brace yourselves

i know its been a while. what can i say, i get lazy from time to time.

so after much internal debate, i'll give in and write my first (most likely of many) post about michelle obama. lets start it out on the right foot: the woman is fly as hell. did you SEE that purple dress the other day? damn. she clearly puts the right kind of effort into her wardrobe. i find that although you should never "judge a book by its cover," its always a good thing when someone takes the time to look good. if michelle obama were unshowered, for example, i'd be concerned. but no troubles on that front.

moving on: i can't even (don't even want to) IMAGINE the kinds of racist and sexist shit we are in for between now and november. if i were michelle obama, i would have put my foot down the first time barack mentioned the whole "running for president" idea and said "frankly, i don't feel like it." because god knows she is going to have to go through a world of pain for this. its already started, with the accusations that there's a video out there somewhere that shows her using the word "whitey," and with the heightened media hubbub surrounding the idea of michelle obama in general. i've read about a thousand "who IS michelle obama" articles in the last week. a thousand. and the level to which they invade her privacy is sort of unreal. the kicker for me was the recent piece of news everyone's seemed to grab on to: they've somehow forced the release of michelle's college senior thesis on being black at an ivy league school in the '80s, and everyone is dying to dissect it, to the point where i even read an article today that quotes the "dedications" page of her thesis. think for a moment about how humiliated you would be as a grown-ass successful woman to have the media close-reading something you wrote when you were barely 21. ouch.

but the big thing with michelle obama, the thing i predict will continue to be the biggest issue she'll have to deal with, is obvious even now: white people all across america are trying to decide whether or not she is, in fact, an Angry Black Woman. and they are looking for any reason they can to label her as such. the whole "first time i've been proud of my country" thing was a nice firm start, and paved the way for people to go crazy over the "whitey" video that does not even exist. i can only imagine what's in store for the future. its clear at this point that michelle obama is an intelligent woman who thinks a lot about race, and frankly, thats probably not going to win her any popularity contests. unfortunately for the obamas, america doesn't love it when you're smart enough to understand how fucked up she is. soooo moral of the story: i'll probably be posting soon in outrage about some new shit the media did to michelle obama. brace yourselves, people.

on the plus side, maureen dowd has, for the first time possibly ever, earned my respect by writing this piece. the 12-step program is working, M.D. i'm proud of you. you may turn out to be aiight after all.

on a similar note...

i know, i know, i wrote that other post a while ago so i cant just pick up where i left off as if a week hasn't gone by. wait, yes i can. this is my blog and i do what i want.

so like i mentioned, my "pet peeve" (and by pet peeve, i mean thing that makes me go into a blind rage) is when people are completely lacking self-awareness and/or the desire to think self-critically. one of the areas of life where this seems to be coming out more and more (and thus bothering me more and more) is of course the presidential race.

reading blogs is like, the new fun thing with kids these days, and since i quit celebrity gossip, my attempts to be cool have mainly revolved around various politically-minded blogs. recently, however, i've begun to run out of blogs to read because i've had to delete them from my favorites, one by one, as they become too frustrating to enjoy. here is the conundrum: all of the black people blogs i read support obama and hate clinton to the point where they refuse to acknowledge any sexism in the race, or any flaws in obama's campaign or his politics. the feminist-type blogs i read support clinton and hate obama in a conveniently mirror-image approach.

to anyone who fits one of those descriptions, i would like to pose a question: what the fuck is wrong with your brain? or, in the words of one of my friends from work, "its like a brain trauma ward in here." is it that you just want the other side to see your point SO badly that you exaggerate to the point of untruth? do you think you'll look weak if you admit that they're right on certain points? newsflash: this is not middle school, its real life. racism and sexism both exist. fucking deal with it, get over yourselves, and stop pretending like you have some sort of moral high ground when you KNOW you don't.

or more disturbing: perhaps you really don't know. maybe i'm just reading the opinions of a lot of black men who have never in their lives thought about or cared about the privilege they get from being male, and who have never bothered to notice sexism, and a bunch of white women who've done the same thing with their privileged status in this society as white. possibly the only thing that makes me more angry than a rich white male who is comfortable in his privilege is a minority who thinks that this one thing that makes him/her different from that rich white male is the most important thing in society. which brings me back to my point from my last post: not all of us have that luxury.

anyways, its late and it would be unwise for me to start lecturing you on intersectionality because frankly my spelling is deteriorating as we speak. but my point i guess is this: if the so-called 'liberals' in this country can't even open their eyes wide enough to see each other, we deserve another 8 years of bush.

also i'm expatriating.

in other news...

So i meant to blog about this a while ago (like when it actually came out) but one thing led to another and i just didn't. deal with it. moving on, the new york times magazine "recently" featured an article entitled "when girls will be boys," about transmen at women's colleges. I read it kind of expecting it to be terrible, and was pleasantly surprised. Aside from the typical title and an awkward usage of the word "razzed" (who says that anymore?), the article was actually pretty good. of course it had its issues, which i'll lay out below as i love to do, but on the whole i'd recommend reading it. It seemed like the author tried pretty hard to write an interesting and honest article.

There was not too much mention of transwomen in the article, which isn't necessarily a problem since it was pretty specifically an article about transmen, but it did sort of make me wonder whether a similar article about transwomen would go over as easily (hint: probs not). which got me thinking all sorts of thoughts about gender and life, but i'll spare you.

So the one beef i had with the article was this: there was NO kind of mention of class anywhere in it, and the author talks about the "possibility of needing extra insurance," and casually mentions Rey's payment for testosterone and top surgery out-of-pocket as if its no thing. Now i'm no expert on "money" (god knows i'm no expert on money) but i'm pretty sure those things are pretty expensive. and i'm almost positive that MY insurance doesn't cover them. and my insurance covers a whole hell of a lot. the whole article is sort of written as if the only people who go through any sort of transition re: gender identity are wealthy (white) well-educated, "artsy" type hipsters and gays. and there are definitely those people, but ignoring all the poor people and the people of color within the transgender/genderqueer community seems to do a pretty big disservice all around in that it erases their stories, and kind of de-legitimizes the experiences of those well-to-do people, making their transition seem more like a fad than a legit experience.

Other than that though, good article. I encourage you to read it, and leave you to ponder the main point of the article: transmen at women's colleges - how do we feel? are they intruders? i mean i'd say sort of obviously no because as anyone who's study gender theory for one second or less would know, our society's gender issues can't be simplified into "man versus woman." so talking about transmen as boys trying to infiltrate a space for women is sort of like saying biracial students are just white people trying to infiltrate HBCUs. and on the subject of HBCUs, is it actually even legal to tell transmen they can't go to women's colleges? maybe i'm wrong about this, but i thought white people COULD go to HBCUs, just usually don't. wouldn't the same kind of rule apply re: gender?

anyways, ponder it. i especially liked the line about women's colleges serving simultaneously as "finishing schools and as incubators of American feminism." what a conundrum!

beating a dead horse

sometimes you beat a dead horse when you don't really have to. sometimes its because you're locked in a room with nothing but a stick and a dead horse. this is kind of how the new york times is making me feel. i don't WANT to post again about the barack-hillary epic duel, but apparently thats the only thing worth printing in the news, so who am i to try and think of something else to blog about?

anyways, maureen dowd had an op-ed about this in the times today. now i don't know if i've mentioned recently that she's not the kind of person i ever want to find myself forced into conversation with, but maybe now's not the time to go into the multitude of reasons maureen dowd and i will never be friends. suffice it to say that although i thought her op-ed was shitty per usual, it had a lot of great quotes. which i will now pick up and use to promote MY opinion instead of hers.

example one:

"Elaine Sirkis, 77, an Obama supporter, confided that she just isn’t sure she’s ready for a woman president. Betty Conway, 83, a Hillary supporter, confided that she just isn’t sure she’s ready for a black president.

As Conway walked away, Sirkis smiled sheepishly. “I’m sorry,” she told Berman sweetly about her friend. 'She’s a bigot.'"

i can't believe someone would use this quote in an op-ed and then not even "unpack that," as i love to say when i'm feeling pretentious. So i feel like this quote basically sums up how i feel about this race, and america in general right now. Its funny because i was always the first to jump up and get mad when people tried to say that its not fair how anytime someone says anything that might be construed as slightly racist, they're a bigot. and now i sort of get what they mean. don't get me wrong. if you say something racist, i still think you're a racist. but how come when you say something sexist, you're not a sexist? thats a bit hypocritical of us "liberals," no? not being ready for a black president is bigoted, but not being ready for a woman is just par for the course? it would be funny if it weren't so ridiculously true.

Dowd writes that "It’s not yet clear which prejudice will infect the presidential contest more — misogyny or racism." Its possible she just needed a nice transition between the previous paragraph and the next one. but if she really meant that, i guess "clarity" is not really her strong point. every day it seems to become more and more clear that misogyny is running away with this race. its almost no contest at this point, as evidenced by a joke she quotes just sentences later saying that february is black history month, and that unfortunately for hillary there's no "white bitch month." and of course there's the hillary nutcracker, and the new axe body spray ad. yeah, you're right maureen. its totally unclear whether sexism or racism is more rampant in this debate. why just last week i heard someone call barack a nigger while purchasing an obama sambo figurine. oh wait... that would not be acceptable behavior, would it?

now just to set the record straight, i'm not trying to say racism is NOT happening. i'm just trying to say people need to wake up from this "obama-mania" and at the very least recognize their own bigotry. it seems like more and more everyone seems to be rallying around obama, condemning any black person that might not support him as a "house negro" (because of course obama is SUCH a field negro, and because of course that metaphor is in no way overplayed), and just generally going buck-wild for obama like he's actually something new. you know, he's aiight. and if he's the nominee, i'll totally vote for him. but when you start to see things like "cult of personality" get thrown around in the papers, you have to start to wonder whether it might be time for everyone to take a deep breath and do some exercises in rational, independent thought. i'm just sayin. in my opinion hillary and barack are pretty dead even as far as policy goes, so i'd vote for either one and be satisfied with neither. but if this race gets any more disrespectful to women OR black people, i at least am going to be pissed. as it is, this entire year is already leaving a bad taste in my mouth. way to go, america. i love you too.

i love upeople

so last night I went over to Solomon's Porch in bedstuy and saw Hanifah Walidah and Olive Demetrius's documentary, U People. you can check out their website here, if you're so inclined - they also do a fabulous podcast.

the basic premise - while shooting the music video for Hanifah's "Make a Move," they also shot a lot of footage of all the women in the house interacting, talking about life, and just generally getting deep. Then they made that footage into a film.

so this post is not going to be long, I just really wanted to urge people to check out the site and see the movie when it starts going to film festivals. It really felt to me like I was sitting in my own living room, talking to my own friends. I felt like every conversation I saw on that movie was one i've had thousands of times before, but just the experience of seeing it on screen, of hearing those words come out of someone else's mouth, was intensely validating. Hanifah and Olive spoke about how these types of conversations about race, gender, and sexuality are conversations that we as black women and queer black women often have among ourselves, but they are not conversations that often make it into the public sphere. This movie is their attempt to bring some of those conversations out of the living room and into other people's living rooms, and I think that's sort of great. I just wanted to give a shout out to them and to all the beautiful people in their movie. I think its the kind of movie everyone can get something different out of, but for me, it was just great to see myself reflected in so many other people.

so yeah. this post was a bit full of feelings, but that's probably a stunning recommendation for a movie, no? see it. love it. check out their podcast. its great.

the race of the century

i know, not really tough competition, considering the century just got started. i think what i really meant to say was something along the lines of "the race thats going to feel like it took a century to finish." i mean come on. if the entire new york times appears to be devoted to the presidential race now, feel free to put me out of my misery a good few months before november.

but thats beside the point. what i actually wanted to talk about re: ELECTION 2008!!!!! is the whole "black man" "white woman" thing. actually, maybe we should clarify. because barack seems all about calling himself black but never manages to mention the man. and hillary is equally gung-ho about being a woman but never seems to squeeze in the "white." i'm just pointing this out because i feel like the dialogue surrounding this whole barack v. hillary thing is both completely obsessed with race and gender yet magically and simultaneously completely uncritical. and through the eyes of a black woman, some of the failures of this dialogue seem pretty obvious. for example, hey: did you know that both race AND gender are a part of everyone's identities? shocking. if you liked that one, be sure to stick around for lesson 2: why a mention of past cocaine use is not synonymous with "bringing race into the conversation."

anyways so i don't even have any answers here, but i wanted to leave a couple thoughts for you to ponder as you procrastinate from whatever it is you're actually supposed to be doing. i'm sick of complaining about how the media is racist and sexist, so i'm going to go ahead and ignore all the idiotic things they say and try to spark an actual dialogue about the issues of race and gender in this election. here's some food for thought. in my favorite: an itemized list!

1. i read an interesting op-ed in the new york times the other day arguing that hillary's appeal to the idea of being the first female president is basically "so last year." meaning that even though we've never had a female president, people feel like women are not so badly-off in this society. there are a lot of (white) women in positions of power in this country, whereas minorities (and the columnist argues minority males, although i have to point out that just because black girls are doing better in school than black boys, it doesn't mean they're doing great) are struggling. so barack is more of an inspirational figure because black is a bigger barrier than woman?

2. but if THAT'S the case, then how come the media is all up on hillary, and they can't seem to get enough barack-love? i actually read an op-ed the other day that criticized hillary clinton for wearing a similar outfit to two different interviews. seriously? unless barack wore a suit to one and hammer pants to the next, i'm going to have to assume hillary wasn't the only one who made that faux pas. and i won't get started on the whole "crying" thing, because it will just make me mad. and i'm in my happy place. in fact, to read more on why woman might be a bigger barrier than black, just see my last post. also see the life and times of Shirley Chisholm - that black woman no one ever even knew ran for president.

3. more and more i see/hear black people flocking to obama, saying we have to stick together, getting mad at hillary for one perceived slight or another. i had to stop reading the field negro, which used to be entertaining for me, because it just got too damn sexist. dude was talking about what "the man on the street" thinks, as if there is no woman on the street. talking about how black people need to stick together, calling anyone who defends hillary against barack a house negro. first of all, that metaphor is really getting overplayed. second of all, just because there's no term for a gender "house negro" doesn't mean i owe you shit, black men. so please stop acting like the only thing that matters to black people is their blackness, just because thats the only thing you personally, as a wealthy straight black man, have going on.

4. and i mean, i could go on for days with the thoughts i've been storing up, but i sense that my grammar is not that on point tonight, so i want to wrap it up before i embarrass myself: why is it that "i don't want to bring (race)(gender) into this" is such a hot thing to say in this election? we have a black man and a white woman in the running for the democratic nomination, and people DON'T want to talk about race and gender? i get that as a candidate, you might not want to consistently bring up the thing that makes some people uncomfortable about you, but i also kind of feel like you look like a straight up idiot not talking about it. and beside that, this is sort of a moment in history. there's an opportunity here for our country's fucked up issues around race and gender to become something people actually WANT to discuss. something that's in the news, something that people are talking about and maybe developing a more critical view of. that seems like something you might want to go for, no? and frankly, bottom line, even if americans arent "ready" to talk about race and gender at a higher level than "women cry a lot" or "i don't trust black people," if people aren't ready to talk about it they're probably not ready to have a white woman or a black man as their president. so if hillary and barack are trying to win this thing, they might want to start thinking about ways to talk about their own identities without causing pandemonium. but i guess thats just a thought.

people in sexist houses should not throw stones

Ok so first things first: I know I haven’t blogged in like, ten years. Its terrible. I’m ashamed. Laziness has reached an all-time high, and I apologize profusely.

But lets not cry over spilled milk. Moving on, I have a blog post in mind that I’ve literally been planning to write for like, a week, but only just now got the energy up to actually start writing. And I feel compelled to make an additional disclaimer that every single source for this entry comes from the new york times. Not because I think it’s a stellar paper or anything. Come on! Didn’t we JUST have a talk about how I’m lazy? Try and keep up. So here goes:

I hate it when forces outside of myself compel me to stand up for someone I don’t even like. It’s like in 2nd grade when everyone made fun of that fat kid who sat in the corner and had a bald spot on his head from where a fan fell on him. You didn’t WANT to say anything because you don’t want people to think you’re friends with him. But when they start throwing rocks, you’re kind of backed into a corner. This is how I feel about Hillary Clinton. She’s way too moderate for me and I don’t think I would love her as a president. But people have started throwing rocks, and now I’m going to have to kick their asses. Playground-style.

After this presidential race is over, I doubt people will even be able to make the argument anymore that race is a bigger deal in America than gender. Barack Obama is sailing along like everyone’s little black wonder-boy, and people clap their hands in glee over how articulate and clean he is. Don’t get me wrong, I get that that’s problematic. But at the end of the day, Barack is a man. Ipso facto, he can totally lead our country. Hillary? The Wiz shoulda had a woman singing that song “you can’t win.” I swear. I continue to be shocked by the lengths to which people will go to discredit this woman, and the lengths they will go to do so without ever touching on a single POLITICAL issue.

Case in point: this latest “crying” fiasco. Now I don’t want to point fingers or call anyone a crybaby, but John Edwards as far as I can tell has been crying himself to sleep every night for the past year, and people think its sweet. I think we all know Hillary can’t do that without getting labeled an emotional woman, incapable of leadership. So she shows a tough face. And people call her unlikeable. And then Barack throws her a bone and calls her “likeable enough.” What a swell guy. So she tears up. TEARS UP. She doesn’t even really cry. And BAM, everyone is all over it. Hillary’s too emotional. Hillary is a calculating bitch who only cried to get sympathy votes. Hillary can’t handle the pressure. Hillary’s desperate. Hillary is still married to a man who cheated on her so we should all think about that instead of her politics. Come. On.

I know this is getting long, but I need to make a special example out of just a few articles. For starters, Maureen Dowd: that woman gets on my last nerves. In her latest op-ed entitled “Can Hillary Cry Her Way to the White House?” she has the audacity to claim that every single one of Hillary Clinton’s political victories was a sympathy vote sparked by a previous embarrassment Hillary had suffered at the hands of a man. Dowd, who I’m certain considers herself SUCH a new-age feminist, seems to believe that not only is Hillary just some woman who would never have gotten ahead on her skills alone, but that the majority of voting-age women are completely incapable of rational thought, and are driven only by their traumatic memories of past wrongs.

Gail Collins seems to feel similarly about the new Hampshire win being a sympathy vote however she does make the astute point that Hillary seems to do best when she’s just speaking her mind, however boring that might be to watch on CNN. She’s not passionate like Barack, but she does have something to say. (unlike Barack? Oh. Snap.)

This is getting long so I guess I’ll end it. If you want to check out a couple other op-eds, I’m sure you’ll find them as fascinating as I did.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/us/politics/09moment.html?fta=y

my point? I guess really my main point is just damn. If this is what it’s like to try and be a successful woman in this country, I’m glad I have no ambition. The rampant sexism and subsequent rampant denial that sexism plays any role in this whole campaign is absurd, and it makes me pretty pissed. Oh and don’t even get me started on the whole “you can’t count those 8 years she was living in the white house for shit because she was just a wife” business. If she had been president first (ha!) you can be damn sure everyone would be singing bill’s praises about how well he handled being the first ever first man, and how much he was able to accomplish politically while living with the president. Jesus.

Ok I’m done for real now. Lets all be mad about sexism together. And then a little sad about the state of our world.

Over and out,

kaya

today is trans day of remembrance

and our friends over at quench have started a conversation about what that means. I really encourage you to check it out. as always when one of these "days of remembrance" or "history months" rolls around, I'm reminded of how annoying it is that we can't remember EVERY day, or learn everyone's history in school. but trans day of remembrance is kind of special in that I think a lot of people don't even take this ONE day to think about it. so you've been educated - today is trans day of remembrance, and for me that means at the very least taking a moment to realize just how many people, and especially people of color, all over the world have been killed or otherwise victimized because they are transgender. so take that moment. and maybe look around the internet a little bit and learn some more about it.

"my grandfather's son" or "how i sold my soul for a chance at the big time"

i don't even know where to begin. but it just really seemed like time i stepped up and let the world know how much hatred i have for clarence thomas. i mean seriously. compared to this guy, condi seems like kind of a sweet, pretty girl with normal teeth.

so you've probably heard he has this new book out, and maybe if you have a tv, you've even seen some of his interviews or something. just in case you haven't, this'll get you started...



ok so seriously though. i watched the whole interview, and i know 60 minutes thought that it would prove clarence thomas is "not the man i thought he was," or at least it kept saying that, but i'm confused about where they got that idea from. what did they think people thought of him? that he was some kind of raving lunatic or neo-nazi? obviously he has to have some semblance of sanity to be on the supreme court. but nothing he said in that interview gained him the slightest bit of respect in my eyes. if anything, i think less of him than i did before. and let's face it: i didn't really think that was even possible. here are just a couple of my responses to some of the ridiculous shit that came out of that man's mouth:


1) when asked how much of his life was determined by being black, he responded, "how much of your life is determined by being a man?" - um, try a lot, idiot. he then compares that to being 5' 8'' as if there is no difference in this society between the importance of someone's height and the importance of their gender or race. and you expect me to believe that he's NOT enough of a sexist to have done those things anita hill said? please.

2) when asked, "so you think of yourself as a black man?" he replied, "i'm a man." i'm sorry, but that sounds a lot to me like you DO have some issues with your own race. its hard for me to believe all this shit about "i'm not an uncle tom" and "i do care about black people" when you can't even force yourself on television to utter the words "i am a black man." and they claim he read james baldwin in college? must not have understood it.

3) he claims that his yale degree was worth 15 cents because he couldnt get a job. how poetic. except for the part where he got a job working for a yale grad. whoops. i guess what he meant was "i'm a huge fat liar in more ways than one."

4) when george bush interviewed him about his nomination, he looked him "dead in the eye" and told him "i will never criticize any decision you make?!?" i mean i believe it, but i fail to see where that's a good thing. pretty much every decision he's made has been horrible. so criticizing horrible decisions is a bad thing why? oh right. neo-conservative politics feeds on solidarity, lies, and the exploitation of those less fortunate than uncle thomas.

5) did anyone else notice that he mentioned that the whole anita hill thing set a precedent for "things like this" harming president clinton in the future? ok now i'm no genius, but president clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman, right? now i'm not saying i approve of how much of a deal the media made of the whole clinton-lewinsky fiasco, but the reason clinton got in trouble is he eventually admitted he was lying. i guess clarence thomas is a little smarter than bill clinton after all. america doesn't care what you did, it only cares that you continue to deny it for as long as you're a part of the government.

6) and this will be my last point, i swear, but how much did he pay them to do this 60 minutes special? he basically calls anita hill a lying bitch on television and they don't even give her a chance to respond. in fact the only negative portrayal of justice thomas in the entire piece is an old CLIP of jessie jackson, who i'm sure also wasn't contacted. like seriously? fair and balanced press? no? ok just checking.


ugh. i'm just...ugh. i know i just wrote a whole lot (what can i say, i ramble when i'm angry) but if you have it in you, i'd really recommend that you read frank rich's op-ed in the new york times. i think he brings up a lot of the points i failed to make.

oh, and just a side note, am i supposed to find it ENDEARING that he sometimes parks his gigantic gas-guzzling mobile home in the walmart parking lot? that sounds like something satan himself would find fun if he ever took a vacation here on earth. wal mart? seriously?

when thomas's grandfather said "don't shame me, don't shame the race," i can't help but think that this wasn't exactly what he had in mind.

genda discrimination

ok so with all the hullabaloo going on around ENDA, it seem like high time i say something.

i HATE when you read a blog and it assumes you know the background on something, because then when you don't, you feel like an idiot. SO, here's the deal:

the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) prohibits discrimination in the work place based on sexual orientation or gender identity. pretty simple, right? oh so very wrong. so basically what's happening is after a lot of debate, the act is being revised to NOT include gender identity. the ever-popular Human Rights Campaign seems to be o.k. with this, while many other LGBT groups are outraged. Barney Frank (D-Mass-gay), one of the congressmembers who introduced the bill originally, is apparently in favor of dropping trans-inclusion to give the bill a better chance of passing.

so why am i writing about this?

well here are a few of the things that piss me off about this whole affair:

1. a lot of people don't even know about it. solution: write about it in this blog, and then like, ten people will know. good start. good hustle.

2. why do people think its ok to make compromises like this? i mean at this point in history i think its a little embarassing. the first time it happened, in like, 1 BC, i guess it was alright for people to be like "lets fuck over this minority within a minority so some of us can get our rights." when we got up to the civil rights movement and it happened all over again to women and gay people, it was irritating. and got us nowhere. now, its just sad. if you can't learn from history, what makes you qualified to govern the present? you're fired.

3. why are people so terrified of anti-discrimination? like...its NOT discrimination. that should be a good thing. i'm confused about who all these people are who NEED to discriminate against transgendered people. like thats not ok. and when you think about how many transgender people make far less than they need to survive (over 60%, it turns out) its sort of criminal NOT to have protections. like, you need money to survive around here. and you need a job to have money. its not rocket science.

4. (and i defer to pam on this one, because she knows more about it than i do) apparently bush is going to veto this regardless. so why the fuck would you deny a group of people the right to even be CONSIDERED for civil rights? like its bad enough that there are no protections for trans people right now. what they're trying to say here is that even though there is little to no chance that they'll be getting rights any time soon, we don't even want to talk about it? that is SUPER fucked up. and again, a tad embarrassing, wouldn't you say?

ok those are my few cents. come on, people. get it together.

update: apparently gender identity is NOT going to be dropped from the bill. or hopefully. or something. the thing about news is, it keeps getting updated.

a little light reading

so i was sitting on the plane yesterday watching people walk down the aisle towards me trying to figure out which one would sit next to me. naturally all of my top choices passed me by, so i felt lucky when instead of the super old dude with tons of bags, i got the very petite suburban housewife-looking woman with an expensive purse. i was planning on ignoring her and taking a nap, but she pulled a magazine out of her purse and started reading so intently i felt like it was pretty much my obligation to glance over. she was reading an article on vaginal restoration. or rejuvination. or something. i can't quite recall, but the point is if you're old, you're supposed to get a new vagina. i thought that was kind of odd, but it wasn't until like an hour into the flight that i realized it wasnt just an article. the ENTIRE MAGAZINE was nothing but page after page of how-to-not-look-old techniques. from the vagina she moved on to "firming up" your face, then on to how to get fabulous feet. keep in mind this magazine was oh, about 150 pages thick.

so here's the thing: what the fuck?!? i mean i know our society is ridiculous, but i didn't realize it was entire magazine full of articles about why you're too old to be a real woman anymore ridiculous. or maybe i did realize that. that's not the point. the point is that this is all pretty disgusting. the fact that this middle-aged woman is reading magazines on how to make sure her feet are pretty and her vag is tight for i assume her husband who even from across the aisle i can tell is not putting any such effort into his own personal upkeep is really fucked up.

conclusion: she should have been reading skymall instead. while she was wasting her time trying to get young again, *I* learned that for just $120 i can purchase a fake rock, size "tall," to cover any blemishes in my yard. i think instead though, i may go with the robotic shark.

gay eyes!!!

ok the hiatus is over. transitioning from "college" to "hobo" was a little rough, so i had to take a break from internet. now i'm back, and i'm ready to talk about one of the most fascinating topics ever written about: gay eyes.

but before i go into that, the inspiration for this post: stephen colbert's guest tonight on the colbert report was david france, author of a recent article in the new york magazine entitled "the science of gaydar." now i got excited because i heard the word "gaydar," but i was rather disappointed. clearly he never took a wgs class. well, i've only taken one so maybe i shouldn't talk, but i still managed to see several huge problems in his "argument." according to france, there are certain physical characteristics that statistically belong to gay people. and what he actually means by that is that there are certain physical characteristics we associate with masculinity, and certain female characteristics we associate with femininity. straight females and gay males are feminine. straight males and lesbians are masculine. except he takes seven pages to say it. he talks about the length of your index finger, the direction your hair "whorls," and other such fascinating physical characteristics. i found it, needless to say, problematic. he seems to be missing several entire points. the most obvious of those being that gender and sexual preference are not the same thing. a woman can be "more masculine" and be attracted to men. shocking, i know. it also seems like a fairly obvious research gap that he clearly did not run any tests on the billions upon billions (and that's an exact number) of gay and possibly gay people who either can't, won't, or haven't admitted their gayness yet.

"some of the work has been derided as modern-day phrenology," france writes. really? i wonder why.

his intentions are what i guess one could qualify as "good." he's using this "science" to prove that homosexuality is genetic, not a choice, because he thinks that with the power of science behind it, gay people can gain a solid defense against the "lifestyle choice" argument. aside from the fact that it's nothing but a reaction to conservative rhetoric, i guess its an alright idea. except that i shouldn't need to prove that i was born gay to have rights. but that's a minor detail, right?

i won't go into all the various problematic things said in the piece (lesbians really are a lot like men, but wait, female sexuality is just a myth anyways), but i will say that it reminded me how ridiculously idiotic our society can be when it comes to gender. this man talks about androgyny as if he can spell it. i'm not even sure i can spell it. but i'm pretty sure he's confused. and he's not the only one. our society seems to conflate gender and sexuality on a regular basis, and in very problematic ways. i mean i'll be the first to admit that i love watching people on the street and picking out the androgynous ones as potential gays (i like to call that the gay face). i notice girls on the street who dress more boyish and take a second look to decide if i think they're gay. yes. in our society a lot of gay people perform their identity through playing with traditional gender roles. but that's not biology. and its dangerous to think of it like that. sure i notice people on the street who "seem gay" because of the way they choose to perform their gender. but that's not how you actually tell if someone IS gay. if you must know the secret, it's all in the eyes. although i think i'll save that for a later lesson. you've got to have a reason to come back, after all.

anyways, the basic point in case you skimmed is this: that dude david france is a bit of an idiot. i'm not going to come out (no pun intended?) on either side of the whole "its a choice" "you're born with it" debate here because the point is that if you're just going to argue one side or the other for a political reason, you're going to end up doing a lot more harm than good. i hardly think being able to yell "i didn't choose to be gay" at a homophobic politician is worth the damage of telling the whole world that lesbianism=masculinity and that gay men have more feelings than straight men. but what do i know? i'm gay. i should stop writing on this blog and go buy some power tools.