Butch Wonders
  • Blog
  • Butch Store: Genderqueer Us
  • About
  • Contact

Why Coming Out in 1997 Was Better Than in 2017

9/27/2017

5 Comments

 
A friend wrote a post in response to my post about coming out in 2007 versus 2017, waxing nostalgic about her coming out in the late 1990s.  You may not agree with all--or any--of it, but I hope you'll read it and share your comments, especially if you're a BW reader who came out before 2000. Thank you, anonymous awesome friend for picking up the Butch Wonders slack during a helluva tough work week for yours truly. 

I was struck by the recent post about what it is like to come out as a lesbian in 2007 vs 2017... I realize I’m dating myself, but it made me think back to when I came out (in high school, in 1998).   This was right around when Ellen came out, the same year that Matthew Shepard was murdered, and the year before "Better than Chocolate" came out (if you can believe such a year existed)--way before gay was cool (or even passe, which I think we’re rapidly approaching).  And yet, I still think it was a better year to come out than the two decades afterward, for the following reasons:

  • Butch/Femme roles were in full force.  In 1998, the best way to signal that you were gay was through looking butch, and that meant eye candy paradise for a butch-lover like me. And there was just nothing better than the butch head-nod of recognition. Sure, this meant that I sported a mullet for a year out of desperation to “look gay” but it also meant that there was flannel swagger everywhere. 
  • Humor was dark.  If you came out in the 90s (or before, I can only imagine) you had to either discover your inner dark comic or risk disappearing down the rabbit hole of being constantly offended. Case in point? Hothead Paisan: Homicidal Lesbian Terrorist, a comic series that had its fun by parodying-not-parodying angry man-hating lesbians (while simultaneously being totally accurate). In the 90s, you made fun of yourself before someone else could. Now? You can’t even joke about pronouns without having the Gender Police slamming you up against a wall. They won’t even make any sexual innuendo while they do it, either. Alas.
  • Gay rights didn’t seem inevitable or in jeopardy, they seemed like something we all knew would never happen. Marriage was a pipe dream. So, we joined forces and created our own damn culture. That felt sad if you thought too hard about it, but ultimately you felt like a badass who, along with your friends and fellow gays, could create your own underground utopia, and there was a beauty to that.
  • Dating in 1998 meant AOL Chatrooms and PlanetOut.  During the glory days of the internet, before we were all worried about being murdered on a blind date. It was a magical space.  For the first time, you could find other gay people near you! I miss the novelty of that feeling. Now everyone’s just bisexual and nothing’s special.
  • You got to enjoy women’s spaces wholeheartedly. Say what you will about the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival and women’s colleges and making abstract art with your menstrual blood, but for me, that shit was awesome and formative. By 2007 and certainly today, women’s spaces have moved into a taboo zone, which ends up meaning that we have fewer and fewer places to experience what it’s like to exist in a space without men. (Hint: wonderful)
  • Lesbian movies were so bad, yet so good.  The best part of coming out in 1998? The truly terrible lesbian movies that you were lucky to find wedged next to the “documentary” section at Blockbuster. Despite these being atrocities of filmmaking, we watched them over and over again, memorizing the lines, because it was the first time we saw ourselves on the big screen. I have a hate-love-mostly hate relationship with "Go Fish" that I don’t see any parallel to in today’s gay culture. It was so much worse-better-worse than the L-Word.
  • Other gay people = instant friends. You were just so grateful to find each other. 


5 Comments

The Most Interesting Possible Upcoming Supreme Court Case You Haven't Heard Of

9/20/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture
Jameka Evans was a security guard at Georgia Regional Hospital in Savannah, Georgia.  From the beginning of her employment in 2012, Evans was treated badly.  She was harassed verbally and physically; she was criticized for wearing a "male" uniform and having a short haircut, and for not carrying herself in a "traditional woman[ly] manner."  In short, she was being harassed for both her gender presentation and her sexual orientation. 

Evans left her job about a year later, sick of the constant harrassment, and filed a complaint under a federal law known as "Title VII."  Title VII prevents  discrimination on the basis of sex, including sex stereotyping.  The case went to a federal district court, where she lost because the court said that Title VII was intended to protect "sex," not "homosexuality."

Evans then appealed to the next court up (the 11th Circuit, since she lives in Georgia), saying that Title VII prevented discrimination against her on the basis of sexual orientation and gender presentation.  That court, too, ruled against her (and as a Slate article pointed out, the ruling was weird in a variety of ways).  The court separated the gender nonconformity part from the sexual orientation part.  They vacated (basically overturned, but without creating precedent) that part of the district court's order, saying that she could go back and try with that part of the case again.

Evans and her lawyers then asked for something called an "en banc" hearing, which means that instead of the usual three-judge panel, all the judges on the 11th Circuit would have heard the case.   This was denied, meaning that the ruling against Evans stands--at least, until the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise.

So Evans, represented by Lambda Legal, decided to petition the Supreme Court to hear the sexual orientation part of the case.  The petition (which you can download from this site if you're interested) is terrific, clearly explaining why discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of gender discrimination.  It states, "It cannot be that Title VII allows an employer to fire Sharon for exercising her constitutional right to marry her girlfriend while retaining her co-worker Samuel after he marries his."

Will the Supreme Court take the case?  Who knows.  But I suspect it will, since nearly all the circuits have weighed in, there's a circuit split (thanks to the 11th Circuit), and it's an important issue.  


To go back to the gender nonconformity piece for a minute: it's kind of interesting: Title VII definitely applies to "sex stereotyping" (as the Supreme Court decided in a 1989 case called Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins), which is what courts rely on to explain that gender nonconformity is covered.  Which would seem to mean that trans people are definitely covered, right?  So if the Supreme Court ruled against Evans, a few things would happen that seem like sort of untenable outcomes:
  1. Title VII would protect trans people but not gay people.
  2. Title VII would protect butch lesbians but not femme lesbians.
  3. In a Title VII case where a butch lesbian was claiming discrimination, she'd have to show that she was discriminated against because of her gender presentation and not her sexual orientation, and the defendant could win the case if they could prove that they were discriminating against her because of her sexual orientation, not her gender presentation.

​Anyhow, it's an exciting case with huge implications. Keep an eye on this one, dear readers.

1 Comment

Is Coming Out Harder or Easier than in 2007?

9/13/2017

4 Comments

 
A younger friend of mine is coming out as a lesbian, and I've been talking her through some different aspects of it.  It's now been just over a decade since I came out as gay myself, and I've been thinking a lot about what's gotten harder, what's gotten easier, and what hasn't changed much at all.    Here are my thoughts.  
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

How about you, dear readers?  I'd love to hear how you think coming out has changed in the last 10 years.  What's different?  What's not?
4 Comments

Butch Clothing Store Update, Part I

9/4/2017

6 Comments

 
In 2013, I wrote one of my most-read posts: "Clothing Designed for Butches (Yes, really!)." It got a ton of traffic and 31 comments, suggesting that this is an area of ​major  interest for butches and other BW readers.  But a couple of days ago, I got a text from my butch buddy C, who told me that Saint Harridan was closed.  I did a little googling, and it appears that all three butch clothing brands I profiled four years ago have closed, either permanently or temporarily: Tomboy Tailors, Fourteen, and Saint Harridan.  And guess what?  So have a bunch of others, including: Marimacho, Original Tomboy, and Androgynous Fashion.  Augh!

Today I'm featuring five currently open butch- and butch-friendly clothing companies, and if people are interested, I'll feature more over the coming weeks.  There are a bunch out there, for everything from boots to bags to bespoke suits, but it can take a bit of digging to find them (and some are extremely pricey).  If you have a favorite, put it in the comments and I'll be sure to share it in my next post about butch clothing companies.  For now, check out these five:
Picture
TomboyX.  They sell underwear, and their specialty is super-soft boxer briefs for butchy types.  My buddy C was telling me about these, and around the same time, the company reached out and asked if I wanted to try some. Um...  Yes!  So I did, and I love them.  I went for the 4.5" trunks, and although they do ride up a tad (I think I'll try the 6" or 9" this winter), they are incredibly soft and the seam doesn't show through pants.  I'm not usually a boxer-briefs kind of butch (traditional three-in-a-pack Hanes women's sporty briefs for me, thanks), but TomboyX could make a convert out of me.  I LOVE wearing nice warm briefs that don't have a fly or extra room up front! They have tons of styles--some of my favorites are pictured above.  

Picture
Focx is another underwear company who designs its products with queer women in mind.  It's based in Britain and I've tried their stuff, too.  The style is different from TomboyX in a few ways: a wider variety of wild prints (see above), a smaller variety of lengths, and slightly different material--to me, it had more "sheen" and felt a little less cottony and a little more swimsuity (pretty sure those are the technical fashion terms).  TomboyX fit me better and the seam showed through my pants less, but it's worth trying both if you're looking for just the right butch underthings.  

Picture
WildFang has been around for quite a while--since at least 2013, and maybe even longer. They've got tees, collared shirts, casual suiting, jackets, and more.  TBH, they're not really my style. Too ornate for me, maybe? Or just too young? Not masculine enough? Not suitable for my professional dress? I can't quite put my finger on it, but I've never been moved to order anything from them. You should definitely check them out and see if they're your style, though--and if so, send me a pic!

Picture
Tomboy Toes is a shoe company that designs masculine-styled shoes in a much wider variety of sizes than most  men's shoe companies do. If you're like me and always lamenting that your favorite styles start at a men's 7 and 7.5 (just out of reach for yours truly), lament no more.  I'm thinking of ordering the blue downtown dappers, which somehow are only $67(?!).  A friend also recommended Acemarks to me, which--though they don't explicitly advertise to queer women--start around size 5. Unfortunately, they also start around $250–300 per pair, which is why I haven't tried them yet. #fashiongoals

Picture
Seven Even Clothing doesn't sell anything I'm lacking options for in terms of fit. That is, they sell stuff like hats, sweatshirts, tees, and mugs--stuff I can find lots of perfectly-sized versions of in the wider world. While I wish that they made stuff like button-up shirts or shoes or socks or anything else I have trouble getting to fit me, I appreciate the fact that they're a queer-focused company, and they definitely have some cool designs.

In addition to letting me know what other companies I should feature, please comment to let me know what you're looking for--what you can never seem to find in your size, style, and/or price range.  I'll see what I can find for you!

​
6 Comments

Does Your State Love You? (Or: My Personal Plea to Blue-State Republicans)

8/30/2017

0 Comments

 
"You have to be patient--things are changing in most places, I think."
"Sure, there's prejudice in a few places, but most people are pretty accepting now."
"Gay people basically have equal rights--of course, a few people discriminate, I'm sure, but that will always be true."
"I just don't think it's the federal government's business."

These are the kinds of statements BW readers have heard from well-intentioned friends and loved ones in the past few months--I'm talking about gay-friendly-ish Republicans defending their decision to vote for Trump on the grounds that Clinton "still would have been worse," and that Trump isn't doing anything really bad to LGBTQ people.  

The "really bad" thing to do to gay people, it turns out, is to leave them to the mercy of their home states and local governments.  As an excellent opinion piece from Frank Bruni pointed out last week, LGBTQ life varies drastically across the U.S.--not just state by state, but by towns, counties, cities, and precincts as well. As Bruni writes, "We're at the mercy of our ZIP codes."  The discrepancies between municipalities are jaw-dropping.  And the cultural discrepancies can be even starker than the legal ones.  If you don't believe me, check out the so-called "'Christian' Manifesto on Human Sexuality," signed by 150 evangelical Christian leaders.  And these aren't "fringe" extremists, either; they include people like James Dobson, who heads Focus on the Family--a nonprofit organization with over $90 million in annual revenue that's a major player in public policy.  (They have a ton of resources online for people who "struggle" with homosexuality, including this website, which helpfully explains that men become gay because they believe they are either not "really" men, or that they believe they are inadequate as men, which makes them "seek another man's manhood." It's less clear what they think is going on with lesbians.  But I digress.)

A failure to protect LGBTQ people from hostility is tantamount to hostility itself.  Trump's Department of Justice has said that they don't think federal employment discrimination applies to gay people (a huge change from Obama's DOJ). This is kind of like saying that while you don't think people should drown, you're fine with keeping the life rafts to yourself.

But although the day-to-day texture of our rights is largely determined at the local level, it's the federal government's role to set the baseline.  Yeah, you can run your city however you want, but here are some things you can definitely not do: prevent women from voting, ban black people from your store, or fire someone for being gay.  The first two are unthinkable. The last one happens all the time, and is perfectly legal in over half of states. That's right--not just a few Southern stragglers who are late to the gays-are-okay party--over half of states.  

Supposedly, "conservatives" are the ones who hold true to certain fundamental values. If equality is one of these values, the worst possible way to reach it is letting municipalities do whatever they please when it comes to fundamental rights.  And with the current state of the Republican party, voting Republican in federal elections is not "conservative;" it is regressive.  

This is my plea to blue-state Republicans who consider themselves allies of the LGBTQ community.  In certain ways, the place you live gives you the "luxury" of being Republican. You don't have to see your co-workers fired for being gay. Your churches aren't removing people from leadership positions when they come out.  Your funeral homes aren't refusing to provide services for people who were in same-sex partnerships.  Your kids aren't being bullied by public school teachers. Because of where you live, you rarely witness the terrible discrimination and ridicule that your LGBTQ loved ones can face as soon as they set foot outside your accepting municipality.  If you want to vote Republican in your local elections, that's one thing.  But as this administration's actions are making clear, voting Republican in federal elections is a whole other ballgame: you are essentially stripping protection from the people you claim to love. You are stealing their life raft. I'm not convinced that doing this is actually "conservative." And I'm even less convinced that if you do so, you can consider yourself much of an ally at all.

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>
    TWITTER
    FACEBOOK
    INSTAGRAM
    EMAIL ME
    Picture


    ​Blogs I Like

    A Butch in the Kitchen
    A Stranger in This Place
    Bookish Butch
    Butch on Tap
    Card Carrying Lesbian
    ​
    Chapstick Femme

    Effing Dykes
    Feral Librarian
    Lawyers, Dykes, and Money

    Mainely Butch
    Neutrois Nonsense
    Pretty Butch
       

    Categories (NOT up to date...  working on it)

    All
    Accessories
    Adventures
    Advice
    Bisexuality
    Blogging
    Books
    Butch Identity
    Cars
    Clothes
    Coming Out
    Community
    Dating
    Family
    Fashion
    Female Masculinity
    Fiction
    Friends
    Gaydar
    Gender
    Girlfriends
    Guest Posts
    Hair
    Health
    Humor
    Husbands
    Identity
    Interviews
    Intro
    Lgbt Community
    Lgbt Law
    Lgbt Relationships
    Lists
    Marriage
    Media
    Politics
    Polls
    Pride
    Pride Project
    Readers
    Relationships
    Religion
    Reviews
    Search Terms
    Shopping
    Silliness
    Social Change
    Ties
    Trans
    Work


    Archives

    September 2022
    May 2019
    February 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011

    RSS Feed

 
  • Blog
  • Butch Store: Genderqueer Us
  • About
  • Contact