Butch in Progress

[K] We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming of fabulous gayness of all varieties for a newsflash on the boundlessness of human stupidity.

While studying (yes, it happens from time to time) I came across this little gem:

• Susan Sontag writes a text, “Fascinating Fascism” published in Under the Sign of Saturn, about the dangers of fascism and fascists aesthetics -
• Random editor thinks this would make a great book cover:

Seriously, dude, SS - that’s the best you could come up with?

Say it with me: Major FAIL!

[K] Oh my, dear Hollywood, new stories must be hard to come by. AfterEllen already lamented the lazy insanity/insane laziness you show by having not one or two, but actually three version of Snow White in the making. (Quick question here: are you hoping to speak to a different demographic each time, or do you think that your demographic likes sequels so much, they must go crazy over seeing the same story told three slightly different times?) Also, you probably know this, but between this ‘darkest of them all’-version starring Sigourney Weaver (!) and the ‘sweetest of them all’-Disney version, I feel like the story of Snow White and the evil fairy is pretty well covered and lit from a lot of different angles. But, that may be just me and my insane purism. Go ahead, and proove me wrong.

Now, however, you hit me even harder.

Read More

[K] The real F-Bomb during Sunday night’s Academy Awards Ceremony was not the expletive uttered by “Best Actress in a Supporting Role”-winner Melissa Leo in her (kinda longish) acceptance speech. Instead - ask for example the “younger demographic” via twitter - the real F-Bomb was a dude called James Franco, formerly known as Hollywood’s (and Yale’s) wunderkind.

Woah … I’ve got one eye open, right? Wait … what’s that shimmering thing ….

That the stoned-out-of-his-mind F-bomb really blew up the show was obvious to everyone, who wasn’t on the exact same mix of intoxicants he was on. But we at Butch-in-Progress take our research seriously and so we waited with our verdict until it was official - which, as of yesterday afternoon, it is:

James Franco and Anne Hathaway weren’t merely lousy Oscars hosts — they were the worst in the last 20 years, according to the results of an online poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times’ Awards Tracker blog at The Envelope.

We tried… well, one of us did anyway.

Read More

[K] Pop Music … isn’t it lovely? No? Well, sometimes it is. Anyway, at least it is ubiquitous, which is an achievement in and of itself. And since we are consequently pretty much used to it, I guess we also all (attention: broad assumption ahead) agreed to try to not pay too much attention to whatever there is playing on the car radio/supermarket channel/department stores speakers/cinema hallway, younameit.

Over time expectations were lowered due to pro-longed exposure - I accepted that pop music is not the place for poets and lovers of Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman - which is fine, because they have their own place in the world somewhere else (libraries, I guess). I moved on, even hummed along in peacefull oblivion of what is actually going on in a song - that is, until once in a while, a line from a pop song is so amazingly stupid, so incredibly thoughtless and dumb, it basically yells at me and stops me dead in my tracks (pun intended).

Three cases in point:

• Beyonce - If I were a Boy

If you were a boy, that’s not what you’d look like (and for future reference: a white shirt doesn’t make you pass as a dude, sorry)

I’d put myself first
And make the rules as I go
‘Cause I know that she’d be faithful
Waiting for me to come home, to come home

I know, I rambled about thus before, but you have to admit it: Miss Knowles has pretty scary ideas about gender roles and the power dynamics in straight relationships. Even if i ignore the blatant sexism of what she thinks she can’t do, unless she’s a guy (such basics as go for a drink with friends or wear the clothes she feels comfortable in), that line about how ‘the man’ and ‘the woman’ behave when in a supposedly loving, committed partnership still creeps me out … not only a little bit.

Read More

[K] Don’t panic, kittens, or try to find my real name and adress to go on a witch hunt for me - this post won’t claim any misstep or failure on Rachel Maddow’s part (in fact, I’m probably way to biased to recognize such a thing or even believe in its existence).

Seriously, what could go wrong?

Instead I want to draw your attention to a recent event, which I would claim falls under the category Major FAIL, despite the fact the Rachel Maddow attended (Be brave! Until last night, I also thought of this as inconceivable), namely The 2010 Theodore H White Lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School, where the assembled faculty and students managed to easily proof their ignorance and lack of preparation and/or respect for the night’s honoree, Rachel Maddow (exactly, how dare they!).

Yes, I was indeed in the same room as Dr. Maddow and fortunate enough to listen to her lecture live - prepare to be jealous in 3,2,1 - now!

Despite temporal outrage and constant eye-rolling (not only by me) during the event, I had originally decided against writing about it, since its pop cultural value (and therefore its relevance for this blog) might be debatable, but after some googleing of the event this morning and not finding any critical voice out there (lame and double-lame), I feel the need to be just that. (Bear with me for a moment, I will make my rant worth your while by adding some pictures of Rachel Maddow. Deal?)

The dog might be the one private thing not mentioned last night

Did you know, how Rachel Maddow came out? That she is gay? I mean, a real-life-lesbian with short hair and stuff? You did? Great! Evidently, so does the head of the Kennedy-Center, who - for reasons unknown - was so proud of this knowledge that he chose to tell us just that, when introducing Rachel Maddow’s lecture on being a gay icon the state of current political journalism. To make sure, we understood what he was trying to tell us (I still don’t), he went on to fill the audience in on some more about her private life, former hairstyles and basically everything else there is to say about Rachel Maddow - if you leave out those minor details actually related to her work and career. To be fair, he did mention the Rhodes-Scholarship-thingy, at least in passing - but who cares about professional and academic achievements at LGBT fundrasing events Ivy League institutions anyway?

I know, Rachel, me too, but we seem to be the minority here

After Rachel Maddow gave an equally funny (“I can see journalism from my proverbial house”), provocative (“It is not brave this new world, but it is new”) and just plain interesting talk about nostalgia for ‘good old days’-journalism, the press’ standing with the public, the complicated entanglement of politics and press, the shift away from governing to entertaining in politics, the seemingly ever-widening devide between conservative and liberal media and the future of political journalism, the Q&A then shifted again to questions about … autobiographical details, T-Shirt gifts, personal (his)stories and blatant attampts to be covered on The Rachel Maddow Show (seriously, dude?!)

Look, dear (4 of my) readers, I off all people understand best the need to get to know Rachel Maddow and sit down to have a drink with her (and discuss her dislike of Vodka, which I hereby officially declare I’d like to cure), I comprehend the wish to discuss gay rights (she is, after all, a vocal supporter and former activist), butch identity (soo tempting) and wardrobe choices (How dare she make glasses cool, when I finally got rid of mine!). Last night, however, were neither the GLAAD-awards, nor some Lambda-Event or my private “You put the sexy back in Ph.D.”-gala.

Consequently, why a room full of aspiring politicians, scholars and journalists didn’t have anything profound (or critical) to ask the woman, who has interviewed the president, singel-handedly more or less doubled her channel’s ratings in her time-slot, reported from Afghanistan earlier this year and has been handpicked by Jon Stewart to discuss his “Rally to Restore Sanity” will forever be beyond my grasp.

Too bad Harvard doesn’t seem to know/care …

Unfortunately, it was only on the subway ride home that I finally knew, what question I wanted to ask her:

“On a scale from 0 to 10: how much does it bother you, when people get too distracted by you being gay to focus on you also being an accomplished and successful journalist?” (That, admittedly, would be the Major FAIL on my part).

[K] There is, of course, another Major FAIL! to report this week.

But here, at Butch-in-Progress, we had our own little disaster. In came in the form of a Youtube-Warning and looked like this:

Seems familiar? If yes, it is possible that you haver either

• (a) gotten your search entries for Youporn and Youtube mixed up or
• (b) tried to access lesbian-themed content on the world best-known video portal before and … failed - technically you didn’t, but someone clearly did. (More on that below.)

I actually could once not watch a Xena Fan-Video because of Youtube’s policy on nudity or sexual content - only: Xena had neither nudity nor sexual content, as far as I remember: all Xena offered its devoted and starving-for-representation lesbian audiences was lots of delicious subtext, some rather chaste cuddling and around 3 occasions of (female) lips touching (female) lips.

In our most recent encounter with this nice little, “family-friendly” warning, we were trying to link to BBC’s official (!) preview for Episode 4 of Lip Service. Granted, the scene was defintively less chaste than Xena and there was nudity. [B], however, was selflessly willing to re-watch te scene and couldn’t find shots or pubic hair or nippels. Which leaves us with little censor-worthy content other than the hint of sex betwen two women - but you can’t really censor people’s imagination, can you?

As it turns out: yes, you can. Or at least I can’t find any other explanation for the following rather ‘generous’ rating by the infamous MPAA. Both campy satire But I’m a Cheerleader and classic romantic comedy with a twist Imagine Me and You received what rating? PG, maybe PG 13? Nope, a solid:

Accordingly, anyone under 17 would need an accompanying parent or adult guardian, of they want to watch this films.

If you need a little reminder, that’s Imagine me and you at its most raciest and raunchiest:

Shocking!

Right?

Not so much, I guess.

At least not, if you consider other films that have received a PG13-rating recently. (Like, let’s say, The Social Network, which features numerous scenes of drug and alcohol abuse, nudity, sex in bathrooms, a bunch of assholes and more or less all women depicted as mind- and useless.)

If you’d like to be both educated about and entertained by this mess, I recommend the documentary feature This Film is Not Yet Rated about the MPAA’s rating policy, especially concerning the different handling of sex and violence as well as homo and hetero sex scenes in film. Need extra incentive? If features interviews with John Waters and Jamie Babbitt as well as a kick-ass real-life - albeit not ‘Skinny Grease Ball’ - Dyke Detective.

Consequently: Double Standards and Bias in Censorship = Major FAIL!

(In case, your nit-picky about words and their usage -as you shoudl be- , let my clarify: Rating is a form of censorship, especially in the US, where R and NC-17 rated often have trouble finding a distributor, media outlets for advertising etc.)

[K] So this past weekend I talked about fun stereotypes - those that make it easier to tease your best lesbian friend, impress your little brother (we’ll talk about lesbian and power tools in the near future) and spot potential gay ladies around you - even though the whole hipster chic thing’ made this last part trickier than it used to be, this still holds true:

And then there are those (non-fun) stereotypes some (ignorant) straight people have about lesbians. Most of the time, you will have no idea, where these stereotypes might come from or how to respond to them, when people ask for clarification.

This brings us straight (pun intended) to the ‘Major FAIL of the week’: (non-fun) stereotypes,which lead to (non-fun) stereotypical questions.

Whe confronted with questions of this category and torn between leaving the room infuriated, engaging in a (at least on your part) serious and reflected discussion about gender, sexuality and culturally sanctioned behavior atterns, or simply putting the pool cue in your hand to good use (you won this round anyway):

We here at Butch-in-Progress care about the well-being of pool cues everywhere, which is why we present to you a list of stereotypes and questions, you might want to be prepared for, in case you meet a person of heterosexual inclinations or for the sake of brevity PHCHL (“Person Having Chosen a Heterosexual Lifestyle”) in search of the truth about ‘the gays’.

• Gender Roles

[PHCHL] So, ahem, who’s the guy in your relationship?

[K] I’, sorry for the confusion, but you misunderstood me … I know ai am taller than you etc, but when I said I was gay, I meant lesbian …

[PHCHL] I know, that’s why I asked.

[K] Ohh … you may want to look up the word ‘lesbian’ again, then. (Thank Goddess for the Smartphone and Wikipedia:) “Lesbian is a term most widely used in the English language to describe sexual and romantic desire between females.”

• The Origin

[PHCHL] When did you first realize that you were a lesbian?

[K] If you are talking about ‘lesbian’ as a gender identity … I honestly can’t remember, 1st grade maybe, kindergarden? If you mean ‘lesbian’ as denoting a sexual identity, then … sometime closer to puberty. As a political idenity … around 18?

[PHCHL] Why do you have to me so complicated? Whatever, how about the butch thing?

[K] In retrospect … when I risked to get hurt defending a female friend against an annoying older bully on the school bus … but then I fainted from the pain, so maybe that wasn’t the butchest thing to do after all.

• The Politics

[PHCHL] All lesbians are hardcore feminists!

[K] You say that, as if it’s a bad thing …

• The Appearance

[PHCHL] Why do all lesbians look so masculine?

[K] Oh, that’s easy: because some lesbians feel more comfortable in clothing and appearances not traditionally associated with feminity and you mistake the rest for straight.

• The Phallus-Obsession

[PHCHL] Have you ever slept with a men?

[K] Nope …

[PHCHL] But then you don’t know what you’re missing!

[K] Neither do you.

[PHCHL] Plus: you’re practically still a virgin!

(Sidenote: This comment came from a close friend to makes things worse …)

[K] And by ‘practically’ you mean from a medical point of you or emotionally or …? I think, we should talk about your definition of sex, honey.

Which brings us to every lesbian’s favorite:

[PHCHL] So, you know, what do lesbians do in bed? *Wink, wink*

[K] I can’t, of course, speak for all lesbians, but I most of the time I use my bed for sleeping purposes.

Sometimes I fall asleep, while reading texts I wantd to prepare for the next class meeting …

I also like watching DVDs in bed.

I don’t like eating in bed, though, not a big fan of crumps.

When I still lived in a 1-bedroom-flat, I used my bed as seating during parties.

Now that I am abroad, I sometimes write for this blog or skype in my bed.

Even though it’s not the most exciting place to do it, I really like having … conversations in bed.

Hm, let me think, what else do I do in bed?

…

I come.

…

To the conclusion that this is really none your business …

[K] In honour of Amy Poehler’s return to SNL (the only thing better than Tina Fey’s return) and her Weekend-Update sketch, I’d like to start this rant with a heartfelt REALLY?!? [Insert name of prestigious Ivy League University, which shall remain anonymous] REALLY?!?

Being the nerd that I am, I spent last night at a discussion about the feminist potential of pop’s current biggest female stars: Beyonce and Lady Gaga. Drinks and cupcakes were served, the couches were comfy, I was optimistic (for once) and then … the disappointment settled in. I mean, REALLY?!?, two hours of talk and mentioning Lady Gaga, Grace Jones and Madonna and no one talks about drag or the empowering potential of ‘female mimicry’, gender parody, the burlesque tradition of Mae West and the camp divas that followed her? Not once utter the word ‘queer’?

Because, you know, by simply bringing yourself to say this simple and rather short word and then to think for two seconds about its implications in the otherwise utterly heteronormative setting of maintream popular culture, one might have summarized the difference between Beyonce and Lady Gaga quite neatly (without belabouring age-old quotes about their ideas about feminism by either of them).

This is not to say that Beyonce is not a very accomplished business-woman or to question her status as an icon of strong womanhood. Or to imply that one needs to be queer to be feminist. It’s just to say … well, how about we let these two speak for themselves instead of me getting lost in my ranting?

• Where Beyonce perpetuates patriarchal stereotypes about what men and women can, or rather cannot do:

If I were a boy
even just for a day
I’d roll out of bed in the morning
and throw on what I wanted and go

Drink beer with the guys
and chase after girls
I’d kick it with who I wanted

(and leaves me thinking: why do you need to be a guy to do all that?), Lady Gaga, well, she just is one:

• While Beyonce commodifies and objectifies herself, rejecting any iniative on her part

Cuz if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it(!)

(Why didn’t you put a ring on ‘it’ yourself?)

Gaga is far from modest about her own desires

I want your love.

See, it’s that simple. Just say, what you want, grrrl. (BTW: Single Ladies is still fun to dance to, don’t get me wrong. I can forget about my queer-feminist credentials once in a while, possibley even easier when at a club. Unless, we’re talking about Katy Perry - my body refuses to move, seriously.)

• Where Beyonce needs her alter ego Sasha Fierce to go ever so slightly beyond the nice-girl-persona her public image is based on, Lady Gaga radically dismisses any notions about coherent identities and pushes the envelope of expressions of feminity (or lack thereof).
• Where Beyonce makes herself readily available and consumable for the ‘male gaze’ (not, it’s not the same as ‘male gays’) in Videophone

Watch me on your video phone, on your video, video
If you want me you can watch me on your video phone

Lady Gaga won’t even by reached via voicemail (sidenote: I can’t text with a drink in my hand either. I used to be able to, but then the Iphone happened).

• Where Beyonce seductively fondles a phallus symbol

Gaga instead dons a strap-on

And to those, who tried to make the point that all Gaga says and does which could be interpreted as maybe-feminist, is belied by the fact that she is still conventionally attractive and made up to please straight male audiences, wearing revealing costumes and commodifying her body … may I ask you to look at this?

Yes, there are breasts and flesh and thighs and blonde hair. But if you want to see nipple, you’ll have to look past raw meat. ‘Readily available’ for consumption is the opposite of this, I’d argue. Unless you want to tell me that the grinded-meat-porn I once stumbled across in a sex shop (in Hamburg, no less … don’t ask), was the first sign of a turning away of straight male porn viewers’ from the fetishization of lesbian sexuality to that of their lunch…

Until then, I’d say the “Feminist/Transgressive Showdown” is won by Lady Gaga and the major FAIL of the week remains a discussion, which didn’t even bother to compare the different notions of feminism in the first place.

[B] If all of [K]’s favorite ‘Ex-gay’ moments didn’t work out for you … check this out: Join any ex-gay boot camp/movement/church you like - not to become your true self, but to find new potential lovers, or to learn how to ask god for help with your actual crush.

[K] I’d like to think of this as the first installment of a new, but regular blog category, like, let’s say: The major FAIL! of the week. Under this headline [B] and me would then enlighten the inclined reader about things that were doomed to failure from the beginning, but somehow people still tried (or even worse: still try). Examples could include Star Trek, Episodes 1-3, Sarah Palin’s candidacy for vice president, The Real L Word, the presence of the father of two 15-year-old girls dressed only in bikinis, make-Up and blonde wigs at the Lady Gaga concert last week, the entire carreer of Katy Perry and ‘curing the gay’. (As Rachel said, it’s not catching like the measles or something. I promise!)

But maybe this is to much pressure for a Monday morning, so let’s just say: It’s election time in the US! And the only thing more fun than finding out your potential representative used to be a witch, is getting to know that she also used to be a b*tch - a homophobic one that is, to be more precise.

Allegedly Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell used to be involved with an organization called SALT (Attention please: Bible reference!), short for “The Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth”. One goal of SALT? You guessed it: sending wanna-be-ex-gays to Christian boot camps, where they spend emotionally and physically strenuous times in all-male/all-female environments, until they crave the opposite sex (or are brainwashed to be disgusted enough with their feelings and desires to at least choose celibacy over stable, fulfilling and loving relationships with other consenting adults.) Why this works so smootly? Because poeple “are not gay; they ‘struggle with same-sex attraction’ (SSA).” (On a sidenote: my favorite quote from the text: “Clearly, gaydar has yet to be invented on planet Exodus.”)

Ah, suddenly everything makes so much more sense! I see my live in a completely different light now - and I am not the only one. Films and TV have shown us again and again that change is indeed possible. As an inspiration let me present to you an overview of my favorite ‘Ex-gay’ moments in the media:

You want to know just how much fun future-ex-gay boot camps can be? Watch But I’m a cheerleader, it’s clearly working for her:

If that’s not the way for you - how about prayers? Despite Callie’s insistence on ‘You can’t pray away the gay’, you might want to give it a try:

Still not convinced? No problem, as Will & Grace teaches us, there’s always a welcoming support group to help you with your struggles, while Karen channels her inner Ellen:

If you need a quick rundown of your options, before you reach the decision of how to conquer your SSA, let me refer you to Bryan Safi’s “That’s Gay”:

What, still not straight? You really are one man-hating-dyke tough cookie! But it’s for seeminglny hopeless cases like yours (and mine) that the world came up with Richard Cohen. In case, you’re not familiar with his work, let Rachel Maddow help you:

Ok, so Rachel Maddow didn’t present him from its best side in this video - it’s probably better, if we let him (and his book) speak for himself:

I’m reading it from your book, dude!

Ok, maybe this wasn’t helping either.

But even if you should find that neither praying, nor counselling or ‘Cuddle Therapy’ is the way for you, don’t fret! I’m here to help and show you that there is hope for all of us: the fool-proof, guaranteed-to-work-or-you’ll-get-your-money-back way to cure your gayness (or to be more precise, lesbianism. I’m sorry, but this seems to work only for the ladies) is the one and only …

Ben “The Anti-Lesbian Sex Bomb” Affleck. He’s shown his amazing straightening skills in “Chasing Amy” (or so the film claims, I would have simply assumed Amy’s bisexual. I’m naive like that) and then did it again in the massive-hit feature film “Gigli”, starring the most convincing gay-for-pay actress ever: Jennifer Lopez.

Excuse me, while I’ll netflix “Dare Devil” and “Armageddon” and cuddle with an Angie Harmon look-a-like, until I overcome my SSA.

Check back tomorrow for our first installment of “Straight in Progress”!