Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[dreadgeek]

I thought I'd start this thread so that both the Gatekeeping and the Reclaiming Lesbian Pride threads can get back on topic. Those two threads, together, have sparked a discussion that we've needed to have for a long time. A very long time. Since the 1990's long time.

Most of us who've been out for longer than about an hour know that something has gone seriously wrong in the queer community. We have theorized ourselves into a corner that we no longer are able to get out of and our entire language and even what is considered possible to speak of have been hijacked by a meme we, as a community, seem unable to evaluate. This meme has held the community in thrall for well over a decade. It is time to wake up. It's time to break the spell. The meme I'm talking about is this: if you are oppressed, you are a victim, if you are a victim you are *beyond* moral blemish. In fact, if you are a victim it is the very essence of oppression to hold you accountable for your actions and to expect you to hold yourself accountable.

It manifests itself in hundreds of little ways. Non-whites in the community can--and I have seen and heard this--make racial slurs but should a white person speak or write a slur, we fall over ourselves to be first in line with the pitchforks and torches. Transmen are able to get away with a level of sexism that would be completely unacceptable coming from a cisgendered, heterosexual man. The desire to be inclusive of transwomen opens the door to situations where transgendered woman feels entitled to be naked below the waist, even though she has not had surgery. It puts a yearly camp outside of MWMF with transwomen demanding entry. There are more. We can all come up with examples.

We have talked ourselves and theorized ourselves and labeled ourselves into a place where we now espouse things that are completely nonsensical. Take, for example, the cry of ageism deployed whenever an older queer person says "you know, I've been around a few more years than you, young pup, and I've learned..." Let's be honest, is there anyone here who *genuinely* believes that if you take a 20 year old and a 50 year old that in that extra 30 years the 50 year old will have learned NOTHING that the 20 year old might not have yet? Nothing at all? I don't think anyone *actually* believes that to be true. Does that mean that us old farts can dismiss any words of the young pups? No! It means that if one came out at 20 and has lived the last 30 years of one's life out in the community, one has learned at least ONE thing that the 20 year old has yet to learn--how to stay sane as a queer person for 30 more years. The result of this is that we older queer people have dropped the ball and failed to mentor those coming up.

Either we are a community--in which case we have certain kinds of responsibilities and expectations to and from one another--or we are a amalgamation of identity groups. If we are the latter, we are each trying to grab our own slice of the pie. I would argue that over the last two decades we have claimed to be a community, we have behaved like a bunch of identity groups.

We need to reboot what we mean by community. Yes we should be tolerant and respectful but we should also hold one another accountable. We should, more importantly, hold ourselves accountable. Use the various ways we are discriminated against as lessons on how *not* to behave instead of as excuses for behaving badly. It means that we call sexism out when we see it. It means we don't excuse sexism. It means holding consistent standards--even when that means we have to hold ourselves to that standard as well.

I hope that this thread will catch fire and we can begin discussing how to move forward. The elephants in the room are finally being spoken of. I think the community is waking up after being in thrall for far too long. This will be rough and difficult work at times but, again, if we are a community don't we owe it to those coming down the line? In 1969, a bunch of queer people stood up outside of the Stonewall Inn and refused to be put down. They didn't stand up for identity, they stood up for values--values like justice and fair play. In 8 years we will celebrate a half-century of that which we were bequeathed. I would like our community to be moving forward, out of the fog we currently are in, and into a brighter light. A light that would be a worthy expression of our thanks to them for their courage, without which we might still be afraid, isolated and alone.

You are my brothers and sisters. I'm asking you to join me in working out the answers to these knotty questions using a different language. Let's begin rebuilding.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

How do we place boundaries for ourselves without turning them into "othering" or exclusionary practices/thoughts?

What are the types of questions I ought to be asking myself to make sure I keep my privilege in check and am inclusive while still protecting myself?


(Don't get me wrong, I'm not just sitting here with my thumb up my orifice waiting for someone to solve my problems for me. I am constantly doing that whole introspective thing, I just want to make sure I am examining every aspect of the issue instead of some sort of Scandal-centric view that really isn't helping me to grow as a person)

[Novelafemme]

The Nation recently published an article by one of my favorite bloggers, Jessica Valenti, the creator of feministing. While the article largely addresses the issue of modern feminism and who has the "right" to appropriate the label of feminist, she also touches on her displeasure over the rising popularity of gender essentialism and the dark shadow it cast on today's feminist movement. Jessica's solution is multi-faceted but ultimately speaks to her belief in embracing intersectionality within a community known, quite plain and simply, as woman. And knowing what I do about Jessica I am quite sure she is inclusive of cisgendered/transgendered/masculine-male identified/FTM/MTF and every amalgamation in between.

I am in complete agreement with AJ. Instead of wringing our hands every time a new theory pops up within the queer community, let's use it as an opportunity to reach deep inside ourselves in order to caress and handle the fear that causes such polemic anxiety. I have S!O! much to learn from my older brothers and sisters here. While I don't really give a shit how you identify, on the other hand I do. I believe once we make the assumption we have learned everything there is to know on a subject our life engine sputters and dies.

Am I singing kumbaya? Probably. My crunchy-hand holding side generally trumps my radical feminist persona. And I'm ok with that.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Is anyone else reading the Gatekeeping thread over in the Red Zone and finding themselves thinking of this thread? I am, and I keep seeing the same thing. Near-perfect illustrations of what's been discussed in this thread. Specifically, the bit where some people in the community seem to think that they can win arguments by setting themselves up as the most oppressed and most victimized and their opponents as the oppressor and victimizer. Is it just me seeing that?

[Greyson]

Respectfully, most of us who are posting over in the Gatekeeping thread have also posted in this thread. These discussions taking place both here and in the Red Zone have been discussed for many years, literally, by many people involved in the discussion.

I think the "victim" stance has also been discussed quite a bit and realized by many that the "Oppression Olympics" game is not productive.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Respectfully, most of us who are posting over in the Gatekeeping thread have also posted in this thread. These discussions taking place both here in this thread and in the Red Zone have been discussed for many years, literally by many people involved in the discussion.

I think the "victim" stance has also been discussed quite a bit and realized for many that the "Oppression Olympics" game is not productive.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of who has posted in each thread. I'm also perfectly aware that this has been discussed many times over many years. Which is why I thought to bump this thread by pointing out that it's happening *again*, even though we've been discussing it for years, even though I doubt anyone would want to admit that's what they're doing. The point of *this* thread is to try to break down some of those old patterns and interact with each other in new, more productive ways. That's why I decided to post here.

Please don't assume that just because my post count over to the left is low that I don't have any experience with the community.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of who has posted in each thread. I'm also perfectly aware that this has been discussed many times over many years. Which is why I thought to bump this thread by pointing out that it's happening *again*, even though we've been discussing it for years, even though I doubt anyone would want to admit that's what they're doing. The point of *this* thread is to try to break down some of those old patterns and interact with each other in new, more productive ways. That's why I decided to post here.

Please don't assume that just because my post count over to the left is low that I don't have any experience with the community.

I think that Greyson was just trying to be helpful. Truly.

Most people who were on butch-femme or the dance site under a different name, let people know their original name (everyone has to make their own choice about that, however).

Subsequently, new names to us means that the people most likely are new to b-f/queer websites, so we might help with some background information.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I think that Greyson was just trying to be helpful. Truly.

Most people who were on butch-femme or the dance site under a different name, let people know their original name (everyone has to make their own choice about that, however).

Subsequently, new names to us means that the people most likely are new to b-f/queer websites, so we might help with some background information.

I understand that, and I've chosen not to post that information for a reason. However, I wasn't talking about websites. These conversations haven't been happening just online. I was talking about the community as a whole, not just the community online.

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Is anyone else reading the Gatekeeping thread over in the Red Zone and finding themselves thinking of this thread? I am, and I keep seeing the same thing. Near-perfect illustrations of what's been discussed in this thread. Specifically, the bit where some people in the community seem to think that they can win arguments by setting themselves up as the most oppressed and most victimized and their opponents as the oppressor and victimizer. Is it just me seeing that?

Funny you should post that because I was just reading that thread and thought that I wanted to ask a question here!

I am having a very difficult time with the idea that women ranking women and lesbians ranking lesbians is a way to deal with the patriarchy. That seems to me to be the opposite of what we should do. That might be what feels right or is healing in some way to those who fit that group but how does the dislocation of those who don't fit fight the patriarchy? It seems more a want than a need.

These kinds of arguments seem to happen in all segments of the LGBT communities. Female identified butches vs. male identified butches. Transmen vs. butches. Transsexual vs. transgender. If you swap out the words it is essentially the same argument. You don't fit in here. My needs are different than yours (maybe even more pressing, important). Your presence silences me. I am not being heard.

Is there anyone here that thinks that we might be better served if all women decide to be one another's ally no matter where we fit on the list of identities? Isn't that the true aim of feminism? If we could do that and focus our energy on dismantiling the patriarchy would that be more successful?

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by julieisafemme

Funny you should post that because I was just reading that thread and thought that I wanted to ask a question here!

I am having a very difficult time with the idea that women ranking women and lesbians ranking lesbians is a way to deal with the patriarchy. That seems to me to be the opposite of what we should do. That might be what feels right or is healing in some way to those who fit that group but how does the dislocation of those who don't fit fight the patriarchy? It seems more a want than a need.

These kinds of arguments seem to happen in all segments of the LGBT communities. Female identified butches vs. male identified butches. Transmen vs. butches. Transsexual vs. transgender. If you swap out the words it is essentially the same argument. You don't fit in here. My needs are different than yours (maybe even more pressing, important). Your presence silences me. I am not being heard.

Is there anyone here that thinks that we might be better served if all women decide to be one another's ally no matter where we fit on the list of identities? Isn't that the true aim of feminism? If we could do that and focus our energy on dismantiling the patriarchy would that be more successful?

I completely agree with you, up to a point. I'm all for all women being allies of all other women, *provided that none of those women are actively working against feminist ideals*. I'd love to claim to be an ally to all women, except I can't get behind women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. In much the same way that I consider myself an ally of all queer people, except the ones who won't claim their queerness and instead work against us (I'm thinking mainly of conservative, closeted politicians here) while having illicit liasons in airport bathrooms. I think it's a mistake to think we should be someone's ally just because we share a single trait. There are a lot of women in world who hate everyone on this board, everyone in the queer community, everyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, etc, and I can't ally myself with those people.

People with whom I share multiple traits, on the other hand, I'm thrilled to be allied with. Women who are also queer, and also feminists? Hugs all around! Right up to the point where someone within that group tries to shove someone else out of it.

[julieisafemme]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I completely agree with you, up to a point. I'm all for all women being allies of all other women, *provided that none of those women are actively working against feminist ideals*. I'd love to claim to be an ally to all women, except I can't get behind women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. In much the same way that I consider myself an ally of all queer people, except the ones who won't claim their queerness and instead work against us (I'm thinking mainly of conservative, closeted politicians here) while having illicit liasons in airport bathrooms. I think it's a mistake to think we should be someone's ally just because we share a single trait. There are a lot of women in world who hate everyone on this board, everyone in the queer community, everyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, etc, and I can't ally myself with those people.

People with whom I share multiple traits, on the other hand, I'm thrilled to be allied with. Women who are also queer, and also feminists? Hugs all around! Right up to the point where someone within that group tries to shove someone else out of it.

You know I was not even thinking of straight women when I said that. That's a problem! I guess I was thinking more about our community and the divisions we have been talking about.

This brings up a big moral dilemma that the Jewish community has been grappling with. Glenn Beck has pledged his allegiance to Israel and had a rally there and everything. Lots of Jews supported him. WHAT??? This was pretty shocking to me. On a FB page people were defending him and then one man posted his horribly homophobic rap sheet. You know what one guy said? He'd rather side with Glenn Beck than someone who wanted him dead. Nevermind that Glenn Beck is also racist and his interest in Israel is based soley on the end of days. I'm using this example because you bring up a very good point. What if Sarah Palin wanted to ally with us? She clearly stated she was in line with our goals and was on board for the fight. What about all the other really horrible politics she espouses? What about her agenda for supporting us?

Thanks for bringing that up.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by MissTick

Morality is a difficult thing to discuss really. Personal morality is by definition a personal choice. However, the reality is that if you believe yourself to be an ethical person then your response to a situation will be you doing the right or moral thing. Therefore anyone else confronted with the same situation would invariably make the same choice. To claim to not make the rules or to define morality for anyone else is just a way of not accepting this responsibility.

If it is okay for you to cheat, lie, steal or whatever under a certain set of circumstances then it is okay for the other to do the same under the same conditions. To me the measure of morality is that it is impartial.

If it is a logical right thinking choice for you in a situation, then in the same situation it is the logical right thinking choice for other reasonable people as well. Morality should be defined impartially.

The other necessary component for personal morality is equal respect for the humanity of all persons. Not equal respect for everyone in everyway. Just equal respect for the humanity of all.

This was posted in another thread but I wanted to highlight it because the sentiment above is so refreshingly honest about morality. Instead of maintaining the pretense that there's no such thing as morality (something NO minority group should even contemplate if they have any aspirations toward being treated equally) Miss Tick bravely states that there is such a thing as morality and that, local custom notwithstanding, there are better and worse ways of determining what is moral. The other reason I wanted to highlight this as part of the discussion I really think the queer community needs to have is the part about morality being impartial.

Altogether too often we observe where, in the name of being non-judgmental, we end up being more censorious than if we had just gone ahead and stated our opposition to some action or another. Put differently, it appears that the only things we can truly be judgmental about is, in fact, being judgmental. This seems, to me, to have it almost exactly backward.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Someone I love lots once said (to paraphrase) "What is with all this garbage about being nonjudgmental? You can't even have an opinion if you're not willing to judge. You can't even -think- without judging."

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Someone I love lots once said (to paraphrase) "What is with all this garbage about being nonjudgmental? You can't even have an opinion if you're not willing to judge. You can't even -think- without judging."

Well I think the way the word "judgmental" is often used is meant: to judge someone unfairly, i.e., on some bogus basis such as race, religion, gender, etc. That is a different sense than "judging" simply as a form of evaluation without prejudice.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Well I think the way the word "judgmental" is often used is meant: to judge someone unfairly, i.e., on some bogus basis such as race, religion, gender, etc. That is a different sense than "judging" simply as a form of evaluation without prejudice.

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

[dreadgeek]

Yes, this is precisely what I'm talking about and what I think that we, as a community, need to face head on. Truth be told, as a community we are not nearly as nonjudgmental as we would like to think we are. How can I be so certain of this? Because I can read and parse what people are saying. For example, when we talk about being nonjudgmental we are--wait for it--making a judgment. Whether people realize it or not, they are setting up a hierarchy of virtues and putting being nonjudgmental at the apex of it. While this may be emotionally satisfying it is not, in point of fact, being nonjudgmental. Let someone say something genuinely judgmental and people will come out of the woodwork to point out how nonjudgmental they are and how wonderful it is to be nonjudgmental.

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded. For example, if I were to jump up and say that my dead mother and father lived on beyond the grave and talked to me on a daily basis and that I knew this to be true and nothing anyone said could ever possibly disabuse me of that notion, I would be considered to be one of the most open minded people on this board. If, on the other hand, I were to state that I do not believe people live on after their death because I see no evidence that such a thing happened I would be considered horribly closed minded. Now, to my mind being willing to change one's mind upon presentation with better evidence is the sine qua non of open mindedness even if one has a high standard for what constitutes evidence. Being unwilling to change one's mind no matter the evidence, regardless of how high or low the bar is set, seems to me to be the very essence of a closed mind. However, that is not how we use those terms in everyday life in this community.

In this construction open-minded means believing that Joan of Arc speaks to people from beyond the grave on no better strength than someone *said* that it happens. Being closed minded means wanting evidence for any belief X where X is some phenomena that would effect all people. (In other words, I don't need to prove that my wife loves *you* in order to believe that she loves me. I do need to be prepared to demonstrate that if my parents are capable of speaking to me from beyond the grave that your parents are as well or I had better have a damn good explanation for why I am so particularly blessed to be able to speak to my folks long after they have died.)

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by betenoire

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

Haha, I wasn't saying I disagreed. In fact I totally agree with you on all of what you just said. I believe that there are universal rights and wrongs. I am not a moral relativist at all.

[Jett]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Someone I love lots once said (to paraphrase) "What is with all this garbage about being nonjudgmental? You can't even have an opinion if you're not willing to judge. You can't even -think- without judging."

Then again one could be too judgmental to even make a good judge...

Jett
(formerly Metropolis)

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Jett

Then again one could be too judgmental to even make a good judge...

Jett
(formerly Metropolis)

Have you got an example of that?

[Jett]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Have you got an example of that?

I can make one up... but I'll just say I've always taken the word judgmental to describe someone who is overly judgy... or critical- especially in moral, ethical or personal areas of others lives.

Other than that I wholeheartedly agree with you, we have to make judgements all the time, and we have to somewhat judge others to relate them to our own moral/ethical/social/etc. compass... but some people are much more "judgmental" than others... often very much to a fault.

That's all I got...