World Gone To


So…I’ve been making some snarky jokes and getting upset about the new TSA backscatter machines and the “enhanced” patdowns.  But I thought I’d be a little more honest with what is upsetting to me in this situation.

I learned about these changes after we had made plans to travel to CHI.  I didn’t have a lot of choice in rescheduling or driving down.

I knew there was a chance I would be selected for additional screening.

At that point my choice is, be viewed naked by someone I can’t see, have someone touch me in ways I may not consent to, be fined 11k and face civil charges for trying to leave the area.

As someone who was sexually assaulted as a child, these choices suck.  As someone with anxiety, these choices suck.  Hell, as a regular Joe…the choices suck.  People who are powereful rarely feel choices like this.  The consequences aren’t that bad, or they quickly return to a world in which they set out the options.

I want to take this moment to realize how far reaching a power is if it can make someone take these choices.  Maybe their job is at an airport concession.  Or they have to travel for work.  Or they are trying to see someone for the last time.  There are lot of reasons a person might not have a choice in refusing this screening.  There are even more reasons a person might not be able to bear to have this happen to them.

I don’t think about what happened to me that often.  I don’t experience strong flash backs, but it does come up from time to time, and it affects me in ways that can really hurt.  Standing in line, I was trying to force a smile so that I wouldn’t be selected.  It felt an awful lot like that bus ride when I was young…hoping not to be targeted.

I just can’t think of a good reason to make anyone feel that way.

Advertisements

*twitch*

*twitch*

In the last 72 hours, we’ve had the following.

Mysogynist criticism of Shillary for “crying.”

Sexist response from Edwards.

Sexist followup from Obama’s camp.

Racist comebacks from the Clinton campaign.

And as icing, a race denying masterpiece from Gloria Steinem.

A pox on all houses, everywhere….for America has successfully made g!n*ack*m@rism it’s official public policy.

Excuse me all, while i go to my happy place.

-sly

Okay.

There’s a whole lot, lot, lot, going on. Go read it all.

And if you absolutly need to pick on the last detail, come back here.

Done?

Hugo doesn’t know Christian history. Or at least, he doesn’t so far as I can tell from reading his work.

they quarreled over whether the kosher purity laws were still in effect. Every time, the popularizers — those who wanted to make Christianity more accessible — won. Every time the “purists” grumbled. They are still grumbling now.

That just ain’t true. The popularizers have lost. Major battles. Universalists of every stripe went down, literally, in flames during the reformation. Synchretists have been shoved out, and many of us read aloud a political document every week…the Nicene Creed which memorializes political clout on Christianity and the exclusion of certain doctrinal viewpoints as legitimate. There is such a thing as a heretic, and for the vast majority of Christian history, being such a person has only been a good idea if you have a lot of men in tin suits with sharp pointy sticks, ready to defend your right to be theologically queer.

Back to his argument for the moment. Maybe he means in America, in the last 200 years. He cites the contrast between Warren and some calvinists, like that was the fight. No major contender in American Protestantism is Calvinist. A few say they are. But a real, honest to goodness double predestination damned for the glory of God Calvinist? They kind of went carrier pigeon some time back, at least as far as the prime time goes. Yes, they exist. But that this is the fight Hugo presents is indictative of bad faith. He doesn’t point to a live contraversy…he points to a very, very dead one. America went Arminian before the Civil War. We’re rehashing this now, why? To show just how out of it BFP and company are?

No. No. No.

Secondly, it’s just not even true. The popularizers got set back many times. After years of social gospel preaching, the evangelical world retreated inwards with Darbyism and pre-millenial dispensationalism. (This is the kind of thinking you know today as the Left Behind series). From changing the world to awaiting the end…the momentum of the evangelical protestant world turned on a dime.

And remember Jesus people?

Was Jerry Falwell a popularizer? Just because he used mass media, and was folksy about wanting to enforce a very specific kind of racial/gender politic?

Or how about the women who preached in the First Great Awakening, only to be silenced by the time of the revolution?

This is not to say these movements didn’t have lasting impact. But the story of American Christianities is one of push and pull. The clear line of progress Hugo wants to paint simply isn’t there.

they quarreled over whether the kosher purity laws were still in effect. Every time, the popularizers — those who wanted to make Christianity more accessible — won. Every time the “purists” grumbled. They are still grumbling now.

But you know what else is lurking around in here?

You guessed.

Antisemitism.

I owe it to everyone to be really careful about that charge, so listen carefully to what i do and don’t mean. Hugo isn’t making overtly hateful statements about Jews.

He is trading on a really old idea about Christianity and Judiasm that has contributed greatly to historical antisemitism.

And that’s a problem. He’s making BFP, BA, M, and the folks who are raising objections into rhetorical Jews here, just to point out how wrong they are. Against a bold progressive universal spirit Liberal Feminist/Christian, stands the particular, clannish, nit-picking, WoC/Jew.

Gawd.

This is one of those object lessons where you quickly realize the problem of living in the house…the rhetorical frames, the backgrounded ideas, the assumptions of your worldview…

…are compltely toxic.

It’s historically wrong. It’s rhetorically irresponsible.

It’s Hugo, out for a day at the park.

Kyrie eleison.

-sly

In a patriarchy, wherein one class oppresses another for its own profit, there can be no ‘consent’ between oppressor and oppressed.
-Twisty

It sounds to me like these guys would rather be having sex with their male friends,
-Comments

It’s no coincidence that “being fucked over” and “taking it up the ass” are synonymous with the most egregious examples of deceit and betrayal….Notice, too, how “bitch” has replaced the homophobic slur “cocksucker” as the most derogatory term a man can call another man. In heterodude terms, women are lower than “faggots” and as such, deserve to be brutalized and violated for the mere “thrill”. Or to put it more simply: why go out and bash “fags” when you can commit your own little hate crimes in the comfort of your own home?
-Comments

Albert is slightly different from John psychologically: rather than being a sociopathic rapist, he seems to me to have a disastrously conflated madonna/whore complex and probable OCD
-Message Board

Sorry, that’s just too disgusting. I know more than enough about human anatomy & physiology to know that the anus was designed as an exit, NOT an entrance; therefore, anal sex violates that rule completely.
-Comments

If that’s the asshat’s attitude, then I would invite him to bend over while I get the vaseline and my 10 inch thick black rubber dildo.
-Comments

[This] also explains the increasing obscenity/violence in rap and music videos, movies, etc.
-Comments

Pleasure, as well, has never been something I let be the all-important summit of to do/not to do–if this were the case the patriarchy could thrive evermore, for pleasure does not automatically parallel such things as: freedom, sexual liberation, choice, consent, needs, or will. People may receive pleasure from slapping their genitalia against a barbed wire fence–that doesn’t mean the reasoning is rooted in something sexually healthy.
-Message Board

For what it is worth I posted a comment on the article echoing the sentiment that it is rape, and upping the ante a little by listing why anal sex is bad for the recipient from a medical point of view.
-Message Board

For Best Results: Start with a chilled shaker with 5 cubes of ice, add 3 cups gin and 2 shots vermouth. Shake seven times, and empty into a chilled glass. Finish in one go, and headdesk until loss of consciousness is achieved.

-sly

PS: I’m quite purposefully not actually responding to the article itself, blameworthy as it might be.

Dearest Sister, Brothers, Siblings, and Friends;

What the hell just happened?

I saw the thread a Twisty’s fairly early on, and for some reason I thought it might go the way that 99% of twisty threads go, with limited uproar at certain venues. A full scale blogwar, complete with delinking? I must be dreaming.

That said, y’all picked a good one. Transphobia is a steaming pile of shit right in the middle of the living room of the 2nd wave, and it’s a right moment when somebody calls that out. But it’s unfortunate in so far that such fights are rarely rewarding. Nobody is in a particularly good mood at the end of it. BFP and BA, my confidential to you is to send my love and/or beer. Take care and we’ll see you around soon.

About the only thing I can pull out of this is a reminder of how important it is to think about where the State is when you do your work. My friends, intellectual and activist co-conspirators, consistently tend to de-center the state when speaking about the future. Born of a deep distrust of the claims to justice and law given by the same, this aesthetic of dissent has about jack shit for time when it comes to promoting what desperately reeks of the old order. Whether it be welfare “reform,” the State backed “knowledge” of gender essentialism, or the criticism of whatever kink or expression came under fire today, I just can’t be arsed to see such profound differences in your project and that of conservatism. Yes, your motivations may be pure as something really pure, and so, so, soooo different than that of the state’s. But surely granting that y’all have a very legitimate grievance, must it be said that in responding, not all targets are fair game? When you find yourself lining up with the most powerful forces in society in getting squicked by genderfuck…what conclusions do you draw?

That genderfuck is pro-patriarchal?

This projection is why i stick out my tongue at Heart for claiming that Rad Fems have but only advocates against the all powerful might of Pornsitution. Yes, they as Rad Fems control few of the major resources at play in the Feminist World. Sure. But when Johnny Law is in your rolodex, and you have a history of snitching? Oh, see that’s a different game. So your “idle” talk of getting rid of blowjobs and S&M (which Heart explicitly endorses*) isn’t so idle.

Did you know that: until recently, sodomy was criminal in several states and that these laws enacted the marginalization of queer community? The more you know, because knowledge is power.

If you want to understand why a lot of us are getting together in this, why oh why it seems like there is a posse, cult, sliced bread appreciation committee, or other organized groupthinking going on, all you have to do is read Janet Halley’s “Sexuality Harassment” and then Bfp’s blogging on Oaxaca. Then, if you enjoy puking in your mouth, re-read the BJ and Trans wars, courtesy of Texas’ most abstractly queer woman.** For deeply held reasons, there are POC and sexual minorities, persons in poverty, and assorted other radicals, and combinations thereof who find themselves looking for alliances with people who get it. Who are just plain suspicious of state power and the reproduction of it’s values. Who understand that the Oppression Dick Measuring contests are all pointless, when the fact is you have to be alive in order to participate. Judging by that, there are two things I can tell you:

1. There is someone, now dead, who was until very recently way more oppressed than thou, causing said death.
2. You have something better to be doing with your time.

With this firmly in hand, alliance looks a little different. Like Halley points out, not all things converge onto a single point. The language of one struggle may choke when taken to new territory. And most of all, it forwards a new vision of conflict. If one struggle for liberation conflicts with another, I’m not looking for which one has to go under the bus. Understanding someone else’s movement from the perspective of how useful their idenity is to your cause is a problem. If your language and frames of thought require this conflict? Hold fast to what is good. And incinerate the rest.

Lesbian SM play parties are not going to bring down the revolution. Consensually kissing the ass of a human being is remarkably less damaging than consenting to kiss the ass of the state. And whether or not you explicitly reference the state in your post-radfem apocalypse or not, the fact of the matter is that it’s right there. There is a history of not only state interference in certain sexualities, but of radfem cooperation with the same. Halley speaks to this in the article linked above, where emerging theories of feminist law and practice increasingly engaged the state. But as Halley notes, the act of legislating sexuality in the work place both provides protection as well as creating a mechanism capable of legally excising queer idenity.

Moreover, you are speaking in state vocabulary. The mere act of thinking to remove an act of sexual expression from the face of the earth, is not just impractical or impossible, but a fantasy deeply rooted in the kind of sexy sexy power that only a legitimate monopoly of violence can afford. Community organizing your way to the end of porn? You’re kidding me. The claim to powerlessness requires that we actually believe that this is their sole avenue of recourse. Yet you have a state, just standing there, waiting to do the same. Coincidence? Sure.

The state continues to enact extra-legal harassment, as witnessed in the devastating violence levied against transpersons by police, both directly and by the consent of inaction. Cries that “real women’s” issues will get sidetracked in the great trans conspiracy evaporate into nothing when two of the headlining causes that the radfems (SaltyC cites Slade’s article) claim will go away as “men invade feminism” are sexual assault. Uh, what? WHAT?

Most of the rest revolve around health care access that respects the needs of individual women. Which is also not an issue for transwomen. *headdesk* Do you understand the words coming out of your own mouths? Just by the taste alone, you might realize that your speech is unsavory, but I’ll keep calling it out if I have to.

Now go do something better than reading.*** I believe hugs and/or consoling alcohol is in order, so go show love for everybody who got targeted, everybody who got derailed from their work, and remind each other that we’re here for a reason.

It would warm my queer heart.

-sly

* I am aware that the charge that rad fems want to ban X, is a controversial one. A fair reading of Heart gives no other option. In the comments at “Are Feminists Allowed…” she states an open goal of eliminating certain sexual practices. There is a special level of irony of decrying the ability of Rad Fem to impose internal standards, all while engaging in sexual bullying of those engaged in alternative sexualities. Why for instance, a straight woman takes it upon herself to police the content of lesbian space in the name of feminism is beyond me.

** Twisty’s actual sex life is, duh, none of my fraking beeswax. Her public writings on sex, however, are fair game. As Belledame has written about (sorry, can’t find it right now. Belle?), twisty’s focus is consistently on heterosexual sex, mores, practices, etc… The fact that queer perspectives are getting conflated with “pornstitution” in her thought seems to hark from a heterocentrist feminism.

*** I hereby announce the Nth semi-regular Radical Fun Day, if BFP would be so kind as to let me borrow the idea. Formal announcement pending approval and the cessation of my impending hangover.

Dear Mr. Hutchinson;

Please die in a fire.

Since it apparently was not enough to help Minneapolis schools fail with your nepotistic and failed tenure, you have helped Pawlenty win again, thus jeopardizing the future of public education in our entire dear state.

In closing, die in a fire.

Sincerely,

-Sly Civilian

PS: Die in a fire.

Oh. Damns.

We’ve got another Photochopping emergency.

The brief backstory, for those arriving late like me. Billmon posts this crap, and defends it.

On the other side, we have veterans Ebogjohnson, Wampum, Kevin at Slant Truth, and more…

Go around and read the opposition, because there’s a lot more going on than just some bad taste.

Ebog talks about collateral damage…

The problem, of course, is the image’s troubling older, world historical back-story. The specific racial archetype Billmon makes use of – the white minstrel re-enacting a white fantasy about black slaves for the entertainment of even more white folks – is bigger than Billmon, Wolf Blitzer, Lynne Cheney and yesterday’s news cycle combined, so while blackface and minstrelsy might cover the CNN incident nicely, they also spill over from it onto, you know, my fucking lap, making them an attack not just on what Billmon calls “our pathetically servile corporate media” but on me as well.

Wampum gets righteous and goes for a great literary parallel, showing how good intentions just will not cut it. Check the discussion there for some of the sorriest shows of white priviledge. The liberal’s sacred right to be able to tell racist jokes “in context” is defended. It would be funny, except…

And, of course, the right-wing has had a field day with this. But that’s not what is at stake here. Lefty unity is a mirage as long as this kind of crap gets tolerated and looked over in the name of opposing the greater evil. Political Incorrectness, as we know it today, is about having the testicular fortitude to say something racist, homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise dumb…and then have the unmitigated gall to be upset that people didn’t send you flowers because it could have been more racist, homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise dumb.

Real transgression breaks this stuff down. Real courage would be a genuine apology.

-sly

Next Page »