Well, I am up late and I have much time to kill so I thought I'd post here. In a couple of hours I am off to Copenhagen to join with thousands of others to ensure that our leaders - both elected and unelected - do not sign a suicide pact that'll condemn us all.
I cannot stress enough how much this summit means. In my own personal terms I am taking a 20 hour train journey at great cost so that I can play my small part in all this. It feels like nothing, but this is both the most and the least I could do. If I had had to walk there I would have done so.
I can understand that it seems crazy to many people. The media have cast those who can see the immediate importance of a strong climate change mitigation as liars, freaks, cheats, religious fanatics, treehuggers and anarchists. Over the past ten years climate scientists have grown frantic in their calls for something to be done in order for us to continue to maintain our civilisation with minimum disruption. The calls remain unheeded by much of the populace and almost zero political will has been forthcoming from those that govern us. Column inches abound but while journalists and politicians equivocate over scientific ideas long rejected by over 97% of climate scientists, we waste valuable time and large-scale ecological injustice is now almost inescapable.
Almost. We still have time and we absolutely must ustilise all our collective power to ensure that the Copenhagen Protocol if fair, ambitious and binding. A useless protocol, one that refuses to acknowledge all the science or one that is a suicide pact between rich nations, will ruin us. There is no exaggeration here; if you want an idea of the problems that will lie ahead for us all, please, just switch on the news.
So, what can you do?
Join your local climate change demonstration this Saturday. I will be representing myself in Copenhagen, you can represent yourself in your locality. Failing that contact your leaders and demand they take real action. Write a letter or an email. Phone them. Do something to let them know you will not sit still while they bargain away this planet's future.
Well I'm going to shower now. My train is in 3 hours and I'm nervous as all hell.
Good luck in your activism.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Rod Liddle: Fuck off and Die.
I have a grudging respect for people who get paid to write a weekly column. They have to deal with the pressure of putting down words to a deadline. On the other hand, they do get paid and they do get to shape the minds of thousands of people worldwide. It's a lot of pressure and occasionally some folk must feel completely overwhelmed by the task at hand.
One can only assume this is what happened to Rod Liddle when he sat down to write in The Spectator this week. Don't get me wrong, his column is usually dreadful, but this week he surpassed himself with one of the most racist ramblings I've read in years.
Here's his argument: multiculturalism in Britain doesn't work because two morally repugnant young men tried to murder a pregnant 15 year old girl.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml
Go on, read it for yourself. I'm sure that it makes prefect sense to some people. But I just don't see how he's worked this one out. "Goat curry"? What the fuck does that even mean? Let's forget that one of these men is of Nigerian descent or that both these young men probably were raised and socialised in the UK. Those are just incidental facts that get in the way of the main thrust of the argument: people from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities make Britain a worse place to live.
The crippling recession, the unfair, unjust corporate favoured, neo-liberal policies of the Blair and Brown governments are bad, but what makes it oh-so-much-worse are the presence of African Caribbean "human filth". African Caribbeans commit the most crime in London (untrue, but let's stick with it for now) and they have contributed nothing good to this country other than food and music. I'm sure Rod Liddle doesn't think this is a racist stance. He's sure of the supremacy of British culture and traditions. He knows that if African Caribbeans weren't here, this country would be better.
It's not wise to focus on one person; Rod Liddle is not the only one to express such views. The appearance of this article simply indicates just how far to the right this country has moved. It also indicates the desperate and serious financial situation we are in globally. As the ongoing economic downturn converges to meet the very real possibility of climate catastrophe, those most responsible, with the most to lose, are looking for scapegoats and distractions. It's a story from history that is both familiar and immediately recognisable as the foundation of brutal, authoritarian, draconian regimes. It's a story that often ends in the state sanctioned murder and incarceration of minority and/or impoverished peoples. It's the raw bones of fascism, imperialism and colonialism.
As things around us begin to unravel, I expect to read more and more articles about racial hygiene (as it was once known). I expect the revival of ideas about racial and cultural superiority to continue to gain currency in science, media and the arts. But I also expect a backlash. I and many others will not sit still while this happens. I will stand up and be counted, so that Rod Liddle, Nick Griffin, Benyamin Nethanyahu and all their supporters know that they will not go unchallenged. We will not allow them to destroy our lives with their oppression, their violence or their limited visions for humanity. We claim this world for the good people and they can fuck off and die.
One can only assume this is what happened to Rod Liddle when he sat down to write in The Spectator this week. Don't get me wrong, his column is usually dreadful, but this week he surpassed himself with one of the most racist ramblings I've read in years.
Here's his argument: multiculturalism in Britain doesn't work because two morally repugnant young men tried to murder a pregnant 15 year old girl.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml
Go on, read it for yourself. I'm sure that it makes prefect sense to some people. But I just don't see how he's worked this one out. "Goat curry"? What the fuck does that even mean? Let's forget that one of these men is of Nigerian descent or that both these young men probably were raised and socialised in the UK. Those are just incidental facts that get in the way of the main thrust of the argument: people from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities make Britain a worse place to live.
The crippling recession, the unfair, unjust corporate favoured, neo-liberal policies of the Blair and Brown governments are bad, but what makes it oh-so-much-worse are the presence of African Caribbean "human filth". African Caribbeans commit the most crime in London (untrue, but let's stick with it for now) and they have contributed nothing good to this country other than food and music. I'm sure Rod Liddle doesn't think this is a racist stance. He's sure of the supremacy of British culture and traditions. He knows that if African Caribbeans weren't here, this country would be better.
It's not wise to focus on one person; Rod Liddle is not the only one to express such views. The appearance of this article simply indicates just how far to the right this country has moved. It also indicates the desperate and serious financial situation we are in globally. As the ongoing economic downturn converges to meet the very real possibility of climate catastrophe, those most responsible, with the most to lose, are looking for scapegoats and distractions. It's a story from history that is both familiar and immediately recognisable as the foundation of brutal, authoritarian, draconian regimes. It's a story that often ends in the state sanctioned murder and incarceration of minority and/or impoverished peoples. It's the raw bones of fascism, imperialism and colonialism.
As things around us begin to unravel, I expect to read more and more articles about racial hygiene (as it was once known). I expect the revival of ideas about racial and cultural superiority to continue to gain currency in science, media and the arts. But I also expect a backlash. I and many others will not sit still while this happens. I will stand up and be counted, so that Rod Liddle, Nick Griffin, Benyamin Nethanyahu and all their supporters know that they will not go unchallenged. We will not allow them to destroy our lives with their oppression, their violence or their limited visions for humanity. We claim this world for the good people and they can fuck off and die.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Tips on being a black woman runner
When I saw Caster Semenya running in the 800m heats of the World Athletics Championship, I said to myself "She's wearing the wrong outfit". Rather than don the ubiquitous running knickers and sports bra, so popular with all the other women, she opted for cycling shorts and a running vest that just wasn't "strappy" enough. When you compare Semenya to Carmelita Jeter, the USA 100m Bronze medal winner, you can begin to see where the young South African went wrong. Jeter's physique is similar to Semenya's and neither woman is endowed with fine facial features. But Jeter, an African American, understands the pressures of Western femininity and preemptively strikes out at anyone who might dare say she looks like a man. Her arsenal of feminizing weapons include a range of male identified adornments, including the teeny tiny bikini running outfit.
So here's some tips for Semenya and anyone like her on how to pass as a woman so the suspicions of a bunch of old fuckwits from IAAF aren't aroused. Do this and you won't be subjected to a bunch of humiliating and degrading "gender" tests under glare of the media.
Caster Semenya has actually been fantastic about the way the IAAF have treated her. She's said that she doesn't give a damn, admirable in a 18 year old kid. They are planning on making her undergo not only chromosomal and hormonal testing but psychological and gynaecological tests too. The mind boggles at what psychological markers they will be using to "prove" she is woman enough to run as a woman. Black Looks has suggested that what the IAAF is doing is gender terrorism a sentiment I agree with 100%.
Disclaimer: I understand the complexities of determining the sex of an athlete. I also understand that the suspicions are not simply down to the way she looks but the way in which she has taken the sport by storm. Additionally, I realise that much of this has to do with bias against Athletics South Africa. However, my main issue is with the stupid shitty criteria used by the IAAF to determine sex and the way in which this case has been handled in the media. Completely fucking bogus.
So here's some tips for Semenya and anyone like her on how to pass as a woman so the suspicions of a bunch of old fuckwits from IAAF aren't aroused. Do this and you won't be subjected to a bunch of humiliating and degrading "gender" tests under glare of the media.
- Straightened hair / hair weave.
Nothing says "I'm a woman" for black women of the more muscular build like a long horse batty hair weave. Failing that, if you want short hair then it's gotta be processed, straightened and slicked to your head. If you're a black woman and you want to keep your hair natural then dreads or twists are acceptable. Steer clear of corn rows or cain rows as these have been appropriated by black male hip hop stars. - Make up.
Do feel free to cake on the lipstick, mascara and eye shadow as this will assure any doubters that you care about looking attractive to straight men. Jeter actually goes one step further and wears false eyelashes - a brilliant move that DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT make her look like a drag queen. - Pencilled in eye-brows.
It's important that you pluck your eyebrows until they disappear and then draw them in again with a black pencil. The eyebrow arc must be about 15mm above the natural location of your eyebrows as this indicates what you might look like during exhilarating, really super hot straight sex with a man with a huge penis. - False nails
Being a woman is about being uncomfortable and while many women have learned to live with 12 inch acrylic nails soldered onto their fingers, it does take quite a bit of getting used to. Like make up, false nails show that you care about attracting men and are willing to sacrifice being able to wipe your arse without lacerating your labia. - Earrings
Hoops and long dangly, sparkly pink ones are best. Steer clear of studs as men are also permitted to wear studs. - Skimpy knickers and bra top
It's all about skin, skin, skin. It's not just enough to wear skin tight lycra - after all, the fact that your body is 95% muscle means that your breasts are more memory than mammary. You need to reassure all viewers of your femininity by showing as much bare flesh as possible. Being nearly naked indicates your gender far better than actually being naked as women are modest.
Caster Semenya has actually been fantastic about the way the IAAF have treated her. She's said that she doesn't give a damn, admirable in a 18 year old kid. They are planning on making her undergo not only chromosomal and hormonal testing but psychological and gynaecological tests too. The mind boggles at what psychological markers they will be using to "prove" she is woman enough to run as a woman. Black Looks has suggested that what the IAAF is doing is gender terrorism a sentiment I agree with 100%.
Disclaimer: I understand the complexities of determining the sex of an athlete. I also understand that the suspicions are not simply down to the way she looks but the way in which she has taken the sport by storm. Additionally, I realise that much of this has to do with bias against Athletics South Africa. However, my main issue is with the stupid shitty criteria used by the IAAF to determine sex and the way in which this case has been handled in the media. Completely fucking bogus.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Equality
Disclaimer: I've given myself approximately twenty minutes to type this post & post subsequent link on Twitter before I go home, so if it's filled with spelling mistakes, grammatical horrors, inaccuracies or all around Gibber, you know why.
Quick recap: @blacknerds hosted a debate on Twitter today, that against all odds I found myself sucked into. I was steadfastly trying to ignore it and concentrate on doing dull administrative tasks, but Tweets kept catching my eye. The debate was about light skinned vs dark skinned black people (I'm gonna use the term black as it's inclusive of all those in the African diaspora, whereas African American isn't).
In essence, it seems that some people were arguing that the light skinned people - those who past the notorious paper bag test no doubt- have access to more privileges than dark-skinned people. The lighter you are, the more society favours you.
While I can accept that to a certain extent, and I appreciate that Western perceptions of beauty are very much influenced by this which in turn has a negative impact on how many black people see themsleves, I see no evidence that those of us who are light experience significant advantages on a global or even national level.
To me, this division is internal. While it may have its basis in historical notions of white supremacy and certain elements of it are perpetuated by the media, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the benefits of being lighter are significant.
A colleague of mine recently completed a study where she spoke to black Caribbean males & females aged 16-24 about sexual health needs. A lot of the young girls expressed preferences to light skinned guys, with "good hair" so they could have pretty babies. This is disturbing on many levels, but I don't think this suggests that we must see this light vs dark division as anything other than a distraction.
Because let's face it race, as a socially contructed phenomenom, isn't just about colour. And the discrimination faced by black people of all shades isn't just about race: it's about class, gender, sexuality, disability - the works.
So rather than further divide ourselves trying to decontruct, analyse and solve an issue that really isn't an issue, perhaps it's best to focus on what we are trying to achieve: equality for everyone.
Shit. Two minutes over my time.
Quick recap: @blacknerds hosted a debate on Twitter today, that against all odds I found myself sucked into. I was steadfastly trying to ignore it and concentrate on doing dull administrative tasks, but Tweets kept catching my eye. The debate was about light skinned vs dark skinned black people (I'm gonna use the term black as it's inclusive of all those in the African diaspora, whereas African American isn't).
In essence, it seems that some people were arguing that the light skinned people - those who past the notorious paper bag test no doubt- have access to more privileges than dark-skinned people. The lighter you are, the more society favours you.
While I can accept that to a certain extent, and I appreciate that Western perceptions of beauty are very much influenced by this which in turn has a negative impact on how many black people see themsleves, I see no evidence that those of us who are light experience significant advantages on a global or even national level.
To me, this division is internal. While it may have its basis in historical notions of white supremacy and certain elements of it are perpetuated by the media, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that the benefits of being lighter are significant.
A colleague of mine recently completed a study where she spoke to black Caribbean males & females aged 16-24 about sexual health needs. A lot of the young girls expressed preferences to light skinned guys, with "good hair" so they could have pretty babies. This is disturbing on many levels, but I don't think this suggests that we must see this light vs dark division as anything other than a distraction.
Because let's face it race, as a socially contructed phenomenom, isn't just about colour. And the discrimination faced by black people of all shades isn't just about race: it's about class, gender, sexuality, disability - the works.
So rather than further divide ourselves trying to decontruct, analyse and solve an issue that really isn't an issue, perhaps it's best to focus on what we are trying to achieve: equality for everyone.
Shit. Two minutes over my time.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Join me in an incandescent rage
I don't care about gay marriage. Not really. I am terrified that my girlfriend of nearly 12 years will wanna make me get married and I don't really like commitment. Seriously though, it's not something that ever really set off any political rage switch in me. When I was growing up so few of my friends had married parents, perhaps subconsciously I didn't think that "marriage" was a civil right worth fighting over.
As the campaigns for/against Prop 8 in California raged on last year, I still found it hard to give a shit and the only thing that really bothered me about the outcome was the speed with which black people were blamed for its passing. Recent rulings riled, but did not get to me; after all, just allowing gay marriage isn't gonna stop many people from remaining second class citizens.
All-in-all, I figured that the gay marriage debate could never leave me feeling like I had to douse myself with kerosene and set myself on fire. Well, fuck me if I didn't come across something that has highlighted to me just how important this fight is.
Read this: The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It's supposedly a critique of gay marriage that isn't bigoted or biblical in origin. It's actually an insidious, homophobic bag o'shite masquerading as high brow intellectualism. This article is so disgusting and patronising in it's denigration of gay people. Quite simply, it argues that we are not part of a kinship system and no rules or traditions that bind heterosexual marriage apply to gay marriage.
An example:
What? Really? REALLY? No evidence to support a single statement in the whole article. None. On the contrary there is vast amounts of evidence to dispute virtually everything in it, most especially the sexist and false idea that marriage is there to protect the sexuality of women (fucker has never heard of rape WITHIN marriage).
Gay marriage is different from straight marriage in that one involves gay people and the other involves straight people. That's fucking it. Beyond that of unassisted reproduction (something that is rapidly becoming unavailable to many heterosexual couples as infertility rates rise) any additional argument about the difference between gay and straight marriage is socially constructed BULLSHIT.
It's because of people like the author of that article that gay marriage needs to be legalised globally as soon as possible. It's time to end any type of pseudo-intellectualised critique of queers as being somehow okay, but not okay enough.
As the campaigns for/against Prop 8 in California raged on last year, I still found it hard to give a shit and the only thing that really bothered me about the outcome was the speed with which black people were blamed for its passing. Recent rulings riled, but did not get to me; after all, just allowing gay marriage isn't gonna stop many people from remaining second class citizens.
All-in-all, I figured that the gay marriage debate could never leave me feeling like I had to douse myself with kerosene and set myself on fire. Well, fuck me if I didn't come across something that has highlighted to me just how important this fight is.
Read this: The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage
It's supposedly a critique of gay marriage that isn't bigoted or biblical in origin. It's actually an insidious, homophobic bag o'shite masquerading as high brow intellectualism. This article is so disgusting and patronising in it's denigration of gay people. Quite simply, it argues that we are not part of a kinship system and no rules or traditions that bind heterosexual marriage apply to gay marriage.
An example:
Second, kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that determines not only whom one may marry (someone from the right clan or family, of the right age, with proper abilities, wealth, or an adjoining vineyard), but, more important, whom one may not marry. Incest prohibition and other kinship rules that dictate one's few permissible and many impermissible sweethearts are part of traditional marriage. Gay marriage is blissfully free of these constraints. There is no particular reason to ban sexual intercourse between brothers, a father and a son of consenting age, or mother and daughter.... If Tommy marries Bill, and they divorce, and Bill later marries a woman and has a daughter, no incest prohibition prevents Bill's daughter from marrying Tommy. The relationship between Bill and Tommy is a romantic fact, but it can't be fitted into the kinship system.
It is repellent and viciously homophobic and so much worse than some fuckhead fanatic screaming about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. This person actually believes they have reasoned out a rational, sociologically based argument against gay marriage. In actuality it is just right wing, heterosexist, crap. Take this bit:These four aspects of marriage are not rights, but obligations. They are marriage's "a priori" because marriage is a part of the kinship system, and kinship depends on the protection, organization, and often the exploitation of female sexuality vis-à-vis males. None of these facts apply at all to love between people of the same sex, however solemn and profound that love may be. In gay marriage there are no virgins (actual or honorary), no incest, no illicit or licit sex, no merging of families, no creation of a new lineage. There's just my honey and me, and (in a rapidly increasing number of U.S. states) baby makes three.
What? Really? REALLY? No evidence to support a single statement in the whole article. None. On the contrary there is vast amounts of evidence to dispute virtually everything in it, most especially the sexist and false idea that marriage is there to protect the sexuality of women (fucker has never heard of rape WITHIN marriage).
Gay marriage is different from straight marriage in that one involves gay people and the other involves straight people. That's fucking it. Beyond that of unassisted reproduction (something that is rapidly becoming unavailable to many heterosexual couples as infertility rates rise) any additional argument about the difference between gay and straight marriage is socially constructed BULLSHIT.
It's because of people like the author of that article that gay marriage needs to be legalised globally as soon as possible. It's time to end any type of pseudo-intellectualised critique of queers as being somehow okay, but not okay enough.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
It's not just a game.
I have resisted the urge to comment on the story about the Kenyan man who hanged himself after Arsenal's semi-final exit last week. In part this has been because I have way to much work to do and should be devoting my writing energies to more important things. However, I can no longer let this pass.
I think it is a completely naive person who understands nothing about depression and despair who believes that Sulieman Omondi killed himself because Arsenal lost a football match. The initial reports from the BBC and other news outlets were made with a tinge of wry humour - African fan, so wild and deranged with grief over the loss of a match he kills himself, they said. Much of the reporting included comments about the passion for football in Africa and how fights and brawls have cast shadows over televised European matches in many African countries. This story, it seemed, epitomised just how out of control an African man can become.
This portrayl of African men as overly-emotional, with wild, uncontrollable passions set off by the smallest (or craziest) things is a long established cultural meme. It dates back hundreds of years and is a stereotype established in stark contrast to Anglo-Saxon notions of male supremacy based depictions of cold, calm, ruthless efficiency - i.e. the British stiff upper lip. To be in possession of one's emotions, to control them and suppress them, is a valued expression of male business acumen and denotes an level of intellectual supremacy.
While I am not going to go as far as to say that the reporting and commentary on this event has been racist, I would suggest that the stereotypes and controlling images described above have had an impact on the way this story has unfolded. The idea that Mr Omondi might have killed himself because he feared for his life after making a large bet he could not honour or because of existing pressures and troubles, did not appear in those initial reports. The complex issues surrounding depression and mental ill-health have not been discussed by those bloggers who continue to write about Mr Omondi as if he was an emotionally unintelligent fool who could not discern the difference between football and his own life.
In all walks of life men and women take their own lives for reasons most people cannot understand. Desperation can make people do all sorts of things as can depression and other mental or physical illnesses. To suggest that Mr Omondi took his life because of a football match is overly simplistic and is perhaps a way for us to make peace with an act many do not understand and could never contemplate. However, it does not do to make light of the plight of this man. For whatever reason he decided his life was not worth living and that is where the tragedy always lies.
I think it is a completely naive person who understands nothing about depression and despair who believes that Sulieman Omondi killed himself because Arsenal lost a football match. The initial reports from the BBC and other news outlets were made with a tinge of wry humour - African fan, so wild and deranged with grief over the loss of a match he kills himself, they said. Much of the reporting included comments about the passion for football in Africa and how fights and brawls have cast shadows over televised European matches in many African countries. This story, it seemed, epitomised just how out of control an African man can become.
This portrayl of African men as overly-emotional, with wild, uncontrollable passions set off by the smallest (or craziest) things is a long established cultural meme. It dates back hundreds of years and is a stereotype established in stark contrast to Anglo-Saxon notions of male supremacy based depictions of cold, calm, ruthless efficiency - i.e. the British stiff upper lip. To be in possession of one's emotions, to control them and suppress them, is a valued expression of male business acumen and denotes an level of intellectual supremacy.
While I am not going to go as far as to say that the reporting and commentary on this event has been racist, I would suggest that the stereotypes and controlling images described above have had an impact on the way this story has unfolded. The idea that Mr Omondi might have killed himself because he feared for his life after making a large bet he could not honour or because of existing pressures and troubles, did not appear in those initial reports. The complex issues surrounding depression and mental ill-health have not been discussed by those bloggers who continue to write about Mr Omondi as if he was an emotionally unintelligent fool who could not discern the difference between football and his own life.
In all walks of life men and women take their own lives for reasons most people cannot understand. Desperation can make people do all sorts of things as can depression and other mental or physical illnesses. To suggest that Mr Omondi took his life because of a football match is overly simplistic and is perhaps a way for us to make peace with an act many do not understand and could never contemplate. However, it does not do to make light of the plight of this man. For whatever reason he decided his life was not worth living and that is where the tragedy always lies.
Friday, May 1, 2009
United we stand for what?
So I came across this site via Twitter: http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com/
I have been following their Twitter account for a while and was thinking about dumping them because their take on things is so U.S. focused that I find their tweets a) boring and b) really fucking irritating. The other day their twitter feed picked up their "Word of the Gay" (another thing that has been trying my patience) as "Ginger beer". They had poorly defined this as being insulting when it's just cockney rhyming slang for "queer" and as such to be seen as empowering and reclaimed if one wishes. So, I go off to their site to post a pissy correction and I notice their site slugline:
Queers United: The activist blog Uniting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual community & Allies in the fight for equality.
I mean, come the fuck on. Where exactly is the "Intersexual community"? Or the "Asexual community"? What legislation or media endorsed, society wide discrimination exists for the "asexual community"? What exactly does being "asexual" mean anyway? Supposedly this image below helps you identify whether you are "asexual" or not.
Whether this is a real thing or not, I really don't give a shit; but what I do what to know is what "asexuality" has to do with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender political activism and why there should be one unifying cause for them all. Maybe I am just turning into a mardy old cow, but it seems to me that the whole Western gay civil and human rights movement has been hijacked by idiots. Rather than campaign for the rights of LGBT folk in places where homosexuality is outlawed and queers face an increasingly harsh and oppressed existence, people jibber on about issues that have no political or even sociological basis for activism.
The whole hysteria on Twitter over AmazonFail is indicative of just how far wrong Western LGBT activists have gone. In this case people were outraged and mobilised with amazing speed over the supposed discrimination of LGBT communities by Amazon. The story remains unclear but it seems that Amazon's algorithm for tagging books as "adult" or not was either hijacked or messed up. As a result thousands of books tagged as "gay" or "lesbian" disappeared from the bestseller rankings and did not show up in searches. Amazon customer services at first said this was policy in order for the site to remain "family friendly". People were annoyed and outraged that a book with zero sexual content but merely talking about homosexuality would be deemed as "adult" and, quite rightly kicked up a fuss. Then Amazon spokespeople said that there had been a "glitch" and that the books were unintentionally tagged, i.e. there was no policy. This was not the end of the outrage however and many people still maintained a boycott against Amazon and suggested that the algorithm was homophobic.
Now, I am all for highlighting corporate irresponsibility and boycotts of big business whose activities impact on the human and civil rights of communities. I urge everyone to join the BDS movement against Israel (- reports show that this tactic is working in Europe). However, there is something rather bizarre about calling for a boycott of a company that doesn't have a policy to - or indeed a persistent, inadvertent mechanism for - discriminating against LGBT people. What is equally bizarre is that the discriminating practice in question - poor visibility of LGBT folk - is something that is practiced by every major television and news network out there. Demonstrative homosexual activity is non-existent on mainstream television here as I am sure it is in the U.S. Sure, there are gay characters in soaps and dramas, but you rarely see them kiss or display the samekind of affection and intimacy as heterosexual characters.
Strangest of all though is the reaction to Amazon as though it is a state run utility or indeed a Nation State in and of itself. The victory dance of activists over the issue hitting the mainstream media within 24 hours was understandable; issues such as these often take months to work their way into wider media psyche, so this was a real achievement. It's testament to the power of social media like Twitter, obviously, and it all occurred at a time when Nafta Flu was incubating in a pig so it was good enough to make the news.
But a tiny bit of perspective allows us to see this for what it really was: at best a corporate entity bowing to the purchasing power of queers and their allies. At worst? A trite little distraction that allows people to feel safe and smug about victory in a battle that never was. Maybe I'm being cynical - perhaps people will draw strength from this and go forth and fight state sponsored discrimination and intolerance. Or perhaps people just don't recognise or understand the difference between fighting transnational businesses and fighting sovereign states any more and think one is as good as the other.
(Incidentally, this is by far and away THE WORST flow chart I have ever seen. What precisely is the point of all those boxes when it seems that the ONLY criteria needed to define asexuality is whether a person experiences sexual attraction?! Idiocy!)
I have been following their Twitter account for a while and was thinking about dumping them because their take on things is so U.S. focused that I find their tweets a) boring and b) really fucking irritating. The other day their twitter feed picked up their "Word of the Gay" (another thing that has been trying my patience) as "Ginger beer". They had poorly defined this as being insulting when it's just cockney rhyming slang for "queer" and as such to be seen as empowering and reclaimed if one wishes. So, I go off to their site to post a pissy correction and I notice their site slugline:
Queers United: The activist blog Uniting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual community & Allies in the fight for equality.
I mean, come the fuck on. Where exactly is the "Intersexual community"? Or the "Asexual community"? What legislation or media endorsed, society wide discrimination exists for the "asexual community"? What exactly does being "asexual" mean anyway? Supposedly this image below helps you identify whether you are "asexual" or not.
Whether this is a real thing or not, I really don't give a shit; but what I do what to know is what "asexuality" has to do with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender political activism and why there should be one unifying cause for them all. Maybe I am just turning into a mardy old cow, but it seems to me that the whole Western gay civil and human rights movement has been hijacked by idiots. Rather than campaign for the rights of LGBT folk in places where homosexuality is outlawed and queers face an increasingly harsh and oppressed existence, people jibber on about issues that have no political or even sociological basis for activism.
The whole hysteria on Twitter over AmazonFail is indicative of just how far wrong Western LGBT activists have gone. In this case people were outraged and mobilised with amazing speed over the supposed discrimination of LGBT communities by Amazon. The story remains unclear but it seems that Amazon's algorithm for tagging books as "adult" or not was either hijacked or messed up. As a result thousands of books tagged as "gay" or "lesbian" disappeared from the bestseller rankings and did not show up in searches. Amazon customer services at first said this was policy in order for the site to remain "family friendly". People were annoyed and outraged that a book with zero sexual content but merely talking about homosexuality would be deemed as "adult" and, quite rightly kicked up a fuss. Then Amazon spokespeople said that there had been a "glitch" and that the books were unintentionally tagged, i.e. there was no policy. This was not the end of the outrage however and many people still maintained a boycott against Amazon and suggested that the algorithm was homophobic.
Now, I am all for highlighting corporate irresponsibility and boycotts of big business whose activities impact on the human and civil rights of communities. I urge everyone to join the BDS movement against Israel (- reports show that this tactic is working in Europe). However, there is something rather bizarre about calling for a boycott of a company that doesn't have a policy to - or indeed a persistent, inadvertent mechanism for - discriminating against LGBT people. What is equally bizarre is that the discriminating practice in question - poor visibility of LGBT folk - is something that is practiced by every major television and news network out there. Demonstrative homosexual activity is non-existent on mainstream television here as I am sure it is in the U.S. Sure, there are gay characters in soaps and dramas, but you rarely see them kiss or display the samekind of affection and intimacy as heterosexual characters.
Strangest of all though is the reaction to Amazon as though it is a state run utility or indeed a Nation State in and of itself. The victory dance of activists over the issue hitting the mainstream media within 24 hours was understandable; issues such as these often take months to work their way into wider media psyche, so this was a real achievement. It's testament to the power of social media like Twitter, obviously, and it all occurred at a time when Nafta Flu was incubating in a pig so it was good enough to make the news.
But a tiny bit of perspective allows us to see this for what it really was: at best a corporate entity bowing to the purchasing power of queers and their allies. At worst? A trite little distraction that allows people to feel safe and smug about victory in a battle that never was. Maybe I'm being cynical - perhaps people will draw strength from this and go forth and fight state sponsored discrimination and intolerance. Or perhaps people just don't recognise or understand the difference between fighting transnational businesses and fighting sovereign states any more and think one is as good as the other.
(Incidentally, this is by far and away THE WORST flow chart I have ever seen. What precisely is the point of all those boxes when it seems that the ONLY criteria needed to define asexuality is whether a person experiences sexual attraction?! Idiocy!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
