Why I'm Not a 'Feminist'

Via Ta-Nehisi Coates, E.J. Graff's commentary from Slate's navel-gazing on the use of the label "feminist" :

Who gets to be a feminist? It's the wrong question. And debating it leads to the wrong answers. Identity labels always mislead. 

They don't disclose the contents of the bottle; they proclaim that the bottle is powerful, meaningful, and important. Debates over who gets to wear those labels are tribal battles about who runs the group and who gets to patrol its borders, about who holds power. Declaring that someone is--or isn't--"really" white, black, Jewish, Christian, radical, conservative--or feminist--says nothing about the value of particular policies, ideas, or goals... 

Here's the debate I believe is genuinely worth having: What would full equality look like--and what do we have to do to get there?

I think including ethnic groups muddies the point a bit, but in the main I think this is exactly right. Anyone who believes that Glenn Beck is an actual heir to the mantle of Martin Luther King, has deeper problems that can not be corrected by fiddling with labels.

Indeed.

Because I am for equal rights for all people, I refer to myself as a "classical liberal" or "libertarian"; and while I understand that activists who concentrate on certain issues feel they need to label themselves as specifically interested in issues of a certain gender, race or other identity/classification, I think the specialization obscures the point of freedom and equality generally. I am a black man and a libertarian, but I am not a 'black libertarian' as a political identity or focus.

But 'feminist,' as a word, bothers me.  I'm not a 'homosexualist' because I believe in full and unfettered rights of gays (not to mention the diversity of queer identities not encapsulated in the term). I don't like the term "straight ally" because that perpetuates the ubiquitous war metaphor and accepts a barrier between straights and gays (or other queer identifications) when the whole point is equality. (This is the same tension present in the 'colorblind society' versus 'accept me as a black person and all that entails' narratives, but that's another story.) I just am more concerned with the views and laws that prevent equality and justice and less concerned with nominally identifying myself in relation to specific injustices.

Look, if you want to call me a feminist, fine. I liken it to "African-American" --it's not a term that I use for myself or others, for various reasons, but I'm not offended by it. It's just a preference.

"I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me."

H/T: Daily Dish

In Defense of the South

I don't really make excuses for my antipathy for a lot of "Southern Heritage." I don't like the way so many still call the Civil War the 'War of Northern Aggression;' or their use of the most offensive euphemism in history--their 'peculiar institution'; and I really can't stand the "libertarian" apologists that think the Confederacy itself was started for anything but keeping a chokehold on the liberty of others--namely, people like me and my family.

But, this is a rather fair rebuke by Michael Lind on some recent attacks on the South:

In a recent Washington Post column, Kathleen Parker quoted Ohio Sen. George Voinovich's assertion that the Republican Party is "being taken over by Southerners" to suggest that the GOP risks becoming a permanent minority party of the old Confederacy. In itself this is a legitimate point that I and many other critics of Republican conservatism have made for years. However, at Mother Jones, the blogger Kevin Drum used Parker's political argument as an excuse for all-too-typical liberal Southern-bashing. According to Drum: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual Southern whites who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, Southern white culture is [redacted]. Jim Webb can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]." Drum did the redacting on his own blog post, explaining he'd blacked out the offending text "on the advice of my frontal lobe."

Drum's creepy bigotry becomes clear when other groups are substituted: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual blacks who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, black culture is [redacted]. Barack Obama can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]." Or maybe this: "There are, needless to say, plenty of individual Jews who are wholly admirable. But taken as a whole, Jewish culture is [redacted]. The late Irving Howe can pretty it up all he wants, but it's a [redacted]."

I like the first page much better than the second page because it, as many Southern defenses in the past, devolves into a "but look at the blacks! They're crazy too!" defense. However, I share it with you because it's sentiment is right, if delivered somewhat poorly at the end with the "your blacks are as dumb as our rednecks" argumentation. (This resentment is probably because the policy preferences he highlights where blacks agree with conservatives are the exact preferences that ideologically alienate me from both blacks and conservatives. Anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, etc.)

Anyway, never let it be said that I never said anything in defense of the South on my blog.

Quote of the Day, Double Dish Edition

A Quote of the Day Two-Fer:

None of the leading Democrats really believes that our civil rights are being trampled on; including president Obama, who has still achieved nothing substantive whatsoever for gay Americans.

Oh, I forgot the cocktail party. Always great to throw a cocktail party for the gays. That's what they really want, isn't it? Just give them some cocktails, ask for more money and they'll forget about their civil rights.

Andrew Sullivan, 7/27/09

If you're a Republican, a lot of things are logical: the entire debt began the moment Obama took office; Bush and Cheney never tortured anyone, but Obama is about to; the WMDs really are in Iraq; the president has the constitutional power to send tanks into the streets to arrest any American without charges; deficits don't matter; Obama is a Kenyan Muslim impostor; and Sarah Palin was qualified to be president of the United States at a moment's notice.

Andrew Sullivan, 7/28/09

There are more than a couple issues I disagree with Sullivan on, but I think he, Greenwald, and Maddow are really sticking it to both parties, and rightfully so.

And I didn't realize until I typed the three names, but is it just a coincidence that three of the most thoughtful critics of Obama are openly gay journalists? (Also worth noting, the most forgiving of the three is the self-proclaimed conservative, Sullivan.) I think this probably has a lot to do with their open support of Obama's platform, and--like many of us less Left-inclined--their profound disappointment with the lack of "Change" on so many important, non-DNC issues. The rest of the Left refuses to come to terms with this, and that is to the detriment of all of us.

Quote of the Day

"I expected to be disappointed by Obama. It’s a little breathtaking how early and how badly, though."

-Jason Kuznicki, on Obama's move to the Right cop-out on gay marriage recognition.

It really is amazing that he has been so bad on even the few things libertarians thought he'd be good (or, at least, better than Bush) on.

NOM vs. RIM

The original:



The response:



The overarching theme:



Via Daily Dish

Homosexual Love=Abuse

A friend's facebook status reads:

Amy... was just informed that my link to the "Don't Divorce Us" video was "has been reported as abusive by Facebook users." Reposting out of spite.

For those of you unfamiliar with the video:


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

I'm a little too angry to post much of anything in response to the "abuse" report, but suffice it to say I hold whomever took the time to report the video as "abuse" in utter contempt. It is one thing to be for Prop 8/against gay marriage--or even against homosexuality, if that's your thing--but to actively be such an ass about it is simply infuriating.

Just once, I want to hear a rational explanation for why legal rights should not be expanded to include long-term, committed, homosexual partners that has nothing to do with religion. But, more often, I see absurd instances like this--or worse. I cannot take an argument seriously if it is entirely divorced from reason and simply based upon "because it says so in Leviticus"--lest we revert back to its barbaric punishments and other proclamations. The law (the greater sense of Law, not this law) is not in place to enforce religious morality--it is there to protect individual rights. Two people entering into a mutual and legally enforceable contract is a fundamental right and tenet of our society should not be subject to majority whim because someone's interpretation of Christianity disapproves.

My more measured comments on gay marriage here and here.

You Can't be Serious

Wait, no, she is:

Lesbians and gays say that without gay marriage, they cannot fully express themselves as they really are. But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone's feelings, but in all seriousness. How does gay marriage help a bisexual? I assume that if you are bisexual, you believe that you need to have sexual relationships with both men and women. If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don't you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality? If you choose to express just the homosexual side of your bisexuality, then aren't you gay? Likewise, if you choose to express only the heterosexual side, how are you a bisexual? Why is bisexuality not a recipe for infidelity?

As I commented on Townhall, it does not follow that because someone is attracted to members of both genders that that person is incapable of maintaining a monogamous relationship with one or the other. As a heterosexual man, I am attracted to women--not woman, women. That said, I am perfectly capable of a monogamous relationship. Just because I am attracted to my girlfriend/wife "X" does not mean that I no longer find another woman attractive in similar or somewhat different ways, but my commitment is strong enough to "X" that I remain faithful, and can be perfectly happy doing so.

Screwing around with such straight-forward terms is disingenuous and is so fallacious it cannot be reasonably referred to as "debate."

H/T: Julian Sanchez

Racism and Marriage Licenses

Alex Tabarrok makes some good points over at MR about the hysteria surrounding gay marriage:

I think it's time to restore freedom of contract to marriage. Why should two men, for example, be denied the same rights to contract as are allowed to a man and a woman? Far from ending civilization the extension of the bourgeoisie concept of contract ever further is the epitome of civilization. Our modern concept of marriage, for example, is simply one instantiation of the idea of contract.

Alex cites this piece by Stephanie Coontz in the NYT, where she notes:

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

I am usually hesitant to compare black/race issues with gay issues because I think the two are too often mistakenly conflated -- most often citing "just like blacks used to be" or some similar exaggeration. In the marriage debate, however, I think the comparison is completely fair. It is equally asinine to think that there is a legitimate public interest in precluding the benefits of a marriage contract between consenting adults whether they are of different races or of the same sex.

The 'sanctity of marriage' argument is just bullshit in the shape of a cross.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That...

But the House just passed a bill to "end" discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace:

The House bill would make it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

I think it is fundamentally wrong to fire someone because they are discovered to be homosexual and I think it is foolish for an employer not to hire someone strictly based on their sexual preferences (provided those preferences are practiced with consenting adults). That said, to do either should not be illegal. An employer's money is just that - their money. They should be able to do with that money what they see fit.

But, as Andrew Sullivan points out, not giving these protections to homosexuals isn't really fair:

But every other minority is federally protected from discrimination in employment; it is increasingly a form of prejudice to say that gay people can be fired at will from their jobs just for being who they are.

But prejudice in and of itself is not against the law-- nor should it be in the private sector. He does concede that his "libertarian heart is not thrilled by it" -- and rightly so. Just because something isn't "right" is no excuse to make it "illegal."

Let's go back to the law -- "perceived" orientation?

There is a gay couple I know back in my home state of Indiana. One, whom I will refer to as Jim, is a hard-working, responsible, respectful guy -- and a personal friend. The other, I'll call Barry, is a self-absorbed über-diva who has trouble finishing a sentence without calling someone else a "bitch" or a "cunt."

If I owned a business, I would hire Jim in a heartbeat. I wouldn't hire Barry if you paid me.

Now, Barry's work history aside, I have made this decision based on his personality, which is overtly "gay." It is not reflective of gay people at large -- for in my many interactions with gay and straight men I have not met another man like Barry (thankfully) -- but one could not mistake the fact that Barry is gay. If for no other reason, he wouldn't let you forget it.

But Jim makes no secret of his lifestyle either. He openly discusses gay issues, wears modest gay pride jewelry, and yuks it up with the girls at his place of business. His attitude is certainly not "butch" by any stretch of the imagination and a lot of people are not particularly surprised when they find out he's gay.

I could, theoretically, be taken to court for not hiring Barry under this law because I perceived a "gay" personality that affected my decision -- even though I would hire another openly gay man if given the opportunity. While my decision has nothing to do with his sexual preference, I could be forced to prove my fairness in court.

This issue all boils down to the fact that we cannot legislate fair minds. For minorities -- be they black, Asian, gay or whatever -- success comes harder. That is undeniably "unfair" -- but that is the way it is and has been for generations. Only through personal diligence, academic success, and increasing numbers of upstanding citizens from these groups can we lessen the stereotypes and bigotry which still exist all around us.

Furthermore, putting Barry in a job because an otherwise hostile employer fears a lawsuit will only hamper the efforts of gay acceptance because the employer will be forced to "tolerate" him. Toleration and acceptance are NOT the same thing.

President Bush should veto this not because homosexuals don't deserve fair treatment; he should veto this because they DO.