![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I changed my LJ layout to reflect my newest obsession. What ch'ya think?
And now I should probably get back to my homework. Ugh.
And now I should probably get back to my homework. Ugh.
So, for the class I actually like, Queer Theory, we're reading a book by Riki Wilchins called Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. It's a fascinating read, and a quick one too. I've almost finished it in just a couple short hours.
Anyway, the chapter on Gay Rights really got me to thinking. She explains how issues with gender is entwined with both Gay rights as well as feminism. Feminists in the beginning didn't want women calling themselves feminists if they were too masculine looking and acting, because they feared it would set the movement back. Which, in a way, is true. Conservatives of that era (and still today, really) weren't ready to accept that some women just are "butch" acting and prefer mens clothes, jobs, etc. So feminist groups in the early days ostracized butch or lesbian women for fear of that. By the same token, I see this in the gay community time and time again. Hell, even until recently I was the same way: the community shuns or disaproves of men who are fags - or, too effeminate, as well as lesbians who are dykes - too butch. Because at the time being, we're trying to impose upon the conservatives that "we're just like you" even at the cost of ostracizing a good part of our community - which includes transpeople and crossdressers. Is it really worth it? I mean, if we're throwing half of the cargo off the train - does it really matter where we're going or if we get there at all?
Something I'll be thinking about from now on, that's for sure.
Anyway, the chapter on Gay Rights really got me to thinking. She explains how issues with gender is entwined with both Gay rights as well as feminism. Feminists in the beginning didn't want women calling themselves feminists if they were too masculine looking and acting, because they feared it would set the movement back. Which, in a way, is true. Conservatives of that era (and still today, really) weren't ready to accept that some women just are "butch" acting and prefer mens clothes, jobs, etc. So feminist groups in the early days ostracized butch or lesbian women for fear of that. By the same token, I see this in the gay community time and time again. Hell, even until recently I was the same way: the community shuns or disaproves of men who are fags - or, too effeminate, as well as lesbians who are dykes - too butch. Because at the time being, we're trying to impose upon the conservatives that "we're just like you" even at the cost of ostracizing a good part of our community - which includes transpeople and crossdressers. Is it really worth it? I mean, if we're throwing half of the cargo off the train - does it really matter where we're going or if we get there at all?
Something I'll be thinking about from now on, that's for sure.
Tags:
.