Glorified Evil

A friend recently asked me a question: Why is it that effeminate gay men are looked down upon? not only by many straight folks but also within the gay community many perceive the ‘butch’ to be superior to he ‘femme’.

I would say that the root of this lies in examining the power
dynamics in a hetero-sexism dominated, patriarchal society … and
then in this society breaking the barrier of sexuality becomes a
lesser sin to breaking the power privilege of being a man …

So when I came out to my parents as gay (as opposed to coming out

as straight), one concern they had was regarding my masculinity.
They
wanted me to be "masculine", even if they accepted my homosexual

orientation. Somehow to me it seems that they saw me in a particular

gender role and one with privilege … a privilege that better not be

given up … often I have also heard parents speak proudly of their

girls as "beta", "son-substitute", or being as good as a son.. never

have I heard them speak of a son as good as a daughter … food for
thought??

In one discussion session I was in, we were listing terms that
reek of gender bias –  and we came up with bitch, whore, queen,
butch-femme, top-bottom, slut. Interestingly, many of these terms
which are apparently "gender-based" are actually used pejoratively
against gay men, especially gay men who are in touch with their
so-called feminine side.

another interesting point that came up was that "a guy who has slept
with many girls is a stud, while a girl with multiple sex partners
would be regarded as slut". Is this also not a confirmation and
perpetration of gender inequality, and in its inequality
gender violence?

homophobia and sexism are too intricately related in my opinion, and a
greater understanding of the gender equations and re-normalizing those
is key to bringing greater social awareness and healthy attitude
towards alternate sexual orientation, gender expression and identity.

An interesting article is "Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism" by Suzanne
Pharr, SIECUS Report, 21, (3), 1-4 :
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=476

ayush

I guess I have been silent for too long. but not because I had nothing to say, but perhaps because too many things were happenning at the same time.

Lately, I have been outraged and I an trying to make the anger flow in constructive ways. Outrage at communal violence, outrage at the media control by the rich and the powerful that help in perpetrating violence and hatred among common people. I am also angry that we, the people, often just wash our hands of responsibilities and blame the Govt. for everything. How can social justice be "social" if only the Govt. is responsible for it? On that note, click here for an article on the definition and meaning of social justice.

But above all, the article in Salon on Matthew Limon titled Raped by Statute enraged me. Even in 2005, the so-called progressive America can so unjustly ruin the life of an 18 year old kid, already handicapped by nature, to set an example of its hollow ‘morality’ … what a shame!

I was at a panel discucssion today. It was on "Social Justice from Classroom to Community". The keynote speaker said something that touched a chord. He said that patriotism is a convenient tool for those in power. Insteresting, isnt it?

Today on one of the listservs I am on, someone was trying to tear down the concept of self-identifying as part of a certain cultural group when one does not belong to it by blood. The argument was as folows: If self-identification is validated, then a person not skilled to fly a plane, could still self-identify as a pilot. But all the self-identification in the world, this hypothetical person would not be allowed to fly a plane ! This argument was used to justify that an organisation with a focus ethnic group should not be administered/led by anyone who does not belong to the group by association of ancestry…. a person who might have contributed significantly to the group, and self-identified with that ethnic identity should be kicked out, according to my esteemed friend on that group.

Its strange that there is such hostility to self-identification from the queer community. The entire movement of queer rights and gender equity is in some sense is intricately linked to the idea of self-identification. How else would one justify a person identifying with a gender different from that based on the genetalia ?

SImilar to gender being a social construct, I feel cultural identity if defined by one’s birth, is a social construct.  A person with not the right skin color can often feel a part of a community of a different color. A glaring example is Eminem who identifies with the black culture.

Yesterday night I was watching Swades, a hindi movie with Pal and Anyesha, my roommates. It was a nice movie, quite watchable, unlike many other  Bollywood productions. and might I say that the Khan was looking quite good actually (in spite of his age, maybe because he was not weeping as in Kal Ho Na Ho). Its about this NASA engineer who gets a taste of rural India on one of his visits to India, and feels such a connection with his motherland that he gives up his job in USA and returns to India, mostly with the idea of rural development.

The movie resonates with us, grad students studying abroad who will im high probability take up jobs here, a lot. But some scenes struck chords from the past much more strongly. There was a scene of a little boy delivering water at a small platform.

From 1996-2000 I spent lots of hours on local trains during multiple journeys from Kharagpur to Calcutta and back. and countless such little boys would come into the compartment, selling cha, aloo-chop, jhal-muri, and other mouth watering snacks. I would often muse about how their life was, what they did, how was it to sell stuff for the whole day running about from train to train only to earn barely enough to  half-fill your belly. I would wonder if I would be able to last a single day in that lifestyle. I anyways, did not feel much connection with the culture I was in, and the idea of escaping it all and disappearing in a little village for a weekend and selling chai seemed romantic to my foolish heart. I also felt that its by living that life can one truly understand their hardships. I felt that one who has seen their life up close will never haggle about why a plate of aloo-chop is costing 50p more than last year. But then I would rethink.

Would I actually be able to sustain myself (even if I did manage to pull it off without my parents/friends launching a police search after me) ?
The romance seemed also frought with danger. Abductions etc. are not alien concepts and would I be creating more trouble than good?
But the thought that hit me the most was:
the vere scheme reeks of hollowness, pride, and conceitedness. What am I thinking? In my heart of hearts would I not always know that I can come back to a plush home and good food. Would I still not keep money with me for security? What was the motivation- to understand the poor, or to feel great about yourself as one who could step down from his riches?
The whole idea no longer seemed noble. It seemed a mockery of poverty, an exercise in selfish pride. I felt that to understand those less financially endowed than us there could be other ways, and even without understanding them, the rich can be less petty and more understanding of human rights.

At a time, when the maid in the house still makes Rs500.00 for cleaning the house for a whole month, what understanding am I talking about? and even then my mother is badgered from neighbours that she pays too much and pampers her house-maid which leads to problems with their own maids expecting more. Many of us so-called rich would even consider providing an extra afternoon meal to the maid on a regular basis as pampering. Rich? where is the richness ?

Link: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Farm animals.

I was reading this article on BBC describing that even farm animals like cows and sheep can feel different emotions and are intelligent. Scrolling down I saw this comment, from someone in UK:

" Animals are stupid! I saw this group of animals only the other day attacking a lone animal of their own species for no other reason than he was a slightly different colour! In another instance I observed a large group of these animals stockpiling food only for it to rot rather than sharing with other animals nearby who were starving. We should think ourselves lucky we’re not so dumb and we can invent things like nuclear weapons to protect ourselves. "

Nice sarcasm

The following was posted on the KhushDC listserv  which led to a little conversation …

—————–
City plans Women Day revelries:
[India News]:
New Delhi, March 7 : Ahead of the International Women’s Day, the UN
kicked off celebrations Monday, a city hospital announced a health week
for the fairer sex and a feminist film festival is also planned. 
(click link for full article)

http://www.newkerala.com/news-daily/news/features.php?action=fullnews&id=81619

———————-
someone raised the point of women being refered to as "fairer sex" .. and it did then strike as an irony that woman is described as fairer sex on the very day meant to bring focus on women’s issues and gender-based discrimination.

On the surface its a very innocuous term, not reflective of any hidden meanings/connotations … even positive — you are calling someone fair, isn’t it?
But what does that really mean??
1. For one, it seems to imply that Fair = beauty … a view which plagues (in my humble opinion) many cultures .. fair skinned people are regarded as more beautiful and somehow ‘better’
2. It also seems to imply that women by nature are fairer … hmm, is that true in all places of earth ?
3. It also seems to imply that woman is the fairer, and thus the more beautiful sex — what is the purpose of women, to be a wallflower and look beautiful ?? how long will we keep holding the woman captive in her beauty, and use it against her in subtle ways … I am not speaking against being beautiful or appreciating beauty … I am just arguing that social perpetration of such terms creates pressures, builds stereotypes, and makes gender roles.
Also this term should not be taken in isolation, but as a symptom of a much larger phenomenon. Look at the whole vocabulary, for God’s sake!
Is a woman’s worth in how beautiful she is ?

Which leads me to the larger question of gender roles: playing football is for boys, playing with dolls is for girls - and thus a boy playing with dolls is queer ! Why should society create two polar opposites, divide human characteristics among these two, and impose on us to choose one or the other based on which genetalia you are born with ?

Gender is a social construction [read my friend Amlan's recent post on this], and we need to deconstruct it to let us breathe, so men do not ‘need’ to  play rough sports, use cuss words, or be the head of the house, in order to prove their ‘masculanity’ — and women don’t need to pretty themselves, play with dolls, and submit to the male ego to be feminine. We  need to deconstruct  gender definitions, so that boys can cry, so that ’sissy’ is no longer pejorative term, so that girls do not need to immitate men to earn respect in society.

Actually the ills of sexism and defined gender roles does not stop there. It is intricately linked to homophobia too ! but more on that some other day when I am not so sleepy …

Mukhtar Mai has guts. Now a higher religious court in Pakistan hassuspended the decision of the High Court to free her rapists withoutpunishment!yes, its heartening, though I am distrustful of religious courts.

Its saddening to see religion that should have been the liberator of people's spirits to be fashioned into an oppressor by the so-called religious leaders. Its also sad that religion should bear the brunt of misinterpretation and selfish aims of those who think of themselves as 'keepers of religion'.

Mukhtar Mai is like a burning candle, the hope that all is not lost. She reminds us that there are people who will not give up in the face of gross social injustice. If you look deeper, she is not just a feminist icon, she is an icon of freedom, of social justice -- she stands for equity, and human rights: be they with respect to gender equality, women's rights, LGB rights, Transgender rights, racial non-discrimination, or religious tolerance.

Her motives and struggle might be different in detail, but in the end its all about saying that I will not let society trample on my life, and my rights as an individual.

And yet, some corner of my heart asks, does she understand that?. Will she who was thus oppressed understand the struggle of a transgendered person if she meets one, or will she support a muslim who was in love with a hindu, will she be fine if her brother was gay? will she understand that these are all people oppressed by society in different ways, at different times but all linked by that same thread: their uphill journey to breaking the single color view of society so that they can paint their life the way they want ...

I do not intend her to fight these other battles, I understand that everyone has a focus group. But what I sometimes find ironic is how the oppressed in one situation assume the role of the oppressor in some cases. How a person fighting for his/her human rights, at times might refuse to acknoledge the merit of someone else's struggle. 

If I were to cite an example, I would talk about some civil rights leaders in this country who want to distance themselves as much as possible from the gay rights movement, who are outraged that someone might even suggest that there is a parallel. Those who preach from their pulpits that religion does not discriminate on the basis of skin color, and try to uphold racial non-discrimination, often in the same breath would also condemn homosexuals to hell (and maybe to prison).

Today was the Dining Out for Life day. Basically participating restaurants pledge to donate  part (25% or so)  of your bill that day towards Food and Friends, a DC/MD/VA based organisation that distributes food and groceries to people living with HIV/AIDS and other life-challenging illnesses.

So Theron and me went out to Old Town Takoma Park and dined at Mark’s kitchen which Theron says is almost an institution in itself. Hmm, stuffed tofucakes over brown rice with a raspberry sauce and beans and sweet potato on the side, with miso soup !! great … the warm fuzzy feeling of doing something nice, and the warm fuzzy feeling of a satiated appetite…

But does paying money absolve us of social responsibility? How much does it mean to reach into our pocket and donate a sum of money which we can spare without actually curbing any of our other plans?

Dont get me wrong. Money is important for work. And also, providing money for those who we think are engaging in worthwhile work is good and productive, even essential. But does that give us the right to be smug in our heart, and feel that we have done our bit?, does that give us a right to feel warm and fuzzy?

But then let me stress again money is important. and at the right time. A lot of money was raised and donated for the Tsunami. I wonder how much of it will reach the right hands. Will the NGOs working for rehabilitation, long after the tsunami ceases to be a sensational topic for the media, get access to the funds ? Or will these same hardworking people have to suffer from bureaucracy and politics to get the money from big funds like "Prime Minister’s Relief Fund" or the local "Chief Minister’s Relief Fund".  Hmm, how many times have we heard about the tsunami rehabilitation efforts in the prominent mass media in the last week?

But in case you are interested look here

adieu for now

When I was contemplating writing a blog, I was told by Scott
that it should be for your own self. But is it possible to keep the
readers out of your mind? Is it possible to post independent of the
thought that someone might be reading this thing, this thought so
private to your mind. And does the virtual presence of that reader not
alter your very thought process? So that you can never truly put down
unadulterated thought into a blog; to extend this further I believe one
cannot really express unadulterated thought in language. The moment we
try to bind some emotion or thought in words, we change it, for no
words can capture in its entirity the complete nuances of even a single
thought. The very attempt of expression alters the thought itself.

Language can at best, express an estimate of what the reality is. And
under the guidance of an accomplished artist, the medium does estimate
the idea/emotion to a great degree. but Reality, can only be felt,
lived, never expressed, explained or described. (Quantum physics has a
direct analogy to this which I find very amusing - that the very act of
measurement alters reality)

Its late and I should sleep, but before I leave, — its heartening to see people like Mukhtar Mai who keep their courage in the face of adverse circumstance and gross social injustice.