The Feminist Label

So, as a result of having more conversations about my own identity, as well as having more radical feminism in my life, I’ve begun to think a little more about my own views on feminism.

I think its important to describe my journey through feminism as a sort of back-story to where I am now. My feminist journey began in the privileged land of academia. I started consciously thinking about patriarchy and the systematic/institutionalized nature of oppression while in a Women’s Studies class at Michigan State. I had primarily signed up for the class to find dyke friends (romantic and otherwise). I had just come out to myself and folks around me. I had no idea where to meet queer people, especially those who were into politics like I was. I figured a Women’s Studies class was a good start.

Anyways, back to the journey…when I started the class I thought men could be feminists. By the end of the class I believed that they could not. I had come to believe that without having experience as a woman, you could not be a feminist, merely a great feminist ally.

I believed this until VERY recently (read today). I still believe it to some degree, but its more complex than that. I will still argue that cis-gendered men cannot be feminists for the reason above, but as for folks of other genders and gender presentations, the lines aren’t so clear.

I was thinking about my own gender identity (which is neither here nor there) and what effect that would have on my identity as a feminist. Based on how I currently do/don’t identify genderwise, does that mean that I never was a woman and/or never experienced the world as a woman?

I was wrestling with ideas about sex assignment at birth, FTM and MTF experiences I’ve heard, transfeminist theory, lesbian separatist theory, and more. Then it sort of hit me. I realized that since part of my criteria for being a feminist is having personal experience being oppressed as a woman, genitalia and gender identity are not the only factors, but that how you move within society plays a large role in it. (Not that this is really a profound or unique thought, but I actually got it/understood it and sort of internalized these ideas only recently)

If you have experienced oppression in society as a woman (whether that was/is how you identify or not), I feel that if feminist is a label that you identify with, then you might be a feminist. If you fit the previous bit of criteria and make a conscious effort to look at how you currently move or have moved within society based upon how your gender is read and put forth efforts to resist or end patriarchy, then I would say, you’re probably a feminist.

For myself, I worry that since my gender seems to be navigating away from woman (but not towards man), and that because I’m viewed by society as more “masculine”, that perhaps my identity as a feminist is a form of co-option. The statements in the previous paragraph are things that I’m going to try to think about more and keep in mind. I think I’ll find them helpful and somewhat comforting, especially when I begin the internal dialog about how much privilege you can even actively resist.

On a final note, I want to mention that I do not want to simply lump the experiences and oppression that transwomen face, especially during childhood and adolescence with those of folks that are read by society as girls/women. How the oppression of young transwomen looks and plays out (both on individual and societal levels), I recognize is different. To simply say that they’re the same is to ignore obvious ways in which some young transwomen benefit from male privilege as children, while cisgendered women benefit from cisgender privilege throughout their lives.

Pride or Lack Thereof

So, I’ve been pretty depressed about the lack of queers in my life since I moved to Detroit a year ago (it’s my one-year Detroit anniversary today!). Today, while reading an article critiquing white feminism, I took notice when the author, being a white woman herself, would talk about feeling heartbroken/frustrated/upset with assimilationist white feminists. I began to think about my feelings about the queer community and then came to the realization that I have plenty of queers around me in Detroit (or could if I went up to the suburbs more), but that what I’m really missing is anybody to talk queer politics with.

I went to Motor City Pride this weekend (held in Ferndale, not Detroit) and was bombarded by people asking me to sign petitions for hate crimes legislation, booths about ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, plenty of booths selling tacky rainbow items, and corporate ads in the form of commemorative trinkets (think rainbow bead necklaces with a Budweiser emblem hanging down). I admittedly had a blast seeing old friends, having a few drinks, and taking in/admiring the temporary increased queer visibility, but a few days later I’m just so frustrated and disappointed.

Seeing all those people excited about celebrating their rejection of heteronormativity and gender roles was great. Watching how they all blindly line up to sign HRC petitions to strengthen hate crimes legislation or other petitions to lift Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had my stomach churning.

Here are the things that irritate me the most about Pride:

1. The absurd amount of cheap goods (probably made in sweatshops), that supposedly help you better express to the world your sexuality.

2. Alcohol companies take advantage of the fact that during these events folks feel more safe or inclined to express their sexuality or engage in sexual activity. They know folks like to drink to help this process along, so these companies make sure that they sponsor these sorts of events. Too many folks in the queer community take this as a sign that these companies support and respect them, their identities, and their lives. That’s not true. You’re a market and they will treat you well, as long as you keep buying what they’re selling. I don’t think that’s respect for the queer community, but rather exploitation.

3. People speaking nothing but praise for HRC, Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, etc. These groups focus a lot on passing hate crimes legislation, which only supports and strengthens our criminal justice system. Putting more people in prison/jail and keeping them there longer, does absolutely nothing to increase understanding or end homophobia. These groups should be spending their money elsewhere. Have folks failed to notice how awful the criminal justice system has treated and currently treats queer people? Why on earth would you want to strengthen a system that is horribly racist, perpetuates heteronormativity, disproportionately hurts folks in lower classes, enfores gender roles, etc.?

4. Marriage ceremonies and a focus on same-sex marriages is so key at Pride events. A traditionally oppressive institution that replicates heteronormativity should not take up a majority of our time, attention, or any other resources. As a group whose relationships have been consistently labeled less than, why should we participate in privileging one type of relationship (a marriage) over another?

5. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is another favorite focus of HRC and other assimilationist queer groups. Great, let’s do something that strengthens the military, which violently promotes U.S. imperialism and white supremacy all across the globe.

I think what I’m really sad about is not having queer folks around me that share similar frustrations. I think I also get frustrated at the fact that I allow myself to get excited about these Pride events and then every year, its the same thing. Time to think about something more exciting…like going to Como’s . (Hopefully some of you get the irony)

California’s Gay Marriage Decision

Before I even get started (and trust me, I have a LOT to say), I want to mention a few things that I think are important for folks to keep in mind while reading this. First, I will most likely use sexual orientation throughout this post, as it is the phrase used by the California Supreme Court. Right now, my own preference is toward sexual preference, but I need to give that debate some more thought on my own. Also, this post will most likely be extremely binaristic. Despite my own happily undecided gender identity, I will most likely revert to binaristic language and thought, a) because this is the language used in the court decision, and b) because it is the language that growing up, I am the most familiar with. Lastly, I want to mention that I do not support the privileging of one type of relationship over another and thus do not believe in marriage, but due to my own personal preference for monogamy, I will undoubtedly talk about this issue in terms that are not inclusive to polyamorous folks. This is not meant to be completely politically sound, but merely my thoughts on the situation/decision in California, as I can best verbalize my thoughts and feelings at 2:00am. I apologize if my own cultural and societal position/upbringing/baggage make folks who read this feel uncomfortable, offended, etc. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ME OUT WHERE NECESSARY. Like I said, these are just my gut reactions, not my response after days of critical analysis on the topic. Here we go…

Today, while cruising the internet, I found out that the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Part of me was absolutely thrilled and the other part of me (the part that is frustrated at the gay and lesbian rights movement’s focus on marriage) was slightly irked. As I read the actual decision, which I’m only half-way through, I became more positive about the situation.

The Supreme Court of California’s decision recognized marriage, and the opportunity to marry, as a constitutionally protected right (within the state of California). The decision also broke some new ground when it found that although the decision was one where previously the discrimination had to pass merely a rational-basis test to be deemed constitutional, that it failed to pass a strict scrutiny analysis (which is the criteria typically reserved to only ethnic and racial discrimination). Basically it means that there is no way that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutional when it comes to marriage rights.

The court declared that even if the exact same rights were given to same-sex couples, if the union did not have the label of “marriage”, the relationship would not be treated with the same “dignity and respect” as opposite-sex marriages, thus putting same-sex relationships into a lower class.

The California Supreme Court, also referenced quotes from previous Supreme Court opinions in order to support their case. I see these as call-outs and not necessarily something of importance. Its not like I really trust the US Supreme Court to truly protect the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority, but at least while I read it, in my head I could say, “OOooo, burned!”

The decision also stated that past views and tradition regarding marriage are not relevant and that as times and society change, so must the ways in which the law and civil rights are interpreted.

The opinion also legally recognized that queer people (homosexuals is the word they use), have historically been systematically discriminated against within American society. This is huge to me. I know its probably not the first time this has been mentioned in a legal opinion, but it was the first time I have read something that validated my reality in such a way.

As I read the initial reports on CNN, BBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and the NY Times, I began to think of the possibilities and my own judgements about the gay and lesbian movement (yes, I am purposely using “gay and lesbian movement”). I consistently berate the gay and lesbian movement as having its priorities in the wrong place. While I do believe that time, money, and emotional efforts may be better invested in queer liberation, versus marriage equality, I do not believe that these fights are necessarily pointless or unimportant. I think that if within society, queerness and queer lives become more mainstream, a greater increase in tolerance and hopefully understanding will follow. This greater understanding, I hope, could lead to further conversations and an even more in-depth understanding of the possibilities of queer liberation and the end of other types of oppression.

What worries me is that folks that have been so vocal for same-sex marriage rights will become complacent and thus silent on issues that involve truly respecting and understanding various sexual and gender identities. I worry that they will not fight to end all oppression, but become more entrenched and invested in an institution that perpetuates the very things that inhibit our liberation (as people, not merely as queers). In my perfect world, queer folks, after winning the right to marry, would collectively announce that we all refuse to marry, because the institution of marriage itself is oppressive and counterproductive to true revolution and liberation. I don’t think my dream will ever be realized though.

I guess I’m intrigued as to where folks will go from here and what will be next. I am consistently surprised at conversations surrounding queer liberation. Whenever I’m in the midst of radical queers, new issues, information and practices are brought up that get me (and I hope others) thinking. I have examples, but will keep them to myself to prevent from boring whoever might be reading this. The possibilities that could arise from this decision could be either awful or amazing, in terms of potential for creating change. Despite my disdain for authority and government, I do feel that the Constitution has some things right, like the whole Equal Rights Clause (how its been interpreted is problematic, but the general idea of it, I like). If certain states begin to interpret the Equal Rights Clause appropriately, perhaps that can do some good and help change attitudes, opinions, and possibly whole paradigms for the way people think about certain issues (don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath for this).

Maybe I’m trying to justify my excitement over this to myself in political terms that I am relatively ok with, but I like to think that this decision is progressive and not counterproductive to the queer liberation movement as a whole. If nothing else, I think this decision gives many folks hope. I think it can also lead folks to believe that they can help create change. If this decision gives people hope and confidence in their abilities to create social justice, then I suppose its a good thing.

I’m excited for the battles, struggles, and possibilities that lay in the future. I promise to write more on this topic and others. I’ve read a lot today on the US Constitution, the Defense of Marriage Act, and other legislation and legal documents that apply to gay and lesbian couples (trans folk are absent from these discussions, as are folks with other sexual preferences/orientations). I have many more thoughts currently, but am tired and have work in the morning. I’m sure in the next few days I will have an exponential amount of thoughts regarding this issue and others. I’ll try my best to keep folks posted.

I’ve Done It

Due to some goading by a friend, I finally started a blog. I’m nervous about it, but hopefully it will turn out ok. I decided to do this in conjunction with writing my thoughts on feminism, gender, and patriarchy into an actual journal. I enjoy the physical act of writing, but also need to start letting people read what I write and respond to it. Writing in my journal allows me to easily keep my ideas and thoughts private. I think its best to let people read what I’m actually writing and for me to see their responses. I think this will be an adventure and will allow me to test how brave I can be. I also think it will be extremely rewarding to hear criticisms and have my ideas challenged. If I never hear any feedback, my ideas will never really grow or evolve. I’ll end up running in circles or at a dead end. I’m still nervous, but excited, about this whole thing. Personal change makes me nervous, but I suppose I’ll never truly be able to create change, if I’m not willing to change myself (cheese anyone?).