� Rock v Chappelle | Main | Racial Resentment �
April 25, 2004
Playing the Gay Card
Once upon a time, I was a feminist. In fact, I spent a lot of time reading Bell Hooks, (excuse me, bell hooks), Gloria Alzandua and Audre Lorde (and others forgotten). I spent almost as much time explaining it to women as I did explaining it to myself. In other words, if you are a man looking for a righteous spouse, chances are the more well read you are in the feminist texts, the more time your date is likely to be checking her watch. Feminist theory makes for a better man in theory. In practice, you spend more time with your own meat. My advice, open doors for the lady, at least that way they understand the respect you're attempting to convey.
One of the annoying things about feminism is that it's very complicated, and most people don't understand it. That which has been popularized is held in disdain by true feminists. It's a two tier system. So any man attempting to satisfy his own appetite for feminism may find himself stuck between the pseudo-feminists that the real feminists hate and the radical feminists that hate men. For me, the instinct for survival won out in the end. But it was not without some encouragement from that school of thought formerly known as the 'Do Me Feminists'. I like that school. Think Salt and Pepa singing 'Shoop' as a DMF anthem. Don't get it? You're not alone.
Aside from feminism's twists and turns, there is the ethics of trying to follow it, which is difficult enough given the kinds of persons likely to give you the thousand mile stare. Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, such women are as likely as not to be former victims, ever alert. What is known are the horrors of domestic violence and the ugliness women endure from those our society rightly calls cads. So do not doubt the steely determination of such watchdogs to watch us 'dogs'. The DMF contingent has made peace with male sexual aggression, and it's a good thing as evolutionary biologists are backing them up. But there are plenty who would rather we stick with our own meat. Those would be the radical feminists.
This paragraph might be the one in which I crack wise with something to the effect that every man is a lesbian trapped in a man's body. To the extent that's not a laughing matter, there is generally some undeserved abuse and pain behind the thousand mile stare. Is it not life experience that makes all the difference when it comes to matters of intimacy and violence? Pain, they say, is the best teacher. I agree vociferously. But if one's life is not informed by such pain, it's awfully difficult to make peace with feminist theory as advanced by those who have the worn the bruises and lacerations of patriarchy.
It is from this context, as one man who might be instructed by feminists on a more appropriate het lifestyle that the gay card comes in. In the end, what most men want is love, and we spend an ungodly amount of time looking for it, especially those of us with disposable income. Into that bourgie pastime of looking for love, sex, affection and all that romance comes feminist informed gender equality and all that. Chances are that an ordinary straight man coming in contact with theoretical feminists will come to understand gender as socially constructed. In otherwords, you were born in a box and you have to grow out of it. It is not sufficient to describe you as a man, you are a heterosexual man in a male body and if you've never seen yourself this way before then you are an unthinking agent of evil patriarchy.
You can say, 'but I really love women', and then you will be asked an infinite regressing series of 'why' until it comes down to your mother, your first grade teacher or a playboy magazine. In any such case you have been busted, and thus the first day of your re-education.
It is at this point which you should, homeboy, play the gay card. Just admit, as best you can that you are acting out something (insert link to foucaultian jargon generator here) and really worship at the alter of penisity. At this point, you will be released from re-education and your feminist inquisitor will chalk up a victory against patriarchy, and thusly add more ammo into the all-purpose excuse of there not being enough good men.
I am serious and I exaggerate and I am glib in all this. But there is something about the bohemian lifestyle that irks and annoys me, especially in its influence among the chatting classes. For there are good things that bohos teach us, multiculturalism for one. But over the 90s, as the Alternative has itself morphed into its own mainstream, we are in danger of moving much of society away from a sustainable mainstream. What I'm getting at is that I have a hard time with the evangelism of alternatives, gaming as if all of this was a zero sum thing. I find it difficult to believe that the self-sufficiency of alternative lifestyles is completely undermined by the conventional. And so I suggest the gay card to terminate conversations which go awry when someone is suggesting that the way you love isn't what it should be. Tell me how it works.
At the very least I thought we would have learned by now how difficult, if not foolish, it is for women to try and change the way men love.
Posted by mbowen at April 25, 2004 11:42 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1817
Comments
You had me until this statement:
At the very least I thought we would have learned by now how difficult, if not foolish, it is for women to try and change the way men love.
HOW DO men love? And how are women trying to change it?
Posted by: Deb at April 25, 2004 03:38 PM
Hmmm....yeah, what she said!
I think part of the problem comes down to the differing definitions...what or which feminism? The term feminism (like "socialism or even "rock and roll") can refer to so many different or conflicting ideologies.
I am an unapologetic feminist (meaning: I am not afraid to say "I'm a feminist" and leave it at that, rather than saying, "well...I'm a feminist, but..." and tacking on all kinds of qualifiers to make the listener feel more comfortable...oh, good. she's my kind of feminist, not the fire-breathing type that is likely to challenge me). That's about as accurate as I can describe. Terms like "second wave" or "third wave" or "radfem" or whatever seem meaningless to me. Not because I'm totally ignorant, but I'm one of those folks who believe lived experience ought to count for something, and terms that serve mostly to alienate people or cause misunderstanding don't have a use in the cause. Hell, do you want more people to be feminist, or consider a feminist view, or what?!
You're not alone, Cobb. I caught a bit of flak years ago from posting on a feminist board about the lack of concern for working class women by what passes for the mainstream feminist movement. See, I am one of those working class women, so I felt--yeah, entitled! to criticize. I marched for the ERA in Chicago when I was in the eighth grade, but my mother didn't. Because she wasn't feminist? Hell naah, because she worked the third shift, and needed her sleep before the long night ahead more than she needed to hear speeches by more privileged women. Women like my mother and her mother (my aunts, neighbors, etc.) are living, breathing examples of feminists, but don't get the credit from academics.
Back to "what is feminism" again. "Do Me Feminism"? jeez. I have a sex drive too, but I couldn't bring myself to use that term of description at gunpoint! And I think I lose you again when you use the term bohemian....when I think "bohemian" I envision someone who is left-leaning, but I get the impression you are using it to mean someone who is far-out to the left, like "lesbian separatist vegan".
Changing the way men love? Isn't that what the religious right is trying to do with gay men?
Posted by: amarettiXL at April 25, 2004 05:26 PM
"Changing the way men love? Isn't that what the religious right is trying to do with gay men?"
the coy amaretti thus proves the cobb's argument by the act of arguing it in such a fashion. Tried, untrue, and tiresome.
Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at April 25, 2004 08:35 PM
Coy? I should have been more clear.
There are those who say that it is possible to change one's sexuality; that being gay is a choice, and that folks who are gay could just as easily choose to be straight. I don't believe that. As a straight person, I couldn't imagine being able to "choose" gayness. With all the arguments surrounding gay marriage these days, I'm hearing more of the religious right's argument that gay men are oriented that way due to choice, and that it is possible for such men to be straight.
Ha!! I would run far and fast from any such man, and will advise my daughter to do the same. To do otherwise is a recipe for disaster...at least, judging from the way it seems to work out in real life. That was all I meant by my "coy" last comment....
I haven't seen any examples in life (just in print) of feminists trying to "change the way men love". And the separatists don't care, one way or the other. Then again, I don't live in California; here in the Midwest anyone who calls herself (or sometimes, even himself!) a feminist is likely to be thinking first of economic issues...the "bread and butter".
Posted by: amarettiXL at April 26, 2004 04:35 AM
'Changing the way men love' was about as broad as I could put what I see as women's refusal to accept the male argument 'there are plenty of other fish in the sea'. Many women want to redeem their man, and many stay in abusive relationships because they believe that they can cure him. They accept his love because they think they can change the way he loves.
Posted by: Cobb at April 26, 2004 07:49 AM
Ah! Ok, I see what you mean now, and yes...in that context it makes sense---changing the way he loves is a losing proposition (although use of the term "love" to explain the dynamic in an abusive relationship comes with its own problems! And that is one of probably several dynamics possible in that situation, but I digress.).
Perspective makes all the difference. From this woman's perspective, I always thought one of the goals of feminism was to change the way women love. What became the radical/fringe/separatist branch said basically, to hell with men...love women. What became the moderate or centrist branch said change you for you...that the most important change to make was in yourself, realize who you are and where you stand, the better to change the power dynamic in society (not to mention interpersonal relationships). Get an education, a career, fight for your rights...that when you stand on more equal ground, you then won't have to deal with cads...they won't be necessary.
And they're not...but they're still out there, sigh. I don't think that making men irrelevant was either a goal or a side effect of feminism, although it sometimes gets described that way.
Posted by: amarettiXL at April 26, 2004 03:07 PM