You've Got that 100% Assbackwards...

One narrative that pisses me off until my eyelid twitches is when privileged leftists dismiss concerns of oppression, imperialism, etc. with shit like "after the revolution, there'll be no X".  After the Revolution, there'll be no sexism.  After the Revolution, there'll be no racism.  After the Revolution, there'll be no imperialism.  And so on.

The thing is though, that they have it totally backwards.  While it is true that a fully Marxist system (in the opinion of, well a Marxist) is one without any oppression or social class distinctions, the entire point of the Revolution (whatever means you think are acceptable there, democratic change, direct action, violent resistance, etc. you can't really be a leftist and not think it's necessary) is to try and end oppression.  It's a trivial truth that in a fully Marxist society sexism will not exist, for example, because eliminating sexism is required to have a fully Marxist society.  You can't have a fully Marxist society and not have gotten rid of your racism, sexism, imperialism, anti-queer oppression, etc.  It's not that we will have the Revolution and then all oppression will magically end, the Revolution IS the struggle to end oppressions.  Any Revolution that does not seek to and fully strive to end all forms of oppression is not a fully Marxist Revolution, any end state that could be reached while still allowing oppression and class distinctions is no Marxism.

So don't you privileged leftists dare say that oppression will be over after the Revolution to dismiss concerns of other leftists in regards to specific types or systems of oppression.  That is so absolutely backwards.  Ending all oppression is the goal of the Revolution, it is the aim of the Revolution.  Marxism is at its very core supposed to be a theory for dismantling oppression.  Any way that you fail to do so is a failure to achieve total Revolution and total Marxism.  Ending sexism, racism, imperialism, cissexism, anti-queer oppression, classism, etc. are necessary parts of the Revolution, not potential fringe benefits. 

On "Safe Spaces"

There are some debates around the notion of "safe spaces" and here are a few of my thoughts:

A space cannot be safe for oppressed people and, to some lesser degree, their supporters if it does not have a general atmosphere and understanding of working towards not engaging in oppression against them.  A safe space for a queer person must be a non-homophobic space, a safe space for a trans person must be a non-transphobic space, a safe space for a black person must be a non-racist space.

Can any place with privileged people (especially with them in the majority) be a completely non-oppressive space?  We all internalize and participate in oppressions, but this is especially true for privileged people, as they benefit from the oppression.  Yes, there are privileged people who work on trying to stop engaging in oppression/combat oppressive systems, but this is often a hard issue with a lot of struggle.

However, if you make it an exclusive space, you end up risking having to police the boundaries of the oppressed class.  Also, it's obvious that even without that issue, you can't just set aside issues of making safe groups which will be mixed by their nature, as well as the issue of multiple axis of oppression.  If I can only have a group of low income (or low income raised), disabled, queer, genderqueer, atheist, etc. people for any activity, that's going to make it really hard to organize any groups at all.

That's not to say that I think there's never any value in exclusive spaces, I just don't think they are an ideal solution in many situations.

I tend to feel that "safe space" like coalition, is something that you build as a part of an ongoing process.  You can't just declare that something is safe, or tell someone something is safe if they express concerns about things going on. 

Maybe it would be better to try and work on building safer spaces rather than declaring safe spaces.

Hunger Strike

In honor of the eleventh day of the UVA student hunger strike, here's a little Temple of the Dog:

More on the hunger  strike here http://blog.aflcio.org/2012/02/27/uva-students-football-player-on-hunger-strike-for-workers-living-wage/

And Jill Stein of the Green Party has put up contact information for the UVA President on her candidacy website (she's a Green Party Presidential Candidate): www.jillstein.org/virginia_students_hunger_strike?utm_campaign=va_keystone_1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jillstein

Administrative Inconvenience

A cis hetero woman who gets married can easily and cheaply change her name.  She need not spend hundreds of dollars (or spend large amounts of time applying for fee waivers if she is impoverished).  She does not need to meet publication requirements.  She need not demonstrate her need to change her name.  Nor does she have to face great difficulty if she has debt or a criminal history.  She does not have to worry about being treated as suspicious if she moved recently and she will be presumed not to be a fraud.

Yet, to change my legal name so that I no longer have to have my hated birth name on all of my documents, must do all of these things (except demonstrate need to change the name, because my current state of residence is one of the few that does not require strong reason to change a name, I also have no criminal record, but this is by coincidence the petition does inquire about these things).

This is one of the many cases where the needs of the dominant group, in this case cis heteros engaging in normative cis hetero activities, are deemed perfectly acceptable and convenient, yet everyone else’s needs are deemed troublesome and as warranting suspicion.  If a cis woman getting married changing her name is no trouble, a trans person changing their name shouldn’t be either.

Is Genderqueer a Political Identity?

Yes and no.  No, being genderqueer isn’t like being pro-gun control, it is an identity, not a position.  Does being genderqueer identified say something about me and the way I view gender?  Yes, but by that standard, so does the identities of those who are cis, are binary IDed, etc.  If my gender identity is political, so are binary IDed cis people’s.  Binary cisgendered identities are only seen as apolitical insofar as they are treated as the norm and as the default human.  

We often do this with marginalized or stigmatized identities.  The rights and lives of trans people, queer/lgb people, people of color, people with disabilities, women, poor people, colonized people, etc. are seen as objects of public scrutiny and as “political issues”.  But marginalized identities are not inherently more political than centered ones.  Oppression is not primarily an “issue” of the oppressed, rather it is an issue with the oppressors.  If being against an enforced binary gender system is a political position, than the opposite position, being in support of an enforced binary system, is also a political position. 

You know what?  I would fucking love it if being genderqueer were as easily accepted, acknowledged, and given rights as being cis and binary and we didn't have to engage in political and social struggles.  I would fucking love not having to fight for rights, not having to navigate through unfavorable legal and social minefields, not having to swallow the vomit that rises in my throat when confronted with being forced to put myself in a gendered box.  It would make my life so much easier.  I would love to not have to be “political”, but until that day comes, I won’t accept being told to stop fighting to protect myself or others like me (and others not like me who are given shit too).  The frontlines of this “political” struggle isn’t a game to me, it is my life.