On SlutWalk, and the F-word, and other things
* There is not going to be a SlutWalk in Christchurch; council consent couldn't be obtained.
This despite the fact that DV stats have gone up considerably.
This despite the fact that harassment of prostitutes is becoming a bigger problem.
This despite the fact that a lack of bars means more people drinking in residential places, where it's easier to get someone isolated and there are no staff to cut off the very drunk or to intervene in unsafe situations.
This despite the fact that stress, the need to 'let go' or to 'take control' by engineering your own self-destruction (ie reckless drinking, not trying to get someone to rape you) make this city a perfect hunting ground for rapists.
This despite the fact that Rugby World Cup events in the city are getting extra funding while Women's Refuge (+ benefits, education, etc) are being cut and people are still homeless.
On a shallow level, I suppose I understand the reasoning. The atmosphere here is strange. But doesn't that also help make the case that we need it more? I have seen so, so many references to the effects of DV at work. Notes about restraining orders, particularly for the school grants. Women's Refuge being listed as a temporary residence. Names being taken off forms because the rest of the family is trying to break away from them.
On the plus side, the conversation about this on Twitter prompted me to look at what volunteer work the Women's Refuge has available - it looks like there are some things I could do. Fun fact: It costs about NZ$1mil a year to run the organisation. The government funds 40%. Just... do the maths on that. Look at your life, Parliament. Look at your choices. I know there's a lot going on in the world right now, but if anyone was thinking about donating to NZ funds, it'd be nice if you would go through WR even if just this once.
* I've been pondering gender and sexual identification
I pretty clearly identify myself as asexual and genderqueer. Beyond that though things are a little murkier. I've been saying I'm aromantic; I've also been saying I'm queer. I think the most accurate description would be agendered asexual with a romantic interest in women (or comfortably not-too-masculine genderqueer folk) who happens to be too broken for a relationship at the moment. Because I can totally fancy girls. I've never been in love, but that's presumably not that unusual. I need a lot of time for myself, but mostly in my past relationships I haven't been secure in my identity as being asexual, so there'd always be this undercurrent of tension with regards to what was expected, so being in their presence was difficult. No relationship can be healthy like that.
If I had to use shorthand, then, I would probably say that I was homoromantic, but I'm a little uneasy with that because terms like that are pretty binary about gender. hetero- the other gender, homo- the same gender. But what if they're both the other gender? Would that make me heteroromantic? I would be extremely uncomfortable with that, for many reasons. Panromantic is plausible, but probably implies I'd be open to a relationship with a man, and honestly, I don't think I am. Ditto biromantic, people will assume it means male+female, not female+genderqueer. Femromantic could work, I suppose.
Mostly, I think I'm just queer. It's by far the easiest term. It doesn't detail the particulars, but it encompasses me, with my desire for a body that just doesn't have primary and secondary sexual characteristics, my position in the big wide world of lust and sex and love, the way I don't really fit in to words that can be defined without a lot of verbal struggle and clarifications.
On that note... and I feel quite nervous expressing this, which as an emotional reaction could be tied up in all sorts of cultural conditioning... I would kind of like to start using gender neutral pronouns, specifically zie/zir, because while politically I will always argue women's rights, I do not want to be a woman, I'm not a woman, and at least on the internet I have some control over how I present. Big boobs and little waist and curviness and being way less than average height for a fully grown male don't define me here.
* The F-word, movements and allies
I am uncomfortable with identifying as a feminist. For so many reasons, and very different from the main reason I feel uncomfortable calling myself a womanist - ie, that I'm white, and it feels really appropriative. And this is something that naturally comes up if I ponder over gender too much, because I've seen quite a few discussions in which women have said that if you're not a woman, you can't be a feminist. I've seen others say otherwise, of course, because I suspect there are as many opinions on what feminism is as there are people who have heard of it. But often they have specifically being speaking on the subject of genderqueer folk. Namely that they can speak about feminist issues they have experienced, but they can't be feminist.
I'm not sure I actually agree there - someone who is always or almost always read as a woman is going to have many of the same experiences as a woman, after all (obviously it's very different for someone who's more often read as a man) - but I'm not exactly clamouring to be considered a feminist, so I think I'm actually fine stepping back and respecting that opinion, especially considering feminism's problematic history with issues of transgendered people and the like. (Philosophical question: if someone wanted to transition to a bodily sex that is neither male nor female, can they rightfully call themselves transgender? If one day I had the money and the access to at least get top surgery and, idk, low hormone shots, would I be ftn? Kind of interesting to ponder.)
I don't know what this does make me, because humanist and equalist both prompt instinctual reactions of RAAAAAEGGG, and women's rights advocate sounds like MRA which is even more RAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEGGGGGGGG.
Maybe I just support the liberal underdog.
This entry was originally posted at http://keieeeye.dreamwidth.org/179619.html. Feel free to comment there instead because LJ is a poo.
This despite the fact that DV stats have gone up considerably.
This despite the fact that harassment of prostitutes is becoming a bigger problem.
This despite the fact that a lack of bars means more people drinking in residential places, where it's easier to get someone isolated and there are no staff to cut off the very drunk or to intervene in unsafe situations.
This despite the fact that stress, the need to 'let go' or to 'take control' by engineering your own self-destruction (ie reckless drinking, not trying to get someone to rape you) make this city a perfect hunting ground for rapists.
This despite the fact that Rugby World Cup events in the city are getting extra funding while Women's Refuge (+ benefits, education, etc) are being cut and people are still homeless.
On a shallow level, I suppose I understand the reasoning. The atmosphere here is strange. But doesn't that also help make the case that we need it more? I have seen so, so many references to the effects of DV at work. Notes about restraining orders, particularly for the school grants. Women's Refuge being listed as a temporary residence. Names being taken off forms because the rest of the family is trying to break away from them.
On the plus side, the conversation about this on Twitter prompted me to look at what volunteer work the Women's Refuge has available - it looks like there are some things I could do. Fun fact: It costs about NZ$1mil a year to run the organisation. The government funds 40%. Just... do the maths on that. Look at your life, Parliament. Look at your choices. I know there's a lot going on in the world right now, but if anyone was thinking about donating to NZ funds, it'd be nice if you would go through WR even if just this once.
* I've been pondering gender and sexual identification
I pretty clearly identify myself as asexual and genderqueer. Beyond that though things are a little murkier. I've been saying I'm aromantic; I've also been saying I'm queer. I think the most accurate description would be agendered asexual with a romantic interest in women (or comfortably not-too-masculine genderqueer folk) who happens to be too broken for a relationship at the moment. Because I can totally fancy girls. I've never been in love, but that's presumably not that unusual. I need a lot of time for myself, but mostly in my past relationships I haven't been secure in my identity as being asexual, so there'd always be this undercurrent of tension with regards to what was expected, so being in their presence was difficult. No relationship can be healthy like that.
If I had to use shorthand, then, I would probably say that I was homoromantic, but I'm a little uneasy with that because terms like that are pretty binary about gender. hetero- the other gender, homo- the same gender. But what if they're both the other gender? Would that make me heteroromantic? I would be extremely uncomfortable with that, for many reasons. Panromantic is plausible, but probably implies I'd be open to a relationship with a man, and honestly, I don't think I am. Ditto biromantic, people will assume it means male+female, not female+genderqueer. Femromantic could work, I suppose.
Mostly, I think I'm just queer. It's by far the easiest term. It doesn't detail the particulars, but it encompasses me, with my desire for a body that just doesn't have primary and secondary sexual characteristics, my position in the big wide world of lust and sex and love, the way I don't really fit in to words that can be defined without a lot of verbal struggle and clarifications.
On that note... and I feel quite nervous expressing this, which as an emotional reaction could be tied up in all sorts of cultural conditioning... I would kind of like to start using gender neutral pronouns, specifically zie/zir, because while politically I will always argue women's rights, I do not want to be a woman, I'm not a woman, and at least on the internet I have some control over how I present. Big boobs and little waist and curviness and being way less than average height for a fully grown male don't define me here.
* The F-word, movements and allies
I am uncomfortable with identifying as a feminist. For so many reasons, and very different from the main reason I feel uncomfortable calling myself a womanist - ie, that I'm white, and it feels really appropriative. And this is something that naturally comes up if I ponder over gender too much, because I've seen quite a few discussions in which women have said that if you're not a woman, you can't be a feminist. I've seen others say otherwise, of course, because I suspect there are as many opinions on what feminism is as there are people who have heard of it. But often they have specifically being speaking on the subject of genderqueer folk. Namely that they can speak about feminist issues they have experienced, but they can't be feminist.
I'm not sure I actually agree there - someone who is always or almost always read as a woman is going to have many of the same experiences as a woman, after all (obviously it's very different for someone who's more often read as a man) - but I'm not exactly clamouring to be considered a feminist, so I think I'm actually fine stepping back and respecting that opinion, especially considering feminism's problematic history with issues of transgendered people and the like. (Philosophical question: if someone wanted to transition to a bodily sex that is neither male nor female, can they rightfully call themselves transgender? If one day I had the money and the access to at least get top surgery and, idk, low hormone shots, would I be ftn? Kind of interesting to ponder.)
I don't know what this does make me, because humanist and equalist both prompt instinctual reactions of RAAAAAEGGG, and women's rights advocate sounds like MRA which is even more RAAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEEGGGGGGGG.
Maybe I just support the liberal underdog.
This entry was originally posted at http://keieeeye.dreamwidth.org/179619.html. Feel free to comment there instead because LJ is a poo.