Texty

Am slightly obssessed with this topic in the last few days in the wake of John Scalzi's not-gonna-say-"privilege" post about privilege. (This included two of my own followups on my quasi-legit blog.)

Need to actually do paycheck work today, but thought I'd throw this out as a mental exericse on the topic:

All other factors being equal, who's going to have it harder in life:

An MTF, who had the advantage of male privilege as a child, but the disadvantage of expressing characteristics of the underclass gender

or

an FTM, who had the disadvantage of being female as a child, but the advantage of expressing characteristics of the dominant gender?

Obviously, each person will struggle merely due to being trans, but does the extra shitstorm that comes with being a "girly" boy (as opposed to a tomboy, which is something relatively accepted) erase all other privilege that boy would have had merely for having boy bits and being identified as a boy by others for most of his childhood? Does the fact that FTMs often have male-coded traits/behaviors that enhance power and self-sufficiency (vs female-coded traits/behaviors that enhance dependency and submissiveness) give him a boost?

There are, of course, several living-room pachyderms inherent in this topic--essentialism, for instance--but assuming that femininity/female sex = cultural disadvantage and masculinity/male sex = cultural advantage, does that actually translate to advantages for FTMs before they officially transition? Or would the expressed-gender advantages be rendered moot by the perceived-sex ones?

There are, of course, personal reasons for wondering this. Sometimes I think being a tomboy made my life significantly harder, because my culture violently enforces femininity (though not quite as overtly violently as it enforces masculinity for boys), but it also made my life easier in some ways, because my nature aimed me toward an economic-self-sufficiency-centered life instead of a economic-depdendency-centered one.

Hm. Something to think about.

Even though my conservative religious upbringing was comparatively mild, and ended when I was 12, I think I still have some lingering fuckery from it even now. In particular, I have ongoing wars with myself over anything I enjoy, especially food or leisure-related stuff, because I still feel like it's sinful/wrong/immoral to indulge in something pleasurable without paying for it with subsequent pain. Bleh.

Realized this because I was just thinking about the Puritanism involved in the anti-gay/anti-abortion crowd, and how their greatest fear is the idea of pleasure without painful consequences. Poke the "but the baybeez!" anti-abortion arguments, and you'll get to the root of it: believing that the pain and risk of pregnancy and birth is a just consequence for a woman's sin of enjoying sex. (Some will even put it in so many words--birth is a woman's burden because of Eve's sin. Bleh.)

But even among the non-religious, there's still a lot of lingering Puritanism of other kinds. In secular society, we've mostly accepted the idea of consequence-free sexual pleasure--we're down with contraception, pre-marital sex, etc. But we seem to have transferred that idea that pleasure is a sin onto other things. We can't rail against Lust, so we're railing against Sloth and Gluttony instead. (And Greed, but that's a different thing, as there are consequences beyond oneself for Greed-inspired acts. Same with Wrath. Envy is more or less victimless, unless it leads to stealing, and excessive Pride just makes you an asshole.)

( Practical advice v. moral righteousness )

Now, the practical stuff still applies, of course. Saving for retirement, for instance, is a smart move even entirely unconnected from ideals of morality, and too many rich people don't understand exactly how connected their bottom line is to the well-being of the working class. Sometimes indulging in short-term pleasures can have exponentially worse long-term consequences, and shooting yourself in the foot in some sort of ill-advised rebellion against people telling you what to do is just stupid. But if you've already done the practical analysis, and know at which point you need to stop before you hurt yourself or someone else, there's no sense whatsoever in denying yourself pleasure just for the sake of doing so. Live it up.

Of course, some people will get on your case for this. Some have so committed themselves to such righteous suffering that it makes them furious to see someone who isn't also doing the masochism tango. They also consider your wanton displays a cavalcade of temptation for them to sin. Why else would half those Family Values sorts get caught with their pants down?

( Cultural bulimia )

The thing many (including yours truly) need to learn is that as an adult in this earthly life, you don't get gold stars for being a martyr. Yes, some folks are still true believers in the idea of earning heavenly Brownie Points, and will continue to deny themselves any pleasure in order to make a sadistic deity happy. But if that's not your personal theology, why let your behavior be driven by what boils down to the same motivation?

Of course there's some courtesy and compassion involved. It's rude to grossly enjoy oneself in a way that rubs it in the face of others who are suffering. But, assuming you're not being a mocking jerk, if you didn't have a hand in that suffering, and what you're doing has no bearing on whether it will end? Go to it. It's not inherently mean to indulge in a passion for painting just because some are blind. If you got in their face and said, "neener neener! I can see all these cool colors and you can't!" then sure. You're being a total dick and deserve a slap. But the mere open enjoyment of something you love is not a mockery of those who don't have that thing. Enjoying a pint of ice cream doesn't mean you don't care about starving kids in third-world countries. Driving to work because you get claustrophobic on buses doesn't mean you don't care about global warming.

What it all comes down to, I think, is this: for most of us, life kinda sucks fairly often. Unless you're born into every privileged class imaginable, you're going to suffer on some level. And because there's so much suck in life, why on earth would you voluntarily increase that suckage if there's no benefit to doing so aside from some vague sense of moral purity? The only people who will be impressed by such wholly voluntary suffering are assholes, sadists and control freaks. They are not worth it.

And on that note: I think I'm going to go take a nap. ;)

I think the reason I get so twitterpated when I see men showing each other affection is because it's so, so much more likely to be sincere than any other sort of PDA (in Western culture, at least.)

Women are affectionate all the time, but the affection shown often well outweighs the actual emotion behind it. We often do these things by rote or cultural expectation more than because we feel truly compelled to do it, so any given hug isn't guaranteed to be something genuine.

And straight guys, of course, will show affection to women expressly for the purpose of getting them in bed, so there's no guarantee that's genuine, either.

But it's different when a man's hugging/kissing another man in public. The cultural stigma against this is so great that it takes quite a lot of feeling behind it to get a man to push past whatever the world might think of him to be demonstrative with a man he loves.

The one caveat is that this isn't necessarily true in gay spaces. With the stigma removed there, hugs and air kisses between men can be just as insincere as the same between women. (That said, gay men also know they don't have to fake affection to get laid, so that part, at least, is somewhat less likely.)

But in general public spaces? Yeah. Probably means something. I'm talking here, of course of PDA outside of celebrating touchdowns, acknowledging major life events and "man smacks." Full-body hugs, kisses, cuddles, handholding, etc.--those always mean something if they happen in view of random other people. It's not always sexually charged, of course--though it often is--but regardless, there's real emotion behind a pair of men joyfully embracing each other when they're nowhere near a sports field or funeral.

And because so many people these days seem afraid of showing emotion and bonding with others, seeing something that real and genuine is incredibly touching to me. It's a sign that maybe not everyone in the world has lost that need. It's hopeful, in other words.

So... Yeah. Bring on the huggy boys, please. :)

Sometimes, my weird gender stuff is really damned tiring. Most of the world is cisgender-oriented, and I'm just... not. Which can feel uncomfortably isolating sometimes.

Was just thinking about this WRT to fandom, since I had a slight epiphany that the reason I'm interested in a canon "het" OTP for the first time in basically ever is because it's gender-role reversed (yes, in canon. Yay!) I've seen a couple more of these here and there (would love to see more of the Claudia/Fargo crossover stuff, for instance, and I love Gwen/Rhys in Torchwood) but it's really quite rare.

IME, most adult (AKA: sex-friendly) fanthings are primarily attracted to traditionally masculine men, whereas the more-submissive guys I like tend to attract younger/more-delicate-minded fans who perceive their submissiveness as asexuality (which is pretty much never the case; they're just as horny as any other guy.*) Just not a lot of other fans out there who share my yes-quite-prurient interest in guys like that, which makes the squee-sharing adventures a little less than fruitful at times.

And finding other folks who appreciate a strong woman? Even harder. Some straight guys are into them, of course, but most of the ones who are are the creepy sorts who are primarily interested in the challenge of breaking her (see: Whedon, Joss.) There are, of course, many women who appreciate strong ones (as opposed to finding them threatening, as is most often the case) but that tends to be in the hero-worship/role model vein, rather than the "Daym! I can haz?" one I usually have in mind.

The other challenge? Most of the folks who fit my type are usually gay. Theoretically not an issue for the women, but IME, the married-bi-chica thing tends to act like dyke repellent. Dammit. :(

Ah, well. I spose my life would be a lot less interesting if I happened to be more mainstream. So maybe this is just how things are supposed to be for me. Always a little on the odd side where most folks are concerned.


*Side note: Must say I was very amused watching the first couple of Wilfred eps. In the back of my mind, I could hear Elijah's sexphobic fantwits going apoplectic at some of the stuff he was doing. Heh.

Why the hell is this question even being asked? And why the hell are they framing it as a sex thing?

Of course children's shows should include queer characters. And it has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Even very small kids understand the concept of romantic love. They understand the concept of liking someone so much you want to spend the rest of your life with them. They understand that grown-ups pair off, get married, share a house, raise kids, etc.

Yes, sexual attraction plays a part in these pairings, but it's hardly the sum total, and that's the case whether the couple in question is opposite or same-sex.

If it's OK for kids to see Cinderella finding her prince, then it's OK for kids to see a prince whose idea of happily ever after includes another prince.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love living here?



OK, technically I don't live in the city limits. But still.

The only thing I hate more than the religious right is people who tell me that I shouldn't be trying so hard to fight them, because doing so is "intolerant" of other people's beliefs.

Well, fuck me. I had no idea that trying to protect oneself and one's friends from being violently oppressed was so terribly rude. Pardon me while I go do their work for them and throw myself off a bridge. Maybe then the fuckers will stop complaining that their religious rights are being trampled on.

(And why the fuck is it always straight, gender-role adherent people who argue this?)

Sigh...

I know some of them are just naive kids who sincerely believe that if we just close our eyes and wish really hard, that asshats like Dobson, Phelps and Robertson will just magically see the error of their ways and start supporting the rights of queer folk, women and non-Christians.

But some of them? I don't get it. The only thing I can think is that they think we're asking for too much. Maybe somewhere inside, they believe that the fundies are right, and that women and queer folk really are less favored in $deity's eyes, and therefore we're being far too uppity when we demand that people stop fucking us over because their scriptures tell them to.

I've lived too long and fought too hard to have any more patience for dicking around trying to play nice with people who think I should be jailed (or worse) because I don't wear skirts and submit to my husband. Life is too short to waste it on trying to build bridges with people whose sole purpose in life is to apply C4 to said bridges before the ground for them has even been broken.

We have wasted too much time trying to coddle these people into seeing things our way. It's time we put our collective feet down and started the process of surgically removing the tumor of religion from the body politic.

This is so many kinds of awesome I lost count.

Out of the closet with Right-Wing Ralphie

So, I was reading this hilarious The Year in Gay article at AfterElton and saw that apparently, the whole business with Zach being straightened up was figured out by TV Guide's Ausiello.

Yep, just as I thought. The kid's management are the ones who flipped their shit about Zach being gay. As usual, the nitwits got dollar signs in their eyes about their client's potential to be a teenie magnet, and so decided it was necessary to de-gay him.

Of course, what amuses me is that even in some of the comments on the various articles about this, there are STILL clueless fangirls insisting he was never gay, even after the show's creator acknowledged that that was the intention. Poor folks at AfterElton are now under siege, probably from the same twits who (apparently; I didn't actually see the post) decided to feature me on f_w for my rants on this topic a couple of weeks ago.

They should be proud, though. If you're pissing off the psychotic, addled harpies at f_w, clearly, you're doing something right.