V: Ah, I was forgetting that we are not properly introduced. I do not have a name. You can call me V. Madam Justice...this is V. V... this is Madam Justice. hello, Madam Justice.
Justice: Good evening, V.
V: There. Now we know each other. Actually, I've been a fan of yours for quite some time. Oh, I know what you're thinking...
Justice: The poor boy has a crush on me...an adolescent fatuation.
V: I beg your pardon, Madam. It isn't like that at all. I've long admired you...albeit only from a distance. I used to stare at you from the streets below when I was a child. I'd say to my father, "Who is that lady?" And he'd say "That's Madam Justice." And I'd say "Isn't she pretty."
V: Please don't think it was merely physical. I know you're not that sort of girl. No, I loved you as a person. As an ideal.
Justice: What? V! For shame! You have betrayed me for some harlot, some vain and pouting hussy with painted lips and a knowing smile!
V: I, Madam? I beg to differ! It was your infidelity that drove me to her arms!
V: Ah-ha! That surprised you, didn't it? You thought I didn't know about your little fling. But I do. I know everything! Frankly, I wasn't surprised when I found out. You always did have an eye for a man in uniform.
Justice: Uniform? Why I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. It was always you, V. You were the only one...
V: Liar! Slut! Whore! Deny that you let him have his way with you, him with his armbands and jackboots!
V: Well? Cat got your tongue? I though as much.
V: Very well. So you stand revealed at last. you are no longer my justice. You are his justice now. You have bedded another.
Justice: Sob! Choke! Wh-who is she, V? What is her name?
V: Her name is Anarchy. And she has taught me more as a mistress than you ever did! She has taught me that justice is meaningless without freedom. She is honest. She makes no promises and breaks none. Unlike you, Jezebel. I used to wonder why you could never look me in the eye. Now I know. So good bye, dear lady. I would be saddened by our parting even now, save that you are no longer the woman I once loved.
*KABOOM!*
-"V for Vendetta"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumelia
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 11:27 am (UTC)3. They're performing (whether seriously or satirically) socially approved femininity, not performing "women". The men who are dressing as women could be demeaning to women as part of that performance, but I don't see it as inherently demeaning. Dolly Parton is performing something very similar!
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 01:19 pm (UTC)www.ipride-tlv.org.
If you go to the program the only names people are gay, white, cismen in positions of power.
That's not the LGBT community.
3) See my comment to
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 01:57 pm (UTC)I could not agree more.
Date: 2009-06-04 04:53 pm (UTC)There are quite a number of misogynist drag queens out there who like to make numerous cunt jokes etc. It is this that is demeaning to women and not the drag itself. Drag helps to point out the constructed nature of gender.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 11:44 am (UTC)2) I'd like to know exactly how many LGBT people are taking part in this program. Because I suspect it won't be many. And if they are? Then I hope they've secured some concrete assurances that some of their demands will be met.
3) I can't imagine any circumstance where men dressing up as women could be seen as demeaning towards women.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 01:22 pm (UTC)2) I don't know if any of the organizers are LGBT, I know the org that's running it and that it's sponsored by the foreign ministry. See my comment to
3) Aaaaand see my reply to
I beg to differ
Date: 2009-06-04 03:39 pm (UTC)It is an experiment for a limited time, and the reasons to do so can be explained very rationally. Even though the facts are sometimes not true )as in "the general was trained for that and he is a professional that knows what he's doing") there's a good chance they are true and someone who obeys them for a while (not exactly "blindly") is going by rationale, suspending their "freedom" for a while, as we all sometimes do when we see a good reasons. Then again since that suspension is solely at the individual's discretion, it would be very hard for someone to abuse it for other reasons and it would cease immediately. The general in charge of the drill can't order people to go forth and take over Parliament, they'll figure it out quickly and stop.
Re: I beg to differ
Date: 2009-06-04 07:11 pm (UTC)Personally, I view the militarism in Israel to be stemming from the same place as religiosity, only a bit more sophisticated since it doesn't play on some metaphysical mystic stuff that requires actual belief in things we cannot see.
I agree that it isn't the same, but at times they can be just as destructive.
Re: I beg to differ
Date: 2009-06-13 08:41 pm (UTC)I mean, during the Vietnam war, you'd never have imagined that basic good decent farmboys would wind up committing the most horrific war crimes. But because they were ordered to, they did it.
Re: I beg to differ
Date: 2009-06-13 09:47 pm (UTC)Because that's either saying that the thrall of military authority is so great it can last till elections, or that somehow convincing people not to vote is illegitimate...
Re: I beg to differ
Date: 2009-06-14 08:45 am (UTC)For example, I was talking to a retired Colonel friend of mine a while ago about basic training, and he was saying how its all about breaking the recruits down to nothing, and then rebuilding their brains so that they will unquestioningly follow the orders of their superior officers. Because that's the only way to get the job done, keep them alive, and kill the enemy.
And he was always of the opinion that a properly trained soldier would eventually obey any order that came from a superior officer, be it to burn down a house, shoot a man in the back, or take over parliament. (And that this was why the moral training of the officer class was so important.)
And I've always found that fascinating, the way that soldiers are trained to believe everything their superiors tell them as if it was the word of God coming down to them. And the parallels between the way that works and religion.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 05:45 am (UTC)I just wanted to ask if you're trying to say that all religious people are doing this, or if you're just saying the same thing happens in both religious and militaristic circles. maybe I've read too much B F Skinner, but I'm rather less than convinced people adopt belief systems or act in certain ways for any reason other than they were conditioned to do so.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 11:14 am (UTC)I think there is something quite fundemental to human nature where we enjoy following orders, and having somebody higher up the chain of command assume responsibility for our actions though.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 12:26 pm (UTC)2. I hesitate to express myself on this, not being in the community, but I can see why it could be offensive and/or incredibly frustrating for some people. I'd advise looking more closely at the program itself, though, and yeah, the people organizing/participating in it. I'm not sure which particular program you're talking about since I've seen you mention this subject on a few different occasions, but the one that I'm aware of's objective isn't actually showing that "Israel is a bitchin' place to be".
(A related question, though: considering that you don't support Israel's policies at all, is there any program you can think of that you wouldn't consider problematic if its sole goal was to show that Israel is a bitchin' place to be?)
3. There's a difference, although I don't know if I can put my finger on it without, like, taking lots of time to think :-) As for the dressing up, though -- I don't think the ACT ITSELF is in any way demeaning. I'd judge whether it was demeaning on a case by case basis, since it really depends on context.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 12:38 pm (UTC)2) I've seen the program and yeah I'm talking about the one in which a bunch of straight people ask Nitzan Horowitzh and Gal Uchovski to represent the LGBT community. I don't find it particularly surprising that they don't have a single woman's name on it (as of checking just now) and that all the speakers names are the elite gay Ashkenazi men.
I'm curious to know if anyone of the organizers went to the conference "An Other Sex" which I wrote about in my previous post.
(I don't support Isreal's policies regarding the Occupation and the religious institutions that have government power - I wouldn't support a program that goes out of it's way to build up Israel's image while ignoring those big issues or conveying them as unrelated to "over all" Israeli society).
3) I'm waiting for some more responses and will respond to this at a later time.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 12:28 pm (UTC)2) Was that worded right? Why isn't it problematic? Uh... cuz then that would be lying? Also suggests queers don't deserve full human rights and we should be satisfied with ~kinda less inherently evil & deadly & oppressive than someplace else, for some of us, in theory~, as if that and ~bitchin place to be~ are interchangable for us. Low standards ftw.
3) I don't get it. Drag queens can also be men dressed as women. (Though women can do drag queen acts as well) Was this prompted by sex acher?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 01:16 pm (UTC)2) For me it's problematic because it conveys a standard of "normalcy", of what is "proper" in the community and thus creates even more marginalization for folk who do not fit the narrow spectrum of the privileged white, gay, cismen.
3) It was discussion with some people at Sex Acher, in which these two women said that mainstream drag made them feel demeaned because Drag makes fun of women. I, my GF and another person were trying to explain that Drag was about celebrating or showcasing femininity... or just having fun with feminine cues and codes. One of them then told me a story of a couple of guys who dressed up as women for Purim (as is traditional) and started mimicking stereotypical behaviour in a way that was probably construed as making fun at.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 01:49 pm (UTC)Civilians following a military drill are acting based on the assumption that the drill has been designed based on evidence to best prepare them for a potential threat. People following a religious leader blindly are acting based on the assumption that said leader magically knows what a higher power wants better than they do.
Why is creating a program using the LGBT community as an example for why Israel is a bitchin' place to be, problematic, when a large portion of the LGBT community do not, in fact, feel that Israel is a bitchin's place to be?
http://mao4269.livejournal.com/226812.html
What is the difference between men (queer or not) dressing up as women and Drag Queens? Is it the same? Can it be regarded as demeaning towards "actual" women?
Drag Queens dress up in stereotypical femininity specifically to show that dressing up can be enjoyable and that the type of dressing up one can do need not be determined by one's genitalia. Men who dress up as women may do so in order to demean those who enjoy presenting as feminine, or, in the case of male "comedians" dressing as prominent female politicians, to demean those who are perceived as not presenting an "appropriate" gender. In the former case, the women being demeaned are often those who are perceived to fit a classist stereotype of
"lesser" femininity. Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, and Israeli late night television skits all come to mind as having examples of men dressing up as women in a way that's demeaning to "actual" women.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 07:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 08:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 02:25 pm (UTC)2. Because you're co-opting someone else's voice.
3. Thoughts: just because you wear "women"'s clothes doesn't necessarily mean you're pretending to be a woman, but a lot of people seem to think that way, even though it's pretty impossible for women to cross-dress nowadays in Western societies since everybody wears pants. If a guy likes to cross dress, more power to him. If he wants to play at being a woman, go for it. If you're a man dressing up as a woman and then using that as a costume to mock women, we got a problem.
I've never thought of drag queens as being demeaning to (cis) women, just figuring them for satire. I've heard some (trans) women say that they find drag queens degrading because a lot of people automatically associate drag queens with transwomen. So, personally, I see drag queens as mocking society's views of gender and never really gave much thought to it, but keep in mind that I'm cis. You may get a different answer from a woman who's trans.
I think your distinction is good
Date: 2009-06-04 03:43 pm (UTC)Alternatively "Dame Edna" is a drag-queen, creating the persona of a woman.
Re: I think your distinction is good
Date: 2009-06-04 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 07:16 pm (UTC)When you're a transvestite, you're actually a male tomboy.
AND
We stole countries! That's how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Just sail halfway around the world, stick a flag in. "I claim India for Britain." And they're going, "You can't claim us. We live here! There's five hundred million of us." "Do you have a flag?" "We don't need a bloody flag, this is our country you bastard!" "No flag, no country! You can't have one. That's the rules... that... I've just made up! And I'm backing it up with this gun... that was lent from the National Rifle Association."
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 11:22 pm (UTC)First of all, there's the oft-stated fact that the LGBT community has more liberties in Israel than in many other places. In fact, there are issues where the LGBT community has gained more rights than in most states in the US (like domestic partner legal rights, adoption rights for shared children, and the like). Are there problems, though? Hell yeah, sure there are. Israel is a problematic place to be different, period. In my experience, whatever group you happen to be sitting amongst in Israel, they will be sure to make you feel like crap for all the ways you are different from them. In other words, it doesn't suck just to be Gay, it sucks to be an individual. It involves lots of unnecessarily dramatic standing of ground. Still, you are less likely to get dragged behind a truck for being gay in Israel than you are in Texas.
Also, don't think that just because a place is "good for the LGBT community" that there is no prejudice against the community there. There are a lot of hate crimes against gays in San Francisco. There are still many cases of job discrimination based on sexual preference in Seattle. So, in the scale of things, I think that Israel, especially the TA area, is pretty damned good place to be LGBT.
Finally, the aforementioned Seattle and San Francisco are great places to be in the LGBT community, but I know many, many people in that community who do not like the US, the US Government, or "The System" at all in any way shape or form. The fact that people rebel against the system in power is part of the process of changing that system, and it's a healthy thing for the Whole. The freedom to openly stand against the government and the "System" is a sign of a level of freedom that is not shared by a huge swath of the people on this planet.
And as for #3, those cross-dressers and drag queens of various types that I have known over the years have considered "drag queens" to be specifically homosexual (or bisexual) men who cross dress, whereas a cross-dresser can be homo- or hetero-sexual.
As for the question of them degrading "real women", I think that's absurd. Some people are just looking for reasons to be offended.
Is it possible to be degrading and offensive to women *through* cross-dressing? Sure. But in general, the act of (male-to-female) cross-dressing is not, in my opinion, a matter of degrading women, but rather of living out the female image - or some idealized aspect of that image - that is in the minds of the cross-dressers. (Same goes, genders reversed, the other way around.)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-04 11:38 pm (UTC)I know what to do in an earthquake. I grew up in earthquake territory. We did earthquake drills in school. But, when an air raid siren goes off? Holy F-ing F! Where IS the safest place in my house?
Written information is helpful, but drills are vital for real preparedness.
oh, Now I get what you meant by #1! (I can be slow sometimes... I was thinking, "Does she mean parades? Are there civies with guns doing drills in the street like we did in ROTC or something?? WTF?" duh!)
My question back to you would be, what's the difference between the public following an earthquake or dam-break evacuation drill and the public following an attack preparedness drill. They are all real threats, and the public needs to be prepared.
I'm glad that there are nationwide drills of what to do in an emergency. I wish we'd been in Israel for that, in fact. Cuz, you know what? When that false alarm went off in Petach Tikvah the other day the thing that freaked me out the most was that I didn't really know what the hell to do! Afterwards I promised my son that I would find out what we should have done, so that we could be safer and calmer next time. I know for sure that he would have been much less freaked out if he'd known what to do for himself and had walked through it in a known non-emergency, too.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-05 05:38 am (UTC)the difference? which meaningless veneer of justification is adopted to explain hierarchy. it's chic to blame this sort of thing on religion, but it's a universal human behavior. even atheism is a learned behavior, with its own personality cults and plenty of "facts" blindly accepted without any personal experience to back them up.
I believe in quarks, electromagnetism, democracy, and feminism for exactly the same reasons people around the world believe in hereditary monarchy and fairies. my society told me to, and I follow its suggestions. "free-thinking" non-religious people are socialized to become what they are in the same way. if the same emotional and cultural forces had told them to pull the trigger or burn the witch, they'd be doing exactly that. it has nothing to do with what they've been taught to think, sing, chant, and believe while they're doing it. people are mostly sheep. in the absence of kings and priests people just as readily fanatically follow pop stars, whores, and gangsters. religion has nothing to do with that, and almost no one who says it does is doing anything other than parroting a leader like the people they criticize.