n a v i g a t i o n

- blog

- f.a.q.

- politics

- follow me

b l o g s

- The Daily Dalia

- The Ryan Thomas Collection

- Shiney Trash

- Life Hacker

- Kotaku

t w i t t e r

During the Superbowl, I think two years ago, Snickers released the following commercial that many did not like (including myself) because of the standards it places on men and how it restricts the flow of gender, so to speak.

The commercial starts of pretty funny then the whole "do something manly" and hair ripping is ridiculous and only strengthens the hegemonic standards of masculinity.

With the amount of negative feedback they received from the commercial you think they would have learned their lesson, but instead they recently released another commercial which also attacks men (literally) who may not be so confined by gender. Take a look:

Hearing someone say a guy has to do something like a "real man" is like hearing nails on a chalk board because people should be able to do whatever they want to do, so long as it does not hurt anyone else, without fear of being insulted or assaulted.

Unfortunately that will never happen, but you can always boycott companies that promote crap like that. Everyone loves a good boycott.

Labels: consumer rights, hegemony, lgtbq, tv

  ¶ 9:13 AM -  1 Comments - Links to this post

Yesterday I donated blood, a pint of that good ol' red stuff to help save some lives. One thing that has always bugged me about donating blood is the pre-screening questions that are in place to disqualify people from donating because their blood is unhealthy to be recieved, or potentially unhealthy to be recieved.

Although it makes sense that you would not want to take blood from a person who has West Nile Virus, the fact that sexually active gay men cannot donate is completely asinine. Not only are gay men not allowed to donate but women who have had sex with a man who had sex with a man are not allowed to donate. The only reason they prevent this class of people from donating is because the high risk of AIDS. They test all blood for AIDS anyway! Why can't the dude just say yes I am gay but I do not have AIDS, simple enough! They asked me, a straight guy, if I had AIDS, I said no, and they took my word for it, apparently gay men are liars? I think it is time the federal government stops supporting myths like AIDS is a gay man's disease, and start focusing on reality.

Normally I would simply avoid the offending organization, sort of like the boycott on the San Diego Manchester Hyatt, but not giving blood means that some poor sap who needs it wont get it, that does not really feel like justice. So that is why I continue to donate, but there has got to be something that we can do to let the government know that their policies are antiquated and myth based!

Labels: law, lgtbq, politics

  ¶ 2:41 PM -  3 Comments - Links to this post

During a 4th of July Speech at the former home of our very own Thomas Jefferson (of course he is famous for writing the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, well, that is when the sent it at least), President George Bush gave a speech in which he quoted Thomas Jefferson about the greatness of democracy. The quote is as follows:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

That was Bush's version of the quote, the actual quote reads:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

Jefferson here is clearly criticizing religion here, and he was a known opponent to religion. Personally I am not a religious person yet I do accept people's religious beliefs, most of them that is, but I do agree with Jefferson. Religion has played a critical role in history in mainting the oppressive political regimes.

Actually, religion is still used as an excuse to oppress. The clearest example is Iran or Saudia Arabia which forces women to wear veils and criminalizes women for being raped. This trend is not unique to the Middle East, the US still uses religious as an oppressive means, this is why we still are denying full and equal rights to those whom identify as women and/or queer.

Is it a surprise that Bush edited the Jefferson's quotation? No. Should he have edited the quotation? Of course not. Removing this line changed the entire significance of Jefferson's quotation and helps further define Bush as a Christian leader, not a leader.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/bush_edits_out_jeffersons_reli.php

Labels: Bush, history, lgtbq, politics, religion

  ¶ 11:08 PM -  0 Comments - Links to this post

Yesterday I went and saw the movie Wall - E. The movie was about the environment, human sloth, and of course love. Before the movie was released there were rumors that the movie only had 10 minutes of dialogue; there is more than 10 minutes but not much, but even with the lack of talking I thought the movie was excellent. The one and only bad thing about this movie is that it is a Pixar movie which means the theater was packed with kids *shutters.*

One kid directly behind me decided to dictate everything that was going on in the movie, and continued to do so after his mom asked him to stop. He did eventually stop but before he did he said something kind of interesting. When the second robot was introduced, Eve, this boy immediately said "That's a girl robot," and then referred to Eve as a she and Wall-E as a he for the remainder of his in depth analysis. This got me thinking:
1) When in a kids education/socialization do they learn the necessity to assign gender to things like robots?
2) What about Eve made it look female and what about Wall-E made it look male?
3) And what sort of consequences does this have in long term conceptions of gender and gender roles?

And my conclusion:
1) From the second they are born. "It's a boy" or "It's a girl" posters are plastered everywhere to announce the sex of the child. I propose that, instead of describing the sex of the baby it should say, "It's alive and healthy, and that is all that really matters."
2) I have no idea, here is a picture, maybe you all have some insight? http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/features/wall_e/wall-e_3.jpg
3). I think if kids are taught gender and gender roles at a young age then it simply reinforces the strict concept of roles which can only slow down feminist and gay rights movements.

Anyway, the movie was really good, if you hate kids it may be smart to wait a couple of weeks to see it or just rent it. Or you can see it now and just listen and analyize what they say.

Labels: hegemony, kids, lgtbq, movies, patriarchy

  ¶ 9:51 AM -  5 Comments - Links to this post

Everyone knows by now that the gays can marry in California so I am not really going to go into it. I also will not go into detail about my beliefs of gay marriage because I plan on having that as one of my opening things in my politics section, but here is a brief overview.

Many people say gay marriage as a two sided debate. There are conservatives who argue against it and their are LGTBQ activists that argue for it. I am going to present a third alternative that Queer Theorists argue which is basically the complete deconstruction and reconstruction of marriage is necessary for it to be truly equal. Marriage is a heteronormative institution; heteronormativity is the idea of the "perfect" citizen which will have these characteristics: whiteness, straight, married, able bodied, young, etc etc. Thus, by its very nature, marriage is sexist, homophobic, racist, ageist, ableist, and so on. When gay couples get married they take on all of the negative characteristics of the heteronormative institution. Some argue that, by entering it gays can change it from the inside out but I believe this to be untrue because rates of domestic violence between gay and straight couples are equal, and domestic violence is a serious symptom of the heteronormative institution of marriage and domestic violence (and all sexual assault) would not exist in a world that rejects patriarchy and heteronormativity.

Bottom line, it is great that gays can get married but I don't know if I see it is an extremely important aspect of the quest for true gay rights.

Labels: lgtbq, marriage, oppression, patriarchy, politics

  ¶ 6:31 PM -  6 Comments - Links to this post