Dear Levi's: You Suck

So Levi's apparently thinks the only thing wrong with the world is that men don't have enough rights. Yep, in an attempt to sell pants they're trying to convince dudes that they should be in charge of everything, all the time, and that will make the world a better place and make everyone happier.

Hey Levi's?

FUCK. YOU.

InfamousQbert has a post up about it with a screenshot, which I copied. See the fail for yourself.

I just can't even deal with how fucked up that is. Anybody else care to weigh in? And feel free to repost this everywhere. And I mean, everywhere. It worked with Method- who's to say it can't work again?

Hat tip to InfamousQbert.

100% Customer Satisfaction

This has been going around the feminist tubes lately and was far too awesome-tastic not to re-post in its entirety. Hat tip to No, Not You.

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are commiting a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

Women Die, It's All Their Fault

So last night watching the news- with my mom, no less- I heard about the shooting at the gym in Collier county. Some nut opened fire on a bunch of women, posted about it in his blog for months beforehand, and I bet the media/cops will talk about how 'he was a nice clean-cut quiet guy' and 'nobody could have predicted this'.

And, I'm sure, something about how women rejecting him is the cause of all this. When has it become okay to kill someone because they won't date you? When the fuck has rejection become a normal cause for homicide, and has it always been the woman's fault?

If a woman were to do this, the media would be all over her, talking about how crazy she was. If a man does it, the read-between-the-lines consensus seems to be, "the women should have known he'd become violent, what with all those rejections, and thusly should have gone out with him so he wouldn't kill them."

I don't suppose it's worth it to point out that lots of people can't get a date/have a good relationship, and somehow they manage not to murder anyone.

I don't know. I really don't have any good words about this. I'm angry, and scared. Maybe all those shut-ins living on the Net have the right idea. Stay home, and your chances of being randomly killed by some misogynist bastard drop drastically.

Shakesville has a more coherent rundown.

I'll be in my bed, hiding under the covers. Yeah, that seems really good right now.

The Worst Blog Post Evar

That award goes to: This guy, who thinks rape is funny. BIG trigger warning.

But if anyone else would like to go and comment to the effect that the guy's a douche, that'd be great.

Because I almost blew out my Obstreporal Lobe reading that shit.

WHAT is WRONG with some of these people?

Language Is Never Innocent; Also, Much Capitalization!

So I am one of those ladies who is Friends With My Ex. I seem to notice ladies want to stay friends with their exes more often. Guys tend to avoid exes (when they don't hate them entirely). I'm not sure why- maybe it's because women are encouraged to be introspective and sort out the feelings of "You're Not A Bad Guy And I Like Spending Time With You" from the knowledge that "We Have Issues That Make Dating A Not-Fun Idea". Guys (she says, generalizing away) seem to not be trained to compartmentalize relationships like that. If a woman isn't romantically interested in them [anymore], it's a Total Rejection of his Entire Being. Yada yadda. I have a few ex-boyfriends who got over that and with whom I'm still friendly. And one of the reasons I ended it was because of his amused dismissal of my (highly feminist) worldview. It makes for some interesting discussions, which is what this post is actually about.

My ex-now-friend, referred to as S, thinks of himself as a stand-up guy (don't they all). His actions are (usually) benevolent; if you go by the rule that says Actions are More Important than Words, he's right.

What if you think that the things you say are maybe even more important, because they are the things you're thinking?

He accuses me of being "too PC". He makes racist jokes, and then points out that he has "Black Friends who think [those jokes] are funny as hell". He refers to women as "bitches", and then claims he respects women (because he's not saying it in a mean way, don'tchaknow!). This is the same guy who once called me "easy".

He's an able-bodied, hertero white cis male who *will not* acknowledge his privelege in any way. Every time we have a discussion about feminism/racism, I end up frustrated. Because eventually the subject gets around to language, and his total misunderstanding of The Way Language Works. His claim is that "words don't have power unless we (personally) give them power. If we treat certain words as taboo, that only gives them more power." He's like Randal from Clerks 2, wearing a shirt with "Porch Monkey" on the back with the claim that he's "taking [the phrase] back." At which point Dante loses it and tells him that that's incredibly racist and he can't "take back" a phrase referring to black people if he's not black!

I outlined this comparison to S, who came down on Randal's side. Sheesh.

His idea is that if he personally treats a normally taboo word as if it has no power, eventually other people will pick up on this and do the same, and in time, racial and other slurs will lose their ability to wound. It's a nice idea. It's my opinion that it's also totally unrealistic to think that one, non-famous, whitemaledude has that much influence over how minority slurs are heard. In the meantime, it's also a really good excuse for using those words without thinking about them, or apologizing.

Am I right, or does he have a point? What's an Angry Feminist^TM to say?

Revaluing Beauty

So I was thinking about a comment the lovely SublimeFemme left on my Femmethology post. She said "...Femme revalues beauty and pleasure in a world that largely devalues these things."
This confused me for a sec. If you look, it seems like there is more importance placed on these things than ever. Women, especially, must be beautiful and give pleasure. We have become entitled and spoiled, materialistic consumer-types. Things must "look good" and "feel good" to everyone, otherwise it's not fuckin worth it, amirite? Rockstar and Grandtheftauto for all!
Oh, wait...
Perhaps she was talking about a different kind of value on beauty and pleasure. Maybe she meant taking pleasure in things that don't necessarily harm others. Maybe she meant taking pleasure in beauty that is not self-destructive. Maybe she meant beauty and pleasure that is subjective, and not mandated.
What an astonishing idea!
I think we femmes reject a lot of the patriarchal ideals of suffering for beauty. I know I do. But I also know that I feel a great, slightly guilty pleasure at smooth sheets or new perfume. [Insert your shock at my shameful sybaritism here!]
I feel good when I have a good hair day. (Do I give a shit when I have a bad one? Not really. And that might be an important difference.)
Appreciating beauty when it comes your way is not the same as assuming you're entitled to it all the time. Appreciating sensual pleasures- hot showers, chocolate coffee, orgasms- is not the same as demanding that everything be for your amusement and benefit.

I thing society devalues certain types of beauty and pleasure for men. And I think men have a hard time with that. If a man publicly states that he enjoys a subtle tea blend instead of Redbull(shit), if he buys high thread count sheets, if he takes a moment to look at a damn rainbow, he is mocked by his peers. For a man to enjoy these sensual pleasures makes him womanly and weak (which are synonymous! of course!), as anything identified as "womanly" is inherently less valuable in our society. Men are only supposed to take pleasure in violent or unhealthy things! Like doublebacon cheeseburgers, and makin too much money, and six-packs, and fuckin' drunk chicks, or fightin'!
Rainbows and chocolate and dewy skin are out, boys; sorry.
This is just one of the aspects of "things-perceived-as-'woman territory'-being-devalued-just-because": think about all the jobs, literature, other stuff done mostly by women that is being dismissed as 'unimportant'.
And that is sad. Because these types of little, physical or emotional pleasures are part of what keeps us going in life, I think. We don't get a lot of "big" happy moments in life, and appreciating the little ones is what helps us deal with the bad stuff. If guys aren't allowed to do that, or are only allowed to enjoy "certain types" of pleasures that are often not good for them (or other people), then... well, then life just sucks, I think. It makes life harder for everyone.
We should revalue these things, for everyone. I hope we do.
To ladies, dudes, femmes, butches, and everyone everywhere: go appreciate something pretty. Seriously. Go do something that makes you feel good.
(...No, not that. Something else!)

(Tip o' the hat to the fabulous SF)

iBleed

So, I am having my period. 

...This is an experiment I'm doing. Have you ever noticed that having lady-parts is like this big, taboo thing? That we are expected to never talk about, ever? It's a conspiracy:

I was harassed when I got my first period in 7th grade- by other girls.

My parents get unnerved when they see tampon commercials on tv. Cause happy floating tampons and ambiguous blue liquids are unsuitable for viewing, or something.

My mother told me to hide my pads in the garbage in case my 10-year-old brother saw them.

This, despite the fact that 50% of the population does, will, or used to have a period!

I feel that this is some bullshit. So, from now on, I don't care that it's an "overshare" to talk about my period. I have one. If it is relevant, I will mention it. If I have cramps, I will say so. I will not wrap my used tampons in 83 layers of toilet paper lest fragile male eyes be traumatized by the sight of blood. If there are people out there who aren't aware that cisgendered females of "reproductive age" have menstrual cycles, it is time they learned. 

Also, if I hear any more men make that stupid "joke" about "Being afraid of anything that bleeds for 7 days and doesn't die", I will... actually, I haven't decided how I will respond yet. I have many options, though! 

Do I:

a) tell him I, personally, am afraid any group of people responsible for 90% of all violence, such as men;

b) respond with "I'd be afraid of that, too! But technically, I'm not releasing blood out of my veins. I'm expelling the unused lining of my uterine wall, which is totally different and not part of my circulatory system!" in the hopes that I will gross him out so much he will shut up;

c) explain that that fucking joke isn't funny, wasn't funny 40 years ago when it was new, and tell him never to talk again because he's abused the privelege;

d) or, when he tells me it's "just a joke", kick him in the nuts- because that would certainly make me laugh... now who's "oversensitive", smartarse?

Any thoughts? Because I know at least one person who's likely to say that to me at some point.

Jesus called. He wants his religion back.

Aaaand the Vatican once again proves that the leaders of the Catholic church are a bunch of aliens who have no concept of humanity or empathy.

You bunch of fucking assholes.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

This girl is NINE. Nine years old. She was raped and in all likelihood would have died. And quite possibly the TWINS she was carrying would have died. But on the off-chance that no one died, she would have had twins. At nine years old. The product of rape. At nine. By her stepfather. I mean, dear fucking gods have mercy.

So... she had an abortion, which is about all that could be done to preserve the life and sanity of this poor girl. And in a slightly saner world, that would have been it. It would have been private, and over with, and on to therapy. 

But then. Somehow, the church got involved. And then there was more torture. And a complete and utter lack of compassion.

And the church excommunicated the mother and the doctors, called it murder, and have been very censorious about the whole thing. Big surprise. Assholes.

Amazingly, though, the stepfather? He's not been excommunicated. In fact, not one word about him. Also? Not one word about this little girl and the suffering imposed on her- by men, who will never have to go through this but keep trying to control it.

I guess you could say I'm religious- I believe there's more out there than us; that there's things we don't know and may never know. I believe in the divine. 

As a Wiccan, I live by the Wiccan Rede and the Rule of Three: "do as you will, an it harm none" and "every action you take, for good or ill, returns to you, threefold". Watch what you do, try not to hurt people and be aware of the impact of your words and actions. It's not hard. 

Christians are supposed to be doing the same things- remember "love thy neighbor"? What about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Religion is supposed to be there to teach us to be good to one another, to do no harm, and for those who are wronged, see that justice is done or at least that comfort is given to the hurting.

Why then is religion suddenly no longer concerned with these things? Where is this girl's comfort? Where is the justice for the man who harmed her? And why are all these Bishops surreptitiously picking up rocks? No wonder so many people are abandoning religion these days- it teaches them nothing good. 

Pessimistic maybe, but that's how I'm feeling.

People who are supposed to follow the example of a man of a man who sought love, peace, and the commonalities of all people- and they all seem to be promoting fear, hatred, and shame. What the hell is going on here?? 

...The cognitive dissonance makes my head ache.

Listening to Fear

So I was discussing things with my Ferret yesterday. Mainly guy culture, and why I get so sick of it. Most of dude culture annoys me- things like (1)the glorification of bodily functions- except when women's bodies are involved; (2) the ritual of "bullshitting"- i.e., lying for the the hell of it/to make yourself sound 'cooler'; and (3) the building of trust not by talking or sharing or anything that makes sense, but by doing (1) and (2) while hanging out with each other forever until somehow you just know your compatriot's an "ok guy". The thing I really hate though, is (4) "bros before hos"- that huge part of dude culture dedicated to "keeping the wimminz in their place". You've heard it- make me a sammich, give me a blowjob, iron my shirt, don't talk, hur hur threesomes, blah blah blah I'm an asshole.

And even the guys that aren't, individually, so bad, become like this when a bunch of them get together. It's like the small amount of entitlement that lurks in the hearts of otherwise decent dudes grows in direct proportion to how many (hetero, generally) men you get in one place.

Ferret, of course, takes my tirade rather personally and jumps to the defense of her dudely brethren, which is totally depressing. "Sure, there are some assholes out there. But how many girls only want a guy for his money... blah backstabbing catty wenches, blah blah psycho chicks, blah blah, upshot: women are just as bad as men."

I disagree. Not that I am excusing the members of my sex/gender from being assholes- anybody can be an asshole. But I point out to Ferret that, while it can happen, I am wildly less likely to be physically or sexually assaulted (axe-murdered, raped, jumped on the street, et cetera) by someone with lady-parts. In other words, I am not afraid of women. Freaked out by, confused by, amazed by, afraid for, and often proud of, yeah. But I'm not afraid of women. Men, on the other hand? Allow me at this juncture to chuckle and look away uneasily.

There are reasons. It's my personal life experiences, it's the statistics and stories in the news. It's the things we are shown in the media. We are called hysterical, bitches, and dysfunctional for saying it, but it's true. Women are still the sex class, second-class, not considered "real people", still oppressed. And the pervading feeling of the underclass is always fear. Fear when I walk to my car alone at night, when I'm around a strange group of men, when I'm alone anywhere. It's not a huge! obtrusive! fear!, but a low-level wariness in my brain, and it's always there. And I don't think I'm the only woman who lives her life like this.

And...I hate this. I try never to admit it. I don't want to be that woman. I don't want the fear to run me. I don't want that to be the reason for my feminism, and I don't think it is- otherwise my blog would probably resemble IBTP a lot more. (I mean in a separatist sense- I'm not implying Twisty fears the dudez.)

But here's the thing: we have a group of teenage boys in our house on a regular basis (please don't ask me how that happened). They're good kids, they really are. But I tend to be a bit of a control freak when they're there, because I'm used to being ignored/talked over/dismissed by guys, and I'm not letting it happen this time. I'm the boss, dammit! Me! And I'm worried about getting the respect I think I deserve- keeping in mind that respect for teenagers is relative. I worry about control. Also, what I always think about with dudes is: how do they talk about women when women aren't around?.

And Ferret asked me: "Do you really think any of those boys are abusive rapist bastards? Really, Lemur?"

"No! But I'm afraid one day they might be, and it freaks me out, and I don't know how to fix it." 

I don't know how to fix them, or me, or whether any of us actually need fixing at all.

And I get so damn angry when I think about the fear.

Why Lemur Doesn't Make Lawyer Jokes: A Long and Painful Story, Part 1

Let me tell you a story:

Several years ago, in a far-away place in the South, there was a young Lemur. This Lemur didn't consider herself naive or easily led; she was sexy and strong and confident. But one day through some friends, this Lemur met a guy when she was newly-single and rebounding. This guy, we'll call him Jerkoff, was in fact a handsome and charming guy, and Lemur soon found herself dating him, despite the occasional... difference of opinion. To make a VERY long story short, Jerkoff soon proved himself to be a manipulative, abusive bastard. Miserable and fearful, having lost many of the things in life most important to her, Lemur struggled with the relationship for nearly two years before she finally found the strength to leave him behind for good.

Jerkoff, however, was determined not to go quietly. Oh, no. He had her under his thumb (despite her repeated attempts at independence) and he knew how to make her cry. He knew how to make her angry and frustrated, and he decided to get his revenge on her for having the audacity to leave him. He began his campaign: he called her phone dozens of times a day. He tried to get into her car when she left him for the final time. He followed her to friends' houses and tried to see her. He began vandalizing her car, nearly injuring her twice. He called and threatened her, threatened her parents and threatened to kill the pet cats she'd been forced to leave with him. He cornered her at a gas station and threw soda on her car: seemingly not a big thing, but humiliating and demoralizing.

To be continued on Part 2...

"Be A Man"

Sorry I haven't updated- still no internet at the house, and still more sick than well. I understand now that seasonal depression thing some people go through. Never thought I'd miss SoFlo, but dear Goddess I just wanna be warm again.

...Anyway. Today's rant is on something I've been seeing in Christian websites just lately (I was looking for a feminist book review and my Google-fu went awry). Actually, I see it all the time whenever Fundies get together and discuss how The Liberals Are Ruining Society. It's this: "We have to encourage our men to be men!" Or some equivalent. Has anyone else noticed this creepy meme?

One commenter on catholicexchange.com (which I will not link) babbles happily "Sometimes my friends who have a “super sized” family like I have sit around and discuss that our large families have forced our husbands to step up to the plate and become a man. They shoulder immense burdens for the sake of their families when they could’ve limited their family’s size through sterilization, the IUD, or the pill and used their wives as objects while they pursued personal interests." 

Yeah, that truckload of brats "forced him" to step up and work back breaking hours to feed all those dependents. Good thing, too- who knows what would've happened if you hadn't been there to add to the world's overpopulation. It's not like he was probably a decent guy from the start or anything. But without all those kids, he might've pursued *gasp* outside interests- like friends, a hobby, or career ambitions. Hey, we all know having a shit-ton of kids prevents an otherwise irresponsible, unfaithful man from chasing other women and/or divorcing his wife and leaving her with 5 kids to feed. Also, good thing to know that the woman who's basically a uterus on legs doesn't feel like an object! Whew! I'm so relieved.

She also adds a cute little aside about how she makes a MUCH better chocolate chip cookie than hubby, but golly, he's her best taster! Tee hee! Cause he's a man and, you know, they love to eat but can't cook! Those menz- they'd starve without a wifey in an apron! 

Excuse me while I go throw up.

And now the church is saying than men aren't manly enough, and that, obviously, old-fashioned gender roles and huge families are the ticket to making them "step up and be men".

I'm guessing what that means is: they should be responsible, loving, considerate, and do their best to care for and protect the ones they love. Be strong enough to take care of their kids, homes, and livelihoods. Treat others as you'd want to treated. Not act like 35-year-old children, not act as though the world and everything in it is their personal toy. 

Great. Awesome. I couldn't agree more. Except... why is this the purview of men? Why do we need to go back to traditional gender roles? Aren't these qualities important for, um, everyone? What- responsibility and steadfastness are only desirable if you have a penis? And us laydeez are just supposed to stand back and giggle/applaud, or something?

Ick. Is it just me, or does that logic not resemble our Earth logic?

Look, my thing is- what is a man, anyway? And why do we make boys work so hard to conform to that narrow ideal? Why can't a woman work and support her family (wage gap aside)? Why can't a man be the one to take care of and nurture his kids? 

Why, other than that we're taught from a young age "this is how things are"? Why is it so important to 'be a man' when what we should all be striving for is to 'be a decent human being'?

Well, catholics and fundies? I'm waiting.   ...Bueller? Anybody?

Banging My Head Into A Wall For Fun

"Lemur, why don't you want kids?"

For the same reason I don't bang my head against a wall for fun.

When my Ferret and found our own place, I was relieved. Her folks were very nice to let us stay there while we got it together, but there were 7 people, 1 bathroom, 3 dogs, and 2 small children.

I don't like kids. I can manage them, in small groups. I tolerate them. I occasionally even think they're cute. But seeing a baby in a stroller does not make me wish for one myself. I seem to lack the maternal imperative. Obviously, we need some around to continue the species; obviously, some people find fulfillment in having kids. Don't get me wrong- I'm happy for those who're happy with kids, who are good parents for good reasons (I can't define "good reason", but I know all the bad reasons). 

So, no kids for me. The world does not need my parenting skills- any kid I unleashed on the world would be a world-conquering tyrannical despot or a constantly-stoned couch-philosopher. It's safer this way, really. And I don't need kids. I have plenty of walls handy, thanks.

What drives me nuts is all the people who smirk and say "Well, you're young. You don't know what you want. Just wait til your biological clock starts ticking. Who'll look after you in your old age? Don't you want a family?" Any or all of the above. Like I haven't thought about this for years. Like I'm not capable of NOT wanting kids. Like I don't have reasons for not wanting them. Like I haven't thought of all this before. 

I have a plan for all this. My plan is: Have my finances set up to take care of myself in my old age. And have friends, who'll visit me in my dotage. If my biological clock (which I'm not convinced exists) starts going "cuckoo!" and I start wanting kids around, I'll join a mentoring program. Oh, and as for "family"? I have a family. Besides my immediate family and the family I'm marrying into, there's also my own family: me, Ferret, and our fuzzies. We're our own family. Small but happy. Yay for us.

I wish people would consider adoption more often, though. I know there're all kinds of problems with the system- one of the biggest that in many (most?) states, LGBT folks can't adopt. But I think the biggest problem is that we're still stuck in this medieval mindset where kids were a necessity (for work on the farm) or a point of pride (look, my penis is manly and virile!) or a point of fear (the family name will die if I don't have kids! [never mind that usually a woman's family name disappears into obscurity]). These, and all the other stupid excuses to BREED, DAMN YOU! don't make sense to me.

Hey guys? Screw your genes. The world doesn't need them. If you're worried about your race or religion "dying out" or "being outnumbered", you're a bigoted asshole, and the world REALLY doesn't need your genes. And any talk about "bloodlines" is ridiculous. This isn't the Middle Ages, you aren't European Nobility. In this age, paternity's no longer a life-and-death issue. Let's see, what else? Most of you don't have farms; if you need help, hire it. Your penis is not that damn important- no, really it's not. Nobody cares. And unless you or your ancestors have done something particularly noteworthy, even your descendants won't remember you, and you won't know them. If you did do something important, you'll be in the history books anyway and you'll be remembered, no kids needed. If you're that worried, make a couple million dollars, endow or donate something big, and give it your freaking name. There ya go.

I can't tell people what to do. I can't suggest we all stop reproducing (although I think we could benefit from a slowdown for a couple generations). I can roll my eyes at people with families of 5 or 6. Don't you guys know when to stop? Think of the homeless kids you could provide for! Hell, think of your carbon footprints and stop making more consumers! Damn, people! 

Er. Anyway.

Think. Adopt. Use protection. And for Gaia's sake when someone tells you they don't want kids, congratulate them!

Privilege-Shock

So I got an interesting wake-up call the other day. My Ferret and I have been apartment-hunting for the last few weeks or so and we finally found one we liked. The landlord was a friendly, good-natured guy and we were in the process of signing the lease, when he checked her work reference and came out of the other room with a... well, a look on his face. My Ferret is quite butch and she gets mistaken for a dude all the time. Our landlord-to-be had made the same assumption and finally figured it out, and he was- I think the word is flummoxed. 

We'd already made it quite clear that we were a couple, and he was having trouble reconciling the nice, normal couple he thought we were with the people his church and political views say are Bad. I could almost see his thoughts swirling.

He was nice about it- just said some things about being surprised, stammered a bit, made reference to he and his wife being all Christian and Republican. I told him so are most of my clients, as well as Ferret's family, and asked him, straight-up, if this was going to be a problem. 

He said it wasn't a problem, for him, personally. I'm not sure what that meant, and I'm still a little wary.

I'm pretty sure it's federally illegal to deny someone housing on the basis of sexual orientation (can someone tell me if I'm right about that?), but hell, I'm not going to live where I'm not wanted. I had a file full of other options in my computer.

 

The thing is- his surprise surprised me.  I generally treat being gay as no big deal, and assume others will too. This is partially because to do anything else would be to admit to the Othering that society wants to do to me, and partially because that's how I've always done it: where I come from it IS no big deal. In SoFlo, there were pockets of rightwingers and fundies, but mostly it's considered declasse' to raise a ruckus if someone mentions that they're gay.

Apparently, not so much the rule here in the MidWest. I have the feeling most of the people in this town have never met a gay couple, much less seen them interact like any other couple does. I know there are indeed gay folks here, but I haven't seen many, and I'm told they're "very discreet", which I think is straight-speak for "they know their place and don't make us nervous by being open or acting like actual couples".

Ferret- well, if people don't assume she's a dude, they kinda just jump to "dyke", which saves a lot of dancing around. She's as open as I am, with the "if they don't like it, fuck 'em" mentality. It's pretty rare that anyone tries to mess with her anyway.  

 I know I have white privilege, able privilege, and passing-for-straight privilege. This is the first time I'd realized: I had "location privilege". Just someone being taken aback by us, much less maybe-resistant to us renting from him, shook me. What must it be like for so many other gays, trapped in the heart of the Bible Belt, or ultrareligioconservative towns or families? Without support or a place to be open about themselves? What must it be like to hide who you are, all the time?

I chose not to hide. I'm proud of who I am and playing the Pronoun Game gives me a headache anyway. But I didn't realize how easy life made it for me to choose, how lucky I was to have that choice at all. It all makes me very uncomfortable, and sometimes it makes me wish I was back in South Florida.

Narrow, Reactionary and Judgemental

And today, folks, I'm talking about me. Because I did something I've never done before: cut off someone who used to be a friend on a philosophical difference. And I feel like shit about it. I've always been of the opinion that if someone is a good friend, agreement isn't always necessary. I have a friends who disagree with me on politics, religion; I'm friendly with an ex who regards my feminist standpoints with (highly irritating) amusement; hell, even my Ferret doesn't see eye to eye with me on the importance of proper moisturizing. But we can work it out, it's cool. 

The thing is, I also realized, being my friend also implies some inherent assumptions: you think I'm as good as everybody else, you think I'm fully human and worthy, and you care about my well-being. 

And today, someone I thought was an IRL friend wrote a blog entry about Prop 8 and gay civil rights that smashed all those fragile and carefully-held assumptions I'd clung to so stubbornly, and it was just the end. 

Let no one say I can't cite my sources for outrage. Here're some quotes:

"...LGBT's are gonna be shoving this down our throats for the next six months to a year until they get their way."

"I honestly don't care about same-sex marriage. It doesn't effect me, and if it were up to me, sure, let 'em enjoy all the trials and tribulations of marriage. Because life is just so much better when you do your taxes with your hump-buddy, and when breaking up involves a divorce lawyer on top of looking for an apartment and deciding who gets to keep the Barbara Streisand CD's."

"Like I said, I don't really care enough either way. What I disagree with is that they KEEP PUSHING FOR IT. ...Seriously. It's been denied in almost every state, in arenas both political and judicial, denied by the Supreme Court, Congress, and countless other institutions that this country's system of government relies on to make decisions. It's been proposed. In most cases, it's been shut down. Just move to Maryland and get over it."

:It's just part of the growing trend of "Things are only good if we (whoever we happen to be at the time) get our way" I see in this country. And I honestly see it as the beginning of the end of America."

Oh, and there's more. When I fired off a seriously angry reply (and he knew I would read it and reply), there was more. My reply wasn't exactly mature, thoughtful, and considered- observe my wrath.

"There is so much wrong with this entry I almost don't know where to start. But how about here: dumbass, "majority rules" isn't how our government actually works. If I hear one more asshole talk about 'judges legislating from the bench', I'll scream. Fucktard, the majority should not be allowed to decide on rights for minorities. For one, that's fucked up. Nobody should be allowed to decide someone's civil rights. For another, it never works; the majority is incapable of making decisions that benefit anything other than itself. "The majority" didn't end segregation. The Supreme Court did. And by the way, unless you are a member of an oppressed minority of second-class citizens- which you aren't- you don't have the fucking right to tell that group to get over it. ... Just because you've never experienced what they have, or don't understand it, doesn't mean it's invalid. 

...Now, YOU are perfectly free to marry the person you love; hell, you can marry some random stranger in Vegas, as long as she has a vagina. But I can't marry the person I love. THAT is fucked up. A bunch of people who don't know me deciding whether I'm worthy enough to be treated like a whole human being? THAT is the beginning of the end of America. So no, getting over it ISN'T A FUCKING OPTION!, you libertarian asshole.
So yes, I am EXTREMELY pissed off at you for this. And hey, thanks for saying you "don't care" either way. That's real generous of you, pal. You know, you have gay friends, but you couldn't just be supportive of them, oh no. You had to be a complete dick about the lack of civil rights for a group you know nothing about. You're really not as astute as you think you are.
Shithead.

So yeah, lots of anger, but it doesn't mean I was wrong. And you'd think he wouldn't have the audacity to defend himself... nope. So this is my blog therapy, folks; I'm gettin' allll my rage out. Here's his reply, and OUR (double-barrelled) mean, angry blog-sponse to it. My comments are in blue, and in a wacky spurt of angry guest-blogging, please observe my Ferret's bitchy comments in yellow:

"Alright... let's cover ground I've covered before. You are not being denied a righ [sic]. 

Oh, well then! I feel much better now! 

Wait a second: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness- you sure none of these rights are being violated?

 You are bound by the laws of the country you live in.

Newsflash: not now nor ever has "law" and "good" ever been entirely synonymous. 

In this country (in most states, anyway), Sodomy (defined as anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex, copulation of any kind with the same sex, see above. and/or bestiality) is illegal.  

Because straight couples get arrested for having anal or oral sex all the time.

 Also, in this country, a marriage isn't considered to be legally viable unless it is consumated (involving copulation with one's partner). 

Uh, how will they know? Big Brother is watching? 

Thus, to legalize gay marriage, and to allow those marriages to be considered legally viable, every gay couple that got married would have to be fined or arrested under decency code laws. Or people would be allowed to marry their dogs. 

Aw come on, not that bullshit again. Even the fundies have started to let go of that. 

Exactly how many laws and/or world-wide recognized definitions of words do you want them to change just so you can file your taxes together? 

Just the one, as far as I can tell. 

Worldwide? Last I checked, Christianity (and its definition of marriage) rules less than a third of the human population.

The bottom line is, there are plenty of places in the world (and even a few in America) that gays and lesbians CAN get married, with all benefits thereof. Yeah? La-dee-fuckin-da. Blacks had their own drinking fountains, yet they weren't satisfied. Hmmm... Yeah, she's being nicer than I would.

"But I don't want to move, I want them to change the law everywhere." That doesn't seem in the least bit selfish to you? 

Uh no, it seems like federal equality. Call me selfish. You mean, wanting my civil rights is selfish? How about you move instead? Like to Hell's Waiting Room.

Making phone calls, writing letters, and marching in parades takes little-to-no dedication. Moving to a different state (or in extreme cases, a different country) does.

Read as: "Move away, so I don't have to think about or be responsible to the people I'm helping to disenfranchise".

Wait, so I can try to change the law for everyone's equal rights, or just move? Which is easier again?

 That is why Democracy is an inherently flawed system, and how it leads to a nation-state with the "gimmies". It no longer takes dedication, it takes finding enough people who agree with you to make the news (or to make lawmakers uncomfortable).

And that doesn't take dedication? As though all you have to do is go out and say, 'Hi. Sign this.' at random and suddenly all the laws change. 

And you know we wouldn't want the poor lawmakers to be uncomfortable.

From there, it's just a series of "gimmies". Once the people realize that they don't have to leave their country to get a government they like, the ship is sinking fast. 

Yeah, how dare people think America should have a government that treats everyone equally?

I'm sorry, I snoozed through that part. It sounded like "blah blah, blah blah, I'm always right, blah blah selfish welfare people, blah blah my penis blah". Did I miss anything?

And seriously, being treated like a "whole person"? Marriage is a tax break, nothing more. Uh, really? Are we using the same dictionary? If you need a piece of paper to tell you that you love the person you're with, there are a lot more problems than the political system here. 

Someone graduated from Deliberately Obtuse University, with a major in Missing The Point.
Yes, there are other benefits to marriage, oh really?? ya think?? such as insurance policies that extend to one's spouse, undisputed legal entitlement to inheritance, etc. But those laws CAN be changed easily, and already have been in many states. 

And HOW much in paperwork and legal fees does that require, again? While straights can just get a marriage license?

In most of the U.S. it's now possible to name a domestic partner, or ANYONE, for that matter, as a beneficiary. 

Uh-huh. Sure, pal. Cause separate-but-equal has worked SO well in the past.
...
 In closing, I've said it a thousand times before, but I'll say it again here: An unbiased opinion is the ONLY valid and viable opinion. [insert mad cackling laughter here] By being a member of a minority group, one's opinion on the treatement of that minority group is inherently and unavoidably biased. 

Yes, because the majority's opinion of the treatment it receives is totally unbiased. Sounds like Fallacious Logic, 101. 

A neutral party is the only one who can offer a clear-headed, unbiased opinion. Oh, like yours, you mean?

And like I've said, MULTIPLE times, if it were up to me, a neutral party,hey I was right, he did mean himself! gay marriage would be legal.

 Oh, thank you! Cause I need your approval. No, really.

 If it were up to me, a LOT of things in the legal system would be different. Carrot Top for President! But they're not. 

Awww, come on. Nobody likes a pouter. 

And they're the way they are because the legal system that defines this country has declared it as such. 

Again with "law" always being the same as "the right thing". You gotta let go of that. 

You get gay marriage when I get the right to kill drug dealers. Getting married and playing God aren't the same.  Sound fair? 

No, not really. What did that have to do with anything?

And you're right, I do have gay friends. 

Well, you have a few less after this post, I bet. Asshole.

I also have friends that do drugs, and think they should be legalized. I don't think the laws should be changed for them, either. 

Did you just seriously compare gay marriage to drug use? Really? REALLY?? 

 There's a difference between being supportive and changing your views on a subject simply because you're friends with someone who doesn't agree with you. 

You're right. There is. But there's a bigger difference between not agreeing with someone and not understanding why they deserve the SAME friggin' civil rights as everyone else. So we can't be friends. I'm sorry. 

I'm not!

Wow, this turned out to be a really long post. Congratulations, anyone who got to the end! 

So, I'm feeling angry and guilty and maybe also angry about my guilt, and now I'm all typed out. Any thoughts?