Recently, I participated in a comment thread on Feministe that included discussion of whether or not church food pantries are allowed to proselytize with their distributions. Today I saw this on the news, about a food pantry that has lost its federal food contributions because of its policy of asking clients if they want to pray.
I don't have much to say about this. I think it's good that we have these sorts of safeguards to prevent getting food from being tied to doing something religious. Sure, in a perfect world, you'd be able to ask someone if they wanted to pray without putting them in a bad situation, but here the power dynamics are so skewed that that can't possibly be the case.
My opinion is that the church should "proselytize" by doing good deeds without comment-- that is, if you're going to give someone food, don't give them food and make them attend a church service. Just give them the food. That will show them the love of Christ more than any strings could possibly do. Also, if your "gift" is dependent on them doing something you want them to do, it's not really a gift, is it?
I hope this food pantry finds some way to serve its clients and still receive federal support. The article mentions ways some other pantries have dealt with the situation, like having brochures and prayer rooms. I also hope this doesn't become another example of evil horrible liberals trampling all over religious freedom.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Heteroromanticity and Being "Straight"
TW conversion therapy, corrective rape
It's becoming increasingly common to lump heteroromantic asexuals under the label of straight. I respect many of the arguments behind this practice (though not the argument that heteroromantic asexuals are "really" heterosexual, because explaining someone else's sexual orientation to them is pompous), but I disagree*:
Among all the cries of "heteroromantic asexuals are straight!" one group in particular seems to disagree, and that's heterosexuals. Straight people often don't consider heteroromantic asexuals to be straight, probably because they realize there's a pretty big difference between being romantically attracted to someone and being sexually attracted to someone. I come to this conclusion-- straight people don't consider heteroromantic asexuals to be straight-- by observing the pushback that surrounds discussions of heteroromantic asexuality, for example, this article. Most heterosexual people probably would not date a heteroromantic asexual of their preferred gender with the same willingness they would date a heterosexual of their preferred gender. To people who are actually straight, there's a big difference.
Heteroromantic asexuals also don't get the societal approval that straight people do. Behavior is not orientation and not all asexuals are celibate; nevertheless, many are. A heteroromantic asexual woman, for example, who wants to date and even marry men but not have sex with them, absolutely is not conforming to the dominant paradigms. Neither is a celibate heteroromantic asexual man.
More important than people's feelings is their actions, and heteroromantic asexuals are not treated like straight people. Straight people get approval for their sexual orientation, if not their sexual practices. Heteroromantic asexuals may face what other asexuals face-- conversion therapy, corrective rape, etc. Straight people can generally go get treated for a physical or mental illness without having to worry that their doctor will blame their sexual orientation for said illness. Heteroromantic asexuals, like other asexuals, can't always be sure of this. Heteroromantic** couples in the UK have been prevented from adopting because of their asexuality. And, in some countries, for heteroromantic asexuals who are also celibate, their celibacy can make it impossible for them to marry if consummation is required. (I can't find it now, but I recently saw a question from a heteroromantic asexual Muslim couple who wanted to marry but weren't sure how to get around the consummation requirement.)***
Heteroromantic asexuals certainly have passing privilege, but they also face discrimination and oppression for their sexual orientation, even if they pass as heterosexual most of the time. It's misleading and inaccurate to lump heteroromantic asexuals in with heterosexuals by calling them straight.
*Some heteroromantic asexuals identify as straight, just like some homoromantic asexuals identify as gay or lesbian, and I am 100% okay with that. There's a big difference between identifying a certain way and having someone else tell you you must identify a certain way.
**Cormier-Otaño does not explicitly say that they are heteroromantic. However, given that they apparently point to asexuality-induced celibacy as the reason they have not had children "by [themselves]", it's almost certain that they are. A same-gender couple could have children of their own without having to have sex; presumably a social worker would be aware of the potential costs and complications involved, and not question why they hadn't gone that route.
***ETA: I seem to have mischaracterized this. It's not clear whether the couple in question actually was concerned their marriage would be considered invalid without consummation, or merely wanted to uphold tradition.
It's becoming increasingly common to lump heteroromantic asexuals under the label of straight. I respect many of the arguments behind this practice (though not the argument that heteroromantic asexuals are "really" heterosexual, because explaining someone else's sexual orientation to them is pompous), but I disagree*:
Among all the cries of "heteroromantic asexuals are straight!" one group in particular seems to disagree, and that's heterosexuals. Straight people often don't consider heteroromantic asexuals to be straight, probably because they realize there's a pretty big difference between being romantically attracted to someone and being sexually attracted to someone. I come to this conclusion-- straight people don't consider heteroromantic asexuals to be straight-- by observing the pushback that surrounds discussions of heteroromantic asexuality, for example, this article. Most heterosexual people probably would not date a heteroromantic asexual of their preferred gender with the same willingness they would date a heterosexual of their preferred gender. To people who are actually straight, there's a big difference.
Heteroromantic asexuals also don't get the societal approval that straight people do. Behavior is not orientation and not all asexuals are celibate; nevertheless, many are. A heteroromantic asexual woman, for example, who wants to date and even marry men but not have sex with them, absolutely is not conforming to the dominant paradigms. Neither is a celibate heteroromantic asexual man.
More important than people's feelings is their actions, and heteroromantic asexuals are not treated like straight people. Straight people get approval for their sexual orientation, if not their sexual practices. Heteroromantic asexuals may face what other asexuals face-- conversion therapy, corrective rape, etc. Straight people can generally go get treated for a physical or mental illness without having to worry that their doctor will blame their sexual orientation for said illness. Heteroromantic asexuals, like other asexuals, can't always be sure of this. Heteroromantic** couples in the UK have been prevented from adopting because of their asexuality. And, in some countries, for heteroromantic asexuals who are also celibate, their celibacy can make it impossible for them to marry if consummation is required. (I can't find it now, but I recently saw a question from a heteroromantic asexual Muslim couple who wanted to marry but weren't sure how to get around the consummation requirement.)***
Heteroromantic asexuals certainly have passing privilege, but they also face discrimination and oppression for their sexual orientation, even if they pass as heterosexual most of the time. It's misleading and inaccurate to lump heteroromantic asexuals in with heterosexuals by calling them straight.
*Some heteroromantic asexuals identify as straight, just like some homoromantic asexuals identify as gay or lesbian, and I am 100% okay with that. There's a big difference between identifying a certain way and having someone else tell you you must identify a certain way.
**Cormier-Otaño does not explicitly say that they are heteroromantic. However, given that they apparently point to asexuality-induced celibacy as the reason they have not had children "by [themselves]", it's almost certain that they are. A same-gender couple could have children of their own without having to have sex; presumably a social worker would be aware of the potential costs and complications involved, and not question why they hadn't gone that route.
***ETA: I seem to have mischaracterized this. It's not clear whether the couple in question actually was concerned their marriage would be considered invalid without consummation, or merely wanted to uphold tradition.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Sprout Problem
Usually about March or April I decide to grow some sprouts. I start half a cup or a cup of seeds, and within a few days I have a glass jar exploding with little green shoots. I can never eat them all before they go bad. So, I've revised my approach to growing sprouts:
1.) Collect 3 or 4 pint-ish sized glass jars with lids.
2.) Pick some beans-- I've had good luck with dried beans from the grocery store, and I've never used special sprouting beans. Google them to make sure they aren't toxic when eaten raw. You can also sprout smaller seeds, but beans are easier and make less of a mess.
3.) Rinse about two tablespoons of beans in a berry strainer or colander. If you don't have either of those, you can rinse them by filling a bowl with water and rubbing the beans underwater in your hands.
4.) Put the beans in the bottom of the jar. Fill the jar with water. Cover the jar, and let it sit for 12 hours.
5.) Drain the water (you can use cheesecloth or a sprouting lid for this, but you can also be careful and use your fingers), rinse the beans in just enough water to cover them, and then drain them so they are moist but not submerged. Put them in a warm, sunny place.
6.) Rinse them twice a day until they are long enough to eat, usually half an inch to two inches. Then put them in the refrigerator to keep them fresh until you eat them. Meanwhile, one to three days after you start the first batch (depending on their growth rate), start another 1-2 tablespoons in the second jar.
7.) Repeat with the third jar. Put the first jar back into the mix, and enjoy indefinite cheap sprouts.
8.) Nom.
1.) Collect 3 or 4 pint-ish sized glass jars with lids.
2.) Pick some beans-- I've had good luck with dried beans from the grocery store, and I've never used special sprouting beans. Google them to make sure they aren't toxic when eaten raw. You can also sprout smaller seeds, but beans are easier and make less of a mess.
3.) Rinse about two tablespoons of beans in a berry strainer or colander. If you don't have either of those, you can rinse them by filling a bowl with water and rubbing the beans underwater in your hands.
4.) Put the beans in the bottom of the jar. Fill the jar with water. Cover the jar, and let it sit for 12 hours.
5.) Drain the water (you can use cheesecloth or a sprouting lid for this, but you can also be careful and use your fingers), rinse the beans in just enough water to cover them, and then drain them so they are moist but not submerged. Put them in a warm, sunny place.
6.) Rinse them twice a day until they are long enough to eat, usually half an inch to two inches. Then put them in the refrigerator to keep them fresh until you eat them. Meanwhile, one to three days after you start the first batch (depending on their growth rate), start another 1-2 tablespoons in the second jar.
7.) Repeat with the third jar. Put the first jar back into the mix, and enjoy indefinite cheap sprouts.
8.) Nom.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
"Real" Relationships
TW corrective rape, abuse
Sometimes people say, "You just identify as asexual [or aromantic] because you haven't been in enough relationships yet."
Sometimes people say, "You just identify as asexual [or aromantic] because you haven't been in real relationships."
And sometimes people say, "Anyone who identifies as asexual [or aromantic] just hasn't been in real relationships."
Besides the ignorance and arrogance inherent in these statements, they upset me for another reason.
They upset me because I've been in "real" (romantic/sexual) relationships and I've paid the price for it. I know, too, that I've been much luckier than other aces and aromantics. No one ever raped me to "fix" me, or raped me because I didn't want sex enough, or tried to force me to get medical treatment. No one ever decided that my being asexual or aromantic meant I didn't love them and that a ten-year marriage was worthless.
Sometimes I wonder if I would have stayed quite as long as I did, at the end, if I had known I was aromantic. Sometimes it felt like there was something missing, some rush, some sense of warm fuzzies… and I just kept waiting for it. Now I know that's just not me, that I don't experience those things, and I wish someone had told me then.
I'm an adult. I've been in some good (romantic/sexual) relationships and some bad ones. I've had experiences that I can't quite bring myself to call abusive, but that I would call so if someone else told me about them. I've had my head, my self-worth, and my dignity screwed with in these "real" (romantic/sexual) relationships.
So don't you dare tell me that never happened. Don't you dare erase my experiences, or the experiences of those who have had it so much worse than me.
Sometimes people say, "You just identify as asexual [or aromantic] because you haven't been in enough relationships yet."
Sometimes people say, "You just identify as asexual [or aromantic] because you haven't been in real relationships."
And sometimes people say, "Anyone who identifies as asexual [or aromantic] just hasn't been in real relationships."
Besides the ignorance and arrogance inherent in these statements, they upset me for another reason.
They upset me because I've been in "real" (romantic/sexual) relationships and I've paid the price for it. I know, too, that I've been much luckier than other aces and aromantics. No one ever raped me to "fix" me, or raped me because I didn't want sex enough, or tried to force me to get medical treatment. No one ever decided that my being asexual or aromantic meant I didn't love them and that a ten-year marriage was worthless.
Sometimes I wonder if I would have stayed quite as long as I did, at the end, if I had known I was aromantic. Sometimes it felt like there was something missing, some rush, some sense of warm fuzzies… and I just kept waiting for it. Now I know that's just not me, that I don't experience those things, and I wish someone had told me then.
I'm an adult. I've been in some good (romantic/sexual) relationships and some bad ones. I've had experiences that I can't quite bring myself to call abusive, but that I would call so if someone else told me about them. I've had my head, my self-worth, and my dignity screwed with in these "real" (romantic/sexual) relationships.
So don't you dare tell me that never happened. Don't you dare erase my experiences, or the experiences of those who have had it so much worse than me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)