One might say that Football being an inherently masculine sport, gaying it up might be pretty hard. Not really. And one doesn't even need to go into the detail about the players grabbing each others buttocks, chest bumping, and the other forms of physical intimacy on blatent display.
Let's start with the music.
-The intro song, We Will Rock You was originally by Queen, whose lead singer Freddie Mercury died of complications from HIV/AIDS.
-The Sandy Hook/Newton Elementary School performers sang America the Beautiful, whose lyrics were written by Katarine Lee Bates, a lesbian.
Advertising
-Unfortunately there was a ridiculously transphobic Doritos ad. Yeah, guys wearing dresses is all you need to do apparently in order to create mirth these days...
-Which was then followed up by a Calvin Klein ad featuring a muscular guy wearing only underwear. Go figure.
.
-This Coke ad reminded me of both The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Lawrence of Arabia (about T.E. Lawrence, who historians now accept as likely as having being gay). Probably the only reason I was reminded of Lawrence of Arabia was because I had just watched it about a week ago.
Miscelaneous
-The 49ers are from San Francisco, which at one point was considered a gay mecca and where the first openly gay politician, Harvey Milk, was elected to major office in the U.S.
-Half-Time show was by gay icon Beyonce.
Showing posts with label queering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label queering. Show all posts
February 4, 2013
May 18, 2012
Queer Issue: The Queer Umbrella is an Oxymoron
Having just come across this poll on The Huffington Post, I felt a bit of a need to respond. Why? Becuase it's a completely pointless question to ask.
The whole purpose of the developing a queer identity, historically speaking, was to shun labels, boundries, and umbrellas. To even say something like "queer umbrella" would be like saying "I want to blur the boundries between good and evil, but cannot accept that there are shades of grey between them". Likewise, asking if the queer identity includes polyamorous relationships and asexuals is like asking if oak trees and mammels are all catagories of nouns.
If one thinks that asexuals and polyamourous relationships might not be or cannot be included in the term queer, than one obviously knows nothing of queer history or the origins of such.
The whole purpose of the developing a queer identity, historically speaking, was to shun labels, boundries, and umbrellas. To even say something like "queer umbrella" would be like saying "I want to blur the boundries between good and evil, but cannot accept that there are shades of grey between them". Likewise, asking if the queer identity includes polyamorous relationships and asexuals is like asking if oak trees and mammels are all catagories of nouns.
If one thinks that asexuals and polyamourous relationships might not be or cannot be included in the term queer, than one obviously knows nothing of queer history or the origins of such.
December 17, 2011
Social Constructs and The Natural Order: Part 1: Introduction
Note: the following is the first in a series of planned philosophical essays that I shall be writing regarding what can be called the Natural Order. First, allow me some pretension in assuming that I am capable of doing what I intend to do. I make no claim that what I am about to argue here is anything more then the ravings of an individual who thinks he understands "How The Universe All Fits Together".
Social Constructs and The Natural Order
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems
Part 3: Free Will, Choice, and Self Determinism Within Social Constructs
Part 4: The Role of Science and Religion
Part 5: Social Constructions Involving Race, Ethnicity and Culture
Part 6: Social Constructions Involving Gender and Sexuality
Part 7: Thoughts on Creating more Ethical Systems
To begin, let us consider some history. The universe was created in a bang, either by some grand God saying "let their be light", a flying spaghetti monster waving a noodly appendage, or through physical forces we don't yet fully understand. Whatever. At some point, galexies formed out of gasuous nebulas, then a solar systems came next, one which happened to have star we call the Sun at it's center around which would revolve our planet earth. Then upon this earth came a series of increasingly complex organisms which would separate and evolve out into different species. Over time at least one of these species would develop what can be called rational consciousness.
Now let's stop right here because this development is key to everything else I'm going to talk about. Why? Because up until now, everything that happened in the universe followed certain hard rules, what we might call "the natural order", that is "the rules governing the way the universe is". Organisms follow the rules of evolution, which is grounded in the rules of chemistry and physics and influenced by the geological environment. In general, scientists study these rules in an attempt to know them. Most importantly, these rules must be followed. If a rule or law science has decreed to be a part of the natural order is broken, then science was wrong about that rule. It is important to note, that there is no proof that we humans are capable of knowing the natural order in it's entirety.
So why is the development of of rational consciousness so important? Because with the development of self awareness, we humans were capable of developing new rules and systems. Specifically, we developed what could be labelled most generally as social constructs. Now by "social construct" I am of course referring to any rule or system that is dependent upon the faith of rational beings in order to exist. This makes social constructs very different from the natural order, which does not depend upon faith in order to exist.
In distinguishing between the natural order and social constructs, I must distinguish between two different kinds of beliefs. Beliefs about the natural order can be either right. For example, if I believe that there exists an all powerful god who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell, then I can be either right or wrong depending on if there actually exists an all powerful god who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell depending upon their faith in that God. Technically, I could also be considered to be partially right if there actually exists an all powerful god who sends people to heaven or hell depending on the number of snickerdoodles they consumed during their lifetime.
Beliefs about social constructs though are different, since social constructs are dependent upon belief in order to exist in the first place. Therefore, beliefs that are solely regarding social constructs technically cannot be "wrong". They can be called misguided, they can have devastating consequences for those who believe in them and for others, but they cannot be incorrect. If people believe in governments, economies, languages, then these things exist and the beliefs of the faithful legitimize and give power to those constructs.
Another important point needs to be made though, while social constructs are catagorically distinct from the natural order, they are also constrained by the natural order and cannot break it. It is however possible for false beliefs of conscious beings in the natural order to be created or develop within social constructs. It is also possible for social constructs to develop that ignore or are ignorant of the realities of the natural order.
Summary
-Social constructs need to be believed in order for them to exist and therefore are categorically distinct from the natural order which needs no rational conscience being to justify it.
-Social constructs are constrained by the natural order but false beliefs are still possible within them and to be generated by them.
(I imagine this introduction is going to seem silly to people, but bear with me, I plan to start covering more interesting and complicated ideas in future instalments)
Coming Soon: Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems
Social Constructs and The Natural Order
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems
Part 3: Free Will, Choice, and Self Determinism Within Social Constructs
Part 4: The Role of Science and Religion
Part 5: Social Constructions Involving Race, Ethnicity and Culture
Part 6: Social Constructions Involving Gender and Sexuality
Part 7: Thoughts on Creating more Ethical Systems
To begin, let us consider some history. The universe was created in a bang, either by some grand God saying "let their be light", a flying spaghetti monster waving a noodly appendage, or through physical forces we don't yet fully understand. Whatever. At some point, galexies formed out of gasuous nebulas, then a solar systems came next, one which happened to have star we call the Sun at it's center around which would revolve our planet earth. Then upon this earth came a series of increasingly complex organisms which would separate and evolve out into different species. Over time at least one of these species would develop what can be called rational consciousness.
Now let's stop right here because this development is key to everything else I'm going to talk about. Why? Because up until now, everything that happened in the universe followed certain hard rules, what we might call "the natural order", that is "the rules governing the way the universe is". Organisms follow the rules of evolution, which is grounded in the rules of chemistry and physics and influenced by the geological environment. In general, scientists study these rules in an attempt to know them. Most importantly, these rules must be followed. If a rule or law science has decreed to be a part of the natural order is broken, then science was wrong about that rule. It is important to note, that there is no proof that we humans are capable of knowing the natural order in it's entirety.
So why is the development of of rational consciousness so important? Because with the development of self awareness, we humans were capable of developing new rules and systems. Specifically, we developed what could be labelled most generally as social constructs. Now by "social construct" I am of course referring to any rule or system that is dependent upon the faith of rational beings in order to exist. This makes social constructs very different from the natural order, which does not depend upon faith in order to exist.
In distinguishing between the natural order and social constructs, I must distinguish between two different kinds of beliefs. Beliefs about the natural order can be either right. For example, if I believe that there exists an all powerful god who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell, then I can be either right or wrong depending on if there actually exists an all powerful god who sends good people to heaven and bad people to hell depending upon their faith in that God. Technically, I could also be considered to be partially right if there actually exists an all powerful god who sends people to heaven or hell depending on the number of snickerdoodles they consumed during their lifetime.
Beliefs about social constructs though are different, since social constructs are dependent upon belief in order to exist in the first place. Therefore, beliefs that are solely regarding social constructs technically cannot be "wrong". They can be called misguided, they can have devastating consequences for those who believe in them and for others, but they cannot be incorrect. If people believe in governments, economies, languages, then these things exist and the beliefs of the faithful legitimize and give power to those constructs.
Another important point needs to be made though, while social constructs are catagorically distinct from the natural order, they are also constrained by the natural order and cannot break it. It is however possible for false beliefs of conscious beings in the natural order to be created or develop within social constructs. It is also possible for social constructs to develop that ignore or are ignorant of the realities of the natural order.
Summary
-Social constructs need to be believed in order for them to exist and therefore are categorically distinct from the natural order which needs no rational conscience being to justify it.
-Social constructs are constrained by the natural order but false beliefs are still possible within them and to be generated by them.
(I imagine this introduction is going to seem silly to people, but bear with me, I plan to start covering more interesting and complicated ideas in future instalments)
Coming Soon: Part 2: The Evolution and Survival of Systems
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)