I've read the interview that Noah Galvin (from The Real O'Neals) had with Vulture magazine and I have to say that while I think he made some good points, I have to take serious issue with his comments regarding Colton Haynes coming out.
As I've said in the past on this blog, coming out is a deeply, deeply personal process that needs to be done based on the person coming out, not on the way other people would do it. There is no right or wrong way to do it. Some people come out of the closet to the sounds of heavenly hosts and blasting trumpets, other people come out in a much more subtle manner, and others choose not to come out at all. Every choice is correct and none should be denigrated as "fucking pussy bullshit", which is apparently a reference to the fact that Colton never used the words "I'm gay." While I understand that Noah may have come out differently (I honestly don't know), Colton said that he has suffered from depression and other issues and that he needed the time to come out in his own way.
Based on the interview, Noah seems to think that there is only one "right" way to come out, which is the real "fucking pussy bullshit". I will admit that I wish every LGBTQIA person would come out of the closet, if only for their own mental health, there are people who can't for whatever reason. As Noah rightly notes (based on what I have read in various places), there is still a deep sense of homophobia in Hollywood when it comes to out actors/actresses being hired for non-out roles. And there are a lot of straight/cisgender actors/actresses who are playing LGBTQIA roles. Am I saying that every LGBTQIA role *MUST* go to a LGBTQIA person? Not necessarily, but I do think it would be a good idea.
All that being said, I was very disappointed in the very, very judgmental way Noah looked at someone else's coming out. While I understand that he has his own opinion (and is entitled to it), what he does not have the right to do is denigrate someone else's journey because it doesn't fit the idea that he seems to have for how the process works. Shame on you Noah. Now go grow up.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
On dropping the "T" from "LGBT"
For the past several months, there have been people suggesting that the "T" be dropped from "LGBT" because people who are transgender do not have the same concerns as people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Today on The Federalist website, Walt Heyer, described as "an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring
individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary
gender-change surgery" posted an article entitled "Drop the T from LGBT". His basic argument is that people who are transgender are psychologically sick and that, for the good of the broader LGB movement, the concerns of "transgenders" (his word) need to be dropped.
A little background about Mr. Heyer. At one point ( I can't find an exact date), he had sexual reassignment surgery and became a woman and then, almost 10 years later, had surgery to change back to a man. From what I have been able to discover about him, he doesn't seem to have any special training and relies on his own experiences to claim that being transgender is a psychological disorder and that people who are transgender need therapy, not surgery.
I will also say that he is not the only person who is looking to "drop the T". I have seen articles from people within the LGBTQIA community saying similar things. As you may have guessed, I find this proposition to be a very disturbing one. While it is true that transgender issues are not the exactly the same as issues faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the goal of the LGBTQIA community is not only to advocate for same-sex marriage, adoption, etc. The goal is full equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, race, skin color, etc. As such, we need to embrace all people and welcome them to work with us as we work towards a more egalitarian society.
The more parochial and narrow minded view doesn't see this. For people within the LGBTQIA community who want to "drop the T", they are merely out for their self-interest and not for the good of all people. And anyone in the community who takes the thoughts of a transphobic person like Walt Heyer and makes them their own is delusional. To think that he has the good of the LGBTQIA community in mind is mind blowingly stupid. He is just trying to create divisions within the larger community to splinter us. We need to stand together to help create a society where *EVERYONE* is treated equally and is equal. Period.
A little background about Mr. Heyer. At one point ( I can't find an exact date), he had sexual reassignment surgery and became a woman and then, almost 10 years later, had surgery to change back to a man. From what I have been able to discover about him, he doesn't seem to have any special training and relies on his own experiences to claim that being transgender is a psychological disorder and that people who are transgender need therapy, not surgery.
I will also say that he is not the only person who is looking to "drop the T". I have seen articles from people within the LGBTQIA community saying similar things. As you may have guessed, I find this proposition to be a very disturbing one. While it is true that transgender issues are not the exactly the same as issues faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the goal of the LGBTQIA community is not only to advocate for same-sex marriage, adoption, etc. The goal is full equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, race, skin color, etc. As such, we need to embrace all people and welcome them to work with us as we work towards a more egalitarian society.
The more parochial and narrow minded view doesn't see this. For people within the LGBTQIA community who want to "drop the T", they are merely out for their self-interest and not for the good of all people. And anyone in the community who takes the thoughts of a transphobic person like Walt Heyer and makes them their own is delusional. To think that he has the good of the LGBTQIA community in mind is mind blowingly stupid. He is just trying to create divisions within the larger community to splinter us. We need to stand together to help create a society where *EVERYONE* is treated equally and is equal. Period.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
On people coming out and our reactions
If you look on almost any entertainment site today, you will see a link about Charlie Carver (Teen Wolf and Desperate Housewives) coming out as gay (example). As with any other celebrity coming out recently; whether it be gay, trans, lesbian, bi, or anything else; there are a few inevitable comments. The two most prominent are "Of course we already knew this!" or "So what?"
The second one, I'll dealt with in the past (see here) but suffice to say that it is important for LGBTQIA individuals (children and teens in particular) to have role models who mirror them and their struggles. Since suicide are prominent due to the rejection of LGBTQIA individuals by their families or churches, the more role models we have, the better.
The first one is the one that absolutely infuriates me. First off, saying that minimizes the person and what they have accomplished by coming out. Secondly, you *NEVER* know that someone is LGBTQIA until *they tell you themselves*. You may suspect, but you do not know for sure. To assume that a person is LGBTQIA because of the way they act, dress, or whatever is stereotyping an entire group and is extremely small minded. When someone comes out, they deserve our support and should be applauded for what they have done. Yes, society has made it easier for someone to come out of the closet, but there are still a lot of people out there who would willingly discriminate against people who are not heterosexual, cisgender, Caucasian individuals (men in particular).
Since coming out is a deeply personal process, we need to respect each and every individual whether or not they choose to come out. I know that a lot of people recently have criticized Colton Haynes recently for his supposed coy "coming out" and said that he should just come out in order to be a role model. Assuming that he was in fact coming out (which I don't see from what he said), it is entirely his choice how or why to do so. Whether it is because they just want to maintain a certain level of privacy, may not be ready to accept it yet, or whatever other reason, we should *NEVER, EVER* force anyone out of the closet regardless of the circumstances. If we truly want to respect people's individuality, we must give them the space and time they need or want to deal with their own lives.
So when you see a story like this, rather than be like "Of course!", congratulate the person for their courage and support them. To do less is a disservice to us all and a sign of a small mind.
The second one, I'll dealt with in the past (see here) but suffice to say that it is important for LGBTQIA individuals (children and teens in particular) to have role models who mirror them and their struggles. Since suicide are prominent due to the rejection of LGBTQIA individuals by their families or churches, the more role models we have, the better.
The first one is the one that absolutely infuriates me. First off, saying that minimizes the person and what they have accomplished by coming out. Secondly, you *NEVER* know that someone is LGBTQIA until *they tell you themselves*. You may suspect, but you do not know for sure. To assume that a person is LGBTQIA because of the way they act, dress, or whatever is stereotyping an entire group and is extremely small minded. When someone comes out, they deserve our support and should be applauded for what they have done. Yes, society has made it easier for someone to come out of the closet, but there are still a lot of people out there who would willingly discriminate against people who are not heterosexual, cisgender, Caucasian individuals (men in particular).
Since coming out is a deeply personal process, we need to respect each and every individual whether or not they choose to come out. I know that a lot of people recently have criticized Colton Haynes recently for his supposed coy "coming out" and said that he should just come out in order to be a role model. Assuming that he was in fact coming out (which I don't see from what he said), it is entirely his choice how or why to do so. Whether it is because they just want to maintain a certain level of privacy, may not be ready to accept it yet, or whatever other reason, we should *NEVER, EVER* force anyone out of the closet regardless of the circumstances. If we truly want to respect people's individuality, we must give them the space and time they need or want to deal with their own lives.
So when you see a story like this, rather than be like "Of course!", congratulate the person for their courage and support them. To do less is a disservice to us all and a sign of a small mind.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
On gender identity
Gender is probably one of the more misunderstood concepts in the English language. Typically, people see gender as binary, in other words a person is either male or female. If someone is transgender, then most people assume that they are either male or female which still fits into the binary gender understanding. However, the problem is that gender is very much a social construct, that is it is not something that is based in biology, but rather something that society creates in order to say that this is for men ("male") and that is for women ("female"). There are some people, myself included, who do not fit neatly into this understanding of gender.
For years, I have known that I am not truly a man in the way society understands it. In many, many ways, I am very much a female. I won't bother going into them, but they are numerous. I have also been aware that I am not transgender, so I always assumed that I was simply a more "feminine" man. Then, several weeks ago, I ran across the term "genderqueer" and realized that it described me pretty much perfectly. Before I explain what this means, I want to examine something about gender.
To understand genderqueer, you have to grasp the idea that rather than being binary, gender is more of a spectrum. Some people are more feminine, others are more masculine, and still others fall somewhere in between. For those who fall in between the poles of "masculine" and "feminine", the generic terms "genderfluid" or "genderqueer" are often used. For some people who are genderfluid, they have "male days" or "female days", in other words, they slide back and forth between being more male or more female. For me, being genderqueer means that I am neither male nor female, but rather a mix of the two.
Someone asked me why I don't use the term "androgynous". My reason for not describing myself as androgynous is that, to me, androgyny implies that you are neither male nor female, not that you are both. It may be a technical difference, but it is also an important one. So, when I say I am genderqueer what I am saying is that I am balanced between the two, I don't have "male days" or "female days", rather I am just in between the two. I like painting my nails and often do so because it is me expressing who I am. I also like wearing men's clothing, although to be honest I have never worn female clothing, but that may come later. I do have a distinctly feminine side and have a very firm picture of what she is like.
This leads me to what is probably the hardest part of the process for me- my personal pronouns. For 37 years now, I have been addressed by male pronouns because everyone assumed I am male because I have a penis. For now, I can accept that because I have not found any gender-neutral pronouns that I am completely comfortable with (although I think I am getting closer). Since I am neither male nor female, I would prefer something gender-neutral, so that is what I am looking for. I have found some places online that talk about gender-neutral pronouns and am looking to see what they are like. If you want to address me with male pronouns, feel free to do so, but I also would be find with "they" or "their" (although the plural aspect bugs me a bit).
What does this mean for you? In reality, all it means is that you now know something about me that very few people know. I am still the same person I have always been, I just now know something about myself I wasn't previously aware of and so are you. I am still attracted exclusively to men, still hope to get married, etc. In other words, I am still me.
I will update this when I come across the right pronoun for me.
For years, I have known that I am not truly a man in the way society understands it. In many, many ways, I am very much a female. I won't bother going into them, but they are numerous. I have also been aware that I am not transgender, so I always assumed that I was simply a more "feminine" man. Then, several weeks ago, I ran across the term "genderqueer" and realized that it described me pretty much perfectly. Before I explain what this means, I want to examine something about gender.
To understand genderqueer, you have to grasp the idea that rather than being binary, gender is more of a spectrum. Some people are more feminine, others are more masculine, and still others fall somewhere in between. For those who fall in between the poles of "masculine" and "feminine", the generic terms "genderfluid" or "genderqueer" are often used. For some people who are genderfluid, they have "male days" or "female days", in other words, they slide back and forth between being more male or more female. For me, being genderqueer means that I am neither male nor female, but rather a mix of the two.
Someone asked me why I don't use the term "androgynous". My reason for not describing myself as androgynous is that, to me, androgyny implies that you are neither male nor female, not that you are both. It may be a technical difference, but it is also an important one. So, when I say I am genderqueer what I am saying is that I am balanced between the two, I don't have "male days" or "female days", rather I am just in between the two. I like painting my nails and often do so because it is me expressing who I am. I also like wearing men's clothing, although to be honest I have never worn female clothing, but that may come later. I do have a distinctly feminine side and have a very firm picture of what she is like.
This leads me to what is probably the hardest part of the process for me- my personal pronouns. For 37 years now, I have been addressed by male pronouns because everyone assumed I am male because I have a penis. For now, I can accept that because I have not found any gender-neutral pronouns that I am completely comfortable with (although I think I am getting closer). Since I am neither male nor female, I would prefer something gender-neutral, so that is what I am looking for. I have found some places online that talk about gender-neutral pronouns and am looking to see what they are like. If you want to address me with male pronouns, feel free to do so, but I also would be find with "they" or "their" (although the plural aspect bugs me a bit).
What does this mean for you? In reality, all it means is that you now know something about me that very few people know. I am still the same person I have always been, I just now know something about myself I wasn't previously aware of and so are you. I am still attracted exclusively to men, still hope to get married, etc. In other words, I am still me.
I will update this when I come across the right pronoun for me.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
On "religious liberty" and bigotry
Up to now, for the most part, I have tried to be understanding of people who are against marriage equality and have not ascribed any bad motives to them, but after reading about this incident and this from Mike Huckabee, I find that I can no longer do this. At this point, people who are against marriage equality have openly crossed the line and are just being flat out bigots.
I do want to draw a distinction between churches not performing same-sex marriages (which falls under religious freedom) and opposing marriage equality in the public sphere which has nothing to do with religious freedom. If you look at the arguments used by people who oppose marriage equality, you will see eerie similarities to arguments used against integration and civil rights of African Americans in the 50s and 60s. For example:
[1] In Florida, you have counties which have decided that they are no longer going to do any civil marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples.
[2] In Denver, you have someone who wanted to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT slurs and insisted that their religious freedom was violated when they were refused
[3] In a throwback to the theory of nullification, Mike Huckabee is insisting that states can refuse to enforce court rulings if they disagree with them.
Basically, you have people using religion as a cover for their bigotry and hate. They can claim that they are not bigots, but that doesn't mean a thing. I can claim anything I want, but if the evidence says otherwise, then I am lying.
I am not saying that there are truly no religious objections, but actions like the ones mentioned above have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Slate has a great article about how similar Huckabee's position on gay marriage is to Orval Faubus' on segregation. And there is a lot more out there showing the comparisons.
I won't say anything else right now because I am just too disgusted to say anything. The right wingers of this country have really gone off the rails espousing theories that have been discredited for a long time now. Personally, I cannot wait to sweep this sort of thinking into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
I do want to draw a distinction between churches not performing same-sex marriages (which falls under religious freedom) and opposing marriage equality in the public sphere which has nothing to do with religious freedom. If you look at the arguments used by people who oppose marriage equality, you will see eerie similarities to arguments used against integration and civil rights of African Americans in the 50s and 60s. For example:
[1] In Florida, you have counties which have decided that they are no longer going to do any civil marriages to avoid marrying same-sex couples.
[2] In Denver, you have someone who wanted to decorate a cake with anti-LGBT slurs and insisted that their religious freedom was violated when they were refused
[3] In a throwback to the theory of nullification, Mike Huckabee is insisting that states can refuse to enforce court rulings if they disagree with them.
Basically, you have people using religion as a cover for their bigotry and hate. They can claim that they are not bigots, but that doesn't mean a thing. I can claim anything I want, but if the evidence says otherwise, then I am lying.
I am not saying that there are truly no religious objections, but actions like the ones mentioned above have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Slate has a great article about how similar Huckabee's position on gay marriage is to Orval Faubus' on segregation. And there is a lot more out there showing the comparisons.
I won't say anything else right now because I am just too disgusted to say anything. The right wingers of this country have really gone off the rails espousing theories that have been discredited for a long time now. Personally, I cannot wait to sweep this sort of thinking into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
On preferences....
I ran across this article (with a video) on Facebook and it touched on some things that really get me annoyed at people. At the same time, I think that it also gives you some things to think about and consider about yourself, which is never easy. Watch it when you get the chance.
In the video, Mr. Lassiter talks about how he met someone who he felt an immediate connection to, but the other guy told him that he doesn't date black guys. He was also introduced to someone else who basically fetishized black guys and also encountered black people who said that he should not date someone who is not black. What I find a little astonishing is how astonishing he found it. Maybe I hear from the wrong people, but I have heard this sort of thing in all sorts of different type of people, not just the gay community (and I am not the most connected person in the world).
Everyone has preferences about who they do (or do not) find attractive based on what they think they want in a significant other. I have never understood why some people seem to have a lot of trouble grasping this concept. Very few people (if any) can honestly say that they are attracted to every single person around. Now, where I think Mr. Lassiter and others have a point is when they point out that these preferences can be formed by subtle, internalized factors (in this case racism). So in that very broad sense, I would agree that there is a certain element of racism, ageism, etc. involved in any preference like that.
That being said, I think that saying that preferences are racism is wrong because (to most people), racism carries with it the baggage of hate and preferences are not necessarily born out of hate. I know that I, for example, would not date most non-whites for a variety of reasons. Some of them are appearance based, others have to do with experiences I have had with people from different races. I will not deny that my attraction to a certain type of guy is heavily influenced by societal notions of what is beautiful and what is not. However I do have many friends who are not white and I am not prejudiced in a hateful sense. I do think this distinction is necessary in order to have an honest discussion about the subject.
What we do need to confront, as a society, is our notion related to certain types of physical beauty- a trait which is very pronounced in the gay community. I cannot tell you how many times I have been called a whale, seen personals where people say "no fats", or something similar to that. I do understand that there is a preference there, so I try very hard not to take it personally. My point is that these preferences are rarely personal and are generally based (as Mr. Lassiter notes) on stereotypes.
Mr. Lassiter also says that the gay community is basically hypocritical for calling for non-discrimination while discriminating itself. This is a notion that I reject. This is an idea based in the notion that only someone who does not commit a particular sin can call for an end to it. It is basically based on the idea of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The problem with this notion being taken this far is that no one would be able to protest anything. Everyone has issues that they are dealing with and while there may be a certain amount of hypocrisy involved, that does not mean that people should not be called out on their bull.
Everyone is the product of their experiences, and these experiences shape how we view the world and other people. For example, most of the black guys (and girls) I first met were in middle school (I went to a small, mostly white private elementary school) and they bullied me big time. That has made me very reluctant to date someone who is black because of the way I was treated. Is that fair? No, but those experiences shaped how I viewed black people for a long time. I have worked (and am working) very hard to overcome those views and it has not been easy. Couple experiences with the societal notions of physical beauty and I think that preferences are understandable.
I do want to note that I am not saying that NO preferences are racist, ageist, etc., but the presence of preferences does not automatically indicate this sort of thing. There are people out there who do believe that miscegenation is wrong. There is someone I know who saw two characters (of different races) on a tv show dating and said that people of different races should never date. Also, see Mr. Lassiter's black friends he references in the videos.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while we do need to confront the more subtle causes of racism, ageism, sexism, etc., to automatically label someone as a racist (with its attendant baggage) because they have preferences is a horribly bad idea. Just some food for thought.
In the video, Mr. Lassiter talks about how he met someone who he felt an immediate connection to, but the other guy told him that he doesn't date black guys. He was also introduced to someone else who basically fetishized black guys and also encountered black people who said that he should not date someone who is not black. What I find a little astonishing is how astonishing he found it. Maybe I hear from the wrong people, but I have heard this sort of thing in all sorts of different type of people, not just the gay community (and I am not the most connected person in the world).
Everyone has preferences about who they do (or do not) find attractive based on what they think they want in a significant other. I have never understood why some people seem to have a lot of trouble grasping this concept. Very few people (if any) can honestly say that they are attracted to every single person around. Now, where I think Mr. Lassiter and others have a point is when they point out that these preferences can be formed by subtle, internalized factors (in this case racism). So in that very broad sense, I would agree that there is a certain element of racism, ageism, etc. involved in any preference like that.
That being said, I think that saying that preferences are racism is wrong because (to most people), racism carries with it the baggage of hate and preferences are not necessarily born out of hate. I know that I, for example, would not date most non-whites for a variety of reasons. Some of them are appearance based, others have to do with experiences I have had with people from different races. I will not deny that my attraction to a certain type of guy is heavily influenced by societal notions of what is beautiful and what is not. However I do have many friends who are not white and I am not prejudiced in a hateful sense. I do think this distinction is necessary in order to have an honest discussion about the subject.
What we do need to confront, as a society, is our notion related to certain types of physical beauty- a trait which is very pronounced in the gay community. I cannot tell you how many times I have been called a whale, seen personals where people say "no fats", or something similar to that. I do understand that there is a preference there, so I try very hard not to take it personally. My point is that these preferences are rarely personal and are generally based (as Mr. Lassiter notes) on stereotypes.
Mr. Lassiter also says that the gay community is basically hypocritical for calling for non-discrimination while discriminating itself. This is a notion that I reject. This is an idea based in the notion that only someone who does not commit a particular sin can call for an end to it. It is basically based on the idea of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The problem with this notion being taken this far is that no one would be able to protest anything. Everyone has issues that they are dealing with and while there may be a certain amount of hypocrisy involved, that does not mean that people should not be called out on their bull.
Everyone is the product of their experiences, and these experiences shape how we view the world and other people. For example, most of the black guys (and girls) I first met were in middle school (I went to a small, mostly white private elementary school) and they bullied me big time. That has made me very reluctant to date someone who is black because of the way I was treated. Is that fair? No, but those experiences shaped how I viewed black people for a long time. I have worked (and am working) very hard to overcome those views and it has not been easy. Couple experiences with the societal notions of physical beauty and I think that preferences are understandable.
I do want to note that I am not saying that NO preferences are racist, ageist, etc., but the presence of preferences does not automatically indicate this sort of thing. There are people out there who do believe that miscegenation is wrong. There is someone I know who saw two characters (of different races) on a tv show dating and said that people of different races should never date. Also, see Mr. Lassiter's black friends he references in the videos.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while we do need to confront the more subtle causes of racism, ageism, sexism, etc., to automatically label someone as a racist (with its attendant baggage) because they have preferences is a horribly bad idea. Just some food for thought.
Monday, November 24, 2014
On using words to denigrate...
If you've read my poem "Words" or one of my several posts on the subject, you know that I care a great deal about what words that people use and how those words are used. I really want to focus right now on how often we, as a culture, use words relating to females as put downs, particularly where men are concerned.
Think about it. How often have you heard one of these phrases: "sounds like a girl.", "screamed like a girl.", "ran like a girl.", "looks like a girl.", or something similar? I'm sure you hear them so often that they don't even really make an impact on you anymore. I was surprised the other day when I realized how often even I use phrases like these. While I am not trying to be insulting to women, I am. After all, each of these phrases indicates someone doing something in a way that is "unmanly" or wrong, therefore meaning that there is something about being a female that makes you worth less than a male.
The major problem is that our society is severely patriarchal and values things that men do over things that women do. Doubt me? Ask yourself why we, as a society, value people who work outside of the home in a "real job" more than we do stay-at-home parents. If a dad is a stay-at-home dad, people look at him as being weak or deficient somehow. Even the phrase, "Who wears the pants in the house?" assumes that the real power in a household is the person who wears the pants. Since pants are "men's" clothing, the implication is obvious. If you are a sensitive male, you will hear that you need to "toughen up", "stop being a wuss", or something similar to that. If there is a male singer who has a higher voice, they are put down because they "sound like a girl." If a male looks at all effeminate, they are the target of harassment because they "look like a girl." I could keep going in this vein, but I'll stop there.
You can look all around to find issues where we hold things that are "masculine" to be valued more highly than things that are "feminine". Whether it is someone's job, appearance, voice, or anything else, our society has chosen to place a higher premium on things that are related to men than things that are related to women. Unless, of course, you are talking about objectification in which case, the objectification of women is much more highly prized because that is what our heteronormative, patriarchal society wants.
What can you do? Well, first off, pay attention to what you say. If you catch yourself comparing someone to a particular group as a put down, stop yourself. The act of saying that denigrates a whole group of people and merely perpetuates a cycle where certain people are valued more highly than others. Second, if you catch someone else doing it; and it is safe to do so; gently ask them not to do it. If they make fun of you for standing up for other people, know that they are the lesser person because they need to put others down to build themselves up. The only way this will change is if we can demonstrate to people that what they are doing is truly hurtful and wrong. There will, of course, be resistance. After all, there are many people who do things because "everyone else does it", because "that's the way its always been done", or some equally asinine reason. Changing attitudes and ways of thinking requires a lot of effort and time. But ultimately, it will always be worth it.
Think about it. How often have you heard one of these phrases: "sounds like a girl.", "screamed like a girl.", "ran like a girl.", "looks like a girl.", or something similar? I'm sure you hear them so often that they don't even really make an impact on you anymore. I was surprised the other day when I realized how often even I use phrases like these. While I am not trying to be insulting to women, I am. After all, each of these phrases indicates someone doing something in a way that is "unmanly" or wrong, therefore meaning that there is something about being a female that makes you worth less than a male.
The major problem is that our society is severely patriarchal and values things that men do over things that women do. Doubt me? Ask yourself why we, as a society, value people who work outside of the home in a "real job" more than we do stay-at-home parents. If a dad is a stay-at-home dad, people look at him as being weak or deficient somehow. Even the phrase, "Who wears the pants in the house?" assumes that the real power in a household is the person who wears the pants. Since pants are "men's" clothing, the implication is obvious. If you are a sensitive male, you will hear that you need to "toughen up", "stop being a wuss", or something similar to that. If there is a male singer who has a higher voice, they are put down because they "sound like a girl." If a male looks at all effeminate, they are the target of harassment because they "look like a girl." I could keep going in this vein, but I'll stop there.
You can look all around to find issues where we hold things that are "masculine" to be valued more highly than things that are "feminine". Whether it is someone's job, appearance, voice, or anything else, our society has chosen to place a higher premium on things that are related to men than things that are related to women. Unless, of course, you are talking about objectification in which case, the objectification of women is much more highly prized because that is what our heteronormative, patriarchal society wants.
What can you do? Well, first off, pay attention to what you say. If you catch yourself comparing someone to a particular group as a put down, stop yourself. The act of saying that denigrates a whole group of people and merely perpetuates a cycle where certain people are valued more highly than others. Second, if you catch someone else doing it; and it is safe to do so; gently ask them not to do it. If they make fun of you for standing up for other people, know that they are the lesser person because they need to put others down to build themselves up. The only way this will change is if we can demonstrate to people that what they are doing is truly hurtful and wrong. There will, of course, be resistance. After all, there are many people who do things because "everyone else does it", because "that's the way its always been done", or some equally asinine reason. Changing attitudes and ways of thinking requires a lot of effort and time. But ultimately, it will always be worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)