![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greenie_breizhI have a new apartment! Very excited about that, will update with more soon. But first I've let too much time go by again and I want to share a bunch of links. Today on the list: DADT ends! Dan Savage's readers are idiots! Shocking news: people with disabilities are the ones who know what's the best for them! La France se rend compte que la question du genre existe!
Onwards:
- "Sexuality doesn't matter on the battlefield"; this opinion piece by a U.S. soldier is a textbook example of the rhetoric around lifting Don't Ask Don't Tell, aka it states the obvious (sorry McCain). It's great for what it wants to do, and it gives me an excuse to say, DADT IS OVER. Yay, confettis, hugs, all that, I forgot to do it at the time because I was writing papers, I think. This IS a great step forward, and about time, and I'm REALLY glad Obama finally has something to show for himself in terms of LGB civil rights. But the truth is that it's a bit of a bittersweet victory to me because this whole DADT thing has (understandly and expectedly) gotten wrapped up in celebrating America's Greatness and the Greatness of its Military and that makes me cringe. I don't really want to spend hours going on about it, but essentially I hate displays of patriotism a-la-U.S and I'd rather the U.S. would stop sending soldiers abroad on "liberty missions" or whatever they're calling them these days. That said, just like I support same-sex marriage but still question its normalizing assumptions, I feel that I can have little to no sympathy for the institution of the military and still respect that some LGB people may disagree and want to be part of the army. So, in short: good for them.
- Not that people are really talking about it anymore, but I did want to link one more great post, this time by Kate Harding, about Assange's sexual assault charges.
- Two great posts by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chaoticidealism:
the first one on the importance of getting people involved in projects that are meant to benefit them. And don't assume that because you have people who walk with canes in the office that they can speak up for wheelchair users, this kind of thing. This reminds me of a piece published in the National Post recently about the crosswalk sound for visually-impaired people sounding too much like a bird, and it seemed like this was just "well-meaning" people with no visual impairments making noise about this; while actual visually-impaired people were like, "we don't care! just pick a uniform system so we don't get harmed!". So, FAIL. It comes down to the most basic advice, but one that always bears repeating: don't assume you know better and ask people to whom it actually matters. You're way more likely to fail by assuming you can anticipate someone else's needs than by asking the question, and having to ask doesn't make you an idiot, most of the time it actually makes you more respectful (and, in the case of creating infrastructure for people with disabilities, more successful).
The other post is just a really interesting reflection on what autism is about, and why thinking of it as a social disorder might not be entirely accurate. It was really informative and I recommend it to, well, anyone, because everyone could do with a little more knowledge on autism.
- I want to rant a lot about Dan Savage's latest post about asexuality and the profoundly dumb things that his readers are saying in the comments; both display a staggering lack of understanding of asexuality and knowledge about the asexual community. But I'll keep it short because I actually have work to do. First of all, OBVIOUSLY people should discuss their sexual expectations with future partners. I hate that this is made into an argument about asexuals v. sexuals; there are sexual people with low sex drives and that's cool, and there are asexual people who are willing to have sex, and that's cool too. "Asexual" is a useful and important identity that people can take up, and which might help them find a community and navigate a very sexualized world (I use the term broadly, meaning that most of us go around taking (hetero) sexual desire for granted). But it doesn't allow you to make generalizations about what asexual people are like or what they should do; it certainly doesn't allow you to pass judgment because CLEARLY being sexual is the best/most natural/whatever the fuck. I'm continually impressed (and discouraged) by queer people's capacity to be bigots when it comes to anything but their brand of sexual orientation. Ugh. Asexual people struggle enough with the idea of dating sexual people, and how to disclose their identity, when is the right time, etc; they don't need sexual people to make them feel extra guilty and stressed out. Instead we should think about how we can create (within our personal sphere of dating, but also within our community) supportive environments where people can communicate and negotiate their (sexual or non-sexual) needs without being blamed for their own desires.
- What the Fuck Has Obama Done So Far?, which is both a cool idea and interesting website (I only wish each item would link to a more comprehensive note on the particular achievement).
- En français! Un article assez intéressant de Télérama sur la question du genre en France. Il est grand temps que ça fasse question.
Onwards:
- "Sexuality doesn't matter on the battlefield"; this opinion piece by a U.S. soldier is a textbook example of the rhetoric around lifting Don't Ask Don't Tell, aka it states the obvious (sorry McCain). It's great for what it wants to do, and it gives me an excuse to say, DADT IS OVER. Yay, confettis, hugs, all that, I forgot to do it at the time because I was writing papers, I think. This IS a great step forward, and about time, and I'm REALLY glad Obama finally has something to show for himself in terms of LGB civil rights. But the truth is that it's a bit of a bittersweet victory to me because this whole DADT thing has (understandly and expectedly) gotten wrapped up in celebrating America's Greatness and the Greatness of its Military and that makes me cringe. I don't really want to spend hours going on about it, but essentially I hate displays of patriotism a-la-U.S and I'd rather the U.S. would stop sending soldiers abroad on "liberty missions" or whatever they're calling them these days. That said, just like I support same-sex marriage but still question its normalizing assumptions, I feel that I can have little to no sympathy for the institution of the military and still respect that some LGB people may disagree and want to be part of the army. So, in short: good for them.
- Not that people are really talking about it anymore, but I did want to link one more great post, this time by Kate Harding, about Assange's sexual assault charges.
- Two great posts by
chaoticidealism: the first one on the importance of getting people involved in projects that are meant to benefit them. And don't assume that because you have people who walk with canes in the office that they can speak up for wheelchair users, this kind of thing. This reminds me of a piece published in the National Post recently about the crosswalk sound for visually-impaired people sounding too much like a bird, and it seemed like this was just "well-meaning" people with no visual impairments making noise about this; while actual visually-impaired people were like, "we don't care! just pick a uniform system so we don't get harmed!". So, FAIL. It comes down to the most basic advice, but one that always bears repeating: don't assume you know better and ask people to whom it actually matters. You're way more likely to fail by assuming you can anticipate someone else's needs than by asking the question, and having to ask doesn't make you an idiot, most of the time it actually makes you more respectful (and, in the case of creating infrastructure for people with disabilities, more successful).
The other post is just a really interesting reflection on what autism is about, and why thinking of it as a social disorder might not be entirely accurate. It was really informative and I recommend it to, well, anyone, because everyone could do with a little more knowledge on autism.
- I want to rant a lot about Dan Savage's latest post about asexuality and the profoundly dumb things that his readers are saying in the comments; both display a staggering lack of understanding of asexuality and knowledge about the asexual community. But I'll keep it short because I actually have work to do. First of all, OBVIOUSLY people should discuss their sexual expectations with future partners. I hate that this is made into an argument about asexuals v. sexuals; there are sexual people with low sex drives and that's cool, and there are asexual people who are willing to have sex, and that's cool too. "Asexual" is a useful and important identity that people can take up, and which might help them find a community and navigate a very sexualized world (I use the term broadly, meaning that most of us go around taking (hetero) sexual desire for granted). But it doesn't allow you to make generalizations about what asexual people are like or what they should do; it certainly doesn't allow you to pass judgment because CLEARLY being sexual is the best/most natural/whatever the fuck. I'm continually impressed (and discouraged) by queer people's capacity to be bigots when it comes to anything but their brand of sexual orientation. Ugh. Asexual people struggle enough with the idea of dating sexual people, and how to disclose their identity, when is the right time, etc; they don't need sexual people to make them feel extra guilty and stressed out. Instead we should think about how we can create (within our personal sphere of dating, but also within our community) supportive environments where people can communicate and negotiate their (sexual or non-sexual) needs without being blamed for their own desires.
- What the Fuck Has Obama Done So Far?, which is both a cool idea and interesting website (I only wish each item would link to a more comprehensive note on the particular achievement).
- En français! Un article assez intéressant de Télérama sur la question du genre en France. Il est grand temps que ça fasse question.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
More detail on reservations to DADT repeal
Date: 2011-01-06 04:54 pm (UTC)I wasn't looking to get into a debate about the pros and cons of the military, which is a whole other can of worms; I just mentioned it because that's why DADT was somewhat of a tainted victory for me. But like I said, I respect that for some people this was extremely important, because they want to be able to serve openly. So there's a bunch of things going on that explain my reservations.
At the bottom of it, I'm not a fan of the military as an institution (which doesn't mean I automatically don't respect the people who go into it, or doubt the genuineness of their commitment and good intentions) so the tone around this victory has been bothering me because it often seems to be tied up with a celebration of the military and American patriotism in its most narrow definition.
There's also the fact that this is being celebrated as a huge step forward, when to me this seems to be barely catching up; it's mind-blowing that this policy was still in place in 2010. So I think it's a very good thing - obviously discrimination is always a problem - but I don't see it as the military leading the way at all. In repealing DADT, the military is part of a broader cultural trend that leans towards acceptance, and in some ways, it's actually pretty late. It may seem more significant that other work-related legislation because of the sheer size of the U.S. military, but I don't see it as breaking grounds, much.
Another thing is that there's obviously a huge difference between the repeal of an official policy and the reality on the ground; from what I know, for example, the integration of women in the military is wrapped up in problems of harassment. I think something similar will happen with LGB soldiers, who won't necessarily be very well protected against discrimination and harassment at a smaller scale (you don't need the risk of being fired to make harassment painful, stressful or effective). To be fair, this isn't just about the military, this is true of tons of other environments, especially hyper-masculinized ones. But that's why celebrating the end of DADT as open acceptance of LGB people in the military seems overly optimistic to me.
The last thing has to do with that - much like the marriage movement tends to favor certain privileged populations (which is why some conservatives can love it! Your article was a good example :), the repeal of DADT mostly adds to the cultural message that "gay guys can be masculine, just like you" (for lesbians, the story is more complex because it's wrapped up in sexism which makes masculine traits in women both more desirable than feminine traits in men, but also maintains a need for a certain femininity within male-dominated occupations). That's a great message for gay guys (and guys in general) who fit our perception of what a "real" man looks like, but it does nothing for challenging gender norms. Unfortunately, these rigid gender norms are often the root of the harassment that LGB people experience (and not just LGB people, of course). So I've become somewhat skeptical of victories that further entrench the "normalization" of LGB people as being really just like straight people. As an anti-homophobia activist, I find that it actually works to limit opportunities to challenge heteronormativity - people start thinking that as long as they're OK with gay people (the ones who look and act "normal"), they don't have a problem. It's fairly similar, in my mind, to the way that racism has become hard to identify and challenge because people always rush to "I'm not racist" nowadays. (Well, some don't, but we won't talk about that.)
...continued...
Re: More detail on reservations to DADT repeal
Date: 2011-01-18 03:01 am (UTC)I wasn't sure what you meant by "approving of the military as an institution" - like, you don't approve of a nation having a standing army? 0_o But reading further it seems your objections have more to do with the "military and militarized culture" as it were, which I can cotton on to - and if I'm misreading please correct me.
I think I have a different perspective than you do regarding how far behind the times the military is on this issue...considering that gay marriage/civil unions are only legal in a tiny handful of states, and that in most states its still perfectly legal to fire someone for their (real or perceived) orientation - there is no federal protection for orientation, there is existing federal legislation which effectively bans any real recognition of gay relationships (nothing beyond the state level which in the scheme of things isn't all that) and even DADT, which was a step UP from how things were in the military before, was only passed in 1993.
Acceptance is growing, but that is by and large the younger generation, who are not the most reliable voting base. Repealing DADT is a huge kick in the pants to the anti-gay movements, and the fact that it's happening with the military is huge. There's also the consideration that this may be what it takes to really drive equal rights for gay people in general, especially as it concerns the marriage issue, since if gays are allowed to openly serve will the military be able to justify denying them equal partnership -housing and family and retirement benefits, etc? In this (DADT) the military is ahead of the most entrenched gung-ho military supporters (well, rhetorically anyway) - it's typically the conservative right wing that's most loudly pro-military, so that's significant as well.
As far as the military being hyper-masculinized, bear in mind that it's majority male, always has been, and they are conditioned towards violence...heavily and extensively conditioned. Part of that conditioning involves creating a "band of brotherhood" dynamic amongst the troops, and that's where you get all of this "threat to unit cohesion" talk from. Actually, if you want to read a little about what goes into that, I really highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920514 Its a fascinating read if you ever have the time. Part of the reason I like this book is because, in going into the extreme conditioning these guys go through its apparent that that same conditioning can be effectively adjusted to include gays and women, if only combat leaders/trainers use it (which they need to do a better job of...I have hopes that including gays will force their hand in making the necessary adjustments for women as well, which they've been a bit behind on). But that's largely the combat units, each of the Services has their own distinct culture. I think you will be seeing the hyper-masculine aspect change, as more women and openly gay and lesbian people sign up (incidentally a panel has recently been formed pushing to allow women in combat positions) and more importantly as technology changes the nature of warfare (which it already is what with greater use of UAVs etc etc).
TBC...
Re: More detail on reservations to DADT repeal
Date: 2011-01-18 03:02 am (UTC)So I guess my way of looking at it (and my response) is while it may be "normalizing hetero-normativity" on the surface, it is simultaneously deconstructing it, breaking it down, and blurring it up.
Regarding "class" considerations, I'm not really well informed enough of that topic to make any real response to your statement - a side effect of my own (relatively) privileged socio-economic status, I'm sure. (although I am aware that in our current economy marriage benefits the wealthier). So I'll cede to you on that.
As far as making it harder to recognize sexism, racism, homophobia, etc, yes people are getting better at hiding it, even from themselves, but with a little pushing you can always get the bullshiat out in the light. Its easier to confront when its overt, of course, but what would you do with yourself if you didn't have any assumptions to challenge? ;) Including my own? :)
Up next...Military sustainability!