Strictly 4 My Underground Homo Deep House Thugs: DJ Sprinkles - Midtown 120 Blues

isn't what other animals do kind of irrelevant to radicality, being more or less relative to human societal norms

I'm just saying homosexuality itself sort of exists outside of ethics, hence (to some extent) radical/establishment dialectics.

Like, OK, so we're not supposed to want marriage. We're not supposed to want to change our sex to more closely align our inside with society's standards of the outside. Are we supposed to routinely and regularly jerk it in public in the name of gay radicalism? Would that do it?

(And I guess by "in public" I mean not gay bars.)

at this point then i just think thaemlitz's point is based on one contradiction too many

eric, i have a headache right now so i won't go any further, but this statement— "I'm just saying homosexuality itself sort of exists outside of ethics, hence (to some extent) radical/establishment dialectics" — is so myopic that it sort of made me chuckle through the pain.

ti4rn4n, you're right, but what Bersani eventually comes to (and Hocquehnghem suggested even earlier) is that queering in any fashion is exactly what you're talking about— a reconstituting of heterosexual, capitalist cultural norms, so that the heterosexual matrix in some way still controls the very 'subversion' that queers are supposedly performing. this is why i've sort of abandoned the self-identifier 'queer' in a lot of ways, since i sort of agree with Bersani and Hocquenghem on the issue.

ok but I feel like the only answer to that would be "uh, we know." I don't think anyone trying to emulate hollywood movie-stars, or atlanta cheerleaders is really gonna be too upset by someone pointing out that they're copying straight culture. I mean, its pretty obvious. There's extended bits where they talk about Dallas or one where Venus Xtravaganza talks abt wanting to become a suburban housewife.

well, i'm not saying that the people within the ball'r culture would be upset....in fact, i never said that. don't really know why yr response was so condescending.

There's no reason why homos need to think they're outsiders, tabes.

there are plenty of examples of and reasons as to why homos ARE outsiders. whether a homo wants to think and act like an outsider is a matter of choice. but when the dominant culture is so fucking repellant, i personally find it revolting that anyone would want to be an insider.

I guess you're not charming enough.

With a few reservations I agree with Alfred here. Historically, gays/lesbians etc were obv outsiders in the sense of being legislated against or entirely invisible or etc. And emotionally, radical queers sensibly believe that all people who go through the (usually at least partly painful) process of coming out ought to consider the sense of alienation they have felt as inclining them towards a deeper appreciation of radical class/sex/race (in addition to queer) politics. But this is clearly not the case for the vast majority of GLBTs, who are radical in barely greater proportions than any other community groups in the developed world. It is difficult today to see the experience of growing up gay or lesbian etc. as being, for most people, substantially more politically meaningful than growing up obese, say. Social alienation of any type can be politically empowering... or, perhaps rather, energising - I think in practice much of the process of politicisation of young queers is not always "empowering" in any meaningful sense, but rather is an extension of the kind of adolescent suspicion of authority and sense of oppression-of-identity common to many teenagers (but which, having had to hide their identity, young queers may not have enjoyed as fully as their straight peers), enlivened by a mostly very superficial reading of queer/marxist/feminist (and very occasionally race) theory, but ultimately something to be "worked through" until the young firebrand is finally comfortable with their (let us not be in doubt here) sexual identity, at which point their political opinions may be worth listening to, or at least honest.

At any rate, if capitalism is good at anything, it is accommodating (I will not say "commoditising", which would be the more correct but emotionally-loaded term) and catering for the needs of social groups such as GLBTs (as a whole or in its more specific formations). In this sense capitalism perhaps can only be said to the be the enemy of queers in the sense that it can be said to be the enemy of any person who is not a 19th century white male factory owner ("if only they would realise it!"). No political movement outside of anti-capitalism itself can be said to exist "beyond the horizon" of capitalism, which is why anyone who thinks queer identity is somehow the fundamental basis of all radical politics is usually being egocentric.

I say this, of course, as someone very sympathetic towards the political aims of politicised queers!

My niece was born three days ago. I know exactly what it means to feel like an outsider: the older brother with no hope of bringing progeny into the world. I don't need to make myself an outsider.

You live a self-charmed existence, don't you, Ted.

Shh! Don't disturb his young gay smugness!

All's I'm saying is that a lot of forms of so-called radicalism in this particular context are starting to smell strongly of self-promotion.

Whatever, I'm just going to listen to "Hush Now" again and again. Among us non-radicals, silence equals comfort.

> I would like the authors those articles to tell me why they think homosexuality is inherently radical in the first place, given other animals do it without killing each other, et al.

first, those were examples of people challenging the notion of inherent radicality. second, the notion comes from dominant culture positioning homosexuality as a "threat" to dominant mores. "radicality" becomes a way of attempting to wield that possible power granted by dominant cultural fears.

...or something.

> I'm just saying homosexuality itself sort of exists outside of ethics, hence (to some extent) radical/establishment dialectics.

scary! replace "homosexuality" with "heterosexuality" and you have just written the formula for why we're in this mess.

His Resident Advisor podcast is really, really good - I'd love a copy of his private Depeche Mode remix.

No offense, guys, but I really want to hear a Weird Al parody of the intro.

replace "homosexuality" with "heterosexuality" and you have just written the formula for why we're in this mess

I guess that's always been my point here. This insistence on maintaining "otherness" errs when it tries to eradicate stray elements of "with-ness."

I come away from some queer theory feeling like the authors want me to disown my mother and father for daring to be heterosexual.

^^^ This is a pretty poor reading of queer theory unless you were reading, like, agit-prop zines from 18 yr old baby-queers. (The real-life example of this when I was at uni was a zine a girl I knew put together called "An Introduction to the White Capitalist Hetero-Patriarchy")

If anything, actual queer theory tries to break down any assumption that there is an "absolute" difference-in-identity between heterosexual and non-heterosexual people. It suggests that heterosexual people are constructed in pretty much the same way as homosexual people, the importance part of which is that it means they are a construction (i.e. not "natural", "god-intended" etc.). The consequence of this of course is that heterosexuality loses the monopoly on rightness. But, conversely, it cannot hold the monopoly on wrongness. Queer theory doesn't dislike heterosexuals, it dislikes a taxonomy of sexual identity (read: perversion) that tries to hypostasize what it means to be not-straight. It no more equals a hatred of heterosexuals than the feminist insistence that women can choose their lifestyle equals a hatred of men.

What a lot of people think of as "queer theory" is really a badly assembled rainbow coalition my-first-marxism which pats itself on the back for apparently transcending or revolutionising "gay identity politics" (because gay men are sexist classist racist pink dollar slaves after all) and then turns around and asserts the same brand of identity politics it claims to reject.

It's much closer to a misreading of Catherine McKinnon (i.e. radical feminism) than a misreading of Foucault etc.

Haha I don't the Rainbow Coalition is what you think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow/PUSH

It may be a bit of an Australianism to use "rainbow coalition" in the context i'm using it. It's less an official term than a put down.

Well in that case, the Australianists picked up the name of an American organization only tangentially related to gay rights and misused it.

You gotta admit that it's a great term for what I'm describing.

Sorry, but as an American, and probably even moreso as a black American, I just have whole other set of connotations associated with the term.

At the same time, it's perfectly understandable if non-Americans are unfamiliar with Jackson's organization.

right but rainbow coalition is a term used to mean a lot of different things in different countries anyway, usually multi-party majority governments

Oh. We don't have those.

Yeah exactly that's where the phrase comes from originally I'm pretty sure!

Alright, I guess I've been proven wrong.

about rainbows?

1. Call me an adolescent. I don't really care.

2. To Eric: Beavis said it better than I could: first, those were examples of people challenging the notion of inherent radicality. second, the notion comes from dominant culture positioning homosexuality as a "threat" to dominant mores. "radicality" becomes a way of attempting to wield that possible power granted by dominant cultural fears.

As stated above (in my last post), I don't really think that anyone has to embrace ^^this 'possible power'^^ of radicality as a prerequisite for being a homosexual. PERSONALLY, I embrace it because I believe it does have some power in threatening and challenging dominant cultural mores.

3. Tim F., I've been reading agit-prop queer zines since I was that teenager you're describing, and at this point (ten years later), I'm relatively well-versed in a lot of queer/feminist theory. However, I do find that the energy and passion of queer teenagers (especially punk rockers) remains energising and invigorating to me, though I am sometimes disappointed in the myopic nature of their anger.

3. To Alfred and Eric: I'm no less smug than either of you, so shut the fuck up.

(and tho i said it on the gay thread: alfred and eric, let's just agree to disagree. let a thousand flowers bloom, etc.)

Which gay thread, table? Clearly I'm missing out.

I have to say, this thread (which I'm somehow just reading now) warms my heart for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is how the DJ Sprinkles album spurred this much broader conversation about queer identity, etc. Good to see homos and the homo-friendlies stepping up to talk about some interesting, relevant stuff. More, more I say!

Mods: please retitle this thread Refutations of Smugness: DJ Sprinkles - Midtown 120 Blues

3. Tim F., I've been reading agit-prop queer zines since I was that teenager you're describing, and at this point (ten years later), I'm relatively well-versed in a lot of queer/feminist theory. However, I do find that the energy and passion of queer teenagers (especially punk rockers) remains energising and invigorating to me, though I am sometimes disappointed in the myopic nature of their anger.

I'm not disappointed - they're teenagers! They're supposed to be energetic and passionate in their hatred of parents. I just think Eric is too quick to conflate that with queer theory per se.

In much the same way that anti-globalisation rallies would fall over without teenagers but we don't award those same teenagers book contracts with Verso (or do we?).

unless it's a compilation of Aaron Cometbus writings, I don't think so. (and one of those has already come out!) (well, and Aaron is more of a 40-year-old teenage at this point)

This thread is really making me want to dig up the queer-theory-informed paper on drag I wrote when I was 19.

feeling too lazy to put that in 'v much in character' thread

> at this point then i just think thaemlitz's point is based on one contradiction too many

she'd probably be really glad to read that... :)

one of my best friends "surprised" me with this disc recently. told her about it about two weeks ago and it showed it at my door about two days ago. very excited to listen it it.

I love the conversation its generated on the thread.

http://img160.yfrog.com/img160/982/capture01jan122229.jpg

*facepalm*

this record is really beautiful

yeah, it's really rockin my world.

It's become my favorite disc of last year. In perpetual repeat (or almost so) in my car.

I feel fairly confident after four or five listens in saying that it's my favorite of '09, as well.

love it. how sick is the bass all over this album?? probably my favourite of the year too.