Posts Tagged ‘family’

h1

Snapshot: Gender and Attraction

2015.August.25

I was asked by a male-identified person about the lack of Y-chromosomes in my current polycule. What follows is the bulk of my response, posted here for posterity or whatever:

My gender identity is cisbastard. I got that Y chromosome you were talking about (as far as I know) and was designated-male-at-birth and I’ve gotten by more or less okay like that (being tall, surly, and able to draw probably spared me from a disproportionate number of ass-kickings as a preteen, but I’m okay with that). What I really got by without, though, was a traditional father figure enforcing masculinity. I had a loving grandfather-figure and an evil step-father and a father whose face I knew but not well and that was about it. Their respective gravities, along with other privileges and talents, allowed me to slip through the cracks of gender enforcement for the most part. The further I got away from any sort of strong relationship with masculinity, the less I needed one.

I’ve been attracted to women my whole life. I never had a cooties phase. I tried to be friends with everyone, but as I got older, I found that men were the hardest to make and keep as friends. I just didn’t get them, by and large. In recent years, I figured out that lacking a personal relationship with masculinity has made it distasteful to me, but in recognizing that, I’ve been better able to unpack gender stuff in my attractions and see people as people regardless of genitalia. I still shy away from flaunted masculinity in friends, sex, and romance, but because that is so common and so fundamental to how men are taught to function, it makes me much more attracted to men who don’t exhibit gendered power dynamics. In general, I find people attractive for their feminine or gender-neutral traits, and the brighter these outshine their masculine traits, the stronger is that attraction.

I suppose I should state here that I have a definition of “masculinity” that skews negative but also narrow (however common). I associate it with power, dominance, aggression, taking up a lot of space, anger over compassion, shouting over listening, etc. etc. etc. I have yet to see someone present me with a so-called “masculine” trait that I couldn’t either re-interpret as gender-neutral or feminine or otherwise find harmful to all parties involved. So if I say that I don’t find someone “masculine”, it is meant as a compliment, and does not necessarily correlate to how that person genders their own positive traits.

h1

Liberals: The Eternal Optimists

2010.May.25

[Editor’s Note: In acknowledgment that I take too long between posts to keep this blog lively, I have invited a couple of friends to post here as well. Our beliefs overlap somewhat but I value their different perspectives and look forward to what they will bring this page. Don’t hesitate to let them know you like them more!–QT]

Contributed by AriseKraken 

I have found a person with whom I can have respectful conversation about things political, despite having very different beliefs from this person. I will write on “respectful conversation” soon, but a recent discussion helped shine a light on our root difference.

I, the liberal bordering on socialist, see the good and potential for good in EVERY PERSON, and she, the more conservative who worships at the altar of capitalism, sees the potential for bad in every person. It’s important for me to make clear that she doesn’t see BAD in every individual, just the potential for bad. The notion that given the chance, a lot of people will exploit the system, and/or be lazy.

Then I realized this is one of the core factors of liberal versus conservative debate. When a liberal Democrat works for social programs, it’s because the Democrat believes that if you just give this person a little help right now, they’ll get themselves into a better situation and go on to be a contributing member of society. A conservative Republican, on the other hand, believes these entitlement programs lead to people who’ll come to expect help, rely on help and cheat the system in order to not have to do any work.

These beliefs then extend to community responsibility versus individual responsibility. The liberal wants to put programs in place to improve the community, because by improving the community around them, the individuals within the community will be improved. It will be a better place for everyone, and everyone will have access to the same opportunities. The conservative focuses on making things better for self and family, and puts the burden on every other individual to do what is best for himself or herself and family. If all individuals are responsible for themselves, then the community around them will be a good place. This leads to the statement I hear all too often that if you don’t like the schools your kids attend, then move to a better neighborhood. Community be damned! Family first!

Another area I see this kind of extreme thinking is in regards to immigration. Conservatives see immigrants stealing our jobs, or living the cushy life courtesy of our social programs. Liberals are joining the Facebook group “I’d rather live in a country full of immigrants than in a country full of racists.” Liberals see people coming to the United States because it is the land of opportunity, and these people want the opportunity to improve their lives by working hard and receiving benefit from their hard work. Meanwhile, not much attention is paid to the fact that a lot of immigrants are doing jobs Americans don’t want, and at a wage they can barely live on.

One key to improving the individual, the community, the society and the world is to stop thinking in such extremes (including my own extremes of “liberals” and “conservatives”). Not everybody is good, and not everybody is bad. In fact, most people are both good and bad. The goal in creating and improving communities and society should be to optimize the individual’s potential for good and minimize the potential for bad. Sometimes, some people will need help. If they are given an appropriate type of help, see real benefit to their efforts, and then are trusted to improve their situation, then perhaps they will. Perhaps they will not. But there has to be trust, and there has to be a real benefit from their efforts and a real possibility for improvement. Teaching a man to fish is great, but if there are no bodies of water, then it benefits no one and harms everyone, taking the person’s potential away.

h1

When Is Sex Not Personal?

2008.November.11

First, check this out. If you or anyone you know has been in this situation, congratulations, you live in a world of postmodern sexuality.

Perhaps the only union more awkward than politics and religion is that of politics and sexuality. And wouldn’t you know, it’s tied to those convenient wedge issues the Dems and Reps love to throw at us: if you have a friend or family member who is gay, you have to vote Democratic or you’re forcing them back into the closet. If you have any hesitations about abortion, you have to vote Republican or they’ll become mandatory and paid for with taxes on your fingernail clippings.

Nope, there couldn’t possibly be such aberrations as pro-life Democrats, or gay Republicans.

The difficulty with sexuality as a political issue is that, like religion, it is next to impossible to divorce from the personal experience of each and every voter. Say you had a homoerotic dream one time, does that make you a Democrat? Say you heard about someone who’s had four abortions and you think that’s just too many, does that make you a Republican? Of course not, but because sexuality is so personal, it inspires intense reactions in both extremes, leaving little room for gray on the issues.

To me, one of the funniest things is how sexual politics doesn’t necessarily correspond to one’s sexual proclivities. The most ardent supporters of abortion rights use protection so as not to need them. Most of the gay men I know struggle with their identity not only because their love is forbidden, but because they don’t feel like they have a complete choice in forming that identity. Do I identify as an athlete first? An artist? A father? Or am I relegated to always being a gay athlete, a gay artist, or a gay father? I recently mentioned how Black Americans are struggling over whether to identify gay rights with civil rights, but both peoples have been forced to experience how one piece of individual identity can so easily overshadow all others – regardless of whether it is your preferred identifier.

Wedge issues cause polarization within the broader American community, but they can even polarize the communities FORMED by the division, by forcing members to fight for mainstream recognition by going mainstream or fight for the fringe since that’s the only place you can be yourself. As gay men have come to a more prominent visibility, they have to struggle to develop individual or even community identities beyond stereotypes and pavlovian associations. Admit it, when you think of gay men, you think of pink clothing, musicals, interior decorating, and BUTT SEX. Where is there room for a personal or political identity beyond that?

Does sex ever get to be personal for those whose own American identity is designated for them based on one dimension of lives that are otherwise no more or less complicated than anyone else’s?

If I may offer a conjecture, it is not solely the responsibility of these individuals to ask such questions. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We must each (not in spite of our individual proclivities but in celebration of them) recognize that any sexual act is pissing someone off somewhere, and therefor embrace love itself as an act of rebellion.

h1

Don’t Take It Personally

2008.November.3

Campaign work is not for the faint of heart.

Most politicos grow a pretty thick skin to it. When, with stinging eyes, I told our campaign manager today about Barack Obama’s grandmother passing away, he commiserated for about two seconds before saying, “I hate to admit it, but this will probably help him.” He’s great at this stuff, and has all the callouses he needs to go from one campaign to the next in quick succession.

Me, I get by through mitigated intensity. I made sure my contract said I would only be working part time, knowing that it would reach full time and beyond by late October, because it is important to me to maintain an equally intense personal life. I can spare a few weeks without much rest at the height of the campaign, but I couldn’t function at that level for months or years. Wednesday morning, win or lose, I wake up free of obligations.

The wheel-greaser of our office is young; this is her first political campaign and her first job out of college. She often has it the hardest, because while she is the least prepared for the barbs and arrows of campaigning, she receives them most often and most directly. Today, it was a bullying phone call blaming her for something that was 99% likely to not be her fault or even the fault of anyone at our campaign.

I believe she has great potential as a campaigner, if that’s what she really wants. She’s passionate and hard-working, but the unspoken third component one needs is balance. Either you learn to build the walls, like the campaign manager, or you learn to control the spigot, like me. To paraphrase an aphorism, you can give all of your energy some of the time, or you can give some of your energy all of the time, but you can’t give all of your energy all of the time.

But you don’t have to work on a campaign to give too much, and we would all do well to remember that (and remind our friends).

I’ve been the guy who checks the latest polls four times a day, whose office brings in lunch to talk about the election on the day after, then who goes home and talks about it with roommates and family members and friends near and far. Whatever energy you have left on Election Day gets squandered on whining when you lose.

If you follow local elections the way you should, you have a high chance that at least one of your votes is going toward a loss, but I’m not broaching the topic of burnout because I think my guy is going to lose. Like any unnatural high, there will always be a crash after an election, whether or not your candidate wins. You’ve had this siphon of energy and thought you’ve been feeding on a daily basis for weeks, months, years, and suddenly it’s not there any longer.

If your candidate loses, you wonder if it was worth the effort, and feel alienated from your fellow citizens, who voted another way. If your candidate wins, you lose an outlet just when things peaked. If you’ve just given a little, you find yourself wondering whether it was enough – was your sliver of dedication enough to claim credit or too little to avoid blame? If you give everything, you’re left to wonder what is left for yourself as your candidate fades away or forges ahead (and, I don’t know, starts picking a Cabinet).

Politics is both personal and impersonal. We are expected to vote for the candidate most like us, the one we want as a pal, the one who has our best interests at heart. Yet we will likely never meet the candidates or receive a more personal thak you than an email blast with our names pasted in at the top, and it is easy to find your power insignificant when your vote is literally one of millions. The candidate who wins with your vote could not have done it without you and people like you, but does that make it your victory?

Yes and no. You could just as easily ask, could your vote have mattered as much if the candidate had been less charismatic, knowledgeable, or effective at campaigning? Don’t you owe them a little thanks for helping you breathe a little easier over the next two, four, or six years?

The way to keep perspective is to distinguish what is the act of the individual and what is the act of the group. The individual registered to vote, conducted research, possibly volunteered, and cast a ballot. Of these things, the individual can take pride in him or herself. But it was the group that turned out in record numbers, the group that launched a movement, and the group (even if not all of it) that elected the victor. For these things, the individual must take pride in his or her community.

It is with one’s community that victory, defeat, and progress itself must be measured, acknowledged, and learned from (and if you can’t learn from a victory, defeat will find you soon enough). That community doesn’t evaporate after November 5th. Like a long courtship that has reached marriage, that’s when the real work begins.

%d bloggers like this: