What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Equality #1-3
Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion by Ryan Conrad, Yasmin Nair, Kenyon Farrow, Jamal Rashad Jones, (2014) Paperback
When “rights” go wrong.
Does gay marriage support the right-wing goal of linking access to basic human rights like health care and economic security to an inherently conservative tradition?
Will the ability of queers to fight in wars of imperialism help liberate and empower LGBT people around the world?
Does hate-crime legislation affirm and strengthen historically anti-queer institutions like the police and prisons rather than dismantling them?
The Against Equality collective asks some hard questions. These queer thinkers, writers, and artists are committed to undermining a stunted conception of “equality.” In this powerful book, they challenge mainstream gay and lesbian struggles for inclusion in elitist and inhumane institutions. More than a critique, Against Equality seeks to reinvigorate the queer political imagination with fantastic possibility!
"In an era when so much of the lesbian and gay movement seems to echo the rhetoric of the mainstream Establishment, the work of Against Equality is an important provocation and corrective.... I hope this book is read widely, particularly by the people who will most disagree with it; in the tradition of the great political pamphleteers, this collection should spark debate around some of the key issues for our movement." —Dennis Altman, author of Oppression & Liberation
"Against Equality issues a radical call for social transformation. Against and beyond the "holy trinity" of pragmatic gay politics—marriage, militarism, and prison—the queer and trans voices archived in this collection offer a radical left critique of neoliberalism, capitalism, and state oppression. In a format accessible and enlivening, equally at home in the classroom and on the street, this book keeps our political imaginations alive. Prepare to be challenged, educated, and inspired." —Margot Weiss, author of Techniques of Pleasure
Does gay marriage support the right-wing goal of linking access to basic human rights like health care and economic security to an inherently conservative tradition?
Will the ability of queers to fight in wars of imperialism help liberate and empower LGBT people around the world?
Does hate-crime legislation affirm and strengthen historically anti-queer institutions like the police and prisons rather than dismantling them?
The Against Equality collective asks some hard questions. These queer thinkers, writers, and artists are committed to undermining a stunted conception of “equality.” In this powerful book, they challenge mainstream gay and lesbian struggles for inclusion in elitist and inhumane institutions. More than a critique, Against Equality seeks to reinvigorate the queer political imagination with fantastic possibility!
"In an era when so much of the lesbian and gay movement seems to echo the rhetoric of the mainstream Establishment, the work of Against Equality is an important provocation and corrective.... I hope this book is read widely, particularly by the people who will most disagree with it; in the tradition of the great political pamphleteers, this collection should spark debate around some of the key issues for our movement." —Dennis Altman, author of Oppression & Liberation
"Against Equality issues a radical call for social transformation. Against and beyond the "holy trinity" of pragmatic gay politics—marriage, militarism, and prison—the queer and trans voices archived in this collection offer a radical left critique of neoliberalism, capitalism, and state oppression. In a format accessible and enlivening, equally at home in the classroom and on the street, this book keeps our political imaginations alive. Prepare to be challenged, educated, and inspired." —Margot Weiss, author of Techniques of Pleasure
Paperback
First published March 17, 2014
80 people are currently reading
2920 people want to read
About the author
Ryan Conrad
10 books152 followersRyan Conrad is an Adjunct Research Faculty member at the Feminist Institute of Social Transformation at Carleton University. From 2019-2022 he was a SSHRC postdoctoral fellow in the Cinema and Media Studies Program at York University where he was working on a forthcoming manuscript entitled 'Radical VIHsion: Canadian AIDS Film & Video.'
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews
June 24, 2025
Excellent collection, if a bit repetitive
June 1, 2017
(more like 2.5, but rounding up)
This is a compilation of three smaller volumes which have a common theme : arguments against repealing the bans on same-sex marriage and on openly queer people serving in the military, and against enacting sexual orientation/gender identity related hate crime legislation.
The short version : Some of the articles present valid criticisms for the first two topics (marriage, military) but the idea that discrimination should be left in place is unpersuasive. The points brought up for the last topic (hate crimes) were more consistently compellingly.
On the whole I'm not sold by the arguments made "against equality". Instead I fall into a camp of "equality alone is not enough".
There is some good material, but it's offset by a lot of mediocrity. It would have been nice to see higher standards for selecting what was included in the collection. They seem to more often write with their hearts than with their minds. There is a lot of exaggerating logic and ideas to reach unrealistic conclusions and then criticizing the exaggerated outcome. Reading an article where you agree with the general perspective but which is terribly argued is oddly frustrating.
The book is worth a read- it has a number of critiques I'm glad to have been exposed to.
The longer read / various comments :
The authors don't often state it explicitly, but there appears to be an underlying concern about de-radicalization and politics being co-opted. Oppression and punishment for deviating from social norms leads some people to a greater more radical critiques of society. "Identity politics" have their issues, but they do increase the likelihood of people developing political consciousness and radical identity (as a result of non-conforming gender identity, sexual preference, racial/cultural identity, etc). As some ways of being are brought into the fold of normalcy the potential for embracing radical outlooks may decline within previously marginalized groups. This diffuses support and some of the potential for greater, more radical change in society.
In order to be effective, many of the arguments presented would require readers to share a number of political views and objectives *(1). Due to that, the functional audience is going to be smaller and likely among those who already have radical or progressive views. It's good to articulate the ideas and share knowledge, however most of the articles are not going to find a strong reception among the broader population (which is what they need for some of the stated goals). It's a start, though.
*1: (anti-prison, anti-military, pro-immigrant reform, anti-only traditional families, pro-promiscuity, anti-capitalism, etc)
Sure, in an ideal world we could just immediately dismantle the military, marriage, and other problematic institutions. But in a realistic world they are deeply entrenched and will continue to exist for the present time. Leaving policies and laws intact which allow these institutions to explicitly and legally exclude LGBTQ people will cause them to act as a reservoir for the mentality that discrimination is acceptable, legal and just. If it wasn't acceptable in society then why would it remain formally codified in law and practice?
Some authors want to try and discourage participation on the military by keeping laws/rules which are explicitly discriminatory (DADT) on the books. It's a very "by any means necessary" approach to achieving their vision of a better world. Given that position, would they also support new discriminatory legislation if it furthered their goals? Would it be ok to ban people of color from the police force or from being prison guards, since prisons and police perpetrate violence and are predatory on minorities? Would it be acceptable to ban women from corporate/financier banking since that industry exploits poor and working class people on a global scale?
Additionally, by this line of reasoning it would have been better to leave all of the racist and sexist laws and rules in the United States unchallenged since the society as a whole was, and remains in many ways, deeply and systemically unjust and exploitive. It's hard to imagine having asked people of color and women to wait for a theoretical, epic revolution that would completely overturn and reshape the society we live in so that they could gain real, complete freedom and equality within society instead of "mere" improvements in their condition. And yes, some people from those groups surely have become complicit and party to injustice. I think most would argue that it is better on the whole to have made the changes. I tend to believe that some improvement in conditions and rights is better than (realistically) none (i.e. "reform" is not mutually exclusive with revolution).
Building new, egalitarian spaces in society where all people can flourish is great. However, planning for a better tomorrow also ignores the present existence of people working within or interacting with those institutions who are currently being oppressed, excluded and marginalized. Their reality isn't going to wait for an alternative utopia to materialize. Nor is it respectful to ask someone to give up their belief in a religion for which marriage is an important tradition.
There are some hints of privilege in saying "don't work for the military or police since they reign down terror and injustice". What about the people already working in those institutions? What about people who (perhaps incorrectly) don't see viable alternatives to making a living, or who were coerced into joining by recruiters or difficult economic situations?
(to repeat above) - On the whole I'm not sold by the arguments made "against equality". Instead I fall into a camp of "equality alone is not enough". Assimilation to a mainstream lifestyle and "tolerance" is also not sufficient. Society should deeply and inherently celebrate and embrace a variety and diversity of ways of being.
This is a compilation of three smaller volumes which have a common theme : arguments against repealing the bans on same-sex marriage and on openly queer people serving in the military, and against enacting sexual orientation/gender identity related hate crime legislation.
The short version : Some of the articles present valid criticisms for the first two topics (marriage, military) but the idea that discrimination should be left in place is unpersuasive. The points brought up for the last topic (hate crimes) were more consistently compellingly.
On the whole I'm not sold by the arguments made "against equality". Instead I fall into a camp of "equality alone is not enough".
There is some good material, but it's offset by a lot of mediocrity. It would have been nice to see higher standards for selecting what was included in the collection. They seem to more often write with their hearts than with their minds. There is a lot of exaggerating logic and ideas to reach unrealistic conclusions and then criticizing the exaggerated outcome. Reading an article where you agree with the general perspective but which is terribly argued is oddly frustrating.
The book is worth a read- it has a number of critiques I'm glad to have been exposed to.
The longer read / various comments :
The authors don't often state it explicitly, but there appears to be an underlying concern about de-radicalization and politics being co-opted. Oppression and punishment for deviating from social norms leads some people to a greater more radical critiques of society. "Identity politics" have their issues, but they do increase the likelihood of people developing political consciousness and radical identity (as a result of non-conforming gender identity, sexual preference, racial/cultural identity, etc). As some ways of being are brought into the fold of normalcy the potential for embracing radical outlooks may decline within previously marginalized groups. This diffuses support and some of the potential for greater, more radical change in society.
In order to be effective, many of the arguments presented would require readers to share a number of political views and objectives *(1). Due to that, the functional audience is going to be smaller and likely among those who already have radical or progressive views. It's good to articulate the ideas and share knowledge, however most of the articles are not going to find a strong reception among the broader population (which is what they need for some of the stated goals). It's a start, though.
*1: (anti-prison, anti-military, pro-immigrant reform, anti-only traditional families, pro-promiscuity, anti-capitalism, etc)
Sure, in an ideal world we could just immediately dismantle the military, marriage, and other problematic institutions. But in a realistic world they are deeply entrenched and will continue to exist for the present time. Leaving policies and laws intact which allow these institutions to explicitly and legally exclude LGBTQ people will cause them to act as a reservoir for the mentality that discrimination is acceptable, legal and just. If it wasn't acceptable in society then why would it remain formally codified in law and practice?
Some authors want to try and discourage participation on the military by keeping laws/rules which are explicitly discriminatory (DADT) on the books. It's a very "by any means necessary" approach to achieving their vision of a better world. Given that position, would they also support new discriminatory legislation if it furthered their goals? Would it be ok to ban people of color from the police force or from being prison guards, since prisons and police perpetrate violence and are predatory on minorities? Would it be acceptable to ban women from corporate/financier banking since that industry exploits poor and working class people on a global scale?
Additionally, by this line of reasoning it would have been better to leave all of the racist and sexist laws and rules in the United States unchallenged since the society as a whole was, and remains in many ways, deeply and systemically unjust and exploitive. It's hard to imagine having asked people of color and women to wait for a theoretical, epic revolution that would completely overturn and reshape the society we live in so that they could gain real, complete freedom and equality within society instead of "mere" improvements in their condition. And yes, some people from those groups surely have become complicit and party to injustice. I think most would argue that it is better on the whole to have made the changes. I tend to believe that some improvement in conditions and rights is better than (realistically) none (i.e. "reform" is not mutually exclusive with revolution).
Building new, egalitarian spaces in society where all people can flourish is great. However, planning for a better tomorrow also ignores the present existence of people working within or interacting with those institutions who are currently being oppressed, excluded and marginalized. Their reality isn't going to wait for an alternative utopia to materialize. Nor is it respectful to ask someone to give up their belief in a religion for which marriage is an important tradition.
There are some hints of privilege in saying "don't work for the military or police since they reign down terror and injustice". What about the people already working in those institutions? What about people who (perhaps incorrectly) don't see viable alternatives to making a living, or who were coerced into joining by recruiters or difficult economic situations?
(to repeat above) - On the whole I'm not sold by the arguments made "against equality". Instead I fall into a camp of "equality alone is not enough". Assimilation to a mainstream lifestyle and "tolerance" is also not sufficient. Society should deeply and inherently celebrate and embrace a variety and diversity of ways of being.
June 30, 2018
Creating a compilation of essays from various sources is no easy feat; this book goes to show how it could go terribly wrong. There are select few essays that have a cohesive, convincing argument, and even those carry little evidence to support their sometimes outlandish claims. It’s even harder to believe half the arguments, as the next essayist will contradict the previous one, thus weakening both arguments. What’s more, almost every piece carries a bitter, defensive and sarcastic tone, which is no way to convince one of your argument. This book had so much potential to effectively communicate opinions that go against the status quo, but merely succeeded in demonizing and alienating those LGBTQ+ people and allies that don’t want to abolish the institution of marriage, the criminal justice system and the military.
June 2, 2015
This was an extremely thought provoking book with a lot of important points to make in its critique of mainstream gay and lesbian politics, which the authors represented in this anthology see as increasingly conservative in nature. The authors are all radicals, anarchists (although I don't particularly like that word) and revolution seeking queers who are anti-marriage, anti-prison industrial complex, anti-military and anti-assimilation. But don't let that scare you away. The book can be extremely persuasive and enlightening, and it's ok if you don't agree with everything.
The book outlines three primary platforms of contemporary mainstream gay and lesbian politics - same sex marriage, the ability do fight openly in the military, and the expansion of hate crime legislation - that the authors (members of the radical Against Equality collective) believe to miss the mark when it comes to queer liberation.
The central arguments used:
1)Against marriage:
Marriage is an archaic institution with a history of sexism, racism, heterosexist and cissexism that unconstitutionally ties healthcare access, tax breaks, citizenship status and over 1000 other rights to one particular type of state sponsored relationship. In doing so it forsakes a plethora of different family types to maintain the heteropatriarchal myth that the "nuclear family" is the only "right" type of family. The authors argue that the fight to be included in this institution is merely a form of assimilation where primarily wealthier white queers can gain acceptance by "looking like" their "responsible" heterosexual monogamous monoamorous peers. The authors would rather see a fight for the acceptance of all relationship and lifestyle types so as not to forsake queers who don't wish to get married, and would rather see the abolishment of state sponsored marriage and in its place, the establishment of universal health care, comprehensive immigration reform, and comprehensive tax reform.
2) Against Inclusion in the Military:
The authors view the American military as an imperialistic, colonialist machine that perpetrates some of the most dire forms of human rights infringements in the modern world. They argue that while the fight for the ability to openly serve in the military might make American queers feel more noticed and accepted, the price is the expansion of the American military and the continued expansion of human rights infringements abroad. They argue that this battle is essentially the battle for the "right" of American gays and lesbians to go kill people legally abroad in the name of American imperialism disguised as "defense." Rather than see an expansion of the American military, the authors would rather see the reduction of the American military and of the "defense" budget so to limit the military solely to actual defense, rather than intervention or preemptive strikes that hurt civilians in other countries.
3) Against the Expansion of Hate Crime Legislation:
The authors argue that hate crime legislation, like the death penalty, statistically doesn't lead to a reduction in crime and thus doesn't act as. real deterrent against the crimes it's supposed to stop. Rather, they argue, it only forces more people into the already super overbloated American prison industrial system, which is abused as a fee labor system rather than a correctional system. And since poor people, people of color, queer and trans folk, and undocumented immigrants are statistically more likely to be imprisoned than straight cis white people, placing perpetrators of hate crimes against these groups in the same prisons gives them access to the most vulnerable of these already marginalized groups. Plus it fuels the expansion of the prison industrial complex, creating a vicious cycle allowing for the further wrongful imprisonment of people of color, the poor, trans and queer folk for nonviolent and victimless "crimes" like sex work and drug use. The authors would rather see a complete overhaul of the American prison industrial complex (and in some cases the abolishment of it entirely) and would like to see a greater focus on societal and institutional changes that prevent hate crimes in the first place. They also argue that the "stranger danger" fearmongering concept of the individual hate crime perpetrator is not as real of a threat as institutionalized oppression, lack of access to citizenship or health care, etc.
Overall I found the book extremely enlightening yet also challenging. I didn't agree with every author and every essay, but many of the authors, particularly Ryan Conrad and Yasmin Nair, were extremely persuasive. I hope that all of these arguments can see more airtime in mainstream queer politics so that we can see greater queer revolution rather than assimilation that comes at the expense of the our most vulnerable.
The book outlines three primary platforms of contemporary mainstream gay and lesbian politics - same sex marriage, the ability do fight openly in the military, and the expansion of hate crime legislation - that the authors (members of the radical Against Equality collective) believe to miss the mark when it comes to queer liberation.
The central arguments used:
1)Against marriage:
Marriage is an archaic institution with a history of sexism, racism, heterosexist and cissexism that unconstitutionally ties healthcare access, tax breaks, citizenship status and over 1000 other rights to one particular type of state sponsored relationship. In doing so it forsakes a plethora of different family types to maintain the heteropatriarchal myth that the "nuclear family" is the only "right" type of family. The authors argue that the fight to be included in this institution is merely a form of assimilation where primarily wealthier white queers can gain acceptance by "looking like" their "responsible" heterosexual monogamous monoamorous peers. The authors would rather see a fight for the acceptance of all relationship and lifestyle types so as not to forsake queers who don't wish to get married, and would rather see the abolishment of state sponsored marriage and in its place, the establishment of universal health care, comprehensive immigration reform, and comprehensive tax reform.
2) Against Inclusion in the Military:
The authors view the American military as an imperialistic, colonialist machine that perpetrates some of the most dire forms of human rights infringements in the modern world. They argue that while the fight for the ability to openly serve in the military might make American queers feel more noticed and accepted, the price is the expansion of the American military and the continued expansion of human rights infringements abroad. They argue that this battle is essentially the battle for the "right" of American gays and lesbians to go kill people legally abroad in the name of American imperialism disguised as "defense." Rather than see an expansion of the American military, the authors would rather see the reduction of the American military and of the "defense" budget so to limit the military solely to actual defense, rather than intervention or preemptive strikes that hurt civilians in other countries.
3) Against the Expansion of Hate Crime Legislation:
The authors argue that hate crime legislation, like the death penalty, statistically doesn't lead to a reduction in crime and thus doesn't act as. real deterrent against the crimes it's supposed to stop. Rather, they argue, it only forces more people into the already super overbloated American prison industrial system, which is abused as a fee labor system rather than a correctional system. And since poor people, people of color, queer and trans folk, and undocumented immigrants are statistically more likely to be imprisoned than straight cis white people, placing perpetrators of hate crimes against these groups in the same prisons gives them access to the most vulnerable of these already marginalized groups. Plus it fuels the expansion of the prison industrial complex, creating a vicious cycle allowing for the further wrongful imprisonment of people of color, the poor, trans and queer folk for nonviolent and victimless "crimes" like sex work and drug use. The authors would rather see a complete overhaul of the American prison industrial complex (and in some cases the abolishment of it entirely) and would like to see a greater focus on societal and institutional changes that prevent hate crimes in the first place. They also argue that the "stranger danger" fearmongering concept of the individual hate crime perpetrator is not as real of a threat as institutionalized oppression, lack of access to citizenship or health care, etc.
Overall I found the book extremely enlightening yet also challenging. I didn't agree with every author and every essay, but many of the authors, particularly Ryan Conrad and Yasmin Nair, were extremely persuasive. I hope that all of these arguments can see more airtime in mainstream queer politics so that we can see greater queer revolution rather than assimilation that comes at the expense of the our most vulnerable.
May 4, 2021
I wasn't a fan of how short the articles in this book were and how they lacked in-depth research and cultivated arguments, even though most of the content resonated with me. Some of the pieces were very repetitive, however, and extremely US-centric. All of that was whatever and all, until I looked up one of the authors (Bill Andriette) and it turns out he's a pro-pedophile "activist". What the actual fuck? He's literally the spokesperson of an organization (NAMBLA) that was a part of the International Lesbian and Gay Association since 1996, which means the editors knew well of this when it was published.
This made me absolutely sick to my stomach and it was really hard to read the rest. It's incredibly disappointing because I look up to many of the authors (Yasmin Nair and Dean Spade) and have read and enjoyed the critical depth of their abolitionist work. But why would they knowingly be in an anthology of articles with him? It literally took me one Google search to find out all this information about him. Why would queer/trans scholars knowingly associate with him??? Why is he considered allowed in these spaces/able to publish his work???!! It's super fucked and it ruined the whole book for me.
This made me absolutely sick to my stomach and it was really hard to read the rest. It's incredibly disappointing because I look up to many of the authors (Yasmin Nair and Dean Spade) and have read and enjoyed the critical depth of their abolitionist work. But why would they knowingly be in an anthology of articles with him? It literally took me one Google search to find out all this information about him. Why would queer/trans scholars knowingly associate with him??? Why is he considered allowed in these spaces/able to publish his work???!! It's super fucked and it ruined the whole book for me.
May 11, 2020
I have reviewed all 3 volumes individually!
This is a phenomenal collection. I'd love to see more from Against Equality in the future. This has largely moved me to start writing again; I've had a writers block since forever.
This is a phenomenal collection. I'd love to see more from Against Equality in the future. This has largely moved me to start writing again; I've had a writers block since forever.
January 8, 2025
Here are some actual quotes from this book:
"I don’t know about you, but have you noticed that freshly mined, blood-drenched South African diamonds are the new accessory for the gay elite."
"The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), originally focused on relationships between adult men and adolescents, [has been] demonized out of all proportion to the varied predilections of its minuscule membership."
"My sister really believes that this push for gay marriage is actually not being controlled by gays & lesbians. She believes it is actually being tested in various states by the Far Right in disguise, in an effort to cause major fractures in the Democratic Party to distract from all the possible roadblocks to re-election for George W. in November such as an unpopular war and occupation, the continued loss of jobs, and growing revelations of the Bush administration’s ties to corporate scandals. . . Given all of these social problems that largely plague the black community (and thinking about my sister’s theory), one has to wonder why this issue would rise to the surface in an election year, just when the Democratic ticket is unifying. And it is an issue, according to the polls anyway, that could potentially strip the Democratic Party of its solid support from African-American communities."
"If you are married, you get healthcare. If you are not, go and die on your sad and lonely deathbed by yourself."
Even on the rare occasions where this book almost has a point, the point is made so poorly, so shallowly, and then repeated so many times that reading it becomes an absolute slog.
"I don’t know about you, but have you noticed that freshly mined, blood-drenched South African diamonds are the new accessory for the gay elite."
"The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), originally focused on relationships between adult men and adolescents, [has been] demonized out of all proportion to the varied predilections of its minuscule membership."
"My sister really believes that this push for gay marriage is actually not being controlled by gays & lesbians. She believes it is actually being tested in various states by the Far Right in disguise, in an effort to cause major fractures in the Democratic Party to distract from all the possible roadblocks to re-election for George W. in November such as an unpopular war and occupation, the continued loss of jobs, and growing revelations of the Bush administration’s ties to corporate scandals. . . Given all of these social problems that largely plague the black community (and thinking about my sister’s theory), one has to wonder why this issue would rise to the surface in an election year, just when the Democratic ticket is unifying. And it is an issue, according to the polls anyway, that could potentially strip the Democratic Party of its solid support from African-American communities."
"If you are married, you get healthcare. If you are not, go and die on your sad and lonely deathbed by yourself."
Even on the rare occasions where this book almost has a point, the point is made so poorly, so shallowly, and then repeated so many times that reading it becomes an absolute slog.
June 6, 2017
This one did not really do much for me. It's a collection of essays, and to be honest I really didn't read to the end. There are three standard goals of the mainstream queer rights movement critiqued: same-sex marriage, acceptance of gays in the military, and creation of hate crime legislation.
Some of the critiques are alright, but it almost sounds like whining at times. I also see no contradiction between supporting progressive change within the system, with the long-term goal of completely overhauling the system in mind. This radical distaste for inclusion kind of bothers me at times. It reminds me of black nationalists who admired segregationists like Alabama Governor George Wallace because they both had the same goals in mind: for opposite reasons. In fact, there is one essay in this book that comes right out and says that the right wing is correct, marriage is a conservative, sacred institution and gays have no place in it. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There are some good essays, like the one regarding Bradley (now Chelsea Manning) and one discussing racism in the gay community in relation to homophobia in the black community. But a lot of the times it feels like repetition.
Some of the critiques are alright, but it almost sounds like whining at times. I also see no contradiction between supporting progressive change within the system, with the long-term goal of completely overhauling the system in mind. This radical distaste for inclusion kind of bothers me at times. It reminds me of black nationalists who admired segregationists like Alabama Governor George Wallace because they both had the same goals in mind: for opposite reasons. In fact, there is one essay in this book that comes right out and says that the right wing is correct, marriage is a conservative, sacred institution and gays have no place in it. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There are some good essays, like the one regarding Bradley (now Chelsea Manning) and one discussing racism in the gay community in relation to homophobia in the black community. But a lot of the times it feels like repetition.
December 15, 2015
This "book" works only as a doorstop, a conversation piece, or a joke book. It's full of half-baked ideas from seemingly half-educated minds, conspiracy theories, ranty Facebook posts (a great source for philosophy), and above all else holier-than-thou preaching. As in, a preacher in a dumpster telling you how to clean your house.
Consider a group of activists living under Hitler rule who advocate against a measure to help Jewish women with dark hair because it doesn't help Jewish women with blonde hair, gypsies with red hair, and cats with herpes. If the entire world can't be helped at once, why bother? These are those activists except they're here and now.
If you're a gay man or woman unsure how you feel about marriage or against it and are seeking food for thought, continue seeking. These are not the essays you're looking for. The status quo and stated goals of gay organizations in the 21st century should rightly be explored ("do I want what people say I want?" etc), but the "writers" here aren't up to the task.
(I'm tempted to leave some of the funniest quotes but I have too many books to read to poke fun at this nonsense.)
Consider a group of activists living under Hitler rule who advocate against a measure to help Jewish women with dark hair because it doesn't help Jewish women with blonde hair, gypsies with red hair, and cats with herpes. If the entire world can't be helped at once, why bother? These are those activists except they're here and now.
If you're a gay man or woman unsure how you feel about marriage or against it and are seeking food for thought, continue seeking. These are not the essays you're looking for. The status quo and stated goals of gay organizations in the 21st century should rightly be explored ("do I want what people say I want?" etc), but the "writers" here aren't up to the task.
(I'm tempted to leave some of the funniest quotes but I have too many books to read to poke fun at this nonsense.)
March 1, 2020
This was a book club choice and I was really excited to hear what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, I was disappointed both by the quality of the essays and the unrelenting focus on the USA (with one exception for Canada). The former is a result of these essays being collected from various internet sources: a couple were very poorly written, one was so sarcastic and smug it was immediately alienating, and many did not address obvious counter-arguments, which made it hard for me to open my mind to their point of view, although I tried. The US focus in terms of marriage and health care was so significant that many of the arguments did not seem to extrapolate.
In the end I'm glad this book exists as a record of arguments being made a certain point in time, and I'm glad that the radical queer agenda is still being fought: people (like me) shouldn't be able to sit back now their lives are sorted when so many others are still oppressed and the world is still so unjust. I'll keep an eye out for a better quality, less parochial volume on this theme to continue to try to challenge my own thinking.
In the end I'm glad this book exists as a record of arguments being made a certain point in time, and I'm glad that the radical queer agenda is still being fought: people (like me) shouldn't be able to sit back now their lives are sorted when so many others are still oppressed and the world is still so unjust. I'll keep an eye out for a better quality, less parochial volume on this theme to continue to try to challenge my own thinking.
August 26, 2024
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Against Equality is a polemic collection of essays written by different radical queers from various walks of life compiled to resist assimilation. The quality of the texts in the collection varies but that’s due to each essay being addressed to a variety of audiences in many kinds of media. They’re all excellent for different reasons but some read more like casual blog posts while others are more actives polemic and others still are academically minded. Still, they are all very well written and the editors picked several different essays to highlight the same issues.
Growing up in post 9/11 America was challenging for most marginalized people and I was no exception. A lot of the events tackled here like the legalization of gay marriage and the repeal of DADT in the US ended up getting memory holed. I think our failure to remember the past has us repeatedly spinning our wheels in the face of new yet ever-familiar challenges. One of the most impactful essays was by James D’Entremont, entitled “The Devil in Gay Inc.” I encourage you to read it for yourself but truly, we have not learned from the satanic panic.
Against Equality is a snapshot of a specific point in the past where queer activists were actively warning about how the world would look if we didn’t fight back the very core of queerphobia. We keep having the same arguments while the planet burns and our time dwindles. I appreciate how unwilling the authors are to compromise with the establishment. A better world IS possible and they refuse to accept the crumbs imperialism insists we lick off the floor. It’s refreshing to read people not make apologies for how completely fucked this system is and attack the root causes rather than offering simple platitudes.
While a lot of the specific issues in this book are no longer current events, there is much to learn and reflect on. Our predecessors have a lot figured out. We just have to listen.
Against Equality is a polemic collection of essays written by different radical queers from various walks of life compiled to resist assimilation. The quality of the texts in the collection varies but that’s due to each essay being addressed to a variety of audiences in many kinds of media. They’re all excellent for different reasons but some read more like casual blog posts while others are more actives polemic and others still are academically minded. Still, they are all very well written and the editors picked several different essays to highlight the same issues.
Growing up in post 9/11 America was challenging for most marginalized people and I was no exception. A lot of the events tackled here like the legalization of gay marriage and the repeal of DADT in the US ended up getting memory holed. I think our failure to remember the past has us repeatedly spinning our wheels in the face of new yet ever-familiar challenges. One of the most impactful essays was by James D’Entremont, entitled “The Devil in Gay Inc.” I encourage you to read it for yourself but truly, we have not learned from the satanic panic.
Against Equality is a snapshot of a specific point in the past where queer activists were actively warning about how the world would look if we didn’t fight back the very core of queerphobia. We keep having the same arguments while the planet burns and our time dwindles. I appreciate how unwilling the authors are to compromise with the establishment. A better world IS possible and they refuse to accept the crumbs imperialism insists we lick off the floor. It’s refreshing to read people not make apologies for how completely fucked this system is and attack the root causes rather than offering simple platitudes.
While a lot of the specific issues in this book are no longer current events, there is much to learn and reflect on. Our predecessors have a lot figured out. We just have to listen.
June 12, 2022
I learned a lot and felt many of the arguments, despite being focused on dated policies, were still relevant for understanding some of the ideological traps that continue to be deployed by “faux movements.” In the case of this book, the faux movements are of elite gay people who are promoting assimilation-based policy as well as carceral feminism. But, I think it would be just as useful for debunking some of the faux movements I encounter as a planner, such as the YIMBYs (more about this when I can hyperlink.)
Regrettably, I really struggled with the many times I felt various essayists in this collection downplayed very serious topics or genuine concerns to make their points.
Regrettably, I really struggled with the many times I felt various essayists in this collection downplayed very serious topics or genuine concerns to make their points.
Read
July 31, 2024FINALLY FINISHED THIS!!! omg
August 20, 2022
the section against the campaign for gay marriage was great. the articles "is gay marriage anti-Black???" "marriage is still the opiate of the queers," "against equality, in maine and everywhere," and "queer kids of queer parents against gay marriage!" were huge highlights. arguments take down the goal of gay marriage from material, political, tactical, cultural, economic, and all sorts of other lenses, and they're quite compelling.
the section against military inclusion is pretty good, and the last section on hate crime legislation i basically skimmed bc most was redundant after reading Captive Genders. overall not a must read but im glad i read it
the section against military inclusion is pretty good, and the last section on hate crime legislation i basically skimmed bc most was redundant after reading Captive Genders. overall not a must read but im glad i read it
March 15, 2017
this book took me forever to read! it is very intense and i don't necessarily agree with everything they're saying. but i'm glad to have seen these people's viewpoints and having them in my brain makes me better.
September 16, 2018
I disagreed with most of this book, but that is fine, because I picked it up expecting to be challenged. The quality of some of the pieces is variable, but at its best it is a though provoking critique of the equality idea in LGBTQ thought. At its worst, it can be needlessly preachy and insensitive; such as one of the pieces in the first third, that seriously questions why gay men adopt whilst lesbians often give birth, and suggesting that the reason might have something to do with white claiming of black children rather than, say, the absence (for cis men) of a womb.
There are three segments to the book; one on marriage, one on the armed forces, and one on criminal justice. The criminal justice one is relatively easy to agree with, especially as it focuses mostly on the US criminal justice system, which is so out of whack with European systems (and even the British one) that kicking it is pretty easy.
It took me a while to figure out why I disagreed so fundamentally with the critiques on marriage equality and inclusion in the armed forces, but I eventually realised it was because some of the authors simply hate freedom. It is, to my mind, deeply troubling to suggest that, because the writer does not like marriage or the military, non-heterosexuals should be prevented from accessing those institutions at the same time that heterosexuals can, especially when those institutions do contain practical benefits. This is stated expressly several times in different passages in the book, and is most obvious when a writer says that they are similarly in favour of a no-women, no-trans or no-black rule for the armed forces, on the basis that removing people from the armed forces removes the armed forces.
Even if the critiques of marriage and armed force work (and for myself I could not see why the answer was abolition rather than reform of these allegedly patriarchal institutions), removing the choice from individual LGBTQ people is to forcibly dress them in the vestments of a priestly class in a religion they may not share. It seems to me that, if one is against marriage, one should still support having the choice to marry, and then seek to persuade folk not to, rather than curtail that choice on the sole criteria that has been used to oppress, marginalise and kill LGBTQ people for a thousand years.
There are three segments to the book; one on marriage, one on the armed forces, and one on criminal justice. The criminal justice one is relatively easy to agree with, especially as it focuses mostly on the US criminal justice system, which is so out of whack with European systems (and even the British one) that kicking it is pretty easy.
It took me a while to figure out why I disagreed so fundamentally with the critiques on marriage equality and inclusion in the armed forces, but I eventually realised it was because some of the authors simply hate freedom. It is, to my mind, deeply troubling to suggest that, because the writer does not like marriage or the military, non-heterosexuals should be prevented from accessing those institutions at the same time that heterosexuals can, especially when those institutions do contain practical benefits. This is stated expressly several times in different passages in the book, and is most obvious when a writer says that they are similarly in favour of a no-women, no-trans or no-black rule for the armed forces, on the basis that removing people from the armed forces removes the armed forces.
Even if the critiques of marriage and armed force work (and for myself I could not see why the answer was abolition rather than reform of these allegedly patriarchal institutions), removing the choice from individual LGBTQ people is to forcibly dress them in the vestments of a priestly class in a religion they may not share. It seems to me that, if one is against marriage, one should still support having the choice to marry, and then seek to persuade folk not to, rather than curtail that choice on the sole criteria that has been used to oppress, marginalise and kill LGBTQ people for a thousand years.
August 12, 2017
I thought the arguments against hate crimes legislation were quite compelling, but I thought the arguments against marriage equality and military service were weak and put undue pressure on marginalized people to solve societal problems that already affect them disproportionately. Like, right now the US military is the largest employer of trans people in the US. To say that we shouldn't fight for their continued ability to serve because no one should participate in that violent imperialistic institution ignores the reality that trans people disproportionately struggle to find work and frequently end up doing dangerous, criminalized sex work - work that doesn't offer educational opportunities or pensions or health care.
I want a revolution. I want a world where we don't have to get married to access certain rights; a world where we focus on restorative justice and rehabilitation and creating conditions where people don't feel a need to behave in ways we have deemed criminal. But I don't want that revolution to come at the expense of queer people.
Beyond the basic premise, some essays are better than others. While the introduction admits that not a lot of real solutions are being offered and says that the critique itself is an essential part of the solution, some essays don't even offer much in the way of substantive critique. Matilda Bernstein Sycamore opened an essay with "I don't know about you, but have you noticed that freshly mined, blood-drenched South African diamonds are the new accessory for the gay elite, or they might as well be with how much the gaysbian 'LGBT' agenda has become nothing but marriage marriage marriage - oh, and maybe a little bit of that marriage with that marriage, thank you! Many of us grew up experiencing the lovely embrace of marriage or its aftermath, so we, and most queers, certainly know a lot about how marriage is, and always has been a central place for beating up, raping and abusing women, children, queers, and transpeople. And, even better - getting away with it! What are the other problems with marriage, and the gay marriage agenda in particular?" Is that...meant to be persuasive? Because it's just a tirade and I'm not persuaded.
Overall, I found this disappointing.
I want a revolution. I want a world where we don't have to get married to access certain rights; a world where we focus on restorative justice and rehabilitation and creating conditions where people don't feel a need to behave in ways we have deemed criminal. But I don't want that revolution to come at the expense of queer people.
Beyond the basic premise, some essays are better than others. While the introduction admits that not a lot of real solutions are being offered and says that the critique itself is an essential part of the solution, some essays don't even offer much in the way of substantive critique. Matilda Bernstein Sycamore opened an essay with "I don't know about you, but have you noticed that freshly mined, blood-drenched South African diamonds are the new accessory for the gay elite, or they might as well be with how much the gaysbian 'LGBT' agenda has become nothing but marriage marriage marriage - oh, and maybe a little bit of that marriage with that marriage, thank you! Many of us grew up experiencing the lovely embrace of marriage or its aftermath, so we, and most queers, certainly know a lot about how marriage is, and always has been a central place for beating up, raping and abusing women, children, queers, and transpeople. And, even better - getting away with it! What are the other problems with marriage, and the gay marriage agenda in particular?" Is that...meant to be persuasive? Because it's just a tirade and I'm not persuaded.
Overall, I found this disappointing.
March 27, 2025
Zaujímavá kniha s fajn hot takes, odporúčam
September 28, 2014
I have for a long time loved the work of 'Against Equality'. I believe they present a sound analysis of the LGBTIQ movement that needs to be discussed more. For this reason I was really excited to get my hands on this book.
In large the book didn't disappoint and I powered through the readings. A collection of essays and articles, Against Equality critiques the mainstream LGBTIQ movement's focus on marriage, DADT and hate-crimes legislation in an effective and convincing manner. They bring together high quality writers who are not only able to provide a genuine critique but also offer alternative approaches to these sorts of campaigns.
My one critique of the book however is that it is at times a bit repetitive. Through focusing solely on these three issues the editors have brought together authors who at times have very similar arguments to one another. Their critiques are sound, but it can seem a little narrow focused. A good example is in the section on hate-crimes legislation. Numerous essays discussed how queer people have been the subjects to violence by police and prisons, but there was little discussing the broader prison-abolition movement, the violence people suffer in prisons, nor the alternatives to a prison-based justice system. In turn the book becomes quite narrow - focusing on particular (convincing arguments), but leaving out potential other avenues that could be explored. This goes beyond the internal chapters too - the book could have been expanded to focus on other equality campaigns - access to discrimination laws, health, education and into the workplace, to see whether the equality paradigm has worked. By focusing on these three issues however we missed this opportunity.
A great book and one worth reading! But unfortunately one I think could have been better.
In large the book didn't disappoint and I powered through the readings. A collection of essays and articles, Against Equality critiques the mainstream LGBTIQ movement's focus on marriage, DADT and hate-crimes legislation in an effective and convincing manner. They bring together high quality writers who are not only able to provide a genuine critique but also offer alternative approaches to these sorts of campaigns.
My one critique of the book however is that it is at times a bit repetitive. Through focusing solely on these three issues the editors have brought together authors who at times have very similar arguments to one another. Their critiques are sound, but it can seem a little narrow focused. A good example is in the section on hate-crimes legislation. Numerous essays discussed how queer people have been the subjects to violence by police and prisons, but there was little discussing the broader prison-abolition movement, the violence people suffer in prisons, nor the alternatives to a prison-based justice system. In turn the book becomes quite narrow - focusing on particular (convincing arguments), but leaving out potential other avenues that could be explored. This goes beyond the internal chapters too - the book could have been expanded to focus on other equality campaigns - access to discrimination laws, health, education and into the workplace, to see whether the equality paradigm has worked. By focusing on these three issues however we missed this opportunity.
A great book and one worth reading! But unfortunately one I think could have been better.
March 16, 2016
I'm a queer who opposes assimilationist politics and the institution of marriage, militarism, capitalism, and so on. As a result, I really enjoyed this collection.
I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 because some of the essays were really lacking in understanding of the nuances that go into queer relationships, privilege, and marriage. While the most privileged groups have advocated most for gay marriage and wasted resources, many underprivileged people choose marriage in order to keep their kids or to not be forced to testify against one another in court (a very big benefit of marriage that is never mentioned). So, in a way, it takes a bit of privilege in some situations to also decry that gay marriage should not only not get all of our resources, but that it should not exist at all- something I disagree with. Some of us can't wait until capitalism and heteropatriarchy falls in order to obtain whatever means of survival we can grasp on to. I believe all of those rights should be available to people outside the institution of marriage, but sometimes we make concessions for survival and that is what I find lacking in the privilege analyses.
Also, the article talking about queers not being illegal but undocumented folks are, they're both illegal. There are still laws banning "cross dressing," the use of bathrooms, homosexual acts, and various other things that queer folks, privileged and non, are engaged in, (and it negatively affects queer undocumented people doubly) so I found what could have been a very intersectionally sound article to be written from a place lacking understanding of queer experience of these kinds of law based oppressions that many of us have suffered (that ain't about marriage).
Kenyon Farrow's "Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black??" was my favorite in the anthology.
I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 because some of the essays were really lacking in understanding of the nuances that go into queer relationships, privilege, and marriage. While the most privileged groups have advocated most for gay marriage and wasted resources, many underprivileged people choose marriage in order to keep their kids or to not be forced to testify against one another in court (a very big benefit of marriage that is never mentioned). So, in a way, it takes a bit of privilege in some situations to also decry that gay marriage should not only not get all of our resources, but that it should not exist at all- something I disagree with. Some of us can't wait until capitalism and heteropatriarchy falls in order to obtain whatever means of survival we can grasp on to. I believe all of those rights should be available to people outside the institution of marriage, but sometimes we make concessions for survival and that is what I find lacking in the privilege analyses.
Also, the article talking about queers not being illegal but undocumented folks are, they're both illegal. There are still laws banning "cross dressing," the use of bathrooms, homosexual acts, and various other things that queer folks, privileged and non, are engaged in, (and it negatively affects queer undocumented people doubly) so I found what could have been a very intersectionally sound article to be written from a place lacking understanding of queer experience of these kinds of law based oppressions that many of us have suffered (that ain't about marriage).
Kenyon Farrow's "Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black??" was my favorite in the anthology.
April 19, 2024
I usually don’t like anthologies but this one was really really good. I was never bored and it read really quick. learned a lot too :)
November 8, 2024
Against Equality is a collection of essays, written by queer “thinkers, artists, and writers,” and is divided into three sections: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage, Don't Ask to Fight Their Wars, and Prisons Will Not Protect You. Each section was originally it's own pamphlet, and then were combined to create this anthology. The essays range in quality, but all are worth reading despite being 10-15 years old.
In the first section, the essays focus on all the reasons to be against marriage “equality.” To quote one of the essays that I feel expresses a main idea: “What we are calling for is an abolishment of State sanctioned coupling in either the hetero or homo incarnation. We are against any institution that perpetuates the further exploitation of some people for the benefit of others. Why do the fundamental necessities marriage may provide for some (like health care) have to be wedded to the State sanctioned ritual of terror known as marriage?”
The critiques in the second section are the most obvious. Why would anyone want to included in the racist, white supremacist machine that is the US military? Multiple authors in this section point out that they would be against any kind of military ban. Ban white men between the ages of 25 and 50, ban tall people, ban Jews. Shit, ban everyone. Being accepted into white supremacy is not a good thing.
Finally, the skinniest and most complicated section was the one against prisons and any kind of hate crime enhancements to sentences. This one is also fairly obvious (laws usually only effect those on the margins, having an enhancement for “hate” crimes does nothing to reduce them, prison doesn't help anyone, etc.) but I can see why they're also the hardest to accept.
The way to make real change is to change the minds of people, not to become like them. I don't really have more words for this book because everything is a disaster and my brain is fried. But I definitely highly recommend it.
In the first section, the essays focus on all the reasons to be against marriage “equality.” To quote one of the essays that I feel expresses a main idea: “What we are calling for is an abolishment of State sanctioned coupling in either the hetero or homo incarnation. We are against any institution that perpetuates the further exploitation of some people for the benefit of others. Why do the fundamental necessities marriage may provide for some (like health care) have to be wedded to the State sanctioned ritual of terror known as marriage?”
The critiques in the second section are the most obvious. Why would anyone want to included in the racist, white supremacist machine that is the US military? Multiple authors in this section point out that they would be against any kind of military ban. Ban white men between the ages of 25 and 50, ban tall people, ban Jews. Shit, ban everyone. Being accepted into white supremacy is not a good thing.
Finally, the skinniest and most complicated section was the one against prisons and any kind of hate crime enhancements to sentences. This one is also fairly obvious (laws usually only effect those on the margins, having an enhancement for “hate” crimes does nothing to reduce them, prison doesn't help anyone, etc.) but I can see why they're also the hardest to accept.
The way to make real change is to change the minds of people, not to become like them. I don't really have more words for this book because everything is a disaster and my brain is fried. But I definitely highly recommend it.
May 23, 2019
his work posed many questions and thoughts that I'd never thought of before. Certainly, I didn't think that the inclusion of the LGBT community in the military was necessarily a good thing--as though war and its crimes could ever be a good thing--but isn't same-sex marriage a step in the right direction? And what about passing hate crime legislation? Isn't that a good thing, too?
This book convinced me that perhaps it's not actually a good thing. Perhaps it's actually a truly harmful thing.
Why focus so much on same sex marriage when marriage is an institutionally bonding event that provides privileges to some? Shouldn't we all have access to health care--and not through a partner? Shouldn't we be placing our gusto into perhaps health research or education or same-sex spaces instead of something that is inherently governmental and heterosexual?
And when hate-crime legislations are passed, are they actually enforced? And when they are, who goes to prison? Should we perhaps focus on why there are hate crimes instead of the policing of them? Because aren't prisons inherently a symbol and structure of hate, racism, and homophobia in the first place?
Broken up into three sections, the authors do an absolutely amazing job at arguing their points. I can't say that I agreed with absolutely everything, but they are distinct, clear, and logical in their arguments. Every time I read an essay, I had to sit down and truly think about what they were asking of me. When everything is so layered, it's impossible not to take a moment to truly understand what's being said--especially if it's the first time hearing such radical opinions on these topics.
I'm excited to share this with others--it's radical, informative, and takes a stand that nobody else wants to.
Review cross-listed here!
This book convinced me that perhaps it's not actually a good thing. Perhaps it's actually a truly harmful thing.
Why focus so much on same sex marriage when marriage is an institutionally bonding event that provides privileges to some? Shouldn't we all have access to health care--and not through a partner? Shouldn't we be placing our gusto into perhaps health research or education or same-sex spaces instead of something that is inherently governmental and heterosexual?
And when hate-crime legislations are passed, are they actually enforced? And when they are, who goes to prison? Should we perhaps focus on why there are hate crimes instead of the policing of them? Because aren't prisons inherently a symbol and structure of hate, racism, and homophobia in the first place?
Broken up into three sections, the authors do an absolutely amazing job at arguing their points. I can't say that I agreed with absolutely everything, but they are distinct, clear, and logical in their arguments. Every time I read an essay, I had to sit down and truly think about what they were asking of me. When everything is so layered, it's impossible not to take a moment to truly understand what's being said--especially if it's the first time hearing such radical opinions on these topics.
I'm excited to share this with others--it's radical, informative, and takes a stand that nobody else wants to.
Review cross-listed here!
March 9, 2022
This book took me a while to finish because there was a lot to think about. It gave me a good introduction to leftist ideals while addressing to concepts of the prison system, equality in marriage, American healthcare system, policing, immigration laws, institutional racism, and the military complex, among others.
While don’t necessarily agree with every single idea presented in this book, I do like how each there were various authors and various points of view that were at sometimes even contradicting. It allowed me to really explore my own thoughts on this topic and my own opinions. While this book was published almost 10years ago and things have changed in the United States (for example legalization of gay marriage), many of these issues are still lingering and ever present.
Additionally, because this book is old(er) some of the terminology used is outdated and not inclusive, but I think that it’s just a sign of the times, and I could just mentally interpret it in a way that is more inclusive.
While it may be too late to take back gay marriage, and that’s not really something I would even support, there’s still a lot of issues at the core of United states of America, and a lot of clear issues that this book highlights. I enjoyed reading it and it gave me a lot to think about especially in envisioning a better future and how we can center equity and equality for all.
Overall I’m happy I read it, and I will suggest it to other people to start a conversation and to maybe think and question the way our systems currently work.
While don’t necessarily agree with every single idea presented in this book, I do like how each there were various authors and various points of view that were at sometimes even contradicting. It allowed me to really explore my own thoughts on this topic and my own opinions. While this book was published almost 10years ago and things have changed in the United States (for example legalization of gay marriage), many of these issues are still lingering and ever present.
Additionally, because this book is old(er) some of the terminology used is outdated and not inclusive, but I think that it’s just a sign of the times, and I could just mentally interpret it in a way that is more inclusive.
While it may be too late to take back gay marriage, and that’s not really something I would even support, there’s still a lot of issues at the core of United states of America, and a lot of clear issues that this book highlights. I enjoyed reading it and it gave me a lot to think about especially in envisioning a better future and how we can center equity and equality for all.
Overall I’m happy I read it, and I will suggest it to other people to start a conversation and to maybe think and question the way our systems currently work.
August 15, 2024
Interesting reviewing from a historical perspective. Published 10 years ago now, the book is filled with a collection of essays that ultimately say more or less the same thing, sometimes with a slightly different tilt. It became redundant reading it. But it was interesting to see how the arguments have aged, all of which aged badly for the most part.
July 24, 2025
Stopped after reading 2/3 sections because I wasn’t really getting as much out of it as I thought I would. Would make a great gift for your gay aunt who votes democrat too enthusiastically but if you already understand queerness as politically or economically radical your time is probably better spent on something less introductory
September 15, 2022
learned a lot and now have much to ponder
August 8, 2021
I found this anthology to be a mixture of tiresome, non-incisive and repetitive, with occasional glimmers of engaging material. One thing to note is that it’s writing from an almost exclusively American perspective and a lot of the arguments being made fall flat outside of an American context. This isn’t acknowledged, and it has a distinct tone of, “What do you mean America isn’t the entire world?”
An example of the non-incisive critique the plagues this anthology is the way that words are used in a very unexamined way. Particularly in the same-sex marriage part of the book, there’s a lot of, “Marriage is racist and heteropatriarchal and reinforces gender norms!” Just slinging out all of the bad things with no real elaboration. It just IS. And my point here isn’t that marriage isn’t those things, it’s just that despite this book being an anthology, basically every author agrees with each other and expects the reader to agree too, so there’s no need to explain or justify statements being made.
Another bugbear: There’s a lot of pulling in of a hierarchy of oppression. Rather than levels of oppression being interconnected and fluid depending on context, a lot of authors write from the perspective of certain groups as being always at the bottom of the pile, and if societal changes don’t help them, they are worthless and only those blinded by privilege would value them. It’s very unsatisfying black and white thinking.
There’s also some articles in the prison section where the authors seemed to be tying themselves in knots. Now, the US prison system is majorly messed up, this is true. The sex offender register is messed up and ineffective. But framing sex offenders as the real victims by A) underplaying the seriousness of sex offences, B) arguing that sexual predation is not real, and C) suggesting that queer men having sex with prostituted minors is a normal part of queer culture, these things fly directly in the face of safety for women, children and queer people.
The editor acknowledges that the anthology has been critiqued for being short on answers, and I have to agree with that. Vaguely worded suggestions about community resources coming up with strategies to prevent sex offences from happening sounds like a whole lot of fluff.
Overall, unsatisfying.
An example of the non-incisive critique the plagues this anthology is the way that words are used in a very unexamined way. Particularly in the same-sex marriage part of the book, there’s a lot of, “Marriage is racist and heteropatriarchal and reinforces gender norms!” Just slinging out all of the bad things with no real elaboration. It just IS. And my point here isn’t that marriage isn’t those things, it’s just that despite this book being an anthology, basically every author agrees with each other and expects the reader to agree too, so there’s no need to explain or justify statements being made.
Another bugbear: There’s a lot of pulling in of a hierarchy of oppression. Rather than levels of oppression being interconnected and fluid depending on context, a lot of authors write from the perspective of certain groups as being always at the bottom of the pile, and if societal changes don’t help them, they are worthless and only those blinded by privilege would value them. It’s very unsatisfying black and white thinking.
There’s also some articles in the prison section where the authors seemed to be tying themselves in knots. Now, the US prison system is majorly messed up, this is true. The sex offender register is messed up and ineffective. But framing sex offenders as the real victims by A) underplaying the seriousness of sex offences, B) arguing that sexual predation is not real, and C) suggesting that queer men having sex with prostituted minors is a normal part of queer culture, these things fly directly in the face of safety for women, children and queer people.
The editor acknowledges that the anthology has been critiqued for being short on answers, and I have to agree with that. Vaguely worded suggestions about community resources coming up with strategies to prevent sex offences from happening sounds like a whole lot of fluff.
Overall, unsatisfying.
November 16, 2022
Kickass little compilation of essays, mainly from the 2000s, criticizing marriage, the military, and police and prisons from a radical queer perspective.
Even though some time has now passed between these essays and certain issues they criticize (eg legalization of same sex marriage, the repeal of don't ask don't tell policies) I still think they are fairly relevant today and have shown the continuing trend of liberal cooptation and assimilationist attitudes among LGBT+ people that is now mainstream.
The first segment of essays, on gay marriage, contains a lot of overlapping ideas. The last portion, covering a range of topics from hate crime legislation, to policing, to prisons, has the widest range of ideas.
One thing that particularly irritated me while reading this is how often the somewhat misleading notion of military recruitment targeting poor/working class communities was regurgitated. Over and over and over. The majority of military recruits are middle class.
And still, poverty is no excuse to join the military. The third world people whose lives are devastated by the US military industrial complex are not afforded the same (false) promise to uplift themselves and gain access to college by making themselves a drone of the genocidal state. I have no respect for anyone who enlists for any reason.
Even though some time has now passed between these essays and certain issues they criticize (eg legalization of same sex marriage, the repeal of don't ask don't tell policies) I still think they are fairly relevant today and have shown the continuing trend of liberal cooptation and assimilationist attitudes among LGBT+ people that is now mainstream.
The first segment of essays, on gay marriage, contains a lot of overlapping ideas. The last portion, covering a range of topics from hate crime legislation, to policing, to prisons, has the widest range of ideas.
One thing that particularly irritated me while reading this is how often the somewhat misleading notion of military recruitment targeting poor/working class communities was regurgitated. Over and over and over. The majority of military recruits are middle class.
And still, poverty is no excuse to join the military. The third world people whose lives are devastated by the US military industrial complex are not afforded the same (false) promise to uplift themselves and gain access to college by making themselves a drone of the genocidal state. I have no respect for anyone who enlists for any reason.
March 5, 2020
I dipped in and out of this book and therefore seemed to enjoy it more than people who read it cover to cover. A collection of essays many of them first written for the internet that were around at the time when LGBT communities in the US were campaigning for marriage equality. I found it interesting to read the arguments with hindsight and with the knowledge of how LGBT rights are being eroded by the current administration. The book also covered essays about the military and also the prison system which was fascinating although I feel that I knew many of their arguments from elsewhere. Not all the essays translated well into book form and I'm sure they should have checked with the Trans person they dead named rather than just including the story and saying when it was written they were known as this... An imperfect book about an imperfect moment in LGBT history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews