Standard

tactilefemme:

I’m SO annoyed by cis white gay men who use the term “girls” about themselves bc like I know they deal w oppression bc they’re seen as effeminate but also like, this guy in particular I’m thinking of benefits SO much from white cis male privilege and doesn’t at all take on femmeness in a way that challenges the majority of his masculine privilege. Idk maybe this is unfair but I’m rly annoyed, like girls feels like something feminine/female/women/women presenting/identifying people have earned (I don’t at all want to put limits on that he just doesn’t identify as femme/female/woman/womyn), and tho he’s read as gay that to me doesn’t make it ok for him to identify w the oppression of femme/female-spectrum people, even if femmephobia is a part of the oppression he experiences. Idk, I could be wrong, I just in general feel that cis white guys are super entitled to femininity and oppression (to rly borrow from words Katie used w me). It just feels annoying.

I’m hearing you for your frustration but I disagree with you. Doesn’t matter how much privilege he has, it’s great he’s playing with gender. We need more of it. I feel this post is more about you telling people how they should label themselves based on how you read them. I say that with respect though, even though I disagree with you.

Image

bisexual-community:

Please check your own privileges at the door: Sometimes we don’t have to look too far to find the people who persecute members of the LGBTQ+ Community(s). Be honest. How many of these have you used? And how many of these have been used against you?

Why Gay Marriage Will Win, and Sexual Freedom Will Lose – The Daily Beast

Link

therealestlword:

endracismandhomophobia:

therealestlword:

endracismandhomophobia:

In some sense, it doesn’t really matter how the Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage case it’s hearing today. The culture war is over on this front, and gay marriage has won. Even if it loses at the Supreme Court this term, it will win in the legislatures … because it is already winning in popular opinion. Few people much under the age of sixty see a compelling reason that straights should marry and gays should not. For that matter, my Republican grandfather is rumored to have said, at the age of 86, “I think gays should marry! We’ll see how much they like it, though.”

At this point, it’s just a matter of time. In some sense, the sexual revolution is over … and the forces of bourgeois repression have won.

That’s right, I said it: this is a landmark victory for the forces of staid, bourgeois sexual morality. Once gays can marry, they’ll be expected to marry. And to buy sensible, boring cars that are good for car seats. I believe we’re witnessing the high water mark for “People should be able to do whatever they want, and it’s none of my business.” You thought the fifties were conformist? Wait until all those fabulous “confirmed bachelors” and maiden schoolteachers are expected to ditch their cute little one-bedrooms and join the rest of America in whining about crab grass, HOA restrictions, and the outrageous fees that schools want to charge for overnight soccer trips.

I know, it feels like we’re riding an exciting wave away from the moral dark ages and into the bright, judgement free future. But moral history is not a long road down which we’re all marching; it’s more like a track. Maybe you change lanes a bit, but you generally end up back where you started. Sometimes you’re on the licentious, “anything goes” portion near the bleachers, and sometimes you’re on the straight-and-narrow prudish bit in front of the press box. Most of the time you’re in between. But you’re still going in circles. Victorian morality was an overreaction to the rather freewheeling period which proceeded it, which was itself an overreaction to Oliver Cromwell’s puritanism. (Cromwell actually did declare a War on Christmas, which he deemed to be sensuous paganism.)

We’ve been moving away from the Victorian view of marriage for a long time, which means that we’re probably due to circle back around the prudish front that drove Charles Dickens to lie when he left his wife for another woman.

The 1970s were an open revolt against the idea of the dutiful pair bond, in favor of a life of perpetual infatuation. The elites led the way—and now they’re leading it back. Compare Newt Gingrich or John McCain to the new generation of Republican hopefuls. Jindal, Ryan, Christie, Rubio … all of them are married to their first wives. Jindal met his wife in high school, Christie in college. By their age, McCain was preparing for his first divorce, and Gingrich was just a few years from his second.

Meanwhile, it’s becoming increasingly impossible to ignore the disastrous collapse of marriage outside the elite. It turns out that there aren’t a diverse array of good ways to raise a child, as the progressive academics of the 1970s had suggested. Or at least, if there are, they don’t include having children with an array of men you’re not willing to marry, and who will subsequently drift in and out of your life. And that, in post-sexual revolution America, is increasingly the norm in many areas.

But one major and more dystopian feature of actual contemporary twentysomething life is conspicuously absent from small-screen depictions: parenthood. Hard as it might be for Hannah and Mindy—and their viewers—to imagine, most American women without college degrees have their first child in their 20s. These young women and their partners—who make up about two-thirds of twentysomething adults in the United States—are logging more time at the diaper aisle of the local supermarket than at the local bar.

This would not be such a big deal except for the fact that many of these twentysomethings are drifting into parenthood, becoming moms and dads with partners they don’t think are fit to marry or at least ready to marry. For instance, almost 1 in 2 babies—47 percent, to be precise—born to twentysomething women are now born to unmarried parents. In fact, twentysomething women now have the majority of children outside of marriage, which—given that 30 is the new 20—makes them the new teen moms.

The reality is that children born to unmarried twentysomething parents are three times more likely to grow up with a disorienting carousel of adults coming and going in the home, compared to children born to married parents. This kind of carousel, as sociologist Andrew Cherlin notes in his book The Marriage-Go-Round, is associated with higher rates of teen pregnancy, behavioral problems in school, and substance abuse. By contrast, “stable, low-conflict families with two biological or adoptive parents provide better environments for children, on average, than do other living arrangements.”

Even as we’re understanding it, we’re losing the reasons to be suspicious of the old marital norms. When traditional marriage, with its expectations of monogamy and longevity, no longer means excluding gays, expect it to get more popular among affluent urbanites.

To be sure, it’s already popular—affluent urbanites are now quite conservative in their personal marital habits. They’ve just been reluctant to shame those who don’t follow suit. But with marriage freed from the culture-war baggage, we now have an opening for change. Think it can’t happen? Consider the cigarette. It was shocking for a woman to smoke on in public in 1880, nearly mandatory in 1940, and increasingly shocking in 2013 (for either gender). I wouldn’t be surprised to see out-of-wedlock childbearing follow a similar course.

The neo-Victorian morality will protect who you want to marry—male or female, or maybe even something in between. But the wider open marriage is, the less necessary it becomes to defend the right to carefree sex—or children—outside of marriage. One can imagine a Republican politician fifty years hence ruining his career when he throws over his husband and children for a younger man.

If I had to guess, I’d also put late marriage on the endangered list. I married at 37 myself, so I’m not judging, here. But if we want childbearing to take place inside marriage (and I think we do), then the average age of first marriage can’t get higher; it probably shouldn’t even stay so high. As that average age rises, you get two unwanted phenomenon on the tails of the distribution: babies born to unmarried parents at the low end, and couples who want children but can’t have them on the high side. So the current upper-middle-class tendency to push marriage later and later while people finish their educations and get settled doesn’t seem very stable to me—even before we consider the difficulty of finding a mate to match your settled life, which Keith Humphreys has dubbed The Problem of Grandma’s Lamp.

Of course, predictions are hard, especially about the future. Nonetheless, here is mine: whatever the Supreme Court decides, gay marriage will soon be legal throughout the land. But this will not mean that we drive ever onwards towards greater sexual freedom—rather, it will mean quite the reverse. The sexual revolution is over. And the revolutionaries lost.

I think this is a really thought provoking piece, and I will be formula to g thoughts on it for a while, as it echoes many of my fears. I don’t agree with all of it, and I don’t think that they’re right. I just think…

I’m curious why you felt you needed to say “I don’t think they’re right” even though you hadn’t really thought about it much yet? (Not an attack on you, just curious). Do you think the concept that marriage is a sham and a restriction of personal freedom is perhaps a really triggering thought for the younger generations who have been raised inside an atmosphere of repression and conservatism? Do you think younger people feel a lot of pressure to conform to ideas that are being painted as liberationary ideas when in fact they’re quite conservative? And do you think it’s strange that people believe they are sexually liberated even whilst they rush towards conservative institutions and ideals for security? A lot of activists from the 60s and 70s are aghast at the conservative illiberal nature of the younger generations.

Oh, no, to clarify, I’ve thought extensively on this topic. I made sure to include that I didn’t agree, because reblogging without such a disclaimer, people might believe that I agree with the piece, when that’s not true. However, I don’t have a fully formed answer, or I would’ve included that instead. I hoped to do exactly this and spark some discussion.

So, basically, I don’t think the generalization that non-straight people are no longer “fighting the good fight” against oppressive or assimilationist systems is true, and I think that our long history of being outside the norm has led to differences sub culturally that don’t fall so easily by the wayside. I think that in communities that otherwise fall outside the traditional lifestyle paradigm still exist and will continue the attempt to move beyond conservative marriage and nuclear family structures. I agree, however that they are not the majority, currently, and that queer youth will feel a lot of pressure to assimilate (though I feel that is nothing new, at all). I just don’t foresee that the nuclear family structure of two person child rearing marriages remain the norm, because of broader cultural changes.

I also think it’s “give up, go home” attitude is lacking perspective in intersectional thought. I think there are more factors at play than the middle/upperclass gay men and lesbians, likely white, capitalist, assimilationist, gender conforming/normative, cis folks.

Let me get off mobile and respond to your questions, though, it’s a lot to hold in my head at once!

Thanks for replying. You obviously have thought heaps about your position! I really love that, even in people who come to different conclusions/positions as mine. I started a website called throwingqueers.com. You can contact me through there if you like. It might be easier to discuss issues than reblogging each other here :)

Why Gay Marriage Will Win, and Sexual Freedom Will Lose – The Daily Beast