Clearly, it's what I do.
I went on a bit of a manic posting spree when I was finishing my thesis--lots of stuff up, and 3 posts still hanging out, 3/4 finished, in drafts. I've found that I tend to disappear onto the internet when I'm having a rough patch mentally* as a way of withdrawing from the outside world and not dealing with whatever the problem is. It also tends to put a negative edge on any activism I do. I'm insecure at the best of times, but when things are otherwise off, I tend to descend into a pit of obsession about what others may think and whether or not I am saying the right things/saying them right. The "3/4 finished" posts in my drafts bin are pretty much finished, they just haven't been put up out of anxiety that they might not be perfect. I should post them...
Now that things are better, mental-balance wise, I'm less active online. On the one hand, I don't need the escape anymore, and on the other hand, I'm realising that the way I was thinking about blogging and writing was profoundly unhealthy and so focused on what others might think and not what I want to say that I had to stop and re-centre.
I've been doing a lot of re-centering lately, and it's helping. I'm slowly pulling away from the bad time I just had, and I'm getting to a point where I can almost start writing about things other than why I'm not currently writing. That would be good.
Mind you, I doubt that I'll ever be a particularly regular blogger, but I'm glad I'm still here.
----
* I tend to have a giant anxiety-related crash about once a semester, right around exams. It's pretty bad, and involves little sleep, little food, no emotional stability and a paralyzing negativity that prevents me from doing anything about what's bothering me. I'm trying to build the courage to see a therapist/counsellor/anyone, but I can't quite deal with the admission of weakness that would entail.
24 May 2009
14 April 2009
Somewhat Muddled Thoughts on Media, the Olympics and the Vancouver Gang War
Right, so this little piece in the UK's Independent has been getting quite a bit of attention lately. Every single piece that cites the British article simply can't resist quoting this gem of pulp-fiction style sensationalism:
Naturally, the media response has been all about how much this hurts our reputation as an Olympic city, and how reporting such as this will affect tourism revenue in 2010. Nobody is talking about the rest of the article, which is actually a reasonably balanced discussion of the problems underlying the gang war (drugs!) and possible ways of dealing with the violence, which run the gamut from better-coordinated law enforcement to (gasp!) marijuana decriminalization.
Of course, none of that sensible discussion is actually going to get noticed if you stick it way down at the bottom of an article with the headline "From heaven to hell: 18 die as drugs war rages on streets of Vancouver". For fuck's sake, it reads like copy from a bad mob film.
Now, I live in Vancouver, and I have yet to notice much of anything "raging" on my streets* and I have yet to trip over a shell casing or get blood all over my shoes on my way to work or school. Of course, there was a gang-related shooting within a few blocks of my house two years ago...
but then, I live in one of those "seedy neighbourhoods" that all of this nastiness has finally spread beyond. I've never harboured any illusions that Vancouver wasn't a city like any other--crammed with people and subject to all the problems, including violence and organized crime, that come with urban living and poverty--even if I've always thought of it as a wonderful place to live. There's a part of me that's really fucking pissed off about the way that so much of the discussion around the recent violence has been about how it's affecting nicer parts of town--how the wrong people (read: the rich) are being put in danger.
See also: most public discussion of the recent murder in Pacific Spirit Park, which was a horrible event that people are right to be upset about **, that consistently carries the tone of "but how could this happen in such a nice neighbourhood/to somebody like us" or else "this used to be such a nice neighbourhood until all those homeless people started moving into the woods". It took the deaths of dozens of women on the Downtown Eastside to generate this much public outrage. Such things are expected, but not what happened out in Point Grey.
And part of me is glad that our city's lovely reputation is being tarnished. Is glad that people are starting to think about these things as city-wide problems. Is fucking glad that we probably won't be able to glide by on that stupid "Best City to Live In" ranking for much longer. Because this city of ours--fucking beautiful and valuable in so many ways--has problems. Big problems. Problems with homelessness (which is a complicated mess of poverty, marginalization of people with drug and other addictions, affordable housing shortages and a climate that encourages migration of people from other cities in Canada where you can't live on the streets in winter because you'll freeze to death), with gang violence, with an enormous drug trade and a million other things that affect a city of this size with our particular collection of geographic and social conditions. None of these problems are unique to Vancouver, but that doesn't make them any less ours.
We have to own our problems, as a complete city, without dumping them on law-enforcement or dismissing them as side-effects of poverty (most of them are: that doesn't mean it's right, or that they and the poverty that causes them should continue to exist). We need to get the fuck over our image and fix what's broken.
I'd love for this to be a wake-up call.
Of course, reputation damage control is already being done, and the odds are that this'll just get drowned out by more feel-good propaganda to ensure the Olympics succeed. And in a way, I can see the logic to that. It's easier, for one thing, and for another, the painful truth is that we need the Olympics to succeed if we want our city to make it through this recession. We're already looking at a cost overrun into the billions of dollars, and we need every tourist penny to recoup what we can. It'll still end in a loss, but the less successful this event and the more money we lose, the more the poorest and neediest segments of our city will suffer as the programs they depend on are cut (and they're always cut first) to help offset the new tax burden.
I did not vote for the Olympics, I wish that we weren't hosting them, but I still want them to succeed as much as possible because the alternative would be so much worse for all of us. I won't cheer their failure because I know there will be a human cost, and it won't be hitting the nice folk in Point Grey and West Van who voted for the fuckers in the first place. And so a part of me thinks, "tell the tourists what they need to hear to feel safe (maybe the truth--that it's a city like any other and not a magical eco-wonderland that looks and feels exactly like a postcard), and to come here and help pay off our stupid Olympic debt."
And yet, I still hold out hope that this recent media storm has helped more people to see the cracks in our precious image, and has pushed them to seek out and repair the larger cracks in our city's foundations, instead of just plastering over what's visible and going back to admiring how pretty it all looks on the outside.
----
* Except for the asshole in the next building who beat up his partner and had to get hauled away by the cops a few nights ago, but that had nothing to do with the gang war and everything to do with individual nastiness and domestic violence. Whoever you were, fuck you.
** And really, that should go without saying in each and every case where a human being dies violently, or quietly from hunger and exposure, or in any way that is not how they wished to go.
As it prepares to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, what it's got now is not cuddly, eco-friendly publicity, but blood-spattered streets littered with shell casings and corpses.It sure is catchy, huh? And it's getting around. I just did a Google search with the terms "blood spattered streets littered with shell casings and corpses" and "Vancouver" and came up with 585 results.
Vancouver is the battlefield in a war between myriad drug gangs, which include Hell's Angels, Big Circle Boys, United Nations, Red Scorpions, Independent Soldiers and the 14K Triad. Guns – often machineguns – are fired almost daily.
Naturally, the media response has been all about how much this hurts our reputation as an Olympic city, and how reporting such as this will affect tourism revenue in 2010. Nobody is talking about the rest of the article, which is actually a reasonably balanced discussion of the problems underlying the gang war (drugs!) and possible ways of dealing with the violence, which run the gamut from better-coordinated law enforcement to (gasp!) marijuana decriminalization.
Of course, none of that sensible discussion is actually going to get noticed if you stick it way down at the bottom of an article with the headline "From heaven to hell: 18 die as drugs war rages on streets of Vancouver". For fuck's sake, it reads like copy from a bad mob film.
Now, I live in Vancouver, and I have yet to notice much of anything "raging" on my streets* and I have yet to trip over a shell casing or get blood all over my shoes on my way to work or school. Of course, there was a gang-related shooting within a few blocks of my house two years ago...
but then, I live in one of those "seedy neighbourhoods" that all of this nastiness has finally spread beyond. I've never harboured any illusions that Vancouver wasn't a city like any other--crammed with people and subject to all the problems, including violence and organized crime, that come with urban living and poverty--even if I've always thought of it as a wonderful place to live. There's a part of me that's really fucking pissed off about the way that so much of the discussion around the recent violence has been about how it's affecting nicer parts of town--how the wrong people (read: the rich) are being put in danger.
See also: most public discussion of the recent murder in Pacific Spirit Park, which was a horrible event that people are right to be upset about **, that consistently carries the tone of "but how could this happen in such a nice neighbourhood/to somebody like us" or else "this used to be such a nice neighbourhood until all those homeless people started moving into the woods". It took the deaths of dozens of women on the Downtown Eastside to generate this much public outrage. Such things are expected, but not what happened out in Point Grey.
And part of me is glad that our city's lovely reputation is being tarnished. Is glad that people are starting to think about these things as city-wide problems. Is fucking glad that we probably won't be able to glide by on that stupid "Best City to Live In" ranking for much longer. Because this city of ours--fucking beautiful and valuable in so many ways--has problems. Big problems. Problems with homelessness (which is a complicated mess of poverty, marginalization of people with drug and other addictions, affordable housing shortages and a climate that encourages migration of people from other cities in Canada where you can't live on the streets in winter because you'll freeze to death), with gang violence, with an enormous drug trade and a million other things that affect a city of this size with our particular collection of geographic and social conditions. None of these problems are unique to Vancouver, but that doesn't make them any less ours.
We have to own our problems, as a complete city, without dumping them on law-enforcement or dismissing them as side-effects of poverty (most of them are: that doesn't mean it's right, or that they and the poverty that causes them should continue to exist). We need to get the fuck over our image and fix what's broken.
I'd love for this to be a wake-up call.
Of course, reputation damage control is already being done, and the odds are that this'll just get drowned out by more feel-good propaganda to ensure the Olympics succeed. And in a way, I can see the logic to that. It's easier, for one thing, and for another, the painful truth is that we need the Olympics to succeed if we want our city to make it through this recession. We're already looking at a cost overrun into the billions of dollars, and we need every tourist penny to recoup what we can. It'll still end in a loss, but the less successful this event and the more money we lose, the more the poorest and neediest segments of our city will suffer as the programs they depend on are cut (and they're always cut first) to help offset the new tax burden.
I did not vote for the Olympics, I wish that we weren't hosting them, but I still want them to succeed as much as possible because the alternative would be so much worse for all of us. I won't cheer their failure because I know there will be a human cost, and it won't be hitting the nice folk in Point Grey and West Van who voted for the fuckers in the first place. And so a part of me thinks, "tell the tourists what they need to hear to feel safe (maybe the truth--that it's a city like any other and not a magical eco-wonderland that looks and feels exactly like a postcard), and to come here and help pay off our stupid Olympic debt."
And yet, I still hold out hope that this recent media storm has helped more people to see the cracks in our precious image, and has pushed them to seek out and repair the larger cracks in our city's foundations, instead of just plastering over what's visible and going back to admiring how pretty it all looks on the outside.
----
* Except for the asshole in the next building who beat up his partner and had to get hauled away by the cops a few nights ago, but that had nothing to do with the gang war and everything to do with individual nastiness and domestic violence. Whoever you were, fuck you.
** And really, that should go without saying in each and every case where a human being dies violently, or quietly from hunger and exposure, or in any way that is not how they wished to go.
11 April 2009
Light a Candle for Angie Zapata
Angie Zapata, an 18-year old Colorado woman, was murdered last July. The man accused of her murder, Allen Andrade, claims that he became "enraged" when he discovered that Angie was transgendered, and subsequently beat her to death. In other words, Angie was murdered for being trans.
Andrade goes to trial this Tuesday, April 14th and is being charged with a hate crime under Colorado state law, which added sexual orientation and transgender status as protected categories under its hate-crime legislation in 2005. This is the first time that the murder of a trans* person is being tried as a hate crime under this legislation, and discrimination based on gender identity has yet to be addressed by US federal law.
Angie's family, in conjunction with 50 civil-rights groups, has started an awareness raising campaign both in local papers and online to raise awareness of the effects of transphobia and promote acceptance of trans* individuals, and to increase pressure on US policy-makers to expand hate-crimes legislation to include gender-identity based violence and discrimination. One aspect of the project is an online candlelight vigil through Facebook, which is something that everyone can (and should) participate in. I've lit my candle.
The below video, found via Feministe and produced as part of the larger education campaign, shows her family talking about what Angie meant to them and calling for an end to discrimination. It's powerful, and a beautiful testament to the love and support she had in her life:
Please light a candle, re-post the video and links, talk about trans* issues with your peers, and help to raise awareness and put pressure on the government to help protect an incredibly vulnerable group of people.
----
This campaign made me curious about the degree of protection that trans* people receive under law up here in Canada, and I discovered it's muddier and less comprehensive than it should be. From what I've read, there is no explicit protection for anyone under "gender expression" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which is our federal human rights legislation). However, provincial Human Rights Commissions in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have ruled that gender expression is included under the definition of "sex", which is a protected category. Both Ontario and the Northwest Territories explicitly define "gender expression" as covered, while the situation is unclear in Manitoba, which lists "gender based characteristics" under the "sex" portion of its human rights code.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) doesn't list gender identity in its definitition of "sex", nor does the Criminal Code include trans* individuals under its definition of an "identifiable group" that is in danger of being targeted with a hate crime. Though the CHRC has acknowledged that
There is still much work to be done at home as well as across the border to ensure that all of us are granted the equality and protection we need under law.
Light a candle.
Andrade goes to trial this Tuesday, April 14th and is being charged with a hate crime under Colorado state law, which added sexual orientation and transgender status as protected categories under its hate-crime legislation in 2005. This is the first time that the murder of a trans* person is being tried as a hate crime under this legislation, and discrimination based on gender identity has yet to be addressed by US federal law.
Angie's family, in conjunction with 50 civil-rights groups, has started an awareness raising campaign both in local papers and online to raise awareness of the effects of transphobia and promote acceptance of trans* individuals, and to increase pressure on US policy-makers to expand hate-crimes legislation to include gender-identity based violence and discrimination. One aspect of the project is an online candlelight vigil through Facebook, which is something that everyone can (and should) participate in. I've lit my candle.
The below video, found via Feministe and produced as part of the larger education campaign, shows her family talking about what Angie meant to them and calling for an end to discrimination. It's powerful, and a beautiful testament to the love and support she had in her life:
Please light a candle, re-post the video and links, talk about trans* issues with your peers, and help to raise awareness and put pressure on the government to help protect an incredibly vulnerable group of people.
----
This campaign made me curious about the degree of protection that trans* people receive under law up here in Canada, and I discovered it's muddier and less comprehensive than it should be. From what I've read, there is no explicit protection for anyone under "gender expression" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which is our federal human rights legislation). However, provincial Human Rights Commissions in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have ruled that gender expression is included under the definition of "sex", which is a protected category. Both Ontario and the Northwest Territories explicitly define "gender expression" as covered, while the situation is unclear in Manitoba, which lists "gender based characteristics" under the "sex" portion of its human rights code.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) doesn't list gender identity in its definitition of "sex", nor does the Criminal Code include trans* individuals under its definition of an "identifiable group" that is in danger of being targeted with a hate crime. Though the CHRC has acknowledged that
There is a significant body of human rights jurisprudence that has found that discrimination on the basis of transsexualism constitutes sex discrimination.and has indicated (see note under "1996") that it will hear complaints from trans* people of discrimination on the basis of sex, the fact that this is not explicitly laid out in the federal Human Rights act and the lack of hate-crime provision in the Criminal Code leaves trans* people in a weird sort of semi-protected limbo.
There is still much work to be done at home as well as across the border to ensure that all of us are granted the equality and protection we need under law.
Light a candle.
09 April 2009
Hiatus, shmiatus.
I'm back.
I realized after a few weeks of being offline (in the writing way, I've been reading like mad), that it's actually quite important for me to have a space for non-academic writing. I absolutely suck at commenting on others' blogs, on account of my inability to pull myself the fuck together and participate in a discussion with new people unless I'm completely positive that what I have to say is brilliant and oh-so-very worthwhile. Most of the time, that leaves me feeling inadequate and frustrated, because I don't have a space to get out my own thoughts on subjects that are important to me.
Except that I do. It's here, it's mine, and I have the power to make it into a safe space to get my thoughts down, without feeling like I'm interrupting a perfectly good conversation to say something potentially inane, or repetitive. So I'm back, and I'll be staying and likely posting in my usual fits and starts, because I need to be here--and that's really all there is to it.
Also: redesign=yay!
I realized after a few weeks of being offline (in the writing way, I've been reading like mad), that it's actually quite important for me to have a space for non-academic writing. I absolutely suck at commenting on others' blogs, on account of my inability to pull myself the fuck together and participate in a discussion with new people unless I'm completely positive that what I have to say is brilliant and oh-so-very worthwhile. Most of the time, that leaves me feeling inadequate and frustrated, because I don't have a space to get out my own thoughts on subjects that are important to me.
Except that I do. It's here, it's mine, and I have the power to make it into a safe space to get my thoughts down, without feeling like I'm interrupting a perfectly good conversation to say something potentially inane, or repetitive. So I'm back, and I'll be staying and likely posting in my usual fits and starts, because I need to be here--and that's really all there is to it.
Also: redesign=yay!
21 February 2009
And by back to blogging, I apparently meant...
...on hiatus.
I'm really not feeling the blogging. I started doing this anonymously because I wanted to be able to put more of myself out there without feeling exposed, and instead I think I just shut down my creativity and drive to write. I got too mired in how many details to put in, how to word things, how to write a goddamn coming out story without making it too personal and revealing too much of myself (note that the story never got written). So I backed away, and avoided, and lost the drive to write.
I'd like to come back, and I think I'd like to do it as my real-life self. I'd like to do it here. Right now, though, I've lost the drive and I'm just going to acknowledge that I'm taking an indefinite break, rather than making myself feel guilty for not having posted in a while.
So, goodbye for now, and thanks to everyone who's read or commented (especially you, belledame).
I'm really not feeling the blogging. I started doing this anonymously because I wanted to be able to put more of myself out there without feeling exposed, and instead I think I just shut down my creativity and drive to write. I got too mired in how many details to put in, how to word things, how to write a goddamn coming out story without making it too personal and revealing too much of myself (note that the story never got written). So I backed away, and avoided, and lost the drive to write.
I'd like to come back, and I think I'd like to do it as my real-life self. I'd like to do it here. Right now, though, I've lost the drive and I'm just going to acknowledge that I'm taking an indefinite break, rather than making myself feel guilty for not having posted in a while.
So, goodbye for now, and thanks to everyone who's read or commented (especially you, belledame).
06 January 2009
A random thought (Happy 2009, btw...)
After flipping through the comments to yet another debate among feminists about porn and sex work*, I realised just why the question, "Is [thing X] feminist?" never resonates with me. It's because I view feminism as a mode of analysis--a lens through which the world can be analysed and criticized, and a means by which we can recognize inequality and problematic dynamics and move on towards fixing them--rather than a lifestyle. To me, a more coherent question would be, "What could I say about [thing X] from a feminist perspective." The difference is not a huge one, I suppose, but the former suggests that things (or, more likely, actions, perspectives and ideas) are either inherently "feminist" or not, while the latter states that everything in our world is subject to a feminist critique, without that critique resulting in the thing in question being placed in one of two neat boxes that may as well be labelled "good" and "bad".
To put it another way (since that was quite abstract), I feel like the idea that something is either "feminist" or "not/anti-feminist" ignores the complexity of human psychology and culture, while simply applying a feminist lens to something allows for it to be discussed from a particular perspective without the end goal of assigning a particular value to the thing being discussed. TO me, it's more valuable to, say, look at what particular power dynamics are at play within BDSM, along with how participants navigate and interrogate those dynamics, and how their desires might be tied to the ways in which gender and pwer are associated within the participants' culture (i.e. look at it through a feminist lens) than to either label it "anti-feminist" (which allows me to dismiss and demonize an entire sexuality) or "feminist" (which frees it from further scrutiny or discussion).
I guess that, at heart, I'm a bit of a wonky academic who would rather observe and poke and prod and study and revel in all of life's grey areas than study, label and disregard or adopt things based on a rigid value judgement.
Oh yeah, and I guess I'm back to blogging.
To put it another way (since that was quite abstract), I feel like the idea that something is either "feminist" or "not/anti-feminist" ignores the complexity of human psychology and culture, while simply applying a feminist lens to something allows for it to be discussed from a particular perspective without the end goal of assigning a particular value to the thing being discussed. TO me, it's more valuable to, say, look at what particular power dynamics are at play within BDSM, along with how participants navigate and interrogate those dynamics, and how their desires might be tied to the ways in which gender and pwer are associated within the participants' culture (i.e. look at it through a feminist lens) than to either label it "anti-feminist" (which allows me to dismiss and demonize an entire sexuality) or "feminist" (which frees it from further scrutiny or discussion).
I guess that, at heart, I'm a bit of a wonky academic who would rather observe and poke and prod and study and revel in all of life's grey areas than study, label and disregard or adopt things based on a rigid value judgement.
Oh yeah, and I guess I'm back to blogging.
* Honestly, the positions are getting so damn locked down that these arguments are starting to sound rehearsed, like: "Okay, 'Feminist A', you talk about the importance of recognizing female sexuality in all its forms, and then 'Feminist B' will point out that the personal is political, and then 'Feminist C' will bring up the value of choice, and I'll mention the difficulty of making free choices in a patriarchal society. Everybody got that? Good, let's take it from the top..."
05 November 2008
Obama Wins !....and so does Prop 8
First: Woooooooohooooooo!
It's so good to see somebody that I can recognize as a thoughtful, compassionate and intelligent human being in the White House. It's been a long fucking 8 years--and I don't even live in the States.
Obama is a politician; Obama's political views run further to the right than many of us would want; Obama will, inevitably, disappoint everyone at one moment or another (he is human and whatnots); all of these things are true.
And none of these things change the fact that his presidency is a historic one. Just his presence in the Oval Office is enough to catalyze discussion and new ways of thinking about and looking at race relations in the US, and I cannot see that as anything but a good thing. Add to that the fact that he is both intelligent and capable, as well as being (by US-presidential-politics standards) fairly progressive, and you can be that I'm looking to our neighbours to the south with a little of that much-trumpeted Hope (TM).
It almost takes the sting out of the fact that we got stuck with Harper-bot for another gorram term. Almost.
---
Second: WHAT!?!
I've known, intellectually, that the US is not that progressive a place when it comes to LGBT rights, and that the Religious Right has been damn influential and just plain hateful towards folk like me in recent years (not that they weren't previously; I've just come to notice it being right the fuck out there in the open since I started paying attention to US politics). I knew that this would be a close fight. I think I even acknowledged the strong possibility that this hateful piece of shit would pass.
But I still don't get it on any kind of emotional/intuitive level. I flat out cannot understand how over 5 million people could say "yes" to the following wording:
It has the words "eliminates right" in it. How? How could you vote to take away another human being's rights and still call yourself the "greatest democracy on earth"? I hope the next time an anti-gay bigot (or bigot of any stripe) tries to say those words, they choke on them and die. Or end up in the hospital with no health coverage. And are denied visitation rights from their partner.
I've never cried over an election result--certainly not over one in another country. I cried this morning when I read the news that Prop 8 had passed. I flat out cannot comprehend that there are people in the world who would work hard and spend millions to take a basic right away from another person because they don't like the way they fuck. I think it hit even harder for me because this wasn't just a refusal to grant LGBT people the right to marry (bad as that would have been on its own). This was the choice to take away a right we already had.
How?
The academic in me is already thinking about cultural setting, and historical factors, and social pressures, and the way that the "Yes"/"No" campaigns were run, and the particular emotional buttons that the ads pushed. She's already formulating a plausible hypothesis (or, rather, plausible hypotheses) for why people might have voted "Yes". The compassionate person and the bisexual in me are huddled in a corner, alternating between crying and hurling abuse, and they can't understand this kind of hate.
I feel so very fortunate to live in Canada (where we've allowed same-sex marriage for years and the country has not yet imploded into chaos and anarchy), and in a particularly tolerant corner of it at that. But man, is it clear now how unusual my situation is when looked at from a broader perspective (gets even scarier if you look globally). And how fragile that bit of safety that LGBT folk here have really is.
To the bigots in California (and Florida, and everywhere in the fucking world that cannot grant LGBT people basic fucking dignity and equal rights and protection under the law): fuck you. I don't have that kind of hatred for other people--but you're bringing me closer than I have ever been before.
It's so good to see somebody that I can recognize as a thoughtful, compassionate and intelligent human being in the White House. It's been a long fucking 8 years--and I don't even live in the States.
Obama is a politician; Obama's political views run further to the right than many of us would want; Obama will, inevitably, disappoint everyone at one moment or another (he is human and whatnots); all of these things are true.
And none of these things change the fact that his presidency is a historic one. Just his presence in the Oval Office is enough to catalyze discussion and new ways of thinking about and looking at race relations in the US, and I cannot see that as anything but a good thing. Add to that the fact that he is both intelligent and capable, as well as being (by US-presidential-politics standards) fairly progressive, and you can be that I'm looking to our neighbours to the south with a little of that much-trumpeted Hope (TM).
It almost takes the sting out of the fact that we got stuck with Harper-bot for another gorram term. Almost.
---
Second: WHAT!?!
I've known, intellectually, that the US is not that progressive a place when it comes to LGBT rights, and that the Religious Right has been damn influential and just plain hateful towards folk like me in recent years (not that they weren't previously; I've just come to notice it being right the fuck out there in the open since I started paying attention to US politics). I knew that this would be a close fight. I think I even acknowledged the strong possibility that this hateful piece of shit would pass.
But I still don't get it on any kind of emotional/intuitive level. I flat out cannot understand how over 5 million people could say "yes" to the following wording:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
It has the words "eliminates right" in it. How? How could you vote to take away another human being's rights and still call yourself the "greatest democracy on earth"? I hope the next time an anti-gay bigot (or bigot of any stripe) tries to say those words, they choke on them and die. Or end up in the hospital with no health coverage. And are denied visitation rights from their partner.
I've never cried over an election result--certainly not over one in another country. I cried this morning when I read the news that Prop 8 had passed. I flat out cannot comprehend that there are people in the world who would work hard and spend millions to take a basic right away from another person because they don't like the way they fuck. I think it hit even harder for me because this wasn't just a refusal to grant LGBT people the right to marry (bad as that would have been on its own). This was the choice to take away a right we already had.
How?
The academic in me is already thinking about cultural setting, and historical factors, and social pressures, and the way that the "Yes"/"No" campaigns were run, and the particular emotional buttons that the ads pushed. She's already formulating a plausible hypothesis (or, rather, plausible hypotheses) for why people might have voted "Yes". The compassionate person and the bisexual in me are huddled in a corner, alternating between crying and hurling abuse, and they can't understand this kind of hate.
I feel so very fortunate to live in Canada (where we've allowed same-sex marriage for years and the country has not yet imploded into chaos and anarchy), and in a particularly tolerant corner of it at that. But man, is it clear now how unusual my situation is when looked at from a broader perspective (gets even scarier if you look globally). And how fragile that bit of safety that LGBT folk here have really is.
To the bigots in California (and Florida, and everywhere in the fucking world that cannot grant LGBT people basic fucking dignity and equal rights and protection under the law): fuck you. I don't have that kind of hatred for other people--but you're bringing me closer than I have ever been before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
