shaQUEERa!

We are a small "radical" group in the desert of Arizona that advocates for the free expression, tolerance, and understanding of gender and sexuality in a society that tends to only see things as black or white, or should we say, gay or straight and male or female. [email protected] var sc_project=6286011; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="c686e4a4";

[freececemcdonald-blog]

Kicking off a ride out to visit Cece Mcdonald in St. Cloud. When we got to the prison, we were met with SWAT teams at every entrance. Imagine that, prison officials are terrified of solidarity. Wonder why? Check out freecece.wordpress.com for more info.

[genderwhat]

Also, these posters were found around campus by Riley and Jase, and Jase took these pictures. Comments added to the men's rights posters are particularly popular around Palo Verde, and a new poster popped up, apparently in response to them; it is the final picture in this set. Responses like these are encouraging, so these kinds of posters have been staying. Also, there was once a poster with a pro-domme message and business card attached, but no photograph was taken

[genderwhat]

hey. remember the post where we mentioned we were tearing posters down? there are still more posters like them sometimes and yeah, the posters are getting "better." by better i mean they're not flagged as problematic nearly as quickly to riley.

the first three posters, from this post, made me like, "no." the second three made me less immediately like "no" because okay, if you're a victim of domestic violence in such a way that you don't want to be, that's bad; although if you want to be a victim, that's cool too. Anyway, if it is unwanted men do matter too about being protected, and the idea that "all men are rapists" or other nuanced variations like "only men are rapists" (which the poster did not directly state, but i was guessing it might have been trying to say??????) is a problem.

above are their newest posters, although the second two images were found merged, with "A Voice for Men" posted over the "Daddy why don't I have any rights?" poster, which had its bottom cut off.

When i saw the newest posters i wondered, "Why are they testing for paternity anyway?" Is it because they want to be sure they're the biological father because otherwise they won't want anything to do with the child? I'm not saying everyone's this way, but that's how my dad was. Is it intended to be shaming? Or? I guess i kind of don't understand why this statistic is put on the poster.

Also, i was wondering--- what percent of men make/made up industrial work in the first place, so is it any wonder 94% of the deaths occur to them? Same for # that would actually be put in (ie. allowed in) combat situations?

And why should fatherless homes matter? If it's because "multiple parents earn more money" or have more resources or whatever, why does it have to be fathers that have to be there? So, the "75% of all adolescents in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes" statistic seems pretty irrelevant to men's rights. Same for the 85% statistic about behavioral disorders, 71% statistic about high school drop outs, 63% stat about youth suicides, 90% of homeless children, and 85% prison youth (which actually seems to include ALL youth, not gender-specific, so idk how this is a men's rights issue, but if they want to be concerned with it, okay). I’m guessing the only reason “fatherless homes” matters is they’re promoting the idea that nuclear families are the ideal, based on their image of the three figures on the “Daddy why don’t I have any right’s?” poster, and that they seem to treat divorce (or being separated from?????)  as if it is a negative thing?

And for the 60% funding, it's not like men (in the cissexist way, which i'm guessing they're meaning) don't get breast cancer also, so breast cancer research can benefit everyone really. Although, yeah, they should do more prostate cancer research.

And I am wondering, are these suicides completed, suicides attempted, or? I kind of don't like how suicide, high school drop out, chemical abuse, and homeless statistics are included. It seems to be shaming the acts, as if they are bad things; maybe some of them wanted to do these things and were happy about their choices. I actually thought, a better statistic might be "men who have been shamed regarding suicide," instead of ones who actually committed it, because yeah okay, give me notes saying i am bad for saying everyone can do what they want with their bodies and i am being a bad friend or human being or whatever, but if you really want to say you believe in autonomy maybe it includes suicide too.

I think that it would be helpful to say WHY only 10% of fathers receive primary custody of their children, like how many cases was it due to sexism, as opposed to other reasons? Cuz, i don’t mean to treat it like my personal experiences are everything (although my point actually supports the posters, so idk why i’m making these side marks), but yeah, the courts were pretty sexist to my dad, regarding custody. My mom was abusive, but the courts said women would never hit their children and they were by nature loving and whatever, but yeah. Maybe not all father-not-receiving-the-child custody cases involve sexism.

Also, men can rape men, and men can cause other men to be victims of domestic violence, ETC. It might help if the posters mentioned that, and advocated stopping unwanted acts of violence, rape, etc for ALL. Oh, and when they say “all” men on the statistics do they really mean “all” men or are they only examining a certain area? Are any places skewing the data, and what are the rates per given area? Where are these stats coming from, who participated in the study, what about unreported cases, is this assuming unreported cases, etc? I really don't trust listed stats.

SO YEAH. If you want to criticize me for tearing them down, keep doing so, but i have my reasons.  Even if the newer posters are better, they still make me like “no” and they are STILL HANGING THE ORIGINAL THREE POSTERS about “men are oppressed by women,” etc. which makes me like, “Yeah, if you still harbor those ideas, i can only imagine how those play into your other posters.” And okay, when you consider intersectionality, their old posters have more to say, but really? They never seemed to acknowledge intersectionality, so i am guessing they are saying at a large scale level all women oppress all men? No.  P.s. Where is everyone else? Why just men and women? 

[genderwhat]

'i’m personally tearing them down' Wow, seriously? I would've considered myself to some degree a feminist before encountering people like you on tumblr. For years I've been militantly pro-choice and pro-gay rights despite being both heterosexual and sterilised / child free. If you only support free speech when people are saying things you agree with, you're not supporting free speech at all. You're a disgrace and a moron.

Woah, sounds like you had some incredible, strong feminist convictions.  Also, unfortunately, they are still free to post more vile posters, and they retain their freedom of speech.  Basically, what you said makes no sense and sounds like bait.

[genderwhat]

Excitement =D After sooooooo many calls to ASU's public records, plumbing, blue print, everyone everyone, idk the list goes on, Riley received a pdf list of all of the gender neutral restrooms on the Downtown, Tempe, Polytechnic, and West campuses. Print it out, pass it out. Help credit goes out to everyone who was called and who helped. The one who sent the final email was Jodi Preudhomme. Also, Suzanne Copeland was involved. Idk any other names specifically at the moment. While it is disappointing that it's only a list format and does not have specifics (i.e. which restrooms' locks don't work, or other restroom conditions), or how to get to the restrooms within the building it is still something. I think they mentioned they removed restrooms that require Sun Cards/residence off the list because they only included public restrooms? I'm not sure on that, though. I have not checked. I think it would be interesting to keep continuing this, though, with locations on a map marked, and with other important details, and possibly copied and pasted on trans squat or something. But yeah, enjoy.

[genderwhat]

might be worth considering

[genderwhat]

[genderwhat]

these messages have been going around asu's tempe campus, especially around the pillars. Riley was like, "Tear them down!" and did, and was then accused of infringing upon others' free speech. Mm, hmm. i think before i would have said, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, let them say what they want." Yeah, not like that anymore. All, do what these messages what you will, if you find them around campus, but i'm personally tearing them down

[genderwhat]

[genderwhat]

Attention all who are interested in contacting genderWHAT?!: please stop leaving messages in our "ask" box. We request that you instead email [email protected] Thx!

[genderwhat]

Don't forget, bell hooks will be at ASU (Tempe) tonight! 7-8:30PM, Katzin Music Hall, free admission and open to the public!

[pinebark]

Social Construction and Gender

Sometime I’d really like to write a full piece on social construction, because the term gets thrown around a lot (both by opponents and proponents) in often very sloppy ways. For now, here’s a little about how I interpret the notion of social construction with regards to gender. I don’t claim to speak for anyone except myself — my interpretations of other authors are necessarily my own.

It doesn’t imply voluntarism. This is a pretty common misconception. The argument runs, for example, that gender is a social construction, so anyone can adopt any gender at any time! This is something of an oversimplified interpretation that is not supported by many folks writing about social constructionist theory. For example, prominent theorist Judith Butler argues that gender is constructed, but that subjects are constructed within the framework of this construction itself. There is no subject prior to construction, so it doesn’t follow that construction is an individually-motivated act.

It doesn’t mean that something isn’t “real,” meaningful, or important. Sometimes people take constructionism as a direct attack — e.g. “my gender isn’t constructed!” This is probably because the person promoting constructionism is doing so in a very simplistic way that implies that gender, as a construction, is frivolous or fake. Identity systems are socially constructed in that they are built up through human processes of language and meaning-making. This doesn’t contradict anyone’s right to identify however they choose and to be the authority on their identity.

It doesn’t imply an etiological argument about gender variance. It’s not saying that “socialization” is the cause of gender identity. It’s saying that the notion of gender (or sexuality) itself is a historically-specific, human-created system of meaning. Constructionist arguments generally oppose transhistorical invocations about the existence of LGBTQ folks across all times and places, because those labels did not and do not exist everywhere. Surely there has always been gender variance and same-sex sexual activity, but to subsume all of those who participated in these phenomena into modern identity labels is to naturalize and universalize concepts that are distinctly modern (and western).

Finally, and this is probably my most controversial argument, the distinction between “biological” and “social” aspects of gender is itself a construction. Sex (here used to mean “biological gender”) is constructed in that particular aspects of bodies (e.g. hormones, genitals, secondary characteristics) are awarded status as determinants of sex while others are not.

[genderwhat]

Advertisers always find ways to turn any movement for radical change into just another way to push a product.

Jean Kilbourne - Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's Image of Women

[brownroundboi]

do not tell anyone, in any oppressed group, to be patient… patience is not a political strategy. it is a diversionary tactic, it is a patronizing recommendation made only by those that do not believe that oppression is killing us all.

— Dr. Omi Osun Joni L. Jones gives 6 rules for allies (cross race/gender/sexuality/nationality/religion etc) in her keynote speech given 2/19/10 at a luncheon sponsored by Abriendo Brecha Vll Conference and The Seventeenth Annual Emerging Scholarship In Women’s and Gender Studies Conference UT Austin. (mentor, educator, powerful leader, theater artist and cultural worker working in the jazz aesthetic.) (via brownroundboi

)

[genderwhat]

mark your calendars, you Tempe/Phoenix area locals. free and open to the public.

[thetart-deactivated20130911]

Science is not “neutral,” nor is it purely beholden to positivism. People do science. People conduct research. People are embedded in social relationships. People reproduce certain understandings of truth and power. People have a stake in the game, an investment in a certain outcome. To point, there are many reasons why black folks—and people of color more generally—are distrustful of the medical establishment, and view the proposition that science is “neutral,” with great suspicion. We know about medical apartheid, using radiation to put holes in people’s heads, Mississippi appendectomies, the exploitation of Henrietta Lacks, and of course, Tuskegee. There are many other hidden histories. One of these is how black folks were marginalized by the mental health field and branded by State authorities as “insane,” “schizophrenic,” or “mentally ill,” because they dared to defy white racism. We have echoes of how suffragists were treated by the United States government during their struggle for the vote and a more full citizenship. This one is for the eugenicist race science clowns. Hopefully, they will have more entertaining darts to throw at what should be an open and shut case about how white supremacy works through science to reinforce the status quo.

More Race Science: They Lock Up Those “Crazy” Negro Agitators and Call Them “Schizophrenic,” regarding Jonathan Metzl’s The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease (via thetart)

And even beyond that, even notions of beauty and attraction and intelligence are all racist but supported by “science”.

(via daniellemertina)

I love facts and science, but it is VERY true that it’s all done by humans, who are innately prone to fucking shit up for their own agenda or to further their preheld notions.

(via stfuconservatives)

[sixtyforty]

"The Gay Rights Movement"

Or how a riot started by queers, drag queens, transgender people and sex workers became ruthlessly hijacked and monopolized by normatively attractive, affluent, masculine gay men who value assimilation and heteronormativity over universal healthcare - and who viciously spurn those magnificent queens who came before them - and gave it a universally accepted brand name (the GAY rights movement) that highlights its own exclusionary nature.