A(n erotic) poem from the oppressor inside me

I really hate the writing advice "write what you know". I sincerely do. It stops so many people from exploring their thoughts about stuff they aren't experts in. Now I'm not saying that writing about stuff you don't know and haven't researched is going to be publishable, but it will teach you some pretty important stuff.

It will reveal all of the assumptions and bits of knowledge you already do have (but might not know that you know). Chances are that thing you're interested in learning/writing about is something
you probably have at least a few facts and assumptions about. And it's probably a good thing for any writer is to get to take stock of the knowledge base they already have (regardless of how skewed).

For instance last week I was prompted to "write a celebration of the opposite sex". I have no idea when "opposite sex" even is to me as a person who identifies as both bisexual and genderqueer. I experience a bristle of discomfort whenever I'm asked to distinguish between (two) sexes/genders.

My gender and sexual identities are in many ways inherently against that sort of defining. But some parts of are still attached to those separations. Even though they aren't the parts of me I choose to express most of the time they still exist inside of me.

So I chose to explore what I knew the least about, how my masculinity relates to the supposedly opposite feminine folks. This is what came out when I gave that space to speak:


I don't want to be just one more guy writing creepy sonnets about Women

So it's a good thing I'm awful
at sonnets, because the slow-quick,
then whiplash that any small impact
dances through breast to nipple
makes my iambs incredibly tense.

As my heart double-dactyls I
imagine our chests pressed together
the way her nipples might drag
all their implications across my storyline,
until their hard milklessness tattoos
hunger through rib to lung to liver.
The lust in me she pricked
drops sudden into hip sockets
and opens the honest horror of its being:

I love women because overwhelm is what they're used to.
I love being cast as the stimuli that she will react to.
I get off on her ceding to my protagonism,

The sashay of her ponytail's enough to
set off my engine. Her eyelids
flick faster than any lip could
transmute the notion "come and get me.
I am aching to be got."She yields
and I develop my character all over her.

The lines I wrote are both earnest and satirical. I do enjoy embodying the sort of masculinity that requires femininity to be ancillary. But I also at the very same time I recognize how very damaging, fucked up, and prevalent this dynamic is. I see how it ruins lives.

As erotic as I find these assumptions they are false. "Real women have curves" the same way real women are all reactive, submissive, and only interested in cuddling after sex. In the way that one person's experiences doesn't fit into/reflect all the stereotypes associated with their cultural group.

As damaging and confining as these roles are to people of all genders, I still enjoy them. In the same way that I cannot consciously stop my self from having a panic attack, I cannot consciously or instantly change my own desires. And I refuse to apologize for my thoughts and fantasies.

Now this whole "heart wants what is wants" bit is absolutely not an excuse/free pass to behave in ways that hurt or dehumanize others. We all experience complex and often baffling desires and we all decide how to actualize or not actualize them. I have decided to try not to dehumanize others, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in playing out dehumanizing roles with other consenting adults.

Acknowledging that contradiction is scary. And often takes some time (and some uninhibiting substances). While writing the above poem my body and pen resisted (there's another 3 stanzas I wrote before and during drafting it that critiqued/resisted the voice I was writing from).

We like to see ourselves as Good Guys always fighting the good fight with all our thoughts and desires. But none of us really is. In this sense the revolution starts with honest self-reflection; with realizing and recognizing one's own monstrous and dehumanizing impulses.

If we let go of needing ourselves to be Good we can stop denying our problematic impulses and desires. What's revealed in this process are the deeply ingrained biases and assumptions that live in our minds.

For me, seeing this disturbing information has shown me which parts of myself I choose to share universally and which impulses I chose to be more careful about expressing/exploring. Reading the words of my more vulgar impulses is important to me on several levels.

It lets me know that my desires are participating in and benefiting from the male gaze.  It also lets me know that I am not above the tantalizing effects of a power imbalance I'm on the luckier side of. It reminds me that parts of me enjoy and pine after being the oppressor.

Compromises, the Public Eye, & Political Expectations: why Beyoncé's not a terrorist and bell hooks isn't either

Last Friday I found out that bell hooks claimed that Beyoncé is a "terrorist". And my internet exploded. What follows is my collected thoughts on the matter. Before you proceed please read about/watch the panel discussion where the "terrorist" claim occurred.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am a white person writing about interactions between and about women of color. I recognize that I could be reading all this shit terribly and utterly wrong and that there are most certainly racial elements involved that I've undeveloped/nonexistent understanding of. My experiences as a white person have ill prepared me to discuss this. Please read Janet Mock, Beyoncé, and bell hooks work. And listen to/read Beyoncé's words. They are the authorities on their own experiences.

I'm troubled by hook's word choice but I optimistically see hook's “terrorist” comment as being not so much specifically about Beyoncé as it is leading to a conversation about "selling out" to make money/fame in the entertainment industry. And that the music/entertainment industry make this sort of selling the price of admission for any marginalized identity who wants to promote themselves or their work.

Women (and w.o.c esp) artists will have their expression of sexuality and bodily celebration twisted into objectification and fetishization by misogynist managers/producers/publishers/viewers. I personally think it is unreasonable to expect that all marginalized creators of art should refuse to release their work/images to people who are perpetuating the patriarchy. We'd have far fewer women and p.o.c. celebrities.

That would mean we as consumers of their content expect our idols to exhibit the politics we've come to associate with them at all times. Which is an odd impractical form for political idolization. And it is as unreasonable as any expectation viewers might have of a celebrity.

As someone who seeks to be radical as much as I can, I definitely take compromises the kyriarchy hands me. Because sometimes I am tired or I just really really want what that compromise will get me. This doesn't make me a terrorist. But it does mean I'm colluding with, support, validating the kyriarchy. Which is the point I assume hooks was trying to make about Beyonce's Time cover.

I don't think hooks intended to make a villain out of Beyoncé. But having pure or radical intent doesn't absolve anyone (hooks or Bey) of the effects of their work and presentation. Hook's words were still hurtful, regardless of her intent. And no matter how loudly Beyonce sings about how shitty the patriarchy is, I know that she wants fame and money too. And sometimes the money and fame she gets to do what the patriarchy wants wins out.

One of the things I am thankful for in the exchange between Mock and hooks is that Beyoncé's agency was discussed. I've been in far too many "feminist" conversations that involved implying or outright saying that women who do porn, sex work, or the work in the entertainment industry are "brainwashed" or have no idea what they are doing.

It's because both hooks and Mock avoid diminishing Beyoncé's agency in this way that believe that hooks is not really aiming at Beyoncé with her remark. It's not a great upgrade, but I prefer “terrorist” to “brainwashed” any day.

I could be reading it wrong, but really isn't hooks just using a celebrity as a controversial entry point to get people thinking and talking about more complex, pervasive issues? Now of course there's more radical and necessary work to do than to make a critical example of Beyoncé for not exhibiting feminist and anti-racist politics all of the time.

It isn't helping anyone's deconstruction of power structures and their insidiousness to call Beyoncé a terrorist. I assume that hook's use of the word “terrorist” was a misstep at best and at worst a provocative placeholder; a way to stop the conversation completely and force a the focus onto larger systematic forces at play. Now using a black woman and celebrity in this oversimplifying way is something I believe to not be in line with hook's politics. But I also don't expect hooks to always perfectly exhibit her politics.

Sometimes Beyoncé delivers messages about how beauty culture is damaging through gyrating madly or falsely claiming that it's girls who run the world. And sometimes bell hooks calls another progressive black woman in the public eye a “terrorist”. Everyone takes compromises and unfortunate shortcuts when it comes to expressing ourselves and our politics.

The conversation about the problematic elements of accepting sexualizing and patriarchal compromises to get your career going and to maintain successful in the entertainment industry is an important one. It's a choice many have to face and that no woman with a public career ever makes easily. And just because bell hooks chose not use her body or sexuality in the promotion of her work, doesn't mean that that choice is available or desirable to every woman who works in the public eye.

What hooks is missing in her “terrorist” claim is the recognition that her own gaining of fame and recognition as a black woman who didn't do those things is unfortunately incredibly rare and for many impossible because of the industry they work in.

Those who're able to criticize the system (in this case the music industry) from outside of it should not name call the people who are trying work within it to effect progressive changes. Selling out isn't a binary. I'm not saying that change from the inside system is the right way or even the best way to change things, or even that such efforts should be above critique. I think the effectiveness and inherent problems of such approaches should absolutely be discussed. But the name calling is unnecessary. There is other more radical work to be done. And more respectful (less sensational) ways to broach these issues.

So yes, bell, Beyoncé is in the masters house (the music industry) and has been definitely been handed some of the master's tools, but I've always been of the opinion that tools are can be repurposed. And Beyonce is definitely doing work to transform the expectations of the music industry with repurposed tools.

STEM and Sexism

I'm an poet, writer and by almost all cultural counts an artist.  But I'm also an occasional scientist. A significant portion of the people I befriend and surround myself with are have either scientific or tech related jobs or are very serious science geeks on their off hours. 3 of the last 6 people I've dated work in STEM fields. I love being surrounded by them and through them educating myself about the world around me and how I interact with it.

Suffice to say I have an vested interest in STEM fields and communities. And because I care it's important for me to say that STEM fields and communities have a gender problem.

I've been lucky enough to find people who've been warm and welcoming but more importantly are as disturbed by STEM's gender problems as I am.



Earlier this month I wrote about how dismayed I feel at the sad fact that women doing science STILL seems so novel and strange to most people. Women are active participant in the STEM communities and projects, but are being actively discouraged this participation.

The percentage of women going after degrees in tech fields has actually declined since the 70. any who leave STEM fields cite the constant sexism they face.

This is a real problem and I am grateful to those in the STEM fields who have to courage to speak up and call for the necessary changes.

Marketing Feminism: I'm not buying it

So I'm wildly excited about this.

I support this project 100%. I think it is a vitally important development in safety and transportation. The critique this project has inspired has nothing to do with this product or its development (both of which I applaud). It has to do with marketing.

If you watch the promotional video, which is masterfully cut and filmed you'll notice that it and the article I cite lean primarily on the novelty of "women doing science" to sell their product.

I am wildly excited about this helmet as cyclist, science enthusiast, and feminist.

In that order exactly.

I am excited that women in technology are making fantastic products, but honestly I feel pandered to by their marketing strategy. I gives me big sads to realize that the idea of women doing good science is so alien to most people that it's actually considered an unexpected marketing idea. Women have been doing science all over the world for a long time. It's not a novel thing folks.

I appreciate the fact that Anna Haupt and Terese Alstin highlight the ways in which they faced sexist discrimination and I think their stories around it are important. But right now what's important to me for their product launch is their product information.

You know what would excite me more than the 'shocker' that women are doing hard and concretely useful science? Actual specs on how this helmet works. I want to know if and how this helmet protects against neck injury and whiplash (something traditional helmet are notoriously bad at protecting from, but that this inflatable model looks like it might reduce). I'm curious about the tests run on it.

In this case my practical concerns for safety as a cyclist trump my concerns as a feminist. Not everyone viewing this product will share my priorities, but putting the rocket of girl power behind this product's ad campaign implicitly sends the message that it's more important that women like this product than it is that it will save lives. Impracticality is not feminist.

In general and in this case I am opposed to gendered/sexist marketing strategies. If this helmet's primary features are life saving ones (that make it safer/more practical than traditional products on the market) then all cyclists should be marketed to.

Looking cute and girly is a wonderful thing but I'm sure it's not the top concern for all the cyclists who're interested in this helmet.

As I mentioned before I am excited about this product. My irritation at its gendered marketing is only emblematic of my constant irritation with gendered marketing strategies in general.

Since their advent of public relations marketers have been looking to get consumers to buy things through the use of psychology and manipulation. I think there can be ethical marketing strategies, but marketing in the US comes from a long history of such manipulation.

The Hövding helmet's marketing strategy is to stimulate solidarity and support for the women who made it. They are selling the false feminist novelty of women doing science.

I think solidarity & support for women scientists and entrepreneurs is excellent. I think giving women in science and tech fields more visibility is excellent. But neither of these things should be a marketing strategy. The use of feminism as a marketing device is unappealing to me. It limits feminism to those privileged by a capitalist society.

As much of an anti-capitalist as I am, I delight in products that're both useful and considerate of their users in design. The Hövding helmet appears to be exactly that. But no matter how much girl power is pumped into its marketing campaign, buying one will not make me a better feminist. I want the marketing to stop telling me that it will.

Why I Demand Trans Feminism

Trigger warning: transphobic shit to follow.

This exchange occurred after tweeting about my complete belief in the future of feminism including, supporting, & validating trans feminism.

It's taken me a month to boil down, suss through, & address all of the messy assumptions in this exchange.

Firstly imbuing any body part (like a phallus or say large breasts) with inherently threatening or dangerous qualities places people's bodies and body parts into a hierarchy. It makes some bodies and body parts "more okay" than others and hence more deserving of our support validation and defense. A person's body should never be the grounds for deciding what levels of solidarity they deserve.

Insinuating that a penis or penis haver is inherently threatening is as fraught as insinuating that too much cleavage is dangerous or say causes earthquakes.

The idea that a phallus or phallus haver is inherently threatening to a vagina or vagina haver uses the same broken logic as is used when blaming women's bodies and "sluttyness" for the actions or motivations of an assaulter/harasser. Assumptions that the size, dress, race, and shape of a woman indicates her sexuality run rampant. So too does the assumption that expressions and qualities we deem  masculine are inherently violent. Both of these assumptions are of the same type and are damaging. They serve only to offer security by separating people from one another. Which is not a form of security I believe in. It comes from a place of personal fear for survival/not getting hurt.

This tweet objectifies and ultimately limits the potential motivation of both groups of people indicated. They are either penile (threatening) or vaginal (deserving of protection). It's a well accepted and wise rule of the queer world and trans world that we accept that someone's identity and humanity are bigger than their body or what we can perceive about their bodies. Reducing people and their possible motivations and ways of being to their body parts is straight up oppressive objectification. It tells them that they are indeed just their body parts.

If the focus on penis vs. vagina is removed, the tweet above merely becomes someone saying that one person's concerns are more important than another's just because they have differing body parts. This tweet’s emphasis on the concerns of a particular group being more important than another’s requires that we believe there is a scarcity of concern and a hierarchy for compassion. Anyone with half a hope for intersectional politics knows that this idea is broken.

I understand that some folks have have traumatic associations with certain body parts, but personal trauma does not justify censoring or excluding the people whose body parts are associated with that trauma. I've been assaulted by two redheads, this doesn't mean I have a right to assume that all gingers are dangerous/threatening to me.

Having a traumatic association with a particular body part does not mean those body parts or objects are always to be harbingers of trauma. Past performance of one member of a group does not determine future performance of all members of that group.

The idea that the phallus (or any other male-associated body traits) is inherently threatening actually reinforces paradigms of of violence against women (a la evolutionary psychology so familiar in the rhetoric of rape apologists). It essentializes violence as inexplicably connected to male bodies. Believing that the phallus/masculinity is inherently violent creates a closed loop definition that makes confronting actual instances of violence perpetrated by men defensible because "well having a penis/testosterone just makes you more violent." This is absurd. It casts all those with masculine traits as irredeemably violent and not worth intervention.

Casting the phallus itself or those who have a phallus exclusively as violators who need no support or protection becomes widely and obviously incorrect when you consider the terrifyingly high rates of violence and exclusion trans women experience. Our legal system has already enforced the assumption of trans folks as violent perpetrators. This objectifying assumption actually enables such violence against both women AND trans people. 

It is totally fucked up to say that some folks (those with vaginas) have a right to feel unthreatened while others concerns for safety are disregarded completely (because they're cast as inherently threatening due to their body parts).

When I strap on a phallus I don’t magically become less of a feminist or become more dangerous to vagina havers. A cock is not a gun. It's a tool. One that can be used for violence but it isn't inherently violent any more than it is inherently pleasurable. It is just a body part.

Statistically speaking, having a phallus makes one likelier to have privilege BUT having privilege doesn't in and of itself, make a person violent or entitled. 

I understand that what most trans excluding feminists fear is this stereotype of phallus-related violence & entitlement. But employing body-based stereotypes like this is not only discriminatory but a downright inefficient way of screening for violent behavior.

No person's body or body parts is better or more inherently deserving of concern or protection. As a radical feminist and vagina haver, I personally resent that other folks seem to think myself or my body parts need to be protected from those scary phalluses.

I know that as a person with vagina I'm at higher risk for sexual assault than a cisgender man and that statistically that assault is more likely to be perpetrated by a cis guy. But I have been physically assaulted by cis women with higher frequency than cis men. Based on this history I resent the assumption that I am “safer” around cis women. I want to be allowed to use my own ability to discern who my allies are. I don’t need this arbitrary body-based separation and I certainly don’t approve of it.

My writing this is NOT an effort to tell those with traumatic experiences related to masculinity & the phallus to "get over it". That trauma deserves space and support. But when we work for intersectional politics (which the future of feminism must be) a single narrative of trauma cannot always be the focus of our actions.

I know this seems callous on some level but it is necessary. But as I’ve written before nobody is entitled to the be listened to or to have the attention/protection of the community. No one has a right to feel safe. It is always a privilege. In order to distribute this privilege effectively community members must

1. Acknowledge that others have trauma and that all trauma is valid even if not addressed and processed.
2. Accept that the personal experience of trauma one person has doesn't map onto the experiences others have with their trauma.
3. Accept that no experience of trauma is more or less deserving of our compassion.

Excluding those who have body parts that have been fearfully defined as dangerous robs our feminist communities of solidarity and the imperative discomfort of bearing witness to the trauma of trans folks.

I want demand these experiences be welcomed into my feminist community.

How to avoid the manic pixie dream girl: A simple guide with 6 counterexamples

First lets let's definine our terms:

Manic pixie dream girl has been identified by Nathan Rabin as "that bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." For more information on the MDPG visit the wiki. See also.

When I use the words crazy or manic I mean folks that are not neurotypical. I view neither of these terms as inherently negative and support neurodiversity. I personally want to extend the definition of the MPDG trope to include not just women/girls because I believe that any crazy/manic supporting character runs the risk of having their manic/crazy qualities exist only to serve the protagonist (if you have nonMPDG examples please send the to me!). This practice exploits and misrepresents the experiences of crazy, manic and non-neurotypical individuals. The use of the manic pixie dream girl is simply the most flagrant example I've seen of this exploitation.

But now onto the how-to:

When constructing quirky/inspirational supporting character, take a moment to focus on this character's motivations. Does this supporting character serve any other function than to be inspiring or create motivation for the protagonist? This can be measured easily by asking yourself if the potential MPDG is dynamic enough for their own story. Could you could write them their own novel/film/comic? If not you might be at risk of writing a manic pixie dream girl/person. 

If you, as the creator, don't believe your supporting character is compelling and brimming with potential story, you can't expect your audience to believe in them either. And they won't. My rule of thumb: for every compelling supporting character there should be pages of (written or unwritten) back story.

And lastly, just as it would be ridiculous to assign a character brutish qualities because they appear strong, it is equally ridiculous to assume that a character is incapable or easier to understand simply because they are crazy. If someone is not neurotypical it is PART of who they are, but certainly not all they are. Remember this when writing crazy/manic characters.

For your convenience I have selected the following pop culture examples of (mostly supporting) characters that are quirky, strange, manic, or crazy or othered in some way yet still very dynamic and compelling!


1.

Hermione Granger form Harry Potter series (book & film)
Quirk: Intelligence

For all of those awful movies in the where the mousy-but-smart girl who becomes magically hot, but then has the added bonus quirk of intelligence to support the male hero Hermione is the cure. She is sassy as fuck, has her own projects that she deeply cares about; academic and social justice projects that don't directly concern her protagonist friend. She is also tough enough make deep sacrifices (she magically erases herself from her parent's memories for their safety). Her intelligence, fortitude, & creativity are definitely doing more than serving a male protagonist.


2.



Joon from Benny and Joon (film)
Quirk: PTSD
Both Joon and her romantic interest Sam are not nuero-typical (Joon very apparently so and Sam in a social sense). These characters are on a more equal footing not just because they are both othered by culture (they do share solidarity in this) but also because they have a separate and interesting story about moving through the world as a crazy/freaky/weird person. Also note that their love story is miles more comfortable and interesting than the romance between the two "sane" characters Benny & Ruth.



3.





Johnny from Dirty Dancing (film)
Quirk: From the wrong side of the tracks
Johnny and the relationship he shares with Baby in this film are what lead her to her cathartic breaking with the politics of her family and her upper class world. Now I know it bucks the tradition of manic pixie dream "girl", but hear me out. It's clear in the end of the film that Baby and Johnny, though very important forces of change in each others lives are probably never going to see each other again, but what is also clear is that they are both headed on to interesting and wildly different futures.

4.

Leonard Cohen's Suzanne (music)
Quirk: "She's half-crazy"
I loved this song as a teenager even before I started to make cultural criticisms my business. But as a poet and sharpening feminist I began to find more reasons to love it. This song is not a love song, at least not a lustful or overly romantic narrative. This woman is strange and seemingly magical, but she is very clearly also very human (with her salvation army clothes) and on equal ground with the song's "you" and in some ways ahead of the curve.

5.

Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (film)
Quirk: Spontaneous; collect potatoes; all of the hair colors
Often misidentified as a MDPG, in this simple speech Clementine reframes the entire film (and takes the trope of MPDG to task) by encouraging you to be skeptical of Joel's motivations surrounding Clementine. She's not afraid to tell you "I'm just a fucked-up girl looking for my own piece of mind".

6.
Detroit Annie

Her words pour out as if her throat were a broken artery.

and her mind were cut-glass, carelessly handled.
You imagine her in a huge velvet hat with great
dangling black feathers,
but she shaves her head instead
and goes for three-day midnight walks.
Sometimes she goes down to the dock and dances
off the end of it, simply to prove her belief
that people who cannot walk on water
are phonies, or dead.
When she is cruel, she is very, very
cool and when she is kind she is lavish.
Fisherman think perhaps she’s a fish, but they’re all
fools. She figured out that the only way
to keep from being frozen was to
stay in motion, and long ago converted
most of her flesh into liquid. Now when she
smells danger, she spills herself all over,
like gasoline, and lights it.
She leaves the taste of salt and iron
under your tongue, but you dont mind
The common woman is as common
as the reddest wine.

Annie from Detroit Annie, hitchhiking by Judy Grahn (poem)
Quirk: Tries to walk on water
I selected this poem for it's description of the way Annie "converted her flesh into liquid. Now when she smells danger, she spills herself all over like gasoline, and lights it" From these lines I infer is some level of manic behavior, mostly because this it pretty accurately describes how I feel when I have a manic episode. But notice she is still human? Still a "common woman".

Endnote:
I'd suggest reading the all of Judy Grahn's popular Common Woman series. It and Detroit Annie in particular inspired this post. Judy Grahn was right in calling for the representation of woman as common in that all humans (women included) share in common that they have their own motivations. In this spirit I demand that quirky, manic (female) supporting characters be more than inspirational, that they be shown as more than just concepts, that crazy/weird women aren't crazy/weird for you. We're doing it for ourselves. Because it's who we are.

The manic pixie dream girl is just one more message to women & those who are crazy/weird/freaky/non-neurotypical, telling us that our insanity doesn't belong to us -- that it's the only thing that makes us interesting. Fuck that trendy bullshit. Every crazy person I know has a story and a life that's more than just their crazy. We're not your inspiration.



PS I'd LOVE to expand this list. Suggestions of manic/quirky supporting character are VERY welcome!

On Performative Sexuality

Encouraged by mainstream porn narratives and in our culture overall, there is a demand for performative sexuality (or at least attraction), telling folks, and predominantly women, that their sexuality is only valuable as a display, that their sexuality is only valuable in as much as it relates to the wants of others/men.

I didn't watch/view porn until I was in my twenties And I was STILL deeply affected by the messages of performative sexuality. It's my suspicion that many American women never get to a point where they can untangle their sexuality from the now-subconscious mandates of performative sexuality.

As much good work as sex positive communities are often doing, it's not uncommon for unquestioned messages of performative sexuality to be expressed and encouraged as "radical" and "liberated". In BDSM communities women who exclusively have sex as a submissives are often endlessly congratulated & publicized regardless of the fact that the role they choose comes from a history of oppression. 

If powerplay is not practiced with an awareness of the historical and current oppressions it is invoking it is not radical. Period. It actually might come from a place of learned performative sexuality, it might come from a place of preference. But without a critical eye towards social context you can't know. I am NOT saying that folks without an education in hsitorical and systematic oppressions should be barred from BDSM. What I am saying is that the engagement, praise, and commentary of those who do understand the social & historical context for powerplay needs to be more nuanced & critical. In conversations about BDSM, bringing up historical & social contexts of oppression should be encouraged rather than just easily dismissed as "sex-negative" or "hating".

My basic beef about performative sexuality is not with those that practice it without knowing, my beef is with those who know about the context of oppression it comes from and aren't furthering the conversation. Sometimes even stopping that conversation because it's "not hot" or "uncool". Merely being an enlightened practitioner of performative/role-centered sex is not enough. It's self empowering (because you understand and are willing to dig deep into your preferences), but it doesn't educate or make space for the empowerment of others. Personal progress toward more enlightened sexuality is personalty liberating and empowering but it is not revolutionary. Learning about the complex nature of your orgasms/pleasure is good for you, but those orgasms/pleasure aren't revolutionary unless you choose to bring what you've learned about them to your community. 

By inviting & defending such criticisms I don't mean to Yuck anybody's sexual Yum. I don't disparage or look down on anybody who finds it pleasurable to be wanted or pursued. I find these things pleasurable sometimes. But if you see being wanted or pursued as your whole sexuality it makes the value of your sexuality wholly dependent on the validation others give/don't give to it. This is the risk of accepting your sexuality as merely performative (for others). 

Engaging in performative sexuality CAN be erotic and enjoyable, but we should never stop at just that! We and our sexualities are so much bigger than what others can perceive and validate. If I want a sexuality that relates with others' sexualities in sustainable & more safe ways, I first need to relate to my sexuality in sustainable, supportive, & lovingly critical ways. I try to do this and I think we all can!

For anyone (the book is geared toward women but is a great read for anyone!) who wants to join me in this I'd suggest reading Jaclyn Friedman's "What You Really Really Want." I think it's a great vehicle for women looking to define their sexuality as their own.

Also this:

"I'm not the one you want babe." because I am the person I choose to be not who you want me to be.

Is financial independence the ultimate scapegoat for compromising on feminism?

So I recently read the book Female Chauvinist Pigs. It had some gratingly problematic uses of transphobic, gender-essentialist, & objectifying rhetoric but oh, did it ever get my ears pricked for instances of women spouting gendered oppression.

I wanted to share a depressing instance of what female chauvinism looks like to me. This progressively intentioned project wants to "help" get women into the tech industry and specifically into professional coding field. The problem of course is that much of the advice given and projects proposed enforce gendered stereotypes that do nothing for women as a whole. This approach would only serve to (maybe!) garner success for the individual woman who make those compromises.

Small example : "it’s our job (for now) to be easily integrated into an all-male team, nonthreatening, and hyperskilled"

This might just be lazy or "hip" rhetoric employed by their copy writers which bores me. I really hope they don't mean it. Because this is not feminism or if it is, it's a twisted sort of feminism. And it's a great example of why I have issues with "financial independence" being a feminist goal (identified as such in bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody). It is not surprising to me that when the goals of feminism try to mix with the goals of capitalism it invariably ends up looking like female chauvinism. But this point seems to fall through the cracks (even in Female Chauvinist Pigs) when it comes to other self-professed (successful) feminists.

Am I nuts, or is bowing to capitalism in order to gain financial independence becoming the ultimate scapegoat for compromising on feminist goals? Case and point:
many of the responses to the kerfuffle this project has caused decry that the compromises the Lady Coders project is promoting are necessary and that those dissenting are merely being ideological purists. So I guess personal success is more important than standing for your own boundaries & beliefs about sexism?

To be clear, I acknowledge that compromising on one's boundaries & beliefs in order to survive is often a valid and unfortunate necessity. I would not fault anyone for doing something like identifying with a previous and inaccurate gender/name in order to receive unemployment/social services. Their subsistence depends on that compromise. This is fucked up because folks in such situations are at the actual mercy of the social services system. And is completely different from compromising on your boundaries & beliefs to accrue a higher financial and professional status. If you have a skill/attribute that is valued and sought by an industry that you choose you have power. You are not at the mercy of that industry/system in the way that others are.

And, oh yeah, for all those folks defending the project as looking to be "effective" in their compromise and that this will (slowly) make the environment more diverse:

This whole Lady Coders mess comes to me via my partner who is a (cis-male) web dev. He is furious because this means that even though this project will get more women in the room, the level of diversity of ideas and experiences will be discouraged and disparaged by its approach. And coding (by his account) is a creative, knowledge based work. In such work you NEED a diversity of ideas in order to approach the incredibly diverse of problems with appropriate solutions.

It would actually behoove the tech (and other knowledge-based) industries to welcome diversity with open arms. It is risky, but in the long run it stands to make them more successful, competitive, and flexible. The idea that (potential) workers must compromise their identity in order to work in certain places is the oppression of capitalism at work. It alienates workers from their labor & progress which depletes recourses of experience and ideas that business will have to call upon.

This mandated compromise also creates a system of shaming in which women who have compromised and gained success/status express disdain for women who did not. Often saying that if women don't trade on things like their appearance or novelty that they are just "not trying hard enough". The Lady Coders project offers no challenge to this status quo & appears to be a great project for getting big tech companies those token female techies who'll help them look progressive while publicly excoriating those who refuse to compromise their feminist values. 

Not radical ladies, really, just not...