I'm a Philippine-born U.S. naturalized queer feminist life-long learner, claiming a blog of my own.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Yay for DignityUSA
In the email just the other day, I received the recent edition of QV: Quarterly Voice of DignityUSA (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Catholics), which to my pleasant surprise is the Transgender Issue.
It begins with an introduction by Publications Committee Chair, Leo Egashira, that points out not only the Church's ignorance of transpeople, but DignityUSA's lack of trans knowledges, too. Egashira then goes on to thank those who shared their stories, and ends by urging us all "to ensure that the "T" component of GLBT remains high in our consciousness and accorded its rightful place in our mission."
I, too, thank the people who contributed their personal stories so that the larger community might begin to learn about and understand those of us in Dignity who are trans-identified. It is, certainly, however, simply an "Introduction to Transgender Lives" as Egashira's essay titles reflects. Still, I'm glad for the expose of trans issues to all Dignity members it provides.
It makes think about the story I could tell. (And, all the on-line resources I'd add to their list!)
I don't think that's either a carrot or a stick, but definitely something I'm putting on my "After I'm done with the Dissertation" list.
I've run into a particular idiom "carrot or stick" several times this semester in discussions with people about trying to get my dissertation done this semester. Basically, carrots are rewards while sticks are punishments. Being partial to carrots over sticks in this instance, I wanted to post another one (in my previous post I talked about reading Kathy Reichs' novels featuring Dr. Temperance Brennan) to remind myself what lays ahead/beyond.
A groundbreaking graphic collection that explores Asian American culture, identity, and history through all-new superhero comics What if we told you a tale about a quiet, unassuming guy with black hair and thick glasses; an immigrant, who’s done his best to fit into a world that isn’t his? Many Asian Americans fit that bill. But so does Clark Kent, better known to the world as Superman. —The editors of Secret Identities
Appealing to both comics fans and Asian Americans seeking to claim their place in American culture, Secret Identities makes brilliant use of the conventions of the superhero comic book to expose the real face of the Asian American experience.
This groundbreaking graphic anthology brings together leading Asian American creators in the comics industry—including Gene Yang (National Book Award finalist for American Born Chinese), Bernard Chang (Wonder Woman), Greg Pak (The Hulk), and Christine Norrie (Black Canary Wedding Special )—to craft original graphical short stories set in a compelling “shadow history” of our country: from the building of the railroads to the Japanese American internment, the Vietnam airlift, the murder of Vincent Chin, and the incarceration of Dr. Wen Ho Lee.
Entertaining and enlightening, Secret Identities offers whiz-bang action, searing satire, and thoughtful commentary from a community too often overlooked by the cultural mainstream, while showcasing a vivid cross-section of the talents whose imagination and creativity is driving the contemporary comics renaissance.
Jeff Yang was the founder of the pioneering Asian American periodical aMagazine. The author of three books and the biweekly column “Asian Pop” for the San Francisco Chronicle, he lives in Brooklyn, New York. Parry Shen, best known for his lead role in the movie Better Luck Tomorrow, lives in Southern California. Keith Chow, an educator and comics journalist, lives in Maryland. Jerry Ma, the founder of the indie comics studio Epic Proportions, lives in New York City.
I first discovered the television series Bones last year, and I've been a huge fan since. (I'm looking forward to reading the novels the television series are based on after I finish my darn dissertation.)
I was disappointed, though, by how this week's episode, "The Girl in the Mask" (Season 4, episode 21) played out gender androgyny.
The episode features a doctor visiting from Japan whose fashion sensibilities, reflective of some Japanese culture norms, are androgynous by U.S. standards. The struggle to discern whether the doctor is a man or woman (of course, it's either one or the other) becomes a predominant side story involving the supporting cast.
More specifically, it's Angela who first raises the issue with Hodgins and Dr. Sweets. Hodgins' and Dr. Sweets' reaction almost make it seem as if they hadn't realized there was an issue with the doctor's gender. In fact, I was surprised that Angela was even the one who raised the issue. Doing so doesn't seem to fit Angela's character--her open, artistic, and bisexual sensibilities--that she would be so fixated on what gender the doctor is.
The next disappointing moment is when Dr. Saroyan says, "God I miss the ease of a simple pronoun." Hopefully, people will hear her line and realize that it's not that pronouns are simple, it's that we make them seem simple. I'm not really confident that this reading will be apparent to most, though. Instead, what I think most audiences will take away is a sense of unpleasant confusion brought about by androgynous people--making them the culprits instead of the limits of language. It would have been a great moment to introduce gender neutral pronouns like sie, ze, and hir.
There was a moment of hope though, when Dr. Sweets tries to explain to Angela and Hodgins that the subset of urban Japanese aesthetic that the doctor follows glorifies androgyny. He follows by saying, "gender is unimportant, we should be mature enough to accept the doctor just the way the doctor is." Though Angela and Hodgins agree that gender really isn't important, they continue on their search for the doctor's gender.
At the show's conclusion, without yet having an answer to their search, the question of the doctor's gender is raised once again. Sadly, instead of asking the doctor hirself, Angela decides to conduct a test of her own. This is especially sad because the squints avoid entering into a discussion/dialogue with the doctor due to their fear of not being "politically correct." I expected more from them.
In the frenzy of media coverage about Perez Hilton's question to Miss California’s Carrie Prejean during the Miss USA contest, it seems so many news stories are missing the point.
Not surprisingly, the incident is often framed as a contest between Prejean and her honest beliefs against same-sex marriage and Hilton as an out gay man unhappy about her discriminating beliefs.
Let's call things what they are, okay? Prejean does not believe in extending civil rights to same-sex couples that opposite-sex couples have long had--this is in fact, denying same-sex couples their full citizenship, and is discriminatory. The fact that she believes, this, though, does not make her a bitch, a cunt, or any other misogynist names that she's been called by Hilton (and others, I'm sure). To attack her anti-gay discrimination with misogyny is simply fighting one discrimination with another.
Does Prejean have the option of being homophobia and heterosexist? Yes. Does Hilton have the option of being upset that Prejean is homophobic and heterosexist? Yes. Does Prejean's heterosexist thinking excuse Hilton's sexism? No.
Would we want a Miss USA who is homophobic and heterosexist? Depends on which "we" you mean. Do we want a beauty competition judge who is sexist? Depends on which "we" you mean (some would say beauty competitions in and of themselves are sexist).
I'm disappointed, though I can't say entirely surprised, at the absence of a queer feminist analysis of how Prejean has been depicted as a victim of Hilton's liberal extremism, and Hilton has been depicted as a vicious attacker in ways that elicit people's compassions for Prejean, and by extension her discriminating beliefs--to the detriment of both feminist and queer movements! This is why feminism and queer movements need to work in coalition with one another.
Even more so, however, I'm disappointed at the lack of focus being paid to the quality of answer Prejean gave. The negative response to her anti-gay answer has almost made it untouchable to critique, especially since the terms of critique get molded into either a pro-gay vs anti-gay dichotomy, or a freedom of speech vs being politically correct conundrum.
Let's take a look:
Hilton asks, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not."
Prejean responds, "I think it’s great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be, between a man and a woman."
Aside from the fact that we do NOT live in a country where everyone can choose equally between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, no where in her answer does Prejean explicitly say what she thinks "every state" should or should not do. She makes clear her personal belief (which she is more than entitled to) that she is not in favor of same-sex marriage because "that's how [she] was raised," but fails to make the connection from her personal/individual opinion to state law.
In my eyes her answer was a bad one because it failed to address the question!!!
Hilton had a point when he made a vlog suggesting that she could have answered that it should be up to states to decide for themselves (as they have been this past decade!). However, because of the misogynistic epithets he hurls at Prejean, his focus on the specificity of his question, and the lack of specificity of Prejean's reply is lost.
Well, and I'm not entirely on board with Hilton's explanation that Prejean, in competing for Miss USA should be politically correct and not make her biases known. I think that covert discrimination is potentially more harmful than overt discrimination and hate. Being politically correct does nothing for getting at the root cause of discrimination, but rather presents another layer that actually protects getting at the root causes. If people believe discriminatory things and don't ever have the opportunity to examine those beliefs because they know not to show people that side of themselves, then how will those trying to end discrimination ever have a real, meaningful conversation about oppression with them? Being politically correct is an ugly thing that keeps real dialogue from happening.
Prejean could have better answered the question by saying that the citizens in Vermont and a few other states might have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage, but that she doesn't think that all citizens in the other states would choose the same thing, because in fact she wouldn't, and that the decision should go to the people living in each state (which has been the case in the 42 states that have either constitutional amendments or other laws which restrict marriage to one man and one woman). This way, she gets to state her heterosexst belief, and also give a reply that actually answers Hilton's question.
Then we could enter into a more meaningful discuss of systems of oppression (like heterosexist state laws), rather than getting wrapped up in ad hominem attacks of either Hilton or Prejean. But, then again, the former isn't nearly as sensationalist as the latter, or as apt to boost readership for media!
