Homophobia, Sexism and Gender Roles

I had another sociological thought. I don't know whether or not this thought is unique, old news, or completely baseless, but here it is.

Homophobia isn't just homophobia. What homophobia also implies is a rejection of the shifting gender roles that non-heterosexuality represents. Or, to put it more crudely, if you're a homophobe, you're also probably a sexist.

Think of it this way - what do you think of when you hear the expression "boys will be boys?" Ladies, how many of you would actually have a good time at a golf course, a sports bar or a gentleman's club? Guys, do you ever wonder why girls always seem to go to the bathroom in packs? There are certain expectations that come with being a boy or a girl, at least in the western world, and they seem largely inescapable to a lot of people, and more importantly, have been the norm for the better part of a generation.

To include homosexuals in the heterosexual majority's definition of gender roles would be to confuse decades  of sexual identity. To the majority, men were people who watched football, drank beer, lit their farts on fire, and were plagued with the uncontrollable desire to get into womens' pants. To the majority, women were people who were wanted to dress nicely, keep a domestic household, were naturally nurturing and caring, and all wanted a decent man to settle down with. If you find these stereotypes insulting, that's good - so do I.

The problem for people that grew up steeped in these gender roles is that, for the longest time, homosexuality was considered an oddity, a fluke in the system, a life-choice, something that wasn't accepted, and generally treated like a defect - anything except as part of the norm. When the 70's hit, however, and the civil rights movement made the issue more widely known, and over the years, equal rights' activists began petitioning for equal treatment of gays, the heterosexual majority is faced with the possibility of  these "oddities" suddenly becoming part of the norm. Suddenly, the definitions of "man" and "woman" has to be slightly, but oh so unacceptably altered to accommodate men who weren't interested in women and women who weren't interested in men. So much of our gender roles revolved around the things we did to attract mates, that to change that, even just to accommodate different views, turns the entire world upside for people who grew up knowing only heterosexual gender roles.

And here's where the sexism comes in. For the longest time, particularly in the workplace and the professional world, the rules, the styles and the norms have been dictated by men, and generally represented masculine sensibilities. When women attempt to move up in the workplace, it usually has to be according to men's rules. She'll often wear a suit, and most of the time, and coworkers she will be speaking to and negotiating will be men, introducing the possibility of sexual harassment and abuse. She earns less money on average, and will hold fewer roles of authority as men, not to mention maternity leave. And this is all because the rules of game, as it were, have been created and dictated by men to create an environment suitable for men to thrive and succeed, without any regard for the feminine viewpoint.

And this will probably stay largely unchanged, even if the number of working men and women in the professional western world were completely equal, because the people in charge want it this way. The system is run by men who follow rules set by men to appeal to masculine sensibilities. If there were more women in power, these rules and norms would change, even if only slightly, and allow for a blend of rules and norms that appeal to both masculine and feminine sensibilities. But this won't happen, at least for a while, because women are at a distinct disadvantage having spent most of history in the back seat.

But what if the definition of masculinity itself were to change? What if the world of men were to suddenly shift to accommodate men who weren't really all that interested in which sports team won last week, or who the latest girl is on the cover of Maxim magazine? Homosexuality threatens the male power in places like the workplace because it allows non-masculine values to pervade into the very men the system is designed to empower. In the mind of the male majority, women are rather easy to segregate. This is not as true for homosexual men.

And therein lies the issue: to the heterosexual majority, homosexuality mixes up gender roles. Having spent an entire lifetime keeping men and women separate in their minds, and having to suddenly deal with what amounts to girly men and butch women. This is not to say that these stereotypes are the reality, but it makes little difference in the mind of the heterosexual majority. The easiest coping mechanism is, of course, to reject homosexuality, and anything else that doesn't fit into their heterosexual gender roles. A generation of men in the office don't want to have to deal with the fact that their male co-worker may have more in common with Suzy down the hall then with them. And the unfortunate women of that generation, who were cowed by their parents and teachers into their narrow gender roles, are presented with a troubling conundrum: either the roles pushed upon them were meaningless, outdated, and sexist, making their entire life's struggle seem unnecessary...or homosexuality is just a fluke and their gender roles are exactly what they thought they were. It's almost always easier to reject change than to reject your own reality, and that's not even getting into the religious aspect.

Homophobia is sexism taken to its logical conclusion. Sexist men don't want to tolerate women stepping into their world, so naturally, they wouldn't want to tolerate men who (in their minds) act like women stepping into their world either. Being as offended as they are by femininity in women, is it really so hard to believe that a chauvinist would feel the same way towards femininity in men?

And this needs to change. Is a world ruled by people who only acknowledge a part of its people as people really a good world for all people? More to the point, does our view of ourselves, as men and women, really change all that much if we include gays and lesbians and everything in between?

Does "masculine" necessarily have to be synonymous for "likes women?" Does feminine also have to mean "likes men?" And more importantly, do we want these terms to mean these things? These terms hold only as much meaning as we allow them to have. With as many people as there are, even just in the western world, it's impossible to escape the hold of labels. Can we at least agree on what these labels mean? Because we've all been labeled, and whether you realize it or not, you use labels constantly. And if you're using labels knowingly, use them wisely. Doing so is essentially drawing a line in the sand between people you consider "normal," and people you consider "abnormal," and thus, "sub-human." And if you're going to put entire gender roles in the latter category, all you're really doing is labeling yourself as a "bigot."

Creativity

I define creativity as more than just a love for a particular craft. What I feel isn't the longing to write for the sake of writing. For me, the result is what counts. When I feel creative, what I feel is that there is something lacking in the world. There is something, something very specific, that need to exist. And it doesn't exist yet, so I need to create it. By any means necessary. Writing just happens to be how I do it.

A Betrayal of Identity

I don't usually talk about my personal shit in these notes, but there's something that's been bothering me since before even becoming what the world classifies as an "adult."

So, when I was 20, I dropped out of college. I had stopped going to classes, and basically spent my days locked inside the hermitage that was my dorm room. I wasted time online, I ate junk food, I slept whenever the hell I wanted, I didn't excercise at all, and basically didn't leave my room except to eat and to occasionally socialize. And while even then I recognized that being an overweight, lethargic, unproductive, class-flunking drain on my parents and society was a bad thing, I couldn't stop myself. I couldn't change my behavior, because at long last, I was finally doing whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, with no immediate consequences. And I didn't even think it was all that bad, because at least I wasn't hurting anyone or getting drunk or stoned. All I really did was sleep. Even as I stopped going out to see my friends, even as I started having nightmares that started to blend in with my reality, I clung to that lifestyle of hedonism and parasitism.

When finally the ball dropped, I was brought home feeling like a failure. While both my parents were above and beyond college graduates and both my younger siblings were making better grades in high school than I ever did, in that moment, I was the loser of the family. Whatever spark drove people to better themselves, to pursue something to the point where they could work themselves past their limit, I didn't have it. I had no motivation. I maintain that I still don't, and that I only keep trying to impress my family, my friends, and all the people that matter to me. There is nothing, not a pursuit, not an art, not an ideal, not a single thing I have or know of that can drive me to the point the world expects me to be moving at.

Four years have passed since then. I'm a college graduate, I have a relatively steady job, I excerise twice a week, I have a regular social life, and there is not a single day of the week that I'm not doing something. And that makes me lucky - I'm finally fitting in, I'm finally doing something, I'm finally just about the way I'm supposed to be.

Only I'm not.

I'm so far away from what I feel like I'm "supposed to be," that I don't even know who I am anymore. I'm being productive, I'm doing things right, I'm excercising, I'm taking responsibility, I'm working, I'm out of my bed every morning with something to do that day.

And that's not who I am. That's not who I've ever been. That's not who I want to be. Everyone I know would ask why I wouldn't want to be in the position that I'm in. I'm three months out of college, and I already have a steady job. I'm doing things exactly right, and I'm incredibly lucky to have managed to get here. Why wouldn't I want to be me? What's there to complain about?

If this is the way I'm supposed to be, if this is what life is supposed to be like, why do I feel more like a conformist than a success story? Why is 'the way my life's supposed to be' so far removed from the 'me' that I see in the mirror? I would give anything to go back to that life of slacking off and doing nothing in my dorm. This is a person who gets up before noon, who works out, who keeps himself active. This isn't me! All I want to do is NOTHING! Why isn't that possible? Why isn't it possible to even function in this world without doing the exact OPPOSITE of the most primal urge in my body?

I've done it, haven't I? I've got everything a well-rounded, functioning individual should have. This is supposed to be what everyone should aspire to be. This is supposed to be a good life. Why is it so hard for me to enjoy it? Why would I want to give all this up to go back to living like a mollusk in a cave? That's not supposed to be what I want...so why is it? What makes me so different from everyone else that makes me crave doing nothing so much? Doing nothing is CLEARLY not a virtue...I have six years of experience to prove that much. But why am I someone who wants nothing more than to just...exist, and do nothing else? Why do I find the life of a bacterium preferable to the awesome one I have? I have everything a man should want - wonderful friends, wonderful family, and a future ahead of me.

Isn't this supposed to be enough?

Homosexuality and Sexual Deviance Within Our Society

Time of Original Posting: Tuesday, April 19th, 2011 at 2:26am

~ ~ ~

I've been meaning to pen these thoughts down for a while. Had a discussion with someone about this tonight, and it got me thinking about a line of thought that I've had for years: society's treatment of people of different sexualities - gays, lesbians, transexuals, and everything in between - is comparable to its treatment of people with fetishes - BDSM and stuff like that - namely, that they'll tolerate it as long as it doesn't come up in polite conversation. The NIMBY rule is the word. As long as it's kept on the down low, no one will make a fuss about what you do with your private life. Many people have already taken advantage of this fact. The most polite, refined and conservative people in the world might just have some of the most perverse or scandalous fantasies that come to life behind closed doors, and get away with it because of that key point: "behind closed doors."

When you break it down, sexuality fits evenly within the broad range of fetishes and kinks of the human sphere. There are things that get us off, and things that don't. Whether that be whips and chains, hot wax, or someone from the same sex, it all falls into the category of "things that turn us on." Some are more conservative, some are more extreme, some are not allowed by law (underage partners and rape, to name a few), but no matter what you're into, you will be accepted by society as long as nobody finds out about it. Out of sight, out of mind. There are some things the world at large just doesn't want to know about.

And therein lies the problem. Sexuality lies so predominantly in a person's identity, that to keep it behind closed doors would seem like a denial of one's true self. Every time someone acts flamboyant or butch or in any other way openly displays their sexual preferences, they are keeping true to their identity by refusing to keep their interests out of public view. But there are a number of gays, lesbians and transsexuals, just as there are straight people with embarrassing or shameful fetishes (even some illegal ones), that fit into society by keeping their desires under wraps.

When people reveal these fetishes and kinks and sexualities, that's when they stand out. It is our ability to control our urges and not let them dominate our lifestyle that allows us to fit in. By refusing to conform, gays and lesbians stay true to themsevles to be sure, but they also expose themselves to the scorn of the unforgiving majority. This is not to accuse or antagonize, but merely point out that by keeping such desires a secret, people are able to fit in and be accepted. It's noble to be yourself in the face of oppression, but consider this - the inability to control ones desires is the sole reason laws exist.

The reason we lock up rapists and child molesters is because we have agreed, as a society, that the people who desire to commit these acts and cannot (or choose not to) control these impulses are too dangerous and/or not allowed within our society. These criminals might also make the argument that they are simply "being true to themselves" but the act is so heinous that their arguments fall on deaf ears.

Homosexuality and bisexuality is not forbidden by law, at least in some states (as far as I know - I'm not counting marriage, simply the sexual act itself, but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am). But that does not change the fact that it is the minority among the sexual preferences of the masses. As far as hollywood movies and the MPAA ratings are concerned, heterosexual pairings in missionary and other vanilla positions are the norm, and anything that strays from that (homosexuality, deviant sexual positions, and anything kinky in the slightest) gets an NC-17 rating - and therefore, only viewable by people who actively seek it out, i.e., the minority.

If you have a fetish - or a sexuality - that deviates from this norm, unless society changes in your lifetime (which is a rare but not unheard of occurence), you're going to be subjected to these pressures for the rest of your life. The choice remains - keep it a secret and be accepted, but feel that you're not being true to yourself, or expose your desires to the public and hope that by doing so, others might follow suit, and try to avoid the slings and arrows of the misunderstanding and judgemental masses.

This is probably not news to you if this is the case, but you should also know this - you are not alone. Even amongst the hetereosexual community, there are those with various kinks and fetishes, some of which would be shameful and embarrasing and completely upset their social life if it ever came to light, who must face the same choice. Their fetish or kink may not be so thouroughly rooted to their identity as yours, but then again, maybe it is. There are entire communities that organize around certain fetishes for those that know where to look, as I'm sure there are amongst homosexuals. These communities evolve, usually under the radar, but as a place where people can be open about their deviant kink or preference.

You are not the only ones who must sometimes pretend to be something you're not, pretend to find something appealing, when what you really want is on another buffet table altogether, and know that if anyone at the table knew this, you'd be shunned. I hope you can take comfort in knowing that there are those, even amongst the heterosexual community, who understand and share in your predicament.

To summarize, we all have desires. Those desires stretch the full range of availability, from what society considers "normal" to what it considers "deviant," which can include fetishes, homosexuality, and perverse felonies. But the most important thing to take away from this note is this: what makes us "normal" are not these desires we feel, but our ability to contain them.

We all have desires, many of them not even sexual. The desire for food, power, and money, to name a few. Those who cannot control these desires, to the point where they steal or harm others to satisfy them, are punished for it. We have been raised all our lives to control our desires, no matter what their nature is, for the sake of fitting into society, because if you don't fit in, the way tthe law sees it, you cannot contribute and help society grow. Our code of laws exist to keep these desires in check. How we fit into society is based soley around how we manage all of our desires.

You can be open with yourself if you wish, but there is no shame in keeping your desires a secret, especially if they are embarrasing, scandalous, or especially felonous. For this latter group, the adviseable method is, of course, to keep your desires a secret and never practice them, even behind closed doors. There have been those who have absconded to third world countries that won't penalize you for commiting them, and we've all seen the results of their failed attempt to do so discretely. Our newspapers are full of stories that are testament to what happens when something like that gets out.

But for the rest of us, simply meeting the right person, getting to know them, confiding in them, trusting them with your kinks or sexual preferences, discovering against hope that they either share your desire, or are willing to accommodate it, and finally being able to enjoy what you love doing the most behind closed doors in a consensual and harmless manner, in my opinion, is the most logical and livable approach to dealing with a devious desire. You can still keep your job, your friends, your life, and still be able to escape into your fantasy world when no one else is around - essentially, having your cake and eating it too.

Of course, it would be nice if the world were an open and accepting place, where everyone could express themselves freely, but the sad truth is, it isn't. It may never be. It won't change until enough people expose themselves until it can compete with the majority. But those who do will suffer the consequences. Those that make this sacrifice in the hope of bettering the world for those in their community have my respect and support, but if what you desire is to simply be at peace with the world and your desires, the above method is surely the best approach.

Orson Scott Card's Theory of Genetic Destiny

Time of Original Posting: Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 at 3:22pm

~ ~ ~

Excerpt from "Xenocide," by Orson Scott Card

--

We spend most of our time acting out our genetic destiny. Take the differences between males and females. Males naturally tend toward a broadcast strategy of reproduction. Since males make an almost infinite supply of sperm and it costs them nothing to deploy it. Their most sensible reproductive strategy is to deposit it in every available female-- and to make special efforts to deposit it in the healthiest females, the ones most likely to bring their offspring to adulthood. A male does best, reproductively, if he wanders and copulates as widely as possible.

The female strategy is just the opposite. Instead of millions and millions of sperm, they only have one egg a month, and each child represents an enormous investment of effort. So females need stability. They need to be sure there'll always be plenty of food. They also spend large amounts of time relatively helpless, unable to find or gather food. Far from being wanderers, females need to establish and stay. If they can't get that, then their next best strategy is to mate with the strongest and healthiest possible males. But best of all is to get a strong healthy male who'll stay and provide, instead of wandering and copulating at will.

So there are two pressures on males. The one is to spread their seed, violently if necessary. The other is to be attractive to females by being stable providers-- by suppressing and containing the need to wander and the tendency to use force. Likewise, there are two pressures on females. The one is to get the seed of the strongest, most virile males so their infants will have good genes, which would make the violent, forceful males attractive to them. The other is to get the protection of the most stable males, nonviolent males, so their infants will be protected and provided for and as many as possible will reach adulthood.

Our whole history can all be interpreted as people blindly acting out those genetic strategies. We get pulled in those two directions. Our great civilizations are nothing more than social machines to create the ideal female setting, where a woman can count on stability; our legal and moral codes that try to abolish violence and promote permanence of ownership and enforce contracts-- those represent the primary female strategy, the taming of the male.

And the tribes of wandering barbarians outside the reach of civilization, those follow the mainly male strategy. Spread the seed. Within the tribe, the strongest, most dominant males take possession of the best females, either through formal polygamy or spur-of-the-moment copulations that the other males are powerless to resist. But those low-status males are kept in line because the leaders take them to war and let them rape and pillage their brains out when they win a victory. They act out sexual desirability by proving themselves in combat, and then kill all the rival males and copulate with their widowed females when they win. Hideous, monstrous behavior-- but also a viable acting-out of the genetic strategy.

Yes, I'm afraid of commitment

Time of original posting: Sunday, November 15th, 2009 at 10:34pm

~ ~ ~

You say we're afraid of commitment. Damn right we are!

Commitment means change, a change we have to live with, when everyday, we fight our inclinations to do what we would otherwise do, but be reminded of our commitment, and ask ourselves "Am I sure about this? Can I really go through with this?"

Commitment is the hardest thing anyone can ever do. If the people that ran the world were more committed to their jobs, do you think we'd have half the problems we have today? Asking for commitment from us is asking us to rise among the best men in the world.

Think for a moment, how many people do you know who are actually committed to what they do? You might know some - certainly we know a few - but compare that to the number of people you've seen, met or even heard of, who shirk their duties, slack off on the job, quit, cheat on or leave their partners, fall off the wagon, go back to drinking, smoking, and doing the things they absolutely enjoy doing but inevitably destroy themselves and all they stand for by doing it.

Commitment is hard. Ask anyone. Asking us for commitment is to ask an enormous undertaking on our part. And don't pretend like you're shouldering the same burden by asking us to commit to you, because you're not. The only reason you'd ask it of us in the first place is if you stood something to gain from us being committed. Without our commitment, there's nothing to stop us from taking off and doing as we please, and that scares you. If we were to commit to you, our options suddenly become limited, whereas you know exactly what to expect from us, and gain the right to expect it. The things we expect from you, however, still remain within your right to withhold.

So who wins out in this situation? Why should we be expected to commit to you, when we're still so insecure about the world? We don't know what else is out there, shouldn't we be allowed to find out? If we have to suddenly settle down and be yours just because of your own insecurities, shouldn't we be allowed to have our own?

And why now? Are you afraid of what we might find out there? Do you think we'll find something so beautiful that we'll leave you? You say commitment is a sign of trust, but really you want us to commit to you because you don't trust us. You don't have faith that we'll stay on our own, without tying knots or making promises. You don't have faith in us or our character, and if you don't know us well enough to know what to expect, than you have no right to assume we're ready for commitment to begin with.

The only purpose commitment serves is turning chance into predictability, only it's our chances that are being taken away, while you've already made your decision to cash in your chips. Sure, commitment can lead to the creation of good and wonderful things - communities, riches, children - but that's a responsibility that's beyond a lot of of us. You expect us to be gods when we are but men, with the same weaknesses and insecurities. Say what you will about the differences between human beings based on gender or age, the differences are minute, we're the same where it counts, and commitment is no small matter. It doesn't matter who we are, how old we are, if we're male of female - if we're not ready to commit, it's because we have insecurities exactly the same as you, and if you were in our shoes, you'd be saying the exact same thing.

Think about that next time you're about to ask someone to make a commitment to you. And when you realize what you're about to put them through, how about instead, you take a leap of faith yourself...

...And don't.

Religulous

Time of original posting: Thursday, January 8th, 2009 at 4:40 AM

~ ~ ~

I first saw Religulous when it came out last fall, and I just recently saw it again on DVD. I searched the internet for Bill Maher's long, drawn out diatribe at the end of the documentary, and, unable to find it, I transcribed it directly from the DVD onto digital paper. You all may think that this is an astounding waste of time, but I found his words to be so moving and meaningful, that I just had to reiterate them.

(Excerpt from "Religulous" by Bill Maher)

“The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. ‘Faith’ means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

“Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don’t have all the answers, to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says ‘I’m willing lord. I’ll do whatever you want me to do.’ Except, that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know - they just know - what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know. And you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the ‘big questions’ is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that’s what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.

“This is why rational people, anti-religion-ists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only ‘moderately religious’ really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign and protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let’s remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass-death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That’s it. Grow up or die.”

-Bill Maher

(EDIT: Please note that while I agree in a large part with Bill Maher's statements, I am not disagreeing with the existence of God. My disagreement is that human beings are capable of knowing anything about the existence of God, and that literally interpreting religious texts is detrimental to one's grasp of God and man. Turning to religion for the purpose of morale guidance and support is good. Turning to religion for answers as to the origin of man and earth, and the answer to what happens after we die, is less favorable in my opinion, but it gives potentially false hope. Again, this is simply how I choose to live my life. You are all welcome to live your lives how you choose to. Bottom line: "People will generally believe whatever makes living easiest. Who are we to take that away?" - Anonymous.)

Getting back on track

Gonna make a few blog posts, because I haven't updated in a while, and it's occurred to me that I've posted more often on facebook than here. While I technically have more "followers" on facebook, it's worth putting my actual written work here for posterity/permanence's sake. Gonna transcribe a few of my facebook notes now, so a bunch of articles will appear all at once.

Stand by.

X-Men

The X-Men anime came out recently. The opening wasn't bad, but I wondered how it would be when played instead with the classic 90's cartoon. Enjoy.

Current songs stuck in my head...

Final Semester

It's the start of my last semester at the University of Pittsburgh, and I'm excited about graduating. I've already put together a few projects last semester, and I hope that these next few months see the inception of many more. Now that I've acquired my own MacBook Pro and a copy of Final Cut Pro, I won't have to rely on the campus computer lab to work on my projects anymore, which will be a big advantage. For my most recent project for my documentary class, I had to speed through it in a matter of about three of four days, because I spent way too much time on the project before that for my intro to digital class, and nearly lost half my work in the process. This was largely due to the fact that any work I could do had to be done on campus, which is half an hour away from where I live, and that was on top of other classes and working on final papers.

I also garnered a few good contacts throughout the year. My teacher in my documentaries class, Carl Kurlander,  is an experienced filmmaker, and spends a good deal of his time at his office at WQED and additional portion at his old home in Hollywood. From what I understand, a degree is not the most important thing in a filmmaker's life, but I still want to get one under my belt for the sake of getting additional work, because internships are not about making money, and I need to make ends meet while I pursue my career.

More updates as my next projects come together.