Caitlyn Jenner is a Friend of Mine

I’m deeply troubled by some of the anti-trans and anti-queer commentary that has been taking place on the blog Feminism and Religion in recent months. I’ll never forget when the project first began—talking with the founders about its original purpose: to bring the “F” word back into the mainstream religious discourse and more importantly, to be a place where scholars, young and old, senior or junior, could write, collaborate and eventually converse with across cyberspace.

However, in recent months, I’ve found myself being more of a watchdog rather than a frequent commentator on issues pertaining to feminist religious discourse. I’ve found myself reading comments about issues I may not frankly identify or agree with just to make sure that the cisgendering or anti-trans narratives do not become symbolic of what this blog is now rather than what was supposed to be at the beginning.

When I sat down to write my very first post I was scared. I was terrified that feminists from all communities would see me only as I appeared and not for whom I actually was. I was afraid that all I had worked for throughout my life would be moot with the first bad comment on one of my posts. While all of those fears were real and valid they quickly faded away as I was embraced by this community and many others for my passion rather than my gender; my life’s work rather than my privilege; and more importantly, the personal mission to make the world a safer and better place for women and girls everywhere.

To speak ones truth is oftentimes a difficult and nearly impossible act. However, to live one’s truth, on a day-to-day basis, is an aspect of life that has become so foreign to individuals who have become so comfortable in their own skin that I fear the activist and social justice roots that we all claim to hail from have fallen at the wayside and been replaced by complacency and reductionism.

Caitlyn Jenner’s story is one that many individuals, often not highlighted on this blog, know all too well. Caitlyn Jenner’s story and personal experiences are valid and for members of the feminist community to refer to her as not “feminist” or merely as a man “masquerading” as a woman while still utilizing his privilege from being biologically born as a man is troubling and the root of the problem facing many trans individuals today when they’re negotiating coming out as their true selves.

Trans individuals face a cadre of other horrible social, physical and mental statistics that oftentimes lead them to be more likely to self-harm.   However, as feminists, isn’t it our job to make sure that all groups have access to the same freedoms rather than working towards denying it for certain groups while trolling the comments sections of posts?

Shakespeare said: “To thine own self be true” and for those of us who identify with the Golden Rule, if we no longer treat others as we would like to treat ourselves, then we really have failed as feminists; and if the comments on recent blogs are any indication, we still have a long way to go before all voices can feel welcomed not only on FAR but also in the world at-large.

John Erickson is a Ph.D. Candidate in American Religious History at Claremont Graduate University. He holds a MA in Women’s Studies in Religion; an MA in Applied Women’s Studies; and a BA in Women’s Literature and Women’s Studies. He is a Permanent Contributor to the blog Feminism and Religion, a Non-Fiction Reviewer for Lambda Literary, the leader in LGBT reviews, author interviews, opinions and news since 1989 and the Co-Chair of the Queer Studies in Religion section of the American Academy of Religion's Western Region, the only regional section of the American Academy of Religion that is dedicated to the exploration of queer studies in religion and other relevant fields in the nation and the President of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh's LGBTQA+ Alumni Association. When he is not working on his dissertation, he can be found at West Hollywood City Hall where he is the Community Events Technician and works on policies and special events relating to women, gender, sexuality, and human rights issues that are sponsored or co-sponsored by the City of West Hollywood. He is the author of the blog From Wisconsin, with Love and can be followed on Twitter @JErickson85

Genderqueering

Leelah Alcorn, Ash Haffner, Aniya Knee Parker, Yaz'min Shancez

This post is a response to a recent blog entry on Feminism and Religion titled "Who is Gender Queer?" on from scholar Carol Christ.  The post can be read by clicking here.  I want to thank my friend, advocate, and upcoming scholar Martha Ovadia for reasons only she knows!  Stay brave, speak up, be heard! 

_________________________________________

It is terrifying to know that something is wrong but not be able to speak truth to power.

It is even more terrifying to know something is wrong, be able to speak to it, and then silence those voices that do not have that same privilege, power, or position as you.

The struggle that many of us in positions of privilege and power aren’t just the ostracizing and essentializing forces that we, as allies, members of communities, or even those dedicated to a cause, can participate in the oppression we are fighting against and do harm.

It’s taken me a long time to not only be comfortable with who I identify as but also how I go about fighting and defining my life based on said identity and experience. However, the one thing that I have the ability to do is choose that identity, more freely than others. Unlike Leelah Alcorn, Ash Haffner, Aniya Knee Parker, or Yaz’min Shancez, I did not have to face the types of oppressions that they did and sadly lost their lives to as a result because we exist in a society that can’t deal with the inability to leave things undefined or to allow people to define who they are on their own terms. It is vital that although my lived experiences could never meet nor match the same types of oppression that these brave individuals had to face, I, as a white, cisgendered gay male do not, through my own position and privilege become part of their oppression.  

As a man who exists in the world of feminism and within various women’s communities, I walk a daily tightrope of privilege and power to insure that I do not silence those that I consider allies, friends, mentors, or colleagues. As a man who exists in the world of the LGBTQ community, I walk an additional tightrope to additionally take away or diminish from the experiences of those members of our community that do not have the same type of lived experiences as myself.   Even within minority communities, positions of hierarchy exist and within these hierarchies of knowledge, identity, or power, comes a responsibility to insure that the oppressed do not become the oppressors.

We find our versions of home in these communities and it is within these spaces where our home not only begins to define who we are but we, as a reflection of that space, begin to outwardly redefine the spaces we exist in.   If we slowly begin, through our experiences to shape our homes based on privilege and power without self-reflection and acknowledgment of others, then we are no better than those oppressive forces we say we’re against.

I can’t speak for what identity feels like –I can only speak for what essentializing does and what it does is reflected in the deaths of Lelah, Ash and many others who die nameless.   It is our responsibility, as allies, members of communities, and those fighting to end sexist, patriarchal and even now homonormative oppression to make sure that no more deaths occur on our watch or that truth is spoken to power even when power is masquerading around as truth.

The Hot Seat

I've kept quiet during the whole #Hugogate that has taken the feminist blogosphere by storm.  Although I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs, I took a moment to step back, examine the situation, and think about the next step not only for myself but also for all of those who identify as feminists and happen to be men just like me.  Men are here, doing good work, and making strides towards equality alongside women and yes, we can be angry over what happened, but lets use that as a force for good and overcome this pain and anger and continue to create a world that we all want to live and work in together, rather than further apart.  As always, thanks to Feminism and Religion for not only having faith in me since the start of the project but also for continuing to have faith in me and the work I do. 

__________________________________________________________________

I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a male feminist lately.  As the only man to be a permanent blogger on this very site until my colleague and friend Kile Jones came on board, I took my role, as a man in a traditional feminist (online) space very seriously.  Although the ongoing struggle to be a male feminist is one continually wrought with dialogues about power and positionality (amongst a host of many other topics), I am often conflicted when I see male feminists take advantage and destroy the hard work that many, specifically on this site and beyond, worked hard to build and defend.

Not wanting to reopen old wounds or start new online battles, men have been involved in feminism for quite some time.  From James Mott chairing the first women’s rights convention, to radical feminist Andrea Dworkin’s life partner John Stoltenberg, to Michael Kimmel and Michael Kaufman’s life long work to legitimizing not only men in feminism but also what it means to be a man who works for gender equality, being a man in feminism isn't easy and that’s how it is supposed to be.

I’ve wrote on this blog that men often have to deal with an internalized misogyny that is a born characteristic trait that imparts that idea that men are not only dominant but also more powerful than women so they should, naturally, be atop of the proverbial pecking order.  This internalized misogyny leads many men, who already or want to exist in feminist spaces, to speak up more than the women in the room when they should really be listening.   However, what is more important than this internalized misogyny is how men, specifically, male feminists, fall victim to their ego by wanting to be the sole male feminist.

While I still believe that men are endowed with these characteristics as a result of purposeful and subconscious cultural, societal and religious imagery that shows men as Gods, it is important to realize that while there the image of the one God may be something that many men idealize and aspire to, the idea of the one male feminist doesn't exist and it is not supposed to.  Those who strive to be the male feminist are doomed to fail and they hurt those who came along for their ego driven ride and the feminist cause they sought to be a part of.

When it comes to leading, men are told to get to the front of the line no matter what the cost or who they hurt and women are told to take a backseat  However, when it comes to feminism, especially men in feminism, men must to go to the back of the bus first and work their way up to the front fully knowing that although they may never reach that coveted front seat, the work they did to help the cause was just as important because equality doesn't mean anything when there is only one voice screaming from the rafters.

Hopefully the hurt that has been caused as of late can be healed and as a result more men join the cause to stop all forms of injustice that threaten not only women’s equality but also equality for all, no matter what.

Second Class Rape Victims: Rape Hierarchy and Gender Conflict

While most of my life has been dedicated to studying for my qualifying exams, finishing up a few book chapters, and working for the City of West Hollywood, I am constantly thrilled for the opportunity to step away from it all and engage in these thought provoking conversations.  I hope you enjoy this blog and visit the Feminism and Religion Project to view the new conversation occurring in the field.  

____________________________________________________________________

The most disturbing part of the 2006 documentary Deliver Us from Evil isn’t that fact that Father Oliver O’Grady is rewarded by the Catholic church with a new congregation in Ireland after his short stint in prison for the rape of dozens of children in the 1970s but rather the hierarchy of gendered victimization which is often created throughout the various rape cases that both are reported and unreported throughout history.  

Deliver us from Evil

I am often troubled by the ways in which rape cases are discussed and even deconstructed via the mediums such as blogs, online communities, social media networks, the news, and popular culture.  No series of events troubled me more than the Jerry Sandusky trial but more importantly, the ways in which the young boys and adult men who were subjected to Sandusky’s abuse quickly overshadowed the other rape cases that are reported on a daily basis, specifically those involving young girls and women. 

Our country needs to have a serious conversation about the ways in which masculinity is not only constructed but also deconstructed through the acts of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and virility.  How do these horrific actions pinpoint and break apart the depiction of the hegemonic and virile man who is impenetrable.  How do these acts, which have historically occurred throughout time, gain greater significance in our 24hr news cycle, tech obsessed culture? 

Although the rape of a women on a bus in India by six men didn’t go unnoticed by the world, I have to wonder what would have happened if her story would have occurred on November 4^th, 2011, the date when a grand jury, who had convened in 2008, indicted him on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys.  Would it have gotten the same amount of attention it did when it came across U.S. news screens on December 16^th, 2012?  Would the outcry from women across the world silence those of both Penn State as well as various other sports fans and individuals from across the United States? 

What these events and society’s obsession with them for the weeks and months and even year after signify isn’t that more attention is being given to violent sexual crimes against all types of bodies but rather a resignification of the hierarchy that is already all too present within our culture today: stories about men in all forms get top billing. 

Upon asking a small groups of friends whether or not they have heard about the rape case involving the Indian woman on December 16^th, 2012 or even the rape of an elderly bird-watching woman in Central Park in September 2012 the resounding silence pinpointed the reasons why, when asked whether or not they had heard about Jerry Sandusky, their answers were an unequivocal yes.

While the activist in me wanted to cry out and scream “Are you serious!” the scholar in me knew to take a step back and examine the situation from various angles.   

Why are violent crimes against women cast aside in light of new stories that involve men sexually or violently abusing young boys or other men?  What about masculinity makes it seem both impenetrable and innately hegemonic? 

While we could reduce the actions down to the violent response men have when any form of their power and social/sexual status is threatened, we have to step back and examine the issue about the innate power that men are endowed with not only through social institutions but also religious ones as well.

Men are seen as “on top” both figuratively and literally throughout the various images that bombard both young girls and boys immediately from the expulsion of their mother’s womb (and some would argue even before their expulsion).  From early on, young boys are taught that they are #1 and that “the other,” i.e., the young girl, is not only below them but also an object that they must possess, whether through violent action or the eternal dance of courting.   However, when there is a disruption to this innate system of power structures, the response that we often see is one of violence.  While men are taught that they should not show emotion or deviate from the heteronormative society acted out in front of them on a daily basis, their crisis of masculinity often comes with the inability to negotiate what their identities as men actually mean to themselves personally.  Giving men the ability and space to discuss what their masculinity means to them creates the opportunity to change the narrative of “men on top.”  From small ripples of change that eventually overtake the mainstream current, deconstructing masculinity during times when violent actions are inflicted upon male bodies creates a new chance for scholars and activists to draw attention to not away from the victims at hand but rather into the larger narrative of social, sexual, and domestic violence that occurs all around the world every day to all types of bodies. 

Deconstructing masculinity isn’t the key to solving social, sexual, and domestic violence across the world but it is a step worth taking when attempting to engage men in affecting change to stop these violent actions since men, statistically are the perpetrators of such crimes that both cause such outcry as well as perpetual silence. 

(I was fortunate enough to get to spend some time this month talking with Dr. Gina Messina-Dysert at lengths about our lives, our careers, and like with most scholar/activists eventually about the topics we are passionate about.  Always a source of inspiration, Gina frequently helps me hash out the many topics I’m interested in writing about and pointing me in the right direction. This post (and the blog it is housed on) would not be possible without her continual presence as a force for change and progress within Feminist and Religious communities.)

Why Men (and Women) Still Can't Have It All

I oftentimes finding inspiration for my latest blog at the last moment.  Today, it came via a phone call with Dr. Gina Messina-Dysert about topics.  Inspiration, much like a muse, hit me.  In honor of my blog's topic I have to admit that without Gina's help, I wouldn't have been able to write this post.  Did I use Gina?  Maybe.  Did we work together on a project that best served both of our interests? Yes.
We used each other and we continue to day in and day out.  In doing so, we have created some great posts.  Thanks Gina, for all the help and constant inspiration you always give me.  Also to my faithful and dutiful best friend Anjeanette for reading it in the late night as I frantically read it over afraid of what people might have to say.  We all use each other and when we admit to it, we create beautiful end products as a result.

                                                                         -John

__________________________________________________________

Growing up, my favorite movie was The Associate staring Whoppi Goldberg as a woman at a Wall Street firm attempting to climb her way up the corporate ladder through hard work and dedication.  Her character Laurel Ayres does all the work and comes up with the ideas that clients eventually invest in, her partner Frank takes all the credit and eventually surpasses her at work by getting the promotion she had been vying for.  In a prodigious scene that I still vividly remember from my childhood, Laurel quits her job and starts an investment firm on her own; betting every cent and piece of property she has on the eventual success of her new business adventure.

In an attempt to break through the proverbial glass ceiling and play with the big boys of Wall Street, Laurel eventually discovers that although she can be (and is) the genius behind many of the great ideas that would save companies millions, she still needs to have her ideas expelled by a man she creates in order to win over clients, which eventually leads her to become successful.  However, while Laurel is reaping in the benefits of having Mr. Cutty, her made up business partner, by her side, she eventually learns that no matter what she does she will always be secondary to her male business partner.

Although the movie ends with a good feminist one-two punch to the proverbial patriarchal face, it taught me an important lesson about the politics and sacrifices each gender consciously or subconsciously make while trying to succeed in life’s adventures.  Why were perfectly good ideas by a female second fiddle?  Why were men the only ones capable of coming up with ideas?  And more importantly, why did women and men use each other in the same manner in order to succeed and further themselves in the world?

I’m sure many of the readers of Feminism and Religion have read the painstakingly long and brutally honest piece titled “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” by Anne-Marie Slaughter and others might have read Gina Messina-Dysert’s blog in response to it.  While we all took to the blogosphere to find and discuss our answers to the age old feminist question that many have been afraid to publically ask like Anne-Marie Slaughter and few have actually dared to answer in great detail, I’m here to tell you that both men and women still can’t have it all regardless of how many eye rolls you just had after reading this last sentence.

Yes, men use women and yes, when you look at the political, social, sexual, and religious landscapes of the world, white, Angelo-Saxon men blot out the terrain like an ever-growing forest in a land of capitalistic enterprise hell-bent on earthly and gendered domination.  However, what we fail to realize is that women also use men in many of the same gainful enterprises.  While I live in the world of academic, I also live in the real world.  I go out to clubs with friends, I listen to the stories from both men and women from highly respected careers discuss their crazy Saturday night, and hear from each of them about how they skillfully and successfully manipulated the opposite gender (or those of the same gender for my LGBTQ brothers and sisters) out of the club and back to their apartment or into some other compromising position that placed one at a disadvantage and the other in a seat of power.  

While my friends bragged about the escapades over coffee at brunch or in a text message, I often felt that many people are afraid to admit to their misusing because they are worried about how it will make them look rather than admitting it is something that we all have and still continue to do.   The point and problem about using each other is, that it serves as a catalyst to many of the world’s problems and successes.  Academics, many like Anne-Marie Slaughter and others would like to sit back and write about the inequalities in gendered politics and the advantages and disadvantages to women and men without truly engaging in the matter that they too once did the exact same thing that they are now writing about.

Can women have it all?  Possibly.  Can men ever have it all? Maybe.  Regardless of however we put it, the are ills to every good deed in the world and we need to get back to understanding how and why we use each other in order to fully understand that behind every good man might be a good woman but also behind every good women there might also be a good man.

We all use each other to get ahead in the world and there is nothing wrong with that.  It is the matter in which how we use each other that we need to question and deconstruct in order to fully realize and understand Slaughter’s final point about understanding our own power and in the process making the world better for all women and in the process men as well if we truly are attempting to create a world based on gender equality rather than inequality.

Much like the ending of The Associate, we all create and use people in our lives to succeed and fail in our endeavors.  Although Mr. Cutty was a fictional character, he eventually became the physical manifestation of everything the Laurel Ayres attempted to escape at her old job and recreate in her new, female owned and operated one.  She eventually had to literally become the actual manifestation of Mr. Cutty at an all-male New York City club to reveal that behind every good man may be a good woman but behind good women may still be the predestined and already defined actions of men that feminists have been trying to fight against for years.  Men and women may be able to have it all but they won’t get anywhere near achieving the goals of Slaughter’s article without acknowledging how we got there in the first place.

“Vaginas are Everywhere!”: The Power of the Female Reproductive System

Having the ability to share my thoughts and my ideas with the Feminism and Religion Project is a continual honor.  I hope you enjoy this latest piece. 

______________________________________________________________________

I have a beautiful picture of vagina hanging on my wall.  However, for the longest time it was in the back of my closet, with a plastic bag covering it.  I wasn’t ashamed of it but my ex-boyfriend, like most gay men, refused to have it on the wall where he could see it.  He is now long gone, the vagina is now out and proud. 

I bid on the picture one fall during a showing of the Vagina Monologues at Claremont School of Theology.  One of my best friends was in the show and I had always loved its powerful message.  I walked out of the theatre, waiting for my friend, and there it was: the picture of the vagina.  I found myself caught up in its beauty.  Its gaze had mesmerized me.  The outlying layers of red, the contours of its shape, they all began to mold into a figure before my eyes.  While I have never thought of myself as a religious person, I realized that at that moment I was no longer looking the old photo but rather I was staring at the outline of the Virgin Mary.  At that moment, I realized that I had to have the picture.

My ex boyfriend was ashamed of the photo.  I let him shame me into putting it in the back of my closet and cast it away like it was nothing.  Like the experience, call it religious or not, had never happened.  When we ended our relationship, I found myself inconsolable and pacing up and down my stairs in a never-ending cycle of sadness and downheartedness.   As I was pilfering through our items, I came about the picture.  I saw it and for a split second, I was no longer sad.  I placed it in a position on the wall that used to hold a picture of my ex and I and proudly stood back and felt a sense of calm take over me.  Slowly but surely, I began to box up the rest of the stuff I had hidden away from my friend during the mass exodus of memories and replaced them with images that helped me begin to heel. 

That’s the power of the vagina: its births new life into the world, even when one does not think life is possible.  It is not just an organ but a vessel that proudly and respectfully births and re-births us all back into a world that has shunned and cast us away.  Vaginas are powerful not in the classic sense but in the uniting and ecstatic transformative bliss that they bring into the world. 

While they are a sense of beauty to some, they also serve as a symbol that needs to be controlled by others.   While some shove vaginas into the back of closets, covered in a plastic bag, others like to legislate against them.  Unlike traditional phallic sources of power, vaginas are an inward expression of beauty and power that take place within a woman’s body unlike external sources of power and size that men like to claim their penis’ represent. 

Nice girls don’t say the word vagina.  Rep. Lisa Brown (D-West Bloomfield, Michigan) learned this lesson the hard way after announcing on the floor that she “was flattered that [all the men were] so interested in [her] vagina, but no means no.”  She was subsequently barred from speaking the day and the controversial abortion bill, which makes it practically impossible for women to obtain abortion services in Michigan, cleared the House with a seamless majority of male support.

While men like to say that they respect women, I find it hard (specifically as of late) to believe anything a Republican (or a Democrat in some cases) says.  They would rather have women sit in a corner and wait silently with a dunce cap on their heads as men dictate what they should do with their bodies and how they should behave.  As of late, conservative men like to think of women and vaginas as two separate entities without realizing that without one you cannot have the other.  These men are afraid of women and more importantly their vaginas not because they signify difference but due to the sheer power they represent.  The ability to create, harbor, and in some cases, if the woman chooses to do so, take away life, is a gift and it is a gift, that as of late, is scaring men half to death. 

Wherever we look, there are vaginas.  From the birthing room to the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, vaginas are everywhere and they serve an important part in shaping and empowering our everyday lives.  Regardless of whether or not these conservative men, not only from Michigan but also from all over the United States, agree is a matter worth fighting for and in some cases worth dying for. While Rep. Mike Callton (R-Nashville, Michigan) or Ari Adler, Press Secretary for House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall, Michigan) were outraged over Rep. Brown’s statements, they did not take the time to realize that they were only adding fuel to an already blazing fire within each and every woman who is sick and tired of having both her vagina as much as herself talked for and by men who believe they “know best.”

Well, to all those men, I, along with every other vagina wielding women and allies say, we’ll see you next Tuesday.  Vaginas are everywhere and well men, you’re just going to have to get used to it. 

New and Old Queer Frontiers - Redefining Sacred Space

I am continually honored to be a part of the Feminism and Religion Project. Below is my newest blog post for FAR. I hope you enjoy and take part in the ongoing discussion of the f word in Religion.

To take part in the discussion visit: Feminism and Religion

_______________________________________

Queer. Sacred. Profane. Bar Culture.

One might not easily associate all four of those words in the same category, but Dr. Marie Cartier, a Professor at California State University Northridge, has crossed numerous boundaries in her search for the sacred in the pre-Stonewall Butch-Femme/Gay Women’s bar culture in twentieth century America.

A radical queer pioneer in the fields of both Women’s and Queer Studies in Religion, Marie has become a hero of mine during my time at Claremont Graduate University and my personal journey as both a man, queer, and scholar in these fields.

As an activist, Marie has concentrated a majority of her work on activism and its involvement in shaping one’s identity as well as the world in which we occupy. Although the majority of Marie’s work concentrated on her personal interactions with butch, femme, and gay women, her interactions are transcending from being strictly personal to digital.

Unable to find the language to describe Marie’s topic, she coined the new term Theelogy. Theelogy is a religion of friendship or way for gay people who were alive during the pre-Stonewall period to view their lives as having sacred meaning during that period even if all they did was “go to a gay bar.” The word puts more meaning on that activity than has previously been ascribed to it.

Below is an interview I conducted with Marie throughout a period of personal interactions to open up the discussion relating to theelogy and its important contribution to both the fields of Women’s and Queer Studies in Religion.

__________________________________________________________

John: What is “theelogy” and how does it open up new avenues in queer scholarship in religion?

Marie: Theelogy is a religion of friendship or way for gay people who were alive during the pre-Stonewall period to view their lives as having sacred meaning during that period even if all they did was “go to a gay bar.” It puts more meaning on that activity than has previously been ascribed to it. Since gay people were considered the nation’s highest security risk, mentally ill, felons and sinners in all major and minor religions—the gay bar became more than a bar for them. It became a place where they could perhaps for the only time-- know that they could first be a friend, and also have friends. I created “theelogy” from the words “thee” -- as in the line from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poem “How do I love thee? Let me count the way,” and “logy”—or “word of.” We think of “theology” as “God” and “word of”—word of God. But, since gay people prior to 1975, or pre-Stonewall were considered sinners in all major and minor religions (with the exception perhaps of the newly formed in 1968 by Rev. Troy Perry the gay friendly Metropolitan Community Church) they didn’t have access to the word of God—yet. They were exiled from the word of God. But the gay bar, as it was the only accepting public space (accepting—among the community itself, even though very dangerous—i.e., regularly raided by police, etc.) was a place where gay people could do the first step in finding meaning—they could begin to create community.

John: What got you interested in studying Butch-Femme/Gay Women’s bar culture and community?

Marie: I became interested in studying this from the point of view as part of the community myself. In 1997 I premiered a play, Ballistic Femme, about myself coming into butch-femme identity and struggling with being attracted to it as well as having issues with it as a feminist—but clearly being attracted to it—and butch women! The play premiered at Highways Performance Space in Santa Monica. It then went on to productions in Denver, San Francisco and upstate New York as well as other venues in Los Angeles, among them UCLA. It was a very contemporary play about at the time contemporary issues within the lesbian late 90’s community—and the end of “sex wars,” among sex positive feminists as they were called, among those would be leather dykes and butch femme lesbians and lesbian feminists. I was in both camps and that was what my play was about.

However in San Francisco the lighting designer came up to me – right before a show—and said, “You don’t talk at all about the history!” And I was literally walking on stage at that point—literally. I stepped back from the opening to the stage and again literally stage whispered to her,, “And I’m not going to do it now!!” But after that night I did some research and I incorporated a section into the program that “Queen Ezmeralda” (a character in my show) recommended that you “Read More About It”—like they used to have at the end of PBS programs, etc. And I also “read more about it”—and realized that this whole “butch femme thing” that I was dealing with in late 1997 actually had this amazing rich history that I knew nothing about!! So I started learning about it.

When I entered the Ph.D. program at Claremont I was still also performing my show and the very beginning research that I had done was the basis for my very first research paper. Dr. Anne Taves wrote in the margin of that paper in 1998 that this subject could be the basis for my thesis for my Masters in Religion…and the rest is herstory!

John: How has your activism influenced your work?

Marie: Activism, or the movement for social change has influenced me greatly. I have been an activist in many movements for social change and the need to do that has influenced almost every decision I have made—both academically and artistically.

John: A professor once told me that I had to choose to be either an academic or an activist and that I could not marry the two. Do you believe that academics can be both activists and academics?

Marie: Yes, because I am one. In fact I believe that by definition academics and professors are activist. There really is not something that is inherently more activist than influencing another through teaching.

John: Is it our duty to be activists in order to create the type of change that we want to see in the world in our writing?

Marie: Almost a leading question! My answer would be yes, at least it has been true for me. But the movements that I am currently involved in--- among them Amnesty International, and the Occupy movement, gay and lesbian equality issues and feminism –especially freedom of choice for women—would attest to that more directly. I believe social change starts form the ground up. When we are on the ground we have to stand up. I have been on the ground in many ways – and I have chosen to stand up and to help those around me stand up. I always tell my students—it may not happen in your life time, but selfishly it feels better for me to fight for my rights than to lay down and play dead. Susan B. Anthony did not get to vote in her life time, but I think selfishly she felt better fighting for suffrage than just sitting around complaining about it or worse letting it eat her up inside and being silent. I definitely subscribe to the ACTUP MOTTO—“silence EQUALS DEATH.”

Adrienne Rich wrote, “I have to cast my lot with those who, age after age, with no extraordinary power reconstitute the world.” I agree with that, and I live by it. And—I don’t think that I have extraordinary power obviously—I associate mostly with folks who do the same thing. I come from that school of feminist thought where you “push or pull or get out of the way.” And I have chosen to push or pull mostly --rather than get out of the way.

John: What influences do you hope your work and “theelogy” have on feminism, queer studies, and religion?

Marie: Mostly I hope that people see that the bar culture pre-Stonewall is worth investigating. And this is already happening as I am asked to collaborate on projects that investigate the bar culture in ways that has not happened before. I mentioned that I am presenting with Dr. Wendy Griffin at the upcoming Pagan Conference at Claremont in February, and we are looking at how the structure I created – theelogy-- can be used to look at the women’s land movement as possibly a movement towards sacrality.

I also believe that many women that migrated to women’s land were coming from bar culture as many of the women were lesbians who went onto women’s or womyn’s land and that became a space for them—and prior to that for most lesbians the only space would have been the gay bar.

So I am looking for investigations into theelogy—the idea of creating sacrality through an examination of space. But mostly I want to present a prism through which we can see the gay women’s bar culture as having a deeper meaning than it has before. And on personal note I want to re-frame the lives of my informants—so that they themselves can view their pasts with perhaps deeper meaning than they have before.

John: What shifts have you seen in feminist and queer communities being online now?

Marie: The biggest shift for me is how much activism takes place online. And how much networking and how important social networking is. I did not have a Facebook account until about 8 months ago and just in that short of a time I cannot imagine conducting business—especially the business of being an activist—without it! That’s scary—but it’s true.

John: One last question: How important is blogging and blogs like Feminism and Religion that bring about scholars and activists from diverse backgrounds?

Marie: Well, considering that we are conducting our conversations more on-line than as my wife says in “face time” I think it’s very important that those of us who want to converse with each other do so in the ways we can. I personally hang out a lot at coffee shops, etc. And I think my favorite coffee shop is now my “favorite bar” in the language of theelogy—but I have to converse online to converse with many of the folks that I need to “want to stay in touch with. I am very, very proud of the Claremont flaks that I know, you among them!, who have created this amazing networking tool and I honestly feel very privileged to be part of it.

Michele Bachman is a Woman: Using the Gender Card in Iowa

I am honored each day to continually be a part of the Feminism and Religion Project. Check out my newest blog on their site: www.feminismandreligion.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have been flirting with the idea of writing a blog post about Michele Bachmann for a while. When this post goes live, Republicans in Iowa will fire the long awaited starting pistol of the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Race. Among the citizens of Iowa and the Presidential hopefuls, one individual, Representative Bachmann, is hoping and more importantly in her case praying for a miracle.



In the recent weeks, some frontrunners have surfaced: Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor and if I dare say, devout Mormon, Ron Paul, a United States Congressman from Texas’ 14th District, and Rick Santorum, a former United States Senator from Pennsylvania and fervent Catholic. However, although the troupe is the typical political line up (all white, privileged, religious, heterosexual family men), Michele Bachmann is hoping to capitalize on the major factor that sets her a part from the pack: her gender.

Claiming to be America’s “Iron Lady” (a popular reference to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher), Michele Bachmann has made it her job, up until now when her campaign seems to be near extinction, to state that she is just like the rest of the big boys in American politics and that she has what it takes to be the next President of the United States of America.
Although I know I am not the first to say this, but Rep. Bachmann is terribly wrong and her last ditch effort of using gender as a way to sympathize with Iowa voters is a setback to the positive contributions women like Hilary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro (to name a few) who have made strong feminist contributions and changes to the highly patriarchal field of American politics.

However, Rep. Bachmann has something that the other candidates, past and previous, do not; she has God on her side.


Although Bachmann is hoping that the religious voters she is appealing to will cast votes in her favor, she is forgetting that many of them, with fundamentalist and strict evangelical backgrounds have rigid views about gender roles and the proper place for a woman in both society and the home.

Using the gender card as a last ditch effort to get votes will prove to be Bachmann’s downfall rather than her rebirth. At the end of the day, Bachman, like most of the policies she has endorsed during her tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives and leading up to the Iowa Caucus, have been bad for women and will cast a large shadow on the good work feminists and allies have been working towards for years.

What we see now, through the symbolic imagery of Michele Bachmann is a woman, who is against abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and possible harm to the birth mother, believes that GLBTQ individuals are abominations and sinners and need to be converted (with the help of her husband’s clinic), and many more polices that reflect poorly upon ALL women will reaffirming the conservative populous mindset that women, are not fit to rule in high levels of government.

Although America came very close to possibly having its first female President with Hilary Clinton and if I dare mention, the first female Vice-President with Sarah Palin if John McCain would have won in 2008, there is a clear distinction between Palin, Bachmann, and Clinton and it comes down to the feminist litmus test of how “feminist” on is.

The test results are not positive for any of the candidates because in the end, women like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are not only bad for America but also bad for women in general.


Although Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin (and the individuals who will undoubtedly follow in the footsteps) may lose, the real losers are women in general and I am one individual, who after tomorrow will be happy to see Rep. Bachmann end her campaign for President of the United States and the destructive crusade against feminists and women everywhere.