, and if Entryism is still going on in Brazil I can understand your ambivalence.

At the same time, I would not either want to be prejudiced to a point of becoming suspicious of anyone who called themselves a Trotskyist either. Of course I would probably also be more cautious if Entryism were still a major concern around here, but, as I said, I haven't heard of this kind of tactic in the US happening in quite a long time—perhaps 10 or 15 years now? The groups who would want to do it don't have the resources to pull it off anymore.

The Entryism, actually, that is more common these days around here seems to be that of more moderate liberals coming into groups en masse and yanking them rightwards. *rolleyes* Last I heard, the Democratic Socialists of America mailing list was mired in a debate over the existence of "heterophobia," of all things. And hell, even the damned Communist Party of the USA supported Al Gore for President!! ;) But anyway, that was tangential.

But yes, in the D.C. [pride] parade a specific effort was made by the wealthy interests who controlled the parade to exclude poorer people who wanted to have a part in planning the event, which enraged many in the queer community, and was very disappointing. Lots of people got turned off from the queer movement from that alone, which is unfortunate. But I hear this happening with lots of different movements when they have their meetings or events. In fact, it was I believe just afterwards that a feminist group had its meeting in New York City and faced a similar problem.

But one question—well, who can you trust, a rich queer or a poor het., a poor man or a rich woman, etcetera? Sometimes it just depends on the issues of moment. Generally I don't trust heterosexual groups at all, but there are a lot of queer groups I don't trust either because of the people whom I see dominating them and writing their policies.

8/23/02: "But... For you to be comfortable, don't you have to destroy gender entirely? And wouldn't that make those of us who /do/ believe in gender deeply uncomfortable as a result?"

Nah. Not at all, I have no needs to destroy something that just doesn't exist to begin with, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'd be satisfied with a secular society myself where people's faiths were their own business and that of their friends and family, but no one was obligated to be of any particular faith or of any faith at all, and in respect of everyone's differing beliefs, everything was neutral in the public sphere—separation of Church and State, all that jazz.

Iow, as long as it's not imposed on me through mandates or the public sphere, I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs one bit. It's the very fact that people begrudge me my own that puts me in my present predicament, in fact.

All I would want to destroy is the imposition of those beliefs on me, the aspect of forcing me to play along, to submit to the ideology, that's all. It's the favouring of the belief in gender and institutions and systems of gender over any other faith or lack thereof that I want to eliminate, not the faith itself. It's the fact that people do discriminate against me based on how they perceive me in terms of gender, say, when I'm applying for that job and don't wear what the Church deems appropriate male. In other words, they take their private faith out into the general public sphere, and *then* it affects me, and I have *no recourse* because I'm a minority virtually of one versus an entire State religion!

I heard Wendy's, the fast food chain, recently changed its bylaws so that it explicitly stated that transsexuals who transitioned on job are protected by anti-discrimination laws, and my first reaction was—no offense—whoopdeedoo. Not because I disagreed with the principle, understand—I am fiercely against discrimination on the job and I support it wholeheartedly—it was just a tinge of bitterness. Unless I go to work in trousers, Wendy's or not, I'm fired on the goddamned spot because apparently it's now blasphemous to the dear beliefs of too many for people considered of the male "gender" or "sex" to wear any article of clothing that is open on the bottom! What about my dear beliefs?

Hell, that's a single example; here in Brooklyn, the codes cover far more than trousers and skirts, they also go into hair length, hair styles, *finger-fucking-nail* length, colors of dress, all regulated on the basis of who you are understood to be by genderists—believers in gender. In the damn Body Shop, if you are a woman worker, they *force* you to wear their goddamned crappy, stupid, overpriced makeup on the job.

But that's the shit jobs that, as I mentioned in another bitter post, us reject queers who can't afford the cushy Village have to take because we ain't good enough to hang around the real queers with enough money and connections to not have to venture into the real world. ;)

So back to the extremes—dress. Technically in most "liberal democracy" countries (not the USA, of course, since we never passed the Equal Rights Amendment—smart fuckers that we are—though it's debatable whether you can call us a liberal democracy.... guess it depends on what you can say with a straight face. ;) ) it should be damned illegal to require anything of one group of people working for you that you would not require of another. For example, you couldn't make only women wear skirts without also obliging men too, same with makeup, hair length, etc. Theoretically it violates the anti-discrimination ideal.

But that don't matter worth a damn as far as gender goes. It's fair game to make anyone dance however you want them to depending on what your particular sect of the Church of genderism says they are or aren't in terms of gender. So if I go to work in anything but trousers, say, or anything that isn't a properly "man" color, or wearing my hair in any way that isn't properly man, my ass, as they say, is grass. And I can't do anything about it.

Notice how Senator Rodham-Clinton wears a skirt to work where all her male colleagues wear trousers? They require that! (they also pray to God before every session, for that matter)

I go to a store and have to use the bathroom. There's the women's bathroom, and the men's bathroom. There ain't no goddamn *PEOPLE'S* bathroom for me to use. There isn't a secular Everyone bathroom. So I have to figure out what I am to the genderists around me—which is really easy for me by now, but it shouldn't be, and I remember when it wasn't wistfully—and bend myself to their beliefs, basically agree with them, "Yes, I do believe in the Holy gender, and I *am* this gender you say I am, now can I PLEASE use the bathroom?"

When sports competitions are divided, how do they divide it? How do they determine who stands farther away and farther in front on a golf field? How do they decide who plays who in tennis? The human body-mass index? No. A strength test? No. A fucking chromosome test! It's segregated by gender. Did you ever? That makes NO SENSE! To put some huge BRUISER of a woman next to a small, petite woman in the same damn league because you believe their ephemeral, intangible, metaphysical *gender* makes them fundamentally identical? I mean, that's fine in private ceremony, but when we're talking about public life, that's, I'm sorry, absurd! I'm not going to play tennis with goddamn Arnold Schwarzennegger and agree with genderists that it's fair because we're the same because we're both the same "gender!" Whaddayou, kiddin' me!?

In public schools, they line people up.... by gender! Seat people in rows.... by gender!

In clothing store they segregate entire sections.... by gender!

I go looking for an apartment, the landlord doesn't think I'm conforming well enough to her notion of gender, she finds my appearance blasphemous, she won't give me an apartment. There's no recourse for that. I have to suck it in and pretend to be a believer, go through the rituals, dress myself accordingly.

In pharmacies they have entire different products segregated.... by gender! Pimple cream? How in the six million names of Goddess do you even *segregate* goddamn PIMPLE CREAM *in* genderism!? A pimple is a goddamn, goddessforsaken PIMPLE! I don't care if the damned cream is pink or not! Shaving cream? Specially formulated for a woman's/man's needs? Goddess in the Pantheon, it's *shaving* for Chrissakes, it's *skin*, human friggin' skin, you gotta be kidding me. I don't care how much damned Red dye #5 you used, don't tell me it's specially formulated, that's false Christin' advertising! Don't get me started on those dubious newly segregated health bars and vitamins. I can already see it coming the day they start segregating entire food lines by gender, where if I walk out of the supermarket with container of Häagen Dazs icecream people will look at me funny.

Okay, I'm being facetious about the Häagen Dazs (though I can see that day coming—mark my words) but you see what I'm getting at? It's shoved in my face wherever I go, it controls my life, it holds my paycheck, it determines whether or not I live, have a shelter, eat, get an education, remain free or locked up in a psych ward before I turn 15. If I'm young and and I start doing the tiniest thing that they perceive as not appropriate to my "gender" they'll try to commit me, they'll try to shoot me up with drugs, they'll tell me I've got dysphoria, that something's wrong with me, that I need to get my genitals taken out. I'm goddamned 10 years friggin' old, *I* don't know what these nutcases are talking about, but they seem big and adult so, hey, maybe they're right! And we all know what they do to little babies who are too "ambiguous" for their liking. *projects image of crazed smiling Nazi doctor with bloody scalpel in hand*

I don't want to rain in on anyone's beliefs or destroy anyone's faith, no, just some room to breathe in my own nice, secular space. All I want is to be fully included in society. Just for my right not to believe in or participate in gender or its associated ceremonies and still be part of society, or at least able to survive, to be recognized. We can have whatever faiths we like on our own time, in our private lives, but imprinting them on all of society and imposing them on unwilling subjects—that's just a form of religious imperialism. It hurts people. People like me. There may not be many people like me out there, but that doesn't make it okay to step over us and pretend we're not there or important. True tolerance of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable minorities. And though I have no wish to vaporize genderism, it sure doesn't have a very stellar reputation with me either in my eyes, and if I have the urge to spit at the next cute little woman/man pictograph I see on my way to my next job—goddess willing i get one—it's not meant personally, it's just my alternative to breaking down in tears and giving up, you see.

*takes breath* *wipes tears from eyes*

Whoa, did all that just come out of me? Eeek.... sorry.... I haven't gone into rant mode for a loooong time. :o I know you don't know me well and I don't know you well either, but those who do know me know that occasionally.... I rant. ;) Usually I don't start out meaning to, but.... it progresses.... ;) anyway, ya.

I could go on, but I think I'd rather go play The Sims. ;)

Central point: I don't think I should be held responsible for blaspheming a God I don't believe in. Therefore I believe society should be secular, people's beliefs in gender or whatever else left to people's private lives, and society itself shouldn't privilege or acknowledge any one set of beliefs over any other. I'd be very happy then. :)

8/24/02: In any case, the homophobia-patriarchy thing has particularly bothered me of late. If one looks at history, it's pretty plain that patriarchy quite easily survives homosexuality or bisexuality quite nicely with just a few adjustments.

Yet looking at the present period, I find it almost impossible to deny that modern homophobia is effectively an outgrowth of modern patriarchy!? Male homophobia is particularly suspect as nothing more than a manifestation of male fear at being the subject of predatory male desire—the same status as men expect women to be enamoured with—making male homophobia fear of being "womanized," so to speak. Least that's how I see it.

Well, not, maybe that's not so paradoxical after all — it's just that in the present context gay males are associated with women whereas in the past they were associated with warrior masculinity. Never mind, I think I've figured it out. ;)

But in any case, I do think that where you are in one system of oppression affects to one or another extent where you are in another—so I do seem them as interrelated.

In the nuclear family, you can have a male worker working for a boss who is a woman—in which case she appears to have power as the bourgeois. But then he goes home and as the sole income source and the property owner, *he* appears to have power over his wife as the bourgeois! And what's more, the boss has power over him by virtue of her title deeds and capital — effectively, capitalism, the system. But by what virtue does he have power over his wife? Well, by virtue patriarchal system, marriage institution, all that, etc., naturally.

But in that case, who do we describe as the *real* upper class and lower class for one? (I think black lesbian radicals of the '80s got this pretty well solved—but they used intersectionalism, perhaps even *invented* it actually, to do it)

And for another, where you are in one system seems to affect to one or another extent where you are in another?



Back to QueerByChoice Member Profiles
Add or Change Your QueerByChoice Member Profile
Back to QueerByChoice Homepage

Quotes from list members are © 1999-2009 by their authors.
The rest of the site is © 1999-2009 by Gayle Madwin. All rights reserved.