On the Boy Scouts’ Homophobic and Biphobic Membership Policy

20 05 2013

gaybsa_thRegarding the impending vote among Boy Scouts of America (BSA) leaders of whether to accept gay and bisexual men and boys into its membership, one concerned troop leader noted:

The problem is, do I let my kids who are straight share bathrooms and shower houses with kids who are not? How do I divide these kids up for camps? I mean, do I put the gay kids together and then the straight kids together?

Unfortunately, because of its religious foundation, many in BSA see homosexuality as incongruent with the values of the organization.  In essence, it boils down to a moral issue.  But, opponents of an inclusive membership policy — one that no longer explicitly excludes gays and bisexuals — are doing a poor job of disentangling several components of sexuality.  The above quote seems to take issue with boy scouts’ sexual practices.  Specifically, there is concern about same-sex sexuality.  Yet, scouts who identify as gay or bisexual, regardless of their sexual practices, are excluded.  Their sexual identities are assumed to reflect same-sex sexual activity that would occur during scouting events and meetings.  That’s a bit presumptuous.

But, the slight openness to allowing gay and bisexual scouts, but not gay and bisexual scout leaders, suggests something more than the conflation of sexual identity and sexual behavior.  Across the board, gay and bisexual men are being characterized as hypersexual.  Their “open” presence is being described as something that will bring about prevalent same-sex sexual activity — and, of course, that’s bad!  OnMyHonor.net, a site devoted to opposing change to BSA’s bi- and homophobic policy, has offered an extensive list — top 10 reasons to oppose policy change, including:

Opening the Boy Scouts to boys who openly proclaim being sexually attracted to other boys and/or openly identify themselves as “gay” will inevitably create an increase of boy-on-boy sexual contact which will result in further public scandal to the BSA, not to mention the tragedy of countless boys who will experience sexual, physical and psychological abuse. BSA’s

Whoa, see that?  They went from sexual identity to sexual activity to… sexual abuse.  Ah, there it is!  Gay and bisexual boys and men are, yet again, being stereotyped as sexual predators.  Opponents’ concerns are not merely consensual sex among the scouts.  They are also fanning the flames of gay and bisexual boys who will rape other (heterosexual) boys and, the good old stereotype of gay men as pedophiles.  To clarify:

Rarely does a pedophile experience sexual desire for adults of either gender. They usually don’t identify as homosexual; the majority identify as heterosexual, even those who abuse children of the same gender. They are sexually aroused by extreme youth, not by gender.  [This video is also very helpful to break this myth down.]

Who Are The Real Predators?

So, if opponents are using the exclusion of gays and bisexuals as a way to keep out pedophiles, their efforts are misguided and, frankly, lazy.  But, more importantly, I find it a repulsive twist in the perpetrator-victim dynamic.  In the debates of the inclusion of gays and bisexuals, be it the removal of exclusionary policies or a change in the climate, in various institutions — the military, athletics, education, and the Boy Scouts — gay and bisexual men are regularly characterized as a threat to heterosexual men (and boys).  Somehow, a group that reflects less than 4 percent of the US population is seen as a threat to the remaining 96 percent.

Beyond the numbers, heterosexuals are systematically privileged in ways that queer people are not.  They have more power in society.  Where is this threat coming from?

And, the reality I know as a queer man is that I have infinitely greater chance of being attacked by a heterosexual than heterosexuals do by me.  I regularly see news reports of some gay man who was severely beaten or killed in a homophobic hate crime, or a transwoman who was the victim of a transphobic murder.  Worldwide, our generally peaceful protests just for equal status in society are met with violent riots or threats of violence.  In addition to the actual perpetration of violence, many queer people live in fear of violence — the effective outcome of hate crimes across the world.

In terms of sexual violence, queer people are systematically targeted, including childhood sexual abuse, and “corrective rape” perpetrated by heterosexual men against queer women.  And, the overwhelming majority of instances of sexual violence against women are perpetrated by heterosexual men; and, those committed against men, regardless of sexual orientation, are perpetrated by straight men, as well.

So, another point of clarification is needed: sexual violence is an expression of power, not sexual desire.  By that logic, it is more likely that heterosexual men perpetrate sexual violence than, and even against, gay and bisexual men.

Concluding Thoughts

The conflation of gay/bisexual sexual identity with consensual same-sex sexual activity with sexual violence (including pedophilia) is not a concern for the well-being of (heterosexual) boys.  True concern would do a better job of disentangling these aspects of sexuality and sexual violence.  Continuing to enact homophobic and biphobic discrimination does not protect children from harm (just as excluding gay priests does not prevent sexual abuse in the church).

Rather, these concerns are about maintaining the ugly practice of excluding a marginalized group, which is more likely threatened by the majority than a threat to it.  Gay and bisexual boys are being denied participation in this otherwise positive organization.  Gay and bisexual men are being denied the opportunity to serve as positive role models, offering a unique perspective that likely still upholds the values of citizenship in BSA.  And, heterosexual boys and men are robbed of opportunities to foster positive connections with gay and bisexual boys and men, including the ideal outcome of coming to see gays and bisexuals as humans with great potential rather than deviants, monsters, or villains.  The real threat is to an older, closed-minded generation that fears that the younger generation will come to see all people as equals regardless of their sexual identity; so, they aim to prevent this by enacting exclusionary policies.

It is my hope that BSA finally takes a chance on promoting equality for a change — as a person who advocates for equality, but also a queer ex-Boy Scout.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Bias, Biphobia, Children, Discrimination, Exclusion, Fear, Gay Men, GBT Men, Hate Crimes, Heterosexism, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, Homophobia, Identity, Institutional Homophobia, Interpersonal Homophobia, LGBT People, LGBT Youth, Men, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), Morality, Oppression, Pedophilia, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Privilege, Queer, Rape, Sex, Sexual Assault, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Stereotypes, Stigma, Transphobia, Violence Against Queer People, Youth

[kinsey] April Is Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM) – Are We Aware Yet?

22 04 2013

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

There is still a little over a week left in April – Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM).  This is our annual 30-day-long recognition of a problem that affects far too many people, especially girls and women: sexual violence.  The primary goals of the month is to raise awareness about sexual violence and, ultimately, eliminate it all together.

With nearly forty years of anti-sexual violence activism — are we aware yet?  Unfortunately, not so much.

What Is Sexual Violence?

An important starting point for raising awareness about sexual violence is to define it.  A major focus of sexual violence prevention is on sexual assault, which is typically defined as any sexual contact with a person without their consent, through coercion, or by force.

Because of inconsistent definitions in the law, especially from state to state, non-consensual sex is sometimes referred to as rape.  Some distinguish rape from sexual assault to include any non-consensual sexual acts that involve penetration.

While these distinctions are important, at least for legal purposes, they are not inclusive of other unwanted sexual acts.  So, advocates have pushed for recognition of the full range of such acts under the broad umbrella of sexual violence.  This broader category includes:

Attention to sexual violence, as a broad class of non-consensual sexual acts, also allows for attention to victims who are often overlooked, including boys and men.

The Basis Of Sexual Violence

Next, it is important to understand what sexual violence is based upon.  Sexual violence is an expression of power.  It is a tool that is used to physical, mentally, and/or emotionally control another person.  It is not an expression of sexual desire.

In understanding sexual violence this way, the myths that someone simply goes over board, gets carried away, or that their hormones got out of control are dispelled.

Beyond Individuals

By “power,” I am referring primarily to the social hierarchies, which place members of our society either at a high or low status.  Most attention has been paid to sexual violence as an expression of sexism.  In particular, women are afforded lower status and less power in society than men.  There are various things that some men do to further limit women’s status or disempower them, or even take advantage of them, including sexual violence.

So, it is important to look beyond what, on the surface, appears to be a private, individual act of sexual violence.  For example, the seemingly personal acts of acquaintance rape  and spousal rape are fundamentally political because they serve as an express of sexism.  But, sexual violence may also be based on other systems of oppression, including racism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ageism, ableism, and fatphobia.

Sexual Violence And Oppression

But, sexual violence is not merely an expression of one or more of these systems of inequality.  It is also influenced and justified by them.  For example, sexism includes the rigid control of women’s bodies and sexualities, the sexual objectification of girls and women, and so forth.  This creates a dynamic where girls and women are vulnerable to sexual violence, and in which some men feel entitled to women’s bodies.

When women are victimized, the act is justified by stereotyping men as naturally oversexed and women as asexual, or by blaming the victim.  Alternatively, others may turn a blind eye, or even deny that it occurred.

Also, sexual violence actually reinforces these systems of oppression.  Again, using the example of sexism, women’s subordinate status to men, and constrained opportunities and well-being are partly the artifact of sexual violence.  Some reports suggest 1 in 4 women are survivors of rape or sexual assault, and, thereafter are at risk for facing various health problems.  Even more women live in fear that they may be victimized (or revictimized).

Sexual Violence As A Social Problem

Reflecting the systematic component of oppression, sexual violence is not a random occurrence.  And, all members of society do not share an equal chance of being victimized.  Women make up 90 percent of survivors of sexual violence.  In addition, there is evidence that repeat perpetrators of sexual violence account for most acts of sexual assault and rape.

Sexual violence, then, reflects a society-wide problem.  Further, some social organizations and institutions play a role, either by 1) ignoring such acts, 2) failing to support survivors and protect victims from further harm, 3) failing to punish perpetrators, 4) condoning these acts, and/or 5) facilitating sexual violence.  For example, colleges and universities have been criticized for (unintentionally) creating space for rampant sexual violence on campuses.  Recently, more and more schools have come under fire for doing too little in response to sexual violence, or even discouraging reports of victimization.

Culturally, how we talk about sexual violence (or not) contributes to the problem.  Too often, in everyday conversations, the media, pop culture, and so forth, jokes are made about rape and sexual assault, victims are blamed for their own victimization, and perpetrators are excused for actions.  In fact, many have argued that we live in a rape culture because sexual violence and the cultural norms that condone it are so pervasive.

Another facet to this is the harassment and bullying that survivors face for reporting their victimization, and their and allies’ public anti-sexual violence activism.  In other words, some victims and allies who speak out face a backlash, which aims to silence them.  A strong effort is made to keep sexual violence invisible, or at least seem like isolated, random, private acts.

Sexual Violence Prevention As A Community Responsibility

Because sexual violence is such a huge, widespread problem, no one person can stop it alone.  That is why many anti-sexual violence advocates are pushing for bystander intervention – a call for others to fight against sexual violence.  This includes:

  1. Intervening when sexual violence occurs if it is safe to do so.  For example, this can mean alerting a teacher if your friend confides in you that she is being molested by her uncle (and she agrees to have you tell the teacher).  Or, making sure your friend, who is very drunk, gets home to his own bed after a party.  Or, letting your coworker know that whistling at women on the street is a form of harassment and encourage him to stop.
  2. Supporting victims and survivors of violence.  One of the most important things to do is ensure them that you hear them and believe them.  (Unfortunately, they may be doubted by others, and face the broader victim-blaming norms in society.)  Ask them how you can help them.  And, ask them whether they wish to report their victimization (e.g., to the police).  It is okay to encourage them to pursue either support for themselves or punishment for the perpetrator, but ultimately they can choose not to and you should respect that.
  3. Challenging victim-blaming and other aspects of our rape culture.  For example, speak up when you hear rape jokes or “slut-shaming.”  Or, write to media outlets or politicians who perpetuate these problems.  Or, join an anti-sexual violence campaign or organization.  Participate in your own or the nearest college’s Take Back the Night rally and other anti-sexual violence events.
  4. Educate yourself and others.  For example, help to raise awareness about what sexual violence is, how it is a society-wide problem, and what we can all do to prevent it.  Have frank, yet age-appropriate conversations with your children, students, or other young people about consent.
  5. Break the silence about sexual violence.  This goes for allies and, if they feel safe and comfortable, survivors of sexual violence.  This means bringing up the subject when opportunities arise, or even making those opportunities happen.  My own approach is to blog and cover sexual violence in the courses I teach.  While it may be difficult in some ways, I find that men who are allies to survivors can have great impact in speaking up about sexual violence.

Indeed, we are not there yet in having a good understanding of sexual violence and why it persists.  But, hopefully, we will at least be closer by next year’s Sexual Assault Awareness Month!  And, of course, our collective efforts should not be limited to the month of April.

Additional Resources

 


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Bodies, Domestic Violence, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Hate Crimes, Inequality, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, Kinsey Confidential, Media, Men, Popular Culture, Rape, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Society, Violence, Violence Against Women, Women, Social Norms, Discrimination, Prejudice, Abortion, Sexual Behavior, Power, Oppression, Women of Color, Criminal Justice, Injustice, Crime, Anti-Sexism, Bystander Intervention, Social Institutions, Patriarchy, Fear, Victim-Blaming, Dating Violence, Desire, Rape Culture

Oppression As Terrorism

7 03 2013

What image comes to mind when you hear the term “terrorist“?  I can imagine most Americans think of something like the images that a quick Google search yields:Screen Shot 2013-03-07 at 7.14.25 AM

Right now, these are the kinds of images that predominate US discourse on terrorism, particularly after the terrorists attacks in NYC, DC, and PA on September 11, 2001.  Before that, this was the image of terrorism, at least in my mind:

That of domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh – a white supremacists.  As a nation, we are more fixated on the threat posed by those pictured in the first image — those people in that country.  Our fear of terrorism is used as justification for our xenophobic prejudice toward nations outside of the West.  Arguably, it also undergirds the vehement anti-immigration sentiment, now that “immigrant” has become synonymous with “Hispanic,” “Latino,” “Mexican,” and “illegal.”

For the oppressed members of the US — people of color, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) people, religious minorities, and immigrants in particular — terrorism exists daily within our borders.  Defining terrorism simply as a systematic effort to evoke fear and terror in another group, oppressed groups experience both violence and the threat of violence (i.e., terrorism).  In addition to the daily microaggressions and discrimination, these marginalized groups are kept in “their place” through violence and terrorism.

Power And Defining Violence

Continuing to gobble up every idea in sociologist Patricia Hill Collins‘s book, On Intellectual Activism, I got the encouragement I needed to write this post, which I have been contemplating for some time.  She has a chapter, “The Ethos of Violence,” in which she argues that violence is not a given phenomenon.  Rather, it is socially constructed, wherein its meaning is taken from its historical and social context.  But, as I usually do when drawing upon a social constructionist perspective, I echo her argument that the power to define socially is not shared equally.  Rather, dominant social groups hold the power to define violence.  Whites, the middle- and upper-classes, men, heterosexuals, US-born citizens, and so on define violence.

Take the unfortunate example of the shooting in an elementary school in Connecticut.  It would be unimaginable to think anyone would dispute that this was a tragedy — yes, even one that warrants the overdue changes to gun control laws in the US.  But, as some pointed out, that kind of rare tragedy in middle-class white America garners great national attention, while everyday violence in urban, poor, and Black and Latin/o neighborhoods rarely get attention.  As Collins’s points out, these events, though more common, are not treated as noteworthy violence because they do not directly affect the privileged members of America.  In fact, such violence is treated as something to be routinely expected of the inferior classes of people who are stereotyped as natural savages.

Look at the intense political battles against protections from discrimination and violence for women, trans* people, people of color, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.  It is difficult to fathom how one could oppose protection from violence.  But, men, cisgender people, heterosexuals, the wealthy, and whites are shielded from violence.  As a part of their privilege, they neither witness nor experience violence enacted toward them because of their status.

Oppression As Terrorism

Collins also notes that, in addition to the violence enacted against oppressed people, they are also terrorized by the threat of such violence.

The routine nature of violence is highly significant in maintaining the social control needed for social inequalities to be seen as natural, normal, and inevitable.  The significance of violence goes much deeper than the small number of visible violent acts that actually occur in relation to the size of the American population as well as the interpretive climate needed to define it.   Rather, the threat of violence constitutes a powerful tool of social control.  For example, women who monitor what they wear, where they walk and with whom, and the time of day they appear in public places adjust their behavior in response to the fear of violence against them.  Women do not have total access to the streets because these spaces remain coded as male spaces, at least most of the time.  A particular woman need not be raped to know that some streets are always dangerous or that all streets are sometimes dangerous.  The fear of physical and sexual assault is sufficient to keep her in her place.

In the above quote, Collins points out that, while at least one-quarter of women experience actual sexual violence, they and the remaining 75 percent of women are plagued by the threat of sexual (and other forms of) violence.  That sexual violence affects women such that they live in fear and adjust their behaviors to minimize their vulnerability and this fear constitutes a form of terrorism.  And, that seemingly isolated acts serve to threaten and disempower an entire marginalized group (women), rape and sexual assault constitutes a type of hate crime.

In a forthcoming article in Journal of Homosexuality, considering the intersections among race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, Doug Meyer and I found that white men and heterosexual men (the sample was too small to consider all three identities simultaneously) were the only groups wherein fewer than half (~30 percent) reported being afraid to walk alone at night within 1 mile of their own homes.  All women, regardless of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, Black and Latino men, and sexual minority men had comparable percentages of those who said they felt such fear (between 70-80 percent).  These patterns held even as we accounted for their prior experiences of robbery or other crimes.

Marginalized groups have real reason to live in fear.  The rates of documented acts of violence are high — just imagine what the rates would look like if most acts of violence were actually reported.  And, think about the costs of the fear that most members of marginalized groups experience.  This fear and the efforts one may take to protect oneself from violence can mean watching every aspect of your behavior, remaining vigilant and in a heightened state of arousal when walking alone, being wary of strangers of privileged groups, staying away from certain parts of town, or forgoing certain activities all together.  For myself, as my partner and I visit Richmond next week to search for a place to live, I have such concerns weighing on my mind; where will we feel safe as an interracial queer couple?

Given their privilege, whites, men, cisgender people, heterosexuals, those born in the US, and the wealthy do not have to experience nor think about violence and the fear of violence.  Beyond that, they do not have to acknowledge or validate the fear experienced by members of oppressed groups.  Further, they have the power to subvert our claims of violence, either as isolated acts that are not motivated by hate (rather than systemic violence and terrorism) or even as something victims brought on themselves.  Maybe it was the short skirt she was wearing.  Maybe it was the hoodie he was wearing.  Maybe he flirted with the guy.  Maybe she “lied” about her sex-assigned-at-birth.

Terrorism And The State

What complicates this further is that the state, which proclaims to protect all Americans, is implicated in violence against the oppressed.  Laws on the books are either selectively or weakly enforced.  Proposed laws to protect marginalized groups from violence are somehow characterized as a threat to privileged groups.  And, too often, the state itself enacts violence (e.g., police brutality, injustice in the criminal justice system, forced sterilization, interment, enslavement, raids).  Who protects us when even our protectors enact violence against us or fails to intervene when others attack us?

How quickly we developed national efforts to guard against terrorism (and protect our national borders from “illegals“) — of course, that is when dominant groups come under threat.  There has never been a Homeland Security to protect against racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism.  The oppressed are on their own for that.  Ironically, it seems that when the state moves to protect all Americans, the oppressed become suspects.  Anyone with brown skin can be searched and demanded for their “papers.”  Transgender and gender non-conforming people are subjected to additional screening through TSA security checks at airports.  But, c’mon — this is in the name of security for all!

Another Irony Of Oppression

Something akin to the “double bind” or “dual-edged sword” that oppressed people face — the sense that you are “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” — is a sense of irony about systems of oppression.  A good example of the “double bind” for women is the reality that they are penalized for being feminine in a masculinist society, but then punished if they are “too masculine” — something that, in overly simplistic pragmatic terms — would make sense to get ahead in life.  But, what I find more ironic is a twist on certain aspects of oppression.

In particular, I find it ironic that members of oppressed groups face everyday threats of violence, discrimination, and subtler expressions of hatred, yet are characterized as a threat to dominant society.  People of color are subject to violence by, yet are portrayed as violent to, white America.  Gay men, in particular, are frequent targets of homophobic violence and discrimination by, yet are characterized as threatening to, heterosexual men.  Women, if given the power to control anything (even their own bodies!), are seen as a threat to the livelihood of the nation.

There is an exchange in the 2007 movie version of the play, Hairspray, that sticks out in my memory:

Screen Shot 2013-03-07 at 10.31.36 AM

Seaweed: “And this young lady right here is Penny Pingleton.”
Penny: “I’m very pleased and scared to be here.”
Motormouth Maybelle: “Now, honey, we got more reason to be scared on your street.”

Concluding Thoughts

I suppose the take-away points of this post could be: 1) calling for better attention to collective understandings of violence and terrorism, which erase the ways in which oppressed people are attacked and terrorized daily; and 2) calling for real, sustained efforts to account for, outlaw, and remedy the vast amount of violence that routinely occurs against marginalized groups.

This should entail, as Collins points out, better understanding violence at the intersection of systems of oppression, including the heightened risk of violence among those who belong to multiple oppressed groups (especially women and LGBT people of color and poor LGBT people and women).  For, even within our own communities, we face violence.  Yet, for some reason, many members of privileged groups continue to dismiss our efforts protect ourselves from discrimination and violence — basic, fundamental rights — as “special rights.”


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, America, American Indians, Asians and Asian Americans, Black Communities, Black Feminism, Black People, Black Women, Bodies, Bullying, Cisgender People, Cisgender Privilege, Cissexism, Classism, Congress, Crime, Dating Violence, Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Ethnicity, Fear, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Government, Hate Crimes, Health, Heterosexism, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuals, History, Homophobia, Hypervigiliance, Immigration, Injustice, Intellectual Activism, Interracial, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, Invisibility, Irony, Latina/o People, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Male Privilege, Marginalized Groups, Me, Men, Microaggressions, Middle-Class, Middle-Class Privilege, Minorities, Minority Stress, Oppression, People of Color, Politicians, Politics, Poverty, Power, Prejudice, Privilege, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, Research, Secondary Marginalization, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Silence, Social Constructionism, Social Science, Society, Sociology, Stereotypes, The Body, The State, Trans*, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Victim-Blaming, Violence, Violence Against People of Color, Violence Against Queer People, Violence Against Trans* People, Violence Against Women, White People, White Privilege, Women, Women of Color, Xenophobia

A Gay Guy’s Guide To Feminism – A Brief Introduction

4 03 2013

With the start of Women’s, Womyn‘s, and Womanist Herstory Month this past Friday, I have been wondering what more I can do to challenge sexism — including my own.  As I have noted in previous posts, I have an evolving awareness that my own disadvantaged social location as a brown queer man does not make me immune to sexism, nor any other system of oppression.

One important task of my anti-sexist advocacy is to become aware of the ways in which I am privileged as a man.  I know this to be a particular challenge for queer men because of our awareness that we are disadvantaged among men.  So, I was disappointed to find little beyond a few personal reflections from feminist-identified gay men to guide me and other queer men to understand and appropriately fight sexism.  The Guy’s Guide to Feminism seems like a good start, but I find it useful to engage gay men from their unique relationships with sexism, women, and male privilege.

Feminism For Gay Men 101

Though I am just at the beginning of a lifelong journey to understanding sexism and my own male privilege, here are a few lessons I would like to impart to my fellow gay men:

      1. We are men.  We hold male privilege.  Period.
      2. Yes, number 1 is true despite our sexual orientation and despite our gender expression (no matter how feminine, androgynous, or queer).  Though gay masculinity is devalued relative to hegemonic masculinity (i.e., white heterosexual middle-class able-bodied young/middle-age masculinity), it is still privileged over all femininities.
      3. Systems of oppression are linked including — particularly relevant to this discussion — sexism, heterosexism, and cissexism.  As such, our liberation is tied to the liberation of ciswomen and trans* people.
      4. While number 3 is true, we are not immune to sexist attitudes and behaviors.  And, most importantly, being gay does not make us anti-sexist.  Our marginalized status among men may make it easier to understand sexist oppression, but it does does not preclude us from it.  Just like heterosexual cisgender men who engage in anti-sexist activism, we must be active in challenging the prejudice, discrimination, and violence against women, and to keep our male privilege in check (i.e., give it up or use it for good).
      5. Though we generally are not sexually attracted to women, we are just as capable of sexually harassing or assaulting women.  The root of sexual violence is power, not sexual attraction.  I must point out here that too many of us have sexually harassed or assaulted women and naively excused the behavior as innocent because we are gay.  Sexual violence by any perpetrator is wrong.  But, that of gay men has the added element of placing our women friends and allies in the difficult position of questioning whether to feel violated or upset.
      6. Related to number 5, we must stop treating the women in our lives as objects or accessories.  Yes, many heterosexual women are guilty of doing this to us — the gay BFF, every girl’s must have! — which is also wrong.  Friendships that exist because of her gender or your sexual orientation are forms of exotification.
      7. Attraction to male-bodied individuals, men, and masculinity must be stripped of the presumed aversion to female-bodied individuals, women, and femininity.  We need not be repulsed by female bodies just because we are not sexually attracted to (cis)women.  Even when joking, this is no less problematic than (cisgender) heterosexuals who proclaim to be repulsed by people of their same sex.
      8. Certain aspects of gay men’s culture that promote pride and empowerment among us come at the expense of women’s empowerment.  To call a fellow gay man “bitch,” “cunt,” and, more commonly in the drag scene, “fish,” is to use a term that derogates women.  Though they may be positive in intent and meaning, these are not instances of reclaiming pejorative terms used against us: self-identifying as queer is; “servin’ up fish!” isn’t.  Just think how outraged we would be if women decided to adopt “faggot” as a term of endearment among themselves.
      9. Our queer, bisexual, and lesbian sisters are oppressed by heterosexism and sexism.  We, as LGBT and queer people, will not be fully liberated by addressing homophobia and heterosexism alone.
      10. Related to number 9, we must recognize that LBQ women are often subject to our sexist prejudice and behavior, ranging from anti-lesbian jokes to outright exclusion (often disguised as innocently bonding with other gay men or even the product of our exclusive attraction to men).
      11. The way that we devalue femininity among ourselves is another arm of sexism.  The “no femmes” sentiment, aptly called femmephobia, is nothing more than the hatred of femininity, which is associated with women.  Beyond eliminating this silly prejudice in our anti-sexist efforts, we do ourselves the favor of freeing the constraints on how we can behave and express our gender.
      12. We owe it — yes, we owe it — to the ciswomen and trans* people who have fought against the injustices we face to fight against those they face.  Even when kept at the periphery or outright excluded, transpeople have fought for equal rights and status for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Many lesbian and bisexual women served as caregivers to gay and bisexual men with HIV/AIDS during the 1980s and 1990s, while also fighting along side those who worked for better HIV/AIDS health care.  Feminists of all walks of life have advocated for our protection from prejudice, discrimination, and violence, seeing it as important in (and linked to) activism against sexist discrimination and violence against women.

We owe it to our ciswomen and trans* friends and allies — and ourselves — to be better feminists.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Bodies, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, HIV & AIDS, Homophobia, Inequality, Intersectionality, LGBT People, Men, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), Pride, Queer, Rape, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence Against Women, Women, Community, Privilege, Discrimination, Prejudice, Heterosexism, Stereotypes, Power, Oppression, Cisgender People, Coalitions, Marginalized Groups, Me, History, Injustice, Justice, Heterosexuality, Gay Men, LGBT Communities, Heterosexuals, Attitudes, LGBT Rights, Allies, Male Privilege, Anti-Sexism, GBT Men, LBT Women, Lesbians, Identity, Exclusion, Diversity, Cissexism, Patriarchy, Pejoratives, LGBT Culture

“Stop-And-Frisk”: Legalized Racist, Homophobic, And Transphobic Discrimination

10 01 2013

New York City’s unpopular, but supposedly “effective” crime-reducing program, “Stop, Question, and Frisk” or (“Stop-and-Frisk” for short), was ruled unconstitutional on Tuesday.  The program entails the following: “a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.”

The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that NYC police officers were systematically stopping people with little cause for suspicion.  (In this particular case, police officers were stopping individuals thought to be trespassing on a Bronx apartment complex property.)  In reviewing police training, she further noted that this evidence “strengthens the conclusion that the N.Y.P.D.’s inaccurate training has taught officers the following lesson: Stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later.”

“Because any member of the public could conceivably find herself outside a TAP building in the Bronx, the public at large has a liberty and dignity interest in bringing an end to the practice of unconstitutional stops at issue in this case,” the judge wrote.

In a way, this is exactly what NYC major Michael Bloomberg and other advocates of the “stop-and-frisk” program call for.  In exchange for the universal possibility of being stopped by a police officer, residents of NYC see a significant reduction in crime and gun possession.  While there have been notable declines in the crime rate (but few seizures of guns), many have argued that this purported exchange is not enjoyed universally.  Rather, an overwhelming majority of those stopped by police over the past two years were Black and Latino men.  Judge Scheindlin took note of one role of race (and racism) in her decision:

As a person exits a building, the ruling said, “the police suddenly materialize, stop the person, demand identification, and question the person about where he or she is coming from and what he or she is doing.”

The decision continued: “Attempts at explanation are met with hostility; especially if the person is a young black man, he is frisked, which often involves an invasive search of his pockets; in some cases the officers then detain the person in a police van.”

Legalized Racism

Many civil rights and anti-racist activists have criticized the “stop-and-frisk” program due to the overrepresentation of men of color in police stops.  Indeed, in practice, the program is a form of institutional discrimination — in this case, as disparate impact discrimination.  That is, while the program does not target a particular disadvantaged group — men of color — by design, it does, in practice, disproportionately burden them.

Typically, disparate impact discrimination is deemed otherwise innocent in terms of intention or bias; these are merely programs or policies that have been unfair in practice.  Yet “stop-and-frisk” actually operates as a legal door for racial profiling by both those unintentionally and those intentionally targeting Black and Latino men.  Some say the racial and ethnic imbalance is merely a product of geography: greater surveillance of predominantly black and brown areas of the city (this, of course, is problematic, too!).  In light of stories of being stopped many times in one’s life, others suggest the “stop-and-frisk” program legally allows police to use one’s blackness/brownness as suspect.  “You’re Black/Latino, so you must be up to no good!”

Even if police stops were equally burdensome for every racial group (and police were evenly hostile to “suspicious” people), the experience of being stopped, questioned, and searched by police is fundamentally racialized.  Given the history of racism, including racist violence and harassment by police or by others yet ignored by police, no white person can ever fully experience the feelings of anger, humiliation, and powerlessness that follow being targeted by police as a person of color.

Further, programs like this one, Arizona’s “show-me-your-papers” law that unfairly targets Latina/o people, among others are just the tip of the racist iceberg of the US criminal justice system.  From interaction with the police, to arrest, to court, to prison, racial inequality exists at every step and every facet of law enforcement and criminal justice.  Unfortunately, the narrow view of the law cannot handle the reality that racism shapes the core and operation of every social system and institution, including law enforcement.

Legalized Homophobia And Transphobia

It may have come as a surprise to some that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups joined the chorus of anti-racist and civil rights organizations that rallied against the “stop-and-frisk” program.  Beyond advocating for racial equality, these groups took issue with the disproportionate number of LGBT people of color who have been stopped by police.  Often, young Black and Latino LGBT people are stopped as suspects for sexual crimes (e.g., public sex, sex work).  In these stops, many are sexually harassed or assaulted by police.

Parallel to blackness and brownness as suspect, LGBT people are legally targeted through the “stop-and-frisk” program often because of their gender expression.  LGBT people, especially transgender and gender non-conforming people, are deemed suspicious because their “appearance transgresses gender norms embraced by mainstream society.”  It turns out that stops based on suspicion of sexual crimes has already been deemed illegal, again by the same judge:

In 2010, in a decision dripping with outrage, US District Judge Shira Scheindlin held New York City in contempt for failing to end enforcement of loitering laws held unconstitutional decades before. One of the laws at issue was the “loitering for sex” statute that Lambda Legal had succeeded in getting struck down in 1983 by New York’s highest court, shortly after it threw out the state’s sodomy law.

“The human toll, of course, has been borne by the tens of thousands of individuals who have, at once, had their constitutional rights violated and been swept into the penal system,” Scheindlin wrote. “More disturbing still, it appears that the laws — which target panhandling, remaining in a bus or train station, and ‘cruising’ for sex — have been enforced particularly against the poor and gay men.”

Missing The Complex Reality Of Discrimination Today

The above discussion points to the inability for the law, in its present state, to fully appreciate the complex reality of discrimination today.  One challenge is to prove that a law or program — instances of institutional discrimination — disproportionately affect a particular group (without just cause).  This sidesteps the matter of proving biased or prejudiced intentions, a matter central to cases of unfair treatment; however, the narrow view of the law fails to account for the systemic, wide-reaching influence of systems of oppression such as racism, homophobia, and transphobia.  Indeed, it can be argued that discrimination within one institution (e.g., criminal justice) mutually reinforces discrimination in other systems (e.g., education).  The true challenge, then, is proving when discrimination is not at play, at least indirectly.

The other important matter that is systematically overlooked is the simultaneous, interconnected operation of multiple systems of oppression.  “Stop-and-frisk” reflects the practice of both racism and homophobia/transphobia by police and the criminal justice system.  What, on the surface, appears to be a matter of racial inequality has turned out to disproportionately affect Black and Latina/o queer people.  Another instance of legalized discrimination, the US military’s “Don’ Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, had its greatest effect on Black women.  And, given the greater number of Black same-gender couples who have children, Black LGBT people hold a greater share of the burden created by laws that prohibit or hinder same-gender marriage and adoption.

Of course, greater attention should be paid to the reality that some people are victimized by multiple forms of discrimination (e.g., racist and sexist discrimination).  Yet, discrimination cases that pursue such claims are ultimately less successful in court, probably because the court is unable to apprehend this level of complexity.

The days of explicit, unapologetic racist discrimination are (mostly) gone, and great progress has been made toward equality for LGBT people.  Yet, the task remains to better understand prejudice and discrimination in the new millennium.  There is a great deal of complexity to discrimination that we consistently miss when attending to the discriminatory actions of a few bigoted apples.  We will never achieve full equality, whether in opportunities or outcomes, without an appropriately comprehensive understanding of what discrimination is, how it operates, and how to prevent it.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, America, Biphobia, Black Communities, Black Men, Black People, Bodies, Civil Rights, Coalitions, Crime, Criminal Justice, Discrimination, Equality, Ethnicity, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Government, Homophobia, Inequality, Injustice, Justice, Latina/o People, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, LGBT Youth, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Men, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Poverty, Prejudice, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Sex, Sex Work, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Stereotypes, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Transphobia, Youth

[kinsey] What Is Sexual Harassment? A Different Perspective

15 10 2012

Anti-sexual harassment rally.

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Think about this story for a moment:

In November [2009], … the Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain agreed to pay $345,000 to six male employees who claimed they were repeatedly sexually assaulted by a group of male kitchen staffers at a Phoenix-area restaurant.

Okay, now let me share another story with you:

…but one thing I noticed about him was that he feels up every woman he meets.

The first story came from an MSNBC article about the rising number of men filing formal claims of sexual harassment in the workplace.  The second story is a critique of a character on “The Real Housewives of Atlanta”, who is a gay man: can gay men sexually harass straight women?  I bet that there is a good chance that after reading the first story, you thought to yourself, “oh, the male perpetrators must be gay!”  And, after reading the second, you might have caught yourself questioning how a gay man could sexually harass a woman – why would he want to?

The point of this exercise is to highlight that many of us assume, even subconsciously, that sexual harassment entails some unwanted and harassing behaviors motivated by sexual desire.  So, some might find it confusing that a heterosexual person would harass someone of their same gender, or that a gay man might harass a woman.  But, what underlies sexual harassment is an expression of power – not desire.

The Traditional Definition Of Sexual Harassment

Beginning with the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, the dominant, legal definition of sexual harassment that has evolved overtime is one of harassing behaviors or differential treatment that are sexual in nature.  This includes unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and creating a hostile environment.  While it is understood that men can also be the victims of sexual harassment, men as harassers and women as targets of harassment is central to our common understanding of sexual harassment.  In fact, sexual harassment is commonly defined as a form of gender-based discrimination (against women).

Sexual Harassment As A Gendered Expression Of Power

There is a great deal of work, particularly in the social sciences, women and gender studies, and sexuality studies that demonstrates that sexual harassment is an expression of power, especially along the lines of gender.  For example, three sociologists recently published a study in which they found that women who hold supervisor-level positions are more likely than women who do not to experience sexual harassment.  These experiences for women supervisors largely serve to put them “in their place,” signaling that they are unwelcome in a position of power as women.  Unfortunately, factors beyond interactions among individuals appear to place women at greater risk for harassment: working in male-dominated fields, and being physical and socially isolated from other women.

Sexual Harassment Is Not (Only) About Gender

Indeed, women are not alone in being targets of sexual harassment.  Though less common, some men are victims of these experiences, as well.  In another sociological study on sexual harassment, a number of men reported experiencing sexually harassing behaviors; however, men are much more apprehensive to define these experiences as sexual harassment, probably because the common understanding limits these experiences to women.  This study also pointed out two interesting dynamics: adolescent males and men who are financially vulnerable (i.e., feel they do not have control over their financial situation) are more frequently targets of sexual harassment.

Indeed, sexual harassment is not merely a gendered phenomenon.  For example, there has been a great deal of attention in research to racial differences in women’s experiences of sexual harassment.  This work has explored whether women of color are more often targeted than white women, there are racial differences in defining one’s experiences as harassment, and whether women of color experience sexual harassment differently than white women.  Some Black feminist scholars like Patricia Hill Collins and Angela Y. Davis have noted that sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence are manifestations of sexism, as well as racism and classism.

But, I wish to push this perspective one step further — sexual harassment is the sexual-based expression of any system of oppression, be it sexism, racism, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia, classism, ableism, ageism, fatphobia, or xenophobia.  A few examples come to mind:

  • A white heterosexual man jokes with his Black heterosexual male coworker that he must have large penis.
  • A heterosexual woman doctor asks a lesbian patient about the particular sexual activities she engages in with her female sexual partners to make sense of why the patient does not regularly use (male) condoms or other forms of birth control.
  • A girl from a working-class background is teased frequently by boys at her school that she provides oral sex in the school bathroom to make money.
  • A cisgender man repeatedly asks his neighbor, a transman, about parts of his body and his sex life.

A Different Perspective

So, two related points come from this perspective on sexual harassment.  Sexual harassment is not limited to the unwanted and harassing behaviors that are sexual in nature by (heterosexual) men targeted toward (heterosexual).  To focus just on gender and, specifically on men as harassers and women as victims, forces us to overlook the other various ways in which sexual harassment occurs.  As a consequence, many people whose experiences fall outside of this traditional view may fail to define their experiences as sexual harassment, leading them to forgo seeking legal recourse or protection, or any actions to end the harassment in general.

The other related point is that this male-harasser-female-victim perspective is somewhat heterosexist; that is, it presumes that all parties involved are heterosexual.  By extension, this means that heterosexual desire must be present — one that entails a sexually aggressive heterosexual man and a sexually-disinterested heterosexual woman.  I must state this clearly, here: sexual harassment is not an expression of desire.  As such, one individual may repeatedly sexually harass another individual whom they do not find sexually desirable.  (In the case of sexual harassment between men, for example, it is probably the case that that heterosexual men sexual harass gay men much more frequently than the reverse.)

Now that US laws have shifted to reflect the reality that some men are survivors of sexual violence, it may be time to broaden how we define sexual harassment.  Indeed, we are beginning to acknowledge that men, too, are targets of sexual harassment.  But, it may be necessary that we recognize that sexual harassment may be an expression of racism, heterosexism, sexism, transphobia, classism, or any other form of oppression – as well as the intersections among them.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Bodies, Cisgender People, Classism, Discrimination, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Heterosexism, Inequality, Injustice, Intersectionality, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Power, Race, Racism, Rape, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Norms, Society, Sociology, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence, Violence Against Women, Women, Women of Color, Work

[kinsey] Sticks And Stones … But Homophobia Hurts, Literally!

1 10 2012
Why Choose? Why Not Both?

Tax Day “Tea Party” Rally.

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones…”  That is one of a few cute rhymes I remember from my childhood.  It is actually a bit ironic that you hear many kids express this mantra, one almost of resilience against insults and hostility, yet kids say the darnedest things (in a negative sense!).  And, whether among youth or adults, there is evidence that prejudice, discrimination, and bullying – even as words – impact their victims’ health and well-being.

Inequality And Health

Many health researchers – including myself – are interested in documenting health disparities in society.  For example, we want to know whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals experience worse mental and physical health than heterosexual and cisgender (i.e., non-transgender) people.  And, where disparities exist and persist (and many do!), we aim to identify the factors that create and maintain inequality in health and well-being.  Particularly in the social sciences, we focus on inequality in resources and opportunities (e.g., income, access to health care), as well as inequality in experiences (e.g., prejudice, discrimination), as factors that potentially lead to health disparities.

Oppression And Health

To speak more critically, many researchers are concerned about how oppression shapes population health, particularly the health and well-being of socially disadvantaged groups.  This means taking a view that resources, opportunities, and quality of life are not randomly distributed throughout the population, with equal chance being afforded to each person.  Rather, society is structured in a way that these privileges are systematically afforded to some – white Americans, men, heterosexuals, middle- and upper-class people – and systematically denied to others – people of color, women, LGBT people, working-class and poor people.  So inequality, and its role in shaping population health, is neither random nor accidental; it is both systematic and intentional, and self-perpetuating.

Homophobia And Health

So, how does prejudice and discrimination affect health?  One way is through differential access to capital and resources, namely quality health care, health insurance, health-related knowledge, and factors like income and education that grant access to these resources.  Differential access is largely the product of differential treatment (i.e., discrimination), and the legacy of discrimination in the past.

But, discrimination and prejudice also directly affect mental and physical health.  Let’s take homophobia as one form of oppression that likely contributes to health disparities, in this case, sexual orientation disparities in mental and physical health.  The most obvious way that homophobia might impact one’s health is a physical anti-LGBT assault against an LGBT person, which might also lead to trauma and other mental health problems.  But, even homophobic discrimination, insults, and slights can negatively affect the health of an LGBT person.  For example, a recent study on 114 LGBT young adults found that individuals who frequently hear the expression, “that’s so gay” (which implies that being gay is undesirable), are more likely to experience headaches, eating problems, and a sense of social isolation.

One’s experiences of differential treatment, hostility, or exclusion because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are distressing.  And, like any stressful event, the health and well-being of victims of homophobic discrimination, prejudice, and bullying are threatened.  While one might be able to brush off a minor, infrequent experience with homophobia, the reality for most LGBT people is that they are frequently exposed to such hostility.  For example, since July, there have been over 2.5 million “tweets” on Twitter.com that included the pejorative word, “faggot.”  (You can literally see that homophobic tweets posted every few seconds, thanks to the data collection of the No Homophobes project.)

Today, to constantly be barraged by homophobic messages, being discriminated against and denied equal treatment, and having your rights regularly debated and voted on is essentially “exhausting,” and literally wears on your mental and physical health.  Not surprisingly, the experiencing acceptance, visibility, and equal treatment has a positive effect on the health and well-being of LGBT people.  So, besides valuing diversity, equality, and acceptance as positive goals to strive for, it is clear that inequality, discrimination, and prejudice are literally public health problems.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Biphobia, Bullying, Cisgender People, Discrimination, Gender Identity & Expression, Hate Crimes, Health, Health Disparities, Heterosexism, Heterosexuals, Homophobia, Inequality, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT Health, LGBT People, LGBT Youth, Marginalized Groups, Mental Health, Minority Stress, Oppression, Physical Health, Prejudice, Privilege, Queer, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Society, Stress, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence, Youth

The Social Construction/Reconstruction/Destruction Of History

26 01 2012

It would seem that history — the full range of events that have occurred before today — is a given.  What happened has happened.  But, recent efforts by conservative groups, like the Tea Party, to literally rewrite history suggests that history may not be a fixed, universal set of truths.  Efforts have been made — unfortunately, with great success — in Texas and Arizona to change what is and can be taught in schools and colleges: the removal of slavery from history, or at least portraying it as a positive aspect of US history; banning Ethnic Studies because it is seen as promoting separatism, anarchy, and resentment.

The Tea Party movement has now set its sights on Tennessee to strip school textbooks of the ugly past of enslavement and genocide in the US:

The group demanded, as they had in January of last year, that Tennessee lawmakers change state laws governing school curricula. The group called for textbook selection criteria to include: “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

The reference to events and experiences “which actually occurred” is interesting here.  There seems to be no denial of the difficult and oppressive realities faced by people of color throughout US history.  So, why remove people of color?  It seems the group is not simply hiding things that happened; rather, the group is attempting to remove these realities from history — as true history — all together:

According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”

“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at,” Rounds said, according to The Commercial Appeal.

During the news conference more than two dozen Tea Party activists handed out material that said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

They argue that, today, what little is taught in school classrooms about the enslavement of Black people, the genocide, forced relocation, and forced assimilation of people of the First Nation, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and so forth, is nothing more than fables and distortions.  And, as such, school curricula and textbooks must be changed to reflect what really happened.

Power And The Social Construction, Reconstruction, And Deconstruction Of History

The success of these conservative initiatives in Texas and Arizona demonstrates that parts of history can be rewritten or even erased.  But, we can think of history as both a battlefield and the product of battle.  Just as we constantly fight over defining what is truth today, we constantly fight over defining what was true in the past.  Yet, history is not an equal playing field.  Those who are in power — whites, men, the wealthy, heterosexuals, and so on — are afforded the greatest control over what we know and what we learn.  Dominant groups are often placed in the position to judge what is true or what is not, leaving marginalized groups regularly on the side of having to “argue their case,” because their perspective is not a given.  As these recent explicit examples of combat over history point out, “history is written by the victors.”

The twin to power is privilege.  As children grow up in these states, denied any education on enslavement, genocide, exclusion, oppression, and disenfranchisement in US history, they will be left to learn about such things on their own outside of school.  This means knowing even less about one’s ancestors for children of color.  But, white privilege affords white children even more freedom from having to know about the history and experiences of people unlike themselves.  As if we do not already see widespread ignorance about the history of people of color in the US, we may see a generation of whites and racial and ethnic minorities wholly unaware of the ugly past of this country.

And, Tennessee could be next.  Just in time for Black History Month.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Asians and Asian Americans, Assimilation, Black People, College, Education, Immigration, Inequality, Knowledge, Latina/o People, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Privilege, Race, Racism, Social Constructionism, Society, Sociology, Teaching, White People

Preventing Sexual Violence And Supporting Survivors Is A Community Responsibility

23 01 2012

The title of this post sums up the position that many have taken in efforts to prevent sexual violence (e.g., rape, sexual assault, incest, stalking, sexual harassment) and to support survivors of violence.  Such a stance goes against two problematic positions, one hostile and one supportive to survivors of violence.

  1. Hostile Victim-Blaming: Unfortunately, many people lay blame for sexual violence in the hands of victims of violence themselves.  Violent acts, such as sexual assault, are seen as incidents that are preventable simply by changing one’s behavior, interactions with others, appearance, and mentality.  First, survivors of violence, especially women, face the dilemma of providing proof that they have been victimized.  Second, if they are believed, they must provide enough evidence to convince others that such violence was not somehow the result of being sexually promiscuous, dressing in revealing clothing, giving “mixed signals” in interactions (sexual and non-sexual) with one’s attacker, drinking too much, and so forth.
  2. Supportive Victim-Blaming: Indeed, many are concerned with eliminating sexual violence for good.  But, efforts to prevent violence, like the above, center on the victims of violence themselves.  As an online op-ed at Ebony magazine points out, too much sexual violence prevention work provides potential and past victims of violence suggestions to protect themselves: don’t walk alone at night in unfamiliar places, tell a friend where you are going, watch your drinks at parties, don’t go home with strangers.  While this position differs from the above in its concern for survivors of violence, it too lays responsibility for sexual violence on the victims themselves.

Sexual Violence As A Social Problem

With estimates denoting that 17-25 percent of women and 3 percent of men are survivors of violence (experiencing sexual violence at least once in their lifetimes), it is undeniable that a substantial portion of the US population is directly or indirectly affected by violence.  The numbers alone point to a larger, systemic problem that cannot be reduced to the individual motivations and actions of every instance of sexual violence.  Yet, there are many other social factors that contribute to making sexual violence a standard component of our social world, as well.

  • Myths and stereotypes: One barrier to acknowledging and addressing sexual violence and supporting victims of violence is the inaccurate, and sometimes offensive, “information” that pervades our culture regarding gender, sex, sexuality, and violence.  Sexual violence myths include assuming all victims are women, attacked by a lone stranger (a man) in a ski mask lurking in the bushes.  But, stereotypes outside of sexual violence also contribute to a false understanding of sexual violence: men with uncontrollable sexual appetites (“they can’t help themselves“), women who have or should have little interest in sex, strong and aggressive men and weak and passive women, LGBT people as sexual aggressors, etc.
  • Exclusive focus on victims: Even in prevention advocacy and research, we place so much attention on survivors of violence — who are they, what happened to them, how many are there.  Despite extreme underreporting of sexual violence because of stereotypes, the feeling that no one will believe you, fear of retaliation by one’s attacker, and so forth, we have some sense of the demographics of survivors of violence.  But, we know little about perpetrators of sexual violence, with most information coming from reports about those who have been convicted of sexual violence.  One important fact, surprising to some, is that most perpetrators of sexual violence are not men lurking in bushes at night, nor are they otherwise innocent men who got carried away once in sexual activity; perpetrators tend to be repeat offenders (of both sexual violence and non-sexual crimes) and often know the person they attack.
  • Misplaced responsibility: Too often, potential and past victims of sexual violence are burdened with the responsibility for such violence and any efforts to prevent violence.  We, as a society, generally fail to place such responsibility on the perpetrators of sexual violence.  And, when we do, we narrowly focus on them, while ignoring others’ responsibilities to prevent sexual violence and to support survivors.  Many advocates and researchers are beginning to promote the notion of bystander intervention, which calls upon others who witness violence to intervene.  And, while we must push to never see another case where bystanders stand idly by as someone is attacked, our efforts to encourage bystander intervention also include promoting ways to change the culture that condones sexual violence: challenging gender stereotypes and gender socialization in general; teaching about sexual violence; teaching about sexual violence as expressions of sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ageism, xenophobia, ableism, and so on.
  • Exclusive focus on gender: Another barrier to comprehensively understanding sexual violence is focusing exclusively on the role of gender: men rape women.  What is missing from this narrow analysis, besides overlooking male survivors of violence, is attention to the ways that sexual violence intersects with race and ethnicity, sexual identity, gender identity, class, body size and shape, age, nativity, and ability.  Attending to these systems of oppression does not mean only documenting demographic characteristics of the survivors and perpetrators of violence.  It also means assessing how sexual violence may operate as manifestations of these systems of power, for sexual violence itself is an expression of power over another person.  For example, in many countries, lesbian, bisexual, and queer women are raped by men in an effort to “cure” them of their sexual orientation.
  • Ignoring the role of society: Given the pervasive problem of sexual violence in society, many advocates and academics have argued for thinking about sexual violence more broadly.  As noted above, we too often lay blame on individuals, especially survivors of violence, while ignoring the roles that communities, social institutions, and culture play.  Some have pointed out that we live in a culture that normalizes sexual violence — we live in a “rape culture.”  Various institutions, like colleges, the military, and the medical system, are implicated in their failure to prevent sexual violence, support survivors of violence, and punish perpetrators of violence.  Some have argued that these institutions are structured in ways that make sexual violence invisible and potentially even promote violence.

Indeed, given the complexity and multiple layers and dimensions of the problem of sexual violence, it seems like a tall task to take on.  But, in order to protect everyone from sexual violence and to support survivors of violence, we must address every aspect of the problem.  We can no longer leave the responsibility to prevent sexual violence exclusively in the hands of potential and past victims of violence.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, Domestic Violence, Gender, Intersectionality, Intimate Partner Violence, Men, Oppression, Power, Sexual Assault, Sexual Violence, Social Norms, Stereotypes, Violence, Violence Against Women, Women

Minority Among Minorities, Outsider Among Outsiders

11 01 2012

I still shake my head a little today as I reflect upon the idealistic naivete of my youth.  As early as age five, I was well aware that the human world is not characterized by equality and fairness.  But, I was in my early twenties by the time I realized that marginalized communities themselves are also home to prejudice and discrimination.  It is disheartening, but very realistic, to say that marginalized communities are not immune to the norms, values, stereotypes, stigmas, and oppressive practices of the dominant society.

Internalizing Dominant Society’s Values

Although there are numerous harmful and oppressive values that marginalized communities inherit from the larger, dominant society, I find one most depressing: internalized prejudice.  In a fiercely racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, xenophobic, ableist, ageist, and fatphobic society like the United States, it is an inevitable reality that members of disadvantaged communities must fight daily against stigma, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination directed at them.  Given the pervasiveness of these oppressive beliefs and actions, it almost seems impossible to keep oneself completely immune to internalized prejudice.  Such an unfortunately reality ranges from things that seem mundane like hair relaxers for Black women to more invasive plastic surgery for Asian women to physically alter their eyes, in both cases, for some people, to look more white or European.  It ranges from queer people “toning down” their presumable gender non-conformity, which is often associated with homosexuality, to undergoing “treatment” to change one’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.  [As an aside, I do note that another factor that influences some of these thoughts and actions is one's perceived need to "fit in" to avoid the risk of facing discrimination and violence.]

In that marginalized groups are not completely immune to the dominant society’s oppressive beliefs and actions directed at them, it is unsurprising that such communities are also home to other forms of oppression.  Some might assume that, given a marginalized community’s exposure to societal prejudice, discrimination, and harassment, the community would undoubtedly be sympathetic to the plight of other marginalized communities.  But, others may not be so optimistic.  There are numerous examples of various forms of societal oppression within oppressed communities: fatphobia, obsession with beauty, and eating disorders among queer men; biphobia in queer communities; homophobia in communities of color; homophobia and transphobia among women, even feminists; and so forth.  Some coalitions among marginalized communities have been successful.  Yet, sadly, these communities sometimes conflict with one another, oftentimes as the result of some more powerful group pitting them against one another in a strategy called “divide and conquer.”

Minority Among Minorities, Outsider Among Outsiders

The internalization of the oppressive beliefs and actions of the dominant society by marginalized groups is harmful.  But, individuals who are multiply disadvantaged are harmed even more by these internalized oppressions.  Take the example of racism within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and queer communities.  There is a documented history of the invisibility, yet exotification, and subordinate status of people of color within LGBT and queer communities and social movements.  In years past, Black patrons of gay bars were asked for three or more forms of identification — a tactic used to minimize their presence in such establishments — while white patrons were only asked for one or two, if any.  Today, LGBT and queer communities continue to wrestle with the problem of conflating queerness with whiteness (and maleness and middle-classness and able-bodiedness and thinness and …).  That is, the face of gay is usually one of a white, middle-class gender-conforming “normative” man.  Even our recollections of LGBT and queer history make invisible people of color and their contributions to LGBT and queer movements.

In addition to being invisible and subordinate in one community, multiply disadvantaged people are similarly invisible and subordinate in their other communities.  Queer people of color, invisible yet exotified among queer people, are conditionally accepted in their respective racial and ethnic communities so long as they make invisible their sexuality and/or gender identity.  For, as some experience the world, one cannot simultaneously be queer and brown.  Or one’s membership in another marginalized community is of secondary importance or entirely unimportant, or one may risk being pressured to choose one’s primary allegiance.  As such, multiply disadvantaged individuals face additional burdens.  They face the burden of the prejudice and discrimination associated with each of their disadvantaged statuses, as well as the prejudice and discrimination within each marginalized community (e.g., racism and homophobia in the dominant society, racism in LGBT communities, homophobia in communities of color).

A Call For Coalition-Building, A Call For Collective Consciousness-Raising

Much of what I have discussed thus far is difficult.  It is difficult, at first, to become fully aware of the systemic oppression one faces as a member of a marginalized group.  Many of us fail to see oppressive beliefs and actions in those around us, and thus conclude that we are not victims of prejudice and discrimination.  It is harder to see the ways that race and ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, ability, age, body shape and size, and nativity operate as systems that shape so much of our society, our laws and policies, our relationships, our interactions with others, our beliefs, and even our sense of self.  Just as it is difficult to see how our communities internalize the norms, values, and practices against ourselves of the larger society, it is difficult to see how we internalize other forms of oppression.

Coalition-building and collective consciousness-raising are vital steps that marginalized communities must take to fight as a united front against oppression, inequality, and violence.  To be a marginalized community is to be relatively powerless, poor, disenfranchised, divided, isolated, and invisible, so it is, indeed, difficult for any one marginalized community to combat the prejudice, discrimination, and violence it faces alone.  The banding together of several communities offers the potential of pooling resources, energy, and ideas — and, importantly, it accounts for the fact that many individuals are already members of two or more of these communities.

But, to reach this step in alliance building, marginalized communities must achieve two steps.  First, they must raise consciousnesses about their own community’s marginalization in society (known as “consciousness raising,” a practice used by second wave feminists).  Then, they must raise consciousnesses about other forms of oppression that pervade their community, and identify overlap between their own oppression in society with those of other marginalized communities.  Indeed, there are a number of issues, concerns, and needs that are unique to each marginalized community (e.g., marriage equality for same-gender couples, immigration reform).  Yet, there are issues that are shared by more than one community (e.g., health care, voting rights, pay equality).  And, further, marginalized communities must acknowledge that some of its members are affected by issues seen as unique to another community (e.g., marriage and citizenship rights for bi-nationality same-gender couples).  It is the case, in a number of ways, that a community’s most disadvantaged members are disproportionately affected by oppression; thus, to achieve full equality for all of its members, each community must combat each interconnected form of oppression that pervades our society.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Asians and Asian Americans, Black People, Civil Rights, Class, Classism, Community, Discrimination, Divide & Conquer, Equality, Ethnicity, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Heterosexism, Homophobia, Human Rights, Immigration, Inequality, Intersectionality, Latina/o People, LGBT People, People of Color, Politics, Prejudice, Queer People of Color, Race, Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Movements, Social Norms, Society, Transgender, Transphobia, Values, Violence, White People, Women, Xenophobia

« Previous Entries