there are many people for whom the fight for the right to marry is part and parcel of the fight for the right to access to better healthcare, housing, financial stability, immigration and citizenship status, the protection of their children, and general acceptance and protection from harassment and violence within their religious, rural, etc communities.
I’m tired of the idea that marriage can be separated from these issues while the institution of marriage remains as it is. I’m tired of this compartmentalization of peoples’ civil rights. This shit is connected and if you want to talk about privilege in the discourse around gay marriage let’s talk about the privilege of being able to ignore how connected it really is.
Which is something rich white cis gay dudes like Dan Savage do all the time when they centre “traditional” gay families in these discussions! It’s true! That’s shitty and I hate it! Tear it down!
But it’s ALSO something I see ~radical queerz~ doing, even while they do it under the guise of attacking mainstream queers who do it? And I find that to be just a tad hypocritical.
As I find it a tad hypocritical to ignore, marginalize, and malign people or whom access to marriage can mean survival because Dan Savage is a bigoted asshole.
How are we ever going to de-centre dudes like that if we continue to frame even our resistance to hegemony in terms of them, comparing marginalized people to them, etc?
If you want to destroy the social institution of marriage - yay! I’m all for that! let’s do it! - start with the people who have the least to lose by having their access to that institution restricted. IE, NOT QUEER AND TRANS PEOPLE. Abolish cis straight marriage! Or, like I’ve said: focus on building us clear, accessible, and effective alternatives to marriage for things like immigration and citizenship processes, child protection, health care access and visitation rights, etc - make THAT part of your resistance to “queer assimilation”.
Stop treating this like a theoretical exercise in What A Queer Utopia Should Be Like - looking at you, Dean Spade! - because it’s not. It’s peoples’ real lives and survival.
but this isn’t a simplified concept that fits on a patch for my vest
i was nodding & nodding and then almost spit out/choked on my water omg sascha
This is why liberated female sexuality is so threatening. Conservative ideology holds that men and women are opposites. Men like sex, and so in order to keep the ideology intact, women can’t. In this world, women instead want male approval and of course babies, and sex is something they have to endure to get it. Contraception and especially abortion undermine this theory, not just because they can’t conceive of a woman saying no to babies, but also because they’re operating under an image of pregnancy as being something that gets men who otherwise want nothing to do with women (outside of sex) to commit. That women themselves say no to babies but yes to sex makes it hard to believe that it’s just women putting up with sex to get marriage-and-babies. That women often choose abortion in order to avoid marriage and babies (at least at this point in time) sends them around the bend. It suggests that people are individuals, not easily categorized genders with predictable and opposite behavior.
If you won’t choose it, then they feel that they’re in their rights to force it. When women can’t access contraception and abortion, sex is, in fact, less fun for them because it’s fraught. It does, in fact, introduce a power imbalance to sexual interactions between men and women because women are vulnerable in a way men aren’t. Giving men that power over women restores what conservatives believe is the proper order. If they can shame women and convince them that only sluts like sex, they can also get women to engage as enforcers, implying that they’re too good for that dirty sex stuff, unlike those lesser women. (Exhibit A.) That just bolsters the illusion that male and female sexuality are very different, and in that difference, they can find leverage to argue—-though indirectly, as is their habit—-that women are lesser than men."
“It does, in fact, introduce a power imbalance to sexual interactions between men and women because women are vulnerable in a way men aren’t.”
(Le sigh at gendered language, but the point still stands.)
Stop degrading the act of sex by calling it “opening your legs.”
I’m so sick of women being degraded all the time. Because women just, you know, lay back and “spread their legs” and let men do whatever they want. They don’t take any active role in the actual sex act or enjoy it. They are just objects that lay there with their legs open. Then they are stupid because through poor judgement or mishap, they became pregnant. The man is never blamed or shamed or degraded for having sex. There are no phrases used to degrade the act of a man participating in a sexual act, at least not a heterosexual one.
I swear if I could punch people in the face for saying “they shouldn’t have spread their legs” I would. I don’t even care if they are someone in my family or my friends. That is how fucking pissed I get when people say hateful shit like that about women.
No issue is black and white. Women have abortions for many reasons. Shit happens. The fetus ends up being deformed and would not live; the woman just ended a previously stable relationship; the woman or couple has children already and cannot afford any more at the moment; The couple may have used birth control but it failed; the woman just found out she has a serious illness and will not be able to carry a pregnancy to term; the woman was raped, etc.
So fuck you and your hatred of women. Negativity about sex is disgusting and harmful."
— flowersarebetterthanbullets on This Post (I made this a quote, because the original picture with text was visually offensive to my eyes. These pro-life people need to take a graphic design class.)
— Clarisse Thorn (Interview with a sex-positive feminist — Feministe)