What's astonishing, or totally to be expected, is the total aversion to serious engagement with valuational questions.
How easy to organize a boycott of a Christian T-shirt company. As if formal rules of exclusion cause devaluation. And as if exclusion activism vs excluders restores value.
What would be more difficult for activists? Real value consideration vis-a-vis the recent new rules vs "exaggerated" and "theatrical" movements by (gay) guys on cheer leading teams. The archons of this sport apparently are concern'd that the public assume that all guys who participate in cheer leading are gay and effeminate.
But what should inclusion activists do vis-a-vis the more or less prevalent valuation in America and elsewhere (very much more elsewhere!) that effeminacy is dishonourable, although feminineness is wonderful in womengirls?
If activists declare that effeminacy should be welcomed, are they implicitly declaring that dishonourable mannerisms are to be welcomed? Or do they wish to have it that effeminacy has street cred? so that if Morpheus in the Matrix had been play'd not by Laurence Fishbourne(sp?) by Tim Curry à la Rocky Horror Picture Show, youngsters all over the world should or would have Tim Curry Morpheus as their ego ideal?
How much easier to assail conservative Christians who formalistically don't affirm gay relationships by reference to a formalist statement that sex is only for marriage and marriage is only for a man and a woman. Even though if Hollywood crank'd out movies that made homoerotic street-fighter warrior guys look really cool, Christian clergy couldn't do the least thing to make youngsters respect Christian moral persons, whether liberal or conservative, RC or Presbyterian or Methodist. (We would have liked it better had MLK fought Segregation Man as Neo fought Smith.)
The claim may be that critical-theory academics do consider questions of real valuation, for instance when they deconstruct cultural expressions of masculinity or manliness and discover that NASCAR and football are really covers for homosexual desire; and when they prove that effeminacy in this or that cultural expression (for instance vogueing) is transgressive of social norms.
In a way this sort of thing does treat value, but the studies are bury'd away in journals. Even when lectured on in impenetrable language at undergraduates don't exactly reverse any real experiences of value in terms of manliness and effeminacy.
Besides, critical theory of this sort actually restates the 'traditional' valuation: effeminacy is to be revered on grounds that it is transgressive (awesomely violent, assertive, manly, etc etc); "self" is an aggression against religio-culturo-political norms. Masculinity is reveal'd to be cowardly, timid (contemptibly effeminate) because it is a conformist mask for men and youth who are afraid to admit that they're 100% gay like every other guy.
P.S. This means that those who are opposed to video game violence are homophobic, since video-game violence is an expression of homosexual desire.
Aristophanes makes a 'deconstructive' argument in favour of effeminacy in Plato's Symposium. The youngsters in the homoerotic educational system who eagerly 'mince' forward to embrace their Lovers are more manly than the conventionally manly youngsters who show reluctance.
Plato perhaps doesn't take Aristophanes' argument seriously. In any case, hasn't the 'higher eros' homosexual tradition tended to suppress effeminacy?
But to return to the main point, to consider and do activism on how and in what way the Western public ought (until the imposition of Shariah) to affirm "theatrical" and "exaggerated" movements (effeminacy) in boys and men is much more difficult than to organize a boycott of a white Christian company that won't print gay pride T shirts.
(I know the Christians must be white: white liberals wouldn't insist that any POC company comply with their values. ... I guess the higher love deign'd to descend into the world only to do desublimation battle vs Christianity. Once Christianity goes under as anonymous Christianity, and traditionalist Islam is imposed upon the mess, the higher love is ready to return above the world and give the world over to demotic 'homophobia' however abandon'd effeminate boys may feel to the wolves of manly contempt and hostility.)
4 comments:
What's astonishing, or totally to be expected, is the total aversion to serious engagement with valuational questions.
How easy to organize a boycott of a Christian T-shirt company. As if formal rules of exclusion cause devaluation. And as if exclusion activism vs excluders restores value.
What would be more difficult for activists? Real value consideration vis-a-vis the recent new rules vs "exaggerated" and "theatrical" movements by (gay) guys on cheer leading teams. The archons of this sport apparently are concern'd that the public assume that all guys who participate in cheer leading are gay and effeminate.
But what should inclusion activists do vis-a-vis the more or less prevalent valuation in America and elsewhere (very much more elsewhere!) that effeminacy is dishonourable, although feminineness is wonderful in womengirls?
If activists declare that effeminacy should be welcomed, are they implicitly declaring that dishonourable mannerisms are to be welcomed? Or do they wish to have it that effeminacy has street cred? so that if Morpheus in the Matrix had been play'd not by Laurence Fishbourne(sp?) by Tim Curry à la Rocky Horror Picture Show, youngsters all over the world should or would have Tim Curry Morpheus as their ego ideal?
How much easier to assail conservative Christians who formalistically don't affirm gay relationships by reference to a formalist statement that sex is only for marriage and marriage is only for a man and a woman. Even though if Hollywood crank'd out movies that made homoerotic street-fighter warrior guys look really cool, Christian clergy couldn't do the least thing to make youngsters respect Christian moral persons, whether liberal or conservative, RC or Presbyterian or Methodist. (We would have liked it better had MLK fought Segregation Man as Neo fought Smith.)
The claim may be that critical-theory academics do consider questions of real valuation, for instance when they deconstruct cultural expressions of masculinity or manliness and discover that NASCAR and football are really covers for homosexual desire; and when they prove that effeminacy in this or that cultural expression (for instance vogueing) is transgressive of social norms.
In a way this sort of thing does treat value, but the studies are bury'd away in journals. Even when lectured on in impenetrable language at undergraduates don't exactly reverse any real experiences of value in terms of manliness and effeminacy.
Besides, critical theory of this sort actually restates the 'traditional' valuation: effeminacy is to be revered on grounds that it is transgressive (awesomely violent, assertive, manly, etc etc); "self" is an aggression against religio-culturo-political norms. Masculinity is reveal'd to be cowardly, timid (contemptibly effeminate) because it is a conformist mask for men and youth who are afraid to admit that they're 100% gay like every other guy.
P.S. This means that those who are opposed to video game violence are homophobic, since video-game violence is an expression of homosexual desire.
Aristophanes makes a 'deconstructive' argument in favour of effeminacy in Plato's Symposium. The youngsters in the homoerotic educational system who eagerly 'mince' forward to embrace their Lovers are more manly than the conventionally manly youngsters who show reluctance.
Plato perhaps doesn't take Aristophanes' argument seriously. In any case, hasn't the 'higher eros' homosexual tradition tended to suppress effeminacy?
But to return to the main point, to consider and do activism on how and in what way the Western public ought (until the imposition of Shariah) to affirm "theatrical" and "exaggerated" movements (effeminacy) in boys and men is much more difficult than to organize a boycott of a white Christian company that won't print gay pride T shirts.
(I know the Christians must be white: white liberals wouldn't insist that any POC company comply with their values. ... I guess the higher love deign'd to descend into the world only to do desublimation battle vs Christianity. Once Christianity goes under as anonymous Christianity, and traditionalist Islam is imposed upon the mess, the higher love is ready to return above the world and give the world over to demotic 'homophobia' however abandon'd effeminate boys may feel to the wolves of manly contempt and hostility.)
Post a Comment