Being Amber Rhea

Quote of the day

From commenter violet in a thread at PunkAssBlog (about Sex 2.0, coincidentally enough!)

The thing about staring / oogling is that yes, it’s mostly part of the background, but it’s part of a substantially violent background. We live in a culture where women are constantly told, “be vigilant! he might be a rapist!,” and however problematic we think those exhortations are, they’re in the water, and getting stared at or ogled, particularly by strange men, carries this low-level implicit threat of violence, particularly if you’re a trans woman or a woman of color.

I know this feeling all too well and it’s something that’s damn near impossible to describe to a man in a way that they will really understand, if they are not already operating from a pro-feminist or feminist-allied (a.k.a., non-asshole) stance.

This really gets to the crux of experiential vs. vicarious appreciation of a social movement. Because the feeling violet describes above, the social context in which ogling/staring occurs, and wherein men will complain, “What, I was just looking!” – it’s something that most men just don’t get. And they can’t get it, in that first-person way, because they haven’t experienced it. What they can do is listen to women, believe us and not try to discount our lived experiences. In other words, they can not be That Guy.

Quote of the day

From Isabel the Spy:

I think about one thing on which I tend to agree, by and large, with radical feminists, which is: the vast majority of men, maybe all men, will never really get it. My male friends don’t really get sexism & feminism. They will probably always think my opposition to always using “he” as the default pronoun is kind of dumb. But, fuck, that’s true of a lot of my female friends too. I think about my male friend who’s one of those “I believe in equality but I have a problem with the word feminist” types, and the way he described with such natural incredulity meeting a girl who thought women couldn’t be funny until she took a women’s studies class. He didn’t understand how she could hold this belief, and his lack of comprehension on that matter, or the way he recoiled in genuine horror when I told him Harvey Mansfield thinks women who get raped just aren’t demure enough, means more to me than his self-identification ever could.

YES.

(Also posted on my Tumblr, so after the RSS shows up over there, this will be another infinite loop.)

I have a slew of things I want to blog about this weekend; I just haven’t had time during the week. The capitalism thread has me a bit riled, and I want to address some things there. Also, a public thank you to SnowdropExplodes for taking the time to write such long, detailed posts on his blog about how he envisions Communism working. A lot of it does not sit well with me and I have some criticisms lined up, but I’ll get to that

Also, I’ll post pictures of the guest bedroom/pole studio/my office, which we painted yellow.

Wednesday

Lots of things on my mind… I suppose I’ll just start writing and keep on until I’m too tired to type. And no proofreading!

~*~

In the “HOLY SHIT I’M AN ADULT” department, Rusty and I put an offer in on a house yesterday. It’s the first one pictured in this post. I haven’t blogged or Twittered about it much because I don’t want to jinx anything, and because I’m freaking out a little bit. Don’t get me wrong, I know this is the right decision and all that jazz; but it’s a BIG decision, and a major commitment. Signing a lease is one thing but getting a mortgage, that’s an entirely different level of “you better know what you’re getting into.” It looks like everything is going to work out w/ this house, but still, I appreciate any and all crossed fingers. The next few weeks will be a flurry of activity leading up to closing, and I intend to enjoy all of it! Then, after closing, there will be a flurry of activity leading up to moving in. Followed by a flurry of activity leading up to having the place looking decent enough for a housewarming party!

Priorities before closing: home inspection and termite inspection (duh); figuring out where the furnace is.

Priorities after closing: Security system; Orkin super-dousing because I don’t play around with roaches; personal pole studio; many bird feeders in the backyard.

A REQUEST: Please do not offer any unsolicited real estate “advice” in the comments!

~*~

I love Rachel Maddow. She and Suze Orman are two of my heroes. Initially I found Suze Orman annoying, but that was before I’d ever listened to anything she said – I just thought she was annoying because she seemed to shout so much. Then I realized the shouting is part of what makes her awesome. But, back to Rachel Maddow. How freakin’ cool is she?? However, I don’t like how in this New York Magazine article she says “I’m not very pretty.” Why the self-deprecation? No, she doesn’t conform to the general media-dictated ‘beauty standard’ for women, but so what? There’s no need to cast that as her not being pretty. It really bothers me. She is pretty, but it bugs me that there’s any discussion of it at all, honestly; when would you see a male pundit’s looks being such an issue?

~*~

I love love love this post at Shakesville, about Congress finally switching to gender neutral language. What is absolutely not surprising, of course, is the reaction to this news from a hell of a lot of people – whining that it’s “not important” and the feminists have their hair on fire again, blah blah. This is a perfect example of how privilege works. Inevitably, in every “conversation” like this, some dude will pipe up and say how there’s not some conspiracy against women and why don’t we feminists just shut up already, it’s just language, get over it. Well, first of all, I’m not fooled by anyone trying to lecture me on the way language works – I’ll bust out the learnin’ that earned me my linguistics degree any day of the week. But the main point is: no, OF COURSE there’s not a conspiracy – THAT’S THE POINT. No one is sitting in a smoke-filled room, rubbing their hands together maniacally as they devise ways to oppress women through grammatical rules. No one “means anything by it.” Everytime someone poses this as an “argument” it just makes me roll my eyes, because it’s like hello, you have just PROVEN THE POINT. The question of intent does not figure into this. The fact that it’s normalized, the default, we just accept it, nobody “means anything” by any of it – that is the problem! I can’t tell you how sick I am of people trying to argue intent against someone pointing out privilege in action. It makes me want to beat my head against a wall because they don’t seem to realize that LACK OF INTENT is the point!! If I hear one more person talk about how someone didn’t mean something maliciously, I’m just going to… well, I don’t know what. Beat my head against a brick wall?

Brief note about Old English: the commenter at the Shakesville thread who mentioned wyf and wer as the Old English words for woman and man, and man as the Old English word for human, is correct. The Old English word wyfman, which became woman, literally meant “female person.”

Also, I love the commenter who mentions how you’ll see exactly how big of a deal male-as-unmarked-case language is when you switch the genders and start using “she” as a general-purpose pronoun instead of “he.” It will blow some people’s minds, and some will get REALLY fucking hostile about it. The Regender tool is also a really interesting way of demonstrating how gender stereotypes are encoded in our language.

See also X: A Fabulous Child’s Story. Thanks to Catherine for showing me her original 1970s copy of the book; the illustrations are wonderful!

~*~

As I mentioned yesterday, Caroline has been doing a bang-up job with the UK prostitution law news. I have briefly glanced at the F-Word thread and even left a few comments at the Feministe thread, but for the most part unfortunately I haven’t had time to participate or do much blogging of my own on the issue. But from what I saw at the F-Word thread, it’s all the same bullshit “arguments” that give me a pounding headache. Kudos to Caroline, Ren, Natalia, and others for fighting the good fight; I’ll be back at it once I have some time, I promise. Even though these conversations with the antis feel SO repetitive, I believe it is extremely important to keep having them, because people’s lives are at stake, and if we don’t speak, then the people in power will continue to actively and passively commit violence against sex workers. Being uncomfortable or annoyed is not a justification for permanently disengaging from these issues. Absolutely, everyone must take breaks, because it is vitally important that we take care of ourselves. But that’s why it’s crucial to have many, many people involved in the sex workers’ rights movement, so that there’s always someone there to speak, and so that everyone can properly care for themselves.

Fundamentally, I just don’t get it, with these “arguments.” At the F-Word, for example – how much clearer could Caroline be? It’s not about whether you think sex work is right or wrong. It’s not about how it’s constructed in our society or why it exists or where it comes from. It’s not about wondering whether sex work would still be around after The Revolution. It’s not about discussions of “normalizing” prostitution, questions of whether sex workers can choose their work, debates about what exactly is being sold. IT IS ABOUT SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS. This should not be a source of debate. Feminists should be united on this, completely. It should be a foregone conclusion. That the conversation always drifts back to ideology, what prostitution “means” and that kind of thing, really disgusts me and astounds me. And this constant conflating of sex work and trafficking? STOP, ALREADY!!! This is what Sex in the Public Square held a week-long forum to address, but I guess most of the antis didn’t bother to read that, now did they. The way trafficking is ALWAYS brought into these discussions, such an obvious red herring but one that always leads to derailment, just floors me.

Sigh… Ren, I’m going to need another Typical file.

~*~

To say this essay by Latoya of Racialicious is powerful would be an insulting understatement. It’s entitled “The Not Rape Epidemic” and is the original version of the essay which appears in the Yes Means Yes! anthology. She has a trigger warning on it, so be aware of that if you’ll be clicking through.

And you certainly should click through, because I think this essay is a must-read, especially for men. The essay resonated with me on a very deep level, to a degree that I feel I can’t articulate. Women experience this shit all the time and most of us don’t say anything – because we know from experience that if we do, it won’t help and will likely hurt. One time a male friend remarked that he couldn’t really see a mutual female friend the same way after learning she’d been raped; I was so bothered by his statement that I said nothing. What I was thinking was, if you truly knew how many of your female friends and acquaintances had experienced sexual assault, you wouldn’t be speaking to most of them if you have such a problem with “seeing them the same way.” Men don’t realize how prevalent this is. They might hear the 1 in 4 stat but often I don’t think it really registers on a “yes, this has happened to someone I know” level.

I want to write more about Latoya’s essay but I can’t find the words. What I want to say about it is beyond words.

~*~

Tomorrow night I’m leading the Social Media Club Atlanta meeting. The topic is “Online Identity and Buzzword Bingo.” You can RSVP on Facebook or Upcoming – or just show up! (Though RSVPing is always nice.) Here are some links I’ll be using for reference material, if you want to read up ahead of time. There won’t be a quiz but there will be a Bingo game, with an appropriately self-referential prize.

• Sarah Dopp: Why I Write About My Life On the Internet
• Nelson “Nelz” Carpentier: The Real Nelz
• Penelope Trunk: Good blogging is simple: Write good posts (and be thankful)
• AV Flox: Hiring the Information Generation
• Caroline McCarthy: What I don’t get about all this hullaballoo over personal branding

And finally this gem from Laura’s LiveJournal, which is short enough that I can just post the whole thing. When I put the link in my browser it wanted me to log in, so I don’t know if the post was friends-locked or what, so I’m not linking; but I doubt she’ll mind me sharing this chunk of wisdom…

Just an observation from Twitter

Robert Scoble is a self-promotion machine. It gets tiresome.

I’m sorry, but I am about to un-follow ever media marketing PR link-spamming mongol because I am sick of their shit. The only topic more boring is…oh, I can’t think of any topic more boring.

That is all.

Heh.

I’m excited about the meeting, but also a little nervous! Please come out and help make it an interesting discussion. (It’s all in good fun, so I hope no one gets pissy about the words on the Bingo card.) Here’s the description again:

SMC ATL: Online Identity and Buzzword Bingo

When: Thursday, January 8, 7:00pm – 8:30pm
Where: Manuel’s Tavern – North Avenue Room

Thanks to Amber Rhea for leading the conversation and bingo game! Bring your bingo dauber and POV on these identity topics!

• Is your online identity different from your IRL identity?
• What does it mean to “manage your online identity”?
• Are there any off-limits topics on blogs? Who decides?
• Rethinking the personal/professional dichotomy and tearing down the walls of compartmentalization: yea or nay?

Note: this is what a dauber is.

~*~

And that’s a wrap. I’m getting sleepy, so it’s time for bed. Rusty and I are getting up a little earlier than usual tomorrow so we can go over to our potential new house and see what the traffic on Moreland is like at the usual time when we head to work. If we have to adjust our schedule to account for it, I don’t mind; I actually like getting to the office early. We just want to be aware!

This post is going to have a million tags.

Yep, I know the feeling well

Renee is right on with this:

I am sure that for most women this is an experience that we all communally share. The silencing can come in many forms, direct interruption, or criticism of our tone. How many times has a powerful woman been told that her voice has a nagging or whining quality to it? This reduces us to our biology and renders our opinions irrelevant.

Many women have become jaded and simply accepted this silencing without further thought. This is a mistake. When we allow men to control the conversation we are granting them power to control our social discourse. If men can always decide what is and isn’t relevant conversation our issues will never be significantly addressed.

Fear of being disciplined is not an excuse to become subservient. It takes courage to speak truth to power, but when we consider what is at stake, it is an act of gender annihilation to remain silent. Men will not engage about the harms of domestic violence, rape, pay inequity, childcare, femicide, and sexual harassment; these are womens issues. Even when we are speaking about benign subjects their interruption is a co option of our space and an expression of male privilege. It has far reaching implications because it infers (sic) that womens needs and concerns are secondary to their thought processes. The man that does not value your mind, views you as a fuckable object, or a mother replacement.

The next time you are interrupted look at the man who had the temerity to think that his words somehow were more important than yours and let him know that you were speaking. What you have to say matters and no amount of chest thumping testosterone should ever make you feel small.

Exactly

I fully support Ren declaring herself the god-emperor of Rome for the day.

Common sense, people. Let me show you it.

I do not understand that while there is no question that sexism affects everyone, there is such a refusal to see that there is a great difference between “slut” and “stud”. Or that cat-calling, honking, or otherwise making loud overtures towards a woman will, often, annoy the shit out of that woman and it is, generally, not something men have to deal with as often, if at all. I give a thumbs up to the idea that attraction is natural, but a thumbs down to “society expects/forces this behavior on us, thus I must”…the God Emperor of Rome believes in free will. And that both men and women are capable of employing it and using it to not do what society tells them to do all the time.

And seriously, I do not understand why more men are not, apparently, offended at the idea that they’re basically mindless automatons doing whatever society or “biology” (to which they often nebulously appeal) tells them to do. ‘Cause I’d be pretty offended if people were suggesting I’m incapable of making my own decisions. Oh wait, people are suggesting that, and yeah, I’m offended!

Sometimes my mind just boggles at the, well, mind-boggling stupidity of it all.

Which reminds me of the title of a post I need to write: “I am not a patient person.”

Woman’s body == sex, and related notes

Interesting post up at Uncool. This idea of a woman’s body as a signifier for sex is something I first discussed back in college, in my awesome Biology and Politics of Women’s Reproduction class. The professor had asked us to bring in magazine clippings of ads that use sex to sell their product. A lot of people brought in ads featuring scantily clad women. As we went around and each showed the ads we’d brought, the professor called these out and asked, “Why does this signify sex? This is a picture of a woman. Why do we understand the picture to represent sex?”

It was a real “a-ha!” moment for me.

I don’t think this is something nearly enough people consider, or that it even ever enters their mind as something that needs to be considered. There’s nothing to think about there, right? Sex sells… and we understand that even an image of a woman’s face or lips [can't find the photo I was looking for] means “sex.”

But, why? Talk about your deeply embedded cultural assumptions. We’ve got some unpacking to do. Because until we do that, there are a lot of other problems that will remained only partially dealt with at best, instead of getting to the root of the problem.

For example, Caroline says:

Now, to me, it seems reasonable to make a connection with street harassment (I’ve got a post in the drafts, will do very soon). Because naked women = sex, so to do ‘revealing’ clothes. Take, for example, the lady pictured (right, taken from Tom Paine’s blog). Sexy? Certainly this image would equate with sex in this society because 1) the jeans show clearly her figure and 2) there’s a lot of skin on display. Therefore, some men believe that sex is being ‘offered’ to them and whistling, leery looks, comments etc ensues. So, if women say, “No, I’m wearing these jeans because I like the way I look in them and they make me feel more confident and therefore happier, and it is not about attracting the attention of all the men on the street,” many will laugh and dismiss that as utter nonsense.

Why? Because, like we said, naked women = sex, and that attitude permits, in part, that sort of behaviour (obviously it’s by no means solely responsible). Blokes don’t want to wear their shirts in the summer because they’re too hot, whatever. Women want to wear short shorts or, say, cropped tops because…. what? They’re sexy? They’re trying to be sexy? Cos they’re after attention? Please. Some do, some don’t. Depends on the lass just as it depends on the lad.

I think the other thing at work in this example is entitlement, which as we know, is a big part of male privilege. Obviously it must be about the men, what else could it possibly be about? Surely she couldn’t have her own reasons for dressing a certain way, that’s inconceivable!

It’s really, really stupid. I mean when I really think about it, the utter stupidity just knocks me on my ass.

Unfortunately I see similar arguments coming from some feminists, and the fact that I know they’re not stupid at all points to just how entrenched this idea is. For example, in Caroline’s post she points to another incarnation of the ever-present hand-wringing discussion over why some women post naked photos online. It simply must have something to do with wanting male approval, right?

My reaction, again, can be summed up with this emoticon: :|

I think there is a discussion to be had over the relative lack of male bodies portrayed on some self-identified sex-positive sites; but getting hung up on the “women only do it for male attention” / “those sites are replicating existing power structures” argument will simply lead to a stalemate, preventing discussion of whatever the real issues are.

ETA: Also be sure to see Laura’s original post which Caroline was referencing. Meant to link it when I first wrote this post, sorry!

Assumptions and other annoyances

I’ve had this pinned in Bloglines for a while now. I quoted from it on my Tumblr, too. I guess I kept thinking I’d come back and write more lengthy commentary, but I realize there isn’t much else I could say, other than just: I relate. So I submit now without comment, a rather lengthy excerpt from Miss Syl’s post Type cast.

One thing that’s interesting about this internet world–and the written word in general–is the perception aspect. That is, the perceptions one builds of the people one reads. Much like reading a book where you create a mental image of the character, people read a blogger’s words and filter them through their own imaginations and experience. And whether deliberately or no, a picture of what the person would be like to interact with in “real life” develops–you invent an imaginary voice for the person, an imaginary height, body type…you think you “get” how that person would move or respond or act in real life.

I suppose this response is only natural. But it’s good to remember that this imagined perception is all you, not them.

…

Assumption #3: Because I talk about sex it means I want to fuck you, or that I’m an emotion-free Fembot designed specifically for your pleasure.

This one I feel really deserves no explanation–it should be an obvious fact of life. But it is shocking to me how often men themselves are shocked by a woman who will talk about sex with frankness and openly say she enjoys it. And equally shocking to me are the assumptions some of them make based on that reality. I mean, come on fellas, is it really that rare these days? When a GUY talks to you about sex, do you assume he wants to fuck you, regardless of his orientation?

So for the record: just because I talk about sex with you doesn’t mean I want to have sex with you. It means simply that I like talking about sex as one of many topics I enjoy talking about. It doesn’t mean I am trying to turn you on, even if you do get turned on. Saying that I enjoy sex doesn’t mean I’m thinking of having it with you. Necessarily. Of course, any of those conditions may be true: in some cases I might want to fuck the guy I’m talking to, or tease him to arousal, or I might be thinking about having sex with him. But this is not the rule by a long shot.

…

End point: A blog gives you very little to go on. Even when people are totally genuine, we are all of us more than we appear in the little glimpses of ourselves we give you. I myself have been surprised multiple times when I’ve met online people in real life and something about them has completely clashed with my perception of them.

And, I will end by posing to my readers the same questions Miss Syl poses to hers (the “what do I look like” one is less relevant, since I post plenty of photos).

I’m curious: Just for fun, what image of me do/did you have in your head? What do I look like, sound like, act like, dress like? I promise to debunk all misconceptions offered with the real picture (unless you ask me not to).

And for those of you who already know me off blog a bit–or for anyone else–what misperceptions do you run into most between your writing and in-the-flesh selves?

Quote of the day

From Octogalore, in response to an idiotic “men’s rights” commenter (wait, that was redundant)…

[S]ubstituting a gender rights moniker for feminism would suggest that men’s rights are currently under attack in the same way. That’s why it’s ridiculous.

Racial, poverty, immigration movements all believe in “justice for all” but you don’t hear anyone advocating subbing something like “income rights” or “color rights” and for good fucking reason.

I’m sorry that men feel left out of the appellation (really, shedding tears as we speak) but it should be fairly obvious that focusing on the areas by far most vulnerable is the only way to get things done.

YES.

Spring cleaning Gmail

Detritus from my “Stuff to Post” label (with my notes to self, where included):

January 4, 2006

• http://davemerrill.livejournal.com/310920.html
  Maybe reference in post about ATL intown neighbhorhoods, addressing homeless problem, etc… (also idea of “yuppies”?)

February 21, 2006

• AJC women-to-woman porn thing
• UGA Beer class
• For the CSS blog – CSS3 selectors – http://www.evolt.org/article/CSS3_The_new_Frontier/17/60319/ and http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200601/css_3_selectors_explained/

February 26, 2006

• The Top 10 Clues That You Are an Amateur Blogger
  Hmmmm…

March 16, 2006

• Objectification (expand on this in detail)
• Newspaper usage of gay and transgender
• C Loaf transdude story
• Nikki’s rant about contraceptives and “men’s rights” BS
• Gender and blogging – also the implicitly sexist remark on the referring blog about blogging tools being “tricky” – http://a.bunchof.us/2006/03/14/gender-and-blogging/

August 29, 2006

• Interesting comment to blog about

November 27, 2006

• Interesting:
  

  Is it a white liberal American thing this fallacious idea that there are always two equal sides to an argument and that the answer or the truth must lie somewhere in between, thus everybody must have their say in every forum? It certainly seems to be a popular belief on those blogs that give a platform to anti-feminists to air their views.

  YES and I should probably write an essay about it. “Free speech” and “the right to hold an opinion” have been entirely misunderstood in this country, I think. And of course, there are never ONLY two sides, and the ‘truth’ is NOT necessarily in between.

  The right to free speech is NOT the right to speak everywhere, all the time, and the “right to an opinion” does not mean opinions cannot be debated or examined – or ignored.

  Some people seem to be really insecure about their opinions, and yet want them protected: as though they were like body parts they were dissatisfied with, but do not want to be teased about. Of course, one shouldn’t be mean to people about such things, or about experiences they’ve had … but that is a very far cry from deciding or not to engage someone’s opinion, or to disagree with it, or not to give it weight.

  People do NOT understand this, it seems, and I think it is some sort of ideological effect – and control mechanism – “free speech” gets twisted around to mean censorship of free thinking, if I am being clear.

  (Comment by profacero at http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/trolls-and-anti-feminists/)

  [Ed. note: From Heart's blog, aaahhhh!!!]

August 2, 2007

• http://saraspeaking.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/what-kind-of-friend-are-you/
  

  Since the gist of the thread is about whether a statement has to intend to be sexist in order to actually be sexist, we have the following quote:

  Assuming that there were no hard feelings intended from the offender how do you make the offender aware of what he has just said? Who wins when it’s largely a difference of opinion?

  “who wins?” That’s your problem right there. This isn’t about winning or losing. This is about you having said something that offends/hurts someone else, and whether you’re going to continue offending/hurting them by arguing about the offense, or whether you’re going to apologise and attempt to make amends. In short, whether you’re going to be hostile or friendly.

  Frankly, I don’t think you’re a very good friend at all if you’re going to take the former route. Denise has a good analogy:

  Say you’re sitting at a table with several friends. You stretch, and unintentionally hit the person next to you in the face, hard. Is the correct response to berate the person who has been hurt for leaning forward, or is it to apologize and keep greater awareness of your surroundings? Nic’s response has been telling the person who has been hit to stop being so sensistive and continuing on in ignorance. Intent is a part of what matters. Your friend would likely find the anger at being struck easier to let go of once he or she knew it was an accident. BUT that the injury was unintended does not make the injury go away. A failure to apologize and an insisitence that you are in the right when you injure people because you’re not paying attention makes you look like a jackass.

  Exactly. Not meaning to do something doesn’t undo the fact that it has been done. I didn’t mean to overdraft my bank account, but that sure as hell doesn’t change the fact that I’m a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I didn’t mean to hurt my friend’s feelings, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is, in fact, hurt. And I can either argue — oh, oops, I mean “have a difference of opinion” with her as to the state of her feelings and the justification thereof. Or I can be a friend, apologise, and kiss and make up.

Some of these links might not work anymore. I haven’t checked. Now I can clear out that label, though!

What it’s like

Straight privilege… this is it.

Very moving post up at Shakesville, written by Portly Dyke:

I doubt that most straight, cisgendered people think about, or notice, how frequently they touch their partner in public in ways that are not necessarily “sexual” (in addition to kissing, cuddling, and the odd bum-squeeze) — ie. holding hands, walking with an arm around the waist, smoothing the other’s hair back out of their eyes — nor do I think that most straight, cisgendered people are probably aware of the fact that when I touch my partner in public, it’s nearly always a considered act.

I don’t obsess about this — as in — it doesn’t eat up my days and nights — and I’m probably about as “out” as a queer can be in this country — but every single time I take my partner’s hand on the street, or toss my arm over her shoulder or around her waist, hug her goodbye or hello, I do a little, tiny “security sweep”.

I notice who is around, and where I am, and what the energy feels like — before I touch her in public. It’s a tiny amount of attention, most often, but it’s there.

I just noticed recently that in an unknown situation that seems “sort of” safe, (like walking in a crowded mall) I’m more likely to curl her arm through mine than to hold her hand — which may seem counter-intuitive, since arm-in-arm actually affords much closer body contact — but after I thought about this, I realized that walking “arm-in-arm” is something that I see straight girl-friends do more often than holding hands (after they’re 12, anyway). In considering this choice, I also realized that in many situations, I’m happy to give any possible bigots in an uncertain setting the option of assuming that we’re just a couple of straight girls.

Which sorta sucks.

I recognize this as the internalized homophobia that it is, but I can’t deny that it’s present in me. The fact is, that I stop, look, and listen before I demonstrate physical affection toward my beloved in nearly every public setting that is not clearly “queer safe”.

A must-read.

(Yes, I’m aware I’m speaking in sentence fragments today.)