March 6th, 2006

(no subject)

"Queer desire does not transcend or remain peripheral but instead becomes central to their telling and remembering, there is no queer desire without these histories nor can these histories be told or remembered without simultaneously revealing an erotics of power"

This may not make sense to you (nor does it me entirely) but I read it in a book called 'Impossible Desires : Queer Diasporas and South Asian Public Cultures', which I only read the introduction to as it was my friends book, I cannot fully explain what its about right now without the book to hand... I'm working on it... but it did inspire some thoughts about desire, history, nostagia and relationships.

It made me think about how when queer desire occurs it doesn't seem to be created from some nostagic past like 'straight' desire can be, it cannot romantise the past as a good a thing in the same way hetrosexual desire can, because queer history is full, on many levels even integral formative levels, of conflict and abuse (most of the time) so therefore queer desire is quite unique in the fact that it often starts in the present rather than formed from some romantic ideal of the past, but it doesn't ignore the past either.
Sometimes it may consciously erotisizes that conflict (and that power relationship), and by doing so also dealing with it, not sweeping it under the carpet.

In the book it also talks about 'homes', the idea that we can have many homes and these homes can seriously conflict with each other, especially if your queer. For example being from a muslim background you may have strong links with that 'home' or community and you may also have strong links with the queer community, both of these 'homes' are massive parts of your identity but they, on a fundamental level, conflict with each other... and so on an internal level we are torn. What can be born of this is a lust or erotizisation of that conflict... For example with race...

I have grown-up as a working class white girl on a mixed council estate, in this 'home' there was quite a bit of race hate going on at different degrees at different times... asians, black and white kids torn apart by bitter fudes between families, to with race... my perspective of this was influenced by my brother being a skinhead and a skinhead that had some part in the aggression ('paki basher' in other words), I am not proud to say this... but his gang was one of those 'homes' to him and subsequently also for me in some way... but what also was my other home was a contradiction because I had close friends of whom were black and asian (my first boyfriend was mixed-race and my best friend was his sister, they were almost like another family), so in this way that was also my home too.

On top of that I also had a the ripping of homes because of my gender too, my girl home and my boy home... my girl home was my mother, my schitzo hippy mother with her dressing up box and liberal attitudes, my boy home was my skinhead brother, with his scooters and his racist/nationalist attitude... I prefered the boy home to the girl home... but prefered the home I had with my mixed-race friends to the racist attitudes my brother had. Mixed up with all that is the fact I got a kicking everyday for being weird and being a tomboy, my strange combination of tomboy/weirdo hippy probably didn't help... so all my formative experiences are about conflict.. this has a massive impact on my desire in similar ways to what is described above...

I cannot romantise the past to create my desire like most people... all thats in my past is conflict so all I can do is erotisize that conflict and that power or completely forget it, which is impossible.. so because of such I'm like a weird mix-breed of skinhead masculinity, anti-fascist views, a total erotisation of violence and power, and a total attraction/erotisization to what I also despise, authority figures, fascist skinheads and on the other side probably also non-white people and on top of that an attraction to strong but down-trodden femininity because of the women around me when I was growing up. I guess when you think of things this way a lot of stuff makes sense. .. or more confusing one or the other.
ice cream dragon

Kenneth Turan from the LA Times says what needs to be said about Brokeback

Breaking No Ground
Why 'Crash' Won, Why 'Brokeback' Lost and How the Academy Chose to Play it Safe.

By Kenneth Turan, LA Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2006

Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.

Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.

More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."

I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.Read more...Collapse )