Saturday, 9 June 2018
The election of Doug Ford makes it clear as day. How did such an obviously corrupt and inept man became the premiere of Ontario?
Easy. This situation mirrors the election of Donald Trump.
Voters were afraid of the ‘assault of the new.’
The ‘assault of the new’ is what I call gender and anti-racist politics. In the west, we have recently become more and more obsessed with recognizing the oppression of non-white peoples, and with ensuring that women take their rightful place in our society. The ramifications of these beliefs are huge. If the government has a dedicated anti-racism policy that means if you are out of a job a person of colour may get a job before you do— or become your boss. Valorizing women means disempowering straight men — which means not only that abortion will be every woman’s right but also that queer and trans people will be given power and agency too.
If you don’t understand what is so frightening about all of the above, then you are a politically correct, anti-racist, and anti-sexist person. Period. You don’t have to be a white male to understand — there are plenty of racist people of colour (Kanye West, anyone?) and sexist women (Women for Trump, anyone?). You just need to be a person who is, for whatever reason — and it may have nothing to do with your skin colour or gender — afraid of the ‘assault of the new.’
And for such people, the election of a black president in the United States, and a lesbian as premier in Ontario, were both hugely threatening events. For those who are a afraid of the ‘assault of the new,’ nothing about a candidate matters other than whether or not they are going to bring back the ‘old ways.’
Erich Fromm wrote a book called Escape From Freedom, about why people yearn for dictatorships. One of the reasons was that people need to ‘conform to a group norm.’
No group norm is as appealing as white male racism/sexism.
Whatever complaints we may have against Kathleen Wynne and Barack Obama they did not deserve the hate that was directed against them. Doug Ford, in contrast to Kathleen Wynne, will Make Ontario Great Again. This means he will bring assurance to those who are deeply, desperately, anti-racist and anti-women. There will be a bunch of old white straight guys in power again; and everyone who is afraid of the ‘assault of the new’ can take a deep breath.
Maybe you were confused, and thought this election was about fiscal responsibility, or Ontario Hydro?
Well, think again.
Wednesday, 7 March 2018
I came to understand the word ‘woke’ the other day. It is, for me, a relatively new term. A young theatre person (a ‘millennial') asked for some advice about a producer friend of mine. They wanted to hire her but they weren't sure. They asked me -- "Is she....woke?” Of course I didn’t know what they meant by ‘woke.’ They responded: "Oh - woke --- it just means -- is she aware and informed about the latest trans issues?"
I am somewhat put off by the term ‘woke.’ It seems to to me to have an ‘evangelistic’ smell. It’s as if those who fully understand trans politics consider themselves ‘born again,’and have ‘found Jesus.’ It suggests to me that their thinking is not so much made up of ideas, but instead a shared belief system based on instinctual understanding and faith that is never to be questioned.
I find this unsettling. But it is much more unsettling that the veteran producer they were asking about was eminently and publicly queer and outspoken in her activism. She is an older woman (over 50) who was on the front lines of queer politics in the 80s. She has performed as a drag king, and is working class. Why would anyone wonder whether she was ‘woke’?
Evidently, it was simply because she was old.
Now I’m not suggesting that all the surviving aging queer activists from the 80s are perfect. I’m also not suggesting that older queers should never be questioned or challenged simply because they are old.
But why do young queer activists assume that older activists don’t know anything -- that they are not ‘woke?’
Could it be that present day millennial queer politics exists in a kind of vacuum? It’s evident to me that many millennial queers have not read Judith Butler or their Michel Foucault. But more importantly they know nothing of queer history. They don’t know for instance that the heroes at Stonewall were not ‘trans’ people -- the word ‘trans’ didn’t exist then -- instead, many of them were sex trade workers and drag queens. These millennials don’t know that hate speech, prejudice, access to washrooms, and issues about the relationship between gender and sexuality are not new. We have been fighting these battles for many, many years. But some millennials just don’t seem to realize that their ‘politic’ has its foundation in the politics of earlier generations of queer radicals.
Is she .......’woke’?
What a question.
She was awake and raging, baby, way before you were born.
Wednesday, 28 February 2018
John Ibbitson in the Globe and Mail is trying to be nice when he says -- “Bars have closed, and bathhouses.” He goes on to say that Church Street is nevertheless still important because it’s a place to: “have a coffee, read a book...” among sympathetic friends.
It’s all very comforting to imagine that all gay men, lesbians and trans folk are ‘making love’ with their lifetime committed married ‘partners’ -- or even with someone they met on a ‘dating app’ -- in the wall-to-wall-carpeted privacy of their middle-class homes.
Well I, for one, am not comforted.
For though it's true that bars and bathhouses on Church Street have closed, it’s not true the present day purpose of Church Street is only to provide a place for people to have a coffee with friends.
What about Spa Xcess? What about Steamworks (an international chain of bathhouses that still flourishes all over North America and in Toronto?)
Woody’s and the Eagle pack ‘em in like sardines on weekends. What about the kids lining up to get into Crews and Woody's with their bisexual friends? And what about toilets in the business district downtown? And dark rooms? And what about all the orgies, crystal meth parties and condom-less sex that goes on in rented and private spaces?
So why this lie that we don’t need Church Street, except for ‘coffee’?
Well, it’s become politically correct to suggest that gay men are not having sex anymore outside of committed relationships. It’s so ‘retro’ to think of gay men as sexual outlaws. And gay men love to promote this lie because we like to think of ourselves as respectable, like those nice straight people.
The fact of the matter is that even in the Toronto ‘tolerance bubble’ kids still go through agonies coming out to their schools and their parents. And no queer couple is going to get away with necking in straight bars on Richmond Street. And if you step just slightly out of the bubble -- to Northern Ontario -- never mind Utah or Iran -- you stand a good chance of being beaten up or killed for being openly queer.
It doesn’t help to lie about the realities of gay life. The realities of gay life are not going away soon.
Though many wish for homophobia to disappear, wishing doesn’t make it so.
Like Peter Pan, I still believe in ‘fairies.’
And if you’re honest with yourself, so do you.
Saturday, 10 February 2018
Everything old is new again. I was chatting with a female friend of mine about the ‘Me Too’ movement, and I said ‘I think it’s becoming a movement about censorship.’ “Oh yes,” she said, nodding -- ‘it’s the Cavaliers vs the Roundheads all over again.”
I had to go Wikipedia and look up Cavaliers and Roundheads. It turns out that the Roundheads were the Puritan faction that tossed out King Charles I and the Royalist Cavaliers in 1649, and established The Commonwealth of England.
Those also closed down the theatres.
And that’s kind of what’s happening now.
The National Post tells us that comedy clubs are starting to post signs that say that ‘sexism racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, body shaming’ will not not be tolerated on their stages.
So what’s left that’s funny?
But seriously folks, I don’t mean to suggest that racist or homophobic or sexist comedy is the only comedy that’s funny. What I do mean to suggest is that the concerns of ‘social justice warriors,’ and the ‘Me Too’ movement -- as valid as they may be in the social sphere -- are starting to worm their way into the arts.
And art is not the same as social justice.
Because art is not real.
Shakespeare told us (sort of) that artists are all lovers and madman. The fact that Louis C.K. may be an asshole in real life does not make it right for you to limit distribution of his gorgeous, classic, Chekhovian TV shows. And yet this is the kind of thing people are talking about. I went to a queer conference a while back and somebody called for banning drag queens on the basis that their humour is ‘cruel.’ You’re damn right it’s cruel. I don’t know how to tell you this, but cruel is funny. In the wake of the public excoriation of Albert Schultz, Eva-Lynn Jagoe suggested in the Globe and Mail that we should reconsider the worth of Edward Albee’s Pulitzer prize winning play The Goat because ‘we have less sympathy for the man who has transgressive desires.’
I guess we’d better start banning work about ‘transgressive’ sexual desire.
It’s time to get rid of Nabokov, and Joyce, and while you’re at it, Shakespeare.
Yes folks, Puritanism is back; only it’s wearing a disguise. Don’t be fooled.
You may be against sexism, racism and homophobia, but that doesn’t mean you have to be against art.
Oh well. The Puritans didn’t rule England for long because they bored everyone to death.
Let’s hope the Puritan season lasts no longer here.
Monday, 15 January 2018
‘#Me Too’ has become a full frontal attack on the arts. It’s a shame, because the original aim of the movement was to combat sexism, everywhere. This was a noble idea. But '#Me Too," unfortunately, has moved on.
Consider this. I go online or pick up my newspaper, and the latest salacious headline centres on a choreographer, symphony conductor, gay photographer, or -- mostly likely -- James Franco. Regrettably, such arts-related news leads to random editorial musings, which begin with thoughts like: "Fascinatingly, Albert Schultz was considered a ‘pioneer in theatrical exploration’ who ‘pushed boundaries.’" Soon the pundits move on. They just can’t help wondering -- "Was Louis C.K.’s shocking comic material --- which often dealt frankly with sexual subjects -- in any way related to his backstage sexual perversions?"
It’s time to ask ask a much more important question. Where are the business and corporate leaders who are sexual molesters? Are we to believe that no women at Google, Exon, Dupont, Apple,Tim Hortons or Canadian Tire have ever been molested by their bosses? Apparently. And yet we know this isn't true. The question is, why are people champing at the bit to punish potential sex criminals in the arts, while at the same time leaving corporate and business leaders unscathed?
If this continues it can only lead us to the depressing conclusion that ‘#Me Too’ is not an actual political movement destined to transform the sexual dynamics between men and women forever but just the latest google trend. I say this because unfortunately '#Me Too' (like every other movement in western culture) seems quite helpless when confronted with corporate capitalism.
On the contrary, instead of criticizing the arts, it is time to praise artists for their courage. Perhaps the reason so many arts organizations are confronting sexism is because the arts have always been at the forefront of this issue. And artistic environment environments -- unlike corporate entities -- are not generally confined to money-making enterprises, but instead quite often are politically aware institutions that seek to forge cultural change.
I do not in any way wish to minimalize the significance of any attack on any woman, anywhere.
In fact that’s why I am raising this issue. Like Catherine Duneuve and other prominent French feminists, I must wonder if #‘Me Too’ has morphed from a feminist movement into an attack on artistic freedom.
And until the day a significant proportion of the overall constiuency of rapists, molesters and harassers don't just happen be charismatic, googlable and tweetable stars of stage and screen, I fear for women.
Sunday, 14 January 2018
“No, I didn’t like The Shape of Water. I know I’m supposed to like it. Yes Guillermo del Toro is fabulous blah blah blah. Yes it was beautiful to look at. Yes the ‘creature’ was sexy and almost, kinda -- naked. Yes the acting was fabulous, and pretty well anything that Sally Hawkins does I love. She could just read a book or shine her shoes and I would watch. It’s just...okay. This is it. It took me a while to figure out that Richard Jenkins was the gay character and when I did, well I was just soooooo....disappointed! Why? Because okay...there he is, wearing his little sweater with the elbow patches, living all alone with his cats, and then when he makes that very shy approach to the young blonde man who runs the restaurant -- and then he gets so cruelly and homophobically rejected, I just -- ummm. Well, I just couldn’t. It’s just the whole image of this terribly nice man, who likes to have tea with his female mute best friend, and that’s his life. (Is this revealing something about me?) No, I’m not saying that there aren’t some terribly nice gay men who live all alone with cats in crumby apartments and have mute female friends that they adore having tea with. I’m just saying that that is the image of us that straight people are most comfortable with. I mean, it makes them feel a lot better about us than to think that we don’t live alone, or we don’t like cats, or we don’t have time for our mute female friends because we’re much too busy fucking in the back room at the Eagle. Do you get what I’m saying? And I don’t know if that’s a reason for me to reject the whole movie. And well -- I don’t reject the whole movie -- well maybe I do. And I realize it’s probably going to get a thousand and one Oscars. But it’s just one of those movies that manages to include every minority group. I mean there’s a gay man, and a disabled woman, and a black woman and even the ‘creature’ it turns out is kind of ‘trans.’ No, he is! Remember when Sally Hawkins has that conversation with Octavia Spencer who asks if the ‘creature’ has a penis and Sally says that it’s kind of hidden away -- yes for sure, the ‘creature’ is meant to be trans. Yes, so in this way Guillermo has like covered almost every shape and size of minority group and has proved by this movie that he is on the side of all of them. And all I can say is, as a member of one of those minority groups portrayed in this movie, I feel kinda taken advantage of. And it’s not because I don’t ever like any movies ever, that’s not true. For instance I like......well my most recent fave movie was I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore starring the super-duper talented Melanie Lynsky. Yes, it’s on Netflix. And yes, I really liked that movie a lot. But I didn’t so much like The Shape of Water. Oscars or no Oscars. Sorry.”
Thursday, 4 January 2018
Quite a lot actually. And we will never challenge rape culture and/or the sexual harassment of women until we fundamentally change heterosexuality itself.
We imagine that merely by routing out the guilty male parties (who seem, rather oddly, to all be in the arts or politics -- are there no serial abusers in the corporate sphere?) we have solved the problem. No. This is not to say that men who harass and abuse women are not guilty, nor is it to say that they should not be punished. But if wish to eradicate the problem -- not just place a pretty band-aid on it -- we must look deeply and critically at heterosexuality itself.
As a gay man, I can stand outside heterosexuality. I hope I can offer a fresh perspective on a the ‘heterosexual problem.’ (Sure, some gay men are abusers/molesters/harassers -- but for very different reasons -- so we’ll save that for another day!)
So how do we start solving the problem of heterosexuality?
1. As children, we are taught that most men are sexual (The Beast), and that women are, generally -- not sexual (Beauty). We are also taught that there are some women who do happen to be sexual. They are called ‘whores.’ If a woman has sexual desires and speaks about them then she is not a ‘nice’ woman. This is the most important thing we must change: women must be empowered to speak about sex and desire -- frankly, honestly -- freely and often.
2. The best way to make a baby, for years, has been to insert a penis into a vagina, and then wiggle it around until the man has an orgasm. True. But this fact has no significance. It means nothing. (It’s even less important nowadays, because we could all use a little de-population!) The fact that this is the most pleasurable way we’ve come up with to make babies (so far) has nothing to do with the way women and men should or can act in or out of bed. Sex involves power play; if there is no power play, then it’s simply affection. But the power games we play in bed say nothing about who we are out of bed. All that man-on-top-woman--on-the-bottom stuff -- if you like it in bed -- must stop when you get out. Period.
3. Finally. (Please take a deep breath, this is tough one.) Monogamy doesn’t work for most of us -- male, female and ‘other.’ It’s best to try and find a mutually agreed upon, palatable alternative.
Hey -- heterosexuals! Just start working on these three very important things! I promise, you’ll be fine!
Take it from me -- I’m gay!