The Guardian: The sex workers giving disabled people a chance to live out their dreams

Reblogged from trashprincesss April 14, 2013


A forthcoming Channel 4 documentary, Can Have Sex Will Have Sex, features the sex lives of four disabled people, one of whom loses his virginity to an escort who has been hired by his mother.

The programme has been labelled “controversial”, but many mothers call the sex and disability helpline, which I run, worried that their disabled son is physically unable to masturbate and desperately needs an outlet. Hiring a sex worker is one option.

They can find responsible sex workers on the TLC-Trust website which was created in 2000 by myself and a disabled man, James Palmer, who was sad about being a virgin in his mid 40s. The hundred or so sex workers who have profiles on the site say they each see about eight disabled clients a month. One told me she recently saw a 38-year-old whose father had called after both parents had sought her out. It was their son’s birthday and he was a virgin. The father brought him down. She bought a birthday cake and a present.

Another of her clients was a virgin too, and wasn’t going to live much longer. His mother contacted her. Now she sees him once every six weeks. It’s been a year. The mother drives the sex worker back to the train station, and says her son is much happier all round since having her visit.

The sex worker says she is used to being introduced to clients with disabilities through a parent, usually a mother rather than a father, and has never been asked to work with someone’s daughter.

If a disabled person loses their virginity with a sex worker in a way that teaches them about their body and how to please a partner, it can set them up to become a confident, knowledgeable and sexually skilled individual who can proceed to finding a partner. However, if they have a progressive condition, their life can feel too full of disappointment and loss to try to find a partner and they may prefer to stay seeing sex workers, with whom a good outcome is guaranteed.

As for disabled women, many tell me they would love to pay somebody who knows what they are doing, who helps them learn what their bodies are capable of enjoying, but most never try. They may be nervous that the man they are paying is not entirely professional and they may not think enough of themselves to treat themselves to the luxury of pleasure. That, I hope is changing. Most of the women I know who have paid have gone to female sex workers, and none of them have involved their mother in the process of making contact.

Sex workers have very special qualities. They are skilled at giving pleasure in whatever way is required. Sometimes carers need to prepare disabled person in advance: undressing, washing and grooming. They may need to be on hand in case of difficulties, such as the onset ofautonomic dysreflexia. They may need to help position the disabled person, and teach the sex worker certain essentials. The best scenario is if the disabled person has seen a “sexual advocate” beforehand, someone with whom they can work out exactly what they want, what they need, and how they want the experience to be, as some disabled people (like non-disabled people) cannot think beyond “I want sex”, and have expectations that can never be met, so will end up disappointed.

When I took a sex worker down to a residential place for severely disabled people for the staff to experience what a sex worker is like, they asked her what she would do if a client bashed her over the head with his uncontrollable arm, or threw up over her and she replied: “I would duck the arm and I would clear up the vomit, that’s part of what I do: clearing up excrement”.

Publicity around the film The Sessions, which explores a man with an iron lung losing his virginity to a “sexual surrogate” has raised awareness and acceptance of disabled people paying for sex. I hope this might extend to an acceptance of disabled people as sexual partners, and sex workers being wonderful people.

I really love the idea of sex workers giving disabled people the chance to be touched in a non-medical way, perhaps for the first time in their lives, to be held in a warm pair of arms and have their sexual dreams respected and lived out.

(Source: marginalutilite)


No, I can’t

Reblogged from anotherhookerblog-deactivated20 February 20, 2012 by clownyprincess

anotherhookerblog:

missvoltairine:

I can’t with people trying to appropriate the history of the black triangles to mean “asexual”

it’s not okay.

Who were the people who were ACTUALLY labeled with black triangles? Mentally ill, disabled people, some Rroma (others were marked with brown triangles), sex workers, and homeless people.

GO SIT IN A CORNER AND THINK ABOUT THAT. STAY THERE UNTIL SOME NON-SHITTY ASEXUAL PEOPLE COME TO COLLECT YOU. THX.

as a mentally ill, Rroma sex worker, I hate everyone.


"

I don’t want to be a feminist anymore. Like a five-year-old, I want to close my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears, stomp my feet on the floor and scream “No! No, you cannot make me, I won’t, leave me alone!” I am, simply put, too tired. So very, very tired.

I am tired of fighting with my friends. I am tired of arguing that someone groping and slapping my butt isn’t “what I have to expect”, just because I’m at a bar, and the one attacking my butt has a drink in the other hand. I am tired of hearing “boys will be boys” and “when you’re dressed like that …” and “that’s just what guys do”. I am tired of trying to drown those sentiments in loud, repetitive no’s, screamed over and over again, till my throat is sore and my voice weak – just to hear them repeated, as soon as exhaustion threatens to silence me.

I am tired of being afraid. I am tired of seeing someone writing something offensive, sexist, racist, ageist, ableist, somewhere online. I am tired of seeing those writings getting likes and lol’s, and SO TRUE’s. I am tired of being consumed by confusion and anger, typing, typing, typing and typing a seemingly endless response, including research, links and statistics, and then hesitate clicking “submit”. I am tired of knowing that I hesitate because I am afraid of the flood of responses that will come. I am tired of knowing that I will be bombarded with lighten up’s, stop whining’s and get a sense of humor’s for so long, that I will start to wonder if I am indeed wound up too tight, a nagger and humorless. I am tired of the fact that I’m afraid of being called a cunt, even though I don’t find genitalia insulting or demeaning.

"

Reblogged from wonderwomanv2 February 18, 2012 by clownyprincess

I don’t want to be a feminist anymore.

(via notafraidofruins)

This is a really frustrating feeling.  It really, really is, and the problem is even worse for the trans* and POC community (who are liable to suffer much more than just name-calling), and the whole thing just gets so ridiculous and infuriating sometimes. 

(via wonderwomanv2)

Yannow what super-duper sucks? Being tired of being a feminist in the fucking queer community and having anti-racism, anti-ableism and anti-cissexism treated as a joke, or worse - as is the trend in Sydney at the moment - as “thought-policing”.

I mean, I expect this shit from the straight community, though I hate it. But you queers should know better. :/


Dear Way Too Many (Queer) People on Tumblr

February 16, 2012 by clownyprincess

I’m noticing a pattern when I go to so many of your blogs.

The font-size you have chosen to display on your blogs is so small my eyes actually hurt to try and read it. There’s actually no way I can read it at the size it displays unless I lean in right up close to my monitor. My eyesight is REALLY bad. Like, I take my glasses off and everything is blurry bad. My glasses obviously help me see a lot better, but they don’t make things perfect… I don’t have 20/20 vision with them on and I still strain to see a lot of things. And yeah, my prescription is pretty much as good as it’s going to get.

I get that we all dig aesthetics and want our journals to look cute.  And it’s a simple matter for me to press a few keys and have the text magnified, which is what I do.

I’m just really all a bit like - well, if we’re gonna care so much about size and race and trans* and sexuality and gender issues - can we please also try and care a little bit about ability?

:P


Reblogged from thelouringlady February 15, 2012 by clownyprincess

falselashesandglasses:

clownyprincess:

fyeahlilbitoeverything:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

talldarkbishoujo:

thegoddamazon:

So this popped up on my FB Newsfeed. I couldn’t comment on it because it wasn’t one of my friends’ posts, however a friend did comment on it.
Why can’t people of color ever mourn in peace? Why do white people always have to demean our tragedies when they get media coverage, and they always do it to bring attention to another, unrelated event.
And it’s not just white people, I’ve seen a few of you spouting bullshit about how everyone cares about Whitney Houston’s passing but doesn’t care about Syria or Greece, as if it’s fucking impossible for complex living organisms such as ourselves to give a fuck about more than one thing at a time.
I’m just so fucking sick of all the anti-Black bullshit; but then people wan to cry about solifuckingdarity when it’s convenient for them. Ugh. Let us mourn in fucking peace for fuck’s sake.

Metal fans are some of the most racist people on earth. Of course they’d think that a white guy no one outside their subculture has heard of is more worthy of the world’s collective grief than a black woman. Any black woman.

:|

 Wow the fuck is this.

Jesus motherfakkin’ Christ. The racism, ableism and classism in that macro is just… wtf.

Let’s break down the shittiness of this macro.
Bullshit way to try to show what performer was “superior” to the other. Didn’t anyone ever teach this macro-creator “quality over quantity?” Admittedly I haven’t heard of Forsberg and I’m not sure if he is good or not, but isn’t this redundant when your fourth point on him points out that while he has had many albums, some were bad?
Whitney Houston had a great voice but she didn’t write her songs and that makes her a “bad” musician. Okay. Is a writer any less of a writer if they didn’t draw their own stories? Does it make an illustrator less than illustrator if they didn’t write their own stories to go along with their art? Again, redundant.
Redundant. Look above for reference.
How does Kevin Costner figure in? I mean, even without him involved, the albums still sucked, right? And this is a weird comparison, Forsberg didn’t probably star in movie so you can’t compare his music to Houston’s movie, apples and oranges and all that.
There is no right way to handle having a drug problem. And how can one exploit themselves by having no control with how the media treats one? How do you know Houston’s loved ones hadn’t tried to reach out to her? How do you know with what what you seemingly picked up from the news and gossip?
Uh, I’m assuming you really don’t know music outside of metal, which, okay, cool, whatever, but  know this, Forsberg is to metal is to Houston is to op music. She really innovated pop music in the eighties. She entwined gospel-honed agility and rhythmic intuition to make her own sort of pop music. She influenced today’s many performers, including Lady Gaga and Mariah Carey. Oh, wait, that’s right. Because she’s in the pop genre, she didn’t innovate anything. Except, you know, made influential pop music! But it doesn’t matter because it’s not your music!
Wow, ego much? What you dislike is automatically insignificant? See point above to see how stupid your argument is. AGAIN.
She can’t control the headlines the way she can’t control the media. Maybe instead of trying to invalidate one person’s death with another is to just mourn for the one who really hit you hard while being a decent human being and realize the other person didn’t deserve to die either, even if you disliked her music, disliked her popularity, whatever, because that didn’t make her a worthless human being.
You can take your elitism and shove it up your ass.
I’M JUST SAYIN’

BE STILL MY HEART!

falselashesandglasses:

clownyprincess:

fyeahlilbitoeverything:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

talldarkbishoujo:

thegoddamazon:

So this popped up on my FB Newsfeed. I couldn’t comment on it because it wasn’t one of my friends’ posts, however a friend did comment on it.

Why can’t people of color ever mourn in peace? Why do white people always have to demean our tragedies when they get media coverage, and they always do it to bring attention to another, unrelated event.

And it’s not just white people, I’ve seen a few of you spouting bullshit about how everyone cares about Whitney Houston’s passing but doesn’t care about Syria or Greece, as if it’s fucking impossible for complex living organisms such as ourselves to give a fuck about more than one thing at a time.

I’m just so fucking sick of all the anti-Black bullshit; but then people wan to cry about solifuckingdarity when it’s convenient for them. Ugh. Let us mourn in fucking peace for fuck’s sake.

Metal fans are some of the most racist people on earth. Of course they’d think that a white guy no one outside their subculture has heard of is more worthy of the world’s collective grief than a black woman. Any black woman.

:|

 Wow the fuck is this.

Jesus motherfakkin’ Christ. The racism, ableism and classism in that macro is just… wtf.

Let’s break down the shittiness of this macro.

  1. Bullshit way to try to show what performer was “superior” to the other. Didn’t anyone ever teach this macro-creator “quality over quantity?” Admittedly I haven’t heard of Forsberg and I’m not sure if he is good or not, but isn’t this redundant when your fourth point on him points out that while he has had many albums, some were bad?
  2. Whitney Houston had a great voice but she didn’t write her songs and that makes her a “bad” musician. Okay. Is a writer any less of a writer if they didn’t draw their own stories? Does it make an illustrator less than illustrator if they didn’t write their own stories to go along with their art? Again, redundant.
  3. Redundant. Look above for reference.
  4. How does Kevin Costner figure in? I mean, even without him involved, the albums still sucked, right? And this is a weird comparison, Forsberg didn’t probably star in movie so you can’t compare his music to Houston’s movie, apples and oranges and all that.
  5. There is no right way to handle having a drug problem. And how can one exploit themselves by having no control with how the media treats one? How do you know Houston’s loved ones hadn’t tried to reach out to her? How do you know with what what you seemingly picked up from the news and gossip?
  6. Uh, I’m assuming you really don’t know music outside of metal, which, okay, cool, whatever, but  know this, Forsberg is to metal is to Houston is to op music. She really innovated pop music in the eighties. She entwined gospel-honed agility and rhythmic intuition to make her own sort of pop music. She influenced today’s many performers, including Lady Gaga and Mariah Carey. Oh, wait, that’s right. Because she’s in the pop genre, she didn’t innovate anything. Except, you know, made influential pop music! But it doesn’t matter because it’s not your music!
  7. Wow, ego much? What you dislike is automatically insignificant? See point above to see how stupid your argument is. AGAIN.
  8. She can’t control the headlines the way she can’t control the media. Maybe instead of trying to invalidate one person’s death with another is to just mourn for the one who really hit you hard while being a decent human being and realize the other person didn’t deserve to die either, even if you disliked her music, disliked her popularity, whatever, because that didn’t make her a worthless human being.

You can take your elitism and shove it up your ass.

I’M JUST SAYIN’

BE STILL MY HEART!

(Source: heirofmedusa)


Reblogged from fyeahlilbit2point0 February 15, 2012 by clownyprincess

fyeahlilbitoeverything:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

talldarkbishoujo:

thegoddamazon:

So this popped up on my FB Newsfeed. I couldn’t comment on it because it wasn’t one of my friends’ posts, however a friend did comment on it.
Why can’t people of color ever mourn in peace? Why do white people always have to demean our tragedies when they get media coverage, and they always do it to bring attention to another, unrelated event.
And it’s not just white people, I’ve seen a few of you spouting bullshit about how everyone cares about Whitney Houston’s passing but doesn’t care about Syria or Greece, as if it’s fucking impossible for complex living organisms such as ourselves to give a fuck about more than one thing at a time.
I’m just so fucking sick of all the anti-Black bullshit; but then people wan to cry about solifuckingdarity when it’s convenient for them. Ugh. Let us mourn in fucking peace for fuck’s sake.

Metal fans are some of the most racist people on earth. Of course they’d think that a white guy no one outside their subculture has heard of is more worthy of the world’s collective grief than a black woman. Any black woman.

:|

 Wow the fuck is this.

Jesus motherfakkin’ Christ. The racism, ableism and classism in that macro is just… wtf.

fyeahlilbitoeverything:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

talldarkbishoujo:

thegoddamazon:

So this popped up on my FB Newsfeed. I couldn’t comment on it because it wasn’t one of my friends’ posts, however a friend did comment on it.

Why can’t people of color ever mourn in peace? Why do white people always have to demean our tragedies when they get media coverage, and they always do it to bring attention to another, unrelated event.

And it’s not just white people, I’ve seen a few of you spouting bullshit about how everyone cares about Whitney Houston’s passing but doesn’t care about Syria or Greece, as if it’s fucking impossible for complex living organisms such as ourselves to give a fuck about more than one thing at a time.

I’m just so fucking sick of all the anti-Black bullshit; but then people wan to cry about solifuckingdarity when it’s convenient for them. Ugh. Let us mourn in fucking peace for fuck’s sake.

Metal fans are some of the most racist people on earth. Of course they’d think that a white guy no one outside their subculture has heard of is more worthy of the world’s collective grief than a black woman. Any black woman.

:|

 Wow the fuck is this.

Jesus motherfakkin’ Christ. The racism, ableism and classism in that macro is just… wtf.

(Source: heirofmedusa)


Sydney Queer Community

February 2, 2012 by clownyprincess

Cos I know some of you happen past this blog now and then:

People of Colour and trans women refusing to accept minimisation, offensive stereotypes, exclusion, discrimination, unsafe environments and general all-round disrespect is not the same thing as Nazi-fucking-Germany.

And drawing those comparisons - or laughing at them - trivialises not only their very real struggles, but the atrocities of racist, homophobic & ableist torture and murder visited on six million people that was the Holocaust. 

Get some perspective, some compassion and some fucking maturity. 

Your behaviour is disgusting.


Over-Analysis Theatre: Hellboy II

December 31, 2011 by clownyprincess

I wrote this post several years ago for my livejournal when I was less-educated on political stuff - so I acknowledge it possibly has a few not fully-formed or sufficiently comprehensive parts, or is clumsy - and also hadn’t read the Hellboy comics. This little dissection is totally about the Hellboy MOVIEVERSE and NOT the comics, which I can pretty much find no fault with (whhhhyyyy did it take me so long to start reading them?!?!). I also disagree with myself on a few points here with regards to the movie’s intentions and structure. I love the movie, though I think it’s massively flawed, but at the time I wrote this I hadn’t seen any deconstruction of it beyond its merits as a piece of cinema… and I still haven’t, really, and I thought there was heaps of interesting stuff IN the movie worthy of deconstruction. 

So, here it is… my rambly, messy, confused thoughts of 2008 on HELLBOY II.


I’ve been meaning to write this up for ages and just kept putting it off because it requires some thought and care and you all know I avoid that sort of dangerous thing at all costs.

I remember being very disappointed when I saw HBII. But I’ve watched it a few times now since I got it on DVD and I think it did a much better job than I originally gave it credit for. Still not the job it could’ve and should’ve done, but better than I initially realised.

I’m no expert in these matters, not by a looooooooooooooooooong shot.

I’m a sex worker but I have tended to be particularly privileged as a sex worker. I’m a woman but I’m white. I’m queer but I tend to pass as straight. And even my understanding and experience of oppression and stigma because I belong to these marginalised and discriminated against groups, does not mean I understand the experience of oppression and stigma of groups of people to whom I don’t belong. So these are my rambly, inexperienced thoughts and I welcome debate on the matter from those who know better than I.

One thing that struck me about del Toro talking about the film was how excited he was about depicting an inter-species relationship, about exploring the Other, outsiders and freaks, their disenfranchisement from the world - the world named “Ours” (meaning humanity).

The most obvious allegory is that of Race, particularly when you consider Colonialism and its enduring effects. I remember coming out of the film and feeling disappointed it had not been more aggressive and radical in its explorations of the issues, that it instead opted for a very, uh, white-washed and superficial treatment. But then, hearing del Toro talk about it and it seemed that he hadn’t made the connection himself and most people were talking about it as an environmental film – which is applicable as well. In fact, I think the film has messages about colonialism, speciesism, ableism and environmentalism as well as racism.

But, whether intentionally or not, quite a lot of other little elements slipped through.

Let me try and make sense of my thoughts. First, the good stuff:

* Nuada. The “evil” prince. I remember being angry initially that he was depicted as the bad guy when I felt his frustration and anger was very justified - his people had lost their land, been uprooted, disempowered and diminished, forced into hiding by humanity and into a position of passive acceptance.

Actually, although it was very subtle, they didn’t treat him as the bad guy. Obviously he was perceived as the bad guy by the characters in the film, but I don’t think we were really meant to see him the same way. He was broken-hearted and furiously angry and I thought the actor did a wonderful job of expressing the intense pain in that anger. Initially I was irritated his people had not taken a stand alongside him, but as time passed I realised this was probably more accurate - oppressed people often resent and exile those who cause trouble by speaking out, particularly if they have to fear very real repercussions from their oppressors. Often times life has already been such a complicated, exhausting, stressful trick of negotiating spaces and surviving in a world that will punish you for going against the status quo, marginalised people very understandably can be reluctant to draw more attention to themselves. You often see this within the sex industry - there’s a not-insignificant number of sex workers who want sex worker activists to just Go Away because they fear being outed, and miserably, have a good reason to.

He says at the end “we die, and the world will be poorer for it” - this line makes me think of the immeasurable number of languages of various nations within colonised countries that are being eradicated and lost, to say nothing of their entire history and culture. They were not simply dying out. They were being ERADICATED. Pushed from their land - the forests - forced into hiding, becoming less in numbers, becoming forgotten - being humbled and crushed to the point where the majority, including their leader, were resigned to it. They didn’t just lose - they lost EVERYTHING. An aggressive and even directed process, again similar to the situation suffered by the original inhabitants of invaded countries and nations.

When he says “kill me - you must - for I will not stop. I cannot”, I find that line very powerful and sad and says so much about his desperation. (2011 note: a friend pointed out in comments to the original eljay post: “It’s a popular sentiment we tend to ascribe to folk heroes… the willingness to die before they’ll stop fighting for their cause. In actual fact, not always so helpful :)” – which is a very salient point, particularly when it comes to the issue of colonised peoples) He says something else to Hellboy as well: “If you cannot command, you must obey” that I thought also had a strong and important message within it and also really hits Hellboy hard as he realises what is being said about his own situation. After all, Hellboy is tolerated by humanity because he works for us.

I was originally irritated by the Princess Nuala sacrificing herself to stop Nuada, and I don’t think I’m not unirritated by that yet because that she was a fairly misogynistic character in that she existed to be rescued and fallen in love with and then sacrificed. On the other hand, the lack of a true resolution underscored the fact the entire war was bitter and incapable of being truly resolved because the damage done was too great and the people who had done the damage - humanity - too unwilling to accept responsibility for it. And, as is the case in these situations, the oppressed end up suffering the most and losing the most, including their lives, in their battle for justice. It was depressingly realistic. Nuada was the most compelling character from the film and it’s a pity (yet also depressingly typical) his sister was not given the same due. (2011 note: look, it might make for an emotionally powerful storyline, but the whole ‘oppressed people must die tragically for the point to be made’ angle is really fucked and I don’t know what I was thinking really by excusing it)

Moving on from Nuada, there was other stuff I thought was good but I don’t know how intentional it was:

- Hellboy, Abe and Krauss, despite representing the Others, have absolute no intimate and personal knowledge of the paranormal world they come from. They have to access - and force - information from a member of that world (the female troll under the Brooklyn Bridge) - a symptom of their having been separated from their people and integrated into humanity.

Likewise, they were constantly being forced to turn traitor against their own kind in order to be accepted by the dominating people - humanity. To such an extent that inhabitants of the paranormal world are often approached by them (particularly Hellboy) with hostility and suspicion.

Hellboy’s story (in the movies) is one of striving to be accepted and loved by humanity; to become a part of us - yet his appearance simply won’t let him. Yet he continually strives to be one of us and to adhere to humanity’s standard of “good” - his considerable skills are continuously exploited for the benefit of humanity but he is given very little respect - he is kept locked up below ground and punished when he breaks out because he must be kept a secret. He yearns to come out and when he does discovers it doesn’t matter how “good” he is, he is still judged by his appearance, by the fact of his being non-human.

Hellboy, however, begins to demonstrate some awareness of this, shown in the moment where he moves to file his horns and then stops, staring at himself in the mirror. Hellboy has habitually filed his horns because he wants to “fit in” - he wants to look more “normal”. This shows a self-conscious awareness of his difference and a sense of stigma about it - he wants to be accepted, not as himself, but as human. I think there’s links between this and his generally hostile attitude towards other paranormal beings.

But in the end, he and the others all quit the BPRD in disgust because they become aware they’re being used in a useless battle, that no matter how hard they try, humanity will still just treat them as freaks whilst at the same time exploiting their abilities and never truly accepting them or permitting them full privileges and rights. Furthermore, using them in a battle that is deeply… unfair seems too inadequate a word to use… Using them to do their dirty work. Using them to continue a cycle of oppression and marginalisation. There is NO sense of triumph in defeating Nuada. They come to understand what drove him, why he was so angry and that his sense of loss and betrayal was right. So they quit.(And I absolutely love how Abe grabs Manning’s face and says “watch us” - it says SO MUCH)

There is other bits - like Hellboy’s throw away line about never having been given a badge, despite having asked for one, and Krauss commenting on the plight of the tooth fairies - imprisoned, starved and sold on the black market, rather than them just being OMGBAD!.

Now. The BAD stuff.

- The more subservient characters and the more brute characters were MARKEDLY less “human” in appearance and behaviour. They were depicted as being obsequious to the humanoid characters, or used as muscle, also generally seeming lower in intelligence…

- There was an unfortunate underpinning theme of entire species of creatures being inherently good or bad - little moral ambiguity and, uh, the whole POINT of Hellboy is his moral ambiguity – that he was a being created specifically to bring about the destruction of the world and chose not to.

- The theme of the move is entire races of beings being oppressed and disenfranchised and that this is BAD AND YET. YET. At the BPRD HQ, in the background we see various paranormal creatures being violently subdued and “causing trouble” and being EXPERIMENTED ON - AS COMIC RELIEF, despite the fact these background events are entirely decontextualized and the creatures’ story is unknown to us. It’s just implicit that whatever they’ve done, they’re Bad and the BPRD Must Stop Them. I don’t like that. At all. Considering the issues that arise with the BPRD during the course of the film, is it so much to think species profiling is occurring!?

- The whole good freaks and bad freaks thing - the good freaks tend to be those who conform to human expectation.

- Also consider how important it is that Hellboy be referred to as a Man and that he’s a Good Man and what makes him a Man is his actions and the choices he makes. This comes up in the movies, & a couple of the books (the ones that I’ve read, it’s probably in the ones I haven’t too… I haven’t read the comics yet so I dunno about there)… and it’s problematic. Add to that, the notion of manhood as presented in the film is one that is largely defined by white, western standards and… yeah.

- I simply cannot get past the fact that, in a movie supposedly celebrating the outcast, the likes of a misogynistic, homophobic, racist jerk like Seth McFarlane is playing a role.

Finally, the relationship between Liz and Hellboy. ARG.

I’m a bit OTPy about these two, I’ll admit. And del Toro PROMISED us so much - he was SO excited about this relationship - and then failed to deliver.

NO, I didn’t want there to be a big deal about the whole inter-species thing. I didn’t want to see them angsting about that or talking about how difficult their relationship was - I liked that none of their issues seemed to be at all about that.

BUT OMG! Where was the sexual tension and chemistry from the first film? Why was their relationship almost nothing but comic relief in this film? I mean, they’re a NEW couple, where were the cuddles and kisses? The PROPER kisses, not the chaste kisses on the forehead? Holy cow. It’s like del Toro suddenly went chicken on us with this. I wanted to see heat between them. They barely engage physically or intimately - the very fact that they’re presented as already having tension in the relationship (because Hellboy is a slob, of all things!!!) seemed to me like a way of copping out on the intimacy of it.

There were a COUPLE of moments of intimacy where it was clear they are very physically comfortable with each other, and ultimately the love shown between them was very powerful especially as Liz makes a couple of particularly strong demonstrations of her desire to be with him (like when she outs herself - she’s a freak but she can ‘pass’ for normal so I felt this was quite awesome, there’s even discussion in a background news story about what a cute girl like her is doing hanging out with freaks. And the other one backs up my belief that love is highly “unethical” as a general rule), but it wasn’t enough. And I deeply resented the injection of the hackneyed, cutesy humour and considering how deeply solicitous he was of her in the first film, depicting Hellboy as this immature and insensitive toward her felt really out of character.

I felt like the pregnancy sanitised their relationship. Ok, yes the fact she’s pregnant tells us they’ve been having sex, but again, maybe it’s just the associations I personally have with pregnancy, but it seemed like the relationship was reigned in and tamed by it. I don’t know, in the first film there seemed like there was so much intensity between them and the moment and kiss between them at the end was so awesome and passionate - why didn’t we get something similar in this film? This is often an issue with how pregnant women are portrayed though – all of a sudden, they can’t be sexual because now they’re mothers and that’s sacred!

So I’m not sure if the tamed relationship was due to del Toro chickening out on the inter-species thing or the sacred mother thing, but either way – it bugs me HUGELY and is way problematic!!!

If Hellboy III is made, the kids will be born and Hellboy will be learning how to be a father, del Toro has already said. I can only imagine the cutesy humour and the further stulefying of this relationship. God, del Toro, PLEASE, give us a little more nookie!!!!

Is that my final word on Hellboy II? Does it all just come to nookie for me?

Sadly, I think the answer may be: yes. Yes it does.

Ok, no my final words are: a lot of people have felt this was a bad movie but I’m beginning to feel that it’s actually pretty good, it’s just that its principle themes are sloppily deal with and aren’t effectively connecting with people. Really, I think there were some very beautiful and powerful moments in this film, but perhaps it was trying to be too much at once in too many different styles. And I guess a lot depends on whether you think the fantasy genre should use non-humans vs. humans as a racial allegory (2011 note: I think it’s WAY problematic if done carelessly – eg, if races of fantasy creatures conform to stigmatic stereotypes about actual human races. Also there’s been a long ugly tradition of associating people of colour as animalistic or subhuman so there’s big issues there in using the allegory if oppressed fantasy races are depicted in such ways). As mentioned above, for all its aspirations, this film has its highly problematic elements.

But… in the end, I think this film is being severely underappreciated.  I think it didn’t ultimately know what it wanted to be or what timbre to take and that it tried to do too much but not in a cohesive  and fully-thought-through way and because it was aiming for so much it just didn’t connect with audiences. There are plot holes and clichés and weak moments too. But, you know. Actually. I really like it, for the most part, in the end.

And the fact that del Toro is talking about bringing back Kroenen and Rasputin for III, if it is made, probably indicates what he attempted here was simply too ambitious and conflicted/flawed. I think people expected a narrative to continue more in the vein of what was set out in the first film and to go so wildly off into a totally different theme and genre alienated people. Even though the comics are a total mash of genres. But the Rasputin storyline is one that is part of the overarching plot of the comics and would’ve worked great for the second film too and would’ve certainly flowed more continuously. But del Toro and Mignola had a vision and wanted to follow the fairytale aspect of the comics. It just backfired.

Bottom-line: I love that this film is so ambitious, even if it is totally flawed. At the end of the day, it’s one of my faves. 


Shut the Fuck Up, Confederates: Hello, fellow white people!

Reblogged from stfuconfederates-deactivated201 December 30, 2011

stfuconfederates:

This is going to be raw and merciless. I am, in all seriousness, warning you. If you identify as transable or transethnic, unfollow, stop reading, walk away. You’ll notice that I prefaced this as pertaining to white people.

So, you believe you’re transethnic? Cool. Here’s what’s wrong with that.

Essentially, you’re a white person who wants to say the N-word. You’re a white person who wants to be able to do whatever you want to do while both being able to claim to persecution that belongs to white (lol) people and PoC at the same time. Look, I can be persecuted too! I’m white and I’ve claimed an identity that allows people to to racist against me! What I’m going to need you to do now is take so many seats that your white ass chafes the fuck off.

So, you’re transabled? Oh deer me. You’ve seen so many people in wheelchairs getting all of this attention? You don’t get any attention? HOW FUCKING DARE THEY??? I mean, you’re white!! How dare all of the people not pay attention to you???

Let’s boil this down. This is the part where I need to avoid actual ableism as much as possible and tell you that you need some help. YOU NEED TO SEEK HELP. That isn’t a joke. I’m not making fun of you. You literally need to go to your local library, check out a dozen books on white privilege, sit your white ass down, and read them.

When I see actual scientific proof of a whole bunch of non-white people who identify as ‘transable’ or ‘transethnic’, I’ll amend my statements. But seriously? Show me some PoC who want to be white. Show me, right now. Stockholm syndrome is real, and we’ll deal with that when we get there.

Show me some PoC who feel the need to be disabled to have an identity? Show me and I’ll sit down at least long enough to deeply consider what in the ever-living shitfuck is going on in the world.

Because this is what I’m talking about. And I get it. Believe me, I do. We all need to feel special, right? We all need to have something about us that we can use against other people for sympathy, for apathy, for solidarity.

But no. You show me a person who is oppressed in RL who also feels the need to claim another (and, sorry, deal with it, a FALSE) identity to be further oppressed. I’m not fucking buying your special snowflake, unicorn bullshit. Some actually terrible things have happened to people all over the face of this world, and you diminish that struggle when you feel the need to create a struggle of your own.

No. Nope. Fuck off my internet. These identities exist because the internet exists, and sometimes we all need to invent some shit to keep ourselves functional out here. But don’t let the shit you invent out of the need to be some sort of magical new minority devalue and make light of the people who have dealt with actual, real, despicable oppression for hundreds or thousands of years.

Naw. Done. Bye.

Transethnic???? TRANSABLED??? REALLY??? The fuuuuuuuuuuu…


Reblogged from kyleandkittens November 27, 2011 by clownyprincess

kyleandkittens:

“You’re a full mong.” - Kyle Sandilands to Australian Idol contestant Bobby Flynn on national television.
 
“How dare he. [“Mong”] is prehistoric terminology. [People with Down Syndrome] are not called mongoloids any more.” - Down Syndrome Association of Queensland President Anna Magnus.
“There is simply no place for comments that are derogatory to people with a disability either on television or anywhere else. They say more about the person making them than who they are made about.” - Queensland Disability Service Minister Warren Pitt on Kyle Sandilands.
“It was basically meant to mean ‘loser’ or ‘idiot’.” - Kyle Sandilands’ manager, Ryan Wellington, in his “apology” on Kyle’s behalf.

kyleandkittens:

“You’re a full mong.” - Kyle Sandilands to Australian Idol contestant Bobby Flynn on national television.

“How dare he. [“Mong”] is prehistoric terminology. [People with Down Syndrome] are not called mongoloids any more.” - Down Syndrome Association of Queensland President Anna Magnus.

“There is simply no place for comments that are derogatory to people with a disability either on television or anywhere else. They say more about the person making them than who they are made about.” - Queensland Disability Service Minister Warren Pitt on Kyle Sandilands.

“It was basically meant to mean ‘loser’ or ‘idiot’.” - Kyle Sandilands’ manager, Ryan Wellington, in his “apology” on Kyle’s behalf.


Dan Savage talks to David Jay, founder of AVEN

Reblogged from July 14, 2011

iamthecrime:

hail-seitan:

I decided to listen to Dan Savage’s podcast, because up until now, I’ve only read quotes from him, and I’ve had a problem with a lot of the things I’ve read about him. I have to say, hearing him speak directly did not change my opinions about him at all. In fact, he came off as a bit sexist in parts, which added to my dislike. Referring to Marcus Bachmann as the “first lady” in an attempt to emasculate and discredit him comes across as really sexist. Telling a woman that her behaviour was “very female,” as if this is a negative thing and telling her to “man up” comes across as really sexist. I’m undecided about the “getting fucked” bit near the end, but it definitely has sexist undertones. Also, referring to anyone as a “controlling psycho bitch,” is not only sexist, but ablest as well. Fat-shaming is frequent throughout the podcast.

As to the part of the podcast about asexuality, it wasn’t quite as offensive as I expected it to be, given what I’ve read (which isn’t saying much, as it was still quite offensive). I don’t think this was the most adequate depiction of Savage’s views on asexuality, however. The fact that David Jay was under contract probably affected what Savage could and couldn’t say.

The comments from his listeners underneath the podcast make me want to cry. They’re awful. I really sincerely hope they’re not representative of the LGBT community as a whole.

I really don’t like Dan Savage at all.

Surprise! Dan Savage continues to be a jerk.

This just in! Dan Savage is STILL a jackass and STILL not worth your support or commendation.

(Source: unlubricated-anal-sex)


Sedentary Meanderings: Why I won't be in SlutWalk

Reblogged from ardhra June 13, 2011

ardhra:

Warning: mentions of transphobia, rape, sexual violence, sexism, cissexism, heterosexism, racism.

I’ve thought about it quite a bit and I don’t think I’ll participate in the Sydney SlutWalk.

I’ve never really identified with the term “slut” and while I have no problem with people using it to…

An excellent, considered post discussing some of the fundamental flaws of the SlutWalk movement. Important to read.


The Musings of a Failed Black Woman: On disability and visibility ...

Reblogged from comic-relief June 7, 2011

You need to read both these posts. For reals.

comic-relief:

puckett101:

In the wake of that sketch of Barbara Gordon in her Batgirl costume walking away from her wheelchair, I felt compelled to write. I ignored that compulsion until I calmed down, because most of it was frustration and anger.

I can absolutely understand why people are excited about the possibility of Barbara Gordon walking again - it’s not that they’re prejudiced or that they have any animosity for the disabled, it would be joy and happiness for the character. Oddly enough, I’ve had this exact same conversation - only about us - with a friend of mine who has a degenerative condition that will eventually kill him.

You see, I’m disabled. I have been for several years. On the good days, I function well enough to run a few errands or do a load of dishes or laundry. On most days, I have to take medication that renders me incapable of performing a lot of fine motor skill functions and usually knocks me out. On the bad days - and there are more of them than there are good days - I struggle to get to the bathroom which is barely 10 feet from my bed.

My friend has a laundry list of problems - it’s best summarized by noting that he’s about 90-95% quadriplegic and that his conditions will eventually kill him. It could happen sooner rather than later or vice versa, but he knows his death is coming much sooner than mine, and he knows what will kill him or what will allow something else to kill him.

We had a chat a while back. I told him that if I had a wish, I’d wish they’d find a cure for him since my stuff won’t kill me and he responded with one of the most brutally realistic assessments I’ve ever heard from someone - he wished that the docs could fix me because it would take him years of physical therapy to do almost anything, given how much his body has deteriorated. Me? I’d be facing a lot of rehabilitation, but I could probably be back to something resembling normal in a couple of years of intensive physical therapy if the docs can ever patch me up enough to allow for that.

It’s not that we, as disabled people, wouldn’t be happy for Babs if she could walk again. I’d be thrilled if the docs could cure my friend so he doesn’t die. I’d be ecstatic if I heard from a girl I knew back in 8th grade who had spina bifida and she told me that the docs had been able to restore her ability to walk. I have no way to describe how I would feel if the docs could patch me up enough that I could pick up my little girl again or wrestle with her or run around in a park with her. She turns 10 this year, and I don’t know if she remembers when I could do that and did. If you don’t understand how that thought feels - how it feels to be unsure if your little girl remembers when she woke up from a nightmare and you were there to pick her up and comfort her because most of what that child has known of your life is disability - then it’s going to be difficult for you to understand why disabled people look at Babs the way we do.

It’s that every single healing mechanism in the DCU has been tried on Babs and found wanting. None of it has restored her ability to walk. It’s 23-odd years of canon. More importantly, Babs has accepted her disability and made the best of it, transforming herself into a world-class computer expert who does more as Oracle, who helps more heroes, who saves more lives, who stops more villains, than she ever did as Batgirl.

As Batgirl, her ability to effect change was limited to what she could punch. As Oracle, she can reach any network, any data store, contact any hero, anywhere … she can reach farther and deeper than she ever could before. Think of it as the difference between Cyclops and Professor X - Scott Summers can affect only what he can see. Professor X can affect almost anything.

In allowing Alan Moore to disable Barbara Gordon, and then keeping that in continuity since 1988, DC allowed Babs to become a vastly more powerful hero than she had ever been before. It no longer matters whether DC planned it that way (and I doubt they did) or whether it was accidental / inadvertent (and it probably was - scope creep affects every project, and DC probably didn’t notice how integral Oracle had become until Oracle was already so powerful that she couldn’t really be stopped, because what could they do? Paralyze her again?), Oracle had become one of the epic bad-asses of the DCU, and far more bad-ass than Batgirl had ever been. From her wheelchair.

Why does this matter?

Because we, as disabled people, face struggles that the able-bodied can’t understand. As an example, I was trying to cross a two-lane street the other day - I can walk, but I walk slowly and with a cane to stabilize my gait. I wait for cars to pass so I’m not inconveniencing anyone. I entered the crosswalk and a car pulled up on the cross-street, then started to turn directly into me and honked at me to speed up. Until the driver saw the cane. Then they looked away and something that looked like shame spread across their face.

That’s all too typical. Most disabled people are used to pity - people meaning well, but being inadvertently condescending. Most disabled people are used to avoidance - people seeing us and then quickly looking away, whether to avoid staring or because they’re uncomfortable with the disabled. It’s just part of the territory, like sharks in water or bears in woods or Godzillas in Tokyo.

But then I recently read an article about the difference between monsters and heroes in comics. And frankly, I politely and academically lost my proverbial shit when the author began talking about The Other, and the ability to pass as normal and so on. In essence, the author’s clumsy and ineffective scholarship, along with his jargon-laden writing, equated the disabled - people with canes, in wheelchairs, etc. - with monsters because we can’t pass as able-bodied people. In the author’s argument, he distinctly noted that it isn’t power that makes people monsters, it’s their appearance and ability to pass as normal. The author went so far as to say that people perceive the mere existenceof The Other as a crime against nature.

At the time, I wrote:

“As a visibly disabled person, I’m already feeling a bit like the author’s saying I’m a violation of the natural order because I can’t readily ‘pass’ as normal. More bluntly, the way this argument is being framed so far feels somewhat prejudiced, regardless of whether it’s intentional or not. If the distinction between a monster and human is whether one can ‘pass’ as normal - and I can’t - then the author is effectively arguing that those who can’t are monsters.”

Now, for the sake of people who managed to get through life without dealing with The Other or abjection in critical theory (and also don’t want to wade through those Wikipedia links, and honestly, I can’t blame you), here’s a brief summation of the ideas:

The Other, simply put, is different from The Same. The Same is you and people like you, or something else which is like something else. The Other is anything outside that grouping, especially if it makes you feel uncomfortable. That’s where the idea of abjection comes in.

Abjection is the part of The Other that makes people feel uncomfortable. Since The Other exists outside The Same, being faced with it can be traumatic for people, such as seeing a friend in hospice care, dying from cancer. Abjection, in this sense, refers to anything that falls outside someone’s definition of sameness - it can include race, gender, sexual preference or gender orientation, etc. And it often includes the disabled.

Now cue up your Don LaFontaine voice:

“In a world filled with people who see monsters everywhere, one brave woman has the courage and strength to prove them all wrong just by being herself.”

So let’s be really blunt. And be honest with yourself, even if you never admit this to anyone. Disabled people make people feel uncomfortable. I spend a lot of time in doctors’ offices with people who have to be transported by ambulance due to their disability, and I still look at them and think how comparatively lucky I am.

Disability reminds us how fragile we really are as a species and how easily it can be taken away by disease, by aging, by freak accident. Or by some jackass in clown make-up wearing a Hawaiian shirt, although that is a statistically less likely way of becoming disabled.

Disability, in very profound ways, scares us. In fact, it terrifies us because it reminds us of our mortality. It reminds us that we will all die someday, and that we don’t all get to jump on grenades to save our friends or heroically push a child out of the way of a speeding truck. Most of us will die of old age, swallowing more pills than we did the year before to control our heart problems, our cholesterol count, to improve our kidney functions and so on.

Seeing disability and fearing it is seeing our future and not being emotionally ready or prepared to even acknowledge it, much less face it.

So this Otherness and abjection stuff isn’t just crap-ass academic Ivory Tower bullshit. It isn’t just some blowhard who never worked a real job talking out their ass. It’s real, practical, applicable stuff which is usually pretty rare for critical theory.

But here’s the thing - The Other is only The Other as long as people are able to remain ignorant of it. Out of sight, out of mind and all that. When people begin being exposed to something different, it can be traumatic - you may not remember the first time someone besides your parents held you as a baby, but the adults in the room probably talked about how cute you were as you cried because you recognized The Other - it wasn’t you and it wasn’t your source of milk, therefore it was The Other, it was abject and it scared you. But as you grew, adults - giants that they were - became less scary.

And the same is true for disability, even in something that seems as simple as a comic book.

Seeing a disabled person in a comic is sufficiently removed from direct personal experience to ease the discomfort someone might feel when seeing someone in a wheelchair. Seeing that character over and over further reduces those negative emotions. Think of it, in a way, asexposure therapy for The Other.

So. Why are we upset about the idea of Barbara Gordon coming out of her wheelchair?

Because you’ve said she couldn’t for more than 23 years.

Because she’s visibly disabled and extremely capable, arguably more so than many able-bodied heroes.

Because we have people writing ham-handed critical theory about comics which equates disabled people with monsters.

Because goddammit, she’s one of the very few disabled role models in comics, one of the very people in comics that disabled people can look at and see their own struggles for respect, for equality, for simpledignity reflected back at them.

Because when you create a character like this, when you maintain that character and her origins for so long and let people cheer for her and - by proxy - for ourselves, you have something like a responsibility to maintain that character, to not tarnish her with scandal or sordid behavior that is not in keeping with her ethics and morals, to uphold that character as an example of the goodness she has represented for the past quarter-century despite, or (in Oracle’s case) because of being in a wheelchair.

When you toy with that, when you play with it, you aren’t just updating a character or making something more relevant - you’re tinkering with one of the very few characters in comics that we can look at and recognize as one of our own.

And is it really wrong or harmful to want to see yourself reflected in a comic, to imagine yourself being able to be that heroic and noble, before returning to the grind of daily life, when simple tasks are struggles and may require assistance, before you go back to needing a nurse’s assistance to simply go to the bathroom?

When you tinker with this stuff, you’re messing around with things that can make difficult lives easier, that can bring joy into those lives and happiness that one of us is reflected in this fictional universe, and she’s even more capable and heroic than people who don’t think twice about whether they’re physically able to fly around the world - much less stroll down the block.

When you tinker with this stuff, you’re effectively tinkering with reality, and when you erase a character like Oracle from the universe, the effect might as well be removing the disabled from our reality as well.

It’s already June and the reboot / relaunch is coming in September. We’ll see then what happens with Batgirl, Barbara Gordon and Oracle. In the meantime, I’m crossing my fingers that disabled people still have a place of heroism in the DCU.

Well said.

I’d like to add that Oracle was just as important to people who have disabled loved ones. My dad was a paraplegic. Growing up, I rarely saw other disabled people. None of my friends knew what a catheter was or why they couldn’t steal handicapped parking spaces. They didn’t recognize the experiences that made up my every day life: coloring in hospital waiting rooms, putting my toothbrush into a cabinet full of pill bottles, learning to navigate a wheelchair lift. Dad was the one with the disability, but when we were with him, my mom and I were stared at and pitied and treated like monsters to be feared as well.

When my dad died, people actually said things like, “At least you can live your life now.” Like he was a burden. A chain around our necks or a curse. It’s incredibly hard to love someone deeply and know the rest of the world can’t see the goodness you see. Prejudice blinds them. My dad will always be the sad guy in the wheelchair to everyone outside our family, and that hurts my heart every single fucking day. Even in death he can’t escape the stigma.

Do you remember the show Doug? I loved that show when I was little for one reason: Patti Mayonnaise’s dad was in a wheelchair. I was so excited when I saw him. Elated. There was someone who looked like my dad on TV! God, you have no idea. It meant so much.

Oracle meant so much. People read her comics and related or looked up to her whether they had disabilities or not. She eased the stigma and gave people like my dad and I representation. She made me hope for a day when discussions like this would be unnecessary because disabled people could be seen as individuals, not monsters.

Fuck DC for taking that away. For taking away the chance that another little girl might see Oracle and recognize herself or her family. Fuck them doubly for spitting in the faces of people who will never walk out of their wheelchairs. I prayed every night when I was a child that my dad would be miraculously healed. Accepting that he never would was excruciating, and seeing shit like this makes me want to fucking vomit. How dare you exploit cured disability for profit, DC! You make me sick.

I’m sorry, this isn’t a very rational addition. Please just read what I reblogged.


Reblogged from ardhra May 4, 2011 by clownyprincess

ardhra:

Yeah, Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore and “radical queer” bullshit makes me throw up a little in my mouth. If your worst problem is the effects of misogyny (trans or cis) on cis gay men, then whinging about weddings and backrooms is, frankly, just a pissy, privileged first world problem and yet another kind of exclusive, privileged, white orthodoxy.
poofterdagger:

everything these smart peeps have said and more. this is all my head has been full of as we go through gay mardi gras here and all the usual reactionary queer rhetoric. the self-righteousness of “radical queers” who can’t admit this is just a social scene, with all the usual shit that implies, not a pinnacle of politics. sometimes from where i sit the “gaystream” looks a lot more inclusive than this puddle.
and yeah, we’re working on it - worst fucking get out of jail free card. pfff
PS - “backrooms get shut down to make way for wedding vows.” WHAT? Are they building wedding chapels in any of your favourite backrooms? Turning them into wedding gift shops? I’m more into public sex than marriage but rrrreallly?
ourcatastrophe:

mewmewfoucault:

curate:

Gay culture has become the ultimate nightmare of consumerism, whether it’s an endless quest for Absolut vodka, Diesel jeans, rainbow Hummers, pec implants, Pottery Barn, or the perfect abs and asshole. As backrooms get shut down to make way for wedding vows, and gay sexual culture morphs into “straight-acting dudes hangin’ out,” what are the possibilities for a defiant faggotry that challenges the assimilationist norms of a corporate-cozy lifestyle? This anthology reinvokes the anger, flamboyance, and subversion once thriving in gay subcultures in order to create something dangerous and lovely: an exploration of the perils of assimilation; a call for accountability; a vision for change. via jacobloves:redneck-romeo:kalemason:avry

i’m sure there’ll be cool stuff in this
but
i also really hope the book doesn’t fall into the really really common queer thingy of projecting all the racism classism sexism ableism badness whatever onto ‘mainstream’ gay culture in this way that lets queerer forms and norms racism sexism etc off the hook altogether
like: you can be a queen, you can be not-wealthy and faggy and whatever, and still enforce tons of shitty systematic shit, folks do it all the time
and like: i feel really ambivalent about invoking an imagined fiercer gay past or whatever, that’s tricky and can be not-helpful sometimes, and like who was in that past? whose lives and struggles and bodies are obscured when we fetishize it?
and also like: there were pieces in mattilda’s that’s revolting and nobody passes anthologies i really liked and pieces i didn’t because they reeked of people trying to be all super subversivey but really just being white and annoying and reinforcing some fucked up things (in part because they were trying to be all super subversivey above all else)
i am really over queers acting like all self-consciously queer cool communities are this place where oppression doesn’t happen or at least we’re working on it huff huff whatevs

huff huff indeed, thanks for putting a finger on why I wasn’t super-excited about this
I’ve heard (for example) so many arguments about why it’s better to call yourself queer than gay from white uni students/ex students who are super invested in defining themselves in opposition to “mainstream” gay spaces
and it’s like, you’re still mostly hanging out with white inner-city student middle-class types, this is a discourse that’s grounded really heavily in the liberal arts academic tradition and that is a reflection of your social circle, let’s look at what self-identified “radical queer” communities actually look/act like. 
also I really resent how in this quote “gay” implies gay men exclusively.  like if this is a book about queer masculinities or queer men, that’s fine, that’s important, but please be explicit about that.  I dunno, I’ve hung out with heaps and heaps of queer dudes who are like “yeah! misogynist gay male spaces suck!” and still centre men’s history/experiences/spaces in their writing and fave books and socialising, this reminds me of that.  like, for example, femmephobia directed at queer femme dudes is awful but is not actually the same thing as misogyny and defending your right to be feminine and still get into in the men-only club is not actually standing in solidarity with women.  I’m not even saying “don’t go to the club”, I’m just saying “be aware that it’s really fucking annoying when you talk about what a great time you had at this place I can’t access”. 
plus yeah, fetishisation of women and people of colour from the past, safely far away, gross.  if I hear one more white male Arts student talk lovingly about ~*~*~FIERCE~*~*~* dykes and drag queens and trans women of colour at stonewall as a way of giving his politics legitimacy and authenticity and street cred…
anyway, this is not to pile onto on this book specifically, it’s more commentary on a broader trend within some queer communities

ardhra:

Yeah, Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore and “radical queer” bullshit makes me throw up a little in my mouth. If your worst problem is the effects of misogyny (trans or cis) on cis gay men, then whinging about weddings and backrooms is, frankly, just a pissy, privileged first world problem and yet another kind of exclusive, privileged, white orthodoxy.

poofterdagger:

everything these smart peeps have said and more. this is all my head has been full of as we go through gay mardi gras here and all the usual reactionary queer rhetoric. the self-righteousness of “radical queers” who can’t admit this is just a social scene, with all the usual shit that implies, not a pinnacle of politics. sometimes from where i sit the “gaystream” looks a lot more inclusive than this puddle.

and yeah, we’re working on it - worst fucking get out of jail free card. pfff

PS - “backrooms get shut down to make way for wedding vows.” WHAT? Are they building wedding chapels in any of your favourite backrooms? Turning them into wedding gift shops? I’m more into public sex than marriage but rrrreallly?

ourcatastrophe:

mewmewfoucault:

curate:

Gay culture has become the ultimate nightmare of consumerism, whether it’s an endless quest for Absolut vodka, Diesel jeans, rainbow Hummers, pec implants, Pottery Barn, or the perfect abs and asshole. As backrooms get shut down to make way for wedding vows, and gay sexual culture morphs into “straight-acting dudes hangin’ out,” what are the possibilities for a defiant faggotry that challenges the assimilationist norms of a corporate-cozy lifestyle? This anthology reinvokes the anger, flamboyance, and subversion once thriving in gay subcultures in order to create something dangerous and lovely: an exploration of the perils of assimilation; a call for accountability; a vision for change. via jacobloves:redneck-romeo:kalemason:avry

i’m sure there’ll be cool stuff in this

but

i also really hope the book doesn’t fall into the really really common queer thingy of projecting all the racism classism sexism ableism badness whatever onto ‘mainstream’ gay culture in this way that lets queerer forms and norms racism sexism etc off the hook altogether

like: you can be a queen, you can be not-wealthy and faggy and whatever, and still enforce tons of shitty systematic shit, folks do it all the time

and like: i feel really ambivalent about invoking an imagined fiercer gay past or whatever, that’s tricky and can be not-helpful sometimes, and like who was in that past? whose lives and struggles and bodies are obscured when we fetishize it?

and also like: there were pieces in mattilda’s that’s revolting and nobody passes anthologies i really liked and pieces i didn’t because they reeked of people trying to be all super subversivey but really just being white and annoying and reinforcing some fucked up things (in part because they were trying to be all super subversivey above all else)

i am really over queers acting like all self-consciously queer cool communities are this place where oppression doesn’t happen or at least we’re working on it huff huff whatevs

huff huff indeed, thanks for putting a finger on why I wasn’t super-excited about this

I’ve heard (for example) so many arguments about why it’s better to call yourself queer than gay from white uni students/ex students who are super invested in defining themselves in opposition to “mainstream” gay spaces

and it’s like, you’re still mostly hanging out with white inner-city student middle-class types, this is a discourse that’s grounded really heavily in the liberal arts academic tradition and that is a reflection of your social circle, let’s look at what self-identified “radical queer” communities actually look/act like. 

also I really resent how in this quote “gay” implies gay men exclusively.  like if this is a book about queer masculinities or queer men, that’s fine, that’s important, but please be explicit about that.  I dunno, I’ve hung out with heaps and heaps of queer dudes who are like “yeah! misogynist gay male spaces suck!” and still centre men’s history/experiences/spaces in their writing and fave books and socialising, this reminds me of that.  like, for example, femmephobia directed at queer femme dudes is awful but is not actually the same thing as misogyny and defending your right to be feminine and still get into in the men-only club is not actually standing in solidarity with women.  I’m not even saying “don’t go to the club”, I’m just saying “be aware that it’s really fucking annoying when you talk about what a great time you had at this place I can’t access”. 

plus yeah, fetishisation of women and people of colour from the past, safely far away, gross.  if I hear one more white male Arts student talk lovingly about ~*~*~FIERCE~*~*~* dykes and drag queens and trans women of colour at stonewall as a way of giving his politics legitimacy and authenticity and street cred…

anyway, this is not to pile onto on this book specifically, it’s more commentary on a broader trend within some queer communities


Older Posts »