I don't exactly disagree, but
OK. The whole play-gay bandom thing.
phaballa 's original post (edited), response that I actually liked, meta thing:
I don't understand why people cannot either nicely state a disagreement and ask for a clarification, agree to disagree, or shut the fuck up if you don't have anything nice to say (you know, like you learned in kindergarten). Some of the comments people have left about this are ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, based on their own thoughts and experiences and biases, and if you value your ability to speak yours, then why the fuck is it so hard to value that ability for others?
/public service announcement
My thoughts on the subject (a not-quite refutation):
Note: quotes in italics are from
phaballa
And I think maybe partly it's because a lot of emo boybanders are so young that they don't quite understand the difference between gender and queerness, and because they're not (admittedly) queer, they don't understand how playing at being queer could be offensive.
1. Gender and sexuality aren't actually that far removed from each other, especially for the heterosexual male.
When we talk about gender, we mean the actions which indicate to others our gender - how we dress, talk, walk, gesture; the opinions we express, and who we sleep with. When we describe men - the qualities and behaviours of men - we list things like bravery, bravado, toughness, stoicism, lack of emotion (or emoting, at least), sexual promiscuousness, physicality, money making ability, assertiveness, overt sexual desire of women.
Men who fail to express these qualities are: fags, pussys, pansies, cunts, bitches, cocksuckers, and homos.
We live in a male normative culture - one in which maleness is the highest pinnacle to which one can aspire. Not by being a male, in genitals or in chosen gender, but by acting as one, by fulfilling the behavioural expectations that come along with that name, male persons become "Real Men." That normativity can be seen in the names men get called when they fail, names of the inherently non-male - women and homosexuals. The implication is that a real man is never a gay man.
2. In our gender differentiated society, in which the roles we play in life are dictated by our perceived gender and our entire social order is in many ways dependent on this gender differentiation, much of the stigma of homosexuality stems from the "threat" it poses to that gendered social order.
Because heterosexuality is so inherently tied to maleness, and we live in such a male normative society, any attempt to increase the acceptance of homosexuality (or, really, any sort of alternative sexuality) inevitably encounter this barrier. With that barrier removed or subverted one of the main "gut reaction" objections to queerness is eliminated.
3. Any action which allows gender to be removed from sexuality is good.
The play acted queerness of these bands removes their sexuality from gender by normalizing queerness in the eyes of their (huge) audience. When the audience accepts that these men are men without the defensive shields of assertive heterosexuality, the make possible the acceptance of this in all men. Considering the age of their audience, these bands are doing this for the people who are most able to make that huge paradigm shift and to act on it - children. The people who like these bands can't be homophobic (at least, not in the traditional sense) and do so, and this creates a generation - the most important one, in terms of future change - of persons who not only accept or tolerate homosexuality but for whom it is an incomprehensible issue - people are people (sure, gendered people even) and the idea of discriminating against them is ridiculous, laughable.
4. On the topic of them not being "out."
Of course, choosing a heterosexual relationship doesn't *negate* queerness, but on the other hand, none of them are willing to come out and say, "Yes, I'm pretty gay" or even "I'm sort of bi", and until they do (and that's a BIG 'until' because I don't think they will...) I will continue to find it offensive that they're playing at being queer.
I want kids to have queer role models and to see that people from all walks of life, including guys in their favorite bands, are queer, too. But I want those guys to ACTUALLY be queer if they're going to play at it, otherwise it just feels really exploitative, whether it's for money or fans or simply their own amusement.
There are a two facets* to this: A) why aren't they out, and how does it impact the perception of their (play or non) genderqueer selves? and B) is it exploitative for them to "prey" on the sexual identities of their audience for the purpose of profit (as "straight" men)?
A) Of course, I don't know why they aren't out. Popular opinion and basic logic says that either they aren't gay, they are gay and don't feel it would be good for their careers to be out, or they are gay and are just coming to terms with it/aren't out to themselves. Should they be out? Would it really be better/ more beneficial to the community for them to be out? After all, there is stigma attached to being gay in our society - there's no avoiding that. To be out and an aspiring anything in the public view is to severely limit that appeal of one's act. Not to branch off onto broad generalizations, but how many mainstream (keyword, there) artists can you name who were out before they became popular? For me, only t.A.T.u, and I don't think anyone ever actually believed they were lesbians. Also they were only popular for, like, a week. Not saying one way or the other doesn't have that same stigma. Most likely, these bands never would have made it had they been out - we wouldn’t even be sitting here discussing this.
In terms of how their indefinite sexualities influence the effects of their gendequeer antics, I believe that they make them more, not less, accessible. Their ambiguity allows both straight and lgbtqq audiences to relate in ways that a definite statement of sexuality would not.
B) Determining exploitative behaviour is fairly subjective at the best of times, possibly more so in this case, and I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, we live in a capitalist economy; it is geared toward making money, specifically toward making as much money as possible, off of as many people as possible, through whatever means possible (and I do mean whatever means - sweatshops do exist). If this is the ultimate goal of our society, can we really begrudge those who act in the interests of that goal, even if we find that act distasteful, and especially if we only find it distasteful, not harmful?
On the other, you know, they're kids (mostly). These bands play on their insecurities regarding their sexuality, and their gender identity and their desire to see hot guys make out, and that's fairly shady. One could argue that, well, they do get something out of it - they get a ready-made community sans all that pesky homophobia and are, perhaps, better for it, but I think in this case the determination comes down not to a weighing of the good and bad effects, but to question of intent.
And the intent of the fake gay? Is to appeal to the sub/counterculture of genderqueers and discontents who then, with the aid of their disposable income, make them very very rich and popular. So, yes, even without being offended by the fake-gay, or believing that it is harmful, I find these bands inherently exploitive.
This brings me to my final, slightly tangential, point:
5. MY problem with the contingent of 'emo' bands that has invaded MTV of late, and how that in no way means that my next post won't consist of a truly ridiculous number of bandslash recs.
This may sound weird coming from someone who reads popslash, but I have a huge problem listening to any kind of pop music. It has gotten better in the last couple of years, but for a long time I just couldn't.
Pop music is marketed as art but isn't. Most of it isn't even written by those who perform it. Most of the performers are mediocre at best, and are chosen for mass appeal and appearance rather than talent. Songs are never about any subject of substance, but catchy and conformist, at any given time the majority of pop artists' sounds are nearly identical because they all share the same five producers and writers. Hit songs aren't stumbled upon but manufactured, through a combination of consumer studies, marketing propaganda and clear channel payola. Controversy, or even strong opinions regarding anything are carefully modulated - even the "rebel" music stars are never too opinionated (think: pink, avril, good charolette, blink 182) - the only reason they have them at all to bring in the money of the misfit contingent.
In my veiw these new post-punk/emo bands are just another example of trying to milk the profits out of all subsections of the music buying community. And they do offend me, although not because of their stage antics. They offend me because they are poseurs. They are marketed as punk - and they just really, really aren't. They are marketed as original, and alternative and edgy, but they spill the same conformist bullshit as everyone else, are on the same labels as everyone else, have the same marketing people as everyone else. So they shop at hot topic, so they've been to a scene show and learned how to style their hair, so they have some tattoos - so they appeal to their target audience. I hate that my sister, if she were to listen to popular music, would have no idea what actual punk sounds like. She'd have no idea that she was ever even expected to have an original thought. But, really, she's not. At least not according to them. It is not in the best interest of the music industry for consumers to think outside of the bounds they have set.
So, how can I think this and still read pop-and-bandslash? Well. I have no problem reading in a fandom of which I have never even seen the source material, or with source material that I don't know very well, for starters. I can recognize that the people in these bands are merely victims of a capitalist society, an therefore cannot be blamed for acting in the ways they were trained to act. I can separate the persons in the bands from the mechanisms of the music industry, even while recognizing their presence. I can also recognize that the characters in bandom that I love are fannish constructs, and not actually those people. Yes, fannish constructs based on their music and interviews and respective timelines, but fannish constructs all the same (which is not to say that there is no such thing as characterization, although I really, really don't want to get into that right now). And final, I can embrace my geekishness and the child in me that never really minded being taken in by propaganda, as long as it meant I got to have fun.
*I'm going to ignore the Pete-Wentz-must-defend-my-masculinity bits for the purpose of this because, um. Pete kind of scares me, and not in a good way.
Hee, that was fun. Comments, thoughts, angry diatribes?
phaballa 's original post (edited), response that I actually liked, meta thing:
I don't understand why people cannot either nicely state a disagreement and ask for a clarification, agree to disagree, or shut the fuck up if you don't have anything nice to say (you know, like you learned in kindergarten). Some of the comments people have left about this are ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, based on their own thoughts and experiences and biases, and if you value your ability to speak yours, then why the fuck is it so hard to value that ability for others?
/public service announcement
My thoughts on the subject (a not-quite refutation):
Note: quotes in italics are from
phaballa
And I think maybe partly it's because a lot of emo boybanders are so young that they don't quite understand the difference between gender and queerness, and because they're not (admittedly) queer, they don't understand how playing at being queer could be offensive.
1. Gender and sexuality aren't actually that far removed from each other, especially for the heterosexual male.
When we talk about gender, we mean the actions which indicate to others our gender - how we dress, talk, walk, gesture; the opinions we express, and who we sleep with. When we describe men - the qualities and behaviours of men - we list things like bravery, bravado, toughness, stoicism, lack of emotion (or emoting, at least), sexual promiscuousness, physicality, money making ability, assertiveness, overt sexual desire of women.
Men who fail to express these qualities are: fags, pussys, pansies, cunts, bitches, cocksuckers, and homos.
We live in a male normative culture - one in which maleness is the highest pinnacle to which one can aspire. Not by being a male, in genitals or in chosen gender, but by acting as one, by fulfilling the behavioural expectations that come along with that name, male persons become "Real Men." That normativity can be seen in the names men get called when they fail, names of the inherently non-male - women and homosexuals. The implication is that a real man is never a gay man.
2. In our gender differentiated society, in which the roles we play in life are dictated by our perceived gender and our entire social order is in many ways dependent on this gender differentiation, much of the stigma of homosexuality stems from the "threat" it poses to that gendered social order.
Because heterosexuality is so inherently tied to maleness, and we live in such a male normative society, any attempt to increase the acceptance of homosexuality (or, really, any sort of alternative sexuality) inevitably encounter this barrier. With that barrier removed or subverted one of the main "gut reaction" objections to queerness is eliminated.
3. Any action which allows gender to be removed from sexuality is good.
The play acted queerness of these bands removes their sexuality from gender by normalizing queerness in the eyes of their (huge) audience. When the audience accepts that these men are men without the defensive shields of assertive heterosexuality, the make possible the acceptance of this in all men. Considering the age of their audience, these bands are doing this for the people who are most able to make that huge paradigm shift and to act on it - children. The people who like these bands can't be homophobic (at least, not in the traditional sense) and do so, and this creates a generation - the most important one, in terms of future change - of persons who not only accept or tolerate homosexuality but for whom it is an incomprehensible issue - people are people (sure, gendered people even) and the idea of discriminating against them is ridiculous, laughable.
4. On the topic of them not being "out."
Of course, choosing a heterosexual relationship doesn't *negate* queerness, but on the other hand, none of them are willing to come out and say, "Yes, I'm pretty gay" or even "I'm sort of bi", and until they do (and that's a BIG 'until' because I don't think they will...) I will continue to find it offensive that they're playing at being queer.
I want kids to have queer role models and to see that people from all walks of life, including guys in their favorite bands, are queer, too. But I want those guys to ACTUALLY be queer if they're going to play at it, otherwise it just feels really exploitative, whether it's for money or fans or simply their own amusement.
There are a two facets* to this: A) why aren't they out, and how does it impact the perception of their (play or non) genderqueer selves? and B) is it exploitative for them to "prey" on the sexual identities of their audience for the purpose of profit (as "straight" men)?
A) Of course, I don't know why they aren't out. Popular opinion and basic logic says that either they aren't gay, they are gay and don't feel it would be good for their careers to be out, or they are gay and are just coming to terms with it/aren't out to themselves. Should they be out? Would it really be better/ more beneficial to the community for them to be out? After all, there is stigma attached to being gay in our society - there's no avoiding that. To be out and an aspiring anything in the public view is to severely limit that appeal of one's act. Not to branch off onto broad generalizations, but how many mainstream (keyword, there) artists can you name who were out before they became popular? For me, only t.A.T.u, and I don't think anyone ever actually believed they were lesbians. Also they were only popular for, like, a week. Not saying one way or the other doesn't have that same stigma. Most likely, these bands never would have made it had they been out - we wouldn’t even be sitting here discussing this.
In terms of how their indefinite sexualities influence the effects of their gendequeer antics, I believe that they make them more, not less, accessible. Their ambiguity allows both straight and lgbtqq audiences to relate in ways that a definite statement of sexuality would not.
B) Determining exploitative behaviour is fairly subjective at the best of times, possibly more so in this case, and I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, we live in a capitalist economy; it is geared toward making money, specifically toward making as much money as possible, off of as many people as possible, through whatever means possible (and I do mean whatever means - sweatshops do exist). If this is the ultimate goal of our society, can we really begrudge those who act in the interests of that goal, even if we find that act distasteful, and especially if we only find it distasteful, not harmful?
On the other, you know, they're kids (mostly). These bands play on their insecurities regarding their sexuality, and their gender identity and their desire to see hot guys make out, and that's fairly shady. One could argue that, well, they do get something out of it - they get a ready-made community sans all that pesky homophobia and are, perhaps, better for it, but I think in this case the determination comes down not to a weighing of the good and bad effects, but to question of intent.
And the intent of the fake gay? Is to appeal to the sub/counterculture of genderqueers and discontents who then, with the aid of their disposable income, make them very very rich and popular. So, yes, even without being offended by the fake-gay, or believing that it is harmful, I find these bands inherently exploitive.
This brings me to my final, slightly tangential, point:
5. MY problem with the contingent of 'emo' bands that has invaded MTV of late, and how that in no way means that my next post won't consist of a truly ridiculous number of bandslash recs.
This may sound weird coming from someone who reads popslash, but I have a huge problem listening to any kind of pop music. It has gotten better in the last couple of years, but for a long time I just couldn't.
Pop music is marketed as art but isn't. Most of it isn't even written by those who perform it. Most of the performers are mediocre at best, and are chosen for mass appeal and appearance rather than talent. Songs are never about any subject of substance, but catchy and conformist, at any given time the majority of pop artists' sounds are nearly identical because they all share the same five producers and writers. Hit songs aren't stumbled upon but manufactured, through a combination of consumer studies, marketing propaganda and clear channel payola. Controversy, or even strong opinions regarding anything are carefully modulated - even the "rebel" music stars are never too opinionated (think: pink, avril, good charolette, blink 182) - the only reason they have them at all to bring in the money of the misfit contingent.
In my veiw these new post-punk/emo bands are just another example of trying to milk the profits out of all subsections of the music buying community. And they do offend me, although not because of their stage antics. They offend me because they are poseurs. They are marketed as punk - and they just really, really aren't. They are marketed as original, and alternative and edgy, but they spill the same conformist bullshit as everyone else, are on the same labels as everyone else, have the same marketing people as everyone else. So they shop at hot topic, so they've been to a scene show and learned how to style their hair, so they have some tattoos - so they appeal to their target audience. I hate that my sister, if she were to listen to popular music, would have no idea what actual punk sounds like. She'd have no idea that she was ever even expected to have an original thought. But, really, she's not. At least not according to them. It is not in the best interest of the music industry for consumers to think outside of the bounds they have set.
So, how can I think this and still read pop-and-bandslash? Well. I have no problem reading in a fandom of which I have never even seen the source material, or with source material that I don't know very well, for starters. I can recognize that the people in these bands are merely victims of a capitalist society, an therefore cannot be blamed for acting in the ways they were trained to act. I can separate the persons in the bands from the mechanisms of the music industry, even while recognizing their presence. I can also recognize that the characters in bandom that I love are fannish constructs, and not actually those people. Yes, fannish constructs based on their music and interviews and respective timelines, but fannish constructs all the same (which is not to say that there is no such thing as characterization, although I really, really don't want to get into that right now). And final, I can embrace my geekishness and the child in me that never really minded being taken in by propaganda, as long as it meant I got to have fun.
*I'm going to ignore the Pete-Wentz-must-defend-my-masculinity bits for the purpose of this because, um. Pete kind of scares me, and not in a good way.
Hee, that was fun. Comments, thoughts, angry diatribes?