when the status quo frustrates.

Get Over It

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

A friend of mine was talking the other day about this guy who was yelling at her on the street, and how uncomfortable it was for her. Not an uncommon event, not even for her, but this one was a little frightening because he started following her for a bit. She posted it on her facebook page, and got the normal comments of support. Then she got this comment:

Oh get over it. You’re bitching that someone though you were hot enough to try and talk to.

Harassment is a compliment, dontcha know. Now, I could just go “Asshole says things assholes say” but I think this is a very small illustration of something that women, particularly feminists who point it out, deal with when we point to the many, everyday ways we have to deal with shit in a patriarchy and how those things are completely minimized.

Liberals and Progressives like to say things like “context matters” a lot. A noose hung at the “white” tree where some black kids dared venture is a very different symbol than a noose in a western movie (though they both have the broad stroke of being “threatening”). The context of the first makes it “racist”. The context of the second makes it different. The same is true of the shit women deal with.

If I was an alien being who popped in from the land of Egalitaria and I have never experienced sexism before in my life, the random frat guy that barked at me when I was waiting for the bus would have been baffling, but not rage-inducing to me. Was I doing something wrong in a social context? Was it a warning that I didn’t understand? I would assume from the looks that were delivered with it and the tone of the barking activity that this was a judgment of me in some context, and a judgment met with approval by his peers with him, but I would probably find it more weird than embarrassing. In the real world, it was rage-inducing because I knew exactly what I was doing “wrong”- I was being insufficiently attractive to a guy while in public. Hell, I’d probably say “I was existing in public while female” and that’s probably all the “wrong” there was. I went to happily joking with my husband while waiting for the bus to mad as hell in the context of a bark. I took care of it in my normally mature fashion*, but I had the added benefits of it being in public, with my Hubby, and they were unlikely to come back and escalate the situation. In a different time and place, I probably would have just been silent, realizing the powerlessness of the situation and the added danger that comes from the ever-present threat physical violence.**

The context of a guy barking at me was a context where guys feel free, nay encouraged, to comment on women’s body’s like they are entitled to them. One incident is something that is easily forgettable. One incident where you know that you are going to get an equal level of social support, or more level of social support is equally forgettable. Such an incidence happen to me once when I was walking down Minneapolis. An extremely inebriated individual yelled at me “Hey! Do you know you have really big tits!” not once, but twice at me and was aiming for a third time when I acknowledged him by saying “Yes, I know”. I had my Hubby, I had my friends with me laughing at this guy, but the friend of this guy was busy trying to get him to shut up and saying “not cools” at him. This incident did not make me feel embarrassed, nor threatened, nor have the effect of taking up any of my mental or emotional state. This event did not cause me to pause at the idea of wearing a shirt that was low-cut or a push-up bra. The only thing memorable about this incident is the fact that it was actually a little bit funny to my social group. This event is something, that while annoying, is easy to “get over”. Someone barking at me is in a context of social encouragement, dozens of similar events that I have to ignore if I want to be in public, and an all-pervasive attitude of entitlement.

One cut doesn’t kill someone. One cut probably doesn’t even scar, especially if you throw on some salve right away. But a million of the same size cuts can kill a person.

*Yelling at him to fuck off while delivering the boob of justice at him- if there’s nothing that I can do to get him to stop I’m getting an emotional release from the encounter.
** Or maybe not. I’ve been known to invade the personal space of someone who has been yelling at me in the middle of the night by myself. Being suicidal is marvelous freeing in the context of not being afraid of death.

Toy Story 3

Friday, June 18th, 2010

Toy Story, the original, came out when I was 10. I went to the theatre to watch it and was entranced, and I own (and still occasionally watch) it 15 years later. I loved the characters, I loved the secret suspicion and day-dreaming that the toys were alive shared with others and brought to reality on the big screen. As an adult, I love the themes and inside jokes a missed as a young child. My adult, cynical self suspects that this movie concept originally was green-lighted because it was easy to make toy tie-ins, but I really think the creators of this story wanted to create something long-lasting, not just a cheap marketing gimmick. They told a story with the reverence most children do show their toys. Also, this was the first time I had been introduced to Pixar’s “gag real” during the credits, and I laughed about as hard at those as I did during the movie.

Toy Story 2 came out a few years later, and by this time I was fully on my path to a cynical teenager, who had long ago learned that “sequel” normally meant “sucktastic”. Nevertheless, I went, and I took along my two kids sisters with me. I was so thrilled with the sequel- in a lot of ways it was even better than the original because it dealt with complex themes of loyalty, who you are, and the choices you have to make to decide where you want to be. It wasn’t a “sequel”- it was another story in the same universe. If you watched the movie by itself, it was still a good story. If you watched the first movie before it, it was an excellent continuation of who the characters were. It found, I think, the balance between establishing the characters for new viewers without boring the people who had come before.

When I heard that they were going to make a Toy Story 3 movie, I was excited and worried in equal measures. I was excited, because honestly Toy Story 2 did not seem like the end of the story. It left to many things open, too many things unresolved. It felt like part 2 in a trilogy. I was hopeful that this was going to continue the characters I really loved and felt, in a twisted sort of way, that I had grown up on. But I had been burned before. There was Cinderella 2, the straight-to-video nightmare that I try to forget*. There was Return of Jafar**. This summer alone I went and watched “Shrek Forever After”*** which made me even more worried that it was going to be drawn out crap.

I went in worried, was made more irritated by the fact that a matinée was $7.50, and then watched the Pixar short that was the most insulting thing ever (more on that later). But then, the movie started, and soon I was an entranced little 10-year old again. (Some light spoilers, but I’ll try and keep away from the biggest ones).
(more…)

Un-Constitutional

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

I’m wrapping up my work with the Census Bureau, which is nice except it means I’m back in Unemployment-ville very soon. But, this was a good experience. It was interesting to see how an American Bureaucracy works up close and personal* and I got that all important “leadership experience”.

But I am still absolutely flabbergasted at the number of people who believe that the Census is un-Constitutional. I doubt that there is a more Constitutional thing in the world. After so many of my enumerators told me people were refusing based on this supposed Un-Constitutional-ness, I finally went and double-checked the Constitution to see what it says.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

(Bold added)

Fairly clear to me. Congress conducts a census, they have the ability to decide what goes in the Census. It was a little jarring to be reminded of the 3/5ths standard, but that’s our Constitution, warts and all. The court cases, from the District to the Supreme, all agree- you have to have a census, you can include information besides just a head count. We have never had a Census that was just a simple headcount.

I am baffled by people who believe that the Census is unconstitutional, when the Constitution says it right there. It’s not that long, and heck, it takes 30 seconds to google “Constitution” and “Census” and get the appropriate clause. I would be confused by people who were AGAINST the questions on the Census form, but that at least would be a reasonable thing to be. You could be irritating your Congressman every 10 years, three years before the Census, telling them that there shouldn’t be anything in the Census besides a headcount, and you would be well within your rights. But to say it’s unconstitutional is flat wrong.

But, people being wrong about basic factual things is something you get used to. When we have a population that, according a 2008 poll of 2000, less than half can name the three branches of government, it should be a fairly uncontroversial statement to say we are dealing with an undereducated populace.** The more interesting point I can think of is “Why would people propagate this lie?”

Our local wingnut, Michelle Bachmann, was one of the first people to express that the Census was unconstitutional, and it had something to do with ACORN (It doesn’t- ACORN’s only involvement in the Census is it was one of thousands of groups that put up advertising). Glenn Beck also repeated that all they could do was a count, and also suggested that this was some sort of conspiracy to take money from people (the Census does not report to the IRS) and that the race is because “Minority people are more valuable than white people”.***

Where are they getting this, and why are they saying it? Is it that they’re worried that the Census will show we’re not as white as we used to be? Is it politics- they’re trying to cause the Democratic Obama administration to waste as much money as possible so they can turn around and then say that the Democrats always waste money and the federal government just isn’t that efficient?

My suspicion is the latter, more than the former. While I know plenty of wingnuts that are convinced of the coming “race wars”, I really think that in the case of Bachmann and Beck, they’re simply looking to keep conservatives in power. A minority-majority would be plenty of fodder for them to go around arguing that affirmative action is unnecessary (again, I think they’d be wrong, but that’s a post for another day). But, people always seem to be suckers for the government is too expensive, we should get rid of it. I’m sure someone would come up with the idea of privatizing the Census Bureau (*shudders*) and then we can have some more endless, political arguments on something that, realistically, should be non-partisan.

What does everyone think their motivations are? Why politicize something relatively benign like “enumerate people every 10 years?” We have a few conservative lurkers here. What’s your take on the Census? If you think it’s unconstitutional, why?

*If you’re interested, it works I think on the principle of directed chaos. Everything’s going in their own, random space directed by someone else who is also moving in his or her random space directed by someone else who is moving in his or her own random space- you get the picture. I’m impressed at how well it works, but I’m amused at how often you have to make reality fit the paperwork, not the other way around.
**It should also be a terrifying one, one that should make you feel the need to tell your local, state, and federal government that we have to have civics requirements in schools, and need to fund them a lot better in addition to feeling the urge to pass out copies of the US Constitution and “American Government for Dummies” on the street corner, but that’s a discussion for another day.
***Bill O’Reilly, weirdly enough, is one of the few big-name conservative pundits that told people to fill out the form. He considered it a matter of being “good citizens”, which I agree with, and made me do a double-take.

Happy Mother’s Day

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

For this Mother’s Day, why don’t we think about actually giving mothers benefits, instead of cards and lip-service.

http://womensenews.org/story/retirement/050509/time-demand-mother-friendly-social-security

Good Answer, Real Answer

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

I was talking to my husband the other day about Star Trek (like we are wont to do) and discussing replicators. As a thought experiment, we were talking about what we would do with it if we actually were to build a replicator in this day and age. We discussed about how it would change the landscape of the country, and what the fallout might be.

I came to the conclusion that I would in fact start the apocalypse. I would immediately post the plans on the internet on multiple websites, trying to get as many servers as I could, and emailing it to every email address I ever came across. I would patent it under open copyright. I would call up every media source and get it on television as soon as I could. Basically, I would make sure the information got out there before I was inevitably arrested or killed by some organization or another. Because, whatever the fallout, a replicator would do a world of good.

And while this might seem completely unrelated to everyone else, this reminded me of the gay marriage debate. One of the debate points against gay marriage is that it is the foundation of marriage and the larger country would be torn apart if gays were allowed to marry. The liberal response to it is “No it won’t” and point the fact that we’ve already expanded the institution in this country for the better, and other countries have managed to allow gay marriage without anything really happening to marriage or the country. That’s the good reason, and it’s even true.

But, for me personally*, that’s not the real answer. My real answer is “I don’t care- Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.” If, as the conservatives debate, the institution of marriage and this country rests on a foundation of bigotry, than that is a building that cannot be lived in. We can not have institutions based on prejudice if we want them to be safe and just for all. If you have a foundation that has water damage and rot, the rest of the building will collapse soon enough. If you discover the rot, you either fix the house, or you abandon it.

Homosexuals should be allowed into the institution of marriage because it is the right thing to do. Homosexual relationships are the equal to their heterosexual counterparts. There is nothing in a homosexual act that is any more disgusting than a heterosexual one. There is no one being harmed by consensual gay sex. To privilege straight relationships over queer ones is nothing but bigotry.

*Seriously, stop considering me representative of the left. I’m one person who barely gets any blog traffic, not a movement leader (if there even is one).

Post From Flesh-World

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

I have not been posting often because the flesh-world is getting in the way. I’ve been promoted at the Census, which means way more work for me. So if I haven’t responded to a comment, it’s not that I’m ignoring you or don’t want to address your post, it’s that in-depth responses are on hold.

I do want to make a quick mention that I’m getting really sick of people just rolling their eyes and saying “That’s government for you” when we have to fill out tons of paperwork, or the people who we’re enumerating saying that this is really inefficient for us to go door-to-door (then you should have turned in your Census form the first time around). The more and more that I see of this operation, the more I’m amazed it can get off the ground in the first place. It really is operating like a well-running machine. Of course, a well-running machine is the epitome of organized chaos- the fuel is squeezed together, explodes in a mostly directed area but out into all directions, and for the most part there is no errors in the running. The same is true of the Census- we’re trained, we’re directed where to go but we’re all going in slightly different directions.

We’re counting over 300,000 million people who don’t all want to stay in one place. The fact that we get it done in a very brief amount of time is pretty amazing in my mind.

Why Am I Not Supposed to be Offended Again?

Monday, April 12th, 2010

I have, in the intern, been working for the U.S. Census. It’s fairly routine work- lots of paperwork, lots of calling people, but hey, I need money to pay the bills.*

Today we had an exterminator come to our house to take care of our ant problem. He noticed my Census badge, and started asking questions about why we need the census in the first place (because it’s in the constitution) and telling me that he only put the number of people in his household (then you’re going to get someone to come to the door). It was becoming increasingly obvious that this gentleman was a fan of Michele Bachmann so I talked about what the information was used for and why it was important. I explained to him that the information was used for a lot of really important things- districting of the state and federal governments, genealogical information, sociological information, and information for lawsuits and making sure the Voting Act is not being violated**. Finally, I reassured him the information is confidential.

We went on to talking, and he said that he had the solution for “fixing the deficit”. I said “What, taxing people more?” while my husband said “Cut Senator paychecks?”. He said “No- tax government jobs five percent more. If you work a lazy make-work job fixing up parks for 20,000/ year, you should only make 19,000″.

WTF? I just got done saying I worked for the federal government. Not two seconds ago in fact. We had a brief discussion of the amount of work it entailed, including him expressing concern that I was not allowed to carry any form of weapon on my person. And, without even knowing how much I made, he determined that it was 5 percent too much.

I said “I don’t know, I think we could probably fix the deficit if we went back to the tax rate under the Reagan administration. You know, 50% at the upper end.”

He responded he didn’t like the idea of half his paycheck going away.

I said that the 50% was only income over 200,000 dollars (wrongly, it was actually 175,000). He laughed and said that’s twice as much as what he made. I then changed the subject to talk about my kitty which he was petting.

After he left, I got even more upset at this guy. Not only was he saying that government workers were overpaid (they aren’t) and that someone who’s not making a subsistence wage needs to make even less (20,000 is only 50% over the poverty line for one person, not accounting for relative poverty) but he has the audacity to say this while making 100,000 dollars a year. I’m sure being an exterminator is a hard job, and for all I know, he does his job very well (I’ll tell you if I see the ants disappear). But, all I saw him do is take 5 minutes to spray a can and then spend 15 minutes talking. I know for a fact that maintaining a park takes more effort than that- spraying insecticide is only one of there tons of jobs to do. And him going, to my face, that my labor is not as valuable as the unsteady pittance I made is quite frankly one of the rudest things I think he could say to me.

You know, some day the odds are that I will live in an actual house and make enough money that I will actually have to fill out the the long tax form. And I hope when I get to that age and that level of security, I will remember what it feels like to live in a shitty basement apartment, worrying about when the next paycheck is coming in (and how much it’ll cover) and if going out to see a 10 dollar play is a justifiable expense. I want to remember the burning embarrassment when I tell the local community choir that I don’t have 50 dollars on hand to pay for the dues (and have them pull me aside to say that there are hardship scholarships available for me***). Because that’s the only thing I can think of when people tell me that I make too much money while they’re making way more than me- they don’t remember, or they never were, in my situation.

*Everyone, send in your Census form.
**Seriously, send in your Census form. It’s really, really important that you send in your Census form.
*** It seems like a sick irony that when I have all the time to do the community building stuff, I don’t have the money, and when I can eek out the money, I don’t have the time.

Easter

Sunday, April 4th, 2010

When I was growing up, Easter was a Big Deal in our family. We all got Easter outfits* and took lovely photos. We then sat through a lecture at church that was a rehash of the lecture last year, about Christ is risen, savior, yadda yadda yadda.

But then, we got home, tore off our uncomfortable clothing, and the real Easter began: the Easter Egg Hunt. Oh, it was glorious. My mom really knew how to hide eggs. It didn’t matter how many eggs you found, or didn’t find- we all got an equitable split in our eggs. Eggs, chocolate bunnies, little toys- the day was so much fun. But the big one was we each got our own Easter “Egg”. This was the one in our color, and in it it held a special gift just for one of us individually. We couldn’t tell the other if we found it- they had to find it on their own. This was like Christmas, but better because we actually were encouraged to find it. Inside it was never the most expensive thing in the world- a t-shirt, a cd, one year I got a hat, but it was picked out with our tastes in mind, and it was just something new to look forward too.

We also had confetti eggs, which were blown out eggs with confetti stuffed in them with the hole covered with tissue paper. The point of these eggs was to run around smashing them on people’s heads.

We did the Easter Egg hunt every year until I left for college. From that point on, I was on my own, so no Easter Egg hunts any more. I was happy to ditch the church, but I am quite sad to ditch the other rituals.

What about you, Punkass Community? What Easter/ Belatane/ Spring/ Et cetera events do you remember?

*Dresses, unfortunately- my sisters and I all went through a “We hate dresses” stage which led to much consternation.

Let’s Talk About Something Less Controversial

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

This post comes with no great proclamations, no sweeping statements that I feel the need to defend to the death. It just comes with an idea, one that I’m fairly sure everyone will hate, right or left.

In the United States, we have abysmal class mobility. The best way to figure out what class you’re going to be in is still to look at what class your parent is in. Those on the left say that this is because the “American Dream” is largely a myth, and there are systematic problems against poor people and people of color. The right say this is because people are lazy and lack personal responsibility. I’m going to go with the left on this one, just because I’ve seen study after study on how poverty basically cuts off your legs before you start the race for success. The solution to this tends to be from the left that we need to strengthen social safety nets to get people out of poverty. I agree, of course: there is a certain level of security that should be people’s by right.

But what about taking it from the top as well?

Right now, we have inheritance laws that give money, that someone did not work for, for whom the inheritor did nothing to earn, and allows him/her to coast through life as a lazy layabout. Why? The persons who actually earned the money are dead, so it’s not taking it from them. Let’s leave real property out of it and personal possessions- just finances and stocks. Why doesn’t all of that money get absorbed by the federal government (it says right on it that it is theirs anyway) and have the stocks reabsorbed by the company. Then we would have to worry less about lazy people getting a free ride.

This, of course, wouldn’t get rid of inequality at a basic level.* You would still have families that could afford better school materials, better tutors, and just have more hours to dedicate to their children. It also wouldn’t get rid of the system of nepotism and crony-ism that we swim in. But, it definitely would level the playing field just a little bit.

Thoughts?

*Anything short of a communistic group houses where all children were required to live and get the exact same things wouldn’t relieve inequality, but even socialist me is not willing to go there because: 1) different people need different things 2) a family unit of some sort is required for healthy development 3) too many people have too many different ideas as the right way to raise children.

Conservatives are Evil

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

Health care reform has passed the House yesterday (as everyone in the blogosphere is talking about). I feel a little bit out side of this discussion, to tell you the honest truth. This is, functionally, what the Republicans advocated for in 1994. If the Republicans have advocated for it any time in the last two decades I neither see it as a great liberal victory nor the end of America as conservative see it. This is a band-aid over a bullet wound. Blood’s still seeping out through the edges, and you’re still going to die of blood loss, but it’s better than a kick to the head.

But the thing I’ve learned after this whole mess is to firmly, and irrevocably decide that conservatives are evil. It pains me to say this, because that means my friends, family, and coworkers are evil. But, if the word has any meaning at all, “evil” is what they are.

It is evil to advocate for people to die because they can’t afford health care. It is evil to say that money is more important than anyone’s life. AND it’s evil to advocate for shooting someone because they disagree with you (even if you think they’re evil, too).

Conservatives have absolutely no qualms calling me evil. And most liberals go with the “They just have different values” views of conservatives, or, alternately, that they’re just ill-informed. Well, let’s take a look at those “different values”.

According to the work of Jon Haidt conservatives have three “values” that liberals just don’t seem to have: purity, respect for authority, and loyalty to the ingroup. “Purity” is a nonsense value at best- a human isn’t “pure” anything. “Purity” is a great quality for metals, for water, and for air- for humans it edges is into mental health territories of the “precious bodily fluid” type. Real life is messy, trying to make everyone “pure” cuts out life. “Respect for authority” is a fuzzier, nicer way to say “Respect for hierarchy”. They don’t respect scientists in their field (people who arguably earned their respectability), they don’t respect political leaders when they’re the wrong party, they don’t respect anyone in a position of power that the determine to be illegitimate (just ask women CEOs). They also mean “respect” as “obedience”. I wouldn’t consider it respect to blindly do what someone tells you to do- I would call that insulting. What they do enjoy is the kyriarchy- white rich men on top, everyone else filtering through the bottom. Again, this is evil. This is causing harm and hardship to people over completely useless markers or markers they can’t help. Finally, their last value is “loyalty to the in-group”. This “value” is something that is at its best morally neutral (preferring the company of your friends to say, co-workers), and its worst, the evils of jingoism, racism, and pep-rallies.

These “values” have little sub-”values” tailing off them. “Purity” ends up meaning “anything I find icky is wrong” so it becomes “racism” (different foods and music are gross) “sexism” (women’s sexuality is scary and icky so let’s make sure they can’t get contraception or abortion) “heterocenterism” (butt sex is teh icky). “Respect for authority”‘s little sub-value is “gleefully ignorant”. They never have to look up anything because, hey, the right authority figure said so, and doing so makes you disobedient. In-group loyalty is obvious for the sexism, racism, heterocenterism, and religious prejudices, but then it also leads to nice little paranoias from everyone from agnostics to zoologists.

How could desire to cut out life, being against equality, ignorance, and paranoia be “good”? How could wanting to harm others, provided you don’t get harmed or even benefit, but a “good”? These values are wrong, and people who ascribe to them are acting in an evil fashion. And maybe it’s time that people actually started getting called on that.

Yes, Virgil, Men and Women Can Be Friends

Friday, March 19th, 2010

The Person of Honor at my wedding was my male friend, PE. PE in have been close friends for a long time now. At no point in our long friendship; a friendship that has included sleeping over at one another’s house, sharing hotel beds, walking around in the moonlight and getting really drunk, has there been anything that could be construed as sexual or romantic. Not a kiss, not a hug that wasn’t platonic, not a lingering look that has set either of our hearts beating. Yes, my friend PE is straight.*

So, when people write articles describing a gender-neutral housing policy for dorm rooms, all I can think is “about damn time”. I know it would have been easier for me to find a male roommate that I knew in college rather than a female one**, not to mention a lot easier for Hubby and I get to get an apartment together earlier. But, of course, an article like this has to bring out the people who apparently think the relationships I have with my male friends are fictitious, whom the only reason that a male and a female would room together would be because they wanted to have sex with each other.

Where does this belief come from, exactly? Nobody I know my age lacks for mix-gendered friends. Heck, as near as I can tell, even my parents and my in-laws have mixed-gendered friends. We are not leopards, whom only come in contact with each other for sex. We are social creatures that mingle all the time. If you don’t have that urge before you move in together, I’m telling you snoring, bad breath, bed-head and uncapped toothpaste tubes are not going to generate a deep and abiding lust.

Will some boyfriends/ girlfriends room together? Absolutely***. Will there be relationships where there is underlying sexual tension that will be released? Again, absolutely, but not near as much as the comments seem to think. The dire predictions of uncontrollable fucking, destroyed grades, et cetera are based in fairy tale land****. I also think that the number of romantic couples that will want to move into together are actually much smaller than people think. Most college students are not ready to live with their significant other, and the ones that are already do.

College students are adults. I realize that people seem to dispute this all the time, but they are. If they want to have a roommate who’s of the opposite gender- let them. In one’s life, we have to navigate all sorts of different relationships. Fear-mongering about how “men can’t help it” and “women are helpless” are wrong, stupid, and damaging cliches.

*I’ve also had former boyfriends whom I’m good friends with and our contact is now non-sexual. I have also had friends where there WAS sexual tension, and for a variety of reasons, we never acted on it and still stay good friends. I also have had friends where we do occasionally fuck on top of the things that make us friends. There are a wide variety of relationships that I have, and have had, that forcing me to room with females did not get rid of. Heck, one of the sexual tension ones was because my female roommate was straight and I really liked her body.
**Though playing roommate-roulette actually worked with me. I had studious, neat, and mostly gone female roommates.
*** And good for them. This would definitely cut-out all of the negotiation and scheduling with roommates that having sex on college takes right now.
****The same place where the ’50s was a golden era filled with upright, moral people.

My Twisted Place in the Kyriarchy

Friday, March 12th, 2010

The Kyriarchy, for those of you who don’t follow a lot of feminist/ progressive scholarship, is “a neologism coined by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and derived from the Greek words for “lord” or “master” (kyrios) and “to rule or dominate” (archein) which seeks to redefine the analytic category of patriarchy in terms of multiplicative intersecting structures of domination…Kyriarchy is best theorized as a complex pyramidal system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of superordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression.” What this means is that the various “isms” are intersected and overlapping and far more complicated than just a strict hierarchy.

Sometimes, I wonder about women who seem bound and determined to keep other women down. Or people in minority communities that want to deny rights to other minority groups. Or working class stiffs allying with big business when it seems like cutting yourself off at the knees. Heck, it always seemed to me to be the weirdest phenomenon in the world when feminists are against transgenders or homosexuals are against bisexuals. But, in some twisted way, maybe it does make sense, and that sense would be that if you are both oppressed and an oppressor, it is much easier to identify with the powerful than the powerless.

I’m female, I’m bisexual, I’m fat, and I’m crazy, I’m not-Christian and I’m definitely not rich. Those don’t exactly make me on top of the heap when it comes to rights in the United States. BUT, for all the things that I’m fighting against, I have plenty of privilege I’m coasting on. I’m white, a big one. I’m middle class, I’me educated, I’m mostly healthy, I have no visible health problems, and I’ve got pretty good health insurance. More than that, a lot of the things that count against me are not as visible as other things. If you look at me, with my wedding ring on my left finger, you’re not going to think “bisexual” which is pretty helpful on a day-to-day basis. I can pass as “straight”. No one after talking to me can go “oh, yep, she’s totally bonkers”. And, though in sheer dollar terms, lower class, I’m going to be pegged as middle class or higher by people I just talk to. My clothes are of that style, and my syntax is middle-to-upper class. So, depending on the situation, sometimes I’m going to be more oppressor than oppressed. Some times I’ll be more oppressed than oppressor.

I was thinking about this today when my racist friend* and I were talking about the African-American community. He, of course was hitting all the stock crap, (they are more violent than “normal” people, they’re out-breeding us, yada yada) and I was giving the pretty much stock answers (no they’re not, no they’re not, what in Christ are you smoking?) and I finally came with “Racist friend, seriously, how many black people do you actually KNOW? You live in the middle of freaking white-bred nowhere North Dakota.” His response, was “How many black people do YOU know, if you’re oh-so-progressive”. His retort, while completely dodging the issue, did give me pause. With the exception of a few people I worked with at the thrift store, I DON’T know anyone who’s black. I have more homosexual friends than black friends. Could you imagine being a black person and not having any white friends? It is a mark of great privilege that I don’t have to be exposed to a culture other than my own (though, I wish I could figure out what my culture WAS), and in the same token, it’s sad that we have such a segregated society that’s the case. I enjoy talking to my Somalia coworkers: they told me about things that I had only read about in books, and I did my best to try and explain fundamentalists Christians to them.

I wish the world was equitable so it would be like water. I don’t have to think about getting clean water- it comes out of the faucet. It took a lot of people to get it that way, and it takes a lot of people to maintain it, but for the most part it is just there. I want social justice to be as invisible as clean water- something that you’re grateful for if you stop and think about it, but you rarely do that.

*Hey, if they get to have “gay friends” and “black friends” I get a racist friend.