"Voracious hunger is a sign of manliness"

Footnoote to two preceding posts, off a snippet from one of the links.

That line, "voracious hunger is a sign of manliness:" Whopper commercials and certain sportsy or fratly subcultures aside, you may not have seen that as being particularly true these days, even though its converse clearly still is. Ever since at least the 80's and the spawn of yuppie culture there's been an uneasy coexistence between the ol' "real men EAT, make strong like OX" and at least a nod or so to the idea of being relatively "healthy," "cut," drinking protein shakes and running on treadmills and shit. There are obviously other factors at work here, class not least of them. Masculinity is still as associated with power as it ever was, but the sleeker and faster advanced technocracy gets, the more likely you are to see power reflected by efficient eating habits and fat-free bodies: the straightforward opulence of a Diamond Jim Brady becomes replaced by the more ascetic ostentation of personal trainers and individually tailored "special" diets, the better to achieve that lean, mean, hard look.

If you -really- want to see hilariously over the top odes to the Manly Appetite, though...well, let's take a trip in the wayback machine, shall we?

I'm reading this anthology called Endless Feasts, a collection of essays from the soon-to-be-defunct magazine Gourmet. (One thing I may or may not have talked about here is: I read food porn. A lot of food porn. While I'm eating, specifically. I have my little habits, which...some other post).

Anyway, in this compilation, there are several essays by one Robert P. Coffin, each more exuberantly masculine than the last. The first two have to do with huntin' and fishin' with one's brothers in the wild, having dispensed with such "suave and civilized meats" as sweetbreads on toast: ripping apart hunks of lobster with one's bare hands, scarfing down deer limbs washed down with whiskey from the bottle, that sort of thing. Very proto-Iron John, very...woodsy.

The third piece, "Down East Breakfast"-- I'll just give you a taste, okay.

The Maine morning meal is like a tune on the bagpipes which calls the stouthearted Scot to war. It is something that must strengthen him deep to his marrow, and only the masculine and downright victuals will do. The ordinary American breakfast, with its precooked and predigested cereals, its hummingbird nectar of citrus, butterflies of bacon, and anemias of eggs, is as much out of place in Maine as...a French breakfast of a dry roll and chocolat chaud... It would be an insult to his oily manhood. Fat is the foe of weather, and fat is the making of Maine's first meal...

...The Maine breakfast is a hefty meal for hefty he-men.

...It begins with a seething and bubbling of pork fat in the skillet or spider. Fat salt pork in chunks, not lean and feminine bacon rashers, is its base.

...The Down East flapjack is the outdoors, masculine, New World crepe Suzette. It is about as much like its relative in Paris, in London, or in our own Sunny South, as an All-American tackle is like a boy in pants six inches long playing with a ten-cent-store football.

...In any case, there must be the cheese. And when I say cheese, I don't mean something that starts out as a mollycoddle of a food for babies, like milk. I mean...calf's head cheese or pig's head cheese. I mean meat...This is strenuous and fine eating, and it makes a "stick-by-the-ribs-Billy" dish that dish that will take a man straight through three cords of beechwood...without a rest and with a song in the heart.

...Naturally--and this breakfast is all nature and good-natured eating--there is a liquid constantly drunk to float all these ships of heavy meats and fish and wheat or buckwheat on. It is tea...It is as black as your hat. It is about as near to the tea drunk as tea parties by women and womanish men as the male in three-cornered pants is to the adult one in overalls that can stand by themselves...

...Some of the older men a bit past their full bloom, or some younger ones not yet come to theirs and having peach fuzz instead of whiskers on their cheeks, dilute this tea with sugar or milk. But the middle and powerful males take its tannin into themselves neat. It galvanizes their "innerds," they say, against the damp and cold...[A] wise saying is that tea is tea only when it puts whiskers on the bottom of the soles of your feet. Maine men's feet have hair on their bottoms so they can cling to their dories and rolling logs...

...The Down East breakfast is the strong meal of strong men.

At the conclusion of a meal like this--or more accurately, writing up the vicarious experience of it, as the actual Maine he-men are already lumbering off to put in a hard day's work stacking cords in the bitter cold-- presumably one lights up not an effeminate cigarette but a foot-long, thick, masculine cigar with a fine strong honest smell. None of your Cuban imports either, but a plain straightforward -American- cigar, completely free of foreign impurities and effete insinuating subtext.

The gentleman, perhaps, protests too much. But what exactly is it that he's protesting?

At first glance it's not a "protest" at all; it's a celebration of, well, bigness. Male bigness, but also American bigness. Clearly the particular cultural myth the author is appealing to goes back a long way, at least as far as, say, Paul Bunyan, Giant in a Great Land,. This piece was written shortly after WWII, when America was on top of the world, and Gourmet, along with the idea that fancy eating is a legitimate American pasttime, was in its early years.

And yet one could argue that there's a hint of...anxiety, here. The author, remember, is writing for Gourmet readers, which from the onset was decidedly on the upscale, not-very-likely-to-be-doing-much-cordwood-chopping side. "The Magazine of Good Living." The Song Of Masculinity is all entangled with class: it's basically romanticization of Hard Work And Simple Living, Like Our Pioneer Forefathers (and Their Helpmeets) Practiced. And which, one gathers from the Huck-Finn like paens to escaping the study and running wild in the woods with his pals, doesn't much resemble the life of the author or his audience; otherwise, it probably wouldn't seem that romantic.

This is all decades before the "wealth gap" widened dramatically. Second Wave feminism's still in its nascency, but Rosie the Riveter now has to be considered as competition for the men returning from the war. We're still a long way from the analysis of, say, Stiffed, or Stuffed and Starved; ironically, the era Coffin is writing from is one that's now viewed nostalgically itself. Traditional Families, Hard Work In The Heartland, Father Knows Best. As the ulcerated CEO's on their treadmills can attest, perhaps, even the simple joys of gorging oneself aren't that simple anymore.

Whatever the men are hungry for-along with the rest of us- it's probably not going be satisfied with a big breakfast, if indeed it ever was.

Female Desire/Beauty Appreciation Week: the "What About Teh Menz" edition

Kwon Sang Woo

Because, hey, I am all about equal opportunity objectification, even if slightly choosier with my objects on this side of the aisle. Lots of aesthetic appreciation here for sure, though, plus, spot the fangirl (eyeroll). As with the female OOD post (AKA POST WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF WOMEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PERUSE AND COMMENT), many of these cribbed from the excellent skywardprodigal, with some additions of my own interspersed. Enjoy.

Kian Mitchum

Gordon Modibame

Shunei Hosimi

Renald Seme

Jo Ji Hoon

Porter Garner

Tyler Christopher

Anthony Stewart Head

Won Bin

Djimon Honsou

Nir Lavi

Daniel Henney

James Marsters

Michael C Hall in "Cabaret"

Anderson Cooper

Kevin Aviance

source

David Tennant and Billie Piper

Anthony Stewart Head, David Walliams, and a very frustrated policeman

John Barrowman & Eve Myles

Alvin Goh & friend

Michael C Hall & Matthew St. Patrick ("Six Feet Under")

Kim Sung Soo & friend

from a play called "Dorian"

Ian Somerhalder & friend

Tony Leung Chiu Wai and Leslie Cheung(?) ("Happy Together")

John Barrowman and James Marsters ("Torchwood")

David Tennant & co-stars in "Casanova"

David Tennant

Yeah, okay, what -if-?

I decided to go a slightly different route this time.

I -was- going to write this post mostly about how in fact this does work in what some of us laughingly know as the "real world." How I have attended a number of trans-inclusive women-only events, and miraculously, in fact, they have not devolved into anything-goes men-born-men-infested frat parties. That no, the handful of transwomen and/or transbois/men still ID'd with the community who wanted to be there (funnily enough, in my world, the latter has been a much bigger point of contention than the former) did not, in fact, harsh everyone else's mellow, steal anyone's precious bodily fluids, attack anyone in the bathroom...and that that's -even- been true for (zomg she goes to) sex/play parties, wherein the only stipulation was that organically grown phalli/nads not be displayed unclothed in the public areas. A line, drawn. Maybe not one to everyone's satisfaction, but a hell of a lot more generous one than "if you weren't born with a hoo hoo, yer not welcome, even if no one is going to be -showing- their hoohoos;" and, oddly enough, one just as easily respected and maintained as any other.

And then maybe something to the effect of, yes I am aware that there have been (for example) some extremely dodgy characters who've (for example) ignored MWMF's rules, gone in anyway, and/or also behaved abusively toward individuals. I am (online) passing familiar with at least one of these characters, and I would be one of the first to say, by all means, keep THIS person, this woman, sure, from coming into your festival, because she's a toxic individual. This is not, however, because she was born with male genitalia; this is because she is an abusive sociopath, which is in fact a trait that is not directly attached to one's genitalia or chromosomes. Nor is it automatically deducible that because one was born with a certain kind of genitalia , one has received a certain kind of "training" (one size fits all, M/F, respectively, right?), much less that said training or whatever automatically renders the person more or less "safe."

You know how I know that? Because, friends and neighbors, a lot of women-born-women so-called? Are plenty fucking abusive their own selves. Are not, by anyone's definition, -safe-; are -more- than capable of doing everything the above-mentioned individual did and much, much more. Have done. Are doing. Will do again. Sometimes right there within the hallowed boundaries of your "safe spaces."

And if you can't or won't see that, if your understanding of human nature is really so simplistic that you honestly believe that four legs vulva/uterus good, two legs penis/testes bad and that's all you really need to determine whether or not a space may be rendered -safe,- (well, that, and then whether the greenlit persons in question agree with you on positions x, y, and z, but that usually comes later), then, Houston, you've got a much bigger problem on your hands than who gets on the guest list of the annual Wimmins' Scout Camp.

And then, well, once again, I was going to talk a bit more about how relevant this Bernice Johnson Reagon piece is, ironically enough as it was written over 25 years ago and doesn't explicitly mention transpeople at all; and yet, still, same shit, more or less. What's a "safe space?" What's "women-only" really mean, and what is it you expect out of it? And so on.

All of that. And then, in the comments to this post, the following question was posed (by the author of the post inspiring the O.P. there, by the way, as well as this one, the following was posed.

“Do you believe every person who says they are a woman?
The only way this argument works is if *your* actual meaning of the word goes for everyone–that is, of course, unless anyone who claims womanhood gets it.
Can’t have both.”

And I thought: you know what, okay. Let's take that question at face value for just a second, even though we're clearly far, far afield from any sort of handwaving about the ev0ls of patriarchal surgery and so on and so forth.

"Do you believe every person who says they are a woman?"

Let's just say for the moment that the answer were "yes," putting aside the question of "there goes the neighborhood Festival." What then?

Because, the thing is, see, if you're simultaneously claiming you wish to "get rid of gender?" That, like, doesn't really work. Because, putting questions of genitalia and surgery aside, fact is, a society without gender? wouldn't CARE if a person called hirself a woman or not, no matter -what- hir genitalia or other physical features or manner of adornment were. That -is- what you're supposedly after, right? The end of Class Man and Class Woman, yes? That's what "gender" is all -about-, yes? These terrible -binary- divisions, with one "side" valued over the other; this is what Patriarchy -is-, this is what we want to do away with. Yes? No?

Because, see, -now-, I am thinking: this is maybe a bit like the way the CP still gives or gave lip service to the idea of the "withering away of the State." Oh, sure, that's the end goal, someday. Just not anytime -soon.- And no, we're not really the new boss, much less the same as the old boss, just because it -looks- like we're acting authoritarian; we're just, uhhh, doing this because it's a dirty job and someone has to? But, anyway, NO, we are NOTHING AT ALL like the Powers That Be, we -have- no power and -never will-, now -stop saying that,- or you'll be soooorrrreeeeeee....

Look: the truth is, if you're that wigged out about transpeople, or other transgressions against the -purity- of your single-gender space? Well, you're in plenty of company; what you -aren't- is "against the gender binary." To the contrary, you have a deeply vested interest in maintaining that binary. You have no intention of getting rid of Class Man/Class Woman; you've got too much invested in your identity as -radical revolutionary feminist- (isn't that what all this squawking is about? how you don't get no respect just because you know you have the One True Way of leading the world to salvation?) What're you gonna do if/when the "war" (as someone else just called it) is over? Finally enjoy all the forbidden fruits that can only be possible in a non-patriarchal society (x kinds of sex, visual erotica, play, fuck knows what else)? Take up canasta? Fuck no; if you were that sort of person, you'd be doing that -now-. This shit gives your life -meaning-; you have an -identity- now; take that away, and what do you have?

No wonder you fight so hard against people who say they want to change their bodies or names or clothing just so they can live relatively happily ever after; the very concept must be anathema to you.

I mean, it's -hard work-, this whatever-it-is, isn't that what one of y'all was rabbiting about? How terrible it is that people -want- feminism or whatever Movement to be "easy?" And "hard work," as this gentleman so eloquently explains, basically means privation and sacrifice and (implicitly) eschewing such frivolous/dangerous concepts as "the pursuit of happiness."

And you've given so, so much up. And all you want is this little, tiny circle-jill in the woods or some dank rented rec room with the right to exclude whoever you damn please. A little...lebensraum. That's all.

Because, at the end of the day, what else -is- there? Not -fun-, fuck knows, or play, or all these fraught kinds of sex or dressup or art or...

and why o why does this all feel so drearily familiar, again?

read it and weep.

scream, vomit, go numb...

megan_julca has the story.

Basically: Sanesha Stewart, a young trans woman of color, was stabbed to death on Saturday. An alleged sex worker, which, if true, would of course would mean she had it coming even more than she already did. And really, what else could she possibly be anyway? Either way: not human, certainly. As m_j puts it:

naturally it's her fault; after all, she was a "man who dressed like a woman" who "was known to wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels," "was a ... flirty presence," and "had surgery to 'give him [sic] larger breasts and other female characteristics'" even though "it was clear Stewart was still a man." I mean she was just asking for it, amirite?

I mean "the suspect was apparently surprised by the victim's true sex" so it's perfectly acceptable to expect that he would respond the appropriate way and stab her to death in a fit of rage.

See, anyone who *wants* (frivolous, sexualized, appearance-oriented) female characteristics like artificially enhanced larger breasts for hirself, or *chooses* to "wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels" is clearly catering to men, who in turn want nothing but sex, whether or not they are, in fact, entitled to it, that's all they WANT, this is axiomatic;

and even (or especially!) a man is entitled to at least not be -surprised- by finding unexpected body parts and/or Secret Pasts on a person he fancies or even shares any sort of public space with, certainly wimmin are so entitled to that much at least, even if they would never go so far as to physically hurt or -kill- a trans person because wimmin don't do such things, ever. As for denying transfolk access to such things as rape crisis centers: that's merely self-defense. Which is totally different from what we're talking about, here. Certainly no such excuse has been or will be employed when it comes to actual -murder- of a trans person, will it? Self defense. Oh, wait.

Because there's nothing worse than finding out you are sexually attracted to, hell, even had fond feelings about, is there? a person whose gender and/or sex is not the gender and/or sex you are SUPPOSED to be attracted to, according to God or your parents or the lads or the Sisterhood or the feverish little rabbit running your brain. Who doesn't understand -that-? the raw revulsion, the terror, the PANIC leading even unto VIOLENCE that such momentary existential cage-rattlings provides. It's only human.

and in fact, it is the very inherent or-might-as-well-be-it's-so-firmly-entrenched-by-now baseness of Man that creates such situations in the first place, is it not? Clearly only some debauched sick sexual desire would lead any -man- to take on the appearance or identity of a woman, much less sell his body to strange men, who in turn are only behaving in the way that is to be expected, animals that they are.

It is up to women to lead men to their better natures; any woman who doesn't do so but instead "chooses" to do sex work for a living, not just because she has to but actually -flaunting- her patent lack of victim status, or even wear towering high heels and stylish, provocative outfits and PLASTIC TITS is clearly a) falling down on the job b) a male-identified Enemy of Women c) a danger to herself, other women, other womens' husbands, and society, not necessarily in that order d) deserves whatever she gets. Not, you understand, that we would ever say such a thing in so many words. Except when we're forced to.

As for -men- who flaunt stylish plastic tits and towering lack-of-victim-status, even for a -second-, well, first of all, men are men and women are women and therefore a man who pretends he (never she; it is a terrible imposition to have to call a person what she wanted to be called, even in death) can be a woman -also- deserves whatever he gets, even more so, whether that's because he's betraying his Sacred Manhood or violating Sacred Wimminz Country or both at once.

Not that we would ever say such a thing. Unless we have to.

Oh, and the fact that Ms. Stewart was a woman of color? Totally irrelevant. Except when it's not. We will be the ones to decide when it is and when it's not, thank you very much. Why can't we all stick together? Why must you constantly derail from the important issues with your own trifling problems? Don't you know that ____ are ____ in ____? Fuck you anyway, you selfish [redacted], for trying to make me feel guilty when clearly I have it worse than ANYONE. There's only so much empathy to go around, you know, and I need all of it. I mean, "we." yes. "We." Whoever "we" is THIS time.

Did I leave anything out?

/rectal divination

Feminism: it's not just for breakfast -or- women ("born women" and otherwise)

Kim has a modest proposal.

When your politics or theory hurt other people they are wrong.
When your beliefs cement labels onto others, they are wrong.
When you refuse to let individuals express themselves in ways that harm none, you are wrong.

Get your labels off other's bodies, why can't you?
You, who insist a woman should not be hurt or devalued or treated as inferior because of her body, why -- no really, why -- can't you allow others this same courtesy?

I am one feminist who accepts transfolk completely.

Therefore, feminism does accept transfolk -- no matter what anyone else says to the contrary.

Who's with me?

On a related note, Sudy observes:

Feminism is not only considering the social construction of womyn, but also of male and transgender, transexual individuals. Sexuality, power, gender are all forces we must examine. To unravel the sexism, we must not just limit our scope to grrls. We must look at what else is happening in the identity informing years.

along with a link to an alternet article: "Fag" Is Turning into a High School Insult for Any Guy Who Doesn't Play Football

...my only comment to the above being, I think 'twas ever thus, really.

Unclear on the construct

This is coming off an offblog conversation, but let's just say someone was trying to figure out what the hell people meant by "gender is a construct" or "race is a construct," looked up definitions like this,

The central concept of Berger and Luckmann's Social Construction of Reality was that actors interacting together form, over time, typifications or mental representations of each other's actions, and that these typifications eventually become habitualised into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When these reciprocal roles become routinized, the typified reciprocal interactions are said to be institutionalised. In the process of this institutionalisation, meaning is embedded and institutionalised into individuals and society - knowledge and people's conception of (and therefore belief regarding) what reality 'is' becomes embedded into the institutional fabric and structure of society, and social reality is therefore said to be socially constructed.

...and went, *blink* *blink* "...right, I'm gonna go have a beer and then maybe it'll make more sense."

Basically, to me, it's like this:

The problem is that people have this idea that either something is "real" or it's not. And "construct" seems to suggest that it's not. It's in our heads; we made it up; therefore, it doesn't exist! Poof! What the hell are we talking about, then?

All "construct" means that it's not fixed and fated and outside human control in the way that say your eventual death is, but that doesn't make it any less "real" for a that and a that.

I mean, look at it this way: a building is a "construct." Humans created it. If no person had had the idea for a large rectangular thingie, if no group of people had drawn up plans and built it, it wouldn't exist. Does that mean it doesn't actually exist?

The key point here is that it's a -social- construction: race, gender, whatever. That means, "large group of people of which you are only one member has collectively designed and built this thing out of whatever materials were already lying around." You can have -input- on the construct, sure, same as anyone else (give or take some influence). That awning's got to go; maybe with some effort you and some likeminded pals can pull it down. Maybe add some shutters instead. Or, you can talk about trying to blow the whole edifice to kingdom come, I suppose. Many have tried. It's big, the edifice, see, and pretty solid. Also it's not really clear what would go there instead, if anything. Nature abhors a vacuum; society abhors vacant lots. Something like that.

So, anyway, back to "reality:" sometimes, you'll get an individual who declares something like, "Hey! This is only a construct! Just because a bunch of other people painted it this particular color and call it "fuschia" doesn't mean I have to BELIEVE in it! I SEE NO COLOR!"

Which is all very well, or could be, depending on where you're situated.

On the other hand, well, now say you're in a (human-made, hence not real) car, headed toward the nonexistent nongendered colorless construct at 70 miles an hour.

And now you know why, in certain kinds of discussions that take a particular turn, you get that "screeeeee SPLAT" effect.

brownfemipower interrupts her hiatus to bring this important message:

"The 'Nobody' posting about the New Jersey political prisoners"

A good twenty or so links from the past several months.

Lesbians sentenced for self defense
Plenary session for saturday night
Update on the Jersey Four
FIERCE, violence against women of color, support
Support the Newark women
Lesbians sentenced for self-defense
This is Just Depressing
No Snow Here: Three things
Automatic Presence: The Newark Women
without grace: Sakia Gunn and the Newark lesbian conviction
Carnival of Radical Action: The Education Edition
Don’t forget the Newark women!
More Reasons the (in)Justice System Has Me Down
Independence Day?
East Coast Lesbians of Color Sentenced for Self Defense
A couple things
It’s not the oppression olympics
Free the New Jersey Four!
Hate Crimes on the Rise
NJ4
Media Representations of New Jersey 7
FIERCE on sk*rt (yes, the queen of link posting, shannon, did post a link there!)
donate money for Mariah Lopez’s bail
Support the Newark women
Sylvia: Support the Newark Women
Slant Truth:Jersey Seven/Four Updates (with link to Facebook page and online petition)
Activism Roundup
The Silence of Our Friends (specifically requested by Donna to repost for her readers)

Go to Women of Color Blog for the rest of the hyperlinks.

The erasure of work through the creation of “nobody” discourse=the continued marginalization of the worker.
Or:
It’s funny how “nobody” is always so damn colored.

"She's got a point there, kids."


The basics from FIERCE!:

YOUNG LESBIANS FROM NEWARK NEED OUR SUPPORT!

On August 18, 2006, seven young African American lesbians traveled to the West Village from their homes in Newark for a regular night out. When walking down the street, a male bystander assaulted them with sexist and homophobic comments. The women tried to defend themselves, and a fight broke out. Thus began the women’s nightmare for almost a year. Three of the women accepted plea offers. On June 14th, 2007 Venice Brown (19), Terrain Dandridge (20), Patreese Johnson (20), and Renata Hill (24) received sentences ranging from 3 ½ to 11 years in prison.

The women and their families now call on our communities for support. Their emotional and financial burdens have already been immense. These hardships will only continue as the women begin their prison terms and the process of appeal.

UPDATE:

Thanks to the dozens of you that turned out to the community support meeting for the NJ4 on July 10th. For an update on how to write letters of support the young women or to send them a donation directly, click HERE. [pdf hyperlink at site]

yahoo group here.

Some commentary:

from FemmeNoir:

What I found interesting about this story was Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Edward McLaughlin's statements during sentencing stating he had no sympathy for the women, ages 19-25, none of whom had a previous record and who claimed self-defense.

Also interesting was the judges disbelief in the testimony of Patreese Johnson that she carried a knife because she was 4-foot-11 and 95 pounds and came from a dangerous neighborhood. Johnson not only lives in one of the most dangerous areas of Newark, she and several of the other defendants were also high school classmates of Sakia Gunn, a lesbian who was stabbed to death on the street in downtown Newark four years ago after she spurned a man who tried to pick her up.

After hearing of a classmate's death by stabbing, at the hands of a man who made advances on a similar group of young women who did not have the means to defend themselves in an attempt to kidnap one of them, I can understand why a young woman might find it prudent to carry a weapon to defend herself. I do not condone using a weapon but I certainly understand considering how and why Sakia Gunn was killed...

Imani Henry (syndicated via Worker's World):

None of them had previous criminal records. Two of them are parents of small children.

Their crime? Defending themselves from a physical attack by a man who held them down and choked them, ripped hair from their scalps, spat on them, and threatened to sexually assault them—all because they are lesbians...

On Aug. 16, 2006, seven young, African-American, lesbian-identified friends were walking in the West Village. The Village is a historic center for lesbian, gay, bi and trans (LGBT) communities, and is seen as a safe haven for working-class LGBT youth, especially youth of color.

As they passed the Independent Film Cinema, 29-year-old Dwayne Buckle, an African-American vendor selling DVDs, sexually propositioned one of the women. They rebuffed his advances and kept walking.

“I’ll f— you straight, sweetheart!” Buckle shouted. A video camera from a nearby store shows the women walking away. He followed them, all the while hurling anti-lesbian slurs, grabbing his genitals and making explicitly obscene remarks. The women finally stopped and confronted him. A heated argument ensued. Buckle spat in the face of one of the women and threw his lit cigarette at them, escalating the verbal attack into a physical one.

Buckle is seen on the video grabbing and pulling out large patches of hair from one of the young women. When Buckle ended up on top of one of the women, choking her, Johnson pulled a small steak knife out of her purse. She aimed for his arm to stop him from killing her friend.

The video captures two men finally running over to help the women and beating Buckle. At some point he was stabbed in the abdomen. The women were already walking away across the street by the time the police arrived...

After almost a year of trial, four of the seven were convicted in April. Johnson was sentenced to 11 years on June 14.

Even with Buckle’s admission and the video footage proving that he instigated this anti-gay attack, the women were relentlessly demonized in the press, had trumped-up felony charges levied against them, and were subsequently given long sentences in order to send a clear resounding message—that self-defense is a crime and no one should dare to fight back.

Political backdrop of the case

Why were these young women used as an example? At stake are the billions of dollars in tourism and real estate development involved in the continued gentrification of the West Village. This particular incident happened near the Washington Square area—home of New York University, one of most expensive private colleges in the country and one of the biggest employers and landlords in New York City. The New York Times reported that Justice Edward J. McLaughlin used his sentencing speech to comment on “how New York welcomes tourists.” (June 17)

The Village is also the home of the Stonewall Rebellion, the three-day street battle against the NYPD that, along with the Compton Cafeteria “Riots” in California, helped launch the modern-day LGBT liberation movement in 1969. The Manhattan LGBT Pride march, one of the biggest demonstrations of LGBT peoples in the world, ends near the Christopher Street Piers in the Village, which have been the historical “hangout” and home for working-class trans and LGBT youth in New York City for decades.

Because of growing gentrification in recent years, young people of color, homeless and transgender communities, LGBT and straight, have faced curfews and brutality by police sanctioned by the West Village community board and politicians. On Oct. 31, 2006, police officers from the NYPD’s 6th Precinct indiscriminately beat and arrested several people of color in sweeps on Christopher Street after the Halloween parade.

Since the 1980s there has been a steady increase in anti-LGBT violence in the area, with bashers going there with that purpose in mind.

For trans people and LGBT youth of color, who statistically experience higher amounts of bigoted violence, the impact of the gentrification has been severe. As their once-safe haven is encroached on by real estate developers, the new white and majority heterosexual residents of the West Village then call in the state to brutalize them...

Deemed a so-called “hate crime” against a straight man, every possible racist, anti-woman, anti-LGBT and anti-youth tactic was used by the entire state apparatus and media...

Court observers report that the defense attorneys had to put enormous effort into simply convincing the jury that they were “average women” who had planned to just hang out together that night. Some jurists asked why they were in the Village if they were from New Jersey. The DA brought up whether they could afford to hang out there—raising the issue of who has the right to be there in the first place.

The Daily News reporting was relentless in its racist anti-lesbian misogyny, portraying Buckle as a “filmmaker” and “sound engineer” preyed upon by a “lesbian wolf pack” (April 19) and a “gang of angry lesbians.” (April 13)

...All of the seven women knew and went to school with Sakia Gunn, a 19-year-old butch lesbian who was stabbed to death in Newark, N.J., in May 2003. Paralleling the present case, Gunn was out with three of her friends when a man made sexual advances to one of the women. When she replied that she was a lesbian and not interested, he attacked them. Gunn fought back and was stabbed to death.

“You can’t help but wonder that if Sakia Gunn had a weapon, would she be in jail right now?” Bran Fenner, a founding member and co-executive director of FIERCE, told Workers World. “If we don’t have the right to self-defense, how are we supposed to survive?”

From Trouble: More Than Bargained For

I love this article. I do. Because it's written like an exact "How To Belittle The Experiences Of Women and Gay People Who Talk About Harassment" Primer.

...
"The girls started coming out of nowhere," Dwayne Buckle told a Manhattan jury yesterday, describing the bizarre beat-down he suffered last summer, allegedly at the hands of a seething sapphic septet from Newark, N.J. "I felt like I was going to die."

"Seething sapphic septet"? That's actually funny. I will totally give it extra points for that.

... Buckle told a different story on the stand, assigning many of his alleged attackers monikers. There was Brown, the one he admittedly called an "elephant." Then there was the one with the "low haircut," do-rag and wife-beater T-shirt,whom he admittedly called "a man," and the "slightly pretty" one to whom he first said hello. It all started, he said, when the first two walked by. "They looked effeminate [sic] and one of them was slightly pretty, so I said 'hi' to them," he said. But the "heavier girl, she started to dog me out," Buckle said. "What does that, perchance, mean," asked the judge, Justice Edward McLaughlin. "Just disrespect me," Buckle explained. Then "more girls started coming out of nowhere."


But I'm sure that he just "said hello", right? And then suddenly seven sapphic samarai just jumped him, for no reason!

...So, let's review:

- Women are just walking down the street, minding their own business, when some guy demands they buy his videos
- Women refuse, and for some reason that he's not their type comes up
- Man starts hurling abuse at them for daring to be lesbians
- At some point a cigarette is flicked, a woman is choked, stuff like that
- Women fight back against their attacker
- Man = victim

...

Yes, I will totally agree that the man was knifed and that is horrible and bad. And yes, I will totally agree that violence isn't the answer to street harassment (although did you hear about the woman who ignored the catcalls from a truck and the guy who was catcalling was so mad he ran over her. Last I heard she may die.).

But why the HELL is he being presented as an innocent victim in the lead in to this article? Why is it being presented as these wild and insane women (gay women!) just going off on him for no reason for the first few paragraphs?

This is my theory:

Because the women being lesbians is titilating. It's an amusing image. It's women's sexuality, and we can't make it not about the sex.

Look, I know sex sells. I do. But does it bloody well have to sell a violent attack on someone? Does it *really*? Can't it just be about how a group of women retaliating after a gay-bashing incident? Doesn't that make the whole thing a bit more serious? And shouldn't the whole thing be taken a bit more seriously? The guy was knifed, for crying out loud. After attacking the women for not wanting to sleep with him. After choking one of them for... what, not wanting to sleep with him?

from GLAAD:

At the New York Times, reporter Anemona Hartocollis described the women as "a pack of marauding lesbians" and Samuel Maull, an Associated Press reporter, wrote that they were "all avowed lesbians from Newark."

The trial did feature a moment that showed how these mainstream reporters can so easily use these characterizations.

Bruce Nussbaum, an assistant managing editor at Business Week, was screened as a possible juror on the case, but he was excluded after he expressed the concern that his wife might be threatened by this lesbian gang. For Nussbaum, "gang" connoted "a nationally organized gang, very powerful, that could reach out and try to influence members of the jury," he told the Times.

What does Nussbaum think he is dealing with? A lesbian crime family? A gay Mafia? Nussbaum was presented with four young lesbians charged with assault and he saw a sinister and vast criminal conspiracy.

It is no surprise that mainstream press stories about us are so consistently awful. As Nussbaum revealed, we remain alien and unknown to these benighted reporters. The result is that their stories are crap.

from LDNY:

There is also the surplus complication of this being categorized as an “aggressive” crime - an “aggressive”* being a woman ‘of colour’ who sleeps with women, dresses in a masculine fashion and doesn’t identify with either ‘lesbian’ or ‘trans’ labels.

...It is almost as if their gender identity somehow puts these women on a ‘level’ with men when it comes to fighting or territorial protection - for example, if heterosexual men attempt to hit on femme girls that date aggressives. In the moment, it is man fighting man, defending their honour, not gay woman fighting homophobic man, or woman fighting man. Although in the most brutal, factual, physical sense - it is. There is likely to be an inbalance of strength and power.

There are other issues, of course, such as the fact that their sexualities were made clear to the male victim and any harrassment that follows such a declaration could be classified as a ‘hate crime’. Obviously, in this case, the crime was committed by a presumably “aggressive” woman, not against one, although it appears to have been not premeditated attempted murder at all but aggravated assault against a minority group.

...Groups of sexually voracious men seem quite adept at spotting ‘lesbians’ these days, either due to their behavior or their appearance and may actively seek them out - particularly in known gay areas. They do not approach these women to romance them, but to bully a minority group they cannot possibly comprehend. Aggressives in particular may be viewed as ‘copying’ heterosexual men, emulating them somehow or taking “their femme women”; as such, they are subject to ridicule, or being provoked into a “real man” standoff.

From Queer Woman of Color:

I'm not saying for one second that the media attention the Jena 6 are getting is undeserved. On the contrary. I think an even bigger ruckus needs to be caused. In that same vein the New Jersey seven's lack of attention seems questionable. Why isn't there more about these women and their case. What are the reasons one case gets more support than another?

With the New Jersey seven I have to wonder if there is sexism here. Or homophobia. Or genderqueer phobia. Or all of the above. Maybe it is just too much for us to think about that many levels of injustice and oppression. Maybe we can get behind men but not people who we consider immoral due to their sexuality and gender expression. Whatever the reason I figure it is important to at least ask.

A bit more on modesty: the Divine Miss Ros

Amanda McKittrick, that is, bless her, fervently.

The Old Home.

Don't I see the old home over there at the base
Of a triangle not overcrowded with space:
'Twas there I first breathed on the eighth of December,
In the year of Our Lord the month after November.

I've been told it was snowy and blowy and wild
When I entered the home as a newly-born child,
There wasn't much fuss, nor was there much joy
For sorrow was poignant I wasn't a boy.

I felt quite contented as years flitted on
That I to the coarser sex did not belong
Little dreaming that ever the time would arrive
That of female attire I would be deprived.

By a freak of the lustful that spreads like disease
Which demanded that females wear pants if you please,
But I stuck to the decentest style of attire
And to alter my " gender " I'll never aspire.

During that hallowed century now dead and gone
In which good Queen Victoria claimed to be born
From childhood her modesty ever was seen
Her exalted position demanded when Queen.

She set an example of decency rare,
That no English Queen before her you'd compare
Neither nude knee nor ankle, nude bosom nor arm
Dare be seen in her presence this Queen to alarm.

She believed in her sex being loving and kind,
And modesty never to march out of line
By exposing those members unrest to achieve,
Which pointed to morals immorally grave.

But sad to relate when she bade " Adieu "
To earth and its vanities tainted with " rue,"
That centre of fashion, so French in its style,
Did its utmost to vilify decency's smile

And mock at these garments which proved in their day,
At a glance-who was who-and wherein gender lay,
But alas ! Since the death of our great and good Queen
That attribute " Modesty " 's ne'er to be seen.

It wasn't long after till modesty grew
A thing of the past for me and for you;
Last century's fashions were blown quite aside,
The ill-advised folk of this age now deride.

The petticoat faded away as we do
In circumference it covered not one leg but two,
Its successor exposes the arms, breasts and necks,
Legs, knees and thighs and too often-the ---.

Just a quick note of my own

addendum/response to piny's post here. And yeah, I'm not saying anything at all new here, I am sure, I don't know if this is going make the penny drop for anyone who didn't already "get it," much less regular readers here, but what the hell.

piny sez:

When I heard that an IBTP comments thread had erupted in Buffalo Bill comments, I knew exactly who was involved and exactly what was being said. I knew how it would play out, and which people would say which things. I could probably have made an educated guess about the topic that started the discussion–although in that case, I would have been wrong, because transphobia is always pertinent and interesting to these people. I had seen it happen virtually verbatim several times before, and will probably see it happen again many more times.

...I…get curious about people who hate me. I see what they write and I remember it without trying. I don’t know how normal that is and I don’t claim that it’s healthy, but a lot of other queers [emphasis mine] and transpeople seemed to react the same way. I’ve encountered the same frustration in response to what can only be the same insensitivity on my part, when other assholes have finished with preliminaries that only fooled me.

And, yes. That’s really been the bottom line for me, well one of them. Funny, you wouldn’t think, right? Hey, -I'm- not a transperson, what crawled up my crunchy granola skirt and died? I mean, BEFORE the stuff that pretty much anyone who wasn't a total bastard couldn't see was rank hatred, of course we all see the problem there. But that's just a few bad apples, right?

TF’s a lesbian, Heart’s a “political lesbian,” as are a whole shitload of that bunch (a bunch more are straight, though, separatists too, surprise), o sure they say hateful ignorant shit about transfolk and this or that alternative sexual practice, but c’mon, they’re on -your- side! How could they possibly be creating a homophobic atmosphere? If anything, they have a problem with HETEROSEXUALITY…oh, yeah, and your "corny lifestyle," but c'mon, that's not a SERIOUS ISSUE.

and, no, sorry, that’s not correct, as far as I’m concerned at least.

One doesn’t have to be on one’s knees before a male oppress0r or even particularly heterosexual to be thoroughly, annoyingly heteronormative. Some of us don’t -want- to rabbit on endlessly about the War Between the Sexes, because it’s like…’k, you’re from Venus, they’re from Mars, I…don’t speak your crazy moon language, either of you, any of you, so let’s call the whole thing off.

But that by itself wouldn’t have been enough to earn my rancor; i would’ve just drifted off.

No; it’s…well, you look at the latest shitstorm wrt transfolk, okay, i mean the last umpteen hundred comments or so, and you tell me. Suddenly, “radicals” are sounding eerily like…Focus on the Family. Sexual organs are for reproduction. Men are men and women are women (and okay maybe intersex are intersex mumble quick let’s move on, but) -and that can never, ever change.-

And, how disappointing and inexplicable that some lesbians side with those MEN in sheeps' clothing over -our kind-, says sister-girl.

Or, in a separate, but related case not very far away, a conventionally straight woman gloating over the errant dismissal of a woman (by yet another of this type, apparently) who was volunteering for a DV crisis centre, because she’s a stripper and porn performer and -it might frighten the horses I mean women.-

Rationalizations for the rankest bigotry, spin that would make Bill O’Reilly dizzy, approving links to the Daily Telegraph and people who use data from the Heritage Center, slut-shaming, arguing against gay marriage (albeit supposedly for “feminist” reasons), gender policing, sexuality policing, invoking the law to go after kinky folk, but most of all,

bunch of hatefully self-righteous people, many of whom being actually -straight- and/or celibate, running rampant all over those spaces, telling queer folk and other sexual “deviants” that they’re twisted or sick or selfish or at least hopelessly confused, poor dears, ruining it for everyone, a blot on society I mean the Movement, and THAT ISN’T EVEN QUESTIONED BY GOOD PROGRESSIVES AND FEMINISTS while all this other shit goes on…

…yeah. That just feels a little too familiar. And -not- in a good way.

So, I quit too. Whatever that is, even if I never really belonged, just for the record: I quit. I refuse to call it feminism, or at least THE feminism. I keep going through periods of -trying- to “live and let live.- But this just isn’t working out. At all. Because -they- aren’t doing that.

And yeah, okay, "fight the real enemy" (isn't this becoming a common theme these days?) But, when you sound like and even sometimes strange-bedfellow ally (in preference to the whores and trannies, mind) with the most reactionary, hateful--which includes, but is not limited to, homophobia and misogyny, structurally enforced, even--forces in the country...

well, with "friends" like this, who needs...any of this, really.

It will all make perfect sense shortly, part -5.frog, SQUAWK!

(a nod to this other post here, the title)

So, now, pluck'd from its context where i'm sure it makes a fuck of a lot more sense really (yes, same damn thread), we have this explanation of the sex/gender thing, from erm another perspective:

This again is why it’s important to distinguish between “male” and “man.” A man who is subordinated for being not manly enough is not a male woman and we should say so. He’s still a man and still male. He is actually participating in the deconstruction of manhood and masculinity, to the degree that he continues to acknowledge he is part of the category “male.” If he is recognized as a woman, then patriarchy has had its way. It has subordinated the unmasculine and made the unmasculine “women” just as it subordinates female persons and makes us women. For that to change, we have to *be* women/female and man/male and reject gender.

...


I'm going to just allow some space so that those of y'all who can and want to parse that out as is, can. Feel free to share your findings.

...

Okay. but, me, i read that three times and i'm still getting this awful feeling of vertigo. But, I want to engage it; so, I'm just gonna make it a little easier on my eyes.

Thees egeeen is vhy it’s impurtunt tu deestingooish betveee “mele-a” und “mun.” A mun vhu is sooburdeeneted fur beeeng nut munly inuoogh is nut a mele-a vumun und ve-a shuoold sey su. He-a’s steell a mun und steell mele-a. He-a is ectooelly perteecipeting in zee decunstroocshun ooff munhuud und mescooleenity, tu zee degree-a thet he-a cunteenooes tu ecknooledge-a he-a is pert ooff zee cetegury “mele-a.” Iff he-a is recugneezed es a vumun, zeen petreeerchy hes hed its vey. Bork bork bork! It hes sooburdeeneted zee unmescooleene-a und mede-a zee unmescooleene-a “vumee” joost es it sooburdeenetes femele-a persuns und mekes us vumee. Fur thet tu chunge-a, ve-a hefe-a tu *be-a* vumee/femele-a und mun/mele-a und reject gender. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!

Ah. That's much better. Still not totally sure I agree, but i can see her point, sort of, especially that last bit.

Quote of the day the second, 6/7/07

from the comments in this thread:

The meaning of the words "man" & "woman" is a matter of lexicography, convention, & it changes. Intersex was unknown until recently. "Woman" had nothing to do with chromosomes until little over 100 years ago; the notion that the concept is self-evidently a matter of genetics is just unhistorical. In the not too distant past, there have been serious arguments - serious in the sense of having been taken seriously by authoritative people - whether homosexual men & women really are "men" & "women" in the sense we now accept. Likewise, transsexuality was unthought of until recently, after the words "man" & "woman" received their currently conventional meaning. Transsexuality, like the emergence of genetics (& biology generally) & changing ideas about homosexuality, will inevitably change usage of the words, notwithstanding the political resistance of a reactionary remnant. The real political & moral arguments over the exclusion of sexual minorities can't be settled by appeal to this or that dictionary, or by stipulation.

--kh

and by the way, a petite factoid from the Institute for Intersex Children and the Law

An estimated one in 2,000 babies is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't seem to fit typical definitions of male or female.

One in two thousand. So, rare, yes, rarer than the oft-cited "one in ten" (yes yes we know some of y'all don't believe in that either, for various reasons), but so rare it's not hardly worth mentioning?

There are, what, about six billion people in the world, give or take. So that's, what...about three million people?

That's not the real question, though. The real question is, why do people who supposedly want to do away with...well, enough with the sophistry, most people understood "doing away with gender" in a feminist sense as, y'know,

be whoever or whatever you want to be, biology is not destiny, let us free ourselves from these rigid definitions for once and for all

...why in the world, suddenly, people who supposedly are FOR all that are twisting themselves into knots trying to explain how intersex barely matters, playing around with gender -or- altering the body with the wonders of modern technology is Wrong, -men are men, and women are women, that's how it is and that's how it will always be!-

Since when is this -feminist?- Since when is this -radical?- Since when is this -revolutionary?-

What exactly are you protecting?

And now for something completely different: a post-gay Republican Satanist who is VERY MANLY and not at all thin-skinned

...i mean, BESIDES Andrew Sullivan.


no, SRSLY

piny gets in a good, serious point amid the joyous mockery:

...I’ve also been part of a few other queer communities who all had this sort of problem with femmes and feminine people. None of them, oddly enough, had a terribly low concentration of masculine people. Heck, you don’t even need to stick with the gays–fear of effeminacy has plagued anxious wannabe revolutionaries all over the place.

as does holly

Your arguments about how femininity holds sway in gay communities are unlikely to get more than a jaw-dropped “what the fuck is he talking about?” as long as it’s the more feminine men who are receiving the brunt of physical abuse, harassment, violence, as long as there are legions of personal ads in every corner of the internet looking for “straight-acting guys” and as long as bodybuilder images of idealized masculinity hold sway in gay porn and in what gay male communities believe they’re supposed to look like. Your points about some of these visions being very narrow is valid — so why don’t you actually talk about that in a positive, expansive way instead of bashing feminine guys, which the rest of the homophobic world is already doing ALL THE TIME. It makes you look like an asshole who’s happy to get his hands dirty doing the work of the homo-hating, femininity-hating, woman-hating, trans-hating system.

and little light

And here I thought one of the best parts about masculinity was using your strength to protect the vulnerable folks in your community. Y’know, instead of joining in with the folks going after them.
Shit, honey, I have a manicure right now that I’d be happy to mess up in a good brawl to look after my own, so what’s that say?

...I mean, some of those queer samurai you’re so enamored of went into battle in makeup, and they weren’t scared of shit, you know? And the Spartans, by all accounts, took their sweet time before Thermopylae combing and dressing each other’s hair.

Real toughness, and real masculinity–in men or women–involves getting over all that superficial nonsense and taking care of the people who need you. You know, like those fags you sneer at because even women are willing to whup ‘em, or something. I mean, yeah, the Spartans killed weak babies–but they also never figured out indoor plumbing.

meanwhile, over at this update at Nine Pearls, we started to speculate on what might be proper courtin' behavior for a couple of non "faggy," "androphile" Rod McManlypantses. I figure, actually, rather than either party buying the other dinner...maybe you both ride out into uncharted, savage lands on your ungelded stallions, and together kill a wild animal with your bare hands, then either build a fire and roast it or simply tear it to pieces raw and devour it. then have manly, passionate sex amid the bloody remains.
yes, that would be more like it.

corsages are totally okay though, as long as they aren’t orchids. something manly, like a sprig of spruce, or a clump of particularly phallic mushrooms.

still more patriarchal pole dancing

"Bearlesque"

Yes, yes, and this is totally patriarchal as well, no doubt.

(what -isn't?-)






the Aussie Pole Dancers.

Calling all queer dudes

...a call for essays at this website, Beyond Masculinity.

***Deadline Extended Until May 31, 2007***

Gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer men's gender identities often exist somewhere outside the traditional categories of "masculine" and "feminine." Sissies, drag queens, and leather daddies alike play with gender in a way that cannot be accounted for in traditional understandings of maleness. This collection -- part blog, part anthology, part audiobook -- aims to shatter traditional understandings of maleness and point towards a new understanding of how queerness and gender intersect.

BEYOND MASCULINITY is looking for contributions in four key areas. Contributors should not feel bound by these categories - they should rather be seen as potential prompts:

*

Identity Intersections: How do race, ability, class, and other kinds of identities and experiences intersect with gender and queerness -- and how do these intersections complicate our relationship to traditional understandings of "maleness?"
*

Feminism, Gender, and Politics: How can feminism inform our understanding of queer male gender? Can queer men be feminists? How can we use our queerness as a political tool? What does male privilege look like for queer men?
*

Bodies, Desire, and Pleasure: What kinds of male bodies are desired? Fetishized? Where does sexual desire intersect with queer gender and how are these politics mapped out on our bodies?
*

Queer Male Communities: How are our identities produced through our communities? How do the gender norms and politics of gay/bi/trans/queer male communities both liberate and constrain us?

We're looking for queer male writers to step up and contribute their thoughts to this online project. This is not your typical bookstore anthology. It will be only available online - and it will be completely free of charge to the public. Wih its unique implementation of media, this anthology aims to change the way queer non-fiction is done.

see website for contact details and submission guidelines.

h/t: Feministing by way of saltyfemme.

Fashion, makeup, clothes, yadda: a "What About The Men?" post:

so coming off the comments in this fine post by Cassandra wrt the double bind faced by women--Kim has a number of thoughtful posts on the subject as well--I was reminded of another recent conversation I had elsewhere, among a group of mostly gay men, wherein several opined that the male dress code is oppressive and stifling--one in fact was convinced that women have it better in that regard, these days.

I argued with him a bit about that last point--if only he could see the reams of posts about this that have flooded the feminist 'sphere, I was thinking--but on the whole, I agree that it's a real point, and an underdiscussed one. In -this- instance: what -about- the men? No one's ripping makeup out of anyone's trembling hands, no; but if you're a dude and you decide to paint the face outside of very particular and narrow contexts...or wear a skirt, whether micro latex "sexbot" or crunchy granola flowing floor length earth mama, or any number of other gender trangressions...well, there are Consequences, aren't there?

I'm not talking about transgendered folks or even cross-dressers here, understand; just dudes who might want to wear a skirt or lipstick, and still be dudes.

so, yeah. There are many Rules, for all of us. Some formally codified into law or company policy, but most more unspoken...until you break them.

and it does beg the question, you know, formal policies like at a fancy jacket-and-tie requiring restaurant, or y'know more applicable for more people at the office, aside (and obviously State regulations wrt nudity or toplessness here, or the Islamic regulations in various countries): who really are the enforcers for these rules, really?

I mean, call it the "patriarchy" if you like. But (as we're so often reminded), "patriarchy" doesn't mean "men," here; so what exactly does it mean? More to the point: if it's mostly a question of, I don't dare to go down the street wearing ____, who's doing the enforcing? Men catcall to and harass women (and worse), true, and may well use what she's wearing as an excuse; but women can be plenty rude about other women (omg look what SHE'S wearing) as well, as we've seen; and can make their opinions -very- clear even if they don't holler down the street. Is that meaningless? Is there not a power transaction going on there? As Cassandra was getting at, does it only "count" if it's men? And, well, says who?

and men wearing makeup? well, the threat of getting beaten up is a pretty fucking big enforcer, and v. likely it'll be men doing it;

but say it's i don't know a less "dangerous" situation, you know, a cafe where fisticuffs are frowned on, or a not-too-dysfunctional family gathering...

if the waitress sneers, if the little girl yells about "why is that man dressed like that?!" and her mom answers something less than helpful, if the teenage girls shout "faggot!" from the car, if Mom and little sister pointedly avoid speaking to you the whole afternoon...

well? who's upholding what, here, and why?

Per "feminine," and bad moods, more or less

Catching up after being on retreat for several days. I did not read the latest femisphere thrashes, which I am now reading about second and third hand on my beloved friends' blogs. I will not read the OP, because I have taken the pledge, and also it honestly sounds really boring. Per the definition of femininity and suchlike, I will simply say this:

Spend the weekend sharing space with, among others, a gaggle of Radical Faeries. About forty men (and a few biogirls, and one probably-TG/genderqueer person who quite literally flits like hir namesake bird), most of 'em with long beards and quite hirsute, singing and drumming and ballet dancing and doing Martha Graham impersonations and wearing lipstick and codpieces and platform heels and glitter and ginormous hats shaped like limes. It gives one a certain sense of...perspective. Also, they're fucking awesome.

as were the women I was primarily on retreat with. and by the way, ritualized group gropes and getting the shit beaten out of you can in fact be astonishingly therapeutic and deeply communal. spiritual, even. just saying.

" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."

Coupla links

The Scarlet Pervygirl ruminates on sex and gender as constructs, high school, and who the true monsters really are.


The Unapologetic Mexican (he's not shy!) has an amazing analysis of the movie "Falling Down," as part of his new "At the Movies With Nez" series. informed with all his film-school background and some serious sociopolitical deconstructage, and at the same time, eminently readable and entertaining for the layperson. Joe Bob sez check it out.


In both cases, be sure to read around the rest of the place; some stunning writing to be found.

meanwhile:

it's cold and snowy. i am in for the day. i have no attention span. i feel out of sorts. i refuse to do anything vaguely productive. someone talk to me.

Queer femmes representing

New (to me) at least blogger salty femme responds to/riffs off a very old (to me) persona/blog (which is new to her). posting here not so much because i want to get back into talking about I-Blame-The-Ennui, but because i think what SF is talking about here actually comes up fairly often in this here femisphere, and is also not totally unrelated to Battle Trans(bigots).



Interesting how the queer femme position complicates both sides of this debate: that femininity is inherently a tool of the patriarchy, and that femininity can be reclaimed without questioning and struggling with the ways that femininity is patriarchal. Also interesting that the queer femme is nowhere to be found in [the IBTP] thread. And I realize that my questions are novel. Stuck between these two positions is a hard place to be. But it helps to read why some feminists hate femininity so much – it helps me clarify why I agree to some extent, and why agreeing that femininity has been a tool of the patriarchy pushes me to own femininity and struggle with it instead of reject it. It’s the murky place of figuring out exactly how to do that that seems to really fuck people up.


And so I ask again, what does it mean to be a feminist and claim femininity, and not in the girly “I can’t get out of my comfort zone so I have to shave my legs and wear makeup but call it feminism to justify it” kind of way. In the way that my femininity belongs to me. Not to patriarchy. Seriously. Because I get to pick and choose; because I can control the way others respond to the gender I perform; because I still sport body hair with a sexy tank top and mascara and declare it as hot and mine and others respond in kind; because I don’t perform femininity for any man or even for any woman. I like femininity because I choose it, and not because I’ve been co-opted as a tool of the patriarchy. And I do it all as a feminist.

I also wonder what gender the femininity-hating feminists perform and how they make sense of it. Gender is a part of our world (a part that I actually enjoy) so I am genuinely curious as to how they see themselves and how they think others perceive them.

So how does being a queer femme give me special privilege to talk about femininity? Granted, I exist in this world and was socialized into the same one as straight women. At the same time, I imagine and seek out a world outside of the mainstream. In my attempts to stray from the mainstream, I realize also that the best way to fuck with patriarchy is to subvert it and not to reject it outright. Rejecting something means that you acknowledge its authority, power, and importance. It is completely exhausting and when it comes to gender, and to femininity more specifically, it doesn’t work. Queer femme means subverting femininity – gender is never meant to be taken at face value. It’s a game. The trick is figuring out the rules.


So right away those of you who've been following along in the peanut gallery can point to the places where the all-patriarchy-blaming-all-the-time crowd are gonna raise objections.

like, this:

I realize also that the best way to fuck with patriarchy is to subvert it and not to reject it outright.

...is gonna read like hopeless self-delusion at best, quietism or even sinister collusion with the forces of darkness at worst, to Certain Types.

And in the abstract, I could sort of understand that mindset: hey, if an Empire is Compleat Evil, then you don't negotiate with it; you don't compromise with it: it is a Fight to the Death, for True Freedom.

which, and even given the assumptions that 1) the Patriarchy -is- The Monolith, i.e. Sexism Trumps Everything Else and, 2) it's -all- hopelessly corrupt and tainted, there is -nothing- worth salvaging in the current Oppressive System (hypothetically you understand), well...okay! good luck with that there! and that hasn't really gotten off the ground in the past thirty years or so because?...

oh, right, i forgot (how quickly they forget):

In point of fact, right now, to be dedicated to an end to sexism and to gender, full stop, is to be relentlessly excoriated by people who call that “transphobic” and a whole lot of other nasty things and a lot of those people are MEN who do not care one whit if anything ever changes for women, they want the clock turned back hundreds of years to the time when they owned us outright.

...*in fact* radical feminists are responsible for *revolution for women in our time* and if misogynists of all and every stripe would get the fuck out of the way with their misogynist ideas and behaviors and projects which they think are oh-so-”progressive,” and “transgressive,” even though they take us back to pre-feminism days, we might be able to actually *finish* the revolution we fucking began.

...Heart


Right, anyway. Point being: an -end to gender.- Which is seen as part and parcel of "an end to sexism."

This is a very different goal and worldview from that expressed here:

Rejecting something means that you acknowledge its authority, power, and importance. It is completely exhausting and when it comes to gender, and to femininity more specifically, it doesn’t work...gender is never meant to be taken at face value. It’s a game.

And, further, the following Does Not Compute, to some:

Because I get to pick and choose; because I can control the way others respond to the gender I perform; because I still sport body hair with a sexy tank top and mascara and declare it as hot and mine and others respond in kind; because I don’t perform femininity for any man or even for any woman. I like femininity because I choose it, and not because I’ve been co-opted as a tool of the patriarchy. And I do it all as a feminist.

Please note: she doesn't say that doing these things in themselves are what MAKES her a feminist, or that they ARE particularly feminist in themselves, even. (if i am understanding correctly; i have my own bias there tho') She says she does them -as- a feminist.

iow: she is a feminist, and she is a (queer) femme. maybe she is not a feminist BECAUSE she is a femme, but, as i am reading this,

and not in the girly “I can’t get out of my comfort zone so I have to shave my legs and wear makeup but call it feminism to justify it” kind of way. In the way that my femininity belongs to me.


she is also clearly not willing to accept that she is a feminist IN SPITE of being femme. iow, without apologies to the more "advanced" feminism/ists. because she simply doesn't accept that implicit framework, to wit: start point: unthinking girlie-girl-->end point: patriarchy-throwing radical-feminist, free from all constraints, including gender. especially the feminine gender, if there is an "especially."

or, sigh, okay, quoting from the IBTP post SF is quoting:

Femininity is a set of practices and behaviors (boob jobs, FGM, ‘beauty’, the ‘veil’, the flirty head-tilt, pornaliciousness, BDSM, fashion, compulsory pregnancy, marriage, et al) that are dangerous, painful, pink, or otherwise destructive; that compel female subordination; that exist only to benefit Dude Nation; that are overwhelmingly represented by ‘girly’ feminists as a ‘choice’; and that are overwhelmingly represented by godbags and other irritating conservatives as ‘natural instincts’.

Which,

o, where to begin.

well, what SF says, for a start:

The author is clear to define femininity as the term is used on that specific blog. However, the definition is itself so patriarchal (taking away all agency re: femininity from women themselves) that I wanted to scream.

But, you see, let's be very clear (as i think the author sees it): the -author-, woman, radical feminist, is not taking away any agency from women, because not only is that the opposite of what she wants to do, but she cannot; the -patriarchy- did that. Women -have- no "agency," because the Patriarchy made and makes sure of it. You may think you have free choice, but it is an illusion. She's simply telling it as it is. QED. Take it or leave it (but she hopes you take it). In the land of the blind, etc. etc., not that we accept anything as patriarchal as "kings," one-eyed or otherwise, we hasten to add. Just imparting some hard-earned wisdom.

so, there's not really much point in discussing how y'know "beauty" practices (including for Menz!) or indeed other existing or historical ways of "doing" gender other than the rather painfully obviously culture-specific framework that the author is coming from, apart from the obligatory nod to "veils," because...yeah. that's a separate post, i think. stay tuned.

also, at some point, we really are going to have to sit down and talk about this whole "godbag" business.

but, like, okay, not -too- long ago, did you know, it was actually pink for -boys,- blue for girls. it reversed after WWI i believe, for reasons i do not recall at present.

which, i think the author and many others would dismiss as irrelevant; blue, pink, what's the difference? It's still them making us jump through hoops. Who cares what color the hoop is.

well, you get the idea. the notion that -it can and frequently does change at all-, this how-you-say "cultural construct," is apparently not sufficiently interesting to explore further. away with it; away with it all. okay.

now, BDSM thrown in there is interesting, although that, too, deserves a separate post.

but very briefly, just related to the gender aspect: previous discussions at the abode of this author as well as many of her regulars, and people who think similarly, and reading other, offline feminist predecessors whom some count (explicitly) among their influences, makes it pretty clear that "BDSM" overwhelmingly means "male/masculine/butch/top does classically spanky-hurty things to female/feminine/femme/bottom."

any other configuration, at least as I have been reading lo this past while, is generally glossed over or, when pressed, explained away as the woman fulfilling yet another dreary male fantasy, all uncomfortable ouchy shoes and plunging cleavage, daintily playing "mean sexy bitch" for a little while until everyone has an orgasm (orgasms are the opiate of the masses, pretty much, at least in TF land), and then it's back to business as usual.

and, of course: it's never -her- idea. Not at the patriarchally constructed root; and very probably not right there at the surface of the actual encounter, either; that is, she probably doesn't -want- this, certainly not more so than him.


Now, this is certainly not -my- experience of How This Works, and it doesn't seem to be SF's either, or some of the commenters. But: well, for our purposes here, does this matter?

Only in this: that in fact, the Author is reinforcing the (very patriarchal) idea that "feminine" is inextricably bound to "biologically female" AND to "bottom,"

which, in turn, means, "submissive to the man/masculine/top,"

which, in turn, means, o how to put this. At best:

"loser."

If not actual "victim." One-down, okay, and no, playing with it in fantasy doesn't help dislodge the way this works in "real" life; it just reinforces real-life male (as in, male, men) domination.

With me so far? Okay, because here's where it all comes together:

In other words, "gender" is a MALE thing. No matter what gender we're talking about (and really, there are only two, no matter how you slice it; and one -always- has power over the other, in a way that connects up with ). Because: "gender" cannot be a performance or a game: "gender" is a system of maintaining male power over women. Full stop.

Which is why "we" want to get rid of it.

As I am understanding it.

We are NOT, however, trying to get rid of -sex,- i.e. -biological-, -physical- (o but even here), differences.

Or, well, depending on who you ask, I suppose.

Judging from the recent spate of "I am WOMAN, I give BIRTH, I BLEED, I squirt MILK, i have been LABELLED GIRL by the PATRIARCHY and as such have SUFFERED ENORMOUSLY at the hands of MEN, and YOU HAVEN'T, NOT LIKE I HAVE, SO AWAY WITH YOU, YOU SURGICALLY 'MAN-MADE' IMPOSTER, GET OUT OF MY IDENTITY AND MY SKIN,"

at least, a lot of the people who want to "get rid of gender" are just fine and dandy with their sex (clinically defined). more than, even.

(I do not think that TF shares this biological essentialism, for the record).

So, but what we also see here is that in fact this is something that this branch of feminism and queer feminism -shares- (stay with me): the very basic understanding that gender=!sex.

The difference lies in what we think we ought to do about this.

In theory.

And yet...something just isn't adding up here, is it?

I mean, for me anyway. Because, I -know- what the world SF is talking about looks and feels like, because I see & experience people actually living it. A myriad of genders, played with. -And- a myriad of -sexes-, played with. -And- a number of ways to play with power. None of which, in fact, are -synonymous.- Mix n match. A zillion possible combinations. And, although yep we're all influenced by this our Patriarchal Culture (tm) and it doesn't No, it doesn't solve the world's problems, in and of itself; but how many people are actually saying that it does?

But, more to the point: so, okay, the idealized alternative to this alternative to the Patriarchy is just nuking the whole thing. kit n kaboodle. no more gender; no more -power.-

which, the latter, hoo boy, that is -also- a post in itself, or several.

but okay, just sticking to gender, then, this is the part of SF's post i find most intriguing:

I also wonder what gender the femininity-hating feminists perform and how they make sense of it. Gender is a part of our world (a part that I actually enjoy) so I am genuinely curious as to how they see themselves and how they think others perceive them.

And I find myself wondering that as well.

So, now what I want to ask of this feminists who adhere more or less to this school(s) of thought (and also please, correct any misunderstanding as you see it) is this:

Taking it for granted that you are a "woman," either because of your physiological born-with bits, the label -given- to you by the Patriarchy, okay (this is also an argument), or both. And that you are trying to go about creating a world where "gender" is done away with.

Do you perceive yourself to have any gender -now-? If so, what is it? And, how do you propose doing away with it, if that is indeed the goal?

If not--i.e. you think you are gender-free right now: what leads you to this conclusion?

Curious.