theorylicious

i think i've met my quota for posts for the quarter, although i'll do one more just to be sure. (and i still have that one about NSFW to finish, but it will probably have to sit on the backburner until i get back from the big apple.) so, michelle, i hope we're all good on this front. :)

anyway, i was listening to the bbc world service the other night, as i am wont to do after midnight when i'm trying to fall asleep and drown out my own stress with the dulcet tones of british broadcasters. they have a technology report and they did an interview with the founder of craigslist. the incredibly snooty tech reporter asked craig about what he called a proponderance of sexually-related ads posted on the personals section of the site in every city with a mini-site. the reporter then said, "especially in the men-for-men section."

UH. i hate to burst the british broadcaster's bubble (take that, ms. maney), but this is simply untrue. there are nude photos ALL over the personals section: in misc romance, in male-seeking-female, in female-seeking-female, in missed connections, even in "strictly platonic." there is no shortage of poorly-lit webcam shots of peckers and myspace-esque "arty" shots of boobs pressed together. no matter who you want to take to bed or "have coffee with," there is a nekkid picture to show you what awaits you. (assuming you're not "morbidly obsese" or "crazy.")

so craig, west-coast leftie that he is, responded that CL users are adults and that CL has a flagging system in place whereby members can flag what they consider offensive or inappropriate material. the site then removes the offending post from the mini-site. craig referred to this as a more democratic method of dealing with offensive posts and said that otherwise, CL does not make it a policy to police ads, regardless of who's posting them.

[unfortunately, i could not find this interview on the bbc website, so i apologize for a lack of link.]

i've seen this in action and even flagged posts myself. i've never flagged sexually explicit posts (including those with rather graphic nude photos - we're talking hardcore porn here), but i have flagged a couple of posts that were offensive in terms of violence, racism and sexism. and personally, i think that's okay. i'm not removing the post; i'm only asking that CL review the post and consider it for removal. not all posts i've flagged have been removed. and that's okay. but in the interest of sharing in the community atmosphere of CL, i think it's only fair that users should have some say when they see something they consider alarming or deeply offensive.

additionally, i've seen posts from people who warned others of scams or potential predators/creeps/rapists. again, i think the warning is okay. no one has to heed it and in the personals section (and most of the time, the missed connections section), people usually don't use names or their own email addresses. so i don't think this crosses the line into libel.

okay, okay, i'll cop to it: i'm sort of obsessed with CL.

another observation: if you check out the cincinnati CL's women-for-women section, you'll find that the majority of the ads are seeking bi or lesbian women who would like to have sex with a (hetero)male and female couple. there are a lot of posts that go something like this: "i've always fantasized about being with another woman, but have never had the opportunity or found the right one. my husband/boyfriend really wants to make my fantasy come true. he would be there and might participate. you must be drug/disease free (or alternately, 4-20 friendly), and butch or femme (or whatever)."

i find this rather problematic in terms of the construction of bi and lesbian identities. it assumes that bi and lesbian women are interested in fulfilling the fantasies of (hetero?) couples and serving them. it also assumes that bi and lesbian women are always sexually available to others. and i think, in reality, these ads are really about what is gratifying to men. while i think that there are probably plenty of legit ads where a couple wants to indulge a fantasy and "spice up" their sex lives, i think that there are probably also a lot of men who goad their partners into a threesome because they want to maintain the appearance of monogamy while also getting to enjoy a new, "oversexed" bi or lesbian body.

maybe i'm being a killjoy here. see, i'm all for pleasure and fun and whatever consenting adults want to do as long as they're not hurting anyone. (well, they can hurt each other, but in a consensual way, of course!) but when i see maybe 2 posts out of 10 that are ACTUALLY women seeking women, without a penis involved, i have to think that social constructions of bi and lesbian identities can be a bit... well, the service of men. like, a lot of the time.

not everything is about the penis. not to put it down or anything, but damn, couldn't we have ONE DAY where everything wasn't about men? heh. clearly the end of quarter insanity is making me silly, but hopefully i got my point across without sounding like a sex cop myself.

you just gotta wonder sometimes...

susie bright wrote this fanastic piece about the issue of NSFW, or the acronym that internet users employ to tag emails and blog entries that could be trouble in the workplace: Not Safe For Work. i think her points are well-taken, although my opinions differ just a little.

bright argues that mainstream publications such as the new yorker, the new york times, and vogue reguarly publish nude photographs, erotica, and other NSFW-type materials, but because they are well-established and well-funded, their content goes unquestioned and un-tagged as NSFW. these publications are monoliths in the publishing world and in popular culture. readers of these publications are considered erudite, educated, cultured. and they could very well be looking at what simon leis would considered porn, but who's going to challenge a reader of the new yorker or esquire? "hey man, i read it for the articles."

this is the same kind of "is it art or is it porn?" debate that went around and around during the 1980s, especially with regard to NEA grants. is it "art" if the model is wearing a $5,000 watch and nothing else while kneeling in front of a man and simulating oral sex and the caption is done up in a calligraphic font, and somewhere after the fashion spread, there's some investigative journalism about the war in iraq? is it "porn" if the painting depicts two nude men in an embrace? is queer constructed as automatically pornographic?

bright also argues that these publications "get away" with publishing erotica and soft-core porn because of their popularity AND because of the class and heteronormative privilege of the publishers and writers. she can't get advertising through google for her blog, because there is discussion of sex using profanity and photos and multimedia that are related to sex. but the rep for google's ad-sense admitted that the times and the new yorker get ads because of the sheer volume of hits the sites generate.

it's about who's writing.
it's about who's in power.
it's about the context.

i would argue that these publications (and advertising in general) get away with publishing soft-core porn and erotica because they are mostly catering to heterosexual fantasies and tastes. while i have a lot of love for the new york times, i also know that its slant is liberal, not revolutionary. bloggers like susie bright or joe of joemygod often take queer positions on issues like gay marriage, sexuality, coming out, politics in general, culture in general. (joe has, as far as i can tell, had a lot of success in the past year or so, but i think that's indicative of the way in which gay male voices are desired over queer female voices. joe's popularity is not only because of his excellent writing, but because he is willing to jump on the outing bandwagon, does some "investigative journalism" of his own and happens to be writing during a time when numerous "straight," married politicians and public figures have been outed. the media wants soundbites and they get them from bloggers like joe.) susie and joe are probably NSFW'ed more than most. both are unafraid to discuss graphic sexual matters on their blogs. but when you put both in context, you find that, woven in between the NSFW posts, there is plenty of queer and feminist discourse. there is plenty of theory. there is plenty of political dialogue. but unlike esquire or vogue or the ny times, there's no one there to say "i read it for the articles!" queer blogs are tagged with NSFW based on the fact that they are queer, not so much because of the ACTUAL content.

bright mentions the fact that the NSFW tag is also a type of self-imposed censorship. it allows those who are forwarding a joke email or a link to attempt to censor the viewing and/or reading of certain materials in certain places. this is where bright and i differ. personally, i appreciate the NSFW tag. i know better than to open anything marked NSFW in the workplace.

but in general, i think susie's points are well-taken. context is everything. and clearly, when you have money and power, you can determine what is porn and what is art, what is erotica and what is smut. and you can also determine who will be published and promoted and who won't based on identity. my question: how is queer identity constructed from inside and outside queer communities? what about these "proper spaces" for discussion of sexuality? where are these spaces and who decides where and when?  is perverting and/or queering these "proper spaces" a revolutionary act?

part two to follow...

Feminists

today i've been working on various papers and projects that will soon be due. i'm currently writing a paper for my US women's history class. while reading the text related to the beginnings of the women's liberation movement, i was struck, perhaps for the first time in years, by what was accomplished during what is referred to as The Second Wave of Feminism.

i know this sounds a bit ridiculous, but i'm starting to wonder if i've really become a jaded, chainsmoking, PoMo feminist, unwilling to acknowledge my forebears. i know i'm not the only one, though. there are plenty of reasons to critcize and critique Second Wave (hereafter, SW). liberal feminism is definitely not my favorite, since i think it was an incredibly exclusive, reactionary branch of feminism that claimed to speak for all women, but really represented very few. radical feminism is sort of reactionary in a different way... i mean, how many women could afford to live in separatist spaces or to completely "tune in and drop out" of society? how many women could afford to employ "lesbianism as the practice" of feminism as ti-grace atkinson put it? and what about women of color? why did so many women of color have to form their own organizations? well, because there was plenty of representation for white women and little to none for them. and because they saw the need to address race and class, before many white feminists finally figured it out. this is far too simplistic a view of SW, but i'm just throwing out some of the critiques i've heard from others and given voice to myself.

all of this aside, i stand in awe for just a moment... just to think about what came out of the late 1960s and all of the 1970s. sure, lots of mistakes, lots of willful ignorance, but also some really wonderful things: roe vs. wade, the almost-passed ERA, shirley chisholm running for president, the formation of NOW, the passage of title IX, combahee river collective's statement, SCUM, the work of angela davis and bell hooks and so many others, the lavender menace, etc etc. it is amazing to think about the way in which many women within feminist circles - wherever they worked and whatever groups they worked with - took such revolutionary positions, took such chances and risks, put themselves OUT THERE so that women like me could get a job and be paid a decent wage, could get a safe and legal abortion if needed, could go to a university and play sports, and on and on.

i think it's far too simple for me to continue to regard the work of SWers as outdated, irrelevent or far too exclusionary and thus, throw it on the scrap-heap of history and move on to more "relevant" and "modern" theoretical works being circulated and read now. reading this section of my textbook makes me want to go back and read all the works i've read in excerpts for classes for the past couple of years and bone up on SW! i feel like i'm missing my history.

so... bringing this back to what we've discussed in class, two issues emerge:
1) are we still in a second wave or are we now in a third wave?
2) do feminist theory and queer theory stand alone as separate disciplines? or will they merge?

to start with the first question, i think we're in a third wave now. not only do i think that postmodern and transnational feminisms potentially offer a solution to the exclusivity that was a hallmark of SW, but i think the move away from viewing gender/sex as prescient above all else (class, race, sexuality, ability, age, geography, etc.) signals this emerging (or already emergent) third wave. i think this is exciting. i also think that maybe it's important for third wave feminists to look at SW with a critical eye, but also with a sense that there's plenty to learn from women and men who laid down the foundations of feminist and queer theory.

the second question is perhaps more difficult, although i'll offer up my meager opinion. the main issue i have with the merging of feminist and queer theory is the possibility that women's studies programs and feminism in general will be even further marginalized and depoliticized and even further underfunded. i've long commented to friends that it seems that at some point, women's studies will become gender studies and feminist/queer theory will be folded into critical theory and sociology. i think this is a real possibility and it kind of scares me.

the only positive i can see in this feminist and queer theory merger (or the re-naming of women's studies to gender studies) could be the possibility that, in light of hammonds' piece about black lesbian theorists and their work within the academy, it could open up whole new areas of scholarship and increase the number of voices in both feminist and queer areas of study. it could make the third wave a more definite thing. we could see feminists of every kind working with more queer and transnational theorists, for example. we could see theories about class and race be further legitimized and promoted within women's/gender studies. basically, i think feminist and queer theorists could learn a lot from each other.

anyway, this is all sort of aside, i suppose. i'll get back on track with something else in the next couple of days. i guess i just wanted to post about how disappointed i am with myself that i've been so hypercritical of second wave. i think it's time to give some props to all those feminists, of every kind, who made it possible for me to do some of the things i do without even noticing. without second wave, my generation of feminists might not have had any of the opportunities we have today. so many resources and avenues open to women wouldn't be possible without all the blood, sweat, tears, energy, late nights, early mornings, fists in the air, consciousness-raising groups, mimographs, die-ins, pickets, strikes, writing, reading, talking, thinking, and challenging of those brilliant, brave, wonderfully flawed second wave feminists!!

Britney_bald300

britney spears' very public downward spiral has been on my mind a lot this week. like most people, i've had a hard time looking away from the media circus/personal trainwreck that has become britney's life. but i also feel a very deep empathy for britney and am very disappointed in the way that the media and celebrity gossip hounds have latched onto this story and put britney on some kind of suicide watch. it troubles me that so many would take such glee in relating the latest gossip or photos or video of britney's visits to rehab, tattoo parlors and clubs. have we really gotten to a point where we HOPE that celebrities will crash and burn so that we can feel better about ourselves?

it just seems to me that britney is like many twenty-something young women who struggle with the demands of a new career, a young family, failed relationships, substance abuse problems, body image, sexuality... and the list goes on and on. only britney has to go through these same issues under the scrutiny of a media and public that demands that she fits neatly into their box, into their conception of a female singer/dancer or media icon.

so where did it all go wrong with the public? in order to queer this up a bit, i'd say that her "downfall" really began with that kiss she shared with madonna at the 2003 VMAs. (and as an aside, why didn't christina get any flak for that? she kissed madonna too!) it seems that the media went completely bonkers over this kiss and it really started a plethora of questions about britney. was she lesbian? was it a publicity stunt? what did it mean for her career? and on and on.

the context of the kiss is interesting, considering madonn'a career. madonna's "like a virgin" is, i think, a parody of morality and virginity, especially in the visual sense. the original performance of the song at the 1984 VMAs in the now infamous and drag-esque wedding gown seems to be an aping of all that is sacred about virginity and monogamy; madonna arrives on top of a set made to look like a wedding cake and then proceeds to writhe around on the stage and strike various seductive poses with a lot of flesh exposed. so the fact that britney played this part in the 2003 performance is interesting, given madonna's transgression of virginity and marriage and monogamy in the first place.

second, in the 2003 performance, britney and christina, seeming inheritors of madonna's legacy (this is what this performance implies as far as i'm concerned - a passing of the pop diva torch), are dressed in the "like a virgin" costumes (updated and sluttified for today's audiences) and madonna is wearing a pseudo-tuxedo. the kiss between madonna and the two young women almost seems to be a sacred moment, in which that torch is passed. as much as it is titiliating and certainly a way for britney and christina to announce that they're definitely not mouseketeers anymore, i think it's also transgressive given madonna's age (aka old enough to be their mothers) and the whole drag-ness of the performance. madonna's entire career has been built on drag and confusing gender, sexuality, class, religion. although a strong argument could be made that madonna has co-opted subcultures and identities for her gain, i think madonna has always challenged the policing of sexuality and religion and class. i think that has been an incredibly transgressive move on her part and has often been a consideration on her part when she's spoken about the use of sexuality and religion in her music and live shows.

britney's initiation into this world of "transgressive" sexuality was, in my opinion, the moment that her career began to unravel. as britney's albums and imagery suggested an open and free sexuality, especially after her breakup with justin timberlake and outside of that dazzling teenage goody-goody couple, people really started to criticize britney for everything: her style of dress, her partying, her relationship with kevin federline (and there are a lot of class issues there), her parenting style or seeming lack thereof, her choice of friends, her weight fluctuations, etc etc. i think the moment she stepped outside the box and kissed madonna on national television, it was curtains for her.

this is not to say that britney hasn't perhaps made some bad choices that have led her to where she is now. but i do think that in the public's mind, britney's kiss with madonna signified that step out of the box it had created for her. she was no longer clean, no longer virginal (and there was, after all, that whole brouhaha about her comment about saving it for marriage and then the question of whether she and justin had consumated their love), no longer titilating yet wholesome.

personally, i hope that britney gets whatever help she needs right now and that she has at least a few people in her life who love her and will support her. it must be incredibly difficult to be hounded by packs of photographers wherever you go and it must also be devastating to know that there are people out there who take pleasure in watching your life fall apart at the seams. for most twenty-something young women, there's the opportunity to go through personal battles with a modicum of privacy. unfortunately, britney can't seem to find that private space in which to get her shit together.

but mostly, i take offense to the idea that young women, especially women like britney, are expected to be all things to all people. we want them to be sexual, but not TOO sexual and certainly not gender-bending or queer or questioning. we want them to be wholesome, but not too wholesome and boring. we want them to be thin, but not sickly. we want them to be glamourous yet down-to-earth and practical. we want them to be smart but not too smart and in control of their careers. we want them to dazzle us yet we want to be able to relate to them. this policing of the boundaries of acceptable behavior on the part of young women - straight, queer, famous or private - can lead to these sorts of meltdowns. when you step outside the box, people can no longer tolerate your choices, your foilbles, your humanity.

it's no wonder that britney is troubled.
and there's a broader issue of this whole "girls gone wild" type of milleu in which stars like britney, christina, paris hilton, lindsey lohan and a host of other twenty-something women display "bad girl" behavior that is simultaneously critiqued as excessive, exciting and as proof that some girls are beyond "redemption" and "refuse to get help." do these girls need help? are they just being twenty-something girls, only on a much bigger stage and with a huge credit limit?

and why is american popular culture obsessed with the bad girl, the "girl gone wild?" do we love to see young women fail? is it proof that women are more flawed than men? i think there's an element of misogyny in the way the sort of drug-fueled escapades are reported in the media. there wasn't this kind of circus when robert downey jr went on a series of benders. same with christian slater, who also got hauled in twice for beating his girlfriend. same with any number of male celebrities who have had addiction issues, have been caught with drugs or prostitutes (hugh grant, i'm looking at you), or have been notorious on the party circuit.

so anyway, i feel for britney. i think she's an example of the kinds of anxieties that we have about young women and about the real lack of meaningful support there is for women in their twenties. truth is, britney has the money to get the help she needs. she can take care of her problems with high-priced rehab and life coaches. but how many young women are going through what britney is facing and fall through the cracks?

so i've been listening to NPR and one of the programs just featured richard cohen, author of coming out straight: understanding and healing homosexuality. UGH!

obvious problems with this:
- the pathologisation of sexuality - homosexuality can be "cured" or reversed
- the continuing emphasis placed on "deviance" and heterosexuality as The Standard By Which All Things Must Be Judged
- cohen's assertion that inside all gay and lesbian people is a "wounded child"
- cohen's assertion that anger and pain is at the root of why people choose to be gay or lesbian
- cohen's statement that gay men have to learn to view women from "a male perspective" rather than as "one of the girls" and lesbians have to "relearn" how to see men again.
- the idea of "coming out straight"

wow. there is so much there to talk about.
i think the issue of choice is tricky, especially in terms of lesbian feminist consciousness. is it possible to choose to be gay or lesbian AND to also feel that you're "just this way" and that you've always "been this way?" i think the real question is: why would it be wrong to choose homosexuality?? that, to me, seems to be a more valid question because it challenges cohen's assumption that no one would choose what some perceive to be a terribly difficult life full of self-deception and anger and pain. the idea of the "wounded child" is a modern construction that comes directly out of psychiatry. is this construction mostly used to diagnose women with any number of disorders? i think specifically of the kind of therapy that stresses going back and talking to the "wounded child" and comforting her in order to heal whatever pain or trauma the adult has experienced. even past-life regression may be used in this way. but again, i think the more important question is why do associate pain and childhood trauma with homosexuality?

and obviously cohen's statement about gay men leaving behind their "one of the girls" perspective is so ridiculous, i almost can't even write anything about it. 1) this plays to stereotypes that ALL gay men are effeminate and secretly wish they were female. 2) how do gay men learn to view women from a "male perspective?" what is this universal "male perspective?" it seems to me that there's a huge range, from misogyny to respect. it depends on a lot of factors.

this spate of "conversion" groups is really troubling to me and i think it's problematic for many reasons.
1) "conversion" challenges identity politics in that it actually does speak to the fluidity of sexuality. it posits that change is possible. it also challenges the basis of an equal rights movement contingent upon an assimilationist argument; fixed identity helps organize people, but it also supports a position that would ask for equal rights because gays and lesbians "can't help" the way they were "biologically/genetically created." if you can choose and if your sexuality could possibly change in the future, then do you really need to be assimiliated into the "straight" world? in this way, i feel that challenging the notion of "conversion" can't really involve an argument about biology or genetics; i think it must, at its core, challenge the notion that any choice to be gay or lesbian would be wrong in any way and challenge heterosexuality as an expectation and standard.
2) however, even though i think that "conversion" speaks to the fluidity of sexuality, obviously i don't think that's happening in any positive way. what "conversion" does is emphasize choice. it doesn't suggest that newly-converted heterosexuals could go BACK to being gay or lesbian. once you're converted, you're expected to stay converted.
3) "conversion" assumes that heterosexuality is the ideal. "conversion" also emphasizes personal choice while setting up heterosexuality as the ONLY choice to be made. so is this conversion or coercion? apparently heterosexuals enjoy a life free of emotional pain and who wouldn't want that!? um, right.

in terms of tying these ideas into our readings for the quarter, i would say that the near-constant thread of policing/monitoring sexuality and the discussion we've had on the boards about what queer is and isn't and who is queer and isn't is of great importance to a critique of "conversion." as michelle is wont to ask, who benefits from conversion? clearly it is the religious right or other conservatives who want to dismantle any legal gains that the LGBT community has gained over the last thirty years or so. and it is clearly those same groups and individuals who are against gay marriage and adoption. i also believe that at the heart of "conversion" lies misogyny and hatred for women  - lesbian or straight - and disgust for men who refuse the nuclear family and who sometimes ally with feminist and queer causes. although i think "conversion" is really aimed at gay men, i think it is also incredibly gendered in that it targets effeminiate, "nelly" men who are too outwardly and outspokenly gay.

"conversion" programs or groups are just as involved in policing gender as they are interested in "converting" gays and lesbians to heterosexuality. this really feeds into the religious right's insatiable desire to uphold the nuclear heteronormative family (which statistically, almost doesn't exist anymore) in the name of god and country. is it any wonder that in the middle of two wars - the war in iraq and the more vague War On Terrah - that we have "conversion" groups on the rise? is this a product of extreme social anxiety about the future of american "civilization?" what is really at stake here?

in the reality television/talk show age, are we content to let people live in the grey area? do we demand that celebrities reveal their sexual orientations when we have to do the guesswork? is this part and parcel of the cult of celebrity OR is it a means of dealing with larger social anxiety over gender, sexuality and the policing of both? i'd say it's the latter.

the first single on the band's new record is, ironically, the one about an encounter with another man:

I Still Remember

Bloc Party

Blocparty050307_okerekekele5

since british band bloc party hit it big a couple of years ago, there has apparently been much speculation in the british music press about lead singer kele okereke's sexuality. bloc party has a new album coming out in the next couple of weeks and so i'm sure the american press will latch on to this story at some point. kele gave an interview to the guardian, which ran on january 7. it is a very interesting interview just on its own, but even more interesting given our class discussion of identity, policing and our recent readings on black lesbians/queers. (i have a problem using the plural of queer - is there a better way of using queer in the plural? i guess i could use dubya's "folks." heh.)

here's the link to the article:
kele okereke: 21st-century boy

i also want to put this article into play with an article from today's new york times: truly indie fans. this article is about "blipsters," black indie rock fans and musicians who fall outside racial stereotypes and seem to confuse everyone. i'll get back to that in a minute.

i think it's interesting (and brave and wonderful) that kele evades the "are you gay?" question and mentions famous bisexual musicians morrissey and david bowie. instead, kele confronts systemic forms of oppression: racism and homophobia.

'It's not something that I'd be inclined to talk about ...' His stutter is worse tonight. 'It isn't black and white. It isn't clear-cut. Britain has always had a love/hate relationship with gay public figures,' he says with some exasperation. 'They're treated as funny and inoffensive and camp. But then when a seemingly heterosexual person seems to display an inclination for the other team it becomes this real hounding situation. You're allowed to exist if they're [sic] seen as a kind of sub-class. Something ineffectual, a comedy Kenneth Williams character.'

i think this is an interesting statement. in terms of gay identity versus queer identity, it seems to me that kele would find some comfort in butler's "against proper objects." even though the piece is about women's studies, i completely agree that butler's premise applies to the policing of gay/queer identities and the way in which we always seem to size up "hidden" or "deviant" identities against "proper objects." in fact, we define "improper objects" in relation to heteronormative identities! it also seems that kele refuses the gay identity or owning it in the interview because he detests the gay stereotype with its "camp" and humor. perhaps he feels that the term "gay" is packed with cultural meaning that lampoons the gay man. in other quotes from the article, he speaks of "seemingly heterosexual" or just plain straight men (or boys, as he refers to them, since his songs are about school-aged boys) having affection for or attraction to each other and seeks to express this desire in one of his songs as a way of giving a "new perspective."

certainly within the 20 and 30-something indie rock scene, this can be an uncomfortable topic. my own experience within this subculture (everyday being co-opted by the mainstream media and corporations - to be sucked dry of all unique expression and energy like every other youth movement EVAR) is that it is schizophrenically open and closed to GLBT people and people of color. it seems that perhaps before Indie Rock became co-opted by MTV and before it became all style and very little substance, there was a significant place within the subculture for LGBT youth at the very least. groups like bikini kill, huggy bear, atom and his package, pansy division, and musicians like elliott smith, ani difranco (well, maybe before 2000?), rufus wainwright, and the decemberists (just off the top of my head) have all recorded songs (or in the case of ani, built their careers) about gay/lesbian identity and/or homophobia, pushing the idea out there into the indie rock world and making it okay to come out for many teenagers, i'm sure. at the same time, i've seen indie and punk kids come into my record store and call someone a fag, i've seen drunken white-belt hipster boys make out in the bar and then deny the photographic evidence. i've read some incredibly close-minded posts from a few people on the woxy boards and wondered how they can claim to be a part of a pro-indie music, seemingly liberal online community and harbor such hateful attitudes.

so anyway, i think this is sort of what kele is referring to: gay identity is a flashpoint for the media and when someone who makes music that is very trendy and hip admits that his sexuality does not meet heteronormative standards (especially for rock musicians, who are supposed to bag all the groupies after the show), it can be seen as taking the focus off the music and as a way to sell records OR it can be seen as the writer in the band is trying to become some sort of icon or role model. i'm not so sure what's wrong with the latter, but then again, hero worship does betray the complexity of life.

i'll continue this in my next post and try to tie it into more of the readings, especially hammonds! :)
(and i'll post a bloc party song for ya.)

i decided to start a blog instead of keeping a paper journal or even submitting my papers electronically. i thought this might be fun, what with links and photos and video and whatnot. what did we do before youtube!?

i apologize for lack of caps, but this is usually how i write: in lowercase. i've been trying to do capital letters for the discussion board, but i'd rather blog in a more informal way. (if that's okay, michelle?) yes, i am a grammar anarchist.

i'm more or less testing this out.
will be posting a few items this weekend.
YAY!