You can consider this a sequel to the last post. Or not. But it does deserve coverage. To deny that trans men have certain privileges over trans women - and quite a list, at that - is just plain irresponsible.
I'm probably going to be talking a lot more through this one, because it is a very complex situation. The interesting thing about trans male privilege is that while some of it comes from us obtaining male privilege after we pass, a lot of it is, in fact, female privilege that we had before. Female privilege is something that doesn't get talked about very much - at least until a discussion of trans male privilege starts - but it does exist. It doesn't "balance things out" or make them better or whatnot. In fact, a lot of female privileges paradoxically exist because of misogyny. That would be a good subject for a whole other post.
In the meantime, if you are curious as to what trans male privilege looks like, here it is.
1: Trans men are often admitted to women-only spaces where trans women are not.
I'm going to start this one by telling a story. Once upon a time, I had a friend. He was a really great friend - one of the few I had - and we had a lot of good times together. We usually hung out at his house, and usually in his bedroom just because it was private, and all was amazing.
Until one day, when I was told I couldn't go in there anymore. The reason: "No girls allowed."
I was floored. We had been friends for years. Admittedly it was a casual friendship, and I wasn't out at this time, but I assumed that he knew me well enough to know there was no reason to keep me out of his room. I was wrong. It turned out he valued my genitals more than my personhood, more than our relationship, more than our shared experience of hanging out having fun together.
How often does a trans man get excluded from male-only spaces? Not often, but you can bet that when we are we're fit to be tied. After all, it's blatantly obvious that our genitals are being considered more important than our actual right AS MEN to be there. But when a trans woman complains about being excluded from women-only spaces, what happens? Well, I've been party to these kind of discussions, and here's how it plays out: "Huh." "Really?" "I wonder why." "Oh, well, there are trans men working on it, so can we move on to something else?"
There are so many questions that go along with this, like "Why do trans men want into these spaces to begin with?" The answer seems to be either vaginal solidarity, or the fact that we've spent a long time putting up with misogyny owing to our physical appearance. But - and here's the big one - trans women haven't? Just because they started later than you doesn't mean that they're not catching up and fast. The only other reason one could possibly want to keep trans women out of women-only spaces is the one that I demonstrated above - genital paranoia. If the women in your group are that afraid of letting in someone who has or has had a penis, guys, you might start asking yourselves why you are allowed to stick around.
One thing I mentioned in my last post is that trans men are somewhat invisible. We haven't been portrayed as frequently as trans women (though we are catching up.) Which leads me to my next point...
2. When we are portrayed in media, it is usually positive.
When Thomas Beattie got pregnant way back in the day, it was something of a freakshow. OMG PREGANT MAN. WEIRDEST THING EVER. Now suppose the situation was reversed, and a trans lesbian had kept her reproductive organs and temporarily ceased hormone therapy so she could father a child. You know what the reaction would have been?
IT'S A FAAAAKE.
Her womanhood would have been put under intense scrutiny. She would probably have been referred to using her pre-change name, and male pronouns. Her media presence would be "a poor, deluded man who thinks he's a woman but obviously isn't ready to make all the necessary sacrifices."
Why? Because that's the reaction that nearly every trans woman gets. Unless she is post-hormones, post-op, name-change, the full shebang - and sometimes even then - her genetic history is considered more important than how she feels and (most importantly) asks to be addressed. Not that trans men are given a free pass - we get misgendered quite a bit. But we do have one other big advantage:
3. "Trans man" or "FTM crossdresser" is not used as shorthand for "mentally ill."
Take a look at the portrayal of trans men and women who have dressed as men over the years. You've got the standard Crossdresser narrative, employed by Shakespeare, demonstrated by several great women who had to dress as men to overcome oppression, and used recently in cheeky romance stories ("Just One of the Guys" was a favorite of mine). You've got Boys Don't Cry - the FTM edition of the "tragic transsexual" storyline that has been used on trans female characters for years. And lately we have Degrassi's Adam Torres, an extremely well-written and sympathetic character.
Now, we've had a share of floaters (see: The L Word). But look at the film history of trans women and crossdressing men. The Tragic Transsexual has been used in multiple films (such as the film adaptation of I Want What I Want and Breakfast on Pluto). A whole story (Hedwig and the Angry Inch) is dedicated to the unfortunate tale of a man who believes that he needs to transition and ends up regretting it - not a wholly bad premise, but it serves the rather unfortunate effect of implying that trans women do not know why they are and what they need to do. And when we get to crossdressing, there are only two common narratives: the Drag Queen (Priscilla, Queen of the Desert; La Cage Aux Folles, RuPaul's Drag Race, etc.) and the Crossdressing Slasher (Psycho and a few of its brain-babies). Sometimes it's just comic relief (some of Shakespeare's stuff, White Chicks, Mulan). In news media, crossdressing is used like a punchline - "Not only did he break into their house, but he was wearing WOMEN'S CLOTHES! OMG!" This isn't to say that there are no positive portrayals of trans women, either. But there is a glut of terrible ones that does not exist for trans men. (Note: there is no Ticked Off Tranny Boys With Knives.)
Invisibility sucks, but in our case it has certain advantages.
4. The desire to transition to male is compatible with the concept of male superiority.
Try telling a guy that you want to be a woman (if you aren't one already). He'll react with shock, dismay, yadda. Ask him why. Is it because women are inferior? He might say yes. He might say no, it's just that he can't imagine ever wanting to be one.
Try telling a woman that you want to be a guy (if you aren't one already). She'll react with shock, dismay, yadda. But not because being a woman is so great. More likely, because she thinks you're only transitioning so that you don't have to put up with sexist crap.
Are either of these valid reasons to react negatively? OF COURSE NOT. But people will at least understand why you want to be a man. They're "just better." More physical strength. More sex drive (allegedly). More... betterness. Shows like "Man Caves" exist for a reason - manhood is often treated like an exclusive club that women need to be kept out of and that every man should want to be allowed into - womanhood is kind of a consolation prize. This isn't ubiquitous, but it's certainly a pervasive idea. Consequentially, trans men just aren't seen as the same brand of sick fuck as trans women are.
Now for a bit of non-sociology.
5. The most obvious indicators of our hormonal history can often be concealed using clothing.
Testosterone and estrogen work on the body in different ways during endopuberty. Estrogen causes curves, stunts height, inhibits muscle growth, and that kind of thing. Testosterone increases height, causes muscle growth, masculinizes the bone structure in the body and face, deepens the voice, and promotes beard growth.
In other words, most of estrogen's effects are temporary. Most of testosterone's effects are permanent. Furthermore, the effect of estrogen that poses the biggest obstacle to being seen as a man - breasts - can usually be subdued, albeit uncomfortably, using a binder.
On the other hand, trans women who have undergone testosterone puberty may have several factors to deal with. Facial hair must be shaved regularly; any presence of beardliness is seen as masculine. Electrolysis, which is painful and takes several hours over a period of months, is often required just to get it under control. A larger-size skeleton, masculinized facial features, and lower voice are all difficult to hide, and are considered by many cis people to be telltale signs that a woman is trans.
6. Trans men can dress in the clothing of their target sex before they pass without being viewed as perverts or potential criminals.
See point 4.
7. Queer folk prefer masculine women.
This one is brought to you by trans women and basically any femme folks who were born with vaginas.
Let me asplain - I'm not saying that queer people typically think of trans men as women. However, we do benefit from something I will heretofore refer to as "vaginal solidarity." Sure, we're guys, but we're special guys. We're trusted guys. And we're totes butch, so that makes us crazy popular.
On the other hand, femme women (cis or genderqueer) and femme trans women are often viewed as "reinforcing the patriarchy", and therefore not subversive enough to be queer. It's femmephobic bullshit, but there you go.
8. Assuming we pass, we're guys.
There's no mincing around the fact. No, not every trans guy passes. And no, it doesn't grant us full cishetero privilege - we still have to deal with treatment/surgeries, leftover "female" behaviors that lower our credibility, and of course quite a few of us are gay. But it does give us some advantages. Our opinions our valued. Our bodies are not commodified (unless it is found out that we are trans). We are usually read as our desired gender on the Internet. And a bajillion other things.
Now, none of this is to say that trans guys aren't marginalized. We are. For the crime of being trans, for the incidence of being born with vaginas, we are put down by millions of people as freaks and uppity and whatnot else. But we do have some privileges, and we have to acknowledge them if the world is going to become a safe place for all trans people.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Transmisandry
There's been a discussion going on Tranifesto, a blog about trans-ness run by gay trans man Matt Kailey, about antagonism in the white trans community. Specifically, in some circles a rift has developed between the trans women and trans men, and the person who started the discussion was curious why. In the interest of sharing information, I disclosed my own experiences in one community, where such a rift exists, fueled by the misandry of certain trans women there.
Seemingly in partial response to my statements, one commenter left this message:
Maybe this wasn't what xe meant, but what I took from this sentence was "Your problems aren't as important. You need to worry about what trans women are going through more." Well, thanks, dude, but I can't do that. I will be happy to think about male privilege and how that affects my relationship with trans women on both a personal and systemic level, but I will not shut up about transmisandry. As long as it happens to me and my fellow trans men, it has a place on the discussion table as a legitimate social problem that needs to be addressed.
The first point I would like to try and make understood is that the relationship between trans women and trans men is not equal to the relationship between cis women and cis men. Firstly, I will acknowledge that it is a problem when, upon transitioning, we forget what we have been through and what we have learned from our lives as female-bodied creatures and fall into the male role so well that we become oppressors ourselves. Secondly, I will acknowledge that the path of our transition does grant us several privileges (we can dress as our target sex without being looked upon as a pervert, for example - this would be great material for another post). However, trans women also have a few privileges over trans men. The biggest one is that, for better or worse, trans women are visible. When someone thinks of a transgender or transsexual person, they usually think of someone who is MTF. Web sites and books that advertise themselves as "for transgender/transsexual people" often cater to MTF people with little or nothing that is aimed at FTM people. They also have better surgeries than trans men - one can look at the thousands of trans men who go their whole lives without surgery, not because they don't want it or can't afford it but because the results are just not good enough yet, as evidence toward this - and better representation in political circles, at least within the United States.
In MTF-dominated circles, they also have the privilege of committing transmisandry without being called out/chastised for it.
What is transmisandry?
I won't lie on this one: it's a short list. Partially because we don't have the history of being portrayed as perverts and/or murderers. Partially because we often find it easier to pass after hormones (testosterone is powerful stuff.) But it exists, and in the spirit of Tobi Hill-Meyer's What Transmisogyny Looks Like, here are the specs:
Trans women going into trans-male-safe spaces and making comments like "I just can't understand why you would want to give up the body parts that I want so badly."
Trans women going into trans-male-safe spaces specifically to look for potential sex/relationship partners, assuming that we are (1) straight, (2) available, (3) potentially interested in starting a relationship with someone we know next to nothing about (out of trans solidarity, or what? I don't get this one) and (4) welcoming of this kind of intrusion, notwithstanding our other preferences.
In a discussion about gender privilege, trans women using the phrase "trans men" to refer only to trans men who pass fully, discounting my experience as a pre-treatment vagina owner and the experiences of trans men who are regularly mistaken for female. (Refusal to make the distinction = transmisandry.)
Cis women painting trans men as victims of the patriarchy who hate not our female selves, but the very concept and existence of womanhood, in flagrant denial of the many trans men who not only appreciate but celebrate womanhood in women.
The expectation that all trans men will wear baggy clothes, sit with their legs apart, speak in as low a register as possible, monitor their body language vigilantly to keep anything feminine from slipping through, and never express an appreciation of beauty - regardless of our sexual orientation. Not only the belief that we all learn to do this, but the expectation that we will - and should - go to these lengths to prove our masculinity.
The claim, when we do go to these lengths (or come about them naturally), that we are "trying too hard" or "overcompensating."
Conversely, the expectation that trans men will be exactly like cis men in every way that matters, but more empathetic, sensitive to women's problems, etc.
Trans women reverting to female pronouns to address a man whom they have just learned is trans. (When cis people do this, it's transphobia.)
The assumption that the existence of spaces exclusively for trans men is indicative of/caused by transmisogyny.
Transmisandry does not erase transmisogyny. It is not more important than transmisogyny. But it is not "reverse sexism" or some kind of trans male backlash against the concept of transmisogyny. It is something that trans men, including me, deal with on a regular basis. And it has a place in any discussion of trans gender interaction.
Seemingly in partial response to my statements, one commenter left this message:
The other thing I want to say isn’t about race/ethnicity, but I did want to say it. I know that transmisandry happens. But I think that to treat transmisogyny and transmisandry as equal problems is as broken as treating sexism and “reverse sexism” as equal problems. As a trans man married to a trans woman, I see every day how much more privileged I am. The dynamic that exists is one that white trans men have the greatest duty to address.
Maybe this wasn't what xe meant, but what I took from this sentence was "Your problems aren't as important. You need to worry about what trans women are going through more." Well, thanks, dude, but I can't do that. I will be happy to think about male privilege and how that affects my relationship with trans women on both a personal and systemic level, but I will not shut up about transmisandry. As long as it happens to me and my fellow trans men, it has a place on the discussion table as a legitimate social problem that needs to be addressed.
The first point I would like to try and make understood is that the relationship between trans women and trans men is not equal to the relationship between cis women and cis men. Firstly, I will acknowledge that it is a problem when, upon transitioning, we forget what we have been through and what we have learned from our lives as female-bodied creatures and fall into the male role so well that we become oppressors ourselves. Secondly, I will acknowledge that the path of our transition does grant us several privileges (we can dress as our target sex without being looked upon as a pervert, for example - this would be great material for another post). However, trans women also have a few privileges over trans men. The biggest one is that, for better or worse, trans women are visible. When someone thinks of a transgender or transsexual person, they usually think of someone who is MTF. Web sites and books that advertise themselves as "for transgender/transsexual people" often cater to MTF people with little or nothing that is aimed at FTM people. They also have better surgeries than trans men - one can look at the thousands of trans men who go their whole lives without surgery, not because they don't want it or can't afford it but because the results are just not good enough yet, as evidence toward this - and better representation in political circles, at least within the United States.
In MTF-dominated circles, they also have the privilege of committing transmisandry without being called out/chastised for it.
What is transmisandry?
I won't lie on this one: it's a short list. Partially because we don't have the history of being portrayed as perverts and/or murderers. Partially because we often find it easier to pass after hormones (testosterone is powerful stuff.) But it exists, and in the spirit of Tobi Hill-Meyer's What Transmisogyny Looks Like, here are the specs:
Trans women going into trans-male-safe spaces and making comments like "I just can't understand why you would want to give up the body parts that I want so badly."
Trans women going into trans-male-safe spaces specifically to look for potential sex/relationship partners, assuming that we are (1) straight, (2) available, (3) potentially interested in starting a relationship with someone we know next to nothing about (out of trans solidarity, or what? I don't get this one) and (4) welcoming of this kind of intrusion, notwithstanding our other preferences.
In a discussion about gender privilege, trans women using the phrase "trans men" to refer only to trans men who pass fully, discounting my experience as a pre-treatment vagina owner and the experiences of trans men who are regularly mistaken for female. (Refusal to make the distinction = transmisandry.)
Cis women painting trans men as victims of the patriarchy who hate not our female selves, but the very concept and existence of womanhood, in flagrant denial of the many trans men who not only appreciate but celebrate womanhood in women.
The expectation that all trans men will wear baggy clothes, sit with their legs apart, speak in as low a register as possible, monitor their body language vigilantly to keep anything feminine from slipping through, and never express an appreciation of beauty - regardless of our sexual orientation. Not only the belief that we all learn to do this, but the expectation that we will - and should - go to these lengths to prove our masculinity.
The claim, when we do go to these lengths (or come about them naturally), that we are "trying too hard" or "overcompensating."
Conversely, the expectation that trans men will be exactly like cis men in every way that matters, but more empathetic, sensitive to women's problems, etc.
Trans women reverting to female pronouns to address a man whom they have just learned is trans. (When cis people do this, it's transphobia.)
The assumption that the existence of spaces exclusively for trans men is indicative of/caused by transmisogyny.
Transmisandry does not erase transmisogyny. It is not more important than transmisogyny. But it is not "reverse sexism" or some kind of trans male backlash against the concept of transmisogyny. It is something that trans men, including me, deal with on a regular basis. And it has a place in any discussion of trans gender interaction.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Ohio
Saw this on Queer Secrets:
http://queersecrets.tumblr.com/post/1699929687
I'm from one of the other two states.
http://queersecrets.tumblr.com/post/1699929687
I'm from one of the other two states.
Fuck. This. Shit.
So I'm reading a column on Halloween costumes (something I'm very interested in, since Halloween is rife with opportunities to appropriate and insult other peoples' lives and cultures, etc.) and this jumps out at me:
First of all, every gay (and girl who thinks she's a "gay man trapped in a woman's body") will be attempting this.Right. So, option #1: Gawker thinks that gay-identified trans men are just delusional women. Option #2: there are enough straight women throwing their privilege around by claiming that they're "gay men trapped in women's bodies" that Gawker is annoyed at it. Either way I'm pissed off.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
No, blond jokes are not funny.
Anyone remember this joke?
There were two sisters who wanted to buy a bull. They had $500 to spend on it, so money was tight. They spent a long time looking, and finally found a bull who seemed to fit their specifications for $499. They wanted to be sure before purchasing, so one of the sisters went to check out the bull. She looked him over, talked to the previous owner, and decided it was worth the price. Now she just had to tell her sister to bring the trailer to pick it up. Unfortunately, after paying for the bull she only had $1 left, and telegram rates were high: $1 per word. (This was back in the time before cell phones, natch.) What was she to do? She agonized over it for a while, and finally came to a solution: she told the telegraph operator to wire her sister the word "comfortable."
"Comfortable?" he repeated, quizzically.
"My sister's blonde," she explained. "She'll read it very slowly."
Or how about this one:
A blonde woman is looking for a job. She finds employment in road repair, and her first assignment is to paint lines on the road (by hand... I don't know why). Her employer sends her out to the road with a bucket of paint and a brush and tells her that she needs to paint two miles of lines a day to keep up quota. The first day she paints four miles of lines, and he's impressed. The second day she only does two; it's good enough, but he's concerned. The third day she only does one. Her employer notices her steady decrease and asks her what the problem is.
Her answer: "The bucket keeps getting farther and farther away!"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen and various non-gendered persons, not only are blondes slow readers, but they are so lacking in common sense that it never occurs to them to pick up the bucket and bring it along.
There are hundreds of these jokes floating them around. Some of them have "a blonde, a redhead, and a green-haired girl," and the blonde is the punchline. Others dispense of the supporting cast and just go straight to insulting the fair-haired. Meanwhile, as a blond-haired person, I am told by the people who tell these jokes that I do not have the right to be insulted because "nobody believes this stuff" and "I didn't mean any insult."
NEWSFLASH, GUYS: Nobody else got the memo.
Film studio executives and writers are patently unaware that being blonde does not make you less intelligent. This is why we have productions like "Legally Blonde" and "Lizzie McGuire" - shows that play on the idea of blondes being stupid (Legally Blonde, at least, was a subversive effort) or just plays them as shallow, clothing/boys/drama-obsessed, and/or generally worthless. (See also: The Vampire Diaries, especially the book series.) The stereotype isn't limited to the female sex: blond men are often portrayed as very physical men, lacking in the brains department.
Of course, "dumb blonde" isn't the only stereotype out there - for variety's sake, you can witness the "popular blonde," who may or may not be low of intelligence but is almost certainly gorgeous, earning the jealousy of the brown-haired protagonist and the attention of many, many mens. (And make no mistake: the Popular Blonde is almost always a supporting character, typically used as a foil for the less adored, brunette "everygirl.") This character features in such productions as Lizzie McGuire (again - the ditzy blonde protagonist gets a bitchy blonde foil), The Princess Diaries (Lana and Josh), Huge (Amber), Animorphs (Rachel - a rare leading role), Danny Phantom (Dash), and High School Musical (Sharpay). (Another classic example: Rocky.) If a potential love interest comes into the picture - say, Nate Cooper (The Hottie & the Nottie), Scott Howard (Teen Wolf), Troy Bolton, or Stefan Salvatore - then the Popular Blonde is the protagonist's competition, and the love interest must learn to look past her superficiality (make no mistake, blonde is nothing but) and choose the "plain" brunette. (Except for Troy Bolton, who must blow her off repeatedly because Gabriella kicks ass.) On the other hand, if the protagonist is male, he may just be required to date her - her blonde self is a prize for the triumphant man to obtain (She's Out Of My League).
(This does no favors to brunettes, either. The beauty of a brown-haired woman is almost always presumed to be "inner", or based in her facial features - brown on its own cannot be beautiful.)
A subset of the Popular Blonde is the Bitchy Blonde, who is not only fawned over by everyone, but is so self-centered that she cannot stand not to be fawned over by everyone - or, at the least, cannot stand to see someone else get positive attention. Twilight features Lauren and Rosalie, both of whom exist largely to be jealous of Bella; Dash, Lana, Josh, and Sharpay also make a comeback. Stacy Hansen of the Girl Talk series is a classic example, and she's joined by Casey Cartwright (Greek), Johann (The Hottie & the Nottie - it has a male version too!), Sally Peep (The 10th Kingdom), and Caroline (Everybody's Doing It). It's A Boy/Girl Thing has Woody and his girlfriend Breanna (though it does feature one subversion). Kyle (Beastly) is a unique example - a Bitchy Blonde in the protagonist role, who is cursed by another Bitchy Blonde for being shallow.
On the other end of the spectrum, there's the Wholesome Blonde. You already know her; you probably grew up on her movies. Cinderella. Sleeping Beauty. Rapunzel. The fair maiden with flaxen hair who has been horribly imprisoned by an evil wizard, whom the hero must rescue so he can put her shining tresses on display for all to see. And here is the insanity - while blonde hair is degraded for its supposed association with low intelligence and poor attitude, it is simultaneously prized for its allegedly singular beauty. It seems that a blonde woman is a wonderful thing for a man to have, but a very poor thing to be.
Not every blonde character falls prey to these stereotypes. Non-comedy settings with adult characters usually dodge them altogether. It is also true that these character types are occasionally used for brunette characters. However, brown hair is not used to emphasize their character traits the way blonde hair is. No one talks about a "dumb brunette." Brown hair does not shimmer dramatically in loving close-ups. Story writers do not make special note of an annoying character's brown hair.
These stereotypes didn't pop out of nowhere. And that's what leads me back to the blonde jokes. People crack them all the time, thinking they're harmless. Someone else hears them and has it reinforced in xir head that blonde people are a certain way. They get on board a movie, and produce these stereotypical characters of fair hair. People watch the movie, and when they walk away they remember more than the movie - they remember a well-written brunette character (if there is one) playing off against a badly-written caricature of a blonde character, and so they come to believe that brunettes are deeper, smarter, nicer, more complex, or more interesting. And that it's all right to make blonde jokes because "nobody believes them anyway."
There were two sisters who wanted to buy a bull. They had $500 to spend on it, so money was tight. They spent a long time looking, and finally found a bull who seemed to fit their specifications for $499. They wanted to be sure before purchasing, so one of the sisters went to check out the bull. She looked him over, talked to the previous owner, and decided it was worth the price. Now she just had to tell her sister to bring the trailer to pick it up. Unfortunately, after paying for the bull she only had $1 left, and telegram rates were high: $1 per word. (This was back in the time before cell phones, natch.) What was she to do? She agonized over it for a while, and finally came to a solution: she told the telegraph operator to wire her sister the word "comfortable."
"Comfortable?" he repeated, quizzically.
"My sister's blonde," she explained. "She'll read it very slowly."
Or how about this one:
A blonde woman is looking for a job. She finds employment in road repair, and her first assignment is to paint lines on the road (by hand... I don't know why). Her employer sends her out to the road with a bucket of paint and a brush and tells her that she needs to paint two miles of lines a day to keep up quota. The first day she paints four miles of lines, and he's impressed. The second day she only does two; it's good enough, but he's concerned. The third day she only does one. Her employer notices her steady decrease and asks her what the problem is.
Her answer: "The bucket keeps getting farther and farther away!"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen and various non-gendered persons, not only are blondes slow readers, but they are so lacking in common sense that it never occurs to them to pick up the bucket and bring it along.
There are hundreds of these jokes floating them around. Some of them have "a blonde, a redhead, and a green-haired girl," and the blonde is the punchline. Others dispense of the supporting cast and just go straight to insulting the fair-haired. Meanwhile, as a blond-haired person, I am told by the people who tell these jokes that I do not have the right to be insulted because "nobody believes this stuff" and "I didn't mean any insult."
NEWSFLASH, GUYS: Nobody else got the memo.
Film studio executives and writers are patently unaware that being blonde does not make you less intelligent. This is why we have productions like "Legally Blonde" and "Lizzie McGuire" - shows that play on the idea of blondes being stupid (Legally Blonde, at least, was a subversive effort) or just plays them as shallow, clothing/boys/drama-obsessed, and/or generally worthless. (See also: The Vampire Diaries, especially the book series.) The stereotype isn't limited to the female sex: blond men are often portrayed as very physical men, lacking in the brains department.
Of course, "dumb blonde" isn't the only stereotype out there - for variety's sake, you can witness the "popular blonde," who may or may not be low of intelligence but is almost certainly gorgeous, earning the jealousy of the brown-haired protagonist and the attention of many, many mens. (And make no mistake: the Popular Blonde is almost always a supporting character, typically used as a foil for the less adored, brunette "everygirl.") This character features in such productions as Lizzie McGuire (again - the ditzy blonde protagonist gets a bitchy blonde foil), The Princess Diaries (Lana and Josh), Huge (Amber), Animorphs (Rachel - a rare leading role), Danny Phantom (Dash), and High School Musical (Sharpay). (Another classic example: Rocky.) If a potential love interest comes into the picture - say, Nate Cooper (The Hottie & the Nottie), Scott Howard (Teen Wolf), Troy Bolton, or Stefan Salvatore - then the Popular Blonde is the protagonist's competition, and the love interest must learn to look past her superficiality (make no mistake, blonde is nothing but) and choose the "plain" brunette. (Except for Troy Bolton, who must blow her off repeatedly because Gabriella kicks ass.) On the other hand, if the protagonist is male, he may just be required to date her - her blonde self is a prize for the triumphant man to obtain (She's Out Of My League).
(This does no favors to brunettes, either. The beauty of a brown-haired woman is almost always presumed to be "inner", or based in her facial features - brown on its own cannot be beautiful.)
A subset of the Popular Blonde is the Bitchy Blonde, who is not only fawned over by everyone, but is so self-centered that she cannot stand not to be fawned over by everyone - or, at the least, cannot stand to see someone else get positive attention. Twilight features Lauren and Rosalie, both of whom exist largely to be jealous of Bella; Dash, Lana, Josh, and Sharpay also make a comeback. Stacy Hansen of the Girl Talk series is a classic example, and she's joined by Casey Cartwright (Greek), Johann (The Hottie & the Nottie - it has a male version too!), Sally Peep (The 10th Kingdom), and Caroline (Everybody's Doing It). It's A Boy/Girl Thing has Woody and his girlfriend Breanna (though it does feature one subversion). Kyle (Beastly) is a unique example - a Bitchy Blonde in the protagonist role, who is cursed by another Bitchy Blonde for being shallow.
On the other end of the spectrum, there's the Wholesome Blonde. You already know her; you probably grew up on her movies. Cinderella. Sleeping Beauty. Rapunzel. The fair maiden with flaxen hair who has been horribly imprisoned by an evil wizard, whom the hero must rescue so he can put her shining tresses on display for all to see. And here is the insanity - while blonde hair is degraded for its supposed association with low intelligence and poor attitude, it is simultaneously prized for its allegedly singular beauty. It seems that a blonde woman is a wonderful thing for a man to have, but a very poor thing to be.
Not every blonde character falls prey to these stereotypes. Non-comedy settings with adult characters usually dodge them altogether. It is also true that these character types are occasionally used for brunette characters. However, brown hair is not used to emphasize their character traits the way blonde hair is. No one talks about a "dumb brunette." Brown hair does not shimmer dramatically in loving close-ups. Story writers do not make special note of an annoying character's brown hair.
These stereotypes didn't pop out of nowhere. And that's what leads me back to the blonde jokes. People crack them all the time, thinking they're harmless. Someone else hears them and has it reinforced in xir head that blonde people are a certain way. They get on board a movie, and produce these stereotypical characters of fair hair. People watch the movie, and when they walk away they remember more than the movie - they remember a well-written brunette character (if there is one) playing off against a badly-written caricature of a blonde character, and so they come to believe that brunettes are deeper, smarter, nicer, more complex, or more interesting. And that it's all right to make blonde jokes because "nobody believes them anyway."
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Owner's Manual To Your White Brain: An Intro
That's right, guys. A manual. To YOUR White Brain.
Well, we need one. I sure as heck didn't know how to run mine when I first started trying to understand racism, so it's a foregone conclusion that anyone else who's just started doesn't, either. In addition to the aforementioned fuckup, I've gone through so many dumb ideas and misunderstandings and complete failures to figure out what people are saying that it finally hit me: white people probably don't need to learn as much about racism (in the first few months of their education) as they need to learn how to learn about racism. It's not something that can simply be conveyed through memes and quick ideas (though I do love me some memes), nor is it something that can be understood just by knowing the facts that it is made of. It is something that has to be felt, as close as the white brain can possibly come to grokking it. Unfortunately, you cannot tell someone to feel something and cause them to feel it. You have to communicate in the right way, and sometimes they just won't get it until one day it sinks in and then they're going to wonder how the heck they could have been so stupid.
What I want to do is provide a resource for white people to start untraining themselves without making a mess all over PoC's work space - an online workshop, if you will. I'll be staying away from buzzwords - which newbies tend to stare at befuddledly before wandering off for a game of checkers - and relying on allegory, the resources I have found that have helped me to get it, and parables. (Unlike Jesus, I will not make fun of people if they fail to understand them.) During the process, I hope to draw from and bring light to the work and resources of people of darker persuasions (and their pale allies, as relevant), without whose efforts I would still be completely clueless.
I cannot teach someone about racism. I can only teach them how to learn about racism. And that, I hope, will be worthwhile.
Well, we need one. I sure as heck didn't know how to run mine when I first started trying to understand racism, so it's a foregone conclusion that anyone else who's just started doesn't, either. In addition to the aforementioned fuckup, I've gone through so many dumb ideas and misunderstandings and complete failures to figure out what people are saying that it finally hit me: white people probably don't need to learn as much about racism (in the first few months of their education) as they need to learn how to learn about racism. It's not something that can simply be conveyed through memes and quick ideas (though I do love me some memes), nor is it something that can be understood just by knowing the facts that it is made of. It is something that has to be felt, as close as the white brain can possibly come to grokking it. Unfortunately, you cannot tell someone to feel something and cause them to feel it. You have to communicate in the right way, and sometimes they just won't get it until one day it sinks in and then they're going to wonder how the heck they could have been so stupid.
What I want to do is provide a resource for white people to start untraining themselves without making a mess all over PoC's work space - an online workshop, if you will. I'll be staying away from buzzwords - which newbies tend to stare at befuddledly before wandering off for a game of checkers - and relying on allegory, the resources I have found that have helped me to get it, and parables. (Unlike Jesus, I will not make fun of people if they fail to understand them.) During the process, I hope to draw from and bring light to the work and resources of people of darker persuasions (and their pale allies, as relevant), without whose efforts I would still be completely clueless.
I cannot teach someone about racism. I can only teach them how to learn about racism. And that, I hope, will be worthwhile.
I Am A Meat-Eater
I've mentioned that before, right?
I eat meat. I also don't eat a lot of flour or sugar. Most of my diet is eggs, whole meat (beef, pork, and chicken), fruit, nuts, and vegetables. And that's not on a most-to-least basis, like a food ingredients list. I eat a lot of vegetables. I ate about a cup of coleslaw for dinner just now, no exaggeration.
And yet no one - with the exception of close family members and a few like-minded people on the Internet - is okay with my diet. It doesn't matter who I talk to. Low-fatters think I'm going to die because I'm not eating "enough" grain (even though eating grain is what caused me to gain weight in the first place). Vegetarians think that I'm going to give myself cancer, or that I'm just plain immoral, or whatever. You'd think that everyone else would leave me alone, but no - the average, snack-food-eating American would like me to know that I am too extreme and "everything in moderation" is the best choice for me.
But it's the vegetarians that anger me the most. They and I both know what it's like to be marginalized. To have Conventional Wisdom-touting dickheads telling us that we're killing ourselves, that our diet isn't possibly sustainable, that we're insane because they could never eat that much broccoli in a day. Having people constantly tell us that we're killing ourselves when our own experiences show otherwise.
And yet I end up slammed by vegetarians regularly, and always for the following reasons:
1: Eating meat is unethical. Isn't it obvious? You're killing a poor, defenseless animal just because it tastes good! You heartless beast!
WHAAAAAARGARBL.
Yes. I am SUCH a monstrous individual that I deliberately contribute to the death of animals JUST so I can please my palate. Instead of the more obvious solution, which is "I tried it, and I can't sustain my body without animal products." Which is true, incidentally. Even though the average vegetarian will not believe me because they don't have this problem (yet). I know that there are cool things like free-range, grass-fed beef and high-protein stuff (like tempeh and other awesomeness) that I could be eating... if I could afford them. It's no accident that most vegetarians are middle-class.
2: But eating meat is wrong! Look into that poor animal's eyes! How can you say that you have more of a right to live than it does?
Because I am not it. It's that simple. The law of the jungle and all that. Some argue that humans are exempt from the law of the jungle because they are capable of viewing meat consumption as wrong, which is a fancy way of saying "eating meat is wrong because I said it is." BULLSHIT.
3: You're ruining your health!
By eating fresh vegetables, fruit, nuts, and a few servings of whole meat (we're not talking hot dogs here) in a day, I am giving myself cancer/a heart attack/a stroke/whatever? There is absolutely no evidence to support this outrageous assumption, aside from some really sketchy stuff from the 1970's.
4: Meat farming trashes the environment!
Yeah, it does (except for the few organic and otherwise well-managed farms that take care of their stuff). And I hate that. Almost as much as I hate the fact that responsibly-raised beef causes $16 a pound. There's a technique someone of my income level can use to afford that. It's called "live on eggs."
In many ways, the arguments against eating meat remind me of arguments against homosexuality and transsexuality (despite some vegetarians' insistence that it's the other way around.) It's a lifestyle choice. It's immoral. It will make you get sick and die. Other unsubstantiated bullshit. Like your average gay/bi/trans person (which, incidentally, I am - all three, even), I have nothing against straight people, even Christian straight people. As long as they mind their own business. And I feel the same way about vegetarians. Eat what you want, but spare me the insufferable self-righteous lectures. I've heard them all.
5: The existence of this post indicates that you are desperately trying to justify your meat eating and secretly you know that vegetarianism is right!
The existence of this post indicates that I am fed up with self-righteous vegetarians telling me who I am and what I am thinking.
I eat meat. I also don't eat a lot of flour or sugar. Most of my diet is eggs, whole meat (beef, pork, and chicken), fruit, nuts, and vegetables. And that's not on a most-to-least basis, like a food ingredients list. I eat a lot of vegetables. I ate about a cup of coleslaw for dinner just now, no exaggeration.
And yet no one - with the exception of close family members and a few like-minded people on the Internet - is okay with my diet. It doesn't matter who I talk to. Low-fatters think I'm going to die because I'm not eating "enough" grain (even though eating grain is what caused me to gain weight in the first place). Vegetarians think that I'm going to give myself cancer, or that I'm just plain immoral, or whatever. You'd think that everyone else would leave me alone, but no - the average, snack-food-eating American would like me to know that I am too extreme and "everything in moderation" is the best choice for me.
But it's the vegetarians that anger me the most. They and I both know what it's like to be marginalized. To have Conventional Wisdom-touting dickheads telling us that we're killing ourselves, that our diet isn't possibly sustainable, that we're insane because they could never eat that much broccoli in a day. Having people constantly tell us that we're killing ourselves when our own experiences show otherwise.
And yet I end up slammed by vegetarians regularly, and always for the following reasons:
1: Eating meat is unethical. Isn't it obvious? You're killing a poor, defenseless animal just because it tastes good! You heartless beast!
WHAAAAAARGARBL.
Yes. I am SUCH a monstrous individual that I deliberately contribute to the death of animals JUST so I can please my palate. Instead of the more obvious solution, which is "I tried it, and I can't sustain my body without animal products." Which is true, incidentally. Even though the average vegetarian will not believe me because they don't have this problem (yet). I know that there are cool things like free-range, grass-fed beef and high-protein stuff (like tempeh and other awesomeness) that I could be eating... if I could afford them. It's no accident that most vegetarians are middle-class.
2: But eating meat is wrong! Look into that poor animal's eyes! How can you say that you have more of a right to live than it does?
Because I am not it. It's that simple. The law of the jungle and all that. Some argue that humans are exempt from the law of the jungle because they are capable of viewing meat consumption as wrong, which is a fancy way of saying "eating meat is wrong because I said it is." BULLSHIT.
3: You're ruining your health!
By eating fresh vegetables, fruit, nuts, and a few servings of whole meat (we're not talking hot dogs here) in a day, I am giving myself cancer/a heart attack/a stroke/whatever? There is absolutely no evidence to support this outrageous assumption, aside from some really sketchy stuff from the 1970's.
4: Meat farming trashes the environment!
Yeah, it does (except for the few organic and otherwise well-managed farms that take care of their stuff). And I hate that. Almost as much as I hate the fact that responsibly-raised beef causes $16 a pound. There's a technique someone of my income level can use to afford that. It's called "live on eggs."
In many ways, the arguments against eating meat remind me of arguments against homosexuality and transsexuality (despite some vegetarians' insistence that it's the other way around.) It's a lifestyle choice. It's immoral. It will make you get sick and die. Other unsubstantiated bullshit. Like your average gay/bi/trans person (which, incidentally, I am - all three, even), I have nothing against straight people, even Christian straight people. As long as they mind their own business. And I feel the same way about vegetarians. Eat what you want, but spare me the insufferable self-righteous lectures. I've heard them all.
5: The existence of this post indicates that you are desperately trying to justify your meat eating and secretly you know that vegetarianism is right!
The existence of this post indicates that I am fed up with self-righteous vegetarians telling me who I am and what I am thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)