Jackie Hell and “Horror” Drag

10 09 2013

Jackie Hell XXXIX

The other day I watched a Youtube video by Seattle drag queen Jackie Hell, and I was reminded of what Pittsburgh queen Sharon Needles has said about her own art: that she wants to shine a light on the dark and ugly side of humanity. I don’t think Jackie would make the cut for Rupaul’s Drag Race any time soon—she is just too specialised—but I think she and Sharon have a lot in common, and they both have a lot of uncomfortable things to say.

To shine a light on Jackie’s horrible character, I decided to include that Youtube video below. Some people say camp drag queens mock women, but they fail to realise that camp queens are consciously flaying stereotypes about traditional womanhood. It is actually the critics of camp drag queens who mock women, because they actually believe in the stereotypes that those queens are parodying. I think Jackie is like that–she is creating a pastiche of anecdotal female caricatures and channelling her impressions through performance art:

I know, the child abuse part. It’s a touchy subject. But hopefully we can all agree that Jackie is satirising the ugliest sample of humanity and making it something we can all recognize, if indirectly. I actually think watching videos like hers is a way for us to confront our greatest fears. Who else would say it? Your schoolteacher? No. It takes the boldest performance artist to speak truth.

Anyway, what do you think about Jackie Hell’s style of drag? Is it offensive, does it challenge your way of thinking about gender performance, or are you simply amused by her style of drag?

Advertisements




10 Reasons Why America Sucks and Europe Rocks

6 06 2013

1)      Food

America:

America Food

Europe:

Europe Food II

2)      Health

America:

Overweight Mother and Daughter

Europe:

Europe Health

3)      Education

America:

America Education

Europe:

Europe Education

4)      Transportation

America:

America Transport

Europe:

Europe Public Transport II

5)      Walkability

America:

America Walkability II

Europe:

Europe Walkability

6)      Urban Landscape

America:

Houston suburbs

Europe:

Europe Urban Landscape Cityscape

7)      Fashion

America:

America Fashion

Europe:

Europe Fashion

8)      Music

America:

America Music Country Cowboy Hat

Europe:

Style: "fever ray 2"

9)      Nightlife

America:

America Nightlife

Europe:

Europe Nightlife

10)  World-view

America:

America World-View

Europe:

Europe World-View





Seattle Is Nastier than Connie Smith Ever Imagined

6 04 2013

Oh, if only dear old Connie Smith had known exactly what kind of city she was singing about.





A Vigil for Mollie and Mary Kristene

1 07 2012

Mollie Olgin and her girlfriend, Mary Kristene Chapa, went to a nature park on the Gulf of Mexico in Portland, Texas, to spend some time together before going to a movie that same night. The movie never happened–they were found in the grass by a couple the following Saturday morning with gunshot wounds to the head. Olgin died, but Chapa remains in hospital, where she is currently recovering.

This would have been a normal start to a beautiful, romantic evening, but some hateful monster decided otherwise.

Portland, Texas, police chief Randy Wright acknowledges that currently there is no evidence that the crime was motivated by homophobia, but local authorities, including Texas Rangers, are exploring the possibility. Sigh. I’m glad simply because local Texas authorities are exploring the possibility of crime motivated by homophobia in the first place, but what in the world would two lesbians be doing on a bluff above the Gulf of Mexico to require an organised, neatly contained murder-execution? We’ll have to await the results, but, so far, I highly suspect the crime was motivated by pure hate.

The most important thing at this point in time is to acknowledge the tragedy. And a tragedy it is. Mollie had just finished her first year at Texas A&MCorpus Christi with  the goal of becoming a psychiatrist, and her father, Mario, expressed misgivings over her absence from work the morning she was found, only to discover his daughter’s death. Meanwhile, Mary Kristene, who was found with her girlfriend’s body, remains in hospital, and her brother, Hilario, has expressed hope in her recovery, noting that she has shown movement in the right side of her body.

I can’t believe this is happening in America in 2012, but, somehow, I can.

Tragedy is never beautiful, but the way people respond to it can be. The murder of Olgin and the attempted murder of Chapa has inspired vigils across the United States. One of these took place recently in Cal Anderson Park in Seattle’s traditionally gay Capitol Hill neighbourhood, on the eastern edge of Downtown. (The park is named after Cal Anderson, who became Washington state’s first openly gay legislator in 1987.) Speakers included Tracy Lievsay, who went to high school with Mollie, as well as Aleksa Manila, who spoke about local LGBTQ resources.

This type of community organizing is too amazing to happen less often. Too many young people are burdened with the weight of ideas about how women and men should be, and how they will be treated accordingly. If you have an effeminate son, shut the fuck up and let him be; and if you have a butch daughter, I hope she kicks your testicles into fuck-you-ville and gives you a black-eye. Otherwise, my condolences go out to the families and friends of Mollie and Mary Kristene, and I wish a speedy recovery for Mary Kristene.

With that, I would like to present a hymn to Mollie and Mary Kristene which played during the Seattle Pride Parade. While it may seem over-joyful at first, I would emphasize its mournfully melodic quality. And, considering the deeply moving lyrical content, I think it proves a fitting homage to the struggles of gay youth everywhere. Here’s to you, Mary Kristene–and to you, too, Mollie, wherever you are. I know you’re there 🙂

Sources:

MSNBC

New York Daily News

Seattle Post-Intelligencer





Three AM Channels (It’s 1986 in Spokane, Washington)

17 06 2012

More prodigious than his elegantly decorated beer belly is Joel’s capacity to sit through fifteen seconds of tranny sex phone commercials. Late night television in 1986 Spokane doesn’t offer much to be desired. Fortunately, the twenty-first century happened–fifteen years later, after a triple bypass surgery and a lesbian lawyer niece from Portland.





The “Plug-in-Socket” Paradigm: How Homophobia Overlaps with Sexism

3 03 2012

Homophobia, it turns out, has its roots in good, old-fashioned sexism, and I’ll tell you why. On February 6th, Washington state residents Jennifer Morris and Allison Vance, a 13-year-old, testified against gay marriage before the Washington State House Judiciary Committee. Their argument was basically that gay marriage is wrong because men and women complement one another. The state Legislature didn’t buy their argument, however, as Washington state legalised gay marriage on 13 February, the day before Valentine’s Day. (The Seattle bars were rife with exuberant homosexuals that night.) Still, it is important to deconstruct Morris and Vance’s argument, expose its fallacies, and show how they are motivated by sex stereotypes.

The arguments of people like Morris and Vance are usually put in rather crude, simplistic terms. Lacking a grasp on nuance, they tend to compare marriage with things that involve inserting one object into another in order to make more “stuff”, or to produce something tangible. Consider the analogy Morris draws between copulation and buildings, which the Seattle alternative weekly newspaper The Stranger reported on in its official blog, Slog:

Today my main message is that specific tools are for specific purposes…. If you were going to build a skyscraper, you would not be putting bolts with bolts and nuts with nuts, because the structure wouldn’t go up. And if it did it would probably fall apart, probably destroying many lives…. I feel very demeaned by the fact that roles don’t seem to matter.

Nuts with nuts. Such prurient imagery. According to Morris, sex is about creating people, not pleasure—despite the fact that the world is verging on 7 billion. Morris seems to care more about the tribal Bronze Age ideal of propogation than the twenty-first-century ideal of sustainability. The notion is that sex is about breeding as much as possible, despite the stress this may place on the environment, and ultimately on people. Echoing Morris, Vance says that trying to make a same-sex-headed family work is “like trying to walk with two left shoes.” She also says that “[i]n order to walk properly, you must wear one left shoe and one right shoe”. In other words,the only proper sexual union is that between a man and a woman, because the only proper sexual union is between two people who can procreate, and only opposite-sex couples can procreate.

Of course, we already know that this is ridiculous, since sterile couples, hysterectomised women, postmenopausal women, and couples who choose not to have children can marry despite their inability or choice not to procreate—because they love each other. For the same reason, then, gay people should be allowed to marry one another. Any adult can marry another adult who consents to the marriage. Simple as that. But conservatives are immune to this kind of reasoning—it tends to go in one ear and out the other, or else they come up with increasingly desperate and tenuous counter-arguments to avoid facing the fact that this kind of reasoning makes perfect sense.

But Morris and Vance’s anti-gay sentiment is not just about procreation—it is about the sex roles associated with these (as Morris herself suggested above). Think about it. Traditional sex roles involve a dominant, independent male penetrating a submissive, dependent female. The male is the logical, aggressive, disciplinarian “yin”, and the female, the intuitive, submissive, nurturing “yang”. The male is the dominant force, and the female, the recessive one. The male is the unemotional breadwinner, and the female, the emotional care-taker. Or else, as in the T.V. show Whitney, the woman is the passive-aggressive psychopath, and the male, some dumb, confused testosterone machine who stares like some fucking dumb piece of numb-brained shit at women’s asses. Here we see Vance’s left and right foot. Her argument against gay marriage is founded on old-fashioned, sentimental ideas about a relationship in which a dominant male complements a submissive female (an inherently hegemonic system), and on teaching children these roles early on.

What does this have to do with lesbians and gays, you may ask? Well, in the view of people like Morris and Vance, lesbians and gays are traitors because their relationships do not involve a man dominating a woman (left versus right shoe). Lesbianism does not involve a man dominating a woman, and male homosexuality does not involve a man dominating a woman. Not only does the rigidly mechanistic “plug-in-socket” scenario of “male and female mate, thereby producing offspring” break down in these relationships, but so do the hegemonic, sex-based social roles which derive from it. In a word, gays and lesbians have sex for pleasure, not to dominate a member of the opposite sex and keep the plug-in-socket hierarchy functional. For this reason, in the eyes of gay-marriage opponents, gay marriage is wrong.

But are traditional sex roles really a desirable thing? I don’t think so. They basically imply that women should be nicer people than men (because they have different limbic systems or whatever). But this is kind of like saying that normal people should be a little bit nicer than psychopaths. We don’t say that psychopaths should be crueller than normal people; we say that they should be as nice as normal people, and so we medicate them accordingly. Similarly, we shouldn’t be saying that men should be meaner than women; we should be be saying that they should be as nice as women, and teach them accordingly. And even if there is some biological explanation for men’s greater aggressiveness, it isn’t an ethical imperative; it is merely an observation of a natural phenomenon, like a genetic predisposition for cancer. We don’t say that those genetically predisposed to cancer should be more susceptible to cancer; we treat them for their condition. So, everybody should be held to the same standard of sensitivity and compassion, and it is simply giving licence to cruelty to say that “boys will be boys”. What gay rights activists should be doing, then, is pointing out that homophobia cannot be justified using sexism, because sexism itself is not justifiable.

Besides, true Christians (who make up a sizeable portion of homophobes) shouldn’t be buying into the temptation of saying that male aggressiveness and female submissiveness are biologically predetermined. They believe in Jesus Christ. Well, the Bible says that Jesus was compassionate (Matt. 9:36), that others should be compassionate (Matt. 18:33), and that Jesus himself commanded people to be like him (John 14:12, 1 Corinthians 4:16). If Jesus was compassionate, if others should be compassionate too, and if he told people to be like him, it follows that Jesus and the Bible required people to be compassionate and peace-loving. Now, because Jesus was male, and because he commanded everybody to be as compassionate as he, he necessarily required males and females to be equally compassionate. After all, he is the common denominator for compassion among Christians. So, while sexism motivates homophobia, if Jesus himself breaks down traditional sex roles, Christians can’t use them to justify homophobia.

I didn’t write this post using the traditional English essay formula; I wrote it in a sort of stream of consciousness format. I guess I was channelling Virginia Woolf or something. Anyway, I wanted to show how homophobia stems from sexism, how sexism is stupid, and how sexists have no basis for using Jesus to justify homophobia, since Jesus-quotes don’t justify sexism. Hopefully I’ve achieved this much. It’s important to emphasise that homophobia and sexism have a lot in common. Both gay people and feminists defy patriarchy by defying traditional sex roles. In order to attack homophobia, what gay rights advocates need to be doing is attacking sexism, since this seems to be used to justify a lot of homophobia. A discussion on gay rights is not complete without mentioning women’s rights at some point. Both concern sex roles and sexual identity, and as such they inform one another. In the meantime, let’s celebrate the recent gay marriage victories in Washington state and Maryland.





Maureen Walsh on Marriage Equality in Washington State

13 02 2012

At 11:30 a.m. on Monday morning, 13 February 2012, as the raindrops slide down the sides of Seattle’s skyscrapers, Washington state is expected to legalise same-sex marriage when Governor Christine Gregoire signs into law a bill passed by the state Legislature. The fight for equality in Washington has been an incremental one, starting with an anti-discrimination law (2006) and moving on to a domestic partnership law (2007), which was later expanded and approved by voters (2009), until the Legislature finally passed the marriage equality bill (2012). Senator Ed Murray, D-Seattle, an openly gay man, has played an instrumental role in the process, having spent the last few years sponsoring bills to expand gay rights. But what do impassioned lawmakers have to say?

The struggle to pass the marriage equality bill has been anything but perfunctory. Thanks to the Internet and social networking, people around the world have had the chance to witness the powerful, heartfelt speeches given by Washington lawmakers who support the bill. Interestingly, some of those lawmakers are Republicans, showing that compassion for devoted same-sex couples crosses party lines and touches on core humanist principles. I think we should all acknowledge this basic common-sense empathy when it pops up in Republicans. Maureen Walsh, a Republican representative for Washington’s 16th District of Walla Walla (where yours truly happens to have some super-conservative religious relatives) proved for me that empathy crosses party lines:

This was an inspiring speech, and it’s no wonder it has more than a few Youtube commenters a little bit verklempt. But what we should note is how Walsh touches on the argumentum ad populum of gay marriage opponents, which states that a thing is good just because it is popular. She bravely and passionately communicates that a belief is good not because it is popular, but because it makes people happy. And she holds her fellow lawmakers accountable for making a rational, fair-minded decision (the way Thomas Jefferson would). Her message wouldn’t have had the same clout, though, had she not made it personal and intimate by recounting her relationship with her lesbian daughter, who, as she recalls, used to stand up for bullied children on the playground. She tells her fellow legislators,

My daughter stood up for that kid, [and] even though it wasn’t the popular thing to do, she knew it was the right thing to do. And I was never more proud of my kid than knowing she was speaking against the vocal majority on behalf of the rights of the minority. And to me, it is incumbent upon us as legislators in this state to do that. That is why we are here. And I shudder to think that if folks who have preceded us in history [had not done] that—frankly, I’m not sure I would be here as a woman. I’m not sure that other people would be here due to their race or their creed, and to me that is what’s disconcerting.

Walsh is right. A thing is not right just because it is popular; it is right because it is reasonable, and it takes a principled leader to stand up and say, “this is right, and here are the reasons why”. Would we have abolished slavery had it been put up to a popular vote? Probably not. Would we have approved women’s suffrage had it been put up to a popular vote? Probably not. Neither decision was decided by a popular public vote. There are reasons why we have lawmakers brooding over the rights of minority groups. They take it seriously.

Marriage equality has triumphed in Washington state in part because of people like Maureen Walsh, who, despite her Republican status, believes that every loyal couple deserves the equal protection of the law. Hopefully this will be expanded to include the rest of the United States and, eventually, the rest of the world. To facilitate this effort, what we shoud be doing is proving to people who are still sitting on the fence why gays and lesbians deserve these rights, and we can do this by breaking down fallacies like the appeal to popularity, the appeal to nature, the slippery slope argument, the “special rights” argument, the “homosexuality is a choice” argument, the “homosexuality is condemned in the Bible” argument, and others (many of which I refute in my blog entry “8 Reasons Why Homophobia Makes No Sense“). However, we also need to complement our appeal to reason with anecdotes about the legal and personal struggles of individual gay and lesbian couples. We need to appeal to both justice and mercy. That will change both hearts and minds.