Showing posts with label ally work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ally work. Show all posts

What I'm Reading Now

A thread for sharing what we're currently reading: Fiction, nonfiction, novels, short stories, historical fiction, biographies, romance, fanfic, comic books, graphic novels, longform journalism, research papers, stuff for pleasure, stuff for work, whatever.

I recently finished Ijeoma Oluo's So You Want to Talk About Race. (Buy it at one of the listed vendors. Also be sure to request it at your local library!)

image of the cover of So You Want to Talk About Race, which is a simple, bold cover featuring the text of the title and the author's name

I definitely recommend this book. I could easily quote virtually any passage to entice you to read it, but this was a particular stand-out for me:
When we were slaves nursing their babies, we were not nice enough. When we were maids cleaning their homes, we were not nice enough. When we were porters shining their shoes, we were not nice enough. And when we danced and sang for their entertainment, we were not nice enough.

For hundreds of years we have been told that the path to freedom from racial oppression lies in our virtue, that our humanity must be earned. We simply don't deserve equality yet.

So when people say that they don't like my tone, or when they say they can't support the "militancy" of Black Lives Matter, or when they say that it would be easier if we just didn't walk about race all the time — I ask one question:

Do you believe in justice and equality?

Because if you believe in justice and equality you believe in it all of the time, for all people. You believe in it for newborn babies, you believe in it for single mothers, you believe in it for kids in the street, you believe in justice and equality for people you like and people you don't. You believe in it for people who don't say please.

And if there was anything I could say or do that would convince someone that I or people like me don't deserve justice or equality, then they never believed in justice and equality in the first place.

Yes, I am a Malcolm. And Martin, and Angela, Marcus, Rosa, Biko, Baldwin, Assata, Harriet, and Nina. I'm fighting for liberation. I'm filled with righteous anger and love. I'm shouting, as all before me have in their way. And I'm a human being who was born deserving justice and equality, and that is all you should need to know in order to stand by my side.
I take up space in solidarity with Ijeoma Oluo, because I believe in justice and equality all of the time, for all people.

What are you reading now?

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"I assumed that my passive concern would be enough. Passive concern never is."—Science journalist Ed Yong, in a very fine piece for the Atlantic, "I Spent Two Years Trying to Fix the Gender Imbalance in My Stories."

I strongly encourage you to head over and read the whole thing. As a person who makes an ongoing effort to include marginalized writers' work and voices here, I appreciate Yong's piece immensely — and I share his conclusion that it really doesn't take an enormous amount of effort; just a willingness and desire to prioritize diversity.

Open Wide...

This Is What Happens When the President Is a Bigot

[Content Note: Homophobia and transphobia.]

Something I've said many times over the past year is that Donald Trump didn't invent bigotry, but he has mightily empowered it.

At the Daily Beast, Samantha Allen reports on a grave consequence of that reckless sanction: A new survey, commissioned by GLAAD and conducted by The Harris Poll, found that support for LGBTQ Americans among their cishet countrypeople has precipitously diminished, marking "the first time in the four-year history of the Accelerating Acceptance report that GLAAD has witnessed a decline in LGBT acceptance."

"This year, the acceptance pendulum abruptly stopped and swung in the opposite direction," GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis wrote in the 2018 report, noting the sharp contrast between this year's results and the last three years of watching Americans report being "more comfortable with LGBTQ people and more supportive of LGBTQ issues."

The annual GLAAD survey asks non-LGBT Americans to describe how comfortable they are in several scenarios involving LGBT people, like learning that a doctor is LGBT, witnessing a same-sex couple holding hands, or worshipping alongside and LGBT person at church.

This year's version, conducted in November 2017, found "a decline with people's comfort year-over-year," not just in a few of the scenarios, but "in every LGBTQ situation."

For example, in 2016, 27 percent of non-LGBT Americans said that they would be "very" or "somewhat" uncomfortable with learning that a family member is LGBT; in 2017, that figure jumped all the way up to 32 percent.

...The popular wisdom was that 2017 was a uniquely awful year for LGBT Americans; the Accelerating Acceptance report is one of the first tangible signs of how bad it has been.
Naturally, there have been direct, interpersonal consequences for members of the LGBTQ community: "55 percent of LGBT respondents to the GLAAD survey reported experiencing discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in 2017, as compared to 44 percent who said the same in 2016."

Another troubling finding was that the number of self-identified "allies" dropped significantly:
The GLAAD survey sorts non-LGBT Americans into three broad categories based on their comfort level across the LGBT scenarios: "allies" who are "very" or "somewhat" comfortable with every scenario, "detached supporters" who vary in comfort based on the question, and "resisters" who report being "very" or "somewhat" uncomfortable in every situation.

The proportion of "resisters" has held steady at 14 percent of non-LGBT Americans since 2015 but the ratio of "allies" to "detached supporters" took a turn for the worse over the past year. Now, GLAAD counts 49 percent of the non-LGBT respondents as "allies," down from 53 percent in 2016. Over that some time span, the percentage of "detached supporters" rose from 33 percent to 37 percent.
That the number of "allies" has diminished is very telling, for a couple of reasons.

1. It speaks directly to the disingenuousness of "ally" as a fixed identity.

2. It confirms my suspicions that lots of privileged people who most aggressively identify as "allies" are doing it to mask their discomfort, as opposed to because they have an interest in doing the work to leverage their privilege on behalf of people without it. And, given the slightest room to indulge that discomfort, they will.

Relatedly, there are a lot of privileged folks who aren't particularly principled about their support for marginalized communities. They simply identify as "ally" when that's the more popular position, and jettison that identity when it's no longer fashionable.

3. Finally, and most importantly, as many social justice advocates have long argued, a public expectation of support for marginalized people matters. Hugely.

That is, privileged people must feel ashamed for failing to support marginalized populations, or a number of them won't fucking do it.

Empathy will only get us so far. The rest depends on creating a public perception that it's entirely unacceptable to not show support.

That's why Trump empowering bigotry is so dangerous. The whole "he's just saying what we're all thinking" stuff was always going to result in a backlash, because what it was doing was tearing away the boundaries that decent people had set in terms of what was publicly tolerated.

He unmuzzled bigots who felt constrained — and rightly so — by social disincentives to express their bigotry. Unleashing queerphobic rhetoric in turn creates space where more people feel okay about their reservations, as opposed to feeling obliged to interrogate them. Visible support from fewer cishet people — including those who are silent because they believe equality has been achieved (nope) and wouldn't need vigilant nurture even if it had been (wrong) — then creates even more space for expressed bigotry to thrive.

It's an ugly cycle and a massive failure among privileged people.

Trump is the ringleader of this grotesquery, but behind him roars an entire circus of seething hatred and dangerous indifference. Their spectacle is contagion, and it must be shut down.

Open Wide...

May MRAs' Misogyny Ruin Everything for Them Always

For many years now, we've had to listen to Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) and sundry other manbabies whine that everything from casting Idris Elba as Heimdall to an all-female Ghostbusters reboot was retroactively ruining their childhoods.

Naturally, the current Star Wars sequels (and prequels) are driving MRAs to distraction with their shameless inclusion of people of color and MULTIPLE WOMEN OMGGGGGG.

So, some righteously outraged dude re-cut The Last Jedi to remove all the women:

According to Pedestrian, an anonymous user uploaded a film called "The Last Jedi: De-Feminized Fanedit" to Pirate Bay on Sunday, referring to the person as an "MRA," or "Men's Rights Activist." Just in case the video's intent was unclear, the MRA in question also titled it "The Chauvinist Cut."

Where would the new Star Wars movie be without its many powerful female figures? At least this one guy wants to know, because he's so unhappy with The Last Jedi that he turned the 152-minute movie into a 46-minute episode of men doing things in space. The user describes the cut as "basically The Last Jedi minus Girlz Powah and other silly stuff."
Some people have posited that the misogynist fan edit was created by someone doing a mighty impression of an MRA, rather than an actual MRA, to which I'd say where's the joke and what is it even, since some dipshit claimed responsibility "for tanking the Rotten Tomatoes audience score" of The Last Jedi, because girls have cooties. For real.

The point is, if it's supposed to be a parody of MRAs, it's indistinguishable from actual content produced by MRAs, many of whom are no doubt enjoying this woman-free version at this very moment. It's real enough, no matter who created it.

Which doesn't mean it's still not a fucking joke, of course!

All the best folks are laughing at it, in fact. Like the director of The Last Jedi, Rian Johnson.


And Mark "Luke Skywalker" Hamill.


And John "Finn" Boyega.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! All I can say is:


GOOD.

Open Wide...

Powerful Man Confronts Powerful Man

[Content Note: Sexual harassment and assault.]

During a panel last night in New York, accompanying a 20th anniversary screening of the film Wag the Dog, moderator John Oliver asked Dustin Hoffman about recent allegations of sexual harassment and assault. And Hoffman was not happy about it.

There is video of part of the exchange at the Washington Post, where Steven Zeitchik also provides a detailed summary.

The whole thing is fascinating, but, as I noted on Twitter, the most compelling part to me is Hoffman asking if he's a powerful man. Such a remarkable moment of a man diminishing himself to play the victim in response to accountability for victimizing others.

Oliver said that he considered not addressing the subject at what was intended as a genial chat but then decided he bore an obligation.

"I can't leave certain things unaddressed," the host said. "The easy way is not to bring anything up. Unfortunately that leaves me at home later at night hating myself. 'Why the…didn't I say something? No one stands up to powerful men.'"

"Am I the powerful man?" Hoffman asked.
Wow. WOW.


This is a dynamic that men must begin to understand — particularly because it doesn't work nearly as well when the confrontation is between two men, which should urgently move men to be challengers in precisely the way Oliver is here, instead of leaving the work to women.

Let me observe once again that a man who is truly in alliance with women doesn't treat the dismantling of the patriarchy as "women's work."

Not just because it's shitty and lazy, but because he knows that men have leverage to address abusive men in ways that women don't, because of the patriarchy.

John Oliver will be called a hero today. If I had done precisely the same thing, even if to a man who had harmed me personally, I'd be called a bitch.

That isn't incidental. And neither is the fact that Hoffman's victim-playing wasn't effective, because we aren't entrained to view men who hold other men accountable as unfair, uncharitable, mean.

More of this, please. I'm sure I'm not the only woman who would like to rest while men who assert to be allies step the fuck up for awhile.

Open Wide...

This Is a Victory We Needed Today

[Content Note: Rape culture.]

Yesterday, I wrote about the Hollywood and Highland Casting Couch, a literal monument to the rape culture in Hollywood. I ended that post by saying: "Get rid of it. Now."

This morning, John Ennis tweeted at me with some good news (which I'm sharing here with his permission):


I LIKE THEM APPLES VERY MUCH!

John told me he'd headed over to the spot with the intention of putting crime scene tape around the hideous spectacle in an act of protest, but discovered instead upon his arrival that the thing had been removed altogether. He writes:
When I saw Shakestweetz's post that there was a literal monument to the casting couch at tHollywood & Highland shopping center in the heart of Hollywood, I was disgusted. It was like a tasteless joke from a movie, and yet, there was a "Road to Hollywood" mosaic with a trail leading to a daybed. Its reputation wasn't bad; instead it was apparently now part of the promise of La La Land.

This can't go on, I thought to myself, and knew I would have to do something, because I drive right in front of that place every morning.

image of a package of crime scene tape

I got a couple rolls of crime scene tape to wrap round the area, figuring it would make a powerful statement without doing any permanent damage. I parked across the street so that I would be able to slip away quickly. I arrived at the shopping center, which is designed after a set of Egypt that was built there for a movie in the 1930's, quickly scoping security.

I looked around. Where was it? I finally saw the tile that said "The Road to Hollywood," but there was no big casting couch there. Around the corner, fifty feet away, in an atrium to the side by an elevator, I noticed a huge blue tarp over a large rectangular block. I looked closer. It had a sloping end, like the backing of the day bed seen in the photo. I ran my hand over it; it was a solid piece, not a pile of materials.

I lifted up the tarp and took a picture of the structure. It was beige like the day bed in the photo. I went back to the mosaic ground. I could see marks where the legs of the day bed had been.

Did that happen? Did someone at Hollywood & Highland realize how bad this was, like a Confederate monument? Or better yet, do they follow Shakestweetz?? Let's take this as a promise of a new day in Hollywood.
Yesterday, when I called to confirm the thing was still there, my pretext for calling was that I was coming for a visit soon and wanted to make sure I could see it on my trip. There was no indication it wouldn't be there, and the person to whom I was speaking was real excited to confirm its existence. Even this week.

Today, it's gone.

I called again this morning, asking to confirm that the Casting Couch statue had been removed. I reached the same person who'd been so cheerful yesterday. "No comment," was the terse reply, before she hung up on me.

image of me in my backyard, holding up a celebratory fist, to which I've added text reading: 'YES!!!'

It's a small victory, but the symbolism is satisfying — and I'll take whatever the fuck I can get this week.

Open Wide...

I Pledge Allegiance

by Shaker Carina (@checarina)

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color." — NFL player Colin Kaepernick in August 2016, explaining why he chose not to stand during the playing of the national anthem.
It was in maybe 7th or 8th grade that I stopped saying the pledge of allegiance entirely.

It's a daily ritual for American schoolchildren: At the beginning of the day, the bell rings, and a classroom full of children stands at their desks, turns toward the American flag at the front of the room, places their hands over their hearts, and recites these words:

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Of the United States of America

And to the republic for which it stands

One nation, under God, indivisible

With liberty and justice for all


— wait, record scratch, what? Under God? Yeah, I know. That was the part that first got my attention, too. I didn't believe in any god, so the words rang false coming out of my mouth. Moreover, what about all the other Americans who believed in different gods, or no god at all? Were we not part of this "one nation"?

(Sidenote: Did you know the words "under God" weren't added to the pledge until 1954? The original version, written in 1892 by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy, makes no mention of God. Bellamy was also a socialist and had initially considered including the words "equality" and "fraternity" in the pledge, but he thought "that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization."

Sigh. I know, Francis, I know.)

So "under God" was the first part of the pledge I dropped. I would stand silently with my hand over my heart, rejoining the chorus on "indivisible." But over time, I became more and more puzzled by the ritual itself. It was something I'd done every school day for years, but I didn't remember ever learning what the pledge meant, only how to say it.

I was, of course, young and naive, but if there's one thing children understand better than adults, innately, it's the power of narratives. It's only adults who are foolish enough to dismiss something as "just a story", as if all of us as children weren't regularly exposed to stories meant to impart some moral or set of values (fables, fairy tales, Bible stories, Disney movies…). So the turning point in my relationship to the pledge came when I asked myself this question: If this were a movie, wouldn't we look like the bad guys?

This was not, at the time, a commentary on any particular American policy, domestic or foreign — I wasn't that politically aware (my political awareness would develop rapidly in the next couple years when George W. Bush "won" the 2000 presidential election, and the Twin Towers were destroyed in 2001). It was simply that I couldn't square the image of a bunch of schoolchildren robotically reciting a pledge we didn't understand with everything I'd been taught about American values — individualism, dissent, independence. You know, not like those poor brainwashed saps living under communist regimes (*cough cough*) or theocratic dictatorships (*severe coughing fit followed by wheezing*). I realized that if you transposed the image from America to China, or to a sci-fi movie, we'd be indistinguishable from the (supposedly) evil empire. I realized that no one had ever discussed with me when I should stop pledging allegiance, even as I learned in history class about the horrors of the Holocaust and the complicity of ordinary German citizens.

So, eventually, I just stopped. At first I stood, but didn't speak the words. Then I dropped my hand from my heart. And finally, I stopped standing altogether, making my non-participation starkly visible.

I was lucky — no one ever gave me a hard time. Maybe my teachers didn't know what to do with me, or maybe they didn't care. Once there was a substitute who asked what I was doing — "Oh," said a classmate. "She doesn't stand."

What does it mean to pledge allegiance to a flag, to a country? What if people do horrible things under the auspices of that flag? What if your country does indefensible things?

Now we are at a moment, the most important moment in my lifetime, to ask that question. And I'm young, but I've heard the same sentiment from older friends: I've never seen this in my lifetime, they say. I never thought we'd be here. Words we had hoped only to say, with joyous surprise, about electing the nation's first Black president, the nation's first woman president. Instead we're saying them about a resurgence of violent, virulent nativism and white supremacy, bolstered by voices coming from the highest levels of government.

So, no, I do not pledge allegiance to a flag, a flag which is changeable, which can change hands from a true leader to a tyrant in a heartbeat. I pledge allegiance, instead, to the very best of what that flag has represented. I pledge allegiance to freedom, to liberty, and to justice. I pledge allegiance to humanity. I pledge allegiance to my sisters and siblings of the human race, the downtrodden, the forgotten, the marginalized. I pledge allegiance to this Earth we share. I pledge allegiance to Black lives. I pledge allegiance to every woman and person who desires bodily autonomy. I pledge allegiance to indigenous water protectors. I pledge allegiance to the undocumented, the detained, the banned, the deported.

I pledge allegiance to myself, to always remain true to what lives in my heart. I pledge allegiance to you and me. That is my pledge. And this pledge I will stand for.

Open Wide...

Don't Look Away

[Content Note: Fat hatred.]

Your Fat Friend has written a terrific piece about thin people who find comments sections on fat advocacy pieces too harrowing to read: "Your Fat Friend Wants You to Read the Comments."

I shared a few comments with you in the hope of finding a witness to the cacophony in response to my handful of tweets — someone who could confirm the absurdity and harshness of strangers' responses. I should've anticipated what you would say.

Don't read the comments. I never do.

You, like so many other thin friends, were shaken, and found the comments too harrowing to continue reading.

I was surprised. These comments weren't anything I didn't hear regularly. These are words that strangers will readily say to me, face to face. Passersby shout epithets on the street. When turned down for a date, men snap "fat bitch" back at me with startling ease. Family members offer an unwelcome and unsolicited onslaught of diet advice and surgeon recommendations. Coworkers complain loudly about sitting next to passengers smaller than me. These comments are as ubiquitous as the air that I breathe. And like the air, they are invisible to you.

[...] I don't read the comments. I never do.

But, my darling friend, the comments are the one passage from your world to mine. The comments are what I breathe every day — the heavy smog that thickens in my lungs. The cloudy mess I exhale when I tell you what has happened. The thick skin that has brought me this far, and allowed me to take so much in stride.

I need you to peer into the world I walk through every day. I need you to read the comments.
There is much, much more at the link, and I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.

It's a very good companion piece to one I wrote in October 2013: "I Wouldn't Even If I Could." That's about the advice that I should "just ignore" fat hatred, while Your Fat Friend's is about thin people confessing that they just ignore it (because they can).

Both of those dynamics are part and parcel of entrenching thin privilege by pretending that marginalization and abuse of fat people doesn't exist, even as such insistence is rooted in evidence of fat hatred's harm.

To posit that ignoring fat hatred is a viable option for fat people is absurd and cruel.

And any thin person who wants to do effective ally work in solidarity with fat people will never ask us to salve their discomfort at evidence of our abuse by ignoring it. Read the comments. Don't just ignore what our lived experiences really look like.

Open Wide...

Yes, I'm Angry. Why Aren't You?

[Content Note: Emotional auditing.]

To the Ostensible Progressives Telling Us to Settle Down, to Get Over It, to Stop Being So Angry:

If you have even the merest capacity of imagination, it shouldn't be difficult for you to conjure your emotional reaction if you were a citizen, or resident, of a country that promised liberty and justice for all, and then that country elected (not by popular vote) a president who ruthlessly campaigned on myriad bigotries and relentlessly suggested that liberty and justice were really just for some, and those some didn't include you.

If you are indeed in possession of the capacity of imagination, you have no doubt concluded by this juncture that such a scenario, coupled with a lack of immediate recourse, might make you angry.

So the idea that a marginalized person exhibiting anger is somehow overreacting, or hysterical, or "crazy," or just plain wrong in some way, is actually quite indecent, not to mention rather daft.

Here's the other thing: If you are a person of privilege who fancies yourself capable and desirous of doing meaningful ally work, you will never, ever, criticize the tone of a person who does not share your privilege for being "too angry."

And you will never do this because, if you are indeed capable and desirous of doing meaningful ally work, not only will you have internalized an understanding of the perfect rationality of the anger expressed by marginalized people, but you will also share that anger.

How can any decent person look at a political and cultural landscape of increasingly violent hostility toward marginalized people and not be angry, right? Good, I'm glad we agree.

In which case, I presume you're actually glad for my anger, and that of other people targeted by this administration, because you know that the opposite of anger, for a progressive, is complacence—and there can be no progress if everyone is perfectly complacent with the way things are.

Progress is dependent on people who get angry, because anger—productive anger, motivating anger, directed anger, rational anger—is the root of much valuable progress.

We angry folks know that positive and needed progressive change comes by virtue of anger.

Progress ain't fueled by rainbows and gumdrops.

The fact is, if you're not angry, you're probably not helping. And if you're preoccupied with policing our anger, you're actively hurting us. And we've got plenty of that already, thanks.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day


Image Description: Photo of Tim Kaine in front of a U.S. flag, wearing a Hillary pin, smiling. Text added to the photo by me reads: "I'm so proud to be a strong man supporting a strong woman who will be the next president of the United States."

Kaine said these words during a huge rally in Philly that he attended with Hillary Clinton in front of a huge crowd over the weekend.

Open Wide...

This Kid is a Genuine Hero

[Content Note: Domestic violence; abduction.]


This story is a couple of weeks old, but I only read about it yesterday, thanks to my friend Elle. And what an incredible story it is: Malyk Bonnet, a 17-year-old from Montreal, was waiting for a bus when he saw a woman who looked like she was in trouble, with a man who was making that trouble.
"The guy was screaming at her, the girl. He wasn't really gentle with her, and I started watching, because I thought he would hit her, so I approached them a little bit," Bonnet said.

He said the couple asked him for money to take the bus to Laval, and he agreed to get some change at a convenience store and give them some money. Bonnet had a moment alone with the woman, who seemed terrified, he said.

Bonnet decided he had to help, and he was already formulating a plan. Even though he lived in Montreal, he told the couple he lived in Laval and would accompany them on the bus.

"My plan was to keep them in a public place, where there's a lot of people. I decided to make myself friendly with the man, so he would trust me. So I played my game," Bonnet said.

...Bonnet kept his cool, continuing to talk to the man as they took the bus and then the metro to Laval, waiting for an opportune moment when he could call police.

Once in Laval, he offered to take the couple to a Tim Hortons, and he even gave the man $50 to buy food, he said.

Bonnet's cellphone battery had died, so he pretended to go to the washroom and borrowed a phone from someone in the restaurant and called police, who arrived within minutes.
What Bonnet did not know throughout this entire ordeal is that police were already looking for the woman, who had been kidnapped by the man. He was an ex-boyfriend who "had already been found guilty of assault and death threats against his ex-girlfriend last year, and he was under a court order to stay away from her."

Bonnet's quick thinking, decency, and courage means he very likely saved this woman's life.

That isn't just my assessment. Lt. Daniel Guérin of the Laval Police said Bonnet "managed the situation very well and took good decisions that probably saved the life of this woman."

When police arrived, said Bonnet, "She was almost crying. She was so happy, so happy not to be with him."

Bonnet, who spent around $120 keeping the couple company until he could summon police, says he "didn't think I would see this money again in my life," but: "I mean yo, money ain't nothing. Food ain't nothing. For a life? A life is really more important than my money."

Still, the police "took up a collection to reimburse the money he had spent for bus fare and food that night. They came up with $255." They also "intend to nominate Bonnet for a provincial award for bravery."

Kids today. Get ON my lawn.

Open Wide...

"I say that not just as President but also as a feminist."

Today is President Obama's birthday. And, because it's just the kind of guy he is, he gave us a gift for his birthday.

President Barack Obama Says, "This Is What a Feminist Looks Like."

I was decidedly dubious 8 years ago. I am not dubious anymore.

That should not be misconstrued as my saying he's a perfect feminist. I'm not a perfect feminist! I just see that his time as president, and as a father of girls becoming women, has changed him. Because he, like his friend Hillary, listens.

Open Wide...

"LGBT People Aren't Superheroes"

[Content Note: Pulse shooting; terrorism.]

This is a really moving and difficult and beautiful and sad piece by Carlos Maza, working through his feelings after the mass shooting in Orlando.

I'm sure lots of you aren't ready to read it yet, and some of you need to read precisely this thing in this moment, and some of you might feel indifferent to it, because it doesn't resonate with how you're feeling.

But here it is, if you need it now, or for when you do.

And there is good advice to cis straight people, too: "Make yourself available."

Open Wide...

I Didn't Know This, But I'm Not Surprised

[Content Note: Homophobia.]

Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom published this on his Facebook page today:

In 2004, after I ordered the city clerk to give same-sex couples marriage licenses, I quickly became a pariah in the Democratic Party. I was accused of endangering Sen. Kerry's campaign for president, my speech at the national convention was cancelled, and most hurtful, major democratic candidates and elected officials — some of whom were my friends — refused to be photographed with me or even be in the same room with me. I was being demonized by the left and the right. Only one major figure in the Dem party was willing to be photographed with me: Hillary Clinton. In 2004, we did an event together down at Delancey Street in San Francisco. I'll never forget that moment — that when I was being attacked for my position on same sex marriage and what we did in San Francisco, she was willing to stand with me in public when no one else was. ‪#‎ImWithHer‬
Blub.

Also a remarkable reminder of how far the Democratic Party has come in 12 years. I mean. A profound success, credit to the LGBTQIA community for relentless advocacy and always expecting more.

Open Wide...

Fat and the Bikini Body Meme

[Content Note: Fat hatred; body policing.]

It's again that time of year where a popular meme starts showing up on social media. It tends to feature silhouettes of what are meant to be read as female bodies, including or sometimes exclusively very fat bodies, and text which is some variation on: "How to Get a Bikini Body: Step 1: Buy a bikini. Step 2: Put it on your body."

Let me first say, once again, that fat women are not a monolith, and different fat women will have different reactions to this meme. I don't purport to speak for all fat women, some of whom like this meme very much, and I am not seeking to police or criticize their individual reactions to it.

I do, however, want to do some awareness-raising on behalf of the fat women who aren't so keen on the meme, because I know there are a lot of thin and in-betweenie women who spend time in this space who want to do good fat ally work and may not have considered some of the reasons not all fat women find it a strictly positive or supportive message.

So, here are a couple of things to consider before you share this image under the auspices of being a fat ally (or even as a fat person):

1. Not all fat women can buy a bikini. That's not just a consideration of financial realities, which are always at issue in consumerist memes, but it's also a reflection of the fact that even off-the-rack (or off-the-website) "plus-size" bikinis have a finite size range.

There are sites who will custom-make bikinis for women of any size based on their individual measurements, but that is, of course, a costly option. And naturally there are women who are skilled enough to make their own bikinis, but that is not an option for anyone who lacks those talents.

Casually suggesting that all fat women can just go "buy a bikini," without any acknowledgment of the fact that purchasing a bikini in one's size might not be an option, especially for very fat women, is not supportive. It also reinforces the idea that there's an "acceptable" level of fatness which tops out at the maximum size of most "plus-size" fashion lines, and anyone whose body exceeds those standard sizes is thus "unacceptably" fat.

2. Putting a bikini on one's fat body is not just about the physical act of getting into a swimsuit. There are all kinds of cultural disincentives to be a fat woman in a bikini in public, and we are obliged to navigate them no matter how much we might love our own bodies.

There is a vast difference in being a woman who has insecurities about a body in which she sees imperfections but is broadly culturally acceptable, and a woman who has insecurities about a body that significantly deviates from what is considered culturally acceptable. That is not to diminish, at all, the seriousness of body insecurities no matter what one's size. It is merely to observe that even if fat women get okay with their own bodies, there is not an existing cultural space in which we are accepted.

There's no equivalent for fat women to the narrative "we all have flaws!" No deviation from some impossible ideal should ever regarded as a "flaw," anyway, but fat is not regarded as a mere flaw.

And we are not, outside fat acceptance spaces, celebrated for a willingness to show our bodies "despite" their imperfections. We are not considered brave. We are harassed, shamed, policed, threatened, attacked.

The thing about "love your body" campaigns for my fat self is that I can love my body all the fuck I want, but the bigger problem for me is other people hating my body.

It's so much more complicated than just putting on a bikini, for lots of fat women. We need to respect and recognize that.

* * *

This isn't a comprehensive list of potential objections. I hope if fat women share in comments any additional concerns they may have with the meme, not-fat women will listen to their perspectives.

Open Wide...

Candidates Who Listen—And to Whom They're Listening

[Content Note: Privilege; monolithizing.]

One of the themes of this presidential election (of every presidential election), at least on the left side of the aisle, is which candidate is better for marginalized people.

Bernie is better for black people! Hillary is better for women! Bernie is better for LGBT people! Hillary is better for people with disabilities! Etc ad infinitum.

You'll never hear me make such a blanket claim, for reasons I've already explained, not least of which being that no marginalized group is a monolith with a universal set of interests. And because there are people whose identities straddle multiple axes of marginalization.

But lots of people make those blanket claims, without regard for individual needs and intersecting identities.

And as proof, they submit single votes on individual bills, or single quotes from long-ago speeches. Or, they say, this candidate listens.

Now, don't get me wrong: Listening is great! And I think it was important when, for example, Hillary Clinton said during her address in Harlem this week that white people need to listen to black people about their lives and experiences and believe them—especially because that comes embedded with the promise that she's going to do what she urges other white folks to do. And when she also said, "Hold me accountable," it is an invitation to do precisely that if she fails to listen.

But listening, even if that does indeed result in being a stronger advocate for marginalized people, is what presidents in a representative democracy are supposed to do.

It is my bare minimum expectation that a Democratic candidate for the presidency would listen to every community of color, to women, to LGB people, to trans people, to people with disabilities, to documented immigrants, to undocumented immigrants, to refugees, to people from marginalized religions, to atheists, to young people, to old people, to people who are poor, hungry, homeless. (That is not a complete list, nor are those mutually exclusive categories.)

Because no group is a monolith, different people within those communities are going to have different ideas of what constitutes a trustworthy and effective candidate, but there are common themes and needs, and the more listening one does, the more one hears the harmony, instead of what at first may seem like a cacophony of discordant expectations.

It is the job of a president who cares about justice to find those harmonies.

So listening is necessary. And a willingness to listen, meaningfully and in good faith, is terrific.

But what's getting lost in all the discussion of which candidate is better for what community is the fact that however good they may be is not only because of their own ability to listen, but because of the people who are giving them something to which to listen.

If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a white person hectoring one of my black colleagues on Twitter for criticizing Bernie Sanders, shouting at them that they're stupid if they don't realize Sanders is the best candidate for black people, well, I could mount a third-party vanity campaign faster than you can say "Michael Bloomberg."

These white supporters lecture black critics while ignoring that, if Sanders is indeed, in any measure, a good representative for black people, it's because he's listened to and learned from black people.

Which is not a credit to Sanders, since that's what he's supposed to be doing. It's a credit to the people to whom he listened.

Being a marginalized person who endeavors to educate a privileged person on your needs can be a daunting task. And often a waste of fucking time. It means risking that they might not listen, but giving and time and energy to talk to them anyway, on the chance that it will make a difference.

No marginalized person is obliged to provide education to a privileged person (especially not on demand). But it's something we have to do, when we are choosing one person to represent our needs in a national agenda, a person who will serve as both head of government and head of state.

Not everyone wants to do it, or will. Not everyone will have the sort of access that gives them the chance to be heard by a (possibly) future president. But there are people who do get that access, and make use of it. There are people who make criticisms of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, in their own spaces, in the hope they might get heard. Maybe their concerns will be amplified by someone with access they don't have.

People who want presidential candidates to listen to what they have to say about their own lived experiences are brave and tenacious—and an integral part of the electoral process.

After all, what difference does it make if a candidate is willing to listen, if there's no one to listen to?

So, maybe the best way to honor one's candidate, if one has a preferred candidate, is to knock it off with the brazen claims about who will better for what community, and instead show some gratitude and respect toward the people in that community who have put their trust, often precariously at best, in a candidate to listen.

I can't be the only person who is tired of being told that I'm fixing to vote against my own best interests, by people who haven't even bothered to listen long enough to find out what my interests are.

I'm glad we've got candidates who listen, to varying degrees of success. But I'm even more glad for the people to whom they can listen, who are willing and able to raise their voices. Who advocate for their needs and compel better policy.

I endeavor to remain among them, working my teaspoon.

Open Wide...

Dear White Men

[Content Note: Terrorism; racism; white supremacy; patriarchy.]

White people need to be talking to each other about the white supremacist terrorist act in Charleston last night.

We need to be talking to each other about what we, as individuals, are doing to dismantle white supremacy, and we need to be holding each other accountable for the ways in which we uphold white privilege.

We need to be pushing back on minimizing language that seeks to turn the perpetrator of this heinous act into a troubled boy who acted in isolation, and challenge narratives that seek to frame this mass murder as an isolated incident, just one of eleventy million "isolated incidents," that supposedly share nothing in common.

White men, there is a particular role you need to play in these conversations.

According to a survivor of the attack, the shooter said: "You rape our women and you're taking over our country."

White men, you need to talk to each other about white supremacist patriarchy today.

I can say all day long "you don't own me; I am not your woman" to white supremacist misogynists, but they don't listen to women.

White men, you need to be talking to other white men about not using ownership of white women as a justification for genocidal violence.

This Birth of a Nation bullshit needs to be denounced, hard and fast and loud. White men do not own white women, but men who believe they do are using that contemptible patriarchal garbage in order to justify mass murder of black men and women.

I will demand over and over and over that they stop using me, but men who believe that they own me, and who leverage the fact that other white men share that belief, aren't inclined to listen to me.

So you need to step the fuck up.

I am a white woman and a survivor of rape, and I am angry in ways I cannot even begin to articulate that my identity and my lived experience is being invoked in defense of eliminationist violence against black women and men.

And my anger doesn't matter to the men who do it. My agency doesn't matter. My refusal doesn't matter.

This is the role you need to play. You need to talk to other white men about how you don't own white women. You need to talk to other white men about how this patriarchal ownership narrative has been used since this country's inception to justify violence against black women and men.

You need to be visibly angry about white women's agency being usurped and our lived experiences being appropriated in order to rationalize and defend racist violence. You need to have a zero-tolerance policy on white supremacist patriarchy.

You need to talk to dangerous men and stop letting people be killed at their hands, because you can't be fucking bothered to get involved.

Open Wide...

Fat and the Bikini Body Meme

[Content Note: Fat hatred; body policing.]

It's again that time of year where a popular meme starts showing up on social media. It tends to feature silhouettes of what are meant to be read as female bodies, including or sometimes exclusively very fat bodies, and text that is some variation on: "How to Get a Bikini Body: Step 1: Buy a bikini. Step 2: Put it on your body."

Let me first say, once again, that fat women are not a monolith, and different fat women will have different reactions to this meme. I don't purport to speak for all fat women, some of whom like this meme very much, and I am not seeking to police or criticize their individual reactions to it.

I do, however, want to do some awareness-raising on behalf of the fat women who aren't so keen on the meme, because I know there are a lot of thin and in-betweenie women who spend time in this space who want to do good fat ally work and may not have considered some of the reasons not all fat women find it a strictly positive or supportive message.

So, here are a couple of things to consider before you share this image under the auspices of being a fat ally (or even as a fat person):

1. Not all fat women can buy a bikini. That's not just a consideration of financial realities, which are always at issue in consumerist memes, but it's also a reflection of the fact that even off-the-rack (or off-the-website) "plus-size" bikinis have a finite size range.

There are sites who will custom-make bikinis for women of any size based on their individual measurements, but that is, of course, a costly option. And naturally there are women who are skilled enough to make their own bikinis, but that is not an option for anyone who lacks those talents.

Casually suggesting that all fat women can just go "buy a bikini," without any acknowledgment of the fact that purchasing a bikini in one's size might not be an option, especially for very fat women, is not supportive. It also reinforces the idea that there's an "acceptable" level of fatness which tops out at the maximum size of most "plus-size" fashion lines, and anyone whose body exceeds those standard sizes is thus "unacceptably" fat.

2. Putting a bikini on one's fat body is not just about the physical act of getting into a swimsuit. There are all kinds of cultural disincentives to be a fat woman in a bikini in public, and we are obliged to navigate them no matter how much we might love our own bodies.

There is a vast difference in being a woman who has insecurities about a body in which she sees imperfections but is broadly culturally acceptable, and a woman who has insecurities about a body that significantly deviates from what is considered culturally acceptable. That is not to diminish, at all, the seriousness of body insecurities no matter what one's size. It is merely to observe that even if fat women get okay with their own bodies, there is not an existing cultural space in which we are accepted.

There's no equivalent for fat women to the narrative "we all have flaws!" No deviation from some impossible ideal should ever regarded as a "flaw," anyway, but fat is not regarded as a mere flaw.

And we are not, outside fat acceptance spaces, celebrated for a willingness to show our bodies "despite" their imperfections. We are not considered brave. We are harassed, shamed, policed, threatened, attacked.

The thing about "love your body" campaigns for my fat self is that I can love my body all the fuck I want, but the bigger problem for me is other people hating my body.

It's so much more complicated than just putting on a bikini, for lots of fat women. We need to respect and recognize that.

* * *

This isn't a comprehensive list of potential objections. I hope if fat women share in comments any additional concerns they may have with the meme, not-fat women will listen to their perspectives.

Open Wide...

Take Action to Stop the Forcible Close of Aboriginal Communities

by Shaker Rachel

[Content Note: Racism; displacement; violence; cultural genocide.]

I am not Indigenous, but I have been challenged to practice ally work in support of Aboriginal people in the fight to acknowledge and stop the racism that continues in Australia. During a recent local protest, one of the speakers asked us to reach out globally and try to raise awareness about the proposed forced closure of remote Aboriginal communities.

The cultural genocide of Aboriginal Australians continues today. There are not the violent skirmishes of war, nor the obvious oppression of official apartheid, but to be born as an Aboriginal person in my country is to face the slow and steady erosion of an ancient culture.

Archaeological estimates acknowledge that Aboriginal people have lived on this continent for well over 50,000 years, making them the oldest known living cultural history in the world. One might assume that being a wealthy, developed democracy would encourage the government to work with Aboriginal people to overcome the structural inequalities that have arisen since British colonisation; sadly, such an assumption would be false.

In Australia, we have a history of more than two hundred years of removing Aboriginal people from their country. Initially the British colonisers blatantly murdered or dispossessed Aboriginal Australians from their land. Declared "terra nullius" (literally no one's land), there was no acknowledgment that Australia was occupied by people prior to the English invasion in 1788.

This tradition of forcefully removing Aboriginal people continues today. The current Federal Government have slashed funding to Aboriginal services and passed former federal responsibilities to the states. One of these changes has included the end of federal funding to remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. The State Government has decided that of the 274 communities it will not continue to fund as many as 150 of them. In response to criticism of the planned closure the Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that "…It's not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise lifestyle choices."

This is one of many examples of our elected leader's privilege and disrespect towards Aboriginal people. He has since been asked if he will apologise for the hurt that he has caused people with his comment, or at the very least concede that it was a poor choice of words, but he has stated that he will do neither.

To give some insight into my country's treatment of Aboriginal people, our Constitution continues to ignore and discriminate against them. Australia is a country where if my grandmother had been Aboriginal she would have faced the threat of having her children removed as a part of the Stolen Generation. If my parents had been Aboriginal, in their lifetime they would have not been counted on the census but have been included under "flora and fauna." If I were Aboriginal and lived in a remote community in Western Australia my access to water, electricity, health services, and education would currently be under threat.

The Western Australian Premier, Collin Barnett, has stopped talking about the issue in terms of economic rationalism and is now trying to change the parameters of the conversation to focus upon the communities being closed to protect children. He seems to think that if he tells us the closure is due to concerns about child sexual assault, the opposition to his plan will lessen.

This is not a new argument in Australia as Aboriginal peoples human rights have been violated since 2007, in what was called the Northern Territory Intervention. Aboriginal women and children are at a higher disproportionate risk of suffering domestic violence and sexual assault within Australia. As a nation there has been a recent recognition that we are suffering an epidemic of abuse against women. There is growing enthusiasm for talk about eliminating gendered violence, but a disconnect when it comes to funding specialist services and implementing long term programs.

If the Premier genuinely has a desire to tackle the problem of domestic violence and sexual assault, there should be a state wide roll out of programs, with specialist services for Aboriginal people. The Premier's use of a serious social issue as a smokescreen to close down remote Aboriginal communities is an insult to all Australians. It also serves to distract the country from the real possibility that an underlying reason to remove Aboriginal people from their land is to open it up for easier access by mining companies.

In 2015, there have been a growing number of protests across Australia urging non-Aboriginal Australians to stand in solidarity with the residents of remote Aboriginal communities and demand that they are not closed down. People have taken to the streets to loudly show their disapproval of the proposition. There have also been online petitions, social media sites, and media coverage of the issue.

Murray George, a senior Anangu law man from South Australia, has spoken about his concerns raised by the plans to forcibly close remote Aboriginal communities.

We are worried for our culture. Some people have already lost their culture. But today we are still alive and strong, and I am talking for Aboriginal people.

Federal and state governments have got to understand and listen to our people, because our culture is still alive, for all Aboriginal people in Australia.

If they close the communities, they close our culture. We will lose our way and it's gone forever. There is no way to bring that back. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara is still alive today with the language, story and Tjukurpa (dreaming). We are here for everybody. We are important to Australia.

We want the SA Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister Maher to talk to us 'proper way' and not decide our future from Adelaide. He needs to support us to decide our future. We are in the bush, we want Minister Maher to come and sit down with us, to work together, for him to understand our way, our Law. We want Prime Minister Tony Abbott to support Aboriginal people and our Law and Culture.

Closing communities without talking to Aboriginal people, and without any plan, is really a bad thing to do. It's not good. Our life, our ancestor's lives, and our children's lives is not a 'lifestyle choice', it is our country, our family, our law and it is our culture. How can communities of poor Aboriginal people be closed, while the government supports tax rorts for the super-rich?

How can poor Aboriginal people be moved off our land, so that mining companies who are given large government tax breaks, can dig up our country? I'm from APY, where we still are alive with language and Law and culture. We are worried for our communities and Aboriginal people around Australia today. The Governments should help people from Aboriginal communities and work with us.

I am Murray George, from APY. This is my hope.
(This post first appeared on the facebook page for Anangu Pitjatjantjara Yankunytjatjara Lands.)

I cannot silently sit by whilst a wave of attacks befall Aboriginal Australians. The remote communities face a myriad of problems, but closing them down is not any kind of solution.

Sitting in a capital city and refusing to engage with remote community members is not a respectful way to instigate change. Whilst promises are made that in time there will be community consultations, clearly there are plans in motion that have ignored the perspective of those whose lives are about to be dramatically changed.

It says a lot about the colonial headspace of our government, that over two hundred years after invasion, Aboriginal people are still being treated as second-rate citizens whose basic human rights can be removed and ignored.

Wherever you are in the world, your support could help to shame the Australian Government out of its decision to forcibly close remote Aboriginal communities.

Sign the online petition.

On Facebook you can post a photo of yourself with a sign showing your support here.

You can tweet Premier Colin Barnett to tell him your views at @premierofwa.

You can email Premier Colin Barnett at: wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au.

(I would like to acknowledge the Awabakal and Worimi people as the Traditional Owners of the land that this opinion piece was written on. I would also like to pay my respects to their Elders, past, present, and future.)

Open Wide...

Kerry Washington, Y'all

Over the weekend, Kerry Washington was honored for her LGBT ally work at the 2015 GLAAD Media Awards, and this is the acceptance speech she gave:

Kerry Washington, a thin black, 38-year-old woman, wearing a halter gown with a burgundy top and purple skirt, stands onstage before a large audience at a standing mic.

Thank you, Ellen [Degeneres]! Thank you, Ellen; thank you, Ellen; thank you, Ellen, so much. We just love having you and your beautiful, extraordinary wife [Portia de Rossi] in our Scandal family. It's a good night for Shondaland up in here! [cheers]

So, forgive me—I thought I was gonna have a podium, so I'm gonna do this the best I can without one. [She opens a folder she is holding in her hands.] Okay. [She clears her throat.]

I am truly honored to be here and to be receiving this award. When I was told that I was gonna get an award for being an ally to GLAAD, it got me thinking: Being an ally means a great deal to me, and so I'm gonna say some stuff. And I might be preaching to the choir, but I'm gonna say it, not just for us, but because, on Monday morning, people are gonna click a link to hear what that woman from Scandal said on that awards show. So I think some stuff needs to be said. [cheers]

There are people in this world who have the full rights of citizenship—in our communities, our countries, and around the world—and then there are those of us who, to varying degrees, do not. We don't have equal access to education, to health care, and some other basic liberties like: Marriage, a fair voting process, fair hiring practices. Now, you would think that those of us who are kept from our full rights of citizenship would band together and fight the good fight. But history tells us that no—often, we don't.

Women, poor people, people of color, people with disabilities, immigrants, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, trans* people, intersex people—we have been pitted against each other, and made to feel like there are limited seats at the table for those of us who fall into the category of 'other.' As a result—as a result, we have become afraid of one another. We compete with one another; we judge one another; sometimes we betray one another. Sometimes even within our own communities, we designate who among us is best suited to represent us and who, really, shouldn't even really be invited to the party. [cheers] As 'others,' we are taught that, to be successful, we must reject those other 'others,' or we will never belong.

I know part of why I'm getting this award is because I play characters that belong to segments of society that are often pushed to the margins. Now, as a woman and as a person of color, I don't always have a choice about that. But I've also made the choice to participate in storytelling about the members of the LGBT community. I've made the choice to play a lot of different kinds of people, in a lot of different kinds of situations. In my career, I've not been afraid of inhabiting characters who are judged, and who are misunderstood, and who have not been granted full rights of citizenship as human beings.

But here's the great irony: I don't decide to play the characters I play as a political choice. Yet the characters I play often do become political statements. Because having your story told as a woman, as a person of color, as a lesbian, or as a trans* person, or as any member of any disenfranchised community is sadly often still a radical idea. There is so much power in storytelling, and there is enormous power in inclusive storytelling and inclusive representations.

That is why the work of GLAAD is so important. We need more LGBT representation in the media. We need more LGBT characters and more LGBT storytelling. We need more diverse LGBT representation [cheers] and by that, I mean lots of kinds of different kinds of LGBT people, living all different kinds of lives, and this is big—we need more employment of LGBT people in front of and behind the camera. [standing ovation]

So, in 1997, when Ellen made her famous declaration, it took place in an America where the Defense of Marriage Act had just passed months earlier, and civil unions were not yet legal in any state. But also remember, just 30 years before that, the Supreme Court was deciding that the ban against interracial marriages was unconstitutional. Up until then, heterosexual people of different races couldn't marry who they wanted to marry, either.

So when black people today tell me that they don't believe in gay marriage... [makes a "come on, now" face; cheers] So, the first thing that I say is: "Please don't let anybody try to get you to vote against your own best interest by feeding you messages of hate." And then I say: "You know, people used to stay that stuff about you and your love, and if we let the government start to legislate love in our lifetime, who do you think is next?"

We can't say that we believe in each other's fundamental humanity and then turn a blind eye to the reality of each other's existence and the truth of each other's hearts. We must be allies, and we must be allies in this business, because to be represented is to be humanized, and as long as anyone, anywhere, is made to feel less human, our very definition of humanity is at stake and we are all vulnerable. [cheers]

We must see each other, all of us, and we must see ourselves, all of us, and we have to continue to be bold and break new ground until this is just how it is, until we are no longer 'firsts' and 'exceptions' and 'rare' and 'unique.' In the real world, being an 'other' is the norm. In the real world, the only norm is uniqueness, and our media must reflect that. Thank you GLAAD for fighting the good fight. God bless you. [standing ovation]

Open Wide...