an Ambiguous Quest

Wrap It Up; What I Learned from WGST 111

2007-11-18T11:43:00.000-08:00

Throughout this class, I could not help but notice how alienated I felt, not because of my sexual orientation or gender identity, which is usually the case, but rather because of my upbringing and my political beliefs. I fought the urge to defend myself and my viewpoints every class period seeing as it wouldn’t have necessarily enhanced class discussion. From this less than pleasant feeling, the readings and class discussion I have come to the realization that sexual orientation and gender identity are only two very small pieces that fit into an individual’s political identity. Each person’s political identity is a fusion of many different identities that encompass the individual including location, socioeconomic status, age, race, and religion.

This is echoed in the history of the LGBT movements in America. Beginning in the 1950s, there was tension between the assimililationists and “sexual outlaws”. Mattachine exemplifies this division in the 1950s by essentially saying, “gay people are just the same as heterosexuals except for what they do in bed” (Adam 69). Duberman’s Stonewall also shows this divide through his narratives of the six individuals he follows throughout his work. This division is indicative of difference that reaches beyond merely sexual orientation and gender identity. There are many factors that go into how an individual perceives the world and politics.

Another point within LGBT history that highlights the diversity of political identities that permeate the LGBT community lies at the heart of the lesbian sex wars in the 1980s. The division between sex radicals and cultural feminists presents another political rift within the community that is not based solely on sexual orientation. This divide, “reflected the conflicting perceptions of the basic meaning of femaleness and lesbianism” (Faderman 268). This highlights different ways of thinking that extend beyond simply being lesbian identified.

Finally, the diversity of political identities within the LGBT communities is still felt today. Groups such as Queer Nation (Queers Read This; I Hate Straights), the Log Cabin Republicans, sex positivists, defenders of gay marriage, opponents of gay marriage, assimilationists, radicals, and so on continue to show this diversity. We now have groups and sects within the larger LGBT community that are fighting for anarchy opposed to those fighting for tolerance or assimilation. There are those screaming to be different and those not wanting to be seen. How can we even forge a community with all these political differences? How do we, and have we fought for LGBT rights when the rights for which every individual fights are different?

Here is where the concept of community comes into play. The LGBT community has something in common, even though it may simply be based on gender and/or sexual orientation. Even though each individual’s political identity is different, there is one common thread that connects us all and that is the fact that we are all discriminated against. While there has been very little true unity within this movement, I can see two particular instances throughout this community’s short history where true unity shone through, even though it may have only been for a few short days.

One of these moments is the Stonewall riot. In the midst of all the chaos, everyone from queens to bull dykes fought together because of the blatant discrimination and physical abuse endured from a common enemy. The second of these moments is the AIDS crisis. AIDS descended on the community and was hard to ignore. This was something that was so inextricably tied with the LGBT community that it did, and still does, affect everyone within it.

From these two events I can draw a conclusion. When there needs to be unity within the community, it emerges. One cannot expect every LGBT identified person to hold similar political beliefs. Being gay is only a small part of one’s identity. Many other factors go into building an entire individual and an individual’s political identity. After all, diversity in opinion is one reason why the movement has gained so much ground. However, when the circumstances are so dire that unity and mobilization are warranted, I am confident that the community, as it has in the past, will find a way to put aside differences to reach a common goal.

Thomas Szasz said, “The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity.” Diversity is something that we must strive for and embrace. The alienation I felt throughout this class is a good thing. My viewpoints were heard and that was valuable whether or not people agreed with me. I think the biggest lesson that I learned throughout this ten week experience is that voicing your opinion is important, even if you are attacked for believing what you do. The addition of another viewpoint adds to the diversity of political identities within a community. There is more than one way of seeing the world, and each is important to consider.

Adam, Barry D. “The Homophiles Start Over.” The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York: Twayne, 1995. 60-80.

Faderman, Lillian. “Lesbian Sex Wars in the 1980s.” Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. 246-270.

A link between discussions

2007-11-12T20:46:00.000-08:00

It’s tenth week, and as per usual, the last few months of my life have successfully been blended into one big jumbled mess that I will begin to tease out as soon as classes are over. For now, I would like to reflect my state of mind in this post by integrated the last two class periods’ discussions, transgender and gay marriage, with something from a few years ago.

My first introduction to transgender issues was when I went to see Dean Spade speak at the University of Minnesota my freshman year at Carleton. Mr. Spade is a transgender activist and attorney. He started the Sylvia Rivera Law Project which provides free legal help to low-income people and people of color facing gender identity and/or expression discrimination. Three years ago, as a lesbian totally secure in her identity and excited about joining the queer revolution just to spite her republican parents, I found his arguments against the binary gender system completely absurd. Oh the irony.

I did, however, agree with his argument for the inclusion of the T in LGBT community. This I do feel very strongly on for precisely the same reasons that Kailey outlines in Just Add Hormones. The LGBT community is discriminated against based on their gender and this provides a good reason (especially a good political reason) for these communities to be allied together.

Dean Spade’s final argument was against gay marriage. He stated that marriage, even gay marriage, as currently defined by the movement, is not something he supports. I couldn’t understand his point until much later after his talk.

I now understand that marriage, as an institution, defines gender. Even gay marriage does not escape this definition. While I am still wholeheartedly in support of this issue, I can now understand why many people in the LGBT communities are not. My reasons for supporting gay marriage are practical, however. As Aureliano brought up in class, our society is one of baby steps. Gay marriage is the next step. I admit, I selfishly want the social and economic benefits that go along with marriage and, even though this institution, by definition, discriminates against me, I still would like to be a part of it. I think because it carries elite status, which, to be honest, I enjoy.

These issues reflect the complications and divisions within the LGBT community. This is a struggle felt by many oppressed groups. Unity is hard to achieve, even in the face of intense discrimination. The only thing that can be done is to listen to all perspectives on an issue and work to achieve equality in the most effective way.

Complications...

2007-11-09T15:40:00.000-08:00

Today’s discussion in class, as well as Andrew Sullivan’s piece, elicited an interesting response in me, personally. When thinking and talking about disease, there are a lot of misconceptions about a lot of things. First of all, I know that you cannot understand a disease unless you have it. There are so many different components that go into living with a chronic disease that, unless you are personally experiencing all of them, you just don’t get it. The emotional responses to both those living with disease and those around people living with disease are diverse and unpredictable. From my experience, outsiders think they understand disease. Even doctors think they understand disease, but they do not. AIDS is interesting because its effects were widespread, amplified, and misrepresented. An added component was that it did, and still does to some extent, signal death.

While it is impossible to understand a disease unless you are living with it, I believe that there are some common experiences among people living with long term illnesses. I think the closeness I feel to the disease is twofold. First, I feel closeness because I am such a part of the gay community and, while it is now a generation removed, I still feel the effects of it being a part of that community. Secondly, I am living with a long term illness.

I have a rare genetic disorder called CRMO (chronic recurrent multifocal osteomylitis). This disease is diagnosed to about one person every year in the United State, most of them children. Symptoms include multifocal bone pain, skin lesions, fatigue, bone disfigurement, muscle degradation, and a compromised immune system.

When I was first diagnosed, the disease was ruling my life. I couldn’t walk at all, I was sick all of the time, and I was in constant pain. The doctors told me that I was going to die, which is another reason I can relate to the AIDS crisis. Know that you are going to die and then not actually keeling over is an odd feeling. One would expect celebration but, as Sullivan noted, there is an odd feeling of relief, but no excitement.

My disease is now controlled. I no longer have constant pain, but at the expense of a lot of different discomforts. The medicines that I take are harsh on my body and are no fun to take. Reflecting on my life before and after I started taking my medication however, shows me how much I am thankful for these drugs. While I do not live a normal life, which is a truth with anyone living with a chronic disease, I live a seemingly normal life, which quells the questions, stares, and general discomfort I felt when I “looked” sick. That, alone, is worth it. I can compare this to the AIDS cocktail. It can’t be fun to take, but for people who respond to the drug, it is better than not taking it.

Disease is an emotional thing which is elicited by Sullivan. It is something that I all too well understand. Like I noted in class, community is an important thing when it comes to commiseration. Knowing you are not alone is very valuable. I understand that AIDS is a very political disease and has extreme social consequences, but on a different level, it is a physical disease that comes with very real emotional and physical consequences. I enjoyed Sullivan’s piece because it highlights this.

The lesbian community isn't actually the lesbian community

2007-11-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

It was a pleasure and an honor to have Esther Newton in class with us last week. What most intrigued me was her essay titled Will the Real Lesbian Community Please Stand Up?. I do find it problematic that, what is seen as the lesbian community is middle class and white. Clearly, this is simply the most “visible” part of the entire lesbian community. They have the most political power and the resources to be visible since they are members of a dominant culture (racial or socioeconomic, or both).

In her essay, Newton goes into the reasons why the gay male community contains “subcultures” and the lesbian community is so monolithic. She talks about how diversity partly developed from repeated sexual contacts between gay men and the presence of bath houses and fuck bars (Newton 158). The absence of these unique social institutions in the lesbian community apparently contributed to the lack of intermingling between different sects of the lesbian community. This may or may not be true, but I know that the notion of bathhouses and fuck bars are very unappealing to me and I don’t think I am the only person within the lesbian community who thinks that. (This is not to say that it isn't for some people. I support their existence, it is just something I wouldn't do.)

I think that there is a fundamental difference between men and women. Women are socialized differently and, as Newton points out, enjoy coupling off. They, when developing, tend to play with one or two or three best friends whereas boys tend to hang out with big groups of friends. I think this contributes to the separation of communities within the lesbian community. Being friends with people who share similar lifestyles is comfortable and most people do not thrive on being put in uncomfortable situations. Carleton is a unique place in that respect. Students here like to push their social boundaries and learn things about different people, which is important and educational. The majority of the population, especially those in the dominant majority don’t like being uncomfortable.

This poses a problem when we are talking about inter class, race, age, etc. mixing. In theory, having one large all inclusive lesbian community would be ideal. It would be an amazing learning experience for all involved and would have the potential to strengthen the community as a whole. Practically, however, this seems implausible, especially because it would involve a lot of discomfort within the community and would be extremely difficult to facilitate. There would be a chance that it would create hostility and rifts in the community that weren’t there before.

I don’t think there’s an easy answer to this question or an easy solution to this problem. Nonetheless, Newton’s piece made me think a lot about this problem. There is so much that I don’t know about subsets of the lesbian community. I’m sure there are so many subcultures within the community that I don’t even know exist, maybe even at Carleton. This will be an ongoing struggle within this community, as it is within other communities.

I am not radical...

2007-10-27T11:13:00.000-07:00

When discussing radical organizations such as Queer Nation I have a hard time realizing that there has to be room for emotion in politics. If there weren’t that sort of space, where would we be as a society? No doubt we would be a bunch of government controlled robots with no minds of our own. That is something that sounds so incredibly unappealing.

Upon first reading the Queer Nation manifesto, I dismissed it for how moronic and untactful it was. It was alienating. It made me disgusted that I was, in some way, associated with this type of people. It, even more than ever, made me want to assimilate to mainstream culture, even to dismiss my gay identity. This hateful and audacious piece, in effect, made me want to be straight.

Then I thought about the implications of this, and other radical movements that have emerged over the past 100 years. Where would we be without these such movements and manifestos? They contain emotion which, while not sustainable, is fuel and motivation for the thoughtful and tactful political agendas that precede or supersede these outbursts. There is always compromise when it comes to these types of political movements. There is no denying that fact, but 100 years of compromises has got us this far. I’m not saying this is right in any way. I am just saying this is the way society works. Only an idealist would think otherwise.

We need idealists though. We need people to believe the LGBT community can get further than is actually possible. We need people that want different things, not just the status quo. There is a place for emotion, anarchism, hatred for the dominant society, and dare I say it, radical queers. I realized that I do not need to become a heterosexual hating, blue haired, pierced, stereotypical anarchist dyke or be worried about being associated with Queer Nation. While I don’t agree with really anything they say or stand for, they are important to the movement and the larger political and social structure in the United States. They provide the fuel needed to accomplish things in the political and social arenas.

The Myers Briggs Personality Test says that I am a thinker as opposed to a feeler. I base my decisions on logic rather than emotion. There is a necessity for both. Emotion is an important part of society and while the Queer Nation manifesto is off putting to me, it is important to have these movements. Balance it important. Difference is important. Without these things the world would be boring.

DUMBLEDORE IS GAY!!!

2007-10-20T18:00:00.001-07:00

In some ways I am angry at JK Rowling for not outing him sooner. I do know, however, that she would not have enjoyed as much success had she done it earlier. It was a smart move. Unfortunately, we still live in a world like this, where gay characters can ruin a book or a television series, or even a movie, especially if it is aimed towards children :(

In any case, Dumbledore was always my favorite!

Butch-Femme Identities

2007-10-20T17:54:00.000-07:00

The Butch and Femme question is an interesting one that has been disputed very heavily during the past 40 years. The issue at the core of this argument, which we discussed in class, is whether or not butch and femme identities are actually identities in and of themselves, or if they are merely replicating heterosexual gender roles. There three prominent lesbian feminist theorists that have written extensively on this issue. The first is Nestle, whom we read in class. In addition to The Fem Question, she wrote Butch-Femme Relationships: Sexual Courage in the 1950s which praises butch-femme couples for facing the extreme oppression and harsh discrimination that came with that type of visibility. Nestle writes, “Butch-Femme relationships, as I experienced them, were complex erotic statements, not phony heterosexual replicas. They were filled with deeply lesbian language of stance, dress, gesture, love, courage, and autonomy. In the 1950s particularly, butch-femme couples were the front-line warriors against sexual bigotry” (The Fem Question). She is clearly of the school of thought that butch and femme identities are clearly identities in and of themselves.

The second prominent theorist that engages in this argument is Sue Ellen Case. She wrote Toward a Butch-Femme Aesthetic in 1988 in which she subverts the popular idea that gender roles are biologically determined by exposing them as masquerades and constructs with an agenda. She writes, “The butch-femme couple can, through their own agency, move through a field of symbols…playfully inhabiting the camp space of irony and wit, free from biological determinism, elitist essentialism, and the heterosexist cleavage of sexual difference” (Towards a Butch-Femme Aesthetic). She would, no doubt, agree with Nestle in the debate as to whether Butch and Femme are their own entities or if they are simply reproductions of heterosexual roles.

The third important theorist when it comes to this subject is Sheila Jeffreys. She agrees with the position that states that Butch and Femme identities are merely heterosexual replicas. She defines herself as a lesbian feminist as apparent in the title of her work, Unpacking Queer Politics: A lesbian feminist perspective. She states, “Heterosexual sex is defined as a sexual desire that eroticizes power difference.” She thus thinks that heterosexual, and thus Butch and Femme desires, are defined by inequalities. She tackles the question of how to construct homosexual desire and answers it by saying that we need to make equality sexy.

These three perspectives are distinct and very interesting. Of course, there have been many works on this subject. These are merely a few more famous perspectives. I personally, being the self defined butch that I am, believe that Butch and Femme identities are not mere replicas. I think this is a hard question to answer because it has so much to do with personal identity and feelings. I know this because I can feel it; it is who I am. It is difficult to engage with issues that are based so much on feelings and emotions, but isn’t that at the base of the fight for LGBT equal rights?

AIDS is Political

2007-10-13T09:04:00.000-07:00

I had never really thought about the politicalization of AIDS until this class brought it up. I was quickly struck with how complicated this disease actually is. I have done a lot of work with AIDS patients and have been contemplating going with my uncle to Cameroon to work in a clinic for a few months. I raise money for the MN AIDS Project, which is a great organization in Minneapolis that provides education, resources, and services to people coping with AIDS in Minnesota. Even though I have only known one HIV positive individual personally, I feel a tie with this disease I think because it has affected members of a community to which I belong.

Recently, in my biochemistry class, we talked about the rapid HIV test and how it worked biologically. I was instantly intrigued. Despite my inquisition and my thorough understanding of the biology of this disease, I have, until now, failed to understand its political impact. Being the staunch Republican that I am, I always feel the need to defend my fellow conservatives. Especially at Carleton, I find it difficult to engage in conversations with people who fail to spend as much time as I do thinking through their political viewpoints and the consequences of their political actions. (I mean, come on, a gay Republican must have SOME reason for not voting democratic and better damn well be able to defend everything they say) For example, there was a table in Sayles the other day which I casually approached. The students sitting there asked me if I would like to call my senators, Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar, to encourage them to vote on a bill that would eliminate federal cooperation with companies in the US that do business with the Sudanese government. I immediately asked the companies to which they were referring and the students had no idea. In fact they knew nothing about the bill. It was appalling to me that myriad students were calling Senators Coleman and Klobuchar and advocating for something about which they knew absolutely nothing.

Because of this, this whole week I have been searching for materials I can use to defend who I think was one of the better presidents our country has ever seen, Ronald Reagan, against the accusations that he did nothing about the AIDS crisis. So far, I have found nothing. The federal government, under conservative control, was unnecessarily slow at responding to this crisis that was right in its backyard. I am a huge advocate of personal responsibility and small government. Kramer, in Reports from the Holocaust, talks about the trauma that was endured by the gay community during the 80’s. How can a population that is so debilitated by disease possibly help themselves, especially from something they had no idea was coming? The federal government does have some responsibility for its population, and the blatant dismissal of this disease was nothing but heinous. Even though there was work being done scientifically on the disease, its absence from the political arena was deadly.

My political life is filled with compromises. I compromise my potential right to marry for my economic viewpoints every time I go to the poles. I prioritize everything. Can I live with the status quo socially if it means that my family will be better off economically and will be safer? Can I still defend Reagan even though his silence caused so many deaths? There is so much that we, as the general American population, don’t know about politics, economics and foreign policy that it’s hard to make an informed decision about anything. The only thing we can continue to do is research thoroughly and listen to our heads and our hearts.

Interesting stuff, and the sources I cited in the previous post

2007-10-05T18:25:00.000-07:00

Bunch, Charlotte. "Not for Lesbians Only." Feminist Theory. Comp. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005. 252-256.

Combahee River Collective. "A Black Feminist Statement." Feminist Theory. Comp. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005. 311-317.

Millet, Kate. "Sexual Politics." Feminist Theory. Comp. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005. 218-220.

Nietogomez, Anna. "Chicana Feminism." Chicana Feminist Thought. Comp. Alma M. Garcia. London: Routledge, 1997. 52-58.

Radicalesbians. "The Woman-Identified Woman." Feminist Theory. Comp. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005. 239-242.

Redstockings. "Redstockings Manifesto." Feminist Theory. Comp. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005. 220-221.

Rich, Adrienne. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Lesbian Existence." Feminist Theory. Comp. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005. 347-355.

Ryder, Bruce. "Straight Talk: Male Heterosexual Privilege." Oppression, Privilege, Adn Resistance. Comp. Lisa Heldke and Peg O'connor. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2004. 368-394.

Wittig, Monique. The Straight Mind. Boston: Beacon P, 1992.

I also found a great blog called "at the kitchen table" which you should all check out.

From another perspective

2007-10-05T18:10:00.000-07:00

To be honest, I am sick of the androcentricity that permeates our society. Don’t get me wrong; I am not a man hater. I talking to men and hearing their ideas and I even like talking to them about beautiful women on television...like Demi Moore. What I can’t stand is when men believe they are experts on something that they cannot possibly fully understand.

Standpoint epistemology, as outlined by Sandra Harding in Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology, states that persons in a marginalized group will have epistemic privilege over those not occupying that same social position. This means that there is knowledge that is accessible to those facing oppression that is not accessible to those on the outside of that oppression. Privilege results in blinders and thus makes it impossible to possess certain knowledge. For another, perhaps more accessible outline of this, there is a great book called Feminist Methodologies; Challenges and Choices by Caroline Ramazanoglu and Janet Holland which I highly recommend.

By only reading one perspective on the dominant lesbian feminist movement and how it emerges from the dominant gay male movement, one is missing most of the story. A white male cannot possibly know what an African American, lesbian, Chicana, etc. woman experiences because of these social blinders. There is clearly knowledge that is not being portrayed. I would like to talk about one perspective that was brought up in class that I believe deserves further mention.

The Combahee River Collective was founded in 1974 out of the Boston chapter of the National Black Feminist Organization. Three of the members of this collective wrote a statement in 1977 outlining their views, problems in organizing, issues and practice. It states, “The major source of difficulty in our political work is that we are not just trying to fight oppression on one front or even two, but instead to address a while range of oppressions. We do not have racial, sexual, heterosexual or class privilege to rely upon…” (Combahee River Collective 314). More complex, and arguably more important, are the women who are being excluded from the dominant lesbian movement. African American women, during this time, are mobilizing and facing even more problems than the dominant feminist movement of the time. Viewing the movement with a single-pronged approach is, in more than one way, problematic. It is effectively continuing the exclusion that was started in the early phases of the feminist movement.

There is value, however, in the dominant viewpoint. The Combahee River Collective statement itself says, “Eliminating racism in the white women’s movement is by definition work for white women to do, but we will continue to speak to and demand accountability on this issue” (Combahee River Collective 316). White women, in this case, and men in the case of feminism and lesbian feminism, are important as well. It is their job, as oppressors, to work against oppression within their movement and to listen to the wishes of the oppressed and incorporate them into the movement (Ryder 380). Reading literature from the dominant perspective is as important as reading literature from the marginalized perspective.

A Black Feminist Statement written by the Combahee River Collective was a groundbreaking document highlighting the disillusionment that permeated the seemingly liberal movements of the 1960s and 1970s. There are many other perspectives that could be looked at in this context. I will follow this with a bibliography of some articles and essays I have found interesting and important that have come out of, or address 2^nd wave feminism and lesbian feminism.

Is Stonewall Worthy?

2007-09-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

Stonewall by Martin Duberman is a book I would have picked up from the “sexuality” section at Barnes and Noble while in high school and just starting to come out. Simply by looking at the cover, the reader is promised a detailed account of the Stonewall riots probably rooted in historical fact. What the reader gets, however, is a rich examination of the lives of six very different individuals living during the time of the riots as well as less than riveting stats of the various organizations and movements going on at the time. Duberman does an interesting and different thing in placing the riots in a historical context, but that’s essentially all he does that warrants special mention.

What I also find in Duberman’s Stonewall is a shallow and puerile understanding of the nuances of the time. Duberman writes, “A lesbian subculture seems to have developed earlier in Harlem than elsewhere, probably because blacks, knowing the pain of being treated as outsiders, had developed an attitude toward homosexuality relatively more tolerant than was characteristic of white heterosexual circles, with their unrelieved insistence on ‘sickness’ and ‘degradation’ “(42). I had noticed this exact passage before it was brought up in class and had a significant problem with the way this issue was glossed over as did, I sensed, many others in class. Duberman is, in effect, minimizing the subtle, nuanced and often times huge differences between these types of oppressions. He is minimizing and generalizing relationships between people which, in a book supposedly meant to access the depth of relationships between peoples and time, is unacceptable.

I do find value in this text as an informative historical account of a relatively under researched historical event. It is important to have books like this around but, like I stated previously, it is a text I might have picked up in high school and have gotten the same, if not more, out of it than I am getting now. My question is, does this book warrant college level discussion? Or rather, Carleton level discussion? The issues I highlighted earlier ARE the things we should be delving into in a class like this. We should be talking about the subtle differences between oppressions, why it is problematic to lump the Civil Rights Movement with the Gay Lib Movement, and what similarities do these movements have. We should be talking about how these movements piggy backed off of each other in a more critical way than simply glossing over generalities stated in the text.

I suppose I answered my former question. Duberman’s text does actually bring up important questions and discussion points. It is important, however, to find more literature on these thought provoking issues since it is obvious that Stonewall isn’t going to delve into any critical issues any time soon.

Hey, at least some people are coming around...

2007-09-25T19:51:00.000-07:00

I encountered this video during a recent browsing session through my friends' facebook pages. The comment posted under this link was "This guy is my HOMIE". The only thing I saw before watching the video was an old, fat, white dude and I immediately thought "WTF?" since the person who originally posted this video is probably the last person on Earth I would peg as declaring a rich, white, fat dude their "homie". After I watched it, I totally got it.

This clip of a speech from the mayor of San Diego evoked, in me, an emotional response, which is, extremely hard to do. I think the value of this type of thing is a bit undermined at times.

Take me to the clip!

gay plane ride?

2007-09-16T20:16:00.001-07:00

I have to add this relatively un-academic post because it is hilarious. Air New Zealand has brilliantly come up with the idea of gay themed plane rides. I lived in New Zealand for six months last year and couldn't help but notice that gay bars and the gay scene eerily reminded me of books I had read of the gay scene in the 1950s in America, only without the police raids. I have flown Air New Zealand extensively and, while the airline is quite posh, this blatant gayness is something I hardly expected of one of New Zealand's only national companies (remember, there are more people in the state of Minnesota than there are in the entire country of New Zealand...17 sheep for every person, and only about 20 companies based out of there). Where is American Airlines on this?? Are we as a country so uptight we couldn't enjoy fabulous entertainment 36,000 feet in the air? One of the questions I received most often while over there was, "how horrible is it to be gay in the United States?" I always told everyone that it was quite a bit different. I felt invisible there. That also may have been a result of most women being extremely dykey (my gaydar was so off!) Here I stick out like a sore thumb. Regardless, I am amending my answer to this frequently posed question...ladies and gentlemen, queers and gays, it is much better to be gay in New Zealand because at the very least they provide you with in flight homosexual entertainment before you even enter the country.

in defense of my passion

2007-09-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

Why is it that whenever the medical institution is vilified I attempt unconditionally to defend it? Perhaps it is because I am a pre-med student, one who will study until the wee hours of the night for eight years just to gain a degree that gives her qualification to cut people open (sick, right?). Of course the system has its flaws, but doesn’t every system? Where would we be today without the medical institution, without science, without the constant need to classify everything? Isn’t it within human nature to do just that, classify and pathologize?

Kessler and McKenna, in Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach, state,

Scientists construct dimorphism where there is continuity. Hormones, behavior, physical characteristics, developmental processes, chromosomes, psychological qualities have all been fixed into [sex or] gender dichotomous categories. Scientific knowledge does not inform the answer to “what makes a person either a man or a woman?” Rather it justifies (and appears to give ground for) the already existing knowledge that a person is either a woman or a man and that there is no problem differentiating between the two. Biological, psychological, and social differences do not lead to our seeing two genders. Our seeing two genders leads to the “discovery” of biological, psychological, and social difference (163).

So therefore each characteristic (biological, psychological, or social) fits (or could we say is tailored to fit?) into a preexisting category that is socially constructed. Because it is human nature to classify everything, does that make it wrong to do so? I suppose it is if it renders a group of people oppressed. I find it interesting that it is the medical institution that is blamed in cases such as this. The socially constructed categories came first and the medical institution is merely working within the preexisting system which was around much longer than modern medicine.

Medicine is a very rudimentary science as sciences go. We still treat the symptoms. We have no understanding of what causes disease, and what we don’t know, we automatically deem abnormal. What dictates whether a person is going to have diabetes? Sure, a diet high in sugar and fat give individuals a higher propensity for the disease but how do we know someone will get it before they do? Compared to other sciences, we know so little. We will always know what the velocity of a ball falling off of a building will be right before it hits the ground, but we will never know if a child will grow up to have diabetes until it actually happens and once it does, that person is then abnormal, pathologized, different.

Homosexuality was different in the 1940s, the time that D’Emilio, in Homosexuality and American Society: An Overview, states that the medical institution came to pay attention to the gays. D’Emilio states, “Increasingly, Americans came to view human sexual behavior as either healthy or sick, with homosexuality falling into the latter category…In the postwar era, medicine was moving toward parity with religion and law in structuring American culture’s perception of homosexuality” (17). As I asked previously, can you fault the medical institution for simple ignorance? It is still, in many ways, an ignorant science. Medicine works within the social framework attempting to classify and fix. I’m not saying this is in any way right since millions and millions of people were and still are being oppressed, abused and killed due to this unfortunate social construct that inundates society. Obviously not everything needs fixing or is even broken at all. I just find it problematic to fault an institution that aims to cure and better the lives of everyone it can. To end I will quote a portion of the Hippocratic Oath, “I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.” While the medical institution has done unimaginable harm in perpetuating the culture that deemed homosexuals as deviants, I can only assume/hope that the institution had and still has good intentions.