Oui, oui! C'est moi, après plusieurs mois d'absence. ;) Je ne sais pas si je reviendrai souvent, mais l'occasion s'y prêtait. Je suis toujours bien occupée avec l'université, je suis comblée d'être avec une femme extraordinaire, je ne pourrais demander plus. Bon, il y a finalement des postes de prof qui planent à l'horizon. Finalement. Du moins c'est à suivre.

Voila en fait ce qui m'amène. Le 10 janvier dernier, sur le site cyberpresse.ca du quotidien de Québec Le Soleil, un texte critiquant vertement la politique de lutte à l'homophobie du gouvernement du Québec a été publié. Écrit par quatre philosophes (à la retraite), il mettait en lumière le gros fond crasse de l'hétérosexisme.

En même temps, il relevait ce qu'énormément de gens pensent dans leur fort intérieur, malgré tout. Malgré les belles intentions, malgré les volontés sincères d'afficher du respect ou d'être allié-e-s. Il touchait au roc qui se trouve sous la poussière et la terre des préjugés brutes se prêtant davantage à l'excavation. Ce roc dont la densité est égale à l'assurance avec laquelle certaines idées sont annoncées comme «allant de soi», «évidentes», de «gros bon sens». Qui elle est tout aussi égale aux rôles centraux que jouent certains mythes dans la constitution de soi.

Pas évident de répondre à ça avec un simple «bla». C'est impossible en fait. Pour défaire un paradigme, il faut en présenter un autre et ceci demande énormément de temps. J'ai essayé de naviguer là-dedans aussi bien que je le pouvais. Sérieux les ami-e-es, j'ai réussi à pondre une réplique qui n'était pas plus longue que le texte original ;)

Seulement, Le Soleil ne l'a pas publiée. Je n'ai pas pu sauter assez vite sur l'affaire, ou bedonc ils n'ont pas aimé. Histoire de dire que je n'ai pas passé plusieurs heures à écrire la chose en vain - et à recevoir les généreuses contributions de trois gentil-le-s lecteurs-trices pour rien, je vais vous le partager ici.

Mais avant, si certaines personnes aimeraient consulter le texte original, intitulé «Un plan de lutte contre l'homophobie méprisant pour la population», le voici.

Puis voila ma réponse:

Les richesses de la diversité sexuelle

La lettre de MM. John White, Gérard Lévesque, Charles Cauchy, Maurice Cormier est une excellente opportunité de répondre aux arguments dont ils se font les porte-parole et auxquels ils ne sont pas les seuls, en toute honnêteté, à adhérer. En tant que femme lesbienne, ce n’est pas la première fois que je les entends et ils me sont parfaitement familiers.

Je comprends, d’une certaine façon, ce cri du cœur des auteurs. C’est celui qui se manifeste chez beaucoup de personnes faisant partie d’un groupe majoritaire ayant joui pendant longtemps du pouvoir de définir le monde qui les entoure. Elles apprennent avec désarroi, voire colère, que des personnes d’un groupe minoritaire ne partagent pas la vision qui leur semble aller de soi et sur laquelle repose une bonne partie de l’estime qu’elles se vouent. Dans ce contexte, toute critique à cette vision est vécue comme une atteinte à leur intelligence et une attaque à ce qu’elles valent.

Certes, ce n’est pas parce qu’une minorité a une perspective différente de celle de la majorité que cette perspective devient automatiquement valide. À l’inverse, toutefois, le fait qu’une opinion soit partagée par une majorité de gens – ou même la totalité de la population – ne la transforme pas en vérité. La Terre ne serait pas plate quand bien même tout le monde y croirait. Avancer l’argument selon lequel une perception est vraie parce que plus répandue constitue donc un sophisme, soit celui de l’appel à la popularité.

Reste à résoudre le cœur de l’enjeu, soit celui de la compréhension qu’on a du vivant et de la sexualité. À cet égard, le fait qu’il existe, au sein du vivant, un processus permettant l’apparition de générations nouvelles est indéniable. Cependant – et la nuance est beaucoup plus grande qu’elle n’en paraît de prime abord –, c’est une toute autre chose d’affirmer que «Le but de la ‘Nature’ (ou de la ‘Vie’) est la reproduction des espèces». Parler en termes de buts ou d’objectifs, c’est postuler une intention d’origine émanant d’une entité pensante et réfléchissante. Or, s’il est permis d’en faire un acte de foi, ce n’est certainement pas un raisonnement scientifique.

Dans l’impossibilité d’entrer en discussion avec la «Nature» - ou même de démontrer son existence comme entité réfléchissante -, il sera donc impossible de déterminer si elle a des buts et objectifs ou si parfois elle commet des «erreurs» (soit les «étranges» que sont les personnes bisexuelles, gaies, lesbiennes, intersexuées ou transgenres), se fourvoyant ainsi dans les recettes dont elle seule a le secret.

Je vois bien comment mes propos risquent de choquer profondément. Nous cherchons tous et toutes à donner du sens à notre existence et construisons une partie substantielle de notre estime de soi sur le sentiment que nous sommes utiles au monde qui nous entoure. D’où le fait qu’une fois Dieu chassé – de certaines sphères, disons –, le «naturel» l’ait remplacé au galop dans le cœur de plusieurs. Je comprends cette recherche de sens et de validité, de même que le fait que tout principe ou valeur soit invariablement fondé sur un acte de foi. Seulement voici, je considère qu’il faut être extrêmement prudent dans la pratique de ces actes puisque selon le mien, il est important que toute personne humaine soit investie de la même valeur. Ce n’est qu’à l’aune de sa soif d’égalité et des gestes de solidarité qu’elle pose envers son prochain qu’elle devrait être jugée et elle ne devrait pas chercher à établir son estime personnelle sur un sentiment de supériorité par rapport à d’autres.

Malheureusement, notre passé et notre présent ont connu une succession de situations où différents groupes sociaux ont confondu respect à leur endroit avec reconnaissance de leur soi-disant supériorité, et toute critique de cette prétention est présentée comme un préjudice commis à leur égard. L’histoire des revendications des femmes, des Noir-e-s, des immigrant-e-s, des Premières nations, des pauvres ou des personnes vivant avec un handicap – pour ne nommer que ceux-ci – le démontre amplement. Elle démontre du même souffle comment plusieurs membres de groupes majoritaires ou dominants accordent facilement leur conscience avec une profession de respect plutôt partielle à l’endroit de ces groupes minoritaires. Ils ne réservent leur indignation qu’aux actes les plus vils dont ceux-ci sont la cible, mais s’accommodent fort bien de la douleur que suscite l’infériorisation plus ou moins subtile qu’ils leur réservent à travers le quotidien.

Ce qui facilite cette infériorisation est le fait qu’elle soit toujours fondée sur de soi-disant évidences et du prétendu gros bon sens. Pendant longtemps, et encore aujourd’hui pour certains blancs, il fut évident que des races biologiques existaient et que celles-ci s’organisaient hiérarchiquement. Affirmer le contraire était pure folie. De même que la supériorité des hommes sur les femmes crevait les yeux – et les crève encore pour certains. Il faut savoir que l’observation, même scientifique, est souvent influencée par les références culturelles de la personne qui observe. Ainsi Darwin a-t-il pu s’extasier devant le «merveilleux» instinct «esclavagiste» des fourmis et une gamme de biologistes ont-ils pu qualifier «d’aberration» les rapports sexuels entre animaux de même sexe.

Oui, un grand nombre de personnes, des majorités même parfois, peuvent se tromper. Et le leur souligner n’est pas un acte de mépris, mais de justice. D’autant plus qu’à ce que je sache, cette critique ne torpille pas l’entièreté de leur faculté de jugement puisque celle-ci ne s’arrête pas à l’opinion qu’elles se font du groupe minoritaire ou discriminé dont nous faisons partie.

Lâcher prise sur cette infériorisation serait pourtant si prometteuse. Il y a une richesse à reconnaître pleinement la validité de l’amour et de la sexualité entre personnes de même sexe. Le fait qu’elles puissent s’aimer et s’épanouir ensemble est un exemple au monde hétérosexuel du fait qu’il soit possible de vivre et de fonctionner à deux sans être confinés d’office à un rôle précis selon son sexe. Il devient ainsi plus facile d’évoluer selon ses affinités propres et d’entrer en relation égalitaire avec une autre personne. Cela requiert certes de la communication et peut faire peur au départ, mais on gagne en humanité lorsque les relations qu’on entretient avec d’autres, qu’il s’agisse de personnes aimées ou appartenant à d’autres groupes sociaux, se dépouillent progressivement de rapports de pouvoir obligés.



N.B.: À certains endroits, j'ai tourné les coins un petit peu rond. Pas évident d'essayer de rendre avec finesse certains concepts qui ne sont pas familiers pour une bonne partie de la population et ce, dans un court texte.

Edit: Le Soleil n'a pas dû aimer, car je viens de voir qu'ils ont publié une réplique ce soir.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

J'ai revu Marie-Ève hier soir et ma foi ce fut fort troublant.

Je devais dormir, absolument dormir, et récupérer un tantinet. Mais je me suis tournée d'un bord et de l'autre du lit avec le coeur qui battait la chamade. Mélange de désir, d'émotions et de peur!!

La fille est pas habituée de vivre ça!

La fille est en train de tomber dans le vide pis elle est pas certaine qu'elle a un parachute. :P

C'est bien chargée de Moose Milk que je vous souhaite tous et toutes une merveilleuse nouvelle année!! :D

Je devrais être en train de corriger les travaux de mes étudiants, mais ça ne me tente tellement pas. J'ai besoin d'un gros géant botté dans le popotin. ;)

Donc à la place je travaille sur autre chose. Je prends tout plein de notes du classique d'Iris Marion Young, «Justice and the Politics of Difference», dont je déguste presque toutes les pages. Bon, je ne sais pas si d'autres qualifieraient cet ouvrage comme étant plus classique que son plus récent «Inclusion and Democracy». Mais je le trouve classique pareil et peut-être lui accorderai-je deux classiques - ou même trois, quand j'aurai lu celui-là ainsi que son dernier, «Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice» :P C'est dommage qu'elle soit décédée si jeune.

Et je sais que les notes que je prends vont m'être très utiles pour plusieurs de mes cours, dont deux que je donne là, cet hiver.

Donc je rationalise et ça me sert d'excuse! ;)

Vilaine, va!

...

- Procrastination de Janik: «Mais il ne me reste qu'un seul chapitre et après c'est fini!!»

- Conscience de Janik: «Oui, oui, je sais, et après tu vas dire que tu vas juste te tremper le nez dans Inclusion and Democracy comme ça, pour te donner un avant goût, puis tu vas être convaincue que tu as absolument besoin de cette matière pour certains de tes cours de cet hiver, donc tu vas à nouveau te mettre à prendre des notes, puis tu vas te retrouver avec deux jours pour corriger 300 pages.»

- Procrastination de Janik: «C'est pas vrai!!»

- Conscience de Janik: «Procrastination, regarde moi sérieusement dans les yeux!»

- Procrastination de Janik: *Air piteux et coupable*

J'ai hâte de revoir Marie-Ève! Ce sera pour le 3 janvier prochain! Yé :D Je suis ravie et super soulagée: suite à une de ses questions, je me suis ouverte sur certaines de mes craintes par rapport aux relations naissantes. Elle a super gros apprécié et très bien réagi. En outre, je suis épatée par sa pétillance et son expressivité! Wow!

- Conscience de Janik: «Tu vois, si tu travailles sur tes corrections tout de suite, ça va peut-être te donner plus de temps pour voir Marie-Ève!»

- Procrastination de Janik: «Ça c'est un argument de poids.»

«We have no words to speak about our oppression, our distress, our bitterness, and our revolt against the exhaustion, the stupidity, the monotony, the lack of meaning of our work and of our life, against the contempt in which our work is held; against the despotic hierarchy of the factory, against a society in which we remain the underdogs and in which goods and enjoyments that are considered normal by other classes are denied to us and are parceled out to us only reluctantly, as though we were asking for a privilege. We have no words to say what it is and how it feels to be workers, to be held in suspicion, to be ordered around by people who have more and who pretend to know more and who compel us to work according to rules they set and for purposes that are theirs, not ours. And we have no words to say all this because the ruling class has monopolized not only the power of decision-making and of material wealth, they have also monopolized culture and language.» [emphasis his, not mine]

Gee, I would love to know which of his books contains this passage.

It's an intro quote for a chapter of the book «Justice and the Politics of Difference», from Iris Marion Young. But oddly, I do not see the source.

Oh, and I should add the following.

Do. Not. Expect. Me. To. Nod. And. Smile when you go «You Know» smile-smile-wink-wink «Your Friend».

In french and english, we usually make distinctions between friends and lovers and boy/girlfriends and partners and wives/husbands, and we do not use smiles and winks to convey them. We just use simple worlds like, well, you know, "friend" and "lover" and "boy/girlfriend" and "partner" and "wife/husband".

If you are heterosexual, that is.

Then, you can stay cozy with the privilege that your loved one will NEVER be equated to a "friend" (unless, maybe, we really did not know beforehand the nature of your relationship) or to one of the "special" sort.

No. You will not even have to push your little finger to have your relationship be recognized. Its intimacy and love and affection and sexuality will not be silenced by ambiguous "You know, your friend"s, told in this sort of contented self-assurance, as if nothing wrong had just been said.

I have a good bunch of friends. And let me assure you I do not experience emotions or do things with them that I experience and do with my girlfriends. I love my friends, but I am not in love with them. I can be affectionate with my friends, but I do not make love with my them.

This f***g double standard, when it comes to same-sex relationships, speaks volumes.

While heterosexuals live pure, transcendental, sacred, full-fledged love and sexual attraction, we experience a pale copy of it. Ours, apparently, is very, very, very good friendship.

Oh, and how funny! When we point out the double standard to those who make use of it, their brains warp and distort. They suddenly go into the "this is not what I meant" mode [so, what, is it that you do not "really mean it" when you casually mention your heterosexual friends' spouses and boy/girlfriends and lovers, instead of calling them "You know" smile-smile-wink-wink "your friend"s ?]. Or they go in the "It is not true that there is a problem" mode. Their brain forgets that every. other. frigging. time. they will not mistake other (heterosexual) people's partners for their "friends". They do. not. register that lots of heterosexual people around them will directly name heterosexual partners in unequivocal terms, and then turn around and mention gay or lesbian's "friends" almost with the same breath.

No. They will argue with you about your own frigging knowledge of your own frigging situation.

To those heterosexuals, Think About This: What is the probability that, when talking with your heterosexual friends, they will mention their gay or lesbian friend's "friend"? And now, what do you think is the probability that, when talking to me, a heterosexual person evokes my smile-smile-wink-wink "friend"? I'll give you a clue: the latter will happen more often. Not clear yet? When two heterosexuals meet, they are not in contact with gay reality each and everytime. Sometimes, they may think of this lesbian friend or family member or other. When a heterosexual person is talking to me, she or he is in contact with gay reality every single time because, duh, I am lesbian. So the chances that a "(special)friend" will come up are... yes, you got it, more frequent. So I get to witness and experience and be subjected to, more often than you do, the f***g double standard. And you know what? I do not always have a heterosexual friend alongside me as a second witness to the scene - besides, of course, the interlocutor. So. you. have. to. believe. me. and. not. go. into. defensive. denial. mode.

Also, do. not. tell. me. I. am. making. a fuss. You have no idea, what it means. You have to put this double standard in context. You have to stop atomizing the f***g thing and considering it in an isolated manner. Think Water Torture. One drop? Doesn't matter. Who is going to suffer from and make a fuss over one drop on the head? Nobody, for good reasons. Now, think one drop, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another... get the picture? And then put it in a context where heterosexuality is constantly and routinely praised to the skies (cartoons, movies, publicities, songs, novels, public displays of affection, etc, etc, etc - I am keeping it at that here because that could be the matter of another essay) while sexual diversity generally is silenced - even though it fortunately begins to be recognized. Reconsider all those "little drops" and put them in that perspective. Now persist in telling me I am making a fuss. You'll see a friendship break as quickly as... a wink.

Yes, there are still some lesbians and gays and bisexuals who themselves use "my friend"s for their partners. If it is out of an interiorized double standard, I really have a hard time with that and will discuss it with them (although I cannot and will not blame them for heterosexism). If they are using it as a protection strategy, I really understand. But here's the Golden rule: listen to what the person says. Once she or he is out to you, most of the times, she or he will use non-equivocal terms. And when you listen to me, you will never hear me say "You know" smile-smile-wink-wink "my friend". No, I'll be plain and casual and I will never tip-toe around words.

And one last thing. If you evoke my (ex-)girlfriend(s) with your smile-smile-wink-wink "friend" because you do not want your kids to simply and casually hear "your girlfriend", do not invite me over to your place. I won't accomodate your prejudices, your discomfort and your double standards.

Arrrhhhhhh - Ostie de câlisse de tabarnak de saint-sacrament d'estie de cibouère!!!!!! :(

I wonder. Why is it that I keep playing Mrs Nice Lesbian with people who are in denial about their heterosexism? Why? Why? Why?

Why is this still my default setting until you push, and you shove, and you push me again??

Explaining things? I don't mind. I'll gladly do LGBT101 almost anytime. If I feel you really are respectful and listening I'll be patient and open. I'll share thoughts, emotions, whatever sphere is necessary. You can tell me you feel you have prejudices and we'll start from there.

But do. not. go. into. convoluted. denial. mode. Do. not. try. to. say. «this is not "really" what you meant», «that you do not "really" see a difference», but yet «you would "still" prefer your kid to be heterosexual because that is "better"», but that «"better" did not mean "superior"», but «if my twelve year old kid came to me and said he was gay I would tell him he is too young too know [while not mentioning to your twelve year old kid coming to you and saying he has a girlfriend (because of course heterosexuals never have to come out since sexuality is by "default" heterosexuality) that he is too young to know he is heterosexual]» but «no, I would just act the same, it is too young too live something sexual at that age [arrrr, why not just say that instead of mentioning the too young to know excuse only if the kid mentions he is gay]».

Do. not. say. «Yes I am heterosexist, but no, I do not consider heterosexuality to be superior». Do. not. tell. me that «you would say nothing against homosexuality to your kid, yet consciously address him/her only as if he were heterosexual» and insist that «this does not constitute a double standard».

You can tell him that there are more chances he will grow to be heterosexual, and a small probability he/she'll either be homosexual or bisexual. Fine. That's not imposing or presenting one as better. Only more/less frequent.

When I go in schools, it is far easier for me to be zen. Even if I have to deal with some stubborn types steeped in denial, I will not have to suffer them for long. After the session I will be out of their class forever and I will never have to see them again (except for rare, rare circumstances).

But when stubborn heterosexism comes from people you love, people you are close to - like friends and family - or people you are starting to get close to - as friends in becoming -, it hurts like hell.

And it is too fucking easy to say that we-take-it-too-personally-and-we-should-not-take-it-so-personally-because-the-person-does-not-mean-to-really-hurt-you/us when you NEVER have experienced even ONCE in your life your love being devalued because you are heterosexual. Sexual orientation is not what you order on the menu. Nobody cares if they're told their taste, say, in peenut butter is ridiculous, because peenut butter is not at the center of our lives. But love and sexuality are, for the vast majority of people, regardless of their sexual orientation. If I tell you your heterosexuality is problematic but assure you that I have nothing against you, only against your "behavior", you will not feel relieved and unconcerned. You will not feel I am not attacking who you are, but only what you do, as if it was something you would observe from afar, an external part of your self.

For some years after my coming out, I have been particularly patient, even in front of denial and bad faith. But having to do one's own mother, one's own father, one's own grandparents, one's own oncles and aunts, one's own cousins, one's own therapists/psychologists and one's own heterosexual friends education eventually takes its toll. I am Fucking Fed Up about either having to patiently wait until people's resistances wane, or bore through every tiring inch of it.

So you know what? I'm done.

No more fucking Mrs Nice Lesbian.

You can tell me you are uncomfortable. You can tell me you find it hard. If you really are making an effort, I can bear it out. But if you play stubborn denial with me, I'm out. Do not expect any friendship. I'll stay polite, but distant. I don't want to open myself up and hurt myself all the more. Been there. Done that enough.

Since economics have been (con)fused with capitalism to the point of being considered one and the same, and since the creation of its «homo oeconomicus» pet (that is, «men» being conceived as rational, cost/benefit calculating beings) we've been set up for major trouble.

Here's a nice satire from Tom Tomorrow (you can click on it to view it better):



On another note: I just met a colleague a few minutes back and she told me that students who went through my first methodology class did a great job in hers. She said she was admirative of what I had done. Yay :D However I was pretty surprised by her comment since in my opinion I did not do a great job. So:
Either her standards are not high and I did a medium job
Or her standards are somewhat high and I did a better job than I thought.
- or some combination thereof (you can imagine the varying degrees)
Anyways, I won't sit on my arse with the praise. I see room for improvement, so improvement it will be!

Hier, j'ai vu mes amies Sam et Audray. Comme à l'habitude, nous avons eu des discussions super intéressantes avec quelques moments fort amusants. Au moment de parler d'erreurs de traduction, Sam nous a sorti la désopilante «Revendeur de drogue de neige» pour Snow Pusher. Oui, oui. Intriguée, j'ai fait quelques investigations...

et oh ma foi je suis tombée sur des perles!

Visiblement, ya bien des compagnies qui se crissent royalement de la traduction. C'est à se demander s'ils pensent que nous ne verrons que du feu à leurs correcteurs automatiques. Alors voici:



Pour un déguisement de l'Halloween:


Pour des écouteurs?:


Pour un brasseur de cartes:


Et finalement, pour un je ne sais pas quoi:

Juste comme ça, pour décrocher.

It's not a black or white thing. There are, definitely, nice folks working in corporations. However, the higher up we go into a hierarchy, the more problematic it becomes.

I must admit, greenie_breizh, that this has decisively cemented my support for bio:

Controlling our food

Le monde selon Monsanto

Howard Zinn

I'm back from an amazing conference given by Howard Zinn at my University. Wow.

First, even though the talk was taking place in a big auditorium, it got completely filled up and a bunch of us had to sit outside and listen to the loudspeakers. Nevertheless, it was great and I managed to squeeze in for the Q&A period because some people left at that point.

He said something about « just wars » which was very touching. I searched the internet to see if I could find a video that could approximate what he said (because I would think it was not the first time he talked about this) and got this one:




Me, Myself and My Own Penetrating Analysis Mixed up with Five Long, Dragging and Convoluted Questions

Now, regarding the Q&A period. mousme, happens your father was the facilitator! Why I am not surprised? ;) You father, obviously, is a smart and experienced man. He knows pretty well about the «Me, Myself and My Own Penetrating Analysis Mixed up with Five Long, Dragging and Convoluted Questions» syndrome that plagues Q&A periods. I guess most people who have worked in conference organizing and attended quite a bunch of them are aware of this syndrome. Consequently, I am, and I've grown pretty annoyed with this. So I was bracing for it. Then I heard your smart father insisting, from the outset on not making editorial pieces. I almost had my hope raised... but what do you think a lot of people did?

They made one anyway.

And your father tried, all along the way, to keep them in check. So you have all these people standing for the mikes. They should see and hear others, before them, being warned. They should Take the Hint. But no. Several of them are just preoccupied by one thing: their Own Moment of Shining Glory. « Screw the others waiting in line, it is me, myself and my own penetrating analysis ».

I wonder sometimes if it is that these people make all their own analyses alone by their computers and they crave to blurt all the stuff out at the occasional conferences they attend. And/or if they are ego-activists types who just have to draw all the attention in on themselves. Really, I'm curious about this stuff.

Dudes (and galls - but most of the time the « me, myself and my own penetrating analysis » syndromees are guys), liberating ourselves from our egos is as important as asking others to give up on their privileges and their entitlement (their own inflated ego problem)!

Not that my analysis is anchored in psychology, but you know ;) We get to feel better, at the end of the day - and we do not step on our comrades' toes ;)

So my friend mousme just posted some Sesame street silliness

Bon, ça y est, me v'la partie. Her song was sticking to my brain while I was surfing the net, so I figured I'd just respond to her in kind ;)

Here's me own Sesame Street counting song that has stuck with me through the years (especially after my cousins made a groovy interpretation of it). This song, though, is not a tipsy happy song, it is more of a high on pot song ;) It also signals I am not that young ;)

I am an anarchist, a radical feminist, and an anti-oppression activist (and yes, these positions can overlap in different ways).

However, I am not beyond self-critique.

You see, the more I have come to understand oppression mechanics and see their extent, the more I have become familiar with historical resistance to justice (in a general sense and not just in a juridical justice one), and the more I have actually experienced that resistance in my life, the more I developed a very complex and mixed feeling of Anger and Love. Anger at complacency towards injustices and resistance to openness. Love at a my fellow human beings whose felicity brings me joy, and whose harming hurts me. I do not want to get poetic here, I am just trying as best I can to describe how I feel [and since I need to get back to work as quickly as possible, I cannot dwell to long on finding the right words and phrasing to convey those feelings].

Unfortunately, my impatience (or «our», because I am not alone in this), coupled with the dimming of my hope had started to weigh on me lately (up to the «epiphany» moment, that is). I can see there is something very dangerous to loosing (all) hope and becoming utterly cynical. And it has different results depending on whether we are on the right, on the center, on the left or on the left of lefts. When we are on the left of lefts, we tend to grow a more-radical-than-thou and anti-fun attitude that proves to be more harmful than anything else. Lots of us also tend to lump up anything that is bad and oppressive (no matter what its degree or shade of grey is) in the utterBad category. For instance, many radical leftists and anarchist posit that there is no difference between Obama and McCain. Sadly and ironically enough, this is binary thinking, one of the main tools of oppression (although some power positions are, indeed, binary).

Of course, that lumping of shades of bad into utterbad comes partly from historical experience. Too often in the past, radical activists have sided with reformists in the fight against injustices and their actions gradually became diluded and their effectiveness eventually dwindled. As long as we will not work on the root causes of a problem, we will stay mired forever in putting plasters on bobos. However, staying alert at the cost of fun undermines the very objective for which we fight: more love, equality, and happiness. I don't know how we can taste happiness with grim faces. Or how we can imagine that after being all grimmy with staying alert and fighting, we will, all of a sudden, become happy. As if the opening gates of Revolution were like the opening gates of Heaven.

In his essay Some cyonide to go with that whine? Obama's victory and the rage of the barbiturate left, that you can find on his red room blog, Tim Wise nails it pretty well.

Fortunately, we are not the Borg and some of us do have fun. But we should all heed the words of Emma Goldman, who was herself an anarchist:
At the dances I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha, a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if he were about to announce the death of a dear comrade, he whispered to me that it did not behoove an agitator to dance. Certainly not with such reckless abandon, anyway. It was undignified for one who was on the way to become a force in the anarchist movement. My frivolity would only hurt the Cause.
I grew furious at the impudent interference of the boy. I told him to mind his own business. I was tired of having the Cause constantly thrown into my face. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement would not be turned into a cloister. If it meant that, I did not want it. "I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things." Anarchism meant that to me, and I would live it in spite of the whole world — prisons, persecution, everything. Yes, even in spite of the condemnation of my own closest comrades I would live my beautiful ideal. (1931, p. 56)
* This incident was the source of a statement commonly attributed to Goldman that occurs in several variants:
If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having.
If there won't be dancing at the revolution, I'm not coming.

This is but a perspective from one single activist. Many others are aware of the importance of fun and I presume many others could provide intesting thoughts on this.

I guess the fear lots of us have - at least it is the fear I have - when we insert the fun component, is that fun be taken even more often as an excuse for prejudice than it already is. For instance all the racist, sexist, heterosexist humor that are excused away as «only being jokes». All the sexist and racist and heterosexist imagery, songs, movies (or components of movies) that are minimized as «just» being funny. Because «we know how much anarchists, feminists or anti-racists can be "humorless" or "funless"». I fear our stressing of heeding the importance of fun can be construed, by lots of people as being allowed complacency and prejudice.

How can we go around this. My bet is that we try to show that it is possible to have lots of fun without prejudiced humor. This, is just an example, and wow does he make me laugh! :D
Cultivating non-prejudiced fun is precious. It allows us some breaks and we can even mix it with activism! :D

...as usual I wrote far more than I first wanted, and I did not even mention all the nuances I wanted to bring forth. But hey, I need to go have fun correcting my students copies :P

I just finished writing my second article tonight, wouhouuuuu :D

It's entitled : Insultes ou simples «expressions»? Les significations de la gamme d'épithètes «gai», «fif», «moumoune» et tapette» et les implications de leur usage.

It's basically about the meanings of «fag» and the like. I'm contrasting my analysis to the ones made by Plummer and Pascoe, although I cannot go into lengthy details in that specific article, for lack of space. I would very much like to produce an english translation of the original version, which is more complete - to my eyes.

Also, I received a letter from a publishing house. They found my thesis very interesting, but offered no formal commitment unless I make it more accessible to non-academic folks. Since I intended to vulgarize it anyways, it really is not a problem. I will call them shortly to know if I can meet them and discuss more precise terms.

That's definitely a positive :D

I'm in a curiosity mode.

My friend mousme has written a post about her mom's non-acknowledgement of her girlfriend BorderCrossing as being her girlfriend.

I would be curious to hear my non-heterosexual friends talk about their own experiences. Has this happened to them or not? Or differently?

How about acknowledgement in daily life. From other family members, friends, co-workers. How does it go? What are the different reactions and terms in use?

I would also be curious to know if any of my heterosexual friends have witnessed non-acknowledgment behavior or not? What are the words you hear other people use when they are talking about two people in a same-sex relationship? Or simply, the ways they are describing it?

I am so not 23 anymore :P Gee. I had a soft background headache throughout the day that made it impossible for me to concentrate on my work. There was this sort of perpetual cloud in my brain. And I really did not drink that much, honest ;) I mean, I did not feel sick or anything and was careful not to cross The Threshold, which I have come to skillfully recognize after some years of experience ;) I drank water in between and all. I guess I did not drink water enough and I also guess I am more sensitive to brain shortcomings nowadays because I rely more heavily on it for my work. When I was 23, the morning after I was going off to work at the drugstore feeling far worse then I did today and still being able to function.

But what a night!! My friend Alex, who is transitioning from F to M, was holding a symbolic party to officialize his passage. We bid farewell to Audrey and welcomed Alex. Actually, he came out as Alex some months ago and friends have started calling him Alex for a while, but that makes it more official. We had such a great time, and Alex was very touched by the fact that he was surrounded by a lot of supportive friends. Some had prepared super cool sketches for him, and I hoped in to take care of the party decorations :)

I feel blessed to have a friend such as Alex. [And I should add, since I never got to write it on this blog, that I feel blessed to have several wonderful friends]. Alex has asked me, last week, to accompany him to the hospital to receive his first testosterone shot. Actually, he got to deliver it to himself and was instructed on how to proceed. It was a very important moment for him and I was very touched that he shared it with me. We then got to talk for the whole afternoon (with him expressing his emotions about it all first, because it was a very emotive day and experience). I feel I am learning a lot from him. That was very enriching.

So wow. That was all worth the non-productive day. :D

***

Also been trying to get new pants. I hate shoping for clothes :P «Girls' clothes» are often too «frilly» (I don't even know if that's a word), and «boys pants» do not usually fit my waist. Then, there is the size problem. I am tall and large. Yay. I came back empty handed.

Oh yeah, and I got called «yo pussy» when I was on my way home riding my bike. I ride in front of a car that's stopped at the red line. And the driver calls «yo pussy». Me not answering. «Yo pussy» again. Me not answering, mister 257 LMJ car driver drives off because the light turned green.

Definitely, sexism is a thing of the past.

Definitely.

Well, I guess I get to learn each day. Sam, a friend of mine, sent me those links on autism:

Positively Autistic

In my language

This is definitely food for thought

***

And a little something more, very cute, for the enthousiastic:

Amazing Autistic Mind: The Kid is All-Write

J'ai de la misère à mettre cela en mots, mais je sens que je viens de vivre une épiphanie samedi dernier. Pas une phase subite de «bonne humeur», mais quelque chose de vraiment profond. Je ne crois pas que ce soit temporaire. Ça vient du fond du cœur et non de la tête. Ça peut paraître bizarre, étant donné que j'ai passé quelques moments sombres dernièrement. Je vais assimiler ça ces prochains jours et j'y reviendrai sans doute :D