Anti-Monkey Butt Powder and Lady Anti-Monkey Butt Powder, sent in by Jennifer N.:

Alexander is a “little kid,” Isabella is a “little girl” (thanks Heather F.!):

Snippet from a consumer survey taken by Alison M.:SMBC t-shirt order page, sent in by Mordy O.:

At REI, Jackie H. noticed, there are “road bikes,” “mountain bikes,” “recreational bikes,” “urban and commuting bikes,” and… “women’s bikes”:

And no “men = people, women = women” roundup would be complete without a sports website. As Amy H. says: ”Basketball, Running, Soccer, Football, Baseball, Training, Women. Sigh.”

For more, see an earlier roundup of the neutral male and our posts on the Body Worlds exhibit, “regular” t-shirts and women’s t-shirts, scientists and female scientists, Best Buy assumes all customers are male, stick figures and stick figures who parent, and default avatars.

This post originally appeared at Sociological Images. Reprinted with permission.

Print | Email | PDF

The ad offers nice context for the new effort by LEGO to capture The Girl Market. Their new line of LEGOs, LEGO Friends, has gotten a lot of attention already. In the circles I run in, it’s being roundly criticized for reproducing stereotypes of girls and women: domesticity, vanity, materialism, and an obsession with everything being pastel. Kits include a house, cafe, animal hospital, tree house, beauty salon, and an inventor’s lab. Choice examples:

The new line also includes a new LEGO figurine that is taller, thinner and more feminine—with boobs. There is no innovation here; it is the exact same makeover that we’ve seen in recent years with Dora the Explorer, Strawberry Shortcake and Holly Hobbie, Lisa Frank, Trolls and Cabbage Patch Kids, My Little Pony, Rainbow Brite, and Candy Land (or visit Sociological Images’ Pinterest collection of Sexy Toy Make-Overs).

The company is framing their new line for girls with “science.” Executives are going to great lengths to explain that the line is based on research, using anthropologists who spent time with girls in their homes. The frame gives the company an excuse for reproducing the same old gender stereotypes that we see throughout our culture. They can shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, what are we to do? This is what girls want.” In this way they are trying to make it clear that they shouldn’t be held accountable for the messages their products send.

But it’s no accident that girls feel alienated from LEGO.

According to Business Week, LEGO has spent most of the last decade focusing their products on boys. They have deliberately designed products that they expect will appeal to boys and included boys almost exclusively in their marketing material. Today LEGOs are shelved in the boy aisle is most toy stores.

So, basically, what LEGO has done over the last few decades is take a truly wonderful gender-neutral toy, infuse it with boyness, and tell every kid who’ll listen that the toy is not-for-girls. Now, stuck with only 50 percent of the kid market, they’re going after girls by overcompensating. And, to top it all off, they’re shaking their heads and doing “science” to try to figure out girls, as if they’re some strange variant of human that regular humans just can’t get their head around.

In fact, girls don’t feel like the toy is for them because LEGO has done everything in its power to ensure that they will not.

The market research manager sums up Legos’ impression of what girls want this way: “The greatest concern for girls really was beauty.” How ironic, because the true beauty of LEGO is its ability to inspire creativity, not enable conformity. They somehow knew that back in 1981.

(An ad that deserves being looked at over and over.)

Thanks to Anjan G., Sangyoub P., Rachel W., Dolores R., Erin B., Christie W., and Paul K. for suggesting that we write about this!

To tell LEGO to stop selling out girls, sign this petition from Change.org:

This post originally appeared at Sociological Images. Reprinted with permission.

Print | Email | PDF

To start off, how might you sell nail polish to men? Call the brand Alphanail and associate the product with sex and warfare, of course, with, as submitter Gabriella says, “women as props and men as warriors”:

Clémentine C. noticed that Canova, a British company that sells candles, has a line of candles specifically for men, identifiable by the manly images and scents. While the other candles are given names like sweet pea or watermelon, the men’s versions have more detailed names, with allusions to “bringing out the dog in you,” “the sweet smell of success,” and “a splash of motor oil.”

The Cassis & Fig with Added Danger candle includes a silhouette of a woman behind a martini glass, reminiscent of a stripper pole:Jennifer W., Kirstie McC., Savannah G., Kristina K., Dmitriy T.M., and Scott C. informed us that CIL Paints, a Canadian company, is trying to masculinize paint colors. The website provides men with a range of colors for their “ultimate man caves.” Scott saw this ad for the line in Toronto’s Metro back in September:

What makes these colors masculine? A simple name change. The website helpfully translates the “real” names of their paints into man-speak:

According to a video created as part of the ad campaign, a quick name change instantaneously changes men’s perceptions, making them compliant with women’s wishes (“The colour she wants with a name he’ll agree to”):

Indeed, the central message is that men are incredibly stupid and easily duped; women just have to manipulate them a bit:

Now we’ve got the house painted; it’s time for some chores! Anjan G. let us know that appliance company Philips designed an iron just for men:

The man-friendly features on this “robust power tool for ironing,” described on the Philips website as the “Anodilium soleplate man iron,” include “more power, more steam, more performance” to give you “an endless excellent gliding experience.”

Now, let’s say that you’ve just ironed all your clothes with your ironing power tool, and now you want a little rest. Hmmm, you might think, I’d like a nice warm beverage, but I don’t want to appear girly. Thanks to Elisabeth M., we discovered that Man Teas has an answer for you, with their goal of making tea safe for men:

…most of the specialty teas out there have stuff like rosehips and lemon zest in them (what the hell is “zest” anyway?) and they are packaged and merchandised to appeal to women. What guy is going to pick up a box of Cozy Sleepytime Tea with a pajama’d teddy bear on it? Not this guy.

At least three different varieties of their teas are bacon-flavored. And to make sure every element of your tea-consuming experience is sufficiently manly, you can steep your tea is this manly T-Baggin Tea Bag:

And finally, along with your tea, perhaps you’d like some healthy cereal, but you’re worried that health foods are associated with women. Well, don’t worry; Tesco sells Chunky Muesli, a “cereal for men.” It’s made safe for men with construction-zone packaging:

Thanks to Sophie K. for sending us the photo!

This post originally appeared at Sociological Images, reprinted with permission.

Print | Email | PDF

In my 32 years on this earth, I’ve owned a total of two black Barbie dolls: Brownie (named by me) and Christie (named by her Mattel box). Brownie and Christie gave good advice, performed medical procedures on other dolls and married white Kens (since my black “Ken” came many years later and was named Steven). They had brown cottony manes close to the texture of my own hair. After a session or two of “beauty shop,” Brownie sported a puffy mullet and Christie an afro bob, which became shorter and shorter over the years.

I don’t know whether owning black Barbies was one reason I had adequate self-esteem as a girl despite pervasive messages that black wasn’t exactly beautiful. The self-esteem-protecting potential of natural-haired Barbies appears to be the hope underlying the Georgia toy drive. “We wanted to show the girls that basically, it’s okay the way God made you,” says Jennifer Henderson, a member of the natural-hair-care meetup group Fro-lific that organized the drive.

One might assume that Fro-lific’s implied goal of teaching the girls self-love and self-acceptance should make me, a black mother of a black daughter, stand up and cheer like everyone else seems to be doing … right? But here’s the thing: As a feminist mom, I kinda hate Barbie, whatever her color. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Barbie represents everything I hate in the world: capitalism, sexism, racism, heteronormativity, white supremacy.

How does black Barbie reinforce white supremacy, you ask? Well, first, look at her facial features and body shape. Remind you of anyone? Down to every detail, black Barbie is standard-white-Barbie painted brown. I’m not suggesting Mattel add superficial “exotic” markers like full lips and a voluptuous butt. Rather, I’d echo a call made by scholar Ann Ducille in her 1994 essay “Dyes and Dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandising of Difference”:

Could any doll manufacturer or other image maker—advertising and film, say—attend to cultural, racial, and phenotypical differences without merely engaging the same simplistic big-lips/broad-hips stereotypes that make so many of us grit our (pearly white) teeth? What would it take to produce a line of doll that would more fully reflect the wide variety of sizes, shapes, colors, hairstyles, occupations, abilities, and disabilities that African Americans—like all people—come in?

These are all questions we–and Fro-lific–should think about if we’re giving Barbies (nappy or not) to kids. Barbie may be too pervasive to ignore, but at least the dolls can be a starting point for important discussions about black girlhood. Hell, about girlhood, for that matter. Can we question Barbie’s big breasts and tiny waist as markers of True Womanhood? Why is Ken Barbie’s significant other? Why do these black Barbies have to wear Jay- Z’s “Rocawear” clothing line?

If you’re looking to empower girls, there are non-Barbie gifts better suited to the task. Various other dolls on the market can help kids explore racial and ethnic diversity without the toxicity. And one way I consciously empower my own curly-haired kid is to read children’s books with her about self-acceptance and self-love: Happy to Be Nappy by bell hooks, I Love My Hair by Natasha Anastasia Tarpley and The Colors of Us by Karen Katz are three of my favorites. These books do not reduce race to skin color or other stereotypical markers, and they let me and my daughter bond by relating the plotlines and pictures to our lived experiences.

Barbie’s not going anywhere—I’ve more or less accepted this. In fact, my kid has several Barbie dolls of varying shades and with varying hair textures (birthday presents from folks who didn’t get the feminist-mom memo). My daughter knows how I feel about Barbies, and she understands that I respect and accept her decision to play with them.

What I haven’t accepted is teaching empowerment to girls through Barbie dolls. Because black girls rock, and they deserve more.

Print | Email | PDF

The color scheme is no accident. In fact, the division of toys based on stereotypical gender codification is extremely intentional. These stores spend a significant amount of money on consultants who help them create toy aisles that will boost sales and who believe that pink and blue will do so.

I’ve written previously on the negative impact of such stringent gender divisions in the toy aisle. At the time, I had little hope that it would ever change.

However, just this past week, a store in the U.K. pleasantly surprised me. Hamleys’ toy store, a London fixture, has scrapped the pink and blue signs littering the store and replaced them with gender-neutral ones in red and white, the store’s signature colors. Toys will now be categorized by type, rather than gender.

The change came after a monthslong campaign by Laura Nelson, a U.K. blogger who has been working tirelessly on promoting gender equality, demanding that Hamleys to change the way they stocked their toys. Nelson celebrated writes on her blog,

The campaign worked! Thank you all for your support (moral and otherwise) and encouragement.

However, Hamleys denies that Nelson’s campaign influenced the switch. A spokesperson told the press:

While we welcome comments from all customers and interested parties on improving Hamleys, in this case we regret that the changes to our signage were not due to any campaign. We are in the process of detailed planning for a complete refit of our store on Regent Street. As part of this planning, it was made clear to us from consultants and customer surveys that our store directional signage was confusing. As a result we commenced changing all our signage in October of this year in order to improve customer flow.

Nelson tells me she doesn’t buy it:

I think it’s a remarkable coincidence that the store changed their signs a few days after I wrote to the CEO, and a few days after I spoke to Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank that controls Hamleys. Also, when I spoke to their marketing team at the same time as sending the letter, Hamleys did not mention that they planned to changed the signs–surely if they were going to do so, they would have told me and all this could have been avoided! I think that, as it is so near to Christmas, the change of signs could only be due to campaign pressure. Iceland is a progressive county in terms of equal rights and opportunities, so I suspected there would be interest and pressure over there.

If Hamleys was telling the truth, I was curious as to why marketing dictate non-gendered signage. I asked Nelson if she had any ideas on the matter.

I really have no idea. I would be very interested to know whether gender-codified toys actually increase revenue or whether there is no difference. I suspect the latter, and I think all people want is to be able to find their way around with minimum confusion. When the toys are categorised by type, there is no confusion whatsoever. I am surprised that Hamleys did not use the opportunity of this campaign to show that they were a forward-thinking organisation and had listened and responded to public opinion on this issue.

We can only speculate as to the actual reasoning behind Hamleys’ decision. But in any case, it’s good news: Either raising a stink about gender roles can push retailers to rethink the pink and blue divide, or at least one megaretailer believes it to be simply bad marketing strategy.

Of course, retailers are only one piece of the puzzle. As Nelson writes, “We still have work to do on the nature of the toys themselves, and the gender stereotyping of their marketing.” Witness the new line of Legos “for girls” to be released this January. The lines features hot-pink figures slightly larger than the traditional inchlong ones, so that handbags and hairbrushes can be fitted into their hands. Anyone want to raise a stink?

Photo from Flickr user Mac_filko under Creative Commons 2.0.

Print | Email | PDF

And when Jon Hamm, star of the hit TV show Mad Men spoke out about rape as a men’s issue, he was lauded as a feminist hero.

Hamm and Craig portray two of the most notorious womanizers in popular culture. Perhaps the contrast between their characters and their off-screen stances was what drew attention–or perhaps their hyper-masculinity made their feminism more palatable to the masses. If the latter, does that mean the feminist movement needs macho men?

This was one of the questions that arose when activists, academics and artists gathered in Los Angeles earlier this month to discuss the role of men in feminism. The panel, held at Santa Monica College, had a provocative premise: Are men who speak out about women’s issues overprivileged as feminist leaders?

The feminist community often voices a mix of adulation and uneasiness when a man speaks up for women. Although many feminists would love to have more male allies, some worry feminist men drown out women’s voices or take up limited feminist resources. Others are concerned that feminism suffers from a phenomenon–common to female-dominated professions–in which men are whisked up the “glass escalator,” getting leadership and speaking roles ahead of women. For instance, as panelist Shira Tarrant pointed out, on the violence-against-women lecture circuit, male speakers are often paid more than female speakers. Male feminist blogger Yashar Ali, whose piece “A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not ‘Crazy‘” was one of the top-ranked Facebook articles of 2011,  agreed, saying “Sexism only helps me. I’m just being absolutely honest.”

Most panelists agreed that these privileges are unfair, and that men should not receive special treatment when they do feminist work–but that men have a place in the movement. Activist Pia Guerrero and professor Hugo Schwyzer pointed out that men, too, stand to benefit from feminism. Disagreeing with Ali, they argued that although women clearly suffer far more than men in a sexist system, sexism limits the possibilities of all people, denying both men and women the chance to be fully human. Therefore everyone has a stake in gender liberation.

Others spoke of a need for a male feminist perspective because of the specific ways that sexism impacts men. Kalil Cohen, founder of the Los Angeles Transgender Film Festival, talked about the consequences for men of transgressing prescribed gender roles, saying that men who are perceived as feminine face even more aggression than women who are perceived as masculine.

So that brings us back to Daniel Craig in drag—do we need manly men to speak up about sexism, because their voices will be better heard? And when they do speak up, should they receive special credit or attention?

What do you think? Panel organizer Melanie Klein is planning a follow-up event this spring (we’re looking at you, Jon Hamm!), and she wants YOU to get involved.  These panels are meant to redress the lack of meaningful debate over men and feminism.  You can see tweets from the last panel at Twitter hastag #menandfeminism, and submit questions for the next national go-round to info@feministfatale.com.

Photo of panelists at the December event: Hugo Schwyzer: Author, speaker and professor at Pasadena City College, @hugoschwyzer, Pia Guerrero: Executive Director of Adios Barbie @pia_AdiosBarbie, Kalil Cohen: Founder of the Los Angeles Transgender Film Festival @TGFilmFestival, Shira Tarrant: Author of Men and Feminism, professor at California State, Long Beach @shiratarrant, Yashar Ali, Founder and writer for The Current Conscience @yashar, Jacqueline Sun, National Campus Organizer at Feminist Majority Foundation @jacquelinesun. Photo courtesy of JustSarit Photography.

To hear an interview on KPFK radio with the panel organizer, Melanie Klein, and panelists Hugo Schwyzer and Pia Guerrero, listen here.

Photo of Daniel Craig from Wikimedia Commons.

Print | Email | PDF

When a predator tells a child she is “special,” he is using the ultimate con, filling a huge void in a vulnerable child’s life. This grooming behavior allows a criminal full access into a child’s psyche to make it easy to sexually abuse the child. This behavior has been seen in almost every Catholic Diocese in the United States.

The story is replaying in college sports, where powerful men at Syracuse and Penn State have used their positions of power and fame to prey on children whom they also called “special.”

Now, new victims are coming forward: Hollywood’s former child actors. Surprising? No. These are children who have listened to powerful people tell them since infancy, “You are special.”

Alison Arngrim of “Little House on the Prairie” fame was one of the first former child stars to speak publicly about being sexually abused and advocate on behalf of other victims. Repeatedly molested by her brother, Arngrim found help early in life and now devotes her career to speaking out for others.

Since November, showbiz crimes have exploded in the media. A former “Sesame Street” composer, a child talent manager, and a casting agent for child actors have all been exposed as predators. In fact, one predator told authorities, “What they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry.”

Corey Feldman is the latest child actor to come forward to tell his story of abuse. He won’t reveal the name of his predator.

Why the prevalence and secrecy in Hollywood? The same reasons abuse flourishes in the Catholic Church: Attitude, Fear, Cover-up and Power.

Director Roman Polanski pled guilty in 1977 to drugging and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl. He then fled the country. Despite this, Hollywood has come to Polanski’s defense. Writer Gore Vidal went as far as to call the victim a “hooker.”

Polanski is still working, and actors are begging to star in his films. Would a working child actor tell anyone if Polanski abused them? Not if they wanted to ever work again.

Like in the Catholic Church, Hollywood’s children are disposable and replaceable.

But it’s the cover-up is the most insidious.

When Hollywood keeps silent about allegations of abuse, the veneer of the silver screen and television remain untarnished. The public can pay big money go to the movies, subscribe to cable, buy endorsed merchandise and believe in the illusion. We all ache to believe that the children on the screen are safe.

Just like Catholics ache to believe that if they put money in the collection basket, their children will be safe from abuse.

We have lost too many in young Hollywood and the Catholic Church to suicide, drugs and anguish. Our children are not disposable, and it is time that both the Catholic Church and Hollywood respect and cherish our greatest asset.

Photo of Corey Feldman from the Warner Bros film “Lost Boys:The Tribe” from Flickr user thirteenthbat under Creative Commons 2.0.

Print | Email | PDF

So, singer, actor and (God help us) author Tyrese decided to drop a little wisdom on the black lady folk during a recent interview with NecoleBitchie.com. He warns us about being “too independent”:

Huh.

There is nothing about the descriptor “independent” that is negative on its face, at least not based on Merriam-Webster’s definition above. My parents taught me to be independent. When I became old enough to drive, my father taught me how to check my tire pressure and oil and how to change a tire. I keep my AAA membership payed up, but I know if roadside service can’t get to me, I can take care of myself. To be independent is to be free. Because I can handle an auto emergency, I’ve felt free to crisscross the country on road journeys points southwest to northeast.

What could be wrong with being free? Nothing, unless, of course, you believe that it is not advantageous for women to be “not subject to control by others” or “not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood).” Would Tyrese caution men this way? Would he warn them against not needing women?

Sexism lies at the root of the actor’s monologue. In the regressive language of modern black relationship advice, it is not enough for a black woman to want a man deeply, with all her heart and soul. Male egos must always be fed with the idea that women are unfulfilled and incapable of living without a man. We must avoid being uneducated free-loaders, sayeth Tyrese, while being sure to remain needy and helpless enough to be attractive to men like him.

Tyrese’s “helpful” advice carries the condescension and arrogance typical of mansplaining, plus a dash of amorphous homophobia. What was that weird sidebar about homosexuality? No doubt, some ill-spoken repetition of the idea that gay black men harm black women’s marriage chances with their gayness. Silly.

But here’s another thing Tyrese’s advice is: racist. It is specifically black women who are singled out for some of the most dehumanizing and denigrating messages about their lovability and marriageability. Indeed, Tyrese directs his comment “especially” to black women. Our culture remains in a place where it is acceptable to assume black women, apart from other women, are intrinsically wrong and in need of correction. It is not just mainstream sources like ABC News that serve up “What’s wrong with black women?” programming. Black men like Steve Harvey, Tyrese and Jimi Izrael are getting in on the action. And no one blinks an eye.

Can you imagine comedian Jeff Foxworthy holding on to his largely white audience after penning a book and taking to the airwaves telling white women how their faults are keeping them single? Would Josh Duhamel, who appeared with Tyrese in Transformers, be getting many calls in Hollywood after, apropos of nothing, derailing an interview to to talk about how white women are too damned self-sufficient for their own good? Could Ira Glass say:

[White] women’s unrealistic standards are probably born of bedtime stories about handsome, rich men on majestic horses delivering damsels in distress. Girlfriends often tell similar apocryphal tales about the friend of a friend who nabbed a rich, hung sugar-daddy who saved them from a life of dishpan hands and lower-middle-class drudgery. Through the influence of popular media and the misguided advice they give each other, sisters combine these images and presumptions to draw a composite of a perfect [white] man.

…and keep his job at NPR? His coworker Jimi Izrael wrote that and more about black women, and he is not only featured on National Public Radio, but was excerpted on The Root, where he once penned a column.

Sexism is real for all women. But the combination of femaleness and blackness is particularly devalued, sadly, too often among even black men. Tyrese reveals his expectation that women must bend to meet male needs. I don’t see in the above video a man who values black women and loves them. I see a man concerned that black women might be too capable, too free. Independent women have options and demands, as men do. Independent women are choosy, as men are. A strong man has no problem meeting partners on an equal playing field, but a weak man needs a weaker partner to feel strong. Any man preaching against independence for women unwittingly lays himself bare.

Reprinted with permission from What Tami Said.

Print | Email | PDF

During the 2010-11 school year, nearly 48 percent of students in grades 7 through 12 in the United States said they experienced sexual harassment, according to a new nationally representative study by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) which I co-authored. Additionally, nearly one in three students (28 percent) said they had witnessed harassment that school year.

The forms of sexual harassment most often cited by students included someone making unwelcome sexual comments, jokes or gestures; being called gay or lesbian in a negative way; and being shown or sent sexual pictures that the viewer didn’t want to see. About 30 percent of students said the harassment happened through text messages, emails and social media.

Even more alarming, 13 percent of girls and 3 percent of boys said they had been touched in an unwanted sexual way, and 4 percent of girls (plus 0.2 percent of boys) had been forced to do something sexual.

Since the report’s release, a few people have emailed us at AAUW wondering why this matters, while others have observed that the harassment is just “kids being kids” and that it is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. Some readers here may have similar thoughts.

We disagree. This issue does matter and it should not have to be a rite of passage. Our students, our children deserve better.

Most students (87 percent) who had been harassed said it negatively impacted their life. Common reactions to sexual harassment included feeling sick to their stomach, having trouble sleeping and having a hard time studying. 12 percent of students said they had missed days at school because of sexual harassment and four percent said they had changed schools. Students should feel safe at school, and the learning environment should not include worries about sexual harassment.

With sexual harassment dominating the news, it is a perfect time to start a dialogue with youth about the issue. Age-appropriate discussions about consent, respect, personal boundaries and bodily rights are crucial, and can begin even before middle school. These are especially important conversations to have with boys, since the majority of students in AAUW’s survey identified a boy or group of boys as their harasser/s.

Speaking with students about sexual harassment and what to do about it can make young people better equipped to deal with it throughout their lives, and hopefully it can prevent would-be harassers from harassing in school and, later, in the workplace. Discussion of sexual harassment is exactly what many students said they wanted to see happen at their schools: 31 percent of students surveyed said they wanted to have in-class discussions on the topic, 24 percent wanted schools to hold workshops and 22 percent wanted to be able to access online information.

It’s important for educators and parents to know that a similar percentage of boys and girls in seventh grade (48 percent) said they had experienced sexual harassment. Much of this harassment was sexuality-based, where students said they had been called “gay” or “lesbian” in a negative way. It’s thus clear that in middle school particularly, efforts must include dealing with the harassment that boys face, too. This need was brought home by the other big headline of last week on the related issue of child sexual abuse involving young boys.

By high school, far more girls face sexual harassment than boys. In AAUW’s study, nearly two-thirds of twelfth grade girls (62 percent) had faced sexual harassment the previous year.

And that’s not all.

A look at the broader picture shows that high-school age girls face harassment in many places, not just on their campuses. My research on street harassment showed that, by age 19, nearly 90 percent of women had faced sexual harassment from strangers in public places. Even more alarming, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network reports that girls ages 16 through 19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault. It’s crucial, then, for adults to talk to girls about not only what they may face at school but also on the streets and on dates.

If sexual harassment is addressed when students are in school, there is hope that the current generation of students will then face less sexual harassment in the workplace.
Part of the #HERvotes blog carnival.

Photo by flickr user csessums under Creative Commons 2.0

Print | Email | PDF

“What word? Queer?” She nodded and her face looked like she was holding back a heartburn belch.

“It’s just so crude. And unkind. People think unkind things when they say that.”

That can be true. And people think unkind things when they don’t say that–and sometimes, people make unkind comments and policies, regardless of whether they ever articulate a word like “queer.”

I understand what my mother’s saying though. The word “queer” has been used as an insult–the kind of thing a person says as he’s kicking in your teeth. It could be hard to hear something like that said of your child–even if your child’s the one saying it. I get it. And she’s not re-claimed the word as I have. Not only does using the word positively deprive it of its negative power, I think it’s accurate. I am odd–and not just in my sexual orientation. Queerness is defined relative to the way things are usually done–and sometimes difference is cause for celebration. I am queer, and the family I’ve created is queer too. Indeed, I hereby extend an invitation for you to engage in queer parenting. (See, it’s true what the homophobes fear: I am here to recruit you.)

Let’s be clear though, lest my broadened definition of queer parenting–as anything unusual–fails at clarity. I am a woman who creates romantic partnerships with those who are anatomically similar. I have one son who’s in college (and because you might be curious, he romances the ladies) and my son’s father has been “married” to a man for more than a decade. (I use “married” in quotes because the stability of his relationship still affords him none of the thousand-plus privileges currently offered to hetero-relationships in our nation.)

I am indeed concerned with the specifics of making a family and raising children, as a queer–meaning homosexual–parent. I’m also very aware that sexual orientation is not always the queerest thing about my family.

Have you noticed how it’s easier for some people to accept gayness if it looks like a traditional monogamous marriage focused on children and a mortgage? It’s ironic not to be able to marry, because really, when gay people marry, they don’t seem nearly as scary. We also don’t seem as fearsome when we’re gender-normative – when the men look manly and the women look feminine. And privilege comes with not looking scary. The less queer we seem, the easier it is to move through the world and not experience discrimination. Do you notice how that’s true with a variety of forms of not fitting in?

And does that mean that we should always teach our children to take the path of least resistance? My (hetero) friend once asked me if I was relieved that my son is heterosexual–he’ll experience less discrimination that way, after all. Of course I don’t like the idea of him ever being harmed, and I think this question puts the focus in the wrong place. We NEED difference–and we need to learn how to be more respectful and appreciative of various ways of living too.

In my experience, gender difference is often the bigger act of queerness than just being gay. I’m a feminine woman–all is well and seems normal in my gender expression. And yet, the women I date tend to be masculine women–and I don’t mean Ellen DeGeneres masculine. I mean k.d. lang masculine, and then some. (Although, check out k.d.’s newest music video. Now we’re talkin’.) And then there are all of the other ways my family’s queer. Like, we didn’t let our son watch a lot of television when he was small. And we value extended, non-blood-related family. My son didn’t spend a lot of time in daycare or after school programs–when he was seven, I arranged my work schedule to be home for him after school. Unless I was traveling. See, we also travel a lot and he did an independent study program in high school so he could have a broader range of experiences. We eat organic food and we take up our civic duty by writing and speaking and demonstrating and boycotting in order to shape our social world.

We’re a QUEER family. Being gay is just part of it. It’s how we are gay–and everything else. Do I want my son to be hurt by that? Of course not. And I don’t want conformity to every mindless trend to diminish the brilliance of his life either. Here’s the thing: We try to be as clear and up front about who we are in the world as possible. I strive to take responsibility for the privileges I have, and to confront the oppressions I endure. So far, my son impresses the heck outta me with his ability to take responsibility for his life–and his ability affect the world around him. We all have a responsibility to create a caring and respectful culture; maybe being queer has made that a little clearer.

My mother may continue to cringe at the word “queer.”’ And, I invite you to consider the idea that queerness can be a pretty good thing. It may be difficult to be different, and it can be really worthwhile. In the broad sense of the word–every person who has ever gone against social norms and values in order to improve them is queer. Anyone who persists despite disapproval, who considers consequences before buying, who loves when hate prevails, who fails to exclude others due to popular judgment–anyone who builds family consciously–is queer. Gandhi was queer; Buckminster Fuller was queer; Bob Marley was queer. It’s okay to be odd. Really.

It is my pleasure to offer stories and commentary on queer parenting, in the particular sense of how sexual orientation and gender variance affect families. And I also invite you to consider what it means to encourage difference when it arises in your children, and in yourselves. In a world that values and rewards conformity, we need more models for uniqueness and compassion. Go ahead. Be as queer as you need to be–at least until “queer” becomes a respectable way to live.

Photo from the 2008 San Francisco Pride Parade courtesy of Flickr user nerdcoregirl under Creative Commons 2.0

Print | Email | PDF