|
August 20, 2003
It's back-to-school time...
For many years I have wanted to know where it is written in granite that if you are a homosexual (or let's just say you have engaged in homosexual acts), you have to be a socialist. Or, to put it bluntly, if you are a male and you happen to have had oral sex with another male, why must you now love Barbara Streisand? A University of Michigan professor named David M. Halperin may just have the answer. He teaches a course called "How to be gay." (From the Corner via a link from Instapundit.) Here's a glimpse into the mind of that tenured academician: "Let there be no mistake about it: lesbian and gay studies, as it is currently practiced in the U.S., expresses an uncompromising political militancy."Political militancy. What might that mean? For starters, Halperin wants to make that founding purveyor of deconstructionist gobbledygook, Michel Foucault, a saint. What I cannot understand is how Halperin, who concedes that homosexuality is a recent cultural invention, is so hell-bent on perpetuating an ongoing fraud. I guess that's his job. Lest anyone misunderstand, Halperin claims he is being misunderstood: "It does not teach students to be homosexual," Halperin told The Washington Times. "Rather, it examines critically the odd notion that there are right and wrong ways to be gay, that homosexuality is not just a sexual practice or desire but a set of specific tastes in music, movies and other cultural forms — a notion which is shared by straight and gay people alike."I'm all for academic freedom, but shouldn't there be a disclaimer here? I mean, there may be a right way or a wrong way to engage in certain types of sex, but how does gay sex cause you to like Barbara Streisand? Or want socialism? No one can tell me. I guess I should return to school to find out. But frankly, I think I would fall asleep. Here is what Halperin has to say about an allegedly "gay" postage stamp: As if by magic, each person who views the stamp -- no matter what his or her social location -- instantly and unreflectively reconfigures the image, constructing the pair of lovebirds not only as male and female but as a heterosexual and, presumably, monogamous couple (the stamp is not taken to depict a one-night stand). The viewer may also perform a number of other, subsidiary operations on this visual text, such as installing the "male" bird on the right-hand side of the field and even magnifying "his" size in relation to that of "his" mate, so as to motivate as well as to justify a heterosexist reading. But nothing in the text itself . . . provides the slightest impetus for such collective hallucinations. Rather, the apparently universal and unconquerable urge to read off gendered, heterosexualized meanings from the innocent surface of this unoffending text springs -- as the text's source in the figural repertory of European-American folk art implies -- from the traditional codes or conventions for "representing" love in European-American culture. These codes, which also govern the culture's visual rhetoric, restrict the use of erotic symbols, such as the valentine-shaped heart, to heterosexual contexts and employ exemplary animals, such as lovebirds, to typify and thereby to naturalize contemporary human social and sexual arrangements, such as monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Common to all those rhetorical practices is a discursive strategy whose effect is to (re)produce "love" as an exclusively heterosexual institution and to convert, under the sign of "love," all pairs of ungendered, identically figured bodies into heterosexual couples. . . .I think I'll drop Halperin's course. He might try to lick my stamp, but I'll never let him paste it on my envelope. WAIT A MINUTE! Just when I thought I had exhausted myself silly with this nonsensical tedium, Brian Stephens (a very articulate Michigan student blogger) came to my rescue, by supplying a description of Halperin's course: Here is the original course guide description of Prof. David Haleprin's "How to be Gay" class. He sanitized last year, but i guess a lot of these stereotypes were still there.Phew! What the kids today have to do to get an "A." And by the way, according to another blogger, Left & Right, this course is offered by the English Department. Of course, when I was a kid, I took a class called "Sex and Crime" (offered appropriately by UC Berkeley's Department of Criminology) -- taught by the distinguished Dr. Joel Fort. I performed independent field research into male prostitution, and I learned a lot. Without getting into too much detail, I'm pleased to report that I got an "A+" in the course. So, I try to keep an open mind, and I recognize that many issues can be academic. But brainwashing and fraud are not. posted by Eric on 08.20.03 at 10:19 AM
Comments
You're absolutely right, of course. But oh! my! God! did I misspell Barbra? How utterly mortifying! (I guess I get an "F.") Eric Scheie · August 20, 2003 10:12 PM I think a course like this is the result of the fear on the part of the leaders of the gay ghetto. The new gay generation is coming out earlier in life and starting to find some acceptance or at least tolerance from the straight world. The overseers of the gay plantation need to scare these kids back into the fold or risk watching their power and influence evaporate. As we integrate into society, we are bound to identify more with the culture in general and less with our narrow subculture. In another generation, one's sexual orientation will probably just be one of many pieces of one's identity. If we reject Barbara's schmaltzy songs, bad movies, and endless coming out of retirement specials. Rejecting her hypocritical politics won't be far behind. ray · August 21, 2003 06:38 AM I suppose I'm obtuse but: Barbra Streisand is a woman. Homosexual men, by definition, are drawn to other men. So, what's the connection? I can see how a lesbian, a homosexual woman, might be drawn to her. Steven Malcolm Anderson · August 22, 2003 07:25 AM I'm really rather surprised, Eric, that no one has pointed out that if you accept the widespread "being gay is not a choice, it's innate like your sex or your race" argument, that it's entirely genetic, that people are gay from birth, then it's simply not a stretch to suggest that being gay will also carry certain other traits: in males, greater emotional fragility and empathy, for example. Not that I believe this. But people like Harvey Fierstein are proud of saying, fiercely, that they knew they were gay back as early as the age of 5 or 6, that it's always been who they are. There are also black people who believe their genetic inheritance gives them greater rhythm--which by the way is a dirty little secret, since white people who say that are pilloried as racists, but in fact a lot of black people believe it about themselves, and not because white people told them to think it either. Mind you, I am, again, not arguing that this is the correct position. I'm merely arguing that it's not uncommon, and seems to spring from the assumption--now widely accepted--that our genes play about a 50% role in determining who we are. So should it follow that if you're black, you favor abortion-on-demand as a civil right, you're pro-gay-rights, you're anti-free trade, and want higher taxes? That would seem to be the case given that blacks vote 90% Democratic. So does the genetic inheritance which makes homosexuality just like race or sex also carry a cluster of traits that make you fear guns and love Liza Minelli and want lots higher taxes on anyone making more than a hundred thousand a year? Hey. I don't buy it. I'm just not sure why no one else would make that argument, especially since the "it's not a choice" viewpoint is paramount to the thinking of most gay rights advocates these days. Dean Esmay · August 22, 2003 10:07 PM Wow, talk about free thinking! These comments are all great. Dean, thank you for your very thoughtful remarks. I agree with most of what you said -- another reason I get an "F" in Halperin's course. And frankly, regardless of whether or not gays are born that way (I think looking for a single "cause" for certain human sexual desires is preposterous), identity politics is tyrannical and abusive. All the comments are very much appreciated, and I liked what Ray and Steven said. It is wonderful to realize how many people there are in the blogosphere who know how to think for themselves. It is very refreshing, although I am not used to it! Eric · August 23, 2003 10:35 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What the hell is happening here? In the pioneering days of both the gay and feminist movements it was all about removing stereotypes, not creating new ones.
Good Lord, when friends came out of the closet in the early 70's, they didn't change their tastes in music (actually, everyone cool hated Barbra) food or literature. They just added a new bit of information about themselves (and, sadly, sometimes learned who their real friends were.)
Rant over.