Monthly Archives: March 2013

RIP Lucy Meadows

I am interrupting the Prudes’ Progress series to talk about Lucy Meadows.

Lucy Meadows was a trans female teacher who didn’t quit her job upon transition. The Daily Mail chose to misgender her and talk about how her existence is a threat to the innocence of the children she taught. This week, she killed herself.

Her old name, her pre-transition pictures, are scattered across a dozen websites now. People are calling her “he” and talking about how she should have known better than to transition when she could have harmed children’s minds by telling them that trans people exist. I just… have some fucking respect for the dead.

This hit me very hard. I know trans people who struggle with suicidal ideation. I know trans people who are teachers, or want to be teachers, or work in a profession that involves interaction with children. This could happen to any number of people I know. The fact that it didn’t is luck.

The pictures thing makes me want to cry. I can’t look at my old pictures without cringing; I can’t imagine what it’d be like to see on national television a picture of yourself that doesn’t look like you.

Kids can grasp the concept of trans people. In fact, there’s some evidence that really young kids don’t understand that you can’t change gender by putting on a dress. Yes, you might have to teach your kids about trans people, the same way you’d have to teach them what a sheep is and why we recycle plastics. If you don’t want to have to teach your kids things, maybe you shouldn’t have kids. Teaching them is generally part of the whole “parenting” thing.

(Not to mention that, you know, trans kids exist.)

The cis world leaves trans people in a bit of a bind. If we transition young, we’re too young to be certain. How do we know it’s not just a phase? If we wait until we’re “old enough to know,” then we also have careers, spouses, children. Apparently the only thing that would make some people happy is if all trans people spent our twenties working at Wal Mart and refusing to have romantic relationships, so that our transition won’t disturb any cis people. Oh, and you have to wait until Grandma Myrtle dies, she’s old-fashioned and wouldn’t understand.

Fuck that. Trans people will always be threatening to transphobes. That is literally the definition of transphobia. Our constant discomfort in our bodies is not outweighed by your having to learn a thing. Lucy Meadows should not have to give up a job she was perfectly good at– particularly not in this economy, do you think jobs grow on trees?– to avoid the Daily Mail’s concern about the innocent little minds of the children.

I suppose, though, the Daily Mail thinks that the knowledge that their teacher killed herself because of transphobia won’t cause children to lose their innocence at all.

About these ads

Prudes’ Progress: Rape Fantasies

[Part of the Response to the Prudes' Progress series. This is one of the more Vaguely Inspired By The Prudes' Progress posts. I want to make it clear here that my viewpoints are not Lisa Millbank's and that, in fact, if I understand her writing correctly she will probably disagree with me strongly.]

Trigger warning for extensive discussion of people with sexual fantasies of rape perpetration. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Continue reading →

Ozy Is Coming To The Bay Area!

I am, in fact, coming to the Bay Area* over spring break, mostly so I can see my FABULOUS BOYFRIEND. (I have no idea what I’m doing to get such a fabulous boyfriend but I hope I keep doing it.) I’ll be flying in late this Saturday and returning on Monday April 1st.

I know I know people in the Bay Area whom I don’t have plans to see, but I can’t remember who you people are, so if I know who you are and you want to hang out you should email me or leave a comment here or tweet at me or something and we can Make Plans.

(If I don’t know you and you want to hang out, leave a comment here anyway. If there are a substantial enough number of you then I might arrange a meetup thing.)

Also, while I have some backlog of posts, posting will probably be light.

*The one in California. Not the one in Massachusetts. Sorry, Massachusetts people.

Prudes’ Progress: Why Not Instrumental Sexuality?

[Part of the Response to Prudes' Progress series, mostly a response to this bit. Trigger warning for rape.]

Sex-positive feminists have this weird tendency to say “anything between consenting adults is okay!” That’s really dumb. Five minutes’ thought will reveal that consenting adults can have all kinds of unethical sex.

For instance: it is not ethical to cheat on your partner or have sex with someone who’s cheating on their partner. It is not ethical to bring a child into the world when you can’t make sure that it’s properly taken care of (whether through adoption or parenthood). Reproductive coercion is not ethical. (In fact, reproductive coercion is abusive behavior.) Lying to obtain sex is not ethical. Having sex with someone when you have reason to believe they will regret it (for instance, because they believe premarital sex is immoral or because they’re not ready to have sex yet) is not ethical. Not giving a fuck about your partner enjoying themselves* is not ethical. Obviously, reproductive coercion and rape are far worse than having sex with someone who might regret it or not caring about your partner enjoying themselves, but these are all Bad.

I think instrumental sexuality is a mindset that often leads to behavior that hurts other people and yourself, and is therefore generally bad, even if the sex is consensual. I would call it bad in the same way hate is bad. A lot of people hate people and don’t hurt anyone, which makes it a bit difficult to call hate strictly immoral; in fact, some people find their hate empowering and enjoyable and generally happiness-maximizing. Certainly it is unreasonable to expect everyone to not hate anyone. Still, if you have a choice between hate and not hate it is generally a good idea to pick not hate, and if you have a choice between instrumental sexuality and not instrumental sexuality it is generally a good idea to pick the latter.

(Disclaimer Time: I’m not talking about mutually enjoyable BDSM that simulates instrumental sexuality here– I’m going to talk about that later, but suffice it to say that playacting disrespect and objectification is not the same as disrespecting and objectifying someone, as every good dom knows.)

Partially, this is because instrumental sexuality tends to lead to assorted kinds of asshole behavior. If you treat other people as a means to your orgasm, it’s very easy to be like “well, they consented, whether they’re happy about it afterwards is their own business.” Or “well, they consented, I don’t really have to care about whether they liked it.” Or “well, they consented, never mind I had to ask them half a dozen times first.” Yay, you get the coveted Not A Rapist Award,** go you.

And partially because I’ve noticed– in both my case and the cases of people I’ve talked to– that sex is actually the most fun when we have it with someone we like and want to be happy. Sex we’re having for validation, or as a conquest, or because everyone else is doing it, or out of a sense of duty or obligation, or to prove something to ourselves, or because we’d feel like a loser if we didn’t, or out of desperation, or because it’s something you’re supposed to do– that is, instrumental sex… well, it’s just less good sex.*** I’m a utilitarian. I want there to be more good sex in the world!

This is not, of course, to say only relationship sex or sex where you’re in love with your partner is good sex. You can like someone and want them to be happy and want to fuck them if you met them two hours ago! You can certainly like someone and want them to be happy and not be in love with them or want to date them. Conversely, you can be in love with someone or in a relationship of long standing with them and have all the instrumental sex.

*Please note that I mean “enjoying themself” in the broadest possible sense– for instance, someone can enjoy giving their partner pleasure, or playing a particular role, or exploring the limits of what their body can take, or whatever. Talk about what you want out of sex ahead of time! This message brought to you by Sex-Positivity.
**Except the third person, who gets the Possibly A Rapist Depending On The Exact Circumstances And What Definition of Rape We’re Going By Award. ***Every time I make a generalization about sex I get at least three people in the comments telling me that they are, in fact, completely the opposite of my generalization. So this footnote is to say that if you have sex for those reasons and it works for you and you aren’t hurting anyone else, great, knock yourself out. I dunno how much you’ll get out of the rest of the series though.

Prudes’ Progress: Objectification!

[Part of the Response to the Prude's Progress series, particularly this section. Trigger warning for talking about abuse.]

I was challenged recently about my use of “objectification” as a concept, which made me realize that I wasn’t entirely certain about what it meant, which is very bad because I keep using it. So let’s talk about that.

I think “objectification” refers to a cluster-in-thingspace of behavior typically but not always directed against members of marginalized groups. “Treating people like things” is a way of describing that cluster, but kind of a vague way to describe it. I mean, if I’m driving and I treat a pedestrian walking across the street as an obstacle I ought to avoid without considering their agency and personhood, am I objectifying them?

Millbank describes ten things that make up objectification, based on the work of philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Rae Langton:

  1. Instrumentality: coercing or conditioning a woman to act as a tool for men’s purposes
  2. Denial of autonomy: taking away a woman’s autonomy and self-determination
  3. Inertness: restricting a woman’s agency and activity
  4. Fungibility: objectifying a woman (the rest of these activities) in such a way that they become interchangeable with other objectified women
  5. Violability: violating a woman’s boundary-integrity and enabling boundary violation
  6. Ownership: two completely separate issues here (though not quite treated as separate in Nussbaum’s paper); most importantly, human slavery is widespread in trafficking and other forms; also, and incomparably with human slavery, many women are treated as if men have authority over them
  7. Denial of subjectivity: not taking into account a person’s experiences and feelings, and treatment which suppresses, denies or makes them doubt their experiences and feelings
  8. Reduction to body: conditioning which restrains a person’s consciousness to their body or body parts
  9. Reduction to appearance: treating a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses, as well as conditioning which makes people judgethemselves primarily on their appearance
  10. Silencing: removing or suppressing a person’s capacity to speak, creating a context such that their speech is systematically misinterpreted/misunderstood/non-valued or conditioning them to think their speech isn’t worthwhile

The reason I think objectification is a useful concept is that those ten things tend to show up together (although of course each one can act independently). In general, if you act as though you have authority over your partner’s body (ownership), you might decide you deserve sex even when your partner doesn’t want it (violability) or that your partner shouldn’t wear short skirts because it makes you feel jealous (denial of autonomy). Raping someone is both instrumentality (treating another person as a vehicle for your orgasm) and violability (violating another’s boundaries). If you think women are only of worth if they’re sexually attractive (reduction to appearance), then you can treat equally attractive women as interchangeable (fungibility). If you gaslight someone (denial of subjectivity), you reduce their ability to speak up about their experiences (silencing). Et cetera.

What do all those things have in common? Shit, I’m not sure. It definitely seems to be A Thing, though, and I don’t need the concept to be perfectly defined in order to use it as a tool to understand the world. Are those ten the only things that could play into objectification? Probably not; the list seems pretty complete to me, but there’s probably something I’m missing.

(“Oy, Ozy, you’re a utilitarian, what if objectifying someone increases the amount of utility in the world?” To which I say: fuck yeah rule utilitarian. In general, objectifying people is bad, so we can create the “no objectifying people” rule.)

It’s not an accident that describing the traits of objectification in a really obvious way ends up sounding like it describes an abusive relationship. I think one of the key insights of radical feminism was that abuse and rape are the far end of a continuum of behavior (this is the insight that usually gets mangled into “damn feminists, think everything is rape!”). Obviously, gaslighting in an interpersonal relationship is not the same thing as sending rape threats to female bloggers is not the same thing as ignoring an insight when it comes from a woman and applauding it when it comes from a man is not the same thing as a woman not speaking up because she assumes her ideas are less relevant than the men’s, but they are all in a sense silencing a woman.

It’s important, I think, to understand objectification as a thing done “by systems and to classes” (to quote Millbank). You don‘t have to say “have vaginal intercourse or I’ll leave you,” if your partner believes that vaginal intercourse is a necessary component of having a relationship, that a relationship isn’t “real” unless you have “real sex” which is of course vaginal intercourse, and that it is bad and unreasonable to ask not to have it. They might not even recognize that not having vaginal intercourse is an option. This is, of course, violability, denial of autonomy, and ownership (plus probably half the other things on the list depending on how exactly the person enacts “vaginal intercourse is mandatory”)– but you’re not denying your partner’s autonomy. You may, in fact, fully respect your partner’s right to say no to vaginal intercourse. Even if there is not a specific objectifier, they are being objectified.    

(NOTE: Not having vaginal intercourse is totally an option. You never have to engage in any sex acts you don’t want to. Vaginal intercourse is fairly popular and refusing to have it may limit the number of people who want to have sex with you, but the tradeoff is always yours to make.)

Of course, it is in the vast majority of cases individually more harmful to be objectified by a person than to be objectified by a vast social system. But the social system is the bigger problem– it affects more people, and it is one of the causes of the individual coercion. (After all, if you believe vaginal intercourse is a mandatory part of a relationship and your partner refuses it, well, they’re being unreasonable, aren’t they?)

Prudes’ Progress: Intro to Radical Feminism

Lisa Millbank is a blogger I really respect, because she’s really smart about gender and even when I disagree with her ideas I always have to question my beliefs. Recently, she finished a series called The Prudes’ Progress, which is about developing a radical feminist concept of sexuality and has induced Many of the Thinky Thoughts on my part. So I’ve decided to write a bunch of blog posts responding to it, or talking about the ideas that are more-or-less related to her thoughts. This is the introduction to the series!

First: Millbank is a radical feminist. Most people I know tend to use “radical feminist” as either a synonym for “extreme feminist” or a synonym for “transphobic whorephobic kinkphobic feminist,” neither of which are actually correct. Radical feminism is a distinct theoretical perspective on feminism (which, yes, often happens to be extreme and transphobic/whorephobic/kinkphobic).

Radical feminists believe that gender is a social construct, not a biological reality, formed out of patriarchy. Patriarchy, they believe, is a social structure in which men dominate and oppress women; it seeps into every aspect of our lives, including such apparently apolitical things as appearance and one’s sex life. Radical feminists believe that gender, structures of domination, and patriarchy are bad for women and should be eliminated. (For the curious, I disagree with #1 (gender is both a social construct and a biological reality), agree with #2, and agree with #3 except for the gender bit with caveats.)

In particular, since I’m going to be talking about radical feminist views of sexuality a lot, I should talk about what they are. If patriarchy seeps into every aspect of life, it also seeps into sex; since patriarchy is bad, this leads to sex that hurts one or more of the people involved. How so? Well, obviously sexual violence. But beyond that an ideology of beliefs that wind up promoting sexual violence (the famous “rape culture”)– the treatment of one person as active, powerful, the subject, the one who wants, and another as passive, subordinate, the object, the one who is wanted and does what the subject wants. Through sexuality, patriarchy eroticizes and actively maintains this difference. Lisa Millbank calls patriarchal sex “instrumental sexuality,” which is a phrase I’m going to use.

Radical feminism was originally opposed to liberal feminism, which was the feminism that mostly dealt with legal inequality and job discrimination and reproductive rights. Very few people identify as a liberal feminist anymore because the abortion thing is basically the only part of liberal feminism that’s remotely controversial and if you like abortion rights you can just call yourself pro-choice.

Around about the time liberal feminism became incredibly uncontroversial, feminism decided to have something called the Feminist Sex Wars (not kidding). Radical feminists tended to believe that porn, BDSM, and sex work perpetuate social structures of domination and were violence against women. Sex-positive feminists, on the other hand, were like “wait, no, I get to do what I want with my own vagina, stop telling me what to do.”

(Also in this period huge swathes of radical feminism inexplicably decided that trans people were Public Enemy #1. Which, okay, if you think gender is a product of the patriarchy then trans people probably won’t exist in the post-patriarchy, but I fail to understand how that turns harassing trans women into a feminist practice.)

(Yes I do. The answer is transmisogyny.)

A huge amount of theory that even sex-positive and trans feminists use was developed by radical feminists. The concept of “patriarchy”? Radical feminists. “Rape culture”? Radical feminists. “The personal is political”? Radical feminists. Consciousness-raising groups and their descendant the feminist blog? Radical feminists. I am really sad that radical feminism has all too often devolved into woman-hate, because there are so many radical feminist authors I respect and who have deeply affected my feminism and challenged my thought on gender. Part of the reason I like Millbank’s work a lot is that she’s a modern radical feminist who gives my brain the same workout as, say, Dworkin.

Another reason I particularly like The Prudes’ Progress is that a lot of people, having proved to their satisfaction that such-and-such sexual practice is inherently oppressive, consider their work done. To pick on a non-radical-feminist example… let’s say it’s oppressive to consider trans, disabled, and fat people inherently unattractive, both because it’s a product of a culture that considers trans, disabled, and fat people unattractive, and because it’s shitty to be considered ugly because you’re part of whatever marginalized group. Okay, great. What do you do with that? If you’re someone who’s only attracted to cis, abled, thin people, do you… have sex with trans, disabled, and fat people anyway for anti-oppression points? Self-flagellate about  your oppressive boner? What? Identifying a problem is not the same thing as offering a solution.

Millbank has written an entire really long series of articles about how, if you accept radical feminist beliefs about sexuality, to make your sexuality less patriarchal. I approve of this and wish more people who want to critique sexuality would do similar things.

Obvious Disclaimer: all of this is personal piety, not basic morality. Your moral obligation sexually is discharged by not being an asshole. (You know: don’t rape people, don’t call people ugly because they don’t give you a boner, don’t lie to your sexual partners about how many people you’re fucking or whether you have an STI, use contraception unless you’re prepared to have offspring, that sort of thing.) If you don’t accept radical feminist beliefs about sexuality (which I do with some caveats), you might be able to get something out of The Prudes’ Progress, but it’s primarily targeted at a different audience. If you’re in a place where working on your sexuality is not healthy or fulfilling or the optimal choice for you right now, great! Go build houses for Habitat for Humanity or something. If your feminism involves hating on women who aren’t hurting anyone for being insufficiently feminist, you are bad at feminism.

Further Obvious Disclaimer: The Prudes’ Progress is mostly written for women in erotic relationships with other women. I am a nonbinary but female-presenting person primarily in erotic relationships with men (although I have been in erotic relationships with women in the past). I expect this is going to affect my reactions to shit she talks about.

Probably Non-Obvious Disclaimer: Most of my planned blog posts range from “inspired by The Prudes’ Progress” to “completely unrelated to it but thrown in as an appendix because why not,” so you do not have to read The Prudes’ Progress in order to understand the series.

Rarity is Best Pony

Because this is My Blog and I am allowed to squee about ponies if I want to.

I have to admit, when Rarity was first introduced I was like “oh fuck. It’s The One Who’s Into Fashion.” It is a truth universally acknowledged that every shitty girls’ TV show must have a Girl who is Into Fashion and all of whose character traits revolve around shoe shopping and the need for added closet space. I am pretty much 100% the biggest proponent of femininity you’ll find, and even I am profoundly annoyed by The One Who’s Into Fashion.

I think the thing that separates Rarity from ordinary girls’ TV characters that are Into Fashion is that most of the fashionistas in girls’ TV are primarily consumers of fashion: they like shopping and coordinating outfits. Rarity, on the other hand, is a creator.

A lot of Rarity’s plotlines are about the problems of being an artist. What do you do when a friend becomes more successful than you do? How do you deal with criticism of your work? What about when you’re on deadline but you spend so much time making something absolutely perfect that you don’t have time to finish all the work you’re supposed to do? Or when people keep bothering you when you try to work? Artist problems!

Furthermore, just because Rarity is feminine does not mean that she isn’t made of pure badassery. Which is another of my problems with the Characters that are Into Fashion– they often are kinda dumb and don’t have much going for them beyond awesome outfits. Feminine does not mean dumb or weak, people. If you write all your feminine characters as dumb and weak you are bad and you should feel bad.

I think A Dog and Pony Show shows it off best: Rarity gets kidnapped and the Mane Six decide to stage a rescue! Fortunately, Rarity has maxxed out her Charisma score, so she just Ransom of Red Chiefs the hell out of her kidnappers until they’re cowed into submission. What I particularly like is that it’s not that Rarity is suddenly able to fight: it’s that she’s manipulative and clever and good at people, the same personality traits she’s had throughout the show, and she can fucking destroy you with them. And that is a trope I adore.

Prudes’ Progress: Feminist Media Criticism

[Part of the Prude's Progress series, primarily responding to the section on Antipornography. You might be like "Ozy, you just skipped a whole section." That's because I pretty much agree with everything she says in it and thus have nothing to say. Consciousness raising, self-acceptance, and loving other women are all super-important feminist practices.]

Rad Trans Fem uses “pornography” to refer to “the sexualization of the oppressed class as they are seen by the oppressors.” However, I am (with apologies) going to use “pornography” to refer to “media (prose, pictures, video, etc.) that are intended for consumption while masturbating.” Partially, this is because that’s how the word “porn” is commonly used and I believe in using words as they are commonly used; partially because I hate the porn/erotica distinction. I think classifying some things as “porn” and other things as “erotica” risks neglecting the ways that things-called-porn may be progressive or subversively interpreted by the viewer in progressive ways, while shielding things-called-erotica from deserved criticism.

As far as I can tell, critiques of pornography tend to fall into two categories. The first is labor rights. The labor rights of porn stars are really really important, but given how often sex workers’ voices are silenced in conversations about sex work I feel like the responsibility of non-porn-stars is to step back and listen to porn stars. While I do earn money from videos of myself doing sexual things online, I’m not a conventional porn star and don’t feel like I have the right to speak on that issue. Go check out Maggie Mayhem. (If you know another porn star speaking up about labor rights, do tell me and I’ll link them.)

The second category is basically feminist media criticism as applied to porn. As Susie Bright said, solely criticizing porn for being sexist is like “tasting several glasses of salt water and insisting only one of them is salty.” On the other hand, I do see a lot of self-declared sex-positive people insisting that porn ought to be completely free from any social-justice-y criticism because it’s someone’s fetish and we don’t want to kink-shame.

There are basically two reasons one does feminist media criticism. The first is that the media itself may be really fucking sexist: this is your “wow, there aren’t any women in this movie” or “every woman in this movie could be replaced by a Sexy Lamp” or “if you put a real woman in that oversexualized position her back would break.”

The second, and the kind I find personally most interesting and will love you forever for doing, is using the media as a tool to talk about something else. You could talk about your ex-boyfriend Ted. The one who was sweet and vulnerable and probably a little bit whiny, but only because he was so sad and broken. You just want to fix him! Probably with blowjobs! And then in a totally surprising turn of events that absolutely no one could have predicted, blowjobs are entirely ineffective at fixing people, Ted turns into a vast sucking vortex that absorbs all your love and efforts to fix him and blowjobs and gives nothing in return, and you start saying things like “no, it’s okay he stood me up, I know he really loves me, it’s just hard for him.”

The problem with writing about Ted is that no one who’s reading your blog has even met Ted. We are not invested in his horrible Tedosity. That really awful diner story? No one has heard the really awful diner story! Even if you share the really awful diner story, we’re going to have to wonder if (a) you’re providing an accurate interpretation of events (b) maybe you shouldn’t be sharing this with your therapist instead.

Ooooor you could write that article about Weezer.

Weezer is a shared experience: you’ve heard the songs, or at least you can look up the lyrics. It’s public, so no one can criticize you for oversharing. You are not privy to information about Weezer that other people don’t have and you could conceal to make yourself look better. You can use Weezer’s music as a tool to identify and discuss interpersonal dynamics that it’s difficult if not impossible to talk about through reference to individual lives.

(To be clear: the point of this sort of criticism is not “Weezer is terrible and you are a bad person for liking Weezer.” The point is “hey, there’s this interesting trend in Weezer’s lyrics, let’s talk about it.” In fact, that kind of feminist media criticism is way more interesting if you actually like the media in question, because otherwise you’d have no idea what you’re talking about.)

Millbank talks about one type of this sort of feminist media criticism of porn by talking about pornotypes: i.e., the construct of the Lesbian Who Is Really Interested In Fucking A Dude, or the Submissive Asian Woman, or the Black Dude With A Giant Cock Who’s Probably Going To Sleep With Your Wife, or whatever. To be clear, I don’t really care if you get off on porn about submissive Asian women, as long as you don’t start assuming actual Asian women are like your sex fantasies, any more than I care if you like Weezer; that’s not what this is about. What it is about is using porn as a tool to analyze the ways sexuality is shaped by the kyriarchy.

A Bunch Of Incoherent Thoughts About Queer Fetishization, Mostly In Fandom, Coming To No Particular Conclusion


["No Homo: Two White Men Touch Each Other. Thursdays 9/8c. "So gay" -- Fandom. "I can't" --Tumblr." Source.]

Trigger warning for discussion of sexual coercion.

1) I have a problem. I am, as a bisexual and female-presenting person, against bisexual fetishization. My sexuality is not for the consumption of straight dudes! I don’t like being a prop in someone else’s fantasy!

But also I really like watching boys kiss?

2) I see a lot of people complaining about how femmeslash and het are so much less popular than slash fic and attributing this to internal misogyny on the part of fic writers. But… most fanfic writers are straight girls. Of course straight girls are not really interested in porn starring women. It kind of comes with the “straight girl” territory. It’s like saying that straight men not wanting to watch gay porn is proof of their internal misandry.

3) One of the amazing things about watching Avatar: The Last Airbender is that I finally got to ship femmeslash.

(Note: I put off watching Avatar for years and years because people kept telling me about how amazing it was on a social justice level. I don’t watch TV for social justice points, I watch it for fun. So since I’m talking about amazing Avatar is on a social-justice level I feel duty-bound to mention that it also has astonishingly detailed and well-researched worldbuilding, fabulous characters, well-choreographed fight scenes, and clever writing, and you should go watch it.)

But like. There were female characters? More than one of them? And they talked to each other? And they had different personalities and flaws? And none of them were Strong Female Characters or damsels in distress? And holy shit Azula. You don’t get a lot of manipulative violent hypercompetent complete monster female characters who aren’t femme fatales, which is too bad because the “manipulative violent hypercompetent complete monster” characters are basically my favorite.

And suddenly all my OTPs are femmeslash, when previously I’d managed to go about a decade in fandom without the slightest femmeslashy impulse.

Which makes me wonder how much my previous slashy impulses, and the popularity of slash in general, were just because everything I watched was A Bunch of Guys and Black Widow, or A Bunch of Guys and Lieutenant Uhura, or A Bunch of Guys and We’re Not Even Bothering To Half-Ass A Female Character.

4) The first time I told a boyfriend I was bi, back when I was scared and closeted and still thought I was monogamous and a girl, his immediate response was that he didn’t like threesomes.

The second time I told a boyfriend I was bi, his immediate response was to ask me about my sexual fantasies of women.

I once dated a girl who for months only kissed me when there was a boy in the room to get off on it. I went along with it so at least I’d get to kiss her.

5) It’s one thing to consume lesbian porn. I mean, Some Of My Best Friends Like Watching Two Girls Get It On ™. I don’t care about your fondness for yuri! I really don’t! And I feel like most queer dudes probably have a similar attitude towards slash.

But at this point some asshole dude deciding that your sexuality is for his entertainment is pretty much a universal experience for those queer and read as female. (And some straight women too. Anyone get the “women are naturally more sexually fluid than men” line pulled on them?) I feel like a lot of that is because people get this sort of sexual fantasy from porn and then when they meet a queer woman they expect her to fulfill it. And shit man, it’s bad enough that we have to put up with it, I would be deeply unhappy if queer dudes had to put up with that too.

I dunno what the solution is. Maybe poll the non-asshole straight people that like watching queer people have sex and see how they manage to maintain the reality/porn distinction.

6) Maybe it’s different because fandom is mostly women and men historically have power over women. Maybe it’s different for me because I’m bisexual myself, because when I look at two boys kissing I imagine myself as one of the boys, because…

I dunno. I don’t like rules where it’s not okay to do something because you’re privileged but because you’re part of a marginalized group it’s okay. Seems to me if it’s wrong to make someone a prop in your fantasy it’s wrong no matter what group you’re part of.

7) I am deeply creeped out by dudes who are more attracted to me because I’m bi. I’m more attracted to dudes if they’re bi. And, okay, maybe some of it is shared experience of queerness, and some of it is ability to look at cute boys together, and some of it is not having to have that sneaking suspicion that the straight dude really sees me as a girl and is putting up with the whole “genderqueer” thing as one of my eccentricities. But a lot of it is “eeeeee boykissing!”

Never let it be said I’m not vastly hypocritical.

8) The accusation of queer baiting is weird. Like, yes, it would be really shitty if shows habitually hinted at characters being queer without actually making them queer as a calculated attempt to draw in slash fangirls. But I kind of feel like a lot of the accusations of queer baiting come from people who have their slash goggles permanently stuck on their foreheads and are just pissed their ships aren’t canon.

9) I think it’s awesome when straight girls make out for the hell of it. I think it’s awesome when straight girls make out to turn on guys, even, as long as they’re doing it because they want to and not because they feel like they have to to be sexy. I’ve kissed straight girls because kissing is fun and I’ll basically make out with anyone who asks. And I think that straight boys should be equally free to make out with each other and queers to make out heterosexually for the hell of it or to turn someone else on or because kissing is fun.

I’d just rather people stop assuming that when I kiss girls I’m doing it to get into his pants instead of hers. And I don’t want it to be that when some queer dude kisses a boy people assume he’s doing it to get into her pants instead of his.

In Defense of Disney

A lot of people tend to criticize the Disney princesses as being anti-feminist which, as a mature grown-up adult who is a fan of Disney movies but recognizes that other people may have different opinions and legitimate criticisms, I tend to respond to something like this:

NO NO NO NO DISNEY IS AWESOME STOP SAYING THAT IT’S OKAY DISNEY PRINCESSES I WILL SNUGGLE YOU ALL AND PROTECT YOU FROM THE MEAN PEOPLE :( :( :(

But once I get over my irrational princess love, even I have to admit a lot of feminist criticism of Disney princesses is legitimate. Early Disney princesses didn’t have very much agency. Worryingly, Frozen looks like it’s going to continue Tangled’s focus on the hero in lieu of the princess. Pocahontas is amazingly racist.* Beauty and the Beast depicts an abusive relationship. We’re probably not going to get a lesbian princess, a disabled princess, or a princess who isn’t conventionally attractive. And don’t get me started on the merch. “Sparkling Princess Mulan,” Disney? Really? Really?

So Disney princesses are bad! Instead we should let girls watch all the other coming-of-age stories that feature female protagonists with a wide variety of personalities, about a third of whom are women of color, and which thanks to their variety of female villains and side characters almost always pass the Bechdel test.**

Oh wait.

There aren’t any.

Seriously, look at the diversity here. Merida and Mulan and Rapunzel as your grrrl-power ass-kicking princesses! (And also different kinds of ass-kicking: Rapunzel has more Power of Love, while Mulan has more Power of Passing Grades In Physics.) Belle, the shy intelligent girl who reads all the time! Tiana, who works her ass off to get her restaurant! Pocahontas, who’s a hippie (Jesus, Pocahontas is racist)! Jasmine, who weaponizes her femininity to defeat Jafar!

(And that’s not even getting into subversive readings of the text. Mulan as trans man or Rapunzel as abuse survivor, anyone?)

One of the most common criticisms of “princess culture” is that it teaches girls that their only goals should be being pretty and marrying a handsome prince. Except, uh… have the people who made that criticism seen any of the films post-Disney-Renaissance? Ariel, Rapunzel, and Jasmine all want to explore the world and escape from their overprotective parents. Pocahontas wants an end to colonialism. Belle wants to protect her father. Mulan wants to keep the Huns from invading China. Tiana wants to own a restaurant (and then when she becomes a princess she is like “fuck this princess thing, I’m going to have my restaurant!” and makes Prince Naveen work as a waiter because Tiana is awesome). Personally, I am entirely okay with encouraging girls to love their parents, seek independence, and stop people from invading countries. That sounds like a plan.

Okay, yes, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora are pretty boring. To be fair, their princes are also really boring. There were a lot of really boring people in those movies. (What? Me? Biased?) Let’s look at this scientific chart of Interesting Characters In Sleeping Beauty, By Gender:

pie chart
[Maleficent and the fairies, people. I'm sorry I gave Maleficent so little of the pie chart, because Maleficent is a BAMF, but the Fairies should get more because there are three of them and they have to share.]

I feel like a lot of people’s hatred of Disney princesses comes less from their being startlingly more anti-feminist than everyone else, and more because they’re girly and pink and focused on romance and ewwwww femininity cooties get them off get them off. (I don’t think it’s an accident that the princesses that usually get the Feminist Pass are also the least feminine ones, either.) There’s this disturbing tendency among a lot of people who fancy themselves feminists to hate feminine things. It’s okay, guys. Hating things conventionally associated with women isn’t misogynistic at all. You are Best Feminists, I’m sure.

*Although they did hire Native American consultants for the film and used mostly Native American voice actors. Which is cool.
**Dammit, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid, shape up.