A while back, I got this text from my nephew "So I Just lost a good friend over an argument about LGBT rights."
My first emotion was sorrow, followed closely by guilt. If it weren't for me he wouldn't have lost that friend, because it wouldn't have been such an emotionally charged issue for him. I didn't respond right away, because he'd sent it in the middle of the night, but when I woke up, my sympathy had been replaced with a question:
"Should I tell this straight white male that I'm sorry he lost a friend?"
It took years for anyone to tell me they were sorry my orientation had destroyed friendships, and the apology hadn't come where I wanted to hear it.
Expressing sympathy would have allowed my nephew to feel validated in being upset, but was that actually good in this situation? After all, he was never an educated ally -he was simply an ally because I was his aunt. So this was a good opportunity to point out that he'd just gotten a small taste of what it was like for me to come out. "Welcome to my world."
In the end, my status as his aunt won over my status as a queer woman. Yeah, I might have educated him better with the stern approach, but the point when we stop treating others like human beings is the point where we lose the battle. Had I responded that way, he would have been less likely to come to me in the future. Maybe he would have been a smarter ally, but he would no longer have been my ally.
I just get so sick of this need that minority people seem to have, of wanting to feel powerful over the majority people. I really want us to get to the point where we see each other as individuals.
I have a straight white male middle class atheist roommate -athletic to boot -and it's the best thing to ever happen to me.
In this context, having him as my roommate opened me up to the idea, more than anything else could, that we're people first. The minority status makes us up, but we're people first. He does not think of me as a female friend, or as a gay friend. I'm just his friend. And I accord him the same.
So when given the choice of educating my nephew or sympathizing with him, I chose sympathy. Because I know that were the situations reversed, he'd return in kind.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Gender
I've always considered my gender identity to be two types of female. Because naturally I don't think gender is just male or female. But I don't think it's fair to say that male and female are only one thing. I could be considered gender fluid, or bigender, if not for the fact that my masculine gender is still female in sex. I feel fully comfortable with my genitalia. Always have. The butch me is still a female. She's just dyke-y. And the butch me, to be honest, is much more bisexual.
There's a distinction between the two that I see that's pretty stark. But it's not a distinction that's always there, and that's okay too. Women are by nature very fluid. We have a natural monthly cycle -we're biologically programmed to go with the flow. I'm not saying I put a lot of stock in PMS. But I am saying that women are more ready to change more frequently than men. Hey, maybe it's not true. But it's a truth for me.
So when I think of the most butch me, I think of a valkerie. I think of a strong, powerful, independent woman who needs no one. I think of a vegetarian. I think of someone who can stand strong in a place where no one she knows is near her. I think of a pagan, balancing the dark and the light and at the end of the day, not caring much about gender or seeing much of a gendered world. I think of someone who cares deeply for those around her, but never lets anyone see it, because the butch me isn't allowed to be weak. At the end of the day though, the butch me wants someone to hold on to. She'll never let you see her weak, but she is.
The femme me is a firecracker. She's quick to anger, and quick to defend others. She's fiercely loyal. The only one who's allowed to insult you is me. The femme me likes sex a lot. She'll make out with anyone. But she doesn't like men at all. She thinks men are weak and fragile. You want to roll with this bitch, you have to prove you can tame her. She's not afraid to say how she feels, even if it hurts a little. She likes a little pain with her love. She's emotional and dark and fiesty and she doesn't come out to play much anymore because she gets in trouble a lot. She's also a smoker. And she thinks religion is idealist. And that vegetarianism is pointless. When I go home to my family, she tends to come out a lot because she's got a tougher shell than the butch. And every time I go home, I wind up breaking my vegetarian diet.
Neither of these versions of female is what female is dictated to us as. They share certain traits (like the need to feel secure without others, and more bravado than courage) but at the end of the day, they are different in certain ways. I think it comes from growing up in one place and then moving to some place completely different, with the goal of starting over, but I'm not the same person I once was.
Ever since my first relationship, however, my two identities have been blending together. Butch me fell head over heels for her. But butch me was supposed to be the strong, rational one. Femme me fell head over heels for her in two weeks flat. It took butch me a full month. It's actually fairly rare for my two selves to like the same person. So for my two halves to like the same person is a little strange. It gave them a bridge. And then she broke up with me, and butch me was shattered. I had to rebuild almost from the ground up and since then, there's been a lot more blend between the two.
Sorry, long rant. Tl:dr? Point is, who we are, the people we are attracted to, the gender we identify with, is all subject to change. We are all, as humans, constantly changing and growing all the time. Whether it's a good thing or not is for you to decide.
There's a distinction between the two that I see that's pretty stark. But it's not a distinction that's always there, and that's okay too. Women are by nature very fluid. We have a natural monthly cycle -we're biologically programmed to go with the flow. I'm not saying I put a lot of stock in PMS. But I am saying that women are more ready to change more frequently than men. Hey, maybe it's not true. But it's a truth for me.
So when I think of the most butch me, I think of a valkerie. I think of a strong, powerful, independent woman who needs no one. I think of a vegetarian. I think of someone who can stand strong in a place where no one she knows is near her. I think of a pagan, balancing the dark and the light and at the end of the day, not caring much about gender or seeing much of a gendered world. I think of someone who cares deeply for those around her, but never lets anyone see it, because the butch me isn't allowed to be weak. At the end of the day though, the butch me wants someone to hold on to. She'll never let you see her weak, but she is.
The femme me is a firecracker. She's quick to anger, and quick to defend others. She's fiercely loyal. The only one who's allowed to insult you is me. The femme me likes sex a lot. She'll make out with anyone. But she doesn't like men at all. She thinks men are weak and fragile. You want to roll with this bitch, you have to prove you can tame her. She's not afraid to say how she feels, even if it hurts a little. She likes a little pain with her love. She's emotional and dark and fiesty and she doesn't come out to play much anymore because she gets in trouble a lot. She's also a smoker. And she thinks religion is idealist. And that vegetarianism is pointless. When I go home to my family, she tends to come out a lot because she's got a tougher shell than the butch. And every time I go home, I wind up breaking my vegetarian diet.
Neither of these versions of female is what female is dictated to us as. They share certain traits (like the need to feel secure without others, and more bravado than courage) but at the end of the day, they are different in certain ways. I think it comes from growing up in one place and then moving to some place completely different, with the goal of starting over, but I'm not the same person I once was.
Ever since my first relationship, however, my two identities have been blending together. Butch me fell head over heels for her. But butch me was supposed to be the strong, rational one. Femme me fell head over heels for her in two weeks flat. It took butch me a full month. It's actually fairly rare for my two selves to like the same person. So for my two halves to like the same person is a little strange. It gave them a bridge. And then she broke up with me, and butch me was shattered. I had to rebuild almost from the ground up and since then, there's been a lot more blend between the two.
Sorry, long rant. Tl:dr? Point is, who we are, the people we are attracted to, the gender we identify with, is all subject to change. We are all, as humans, constantly changing and growing all the time. Whether it's a good thing or not is for you to decide.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The L Word
I've already posted five times and still haven't yet talked about where my name came from. So briefly, this is a little bit of the thought process that went with it.
I prefer to be called a dyke over a lesbian. I know most
people hate the word dyke because it’s offensive and blah blah, but I prefer
it. I will only ever call myself a lesbian in a scenario in which I think
that’s the easier word-choice, and I don’t self-identify that way.
Here’s the thing. I like boys.
This guy? Ooh baby. I could stare at him all day long. He’s
a Japanese singer and he makes me all sorts of gooey. He’s got this gorgeous
song called “girls, be ambitious” and I’m just like, never stop singing to me
please. Now, I know he’s really androgynous. So maybe that doesn’t lose me my
gold gay star. But I also get pretty hot for, say… Ryan Reynolds.
Oh Ryan. You’re so yummy. I like your smile. Not the fake one you show to the cameras but the real one where all your teeth are showing and people realize you have an awful cross-bite. Look at him! He’s adorable.
And this is why I don’t like being called a lesbian. I’m not
one. Let’s be honest with ourselves. No one is 100% gay or straight and I’m
definitely not because I’ve totally had some pretty raunchy dreams starring
men. And for years, I would write off little boy crushes by saying, well no one
is 100%. But I’m kind of sick of that. Everyone invisibilizes bisexuals. Gays
and straights alike, and now gender queers because ‘bi conforms to the gender
binary and therefore you should be using the term pan.’ The problem that I have
with the term pan is a) no one knows what it is and b) it implies an equal
attraction to every gender type across the board and that is also not me. I
still have a preference to those who present femme because my first love is
women. Don’t even get me started on women.
Whoops how’d that get there? What was I saying? Oh yeah….
Women… yeeeeaaaah… *cough* I mean.
But regardless, I’m still a dyke. Because dyke isn’t just
about the fact that you are a woman who likes other women. A dyke is a type of
woman. She’s got a bigger body set, and probably shorter hair, and definitely
knows how to hold her own, and isn’t afraid of saying slightly misogynistic
things about women, because she just loves the female form that much. A dyke is
a gender presentation and a preference for women. So that’s why I like the term
dyke more. Because I can like boys and still be a dyke. Dyke isn't just about the fact that I sleep with women. It's the gender identity that comes with it. Granted, it's still female, but it's not a feminine female. I would argue that a dyke isn't quite butch enough to be called butch either though. A stone butch is a type of dyke, but there's more dykes than that.
And to all those people who don't like the term dyke, I'm sorry. But unfortunately you can't please everyone.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Creating Allies: It doesn't just mean teaching straight people
I really have to get this off my chest. I'm queer. But sometimes, I really hate queers. And that isn't internalized homophobia talking. Now before anyone jumps the gun, let me explain completely. I have a very valid reason for feeling that way. My best friend is a straight white male. But he's also an amazing ally, always willing to learn, and almost always stands up against homophobia to his friends, also straight white males a lot of the time. Any time I've told him something is offensive, he's corrected his language and then moved on to correct his friends' language. This is the kind of man I would want standing next to me at my wedding, while I'm getting married to the girl of my dreams, because if it weren't for him, I probably wouldn't have had another straight male friend for the rest of my life. He's such an amazing ally that he actually renewed my faith in straight males all together.
Recently he posted a status saying this: "In my opinion, I really think that when LGBT people (or any minority) hate the 'straight white man' or disengage with them, they lose out on a lot of their support or lose out on seeing people as individuals. I get that a lot of people out there hate, but my dad is a straight, Irish man and he is on your side. I certainly see the LGBT (minority) point of view, but let's remember to not discriminate please (keep in mind I know the difference between racism, and discrimination)."
He posted this because another mutual friend, who is also queer, said he was done with straight white men. Now, in my queer female opinion, when LGBT people hate on straight white men and disengage because they are straight white men, they lose out on a lot of support because now you are seeing that person as a stereotype and not as a person. You shut them out, and of course they are gonna shut you out. If you're ever gonna try and make allies, you need to treat every straight white male as an individual and not just assume that by being straight white males, they automatically don't know what they are talking about.
Granted, the point that a straight white male has no right to tell the minority how to feel about their oppression is totally valid, but the problem is when you assume that his claim is automatically wrong because he doesn't have the right to say it. Because I would readily -and have in the past -make the same claim that if you don't dialogue in a smart way with straight white males, and treat them with respect, you're going to burn bridges. So when I see a queer person then, in response, post this: "Can't really tell a minority how to feel about the majority - check your privilege please." and then this: http://
and then this: http://
and then this: http://
You could have explained to him in a nice way why you didn't think it was okay. You could have left it at "check your privelege please" and it would have been mildly rude but understandable since you -at that point -were right. You could have come out of this with a stronger, smarter ally. Instead, you have guaranteed that you lost a friend. Because you just accused him -and his father- of being a bad ally, and of being ignorant, and of falling into all the pitfalls of a typical straight white guy, because apparently that's all you can see.
But you know what's the kicker? It doesn't matter if he was in the wrong. What matters is how you handle it. Because regardless of whether we want to or not, at any given time we can be seen as the voice of the community. And this straight white guy who plays football has about fifty other straight white guy friends who just saw you, a queer person, react in a very hateful way to a straight white guy bringing up a queer issue. What are all his friends gonna think, except that you don't want straight white guys as allies?
So it doesn't matter if he was in the wrong. Instead of reacting to it hatefully you could have calmly said, "I'm sorry, but your status as a straight white male means that this post is a little hurtful to me, the minority. As the straight white male, you don't have the right to tell the minority how to feel about their oppression" and that would have been fine. But no. Instead, you took the hot-headed approach, and not only burned a long-standing friend and ally, but potentially a lot more people who would have otherwise been great allies because of this guy. I've met half a dozen people through him this summer alone, and his presence is what allowed me to safely have conversations with them, from time to time, about women's issues and queer issues. He facilitates those conversations, and he has those conversations regardless of whether or not a queer person is there. So all those potential allies that he could have converted now have just been introduced to the angry queer, and all their stereotypes about you have been proven right.
This is why it's so very important to shut up if you can't say it in a nice way, because no matter what we say, no matter who we are, someone is always watching, and you don't want someone's first opinion of queer people to be this. There are so many better ways you could have handled that situation. And if I hadn't been there, in person, you can guarantee that you would have lost an ally permanently just because of how badly you handled that situation.
I see this happen time and time again. Queer people get so offended so quickly by the things the "straight white males" say that they just shut down right there and don't dialogue about it. If we are gonna teach people how to be allies, then the first step to doing that is to teach queers how to make allies. Because this isn't it.
Recently he posted a status saying this: "In my opinion, I really think that when LGBT people (or any minority) hate the 'straight white man' or disengage with them, they lose out on a lot of their support or lose out on seeing people as individuals. I get that a lot of people out there hate, but my dad is a straight, Irish man and he is on your side. I certainly see the LGBT (minority) point of view, but let's remember to not discriminate please (keep in mind I know the difference between racism, and discrimination)."
He posted this because another mutual friend, who is also queer, said he was done with straight white men. Now, in my queer female opinion, when LGBT people hate on straight white men and disengage because they are straight white men, they lose out on a lot of support because now you are seeing that person as a stereotype and not as a person. You shut them out, and of course they are gonna shut you out. If you're ever gonna try and make allies, you need to treat every straight white male as an individual and not just assume that by being straight white males, they automatically don't know what they are talking about.
Granted, the point that a straight white male has no right to tell the minority how to feel about their oppression is totally valid, but the problem is when you assume that his claim is automatically wrong because he doesn't have the right to say it. Because I would readily -and have in the past -make the same claim that if you don't dialogue in a smart way with straight white males, and treat them with respect, you're going to burn bridges. So when I see a queer person then, in response, post this: "Can't really tell a minority how to feel about the majority - check your privilege please." and then this: http://
and then this: http://
and then this: http://
You could have explained to him in a nice way why you didn't think it was okay. You could have left it at "check your privelege please" and it would have been mildly rude but understandable since you -at that point -were right. You could have come out of this with a stronger, smarter ally. Instead, you have guaranteed that you lost a friend. Because you just accused him -and his father- of being a bad ally, and of being ignorant, and of falling into all the pitfalls of a typical straight white guy, because apparently that's all you can see.
But you know what's the kicker? It doesn't matter if he was in the wrong. What matters is how you handle it. Because regardless of whether we want to or not, at any given time we can be seen as the voice of the community. And this straight white guy who plays football has about fifty other straight white guy friends who just saw you, a queer person, react in a very hateful way to a straight white guy bringing up a queer issue. What are all his friends gonna think, except that you don't want straight white guys as allies?
So it doesn't matter if he was in the wrong. Instead of reacting to it hatefully you could have calmly said, "I'm sorry, but your status as a straight white male means that this post is a little hurtful to me, the minority. As the straight white male, you don't have the right to tell the minority how to feel about their oppression" and that would have been fine. But no. Instead, you took the hot-headed approach, and not only burned a long-standing friend and ally, but potentially a lot more people who would have otherwise been great allies because of this guy. I've met half a dozen people through him this summer alone, and his presence is what allowed me to safely have conversations with them, from time to time, about women's issues and queer issues. He facilitates those conversations, and he has those conversations regardless of whether or not a queer person is there. So all those potential allies that he could have converted now have just been introduced to the angry queer, and all their stereotypes about you have been proven right.
This is why it's so very important to shut up if you can't say it in a nice way, because no matter what we say, no matter who we are, someone is always watching, and you don't want someone's first opinion of queer people to be this. There are so many better ways you could have handled that situation. And if I hadn't been there, in person, you can guarantee that you would have lost an ally permanently just because of how badly you handled that situation.
I see this happen time and time again. Queer people get so offended so quickly by the things the "straight white males" say that they just shut down right there and don't dialogue about it. If we are gonna teach people how to be allies, then the first step to doing that is to teach queers how to make allies. Because this isn't it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Dark Angel (guess I'm late to the party)
I'd heard about Dark Angel when it first came on TV, but it wasn't on my radar at the time. It was pretty cheesy and I'd come in late in the second season so I didn't care much. I always thought about going back and checking it out again, because it has a couple guilty pleasure actors in it for me (Jessica Alba and Jensen Ackles) so I figured I'd watch the pilot, see what's up.
Best. Decision. Ever. Now, I need to watch the whole show before I really establish how I feel about this, but my initial impression is that from a minority standpoint, this show rocks. Granted, one of the black actors has a heavy Jamaican accent, but he's also a strong recurring character so far. And the other black actor is this little bombshell.
Best. Decision. Ever. Now, I need to watch the whole show before I really establish how I feel about this, but my initial impression is that from a minority standpoint, this show rocks. Granted, one of the black actors has a heavy Jamaican accent, but he's also a strong recurring character so far. And the other black actor is this little bombshell.
She goes by the name Original Cindy and she is a bona-fide lesbian. She likes the ladies. And she's the main character's best friend. And she's black.
AAAHHH!!! Omg she's freaking gorgeous! Tell me you are excited about this! Why are you not excited about this?
Which brings up a pretty great point. Queer person of color on a major television network and this is apparently not news to anyone. This show is so small and on so few people's radar that no one cares. And worst of all -it was canceled after two seasons. Possibly the best representation of queer sexuality in a show that I have ever seen, and it took watching the show myself to even know it existed.
Granted, I haven't seen Original Cindy with anyone yet, but a strong plot point of one of the latter episodes is one of O.C.s exes. So, major network show, non-stereotypical queer person of color who actually has established past relationships. Why has no one ever mentioned this chick to me before? Why is it that we assume our queer characters are people like Kurt from Glee (male, white, stereotypical) or Jack from Will & Grace (male, white, stereotypical). Where are the women? Where are the people of color? Well, I'll tell you where. In Dark Angel. Which by the way was canceled.
Also, the main character likes the ladies too.
"DARREN: I’ll have a beer, since you’re buying.
MAX: I wasn’t.
DARREN: How you doing, Max?
ORIGINAL CINDY: You mean until you showed up?
DARREN: You’re not still pissed off?
ORIGINAL CINDY: ’Cause you went out the back door and nailed her girlfriend? Who’d be pissed off about that?"
Saturday, August 4, 2012
I've got to get this off my chest...
"Love the sinner hate the sin" is the biggest load of tripe I've ever heard. I'm entirely convinced that Christians convince themselves of this for the sole reason that the deeper truth is too hard for them to hear; Christianity is evil.
Think about it. You are persecuting an entire minority relentlessly -quite often to the point of death -claiming that they have a choice in a biologically-determined factor to explain it to yourselves that they can just fix their problem if they wish hard enough, and then, to try and get around the fact that you just called me an abomination you claim that well, it isn't you. It's your actions. Change your ways and you can be a good person, really! Try taking some of your own medicine. Because that's just awful.
I actually prefer it when people outright say that the Christian God hates the gays because at least they are being honest with themselves about it.
Think about it like this: would you say this of Hitler? You love Hitler, despite the fact that he was a horrible, horrible person? Your own doctrine says that no one sin is worse than any of the others, so by your own logic, you should feel the same "love the sinner hate the sin" to Hitler.
Oh. I see. That's the way it should be, but as a human, you can't. You are flawed and capable of hate, so hate Hitler despite your policy to love everyone. But God loves Hitler, because God is perfect and without fault.
So, by your own admission, and by your own logic, you really do hate gay people because they're awful nasty sinners. If you genuinely feel that it's a sin, it is by your own decree the only possible feeling you can have on the subject. No one sin is worse than any of the others. I've actually heard people use this to say that gayness is therefore only as bad as lying. But that also means that it's as bad as murdering millions of people, so don't give me that claptrap.
And if you are a Christian gay struggling to try and match the two, you're deluding yourself. One, there's hardly anything on the Bible about your gay to begin with, and the stuff that they do claim is anti-gay was either introduced in the last 60 years or is one interpretation, so really, you could just as easily make the totally reasonable claim that your God doesn't view human love as sinful in any manner.
Don't believe me? Maybe you should do your research, because it can be argued that Jesus himself did in fact say something about homosexuality. He was for it. The story of the centurion? The Greek word the centurion uses, that we translate as servant, actually more or less meant gay lover (the word is pais, and if you want to learn more about how this story is totally gay, you can read a very thorough explanation at www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org). You really want to tell me that Christianity isn't evil? Because that sounds like a deliberate mistranslation, seeing as how Jesus said that centurion had more faith than the children of Abraham. What, can't accept that a gay pagan can have more faith than you?
In my personal opinion, anyone who says love the sinner hate the sin is not a true believer. Because you, my friend, don't have an astute understanding of your own scripture. In five minutes, I can find three different basic logic arguments for why you are wrong, with scriptural evidence backing up every single one of those points. Now, I generally don't like to, because it's not my religion and I know what the Bible had to say about Satan knowing the Bible too, but really, Satan is a concept, so that's a cyclical argument, seeing as how I could say the same thing about you with more evidence seeing as how you're the hypocrite who believes that God hates the act of homosexuality without hating the perpetrator.
I can get along with a lot of Christians. They're good, well-meaning people. But the faith they try to follow is inherently evil. And if you have a problem with that claim, I want you to think real careful about it, because you, not me, is the one claiming you can "love the sinner, hate the sin" (I'll spell it out for you. In this metaphor, your sin is believing in Jesus. I think Christianity is evil, but I have no problem with you as a person. Just your faith.)
Sounds absurd, right? Well no shit. Open your eyes. You cannot love the sinner and hate the sin if their sin is who they are.
Disclaimer: I don't actually think Christianity is evil. I'm using hyperbole to make a point.
Think about it. You are persecuting an entire minority relentlessly -quite often to the point of death -claiming that they have a choice in a biologically-determined factor to explain it to yourselves that they can just fix their problem if they wish hard enough, and then, to try and get around the fact that you just called me an abomination you claim that well, it isn't you. It's your actions. Change your ways and you can be a good person, really! Try taking some of your own medicine. Because that's just awful.
I actually prefer it when people outright say that the Christian God hates the gays because at least they are being honest with themselves about it.
Think about it like this: would you say this of Hitler? You love Hitler, despite the fact that he was a horrible, horrible person? Your own doctrine says that no one sin is worse than any of the others, so by your own logic, you should feel the same "love the sinner hate the sin" to Hitler.
Oh. I see. That's the way it should be, but as a human, you can't. You are flawed and capable of hate, so hate Hitler despite your policy to love everyone. But God loves Hitler, because God is perfect and without fault.
So, by your own admission, and by your own logic, you really do hate gay people because they're awful nasty sinners. If you genuinely feel that it's a sin, it is by your own decree the only possible feeling you can have on the subject. No one sin is worse than any of the others. I've actually heard people use this to say that gayness is therefore only as bad as lying. But that also means that it's as bad as murdering millions of people, so don't give me that claptrap.
And if you are a Christian gay struggling to try and match the two, you're deluding yourself. One, there's hardly anything on the Bible about your gay to begin with, and the stuff that they do claim is anti-gay was either introduced in the last 60 years or is one interpretation, so really, you could just as easily make the totally reasonable claim that your God doesn't view human love as sinful in any manner.
Don't believe me? Maybe you should do your research, because it can be argued that Jesus himself did in fact say something about homosexuality. He was for it. The story of the centurion? The Greek word the centurion uses, that we translate as servant, actually more or less meant gay lover (the word is pais, and if you want to learn more about how this story is totally gay, you can read a very thorough explanation at www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org). You really want to tell me that Christianity isn't evil? Because that sounds like a deliberate mistranslation, seeing as how Jesus said that centurion had more faith than the children of Abraham. What, can't accept that a gay pagan can have more faith than you?
In my personal opinion, anyone who says love the sinner hate the sin is not a true believer. Because you, my friend, don't have an astute understanding of your own scripture. In five minutes, I can find three different basic logic arguments for why you are wrong, with scriptural evidence backing up every single one of those points. Now, I generally don't like to, because it's not my religion and I know what the Bible had to say about Satan knowing the Bible too, but really, Satan is a concept, so that's a cyclical argument, seeing as how I could say the same thing about you with more evidence seeing as how you're the hypocrite who believes that God hates the act of homosexuality without hating the perpetrator.
I can get along with a lot of Christians. They're good, well-meaning people. But the faith they try to follow is inherently evil. And if you have a problem with that claim, I want you to think real careful about it, because you, not me, is the one claiming you can "love the sinner, hate the sin" (I'll spell it out for you. In this metaphor, your sin is believing in Jesus. I think Christianity is evil, but I have no problem with you as a person. Just your faith.)
Sounds absurd, right? Well no shit. Open your eyes. You cannot love the sinner and hate the sin if their sin is who they are.
Disclaimer: I don't actually think Christianity is evil. I'm using hyperbole to make a point.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
After trying to be subjective on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that conservative Christians are masochists.
So, Chik-fil-A has been all over the news lately. If you haven't seen it, then it's kind of a miracle you stumbled on my little blog first (which not gonna lie I created and then promptly forgot about).
The thing is, I wasn't gonna say anything. Anywhere. It's stupid. It's really, really stupid. It's a goddamn fast food chain and you're throwing a fit like we beat the pope, tied him to a tree, and let him bleed out. What I'm saying is, I haven't even heard evangelical Christians get this up in arms about their savior Jesus Christ, so the fact that they are so very excited about supporting Chik-fil-A is obnoxious for so many reasons I don't even want to bother, but if you're gonna be so very ignorant of your own ignorance. Well. At that point, you're just asking for it. I'm not normally a sadist, but if you're gonna be such a desperate masochist, I'll give you what you want.
1. You say that you are being attacked for your religion. What about all that attacking you did on Muslims for their religion?
1b. If you want to argue that in that case, it's different, because the Muslims are responsible for 9/11 etc, then why are you using the same argument to defend the workers at Chik-fil-A? "Oh, it's fine if you have a problem with the CEO but don't take it out on the innocent workers who did nothing" Really? Because I remember a certain innocent group of Muslims who got a lot of hate sent their way for things they didn't do. They just wanted to open a community center in New York but nooo. We have to punish them for things they had no relation to out of ignorant fear.
2. It isn't even about his personal stance. He is allowed to have a personal stance. He gave money to anti-gay groups. Money he earned from that franchise. Knowing full well that was what he was supporting. Why are we politicizing a fast-food company? Because he politicized it to begin with.
3. That whole thing about how we shouldn't be getting upset because of a sandwich? That's not what you were saying when Oreo released a rainbow-happy pride cookie.
4. I heard someone say the liberals were being hypocritical by not accepting religious diversity but trying to push orientation diversity. See every single point I've made so far about how very ironic that statement is to make.
5. Why are you saying this should be a stance that Mitt Romney should have an opinion on? He's the presidential candidate, not Ronald McDonald.
6. All of those fatty sandwiches that you're eating to try and support this hateful franchise... Are you just eating those or donating them to poor people? Because I'm really very sure Jesus didn't have a stance on gays. Or marriage, for that matter. But he did have a stance on helping widows and the poor, so why don't you go do that instead.
7. In fact, you actually standing out there in protest makes you look much, much worse. You're supporting a fast food organization because they said something very hateful about a large group of other people, by actively protesting. Protesting, in this sense, goes against every one of your core religious teachings. You fail so much right now.
7A. Judge not lest ye be judged, in case you were wondering what those core tenants are. Also, love thy neighbor, treat your body like a temple, and when you pray, do it quietly and privately otherwise you look like a hypocrite for beating your chest loudly (tearing your clothes but I'm paraphrasing obviously). Some men say an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say turn the other cheek. I could really keep going, but if I as a queer witch have to preach to you about your own beliefs then you are really, really doing it wrong.
8. I honestly can't get over the fact that this is a freaking fast food chain. There's no good reason to go out and actively support a fast food chain. The food is so processed as to actually be detrimental to your health, the price is hiked up a ridiculous amount, the workers are paid the bare minimum, and in general, they are just awful awful places. Suppose he'd instead said something like, "creationism is real" and ppl laughed in their face and they lost business for a while... would you go out and protest then?
9. Gay marriage. Why does everyone on the earth have a stance on gay marriage. Of all the things, this is the hot-button topic of our day? There's a whole other can of worms I could crack open about how, yes, your god did have plenty to say about marriage, and very little of it was monogamous, but I'm not going to because honestly, I think both parties are at fault in this. It's just marriage, and it has a lot more subtle impacts than people think. But I'd rather know I can't be fired from my job because of my orientation than know I can marry the person I love.
Quit. Making. A big deal. Out of a little problem.
The thing is, I wasn't gonna say anything. Anywhere. It's stupid. It's really, really stupid. It's a goddamn fast food chain and you're throwing a fit like we beat the pope, tied him to a tree, and let him bleed out. What I'm saying is, I haven't even heard evangelical Christians get this up in arms about their savior Jesus Christ, so the fact that they are so very excited about supporting Chik-fil-A is obnoxious for so many reasons I don't even want to bother, but if you're gonna be so very ignorant of your own ignorance. Well. At that point, you're just asking for it. I'm not normally a sadist, but if you're gonna be such a desperate masochist, I'll give you what you want.
1. You say that you are being attacked for your religion. What about all that attacking you did on Muslims for their religion?
1b. If you want to argue that in that case, it's different, because the Muslims are responsible for 9/11 etc, then why are you using the same argument to defend the workers at Chik-fil-A? "Oh, it's fine if you have a problem with the CEO but don't take it out on the innocent workers who did nothing" Really? Because I remember a certain innocent group of Muslims who got a lot of hate sent their way for things they didn't do. They just wanted to open a community center in New York but nooo. We have to punish them for things they had no relation to out of ignorant fear.
2. It isn't even about his personal stance. He is allowed to have a personal stance. He gave money to anti-gay groups. Money he earned from that franchise. Knowing full well that was what he was supporting. Why are we politicizing a fast-food company? Because he politicized it to begin with.
3. That whole thing about how we shouldn't be getting upset because of a sandwich? That's not what you were saying when Oreo released a rainbow-happy pride cookie.
4. I heard someone say the liberals were being hypocritical by not accepting religious diversity but trying to push orientation diversity. See every single point I've made so far about how very ironic that statement is to make.
5. Why are you saying this should be a stance that Mitt Romney should have an opinion on? He's the presidential candidate, not Ronald McDonald.
6. All of those fatty sandwiches that you're eating to try and support this hateful franchise... Are you just eating those or donating them to poor people? Because I'm really very sure Jesus didn't have a stance on gays. Or marriage, for that matter. But he did have a stance on helping widows and the poor, so why don't you go do that instead.
7. In fact, you actually standing out there in protest makes you look much, much worse. You're supporting a fast food organization because they said something very hateful about a large group of other people, by actively protesting. Protesting, in this sense, goes against every one of your core religious teachings. You fail so much right now.
7A. Judge not lest ye be judged, in case you were wondering what those core tenants are. Also, love thy neighbor, treat your body like a temple, and when you pray, do it quietly and privately otherwise you look like a hypocrite for beating your chest loudly (tearing your clothes but I'm paraphrasing obviously). Some men say an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say turn the other cheek. I could really keep going, but if I as a queer witch have to preach to you about your own beliefs then you are really, really doing it wrong.
8. I honestly can't get over the fact that this is a freaking fast food chain. There's no good reason to go out and actively support a fast food chain. The food is so processed as to actually be detrimental to your health, the price is hiked up a ridiculous amount, the workers are paid the bare minimum, and in general, they are just awful awful places. Suppose he'd instead said something like, "creationism is real" and ppl laughed in their face and they lost business for a while... would you go out and protest then?
9. Gay marriage. Why does everyone on the earth have a stance on gay marriage. Of all the things, this is the hot-button topic of our day? There's a whole other can of worms I could crack open about how, yes, your god did have plenty to say about marriage, and very little of it was monogamous, but I'm not going to because honestly, I think both parties are at fault in this. It's just marriage, and it has a lot more subtle impacts than people think. But I'd rather know I can't be fired from my job because of my orientation than know I can marry the person I love.
Quit. Making. A big deal. Out of a little problem.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
I swear this is not a self-pitying rant (in other news, I think I'm going to start a blog)
It’s times like this that I want to change who I am.
Over the years, I've been turned down from countless jobs. I can name on one hand the number of call-backs I've gotten. I’m left with the painful conclusion that there must be something wrong with me. Why would a manager tell me they had an opening for a day-time position and then three days later, after she’d seen my face, tell me they simply aren’t hiring? If I were a more naïve person, I might think that she got frustrated with me because I pestered her about it too much, but stats on who gets hired say that’s a good trait in a potential employee. The only job that I’ve ever acquired that wasn’t guaranteed before I even applied because my parents got it for me was my position at the Diversity Education Center, where my being gay was considered a bonus. When I was younger, I could write it off that I didn’t have the work experience. But over the years as I watched less qualified but more straight individuals get the same jobs that I’d applied to, I started to not believe that. Now that I’ve had experience at the DEC, I can’t help but think that there’s no reason anyone wouldn’t hire me. My former coworkers have gone on to really well-paying positions in a variety of fields and I’m stuck here not even eligible for minimum wage.
It’s easy to blame it on appearance. Maybe that’s why it feels like it must be deeper than that. But I’ve seen half a dozen different studies that all say the same thing: women who get hired do so based firstly on their appearance and secondly on their abilities. I’m not an attractive person. Not by society’s standards. I can only imagine it’s even worse for my gender variant brothers and sisters, but all I can speak to is my own experience, which has always, since I was a kid, been a sort of female that society wants to pretend doesn’t exist. I’m not feminine. I’m not that masculine either. I'm some sort of complicated mix of both while magically not actually being androgynous. I’m sick of it. If I put on make-up to try and look like the stereotypical epitome of a woman and try and get a job by being normal, my short hair and wide frame are going to betray me and make me look awkward. And even if you don’t think I look awkward, I think I look awkward. My self-confidence has been reduced to a tiny thimble-full of angry dyke, trying to prove something by walking straight. I hate everything and everyone I run into because if I put that face on, I feel like I’ve just pulled someone else’s skin over top of mine, and it’s eight sizes too tight because she’s a size two stereotype, and I’m an out and proud size 18 (Yeah, double digits. Take that).
If I wear something more masculine, the standard suit that looks business casual on anyone, I look every inch a stone butch lesbian as there ever was one, because no matter what, it’s undeniable that my body’s female. There’s only one kind of attention that kind of presentation gets a woman, and it’s not the one I want. I’m not a man. I'm not pretending to be a man. So I don't want you to treat me like "one of the guys" because thanks very much but I'm not one.
I have no qualms about my weight. I have no qualms about my appearance. I like who I am. But society doesn’t. And I feel like if I’m going to survive, I need to change who I really am and become at least a shadow of society’s expectations of me.
And that’s why it’s at times like this that I want to change the world.
Fuck societal expectations. They do nothing but hurt people. Your whole life, someone is gonna hate you for something. There’s something to be had for dressing proper for an interview; that’s just polite. But that’s no excuse to run back to the closet, or develop an eating disorder because you think you weigh too much, or work your body out past its breaking point because you don’t think you weigh enough, or get plastic surgery because there's some tiny flaw in your face and it's the only thing you can see or a million other things people do every day to try and change themselves into a thing that they aren’t because they think it’s what someone else wants. Is that really who you want to please? The person who doesn’t respect the true you?
I know that even the strongest person, at some point, wants to give up the fight. We’re only human. They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, but in the meantime, it’s trying its damnedest to kill you, and it won’t feel like you’ve moved through it until one of you is lying bleeding on the ground.
Regardless of how you feel right at this point, I guarantee that every single one of you felt the way I felt earlier today, rejected by yet another job, and a tiny, shameful part of me blaming myself for it –wishing I could go back to the days where I could pretend to be straight/thin/normal/whatever. We can’t think like that. People are unkind to those who are different, but they are more unkind to those who are ashamed of their differences. No one can learn to respect you until you learn to respect yourself. Trying to be a better person is normal. But thinking a more normal person is better just doesn’t work.
It’s easy to want to change yourself. You’re just one person. And it’s so hard to move the world. But that’s why it’s so important too. The world is made up of “just one person”s. I know everyone says that you can't have an ocean without each drop of rain and everyone thinks it's cliche. So I'm gonna try a different analogy that might work better, but is much, much nerdier. And that's okay, because I'm a nerd.
You may be tiny little Mintaka, and you don’t shine very bright, and no one knows your name, but if you stop shining all together, we lose Orion’s Belt entirely. Someone out there is counting on you, personally, to shine as bright and unique as you can. We all may be just one person. But together we make up a tapestry as vivid and diverse as the night sky. And you may think that no one will notice if you stop shining. And maybe if you look at the whole night sky that’s true. But to Orion, Mintaka is more important than the sun.
Feeling like I want to change who I am makes me want to change the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)