Wednesday, 4 April 2007
That is my feeling in any given emotional situation, no matter if the talk lasts for one hour, five hours: "Everything was not said."
"What is this faint vision? This fragile fleeting memory?...Precarious."
The column ends with an illustration of a World War II poster, which said: "Keep calm and Carry On."
Probably they meant this in regards to air raids, the fear of air raids, the potential for attack. For me, who does not live in a time of air raids, who perhaps lives in a time of terrorist attacks, but in New York City, where we have no need to repeat such phrases to ourselves, because we automatically keep walking and carry on, for me, this seems more applicable to those situations where Everything Was Not Said.
Keep calm. Don't try to say it again. Carry on. Go forward, don't repeat the mistakes past.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
Monday, 26 March 2007
This both isn't and is the point, because James takes a very Judt-ian route to then condemn Brecht for his writings for his support of Stalinism, praising Arendt's essay on Brecht, and wondering why Picasso himself has never been so censured. When I think of all the supporters of Stalin and of communism in the past 20th Century and how many artists and philosophers and writers we would have to throw in the bin.... Once again James misses the point that perhaps Brecht should be condemned for being a smarmy character himself and for writing simplistic poetry about the evils of capitalism, and less for his actual support of communism. Should he should be judged based on his "egomanic" shamanism? Perhaps, but only because it retrospect this part of his personality appears in his poetry itself. Until one takes a historian's view of his role as a supporter of communism (particularly one writing across the rise of Nazi power when the only other seeming hope truly were the communists in Germany...and I would take a communist in Germany, if not in the Soviet Union (being two quite distinct creatures), over a Nazi any day. But we have oft spoken of the power of hindsight, although even here I wonder if it isn't even hindsight but the blindness of one's own historical era, and the failure of one to even attempt to reach a hand into the past and uncover the cloudy framework behind a past intellectual's actions, that is at work here. In any case, like Merleau-Ponty, like Sartre (and I doubt we will stop quoting "Hell is other people" anytime soon despite his Stalinist support well into the fifties), judgment is not prohibited, but served with a trace of understanding would perhaps make the more sustainable critique.
Link here: http://www.slate.com/id/2162552?nav=tap3
Monday, 19 March 2007
No, but seriously. What is it about flinging our bodies in random directions? All we're doing is taking up more than our allotted space. Fling the arm out, push the ass that way, air grind to the ground? Joy joy joy joy joy?
Monday, 12 March 2007
And when I came to write I encountered her with the very first words. The shadow of her wings fell on my page; I heard the rustling of her skirts in the room. Directly, that is to say, I took my pen in my hand to review that novel by a famous man, she slipped behind me and whispered: “My dear, you are a young woman. You are writing about a book that has been written by a man. Be sympathetic; be tender; flatter; deceive; use all the arts and wiles of our sex. Never let anybody guess that you have a mind of your own. Above all, be pure.” And she made as if to guide my pen. I now record the one act for which I take some credit to myself, though the credit rightly belongs to some excellent ancestors of mine who left me a certain sum of money—shall we say five hundred pounds a year?—so that it was not necessary for me to depend solely on charm for my living. I turned upon her and caught her by the throat. I did my best to kill her. My excuse, if I were to be had up in a court of law, would be that I acted in self–defence. Had I not killed her she would have killed me.
agency, history, circumstances: Woolf sums up all the issues in the potentiality of women emancipating themselves without the use of feminine wiles, that she is in a special economic circumstance which makes her more capable of turning around and killing the angel; at the same time, it is she who does so. She, as the woman, must enact her own agency and kill the angel with her own hands. To continue to rely on feminine wiles would mean that she had only ever achieved a false emancipation.
Saturday, 10 March 2007
-she works in a very practical sphere and thus understand her complete opposition to pornography as an exploitative tool
-but, worried that this model doesn't work long-term on a theoretical level
-complete focus on pornography involving women (i.e. heterosexual or lesbian for heterosexual male eyes); what of gay pornography? are the men in these exploited?
-absolutist judgments on those who are involved in pornography: what about white, upper-middle-class students at ivy league/top tier schools who are creating their own pornography of their own will. and who is this for? just men or men/women? (the same might be said of young women who create blogs documenting their hookups/etc. I think the sentiment may derive from a similar place: begin with sex and the city, then embrace your sexuality, then write a blog about it, eventually it turns to free love and free sexuality (perhaps also a bit of nostalgia for the 60s/70s?) and next thing you know you have an ivy league porno
-MacKinnon made it very clear that her focus is on the effects, she's not basing her arguments on some sort of misguided morality (thus her issues with Muslim/Christian anti-pornography/prostitution arguments; and thus her work with the Swedish government to criminalize the johns and decriminalize the prostitutes/victims). But then where does this leave us in terms of non-real-life pornography: erotic fiction and cartoons.
-Why is this an issue? Because MacKinnon still argues that pornography desensitizes people (i.e. men) to real compansionship and intimate sexual encounters. Wouldn't erotic fiction essentially do the same? But doesn't this argument constrain the realm of sexual possibilites? Doesn't this argument in the end lead her to a moralist judgment on what type of sexuality is 'right' sexuality? What of people who enjoy BDSM--are they always those who were sexually abused as youth, is this sexual relationship abnormal/non-intimate and therefore illegitimate, or would she consider it a viable means of sexual expression. And what of femdommes? And let's be fair, power relations are constructed into sexual relationships, and while it is vital that they not result from misogynistic/abusive relations, to attempt to take all power out of all relationships would be to make sex always lovemaking. I.e. wouldn't we be losing a few possibilities for added excitement?
In conclusion: I fully support what MacKinnon is doing. On a practical level most of the women involved in pornography and prostitution (and in an ideal world I would absolutely love to see prostitution abolished as I think this industry in particular is driven by economic/race exploitation) are exploited, and she has made amazing strides in changing laws, preventing rape, defending the exploited. And I appreciate that she is aware herself that her actions are contingent on what the outcomes of these industries are. However, I think we also need to be aware that on a greater theoretical level, absolutely condemning pornography in particular is a moralistic argument.
To be cont'd (in a more coherent, articulate version)
Monday, 5 March 2007
In the October/November 1926 issue of Die Neue Generation, its editor, Helene Stöcker published a posthumous article by Dr. Paul Kammerer, a well-known biologist who attempted to prove the validity of Lamarckian inheritance through his study of amphibians. Lamarckism, which argued for the heredity of acquired traits, was one of the earliest attempts to explain the transmutation of species, but had been rejected in the late nineteenth century by most of the German scientific community following Weismann’s germ-plasm theory and the rediscovery of Mendelian laws of inheritance in 1900 (Proctor 93-4). A month earlier Kammerer had committed suicide after an American scientist accused him of injecting ink into the foot of a Midwife Toad to demonstrate the inheritance of an acquired characteristic.
In a tribute to Kammerer, which appeared following his article arguing for the inclusion of biology in female students’ education, Stöcker praised Kammerer’s “epoch-making research” and argued that Weismann’s theories were the underlying rationale behind modern, conservative race theories. “According to Weismann’s theories,” she wrote, “the only way to eradicate those of inferior quality in the ‘Struggle for Existence’ would be through their elimination.” (Oct/Nov 1926). In opposition to this “egotistical fatalism” Stöcker praised Kammerer for scientifically demonstrating that the provision of healthy physical and intellectual conditions would ensure the health and ability of future generations.
Stöcker’s main biographer, Christl Wickert, has dismissed Stöcker’s use of a Social Darwinist language as merely “part of the discourse of the day” (Wickert 68). In doing so, Wickert is intent on discounting a linkage between Stöcker’s philosophy and the National Socialist fallout. However, in protesting too much, Wickert ignores the significance of Social Darwinism for the formation of Stöcker’s own social theory, and its development from the Wilhelmine era to the
To claim that Stöcker merely participated in the discourse is to overlook that she actively contributed to this discourse: for one, from 1904 she was a member, and later chair, of the Bund für Mutterschutz (BfM), an organization which used Social Darwinist language to argue for the support of unwed mothers and their children. The eugenics discourse would only become popular within the mainstream of society with the outbreak of World War I and the fear of population decline and degeneration. Further, Stöcker’s Social Darwinism was not a mere accident of historical place but has traceable roots in an intricate web of intellectual and personal influences which culminated in her use of Social Darwinism to advocate for the advance of women and the development of a new society. The incident described above reveals that Stöcker didn’t only use a eugenics discourse when handy, but that she thought deeply about the meaning of various forms of Social Darwinism for her philosophy. In this paper I will outline the web of intellectual influences, and this will eventually constitute the first chapter of my dissertation. I will then go over an outline of what I plan to do in the second and third chapters. Any and all feedback is welcome.
After Helene Stöcker first encountered Nietzsche in 1891, he became central to her philosophy of society and selfhood and to her promotion of a New Morality. Despite his sometimes negative comments on women, Stöcker used Nietzsche to energize a feminism focused on self-realization (Thomas, 91). She thus developed an optimism that society could form its own future, and she differentiated a radical feminism from one that argued only for legal equality by focusing on development instead of on the extension of the status quo to the other half of society. Women were to become aware of their potential identities through education, a freer sexuality, and finally, as Stöcker asserts throughout articles in the Neue Generation and in her description of a failed love affair in her 1921 novel, Liebe, in a deep, monogamous relationship with a man. Because sexuality played such a large role in this development, Stöcker’s Nietzschean philosophy promoted “an image of woman based essentially on her biological role” and thus became tied to Social Darwinism (Thomas, 91). Self-realization stopped being an end in itself, and instead became a tool toward the improvement of the next generation, which shifted the emphasis from the individual to the human race as a whole. However, Nietzsche’s fundamental emphasis on the individual helps explain why Stöcker never endorsed non-voluntary means. Nietzsche lay out the overarching framework for Stöcker’s social theories and gave her work a higher goal, and in fact a higher population, toward which to strive.
Alexander Tille, an extreme, negative Social Darwinist, who preached a German morality based on the teachings of Nietzsche, Darwin, and the monist Ernst Haeckel, and who saw the high mortality rates in
Monist theories never explicitly promoted eugenics, though the Monist League did campaign for sex education and voluntary euthanasia, however the theory that both mind and body are one held significance for the application of Darwinist theories, suggesting that biology could be applied to diffuse areas of society, and helped propagate a theory of the social organism that was popular in Wilhelmine Germany. Thus, social behavior, psychology and art were to be explained along natural guidelines (Weindling 46-47). Early on, Stöcker rejected Church taught dualism and turned to monism, which further helps to explain why the spiritual and intellectual transformation necessitated a biological revolution to support it.
Neo-Malthusianism, a prevalent movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, provided a doctrine on how to achieve this biological transformation: social planning. Initially, Stöcker sought positive measures, such as better housing and motherhood insurance, to improve social conditions. However Neo-Malthusianism advocated the use of birth control to prevent overpopulation, which corresponded with Stöcker’s own focus on sexuality and the body. As a result, Stöcker advocated for the legalization of contraception, abortion, and in the BfM’s sexual advice clinics in the
While much of the race hygiene movement during this time, and particularly during and after World War I, focused on the improvement and increased birth rate of the German race in competition with other European countries, Stöcker instead promoted a milder form of German cultural nationalism. Stöcker may have particularly been influenced by Maria Lischnewska, who worked in the BfM with Stöcker from 1904 to 1914, and who was a militant and racial nationalist. Indeed, according to Stöcker, Lischnewska was one of the few who supported Stöcker’s proposal to create a special commission to study the problems of love, marriage and parenthood in the Verbande Fortschrittlicher Frauenvereine in 1904, and she followed Stöcker to the BfM when the proposal was rejected (NG Oct/Nov 1924, 10/11, p321). Lischnewska was also a steady ally of Stöcker throughout the troubled period from 1909 to 1910 when many in the BfM’s regional groups, as well as primary member Adele Schreiber, attempted to oust Stöcker from her position of power. Such loyalty may have played a moderate role in Stöcker’s attempts to incorporate German nationalism into her ideology, although Stöcker never supported a militarist form and the two parted ways at the beginning of World War I, seemingly over Stöcker’s increased pacifist activities in the BfM.
These various influences, all of which would have impacted Stöcker from the last decade of the nineteenth century through the first decade of the twentieth, culminated in a form of Social Darwinism with three key characteristics, which I will briefly outline. First Stöcker’s Social Darwinism emphasized the interconnection of mind and body. For Stöcker, self-realization was primary and biological fitness only a necessary step toward its achievement. However, in Stöcker’s novel, Liebe, the significance of the union of mind and body, and the effect of a sick body on the activity of mental development and scholarship become clear. Those who are sick cannot work, and those who cannot work cannot achieve. This interconnection also leads to a view of Motherhood, which posits that while many women may be biologically fit for motherhood, not all are mentally and spiritually suited to raise a child. Thus, Stöcker’s Social Darwinism focused not on quantity but on quality. She did not attempt to enter a population race with other nations, as she abhorred war, but instead wanted to create a German race which would produce high culture, ensure non-violence, and guarantee that all members of its society achieved to their fullest.
Secondly, Stöcker’s Social Darwinism advocated gradual development toward a universal utopia. While some Social Darwinists may have seen German culture as at the apex of evolutionary development, Stöcker believed Germans, and in fact the human race, still had much work to do. However, as seen in her discouragement following World War I, as well as in her insistence on Larmarckian heredity, which would allow reforms made in this generation to transfer to the next, her utopian future was not thousands of years off but could potentially be reached in a few generations. Thus she called for planned population politics, asserting that the ‘struggle for existence’ had been misunderstood; it was not a violent fight, but instead required cooperation and the education of the populace through propaganda. Stöcker’s use of propaganda, however, raises questions regarding the extent to which she was willing to excise all non-coercive means. Who was to be led to understand that it was better for them not to procreate, and in what manner? (discuss Wickert)
The question of propaganda and coercion then leads to the problematics of scientific uncertainty and ideological absolutism. While this is still a theme I need to explore, first findings would lead to the conclusion that in Wilhelmine Germany Stöcker emphasized individual responsibility and voluntarism, but following the war, with the expansion of statistical analysis, the assumption of objectivity, and the human devastation of the war, her insistence on an absolute ideology increased. Such absolute idealism, if one were to follow the rationale to its natural conclusion, would require absolutist measures. I am not suggesting that Stöcker ever advocated forced sterilization or contemplated ‘euthanasia’, but what has been missing from her biographies has been not only a study of the complex strands leading to the formation of her Social Darwinist ideology, but also a conception of how it developed and changed from Wilhelmine to Weimar Germany, and how it then interacted with the issues of the post-war and post-suffrage women’s movement.
And New York was wonderful. It taught me to see much more than the cocktail parties (I think I didn't actually attend one until I was twenty-two), into the beauty of a simple concrete sidewalk, a few steeple lights at night, the shifting clouds and starless nights above College Walk on a fall's evening, the rushed walking, and the fact that no matter how quickly one attempted to walk (and I was particularly good at the jab and withdrawal that a parry down a New York sidewalk demanded), we were stopped, from time to time, by a sight that pulled one's eyes from the greyness below to a sign, a grafitti, a man selling erotic books on 125th street at 2pm.
Have I ever cried in a Chinese laundry? No, I don't think so, though I have cried other places. My room is a prime location, the exit of a subway, the first entrance into the gates of Columbia after a long departure and the knowledge that one will never truly be back, the glimpse of my neighborhood bar--its bright sign under which I was kissed one night. Perhaps I cried more for the person than the city, but at the time they were all one in the same. Some say that New York is the place all those people who don't fit into their hometowns go to find solace. This was true for me, it was true for many of my friends. And I grew in New York. Eighteen to twenty-two are not years to be sniffed at, they are moulding years and now I sometimes talk in a New York rhythm, my words come clipped, my hands move roundabout, my hip juts to the side. It's not a foreign tongue, but I think I might be better understood this somewhere else than where I am now.
Sometimes I think I was more sexual in New York City. Maybe I just like New York guys better.
But then again, I am only twenty-three now. Perhaps my crying times have not yet begun. I am still young and enthralled, and I am far away from all this, and I long to return. And now, living in a slower town, where tea breaks are actually observed and night is not just an extension of the day's work, I have come to understand that New York obsesses a person, it embodies that person, and that person no longer belongs to anyone else but New York. I finally understand, being away from all that, that achievement and managing to stretch a day to fit a thousand things is not all there is to life, that perhaps one even accomplishes more when one doesn't have a city weighing on one's mind, when one has a little room to think. Someday perhaps I will even act on this gathered wisdom. But for now, I am still young, and in love and lust with New York.
Friday, 2 March 2007
What Are We So Afraid Of?
We think that we’ve reached the age of tolerance. We mock the provincial, the homophobic, the misogynist. This post-X generation has supposedly reached sexual enlightenment: the acceptance of sexuality, the embrace of sex. It may be our greatest claim to fame, and indeed sexuality is the one area that has actually been revolutionized in the past hundred years. Everything other area—democracy, capitalism—has maintained the general population’s acquiescence. Yet despite this revolution, our definition of sexuality still remains tightly binary. Slowly it’s been revealed that yes, we like sex, but really, in one lifetime, do we really believe that any one person can really lust after more than one, well, sex?
The dilemma of this generation’s relationship to sexuality became apparent to me recently when one after another of my friends—all liberal highly educated young Americans—acknowledged that they just didn’t believe in bisexuality. I was struck by their testament to faith, as if sexuality was a God and Its second commandment ran: there can be but two sexualities. These conversations were provoked by a 2005 study by a team of psychologists in
One friend, a straight female, told me, “I’m sorry, I just don’t think it’s real. I just don’t think you get to have it both ways. Do you think that’s selfish?” Another, a gay male, argued, “Well, I was bisexual for a while when I first came out. I just think it’s a transition phase” And more bizarrely, a bisexual woman claimed, “I just don’t believe there are male bisexuals.” Responses were gut feelings, emotional reactions, but often these rapid responses to the latest ‘most emailed’ article are the more relevant demonstrations of our cultural Zeitgeist. In which case the question is clear: is the bisexual the next frontier in sexuality? And if so, why hasn’t it yet been conquered? This is a particularly important question for women, because a specific rejection of bisexuality often signifies male bisexuality and says much about the gender roles that are still ingrained and may not be transgressed in our society.
An old stereotype: any male would love to see two chicks go at it. Female bisexuality is accepted, and is often admired and sought after by male counterparts, because it is not seen as real. Instead it is just another sex act, an exhibition for male eyes. Women may engage in this act and yet still fall within the norms of sexuality because to the male’s eyes, they haven’t actually stepped outside of those norms. Instead, the general acknowledgment of female bisexuality reveals the inner turnings of society’s mind regarding the female character. Women are fickle, changeable, affectionate, and emotional. They can love each other and yet still prioritize men. Bisexuality may just be a phase, or a greater extension of women’s natural friendship and expression of love, but it is nothing threatening. It is either pleasing to the male, or the male assumes the women will ultimately return to a heterosexual relationship to take part in that greatest of all womanly enunciations: child-bearing.
Male bisexuality is an entirely different story. Though female bisexuality is fickle, society nonetheless sees male bisexuality as threatening. Men, those stolid beasts, are choosing to go outside their reproductive drive, and it’s not just because ‘they can’t help it.’ They are still attracted to women, yet they choose to sometimes have sex with men. If they are going to make that jump, society thinks, why don’t they go all the way, and once again we trot out the well-worn trope of the weak-wristed flaming gay. Establishing that males, if they’re going to turn ‘that way’ must turn ‘all that way’, society rejects male bisexuality, as merely a ‘transition’, a dusting off of the socializing normatives. We are obsesses with dichotomies. Everything must be one way or another. We refuse to work beyond binaries, because binaries are just so easy to juxtapose. But it is essential that the feminist reject any binary system, because such systems have historically resulted in woman’s subjugation. Instead it is vital that women embrace the concept of a female sex made of many, complex identities.
Now I’m not advocating that all women, in order to do their duty to the feminist cause, must go around and find themselves the requisite bisexual man to reaffirm a place outside the binary. But the fact that some women find it natural that they would reject the very concept of having a relationship with a bisexual man reveals a troubling relationship to their own femininity, not to mention a latent homophobia. Such absolutist statements imply that sleeping with a bisexual man would somehow undermine their femininity. Because, really, what else could be the problem? Do women have an issue with where the man’s penis has been? Do they have a preconceived notion of who the bisexual male is, no better than a preconceived stereotype of the homosexual male? Or is it that the image of one’s partner sleeping outside the heteronormative somehow confuses the woman’s own sense of place in the bedroom? If I were to hazard a guess, I’d place my bet on the last one.
While the feminist theorist Monique Wittig argued that female subjugation originates in the sex act, and to overturn female subjugation we must all become lesbians, this is clearly impracticable in reality. However, to reject the concept of bisexuality is to essentialize sex, thus gender, thus ‘woman’. To refuse to date a bisexual solely because he has slept with men is to express a homophobia founded in a concept of what the sexual nature of a man and woman should be. Homosexuality can be written off as the Other because it doesn’t actually affect the normal heterosexual. In the middle school dance of life, homosexuals are in one corner of the room, heterosexuals in the other, and no one can embarrass themselves as long as there is no awkward dancing between the two. God forbid that the essential female should engage in sex acts with a man who has engaged in sex acts with another man.
One can imagine the questions: “How can you be sure he’s really into you?” “Do you think he fantasizes about men when you’re together?” “So tell me, on a scale from one to ten, how much does he like your boobs?” Thus the woman becomes de-feminized in her peers’ eyes, a replacement for the male who the bisexual man must be lusting after. Because after all, bisexuality is just a stage, isn’t it? We think we’ve had a sexual revolution and yet we are still hanging onto the wreckage of the last century. In the end, women are still afraid of their own de-feminization, even in the privacy of the bedroom. To sleep with a bisexual man means that a woman has lost her standard counterpart. If the man is de-masculinized because he sleeps with other men, then the woman must in turn lose her ‘femininity’ because she is not sleeping with a real man who only hunts chicks.
But to begin with, I give myself Richard III's opening lines, which I first heard at the end of the Chicago Shakespeare Company's production of the Henry Plays ('Rose Rage' was the title). This phenomenal actor played Richard, and it was a most chilling moment when he turned to the audience, spoke the line "Now is the winter of our discontent", snapped his fingers, and the lights went down.
(from: Richard III, Act I, Scene I)
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visag'd war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front,
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I -- that am not shap'd for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass --
I-that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph --
I -- that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them --
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels, and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the King
In deadly hate the one against the other;
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false, and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up --
About a prophecy which says that G
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul. Here Clarence comes.
Thursday, 1 March 2007
Sometimes you think the media is a pansy-filled profession, and then they come out with something like the above and you think, "Yeah, well maybe. But God they're good with snark."
Article linked here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/washington/28official.html
Tuesday, 20 February 2007
We think that we’ve reached the age of tolerance. We mock the non-cosmopolitan amongst us, the homophobic, the misogynist, yet we, supposedly, are the ones who have reached enlightenment: the acceptance of sexuality, the embrace of sex. Yet despite these claims of inclusiveness, we still maintain a tightly defined binary structure of sex. Slowly it’s been revealed that yes, we like sex, but really, with more than one, well, sex? One after the other of my liberal friends has revealed his or her big secret, whispered to me in phone conversations, through breathy apologies, with laughing self-deprecating dismissals: I’m sorry, they say, I just don’t believe in bisexuality. Their claims are rarely based on scientific studies [TALK ABOUT LAST YEAR’S STUDY HERE], so why do some on maintaining the sexuality binary and demand that you be either gay or straight. One friend, a straight female, told me, “I’m sorry, I don’t know why, I just don’t think it’s real. I just don’t think you get to have it both ways. Is that selfish?” Another, a gay male, when advising me about a bisexual friend coming out, claimed, “Well, I was bisexual for a while when I first came out. And look where I am now. Are you sure it’s not just a transition?” And most bizarrely of all, a bisexual woman once told me, “I just don’t believe there are male bisexuals. I know that sounds weird, but I think they must be kidding themselves.” None of these arguments are rational, and none could sustain an actual critique. All were liberally educated, and none had shown any indication of either homophobia or heterophobia before. Their responses were gut feelings, emotional reactions to the concept of a person who was actually, genuinely attracted to both males and females at the same time. Which begs the question, is the bisexual the next frontier for open sexuality? And if so, why hasn’t it yet been conquered?
It is particularly important for women to come to terms with the concept of bisexuality, particularly of male bisexuality, for its denial says much about the gender roles that are accepted and the norms which may not be transgressed. The old stereotype runs that any male would love to see two chicks go at it. Female bisexuality is accepted, and is often admired and sought after by male counterparts, because it is not seen as real. Instead it is just another sex act, an exhibition for male eyes, an attempt to please a male’s needs. Women may engage in this act and yet still fall within the norms of sexuality because to the male’s eyes, they haven’t actually stepped outside of them. This acceptance instead reveals the inner workings of society’s minds on the ‘essential’ female characteristics. Women are fickle, changeable, affectionate, and emotional. They can love each other and yet still prioritize men. Bisexuality may just be a phase, or a greater extension of women’s natural friendship and expressions of love.
To reject a concept of bisexual men is then to engage in a homophobia both detrimental to that man and to the status of women. Homophobia is automatically offensive to feminist goals as it is often reliant on stereotypes of the ‘effeminate’ man
By extension then, there is no acceptance of bisexuality but instead a stubborn determination to stay within a binary system which is harmful to women. While  would argue that female subjugation originates in the sex act, and thus in order to overturn this subjugation the best way forward is lesbianism, this is clearly inapplicable for all women on an individual women. However, it is harmful both to reject homo- and bisexuality, as this maintains its own system of male-female relations dominated by the male. To reject the concept of bisexuality is the essentialize sex and thus gender, the very antithesis of the aims of the feminist movement. To refuse to date a bisexual solely because he has slept with other men is to express a homophobia founded in a concept of an essential man and an essential female. The essential man should not engage in sexual acts with other men; the essential female should not engage in sex acts with man who…and it continues on. In the end, this notion rests on the concept of the defeminization of women. To sleep with a bisexual man means that a woman has lost her standard counterpart in men. If the man is de-masculinized because he sleeps with other men, then the woman must in turn lose her ‘femininity’ because she is not sleeping with the stereotypical man who only wants to get laid with some chick.
Ok...I have other notes and this will be massively brushed up but I just wanted to get some bare groundings laid in this wonderful realm we call the internet.
Nietzsche is fun. Nietzshce is fun because so many different sets of people: Nazis, Type-A people, elite Ivy Leaguers, feminists, can take from him and run with it. And the thing is, Nietzsche is playing a game with all of us. He claimed that all was historical, but what was powerful was to create a theory that gave the semblance of permanence to the merely temporary. He has done so with his will-to-power theories, with the striving toward the Uebermensch, with the positing of utopias which so many have done as a result. By positing the historically contingent, Nietzsche has tricked us into thinking that we can shape the future. Nietzsche is now sitting back in a place without God having an extremely large chuckle about the whole thing: we have taken on his theory and thus he has found his place within a historical discourse that places a supposedly universal philosophy (i.e. accessible to any who are aware of it) on the course of events. If we are sure of a past history, is history still contingent?
That is, if we are sure that there was a certain structure to history (from pre-moral, to moral, to Christian moral, to current bad conscience) can we go into the future without thinking that there is a set motion of events...being in this bad conscience, can we believe that this bad conscience will suddenly dissolve itself? In some ways, I think we are in the most ahistorical, or least conscious moment in history. Because of the steadiness of life, the natural flow in the western world from birth to death, the almost immortality of our life in that unexpected death comes much more rarely than in the past (i.e. 19C when every birth brought one closer to death), do we think anything can change. Our last great revolutionary moment was 1968, the Vietnam era and even that is what is acknowledged as a failed revolution; some even see it as a large dose of teen angst electrified by the events of race wars and imperial wars and generational wars and turning into a few bombings, shootings, and a good spout of protesting and free love.
In one sense everything is relativized because of the global age in which we live. Gaining greater access to other cultures, having them appear closer to us and thus understanding their differences, we are more sure of relativity and the possibility of different outcomes than ever before. At the same time, we seem sure that while there are different cultures, none of these will ever change. Thus radical Islam will remain the same. Thus Iraq will remain a chaotic war zone. Thus universal healthcare will only occur through the slow churnings of American bureaucracy. Thus we will grow up to have jobs and families as our parents grew up to have jobs and families. We will go through the life style, but an expected life style, a life style that seems to have been there for ages. Though really, has it?
As a woman, my potential life style is radically different from what it would have been 50 years ago. So why do I see it as such an ahistorical possibility?