Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Queer, A Coversation

  • Monique  
    I don't like societies labels on sexuality, i.e, bi-sexuality, lesbian, gay, hetro. They are a symptom of a heirarchal system that seeks to classify and degrade based on preferences. These roles seperate people and create division amonst homo/hetrosexuals. I know because Bi-sexuals are ostricized by Lesbians and Gays all the time.
    I think you can't really have this conversation without mentioning the queer movement. Anarchists and homosexuals have been in the same fight against the state and all systems of repression for a very long time. Radicals in the LGBT community identify as Queer. They refuse to be subjectified by dominate patriarchial systems. Some anarchists prefer not to identify as hetrosexual (although they are only involved in male/female sexual relations) as a political act of solidarity with the queer community. I would love to see a radical LGBT movement in South Florida.

  • Crystal Rose  thanks for this post and clarifying the LGBT and Queer movement which i did not mention. i have not known many to identify as Queer, only LGBT (might be because of the communities they were initally involved in). so i'm queer? this is good news! but regardless this was more about the whole poly- multiple partners thing.

  • Crystal Rose  and me being discriminated against for male/female monogamous relations because i am not open minded.
  • Monique  
    There is a unified group of radicals in SF that don't like LGBT culture because it assimilates them into an oppressive system, unfortunately I haven't met any radicals in the LGBT scene, but maybe I need to look around more. How you personally approach relationships can change with time. But it doesn't have to change I think for some it is natural to be monagamous. I have found that as I get older the personal becomes political and I find myself becoming more radical. For me monogamy (marriage never!) may happily come at the end of the road when I am too ugly to fuck anyone else. hahahha...



  • Crystal Rose  ha! i think its funny that this whole time i was not identifying with LGBT for the very reason the Queer movement is around...for not being included in the categories created. i am not strictly male/female but i'm not bi...it could change and has changed because i look at people as people - not as a gender, so how could i be bisexual if i could be into a transgender-ed person? i think this type of sexuality is less spoken about and it would be nice if others knew you could just be whatever without having to convert to some sort of label or prove your anti-hetero cultureness

Monday, February 27, 2012

Hetero-normative Culture and the Counter Culture of Polyamory

    Hetero-normative culture is the dominant force in shaping our gender identity and social relationships. There is no question homosexuals are second class citizens legally and socially, and that other self-identifications or sexuality is either taboo or ignored (i.e. bisexuality, trans-sexuality, pansexuality, etc.). The methodology of hetero-normativity comes from idea that marriage is another form of slavery, men owning women as property to fulfill the roles of baby making machines/domestic laborers and its enforcement through outcasting any person who can't/won't perform these roles - socially, economically, and/or politically.  We are force fed these roles early on, which is the main argument for pro-LGBT activists, feminists mainstream and otherwise, polygamists, and people who practice polyamory, a norm in anarchist circles.
    This is my qualm: I am not poly, nor am I supportive of hetero-normative culture, yet often enough, I am called out for being in a monogamous hetero- relationship; for falling prey to the hetero culture hierarchy. Without being defensive, or ridiculing anyone of alternative lifestyles, some people are heterosexual, even us feminist activists. Yes, biologically a woman's natural response is to reproduce, as is a man's, so some of us are straight, and even lesbians like to have fingers, toys, etc. that technically are phallic (although it is not necessary and doesn't make a lesbian bisexual). There are many feminist theorists that claim woman are by nature, bisexual. I don't agree, simply on the grounds I am not opposed to same-sex relations, I have engaged in same sex relations and I didn't care to have them (or not)...on several occasions. Although I am not bisexual, I am not heterosexual, either.
    Can a person receive pleasure from someone of the same sex, enjoy it and not be bi? Yes, considering we can receive pleasure from inanimate objects and not have attraction to them, or have sex with a person you don't particularly have interest in, but get your rocks off (so to speak).
    This is where I think many sexually inexperienced individuals become confused with the idea of bisexuality.  Now, this is not to say that homosexuality or bisexuality is just a made up social construct (like hetero-normativity) but perhaps heterosexuality isn't merely a social construct. I do believe, especially in activist circles or anarchist circles (whom are mostly "alternative") it is common for poly or LGBT folks to be the norm and it is merely because, initially, the type of person to be involved with activism or punk rock (or whatever) are people who don't accept the status quo. They are the type of person who does't want to be fed more bullshit; sexuality is another outlet of that rebellion. This is also the reason why people who just are different than the mainstream norm are attracted to activism or other alternative lifestyles.
    Experimenting is and SHOULD be promoted (bi or poly experimentation), but I think many just label themselves bisexual only because they've kissed someone of the same sex, or hasn't and just wants to be recognized as someone who doesn't support the hetero culture/gender system. So, to some extent, the bisexual club has racked up a significant amount of people who just don't consider same-sex relations taboo who actually act out hetero lifestyles. I also think, in some cases, the idea that it's taboo or wrong to be bi or homosexual or to be poly is the main reason why these lifestyles fulfill people sexually, which is the main reason  why people develop fetishes. For example, a straight man having a woman screw them up the butt with a dildo or a lesbian woman having fantasies about being gang raped by men (these are very common fetishes, actually). In real life, the man would never want to sleep with another a man or the woman may severely oppose rape. Again, I am not proposing that those born gay, trans, intersex, etc. are just bi-products (no pun intended) of the opposition of a hetero culture, but I AM saying that there are a minority of those who consciously choose a poly or bi lifestyle that are.
    As for the poly lifestyle choice, which goes along with unconventional gender identifications, sexual practices and multiple consensual partnerships or relationships, I think some may enjoy this lifestyle and have legitimate reasoning but those who aren't poly aren't just by-products of hetero culture. Especially if you've considered the argument of being forced to be hetero and forced fed the idea of a single marriage long term relationship. Yes, most marriages fail, but I believe its because people don't experiment and are pressured into having one partner at a time with marriage being the end all be all. I don't agree with the eagerness and myth of "the one". I do believe, however, biologically due to the urge of creating children and having a family, people are naturally serial monogamists as seen in many primates. Some people, of course, don't have the urge to settle down, period so they do not want to be monogamous.
    But, let me ask you this: if many men, especially nowadays, want multiple partners or open relationships and many woman don't, is the popularity of poly orientations perpetuated by a culture of woman geared towards pleasing men especially in anarchist circles which are usually predominantly white young men and have traditionally set the intellectual standard due to the gender hierarchy and access to information? This could be because of socially ingrained gender roles, perhaps that aren't inherent, (that woman want a family and men want to fuck around), but it may also be from mainstream gender roles of men wanting as many women as possible (to prove masculinity/prowess), therefore it is a way to coax women. I have seen some manarchists like this and mainstream men like this. I have also been around/with people who practice polyamory that aren't like this.
    I also have to bring up that within the context of marriage being a contractual agreement, where the idea was initially brought up because women were slaves to men, anarcha-feminists like Emma Goldman had a political justification and a personal frustration that was right on taking many partners and breaking that taboo. Nowadays though, people having many partners (i.e. cheating) isn't taboo, it is common. People not wanting to settle down so they can continue having sex with whoever, is common too, so, maybe it's more politically relevant to be with one person and not treat women or men as tools that are simply for sexual gratification?
    When it all boils down, people have the right to chose how they want to live their lives, so don't be hypocrites you open minded anarchists and feminists, let me prefer to be monogamous and not be ridiculed for my natural inclination to have one mate at a time. I do think the ideas above are worthwhile conversation topics but ultimately would be useless to prove, considering no one has been raised beyond gender roles and without social tendencies ingrained by media, parents and school. Just keep in mind, all I am saying, is if heterosexuality can be a social construct why can't other types of sexuality or polyamory be a social construct as well?

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

A Blog About A Blog

     In this post-2000 world of internet accessibility, where anyone can have a blog, I wonder how relevant my self-publication is. While an individual's freedom for creativity, no matter how seemingly self-indulgent or adolescent, is important, especially in the context of anarchism and activism - when everyone thinks they are the next Paris on Twitter, I wonder how anyone can find my poor old radical feminist blog. Sigh. Blogging is even referenced in popular media. Big name writers that have contracts even have blogs just to screw the rest of us up.
    A long time ago, perhaps 10 years ago, before the digital monopoly over reality, if you wanted to self publish you were making trips to Kinko's quite regularly. I don't know if they're are Kinko's anymore. They are probably all internet cafes. The beauty of the zine making scene was you had to have the will power to see the process through the maze of mapping and folding so it can look like a bonafide flip-able piece of literature. Now, laziness and boredom are the motivations for your urgent need for expression. Just to give a few examples, I 'flipped through' (of course there's no 'flipping' online) the blogs that come before mine, and they are mostly personal journals and movie reviews. I barely trust my friends to give me good movie reviews, let alone Jane or Joe who loves romantic comedies.
    Despite the over lapping of self-interest and the welfare of the general public, even in cyber space there is a need for intelligent reading material. I will not be discouraged to rant about patriarchy even when lines of my articles mysteriously disappear thanks to this perfect technology. To have people willing to use the tools we have is crucial for activism in the anarchist communities to thrive and reach the sensitive minds of the youth who have been brainwashed by Axe commercials and history teachers to think 'anarchy' is a synonym for chaos. To have an accessible record of herstory is a beautiful fuck you to big name publishers who want the voices of protest to be turned down, if possible, non-existent to mainstream folks. 
    So, here I am, the lone warrior, in the vast desert plain of internet blogging hoping some youngster will find this just like a tumble weed in the wind. Us anarchists are outlaws in the cyber wars, supporting eachother's political ramblings is a step towards numbers and recognition. We are relevant citizens and have alot more to say than Jon Stewart. So to movie review person: this town actually is big enough for the both of us. 

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Dichotomies of Consumer Culture

    The most fundamental dichotomy, man/woman, or if you like, day/night, is the basis of modern thought, stemming into religious morality and thus government and rule. Throughout culture, sexism has been persistent. Even the woman-based or goddess based cultures of ancient times were eventually physically put in submission. Patriarchal societies have the upper hand when examining the polarity of feminine/masculine. To this day, in for instance, Feng Shui, the method of balancing one's environment, is based upon Yin-Yang, feminine/masculine, dark/light, night/day. These basic dichotomies are almost universally accepted and become the principal foundation for gender roles.
    At once dualism becomes the structure of collective thought, every concept is divided in two, so day/night becomes light/dark, good/evil, positive/negative. It is easy to see the relationship between day/light/man in ancient culture when the sun was the main focus of worship (sun=son?). This leaves night to represent female whereas night is dark, when the unknown occurs, naturally inspiring fear, longing for daylight. Many children have fear of the dark, vampires, ghosts and nocturnal animals come out at night, making evil interchangeable with night, dark, and female, most noticeably in Western society and religion.
    Upon examining the book of Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve gives much insight into modern association between good/man and evil/woman and the identification of men representing all of humanity. Before Eve, Adam was neither man nor woman, therefore Adam represents all people, i.e. "man kind" not "woman kind". To further reinforce  male superiority and woman inferiority, Eve, is tricked by Satan, i.e. evil, and gets both Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden the beautiful paradise God (a man nonetheless) made. Now, according to Genesis, women suffer painful childbirth for our collective misdeed. This of course is the Judea-Christian religion Western society is built upon, especially the United States, a more recent concoction of religion and state (supposedly separate).
    Religion reinforces the unquestioning of these modes of thought. Religion is one of the main culprits of the evolution of gender roles, why women are submissive and men traditionally the bread-winners. Nowadays, gender-roles have a slightly new configuration after the Woman's Right Movement and politically, on most accounts have equal rights. Equal rights, should not, however, imply overall equality. Women are still fitted into traditional stereotypes of being weaker, still take on domestic roles as well as jobs outside the home, are still paid less than men, and are still objectified through all branches of media. This atmosphere of consumer culture is where more complex dichotomies evolve.
    For instance, we are constantly being advertised and sold products, while watching a weight loss show we are also being shown McDonald's commercials, while watching a cooking show we are being sold diet pills, while looking at anorexic models we are being told "big is beautiful" (then being called either too skinny or too fat), while seeing women run for office we are seeing half-naked women in music videos. These are alot of confusing images, especially for young women. This is a result of the religion/state dichotomy - on one side we have the pure, house maker religious moral side, then the demonized over-sexed pro-women's rights, left. These polarities make it possible for gender roles to be perpetuated and for rifts between other women or feminists to persist over which side to take. Dualism in our thinking patterns makes it black/white as if there is no gray!
    People are politically divided into left/right when, in reality, they are the same people making decisions for whichever company they have sworn allegiance to. Since capitalism is based on the consumer's demand, it is necessary the companies who run our government find a way to please us, or to create demand for their products.
    For example, even if there is no real demand for cheeseburgers there is one created through advertising and other types of psychological manipulation. This is how we have become a brand-based culture and a culture that racks up debt for the newest cars and computers even if we don't need products or can't afford the products. So it becomes necessary to find to the audience to sell to and to box up their characteristics to find a way to reach their vulnerability.  For example, a company needs to sell a new oven cleaner, they have spent millions on animal testing, researching and creating something slightly different than the previous oven cleaner, so to sell it they give deals to stores so it can be sold cheap and also advertise. They figure, who does the oven cleaning in the home? Who is the majority of our audience? Women? Aged 30-50? Are they a parent with a job and busy lifestyle? What do they watch? Oprah, maybe? Soap operas? Therefore they create the right opportunity, during the right time slots have a commercial with a busy mom with alot of things to do, praising how much she enjoys having this fast acting oven cleaner to save her time, then you go to the store remember that catchy jingle and see that it's on sale, then, voila! A company has millions in their pocket and can continue to have political sway.
   This culture makes it possible to continue stereotypes even after the so-called "women's liberation movement". To indulge in this psychological manipulation is indulging in sexism, racism, animal torture, environmental atrocities and political ignorance. Our black/white thinking makes it impossible for our green parties to ever win an election and nearly impossible for individuals to be individual. This why examining the dichotomies persistent in our moral values and political structure become the crux of anarchism and individual liberty. To ignore gender roles, where they stem from and how they persist is going to be the downfall of politics, environment, and freelance information.