All that follows is from here, at an anarchist feminist's blog, from Greece, with the wonderful title:
Keep your coins – I want change
ramblings of an anarchist, feminist, atheist…
Nellie McKay, "Mother of Pearl"
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Feminists don't have a sense of humor?! Have a listen...
[UPDATE: the host of the following blog is not from Greece, but rather, from Australia. Good to know there's a strong anarchist-feminist voice there! Rock on, anarchofemme!!!]
All that follows is from here, at an anarchist feminist's blog, from Greece, with the wonderful title:
Nellie McKay, "Mother of Pearl"
All that follows is from here, at an anarchist feminist's blog, from Greece, with the wonderful title:
I find it hilarious that in the Youtube comments on this video, some people insist ‘but she’s making fun of feminists…’. No wonder our anti-feminist friends think feminists lack a sense of humour, if they cannot even discern when someone is using irony…
Nellie McKay, "Mother of Pearl"
To be LGBT or NOT to be GLBT? THAT is the question!
[image is from here]
One closet I'll come out of right away is that I love creating political acronyms. Imagine how much fun I had coming up with CRAP in the summer of 2005! [Julian lights one up and takes a slow drag off a cigarette thinking back to that one glorious summer. Kidding. I don't smoke.] (See glossary to the right for what that stands for.)
So, um, there's something I've been noticing over the last few years, particularly, like, say, since late 2001, when the dominant U.S. became gripped with an especially intense form of xenophobic paranoia. This was also when "the good ol' U.S. of A." found a new religious and ethnic group to stigmatise as "the most dangerous one" (nope: they still got it wrong: not white Christians!). And the political climate got increasingly shady, shifting shiftily into a socially neo-conservative position. In those shifting tides something washed up onto the shores and it wasn't pretty. What found its way onto land, and crawled its way into the White House was what may arguably be the least intelligent (by any measure of "intelligence" known to humanity), least educated, least qualified, and least moral and ethical U.S. presidents ever to (illegally) come to power--twice. Ironically, for the purposes of this post, that president came to be known by just one unduly maligned letter: "W".
And I've checked this "something" out with a few lesbian sisters of several colors. The white patriarchal (male supremacist/anti-lesbian/misogynist/sexist) repositioning of "who's on top" has to do with the "LGBT plus a few letters" phenonemon. I'm not one of those people that get's upset with adding on more letters, necessarily, although there's a much longer post here, either for another time or for today, depending on energy level, about why what's there is there. I've often thought Intersex folks deserved a seat at the table, for example, way before the T came right after the B. And Two Spirit has never seemed to cross the dominant "Gay White Male"-dominated letter ascribers' minds to place in any prominent position, even though, quite obviously THEY WERE HERE FIRST. So I'll start by reordering things TSLGBTQA. At least that way the euro- and anglo- derived words don't take first place. Yes, that does give us two Ts. Deal with it.
I've never really been all that concerned about the additions of the Q and the A to the sex- and genderqueerfolks table, I guess. (Our community has always had so many questions and answers, after all.) I'm not certain about how it came to pass that the Questioners and the Allies got tagged onto the end that way, but whatever. There are battles in life and adding Q and A to the end does have its appeal, in large part because it becomes something one might begin to PRONOUNCE. With this as a concern, you'd think I might make an exception for GLAAD, but then again, we have the wonderful organisation PFLAG, pronounced "p-flag" (the p is not silent and with a little ingenuity, one can find a way to put that L before the G.)
Q could also stand for Queer, of course, the term that's become Academically Correct, much to the demise of Women's Studies departments across the land. Women can't be focused on as women, apparently. I mean, do women even exist as a category? The oft-wrong PoMosexuals (even about euro PoMo theory) haven't thought to ask "do men exist"! So it's only women's reality and existence that gets challenged, you see. How very, very "academic". And do they think to ask "do heterosexuals exist"? Does the Academy exist? So now they ave and Queer Studies--or Gender Studies, or "Gender and Sexuality"--studies which does some good things to be sure. But they allow Men's Studies to take root on campus grounds! Isn't that anti-pomo? (What next, White Studies??) The way post-modern theories have been misused by the U.S. academes only demonstrates the not-so-hidden politically correct agenda behind the demise of Women's Studies as legit without Men's Studies. (Do women exist without men???)
The new politic, supposedly post-modern is actually grossly modernistic, and not much else. There is a tacit refusal--not stated in so many words, necessarily (that would be gauche)--to focus, centrally and primarily, on the evils of racist patriarchy and how it harms WOMEN OF ALL COLORS. So Women's Studies gets consumed by "Gender and Sexuality Studies" while also maintaining Men's Studies courses, if not whole departments. And men's violence against women worldwide escalates, but that is no longer on the agenda for things that need scholastic attention. (It was, once upon a time. It was, even while it was white-dominated, racistly misogynistic, misogynistically racist, and euro-centric as Hellenica.)
What's greatly upsetting to me is how once upon an overtly misogynist time, "GAY" was used to mean all that followed in the alphabetical line-up. That was waaaaay back when anything MALE was put before anything FEMALE in status, significance, and value, except rich white people dashing for their lives off the Titanic. (Because you know if there were servants of color, regardless of gender, they didn't make it off that sinking vessel before the rich white dudes, right? You know if that captain died, they died with him, right?) We're talking about THOSE days when "he" meant "he and she" and so forth. "Man" meant "humanity. Yes, there was such a time before Women's Studies and women outside the academy called that CRAP out. Now "chairman" is back in use! Isn't that just
So, in U.S. history, there was The Gay Liberation Front, and then the Gay and Lesbian Task Force came into existence. But due to all the activism in the 1950s (yes, feminists were active then, just not white ones), '60s, and '70s, finally feminism had made enough of a dent in the white dicktatorship to allow some level of lesbian prominence to be evidenced in various ways. One of those was that GL etc. became LG etc. And if we're going to fussily adhere to the anglo/euro-centric way, then that's how it should be--not that that's how it should be, of course. As the bumper sticker says: U.S. out of North America. I'm waiting and am ready to help with the packing. (And yes, I'll go too.)
But in these last eight plus years, damn if that G hasn't been obnoxiously elbowing and shoving its way back into first place. Have you seen the replays of that several year race? I think G actually tripped up L on purpose in 2005 to take the lead! I call FOUL!!! (I might be mixing up my sports metaphors, but then I AM a white middle class gayboy. There are fouls in figure skating, right?)
I don't accept the whole "which comes first in the alphabet" argument because CLEARLY the Bisexuals would win that one every year--well, until we Asexuals get a seat at the table, that is!! (Oops. Just outed myself there! I know, I know: "asexual" is as much a sexual orientation as "aetheist" is a religious designation... For another post.)
So let's take note, shall we? With history, culture, literature, and sociology, G is now solidly in first place. Now--not "then". Check out any of these websites:
http://www.glbthistory.org/: Gay, lesbian, ...
http://www.gayheroes.com/main.htm: Gay as All, mention of lesbian somewhere
http://www.glhsc.org/: Gay and Lesbian History on Stamps
http://jclarkmedia.com/gaybooks/: GAY books = Gay and Lesbian books
A "gay youth" search vs. "lesbian youth" search on Google led us to this:
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,300,000 for gay youth. (0.35 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,400,000 for lesbian youth. (0.14 seconds)
Then we have this rather peculiar matter of "The Gay and Lesbian Task Force". Remember them? On Google there is some confusion about how to order the girls and the boys. So we end up with "the task force" that is "Gay and Lesbian" but is listed on Google as LGBT. (Pssst: I imagine Google doesn't want competition with its letter, G.)
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force | building LGBT political ... Promotes civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. Includes federal and state organizing news, issue backgrounders, and analysis ...
See also, http://www.thetaskforce.org/
It its logo it has "gay and lesbian" in teeny tiny letters now, so maybe we won't notice. Ah, but THERE is this! They have a category of concern called "Anti-Gay Industry". Hmmm. I think of even GREATER concern is "The Anti-Lesbian Industry"!! I know young lesbian women who now prefer not to call themselves lesbian in order to be in communal solidarity with their genderqueer and trans friends! Huh??? (If I support trans and genderqueer existence, how does that make me less of a boy?)
See: http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/anti_gay_industry
There's been one instance in which the G before L has made at least some acronimic sense. GLAAD. It can be pronounced. I'll bend, but in the way gay pornographers would like. But I'm standing at attention again when noting how Amazon.com lists things. You might remember that in the days when whites appropriated EVERYTHING "Amazon" meant "strong white lesbian woman". (Never mind that whites don't live near the Amazon.) Now it's been appropriated to become "the" place to go online to purchase primarily U.S./English books and almost everything else. And there we find this:
Books › ""gay and lesbian""
Showing 1 - 12 of 51,485 Results, sorted by Relevance
1. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove (Paperback - April 19, 1993)
2. is listed this way: Gay & Lesbian Books, with the following categories:
Gay & Lesbian Literature & Fiction Books
Gay Fiction Books
Gay & Lesbian Fiction Books
Gay & Lesbian Mystery & Thrillers Books
Lesbian Fiction Books
Gay & Lesbian Erotica
Nonfiction
Gay & Lesbian Biographies & Memoirs
3. The New Essential Guide to Gay and Lesbian Weddings by Tess Ayers and Paul Brown (Paperback - Sep 1, 2009)
4. Beyond Acceptance: Parents of Lesbians & Gays Talk About Their Experiences by Carolyn W. Griffin and Marian J. Wirth (Paperback - Nov 15, 1997)
5. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives by Anthony D'Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson (Paperback - May 3, 2001)
6. Is It a Choice? Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gay & Lesbian People, Third Edition by Eric Marcus (Paperback - Aug 30, 2005)
7. Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present by Neil Miller (Paperback - Nov 1, 2008)
8. 50 Gay and Lesbian Books Everybody Must Read by Richard Canning (Paperback - Nov 1, 2009)
9. The Gay and Lesbian Guide to College Life (College Admissions Guides) by Princeton Review (Paperback - Sep 11, 2007)
10. Gay and Lesbian Poetry in Our Time (Stonewall Inn Editions) by Carl Morse and Joan Larkin (Paperback - Nov 15, 1989)
11. The Complete Lesbian and Gay Parenting Guide by Arlene Istar Lev (Paperback - Nov 2, 2004)
12. Gay & Lesbian Theologies: Repetitions With Critical Difference by Elizabeth Stuart (Paperback - Aug 2003)
In that case we are left with a solid FOUR OF TWELVE mentioning Lesbian first. But none later than 2004. Surely, however, that must be impacted by my search being for "gay and lesbian" books, right?
So what if we try "lesbian and gay"? The list of twelve on the first page is as follows:
Books › "lesbian and gay"
Showing 1 - 12 of 58,614 Results, sorted by Relevance
1.The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove (Paperback - April 19, 1993)
2. is listed once again listed as Gay & Lesbian Books, with the same categories:
Gay & Lesbian Literature & Fiction Books
Gay Fiction Books
Gay & Lesbian Fiction Books
Gay & Lesbian Mystery & Thrillers Books
Lesbian Fiction Books
Gay & Lesbian Erotica
Nonfiction
Gay & Lesbian Biographies & Memoirs
3.The New Essential Guide to Gay and Lesbian Weddings by Tess Ayers and Paul Brown (Paperback - Sep 1, 2009)
4. Beyond Acceptance: Parents of Lesbians & Gays Talk About Their Experiences by Carolyn W. Griffin and Marian J. Wirth (Paperback - Nov 15, 1997)
5. Making Gay History: The Half Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights by Eric Marcus (Paperback - May 28, 2002)
6. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives by Anthony D'Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson (Paperback - May 3, 2001)
7. Is It a Choice? Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gay & Lesbian People, Third Edition by Eric Marcus (Paperback - Aug 30, 2005)
8.Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present by Neil Miller (Paperback - Nov 1, 2008)
9. 50 Gay and Lesbian Books Everybody Must Read by Richard Canning (Paperback - Nov 1, 2009)
10. The Gay and Lesbian Guide to College Life (College Admissions Guides) by Princeton Review (Paperback - Sep 11, 2007)
11. Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences by Linda Garnets and Douglas Kimmel PhD (Paperback - April 15, 2003)
12.Gay and Lesbian Poetry in Our Time (Stonewall Inn Editions) by Carl Morse and Joan Larkin (Paperback - Nov 15, 1989)
So still only four out of twelve. (Book #5 tries to have it "both ways" putting Gay in the main title to mean "gay and lesbian" but then in the subtitle putting Lesbian before Gay. Sorry, the sexism still wreaks.)
In virtually no books listed above published in 1989 and then again after 2005, did Lesbian precede the word Gay, when referring to lesbian and gay people in the title.
In virtually no books listed above published in 1989 and then again after 2005, did Lesbian precede the word Gay, when referring to lesbian and gay people in the title.
I decided to try this differently, some might say a little bit more "scientifically" because you know how we "educated" whiteboys get all worked up over the scientific method! I went back to Google and typed in "lesbian and gay", in quotes, and this is what we find:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,160,000 for "lesbian and gay". (0.25 seconds)
If I type it this way, "gay and lesbian", this is what we find:
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,710,000 for "gay and lesbian". (0.27 seconds)Your Queer Honor, I rest my case: G has taken liberties to grab first place from L once again.
Though much of this post has been "light" in nature, this, along with many other signs, is a clear indicator that male dominance is back in "Queer" community--not that it left, really, and that Lesbian Existence indeed is at risk, now in our community. And I object, because surely that IS an issue of whether to BE or not to BE.
Though much of this post has been "light" in nature, this, along with many other signs, is a clear indicator that male dominance is back in "Queer" community--not that it left, really, and that Lesbian Existence indeed is at risk, now in our community. And I object, because surely that IS an issue of whether to BE or not to BE.
Meanwhile, back in the delusional, self-absorbed land of British white heterosexual men's spheres of concern...
[image is from here]
Ponder this, pardner...
We have over the last many months here participated in engaged discussion about the crimes against humanity that white heterosexual men perpetrate with impunity, and worse, while being celebrated as heroes and freedom-fighters. Rapists are called liberators of women's sexuality by pornographers--and white men are more concerned about their access to those images of raped women that about organising against pornographers raping and exploiting women in various ways; girls and women are sold as sex slaves, and concerns among white heterosexual men are men's freedom to travel and make purchases of people-as-sexxxthings. Bizarrely, women of color are seen as more powerful than whites and men, by whites and men. And in an exercise of sheer insanity by the "haves", the poor are portrayed relentlessly as ripping off the rich--what with them taking those welfare dollars and all, while birthin' babies. No serious stigma exists against the rich for stealing from the poor, across the globe, for sucking up the Earth's resources, desperately needed by the poor around the world, to, um, survive. How remarkable, eh? Whites are being treated in a "racist" way by Blacks. Men are being "discriminated against" for being men, not women. Huh? Oh, right: it's the ludicrous land of white men's individualistic liberalism that can't ever see a forest for a tree, unless white heterosexual men are the "threatened" forest, that is.
You'd have to be able to pass through life not knowing anything at all about what women of color experience worldwide to come to such bizarrely out of touch conclusions. You'd have to think you, and you alone, Mr. White Man, are the center of everyone else's universe, and that the Earth and all its inhabitants exist "for you" so that when you exploit them all, you don't register that as exploitation, and when you kill them, you're only concern is about whether the few who survive might be pissed off and actually do something about it. Your whiteheteromale sky-god who only bore one child--surprise, it's a boy!!!, and a boy who, over time gets blue eyes and blond hair!, and a boy who is born of a virgin!! That's "maiden", actually, NOT virgin, but never mind issues of mistranslation--your whiteheteromale sky-god doesn't make mistakes. Mary was likely raped, and Joseph took the maiden in as his wife to keep her from being stoned to death for being raped, and then had her conceive more children--of his. And that little not-so-white-boy wasn't born anywhere near 25 Dec 0000 ECD, but those pagan rituals had to be kept in place, so your religion could absorb them and colonise them. Clever is what you've been with that tricky maneuver, you wily bandits, you.
Men who batter women are say "I love you" to them afterwards, whether or not the women are conscious, and colonisers tell the colonised "It's for your own good". "You need our capitalism, our christianity, our control over your lives and resources!" Hmmm. Lord have mercy on those that take without giving. Oh, wait: white men give: they bring not-so-great tidings of lethal disease and environmental disaster.
What's the pattern here in how white heterosexual men think and comprehend reality? (Infamous "rationalists" that they are!) Ah yes: totally delusional, unaware of the world of human suffering beyond their own psyches, and unwilling to venture out and FEEL that suffering. Instead, why not "adventure out" and kill everyone else, take their land, and call it "good"? Rape and genocide are considered good things from white heterosexual men's point of view. If they didn't feel this way, they'd have stopped the practice of each a long time ago.
You'd have to be able to pass through life not knowing anything at all about what women of color experience worldwide to come to such bizarrely out of touch conclusions. You'd have to think you, and you alone, Mr. White Man, are the center of everyone else's universe, and that the Earth and all its inhabitants exist "for you" so that when you exploit them all, you don't register that as exploitation, and when you kill them, you're only concern is about whether the few who survive might be pissed off and actually do something about it. Your whiteheteromale sky-god who only bore one child--surprise, it's a boy!!!, and a boy who, over time gets blue eyes and blond hair!, and a boy who is born of a virgin!! That's "maiden", actually, NOT virgin, but never mind issues of mistranslation--your whiteheteromale sky-god doesn't make mistakes. Mary was likely raped, and Joseph took the maiden in as his wife to keep her from being stoned to death for being raped, and then had her conceive more children--of his. And that little not-so-white-boy wasn't born anywhere near 25 Dec 0000 ECD, but those pagan rituals had to be kept in place, so your religion could absorb them and colonise them. Clever is what you've been with that tricky maneuver, you wily bandits, you.
Men who batter women are say "I love you" to them afterwards, whether or not the women are conscious, and colonisers tell the colonised "It's for your own good". "You need our capitalism, our christianity, our control over your lives and resources!" Hmmm. Lord have mercy on those that take without giving. Oh, wait: white men give: they bring not-so-great tidings of lethal disease and environmental disaster.
What's the pattern here in how white heterosexual men think and comprehend reality? (Infamous "rationalists" that they are!) Ah yes: totally delusional, unaware of the world of human suffering beyond their own psyches, and unwilling to venture out and FEEL that suffering. Instead, why not "adventure out" and kill everyone else, take their land, and call it "good"? Rape and genocide are considered good things from white heterosexual men's point of view. If they didn't feel this way, they'd have stopped the practice of each a long time ago.
At a blog called Banditry by John B, John B thankfully, clearly gets what's wrong with those self-assessments by ordinary white men! There are more comments, but they descend quickly and without surprise into misogynistic, anti-Semitic name-calling. And of course not even John B will call THAT out. Ah, non-Jewish hetero whiteboys... so keen on making sure no one in their gang is too uncomfortable...
15% of people inexplicably weird
Rather depressingly:
However, only 41% of the population are white British males. So, even assuming that all white males are either selfish or idiots, 15% of the remaining population are so brainwashed that they actually believe this nonsense against their own best interests.
Which is pretty much as clear a demonstration as you’re going to get anywhere that The Patriarchy is still thoroughly in charge and thoroughly shaping political and news agendas.
Ah well. On the plus side, whilst it’d be nice to live in a fair and equal society where attempts to address injustice weren’t met with ridiculous whining from the privileged that conned a sizeable proportion of the oppressed, at least the current setup makes my life easier and more comfortable…
(via Liberal Conspiracy, which points out that at least Twitter users are less halfwitted and bigoted than average. Well, duh.)
Fifty-six per cent of the public agree that “the greatest victims of discrimination in Britain these days are often ordinary white men”Now, this is obviously false, and anyone who believes it is either deluded, moronic or both. If you’re a selfish white male, however, it’s at least rational to express the belief in the hope that if the myth becomes accepted, it’ll be easier for you to maintain your privileges.
However, only 41% of the population are white British males. So, even assuming that all white males are either selfish or idiots, 15% of the remaining population are so brainwashed that they actually believe this nonsense against their own best interests.
Which is pretty much as clear a demonstration as you’re going to get anywhere that The Patriarchy is still thoroughly in charge and thoroughly shaping political and news agendas.
Ah well. On the plus side, whilst it’d be nice to live in a fair and equal society where attempts to address injustice weren’t met with ridiculous whining from the privileged that conned a sizeable proportion of the oppressed, at least the current setup makes my life easier and more comfortable…
(via Liberal Conspiracy, which points out that at least Twitter users are less halfwitted and bigoted than average. Well, duh.)
November 18th, 2009 at 15:34 | #1
A couple of logical fallacies:
1. The statement with which 56% agreed included the word “often”. Not “always” or “rarely” or “sometimes”. So if I’m discriminated against ten times a year and given favourable treatment ninety times a year, I’d still count those ten times as “often”.
2. You don’t have to be a member of a group to recognise that it is treated ‘unfairly’. I am obviously not a young woman or a mother, but there is no dispute that they find it slightly harder to get a job and/or have to accept lower pay or less promotion. Ditto non-whites.
November 18th, 2009 at 15:39 | #2
1 – hmm, it wasn’t ‘are often discriminated against’, it was ‘are often the greatest victims of discrimination’. If you were discriminated against 10x per year and given favourable treatment 90x, I don’t think you could sensibly be classed as ‘often the greatest victim’.
2 – no, of course not, that’s why I said ‘assuming’ all white males are selfish or idiots.
November 18th, 2009 at 15:49 | #3
Have you actually looked at the figures for discrimination?
For instance – look at business support. White males over the age of 30 cannot access any of the other support streams available to others – purely because of them being white males over 30.
Now look at the benefits system. Again – there is no additional support for males, who are white and over the age of 30.
This is not really about discrimination though, but the fact that others have additional help. Maybe the way to create a level playing field is to remove all the other services – make it just as difficult to everyone as the white male over 30 is finding it.
Personally – this is the route I would take. Nobody should get any additional help or support purely because of the way they look, behave or feel – especially if they were born like that!
That is real discrimination.
November 18th, 2009 at 16:02 | #4
“White males over the age of 30 cannot access any of the other support streams available to others”
I just checked here, and white males over the age of 30 have access to a wide range of state funding options for business, as well as finding it easier to get funding from commercial sources than under-30s, women and ethnic minorities.
“Now look at the benefits system. Again – there is no additional support for males, who are white and over the age of 30.”
More to the opint, there isn’t any additional support for femals, non-whites or under-30s. There is additional support for single parents of both sexes and all ethnicities, for disabled people of both sexes and all ethnicities, and for children of all sexes and all ethnicities.
(well, would be all ethnicities except that most new immigrants come over on a non-recourse basis, and so aren’t eligible for benefits at all until they’ve gained permanent resident status…)
November 18th, 2009 at 16:10 | #5
F0ul, have you stopped to consider *why* the other groups have such support…? Is it, possibly, because white males have a built-in advantage by dint of simply being white and male? Those other services are attempting to level the playing field – by removing them you simply entrench the status quo, which is that white men have the advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)