antiminke

The end of queer theory?

Written because 'Duke University Press ends its influential Series Q this month', Queer and Then? is well worth a read to see how far society, and theory, has come (and what we risk losing still), but also particularly for this 'anonymous, photocopied broadside' from 1992, written by Zoe Leonard, 'a member of Fierce Pussy, a lesbian feminist group with roots in Act Up':

I want a dyke for president. I want a person with aids for president and I want a fag for vice president and I want someone with no health insurance and I want someone who grew up in a place where the earth is so saturated with toxic waste that they didn't have a choice about getting leukemia. I want a president that had an abortion at sixteen and I want a candidate who isn't the lesser of two evils and I want a president who lost their last lover to aids, who still sees that in their eyes every time they lay down to rest, who held their lover in their arms and knew they were dying. I want a president with no airconditioning, a president who has stood on line at the clinic, at the dmv, at the welfare office and has been unemployed and layed off and sexually harassed and gaybashed and deported. I want someone who has spent the night in the tombs and had a cross burned on their lawn and survived rape. I want someone who has been in love and been hurt, who respects sex, who has made mistakes and learned from them. I want a Black woman for president. I want someone with bad teeth and an attitude, someone who has eaten that nasty hospital food, someone who crossdresses and has done drugs and been in therapy. I want someone who has committed civil disobedience. And I want to know why this isn't possible. I want to know why we started learning somewhere down the line that a president is always a clown: always a john and never a hooker. Always a boss and never a worker, always a liar, always a thief and never caught.

[And seriously, how have I not posted since May?!]

The future intrudes

There is a significant moment when one of the mass of dancers, a woman, notices the camera, and stares, horrified, straight into the intrusive lens. Suddenly, there are intimations of another London, of the coming surveillance society. The future is visible in that one brief shot, the shocking realisation that an unguarded, intimate occasion can be recorded, catalogued, exploited in some way over which the involuntary actor will have no control.

From The Festival of Britain, 60 years on.

(Yes, it's been ages since I posted - life has gotten in the way of many things).

Not British media's finest moment

Imagine having to write this when you should be left to grieve:

''Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful.

''It has made me lose a lot of faith in the morality of the British Press and those that spend their time fixed to the internet in this modern age.

''I hope in the future they will show a more sensitive and impartial view to those involved in such heart-breaking events and especially in the lead-up to potentially high-profile court cases.

If you're not familiar with the depths reached by some of the UK media, check out Chris Jefferies and trial by media and Yeates murder: There is no excuse for the wholly unbalanced media reporting.

The "Paris Paradox", or 'being sexy, but not sexual'

Really interesting piece in Jezebel about The Problem With Being "Sexy But Not Sexual":

Paris Hilton's remarkably perceptive remark about herself that she was "sexy, but not sexual." ... Young women with the Paris Paradox were raised in a culture that promised sexual freedom, but what they ended up with looked a lot more like obligation than opportunity.

...

Not every young girl experiences herself as an object of desire. But virtually every young girl is aware that young women are "supposed" to be desired. Unprecedented opportunities to compete on an equal playing field educationally, socially and financially with men have done damn all to release young women from the pressure to be sexually alluring. And given how blunt and brazen so many of their male peers (and, sadly, so many much older men) are about what they want sexually, it's little wonder that developing one's own sexuality is often a much-later development than developing one's sexiness.

It also included this quote, which was new to me: "We are the daughters of feminists who said, "You can be anything" and we heard "You have to be everything."".

We don't have to take it - protests work

This article is full of lots of examples of protests working, even if the results weren't obvious at the time. The most important lesson seems to be that it's important just to make a start, even if it's small and feels feeble. As it says, "Protest raises the political price for governments making bad decisions".

Johann Hari: Protest works. Just look at the proof:

protest can have an invisible ripple-effect that lasts for generations. A small group of women from Iowa lost their sons early in the Vietnam war, and they decided to set up an organization of mothers opposing the assault on the country. They called a protest of all mothers of serving soldiers outside the White House - and six turned up in the snow. Even though later in the war they became nationally important voices, they always remembered that protest as an embarrassment and a humiliation.

Until, that is, one day in the 1990s, one of them read the autobiography of Benjamin Spock, the much-loved and trusted celebrity doctor, who was the Oprah of his day. When he came out against the war in 1968, it was a major turning point in American public opinion. And he explained why he did it. One day, he had been called to a meeting at the White House to be told how well the war in Vietnam was going, and he saw six women standing in the snow with placards, alone, chanting. It troubled his conscience and his dreams for years. If these women were brave enough to protest, he asked himself, why aren't I? It was because of them that he could eventually find the courage to take his stand - and that in turn changed the minds of millions, and ended the war sooner. An event that they thought was a humiliation actually turned the course of history.

And to finish:

You don't know what the amazing ripple-effect of your protest will be - but wouldn't Britain be a better place if it replaced the ripple of impotent anger so many of us are feeling? Yes, you can sit back and let yourself be ripped off by the bankers and the corporations and their political lackeys if you want. But it's an indulgent fiction to believe that is all you can do. You can act in your own self-defence. As Margaret Mead, the great democratic campaigner, said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

When you see the crap that's going on, call it. You never know who's listening.

Security theatre and airport security checks

Don't trust those 'back scatter' scanners that effectively show you naked? Might be hard to choose the pat-down option... From For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance:

everal TSA officers heard me choose the pat-down, and they reacted in a way meant to make the ordinary passenger feel very badly about his decision. One officer said to a colleague who was obviously going to be assigned to me, "Get new gloves, man, you're going to need them where you're going."

...

the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.

Bah. Remember the days when flying was fun? These days it's an invasion of privacy, a huge hassle and eater-of-time *and* sexual harassment rolled into one.

Sigh. 'Why more and more straight women are fantasising about lesbians'

In the Guardian today - Why more and more straight women are fantasising about lesbians claims "the image of the gay woman is finally going mainstream. Britain, therefore, is duly amending its fantasies". Once I'd started to rant it was too long for a tweet, so here goes:

No longer do lesbians just exist in the minds of the Nuts reader [phew, because that made life really complicated - I don't know how lesbians survived when they only existed in the mind of other queer women], but in the real-life world of pap shots, society pages and telly ... Their glamour has shifted. Women have reclaimed the lesbian. [Straight women, that is. Because queer women don't actually have opinions of their own, even in the Guardian. At least they exist here, unlike the late departed Observer 'Woman' magazine.]

Instead of the one-note "And I'll just watch" fantasies of yesterday's men, or the icky, over-sexy imitations in pop videos, women are imagining the lingering, complex bliss of both them and their lover enjoying the same TV programmes. Of being able to extend best-friendships into marriages, advising each other on non-frizz hair products, eventually bringing up well-balanced children in a brilliant, bookish house and chuckling on leather sofas at late-night BBC4. [We've seen this elision before, haven't we? Lesbians make great girly best mates, it's just a shame they might want sex in their relationship. Cosiness is lovely, that doesn't make a relationship. (OTOH, that striving for cosiness - apparently not possible in normal friendships between straight women - might explain a lot of the embattled world view of women as their own worst enemies that put me off the Sunday Times Style mag world of writing. Just be nicer to other women, surely it's not that hard?)]

...Is theirs as patronising a fantasy as those developed for men? Maybe [yes], but it's so much cosier. And less oily.

[Update, now that I've thought about it again: the weirdest thing about this view and the thing I've never understood about the lads' mags view of lesbians, is that they both seem to completely forget the defining characteristics of lesbians - women who are attracted to other women. So straight men wouldn't get a look in, and unless straight women put out, they're kinda useless in a lesbian relationship. (Sure, there's 'lesbian bed death' but you do have to go through a 'bed life' stage to get there, you can't skip straight to the watching TV bit.)]

Quoted for truth - 'The genius of the Australian people'

From The Age, The genius of the Australian people

The leaders would not lead - so the voters would not elect. ... In an election of policy nothingness, the voters returned the nothingness... Ms Gillard said it's hard to understand what the Australian people said when they spoke on Saturday. I disagree. The message was clear: neither of you are good enough.

...

It will take time to sink in, but the major parties will have to seriously rethink what they are up to by the time the next election comes around.

This outcome is the best Australia could have achieved. The best of a bad lot.

A likely outcome is that the independents and Greens will now make whoever becomes prime minister do some governing.

Keep religion out of politics (aka Australia is not America)

It sucks because it's true...

"The debate on same-sex marriage is being led by right-wing Christian lobby groups who have dominated politics for way too long and have been holding Australia back"

Danby talks up prospect of gay marriage, then retreats

The only good thing about the Tories...

...is that you can't have a moment of disillusionment when you realise the politician you had such high hopes for is actually a selfish, avaricious, jealous, ambitious fool, just like the rest of them.

Something about an election?

If you're a UK voter and aren't sure how to vote, try Vote for policies. I already had a feeling about how I was going to vote and it's just confirmed it for me.

After the Digital Economy bill passed a third 'reading' last night and through the House of Lords today, my vote isn't going to be Labour. In particular, it isn't going to be Meg Hillier. I'm not a one-issue person, and I've kept a vague eye on the voting habits of my MP since I moved to the UK, so her vote for the digital economy bill was really the final straw.

As the Guardian said in Who should a scientist vote for?

My representative toes the party line with the drone-like fidelity of an ambitious career politician, and with a 10,000 majority Meg Hillier is safe. Her voting record typifies that of a government that has performed as if ideology driven, but where the only philosophy was "not old Labour". "Yes" on ID cards, "yes" to replacing Trident, "yes" to 42 days detention, "no" to an investigation of the Iraq war. Obsessed with courting a non-traditional vote, they have managed to nurture a climate of paranoid fear, where CCTV and absurd terror warnings (be furiously vigilant, swivel-eyed citizens, it's Severe!) are part of their legacy. Meg Hillier's loyalty is a depressing reminder of how Labour lost its way.

I've started to suspect that she's just a thinner version of The Thick of It's Nicola Murray. You'd honestly never know that she is meant to represent the voters of Hackney.

If you do one thing this election season...

Consider signing up to the Fawcett Society's 'What About Women' campaign. As they say, "Worried about parental leave? Think the rape conviction rate's a scandal? Whether you have a minute, an hour or a day, you can add your voice to the What About Women campaign."

The What About Women campaign is calling on politicians to take women seriously in drawing up their election policies. The Fawcett Society is coordinating a movement to get women up the political agenda - we want thousands of women to sign up so we can get politicians to give us some proof they are giving us policies, not just platitudes. Join us, and sign up here (http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?Pageid=1032)!

I still exist!

I realised I hadn't posted since January - I'm still here, just really, boringly, busy. Normal-ish life will resume around June, with any luck just in time for the English 'summer'.

A letter to Nestle

Check out the video at http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/kitkat to find out why you should tell Nestle to stop buying palm oil from destroyed rainforests. Sorry to be didactic, but they're being a bit crap.

This is what I wrote to them:

Subject: It's time Nestle acted responsibly - stop destroying rainforests for palm oil

Email: I'm sure you've seen many of these emails already, so I don't need to repeat the facts and remind you of the concerns many people feel about Nestle's relationship with the palm oil industry and the destruction of rainforest habitats.

As the world's largest food and drink company, Nestle can surely afford to set the standards for environmentally responsible companies. As a consumer, I try to make the most sustainable choices I can when shopping, but without the support of manufacturers, individual impact is limited.

I look forward to receiving your response in due course.

I really think that these big companies make enough profit to be able to afford to act responsibly.

Oh, dear, Daily Mail

In an article with the headline, 'Male fans of BBC newsreader Jane Hill, brace yourself for disappointment' (though possibly originally titled like the filename, BBC-newsreader-Jane-Hill-comes-gay.html), the Daily Mail is classy on so many levels.

Brace yourself for disappointment? As if a Daily Mail reader ever had a chance anyway!

I know it's the silly season, but repeating snippets from an in-house magazine is a poor excuse for news, even if you can make mentioning a partner into an OUTING STORY.

The comments are typically Daily Mail, though there was this moment of sense: "Funny that when a heterosexual talks of their partner it's 'making conversation' yet when a gay person does the same it's considered 'ramming it down people's throats'."

Reasons not to use eBookers

Well, I say 'reasons' but I've only got one and a bit, though they're enough that I'll never use eBookers again - they don't appear to pass on meal requests. And they don't respond to customer queries, so I've no explanation as to why, or even if they could have blamed the airline for the stuff-up.

Since eBookers never responded to my comment, I might as well post it here:

Dear ebookers,

I wish to make a complaint about your service. I recently flew long-haul on tickets booked with you, yet the airline I flew with had no record of my special meal request. This may sound like a relatively minor issue, but the thought of facing another eight hour flight without food is enough to stop me using ebookers again.

I'm just glad it wasn't a flight to Australia. If you're also vegetarian, or need to make special meal requests for any other reason, you might want to give eBookers a miss. The prices are pretty much the same across all those cross-search sites anyway.

[This is in no way a random post made up from a random old email I found while doing some tidying. Ahem.]

Women start to disappear - photoshopping to blame

Ok, a slightly melodramatic headline for fashion fuss about advertising and models, but to an extent, it's true - women are shrinking before our eyes. This time it's not actually about too-skinny models - they don't need them to be too-skinny anymore now they can shrink them in Photoshop.

The article, Image of ultra-thin Ralph Lauren model sparks outrage, also provoked a warning on mis-using copyright law to silence criticism: "Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings".

The Liberal Democrats want to ban altered images for content aimed at teenagers, and I agree. As reported in the Independent:

The party is calling for a ban on the use of altered or enhanced pictures on publicity material aimed at the under-16s as part of a wider drive to boost the self-esteem of young girls. It also wants the introduction of new rules insisting that advertisements aimed at adults disclose how much images have been airbrushed or digitally enhanced.

"Ms Swinson, who led a party review of women's policy, told The Independent: "The focus on women's appearance has really got out of hand. No one really has perfect skin, perfect hair and a perfect figure but women and young girls increasingly feel that nothing less than thin and perfect will do.""

Having been a teenage girl, I say 'media literacy' training won't do it - the images are powerful even when you know how they've been made.

The politics of travel (it's not what you think)

'WH Smith's exclusive travel book deal with Penguin to go ahead despite outcry from writers', apparently because the OFT doesn't have the resources to investigate the deal? That's ridiculous. And what are Penguin thinking - can they only sell travel books if there's no competition?

The Guardian:

The Office of Fair Trading has decided against investigating WH Smith's deal to stock only Penguin's overseas guides at its travel stores. The deal caused an outcry from travel writers, including Michael Palin, when it was announced in June.

Under the agreement, brands such as Lonely Planet, Time Out and Bradt are not stocked in 265 of WH Smith's 459 travel shops, with only Penguin's Rough Guides and Eyewitness imprints on display.

Victorian government #fail - 'Government bows to religious right'

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Rob Hulls will today announce a controversial compromise struck with the state's religious groups that will allow them to continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians, single mothers and people who hold different spiritual beliefs.

In a move that has delighted religious groups but angered gay activists and discrimination experts, Mr Hulls will protect the right of hundreds of church-run organisations - including schools, hospitals and welfare services - to refuse to employ or provide services to people who they believe may undermine their beliefs.

Under the deal, Mr Hulls will allow church groups to continue discriminating on the grounds of sex, sexuality, marital and parental status and gender identity. But they will be unable to discriminate on the basis of race, disability, age, physical features, political beliefs or activity, or breastfeeding.

The decision has dismayed groups that argued that the review was a chance to eliminate entrenched discrimination in Victoria, which has more exemptions to its equal opportunity law than any other state.

Leading discrimination law expert Professor Margaret Thornton said it was a win for fundamentalist religious groups. ''In terms of a person's private life ... their sexual preference or marital status really has nothing to do with their ability to perform a job. Being able to discriminate on marital status is particularly absurd. It is really out of date. It really amounts to the policing of women because the focus is on single mothers, not on men.''

From The Age, Government bows to religious right.

The problem with trashy magazines

Some excerpts on how weekly/tabloid magazines create their stories below, but it's worth reading the whole Guardian piece on The Brangelina industry.

Of course, from a traditional perspective on the nature of reality, there were problems with these stories. ... "These weeklies no longer have any interest in actual reporting," Aniston's publicist, Stephen Huvane, told me via email. Richard Spencer, the editor-in-chief of In Touch, insists that all his stories are double-sourced. But maybe these disagreements over journalistic ethics miss the point. The weeklies are their own world, with their own rules. Their priority is to keep the rollercoaster of a star's life - romance, betrayal, marriage, separation, reunion - moving as quickly as possible. Real facts play a role, but not always a leading one. "A tabloid version of a fact isn't exactly a lie," is how one editor at a prominent celebrity weekly puts it. "But it isn't the truth. You know what I mean?"

...

...the verifiable facts will only take you so far. Fuelled by panic over falling magazine circulations, the challenges posed by blogs and a desensitised readership hungry for authentic emotion, the storyline of Brad, Angelina and Jennifer has achieved escape velocity. It seems, somehow, to exist independently of its real-life protagonists, even as it draws on the facts of their lives. And its inner workings - the web of relationships between stars, publicists, editors, paparazzi, "insider" sources and bloggers - show the machinery of modern fame operating at its most combative, absurd and intense.

The frenetic state of today's celebrity news industry stems from one inescapable fact: the lives of real people - even people as volatile and wealthy as A-list movie stars - simply don't unfold fast enough to meet the appetite for information about them. Weekly magazines need weekly scoops, and preferably scoops different enough to distinguish them from their rivals. Sales of celebrity magazines are plummeting (newsstand sales in the US fell 11% in the second half of last year, and the situation in the UK is similar, though Grazia is an exception) but the decline seems only to have increased the desperation for exclusives.

...

Editorial meetings at celebrity magazines, therefore, may not always resemble those elsewhere. "You build the story around an emotion," says a celebrity weekly editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "What's happening with poor Jen this week? Well, John Mayer's seeing someone else, and for a woman of her age, that must be awful ... So you construct a narrative of what a woman her age may be feeling." Stories may start with nothing more than a set of photographs: Aniston looking happy, or sad - or happy one moment and sad the next, since if you take multiple shots of anyone, with a fast shutter speed, you can capture a range of expressions. "The question is: how can we construct a story around a set of emotions that our readers are going to relate to? It can come from a genuine tip, or a photo. Or it can come out of our ass."

jezebel.com also asks, 'As The Tabloid Wars Heat Up, Do We All Lose?'.