amen, brotha.

“Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused the Anglican church of allowing its ‘obsession’ with homosexuality to come before real action on world poverty.
‘God is weeping’ to see such a focus on sexuality and the Church is ‘quite rightly’ seen by many as irrelevant on the issue of poverty, he said.”
full article here

it’s about time someone said it.
one of the most glaring deficiencies is the church is NOT that it believes homosexuality is a sin.  that’s fine.  it’s okay for people to disagree — it’s healthy for people to disagree.  the Problem is how ‘christians’ deal with their belief that homosexuality is sin.
i don’t see a group similar to the westboro baptist church crew that pickets divorce courts.. or even all-you-can-eat-buffets.  i’ve never even heard a preacher tell his congregation their Too dressed up, that the money spent on that $200 dress would have been better-spent in a food pantry for the homeless.  so not only are the Wrong things being focused on but archbishop tutu is right, these focuses have become obsessions that outshine what matters.
and these obsessions have, forgive me for being repetitive, but the have been dealt with abusively and horrifically.
there’s no such thing as “the truth in love” anymore, that’s why so much honest love is overlooked.  it gets to where we don’t want to hear it for fear of what’s coming next, what the ulterior motive is.



so how about this:

apparently it’s a movie dealing with intersexed people.
i can’t watch the trailer because i’m in class, but i really hope this film doesn’t get shoved under the rug as Indie Flick Dealing with One of Those Weird Subjects that no one pays any attention to.

people need to Know about gender variance.  because people who know anything about gender are few and far between, at least… in central oklahoma, but i’m sure there are other places just as excluded from the homefront of gender theory.  like alaska.  where sarah palin is from.  where sarah palin fights gender stereotypes every day by hunting mooses.  (she’s all we feminazis talk about these days.)
and because there have GOT to be people out there who are extremely or even mildly gender variant and instead of finding a way to be comfortable in expressing themselves they feel different and broken, ostracised, and even suicidal.  they don’t understand even the basics of the thought around the subject, and that’s what something like this film could be so important.


lesbian moms at!
cute cute cute cute.
“never thought i could love a male this much.”

i find this incredibly neat because, well, for me, it’s another, “it exists!  for real!  and it’s okay!” moments, like with look both ways.  it shows that two lesbians can be moms together, a team… can be normal people… aren’t immoral, perverted monsters.  just people.  with love.  and a 5-year old son!
i’ve never met or seen a lesbian mom team.  the closest was my friend rachel and her girlfriend who has a son.  and, yeah, they were a couple, and rachel was called “maddy” by the son, but i don’t feel like they’re necessarily what the moms in the video are.  understand?
and you know what’s fucking neat?  the birth mom is the one most people would look at and lable “the boy one.”  i love it.  they’re both “the boy one” and “the girl one.”  gender roles are malliable!  gender expression is fluid!

i can’t wait to get out of oklahoma!

uh huh her

this isn’t political or really feministy or any of that, but tell me it isn’t IMPORTANT:

afterellen talks about leisha hailey becoming the star of a new l-word spinoff.
i’m disappointed it’s not shane, really, i am.  but when alice OBSESSED over dana… i really connected with that gurl.  so i dig it.


refers me.
“automatically generated”
but still.
i show up on fox news???  as opposed to, oh, say I Blame the Patriarchy, Feministing, Feminist Philosophers, the Curvature, etc.  maybe they don’t know i’m not a fox news kind of gal.


on an unrelated note, another dip into look both ways: bisexual politics by jennifer baumgarnder.

jennifer quotes second-wave feminist author naomi weisstein:
“The lesbian conversion in the women’s liberation movement is one of the most stunning examples of the power of a collective, social movement to challenge our deepest notion of who we think we are and what we believe we can do.  This chapter of our history should never be lost because it provides profound hope in our ability, through collective action, to become what we want to become, and to mold our human society in ways that we would believe unthinkable beore the transformation.”

“profound hope” is right!
all this book keeps telling me is: you are not alone, you are not broken or odd, you are not irrational when it comes to these things you feel, things can change, you can change, and it’s all okay.  it’s ALL okay.

i’m not sure what i wanted to say about that quote, really.  i guess i just wanted to throw it out there.
phrases like “a cord of three strands is not quickly broken,” and “strength in numbers” are floating in my head.

beating a dead horse.

Parents don’t want their children in grade school to be told that the homosexual lifestyle is fine, but that’s already happening,” said Ritchie. “It’s part of the homosexual movement’s concerted effort to force the sexual revolution into the mainstream culture and banish God and His law from the public square.

the sexual revolutions are said and done.
mainstream culture has sickening amounts of Straight sex; that’s less offensive than any amount of gay sex?  i guess, actually, to straight white males.
and, yes, my goal as a 20-year old queer girl from the buckle of the bible belt is to banish the god of the universe.  that’s it.  sums me up in one sentence.

how long will people keep this up?
i know controversy is progress — the more people voice their misguided, uninformed, bigoted opinions, the move oppurtunity we have to hopefully, IDEALLY engage in enlightening conversation, where both parties can exchange ideas and at least, agree to disagree.  not all people who holds views at least similar to that man’s are all of those things, misguided, uninformed, or bigoted; i know very well-educated people who’ve studied and who have reached a different conclusion than i, but their attitudes are loving, accepting, with no attitude that tries to communicated i’m perverted and messed up, but rather an attitude of compassion and kindness and they care that i am doing something in my life that they see as destructive.  to them, homosexuality and any variation thereof isn’t the sin of sins, it’s just something to work through and heal from and learn from.
which is fine.
but when i start getting told i’m manipulating and converting and perverting children… well, that’s wrong.  point, blank, period.

two rants for the click of one..

i meant to post this blog about a week ago:

there was a ridiculous story on npr friday the 22nd discussing the fashion of the potential first ladies.
first off, i just don’t think that’s newsworthy.  as an almost-journalism major, i would never propose that story, i’d try my hardest to avoid writing it, i’d be hard as hell if i edited it, and i’d never actually publish it.  i was disappointed with npr.

the article posted online is bad enough; it talks about how these women have to follow strict rules yet be themselves when it comes to this fashion.  there’s reference to how it reflects family values, how she can’t be too showy, and how the whole package has to be perfect in order to best help their husbands.  the one thing the article misses that the broadcast included was this woman talking about how considering the fashion of the candidate’s wives wasn’t sexist.
that was a kicker because i think it meant npr KNEW the story was sexist and had to find a quote to justify it all.

i was talking about it with some people at a party we hosted last night, and they all agreed too!
it makes me wonder if people realise that Fashion not only reflects personal style, life situations, world views, and gender expression, but also Patriarchy, which is a pervasive force that dictates all the other aspects.


so there’s that, i know it ends abruptly, that’s why it didn’t get posted along.
now i want to say that i don’t understand how Fashion can be an issue while Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy isn’t.
“I think it’s a very private matter,” said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. “It’s a matter that should stay in the family and they have to work through it together. My prayers go out to them.”

it’s incredibly irritating to suggest that Fashion and how a family deals with a very young daughter’s pregnancy both make a difference in perceived family values, and from the tone of that NPR broadcast, it even sounds like they’re equally important.

i guess the difference is what’s “natural” and what’s contrived…
it seems the difference is we can’t Help but guage the candidates’ wives’ fashion, but when we’re being thoughtful human beings we can allow grace and accept people’s humaness…
i’m not concerned with either; if michelle wants to dress like i dress, in swampy colours and baggy black pants, i’d probably crush on her and so of course i’d vote for her husband (ha!), and if palin’s 17-year old daughter is pregnant and is keeping the baby (because i’m sure that “right decision after her mistake” was totally a decision… not a coerced, my mom’s is the veep candidate, i better not fuck her career up..), good, i’m really glad for her.  she’s so indescribably lucky that she lives in an upper-class white home with Good Christian Parents to guide her along the path.  but don’t ask me what i think of her marrying the father… she’s seventeen, damn it.  however, whatever I feel about bristol palin’s personal decisions isn’t going to effect, in any way shape or form who i vote for.
but i will say this: regardless of how she dresses or what her daughter does, my vote ain’t goin towards sarah palin.

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.”

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…)

« Older entries Newer entries »