Disqus - Latest Comments for sarah_hendrica

Re: Welcome Home

Sarah from Chicago — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:41:38 -0000

bekitty hon -

This is horrific, and something I always knew I was at risk of every time I came and went in and our of the US the whole 8 years I lived there. I am so so sorry hon.

If you're back in Wellington, so am I now ... email me at sarah_hendrica@hotmail.com if you'd like to get together, and we can trade numbers and the like.

luv,
Sarah

Re: Prop 8 Update

Sarah from Chicago — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:55:49 -0000

On the up side of things, Boies (one of the two lawyers for the plaintiffs ... the pro-equality anti-8 side) utterly demolished Miller on the stand ... and I'm not using much in the way of hyperbole, as the guy was just turned into a a parrot saying "I don't know" numerous times, after blatantly attempting to hedge his ignorance on the topic.

Turns out, yes, he's a professor of political science, but his focus is on direct democracy, such as referendum initiatives, and he knows virtually nothing about LGBT political representation, and the small amount he does know was only done via cramming before the trial:

http://www.autostraddle.com...

We're demolishing them in this trial ... I've been following it and reading the summaries every day, as well as the analysis, and it's like putting up an American local club rugby team up against the All Blacks ... it would almost be wince-inducing if it wasn't for the fact that those being wiped all over this courtroom are the same evil bigots that lied and deceived their way to taking away our civil rights.

I am quietly sure we'll win this trial, and handily. I am worried though about the inevitable appeal to the federal courts, especially SCOTUS, as there the evidence doesn't speak as strongly as it should.

Re: It's a Heterocentric World

Sarah from Chicago — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:01:47 -0000

they're leaving it so they can cut out the one thing in their lives that tells them not to be shitty to other people.

Yes, because as we know, religion works EVER SO well at making sure people aren't shitty to one another.

Not.

Re: The Spirit of Giving

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:11:21 -0000

well I know people who choose to act that part, usually only for certain social interactions.

Not that I want to jump in and speak for MB or Melissa (particularly because Melissa has expressed herself excellently here), but I wanted to point something out as a sociologist.

We actually ALL act social parts ... none of the social identities we present as are solely our own or completely original. We are all acting according to identity presentations that our society provided for us before we were born; we play parts. This is just the way society operates; if we didn't act in ways that were socially intelligible to those around us, people couldn't deal with us, they wouldn't know how to respond, act, or treat us. Furthermore, because we are products ourselves of our social histories and spaces, our identities are no less such.

The thing is, a part of where power and privilege in our society comes in, is that 'normalised', ie those with privilege, presentations of identity are assumed to be natural, not artifice, and those that are seen as 'abnormal' (like the SA does for us queers ... I haven't given money to them ever due to their long history of opposing any gay rights measures in NZ) are seen as unnatural, as something that you act as, as something that you merely 'put on' and pretend.

Take masculinity in men, for instance. Privileged, normalised, heterosexual masculinity is seen as natural, and not questioned as a marker of identity. It simply 'is', and isn't questioned. That's part of it's power. However, that also means that any other presentation of masculinity, of manhood, other than the conventional construction of what it means to be a man in our society, is seen as artificial, as an act, as something 'less than' the 'real' masculinity. The 'real' masculinity then never gets commented on as something constructed, while any deviations from such ARE.

But the thing is, conventional heterosexual masculinity is no less socially constructed, no less an artifice, than any other construction of gender. But to speak of one such in terms like this, maintains the privilege of 'normal' manhood in our society, and maintains the degradation of alternative constructions of manhood.

The question to ask yourself then is not why these men work at the SA, but rather, why you noticed and remarked on their presentations of self as you did, and not on those of all the other men you passed on the way to the SA.

Please don't think of this as an attack or someone yelling at you, but rather as a chance to maybe think for a moment. I get that opportunity myself here too.

Re: I Ain't Lovin' It

Sarah from Chicago — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:57:40 -0000

I had a good friend of mine, way back when I was an undergrad and so was she, that transitioned male to female while working at KFC here in New Zealand ... she hated the job (I mean, who wouldn't? I worked there too and it was horrible ... jobs we do as university students), but she was full of praise for the company, who completely accommodated her, did everything from name-badge change to supporting her in the whole bathroom deal, which I have since learnt is a Big Deal.

It's saddening though that this basic level of humanity from a company is considered something to praise, whereas acts like this from McD's are the usual thing ... I am sure there are a lot of trans teens out there that don't speak up like this young woman did; this will be merely the tip of the iceberg.

Damn, but we need ENDA. A trans-inclusive ENDA. Period.

Re: If You Use Contraceptives, You Will Not Be Raptured

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:10:07 -0000

Wait, reading this again, does anyone else notice that he conflated his god with the pope?

Now I know a lot of people think, "Well, the Pope should not make the rules." They like to say: "If you don't play the game, you don't get to make the rules." But, of course, this is another lie from Satan. Can you tell me any game in which the player makes the rules? Did Mickey Mantle make the rules for baseball? Did Michael Jordan make the rules for basketball? Of course not. The person who makes the rules for any game is the inventor of the game.

I mean, I'm an atheist, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I have to say, if I were a christian, I'd be totally and completely bummed if my god turned out to be Ratzinger ... I mean, that would totally suck.

Re: If You Use Contraceptives, You Will Not Be Raptured

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:57:28 -0000

How the hell long ARE the end times, anyway? I'm counting around 2000 years, so far.

Yep, a full third of the supposed age of the world.

Wow, you know, that sounds like the ending of Lord of the Rings ...

I mean, I totally lurvbe me some Peter Jackson (I'm back in NZ now, so I'm kinda contractually obligated to), but seriously, every time you think Return of the King was over, YET ANOTHER damn ending would pop up ... I mean, seriously?

I now know how a fundamentalist xtian must feel like ... hyped up on too much popcorn, the bucket-o-cola, the overpriced bag of candies, and just be DYING for a piss to the point of vibrating in their seat, and then their god goes "oooo, but what, there's MORE!!!" all the time :)

Re: What I Really Care About...

Sarah from Chicago — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:58:47 -0000

I wouldn't give the Salvation Army any of my money regardless ... here in New Zealand they opposed homosexual law reform, they opposed anti-discrimination legislation, they opposed civil unions ... so while this sickens me (who in there thought "yeah, let's penalise CHILDREN!", it hardly surprises me.

Homophobia, racism, xenophobia, etc, etc ... all sides of the same coin.

Re: Impossibly Beautiful

Sarah from Chicago — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:38:39 -0000

Although, frankly, I might disagree with you that she is uncommonly fit for a female celebrity.

Hmmm, I stick with my comment ... there are those that work out for thinness, and there are those that work out for strength and muscularity ... Demi Moore I would put in the latter (although, there are certainly those that are more so). Merely sticking with a solid gym schedule isn't necessarily a sign of muscularity and athleticism, and it's that that I appreciate so much.

I agree though, installing any standard in place of thinness really just substitutes one impossible goal for another, and doesn't get at the root of the problem ... though I'd certainly rather have muscularity be a goal than the uber-thin ;)

Re: Impossibly Beautiful

Sarah from Chicago — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:10:08 -0000

You know what amazes me? That they looked at Demi Moore and thought "She needs to be thinner".

Demi Moore is amazingly fit (seriously, her work-out regime is something I admire like hardly anyone else ... maybe Jessica Biel and a few others) ... she has muscles, and is insanely toned. But yet, they felt that her hips were too big ... I mean, wtf?!

Not to mention, of course, there is the added thing that she's no longer 19-20 years old, and we certainly can't have that showing.

Re: The Trials and Travails of Transness: My Body, My Choice

Sarah from Chicago — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:47:17 -0000

Agent_J - Oh bloody hell, that's terrible ... *sigh* I know it's not my responsibility, and it's not even like I have a hand in all this, but I just wanted to say sorry, apologise from a position of privilege as cis, even given my lesbianism, for the world being set up to benefit me and not my trans friends ... and say I'll work as hard as I can to change things.

Re: The Trials and Travails of Transness: My Body, My Choice

Sarah from Chicago — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:22:51 -0000

alexmac - I wish more places were like the UK, where it's done and covered on the NHS, then all my trans friends could access what they needed (although from what I have heard that even in the UK there are a million hurdles to get access to it).

Here in NZ from what I have heard all the hormones, etc are covered under nationalised health care, but the surgery isn't ... altho I was reading something over the weekend that said that if one could make a special argument for it, coverage might be offered for surgery ... but I read an article yesterday about a university-student trans-guy in Auckland who is trying to get funding for his top-surgery via donations, so apparently it's not even as easy as that ... lemmie see if I can find it ... ah, here we go:

http://www.gaynz.com/articl...

Re: The Trials and Travails of Transness: My Body, My Choice

Sarah from Chicago — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:16:22 -0000

Which is a nicer form of the "mutilation" argument.

You know, I hadn't even thought of that (cis-privilege undoubtedly), but you're totally right ... I've heard the "mutilation" line before and hated it passionately.

Thinly veiled moralising and denial of personhood ... "the only person allowed to have this surgery are sane people, but if you want this surgery, you're obviously not sane".

Re: The Trials and Travails of Transness: My Body, My Choice

Sarah from Chicago — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:03:24 -0000

A_Peach, backing up what Jenny Anne said, you've got it right unfortunately.

But wait, it gets worse.

From what I have heard from my trans friends, even tho you need to go through all these huge medical hoops and hurdles in order to "prove" you need this procedure (or virtually any of them), particularly the surgery won't be covered by insurance because it is considered 'elective'.

ie you NEED this, but it's a choice ... according to the insurance companies.

Often the argument made I hear against giving trans-people control over their own bodies is that "but it's so permanent a surgery!". For a start, very few surgeries are really actually reversible ... not to mention, we let people access plastic surgery procedures all the time (not that I would want to compare sex reassignment surgery - that's the term, right? - to plastic surgery at all mind you), and they're hardly reversible, yet you can walk into a plastic surgeon's office without having your bodily autonomy taken away.

Re: Quote of the Day

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:31:24 -0000

IQB -

Well, wouldn't say I'm doing wonderfully ... job hunting has to be one of the most depressing and self-worth-sapping activities out there ... and I'm really missing all my friends in the US, not to mention my girlfriend, something terrible ...

Re: Quote of the Day

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:27:35 -0000

which probably includes reorienting yourself to looking the right way when crossing the street

lol, trust me, that is a bigger, and quite possibly more dangerous, problem than one would think of right away :)

Let alone the fact that my sister and mother have banned me from driving for a while, which I have to say at this point they're probably right about ...

Re: Quote of the Day

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:20:24 -0000

Yeah, IQB, it's me, and no, you're not imagining things ... sorry I haven't been around much, but I've just (literally, in the last month or so) moved back home to New Zealand (hence the slight change in moniker) after 8 years of doctoral study in the US, and am up to my eyeballs in re-inserting myself into NZ society, life, etc, as well as starting my career, so I am working my arse off job hunting.

Re: Quote of the Day

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:08:40 -0000

So, what, now it'll be harder for you to hurt or kill those people and get away with it??? And how in the hell does that reflect the actual teachings of Christ?? Has this man ever even read the gospels?

This is EXACTLY what I was wondering. On what planet is it persecution to punish individuals who kill people out of hatred?

Well, in part they claim that Hate/Bias Crime Legislation is a step towards Hate Speech Legislation, and a muzzling of their 'right' to speak out on the EEEEEEEEVIL that is homosexuality.

Now, leaving aside the minor fact that in the US legislation for hate speech would be unconstitutional (which I personally don't agree with, but hey, debating the validity of free speech laws is a different conversation, unlike internationally where free speech laws don't exist, the persecution for them is seen as very much real.

Fundamentalists particularly, but not them alone, have what we call an 'Absolutist' mindset. This is one where there is One Truth, One Way, One Right, One Belief, One Reality, One Good, etc, etc. Given this absolute view of the world, anything that is not such is therefore not only wrong, but the mere articulation of such by anyone else, they view under the exact same framework; namely that the other person must view the world the same way, and hence is claiming that they are wrong. Thus, any statement of anything other than their Truth is viewed as a direct challenge, persecution if you will, to their beliefs.

To those of us that are Pluralist in our thinking, rather than Absolutist, this is rather difficult for us to wrap our heads around, as we tend to see what someone believes, thinks, finds to be true, etc is particular to them, and so long as they don't go around attempting to impose it on others, we wonder how it effects our beliefs (or lack thereof), etc, or those of others.

Remember how so many ask "So how does to two men marrying destroy your marriage?". Because for people thinking in such a mindset, it really does. For them it's a direct challenge, a statement that their own marriage is wrong. Not to mention when you think what us queers do is sick, wrong, evil and an abomination, having your own marriage equated with such via marriage equality legislation is a further insult and persecution of oneself.

Further to persecution, whenever a structurally privileged group, such as Christians, begin to have some (and it's only very few) of their privileges, rightly, removed, because they view the structural arrangement of those privileges as not only the way things have been/should be, but also as actually in reality a level playing field without privilege for them, they see the historically structurally oppressed groups as gaining more rights than them (you see the same things for whites and men, etc); ie they are being persecuted, despite still retaining the majority of their privilege.

They also tend to view things such as rights in terms of 'zero sum', so when you throw that into the mix you can see how they feel themselves to now being oppressed, what with such things as being seen as equal to other religions.

Hence, they view any recognition of LGBTQI people as a direct challenge and persecution of themselves ... it's not the hate laws that they see as a "radical ideology", rather it's the whole 'conspiracy' of the push for queer equality as such. The secularisation of society (I wish), the removal of christian privileges (such as mandatory christian prayer in schools), gay and lesbian legalisation, same-sex relationship recognition, anti-discrimination legislation, and particularly hate-crime laws which they view as on a 'slippery slope' to hate speech laws and 'thought control' ... all these are huge amounts of evidence that they are being marginalised and persecuted according to an Absolutist mindset.

That's particularly how they can remain a majority in this country, maintain overwhelming access to power, etc, etc, and yet see themselves as persecuted.

Re: Quote of the Day

Sarah from Chicago — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:17:39 -0000

I'm so so privileged living in New Zealand where being non-religious is so normal ...

Tell me about it, after 8 years living in the US (even as in such a blue island as Chicago), having been back in New Zealand barely a month, I'm constantly having to realise that I don't have to worry about not being of-faith as an atheist ... I'm also finding the same with being lesbian, as I asked one of my gay friends where I could find a lesbian-friendly doctor, and she looked at me puzzled, asking "er, why wouldn't they be gay friendly?".

I was like "Oh. Right. Yeah. New Zealand".

Re: Your Truth Is Merely Truthiness, Friend

Sarah from Chicago — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:13:16 -0000

lol, that's what jetlag will do to you ... thanks Quixotess, yes, 'discomfort' might work just a tad better ;)

Re: Your Truth Is Merely Truthiness, Friend

Sarah from Chicago — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:57:25 -0000

Sometimes I have felt a teensy bit uncomfortable with the way religion is talked about in Shakesville--maybe it's that I feel defensive, like my progressive credibility is damaged by the sins of the Church and its members.

LucySnowe, I just want to echo (what I am taking from) what Quixotess said.

I might politely suggest that what you may be feeling in your slight uncomfortableness, is the privilege of your religion in America being exposed. When those voices that have been marginalised/oppressed/disempowered in a culture (ie non-Christian religious viewpoints and non-religious viewpoints) are given equal footing with those that have historically had privilege within a space (like Shakesville), those with privilege often feel uncomfortable, even to the point (not that I am saying you're saying this) of feeling a smidge put-upon.

It happens with whites, heterosexuals, cis-gendered people, able-bodied people, etc ... and it does happen with Christians.

Although, of course, that is easy for me to write as an atheist admittedly.

[PS hi everyone! sorry I've been incommunicado, but I've moved back to New Zealand *smile*]

Re: I Heard Him on the Teevee!

Sarah from Chicago — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:52:28 -0000

She does realise that Russia a) was never actually socialist, and b) is now actually about as capitalistic as the US is, right? Hell, I think there are aspects of the Russian economy that are LESS regulated that the same aspects in the US.

Re: Scary Times

Sarah from Chicago — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:00:57 -0000

You wanted a black President and you got it, now you need to accept the consequences.

Wow, could you be more racist?

The country voted for a non-white president ... and there's going to be 'consequences' from this? Are you even listening to yourself? This is precisely the kind of violence-advocating language this post speaks to.

Re: Quote of the Day

Sarah from Chicago — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:43:34 -0000

Why would I not be surprised if this person isn't also a birther and a tea-bagger?

Re: Welcome Home

Sarah from Chicago — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:45:59 -0000

This whole situation has been diplomatic perfection. The Obama administration, and SOS Clinton were obviously heavily involved, but are able to keep their hands clean. North Korea gets the photo-op and attention from someone of great stature. Statesman Clinton, going in his private capacity, gets the journalists home. Well done everyone.

I just wanted to echo this ... I've been following this quite closely for a while now, right from when the two journalists were abducted, and the diplomacy was so beautiful it was almost a dance ... international relations at it's utter finest, and so incredibly wonderful as a contrast to the ideology-beyond-everything idiocy of foreign relations as practised by the numbnuts over the past 8 years.

This is what happens when intelligent grown-ups are given power ... and I am sure that given all the ugly compromises people like Gore, Secretary Clinton, President Clinton and President Obama are used to having to do every day just to do their jobs, having a win like this, simply doing something that is out-and-out GOOD, was just the reason they entered into the professions they did in the first place. You're willing to put up with 99% of the stuff that is shite, to get the 1% that is this.

But indeed, welcome home Laura Ling and Euna Lee, you're both reminders of everything that is, and can be, good and right about journalism.