tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21539287118133680452024-02-07T03:09:26.900+00:00queergeeksRADICAL QUEER FEMINIST ACADEMIA. news activism articles thoughts ideas exhibitions books poetry events songs pictures debate controversy. SHARE.mata harihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09128163494392715419noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-12059952483781261902011-07-23T12:18:00.001+01:002011-07-23T12:19:57.569+01:00Feminist critique of consensus-based decision making<a href="http://modusdopens.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/decisions-decisions/">I've written a little about my own struggles with the participatory consensus model (PCM) of decision making</a>, with a specific view to the inclusivity for women and disabled people. The PCM is common in lefty activist circles, especially anarchist-leaning circles.<br /><br />Stavvers of <a href="http://stavvers.wordpress.com/">Another Angry Woman</a> presents a very thorough and thoughtful two-part critique of PCM (hat tip: <a href="http://flamingculture.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/politics-round-up/">Flaming Culture</a>). Stavvers raises some really good points, and I really like the way the issues are discussed, <em>and some possible alternatives</em>, so be sure to check it out. The two pieces are:<br /><br />Part one: <a href="http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-trouble-with-the-consensus-model/">The trouble with the consensus model</a><br /><br />Part two: <a href="http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/we-still-need-to-talk-about-consensus/">We still need to talk about consensus</a><br /><br />In the first part, "<a href="http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-trouble-with-the-consensus-model/">The trouble with the consensus model</a>", Stavvers discusses the ways tht PCM tends to privilege "insiders" who tend to be people with more social privilege -- people who are non-disabled cis men, etc. Stavvers also presents a few potential alternatives that could help with the problem, and discusses the use of anonymisation, giving priority to those who have not yet spoken, and talking to those outside the group. I've certainly been involved in groups that prioritise of people who have not yet spoken or who have spoken less (and where this is uncontroversial), and while I think it's a good idea, I don't think it's a solution on its own (in fairness to Stavvers, it's presented as a partial fix, not a full solution). My experience is that self-censorship is a major issue, and newcomers or people who feel themselves to be "outsiders" don't always volunteer to speak, so prioritising them makes little difference; additionally implicit bias may significantly affect the threshholds we use to consider what counts as "speaking less". I'd be interested to know more about anonymisation, and experiences of how that works out in practice, especially for time-sensitive decision-making.<br /><br />In the second part, "<a href="http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/we-still-need-to-talk-about-consensus/">We still need to talk about consensus</a>", Stavvers talks about applying the principles of enthusiastic sexual consent to PCM, and minority influence. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that minority influence is always a bad thing. We want to make sure that, or example, if even a tiny minority of a group a single parents, their concerns still get air time, for example. However, Stavvers is right to point out that this is a two-edged sword, and we also need to be concerned about whether single parents have access to these spaces, and are able to speak and be listened to.<br /><br />All in all, a very interesting and thought provoking read, and I highly recommend it. As activists we need to make sure that our spaces are not perpetuating the same kinds of hierarchies we're trying to break down.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-32593000907654377172011-07-22T14:56:00.002+01:002011-07-22T14:59:42.135+01:00California: US history no longer consists entirely of dead white dudes<a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_48_bill_20110714_chaptered.pdf">A new California law (PDF)</a> requires that California public (=state-funded) schools include (PDF):<br /><blockquote>(a) The contributions of both men and women in all types of roles, including professional, vocational, and executive roles.<br />(b) The role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups to the total development of California and the United States.</blockquote><br />Curiously, the NPR coverage has reported this as: <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom">"California Brings Gay History Into The Classroom"</a> and reporting on all the usual suspects are saying all the usual things.<br /><br />But I find the headline curious.<br /><br />Ok, so there are good reasons we might consider history lessons featuring or emphasising LGBT people, or comflicts over LGBT rights issues and prejudice to be "gay history", but it's a problematic label, and it's strange that that's what is being picked up by the media.<br /><br />A good reason to consider such history lessons to be "gay history" is that it might have particular importance to LGBT students by <a href="http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/reduce.html">reducing stereotype threat</a>. It can also be descriptive of the particular political focus of a course, in the way of "women's history" courses, where the purpose is to understand overall trends in political and historical trajectories for a particular group.<br /><br />But there are other important ways in which this is US history, and the change in emphasis from straight white non-disabled men to ... um, more people, is one that is important for <em>all</em> students. Making history more representative can improve the welfare of individuals of any demographic by reducing bias in the classroom. It might help, in the long run, to challenge widespread prejudices.<br /><br />But there's another point, <a href="http://modusdopens.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/texas-is-rewriting-history/">that I have written before</a>, and it's that many of the major confrontations between oppressed people and privileged people are ones everyone should learn about. When I was at school, we were taught that segregation was "black history", as if no White people were involved in that at all, as if Jim Crow laws dreamed themselves up all by themselves, and crosses burned themselves onto lawns, and Black people lynched themselves. But that's not how it happened, and kids need to know that. Even, and maybe especially, when the history that they're taught is one we're not proud of. How else will they learn?<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-18022369327726623722011-06-12T15:13:00.001+01:002011-06-12T15:15:03.474+01:00Just stuff<p>I never meant to become such an unreliable blogger. But the offline stuff that I would usually be using to feed the blog has, of late, been stuff I can't talk about publicly. I hate that, but there it is. The offline stuff is also sapping my energy at a truly alarming rate, hence less of my output here.</p><p>There's so much I have meant to write about. The privatisation of things that matter. Ken Clarke. Healthcare. Some stuff from my own life. SlutWalk. Political policing.</p><p>Oh well. Instead I refer you to an excellent post by the Goldfish, on <a href="http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2011/06/looking-after-yourself-as-radical.html" href="http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2011/06/looking-after-yourself-as-radical.html">Looking After Yourself As Radical Political Activism.</a> Sounds like just my sort of gig. A taster:</p><blockquote><p>It's radical because this is a message you are unlikely to receive anywhere in the media or from culture. You may receive messages advocating material self-interest. You may receive messages advocating a healthy lifestyle, but very often these messages come with a dose of shame and angst for your inevitable failure to follow all available advice. If you watch television, read the news or step outside in a built-up area today, you will receive lots and lots of messages. None of them will tell you that you matter and you need to look after yourself. Many of them will suggest reasons why you don't really matter.</p></blockquote><p>Rush, don't walk.</p><p>--IP</p>IrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-7599757830912732362011-04-24T11:11:00.004+01:002011-04-24T12:37:27.892+01:00Sunday papers: Pronouns<div>So, inspired by <a href="http://res0nance.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/sunday-papers-13-sunday-february-20th/">Resonance</a>, here's some alternative Easter Sunday papers. On Friday I was misgendered and publicly wrong-pronoun'd, in what was described as a queer space, and so I've been thinking about pronoun etiquette. I make just a many assumptions as everyone else and 'he' and 'she' people all the time based on their appearance, so I'm interested in working out what to do to make things better. Here's some readings on that topic.</div><ul><li><a href="http://sometimesdaveywins.blogspot.com/2010/03/getting-pronouns-right-part-2.html">Getting Pronouns Right - Why Pronouns are Important</a> - a pretty good explanation of why they're important</li><li><a href="http://genderqueerchicago.blogspot.com/2009/08/pronoun-question-by-malic-moxie.html">The Pronoun Question</a> - why asking the question about pronouns is important</li><li>Some briefer guidelines: from <a href="http://srlp.org/resources/publications/pronoun-etiquette">Sylvia Rivera Law Project</a> and <a href="http://iamtransgendered.com/Etiquette.aspx">IAmTrangendered.com</a> (the latter seems to have some problematic stuff)</li><li><a href="http://www.jessicapettitt.com/images/Making_Classrooms_Welcoming_for_Trans.pdf">Making Classrooms Welcoming for Trans Students</a></li></ul><div>A lot of this is centred around trans people, but it's not just trans people this is for. This is for <i>everyone</i>, because you actually just can't tell what gender or pronoun people prefer from looking at them. You might think you can. And if you assume, you might get it right 90-99% of the time. Liberation isn't about 99% of people though, it's about everyone.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we want to be inclusive, we need to work out new social etiquette and practice it. So, homework for this week: start a conversation with someone about pronouns. What should we do differently? Where do we start? Hand in your answers in the comments below.</div>Andihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17836168735308708661noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-50773791410239176092011-04-15T21:42:00.002+01:002011-04-15T21:45:51.585+01:00Why I loveVia <a href="http://richardjnewman.com/2011/04/15/why-i-love-my-straight-boyfriend-%C2%AB-thought-catalog/">Richard Jeffrey Newman</a> comes this really moving post called "<a href="http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/why-i-love-my-straight-boyfriend/">Why I love my straight boyfriend</a>":<br /><br /><blockquote>So what exactly does a contemporary relationship between a gay man and a straight man look like? I don’t know. This is a love affair and it looks like this. Every day we email and text back and forth about who we’re sleeping with, how we’re sleeping with them, and if we should continue to do so (in his case it’s just one girl in Paris who he’s in love with). We email poems to one another (this is less gay than it sounds since we’re both poets, which is more gay than it sounds), we have event nights, non-event nights, and date nights where we get together for really expensive drinks we can’t afford and remix Chrissie Hynde with Camus and (oh my god) our feelings. <br /><br />[...]<br /><br />I kind of knew things were serious with D when he sent me a love poem he wrote for me some months ago. I think it may have originally been a kind of, I wrote this for you what do you think of it thing, but I wasn’t about to give him any edits. Please. Send that shit to The New Yorker stat. I can’t remember a time when a man wrote a poem for me and called it a Love poem, capital L. And it better be capitalized twice because I like those kind of typos. Give it all or don’t give it at all. I hope all the gay men I’ve slept with are reading this.</blockquote><br /><br />It's just beautiful, and powerful. Lots of politics, lots of love. Do yourself a favour and <a href="http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/why-i-love-my-straight-boyfriend/">read the whole thing</a>.<br /><br />This is something we don't talk about enough -- love between men. Well, love between anybody that doesn't fit a "there's a mommy and a daddy and then they love each other very much" kind of pattern. But perhaps especially love between men, and the heteronormative requirement that men shut down so much of their psychoemotional lives seems such a terrible price to pay.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-59283269278879788312011-04-14T13:52:00.001+01:002011-04-14T13:54:03.888+01:00Decisions, decisionsIn the last few weeks, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/25/students-alternative-occupation-glasgow-university">the press has been abuzz with talk of this consensus decision-making that all the kool kids in lefty activist communities use</a>. Although it's a little unpopular in many lefty activist communities to admit, I personally have mixed feelings about consensus decision-making.<br /><br />The <a href="http://peopleandplanet.org/unis/gg/decisionmaking">participatory consensus model</a> (PCM) is a system for groups to make decisions. The idea is that everyone should work to find a mutually acceptable solution to a given problem, not settle on something which is acceptable to majority. The reasoning for this is that a majoritarian view can alienate minorities, and a group decisions should be one that the whole group can feel part of and ownership of (so "alienate" here means not only "exclude", but also the Marxist sense of "alienation"). A consensus is reached when everyone in the group agrees on a decision.<br /><br />The PCM makes some basic assumptions about participants, and the decision-making context. It assumes people are willing to accommodate to each other's points of view, that everyone actively wants to find a solution that works for everyone and resolve any problems that might be standing in the way of that. It assumes that everyone has an equal right to participate, and that everyone is committed to learning from each other. In a lot of ways, it's very much like the consciousness-raising model -- consciousness-raising for decision-making. Typically, PCM discussions are facilitated, to make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak and speaking turns are allocated fairly. However, PCM is generally used in non-hierarchical settings.<br /><br />On a more fundamental level: PCM assumes everyone has an equal ability to participate, and there is a very real sense in which PCM is relies on the idea that "decisions are made by those who turn up". PCM is not a representative democracy.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><br />That presents its own problems, of course. There may be good reasons why some people cannot turn up, or cannot participate as much as they would like. PCM also takes time -- it's easy to present a case for and against something. It's much harder to invest the time and energy to finding common group that makes everyone happy. I can't help noticing that many of the stalwart campaigners in many of the PCM-based campaigns I have been involved in are men with no dependents or disabilities or waged jobs. Not all, of course. But many, and although efforts are often made to include children, disabled people, poorer people, in PCM spaces, that doesn't change the fact that PCM can be long and difficult sometimes, and some people will never have the energy to spare (although we might well have the energy to read up on material in our own time, and cast a vote).<br /><br />PCM also assumes that everyone has the equal ability to be heard, and that everyone is committed to learning. I don't doubt that people strive towards this. But I sometimes doubt that it is fully achievable in all situations, because we do internalise prejudices, because we're all socialised in a very messed-up society. I'm not always sure it is the case that everyone is listened to equally, or that every group that strives to be non-hierarchical in fact ends up being non-hierarchical in practice, because people do and will associate some people with being knowledgeable, or sensible, or what-have-you more than others, and because some people will (and will be able to) put more work into group activities than others. <br /><br />But many of these problems are problems also with representative democracy models (RDM). With RDMs, there maybe often be less of an effort to find the common ground, more majoritarian rule. That means that even if, say, single mothers get a vote, if they are a numerical majority, their preferences may be discounted.<br /><br />In many ways, I see the test of these systems as being what happens in situations outside our feminist activist bubbles. PCMs don't really work where there is a fundamental and insuperable difference of opinion between participants. But RDM does not encourage attempts to listen and persuade.<br /><br />I will say this for the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/25/students-alternative-occupation-glasgow-university">Glasgow student occupation</a>, and PCM-based groups like them, though: they have built something extraordinary. The are truly remarkable examples of community-run inclusive projects. That they do it in stark contrast to the decision-making systems of university hierarchies, which are not RDMs, but strictly hierarchical with, it seems, particular focus on what is best for the senior management staff. So when I look at projects like <a href="http://freehetherington.wordpress.com/">the Free Hetherington</a> that are built on peaceful, if civilly disobedient, protest and community involvement, all I can say is: more power to them.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-60197804831612138372011-03-31T14:44:00.001+01:002011-03-31T14:46:11.910+01:00"Don't let it get to you"I know it's well-meant. I know people say it to help. But I hate hearing it.<br /><br />People usually say this to me not when some little thing has happened. Little is when someone parks over the dropped kerb and I have to go a block out of my way to the next dropped kerb. Little is when someone wolf whistles in the street. Little is when there's a problem, but I can deal with it.<br /><br />Big deals are the ones I can't get round, because it's not dependent on my effort, or because it would take so much effort it would cut short my working day. Big is when there are no toilets in the building I can use (eg, because none are accessible), and I have to just go home. Big is when I have nowhere accessible to work in my <em>workplace</em>. Big is when the pharmacist says "it'll only be a minute" and they have no chairs, and 20 "just one minute"s later you don't know whether you should keep standing with pain shooting up through your tired swollen feet, or should just leave, without your painkillers. Big is when people don't give priority to the wheelchair user, the person with the walking stick, the person carrying a toddler, in lifts and on the bus, and they can't get to where they need. Big is when stuff is scheduled in places without child licenses and wheelchair access and people then shrug and say "some people just never come to these things".<br /><br />Big is when people talk to me like other people's bigotry is something I "let" happen, or allow to affect me, as if I enjoy these limitations on my life. As if I don't spend hours out of each day trying to find a way around the little things, trying to keep them from becoming big things. As if I don't spend hours out of each day trying to live my life. Also? Having to categorise the shitty behaviour I encounter into "big" and "little", so that <em>other people</em> won't be made uncomfortable hearing me talk about a problem I encountered and how I dealt with it? Is crap.<br /><br />I know it's well meant, and I am grateful for the people who mean well, and the people who listen when I'm tired and worn. But sometimes, I just wish I didn't have to be grateful for the little cruelties that are packed into the well-meaning words. <br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-90203297955503942472011-03-25T15:37:00.004+00:002011-03-26T16:16:07.736+00:00Race RevoltI've been reading bits of <a href="http://www.racerevolt.org.uk/issues/home.html">Race Revolt</a>, a zine about race and queerness. Their articles are online, too, go check them out.Andihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17836168735308708661noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-50779275300516928432011-03-24T17:34:00.000+00:002011-03-24T17:36:13.968+00:00good one.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpEmNcqOFCJ0gVx4mdda8VZozcVJJR07E7O5eegE7n0IFR1uxLSu03FC6iYq1wcaph9N5xOTkokKAYMZWDimidIL49juAQjEGQPowAHU6BnGKViZ7dQGRw_GluolhW3mUR1WP754jXbAs/s1600/feminist_graffiti.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 288px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpEmNcqOFCJ0gVx4mdda8VZozcVJJR07E7O5eegE7n0IFR1uxLSu03FC6iYq1wcaph9N5xOTkokKAYMZWDimidIL49juAQjEGQPowAHU6BnGKViZ7dQGRw_GluolhW3mUR1WP754jXbAs/s400/feminist_graffiti.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5587701493056267986" /></a>mata harihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09128163494392715419noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-20112264259287301542011-03-20T15:46:00.003+00:002011-03-20T15:50:26.868+00:00The ballgame(Well it has been a wee while. Sorry about that. Offline stuff has kept me busy.)<br /><br />I came across <a href="http://microaggressions.tumblr.com/">Microaggressions</a>, and now cannot recall where (so hat tips generally). It's a Tublr with a <a href="http://ldn.ihollaback.org/">Hollaback</a>-ish feel to it, and the tagline is "Power, privilege, and oppression in everyday life". Anyone can submit a microaggression story.<br /><br />Example 1:<br /><blockquote><br /><blockquote>"Men can’t be raped. If you’re a man you consent by default."</blockquote><br />Made me feel isolated.</blockquote><br />Example 2:<br /><blockquote><blockquote>"Oh, you mean you’re Chinese, right?"</blockquote><br />Almost every time someone asks me “What are you?” and I respond “Taiwanese American,” they feel the need to correct my response. Yes, I’m aware of the controversy. But I also know who I am better than you do, so at least give me the right to decide what I am for myself.</blockquote><br /><br />Example 3:<blockquote><blockquote>“They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.”</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?_r=3&hpw">New York Times</a> about the gang-rape of an 11-year-old girl.</blockquote><br />Challenging these "small" things is the ballgame. This is how violence and oppression happen on a day to day level. And campaigns like Microaggression and Hollaback provide an amazing way of talking back to those people, and of drawing attention to them as the the ballgame. Go forth, and read.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-30437767291935456172011-02-19T12:40:00.005+00:002011-02-19T12:50:53.174+00:00Deconstruction is...<div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5vLTinKXTdDkNzIFR4aD4daQ4s6Ec3MxtDK2JvT4tuaAhLRaDo4jayZRyjAETKM0_ew2Ozrte36K1H_hCz2JOPDp5pj7M-2c324pZcd4iEKB4up5wZlYT0_YiO2UUcpYpCypib7lIo4w/s1600/deconstruction+is+sexy.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 346px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5vLTinKXTdDkNzIFR4aD4daQ4s6Ec3MxtDK2JvT4tuaAhLRaDo4jayZRyjAETKM0_ew2Ozrte36K1H_hCz2JOPDp5pj7M-2c324pZcd4iEKB4up5wZlYT0_YiO2UUcpYpCypib7lIo4w/s400/deconstruction+is+sexy.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5575380000572594290" border="0" /></a>by<a href="http://www.croadcore.org/"> Cristy C. Road</a><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Well, I think it's true. Discuss?<br /></div></div>Katherinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254414685000116648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-72026814685255394052011-02-06T23:51:00.002+00:002011-02-07T00:02:19.378+00:00Trans Post StatementsI've loved <a href="http://www.postsecret.com/">PostSecret</a> for a while. A couple of times I've seen a post which has made me think "oh! I never knew anyone else thought/felt that!" While I think it's important to remember that even if no-one else thinks/feels something it's still ok, sometimes it's nice to feel less alone.<br /><br />Today, I discovered <a href="http://transpoststatement.tumblr.com/">Trans Post Statements</a>. It's inspired by PostSecret, but its even better because it's about gender, and it's aimed at a queer community. I like that even though I'm much more likely to find posts that make me go "yes, me too!", the posts that don't still make me feel good about being queer.<br /><br />I'm going to make one when this round of uni work is done. Maybe you'll get to see it here on queergeeks :)Katherinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06254414685000116648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-3141357227705509192011-01-26T12:58:00.003+00:002011-01-26T13:14:07.323+00:00Is this really the revolution?In a nutshell, fat-acceptance is the idea that shaming people for the size or shape they are is Not Ok. And not going to make anyone any healthier or thinner. And also that size isn't the same as health. Fat-acceptance is closely connected to the idea of "<a href="http://www.healthateverysize.org.uk/haes.html">Health At Every Size</a>", which is the claim that health is best promoted not by pursuing a particular body size or shape, but rather by promoting healthy eating habits (not diets), regular exercise, etc, in a size-neutral manner. For more information on these ideas, check out the <a href="http://kateharding.net/">Shapely Prose Archive</a>.<br /><br />In this society we're brought up with massive pressures to be a certain size and shape, and for many people the psychological and medical consequences of that pressure are extremely serious. As well as shaming people for their bodies, it's not unreasonable to suggest that these pressures may contribute to eating disorders and other mental health issues and low self-esteem, as well as a number of physical health issues associated with dieting, or sudden weight gain/loss. As many people have remarked, this pressure is gendered. That's not to say that men do not experience body image issues -- of course they do. But rather that the standards to which women are held are often much more stringent, and more rigidly policed.<br /><br />How to challenge these pressures is a difficult issue. But something I doubt very much will ever present an effective challenge is the practice of companies to who make a profit off of women's insecurities about their bodies. They may claim to care about self-esteem, but present no real challenge to the dominant narrative that causes those insecurities.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I think it is important that companies have a sense of corporate responsibility. But <a href="http://www.thebodyshop.com/_en/_ww/values-campaigns/self-esteem.aspx?">The Body Shop's well-being campaign video explicitly holds that self esteem well-being is about "looking good"</a> (sorry, no transcript because I can't work out how to replay bits of the video while transcribing). The <a href="http://www.dove.co.uk/campaign-for-real-beauty.html">Dove Campaign for Real Beauty shows a bunch of women in bras and underpants</a>, because, um, apparently real beauty means being able to be objectified in order to sell more soap? Or something.<br /><br />Feminist blogger <a href="http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/01/20/beginning-a-body-project-series-at-healthy-is-the-new-skinny/">Hugo Schwyzer</a> has recently been promoting the <a href="http://healthyisthenewskinny.com/">Healthy is the New Skinny project</a>, in which he is a participant. It's a project that aims to change the fashion industry to promote better self esteem and healthier body image in young women. Which sounds great, right? ...At least until you read the posts about why <a href="http://healthyisthenewskinny.com/2011/01/beauty-tips-for-all-chicks-lashes/#more-1166">you should try eyelash extensions</a>, some <a href="http://healthyisthenewskinny.com/2011/01/what-body-type-are-you-what-you-need-to-know-about-your-body/">diet tips</a>, and <a href="http://healthyisthenewskinny.com/2010/12/ballet-dancer-called-fat-we-think-she-is-perfect/">how fat is inherently bad</a>. What part of telling women their bodies need improvement, need to be skinnier and prettier, is promoting healthy body image? What part of this is challenging the dominant pressures on women to be a particular size and shape?<br /><br />There's a lot of room for feminists to disagree about what our response should be to these projects. Should we be involved in them, as Hugo Schwyzer is, trying to change them for the better? Should we condemn the projects and have nothing to do with them? Should we try to work on genuinely new projects that really do promote health at every size and fat-acceptance? Are there other options? Maybe it's not so straightforward -- I still remember <a href="http://imagehost.epier.com/3023/RubyPC.jpg">Ruby, the "rubenesque" Barbie, made by The Body Shop</a>, and how much people talked about the effect of Barbie on girls' body image when presented with Ruby's image.<br /><br />But still, my own view is that as long as "body acceptance" campaigns are driven by the message that women should want to make themselves thinner, prettier, sexier, what we'll get is not self-esteem, but the same harmful messages that tell <em>women that they are not good enough</em>. That their bodies are not good enough. When those approaches are tied to commercial interests -- specifically, encouraging women to buy more fashion products in order to become skinnier, prettier, etc, then we run the risk of exploiting body image worries for profit. That's no revolution. A strong campaign for health at every size and fat-acceptance, though, I would like to see.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-43309117558254520292011-01-25T13:24:00.000+00:002011-01-25T13:25:04.034+00:00Caregiving in the Big SocietyI've recently taken on some caregiving responsibilities for a friend. I find it difficult to understand the reaction of people around me to this information. There are a number of puzzling points.<br /><br />Several people have said things like "Can't someone else do that? It's not your responsibility." And I think, well, it's <em>someone's</em> responsibility, and I happen to be here. It seems to be regarded as some kind of optional extra, instead of a community responsibility for people to pitch in a little and make sure that this person has, say, clean socks.<br /><br />It's hard to explain to people how this fits into my life. I'd like to be able to explain better what taking on this responsibility requires from me. The strongly negative words that many people seem to use to report their own experiences of caregiving doesn't seem appropriate for me in this situation.<br /><br />A while back <a href="http://modusdopens.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/de-centering-care-disability-and-relationships/">I wrote about being both a caregiver and a receiver of care</a>, and re-reading it now, I note that I said very little about communities, except in terms of community attitudes.<br /><br />The Tory party's "Big Society" policy is focused on scaling back national government in favour of local power, and volunteerism. For many people, volunteering time in their community is just part of being a person. My caregiving is "voluntary" in the sense that no money is involved (it's less clear that it's an "optional extra", for the reasons above). But this person needs more than just the support I can provide as a friend -- they need trained medical support too. The need more support than I alone can provide.<br /><br />I wonder what would happen to someone who needed similar support if they were very isolated (as disabled people can easily become, because of mobility difficulties, communication difficulties, mental health, or other issues), or lived in a remote place, or lived in the sort of urban place where people don't talk to each other much. What good would volunteerism be if people cannot access support?<br /><br />How would a volunteerist approach to caregiving provide the support for caregiving that caregivers need? Without appropriate support, caregivers can't provide the support that is needed, and then everyone loses out.<br /><br />The Tory move to localism isn't intended to resource communities better -- it's a move to decrease funding, and decrease our notion of society as a nationally-constituted community. I am reminded of Thatcher's infamous claim that society doesn't exist. And this is why it matters. Our communities, whether locally or nationally conceived, have a responsibility to support those who need support.<br /><br />And now that Margaret Thatcher is herself dependent, we might ponder at the irony of her entitlement to medical care that is paid for by tax, collected by the society she thought doesn't exist. The truth is this: <em>everyone gets old and disabled unless they die first</em>. We don't always get to plan the way things happen, so the next best thing is to preserve communities, and community support.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-43154509989652684182011-01-24T13:07:00.006+00:002011-01-25T15:20:04.640+00:00where is neutral?<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;"><span style="color:#ccccff;">This is a bit of a stream of thoughts that has come out of a series of ...”heated discussions”… with someone close to me, perhaps someone could offer some insight? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#ccccff;"><span style="font-family:Calibri;">After a fairly prolonged period of preferring to dress more androgynously - kind of a mixture between a little bit baby-dykey and scabby-student, i started to have a bit of a longing to dig out all my old corsets, netting skirts and punk-rock buresque clothes that had been residing in the back of my cuboard for the most part of a year. </span><span style="font-family:Calibri;">For the ‘female’ bodied, or those that are usually read as female by the outside gaze – the queer negotiation of femininities can be a bit of a minefield in the juncture between public sex/gender discourse and queer identities and politics. I’ve been having a bit of a problem with this recently, I never really thought about it before – I just dressed how I wanted to dress, played with my look and thought ‘fuck it’, but recently the critiques of certain parts of my gender expression have meant I’ve had to confront the politics of my ‘femme’ side, or as I refer to it, my ‘drag-queen’ side. I go through phases, my gender identity is pretty fluid and I don’t really feel like I do – or should- have to - settle in one place in particular, but traversing the arenas between androgyny, trying to ‘pass’ as a guy and being exaggerated-ly female has brought up some pretty problematic ideas about female-body-female-identity-performance is still read, even in some places within the queer community (to homogenise a bit :o)…). <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span><span style="color:#ccccff;">Femininity is problematic. Decades of feminist deconstruction makes that blindingly obvious. However, focusing only of the socialisation of females makes embodying femininity in a political manner rather difficult. Femininity is often conceived of as the embodiment of ‘false’ (im not talking from academia now here, but from experience of the conversations I’ve had), the embodiment of things learned, socialised, performed. In order to perform femininity we take <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">on</i> actions, we limit our behaviours, we control and regulate, we add – we adorn, decorate, paint and manipulate our bodies. If we state this, we fall prey to seeing masculinity as neutral, and as somehow more ‘natural’, and again, somehow ‘better’ that femininity. If we do this we lose sight of how masculinity is as much of a construction as femininity, as in need of adornments, corporeal manipulation and regulation as femininity – but importantly, in ways that appear in our culturally conditioned consciousness’ as <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>more respectable, less fake. If we make these assumptions, we still find ourselves thinking in binary terms, and still positioning femininity as lesser in that binary. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;"><span style="color:#ccccff;">Negotiating queer femininities is in no way an easy ride. Even when you see both binary sections as intrinsically constructed, as performed as each other – it doesn’t end there. Negotiating femininities is fraught with all the stuff that comes with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How do you embody something about the fun of femininity<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>- perhaps in an extravagant way – that is sex positive, and can openly display signs or an ironic subversion of traditional aspects of feminine sexuality in a positive light- without stumbling into that quagmire of being overly-sexualised and positioning yourself into that heteronormative fantasy of female-object, sexually available FOR consumption by the masculine patriarchal gaze. There is a thin line between being able to play with overt sexuality and exaggerated femininity, and the self-sexualisation (however non-intentional) that places you in the public view as right up there with burlesque style playboy models and the mannequins in the front window of Ann Summers. Mostly, the line can only be drawn in our own heads and in the heads of those who know us, our identities, our genders and our politics. Overt female sexuality still has a long way to go before we can be comfortable that our expressions won’t be re-appropriated into mainstream meta-narratives of female objectification. And for me, and I’m sure I’m not alone, it’s an uncomfortable place to stand. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>If you decide to brave on through it, it quickly becomes tiring to keep having to patiently explain/argue/shake someone and scream ‘no – it’s not meant like that’. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri;"><span style="color:#9999ff;"><span style="color:#ccccff;">To return to taking about what it takes to negotiate “femininities”, I don’t see why make-up, corsets, hold-ups, glitter (with of course, for me, a good measure of doc martins, dread Mohawk and an abundance of body hair) should be read as anything but fun. I’ve fought for a long time to shake off my hang ups about my body, and I don’t see why showing parts of my body should be sexualised – to me my thighs and breasts are no more sexual than my arms and feet (and of course once, these too were considered highly sexual to show), but I know that they still are, and if I go around with my thighs and tits out, for whatever personal/political reason – it will still be read in that oh-so-pervasive particiarchal sexualising manner. Unfortunately I have no answers, I hope some of you will have some insights… I wish we lived in a world when queer could truly be what you want it to be, where FtF (or Queer-to-F?) personas could be taken as seriously as taking on aspects of masculinity, and where it all could be seen as a part of the same deal. What I don’t want for myself is to abandon femininity – despite it’s history and continuation of association with repression, sexualisation and a lack of agency. I don’t want to have to negotiate my femininity in a way that is more masculine in order to have myself taken seriously – that seems to defeat the object for me. To me, we are not better feminists for abandoning what has been typically resigned to the female in favour of a ‘better’ masculine model. But what is neutral if it is not the “female” embodying “more masculine” traits – and what appears as neutral (i.e. what doesn’t have some symbol of feminine identification) tends to get read as masculine anyway… where does neutral lie if not within masculinity? If it does lie within masculinity, then there is something here we have to address… <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"></span>How do we stop people reading things as “masculine” or “feminine” anyway? In my particular gender identity it’s all kind of like playing dress-up anyway, no matter what I put on. How do people embody queer femininities that could sideline the risk of being objectified and sexualised without your consent – or in a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">way</i> that you didn’t consent to? That tricky negotiation of how you’re going to be read, because we can never escape being read – and appropriated, is one that has be accounted for, especially (but not only) when we leave the safety of our queer bubbles</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Doll Partshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13559996267627568598noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-21930133452206743462011-01-03T13:36:00.005+00:002011-01-04T01:13:21.269+00:00Let them eat mahimahi fillets<a href="http://queergeeks.blogspot.com/2010/12/tis-season.html">Further to my last post on food and intersectionality</a>, I did some googling for cookbooks, just to double check if I had to eat my words. Alas, no, although <a href="http://queergeeks.blogspot.com/2010/12/tis-season.html?showComment=1293998766002#c3315440987037434432">Kate's recipes</a> will definitely go into my recipe notebook. Here's what I found in cookbook searches.<br /><br />The overwhelming majority of cookbooks aimed at people with a specific named long-term condition (eg, arthritis, fatigue, fibromyalgia, autism) are not books that explain how to make cooking a simpler task, nor are they intended to expand your cooking repertoire in an easy no-fuss kind of way, but rather are intended to promote a particular kind of diet. They have titles with the word "cure" in them.<br /><br />Look, I know that some elimination diets help <em>some</em> people manage their conditions. That's great, and I'm happy for you. What's much less cool is promoting the diet that helps <em>you</em> as a "cure" for <em>everyone</em>, unless you have a bunch of thorough double-blind studies to back you up. Plus, if we could actually cure autism, etc, with goji berries, I'm pretty sure there would be, you know, <em>science</em> about that.<br /><br />So to the authors of these books let me say the following: thanks for playing, and I'm glad your diet helps you, but it's actually hard enough to feed myself already what with the whole frequently-feeling-too-shit-to-cook thing, without trying to cut whole food groups out of the equation.<br /><br />Ok, I hear you cry, surely you could make some of these recipes even without sticking to the diet? Well maybe I could, but why should I help people who write these books to profit from promoting these diets? And anyway, the books seem to contain a number of recipes that are completely impractical in the context of my life. Here are some of the things I will not be cooking:<br /><ul><br /> <li>Stuffed fennel. SpoonShortageFail. Life'sTooShortFail.</li><br /> <li>Fresh salmon steaks. CostFail.</li><br /> <li>Wild rice. CostFail.</li><br /> <li>Escargot. CostFail.</li><br /> <li>Fresh mahimahi fillets. CostFail. WhereDoPeopleEvenBuyThatFail.</li><br /> <li>Shiitake mushrooms. CostFail.</li><br /> <li>Flavoured oils. CostFail.</li><br /> <li>Flounder. CostFail.</li><br /> <li>Acai berries. IDon'tEvenKnowHowToPronounceItFail.</li><br /> <li>Assorted SpoonsShortageFails caused by recipes that take ages and need multiple pots and lots of chopping.</li><br /></ul><br /><a href="http://kaz.dreamwidth.org/">Kaz</a> and I spent an amused afternoon reading samples of these books out loud to each other. Kaz suggested that the SpoonFails may be caused by the assumption that everyone has someone to cook for them. If that's the case, it's a dramatic departure from the norms of cookbook-writing (which are general assumed to be helping you cook food <em>yourself</em>), but would be in keeping with the idea of disabled people as helpless and unable to do anything themselves. It would also be in keeping with the assumption that everyone is middle-class, and all middle-class people have A Woman to do stuff for them -- either in the form of a wife, or in the form of waged domestic help.<br /><br />In other words, here's a memo someone didn't get: not everyone has personal servants, and some people might object to the keeping of women as personal servants. Disabled people are disproportionately poor and are disproportionately unable to do complicated cooking. Cooking is disproportionately allocated to women, who are also disproportionately poor.<br /><br />Is the assumption that poor people with fatigue and mobility issues are going to be trailing round their local health food shops for mahimahi fillets and truffle oil? And since my local health food shop is not wheelchair accessible, am I supposed to believe that the truffle oil will cause me to throw my mobility scooter over one shoulder while I walk around the shop? Ahahahahahaha don't make me laugh so much, it hurts my costochondritic ribs.<br /><br />Seriously though, why is <em>eating food</em> a luxury?<br /><br />[Edited to add: <a href="http://kaz.dreamwidth.org/240675.html">Kaz has more</a> on this topic.]<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-23845373285636778882010-12-31T15:34:00.003+00:002010-12-31T15:41:30.220+00:00'Tis the seasonOf food. If you're celebrating something this time of year, you're probably eating.<br /><br />Chronic pain and fatigue mean that I struggle with energy for preparing square meal. Increasingly this means I make use of <a href="http://modusdopens.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/the-one-pot-easy-meal/">one-pot recipes</a>, but sometimes the desire to eat/serve something a little bit different can mean that I spend dramatic amounts of energy and can be tired for days. So I need a new repertoire, and gradually I'm finding new dishes and combinations that work well.<br /><br />I occasionally browse cookbook sections in bookshops, but generally find these are not as helpful as one might think. See, I know <em>how</em> to cook. The problem is not learning to cook, but thinking up dishes that meet the necessary restrictions. Moreover, most cookbooks seems to have a dramatically different idea from me of what constitutes an "easy" recipe. For example, Nigella Lawson's version of "easy" cooking, that often takes half an hour and uses several pots I'll then have to wash up, is the sort of dish I might consider on a day I was feeling particularly well, not on a day I was feeling tired and in lots of pain.<br /><br />So what I need are recipes that meet the following restrictions:<br /><ul><br /> <li>Low financial cost: No posh imported ingredients, no boneless skinless nonsense.</li><br /> <li>Nutritional value: It's important to me that I eat a balanced range of vitamins and other nutrients because this helps in the management of my symptoms.</li><br /> <li>Low on mental <a href="http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory-written-by-christine-miserandino/">spoon-cost</a>: This will vary from person to person, but for me it means working with foods I'm likely to have already in my kitchen (since I can't usually run out at the last minute to pick up a few ingredients). And while I do buy fresh foods regularly, recipes that rely on ingredients with a longer shelf-life are preferred (since I'm more likely to have those things on any given day). Brownie points if you can make a good meal entirely out of non-perishables. Also: if I can minimise the planning-ahead time, that's good too (so foods that have to be prepared a day in advance are right out).</li><br /> <li>Low on physical <a href="http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory-written-by-christine-miserandino/">spoon-cost</a>: This will also vary from person to person, but for me it means minimal chopping, minimal washing up, minimal time I have to spend standing up.</li><br /></ul><br />So why is this a social justice issue? Well, <a href="http://modusdopens.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/food-for-a-dollar/">as I've written before</a>, the cheapest foods tend either to be low in the nutritional content I need or very high in <a href="http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory-written-by-christine-miserandino/">spoon-cost</a>. Foods that are really easy to prepare tend to be more expensive (because they include the cost of processing, chopping, skinning/boning, etc), and are often less healthy. If they are both easier to prepare <em>and</em> high in the nutritional content that I need, they are high in financial cost; we're talking nice cuts of lean meat and fish, whole grains, fresh fruit and vegetables -- all of these are dramatically more expensive than the less healthy options of tinned baked beans, tinned meat, etc.<br /><br />And as a feminist, I also note that domestic work -- including the purchasing and preparation of food -- is disproportionately allocated to women. And when the women in question are disabled, these are the issues that arise. Oh, and did I mention? Disabled people and women are disproportionately poor.<br /><br />Anyway I keep looking for new recipes that meet all of these, but the hope that I will find them in one of the cookbooks all the cool kids seem to be using is beginning to fade. As <a href="http://kaz.dreamwidth.org/">Kaz</a> and I have often remarked, we may just need to write the book(s) ourselves.<br /><br />Anyway, happy whatever-you-celebrate, or general happiness, if you do not celebrate anything this time of year. May your <a href="http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory-written-by-christine-miserandino/">spoons</a> be plentiful.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-3114022043445537562010-12-30T23:51:00.002+00:002010-12-30T23:56:14.266+00:00Geraldine DoyleGeraldine Doyle <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122905336.html">died last week</a> at the age of 86. She was the inspiration for the "Rosie the Riveter" poster which proudly proclaimed that We Can Do It. Yes, that one:<br /><p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.rosietheriveterphotos.com/images/070225200121_We_Can_Do_It_Rosie_the_Riveter_LG.jpg" alt="Rosie the Riveter poster" height="450" width="348" /></p><br /><br /><blockquote><em>Image description: A young White woman flexing her right arm and looking determined. She is wearing a blue factory work shirt, her hair is covered in a red bandanna with white dots. There is a blue speech bubble above her head with the words "We Can Do It!".</em></blockquote><br />And here's Ms Doyle in the 1940s:<br /><img class="aligncenter" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513g33BEjEL._SS500_.jpg" alt="The original "Riveter" photo" height="500" width="500" /><br /><br /><blockquote><em>Image description: a young White woman is shown leaning over what appears to be a piece of factory machinery. She is wearing a light-coloured factory work clothes, and her hair is tied up and covered with a polka-doted bandanna.</em></blockquote><br />The poster was initially used to recruit women to war service during WWII, and soon became an image of the Women's Movement -- symbolising women's strength, and determination. It's one I've loved for it's positive focus on what women can, and do contribute.<br /><br />Her <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122905336_3.html">obituary</a> in the Washington Post contains this paragraph:<br /><blockquote>While many people profited off the "Rosie the Riveter" image, Mrs. Doyle often said she never made a penny from it because she was too busy tending to her family and "changing diapers all the time."</blockquote><br />I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.<br /><br />Raise hell, Ms Doyle.<br /><br />Hat tip: Melissa McEwan at <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/12/rip-geraldine-doyle.html">Shakesville</a>.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-42129658179671501292010-12-19T17:26:00.005+00:002010-12-19T22:12:34.178+00:00Me and You<div><div><div><div><div><div>The individual is a cult of personality, an isolated incident, a dictatorship, an event, a single point. The collective is solidarity, a culture, a democracy, a continuation, a network.</div><div><br /></div><div>Advantage cannot be given without comparatively removing it from others. One person breaking a glass ceiling does not help everyone else; it just shatters one illusion, leaving shards for everyone who stands below. Now people believe that where there used to be a ceiling, there is none. Don't be fooled; it is still there. One illusion was replaced with another, for there was never a ceiling there in the first place, and now there still is.</div><div><br /></div><div>Struggle for power and you will find privilege, but look inside yourself and you will find a power without struggle. The difficulty is not an external one, but an internal one, to recognise the power relations that play out every day and to learn to challenge them. It is not about rising up, but about bringing down.</div><div><br /></div><div>Society exists. We are not just people, but people in relations, a system. We will never be outside such a system, so we must always push at is edges. The revolution is not an event. It is eternal, a fight against inheritance and assumption. It is not outside but within: there is no end state to be achieved, and no inevitability about it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even though the struggle is internal, it is not individual. It is a shared struggle against our society, our surroundings, which permeate us and constitute us. It is a revolt against ourselves. But to revolt against your self alone is depression and dulling of the spirit. Collectively it can be joy.</div><div><br /></div><div>To push against the chains that shackle us all is activity as brilliantly subversive as anything else we can hope to do, and if you do not enjoy it, you're doing it wrong. So: smile at the police lines, dance! When authority seeks control, laugh in its face, for it has no power over your spirit. Rejoice in your disobedience, for it is not merely insurrection but liberation!</div></div></div></div></div></div>Andihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17836168735308708661noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-28393755393151941302010-12-19T16:37:00.001+00:002010-12-19T16:40:58.454+00:00"Grow out of it"When I was at school, I didn't date until much later than everyone else, and I remember that this caused a certain amount of tension between me and my schoolmates. By all accounts, there was something <em>wrong with me</em>: I was a dyke, or I was frigid, or I was a slut who had lots of sex but was too uptight to tell anyone about it, or I had issues with men, or I wanted to date guys but they didn't want to date me.<br /><br />When I said I simply wasn't interested, that was assumed to be false -- something masking <em>the real problem</em>. If asked whether I wanted to have a relationship or sex <em>eventually</em>, I shrugged, and explained that I had no strong preferences either way, which only confused people more.<br /><br />Eventually, I did start to have romantic relationships, and in my adulthood that included sexual ones. I resent that that fits the stereotypical narrative of "growing out of it" or "not being ready", because that suggests that becoming sexual is something people do, naturally and inevitably, all on their own. And if that's true, then why did my peers go to so much trouble to make sure I knew, from primary school onwards, that there was something completely and utterly <em>wrong</em> with not wanting sexual relationships? We were in primary school when I first remember being overtly told that this was something wrong with me -- most of my peers didn't even know what sex was (I got unusually good sex ed from my parents, at quite a young age, but it's clear to me in retrospect that this wasn't true of my peers), only that sex wasn't optional once you were at the highschool prom/in college/married (highschool proms, college, and marriage obviously not being optional either).<br /><br />In other words, from a very young age, we are taught The Relationship Hierarchy. Which is something like: blood ties and marriage ties trump other sorts of ties. Sexual relationships trump non sexual relationships. You have only one partner, who shall be your sexual partner and your lawfully-wedded spouse, and no other partners, and they trump all other relationships. Marriages that produce children trump non-procreating relationships, but Thou Shalt Not Be A Single Parent. "Family" and "Friends" are distinctive sets of people, and "Family" trumps "Friends". "Friends" should mean only people of the same sex, but otherwise, same sex friends trump other-sex friends. You shall be emotionally intimate only with same-sex friends, unless you are a man, and then Thou Shalt Not Have Emotions. (Please note that I think these are social norms, rather than things I agree with -- in fact I strongly oppose many of these ideas).<br /><br />Well fuck that. <a href="http://queergeeks.blogspot.com/2010/08/friend-this-love-poem-is-as-heartfelt.html">As my co-blogger Katherine blogged</a>, important relationships can be constituted not only through blood ties or marriage ties, but also in other ways. Katherine used the example of flatmates, who might well constitute family.<br /><br />The message here is that although I happen to associate certain kinds of emotional closeness with certain kinds of people and the relationships I have with them, and I also happen to associate certain kinds of (not necessarily sexual) physical intimacy with certain people, those are things I have largely been taught to associate, according to the Relationship Hierarchy. Some of those associations or non-associations are healthy and self-protective (it is not healthy to be close to certain people in certain ways), some of them are arbitrary and deeply harmful.<br /><br />And that has all sorts of reprecussions. It means that from a very young age, before children really understand what sex is, we have taught them that boys and girls cannot be friends without a sexual connection (and men and men, or women and women can never have a sexual or romantic connection). It means that we teach kids that people who are not interested in sex or romance are wrong. It means we teach kids that queer families are wrong or oxymoronic. It means we teach kids that there is a primacy to sexual relationships above friendships that goes partway to legitimising posessive behaviours in abusive partners.<br /><br />And in the context of a society in which things are sold by displaying a near-naked or hawt-and-sexy woman, or a society in which street harassment is part of many women's routine experience, this is also how we teach women that they must be sexually available all the time, to men who must always want sex. It starts before we even know what sex is, and it continues, more or less forever. I remember being little, thinking that eventually I would have sex because everyone did. I remember being repulsed by the idea then, which I attributed to being primary-school age, but years later, I'm still repulsed by the idea that one ought, to think that having sex is inevitable, or think that nobody says no to sex. That's not something I anticipate "growing out of".<br /><br />There are interesting things to be said about how this relates to queer feminism, sex-positive feminism, and the socialisation of children, but this post is long enough already. What I will say is this: <a href="http://kaz.dreamwidth.org/">Kaz</a> and I have talked about queer feminism having, on the whole, very little to say about asexuality. I've worried about writing about asexuality because I don't identify as asexual, and didn't want to be talking as if I knew about other people's experiences. But part of being a political ally, and part of creating a feminism that works for me, is examining my own investment in sexuality, and how we build the hierarchies that I, and indeed everyone else, is part of, and that harm the people around me. This isn't really a post about asexuality -- but it is me starting to do the investment work.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-32939136183514201222010-12-17T13:04:00.003+00:002010-12-17T13:11:57.228+00:00Shout out: Spectral AmoebasWell if this ain't wicked, I don't know what is. <a href="http://kaz.dreamwidth.org/">Kaz</a>, <a href="http://www.theonepercentclub.blogspot.com/">Ily</a>, and <a href="http://writingfromfactorx.wordpress.com">Sciatrix</a> are bringing you a brand new shiny carnival about asexuality and the autistic spectrum. The <a href="http://writingfromfactorx.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/call-for-participation-spectral-amoebas-a-blog-carnival-about-asexuality-and-the-autism-spectrum/">call for participation</a> says<br /><br /><blockquote>A blog carnival is an event where various people write posts around a single topic and link them together at the end. The topic of this carnival is the intersection of asexuality and the autism spectrum. The scope of this project is general. Any topic that deals with the intersection of asexuality and autism fits within the aegis of the carnival. If you’re not sure, submit it anyway and we’ll figure it out.<br /><br />We are asexual bloggers on the autistic spectrum who want to explore the intersection between autistic and asexual identities. The basis of this project is to have a conversation about our unique experiences being autistic and asexual without looking for a “cause”. We want to create a safe, non-judgmental space to talk about the issues that affect us. If you identify as asexual (or demisexual, or gray-a) and as on the autistic spectrum (diagnosed or not, AS, autism, PDD-NOS, NLD), you are invited to write a blog post for this project. If you are not asexual and autistic you are welcome to contribute provided you focus on the issues experienced by this particular intersection. The scope of the project is general, and open to any experiences of being autistic and asexual.<br /><br />However, please keep in mind that asexuality here is to be discussed as a sexual orientation in its own right, not as discussion of the desexualization imposed on autistic people by mainstream culture.<br /><br />If you want to write a post but don’t have a blog, please contact Ily at sanfranciscoemily@gmail.com or me at sciatrix@gmail.com about doing a guest post. Please have your post written by 31st January and comment on this post or send an e-mail to me or Ily about your post by then. Note that the hosts reserve the right to reject posts by anyone if they feel they do not follow the guidelines of or are not in the spirit of the carnival. The posts will be compiled on Writing From Factor X for posterity. A post with the compilation will go up here in the beginning of February. Be a part of this exciting project!<br />–Sciatrix, Kaz, and Ily<br /><br />An edit: Possible topics include but are not restricted to coming out experiences (both asexual and autistic), relationships, gender expression, young adult experiences, treatment by medical professionals, integrating identities, or dealing with stereotypes. This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list, only general ideas.</blockquote><br /><br />See? I said it was wicked!<br /><br />--IP<br /><br />(Tip of the fabulous hattedness: Kaz)IrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-14924706257569550502010-12-09T20:11:00.002+00:002010-12-09T20:14:25.572+00:00Just the beginningEarlier this evening, Parliament voted to raise tuition fees to £6000-£9000 per year.<br /><br />My generation has been hit with a set of really brutal cuts. The elimination of Child Trust Fund, cuts to Child Benefit, cuts to youth services and sports centers and public libraries and schools and now higher education.<br /><br /><a href="http://queergeeks.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-i-wasnt-at-fund-our-future-march.html"><br />I couldn't make the protests today</a>, although I've attended many of the other protests in the last few weeks, so I was home listening to the Parliamentary debate. And what I heard was a room mostly full of non-disabled White men who themselves received world-class free educations, and they are now denying affordable accessible educations to the current generation of young people, and slashing support to women, disabled people, and poor people. I saw a group of people who have benefited hugely from the welfare state decide that children too young to vote but old enough to protest and be arrested, should not themselves receive the same support. And when one MP asked another MP whether he would be willing to pay £9,000 a year for each of his years at university, I saw him dismiss the question and mock it.<br /><br />But I also heard a spirited defense of public services, or student protests and occupations, of protests against Vodafone, and criticisms of kettling from Jeremy Corbyn MP and others. We have a great deal of public support. Some of our elected representatives behaved shamefully today, and we will remember that. We will also remember that we have huge popular following, that we can win if we work together. As <a href="http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2010/12/we-lost-this-vote-but-were-just-getting-started/">Adam Ramsay</a>reminded me earlier this evening when I was struggling not to cry, Thatcher's poll tax was also approved by Parliamentary vote, and later dropped following civil unrest. We can do that again.<br /><br />The campaign against cuts to public services is about more than just tuition fees and university. We've lost this round, but we'll be back. We'll keep marching, keep working, keep protesting. This is just the beginning.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-901536208578399722010-12-07T16:48:00.001+00:002010-12-07T16:50:14.592+00:00People who do good work can still be bastardsHere's what we know about Julian Assange: he founded WikiLeaks,<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110"> he has been arrested and charged with sexual offenses, he denies the allegations, he has been denied bail</a>, and his work has generated extensive controversy and animosity among politicians.<br /><br />Here's what I know about rape allegations: the mass media is particularly shit at impartial journalism when it's about a rape allegation, and we, the general public are also particularly shit at being impartial.<br /><br />I think what WikiLeaks does is important. I think transparency in governing is important. I think protections for whistleblowers are important.<br /><br />I also think that nobody is all good or all bad, and that the fact that you do good and important work does not necessarily mean that you're not a bastard. Whether Julian Assange belongs in this category I do not know, and I do not care to speculate. I refer you to the above list of things I do know about him. I note the point here because it's something that people often overlook but I thin it may be part of what is motivating the popular support of Assange against the allegations. That is, I think many people assume that if someone is nice to fluffy kittens then they must automatically be A Good Person who can do no harm. Maybe Assange is the sweetest person you could ever hope to meet, and is particularly sweet to fluffy kittens. Maybe he's a total wanker. <em>I don't know</em>, and what's more, I don't particularly care. What I do know and care about is that supporting transparency and whistleblowing does not require me to excuse or ignore serious allegations.<br /><br />But I'm saddened to see a number of liberal and even feminist friends talking and writing about Assange and the allegations as if the allegations are <em>obviously</em> trumped-up, or simply unimportant, or who write about supporting WikiLeaks more vociferously and frequently when the media is full of stories about these allegations than at any other times. The people who know what really happened are Assange and the two complainants. The rest of us? We have to stick with the lists at the start of this post.<br /><br />If you really care about transparency, and you really think whistleblowing is important (and I assume that you do think these things if you support WikiLeaks), your concern should be for the truth. And as you know, if you have been following WikiLeaks, the truth isn't always convenient or simple. So if you're really committed to finding out the truth, your concern should be not to shut down allegations or dismiss them, but to insist on a fair trial.<br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-82275527397164093552010-11-27T16:21:00.005+00:002010-11-27T17:37:44.973+00:00We're here, we're Queer......And we won't pay £9,000 a year!<br /><br />Seriously though, I've been wanting to talk about the way that queer politics, interact with economic justice politics, because the connection is not really that obvious.<br /><br />Most of you will have heard about the student protests across the country since 10 November, in opposition to fees and cuts to education and other public services. The National Day of Action on 24 November saw walk-outs, sit-ins, study-ins, demonstrations, and student occupations of university buildings -- about 20 universities (including 6 unconfirmed, but likely) across the UK have been occupied by students, in opposition to the cuts. 30 November will see a Scotland demonstration. What I've found encouraging has been the participation from secondary school students and sixth-formers. Many of the protests across the country have been led not by students at universities or colleges of further education, but by school pupils fighting for their future. This makes sense, since they'll be even more affected by the education cuts than current further/higher education students, but the response even from young teens has been overwhelming.<br /><br />One thing I've been thinking a lot about though, is the kind of focus we put on our protest. When we march with banners and chants about education cuts, it's a great way of drawing attention to our personal investment. That's good in some ways -- it gives our protest the "human interest" that journalists love. But the downside is that what we are talking about, and what the media is talking about, is cuts to higher education -- the cuts that mostly affect people from middle class background (university hasn't been accessible to the poorest for a long time), and not, say, cuts to housing benefit.<br /><br />This presents a curious dilemma. On the one hand, it's absolutely legitimate and important for people to say "I need to be able to pay rent, and put food on the table, and these cuts will stop me doing that, and for that reason I oppose them", and young people are particularly affected by cuts to education, rising debt, unemployment, etc.<br /><br />On the other hand, it accentuates <a href="http://queergeeks.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-i-wasnt-at-fund-our-future-march.html">the problem of those who most need to be protesting not being able to</a>, for various reason, or not being listened to.<br /><br />There's a further issue though. And that's that if we accept that our tactical role is only to oppose tuition fees or higher education cuts, we've already lost, because we've already accepted the premise that education is an individual privilege, not a social good or a public investment. Education benefits everyone. Healthcare benefits everyone. Social housing benefits everyone.<br /><br />Why they benefit everyone is an interesting question (but a long one, so it's another post -- or feel free to comment in the, well, the comments), but brings us onto what kind of future we, as young adults, want to grow up in. What kind of world we want to bring our children up in. These cuts aren't just for the duration of the economic crisis -- David Cameron has made that clear. These cuts will shape the coming decades -- our adulthoods.<br /><br />So what I would like to see more of is discussion of the kind of society we want -- not just in terms of the minimum wage and the highest tax bracket, but what we want the structure of society to be. And this is where queer politics is relevant. I don't want a world in which some people just scrape by. I don't want a world where welfare is a social safety net. I don't want a world where some kinds of upbringing, or family units, or heteronormative lifestyles, are considered to be inherently better than others, and the stigmatised ones are financially or socially penalised. I don't want a world in which the concerns of materially-privileged teenagers heading for university are more important than the concerns of unemployed teenage single mothers on benefits. I think movements for economic justice can learn a lot from queer politics, by examining the unspoken premises in our campaigns. <br /><br />In other words, what queer politics can contribute is this: what kind of lifestyles are we upholding as the ideals in a campaign for economic justice? Are we assuming that everyone comes from a two-parent two-income middle-class household and that that family is ideally placed to support them financially, practically, and emotionally?<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.qrd.org/qrd/misc/text/queers.read.this">Queers Read This</a> puts it:<br /><br /><blockquote>Being queer is not about a right to privacy; it is about the freedom to be public, to just be who we are. It means everyday fighting oppression; homophobia, racism, misogyny, the bigotry of religious hypocrites and our own self-hatred.<br />[...] And now of course it means fighting a virus as well[...]. Being queer means leading a different sort of life. It's not about the mainstream, profit-margins, patriotism, patriarchy or being assimilated. It's not about executive directors, privilege and elitism. </blockquote><br /><br />Which I read as saying that queer rights movement requires not privacy, but a change in the structure of society, and structures of oppression and privilege (of which economic deprivation/privilege is one).<br /><br />Or, if you prefer, we could take a different leaf from the queer politics book, and say that the similarity between the struggle for economic justice and the queer rights movement is that in both, Silence = Death.<br /><br /><br />--IPIrrationalPointhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18079777358354337933noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2153928711813368045.post-1807544344971298342010-11-23T14:24:00.002+00:002010-11-23T14:27:50.482+00:00dear united nations..<div style="text-align: justify;">... <a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/19/shameful-un-vote-will-lead-to-more-gay-executions/">this</a> is not ok.</div>mata harihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09128163494392715419noreply@blogger.com0