"

White gay cis men have cultural access to the bodies of black women and black femmes, cultural access that black women and black femmes do not have in relation to white gay cis male bodies. This cultural access allows white gay cis men to caricature black femininities, through mannerisms and voice intonations, as rambunctiously depraved and outlandish. It is a form of ontological mockery that reinforces dehumanizing narratives and racist tropes about black femininities. Perez Hilton, who personifies a homonormative politic, has systematically tapped into the cultural access to which I refer at various points in his career. Indeed, the sassy lexicon he, and so many other upper middle class non-disabled white gay cis men like him, employs rests on the commodification and appropriation of black femme identities. Hilton interjecting himself in a social media dispute between two black women, Azealia Banks and Angel Haze, precipitated the Hilton/Banks altercation, which is emblematic of his (problematic) cultural access.

Because our society subscribes to an insidiously misogynistic sociocultural paradigm, to insult someone, notwithstanding gender, is to invoke the feminine. So what better way for Banks to cut Hilton down to size than to call his masculinity into question? The Banks/Hilton feud had absolutely nothing to do with sexual identity (read: homophobia), but rather, gender power dynamics (read: femmephobia). Azealia calling Perez a “messy faggot” suggests an attempt to assert her status as a no-nonsense, hard ass femcee in a largely masculine of center dominated hip-hop industry. Masculine of center queer men, notwithstanding race, appropriate the word bitch. Very often, they use it pejoratively, and with impunity. They’re seldom called out on the ubiquity of their misguided misogyny. Yet, when it comes to Azealia’s use of the word faggot, she’s quickly characterized as homophobic, reinforcing the dominant narrative that people of color are somehow inherently homophobic, to echo Janet Mock’s recent sentiments. Although Azealia Banks is queer, she is not part of a population that would have this slur used against her. That being said, there are other words that are deeply entrenched manifestations of oppression that go unchecked each and every day. Ironically, many gay men who are up in arms over Azealia’s use of the word faggot are the same men who render femme-identified men invisible and undesirable.

Azealia Banks’ career allegedly hangs in the balance and Perez Hilton’s remains firmly intact. She’s now regarded as the ratchet, violently homophobic black woman. By virtue of his white gay cis male privilege, Hilton did not have to contend with the implications of calling will.i.am a faggot several months ago. This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

" —

—Edward Ndopu, “On Azealia Banks And White Gay Cis Male Privilege,” Crunk Feminist Collective 1/10/13 (via racialicious) (via endracismandhomophobia)

“

This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

”

“

This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

”

“

This isn’t two wrongs make a right, but rather, one wrong is minimized, and the other, pathologized.

”

AND THAT, CHILDREN, IS THE ENTIRE POINT. 

• Homophobia, or rather Heterosexism, is NOT a problem of JUST black people. That’s a fucking social problem that, quite honestly, is more the fault of cis straight white supremacy than anything else. LBR.
• Azealia was dead fucking wrong for what she did, but she was spot on about calling out the pick-and-choose indignation of certain sects of the so-called socially aware. Of course, as this quote itself points out, she used a word that isn’t used against her as a pejorative which, no matter how you slice it, is wrong.
• As a femme mostly male identifying person, can I just shout Hallelujah for someone finally saying this in a way that captures the things I want to intimate? ESPECIALLY the way femme people who don’t identify as women are treated within their own ‘communities’. That shit is TIRED. I’m tired of people thinking because I’m feminine, I’m weak, unattractive, and unworthy of respect. Fuck you.

(via renamok)

(via renamok)

buzzfeedlgbt:

Nate Silver discusses being a nerd in gay culture:

For me, I think the most important distinguishing characteristic is that I’m independent-minded. I’m sure that being gay encouraged the independent-mindedness, but that same independent-mindedness makes me a little bit skeptical of parts of gay culture, I suppose.

(via renamok)

passionis-angelus:

Miles Jai teaching the right and wrong way to ask someone’s gender :) <3

(Source: youtube.com, via renamok)

fuckyeahsodomites:

Gay rights activists pie Christian leader and notorious homophobe Anita Bryant in the face, 1977.

This is fucking awesome.

A+ Response

(Source: lalondes, via renamok)

androphilia:

شَاذٌّ: Dear ‘saviors’ of Muslim LGBTQI

hummussexual:

• “We” are not monolithic: do not all walk the same path and live the same life.
• “Our” stories are not something for you to fetishize and exoticize.
• “We” are not helpless objects for you to (hyper)sexualize and prey upon with your colonial gazes.
• “We” do not need your saving: you will not turn us into your latest causes célèbres.
• Non-heteronormative Muslims are not the (new) measuring stick by which you judge weather or not cultures/societies/countries/religious traditions are deemed as ‘modern/civilized/1st world’!
• “We” are not ‘progressive/forward thinking/open-minded’ for identifying within your accepted categories of LGBTQI. 
• Nor are “We” ‘medieval/backwards’ for identifying with our various religious traditions!
• “Our” agentivity is not yours to gauge: the multiplicity of ways chosen to live our lives (emancipation from region/family/religion/culture OR NOT!) are all equally valid… regardless of whether they measure up to your expectations.
• Enough with the tired clichés around the veil/unveiling/lifting the veil, kabab/kebab, sultan-harem, etc. imagery. It’s void of meaning, offensive and orientalist.
• The concept of “Coming Out” and its veneration is firmly based within a framework of a society that values individuation, not all societies do (i.e. check your privilege!)

Thanks to Kawlture for brainstorming with me… This is a work in progress.

(via renamok)

socialjusticeanimemacros:

(A picture of Haruka and Michiru from Sailor Moon holding hands) How does depicting a gay relationship “expose children to sexuality too young”  more than the constant focus on heterosexual love stories in children’s media?

(A picture of Touya and Yukito from Cardcaptor Sakura, Touya cradling Yukito’s face) If not for bigotry, parents would see such things as the perfect opening to educate their children about the wider world and the love all types of people share.

(via renamok)

howtobeterrell:

Earle Hyman was already an established and honored Shakespearean actor of the stage and in movies & television before taking a small, but career-defining role on the classic 1980’s sitcom, The Cosby Show. Despite an age difference of only eleven years between him and Bill Cosby, Hyman defined with relish the role for which he will now best be remembered - Grandpa Russell “Slide” Huxtable!

Not many of us would have known that Earle Hyman was also fascinated with the culture of Norway, spoke the language fluently, owned property there and actually spent much of his time in parts of the country. He first appeared there on stage in the 1950’s, and in the 90’s, he starred in a Norwegian television sitcom.  Somewhere in between that time, he encountered “the most wonderful man that I’d ever met” - his “partner” of 50 years, Rolf.  And if worldwide fame came late, so did grief, or sorg as they say in Norwegian. In a two-part video spot, Earl Hyman gives a heartbreaking account of loss, the struggle to survive, and finding Hospice, the comforting end of life care organization for terminally ill patients. “When it happens to you - you’re going to need somebody!” says Hyman.

The two accompanying photos show a very young Earle Hyman looking rather pensive, if not quite contemplating grief.  They were taken by the writer and Negrophile, Carl Van Vechten in 1947.

(via renamok)

"In a recent BBC report on homosexual Muslims in the UK, one interviewee described an experience she had at a gay pride rally. She says, “‘There was an occasion at gay pride once where one of the marchers turned around and quite crudely said, ‘we didn’t know pride was allowing suicide bombers on the march’ –– it was really shocking to hear it from a fellow gay marcher.” The intersection of an affirmative declaration of gay and Muslim identifications runs into the ascriptive identification of all Muslims as terrorists." — Hussein Rashid, The Name Game: Understanding Tensions in Identity and Muslim Homosexuality, in Muslim LGBT Inclusion Project (via ace-muslim)

(via renamok)

"Another powerful example of villainous queer-coding comes in the paradoxical form of a female character drawn specifically to evoke images of transvestite icons. The Sea Witch Ursula’s specific design in The Little Mermaid is no mistake: her character concept, mannerisms, facial expressions and vocal performance are based canonically upon famed drag queen Divine’s performance in the infamous John Waters’ shock film Pink Flamingos. This character design encapsulates the symbolism of deviant sexuality and gender subversion, which Disney equates with evil magic. She stands for the immorality of freely-expressed sexuality, not only by a female, but one who emulates a male subverting the norm: “the undoing and the pleasures of The Little Mermaid are found in Ursula – a drag queen who destabilizes gender as she performs it, who is the ‘dark continent’ of the feminine, who is jouissance – the multiplicity of woman’s abundant pleasures” (Bell 13). During her memorable song “Poor Unfortunate Souls,” she incorporates menacing body language and raw sexuality into her dances and advances toward the virginal Ariel. When Ursula steals Ariel’s voice, the act is shown as reaching inside (with penetrating magical tentacles) the innocent girl and removing something glowing and precious, evocative of a symbolic soul or virginity. The dance of the sexually-charged drag-queen-esque villainess seducing and trapping the pure maiden is transformed into an archetype of deviant sexuality contaminating and deflowering innocent chastity." — My research paper on Sexuality, Queer Coding and Villains in Disney (via thesylverlining)

(via renamok)

renamok:

feministdisney:

wk777-personal:

dirgeoftazza:

waltdisneyconfessions:

“I strongly believe in gay rights, but I really hate that people want Disney to have a gay couple. I think it would just be so wrong to incorporate into their movies. I can’t even explain why to myself, but I just really hope it never happens.”

This, I’m all for their rights and I respect their preference.

Also, why why does it matter so much if it were in a Disney film? Kids can learn about sexuality in another way, it doesn’t have to involve Disney.

“I agree. o-o; Especially when this subject of sexuality is WAY too sensitive and controversial of a subject to touch on in this time of era.”

are we talking about the Victorian era, because I’m fairly sure that basically every Disney movie has “the subject of sexuality” in it if two characters being in love counts for that.   And yes, queer identity is somewhat controversial- because there are bigots.   The best way to change people’s opinions on how they view this is often for them to actually see gay/queer/whatever relationships/people/whatever so that it becomes clear that they are just people like everyone else, not devious devil lovers.   I mean, our own vice president said that the show Will & Grace is what helped turn him around- we often take the social influence of tv/movies for granted, but it is undeniably a powerful force that has the potential to shape how we see and talk about certain social issues.

“Plus, people constantly suggesting movies put non-hetero couples in their movies seems a bit forceful…let the producers and directors make their own choices, sheesh. It’s like telling an artist what to draw, and trust me, it takes INSPIRATION for an artist such as I to even draw. :I;”

No, it takes money for Disney illustrators to draw.   You think everyone who animates every Disney movies backs every animation they draw 100%?   Of course not- someone else is in charge of telling the animators what to draw, what to add or take out.   And they do it because it is their job.   Obviously creativity on the part of the illustrator is a large component of their art, but it’s silly to frame this as if they’re all put in a room and told to come up with whatever they find “inspiring” and call it a movie.  

It’s not “forceful.”   

“In a way, making movies is also an art. Don’t shove it, just wait until they’re inspired… :U”

I’m going to continue to “shove it.”   And also, I did see your reply to another person questioning your statements here, and no, the fact that you could take or leave straight relationships as well doesn’t balance this whole thing out.   I can almost guarantee, without looking through your blog, that you have never written multiple posts agreeing with other people that Disney should never have straight relationships in their movie.   The reason is that, even if you don’t care much for them, you accept them as being a predictable part of any narrative- you see them as normal and therefore uncontroversial, unproblematic.   It would be nice if gay relationships could be shown without them being seen as an ideological/political battle every time, but change does not come overnight.   You DO have to push for representation and not sit by waiting possibly forever for it to come.

Also, Ariel was a character created specifically in response to a lot of “pushing” by fans who weren’t content with the earlier princesses and their lack of agency.   Yet everyone loves Ariel and I doubt you think the artists who drew her had a lack of inspiration just because someone told them what to draw.    Things like that seem controversial until they’re actually made… and then it’s not a big deal.

Thank goodness for FeministDisney because I don’t know what I’d do if I had to try to explain all of this.

renamok:

Fat shaming aside, this is spot on.

An even more accurate example of something that could be classified as a “lifestyle choice”? Religion.

Don’t forget “Rebel Pride”. 

(Source: renamok)