How Alex Pettyfer's makeup artists expected me to react to his makeover in Beastly.
My actual reaction: "HOLY COW THAT'S SO AWESOME! I'm SO going to style myself after that FOREVER."
Next time you make a movie about shallow people, try not to make them shallower than actual people.
Problem, makeup doodz?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
TV Overmind: We Need To Stop Paying Attention To Charlie Sheen
This article pretty much says everything I've been thinking about the whole debacle.
http://tvovermind.zap2it.com/tv-news/stop-paying-attention-charlie-sheen/50154
There's really nothing I can add to this.
http://tvovermind.zap2it.com/tv-news/stop-paying-attention-charlie-sheen/50154
There's really nothing I can add to this.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
What Exactly Is Wrong With Mr. Popper's Penguins?
Okay, so it's half an hour until bedtime, my eyelids are about to shut on their own, the indicator lights on my computer aren't working (I'm starting to suspect imminent system failure - time to back up everything and call the Geek Squad) and then, via this post on Shakesville (in a strictly roundabout fashion), I get THIS.
THIS is the trailer for the upcoming Jim Carrey movie, Mr. Popper's Penguins. Oh, Jim Carrey, how I love/hate you. You, sir, are the male Lady Gaga of comedy. I adore you for your aggressive deconstruction of masculinity and yet you can be such a douche.
Okay, time to quit railing on Jim Carrey. I'm not sure this upcoming mess of a movie is entirely his fault.
It would be far too easy for me just to say the trailer is bad. I mean, we all KNOW that. No, I'm going to go beyond the traditional. I'm going to take a 1:25 movie trailer and deconstruct it like a really real critic, because the failure of this trailer is too deep to be appreciated at first glance.
Here we go.
Firstly, a little background information. This movie is based on a 1938 children's book, also titled "Mr. Popper's Penguins," the summary of which runs thus (according to a website I read):
Then I watched the trailer.
OH SWEET CREAMERY BUTTER. I'm just going to make a point-by-point list of everything that they've screwed up.
THIS is the trailer for the upcoming Jim Carrey movie, Mr. Popper's Penguins. Oh, Jim Carrey, how I love/hate you. You, sir, are the male Lady Gaga of comedy. I adore you for your aggressive deconstruction of masculinity and yet you can be such a douche.
Okay, time to quit railing on Jim Carrey. I'm not sure this upcoming mess of a movie is entirely his fault.
It would be far too easy for me just to say the trailer is bad. I mean, we all KNOW that. No, I'm going to go beyond the traditional. I'm going to take a 1:25 movie trailer and deconstruct it like a really real critic, because the failure of this trailer is too deep to be appreciated at first glance.
Here we go.
Firstly, a little background information. This movie is based on a 1938 children's book, also titled "Mr. Popper's Penguins," the summary of which runs thus (according to a website I read):
Mr. Popper is a house painter whose dreams of Arctic exploration prompt him to write letters to real explorers. One of them sends him a penguin, which he keeps in the icebox. Before he knows it, the painter has a litter of 12 beaked birds. They eat voraciously, leading him to form Popper's Performing Penguins, a stage act that goes on tour and creates mayhem at every stop.I like it. It sounds fun. I especially like the sounds of the hero, Mr. Popper. He is a white male adult, but he's also a working-class hero - and as someone whose job prospects so far have involved working for a dairy or cleaning someone's house, I can get behind that. Plus, penguins! I love penguins. And so do kids. This sounds like the kind of book that would probably induce a lot of giggles in small children, and I'm always for that.
Then I watched the trailer.
OH SWEET CREAMERY BUTTER. I'm just going to make a point-by-point list of everything that they've screwed up.
- Bye-bye, working-class hero! The protagonist of THIS movie is now a Businessman. Not just any Businessman, but THE Businessman. You know, the one whose nice, orderly life is wackily messed up by wacky kids or wacky penguins, forcing him to slide down the slippery slope from his nice, orderly, kyriarchy-approved Businessman lifestyle into total wackiness. Yes, you know the plot. To explain exactly why this bothers me, well, go back to the summary of the book. It's about a guy who doesn't have much, craves something more, and then ends up getting it, if not exactly in the way he expects. It's an empowerment tale. This is the polar opposite of that plot, and one that's been done to DEATH. Classist, please.
- WHY DID HE NOT RUB HIS CHOPSTICKS BEFORE EATING? Those are the disposable snap-apart chopsticks, you have to rub them to get rid of the splinters! Actually, that's not the question at all. The question is why he is eating with chopsticks in the first place. He's eating what appears to be a pile of raw (possibly frozen) fish chunks. I could be wrong, but my racist-dar is detecting the good ol' "sushi = raw fish" misconception, straight from the minds of People Who Didn't Give A Shit Enough To Stop Perpetuating This Stereotype. Yeah, you know the guys. Because sushi is raw fish and also Japanese food and you eat Japanese food with chopsticks and yeh.
- "PENGUINS! YES!" This is not a complaint. This was the highlight of the whole trailer. That kid captures everything that this movie SHOULD be, and probably isn't.
- "Word." Just "Word." Also the song played at that point in the trailer. Once again, black culture (outdated black culture at that) is treated with this cavalier "isn't this what kids are into these days?" attitude. You throw it in there for cool points, "street cred," if you will. Never mind the fact that while WHITE kids who are into black culture are harmless and easily dismissible (even profitable!), BLACK kids who are into black culture are ghetto and 'hood and OH MY CORNPUFFS THEY ARE SO FUTURE CRIMINALS. Punish them for inventing the culture, then co-opt it for profit. Oh, Whiteness, I've missed the sweet sound of your asshole emissions.
- Speaking of that dance, Dick van Dyke did that decades ago and it was... well, I was never crazy about it but it was STILL more charming than this, mainly owing to the omission of Jim Carrey's increasingly creepy-ass face. DUDES. Stop putting him in children's movies PLEASE.
- Oh, and out of three (nine if you count the penguins) characters, there are absolutely no women in the trailer with a speaking role. WHY IS THAT.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Bed-Wetting!
Trigger warning: physical and verbal abuse
"You're a pig," she said. "No, you're worse than a pig. A pig wouldn't wallow in its own filth."
The year, I believe, was 2001. At any rate I was around the age of eleven. I had just had a great summer - the first summer that I had not had to wear a diaper to bed because I FINALLY was not peeing in my sleep. Then winter came, and it started again. And because I was young and ashamed, I didn't tell my mother, I just went on wetting in my bed until the pee soaked through the mattress and the moisture caused the bottom board to separate from the bedframe in the corner where I slept.
(I've always been a corner sleeper. Maybe it stems from the early years where I slept on a couch, but I've never been very good at taking up a lot of bed space. Usually I just pick one corner and stick to it. I've only recently gotten past laying as close to the sideboard as possible.)
I won't say it wasn't gross or unhealthy - it was. But it's important to understand my position.
Some of the earliest words I can remember from my mother are "You wet your pants." I remember her tone almost exactly. The disappointment. The disapproval. The now-I-have-to-spank-you-you-filthy-child. She spanked me for years for wetting my pants (though not for wetting the bed). She was somehow convinced that if she kept it up I would eventually stop.
I did, finally, at the age of or nine. It wasn't because I finally realized it was wrong, or because the arrival of my baby brother meant that now I had to be grown-uppish. It just happened that that was the age that I gained the ability not to pee myself (and ever since I've had weak bladder muscles, which can be awkward when I get sick).
That was great, because wetting my pants was wrong and unsanitary and wrong and shameful and WRONG and only little kids who were like two years old were supposed to do it. So I was happy.
But I kept wetting the bed. And it's true that it hadn't been stigmatized like pants-wetting was, but there was still that sense that there was something messed up with me. For one thing, pee made the bed stinky and it had to be washed. For another thing, it was widely touted as "normal" for people to stop peeing in their sleep at about the age of four. (Not that those were the only people I was exposed to, but the others that I knew of were just exceptions that I was supposed to relate to. Like my jerkwad uncle who wet until he was... dunno how old.)
I think the worst part was when I transitioned from Goodnites to adult diapers. MY WORD. Not only did I wet the bed, but I was so fat that I couldn't fit into the nightwear for bed-wetters of my age (I had a similar experience with pants, but that was not quite as embarrassing). No, I had to wear diapers that were made for people much, much older than myself. I was doubly messed up.
Anyway, so when I stopped wetting the bed that summer, to call myself "relieved" would be an understatement. I was SO happy. Finally I was normal! Finally I could wear underwear to bed instead of a diaper! (Turned out I didn't like wearing underwear to bed, actually.) And when it started again, I couldn't bring myself to tell anyone, to ask for my mom to start buying me diapers again, because what eleven-year-old wants to ask their parents for diapers? Besides, I was hoping it would stop. I was still hanging onto the naïve hope that if I ignored the problem long enough it would go away.
She told me that, then. "You're an ANIMAL, because PEOPLE don't do things like this. You're a pig. No, you're worse than a pig. Even a pig won't lay in its own filth." Like I was deliberately lounging around in my own germ-ridden urine because I LIKED it. But more to the point, I now knew what my behavior meant. It meant that I was foul, horrible. I wasn't just less than human - I was used to feeling like that because of my fatness. I was less than an animal. I was probably somewhere between "slime mold" and "dog turd" because of this, because of my mistake.
And then she beat me.
She beat me for being scared. For being ashamed. For hating myself. Every blow drove my pain and shame and horror deeper into me. I must have cried. In fact, I expect that I reacted exactly as I did now, reliving the moment in my head - loud, gasping sobs, the unmistakable noise of a child in agony. It happened roughly ten years ago but as I write it out the emotions are still as raw as if it was yesterday.
What actually happened yesterday was that I remembered this incident. At the time, it felt so faint that I could hardly remember it had happened. Much less that it had happened to ME. Like a bad dream, I had pushed it out of my memory so that I could go on living like a normal human being. That's the power of the mind, isn't it? To sequester away those horrible memories so that, the next morning, you can look your mother right in the face and convince yourself that she's a good, loving parent. I had to, because my mother told me she was, and I knew she had to be right because she took her cues from the Bible and the Bible was the ultimate authority on goodness and holiness.
(She didn't learn this one from the Bible; she learned it from her mother. But that wasn't something that I was willing to question at eleven. Not when she still had physical power over me and regularly beat me for disobeying her. It wasn't worth it.)
So I went back to wearing adult diapers. I didn't stop needing them until I was fourteen, months after I'd had my first period. And then they finally ended, and I learned that I didn't even WANT to sleep in my underwear, and I shut away the fear, shame, and anguish from my childhood.
And I wonder why I don't know who I am.
"You're a pig," she said. "No, you're worse than a pig. A pig wouldn't wallow in its own filth."
The year, I believe, was 2001. At any rate I was around the age of eleven. I had just had a great summer - the first summer that I had not had to wear a diaper to bed because I FINALLY was not peeing in my sleep. Then winter came, and it started again. And because I was young and ashamed, I didn't tell my mother, I just went on wetting in my bed until the pee soaked through the mattress and the moisture caused the bottom board to separate from the bedframe in the corner where I slept.
(I've always been a corner sleeper. Maybe it stems from the early years where I slept on a couch, but I've never been very good at taking up a lot of bed space. Usually I just pick one corner and stick to it. I've only recently gotten past laying as close to the sideboard as possible.)
I won't say it wasn't gross or unhealthy - it was. But it's important to understand my position.
Some of the earliest words I can remember from my mother are "You wet your pants." I remember her tone almost exactly. The disappointment. The disapproval. The now-I-have-to-spank-you-you-filthy-child. She spanked me for years for wetting my pants (though not for wetting the bed). She was somehow convinced that if she kept it up I would eventually stop.
I did, finally, at the age of or nine. It wasn't because I finally realized it was wrong, or because the arrival of my baby brother meant that now I had to be grown-uppish. It just happened that that was the age that I gained the ability not to pee myself (and ever since I've had weak bladder muscles, which can be awkward when I get sick).
That was great, because wetting my pants was wrong and unsanitary and wrong and shameful and WRONG and only little kids who were like two years old were supposed to do it. So I was happy.
But I kept wetting the bed. And it's true that it hadn't been stigmatized like pants-wetting was, but there was still that sense that there was something messed up with me. For one thing, pee made the bed stinky and it had to be washed. For another thing, it was widely touted as "normal" for people to stop peeing in their sleep at about the age of four. (Not that those were the only people I was exposed to, but the others that I knew of were just exceptions that I was supposed to relate to. Like my jerkwad uncle who wet until he was... dunno how old.)
I think the worst part was when I transitioned from Goodnites to adult diapers. MY WORD. Not only did I wet the bed, but I was so fat that I couldn't fit into the nightwear for bed-wetters of my age (I had a similar experience with pants, but that was not quite as embarrassing). No, I had to wear diapers that were made for people much, much older than myself. I was doubly messed up.
Anyway, so when I stopped wetting the bed that summer, to call myself "relieved" would be an understatement. I was SO happy. Finally I was normal! Finally I could wear underwear to bed instead of a diaper! (Turned out I didn't like wearing underwear to bed, actually.) And when it started again, I couldn't bring myself to tell anyone, to ask for my mom to start buying me diapers again, because what eleven-year-old wants to ask their parents for diapers? Besides, I was hoping it would stop. I was still hanging onto the naïve hope that if I ignored the problem long enough it would go away.
She told me that, then. "You're an ANIMAL, because PEOPLE don't do things like this. You're a pig. No, you're worse than a pig. Even a pig won't lay in its own filth." Like I was deliberately lounging around in my own germ-ridden urine because I LIKED it. But more to the point, I now knew what my behavior meant. It meant that I was foul, horrible. I wasn't just less than human - I was used to feeling like that because of my fatness. I was less than an animal. I was probably somewhere between "slime mold" and "dog turd" because of this, because of my mistake.
And then she beat me.
She beat me for being scared. For being ashamed. For hating myself. Every blow drove my pain and shame and horror deeper into me. I must have cried. In fact, I expect that I reacted exactly as I did now, reliving the moment in my head - loud, gasping sobs, the unmistakable noise of a child in agony. It happened roughly ten years ago but as I write it out the emotions are still as raw as if it was yesterday.
What actually happened yesterday was that I remembered this incident. At the time, it felt so faint that I could hardly remember it had happened. Much less that it had happened to ME. Like a bad dream, I had pushed it out of my memory so that I could go on living like a normal human being. That's the power of the mind, isn't it? To sequester away those horrible memories so that, the next morning, you can look your mother right in the face and convince yourself that she's a good, loving parent. I had to, because my mother told me she was, and I knew she had to be right because she took her cues from the Bible and the Bible was the ultimate authority on goodness and holiness.
(She didn't learn this one from the Bible; she learned it from her mother. But that wasn't something that I was willing to question at eleven. Not when she still had physical power over me and regularly beat me for disobeying her. It wasn't worth it.)
So I went back to wearing adult diapers. I didn't stop needing them until I was fourteen, months after I'd had my first period. And then they finally ended, and I learned that I didn't even WANT to sleep in my underwear, and I shut away the fear, shame, and anguish from my childhood.
And I wonder why I don't know who I am.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Threats to Western Femininity: as a matter of fact, they are.
A lot of things went through my head when I watched the "Women Are Heroes" trailer (source: Womanist Musings.) One of them was that, without a doubt, African women are a threat to the monolithic worldview that is white Western femininity.
The women in the video are not delicate. Many of them have prominent noses, pronounced brows, thick hands - features that, in the Western world, are not so much reserved for men as they are considered to be an intrinsic part of the "man package." They're not soft, like our women who often spend hundreds of dollars on moisturizers to maintain what men see as a natural trait. Many of them have crooked or brooken teeth and short hair - again, traits that the white man reserves only for the male of the species. Perhaps most shockingly to Western assumptions is their voices. The "soft lilt" that our men would have us believe is an inborn trait for woman is simply not there.
And yet they are real women. Their bodies (trans women aside; they were not featured in this video) and lives are a testament to that. Every day, from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed, they are real women. When they eat, they are real women. When they get dressed, they are real women. When they make faces for the cameras, they are real women. Contrary to local rumor, they do not stop being actual women just because they don't perform the elaborate act that Western femininity requires.
In other words, their very existence is a threat to our concept of femininity.
I think it was around this point in my thought process that I connected it to what I had been hearing from black women all along - every female of their race is a threat to white Western femininity. Not to the women, who would actually be better off if their genuineness of the member of the female sex didn't hinge so delicately on their ability to fit the construct, but to the empire. The female side of the kyriarchy. Just by being there, by being a real woman who naturally has some trait that white men have deemed "not natural," they are a threat.
With that in mind, I've poked around the Internet and found some photos of such women - beautiful women, real women, who challenge our ideas of what womanhood is just by existing every day. They are wonderful and deserve to be celebrated.
http://www.wtsp.com/genthumb/genthumb.ashx?e=3&h=240&w=320&i=/assetpool/images/090926101407_Helen-Hodges.jpg
(Helen Hodges, everyday Californian woman and victim of size discrimination. Via Dvorak Uncensored: "Big Fat Black Lady" On Receipt, Woman Upset)
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9943850/2/istockphoto_9943850-pregnant-african-woman-smiling-in-traditional-attire.jpg
(Stock photo. A very happy, pregnant African woman.)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQD8rCVsW9jTb5YZSqW2_876DJGvGHs-meSsZglH6bJZagDaXkjJB3EQjnSSbaL8ORUs577W696VlJAZq8JImltY0eZtpb_MWKC8dCJCLwhIZFG87DOzIOjzTRmtWiXy-5UOClaPZ2BQVD/s1600-h/BlackWoman
(Naked, fat black woman with the writing "Too Old To Be In An Anti-Aging Ad." Via Telling Secrets: Fat is Still a Feminist Issue)
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1436/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1436R-252672.jpg
(Stock photo. Young, fat, black woman posing.)
http://www.costume8.com/images/Funny/A1141-Fat-Boy-Disco-Hat-in-Black-Sequins-large.jpg
(Hat model, via costume8 - no link because I'm not pleased with some of their products.)
http://www.fashionfame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Gabourey-Sidibe.jpeg
(Gabourey Sidibe, best known for her role in "Precious," rocking a dress so gorgeous that even I'd be tempted to wear it.) Via Womanist Musings: Gabourey Sidibe as Mammy)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfzuRg9OaDnOOKEYuTy8uTthpOAeQSdGSk6Nwnk3B8g5eiRiuM7qd8az4BlFV0r9BhwNGa3KnI_DqMTo9E9yXdLejQx0Y-RmInu-A3LhBJ4CG__VNPURXCBxrkQDWIu3UWEhZmEQn47ZKP/s1600/obeseblackwoman.jpg
(Obese black woman. Via Acting White: Black Women Series - Weight, Body Fat and Attractiveness)
http://www.fantastikresimler.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sisman-zenci-kadin-resmi-fat-black-woman-picture-234x300.jpg
(Unsure origins. Fat black woman in a black velvet dress.)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvblackspin.com/media/2011/03/laquitablockson.jpg
(Dr. Laquita Blockson, the "Business Renaissance Guru." Via Your Black Woman: Professor Laquita Blockson Studies the Black Female Entrepreneur.)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvblackspin.com/media/2010/11/donnabrazile2.jpg
(Donna Brazile, CNN commentator. Via Donna Brazile: Young Voters, Black and Latina Women Can Shape the Future)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/beautifulandfat.png
(Black woman with her back to the camera, being fat and beautiful. Via Shakesville: Happy-go-Lucky.)
Africa Page: Beautiful Black Women On Parade
(A collection of various black women. Some of the photos seem on the exploitative side; I'm not sure about this one.)
Be they fabulous, scholarly, happy, disgruntled, famous or completely unheard of, every one of these women is just as real, just as female, as Angelina Jolie or Marilyn Monroe or Natalie Portman.
The women in the video are not delicate. Many of them have prominent noses, pronounced brows, thick hands - features that, in the Western world, are not so much reserved for men as they are considered to be an intrinsic part of the "man package." They're not soft, like our women who often spend hundreds of dollars on moisturizers to maintain what men see as a natural trait. Many of them have crooked or brooken teeth and short hair - again, traits that the white man reserves only for the male of the species. Perhaps most shockingly to Western assumptions is their voices. The "soft lilt" that our men would have us believe is an inborn trait for woman is simply not there.
And yet they are real women. Their bodies (trans women aside; they were not featured in this video) and lives are a testament to that. Every day, from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed, they are real women. When they eat, they are real women. When they get dressed, they are real women. When they make faces for the cameras, they are real women. Contrary to local rumor, they do not stop being actual women just because they don't perform the elaborate act that Western femininity requires.
In other words, their very existence is a threat to our concept of femininity.
I think it was around this point in my thought process that I connected it to what I had been hearing from black women all along - every female of their race is a threat to white Western femininity. Not to the women, who would actually be better off if their genuineness of the member of the female sex didn't hinge so delicately on their ability to fit the construct, but to the empire. The female side of the kyriarchy. Just by being there, by being a real woman who naturally has some trait that white men have deemed "not natural," they are a threat.
With that in mind, I've poked around the Internet and found some photos of such women - beautiful women, real women, who challenge our ideas of what womanhood is just by existing every day. They are wonderful and deserve to be celebrated.
http://www.wtsp.com/genthumb/genthumb.ashx?e=3&h=240&w=320&i=/assetpool/images/090926101407_Helen-Hodges.jpg
(Helen Hodges, everyday Californian woman and victim of size discrimination. Via Dvorak Uncensored: "Big Fat Black Lady" On Receipt, Woman Upset)
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9943850/2/istockphoto_9943850-pregnant-african-woman-smiling-in-traditional-attire.jpg
(Stock photo. A very happy, pregnant African woman.)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQD8rCVsW9jTb5YZSqW2_876DJGvGHs-meSsZglH6bJZagDaXkjJB3EQjnSSbaL8ORUs577W696VlJAZq8JImltY0eZtpb_MWKC8dCJCLwhIZFG87DOzIOjzTRmtWiXy-5UOClaPZ2BQVD/s1600-h/BlackWoman
(Naked, fat black woman with the writing "Too Old To Be In An Anti-Aging Ad." Via Telling Secrets: Fat is Still a Feminist Issue)
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1436/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1436R-252672.jpg
(Stock photo. Young, fat, black woman posing.)
http://www.costume8.com/images/Funny/A1141-Fat-Boy-Disco-Hat-in-Black-Sequins-large.jpg
(Hat model, via costume8 - no link because I'm not pleased with some of their products.)
http://www.fashionfame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Gabourey-Sidibe.jpeg
(Gabourey Sidibe, best known for her role in "Precious," rocking a dress so gorgeous that even I'd be tempted to wear it.) Via Womanist Musings: Gabourey Sidibe as Mammy)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfzuRg9OaDnOOKEYuTy8uTthpOAeQSdGSk6Nwnk3B8g5eiRiuM7qd8az4BlFV0r9BhwNGa3KnI_DqMTo9E9yXdLejQx0Y-RmInu-A3LhBJ4CG__VNPURXCBxrkQDWIu3UWEhZmEQn47ZKP/s1600/obeseblackwoman.jpg
(Obese black woman. Via Acting White: Black Women Series - Weight, Body Fat and Attractiveness)
http://www.fantastikresimler.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sisman-zenci-kadin-resmi-fat-black-woman-picture-234x300.jpg
(Unsure origins. Fat black woman in a black velvet dress.)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvblackspin.com/media/2011/03/laquitablockson.jpg
(Dr. Laquita Blockson, the "Business Renaissance Guru." Via Your Black Woman: Professor Laquita Blockson Studies the Black Female Entrepreneur.)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvblackspin.com/media/2010/11/donnabrazile2.jpg
(Donna Brazile, CNN commentator. Via Donna Brazile: Young Voters, Black and Latina Women Can Shape the Future)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/beautifulandfat.png
(Black woman with her back to the camera, being fat and beautiful. Via Shakesville: Happy-go-Lucky.)
Africa Page: Beautiful Black Women On Parade
(A collection of various black women. Some of the photos seem on the exploitative side; I'm not sure about this one.)
Be they fabulous, scholarly, happy, disgruntled, famous or completely unheard of, every one of these women is just as real, just as female, as Angelina Jolie or Marilyn Monroe or Natalie Portman.
Friday, March 18, 2011
My easily ignored, mildly inconvenient disability
I do have one, indeed I do. Now, it's not a mild disability, by any stretch. In fact, because of this disability I cannot naturally read this text from a foot away. Naturally, I cannot easily make out individual faces, distinguish more than simple shapes, distinguish any shapes that are complex or close in color, make out the difference between salt and white flour just by looking, judge distance efficiently, or tell the difference between a spider and a small piece of fluff unless it moves. (And I also suffer from arachnophobia.)
However, I don't spend much of my life thinking about this disability. It doesn't change my life very much at all, in fact. Because fortunately for me, my disability is not only easy to remedy, it is easily recognized as existing and needing remedied, to the degree where an entire subsection of medicine has been created devoted to diagnosing and treating my disability with minimal waiting time, for an affordable cost.
How lucky for me that I'm only nearsighted.
We have it scarily good, us nearsighted people. As do our close cousins, the farsighted. We are recognized. We are easy to accommodate. We are frequently represented in TV shows, movies, and books. Our disability is easily remedied just by putting on a small, attractive piece of accessory every morning. We can even get custom pieces picked to complement our faces, turning the correction of our vision into a combination fix and fashion statement, without judgment. Imagine, if you will, what the world would think if paraplegics, chronic pain sufferers, and other such folks tried to get about in designer motorized wheelchairs/scooters. My God! they would cry. The waste of money! And how could you glamorize your suffering like that! But nearsighted folk get a free pass. And strangely, you don't hear anyone complaining that people who need corrective lenses are getting in their way, wasting space or resources or whatnot because we can't perform every task a fully-sighted person could perform (even though sometimes we can't).
And it's true that we don't have it perfect. The media is deluged with imagery that shows the visually impaired as either old (eyes degraded due to aging) or intellectual or just plain worthless. Women with glasses are frequently either sexy because of their glasses - "naughty librarian/secretary"/Tina Fey - or waiting for the right moment to conveniently lose them so that their true beauty can shine. (Mia Thermopolis, The Princess Diaries. Toula Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.) Men are often either Super Intellectual, in which case they are supportive to the main characters of the story but not allowed to take the post themselves, or they are Geeks - gawky, socially awkward, obsessed with video games or Star Trek or whatever pastime the Blob doesn't happen to understand, and they certainly will never get laid.
Folks with glasses usually don't get to be action heroes - even though plenty of us are physically qualified. Peter Parker, the mild-mannered, nearsighted photographer who became Spider-Man, had his vision magically cured before he took to web-swinging. Dr. Daniel Jackson phased his glasses out of his wardrobe as his role in Stargate SG-1 called for more and more action. And of course we all remember Velma in Scooby-Doo, piteously crawling about on her hands and knees for her precious eyepieces while the other characters were busy running from a monster that she couldn't even see. Yes, we know she got her share of running and we all had a great laugh when she caught Shaggy and Scooby-Doo at the same time - WHOA, she must work out. But there was still that omnipresent threat, that storytellers always consider when they introduce a character with glasses, that they're going to lose their precious eyepiece and be completely incapacitated. Never mind that people with glasses KNOW how to keep our frames on our faces, thank you very much, or that we might have a pair of contact lenses on hand for the occasion, or that even if we do lose our frames we might still be able to make out shapes well enough to figure out who might be an enemy, who might be a friend, and what might be about to fall over on us. Certainly we can't be superheroes, unless we're sitting in the pilot seat of a giant mecha.
What's the end point of all of this? Visibility. Despite being discriminated against in a bajillion little ways and granted several useful privileges in a variety of others, I don't hear a lot of people talking about what it means to need corrective lenses. Usually when someone says they're disabled they mean something else, be they autistic, an amputee, whathaveyou. Meanwhile, us corrective lenses folks have been handily fooled, through the ease with which our problems are solved, into thinking that we are members of the able elite - evolutionarily superior, if you will - and it's not making it any easier for us or for people with disabilities that aren't so easily corrected.
Users of corrective lenses need to pay attention to this part of themselves, bring it out, make it visible. We are disabled. We are not different or special. The only difference is the ways we are treated. Maybe if we start to point out the difference between the way we are treated and the way others with far more marginalized disabilities are treated, people will start to realize how ridiculous the disparity is.
And maybe, if we come out in big enough numbers, we can do more about those stereotypes, too.
However, I don't spend much of my life thinking about this disability. It doesn't change my life very much at all, in fact. Because fortunately for me, my disability is not only easy to remedy, it is easily recognized as existing and needing remedied, to the degree where an entire subsection of medicine has been created devoted to diagnosing and treating my disability with minimal waiting time, for an affordable cost.
How lucky for me that I'm only nearsighted.
We have it scarily good, us nearsighted people. As do our close cousins, the farsighted. We are recognized. We are easy to accommodate. We are frequently represented in TV shows, movies, and books. Our disability is easily remedied just by putting on a small, attractive piece of accessory every morning. We can even get custom pieces picked to complement our faces, turning the correction of our vision into a combination fix and fashion statement, without judgment. Imagine, if you will, what the world would think if paraplegics, chronic pain sufferers, and other such folks tried to get about in designer motorized wheelchairs/scooters. My God! they would cry. The waste of money! And how could you glamorize your suffering like that! But nearsighted folk get a free pass. And strangely, you don't hear anyone complaining that people who need corrective lenses are getting in their way, wasting space or resources or whatnot because we can't perform every task a fully-sighted person could perform (even though sometimes we can't).
And it's true that we don't have it perfect. The media is deluged with imagery that shows the visually impaired as either old (eyes degraded due to aging) or intellectual or just plain worthless. Women with glasses are frequently either sexy because of their glasses - "naughty librarian/secretary"/Tina Fey - or waiting for the right moment to conveniently lose them so that their true beauty can shine. (Mia Thermopolis, The Princess Diaries. Toula Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.) Men are often either Super Intellectual, in which case they are supportive to the main characters of the story but not allowed to take the post themselves, or they are Geeks - gawky, socially awkward, obsessed with video games or Star Trek or whatever pastime the Blob doesn't happen to understand, and they certainly will never get laid.
Folks with glasses usually don't get to be action heroes - even though plenty of us are physically qualified. Peter Parker, the mild-mannered, nearsighted photographer who became Spider-Man, had his vision magically cured before he took to web-swinging. Dr. Daniel Jackson phased his glasses out of his wardrobe as his role in Stargate SG-1 called for more and more action. And of course we all remember Velma in Scooby-Doo, piteously crawling about on her hands and knees for her precious eyepieces while the other characters were busy running from a monster that she couldn't even see. Yes, we know she got her share of running and we all had a great laugh when she caught Shaggy and Scooby-Doo at the same time - WHOA, she must work out. But there was still that omnipresent threat, that storytellers always consider when they introduce a character with glasses, that they're going to lose their precious eyepiece and be completely incapacitated. Never mind that people with glasses KNOW how to keep our frames on our faces, thank you very much, or that we might have a pair of contact lenses on hand for the occasion, or that even if we do lose our frames we might still be able to make out shapes well enough to figure out who might be an enemy, who might be a friend, and what might be about to fall over on us. Certainly we can't be superheroes, unless we're sitting in the pilot seat of a giant mecha.
What's the end point of all of this? Visibility. Despite being discriminated against in a bajillion little ways and granted several useful privileges in a variety of others, I don't hear a lot of people talking about what it means to need corrective lenses. Usually when someone says they're disabled they mean something else, be they autistic, an amputee, whathaveyou. Meanwhile, us corrective lenses folks have been handily fooled, through the ease with which our problems are solved, into thinking that we are members of the able elite - evolutionarily superior, if you will - and it's not making it any easier for us or for people with disabilities that aren't so easily corrected.
Users of corrective lenses need to pay attention to this part of themselves, bring it out, make it visible. We are disabled. We are not different or special. The only difference is the ways we are treated. Maybe if we start to point out the difference between the way we are treated and the way others with far more marginalized disabilities are treated, people will start to realize how ridiculous the disparity is.
And maybe, if we come out in big enough numbers, we can do more about those stereotypes, too.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Two Paths, Retort Edition
'Cause you KNOW you wanted to see this. For your reading pleasure and GNARGNARGNARG, here's the original.
I realize I'm treading on dangerous territory here. There's a lot of sentiment in some circles that staying home and raising a family = oppression, while staying single and joining the "official" workforce = liberation. After making this, I realize that it's further problematic by contrasting motherhood with employment, because motherhood IS employment. And it's a damn tough job.
HOWEVER.
Forcing women to get married and bear children is not okay.
Pretending that you're NOT forcing them, by telling them that getting married and having children is "virtuous" as in the original image, is not okay.
Young women and trans men, that stuff that your parents are calling "bad literature" is probably the key to your liberation. Read it.
And sexual promiscuity is not the big, bad beast that the fundies say it is. It's risky, like driving a car, but it probably won't cause premature aging and it CERTAINLY won't stop you from having a happy and fulfilled life.
That's all, folks.
I realize I'm treading on dangerous territory here. There's a lot of sentiment in some circles that staying home and raising a family = oppression, while staying single and joining the "official" workforce = liberation. After making this, I realize that it's further problematic by contrasting motherhood with employment, because motherhood IS employment. And it's a damn tough job.
HOWEVER.
Forcing women to get married and bear children is not okay.
Pretending that you're NOT forcing them, by telling them that getting married and having children is "virtuous" as in the original image, is not okay.
Young women and trans men, that stuff that your parents are calling "bad literature" is probably the key to your liberation. Read it.
And sexual promiscuity is not the big, bad beast that the fundies say it is. It's risky, like driving a car, but it probably won't cause premature aging and it CERTAINLY won't stop you from having a happy and fulfilled life.
That's all, folks.
Gym Leaders: Single Parents Need Not Apply
Doing research for the last post led me to The Pokémon Wiki, a site that purports to be an accurate account of Pokémon game information. So accurate that, although Lenora is listed under her United States name, the owners of the site refuse to use her updated title and call her "Natural-Born Mama" instead. Yeah, that gives me a good idea of what kind of people are editing the site (read: Privilege Denying Dude.)
The fail doesn't end there, though. See, at the bottom of her page Lenora is listed as one of FIVE Gym Leaders who are confirmed to be married. Let's look at the other four.
Chuck: Chuck's wife stands outside the Cianwood City Gym in Gold/Silver/Crystal/HeartGold/SoulSilver and gives you the HM Fly after you defeat Chuck.
Norman: Norman and his wife are the main character's parents in Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald.
Byron: Byron is the father of the first Gym Leader in Pokémon Diamond/Pearl/Platinum. A spouse is never mentioned.
Drayden: Drayden is the father of Iris. A spouse is never mentioned.
So two of these "confirmed married" characters are, in fact, ASSUMED to be married (because they have children). So apparently single parents don't exist in the Pokémon world.
One can hope that this is just the expression of one person's privilege denial and not reflective of the wiki as a whole. To find out, I'm going to change the page so that it's properly up-to-date and remove Byron and Drayden from the "confirmed married" list. Let's see how long it takes to change back.
The fail doesn't end there, though. See, at the bottom of her page Lenora is listed as one of FIVE Gym Leaders who are confirmed to be married. Let's look at the other four.
Chuck: Chuck's wife stands outside the Cianwood City Gym in Gold/Silver/Crystal/HeartGold/SoulSilver and gives you the HM Fly after you defeat Chuck.
Norman: Norman and his wife are the main character's parents in Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald.
Byron: Byron is the father of the first Gym Leader in Pokémon Diamond/Pearl/Platinum. A spouse is never mentioned.
Drayden: Drayden is the father of Iris. A spouse is never mentioned.
So two of these "confirmed married" characters are, in fact, ASSUMED to be married (because they have children). So apparently single parents don't exist in the Pokémon world.
One can hope that this is just the expression of one person's privilege denial and not reflective of the wiki as a whole. To find out, I'm going to change the page so that it's properly up-to-date and remove Byron and Drayden from the "confirmed married" list. Let's see how long it takes to change back.
Oh, yes, Pokémon Black & White is racist.
(I went back and forth on this one for a while, trying to figure out whether to do it or not... I need to call this stuff out, but do we really need another white guy talking about racism? Etc. But it's got to be done, and since I'm a pretty big Pokémon player at the moment, I may as well do it.)
There were a lot of jokes going around when Pokémon Black Version and White Version were first announced. In America, the term "black and white" is practically synonymous with the race divide (as well as a particular damaging way of viewing the world, but that never got brought up), and a lot of people would going around saying things like "Black and White is racist!"
It was ridiculous and untrue. The names "Black and White" have very little to do with the race makeup of the game, and much more to do with the concepts of Yin and Yang, nature versus technology, and general color schemeyness. Still, I admit when I heard the title I had a sinking feeling that this was going to be awkward... and boy, was I right.
It started when it was announced that Pokémon Black and White would be the first game to feature a black gym leader: Aloe (Lenora in America), the "Natural-Born Mama." I cringed as soon as I saw that, and her character design was no better: a wide-hipped woman with a big cloth hairband and an enormous apron draped over her front. Apparently the character designer thought it would be a good idea to design the first black woman in the games after a mammy.
And it doesn't get better. The next black character to be introduced is Iris, another gym leader. She, at least, does not appear to be based on a racist stereotype (though I could be wrong). And despite being a young girl, she is the most powerful Gym Leader that the player faces in White Version.
But...
In the anime, Iris is depicted as a "wild child." She roams around the wilderness and swings on vines to get from place to place. To compound how savage/untamed this character is, she lets her Pokémon live in her hair. This isn't the first time a game designer has done this - a recent Final Fantasy title featured a black man who raises chocobos and has a chick who lives in his hair. It seems to be popular opinion in Japan that natural black folks' hair is no better than an animal's nest. This isn't cute. It's disgusting. Equally as disgusting is their choice to play on the "untamed animal" stereotype for the character.
In the Black version of the game, Iris doesn't show up for very long, so you'd think they wouldn't have time to mess up... aside from the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problem of "she spends most of the story arc babysitting a white/Asian girl whose Pokémon has been stolen." Yep, when poor Bianca is just too fragile to handle things on her own, Iris steps in to hold her hand through the ordeal. Which is not positive. It is racist.
Also, Iris is only available to fight as a gym leader in White Version. In Black Version, the final gym leader is Drayden... a white guy. Ho-hum.
The third black character is Marshal, a member of the Elite Four and the only black man in the Unova league. The first time I saw this guy, I got a pretty good of impression of him - he didn't seem to draw directly from a specific stereotype. Now, I'm not entirely sure. He uses Fighting-type Pokémon, and is depicted as a large, beefy brawler, which is par for the course with Fighting-type users, but it's also a common feature of black men in white entertainment - the thug or the soldier or prizefighter or whathaveyou. (I will point out that there is a lot of difference between a prizefighter or a soldier and a member of the Elite Four and master of martial arts. Namely, honor. But it feels suspicious to me anyway. Put this one down as a "maybe.")
Discussing this issue with a friend the other day, she and I agreed that the best way to start diversifying a game is in the non-League NPC's - the guys who just sit around towns and routes waiting to be fought. See, you can add in some Gym Leaders and the like and that's great, but unless they're also being represented in the general population, they become an exception, even an import, and are made foreign as a result.
Nintendo made some efforts in this regard. Firstly, the male backpacker sprite was given black-race-hair (although the character himself has fair skin, meaning he's probably mixed race, which is fine too.) And they added two black trainer types to the game: Dancers and Football Players.
Yes. The mind boggles.
Clerks? White or Asian. Fishermen? White or Asian. Female backpackers? White or Asian. EVERY CHARACTER TYPE WHO ISN'T A DANCER OR A FOOTBALL PLAYER? White or Asian.
They didn't even make any black cops.
In case I really need to point it out, this is another stereotype put into action: the idea of black physical prowess. Black men in Pokémon Black and White consist of excellent dancers, athletes, and one martial artist, period.
Oh, and Lenora and Iris are the only two black women in the game.
Now, I would be remiss if I said there weren't some good points as well. They're just not at the forefront of my mind, usually, because HOLY COW IS THIS GAME RACIST.
Mainly it centers around Lenora, because I've only seen a little bit of Iris and I'm not far enough in the game yet to see what Marshal is like. So we'll see what they did with her.
Firstly, in the American release (and in response to criticism from black Pokémon fans and allies), Lenora's description is changed from "Natural-Born Mama" to "The Archaeologist with a Backbone." And this makes many kinds of sense, since Lenora is, in fact, an archaeologist. Which brings me to my next point: aside from her design, Lenora is one kick-ass character. She's the lead archaeologist in Nacrene City. She has a significant participating role in a storyline that you have to play through in Nacrene before you can leave the city. She owns the museum. She's smart and in a position of power (as a Gym Leader.) And she is happily married to one of the researchers who works at the same museum (a white/Asian guy, of course, but she IS in a happy, monogamous relationship.)
In other words, she's one of the few black female characters I have ever seen that I feel like black children could be exposed to without the kick-in-the-teeth that accompanies so many portrayals. Now, I could be wrong - there could be something I've missed, and of course there's still the nasty role of explaining the "mammy" clothes, which could be more harmful than I'm giving it credit for. (Which makes me wonder how many white parents aren't explaining to their white kids what Lenora's outfit means. But then we're getting into "teaching tool" territory, and that's a subject for another post.)
Also, for once none of the black characters are criminals.
A final point: so far, I've limited this discussion to how the game treats two recognized races: black and white/Asian. And aside from the black/white mixed-race backpackers and an ambiguously tan male Psychic (who might be mixed race of any kind, Latino Mexican, indigenous North American Filipino, southern Japanese, or anything else you can think of) these are the only two racial groups depicted in the game. Meanwhile, the myriad of other races that comprise the visual and cultural makeup of the United States (and particularly New York, on which the Unova region is based) continue to be erased.
(By the way, I refer to the majority race in Black and White as white/Asian because the way these characters are typically seen is largely dependent on where the game has been released - the average Japanese player is going to see them as Japanese, whereas the average European-descended player is going to see them as European-descended, and the artists went to absolutely no effort to make a distinction between the two. Also because the region is based on an American location rather than Japan, so there's no way of telling which the artists intended.)
There were a lot of jokes going around when Pokémon Black Version and White Version were first announced. In America, the term "black and white" is practically synonymous with the race divide (as well as a particular damaging way of viewing the world, but that never got brought up), and a lot of people would going around saying things like "Black and White is racist!"
It was ridiculous and untrue. The names "Black and White" have very little to do with the race makeup of the game, and much more to do with the concepts of Yin and Yang, nature versus technology, and general color schemeyness. Still, I admit when I heard the title I had a sinking feeling that this was going to be awkward... and boy, was I right.
It started when it was announced that Pokémon Black and White would be the first game to feature a black gym leader: Aloe (Lenora in America), the "Natural-Born Mama." I cringed as soon as I saw that, and her character design was no better: a wide-hipped woman with a big cloth hairband and an enormous apron draped over her front. Apparently the character designer thought it would be a good idea to design the first black woman in the games after a mammy.
And it doesn't get better. The next black character to be introduced is Iris, another gym leader. She, at least, does not appear to be based on a racist stereotype (though I could be wrong). And despite being a young girl, she is the most powerful Gym Leader that the player faces in White Version.
But...
In the anime, Iris is depicted as a "wild child." She roams around the wilderness and swings on vines to get from place to place. To compound how savage/untamed this character is, she lets her Pokémon live in her hair. This isn't the first time a game designer has done this - a recent Final Fantasy title featured a black man who raises chocobos and has a chick who lives in his hair. It seems to be popular opinion in Japan that natural black folks' hair is no better than an animal's nest. This isn't cute. It's disgusting. Equally as disgusting is their choice to play on the "untamed animal" stereotype for the character.
In the Black version of the game, Iris doesn't show up for very long, so you'd think they wouldn't have time to mess up... aside from the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS problem of "she spends most of the story arc babysitting a white/Asian girl whose Pokémon has been stolen." Yep, when poor Bianca is just too fragile to handle things on her own, Iris steps in to hold her hand through the ordeal. Which is not positive. It is racist.
Also, Iris is only available to fight as a gym leader in White Version. In Black Version, the final gym leader is Drayden... a white guy. Ho-hum.
The third black character is Marshal, a member of the Elite Four and the only black man in the Unova league. The first time I saw this guy, I got a pretty good of impression of him - he didn't seem to draw directly from a specific stereotype. Now, I'm not entirely sure. He uses Fighting-type Pokémon, and is depicted as a large, beefy brawler, which is par for the course with Fighting-type users, but it's also a common feature of black men in white entertainment - the thug or the soldier or prizefighter or whathaveyou. (I will point out that there is a lot of difference between a prizefighter or a soldier and a member of the Elite Four and master of martial arts. Namely, honor. But it feels suspicious to me anyway. Put this one down as a "maybe.")
Discussing this issue with a friend the other day, she and I agreed that the best way to start diversifying a game is in the non-League NPC's - the guys who just sit around towns and routes waiting to be fought. See, you can add in some Gym Leaders and the like and that's great, but unless they're also being represented in the general population, they become an exception, even an import, and are made foreign as a result.
Nintendo made some efforts in this regard. Firstly, the male backpacker sprite was given black-race-hair (although the character himself has fair skin, meaning he's probably mixed race, which is fine too.) And they added two black trainer types to the game: Dancers and Football Players.
Yes. The mind boggles.
Clerks? White or Asian. Fishermen? White or Asian. Female backpackers? White or Asian. EVERY CHARACTER TYPE WHO ISN'T A DANCER OR A FOOTBALL PLAYER? White or Asian.
They didn't even make any black cops.
In case I really need to point it out, this is another stereotype put into action: the idea of black physical prowess. Black men in Pokémon Black and White consist of excellent dancers, athletes, and one martial artist, period.
Oh, and Lenora and Iris are the only two black women in the game.
Now, I would be remiss if I said there weren't some good points as well. They're just not at the forefront of my mind, usually, because HOLY COW IS THIS GAME RACIST.
Mainly it centers around Lenora, because I've only seen a little bit of Iris and I'm not far enough in the game yet to see what Marshal is like. So we'll see what they did with her.
Firstly, in the American release (and in response to criticism from black Pokémon fans and allies), Lenora's description is changed from "Natural-Born Mama" to "The Archaeologist with a Backbone." And this makes many kinds of sense, since Lenora is, in fact, an archaeologist. Which brings me to my next point: aside from her design, Lenora is one kick-ass character. She's the lead archaeologist in Nacrene City. She has a significant participating role in a storyline that you have to play through in Nacrene before you can leave the city. She owns the museum. She's smart and in a position of power (as a Gym Leader.) And she is happily married to one of the researchers who works at the same museum (a white/Asian guy, of course, but she IS in a happy, monogamous relationship.)
In other words, she's one of the few black female characters I have ever seen that I feel like black children could be exposed to without the kick-in-the-teeth that accompanies so many portrayals. Now, I could be wrong - there could be something I've missed, and of course there's still the nasty role of explaining the "mammy" clothes, which could be more harmful than I'm giving it credit for. (Which makes me wonder how many white parents aren't explaining to their white kids what Lenora's outfit means. But then we're getting into "teaching tool" territory, and that's a subject for another post.)
Also, for once none of the black characters are criminals.
A final point: so far, I've limited this discussion to how the game treats two recognized races: black and white/Asian. And aside from the black/white mixed-race backpackers and an ambiguously tan male Psychic (who might be mixed race of any kind, Latino Mexican, indigenous North American Filipino, southern Japanese, or anything else you can think of) these are the only two racial groups depicted in the game. Meanwhile, the myriad of other races that comprise the visual and cultural makeup of the United States (and particularly New York, on which the Unova region is based) continue to be erased.
(By the way, I refer to the majority race in Black and White as white/Asian because the way these characters are typically seen is largely dependent on where the game has been released - the average Japanese player is going to see them as Japanese, whereas the average European-descended player is going to see them as European-descended, and the artists went to absolutely no effort to make a distinction between the two. Also because the region is based on an American location rather than Japan, so there's no way of telling which the artists intended.)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Routine Christian Fapping
...and if THAT doesn't scare you away from this post, I don't know what will.
Renee at Womanist Musings made a post about Anne Rice's abandonment of the Christian institution. She has this to say about it:
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
It is no exaggeration to say that I was in tears by the end of reading this paragraph. How dare she. HOW DARE SHE.
I am an atheist. I used to be a Christian. I gave up my faith because the people who advocated it were operating on lies. I don't mean culty brainwashing lies like "I am the only one who can get you to Heaven" (although they had their own mode of this) or "only people who fast on the seventeenth day of September will be saved." I mean big lies, like "Jesus is the prophesied Messiah of the Tanach."
I won't deny that Christianity was a horrible experience for me. Brainwashing, sexism, and every kind of bullshit under the sun haunted me day and night. I was convinced because of my parents that I could drop dead at any time, really, and the only reason I didn't was because God had decided to give me one more hour/day/whatever. Okay, it sucked.
But that's not why this post pisses me off.
Most dear?
This viewpoint reeks so badly of brainwashing that I could vomit. Most dear. Get that? The most dear thing to Renee is being a Christian. Not her family. Not civil rights. A guy who was last heard from in a two-thousand-year-old book is the most important thing in her life.
Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe there's something about this viewpoint that is NOT irredeemably fucked up. But I have to know, what about the flipside? What about those of us that DON'T believe in a god? Well, we must be the most sad, destitute people on the planet without that ultra-important sky man in our lives. Of course most Christians wouldn't call us "sad and destitute." They'd probably say something like "missing out on something important and they don't realize it. But the fact is that, with this statement, Renee is contributing to the incredibly misconceived and hurtful idea that atheists are missing out on something vital just because they don't believe in a cosmic power.
Way to go, lady.
The fun continues in the comments.
Oh, my gosh! She is so right! It is people like Moses (who ordered the execution of men who had sex with other men and married rape victims, as well as the exile of men who accidentally saw their mothers-in-law naked and other fun stuff) and Paul (who commanded women to do whatever the fuck their husbands wanted and ALSO had a few choice words for teh gheyz) who corrupt the TRUE meaning of Christianity, which is peace and love and huuuuuggggz.
HOW DID I NOT SEE THIS.
There's also a common overtone, alluded to in this thread, of "atheists are all rich, white, intellectual snobs." Reminding me for the FIFTY BAJILLIONTH TIME that I DO NOT FUCKING EXIST. There are no working-class atheists. There are no atheists whose abandonment of Christianity happened not because they think it's "stupid," but because their abuse at the hands of Christians unlocked their minds to the truth, which is that the WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE is full of abuse and abuse advocacy. There is NO chance that the POOR, INNOCENT BIBLE is actually full of hideous, hateful things that are damn well deserving of rejection. No chance that the Good News is peppered with a helluva lot of bad news. You get the fucking picture.
People, Christians, if you want atheists to stop arguing against Christianity, THEN FUCKING FIX IT. I don't care how you do it. Even if you just come right out and say "the bad parts are total shit so we're going to ignore them," I don't care. Just stop hiding behind the pretense of being the only GOOD Christians. When your fellow Christians - stop calling them fundamentalists and start OWNING UP to the fact that they are members of your religion - when they start spouting hateful shit, START CALLING THEM OUT ON IT. I know a lot of people already do this - usually in the same blog post or article in which they decry those persons as "rightwing nutjobs" or whine about the "corrupt organization."
Guys. CHRISTIANITY IS FUCKING ORGANIZATION. It ain't this "personal walk with Jesus" shit that you're all blabbering about nowadays. You all keep whining about Christianity being "corrupted" into this religion of hate; you're no different than the fundamentalists complaining that humanity has been "corrupted" into a state of horrible sinfulness. In the words of Tim Wise: No, fool. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
You could make an argument that Christianity in the way that Yeshua originally delivered it was not meant to be used this way. And you'd actually have a point. But if you go that route, you have to take it all the way. Denounce every single inch of the fucking Bible that isn't about Yeshua. Nothing said by any of his followers (especially not that Paul asshole) can be part of the conversation. And remember, those first four books of the "New" Testament say surprisingly little about Yeshua being the promised Messiah through whom you must pray and be baptized, so you have to throw that out too. I realize he did that whole "he who accepts me accepts Him who sent me" thing, but you'd be surprised how easily that can be read to mean "everything I say is relevant to how this shit is supposed to work; I'm not keeping any secrets from you folks." Oh, and you'd better be checking to see how much of the stories were forged decades after the fact, because those aren't part of the original message either. Though if you're looking for a shortcut, I recommend the Jefferson Bible.
Christians, yo: they have a lot of good intentions and very little knowledge of what they're actually dealing with.
I will, however, throw this in from the comments:
What I find problematic is that when people discuss the hate of American Christianity, they're really talking about white Christians and their version of Christianity. As a black Christian, I experience God/dess quite differently, I guess. While on the whole, black Christians are just as conservative as white Christians, it appears we prize an ethic of social justice over and above forcing God in the public sphere. For example, I'm pretty sure I just read yesterday that while the majority of black Christians view abortion as immoral, given the opportunity, we would keep it legal.
That's cool. I'm for that. But I'm NOT behind anyone - white or black or whatever - pretending that the shit in the Bible is fake, or distorted, or whatever... because if you really think that you haven't really been studying the book you so diligently worship.
Renee at Womanist Musings made a post about Anne Rice's abandonment of the Christian institution. She has this to say about it:
It bothers me to know that fundamentalism has made such a mess of Christianity that progressive people are leaving it in droves. Without the voice of the progressives, it leaves religion, an important cultural space, for those that would advocate intolerance towards others. I came across this story on a gay blog where the author was celebrating and I could not help but think of the cruelty of this action. A loss of faith is deeply a sad thing and is not something to be celebrated no matter how hateful various Christian churches have been. It is a sign of resignation, of giving up what is most dear because of the criminal actions of others and not because of the actions of God. Anne Rice losing her belief is not a victory, in fact it is a loss.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
It is no exaggeration to say that I was in tears by the end of reading this paragraph. How dare she. HOW DARE SHE.
I am an atheist. I used to be a Christian. I gave up my faith because the people who advocated it were operating on lies. I don't mean culty brainwashing lies like "I am the only one who can get you to Heaven" (although they had their own mode of this) or "only people who fast on the seventeenth day of September will be saved." I mean big lies, like "Jesus is the prophesied Messiah of the Tanach."
I won't deny that Christianity was a horrible experience for me. Brainwashing, sexism, and every kind of bullshit under the sun haunted me day and night. I was convinced because of my parents that I could drop dead at any time, really, and the only reason I didn't was because God had decided to give me one more hour/day/whatever. Okay, it sucked.
But that's not why this post pisses me off.
A loss of faith is deeply a sad thing and is not something to be celebrated no matter how hateful various Christian churches have been. It is a sign of resignation, of giving up what is most dear because of the criminal actions of others and not because of the actions of God.
Most dear?
This viewpoint reeks so badly of brainwashing that I could vomit. Most dear. Get that? The most dear thing to Renee is being a Christian. Not her family. Not civil rights. A guy who was last heard from in a two-thousand-year-old book is the most important thing in her life.
Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe there's something about this viewpoint that is NOT irredeemably fucked up. But I have to know, what about the flipside? What about those of us that DON'T believe in a god? Well, we must be the most sad, destitute people on the planet without that ultra-important sky man in our lives. Of course most Christians wouldn't call us "sad and destitute." They'd probably say something like "missing out on something important and they don't realize it. But the fact is that, with this statement, Renee is contributing to the incredibly misconceived and hurtful idea that atheists are missing out on something vital just because they don't believe in a cosmic power.
Way to go, lady.
The fun continues in the comments.
..it is PEOPLE who have corrupted the message of love and peace and charity that is in and throughout the Bible, turning it into a tool for propaganda devoid of the love that is so essential to Christ's mission and message.
Oh, my gosh! She is so right! It is people like Moses (who ordered the execution of men who had sex with other men and married rape victims, as well as the exile of men who accidentally saw their mothers-in-law naked and other fun stuff) and Paul (who commanded women to do whatever the fuck their husbands wanted and ALSO had a few choice words for teh gheyz) who corrupt the TRUE meaning of Christianity, which is peace and love and huuuuuggggz.
HOW DID I NOT SEE THIS.
There's also a common overtone, alluded to in this thread, of "atheists are all rich, white, intellectual snobs." Reminding me for the FIFTY BAJILLIONTH TIME that I DO NOT FUCKING EXIST. There are no working-class atheists. There are no atheists whose abandonment of Christianity happened not because they think it's "stupid," but because their abuse at the hands of Christians unlocked their minds to the truth, which is that the WHOLE FUCKING BIBLE is full of abuse and abuse advocacy. There is NO chance that the POOR, INNOCENT BIBLE is actually full of hideous, hateful things that are damn well deserving of rejection. No chance that the Good News is peppered with a helluva lot of bad news. You get the fucking picture.
People, Christians, if you want atheists to stop arguing against Christianity, THEN FUCKING FIX IT. I don't care how you do it. Even if you just come right out and say "the bad parts are total shit so we're going to ignore them," I don't care. Just stop hiding behind the pretense of being the only GOOD Christians. When your fellow Christians - stop calling them fundamentalists and start OWNING UP to the fact that they are members of your religion - when they start spouting hateful shit, START CALLING THEM OUT ON IT. I know a lot of people already do this - usually in the same blog post or article in which they decry those persons as "rightwing nutjobs" or whine about the "corrupt organization."
Guys. CHRISTIANITY IS FUCKING ORGANIZATION. It ain't this "personal walk with Jesus" shit that you're all blabbering about nowadays. You all keep whining about Christianity being "corrupted" into this religion of hate; you're no different than the fundamentalists complaining that humanity has been "corrupted" into a state of horrible sinfulness. In the words of Tim Wise: No, fool. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
You could make an argument that Christianity in the way that Yeshua originally delivered it was not meant to be used this way. And you'd actually have a point. But if you go that route, you have to take it all the way. Denounce every single inch of the fucking Bible that isn't about Yeshua. Nothing said by any of his followers (especially not that Paul asshole) can be part of the conversation. And remember, those first four books of the "New" Testament say surprisingly little about Yeshua being the promised Messiah through whom you must pray and be baptized, so you have to throw that out too. I realize he did that whole "he who accepts me accepts Him who sent me" thing, but you'd be surprised how easily that can be read to mean "everything I say is relevant to how this shit is supposed to work; I'm not keeping any secrets from you folks." Oh, and you'd better be checking to see how much of the stories were forged decades after the fact, because those aren't part of the original message either. Though if you're looking for a shortcut, I recommend the Jefferson Bible.
Christians, yo: they have a lot of good intentions and very little knowledge of what they're actually dealing with.
I will, however, throw this in from the comments:
What I find problematic is that when people discuss the hate of American Christianity, they're really talking about white Christians and their version of Christianity. As a black Christian, I experience God/dess quite differently, I guess. While on the whole, black Christians are just as conservative as white Christians, it appears we prize an ethic of social justice over and above forcing God in the public sphere. For example, I'm pretty sure I just read yesterday that while the majority of black Christians view abortion as immoral, given the opportunity, we would keep it legal.
That's cool. I'm for that. But I'm NOT behind anyone - white or black or whatever - pretending that the shit in the Bible is fake, or distorted, or whatever... because if you really think that you haven't really been studying the book you so diligently worship.
Renee of Womanist Musings on Chris Brown
TRIGGER WARNING: discusses domestic violence (non-explicit)
When I saw the headline "Chris Brown refers to beating of Rihanna as 'mishap'," I knew this wasn't going to be pretty. And Renee of Womanist Musings explains exactly why.
A-MEN. Let me reiterate: anyone who can look back at BEATING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and call it a "mishap" has not learned their lesson. And I just want to add: the recipient doesn't have to be a woman. The same kind of language has been used by parents who have beaten their children (who often add "I just got too mad and lost control!" as if that was an acceptable excuse. Ho-hum, ageism), white men beating black men, cis men murdering trans women. The only thing that matters is that the victim has less privilege than his or her attacker, because when THAT factor comes into play suddenly it was a horrible mistake and he didn't mean it and he really, REALLY shouldn't be punished that hard because HOW COULD HE HELP IT?
You know if Rihanna was a white man - or even a white woman, possibly - it wouldn't have played out this way. And his behavior should not be going unchecked in this instance, either. The enemy is right in front of you. Let's treat him like the criminal he is.
When I saw the headline "Chris Brown refers to beating of Rihanna as 'mishap'," I knew this wasn't going to be pretty. And Renee of Womanist Musings explains exactly why.
Abusers like Brown don't just hit one time and then change their ways. Abuse become a pattern, a way of life, and the fact that he was raised watching domestic violencem means that he has already identified the oppressor rather than the victim. The pattern of abuse is very hard to break and even men that receive counseling often end up re abusing. While there is no guarantee that Brown will hit another woman, there is also no guarantee he won't. We need to remember that most often, domestic abuse goes on for year and in some cases ends in death.
...
He then went on to complain about those who stopped associating with him in the wake of his violent actions against Rihanna. He finishes by referring to the battering of Rihanna as "mishap." If he cannot even acknowledge what he did, how is anyone to believe that he feels responsible for his actions and wants to genuinely make amends. There have stars like Rick Sanchez and even my beloved Queen Latifah who have suggested that the public should consider his youth, or that enough time has passed for us to move on. This comes down to the fact that even talented, beautiful, class privileged women like Rihanna are disposable. Violence against women is an issue that society tends to pay lip service to and this is why men like Brown can freely refer to instances of outright violence as a "mishap."
A-MEN. Let me reiterate: anyone who can look back at BEATING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING and call it a "mishap" has not learned their lesson. And I just want to add: the recipient doesn't have to be a woman. The same kind of language has been used by parents who have beaten their children (who often add "I just got too mad and lost control!" as if that was an acceptable excuse. Ho-hum, ageism), white men beating black men, cis men murdering trans women. The only thing that matters is that the victim has less privilege than his or her attacker, because when THAT factor comes into play suddenly it was a horrible mistake and he didn't mean it and he really, REALLY shouldn't be punished that hard because HOW COULD HE HELP IT?
You know if Rihanna was a white man - or even a white woman, possibly - it wouldn't have played out this way. And his behavior should not be going unchecked in this instance, either. The enemy is right in front of you. Let's treat him like the criminal he is.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
My body is not selfish.
One thing that I face as both a fat person and a trans person is the accusation that I am "selfish."
Being fat, I am selfish because I allegedly consume more food than thinner people (FEAR my 2000-calorie-a-day diet.) Being trans, I am selfish because I allegedly would like other people to pay for my "cosmetic" surgeries. (This is what I am accused of if I want my surgery covered by my medical insurance, as are my trans brothers and sisters in any country where this kind of thing applies.)
I'm not going to be nice: That's bullshit. I'm not selfish.
Firstly, yes. Okay. I eat more than a thin person of my height. Not because I'm a glutton; my fat body is not a living testament to my greed, contrary to what the assholes say. Because I have more body mass and I need more calories to sustain it. We're not talking huge quantities more. We're talking a few hundred more per day, or the equivalent of a single Famous Star burger at Carl's Jr.
Secondly, I get why you think transsexual surgeries are cosmetic. Because they're not "life-saving," right? Just like going to the doctor and getting a cast for your leg isn't life-saving (c'mon, it'll eventually heal on its own). Just like taking medication for your chronic pain isn't life-saving. Surgery to correct a serious birth defect is sometimes life-saving, but sometimes not. Laser eye surgery? Puh-lease.
I ain't saying that being trans is like having a broken leg or chronic pain or even a medically accepted birth defect. I AM saying that living in a body that doesn't fit my identity has a very real, detrimental effect to my well-being. I am saying that for me, having breasts, and for other trans people, vaginas or penises or whathaveyou, is traumatic on a daily basis, and it ain't because I'm too fucking sensitive, it's because I have to actually look at/touch my body periodically to maintain my hygiene and health.
Okey?
Being fat doesn't make me selfish, either. Even if you account that being fat causes me to eat more. Nobody slams bodybuilders for their 6000-calorie-a-day diets (that's 3x my daily consumption, FYI) - in fact, they frequently get praised for their dedication to their bodies. Plus their bodies are bigger than non-bodybuilders, so they take up more space and require bigger clothes. In fact, any body operating on testosterone is going to be naturally bigger and have a faster metabolism than a comparable estrogen-fueled body. Oh my god, men are selfish! We must put them on estrogen treatments IMMEDIATELY to reduce their food consumption so that there will be more food available for the poor, starving wimminz!
RIGHT.
You get what I'm saying? It's not okay to say I'm selfish for needing more seating space that a thinner person could be using. It's not okay to say I'm selfish for eating more food.
But when it comes down to it, it's not my greed you're really against, is it? It's my nonconformity. It's my being fat or trans that really bugs at you and gets stuck in your craw. Otherwise there'd be a lot more hate (and I ain't saying there isn't hate, just that there's less of it) against people who get benign tumors removed and people who "bulk up" to unrealistic proportions for movie roles.
Being fat, I am selfish because I allegedly consume more food than thinner people (FEAR my 2000-calorie-a-day diet.) Being trans, I am selfish because I allegedly would like other people to pay for my "cosmetic" surgeries. (This is what I am accused of if I want my surgery covered by my medical insurance, as are my trans brothers and sisters in any country where this kind of thing applies.)
I'm not going to be nice: That's bullshit. I'm not selfish.
Firstly, yes. Okay. I eat more than a thin person of my height. Not because I'm a glutton; my fat body is not a living testament to my greed, contrary to what the assholes say. Because I have more body mass and I need more calories to sustain it. We're not talking huge quantities more. We're talking a few hundred more per day, or the equivalent of a single Famous Star burger at Carl's Jr.
Secondly, I get why you think transsexual surgeries are cosmetic. Because they're not "life-saving," right? Just like going to the doctor and getting a cast for your leg isn't life-saving (c'mon, it'll eventually heal on its own). Just like taking medication for your chronic pain isn't life-saving. Surgery to correct a serious birth defect is sometimes life-saving, but sometimes not. Laser eye surgery? Puh-lease.
I ain't saying that being trans is like having a broken leg or chronic pain or even a medically accepted birth defect. I AM saying that living in a body that doesn't fit my identity has a very real, detrimental effect to my well-being. I am saying that for me, having breasts, and for other trans people, vaginas or penises or whathaveyou, is traumatic on a daily basis, and it ain't because I'm too fucking sensitive, it's because I have to actually look at/touch my body periodically to maintain my hygiene and health.
Okey?
Being fat doesn't make me selfish, either. Even if you account that being fat causes me to eat more. Nobody slams bodybuilders for their 6000-calorie-a-day diets (that's 3x my daily consumption, FYI) - in fact, they frequently get praised for their dedication to their bodies. Plus their bodies are bigger than non-bodybuilders, so they take up more space and require bigger clothes. In fact, any body operating on testosterone is going to be naturally bigger and have a faster metabolism than a comparable estrogen-fueled body. Oh my god, men are selfish! We must put them on estrogen treatments IMMEDIATELY to reduce their food consumption so that there will be more food available for the poor, starving wimminz!
RIGHT.
You get what I'm saying? It's not okay to say I'm selfish for needing more seating space that a thinner person could be using. It's not okay to say I'm selfish for eating more food.
But when it comes down to it, it's not my greed you're really against, is it? It's my nonconformity. It's my being fat or trans that really bugs at you and gets stuck in your craw. Otherwise there'd be a lot more hate (and I ain't saying there isn't hate, just that there's less of it) against people who get benign tumors removed and people who "bulk up" to unrealistic proportions for movie roles.
Quote of the Day
A comment on the Womanist Musings post "There Are More Sites Of Oppression Than Gender":
Intersectionality. It's a tough one. It's easy to get it into our heads that we can break down the ways that we are oppressed into easy-to-categorize boxes, but you can't. Just like I couldn't leave a comment (on a post about class privilege) about my class disadvantages without mentioning all of the non-class factors (religious beliefs, education, gender identity, etc.) that have a very real impact on how desperately I need the money for my own safety as well as how much money I will have to spend for it.
Intersectionality means that we are more than the sum of our parts. A black woman is not just black + woman; she is a unique individual that suffers a unique set of stigmas and stereotypes. For instance, she may be expected to erase her race from her hair for the sake of beauty - something that neither white women nor black men are expected to do. Likewise, a trans gay man is not just gay + man + trans. People may assume of him, if he has a vagina, that he wants to be the "bottom" in a sexual relationship. This isn't something that happens to cis gay men OR to trans straight men (though it happens frequently to trans and cis women).
Intersectionality is one of the hardest facets of oppression to learn, because you can't just learn the rules for each category of oppressed persons and then stack them up like Dominos to figure out what each person is suffering from. Which I think is the point - an identity isn't just a list of labels. It's a melting pot that uses all of the ingredients put into it to create a person, and a set of stigmas for that person, that will taste similar in some ways to those who share ingredients but also has a taste of its own.
That may or may not make any sense.
I'm a WOC, and when I look at gender in movies,I don;t get to neatly parse out where gender ends or race begins. Cos they exist simultaneoulsy. Cos yknow, WOC EXIST.
Intersectionality. It's a tough one. It's easy to get it into our heads that we can break down the ways that we are oppressed into easy-to-categorize boxes, but you can't. Just like I couldn't leave a comment (on a post about class privilege) about my class disadvantages without mentioning all of the non-class factors (religious beliefs, education, gender identity, etc.) that have a very real impact on how desperately I need the money for my own safety as well as how much money I will have to spend for it.
Intersectionality means that we are more than the sum of our parts. A black woman is not just black + woman; she is a unique individual that suffers a unique set of stigmas and stereotypes. For instance, she may be expected to erase her race from her hair for the sake of beauty - something that neither white women nor black men are expected to do. Likewise, a trans gay man is not just gay + man + trans. People may assume of him, if he has a vagina, that he wants to be the "bottom" in a sexual relationship. This isn't something that happens to cis gay men OR to trans straight men (though it happens frequently to trans and cis women).
Intersectionality is one of the hardest facets of oppression to learn, because you can't just learn the rules for each category of oppressed persons and then stack them up like Dominos to figure out what each person is suffering from. Which I think is the point - an identity isn't just a list of labels. It's a melting pot that uses all of the ingredients put into it to create a person, and a set of stigmas for that person, that will taste similar in some ways to those who share ingredients but also has a taste of its own.
That may or may not make any sense.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
I do not understand this "two spirit" thing.
Please hear me out.
We began reading the writing of Native American two-spirit people with no other intent than to educate the self. The main one - we'll call him William - understands the importance of learning about the experiences of TLGB people who are not white, because how else could he be an effective ally? Even to himself, how can he protect himself if he cannot protect his brothers and sisters and brother-sisters and sister-brothers?
So we read with an open mind, and we do not understand.
This page outlines the basics of a two-spirit movement (you might call it Two-Spirit 101.) William would call it the Two-Spirit Movement, but it would be impractical and ridiculous to assume that every Two-Spirit person everywhere is united with all the others. But it explains the basics. The self grasps these. They are parts of a different culture, but they fit into the tapestry of human experience.
This is a post from one two-spirit person about something that happened in her day-to-day life. (William offers his apologies if he left out part of the pronoun.) We understand the need to talk about these things with someone like ourselves; no one else ever truly understands. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
But we've heard that a two-spirit person will often refer to themselves in the plural. As if they are truly two persons, male and female.
And we wonder if there really are two persons.
William is willing to believe this is so. It's his writing you've read on this blog. He is the social activist, the humanist. His fingers write this post. He refers to himself in the third person this time because Nicolas is speaking.
Nicolas does not understand this at all. Nicolas is furious that someone would try to appropriate the identity of someone who has two persons within them in this manner. Do you know what it's like for him? He's not even his own person. William is trapped in a life that does not fit his gender. Nicolas is trapped in a life that has no room for him. Most days he is completely silenced because there's nothing being done that needs his attention. Every day it's William this and William that. He sits there quietly, so quietly that it makes the self wonder if he even exists. He's less than half a person. And yet he is a person. He's a person with thoughts of his own and a will of his own and every day he takes backseat to someone who just happened to claim this life first and wastes it every day playing video games and doing crap that has a snowball's chance in Hell of taking their life anywhere. So I want to know - me, Nicolas, the other man in William's head who never comes out because it might UPSET PEOPLE if they knew there were more than one of us in here - I want to know if you know what that's like. Duality ain't nearly as fun as you kids seem to think it is.
I won't apologize for that.
But William would like to remind you that he doesn't know what it's like for you, and he's not going to assume that it's not the way you say it is. He's a good kid. Sees the best in people for as long as he can. So when he gets the opportunity he'll ask someone. I will. Because the only way to understand is to educate myself, the lesson I've learned time and time again.
And please remember that Nicolas is in here, too. He may not say much, but it hurts him to be ignored. It hurts him that I (William) would rather stay safe than admit to the world that he exists. That's not what he wants. It's not what either of us want, and since we are the same person I feel his pain almost as acutely as he does. But William can put it away after a while. I get to be the one out most of the time, so I can forget what it's like to be shut away. Nicolas never forgets, and the next time I hear from him he will remind me. I'm scared of Nicolas, scared of losing control of my life, but Nicolas is scared of only one thing in the world and that's being forgotten.
That's what it's like for this person to have two spirits (if that's what you call them). Maybe someday I'll introduce the third, but he doesn't feel like coming out right now.
We began reading the writing of Native American two-spirit people with no other intent than to educate the self. The main one - we'll call him William - understands the importance of learning about the experiences of TLGB people who are not white, because how else could he be an effective ally? Even to himself, how can he protect himself if he cannot protect his brothers and sisters and brother-sisters and sister-brothers?
So we read with an open mind, and we do not understand.
This page outlines the basics of a two-spirit movement (you might call it Two-Spirit 101.) William would call it the Two-Spirit Movement, but it would be impractical and ridiculous to assume that every Two-Spirit person everywhere is united with all the others. But it explains the basics. The self grasps these. They are parts of a different culture, but they fit into the tapestry of human experience.
This is a post from one two-spirit person about something that happened in her day-to-day life. (William offers his apologies if he left out part of the pronoun.) We understand the need to talk about these things with someone like ourselves; no one else ever truly understands. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
But we've heard that a two-spirit person will often refer to themselves in the plural. As if they are truly two persons, male and female.
And we wonder if there really are two persons.
William is willing to believe this is so. It's his writing you've read on this blog. He is the social activist, the humanist. His fingers write this post. He refers to himself in the third person this time because Nicolas is speaking.
Nicolas does not understand this at all. Nicolas is furious that someone would try to appropriate the identity of someone who has two persons within them in this manner. Do you know what it's like for him? He's not even his own person. William is trapped in a life that does not fit his gender. Nicolas is trapped in a life that has no room for him. Most days he is completely silenced because there's nothing being done that needs his attention. Every day it's William this and William that. He sits there quietly, so quietly that it makes the self wonder if he even exists. He's less than half a person. And yet he is a person. He's a person with thoughts of his own and a will of his own and every day he takes backseat to someone who just happened to claim this life first and wastes it every day playing video games and doing crap that has a snowball's chance in Hell of taking their life anywhere. So I want to know - me, Nicolas, the other man in William's head who never comes out because it might UPSET PEOPLE if they knew there were more than one of us in here - I want to know if you know what that's like. Duality ain't nearly as fun as you kids seem to think it is.
I won't apologize for that.
But William would like to remind you that he doesn't know what it's like for you, and he's not going to assume that it's not the way you say it is. He's a good kid. Sees the best in people for as long as he can. So when he gets the opportunity he'll ask someone. I will. Because the only way to understand is to educate myself, the lesson I've learned time and time again.
And please remember that Nicolas is in here, too. He may not say much, but it hurts him to be ignored. It hurts him that I (William) would rather stay safe than admit to the world that he exists. That's not what he wants. It's not what either of us want, and since we are the same person I feel his pain almost as acutely as he does. But William can put it away after a while. I get to be the one out most of the time, so I can forget what it's like to be shut away. Nicolas never forgets, and the next time I hear from him he will remind me. I'm scared of Nicolas, scared of losing control of my life, but Nicolas is scared of only one thing in the world and that's being forgotten.
That's what it's like for this person to have two spirits (if that's what you call them). Maybe someday I'll introduce the third, but he doesn't feel like coming out right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)