Monday, May 25, 2020

A story about volcanoes.

I want to invite you to join me for story time. There is a small nation built at the base of a volcano. Every year, many of the people would be sacrificed to the god of the volcano to ensure that the volcano would not erupt and that the harvest would be bountiful. Sometimes the volcano erupted anyway. Sometimes the harvest was lean. It did not seem to matter that the sacrifices had been made. But the people were sure that the sacrifices must continue. All the many priests would gather and try to divine the will of the volcano and argue among themselves about how best to please the volcano. Maybe the sacrifices had been made in the wrong season. Maybe we had sacrificed the wrong people. Maybe we hadn't sacrificed enough people. Maybe we simply lacked faith in the volcano. They could never agree. The only certain thing was that the sacrifices must continue. Soon it came time to select a new leader in the nation. One man said that he would sacrifice one thousand people to the volcano in the coming year. He said that it was good to sacrifice people to the volcano. He said the volcano was great and powerful, that it provided such bountiful harvests. He said it was the best volcano in the world and it was right to make sacrifices to it. He said he would be careful to only sacrifice the right people to the volcano; the people who did not work hard enough to please the volcano, the people who did not love the volcano, the people who did not belong here. He said the sacrifices must continue. His supporters cheered for the sacrifices and agreed that they were good. They said that people who did not work hard to please the volcano deserved to be sacrificed because they were lazy. They said that people who did not love the volcano deserved to be sacrificed to show them the volcano's might. They said that people who were not born here deserved to be sacrificed because they were living off the bounty given by the volcano. They wore hats that said MAGMA to honor the volcano and they were red because that is the color of lava. They said the sacrifices must continue. Another man who would be the ruler said that it was a great tragedy that we sacrificed so many people to the volcano. He said that many people who did work hard and who did love the volcano and who did belong here had been sacrificed to the volcano and that was a great shame to the nation. He said that he would work hard to ensure that the wrong people were not sacrificed to the volcano. He would protect those who worked hard and loved the volcano and who were born there. He said that he would only sacrifice nine hundred people to the volcano. After all, as tragic as it is, the sacrifices must continue. His supporters said that it was indeed a great shame and a great tragedy that anyone should be sacrificed to the volcano, but they agreed that somebody must be sacrificed. And they said that it was good that he would protect those of them who worked hard for the volcano and those who loved the volcano and those who were belonged here because surely those people did not deserve to be sacrificed. And they said that it was good that he would sacrifice only nine hundred people to the volcano, because that is one hundred people who might be saved. And they said that they would save who they could, but the sacrifices must continue. But there were those who didn't support either man becoming the new leader. They said that it IS a great tragedy that people are sacrificed to the volcano. But it is not only a shame to sacrifice those who work hard and who were born here and who love the volcano, it is a tragedy to sacrifice ANYBODY to the volcano. They said that we should stop worshiping the volcano as if it were a god. They said the sacrifices must NOT continue. This was a shock to the supporters of the first man and of the second man. The supporters of the first man said that these people didn't love the volcano; that they HATED the volcano and the nation. They said that when their man became the leader, these volcano haters would surely be sacrificed and it would be good. They said the sacrifices MUST continue. But the supporters of the second man were angrier still. They said that these people MUST support the second man; that if they didn't then the first man would win and it will be all the dissenters' fault. Surely they can see that he is better than the first man? And the dissenters said that they could see that the second man was better than the first. The first man believes the sacrifices are good. Surely he will make hateful decisions that compound our suffering, but the second man cannot imagine a better way than sacrifice, surely he will make foolish, shortsighted decisions that compound our suffering also. I do not want a leader who wants sacrifices, but I also do not want a leader who cannot imagine anything better. Being better than the first man is small solace when they both believe that the sacrifices must continue. And the supporters of the second man said that the dissenters were selfish. They said that they were willing to let one hundred people die who the second man would save all on their foolish gamble. They said that the dissenters did not care about lives at all; that if they did then they would support the second man. And the dissenters said that they did love life and that was why they could not support the second man. They loved the lives of the nine hundred as much as the one hundred and they must fight for them as well. And the nine hundred who will be sacrificed next year and the year after. Because if they support the second man, the sacrifices will continue. And the supporters of the second man said that the dissenters were foolish. They said that it was dangerous to stop the sacrifices. They said that there was no other option. But the dissenters said that there were other nations who did not sacrifice to the volcano and they had not been destroyed. But the supporters of the second man said that those nations were full of hardship and suffering. The dissenters said that THIS nation is full of hardship and suffering. And while we cannot speak to the hardships in nations we have not lived in, when those people tell us about their country, they do not tell of the suffering you suggest. Mostly they talk about how nice it is to not be sacrificed to a volcano. But the supporters of the second man said that it was all propaganda and it could not work. The sacrifices must continue. And the supporters of the second man said that the sacrifices ensure a bountiful harvest; that without them there will be no crops in the fall. And the dissenters said that isn't how volcanoes work and anyway they weren't at all concerned with the bounty of the harvests. No matter how bountiful or poor the harvest was, the lords would take it all for themselves and the people would receive only their dole of millet either way. The dissenters were no longer willing to die to fatten the local lords. But the supporters of the second man could not imagine a better way, so they said the sacrifices must continue. And the supporters of the second man said that the real power lies with the council, not the king. If they are given time, they can also take the council, fill it with more people like them. And the dissenters asked if those councilors would be like the second man. Men who cannot see a better way. Men who still would sacrifice us to the volcano. And they asked what good that should be to them, to say that they will fill the council with people who say the sacrifices must continue. I don't know how this story ends. Some of the dissenters will support the second man, I'm sure. Some will not. They ALL will be blamed if the first man wins.I still don't know what I would do. I don't know what is right to do. There is no winning move. There is no end goal. There is only supporting the man who offers slightly less death while the MAGMA party continues to offer more and more frightening candidates. This incrementalism does not lead to justice, it only treads water. We have created a human grist mill; a machine to kill those not a part of the hegemony. And we are told to be satisfied when one party offers to build a hand rail. I am sore afraid. And I do not think I can bear another November. OH! Also both of those men are rapists. I couldn't work that into the story, but it's important. Trump and Biden are both rapaists.

Monday, July 22, 2019

Branded Lifestyles and Cultivated Identity

How can you tell if someone is a vegan?

Don't worry, they'll let you know.

It's an old joke, but a versatile one. I've heard it told about vegans, atheists, people who do crossfit, and just about any group of people who reasonably fit into a "lifestyle". But the joke depends on failing to make an important distinction. It fails to distinguish between vegans and Vegans(tm).

So what's the difference? Well, veganism is a lifestyle. Veganism(TM) is a Lifestyle(TM).

OK, that wasn't helpful. Let me try again.

As I use the word, a lifestyle is a series of choices people make centered around a core set of values or principles. Veganism is generally centered on ending the exploitation of non-human animals for human gain. This includes not killing animals for food, but also choices like not eating milk or eggs because eating animal products is still exploiting animals even if that exploitation doesn't kill the animal.It can also include not wearing fur or leather or not buying from companies that test products on animals. In a way, veganism is extending anti-capitalist values to non-human animals. Pretty neat.

But in the United States, we live in a capitalist economy. So, like most things under capitalism, the choices in veganism mostly come down to choices about consumption. It's mostly choices about what to buy and who to buy it from. And when there is a common core of principles about consumption, there is a market. And where there is a market, capitalism is going to exploit that market. Thus we get Veganism(TM).

Lifestyles(TM) aren't much concerned with core values. Lifestyles(TM) are much more concerned with guiding consumption choices in a way that most benefits capital. It does this by cultivating identity. If your choices can be subtly separated from core principles and redirected towards personal identity, those choices can be guided more easily. If the market can associate a product with an identity, it can convince people to reliably purchase that product based on that association rather than its concordance with principles. They can offer you validation for your identity. Just slap a Vegan(TM) label on it and watch Vegans(TM) buy it because that' what Vegans(TM) do.

Social media plays a roll in this as well. After all, the "marketplace of ideas" is still a market. There are YouTube channels and Twitters and Instagrams focused on Veganism(TM); talking about Veganism(TM)  and how to be Vegan(TM) and the virtues of Veganism(TM)  etcetera etcetera etcetera. They grow their audience by offering a community around the personal identity of Vegans(TM) . They offer validation for that identity. And that's a pretty compelling offer in a broader society that likes to make bad jokes about how insufferable vegans are.

Now, this isn't about giving vegans a reason to feel superior to Vegans(TM) . That's just more validation of identity. And it isn't even true. We all exist under capitalism and we are all subject to its whims. And we all have personal identities built around things that markets want to sell us, whether that's Vegans(TM) or Gamers(TM) or Liberals(TM) or Conservatives(TM) or any other personal identities. Our identities exist on a spectrum from organic to cultivated. This isn't about "real" vegans v. "fake" vegans.

I'm talking about vegans as a backdoor to talk about somebody else; Christians(TM).

I've seen a particular pair of bible verses being spread around social media lately. They are Exodus 22:21;"Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt." and Leviticus 19:33-34; "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." They are being spread as a response to our use of concentration camps at the US Mexican border. They seem to want to appeal to evangelical Christians who support President Trump and his policies on immigration. But there is a problem with using these verses to appeal to Trump supporters.

They do not care.


Where Christianity is built upon the central values and principles of adherence to Biblical teachings and faith in God, Christianity(TM) is built upon the cultivated identity of American Christianity(TM). Cultivated Christianity(TM)  is built on people's sense of what it means to be Christian. It means hating abortion and not liking homosexuals and trans* people not really existing. It's built on shaming women for liking sex and puritanical notions of purity.And that identity has been cultivated alongside American jingoism. So being Christian(TM)  is also about loving America as long as America(TM) is also about being Christian(TM). And rejecting foreigners is all a part of America(TM).

So many markets, including the marketplace of politics, have done an amazing job of connecting the personal identity, the brand, of Christianity to their products. I used to buy into it. I wore t shirts
with White Jesus's face on them. I wore a WWJD bracelet. I bought "Testa-Mints", breath mints with crosses on them and bible verses on the wrappers (Mostly, I liked the pun. I would probably still buy them). So much of Christian consumption has been deliberately cultivated by markets to exploit that identity. None of us are immune.

And politics is no different. A big part of Republican political success has been due to their successful connection of America(TM) and Christianity(TM). Politicians can use that connection to sell people on the idea that baking me a cake is fundamentally unAmerican(TM), or that refusing to issue me a marriage certificate is a deeply American(TM) act of protest, or that all these brown people are going to ruin Christian(TM) America(TM). Which is, of course, exactly what the evil Liberals(TM) want.

So sharing those bible verses means absolutely nothing to them. Because those verses might mean everything to Christians, but they don't mean anything to Christians(TM) as long as they conflict with American(TM) Christianity(TM). They do not care about the hypocrisy because, to them, there isn't any hypocrisy. Because American(TM) Christianity(TM) has nothing at all to do with the bible and everything to do with "God, Guns, Grits and Gravy".

Friday, June 7, 2019

An open letter to cis women

I want to talk to cis women who are afraid of letting trans women into gender segregated spaces. I hear you. I get that it's frightening to open up your secure spaces. You're still wrong, but I hear you.

Growing up, the idea of a peeping tom was often played for laughs in popular media. I think back on movies like Porky's, Revenge of the Nerds, and even Back to the Future where spying on women changing was depicted as funny rather than creepy. It even made its way into video games. The original Japanese release of Breath of Fire 4 had a scene in which the hero character stumbles upon two women bathing in a hot spring and, rather than leave them be, tries to get a look. The length of the examples lists on TV Tropes for The Peeping Tom and its sister trope, Outdoor Bath Peeping (There are enough to split the trope between two pages!) are alarming.

And it isn't even depicted as being particularly sexual. The men involved aren't having a wank to the nonconsensual peep show. They're just doing it because they can. It's almost played for a sport. Men are constantly trying to look at boobs while women are trying to stop them. Every time a man succeeds in looking at boobs, he scores a point for their side. The guy who looks at boobs the most is the MVP. And women's bodies aren't even the prize. Often it is the adulation of other men that is the prize. Women's bodies are just the goal post. A literal object against which to assert their manhood.


And if that's the message being sent to boys and young men, what must the message be for girls and young women? That you aren't safe. Even in ostensibly safe places like locker rooms, bathrooms, and even your bedroom; you are never really safe. The message is that you should be scared of men trying to look at your boobs because it's a gross invasion of your privacy but we don't think that matters. And, frankly, real life reinforces that fear.

And a simple penis/vagina gender binary feels like the only thing giving you even a modicum of safety. Women-only toilets, locker rooms, and gyms give you a space where you can be reasonably safe from men who have been taught that your body is a goal to be scored, that you are mere ambulatory breasts to be leered at, that you are a pussy to be grabbed. If we muddy the waters about who is and is not allowed in these places, what becomes of the only public places where you're not looking over your shoulder constantly?

So I get it. I hear you. That shit would probably scare the hell out of me, too. But the cost of that presumption of safety is throwing trans people under the bus. And that is not OK.

A big part of why that isn't ok is because banning trans people from those spaces isn't actually making you any safer. I won't fear monger about the lesbians who are already allowed in those spaces because we all know that lesbians are not, by and large, the people making you feel unsafe. Lesbians aren't the ones raised to believe that your bodily autonomy is less important that their fun. That falls entirely on men.

But there are already trans women in your bathrooms. Trans women who pass well enough that you never realize that they're there. But laws prohibiting trans bathroom access wouldn't stop them from coming in. Not unless you stop every woman going to the bathroom to scrutinize her womanhood; to demand her identification or have a peek under her skirt. Not unless you mean to subject every woman going to the bathroom to the same scrutiny of her body that you mean to protect her from.

There are trans men who would be legally required to use the women's bathroom. Men who look far more masculine than half the flabby dad-bods using the men's room. They would have to share your gendered spaces. That won't make you feel safe. It sure as shit won't make them feel safe.

Worse yet, if we don't subject women to humiliating scrutiny of their bodies, then I could walk into any women's bathroom, beard and balls and all, and claim to be a trans man who is obligated to use that bathroom. I could claim to be a cis woman with a hormone disorder that makes me hairy. Short of having a look under the belt, you wouldn't be able to enforce the laws keeping me out. The very idea of trans people's existence makes those laws unenforceable. The trans genie is out of the bottle. We can't put it back in.

I promise you, trans women are at least as afraid of the men's room as you are. Their penis (assuming they still have one) won't protect them from violence. Men aren't going to say "Oh! You're trans? Well I guess we'll just leave you alone, then." They just want to pee without being afraid that someone is going to hurt them. Just like you.

And it doesn't stop at bathroom access. Trans women may not be able to become pregnant, but the right to control their own bodies is very much central to trans rights. Trans men who can become pregnant aren't trying to take away your ability to organize as women, they just want a place at the table next to you.

I've taken care to not call you TERFs, not because I don't think the term is accurate or important or because I think it's a slur; it is important and it isn't a slur. It is a recognition of the fact that your feminism is excluding trans people and that exclusion is hurting them. Transphobia kills. Excluding people from the fight for equality leaves them vulnerable. And it is no fluke or accident that every one of the trans women in that list is black. Intersectionality has to include all axes of oppression. TERF and SWERF are words to highlight how your actions are leaving vulnerable people behind.

I've chosen not to call you TERFs here because I know that you do think it's a slur and I don't want you to stop reading because you think I hate you. I want you to listen. I choose to believe that there are at least some of you who don't hate trans people, who do accept trans people as the gender they tell you they are, but who have accepted transhopic rhetoric because you are afraid. And you do have reasons to be afraid. But excluding trans people isn't going to keep you safe. It's only going to get them killed.