Regarding the public perception of queer styles, yes I think there is certainly an element of general stereotyping here. It's like many people stereotypically associate the working class with white male blue collar industrial and manual workers.
Gay parades would continue to "make sense" as long as LGBT people are still oppressed in the world, and obviously there is still a long way to go to end the oppression of LGBT people, whatever you may think about the particular cultural manifestations of the queer movement in general. In principle in a society where there is completely equality, there won't be the need for something like Pride. But then everyone would be able to freely celebrate and enjoy their sexuality anyway. I'm also critical of Pride in many ways. For instance the pro-NATO "support our troops" slogans in the Pride marches. But as a serious LGBT activist, I think it's definitely wrong to write off Pride completely or intrinsically, rather one should seek to reclaim Pride as a means to genuinely fight for the equality of LGBT people, rather than the ultra-commercialised scene it has become today.
I do agree though that any particular "queer style" shouldn't dominate the entire LGBT movement. But I think you are exaggerating on the "dominance of the camp style" in the LGBT movement here.
But given your opinions on Slut Walk, it seems you have generally culturally conservative attitudes regarding gender and sexuality anyway. The importance of the LGBT movement is not directly cultural, this much is true, it's mainly about fighting against socio-economic oppression that is placed on LGBT people at large. However, what is the point of making specific critiques against certain aesthetic styles, unless you personally do not feel comfortable with anything that seem to transcend gender boundaries? Also, why do you think you would criticise "excessively camp gay men" more than "excessively butch lesbian women"? You seem to be sole focussing on the "male side" of the LGBT movement anyway.
The same thing with the LGBT movement. Also, I don't agree with calling the LGBT movement just the "gay movement" either. You seem to be implicitly ignoring lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and other queer people. Another thing is that you seem to only see "sub-cultures" as a response to oppression in a negative sense, whereas I think "sub-cultures" have a positive value in themselves. The "cultural norm" you speak of is no more than the "cultural norm" of contemporary mainstream bourgeois society. There is no reason to assume this "cultural norm" will persist forever, especially in a post-revolutionary society where bourgeois socio-economic standards are smashed. Engel wrote for example that we cannot predict what exactly the kind of sexuality people will have in the future, but whatever it may be, it would be totally up to the future generations themselves, rather than bound by any "norms" of today.
Why would a sub-culture of miners necessarily be stupid? It would be stupid if people insist that is the only "correct proletarian culture", but in the intrinsic sense is there anything wrong with a proletarian sub-culture, or more than one such sub-cultures in fact? It would be stupid to insist that workers must assimilate into the bullshit "mainstream culture" of bourgeois society, since bourgeois society is exactly what we want to smash in the first place.
I'm not trying to catch you out, just asking a question. But you are missing the point, because there has never been a "singular gay culture" in the queer or LGBT community at large. And who do you think would feel more pressure, those gays who buy into the "mainstream cultural norm" or those gays who act against it, given the way our society is at the moment? Do you have a problem with people who don't wear much, are sexually active, and like to listen to techno music? Why wouldn't it be a part of "gay culture" or whatever? It's obviously far from the only element in "gay culture".
What's your view of transgenderism? As I said, intrinsically there is nothing wrong with "sub-cultures" anyway, the idea that we should all be assimilated into some kind of overall centralised cultural framework is totalitarian nonsense. Politically I'm a Leninist but cultural I'm very much an anarchist. Cultural democracy is very important to me. What I'm against is imposing rigid gender boundaries on people. If you just don't like the style of being "camp" whether it's on a man or on a woman, then that's a different matter. But I would oppose the idea that it's ok for women to be "camp" (or whatever the equivalent is) but it's not ok for men to be the same.
What aspects of Pride do you find aesthetically "problematic" anyway?
thnx
Anarcho-Awesome
anonymous user
