Several months ago a group of bloggers were talking about us/them situations. Specifically about how people might make decisions about who you are and what you believe based on what they read on your blog and what they know about other people "like" you. A specific situation that I shared was that people will come to my blog (or my board) and once they know I’m in a lesbian relationship, they will assume I support gay marriage because other gay folks they know do. I don’t.
Koan very nicely emailed me and asked if I would mind explaining why I felt this way. Of course I didn’t mind, I also never made time to explain, either. Well here I am, about to attempt an explanation and also attempt to explain why someone else’s writing speaks for me in such a way that I often want to use her words, her sexist words, when discussing and debating gay marriage. I am somewhat doubtful that this will help her understand what I said or why I said it. I am also going to be very clear and say that it doesn’t matter to me whether it does clear the fog, or not. I learned long ago that it is often impossible to bring people to an understanding. We’re all individuals. Something that makes perfect sense to me will never make sense to you. That’s ok, that’s life. Differences are always good. (Oh, and no cracks from the peanut gallery about the 3 paragraph rule! Or else! hehehe)
I am not in support of gay marriage. (I am not in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage either, though.) I’m not out on the picket lines with the Christian Coalition or any other member of the far right (or middle America, for that matter), who is actively working to ban gay marriage. I’m also not signing any petitions or waving any rainbow flags in support. This is not my issue and I do not want to be used or have my relationship used either for or against marriage. I have issues with marriage.
My issues with marriage have absolutely nothing to do with my 20+ year heterosexual marriage. I had issues with the institution of marriage then, I just ignored those issues and got married anyway. And stayed married. As I grew up and grew older it became more difficult for me to ignore all of the issues I have with marriage. And as I grew up and older and away from my now ex-husband, it became incredibly clear to me that I would not EVER get married AGAIN. To anyone.
I don’t really understand why anyone would, particularly any woman. Except that culturally we view marriage as some magical bond between two people that everyone should want. For me, that magic has absolutely nothing to do with a ceremony, religious or familial. That magic has nothing to do with legal rights or finanical benefits. That magic has nothing to do with a piece of paper or the way you’re treated in society when you tell people you are married.
Marriage, the insitution, is something I can not support. That doesn’t mean that I think bad thoughts about married couples. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t incredibly sad about missing my oldest daughter’s wedding. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t pleased as punch for my brother and sister in law when they got married a couple of years ago.
When it comes to the gay fight for equal rights, I’m there ladies and gentleman. I’m just not down with the idea that equal rights = marriage. I think gay people (and those who support them) are hoping that once gays HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY then everything will be all rosy and bright and the scarey "right" will finally see that WE’RE JUST LIKE YOU! Umm no.
And this brings us to Twisty Faster and her awesome essay entitled Homos Need to Grow a Pair. I’ve stumbled in and out of I Blame the Patriarchy for years (look at the date on the Essay in question!) and Twisty quite often says things that I agree with completely. She also, occasionally, says things that I disagree with completely. When I first read that particular entry about gays and marriage I wanted to jump up and down for joy. Right on Twisty, right ON! (If you have not taken the time to read the entire entry then you either should or you should just stop reading right here because the rest of this is really not going to make sense to you…)
Ever since I read that post, I’ve had an urge to say "Grow a pair!" every time I hear someone talk about wanting "gay marriage". Obviously "Grow a pair" is not an argument. I never suggested that one, tiny, sexist phrase was an argument or a phrase that would encourage anyone to come around to my way of thinking. When I made that tiny little comment on Blogher a couple of days ago, in response to Grace’s post about Twisty Faster, I had no idea anyone would assume that was my entire argument. Good grief!
I did however know that there were women lurking who would take offense to the phrase "Grow a pair". and if you look at my initial reply, you will see that what I said was "I want to say it" not that I do say it. It is sexist. But that is what made it stick in my head so long ago. It is sexist and it was the perfect title for a post about marriage and the patriarchy and the incredibly obvious (to me) reasons why gay people should not be clamoring to join the club and why the conservative right ought to be clamoring to let us in.
No, "grow a pair" is not an argument, Koan. I never said it was. Yes, "grow a pair" is sexist. Yes, it’s offensive. But marriage is also sexist and also offensive – Koan said "if you can’t beat it, become it, is that it" – and "two wrongs don’t make a right" … exactly the point.
Gays are jumping all over themselves to win the right to marry because if we can’t beat ’em, become ’em. And no, two wrongs don’t make a right – so, ladies and gentlemen, to paraphrase the great Twisty Faster – grow a pair and refuse to cave to the patriarchy, refuse to support the oppression and stop looking for world-wide validation of your relationships.
**edited on 2/11/06 to include direct links to comments in the original discussion on Blogher**
Technorati Tags: gaymarriage, marriage, patriarchy, usthem,
“it is often impossible to bring people to an understanding” – if, by that, you mean that it is often impossible to convince people of your point of view – I agree. But, I wouldn’t have it any other way – I passionately believe that, collectively, we are made stronger by our individual differences, not weaker. We hold different views on this issue (and, probably, on many issues) – and that’s fine. I absolutely respect your right to hold a different view. You did not seem to be extending me the same courtesy (which surprised and disappointed me) – and you phrased it in a way that staggered and insulted me.
“I think gay people (and those who support them) are hoping that once gays HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY then everything will be all rosy and bright and the scarey “right” will finally see that WE’RE JUST LIKE YOU! Umm no” – I have my own reasons for believing in equal marriage rights, and they don’t coincide with your statement. Your statement may be correct – I don’t claim to know the collective mind of “gay people” – or to speak for them. I don’t claim to know the collective mind of *any* group of people – or to speak for them. I know *my* mind – and I speak for *me*, and me alone. *My* human rights are being infringed by my country denying me the right to marry a partner of my choice – doubtless other of my rights are being infringed (and many rights of many other people are being infringed). But I do not claim to be able to cure all of the world’s ills – I want to see *this* wrong righted – for *my* reasons. You don’t agree with them – fine. You think I shouldn’t fight this battle – fine. But, having read and considered your stated position, I am still not persuaded – so, I would ask you to extend me the courtesy of allowing me to exercise my right as an individual to believe differently to you. And to inform you that, if your only response to your inability to persuade me otherwise is to tell me to grow “a pair” – you might want to work on some better arguments.
“…if you look at my initial reply, you will see that what I said was “I want to say it” not that I do say it” – and if I walked into a KKK meeting and said, “I want to tell you you’re a bunch of racist, in-bred rednecks who would raise the average IQ of the population by removing yourselves from it – but I know that some of you will be offended if I say that, so I won’t actually *say* it” – guess what? I’d still get beaten up – because I’ve still said it, even though I’ve said I haven’t *actually* said it. You said what you said, Denise – and it was offensive, to me – and I called you on it.
Which is probably a good moment to make clear that I wasn’t offended by your comment because I’m a trans woman – that is not the issue. I was offended by your comment because it is offensive. Frankly, I think it is offensive to anybody and everybody – but I don’t claim to speak for anybody other than me, so I’ll let others take issue with you on it, if they want to. I was offended with your comment, and I called you on it.
Finally, you quoted my words in your second-to-last paragraph – and I accept that they apply in the way you used them. For clarity, though (and in case any of your readers don’t go and read the post in question) that was *not* the context in which I used them. I used them in amazed response to your position that the way to beat the patriarchy is to become the patriarchy. Which, as I said then, is a strategy I just don’t agree with. I have no problem with being quoted – but quote me in context, please.
We disagree on this subject – I don’t have a problem with that. You characterised those who don’t agree with you on this subject with a statement which, you freely admit (there and here) is offensive – and seem amazed when I responded by saying “that’s offensive”. Ummm…
Pingback: Multidimensional.Me
I wasn’t extending you the same courtesy? Really? At what point did I tell you that you could not have your point of view? At what point did I limit your ability to express your point of view?
Because I said I often want to use Twisty’s phrase “grow a pair” I staggered and insulted you? Because I admitted that it was in fact sexist but it was the fact that she chose to use a sexist phrase to encourage people NOT to join the oppression that you felt staggered and insulted? You were staggered and insulted because this world considers it to be MEN with balls who are strong enough to stand on their principals and I pointed it out?
And Koan, while it is true the two people’s names I put in my comment are Trans being Trans is not what led me to expect you both to be offended by the statement. I actually know a TG person who finds the phrase and Twisty’s use of it to be incredibly amuzing and apropo. It’s not your TGness alone that led me to expect your dislike of the phrase, it’s your politics and your ideals and your stand on issues – based of course only on what I’ve seen of your writing on such topics.
No – I was not amazed when you responded by saying it was offensive. In fact I expected your response.
I’ve also never suggested that you can’t or shouldn’t take the stand that you have taken in support of gay marriage. Since when does arguing, disagreeing and debating – even when using words that are sexist – prevent someone from taking a stand and sticking with it?
I will be more than happy to link your quote directly to your comment. In fact I thought I had linked all of our comments but see now that I included the draft that does not contain them when I decided your comment about my pet trans was not worth dealing with.
Cheers to ya.
Twisty may well have written the best justification against equal marriage ever – and her pithy catch-phrase may well be memorable and amusing to some – yourself included. But, as we’ve seen, it’s also deeply offensive to some – specifically, in this instance, me. So, your decision to use that catch-phrase (and as I tried to show in my previous comment, effectively you *did* use it) had the effect of offending me – an effect you expected. Maybe that was your intention – in which case, your comment had the effect you wanted.
But that effect comes at a cost – because the offence it caused pretty much wipes out any chance Twisty’s post might have had of (I say *might*) of changing my attitude to equal marriage. If the *effect* of an argument (or a catch-phrase that is associated with it) is to drive *away* one of the people it’s trying to appeal *to* – really, *is* it such a great catch-phrase? Not in my opinion, for what it’s worth.
To the specifics of your last comment – I felt you were not extending me the courtesy of thinking differently to you by your use of that catch-phrase. Yes, it insulted me. Maybe it shouldn’t have – but there it is. It’s fine, I can get over it – but I certainly wasn’t going to let it pass without comment. It is, to me, an offensive phrase – no matter how cogent the message behind it. Maybe I’m just more sensitive to such things – I’ve said before that I have no liking for this “snark” thing that seems all the rage in some circles – so I don’t think my reaction is *that* surprising, or out of character.
I accept that you haven’t explicitly said that I should think differently – from my perspective, though, bowling in the hand-grenade that is Twisty’s lovely little catch-phrase amounted to much the same thing. If that was an unreasonable association on my part, hey, I’m human. If you cut me, so I not bleed?
Thank you for linking my quote to my comment. Context was my only concern in making that statement.
As for the “pet” comment – sadly, you were the victim of circumstance over the last couple of days. I’ve been on the receiving end of quite a lot of that objectification, lately – and I’ve been biting my tongue, hoping it would stop. It hasn’t. When I read it in the context of the BlogHer thread (intentional or not), and with my blood already up from the insult I felt – well, I asked you not to do it. I have subsequently blogged about it on my blog – and, for the record, you are not the culprit I am particularly addressing in that post. I’m happy to say so here – I’ll say it there if necessary. Your use of the phrase “people like Koan” was just the straw that broke *that* particular camel’s back.
There we are – you’ve responded to my points, and I to yours. I don’t expect our differences of opinion on Twisty’s catch-phrase to be resolved – so I suggest we leave it there. The saddest part of all this is that I would love to continue to discuss equal marriage rights with you – but I no longer have the heart to. C’est la vie.
One last comment from me, forgive me and don’t feel like you have to reply. You owe me not a darn thing in this.
When I posted that link and stated my longing to use that phrase I did it on purpose. Knowing that it would offend some people.
I linked it and used it as an example of what Twisty can do and does so well. I used it as an example of what I often want to do – which is speak without ever worrying about offending ANYONE.
I am often NOT politically correct (no shock to those who know me well). But I also censor myself often so as not to offend anyone. (Were you in that us/them call when I talked about choosing not to use profanity here?)
Twisty breaks all of the rules. I break very few. I often want to break more of them and yes I chose that moment, that post, to say so – and in effect do so.
Yes, I knew that some would find that particular statement offensive. Yet I linked it anyway because it was important to me, at that moment, to say exactly what I thought about Twisty and about breaking the rules.
“an example of what Twisty can do and does so well” – what, insult people? Strangely, I see that as neither an admirable skill, nor, indeed, a difficult one to acquire. Insulting people is easy – persuading them without insulting them is rather more of an art (and one that I, personally, find much more admirable).
You might be wondering why I haven’t taken this up with Twisty herself, on her blog – it’s simple. I’m a firm believer in the principle of “your blog, your rules”. She can say what she wants there, as far as I’m concerned. Likewise, this is your place. As I know you’re aware, I’ve been insulted on other bloggers’ blogs before now, and don’t take them to task for it on their blog. Because it’s their space – although I *would* seek to correct any factual inaccuracies in what they say about me.
The BlogHer site is different, though – it doesn’t belong to you, me, or any individual. As such, *personally*, I think a different standard of behaviour should apply there – which includes not saying something which I know will be personally offensive to others. Which actually presents me with a real challenge – because I realise that it’s hard to cover a beat like Feminism and Gender without offending *someone* – especially if transgender issues come into the mix. The best I can do is to try my best to keep it factual, and not inflammatory.
Insult people? Nah I don’t see Twisty as insulting. I see her as twisty! I see her as breaking the rules. I see her as all sorts of things but not insulting. 🙂
I know exactly why you haven’t addressed this with Twisty, it makes sense and I agree. The issue is not with what Twisty wrote, it’s with what I chose to write. I’m with you there and agree with your choices.
Now the Blogher and different standard of behavior – that is something else entirely and a very very good topic. Remember in the first week when Sour Duck posted about Blog 4 Choice? And I came along and posted about Blogs 4 Life? My post said that I believed all women should be represented, even those who I find offensive or you find offensive (I’m not quoting myself exactly, I’ve got about 3 minutes and no time to track that post down). It’s a tough line – all voices should be heard and I chose that one comment to make mine heard. The voice that would like to break the rules and would like to use a sexist comment as part of an argument or a debate.
Interesting topic, I’m glad you brought it up. Thanks very much.
I have to admit I was shocked when I read you didn’t approve of gay marraige, LOL after knowing you for so long I shouldn’t have been.
My only question is: God forbid TW go so sick some medical decisions had to be made. Wouldn’t you want to be part of that decision process? Or are you happy to leave to her family or others? And how does she feel if it was you who was Ill. Would TW be happy to leave those decions to family or even work strangers?
Just a thought
TW has an advanced directive that gives me authorization to make decisions like that.
And my issues with my own medical treatment are more complex, as you may or may not know. But I assume I will at some point give her an advance directive that allows her to make decisions for me as well.
It’s not a perfect system, I know that. I remember when Ky was sick and being treated in a Catholic private hospital and LadyAnn had to be a “cousin” on the paperwork. So not fair.
I just don’t believe the solution is marriage, not for anyone gay or straight.
I don’t believe the solution is marriage, not for anyone gay or straight. Well yeah. I agree with you there.
But since marriage seems to be pretty firmly entrenched in our culture, I’d like to have the tangible benefits that it offers straight folks, who often seem to be less committed to their relationships than I am to mine. I’d like my partner not to get credited with $6000 extra in income a year b/c her employer gives her health insurance benefits for me (and thank god for that).
If I fell in love with a non-citizen, I’d like to be able to sponsor them for a green card.
I’d like not to be taxed for inheriting our shared assets.
Like it or not, these are all benefits of marriage that we are now excluded from receiving.
(here from your comment at Amy’s)
Hey art-sweet! I agree that you, and I, and every gay couple should have those rights – as should all domestic partners.
The problem isnt that gay folks aren’t allowed to marry. The problem is with the benefits heterosexuals who choose marriage receive. Rescind those financial and legal rights and grant them to any couple who chooses a LEGAL domestic partnership, regardless of gender. 😉
Nice to meet you!