Too Much Real World Application

I cannot help but take this class and see this theory inside my own life and my own identities. As a queer woman, I understand how so much of the conversation about our lives and their infringement on the lives of others is our fault. Today I am talking with friends about heading to Arizona to get ourselves arrested if Jan Brewer extends her record of supporting fascist legislation (like the “Papers, Please Initiative) by signing into law legislation that would make it legal for businesses and workers to deny me service because I am a gay person. I mean, JESUS F-ING CHRIST, can I just buy a bottle of water over here? No, because we don’t serve your kind. But then I started thinking about plane tickets - can I be denied access to other places, be kept in my place, kept out of places, because of my queerness. Well Jeez Wally, they can already do that because of my fat body. Just see how my refusal to pay for two tickets to get to one place, one time keeps me grounded. What about access to parks, swimming pools, hiking trails. Can the Arizona legislature allow businesses to be so upset by gayness that they don’t let us walk, picnic, bike, swim? Well - institutionally that has already happened in my life because of my inability to buy clothing that would allow me access to those activities. I am only allowed spectator status in relationship to sport. I guess there is just not enough fabric.

I have found the most interesting and upsetting thread of this legislation and the national debate around it, the words of people who call themselves my ally - “You know if I owned a business in Arizona, you would be welcome. I would probably paint my walls in rainbows. BUT, people have to be free to their religious beliefs. Sorry, not sorry.” The minoritization of the argument about my right to buy toilet paper whether or not you believe the earth is 2400 years old is structured so that I must realize that my being alive is impinging on other people’s rights to believe that I am not something their god would make. And that my allies, my "friends", are buying this argument, that I  - not the institution, needs to make room for civil rights. That the business, religious, and political institutions need be left alone and that I need to make room for people’s right to deny me a toothbrush. 

But again, using the example of Southwest Airlines and their competitors engaging in price discrimination against me and my fat body, they must engage a minoritizing argument because a universalizing argument will cost Daddy Yourbucks way too much money. It isn’t the ridiculous - and shrinking - size of the plane seats that are the problem, it is your fat neighbor. It isn’t the absurd idea that we are all one size and one seat should fit all that is the fallacy, it is my silly assumption that I should be given a seat that fits...and a bathroom that I can turn around in. (You can see this demonstrated well by way of classroom desks. I pay the same tuition yet I am given two choices when it comes to class seating - sit and suffer or sit in shame.) And it isn't the business owner's hate and hateful heterosexism that is the problem. It isn't their hijacked understanding of faith and salvation. It is my stubborn insistence to require the right to buy groceries as a gay lady.

Writing on the closet wall

Epistemology: What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?

What is the Closet?  Thinking of Sedgwick, she'd say that it'd depend on context.  What is the closet for whom?

Coming out of the closet, you might feel that you understand yourself, and have explained yourself.  You've now given yourself a voice to speak with, and you find there are countless others also with ideas about how to construct an identity.  "They'll help you understand how it is with me. I'm in exactly the same predicament." (D.H. Lawrence, Collected Letters), speaking about James M. Barrie. 

But just as Lawerence had a change of heart about Barrie, so might we look back at the closet and realize we had walked into a trap.  Why was the closet there to begin with? Who built it?  We're out of the closet, but where are we now?  The closet is made by the dominant culture, the ones who control the mainstream discourse (a la Foucault).  Coming out of the closet requires communicating that step in terms that aren't our own, but since we spoke those words, they become part of our identity. 

I think this is part of the Queer lens that Sedgwick talks about. You have to consider the context of what was spoken, by who, to whom, and when. 

Critical Response

Week 6

This week the main focus was on developing a greater understanding of Sedgwick and the binary view that the world has on being queer and looking at things and analyzing them in a way that society would not typically be alright with because it goes outside of the typical social norms.  After stumbling through reading Sedgwick, I understand epistemology to be a theory and study of knowledge belief and working toward building a better understanding of what you and others think and the structure and limitations that go along with these thoughts and theories. An epistemology of the closet I believe to be looking at queer theory and the different views that people have and believe that go along with this knowledge. It also looks at the different limitations that are put on the term “queer” to mean homosexuality versus heterosexuality without any other options. Throughout this reading, Sedgwick made many small claims and arguments but I believe the most important argument to be the limitation of understanding and freedom as related to sexuality and the deeper meanings behind human sexuality, the binary opposition of gay and not gay, and what it means to be queer to different people.

The closet was another idea that was discussed in the readings this week. The closet is typically a place to keep things that you don’t feel the need for everyone to see or you are not comfortable with them being out in the open but you might be someday, so you continue to store the item. Coming out as “queer” or anything else that isn’t necessarily something expected of you is a lot like taking something out of your closet and keeping it out in the open as a part of your home that others can see. Whether or not the item that is out is liked by others are not, they now know that it is a part of your home and can either accept it or not accept it. I have never come out of any kind of closet but I am assuming that people put themselves in one because society has forced them into the closet and leaving would only bombard them with society’s judgment and oppression.

The reading this week allowed me to really look and think about a text in a more critical, questioning, and “queer” way but what really had an impact was the search for the video I would share with the class and the videos that the class shared. 

Jay's post-week 6

Week six readings and film assignments were insightful and enjoyable. This week the two films I chose to expand upon my Queer Culture knowledge and interpersonal experience was, “Dallas Buyers Club” and “Asexual”. Currently “Asexual” is available for viewing on Hulu and “Dallas Buyers Club” can be rented for viewing through iTunes.

Being a college student in my forties I’m familiar with and can somewhat recall the ignorance and panic surrounding the HIV virus when it first came about. “Dallas Buyers Club” is based on the story of Ron Woodroof. Woodroof, a straight, white, cattle-rustling, male fills his cowboy living days having unprotected sex with various women and abusing alcohol and other drugs. That is, until one day a doctor tells him he has the HIV virus, which he initially refuses to believe because back then so many people believed only homosexuals were contracting the virus.

The film explores Woodroof’s journey alongside a transsexual, which befriends him, by the name of Rayon. What is demonstrated in this story is several things. As a people, our historical ignorance, lack of compassion, corporate greed and failure to serve those in need on the basis of their individual choices. I found myself asking…how far have we come? The answer in some ways heavied my heart.

I’m an optimist, phenomenologically speaking. I trust in karma and advocate positive thought and behavior. With that, I also have to attest to the part of the story that demonstrates Woodroof, at some point transitioning his belief system regarding the queer community to a more positive place. Without ruining the premise of the story for those that have not seen the film, I highly recommend seeing it. For those who are not familiar with a “buyers club” or the story and do not intend to see the film, you can at least get more information here in this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/

“Asexual” is a film that talks about a percentage of the population having no sexual desire and/or sexual attraction. This is not to say they do not engage in manual stimulation with themselves. Some will say they do, though some do not have any interest. David Jay is the spokesperson for the group and started AVEN (Asexual Visibility and Education Network). He has spoken about the community on numerous talk shows and networks in order to educate and bring awareness.

What I found interesting about this documentary was that some of the same lack of acceptance existed for the group as does other members of the queer community. Not surprising to me, of course, because we have discussed this in length during the course of the term. The fact that there is even lack of acceptance within and amongst groups. There seemed also to be people forcing labels onto the members of the asexual community. Such as, telling one person that rather than being asexual, he must be gay. The group also seemed to struggle with some acceptance marching in the pride parade, by some of the members of the gay community. The conflict being, the march is to advocate being able to “have sex with who we want” not “having no sex at all”.

Overall, I enjoyed this week’s exploration of queer theory including revisiting Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet. Binary restrictions are something I look forward to being a thing of the past.

What are the labels on your closet door?

                Identity and labels seem to be surfacing a lot in my life at the moment. I even did my “Freelance” project based on this idea. I had a coworker yell to me the other day “Hey Lady! Welcome to work!” I was in a hurry to get inside and clock in for my shift, so I responded in passing “Hey, but I’m not a lady,” and kept right on walking. He later tracked me down all concerned that he’d somehow offended me. He apologized several times before I got him to chill out, because I wasn’t at all offended, and I told him exactly that. He says, “Well, okay, but what are you? You’re not a lady, so does that mean you identify as a man?” Clearly this guy operates in a binary world; man/woman, girl/boy, lady/gentleman. My response was “Are those my only two options?” We ended up talking about labels and identity for quite a while, but fortunately, he’s an open minded enough guy that we were able to have that conversation and he walked away with a better understanding of me and my dislike of binaries.

Labels are a funny thing. I don’t like them much myself because they form small boxes with little wiggle room for personal identity. They could function as mini closets in a way. Closest can make people feel safe but they can also be oppressive. I know many who have used them to keep themselves safe because of where they were living, working, or because of how closed minded their families were. Closets can protect from discrimination, assault, or harassment, but they can also infringe on personal growth and a fully authentic identity. Labels are similar in that they can feel constraining.

There’s a “How Gay Are You” test floating around Facebook in the last few days, so for kicks, I decided to take it knowing full well that I’d probably rank up there with the queerest of them all. All in all, the questions were largely lame, yet mildly entertaining. The title I ended up with was “Traditional labels are meaningless,” which was a little surprising because I didn’t expect them to have that option. I figured that the test would be fairly binary Gay/Straight with slight variations in between (super straight, mostly straight, kinda straight, kinda gay, mostly gay, entirely gay) because that’s what I’d seen so far. I certainly do adhere to the idea that “traditional labels are meaningless” and have lived outside the traditional binary most of my life.

I don’t label myself as a lesbian because the definition of “lesbian” is smaller than I am, with little wiggle room, making it feel oppressive to me. One would need to identify as a woman to use that term, one would also need to be exclusively interested in (cis)women, and never step outside of that. I know people who identify as a lesbian who occasionally sleep with men, or who are transwomen, but I’ve also seen them field discrimination from the lesbian community for using that label. I’ve also known people who initially identified as a lesbian who later “came out” as something else, meaning they lived in the lesbian “closet” for a while, but then later adopted less structured labels like omnisexual/pansexual.

I was assigned female at birth, but don’t adhere to the socially constructed roles for women in this society. I don’t want to be seen as a (white) “man” in this society either though, because I also don’t adhere to the socially constructed roles for men, nor do I want the privileges that come with that identity. I am neither exclusively man nor woman, I’m a mixture of both and everything in between. I’ve primarily been in relationships that the world views as “lesbian,” though the people I’ve been involved with have similar identities to myself, so are we really “lesbians?” The butch/femme dynamic that is typically expected in “lesbian” relationships drives me nuts, because mostly drawn to female bodied individuals who present on the masculine end of the spectrum, but that’s too “gay” for some lesbian identified folks.

I am Kriya. I am genderqueer. I am queer. I am transmasculine. I am non-binary. I get to queer my own identity however I see fit.

What labels are on your closet door?

Critical Response

Week 6

Nadja Dixon

                This week I was encouraged to consider the true and painful realities of identifying as queer. Sedgwick in the “Epistemology of the Closet” brought to light the idea that coming out of the closet isn’t as easy as I had imagined. I would have believed that coming out would be so liberating that I would want to do so immediately. What I had failed to consider was the comfort with which people find in their secrecy. This idea isn’t as farfetched as I might think, though, for I have often hid within myself and my closet, withholding information to remain safe and cozy. I want to encourage people to be more authentically themselves. I watched Ellen Paige’s public coming out speech, and it moved me greatly. This time in our society’s life is about transforming ideas and evolving beyond that which we believed to be true. I want to come out of my closets in all my queerness, and be the strength for others who cannot yet do so themselves.

The video I found yet again addresses this concept. In this video, a 9 year old transgender is open and public about her transformation and struggle. Her parents are luckily very supportive, which allows her to be as true to herself and her feelings as possible. After I watched this video I found so many others on the same exact topic. There are children around the nation who are openly being themselves. I have had a common theme throughout this course, stating that it will be up to us to inform and educate our newer generation on queer issues. What I have come to learn this week, though, is that it may very well be the children in this new generation who inform and educate us. It seems as if it will be up to the older generation to alter their perspective and accept the new, as the newer generation is already moving towards communal harmony. This is amazing!!

I swung a dead cat...

... and came up with a bunch of ghost stories.

I've been thinking of Powell a lot.  Ghost stories aren't only a casualty of oppression, and cooptation. They're a common product of interaction at any level.  I'm thinking of John Coons who recently finished recording a web series Six Months for Six Weeks (http://youtu.be/QquPAFnd25Q) that tells his stories about a relationship with an expiration date.  It's a great watch, and I highly recommend it.  But what if he hadn't shared this story? What if this was someone else's story who didn't have the talent, or resources to share this with a wide audience? Or if it was someone's story who didn't tell this story to their friends, family, or lovers?  It becomes a ghost story.  

By sharing and listening to stories we create bonds, and strengthen communities.  Myths are those stories that detail and explain such basic human experiences that they will be around for as long as we are.  Gossip are stories that are so fleeting and specific that they have no meaning outside of a small group of people. In between are those stories that are the most powerful, the ones that are the catalyst for change in communities.  

John makes me realize that if we want to consider ourselves productive members of a community, then we have an obligation to tell our stories as often and to as wide an audience as possible.  

Many cities have forums to enable this.  Several publications and coffee houses and theaters encourage lay people who don't have much writing experience, or a trained and gifted voice to engage with their communities and share their perspective.  With technology these days, it's easier than ever to share stories.  

I wonder... In the future, will there be such things as ghosts?