LGBTQ at Tulane

In a recent “Tulane Talk,” a daily email/newsletter that informs the Tulane community of Tulane events and awards, it highlighted Drag Queen Bingo, a Bingo event hosted by a New Orleans drag queen promoting sexual and alcohol responsibility. I was shocked when I received the email because I wouldn’t have thought that Tulane would highlight such an event. Being a southern university in a very conservative state, I would have thought that Tulane would try to be hush hush about these kind of things. I thought the administration would be scared to stir up prejudices within some conservative Board of Trustees or other very influential people. I’m glad they showed video of the event and promoted it because it shows that Tulane is somewhat inclusive of the LGBTQ community. However, I would argue this is the expectation to the norm. Rarely do I see institutionalized LGBTQ support on campus. This is supported by the fact that there isn’t an LGBTQ Director available in the Office of Multicultural Affairs. One was requested, but wasn’t approved because of the hiring freeze. This clearly shows the underemphasis Tulane has put on the LGBTQ community here. There is an LGBTQ student organization, but it is severely non-influential on campus. The organization as a whole has a lot to do in order for it to become the success I believe it could be. I ask myself, because it seems to me that there is a large gay community (specifically just gay men, not LBTQ), “Why couldn’t a LGBTQ student group on campus be successful and why hasn’t it been successful in the past?” I would also like to know whether or not Tulane has a non-discrimination clause including sexual orientation and gender identity. This is something I’d definitely be interested in looking at. I’d also be interested in looking at how inclusive Tulane policies as a whole are toward students, staff, and faculty. Furthermore, I feel that if anything is to be done to change LGBTQ people on campus need to get together and propose change as a unified group. Right now I feel like the LGBTQ community on campus is disinterested in each other.

All of these things are just like the other

Now I certainly did not want to write my first post on this, but after going around and commenting on the other posts on this blog I can’t help but feel that I am approaching things from a slightly different angle. We are all talking about sexuality and society, how sexuality is portrayed in the media, how we portray our own sexuality, what famous people say about sexuality, what the public says about sexuality, heteronormativity and how much we all hate it, how idiotic the media is in portraying complicated sexualities, how fucking stupid commercials for products geared towards men and women are, etc.

We are all talking about the same thing. We are all trying to understand how sex fits into this great, many-geared machine that we call society, and this is a difficult proposition. But I feel as if I am coming at this from a disadvantage. I’m the straight white guy. I  am trying to understand why there are no other straight white guys in the gender and sexuality department because my sexuality is just as complicated and difficult to understand as anyones. It is something that I need to come to terms with, that I struggle to understand. Yes, the entirety of society is geared towards telling me that my sexuality is okay, that my feelings are perfectly natural, and I understand that I am privileged in this regard. But, somehow, all of these supposed outlets that I have do not bring me any further to an understanding of my sexuality.

Yes, maybe I am being oversensitive, and in fact I probably am. But it is a genuine concern of mine that my opinion might be considered less valid because I am coming from a position of “privilege”. My roommate–a self-professed “diehard feminist”–has told me that as a recipient of male privilege that I have no right to be participating in a discussion of the problems of women, and that trans women also do not get to have a say in that matter, because for a portion of their life they received male privilege. Yes, occasionally, I have been known to make an off-color comment, something that is not as progressive as I would like it to be. But you point it out to me, and me, as a logical, thinking being, can correct those thought processes and be better in the future. I would absolutely encourage everyone to take a gender and sexuality class, just as I would encourage everyone to take a sociology class on race in America. You need to take the time to understand your surroundings, and the people around you, and most of all, yourself.

Really, this is all a lot of hubbub about who we like to fuck. A simple, really base thing–the most basic thing–and this enormous fractal–let’s call it “society”– spins off of it.

We’re all fundamentally the same, just introspective people. It’s a good quality to have.

Valentine, Valentine, Won’t You Be My Valentine?

So, Valentine’s day is coming around the corner again. I know, I know — Valentine’s Day seems like an all-too-easy target for analysis and critique in terms of gender stereotypes, much like shooting heterosexist fish in a socially genderd barrel (or something), but I would like to hit on a few thoughts that initially pop up when the holiday comes to mind.

The first reaction: yes, it’s what you probably thought. I don’t always love playing into the idea that there’s only one day out of the entire year that I get to say and do special things with my loved ones/partners/sexy friends, because it feels pressured, designed and sterile. I also don’t usually buy into the heavy focus on monetary exchanges, like presents, because sharing an experience with someone always seems like it would last much longer than a box-o-chocolates. There’s such a gendered expectation that comes with Valentine’s Day — go get your girlfriend flowers, buy your boyfriend cologne, take her out to dinner, go home and have fantastically mediocre missionary sex, and fall asleep with a few half-empty bottles of Pinot Grigio next to the bed. All of this runs through my head as I critically analyze the holiday and what it fails to offer me.

I think, though, that I often miss an important point. Valentine’s Day, like any other day, can be made and remade into what we desire it to be. Sometimes, we need a reminder in order  to embrace the idea of showing our loved ones exactly how we feel about them. Without the extra push, for some of us, it might not always happen. And I think this ties into my favorite idea of self-made identity. As much as my identity as a gendered individual involves the social expectations I meet on a daily basis, it is also very strongly a concoction of my own creation, met outside of those heteronormative, bigendered social boundaries. I think we can remake Valentine’s Day to suit our own needs, and not those of the Hallmark greeting cards. Isn’t that, in itself, defying gender roles, by creating our love-holiday how we see fit? I think this especially holds true for those outside of the heterosexual market, the queers who often have to make holidays their own in the first place.

Just to round this out: if you think you might hate Valentine’s Day, but you’re feeling anti-American about the whole thing and therefore just a little guilty, do not fear. Carrie Underwood apparently hates VD, too. And how more American can you get? Thanks, Carrie, for putting our anxieties at ease.

"No problem, y'all."

Gay men…making male breeders uncomfy?

In a city that thrives in Catholic heritage, I often wonder how New Orleans is deemed  one of the most decadent and lewd cities in the U.S.  (Us Catholics sure do know how to party though…especially when the SAINTS dominate!!)  While re-reading Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, I came across the Council of Trent breakdown, as Foucault mentions that as early as the 16^th century, the Roman Catholic Church began to evolutionize and define Protestant heresies (what Christians shouldn’t do or think), original sin, along with their sought of controlling people’s sexuality for the stability of the Church (18).  This effort was an attempt to increase the power of the Church, and we all know what follows when religion speaks out…politics intervene.  State laws now issue boundaries on homosexuality and gay marriages, as the sole goal is to “benefit the economy.”  Though, “this scheme for transforming sex into discourse had been devised long before [the] ascetic and monastic setting [of the Middle Ages] (20).”  Western views hold that sex is power, how could the Church and state resist from interfering with the power of sexuality?

We learn that there is such an array of factors that contribute to us defining our own individual sexuality, as sexuality constitutes a core feature of our identity.  Foucault claims through his theory of the Repressive Hypothesis that sex is repressed and is infused in everything we do.  Basically, sex has many boundaries , and our 21st century society have come to police ourselves and hold back from speaking about sex/sexuality based on these boundaries.  On the one hand, boundaries enable pleasure, moving to the other hand- we transgress these boundaries to reach pleasure as well.

In a class discussion debating: people are repressing their sexuality versus people believing sex is repressed, I recall a gay bar experience that happened over the victorious WHO DAT? weekend.  Two of my heterosexual friends, a girl and a guy, were downtown on Sunday. The girl, *Elizabeth*, walked into Lafitte’s in Exile bar as the guy,*G*, quickly followed close behind, checking out the atmosphere.  G, reluctant to be in a gay bar, became extremely uncomfortable and asked Elizabeth to stick close by because he was afraid of getting “hit on.”  Why is it that heterosexual females are so comfortable with being at a gay bar, yet the male “breeder” can’t hang?  Is he living as if sex is repressed and repressing “homosexuality”  at the same time? Walk a couple blocks further G…Lafitte’s Blacksmith Shop is probably where you *wanted* to end up!



Gender Equality or Male Inequality?

A female professor showed in class last week a segment from The Daily Show detailing the suffering and disenfranchisement of men in the workforce. Entitled “Male Inequality,” the piece follows Samantha Bee into a meeting of the Better Man Organization and cites a man named Dr. Warren Farrell, who claims that men “are not understood” and do not “have options.” Dr. Farrell goes on to claim that women outnumber men in the field of pharmaceutical sales because women are able to use their sexuality in selling pharmaceuticals to (male) doctors. Members of the Better Man Organization right these wrongs by venturing out into the woods to talk about their feelings and share wisdom, mostly while standing in circles.  On one hand, I will concede that the men do make some good points about gender stereotypes and their inability to ‘gather and talk about their feelings.’ On the other hand is what struck me the most about this segment, and that is the increasingly prevalent idea that female empowerment does not bring equality but male disempowerment. Men are loosing opportunities in low level positions like pharmaceutical sales, but are still the majority in high power, high salary positions, like doctors. As Samantha Bee points out, men run only 485 of the Fortune 500 companies and only 3 branches of government, but the loss of male domination in the workforce and in positions such as pharmaceutical sales representatives somehow leads to the idea that men do not have options. Even still, sexuality is pervasive in the discussion of women in the workforce. The idea that young, attractive women are able to use their wiles to gain career success is reminiscent of the discussion we had about taking tips from creepy old men. Is this practice lending to the sexualization and oppression of women in the workforce, or are women who take these jobs capitalizing on their own sexuality and gaining career success in their own way? Furthermore, how much potential for advancement does this strategy allow? Are women keeping themselves in a submissive and sexual role in the workplace, stunting the possibility for serious advancement?

Superbowl, Super Misogynistic

Sure, lots of guys watch football, but a few Superbowl commercials have taken this stereotype too far. One commercial in particular, one selling cars, characterizes marriage as a sort of compromise of masculinity. It shows images of many different male faces voiced over by none other than the actor who plays the psychopathic Dexter. It tells the audience that menial tasks like answering the phone when your significant other calls, or listening to them when they speak, or putting the toilet seat down (a clever reference to our biological differences that cues and privileges heterosexual relationships) or carrying lip balm (because no real man would want to avoid chapped lips for fear of appearing effeminate) are hardships all men must face. It tells us that they deserve an expensive, gas-gusling car, which will in the act of driving it characterize “MAN’S LAST STAND.”

I’ve linked the video from hulu, which, for your convenience, allows you to sort the loke/dislike vote by age, location, and gender! I encourage you all to spend some quality time there.

http://www.hulu.com/adzone/watch#50032682

Another one is an ad for men’s skin care with the slogan “because you’re a man.” This one tells us that men must fight, change tires, open pickle jars, and balance their hectic lives, and now that they’ve done this, they can relax because they have proven that they are men. Another is for pants, “calling all men” to wear the pants, presumably in their relationships, thereby reclaiming their manhood and inherent superior positions as men. One uses femininity as an insult in a sports atmosphere which is countered by the standard “that’s not what your girlfriend said” joke.  I don’t even know what Godaddy.com is and I am afraid to check because according to commericals, it’s a porn site that shamelessly reduces Danika Patrick, an impressive female race car driver, to her sexuality. Let me know if I’ve missed any.

I was watching the morning news today and a man claimed that the ads were making fun of men. He obviously wasn’t paying attention or maybe what he was trying to say is that the ad companies were catering to stereotypical ideas of sex roles in an effort to connect with what they believe men want to hear and what they want out of their lives. In doing this they deny the possibility for a complex personhood and an evolved populace who are beyond the identities society seems to be grasping onto for dear life. Surely without supporting the normative sex roles civilization would crumble to pieces. If only they could be transplanted to Plato’s time.

Maybe they didn’t think that anyone other than heterosexual males would be watching. They were wrong. And here I was thinking we were past this. I guess I was wrong too.

Lambi a Rele

Hey guys! I mentioned this event in class and now they have their very own WordPress. I thought it would be fun for our WordPress to mention their WordPress. Like a fun WordPress friend!!!

Check it out here

Damsels in Distress, but Why?!

In my weekly perusal of NYTimes.com (as contrasted with my daily perusal of gossip blogs and fashion sites, but I won’t bore everyone with those) I came across the perfect article for my first contribution to our blog: “Damsels in Distress, Bozos in Heat” by Neal Genzlinger. The author compares Spike TV to the Lifetime Network as inherently gendered television stations in a similar way to the comparisons we did between gendered products in Intro. However, as I read through the article eager to shed some light on the social construction of gender through a real life journalist (for the NYTimes, no less!) I was pretty disappointed. He makes some interesting observations but comes to no conclusions other than superficial ones (a gal’s perfect day based on Lifetime’s take is saving themselves from being murdered by their husbands just in time to put their kids on the school bus, more or less). While I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek nature of the article and understand his humor in detailing the gal’s perfect day, why couldn’t he have used this forum to delve deeper into the female and male psyche. In Intro, we were told not just to detail the different products’ attributes but to explain why they were these ways; not just that the Secret deodorant bottle was pink but what pink says about our cultures interpretations of female desire. So, Neal, if I can call you Neal, I ask you this: tell me more than just Spike TV has shows featuring skinny girls and Lifetime has shows with smart ones; tell me what that says about our culture. Why would a television network geared toward men want to portray women as skinny bimbos? What does that say about our societies bias towards men as the more intelligent gender and what does that say about our society in general? And to our current class, what do you think? If this blog were published on the NYTimes instead of WordPress would we, as Gender Studies students, be a little more analytical than Neal was? I would argue yes, what about you?

Guidos and Metrosexuals, oh my

What is a metrosexual?  Is he merely an urban heterosexul man who puts a lot of effort into his appearance, is he a straight man with “gay” interests (whatever those may be), or is he shifting our hetero/homosexual dichotomy?  As David Halperin points out in his article about the “History of Male Homosexuality,” men who cared about grooming and looks were seen as effeminate.  Today, that attitude is not only emulated, but has become totally mainstream.  Glamour magazine spotlights articles about “manscaping” and “boyzillians,” and television is teeming with programs like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”—is this the new sexuality of the 21^st century?  Will all men soon be gym rats, waxing enthusiasts, wine connoisseurs, facial moisturizer-wearing 5^th avenue shoppers?

The most recent media portrayal of the modern metrosexual is MTV’s Jersey Shore.  This cinematic masterpiece follows seven twenty-something self-proclaimed “guidos” during their summer at the New Jersey beach.  Guidos can be spotted wearing Ed Hardy/Aflliction tshirts several sizes too small, displaying their bulging muscles sculpted carefully after hours at the gym; orange skin after many hours in the tanning bed; with gelled and/or blown out hair; doused in cologne; and generally drinking alcohol.  These men imitate a sort of European style, often referring to their Italian heritage, and are very concerned with their head-to-toe appearance.  These men are hypersexual, attempting to sleep with as many women as possible.  The macho men of today are awfully similar to the effeminate men of the past.  Which era had it right?

Furthermore, is this what I have to look forward to?  As men have changed from unkempt and rough to preened and plucked to tanned, waxed, and bulked up, must I adjust to what I’m attracted?  Look out world, next time you see me I may be wearing dark lip liner and a bump it.

Lady Gaga: Is She THAT great?

I don’t know about all of you but I am always perplexed about what to think about the pop star Lady Gaga and all of her public appearances. I am always wondering whether she actually picks her clothes and fashions her own videos or does someone else do it. I am also always so confused about how different her look is from her artistic expression in song.. since I think it is quite Britney-esque. I was intrigued a week ago when I found my self watching yet another one of her videos, I hate her but she’s hard to not watch…, and someone was telling me that she may be a hermaphrodite. I was so shocked since I really don’t think there is any basis in this claim since there is no E! news knowledge on it (at least to my own knowledge) and was then wondering why such a rumor would begin to circulate? Is it because she can’t just wear something individualized from normal clothing her body too has to become subject to difference? Just a thought I had….