The full title is Surface Tension: Love, Sex, and Politics Between Lesbians and Straight Women, edited by Meg Daly. I picked it up a couple of months ago at the library book sale, and, like all the books I get there, I didn't actually read it until much later (though this is still better than the dozens of books I've bought there and never read at all).

( My review )

P.S. When I started this entry, it was beginning to get dark outside of my window, and I wondered, "Is it almost time for dinner?" But no, it was only 3:30 p.m. D:

But two men managed to make use of the ruling a couple of hours before it was stayed. Go them. XD

Let's name some names, so we remember who's a homophobe and who's not:

Polk County Judge Robert Hanson ruled that the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books, and the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage ..."

On the other hand, County attorney John Sarcone is appealing that ruling, which led Hanson to stay the ruling while the appeal is being resolved. Clearly, he's looking out for the best interests of his constituents - just not any of the gay ones, of course.

Dennis Johnson, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, says that the Act contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights and is simply "mean spirited."

But of course that can't be right, can it? The DoMA isn't about oppression, just personal opinion - at least, according to Governor Chet Culver, who says that "While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Proving the point that heterosexist marriage laws are just about personal beliefs, Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants says that the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Oh, and in contrast, here's what one of those heterosexual-oppressing, U.S.-hating abominations has to say:

"This is it. We're married. I love you." - Sean Fritz to his new husband, Tim McQuillan.

One day left before zinjadu and I flee the country (breathe, Dora, breathe!) and I'm just about ready to go. All my stuff is ready and just needs to be put in my suitcase. I've even managed to work within the regulations on liquid substances (which, by the way, includes liquid gel cap OTC medicines because they're semi-liquid - which begs the question, what would happen if I packed a cat?). Everything is in order and ready to go.

Now if my debit card would just get here already, dammit.

As you might expect, I'm going to have very little Internet access for the next two weeks. I'm going to try to check my email every few days or so, because I should be getting a notification about my prospective job soon. But besides that, I think I'd rather spend my time seeing the sights - so that means no blog-reading (gasp!). So if there's anything you want to talk to me about, speak now or for-two-weeks hold your peace.

The prospect of going blog-less for a couple of weeks meant that I was eager to get my fill of blogs ... but also a little hesitant, because most of the worthwhile content I read is also rage-inducing in one form or another, and I don't want to start my vacation off on a sour note. But the Internet gods must be smiling on me, because I found a lot of things that pleased me:

( links! )

Okay, that's it from me for now. See you in July!

Here's an idea: stop putting out shit that pisses me the fuck off.

Oh, look! It's MJ bent in a back-killing position, contorted to show off tits AND ass, with a waist smaller than her neck! Har, har! Oop, don't forget the obedient little smile while she does Spidey's chores. Hilarious!

Hey, Marvel? That shit isn't funny. It isn't edgy or rebellious. Making women be on sexual display while engaged in domestic labor isn't new; it is, in fact, the same goddamn pressure women have had to face for-frickin-ever. Oh, and, guess what? Women shoved into uncomfortable positions that make them "sexy" to the viewer without allowing them any sexual pleasure - hell, any comfort - for themselves, is also not new. It's what we call the fashion industry. And advertising in general.

Hell, if we're talking about women being physically uncomfortable in order to provide sexual gratification for someone else, that's a good chunk of heterosexual relations.

In less teeth-gnashing news, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel has the guts to be a decent human being. "What this world needs is a lot more than what we presently have" is true - and it goes for people like him, too.

ETA: Karen Healey makes things better.

I have a ton of blog reading to catch up on, due to the fact that the last five days were jammed full with getting all of my Christmas shopping, writing all of my final papers, and doing all my winter-time celebrating (i.e., holiday party and my birthday). But here's the first thing to jump out at me:

Via Jenn at Reappropriate, Rosie O'Donnell makes a racist (anti-Chinese) joke. And surprise, surprise, no one does a goddamn thing about it.

One of the reasons this pisses me off so much is that I recently heard about O'Donnell having a public spar with Kelly Ripa over Ripa's homophobic comment. Ripa insisted she didn't intend to be homophobic, and O'Donnell replied, "I'm just saying from where I sit as a gay person in the world that I have to tell you, that's how it came off to me." In other words, as the non-privileged person, she (rightly) has the broader perspective concerning what is privileged or bigoted. However, when O'Donnell says that her racist comment "was not meant to mock," and Asian-Americans try to assert their perspective, we're told that we just don't have a sense of humor.

Bigoted "humor" is one of the things I hate most. Because when you try to call someone on their privilege, they always use the chickenshit response, "hey, it was a joke, get over it." Instead of taking two seconds to see what's wrong with what they said, they just carry blithely on. And what ends up as a throwaway comment for them is usually the 600th repetition of the oppression I have to face every damn day.

So, Ms. O'Donnell, let me tell you - being a lesbian who knows a lot about queer issues doesn't give you a free pass concerning other forms of oppression. Yes, white women can be racist too - that's kind of what one of the giant schisms in Western feminism is all about.

You know what? Just like I'm tired of sexism in the anti-racist movement, it's also really fucking tiresome to have to deal with racism in the queer movement, feminism, and everything else.

And while we're at it, you know what's not okay? This whole "nobody's racist anymore, but sexism is all over the place" whining from white women who don't have a clue what it's like to deal with both. Or any other form of "my oppression is the only one still out there, so you shut up about yours." We're all stomped on in different ways, so stop trying to be the special snowflake whose hardship is the worst.

On another topic, go take a look at Hey Hetero!, a public art installation in Australia that highlights straight privilege. Which I've got in spades. (Because, you know, being yellow and female doesn't mean I get to forget that I'm a straight person who doesn't get harassed for the gender of my partner. Who'd've thunk?)

Go New Jersey!

The state Supreme Court gave the OK for gay unions to have the same benefits as straight couples, though it left the legislature to decide whether the unions should be "marriages" or not. (Because OH NOEZ teh gays will turn "marriage" into an evil word!!1!)

Here's a delicious quote from Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage: "The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature, and saying, 'Listen, there are two bullets, you get to pick the bullet: either gay marriage or civil unions.'"

Yes, because gay people getting married is like SHOOTING STRAIGHT PEOPLE IN THE HEAD.

And here I thought that the whining from heteros about how gay marriage would hurt them had reached the limits of absurdity. But luckily there's this Daniels guy to show me that that isn't so.

Still don't believe in male privilege in fandom?

I give you Exhibit A. Here we have a report on WriterCon from an articulate, intelligent-sounding man. An articulate, intelligent-sounding man who says this about slashfic:

"Taken in its rawest form, that situation would go as follows: the people who formed and maintained a fandom for years, purely from love of the world and its characters, find themselves invaded by a new crowd enthusiastically producing (and celebrating) a mass of stories built around a premise revolting to the original fandom group and glaringly OOC for the fandom characters involved [...] The fandom is being flat-out ruined for its builders by something utterly alien and utterly incompatible with everything they originally loved in it."

This casual dismissal of slash writers and readers exudes privilege.

( Shall we count the ways? )

Yesterday ratzeo and I met up with maho_kiwi and rivetcat to see the Seattle Pride Parade, which was just amazing. First of all, this was the first time I watched a parade in person, so that was fun. But this was something more, because I'd never been to any public event that was about ... solidarity like this. It was great. Even though I felt almost like an intruder, for the most part I felt really really happy, even if it wasn't for myself. I was also proud to see the Filipino and other Asian groups present, because the queer color community doesn't always get noticed.

Also, there were gay pirates. XD

We had to cut out early, so we couldn't stay for the post-parade fair, but we headed down to neo_angiel's house, where he hosted a lovely barbecue. I got to try playing Betrayal at House on the Hill, a really fun pseudo-tabletopping board game. Also, ratzeo proved once again that he is the master of gaming.

But, you know, even though I call this my weekend, that's sort of a lie - because my summer vacation so far has been just an extended weekend, with a few hours of work thrown in on some days. XD;; I'm thinking I need to set a stricter schedule for myself, so I don't slide completely into unproductive laziness over the holiday ...

I found Mikhaela Reid's political cartoons through Ms. magazine and figured my friends list would also enjoy them. They're mostly queer/feminist themed, but there are also good bits about religious extremism and racism. Some highlights:

Every Sperm is Sacred!

It's Not Easy Being a College Gay-Hater!

What's Your Fantasy?

Citizens Against Earned Citizenship

What the fuck is wrong with sexist men who constantly paint themselves as fucking victims?*

GayProf tackles specific instances of two common issues: misogyny and homophobia in the (educational) workplace, and misogyny and homophobia in popular culture. These two cases, of a sexist/homophobic university professor and a sexist/homophobic Burger King commercial, demonstrate the common tactics of those who are threatened by feminism and queer rights: belittling ("check your vaginas at the door"), appropriating (turning "I Am Woman" into "Manthem"), and, as GayProf describes, complaining that those who oppose them are humorless or too "politically correct."

The underlying implication is that those who hold traditional positions of power by being male, straight, and - the extension is easy to make - white, rich, etc., are defending themselves against offenses. Women asking for rights is annoying - so clearly, a fast food commercial about reclaiming caveman-esque "masculinity" is not only funny, but justified. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, see tekanji's post on it.) Women's lib is done, and now it's men's turn. After all, we feminazis (and queer activists, and anti-racists, and other such rabble-rousers) have now skewed the world so that we hold the power over them. Don't you see the logic?

You know, I don't know why I haven't seen it before. Straight white men all over the world are suffering from this hidden oppression! Is it that bad? Of course it's that bad! According to comic artist Erik Larsen, large-breasted cheesecake female characters are now an embattled minority, victims of feminazi censorship!

I think I speak for all intelligent people when I say: WHAT ABOUT TEH POOR MENZ!!?! I mean, just look at what they have to go through: Not enough female bodies to objectify! Oh, the horror.

So let me say something that needs saying:

I apologize to the Straight White Man. I am so very sorry that you, who control 99.99% of the power in the economy, politics, popular culture, education, and sexuality are feeling so put-upon. I know you long for the days when it was a good old 100% that you had under your belt, with no one to question otherwise. But alas, times have been changing, and in doing so they have been chipping away at your historically entrenched hegemonic power. These have been small changes, of course, but I can only imagine the kind of pain it causes you to lose that .01%. Please accept my deepest, heartfelt apologies for inconveniencing you with my yellow, vagina-bearing, queer-friendly self, and for - silly me! - daring to ask for my share of human consideration. What folly, I know.

Rest assured, I will cease such offenses immediately. I also have no intention of telling you where to go, or what to shove up where. None in the slightest.

Also, as with all feminists, I have no sense of humor. Indeed, I never laugh or show other signs of amusement, for I excised my humor the moment I learned about women's rights, at the same moment that I burned my bra. I don't know how to take a joke, and I certainly don't know how to make one.


*Insert obligatory disclaimer about men-who-aren't-like-that here. If anyone comes away from this thinking that I "hate all guys" or am "sexist against men," I may break something. Like the person in question. Read this if you don't get why criticizing patriarchy doesn't mean hating men.

*posted early because I probably won't have time to do it tomorrow

Female genital cutting is a practice followed in many countries throughout Africa, a few in the Middle East, and occasionally in other continents, including Europe and North America. It involves a variety of procedures, depending on the community practicing it: Circumcision or sunna involves the "removal of the prepuce or hood of the clitoris, with the body of the clitoris remaining intact." Excision or clitoridectomy is the "removal of the clitoris and all or part of the labia minora." Intermediate cutting involves the "removal of the clitoris, all or part of the labia minora, and sometimes part of the labia majora." In infibulation or pharaonic cutting, there is "removal of the clitoris, the labia minora, and much of the labia majora. The remaining sides of the vulva are stitched together to close up the vagina, ecept for a small opening, which is preserved with slivers of wood or matchsticks." (From Warrior Marks by Alice Walker and Pratibha Parmar)

You've probably at least heard of the practice, and heard a lot about it if you've studied feminism or international human rights. Have you heard of labiaplasty? It's an elective surgery practiced here in the U.S. in which the labia (minora or majora) are trimmed to be smaller, or injected with fat from elsewhere in the body to be fuller.

( So what's the difference? )

On April 18, Blog To Raise Awareness About Sexual Violence.

On April 22, Blog Against Heteronormativity.

These topics mean whatever you want them to mean. Break out some statistics. Analyze a news story. Develop a theory. Refute a theory. Or go with the old stand-by of writing an angry rant (which is, of course, my plan, assuming I can manage to write something in between studying for midterms). Just say something, anything, that throws off the tired assumptions that we should keep silent about sexual violence, or that heterosexuality-with-traditional-gender-roles is the way things have to be.

If you're not going to write something, and you don't want to read what I write, go to the links I posted and browse the comments to see what other people have to say - the feminist blogosphere is full to bursting with impassioned and intelligent writers!

This is as much to remind me as to notify everyone else, but:

April 22 is Blog Against Heteronormativity Day.

Because I can't resist the call to Blog Against Something. And maybe I'll even do this one on time!

Some highlights from what I've been reading this week:

-From Shrub.com, a post on Octavia Butler, notable primarily because it provides links to some of her stories and other writing. One of the links is to "Amnesty," a story I read last quarter for my sci-fi class - great stuff.

-Biting Beaver clarifies the statement that rape is about power, not sex. At the same time, she illuminates the connections that exist between sex and rape, while explaining why it would be hard to explain the concept to the population at large.

The rest of these links may make you want to kill things. They did for me. (Thanks to ratzeo for putting temporary moratorium on my angry ranting so my blood pressure didn't hit the roof.)

-In case anyone's forgotten that homophobia kills, Pandagon gives us a news story that refreshes our memories. The state of our country's law enforcement, people.

-We treat rape victims with the respect they deserve, right? Especially in court. Women only have to watch the video recording of the rape or risk jail time. The judge has since backed down - more likely from outside pressure than the realization that he's a fuckwit - but what does it say about us that this issue was even raised? (From Feministe.)

-Clearly inspired by the moral righteousness of the South Dakota abortion ban, Utah wants to enforce parental notification even in cases of incest. Because a father deserves to know if his daughter is having an abortion - even if he's also the father of the baby. "Abortion isn't about women's rights," says Republican Senator Chris Buttars. There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. (Another one from Pandagon.)

-In light of the disgusting anti-abortion legislation that seems to be popping up everywhere, the information for women in South Dakota from Molly Saves the Day ought to be shared again. It's frightening and horrifying - but no more frightening or horrifying than what's going on in South Dakota, Utah, Mississippi, and god only knows where else.

*sigh* As ginmar put it so aptly: I swear, some days I feel like a proctologist with an overbooked schedule. Too many fucking assholes and not enough suppositories.

I'm assuming that Seattlites have heard about the quotes on Starbucks cups? In particular, the controversy over the quote by author Armistead Maupin:

"My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short."

What's funny is that, minus the gay, people would overlook this as a fluffy feel-good inspirational quote. (There are, in fact, several dozen different quotes being used, but this is the one getting the most attention.) But oh noes! It has teh gay in it! And now Concerned Women for America (must not mock ... really ...) "is accusing the Seattle-based coffee maker of promoting a homosexual agenda."

Uh, what now? What kind of "agenda" could be pushed by this quote? Someone please tell me how these sentences, prettily written as they are, but ultimately empty of political content, are supposed to incite activism. What, is it that he's telling gay people not to repress their sexuality? For shame! Or is it that part about not fearing? Live in fear people, that's the way to honor Jesus! And, clearly, that "Don't make that mistake yourself" bit is gay-speak for "hie thee down to the nearest queer bar and get thee some manly buttsex."

The group also "says most of those quoted on the coffee cups are liberal." Take a look at the sample quotes given in that article. Granted, it's only a selection, but they're mostly about feelings and stuff. Where does the "liberal" come from? Is it that they're about creativity and other "impractical" concerns? That most of the sources are women, and black women, at that? Or that they're artists (oh noes hippies!)? I mean, really.

And here's a gem:

"Richardson, of the women's organization, cites possible support by Starbucks for pro-life clinics and the Boy Scouts of America as ways the company might offset its support of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and gay pride."

Uh-uh, sweetie. This isn't about "offsetting" and reaching some sort of balance of ideologies. See, we so-called liberals (read: supporters of human rights) are not about giving credence to every opinion that spills out of a self-righteous ideologue. Despite popular opinion, we're not about touchy-feeliness and never offending or disagreeing with anyone. We've got plenty of absolutes. Among them, love is love no matter what the genitalia you're aiming at. Pregnant women deserve to know about their options. And also, if it walks like a conservative, talks like a conservative, and lobbies like a conservative, you can bet that any edicts about what public culture and its figures should do will be taken with a massive grain of salt.

In the mean time, I'd really really like to know when giving people decent consideration as human beings won't be equated in value with "not offending conservatives and people of faith," and when we'll admit that the latter is not nearly as important as the former. Christ on a pogo stick.

Because I figured you guys would appreciate the snark:

You've seen the enlightening article entitled Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?, right? (If you haven't, take a look for pure high-larity factor.) Here are two responses. XD

Hodgepodge of stuff. First of all, some food for thought:

-An editorial on homophobia written by the mother of a gay son. This was written a few years ago, during the civil union debates in Vermont, but the sentiment is obviously still valid. My favorite part: "If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you."

(I myself give great thought to my moral principles, and foremost among these is, without a doubt, heterosexuality. Don't kill people? Check. Love my neighbor? You betcha. Liking boy-parts? Certainly a given principle in moral discourse!)

-A comment from a post in feminist about street harassment. The question was whether guys leering/catcalling at women on the street could be considered harassment, and this answer sums up my feelings: it's not so much about what is said, or the genders of those involved, or even about unwelcome advances. It's about objectification and the overblown sense of entitlement that some people have.

-A quote from Whores and Other Feminists that (for me) trumps the argument that all prostitution is rape, and is disrespectful of rape survivors: "By the blood and bruises of sexual violations that I have sufered, I advocate protection for consensual sexual expressions of all kinds." (emphasis mine)

-Another quote, from Carol Queen, famed sex-positive feminist: "The stereotype about sex workers that says we are driven to this demeaning lifestyle by a damaged history must be exposed as the sex-negative and, yes, sexist crap it so often is. (How eerily this parallels what used to be said about lesbians!)" This reaffirms my impression that anti-pornography and anti-prostitution often acts as a mask for the 'other'ing of a minority sexual group that makes the mainstream feel more secure, rather than an actual, principled opposition to the practice itself.

Second of all, I watched several more episodes of Firefly this weekend. (I'm not going to be able to save it for when ratzeo comes home, am I? ~_~)

-Shindig: Much fun! But the best parts were Wash's ode to the "corpsified" Zoe, and Mal's ode to himself ("Mercy is the mark of a great man," etc.). Also love the way Mal said "sw-what?" when he found out about the duel.

-Safe: Simon has my heart. That is all.

-Our Mrs. Reynolds: I loved the hilarity (Mal is adorably dense!), but also for the sense of mundane conflict -- Zoe getting snappy at Wash, Inara getting snappy at Mal. This episode, even more than Shindig, makes me feel the Mal/Inara. Also love the way Mal said "you dubba wha?" when Saffron wanted to "cleave" to him.

-Jaynestown: I was afraid I wouldn't like Jayne as much as I'm coming to like the other characters. I was happily proven wrong.

Also, I'm developing a deeper and deeper affection for Simon. Not just for his actions in Safe (but it does help that he called River "Mei-mei," because that made me MELT), but for the fact that he's a really ordinary guy. He's smart, and he loves his sister, and he *is* brave -- but he's not a good fighter, not good at deceit, not even very good at being witty. I sympathize with him the most as the 'wants to be useful but is sometimes just an irredeemable gimp' character. <3

Canada proves once again that it r0xx0rs. The House of Commons has adopted legislation that legalizes same-sex marriage. <3<3<3

But of course, not everyone is happy. Says Charles McVety, president of the Canada Christian College:

"I have a seven-year-old daughter. When she comes of age to be married, will we still have marriage as we know it?"

Shit no! Marriage is changing -- the same way it changed in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries, when the rise of sentimentalism prompted people to marry for emotional reasons instead of financial or social benefit. That was a big change at the time -- that wasn't what marriage was 'supposed' to be. Change, you know, isn't always a bad thing.

On a random note: this morning at the bus stop downtown, the guy that I mentioned in my earlier entry came up and talked to me again. (Like I said, he didn't actually look or act threatening, so I wasn't really bothered by him.) The bus had just pulled up, and as I walked up to it I marked my place in my book with my thumb.

Him: "Still reading that book, huh?"
Me: "No, I finished that. I'm reading ..." *begins to raise book, then stops*

I should mention that my current reading is Jane Sexes It Up, a collection of essays on the ways sexuality is/should be treated, in feminism. In addition to the title, I was also a tad concerned about the cover of the book, which displays a stylized photograph of a topless woman on both the front and back. (The frontispiece of each section in the book reveals the entire photo to be of a topless woman wearing a strap-on. XD;;;)

So: couldn't say the title, couldn't show the cover, couldn't really say what the book was about ("sex and feminism, yup"). I ended up mumbling something about "women's studies," when another guy, who also regularly rides the bus and has talked to me, turned around and asked, "What's the book about?"

Me: "Women's studies!" *flees into bus*

Yeah, fun stuff. The book actually has some pretty good essays in it, though -- I should share some of the ideas they share. Perhaps when I'm not at work, though, so as not to display topless strap-on woman on the front desk.