"Care to come with me and miss the point, dear sir?"
As I expected from a Christian website, some article in the archives manages to disapprove of Brokeback Mountain, ignore a glaring double standard, and leave out certain bits of conventional wisdom. Here, the author - one R. Albert Mohler Jr. - gets so caught up in his disapproval of homosexual men that he misses the point as badly as the author that he criticizes - one Christopher Orr. Apparently, Orr thinks that there's something wrong with the way that two men in today's society have to be very careful around each other lest anyone think they're gay. Mohler then accuses Orr of missing the point (his point), that because homosexuality has found more acceptance than in past generations, two men practically have to walk on eggshells in their personal relationships. There's so much points being missed here that anyone really aware of the issue should see...First of all, why in the hell do two men have to care whether others are going to think they're gay if the two make it clear to one another that they are not (or at least that it's just being friends, and not some fuckin' coercive act)? Isn't part of being a "real man" not giving a goddamn what others think about you? I've sure heard a lot of people say something to that effect. It's almost as if Mohler is too afraid to just "come out" and say that he thinks men should care deeply what society thinks of them - except when it comes to doing such-and-such in the name of God, that is (like starting wars, killing people, getting filthy rich, etc.). Perhaps he should just compel men to form real close friendships (football and beer don't count here) as part of God's will, but I doubt he can give up his anti-homo stance for that long.
Second, why doesn't this seem to affect women as much? Sure, it's been said a lot that women are more sociable/talkative/friendly than men, but that doesn't explain enough. If greater acceptance of homosexuality causes men to repel each other with fears of teh gayness, then what keeps women from doing the same? Why have I overheard many women refer to something they didn't like as "gay", as well as using that same term to try to shame men that don't fit their expectations? Contrary to what you may have heard, men aren't the only ones to do this. Could it be that neither the church nor society itself actually wants to bash lesbians with the vigor that they'll gladly dedicate to maligning gays? If so, then the church is clearly engaging in the moral relativism that it so despises. Surprisingly enough, Mohler doesn't account for this at any point in the article.
It's not like Brokeback Mountain is the only recent pop culture offering that depicts a homosexual relationship. I'll give the critics credit for citing the whole "violation of marriage" thing, but I fail to see how it's much worse than stuff like Child Support and the Andrea Yates verdict, which I haven't seen the church attack nearly as much. Until the church actually makes it clear that such matters as the glaring disparity in jail sentences for men and women and pedophile hysteria are bigger problems than two men wanting a private relationship without fear of being attacked, I refuse to take much of what it says seriously. How can I, when it's clear that attacking homosexuality (and gays in particular) is one of it's highest priorities, even higher than getting out of bed with certain politicians?
Another article, linked to from the one above, covers more ground but still leaves one very important thing out. As a "normal" heterosexual man, I have to ask: How weak do these people think male heterosexuality is? For all the hype about heterosexuality being normal and a gift from God, I'm left with the impression that heterosexuality in men is an extremely fragile thing, something that can easily be overriden and lacking any trace of permanance. It seems that anything from mere words to certain clothing or colors to interests and hobbies can throw a man's heterosexuality into question, as if it's everyone else's business to begin with. Even worse, because gays and lesbians have appropriated certain things, now us straight men have to abandon ship? To hell with that bullshit! Where's the people that say men should fight for what they want now? Shouldn't we see more men passionately fighting (tooth-and-nail if need be) for the right to be recognized as close friends without having to fear teh gayness? Or is the 'majority' content with letting gays and women take what they want from straight men (be it fashion, mannerisms, etc.) and leave those straight men with the scraps? I swear, these people would have me fearing that teh gayness is contagious if I didn't know enough of the truth.
The truth, though some people can admit it easier than others, is that straight men bear some responsibility for letting the whole "gay appropriation" thing happen. Oh, I'm sure that it's manly to fight against something that is considered to be a threat , and that it's rather wimpy to just idly stand by and admit defeat without much of a fight (if you don't believe me, just talk to one of the more passionate supporters of the war in Iraq or the Israel-Palestine conflict). However, there appear to be certain caveats, the easiest to remember being, "Once women appropriate something, men must give up that something...unless they want to be called 'feminine' or 'gay'". Yet another short article doesn't go into much detail, but manages to point out the absurdity of gentleness being appropriated by females to the extent that men are expected to run away from it and become boorish to compensate.
Instead of missing the point as badly as Mohler (and on a lesser level, Orr), I'd rather try to counter all of this male heterosexual doomsdayism by offering up some optimism in its place. Instead of fearing teh gayness, become that fearless manly man that society supposedly adores. Make it so that being a 'risk-taker' applies to human interaction as much as to business and technology. If you really want others to believe that you don't give a fuck what you think of them, you may as well mean it and live by example once the accusations of "eww, he's gay" come at you. Anything less will only serve to shrink the circle of acceptable straight men's behavior for future generations. Keep in mind that there's also the subject of psychos who think they deserve the right to attack gays just for being gay, or any random guy who can be identified as gay. Caring what they think will only seem like a defense mechanism for so long...then it'll be more like a prison in your own mind. At any rate, a crowbar and a shotgun will protect you against the psycho more than giving a rat's ass about them ever could.
On the other hand, if you'd rather cling to mommy and fear teh gayness, I have one last thing to violate your mind with...
...and this is where the fanboys/fangirls scream, "OMG! It's Buri-chan!!!!11".
posted by el-chozo-loco @ 8:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home