"Look Both Ways" by Jennifer Baumgardner

You may recognize Jennifer Baumgardner, the co-author of "Manifesta." "Manifesta" was great, a basic and in-depth feminist, well, manifesta for young women of the early 00's. I highly recommend it as a primer.

And then "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics" by Jennifer Baumgardner caught my eye at the library. http://www.amazon.com/Look-Both-Ways-Bisexual-Politics/dp/0374531080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314628877&sr=8-1

I've noticed that the vast majority of nonfiction I read can be divided into two categories: purely objective information and subjective semi-autobiography. Sadly, these two writing styles can be divided between the sexes. Women authors almost always include personal anecdotes and opinions in their nonfiction, while men are more likely to just write the evidence and analysis. "Look Both Ways" really takes the cake - Baumgardner appears to have interviewed only women akin to her class, background, profession, gender expression and urban location. Their stories intermingle with her own - this is not hard journalism, this is a blog. Which is fine! But don't write a 227 page blog of one's opinions and pass it off as "women's studies"!

And then there are all the issues in the book itself. At first, I schlepped through this book to find a few gems of actual information; about halfway through, it became a page-turning hurricane of shock. Many of the "drawbacks" of bisexuality she describes can be remedied by having a spine. A brain wouldn't hurt either.

On page 32, Baumgardner explains her relationship with a man, Steven, and cheating on him with a woman, Amy. She states in very clear terms that her relationship with Steven was just what she always wanted because of her relationship with Amy. By stretching her relationship wants and needs across two people, she was better able to appreciate them both. So what does she do? Dumps Steven! And here I'm stomping on the book, screaming "try polyamory, stupid! POLYAMORY!" Alas, the option of non-monogamy isn't mentioned at all in the entire book.

Page 141: "Women are entering into relationships with men with gay expectations, but they don't know how to actualize those expectations or, sometimes, even acknowledge them. It's part of the paradox of feminism, of feminism's unfinished revolution: women expect equality from their relationships, but not from men." If a woman is in a relationship with a man and she doesn't communicate her expectations she bears the responsibility of her disappointment. And expecting equality in relationships but not from men? Is Baumgardner writing about thinking adults here? She seems to have a pretty low opinion on men in general, but this makes women look contradictory and weak as well.

Page 143, Baumgardner writes about the appeal of a bisexual/lesbian girlfriend to men. The first reason for this, apparently, queer (a term mentioned once in the book) women lack the neediness of straight women. The author herself proved that false: she was very needy in her relationships. The second reason is that a man, who's CLEARLY commitment-phobic, knows that he won't have to commit to a queer woman. This is just insulting to everyone. And the final reason is that queer women tend to be more independent - actually, I really have no argument here. You've read my blog, this isn't news.

Those are all the specific snippets I have lined up. Overall, "Look Both Ways" is insulting. It insults men by calling them inherently misogynistic, emotionally dense, commitment-phobic and insecure. It insults women by calling them needily dependent, always looking for "The One", childlike, and stupid enough to date one of those Neanderthal men while expecting something more syrupy. To be sure, PLENTY of people who fulfill these stereotypes exist - these Breeders (not a sexuality-specific term) are the bane of my existence. Beaumgardner's worldview is so small that these may very well be the only gender roles she knows. How a 40something, bisexual, feminist journalist in NYC could emulate Carrie Bradshaw so well is beyond me.

And it's additionally insulting to pick up a book bearing the subtitle "Bisexual Politics" and to discover "My Repeated Bisexual Mistakes." The one real drawback to bisexuality mentioned in this book is that one's sexuality is perceived as reliant on one's partner. "Oh you're straight now" when dating a man, "oh you're a lesbian now" when dating a woman. So many people don't see bisexuality as a real sexual orientation because their own minds change it based on changing partners. Baumgardner explains this problem...and then implies that the bisexual person feels some kind of guilt?!?!? Guilt for other people's inability to conceptualize fluidity?!? Guilt for not living up to some bisexual role, which apparently doesn't exist because Baumgardner isn't aware of polyamory?!?

A New Trend

Firstly: http://thoughtsonblank.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/i-am-trans-i-just-dont-try-very-hard/

And then my real post:

Either I've struck gold or there's a new trend - I'm choosing to believe it's a new trend - since masculine/androgynous chicks are a hot commodity.

When I was in middle school, high school and college (an all-women college!!), there were many many girls who felt like they had to choose between male attention and their own "masculine" interests. "I love math, but I want to get a boyfriend," or "I always wanted to learn woodworking, but I got married." AAAAHHH SO STUPID!!! And now, particularly when I'm at work, those kinds of women can't have simple conversations with their boyfriends/fiances/husbands.

Clearly, I didn't give up my interests in order to snag a man, even before I came out of the closet. And that makes me really attractive to a lot of straight men now, which I NEVER expected. Knowing sci-fi, carrying a pocketknife, and having welding experience are not only things I enjoy but they also are apparently pretty sexy. This means that, at least at work, I converse with straight guys while their women get very jealous of me. But because they abandoned their interests in order to get a man, all they can contribute is "look, honey, Bristol Palin is on the cover of People magazine!"

At first I thought that I'm just really lucky, but then I talked with a flaming friend who said that most straight guys, regardless of social group, are into "bi girls" now. Whether it's Jersey Shore types into girls making out with each other or nerds into masculine/androgynous women, we're where it's at now!

My point is...
fuck it
READ A BOOK, PEOPLE!!!! ....NOT ROMANCE!!

Sex Positive Feminism + Queer Liberty

As stated in my previous blog post, I'm dating a bioguy. Thanks be to the diversity of Chicago, no straight privilege shit or queer-based biphobia has come my way - just many many MANY questions. The number one question, asked by queers and straights alike, has been how this impacts my identity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm as queer as a purple $3 bill riding a rainbow unicorn.

I'm still on the trajectory that began as I graduated high school and started college. That was when I discovered sex-positive feminism and when I came out of the closet as bi/lesbian/queer. The two lifestyles collaborate, not codependent upon one another, so that one may CHOOSE to base identity upon sex. Active members of the queer community may realize that sleeping with "the same sex" isn't enough the qualify as fabulously queer. What goes on in a consensual bedroom (or bathroom or car or ski chair lift) shouldn't mean anything to the government nor anything to one's movement.

There's this lesbian movie, Go Fish, from the early 90's. It's pretty shitty, but a few scenes stick out in my mind. A dyke playah has sex with a man, then gets captured by the lesbian community and they interrogate her for her reasons and identity. She argued that sex is just sex, that it shouldn't make her less of a lesbian - especially considering all she had done for the community. The lesbians demanded that she identify as bisexual, even if it means she gets less pussy. Another scene shows a lesbian getting married to a man, but fighting to maintain her lesbian history. She nearly suffocates in her self-justification: "I'm a dyke despite my straight privilege" .

Were I not in Chicago in '11, would that be my world? Fellow sex-liberated friends have been through that shit. Is it just a matter of time and place for me as long as I keep dating and fucking people to whom I'm ATTRACTED?

Queer Qualifiers

When I hung out with the Madison Socialists, a newbie at one of the group meetings asked what qualifies someone as queer. As the most visibly queer person in the group*, I answered that someone who doesn't get straight privilege would be considered queer. Then we all had a big discussion on how privilege doesn't actually benefit anyone.

I'm dating a straight bio-guy and a lot of people expect my identity to change, that I identify as bisexual rather than lesbian now. With people who are easily confused or won't invest much thought into gender/sexuality, I let them think what they will. My gender identity had started shifting years ago and, because of that, "woman-identified-woman" hasn't really applied to me for a while. Lesbian is too small a box for all my fabulous queerdom. And don't even get me started on the binary "bisexual" label. The genders of the people I date impact me so little that it surprised me when that was the first place people went upon this news.

Just look at me! I'm not gonna get straight privilege anytime soon. Heterosexism both disrespects gay relationships and elevates straight relationships for no reason; as a confusing genderqueer, the genders/sexes of the people I date are used as judgement. When I pass for a guy or an "it", it implies the guy I'm dating is gay; when I pass for a woman, it implies that I'm straight. Either he gets a taste of homophobia or my queer identity gets smothered by straight privilege. It's a lose-lose situation.

Last week, I went on a date with an androgynous, straight bio-guy and this table of jerky businessmen was leering and laughing at us. I don't know if they thought we were both lesbians or fags or if their behavior would've changed had they known our "opposite sexes" (so many things wrong with that system!). Aaaww my kitty just curled up in my lap! My point is that being gender-variant, especially with complete strangers who know only how you look, is more likely to stir up shit. And rather than trying to figure out who you are, they're more likely to fit you into the "gay", "straight" or MAYBE "bi" box. WHO CARES?!?



* by no means is this a value system or qualifier, it's just how it was. I was far more likely to get odd looks (at the least) in the street than everyone else in the group, who looked normal. Well...normal for Madison.

Gay Identity

I've been thinking a lot lately about gay/bi identity. In growing circles, especially upper-middle, post-mainline-Protestant/liberal-Catholic, semi-liberal ones, there is no gay identity. There's no need to come out, you can bring home anyone (provided they're in somewhat the same parameters as you) and there won't be an issue. In these safe, white-bread circles, there's no need for queer activism because homophobia is not known...except for the state/federal level.

The safety and acceptance is wonderful, but there is no gay/bi identity. I've known a small handful of people in situations like these - one of them took me a few months to wrap my mind around - and they have a really ard time relating to the queer community because they lack or even decline the identity. The thing with these social groups is that everyone is so "straight-acting"; gender variance is Other.

These groups are a lot like the HRC: the safety and acceptance are exclusive no matter how much they pretty it up. They don't see homosexuality and bisexuality as gender-related issues (Riki Wilchins says the exact opposite. I think it depends on the situation) so, if you step outside the liberal-by-comparison gender roles, that welcome is withdrawn. Queerness is held at arm's length or further, nonconfrontational gayness and bi-ness are fine. This is where the gay and bi identities wear away to no identity and leave gender-variant people out in the cold.

The thing is, the government, powerful religious groups, renters, employers, schools, etc. and violent people in general equate all non-breeders with each other no matter how "straight-acting you are." They care about the doing, not the being. The less gender-variant you are, granted, the less likely you'll experience discrimination and harassment. On a government level, though, we're all fucked.

Unfortunately, for a lot ofp eople and institutions, gay/bi identity exists because we are oppressed. Without oppression, our actions and behavior would be considered "normal" so the safety, symbols, empowerment, etc. would not be considered necessary. I honestly don't believe that I would have Pride or even the identity had I come into an accepting environment - it just wouldn't occur to me. I do love my Pride and queer identity!! Not because I'm oppressed but because I love the community, culture, freedom, etc.

Take away the oppression, discrimination, harassment, raised eyebrows, closet, etc. and gayness/bi-ness becomes normal. When it's normal, there's no identity. This is a long loooonnnng way away...but it may happen. I hope that Pride won't wear away with it.