Gender Bending

[Homburg]

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 idea of a default-het space is still a bit widgey for me. Then again, I do not see institutionalised discrimination behind every smile. I know people that will go on and on about how money is racially oppressive by how it is printed, and other sorts of conspiracy theory weirdness. I know others that say it's all bunk, and there is no such thing. I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere between those two points.

I choose to live in the bible belt. While there are no places where I can openly practice a BDSM lifestyle, there are places that are more forgiving than here. If I wanted, I could move. I choose not to, so, by my choice, I accept that I live in an area that is actively hostile towards how I choose to express my sexuality. I am oppressed, indeed, but I choose that oppression, and thus allow it.

Social Contract is inevitable. By default, we each give up some of our freedoms to enjoy the benefits of living within society. You enjoy living where you do (generic "you" throughout this paragraph), thus you accept that you will not be free to do certain things so long as you plan to live there. But, should you be truly motivated, you could find some remote spot up there in Canada, build a cabin, live off the grid, and be just as whatever-floats-your-boat as you want to be. You won't be able to reap the benefits of living within society, but you can certainly express yourself more freely should you absent yourself from the hurly-burly of the civilised zone.

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.

Here we come to part of my issue with it. Aside from those that do not "look straight" the actions you are describing are not inescapable identifiers. By this, I mean that you can, and obviously have, chosen to not hold hands, or display public affection. In short, you can easily choose to appear to be what you are not simply by refraining from a given behaviour. At that point it hinges more on the behaviour than the identifier for me, but that is a different discussion.

Fuck, I'm losing my thread of how I want to express this. I guess I am looking at the example of a very good friend of mine. He is both brown and gay, and is very sensitive to such things. He basically "looks straight" so he does not particular self-identify as queer unless he is trying to, but he cannot help but look brown. In this case, the "brown person" is an inescapable identifier, and thus much more likely to be the source of institutional discrimination. He would have to be somehow outed (not that he's closetted, but you know what I mean) to be discriminated against for being gay. As he is particularly sensitive to the issue, he is quick to identify discrimination and make his displeasure known. So I've been regaled with innumerable tales of oppression by people that look like me. The majority of these tales were based on "brown" more than "gay".

Again, my life experiences are different. I cannot express my brand of sexuality in public without facing discrimination (and probably arrest). It doesn't impede me in any way to have to be circumspect about my BDSM practices, so I honestly have a little bit of trouble relating. Not a complete lack of relating though, as I would get cranky about not being able to hold hands, hug, etc. Then again, I spent almost a decade in Europe. Seeing two same-sex folks hold hands is just no big deal to me. Regular friends did that all the time. Hugs, same. Basic kisses, same. As to making out and getting all porny, to be frank, I'd look askance at a het couple doing that. In most social settings, I'm just not interesting in seeing tonsil hockey *shrug*

So my own point of view may be skewed enough that I'm just not gonna "get" this.

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.

I'm kind of getting what you are saying. I have some specific questions with certain examples, but this thread is not the place to ask those questions.

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.

Okay, so we change from "X is bad when you do it, but X is okay when I do it" to "Not all X is bad, but your X is because, fuck, it's everywhere. My X is okay because it is very localised X."

Well, I'm closer, but I'm still not getting the ethical question nailed down. As I said before, I understand it emotionally, and support it, but just not there ethically. At this point, I'm at a loss as to how to ask the questions to get the sort of answers I want. My questions have gotten repetitive, and your answers aren't going in a direction that is clearing this up for me. Not blaming you, as I am the one that can't properly express my disconnect, and I'm not entirely sure that either one of us can gain enough distance from our own life experiences and perspective to really get a meaningful read.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Okay, so we change from "X is bad when you do it, but X is okay when I do it" to "Not all X is bad, but your X is because, fuck, it's everywhere. My X is okay because it is very localised X."

Well, I'm closer, but I'm still not getting the ethical question nailed down. As I said before, I understand it emotionally, and support it, but just not there ethically. At this point, I'm at a loss as to how to ask the questions to get the sort of answers I want. My questions have gotten repetitive, and your answers aren't going in a direction that is clearing this up for me. Not blaming you, as I am the one that can't properly express my disconnect, and I'm not entirely sure that either one of us can gain enough distance from our own life experiences and perspective to really get a meaningful read.

Netzach has given maybe better example than I did. Society is heteronormative: the default is understood to be het. This is itself is marginalizing and oppressive. And sure, I can 'pass' as straight, and actually do pass as straight more often than not unless I make a point of stating that I'm not. But not everyone who's queer can pass as straight. And even if I can pass as straight, or choose to pass as straight, I still hear dismissive and offensive comments about queerness on a daily basis (probably more BECAUSE people assume I'm straight). Comments which denies my humanity. Comments which makes me feel threatened and unsafe -- what if those people realize that I'm actually queer? I've been attacked and threatened more than once because someone figured out that I'm queer. A friend of mine has been hospitalized for two months after getting beaten up for the crime of walking on the street while gay. People lose their jobs because they're outed as queer by some colleagues. And while I can deal with not holding hands in public, what about all those queer people who will never be able to attend a social function with their significant other because of the real and disastrous consequences it would have on their live, ability to make a living, family, etc.? Is that another one of those, 'yeah well, it sure isn't cool, but just suck it up'? What about queer couples whose house gets vandalized because the neighbours have figured out they're gay? Maybe they should just make the 'choice' of not living together to avoid such homophobic reactions?

The 'choice' of denying who you are and 'passing' as straight is not a choice: it's a way to survive in a homophobic society. And one that not everyone can pull off.

So, back to your question re: exclusion. Again, exclusion is not inherently bad. It becomes wrong when it is institutionalized and systematised, and when a group of people are denied fundamental rights and privileges based on their identity. If you can't see the difference between for instance a society which exclude a group of people (queers) from one of its major institution (marriage) and the same marginalized group creating some recreational spaces (queer bar/club) for themselves, I really don't know what else to say.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Maybe this can help:

A 'minority space'* is a space created by minority groups, for minority groups. It differs from a 'privileged space' (such as gentlemen's club and the like) and institutionalized exclusion in that its exclusionary nature is not designed to uphold established power structures, but rather to provide a safe environment for minority groups to gather for recreational/organizing/discussion purposes.

*minority meant in a power way, rather than numerical way.

ETA: this may be helpful to: Heterosexual privilege, or another similar list of straigh privilege

 

[Homburg]

Netzach has given maybe better example than I did. Society is heteronormative: the default is understood to be het. This is itself is marginalizing and oppressive. And sure, I can 'pass' as straight, and actually do pass as straight more often than not unless I make a point of stating that I'm not. But not everyone who's queer can pass as straight. And even if I can pass as straight, or choose to pass as straight, I still hear dismissive and offensive comments about queerness on a daily basis (probably more BECAUSE people assume I'm straight). Comments which denies my humanity. Comments which makes me feel threatened and unsafe

Here's another core difference in, well, existence between you and I. I have had the same sort of comments made around me vis a vis Orientals, Whites, etc by people that were either unaware that I have Oriental ancestry, were unaware that I was listening, or were just flat trying to intimidate. Coupla years back I was shopping in a convenience store in a very rough neighbourhood, I heard a pair of local knuckleheads talking and they were saying all sorts of disparaging things about whites while looking over in my direction. As is usual for me, I made eye contact and asked if there was a problem. I got a little attitude, but they shut down. But, well, it's easier for me to respond with implied aggression - I'm built for it. I would not expect that out of a 5'3" woman that weighs 98lbs.

Still, those comments did not threaten my humanity. The only times when my humanity has been threatened was when I was faced by actual hard-coded institutional discrimination. I've probably mentioned that I didn't realise I was a minority until I was about 10 years old or so. That was when the NC State school admin system informed my parents that my school paperwork was incorrect and they had to redo it because they'd filled it out incorrectly, saying I was "White" (yes, white, none of this caucasian business in NC back then), not "Asian". That caused an interesting paradigm shift for me, and made me consciously notice the idea of race for the first time in my life.

what if those people realize that I'm actually queer? I've been attacked and threatened more than once because someone figured out that I'm queer. A friend of mine has been hospitalized for two months after getting beaten up for the crime of walking on the street while gay. People lose their jobs because they're outed as queer by some colleagues. And while I can deal with not holding hands in public, what about all those queer people who will never be able to attend a social function with their significant other because of the real and disastrous consequences it would have on their live, ability to make a living, family, etc.? Is that another one of those, 'yeah well, it sure isn't cool, but just suck it up'? What about queer couples whose house gets vandalized because the neighbours have figured out they're gay? Maybe they should just make the 'choice' of not living together to avoid such homophobic reactions?

The 'choice' of denying who you are and 'passing' as straight is not a choice: it's a way to survive in a homophobic society. And one that not everyone can pull off.

So, back to your question re: exclusion. Again, exclusion is not inherently bad. It becomes wrong when it is institutionalized and systematised, and when a group of people are denied fundamental rights and privileges based on their identity. If you can't see the difference between for instance a society which exclude a group of people (queers) from one of its major institution (marriage) and the same marginalized group creating some recreational spaces (queer bar/club) for themselves, I really don't know what else to say.

I can see the difference, but I feel like institutionalised discrimination is being lumped in with individual discrimination, when they are radically different problems with radically different solutions needed. Insitutionalised discrimination requires sweeping changes to the way said institution treats the minority being discriminated against.

Individual discrimination requires sweeping cultural changes, and those are much more difficult. They're different though in that institutionalised discrimination has a script, rules, etc. It is done by rote, has a plan, and is organised. Thus it can safely be looked at as some monolith bad thing Individual discrimination is just that - individual. It is treated as monolithic when it is just unrelated incidents. It is a symptom of a cultural malaise, but not some overarching conspiracy. Yet the verbage treats it often as if it was organised and directed. (Yes, I am complaining about the language, not the concept.)

(And speaking on marriage, I think government should fuck off completely on the topic. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and not something the govt should bugger with. The govt side of it is a civil contract, and has nothing substantive to do with religious ceremony. Seperate the two and a lot of the bullshit either goes away, or becomes more obvious as to the bigotry it is. Marriage is sacred, sure. Keep marriage, good for you, but let queers (and atheists, and whatnot) have civil unions (or whatever you want to call them, it's just a contract at its' core) so they get the other benefits that have fuck-all to do with religion and its' sacred cows.)

--

Maybe this can help:

A 'minority space'* is a space created by minority groups, for minority groups. It differs from a 'privileged space' (such as gentlemen's club and the like) and institutionalized exclusion in that its exclusionary nature is not designed to uphold established power structures, but rather to provide a safe environment for minority groups to gather for recreational/organizing/discussion purposes.

*minority meant in a power way, rather than numerical way.

ETA: this may be helpful to: Heterosexual privilege, or another similar list of straigh privilege

This helps ENORMOUSLY. Thank you! This is the lingual shift I was looking for, as I knew if I could express the disconnect, the solution would become evident.

You rock, DB

 

[DeservingBitch]

This helps ENORMOUSLY. Thank you! This is the lingual shift I was looking for, as I knew if I could express the disconnect, the solution would become evident.

You rock, DB

And here I was, thinking that this previous post reflects what I was expressing throughout.

 

[Homburg]

And here I was, thinking that this previous post reflects what I was expressing throughout.

=P

"Priviledged space" was the verbage I needed to get the idea straight, and, no, you hadn' tquite expressed it that way. Remember, I was agreeing with you, just having a nagging issue defining the ethical difference between the two sorts of exclusion. Scale wasn't working for me, as there was something more fundamental than scale, and yet scale was what was offered as the primary reason. It isn't scale, it is priviledge.

Yes, I know, it is a wording change, and one that was referred to in an oblique fashion before. I thought I was making it clear that the concept, and acceptance of the overall idea, was on the metaphorical tip of my tongue.

 

[DeservingBitch]

It isn't scale, it is priviledge.

See, I thought that was what I was talking about.

It's like the distinction between discrimination and racism.

Discrimination can happen to whites and people of color yes. Indiviual prejudice against one person because of her race can happen to whites and people of color yes. And be perpetrated by both people of color and whites.

But racism is dicrimination/prejudice + power. Racism is discrimination towards a socio-political group that is systematic, institutionalized, and that works to reproduce the interests and privileges of the current unequal power structure. Racism does NOT happen toward white people. There's not a complex system of churches, schools, goverments, laws, sciences, pop culture, advertisments, entertainments, prisons, psychiatry, etc. that support and back up individual discriminations of white people.

 

[Homburg]

See, I thought that was what I was talking about.

It's like the distinction between discrimination and racism.

Discrimination can happen to whites and people of color yes. Indiviual prejudice against one person because of her race can happen to whites and people of color yes. And be perpetrated by both people of color and whites.

But racism is dicrimination/prejudice + power. Racism is discrimination towards a socio-political group that is systematic, institutionalized, and that works to reproduce the interests and privileges of the current unequal power structure. Racism does NOT happen toward white people. There's not a complex system of churches, schools, goverments, laws, sciences, pop culture, advertisments, entertainments, prisons, psychiatry, etc. that support and back up individual discriminations of white people.

Rascism does happen to white people, just not in the areas that we commonly speak of. This goes back to my previous comments vis a vis same/different being locale dependent. If you or I went to Japan, for example, we would face rascism, period. Same can be said of other cultures that are not white-dominated.

That said, your definition is spot on, as is the distinction.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Rascism does happen to white people, just not in the areas that we commonly speak of. This goes back to my previous comments vis a vis same/different being locale dependent. If you or I went to Japan, for example, we would face rascism, period. Same can be said of other cultures that are not white-dominated.

That said, your definition is spot on, as is the distinction.

Yes. But then, that kind of 'large scale' discrimination, somewhat institutionalized that white people would experience in Japan or other non-white states is not, I think, comparable to what people of color experience. For instance, Japanese society like a lot of other asians or other non-white societies still promote whiteness, and view whiteness (or its privilege) as a desireable thing: think about all the beauty product sold in these societies to 'whiten' the skin and/or keep the skin as pale as possible. It's a fucking racket like the industry of 'diets' is in North-America.
And significantly, none of those states have ever been colonial-states to the extent that white western christian nations have together. Nor is there a history of slavery and land appropriation of white people.

*Edited to correct a terrible sentence structure.

 

[Homburg]

Yes. But then, that kind of 'large scale' discrimination, somewhat institutionalized that white people would experience in Japan or other non-white states is not, I think, comparable to what people of color experience. For instance, Japanese society like a lot of other asians or other non-white societies still promote whiteness, and view whiteness (or its privilege) as a desireable thing: think about all the beauty product sold in these societies to 'whiten' the skin and/or keep the skin as pale as possible. It's a fucking racket like the industry of 'diets' is in North-America.

rida could speak more clearly about that than I could. I did read a truly amusing blog by a chap teaching english in Japan. He talked of "Gaijin Powers" and such in an amusing way, but also made clear the very blatant rascism he faced as a westerner. That said, I've seen the discrimination prevalent there repesented by a number of indivuals that were ex-pats due to marriage. It is quite common.

And significantly, none of those states have ever been colonial-states to the extent that white western christian nations have together. Nor is there a history of slavery and land appropriation of white people.

Wow, you kinda lost me there. Pretty much every one of the major Oriental states have been colonies or subjects of other powers, and the major ones have been imperial powers that most assuredly were oppressing others in their history. Japan and China both were decidely aggressive in that manner. No, they didn't do it like the white man did, but they still did it.

And no slavery of white people? The Irish faced it for quite a long time. An indentured servant is a slave by another name, and plenty were just flat slaves. Many of the sons and daughters of Eire faced lives of slavery. Parts of the Nordic countries had the thrall system (the term could be wrong, it's 3am after all), and had instutionalised slavery of those captured after battles. And there's a loooong history of white people being taken as slaves by the Turks and various Semitic tribes. white people have endured slavery a-plenty.

I won't even get into land appropriation. White people have been appropriating the land of fellow white forever, and it is going on still today.

 

[rida]

Yes. But then, that kind of 'large scale' discrimination, somewhat institutionalized that white people would experience in Japan or other non-white states is not, I think, comparable to what people of color experience. For instance, Japanese society like a lot of other asians or other non-white societies still promote whiteness, and view whiteness (or its privilege) as a desireable thing: think about all the beauty product sold in these societies to 'whiten' the skin and/or keep the skin as pale as possible. It's a fucking racket like the industry of 'diets' is in North-America.
And significantly, none of those states have ever been colonial-states to the extent that white western christian nations have together. Nor is there a history of slavery and land appropriation of white people.

*Edited to correct a terrible sentence structure.

Since being white in Japan is being brought up, I humbly add my 2 yens.
It might not be the same as what people of color experience in the US, but trust me, you get turned down for apartments, you need a Japanese person to guarantee for you otherwise you cannot get a visa, or a credit card, or a loan. The assumption is that since you are not Japanese, you are not going to respect their rules and therefore you are viewed with suspicion.

And to comment on the whitening racket, do not forget that Japanese do not consider themselves asian and yellow. They consider themselves Japanese, and basically ... better than white.

That being said, I also tell the white people that complain too much to just suck it up, and learn to be tolerant.

Edited to add: and just because you do follow the rules and are respectful and have lived here all your life/ being born here, have the nationality ... if you are not 100% Japanese ... you'll always be a Gaijin (litteraly "person from out").

 

[DeservingBitch]

Wow, you kinda lost me there. Pretty much every one of the major Oriental states have been colonies or subjects of other powers, and the major ones have been imperial powers that most assuredly were oppressing others in their history. Japan and China both were decidely aggressive in that manner. No, they didn't do it like the white man did, but they still did it.

And no slavery of white people? The Irish faced it for quite a long time. An indentured servant is a slave by another name, and plenty were just flat slaves. Many of the sons and daughters of Eire faced lives of slavery. Parts of the Nordic countries had the thrall system (the term could be wrong, it's 3am after all), and had instutionalised slavery of those captured after battles. And there's a loooong history of white people being taken as slaves by the Turks and various Semitic tribes. white people have endured slavery a-plenty.

I won't even get into land appropriation. White people have been appropriating the land of fellow white forever, and it is going on still today.

So it must be a coincidence then that the only group of people who's been colonized and continue to be colonized by white people, who's had and continue to have their land and labour appropriated by white people, and who've experienced and keep experiencing institutionalized and systematic discrimination in favor of white people are people of color. Oh and yes, coincidence also that those on the very top of the social pyramid are white people.

The racism against Irish people is a complex case. For one thing, one can't fail but note how the racist representation of the Irish have largely been done by comparison to the 'dark races'. But also, while racism against Irish people and Irish indentured-labor was/is very real, I still don't think it compares to racism against people of color. A white slave has always been more 'precious' than a black slave.

 

[Homburg]

So it must be a coincidence then that the only group of people who's been colonized and continue to be colonized by white people, who's had and continue to have their land and labour appropriated by white people, and who've experienced and keep experiencing institutionalized and systematic discrimination in favor of white people are people of color. Oh and yes, coincidence also that those on the very top of the social pyramid are white people.

China and Tibet. Iraq and the Kurds. Sudan and itself. I could probably make a list as long as my arm of African nations actually. And any time you want to get a view of land appropriation on whites, just take a gander at Eminent Domain, and the Walmart-isation of America.

I'm not defending whites, I'm just pointing out that asshole oppressors exist in other races/cultures, and that whites have been victims of it time and again. Historically, it was brutal. The USSR was largely white on white colonialism after all. And the turks regularly ravaged eastern Europe taing lsave like crazy, as did the Mongols.

The racism against Irish people is a complex case. For one thing, one can't fail but note how the racist representation of the Irish have largely been done by comparison to the 'dark races'. But also, while racism against Irish people and Irish indentured-labor was/is very real, I still don't think it compares to racism against people of color. A white slave has always been more 'precious' than a black slave.

.....

Slave = slave. Antebellum South had 'field slaves' and 'house slaves'. They had different values because they had different skils and/or traits. Same for white slaves. An Irish slave is mor elikley to have at least language skill and a more functional idea of technology and culture. Compare this to some brown guy right off the boat, speaking no english, and boggled by the technology he sees around. It kinda makes sense that the irish slave would be more valuable.

And you may not think that anti-Irish racism was as serious as that directed toward brown people, but I guarantee I can find you some Irish folk that would disagree rather vehemently.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Since being white in Japan is being brought up, I humbly add my 2 yens.
It might not be the same as what people of color experience in the US, but trust me, you get turned down for apartments, you need a Japanese person to guarantee for you otherwise you cannot get a visa, or a credit card, or a loan. The assumption is that since you are not Japanese, you are not going to respect their rules and therefore you are viewed with suspicion.

And to comment on the whitening racket, do not forget that Japanese do not consider themselves asian and yellow. They consider themselves Japanese, and basically ... better than white.

That being said, I also tell the white people that complain too much to just suck it up, and learn to be tolerant.

Edited to add: and just because you do follow the rules and are respectful and have lived here all your life/ being born here, have the nationality ... if you are not 100% Japanese ... you'll always be a Gaijin (litteraly "person from out").

Yes, I have a few white friends in Japan, most working as ESL teachers, and they all say something similar to what you wrote there.

But while I recognize that Japan is a very exclusive society, and one with a history of imperialism, I still don't think that its racism and imperialism has the same power as whiteness and white imperialism.

 

[DeservingBitch]

And you may not think that anti-Irish racism was as serious as that directed toward brown people, but I guarantee I can find you some Irish folk that would disagree rather vehemently.

I've never suggested that. I don't believe in oppression 'competitions'. What I am suggesting however is that the global world is structured in a way that benefits and privilege white people through the exploitation and oppression of people of color.

Yes white people gets screwed by the system too. Yes, white people have oppressed other white people. And yes, a number of white people have been/are getting discriminated against by people of color. But at the end of the day, the global structure of the world is written for white people, not for people of color.

 

[Homburg]

But while I recognize that Japan is a very exclusive society, and one with a history of imperialism, I still don't think that its racism and imperialism has the same power has whiteness and white imperialism.

White people do Evil ever so much better. No other race can quite match it.

Joking aside, Japan has a history of brutal imperialism. Seriously. There's a reason why china loses it's collective mind when Japan does anything remotely militant. It's kind of hard to forget such things as the Rape of Nanking. And the racism in Japan, and the rest of the orient, is deep down to the bones. they may be less evil than white people (and who isn't less evil than white folk), but by and large prejudice is eminently common.

--

I've never suggested that. I don't believe in oppression 'competitions'. What I am suggesting however is that the global world is structured in a way that benefits and privilege white people through the exploitation and oppression of people of color.

China is single-handedly working to check that trend and replace it with their own. Doing a pretty damned good job of it. And the Arabs will have their power and priviledge so long as we are so dependent on oil. The Royal House of Saud are honorary white males, and they revel in evil.

Yes white people gets screwed by the system too. Yes, white people have oppressed other white people. And yes, a number of white people have been/are getting discriminated against by people of color. But at the end of the day, the global structure of the world is written for white people, not for people of color.

Fuck, where is the line to get me some of the results of all that oppression?

 

[rida]

Yes, I have a few white friends in Japan, most working as ESL teachers, and they all say something similar to what you wrote there.

But while I recognize that Japan is a very exclusive society, and one with a history of imperialism, I still don't think that its racism and imperialism has the same power has whiteness and white imperialism.

damn! even when it comes to be bad, the white man does it better ...

OK, joking aside, I am not going to argue whose racism is truly racism, and whose imperialism was worst.

In my view, they are all bad the same, and I am sorry but I will not justify that they are/were really bad therefore they deserve to have a taste of their own medicine.
Such a mind frame will not promote tolerance but only perpetrate the discrimination is trying to address.

 

[rida]

White people do Evil ever so much better. No other race can quite match it.

Joking aside, Japan has a history of brutal imperialism. Seriously. There's a reason why china loses it's collective mind when Japan does anything remotely militant. It's kind of hard to forget such things as the Rape of Nanking. And the racism in Japan, and the rest of the orient, is deep down to the bones. they may be less evil than white people (and who isn't less evil than white folk), but by and large prejudice is eminently common.

--



China is single-handedly working to check that trend and replace it with their own. Doing a pretty damned good job of it. And the Arabs will have their power and priviledge so long as we are so dependent on oil. The Royal House of Saud are honorary white males, and they revel in evil.



Fuck, where is the line to get me some of the results of all that oppression?

LOL! once again you beat me to the punch line ...

mumble mumble mumble

 

[rida]

.....

Yes white people gets screwed by the system too. Yes, white people have oppressed other white people. And yes, a number of white people have been/are getting discriminated against by people of color. But at the end of the day, the global structure of the world is written for white people, not for people of color.

Well, things are changing.
Go to Europe, go to Italy ... whites are becoming the minority. And when the non-white get the power? they abuse it as much as the whites they fighted against.

 

[Netzach]

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.



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?

I'm not a pacificst when it comes down to it. I think a person has the right to a knife when being attacked by a knife, not to be chided for using her toilet paper roll. If they reach the conclsion that violence is wrong, well that's just evidence that they're enlightened, not that they're being kept down - it's easier to say "let's fight with words" when you also have access to an arsenal and you know you'll win when it matters, and this is what people who are in power and backed by power tend to ignore. It explains the current geopolitical climate as much as it does stonewall. It was stonewall that got queers anything remotely in this culture, as much as the Mattachine society was groundbreaking if we were still standing around in nice suits politely reminding people we bleed when you prick us, no one would have changed jack.

I guess mine is the kind of thinking that believes Israel, while using its knife as cruelly as anyone else is the perfect example of something that has the right to defend itself and exist and should know a lot better about what it's like to be knifed.

No, opressed people in power tend to be as shitty as anyone else. It's a great excuse to exclude them from power more, though, isn't it? Kind of like the British Crown, we're here for your own good, you won't know what to do with it. See how dysfunctional Africa got when we left? (Because when we were there it was all happy - for us anyway)

 

[Netzach]

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.

Oh I am too, I'm not going to be the person to boot people. But if the question comes up I'm ok with other people who are saying what I just said and I'll very gently point it out and my reasoning and a lot of my FTM friends I've had this discussion with are thrilled someone sees them as that male.

 

[Netzach]

So it must be a coincidence then that the only group of people who's been colonized and continue to be colonized by white people, who's had and continue to have their land and labour appropriated by white people, and who've experienced and keep experiencing institutionalized and systematic discrimination in favor of white people are people of color. Oh and yes, coincidence also that those on the very top of the social pyramid are white people.

The racism against Irish people is a complex case. For one thing, one can't fail but note how the racist representation of the Irish have largely been done by comparison to the 'dark races'. But also, while racism against Irish people and Irish indentured-labor was/is very real, I still don't think it compares to racism against people of color. A white slave has always been more 'precious' than a black slave.

Eh, the Irish are an interesting case which really screw any simple analysis. I was watching a doc on the history of NYC. There are primary sources indicating that among the freed blacks who were integral to the island's development when an Irish family moved in next door in their neighborhoods they would leave, in a "there goes the neighborhood" way not in a "they are going to mess with us" way. Who was on bottom was really debateable at one point, though it became clear after the draft riots. There was a huge exodus, understandably, of blacks after the draft riots. But the degree to which the Irish were seen as non-human can't be minimized - the imagery is analagous to anything in the Nazi's Der Sturner regading Jews.

It's only hard to believe it could be as significant because eventually they could be visually absorbed into the US.But that status took a loooong time and a lot of Tammany Hall to provide. Skin passing matters, basically, it's a persuasive argument for that, but the degree of prejudice is really hard for contemporary people to imagine.

However, as a Jew I know what it means to be able to pass as anything you please, convert, hide, just shut up and everyone will let you be. That doesn't cut it as a way to live.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm the senior cart collector at Bob's Big Box, so I get to see a lot that lowly cashiers and stockers dont. Like same sex couples holding hands etc. No one harasses them because 99% of people dont give a shit. Most people are stewing about making the house payment.

 

[unfoundiamond]

white people

I have to say DB, If you think white people don't deal with racism and descrimination that is a reflection of YOUR level of privilege. And I will tell you why...

If you have never been dirt poor, only white kid in a black neighborhood, or had to ride a school bus to your apartment on the Southside,
Then the reason you think white people aren't subject to the same (sometimes worse) harrassment, is because you've never been in these situations, I have had shit talked to me by SEVERAL black girls because I have a JLo booty, and they assume I am coming to steal the black men, I went to the emergency room one night and walked into a waiting room to see two black girls and a black guy, I walk in and walk to the bathroom, when I turn to walk into the bathroom door the guy was aparantly looking at my ass, and the girls HATED it, I hear them talking and laughing "white bitch this, and I bet you that" so I walk out of the bathroom, and call for my bf on the cell, they girl says to the others "I bet you she's with a BLACK guy", because of my body, I turned to her and said "Just because I have a nice ass doesn't mean I want a black man, Look, Is he black?" and my bf walked through the double doors 6' 220, built Italian and Irish... and smiles showing his golds to her... Needless to say she shut up... But this shit has been happening to me since high school, I always have brown skinned friends, but 95% are men... since the women tend to hate on me for no reason... (even in school today)

I also don't know why you seem to act like white people are the ones over in africa STILL enslaving children to go fight the north uganda something (can't remember but watch fallout boy video) Those african men are kidnapping african children and giving them weapons, fighting them like pitbulls, letting them kill each other, fighting someone elses war (all black mind you)

I worked for years in a Chinese restaurant, as the only white person, and delt with a lot of good and a lot of bad... EVER RACE has a amount of impreialism, and EVERYONE is the outsider somewhere...
I went to England and went into a store, the man working behind the counter was of some middle eastern decent, and he did not hide his hatred for me... a white woman.

And I have heard you say that white people top the social pyramid... I don't know what to make of that, considering the wealthyest people in the world are definately the Arabs... and you know what the golden rule is...

Point Blank, your views are very onesided.
It shows you must have been priviledged to be sheltered from people like the ones I have met. Stop thinking black peoples pain means more than my pain, or any other persons... pain is relative... and must I go here but,
If white people get pricked do we not blead? We are all people, equal, stop saying white people think we are god or something... its offensive to accepting white folks like me

**and when I say white I mean I LOOK white, I am German(dad) and Spanish(mom), the type of spanish is Castillian which means I am very pale, and my mom is from panama and spoke english as a second language... I am of mixed decent with a spanish mom, an american father, and I look white... so I also have the "mixed race, I don't fit in anywhere" problem...

 

[Etoile]

The idea of a default-het space is still a bit widgey for me. Then again, I do not see institutionalised discrimination behind every smile. I know people that will go on and on about how money is racially oppressive by how it is printed, and other sorts of conspiracy theory weirdness. I know others that say it's all bunk, and there is no such thing. I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere between those two points.

I guess I don't understand how you don't see this. Isn't 90% of the country het space by default? Unless one flaunts one's homosexuality, one WILL be mistaken for straight. I get mistaken for straight all the time. Even in queer spaces, I have been mistaken for straight. Heterosexuality is the norm, therefore 90% of the time it is assumed that you are straight until you prove otherwise (by looking gay or going to gay places).