@Her Grace: To explain: Yes, they're made by AA, a company with whom I have issues. On the one hand, their owner is a skeeze. On the other, they make their clothes without sweatshop labour, and while I find most of them rather horrible, at least I know the workers were well-paid.
Grammatically, the shirt may be a mess. Gay people are not illegal, nor is queerness our sole identity. But it gives the option to elaborate: "legalize gay...marriage" or "legalize gay...adoption" or "legalize gay...tax rights." I can think of so many nouns to go after the adjective that I find these shirts enjoyable and conversation starters, especially in my small town in Virginia.
not to burst anyone's bubble, but I don't see too much color here... aside from the occasional non-white person, I see maybe... token gestures at "diversity."
Until I see POC/non-White LGBTQI people represented more fully in the gay marriage debate, I'm not impressed.
Also, I think the American Apparel "legalize gay" shirts are stupid because:
1) they support a "faux-liberal" company that gladly objectifies and sexualizes women and youth- yes, it's just a shirt, but as consumer citizens, we vote with our dollars, and those dollars support patriarchal notions of women's and youths' sexuality.
2) "gay" so... Gay people are illegal? Or does it refer to gay marriage? Either way, it is problematic because it is on the same level as referring to gay individuals as "gays," thus assuming that their sexual orientation is the entirety of their identity. You don't refer to a Black person as "a Black"- why would you refer to gay people as "a gay?"
@aconerlycoleman: i will definitely not argue with the fact that the modern mainstream lgbtq movement often defers itself to organizations that are non-inclusive (such as the hrc) and allows white males to be the face of the movement. it is a problem. BUT, it is also unfair to make that judgement about this march on 12 photos.
it is pretty condescending to say that the few poc you see in those twelve pictures (which are hardly representative of the march) are merely tokens at diversity. this isnt a republican fundraising convention. lgbtq poc have just as much (if not more) at stake as white lgbtq. no one was bussed in and forced to stand next to white people for the camera; every poc who was there was there for the exact same reason as the white marchers, because they want equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation. while white men may have the privilege of being the face of the movement, they are in no way representative of it and to imply that the poc who took to the streets today were tokens is to deny their agency. if you want to see representations of poc in the gay community then you should have been there today. MANY poc were marching in the rank-and-file (many more than these pictures would suggest, esp. considering half of them are not crowd scenes). and the organizers obviously had the diversity of the gay community in mind when they planned the thing. there were over 30 people who delivered speeches in front of the capital and they represented a wide and inclusive range of racial/gender/religious/class identities.
you raise good points, there needs to be a greater effort by mainstream gay activists to include poc AND transgendered people, but your criticisms ring hollow because you're resting on preconceived notions and not actually critiquing this event in particular. you're never going to be impressed unless you bother to look.
although i totally agree about the legalize gay shirts. i hated how many people were wearing them.
There was also a really great moment where the NEM and a breast cancer march crossed paths, and the two groups clapped and cheered for each other. I wish I had gotten a picture. There was a lot of pink going on in downtown DC this afternoon!
I was there! One of the best parts was at the beginning when everybody cheered at the rainbow that hovered over our heads. It was a good way to spend my birthday. :)
Looks beautiful! I wish I could have been there. But I can't help but get angry at the same time, that whatever DC voters say may or may not matter, depending on the whims of Congress.
I have cousins that live in DC and they'll confirm the fact that sometimes it totally sucks to have no say in national politics. It's pretty much a political no man's land - actually they call it "political purgatory." But at the same time, I think DCers have an especially important/interesting role in passing legislation if only by protesting and voicing their opinions. I just really hope that they're finally given a vote in Congress (and the funny thing about that is how Republicans are willing to give DC a congressman so long as Utah gets one more).
@JessickerFletcher: I only get so angry because I lived there for ten years. :) And my father would argue that I shouldn't get pissed off that I paid the same federal taxes as every other American citizen for no voice in Congress, because members of Congress live in DC and therefore must care about its interests. Ha. (As you probably know through your cousins, DC's lone Congresswomen gets to vote, but her vote is disqualified if it makes a difference. Seriously.)
thank you Elle for being so HILARIOUS! if only you would've used this AMAZING sense of humour while acting cause we all know you were the all time worst guest on Friends. keep it up!
Maybe she shies away from the term because she hasn't a clue what feminism means? As teenypanini mentioned way up in the comments, the definition of feminism has evolved to include that women have a right to choose whatever path they want to take in life, that women have a say in their society, and more importantly, that society shouldn't judge women by archaic standards of what is proper/improper, like oh, let's say wearing mini-dresses and bikinis past the age of 30 (or 40, in her case).
Well, DUH, men and women are biologically different, and people all over the world vary in skin color, and some people like having sex with members of the same sex...does this mean that laws shouldn't protect their basic human rights?
@Princess Weeweepants: I think that she has a clue, but that for someone as privileged as her, equal rights might take something away from her. It's like the people who think the existence of ladies night means that not only are we equal, women have it better.
You always have to seriously ask what people mean when they say men and women are "different," I think. It's like when people talk about hetero differences. What about these differences mean that men should get paid more or women shouldn't be president? Either you discover the bias or the person's argument gets incoherent and they look at you with desperation as they try to protect privilege while knowing it's wrong.
10/12/09
10/12/09
Grammatically, the shirt may be a mess. Gay people are not illegal, nor is queerness our sole identity. But it gives the option to elaborate: "legalize gay...marriage" or "legalize gay...adoption" or "legalize gay...tax rights." I can think of so many nouns to go after the adjective that I find these shirts enjoyable and conversation starters, especially in my small town in Virginia.
10/12/09
10/11/09
Until I see POC/non-White LGBTQI people represented more fully in the gay marriage debate, I'm not impressed.
Also, I think the American Apparel "legalize gay" shirts are stupid because:
1) they support a "faux-liberal" company that gladly objectifies and sexualizes women and youth- yes, it's just a shirt, but as consumer citizens, we vote with our dollars, and those dollars support patriarchal notions of women's and youths' sexuality.
2) "gay" so... Gay people are illegal? Or does it refer to gay marriage? Either way, it is problematic because it is on the same level as referring to gay individuals as "gays," thus assuming that their sexual orientation is the entirety of their identity. You don't refer to a Black person as "a Black"- why would you refer to gay people as "a gay?"
Just saying.
10/12/09
it is pretty condescending to say that the few poc you see in those twelve pictures (which are hardly representative of the march) are merely tokens at diversity. this isnt a republican fundraising convention. lgbtq poc have just as much (if not more) at stake as white lgbtq. no one was bussed in and forced to stand next to white people for the camera; every poc who was there was there for the exact same reason as the white marchers, because they want equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation. while white men may have the privilege of being the face of the movement, they are in no way representative of it and to imply that the poc who took to the streets today were tokens is to deny their agency. if you want to see representations of poc in the gay community then you should have been there today. MANY poc were marching in the rank-and-file (many more than these pictures would suggest, esp. considering half of them are not crowd scenes). and the organizers obviously had the diversity of the gay community in mind when they planned the thing. there were over 30 people who delivered speeches in front of the capital and they represented a wide and inclusive range of racial/gender/religious/class identities.
you raise good points, there needs to be a greater effort by mainstream gay activists to include poc AND transgendered people, but your criticisms ring hollow because you're resting on preconceived notions and not actually critiquing this event in particular. you're never going to be impressed unless you bother to look.
although i totally agree about the legalize gay shirts. i hated how many people were wearing them.
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/12/09
10/11/09
I've officially watched too much Arrested Development when I wanted to chant "We're here, we're queer, we wanna get married on the ocean!"
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
@dcdulce:
10/12/09
However, something tells me plenty of homophobic people would be fine if interracial marriage was banned, too.
10/11/09
I was there! One of the best parts was at the beginning when everybody cheered at the rainbow that hovered over our heads. It was a good way to spend my birthday. :)
10/11/09
10/11/09
Damn you for destroying America, guys.
10/11/09
10/11/09
I have cousins that live in DC and they'll confirm the fact that sometimes it totally sucks to have no say in national politics. It's pretty much a political no man's land - actually they call it "political purgatory." But at the same time, I think DCers have an especially important/interesting role in passing legislation if only by protesting and voicing their opinions. I just really hope that they're finally given a vote in Congress (and the funny thing about that is how Republicans are willing to give DC a congressman so long as Utah gets one more).
10/11/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
Well, DUH, men and women are biologically different, and people all over the world vary in skin color, and some people like having sex with members of the same sex...does this mean that laws shouldn't protect their basic human rights?
07/27/09
You always have to seriously ask what people mean when they say men and women are "different," I think. It's like when people talk about hetero differences. What about these differences mean that men should get paid more or women shouldn't be president? Either you discover the bias or the person's argument gets incoherent and they look at you with desperation as they try to protect privilege while knowing it's wrong.