It’s A Bear…and…and…and…he’s got…a PLATFORM! (eek)

 

(1)    A few nihilistic thoughts about the upcoming federal election in Canada…

 

I cannot say any of the parties inspires me, but, then, they rarely have.

 

One vestige I have of my days as an International Socialist is the notion of critical but unconditional support, which is why I always have thrown my support behind the New Democratic Party (NDP), given its purported support of leftist thought and labour organizing.  However, since both it and Britain’s Labour Party have compromised their platform in this regard, I find myself in a dilemma,  wondering to whom I should give my three loonies in order to prevent either war or, really, ANY party winning a majority (need I point to what happens in a country to the South when one party dominates all levels of government?).  Perhaps I should examine the alternatives.

 

(a)     PAUL MARTIN, LIBERALS – possible criminal, certainly of questionable ethics.  Waffler.  He passed the same sex marriage legislation, but only after desperately trying to find a way to convince the Supreme Court that, yes, maybe its mouth said ‘marriage’, but that its eyes were saying ‘commitment ceremonies’ or ‘civil union’.  Now, it is a cliché of massive proportions to accuse the governing party of corruption and pandering to its friends, but one which happens to be very true and legally established in this case.  I prefer my criminals to operate outside of the system to bring about its downfall, personally, and, if they must work within, they should actually WORK, with some sort of concrete plan in mind.

 

(b)     GILLES DUCEPPE, BLOC QUEBECOIS – It is a regional party, and, while I critically but unconditionally support the right of Quebec to separate, I do not think the interests of ordinary citizens are served by that focus.  In any case, the Bloc has been opportunistic, on occasion appearing to support progressive measures and then either trimming them or putting forward diametrically opposed positions (its actions at home on the provincial level around student funding alone reveal rank duplicity).  Considering the man’s own official biography describes him as a Quebec nationalist AND a social democrat…enough said…

 

 

 

(c)     STEPHEN HARPER, CONSERVATIVE PARTY – I know some troubling queers of my acquaintance who actually find this man cute.  Bear in mind that this is the same man who would find it ‘cute’ to say to those few gay folk who’ve slipped through the marriage net: ‘Well, you’re in, but the plank is now rolled up, and no other butt pirates are getting on board – sorry…’.  And I still find it both amusing and cautionary that, when the remnants of the Alliance/Reform Party and the original Conservatives were uniting, they considered the acronym CRAP.  That, and the fact that the man is somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, should be a warning.  As to cute – boyfriend, not enough latex in the world…

 

(d)     JACK LAYTON, NDP – Now, he’s cute – he’s got Daddy written all over him.  However, while I LIKE Daddies, I don’t think they are the best people to put in power.    Even a benign Daddy resorts to statements like: ‘This is for your own good’, and a social democratic one would probably say something like: ‘It’s for ordinary Canadians’ own good’.  Now, neither I nor anyone I love is ‘ordinary’, and I think it’s OUR call as to what’s for our own good – I mean, we own the country.  The biggest drawback in that formulation is the main flaw of reformist socialism – nationalist thought and slow change, predicated on the notion that the big bad bear (mmmm, big bad bear…sorry, distracted…) of capitalism can be taught to balance on a ball and play accordion for our amusement.  Yes, perhaps, but only for so long – at a certain point, maybe it’s better to realize that we should possibly let the bear loose somewhere far away from us, or, regrettably, maybe realize it is miserable and no longer working with any joy or benefit and, well, dispose of it.

 

Oh, and need I point out that the party joined ranks with the likes of the Conservatives and the Bloc to topple the government? While I generally approve of fellows being strange in bed, still…

 

 

(e)     JIM HARRIS, GREEN PARTY – I will avoid my great terror of that last name being associated with politics on any level in this country (and also confess that I had to look up his name, which may, sadly, argue for its fringe status and possibly explain why the party was not offered a place in the upcoming debate), and try to be somewhat rational.  Some of what this party says appeals to me.  When the alternative is the continuing build-up of industrial poisons until we have summer in the height of January (and, extending to the crack of doom, a really sudden tan), who would not want to call for some ‘ecological wisdom’? However, to some extent, this party, again, seems to argue for reformism, and, tragically, its appeal is somewhat limited by its youth.  Also, I have read some pieces on the party which seem to counter positions in its constitution about ‘social democracy’ (specifically, some party members have said they identify as right-wing or conservative,  and, having dealt with a few right-wing, conservative vegetarians/vegans/ecologists, I’m afraid I would feel profoundly uncomfortable having someone in power who thinks that way, even if they say they ultimately want to make the world a safer, cleaner place…).  I am prepared to consider that these may be aberrations, but I seem to recall hearing the party leader once say that his caucus was not about ideology, but about ecology (and, it might be noted, Mr. Harris is a businessman).  Um, that is going to be an issue, surely…

 

So, I have now disposed of all the parties, piled up stacks of fireworks around Parliament for Guy Fawkes Day Part II  and spent my tax cut on matches and kerosene (by the way, Canada’s Parliament was actually burnt down once, not just threatened to be – so much for politeness (okay, so it wasn’t deliberate)).  Feel free to tell me now that I have to vote for someone, those of you with a great faith in the system.  And I hear those of you who tell me I must vote strategically to ensure Stephen Harper never gets into the Prime Minister’s office. 

 

So, who gets my three loonies? Given the alternatives, and given my inability to accept reality (I find it funny when people accuse me of that, and yet never seem to bear in mind that big chunks of reality seem to have a problem with ME, so why not make it mutual?), I would like to see an NDP – Green Party minority government.  I am aware that will not occur, in which case a three way tie between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc would be acceptable too.  I spent my late teens and early twenties under a Conservative regime, so I would want to avoid that like the plague.  Of course, given the growing similarities between the parties, perhaps a minority of any one would be essentially a five way tie – but allow me some faint hope…  Perhaps, aware as they are of growing voter dissatisfaction and indecision, the leaders will accidentally pass some laws that will allow people to have decent lives.  Such accidents have been known to happen – I live for them, personally.

(2)  He’s a Queer One, He Is

 

What with shows like Mythbusters (yes, they’re both straight), Trading Spaces (yes, Frank is straight) and Queer Eye For The Straight Guy (is it still on?), not to mention the large number of gay men in my workplace who seem to have a coterie of fag hags and women who seek fashion advice from them constantly, I feel I must come out of a closet of sorts.

 

I happen to like women as friends (especially lesbians – which, I suppose, makes me more of a straight man, since some of my gay male friends seem to dislike dykes).  However, I have no desire to be their hairdresser, or, in general terms, their confidant in matters of dealing with the hairy beast that is Man, at least in any kind of: ‘Oh, they’re terrible, but let’s not question their behaviour in their PRESENCE!’ context.  Of course, some of this may be because I like hairy beasts.

 

I should add that another reason for my suspicion of this buddy-buddiness, paradoxically, lies in a sense of solidarity.  Frankly, I don’t think our (i.e. fags’ and women’s) interests are served by this kind of ‘girlfriend’ relationship.

 

Case in point.  Once, at work, it seems I inadvertently joined a table of women and their pet faggot.  They were asking for advice about fashion and the like, and one remarked on how she hated shaving her legs and then freezing because she was wearing a skirt.  Before the other gentleman could speak up, I offered that perhaps she should wear pants and NOT shave her legs.  This was evidently not appreciated as advice by either these women or the scandalized sodomite in attendance.

 

Now, really, if your attempts at conforming to the beauty myth are causing you discomfort and reducing even more the amount of free time you might have to pursue other interests, shouldn’t you be trying to disassemble the myth? If the system manifestly disadvantages you, should you suffer its continuance? Is it really just ME who thinks this way?

 

Of course, I have never been pretty or especially close to the standards of appearance that either straight or gay society has deemed acceptable (though, as I once said to someone who cat-swiped me once too often: ‘I don’t recall signing a FUCKING contract!’ (and don’t think my fondness for that word has not resulted in some ostracizing – I find it odd that some gay men are so shocked by it, for reasons I need hardly go into…)).  As a result, I may have less to lose by withdrawing my investments in the ludicrous comedy of manners that life can be at times.

 

One of the stereotypes I have noticed in discussions of why gay men and straight women are supposedly so tight (as friends, gutter-brains) is that they have in common the desire to please men.

 

But, really, when you think about it, there’s a gigantic flaw in this.  Except in terms of certain pornographic fantasies and possibly the massive consumption of narcotics or alcohol, WE’RE NOT AFTER THE SAME MEN.  I tend to think that I am not interested in men in the same way that some women may be, in any case, because, like it or not, I was raised in this culture, and, though I was raised that the man is to make the first move (I’ve deprogrammed a lot of cultural baggage, but this ridiculous message still lurks in my subconscious and makes me very shy in most social situations when I’m around other gay men – even in purely social contexts, where, as is typical of the way gay male culture is put together, there is still sexual tension and courting/cruising conventions…)), I still have certain privileges and different attitudes towards social intercourse that most women do not share (in this case, privileges include that I am probably not going to be overpowered and assaulted, and certainly not going to risk pregnancy (at my age, in any case, that has risks J ), if I WERE to be more forward or even submissive in such a way that I trigger the control/conquest loop in some men’s brains…).

 

Oddly, the whole marriage debate has brought up considerations I had not even thought of before recently in what is, to some of my friends, an overly familiar rant about the way the culture which holds me somewhat captive determines what values and concepts go into creating a relationship (or even, really, a lifetime of harlotry…because even harlotry has certain norms…).

 

Namely, a lot of women grow up dreaming (or, in some cases, nightmaring) about the day some man will swoop into town on a horse and take them off to a life of suburbia, white picket fences and the vaguely disturbing visual image of 2.2 children.  This was a vision a lot of gay men had thought would never apply to them, with a range of reactions ranging from ‘phew’ to ‘but what would MARTHA say if I WERE to walk down the aisle wearing white, given how many men I’VE been with?’

 

Now, should not the experience of those women in such relationships (yes, of course, there are women who are perfectly happy and content in this context – but one has to question how much of that is conditioning…) be a cautionary example? Should one tie one’s entire financial and emotional well-being to another person, even someone one ‘loves’ (and I speak as an uber-squishy romantic when I question the institutionalization of lust/affection)?  To the extent I think fags and women have solidarity, it is in our questioning of the heterosexual male tendency to put domestic partners in the category of property (of course, I have no objection to Arne renting me for an open-ended lease…

 

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this model of relational economics and recognition/validation is a good thing for a lot of people.  What if it is NOT for others? I have heard some gay activists seriously proclaim that all gay people should go forth and get married.  Now, how EXACTLY is this better than saying all girls should marry before having sex or that a person who isn’t married before a certain age has something wrong with him/her (oh, my dear, you’re right, and isn’t it delicious? J).  I mean, as The Onion put it, in its satirical man-on-the-street poll: ‘Oh, great – one MORE thing for my mother to nag me about!’ *

 

I suppose, ultimately, I fear normalization because, well, it means one has to be normal, and, to quote Maggie Estep: ‘I don’t think I’ll EVER be a normal girl’.

 

*Your kindly editor feels semi-obliged by both truth and the fact that said mater has had a recent bout with ill health to point out that he has actually NEVER been pressured by his mother to marry ANYONE – actually, in what should be a triumph, but is more accurately a somewhat dialectical quandary, she has usually DISCOURAGED me from marriage.  ‘What – am I not conventional and hide-bound enough for you?’

 

(3)  I’m Just Pulling Your Leg (oh, no, wait, that would be the ropes drawing and quartering you…sorry…)

 

(1)     If it is true that Mr. Bush feels that wiretapping must continue in order to weed out terrorists, is he not somewhat hampered by the fact that the White House itself outlawed wiretapping in 1967 or so? How will he catch one of the most heartless terrorists and torturers ever if he cannot listen to himself? (Of course, has Girlfriend EVER listened to himself?)

 

(2)     Mr. Executioner, have you met Mr. Executioner? He’s a gas.

 

(3)      Oh, and Mr. Executioner, do shake hands with Mr. Executioner (that he may measure your weight)?

 

(4)     You look tired, Mr. Executioner.  Have a seat.

 

(5)     Could we have all the executioners line up against the wall for a group shot?