My scrap of dirt

I really feel like I haven't given the Occupy movement enough attention here or even in life. Probably most of you will have read or seen the video of what happened at UC Davis with non-violent student protestors getting pepper-sprayed - this photo (and other versions of it) has been circulated around a lot, and you can see a video of the whole incident here. There's a lot of good articles that have been posted about OWS, but in the wake of the UC Davis incident, I particularly liked the analysis of Glenn Greenwald at Salon. I think he hits a particularly powerful note when he says that, "Rights are so much more effectively destroyed by bullying a citizenry out of wanting to exercise them than any other means." I would add that this is obviously more true of a democratic state, where people become attached to the idea of 'being free' and 'having rights'.

There's also this cool letter from someone in the Occupy Vancouver movement that I just shared with my Sociology 100 students: Why I Occupy. I like it most for the way that it handles the criticism that OWS doesn't have 'clear demands': "Many people wonder why we have not produced a list of demands yet. It is not necessary for Occupiers to come up with legislation or policy prescriptions. Many people have done excellent work drafting out how a fairer and more just society would function. [...] There is no political will to use these blueprints to benefit the people. Political will is mobilized to protect the wealthiest one per cent. We are generating that political will."

--

Ivan Coyote, who's nothing short of awesome, wrote a note on being yelled at for using the women's bathroom a couple of months ago, and recently wrote a follow-up note on this bathroom bullshit. Both these posts are really fantastic, and I really encourage you to read both. An excerpt from the end of the second post:

"I am sick of hearing that my safety is not as important as other women’s. I resent the implication that butches and trans women and men are never survivors of male violence themselves, and thus do not also need a safe place to pee, and the suggestion that we should somehow be segregated in our own bathrooms so we don’t bother the rest of you normal people, is simply fucked beyond belief.
I also want to state again, for what seems like the one millionth time, that single-stall, lockable, gender-neutral washrooms would solve all of our problems. I refuse to be divided and conquered on this issue. I will not allow myself to be placed in opposing corners of the ring when it comes to all of our safety. I call bullshit."

I've also had another piece from Feministing bookmarked for sharing forever that actually makes for a nice companion piece to the bathroom discussion: There are no safe spaces. The idea of 'accountable space' is one that very much appeals to me, although I'm sure it has its limits as well.

--

On a more shallow, but fun note, this interview of Joss Whedon by a high school student is really fantastic.

And to finish, the New York Times published recently a piece on my hometown, Rennes that made my heart ache with nostalgia and a longing to be back in Brittany.

I forgot yesterday that I had a bunch of French links I wanted to share!

First the website Vie de meuf; reading it is a great, unwelcome reminder of the kind of sexist crap that women still have to hear every day. A recent post about porn made me think that I would disagree on some things with the feminists who maintain the website, but it's a pretty cool resource regardless.

Second, I wanted to share a bunch of links on the recent changes made to the biology curriculum in France; it now vaguely integrates questions of sexual diversity. And it's been causing outrage amongst our conversative morally-righteous Christian right.
- L'homosexualité enseignée à l'école : une pilule qui passe mal
- Identité sexuelle: Copé soutient les 80 députés UMP
- Manuels scolaires : le mauvais procès des bon chic bon genre
There's repetitions over the three articles, but I wanted to link them all for my own reference. As a sidenote, one of the things that annoy me the most about these articles and this whole fake controversy is that people keep saying that the new textbooks were influenced by gender theory; even if it was true, it's been watered down to the point where it's not only almost impossible to recognize the influence of gender theory, but where gender theory would actually have TONS of issues with the way things are being formulated in the textbooks. But whatever.



Also I forgot yesterday this really interesting article on the sexualization of Casey Anthony, written by one of the bloggers from Tiger Beatdown. "Casey Anthony may have killed her daughter, Casey Anthony made out with a girl at a party–there is no connection between the two ideas. Unless, that is, you buy the idea that being sexual — impermissibly, 'shocking'-ly sexual! In public! With a girl, even! — makes you a monster. Or the idea that, for a woman, enjoying sex is a moral offense that can be fitted onto the same scale of human evil as murdering a toddler. If you buy that, the connection is perfectly clear."

Instead of getting angry about nuclear power and ranting at all of you guys, for once, I'm just going to link to a note (in French) by Dominique Voynet that's particularly articulate, I think.

I also want to link to all these photos from the aftermath of the tsunami/earthquake in Japan; they're awesome and incredible (both in the original sense of the word), and incredibly moving. I also like photos because they make the reality of something like this more palpable to me, even though it remains hard to believe when you're safe and quiet in your corner of the world. Anyway; it's terrifying just how much damage natural catastrophes can do.

And to finish, a cool story from a mom about how she dealt with slut-shaming and her 10-year-old son. I love this because it's doing more than saying, slut-shaming is wrong! and it's actually giving parents (and non-parents) some tools for how to confront this kind of stuff when it happens. I think a lot of why we still don't react to gendered harassment (whether it comes out in the form of homophobia, sexism, or slut-shaming) is that we just aren't sure how to. It's cool to see how other people do it so we can, not necessarily reproduce it exactly, but learn from it. :) Also, a nice reminder that this is why you need to talk to kids about sexuality when they're pretty young, and you can't wait until they're older - these mechanisms are set in place very early on, and if you don't address it there, it's way harder to do anything about them later, once they're well-rooted into a broader system of being in the world.

I 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 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.

I took advantage of the fact that Allie was in Canmore with her parents for a few days to finish my second draft of my thesis, which was nearly 50 pages shorter! Success! Hopefully, anyway. Now I'm waiting for substantive comments.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to share an article, Policing Female Masculinity: Much Ado About Rachel Maddow’s Yearbook Photo! We have a tendency to jump the gun and say that masculinity is more harshly regulated nowadays than femininity, and an article like this one reminds us that actually, norms of femininity are still very much in place.

Also, a question for the French (or French-savy!) folks out there: quelle est votre crêpe végétarienne traditionelle préférée?


EDIT: Also want to link to this article on people (including Sarah Palin, who's decided to become a spokesperson for the cause or something) who oppose the construction of a community centre and Islamic prayer space near Ground Zero (note the NEAR, it's not even at Ground Zero itself). Benevolent racism drives me nuts, and I hate how much the far-right thinks they alone know what the true "American" reaction should be to something like 9/11.

I am trying to get all the midterms out of the way by the end of this weekend so that next week I can focus on my thesis, and I'm doing pretty good, but some of the stuff I am writing so often that it's starting to drive me crazy.

In spite of that, I still like how concise and effective this definition is:

Gender stereotypes are widely held beliefs about the defining characteristics of masculinity and femininity. They are both descriptive (suggesting what group members are like) and prescriptive (specifying what group members ought to be like).

Only 20 or so to go!

A couple of months ago, my roommate introduced me to Sarah Haskins and Target Women, a little show that basically makes fun of media representations of women and how offensive they are. I liked it but I haven't had too much time to watch more. This morning I decided to give it a go with my breakfast and sure enough, I love it. Here is the one on cleaning:



If you liked that one, head over to current.com and search for Sarah Haskins or Target Women - there's a lot more there. :D

A thought from the first half of the Positive Space Workshop I attended this week at UBC:

Transsexual applies to people who think of themselves as fitting the gender binary. Aka I was born male/female, but I'm really the other one, and I am possibly taking steps so that people will recognize me as the gender that is not the one I was born with. (As a result, transgender, on top of being an umbrella term, becomes about people who have a more fluid conception of gender.)

It's not fact or truth, just a general working definition, since people are free to label themselves with the term that works best for them, obviously. But I'd never thought of it that way, and I think I like it. Thoughts?

Deux liens intéressants que des amies m'ont envoyé (j'adore quand les gens font ça :) :

Sportives et homosexuelles: le grand tabou. Je ne suis pas vraiment l'actualité en France et encore moins l'activité du football mais que l'équipe de France de foot féminine soit passée à la trappe ne m'étonne pas vraiment... l'article fait des remarques très intéressantes sur la nécessité de s'hétérosexualiser pour devenir une figure acceptable, et ça ne fait pas de mal de se faire rappeler qu'Amélie Mauresmo aussi a dû subir ce genre de choses avant de faire son coming out officiel.

Les filles brillent en classe, les garçons aux concours. J'ai grincé des dents (tout comme dans l'article précédent) quand l'article commence à parler de la différence entre le cerveau d'une femme et celui d'un homme, mais heureusement l'auteur se rattrape bien en partant plus sur des questions de culture et de social. Je trouve fascinant qu'on considère que les épreuves de concours écrites sont une façon d'évaluer neutre (ici contrairement aux épreuves d'oral, potentiellement).
(A lire vite car comme tous les articles du Monde il sera bientôt accessible uniquement aux abonnés.)

This reminds me of yesterday when I was on the bus on my way to UBC. Two couples got on with young boys - the couples knew each other and the entire ride the two moms were looking after the kids, talking about the kids and preschool and all that, while the two dads were standing a few feet back, never had to really pay attention to what was going on with their sons while they discussed work and school. It's a snapshot but it struck me because both couples were really young and I'm sure they would describe themselves as progressive and I'm sure the dads help out and are there for their kids and all of that. But it was striking to me how naturally they were on this bus embodying a very traditional image of parenthood. We think our generation is past the whole gender divide. I think we're just not paying enough attention.

First, a funny comic strip about Dollhouse being renewed.

And now more serious links:

- On the virginity fetish. Two really interesting points that caught my attention.
"She points the finger of blame back at conservatives and argues that it's the myth of virginity, not 'Girls Gone Wild', that's hurting this generation of young women. Those two competing influences have more in common than some might think: Both teach women that their most valuable commodity is their sexuality." Not only that, but it's a very specific kind of sexuality that's valued here: phallocentric sexuality, so implicit in the message is the idea that their heterosexuality is most valuable. Our obsession with virginity and what constitutes a virgin terrifies me with its implications and the fact that it's making teens have unsafe sex (whether oral or anal) in hopes of staying "pure". Not to mention the double-standard that exists, obviously, because we're much more concerned with women than men staying virgins.
"I don't believe in gray rape. [...] We can reframe sex as something that should be a collaborative, partnered event. And, if we redefine consent as not the absence of a “no” but a presence of a “yes,” then maybe we'll actually get somewhere." I don't know that I'd go as far as saying I don't believe in gray rape, but I do think we need to ask ourselves how on earth men can think they have consent when they don't. (Because yes, overwhelmingly, it's men raping women, especially "date rape" which is where the issue of consent is often understood as most blurry. But that applies beyond that specific hetero set-up anyway.) I love the idea of thinking of sex as requiring an (enthusiastic) yes rather than the absence of a no. It completely changes the dynamic. But for that we need to learn, and teach our kids (especially our girls) that sex is not something dirty, not something to be afraid of; something they don't need to have, or want (hi asexuals!), but if they do, it's great, and they should let their partner know and be informed and safe. Sex ed would look very different if we thought about sex differently, not solely as a vector of diseases.

- Michael Kimmel on Gender. The key quote is that video excerpt they have available is "privilege is invisible to those who have it" which I think is mostly true, but I think it's also more nuanced in the sense that it's often invisible to those who don't have it, too. When I see the level of heteronormative statements that can come from LGBT folks, or the kind of sexist reasoning that some women can have, I think it's useful to remember power doesn't work in a straight-forward manner. It's embedded in our belief systems and we often end up unwittingly reinforcing dominant patterns that don't benefit us. We can even be strongly invested in these patterns, to the point of experiencing internal homophobia or racism. But it remains easier for those in the majority/dominant group to think of themselves as universal, not to see their race/gender/sexuality/ability as a privilege whose benefits they reap (whether they want it or not).

- I also really want to do a more substantive post with the French comics for IDAHO, but I don't think I'll have time this morning.