"Where are you from?"
"I'm actually from Glasgow."
"Is that where you're from?"
"Well, I was born in Dumfries, but I've lived in Glasgow my whole life."
"Where's your accent from?"
"My adopted parents are English, but they live here and I've lived here my whole life."
"You're English."
"I was born in Scotland, I've lived in Glasgow my entire life."
"You're English."
If people want to ask me where my accent is from, that's fair, it's not a Scottish accent, really. Although people living in England have said I have a Scottish accent and even put on a twee old-lady Scottish accent in mockery of me, it's a weird accent and that's fine.
I really, really hope right-minded people will get over the England/Scotland rivalry sometime soon. Now, don't get me wrong. Politically, you may have a point, considering the very real division we've just witnessed following the election. But nationalism is just so fucking boring, for real.
Population-wise, England is about ten times the size of Scotland, which is the second largest country in the UK. That doesn't mean we should sit down and allow ourselves to be marginalised, but it does mean we might have to let the whole Mars bar fiasco go and give a fuck about something a little more important. I think that, maybe, the English flag is on the Mars bar in support of the English team in the World Cup, I don't think it's there to spite Scottish people with regards to a feud which was supposedly resolved, hmm, three hundred years ago. Maybe we should talk about the complete disregard and marginalisation of women in popular sport. Or come up with an actual reason why Scotland is better than England, why Scottish people are fundamentally, intrinsically, inherently better than English people. Why xenophobia is okay when it's against the English. I mean, hey, the Romans attacked us, didn't they? Let's hate on Italy. The problems that Britain has are spread throughout Britain. One fifth of the population living in poverty being one I'm quite concerned about.
I'm basically just very, very bored of the pathetic, useless waste of time and effort that is presuming one's own identity is better than others. The U.K. is better than other countries, Scotland is better than England and Glasgow is better than Edinburgh and the Southside is better than the West End and Strathclyde is better than Glasgow Uni and Hillpark is better than Woodfarm and Shawlands is better than Hillpark and anywhere is better than Hutchy and Rangers are better than Celtic and Catholics are better than Protestants. It's all the same, absolutecompletesheerfucking prejudice and snobbery everywhere and people, in the mad scramble for pride and identity, becoming snobs on the presumption that others elsewhere are snobs in return. Snoooooooze. It's not much of an identity if it's based on trying to prove how terrible others are. Making an angry point about your nationality is fruitless (unless maybe someone refused to believe you were what you said you were, hahahahaaa, I'm so funny).
Having never lived in England and having visited only on holidays and technically having no English blood (though the importance of biology I could dispute on account of being adopted /tangent) it would, of course, be a straight-up, outright lie to say that I am English. I'm not English.
And since the overwhelming majority of people who have spoken to me about my accent seem to be subscribing to some kind of Scottish Nationalist purity law, whereby someone born and raised in Scotland is not, in fact, Scottish, I'm going to deliver a massive fuck-you in the form of adhering to the taboo of claiming that my nationality is British. Ooooooh!
Another post asking the general public to try and be less dickheadish, brought to you by Bo. (Taking my own advice any moment now)
Monday 31 May 2010
Sunday 18 April 2010
Elections and the Big Mouths
I was VERY interested by the Labour manifesto. I read through it, taking in as much as possible and then, believing myself to be mistaken, I did a search for anything related to transpeople and came up with nothing. There were two allusions to preventing homophobia but, man alive. How does this, to the untrained eye, weigh up against the Lib Dem and Conservative manifestos? Well, the Lib Dems, being the only ones to mention transpeople, an actual plan to stop product testing on animals and oppose the expansion of Heathrow, they have my vote, for want of a more radical alternative. The Conservatives made a lot of noise about the environment, managing to mention specific issues that had come up in neither the Lib Dem or Labour manifesto - but they apparently have absolutely no interest in any type of equality for queer or transpeople, since we didn't get a mention in the whole damn thing.
Literally anyone who has done any type of sociology can see through the way these are written. Don't put any type of faith in a promise to "prevent" or "further" or "support" or "promote" when it isn't followed up with an actual plan.
I'm not very political, in terms of governmental structure. I don't really understand the lingo and to be honest, when I look at Nick and Gordon and David all neatly lined up, with their ties, I see three rich, white, straight men, christian with the exception of Nick Clegg, an atheist, raising his children to be catholic - hmmm. I took geography instead of modern studies and learnt about how the shape of a building can reduce crime rates and about the vicious cycle of the spread of AIDS in Africa. I only vaguely know what a seat is and how it works and often I see the government in a sort of BNP/not-BNP binary, because I know for sure that I don't want it to be the law that everyone must own a gun and join the military for a year and I'd be papped out the country anyway for not being quite white.
However, being as it is that I am a person, a U.K. citizen, fairly intelligent and with a valid opinion and the option to vote, how I view the three most popular parties is quite relevant. If I'm going to vote for them, they're going to have to represent my needs in some way and take into account all the important minorities that make up a large chunk of the British population. Moreover, something I really don't enjoy is being pwned by political smartarses who talk purposely in terms that they know for sure I won't understand and in the tone of making the assumption that I understand it and I might as well bend over and enjoy a good political shafting whilst I cry bitter, salty tears about the sheer lack of humanity in the whole system of competitive politics.
And that really is the thing in the manifestos I've been reading - were they written by a robot? Some kind of media expert robot, that knows how to sound better than it is to those who haven't had the benefit of being taught about the tricks used to fool the general population? Just throw together the last linguistic ingredients you found at the back of the cupboard and make a yummy-looking word-pie, the kind that you scoff and then end up in the night, on the toilet, feeling like someone plunged a knife in your gut. There is nothing human about these manifestos. It's the mocking chat before a fight. Like any other business, it all seems to me like a game of shoogling the little people around a map and assigning them to red, blue or yellow.
This is the excerpt from the Labour manifesto that interests me and the most. Oh, where to begin dissecting this.
"We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco, and we will bring forward further animal welfare measures. We will campaign internationally to end illegal trading in ivory and to protect species such as polar bears, seals and bluefin tuna, as well as for an EU-wide ban on illegally logged timber, banning it domestically if this does not succeed."
Now, I wrote to Tom Harris when the animal welfare laws were being overhauled, imploring him to support the least cruel routes possible and he wrote back to me in full support of such ridiculous practises as tail docking and the use of snares. Nice. So what we've got is one big, fat, mouthy policy to "further animal welfare measures" which doesn't permeate the entire party. When it came down to it and Mr Harris exercised his power, he voted against better animal welfare. The thing of it is, I focus on this section because it interests me. But there's no evidence that this incongruity isn't a pattern across the board. We need to know what we're voting for.
Something that has been particularly annoying me about the Labour campaign is this habit they've developed of pointing to everything they've done in the past, boasting about how brilliant they are, instead of looking to the future. "We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco." Foxhunting was banned six years ago and animal testing for cosmetics was banned no less than TWELVE years ago, and only after some quite extreme activism. Labour didn't sit up and think this a good idea for themselves, they reacted to the severe pressure of animal rights activists and are now using it as a trump card.
"...we will bring forward further animal welfare measures." Oh, I'm convinced. Nice use of detail there. It's convenient that any number of laws could be skewed as an "animal welfare measure." You could give chickens a marginally larger cage or use one less rabbit per LD50 test and call it an "animal welfare measure."
It's nice also to say that you will campaign internationally to end the illegal ivory trade, but that's also extremely convenient. We're talking about a trade which is already being fought against so thoroughly by so many different groups, which has already been made globally illegal, but again, Labour rummage around in their pockets for something to pull out and wave around, the easiest passing bandwagon that they could jump on to prove they're concerned about animals.
Ditto the polar bears. Want to help polar bears? Help the environment and maybe we can stop the ice caps melting. Labour support the expansion of Heathrow. Now, I've spoken with the man who glued himself to the prime minister as a form of nonviolent protest relating to climate change. I was advised that the world is seriously hanging in the balance and that the expansion of Heathrow is one of the worst possible things that can be done to the environment - and from someone doing his masters researching the effects airports have on climate change, I'm inclined to pay attention.
Ditto the tuna. Concerned about big, endangered fish? Oh, no, just the ones we eat. And then, to cap it all, to exemplify the absolute, sheer stupidity of whoever bothered to try and include animals in this manifesto - timbbbeeeeerrrrr! Again a ban is proposed on something which is already illegal. I'd prefer to hear "we will enforce the system whereby illegal timber is prevented from being sold in the U.K." or "we will regulate the origins of all timber entering the U.K., thereby ensuring no illegal timber is sold." But what irritates me more so than anything else is the idea that elephants, polar bears, seals and tuna have anything at all to do with timber.
Like with so many other important issues, they touch on a few of the more obvious points, play a few cards, wiggle their shoulders intimidatingly and then relate nonhuman animals... to timber. Oh dear.
In the words of the aforementioned activist, "we are not going to wait around for politicians to catch up."
I just wish I was brave enough to sit atop the Parliament to protest climate change.
Literally anyone who has done any type of sociology can see through the way these are written. Don't put any type of faith in a promise to "prevent" or "further" or "support" or "promote" when it isn't followed up with an actual plan.
I'm not very political, in terms of governmental structure. I don't really understand the lingo and to be honest, when I look at Nick and Gordon and David all neatly lined up, with their ties, I see three rich, white, straight men, christian with the exception of Nick Clegg, an atheist, raising his children to be catholic - hmmm. I took geography instead of modern studies and learnt about how the shape of a building can reduce crime rates and about the vicious cycle of the spread of AIDS in Africa. I only vaguely know what a seat is and how it works and often I see the government in a sort of BNP/not-BNP binary, because I know for sure that I don't want it to be the law that everyone must own a gun and join the military for a year and I'd be papped out the country anyway for not being quite white.
However, being as it is that I am a person, a U.K. citizen, fairly intelligent and with a valid opinion and the option to vote, how I view the three most popular parties is quite relevant. If I'm going to vote for them, they're going to have to represent my needs in some way and take into account all the important minorities that make up a large chunk of the British population. Moreover, something I really don't enjoy is being pwned by political smartarses who talk purposely in terms that they know for sure I won't understand and in the tone of making the assumption that I understand it and I might as well bend over and enjoy a good political shafting whilst I cry bitter, salty tears about the sheer lack of humanity in the whole system of competitive politics.
And that really is the thing in the manifestos I've been reading - were they written by a robot? Some kind of media expert robot, that knows how to sound better than it is to those who haven't had the benefit of being taught about the tricks used to fool the general population? Just throw together the last linguistic ingredients you found at the back of the cupboard and make a yummy-looking word-pie, the kind that you scoff and then end up in the night, on the toilet, feeling like someone plunged a knife in your gut. There is nothing human about these manifestos. It's the mocking chat before a fight. Like any other business, it all seems to me like a game of shoogling the little people around a map and assigning them to red, blue or yellow.
This is the excerpt from the Labour manifesto that interests me and the most. Oh, where to begin dissecting this.
"We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco, and we will bring forward further animal welfare measures. We will campaign internationally to end illegal trading in ivory and to protect species such as polar bears, seals and bluefin tuna, as well as for an EU-wide ban on illegally logged timber, banning it domestically if this does not succeed."
Now, I wrote to Tom Harris when the animal welfare laws were being overhauled, imploring him to support the least cruel routes possible and he wrote back to me in full support of such ridiculous practises as tail docking and the use of snares. Nice. So what we've got is one big, fat, mouthy policy to "further animal welfare measures" which doesn't permeate the entire party. When it came down to it and Mr Harris exercised his power, he voted against better animal welfare. The thing of it is, I focus on this section because it interests me. But there's no evidence that this incongruity isn't a pattern across the board. We need to know what we're voting for.
Something that has been particularly annoying me about the Labour campaign is this habit they've developed of pointing to everything they've done in the past, boasting about how brilliant they are, instead of looking to the future. "We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco." Foxhunting was banned six years ago and animal testing for cosmetics was banned no less than TWELVE years ago, and only after some quite extreme activism. Labour didn't sit up and think this a good idea for themselves, they reacted to the severe pressure of animal rights activists and are now using it as a trump card.
"...we will bring forward further animal welfare measures." Oh, I'm convinced. Nice use of detail there. It's convenient that any number of laws could be skewed as an "animal welfare measure." You could give chickens a marginally larger cage or use one less rabbit per LD50 test and call it an "animal welfare measure."
It's nice also to say that you will campaign internationally to end the illegal ivory trade, but that's also extremely convenient. We're talking about a trade which is already being fought against so thoroughly by so many different groups, which has already been made globally illegal, but again, Labour rummage around in their pockets for something to pull out and wave around, the easiest passing bandwagon that they could jump on to prove they're concerned about animals.
Ditto the polar bears. Want to help polar bears? Help the environment and maybe we can stop the ice caps melting. Labour support the expansion of Heathrow. Now, I've spoken with the man who glued himself to the prime minister as a form of nonviolent protest relating to climate change. I was advised that the world is seriously hanging in the balance and that the expansion of Heathrow is one of the worst possible things that can be done to the environment - and from someone doing his masters researching the effects airports have on climate change, I'm inclined to pay attention.
Ditto the tuna. Concerned about big, endangered fish? Oh, no, just the ones we eat. And then, to cap it all, to exemplify the absolute, sheer stupidity of whoever bothered to try and include animals in this manifesto - timbbbeeeeerrrrr! Again a ban is proposed on something which is already illegal. I'd prefer to hear "we will enforce the system whereby illegal timber is prevented from being sold in the U.K." or "we will regulate the origins of all timber entering the U.K., thereby ensuring no illegal timber is sold." But what irritates me more so than anything else is the idea that elephants, polar bears, seals and tuna have anything at all to do with timber.
Like with so many other important issues, they touch on a few of the more obvious points, play a few cards, wiggle their shoulders intimidatingly and then relate nonhuman animals... to timber. Oh dear.
In the words of the aforementioned activist, "we are not going to wait around for politicians to catch up."
I just wish I was brave enough to sit atop the Parliament to protest climate change.
Saturday 10 April 2010
About Animals
AGRICULTURE is different from HUNTER-GATHERING.
Hunter-gatherers arrived in Scotland, post-glaciation, 12,800 years ago.
In 12,800 years, we're not quite at the absolute disparition of suffering, but we've altered some of our views and morals to further us in this objective. Go us.
Somewhere along the line, someone influential enough is going to have to assert that, after 12,800 years, if it's possible to eat, survive and not cause suffering, maybe that's what we should be doing. Maybe torture and slaughter are no longer okay. Maybe a primitive tribe deep in the Amazon turning to hunter-gathering when McDonalds burns down their arable land to make room for burger-machines isn't comparable to an affluent Western society farming animals as though they were vegetables and churning them out for us in a lazy, disturbance-free and successful effort to make money.
As a species, we continuously mistake rationalisation for justification. It's okay for me to eat meat because a LION does it. And so forth.
As a person, I bang on about feminism, queer theory, ableism, racism, transphobia and any number of social issues, goshdarnit, I have something to say. And then it comes to the way humans treat other animals and I can't even think about it, because it's symptomatic of how absolutely fucked up we are, that we'll run a marathon to cure cancer or we'll sign up to Amnesty or we'll make Rage Against The Machine the Christmas number 1, we'll join a facebook group to prevent the death penalty for gays in Uganda, we'll march in our millions against the war in Iraq and then we'll fight to allow gay people to fight in the very same war and then we laugh at Lenny Henry and phone in with a donation and then we'll skin a fox cub or a seal pup alive to make a warm coat and we'll cut open a kitten's brain to see if a vague theory pans out and we'll throw hundreds of chicks in a wood grinder and feed them to their sisters so we can have an omelette in the morning and we'll shave mice, wrap them in tin foil and put them in an oven to see if a brand new suntan lotion works and we'll inject monkeys with their own faeces just to see what happens because we're bored students and we'll do these types of things again and again and again and again, we'll slaughter animals in this manner in their billions, causing more pain than a petition signature will ever relieve, because a whitecoat or our tastebuds or the mirror told us it was okay.
These things happen and if you're not already somewhat involved in Animal Rights, then it's safe to assume the situation is worse and wider spread than you would ever believe. And so I've just stopped thinking about it because, to me, the way humans treat other animals is a manifestation of the worst possible way in which we could act. I see every morsel of flesh in your meal as the whole being it came from. I took a step in this direction and this is where I ended up. I'm made to feel as though I'm not allowed to talk about it, everyone expects everything to be convenient and non-confrontational and I'm part of a minority, with an extreme opinion and so I have to be humble about it. I'm pigeon-holed as some kind of bigmouth, holier-than-thou, potential terrorist, brainwashed, societal annoyance. How do you begin to make people listen? How do you know where to begin talking about it? I have to somehow make my peace with the fact that I alone can't change the way humans view other animals. I used to hole myself up in my room for days, vegetating on these thoughts and now I've sort of learnt to muggle along with the idea that, while I cosy up in my duvet and put on an episode of Buffy, whinge about noisy eaters or upcoming exams, other beings are living in unnecessary and inexplicable misery. I could have been left to rot on a cage floor somewhere, absolutely trapped and forsaken by humanity, so really, I'm extremely lucky to have ended up as a human being who slots into any number of minority categories. In terms of suffering, I ain't got shit on your bog-standard laboratory rat. My body is mine, it's not powdered on anyone's crackers.
Compassion shouldn't be considered an extremity.
Hunter-gatherers arrived in Scotland, post-glaciation, 12,800 years ago.
In 12,800 years, we're not quite at the absolute disparition of suffering, but we've altered some of our views and morals to further us in this objective. Go us.
Somewhere along the line, someone influential enough is going to have to assert that, after 12,800 years, if it's possible to eat, survive and not cause suffering, maybe that's what we should be doing. Maybe torture and slaughter are no longer okay. Maybe a primitive tribe deep in the Amazon turning to hunter-gathering when McDonalds burns down their arable land to make room for burger-machines isn't comparable to an affluent Western society farming animals as though they were vegetables and churning them out for us in a lazy, disturbance-free and successful effort to make money.
As a species, we continuously mistake rationalisation for justification. It's okay for me to eat meat because a LION does it. And so forth.
As a person, I bang on about feminism, queer theory, ableism, racism, transphobia and any number of social issues, goshdarnit, I have something to say. And then it comes to the way humans treat other animals and I can't even think about it, because it's symptomatic of how absolutely fucked up we are, that we'll run a marathon to cure cancer or we'll sign up to Amnesty or we'll make Rage Against The Machine the Christmas number 1, we'll join a facebook group to prevent the death penalty for gays in Uganda, we'll march in our millions against the war in Iraq and then we'll fight to allow gay people to fight in the very same war and then we laugh at Lenny Henry and phone in with a donation and then we'll skin a fox cub or a seal pup alive to make a warm coat and we'll cut open a kitten's brain to see if a vague theory pans out and we'll throw hundreds of chicks in a wood grinder and feed them to their sisters so we can have an omelette in the morning and we'll shave mice, wrap them in tin foil and put them in an oven to see if a brand new suntan lotion works and we'll inject monkeys with their own faeces just to see what happens because we're bored students and we'll do these types of things again and again and again and again, we'll slaughter animals in this manner in their billions, causing more pain than a petition signature will ever relieve, because a whitecoat or our tastebuds or the mirror told us it was okay.
These things happen and if you're not already somewhat involved in Animal Rights, then it's safe to assume the situation is worse and wider spread than you would ever believe. And so I've just stopped thinking about it because, to me, the way humans treat other animals is a manifestation of the worst possible way in which we could act. I see every morsel of flesh in your meal as the whole being it came from. I took a step in this direction and this is where I ended up. I'm made to feel as though I'm not allowed to talk about it, everyone expects everything to be convenient and non-confrontational and I'm part of a minority, with an extreme opinion and so I have to be humble about it. I'm pigeon-holed as some kind of bigmouth, holier-than-thou, potential terrorist, brainwashed, societal annoyance. How do you begin to make people listen? How do you know where to begin talking about it? I have to somehow make my peace with the fact that I alone can't change the way humans view other animals. I used to hole myself up in my room for days, vegetating on these thoughts and now I've sort of learnt to muggle along with the idea that, while I cosy up in my duvet and put on an episode of Buffy, whinge about noisy eaters or upcoming exams, other beings are living in unnecessary and inexplicable misery. I could have been left to rot on a cage floor somewhere, absolutely trapped and forsaken by humanity, so really, I'm extremely lucky to have ended up as a human being who slots into any number of minority categories. In terms of suffering, I ain't got shit on your bog-standard laboratory rat. My body is mine, it's not powdered on anyone's crackers.
Compassion shouldn't be considered an extremity.
Sunday 21 March 2010
On words I hear more commonly than I'd like
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday 28 February 2010
Arguing with masculinists
Someone wrote to me;
"I'm sorry to say that I don't really agree with what you have to say about feminisme. Feminisme tends to view men as a very homogenious group of persons (and some feminist theories conveniently leave out the idea of male-born genderqueers or male-born women or even claim that this isn't possible at all. As if evil is incarnate in your genitals).
You are right, it is much easier to forget that other people do not have certain privilages if you do have those privilages. For instance, the privilage to express your feelings, the privilage to intimacy, the privilage to express yourself through other means than power and status, the privilage to not be seen as a sexminded monster, the privilage be weak, the privilage to be treated more gentle than people of the other sex, the privilage to inheiret your childeren after a divorce. I suppose that a lot of cis-men don't need these privilages, but there are many men, cis, trans, straight or queer who would give up all their manprivilages for those other privilages. I often feel this is even harder than for a woman to gain her manly privilages. Feminisme has gained a lot for women, but don't you think it's about time we get to postfeminisme and start gaining for other people too?"
And I replied;
I use the word feminism for lack of a better word and I must stress that feminism takes many different forms, just like any other ideology. My feminism doesn't exclude anyone based on their genitals OR their gender, only on their attitude towards female-identified or female-born people and I think the upcoming generation of new feminists would tend to agree, despite anything Gloria Steinem might have to say about it.
What you're talking about in the second paragraph is masculism/masculinism, another perfectly valid ideology where it is warranted in the exact same manner as feminism. I don't think feminist notions overrule the human condition and I thoroughly understand and empathise with the various ways in which men are limited by misconceptions of how they ought to behave. However, I'm not going to get caught up in any battle of the -isms, when the aim of both ideologies is generally seen to be equality. The feminism that I'm familiar with implores men to express their feelings, be intimate, do so by other means than power and status, choose not to be preoccupied by sex, be loving fathers, etc., rather than stating that they are incapable of those things based on their genitals. Butch lesbians in particular are often also pigeonholed into this category of "masculinity" whereby any expression of weakness or turmoil is seen to be reprehensible.
Historically speaking, however, the privilege of intimacy, gentleness, weakness, well, these wouldn't be seen as privileges - only in recent history has the idea that men are suffering through their inability to express themselves come into play. On the other hand, most of our classical novelists, poets, playwrights, musicians, artists, etc. were men, so even the idea that men are disallowed self-expression is in itself debatable.
The absolute root of my personal philosophy is this; don't cause avoidable suffering. Feminism is important to me, but it's a blip on my philosophical radar. As far as I'm concerned every single earthling, to the tiniest fly, has the right not to have suffering inflicted upon them. There is no sole demographic which I prioritise and we don't have to play moral ping-pong in deciding who deserves more of our attention. However, the rights that we fight for have to be contextual. I won't fight to start sending toddler bluebottles and bumblebees to primary school. If a man wants to assert his right to not be seen as a sexminded monster, then by heaven, I will support him. The problematics begin when men fight for their rights but refuse to relinquish the privileges they have which harm other people. The feminism that I condone is that which doesn't stamp all over peoples rights in order to gain privileges. In a global context, women are still oppressed to a far greater extent than men - there are any number of statistics and reports to prove this. Unfortunately, we can't sit down every misogynist and misandrist in the world and have them discuss what rights and privileges the counter side has which they want and ask them politely to stop being so defensive and irrational. It didn't work in the 1500's during the Querelle des Femmes. But we can, as individuals, look at everything in it's correct sociological context before engaging in kneejerk counteraction.
"I'm sorry to say that I don't really agree with what you have to say about feminisme. Feminisme tends to view men as a very homogenious group of persons (and some feminist theories conveniently leave out the idea of male-born genderqueers or male-born women or even claim that this isn't possible at all. As if evil is incarnate in your genitals).
You are right, it is much easier to forget that other people do not have certain privilages if you do have those privilages. For instance, the privilage to express your feelings, the privilage to intimacy, the privilage to express yourself through other means than power and status, the privilage to not be seen as a sexminded monster, the privilage be weak, the privilage to be treated more gentle than people of the other sex, the privilage to inheiret your childeren after a divorce. I suppose that a lot of cis-men don't need these privilages, but there are many men, cis, trans, straight or queer who would give up all their manprivilages for those other privilages. I often feel this is even harder than for a woman to gain her manly privilages. Feminisme has gained a lot for women, but don't you think it's about time we get to postfeminisme and start gaining for other people too?"
And I replied;
I use the word feminism for lack of a better word and I must stress that feminism takes many different forms, just like any other ideology. My feminism doesn't exclude anyone based on their genitals OR their gender, only on their attitude towards female-identified or female-born people and I think the upcoming generation of new feminists would tend to agree, despite anything Gloria Steinem might have to say about it.
What you're talking about in the second paragraph is masculism/masculinism, another perfectly valid ideology where it is warranted in the exact same manner as feminism. I don't think feminist notions overrule the human condition and I thoroughly understand and empathise with the various ways in which men are limited by misconceptions of how they ought to behave. However, I'm not going to get caught up in any battle of the -isms, when the aim of both ideologies is generally seen to be equality. The feminism that I'm familiar with implores men to express their feelings, be intimate, do so by other means than power and status, choose not to be preoccupied by sex, be loving fathers, etc., rather than stating that they are incapable of those things based on their genitals. Butch lesbians in particular are often also pigeonholed into this category of "masculinity" whereby any expression of weakness or turmoil is seen to be reprehensible.
Historically speaking, however, the privilege of intimacy, gentleness, weakness, well, these wouldn't be seen as privileges - only in recent history has the idea that men are suffering through their inability to express themselves come into play. On the other hand, most of our classical novelists, poets, playwrights, musicians, artists, etc. were men, so even the idea that men are disallowed self-expression is in itself debatable.
The absolute root of my personal philosophy is this; don't cause avoidable suffering. Feminism is important to me, but it's a blip on my philosophical radar. As far as I'm concerned every single earthling, to the tiniest fly, has the right not to have suffering inflicted upon them. There is no sole demographic which I prioritise and we don't have to play moral ping-pong in deciding who deserves more of our attention. However, the rights that we fight for have to be contextual. I won't fight to start sending toddler bluebottles and bumblebees to primary school. If a man wants to assert his right to not be seen as a sexminded monster, then by heaven, I will support him. The problematics begin when men fight for their rights but refuse to relinquish the privileges they have which harm other people. The feminism that I condone is that which doesn't stamp all over peoples rights in order to gain privileges. In a global context, women are still oppressed to a far greater extent than men - there are any number of statistics and reports to prove this. Unfortunately, we can't sit down every misogynist and misandrist in the world and have them discuss what rights and privileges the counter side has which they want and ask them politely to stop being so defensive and irrational. It didn't work in the 1500's during the Querelle des Femmes. But we can, as individuals, look at everything in it's correct sociological context before engaging in kneejerk counteraction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
