Whenever I fill out a form for something, there always seems to be an "other" option for many of the categories, such as occupation, education, race, household income. However, this "other" category on forms is never seen for the sex question; according to these forms, you're either male or female, or your form is incomplete.
Leslie Feinberg's essay We Are All Works In Progress was a very compelling and informative piece on the struggles faced by people in the trans community. The most important thing that I learned from this essay is that you have to abandon fear if you want to make any progress. As silly as this may sound, sometimes I regret that I am not a woman of color, or a lesbian, or a transgender person, or someone who otherwise lives in the interstices of categories, because it makes me feel like I have nothing to fight for, and it makes me fear that I’m not “different enough” to discuss differences with people who are perceived as “more different” than me. But Feinberg completely turned that around, when ze stated that "if you do not identify as transgender or transsexual or intersexual, your life is diminished by our oppressions well…Your individual journey to express yourself is shunted into one of two deeply carved ruts, and the social baggage you are handed is already packed" (Feinberg, 6). Ze is totally right. While I currently don't feel particularly oppressed in my life, I still have to stay within the very narrow path of "woman" in order to, according to the world, be successful, happy, and truly fulfilled. And to make progress in this movement, I have to abandon the fear that members of the movement would reject me for not belonging to the trans community. The trans community has to abandon the fear that they will not make progress. As for the rest of the world, I think they have to abandon the fear that different means wrong, and welcome change.
The Shuklenk, et al article discusses genetic research on homosexuality and uncovers yet another way we try to compartmentalize sexuality and what “causes” variations in sex and sexuality. The article said something about biases that really struck me: “…it is unlikely that the sexual orientation research of any scientist (even one who is homosexual) will escape some taint of homophobia” (Shuklenk et al, from IWS, p. 48). This interested me because I had not previously thought of what a homosexual scientist’s reasoning would be for wanting to do genetic research on homosexuality. But after I read both this article and Feinberg’s essay, it occurred to me that a homosexual scientist conducting research on homosexuality seems to be just as compelled to find an “answer” as a heterosexual scientist, which means that the homosexual scientist still believes there’s an explainable reason for his/her/[other!] difference, or that the difference needs to have a reason. I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where we believe differences exist because human existence is an extensive pallet of experiences, not because something went wrong somewhere to cause the difference.
Trying to erase the line between man and woman, and open the eyes of the world to the idea that there are not just two compartments, but many compartments…that's a task that will take a lot of time. But is worth fighting for, for the sake of justice and equality and celebration of humanity.
Great 20/20 story on Transgender Children: read or watch
Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
It's blooming season!
In Mapping the Margins, Kimberlé Crenshaw asks readers to view violence towards women through an intersectional lens, incorporating specifically race along with gender, which sets up a helpful frame for reading Helen Clarkson’s War Crimes and Dorothy Allison’s Two Or Three Things I Know For Sure.
Clarkson’s article was extremely disturbing and sad, but there’s no way I can say what I’d like to say about it in 500 words or less, so I’ll skip to Allison…
Just because Dorothy Allison’s story is not about the struggles of a woman of color does not mean that the intersectional approach needs to be abandoned – as we have discussed in class, race is just one aspect of intersectionality that applies to the concept of being a woman. In Dorothy’s case, class and sexuality play a huge role in the violence perpetrated against her throughout her life. In terms of gender roles, she was not what others expected her to be as a little girl: she was “mean and stubborn,” among other things, qualities which irritated her stepfather into wanting to exercise control over her. When it comes to class, she characterizes her family as “peasants.” I would never assert that child rape does not happen in middle-class households, but I believe her living situation aggravated the abuse – she had no option but to keep returning home to her abusive stepfather.
“Because of their intersectional identity as both women and of color within discourses that are shaped to respond to one or the other, women of color are marginalized within both” (Crenshaw, IWS 201)
I have always recognized that antiracist groups and feminist groups existed to attempt to address the problems of racism and sexism, but I never thought that instead of women of color benefiting from both movements, they would actually be marginalized by both of them. I think the Crenshaw article makes a very clear point that is not often (almost never?) made in our society: overlap into more than one category does not mean that you benefit from the movements that benefit those specific categories. It seems to me that people who don’t take the time to educate themselves and listen to other possibilities end up perpetuating the myth that everyone is being taken care of by some movement or another. This perpetuation can be completely accidental, too – take me, for example. Before I read the Crenshaw article and before I was introduced to the idea of intersectionality and life in the “interstices” (discussed in Alsultany’s article), I probably would have assumed that a woman of color benefits from both the feminist movement and antiracist movements. Was my ignorance an act of hate? I would certainly like to hope that it was not at all. But the point is, marginalized voices are not heard unless people go looking for them – people like Crenshaw, or students of women’s studies. Not everyone is a student of women’s studies, which means the voices need outlets through more people. The ones who are already hearing just need to keep listening and keep passing on the story.
Clarkson’s article was extremely disturbing and sad, but there’s no way I can say what I’d like to say about it in 500 words or less, so I’ll skip to Allison…
Just because Dorothy Allison’s story is not about the struggles of a woman of color does not mean that the intersectional approach needs to be abandoned – as we have discussed in class, race is just one aspect of intersectionality that applies to the concept of being a woman. In Dorothy’s case, class and sexuality play a huge role in the violence perpetrated against her throughout her life. In terms of gender roles, she was not what others expected her to be as a little girl: she was “mean and stubborn,” among other things, qualities which irritated her stepfather into wanting to exercise control over her. When it comes to class, she characterizes her family as “peasants.” I would never assert that child rape does not happen in middle-class households, but I believe her living situation aggravated the abuse – she had no option but to keep returning home to her abusive stepfather.
“Because of their intersectional identity as both women and of color within discourses that are shaped to respond to one or the other, women of color are marginalized within both” (Crenshaw, IWS 201)
I have always recognized that antiracist groups and feminist groups existed to attempt to address the problems of racism and sexism, but I never thought that instead of women of color benefiting from both movements, they would actually be marginalized by both of them. I think the Crenshaw article makes a very clear point that is not often (almost never?) made in our society: overlap into more than one category does not mean that you benefit from the movements that benefit those specific categories. It seems to me that people who don’t take the time to educate themselves and listen to other possibilities end up perpetuating the myth that everyone is being taken care of by some movement or another. This perpetuation can be completely accidental, too – take me, for example. Before I read the Crenshaw article and before I was introduced to the idea of intersectionality and life in the “interstices” (discussed in Alsultany’s article), I probably would have assumed that a woman of color benefits from both the feminist movement and antiracist movements. Was my ignorance an act of hate? I would certainly like to hope that it was not at all. But the point is, marginalized voices are not heard unless people go looking for them – people like Crenshaw, or students of women’s studies. Not everyone is a student of women’s studies, which means the voices need outlets through more people. The ones who are already hearing just need to keep listening and keep passing on the story.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Cracks.
One theme that the Alsultany, Martin, and Clare articles all share is the idea that none of these authors fit into a neat category, and therefore are often placed into categories that they don’t feel do justice to their true identity and what really matters. For Evelyn Alsultany, this is played out when strangers try to “pigeonhole” her into a racial category or easily digestible ethnic background. Lauren Martin experiences that same racial and ethnic pigeonholing, and also experiences gender and sexuality categorizing as well. Eli Clare experiences unwanted categorizing into brackets of sexuality, gender, and physical and cognitive ability.
My first reaction when I was reading the articles was this: I imagined that “we” (the people who don’t experience significant blurring of category lines) line people up on a giant sidewalk, and the people who fit into certain categories are placed on certain sidewalk squares, while the people who don’t fit neatly into a particular sidewalk square are forced to live in the cracks, or the interstices (“los intersticios”).
My father uses a wheelchair due to difficulty with AVM 20 years ago, and his soft pallet also droops, making him difficult to understand to people who aren't used to his voice. His speaking voice leads many people to the conclusion that he has cognitive disabilities, which is not true at all, and has been a major source of frustration for him and for the people who know and love him, especially because he has 2 PhDs and is extremely intelligent. But growing up in a gawker society is not easy for anyone. Even as the child of a person who uses a wheelchair, I still face the fear of being labeled as a gawker, because nobody is taught how to not gawk, or at least not seem like you’re gawking, or not be perceived as if you were gawking. Even though my father is not a huge fan of using a wheelchair, I still link wheelchairs with my love for my daddy, and summer days I spent riding on his lap in the park, and rollerblading while holding on to the back of his chair; because of these memories, I always feel the urge to smile when I see a person using a wheelchair, especially a young person around campus. But what’s not fair is that I could be perceived as gawking, or smiling out of pity, or smiling because I don’t want to be awkward, or smiling because I don’t want to just stare, or just look away. Growing up in a gawker society is not easy, even for those who seem to fit into neat categories: a white, straight, woman, not too ugly, not too fat, with socially acceptable goals and desires. Does that kind of person never live in the cracks, just because she seems to fit neatly into the cubbies? Are these categories into which I fit the most important part of my identity, or is it still something more important? Is it fair for me to ask these questions, considering that I don’t know what it’s like to live in the interstices? (Or do I?...)
Alsultany says on page 293, “When we’re not acknowledged as complex unitary subjects, we become caught in los intersticios, haciendo caras [making faces] to get by.” But my question is this: just because I don’t seem to live in the interstices, does that mean that I am acknowledged as a complex unitary subject? Who acknowledges these subjects? And what about the acknowledger? Is the acknowledger acknowledged as a complex unitary subject?
Clare asks in his article, “The gawkers never get it right, but what I want to know is this: Will you?” (224, 227). I want to say yes, because I understand – I am not gawked at, but I understand. But will you give me the chance to understand, and to prove that I do, or is any acknowledgement of difference automatically regarded as gawking? What can I possibly say or do that will be neither treating you have no differences, and treating you like your differences make you an untouchable “other”? Where is that middle ground, and how can we help people find it?
People discussed in Clare's article that I had to look up:
Brandon Teena
Billy Tipton
My first reaction when I was reading the articles was this: I imagined that “we” (the people who don’t experience significant blurring of category lines) line people up on a giant sidewalk, and the people who fit into certain categories are placed on certain sidewalk squares, while the people who don’t fit neatly into a particular sidewalk square are forced to live in the cracks, or the interstices (“los intersticios”).
My father uses a wheelchair due to difficulty with AVM 20 years ago, and his soft pallet also droops, making him difficult to understand to people who aren't used to his voice. His speaking voice leads many people to the conclusion that he has cognitive disabilities, which is not true at all, and has been a major source of frustration for him and for the people who know and love him, especially because he has 2 PhDs and is extremely intelligent. But growing up in a gawker society is not easy for anyone. Even as the child of a person who uses a wheelchair, I still face the fear of being labeled as a gawker, because nobody is taught how to not gawk, or at least not seem like you’re gawking, or not be perceived as if you were gawking. Even though my father is not a huge fan of using a wheelchair, I still link wheelchairs with my love for my daddy, and summer days I spent riding on his lap in the park, and rollerblading while holding on to the back of his chair; because of these memories, I always feel the urge to smile when I see a person using a wheelchair, especially a young person around campus. But what’s not fair is that I could be perceived as gawking, or smiling out of pity, or smiling because I don’t want to be awkward, or smiling because I don’t want to just stare, or just look away. Growing up in a gawker society is not easy, even for those who seem to fit into neat categories: a white, straight, woman, not too ugly, not too fat, with socially acceptable goals and desires. Does that kind of person never live in the cracks, just because she seems to fit neatly into the cubbies? Are these categories into which I fit the most important part of my identity, or is it still something more important? Is it fair for me to ask these questions, considering that I don’t know what it’s like to live in the interstices? (Or do I?...)
Alsultany says on page 293, “When we’re not acknowledged as complex unitary subjects, we become caught in los intersticios, haciendo caras [making faces] to get by.” But my question is this: just because I don’t seem to live in the interstices, does that mean that I am acknowledged as a complex unitary subject? Who acknowledges these subjects? And what about the acknowledger? Is the acknowledger acknowledged as a complex unitary subject?
Clare asks in his article, “The gawkers never get it right, but what I want to know is this: Will you?” (224, 227). I want to say yes, because I understand – I am not gawked at, but I understand. But will you give me the chance to understand, and to prove that I do, or is any acknowledgement of difference automatically regarded as gawking? What can I possibly say or do that will be neither treating you have no differences, and treating you like your differences make you an untouchable “other”? Where is that middle ground, and how can we help people find it?
People discussed in Clare's article that I had to look up:
Brandon Teena
Billy Tipton
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
More Volume, Please.
Ni Hao, WMS201ers...I am joining late due to a trip to China, so I'm going to try to post three things about myself...
1. I love music more than just about anything, and I like it loud, hence the title of this post. (The title also applies to my hair.)
2. I sing in Miami's only co-ed a cappella group, The Mergers, and they are my babies.
3. My favorite color is purple.
1. I love music more than just about anything, and I like it loud, hence the title of this post. (The title also applies to my hair.)
2. I sing in Miami's only co-ed a cappella group, The Mergers, and they are my babies.
3. My favorite color is purple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
