my parents are so great. 1. they just took me and boyfriend out for a lovely dindin, but 2. the just gave me Jean Cocteau’s La belle et la Bete, probs my fave movie ever. So good. I am going to make all of my roommates watch it.
Women’s sexuality isn’t even recognized by society at large beyond our utility to men so like, idk why the hell “straight passing privilege” needs to be added on to remind us of this. Like, I think it’s pretty clear that the idea already IS that we must all be “secretly” straight and cis and hungry for procreation, cause the world must revolve around Manhood forever.
Which is part of why I believe a lot of lesbian women report that they are “treated like bi women” and still pursued by men. It’s not because of “bi for attention” women or whatever the hell we’re gonna yell at women for doing - it’s because men feel fucking entitled to bodies they designate as Woman because that is ultimately an integral piece to how one is supposed to “be” a man.
I just think “straight passing privilege” glosses way the fuck over this reality and just gets flat out insulting to a point, especially when people really will literally tell women, especially girls, that we can’t possibly have a sexuality that is not connected to men and their sexuality. You stay “straight passing” as long as patriarchy can find a way to weasel itself in with no regards to consent.
I’m not saying we all pass as straight - but I AM saying that it’s not inherently and always a privilege. Unless you are straight, and can fully benefit from the experience of being received as straight in life and having that perspective. Constant self policing and poor mental health is not beneficial, so the “straight passing” idea does shit for bisexuals and the “LGBT” at large besides ostracize us for, y’know, being bisexual basically.
People already refuse women the right to self-determination over their sexualities. We’re not supposed to have them for ourselves, and definitely not with each other, and when you’re bi while with women, people really wanna work hard to make sure you know that your affections are disingenuous and make your sexuality with other women about men and your apparent subservience to them.
Maybe one day I can get this into more coherent phrasing, but for now I’ll let this sit here in case I never follow up on writing a better thing.
I am so tired of hearing about how I am supposedly privileged as a bisexual, and of having my sexuality outright invalidated by both the queer and straight communities.
I knew I was bi when I was fifteen, but I didn’t come out until I was nineteen. At that point, I was in the beginning of a long term relationship with a straight man. He reacted, initially, in a bad way, but in an hour or so, he was alright again. The people around us were not. To my face, the people we knew were open and accepting. Behind my back, they asked him if he was afraid I’d leave him for a woman.
My own family, when I finally came out to them, asked me the most ridiculous questions. How could I live with a female roommate? As if I was inherently attracted to everyone and everything and unable to control my raging sexuality (she was so not my type). Was I leaving my boyfriend for a girl? They assumed it was impossible for me to be monogamous, because I’d always want something else. I’d never be satisfied. Why couldn’t I just pick one? Hadn’t I always had a hard time getting along with women anyway (internalized girl-hate in me and in the women around me)? My younger sister reacted with horror, afraid of being seen as “gay by association”. Later, when I dated a woman, my mother reacted with surprise - “I know you said you were bisexual, but I always thought you’d end up with a man.”
That’s the thing about being bisexual, is that after so many years of being treated this way, you start to internalize biphobia. I have often questioned my sexuality, because I have been in relationships with men, but not really women. There are a lot of factors in this - mostly that straight men approach me all the time, but conversely, I am shy and can’t readily tell which women around me are even queer in the first place. Finding straight men to date is a helluva lot easier than finding queer women. But even so, I find myself justifying my sexuality to myself, and to others, when I’ve never had a real relationship with a woman - sexually or otherwise. As if that lack of experience negates my feelings.
Sometimes I FEEL like I’m not really bi, like I’m just being a “special snowflake”; but those feelings of uncertainty have nothing to do with my sexuality, and everything to do with my supposed failure to meet the expectations that society has of a bisexual woman.
My sexuality is fetishized by most of the people with whom I engage in a relationship. Its true validity is negated by nearly everyone who expects me to just end up with a hetero man (and if I do, then I was never bisexual at all!). It is erased by straight and queer people alike. I’m “too straight”, never queer enough.
And that’s bisexual privilege - always having to defend my sexuality, even to other queers. Never being queer enough. If I’m with a hetero man then I supposedly experience “straight passing privilege”, which really just means further erasure of my identity.
It’s all garbage, and anyone who buys into this crap should stop it immediately.
What the New York Times did to Michael Brown today was not merely slander. It wasn’t a case of a lack of journalistic integrity.
Highlighting that a black teenager was “no angel” on the day he is being laid to rest after being hunted and killed by racist vigilante forces is not an unfortunate coincidence.
The New York Times deliberately played into an archaic American tradition in devaluing both the merit of black life and the tragedy of black death.
They chose the day of his funeral, as his family, friends and activists everywhere have to grapple with a human being lost to pontificate about how he was “no angel”. Michael Brown was many things to many people; a son, a brother, a cousin, a nephew and another black causality of murderous police institutions and today, amidst all the racist violence he, his loved ones and community have had to endure, he was going to finally receive the respect and moment of honor he deserved and NYT decided today, of all days, to tune in their audience onto wholly irrelevant facts about his life - that in turn, transform the very injustice surrounding his death and the following police violence that plagued Ferguson into a national panel about whether or not his death is actually worth mourning and their language suggested that to them, it indeed is not.
This was hardly an accident or mistake. This is the perpetual hostility that is met against black life in America. The consensus is that black people deserve no respect and for black life to be legitimized and honored, we must meet a list of prerequisites. Subsequently, if black people aren’t valued, neither are our deaths understood as tragic or murders seen as criminal action.
This has been the atmosphere of America since its inception and much has not improved.
We have been duped into moving capitalism’s problems around instead of resolving them, into the foolish notion that buying green is an act of divergence from capitalist exploitation.
Worried about car emissions? Buy Tesla’s Model S. Want to fight water misuse? Take shorter showers. Concerned for underserved children around the world? Use a credit card that supports a NGO. Interested in bettering working conditions for exploited laborers? Look for the “fair trade” stamp at corporate outlet malls.
But by all means, NEVER stop buying.
Identifying the central issue with this behavior, Derrick Jensen explained, “Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance.”
As individuals we should do what we can, but we have to realize that letting corporations frame/limit global issues like environmental responsibility to consumer choice is self-defeating. We need bigger tools than our individual selves. Imagine trying to fill a dump truck using a spoon. That is what we are doing when we decouple the need for organized, community-wide political resistance from our individual ability to partake in generating and sustaining solutions.
What fucks me up about the Darren Wilson fundraiser is that he hasn’t been charged with a crime. He doesn’t have to hire a lawyer. He’s on paid leave, so he’s not losing wages. This is not covering his expenses, because he doesn’t have any additional expenses. This is a reward. He’s getting a $250,000 reward for murdering an unarmed black kid.
HE HAD TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL. MIKE REACHED FOR HIS GUN. HIS FRIEND THAT WAS WITH HIM EVEN ADMITTED THAT HE LIED ABOUT THE COP JUST RANDOMLY SHOOTING HIM AND CONFIRMED THAT THEY ROBBED THE STORE. SELF DEFESE.
None of this is true. This is how good the Ferguson PD’s smear campaign has been. Not one sentence here is accurate. Let’s break this down:
"MIKE REACHED FOR HIS GUN." Officer Wilson’s story is that the first shot that went off was an accidental discharge while they were fighting over the gun. However. there was no gunpowder residue on Mike Brown, meaning that he was absolutely not holding the gun when it went off and furthermore that he was not even that close. He was fired on from a distance.
"HIS FRIEND THAT WAS WITH HIM EVEN ADMITTED THAT HE LIED ABOUT THE COP JUST RANDOMLY SHOOTING HIM AND CONFIRMED THAT THEY ROBBED THE STORE." This is actually a compound lie, which is kind of impressive. His friend, Dorian Johnson, did not say that. His lawyer said they were together in the convenience store, the police said there was a robbery, and the media put those two statements next to each other to imply a statement was made that never was. Johnson isn’t being charged with anything because the Ferguson PD “determined he committed no crime." The Ferguson PD also admitted Officer Wilson didn’t know about the scuffle at the convenience store before he stopped Brown and Johnson. You may be wondering why I say scuffle instead of robbery. That’s because there wasn’t one: the owners of the store didn’t call the police and video shows Brown paying for the cigarillos! The clerk confronted Brown about reaching across the counter instead of waiting for him to hand over the cigarillos, he put his hand on Brown, and Brown pushed him. Yes, he pushed him too hard, but the clerk apparently didn’t care enough to call the police. The police were called by another customer in the store, who apparently didn’t know what was actually happening.
"SELF DEFESE." The autopsy shows that he was shot on the inside of his arm, meaning his hands were up, and the top of his head, meaning that, since Brown was 6’4”, either he was on his knees or the officer was 8’ tall. The officer was not 8’ tall.
The evidence clearly shows that Officer Wilson, who had no idea of the not-actually-a-robbery, executed the unarmed Mike Brown while he was on his knees with his hands in the air. Just like all of the eyewitnesses said (except for “Josie,” who turned out not to be real).
But the Ferguson PD’s already tainted public opinion. They’ve spread so many lies so effectively that no amount of evidence will bring justice. Your ignorance here is proof of just how effective it’s been.
Horror stories about Muslim misogyny have long been used by western patriarchs to justify imperialism abroad and sexism at home. The Guardian’s Katharine Viner reminds us about Lord Cromer, the British consul general in Egypt from 1883. Cromer believed the Egyptians were morally and culturally inferior in their treatment of women and that they should be “persuaded or forced” to become “civilised” by disposing of the veil.
"And what did this forward-thinking, feminist-sounding veil-burner do when he got home to Britain?" asks Viner. "He founded and presided over the Men’s League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage, which tried, by any means possible, to stop women getting the vote. Colonial patriarchs like Cromer … wanted merely to replace eastern misogyny with western misogyny." More than a century later, the same logic is used to imply that misogyny only matters when it isn’t being done by white men.