lgbtqqia etc

anonymous asked:

What are your views on gay marriage/homosexuality? That is one thing that deters me from becoming more Orthodox, I am very pro gay rights.

I am also very pro-equality. To be honest, the gay marriage thing was one of my biggest hangups in my decision to convert Orthodox. It simply doesn’t make sense for G-d to forbid people from being together. It doesn’t help that it’s a Noachide law, so it’s applicable to goyim too.

My position as an ally within the Orthodox community is very different than if I were LGBT+ myself (check out aspoonfulofvodka and anxiousandrogyne for those experiences — if they don’t mind me referring you to them). I don’t have to worry about facing stigma or discrimination, and I know for sure I’ll be allowed to get married after my conversion. For me, it’s not a pragmatic problem. It’s an ideological problem, and that’s a different battle.

We are obligated to judge favorably; we are not supposed to oppress others; we are to be kind, generous, accepting, and loving. How many times does the Torah say to be kind to one’s neighbor, to follow our G-d, to generally be decent human beings? I don’t have an exact number for you, but the answer is MANY. How many times does the Torah forbid homosexuality? Twice. It is far more important that we are good to one another, that we give one another the same rights and privileges that we ourselves would expect. The prohibition on homosexuality is (terribly enough) still a mitzvah, but I would argue that the Torah mandates human decency first.

As Rabbi Shammai wisely said, “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.” Do I understand how Leviticus 18:22 fits into this definition? No. Not at all. Do I believe that it does? Yes.

There are no good answers, Anon. No matter what kind of theology I throw at you, a mitzvah is a mitzvah. I ultimately decided that I am a Jew (that is, I have a Jewish neshama) and halacha is the best way for me to connect to Hashem. I don’t understand how the pieces fit together — indeed, I loathe the way they fall — but I believe that Hashem sees a bigger, more egalitarian picture.

I’m really sorry that I don’t have all the answers. I wish I could assure you that there’s a good explanation for everything, that it’s really a big misunderstanding, but I can’t. I can only tell you that Orthodox Judaism is not incompatible with human decency, and that it is a great mitzvah to stand up for the oppressed.

(Also: pro-equality Jews/gerim should join in on this conversation because I think Anon could use some different perspectives here.)

[Picture: Background: 6 piece pie style colour split with beige and woodland green alternating. Foreground: a head-on photo of a disgruntled looking white sheep. Top text: “'homosexuality is found in 4500 species. homophobia is only found in one” Bottom text: “really? I had no idea we had the means to determine a non-human animal’s identity”]

anonymous asked:

Some question the usage of words referring to sexual acts to express distress: "This sucks [dick];" "I'm screwed; "I'm fucked;" etc. I don't know the history of these words, but I'd wager they're couched in hegemonic masculinity; i.e. although men often tell women that these acts are meant to be pleasurable, their slang usage suggests that, while it's OK for women to suck a dick or be fucked, men are to avoid these things. Or perhaps it doesn't even suggest that it's OK for women to be penetrated. It could also just be a case of cultural lag, though.

Anyway, "fuck" as in "Fuck yeah!" or "Fucking awesome!" is clearly a horse of a different color. I'm curious what you think the implications of this word are in these contexts. Actually, I'm willing to bet there's a body of research on this already; I'll probs pillage JSTOR later.

Really interested to see this asked because it’s a point I’ve brought up several times with friends. But usually, the most agreement I get is ‘Huh? Maybe…’

I was in a politics lecture last semester, and I got really upset when the lecturer made a comment about 'getting shafted’ to which most of the audience (on a politics course - men) laughed heartily.
I left feeling like shit and everyone I spoke to said I was getting upset over nothing.

But here’s the thing. As a person with a cunt who enjoys having sex with people with penises, I find what he said to be an issue.

Think of the people who enjoy sex with people with penises - not exclusively, but largely, these people are heterosexual women, gay men, and bisexual men and women (there are many other people, but those are the big three I suppose). 

Now look at the language… “I’ve been fucked”/“I am screwed”/“I’ve been shafted”/“We’re buggered”/etc etc etc

This is a lot of links between having something negative done to you, and having a penis inside of you.

I imagine their is a lot of research and theory on this, and I will probably go on a search of JSTOR myself later!

As for the second context of 'fuck’, in which it switches from a verb to purely being used as an intensifier for an emotion (negative or positive), I personally can’t see a problem (any thoughts?).

notpalmate-deactivated20140116  asked:

"But to take and cut up and change the meaning of the term ‘drag queen’, something people identify as and get enough stick for already, is NOT okay. They are not her words to chop up and use, and it is not okay for her to associate the term ‘drag queen’, with a choice between being a ‘drag’ OR a ‘queen’."

not trying to be some butthurt internet trool but this offended me as writer. no word BELONGS to anyone and is up word use as any artist, or non artist for that matter, chooses. you may disagree with that creative choice but it's more wrong to say it wasn't even a card on her table of choices to validly make.

using a word that a LARGE percent if not her entire demographic is familiar with and the turning into a bit of deeper meaning about being who you are is actually quite intelligent. especially since i think that most of her fans, rather than casual listeners, know and admire her use of symbolism and metaphor and know the points she consistently tries to bring across and therefor were more likely to get the overall point of the song.

which isn't your race, gender, sexual preference, wage, social standing, etc. doesn't matter in society. but the instead regardless of what it means in society you should be proud of it because regardless of it you are you and you must go on another day and you should be happy with who you are as a person rather than be miserable about the parts of yourself that you cannot change.

she may have intended it to be a gay anthem but really i believe it's an anthem about loving yourself and who you are because, fuck the judements my society makes. baby, i was born this way.

Look, I majored in language and linguistics at college, so I appreciate that language is fluid.

But, more importantly, language is SOCIAL. A word means nothing if it only means that to you. Words gain their meaning through shared use and shared definition. (Wittgenstein is SUCH a babe)

Drag queen is used by many people, it has a definition, and it is an important definition.

For Gaga to use it in such a way that is detrimental to its current use, and frankly, in a pretty uninspired run-of-the-mill play on words, is not okay because she is completely misrepresenting drag queens as being something to move past, something that gay men need to move away from. In her “pro-allthesexualities” stance, she is policing sexualities and forms of expression.

If we get into linguistics, I will never sleep, and that is not a good thing. So I’m leaving this here.

This is a place for sociological critique and discussion, not the defence of a marketed feel-good message that ignores the realities of so many peoples’ lives.

thebermudalocket  asked:

First of all, "Born This Way" is NOT about just homosexuality. Rather, it also encompasses bisexuality and transgenderism, which is where "Don't be a drag, just be a queen" comes from. She's referring to the closeted transgendered people, NOT gay people. Just to clarify. lol.

No, it isn’t just about homosexuality. I did point out her casual mentioning of ethinicity, class, and disability.

“Transgenderism” is, I’m pretty sure, not a word. And “Don’t be a drag, just be a queen” is hardly trans-positive.

“drag queen” = a presenting man who, regardless of sexuality or gender, dresses (usually for the sake of performance) as a woman.

“a drag” = a boring person, someone who spoils the fun.

“a queen” = (in this context) a “fabulous gay man”.

That line has nothing to do with celebrating trans folk. It says, don’t dress as woman, don’t be boring, don’t ruin the party, be a “fabulous gay man”.

Drag queens =/= trans folk (or, as you put it “closeted transgendered people)

nedispersonne-deactivated201209  asked:

1) re: race vs. ethnicity
race refers to strictly physical attributes (asian, black, white etc.)
ethnicity has more cultural and historical nuances (variations in culture, diaspora, language) ex. Chinese vs. Vietnamese vs. Japanese-->all considered share by share many different historical and cultural practices and languages

2) re: Will&Grace
I prersonally appreciate the show because I see it as satire of the dynamics between various gender/sexual orientation stereotypes (ex.
"fags" and "hags", Jack's "gayness" in contrast to Will's "gayness" in contrast to Grace's many boyfriends) ...

The thing that worries me about these kind of satire, regardless of how witty it is, is how many people just DON'T get it and completely miss the nuances and ... because it's on maintstream programming what is seen on tv about a "deviant" reality/lifestyle (gay men in NY of all places) is suddenly the benchmark for gay experience everywhere.

I'm just going to leave a quote someone said to me not too long ago:

"I totally support and understand gays--I watch Will&Grace all the time!--and let me tell you, you NEED to bring a gay guy shopping with you; they're just so creative ya know? And they just instinctively know what looks good on you!"

1. Exactly, that’s why I’m confused… I was under the impression that ‘race’ (referring to physical attributes) was largely scientifically a wobbly concept (as there aren’t that many physical attributes of import), and that 'ethnicity’, referring to historical and cultural backgrounds, was a more appropriate term due to its reference to the tangible social affects drawn out of a historical (and largely continued) belief (on the part of colonisers, etc) in the existence of 'race’.

Does that make sense? Am I WAY off mark?

2. Exactly. It did something for visibility. But what it made visible were largely limiting stereotypes.

Thank you for this!

tal9000  asked:

In regards to your recommendations for books, specifically the ones you recommended about gender:
The Female Eunuch isn't worth reading, and Greer's racism, cissexism, hatred of sex workers, hatred of feminine women and so on are bad enough that she should never be mentioned uncritically. See for more details about the specific book.

As for Butler, I haven't read her, but plan to (unlike Greer). However, I don't generally trust cis writers on the nature of gender at all. Writing about what gender is by necessity means writing about what it means to be trans*, and I don't trust cis people to write about that.

I haven't read any of these, though, just saying what I can tell without reading; I'm probably going to read Gender Trouble sometime soon so that I can properly criticize it if nothing else. As for the others, if I never read any Greer until I'm dead it'll be too soon. The Second Sex is on my to read eventually list, though, I don't really have anything to say about it.

The staple modern trans* works, if you or your readers are wondering, are Julia Serano's Whipping Girl (which also does a lot of feminism), and something of Kate Bornstein's, I think Gender Outlaws (which I have yet to read, unfortunately). Serano has some problems with binarism (erasure of people who aren't men or women), and I'm told Bornstein has some subversivism problems (the idea that subversive identities are better than perceived non-subversive identities, which hurts binary-gender trans* people (I've never heard of subversivism applied to cis gender identities) pretty badly); also Bornstein's a bit overzealous with word reclamation and I don't know how much of that seeps in to the books. There's also a fair bit of trans* stuff on the internet if you know where to look.

Aha, I really should have mentioned that in my reccommendation of Greer’s book, I meant it as a landmark piece of feminist literature, and not at all without it’s (many) problems. I do feel that while it’s argument has many holes and inconsistencies (as well as worse), it is still a poweful work. However, like many books of the second wave of feminism, it does fail to address any group that doesn’t fit into the definition of womyn as middle class, white, able-bodied, heterosexual, and cissexist. I should have pointed this out, thank you very much.

Butler’s work is a lot more inclusive, and argues against feminism’s preoccupation with women as being a single identifiable group, saying that this is fact harms feminism’s quest for equality by ignoring people who do not fit the binary.

Your reccomendations sound like a step forward (despite their problems, but what works of Sociology don’t have problems?), and I will definitely check them out!

Thank you! :)

justbeababe  asked:

I would like to add that the song "Born This Way" implies that gay men are born as "queens" and other stereotypes. As I gay man, I may have been born gay, but my expression and way I identify with my sexuality come from natural conditioning, thus not all gay men are born as "queens" and etc...

Aha! This is perfect, and important, and something I failed to mention in the ESSAY I just posted.

I suppose that’s where my problem with the lyric
Don’t be a drag, just be a queen” comes from…

It’s almost like she’s policing the expression of gay male sexuality.

Don’t dress like that, don’t do this, don’t feel that… Be THIS version of “THE HOMOSEXUAL” (a “queen”, “fabulous”, etc).

Thank you for this. :)