Originally, I wrote this article for The New Gay and titled it "Misogyny and Gay Rhetoric", but after it received a lot of hits and comments one of the editors passed it along to Jezebel. They picked it up and re-titled it "When Gay Men Insult Women" (apparently words like "Misogyny" or "Rhetoric" have no place in an article heading). I thank my boyfriend for his revisions and suggestions.
"Even though our histories are different, women and gay men suffer under similar forces which try to confine gender roles and control sexuality. However, if we are secure enough in our own identities, we won't need to degrade others in order to find a voice; we won't have to push others aside in order to stand."
Enjoy!
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Family Acceptance Project - "Always My Son"
I'm just stopping in to pass along a heart-warming video and article I found on Colorlines. Enjoy! :)
All Families Can Love Their LGBT Kids—Really, There’s Data to Prove It
All Families Can Love Their LGBT Kids—Really, There’s Data to Prove It
Is Zizek right?
Unlike many leftists, I'm not too impressed by Slavoj Zizek, however I enjoyed his article in the Guardian giving explanation for the Occupy movement and words of caution for its participants! The follow excerpt from the article highlights some of my current struggles and questions:
"In a kind of Hegelian triad, the western left has come full circle: after abandoning the so-called "class struggle essentialism" for the plurality of anti-racist, feminist, and other struggles, capitalism is now clearly re-emerging as the name of the problem."
Can our all of our social ills be reduced to purely economic forces (capitalism) or are social injustices heterogenous (consisting of sexism, racism, heterosexism, and class struggle as just one among the many others)? Is there a danger in reductionist tendencies? Can a plurality struggles truly produce a strong resistance to injustices?
"In a kind of Hegelian triad, the western left has come full circle: after abandoning the so-called "class struggle essentialism" for the plurality of anti-racist, feminist, and other struggles, capitalism is now clearly re-emerging as the name of the problem."
Can our all of our social ills be reduced to purely economic forces (capitalism) or are social injustices heterogenous (consisting of sexism, racism, heterosexism, and class struggle as just one among the many others)? Is there a danger in reductionist tendencies? Can a plurality struggles truly produce a strong resistance to injustices?
Monday, November 21, 2011
Excerpts from Sex and the Single Savior
Dale Martin's book, Sex and the Single Savior is an exciting and brilliant work! In this book, he surveys many New Testament texts which address [or are used to address questions of] sexuality, gender, and family. Martin employs amazing arguments and careful research to expose the uncertainty of many New Testament passages. He is clear that he does not claim that the New Testament advocates or condemns homosexuality, rather he points out the ambiguities of texts and the power ideology has played in controlling our interpretations of them. Through his many analyses, he emerges with many motifs in the New Testament which contrast contemporary sexism with ancient sexism, critique Western individualism, and challenge modern notions of family. And, rather than leading us through the nuances and complexities of the text to a place of firm answers, Dale Martin robs us of any recourse to a foundation but (I believe rightly) leaves us dependent upon a Kierkegaardian faith and the grace that makes it possible. Below are a few excerpts from this work.
"There are many excellent reasons why people in general and Christians in particular should not want to give the state the power to recognize and regulate marriage. When we give the state the right to legitimize one kind of sexual relationship or social formation, we automatically give it the right to render all other relaiotns illegitimate. Surely, the church should never cede its own perogatives to the state--especialy a state as bloodstained and beholden to the interests of the powerful as ours is. But all people should realize this: when you marry, you give power the state over your sexual relations, your person, the most intimate details of your life and body. To agree to marriage is to agree that the modern, violent, bureaucratic state has the right to control your life in its most intimate realms, public and private, personal and sexual, individual and collective. Not to put too fine a point on it, marriage cedes your genitals to the government....
...But I believe the church should also get out of the marriage business. Marriage is an exclusive and exclusionary technology for control. Modern churches legitimate one kind of social and intimate bonding and therefore declare illegitimate all others. This relationship is good--in fact, "divine." All others are bad or at best inferior."
"Bastard children are not created by the absence of marriage, but by marriage itself. Marriage makes bastards by making the category possible."
"Our knowlege of Christ is entirely mediated by something that is cultural: language, images, symbols, signs. Culture necessarily shapes all our experiences and anything we are able to say about Christ whatsoever. Since all language is cultural, and we can say nothing about Christ without language, everything we say about Christ is culture. Scripture is not a separate source we have access to apart from cultural experience. It is part of experience."
"There are many excellent reasons why people in general and Christians in particular should not want to give the state the power to recognize and regulate marriage. When we give the state the right to legitimize one kind of sexual relationship or social formation, we automatically give it the right to render all other relaiotns illegitimate. Surely, the church should never cede its own perogatives to the state--especialy a state as bloodstained and beholden to the interests of the powerful as ours is. But all people should realize this: when you marry, you give power the state over your sexual relations, your person, the most intimate details of your life and body. To agree to marriage is to agree that the modern, violent, bureaucratic state has the right to control your life in its most intimate realms, public and private, personal and sexual, individual and collective. Not to put too fine a point on it, marriage cedes your genitals to the government....
...But I believe the church should also get out of the marriage business. Marriage is an exclusive and exclusionary technology for control. Modern churches legitimate one kind of social and intimate bonding and therefore declare illegitimate all others. This relationship is good--in fact, "divine." All others are bad or at best inferior."
-Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 122-3
"Bastard children are not created by the absence of marriage, but by marriage itself. Marriage makes bastards by making the category possible."
-Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 123
-Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 158
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)