|
why, gender pac? why?
2005-02-04 @ 10:26 a.m.
is there ANY reason why Gender PAC needs to put out a press release with the words "applauds bush" (in that order) in a press release title? is there any reason any progressive group need to give bush any credit when he says something that might, in some bizarro-pandering-to-the-right universe, be considered as a nod to marginalized communities? methinks not. �The President is right to encourage a hard look at how we raise boys in this country. Harsh codes of masculinity and the aggression it breeds among young men hurt all of us," says Riki Wilkins gpac ed in the release. The release also says "a recent study by noted masculinities researcher Michael Kimmel found that over 90% of school shootings involved young boys who were relentlessly tormented and bullied because they were considered unmanly or not aggressive enough." yes, and that's fucked up and sucks. gender based violence of any sort is an incredibly serious problem. however, i find it hard to believe that bush (i wouldn't go so far as to call him "president" though) was giving a shout out to effeminate boys across the nation and encouraging gender transgression. i hardly think the purpose of his proposed "three-year initiative in last night�s State of the Union address focusing 'on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail'" is aimed at teaching boys to love their neighborhood pansies. (as a pansy girl, i say the word pansy with open arms and a deep love for pansies everywhere.) also, it would have been nice if they had pointed out the huge variety of problems that are the product of narrow standards of gender--either femininity or masculinity. like how rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, homophobia, transphobia (to name just a few) can be partly (though by far not entirely) linked to boys/men trying to prove their manhood or whatever.
additionally, i'm a little disturbed that the press release didn't even mention all the other fucked up shit bush said in his state of the union the other night. and i won't even start on how "the young men in our cities" (which i can only assume is bush's way of saying "young black guys whose lives i fuck in every other way") would probably be better served by decent schools, housing, access to quality health care and real job options, to name a few. and while we're at it, why don't we stop trying to put poor single moms on the marriage auction block. and how about nixing the whole "let's teach kids abstinence and not let them access birth control and not let teen girls get abortions when they get pregnant." hm, those are just a few ideas. feel free to add your own.
at the end of the day, none of us need to be playing oppression poker. i'll see your femmey boys getting beat up and raise you a couple rapes or what have you. fuck that. fighting for the status of most marginalized, oppressed, discrimanted against, etc, is not something we need to be doing and is going to advance any of our causes. i'm not sure an opression rank is something i'd want for me or anyone else. part of me thinks that's naive and priveleged of me to say, another part of me thinks not. i welcome your feedback and thoughts.
<< - >>
|