Subversive Soapbox

Raise Your Voice

Legalizing Gay Marriage is the Only Way to Protect Straight Marriage

Sdc14719

This morning the 9th Circuit Court overturned Prop 8, the proposition that outlawed gay marriage in California. There was one dissenting opinion from Judge Randy Smith. He argued that traditional marriage can be harmed by changing the definition to include same-sex couples. I'd like to argue the opposite: opposing gay marriage harms the sanctity of traditional marriage.

When I was dating women, marriage was never a possibility. To take the relationship to the next level was to move in together, and in typical lesbian fashion that happened pretty quickly. We didn't give any thought to whether we wanted to be together for all of eternity because we'd known since the time we came out of the closet that that wasn't an option. If being queer meant being swallowed in a lake of fire, so be it. We'd accepted it.

Now I'm in an entirely hetero-normative relationship. One man, one woman. And guess what? I still don't think about marriage. I know that it's an option, but I don't fantasize about wedding gowns and bridal showers like some of my straight friends do. To them, marriage has always been the measure of love, because that's what people do when they love each other. To prove they love each other. But it is hard to believe in the sanctity of marriage when you've been in love, and done just fine without it.

But that's a young person's game. What every queer wants, even a Godless heathen like myself, is equal rights. The right to leave our pension to our partner, the right to visit them in the hospital, the right to add them to our health insurance, the right to file jointly on our taxes, all of the rights that straight couples get when they sign that piece of paper. Most Americans, even those who support the sanctity-of-marriage argument, recognize this as an injustice that should be rectified. Arguing against giving queer couples the same rights as married couples is a losing argument. Too many people saw If These Walls Could Talk II I suppose, or they have a gay friend, or they get their hair cut by a friendly-but-opinionated gay stylist. Over and over statistics show that the younger generation has no problem with gay people, thinks they aren't going to stop being gay just because you guilt them, and believes they deserve equal rights.

Enter civil unions. Civil unions seem like the perfect compromise to keep our grubby, queer, little hands off your precious wedding rings. But it seems obvious to me that civil unions are only going to further destroy the sanctity of marriage. Let me tell you why.

Read the rest of this post »

If SOPA Passes It Will Be the End of Music Streaming/Online Radio

I finally submitted my electronic signature to the petition to congress to oppose the bill that will remove our Internet freedoms (SOPA). I thought I'd share with you the letter I wrote under the section, "Tell your story"...

I'm the sixth most popular DJ on the music site Blip.fm. My station gained this popularity because I focus on playing things that are underplayed, be it under-the-radar indie bands or long-forgotten b-sides of yesteryear. The music I play is primarily not music you will hear on commercial radio, but it is protected by copyright. I do this for free--it is my passion to help people discover these fantastic bands, as so many have tired of the repetitive and trite options available through commercial radio. In order to comply with the demands of record labels, the site does not allow file uploads so most of the songs are streamed from YouTube uploaders who are violating copyright by posting the vidoes.

If the SOPA Bill passes, the site where I play music, and any streaming site like it, will be outlawed. Moreover, I would face a ten-year prison sentence for hosting my amateur radio show. This despite the fact that none of the songs I play on my station are available for download, and links are provided to Amazon and iTunes for those who are ready to purchase. Professionally, I work in publicity and marketing so I understand that these bands need the publicity sites like Blip.fm provides. Sadly, many bands willingly sign detrimental contracts so they can gain access to the corporate labels' big-budget publicity campaigns.  It is absurd that a label will pay millions of dollars to have "street teams" that give away free CDs at hip bars in major cities--all while claiming that sharing music is hurting their business model. 

It is equally absurd to put the sentencing guidelines for copywrite infringement in the same range as child rape or armed robbery. I find it hard to believe that even the most willfull copywrite infringer on the planet is committing the same harm as rapists and robbers, nor do they represent a danger to society. I should hope that if SOPA passes and I am charged with a felony, someone can explain to me how the payola-backed radio DJs are upstanding members of society and those with streaming radio stations are criminals.

There Are People Protesting in San Francesco Right Now! Occupy Wall Street! Occupy the financial District!

(download)

 

Video footage in front of Chase bank. Occupation of the financial district is ongoing!

Who is to Blame for America's Budgetary Woes?

5-10-11bud-f1.jpg

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [7] By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — nearly $10 trillion — of the $20 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[8] (The Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 also will substantially increase deficits and debt, but we are unable to quantify these impacts due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues, which will account for less than $2 trillion (less than 10 percent) of the debt at that time. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers.

Why Reclaim the Word "Queer"?

Cool_chicks_pride_2009
As a woman, the word "gay" does not describe me. I'm told gay is meant to be all-encompassing but if that were so, why do we say "gays and lesbians"? Wouldn't that be redundant? It is similar to how women are told the word "man" is meant to apply to all of *mankind, yet I still get surprised looks when I walk into the men's room. 

The next solution offered in opposition to queer is "LGBT." First, let's admit that "LGBT" is hella awkward. It's hardly the catchy marketing hook you'd expect from a people known for being fashion-forward. More importantly the acronym LGBT goes to the heart of why there is a need for "queer." We need a word that summarizes all the gender and sexuality misfits and tacking together a long string of letters is hardly the best way to do this. "Queer" does not state someone's sexual preference or gender identity. It doesn't say which letter they are to be categorized under. It merely asserts that one doesn't fit into the norm.  

I will staunchly defend whatever sexual identity an individual claims--who am I to say I know their loins better than they do? You know that limp-wristed straight guy who carries a man-purse and keeps his eyebrows meticulously groomed? In LGBT circles there's an ongoing debate about when this fellow will accept who he is and come out. This is a shame because the whole point of this movement is to give people the freedom to be whatever they want to between the sheets. Not that I want to encourage closet cases, but pressuring people is not going to make them more comfortable coming out. The word "queer" gets around all that. I can say, "Sweetie, you may not be gay, but you are definitely a little queer," where queer means what it has always meant--divergent from the norm. If he takes offense, then we can have a conversation about why it's OK to be different--fun!

Perhaps what I love most about the Pride movement is that it teaches Johnny Hetero and Susie Vanilla that there's more than one way to be sexual, and that that's ok. When Johnny accepts that some boys like boys he can admit his own hetero fantasy of being dominated.  Recognizing the validity of queer desire can help Susie come to terms with the fact that she can only get excited when she's being secretly watched. Thus even Mr. Hetero and Ms. Vanilla can see the personal value in the Pride movement. While ninety percent of folks are straight, there are very few people who harbor not a single kink in their desires. Deep down, we are all queers. 

Reclaiming "queer" is more than a political statement, it can be tremendously helpful to the outliers. This includes not only the perpetually undecided adolescents but also the middle-aged bisexual woman that's been married into a straight relationship for twenty years. "Queer" still describes the gay male that suddenly finds she is "straight" when she comes out as trans. "Queer" describes the intersexed and the hetero cross-dressers and the whole genderfuck lot. Adding more letters to LGBT is not the solution, because that way of thinking continues the idea that we know all the ways to be an outsider. It puts the emphasis on classifying when the truth is that so many of us came together because we are tired of being classified. In the past there has been in-fighting about whether these people are gay enough, whether they counted. I bet there wasn't a single person at the Stonewall riot that would have turned away someone sincerely asking to join the fight and gain acceptance under the queer umbrella. 

I say "queer" because I don't want to get hung up on which box to tick. I say "queer" because it is more inclusive and in a game of Us Versus Them, we are stronger when Us is bigger, more diverse. I say "queer" because of all the beautiful people I have known that are not quite straight and not quite gay, but certainly part of this movement. I say "queer" because it reminds people that sexuality is as complicated and personal as the individuals it describes. I say "queer" because there are as many ways to diverge from the norm as their are colors in the rainbow. 

Pony_pride
Queer Little Ponies pic thanks to Zak Hubbard.

*For example, does Oscar here describe all people, or only men? "What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." --Oscar Wilde

 

A Feminist Click Moment

Or: How Feminism and A Love of Drink

Saved Me From the Perils of the Devil

I was a teenage satanist. Under the tutelage of Anton LeVay's The Satanic Witch, I didn't think women needed equal rights. Women were already the most powerful creatures in the world because they could get whatever they wanted through the subtle, irresistible guile of a woman's sexuality. You could not convince me that men got all the jobs and the money because Satanism had taught me that for one sniff of a woman's musk a man would change his mind about foreign policy and hand over the keys to his Porsche. We didn't need to be in charge, at least not officially. Of course by this view, the men immune to the stuff between a woman's legs, gay men, should've been at the pinnacle of the power pyramid. Nor did this view take into consideration how complicated sexuality and attraction are, nor numerous other aspects of inequality like vaginal mutilation, domestic abuse, etc. Satanism didn't address the subtle messages that young girls receive telling them they are princesses in need of rescue. Doubtless the message that all I needed to succeed was a cunning mind and a short skirt was ripe fodder for a cherry bomb raised on fairy tales. If Marilyn Monroe didn't need feminism why would I?

Going to Women's Center meetings in college didn't shake the feminism into me. On the contrary, the women present were all extremist stereotypes and I relished disagreeing with them. They told me women were silenced but so far no one had managed to shut me up. They spoke of empowerment but I didn't need to be reminded that women could be capable and strong because my mother told me I was these things and I was still only a girl.

No, the feminist seed was watered by copious alcohol. Specifically the game Asshole. If you haven't played it, a key aspect is that the winner of the previous game could tell anyone else to drink whenever they wanted to for the entire next round. As a Freshman at one of the leading party schools, I'd become an adept and frequent President, dishing out sips to jolly drunks. Many men who could game amiably threw temper tantrums when I came to the President position. It had happened enough times to become predictable, til it got to the point that I avoided playing the game with any man I was dating.

Back in class we were studying the feminist implications of M. Butterfly and Ibsen's A Doll's House. My feminist “click” moment came during one of those discussions where it was theorized that abusers were actually, deep-down-inside, insecure. I was rolling my eyes because that particular reversal of thinking has always struck me as a stinking cliché. It was right up there with “bullies are just scared” and “he pulls your hair because he likes you.” As if cruelty were perpetuated by helpless cute puppies. Such claims were brought with no evidence save wishful thinking. Yet where was I left but without any lunch money and an aching scalp? I'd seen domestic abuse up close and if those guys were insecure, they weren't any more so than plenty of other guys that don't beat the shit out of people.

We read an essay on the topic. It was either by Judith Butler or it began with a quote by Judith Butler (I regret that my googling was not able to come up with the essay or quote). It surmised that the insecure abuser has been taught that he is inherently superior to all women. What does a man do in this position when a woman bests him? How does it make him feel? It wouldn't be the same as being bested by a man. If you believed that women were inferior to all men then to be outwitted by a woman was in essence to be put not only beneath her but beneath all men. Either she was not truly a woman (or she couldn't have surpassed you) or he was not truly a man—and cognitive dissonance would lead most men to the former conclusion.

This rang true for me. It explained why otherwise ordinary men couldn't handle losing at Asshole. They were acting out the same seething rage the essay described. It wasn't merely that they didn't like being told what to do by a woman, it was that the orders were coming about because they had lost to one. I actually played with one guy who, gaining the presidency in a later round, insisted I shotgun an entire beer for every penalty sip. Of course I'm not suggesting this gent was a wife-beater, but his anger was real, tangible. He wanted to punish me for winning.

Why was this the “click” moment for me? Why did this essay linger with me and transform me into the totally bad-ass feminist writing here before you today? I think mainly, it felt fair in a way none of the Women's Center rhetoric had. Most of the feminist arguments I had previously heard made men out to be villains. It was easier for me to believe that women were secret satanic goddesses than to believe that half the population consisted of dickheads going out of their way to fuck over the other half. Besides, I'd met some dudes in my two decades and they weren't terribly menacing. Compared to my own foreboding demeanor, most of them were downright pansies.

But it was the quote that stuck in my brain. Again, regrettably I cannot reproduce it, but the gist of it was this: simply because men are the enforcers of oppression doesn't mean they aren't subject to its rules. Maybe men didn't want to be better than women. Just because they were born into the role didn't mean they had any desire to perpetuate it. Superiority is a lot of work, especially when it is a lie. And there were so many incompetent men out there! How exhausting must it be to be forced to interact with woman after superior woman? Here we satanic sex goddesses come along, minding our own business but being awesome all the same, and this guy has to feel like dirt just because it is so painfully obvious that he's our intellectual inferior. Surely it wasn't too unreasonable to think some of these guys would get angry at some of these women eventually. It was all very sad for all parties and the only cure I could see was for the men to somehow learn that it was OK for a woman to be better than a man. I had to recognize that as an inherently feminist position.

What is striking to me about the epiphany that led to me to entering the fight for women's rights was an interest in what is best for men. Perhaps the truth in the argument appealed to my sense of integrity (e.g. it was not about my self interest as a woman gaining something for women). The basic idea that men may not relish their role could be applied to many circumstances besides the domestic abuser. What of men who wanted to stay home with the kids? What of men who wanted to knit and sew? What of men who wanted to be pursued, protected, nurtured? Which is not to say that they had it worse than women—anyone could plainly see they got the sweet end of the candied apple. And if the system wasn't even in the best interest of men, who was it working for? The musky supermodels, turning themselves inside out to fit a generic high-impact sexuality? Hardly. When the final piece clicked into place, I could see that the whole framework of gender rules was at best unnecessary. Ah-ha and then some: feminism will liberate everybody.

One Hundred Year Anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

Media_httpuploadwikim_kqidy

When we think of desperate people holding hands on a flaming building and leaping to their death, Americans are not generally thinking of the history of labor unions. But on March 24th, 1911, one couple held hands and lept to their death, to be followed by some 140 others, in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. Bystanders watched helplessly:

Down below on the street, people started to notice the smoke billowing from the 8th floor. One of the bystanders observed a bolt of cloth come flying out the window and hit the pavement. Instinctively, he remarked that Harris was trying to save his best material. As the people on the street moved closer, out flew another bolt. It was then that the realization hit them that it wasn't bolts of cloth at all but bodies plummeting to the pavement below.

The thousands who watched as the workers jumped flaming to their deaths were instrumental in changing support in favor of labor unions and building codes in New York City. Years before the fire, the women who worked their went on strike to fight for better working conditions, little things like a 52-hour work week and unlocked doors on the factory floor. At the time, the concern about locked doors was that the foreman did so to prevent women from using the bathroom. After a month of striking, the women at the Triangle factory were not able to agree with the bosses on the important sticking points of having a closed shop and collective bargaining. They returned to work, still locked in the building from 7am to 8pm every day.

A bit more about the fire, so that we can appreciate the tragedy that occurred a hundred years ago today: 

Within three minutes, the Greene Street stairway became unusable in both directions.Terrified employees crowded onto the single exterior fire escape, a flimsy and poorly-anchored iron structure which may have been broken before the fire. It soon twisted and collapsed from the heat and overload, spilling victims nearly 100 feet (30 m) to their deaths on the concrete pavement below. 

Read the rest of this post »

Some Thoughts On Why The People Down the Street Are Rioting

Oscar_grant_sticker_macarthur_


I wasn't surprised that officer Mehserle wasn't convicted of murder despite all the video footage and witnesses of him shooting an unarmed teenager. I first had my suspicions when Forum reported there wasn't a single black person on the jury. But then I took heart in thinking that the prosecution would want a whiter jury so it would be harder for the defense to appeal. Besides, the victim, Oscar Grant, was hand-cuffed face down with another police officer's foot on his neck. So for weeks I held out some hope for a verdict of second-degree murder.

Mehserle claims that he accidentally grabbed his gun when he meant to grab his taser. I asked an ex-cop about this and he doesn't think such a thing is possible. For one thing, a gun is much heaver than a taser and tasers are designed to have mechanisms that don't work like firearms to prevent exactly this kind of situation. Moreover, officers' training drills into their heads over and over the exact location of such things. The location of a cop's firearm should be second nature.

The defense's case is based on the very idea that Mehserle was poorly trained. Ironically, the prosecution's case was based on this too. He probably was, since LEOs receive inadequate training in economies far less strained than California's. In the last big election there was a measure to give more funding to California's police force but that didn't have a hope and a prayer of passing when the budget is taking huge cuts in education and social services. So he probably was under-trained.

When you get down to it though, why the hell should he be reaching for his taser in the first place? It's not like they were busting an armed robbery. They were responding to a call that a fight had broken out on the BART train. A simple fight, possibly nothing more than kids horsing around---and on New Year's Eve, the night everyone horses around. If you watch the video it doesn't appear he's resisting arrest. So there were lots of reasons to believe that the jury might hand in a murder verdict.

But I gave up hope of that when I heard on the radio that Mehserle cried on the stand.

I don't think the jury was a pack of outright bigots. Surely they recognized that what happened was a tragedy. But racial identity is a powerful thing. Simply put, they saw Mehserle as one of their own. When they listened to him talk they tried to imagine themselves in his situation. "But it was an accident!" Aw, gee, poor guy, he was scared, the jury thought, I would be too We can't put him in prison with those people. Just imagine what they'd do to him! On the contrary, the victim was one of "those people." They see a boy but they don't see their own child. They don't see themselves. 
Media_httpuploadwikim_fogxc
If you don't believe me, try to imagine it if the situation were reversed. Imagine a black man claiming he "accidentally" shot a white man who was lying on the ground completely defenseless and over-powered. That case would be a joke. It would be a guilty-verdict hands down, case closed. No way it would be a story the media clamoring to cover all across the country.

Of course all this is conflated by the fact that Mehserle wasn't just any white man but a man of the law. One could argue that a black cop that shot a young white man would get just the same sentence. Though I find that very hard to believe, it really doesn't matter. Because black police officers aren't shooting white men. Tends to happen the other way.

This sends a very clear message to black folks: the law does not protect you. It is here only to convict you. Protection from crime is for "those people." They already knew this of course. America doesn't need another black martyr. Hell, Oakland has enough to last us for the next hundred years, ThankYouVeryMuch.

Maybe that's why there's no part of me that cares whether Mehserle deep down and truly meant to reach for that taser. He knows that his behavior was inexcusable and unforgivable. He also knows that his identity as a white police officer is the key to him escaping a life sentence. If he had been a man of honor, he would have settled this case quietly, explaining his side while taking a guilty plea. I'm not saying I would have had the fortitude to do that if I were in his position. But it would have been the right thing to do for Oscar Grant's family. Sure it would have been a sacrifice, but taser or no taser he took this boy's life and he shouldn't have, and he knows it.

So I don't want to hear a word about how the jury are the only ones who saw all the evidence. Mehserle had a chance to step up and offer himself as America's white martyr. Because everyone knows we have plenty of slots available.

Subversive Soapbox

Media_http26mediatumb_izhev
via subversivesoapbox.tumblr.com

There’s a lot of hoo-hah about some photos that appear to be Lady Gaga in drag. They claim “she’s gone to far,” proving she’ll do anything to be shocking.

I don’t see it has her trying to be shocking. I see it as her not “selling out.” Has it crossed no one’s mind that maybe Lady Gaga doesn’t give a damn about whether you like her pictures in drag? Sure, she is pushing an empty facade of pop spectacle. Lady Gaga is very vocal about viewing her art as an entire presentation, and not only a musical act. Moreover her act was born out of the drag community and she has been an active supporter of queer rights all along. Perhaps she understands a thing or two about the whole idea of gender fuck and with this photo shoot is acting out something she’s always wanted to do.

I for one think these pictures are very sexy and I have a great deal of respect for her continued support of an LGBT presence in her art that doesn’t smack of male-fetish-lipstick-lesbian pornography. I’m sure she has so much money and success now, she can afford to lose a few fans who can only fathom that someone might toy with their gender for any other reason than shock value.