#and it's completely necessary to talk about this under a post completely unrelated to america?

[mirrorbxlls]

next time i see a chronically online american complaining about how little they know about the world i'm going to throw up

[treehugginglibrarian]

The Crossroads of Race and Sexuality

A Public and Political Example of Blatant Social Hypocrisy

Recently, Pete Buttigieg, democratic candidate for President and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, found himself the butt of an uncomfortable Washington Post headline that seemed to imply that he equated the queer struggle with the black struggle, and thus thought his being gay would help him relate to black voters. As often happens with newspaper headlines, the truth was buried in the article and the headline was an argument-inducing form of clickbait designed to frustrate the masses on Facebook and Twitter. In truth, the mayor didn’t equate the two at all. What he said, during a debate, was “While I do not have the experience of ever having been discriminated against because of the color of my skin, I do have the experience of sometimes feeling like a stranger in my own country, turning on the news and seeing my own rights come up for debate, and seeing my rights expanded by a coalition of people like me and people not at all like me.”

Kamala Harris was the first to take issue with this, arguing that it was a naive viewpoint. As a queer woman, I could equally argue that Harris’ assessment that, essentially, queer people don’t experience discrimination is, in itself, incredibly naive. If white people, no matter their other stripes, are required to stay silent on the matter of racial discrimination, I think it’s only fair that straight people be held to the same standard. Al Sharpton argued that Pete had some growing to do on the topic, which I find incredibly amusing since I don’t remember any of the gays laying claim to the notion that Barack Obama had growing to do when he was running in 2008. This despite the fact that he was, at the time, openly against gay marriage. There is an incredible double standard where white, male, politicians are concerned. We want them to be “woke” and to be understanding, while simultaneously wanting them to be willing to admit that they don’t understand. Which becomes a problem when, in fact, they actually do understand. 

As a queer woman I understand the desire to look at a white man and roll my eyes when he says he “gets it.” I really do. Male privilege has insulated him from basically every major disadvantage that accompanies being a woman. White privilege has insulated him, as it has me, from the impact that being born black in America can have on a person. The problem is that privilege does not stop at race and sex. There are dozens of ways, big and small, that one can be privileged in this country, and until we get serious about acknowledging them we’re going to continue to be pretty easily divided by people bent on using our differences against us. 

When asked to clarify his remarks during the debate, remarks that really don’t need any clarification at all if you’re capable of objectively reading the English language, Buttigieg did. Stating “It was people like me and people not like me who came together — starting before I was born and through my lifetime — who have made it possible for things like my marriage to exist, or honestly for somebody like me to even be taken seriously as a candidate for president. Having seen that, having seen how that alliance can make an impact, makes me reflect on how I can turn around and make myself useful, not only to the LGBT community but to people whose life experiences are very different.” 

It is difficult to see a person who has been historically viewed as the oppressor, a white man, and be asked to think of him in terms of the oppressed. The reality, however, is that the disenfranchisement of queer people (primarily legal, at this point) does not cease simply because the disenfranchised was born white or male. One’s maleness generally guarantees a person will not be judged as harshly as they would if they were a woman. Their gender will not be something they will have to overcome. Likewise, one’s whiteness ensures that racial inequity will not be the reason they face hardships in life. Neither of these traits are guarantees of an inherently easy life, and they’re certainly not guarantees that other forms of disenfranchisement or oppression will simply cease. 

To argue that a white man is incapable of feeling disenfranchised for reasons unrelated to his sex or race is to argue that sex or race are the only two metrics by which disenfranchisement can be measured. If that’s the case, I think we need to at least be consistent. We can no longer have conversations about how queer women of color have it harder than men of color, because queerness is apparently not a relevant form of disenfranchisement. Their lives are simply harder because they’re women. More to the point, queer people of color can no longer argue that their lives are harder than straight people of color, because somehow sex and race became the only two metrics by which discrimination or oppression are measured. To argue that a white man who is queer cannot have experienced oppression or a feeling of othering simply because he is white and male is to argue that queerness does not matter in this country. 

Except, the two are not comparable, as is shouted at white, queer, people every time we have the audacity to point out that, despite our pale skin, we do have experience in being othered. As this most recent debacle with Mayor Pete illustrates, it doesn’t matter how carefully you choose your words, if you attempt to empathize with a disenfranchised group of people on the basis that you belong to a different, but nonetheless, disenfranchised group, you will be told the comparison is high-handed and ineffectual. You will be told you do not know what you are talking about. You will be told that it is not the same, it is not comparable, you should be quiet. A judgement that, when passed in the absence of actual comparison, does little more than make it clear that the speaker actually thinks they are comparable and has simply deemed your oppression less worthy of discussion.    

Is it, though? Is Buttigieg’s status as a queer American less worthy of discussion? Is America at a point where queer issues no longer need to be discussed? Have we reached a level of equality at which it’s no longer accurate to make the assessment that we have experience being “othered” in this country? I’m not sure it’s safe to say these things. 

As recently as 2008, President Obama ran for office on a platform that treated LGBTQ individuals as people, but didn’t grant us full rights under the law. He was vocally against same-sex marriage, a position he has since “evolved” on, though the credit he gets for the passage of same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court is misplaced. That was Anthony Kennedy’s doing, not the President’s. He made limited to no mention of the lack of federal protections for queer individuals and, really, why would he? When he was elected, it was still illegal for queer individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. We talk about gay rights in this country as though they are something that have been won and are now done, completely forgetting that it was only a decade ago that the military formally let us in. In the decade since then, the culture has changed but most of the laws surrounding our lives have not. 

While it is legal for queer individuals to get married, there are still no federal civil rights protections for individuals based on sexual orientation or gender presentation. This means it’s legal to discriminate against us in work, housing, federal assistance, and credit. We can be denied housing not because we are ineligible, but because we are gay. We can be fired not because we did something wrong, but because we are gay. The Equality Act, which passed the House earlier this year and will undoubtedly die in the Senate, would change this, even as many people claim the protections it would add are redundant because this type of discrimination is almost never reported. But then, of course it’s not. 

Fewer than half the States in this country have statewide legislation that protects people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender presentation. Within those States that lack it, certain cities have protections, but those protections will stop at city limits. If I work in a city that lacks protections, in a State that lacks protections, and I’m fired following unceasing abuse regarding my sexual orientation, it’s pretty obvious why I was let go. There’s also nothing I can do about it. To contest the firing would require I have the time and the money to mount not just a legal challenge, but a full scale battle to change the laws. The average person doesn’t have the resources necessary to do these things, which means the average firing resulting from someone’s sexual orientation is unlikely to be reported. Who would we report it to? The EEOC? They cannot, legally, do anything about it. 

Culturally, the LGBTQ population has made more progress than it has legally. Over 70% of the population is generally in favor of ensuring queer people have equal rights under the law, which is a massive improvement over where we stood just a decade ago. The biggest issue is that our primary detractors, conservative religious movements, tend to have a decent amount of backing in the political sphere, are Constitutionally protected, and often have support even amongst those who disagree with their treatment of queer people. This has made it so that, even as support for queer individuals climbs, the number of Religious Freedom Acts being enacted has climbed, as well. 

When we think about “religious freedom” and “gay people” we usually think about them in terms of wedding chapels, cake, and photographers, since that’s the scenario that has been cast. It’s a little more intense than just coffee shop owners who think the gays don’t need caffeine, though. Religious freedom referendums allow individuals to opt out of participation in basically anything they would otherwise be legally compelled to do, if that compulsion is a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. So, yes, it grants people the right to avoid making us cake. But it also grants them the right to avoid giving us medical care or psychological help. This is a problem if you live in a small town where your options are limited, or if you find yourself in an emergency room being treated by a doctor or nurse who thinks that allowing your spouse to act like your spouse is a violation of their sincerely held beliefs. 

We are getting there. We are making progress. But we are not there yet. And, more often than not, the people standing in our way are doing so because they feel that allowing us to live our lives is somehow a hindrance to their ability to live their own lives. When white supremacists make the argument that business owners should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of skin tone, pretty much everyone who isn’t a white supremacist decries that notion as utter bullshit. When Christians make the argument that business owners should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the number of people who decry the notion is significantly less. After all, they do have a right to practice their faith however they’d like, don’t they? Are they really hurting anyone by refusing to make them a cake or serve them coffee? I don’t know. But I do know if anyone worth anything asked that question about people of color, they’d be the next thing on the internet that was cancelled. Bigotry on the basis of one’s faith is still remarkably acceptable in today’s America, and that bigotry is overwhelmingly pointed at the queer population.  

Even when you can manage to make it clear that the LGBTQ population is, in fact, disenfranchised, the idea that this marginalization may be something worth talking about is met with a scoff should it be mentioned in the same conversation as race based marginalization, as Buttigieg did on the debate stage. “Oliver Davis, a black council member in South Bend, Ind., where Buttigieg is mayor, said that African Americans, unlike gay people, don’t have the option of ‘coming out’ at their chosen moment — as did Buttigieg, who disclosed his sexual orientation after he had been elected mayor. ‘When you see me, you would know that I’m African American from day one,’ said Davis, who has endorsed former vice president Joe Biden. ‘When someone is gay or a lesbian, unless they tell or they are seen in certain situations, then no one is going to know that. They are able to build their résumés and build their career.’”

Putting aside the fact that Davis is endorsing someone from an even more privileged background than Buttigieg, the idea that queer people are somehow not oppressed or, at the very least, less oppressed, is a “hot take” so lacking in understanding of the queer experience it actually reads as homophobic. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is something that can just be taken off and left at home has never, not in their life, had to comprehend how intrinsic their sexuality is to the way they live their lives. They also, quite clearly, think that gay people’s differences from them are a function only of who we want to have sex with, and that having sex is quite literally all we will do with those people. 

Trying to explain this is like beating my head upon a brick wall, however. So, let me illustrate what I mean, instead. 

Let’s pretend that instead of working where I do, I work somewhere that doesn’t offer protections based on sexual orientation, and my boss is pretty homophobic. Because of this, I make the decision not to be out at work. I would, sadly, not be in the minority of queer individuals since, even today, over half of all LGBTQ people are closeted to some degree at work. This decision comes with consequences beyond just pretending my spouse is a different person, though. My emergency contact is annotated as my “roommate” or my “best friend,” instead of my wife. Because my spouse’s sex would have to be noted on the paperwork, we make the decision not to put her on my health insurance. The thousands of dollars she’s racked up in dental bills? Those are now coming out of pocket. Since I cannot take sick time off work for the illnesses or surgeries of a roommate or friend, I now have to make up a masculine name for my spouse and hope that actual medical documentation isn’t needed. Alternatively, I can use my vacation time anytime my spouse needs me to take time off work for medical reasons. 

Socially, my work life would be uncomfortable and awkward. Try talking about your home, your weekend plans, your holidays, or your hobbies without mentioning your relationships and, thus, your sexual orientation. I suppose this is a little bit easier if you’re single but, even then, things get tricky. Single queers go out to bars and go on dates, things you can’t talk about at work if you work somewhere that it could get you fired. And before you say that we shouldn’t be talking about our personal lives anyway, I’d challenge you to try that first. For years on end. Despite knowing and seeing and being with the same coworkers every single day. The expectation that queer people hide at work is absurd, for the same reason it would be absurd to expect heterosexuals to hide their orientation at work. Unless you work in a cubicle where you never see another human, this isn’t a plausible solution to discrimination. 

The list of things that gets pretty complicated if you’re actively trying to ensure that no one ever finds out about your relationship, is pretty long actually. For starters, you’re probably not ever getting married. Even if you can get away with not telling your employer about a new marriage, if you’re already married there’s no real way you can hide it, since so many employers demand to do a background check before you start work. A marriage certificate will show up. This is the same reason that at least one of you won’t be able to lay legal claim to your children. But then, only one of you would be able to be listed as their parent or guardian at school, anyway. The part where you’re not married means that, should your spouse find themselves in medical trauma, you won’t be much help or have much say. And while a large ream of paperwork could, theoretically, ensure that you’re able to take care of each other if you need to, it’s also a verifiable paper trail that could disclose a relationship you’d rather keep secret. 

Your friends are going to be eternally confused about your personal lives, because you’ll either always be single and hanging out with your roommate or always be taken by a person who they’re not allowed to meet. This may seem like normal behavior with coworkers, but it’s going to start to get really weird really fast when it involves people who you’re close to. You and your significant other will always be spending holidays separately, with your respective families, or together but lying about it. Sure, you’ve taken the most lovely European trip over Christmas, but your family and friends all think you had to stay home by yourself because you have the flu.

In a world as interconnected as our’s is, the cost of “hiding” at work is no longer just a more guarded work life. It’s effectively a life in which you let no one in and tell no one anything. The fact that some people think that queer peoples’ “ability” to hide like this is privilege says a significant amount about the level of respect that person has for queer lives and queer relationships, and the level of understanding that person has regarding queer history. 

There was a time, not too terribly long ago, when hiding wasn’t just a privileged option queer individuals had, it was the expectation placed upon us. Homosexuality was a shameful thing that disgraced everyone around you, thus there was an expectation that it be hidden. This expectation is why AIDS ran rampant for years before it was acknowledged. This expectation is why it took until 1987 for the DSM to stop listing homosexuality as a form of mental illness. This expectation is why suicide rates in queer communities were then, and remain, higher than in their straight counterparts. This expectation is, still today, one of the primary reasons that LGBTQ teens have the highest rates of homelessness in the country. If I had to guess, I’d say this expectation that our gayness be hidden from the world is also why, in well over half the states in this country, conversion therapy is considered a perfectly acceptable thing to expose a child to.

The marginalization faced by queer individuals in this country is absolutely nothing like that faced by people of color. As I am only one of these things, I cannot tell you which is worse and, frankly, neither can straight people of color because they, too, are only one of these things. Attempts to discern which is “worse” really don’t solve either problem, though. They don’t eradicate race-based violence. They don’t pass the Equality Act, thus ensuring LGBTQ individuals actually have fair and equitable access to things like housing and job opportunities. They don’t convince people that the systemic racism faced by people of color in this country is not only real, but a real source of disenfranchisement that keeps black Americans from reaching their full potential, doing permanent damage to the entire American economy.They don’t convince people that my desire to live my life- to have medical access, buy a house, or get a cup of coffee- is not an inherent violation of someone else’s religious liberties, and thus should not be infringed upon on the basis of those religious liberties. 

Saying “I know how you feel” to someone who’s just lost a parent, if you’d recently lost a good friend, is inaccurate. You don’t know, unless you’ve also lost a parent at some point. Saying “I’m sorry. I know that losing someone important to you fucking sucks,” is a statement of empathy that is steeped in truth. A queer person saying, “I know that disinfranchisement sucks because I have been disinfranchised myself,” is not the same thing as a queer person saying, “I know how black people feel.” One of these things is true, one is absolutely not unless that queer person also happens to be black. Anyone, black or white, who honestly thinks queer people cannot have experienced bias because they can hide who they are, should be challenged to say exactly that to a queer person of color. I question the sincerity of someone willing to argue that queer people have is easy because we can “hide,” but only if the queer people they are accusing are white. To me, it seems like an obvious showing of their hand. They have placed a value upon queerness such that, as long as it is effecting a white person, it is not a challenge to be faced after all. They have done precisely what Buttigieg has not- assessed their own struggle as worse and, thus, more worth discussing. 

Hypocrisy is a terrible way to start a conversation, but an excellent way to end it.    

[cheerstocrazy]

Post-layoff, Pre-South America feelings

Let me preface this by saying I am only posting about this trip because I’m avoiding writing cover letters. It’s been crazy ever since August. I was extremely unhappy with my job, but I was still sticking it out, but definitely looking for other opportunities. On 8/2, I got a call from my staffing agency that I had been let go, and it was completely unrelated to performance but rather with new management and that letting the unsalaried employees go was the only feasible plan to profitability. My dad was in the car with me when I got the call, and I was in such a state of shock, and I didn’t want my dad to know anything about my situation. I knew he’d be so sad, and I couldn’t bring myself to see him disappointed. I had never felt so small, insignificant, and invisible as I did those 24 hours. I was trying so hard to keep myself together because everything happened so suddenly and all my items were still at work. I had begun talking to this guy on CMB who was super sweet and cool. I felt like my life was falling apart because I didn't have a job, my relationship with my mother was nonexistent. I just wanted to disappear from the universe for a while and live under a shroud of anonymity on my own terms. I had an upcoming work trip in NYC that Monday, and I got to keep that but they wouldn’t be paying for my transportation to and from the airport. Oh well. I went home to process the new information and just thought “Fuck it, Idk what I want to do right now (career wise), I have time and money, I’m going to travel. South America, it is!” It was either that or New Zealand and South America was the much cheaper option, and also I loved Argentina so much and wanted to brush up on my Spanish. I had always planned to go to South America postgrad. Now those dreams were becoming a reality. I realize it was such a spontaneous decision and made so quickly, so I let myself sleep on it before I bought the tickets. I started mapping where I could fly into and seeing which city was the cheapest. Ecuador was the cheapest to fly into, so done deal (I didn’t buy the tickets until a week later because I wanted to you know let it sink in). I still had 2 festival tickets back in America that were conflicting with my proposed travel plans, so I decided to sell my LIB tickets. I wanted to see The Killers and Gorillaz, so that was totally non-negotiable. I also figured 2 months would be enough traveling, because I had felt so burnt out after traveling Asia for 2.5 months. In hindsight, I should’ve just sold my ACL tickets as well and stayed longer in South America, but seeing The Killers and Gorillaz was also a highlight of my life. Anywho, I planned to go through Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and wanted to fly back home from Bolivia or possibly Northern Argentina, but the flights were so expensive and had 2-3 layovers. I checked from Chile and the prices were a lot pricier than I had hoped for, but there was a direct flight back from Santiago. I had no expectations for Chile and I really didn’t care to visit, but I just thought oh well, if I only spend a day in Santiago to fly back, it will be fine. It’s the only sensible option at this point because it costs too much to get to any other city and get a flight back. While I was in NYC on my ex-work trip with my friend, I booked a one way into Ecuador and a trip home from Santiago with 2 months to fill. Excited, scared, nervous out of my fucking mind, I rushed to pack in the days before my NYC trip with all my necessities. Good thing, I’m an experienced traveler and had most of the items necessary. After I got back from NYC, I had 2 more days to pack all my shit and buy last minute goods to bring with me. I also had to break the news to my dad that I was leaving and that I was now unemployed. I was so distraught the entire time in NYC about having to tell him, but it definitely went better than I expected. I told him I was leaving in 2 days, which he was not expecting, but he wasn't driving so it was fine. I had to deal with my complete piece of shit cousin who promised to drive me to LAX, then bailed last minute, but thank THE LORD Jenny came in so clutch to drive me to the airport. I had everything I needed in my 2 backpacks and off I went.