It's getting a little tiring to hear of people who are homophobic bigots, and it's also tiring to hear of people who think these bigots don’t exist.
With the turn of the tide in California, where gay folks can now be legally married, a slew of pundits have risen to the surface. Much of it is so gross that I just stare at the videos and try not to cry. How much work we have, but what message do we have to convey in order to shake the naysayers?
The talk show Ellen had John McCain on the other day and the message was humanity. She asked him to see that we are all just people at the core, and similar to the marginalization of black people and women in this country, there has to be a time where we recognize this humanity – even if the proposal for change appears on paper; meaning while the Civil Rights era proved successful legislatively, reality does not always reflect the ant-discrimination laws that were drafted and enacted. McCain’s answer is just so mind-blowingly sad because he totally dehumanizes queer folks, while attesting to such an unfair ideology:
“I think that people should be able to enter in to legal agreements, and I think that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case with insurance, and other areas. Um, decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman.”
In another California-related incident, in which Hollywood star Lindsey Lohan has been spotted holding hands with her gay DJ friend, the New York Post decided that it be OK to include homophobic antics in the article’s title: “Lindsey to Sam: Les Be Friends.”
Seriously? A reputable paper is really going to perpetuate such grossness? Clearly, as noted in the web site’s reader comments, lesbian women are still seen as a product of a male desire. Post after post asks Lohan, “Damn Lindsey, that sexy bod and you get a dyke like that? Come on! Give us some better candy to look at!”
Women making out? Must be for men. People getting married? Must be soley in support of the patriarchal economic design of our country. Not love. Not natural attraction. Nope. Only for attention and for the reasons such as insurance and sexiness.
Come on.
These are just two examples of hundreds, if not thousands of homophobic misogynistic stories that infiltrate our media. On the one hand I think that it is important to show because society at large gets the chance to disentangle the difference between real life and societal expectations. However, at the end of the day the sting felt by comments made by these folks seriously effect and, sometimes damage, those who are absorbing these messages. Queer folks across the world may continue to wonder what is wrong with them for wanting to take an oath of love with their same-sex partner, or if (for example) they are a pretty enough lesbian.
Allies and queer communities need to continue to rise up and fight this madness, remind the mainstream media that it is not ok. Do it. Right now.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Queer Assimilation
Sex and the City Star Cynthia Nixon, who plays Miranda on the show, was recently interviewed in the New York Times. Not only was the title of the interview unnerving ("Chick Crit"), the questions surrounding Nixon's relationship with a woman were equally offensive; I mean how many f'd up perpetuations about same-sex couples having to assimulate to heteronormative standards can they fit in to one article?
A few years ago, you moved in with a woman, after leaving the father of your children. Do you find it easier living with a woman than a man because you have more in common?I think you do have more in common.
You can use the same bathroom in movie theaters, for instance.That’s absolutely true!
Can you share clothes?No. Christine doesn’t wear women’s clothes; she only wears men’s clothes. She won’t even wear any kind of women’s shoes. I bought her a pair of cowboy boots that were from the women’s department, and she was like, “Don’t do this again.”
Does she watch sports on TV?She does. We don’t have a TV. But when there was a World Cup, we went to the local Ruby Foo’s and watched it. And we actually did watch the Super Bowl as well. She tried to explain it to me.
Do you think of her as the male figure in the relationship?No, I don’t at all. Look at what’s happening now. She’s at home with the kids, and I’m the one out pounding the pavement. . . . She’s for Hillary, and I’m for Obama.
Outraged I composed a letter (in the confines of their 150-word limit) to the editor at the New York Times:
To Whom It May Concern:
It was with awe that I read Deborah Solomon’s “Chick Crit,” as it not only began with such a gross label (women are not baby birds), but it encouraged stereotypes of same-sex relationships.
The author asks a series of questions that diminish the reality of queer couplehood; I mean really, does the writer believe that two women occupy one another’s space and hearts only because they can share a bathroom or shoes? And upon mentioning Ms. Nixon’s partner’s affinity for less-demure clothing, Solomon makes further assumptions about watching sports and being the male in the relationship. This is not only unfair journalism, it is also a glimpse into the world of homophobia, one in which includes the consistent need to force people to assimilate to the heteronormative standards of society.
Contrary to such belief, straight and queer individuals fall on the continuum of identities. The NYT should be challenging the gender binary, not perpetuating it.
A few years ago, you moved in with a woman, after leaving the father of your children. Do you find it easier living with a woman than a man because you have more in common?I think you do have more in common.
You can use the same bathroom in movie theaters, for instance.That’s absolutely true!
Can you share clothes?No. Christine doesn’t wear women’s clothes; she only wears men’s clothes. She won’t even wear any kind of women’s shoes. I bought her a pair of cowboy boots that were from the women’s department, and she was like, “Don’t do this again.”
Does she watch sports on TV?She does. We don’t have a TV. But when there was a World Cup, we went to the local Ruby Foo’s and watched it. And we actually did watch the Super Bowl as well. She tried to explain it to me.
Do you think of her as the male figure in the relationship?No, I don’t at all. Look at what’s happening now. She’s at home with the kids, and I’m the one out pounding the pavement. . . . She’s for Hillary, and I’m for Obama.
Outraged I composed a letter (in the confines of their 150-word limit) to the editor at the New York Times:
To Whom It May Concern:
It was with awe that I read Deborah Solomon’s “Chick Crit,” as it not only began with such a gross label (women are not baby birds), but it encouraged stereotypes of same-sex relationships.
The author asks a series of questions that diminish the reality of queer couplehood; I mean really, does the writer believe that two women occupy one another’s space and hearts only because they can share a bathroom or shoes? And upon mentioning Ms. Nixon’s partner’s affinity for less-demure clothing, Solomon makes further assumptions about watching sports and being the male in the relationship. This is not only unfair journalism, it is also a glimpse into the world of homophobia, one in which includes the consistent need to force people to assimilate to the heteronormative standards of society.
Contrary to such belief, straight and queer individuals fall on the continuum of identities. The NYT should be challenging the gender binary, not perpetuating it.
Cartoons are more than just entertainment
Perhaps kids watch to much television these days, but one has to question whether or not it is truly a mind-numbing activity; and decide how many stereotypes are perpetuated daily.
A recent study found that while many girls watching cartoons, the lead characters in the shows are males, 2 to 1, which effects both girls and boy viewers because the characters punch up the expected norms that society would like to continue.
The female characters, when presented, were found to be oversexualized, and fall in to three categories:
1. Daydreamers: Have no goals, and want to be romantically swept away.
2. Derailed: Have goals but get romantically swept away and never return to goals.
3. Daredevils: Have goals and ambitions, not willing to let romance derail them.
What’s especially interesting is that while many characters have been designed through a socially conscious lens – the article’s writer points out Fiona from “Shrek” – research shows that animators still cannot throw a female character in to a slapstick skit (think Wile Coyote) because females getting run over would simply not be funny to much of the viewers. Nor would most viewers believe it if a "regular looking" girl were a hero (currently this only happens if the female character is masculine or if she is portrayed as a nerd). This is not to say that I suggest females start getting injured, but by leveling the playing field we have the opportunity to see girls and boys as realistic, as opposed to this fantasy of perfection.
Why is it ok for men to be the only one to be able to take on the role of hero, while they must also take on the role of stupidity? This alone may have serious affects on the way that boys grow up, and it also affects the ways in which girls view themselves (can they be a hero if they are not boys) and how they view the opposite sex.
Because there is double the number of male characters flashing across the screen, girls subconsciously take note of these ideas, while boys may not even compare themselves with the female characters unless she is a “tomboy.”
The article points to the historically all-male creators behind these shows when explaining where the disparity began. As more women made headway in the field, more well-rounded female characters began showing up. Still, the numbers are lacking:
Her report shows that, as of 2004, only 18% of WGA-employed film writers and only 27% of TV writers were women. In 2006, female membership in the Animation Guild was only 17.3%, and of these only 8% were producers, 14.9% directors and 10.8% writers. "Maybe the answer is that for change to occur even more women are needed in the creative process where key decision-making occurs at the pitch and story development level," writes Smith.
Or, as she writes in the introduction: "Clearly, along the entire creative and marketing process, participants can develop, design and engage in practical solutions to the problem of gender under-representation aimed at children. As balance and portrayals improve, children now, and the next generation of children, will be the winners. They will be exposed to entertainment in which females take up half the space and both females and males are active, diverse and complex."
And while they have a good point, it should only be up to females to break in to the world of animation, the men who are already there have the opportunity to jump in to the movement as well. Everyone suffers if collaboration is not met.
A recent study found that while many girls watching cartoons, the lead characters in the shows are males, 2 to 1, which effects both girls and boy viewers because the characters punch up the expected norms that society would like to continue.
The female characters, when presented, were found to be oversexualized, and fall in to three categories:
1. Daydreamers: Have no goals, and want to be romantically swept away.
2. Derailed: Have goals but get romantically swept away and never return to goals.
3. Daredevils: Have goals and ambitions, not willing to let romance derail them.
What’s especially interesting is that while many characters have been designed through a socially conscious lens – the article’s writer points out Fiona from “Shrek” – research shows that animators still cannot throw a female character in to a slapstick skit (think Wile Coyote) because females getting run over would simply not be funny to much of the viewers. Nor would most viewers believe it if a "regular looking" girl were a hero (currently this only happens if the female character is masculine or if she is portrayed as a nerd). This is not to say that I suggest females start getting injured, but by leveling the playing field we have the opportunity to see girls and boys as realistic, as opposed to this fantasy of perfection.
Why is it ok for men to be the only one to be able to take on the role of hero, while they must also take on the role of stupidity? This alone may have serious affects on the way that boys grow up, and it also affects the ways in which girls view themselves (can they be a hero if they are not boys) and how they view the opposite sex.
Because there is double the number of male characters flashing across the screen, girls subconsciously take note of these ideas, while boys may not even compare themselves with the female characters unless she is a “tomboy.”
The article points to the historically all-male creators behind these shows when explaining where the disparity began. As more women made headway in the field, more well-rounded female characters began showing up. Still, the numbers are lacking:
Her report shows that, as of 2004, only 18% of WGA-employed film writers and only 27% of TV writers were women. In 2006, female membership in the Animation Guild was only 17.3%, and of these only 8% were producers, 14.9% directors and 10.8% writers. "Maybe the answer is that for change to occur even more women are needed in the creative process where key decision-making occurs at the pitch and story development level," writes Smith.
Or, as she writes in the introduction: "Clearly, along the entire creative and marketing process, participants can develop, design and engage in practical solutions to the problem of gender under-representation aimed at children. As balance and portrayals improve, children now, and the next generation of children, will be the winners. They will be exposed to entertainment in which females take up half the space and both females and males are active, diverse and complex."
And while they have a good point, it should only be up to females to break in to the world of animation, the men who are already there have the opportunity to jump in to the movement as well. Everyone suffers if collaboration is not met.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The View has a narrow view
The View is not a show regularly tuned in to my radar, but it was on today at work and I caught a moment about the latest media craze: a trans man who is pregnant. With the exception of View co-host Whoopie Goldberg, the panel made the hairs on my arms stand up.
One View member, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, said [paraphrase warning...] that "if the parents are confused, then the child will be confused." Another one chimed in, "Yeah, first you want to be a man, and then you want to be a woman. You have to choose one side of the fence or the other."
No. Actually. You don't. That is why this story is both amazing -- because we are able to realize that not everyone fits neatly into society’s construction of the gender binary -- and it is also detrimental because we see that folks are still able to actively perpetuate isms through powerful tools such as the media.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the audience ripped and roared in appreciation of the above-mentioned comments, while only giving a mere golf-clap when Whoopie expressed her excitement for coverage that is "tackling unchartered waters."
And of course I sat in the subacute nursing rehab cafeteria awe-faced and disgusted.
Here the View makes other gross remarks, only this time in regards to trans kids:
One View member, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, said [paraphrase warning...] that "if the parents are confused, then the child will be confused." Another one chimed in, "Yeah, first you want to be a man, and then you want to be a woman. You have to choose one side of the fence or the other."
No. Actually. You don't. That is why this story is both amazing -- because we are able to realize that not everyone fits neatly into society’s construction of the gender binary -- and it is also detrimental because we see that folks are still able to actively perpetuate isms through powerful tools such as the media.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the audience ripped and roared in appreciation of the above-mentioned comments, while only giving a mere golf-clap when Whoopie expressed her excitement for coverage that is "tackling unchartered waters."
And of course I sat in the subacute nursing rehab cafeteria awe-faced and disgusted.
Here the View makes other gross remarks, only this time in regards to trans kids:
Religious roles in identification
Labels and their perpetuations are a constant theme that should continue to be looked at through the lens of equality, social justice and advocacy. The perceived definition of a person or their identification appears to get in the way of resource allocation and coping mechanisms.
Some of those labels are perpetuated in religion institutions. As discussed in previous writings, the idea of dual stigma is one that needs specific attention because not only are queer people facing marginalization from the hetero world, a queer religious person is further seen as somewhat atypical and therefore are often silenced and further ostracized. Those who are already marginalized in society, such as the black community, may be less inclined to accept those who are queer because many may feel they have to fight off the white majority by presenting a positive and normative front (which is defined and perpetuated by heterosexual white men). And if the powers-that-be perpetuate a world where heterosexuality is the norm (for what ever reason: economic, religious, etc), making the act of silencing and ostracization a normative action against LGBT individuals, means that the hetero status quo is not disrupted. Melendez and LaSala state the silencing as a “purposeful attempt to reduce contact based on the knowledge that when people have personal contact with those from other races, ethnicities, or sexual orientations, their prejudices diminish and their tolerance increases,” as Melendez and LaSala state.
That being said, one of the few places one can feel like themselves may be inside of a building of worship – a place where they feel accepted as humans and not subjected to the isms that individuals face in daily life. That sentiment unfortunately is not true for those identifying as LGBT.
Robert Miller’s article, “Legacy Denied: African American Gay Men, AIDS, and the Black Church,” points out the hole left not only because one is shunned, but also because they now do not have a place to form spiritual relationships. As a person who is not religious, and not theologically educated, the idea of ostracizing a person is strange to me because the underlying message of religion seems to often circle around the idea of being good, fair and just humans who strive to live together in one world. Miller’s article states that many believers and participants of religious sects interpret certain scripture passages as messages that back up homophobia.
What is upsetting is that research shows that “religious participantion offers additional benefits for most members [such as] positive health benefits, emotional and psychological support during crisis moments, and increased life satisfaction,” yet people can not participate because being gay casts them aside. More, Millar points out that religious centers are often like family, and just imaging losing those closest to an individual based on their sexual orientation is hard to swallow. That being said, clergy can not take coping mechanisms and resiliency away from people.
For example, some folks may not attend the physical church, but still find ways to incorporate god in to their lives by using a different lens to interpret the biblical words (there are, apparently, no specific lines in the bible saying that being gay is wrong, but it has been interpreted as such in many churches). Miller writes, “over time an increasing number left their churches; they felt capable of leaving because they believed the homophobic sermons inaccurately described how god felt about them.” The torah’s words are more explicit in that they clearly denounce gay men: Naomi Grossman’s article, “The Gay Orthodox Underground” points to Jewish texts that state, “if a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death – their bloodguilt is upon them.”
Still, people are moving away from the ostricization by joining support networks and altering from a sin, to seeing gayness as a “test from god,” as stated in Grossman’s article: “Just as there are people born with disabilities and disadvantages, and these are all ordained by god to deal with and overcome, homosexuality is no different.”
The ability of people to willingly alter their faith’s foundation to incorporate other viewpoints is extremely positive, and focuses on an area of queer life that is often undercut by the multitude of negative issues: LGBT individuals can use the strength perspective to maneuver through life. Moreover, social workers, or others who are in helping professions, can use these strengths to affirm LGBT communities.
However, one can only really highlight strengths if they have a historical understanding of the ways ideals such as religion has created and perpetuated certain biases and prejudices in social and legal arenas. Another way social workers, and the like, can positively guide marginalized individuals is by eliciting the strengths of collateral contacts, such as the parents of the gay men highlighted in Michelle Lee and Robert Lee’s research article, “The Voices of Accepting and Supportive Parents of gay Sons: Towards an Ecosystems strengths Model.”
A sense of community and family, however defined, seems to be an integral part self appreciation and sound mental and physical health among LGBT individuals. In the Lee and Lee article, parents of men who came out seem to have recognized the importance of this, and have accepted their children. For both the gay men and the parents, being resilient in the face of a hetero society (that typically marginalizes queer people) serves as a model for future individuals who will come out at some point. It may also serve as a model of family structure normalcy, which breaks down the stereotype that queer people can not have positive and healthy family relationships. One parent in the Lee and Lee article pointed out the ways society have marginalized their children, and how it hurts to know that a family member could ever be in pain because of ostracization: “Quite honestly, this isn’t something you would wish for one your children. I think it was a very lonely place for him to be and for him to worry about having to hide such a basic part of himself. It makes me sad to think about all of those years that he went through that.” And while some of the parents interviewed had difficulty coming to terms with having a queer child, not letting their own struggles get in the way of the struggle their child was going through.
In fact, most of the parents went beyond just making their own child comfortable; according to the article, they also wrote letters to the editors, signed petitions against inclusive legislation, and the like, to ensure that other parent’s children did not suffer. Cathy Resmer writes about another parent who helped her child come out in her newspaper article “From Daughter to Son.” Again, we see a mother who as a “fiercely protective and supportive” advocate for trans people lobbied for hormones, surgeries, inclusion in the local school, in addition to accompanying him to support groups, and defending him in “a world where his unconventional identity puts him at the mercy of other’s prejudice.”
The realization that some parents were so supportive that they step way beyond a head nod of approval makes me somewhat jealous, as I do not believe that my mother went straight to the PFLAG web site and made a donation. My queer friends’ parents mirrored my own; they are accepting but not necessarily proactive. Still, as Lee and Lee point out, having any acceptance has enabled my relationship with my mom to be strong because I know that not only am I faced with a struggle in a heteronomative world, she must also struggle each time a person asks her when her middle child is going to get married to a special man and have children. Knowing that she has to pause and decide how to answer makes me cognizant of her role in the LGBT community.
Again, as noted in the beginning of this post, if people stop at labels, then they may be less inclined to break away from the misconceptions that come along with lumping all people under any identifying umbrella; this goes for LGBT individuals, as well as society at large.
Some of those labels are perpetuated in religion institutions. As discussed in previous writings, the idea of dual stigma is one that needs specific attention because not only are queer people facing marginalization from the hetero world, a queer religious person is further seen as somewhat atypical and therefore are often silenced and further ostracized. Those who are already marginalized in society, such as the black community, may be less inclined to accept those who are queer because many may feel they have to fight off the white majority by presenting a positive and normative front (which is defined and perpetuated by heterosexual white men). And if the powers-that-be perpetuate a world where heterosexuality is the norm (for what ever reason: economic, religious, etc), making the act of silencing and ostracization a normative action against LGBT individuals, means that the hetero status quo is not disrupted. Melendez and LaSala state the silencing as a “purposeful attempt to reduce contact based on the knowledge that when people have personal contact with those from other races, ethnicities, or sexual orientations, their prejudices diminish and their tolerance increases,” as Melendez and LaSala state.
That being said, one of the few places one can feel like themselves may be inside of a building of worship – a place where they feel accepted as humans and not subjected to the isms that individuals face in daily life. That sentiment unfortunately is not true for those identifying as LGBT.
Robert Miller’s article, “Legacy Denied: African American Gay Men, AIDS, and the Black Church,” points out the hole left not only because one is shunned, but also because they now do not have a place to form spiritual relationships. As a person who is not religious, and not theologically educated, the idea of ostracizing a person is strange to me because the underlying message of religion seems to often circle around the idea of being good, fair and just humans who strive to live together in one world. Miller’s article states that many believers and participants of religious sects interpret certain scripture passages as messages that back up homophobia.
What is upsetting is that research shows that “religious participantion offers additional benefits for most members [such as] positive health benefits, emotional and psychological support during crisis moments, and increased life satisfaction,” yet people can not participate because being gay casts them aside. More, Millar points out that religious centers are often like family, and just imaging losing those closest to an individual based on their sexual orientation is hard to swallow. That being said, clergy can not take coping mechanisms and resiliency away from people.
For example, some folks may not attend the physical church, but still find ways to incorporate god in to their lives by using a different lens to interpret the biblical words (there are, apparently, no specific lines in the bible saying that being gay is wrong, but it has been interpreted as such in many churches). Miller writes, “over time an increasing number left their churches; they felt capable of leaving because they believed the homophobic sermons inaccurately described how god felt about them.” The torah’s words are more explicit in that they clearly denounce gay men: Naomi Grossman’s article, “The Gay Orthodox Underground” points to Jewish texts that state, “if a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death – their bloodguilt is upon them.”
Still, people are moving away from the ostricization by joining support networks and altering from a sin, to seeing gayness as a “test from god,” as stated in Grossman’s article: “Just as there are people born with disabilities and disadvantages, and these are all ordained by god to deal with and overcome, homosexuality is no different.”
The ability of people to willingly alter their faith’s foundation to incorporate other viewpoints is extremely positive, and focuses on an area of queer life that is often undercut by the multitude of negative issues: LGBT individuals can use the strength perspective to maneuver through life. Moreover, social workers, or others who are in helping professions, can use these strengths to affirm LGBT communities.
However, one can only really highlight strengths if they have a historical understanding of the ways ideals such as religion has created and perpetuated certain biases and prejudices in social and legal arenas. Another way social workers, and the like, can positively guide marginalized individuals is by eliciting the strengths of collateral contacts, such as the parents of the gay men highlighted in Michelle Lee and Robert Lee’s research article, “The Voices of Accepting and Supportive Parents of gay Sons: Towards an Ecosystems strengths Model.”
A sense of community and family, however defined, seems to be an integral part self appreciation and sound mental and physical health among LGBT individuals. In the Lee and Lee article, parents of men who came out seem to have recognized the importance of this, and have accepted their children. For both the gay men and the parents, being resilient in the face of a hetero society (that typically marginalizes queer people) serves as a model for future individuals who will come out at some point. It may also serve as a model of family structure normalcy, which breaks down the stereotype that queer people can not have positive and healthy family relationships. One parent in the Lee and Lee article pointed out the ways society have marginalized their children, and how it hurts to know that a family member could ever be in pain because of ostracization: “Quite honestly, this isn’t something you would wish for one your children. I think it was a very lonely place for him to be and for him to worry about having to hide such a basic part of himself. It makes me sad to think about all of those years that he went through that.” And while some of the parents interviewed had difficulty coming to terms with having a queer child, not letting their own struggles get in the way of the struggle their child was going through.
In fact, most of the parents went beyond just making their own child comfortable; according to the article, they also wrote letters to the editors, signed petitions against inclusive legislation, and the like, to ensure that other parent’s children did not suffer. Cathy Resmer writes about another parent who helped her child come out in her newspaper article “From Daughter to Son.” Again, we see a mother who as a “fiercely protective and supportive” advocate for trans people lobbied for hormones, surgeries, inclusion in the local school, in addition to accompanying him to support groups, and defending him in “a world where his unconventional identity puts him at the mercy of other’s prejudice.”
The realization that some parents were so supportive that they step way beyond a head nod of approval makes me somewhat jealous, as I do not believe that my mother went straight to the PFLAG web site and made a donation. My queer friends’ parents mirrored my own; they are accepting but not necessarily proactive. Still, as Lee and Lee point out, having any acceptance has enabled my relationship with my mom to be strong because I know that not only am I faced with a struggle in a heteronomative world, she must also struggle each time a person asks her when her middle child is going to get married to a special man and have children. Knowing that she has to pause and decide how to answer makes me cognizant of her role in the LGBT community.
Again, as noted in the beginning of this post, if people stop at labels, then they may be less inclined to break away from the misconceptions that come along with lumping all people under any identifying umbrella; this goes for LGBT individuals, as well as society at large.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
On sexual progression
On Sunday I had the pleasure of attending a performance of Spring Awakening, a musical adaptation from a book written in the early 1900s. The plot stems from a place and time when sexual prowlness was taboo, disgusted and made out to be an unnatural desire. Young people going through puberty sang and danced to the beat of their lustful hearts, while the adults scolded them for being, um, human.
Flash forward nearly 100 years, and we find that not only is sexuality still seen as perverse, it is also a constant contradiction. On the one hand we see media creating an ideal of youthful sexual attraction, while on the other hand, those who take part in the perpetuation are demonized and ostracized. We are in a fog of enticement, yet cannot actually take part in the naturalness of engaging in sex.
A perfect example is that of New York Senator Eliot Spitzer who recently resigned over his engagement in sexual activities. Have we not progressed at all since the early 1900s? Apparently not, as pundit after pundit rips to shreds anyone who delineates from the country’s Puritanical and Christian value-laden foundation.
This video blog sums it up best:
Flash forward nearly 100 years, and we find that not only is sexuality still seen as perverse, it is also a constant contradiction. On the one hand we see media creating an ideal of youthful sexual attraction, while on the other hand, those who take part in the perpetuation are demonized and ostracized. We are in a fog of enticement, yet cannot actually take part in the naturalness of engaging in sex.
A perfect example is that of New York Senator Eliot Spitzer who recently resigned over his engagement in sexual activities. Have we not progressed at all since the early 1900s? Apparently not, as pundit after pundit rips to shreds anyone who delineates from the country’s Puritanical and Christian value-laden foundation.
This video blog sums it up best:
Monday, March 10, 2008
Gender and violence
My Working With LGBT class put LGBT folks in to the social work perspective: the idea that an individual resides within their social, political and familial environments. Looking at the specifics of “Violence in gay and lesbian relationships,” the title of Christopher Alexander’s article, 25 to 50 percent of same-sex relationships have incidence of domestic violence, yet society is not adequately dealing with it because it is not adopting this person-in-environment approach where gender roles place a hierarchy in the relationship. In particular, I found it useful when looking at lesbian domestic violence victims, a population whose very sex puts them into an imaginary box because women are not seen as aggressors.
Emily Simpson and Christine Helfrich’s article, “Lesbian Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Provider Perspectives on Barriers to Accessing Services,” breaks down the barriers into three areas: systematic (which are often cultural), institutionalized (which include policy and vocabulary), and individual (which include clients, therapists, and every one in between). I think it is really important to break down huge issues, in this case homophobic responses, into pragmatic solution because it seems to be too much for most people to simply say, “let’s change.” Society needs a road map in which to follow, and pointing out these barriers seems to do that. At the helm of the research seems to be the way that gender roles affect societal, institutional and individual arenas. If at any level a woman is seen as demure, and not capable of being in power, their struggles will go unnoticed, or perhaps even worse, noticed but not taken seriously.
As a feminist who is dedicated to the eradication of the gender binary, I found Simpson & Helfrich’s interpretation of the movement to be interesting. They seem to blame the feminist movement as it has placed much of the abuse on the patriarch because feminist theory says it is the male-dominated society that perpetuates violence on women. Therefore, many feminists don’t touch on lesbian partnered abuse because it is two women, as opposed to a man maintaining his position of power through abuse against his woman. I think this theory can still be applied, as women most certainly find a way to be powerful by adopting these traditionally masculine gender roles – be it emulation or innate. Meaning, a biological man or woman has the ability to take out their aggression, and to be leaders by way of violence; actions that are often placed under the male (masculine) role; and therefore treatment and interventions for same-sex domestic violent abusers and victims can still be addressed through a feminist framework because it all boils down to gender role expectation.
I always felt that a large factor among men who beat up on the women in their lives includes that of gender role discomfort and anger because they don’t want to always have to be expected to make decisions, have economic power, or other responsibilities that come with being a male in our culture. Sure, they get to hold the ruling title in the patriarch, but not all men want this constant obligation to be aggressive. The same may go for a woman who may resist the societal expectation of submissiveness by taking out her aggression on her partner, and thereby adopting a traditionally male role of abuser. How we determine where a woman abuser is getting these roles, and then interpreting them, can be found by assessing their environment. And what researchers appear to see most often is that the gender binary causes victims to not get the appropriate treatment and intervention because gender identification is an oppression in our society.
Steven Onken defines oppression in his article, “Violence and Social Injustice Against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People,” as “the act of molding, immobilizing, or reducing opportunities which thereby restrains, restricts or prevents social, psychological, and/or economic movement of an individual or group.” This oppression, Onken points out, is maintained by the powers-that-be, and in the case of DV agencies, those folks include all levels of aid who do not recognize the way gender role expectation effects victims and abusers (such as placing women abusers with other women, reducing the reality of the abuse because females are non-violent; not having appropriate resources addressing gay DV specifically, etc).
Why do these expectations exist?
There may be a plethora of reasons, but I often resort back to the capitalist foundation of our country that basically says that stability equals money, and therefore a man should be stabilized as masculine, and women should be stabilized as feminine. “Gender is one of the most effective means of social control; from birth we are encultured into a dual gender system, reinforced by all the major institutions,” as Onken states.
Of course, in our culture, heterosexism creates the gender roles, which thereby perpetuates the invisibility of LGBT victims because it defines relationships norms, in which a man is basically “allowed” to have (physical) power over the women in their lives. Emily Pitt and Diane Dolan-Soto’s article, “Clinical Considerations in Working with Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence,” highlights the way society uses “heterosexual roles to normalize abuse and shame partners for same sex and same sex desires.” More importantly, perhaps, gender roles are not always easy to distinguish in couple relationships such as, say between two traditionally feminine-looking lesbians, and as Pitt and Dolan-Soto state, if a person “identifies as a victim or abuser, it is important to recognize that her representation may not be necessarily accurate; [they] do not follow the same gender role behavior as heterosexual relationships.”
Instead, folks in the three barrier areas: societal, institutional and individual, do something that needs to stop: they make assumptions.
We rely so often on labels in order to quickly box people in, make a diagnosis, and then move on to the next person in line. A person’s biological sex or gender identification, then, are just one more way society capitalizes on being efficient and getting the job done. And it appears that labels go beyond just name-calling. In Joan Mclennen, et. al’s article, “Gay men’s domestic violence: Dynamics, help-seeking behaviors and correlates,” the idea of role-theory comes up, and explains the way people in a relationship take on their perceived role, based on society’s expectation, and can use it against one another to facilitate a domineering and violent partnership: “In this self-conceptualization, each gay partner’s status derives from his role in the partnership; [and] role conception influences both identity and behavior: enter[s] the structure of the self. When one partner is perceived by the other partner to have more status in the relationship, a power imbalance ensues.”
So, then, one can assume that if the media, et. al, create and perpetuate gender roles, there will continue to be partners who adopt one aggressive, and one submissive role, which causes a multitude of problems from drug abuse and domestic violence, to depression and suicide. Again, real issues that stem from a binary that is inconsistent with the real lives of humans. We are diverse, and limiting potential can lead to dire outcomes
Emily Simpson and Christine Helfrich’s article, “Lesbian Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Provider Perspectives on Barriers to Accessing Services,” breaks down the barriers into three areas: systematic (which are often cultural), institutionalized (which include policy and vocabulary), and individual (which include clients, therapists, and every one in between). I think it is really important to break down huge issues, in this case homophobic responses, into pragmatic solution because it seems to be too much for most people to simply say, “let’s change.” Society needs a road map in which to follow, and pointing out these barriers seems to do that. At the helm of the research seems to be the way that gender roles affect societal, institutional and individual arenas. If at any level a woman is seen as demure, and not capable of being in power, their struggles will go unnoticed, or perhaps even worse, noticed but not taken seriously.
As a feminist who is dedicated to the eradication of the gender binary, I found Simpson & Helfrich’s interpretation of the movement to be interesting. They seem to blame the feminist movement as it has placed much of the abuse on the patriarch because feminist theory says it is the male-dominated society that perpetuates violence on women. Therefore, many feminists don’t touch on lesbian partnered abuse because it is two women, as opposed to a man maintaining his position of power through abuse against his woman. I think this theory can still be applied, as women most certainly find a way to be powerful by adopting these traditionally masculine gender roles – be it emulation or innate. Meaning, a biological man or woman has the ability to take out their aggression, and to be leaders by way of violence; actions that are often placed under the male (masculine) role; and therefore treatment and interventions for same-sex domestic violent abusers and victims can still be addressed through a feminist framework because it all boils down to gender role expectation.
I always felt that a large factor among men who beat up on the women in their lives includes that of gender role discomfort and anger because they don’t want to always have to be expected to make decisions, have economic power, or other responsibilities that come with being a male in our culture. Sure, they get to hold the ruling title in the patriarch, but not all men want this constant obligation to be aggressive. The same may go for a woman who may resist the societal expectation of submissiveness by taking out her aggression on her partner, and thereby adopting a traditionally male role of abuser. How we determine where a woman abuser is getting these roles, and then interpreting them, can be found by assessing their environment. And what researchers appear to see most often is that the gender binary causes victims to not get the appropriate treatment and intervention because gender identification is an oppression in our society.
Steven Onken defines oppression in his article, “Violence and Social Injustice Against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People,” as “the act of molding, immobilizing, or reducing opportunities which thereby restrains, restricts or prevents social, psychological, and/or economic movement of an individual or group.” This oppression, Onken points out, is maintained by the powers-that-be, and in the case of DV agencies, those folks include all levels of aid who do not recognize the way gender role expectation effects victims and abusers (such as placing women abusers with other women, reducing the reality of the abuse because females are non-violent; not having appropriate resources addressing gay DV specifically, etc).
Why do these expectations exist?
There may be a plethora of reasons, but I often resort back to the capitalist foundation of our country that basically says that stability equals money, and therefore a man should be stabilized as masculine, and women should be stabilized as feminine. “Gender is one of the most effective means of social control; from birth we are encultured into a dual gender system, reinforced by all the major institutions,” as Onken states.
Of course, in our culture, heterosexism creates the gender roles, which thereby perpetuates the invisibility of LGBT victims because it defines relationships norms, in which a man is basically “allowed” to have (physical) power over the women in their lives. Emily Pitt and Diane Dolan-Soto’s article, “Clinical Considerations in Working with Victims of Same-Sex Domestic Violence,” highlights the way society uses “heterosexual roles to normalize abuse and shame partners for same sex and same sex desires.” More importantly, perhaps, gender roles are not always easy to distinguish in couple relationships such as, say between two traditionally feminine-looking lesbians, and as Pitt and Dolan-Soto state, if a person “identifies as a victim or abuser, it is important to recognize that her representation may not be necessarily accurate; [they] do not follow the same gender role behavior as heterosexual relationships.”
Instead, folks in the three barrier areas: societal, institutional and individual, do something that needs to stop: they make assumptions.
We rely so often on labels in order to quickly box people in, make a diagnosis, and then move on to the next person in line. A person’s biological sex or gender identification, then, are just one more way society capitalizes on being efficient and getting the job done. And it appears that labels go beyond just name-calling. In Joan Mclennen, et. al’s article, “Gay men’s domestic violence: Dynamics, help-seeking behaviors and correlates,” the idea of role-theory comes up, and explains the way people in a relationship take on their perceived role, based on society’s expectation, and can use it against one another to facilitate a domineering and violent partnership: “In this self-conceptualization, each gay partner’s status derives from his role in the partnership; [and] role conception influences both identity and behavior: enter[s] the structure of the self. When one partner is perceived by the other partner to have more status in the relationship, a power imbalance ensues.”
So, then, one can assume that if the media, et. al, create and perpetuate gender roles, there will continue to be partners who adopt one aggressive, and one submissive role, which causes a multitude of problems from drug abuse and domestic violence, to depression and suicide. Again, real issues that stem from a binary that is inconsistent with the real lives of humans. We are diverse, and limiting potential can lead to dire outcomes
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Political Safety Netting
The Occasional Rufus, a blog I read often, recently posted a piece about Larry King -- the young boy who was shot and killed in California because of his gender identification and sexual orientation -- in which he stated that politicians should not make statements on how they feel about hate crimes:
Do we really need candidates for any office to say this is wrong? Other than a select few nut-jobs out there, does anyong think this was OK? And would those nut-jobs give a damn if Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama -- candidates the people in question certainly aren't casting ballots for -- issued statements saying that it's not OK to kill a 15-year-old kid because he's gay?
Furthermore, doesn't it sound a little strange to say that? That it it's not OK to kill someone because of X, Y or Z? Would it have been any less offensive if King had been killed because he slept with the shooter's girlfriend? Should Clinton release a statement saying adultery is no exuse for murder? Does Obama need to say it's not OK to kill people because you want their money? Or because they're ugly? Or because they're in a rival gang?
What? As an advocate for social justice, I have to disagree because trickle down effects are real, and not having the head of a heteronormative country come out in full support of making our world safer, simply perpetuates hatred. More, Larry King was not shot because he was a "rival gang" member who was gay. The fact that he was not straight was not an afterthought for the person who pulled the trigger, who mind you was also a young kid and who no doubt adopted his homophobia from the macro forces in his life (i.e. the media, and political outlets). He sought his demise because of this hatred, this fear.
I responded:
"Do we really need candidates for any office to say this is wrong?"
I say YES.
Why? Because murder against an individual is one thing, but crime against a person who falls outside of the normalized culture is a social and institutional issue.
Being killed for having a non-heterosexual identification is not the same as sleeping "with the shooter's girlfriend." It's an absurd comparison because we are talking about a whole demographic that is being marginalized and eliminated because society cannot deal with folks who fall outside of the standards set up by this heteronormative, gender binary world.
Larry King was killed because our citizens and politicians don't help to foster a safe environment.
What people fail to realize is that it's not about forcing politicians, et. al, to change their moral fabric, or to take public stands on how they feel PERSONALLY, but rather, it should be about how to allocate more resources towards the freedom to identify as one pleases without fear of being marginalized, or in this case, sprayed with bullets.
Do we really need candidates for any office to say this is wrong? Other than a select few nut-jobs out there, does anyong think this was OK? And would those nut-jobs give a damn if Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama -- candidates the people in question certainly aren't casting ballots for -- issued statements saying that it's not OK to kill a 15-year-old kid because he's gay?
Furthermore, doesn't it sound a little strange to say that? That it it's not OK to kill someone because of X, Y or Z? Would it have been any less offensive if King had been killed because he slept with the shooter's girlfriend? Should Clinton release a statement saying adultery is no exuse for murder? Does Obama need to say it's not OK to kill people because you want their money? Or because they're ugly? Or because they're in a rival gang?
What? As an advocate for social justice, I have to disagree because trickle down effects are real, and not having the head of a heteronormative country come out in full support of making our world safer, simply perpetuates hatred. More, Larry King was not shot because he was a "rival gang" member who was gay. The fact that he was not straight was not an afterthought for the person who pulled the trigger, who mind you was also a young kid and who no doubt adopted his homophobia from the macro forces in his life (i.e. the media, and political outlets). He sought his demise because of this hatred, this fear.
I responded:
"Do we really need candidates for any office to say this is wrong?"
I say YES.
Why? Because murder against an individual is one thing, but crime against a person who falls outside of the normalized culture is a social and institutional issue.
Being killed for having a non-heterosexual identification is not the same as sleeping "with the shooter's girlfriend." It's an absurd comparison because we are talking about a whole demographic that is being marginalized and eliminated because society cannot deal with folks who fall outside of the standards set up by this heteronormative, gender binary world.
Larry King was killed because our citizens and politicians don't help to foster a safe environment.
What people fail to realize is that it's not about forcing politicians, et. al, to change their moral fabric, or to take public stands on how they feel PERSONALLY, but rather, it should be about how to allocate more resources towards the freedom to identify as one pleases without fear of being marginalized, or in this case, sprayed with bullets.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Another young person killed because of conformity
A teenager in California was killed because the student not only came out to classmates, but also wore clothing and jewelry that was simply unacceptable to those who want boys to boys, and girls to be girls.
Since the horrific shooting, many pundits have spoken about the need to implement sound laws that will put these attackers in their place. And while I believe in consequence, I also think we should focus strongly on ideology:
“Safe schools laws and policies are vitally important, but simply having a law is not enough,” one respondent in the article said. “Schools need to implement staff development and trainings to address anti-LGBT bullying and harassment. Schools also need programs that teach young people respect and tolerance. Every student deserves to feel safe in school. We must take action and take responsibility for our inaction.”
Since the horrific shooting, many pundits have spoken about the need to implement sound laws that will put these attackers in their place. And while I believe in consequence, I also think we should focus strongly on ideology:
“Safe schools laws and policies are vitally important, but simply having a law is not enough,” one respondent in the article said. “Schools need to implement staff development and trainings to address anti-LGBT bullying and harassment. Schools also need programs that teach young people respect and tolerance. Every student deserves to feel safe in school. We must take action and take responsibility for our inaction.”
Gender F'n
(Assignment completed for my Working With LGBT Clients Class):
I love “masculine” women. The walk, the talk, the dress, the personality. All of it. Mainly this attraction stems not from the traditional male role, but rather from the brevity one must endure as they do such things as taking the clippers to their head. In our patriarchal world women are meant to be calm, pretty, mothering, straight, and also strong willed. Creating the new categories of what a woman can be like is provocative – it’s hard work that I admire. Leslie Feinberg’s “Trans Liberation” piece talks about this courage: “I don’t think the point is why are we different? Why have we refused to walk of two narrow paths, but instead demanded the right to blaze our own? The question is not why we we’re unwilling to conform even when beaten to the ground by ridicule and brutality.” A very important question I think because that strength is one that should be modeled.
As a feminist I have molded myself in to this person who wants to eradicate gender roles – or at least the requirements men and women have placed on them if they want to be seen as normal in our society – because the barriers hide the true identity of all of us. We are not simply black or white – the gray in between is a continuum of color, blending, meshing, and creating new palettes with time. As much as I want to be self-assured, I have to step back and ask myself is this who I want to be. Is this what I want to look like?
On the one hand I would like to say that my own independence trumps society’s creation of what is normal, but then I wonder if I myself contribute to the perpetuation of conformity each time I shave my legs, wear a low-cut shirt, twirl my hair on my finger, or take part in other stereotypical interpretations of my gender. Do those markers make me feminine? What about the other times when I wear my sneakers to a club, wear a baseball hat, cheer on sports teams, goggle over beautiful women, and emit confidence? Do those markers make me masculine? It seems that as much as I try to depart from gender roles, the more I find myself doing stereotypical things to affirm them.
Newton’s search for the “right” role seems to be typical. Many lesbians I talk to think about these roles, and moreover, once they settle on an identification or representation, many work hard to keep it up. Newton points out how people fall into these roles because of the normalization of them in society – gay couples end up modeling heterosexual couples; where the concept of feminine and masculine are huge factors in the relationship hierarchy. She quotes a line from a documentary she watched that seems to describe this ongoing struggle to fit into labels that either we choose, or society places on us: “A woman not much taller than a fire hydrant tells the impartial camera how at first she had recoiled from joining an association of little people because ‘I was horrified when I saw them. I had to tell myself you don’t look like that.’ ”
If I put myself in to a category of femme then I compare myself to other femme lesbians…how do they walk, talk, dress; and how does that compare to me? Same goes with when I decide that I am just kind of gender neutral; I look at other neutral-looking lesbians and decide how I compare to their looks, personality, etc. Actually, just writing such a thing reminds me of the privilege I have to be able to maneuver through these identifications. I have the mind frame and desire to be on this continuum, which may make it easier for me to “pass” in the world – being a butch woman would limit this flexibility, I would imagine.
The same goes for trans people. Last week in class we talked about including transgender people within the context of sexual orientation, because we questioned the obvious: that gender is something that does not mean straight or gay. I believe after reading the “Trans Liberation” article by Feinberg, the idea of gender most certainly should be included because it plays such a large role in our sexual being. The gender binary effects all people – no matter straight or queer – and people run across all sexual orientations. Within sexual orientations are people who identify as male, female and many points in between. If sexual function and intimacy are important elements in normal human life, the way one represents themselves freely is crucial to healthy development.
So folks need to examine this, and advocate for the abolishment of gender oppression.
Barb Burdge’s “Bending Gender, Ending Gender” article explains the way social workers should advocate for this expression, and I agree because as noted in the beginning of this written assignment, I noted my own love and appreciation for people who fight off the masses in order to be who they want to be. Not being able to do this is oppressive, which is why it amazes me that the National Association for Social Workers does not have gender listed as a status that is oppressed. How could the founding doctrine of a profession that values “self-definition as a matter of self-determination ad social justice,” as stated in the Burdge article, not recognize the need to eliminate gender-based oppression?
Maybe this exists because of the ill-conceived notion that gender is something that is only “acted out” but not something that is real and ever present, such as noted in the Burdge article: “From this perspective, gender is a performance for which every person alters outward appearances to align with an internal sense of gender identity.” Esther Newton appears to negate this finding: “This masculinity, my masculinity, is not external; it permeates and animates me. Nor is it a masquerade. In my own home, when no one is present, I still sit with my legs carelessly flung apart.”
Newton points out that butches are “laughable to straight people," and I think this is because so many people are caught up in this idea that all relationships have to have one male and one female gender expression (which in the straight world means one man and one woman). They marginalize and oppress butches for this. Unfortunately many never stop to think whom it said that only biological women can be feminine and that only biological men can be masculine. Who wants to live like that, and really, is it even possible to be 100 percent all feminine or all masculine? I say no because current definitions of either gender identification means that a woman can basically never be assertive, have direction or goal, be confident, wear a cropped hairdo, etc. That would make this person robotic almost because I believe that humans require the need to lead AND to follow (which seem to identify both male and feminine trait).
Thus, I fully support and agree with Burdge’s call for gender advocacy: “We cannot end gender oppression by ignoring the inherent oppressiveness of the hierarchical gender binary. Social workers can work to disrupt the traditional gender binary and advocate for gender rights – the freedom to one’s authentic self.”
I love “masculine” women. The walk, the talk, the dress, the personality. All of it. Mainly this attraction stems not from the traditional male role, but rather from the brevity one must endure as they do such things as taking the clippers to their head. In our patriarchal world women are meant to be calm, pretty, mothering, straight, and also strong willed. Creating the new categories of what a woman can be like is provocative – it’s hard work that I admire. Leslie Feinberg’s “Trans Liberation” piece talks about this courage: “I don’t think the point is why are we different? Why have we refused to walk of two narrow paths, but instead demanded the right to blaze our own? The question is not why we we’re unwilling to conform even when beaten to the ground by ridicule and brutality.” A very important question I think because that strength is one that should be modeled.
As a feminist I have molded myself in to this person who wants to eradicate gender roles – or at least the requirements men and women have placed on them if they want to be seen as normal in our society – because the barriers hide the true identity of all of us. We are not simply black or white – the gray in between is a continuum of color, blending, meshing, and creating new palettes with time. As much as I want to be self-assured, I have to step back and ask myself is this who I want to be. Is this what I want to look like?
On the one hand I would like to say that my own independence trumps society’s creation of what is normal, but then I wonder if I myself contribute to the perpetuation of conformity each time I shave my legs, wear a low-cut shirt, twirl my hair on my finger, or take part in other stereotypical interpretations of my gender. Do those markers make me feminine? What about the other times when I wear my sneakers to a club, wear a baseball hat, cheer on sports teams, goggle over beautiful women, and emit confidence? Do those markers make me masculine? It seems that as much as I try to depart from gender roles, the more I find myself doing stereotypical things to affirm them.
Newton’s search for the “right” role seems to be typical. Many lesbians I talk to think about these roles, and moreover, once they settle on an identification or representation, many work hard to keep it up. Newton points out how people fall into these roles because of the normalization of them in society – gay couples end up modeling heterosexual couples; where the concept of feminine and masculine are huge factors in the relationship hierarchy. She quotes a line from a documentary she watched that seems to describe this ongoing struggle to fit into labels that either we choose, or society places on us: “A woman not much taller than a fire hydrant tells the impartial camera how at first she had recoiled from joining an association of little people because ‘I was horrified when I saw them. I had to tell myself you don’t look like that.’ ”
If I put myself in to a category of femme then I compare myself to other femme lesbians…how do they walk, talk, dress; and how does that compare to me? Same goes with when I decide that I am just kind of gender neutral; I look at other neutral-looking lesbians and decide how I compare to their looks, personality, etc. Actually, just writing such a thing reminds me of the privilege I have to be able to maneuver through these identifications. I have the mind frame and desire to be on this continuum, which may make it easier for me to “pass” in the world – being a butch woman would limit this flexibility, I would imagine.
The same goes for trans people. Last week in class we talked about including transgender people within the context of sexual orientation, because we questioned the obvious: that gender is something that does not mean straight or gay. I believe after reading the “Trans Liberation” article by Feinberg, the idea of gender most certainly should be included because it plays such a large role in our sexual being. The gender binary effects all people – no matter straight or queer – and people run across all sexual orientations. Within sexual orientations are people who identify as male, female and many points in between. If sexual function and intimacy are important elements in normal human life, the way one represents themselves freely is crucial to healthy development.
So folks need to examine this, and advocate for the abolishment of gender oppression.
Barb Burdge’s “Bending Gender, Ending Gender” article explains the way social workers should advocate for this expression, and I agree because as noted in the beginning of this written assignment, I noted my own love and appreciation for people who fight off the masses in order to be who they want to be. Not being able to do this is oppressive, which is why it amazes me that the National Association for Social Workers does not have gender listed as a status that is oppressed. How could the founding doctrine of a profession that values “self-definition as a matter of self-determination ad social justice,” as stated in the Burdge article, not recognize the need to eliminate gender-based oppression?
Maybe this exists because of the ill-conceived notion that gender is something that is only “acted out” but not something that is real and ever present, such as noted in the Burdge article: “From this perspective, gender is a performance for which every person alters outward appearances to align with an internal sense of gender identity.” Esther Newton appears to negate this finding: “This masculinity, my masculinity, is not external; it permeates and animates me. Nor is it a masquerade. In my own home, when no one is present, I still sit with my legs carelessly flung apart.”
Newton points out that butches are “laughable to straight people," and I think this is because so many people are caught up in this idea that all relationships have to have one male and one female gender expression (which in the straight world means one man and one woman). They marginalize and oppress butches for this. Unfortunately many never stop to think whom it said that only biological women can be feminine and that only biological men can be masculine. Who wants to live like that, and really, is it even possible to be 100 percent all feminine or all masculine? I say no because current definitions of either gender identification means that a woman can basically never be assertive, have direction or goal, be confident, wear a cropped hairdo, etc. That would make this person robotic almost because I believe that humans require the need to lead AND to follow (which seem to identify both male and feminine trait).
Thus, I fully support and agree with Burdge’s call for gender advocacy: “We cannot end gender oppression by ignoring the inherent oppressiveness of the hierarchical gender binary. Social workers can work to disrupt the traditional gender binary and advocate for gender rights – the freedom to one’s authentic self.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
