The Rebirth of Venus

I wish I had the disposable cash to buy this shirt.

Wherefore art thou feminist?

It seems to be a common question these days.

I remember the first time I visited Nezua's site and admired his serious design skillzzz.* And scrolling down his sidebar, I hit upon this image:


and stopped.

It seems particularly appropriate now.

Why am I a feminist? Because I don't know how else to describe, concerned with issues of gender. Of course, gender is not the end-all-be-all oppression, as we all know. Thus, the genius of whomever thought up the term intersectional. But an intersectional approach has been around and widely practiced for quite some time now, and yet we find ourselves in this same rut. Concerned with issues of gender -- for people who are white, het, cis, abled, etc. Concerned with issues of gender -- for people who are dominant in every other way. Concerned with issues of gender -- for those who have no other concerns to be concerned about.

But when so many of us live at those intersections, “intersectional analysis” can’t simply be a tool in feminism’s toolbox that gets whipped out to take care of us every now and then. It has to be the place that feminism lives at. Holly

So, I understand those who have become disillusioned with feminism after it has time and time again demonstrated itself to be on the side of the oppressor in any case where gender is not the only concern. What good are our words, our promises to do better, to try, next time!, when those promises are so quickly forgotten?

Myself? I have found an incredible community of women who are working to better the lives of those disadvantaged and battered down. I will continue to learn from them. And I will continue to explore outside my little privileged corner here, and learn from communities of persons who are working to better the lives of those disadvantaged and battered down in other ways. Whatever they call themselves. Because I think they're worth listening to, learning from, and working with either way.

I think it would do us all well to take another look at that image up there.

*Of course, his writing is sublime, but my brain does not always allow me to process such rich text, as it were. So I would visit his site on occasion, but sometimes my brain is running a 3.2ghz cpu, and sometimes it's running on 0.8ghz. In any case, dude's a talented dude, and you'd probably be better served reading his artful writing than my half-baked babbling.

Hah

I gotta say, I respect my new geographical neighbors. The national media was working itself up into a lather about Obama's remarks about working-class Pennsylvanians, and then it turned out that, here in actual non-Philly PA (those same voters about whom Obama was talking), nobody gives a shit. I hope all of these pundits who pride themselves on being "in touch" with the average Joe down here on the ground (who is lucky to count unpaid vacation days among his benefits, much less owning his own vacation home) feel the sweet, sweet sting of pwnage.

And just now, my husband emails me this:

Politics stops at the water's edge -- even if that water's frozen, apparently.

About 57,000 more households in the Pittsburgh region tuned in to watch the Penguins beat up on the Ottawa Senators than tuned in to see two senators (Obama and Clinton) beat up on each other in the Democratic presidential debate, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The hockey game played in 175,000 -- or 23 percent -- of all households in the Pittsburgh metro market, while the blame game played in 118,000 households -- or 14 percent of the market, according to Nielsen.

Pittsburghers know better than to think that debates moderated by TV "journalists" are worth anybody's time. They neither inform nor edify; they aren't entertaining; they have nothing to do with our actual lives. We'd rather you broadcast ol' Sax Guy playing the Addams Family tune on a two-hour looop than watch a couple of blowhards play the same old tired gotcha game with two politicians who'd be better served catching a few hours of much-needed sleep.

We're too smart for you, o MSM. Neener neener.

You don't have to be normal.

...the person who believes 'I will be real when I am normal' will always be almost a person, but will never make it all the way.

Eugene Marcos (via, via)

We have been told all our lives that to be accepted, to be successful, to be a whole person, we have to be "normal."

And so we strive to change ourselves such that we resemble normalcy.

But it is a rare bird that can adapt itself to living in the water -- or fish that can adapt itself to fly.*

Respect your body and your mind. They operate how they operate, and there is no need to change that, not for anyone's sake. It is not a deficiency. It does not make you lesser. It is not deviancy. It is what you are, and it is good for you.

People on the outside will be uncomfortable with the implications of such a weird and different body (mind) being a good thing, because we have all been indoctrinated into the cult of dominance, where what dominates is Good and Right, and anything that is not the same is Bad and Wrong. It manifests itself in so many different ways even for the same differences. But that is the root of it.

To outsiders, the idea that what you are is definitionally good, because it is good for you, a different person, is disturbing. To outsiders, it says that then, what they are must be bad. And those who think that way will therefore reject you as a person, differences and all.

But there is a different way. There is a way built, fundamentally, on respect. On allowing one another to be what we are, and finding joy in what results. On knowing that when a person falters trying to live in this society, it should not be chalked up to the fact that they are different, but to the fact that society has failed to plan for anything but the dominant, and will then fail in trying to accommodate anything else.

It rests on, again, seeing a person and thinking not: burden, but: potential.

On seeing that person, and recognizing them as a person.

We should all be prepared to accommodate differences, even when it means a change or an extra effort. We should be prepared for this, because we expect as much already from those we are failing to accommodate. We already expect them to change their very being to be able to accommodate how we operate. So we should not protest when we are called upon to open our minds, to change how we think, to change what we do. After all, at least we are not being asked to change what we are.

*I hesitated with this metaphor. I was afraid of the implications. The usual stuff, that pwd are of an entirely different species, that pwd are animals, that pwd are at base un-understandable and therefore nobody should even try. ("We are nearer still when we know we don't have to understand somebody to know he is real.") But at the same time, I don't want to shy away from the implication that we are not all the same. That is what we are pushing to accept. Everyone approaches the world in hir own way, and that is ok, and we don't all have to come from the same place to be able to travel together.

At the same time, I am just taking my first tentative steps in this direction, and I know I will fumble at times. So I invite all thoughts and criticism, so that we can all understand better.

Submitted without comment

President George W. Bush, in response to a question of how to protect Christians in Iraq:

Well, one thing we can do is to keep our troops there long enough to have a civil society emerge, and go after them, and go after these killers, and bring them to justice so they quit killing people, including our own troops, because this is a war.