"Tolerance"

BakedMilk's picture

Blacks fought years and years for their civil rights, and, as legend has it, that fight ended sometime after the '60s, and all of a sudden white people quit lynching them and everyone was tolerant. Colorblindness ruled the land.

But blacks know that "colorblindness" is bullshit. Even if nobody rational is going to openly attack blacks anymore, there are still subtle acts of prejudice going on...the condescending way some store clerks treat blacks, for example. And the really hateful bastards didn't disappear, they just went underground. The Civil Rights Era certainly ended prematurely, if we believe the popular myth.

I see the beginnings of tolerance for homosexuals today, and I find them distasteful. Being gay used to be a huge secret, as we all know, and TV wouldn't air anything concerning it. Today, the mainstream media presents us with three types of gays: the lipstick lesbian, the straight-acting gay man, and the flaming faggot. Lipstick lesbians are used as eye candy for straight guys to masturbate to. The flaming faggot is a joke. And the straight-acting man is basically the walking manifestation of tolerance -- you can't even tell if he's gay. Is that a good thing? I guess what bothers me about it is the implicit message that it's great to be gay as long as you're not THAT gay, and\or as long as you're sexually entertaining to straights (as with the lesbians in porno). If you don't live up to either, you're a flaming, faggoty joke.

The issues surronding lesbians bug me in particular. You hardly ever see butches, and even if being lesbian has somehow become "rilly kewl", women who are masculine are still made fun of. Some idiots will argue with you over how calling a woman a lesbian isn't an insult, like they think that it was complimentary to Janet Reno. Even in the age of hot, sexy, pseudo-lesbians in porn and hot, sexy, attention-whoring celebrities kissing in public, being a lesbian can be very much a BAD thing, if you don't happen to play it up for the straights. You don't even have to be butch, you can be adrogynous, too. All that matters is that you're not adhering to the rules of feminity. I'm a female gamer who hates wearing dresses, but doesn't go out of her way to act like a man, and even before I came out I'd be called a dyke. Were they complimenting me because as I was as beautiful as their beloved porno chicks? Hell no. They'd call me ugly in the same breath. Anything masculine in a woman is ugly and abnormal, you see. We've gone from Women's Liberation to "gul powah!". Being a gorgeous, bitchy slut is the new feminism.

If that's the direction tolerance is heading, it's going to be hard for me to tolerate. Just seems like another sorry case of "colorblindness".

Comments

LPChick88's picture

.........

I agree with everything you said.
I am a pretty feminime girl but I don't wear skirts every day. I wear big over-sized black t-shirts and jeans most days but you can still tell I am a girl and I'm not very masculine.
Anyway,
I have seen the sterotypical "dyke" played out in movies or on tv. They mostly have short hair cuts and wear masculine clothes/deress masculine.

I think the US is becoming more and more close minded every day...in some parts.

**Courtney**
I don't apologize for who I am and I never will.

Emmett's picture

Yeah

I agree totally. I rarely wear skirts. I don't own any dresses. I normally dress in guys clothes because they're more comfortable and have never been discriminated against and yet my good friend wears boys clothes and in the bathroom at our old school she saw somebody had written "Taryn wears boys clothes, she's a dyke" or something equally evil.

NovaCat's picture

Being male, I'm not sure if m

Being male, I'm not sure if my opinion on this subject is really of that much value, but I've definitely got stuff to say on feminism. Basically, the feminism of the 60s and 70s was a movement wherein it was horrible for women to be "traditionally female", in retaliation to the previous, very steadfast notion that women could only do "women's work" and be "womanly". However, the feminist movement, I believe, went WAY to the opposite extreme in dealing with this. For a while, women were looked down upon if they wanted to be housewives or have children; it was too "female", too much like the past where that was all women were allowed to do. Basically, the feminist ideal of the age was "Women should be more like men", which is actually more sexist, because it's like saying that women have to act stereotypically like men to be better in some way.

Feminism has mellowed since then, but recently, it has come down almost to the point where women are once again being shown as basically maids/cooks who don't need pay and give out free sex. Obviously, this is bad as well, because it retreats once again to an extreme, where it is absolutely horrible for women not to want kids or not to want to dress to "please their men" so to speak. Where once it was horrible to traditionally female, it is now, once again, horrible not to be.

I must make the point that the whole mindset of feminism vs. anti-feminism is moronic. On one hand, you have raving feminists being condescending towards women who choose to have children or not have jobs and so on because they believe it's regressive, and on the other hand, you have raving anti-feminists being condescending towards women who choose not to marry or not to wear dresses and makeup or choose not to have kids because they think that that is abnormal and unnatural. Both of these mindsets are stupid.

Basically, my point is that society has been fluctuating between demonizing feminists and demonizing anti-feminists, and never seems to settle in a medium. I think a TRUE feminist is not a woman who tries to be a man, or a woman who tries to be the opposite of a man, but a woman who tries to be herself. If you want to wear tight dresses and makeup, do it because you want to, not because society today says that that is the appropriate "female" thing to do. If you want to wear baggy pants and a t-shirt and have short hair, do it because you want to, not because you feel you must rebel. Rebelling by dressing differently won't do any good, at least, not in this day and age.

If someone wants to be a gorgeous, bitchy slut, it doesn't make that person any more or less of a woman. It just means that that person wants to be a gorgeous bitchy slut (or that that person is doing what popular culture tells her to), which some people find attractive, and some people find offensive.

Wow. This is preachy. I'm sorry. I'll rap it up. In conclusion, being traditionally female is not bad as long as it's a conscious, willing choice (instead of an instantaneous pop culture reaction) and as long as those who choose it do not look down upon those who do not. Being non-traditionally female is not bad as long as it's a conscious, willing decision (instead of an instantaneous reaction against pop culture) and those who choose it do not look down upon those who do not. Basically, don't rebel just for the sake of rebellion, and don't follow just for the sake of following.

If this is a waste of space, I'm truly sorry.

BakedMilk's picture

Well, I was just ranting anyw

Well, I was just ranting anyway, and I started in on that bit about feminism simply because it pisses me off. The whole "girl power"\"diva" nonsense is just so nakedly...urgh. I don't necessarily like the '70s-style stuff either. Some of it is just insane. I'm not talking about "women wanting to become like men" so much as the way they would interpret everything to fit the antimale, profemale agenda, no matter how absurd. And then the constant harping on things like vaginas. Yeah, vaginas are nice, ladies, but let's quit talking about them and try to get more girls in math and science.