Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Are you a Hashtag … or a Person?

While it’s topical, a quick post on Gamergate.  I don’t care to delve in-depth into this issue, largely because it has become convoluted to the point where it is nearly impossible to talk about it intelligently if you haven’t been following it closely.  I certainly recognize the incredibly violent backlash from the straight-white-male-dominant-group as a familiar one though.  As this fabulous Guardian article states, the world increasingly does not revolve around this once-all-powerful group, and some of these guys don’t know how to deal.  They are becoming increasingly vociferous as their power slips away—and that is dangerous.

The line in the article that really grabbed me though was this:

“The promise of the early internet was that it would liberate us from our bodies, and all the oppressions associated with prejudice. We’d communicate soul-to-soul, and get to know each other as people, rather than judging each other based on gender or race.” – Alice Marwick

Considering how much the Gamergate case has involved online harassment of people outside the straight-white-male group, the quote is highly relevant.

It’s funny though that I’d see this quote today, because I was just thinking this morning that the internet did seem to promise that liberation in the beginning.  And for me, at least for a little while, it actually delivered.  It was only a few years … but I do remember a time before those white-straight-male assumptions fell into place.  I suppose it was back in those early-adopter days before the bulk of humanity swarmed the online ethers. That was before the rise of Facebook and Twitter and a thousand other services demanding that you post your “real” name and identity online.  Back when people cared about their privacy.  Back when we had, you know, screen-names.   

Of course, all of this raises the question of what a real identity is, and that's kind of my point here.

My own blog is pseudonymous out of fear of reprisals should my own identity as a kinky pansexual transgender person surface in my online workplace.  Homophobia is rampant there, and if you are so much as suspected of being gay, you will face a fast falling-out.  It’s actually a rare community where anonymity still is prized, and if you think about it, this is ironic—but it echoes the point of the Guardian article.  Even in an identity-free land, people are still assumed to be white, straight males.  If they are not, they are not necessarily welcome.  Exceptions are occasionally made.  I'm accepted there as a woman, despite the misogyny that prevails in that community.  But my reputation would not necessarily survive any further disclosures about my orientation or gender identity.

Despite these major shortcomings, I love working online.  Why?  Because I am not immediately judged on sight by my age, sex, race, and so on.  I am judged for my skill at what I do.  It is in a sense all an illusion, because as mentioned above, you are judged the moment your anonymity fractures.  But the internet has in a very real sense liberated me to be respected as a professional within that envelope of anonymity.  I'd much rather be respected as professional without having to conceal details of my life, but this is a good middle ground for now.  The reality is, my identity goes way beyond my age and sex and race.  Isn't the quality of my work more integral to who I really am?  In that sense, anonymity, at least on that level, is quite valid.

In my particular case, I consider my orientation equally integral though, which is why this situation is not completely satisfactory.  I am not my age, sex or race.  Those are coincidences, and deserve no notice.  My orientation on the other hand at least is half-choice--and I would like to be respected for that.  That is valid.  That is part of my real identity.

The early days of the internet were incidentally when I was growing up.  I was right at a formative age where a lot was going to be decided about my future.  During that time, a lot of people kept their real-life “identities” to themselves online, and did liberate themselves from their bodies and from prejudice.  I actually did get a chance to communicate soul-to-soul.  I came to love people not based on their age, sex, gender, orientation, or nationality, but for their interests, passions, values, personalities, and choices.  I even knew one person who was so obsessed with enforcing this policy with his relationships that I didn’t know the first thing about his age, sex, race, etc. until years had gone by.  I loved him without caring if he was a man or a woman, whether he was 15 or 95, whether he was black or white.  And that’s how I try to love everyone.  Because that is what real life is--not a collection of labels and coincidences of birth.  Real life is our choices.

In hindsight, I think that time online in those bygone days was what solidified my pansexual and panromantic identity.  I had, for all too brief a time, the wonderful experience of meeting people with their skin peeled away, and contacting their souls first.  This still happens now and again, but so seldom.  This experience stripped me of any remaining programming I might have retained from a strict and prejudicial upbringing.  I realized how unimportant labels were.  Loving someone—that’s all that matters.  And that is why I differentiate my orientation from many of the other labels affixed to me.  I do choose how I relate to others, how I love others.

Then came Facebook and all the rest, and so much for the age of self-discovery and identity exploration online.  Now those days are gone, and the internet is a stark reminder of the truth.  Now, with everyone encouraged to share their offline "identities" online, it is easier than ever to target and harass others.  People say it's about safety, and maybe to a small extent it is, but it’s mostly about control.  Most people don’t want liberation.  And so our offline identities—along with our online identities—are constrained. We're not really sharing our real identities online at all.  We're sharing a list of labels which were slapped on us at birth or later in our lifetimes.

And so we forget.  We aren’t a batch of labels and hashtags.  Our souls get buried in the morass of data.  

And we don’t meet people—we collate them.  And that has been going on since the dawn of time.  Technology could have helped us end that cycle, and it still could.  But it is up to us to rise to the occasion.


Tuesday, October 7, 2014

... Because 50 Shades of Grey Can Never Be Slammed Enough

50 Shades of Grey is an absolutely terrible book.  I say this shameless of the fact I haven't read a page of it.  All I need to know is that E.L. James, a woman who knows absolutely nothing about BDSM, decided to randomly grab her misconception of BDSM and use it to sensationalize a story about sexual abuse.  *Not* a story about BDSM.  Of course, this has led to an absolute deluge of misinformation--not to mention a frighteningly large number of women who seem to think abuse is sexy.  And misconceptions about BDSM were already rampant enough before this "author" decided to add to the damage.  

I struggled with my identification as a sadomasochist for ... oh, the overwhelming majority of my life in large part because I couldn't relate to the ridiculous media portrayals of BDSM.  Perhaps the *only* good thing to come out of the existence of this awful book is a large number of discussions and many opportunities to correct these misconceptions when I find them.

For this reason, there simply cannot be too many rants about 50 Shades of Grey.  So I will re-share my friend Mike's latest post, just on principle. Read it here:


Here are just a few of the problems I am aware of with this book:
  • Grey coerces a sexually inexperienced woman into signing a contract as an ultimatum.
  • Grey has no clue what aftercare is.
  • Grey ignores their safe word.
  • Anastasia ignore's Grey's own limits.
  • Grey literally stalks Anastasia and is bent on controlling every aspect of her life--without her consent.
  • Grey makes Anastasia miserable, not happy, the majority of the time, yet she seems OK with this.
  • The "BDSM" practiced in this book is literally unsafe, yet presented as if it is totally normal.
  • Anastasia does not seem to actually be a submissive or a masochist, and merely puts up with it in the hopes that she can eventually manipulate Grey into marrying her and doing what she wants him to do (in other words, she is abusive as well).
  • Grey claims to be be a dominant as a result of sexual abuse he endured as a child.  This perpetuates a false stereotype that BDSM is a psychological symptom of trauma.
  • Grey offers to give up BDSM at the end because he apparently doesn't need it anymore now that he finally has the right woman (yep, apparently you can outgrow a kink).  Of course, she humors him and lets him keep it since she won.
  • No one mentions this, but ultimately, isn't this basically just a book about a woman trying to "fix" a man?  A billionaire man?  I doubt you'd see this same novel about a poor man.  Time tested formula, again, sensationalized with bullshit about BDSM which simply isn't true.
I think it is worth mentioning that you will meet a fair number of people in the BDSM world who do use BDSM to process traumas--the difference is that the kink is not a symptom of the trauma--but rather a healing antidote.  A symptom perpetuates negative energy.  An antidote transmutes negative energy into positive growth.

For the record ...

BDSM is NOT about:
  • Coercion or subjugation of anybody's will
  • Perpetuating a cycle of abuse
  • Ignoring limits or safety protocols
  • Stalking
  • Making another person feel unhappy or unsafe.
  • Misogyny 
  • Going through a "phase" until you find the perfect vanilla relationship

BDSM IS about:
  • Safe, sane consensual activities between mature adults
  • Healing and catharsis
  • Trust, happiness, and care
  • Sharing a comfortable, positive relationship where partners are valued equally and treat each other with respect

Friday, October 3, 2014

Emma Watson on Feminism

Lately, the talented and beautiful Emma Watson has been taking a lot of flak online from narrow-minded types who don't like that she made a speech about feminism.  These days there are a lot of folks screaming "social justice warrior!" at anyone who dares stand up for a cause.  The first time I heard the SJW term, I was amused.  In theory it was invented to refer to those people online who "stand up" voraciously for causes they don't actually care about--in order to garner attention and stir up controversy.  And yes, the internet is full of those types.

But now the SJW term is lobbed at anyone who stands up for any cause, including one they believe in passionately.  This is an easy way to insult someone and avoid thoughtful engagement.

To me Ms. Watson sounds borderline terrified - in part I think this is probably just from the pressure of speaking in front of the UN, but I also believe it is because she is deeply passionate about the issue and knows there is so much at stake.  The speech is well worth watching from beginning to end, and I really admire her passion.



My favourite part is this:

"I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49 years of age; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.

We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.

Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals."


This is brilliant, and something we so seldom hear anyone talk about. Feminism at its heart (and at its best) is about gender equality--for men, women, and non-binary persons. These issues are all deeply interconnected. When one group is oppressed, all groups are oppressed.

But perhaps the deeper issue here is how we define groups in the first place.

Originally I found this speech here. At that link, you can also read an equally brilliant response by Ed Holtom, one that I love even more, because it goes a step further into non-binary territory, and speaks about dismantling gender concepts instead of redefining them. Here is a great excerpt:

"Recently we’ve been hearing about what it means to be ‘masculine’ and what it means to be ‘feminine’. It means nothing, barring biological differences. By perceiving these two words as anything other than the description of a human’s genitalia, we perpetuate a stereotype which is nothing but harmful to all of us."

This echoes what I said in my most recent blog post. "Come to think of it, isn't that more or less a working definition of what gender is? A stereotype for members of a given sex?"

In theory, I don't care at all how other people want to define themselves as "masculine" or "feminine" or whatever. We create meaning each day of our lives, and we each have a right to create the meaning that lights up our own lives in a way which makes sense to us. If for a certain person, that involves gender concepts, great - that is perfect for them.

But they do not have the right to transpose their subjective meanings on the world around them as though those meanings are objective fact, and nobody has the right to try and force their meaning of gender or sexuality on somebody else. The deep-seated reverence with which these social constructs are upheld by society at large Needs. To. End. By all means, honour the constructs which mean something to you in your own private life. But respectfully do not try and inflict them on others, who find meaning - and freedom - in other ways.