Monday, August 23, 2010

Weird

It's difficult to express just how admirably evolved I find Johnny Weir's professed personal perceptions about human gender and sexuality and just how unfortunate I find his apparently consuming obession with contemporary fame. (La_Rana and I briefly discussed this via email; he cleverly suggested that Weir is the secret offspring of Gore Vidal, and I'm still giggling at the thought.) I don't have anything particularly insightful to add. The article is worth reading.

Posted by IOZ at 11:09 AM | email »
Labels: , ,

18 comments:

j r said...

I honestly can't tell the difference betwwn Weir's "professed personal perceptions about human gender and sexuality" and his obsession with contemporary fame.

12:56 PM
mike said...

I wish you would add something insightful, because for me, Johnny Weir's insistence on the private nature of sexuality seems pretty old school to me, however much he dresses it up with various cliches borrowed from bisexuals and gender fuckers.

Put another way, in a world without heterosexual privilege, would Johnny Weir still omit pronouns on the rare occasions when he talks about romantic entanglements?

Don't get me wrong; overall I think he's a liberating figure. But the coyness on whom he sleeps with seems evasive to me, not ground-breaking.

1:09 PM
KEn said...

$645 sneakers?

Gurrllll!

1:14 PM
IOZ said...

If you pay attention, he is neither insisting that sexuality is private nor being coy about who he sleeps with. The coyness is a ploy, a misdirection.

1:18 PM
Justin said...

Interesting that the interviewer was so intent on having Weir confirm whatever sexual label he wanted to affix to him.

Weir: "People look, act and behave a certain way out of preconceived expectations for how someone who is gay or straight should behave when I believe that they have very little to do with one another and in feeding into those roles, you limit your own experiences life to what others want from you."

interviewer: "Wow, you are so gay."

1:23 PM
Michael said...

It's funny how basically every male "gender studies" student in the world is gay. Just sayin'. I'd guess that the amount of females in such programs who are lesbians is also at least three times the average.

Straight people don't care about this shit unless one happens to have an inordinate amount of gay friends and needs to save face with them.

Also, jr has it right in the first comment.

1:55 PM
John said...

Michael-

You know, you're right. And isn't it funny that folks on the traditionally privileged side of the gender/power dynamic tend not to study its consequences? The "straight" people who "don't care about this shit" also apparently think "being straight" is another unproblematic fact of nature fallen from the sky. Maybe, like so many who benefit from pre-existing socio-cultural power arrangements, you haven't paid much attention.

And, for what it's worth, you think lesbians participate in gender studies classes at three the times the average what? The average participation of women in gender studies classes on universities statistically free of homosexuals? (WWIS? Oh, yes, lulz.) Did you mean maybe three times the national average of lesbians in physics departments? Or that there were three times as many lesbians as there straight girls in the room? If the latter is what you meant, no doubt you already own that video, or wish you did.

Why do you think people with gay friends are worried about losing face "with them"?

Final shot: No one has to be in a gender studies department to study gender. Not that I'm saying you should give it a shot, cause that might make you, um, yeah.

3:50 PM
Anonymous said...

Lighten up, John, he was Just sayin'!

5:48 PM
Dan said...

I only read far enough to know that he's not a furry. Which is kinda sad, I guess.

Anyway, this is as good a time as any to link to this (excellent) post from Ethan, whom I hope shows up in this thread: http://6thor7th.blogspot.com/2010/07/choose-your-own-adventure.html

6:32 PM
Ethan said...

Thanks Dan, that's nice of you. I'd like to show up in this thread myself but I'm way too tired right now to read a four page New York Magazine profile. I will say though that I provisionally agree with monsieur and John. Also that the first two pictures in the article are fun to look at, if you ask me.

9:31 PM
John said...

I was really just hoping to hear that there'd been an increase in the number of lesbian physicists. I do get carried away.

12:23 AM
Study This said...

John,

Why the hell do you people - that's right, I said it, you people - turn every fact of reality into a 'power structure' or some equivalent bullshit signifier? If you were interested in learning about gender you could major in Biology instead of a circle jerk pseudo-science program where like-minded folks sit around and bitch about the breeder who they think looked at them funny.

10:21 AM
Michael said...

John,

Again, why should I care about the consequences of the power dynamic? My post was intended more as advice on how people interested in gay rights should advance their cause rather than a polemic against the cause itself. You will not convince any heteros with the power to actually do anything going on about "pre-existing socio-cultural power arrangements" and how everyone is out to get you. Moral appeals to de-theologized Protestants (progressives) usually work best. It did for slavery, thankfully. It also did for temperance, but people tend not to talk about that one these days.

Are you trying to combat institutional or personal discrimination? If the latter, what's your end goal? Get 80% of the population on your side? 90%? 100%? How will you accomplish this in light of the very real differences in behavior that people often observe between gays and straights? It's a fact of nature that we treat people differently depending on how they act.

If the former, well, wait 20 years and I think you will be satisfied under your current goals. Maybe you could invent new goals at that point in order to still have something to talk about and shame your enemies with. Affirmative action for sexual orientation would be a good one. Political and cultural history since the American Revolution has trended in one direction and one direction only, and it's a good thing for you that you're pointed towards it as well.

And regarding "average", I meant that I would guess (perhaps wrongly) that the percentage of females majoring in gender studies who are lesbians is at least three times higher the rate of females who are lesbians in the general population. Not that there's (ahem) anything wrong with that, but it points out the echo chamber nature of your approach.

Also, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 predated the first African-American Studies department by four years. If you have conquered the universities, you will or soon will conquer society. Again, just sayin'.

12:14 PM
mike said...

Doesn't anyone want to talk about Johnny Weir? He's way cooler than debates on gender studies and how best to win breeder hearts and minds.

2:31 PM
Dan said...

Anytime, Ethan. I keep that post handy to pass on to my mom for when I inevitably bring a trans gf home to meet her.

Also, I'm too stupid to know how to embed a link. The things you don't learn in divinity school...

6:54 PM
Hot Sex Madrigal said...

You've got it backwards, Mikey. The question isn't why dykes study gender or Asians the post-colonial, and so forth. White straight dudes' greatest triumphs include the institutions of slavery, marriage, and empire. So why, pray, are said dudes overwhelming content to remain ignorant of, say, women's studies, imperial histories, gender studies, sub-altern histories, native and pre-colonial histories, et al.? Just askin'.

1:29 PM
NutellaonToast said...

"White straight dudes' greatest triumphs include the institutions of slavery, marriage, and empire."

Straight men are the REAL heterophobes, I say!

9:21 PM
coach outlet said...

And, for what it's worth, you think lesbians participate in gender studies classes at three the times the average what? The average participation of women in gender studies classes on universities statistically free of homosexuals? (WWIS? Oh, yes, lulz.) Did you mean maybe three times the national average of lesbians in physics departments? Or that there were three times as many lesbians as there straight girls in the room? If the latter is what you meant, no doubt you already own that video, or wish you did.

12:43 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)