Apparently I am more or less unable to synthesize information right now -- I just hoard it in a useless place in my brain.

This post was worth a read.

Perhaps more insight will come later.

things I did not know about

Multiple systems. A glossary of multiple systems.

I do not feel up to a description of something I did not know existed 15 minutes ago.

However, I discovered that something I did know about has a name, at least in some groups. Apparently being violated by your doctor, nurse, midwife, or other individual during birth (in the sense of having of actions performed on you without your consent) can be referred to as "birth rape." (After reading hideous descriptions of obstetric care on "My OB/GYN said what?" -- sorry can't remember the html address -- I am just glad that I am not the only one who is outraged by this.) Discovery source: The Curvature.

DADT

I have never been quite sure why Don't Ask Don't Tell bothers me far more than perhaps equivalent pieces of legislature in the civilian world.

But, I think this photo (found on Feministing, and apparently it has been making the rounds) gets pretty well at the heart of it.

The caption: Can you spot the gay soldier?

There.

That is it.

I do not have unambiguous feelings about many other issues affecting the LGBT community, but this one -- this one I am sure about.

thoughts

I really should have started this blog about two months earlier, because this point I'm pretty much fatigued by social cause blogs. They grate.

Reasons:

1. Located a few extremely incendiary blogs. Read a bit. Quite a bit. They had good points to make -- I wouldn't have kept reading otherwise. But they also irritated the shit out of me.

2. During some recent travels I was the selected target for some beggars, panhandlers, and other scam artists. Somehow the knowledge of these persons' likely economic status (dire) and social pressures (high) has not helped me alleviate the intense anger I feel toward these persons for violating my personal space and (it seemed fairly evident at the time) intending to take advantage of my person further. (Likely this has to do with being attacked earlier this summer by a more aggressive person-intent-on-redistributing-my-possessions.) The reconciliation of knowledge and emotion in my brain is an ugly mess and I am letting it calm for a while.

a question. well, several.

If anyone knows the answer to this (who might read this blog, ha), please comment.

I read a (very, very angry) entry from a trans issues blog recently that was a call-out (flinch, will examine that later) of another blog entry. So far as I could tell, the anger was due to the fact that the terms "cisgender" and "cissexual" were conflated into the term "cis" in such a way that ignored cisgender, transsexual men and transgender, cissexual men.* (I think. I'm still a little confused.)

So: Can "cis" be used inoffensively as a shorthand for "cissexual and cisgender," for persons such as myself for whom both of those things are true? It seems like "trans" sometimes is (i.e. used as shorthand for "transsexual and transgender") but then, it also seems the usage of those two words is not standardized.


* According to another website that I found, a cisgender, transsexual man would be one whose gender presentation was feminine but physical attributes were changed to be masculine and a transgender, cissexual man would one whose gender presentation was masculine, but physical attributes remained feminine. Wow, I'm really not sure if I managed worded that in a non-ignorant (/unoffensive) way or not. . . how does one refer to changing physical attributes that are typically classed with one gender without implying that the person that possesses said attributes is that gender? But it also seems like (based on the descriptions I found) that there are some trans persons who do identify with their assigned gender, but do not feel comfortable with their bodies as-is. Errrgh. I suspect this is why people screw up on trans issues so often; there are so many axes to slide up and down and trip on.

Reblog!

Fascinating article that explains a lot of what I see in activist blogs/blog commenting: Activist modus operandi.

this makes me queasy

Outpatient abortion services.

unnnnnnnnnh [hate and privilege]

Just stumbled onto a bunch of radical feminist trans-hating blogs. . . unnnnnnnh. Mental pain.

Note on one blog which I'm not linking to because I was not impressed:

I'm pretty damn sure there *is* such a think as cisgender privilege, regardless if one is born a man or a woman (male or female, whichever term is correct.) While I, as a woman living the U.S. (most of the time), may be discouraged, harassed, and subjected to violence, relatively few people are going to take in upon themselves to erase me from existence through violence, which does happen to trans people. Note that "trans panic" is a defense accepted occasionally in courts for murder, whereas there is no "woman panic" corollary.

Now, I'm up for debate on what "cisgendered privilege" actually means. Another blog (from the opposite view, obviously) made the argument that a cis woman who tells a trans woman "You're so lucky to not have a period," is exercising cisgender privilege. As for many women, this statement translates to, "You're so lucky to not have monthly depression and intense pain," I would say that calling this "privilege" is bullshit.

[Maybe the wording is, in fact, problematic, because it could also simply be taken to mean, "You're lucky to have not been born a woman," and therefore, "WhyTF are you trying to be a woman now." But. . . in my experience, most women do not hate men for not having the "period experience." More frequently they hate their own bodies for betraying them. So, to people suffering from different struggles: Try to be compassionate.

different kinds of feminist

My conservative self was stupidly very surprised when I realized that there is no monolithic "feminist" movement. That aside from being made up of individuals, the feminist movement has several factions -- many of which aggressively disagree with each other, and may even debate whether people not in their camp can really be "feminist." Of course, all of these groups are blurry around the edges, they share characteristics, and someone can be more than one at the same time. This is just the general grouping I have noticed.

My reading has turned up the following groups. Obviously I'm missing some, but. . .

1. Second wave feminist.
Characteristics: Participated in the feminist movement of the 1970s. Today, are largely white, middle-class women around the age of 50. Accomplishments include helping decrease the pay gap, helping women work outside the home and access higher education, and attain some measure of reproductive control (birth control pills, etc.) Many are resentful of the "younger generation" of feminists, who they see as undedicated to furthering the cause or ungrateful for their contributions. Also often referred to a "bra burner," though apparently this never actually happened.
Sample spiel: "Where are all the young people in the feminist movement???"

[note: "First wave" feminists are those who argued for the right of women to vote -- Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.]

2. Third wave feminist.
Characteristics: Virtually anyone who identifies as a feminist but was not around for the 1970s movement. Typically 40 and younger. Though this category in some encompasses the categories that follow, it can also be more vague and catch some people that those terms do not. This type of feminist is usually not just concerned with women's rights but also concerned with the intersection of race, gender, sexuality, able-bodied-ness, socioeconomic status, and a variety of other factors in creating disadvantages. She also usually will address the issue of "privilege" -- the rights, comforts, and assumptions that a member of one group unconsciously expects from other members of that group (rough definition.) So -- white privilege, able-bodied privilege, cissexual (as opposed to transsexual) privilege -- all are of concern to her.
Sample spiel: "We must dismantle the kyriarchy!"

3. Radical feminist.
Characteristics: This is the group most typically referred to as "feminazis" in the conservative press. Ironically, it also contains some of the feminist viewpoints that I identify most closely with. There are those in this group who view all heterosexual sex as being inherently rape. Most radical feminists don't go quite this far, but many are open about their disdain for men and particularly male privilege. A large component of radical feminists consider porn and prostitution to be inherently degrading to women and therefore wish to discourage both (if not actually ban them, as they are liberals and don't like legally banning stuff.) They are critical of the beauty standards that women must meet (shaving, makeup, clothing, keeping trim, boob implants) and may reject them altogether. The notion that women owe anything to men -- sex, attractiveness, time, patience -- is aggressively rejected.
Sample spiel: "I don't see why we have to regard all choices as having equal value, even if they are choices of a sexual nature. Also, porn sucks."

4. Sex-positive feminist.
Characteristics: This label is used to cover a multitude of sins, so to speak. People who put themselves in this group range from sex workers to BDSM enthusiasts to polyamorists to "Cosmo" style feminists, as well as other people who want to change the cultural understanding of what sex is and what sex means. To some extent, radical feminists and sex-positive feminists define themselves in opposition to one another; sex-positive feminists often want to reclaim activities like burlesque, stripping, porn, as "vehicles of female power," while radical feminists argue that it's not possible to do so. Sex-positive feminists are particularly concerned with the "whore/madonna" dichotomy that women can be forced into (though most feminists are concerned with this; sex-positive ones just make it more of a priority.) [The whore/madonna idea in short, hyperbolic terms: If you are a woman, you must be good, pure, unprovocative, and free of unchaste sexual activity, OR you must be a slut who cannot be raped, because sluts all want sex anyway.] Sex-positive feminists largely argue that no sexual choice can be considered wrong because it is a personal decision. On the far, ugly end of sex-positive feminism is "Cosmo" style feminism, in which women are expected to conform to all of society's expectations of prettiness, stupidity, and malleability, but also have sex with lots of men, and demands that they not be judged for that.
Sample spiel: "Hooking up can be healing and liberating."

5. Womanist.
Characteristics: Often black or Hispanic, this is a woman who feels that the mainstream feminist movement is exclusively concerned with the problems of the white middle class, and therefore wishes to distance herself from it. She probably agrees with some of the larger feminist goals -- equal treatment, reproductive freedom, and freedom from violence -- but what that specifically means to her is probably very different from what it means to the mainstream feminist. For instance, while the larger feminist movement focused on getting rights to birth control and abortion, so that they wouldn't have to have children they didn't want, the womanist might have been more concerned with making sure black women have the resources and rights to raise the children they already have, both things which have been historically difficult. Or, a womanist might be a person for whom the cultural and religious ties to the Catholic church are extremely important, so that becomes a component of her views, as opposed to (what seems like) the feminist movement's larger rejection of the patriarchal structure of this church (and most churches.)
Sample spiel: "I don't care whether you take on the feminist label or not, I care about what you think and how you act."

6. Trans feminist.
Characteristics: Is usually a transgendered or transsexual woman. I choose to separate it because the "trans question" is a divisive one among feminists -- many second wave feminists rejected trans women and many radical feminists still do. However, whether trans women are to be included in the larger feminist movement, and/or whether trans-specific issues should be at the forefront of mainstream feminism, is a question that doesn't seem to answered on "party lines." Many trans feminists are largely concerned with issues of violence and healthcare. (Trans men present others issues that I haven't seen addressed as much.)
Sample spiel: "You interact with trans people every day without knowing it."

7. "Mama grizzly" feminist.
Characteristics: Is Sarah Palin. Is widely mocked by liberal feminists. Is she a feminist, really? I'm not sure; Sarah Palin's speechwriting gives me a headache so I don't really want to check.

8. Conservative feminist.
Where are they on the internet??? Why can't I find them?

shocking

I found this article in the New York times kind of stunning. It's stayed with me, partly because I saw a photography exhibition on the violence Caracas at the Caixa Forum earlier this summer.

In short:
In 2009, there were 4,644 civilian deaths due to violence in Iraq. It is a WAR ZONE, so this is tragic but not contrary to expectation.
In 2009, there were more than 16,000 murders in Venezuela.

Holy shit. What the fuck.

The other reason this stuck with me is that one my bosses from last summer was half Venezuelan and half Japanese. He didn't speak a lot of Spanish because he left Venezuela when he was 10. I have to wonder if the crime situation was the same at that time (about 20 years ago), and if it played into his family's move.

hookups.

A study came out recently (from a sociologist at the U. of Iowa, no less!) that (so far as I understand it), had the following findings:

1. People who waited longer before having sex in a relationship (as opposed to hookups or having sex on the first date) typically report having more satisfying long-term relationships.

2. However, when you remove the people from the second group with "mismatched expectations" -- in other words, the people who seemed to expect only short-term relationships -- the two groups looked pretty much the same in terms of who had more satisfying long-term relationships.

This has been discussed extensively in the "blogosphere" (am I a tool for using that term), among other places here, here, and here, the last of which I actually felt compelled to comment on (unusual for me, because a general dislike of confrontation usually puts me firmly in the "lurker" camp.) We'll see if it goes through moderation. (The press release is here.

This is sort of a springboard for discussions of all kinds of things -- the sexual double standard, women's sexual liberation, etc. My thoughts on this are many, but I don't have the wits right now to organize them entirely.

First off, I am, gut-reaction, no-thinking-about-it, normally just repulsed by the idea of a "hookup," or "hooking up" with someone I barely know. I don't necessarily think it's something new, though the context has changed. Part of this is Christian upbringing -- God gave me this body. My body is a temple. Don't let some random-ass guy stick his dick in it. Part of it is fear. Actually, a lot of it is fear.

I'm scared of:
1. Being attacked, being raped, being hurt.
2. Being pressured into doing something I find humiliating, stupid, gross, or painful.
3. Being judged -- by my parents, or friends, or by someone I might want to date.

BUT MOST OF ALL.

I do not want to give ownership of any part of my person to someone I don't know and trust. Not ownership of my emotions, not ownership of knowledge of my body, and not an ownership of closeness or friendliness that is not merited.

This pretty much precludes hooking up, or indeed having sex with anyone I don't know really, really well.

Now you should go read another article, this one. It is called "My Sluthood, Myself." It is a very different, very well-articulated view on "hooking up."

I hope to return to this issue with more facts, more thoughts, more issues. I'm not sure how my personal opinions and experiences with hooking up (well, second-hand experience with hooking up) affect my opinions and feelings towards others, or how they should affect each other.

Mainly I just wanted to finally post something here, because I've been reading a lot and not really saying much. . .

why blog more?

Ah yes.

This is technically my. . . let's see. . . fourth blog. (Fifth, if you count the lang-8 account that I simply don't update. Argh must get on that. Guilt guilt guilt.) They have been an obnoxiously introspective Lifejournal; my spastic personal blog (also on blogger :P); and a tumblr that I tried feverishly to fill up with images of various things that inspire me -- architecture, furniture, clothes, cartoons. (I think my input is inexorably slowing down.)

I have never written a focused blog before. I'd like to blame it on mild ADD, but I suspect it is more just a lack of discipline.

The tagline here says it all -- I want a place to discuss (my perceptions of) morality, social justice, and conservatism, which is separate from my everyday life and all its details, my dreamings, plottings, longings, and wants -- which is the subject of my personal blog. I'm sure there are arguments against separating things like this; after all, the way I think, dream, dress, and eat all affect my fellow human beings and how I perceive them. This separation was firstly an organizational one. I have so many things that I want to talk about that unless they are categorized I lose them. I am psychotically verbose, and I psychotically overconsume media -- I would be willing to bet that I the equivalent of 20-50 newspaper articles and view hundreds of pictures a day in a wide variety of places around the interwebs. Of late (maybe in the last 6 months), more and more of these readings have been closely tied to issues of race, gender, sociology, justice, and class. I am not the sort of person who feels okay commenting on strangers' blogs, for a variety of reasons. But it seems pointless to do all this consuming and re-organizing in my head without producing something of my own.

So, secondly, I'm starting another blog as a personal safe space to expound upon my own philosophy and ideals and their evolution. Why this is important:

I am a conservative in the way that many people are Jewish or Catholic. I was raised in this way, and it's very important to how I define myself. But I object to or wish to examine more closely many of the tenets of this "religion." It has value as something that I've inherited, but heirlooms have less value if they are not useful or adaptable for the person who receives them. I am a Christian of my own choosing, which also impacts my perceptions of the world significantly (though perhaps not as significantly as it might.)

Some labels one might use to describe me: White, straight, female, cis, LGBT ally, pro-life (or anti-choice, if you like), a cautious supporter of capitalism, omnivore (considering vegetarianism), supporter of equal rights and opportunities for all (I find the word feminist problematic, as I am not sure that I wish to associate with that movement, and because I am not sure that I would be welcome there either.) I care about energy use. I care about biodiversity. I care about preventing animal cruelty.

One might choose to point out some contradictions there, and there are more that I haven't listed. My goal, I guess, is to figure out which of these contradictions stem from hypocrisy (and are therefore probably bad) and which stem from the fact that it is possible, in this world, for two very different truths to occupy the same space. I want a place to talk about the issues (and there are crap ton of them) that I think are really important, and how they interact with each other. I would also like to look deeper into how they and my faith interact -- because frankly, I haven't been doing enough thinking about God lately and what his opinions might be.

I welcome discussion, and of course reserve the right to delete comments for any reason I like.

I will automatically delete comments that are any variation on "stop saying fuck." (hi mom!)