apophenia :: gender & sexuality

February 21, 2008

Trade: Brilliant film about sex trafficking

Unrelated to my research, I recently met a teen activist from a local high school. She runs a student group called "Students Against Human Trafficking." Tonight, her group put together a screening of the 2007 film Trade at a local movie theater, followed by a discussion with the producer.

Now, I watch a lot of film and I pay attention to what's coming out that deals with serious matters, but I was completely unaware of this film. And yet, it was stunning. Heartbreaking, moving, jawdropping. Unfortunately, the film was only released in 25 cities, was not advertised, and was pulled two weeks after release so most people who should see it didn't. Gosh darn it, I hate when the studios get cagey about serious films and fail to actually promote them like they should. Anyhow, the film is now on DVD and I want to encourage everyone to see it. It's haunting, but definitely worth it. And it will definitely make you think.

"Trade" depicts the global dynamic of sex trafficking, focusing on the role that American demand plays in the perpetuation of this insidious business. The film centers on the story of a young Mexican boy who is on the edge of becoming a thug himself when his younger sister is abducted and trafficked, eventually to be sold through an Internet sex slave auction. Through luck, he ends up running into a cop (Kevin Kline) who is trying to make sense of this business and reluctantly agrees to help him find his sister. Weaving together the stories of people who are abducted or experience the emotional devastation of sex trafficking, this film is a brilliant although disturbing portrait of a real life criminal business. An absolutely must-see. Haunting, yet important.

If you'd prefer a more serious approach to this horrific topic, I also recommend checking out the PBS documentary on Lives For Sale. (My cousin-in-law was involved in the production of this piece.) This film steps back to think about the dark side of illegal immigration and the black market trade in human beings.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: trafficking sexwork film

   

Posted by zephoria at 11:49 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

December 28, 2007

All I need is a pair of pants.

Dear Clothing Designers,

I am disappointed in your lack of understanding of the diversity of women's bodies. I traipsed down Broadway, into Soho, and out to the malls in search of a pair of pants that fit. I was willing to spend a decent amount of money on said pants so I visited everything from high end designers to department and chain stores. I tried on over 150 pairs and came up empty handed. I tried on pants ranging from sizes 6-12, petites, regulars, and "short." I was even willing to get the bottoms hemmed if only I could find a pair that fit up top. I even tried on the ugly pants.

The relationship between my waist, hips, ass, and thighs appears to be completely alien to you, for none of you seem to make a pair of pants that fit all of these dimensions (let alone length). Why? Am I _that_ different? Or would you simply prefer that I conform to your body aesthetics? Like many other women, I do not belong on a hanger. I am not shaped like a model nor do I have any interest in resorting to anorexia to try to fit into your skinny clothes. I am curvy and I like my curves.

I am a confident woman, but shopping demoralizes me. Your industry sells a standard of beauty, demanding women to conform and ostracizing them when they do not. I know that I am not alone in not fitting into your clothing. Have you ever considered the impact that you have on young women's sense of self? How hard would it be to diversify your clothing dimensions?

I long for the day when I can submit my dimensions and order personalized clothes. I know it's coming, but I desperately want it NOW. Particularly since the only thing that is "in" seems to be tight and tighter. Why oh why can't we personalize our clothes yet?

In the meantime, dear clothing designers, please bring back phat pants. I don't care if they're not "in style" but at least they fit. I desperately need new clothes for all of the ones that I bought when phat pants and flowy yoga pants were the in thing are falling apart. I have upcoming engagements and I desperately need pants. Please, I beg you, do something.

Thank you.

PS: For all of you men who think that my flowy clothing is my "style," please realize that it is simply because nothing else ever fits. Welcome to the hell of women's shopping.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: clothing fashion shopping

   

Posted by zephoria at 11:28 AM | Comments (39) | TrackBack (0)

September 21, 2007

San Diego mayor backs same-sex marriage

In a tearful explanation to the San Diego community, Republican mayor Jerry Sanders explains why he decided that he would support the gay marriage bill. It's a stunning display of courage, bound to turn the Republican party against him in order to do what's right for his lesbian daughter, gay friends, and the San Diego community. I have to admit that I totally broke down crying listening to him and I hope that more elected officials have the courage he had to do what's right rather than play to a religious-lead campaign of intolerance. (Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger still seems bent on vetoing the state bill that would define marriage as a civil contract between two people.)

For more coverage on this historical moment, click here.

Note: my personal belief is that marriage is a flawed institution and I would like to see it obliterated entirely. Given that this is not likely to happen, I strongly believe that everyone should have access to the rights afforded by such a commitment. I personally wish that there was more public discussion of those rights and the reasons behind why society supports unions. Those opposed to same-sex marriage are typically involved in myth making instead of reality checking. Many of us know painfully well that marriage does not inherently protect children nor does it guarantee that the partnership will last. Yet, we also know that marriage allows us to get access to our partners in times of medical crises, keep our foreign-born partners in the country, etc. Economists also know that marriage statistically reduces stupidity (thus, the logic behind cheapened car insurance and tax benefits in general). Functionally, marriage is a commitment that is rewarded economically and socially because it makes for a more stable and prosperous society. All signs seem to point towards the same being true for same-sex marriage so the objections to it are more philosophical than functional, rooted in intolerance rather than societal efforts towards a collective good.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: LGBT gay marriage equality

   

Posted by zephoria at 8:13 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

April 30, 2007

Globalization of norms: Facebook challenges Arab LGBT group

Update: After posting this, i spoke with various people involved. Investigation on the part of Facebook uncovered a poser pretending to be an admin. Their account was suspended. Facebook has assured me that they would never censor such material, even if requested to do so by a government. This is very good news.

In a globalized society, whose norms count? This weekend, Lawgeek gave me a heads up about a battle taking place on Facebook. On April 24, the administrator of the ArabLGTB Facebook Group received the following message (emphasis mine):

Report MessageDear Subscriber,

You have violated the terms of conduct you agreed upon when you signed up with Facebook.com. Your violations fall in the following criteria:

1. Advertising\spam, you have posted in the group advertisements concerning a website. You do have the right to refer to websites but not advertise them.

2. Creating a global group that is not allowed in some regions. Your group "Arab LBTGAY(Lesbian,bisexual,transexual and gay)" has put facebook in trouble as we received an official complaint from the Saudi government, the Egyptian government and other Arab governments that do not want to be mentioned.

Your Group must be shut down or a new Group with a specified network other than the two mentioned may be created. We are very sorry as we support any group but the countries mentioned are threatening to block our server from their side, therefore please comply.

Thank you for understanding

The Facebook Team

Wow. We all know that many regions in the world are extremely homophobic, but what does it mean that Facebook is going to institute policies to abide by the norms set forth by the most conservative cultural environments? Do we really want to propagate such intolerance through our networked technology?

I'm also curious as to whether or not Facebook's policy would be a violation of American free speech laws. If there are lawyers out there reading this, i'm curious... What are the laws concerning free speech in semi-public spaces like malls and parking lots? Are commercial networked publics like Facebook and MySpace seen as public or private spaces when it comes to the law? To what degree can networked publics control or limit the speech that takes place within? Obviously, there are good reasons to limit some speech - hate speech for example. But what about speech that's simply a violation of cultural norms? Do we have any sense of where the law sees this? Is it different in Europe? Given that there are different norms for public and private venues in meatspace, how are the lack of walls online being handled by the courts? Is this public or private? Given that all servers are owned, is there public space online when it comes to the law?

Regardless, i hope that Facebook reconsiders what it's doing. I would hate to see it become a space that oppresses some of the most oppressed people simply because others feel that they should be oppressed. The Ivy League institutions from which it stems are some of the most progressive queer-positive environments in the country. At Brown, i met a lesbian woman who came to Brown from a very intolerant country. When she approached Brown concerning her fear for her life in returning home, they supported her in seeking asylum. In parts of the Arab world, being queer is a crime, punishable by death. Let's support our queer Arab brothers and sisters, not further discriminate against them out of fear of their intolerant regimes.

For those who are on Facebook, i encourage you to join "The official Petition to prevent Arab LBTG from being shut down." For all of you who work in building networked communities, give some thought to how problematic this decision is and PLEASE do not repeat it.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: facebook queer arab intolerance censorship

   

Posted by zephoria at 2:03 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

November 17, 2006

Bush appoints guy to destroy the program he heads

You have got to be kidding me. "The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as 'demeaning to women.'" -- Washington Post

How can this be legal? Unfortunately, there's no recourse because Congress doesn't have any power to do anything. How can something like this be fixed? Gahhhh!

Keroack's outfit deceives women about other issues as well. It uses a combination of dubious statistics and scripture to attack the efficacy of condoms and the very idea of safe sex. "God requires those who know Him to remain pure until marriage - no sex, in fact, not even a hint of sexual immorality," it says. "Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman to reflect Christ and His bride, the church." -- Michelle Goldberg

God this breaks my heart. So much for thinking that Bush would play nice with the Democrats.

(Tx Randy)

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: abortion politics

   

Posted by zephoria at 1:02 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2006

this video is important

Please watch this video. It is a depiction of how beauty is crafted for print. It's made as part of the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. Below are the before/after images (tx to BoingBoing).

I will never forget the first time that i did a magazine shoot. It was for a glossy girls magazine and they dyed, curled, teased, plucked, shoved, stretched, and pinned me into a perfect static place. And then they airbrushed me to normalcy cuz i refused to cut off my raver neckless and my hair was purple. (Business mag shoots have always been a bit more civil.) During a bathroom break, i wandered the halls and found a Playboy shoot where i saw how unhappy the model was trying to sit perfectly still as wind was blown on her to keep her nipples perky. The plastic face looked perfect but her eyes showed how miserable she was.

This video depicts that process in the most compelling way i've ever seen. I'm not saying makeup is bad, but i think that it's critical to understand what we're modeling ourselves after. Girl power is a crafted narrative meant to make us consume. The images of perfection we're sold are a fabrication. Most of us know this at some level, but do we really get it?

I realize i don't own the copyright on this commercial but i think that it is too culturally important to stay locked down. Please watch it.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: beauty image fashion model self-esteem video

   

Posted by zephoria at 5:36 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack (0)

May 10, 2006

purity ball, abstinence and changing society

This morning, i read a brief article in the NYTimes called Contr-Contraception. In short, there's proposed legislation requiring insurance companies to cover contraception, conservative folks argue that this will create a new wave of sexual promiscuity. The second half of the article focuses on abstinence education and "purity balls" where young girls (and yes, only young GIRLS) promise to keep their purity until marriage. The whole article makes me want to scream (which is why you should read it), but i want to address one component of it....

Abstinence education rhetoric speaks of a return to a more pure society, back when people didn't have sex until marriage, when women stayed at home with the kids and were forced to swallow their pride every time their husband cheated on them (cuz we all know that cheating is not a 21st century phenomenon). What isn't remembered is that people got married at 16, not 32. Bad marriages were formed out of horniness. At the same time, young men could assume to have a meaningful career path by the time they were 22/23. Today, many 22/23-year olds are still working in Starbucks because the Baby Boomers aren't willing to retire and give up the privileged positions within society. We also like to pretend like people didn't have sex outside of the sanctity of marriage. Bullshit. People just didn't *talk* about it. People relied on the pull-out method, got married quickly before she would show, had babies that weren't their husbands, etc. Abortions happened with hangers - they didn't simply not exist.

When i talk to my friends working in sex ed, i get so upset. All of this abstinence bullshit has resulted in an increase in STDs, a dramatic lack of knowledge about sexual health and pregnancy, and a silencing of problems. Based on what i've heard, my guess is also that fewer girls are reporting rapes.

Why? Why? Why?

When it comes to sex legislation, folks either take the moral highground or a practical approach. The former argues that the latter is promoting immoral activities while the latter argues that the former is cruel and dangerous. I'm definitely in the latter camp because all of my own research has shown that desire trumps risks for most people. This means that a lot of good people will get themselves into bad situations that could've been prevented if folks weren't so insane about upholding a moral highground that they could never actually live by either. For me, the key is setting the practical as the baseline and then trying to instill moral values on top of that... but not at risk of really harming people in the process.

::sigh:: Conservative politics make me feel so powerless.

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 12:16 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

April 27, 2006

P!nk: beautiful and political

Although i had heard P!nk's music on the radio over the last couple of years, i didn't pay much attention to her until her latest video Stupid Girls started popping up all over MySpace. I was floored by the no-bullshit strong feminism coming out of a mainstream artist and utterly ecstatic to see young girls share her video on their pages. So i bought her latest CD. I'm Not Dead unapologetically political and extremely beautiful and i have just been playing it on repeat all night. One song in particular - "Dear Mr. President" - really got under my skin. Featuring Indigo Girls, it's an open letter to Bush. Here's a sample from the lyrics:

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye
How do you walk with your head held high
Can you even look me in the eye

Let me tell you bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box

It's been a long time since i wanted to celebrate a mainstream artist, but P!nk's latest album really blows me away and i wanted to share that with those of you who haven't been paying attention to mainstream music. Wow.

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 11:05 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

February 10, 2006

lessons from the WoW debacle

When i first heard of Blizzard conflating advertising queer-friendly guilds with sexual harassment, i was pretty upset and blogged about it. Since then, numerous groups have spoke eloquently about the issue, Lambda Legal got involved and Blizzard apologized. It is always good to see digital demonstrations work. Given this, i will re-order WoW and check it out shortly.

While i should celebrate this positive change of affairs, my sunny spirits have been dampened by the ways in which participants justified Blizzard's decisions in the commentary of many blogs, on mailing lists, and in person. It has been a real eye-opener at how much unchecked homophobia swirls around me, both from within the queer community and from without. I'm not talking about the overt "faggot" homophobia; i'm talking about the homophobia that comes from failing to recognize systems of oppression and privilege. When i wrote my post, i made some assumptions about my readers, about the people around me. I feel the need to explain the assumptions under which i am operating.

Imagine a world where a woman is told that they can't talk about being a female because that would be encouraging people to attack her and thus it would be not permitted and would be deemed sexism. My hope is that most people can recognize that this is absurd. Of course, the funny thing is that we live in that world anyhow. In technical fields, we are often told that if we talk about being women, we are complaining. We are told that we live in a meritocratic world where women are welcome so they should just stop complaining. Yet, the reality is that being female is not just about the XX chromosomes, the estrogen, the boobs and hips. It's a situated identity that cannot be untangled from experience. Sure, we can try to out-male the men (and many of us do indeed try) but the standards are still separate. We are still read as women when we walk in the door, whether we like it or not. We live in a sexist culture and pretending sexism doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. Tis the reason that i have much appreciation for Malcolm Gladwell for using narrative in explaining research to make this issue more visible - even when we think that we aren't looking at race and gender, we are. If we said that we should not talk about being female, everyone would be assumed to be male and judged on that manner. You don't create equality by removing the experiences that alters embodied identities... in those terms, the oppressed will always be oppressed, systemically. There's a huge amount of sexism in WoW - even in watching over others' shoulders, i've seen my fair share of "don't be such a girl" and comments about the femininity/masculinity of particular characters' representations. Would a sexism-free space be acceptable to the majority of users? I have to imagine that few people would say that is oppressing sexist bastards.

Sexuality has always been a more complicated picture because the debate is rooted in issues of morality. I will never forget the first time i was asked why gay people had to highlight their butt-fucking to everyone by marching down the streets. ::shudder:: This is when i realized that from a heterosexist point of view, "gay" is read as a set of practices, not an identity. It is assumed that when a group of queer people gather, they do so to fuck. This is just as stereotypically problematic as saying that when a group of women gather, they do so to bake. Sure, it does happen, but it is by no means the sole reason to gather... Gatherings happen based on identity, based on a set of shared values and views about how the world works. It's about creating safe space where you don't have to have your walls up high, have to be on constant guard for attacks, don't have to constantly defend your view of the world. It's a way to keep sane more than anything else. And it's a way of being able to cope in a culture of oppression.

The problem i have with people saying it's equivalent to a hetero-friendly guild is that hetero-friendly is the norm. Heterosexuals are not an oppressed population; they can walk proud on the street, show their love on TV without question, bring their partners to the company picnic without fear, have children without worrying how their love will affect their children. They don't have to worry about feeling silenced by comments such as "you're such a straightie." It's simply not the same.

Of course, i'm totally in favor of Blizzard keeping it a PG-13 (violence permitted) environment. I totally understand why watching two characters fuck would not be appropriate, but i don't think that the gender of the characters matters. The thing is that is fundamentally different than eliminating identity. And queer is an identity first and foremost. Fantasy worlds may not need to have sex, but they do have to have identity. And people's lived identities seep through whether we like it or not. To silence only the oppressed individuals in a system is beyond dangerous; it promotes a society that i can never support.

I also understand why some people are afraid to reveal their sexuality to young people for fear of being attacked, perceived as a pedophile (although more straight folks abuse children than gay folks), or thinking that sex should not be mentioned to children. The problem is that we've all been taught that to talk about our sexuality, our identity, is the same as bringing sex to the conversation. That's a dangerous dangerous thing to internalize and i implore queer folks to stop doing that. No one should be talking about their sex life to children, but that doesn't mean you should hide your identity because people have told you to be shameful of yourself. Young people need to know queer people as regular people - this is how tolerance is formed.

I respect that Blizzard has made the economically responsible decision to stop this tomfoolery. But i think that this issue is also critical for general societal reflection. Silencing people because of their identity is a dangerous proposition. We've done that a few times in our history to deadly ends. Let's not do that again.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: WoW homophobia

   

Posted by zephoria at 1:51 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

February 6, 2006

girls in boy-wear

I loved the fact that the girls could do grunge and skater just like the boys - flannels, phat pants, etc. Many of the butchy girls i knew wore boxer briefs and bought all of their clothes from the boys' shelves. I've been utterly fascinated by contemporary boys' street wear, in particular the style that involves wearing big pants with no belt below your ass (where your ass shows your underwear) combined with a long baggy T. This outfit typically requires holding onto your pants so that they don't fall down and yanking them up every few minutes. While i know many a-parent sees this and screams, "WHY?," my reaction is, "Where are the butchy girls?" I have yet to see a girl sporting the same style. Hell, i see very few girls sporting any form of baggy pants these days. Has streetwear moved to being completely gender divided? It sure seems like it. :-(

On that note, check out this Pink video about "stupid girls." (tx Tom)

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: fashion

   

Posted by zephoria at 10:44 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)

January 24, 2006

on sex education

I think that abstinence education is a crock-o-shit, in part because we've pushed off marriage to be something that you do in your mid-20s (or 30s). At the same time, sexual maturation is occurring earlier and earlier (in part due to nutrition and other hormone shifts). Not only is sex seen as a rite of passage to maturity, but it is sold through every form of media out there.

How on earth can we expect people to be virgins through their 20s? (Remember: a century ago, you may have lost your virginity when you got married... but that was at like age 16. Not 25.)

I'm constantly perturbed that we're teaching abstinence instead of safe sex because we refuse to acknowledge that teens are having sex. Not only is it not working (well, it is resulting in the substitution of oral and anal sex for vaginal penetration), but it's putting a lot of kids at risk.

Anyhow, amidst my reading this week, i ran across a hysterical quote concerning how to actually motivate abstinence. It had me laughing so hard i had to share:

There's no evidence that information about contraception - or even distributing condoms in school - gives young people the idea of having sex. The entire culture and their own bodies seems to be doing that quite effectively. Indeed, if there is any one thing that can make sex dull for teenagers, it is to teach it in high school. -- Thomas Hine

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: youth sex

   

Posted by zephoria at 1:46 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

January 23, 2006

register for Blogher 2006

Blogher 2005 was a complete blast and Blogher 2006 will be even better!  Now two days long, Blogher 2006 will allow women bloggers around the world to gather, commune, socialize and revel in the fact that technology participation is more diverse than people think.  Blogher 2006 will be held in San Jose, in a bigger location (although space is still limited so sign up now).  This year, there will be two days of convening: July 28-29, 2006.  Come one come all!  Above everything else, REGISTER NOW!!!

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: blogher conference

   

Posted by zephoria at 4:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 11, 2006

gender representation on King Kong

I decided to see the new King Kong while i was in Hawaii and i have to say it was an unbelievable experience. First, there was something so utterly astounding to be in a theater with mostly Hawaiians Hawaiian residents while watching a film with an atrocious and offensive depiction of Islanders as a "savage" population incapable of hygiene with their eyes rolled back in their heads. Of course, the kids in the audience didn't seem to mind - they happily talked their way through the entire film, more ecstatic at the action scenes than anything else.

Putting the problematic racial depiction aside, what really fascinated me was the representation of gender performances intertwined with the dichotomy between nature and technology. Kong is a stand-in for pure masculinity, pure nature while Jack (and crew) represent a technologically-aided masculinity. Ann on the other hand represents pure femininity in society, but her representation in the "wild" is a complicated mix of feminine beauty and stereotypically masculine strength and will. The masculine side of her tames the beast while the feminine side brings out his vulnerabilities and nurturing side. The crew's masculinity comes out in trying to preserve the female while Kong's masculinity is tamed by the female.

In the wild, neither Kong nor Ann represents a cleanly gendered split while their representations in human society are, by the very nature of that society, split into a clean binary (best represented by Kong and the fake Ann's interaction on stage back in New York). Conversely, in society, Jack is a nice metrosexual but in the wild, he develops into a pure masculine energy, determined to heroically save the girl. The crew view Ann as a completely vulnerable individual who must be saved while Kong saves her for bringing out his vulnerabilities.

Juxtaposed against the monkey vs. robot narrative, the gendered aspect is intriguing. In the wild, there's more flexibility for complicated gender performances but when technology evens the playing field, gender must be dichotomously maintained through performance.

What i found intriguing about Jackson's representation of gender in King Kong was that it was so over the top caricatured that it was fascinating to watch unfold (while his racial representation was disturbing at best).

Anyhow... just some random thoughts. Mostly cuz i'd love to hear others' thoughts on the representations in the film.

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: gender kingkong representation

   

Posted by zephoria at 12:33 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack (1)

November 13, 2005

homosexuality

Homosexual is a term originating from the greek words Homos, meaning "same", and sexual, meaning "sexual." It is used to describe couples who have sex in the same manner each night. This is different from heterosexuals who have sex in varying positions.

Homosexuality is especially popular in most Christian religions where anything aside from missionary style sex is considered sodomy. Most christians are outright homosexuals and believe heterosexuality to be a sin. -- Uncylclopedia

ROFL. ::crash::giggle:: Oooh... my belly hurts. ::laugh::laugh::laugh::

Category: gender & sexuality

Tags: homosexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 2:44 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

September 15, 2005

Pledge-a-Picket at Planned Parenthood

i passed their handheld signs
went through their picket lines
they gathered when they saw me coming
they shouted when they saw me cross
i said why don't you go home
just leave me alone - Ani

Anti-choice protesters make it very difficult for Planned Parenthood clinics to provide information, support and a choice for women in need. Protesters work in the most egregious ways to emotionally wreck these women, many of whom are already suffering tremendously. So, when i saw that Planned Parenthood started a campaign called Pledge-a-Picket, i had to pledge. Basically, you can pledge to contribute based on the number of picketers that visit. Thus, every picketer gains Planned Parenthood money by engaging in their egregious behaviors. Their activities are no longer purely destructive - they are inverted to help PP do its work!

Please join me - pledge some picketers.

Note: i know this happened last year too - this is a new campaign that ends November 30

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 4:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

August 7, 2005

FemDefence (modern day chastity belt)

::shudder:: Watch this. They are ads for a Swedish project called FemDefence. It's a design project (not product) that came about after a series of rapes in Sweden in 2003. A bitty warning: there's pain between my legs just thinking about this.

(tx Jo... i think)

Technorati Tags: rape

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 10:10 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

mapping sex in America

Ever have an amazing sexual experience? A night that has become a memory in your head that will always bring you smiles? Or interested in the sexual lives of others?

The Museum of Sex has decided to map the stories of people's sexual lives. Just click on a state and add your story. And then wander around and read the adventures of others (definitely check out NYC). It's fascinating to see what people attest to in different parts of the country. (And yes, it seems as though people have sex everywhere!)

(tx benchun)

Technorati Tags: visualization, sex

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 9:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 1, 2005

swapping gender on websites (a cognitive game)

Ping created a little hack that allows you to read websites with the gendered pronoun information swapped. It's a fascinating cognitive game because your brain is really used to certain assumptions about people based on gender. Spend a day surfing the web with the genders swapped and see when your brain starts itching.

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 8:02 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

July 14, 2005

my queer dyke cunt

I officially feel like an angry dyke because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has deemed my identity "vulgar." In denying "Dykes on Bikes" a trademark, the attorney decided that 'dyke' is offensive, scandalous and vulgar. I love how people in power are allowed to regulate the self-identification of marginalized populations. Don't they realize that we've spent generations trying to take back the terms that they have used to oppress us? These are *their* terms and we've reclaimed them. Now they're ours. And since they are now ours, they can oppress by regulating them. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Update: i'm an idiot and forgot to thank Jason Schultz for keeping me abreast of all this. And bless him for being willing to go to bat for us crazy dykes.

Technorati Tags: queer

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 9:50 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (2)

May 24, 2005

Lessig working to end child abuse

As head boy at a legendary choir school, Lawrence Lessig was repeatedly molested by the charismatic choir director, part of a horrific pattern of child abuse there. Now, as one of America's most famous lawyers, he's put his own past on trial to make sure such a thing never happens again. -- New York Metro

Pedophile inclinations result from an illness, but execution of those desires constitutes rape. And rape is always an abuse of power for which society must do everything in its power to eliminate.

Thank you Larry for having the strength to come forward with your story and use your privilege to put an end to this.

Ni una mas.

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 10:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

May 9, 2005

Perpetuating Intolerance: Microsoft and LGBTQ issues

I was horrified when i heard that Microsoft withdrew support for an anti-gay-discrimination bill. At first, i didn't believe it. I always thought of Microsoft as being super queer friendly. They had won awards for civil rights issues; many of my friends at Microsoft are LGBTQ-identified. Only a few years ago, when i was thinking of going back to industry, Microsoft had done an amazing job of recruitment, involving my girlfriend in the process (and in a trip to a spa), introducing me to other LGBTQ employees and giving me a nice queer guide to Seattle upon arrival. I was exceptionally impressed.

As i dove deeper, i became outright angry and horrified. The justification offered to the LGBTQ group at Microsoft was that they chose to take a "neutral" stand on controversial issues. WTF? "'cause if you're not trying to make something better / then as far as i can tell / you are just in the way" - Ani

Needless to say, queer folks everywhere got pissed. A prominent employee quit. Outrage poured in everywhere. Succumbing to pressure, Microsoft reversed its stance stating: "After looking at the question from all sides, I've concluded that diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business that it should be included in our legislative agenda."

On one hand, i'm glad to see that pressure worked. On the other, i think that some education has to happen here. Whenever issues of marginalization come up, folks often fuck up and when the marginalized population gets pissed, they evaluate if they cries are loud enough. This is not actually a progressive approach. It requires marginalized people to demand their rights, to work extra hard, to always fight rather than forcing privileged folks to do a privilege check and think about what they are doing.

This is particularly problematic in queer issues because the common refrain from the straight world is "keep your sex life out of the professional sphere." It's often accompanied by "I don't bring my sex life to work, why should you?" There are a *lot* of problems with this. Most obviously, take a look at photos on people's desks, who they bring to company events, who they talk about going home to. "But that's not about sex!" Neither is a queer identity. The only reason straight folks think it's about sex is because in order to grapple with a queer identity, they have to bring sex into the picture. Queer issues at work are rarely about sex - they are almost always about identity. It's about being comfortable with who you are, having the right to love and be loved, having the infrastructure to support your loved one, etc.

There is a hegemonic assumption of straightness and it penetrates this culture to the core. Last week, at the airport, a little girl with her mom looked up at me (traveling alone) and asked "Where's your husband?" What was i to say? Instead, i stammered.

Straight folks ask me why queer folks always have to remind everyone that they're queer. Guess what? Every marginalized population consistently reminds you of their identity. Queerness just isn't written on the body in the same way. We remind you because we're tired of being invisible. We remind you because invisibility is damaging at every level of society and the more invisible we let ourselves be, the more oppression occurs.

Companies think that they have no responsibility in social issues. Bullshit. Companies are societal infrastructure and when they choose not to get involved, they maintain status quo in the most conservative ways possible. Not getting involved is an act of making people invisible. Companies are hegemonic in their very nature and to be a progressive company, to be a company for the people means to recognize the inequalities and intolerance embedded in society and work to overcome that. It requires action because inaction perpetuates intolerance.

sitting in the boardroom
the i'm-so-bored room
listening to the suits
talk about their world
they can make straight lines
out of almost anything
except for the line
of my upper lip when it curls - Ani

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 11:40 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

April 15, 2005

BlogHer Conference

The BlogHer Conference has been announced and registration is currently open. I want to see this conference be as diverse as possible - diverse along every axes imaginable. I need your help in organizing women bloggers from around the world with a million perspectives to attend. I'm also interested in adding things to the conference that will meet the needs of different types of women. For me, the goal of this conference is to build social solidarity amongst women. If you have ideas, please let me know.

But please spread the word. The key to success for this event is to get as many different women on board as possible.

There are some scholarships available and i'm hoping that we can find ways to fly women around the world in. Also, if you have any leads to making this possible, please let me know!

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 3:26 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack (1)

March 16, 2005

SXSW, why i attended and marginalized populations

(updated 03/17/05)

OK, SXSW was awesome. I'm sure the Flickr photos show the amount of ridiculousness that went on. There was more. I could pretend to discuss the panels but, let's be honest, i didn't attend many. I did however miraculously make it to mine. I spent a lot of time talking with people, hearing people's stories. I got to meet lots of bloggers i didn't know, got to hear about what other people loved about certain technologies and learn about a few new ones.

Malcolm Gladwell made the entire trip worth it for me. OMG... to have a speaker who was able to speak to the issues of marginalization at a tech conference in a way that people listened by focusing on the experiments took my breath away. I hope at least a fraction of the packed room heard the implications of what he said, of what Blink says. Take his key example: orchestras thought that they were judging men and women equally and that women were just not as good. When they started putting up a curtain at the auditions, suddenly, the ratios changed. Drastically. We have biases in every interaction, unconsciously. And in order to level the playing field, we have to actively work to deal with those biases because we have to change the social structure in order to rid ourselves of the biases.

Speaking of which, i feel the need to address the why sxsw post by Liz and David's why etech post. I chose to go to SXSW. I was actually part of the 5% who applied to etech, only my application was rejected because it wasn't emerging. That's fair. But as an academic, i can only go to conferences that i present at. I wasn't even thinking about SXSW until Tantek approached me to speak on a panel there. At first, i hesitated at his puppy dog eyes. And then i started talking to the gals and realized that it would be a great opportunity to meet up with folks. And then when i saw the program, i got ecstatic to see that issues of identity and other risque topics were going to be actively dealt with, all in the topical structure of SXSW. And there were going to be diverse keynotes, not all of which were technically focused, but applicable to the tech crowd. This made me very very very excited.

David argues that the reason that Etech should be forgiven is because their applicant pool was dismally lacking diversity. I think he's wrong. Of course it is dismal and not due to a lack of talent out there but due to social networks. Lots of people don't even know that they can submit proposals. Almost all of the speakers at this year's Etech were floating around Etech last year. They're already part of the in-crowd. What percentage of Etech applicants attended Etech in a previous year? Given that a small number of women attend the conference, there's going to be a poor representation in applicants. And there were even fewer people of color.

More importantly, marginalized populations often don't think that their voice matters as much as the dominant voices. If we're not part of the social network, we're going to think that even less. I didn't know you could apply to be at Etech until after i was invited to go - i never would've even considered applying. And i didn't know how SXSW panels magically appeared until two days ago.

It's socially and culturally not an equal playing field. You can't build a meritocracy on top of that and one doesn't exist. There are biases at every level. And if you want diversity, you need to actively go after it. Conference organizers - reach out to the women and people of color you know and ask them to brainstorm with you. Actively invite marginalized groups who you know are doing great stuff (or get your friends who are women, POC to do so). Make sure you have diversity on your board. Put together identity-driven BOFs. Invite diverse groups to the low-key events where they're underrepresented so that they can meet and greet (because not all get-togethers are conferences). Do *NOT* expect them to come to you. When you do so, you perpetuate hegemonic forces - you become part of the problem. Meritocracy doesn't emerge by just pretending it exists and without equal grounding, it is not possible.

Update: After a conversation last night, i wanted to clarify a few things. In conferences like SXSW and Etech, there's no clear delineation of what is an acceptable topic or not (as opposed to say CHI). I mean - what is interactive or emerging? Additionally, the review panel consists of a very small number of people (all of who are pretty much guaranteed a slot). At CHI, there are hundreds and hundreds of blind reviewers. At SXSW and Etech, the metric is "interesting" - this is where we get ourselves into trouble. Interesting to whom? To the un-diverse review committee?

At CHI, everyone who is working in the field of HCI knows about it and gets to decide whether or not they appreciate the scope. Many of us in the margins grumble regularly, but still submit our work there. Not everyone working on emergent or interactive knows about Etech and SXSW. A few small percentage of people in each field go. Who goes is very very driven by social networks. Given the homophilous nature of social networks, the longer you go without diversifying, the less diverse it will get and you will have to work harder and more explicitly because you will not get random diverse applications when it's seen as non-diverse. Thus, you have to be explicit to counter that process. People who apply to these conferences have mostly gone to it before or been recruited. If your audience is not diverse, you won't have a diverse application pool.

One concern that was raised regards the % of women working in these fields. We're not talking computer science - not everyone at Etech/SXSW is a CS person. We're talking technology-related. And there are lots of folks who can inform emergent and interactive that aren't CS folks, especially when you have huge tracks that are supposedly on social. I know so many women working in the social tech field - they just aren't part of that network. Most of the social tech events that i go to and throw are more like 40/60 - just not the ones that are part of the "social software" network.

Additionally, i don't believe that the % in the field is a good metric for a conference - i believe you have to surpass that through explicit effort in order to affect the field as a whole. Conferences are networking events and need to be treated as explicit social activities meant to diversify the field. I'd bet most people who attended Etech or SXSW came home with a lot more contacts and relationships, even if only built on beer. Those are people that we'll all run into again, we might even work with simply because we had contact to personalities (not just resumes) at a conference. And if that group isn't diverse, it will affect our work environment as well as our social and general professional.

This is why i'm so invested in this. I'm not an idiot - i know that i get invited to talk partially because i'm a woman. But i believe in opening up the tech field, i believe in diversifying it. And to do so requires more than motions towards meritocracy. If i can be a tool to aid in that activity, fine, but it also doesn't have to be me. It just has to be someone.

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 7:24 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (7)

February 21, 2005

simpsons, gay marriage & kids

In the NYTimes article covering last nite's Simpsons, the president of the Parents Television Council is quoted as having said: "You've got a show watched by millions of children. Do children need to have gay marriage thrust in their faces as an issue? Why can't we just entertain them?"

My immediate reaction was to laugh my ass off. So, in other words, we're supposed to teach when it's a conservative value that the Council supports but supposed to only entertain when it's a value that the Council doesn't share? Hmm... But seriously, when did a parent's council ever support media that just entertains? ::laugh::

Continue reading "simpsons, gay marriage & kids"

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 2:28 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (2)

December 17, 2004

Extremities: a play about rape

I went to see a terrifying play last night - Extremities:

Set in present-day, Extremities is every woman’s worst nightmare come true… with a twist. During an attempted rape, a woman captures her attacker and proceeds to torture him. Her roommates return home and struggle to determine who is guilty of a crime, the woman or her would-be rapist.

It's a benefit for SFWAR - San Francisco Women Against Rape and it runs through this weekend. It's the kind of play that makes you really uncomfortable but you're super glad you saw it.

Category: gender & sexuality

   

Posted by zephoria at 12:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

December 9, 2004

my queer identity

A few days ago, an anonymous reader reached out to me to kindly inform me that i could be saved, offering me prayers in my path to finding Jesus.