Kelley writes:
> I get tired of always having to put disclaimers in an e-mail
to forestall some inevitable bitch about something because
I didn't cover it. it would be nice to be cut a little slack
sometimes.
You are right. Using your post as a springboard to what I wanted to say was an error. Again, I apologize.
> i thought that was only charles. huh.
No. Chris in Russia was particularly nasty and dismissive, among others.
> but here's the thing. you complain that people are very
conscious or concerned with sexual freedom/gay rights
struggles. now, if I read your output and judged it, I might
say that you are exclusively focused on those issues to the
exclusion of feminism/gender oppression. now, i don't think
that's true, but based on what animates your posts to the list, if I were observing from Mars, I wouldn't put you in the category "feminist".
I post on my field. To post on the others would be presumptuous. There are people here who know much more than I do about certain issues -- economics, theology, Marxism, etc. Today for instance: I am reading the article about how today's economic situation is similar to the 1920's. I could never post on this subject since I am not an expert in that field.
But I know queer. I had to learn to spot heterosexism in all its manifestations just in order to survive. Hets cannot relate to this since they simply followed/conformed to the sexual path that was laid out before them. I had to search and fight for my yellow brick road (I'm sorry -- I had to -- I'm queer).
As you say below, perosnal lives affects our activism. Hets, by and large, conform sexually. I think this conformity tends to color their view of sexual activism. They give it a low ranking/importance since it rarely has a part to play in their life.
> so, what i was saying above was that there are constraints to
our ability to communicate our views in this format
I am not sure there are that many constraints. "The fault is not in our keyboards, but ourselves, dear Brutus." What I seek to do is to delve into the hidden heterosexism that many posters seem to be oblivious of.
That is why my posts have so many questions. Many LBO posts are of the John L. kind -- authoritarian statements on how leftists should act. Charles on Castro/Cuba is another example. The redeeming thing about Charles is that he admits that he believes that Castro's persecution/execution of queers was valid in the struggle for revolution at the time it occurred. I may feel that what Charles approves of is repulsive and evil, but I admire his honesty about it.
> If the picket line is to enforce racism/sexism, no. If you just
don't like other racist and sexist practices in the union and won't
support it, well that's your choice. Mine is different.
Agreed.
> I want you and everyone else to hold them accountable, I just
don't think crossing a picket line is communicating your message.
I disagree. I think crossing the picket line and letting them know that I am doing so because they are haters is very effective. Unions must be made aware that heterosexism is evil and they must be held accountable if they practice it. Actions must have consequences.
When that electricians' union changed its by-laws it declared war on queers. The same is true of any group/persons who do not support marriage equality and equal rights for queers.
> In the context, you are telling strikers that you don't support labor.
period.
No, I am not. I tell them that I am crossing their picket line since they have declared war on queers. As Hannibal says: "Quid pro quo Clarice." If they choose to be my enemy, that is up to them. But if they start making life difficult for queers, they should be prepared to have their life made difficult by queers.
> It's not an act that communicates the entirety of your position.
It does if I tell them why I am crossing and how their hate motivated it.
> you'd be better off fighting them in other ways and not contributing
to the destruction of what little labor, erm, radicalism we have in this
country.
Well, maybe they should have thought of that BEFORE they declared war on queers. Again, actions have consequences. No one forced them to behave heterosexistly. The chose to do so. They contribute to their own demise by not being radical on sexual issues.
> hmmm. I suppose queers could picket the picket... although that
kinda reminds me of black bloc actions
I think not. Crossing the picket line is much more devastating and inflicts comparable harm/pain to that wreaked on queers by the union.
> I suppose that, as Yoshie points out, since women often have to
deal with men (fathers, brothers, sons, etc.) we can't take such
absolutist positions.
It is quite easy to cut men out of your life. Both Terrance and I cut ourselves off from our families (TJ at 15) when we realized that they were our enemies. Women need not be dependent on straight men. Woman + strap-on = het male. We all choose our sexuality.
> We can, but our personal lives tend to influence how we think
about politics, compromise, negotiation, influence, etc.
Agreed. The privilege that het males are granted frequently leads them to take authoritarian positions. Take John L's assertion that picket lines are only and always about class. By using reductive thinking and announcing his conclusion with het male indignation, he thinks he can deflect investigation into the nature of those who form the picket line, thereby derailing an inquiry into heterosexism.
> You mentioned, offlist, that very few of us bring up sexual issues or
discuss them. There used to be a lot more of that sort of discussion.
Alas, when you deal with assholes who send you private email
suggesting that you're some kind of slut, who make passes at you, and
list members who say you're obsessed with sex because, maybe, 20%
of your output has to do with sex or my output refuses to conform to
stupid norms of proper female behavior, you get a little disgusted.
Agreed. I get it too when LBOsters harp about my focus on queer issues. They never seem to realize that since they completely lack a queer sensibility of any kind, if I didn't bring queer issues up, there would be a conspicuous void on LBO (Deb, Doug, Justin, Michael, Yoshie, you excepted -- if I forgot anyone my apologies).
Translation: we don't want to upset the apple cart of heterosexual privilege so please shut up. I am supposed to be a mincing fag -- the Franklin Pangborn of LBO. That I am an agressive queer disturbs them.
> hey, you can still be queer!
Even better!
> BTW, what do you think about QE for the SG? Is it just me,
or does it seem like they worked so hard in early episodes to
come off as just *lurving* women.
Both TJ and I were creeped out by it.
> Always making comments about how hot some woman is, how
beautifyl she is, etc. It's not that I think queer men don't talk this
way....they do.
Not in the same way. Usually we love women just the way they are and never encourage them to conform to het male images of beauty.
> It just seems very forced on that show. Less so now, but very def.
in the beginning.
We gave up on it. You cannot transfer the technique from the first show to the second. On the first one, it was charming to watch clueless het males being made over. I bet 95% of them went back to the way they were soon afterward.
On the second show, the women do not need a makeover as much as help with realizing that het males have odd expectations of women which should be resisted rather than met.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister