The Deconstruction of Rigid Gender Roles Next Door.

Something I see a lot of when I come across videos, articles, Internet comments, or even just talking to certain men when discussing the ideals behind feminism, is that a lot of men (and, unless I specify otherwise, "men," or any variants thereof, in this blog, will refer to those who are heterosexual, cisgendered men) seem to separate the world into two groups of people: straight women, and straight men. It's literally as if everyone else does not exist.

The reason I say that is because there are a few issues that come up, almost without fail, when you're discussing feminism with a man who does not identify as a feminist; children, marriage, and the "family unit." And, more often than not, when men bring these things up in the middle of a discussion about feminism, it's generally to blame feminists for the destruction of those things.

I once had a man tell me that feminists should not be encouraging women not to have children, because, as he so eloquently put it, "Bearing a child is one of the few life-experiences that is completely unique to being a woman."

Yeah. Stop right there, Sparky.

Barring the known fact that there are countless children out there already who are, for all intents and purposes, orphans, whose parents either abandoned them, couldn't care for them, or flat-out didn't want them, or what have you, there is just so much wrong with that statement, my head wants to implode. Effective immediately.

First and foremost, by making a blanket statement like that, you're placing all women into a tidy little box of heterosexuality and heteronormativity. As much as you'd like to believe it's so, there are many, many women out there whose lives don't revolve around dick, who don't date men, who are homosexual and homoromantic, who have no intentions of marrying a man, and who certainly don't want to go through the process of having sex with one, for the purpose of poppin' out a kid. Of course, I'm fully aware that there are options if you are a lesbian and you do want children (artificial insemination, surrogacy, et cetera), and if you are a lesbian and you do want to have a child, I'm very glad those options are available to you. However, the fact is this: A very decent percentage of women out there are - in fact - big, fat dykes. There are also many individuals in the world who were born biologically female, but are not female-identified. There are many individuals in the world who were born biologically male, and are not male-identified. And - this may come as a shock, so get a firm hold on your armrests for this one - there are actually women out there who don't identify as feminists, are heterosexual, and still have no interest in motherhood, or even marriage.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that not all women are physically able to have children, even if they want to. I'm of the belief that I have endometriosis. If I do, there's a very good chance that I'm infertile. So you're fucking telling me that, since I can't have a baby, even if I actually wanted to, I'm not a woman? There are alarming numbers of women who are infertile, for various reasons. There are men who are infertile, too, for various reasons.

By claiming that women need to have children in order to accrue an integral portion of our womanhood that we'd otherwise be missing forever, you're essentially invalidating the womanhood of women who can't bear children. You're telling any woman who can't have a child that she is no longer a woman. You're insisting that any woman who is in favor of adopting one (or more) of those countless parentless children we mentioned earlier, rather than bearing them, isn't a real woman. You're invalidating the womanhood of, and adding to the marginalization of women who simply have never had any intentions of being a parent, or a mother-figure, or a wife, and you're perpetuating the belief that feminism is the reason for all of this.

And that is just not. fucking. cool. It's okay that you have/want to have kids. It's okay that you're married/want to get married. It's even okay if your wife wants to have kids with you. But it is not okay to say that everyone has to follow the same paths you have in order to "earn" their humanity, or that all women need to follow the same life-outline that your wife has in order to "earn" some part of their womanhood.

Because I've already discussed marriage and my feelings on it, we'll just stick a pin in that for now (though I'm SURE it'll come up again, some time), and move onto the "destruction of the family unit."

One of the most prevalent methods of debate when it comes to feminism is that there is a massive plight on the families of our culture, and a destruction of "the family unit," and that there are more single mothers now than there ever have been before; that children are so screwed up because they're being raised in fatherless homes.

I'd like to know where this bizarre definition of "family" came from.

Why is it that there seems to now be this widespread belief that a family is not a real family if there is no father-figure? As far as I've always known, a family is a close-knit group of individuals who share a tight bond and a sense of love. Your friends can be family. Some of us are closer to our friends than those in our bloodline. And as someone who spent her teen years in a fatherless home, I find it beyond insulting that my brother and I are considered "broken," because we lost our father when we were young, and thus, are "products of a fatherless home" out of shitty circumstance. My mom had priorities other than running out and getting re-married, so does that make her a bad person? An unfit mother? Someone who has contributed to this so-called "destruction" of the "family unit?" Because I fail to see how that is. Her husband died. She had no control over it. She had no intentions of finding a "replacement" because she never felt like there could ever be one. But the details, those aren't important; she's just a single mother to the world. One person shoved into the myriads of statistics about fatherless homes and single mothers.

Not to mention, once again, not everyone is straight. Not all mothers are straight mothers, and lesbian mothers have no place in their "family-unit" for a man. So I suppose they're bad people, too. I suppose their children will be violent, lawless, fucked-up, obstinate drains on society because, obviously, there's no dick in the equation, and thus, your family is not a real family, and women can't properly raise children to be decent human beings without a some sort of male involvement or influence.

And let's not forget that there are a LOT of men who fuck women, get them pregnant, and leave them to deal with it on their own. If a woman doesn't want to get an abortion, and doesn't necessarily want to give her child up for adoption, she isn't left with much choice, is she? Because if a woman has a baby and is out all the time trolling for men, she'll be a bad mother. But if she raises her kid without a father, she's a bad mother. That situation is pretty much a no-win for a woman. And what gets me about that? A man who raises a child on his own is NEVER a bad father. He's a great father, even! A noble human being who is doing something so courageous and beautiful and commendable. His children will never be considered abusive, emotionally-void, disturbed people because they didn't have the sense of nurturing that mothers are famous for giving. No, their father is a brilliant, altruistic, selfless, amazing parent!

What a crock of shit.

Also, I'd like to point out that the same people who argue that "fatherless homes" are the reason for the destruction of families, and that our upcoming generations are destined for failure because of that, are the same people who believe women should be stay-at-home mothers, housewives, and the primary caregivers to the children. So... you argue that children need fathers, and then turn around and say that the women need to be the ones to actually take care of the children, and do most of the work raising the children, while you're out being the breadwinner, and, occasionally, the disciplinary? Because women can't work, AND raise their children to be decent people, AND discipline them properly when they need it? I know it's certainly easier to share the workload, and I am, by no means, saying it's easy to be a parent, even in a family with two parents, but that certainly doesn't mean women are incapable of being good parents, even on their own.

What is this? What the fuck, people? Why is everything in this culture subjected to rigid, unrealistic gender roles, and subjugated under heteronormative discourse? I can't be the only one who is tired of this.

And these are the types of attitudes that just remind me, on a daily basis, how much sexism there still is in this culture, and how much we truly do need feminism.

The Out 'n Proud Homo Next Door.

I realize that a lot of my posts have been about sexuality recently, and anyone who's reading this may be thinking that this is supposed to be a feminist blog, not a "gay, gay, gayness" blog. And it still is a feminist blog. As I said in a previous post, feminism is about advocating for the equality of minorities and oppressed parties; not just women's equality. However, I do think this will probably be the last blog about LGBTQI issues for a little while (unless, of course, something very significant happens with regard to LGBTQI rights or LGBTQI oppression in the news, or the media, or whatever). I do think it's quite important that I address the topic that I'm about to discuss here, though.

Over the years, a lot of people have asked me to tell them my "coming out" story, or, at the very least, relay what the experience of coming out entailed for me, or what it brought to my life. And I always kind of laugh this off, and there's a big joke among my friends that I don't have a significant coming out story because I didn't HAVE to come out, but that's not exactly true. I do think coming out is extremely important, and I don't take it lightly.

I realize that I was very, very, very lucky. I grew up in a household that was relatively accepting of diverse lifestyles, and, while he was quite conservative in most areas of life, and we didn't see eye-to-eye very often, my father was not - thank Goddess - a homophobe. Unfortunately, because he died when I was 14, I didn't ever get the chance to come out to him. I do often wonder how he would have handled it, being that I was his kid and, for some reason, people react differently sometimes when it's their own kid, versus when it's just a friend or... whatever, but I like to think that, in time, he would have probably been quite accepting. I think it would have taken him a little while to get used to it, but I do think that, eventually, he would have come around.

My mother is a different story.

I came out to my mom... probably within the year after my father died. I began a relationship with a girl (I don't know where she is now, as I never really saw/spoke to her again after we split, but for the sake of identity-protection, we'll call her "Bianca") and it lasted about six/seven months, or so, and it was the first time I'd ever dated anybody... semi-seriously, I guess. I liked Bianca a lot; she was very pretty, sexy, fun, creative, interesting, smart, and just... really awesome to be around. She was the first girl I'd ever kissed, the first person I ever had sex with, and the first person who made me feel like it was truly okay for me to be into girls; not just in that "removed" situation where most liberal people say that they like/support gay people, but to actually be gay, and secure with it.

So, I remember telling Bianca that I was taking the possibility of coming out to my mom under consideration, and she asked me a lot of questions about that (since she was already out to her family and a lot of her friends, and, thus, experienced in that area), like if there was a chance my mom would disown me, or kick me out, or hit me, and things like that. And I knew the answer to all of her questions was "no," because my mom is one of the most accepting, non-judgmental people in the world. I do remember thinking that I must've been really lucky and had it really easy, and it was the first time in my life that it dawned on me that some people have a really stressful and difficult home life, when they have to worry about their home and their parents no longer being the "safe place" that it always, always should be, after they come out to their families.

So, when I finally did come out to my mom, I remember being really, really, really, really, really, REALLY nervous about that, for some reason. We were alone, and I remember just kind of... looking her in the eye, and saying that there was something I needed to talk about. Obviously, from my demeanor, she must have understood that it was important, so she immediately gave me her undivided attention. I was shaking all the fuck over, I took a deep breath, told her that I had a girlfriend, and that I was very much interested in women. She laughed.

My mother fucking laughed. Not in a cruel way, but in a relieved, joyfully amused, "tell-me-something-I-don't-know" way.

And she said, and I quote, "I knew that when you were about... oh, eight, nine? Let's go eat." Which is amazing, really, because that's about the age I started realizing I liked girls, and started getting crushes on them, and admiring womens' bodies all the time, and looking through my father's Playboys. (Ha.)

Ever since then, she has been so wonderfully passionate about LGBTQI rights (not that she wasn't before, but I definitely think it augmented her interests and drive for social-acceptance), and she is truly one of our greatest allies. Of all time.

Not a day goes by where I'm not grateful for how lucky I am to have her as my parent. And not just because of my sexuality, but because she's one of the few true human beings I know, and she understands me, and allows me to be my free-thinking, radical self with a zero-censor policy, regardless of whether or not she agrees with me (we clash on religion, for instance). I just have to thank my lucky stars every single day for being fortunate enough to be born into a life where I have someone like her as my parent, and my hero. Because that's precisely what she is; she's my hero, my mentor, and my best friend.

I know there are so many people out there (maybe even some of you reading this) who don't have an understanding, open-minded parent like that. And I am just really sorry that things are still that way in the world. That's the kind of thing that contributes largely to the extremely-high gay teen suicide rates, and I just think that is so fucking sad. To be gay, and to be so scared of coming out that you feel like your parents would possibly rather see you dead, than have you alive and gay, is probably one of the saddest things in the world.

If you are gay (or bi, transgendered, etc.), and you live in a household where you feel like your parents are not going to be accepting of you, please don't kill yourself. You don't have to come out right away. Wait until you're out of your parents' home, and living independently from them, and then come out to them, because then they can't hurt you, kick you out, or take away your privileges to "punish" you, nor do they have the ability to make negative/discouraging comments about your lifestyle. You have your whole life to come out. I hope you will come out, eventually, because it is a wonderful feeling to get that off of your shoulders, but don't do it right away if you feel that your safety is threatened, or if you feel like you'll be disowned or kicked out.

Understand, also, that you do not have to let your sexuality define your entire existence. In fact, no one should let their sexuality define their entire existence, no matter what age you are. If you're very young, there are so many things you can and should focus on other than your sexuality. Let those things define you as a person; work on figuring out what you'd like to do with your life/your career, focus on things that you like to do (writing, art, music, playing with your dog, hanging out with your friends, going to/watching movies, designing webpages, reading, creating blogs/vlogs, doing jigsaw puzzles, being a video-game junkie... whatever you like to do, or whatever makes you happy when you're doing it, as long as it's positive and not harming yourself or other people, do that). After all, you are a full, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional human being, and you are still entitled to the same freedoms as everyone else, and those include just being a normal kid, and having your own interests, and enjoying your youth while it's yours. Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are not normal for being gay, and that you can no longer act like a normal person, because you are. Your sexuality isn't going anywhere, and you have your whole life to explore it. So if you're worried about coming out, don't come out if you're not ready, and just focus on other facets of your life.

However, if you're not out and don't feel like you can come out any time soon, but want to explore an attraction or a possible relationship with someone, I advise you do to so, but be honest with them right away. Let them know that you're not out to your parents, or your family. It's only fair to be up-front about that sort of thing, so they can at least gauge the situation. There's also a possibility that they're not out to their family, either, and it could be something you could possibly help one other with.

I think I may have covered all the bases. If I haven't, you can ask me about anything you'd like, and I'll do my best to answer.

If there's anyone out there reading this who is afraid to come out, who is questioning their sexuality, who is worried that their parents will be violent, angry, or disown them if they ever find out, please talk to someone who will understand. There are people out there who want to help. Find out if your school has a gay-straight alliance, check for a Gay & Lesbian Center in your area (I believe most areas have them now), and try to engage friendships with other members of the LGBTQI community. There are really a lot of amazing, supportive people out there who will not judge or hurt you.

And if anyone needs someone to talk to about this, wants advice while remaining anonymous, or just needs someone to lend an ear (either about this, or anything else), don't hesitate to send me a message.

The Accidental Heterophobe Next Door.

Because of the last few posts I've written here where I've discussed sexuality quite a bit, my boyfriend pointed out to me that I seem to always speak of straight people with a note of hatred and overwhelming anger in the overall tone of my words. And that just kind of inspired me; made me consider the fact that there is a possibility that I may seem like I'm attacking straight people, which I never wanted to do, and I never wanted to use that as some kind of a default "go-to" crutch for getting my point across, or placing blame.

I prefer to think of my apparently ostensible "rage" as deep passion for what I believe in. I will admit that I may get overly passionate sometimes, and I may use angry words, but that's only because I'm a deeply emotional person, who takes a lot of issue with all types and forms of marginalization. Homophobia is a type of marginalization that happens to affect my life directly, so, naturally, I'm going to rant about it from time to time. After all, this IS my blog, and I am a gay woman, and this is MY outlet for ME to discuss those things I see as unjust and immoral, or to simply rid my spirit of things that are making me feel icky or upset or angry. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. In fact, I welcome dissent. If you think I'm saying something that's totally off-base, or that may seem wrongly hateful or biased or spiteful, or even something that makes it seem as though I'm exercising my privileges while marginalizing others for disadvantages, please tell me. I'm not here to HATE anyone; equality is what I WANT, and what I'm trying to strive and advocate for. I'm here to educate and shine a light on MY perspective. I know my ideas are radical, but it's still my right to voice those ideas.

I don't hate straight people - some of the most important people in my life are straight, of which my mom and older brother are merely two. I don't have a problem with straight people at all. I have a problem with institutional homophobia and all forms of mindless bigotry, and the reason I often associate heterosexuals with institutional homophobia and mindless bigotry is because they're the ones who have the pull in broader society to keep LGBTQI folks oppressed, and many of them take advantage of that opportunity on a regular and often public and widespread basis.

However, I, under no circumstances, ever meant to imply that straight people are the source of ALL of the LGBTQI community's problems. So, if I did, and I might have offended anyone out there who's reading this (...is anyone reading this?), I do take responsibility for it, and I do apologize for it.

That being said, I also never wanted to imply that the LGBTQI community doesn't have its own problems in and of itself, with regard to overall structure and focus and whatnot, and there are plenty of people within the queer community who hold us back all the time.

Has anyone out there ever run into someone who identifies as gay, bisexual, transgendered, et cetera, et cetera (basically, anything BUT straight; thus, in the sexual-identity minority), but they're a total homophobe? Because I've met SEVERAL people like that. It's always really confusing when I meet gay men who are butch/masculine-presenting and it's almost like... they're ashamed to be around the femmes. Like they'd honestly rather mask their sexuality and hang around straight guys, pretending to like pussy, than to be associated or even seen with the effeminate gay men.

The thing that bothers me about this is that I think feminine gay guys are pretty much the backbone of the LGBTQI community. I've met some effeminate bisexual guys, too, and I think they contribute largely to said backbone. And the wonderful thing about effeminate gay men is that they're not concealing their sexuality; they're what people recognize (and NOT because they're a stereotype; I'm not talking in stereotypes, here), and they're the ones who are probably going to be the people who help the rights movements progress, because, since they're not afraid or ashamed of BEING gay, they're not going to be afraid or ashamed to fight openly and unapologetically for gay rights. After all; it was drag queens at Stonewall. And they're fine with it; they're open and obvious and totally fine with people knowing they're gay. That's not to say that I THINK they should be representative of all gay men, but until some of the more masculine-presenting men are comfortable with their sexuality enough to be in the presence of femmes without acting like they're ashamed, and coming out to their straight friends, that's all the straight world will recognize when they see or conjure up an image of gay people. I think feminine men - whether they're gay/bi/pansexual (speaking specifically of cisgendered, non-heterosexual men) or not - are some of the bravest people on the green Earth, especially considering patriarchy's idea of what it means to be a man.

I think we can all agree that traditional/conventional expressions of masculinity are certainly not what make someone a man.

I'm not trying to imply that it's wrong to be a masculine gay man. It's only wrong to be masculine while being ashamed of the femmes and being insecure with yourself and your sexuality because of them, accusing them of holding the gay community back in terms of the straight world, and hating them just because they express themselves differently than you do. It's not wrong to be closeted, either, but it's still wrong to act like people who aren't closeted are bad people, or that people who are obvious are bad people. After all, no one acts like very masculine straight guys are bad people because they're "too masculine" or "too obviously straight."

Please also note that most of these gay men who act this way are not totally closeted. They even act this way in gay bars and clubs. How do I know? Well, that'd be because I've BEEN to gay bars. And I've seen it. I've even seen it at Pride. How's that for being proud of our sexual freedom?

These issues aren't exclusive to gay men, though. These behaviors are popular between lesbians and queer women, too, and I actually know this from first-hand experience, as an extremely femme lesbian. Over the years that I've been out of the closet, several butch lesbians have implied that they... pretty much don't believe me. They don't believe I'm gay because I'm very feminine-presenting, and, thus, I have to actually PROVE that I like women, as if wearing men's clothing is what makes someone a lesbian, instead of the things that REALLY make someone a lesbian, like loving women, having romantic relationships with them, having sexual relationships with them, and all the rest of the things people do when they have romantic inclinations toward a person. And what really chaps my hide about that is that, when it comes to relationship dynamics, a LOT of butches will admit that they have an overwhelming preference for femmes. Even I'll admit that my attractions generally lean toward the gals who are on the butch/androgynous side. And I'm not sure why that is; I think we're all still socially-conditioned to think that, even though we're gay, we still kind of NEED the masculine-feminine/heteronormative dynamic in our relationships, to lend some sort of structure and balance to them, or something.

Even in straight relationships, I've seen two people together who are both kind of submissive, meek people, and the relationship sort of tends to fall apart, and I've seen two people who are both rather domineering, and I've seen those relationships take an abusive turn. I'm not really trying to generalize; I'm sure those types of relationships where the dynamics are between two submissive people or two dominant people can be perfectly healthy and happy. I'm only relaying my personal observations and experiences. And, after all - we all know some men who are very masculine-presenting and they are very shy, meek, sensitive people, and some women who are very feminine, but they are quite headstrong and stubborn and dominant. So I think that sort of thing truly is determined on an individual-to-individual basis.

The other thing I see a lot of is a ridiculous amount of biphobia within the LGBTQI community. I am not sure when this started, but I do know that it's something that has always bothered me, especially since I've been noticing it for a long time; even back when I used to identify as bisexual. A lot of gay people discriminate against bisexuals in the most horrid, unfair ways. I've seen several gay women state that they would "never, ever date a bi girl," or that bisexuality is literally just like sitting on the top of a fence post until you decide which side you'd like to jump down onto. And that's just... inconceivable to me, how someone could even say something like that. Gay people are some of the most discriminated-against people in the world, and you actually have the astonishing, unfathomable gall to write bisexuality off as an invalid orientation?

I'm definitely not saying there AREN'T fake-bisexuals. In fact, I know there are; I've met some. It's become trendy and "cool" to say you're bisexual now, and for some reason, it seems to be more trendy among women than it is among men. Probably because it's easier for women to be accepted as bi, as men always have to worry about the looming threat of being feminized. I've even known men who really ARE bi but wouldn't come out to anyone (except me, because for some reason, EVERYONE comes out to me, eventually).

What it boils down to is this - whether or not someone is truly bisexual, they're a "trendy bisexual," they're using bisexuality as a crutch for their eventual coming out as gay or for their "test-period" to figure out that they're straight, or they simply appreciate beauty where they see it, we HAVE to remember that when you're dealing with someone who identifies as bisexual, you're dealing with a real person, with real feelings, and who deserves our acceptance, just like everyone else. And here's something else to consider, fellow homos - even if someone who identifies as bi isn't really, truly bisexual, they're still on our side, they're open to our lifestyle, and will likely fight for our rights. We need to extend the same courtesy to them, and be willing to fight for theirs.

We can't expect the straight world to accept us when we won't even accept each other. Whether it's masculine gay men being ashamed of feminine gay men, butch lesbians acting as if feminine lesbians aren't REAL lesbians, or gay people as a collective writing off bisexuality as an invalid sexual orientation, it's not going to work. We'll never get anywhere if we're sniping at each other within the community. We will fall APART if we do that. Fast.

For some people, sexuality is fluid and ever-changing. For others, sexuality is something innate; it's just who you are, and those feelings simply do come naturally to you. Either way, it's YOUR life and YOU are the only person who can decide and define your sexuality for yourself. And whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, queer, pansexual, asexual, celibate, questioning, transgendered, transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, or something else entirely, there is only one ultimate reality:

Love is love. And no one should ever hate love.

The "Hegan" (he's a manly MAN!) Next Door.

Forget vegan. Your man's a hegan.

Yes. There is no need to adjust your computer brightness. I actually used vegan and "hegan."

I was informed of this new phenomenon of straight men going vegan and referring to themselves as "hegans" by my partner. She and I are both vegans (and feminists), and we both became vegans for primarily ethical reasons. We're both very proud of our choices.

"Why 'hegan'? What's wrong with 'vegan'? What's the difference?" You may be asking yourself. I'd be delighted to tell you.

These straight men are going vegan, but they're not interested in the principles behind veganism, and they're not in it for ethical reasons or for the environment or for the sake of bettering the life of abused animals, but for their looks and their waistline. And they're straight, masculine MANLY MEN, who don't want to associate themselves with the brand of feminization that male vegetarians and vegans generally endure. That's right, honey. He's putting the HE in "vegan." Goodness forbid that, as a heterosexual male, you should be associated with women or queers or effeminate gay men. They need the WORLD to know that they're not gay, and they're making sure the world knows that they aren't the ones turning into a giant vulva by not eating animals or dairy products or eggs. They're striving for traditional masculinity in what they consider to be a "rapidly feminizing world."

...like heterosexual men haven't been vegans since the start of veganism.

Traditional masculinity: Stoic, repressed, callous, and angry.

Oh, YEAH. We should ALL strive to be like THAT.

Here's the thing, straight men who are vegans (that's right, I'm calling you a vegan) and insist on being called "hegans": This is a sophomoric ploy from an insecure manchild. This is elementary. You're putting an exclusive stamp on it, and telling everyone else who doesn't identify personally the way that you do, that they're not allowed into your "club," because they're a woman, or a man who doesn't like to fuck women, who happen to be vegans. You're making a huge mockery of something that is a serious, life-altering, often spiritual and ethical lifestyle commitment for a lot of people. You're turning other straight men who are fine with their sexuality, their vegetarianism/veganism, and who are secure being CALLED a vegetarian or a vegan, into a fucking punchline. Because you insist on calling yourself a "hegan," you're not making yourself look better or more masculine-presenting. You're making other straight men who are vegans look BAD, because, NOW, people WILL feminize and mock them for identifying as vegans, even more than they already have been. Worst of all, you're adding a hindrance to something that many of us believe we need to try very hard to be taken seriously, and be accepted on the broader spectrum of social-construct.

To call yourself a "hegan" is disrespectful. To everyone. It's sending the message to all of us that we are not good enough. Masculine is not what you're trying to be; it's what you are. And forming an exclusive sect of veganism to exclude everyone who doesn't identify as a straight man doesn't make you look MORE masculine. It makes you look like an insecure little boy.

Any straight man who takes part in a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, and who is secure and happy identifying as a vegan or vegetarian - especially now - is someone I applaud. I have a much greater appreciation for you now than I ever have before.

Any straight man who identifies as a hegan, however? You have nothing but my contempt.

The Bonding of Souls Next Door.

With the plethora of weddings and engagements taking place all around me as of late, and the questions, concerns, and sometimes even downright offense I seem to incite in those around me when I maintain my refusal to take part in the institution of marriage, I've finally decided that I should explain myself on the matter.

It's not that I have anything against anyone who has a desire to get married. I just need to preface with that. I'm not ripping on anyone, and I'm certainly not trying to piss all over anyone's religious beliefs, or anything like that. It is merely an overwhelming personal feeling that marriage is a bankrupt institution, for several reasons.

In present-day Western culture, it is a well-established fact that - and I've done the math, here - two out of every five marriages end in divorce. I think this is possibly because people that get married nowadays don't know the history behind the institution of marriage, and they don't have a full understanding or appreciation for what it is to be married in the year 2010. More often than not, marriage is just "the thing to do" for impressionable people who see their friends and members of their families and those in the straight community all doing it, and it is taken far, far too lightly, by people who are exercising an unexamined privilege. Now, I will admit that the divorce statistics are likely applied mainly to a younger demographic of individuals, and given that same-sex couples can't legally marry on a federal scale, with all of those wonderful privileges and recognized unions that straight couples have, I believe that, while applying to a younger demographic of people, these numbers are also likely applied to a heterosexual demographic of people, and, for that, most of this is going to be about the traditional, heterosexual/heteronormative institution.

Now - and this is not intended as a blanket statement about everyone, and ALL young people, and ALL straight people; this is merely a personal observation - when I speak with engaged couples, they are never focused on their upcoming marriage. They are focused on their wedding. They are focused on the party, and the ritual, and the rings, and parroting vows they're not even listening to themselves saying back to a minister, and the ceremony, and the honeymoon. They are not focused on the marriage aspect whatsoever; the newfound responsibility, and the fact that you are now supposed to share the rest of your life with this person; that every decision you make, most things you have and desire, several facets of your existence are no longer "me," but are now "us." Marriage is thought of as fun and cute and it's the glorified form of living with someone, and hey, when I get tired of this, we can just get a divorce, and then it's onto the next. It is not often thought of as a serious, life-altering act that is supposed to impact you until your - or you partner's - dying day.

I'm going to do something now that I probably will NOT be doing very often, but I'm going to give a personal tidbit here, simply because I think it's a good example of an unconventional wedding practice, and without a doubt one of the most romantic things I've ever heard.

My parents eloped. In the middle of the night. With no one but each other. My mother got married in jeans and a halter top; my father in a t-shirt and a trucker cap. They didn't plan it, were never engaged, they had never lived together prior to the wedding, and - being from California at the time - they drove up here, to Las Vegas, and got married, had a quickie in a motel room for their "honeymoon," and came home. They were a on-again-off-again couple for five years. They stayed married for almost twenty years. They were married until my father died in 2000. I whole-heartedly believe they'd still be married if he hadn't. My mother never re-married, and seemingly has no intentions of doing so. And for the most part, they had a loving, honest marriage. I always cite it as the best example of true love I've ever witnessed, even if it was only for fourteen short years.

I digress.

Marriage - more often than not - is NOT viewed as the ultimate form of a romantic, sexual, loving bond. That's what it's supposed to be, though, right? You love someone, you can conceive of seeing their face every morning, you want to live with them and eat with them and talk to them and tell them your ideasthoughtshopesfearssecretsdesiresneedsdreams and share a bed with them and make love to them and watch movies with them and create things with them and possibly raise children with them and go to Applebee's with them and do all the things that married people do, and are supposed to want to do, with this one individual for the rest of your living days.

Well.

It's time for a little history lesson, folks.

Marriage - in its most archaic form - was once synonymous, not with love, but with FEMALE. SLAVERY. That's right; marriage was merely a glorified means for men to enslave women, or perpetuate the slavery of women. The marriage contract itself was originally the primary method for fathers to transfer the ownership or legal guardianship that they claimed over their daughters into the hands of another man; aka, her husband. And not only did they transfer ownership, but in doing so, the husband not only garnered a brand-new slave, but a cash bonus for doing so, and this was called a dowry.

Evidence of said practices are STILL prevalent in modern marriage customs. How, you ask?

There's this funny little custom that everyone thinks is really cute and sweet, and it still happens every day. This custom is now simply known as a legal name change. Without a second thought, every day, hundreds of women get married and take their husband's last name, in favor of forfeiting their given name; their father's name. No one thinks twice about doing this; it's just what you're "supposed" to do when you become a married woman. Originally, it was merely meant to signify that, as a woman, the legal ownership of your person was passed on from your father to your husband. You took your husband's last name because you were his property then; his slave. You no longer belonged to your father. Same goes for the custom of a father walking his daughter down the aisle and "giving her away."

In a modern sense, these are, obviously, ludicrous, outdated, primitive, sexist traditions, and many women would probably argue that it has no relevance in society now, and thus, the name-change is harmless, because it's simply not like that anymore. A very small percentage of us question it. However, I don't feel it's very much different. You've been the person you are for your ENTIRE. life. You've had your name for X amount of years, and you've always been known as that person. You've always known YOURSELF as that person. It is your given identity. So, suddenly, you get married, and you're expected to forfeit the identity you've had and known for as long as you've been alive?

I just... fuck. Fucking FUCK. In this world, only a woman would be expected to do something so fucking degrading with a fucking smile on her fucking face.

I've expressed this very opinion to many straight men over the years, who have attempted to laugh me off, or tell me I'm crazy, or what have you. The easiest way to shut them up, I've found, is to ask them, "Why don't you take your girlfriend's last name, then?" They get quiet, or mumble, or hmm-'n-haw, and I get to smirk, and pose the simple inquiry, "Kinda degrading, innit?"

Otherwise, marriage was also once used as a means of socio-political advancement. Probably still is, occasionally. The very trite "convenience" marriage we're all familiar with, in one way or another. You know the kind; two important, fat-cat corporations or countries or... whatever, form a "bond" or a "treaty" of sorts, and two figureheads from each of those respective outfits marry to cement the foundation. It's so Hollywood and trite and over-done that I don't even have anything else I can say. You know what I'm talking about. We've all seen it dozens of times.

You may be asking yourself how any of this can possibly bear any sort of relevance in modern culture and the state of modern marriage practices.

The fact is this: The institution of marriage and its roots were not based in foundations of love and commitment and soul-bonding, but in foundations of money, female slavery, power, and convenience.

In the modern sense, marriage is... a rather naive notion of romanticism. But maybe that's okay sometimes, in a world chock-full of cynicism. Marriage is based on notions of love and commitment, mutual satisfaction and individual choice. You're allowed to make your own decisions about the person(s) you love and you'd like to spend your life with; your family doesn't get to do that for you (speaking specifically about Western culture, that is - I am fully aware that arranged marriages still take place in some select countries).

Now, as a gay woman, I hear a lot of shit about how the sanctity of marriage is under attack because of some insidious homosexual agenda.

Let me address that first.

The only agenda I have is writing novels, being what I believe is a decent fucking person, book-shopping, meditation, gardening, and occasionally buying shoes, honey. I don't have some secret agenda to "steal" something that you perceive yourself as having ownership of, and it's really fucking easy for you to sit around pointing your fucking finger at me when YOU'RE the one denying people basic, human rights, because granting US any sort of leeway in the area of privilege might just force you to recognize the fact that we're full, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional human beings, who have feelings and convictions and who love and fuck and have the same mundane problems that everyone else has, on top of all of the problems you create for us. And it'd be a little difficult to still consider us sub-human that way, wouldn't it? I'm not doing that, am I? I'm not saying that gay people should be allowed to get married and straight people shouldn't. I'm saying that gay people should simply have the right to a recognized union; same as you.

The real attack on marriage is not coming from LGBTQI individuals; it's from the media, with television shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?!" and the constant scrutiny from the paparazzi on the lives of celebrated individuals, and the way it sensationalizes divorce, or all the TV shows and films we see where there's a married couple with a loveless, sexless marriage, and it just trivializes something that many consider to be an honest-to-Maude rite of passage; a loving bond of souls.

If those opposed to gay marriage would like to battle someone for demeaning the sanctity of marriage, perhaps they should shift their focus to the ways in which marriage is portrayed in the media. Marriage - because of the media - has become a farce. A fucking farce. It's a joke. It's a punchline. Literally. Between the way straight people conduct their marriages and the way the media portrays marriage, you don't even NEED gay people to ruin something that's supposed to be a sacred practice. Honey, you're doing a bang-up job of that on your own.

Now, I am, by no means, saying that it's wrong to get divorced. If you entered into a marriage that turned out to be hateful, or abusive, or what have you, I would absolutely encourage you to get out of it, and fast. If you truly DID love this person at the time you got married, and, years down the road, you honestly come to a point where you recognize that you're in a truly loveless union that has no hope for repair, I would encourage you to move on with your life. There are a few other cases where I think marriage and a subsequent divorce is fully acceptable, and not necessarily making a mockery of it, but I think I've gotten my point across with that, for now.

The thing is, I believe that most people who get divorced enter into the union WITHOUT actually being in love to begin with. Divorce hasn't become a solution to a bad, loveless marriage. Divorce is almost like some kind of a sick TREND now. It's like the new en vogue; it's sexy this year! And that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. People who sit around getting married and divorced and married and divorced and married and divorced, because they can. Because the law grants them the privilege to do that. And they're allowed to get married and divorced as many times as they'd like, and their first, and second, and thirteenth and twentieth marriages will ALL be legal, binding, and recognized under the view of the law.

I can be in love with the same woman for twenty years and, under the eye of the law, we might as well be total strangers.

Long ago, I decided to personally boycott the institution of marriage for all of these reasons, and others that I haven't even mentioned here. I can't get legally married to anyone until EVERYONE has the right to get legally married to the person they love. It would be plain hypocritcal of me to constantly advocate for same-sex marriage (among other non-traditional, non-heteronormative marriage practices), only to go out and exercise a privilege to take part in a union for which so many are denied.

I am down with love. I love love. I have loved. I AM in love.

I simply refuse to perpetuate the behaviors and privileges that traditional marriage is founded on.

The Pansexual-Dyke Next Door.

This blog may seem like it's just me, sitting here, ranting about inequality toward women and all the inconsistencies that manifest themselves due to said inequality and its prevalence in our culture, but that's not all that feminism is about.

Feminism, back in the first- and second-wave eras, WAS just about that; the Women's Liberation Movement and the burning of the bras and all that good stuff. I prefer to call it the White Women's Movement, because, to me, at least, it seems that it only benefited white women; certainly not women of color, though the great Angela Davis definitely made her dissent known for that.

Modern, third-wave feminism isn't just about women's equality, but advocating equality for ALL marginalized, oppressed peoples; women, and LGBTQI individuals, and disabled individuals, and poverty-stricken individuals, and many, many others.

Today, I'd like to talk about personal identity, gender-identity, sexual-identity, and why it's important for everyone to keep an open mind where other peoples' identities are concerned.

I always feel strange when someone comes into my life from the outside, so to speak, and disrupts my comfort about who I am and this place that I've reached in my own personal identity through the long journey that my life has been. I have an amazing group of people in my life who are open-minded and accept me for who I am, without questioning me or attempting to brand me with certain labels that they've conjured up in their minds, whether it be from good, old-fashioned ignorance or social-convention or... well, whatever; ones that fit in tidy little boxes. Of course, I see this sort of thing on a wider scale every day; the outright hatred of gay and lesbian individuals, the complete marginalization of transgendered, transsexual, bisexual, pansexual, questioning, intersex, asexual, and genderqueer individuals (among others, I'm sure), the widespread hatred of women, the social invisibility that exists for disabled folks... it's all there, in front of me, every day. And I get absolutely outraged. And it's easy to get outraged when it's someone you don't know, but your reaction is still all-too-visceral. I can't help it; it's who I am.

When it's someone you DO know, your outrage is blended with a hearty dose of sadness.

This has been bothering me for a while now. Someone I used to know recently contacted me, and, to make a long story short, I didn't want them in my life because they displayed blatant homophobia in my presence... without knowing about my sexuality.

It's not that I was in the closet. I just never really had an opportunity or a reason to say it, and this was at a time in my life where I was afraid for my safety. So, I wasn't necessarily in the closet, but I wasn't forthright about it, either, and since it never came up, I never said anything. I haven't really been in the closet since I was about 14 - my first semi-serious relationship was with a girl a year or two older than me. Point being - I've always liked women. I've always KNOWN I liked women. The physical attraction to women, for me, was always much stronger than the physical attraction I harbored for any men I knew. I've had sex with women, and I've had sex with men, and I always seem to have a heightened level of excitement and enjoy sex a lot more when I'm with a woman.

Emotional attachment is a different thing.

There have been a few men I've really loved. When you love someone, it's easy to look past the shell and see the glowing pearl within. I am, for all intents and purposes, a dyke. I even identify as a dyke... a pansexual-dyke. Pansexual because it simply seems ludicrous for me to say it's impossible for me to fall in love with someone because of their sex or gender-identity. Dyke because... well, that one's rather self-explanatory.

So, then. Does it seem appropriate for someone - someone other than myself - to define my sexual orientation as bisexual because I happen to be in a romantic relationship with a person who identifies as a cisgendered man?

I'm not bisexual. It's fine to be bisexual, but that's not who I am. Bisexual means exactly what the word implies - an attraction to members of two sexes. And that's okay; if you're just attracted to cisgendered women and cisgendered men, that's awesome for you. For me, though, it's insulting to be labeled as such. In fact, it's infuriating, because not only does it completely disregard the fact that I am open to loving people of ALL gender-identities, but it marginalizes those whose gender-identity doesn't correlate with their biological sex, or those who don't identify with any of the given genders.

Let's get one thing clear, straight people - gender/gender-identity and biological sex? Not the same thing. At. fucking. ALL.

I'm a very, very, very, very open-minded lesbian. It all just begs the question - which neat little category would I be labeled under if I were to fall in love with an individual who is a pre-op female-to-male transgendered individual? Am I a lesbian until they have the operation, and a possibly-constructed dick, a double-mastectomy? Am I a straight woman once they do? Or how about the opposite - a pre-op male-to-female transgendered individual? Am I straight when she has a cock, but gay after she has her operation? Or how about if I dated an individual who identifies as genderqueer - meaning, they don't identify clearly with either of the two conventionally-known genders? Or someone who is intersex - displaying androgynous physical characteristics, or even genitals that aren't or can't be clearly discerned as either male or female, or that are male and female? What am I then? And what are they, if they're dating a cisgendered pansexual-dyke? And, Goddess forbid - what if you're asexual? Or celibate, even? What then?

Why do humans seem to so often have this automatic, knee-jerk inclination for quickly placing things - PEOPLE - into tidy little categories? I know this question is so over-asked, but I seriously don't get it. And I don't think it's fair or respectful to define someone else's sexuality for them, as if what they're saying to you about their personal identity is just plain invalid.

You know, it's no better than all the dudebros I've had unfortunate run-ins with over the years who insist that I can't be a lesbian because I'm "too pretty," and I physically present as femme, and I wear skirts and make-up and perfume and high-heels, as opposed to basketball shorts and flannel and combat boots and buzzcuts, or whatever else is stereotypical of butch lesbians. I don't wear those things because that's not how I feel inside, and it wouldn't make me feel good or even comfortable to do that on a daily basis. The same dudebros who insist I'm only into girls because I haven't had any "good dick" lately (a little tip for all dudebros out there who say things like this to femme lesbians: talking to us about your "good dick" - or any dick at all, really - makes us dry-heave). Seriously, don't make me fucking gag. I get so fucking sick and tired of having it implied that my sexual-identity isn't valid because I'm a femme, or worse - having it implied by gay people that I'm femme to reap the benefits of a straight-privilege while sleeping with women behind closed doors, and liking it.

How can I reap the benefits of the straight-privilege when I'm not straight?

And I also have to wonder if said dudebros would say that kind of shit to butch lesbians - ones who do wear basketball shorts and have very short hair and like flannel and combat boots. Unlikely. That's their tidy little idea of what it means to look like a lesbian. They only say that shit to girls they think they can fuck, or that they want to fuck, as a means of exercising that good ol' male-privilege. And they think they can fuck me, and other femmes, because we don't "look like a lesbian," and, obviously, telling men you're into girls while looking feminine means you're only doing it for their benefit, so that they have free reign to exercise that privilege; you're just using it as a clever ploy to turn them on, and get them into bed, "play hard to get" and make them "chase" you.

I'll let all you dudebros in on another little-known secret - there is a very SMALL percentage of assholes douchebags morons women who tell you they're into girls, or kiss girls in front of you, to make you horny and to get your attention. The rest of us are appalled and downright disgusted by this behavior. And we're not interested in your "good dick," or the frequency with which you would "give it to us."

In short - does my romantic love and attraction for a man subtract from my innate attraction to women? Does it make me simply bisexual? Does it mean I can't identify as a lesbian, even if that's how I feel inside?

The answer: No. I get to define my own sexuality; no one else gets to do that for me. I'm the only person who is allowed to shape my identity. I don't like tidy little boxes. I don't respect those lines; the lines you think I'm supposed to stay inside of. I detest marginalization. I defy social-convention. It isn't a choice, or a preference. I'm a cunt-lapper, a muff-diver, a bull, a queer, a lezzie.

A dyke.

A pansexual-dyke.

The Vagina Dentata Next Door, Too.

(Movie spoiler- and possible trigger-warnings.)



After a few years of wanting to see the film Teeth, I was gifted a copy of it this week, by someone very special to me. I tore open the shrink-wrap and popped it into my DVD player, almost right away, not sure what to expect, but hoping I would love it as much as I thought I might.

I wasn't disappointed in the least.

The film begins as shallowly detailing the life of the story's heroine, Dawn - a caricature of the classic goodie-two-shoes All-American-Girl-Next-Door, with her remarkable innocence, devout Christian belief structures, abstinence-until-marriage/pro-purity attitudes, and petite-white-blonde-blue-eyedness. A high school student, she spends her time sketching wedding gowns and speaking to her peers at pro-abstinence rallies about the importance of maintaining a "pure" lifestyle until marriage. Dawn is, without question, a parent's wet dream. But she has a secret, a defect, a mutation; one she isn't even aware of. YES! Vagina Dentata. She has teeth in her vulva. TEETH.

After recognizing that she has an attraction to one of her pro-purity allies - Tobey - Dawn finds herself fantasizing about him, thinking of their wedding night and the sex they might have, almost going so far as to *GASP* masturbate. However, she quickly withdraws, mentally berates herself for having even-slightly-impure thoughts, and concludes that it isn't wise for she and Tobey to be in close proximity any longer. Tobey agrees. However, they soon break their mutual vow, and meet at a waterhole, where they strip down to their bathing suits and go swimming. Venturing off to a cave to warm up, the twosome find themselves locked in a brief kissing session, before Tobey begins to force himself on her, claiming that he "hadn't jerked off since Easter!" and insisting that she "wouldn't have to do anything but lie there," all while ignoring her pleading for him to stop and covering her mouth to muffle the screams; hard enough to knock her out for a few minutes.

Now, under normal circumstances, I go out of my way to avoid films with rape scenes. I don't need to see that shit, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Aside from the fact that it could possibly trigger some members of the film's audience, I've always found the way in which rape is depicted in film... unsettling. And not just because it's rape, but because it's rape that's meant to conjure conflicting feelings in its viewer. Forced intercourse under sexy lighting. Designed to make you feel disgusted, but turned on. Horrified, but horny. More often than not, I absolutely refuse to support that kind of shit.

However, this was a special case. And I knew it would be.

As Tobey forces himself upon her, Dawn panics and screams and flails. Tobey, having no intentions of stopping, soon pauses, crying and screaming in horror. The camera pans down to a monstrosity of bloody gunk where his penis should be. And so is the beginning of what will be a beautiful journey from sugary-sweet high school girl to full-fledged independent womanhood.

What I also found interesting about this film - to throw in a random non-sequitur, as I am wont to do - was that it was NOT the women who were exposed and exploited. At all. It was the men. When Tobey was talking to Dawn over the phone in the men's locker room, it was the men who were in the background, parading around naked, while in Dawn's portion of the split-screened view, in the opposite locker room, all the women are covered or fully clothed. There are dismembered penises - low-budget and wickedly hilarious - and extensive male nudity throughout the film. There is merely one scene in which we saw Dawn's breasts. Otherwise, there was absolutely no female nudity.

The thing I liked most about this film is watching a young woman taking something that's strange and unaccepted and imperfect about herself, and utilizing it to not only exercise her innate female strength and protect herself from the harm that others - namely, men - attempt to inflict upon her, but to achieve a grander sense of self, and the power that she harbors BECAUSE she's a woman; not in spite of it. She holds the crowned jewel, exacts her revenge, takes all the power without apology, and gives men a proverbial "dose of their own medicine" BECAUSE of her vulva and the power it has granted her; not in spite of it.

The Vagina Dentata, as I mentioned in my previous Vagina Dentata entry, is a testament to male weakness and feminine power. Teeth - instead of using the myth to shame women and deem our genitals inferior or perpetuate the male view of sex as a simple "longing to return to the womb," or brand female sexuality as dangerous and insatiable, as was the myth's original intention - uses it to EMPOWER women; or, in particular, a young woman who is in rare possession of it. And the film itself is, I believe, one giant metaphor of patriarchy and feminist politics; men, with their smug sense of self-entitlement, blended with the typical unchecked male privilege. Men use their dicks for power and dominance; the dick IS a symbol of power and dominance in the eyes of most, because dicks are automatically associated with men, and men are associated with power; women, and vulvas, are not, in a typical, bourgeois sense. Get rid of the dick, and men are just a screamin', bloody mess; a mess that quickly unravels into a thousand little ribbons and falls the fuck apart, crying for its mommy; a woman.

Teeth is bold, crude, hilarious, dark, has real artistic merit, and is much deeper than its surface. The layers of metaphor, combined with the palpable modern feminist undertones and the twist on an out-dated, sexist myth, make it edgy and give it a sense of social and political responsibility that's real and raw and completely unexpected, but wonderful all the same. Teeth, for me, has tremendous re-watch value, because I simply loved the way it made me feel. I loved seeing a woman taking control of her destiny and turning a societal negative into a personal positive. I loved seeing a woman tossing her modesty aside - modesty she'd been socially-conditioned to have - and asserting her newfound power, instead of being ashamed of it, and trying to rid herself of it. I don't think I could possibly have enough good things to say about this film.

In closing, all I have to say is this:

Teeth is a must see. Five stars. Two thumbs up. A-plus. If you want to see a film that keeps you on the edge of your seat, wondering where this journey will progress to next; a compelling film with brains and ovaries to spare, rich with metaphor; if you want to see a unique and edgy film that actually makes you think and feel and write movie reviews on your Blogger page, Teeth is the film for you.