Christopher Street Boys Are Badass

I'm all about the idea that if we "accept" differences without valuing them, it's not really progress. (i.e. I'm for women's rights - they just have to act like men because girly feminine stuff is sissy and weak and frivolous. I'm for gay rights - I want gay people to get married because a marriage is the only kind of relationship that should have protections and rights. And so on.)

Naturally, I totally loved this video by Jay Smooth about the idea that anything gay = weak. When, really? Christopher Street Boys (and Girls and Otherly Gendered Folk) are badass.



Transcript below the cut (which hopefully works now!):

"Christopher Street Boy." Larry Johnson, the running back for the Chiefs, got into an argument with a fan on twitter this weekend - which is always a smart thing to do - and in the midst of this argument, Larry Johnson called this fan a fag, and then he said "Christopher Street Boy. Is what us East Coast cats call u." Christopher Street Boy. Now, Larry Johnson, I gotta ask, what is it you think Christopher Street Boy means, exactly? Because I don't think it means what you think it means. I'm guessing have a vague idea Christopher Street is associated with gay people, and in your mind gay means weak, so you thought that was a good way to insult somebody. But that's not exactly what Christopher Street Boy means. So since I am also an East Coast cat, I'm gonna try to help you out, and break down some history for you.

Christopher Street is associated with gay people, mostly because of something called the Stonewall Riots. The Stonewall Riots happened in 1969 in a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn, which like most gay bars back then used to get raided by cops all the time, because cops thought it was their job to harass gay people. But on this particular night, at this particular gay bar, these particular gay people decided that they were not having it. And they went outside the bar and fought back for the first time against these cops. And they fought back so hard against these cops outside the bar? That ten cops had to run back in the bar and lock themselves inside to hide from the crowd. This gang of ten cops was hiding from the people who you call Christopher Street Boys. And then, when those cops called a whole bunch of back up, that crowd of Christopher Street Boys, and Girls, had a showdown in the street with all of that backup, that went down in history as the Stonewall Riots and gave birth to the gay rights movement. Which means, Larry Johnson, that when you call that guy a Christopher Street Boy and you think it's a clever way to call him soft and wimpy, you're actually talking about people who are famous for winning a bar fight against a GANG OF COPS. You're talking about people who started a movement by showing the world gay DOESN'T mean weak. You're talking about people, Larry Johnson, that were way tougher and more courageous than you will ever be in your life. That is who Christopher Street Boys are.

And I'm not saying you don't have a right to speak! I'm actually rooting for you to keep on tweeting. I want you to jump in that social media hole and keep digging, so that the Chiefs will finally be forced to put your crappy two-yards-per-carry ass on the bench. And then I can start using your backup on my fantasy team. That would be great for me.

But I still felt like I should pass this message on to you, because as a representative of the East Coast Cat coalition, it's my duty to let a fellow member know you were slipping on this one, and you need to tighten up.

Read More...

On Humankind (The Word, Not the Kind)

So, if you haven't read The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck, read it. Then seek out the follow up posts. Then you should maybe just subscribe to Shakesville, it being one of my favorite places on the internet.

Anyway. The piece got published by The Guardian, and surprise, the comments were not as supportive. I want to talk about one thing in particular that kept coming up: "humankind".

Melissa McEwan uses gender-neutral language as an example at the end of a long list of little things that complicate her (and many women's) relationship with men, even and especially men they respect and love:

"My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language ('humankind')."
In the comments at The Guardian, that very last bit is brought up over. And over. And over. In order to prove Melissa is somehow overreacting, and this is the proof - she cares about this little tiny linguistic semantic nonsense. Some even say that, she makes good points, but that one? Ridiculous. Just a few examples, so you don't have to wade into the shitstorm that is, really, most comments threads:

"Has it never occured to her that she hears all this 'sexist abuse' as comments like 'use non-gendered language ('humankind')' are a red rag to a bull to pisstakers? Does she really not realise how ridiculous she actually comes across as? is there any self awareness at all?"

"Whilst I'm generally a supporter of women's movements for social and political equality, some things in this article seem a bit much. For example: please use non-gendered language ('humankind'). Why the hell does it matter if they say mankind? We're all adults here, and no-one apart from Foucault's spawn genuinely believe that slight alterations of language mean anything for women's rights."
Listen up: I'm going to start using the word "womankind", since it doesn't matter, and, come on, you know what I meant. I'm going to do this not just in friendly conversation, but in all of my classes, whenever I'm writing an article for publication, whenever I give a speech or presentation on any topic, and especially whenever I'm reading in church.
Most of my professors use "womankind", too, you know, because it's easier and, who cares? Changing it to the neutral "humankind" doesn't affect anyone and it's not going to solve anything. Politicians have picked it up, too. And clergy - priests, rabbis, imams, what have you - they have to use "womankind" a lot, and why bother changing it? It's been around forever, and it's not a big inconvenience to anyone.

Oh, and when I walk into a room to greet people of mixed genders, I'm going to say "What's up, you gals?" Then we're all going to hang out, maybe watch the NBA, or if no games are on, the MNBA. When they leave, I guess I'll hang out alone and listen to my walkwoman, or play on my gamegirl.

This exercise might have struck you as a little silly. Good. It strikes me as a little silly that flipping it this way doesn't occur to most people. And it strikes me as a little silly that a person who has heard themselves acknowledged in the language everyone around them uses since the dawn of fucking time can tell someone else that language doesn't affect them, and furthermore, that it's worth mocking someone who does feel affected.

Maybe language is a symptom of a "real" problem of male experience being considered universal and female experience being considered specialized (and therefore less valuable). Personally, I think it's more than that; I think there is an attitude and assumption built into all that language (or, that all that language was built ON), and using it perpetuates that problem. I think changing it would make a difference, because it would hopefully cause one to think about why the assumption present in that language is not ok. (Not to mention the thousands of women who would feel less stressed out by being reminded that society neglects and excludes them, for example, in church, or in the literature that we consider classic, or in speeches by their elected officials, or in a chat with their friends.)

But maybe you don't agree. In which case you have two options, as I see it: argue until you're blue in the face that changing the language fixes nothing! You're wasting your time! No one cares about this shit! Linguistics! Semantics!

Or woman up and just attempt to say "humankind" because there's no real reason not to.

Read More...