incredibly interesting.

so, i hear john mccain chose a highly inexperienced woman, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, as his running mate.
“The selection amounted to a gamble that an infusion of new leadership — and the novelty of the Republican Party’s first female candidate for vice president — would more than compensate for the risk that Ms. Palin could undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central arguments, its claim that Mr. Obama is too inexperienced to be president.”

hm.
how ’bout that.

what men want?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“According to a study cited in the MailOnline “most men want a traditional wife”.  When a list of priorities were listed what is obvious is that  men want a domestic servant rather than a partner.  You know after much thought, I cannot blame them.  I would love someone to do all of the cooking, cleaning and child care.  I would love for someone to cater to my every single whim simply because I was blessed to born with a vagina.  Why shouldn’t I be entitled to that kind of gender worship?

Imagine a world where being born with a uterus coded the body with unearned privileges.  What would it be like to know that my sex meant that not only am I a  person of value, but that my words would hold weight when I chose to speak?  Consider for a moment what it would be like to be immediately deferred to as a rational voice of reason, based on the assumption that all women are naturally calm and thoughtful individuals.   Imagine a world wherein female where not a pejorative.  The fact that the number one thing a woman wanted in a mate was the ability to listen speaks volumes about how we value men and women.”

that comes from Womanist Musings, and i just love all the irony jam-packed into those first few paragraphs she writes in response…  can you hear it?  she’s oozing out some, “oh, wouldn’t it be nice,” to the patriarchy, that’s what i hear.  because if you start reading that with half your brain you might think, ” what is she talking about?  it’d be nice, but that’s not how it is…”
and then you realise, when she says, “Consider for a moment what it would be like to be immediately deferred to as a rational voice of reason, based on the assumption that all women are naturally calm and thoughtful individuals,” that’s how the average white male not only Expects to be treated but Gets treated.

however, when i read “listens to what i say,” i wasn’t thinking kind compassionate partner who listens.  i was thinking quiet submissive partner who obeys when i speak.  maybe i mis-read the data, but, unfortunately, that says something about women too.
i’m reading rob bell’s sex god right now, and he talks about the whole biblical husband/wife submission paradox.  to keep it short, he says that it’s not supposed to be a control game, which is what reality has turn it into; it’s supposed to be this deep mutual sacrifice where both partners submit to each others’ needs and wants based on love and selflessnes.  wouldn’t it be nice?
the point is, if “listens to what i say” doesn’t imply “‘i like a good listener,’ says joe from rochester,” and it means “i want a mate who will obey me when i command,” then the fact that the number one thing women want in a man says a lot about the reality of the control battle — and the lack of control women have in relationships.

Ms. PacMan

Sorry for two updates in one day, but I couldn’t resist…
(impulse rules my life tonight…)

people like this exist?

now.  i KNOW in my head that people like reverend john hagee exist.  there’s been enough conservatism and sexism in my life or at least enough that i have been made aware of to KNOW things like this get said.
but seriously.  i didn’t think it was real.  something like… i KNOW it’s possible to make an eiffel tower as a yo-yo trick, but who the hell DOES that?

this guy.
thanks to my favourite feminist blog, feministing, i now know reverend hagee is the yo-yo trick MASTER of right-wing christianity.

i’m glad i will never be a stay at home dad who happens to encounter rev. hagee.  with any luck, i will never be the sole provider of income for my household or, you know, be in a lesbian relationship and encounter this man.
his interpretation of scripture is perverted nonsense.  he says paul discusses in 1st timothy that lazy bum dads are going to hell.  really?
i can understand his view, kind of, if i was completely supporting my husband and there were no children.  but i don’t plan on marrying a starving artist or a pot-head musician, you know?  and even then, he’s utterly condemning and irrational.
but rev. hagee isn’t referring to those men, although i’d love to hear the hell-fire they’ve got in store for them.  he is completely referring to men who stay at home taking care of their children.
first, it’s becoming common knowledge that paul didn’t actually write 1st or 2nd timothy, but that’s not the point.  for convenience let’s say he did; even strict, sometimes harsh paul the apostle never said anything about men being providers of the household.  just because mr. hagee’s sensibilities are jarred by a little gender liberation and role reversal does not mean he can direct the scripture on laziness at husbands who are supported by their wives.
second, stay-at-home dads aren’t lazy.  point blank period.  him accusing them at that is saying stay-at-home MOTHERS are lazy as well!  apparently he’s never been in charge of raising children.  because being a mother is an intense, taxing, never-ending, no sick days, no sleeping in on the weekends kind of job, not to mention all the things i don’t know about being a mother being that i’m not one.
clearly, rev. hagee is under the impression that child-rearing is beneath him.  that’s a humble man if i’ve ever seen one.  humility is having a level-headed, rational, generally objective outlook at your station in the world among God and men.  i think that rev. hagee has a slightly grandiose idea of the responsibilities God has ‘placed on men.’
i don’t believe that God ever meant for there to be gender roles in the first place.  ever.  they came with the fall, and as society evolves, as it’s transformed by the renewing of our minds (romans 12:2), i firmly believe they will become less and less prevalent in society.

this is appropriate.

last night i got told by a gay friend of mine that bisexuals don’t exist and if they do it’s a manifestation of selfishness.
that was the straw that broke the camel on his way to write this poem’s back.

 

let me explain something about humanity

and don’t take my word for it

because i got back up from my brother in psychology, Kinsey

but the truth about everybody

present today

is that inside of us we all have a capacity

for bisexuality

 

don’t tell me i’m wrong

because i know what i see

the research has been done

and evidence analysed

and the scientific community

is in agreement with me

 

let me explain.

 

men, every time you look at another boy’s muscles and say

damn i wish that were me

it may not be sexual, remotely,

but you’re checkin him out clearly

and there’s an attraction to that, see?

 

and women

we are guilty still more

because every time we compare

our butts and breasts

our worsts and bests

we are looking other girls

up and down

the fact is we are attracted to and wish to emulate

beauty

perhaps not infinitely
as in not all ways emotionally and physically

 

but guys

seriously

it’s there

and it’s not just me

 

in the past few weeks, you see,

i have been told many things about

my own sexuality

and i understand each is entitled to her opinion

and i’ve been taught the difference

between assumption and interpretation

but i’ve got to explain the difference

between my mind and my creation

 

sunday night

my gay-as-the-day is long brother

detailed to me

how if and only if bisexuals exist

it is because of their innate selfishness

he said

we want what we want and we want it all

and even though i adore this man

i was appalled

 

i understand i am a selfish human being

but that does not explain

why i sit in between

all genders, all sexes,

all shapes, colours, sizes to be seen

i don’t want the spectrum

but i see the divine in everything

furthermore, men and women in this house

i don’t need both sets of genitalia

(if we’re talking binary)

to be pleased

to be quite honest

what’s inside your pants

does not matter to me

 

and if anything

this negates my selfish nature

because i have evolved or matured

or more, been created

into someone

with the capacity

not only for bisexuality

because what happens in between the sheets

is between him or her and me

but also for a deep love

of anybody

 

i have been told

i can not have it both ways

and see, to me, that’s pretty funny

because i don’t want it both ways

i’m not a polygamist

i’m not an advocate for free love, sorry

never been in a three-way

i don’t want to hold two hands all day

 

i have been told

one day when i Choose

like i must

there will be a lack of commitment

and a degradation of trust

that i will constantly yearn

for what i have forsaken

again, that i can not have it both ways

i must be straight

or i must be a lesbian

 

let me tell you, though,

i will fall for some heart out there

just one, gendered sexed being

and i will still be just as queer

but my devotion

will still be valid

and don’t dare tell me

i can not remain faithful to one person

simply because

i am attracted to a wide variety of people

 

you hets and homos out there

must also have a wide variety of

emotional and sexual pulls

but if you don’t marry a man or woman

who is tall and blonde

with a big dick or tits, respectively

that won’t disable you

from loving your short brunette partner

who some believe to be lacking

and if that love is there

none of that shit will never force you to

leave him or her

 

the kicker in these conversations

i have been having

was the man who told me

or lectured me, rather,

that i am not abiding by

the natural law of

hunter/gatherer

 

he told me

this blue-eyed boy

to whom i was doing my

sexist best to play coy

he told me

the problem with my outlook on life

is that i am hunting for

both a husband And a wife

 

his exact words, my friends and foes:

“you are different because

you want to hunt alone”

which i took to mean

i am in some way less attractive and sick

destined never to fit

into his version of women

because i won’t be tracked down or won like them

yet, never to be what he thinks of as lesbian

because i can’t just join the packs of men

hunters can’t be hunted, he added in

 

now, what i shoulda said

before going down on that boy with brain so bright but dead

was

excuse me, honey,

but you ain’t no lion

and i ain’t no gazelle for you to chase across the prairie land

and i don’t need you to go slaughter me dinner

because i understand that there will be

less tension between me and my partner

if neither of us is labeled

the bread-winner

 

i am not sick, dear,

i simply look both ways

we bisexuals, we’re simply queer

and that explains what I think of humanity

so for those of you who don’t believe

in this unicorn called bisexuality

well look at me

i embody that mythical creature you rarely see

and because of that blessing

while you say

no, there is no bisexuality

i disagree entirely

i believe there is no such thing

as monosexualit

that’s part of it

“If we had roles we’d have to invent them and choose the parts ourselves…”
-alix shulman from her fiction novel memoirs talking about women being with women.

that explains something significant about my attraction to women.

dire consequences theory

there was a blog in box turtle bulletin yesterday about “those who seek to defend a traditional theology on homosexuality” and how they commonly use the “dire consequences theory.”
the “dire consequences” being a life of emotional turmoil and poor health, basically.  many people from the religious right stand solidly by the belief that deviating from the het norm is a mental disorder — despite the AMA and APA’s findings otherwise.

it really struck me to see someone writing about this because it’s been used against me more often than people trying to use The Verses, and really emphasised once the person trying to talk me out of being queer realised i knew the verses.
a lot of the time christians think people in the LGBT communites are somehow damaged and destined to live lives like broken toys.  when people trying to maintain their disdain for LGBT people meet and listen to their stories and discover they are generally.. fairly stable, living life successfully, loving people, loving god (if appropriate) types of people, they’re either surprised or disbelieving or both.
it seems to me, though, as more people in the LGBT communities become visible and outspoken, then the argument of dire consequences will begin to crumble accordingly.  it’s the only logical path for that train of thought to follow.  when people believe something that isn’t true and other people present factual evidence disputing their “truth,” it may take a few generations, but the untruth must disappear.

the world is round.
i’m not a heretic.

look both ways

i just remembered inter-library loan exists and about threw a party.
the books coming from OSU came in the quickest, being poetry as insurgent art by laurence ferlinghetti, and look both ways: bisexual politics by jennifer baumgardener (who, i read, dated The amy ray who is half of The lesbian folk band the indigo girls).
naturally, this is about the bisexual politics book.

i think this book SO incredibly timely.  the thing (well, one of them) about bisexuality is that people don’t believe it exists.  and if they do, it’s seen as some sort of confusion or as if the bi person is flawed.  ask your average 20-something male; if he’d be okay with dating a bi girl it’s simply because men often see lesbianism as some mystical treasure, only so attractive as it remains unattainable.  don’t even deny it.  people chase what they can’t have, and men have been trained their entire lives that their role is hunter.  the fiercer they have to hunt, the more manly they feel.  lesbians are the most elusive creature.  bisexual girls, however, are some mad mix of that lesbian they can’t have and a straight target they can achieve, earn.
that’s the exception, however unfortunate that is.
i don’t really understand Why straight men are wary of bisexual girls.  i can’t even really theorise, except i was recently told, “men want to hunt.  and you want to hunt like the men, which is one thing, but you also want to hunt alone.”  yeah, it’s kind of sexist babble, trust me, i know.  but i think what he meant was a lesbian can hunt in the pack with the men.  she’s aggressive and it’s okay.  but if a girl wants to hunt men And women, she’s going to be hunting alone because the men won’t want to hunt with a girl who’s hunting them back.  he meant bisexuality goes against nature because it isn’t choosing a natural role to abide by.
(he doesn’t realise that a girl could choose to fill a certain role all the time, finding people of each gender to that fit the other role.  that’s not my style though.)

i’m hoping this book talks about that awful catch-22.  for me, it’s validation.  for me it’s someone in the academic and social world saying, “look, bisexuality is no myth.  we’re not confused, we’re not damaged, we’re not going to choose one side or the other eventually.  this is real and valid and to be take seriously.”

i’ll keep you updated.

“Why Soldiers Rape”

recently, the UN declared sexual violence as a tactic of war, and i was thinking, “about damn time!”
i feel like that’s one of the most overlooked, most serious, and farthest reaching consequence of war: the amount of sexual violence it generates. the “enemy”, the military men and women themselves, and the families of the soldiers ALL become victims to it.

truthout published an article called Why Soldiers Rape that outlines some of the Reasons why this phenomon occurs and some proposed solutions.
this article is so past due. really, the issues of sexual discrimination within ranks has been an issue since women have been allowed into the army, not to mention the discrimation against the LGBT communities. i think the military is far too Members Only; not only does that make being a woman a problem, but it makes going in and reforming in order to work towards eradicating sexism a near impossibility. i understand and support the value placed on tradition, the sorts of rituals that create a brotherhood (excuse my patriarchy) or Club, but i think if the armed forces can’t identify what traditions encourage the continual oppression of their own and work to bring them down, then they can’t be entrusted to identify what truly poses a threat to our country and bring it down. it’s almost the whole a plank in your brother’s eye analogy.
maybe i just don’t understand armed forces and maybe i’m just an unpatriotic heretic or something, but that’s not the point. whether i understand the military or not, the facts still stand, and the article still stands, and it’s not okay that when we talk about the war we don’t talk about it.
ohmygod debt, defeat, internation relations this, repurcussions that — yes, they are all utterly important, but more important than Financial ruin is the real, human, deep ache, terror, destroying ruination that walks hand in hand with sexual violence. the humanitarian need ought to be jettisoned far above the economical because to me, money is not urgent. this moment, if my gas is too expensive my life will not end. this moment, if someone can’t lift her head against the weight of what violence begot by war has terrorised her, her life may end.

double take: intelligent women?

one name:
keith olbermann?

i’m too young to have a clue about rush limbaugh, but i know Who he is, and he’s never sparked my interest.  apparently, this is for good reason.

« Older entries