Gender Bending

[Homburg]

And, now, let me wander into other areas. Continuing my comments earlier about different/same being location-dependent, I have been placing myself in as different an environment as possible, sexually-speaking, on a fairly regular basis lately. I've friends that attend the local goth night held at one of the local gay bars. Yup, big het me hanging out in a gay bar. I dig the place. Great environment, clean bathrooms, tolerable drink prices, great staff, and some really cool people. All sort of GLBT folk there, as , well, it's a gay bar, and I'm there on goth night usually. So, hey, I'm the poor het boy in a GLBT-dominant environment.

And, generally speaking, I get tolerated just fine.

Yes, there have been situations where me telling some guy, when asked, "Nah, I'm straight, I'm here because I like the place, and I enjoy goth chicks" got a bit of an interesting response. *shrug* The overwhelming majority of the gay men (and lesbians amd transpeople) there just don't care.

I like that. It's nice to find one crowd that doesn't villify me immediately for being an evil, oppressive white male.

--

On a gender-bendy note, the guy what takes the cover fees at the door almost always impresses me with his clothes and make-up. Last night was no exception. His hair was this crazy huge thing with feathers and such, and his make-up was some glittery splash straight out of a glam 80's poster. He was wearing a gorgeous women's kimono with a corset, and just looked fantastic. I stood around for a few minutes chatting with him about kimonos. Great guy.

What I really dig is that he uses all these CD elements without every actually trying to actually look like a women, and it works so damned well for him. It's kind of the same vibe Shanks has. It is an aesthetic that gets a thumbs up from me for the cool factor alone. For some reason, I find it a stunningly creative look, and he almost always looks fantastic as a result.

And when I mentioned I had a kimono, he said "You should totally wear it!". Yeah, I smiled. Then I made a joke about tripping and killing myself, and at that point we were off talking about how dangerous it was to wear long garments around people in huge clunky boots. Great conversation

 

[Homburg]

Humbug

Who do you think youre foolin? You look like the carnival geek who bites off the heads of live chickens.

Statistically speaking, carnival geeks are usually evil white oppressors.

Youre right about trailer trash. The whole time I worked at the psych hospital I never needed to take-down a black patient. With trailer trash it was every day.

Ain't that the truth! I've known plenty of good people in trailer parks, but, wow, the scary ones are an extra special brand of scary.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Erm, different/same is a purely location-dependent phenomenon.

I look white enough to pass for a 'vaunted oppressor'. Great, right? Even better, I have enough brown in me to be able to claim non-white status, thus enjoying a little tiny bit of 'downtrodden oppressed' when needed. Either way, the common perception of me is white dude.

Now, I am highly mobile due to my line of work, and deal with folk from across all sorts of socioeconomic, cultural, and ethnoracial backgrounds. It is one thing to go into a restaurant and deal with the hispanic/black/white/etc server, and another entirely to deal with them on their home turf, surrounded by their peers. Huge difference.

My workplace is all over the place. So I don't have some predefined space in which I am seen as staff. My place is wherever my customer's damaged property is. So I meet my customer in their neighbourhood frequently, surrounded by their people. You may look at me and see white guy, and think that I am 'normal' and get treated as normal, but the second I step outside of my normal haunts, I am suddenly different.

The first example, and most obvious, is the ghetto/projects/whatever you want to call it. I go there dressed in my slacks and polo, looking like my scary, imposing white authority figure self, and I am as different as different can be. And as imposing white dude with clipboard somehow equates out to 'cop' I get all kinds of hostility. In short, I get that same shit that you claim brown people get every day*

Luckily my white dude superpowers protect me from violence, right? *shrug* I've been in plenty of situation where looking like a white dude labelled me the enemy, plain and simple. Does it happen to me as often as it happens to some CG drag queen? Fuck if I know, I don't know any well enough to talk about that sort of thing. But I can tell you all kinds of stories of situations where negotiation, belligerence, instillment of fear, and/or the occassional applications of brute physicality were the only things between me and violence. It happens.

So, sure, transpeople are out of place everywhere. I'm sympathetic, but the implication to some of this verbage is that white males stride the world in seven league boots and the oppressed brown/female masses cower before their might. When I wander into the ghetto, minority-dominated rural areas, or what have you, I am as different as can be, and, as the vile oppressor, am in danger too. The 'cop vibe' doesn't protect my ass one bit, especialy when they realise I'm not one.

Now, here's the fun part - I'm in danger when I'm in low-socioeconomic standing white neighbourhoods too. A trailer park redneck will shoot your ass before anyone will.

Disclaimer - I've been poor most of my life. I have friends and relatives that live in trailer parks, and friends that live in ghettos, and I'm perfectly happy to go to places where I'm different because the vast majority of folks in those places don't give a damn about me either way. And I am personally descended from a long line of poor and frequently violent rednecks, soldiers, coal miners, and other working class stiffs.


* - This is an overly strong assertion in my opinion. Admittedly, I'm working off of anecdotal evidence here, but "every day" is pretty damned strong, y'know?

I think that one important difference is that in your case, being white becomes an issue and a potential threat to your safety only in certain spaces. Now, I do understand that in your case, you have to be in those spaces on a regular basis due to your work, and that not going there isn't only a matter of choice for you (you do have to make a living after all). BUT, and i think this is significant, what you as a white dewd experience only in non-white dominated spaces, brown/black people experience everywhere, and EVEN in non-white dominated spaces (just think about police harassement in brown/black guetto).

This goes back to the point that this chick on the blog was making about oppressor/oppressed. Most people aren't simply one or the other. Most people are in a position where they are BOTH the oppressed and the oppressor, where they both benefit and get screwed up by the system we live in, depending on the situation. But this doesn't deny the fact that those who are at the bottom and getting screwed up more often than not are in large majority people of color/poor/queer/women/immigrants and that those on the top who reap most of the privileges and benefits of the world are in large majority white het middle-class/bourgeois males.

 

[Homburg]

OMG you spoke to me!! Hey will you sign my autograph book? You're FABOO.

Goddamit, Etoile! You damned near killed me! The "faboo" comment made me damned near snort my chewing gum into my windpipe.

LMAO.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DIAMOND

Blacks did plenty of hangings, too.

People forget that blacks couldnt assemble in groups publicly, so their score was a fraction of what white's did. But they did hang whites and blacks.

Blacks used the night and assassinations for revenge. Deputies in many rural counties had a short shelf-life, especially when the stumbled upon stills operated by blacks. And whites paid blacks to assassinate whites who were competitors in love, business, and politics.

I did the research and conclude that about 25% of the lynchings were the result of discovered consensual sex between married white women and black men.

 

[Homburg]

I think that one important difference is that in your case, being white becomes an issue and a potential threat to your safety only in certain spaces. Now, I do understand that in your case, you have to be in those spaces on a regular basis due to your work, and that not going there isn't only a matter of choice for you (you do have to make a living after all). BUT, and i think this is significant, what you as a white dewd experience only in non-white dominated spaces, brown/black people experience everywhere, and EVEN in non-white dominated spaces (just think about police harassement in brown/black guetto).

Erm, if you'll notice, I made the point that I regularly go into white environs that are dangerous as well. See the trailer park comments. I've never had someone come to the door with a gun int he ghetto. Trailer parks? More than once.

The flip side is also that the brown people do not experience 'different' when they are in their own spaces. The other side has the same overall experience insofar as different/same is concerned. I've been in brown-dominant neighbourhood with brown friends, and heard those lovely words "It's cool, he's with me" many times. Oh, and another good ones is, "Oh shit, you're so-and-so's friend. Cool."

Whenever you are in your own space, you are "same". When you are in some other demographic's space, you are different. This is why I am arguing that same/different is a function of locale.

This goes back to the point that this chick on the blog was making about oppressor/oppressed. Most people aren't simply one or the other. Most people are in a position where they are BOTH the oppressed and the oppressor, where they both benefit and get screwed up by the system we live in, depending on the situation. But this doesn't deny the fact that those who are at the bottom and getting screwed up more often than not are in large majority people of color/poor/queer/women/immigrants and that those on the top who reap most of the privileges and benefits of the world aren't in large majority white het middle-class/bourgeois males.

I enjoy my position on the oppressor/oppressed scale. As a stealth minority, I can claim to be oppressed any time it suits me. Of course it only has comedic effect, but hey, I'm down with cheap laughs.

That said, I am in agreement. Oppressor/oppressed is a sliding scale, not a binary switch.

 

[DeservingBitch]

And, now, let me wander into other areas. Continuing my comments earlier about different/same being location-dependent, I have been placing myself in as different an environment as possible, sexually-speaking, on a fairly regular basis lately. I've friends that attend the local goth night held at one of the local gay bars. Yup, big het me hanging out in a gay bar. I dig the place. Great environment, clean bathrooms, tolerable drink prices, great staff, and some really cool people. All sort of GLBT folk there, as , well, it's a gay bar, and I'm there on goth night usually. So, hey, I'm the poor het boy in a GLBT-dominant environment.

And, generally speaking, I get tolerated just fine.

Yes, there have been situations where me telling some guy, when asked, "Nah, I'm straight, I'm here because I like the place, and I enjoy goth chicks" got a bit of an interesting response. *shrug* The overwhelming majority of the gay men (and lesbians amd transpeople) there just don't care.

I like that. It's nice to find one crowd that doesn't villify me immediately for being an evil, oppressive white male.

Putting aside the issue of het dewd invading dyke spaces to hit on and/or get some free 'girl-on-girl' show, and talking only about respectful het people hanging out in queer space, as a queer woman, I have mixed feeling about it.

For instance, one of the main perk of going to a queer bar/club for me is that I can assume that the cute chick I want to hit on is queer. And while I've never had a straigh woman in a queer bar/club getting offended or rude because I've hit on her, part of me wants to say "why the fuck are you here if you're straight? Aren't there enough straight bar/club around?". And while I tend to think that most of the cool places to hang out are indeed the queer bar/clubs (better music, better decor, more interesting crowd), is it my problem that straight bar/clubs are boring? Why does the solution becomes for het people to hang out in queer spaces, rather then making non-queer spaces more interesting, or more inclusive?

Now, don't get me wrong. Unless some het person gives me attitude in a queer space, I won't tell them to get the fuck out of my space. But, I won't deny that it doesn't annoy me sometimes to see my dyke club being invaded by straight girls who wants better music and a safer environment where they don't get harrased by men. I empathize with them -- but I'm there to pick up girls, and if I wanted to have to wonder whether she's straight or gay, I'd go to a non-dyke bar.

ETA: my newly discovered fav club is this pansexual space, which caters to a different crowd depending of the day of the week. So, you have gay male night, dyke night, drag queen and transgirl night, drag kink and transboy night, fetish night, and pansexual night. And while everyone is allowed in any night of the week, the tendency is for people to attend the evening that most suits them. And the pansexual night is the best: there's always a lot of het people around, but there's also a 'women only' and 'trans' rooms for those who feel more comfortable and safe in such spaces.

 

[rida]

I think that this kind of statement, made in the current socio-political context we live in, is reflective of privilege.

If you're white, it's easy to say 'lets not focus on our difference'. But if you're black/brown, you are reminded of your difference every single day, and get shit because of it on a daily basis. Same goes for queers and other 'different' social groups.

I agree with you that difference shouldn't be an issue. But the problem is that in the world we live in, it is. Because 'differences' aren't seen and treated on an equal footing: there are hierarchies associated with them. Everybody who is 'different' from what is considered the norm (white, anglo, judeo-christian, middle-class het male) is not treated only as 'different', but as something less than and/or deviant from the norm.

When you are being attacked, threatened, dismissed, excluded, killed because of your 'difference', it's a little bit more difficult to just say 'lets not focus on our differences'.

I guess I would say that we SHOULD focus on differences, as in recognize them for what they are: something that makes us who we are.

Is the stereotyping of the differences or the totally ignoring them that causes problems. If you think that all "put something else than you" is "whatever stereotype applies" , you are not seing the person for who he/she is.
But if you blind yourself to the fact that they are not the same as you, you are not going to understand when their behaviour/reaction will not fit your expectations.

Personally, if we go down to race, I am different where ever I am.
I am white & yellow. And the white part is something that, I have been told, in the old days in the US used to be considered not any better than brown (west-side story docet).

I live in a non-white society now. That makes me minority. Even being 100% white makes you a minority here. Yes, socioeconomically you might be on the upper scale (ex-pats), but there are plenty that are not (english teachers, non ex-pat), and you do get discriminated from time to time. But it is never violent. This society is very polite in that.

People are inevitably afraid of differences. Is just human. What you do with that fear is what matters. Ignoring the fear does not solve the problem. Addressing it is a much better approach.

 

[Homburg]

Putting aside the issue of het dewd invading dyke spaces to hit on and/or get some free 'girl-on-girl' show, and talking only about respectful het people hanging out in queer space, as a queer woman, I have mixed feeling about it.

Said night is not even remotely intended as a gay/dyke event. It is advertised as pansexual (though they don't use those words).

For instance, one of the main perk of going to a queer bar/club for me is that I can assume that the cute chick I want to hit on is queer. And while I've never had a straigh woman in a queer bar/club getting offended or rude because I've hit on her, part of me wants to say "why the fuck are you here if you're straight? Aren't there enough straight bar/club around?". And while I tend to think that most of the cool places to hang out are indeed the queer bar/clubs (better music, better decor, more interesting crowd), is it my problem that straight bar/clubs are boring? Why does the solution becomes for het people to hang out in queer spaces, rather then making het spaces more interesting, or more inclusive?

Now, don't get me wrong. Unless some het person gives me attitude in a queer space, I won't tell them to get the fuck out of my space. But, I won't deny that it doesn't annoy me sometimes to see my dyke club being invaded by straight girls who wants better music and a safer environment where they don't get harrased by men. I empathize with them -- but I'm there to pick up girls, and if I wanted to have to wonder whether she's straight or gay, I'd go to a non-dyke bar.

*shrug* I don't have that problem. I don't go to bars to pick up anyone. And I don't 'invade' spaces where there is a hint of exclusion, which is essentially what you're talking about. Put a sign on the door that says "No hets" and I won't be there. Nor do I go to that club on nights that are not advertised as open/pansexual/whatever. Not my thing, y'know.

There is a bit of dissonance between exclusive/inclusive in your speech though. Het places should be more inclusive, but keep your het selves out of our queer spaces (purposefully exagerrating for effect, not trying to mistate you for discursive advantage). Luckily, the only times I've gotten that weird response I mentioned before were from guys that had never been to this club, and had no idea that oppressor hets invade the place on tuesday nights.

ETA:

ETA: my newly discovered fav club is this pansexual space, which caters to a different crowd depending of the day of the week. So, you have gay male night, dyke night, drag queen and transgirl night, drag kink and transboy night, fetish night, and pansexual night. And while everyone is allowed in any night of the week, the tendency is for people to attend the evening that most suits them. And the pansexual night is the best: there's always a lot of het people around, but there's also a 'women only' and 'trans' rooms for those who feel more comfortable and safe in such spaces.

This is a fairly good descriptor of the club I'm talking about. While primarily a gay bar, it has a couple of nights a week where it is explicitly pansexual. No cordoned-off rooms though.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Said night is not even remotely intended as a gay/dyke event. It is advertised as pansexual (though they don't use those words).

*shrug* I don't have that problem. I don't go to bars to pick up anyone. And I don't 'invade' spaces where there is a hint of exclusion, which is essentially what you're talking about. Put a sign on the door that says "No hets" and I won't be there. Nor do I go to that club on nights that are not advertised as open/pansexual/whatever. Not my thing, y'know.

There is a bit of dissonance between exclusive/inclusive in your speech though. Het places should be more inclusive, but keep your het selves out of our queer spaces. Luckily, the only times I've gotten that weird response I mentioned before were from guys that had never been to this club, and had no idea that oppressor hets invade the place on tuesday nights.

ETA:

This is a fairly good descriptor of the club I'm talking about. While primarily a gay bar, it has a couple of nights a week where it is explicitly pansexual. No cordoned-off rooms though.

If you read again my previous comment, you will see that I am a bit conflicted about this whole inclusive/exclusive space thing.

I think the main issue is that most space are by default straight space -- so for me, until that changes, protecting my queer space is important. For instance, if I want to go out dancing and having a good time with my (imaginary) girlfriend, I'd most likely go to a dyke/queer bar. Why? Because I can't kiss her or touch her without being harassed or looked at as a free girl-on-girl porn show if I do that in your typical straight club. And if my dyke/queer club becomes the new cool place to hang out for het people, what space do I have left? Of course, most het people who will go in queer club are usually not obnoxious and are queer-friendly -- but given that there are so few spaces that are queer friendly, I think it makes sense to want to protect those space as *queer* spaces.

So, to me, the solution is not to make queer space more inclusive of het people. The solution is to make non-queer spaces more inclusive of everybody. Because last time I checked, queer people were still the minority and the one getting shit for their sexuality.

ETA: and as I said in my previous post, unless someone is being obnoxious and rude, I will never tell someone to get out of my queer space because they're straight. But, it would be dishonest of me to deny that it doesn't bother me sometimes that my dyke bar seems to have became the new cool spot for straight girls to hang out at.

 

[Homburg]

If you read again my previous comment, you will see that I am a bit conflicted about this whole inclusive/exclusive space thing.

I think the main issue is that most space are by default straight space -- so for me, until that changes, protecting my queer space is important. For instance, if I want to go out dancing and having a good time with my (imaginary) girlfriend, I'd most likely go to a dyke/queer bar. Why? Because I can't kiss her or touch her without being harassed or looked at as a free girl-on-girl porn show if I do that in your typical straight club. And if my dyke/queer club becomes the new cool place to hang out for het people, what space do I have left? Of course, most het people who will go in queer club are usually not obnoxious and are queer-friendly -- but given that there are so few spaces that are queer friendly, I think it makes sense to want to protect those space as *queer* spaces.

So, to me, the solution is not to make queer space more inclusive of het people. The solution is to make non-queer spaces more inclusive of everybody. Because last time I checked, queer people were still the minority and the one getting shit for their sexuality.

*shrug* I see it differently. In my eyes, when one seeks change, self is the first thing that should be changed. In short, we should live the change we wish to accomplish. After all, if I am unwilling to take my own adaptations, then why would anyone else?

BDSM people get shit on for our sexuality too, you know that. Hell, we're more likely to take legal, governmental heat than queers are, because while there's a locales where queer acts are illegal, hitting/cutting/burning etc are pretty much always frowned on by John Law. Self-evident, sure, but I mention it because I share a persecuted minority sexuality. I understand. Yes, I still have my mighty white dewd powers *flex* to protect me, but those powers only go so far when Family Services is called.

In my perspective, it makes more sense to be cool to those who might not partake, but may want to hang out anyway. Let's face it, if you are put in front of a jury of your peers, who do you want on it: the bi-curious gal that likes to hang out in dyke bars because she finds it a thrill, or some Joe Sixpack that just sees you as a dyke and secretly thinks all you need is his uber peen to somewhow correct your lesbian ways? You might have some issues with that annoying bi-curious BS, but she's going to be a mite less worried about your sexuality than Joe Sixpack.

That bi-curious gal might not be Your People, but she's at least sympathetic. That's worth something. It's one more person that sees what you do and considers it to be basically 'normal'. She might step up and defend queer behaviour if she hears someone talking heteronormative oppression. Sure, she's probably sheep and won't, but it's better than having no chance at all of getting some support from non-queers.

Personally, queer-space is no better than straight-space in my eyes. Yes, there is a good reason for it to exist, and I support it, but damned if I don't consider reverse-exclusion to still be exclusion. It is not somehow more ethical because it is being turned on the oppressors.

ETA:

ETA: and as I said in my previous post, unless someone is being obnoxious and rude, I will never tell someone to get out of my queer space because they're straight. But, it would be dishonest of me to deny that it doesn't bother me sometimes that my dyke bar seems to have became the new cool spot for straight girls to hang out at.

I know, DB, and I wasn't trying to make that case. As I said in my edit, I was exagerrating to make a point, not to try to portray your specific words as purely exclusionary. And, honestly, I can dig the whole idea of "Why is my shit suddenly so cool?"

I'll even give stupid example. In the 90's, there was a spate of time when ska suddenly became popular. Now I've been a ska whore since the two-tone era, and suddenly these obnoxious little teenage shitwits are listening to the same stuff I listened to for years, and, worse, people hear me playing my music and they get all chummy. And then the Swing Jazz trend picked up, and I got even more cranky, as I've been a fan Swing since I was seven years old or so. Get the fuck out of my music collection, you trendy fuckwits!

But every time I wanted to say just that, I sat back, realised that those trendy fuckwits were shelling out the bucks to previously unknown bands that I've liked for years, and this meant more recording from those bands, as well as thos ebands touring more heavily, which meant I got to see some of the acts that I So I realised a benefits from the most puerile invasion of my own musical proclivities imaginable.

Not trying to equate music to sexuality, but hopefully you can see the parallels. The straight girls you're talking about are the equivalent of the trendy fuckwits in my example. Annoying, but probably harmless, and bringing in needed captial for the business whose space you are mutually enjoying.

 

[DeservingBitch]

*shrug* I see it differently. In my eyes, when one seeks change, self is the first thing that should be changed. In short, we should live the change we wish to accomplish. After all, if I am unwilling to take my own adaptations, then why would anyone else?

BDSM people get shit on for our sexuality too, you know that. Hell, we're more likely to take legal, governmental heat than queers are, because while there's a locales where queer acts are illegal, hitting/cutting/burning etc are pretty much always frowned on by John Law. Self-evident, sure, but I mention it because I share a persecuted minority sexuality. I understand. Yes, I still have my mighty white dewd powers *flex* to protect me, but those powers only go so far when Family Services is called.

In my perspective, it makes more sense to be cool to those who might not partake, but may want to hang out anyway. Let's face it, if you are put in front of a jury of your peers, who do you want on it: the bi-curious gal that likes to hang out in dyke bars because she finds it a thrill, or some Joe Sixpack that just sees you as a dyke and secretly thinks all you need is his uber peen to somewhow correct your lesbian ways? You might have some issues with that annoying bi-curious BS, but she's going to be a mite less worried about your sexuality than Joe Sixpack.

That bi-curious gal might not be Your People, but she's at least sympathetic. That's worth something. It's one more person that sees what you do and considers it to be basically 'normal'. She might step up and defend queer behaviour if she hears someone talking heteronormative oppression. Sure, she's probably sheep and won't, but it's better than having no chance at all of getting some support from non-queers.

Personally, queer-space is no better than straight-space in my eyes. Yes, there is a good reason for it to exist, and I support it, but damned if I don't consider reverse-exclusion to still be exclusion. It is not somehow more ethical because it is being turned on the oppressors.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will never tell someone who's straight to get the fuck out of my queer space, nor advocate for my queer space to have an exclusive policy.

What I am saying however is that it is not the responsibility of those who are oppressed or marginalized to make their safe-space more inclusive to the majority. There's a reason why queer spaces or women-only spaces or people-of-color-only spaces appeared: because those people needed those spaces where they could feel safe and comfortable and surrounded by their peers.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Not trying to equate music to sexuality, but hopefully you can see the parallels. The straight girls you're talking about are the equivalent of the trendy fuckwits in my example. Annoying, but probably harmless, and bringing in needed captial for the business whose space you are mutually enjoying.

Yes, which is why except for being slighly annoyed, I usually don't make a big deal out of it.

But on a broader level, i think it is problematic that those who are marginalized are being expected to bear the brunt of the responsibility to be more 'inclusive'. Again, why is it that it is up to me and my dyke space to be more inclusive, rather than up to straight people to make the default 'straight' places more inclusive of me?

 

[Homburg]

Yes, which is why except for being slighly annoyed, I usually don't make a big deal out of it.

But on a broader level, i think it is problematic that those who are marginalized are being expected to bear the brunt of the responsibility to be more 'inclusive'. Again, why is it that it is up to me and my dyke space to be more inclusive, rather than up to straight people to make the default 'straight' places more inclusive of me?

Where did I say anything about "bearing the brunt"? I simply said 'live your change'. The onus is on the excluders, which points the finger solidly at the elements in society as a whole which fail to accept difference, and, moreover, those people that do nothing about the intolerant ones in their midst. But how does exclusion advance your sociopolitical cause? How does exclusion state your case for inclusion by society at large? (Yes, I realise that your stated motivation was to not waste time by hitting on straight girls, but you are also the one calling for more inclusion from het spaces)

I'm not saying "You suck!". I'm saying everyone needs to be more accepting if it's gonna work.

And, as an aside, "Pansexual" is becoming one of my favourite words.

ETA: It also comes back to my mother's advice when dealing with bullies. She told me to just be a better person than they were, and set the example. Being inclusive sets the example. Being exclusive supports the status quo.

ETA2 : Fuck, I'm starting to sound like some sort of fucking love-in hippy....

 

[DeservingBitch]

But how does exclusion advance your sociopolitical cause? How does exclusion state your case for inclusion by society at large?

Safe-spaces (such as women-only, queer-only, or people-of-color only) aren't created to advance a sociopolitical cause of inclusion: they are created to provide a SAFE space for those who are marginalized/excluded/oppressed by the default majority space.

There's nothing contradictory or oppositional with working toward a more inclusive society and spaces for everyone, at the same time of creating exlusive spaces for those who are still marginalized.

ETA: in other words, until The Revolution happens (yeah right) and I can go in a non-specifically-queer space without being harassed when I kiss my girl, I don't want my queer space to become the all-inclusive space. 'Cause until The Revolution happens (yeah right), it it still one of the few places I can go and feel safe. And the reason I feel safe there is because it is a *queer*-space.

 

[Homburg]

Safe-spaces (such as women-only, queer-only, or people-of-color only) aren't created to advance a sociopolitical cause of inclusion: they are created to provide a SAFE space for those who are marginalized/excluded/oppressed by the default majority space.

There's nothing contradictory or oppositional with working toward a more inclusive society and spaces for everyone, at the same time of creating exlusive spaces for those who are still marginalized.

I understand the point to those spaces perfectly. As stated previously, I get the idea, and I support it. I just see it as a palliative, not a cure. I don't really get how it is not contradictory though. As I said before, I don't see exclusion as just simply because it is done in response to oppression.

I'm not being combative here. I am honestly just not getting it.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I understand the point to those spaces perfectly. As stated previously, I get the idea, and I support it. I just see it as a palliative, not a cure. I don't really get how it is not contradictory though. As I said before, I don't see exclusion as just simply because it is done in response to oppression.

I'm not being combative here. I am honestly just not getting it.

I think that what is missing maybe is the issue of power. There's a huge difference between socio-political groups in a position of power excluding marginalized groups, and marginalized groups creating their own spaces.

For one, those who are marginalized have only a few of those spaces that are exclusive only to them -- the rest of the world is by default the world of the dominant majority.

Second, as I said, the purpose of those exclusive spaces created by marginalized groups is to provide a safe space and a space to organize and regroup. As a white girl, it doesn't harm me or oppress me in any ways that some spaces are for people-of-color only. I'm not being denied anything because those spaces exists where I'm not welcome. Because outside those few spaces, I am 'at home' being white. Which is not the case for people of color. Same goes for queer spaces. How are straight people oppressed or harmed by queer-only spaces? Their exclusion from such spaces is in no way comparable from the exclusion/violence that queer people experience in the default 'straight' world.

And third, I can BOTH work to create a world and spaces that are inclusive of everybory AND (until such time comes) want to also have exclusive spaces where I can feel safe and be surrounded by and organize with my peers. ETA: which is where I agree with you that those exclusive space are a palliative, not a cure. And why I don't see them as contradictory with a broader goal of socio-political inclusion: because those spaces aren't meant as the cure to marginalization. They are meant as a way to cope and deal with exclusion until we get to a point where those spaces aren't needed anymore.

 

[unfoundiamond]

I have to ask.

How can someone expect others to be tolerant of our diffrences and preffrences and not extend the same to the outcast in our territory? (Example given: straight person in a gay bar)

I don't expect others to give me tolerance if I can't be tolerant...

WHAT'S GOIN ON ??

Did WE not learn how it feels to be unwanted and looked down on?

Hom, If you lived in my town I'd take you to my gay bar, but, I don't care who people standing next to me having a drink and nice conversation want to have sex with...

**I expect anyone who is a asshole to get kicked out of anywhere... but guys like Hom aren't the enemy...

 

[Netzach]

Same here. And it baffles my mind that some white women/feminists are still blind to it. Sure, privilege is a very effective blindfold, but geez, it's not as if other women/marginalized groups haven't been talking/writing about white women/feminists oppressors for decades now. Yeah I know, I'm so naive: I still want to believe that those who are marginalized/oppressed will be more empathetic to others' marginalization/oppression.


That's interesting. The common argument against trans-inclusive women-only space is that MTF are not 'real' women (often seen as male invading women's space). I actually had to re-read twice your first sentence to realize that this was not at all what you were saying.

I think that what you're suggesting there makes sense -- in a long-term kind of thinking. If FTM had access to other safe-spaces, I would have no issue with excluding them from women-only spaces. But as you yourself, at the moment, they don't. And while I agree with you that women-only spaces aren't meant to be the happy and safe womb for every marginalized identity, at the same time, I think it still makes sense to be inclusive of both FTM and MTF. One of the reasons for this i think is that prior to transitioning, many (if not most) transbois have been part of the dyke scene and allied with its political struggles. I'm kind of uncomfortable with the idea of excluding them -- and as such somewhat dismissing this common history -- because at some point in their transitioning they've changed pronouns. And of course, there's also the issue of transitioning being a very fluid, complex, and messy process -- most FMT don't go through bottom surgery for instance. This shouldn't be relevant in many cases, but if we're talking about dungeons and play-party spaces, I think that it can be quite dangerous for a FTM without bottom surgery to show up in a male space.

I think it's time to start strategizing change. And I know this doesn't endear me to most people and where they're at - I don't make the rules. But I personally think that dyke identity becomes part of one's past when they say "Hi, my name is Roger." But I'm very much about seeing people as they present, maybe more than they'd like sometimes...

 

[Homburg]

I think that what is missing maybe is the issue of power. There's a huge difference between socio-political groups in a position of power excluding marginalized groups, and marginalized groups creating their own spaces.

For one, those who are marginalized have only a few of those spaces that are exclusive only to them -- the rest of the world is by default the world of the dominant majority.

Well, power may be the disconnect, but I am looking at it more from an ethical standpoint, and that is where my confusion lies. I'm trying to resolve the ethical concern of (grossly simplifying) "When you do X to me, it is wrong, but when I do X to you, it is justified because you do X so much more often."

This is probably my long-slumbering philosophy geek stirring just a bit, and may well not be a useful avenue of question for the majority of folks involved. *shrug*

Second, as I said, the purpose of those exclusive spaces created by marginalized groups is to provide a safe space and a space to organize and regroup. As a white girl, it doesn't harm me or oppress me in any ways that some spaces are for people-of-color only. I'm not being denied anything because those spaces exists where I'm not welcome. Because outside those few spaces, I am 'at home' being white. Which is not the case for people of color. Same goes for queer spaces. How are straight people oppressed or harmed by queer-only spaces? Their exclusion from such spaces is in no way comparable from the exclusion/violence that queer people experience in the default 'straight' world.

This is a bit odd to me. Admittedly, I'm not queer, probably why I do not see it, but I've established that I'm queer-friendly, have queer friends, and thus hang out with queer folk socially. And the vast majority of these social situations occur in place not specifically designated as queer spaces. So my impression is based solely on the impression I've gotten when out and about with my queer friends, and from the stories they've told me.

The point to this is how are queer people harmed or oppressed by the vast majority of spaces which are not explicitly sexualised in any way. Yes, it can be argued that the grocery store is a white/het dominated place if it is in a white/het dominated neighbourhood, but is it honestly oppressive and harmful? Honest question. Remember that my own experience hanging out with gay and lesbian friends was largely non-eventful.

In my own experience, the grocery won't refuse to sell groceries to a gay man. The cashier might look at said gay man funny if he's dressed bizarrely and camping it up in an absurd fashion, but, let's face it, if you dress weird and act out, it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, that cashier is going to look at you funny.

Again, I'm not challenging. I don't want you getting testy on me. I'm just asking questions because I'm not getting some of this, and I'm trying to understand. When I was going through my own degree work, "Women's Studies" as it was called then, was in its' infancy around here. I did not have any classwork in the subject (as the philosophy curriculum hadn't been joined to the shapely hips of the Women's Studies dept at that point), and hadn't had a reason to do any reading on the topic on my own.

Getting back to harm/oppress, I'm not of the opinion that a queer-only (or women-only, or whatever) space is harmful or oppressive to me, or anyone else. It's not. It is, however, exclusionary. This leads me back to my previous question vis a vis the ethics of "Good for the goose, but the gander can fuck right off".

And third, I can BOTH work to create a world and spaces that are inclusive of everybory AND (until such time comes) want to also have exclusive spaces where I can feel safe and be surrounded by and organize with my peers.

Of course you can do both. And slaveowners in South before the Civil War could both own/oppress brown women, and get involved in professed-love relationships with them. The fact that two actions can be undertaken by the same person does not somehow make those two actions consistent. Examination does not necessarily show those actions to be ethically consistent though




NOTE: I do not live in some magical queer-friendly locale. I have heard the stories from friends about assholes messing with them because of their sexual orientation. It happens, I just haven't really gotten the impression that it is somehow pervasive, colouring every transaction and deed undertaken in the Straight/White/Male World.

And one time I was witness to someone taking actual issue with a friend for her orientation. It's a story for another day though. She definitely won the confrontation though.

 

[Netzach]

DIAMOND

Blacks did plenty of hangings, too.

People forget that blacks couldnt assemble in groups publicly, so their score was a fraction of what white's did. But they did hang whites and blacks.

Blacks used the night and assassinations for revenge. Deputies in many rural counties had a short shelf-life, especially when the stumbled upon stills operated by blacks. And whites paid blacks to assassinate whites who were competitors in love, business, and politics.

I did the research and conclude that about 25% of the lynchings were the result of discovered consensual sex between married white women and black men.

The frequency of this compared to the systemic attempts to exterminate blacks and protect white womanhood is so small as to be ludicrous. Additionally white people did like to lynch white people who didn't toe the appropriate racial attitudinal line, or were Irish or other assorted undesireables.

 

[Netzach]

Well, power may be the disconnect, but I am looking at it more from an ethical standpoint, and that is where my confusion lies. I'm trying to resolve the ethical concern of (grossly simplifying) "When you do X to me, it is wrong, but when I do X to you, it is justified because you do X so much more often."

This is probably my long-slumbering philosophy geek stirring just a bit, and may well not be a useful avenue of question for the majority of folks involved. *shrug*



This is a bit odd to me. Admittedly, I'm not queer, probably why I do not see it, but I've established that I'm queer-friendly, have queer friends, and thus hang out with queer folk socially. And the vast majority of these social situations occur in place not specifically designated as queer spaces. So my impression is based solely on the impression I've gotten when out and about with my queer friends, and from the stories they've told me.

The point to this is how are queer people harmed or oppressed by the vast majority of spaces which are not explicitly sexualised in any way. Yes, it can be argued that the grocery store is a white/het dominated place if it is in a white/het dominated neighbourhood, but is it honestly oppressive and harmful? Honest question. Remember that my own experience hanging out with gay and lesbian friends was largely non-eventful.

In my own experience, the grocery won't refuse to sell groceries to a gay man. The cashier might look at said gay man funny if he's dressed bizarrely and camping it up in an absurd fashion, but, let's face it, if you dress weird and act out, it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, that cashier is going to look at you funny.

Again, I'm not challenging. I don't want you getting testy on me. I'm just asking questions because I'm not getting some of this, and I'm trying to understand. When I was going through my own degree work, "Women's Studies" as it was called then, was in its' infancy around here. I did not have any classwork in the subject (as the philosophy curriculum hadn't been joined to the shapely hips of the Women's Studies dept at that point), and hadn't had a reason to do any reading on the topic on my own.

Getting back to harm/oppress, I'm not of the opinion that a queer-only (or women-only, or whatever) space is harmful or oppressive to me, or anyone else. It's not. It is, however, exclusionary. This leads me back to my previous question vis a vis the ethics of "Good for the goose, but the gander can fuck right off".



Of course you can do both. And slaveowners in South before the Civil War could both own/oppress brown women, and get involved in professed-love relationships with them. The fact that two actions can be undertaken by the same person does not somehow make those two actions consistent. Examination does not necessarily show those actions to be ethically consistent though




NOTE: I do not live in some magical queer-friendly locale. I have heard the stories from friends about assholes messing with them because of their sexual orientation. It happens, I just haven't really gotten the impression that it is somehow pervasive, colouring every transaction and deed undertaken in the Straight/White/Male World.

And one time I was witness to someone taking actual issue with a friend for her orientation. It's a story for another day though. She definitely won the confrontation though.

I can't really articulate it. There's a world of difference between how I feel at the local gay watering hole and how I feel at the grocery store. If it's something that organically feels like home to you and a right fit, it will make sense. I don't think that the presence of some straight people kills it, after all, if they're playing the game in a respectful way, I have no idea that they're straight. I'm sure I've been pegged as straight with M when we're anything but and each scoping our own sex.

Also, when someone in a marginal group decides to go be marginal with like people to the exclusion of people who are not marginal in the same way (hi what IS a BDSM club?) that is not the same thing as their original exclusion from institutions (marriage anyone?) or public spaces (neighborhoods in which you will get stopped by police) any more than someone swinging with a roll of toilet paper because it's all they've got at someone with a knife are the same thing.

 

[Homburg]

I can't really articulate it. There's a world of difference between how I feel at the local gay watering hole and how I feel at the grocery store. If it's something that organically feels like home to you and a right fit, it will make sense. I don't think that the presence of some straight people kills it, after all, if they're playing the game in a respectful way, I have no idea that they're straight. I'm sure I've been pegged as straight with M when we're anything but and each scoping our own sex.

Oh, I understand the experience. I've felt that way at BDSM functions. I'm trying to get my head around it though. Well, to be frank, I've felt it here and there at the goth night that I go to. It's just a bit weird for me because I do not explicitly fit with either goths or gays in a direct fashion. It is more a case that I appreciate the aesthetic, and can find points of collusion between our individual experiences, and can enjoy the similarities while not minding the differences.

That said, while I feel that "at home" feeling in various limited functions (I won't call them exclusionary because they aren't in this case. They are honestly pansexual), I don't feel excluded in other places. Hell, I don't feel excluded when I go to the ghettos, trailer parks, and rural areas I mentioned. I've only had very few specific places I've felt excluded from, and it was generally more because certain individuals were actively spurning me for some perceived fault (male, white, whatever). I have found precious few environments that really felt closed off.

Also, when someone in a marginal group decides to go be marginal with like people to the exclusion of people who are not marginal in the same way (hi what IS a BDSM club?) that is not the same thing as their original exclusion from institutions (marriage anyone?) or public spaces (neighborhoods in which you will get stopped by police) any more than someone swinging with a roll of toilet paper because it's all they've got at someone with a knife are the same thing.

I've heard of BDSM clubs exluding for gender reasons (women-only clubs for example) or where you are ont eh gay/het axis, but do clubs exclude if someone is vanilla? Not necessarily dress code, but somehow by figuring out that the person is not a lifestyler? Honest question, as I have zero experience with BDSM clubs. Those sorts of places are frowned upon here in the bible belt.

And I still have that ethics concern. If the intent of toilet paper roll swinger is to harm, the fact that it is ineffectual does not fully mitigate. Yes, the knife is worse, no argument, but the intent to harm is still there. The only difference here is that the party with the toilet paper roll isn't using more force simply because it is not available, right? Or would they not use more force, even if it was available? This is why the thics question is important to me. If the GLBT community had more power, would they be as oppressive as the hets? I'd personally say no, but if the pattern set is an exclusionary one, why would the macro scale not reflect what occurs on the micro? Or, in short, if you gave them a knife instead of the toilet paper tube, would they still swing it?

 

[DeservingBitch]

Well, power may be the disconnect, but I am looking at it more from an ethical standpoint, and that is where my confusion lies. I'm trying to resolve the ethical concern of (grossly simplifying) "When you do X to me, it is wrong, but when I do X to you, it is justified because you do X so much more often."

A queer-exclusive club isn't unfair/unjust/or oppressive to you as a straight dewd because everywhere else is by default het space. You don't *have* to be in this queer space. Whereas *I* cannot live my life without being most of the time in default het space. Being in default het spaces in not a choice for me.

The point to this is how are queer people harmed or oppressed by the vast majority of spaces which are not explicitly sexualised in any way. Yes, it can be argued that the grocery store is a white/het dominated place if it is in a white/het dominated neighbourhood, but is it honestly oppressive and harmful? Honest question. Remember that my own experience hanging out with gay and lesbian friends was largely non-eventful.

Well, I've given a few example earlier in the thread. But for the sake of clarity: I usually refrain from any public display of affection when I am not in a specifically queer-friendly space. I see het couple holding hands, and being affectionate toward one another all the time, including at the grocery store. I don't hold my GF's hand on the street or at the grocery store, or in line at the theater, or in a non-queer club/bar, or anywhere else that is not queer-friendly or a queer-space. Why? Cause the few times I did in the past (thinking Fuck You I'll do what I want and you can look somewhere else if you're not happy) I have been either harassed and threatened, or disgustingly lurked at by straight dewd who were obviously taking me and my GF kissing as some free porn show. No, the grocery won't refuse to sell food to me -- but the guy behind me will suggest that me and my GF need to be raped to get the dyke out of us. And while the grocery won't refuse to sell me food, the potential landlord will refuse to rent me and my GF an appartment because he doesn't want people like us in his buildings. And because most of my friends are straight, I end up hanging out in default straight bar way more often than I hang out in queer places. My het friends can kiss and grope each other all evening if they want: I can't, unless I'm ready to deal with the harassment. And lets not even talk about what my gay male friends being obviously affectionate toward one another in a default straight bar -- chances are that they would get beaten up. And I'm lucky -- because of how I look and perform femme, more often than not I actually benefit from straight privilege because people assume that I am straight (unless I am with a GF and it is obvious that she and I are intimate). But a lot of my queer friends don't 'look straight', and aren't treated as such. For them, just walking on the street is a potential risk.

And i'm not even getting into the less obvious, in your face, kind of harassement. So yes, the default IS oppressive for those who are marginalized.

And to go back to your question, why is exclusion OK is some cases and not in others. Because exclusion in itself in not inherently bad. It's the socio-political implications of exclusion that matter: there's no significant negative or oppressive implications to excluding men from women-only dyke spaces. Men don't lose anything from being excluded from such spaces, they can make a living, travel, enjoy life, go out, and benefit from everything that society has to offer without ever having to enter a women-only dyke bar. I on the other hand have to deal with exclusion/marginalization and oppressive environment every fucking day: whether I am at school, at work, at the grocery, out having a drink, or just walking on the street. I don't have a choice but to deal with it. That's why creating exclusive space for marginalized groups is not comparable to society not being inclusive of marginalized groups, nor is it ethically contradictory to the goal of creating an inclusive society.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I think it's time to start strategizing change. And I know this doesn't endear me to most people and where they're at - I don't make the rules. But I personally think that dyke identity becomes part of one's past when they say "Hi, my name is Roger." But I'm very much about seeing people as they present, maybe more than they'd like sometimes...

See, I tend to agree with you on that.

But then, it's not as if trans people have it easy and have that many safe spaces to hang out at. So while I do agree with what you said there, I'm also OK with FTM hanging out in women-only spaces.