"Equal rights once achieved are not equally accessed nor equally distributed."
Urvashi Vaid, Irresistible Revolution pg 228
[Image: A Black woman holding a pink sign that says, “Sleeping on the streets or walking down the aisle? It’s time to start prioritizing LGBT youth.”]
I saw this floating around facebook today. Credit where credit is due.

[Image: A Black woman holding a pink sign that says, “Sleeping on the streets or walking down the aisle? It’s time to start prioritizing LGBT youth.”]

I saw this floating around facebook today. Credit where credit is due.

[Image: photo of “family” car stickers portraying a nuclear family of one mom and one dad]

So I found this while shopping for stuff for my new apt. The fact that a nuclear family is portrayed is fine, but I’m taking issue with the fact that THE nuclear family was the only option available to consumers.

[Image: photo of “family” car stickers portraying a nuclear family of one mom and one dad]

So I found this while shopping for stuff for my new apt. The fact that a nuclear family is portrayed is fine, but I’m taking issue with the fact that THE nuclear family was the only option available to consumers.

Stonewall was a Wedding?

Are we done yet? Do we have to endure another full day of self-congratulation at Obama’s personal endorsement of same-sex marriage? His announcement was heralded with as much praise as last summer’s legalization of gay marriage in New York. And that was, you know, actual legislation.

This is hardly surprising given the fact that marriage equality is designed to distract liberal consciences and give Democrats political cover to gut social services. While the passage of gay marriage enjoyed the support of prominent campaign donors, it was directly preceded by cuts to homeless shelters for queer youth. It’s a campaign season bait-and-switch — winning votes without making real concessions.

Case in point: Bloomberg commended Obama for joining a legacy of “courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village.” This days after slashing youth homeless shelter funding by $7 million, in a city where40% of homeless youth are LGBT.

Looked at from this vantage point, the chief beneficiaries of gay marriage will be Crate & Barrel, not the queer folks with the most desperate needs. There is an obvious disconnect between the desires of politically connected, wealthy gay people and the needs of queer youth, and yet the major gay rights organizations have all rallied around gay marriage as if it will solve the problems of gay people everywhere, regardless of race or class.

Gay marriage proponents feed us two flavors of justification for their crusade. For the romantics they supply fantasy — the notion that legal inclusion brings social justice; for the cynics, they tout the thousand individual rights that a marriage certificate bestows.

These arguments should raise serious red flags for the Jacobin rank-and-file, and indeed, neither holds water. You’d think in the “age of the 99%,” we teeming masses would be able to see that what’s good for the few isn’t good for us all. It’s true that marriage comes with material advantages — healthcare, citizenship, and inheritance chief among them — but therein also lies the problem. Marriage consolidates privilege by creating a legal basis for denying access to those thousand rights; it literally sanctions discrimination. Instead of bestowing rights based on relationship status, the state should guarantee those rights for all people. Instead we attach basic rights to an institution with a 50% failure rate.

The obsession with marriage also sanitizes the history of queer struggle. Stonewall was not a wedding, it was a riot, led by the very queers who are now erased from the public image of gay equality. Drag queens, trans people of color, young queers, and butch dykes fought systematic violence and in Sarah Schulman’s words, “[…] arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States.” That transformative vision has been sidelined by the marriage crowd, who are content to bestow rights only on the deserving few. Are there really members of our society undeserving of health care?

Only the most privileged among us could possibly see the fight for the right to party as a movement for social justice. Proponents tout the implications for healthcare and immigration status while members of our queer and trans communities are denied basic treatment in prison, while they are harassed and ejected by ICE. Loving couples making a public commitment to one another is a beautiful thing, but it is erroneously touted by gay rights groups as the single most pressing justice issue facing queer people. Issues of access to healthcare, education, and housing go unmentioned.

Look no further than Argentina for real leadership in queer politics. While we were busy patting ourselves on the back, the Argentine legislature passed the Gender Identity Law, arguably the most gender-affirming bill in any country, to date. Argentineans can now change their legal genders without having to demonstrate any medical treatment, and the public and private healthcare systems in the country are banned from charging extra for gender-related therapies or procedures. These changes may not have the comforting ring of wedding bells, but they address administrative inequalities that present huge obstacles to trans people in accessing basic services. And it teaches us that by building power for vulnerable communities, legislative reform can be an important part of movements for social justice.

"I will NOT stop being angry. I will hold this hatred for injustice so close to my heart it will gather soul samples. I will NOT stop being angry. To do so would be to go quietly into the night. Wading in the water doesn’t stop when the tide draws near. I will be angry and when others join me, we will see a collective diamond come from from the coal of oppression."
Anonymous

Santorum Booed Off Stage in New Hampshire

CONCORD, N.H. — As Rick Santorum sprinted Thursday through New Hampshire, a state with fewer social conservatives than Iowa, his views on social issues like same-sex marriage were quickly challenged.

A midday event in front of a gathering of college students here turned into a testy exchange in which Mr. Santorum compared allowing gay couples to marry to polygamy, apparently equating the two as equally undesirable.

“If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” he asked.

The students booed Mr. Santorum during the 10-minute exchange and loudly booed when he left the room. The students were part of College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College and open to students from all over the state, regardless of political party.

More here.

"Whenever the need for some pretense of communication arises, those who profit from our oppression call upon us to share our knowledge with them. In other words, it is the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes. […] This is a constant drain of energy which might be better used in redefining ourselves and devising realistic scenarios for altering the present and constructing the future."
Audre Lorde

When I see this on my dash: “Chivalry is only dead if you let it die”

kill-to-save-a-life:

andyouhavetogivethemhope:

kill it. it reeks of sexism and misogyny.

Feminist, always killing a man’s attempts of romanticism

i feel that you misunderstand me. lets take a stereotypical act of “chivalry” — a man holding a door open for a woman. please bear with me here, this is kind of a long read. it is an excerpt from Marilyn Frye’s The Politics of Reality (1983). She asserts that the act of opening a door must be viewed not as a single act, but as a piece of a much larger picture. and because we live in a patriarchal society that actively oppresses the female gender and anything resembling a feminine attribute, the act must be viewed through that lens. because of this context, these often well intentioned acts, such as opening  door, are ultimately patronizing and mock women. women are more than capable of opening a door themselves. they don’t need help with that. as Frye explains, women need help in manner that actually means something. where are these “chivalrous” men when it comes to fighting for women’s rights? when it comes to assuring that women get paid as much a men? when it come to calling people out on sexist jokes and sexist behaviors? when it comes to making sure women have affordable and equal access to heathcare? where are these men when one in four women will be victims of sexual assault in their lifetime? those are the real issues that women need help with. not opening a door. those issues are romantic! i identify as a gender queer woman who is attracted to women and even i  would think a man being involved in these issues is more attractive than a man holding a door for me. so please take the time to read this excerpt from Frye’s book and rethink your politics of helping women. you’re heart is in the right place.

also, feminism is not about man hating. it’s the radical idea that women should be treated as equals.

Frye:

"The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them. "Now how," one innocently asks, "can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress.” But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.

The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false. This can be seen by noting that it will be done whether or not it makes any practical sense. Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first. The act is not determined by convenience or grace. Furthermore, these very numerous acts of unneeded or even noisome “help” occur in counter-point to a pattern of men not being helpful in many practical ways in which women might welcome help. What women experience is a world in which gallant princes charming commonly make a fuss about being helpful and providing small services when help and services are of little or no use, but in which there are rarely ingenious and adroit princes at hand when substantial assistance is really wanted either in mundane affairs or in situations of threat, assault or terror. There is no help with the (his) laundry; no help typing a report at 4:00 a.m.; no help in mediating disputes among relatives or children. There is nothing but advice that women should stay indoors after dark, be chaperoned by a man, or when it comes down to it, “lie back and enjoy it.”

The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable. The detachment of the acts from the concrete realities of what women need and do not need is a vehicle for the message that women’s actual needs and interests are unimportant or irrelevant. Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

One cannot see the meanings of these rituals if one’s focus is riveted upon the individual event in all its particularity, including the particularity of the individual man’s present conscious intentions and motives and the individual woman’s conscious perception of the event in the moment. It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic view and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macroscopically. At any rate, whether it is deliberate or not, people can and do fail to see the oppression of women because they fail to see macroscopically and hence fail to see the various elements of the situation as systematically related in larger schemes.”

[Image: A grey background with purple letters that say, “Fight hate everyday”]
A rant: I hate “spirit days.” I hate when mainstream organizations like GLAAD and HRC sponsor a day to bring recognition to the the plight of gender and sexual minority (GSM) individuals. Discrimination doesn’t exist for one single day a year and neither should people’s “support” for a marginalized group. Simply changing a facebook picture or wearing a purple shirt for one day is great, don’t get me wrong. But we need people out on the streets everyday: from calling out people on the use of derogatory slurs to attempting to abolish the gender binary. Yes, I changed my profile pic on facebook today, but I’m also out there living and fighting the systematic oppression everyday. So I find it rather patronizing when facebook “turns purple” and all of sudden people think “progress” has been made. End rant.

[Image: A grey background with purple letters that say, “Fight hate everyday”]

A rant: I hate “spirit days.” I hate when mainstream organizations like GLAAD and HRC sponsor a day to bring recognition to the the plight of gender and sexual minority (GSM) individuals. Discrimination doesn’t exist for one single day a year and neither should people’s “support” for a marginalized group. Simply changing a facebook picture or wearing a purple shirt for one day is great, don’t get me wrong. But we need people out on the streets everyday: from calling out people on the use of derogatory slurs to attempting to abolish the gender binary. Yes, I changed my profile pic on facebook today, but I’m also out there living and fighting the systematic oppression everyday. So I find it rather patronizing when facebook “turns purple” and all of sudden people think “progress” has been made. End rant.

happy national coming out day!
this is me repping today at boston logan int’l airport

happy national coming out day!

this is me repping today at boston logan int’l airport


friend…. no. the struggle of gender and sexual minority (GSM) americans is in NO way similar to the struggle of african americans in this country. gsm individuals were not
1. taken by force from their homeland
2. brutally enslaved for centuries
3. systematically lynched
4. subject to systematic, government sponsored segregatation
5. subject to contemporary, systematic racism
for more on this subject please read a reblogged post regarding the appropriation of the civil rights movement and the struggle of black people to the women’s rights movement. or if you have any questions on this, feel free to inbox me.

friend…. no. the struggle of gender and sexual minority (GSM) americans is in NO way similar to the struggle of african americans in this country. gsm individuals were not

1. taken by force from their homeland

2. brutally enslaved for centuries

3. systematically lynched

4. subject to systematic, government sponsored segregatation

5. subject to contemporary, systematic racism

for more on this subject please read a reblogged post regarding the appropriation of the civil rights movement and the struggle of black people to the women’s rights movement. or if you have any questions on this, feel free to inbox me.

You know you’re a radical queer feminist when…

you have a writer’s blackout and find you have suddenly written this regarding your summer internship at the Human Rights Campaign:

As Audre Lorde says, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.” Because the Human Rights Campaign has chosen to use commercialism and consumerism to make change in the world, it will only get so far. This is evident in the organization’s priorities: marriage, a now social institution used to reap financial benefits from an already corrupt system and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a step that now allows sexual minorities (remember, trans individuals still cannot serve in the military) to fight and die in morally bankrupt wars aimed at expanding the United State’s imperial agenda.

reposting this bc i love it so much

reposting this bc i love it so much