Recently in Gender issues Category

Today's installment of this series is compliments of the social networking site, Tagged.  I've been on Tagged for a few years now and I deal with all kinds of interesting people there. As a result, I recently updated my "About Me" section on my profile to read as follows:

I'm not LOOKING for anything. I'm here to meet people and chat. If a friendship comes of it, great. If I meet someone LOCAL and we end up romantically involved, that's fine too. But I am not on any quest to find love or anything else. So don't ask me what I'm looking for. Don't ask me for my Yahoo ID, my Skype or anything else. I'm not interesting in camming. And I swear, if you ask me my age, my sexual orientation, or anything else that is already listed in my profile, I will BLOCK you for failing to take the time to go through the information I've already provided to everyone

I suspect that today's entitled asshole didn't bother to read that, otherwise I would think he might have a clue that the following first message would not be well received:

hi handsomer baby, can we hook up? am single and searching. how are you today? am seriously looking for a man to be my wife your response would be an honor. regards

First of all, I'm not sure why he both asks if we can hook up and indicates that he's looking to find a man who will be his wife.  In my experience, those tend to be two different activities.  Furthermore, while I'm sure there are exceptions, the kind of guys interested in the former aren't generally interested in the latter and vice versa.

As for bringing up marriage in the first email:  Seriously?!  All he seems to know about me is that he finds me handsome -- or possibly that he suspects I'm easily seduced by guys who compliment my looks.  He has a long ways to go with me before I'll be ready to talk about marriage.  Unfortunately for him, the trip just got permanently canceled as far as I'm concerned.

Plus there's the whole fact that he specifically said that he wants me for a wife.  If you're going to use gender-specific terms like "husband" or "wife" rather than something gender neutral like "partner," then you'd better use the term that's appropriate for my gender.  This is particularly important because I get the strong guy that this guy is intentionally using the term "wife" to indicate that he's looking for a guy to be the subordinate, weaker, and/or more submissive partner in the relationship.  That just pisses me off.  No person should be expected to be the "lesser" partner[1] in any relationship.

This also suggests to me that I don't matter.  As the potential "lesser partner," I seem to merely exist in this guy's mind to possibly meet his needs and desires.  My feelings, my needs, my expectations do not seem to matter at all.

I noted that Tagged indicates that the guy is in Kenya (hey, I told you my profile information would come in handy), so I decide to go with a curt and pointed response that says the distance is an issue for me rather than climb the "you're being an entitle ass" mountain that looms before me.

Try someone on the same continent as you.

He came back with the following response:

am in pensacola Jarred, why you scolding me away from your heart ?

Okay, so now he claims to be in Florida.  Given that I'm practically dipping my toes in Lake Ontario, the distance is still an issue.  But I have bigger issues than that, so let me go through them.

First of all, he corrects me and claims we're on the same continent.  But he doesn't say, "Wait a minute, why do you think we're on different continents?"  That's one big misconception for me to have.  If I were in his shoes, I'd want to know how someone got such an allegedly wrong idea.  (Frankly, I think he's lying and he really is in Kenya.)

Instead, this EA starts asking me why I'm "scolding him away from my heart."  Again, this is why I think he's ultimately lying.  Rather than trying to clear up the misconception, he's attempting a guilt trip here by suggesting that he's just a nice guy and I'm trying to keep him at arm's length.

Except here's the thing:  I have every right to keep him at an arms length.  By asking me why I'm "scolding him away from my heart," he's implicitly assuming that he's entitled to have my heart.  No way.  I decide who gets near my heart since, you know, it's my heart.  And this dude has already given me plenty of reasons to put a full army battalion between it and him.

So given his total sense of entitlement and the fact that he has presented me with conflicting information and has made no effort to explain it, I decided to call him on it.

According to Tagged, you are in Kenya.  Liar.

Finally he decided to offer an explanation:

am not in kenya i went there on a contract business am i have completed my contract

I'll be honest, given the rest of his behavior, I'm considering the other experiences on the site.  I've heard a lot of people talk about being from the United States, yet in Africa "on contract."  While I'll grant that this is the first EA that's claimed to be back stateside, I also recognize this is a common ruse of scammers.  I've heard the whole "I'm on contract and there's an issue with money, please help me out" bit before.  And given this guy's total sense of entitlement and the fact that his story reeks like last week's roadkill already, I'm thinking it's not much of a stretch to imagine he's a conman as well.

Before I could respond to that message, he sent me a follow-up:

how could you just make conclusion on something so irrelevant?

I'm simply amazed that someone could consider the question of where they actually are and the fact that their profile and what they are telling me don't even match up is irrelevant.  Again, this is a sure sign that what's really irrelevant is me.  As far as he's concerned, I should just STFU and be delighted that he wants me to be his "little woman."

Like that's going to happen.  So I made my feelings clear:

Still not interested.

The fun thing about EA's is that they're often masters of butthurt.  I got two final replies from him before he blocked me:

then bounce
who cares

Yeah, because he contacted me looking to get something out of me, yet I'm the one who should get lost.

As for who cares, I don't know.  Which guy spent a lot of time trying to get the other one to just trust him and give him a chance despite other guy's stated lack of interest?

Notes:
[1]  I actually think that this is a reason that gendered terms are best avoided when talking about people in relationships.  No one should be a "wife" if by "wife" we mean "lesser partner."  I think it's much better to go with gender-neutral terms[2], suggesting a more mutual and egalitarian relationship.

[2]  Though I'll admit I have a different problem with the term "partner," especially when it comes to same sex relationships.  It can be somewhat vague and allows some people to pretend that the partnership is something other than the romantic and sexual relationship it is.

This morning on my five minute commute to work, I caught part of a segment on my local morning radio show.  They were talking about relationships, dating, and the games "women" play.  (Granted, they may have talked about games "men" play too and I just missed that part.)  The part of the segment that I caught involved them talking to a female caller who talked about how she broke up with this guy and when he started dating some "hot chick," she turned around and started dating his cousin, apparently with the purpose of making said ex jealous. She also commented that the guy still wants her back, despite it being five years later.  One of the hosts (Duffy, I believe -- it usually seems to be Duffy) called her actions evil and suggested she's just keeping him around to make her feel better about herself.

Evil?  Really?  Now granted, I would not date someone in an attempt to make a third party -- even an ex -- jealous.  Nor would I necessarily brag about an ex who still has feelings for me. I'd either take that ex back or encourage them to move on with my life.  I'm not big on games.  I'm also not big on calling such actions, evil though.

I'm also not big on acting as if -- as the host does -- that these kinds of games is something that all women engage in.  I know several women who wouldn't do such things.  They're much more interested in finding men (or other women) they like who also like them and enjoy each others' company.  When it comes to exes (or other guys there's not a mutual connection with), they're much more inclined to cut them loose than play such games.  Tarring all women as such game players is both inaccurate and sexist.

I'm also not big on acting as if only women engage in these sorts of games, either.  Truth be told, I know guys who engage in such games, and other games.  Some guys go by the attitude that they have to "treat a women like shit" in order gain and keep her interest.  Guys are just as capable of such nonsense, and some of them engage in it regularly.

But you know what?  We don't treat men who play games the same way.  A morning radio host isn't likely to call such a guy or his action evil.  That's because we live in a society where we still view guys playing such games as "men being men."  We ignore it.  We permit it.  Hell, we even celebrate it and make televisions shows glorifying it.

I'm not a fan of games.  I prefer to treat dating and relationships as something much more direct and honest[1].  But I also prefer to be honest and note that a lot of people do this and that it's not limited to a particular gender or other class.  Nor do I want to support or even ignore a double standard where such games are condemned when played by one group but praised when played by another.

Note:
[1]  And there's a whole separate rant I or someone else could go into about how society tends to frown on women who are so direct and honest when it comes to relationships and their expectations, which often serves to push them towards such games.

The other day, I was reading a blog post about one of Linda Harvey's recent anti-gay screeds.  As I read through the comments, I found this doozy:

Man, she must be a dud in the sack.

Given the commenter's name (Ted), I'm going to assume he's a man.  Given the comment was left on a blog that focuses on LGBT issues, I'm going to assume that it's highly likely that Ted is a gay man.  This leads me to several thoughts, in fairly random order:
What does her ability in bed have to do with her awful and erroneous statements about gay people?
Why does a (presumably) gay guy care how she is in bed?
Why is a (presumably) gay guy placing a woman's value on how good she is in bed?

I do not care for Linda Harvey.  I have major issues -- and I'd argue rightfully so -- with the horrible things she has said about gay people and how she constantly fuels the anti-gay fires in our society.  I do not, however, feel that this gives me any right to speculate about her sex life, how satisfying she finds it, or how satisfying her partner or partners may find sex with her.  It's none of my business, and it would be downright rude of me to speculate.

Furthermore, it would be downright misogynistic of me to suggest that her ability in bed in any way reflects on her value as a woman.  And that's exactly what the above comment is intended to do, as far as I'm concerned.  It's a sexist way of dismissing the (admittedly awful) things that she says on nothing more than a personal attack framed in "women are only good for one thing" mentality.[1]

This thing is, this is not a one-time thing.  Over the years, I've seen a lot of gay men make personal attacks against anti-gay women.  I've sen many call Maggie Gallagher ugly, fat, and similar things.  Again, Maggie Gallagher says plenty of ugly things about gay people, and I don't like that.  But I do not take that as an invitation to fall into the sexist mentality that because she's a woman, I can simply dismiss her because she doesn't fit some standard of beauty.

Please, my fellow gay men.  These anti-gay women give us plenty of ammo with their words and deeds to discount, discredit, and shame them.  Please stick to that and don't fall into the pettiness of name-calling and misogyny.

[1]  And again, I cannot stress enough that I find this particularly bizarre and disgusting coming from a (presumably) gay man, because on the whole, gay men aren't interested in getting that "one thing" from women!  I have plenty of reasons to value the women in my life, and their sexual prowess does not make that list.  Ted's comment makes me wonder if he has any female friends and if so, what exactly he values about them.

Here are some words that are familiar to most Americans:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They are the most commonly quoted words from that famous document signed on July 4, 1776 which marked the beginning of the North American colonies' fight for Independence from the British crown.  I suspect that those words will be remembered and even invoked by many today, 236 years later as those of us in the United States celebrate our Independence Day.

What occurs to me as I think on those words, however, is that while they are sweeping and have far-reaching implications (despite the fact that they are gender exclusive), they were penned, signed onto, and embraced by men who applied them in a much more limited fashion.  After all, many of our nation's great founders and lovers of liberty owned slaves, denying those slaves their own liberty.  In fact, it would be almost a full century after the Declaration of Independence was signed that its principle of the God-given, inalienable right to liberty would be recognized for slaves.

I don't say this to demonize our founding fathers.  I say this to point out that, as great as they were, they were men, perfectly imperfect and equally capable of not seeing how their principles need to be applied to all people.  I say this to remind us on this holiday that we should not merely celebrate our independence -- or freedom, as it is more often (at least to my mind) called.  We should continue to make liberty for all a greater reality, because that great work started by those great men over two centuries ago has not been accomplished in full.

So today, I offer a small list of the many liberties that I see as lacking and in need of greater support and defense:

• Young black men still need the liberty to walk through certain neighborhoods without immediately being treated with suspicion.
• Women still need the liberty to pick out their clothing without worrying about how others -- particularly -- men will view and treat them based on their attire.
• Same sex couples still need the liberty to walk in public arm-in-arm or holding hands without the fear of being harassed or assaulted.
• Workers need (to keep) the liberty to form unions so that they can better bargain and fight for their needs in the face of the corporate interests of their employers.

This is just a small list.  There are many different people in this great country that values freedom who still struggle to maintain and gain some basic freedoms, both constitutional and otherwise.  I would encourage others to add to my list in the comments.  I would also say that while we celebrate our freedom today, let us keep in mind that freedom is a much more perfect and comprehensive prospect than we -- much like our founding fathers -- fully realize.  And let us continue to work to see that perfect and comprehensive prospect fully explored and fully realized.

I spent most of yesterday working the Psychic's Thyme vendor booth at the Dyke Picnic and Womyn's Festival here in Rochester.  It was an enjoyably warm day troubled only by gusts of wind that scattered fliers (even fliers weighted down by stones), merchandise, and the occasional tent (thank goodness I always stake ours, though I had to tamp a couple stakes back down later int he day).  It was also enjoyable to speak with the women who stopped by our booth.

At one point in the afternoon, a transwoman named Isabelle, came through collecting signatures of people willing to support the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) and encourage their state senators (as the state assembly has approved GENDA every session for the past five years) to support the bill.  I gladly filled out one of the cards (and was pleased though unsurprised that the two women working with me did likewise).

To be honest, I was disappointed when legislators -- with the support of many LGB[1] advocacy groups -- removed protection for gender identity and gender expression from the national Employment Nondiscrimination Act in 2007.  And on the state level, I'm pleased that organizations like the Empire State Pride Agenda recognized that the passage of the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) in 2003 was only a partial victory at best and is leading the fight to push for GENDA now.

Truth be told, some LGB people are far too willing to ignore the plight of trans* folk.  Even this past week, I saw a comment on another blog where one person expressed a desire to divorce the LGB movement from the trans* community completely.  Addressing someone who brought up the treatment received by many trans* people, this person said:

Your constant campaign to transjack every discussion is useful inasmuch as it demonstrates both the inherent predatory selfishness of trans activists (even trans poseurs like yourself) and the the foolishness of attempting to merge LGB and T. Gay people do not have to apologize for talking about gay issues. Not to you. Not to anyone. The day "LGBT" dies will be a great day for gay people.

I was amazed that someone who is (presumably) a part of my community could be so uncaring about the plight of trans* people -- to the point of demeaning their choice to focus on their issues by referring to it as "transjacking" a discussion -- shocks and dismays me.

What really got me about that "transjacking" shot was that in effect, the commenter is claiming that gay[2] people have every right to focus on gay issues since that effects them most dearly, but if trans* people do the same and focus on issues that affect them most dearly, that's a great offense.  To me, that is a mentality of someone who thinks, "Once I get mine, everyone else can go screw themselves."  Personally, I have a great problem with that mentality.  I want to rid the world of oppression and marginalization, not simply switch things around enough to make sure I'm on the "winning side of the game."

Besides, as I've slowly worked to broaden my horizons, I've come to appreciate that it's all the same fight anyway.  Understanding the arguments used against trans* people and even women helps me to better understand the underlying mentality and arguments used to promote animus against me as a gay man.  Gaining a better understanding of those common themes helps me better combat them, and I realize that whether I'm arguing against homophobia (and I admit I'm still best at this), transhobia, or sexism, I'm often effectively arguing against assumptions that influence all three.

At any rate, if you are in New York State, please see what you can do to help get GENDA passed. If you live in another state that doesn't offer protections based on gender identity and gender expression, see how you can help change that.  If you're lucky enough to live in one of the sixteen states that already have such protections, please consider working to get those protections established on the national level.  Your fellow humans who are trans* need our help.

Notes:
[1]  I'm intentionally leaving the T out this time.  I have a hard time believing that any group that would leave trans* people in the dust for the sake of convenience can realistically be credited as acting as trans* advocates at that moment.

[2]  It's not clear to me if "gay" is shorthand for "gay, lesbian, and bisexual," if "gay" simply means "gay and lesbian" and the commenter is equally willing to disregard the issues that bisexual people face as well.

This is going to be a short post.  This is intentional, because I don't want to say much.  I'm reposting the "Transgender Basics" video again, because I think it's worth watching again.  However, this time I want to focus on -- and ask my readers to focus on -- the segment titled "Gender complexity."  It starts at around 5:11 and goes until almost 9:00.  Listen to the experiences recounted by the trans* people who talk about their experiences growing up.  Try to put yourself in their shoes.



I cannot begin to imagine what it's like to identify with a gender that's different from the sex I was assigned at birth.  I cannot imagine what it's like to know in my heart that I identify with one gender while having friends, family, society telling me I can't possibly be the gender I identify with.

Listening to this video, I'm trying to imagine what that would be like, because this is the reality[1] of the people speaking in the video.  If I want to undestand them and support them, I need to struggle with that reality, I need to try to imagine what that reality is like.  I need to try and understand that reality and how that affects them, even if only imperfectly.

Note:
[1]  One of the greatest pitfalls of privileged people everywhere is that just because they can't imagine a marginalized person's reality, they subsequently deny that reality.

I apologize for not getting a blog post up yesterday.  Extra hours at work and the mental exhaustion caused by a major deadline and other factors prevailed, and I chose to spend much of the last forty-eight hours taking care of myself rather than blogging.  I hope to make time and conserve mental energy tonight to meet my blogging schedule for the rest of this week.

In the meantime, I wanted to bring attention to a week-old story from the Huffington Post. Kristen Wolfe relates a story in which two boys come in to the store she works so the older boy can buy the other one, his younger brother, a game and game controller.  The younger brother selects a game with a female character and a purple controller, specifically referring to purple as a "girl color."  All is well and everyone is happy until the boys' father gets involved.  Kristen describes his reaction:

He saw the game, and the controller, and started in on the youngest about how he needs to pick something different. Something more manly. Something with guns and fighting, and certainly not a purple controller. He tried to convince him to get the new Zombie game "Dead Island" and the little boy just stood there repeating, "Dad, this is what I want, OK?" Eventually it turned into a full-blown argument complete with Dad threatening to whoop his son if he didn't choose different items.

Kristen goes on to tell how the older brother stood up for his sibling until his father backed won and then reassured the boy.  Kristen herself spoke to the younger brother, pointing out that he should go on liking whatever it is he likes, regardless of what other people think.  It's a great story that challenges gender stereotypes and vindicates those who choose not to be limited by the narrowly defined gender roles.

I think it's equally important to note, however, that this story is also about misogyny.  The father in the story's whole problem with his younger son's choices is that, in his mind at least, they're not sufficiently "manly" choices.  That's code word for "his son is being too much like a girl."  This suggests that there's something wrong with a boy being "too much like a girl,"[1] which suggests that there's probably something wrong with being a girl.

This is my problem with ideas like "manning up" and "being a man."  They are based in the idea that "being a man" really means "not being a girl/woman."  It reinforces the idea that women are second-class humans, even if unintentionally.  And I'm not at all convinced it's unintentional.

Note:
[1]  Which means we're almost certainly in transphobic territory too.

After the trans* panel discussion on Thursday night, I talked to Kelly, one of the allies who had spoken.  She suggested I watch and blog about a video as a way to promote ongoing discussion.  The video that she suggested I blog about is called "Transgender Basics," produced by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center in New York City as part of the Gender Identity Project.  I'm embedding the video here:



There's a lot that I could and would like to say about this video, and I suspect I may do multiple blog posts about it due to the vast range of thoughts I had and my limited time today.  Part of me is tempted to hold off on this post for a few days so I can work more on it, as this topic deserves a great deal of thought and consideration.  However, my desire to keep my commitment to talking about this today is going to take precedent.  I think it would be way too easy for me to use "working on a better, more considerate post" as an excuse to procrastinate.

I think one of the things that interested me is how the Authentic Gender Model breaks down and separates physical sex, gender roles, and gender identity.[1]  Having done some reading[2] on gender essentialism and the growing body of evidence that most of the traits and roles that we tend to consider inherently gendered is a matter of social conditioning, I'm well aware that physical sex and gender roles can be quite distinct.  The idea of gender identity being a distinct paradigm separate from gender roles, however, is somewhat new to me.  It's quite possibly the one take-away from this video that I need to think more about.[3]  I hope to get a better understanding of what it means from a trans* person's perspective when zie says their gender identity is as a man, a woman, or neither.

The other part that I found interesting about the AGM was the fact that it presents even physical sex as a spectrum.  Before this video, I had never considered that there's more to physiological sex than which genitals someone has.  The video rightfully points out that even in terms physiology, sex is much more complex than the simple binary we tend to make it out to be.  To me, this strengthens the already strong argument that our understanding of gender needs to be even more complex when we start to move beyond physiology and think about roles and identity.

My first take-away from this video is an even bigger understanding of just how nuanced and complex gender actually is, and that being trans* is first and foremost about recognizing that complexity and rejecting society's attempt to force one to fit into the simplest and most inaccurate model in favor of embracing the far more complex and unique reality for oneself.

One of the things that I noticed about both the panelists from Thursday night and the trans* people who spoke in this video is that they are unique, authentic, and compelling people who are seeking to live authentic lives.  As one of the speakers in the video says, she desires people to avoid reducing her to a transwoman and see the incredible person[4] that she is overall.  I hope and trust that by allowing her and other trans* people the freedom to express their gender identity authentically, we enable them to show what incredibly unique and and complex individuals they are in other ways as well.

What are some of your thoughts on the video?

Notes:
[1] I'm intentionally leaving out the fourth component of the model, sexual orientation, for this initial post to focus on the first three.  There will be time enough to talk about sexual orientaten and how it relates to gender later.

[2]  Thank you for guiding me down that path, feminists.

[3]  I'm also hoping that the resources at the Gender Identity Project site will provide me with deeper insight.

[4]  I'm hesitant about saying "person" here rather than "woman."  On the one hand, I want to stress that her identity includes far more than her gender identity and that she's incredible for more reasons than just her gender identity.  On the other hand, I don't want to deny or ignore that identity either.  Her gender identity may not define all of who she is, but it is an integral part of who she is, and I don't want to deny or invisibilize that part of her, either.

One of the things that I liked about Thursday night's panel discussion is that the organizers included two allies in the list of panelists.  Listening to both women speak on behalf of the trans* people they support in very real ways was inspiring.  All the time I listened, I could not help but think, "This is how allies are supposed to act."

The first ally who spoke, a woman named Cassie, spent much of her time sharing an experience she had years ago while working in a psych center.  The experience centered around her acting as an advocate for a transwoman who was admitted as an inpatient -- and seemingly about the only advocate the woman had in a center full of healthcare professionals.  Over the five days that the woman was there, the staff created all kinds of problems, from putting this woman in with the men to insisting that she wear stereotypical "male" clothing instead of the clothes she brought with her to even insisting on referring to her by her male birth name.  Each time an issue came up, Cassie spoke out on the woman's behalf, reasoning that the staff was there to help this woman through her troubled times (she was there for a substance abuse issue), but by not accepting her for who she was and accommodating her needs, they were actually making things more difficult for her.  Sadly, Cassie lost the good fight, and the woman eventually checked out of the program against medical advice and disappeared.

What both amazed and inspired me about Cassie is that as she told this story, she told it with an incredible sense of compassion and passion.  Even several years after these events took place, the ferocity in her voice as she told of how this transwoman was wronged was palpable.  This woman mattered to Cassie and the injustice done to her still matters to Cassie, all these years later.

A lot of allies are justly criticized for coming across as being more interested in drawing attention to what a great ally they are rather than actually advocating for and drawing attention to those they are (allegedly) seeking to help.  Cassie and the other ally who spoke Thursday night -- another woman named Kelly -- demonstrated that this does not have to be the case.  They both focused to the plight of trans* people they knew and sought to help, communicating a deep desire to see the conditions of their lives greatly improved.  Listening to them left me inspired to emulate them, to ask, "How can I help to?  I mean, really help?"

Last night, I attended a trans* panel discussion facilitated by the Empire State Pride Agenda and hosted by the Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley.  It was attended by approximately fifty people and the presenters were incredible people whose stories were well worth hearing.  What struck me is that those who planned the event took great care to choose presenters that demonstrated the great diversity of expression in the local trans* community.  Speakers included a transwoman, a transman, a crossdresser, and a genderqueer individual.  Each of them shared a brief glimpse -- there's only so much one can share in ten minutes -- into their lives and their experiences embracing their gender identity and gender expression.  I wish more people had been there to hear these incredible people speak.

To me, it was an honor to listen as they shared a part of their lives that is rather intimate and personal.  I imagine that for them, it was an act of courageous vulnerability.  After the discussion, I approached the various panelists and thanked them for sharing their stories with me.  Each one of them responded with, "Thank you for coming and listening."

"Thank you for listening."  They didn't thank me for filling out the provided postcard asking my state senator to support the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act currently before the New York assembly and senate -- which I did do.  They thanked me for listening.  I think that's because listening is important.

While listening is not sufficient by itself to be a good ally -- a good ally is then motivated to act on what zie hears -- listening is an essential first step.  Getting to know and understand the people a person wishes to support and be an ally for helps them understand how zie can best help them rather than doing well-intentioned, but unhelpful or even hurtful things out of ignorance.  Also, I think that learning to listen and engage with the stories of others -- trans* people in this case -- humanizes them, generates empathy for them, and hopefully builds a desire to support them and their fight for equality and justice.

Over the next couple days, I hope to talk more about trans* issues, including blogging about a video one of the allies from the panel discussion recommended I blog about to encourage further discussion.  But today, in my mind, I'm still listening.  I would invite you to listen as well.

Note from Jarred:  When I began reading chapter eight of Raised Right:  How I Untangled my Faith from Politics, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much space Ms. Harris devoted to sharing her own experiences with sexism in the Church and how it affected the way she saw others who had a differing view on various subjects.  I felt it would be good to spend a bit of extra time looking at this topic.  I also felt that there was someone (several someones, actually) who was better suited to speak to the topic.  So I asked an old blogging buddy, Pam Hogeweide, if she'd be willing to write something on the topic.  After all, Pam has not only done a good deal of research on sexism in the church and women in theology, but as a woman, she has first-hand experience.  I was delighted when Pam accepted the invitation.

On an editorial note, beyond making a few visual formatting changes (such as fixing up the quotes for my blog) and bolding the word "complementarianism" where Pam gives a brief definition of the word, I have strived to duplicate Pam's words exactly as she sent them to me.

Jarred and I are blog buddies and Twitter pals. Though we've never met, we have crossed paths many times in the digital world for several years. I am honored that he has invited me to share some thoughts for his series on the book, Raised Right: How I Untangled My Faith from Politics, by Alisa Harris.

In chapter eight of the book, Alisa gives us glimpses of the sexism she experienced from her church  that has left her a bit scraped up. Female prejudice is an unfortunate reality in our culture, though Alisa sheds light on how the Christianized version of sexism tried to box her in. Like after her graduation from college. Alisa had travelled home only to find that the spiritual leaders from her childhood were there to stage an intervention:

". . . I sat between my parents and listened while our pastor and a church elder explained how my own sin required them to stage an intervention. The pastor and elder, part of a loose affiliation of fundamentalist churches, had grave reservations about women attending college when God ordained marriage and babies instead. College had changed me, they said. I talked more about careers and academics than about being a wife and a mother. . . I was no longer the kind of person they wanted their daughters to emulate."

These are harsh words hurled by men of the cloth who are attempting to keep Alisa on the straight and narrow of being a good Christian woman.  It is all too common for women from conservative Christian churches (as well as not-so-conservative) to experience this tearing at personhood for the heresy of being Her.

I am well acquainted with the complementarian position Alisa's childhood pastors asserted. I used to live under it myself and also defend it. Complementarianism is a fancy theological term that shrouds the idea that women are equal, BUT separate. It's the idea that God in his divine order of creation has uniquely created men to lead and women to assist. It's why men are the the pastor and women the secretary.

This view is based on a handful of scripture verses that at first glance seem to support the complementarian position. For instance, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Sounds pretty dire for women, doesn't it? But the same author who is given credit for penning these words--the apostle Paul--also wrote in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  So which is it Paul? Are women free to be anything or is there a hierarchal constraint designed by God?

It was these kinds of inconsistent Bible verses that got me into debates with other Christians when I was younger. I saw the world in black and white evangelical hues. I was the girl who had the bumper sticker that read, God said it, I believe it that settles it.   But I have always been a blessed woman who has possessed strong minded female friends. And it was one of those friends who first wrangled with me that God does indeed esteem women as fully as men. Just look at how Jesus treated women. He was scandalous. Rabbis of his time were not to look let alone speak to women publicly or touch them. Yet Jesus related freely with women, breaking all social and cultural and religious protocol.

So the issue of female equality in the typical protestant church is reduced to the interpretation of a few Bible verses. The problem here is that rigid beliefism locks many people into an immovable perspective that leaves no room for a spirit of inquiry or respect for differing opinions.  Like this commenter who left this challenging remark at my blog in response to my post about women's equality in the church:

You need to be reminded that this world isn't about you and what goes on in your mind. This about God and what he wants, and if he were to demand that there be a separate, lower section of seats in the church for women to sit in, then as a believer in God you better sit there! Now obviously I'm using a more extreme case of "sexism" or whatever you would call it to illustrate my point, but at least you understand it.
 If you disagree with that argument then you are disagreeing with God, because whatever God asks of you, you need to do.
 It's a simple fact that Eve took the fruit and ate it before giving it to Adam and convincing him to eat it as well. So you tell me, why do you think God doesn't want women to lead the church?   (from How God Messed Up My Religion)

I wish I were making this up, but nope, sexism is alive and well in the 21st century and it's dressed up in pretty church language in Christendom.

A woman's identity is overrun with messages from her church that she is to be the sidekick to man's leading role in the narrative of life. These forces shape and inform a woman's perception of herself. Alisa reveals this when she writes,

"I sat through sermons where the pastor said we should train our children--but especially our sons--to be spiritual warriors, as if women's warfare was battling a grimy kitchen instead of the forces of darkness. I sat heavy in my seat while the pastor invited the men and boys, but not the women, to pray for a teenager going on a mission trip. Women probably shouldn't be missionaries, said the pastor's kid."

A thousand instances like this one will affect the image of God a woman will internalize.
I remember one women's Bible study I attended years ago. One of the participants said out loud to us in a moment of vulnerability, "I wonder if God just thinks women are meant to be doormats." She began crying with that admission, her feminine wound bleeding out  on the clean church carpet. The room sat quietly, and then, the moment passed, and we resumed our discussion of why biblical submission is a Christian woman's duty.

I've blogged about these things many times. There is always pushback like from the commenter above. It is controversial, and this I find absurd, an absolute absurdity that the issue of women and equality in church is an issue at all.

Hear me on this: in the 19th century American church, slavery was a controversial issue!

I'm glad Alisa is telling it like it is. Women need to do this. We need to tell our stories, to say out loud what's happened to us and to make sure we don't minimize Christianized oppression as a mere theological hiccup that's irritating but has to be accepted. No. I don't think so, and it sounds like Alisa doesn't think so either. The church might not have raised her right in helping empower her in all her womanly glory, but she's managed to find her voice despite her conditioning to be a domesticated female. That makes her a warrior woman  in my mind, no matter her faith or politics.

Pam Hogeweide is a blogger and writer. Her first book, Unladylike: Resisting the Injustice of Inequality in the Church, confronts and dismantles Christianized sexism. It will be released by on Amazon January 23. Pam lives in Portland, Oregon with her husband Jerry and their two teenagers.

Patriarchy sucks for a lot of people.  Some of those people are men.  After all, patriarchy seeks to establish some sort of code on what it means to be a man and enforce it.  That means that if some man -- I'll use myself as an example -- don't meet that code, we are deemed "not man enough" and are often ridiculed and mistreated by the patriarchy's many enforcers.

According to the patriarchy, my "manhood" is open for debate because:

• I am terrible at sports.
• I tend to be very sensitive an emotional.
• I like various "girly" things.
• I like kissing other men, not to mention doing other things with them.

Being teased or having my "manhood" questioned isn't fun.  Like I said, not being a sufficiently sanctioned "real man" in the patriarchy sucks.

But you know what sucks even more in the patriarchy?  Being a woman.  This is because women are the real targets of the patriarchy.[1]  The whole reason that the patriarchy wants to define what it means to be a "real man" is to set men apart from women, demonstrate that they're extra-special, and thereby justify and maintain male superiority, male privilege, and male dominance.

Patriarchy's mistreatment of me is a side effect of its real objectives, which is to wage war on women.  To put it more bluntly, I'm nothing more than collateral damage.[2]  Furthermore, while I may be hurt by patriarchy, I also benefit from it and the privileges being male grants me:

• It's highly unlikely that my accomplishments will be overlooked or diminished by men who are more interested in how big my breasts are or how good I am in bed.
• I don't have to be nearly as worried about whether the man who strikes up a conversation with me at the coffee shop will rape me because he thinks he's entitle to any man he decides to be friendly toward.
• Not many people will be inclined to assume that I can't possibly be an engineer, a firefighter, a doctor, or a soldier simply because I'm a man.[3]

I don't bring this up to diminish the fact that I and other men are hurt by the patriarchy.  I do, however, want to put the harm done to us into the proper context, because I feel that context recommends the best response I and other men can make.

If we are collateral damage in the patriarchy's war on women, then I think it's time to start allying ourselves with the women in that war.  After all, if we're all being hurt by the patriarchy, it's time we all start fighting against that same patriarchy.  And that's why I'm for promoting feminism and feminists.

This is where I think it's important to understand that as men hurt by the patriarchy, we're collateral damage rather than the actual targets, our role in this fight is also secondary.  I strongly believe we need to follow the women's lead in this fight.  As I said in my previous entry, we can't make this all about us, even though we will benefit in the process.[4]  But we need to be willing to set aside our egos and our desire to take the center stage -- reasserting that same male privilege that the patriarchy already grants us[5] -- and work as supporters and allies.

Notes:
[1] Actually, I suspect that trans* people of all types also qualify as real targets as well.  After all, whereas I might question the gender policing that the patriarchy uses to enforce male superiority and dominance, trans* people reject it thoroughly and completely by having the "gall" to refuse to "stick with their rightly assigned gender."

[2] Not that this makes me or other man any less injured.

[3] People might assume that I can't do some of those things because I personally am lacking in some way as an individual.  They'd be right.  But there's a difference between that and assuming women can't do those same things because they're the same.  I'm a man, so I get to be an individual.

[4] And despite what some may think or claim, many feminists want us men to benefit from feminism.  I've heard far more women talk about how patriarchy hurts men than I've heard men talk about it.

[5] And that's the thing.  It seems like a lot of men who are hurt by the patriarchy aren't ready to give up the ways in which the patriarchy still serves them.  They want to be able to "like girly things" -- to pick an example -- yet still maintain some sort of special status over women.  Fighting the patriarchy doesn't work like that though.  You fight it all or you ca't really fight it at all.

I've had a few ideas for a post running around in my head for a few days now.  I want to explore how gender is treated in modern Paganism, how a binary view of gender[2] influences Paganism (most notably Wicca and those traditions closely related to it), and whether it's a good or bad thing.  However, that post is nowhere near ready to go up.  However, thinking about the topic brought up a recent memory that I'd like to reflect on.

Earlier this year, Z. Budapest came to our town and held a tarot workshop at Psychic's Thyme, in which each woman in attendance received a personal reading from Ms. Budapest.  The event was well attended and from all reports I've heard, it was a great success.

As the event approached, I had many customers at the shop ask me if I was planning to attend.  I'd simply smile and point out that I would not be attending, as the workshop was for women only, and express hope that they would have a good time at the workshop.

Apparently, during the workshop, one of the women decided to ask Ms. Budapest why she had made the event women only.  She started her reply by explaining that this was a special event intended to strengthen and nurture women, and that part of that was giving them a special place free with men.  I'm totally on board with her on all of those points.  While I certainly would have enjoyed to meet and learn from someone as experienced and renowned as Ms. Budapest, I agree that -- especially in our patriarchal society that tends to devalue and marginalize women -- it makes perfect sense to say, "some things are just for the women because they deserve it."

The ending of her explanation was a bit more problematic to me.  Part of her argument was that men already have a "special place" that caters to them.  She went on to say that the place in question is known as the Vatican.

As I said, I have no problem with women-only events and spaces.  In fact, I highly approve of them.  However, I do take issue with the suggestion -- even if done in jest -- that as a man, I have my own space within the Catholic church.

The first -- somewhat obvious in my opinion -- with that suggestion is that as a gay man, I'm not a "proper man" in the eyes of the Vatican.  I don't meet their understandings of what the proper role of men is, at least when it comes to terms of sexual behavior.[3]  In short, I don't meet the Catholic standards of manhood and would find any attempt to do so terribly painful.  As I've heard some feminists say, patriarchy is hell on women in particular, but it's ultimately not good for anyone.

That actually brings me to my second issue with the suggestion.  If patriarchal institutions like Catholicism aren't good for anyone -- or even if they were bad for women and perfectly fine for men in general and me in particular -- why would I want to take part in it, thereby supporting its continuation.

There are a lot of patriarchal institutions out there, and the problem isn't just the Catholic church.  Some of those institutions -- like my career field -- would be hard, if not impossible to simply walk away from.  I have to deal with the fact that I'm a part of them -- and I try my best not to feed into their patriarchal nature and even do what little I can think of to help break it down.  But I have no reason or need to be a part of Catholicism, and I certainly don't want to support or endorse its institutionalized patriarchy.[4]

If I'm going to seek out a male-only, male-affirming space, I'd much rather find one that has figured out how to be male-affirming without doing so at women's expense.

Note:
[1]  And I pray for the day I figure out how to stop doing so altogether.  Even unintentionally.

[2]  Though it may be more accurate to say that polarities are discussed in gendered terms, but that's something that needs a full post to explore.

[3]  I suspect that's not the only place the Catholic church might take issue with my "masculinity," however.

[4]  Plus, there's a good bit of Catholic theology I disagree with, being a Vanic witch and all.

Trigger Warning:  Brief mentions of homophobia, transphobia, racism, misogyny, and rape culture.

There's a lot of good material to discuss in chapter seven of "Raised Right:  How I Untangled my Faith from Politics" by Alisa Harris.  However, for today's post, I want to focus on the following statement, made toward the end of the chapter:

Our gayness, blackness, whiteness, femaleness are not parts of a complete identity but our whole identity, elevated from an accident of birth to a political credo.  We become misshapen when all the spiritual and intellectual parts of our identity become merely political.

There have been a number of instances in the book so far where Ms. Harris has offered some wonderful and self-reflective insights into her experiences with conservative Christianity, only to incorrectly -- in my opinion at least -- projects those insights onto liberals, feminists, QUILTBAG people, and others.  As this particular instance is especially egregious in my mind, I want to take the time to draw attention to it.

There may be some truth, at least in some instances, to Ms. Harris's suggestion that one's race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or some other aspect of one's life that tends to take central stage, possibly to the exclusion of others.  As a gay man, I am particularly fond of the following line spoken by John Mahoney's character in "The Broken Hearts Club:"

Sometimes I wonder what you boys would do if you weren't gay. You'd have no identity. It was easy when you couldn't talk about it. Now it's all you talk about. You talk about it so much that you forget about all the other things that you are.

However, I think it's important to understand why this is often the case, which Timothy Olyphant's character in the same movie explains so well.  To paraphrase[1], he suggests that a lot of gay guys tend to spend so much time hiding, denying, and even trying to change who they are that when they finally come to accept their orientation, they feel like they "have a lot of catching up to do."

I think we can expand on that sentiment by considering the way in which people are marginalized, repressed, and dehumanized for being gay, female, trans* or a racial minority.  Whether we look at racism, transphobia, homophobia, or misogyny, the message that many in our society -- and the system itself -- sends to many such people is clear:  "You are not fully human because of who you are."

When someone's basic humanity is constantly[2] diminished, challenged, and denied because of some aspect of zirself then it is perfectly reasonable that defending zir humanity from those attacks, which means focusing on that aspect of zirself.  For women, racial minorities, and QUILTBAG people, defending their rights and devoting significant amounts of time is a matter of self-respect and even survival.  Comparing the amount of time that such marginalized people spend on those endeavors to the endeavors of the conservative political efforts -- efforts that often translate to the continuing marginalization of other people, is dubious at best.

I am thankful that Ms. Harris has rethought many of her previously held positions and untangled her faith from her politics.  However, when it comes to considering the plight of marginalized people and how they choose to handle that plight, I think she needs to think things through a bit more.

Notes:
[1]  Unfortunately, I couldn't find an exact quote online.

[2]  And the constant presence of such othering of various groups is something that people who do not belong to those groups[3] often miss.

[3]  And this is true among the various marginalized groups, even.  For example, I'm constantly amazed at just how pervasive the rape culture and other forms of misogyny is as I read feminist blogs.  Being gay does not automatically sensitize me to the struggles others face.