Showing posts with label pop culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pop culture. Show all posts
6/11/10
4/9/10
We're Not The Only Ones Thinking About "Out"
I was really gratified to read this post on Feministing regarding the judgements people in general and the "blogosphere" (I really, really, really hate that word) in particular regarding celebrities who come out, citing Ricky Martin's situation in particular.
Yes, of course most people's reaction to Martin coming out was, "DUH," and I think I even said something along those lines in conversation myself. But I thought about it some more, and two different issues came to mind:
1) In the U.S. we think of Ricky Martin as a two-hit-wonder has-been. But he's still incredibly popular in Latin America, where the politics of him being an out gay sex symbol occur in a different cultural context than it does in the U.S. Nobody has noted that in his self-outing blog entry, Martin first wrote it in Spanish and then in English. I really don't think white Americans were necessarily the audience he was primarily speaking to here, yet our reactions to his self-outing act as if we were, because, well, we're white Americans - that's what we do.
2) Intersecting with my previous entry's point about Anderson Cooper, Ricky Martin wasn't closeted. One of the realizations the Boy and I came to the other night is that "closeted" is not the opposite of "out" although people who are highly vested in the outing of public figures pretend that it is. Being out is a public statement, but being closeted implies lying, secrecy, and shame. Based on the quick research I did, Ricky Martin never said he wasn't gay. If he was trying to pretend to be heterosexual, he did a bad job of convincing people, given that he decided to have children via a surrogate and was widely known to hang out around Miami with his boyfriend. That's not a closeted life, folks.
Anyway, Lori says it right:
"As a bi-racial cis-gender able-bodied woman in a heterosexual relationship, I may not be able to say I know what it is that Ricky Martin went through before deciding to come out. But I can't help but be struck by the hypocrisy of an America that forbids disclosure from their armed servicepeople and demands it to the point of issuing a frenzied media mandate from everyone else. Whether the criticism was coming from other gay men and women or not, rushing to judge the timing or impact of his decision fails to acknowledge his humanity and undercuts the ownership of his decision."
Just another area where identity politics are tricky, as they intersect with the personal and the political, and above all, a largely straight populace either demands people come out, assume they're already out, or demand they stay closeted based on entirely arbitrary modifiers to the situation. At this point, can we really blame some queer people for deciding they don't necessarily want to play that game?
Yes, of course most people's reaction to Martin coming out was, "DUH," and I think I even said something along those lines in conversation myself. But I thought about it some more, and two different issues came to mind:
1) In the U.S. we think of Ricky Martin as a two-hit-wonder has-been. But he's still incredibly popular in Latin America, where the politics of him being an out gay sex symbol occur in a different cultural context than it does in the U.S. Nobody has noted that in his self-outing blog entry, Martin first wrote it in Spanish and then in English. I really don't think white Americans were necessarily the audience he was primarily speaking to here, yet our reactions to his self-outing act as if we were, because, well, we're white Americans - that's what we do.
2) Intersecting with my previous entry's point about Anderson Cooper, Ricky Martin wasn't closeted. One of the realizations the Boy and I came to the other night is that "closeted" is not the opposite of "out" although people who are highly vested in the outing of public figures pretend that it is. Being out is a public statement, but being closeted implies lying, secrecy, and shame. Based on the quick research I did, Ricky Martin never said he wasn't gay. If he was trying to pretend to be heterosexual, he did a bad job of convincing people, given that he decided to have children via a surrogate and was widely known to hang out around Miami with his boyfriend. That's not a closeted life, folks.
Anyway, Lori says it right:
"As a bi-racial cis-gender able-bodied woman in a heterosexual relationship, I may not be able to say I know what it is that Ricky Martin went through before deciding to come out. But I can't help but be struck by the hypocrisy of an America that forbids disclosure from their armed servicepeople and demands it to the point of issuing a frenzied media mandate from everyone else. Whether the criticism was coming from other gay men and women or not, rushing to judge the timing or impact of his decision fails to acknowledge his humanity and undercuts the ownership of his decision."
Just another area where identity politics are tricky, as they intersect with the personal and the political, and above all, a largely straight populace either demands people come out, assume they're already out, or demand they stay closeted based on entirely arbitrary modifiers to the situation. At this point, can we really blame some queer people for deciding they don't necessarily want to play that game?
4/6/10
"Post-Out" Post #1: Johnny Weir as Post-Out Poster Child
Despite our open-mindedness, there is definitely a dogma that exists as an undercurrent to almost any discussion on sexuality within progressive, queer-friendly circles. I'll name a few: biology is destiny; identity is orientation and vice-versa; there are three distinct, non-overlapping categories of sexual orientation; female sexuality is fluid, whereas male sexuality is not; queer celebrities "owe" it to "the movement" to be out yet every out queer celebrity has been accused and will continue to be accused of using their identity for attention.
It's obvious that I don't agree with many of these "truths" - the intersection of what we call "orientation" - assumed to be inborn (and probably is in many cases) with "identity" (a social category if there ever was one) is so complicated, yet due to the gay rights movement shaping the language of visibility, the distinction between these two separate markers and what they mean has often become blurred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the gay rights movement as we know it started in a time, not all that long ago, when visibility was very low, due to culturally-enforced messages of shame and the ever-present threat of violence (which still exists today). Having a movement that dared to state that "we're here and we're queer," was incredibly important when most same-sex behavior was conducted secretly. And as a result, we get the concept of being "out."
This will be the first of several posts examining the concept of being out and how it relates to identity and a changing cultural landscape. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that personally, neither one of us are one of those assholes who claim that identity politics are pointless or useless. Without identity politics, we wouldn't have any of the modern liberation movements. I think we can acknowledge identity politics as a tool that is still useful, while also critiquing what aspects are limiting or no longer applicable to everyone. Hence: Johnny Weir.
For those of you living under a rock, Johnny Weir is a world-class figure skater and phenomenal athlete whose "flamboyant" style and "outrageous" personality get more attention than his actual performance in various competitions. Weir is androgynous - not in the the sexless, aloof sense, but in the visceral "Mick-Jagger-and-Alan-Cumming's- lovechild-but-with-more-sequins" kind of way. He exudes sexuality, masculinity, and yes, femininity as well. He's not the "safe" kind of male figure skater who attempts to butch up his routines and costumes in an attempt to prove how very "not gay" figure skating is (and in the process, makes it seem perhaps even more gay - Evan Lysacek anyone? Regardless of Lysacek's orientation, there's something macho yet queer about his Village People style of masculine performance).
The problem, however, is that Weir is not "out" in the traditional sense. He has never said, "I am a gay American," or "I am proud to say I am a fortunate homosexual man."
And yet the reaction in the queer blog world is not to condemn Weir for not being out, the way recently out Ricky Martin and Sean Hayes, or not-yet-out Anderson Cooper have been condemned, but rather to celebrate his snazzy yet thoughtful statements on the media's attempts to categorize him.
In response to critics who claim he's too gay or feminine, Weir has said:
"I hope that more children have the same opportunities as me, with the same parents as me, that let me be an individual, who gave me freedom, and taught me to believe in myself before anyone else would believe in me.
I hope more young boys and girls can grow up to have that love and support from their families, and it's very clear to me that those two men talking on that program did not have that kind of upbringing."
He has also said:
"Figure skating is thought of as a female sport, something that only girly men compete in. I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice, so speculation is speculation. I like nice things, and beautiful things, so if that is the only way people are determining that I swing one way or the other, then to me, that's sad. You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever. I never get angry about things because it's human nature to be jealous and rip people to shreds if you don't like them, regardless of the subject. I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone."
There's multiple awesome examples across the Internet of Weir defending his right to be his own bad self, and plenty of examples of the media fixating on his orientation and gender presentation as well. I haven't seen a single gay site demanding that Weir out himself, however, yet plenty of sites do the same for other rumored gay celebs. The difference? I suspect it has something to do with Weir's "flamboyance" and "fierceness" - that is, his lack of conformity to masculine gender norms. The idea is, nobody who wears that much fur and poses in heels could be straight. And it's apparently irrelevant that Anderson Cooper's reasons for not commenting on his orientation are as valid as Weir's - Cooper is gender-conforming, Weir is not. The former is perceived as having a responsibility to out himself, the latter isn't seen as needing to, we already know - have you seen the photoshoots? OMG!! He wears mascara, like, ALL THE TIME!
Of course, the notion that an androgynous or feminine gender expression automatically renders a man gay is an inherently problematic one. For all we know, Weir is bisexual, or has a serious political aversion to labels, and who knows, he could even possibly not like the cock. It would not be the first time a flamboyant guy was into pussy. The aforementioned Jagger, Bowie, and half of my high school drama club all fit into that category. As a woman long known for loving, in the biblical sense, men who don't conform to gender roles, I can assure you there are many flamboyant guys who dig the vag, regardless of how they identify. The conflation of gender expression with sexual orientation and/or identity is a useless trope yet still ever-present.
I don't know Weir's motivations for not commenting on his orientation - I can only guess. But in a world were people are still assumed to be straight unless their expression of gender deviates slightly in which case they're the gayest thing to ever have gayed, it looks like he's giving the mostly-straight sports world, as well as the media, the middle finger. After all, they're the ones going nuts attempting to comment on his sexual orientation without the ability to actually identify him as a homo. Weir has positioned himself to be a role model to every gender non-conforming kid out there, but actually declaring himself "out" while already being perceived as gay wouldn't benefit him, or even the queer rights movement - it would just benefit a straight society and media intent on categorizing him. And he doesn't seem particularly interested in giving them the satisfaction.
So the question shouldn't be, "Is he?" or even necessarily, "Does it need to be said?" but rather, "Does it matter?" Celebs and people in general are not expected to comment on how straight they are unless they are perceived as being gay - Hugh Jackman and his famous love for musicals comes to mind, and the rumors swirl despite a decades-long marriage to a lady. It's true that people are more likely to care about queer civil rights if they know someone who is out, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that it matters to gay liberation if someone as non-conforming as Weir is out or not. So does it matter when queer celebs such as Cooper, or pre-outting Rick Martin live their lives without hiding their queerness, if they're not shouting it from the rooftops? I'm not sure, yet, but I think the more important question at this point is who, exactly, does the outing of assumed-gay or unofficially-gay celebs serve?
More importantly, this video is basically the best thing of all time:
It's obvious that I don't agree with many of these "truths" - the intersection of what we call "orientation" - assumed to be inborn (and probably is in many cases) with "identity" (a social category if there ever was one) is so complicated, yet due to the gay rights movement shaping the language of visibility, the distinction between these two separate markers and what they mean has often become blurred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - the gay rights movement as we know it started in a time, not all that long ago, when visibility was very low, due to culturally-enforced messages of shame and the ever-present threat of violence (which still exists today). Having a movement that dared to state that "we're here and we're queer," was incredibly important when most same-sex behavior was conducted secretly. And as a result, we get the concept of being "out."
This will be the first of several posts examining the concept of being out and how it relates to identity and a changing cultural landscape. As a disclaimer, I'd like to state that personally, neither one of us are one of those assholes who claim that identity politics are pointless or useless. Without identity politics, we wouldn't have any of the modern liberation movements. I think we can acknowledge identity politics as a tool that is still useful, while also critiquing what aspects are limiting or no longer applicable to everyone. Hence: Johnny Weir.
The problem, however, is that Weir is not "out" in the traditional sense. He has never said, "I am a gay American," or "I am proud to say I am a fortunate homosexual man."
And yet the reaction in the queer blog world is not to condemn Weir for not being out, the way recently out Ricky Martin and Sean Hayes, or not-yet-out Anderson Cooper have been condemned, but rather to celebrate his snazzy yet thoughtful statements on the media's attempts to categorize him.
In response to critics who claim he's too gay or feminine, Weir has said:
"I hope that more children have the same opportunities as me, with the same parents as me, that let me be an individual, who gave me freedom, and taught me to believe in myself before anyone else would believe in me.
I hope more young boys and girls can grow up to have that love and support from their families, and it's very clear to me that those two men talking on that program did not have that kind of upbringing."
He has also said:
"Figure skating is thought of as a female sport, something that only girly men compete in. I don't feel the need to express my sexual being because it's not part of my sport and it's private. I can sleep with whomever I choose and it doesn't affect what I'm doing on the ice, so speculation is speculation. I like nice things, and beautiful things, so if that is the only way people are determining that I swing one way or the other, then to me, that's sad. You can't judge a book by it's cover, ever. I never get angry about things because it's human nature to be jealous and rip people to shreds if you don't like them, regardless of the subject. I am who I am, and I don't need to justify anything to anyone."
There's multiple awesome examples across the Internet of Weir defending his right to be his own bad self, and plenty of examples of the media fixating on his orientation and gender presentation as well. I haven't seen a single gay site demanding that Weir out himself, however, yet plenty of sites do the same for other rumored gay celebs. The difference? I suspect it has something to do with Weir's "flamboyance" and "fierceness" - that is, his lack of conformity to masculine gender norms. The idea is, nobody who wears that much fur and poses in heels could be straight. And it's apparently irrelevant that Anderson Cooper's reasons for not commenting on his orientation are as valid as Weir's - Cooper is gender-conforming, Weir is not. The former is perceived as having a responsibility to out himself, the latter isn't seen as needing to, we already know - have you seen the photoshoots? OMG!! He wears mascara, like, ALL THE TIME!
Of course, the notion that an androgynous or feminine gender expression automatically renders a man gay is an inherently problematic one. For all we know, Weir is bisexual, or has a serious political aversion to labels, and who knows, he could even possibly not like the cock. It would not be the first time a flamboyant guy was into pussy. The aforementioned Jagger, Bowie, and half of my high school drama club all fit into that category. As a woman long known for loving, in the biblical sense, men who don't conform to gender roles, I can assure you there are many flamboyant guys who dig the vag, regardless of how they identify. The conflation of gender expression with sexual orientation and/or identity is a useless trope yet still ever-present.
I don't know Weir's motivations for not commenting on his orientation - I can only guess. But in a world were people are still assumed to be straight unless their expression of gender deviates slightly in which case they're the gayest thing to ever have gayed, it looks like he's giving the mostly-straight sports world, as well as the media, the middle finger. After all, they're the ones going nuts attempting to comment on his sexual orientation without the ability to actually identify him as a homo. Weir has positioned himself to be a role model to every gender non-conforming kid out there, but actually declaring himself "out" while already being perceived as gay wouldn't benefit him, or even the queer rights movement - it would just benefit a straight society and media intent on categorizing him. And he doesn't seem particularly interested in giving them the satisfaction.
So the question shouldn't be, "Is he?" or even necessarily, "Does it need to be said?" but rather, "Does it matter?" Celebs and people in general are not expected to comment on how straight they are unless they are perceived as being gay - Hugh Jackman and his famous love for musicals comes to mind, and the rumors swirl despite a decades-long marriage to a lady. It's true that people are more likely to care about queer civil rights if they know someone who is out, but I don't think anyone can seriously argue that it matters to gay liberation if someone as non-conforming as Weir is out or not. So does it matter when queer celebs such as Cooper, or pre-outting Rick Martin live their lives without hiding their queerness, if they're not shouting it from the rooftops? I'm not sure, yet, but I think the more important question at this point is who, exactly, does the outing of assumed-gay or unofficially-gay celebs serve?
More importantly, this video is basically the best thing of all time:
4/2/10
Paquin Steps Out; Internet Responds
Anna Paquin outs herself as bisexual and people across Internet out themselves as assholes. She took part in an anti-hate PSA wherein she said that she is bisexual. According to people at the taping, they had no idea that she was going to say that. Todd Wright of Technorati wrote this:
"It defies credulity to suggest that such women are the object of discrimination. Based on an abundance of movies, sitcoms, men's magazines, women's magazines, teen magazine's, talk shows, websites, porn sites, and idle male conversation, civilizations from other galaxies have long since decided that such women rule our world."
That paragraph made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Yes, because being objectified in men's magazines, pornography and male bullshiting sessions means one cannot be the object of discrimination. So if Anna Paquin wanted to marry a woman, she can because she's wank material for readers of Maxim. Take that, Prop 8!
Wright goes on to say, "The danger here is not in discrimination but in the creation of an identity out of this now rather commonplace behavior. This is Paquin's ego telling her, 'I am not enough.' She's bisexual because she feels she's lacking."
Wow. Luckily, he didn't stop there. "This is true of all sexual identities: straight, gay, bi, transgender. We are not categories." So straight people are also straight identified because they're lacking. Now I'm at a loss.
The comments section of virtually every site featuring the news of Paquin's bisexuality are infuriating, but that's the Internet for you. What really stings is when people who should know better prove they can be bigoted assholes too.
Luckily, Todd Wright isn't the only asshat on the web this week. We also have long-time defender of the bisexuals, Dan Savage. In his blog for The Stranger, Dan said, "Paquin is engaged to be married to her "True Blood" co-star Stephen Moyer. Which pretty much proves that she's bisexual." This echoes his usual sentiments about bisexual people. He makes a biphobic comment, then gets angry e-mails, claims he doesn't have an issue with them, and the cycle repeats. He's consistent if not honest.
It's worth noting that Spike TV's celebrity blog was far less obnoxious. Go figure.
"It defies credulity to suggest that such women are the object of discrimination. Based on an abundance of movies, sitcoms, men's magazines, women's magazines, teen magazine's, talk shows, websites, porn sites, and idle male conversation, civilizations from other galaxies have long since decided that such women rule our world."
That paragraph made me throw up in my mouth a bit. Yes, because being objectified in men's magazines, pornography and male bullshiting sessions means one cannot be the object of discrimination. So if Anna Paquin wanted to marry a woman, she can because she's wank material for readers of Maxim. Take that, Prop 8!
Wright goes on to say, "The danger here is not in discrimination but in the creation of an identity out of this now rather commonplace behavior. This is Paquin's ego telling her, 'I am not enough.' She's bisexual because she feels she's lacking."
Wow. Luckily, he didn't stop there. "This is true of all sexual identities: straight, gay, bi, transgender. We are not categories." So straight people are also straight identified because they're lacking. Now I'm at a loss.
The comments section of virtually every site featuring the news of Paquin's bisexuality are infuriating, but that's the Internet for you. What really stings is when people who should know better prove they can be bigoted assholes too.
Luckily, Todd Wright isn't the only asshat on the web this week. We also have long-time defender of the bisexuals, Dan Savage. In his blog for The Stranger, Dan said, "Paquin is engaged to be married to her "True Blood" co-star Stephen Moyer. Which pretty much proves that she's bisexual." This echoes his usual sentiments about bisexual people. He makes a biphobic comment, then gets angry e-mails, claims he doesn't have an issue with them, and the cycle repeats. He's consistent if not honest.
It's worth noting that Spike TV's celebrity blog was far less obnoxious. Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
