The Tyranny of a Genderless World

This is the way I am

Yes I'm just made this way

And when I want to laugh

Why then I laugh all day

I love the guy who loves me

So how am I to blame

If the guy who loves me

Is not every night the same?

- Jacques Prevert (translated by Eric Bentley)

This has always been my song. I believe that everyone is different and -- as long as nobody's killing anybody or molesting anybody -- we should let people be whoever they are.

Surprisingly, not the whole world agrees with me (or with Jacques Prevert!).

The big surprise is that some recent opposition to Prevert's ideas comes from an unexpected place: the trans community. But this is not surprising, since the queers who started this whole sexual liberation thing got it wrong in exactly the same way.

Let me explain.

Lately some trans activists (Kate Bornstein, significantly) have been raising the banner of 'no gender.’ I've got nothing against Kate Bornstein, I've met her, and she's probably as charming and sweet a person as you'll ever meet. (And two more different people you will never meet: Kate's about as laid back as I am stressed out!) But as much as I adore Kate, I disagree fundamentally with her idea that there should be no such thing as gender. 

The argument goes something like this. Gender causes a lot of pain. When we label children boys or girls, we force them to fit into the straightjacket of gender assimilation. Who are we to tell anyone what a man or a woman is? And yet, inevitably, says Kate, as long as there are gender labels, those labels will continue  to oppress people. Gender is a kind of fascism. A genderless world would be a world without homophobia or sexism.

A lot of people have picked up on Kate's ideas, including the trendy gender activist Beatriz Preciado. 

But Kate’s ideas are not new.

Contrary to what you might think, early queer activists were not just fighting to make the world safe for gays and lesbians. No. They were fighting to create a world without sexualities. The fantasy of early gay and lesbian activists was the same as present day trans activists --  that labels would some day be unnecessary.  

So what's wrong with this dream?

I believe that such a world would be even more oppressive than the world we live in now.

For example, right now some feminists no longer feel comfortable about beginning a sentence saying — "As a woman, I --"

Why? Why, after years of fighting for women's liberation, would women feel that it’s wrong to speak 'as a woman?' Because for some, speaking 'as a woman' enforces a fascistic gender binary.

I’m sorry, but all this has to stop.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Kate Bornstein has only the very best of intentions.

But a world in which people are afraid to embrace the labels that they have chosen for themselves is not a better world. 

It is, unfortunately, easy to imagine an impossible, utopian vision. What's much harder to do -- but what we must do, at all costs -- is respect the labels that people make for themselves and somehow (and this is very difficult) teach them not to oppress others with their own self-identification.

So if somebody tells you that you can’t speak 'as a woman' or 'as a  gay man' because gender and sexuality are oppressive labels, just say. ‘You’re oppressing me!’

Let's be gay, lesbian, straight, gay, genderless, male, female, gender variant, bisexual, trans -- let’s be different!

But please please -- I beg you --  let’s not tell anyone they can't self-identify.

Because in that imagined freedom you will find a kind of slavery.

Exclusive Interview with the Stars of STRANGE LOVE!

                At Toronto’s fabulous filmfest this year, I had a unique  opportunity!  I was thrilled to interview Jon Lithgaw and Albert Molino, both starring in the soon-to-be-a-hit  film STRANGE LOVE -- which opened the Toronto International Film Festival last week ! I happened on the twosome by chance really; I was on my way to Bruce LaBruce’s trendy little late-nighter at Bambi’s on Queen Street, when who should I catch my eye, sharing a couch, but the venerable stars of stage in screen  in – of all places – the TIFF lobby!

                Well I wasn’t about to spoil this chance. I told them I was representing a prestigious blog (i.e. ANOTHER BLOG NOBODY READS) and asked them if we might have a little ‘Socratic dialogue’ about their upcoming film. When they said yes, I simply yanked over a convenient potted plant, and perched myself on the edge.

                Molino was well groomed and sat almost a foot away from Lithgaw, who -- bow tie rakishly askew -- was characteristically (and charmingly) unkempt.  “So I see you guys don’t sit too close to each other when you’re not acting in a gay movie.” I opined, ironically. Both laughed. It was genuine laughter, Molino deep and husky, Lithgaw a bit higher and grittier (he’s a smoker).

                “Well we don’t view it as a ‘gay movie’” said Lithgaw, putting cute quotation marks around the latter words with his fingers.

                “Do you agree, Albert?” I asked.

                “Most certainly,” said the slightly more formal Molino. “This is a film about people.”

                “I’ve heard that there’s a double Oscar buzz around the flic,” I said, a mischievous twinkle in my eye.

Lighgaw jumped in immediately, and earnestly: “It’s not about awards, it’s about the work.”

                There was an elephant in the room; I knew I just had to ask a question that was certain to be on the minds of all serious cinephiles -- “You two share -- shall we call it -- a ‘gay kiss' In the movie. What was it like actually doing  that kiss?”

                 Both men started to speak at the same time, and then apologized to each other.  Albert nodded to Lithgaw, who began: “You know, when it comes down to it, a kiss is a kiss –"

                “And a sigh is a sigh!" quipped Molino

                (Hearty laughter from all.) “Yes,” agreed Lithgaw, “and if you’re playing a character who is in love with someone else, it’s quite natural for the kiss to grow from that love.”

                Mischievous again, I leaned in from my improvised seat beside the Fiddle Leaf Fig Tree “And how did your wives feel about that kiss?”
                Again, we all laughed heartily. Then Albert filled the brief,  ensuing silence: “I think on the day  we shot that scene, my wife did hold me just a little more tightly as we wished each other goodbye.”

                “Well, Jon’s a looker,” I proffered.

                “Why thankyou” said Lithgow decisively, with a witty flick of the hand.

                “And your wife, Jon?”

                “She’s a trooper, she knows it’s all part of the job, ever since Roberta Maldoon in GAP.”

                “Ahh. Now I have a rather serious question to ask you,” I said -- as we reached  the heart of the interview.

                “I’m girding my loins” rejoindered the redoubtable Lithgaw.

                “Well,”I said, trying to look them both in the eye--  at the same time -- no mean feat, “do you think this film will have any effect on your careers –"

                Lithgaw interrupted me. “Are you serious?”

                “Well, because it’s a gay film, I mean.’

                “Oh Pshaw!” joked Lithgaw, histrionically (a bit of his film character showing through!)

                Albert eyeballed me seriously. “I can’t believe you asked that question! Surely we’ve moved beyond that! This is a movie about human relationships. A deep and important movie with a message.”

                “And what IS that message” I asked, pithily.

                “That everybody is the same.”

                “Exactly the same,”  agreed Lithgaw.  “Inside, we are all, exactly alike.”

                My mind moved quickly to images of spleens and large intestines, thumping hearts and kidneys, and useless little gall bladders, pondering thoughtfully the similarity between all of our digestive systems. However I didn’t have time to marvel at the depth of these stellar observations because both men were immediately swept up by handlers. Well enough with celebrity interviews!  I was on my way to experience the joys of Bruce’s  little Toronto-grown sybaritic film festival romp in hipster heaven!

                But (and I mean this truly, madly, deeply) it was a joy sharing it all with you.

How Not to Become a Disney Character in Real Life

Since everybody seems so goddamn healthy, normal and damn near perfect these days — I offer the following advice: 

Seven sure fire ways to help you NOT end up being a Disney character in real life.

1. Don’t have pluck!

This is particularly directed at young women, as the female heroines of Disney movies seem to have an inexhaustible store of ‘pluck. ‘Pluck’ is a lot cuter and more fun than determination. It’s about responding to adversity with uncharacteristically spontaneous action. What’s the alternative? Pessimism and gloom. Come on, just lie in bed all day. Proust might be a good role model. Wear heavy makeup that runs when you cry. And cry a lot. And whatever you do, don’t whistle while you work.

2. Don’t have a big chest. 

This is directed to male and female humans, not to other animals. Disney birds and otters don’t tend to be chesty, but if you are a human Disney character you are certain to have giant pectorals (male) or bouncy perky boobs (female). So if you are a male: don’t work out.  And if you are a female: don’t get breast implants. If God hadn’t meant you to sag, he wouldn’t have invented gravity.

3. Develop some attractive vices. 

Present day ‘physically fit’ culture doesn’t offer us much of a choice: you’re either a perfect Disney character or a heroin addict. What about a much less tragic alternative? Drink and/or smoke yourself to death. Hey - you’ll meet a better class of people when you smoke. Smokers are rebels at heart with a fantastic, deep, self-deprecating sense of humour. You won’t meet any Disney characters on a smoker’s patio!

4. Become an anti-environmentalist.

Being an environmentalist is the first sign of having become a Disney character. You are not only Gluten-free, but obsessed with the Brazilian rain forest, and overly concerned with the next generation. Let’s face it, it’s too late to stop global warming, and plastics can’t be recycled anyway. So who cares about the kids? I certainly don’t plan on having any. I’m with Lee Edelman. There is no future and I want to be part of that.

5. Screw a lot of different people and tell everyone about it.

Kissing and telling is a lost art since these days everyone is pretending they don’t have sex outside marriage (even fags!). So be a slut and make sure to tell everyone about each little horny detail. The prouder you are of your sexual excess the less likely you are to morph into A Little Princess.

6. Don’t Dream.

Live in the here and now. Look around you; that’s what life is. Dreaming about tomorrow is something you do if you want to avoid living in the present.  When you’re fifty years old you’ll figure out that your dreams don’t come true anyway, so why not save yourself the disappointment and stop dreaming now.

7. Try not to sing. 

Well if you kept reading past past number four,  then you may have escaped becoming a Disney character in real life. So, okay. I’ll let you sing a little in the shower if you want to — but only while you’re smoking and getting screwed by a stranger, okay? 

Only then.

Why Gay Films Suck

I just watched the fabulous French film Yves St. Laurent starring the brilliant Pierre Niney as the tragic designer. It was so gorgeous and sad and true. Why then, does it get 46% on the Rotten Tomatoes enjoyment metre? Why are all the reviewers calling it ‘empty’ and ‘overdressed’ and ‘about nothing? I’ll tell you. Because it’s gay. Very gay. And not in a nice way either.

If you want a NICE gay movie there are a lot of them out there. People are making new ones all the time. For instance, there’s a really nice gay movie opening soon with Alfred Molina and John Lithgow, erroneously titled Love is Strange. Critics are raving about it, and I’m sure it will be a big hit. 

It sounds perfectly horrid. It’s about a portly old pair of very unsexual looking gay men who have been together for thirty-nine years and are forced to live apart. Why? Because one of the older men (Alfred Molina) is fired from his job as a Catholic school teacher (“Aww……!”) cuz he’s gay. Gee whiz, I can feel the tears welling up already. And John Lithgow, who is forced to live in a house with his young possibly gay nephew, teaches the young man some unique (unsexual of course!) lessons about life. The crux of the film is  that these two messily bearded, lovable old piles of dough can’t stand to be apart for more than five minutes after thirty-nine years. (To repeat: “Aw……!”)

The title is of course a misnomer. It should be called ‘Love is The Same for Everybody and It’s Unbelievably Banal.’ Or perhaps ‘Love is a Cloyingly Sentimental Figment of Hollywood’s Imagination.’

Jalil Lespert’s Yves St. Laurent is, on the other hand, the story of two gay men (Yves St. Laurent and Pierre Berge), who were also lovers for four decades but whose lives don’t have the antiseptic, homespun, family-centred cheeriness that will undoubtedly warm the hearts of the masses in the upcoming Love is Strange. No, Yves St. Laurent is a very real and somewhat gritty look at a deeply touching open relationship between two very sexual queer men, one of who (St. Laurent) has a drug problem. Yves St. Laurent dares to urges us to sympathize with two very real guys, who have a lot of sex with a lot of people — and who like to party and have a good time — and there are no impressionable nephews or Catholic schools in sight.

This is the sad and sorry state of gay film — and also, to some degree, of film in general. We are entering a period (how long will it last, oh Lord, how long?) of depressingly banal sentimentalism — where wit has been replaced with gentle humour, and ideas replaced with homespun thoughts. There is reason to be afraid; the last era of aesthetic sentimentalism lasted almost two hundred years — from 1700 to 1900. It was a dark age for theatre; David Garrick issued in ‘bardolatry;’ a movement devoted to making Shakespeare palatable by giving his plays happy Christian endings. It took the likes of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Jarry at the turn of the last century to drag us out of all the mediocre schmarmy muck.

The amazing thing is that the heartbreaking new French film Yves St. Laurent has the same theme as the musical Coco. Coco was a huge musical comedy hit in the early 70s, starring Katherine Hepburn. In Coco, the leading character — Coco Chanel — weighed her rejection of family values against her devotion to fashion. At the end of the musical a vast array of Chanel’s designs were displayed to Andre Previn’s soaring score, the message being: Coco Chanel’s art redeemed her imperfect life. Everybody loved it. No one called it ‘empty’ or ‘pointless.’

Yves St. Laurent’s art redeemed his imperfect life in quite the same way, and that is the point of the director Jalil Lespert’s film; but I guess nothing redeems the life of a promiscuous, drug addicted homosexual, does it?

Call me crazy, but that’s one heartwarming, homespun thought I had conveniently forgotten.

For Margaret Wente and The Whitewashers: The Truths of Ferguson, Missouri

 I don’t mean to pick on Margaret Wente. But she seems to be the epitome of what I call the ‘whitewash’ movement. (I use the term ‘whitewash’ because it is a kind of ‘washing’ that is favoured by privileged white people). The whitewash movement is mainly concerned with making sure that we know that racism, sexism, and homophobia are over. Members of the ‘whitewash’ campaign are hard to pin down on the political spectrum. It serves them well not to identify as being right or left-wing, because they can simply claim to be well intentioned. But unfortunately their views lead us directly back to our racist, sexist and homophobic past.
 Wente has been ‘whitewashing’ a lot lately in terms of feminism — and what she sees as a made up problem: rape culture. The idea is that misogyny is over, and women have achieved most of what they wanted — ergo, we must say goodbye to feminism. The same argument can be used about homophobia (Look at all the gay designer guys on TV -- and look at ‘Modern Family.’ Homophobia is a dead issue!) and racism (There is a black president in the USA -- so racism is over!). All this -- of course -- leads us to Ferguson Missouri. 
 What’s fascinating and very important about the ant-racist riots in Ferguson, is how they have confounded politically correct media discourse. CNN Reporters are saying things like “We don’t want to get too focused on race — that would be race baiting.” You see, the right-wing has managed to make it a  impolite to discuss racism. If you accuse someone of saying or doing something racist you are attacked as playing the ‘race card’ — which means unfairly using anti-racist rhetoric in order to tip the argument. The justification goes like this: “Racism is over, and the only time people talk about racism these days is when they want to attack someone unjustly.”
 I think the situation in Ferguson may make some realize that it’s still very important to discuss racism — just as important as discussing sexism and homophobia. Here we have a town that is the apotheosis of  American inequality. Despite Oprah Winfrey, despite Barack Obama, despite the much heralded death of racism in America, in Ferguson 70 percent of the population is black and yet only 3 out of 57 police officers are persons of colour (apparently Ferguson claims to have an Asian and/or Native American police officer too!). Sure, there is a black president in the USA, but old habits die hard, and people continue -- stubbornly -- to be racist. The same thing could be said about homophobia. Yes, we now have gay marriage, but the victories of the gay marriage lobby may have done more to encourage hatred of gays and lesbians than to alleviate it. And after all, has Roe vs. Wade changed the minds of rabid anti-abortionists, or has it just rooted them even more firmly to their prejudices? You can legislate all you want, but it’s much, much harder to change the human heart. I’ve got nothing against civil rights for queers, women and people of colour, but I do have something against those who think such legislation is all we need to make the world a better place.
 In other words, racism, sexism and homophobia are alive and well. No matter how many people talk about the death of racism — the people in the USA and Canada who hold the power are still white, and the people who are so often oppressed by that power are often non-white. Similarly, no matter how much Wente talks about the end of feminism  and the ‘myth’ of rape culture — we still live in a society where most politicians and CEOs are white men. And when people rant on about homophobia being over, I always ask: “When was the last time you saw a drag queen anchorperson — or even a mildly effeminate newscaster on the CBC who wasn’t relegated to weather or celebrity gossip?” Whitewashing over the real and frightening ills of racism, sexism and homophobia is merely a very clever right-wing tactic to take us back to our racist, sexist and homophobic past.
 Will the wounds of Ferguson induce us to see things as they really are? Will Ferguson — at last — open the eyes of those who love to imagine that the world was long ago cleared of hate?

 We’ll have to wait and see.

The Return of Bad Acting

I’ve had it with the latest acting trend. And though I don’t want to blame anybody, I think I kind of have to.

What I’m talking about is much more than good old-fashioned bad acting. I  got the idea for this article from talking with a friend of mine — a veteran of Canadian theatre. I asked him if he’s seen any good plays lately. He said “Well I saw this play, but the actors in it were doing that bad acting thing that’s so popular right now.” “Oh what do you mean?” I asked. He said, “Oh you know, when they are trying to show you what good actors they are all the time.”

Right.

What my friend was talking about was actors who have great technique and are always showing it off. In other words, they’ve been to theatre school. They’ve learned how to project their voices and how to move their bodies with exquisite poise. But when you see them onstage they are so busy showing off they’ve forgotten to pay a character.

When you watch these actors you may be fooled into thinking you are watching great acting (especially when we rarely get to see any really good old-fashioned good acting these days).

You might think Brecht is to blame for all this, because he went on about alienation. But I don’t think so. Brecht wanted audiences to be wrenched out of their rapture, their ‘hypnotism’ — as he called it. But in order for alienation to work, the audience has to be pulled in at some point so that they have something to be wrenched out of. A truly Brechtian performance pulls you in and out — it doesn’t just leave you at the sidelines, admiring the actors.

I think David Mamet is somewhat guilty, because in his book True and False, he goes on about how actors don’t have to play characters, they just have to say the lines and express the emotions. Well call me crazy, might Mamet’s wife Rebecca Pigeon be a credible exponent of his acting style? Then why is her acting so boring? (Answer: because she’s always playing Rebecca Pigeon).

But I’m afraid the real origins of this new acting style can be found in mega-musicals and the schools that train actors for them. These days acting students all want to get the big bucks by starring in American megamusical touring productions. In megamusicals actors do nothing but show us how talented they are. And when called on to sing, they just step downstage and deliver directly to the audience — usually fierce anthems about AIDS or poverty. But playing a character— that’s the furthest thing from their minds.

Recently I bought a recording of Crazy for You (yes, I am a trash queen), and was listening to a duet version of ‘They Can’t Take That Away From Me.’ I noticed that the guy was singing the line “the way you sing offkey’ to a girl who was doing a passable imitation of Kristin Chenoweth (don’t they all?). Well of course an actress in a jukebox musical would never think of actually singing off-key. What if some mega-director saw her?  

A part of me welcomes the latest reality theatre trend (i.e. people talking to their moms or their best friends, people arguing about politics, people talking about their lack of privilege). At least these people aren’t showing off what great actors they are.

Recently at a party I was introduced to a couple of students from Randolph. I couldn’t help myself. I was just a teensy bit tipsy, so I leaned over and said — “I bet you’re triple threats, right?” “Oh yes,” said one, beaming, unaware of my irony. The other was a bit craftier.  “I’m a double threat “ he said. brazenly, “acting and “ — (he  pointed to his brain) —  “thinking.”

Which one do you think gets the part?

It’s Time To Say Goodbye

I’ve been feeling depressed lately — partially because one of our cats has tendency to poo on the floor and we can’t figure out why. But it isn’t only that. Richard Gwyn recently wrote an article in the Star that made me realize it’s time to say goodbye to universities as we know them.

In his article, Gwyn suggests that university professors should not have tenure because they misuse it, and that they are overpaid anyway, and students learn better online.

 Once I would have said: ’Hey, Richard, it isn’t the system that’s wrong, it’s the bad apples. Maybe some tenured professors are lazy and abuse the system. But that doesn’t mean the system itself is wrong. There are lots of car accidents, but have we decided to abolish roads?’

I have realized, finally, that this argument is based on a false analogy. The reason we don’t abolish roads is because roads serve a greater good. But what is the greater good of tenure?

Well, we used to think that the purpose of tenure was for professors at universities to do research. The idea was that if they were coming up with challenging ideas, then they should be paid for that, and not be in danger of being fired.

But the idea of universities as places for professors and students to do research is outdated. We now know that universities have one purpose and one purpose only: to prepare students for jobs. In fact universities of the future will probably have to guarantee  that students  get placements somewhere, or else close down.

You see the focus of our lives has changed (God knows what it was before!). We know now we should concentrate on feeding our children and improving our standard of living. In the past, discussions of what is ‘truth’ — or what is ‘good’ — mattered, because it was important for people to figure out how to make the world better place. Now we know that a better world just means a higher standard of living.

And if we have any other questions, Wikipedia will answer them. In olden days, university professors asked students to question the information they got from the web. But that’s complicated and it takes time. And the great thing about Wikipedia is that if you don’t like the information you find there, you can go online and change it.  So now, truth is democratic.

Who cares what is good or bad, right or wrong, real or unreal, anyway? The important question is: how many people like it? How many thumbs up does it get on facebook or iTunes? If something is popular than most people are going to buy it, and that means you can sell it. This is really all that matters.

I want to apologise to all those people who read the articles I wrote defending universities in the past. I also want to apologize to all the students I bored with my hopeless attempts to get them to do what I called ‘critical thinking.’

I’m sorry about that. I always knew you kids didn’t want to think critically — so what was the point of putting you through all that stress? It’s very difficult to take every little bit of information you get from the web and try to figure out if it’s ‘accurate.’ 

I’m sorry I wasted your time.

Common sense is the wave of the future. Once only Tory politicians like Mike Harris believed in the importance of common sense — but now even NDP politicians like Andrea Horvath believe in it too.

Come on. We all just instinctively know what’s right and what’s wrong.We know in our heart of hearts how to act, and how to be. We just need to follow those ‘inner promptings.’ And universities are  boring, snooty, elitist places where rich, effeminate, tenured professors earn fat salaries investigating nonsense. Unless universities prepare young people for jobs, they should be abolished.

I’m glad I finally figured it out.