So the feminist blogsophere (still using it ironically) is still talking about Anthony Weiner, so I might as well, too.
The issue is that many feminists are taking issue with the idea, poised usually by liberals, that Weiner's conduct (having sexually-charged internet exchanges with various women) should not be relevant to his political career because it's a private sexual matter that doesn't violate any laws. The feminist response is that it appears that he sent a sexually explicit picture to a follower of his without having established a consensual, sexual online friendship with her. In other words: sexual harassment.
And I agree. It's not cool to send dick pics to random women, period. Weiner claimed it was "a joke." The recipient doesn't understand the joke and claims to have never had any salacious interaction with Weiner. But the other relationships, so far, appear to be explicitly consensual.
If it can be shown that Weiner was sending sexual images to women non-consentually, he is guilty of sexual harassment and should be forced to step down. Although I find it funny that a man we pretty know is guilty of sexual harassment is regarded as an elder statesman and the same congressmen who were supporting Clinton during his shit are now calling upon Weiner to resign. But that's just politics, gross, yucky poltics.
What bothers me about this feminist critique is how often it's tied into other moralistic, sex-negative critiques that I find troubling. For example, in this excellent Shakesville post about the consent issue, a lot of the commenters diverge wildly from the topic of consent to shake their fists at Weiner for being a philandering asshole, for lying to his constituents, and in general for engaging in the consensual online sexual behavior as opposed to calling him out specifically for the behavior that wasn't consensual. This rankles me.
My husband and I are not out about a great many things in relation to his work life, for good reason. We're not out about having an open relationship, or our queerness. Were he or I a public figure, I suspect we'd be even more closeted. So if we were and some scandal came out about him having sex with dudes on the side, everyone would be up in arms about what a terrible husband he is. I'm not saying that Weiner and his wife have an open relationship, but what I am saying is we don't know what their private boundaries are for this kind of behavior. We know he told her about these online relationships before they were married. That's it.
I find the hang-wringing about "poor Huma" to be shallow and kind of insulting to her. By all accounts she's a pretty bad-ass lady. What she does with this unfortunately public information is up to her, but it's not "feminist" to freak out about infidelity and act as if one woman's supposed private pain is somehow a political point. Infidelity is not a feminist issue, no matter how you want to spin it.
Furthermore, there's a lot of "he's just a gross pervert," sentiment in the feminist blogosphere which I also find weird. The consent issue is huge, and at the heart of the matter, but based on what I'm reading I can't help but feel that even if everything Weiner did was explicitly consensual, some progressives would have a problem with it, because "it's perverted" and "congressmen shouldn't act this way." Weiner is a married dude who had some really boring, bland netsex. This is exceedingly common behavior. Dare I say it, it's pretty much normal behavior for a huge chunk of dudes with Internet access, if my experience on the Internet is any indication. Does being a congressman mean a person has to give up all their sexual freedoms? That seems ridiculous to me. I don't think there's any job that should preclude a person a right to have consensual online flirtations and netsex.
I also find it strange that both in the media and on blogs, this is being spun as an infidelity, full stop. I feel like it was pretty recently that the mainstream media was asking "Does this sort of behavior count as cheating?" Apparently it's been decided now. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that netsex can't be cheating. I'm just befuddled by the assumption that must be. Some people think that viewing porn in a relationship is cheating. I think it's a grey area that can be, depending on what the couple in question has agreed on.
At the end of the day, all that really matters about this situation was whether or not Weiner was sexually harrassing women who had no desire for sexual contact with him. I really wish that the moralizing about the other stickier, trickier issues around monogamy and private sexuality wasn't being lumped in with all that.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
6/10/11
6/6/11
Weiners and Santorum: A Yucky Day
I admit, I was one of those "delusional liberals" because I found the initial aspects of WeinerGate - which you all know is the accusations that U.S. Representative Anthony Wiener has been having sexually explicit photo and text exchanges with fans of his via various social media sites - to be super suspicious. Here's why:
-Breitbart. If you want to have any integrity, regardless of what side of the political fence you fall on, the default position when Breitbart breaks anything is to be skeptical. He plays fast and loose with the truth, period.
-Weiner's reaction. At the time his weird response to all this made it seem almost - as crazy as it may sound - that he was somehow punking Breitbart. Because Weiner is a smart man, and a media-savvy one. I figured that the "bungled" response to the allegations must be part of something...smarter?
But now it's looking a lot more like Weiner has had multiple sexual exchanges with women online, and I'm waiting to watch his press conference, which apparently has been hijacked by Breitbart himself for some reason I can't figure out whatsoever. Can people do that? "Oh, I just happened to be here, I'm on the podium now." Even if he isn't lying this time, he's still a dick.
All this drama aside, I don't understand why this is a "scandal." It's a scandal when a homophobic "family values" candidate on the right is caught betraying the values he attempts to enforce on others. It's the hypocrisy, not the act itself. I don't care if politicians cheat on their wives when they're not trying to impose their own hypocritical morality, period. It has no bearing on their ability to advocate for their constituents if they are not holding themselves to a different standard than they would the people they claim to represent.
Having just listened to Weiner's press conference, I was surprised at how honest it was. There was some of the expected lines about how he's deeply hurt his family and whatnot, but he didn't claim sex addiction or substance abuse, and said repeatedly he takes responsibilty for doing something dumb. That alone is a pretty radical act for a congressman.
However, am I am absolutely befuddled as to why male politicans keep doing shit like this. I am generally a subscriber to the theory that the vast majority of what we consider gender differences are the result of socialization. I'm also a woman who really likes sex and has taken some minor risks to get the kind of sex that I want. So I get horniness. But I don't understand why, time after time, male politicians are able to so repeatedly risk their careers (and marriages, I guess) in pursuit of such banal sexual encounters.
Is it that it takes a certain kind of fucked-up personality to be a politician in the first place? A sense of entitlement and an an aversion to risk-reward analysis? A desire for validation? All of the above? Sometimes, a tiny, not-particularly-feminist voice in my head wonders if male sexuality and the male sex drive really is that different from women. Is the pull for gratification is just so strong that in the moment, it's worth risking everything?
Then again, it's just as likely that the fact that male politicians keep getting caught in illicit encounters has less to do with their gender and more to do with the fact that we just have a lot more male politicians than female. And we hold female politicians to a higher standard of scrutiny.
As a fan of Weiner, I'm bummed that he handled this whole thing so poorly, up to this point, although finally telling the truth and refusing to resign, characterizing this as something between him and his wife and his family, is absolutely the right tack to take. But as a fan I'm really disappointed that he was this stupid. As a fangirl, I kinda enjoy the scandalous shots. Even Breitbart had to admit that this skinny guy has a great body and apparently, quite a package. The most unsexy thing about this is that he was still using an AOL account in the 2000s.
To make today more disheartening to liberals, Rick Santorum, that frothy mix of you know the drill, announced his candidacy. I'm gonna go have another glass of wine.
I'd like to note that I didn't use a Weiner pun, not even once.
-Breitbart. If you want to have any integrity, regardless of what side of the political fence you fall on, the default position when Breitbart breaks anything is to be skeptical. He plays fast and loose with the truth, period.
-Weiner's reaction. At the time his weird response to all this made it seem almost - as crazy as it may sound - that he was somehow punking Breitbart. Because Weiner is a smart man, and a media-savvy one. I figured that the "bungled" response to the allegations must be part of something...smarter?
 |
All this drama aside, I don't understand why this is a "scandal." It's a scandal when a homophobic "family values" candidate on the right is caught betraying the values he attempts to enforce on others. It's the hypocrisy, not the act itself. I don't care if politicians cheat on their wives when they're not trying to impose their own hypocritical morality, period. It has no bearing on their ability to advocate for their constituents if they are not holding themselves to a different standard than they would the people they claim to represent.
Having just listened to Weiner's press conference, I was surprised at how honest it was. There was some of the expected lines about how he's deeply hurt his family and whatnot, but he didn't claim sex addiction or substance abuse, and said repeatedly he takes responsibilty for doing something dumb. That alone is a pretty radical act for a congressman.
However, am I am absolutely befuddled as to why male politicans keep doing shit like this. I am generally a subscriber to the theory that the vast majority of what we consider gender differences are the result of socialization. I'm also a woman who really likes sex and has taken some minor risks to get the kind of sex that I want. So I get horniness. But I don't understand why, time after time, male politicians are able to so repeatedly risk their careers (and marriages, I guess) in pursuit of such banal sexual encounters.
Is it that it takes a certain kind of fucked-up personality to be a politician in the first place? A sense of entitlement and an an aversion to risk-reward analysis? A desire for validation? All of the above? Sometimes, a tiny, not-particularly-feminist voice in my head wonders if male sexuality and the male sex drive really is that different from women. Is the pull for gratification is just so strong that in the moment, it's worth risking everything?
Then again, it's just as likely that the fact that male politicians keep getting caught in illicit encounters has less to do with their gender and more to do with the fact that we just have a lot more male politicians than female. And we hold female politicians to a higher standard of scrutiny.
As a fan of Weiner, I'm bummed that he handled this whole thing so poorly, up to this point, although finally telling the truth and refusing to resign, characterizing this as something between him and his wife and his family, is absolutely the right tack to take. But as a fan I'm really disappointed that he was this stupid. As a fangirl, I kinda enjoy the scandalous shots. Even Breitbart had to admit that this skinny guy has a great body and apparently, quite a package. The most unsexy thing about this is that he was still using an AOL account in the 2000s.
To make today more disheartening to liberals, Rick Santorum, that frothy mix of you know the drill, announced his candidacy. I'm gonna go have another glass of wine.
I'd like to note that I didn't use a Weiner pun, not even once.
7/6/10
San Francisco Pride: As Queer As A Five Dollar Bill
So this is what the same-sex marriage has wrought. The homonormative white moneyed gay male collective has worked very hard to put up images of gay life as a series of set pieces depicting happy wealthy white men pedaling bicycles and smiling benignly. Pride, once a radical public casting-off of fear and shame, it is now street party in which vendors hock astroturf and pricey Smirnoff coolers.
The Saturday before the Pride Parade is focussed around Dyke March. This one day may contain the vast majority of true Pride spirit, and well, pride. People congregate in Dolores Park, drinking beer and mingling, looking for old friends striking up conversations with strangers. And queuing up for the Port-a-potties. Later in the day, people take to the streets, marching, dancing, and celebrating queer pride.
Saturday's vibe is much more community and queer focused. It's truly celebratory and that's what is really missing from the big show on Sunday. While Sunday has the parade, stages and booths, it feels out of sync with the grass-roots nature of the communities represented and their struggle for representation. It feels straight. It's a rainbow flag painted on any generic street festival. The parade feels like a presentation for straight people. “Hey folks, marvel at the queer zoo, and when you're done, go grab some brochures about vinyl siding!” Dyke March works because it is their march, not a function of the local tourism board or straight out-of-town gawkers looking to stare at crazy SF queers.
Maybe it's time to take the whole Pride festival back to its roots. Replace the show with more focus on issues and the people fighting for recognition. The big issues should not be reduced to bumper sticker political messages held up on floats. What I'm saying is, call the dykes, we need their help.
4/25/10
More Biphobia News!
This has not been a good week for the bis. Gregg Kravtiz is a young bi man in Philadelphia who is challenging incumbent Babette Josephs in a primary race for a state legislature seat. It's not every day you see out bi people running for any kind of office, but apparently Kravtiz's sexual identity hadn't been an issue in the campaign for the 182nd district until his opponent made it one.
Josephs, who is straight but considered to be a strong supporter of LGBT rights and enjoys the endorsement of the mainstream gay organizations in her district, was caught on audiotape at a fundraiser claiming that Kravitz was actually straight, and was lying about his sexuality to get votes.
"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said on the recording..."and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."
“There will be cheating if he can get away with it, because he already has tried to lie to people about a whole bunch of stuff, including his sexuality."
Oh, those treacherous, traitorous, slippery bis! How did Josephs know he's straight? Apparently he has been dating a woman since January. So once again, a bi person's identity is judged only by who they are currently sleeping with, and nothing else.
Kravtiz sent the audiotape to local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer. Of Joseph's comments, he said, “That’s completely inappropriate. The way in which my opponent mocked me is very damaging to members of the LGBT community questioning whether to come out. It sends the message that you are subjecting yourself to ridicule, even from allies.”
While the straightwashing of Kravtiz is infuriating, the response by some publications reporting on the story are downright annoying.
"We've hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat," said Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News and a pioneering civil rights advocate. "I've been doing this for 40 years, and I never have heard of this kind of charge in any race in the nation," he said. "I take that as flattery. It shows how far we've come."
It may be a new high point for gay and lesbian identity politics, but having gay leaders refer to Kravitz' identity being policed as "flattery" or even "humorous" is a low point for biphobia. Other publications reporting on the story have managed to out their own ignorance, with headlines like: "PA Congressional Candidate Outed For Pretending to be Gay," and LGTB blog Qweerty closing the story with more musings about how great this inappropriate and offensive treatment of Kravitz is for "the movement":
"It would be most interesting if Kravitz were actually straight, and using a bi identity to pull in votes. But what a statement about acceptance of LGBTs that, by itself, would be making."
What a statement Qweerty is making in refusing to accept Kravtiz's identity at face value. Comments on all articles are as predictable as they were with the Gay Softball League discrimination story, with claims that bisexuality doesn't exist, that Kravtiz is the person who made sexuality an issue here, and that it's just too "convenient" that he is currently dating a woman. All this in a week where longtime bi activist Kyle Schniker, complaining about lack of bi visibility in an (poorly written, trans-othering) article he wrote about the recent GLADD awards, was met with hostile comments by other queers about how "bisexuality is a useless identity," and "biphobia does not exist."
Clearly, the suspended players of D2 and Kravtiz might be hard-pressed to agree at this time.
"I outed him as a straight person," Josephs said on the recording..."and now he goes around telling people, quote, 'I swing both ways.' That's quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality. This guy's a gem."
“There will be cheating if he can get away with it, because he already has tried to lie to people about a whole bunch of stuff, including his sexuality."
Oh, those treacherous, traitorous, slippery bis! How did Josephs know he's straight? Apparently he has been dating a woman since January. So once again, a bi person's identity is judged only by who they are currently sleeping with, and nothing else.
Kravtiz sent the audiotape to local newspaper The Philadelphia Inquirer. Of Joseph's comments, he said, “That’s completely inappropriate. The way in which my opponent mocked me is very damaging to members of the LGBT community questioning whether to come out. It sends the message that you are subjecting yourself to ridicule, even from allies.”
While the straightwashing of Kravtiz is infuriating, the response by some publications reporting on the story are downright annoying.
"We've hit a new high point when candidates are accused of pretending to be gay to win a seat," said Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News and a pioneering civil rights advocate. "I've been doing this for 40 years, and I never have heard of this kind of charge in any race in the nation," he said. "I take that as flattery. It shows how far we've come."
It may be a new high point for gay and lesbian identity politics, but having gay leaders refer to Kravitz' identity being policed as "flattery" or even "humorous" is a low point for biphobia. Other publications reporting on the story have managed to out their own ignorance, with headlines like: "PA Congressional Candidate Outed For Pretending to be Gay," and LGTB blog Qweerty closing the story with more musings about how great this inappropriate and offensive treatment of Kravitz is for "the movement":
"It would be most interesting if Kravitz were actually straight, and using a bi identity to pull in votes. But what a statement about acceptance of LGBTs that, by itself, would be making."
What a statement Qweerty is making in refusing to accept Kravtiz's identity at face value. Comments on all articles are as predictable as they were with the Gay Softball League discrimination story, with claims that bisexuality doesn't exist, that Kravtiz is the person who made sexuality an issue here, and that it's just too "convenient" that he is currently dating a woman. All this in a week where longtime bi activist Kyle Schniker, complaining about lack of bi visibility in an (poorly written, trans-othering) article he wrote about the recent GLADD awards, was met with hostile comments by other queers about how "bisexuality is a useless identity," and "biphobia does not exist."
Clearly, the suspended players of D2 and Kravtiz might be hard-pressed to agree at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
