New TSA stuff.

[catsittingstill]

So here's what I think.

Zeroth, what was the old rigamarole (no liquids, take off your shoes, metal detectors, etc) for if it didn't keep us safe?  And if it did keep us safe, why do we need the new rigamarole? 

First, I want to at least see the face of the person who is seeing me naked. Seeing without being seen is a big power issue. Be glad I don't demand to see her naked too, because being clothed while other people are required to be naked is also a big power issue.

Second, note "her" in the sentence above. One of the reasons I want to see her face is I want to know she's a woman. I am culturally more comfortable at sharing "naked space," like a locker room, with people of my own gender. (Though, see above, "more comfortable" is not the same as "comfortable"--if I was sharing a locker room with a security guard in full uniform I might decide to skip the whole thing and go home in my gym clothes and change there. I don't get that option in the airport.)

I'm not prejudiced. I don't care if the woman seeing me naked is gay. I don't care if she's trans. But I want someone who says right out in public "I am a woman." I want someone who knows what it is to go though life among people who think your body is public property and your time belongs to whoever cares to claim it.

Because anything else is just, you will pardon the term, naked oppression.

Hat tip to Autographed Cat for the post that prompted the response I have expanded here.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Answer to the zeroth, which makes all the other sexual abuse and power play moot:

It's security theatre, and they admitted it yesterday loud and clear by their actions. Yesterday, here in the Emerald City, on the busiest day of the year, they were directing people *away* from the backscatter array, even when there was no one in line for it. If they're not using their best stuff on the day with the most people - and thus the most vulnerable - they don't need it at all. It is about power. It is about the sheepleization of the American people, the ultimate stripping naked and leading through the streets.

And I think - I hope - the American people have had enough.

I don't know how we get awesome now instead of it gets better later on this issue. But I am willing to listen to ideas. Because I am tired - sick and tired - of being sick and tired of having to beat the drum on this issue. This is America, and travel with dignity is an inalienable right, and the government will damn well defend that right, zealously, or we will damn well institute one that will, as is our inalienable right. The only open question is how.

Oh, right! America, Inc., is a public company. Voting doesn't work; we've seen that with the current Emperor. But! We can buy shares in the corporations that make it up. First target? Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

*does research*

Ohhhhh.... how very interesting. I smell a rant coming on.

Thanks, Cat, you make me *think*...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree that the gender issues here are moot. I am uninterested in being forced to submit to male inspection, and I think the issues are different for me than for a male forced to submit to female inspection, because we don't have much in the way of male "beauty pagents" and sexual violence by females against males is very rare.

These gender issues matter to me over and above the whole security theater aspect, though I agree with you about what the avoidance of backscatter machines on the busiest travel day of the year implies about how necessary they really are.

Thanks, Cat, you make me *think*...

I think you make yourself think, actually, but I am glad to have accidentally provided the happy chance of inspiration.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

I know so many people that are genderfluid, orientation-fluid, and otherwise weird that I can't get my head around the idea that gender should matter (oh hell yes it DOES, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms). Besides, I offer myself as proof that though the issues may be different, males can and do still take violent issue with this. And sexual violence (and head games) female on male is less rare than you think; men just don't generally talk about it. Much less report it.

Ultimately, rape and sexual assault (and this is definitely the latter, under color of law) are about power. Your insistence on being "inspected" by a woman is (from my POV) taking *some* of that power back... but I'm not one for half measures. I want freedom to travel with dignity for *everyone*, and I'm not going to sit down or shut up until I get it. (I also want just plain old dignity for everyone, straight, gay, transgender, both, neither, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or Pastafarian... and I'm not going to shut up until I get that, either. But the TSA is the thing that's got people fired up right now, so I'm going to whack that mole until I split its skull and force a clue in edgewise...)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm having a really hard time responding to this in a measured way.

Males can get upset about this, because even male dignity is under assault, which is not usually the case. I am, of course, happy to see males worrying about human dignity, but am saving the bulk of my rejoicing for if and when their concern for human dignity continues after male dignity is restored.

It's not like people are going to quit trying to manipulate each other. (Not to mention that implying that female manipulation is the equivalent of male violence AND male manipulation just doesn't happen is--let's leave it at "just wrong" for the moment and not get into men's rights activists, since comments don't have enough space for how I feel about *that.*)

Suffice it to say that not caring about violence until head games stop is just not caring about violence period.

Now you want to put a stop to all security theater, fine, go for it; I'm certainly not disagreeing with that, it's just not the issue I was talking about.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I think the key phrase in here is "Oh hell yes it DOES [matter], but that's a whole 'nother can of worms." Because that was the particular can of worms catsittingstill was talking about in this post. Yes, there are other cans of worms involved in this, including all the good reasons why you're pissed at the TSA doing this to anybody, male or female... and they are indeed good reasons and I don't disagree with you. But the can of worms Cat chose to discuss in this instance was the fact that gender DOES matter, whether it should or not, whether maybe someday if and when men stop treating women so routinely as objects that women need to take that into account in every decision they make about how to interact with the public or not. It'd be great if we get to the point where we don't need to take gender into account in dealing with decisions like who's going to be staring at us naked, and why, and under what conditions. But we're not there yet, and Cat chose to discuss that aspect of the problem, and I don't blame her for having trouble responding in a measured way, because in changing the subject from the gender aspect of the TSA problem to the overall aspect of it, you were -- accidentally, I'm sure -- brushing aside a factor which matters to her and which many others of us are forced to have matter to us, as if it doesn't matter, because it isn't as relevant to you. Which isn't kosher, in her journal.

You have a good point about the TSA operations and how they affect everybody. Cat has a good point about the TSA operations and how they specifically additionally affect women. It's her journal, she gets to decide which good point we're discussing at the moment.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

brushing aside a factor which matters to her and which many others of us are forced to have matter to us, as if it doesn't matter, because it isn't as relevant to you

This. THIS.

Go, pocketnaomi!

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Since I was daring to speak at least partially for you, I'm glad you feel I got it right.