Feminist Weddings

**This is a cross post originally published on the Offbeat Bride Tribe. The original post can be found here but you must be a member of the Offbeat Bride Tribe to read it (thus the need for a cross post).**

I want to talk about feminist weddings. For those who don’t know, I’m in the midst of planning my own wedding. It will be a same-sex, genderbending affair, so I’m facing different challenges than cis-gendered heterosexual couples face. But I’ve been caught off guard at how hard it is to break down the gender binary in wedding planning, even for queers like me and my fiancé. I know wedding planning can be a touchy subject so I want to start with a disclaimer: I am not criticizing your/your mom’s/ your brother’s/ anyone else’s wedding. There are lots of very good reasons to make many different choices, my values may be different from yours, and that's ok. I am a radical third wave feminist, and this post is about my interpretation of the way feminism can be used to reclaim--or at least coexist--with an institution (weddings/marriage) which is, by its very nature, a pillar of the patriarchy.

First of all: Do you believe in gender equality? If yes, then congratulations you're a feminist. Are you a feminist who's having/had a wedding? Then congratulations, it's a feminist wedding. That's all it takes, folks.

I don’t want to turn this into a competition of who’s a “real feminist” or “feminist enough” However, if we're looking at the idea of "feminist wedding" as more than just an aspect of your identity, I want to delve into what it means to bring our feminism into wedding planning. There's a lot of discussion—on a variety of media--about how to incorporate feminism into weddings and how to balance tradition with feminist values. So for the rest of this post I'm going to talk about feminism as activism, and feminist weddings as an expression of that activism rather than just as a facet of your identity. I've seen a lot of comments that planning a feminist wedding just means being aware of the sexist history of traditions, and then intentionally choosing what to do for your own reasons and not because it's what's "expected." I disagree. That's a good recipe for having a beautiful wedding that is comfortable for you, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not feminism.

Feminism, as activism, is not comfortable. It is not safe or easy. Social inequality is pervasive, and it is often perpetuated in extremely subtle and unintentional ways; feminism is the constant awareness of the systemic oppression of women and gender minorities, and taking action to combat that oppression. It is not just about intentions, it is about realizing the implications your choices will have for everyone else in your community. Now, I know, one person's wedding isn't going to change society all by itself, but feminism is about thinking in the aggregate and acknowledging the ways in which the decisions we make in our daily lives contribute to a culture of cis-male privilege.

One litmus test I use it to envision things through the lens of a hypothetical six year old girl, with no exposure to feminism, attending my wedding. Then I picture her attending five other weddings just like mine over the next ten years. And I ask: "What does she see? What did these weddings tell her about her role in the world? What did they teach her about gender norms and sexuality and what it means to be a woman or a wife?"

If any given tradition would (subtly and unconsciously) teach that imaginary six year old girl sexist values that I disagree with, then it has no place at my wedding. Take it one step further. Imagine your wedding, with whatever choices you are making about traditions to include or not. Imagine that was the cultural norm. Imagine that every six year old girl--and boy--saw your wedding, with minor variations, at every family wedding, and in every movie and tv show over the next ten years of their life. What have they learned about gender roles and femininity and masculinity? What kind of 16 year olds do we have in ten years?

To me, feminism means grappling with these questions, and using the answers to impact our choices. Feminism isn't just about recognizing the way that we have been affected by patriarchal expectations in our own lives and rejecting the status quo to make our own choices--that's a great first step, but it's not enough. Feminism is activism, and it goes one step further to recognizing the implications that our choices (in the aggregate) have on the rest of society and making choices with a consciousness towards creating a society with gender equality.

So, again, not everyone has to use their wedding for feminist activism. That's ok. You can be a feminist and decide that, on your wedding day, you are choosing aesthetics or family unity or anything else over your feminism. That's ok. It's also ok to incorporate some feminist choices while compromising in other areas. You can have a mostly feminist wedding that incorporates some less-than-feminist traditions for any reasons you want that feel right to you. That's cool, and it doesn’t make you less of a feminist.

We all make so many choices during this wedding planning process, for so many different reasons. We're all trying to make these choices with intentionality to create an event that is a genuine representation of us and our lives and our love, and whatever is right for you is right. You want your wedding to be genuine, so part of your decisions need to take into account whether or not the image you are projecting is genuinely true to your feminist values. If feminism is important to you, if this is a cause that you’re passionate about, then please add one more layer of intentionality to your decision making process and consider not only the origins and historical meanings behind wedding traditions, but also the effects that your decisions will have for the future.

Activism isn't just rejecting the "way it's done" mentality, and then making personal and private decision. It's about recognizing that decisions aren’t really private, and using your choices to actively help create a new way that is in line with your values, whatever those values may be.

I Choose the Rainbow

It’s Pride month and the media is abuzz with talk of parades and frivolity, and speculation and anticipation for the upcoming Supreme Court's rulings on DOMA and Prop 8. One of the most common talking points and indeed one of the most popular pieces of rhetoric utilized by the queer rights movement in general is the notion that "we were born this way."

Frankly, that rhetoric has always bothered me. I understand why it originated. It had its place, its role to play in the gay rights movement,  But now, in the context of our contemporary understanding of queer theory and the political and social needs of present day queer communities, the biological determinism of "born this way" rhetoric does more harm than good. 

 

Where is my agency? Why are we so determined to deny our own ability to choose our path and determine the course of our own lives?

The claim of being "born this way" conflates sexual attraction with identity. What we really mean is that people have no control over to whom they are sexually or romantically attracted. Throughout history and across cultures it is a universal and natural part of humanity that some people are innately attracted to members of the same sex (or both sexes, or all sexes, or no sexes in an infinite variety of degrees and combinations). But identity is something different, and the modern manifestation of sexual identity is a fairly recent development in human history. Having same-sex attraction and engaging in same sex-sex has meant many different things in different times and different cultures. We as an aggregate determine what it means today, in America, and we as individuals choose what it means in our own lives.

Thus our identity is a choice. and we are not doing ourselves any favors by denying our own power to determine how we live our lives and how we interact with society. Our persistent denial of this choice is its own sort of internal homophobia. As if being queer were so awful that a free choice to accept and embrace one's queerness is unthinkable. By insisting that we did not choose this, we accept the basic implicit premise that being queer is somehow bad or wrong and we would not choose it if we had the option.

The denial of choice is the fuel behind bi-phobia, used as an excuse for ostracizing members of our own community who are somehow perceived to have more choice than those who deem themselves more "purely" gay. Most importantly, by denying our own ability to define ourselves, we give our opponents the ability to define us instead. Consenting adults should be able to make whatever choices they want in their romantic and sexual lives, without legal or societal discrimination. By insisting that our civil rights are defensible only on the basis of immutable biology or genetics, we implicitly deny the rights of anyone who makes a choice not to conform to arbitrary social norms and constructs.

Let’s reclaim our agency! We do not choose our lust or our love, but we choose our lives. We choose to pass, or to come out. We choose any label we want, or no label at all. We choose to defy our oppressors and live the lives we want with the people we want, quietly and subtly or with rainbows plastered on our walls. We choose to create communities for ourselves with their own varied practices and ideals, and then we choose to what degree we want to re-assimilate into mainstream American cuture. We choose to stand up and fight for our rights- or not, as safety or convenience allows. All of these choices are valid, none of them any more or less gay than the other. Being LGBT does not mean any one thing, but is rather a fluid and ever evolving identity. We created that identity, and we continue to define it through our choices every day.

Talk of genetics and nature is necessary for some arenas. Historically, It was instrumental in the de-criminalization and de-medicalization of homosexual sex. Even today, it is sometimes necessary to protect our physical safety, both in legislation and in public opinion. It is necessary to defend against our most violent and sometimes most vocal foes. These are not issues of the past, but are still urgent in the lives of millions of LGBT people in America, and even more so in other parts of the world. We must continue to remind the world that being sexually and romantically attracted to people of any and every sex is natural and normal and not a matter of choice.

But having gay sex does not in itself make a person gay, and our identities are defined by far more than what we do in our beds. It is time we make explicit the distinction between our actions and our identities and reclaim our agency in our own lives. We do not choose who we are inclined to sleep with, but we choose to transform an action into an identity we choose what that identity means. We are out and proud, so it's time we stop being ashamed to admit our choice. It is time we choose to stand up and claim our right not only to live queer lives: we need to claim our right to choose.

I choose to be Queer, and I am not ashamed.

Red Kettles and Rainbows: On Giving Responsibly

One of my most persistent holiday woes is the little red kettle and jingling bell in front of my grocery store. My distaste for this iconic part of the holiday season is motivated by far more than the Holiday Humbugs. To me, they do not represent a warm spirit of charity and altruism; they represent bigotry. The sound of that bell sends a chill down my spine invoking the oppression and intolerance alive and well in my community.

  

You see, The Salvation Army (TSA) does not approve of homosexuality. Thier official stance, quoted from salvationarmyusa.org is:

"Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse." 

They claim to "oppose abuse," but their hypocritical denial doesn't make the harm they do any less real. And their bigoted policies do harm, to their LGBT employees, to those they purport to serve, and to society as a whole. Even aside from specific instances of policy discrimination, the widespread acceptance of an organization espousing such values contributes to a society which tacitly allows for hatred as "just another viewpoint" and enforces a tolerance of bigotry in mainstream society. 

The annual and oft disputed boycot of the red kettles has become routine and almost tiresome. And despite our boycott, they break fundraising records almost every year. But the Salvation Army boycott is one we cannot afford to abandon.

I should be clear that I don’t wish that the Salvation Army did not exist. I don't want to put them out of commission, and I certainly don't want to hurt the people they help. The point of the boycott is not to destroy TSA, it is to make it clear to them that an attitude of bigotry is no longer acceptable, to their donors or to the society they purport to serve.

Giving to charity isn’t like other types of shopping. When it comes to buying a product, a company's social and environmental policies must be balanced with the price and quality of the product they offer. Sometimes we make compromises and buy from a company we don't agree with simply because we like their product. Usually, if we're willing to look, we can find a comparable product from a politically progressive and environmentally sound company, but it is unrealistic to hope that every dollar we spend will go to a company we whole-heartedly support. Giving to charity isn't about convenience nor is there a product to be purchased. There is no excuse to compromise. Charity is about supporting a cause and helping others. Supporting an organization whose policies and beliefs help to perpetuate a cuture of oppression and inequality goes directly against the spirit of giving, even if some of that organization's actions are indeed charitable. When you donate to an organization you throw your name and your voice behind everything that organization stands for. So do your research and make sure it is a cause you actually agree with.

There are plenty of great charities out there that don't support bigotry: try the American Red Cross, the Trevor Project, Save the Children, or your local shelter or food bank. You have options, so if you don't think same-sex sex is evil, if you don't think all queer people should live celibate lives, if you believe everyone has the right to marriage, choose a charity that shares those views. In short, if you are LGBT or especially if you are an ally (we love our allies!), then for G-d's sake, give responsibly this holiday season and don't put your spare change in the little red kettle.

Reclaiming a Word

I’ve had a lot of conversations about language recently, and how important it is to use language that accurately reflects what you are trying to say.  Using certain language can contribute to a very harmful form of micro-aggression.  Thus, I feel the need to explain why I don’t like the word “Faggot” 

“Faggot” is a pejorative word to refer to gay people, usually gay men.  It is derogatory, and is meant to imply negative stereotypes about gay men.  Homophobic people often use that word as the worst possible insult against gay men (I'm thinking of Westboro Baptist Church's "God hates Fags" signs.)  When a heterosexual man is called “faggot” it is explicitly an insult, meant to emasculate him and make him less of a man, implying that he is secretly gay and that that is the very worst thing he could possibly be.  Obviously, that’s homophobic.  If being gay isn't bad, it shouldn't be an insult to call a non-gay person a word that just means "gay."  

But I think that word can be just as harmful even when it is not intended as an insult.  The other day, a (straight male) acquaintance of mine called another (gay male) mutual acquaintance a “fucking faggot” behind his back.  I spoke up, of course.  But his immediate response was “well, it’s not an insult if it’s true!”  This is a common sentiment among people who don’t think of themselves as homophobic, but there is so much wrong with that statement.  “Gay” is not a synonym with “Fucking Faggot”.  Most importantly, he’s implying that it would still be an insult if it were used to refer to a straight man.  That word is still derogatory in nature and it’s still insulting when used in that context.

So what about when gay men use the word faggot to refer to themselves or to each other?  That’s a little bit more of a gray area for me.  Words can be reclaimed.  My own chosen label “Queer/genderqueer” is a reclaimed word.  (My friend Ryan wrote a great blog entry on that word yesterday, so I’ll just refer you there for further reading on the word queer: http://beyondbrynmawr.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/why-i-am-queer/ )  Has word Faggot be reclaimed?  I think, in order for a word to be reclaimed, we have to assimilate the negative connotations of the word and make the word so much our own that it is no longer potent as an insult.  If “fucking queer” were ever used against me as an insult, it would be meant as “you are not normal, you break social boundaries, you are odd, strange, queer, you exist outside of a narrow and traditional conception of the way gender and sexuality are supposed to work.”  And I could look them in the eye and say “Yes, I am a fucking queer,” and I would mean it in exactly the same way they do.  That word is mine, it has been reclaimed.    

Can the word “faggot” been reclaimed?  I don’t know.  Reclaiming a word has to be a conscious choice, and either an intentional assimilation of negative connotations or at least an explicit defiance against those undertones.  Maybe some people have reclaimed the word faggot.  Maybe some gay men have taken that word and made it a part of their identity.  But I know that when I hear a straight person use that word, whether it is intended as an insult or not, I still flinch.

Freedom of Choice

There's a rally today in DC to protest limitations of abortion rights, and I really wish I could be there.  The current political climate towards abortion is scary, not just because of the vehemence of our opposition but because of the complacency of our allies.

Last year, when I was canvassing on behalf of Planned Parenthood, some of the things people said to me were really disturbing.  I don't mean the people who called me a baby-killer.  They were jerks, but I was prepared for that.  Hearing that was part of the job, and I let it roll off.  What bothered me were the people who said "Oh, you're worried over nothing, they'll never take away the right to choice."  or "We have Roe v. Wade, what are you worried about?"  What scarred me was the (supposedly) educated people who supported abortion rights, but who had no idea what is really going on politically or how much danger we are in.

So to clue you in, things are pretty bad.  We have Roe v. Wade, yes.  But Roe v. Wade is not a universal unilateral legalization of abortion.  It is vague, and has many caveats.  Many smaller cases since have been chipping away at the constitutional protection, and our opponents are going to continue to do so.  We can't count on the current Supreme Court to protect us as new cases come up.  Which means we have to defend our rights in the legislature.

So let me focus in on just one current legislative debate and why it is such a big deal: the de-funding of family planing clinics (including Planned Parenthood).  Planned Parenthood (PPFA) gets about 1/3 of it's total budget from the federal government.  That money does not and has never gone directly to fund abortions.  The Hyde amendment has forbidden government money from paying for abortions since the 70's.  All abortions at these clinics are privately funded. (To be clear, I don't think there would be anything wrong with the government funding abortions, but that's not at issue here.  It is irrelevant.)

What that money does is provide basic reproductive health care to men, women, children and teens all over the country.  This includes annual gynecological visits, mammograms, prostrate cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, affordable birth control, and countless other services.  Without that money, dozens of clinics (both PPFA and non-affiliated clinics) all over the country will be forced to close.  There is no moral justification for wanting these services to be discontinued; they are basic health care, pure and simple.

The most common argument I hear is "Well, it's just about money.  Lots of great services are getting cut, because we just can't afford it anymore."  Sorry guys, that's just not how economics work.  By providing people with affordable and convenient preventative health care we save billions later on.  (This is the same economic principal behind government funded universal health care-but that debate is for another day).  To put it as simply and crudely as I can:  If we give all of our citizens access to affordable birth control, there will be fewer unplanned pregnancies, and thus fewer unplanned babies.  Babies are expensive, and the taxpayers end up supporting many of them.  That's not to mention all of the long term economic benefits to providing cheap preventative medical care and early cancer detection.  Quite simply, the government doesn't fund Family Planning just because it's the right thing to do (I wish).  The government has funded Family Planning through Title X for decades because it is economically sound to do so.

Now I don't believe for a minute that most of our lawmakers don't know all of this.  The economy is a justification, but not the real reason for the movement to de-fund family planning.  They have an agenda, and that agenda is to stop abortions.  If clinics close, millions of women all over the country-especially in rural areas- will lose all access to any doctor willing to perform a legal abortion.  The legislation doesn't (yet) have the power to make abortion totally illegal, so they are focusing instead on cutting away women's access.  With no access, there is no choice.

This is happening guys.  I know we've come a long way since the 70's but we haven't won yet.  Our opponents are loud, so cut the complacency and get your voice heard.

Problems with Pronouns

To most people, pronouns are effortless.  They were assigned a pronoun at birth, and that's what everyone has always called them.  They never think about it, it's a non-issue.  But I think pronouns are the greatest failure of the English language.  Our lovely language's use of pronouns is entirely dependent on the concept of binary gender.  There is male and female, he and she, her and his, Mr. and Ms.  There is no gender neutral singular pronoun.

Recently, many Trans groups have come up with neutral alternatives.  The most common is ze/hir, though there are many others.  I find these invented words cumbersome and awkward.  My favorite alternative is simply using the plural gender neutral pronoun they/their as a singular pronoun.  This is grammatically incorrect, but is becoming more and more acceptable.

As far as I'm aware (and a very brief Google search did not reveal anything different), there is no commonly used neutral for Mr./Ms.  I've seen Mx., and M. but how exactly do you pronounce either of those?  They're even more awkward than ze.

I raise this issue because in my new office we use formal titles.  My colleagues and I address each other by Mr. or Ms., not by our first names.  I have been dubbed "Ms. K" (no one can pronounce my full last name, so I conceded to the initial K).

At this point I'm still using female pronouns in most of my life only because I haven't found a gender neutral alternative that I'm comfortable with.  For the most part it doesn't bother me, because I don't often hear myself referred to using pronouns at all (how often do you call someone "she" where they can hear you? That would be rude, no matter the genders involved).  But in this office space, I'm called Ms. K constantly.  The "Ms." is an ever present demarcation forcing me into a binary gender that doesn't fit.  It's made me a lot more aware of how much being genderqueer has become a part of my identity, and how uncomfortable I am with people assuming I'm cis-female.

How can we hope to create a society that doesn't depend on a gender binary when it is so entrenched in our day to day language?  I have to believe that it's possible, but I'm really not sure of the best strategy.  Is is better to focus on changing the language, because we know how much language influences thought?  Or should we focus on changing social structures and attitudes and hope that language will follow?  Do we try to do both simultaneously; Is that even possible?

And then I remind myself that progress comes in baby steps.  Most of my office still doesn't know the difference between Ms. and Miss.  Miss is a counterpart to Mrs.; Miss refers to an unmarried girl who will take her husband's name and become a Mrs.  This distinction is sexist and outdated; it presumes that a girl is using her father's name until she marries and takes her husband's name.  Ms. is pronounced "Miz", and it is the non-sexist female equivalent to Mr., acknowledging a woman's last name as her own not that of a male in her life.  But Most of my office still pronounces "Ms." as "Miss".  And as much as I am not entirely a "Ms.",  I am really, really not a "Miss".  Progress is slow, but I think my presence is going to be good for this office.  I'm trying not to rock the boat too much in my first few weeks, but I'm also not hiding who I am, and I think just having a genderqueer feminist around is going to do some good for this company.  Every little bit counts, right?

Welcome

Welcome to my first attempt at a public blog!  I have determined to make more of an effort to maintain an active web presence, and that starts here.  I am here to push buttons, to cross boundaries and to challenge assumptions.  I'm here to discuss politics, feminism, socialism, queer theory and life outside the mainstream.  I'm here to defy homophobia and transphobia, sexism, heterosexism, racism, classism, and all other forms of social and political oppression.

This blog will be my observations of life, politics and various social issues which are close to my heart.  I will post my opinions about what is going on in the world, and my fears and hopes for the future.  What I won't be posting is details about my personal life.  To those of you following me from my old livejournal, this is not simply a continuation of that blog.  Sorry, but this blog is public, if you want to keep in touch on a personal level you're going to have to do it the old fashioned way and send me a private email.  However, I am fully aware that my identity and life experiences drastically impact my social and political world view.  Who I am and what I'm doing with my life will become relevant on this blog as far as is necessary to explain my perspective on various issues, and I'm not going to shy away from that.

I'm going to make it a goal to update at least a couple times a week.  There's certainly plenty of fodder for topics, both locally, domestically, and internationally and you can look for my first real post some time this week.  I welcome comments, and I value productive discussions and debates, so please tell me what you think!

~LKR