I don't think my internet persona is that different from my RL persona.

The one-sidedness of blogging and not having to be considerate of interrupting someone or someone interrupting me makes me more eloquent online, it also stops me from being repetitive in the same paragraph - at times, during conversation, my mind can go blank and I struggle for a word which will either be in the other language I speak (the danger of bilingualism) or I'll lose both words because I'm trying to figure out which is more appropriate.

It's frustrating, and quite obviously I'm the only one who takes it badly because hiccups in conversation happen all the time! I'm not giving a presentation or reading a speech.
I'm not an orator.
Stuff happens.

That's not where I was going with this post.

Backing up. Ah, yes.
My persona.

People behave differently depending on the context and people in which they find themselves.

I can be very shy at times, which surprises people with whom I'm very gregarious.

I've been told my internet persona belies my niceness and charm. Because, yeah, I do try to be nice and pleasant and friendly. Even with people that I don't particularly like or get along with, if I'm in the vicinity I do my best so that everyone gets along.
Until I don't.
And as I know and been told:
"Mel, when you're mean, you're scary"
I am assertive and my voice can pitch in a way that can be grating and strident and makes people tell me to "tone it down" which makes me even more irritable and thus... well, you get the picture.

I suppose because the social niceties that I pull off so well and easily IRL aren't required for online interaction. I try to be respectful to any one I communicate with, there are exceptions of course, because when I people don't bother to keep their prejudices to themselves, I don't see why I should keep my opinions on said prejudices to myself as well.

I can be rude. I often am online. Assertion is read as aggression and you have to be clear in your writing because ambiguity is so easy to write unintentionally. Intentional writing will always carry a harder punch and more often than not, I don't pull the punches I write.

If you've met me IRL, you know I'm quite bubbly and babbly. That I'm bouncy and *squeeish* (something I manage to convey online at times, for sure) and that I'm loud and have no poker face.

I'm quite sure my online persona is just waaaaay more eloquent when it comes to talking about things that make me go *ARRRRGH* seeing as IRL, I tend to go *splurterscoughshriekBWUH!Eff-U Man!I-got-something-to-say!NO-I-WONT-BE-QUIET...* - this can also be what goes on in my head, because like many a family & friends gathering, many people say things that they believe are appropriate - like racial slurs (which I try smack down when I'm within earshot), sexist remarks (which are so pervasive in interaction as well) and homophobia laden comments (har har, oh yeah, you thought she was a man, that's fucking precious, har har) - and the situation calls for decorum, niceness and charm.

That bubble was bust a long time ago, but behaviour dies hard.

I come off strong.
I'm cool with that.

It makes me memorable.

Vampires have taken over our lives. They suck out time via books, television and film like no other supernatural beast ever could.

Why?

Because they look like people, like you and me, they can walk among us unknown and seduce us with their glamour, mystique and plain ole' attractiveness.
Vampires are always beautiful, those that ugly, do not need to be. We are attracted to the fact that they are excluded from daylight, that they are reflected only in the eyes of human (their prey) and to the fact that they are immortal.

They do not die.

We pass away and they pass on.

Vampires have reached a kind of peak of pop-culture popularity. Ten years ago when I was fourteen and obsessed with Buffy, I read Dracula, Interview with a Vampire and thought Bella Lugosi was the shit.
Vampires were awesome.

Now... they're poster boys for Abstinence.
Where have we gone wrong.
( This glamour will make you click on the cut )

First of all Shana Tova! to whom in applies and have a good weekend to whom it doesn't!

( The Shana Tova Video )

And now for the actual post.
Which is about the reckoning of our souls.
We have entered the Ten Days of Repentance, which honestly, mean didly squat to me⁽¹⁾.

It's not about my personal soul (which is an extension of the mind in any case).
It's about the fact that during these days, if I'm going to wax poetry, I can see the way that my country is going to go in the next year.

It is perhaps gauche to talk about politics in the midst of the High "Holy" Days, but this is my connection to being Jewish, which is kind of crummy when you think about it.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have about ten tabs open as I write this about the Goldstone Report concerning Operation "Cast Lead", last year's winter assault on Gaza by the IDF.

I'm finding it difficult to come up with words when talking about the report itself. It's nothing we didn't know before, because a few months after the assault we heard the accounts of IDF soldiers who fought in Gaza during "Cast Lead".

Not to mention just the knowledge that before the assault the siege had been going strong for over a year, that along with weapons flour, canned goods and other necessities (like WATER) had been smuggled through the tunnels under the Gaza/Egypt border.
Just to remind, Hamas and other militant groups like Islamic Jihad had been firing at Sderot and the other towns and Kibbutizim surrounding Gaza for nearly eight years (and of course into the Gush Katif Settlements in Gaza itself prior to the Disengagement plan).

All this for a bit of history. And just to make sure everyone knows that Human Rights Violations and War Crimes came from both sides.

A big "however" coming this way; Israel was basically, and please forgive the metaphor, shooting fish in a barrel. Gaza is the most densely populated stretch of geography in the world (as far as I'm aware), using fly over bombs and white phosphorous over that kind of area with the intention of flushing out Terrorists who are hiding among the population, yeah, that's a great way of making sure you're preserving innocent lives.
No, no it is not, though I suppose that goes without saying.

Excuse me, I digressed and began reiterating the points I wrote during the actual assault.

What I really wanted to talk about is Israel's reaction to the report, which is to say, blatantly, "He's lying".
That's it.
Oh, okay, let's add in a few internal Antisemitic remarks like calling Goldstone a "salf-hating" Jew (only Jews call other Jews "self-hating", which I find so insanely irritating and angering. That in itself is Antisemitic of course, that Jews are so deficient in their morality and identification, that they "hate themselves").

I was told that Israel should have been proactive and put together a report of their own countering the UN Fact Finding Mission.
Which, yeah, on a purely rational level that is the thing to do, but honestly, I find it quite repugnant that anyone would suggest any country put together a Propaganda based report aimed at disputing the fact that a sovereign nation committed war crimes on a population that has been deliberately weakened and incarcerated in their own homes.

Hearing the cynical dehumanising discussion of how much better the IDF did in Gaza than in Lebanon two years prior. Saying that more of "Them" died.

Is that the way an ethical people speak and act? Are those the values upon which a democracy is based? Better it be "Them", than "Us".

The soul searching that we should be doing is coming to the realisation that we, as a nation, must end this debilitating Occupation, because beyond it being immoral to deny basic human rights to a population and keep them under martial law, it is bad for us, for me, as an Israeli, to have the undercurrent of violence and hatred course through the streets.

It will end in tears.

Also, how immature is it to call out to the nations to reject the findings, as though closing our eyes, ears and mouth will some how cause it to disappear.
There is also the implication, by denying the report, that all that happened in Gaza was normal and appropriate for anti-Terror and urban Warfare.

However, despite the growing weariness of Europe against Israel (which is of course completely Antisemitically motivated, duh!) the U.S will not be confused by the facts and will back Israel up.

This is far from over. This is not going to be bring the end of the Occupation. That's, unfortunately, a long way off, because economically speaking there is too much vested interest in continuing the Occupation and letting the Settlements expand, thus furthering the possibility of a two state solution from ever happening.

So, on these days preceding the Day of Atonement (in which I will not be fasting) I'll keep in touch on stuff relating to the report and perhaps tell you what other fun stuff is being said about the report.

Maybe some of it will be marginally entertaining and not cause me to grind my teeth.

Chag Sameach Friends, may this year be the best so far!

Notes:
(1)I'm not a religious person, I never was, I tried to be (both Jewishly and not) and really, in the end, it's all about the fact that I do not want, need or even think much of the authority of either an entity we imagined in order to comfort ourselves or those people who claim to know what the Omnipotent and Omnipresent Deity actually expects from us teeny, tiny humans whose lives are only significant to us and maybe to a few dozen more people.
I'd also like to add that I have nothing against people who believe in a deity, I really honestly do not care. Belief isn't the problem, imo. It's religion.
Back to text

Just this evening, at the Berlin World Track and Field Championships, Caster Semenya of South Africa won the 800 metre distance run.

I saw it on teevee and I was amazed.

She left them all in the dust, a few of the other athletes were utterly bewildered.

Now she faces a gender probe, more info here.
That is, she's going to go under the invasive procedure of "making sure" she's female, because she did too well in her field.

Such is the fate of female athletes who are too successful.

I don't know what how Semenya ID's, nor do I care, however, her appearance is butch... too butch for the comfort of the athletics committee.

Diversity within female "sex" is verboten, obviously.

I'm smelling the misogyny, transphobia, homophobia and racism from here, in my little dusty room.

Maybe one day athletic categories will be divided through comparative abilities, rather than through gender segregation.

Due to Torchwood and the discussion regarding Homophobia that spread over fandom on-line, I've mentioned a few times the term "casual homophobia", I got a mentioning of the phenomenon as well.

Seeing as I had a brush with it yesterday and it being in the forefront of my mind, I thought I'd share the anecdote with you my dear readers and hear what y'all had to say about it.

Yesterday I went to visit my friend N, who has been ill lately and her Boyfriend was there, taking care of her, making lunch, etc.

He hung out in the living room and we hung out in her bedroom.

She'd been telling me about this guy for a month now and I was looking forward to meeting him as she hasn't sounded this enthusiastic about a boy in a while.

Anyway as we sat in her room she we chatted and she said that he's one of the most open minded people she'd ever met. Like myself, queer or not, the majority of my friends are what can be commonly called "Outsiders".
So him being an Outsider and open-minded (things that are not mutually exclusive mind you) sounded like a good deal to me.

He made chicken soup for N and himself, fried some rice for me, sans chicken to cater to my vegetarian self, the small talk was flowing and very comfortable, he asked me what I do (student of Lit and, Gender and Women' Studies, which he asked about and seemed to grasp very quickly and didn't make any jokes about "Men's Studies" which was refreshing as well) he didn't bat an eyelash when I mentioned [Southern!Girl].
All very charming and domestic.
It was fun.

Eventually due to her being quite sickly (poor thing!) N fell asleep and I was getting ready to go, seeing as she had fallen asleep and her boy needed to study.
As I was gathering my stuff, her boy asked, casually, "Are you a Lesbian?"

You know how you automatically stiffen and you feel your tummy drop a bit when you perceive a threat? My body did that, but just as quickly I relaxed again, because I'd been hanging out with his nice guy for over an hour and replied, just as casually, "No, I'm Bi, I just seem Gay" and we had a chuckle.

Now I cannot give you a word for word record of the conversation that went down, because it was quite long and eventually went in circles.

It turns out this boy has never met a gay man that he got along with. They are all aggressive, provocative and if they wouldn't be shoving their identity in his face if they were so Proud of it.

Oy oy oy.
I say again, oy oy oy.

So much to unpack and break down, so little time.

The discussion as to why what he said was homophobic and why I am using such a "strong term" like homophobia went on for a good 40 minutes.
It was civil.
I kept my cool despite wanting to tear my (his) hair out.

N eventually woke up and came out of her bedroom and was happy to hear us talking and getting along. Her boy sarcastically said, "We were just discussing the weather".
Which made us all chuckle.
N said she's always happy when her friends get along, to which a tsk and she replied: "Well you get along with everyone".
And I do, much to my dismay at times.

I'm not afraid of confrontation as 40 minutes of "civil discussion" should indicate. But unlike with my family (and very-very close chosen-family-type-friends) who I believe should know better than to say certain things, I find myself infinitely fucking patient with strangers when it comes to difference in opinion that have political ramifications in real life.

The thing is, nothing he was saying was hateful. He wasn't saying that gay men were perverted, disgusting, that they need to be "fixed" or have violence committed upon them for being who they are.
What he was saying that the queer was putting a cramp on his default identity, which fully admitted to having when I explained to him what I meant by "default identity".

It's casual and no real harm is meant by it, but it's endemic and it hurts and makes seemingly safe spaces appear unsafe.

He's a very charming nice guy and he treats N well and they seem very happy together which makes me very happy for her.
I think I'll just be asking him if he's managed to rise above his straightness and find any gays with whom he's gotten along with.

I'd like to add that this is not an invitation for people to bash the people I've (anonymously) mentioned in this post. As usual any comment in welcome, anonymous ones are always automatically screened.

I actually have a lot to write about.

However, the home environment is not conducive to writing.

I am distracted by trying to avoid Torchwood spoilers. Soon the "Children of Earth" episode 3 of the third season of TW will air in the UK.

I am trying so hard to avoid them as I plan to marathon the five eps of Saturday/Sunday and finally be able to participate in the discussions, read the fic and write my own bloody meta!

I'll write some for the radio plays as well when I'm over the overwhelming antici(say-it-master)pation... *sigh*.

Props to [Southern!Girl] and the rest of my BFF's for putting up with my huge Fangrrl!Monster.

Y'all know I'm bigger on the inside.

The first line of today's Torchwood radio play was Ianto's and he said:
"All right Jack, I'm in position".
My mind immedeatly went to "hehe, sex positions".

Not only do I have Slash goggles, I have Slash earphones.

I haven't written a fandom meta in a while, not just a review or a small comment. But full fledged talking about the affect of media has on us.

I mention my Slash love because yesterday there was a bit of bigotry in fandom: xtricks ( reports )

Now, homophobia is a bad thing. And really, fandom for me, is an escape from that. But of course that isn't really so. Fandom, like everything else, cannot be culturally removed.
I link to her a lot, but she's really brilliant; rm wrote an entry about this little bout of bigotry regarding the fact that Gay people are real, Slash is a genre... the two are connected: ( Quote )

Quite a bit if discussion are in those posts, but I have my own thoughts about.
Personal preference for me is Slash(1) of the male/male kind.
My current fandom favourite has a male homosexual couple as part of the canon.
I prefer to read stories in which sex and violence are explicit.

I've often tried to think about why I, a feminist, a queer woman; I prefer to read stories, get turned on by stories, share sexy man-on-man stories with my dyke GF who also enjoys 'em (I only send her the really good ones!) in which my subjectivity has to be shifted into that of a man.

What's the difference between that and girl-on-girl porn written by men? Or a "Mills and Boon" bodice ripper written by women?

Personally speaking, it just feels difference. That's gut feeling.

There are plenty of PWP (Plot? What Plot?/Porn Without Plot) stories out there, in which the only thing written is sex, explicit and very fun.

The gut feeling difference is that good stories, even PWP, is that the people written still feel like People.
Jack and Ianto remain them even when they're just fucking. They remain who they are, whether they are comforting each other, dominating one another or are hating each other to their marrows and the consent in dubious.

Mainstream porn (both written and visual) is about objectification and fetishism.

Slash... well, good slash, subverts that.
The fucking that we love to read is done by characters who are people. It's what I love about fandom, it uses a world that more often than not is pretty hole-filled and manages to construct an alternative narrative which manages to make a world that actually feels more real than the one originally created... even if it's just a bedroom.

Of course, the main thing I love about Slash is the fact that it is not Straight(2). Through fanfic and Slash in particular, this confused 13 year old girl learned what it is that people of the same sex can do together, because honestly, look around, we are only now seeing characters with desires that match our own that aren't accessories, comical tropes or tragic figures(3).
I like reading characters who revel in their sexuality without the mind numbing crushing shame - or actually see them deal with the shame that may or may not be thrust upon them and not die - or see that sexuality explored without apology.

As a queer woman who reads fiction that is more often than not written by other women (queer and not) about men who are sexual with each other... in a society that tells me that that is not so legitimate, I feel stronger.
It brings me comfort.
It enables me to consider sides of characters (humanity) I did not think about, because slash is a literary Meta on the world and characters written about.

And that's awesome.

However, as stated in the above quotes, queer people are real, homophobia touches us. The stories we read and write are not in a vacuum. The internet is a hot bed of hate and vitriol that surpasses the "real" world.
That some in fandom consider it disconnected from the very real power dynamics that affect us is at best silly and at worst exclusionary and violent.

And that, friends, is awful.

Yeah, I know, I ended it on a bit of a low note. Whatcha' gonna do...

Notes
(1) I love Het, Gen and Femmslash as well. But Slash is what I look for more than any other genre.
(2) Good Het or Gen isn't Straight either, imo.
(3) I hated "Brokeback Mountain".

Via sabotabby:

Every now and then the police arrest somebody suspected of some terrible, violent crime, and as a piece of public relations they'll announce all of the horrible books, movies and/or CDs they found in the suspect's house, as if to prove that the suspect is obviously guilty and horrible and monstrous.

So here is my challenge to you. You can either do this from memory or take a moment to look through your book and music collections, and then answer this question:

Name ten books, CDs and/or movies that you own that the police would cite as evidence against you at their press conference.

Now, I don't actually have much "subversive" stuff in Hard Copy (I'm pretty screwed if the authorities get their hands on Ursula the Laptop and/or my Disk-on-Key), but here are the things I think may raise some suspicion if I'm deemed "anti-social":
( Under the Cut - Nothing by Marx! )

I have some Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russel and the like, and of course, other books about sexuality (queer, BDSM) and various other feminist politics, but those are just for fun.
Of course.

There is such a ton of information pouring out of ontd_political regarding Iran I just can't keep up! The comments are a constant update for me because I'm not following Twitter - yeah, yeah, call me a Luddite.
My Facebook is a stealth one, I'm just not keen on that kind of information sharing, which is what's making this Iran uprising both effective and so bloody dangerous for the people actively twitting and facebooking etc.

The mainstream media is just failing.

I'm mainly following BBC, Al-Jazeera and Ha'aretz and my god, stop looking at this as though this is a game of "Risk" or "Diplomacy" - this ruthless game in which Nations are monoliths and the people who actually make up that society are relegated to spectacles of violence.

Robert Fisk of The Independent wrote a brilliant article Iran's Day of Destiny.

I can't look at the Youtube footage coming out of there, same as the last time I viewed a Youtube video of a demonstration against the Separation Wall I cried for an hour.
And I've been there.
Fuck.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm pretty sure that this isn't going going to harbour the great change for Iran, much as the Iranian people deserve. The regime is too stable and the Mullah's are ruthless as we all know.

Last night I read an article in Ha'aretz that irritated me, because the head of the Mossad - the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations - Meir Dagan, basically came to the same conclusion as me - that this won't be the great change - but also added this lovely little tidbit about how the Iran Elections affect Israel:

"The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element...It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran's nuclear program when he was prime minister."

'Cause never mind that Ahmadiniejad is a Dictator and that with Mousavi it would have been perhaps easier to actually talk to.
There would, conceivably, been a chance to actually attempt to establish an actual diplomatic relationship with Iran.
But no, their whole national agenda is to Nuke Israel.
Duh, how could I forget.
Oh and of course - their homophobia is worse than ours.

Something tangentially related - Netanayahu's speech of utter emptiness is still making headlines in these parts.
I'd say something constructive regarding him and his "reaching out" - which btw, WHAT?! - but I think my opinions about him, the ministers and the current government in general is widely known.
Basically, him uttering the combination of words "Palestinian", "State" and "Peace" are so devoid of any real meaning that I can say that if he represents the Israeli consensus, we are as empty headed and devoid of any kind of empathy that is rightfully human.
I'm not even going to bother linking to anything he said.
Seriously.

At least in Iran there is some movement.
Israel is stagnating under the perception of Democracy - which is far more complicated here that any other place I've ever heard about.

Keep resisting!

---

I suppose at some point I will reapply my "real" Facebook and get a Twitter.

I'm a follower.

And then spit.

Yeah yeah. I know, I've been away.
No inspiration to write will do that to you.

However, just a couple of days ago I came across an article (h/t lishablog) which I found incredibly disturbing (and funny!), as I feel it encapsulates the mainstream view of Israel much more than any other article I've read recently.
Mainstream in that it takes at face value the entire Israeli Zionist discourse.

Here it is, with a few added comments from your truly, who just couldn't help but think that this article deserved to be sliced, diced and criticised in that my oh so delicate and witty style.

Israel still looks good, warts and all
The alliance between the Western Left and Islamic anger is perplexing, writes Greg Sheridan

[...]
That Israel of the Western mind (and indeed of the Arab mind) is a hateful place: right-wing, militaristic, authoritarian, racist, ultra-religious, neo-colonial, narrow-minded, undemocratic, indifferent to world opinion, indifferent especially to Palestinian suffering.

It's really surprising how accurate these "distortions" are of Israel's image, isn't it?!

Yet the Israel I know is mostly secular, raucously, almost wildly democratic, has a vibrant left wing, having founded in the kibbutz movement one of the only successful experiments in socialism in human history.

Did this man step outside North-Central Tel-Aviv? Ever? In his visits, did he actually do things other than visit the regular tourist places, and maybe perhaps go to the Jaffa (Yaffo/Yaffa) that wasn't the port? Or Jerusalem that wasn't the Wailing Wall or the Souk?!
Also, The Kibbutz movement didn't actually work because it operated in a nominally Capitalist economy. The fact that people lived communally doesn't make it a successful socialist movement.

It is intellectually disputatious; any two Israelis will have three opinions and be happy to argue them to a lamp post. It is multi-ethnic,

The Black Panthers (the "Mizrahi Power" movement who were extremely active from the mid-60's all the way the First Intifada) were according to Golda Meir, "Not very nice" (paraphrased)
Arabs, of course, are another "race" altogether.

there is a great stress on human solidarity, there is due process. And I've never heard an Israeli speak casually about the value of Palestinian life.

I snorted so hard, I scared my cat.
The graffiti "Death to Arabs" in Hebrew can be found in many places.

I've heard Israelis voice a desire to neutralise Hezbollah or remove Hamas from leadership in Gaza,

By any means nessecary.
Including bombing innocent men, women and children.
July-August 2006.
December-January 2008-2009.
Just in case someone's forgotten.
( Cut for Length )
I hope you enjoyed that little ride.
It was certainly a fun article of FAIL to make fun of.
And help y'all to read.

I read two interesting articles this week discussing bisexuality in men and women.
This is obviously of great interest to me.

In How male bisexuality got cool the discussion is more about the legitimacy of male on male affection and less about sexuality per say... Because the idea here is how it looks and not the way people identify - behaviour is not identity.

It’s an emerging version of male bisexuality that’s more pose than sincere. The celebrities who engage in it take pains to make it clear they’re straight—half-ironically goofing around, often as a blatant grab for attention.
[...]
Gay men have long fetishized straight guys, but what’s happening now goes beyond that. It’s not just about being seduced into a same-sex encounter, but about men claiming bisexuality or bicuriosity on their own terms.

What I emphasised is really, really shitty.
Excuse me, what?
Personally, I think society has hard wired men queer or not to Objectify their, ha, objects of desire, that is however not my point. You can't really "tell" if a man is gay or straight unless he signifies it in an explicit way - lots of gay men "pass" as straight and lots of straight men are sometimes "confused" as gay. To say that, historically, Gay men have fetishized straight men is very homophobic because it's just another way of saying - gay=feminine and they only desire straight=masculine... basically a retelling on Inversion. Not to mention, that gay men who were isolated from queer community didn't actually have anyone else to desire, lets not forget that little tid bit.

[...]Somewhat surprisingly, women, too, are increasingly open to dating—and are sometimes specifically attracted to — bisexual guys

'Cause god knows that straight men are all hearts and flowers when it comes to sex and sexuality. Men who are not mono-sexual or have experienced sex that isn't just intercourse will very likely be open to a relationship that isn't utterly phallo-centric.
Shocking.
I know.

with all that, the article is incredibly dismissive of actual same-sex encounters and bisexual identity continuing the idea that bisexual people are indecisive, slutty and incapable of settling down.

It may be "cool" to toe the line and gush about the your best mate's suit etc. But I've yet to see bisexuality presented as anything other than part of the American celebrity freak show.

Go watch Torchwood, it's British.

---

In Why women are leaving men for other women (full length here) the discussion is an attempt to explain the phenomenon of women's changing orientation... despite the bisexuality in the title, I felt that the article was both misogynist and biphobic.

Women as a rule have a wider range of acceptable behaviour towards other women than men have, such is the nature of an oppressed group.
However, when society tries to push women "switching teams" as both surprising and natural, in the same place, something sounds fishy to me.

Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable -- or at least, acceptable.
[...]
[E]xperts like Binnie Klein, a Connecticut-based psychotherapist and lecturer in Yale's department of psychiatry, agree that alternative relationships are on the rise.

"It's clear that a change in sexual orientation is imaginable to more people than ever before, and there's more opportunity -- and acceptance -- to cross over the line," says Klein, noting that a half-dozen of her married female patients in the past few years have fallen in love with women. "Most are afraid that if they don't go for it, they'll end up with regrets."

Adrienne Rich in her canonical text Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence writes about the institutions of heterosexuality (romance, marriage, etc) and how it subjugates women economically, sexually and all the other ways women have historically suffered under the burden of heterosexual desire.
More and more women today do not have to suffer under that burden and the camaraderie of other women is very appealing.

In a 2004 landmark study at Northwestern University, the results were eye-opening. During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women.

Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men.

"We found that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time," says the study's senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. "These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains."

Yeah... not really.
Disregarding of course that we grow up in a society in which women's bodies are hyper sexualised and objectified every where we go. Women as well as men have been surrounded by images of women as sexual and available... the effect is prominent in all genders.
This doesn't mean women are naturally "bisexual".
It means women are socialised in a society in which we are taught that women are sexual objects.

---

Male bisexuality is seen as a freak show.
Female bisexuality is seen as the natural order of things.
And of course the gender binary and dichotomy is prominent in both these articles. Gender and sex variance pretty much a myth.
Yeah.
There is work to be done.

I just finished watching the first episode of Joss Whedon's new show Dollehouse.
It's available via streaming (thanks nurint!) and the Pilot episode is titled Ghost.

The rest of this entry is placed under a cut for spoilers, I'm generally very bad with that sort of thing because I tend to watch things after they've been "out" for a while and thus don't bother. However, seeing as this is a brand spanking new show that only began this week, I'll be considerate.

( Dollhouse S1 Ep1 - Ghost )

I'm not an automatic Joss-Fan. I didn't particularly enjoy Firefly, nor did I think Buffy Season 8 was a particularly well crafted comic book.
Teevee is where Joss belongs and I hope this show grows into its huge amount of potential.
Here's to a new show we can obsess about!

As promised... meta-blogging!

Over at Feministe, David Schraub of The Debate Link is guest blogging on the Gaza War:"Cast Lead".
He has written a brilliant (and long) post titled: “We Cannot Live Without Our Lives” Either: Jews, Privilege, and Anti-Subordination.
Now I don't agree with everything he's saying, but the way he breaks down the conflation of Antisemitian and anti-Zionism and how Antisemitism really still a reality for Jews world wide and Jewish history of course.
In any event, it's long and the comments on Feministe are always great to read as they are generally well written and well thought out.
Here's a taste of the entry:

But since I have the microphone at Feministe, particularly, I want to talk about some broader-level issues that tend to come to a fore when I participate in discussions in this community, and other progressive environments like it. The folks on this blog (both writers and commenters) are, by and large, wonderful people. But – here and elsewhere – there is very little recognition and very much resistance to a true, critical engagement with anti-Semitism and Jewish experiences writ large. Indeed, the moment we start talking about anti-Semitism, we’re shouted down with accusations that we’re “playing the anti-Semitism card”. No charge infuriates me more, because no charge is more reviled by progressives then specious claims of card-playing. We’ve all heard how conservatives will short-circuit any discussion of racism by saying “oh, you’re just playing the race card”, and we all have learned the hard way that “the race card”, whatever its benefits, is easily trumped by “‘the race card’ card”. And yet, for some reason, I’m expected to take seriously sanctimonious statements which claim to deplore anti-Semitism but then proceed to assert that “accusations of anti-Semitism are often used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel’s activities”.

Is that statement true? While I guess some people sometimes do cry anti-Semitism merely to shutdown discussion, that is rarely the true purpose. Rather, we’re actually trying to point out a couple of things.

I found this very interesting article at the Alternative Information Center.
During times of war it is easy and convenient to forget that Israel is probably one of the most culturally split countries in the world.
Palestinians and Palestinians with Israeli Citizenship (colloquially known as Arab-Israelis) are not the only "Other" in Israeli society.
The majority of people living out in the peripheral "Development Towns" which in the Negev (Southern Israel and Qassam fodder) are Mizrahi Jews who immigrated here in the 1950's and have remained in low socio-economic statues because... well... Development Towns exist in order to keep the Centre from overcrowding by new immigrants - many from the former Soviet Union who immigrated to Israel in the early 90's also settled in these towns (and secular Settlements in the West Bank).
The article I linked posits that:

The war of 1956, and the nationalist wave it aroused in Israel, created a space in which to ideologically include the immigrants. All Israelis, immigrants or not, shared the hardship of war and social discontent was relegated. Similarly, eleven years later, the 1967 war and the nationalist wave it unleashed following Israel’s victory served as a tool to discipline the independent trade union movement that had begun to develop.

Wars did not unify the diverse communities in Israel, but served to establish discipline within a fractured society. The wars, and particularly the military victory of 1967, served to establish the ethnic fundamentalism that characterizes the hegemonic discourse in Israel. This allowed the ruling classes to overcome the social rifts and thus suggest a Jewish national identity.

For this reason, the discourse of peace, which does not propose solutions to the social upheavals of Israeli society, subverts the promises of ethnic fundamentalism. With peace disappears the common danger that holds together the unemployed in Sderot and the systems engineer in Tel Aviv. At the same time, peace makes evident the social and ethnic rifts of Israel breaking its current façade of social stability.

Interesting stuff.
Jewish monolith?
Not so much.

Laila El-Hadded the blogger behind Raising Yousuf and Noor: diary of a Palestinian mother, writes a very evocative post - The inebriates of Israel's war -about what the Israeli Powers That Be want and how they try and get it:

I said something about how I don't know that the Israeli government has thought that through; that they are so drunk with self-conviction, absolute power and military might, racism and nationalism and perceived "success" all while a media blackout, a well-planned hasbara campaign and a public hungry for "action" fuel the war-terror machine with their blessings and support, that they will blaze ahead, losing sight of why-ever the hell they think they started this and whatever the hell it was supposed to achieve (the latest line is "increasing their deterrent force").

The herd mentality at its best.

I finish this lengthy quotes entry with the unbeatable Amira Hass:

History did not begin with the Qassams.
[...]Ever since the Palestinian Authority was established, the Israeli public relations machinery has exaggerated the danger of the military threat that the Palestinians pose to us. When they moved from stones to rifles and from Molotov cocktails to suicide bombings, from roadside bombs to Qassams and from Qassams to Grads, and from the PLO to Hamas, we said with a whoop of victory, "We told you. They're anti-Semites." And therefore, we have the right to go on a rampage.
What enabled Israel's military rampage - the proper words to describe it cannot be found in my dictionary - was the step-by-step isolation of the Gaza Strip.

The tone of this blog entry is light hearted and slightly sarcastic, nothing new I know, since my style has that quality most of the time.
I'd just like to reiterate the seriousness of this situation and explain that if I don't outlet my thoughts and feelings like this I'd be writing bad poetry and crying all the time... much like circa 2006 and 2007 after the 2nd Lebanon War and my (non-combative or field) participation in it.

Here are a few News articles.
For your... err... enjoyment.

Venezuela and Bolivia have cut diplomatic ties with Israel over "Cast Lead".
Damn, there go my chances at visiting Caracas and La-Paz!
Seriously though, I'm not surprised. As the two front runners for re-establishing Socialism in Latin America(1) and two of the United States' harshest critics, it doesn't surprise that they are making this kind of stand.
Israel has the highest profile of any other US ally and is perceived as an extension of US policy in the Middle East - not entirely true, but we sure like those US taxes and weapons, nom nom.

I'm not sure how much the Israeli higher echelon is giving a damn about what they probably consider two coo-coo heads of state, but I have a feeling that at some point in the near future it will bite us back in the ass.

For more pertinent issues:
It is reported that "Hamas accepts Egyptian cease-fire proposal":

Israel is asking for a number of guarantees from the Americans:

b A U.S. declaration calling on the international community to deal with the smuggling of arms from Iran to terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip.

b Intelligence cooperation between Israel and the U.S. for identifying the sources of weapons, with focus on the network linking Iran, the Persian Gulf and Sudan.

b An international maritime effort along the smuggling routes to find ships carrying weapons to the Gaza Strip, possibly with the involvement of NATO.

b An American and European commitment for the transfer of technologies to Egypt that will help it uncover tunnels.

b Plans for the economic development of Rafah, with particular emphasis on the Bedouin to undercut the financial motivation for building and operating tunnels.

Regardless?
I want to say... Yay?
A total cease-fire is something I've been hoping for since before day one.
Thing is... both sides are not very good at accepting agreements which don't hold their best interests at heart.
Israel isn't going to get everything it wants.
Hamas and the Palestinians definitely won't:

The war in Gaza isn't over yet. The final days of the Second Lebanon War show that it's best to be wary of agreements that come too early. But the way things looked on Wednesday, Hamas seems to be willing to accept the Egyptian initiative, which is almost a kind of surrender agreement for it.
The Egyptian proposal is mostly bad for Hamas. It doesn't let the organization bring the Palestinian public any political achievement that would justify the blood that has been spilled, and even forces on it the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, in the form of its renewed presence at the Rafah crossing (as a condition for its reopening).

Today is a day of waiting.
I hope that by this evening there will be something concrete to report about an end to the fighting and the bloodshed.

That's all for a News update.
Stay tuned for more general War impressions from blogs and my own brain.

Notes:
(1) Is that the correct term?

On Tuesday February 10th the State of Israel will be voting for it's 18th General Election (and our 5th in a decade, seriously, "Third World" stability) and it is slim pickings.

I'm obsessing a bit on the decision because it will actually be the first time I vote for the country's Knesset and PM. This isn't so surprising when one realised that I turned 18 two weeks after the 2003 elections and was out of the country in 2006, so... didn't get to vote.
Add to all that, that I'm actually politically aware and that my own politics seriously do not align with... anything that's on the electoral market.

I've no faith in the system.

Even the small parties that are voted in have very little power and generally produce bills to do with social welfare which is always good, of course, but with the way this country is going in that regard it looks as though even the Communist Party (the forerunners in social welfare laws) will be losing it's footing.

The whole election process is such a crock. We, the citizens, know that each and everyone of the politicians is corrupt, that every single move they make is in their own self-interests, that none of them have any intention of creating change (other than increasing the change lining their pockets) and that any ideology they have is used for nothing more than for pushing an agenda that will give them more power.

The main election issue floating around in the media isn't social welfare, or even the mush hailed Peace Process (which has been a joke for many a year).

It's how "we're" going to deal with Gaza.

There's no talk about... talking.

The word Occupation hasn't been mentioned anywhere, leaving the conciousness of the masses who are gearing to vote for a government that will continue streaming money into an Army that is being trained in policing a population while calling it "Defence".
Indeed, the whole "Only Democracy in the Middle East" myth doesn't live up to the standard of Israel believes itself to emulate.
We are of the British parliamentary method.
The fact that there is a vote doesn't a Democracy make.
When it is your ethnicity that dictates whether you are a citizen or second-class citizen...
When your religion dictates who you can associate and marry...
Well, I don't see any Western ideal there.

One of my friends mentioned that she will be voting for Tzipi Livni.
I asked her why, genuinely curious.
She said she can't not vote for a woman, because even if she doesn't do anything different (which she won't in the event of her being elected) there is still something symbolic in having a woman Prime Minister.
And in general I would agree.
But the idea of voting for someone which the only difference between her and the other candidates is Livni being a woman (it's a big significance difference), when her politics are just atrocious as Netanyahu's and Barak's.

I'm seriously considering blank-balloting.

Words, words, words.

Language is in constant flux, a word that means something is one context doesn't mean the same in another.
Or in the words of Inigo Montoya:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

This is especially true when it comes to the way we talk about behaviour.
What, pray, is the difference between Normal behaviour and Normative behaviour?

At a glance, not much.
On second thought a whole lot, at least in my mind.
The two words are not interchangeable and as much as I enjoy mixing up the lingo and inserting my own ideas when expressing... well... moi (e.g. I'm a Grrl and not a girl), it irks me when I see those two words mixed up.

Normative denotes, at least in my understanding of the word and in the context of behaviour, the value put upon said behaviour. It's also a word specifically used in academia, mainly high theory, philosophy and social sciences.
Normality is simply put, non-deviation from what is considered socially acceptable.

It is normal for people to seek out romantic relationships with other people.
It is normative for people of the opposite sex** to see romantic relationships with each other.

In the News, when I hear about violence in schools and what kids do to each other, teachers, parents, whoever always comment that they never expected [Kid A] to behave this way; after all, Zie is a normative child.
And it grates me.
Really it does.
A person cannot be Normative as an adjective!
They are either Normal or Not! There is no value put upon them as people.

*sigh*

But again, who am I to decide which way the wind blows when it comes to use of language, right?

*Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2
** I hope I can be forgiven for this terrible anachronism.

My head cold has broken me and I'm sitting here sipping tea.
Ah, well. Tomorrow is another day and it shall be made of coffee.

One of the things that have been on my mind lately is the forthcoming election - for those not in the local loop - Israel is going to have be voting for general elections in early 2009, these are going to be our 6th elections in 13 years.
Oh, no, we're so much better than the rest of the post-colonial countries of the Levant!
If my nose weren't so clogged my *snort* of utter derision would have probably been heard all the way to Beirut.

Any way.

The elections yes.
There are many problems, my biggest one is that I may have to go against my principals and vote for someone in order to prevent someone else from getting elected.

Tzipi Livni, current leader of the Centrist Kadima Party is not doing well in the poles. On any regular day this wouldn't bother me, since I have no great love for a former Likudnik or for a party made out of Ariel Sharon's own megalomania.
However, current poll leader seems to be the aforementioned Likud Party which is headed by Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu...
You cannot begin to understand how scary the thought of this man being back in the PM's office is.
Really, I'd rather have The Master.

A dilemma.

Do I cast my vote for the smaller party of my choice which actually holds onto values that I believe in (e.g. Meretz *sigh* or Hadash) or do I vote for Livni just to make myself feel better that my vote wasn't taken from her and gave victory to Bibi.

What's a Grrl to do?

What would you do?

---

Something else to think about:

In case you weren't aware, there is a group of young (18-19) Israeli Jewish conscientious objectors, known as The Shministim who refuse to be drafted into the IDF because of an ethical, moral and, yep, conscientious stance.
They are known as The Shministim (English and Hebrew websites) which is a Hebrew nick for High School seniors, and the Army drafts us right out of High School.
Tomorrow (December 18th) is the day of action.
Currently seven of this year's draftees have been charged with refusal to join the army and have been put in jail, some of them multiple times.
Press the links if you want to learn more about them, what they stand for and why it is important to support them.

Here they are, in their own words:

My tolerance for people has never been particularly high. I'm very picky about the people I'm willing to be friends with and I unfortunately tend to form strong opinions very quickly, so if someone said, done or have an attitude that grates me... I'm afraid it would take a hell of a lot to make me consider that someone worth any kind of positivity from me.

The one kind of attitude I can't fucking stand, really, it pisses me off beyond grating, is the "I'm so speshul" attitude.

A small disclaimer; I have my own incidences in which I'm completely narcissistic and think I'm the best thing that ever happened. This is a normal thing for people who know they're smart, I think.
But when [editorial] you are only saying something in a class discussion that isn't in aid of putting forth a standpoint, but in fact to put yourself in the spot light, you're an ass.
No, really.
You are.
I'm sorry I'm being vague, but I dislike demonizing particular people on the Internet, especially since I'm not locking this post as it's actually something worth talking about.

In a class forum, especially in a class in which sexuality and gender identity is on the table (it being a Queer Theory class), your own individual personal sexuality isn't what's being discussed.
It's one thing and a very good thing, to say out loud, that the discussion is excluding certain sexualities and identities (e.g. bisexuality and genderqueer). It's another to say that it affects you personally.
No, sorry, that's someone with an attitude problem.
And I may sound harsh, but I cannot stand it when people decide to use a class forum to show off their "spedhulness".
It's neither the time nor the place.
You want to talk about your own sexuality, there are breaks and after-class discussions. I mean, c'mon, we're a bunch of intellectual queers... this is what we do.
It rubs me the wrong way.
I (try to) participate in classes. I have things to say. I try to make them a standpoint and not a "personal opinion" or a "personal issue" mainly because, every word I say is ideological and very obviously a "personal" thing, unless I'm very specifically playing Devil's Advocate - but that's a whole different kettle of fish (where does that saying come from).

There are certain types of "speshul" people.
Not just the type described above.

There's also the type that feels the need to tell you, that because they like something in a certain way, then liking that same something in a different way is wrong.
For example, I was talking to this person about Alan Moore and how I'm really pre-supposed to hating the new "Watchmen" movie, mainly because I hate, despise Zack Snyder.
Hate. That. Director.
A lot.
Aesthetics mean a lot... but not enough to cover up the badness and complete lack of directorial abilities.
But I digress.
Any way, this person totally agrees and inside I'm all "yay, Moore fan!" and then he says "I really hated the Vendetta movie as well".
And I was like "What? How come? I mean, it was a very cute adaptation? Wachowski Sibs!"
He goes: "It completely butchered the meaning of the book, which is one of the few works that managed to show Anarchy as interesting".
(I refrain from bringing up "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin).
I say: "I enjoyed it and..." before I can finish my thought about the movie making it's own statement about freedom, government and other things like that, he interrupts and says:
"I guess I'm more of a political hard-liner than you"

What is with people?
Seriously?
Do you know me? I think not. I'll tell you something, I now know this guy a hell of a lot better now than before and I hope the hostility I transmit reaches him loud and clear.

People are people, I know.
And I can understand how misanthropy develops and becomes ones default position when it comes to interaction with others.
I really hope I retain my love for humanity for a little bit longer, despite the fact that I'm encountering these characters.

Teevee.
Television.
As a sampler and some-times addict of that potent drug I can't help but try and explain.

Commencing academia babble now:
Benedict Anderson wrote about Imagined Communities, the idea that through a non-existent or imagined commonality we establish the community in which we live.
He speaks mainly about the print and literature in order to exemplify this, because News papers are the most reproduced form of literature in the world today - think of those scenes in 1940's and 50's movies in which the frame is filled with men in fedoras and all of them reading the New York Time or the London Times, etc. Are they looking at one another? Do they communicate with each other? Most likely they can barely recognize each others face, but they are reading the same thing and they imagine or consider what they think about they are reading to be social consensus, despite the fact that they most likely would never talk about what they are thinking to another person.
That's an imagined community.

Television takes it one step further in my opinion.
News papers are relevant until the next edition and it takes conscious thought to read and absorb the information and data printed on a page.
Television by its nature, allows you to switch off your cognitive operations and just sponge in what is going on as you watch the screen.
Television has replaced religion when it comes to values as well.
Once in order to know what was right and wrong you listened to pulpits to tell you who was good, who was evil and what one should believe.
Now television tells us who is vilified, what is beautiful, how we ourselves can be like the idols which we worship on the flat screened alter.
Instead of family prayer, a family will congregate around the television and watch the episode of whatever programme we are addicted to at the moment.
And we obsess about it, no less than people used to obsess about god while those who control and create the discourse make some kind of profit off us "sheeple".