Back
Which frightens me more - the notion of being absorbed by hetero or by gay culture? It's about a toss-up if I evaluated the options in a vaccuum; fortunately (ha, ha), I don't have to. I am constantly being told that my place is in the latter - no matter how very uncomfortable and unwelcome I feel there - and I can't say I ever approved of rigid castes, personally, so forgive me if I politely (or rudely, should it prove necessary) decline.
Hetero culture is not for me. This much I knew long before I adopted a queer identity. I am not writing a book, so I will not go into details; suffice it to say that choice is easy to dispose of.
But gay culture is no bouquet of triangularly-trimmed pink roses either. It irritates me that a sub-culture based on deviance should be so consumerist and conformist in almost all of its public manifestations.
Gay music? Either disco (when major labels put of compilations of bad dance music and stick a bunch of smiling conventionally attired gym-clone queers on the cover, something is very wrong) or banal folk music (which I marginally prefer, given the ludicrous assumption of only two options and ignorance of many others). At the Toronto Pride Parade last year (1996), I saw rainbow everything - fridge magnets! Dog collars! Necklaces! Earrings! To quote one of my own songs: "Remember 1969? It wasn't a T-shirt."
When I talk to some mainstream queers, they seem honestly puzzled, and I almost feel mean when I assail their little rainbow-tinted ivory towers. Why WOULDN'T I like bars, disco, ABBA, etc. - isn't such stuff genetic, or just good commerce? EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!
Or the ones who admit such things developed over time tell me I should learn to accept it. Well, I don't accept capitalism, and it's been around a ong time. I have no patience for sexism or racism, and they've been around since at least the development of mercantilism. There are a lot of phenomena that I don't casually accept. I don't go around like Carrie Nation breaking into queer bars and pulling the bad music off the turntables and the red ribbons off people who don't do SHIT for AIDS, though, because that's a lot of hard work, and largely pointless; it's not as though that would lead to anything but my arrest, and would do nothing to address the culture that has evolved around me like a pearl. For my sanity, though, I cannot be involved in these aspects of 'queer' life; I must seek out alternate channels; and I must find others who feel the same way, so that we can begin to create a culture responsive to OUR needs.
At this point, charges of homophobia are doubtless pending. Well, I didn't make anti-gay jokes in school; I didn't pretend to be straight, ever; I didn't stand by while others were assailed for being queer. Don't talk to me about homophobia if you've done any of those things; your hands are a good deal bloodier than mine...
I do defend queer culture in general against homophobic straights. I would support education reforms, even if they are rooted in such dubious notions as "We're normal too" (normalcy is deviant, to me, and more than a bit scary; to be 'normal', you've got to suppress an awful lot of individuality). I just don't want anyone thinking that means I am an uncritical participant, because I never will be. The moment questions stop is the moment culture has ceased to exist...because culture grows...and attracts bacteria...that can be useful in treating illness (is this an overextended metaphor or what?). Anyway - by all means participate - but don't be a sheep! (Unless you like sheep - but let us not go there, okay?)
I recently received a lengthy response to last issue's "Resistance Is Futile! You Will Be Assimilated! (Oh, Really?)" - an excellent critique, I might add, and I thought I would take this space to respond/free associate, as I often do.
One of the observations made by this friendly analyst was that it was doubtful I could 'create a culture responsive to our needs'. I suppose I should learn to choose my words more carefully - I should have said 'sub-culture' or 'massively modify the existing culture'. It is probably true that I cannot individually change the culture - and that even mass movement may take quite some time - and it is even more true that I should not be speaking for all of 'us' (though I did mean it in the most general terms of dissatisfied participants - clearly, I do not have a single strategy at hand to solve all problems immediately...).
Then there were remarks made about how most queers don't mind disco/dance music, and will endure it for the sake of company - that disco emerged as the soundtrack to gay liberation, and cannot be discounted for its role - that queer commerce is part of our identity.
I'm sure there are many things some queers don't mind for the sake of company. I've been in a room where it seems every man but me found 'fish' jokes about women screamingly funny. I'm told yuppie queers in Vancouver get their kicks by removing prostitutes and homeless people from their neighbourhoods, the better to cruise and have Tory dinner parties in. To paraphrase the Pet Shop Boys: "I don't dance to disco, and I like rock." I'm sorry if this makes me unpopular - oh, really, I am! - but why should I be put through pain in the pursuit of pleasure? (Yes - I realize that leaves me way open to interesting interpretations...and some of them may be true...ya never know, do ya?).
As to the disco/gay liberation thing, I can't help but think, at first glance, that it is an unfortunate coincidence of history. It is also a good case of selective observation (though, since the texts are written by people with a stake in the dominant culture, it is not surprising that this perception rules).
According to any number of accounts I have read, the early punk scenes of London, Austin, Toronto, NYC and Los Angeles were stuffed with queers - both bands and audience - and that more or less coincided with disco's rise. Even Johnny Rotten used to hang out in gay bars - because they would let punks in. There was an early rapport set up there (which, sadly, seems to have broken down...).
Furthermore, if I'm going to get really facetious, Bobby Vinton and the Irish Rovers were very popular at this time too. The Irish Rovers were very camp, used drag and had a real homosocial vibe going on. As to Bobby Vinton - uh, those flared pants - that expanse of chest hair - oh, sigh...
Why wasn't THIS music adopted as the soundtrack to gay liberation? Polka pansies and lederhosen lesbians of the world, unite! If the Pogues could have a gay member in their ranks, then it MUST be our music!
A lot of the early Svengalis of disco happened to be gay - white men with access to the ears of radio stations and record companies. Self-fulfilling prophecy/payola/etc.? Inqueering minds want to know...
The thing is, disco was NEVER part of my exploration of queer identity. I never heard any queer content in it - its robotic and brainless qualities insulted any sense of developing sexuality/sensuality I had (I don't see thinking and fucking as separate - call me crazy!) - and all the disco fans I knew were raging 'phobes (which may, I admit, colour my feelings a bit...). Punk just spoke to me more - and to almost everyone I knew growing up, for that matter (queer or straight)...
As to the commerce thing - well, I've gone over this before. I don't need rainbow flag condoms to know I'm queer - and it's quite sad if anyone does.
I must confess it used to bother me as a child when teachers spoke of this glorious future that wold befall us 'when' we got married. Even before I had the slightest inkling of my sexuality, it did, because I was certainly aware of people who had never been married and lived happily together - and then there was 'that aunt we weren't supposed to talk about' and her 'female friend'.
It would have irked me less if they had just said 'if' - but, of course, the Ontario Education Act states that teachers are to reinforce Western values (I'm not being mean - I am quoting...), which apparently include marriage (and, by extension, must also include spousal abuse, using children as targets or shields and so on, because those are certainly some of the outcomes of making marriage this crucial thing that one must do to 'grow up' (oh, and don't even get me STARTED on the fact that many men seem to turn into children as soon as they engage in 'adult', hetero marriage - unable to wash a dish, make a bed, feed themselves, etc.)).
But, hey! It doesn't really surprise me that heterosexual culture puts out those messages - it is in its interest to do so, to reinforce its supposed 'naturalness' - if you convince everyone that a silly ritual is some important part of being whole, then it's much easier to control people and make them feel miserable about feeling miserable, if that should happen in their marriage.
But it does concern me that there is all this call for marriage among queers now. I had two friends who did get married, and I was happy for them, really - they seemed like a nice enough couple, and the ritual was something they wanted to experience - fair enough. I certainly don't - and I refuse to believe I'm alone in this - and I certainly don't think I'm immature (my attitude towards ALL rituals, mind you, is like this - if you need this routine to validate your behaviours, you must be uncertain about how valid that behaviour is - you should be able to make decisions without that structure under you, if you're an adult...).
And I've heard all the tax arguments and so on. It is significant to note that even jurisdictions which have introduced domestic partner legislation have a separate set of laws and procedures in this regard. God forbid the State should be seen to actively endorse such things! Secondly, and this is likely the radical in me showing - I don't want freedom from SOME taxes imposed by this State - I want the whole system of capitalism annihilated and flattened and these illegitimate thieves exposed for what they are.
People who've told me that they envy straights who've been married for thirty-five years don't seem to notice that many of these couples probably should have split up after ten or fifteen years - habit is hard to break (economic interdependence even more so), but don't assume that all lasting marriages are products of deep love (some doubtless are - I wouldn't be so piggish as to deny that - but there are a lot of quiet desperate lives lived in the bondage of matrimony - and a lot of kids who grew up wishing these people would stop torturing themselves and just break apart...).
And then the real chocolate-box industry of romance kicks in. People ask me: "Don't you want to have true love, etc.?" I don't know - I suppose it would be very nice ot have someone to love and care for and be cared for - I can't deny ever wanting that - but there is no way you can tell me marriage is the only route to that - I don't need rituals. To suggest that I need to walk down an aisle in a building occupying land that could be used to build homes for people on the streets, wearing clothing that costs enough to feed such individuals decent meals, to stand before a person who represents institutionalized child abuse and misogyny and recite vows to something I have no belief in - or even to stand before a representative of 'justice' - is insulting - if I want to be in love with a guy, I'll do it without trappings...and a major criterion for such a person is that he would have to feel the same way...
It all comes down to a matter of strategy, ultimately. The straights I respect reject these rituals and institutions, so talking about 'heterosexual privilege' will not work on them.
If you want to take those structures and modify them, be aware of all the dangers you are importing as well...
So I'm a queer against same-sex marriage - but I'm also leery of opposite-sex marriage, too. And, while I will never sign a petition against same-sex marriage (such things are from the Right), don't expect me to push for it or participate in a mass wedding ceremony - that would be too Moonie for me - and I prefer to keep my mind to myself, if not my body.
Ah, Christmas - that most quintessentially Christian of holidays - what with the tree idea
(stolen from Norse myth) - the fallen divine figure concept (ditto, at the very least);
the mistletoe (the substance that killed Baldur in Norse myth, so what's up with THAT!?);
and, of course, St. Nicholas (very possibly based on a man in India who would creep down
rich people's chimneys to steal for the poor).
As a Commie, I do believe in the concept of 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' (though, my fellow members of the working class, I assure you that my need for white socks has been met for the conceivable future...).
However, I must confess it used to bug me when my parents would complain that Christmas left them in deep debt - both because, by implication, my sister and I were responsible and because they either chose to do it or well well-conditioned by consumerism.
However, Christmas can be subjected to a Marxist analysis (aren't you glad?). In addition to the 'ability-need' model, consider the following factors:
(a) One of the many St. Nicholases robbed from the rich and gave to the poor - thus modeling Robin Hood AND an ideal working class uprising.
(b) While Santa is said to preside over the ultimate family holiday, it is significant to note that Santas is the ultimate bear (fat, bearded and benign) and his assistants quintessential cubs. Mrs. Claus is a fairly recent addition to the myth, obviously inspired by heterosexist panic at the notion of NOT having the old guy safely married - I suspect she's either a beard (no pun intended) or a trannie. Thus, there is a queer overlay to the whole story that challenges the capitalist model of reproduction for future generations of workers...
(c) Santa wears RED and is said to give presents to all girls and boys (it's true that upper-class kids tend to get more, but that is due to attempts by the ruling class to undermine Santa's collectivist leanings - socialism cannot survive in one Pole).
Anyway - on the title question - oh, who knows? Just hope the season is tolerable to you.
Hugs and smooches of an indefinably but undeniably queer nature,
Polar Cub/Bear Extraordinaire
Back