Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Has Bi organizing gone the way of TV Guide?

Once upon a time, every "tv watching" home needed a TV Guide. It told you what was on at what time. Without it, you were forced to stand by the tv and manually switch between channels until you found something good.
Eventually, cable companies added a scrolling guide, which morphed into a searchable guide.
There was no longer a need for a paper guide.

Similarly, there was a time when bisexuals were isolated, lacking in references, depictions in the media, or acceptance by the larger glbt community. Bi organizing grew out of a need for a generation of self identifying bisexuals to find out about
ourselves, to connect with others who felt the same way, to create a large enough presence to be taken seriously by the glbt community.

These days, there are whole libraries of bi themed books, dozens of discussion groups online, myspace, facebook, yahoogroups.
We have bi characters in film and on tv. And almost all major glbt organizations have out bisexuals on staff.

We set out to do what we meant to do. We're now at a crossroads. Do BiNet and other national bi groups step back and become merely a directory for other bi groups? Do we serve solely as a 501c3 placeholder for smaller bi groups to fundraise through?
Or do we retire?

We are run currently by the same generation who saw the original need for bi activism/organizing. We are lacking perspective
to make these decisions on our own. We desperately need people willing to join the board volunteer 5 or so hours a week and
help us steer BiNet into this century.

We can't seem to find anyone. Is that our answer? Is it possible - with war, the economy, health insurance, famine, and all
the other issues today, when compared to the current level of bi acceptance... that people's volunteer hours are better spent elsewhere? If that is the case, are we fooling ourselves by keeping this going?
Do we need to step back and let BiNet go away? Keep the listserv and let all else die? Eventually, the few remaining board members will fade away and the decision will be made.


Feb. 20th, 2008 08:08 pm (UTC)
meanwhile all heck has broken loose (especially on postqueer and bipolypagangeek) because some feel bisexuality is oppressive by it's very name + nature because it "promotes the binary" + leads 2 gender opression and not recognizing that gender as well as sexuality can be fluid
Feb. 21st, 2008 10:30 am (UTC)
I think this is a lot of where the issues lie now... in the terming of the sexuality.... which is unfortunate, because it may be keeping people from joining "Bi" groups or getting involved in Bi issues, JUST because it doesn't use the term they prefer, even though the issues are probably relevant... and I'm sure they could really bring amazing things to the existing Bi groups!

In my own opinion, I have NO issue with using Bisexual as a defining term for myself... For me, I generally like men because they are men and women because they are women, regardless of how they represent this (whether it fits stereotypical gender-identities or not), THUS I define as BI-sexual... It's not a 50-50 thing for me, and OF COURSE I recognize AND APPRECIATE the fluidity of gender-identity within those two categories, but Bi still fits... Pansexual is not accurate to how I feel, and neither is Queer.