do heterosexuals have equality?

SuperCroupLeave a comment

note: this was originally posted on my tumblr in 2013

assuming that “equality” is a thing one can have… Straight Pride UK have on their website a list of rights that “homosexuals” have that “heterosexuals” don’t have. Here they are:

“The right to take over city streets”, I assume means the right to gather in public and/or engage in peaceful protest. All people have this right, regardless of sexual orientation.

“The right to … dress ridiculously”. Without further comment, I present a picture of a heterosexual man (legally) wearing a lobster costume.

“The right to parade with danger”. No-one has this right.

“The right to parade with contempt”. I’m not sure what this means exactly, but it sounds like peaceful protest. So again, everyone has this right.

“The right to [stay in] hotels and B&B’s run and owned by people who object to homosexuality”. Just as queer people have the right to stay in hotels owned by people who object to homosexuality, straight people have the right, also, to stay in hotels owned by people who object to homosexuality. In addition, straight people have the right to stay in hotels owned by people who would otherwise discriminate against mixed-sex couples. “Gay” hotels cannot, by law, refuse to cater to mixed-sex couples.

I close with one statement – there is only one right that homosexuals have that heterosexuals don’t, and that is the right to enter into a civil partnership with their opposite-sex partner. And if Straight Pride UK focussed on that, and that alone, I would support them fully and completely.

** Note – this entry was originally posted on August 12th 2013, and originally included a picture of Lady Gaga wearing a dress made of meat. I described her as a “heterosexual woman” in reference to straight people legally wearing ridiculous clothing. Lady Gaga publicly identifies as bisexual, and I was wrong to use her image to represent heterosexual people. For that I apologize. Bi-erasure is a big problem, and I am sorry for contributing for its continuation. 19/Feb/2014

a thing what i wrote about the maggie ding dong song

SuperCroupLeave a comment

note: this was originally posted on my tumblr in 2013

Content note: this piece discusses – and contains – homophobic and racist slurs, as well as discussing Thatcherite policies.

In December 2007 there was a national outrage when the BBC decided not to broadcast the word “faggot” being used as an insult on daytime radio. The reasoning was that it was offensive to a minority group, and causing offence is not what daytime radio is for: the audience is wide and unpredictable, and although some, if not most, people are not offended by homophobic slurs being broadcast on national radio, some people are. And in the same way the word “n*gger” was not broadcast when Radio 1 played Kanye West’s ‘Golddigger’ song, and racist jokes are removed from repeats of ‘Only Fools and Horses’, refusing to broadcast this word was deemed to be appropriate.

It may be clear from my tone that I supported the BBC’s decision in that matter. It’s not censorship or removal of free speech, because the song was freely available in its unedited form, well, almost everywhere else (including on Radio 2).

Fast-forward five-and-a-half years, and we have a similar situation. Radio 1 is refusing to broadcast in full a song which will cause offence and insult to a group of people. And in this case, a rather larger group of people than in 2007. The song itself is not offensive, but the emotional reaction it will cause, if broadcast, to a large number of people is not the sort of emotional reaction the BBC is supposed to bring about. (And to those who argue that refusal to broadcast the song is equally offensive and “censorship”, I say this: go and buy the song on iTunes, or wherever you like, or download it illegally and listen to it.)

I want to be clear: I hated Margaret Thatcher and everything she stood for. I am glad she is dead. When I first heard the news, I tweeted “SHE IS DEAD! REJOICE!”. Many of her policies and ideologies remain in Britain today, and I hate her and her memory and her followers for that.

I hope Thatcher fans are offended and hurt by so-called death parties. I hope there are protesters at her funeral and that her family and her supporters are offended and insulted.

We have the right, and I say the duty, to offend supporters of this woman who did untold damage to us. The poll tax hurt us. Right to Buy hurt us. Deregulation of school meals – of everything – hurt us. We have the right to hurt them in return, symbolically, by mocking their great hero on the occasion of her death.

The BBC doesn’t have that right.

Notes:

  1. The song I refer to in the first paragraph is ‘Fairytale of New York’ by Kirsty MacColl and the Pogues.
  2. The song I refer to in the third paragraph is ‘Ding! Dong!’ from ‘The Wizard of Oz’.

a thing what i wrote about the iain duncan smith petition

SuperCroupLeave a comment

note: this was originally posted on my tumblr in 2013

There is this petition going round calling for Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week to prove that he can after he said that he could. While I think it’s a good thing to call out politicians when they say ridiculous things, I don’t think that this would achieve anything at all. For a number of reasons.

1
He probably could live on £53 per week. I’m almost certain of it. If he did do it (he won’t), he would have a team of people so determined to make it happen, they would make sure it happened.

2
There are two different mentalities at play, so it wouldn’t be a fair game. If he did do it (he won’t), what would be the point? For us, it is about making him see how unfair and hard it is. We don’t care if he manages to actually live on £53 a week or not; we just want him to see it from our point of view. For him it would be a game. A win/lose game. He would have to win, and we would have to lose. So it would be a waste of time.

3
This isn’t about taking a pay cut from £1,000 a week to £50 a week. That’s an amusing PR stunt. It’s about taking a pay cut from £54 a week to £53 a week. It’s the fear and terror of knowing that, having had everything budgeted TO THE PENNY, you now have to find somewhere to make savings. And it’s impossible. The families this affects ALREADY buy the cheapest bread and they ALREADY turn the heating off when it’s not unbearably cold. For them this isn’t an amusing and interesting experiment; it’s real.

4
Poverty is not just living on £53 a week for a week. Or a month. Or a year. It’s forever. It extends into the past and there’s no hope of the future being any different. For Iain Duncan Smith to have any insight into really what these cuts mean, he would have to live this experiment for the rest of his life. If he can just snap his fingers and be back in Whitehall any time, it is pointless.

5
Even if he did do it (he won’t), it’s all very well living on £53 a week in March. But what about in December? What about two weeks before Christmas? Does IDS know the difference in price between a family chicken and a frozen turkey and how to find the extra money to pay for it?

6
Evil though IDS is, I don’t think we should be signing a petition to push yet another person into poverty. Whoever that person is.

a thing what i wrote about marriage equality

SuperCroupLeave a comment

note: this was originally posted on my tumblr in 2013

Here’s the thing. It isn’t “marriage equality” unless all consenting adults can enter into a marriage of their own choosing. Same-sex marriage is, indeed, a step forward, but we have to be aware of who we are stepping over and stepping on to get there. Leaving behind trans people and poly people and saying “we’ll come back for you later” is not equality.

We seem to be treating equality like it’s a pedestal and once we get ourselves on the pedestal, we’re “equal” and from there we’re in a position to pull other people up, when really what we should be doing is destroying the pedestal.

Equality is simple. We’re either all equal or we’re not equal at all. If some groups “have equality” or “are equal” and others don’t then we don’t have equality.

So call it “marriage rights” or just “marriage”, but don’t pretend that (rightly) allowing same-sex couples to marry there will suddenly be “equality”.