I had an urge last night to look into scientific theories of the cause of gayness. I don't necessarily believe that there is a way to scientifically pinpoint the cause, but I've read some things in the past that suggested there is compelling evidence but never any specifics. So I used the handy google machine to look into it and found a plethora of material.
I was actually kind of afraid to google such a thing, because I know any search on homosexuality is sure to turn up anti-gay horse shit, but I thought the inclusion of the word "scientific" in my search query would help. It did help, but not enough. After some actually good reading, I stumbled across a page that looked legit which had links to all sorts of articles that seemed to argue against homosexuality being biologically determined. Some of them seemed relatively unbiased, while others had titles that suggested deeply rooted homophobia. I clicked one that looked safe and soon found myself knee-deep in a steaming pile of crap.
The person who wrote this article (here if you want to get mad) cites absolutely nothing. It seems as if he simply made something up and decided to dump the contents of his biased brain onto a web page in hopes people looking for shit to spew would come across it and that it would add fuel to their raging asshole fire.
The page talks about a young man "for example." That was my first issue. Almost all the material I have read on the subject has talked almost exclusively about men, and mention women only in passing. Part of the reason I'm reading these articles is because I'm curious about why I'm gay, especially because one of my female first cousins is also pretty gay. Yet I have found out almost nothing, because most of the discussions were centered around men. I'm not surprised, because this is the case in most scientific studies... but I digress. Dick Assmouth, M.D. describes the gayifying process in detail, starting with certain genetic predispositions such as "a sensitive disposition," a "strong creative drive," and a "keen aesthetic sense." It's as if he was watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and thought, WOW, THESE FAGS ARE FASHIONABLE, IT MUST BE AN INHERITED TRAIT THAT DOOMED THEM TO FAGDOM! I'm inclined to think these traits are not genetic but rather socialized, and Dr. Douchecanoe might in fact have it backwards. In other words, you're sensitive because you're gay (due to not fitting in with gendered norms and having to create an alternative sense of identity outside typical male roles), you're not gay because you are sensitive. Of course, my theories are no more backed up by science than his, but personally I feel they hold more water.
Surprisingly, these suppositions are far from the most insulting part of the article. He goes on to explain how homosexuality develops due to a young man's desire for love from his father, who was either absent or a sub-par parent. The reputable Dr. Santinover goes on to say that initial homosexual experiences may be forcible or mere experimentation, and the youth to his horror may go on to seek more experiences voluntarily. He says stress-relieving orgasms with other men provide the young homosexual with a semblance of male affection and acceptance that he did not get from his father.
Okay, what? I admittedly do not know very many gay men in a close way, so I can't vouch for this by experience, but I KNOW from my own experience as a gay lady that it doesn't quite work like that. Assuming Dr. Makes Shit Up would apply the same theories to women, I don't fit the bill at all. And neither do most of the gay ladies I know. I don't have typical dyke traits like a love for sports, tools, and baggy clothes. I'm super femme. AND I have a wonderful, loving relationship with my mother. She is seriously the best mom ever, and we hug like six times a day. My love for women has nothing to do will filling a painful, gaping hole that bad parenting left. There is absolutely nothing negative that I feel about my attraction for ladies. The experience is filled with pride, wonder, and celebration, NOT reluctance, pain, and desperation. Looking back, it's something I have been experiencing from a very young age. I don't care what those religious psychos say, even if there's no "gay gene" or whatever: no amount of therapy will make me stop loving vagina. The end.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Mean Girls and feminism: triumphs and shortcomings
Tonight, I was watching the 2004 classic Mean Girls on TBS. I was looking for something to have on as comforting background noise while I browsed the internet, but despite the fact that I have seen this movie no fewer than a dozen times, I found myself repeatedly glancing up from the article I was reading about gender-variant boys (it's here and a very good read if anyone's interested) to watch. Eventually I abandoned my reading and decided to commit myself to watching the movie.
I haven't seen Mean Girls since my freshman year of college. I always enjoyed it, but could never quite put my finger on why. I'm not usually the kind of person who enjoys hyper-popular and oft-quoted movies (I'll be the first to admit that I'm kind of a movie snob), but this was an exception. Now, having just graduated with a BA in Women's Studies, the movie took on a whole new meaning for me. It is by no means a feminist manifesto, but on this viewing I was surprised to find some nuggets of positivity. I felt compelled to write down my thoughts on it, after doing a cursory google search for other such musings.
Mean Girls addresses a huge problem that affects not only teenage social circles, but women of all ages: girl-hate. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to the so-called "catty" behavior that women are often portrayed engaging in that stems from competition with one another. Many feminists point to this as a locus of misogyny, and call for female solidarity in its stead.
In the beginning the film attempts to relate to its audience by establishing the protagonist, Cady Heron (Lindsay Lohan), as the new kid in school, and, as a result, a misfit. This isn't exactly an innovative approach, but just by virtue of the fact that she's female and represented as sympathetic puts it a cut above similar movies. Cady is basically a math genius, and is mentored by her teacher Ms. Norbury (Tina Fey). Already, we have two female characters portrayed as intelligent and good at math. I don't have to point out that gender stereotypes dictate that women are bad at math (but I just did).
Cady befriends Janice and Damian, two other outcast students. Janice and Damian are both represented as queer--Damian is "too gay to function" according to Janice, and Janice herself has been accused of being gay. It is never clearly stated whether this is true or not, although at the end of the film she is implied to be in a heterosexual relationship. Either way, she is certainly gender variant and wears a purple tuxedo to the dance at the climax of the movie.
Together, the misfit trio concoct a plan to infiltrate the popular clique at school, which they refer to as "the Plastics." This scheme consumes the majority of the movie, during which Cady compromises her morals on several occasions to climb up the social ladder. She fakes being bad at math to get closer to a guy she has a crush on, lies to her friends, and finds herself becoming more and more legitimately concerned with her popularity. This is all decidedly Not Feminist, but after all hell breaks loose when queen bee Regina George publishes the Plastics' "Burn Book," Ms. Norbury leads all the women in their grade in what reminds me of a consciousness raising group. They have an open conversation about "girl-on-girl crime," and Ms. Norbury points out that as long as they all call each other sluts, they are giving men permission to do the same thing. In the end, Cady abandons her girl-hate once and for all, and there is a semblance of female solidarity--albeit, it is soured by the fact that everyone has seemed to neatly couple off into heterosexual relationships. I think if this one small detail was changed, or played down, the film's feminist message would have been much more explicit.
This is more of an aside, but there were a few small details that pleased me. I'll just make a list.
I haven't seen Mean Girls since my freshman year of college. I always enjoyed it, but could never quite put my finger on why. I'm not usually the kind of person who enjoys hyper-popular and oft-quoted movies (I'll be the first to admit that I'm kind of a movie snob), but this was an exception. Now, having just graduated with a BA in Women's Studies, the movie took on a whole new meaning for me. It is by no means a feminist manifesto, but on this viewing I was surprised to find some nuggets of positivity. I felt compelled to write down my thoughts on it, after doing a cursory google search for other such musings.
Mean Girls addresses a huge problem that affects not only teenage social circles, but women of all ages: girl-hate. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to the so-called "catty" behavior that women are often portrayed engaging in that stems from competition with one another. Many feminists point to this as a locus of misogyny, and call for female solidarity in its stead.
In the beginning the film attempts to relate to its audience by establishing the protagonist, Cady Heron (Lindsay Lohan), as the new kid in school, and, as a result, a misfit. This isn't exactly an innovative approach, but just by virtue of the fact that she's female and represented as sympathetic puts it a cut above similar movies. Cady is basically a math genius, and is mentored by her teacher Ms. Norbury (Tina Fey). Already, we have two female characters portrayed as intelligent and good at math. I don't have to point out that gender stereotypes dictate that women are bad at math (but I just did).
Cady befriends Janice and Damian, two other outcast students. Janice and Damian are both represented as queer--Damian is "too gay to function" according to Janice, and Janice herself has been accused of being gay. It is never clearly stated whether this is true or not, although at the end of the film she is implied to be in a heterosexual relationship. Either way, she is certainly gender variant and wears a purple tuxedo to the dance at the climax of the movie.
Together, the misfit trio concoct a plan to infiltrate the popular clique at school, which they refer to as "the Plastics." This scheme consumes the majority of the movie, during which Cady compromises her morals on several occasions to climb up the social ladder. She fakes being bad at math to get closer to a guy she has a crush on, lies to her friends, and finds herself becoming more and more legitimately concerned with her popularity. This is all decidedly Not Feminist, but after all hell breaks loose when queen bee Regina George publishes the Plastics' "Burn Book," Ms. Norbury leads all the women in their grade in what reminds me of a consciousness raising group. They have an open conversation about "girl-on-girl crime," and Ms. Norbury points out that as long as they all call each other sluts, they are giving men permission to do the same thing. In the end, Cady abandons her girl-hate once and for all, and there is a semblance of female solidarity--albeit, it is soured by the fact that everyone has seemed to neatly couple off into heterosexual relationships. I think if this one small detail was changed, or played down, the film's feminist message would have been much more explicit.
This is more of an aside, but there were a few small details that pleased me. I'll just make a list.
- The word "vagina" was uttered.
- There was a character who was in a wheelchair.
- Another character used the phrase "women of color."
- Feminism is brought to the table, if only in jest. Gretchen Wieners says not dating your friend's ex-boyfriend is one of the rules of feminism, which I chose to read as irony.
- When Regina went up a pants size, she was said to have lost her "'hot' body." She was still a size 7, tops.
- When Cady participated in the math competition, she was pitted up against another young woman--one with no fashion sense, which the voiceover pointed out. Cady had supposedly learned her lesson about girl-hate but that scene undermined it a little bit.
- The only explicitly gay character is a walking stereotype.
- There are fat people present, but only so they can be made fun of for being fat. When Cady compliments a fat girl on her appearance at the dance, she seems saintly for having bestowed her superior approval on someone so lowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)