Untitled Slush -

The stuff in the bottom of your blue icee before it melts. _-The Lesbian Writers Guild at UCSD-_

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Beware frightening ambiguities ahead!


You will not desperately want to wake up nearly as bad as you will ever desperately want to go back to sleep.

So experimental writing has become locked in the eternal debate, on the highest level ever imagined. The gender crisis.
What makes men men?
What makes women eerie?
What about all these genders that don't feel like either men or eeries?
Is it more sensational to be polar opposites and content without query, or bewildered by the ambiguity which is completely obfuscated from cerebral midgets?

So yeah, I'm a guy. Maybe women find that eerie. I don't think so though. When we boil out the male stereo-types, we are still left without a clouded solution. It is the simplicity of man which threatens the likes of woman.
"How can he understand all the things I'm feeling if he cannot discern his love for football from a fine Cuban cigar?"
"Why is it so hard to listen to me speak about all the thoughts and feelings enveloped around one situation for many minutes without interruption?"
Answers? Maybe.

Many times being male comes along with roles some of us love to play, others hope the situation never arises. Being a man is nothing to bitch about, only because men shouldn't bitch.
Let me illustrate some examples of things guys don't bitch about:
"Why do I have to investigate the scary noise at 3am? I did it last time. It's your turn."
"I took out the trash, and disgusting slime ran down my arms and legs."
"These groceries are really fucking heavy."
"My truck and genitals are in no way directly proportional."
I have never heard these complaints, they might exist, but it's probably in a peculiar situation which might defy stereotypical examples anyway.
So what's the mask men put on?
We're supposed to be strong/tough, brave, mechanical/handy, tall, and powerful.
Passionate/loving, docile/tender, intelligent, and clean are all anomaly traits, often sought, and usually mixed within any combination of the basic characteristics.
What does this leave?
Mixed stereotypes. Now guys are supposed to be: Selfish/Self-driven, rough/tough, dumb, and dirty/unkempt. So anomaly desires by stereotypical women are such men.
Within male community, anomaly traits must be kept hidden or minimized in quantity, because such an individual would become a social outcast among other men. Sometimes, but not always, retreating into the world with other similar men.
The acceptable patterns in an all-male environment are best characterized as emotionless, competitive, calculating, socially plugged in, and sexually fed.
We are stubborn, and we are apt to refuse to show any sign of weakness.
We make fun of each other and rank our comebacks.
If we can't fix it or make it better, we know a guy who can, cheap.
If anyone doubts our sexuality we point the finger: "Hey, I have a girlfriend."

What the hell is going on in society? I'll bore you with a theory.
Beginning of time: women were taken, relationship non-existent.
Much later: Women could get divorces because their asshole husbands were sleeping around and beating them.
More recently: Women demand and get a whole bunch of social equality, relations still stilted.
What's up now: Some unknown number of women want a relationship with a man who can be a "friend." Some of us saw When Harry Met Sally, and do not require an explanation about the men cannot be friends with women law. (Not theory.)
So what happens when a man wants to befriend a woman, or vice-versa? Chaos, my friend.
So now we have a minimum of two new genders:
Women who want men who cannot possibly be in their previous social norm.
Men, who are completely straight, yet are called 'faggot' from passing traffic.
Or are they completely straight?

What exactly happened when the notion of homosexuality entered the field?
Anomaly men wanting anomaly men?
Women wanting other skewed women?

I wish to refer back to my baseball-shaped graph I drew in class.
Sexuality is easier to define:
A being sleeps with a)men b)women c)either d)neither
Gender I'm going to define as everything fulfilling outside intercourse.
A being wants to be entangled with
a)roughneck man b)sensitive/caring man c)pussywhipped man d)nurturing woman e)amazon f)Gwen Stefani
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say that for every person out there, there's a gender.
There's no day/night light/dark, or man/woman. Black and White are not applicable.
Why? Because the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What did we learn? That Good and evil are really confusing, and there are volumes on the subject, rarely leaving an ambiguity in who was evil. What do we do when we don't know which is which? Absolutely fucking flip out.

Scenario A:
Killing babies is evil. Privy to knowledge that only one of seven babies in the room will definitely grow up and cause nuclear holocaust, and not knowing specifically which one it is, and having to kill them all and preserve humanity... is good?

Scenario B:
Murder is evil. A mine car is careening out of control and headed to crash into a cliffside, where the unfinished tracks take it. Above, a bridge, with an on looking fat woman peering over the edge. One could nudge this woman over the edge of the bridge, placing her skillfully in the way of the mine car, saving the lives of four people inside. (If you are negotiating the value of the individual human lives, shame on you. And anyway, the fat woman has cancer, and the four people in the mine car are future Nobel laureates).

So why don't we have a male gender and a female gender? Well, let's look at something.
God makes man. God takes part of man, makes woman. Whether we are to perceive woman as a slight change from man, or as this subtle difference creating a world of polar opposites. Either way, it doesn't matter, because the two slept together. And what happens when mating occurs? The traits go into a battle royal and mix and match however they deem fit.
First two offspring: Male. Sexually? Yes. Gender? hm... let's see.
Cain... born first... proud. A tiller of fields, strong, burly, etc.
Abel... born second. A shepherd of sheep. Sure you gotta be strong to lug those lambs around, but hey, I’m sensing some sensitivity here (and definitely blaming Eve).
We're not far into Genesis before Cain yells out "Fag!" and throws a rock at Abel, and wanders off like nothing happened.

I think the conclusion was given to us before the argument even started, thanks to L. Weeks.
The general public cannot tolerate ambiguity, and must define things in binary terms (white/black, light/dark, man/woman). When something is clearly not definable by one of two categories, some man goes apeshit and kills someone.
And it's usually the guys who kill people. And I think it's also guys who are last to tolerate ambiguity. We like the rigid, clear, and tangible. Games have rules. Rules are followed or else. Fire is hot.

So this actually had nothing to do with intercourse at all.
Penises go into Vaginas to make the latest anomalies to the collection.
Live and love, people. Tolerate the uncertain, but remain paranoid of the communists. My advice to you.

9 Comments:

At 10:34 AM, Blogger Meg said...

i have no idea what to write in this comment box.

i want to scream at you that this is all true, but at the same time, very limited bullshit - you don't mention a lot of the ambiguities that make up the majority of our daily interactions, our families, the idiots we work with.

so am i an anomaly for demanding more ambiguity, or simply because i'm a lesbian and feel underrepresented (while, at the same time, fulfilling stereotypes all over the board, some of which aren't even "mine" to embody)?

or did you simply want to narrow the scope to write-able length and terms?

and really, can you do that?
can you write an essay, any piece of formatted writing, about ambiguity or experimentally analytical thought without betraying the intention?
can you manipulate conformity to express noncomformity?

i dont know. i'm not sure you can.

(it is only 1030am though, so anything i say is pretty much up for ignoring until about two hours from now...)

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger wolfrog said...

I mean if you want me to write Candide in one night at 5am until however long it would take to complete the point that there's some sort of garden that needs tending, I would totally do it.
Because you're hot.
And i do stuff hot people say.
Because i'm weak.
But you're absolutely right, Meg.
Plus it's totally hard to write about, and ironically absolutely difficult for me to comprehend stereotypes and ambiguities.
I didn't know about the stereotypes of people before moving to San Diego. I used to imagine everyone's world was entirely different and unsurmountable. It was only later I realized that people are in fact slaves to genotypes, phenotypes, and simple characterizations.

I'm going to make the educated assertion that, yes, you are an anomaly for demanding ambiguity. Perhaps the opposite extreme from grunting fag-hater is a person who actually seeks out and thrives on these intangible subtleties and yields aforementioned hotness.
So I guess that's my question to the Lesbian Writers Guild:
To what extent are people of queerness attracted to ambiguities instead of made uncomfortable by them?

 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger mysticowlick said...

"To what extent are people of queerness attracted to ambiguities instead of made uncomfortable by them?"

Well, havng made this statement, I think it's safe to conclude that you, sir, are not a genuine person of queerness.

That is, if there's something you're trying to get at.

However, if your general intention is simply to provoke us, by way of clever rhetorical loopholes, then I guess you win. But until this ambiguity is resolved, your queerness is, at best, suspect.

<3

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger wolfrog said...

It's neither fair, nor the point of the exercise to i.d. the author.
since we are to accept that we are in a realm where things not only cannot be described with language, but they lose their mystic quality, and get devalued by any attempt at definition, you're not going to be able to make any resolutions here.
If this was construed as a personal blog, where I was trying to identify my own gender and sexuality, then maybe the subject of my queerness would be an appropriate topic of discourse. Being self-aware and completely comfortable in my skin, I'm not struggling to ascertain my position in society or among the ranks of how different or unusual I may be. I believe the point I made earlier was that no two people have the same gender or sexuality.

So: it may have been confusing to you to come across the intonation used by "To what extent are people of queerness attracted to ambiguities instead of made uncomfortable by them?" because it's isolated from the rest. Anything marked by "To what extent" should be reminiscent of school and mandatory essays. I was speaking (writing) ironically.

Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say "queerness" and what you mean by there being a loophole.
I was most definitely not speaking rhetorically, because:
a)I'm not frustrated that you responded, and
b)The idea was to get people to comment on the topic.

Being suspect of my own queerness sounds like an ambiguity to me. Perhaps if this makes you uncomfortable, then it is your own queerness which is doubted.

 
At 6:24 PM, Blogger Meg said...

i thought we were talking about queerness in the OK with ambiguity sense (a label that applies to some people in our class, regardless of sexual preference), not in terms of sexuality?

sorry, i just happened to confuse things by actually being queer (from the island of lesbos).

or am i off?

 
At 12:14 AM, Blogger wolfrog said...

Excellent point.
We are definitely grounding ourselves in words we actually have definitions for, and in terms of class.
I'm trying to distance sexuality from queerness, but it's apparently difficult to pretend to see things that way. But think of it in contrast. Anyone who tolerates ambiguities is not an ordinary, straight, human being. This leaves us with some choices
A) Not ordinary - queer.
B) Not straight - queer.
C) Not Human - mutant.

I guess i'm A/C. Yay for wintertime air conditioning.

 
At 5:53 AM, Blogger mysticowlick said...

"A) Not ordinary - queer.
B) Not straight - queer.
C) Not Human - mutant.

I guess i'm A/C."

I'm really not trying to be an irritable bastard, but I do think it curious that we're talking about ambiguity, and our nonresistence to it, and also, at the same time, seeking a consensual boundary for the definition of queerness. I know it's expedient to do it this way, else what is language for? But to me it seems the whole point is not to redefine a coherent literary theory of identity (or any other commentary that necessitates an us/other dichotomy (or rather, in this case, straight/gay, ordinary/weird, human/mutant)) but simply to develop an appreciation for the perception that boundaries are often blurred when you look up close, and that, if you look even closer, they can even appear to be illusory, arbitrary or just plain nonexistant.

So what do we do with this newfound and utterly revolutionary appreciation? Well, I guess that's what separates us from those "straight" types :-D

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger wolfrog said...

Hey, if you have something to say, you probably shouldn't make it ambiguous with words likes 'suspect' and 'curious.'
The purpose is not redefining an existing thing, we're taking an idea suggested in class and applying it to the known world to see how it interacts. THAT, my friend, is the study of man.

 
At 12:36 AM, Blogger mysticowlick said...

Speaking of A/C...

http://www.fat-cat.co.uk/amcollective_large.mov

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home