Posts Tagged ‘patriarchy

12
Nov
08

post-Prop 8.

I’m happy to return to my more radical politics, but we’ll get to that later.

A few days ago, a 52% majority of Californians eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry by passing Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between one man and one woman only.

Discrimination is officially written into the California Constitution. Thousands just lost a right many consider to be fundamental, along with many of the [heterosexual] privileges that come with it. 

Many of the queer community have responded by scapegoating the Mormon church (and the entire state of Utah) who spent millions of out-of-state dollars on a Yes on 8 campaign of lies and deception [and hatred]. Their campaign propagated the lie that same-sex marriage  would be taught in schools (and with it, acceptance of homosexuality as normal), to children as young as six. Also, that religious facilities, and by extension their affiliated charitable community organizations, that refused to perform same-sex marriages would lose their tax-exempt status. They used backwards and confusing slogans such as “Prop 8 equals less government” and “Prop 8 protects families”. They purposefully decontextualized statements made by politicians, namely Obama. They ran radio and tv advertisements on every available time-slot and station. They blanketed communities with signs and bought internet ad space on every website they could. They did all of this in multiple languages, and they did so subtly [and then not-so-subtly] for months.

It’s understandable why some people have reacted with overt hostility towards this group, but it is a displaced and inappropriate [and embarrassing] response. 

It’s also confusing. Frankly, I don’t understand why, under separation of church and state, any religious organization is exempt from paying taxes. Granted, many of these organizations provide invaluable resources for their communities–charity made necessary by the shortcomings of state-run social support [funded by TAXES], but the vast majority do so while pushing their faith-based agenda. This not only allows them to alienate [if not discriminate against] those who may not share their views, or those who may not enact them just so, but also allows monies that could, and arguably should, be going back into the government to be funneled into campaigns like this. 

Although the Yes on 8 campaign mystified the issue for some, it did not do so for the whole 52%. The Yes on 8 campaign worked because it tapped into the homophobia that the majority was already harboring. Homophobia and the system that perpetuates it is the scapegoat, not the Mormon church. If people were not homophobic, they would not care about their children learning that the marriage of two people of the same sex is equal to that of two people of different sexes.

Many queers have also chosen to scapegoat the Black community for the passage of Prop 8. Blacks turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama this year, and unfortunately, they also voted “overwhelmingly” yes for Prop 8 (70% voted Yes). The Latino vote, also, has received similar recognition (52% voted Yes).

The failure of one group to recognize the struggle of another is staggering, but not uncommon, nor unforeseeable. Is it really any wonder that a group traditionally mobilized from within the church turned out in favor of Prop 8? I don’t think so. Is it also surprising that some members of a group whose oppression in this country began with slavery and has yet to see an end (despite President-elect Obama) don’t consider the desire of some gays and lesbians to gain access to marriage a legitimate struggle?

Perhaps the failure of the gay and lesbian movement to include, if not at least reach out to, communities of color until the week before the election, all the while co-opting the struggle of the civil rights movement, specifically the politics of interracial marriage played a role as well. Comparing the assimilationist struggle of same-sex couples to gain access to marriage to a racial caste system, the effects of which still remain to be seen in white suburbs and urban ghettos, may have rubbed some the wrong way. Yes, they are similar, insofar as most of us alive today think it’s completely outrageous that two people couldn’t get married based solely on skin color, and at least 48% of us think it’s completely outrageous that two people can’t get married based solely on gender. But, queers were not enslaved, or disenfranchised (McCarthyism notwithstanding). The second-class citizenship of those of queer identity is not the result of American imperialism (although it is arguably an illustration of American fascism). 

The plight of gays and lesbians is unique. The “queer community” is arguably the most diverse imaginable. Sexual orientation cuts across lines of class, race, gender, background, ability, citizenship, location, religion, age, sex, politics. In a lot of ways, queers are an invisible minority. In some ways, re-framed, queers might actually be the majority. And yet, the struggle of this immensely diverse group of people is framed around the struggle for access to an oppressive patriarchal institution rooted in monogamy, heteronormativity, gender normativity, reproduction and capitalism. Because, for many, marriage is the means through which people access healthcare and like services, acquire and transfer property, start and raise a family. We live in a patriarchal system, and marriage is how we participate in it.

This is so because we allow it to be. We’ve allowed the separation of church and state to be little more than a myth in this country. We’ve allowed a religious morality to permeate every facet of our government and its institutions at the cost of equality. The only reason I can’t marry the person of my choosing is because other people’s religion has shaped my government. And the only reason I’d want to, is to gain access to things I should have anyway. We need to abolish marriage. We need serious structural reorganizing before we can start talking about equality in any sort of tangible way. We need to demolish the patriarchy.

And in the meantime, queers need to stop vying for things that are not solutions to our problems. Gaining access to marriage won’t stop homophobia. And gaining access to marriage won’t guarantee anyone healthcare. Queers certainly need to stop spewing hatred at religious groups, and need to resist the popular urge to fall back on blaming the Blacks for something (because, seriously, it’s old hat).

Our differences need to stop dividing us. We’re not all the same, but we all deserve the same.

We need to funnel our anger and frustration and momentum into making real change.

Advertisements
24
Oct
08

THAT.

so, yesterday Nikki and I had just finished getting tortilla express and were en route to Aldrich to meet up with Jenny for our Thursday picnic before class when what I think may have been one of the atheists (of the Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists club at UCI) approached us and said we should “go hold [our] sign over by that guy that’s talking”. our sign of course was a Get Up Vote Down 4 & 8 lawn sign. naturally curious, we followed her line of sight to Colonel Sanders aka the christian fundamentalist that’s like 300 years old with the bow-tie. [I’m sorry I’m ageist.]

we, and several other individuals, including Andy, listened to his prattle for awhile. I can’t remember what exactly he was saying (I’ve done a lot of drinking between then and now), but I’m sure it was horrible. after a while he took a break and “Sister Pat” took over. Sister Pat liked to preach her gospel of bigotry and hatred a little more aggressively. whereas the Colonel had been sitting in his little chair, holding his creepy little skull, Sister Pat liked to walk around the circle that formed around her, clutching her bible and waving her shaky fundamentalists hands a la invoking the lord to instill fear of the devil in us or something. I don’t know. she was a freaking NUT.

anyways, she yelled about a lot of things; women/whores/feminists, sex, masturbation, Jews, Asians, Whites, “whoremongers”, Muslims, Obama and other democrats, sodomy, abortion, divorce, drugs, and of course, the gays.

some memorable assertions:

“we come to Irvine expecting to find intelligence because Asians study.”

“Obama is a Muslim, because his dad’s a Muslim and you’re born into religion.” at this point she proceeded to racially profile a poor innocent Brown man walking by (who I recognized as a fellow from my War on Terrorism class who, as of last quarter, was in MSU) and harass him into claiming Muslim faith and then tried to get him to say that people are born Muslim. he said “people aren’t born into religion”, but then his friend kinda said that people are kinda born Muslim so then she got bored and moved on.

“if you do drugs, you hate your parents.” and, you’re going to hell, for sinning against your body. or something. if you masturbate, you’re sinning against your body too. but then she said that “everyone masturbates, and anyone that says they don’t is a liar”. then she said most people masturbate, and that “all gay people masturbate” and they’re sinning against their bodies and going to hell. or something. obviously, it was very confusing.

“Asian girls can wear skimpy outfits because they’re so small. but you White girls that wear these skimpy outfits are whores because you’re too curvy!” she actually called Stephanie a whore, among other things, which was OUTRAGEOUS. and grounds to have her kicked off campus, probably. too late now though. damn. she also talked about how rampant female sexuality (my words) threatens boys’ virginity and by extension, everything. after she finished asking Stephanie if she was a “working girl” she noticed Nikki and I standing there in all our androgynous glory. Nikki and I were both a little fancy yesterday, which I think made Nikki look slightly more like a girl than usual and made me look slightly less like one. she started calling me “young man” but I don’t engage in rhetorical battles with fundamentalists of any kind when I can avoid it, so I was unresponsive. then, she stopped, pointed at me, looked at Nikki and said,

“is THAT a boy?” then, she looked at Nikki a little closer and said, “wait, are YOU a BOY?!” needless to say, this was priceless. I mean, I’ve gotten called sir before, tons, but “THAT”?! ridiculous.

goddamn public universities. I think I got sunburned standing out there, too.

16
Oct
08

a few words about Prop 8.

First word: NO!

Ok, now more words: 

For those of you that have managed to remain unaware (hopefully the you in question is not Californian, or at least not of voting age), Proposition 8 is a ballot measure for this 2008 presidential election that would AMEND the California constitution to ELIMINATE THE RIGHT of same-sex couples to get married, thus making the only marriage recognized in the great state of CA that between one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court of California back in May, and marriages started being performed in June. so, if this passes with a MAJORITY VOTE it will TAKE AWAY RIGHTS of thousands of people.

Beliefs about marriage and queer rights aside, I do not understand how anyone could possibly vote yes for any measure that would remove someone’s RIGHTS. I do not understand how someone would do this in good conscience. I do not understand how anyone could do this without pause for what it means tangibly for their own rights. I just do not understand. This measure goes beyond conservative. It is reactionary and one of the most blatantly oppressive things I have lived to see in this country. If this passes, it paves the way for others to have their rights stripped from them; rights people may take for granted, such as the right to a family, or the right to own property, or hold a job, or occupy a residence. This is not a measure grounded in public safety or social order, it is one of oppression, ignorance and hatred. 

and now some words about marriage:

I believe marriage as an institution to be an oppressive tool of patriarchy used to elevate some while subordinating others. I do not believe this will change inherently just by granting same-sex couples the right to engage in one. I believe it will continue to function as a structure that excludes many from the “privledges” of marriage; “privileges” that, in my opinion, belong to all families, not just ones that follow a nuclear model. For this reason, I think marriage should be taken off the table and that there should be radical reform so that ALL families are protected with regards to taxes, healthcare, property rights, ownership, child support, guardianship, inheritance, ect. I acknowledge that marriage has a place in church, but I also acknowledge that it has a place ONLY in church. 

All families have the right to be protected. Baby steps have been taken to extend some rights of the privileged to others and we cannot allow them to be taken away by a majority vote. We like to pretend we live in a democracy. We also like to pretend we live under a government that protects minority rights. When are we going to stop pretending? When is the government going to be held accountable? Majority rule? People’s rights are about to be taken away. Do you think it’s going to stop with monogamous same-sex couples?

THINK. and VOTE.




archives.

Categories