"I talk about the gods, I am an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth."

--Ursula K. Leguin

November 2009

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Layout By

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by InsaneJournal

Note

This journal is partially locked. Most fandom entries are public. Most daily-life entries and a certain amount of squee is locked. To read those entries, comment and ask to be added.

Subscribe to posting filter groups here.

Please note, all my fic posts here are summaries with links to my archive site. To search for fic most easily, you will want to visit my fic archive itself which has all the series/arc/pairing/character indexes and tags. *tips hat*

Posts Tagged: 'the+personal+is+political'

Sep. 28th, 2009

Bingo!

*just kind of stares*

Okay, let's get something straight (Ha. Ha.). There is a small (quite small) portion of slash fiction that manages to overlap with queer fiction. But the vast majority of slash? Is not queer fiction.

No. No, it's not. No, shut up and quit making asses of yourselves while you demonstrate at length that yours is very probably not.

Queer fiction deals with queer people, emphasis on people. It does not deal with the paper-doll id-fic that constitutes the vast majority of slash, and against which I have nothing. Id-fic is a lovely thing; I write it myself. But it's not queer fiction. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the experience of queer people, of whom I suppose I should say I am one.

Given all this idiotic howling, I find the initial issue, which is the Lambda awards committee specifying that award candidate fiction must be written by people who identify themselves as queer, makes perfect sense. It becomes abundantly evident that there are plenty of clueless straight women (mostly) who are so willfully blind to the appropriation they perform that they will stampede right over a queer-affirming community space if measures are not taken to defend it.

As has been demonstrated.

Oct. 29th, 2008

PSA: Ohio's Issue 5

This is just a quick post for any Ohio voters hereabouts, on Issue 5, the payday lending issue.

This is the referendum on the law that would require payday lenders to only charge 28% interest instead of the 391% that appears to be more common.

Now, alert readers may well be thinking "Wait, don't we already have laws against that kind of thing? Isn't it called usury?" And they would be correct; we do and it is. However, at some point in the past, by some slight of lobbying hand, payday lenders got themselves specifically exempted from those laws.

So the law now in question would, in fact, just require them to abide by the anti-usury laws like everyone else.

I do not normally consider our governmental system capable of effectively regulating anything, including its own breathing, but this one seems like a bit of a no-brainer.

Oct. 8th, 2008

PSA: Vote by Mail

Fellow Ohio voters: if you want to vote by mail in the upcoming election, you can find directions at the Secretary of State website, as well as an application. It's only half a page long, nothing alarming; check number 2, General Election, sign it and stuff it in the mail. You don't have to actually be absent to use this ballot.

I encourage voting by mail. It's easy, it's un-stressful, and if you come across an Issue you never heard of before looking at the ballot, why you can put it down and go Google that issue to find out what's up with it. Same for candidates, actually, not that I expect anyone possessed of a phone and a front door has been able to avoid knowing who all the candidates are.

Fellow non-Ohio voters can find similar forms by checking their own Secretary of State website.

This has been your public service announcement for the day. Go forth and vote for better health care!

Oct. 2nd, 2008

Maybe it is a choice; so what?

*hands on hips* Okay, people, since when have we forgotten all of our political advances in the past fifty years?

When someone like Palin says "being gay is a choice" you say "maybe, what's your point?"

The point here is not whether it's predisposition or lifestyle choice. I think (I hope) we all know that, within the breadth of our community, it is and can be both. The point is not to surrender our definition and identity to the likes of her!

They are trying to invalidate all our choices of sexual expression, and it is not a good idea to go scurrying back to the 'safety' of "it's genetics/I can't help it/God made me this way". That may look like a good bastion, one that uses their own arguments against them, but what it really does is let them define us. It sacrifices any and all choices, allows them to say freely and without contradiction that our choices are invalid, because we have failed to defend them, even the theoretical ones, even the ones that some of us don't make.

Our choices are not invalid! Neither the ones made at the prompting of biological predisposition or the ones made on the basis of intellectual predisposition are invalid, stop letting our enemies say they are!

This is a wedge that I thought we'd recognized for what it is, and gotten over at least a little. It distresses me to see it cropping up again every time I turn around. Let's take back our political savvy, here, people.