Recently the Radical Queer anarchist group Bash Back! posted an article, on its new site, called, “I Hate Straights – Bash Back, Fags.” The article was mainly about the author’s support of Bruce La Bruce’s (a queer film director) article in Vice magazine which was apparently directed at
“Uncle Tom Fags” “Straights” and Gay twentysomething hipsters that read Vice,
over the recent drama in the straight vs queer anarchist movements. Where queer anarchists were not getting recognition or respect of their gender identities. Which sounds like something I would be interested in, but the BB article went on to describe messages encouraging violence towards all heterosexuals and gays who stand by and enforce the gay stereotype. I personally am for the destruction heterosexism, patriarchy, and consumerism that has taken over over the LGBTQ culture as a whole–but to bash people who have never physically/emotionally harmed me is something different. I will only use violence in self defense (in the Emma Goldman sense), the defense of those oppressed by the state/heterosexism/and patriarchy in general, and the defense of my loved ones. All that violence does is turn direction of the group towards hate rather than personal sexual liberation. Yeah, it is important to confront people on their heterosexism or transphobia. As well to stand up to people who enforce heteronormative ideas and taboos on you everyday with the occasional defacing of private property. You can’t get carried away with hate in a movement or else you end up with lot of pointless bloodshed. What comes after bashing these people? Killing them? We become nothing but hateful queer thugs if we travel down that road. However necessary militancy is needed in any movement/revolution violence cannot be the main focus of it. There needs to be a focus on our liberation and the defense of those liberated areas. I do understand your rage, I too have the urge to punch the lesbian that tells my boyfriend “You are entitled to your opinion, but you have been and always will be a woman.” Though hitting her would do no good for me or my partner.
I still support Bash Back! and most of what it is doing, I am uneasy at how the identity politics dogma sometimes takes control of it, but I guess that comes with all anarchist movements.
While I am at it, the Queer movement doesn’t stop at liberating all genders and sexual orientations. It has to go to all lengths of sexuality and the acceptance of that sexuality as long as it does not violate the consent of the participating individuals. Sexuality is the thing that almost every person in the world has in common. It transcends race, religion, politics, and social class. So we must remove all of the control that has been placed on our individual sexualities in order for us to freely express our most primal desires for all gay, bisexual, lesbian, transgendered, straight, and queer people oppressed by these patriarchal systems.
November 15, 2009 at 12:33 am |
Having grown up reading Bruce La Bruce’s zines & watching his movies; I’m pretty sure this was a tongue-in-cheek article.
Being openly queer & making it in the machismo, homophobic hardcore punk scene of the 80’s and early 90’s like Bruce did was a revolutionary act in itself to be admired, and I wouldn’t blame Bruce at all for leveling the playing field, making straight “manarchists” acutely aware of the exclusion and downright oppression queer and transpeople face in and out of the radical communities they dominate.
Of course Bash Back! (or Bruce) doesn’t support going out and bashing straight & straight-acting folks indiscriminately. If anything, this article can be read as Bruce’s unmoderated personal frustrations with being queer and powerless and the ways we as oppressed folks can reclaim power for ourselves from oppressors (similar to Lockpick Pornography, now that I think of it).
You’re right to suggest identity politics isn’t the ending to oppression. But it is definately a means to that end, and I wouldn’t underestimate its importance.
I think its beyond revolutionary to wish for (and work for) a world where queer and trans specific oppression doesn’t exist, but you can’t sweep the lived realities of the oppressed under the rug as though we live in such a world in the mean time.
November 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
mediating unencumbered expressions of anger back into acceptable fields of “activism” helps no one– until action is taken on its basis, or the expression becomes an idea, and the idea under goes memetic mutation into an organizing principle (like how the ‘new black panther party’ is an empty version of the black panthers original intent) Such flights of angered fancy merely define an axises of critique at a certain limit to refer back to, a elaboration of what is left unsaid.
Obviously, I agree that reactionary elements are ultimately oppressive to actual liberation attempts, but I hardly saw praise and endorsement of this article- perhaps a more balanced reflection on the understandable but reactionary and repressive nature of identity politics is in order?
I think one of the things that most bothered me about laBruces article is believing one can determine who is or is not queer on the basis of how you read them; however, to say that BB! memphis has not had its share of heckling anti-queer obviously cishetero people is dishonest- we have, and we laughed; perhaps what is shared is what makes this article so uncomfortable?