Rethinking Safe Spaces

The concept of “safe spaces” is often the subject of debate in the blogosphere. Is it ever possible to create a completely safe space for everyone? Can we avoid triggers? Can we eliminate hate and ignorance?

I first became acquainted with the idea of safe spaces as physical spaces during my freshman year of college, when a letter published in our student paper endorsed a secret court from the 1920s that investigated and expelled several students suspected of homosexual behavior. (I can highly recommend William Wright’s Harvard’s Secret Court: The Savage 1920 Purge of Campus Homosexuals. It’s quite a read.)

Campus reaction to the letter was swift, and heated. The main queer organization on campus, then called the BGLTSA, responded by distributing Safe Space signs across campus, which are now a staple of materials distributed for occasions like National Coming Out Day.

But do they work?

You Know How I Know You’re Gay?

When was the last time you saw something overtly racist in a mainstream movie?

Okay. There’s probably a lot of institutional racism in American cinema. I’ll go ahead and admit that I probably don’t even notice a lot of it, what with my white privilege and all. If I were taking notes, I might notice how often the people in power are white, or how class plays out on the screen–I’ll go ahead and confess that I haven’t been paying that much attention.

But really–when was the last time you heard an off-color joke (pardon the pun) with racial content in a movie?

Now ask yourself the last time you watched a homophobic joke play out on the silver screen.

Quick hit: more movies

Did I mention that we go to a lot of movies? We go to a lot of movies.

Sweeney Todd: Very good. I was vaguely familiar with the premise of the musical but had never seen it. Not ordinarily a huge musical fan, but this one was entertaining. Bloody, which shouldn’t be a surprise if you know the plot. Helena Bonham Carter is extremely good.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets: Surprisingly good. I’ve been disenchanted with Nicolas Cage lately but I was able to mostly ignore him and enjoy the movie. Also, Harvey Keitel. Wait, what?

Atonement: Now I see why it’s been getting all the buzz. Super good. I particularly enjoy the style of the first half and the typewriter suspense music. A little sad, but I didn’t have to get my kleenex.

PS I Love You: Too long. Too sappy. Interesting at times, particularly in how they managed to make Gina Gershon’s lips look normal. (Note: I usually try to stay away from critiquing women’s bodies, because the mainstream media does enough of that to enforce traditional gender and body norms, and we all feel shitty enough about our bodies as it is, and on and on and on…. So I’m being hypocritical here. I will totally own up to that. I just happen to find Gina Gershon and Angelina Jolie utterly distracting in the lip area.) Anyway some of Lisa Kudrow’s lines were hilarious, but the movie just dragged too much for me. Also there was some odd gay humor thrown in.

Though you’re vermin

[Insert apology about not writing more, though said apology probably falls on deaf... uhm... eyes.]

In order to make the commute to the airport as efficient as possible for my parents, who live two hours away from said airport, I went ahead and got a ticket so that I could leave on the same day as my brother. (I only had a one-way ticket lined up because my mom and I had planned to attend my great-aunt’s 100th birthday celebration; but, alas, she didn’t make it Quite to the century mark, and we decided to nix the trip.) Unfortunately I could only get a flight that left a few hours after his (and, after some airline runaround, a flight that left a few hours after That, and went through two entirely different cities… but that’s another story) so my mom and I decided to a see a movie in between. The timing worked best for us to see Enchanted, so that’s what we did.

I should say here that I like Disney. I like Disney movies, I love Disneyland, and I will give you a really dirty look if you ever suggest that I’m too old for having my picture taken with Pluto. This doesn’t mean that I don’t understand how problematic Disney is, as a corporation and an American icon, or that I think all their movies are totally hunky-dory with super keen messages for kids (and little girls in particular). But I do like Disney, and I like to have a good time when I see a Disney movie. And that’s just what I did when I saw Enchanted.

It’s a very self-aware film. Totally over the top with the princess (and Disney) cliches, songs that are totally preposterous (see title of this post), Amy Freakin’ Adams as the heroine… it’s great fun, really.

My one problem: why the gay jokes, Disney? Yes, it’s funny to have the prince go door to door in the apartment building and run into several wacky characters before he finally finds his true love. But why does one of those characters have to be a leather daddy who gives him a lusty smile? It seemed… unnecessary.

Oh, and I also saw No Country for Old Men, which is totally fabulous, as just about everyone in the world has already said. I would watch Tommy Lee Jones in just about anything when he’s workin the accent, frankly, but the rest of the film delivers as well.

I’m sorry, come again?

I’ve been thinking lately about how I came to feminism. I wouldn’t really have called myself a feminist until about a year ago, despite clearly holding feminist ideals dear. In fact, I was pretty turned off by what I saw as feminism when a woman told me that the movement could use “women who look like [me].” I didn’t feel like being anybody’s token dyke, and I was more than a little offended.

Are we really some kind of endangered species? I’m sure she meant well, but the whole thing was really off-putting. But lately it’s gotten me thinking about where feminism and sexuality and gender identity collide, because that’s where most of my writing and my thoughts these days fit in.

I’d like to think that the days of “We’ll get to you when the bigger issues are hammered out, ladies” are gone (If These Walls Could Talk 2, anyone?), but unfortunately I think there’s still some friction between “mainstream” feminists and so-called “lesbian feminists.” In my mind, there shouldn’t be a distinction. But I don’t want to bash anyone’s chosen identity, and it would be equally wrong to ignore the ways that feminism and lesbian feminism fail to overlap.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is a problem of representation. When we talk about sexual harassment, we often don’t talk about how frequently lesbians are harassed. When we talk about wage and job equality, we often fail to mention that lesbians in many states aren’t protected from being fired in the private sector due to their sexual orientation. When we talk about balancing career and family, we often ignore the fact that many women who would love to be starting a family face serious obstacles because they can’t legally marry.

As for gender identity, unfortunately it seems there’s still considerable backlash against lesbians and trans folk. A lot of women still seem to see us as the patriarchy. If we’re dressing in men’s clothing, adopting male pronouns, or taking on “masculine” behaviors and identities, we can’t possibly have a stake in women’s equality, right?

Wrong.

Let me put it bluntly: The fact that I wear boxer briefs and neckties is never going to magically bestow male privilege upon me. I’m still at risk for rape and sexual assault. I still may face significant barriers accessing birth control. I can still recognize that women all over the world are being oppressed, abused, and killed because of their gender. And because I’m a lesbian, and a gender deviant at that, I face the additional risk of being fired for my sexuality, having my access to health care blocked, not being able to have children (either naturally or through adoption), not having my (future) marriage recognized throughout the country, and getting security called on my ass in the bathroom.

I should say that a lot of the feminist blogosphere gets this. Feministe, Pandagon and Feministing are all very inclusive. But even on those sites (and elsewhere), every once in a while the tiny cry of “What about the homos?” gets shot down immediately.

Queer issues are feminist issues. Gender issues are feminist issues. We should be forging alliances, not splintering. Why can’t we get more straight women to fight for same-sex marriage? Why don’t more lesbians speak out about the wage gap? Until we find some kind of solidarity, divide and conquer is working against us.

This and that

Phew. Winding down my first year of grad school while suffering a relapse of my chronic back pain and a killer round of seasonal allergies has meant I haven’t posted as regularly as I’d like. Heck, I even missed shameless self-promotion Sunday this week, which is a travesty. Anyway, until I can get to some of the things floating around in my wee brain (like the hunger strike over at my alma mater, butch visibility, rural queerness, and how it’s possible for Boston to support so many different queer women’s dance nights with such distinct clienteles), here are some quick hits on things that I’ve come across at work lately. (Shhh…)

In 1995, California became the first state to specifically ban gender differences in pricing for services. Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (D- San Francisco) had introduced AB 1100, The Gender Tax Repeal Act, a year earlier, but the first version was overturned by the governor. From a press release:

Upon introduction of this year’s bill, Speier met with the Administration and carved out a compromise agreement which reduced the scope of the bill to include only services and not products. Language was also added to clarify that price differences based specifically upon the amount of time, difficulty or cost of providing the service are not prohibited.

The only good link I could find was to a Harvard Law Review article in JSTOR, so apologies to those of you without fancy-pants institutions.

I also uncovered the text of “A Million Jockers, Punks, and Queens: sex among American male prisoners and its implications for concepts of sexual orientation,” a lecture delivered by Stephen Donaldson at the Columbia University Seminar on Homosexualities in 1993. Here’s a bit from the beginning that I found particularly interesting:

Considering the numerical significance of the prisoner population, not only at any one time but in terms of the enormous cumulative number of American males who have experienced the subculture of confinement, it is remarkable that the sexuality of prisoners has barely been examined by academically-affiliated scholars. Remarkable, but understandable: the walls exist as much to keep civilians out as to keep the prisoners in, and academics are generally more interested in studying middle-class people like themselves.

Donaldson goes on to point out one of the signs that language isn’t universal when it comes to notions of sex and sexuality (he’s referencing a study by Nacci and Kane of homosexuality in federal prisons):

The federal employee doing interviews asked prisoners: ‘Have you had a homosexual experience in prison as an adult?” The middle-class researchers think this refers to any same-sex involvement, but the lower-class prisoner thinks he is being asked about passive behavior, since he does not consider penetration of another male to be a ‘homosexual’ act; he may be fucking his cellmate every night but will truthfully, as far as he is concerned, answer ‘no.’ And many of the researchers and interviewers have been employees of the authorities whose main purpose appears to be to justify existing policies of blanket sexual prohibition rather than to understand actual behavior.

Interesting stuff. You can read the rest (I plan to) at Stop Prison Rape.

Today’s Gays

I’ve more or less finished Stonewall (rereading some bits; I decided that my new quest to read a lot should include the pile of books I bought for a seminar last spring and didn’t end up reading because the class in question was so lame) and probably won’t be reading the final bits, since I’m not all that interested in a catalogue of various GLBT activisty groups. The narrative structure of the earlier chapters is great and very readable, and I appreciate that Duberman at least attempts to acknowledge differing viewpoints of what really sparked the Stonewall riots.

That said, I just learned that Larry Kramer (most recently author of The Tragedy of Today’s Gays) will be speaking nearby in a couple of weeks. Loyal readers may remember that Kramer got me all fired up this summer for a time, and the ideas his book germinated are still growing (very, very slowly) in my brain, even if I haven’t put them to paper yet. As I was thinking about the possibility that the lottery for tickets will end in my favor, I pondered the kinds of questions I might ask (provided he even has a question and answer period). My first inclination would be to find out his opinion on the whole marriage issue.

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m disgruntled with the current emphasis on marriage rights among LGBT activist groups (particularly the larger, more visible ones, like HRC) . Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m thrilled that I live in the one state in the union that currently legally recognizes same-sex marriages. I recognize that a lot of the rights associated with legal marriage are important ones, and I would never argue that LGBT individuals shouldn’t enjoy those rights should they choose to marry. My problem, rather, is with the attention (and time, and money) the issue receives at the expense of other important issues.

I know that this may sound like the ol’ “Why can’t you focus on the important issues?” argument I so despise, but it’s not; I don’t think people should stop fighting for marriage equality. I even hesitate to hierarchize the issues at all–who am I to say that workplace rights are more important than marriage rights? I’d just really like to see other LGBT issues getting the same kind of national attention that same sex marriage has enjoyed (although, given the results of the 2004 elections, it’s hard to say if “enjoyed” is really an appropriate word).

Consider some words from LAMBDA Legal:

There is no federal law that expressly forbids workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Less than half of all states specifically ban workplace discrimination in the private sector based on sexual orientation. Only a handful of states ban discrimination based on gender identity, but many courts have held that transgender employees are protected under sex discrimination laws.

Want more?

About half of all states permit second-parent adoptions by the unmarried partner of an existing legal parent, while in a handful of states courts have ruled these adoptions not permissible under state laws. This leaves parents in many states legally unrecognized or severely disadvantaged in court fights with ex-spouses, ex-partners or other relatives.

And let’s not forget the (lack of) transgender rights:

There is no federal law explicitly prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in employment, housing, public accommodations or any other area of law, although many courts have held that transgender employees are protected under sex discrimination laws. Only a handful of states have laws specifically prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression.

Yet in 2004, when much of the nation was once again glued to television sets watching the returns come in, we weren’t eagerly awaiting the results of workplace discrimination laws, same-sex adoption laws, or transgender discrimination laws in 11 states. I’ll be willing to bet money the case will be the same in 2008.

Putting the bone in zamboni.

Through the wonders of a series of tubes, I managed to get passes for an advanced screening (two whole days early!) of Blades of Glory. What to say, what to say…

Now, I’m not anti- Will Ferrell. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Anchorman in theaters, and not just because I was riding the wave of that manic-depressive summer. I’ve enjoyed his presence in a number of SNL sketches (despite the fact that SNL hasn’t been consistently funny since Belushi died). I even got a good belly laugh out of some of the bonus features on Talladega Nights. I do think the guy’s a little overplayed, and he’s definitely been in some losers (Kicking and Screaming, anyone?). But all in all, he usually knows how to make me laugh. (Review with mild spoilers after the jump.)

How I keep from going under

(You’ll have to excuse me–I was listening to an NPR bit on Grandmaster Flash.)

I’m a little frustrated lately. And I don’t make a good emotional debater. I learned this most coherently during my freshman year of college, when I tried (pretty unsuccessfully) to explain to one of my roommates and a mutual friend how I could possibly defend being a pacifist when the terrorists were all trying to kill us. Things mostly went downhill once the roommate explained she had a relative fighting in Iraq–this was one woman you did not keep arguing with once she was in tears. Regardless, I’m still a staunch pacifist (or, more precisely, someone who has yet to support my country’s reasons for being in a combat theater, although I firmly support my country’s soldiers and want them all home in one piece–my cousin was a reservist in Iraq, but he was lucky enough to be filling sandbags and taking pictures the whole time) even if I couldn’t eloquently explain it then.

Likewise, I’m still a staunch homosexual advocate (read: believes homosexuals can be moral beings, approves of equal rights and protections for homosexuals) even though I have difficulty elaborating on that to people whose rhetoric enrages me.

Luckily so far these people have all been fellow travelers on the intertubes, not, say, employers or family members or people on the street getting all up in my grill. I have a feeling I’d be even more incoherent and emotional in any of those instances, while there would simultaneously be much more at stake.

Regardless, here are a few of my least favorite arguments as of late (mostly summarized from Pandagon comments threads–I won’t link to them individually, but the site should be part of your daily reading, along with Feministe and Feministing):

1. It’s not homosexuals that are the problem–it’s homosexual acts. If the homos could just stop having sex, everything would be fine!

2. Homosexuality is immoral. I know this, because the Bible, compiled by a bunch of men during a historical period when the Jews were particularly persecuted and continuation of the race depended on procreation, says so. But don’t point out things like shellfish and shaving, because that’s just stupid.

3. I’m perfectly comfortable talking about how terrible homosexual sex in the military is, but for criminy’s sake, don’t mention military men raping women, because that’s totally not the issue. Oh, and it also doesn’t happen. But if the bitches can’t handle it, bitches shouldn’t be in the military.

I have to stop now. It’s just making me too mad.

If I can pick, I’d prefer to be a screwdriver.

Man. Two posts involving the Crimson in rapid succession. I generally don’t like to blog this much about Harvard, but, well, it’s been a busy day.

The comments thread following this column erupted when I suggested that homophobia still exists on the Harvard campus. (Disclaimer: I originally did so by using the example of an undergrad who was assaulted two years ago by two non-Harvardians who first yelled racial and homophobic slurs at him. It’s clear that in doing so, I knowingly misinterpreted another commenter’s wording–”on campus”–to mean “everyone who interacts with the Harvard campus,” not “Harvard students.” I later admitted this was wrong of me, and apologized for making the thread more inflammatory than it needed to be.)

This isn’t actually what the column itself was about. Basically, the author makes a distinction between funny homophobic jokes (like those shared by friends) and actually hurtful homophobia, and asserts that queer activists need to better recognize that distinction. I can’t say I really disagree with any of that, although it does open the door for the usual “Ooooh, see, gay people call each other names all the time! It must be okay when I do it!” argument that always seems to follow any discussion of in-group language otherwise prohibited in polite speech.

What I was actually responding to was a commenter, who interpreted the column as saying “homophobia is pretty much gone at Harvard, so everybody needs to stop getting their panties in a knot and focus on more important things, like marriage equality.”

Here are the things I love about this thread:

1) The ol’ “Let me tell you the things you should think are important” ploy. Always fun from an outsider (I’m making an assumption here based on that commenter’s wording that s/he doesn’t identify as part of the queer community), especially when the group in question is already directing energy toward those “important” things. (Not enough, apparently.)

2) The fact that someone felt the need to repeatedly sign him or herself off with variations on “mk is a tool.”

3) People who put phrases in all caps telling me I need to chill.

4) Being accused of being “one of those loud people that always scream about how bad the Harvard community is, when in fact [I'm] only making it worse.”

I love it when anonymous blog posters call me names. Granted, being called a tool ain’t half bad. It happens to be one of my favorite insults (second only to “assbasket,” which I largely reserve for close friends) and it’s pretty innocuous, relatively speaking. But I’d bet money that if we were having this conversation in person, things would be way more polite.

I also love that pointing out that homophobia exists on the Harvard campus makes me a negative, divisive screamer who only complains about how bad Harvard is. Seriously?