I promise, one of these days, I really will write about something else. But I keep running into more discussions of this topic, which I feel compelled to share.
Perhaps in reply to Thursday's NY Times article about gay men in straight marriages (which I discussed yesterday), Friday the Salt Lake Tribune published an article about "mixed orientation" marriages, with the optimistic headline, "Mixed-orientation LDS couples count on commitment, work and love to beat the odds." The article's basic message is this: gay men, just admit you're gay before you get married, convince yourself that sex doesn't matter all that much, and you too can have a conventional Mormon marriage!
Women, just accept that your husband is gay and will never want you the way he wants men, convince yourself that sex doesn't matter all that much, and you too can have a conventional Mormon marriage!
The couple interviewed for the article are sure of this because they are in the early 20s and have small children, and by gosh and by golly, they're making it work! What's fifty years of denial compared to getting through the first five years of a marriage?
The article acknowledges that most such marriages fail. Still, it discusses the phenomenon in such admiring tones--aren't these kids brave! Aren't they honest and open to challenges!
Let's hope they convince even more gay men to marry straight women, so that others can engage in the same (probably) doomed struggle!
Holly, write about this stuff as much as you want to. It's your blog, remember? And it's such interesting stuff.
Well, at least now they're being honest about the fact that the guy is never going to stop being gay and he's never going to offer her a complete relationship.
Really, even faithful Mormons reading this -- as much as they may be applauding and saying "Good for them!!! See? It can work with a little sacrifice" -- in their hearts they are saying "For myself, there is no way in heaven or earth I would settle for a sham-marriage like that one."
"The couple interviewed for the article are sure of this because they are in the early 20s and have small children, and by gosh and by golly, they're making it work!"
I'm not sure which part of the article said that my wife and I are sure of anything. Last I checked, "sure" and "willing to give it an honest effort" are not the same thing. Nor do I believe it's the Salt Lake Tribune's intention to "convince more gay men that they should marry straight women." (I know it's not mine.) The Trib prides itself on being "Utah's Independent Voice," i.e. not affiliated with the Mormon church--if you read their other articles on homosexuality and the church (most of them written by Peggy Stack), it becomes quite clear that they have no agenda other than to honestly portray several aspects of a complex issue. If you read any of my writing linked from the Trib article, I would hope it becomes equally clear that I don't fit into the neat little box you're trying to stuff me into.
If you'd rather go on with your black-and-white "us vs. them" mentality, though, be my guest. It's none of my business, really. But the searchability of the internet does make it fun to poke around and see what people are saying about you.
(BTW--you do realize, of course, that it would take more than a day for the Trib to find three mixed-orientation couples, interview and photograph them, and throw together an article "in reply" to the NYT article, right?)
Holly--
Imagine how flattered I am to find that you've written not just one, but two posts about me! The other one doesn't seem to allow comments, so I'll comment again here. (I don't care, by the way, whether you choose to let my comments show here.)
I'm not going to argue every point you made in that previous post because I'm not out to make an enemy and because, frankly, I agree with a lot of your points. I'm not a big fan of reparative therapy either, even though I once found it useful and I still know and respect some people who pursue it. And you certainly got me: where I said "the whole point" concerning the civil rights and women's lib movements, I should have said "a major point." I made several such word choice errors in that essay--such is the nature of writing.
As for your assessment of my attempt to "retain the blessings and privileges of white male domination and patriarchy," well, I would certainly agree with you if we were talking about someone who actually subscribes to those notions. The fact is, though, I don't. Heterosexual marriage does not equal domination and patriarchy. It's a fallacy to assume that because I am married to a woman that I intend to dominate her. Our relationship is every bit as egalitarian as the relationships my gay friends have with their partners.
I hope you'll also acknowledge that the fact that I don't mention something (i.e. Oscar Wilde or Shakespeare) in a personal essay with a limited word count does not necessarily mean that I am ignorant of that thing. My wife and I just watched De-Lovely a week or two ago, in fact, and it was interesting to think about how the gay-straight marriage of someone like Cole Porter is and isn't like ours.
Well, it looks like I have ended up refuting your points, even though I said I wasn't going to. For fear that you'll accuse me of being condescending in a white, male, patriarchal sort of way, I won't tell you that I find your blog intelligent, interesting, and overall well-done.
Have a good day.
--Ben
One more comment:
You mentioned in one of your posts that my wife is not heard from in the Dialogue piece. I would have liked to see her contribute to that, too, and she did write a draft of an essay, but didn't feel comfortable enough with it to submit it. Since then, though, she has voiced her thoughts on the matter on her blog:
http://foxyj.blogspot.com/2006/08/coming-out-in-public.html
Cheers.
--Ben
Ben--thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comments and will be responding to them soon.
Ben:
Here, finally, are my considered responses to your comments, which, unless I am very much mistaken, will upset you. Nonetheless I have tried to be honest without being needlessly mean.
"The couple interviewed for the article are sure of this because they are in the early 20s and have small children, and by gosh and by golly, they're making it work!"
I'm not sure which part of the article said that my wife and I are sure of anything.
The trib article stresses, just as your essay in Dialogue did, that (following a BYU fireside on marriage), you received a confirmation and knew with a certainty that God wanted you to marry.
As I pointed out in my remarks at Sunstone, there is another interpretation to your revelation that the BYU fireside on marriage pertained to you (discounting, of course, the very real possibility that you didn't receive any external confirmation): God could have been telling you that he wanted you to have the right to marry a man.
But you took it to mean that you should marry a woman, and as your marriage to Jessie approach, you received another confirmation from God telling you that you should "Jump. Jump into the big, scary, unknown darkness. Don't look back."
So these two instances constitute ways in which you have indeed presented yourself as "sure" about something.
Oh. And there's also the fact that in your Dialogue piece, you write, "So Jessie and I were married in the Salt Lake Temple two days before Thanksgiving. And then we lived happily ever after" (132).
But in any event, the antecedent of "this" in the statement you quote above is my statement that gay men and straight women can "achieve a conventional Mormon marriage," provided they are willing to downplay the importance of sex.
Last I checked, "sure" and "willing to give it an honest effort" are not the same thing.
Indeed. Which is why YOU should be more careful and precise in your own statements and thinking.
Nor do I believe it's the Salt Lake Tribune's intention to "convince more gay men that they should marry straight women."
Whether or not that was the Trib's "intention," I am sure there are people who hope that is indeed the effect--provided it's not their daughters, sisters or female friends who end up as the wives in such marriages.
The Trib prides itself on being "Utah's Independent Voice," i.e. not affiliated with the Mormon church--if you read their other articles on homosexuality and the church (most of them written by Peggy Stack), it becomes quite clear that they have no agenda other than to honestly portray several aspects of a complex issue.
Yeah, yeah. But they still have a particular readership and their reporters--including Peggy--still have a particular approach to their material. I mentioned the article derisively during the panel, and Peggy came up afterwards and introduced herself. She seemed chagrined--and I admit I think she should be.
If you read any of my writing linked from the Trib article, I would hope it becomes equally clear that I don't fit into the neat little box you're trying to stuff me into.
Ben, I'm only pointing out how confining, unappealing and messy is the box YOU have stuffed yourself into.
(BTW--you do realize, of course, that it would take more than a day for the Trib to find three mixed-orientation couples, interview and photograph them, and throw together an article "in reply" to the NYT article, right?)
Absolutely. But I also realize that there are several factors that can influence when a profile piece like the one about you gets published. Articles like that can sit for days if not weeks before they appear in print.
Imagine how flattered I am to find that you've written not just one, but two posts about me!
Actually, there is a third--it's here.
The other one doesn't seem to allow comments, so I'll comment again here.
Yeah. I used to turn comments off to avoid spam. The comments are on now.
I'm not going to argue every point you made in that previous post because I'm not out to make an enemy and because, frankly, I agree with a lot of your points. I'm not a big fan of reparative therapy either, even though I once found it useful and I still know and respect some people who pursue it. And you certainly got me: where I said "the whole point" concerning the civil rights and women's lib movements, I should have said "a major point." I made several such word choice errors in that essay--such is the nature of writing.
Even that minor change is not enough. In an early draft of my Sunstone comments I stated that not only you, but Ron Schow, Marybeth Raynes and even Levi should be ashamed of themselves for letting that statement by--it's absolutely horrifying and speaks volumes about your sense of privilege and your ignorance of what is really at stake in these movements. I strongly encourage you to read a few books about the civil rights movement, about race theory, about the women's rights movement (which has its roots in the 18th century and both includes and exceeds the women's "liberation" movement) and about feminism.
As for your assessment of my attempt to "retain the blessings and privileges of white male domination and patriarchy," well, I would certainly agree with you if we were talking about someone who actually subscribes to those notions. The fact is, though, I don't.
Sorry, Ben, but your writing makes it clear that you DO subscribe to "those notions." Let me spell it out for you:
You argue that a gay man should be allowed "to venture into what is usually considered the exclusive territory of straight men--to marry a woman and have a family--if that's what he chooses to do."
Notice the nouns and pronouns. Your emphasis is entirely on MEN. You want to retain the rights of MEN, and you argue for that retention with very little attention TO WOMEN. Women figure into this only by necessity--because they are the half of humanity able to bear children. You are so indifferent to the cost to any women involved in such marriages that you are able to make this argument in the abstract, and invoke the achievements of THE WOMEN'S "LIBERATION" MOVEMENT as justification for why you and other gay men should be allowed to exploit women!
Ben, you courted a woman under false pretenses! You might have come clean about your orientation before you proposed, but you began dating her while you were still in the closet, and you pretended at the outset to offer her all that a heterosexual courtship would entail, even though you knew you could not. That is dishonest, dishonorable and despicable. You did this because you felt that YOU deserved a conventional marriage--to hell with what the woman you'd singled out as a likely partner might deserve! Although you eventually realized that you were denying her the opportunity for a more meaningful marriage, you sure as hell didn't consider that at the outset, as you yourself admit. And now you have the audacity, the complacency and the self-deception to claim that you have NOT attempted to "retain the blessings and privileges of white male domination and patriarchy"!
If it weren't all too typical of the way male defenders of patriarchy respond to any feminist critique, it would be unbelievable.
The fact of the matter is, your behavior earns you the label of not only patriarchal but misogynist, even if you might like individual women. Ben, you really need to get a copy of our session and listen to it. You won't like it, but you need to do it.
Heterosexual marriage does not equal domination and patriarchy.
There are plenty of people who argue, quite eloquently and forcefully, the contrary point. And the fact remains that as long as you hold the priesthood in the Mormon church, you DO benefit from patriarchy, even though you're gay.
It's a fallacy to assume that because I am married to a woman that I intend to dominate her. Our relationship is every bit as egalitarian as the relationships my gay friends have with their partners.
It is a fallacy to assume that because you strive for an egalitarian relationship, there are not larger social factors promoting the privilege of one partner and minimizing the opportunities and autonomy of the other.
And there also remains the fact that your writing reveals a profound and repugnant selfishness, grounded in what you think is due to you because of your sexual organs, regardless of your sexual orientation.
The fact that you have been content to remain ignorant and unconscious of the larger issue of gender dynamics doesn't mean they're not in play.
You REALLY need to do some reading on gender theory.
I hope you'll also acknowledge that the fact that I don't mention something (i.e. Oscar Wilde or Shakespeare) in a personal essay with a limited word count does not necessarily mean that I am ignorant of that thing.
I teach college writing, and one of the things we tell students in composition courses is that when constructing an argument, it is absolutely necessary to anticipate, acknowledge and address counter arguments--otherwise, your argument falls apart as soon as someone engages seriously with it, and you end up looking like an ignorant fool. OK, you were dealing with a limited word count. You chose to spend those words describing, among other things, a poop-streaked condom and the menu of the mundane meal you consumed before presenting an engagement ring to Jessie. You chose not to address very obvious issues that render ridiculous a central premise of your argument. And however ignorant, naive and unimaginative you might or might not be in real life, in your writing, you come off as extremely ignorant, extremely naive, extremely unimaginative, as well as glib, provincial and appallingly entitled.
Well, it looks like I have ended up refuting your points, even though I said I wasn't going to.
I wouldn't go that far, Ben--you've responded to a few of my points, but you're overreaching by far if you believe you've actually refuted any criticism I offered.
For fear that you'll accuse me of being condescending in a white, male, patriarchal sort of way, I won't tell you that I find your blog intelligent, interesting, and overall well-done.
Had you told me that, I would have thanked you.
I realize my responses to you are harsh. And I am sure that there are many ways in which you're a lovely person. But your remarks on this topic emphasize an insistence of the starkest of opposites when it comes to your own situation, and a profound indifference to (if not ignorance of) history, complexity, and the concerns of others who are unlike you. If that is not indeed how you are, you need to rethink you how present yourself in writing.
"Here, finally, are my considered responses to your comments, which, unless I am very much mistaken, will upset you. Nonetheless I have tried to be honest without being needlessly mean."
Thank you. I appreciate both honesty and the avoidance of unnecessary meanness.
"The trib article stresses, just as your essay in Dialogue did, that (following a BYU fireside on marriage), you received a confirmation and knew with a certainty that God wanted you to marry."
Actually, the Trib article says that we are "cautiously optimistic," that we "both felt marriage was what God wanted [us] to do," and that I "felt strongly that God wanted [me] to marry." None of these three statements expresses certainty. Like you, I have taught college writing; I taught my students to use specifics when making an argument, not generalizations that might be skewed by their personal interpretation.
"As I pointed out in my remarks at Sunstone, there is another interpretation to your revelation that the BYU fireside on marriage pertained to you (discounting, of course, the very real possibility that you didn't receive any external confirmation): God could have been telling you that he wanted you to have the right to marry a man."
Indeed that is a possibility. If that was the case, though, I wasn't prepared to interpret the revelation as such when I was 21. That is the problem with personal revelation based on feelings: it's hard to be sure of anything. For better or worse, I interpreted the feeling as I did, and now I'm doing my best to proceed as I believe God wants me to.
"Oh. And there's also the fact that in your Dialogue piece, you write, 'So Jessie and I were married in the Salt Lake Temple two days before Thanksgiving. And then we lived happily ever after' (132)."
Um, you do know how to read irony, right? And for that matter, succeeding sentences? In this case, the sentences that follow, just in case readers are not bright enough to figure out on their own that no one lives happily ever, are: "Mostly. Not all the time, of course. All the problems, all the concerns, all the doubts we had before we got married didn’t go away."
"Ben, I'm only pointing out how confining, unappealing and messy is the box YOU have stuffed yourself into."
How altruistic of you, Holly.
"Absolutely. But I also realize that there are several factors that can influence when a profile piece like the one about you gets published. Articles like that can sit for days if not weeks before they appear in print."
True indeed. I know that in this case, the Trib had been planning this piece for that weekend in correlation with the coming Sunstone Symposium, but I don't say this for argument's sake--your line of reasoning makes sense.
"Actually, there is a third--it's here."
I did find that one after I commented, but it didn't offend me enough to comment again. :)
"Even that minor change is not enough. In an early draft of my Sunstone comments I stated that not only you, but Ron Schow, Marybeth Raynes and even Levi should be ashamed of themselves for letting that statement by--it's absolutely horrifying and speaks volumes about your sense of privilege and your ignorance of what is really at stake in these movements. I strongly encourage you to read a few books about the civil rights movement, about race theory, about the women's rights movement (which has its roots in the 18th century and both includes and exceeds the women's 'liberation' movement) and about feminism."
In Dialogue I referred specifically to the civil rights and women's lib movements, not to race theory, women's rights, or feminism. The focus of these two movements was very much on employment equality, in addition to other issues such as protecting people from violence. I am quite interested in race theory, women's rights, and feminism, but at the moment I don't have much time for pleasure reading so such books will have to go on my "after grad school" list. To be honest, though, academia's extreme focus on theory is one of the reasons I've chosen to pursue an MLIS instead of a PhD in English. I find theory interesting but also limiting--for example, I'm fascinated by Xaviere Gauthier's ecriture de femme, and it has helped me to interpret a number of texts from a unique perspective, but sometimes I think I've bent those texts out of shape to fit the theory. Too often I've seen academics allow a theoretical approach to a text to blind them to aspects of the text the theory doesn't explain. This becomes particularly annoying when the text in question is your own.
"Sorry, Ben, but your writing makes it clear that you DO subscribe to 'those notions.'"
Wait, are we getting into Freudian analysis now? I thought that was passe. Apparently, my writing knows things about my belief system that I do not. Or so you argue.
"Notice the nouns and pronouns. Your emphasis is entirely on MEN. You want to retain the rights of MEN, and you argue for that retention with very little attention TO WOMEN."
I am actually very conscious of my choice of pronouns and nouns. In the line you're talking about, I am referring to myself, and I happen to be a man, so--go figure--I used "man" and "he" to describe myself. Imagine that!
Similarly, this personal essay is about my decision to get married. I can't write a personal essay about Jessie's decision to marry me, nor can I write about her right to marry a gay man if she so chooses, because I'm not her. If I were to speak of the issue from her perspective, you would likely accuse me of imposing my voice on her experience, and I would agree with you. I don't make a big deal about the fact that marriage requires two independent people to enter willingly, because that's obvious to me. It would never OCCUR to me that women might exist only out of necessity, as the "half of humanity able to bear children." The very thought is ridiculous! The problem here is that you are reading my life in terms of broad humanity-encompassing movements, and I simply don't see it that way. I don't expect Jessie to represent all women throughout history, and I sure as hell am not going to take the sins of all men throughout history on my back. We are two INDIVIDUALS, nothing more. The fact that I am male and she is female has little to do with the everyday reality of our relationship. Holly, there is only one of us in this discussion placing undue emphasis on sexual organs, and it is NOT me.
"Ben, you courted a woman under false pretenses!"
And if that woman has a problem with how I entered our relationship, she is fully capable of taking it up with me. She doesn't need you to defend her, O Great Protectress of Ignorant, stupidly hopeful Mormon Women.
"If it weren't all too typical of the way male defenders of patriarchy respond to any feminist critique, it would be unbelievable."
I'm sorry, but I never thought I would be involved in a serious conversation in which someone accused me of being a "male defender of patriarchy." I'm afraid I have nothing to say to such grandiose terms that don't really mean anything.
"The fact of the matter is, your behavior earns you the label of not only patriarchal but misogynist, even if you might like individual women."
And your writing screams of misandry and overstatement, so I guess we're on a level playing field here. Honestly, I don't think you have enough information about me to determine that I'm a misogynist. You're basing your conclusions on sweeping generalizations about men and women that have little to do with me.
"Ben, you really need to get a copy of our session and listen to it. You won't like it, but you need to do it."
Do they publish the proceedings in the magazine? I have no problem hearing opinions that differ from mine--if I did, I wouldn't go looking for them on the internet.
"There are plenty of people who argue, quite eloquently and forcefully, the contrary point."
They might argue eloquently and forcefully, as do you on many other points, but in neither case does that make an argument true.
"And the fact remains that as long as you hold the priesthood in the Mormon church, you DO benefit from patriarchy, even though you're gay."
Again, you're making an argument based on people who aren't me. As it happens, I hold the priesthood in a technical sense, but I have pointed out to you elsewhere that I'm no longer a believing Mormon.
"It is a fallacy to assume that because you strive for an egalitarian relationship, there are not larger social factors promoting the privilege of one partner and minimizing the opportunities and autonomy of the other."
It is a fallacy to assume that Jessie and I give a damn about larger social factors. We define our relationship as we choose to.
"And there also remains the fact that your writing reveals a profound and repugnant selfishness, grounded in what you think is due to you because of your sexual organs, regardless of your sexual orientation."
The only thing I think is due to me is acknowledgement that I exist, not because of my sexual organs, but because I am a human being. My writing does not "reveal" that which you read into it.
"The fact that you have been content to remain ignorant and unconscious of the larger issue of gender dynamics doesn't mean they're not in play."
Tell me, specifically, how these larger issues are in play in Jessie's and my everyday life. And please, do so without making assumptions about details you're ignorant of.
"You REALLY need to do some reading on gender theory."
Okay. Again, I do find gender theory interesting, so I will when I have the time.
"I teach college writing, and one of the things we tell students in composition courses is that when constructing an argument, it is absolutely necessary to anticipate, acknowledge and address counter arguments--otherwise, your argument falls apart as soon as someone engages seriously with it, and you end up looking like an ignorant fool. OK, you were dealing with a limited word count. You chose to spend those words describing, among other things, a poop-streaked condom and the menu of the mundane meal you consumed before presenting an engagement ring to Jessie. You chose not to address very obvious issues that render ridiculous a central premise of your argument."
See, the thing is, I was writing a personal essay, not an argumentative essay. The only argument central to my essay was, again, that I exist. Because you have chosen to view it as an argument, you have deemed it a failure. The narrative elements you refer to were attempts to add texture and humor to the essay. Now, before you jump on the invitation here, I DON'T want your opinion of my talent as a personal essayist. I suspect I already know your opinion, and there are plenty of others I can turn to for critical feedback.
As arguments go, though, the point I was trying to make with the line about women's lib and civil rights was that it is ridiculous for people who are fighting for the right for gay men and lesbian women to choose whom they marry (and I am one of these people) to say, "No, Ben, YOU can't choose to marry Jessie (even if she wants to marry you), because that doesn't fit our idea of what gay men should be and do." You've made it quite clear that I did not succeed in making this point, but you've also done a good job of illustrating it.
"And however ignorant, naive and unimaginative you might or might not be in real life, in your writing, you come off as extremely ignorant, extremely naive, extremely unimaginative, as well as glib, provincial and appallingly entitled."
I have to admit, it hurts more that you're criticizing my writing than it would if you were just criticizing my life. If nothing else, you've succeeded in convincing me to be more self-conscious of how I portray myself in writing (and believe me, I was already pretty self-conscious).
"I wouldn't go that far, Ben--you've responded to a few of my points, but you're overreaching by far if you believe you've actually refuted any criticism I offered."
Agreed. I misspoke.
The fact that I've taken so much time responding to your arguments is indicative of the fact that I think you make arguments a hundred times more intelligent than the majority of people who criticize me on the internet. I won't assume that the time you've taken to respond to me is indicative of anything likewise, but I appreciate you taking the time nonetheless.
Happy Halloween.
"Ben, you really need to get a copy of our session and listen to it. You won't like it, but you need to do it."
Do they publish the proceedings in the magazine? I have no problem hearing opinions that differ from mine--if I did, I wouldn't go looking for them on the internet.
At the Sunstone website, you can buy a cd recording of the session, or you can download an mp3 of it, for about five bucks.
More later.
Actually, the Trib article says that we are "cautiously optimistic," that we "both felt marriage was what God wanted [us] to do," and that I "felt strongly that God wanted [me] to marry." None of these three statements expresses certainty. Like you, I have taught college writing; I taught my students to use specifics when making an argument, not generalizations that might be skewed by their personal interpretation.
The trib article states, "he received a kind of divine assurance" Assurance is a synonym for certainty. There's my "specific."
"As I pointed out in my remarks at Sunstone, there is another interpretation to your revelation that the BYU fireside on marriage pertained to you (discounting, of course, the very real possibility that you didn't receive any external confirmation): God could have been telling you that he wanted you to have the right to marry a man."
Indeed that is a possibility. If that was the case, though, I wasn't prepared to interpret the revelation as such when I was 21.
This is part of the ignorance, naivete and lack of imagination I point to. It is still present in your inability to imagine how very thoroughly your work reveals anything about besides what you want it to.
"Oh. And there's also the fact that in your Dialogue piece, you write, 'So Jessie and I were married in the Salt Lake Temple two days before Thanksgiving. And then we lived happily ever after' (132)."
Um, you do know how to read irony, right? And for that matter, succeeding sentences? In this case, the sentences that follow, just in case readers are not bright enough to figure out on their own that no one lives happily ever, are: "Mostly. Not all the time, of course. All the problems, all the concerns, all the doubts we had before we got married didn't go away."
Yeah, I noticed those sentences. But they don't do much to counter the glibness of the ones that precede them. Which is why I included them as an apparent after-thought, with the "Oh."
"Ben, I'm only pointing out how confining, unappealing and messy is the box YOU have stuffed yourself into."
How altruistic of you, Holly.
Fuck altruism. I'm just not going to let you come on my blog and spout nonsense and get away with it. You can say whatever you want on your blog--just as you can live without ever falling in love and acting on lust for someone you truly desire if that's what you want to do--but if you show up on my blog, you get to deal with my critique of your foolishness.
"I also realize that there are several factors that can influence when a profile piece like the one about you gets published. Articles like that can sit for days if not weeks before they appear in print."
True indeed. I know that in this case, the Trib had been planning this piece for that weekend in correlation with the coming Sunstone Symposium, but I don't say this for argument's sake--your line of reasoning makes sense.
Well, the possibility that the article was intended to be in conversation with my panel and the other sessions I mentioned occurred to me back in August, but it seemed immodest to mention that.
"Even that minor change is not enough. In an early draft of my Sunstone comments I stated that not only you, but Ron Schow, Marybeth Raynes and even Levi should be ashamed of themselves for letting that statement by--it's absolutely horrifying and speaks volumes about your sense of privilege and your ignorance of what is really at stake in these movements. I strongly encourage you to read a few books about the civil rights movement, about race theory, about the women's rights movement (which has its roots in the 18th century and both includes and exceeds the women's 'liberation' movement) and about feminism."
In Dialogue I referred specifically to the civil rights and women's lib movements, not to race theory, women's rights, or feminism. The focus of these two movements was very much on employment equality, in addition to other issues such as protecting people from violence.
Again, Ben, if you had any sense, you'd realize what an ignorant bigot you come off as, and you'd be embarrassed.
I am quite interested in race theory, women's rights, and feminism, but at the moment I don't have much time for pleasure reading so such books will have to go on my "after grad school" list.
Then don't write about issues involving race and gender until you can do so with more knowledge.
"Sorry, Ben, but your writing makes it clear that you DO subscribe to 'those notions.'"
Wait, are we getting into Freudian analysis now? I thought that was passe. Apparently, my writing knows things about my belief system that I do not. Or so you argue.
Writing can very easily reveal bias. Yours does. Nothing Freudian about it.
"Notice the nouns and pronouns. Your emphasis is entirely on MEN. You want to retain the rights of MEN, and you argue for that retention with very little attention TO WOMEN."
I am actually very conscious of my choice of pronouns and nouns. In the line you're talking about, I am referring to myself, and I happen to be a man, so--go figure--I used "man" and "he" to describe myself. Imagine that!
In that passage, you are discussing generalities. You are making a general argument. You are comparing gay men in the abstract and the general to women and people of color in the abstract. In that passage, you do not discuss yourself.
Similarly, this personal essay is about my decision to get married. I can't write a personal essay about Jessie's decision to marry me, nor can I write about her right to marry a gay man if she so chooses, because I'm not her. If I were to speak of the issue from her perspective, you would likely accuse me of imposing my voice on her experience, and I would agree with you. I don't make a big deal about the fact that marriage requires two independent people to enter willingly, because that's obvious to me. It would never OCCUR to me that women might exist only out of necessity, as the "half of humanity able to bear children." The very thought is ridiculous! The problem here is that you are reading my life in terms of broad humanity-encompassing movements
That's because we are all influenced by those broad humanity encompassing movements. Everything about your work announces how thoroughly indoctrinated you have been into not only Mormonism (however much you distance yourself from it now) but western society at large. And just as you were not willing or able to imagine, at 21, that there was another way of interpreting the "revelation" you received after that fireside, you are still unwilling and unable to imagine that your writing reveals much besides your attitude to your own situation.
Get a fucking clue, Ben.
"Ben, you courted a woman under false pretenses!"
And if that woman has a problem with how I entered our relationship, she is fully capable of taking it up with me.
Some day, she will. As will your children.
"If it weren't all too typical of the way male defenders of patriarchy respond to any feminist critique, it would be unbelievable."
I'm sorry, but I never thought I would be involved in a serious conversation in which someone accused me of being a "male defender of patriarchy."
Again, your lack of imagination is quite striking. You can't even imagine that someone would critique you from a feminist perspective? That's remarkable.
"The fact of the matter is, your behavior earns you the label of not only patriarchal but misogynist, even if you might like individual women."
And your writing screams of misandry and overstatement, so I guess we're on a level playing field here.
Well, at least you didn't accuse me of being a homophobe.
"It is a fallacy to assume that because you strive for an egalitarian relationship, there are not larger social factors promoting the privilege of one partner and minimizing the opportunities and autonomy of the other."
It is a fallacy to assume that Jessie and I give a damn about larger social factors. We define our relationship as we choose to.
Wow! Lucky, lucky boy, who chafes at Mormon Social Taboos with regards to sexual orientation, but is completely above them when it comes to gender!
"And there also remains the fact that your writing reveals a profound and repugnant selfishness, grounded in what you think is due to you because of your sexual organs, regardless of your sexual orientation."
The only thing I think is due to me is acknowledgement that I exist, not because of my sexual organs, but because I am a human being. My writing does not "reveal" that which you read into it.
You exist, Ben. You exist as a human being. You exist as a human being who writes prose that reveals very selfish, very ignorant attitudes about gender.
"The fact that you have been content to remain ignorant and unconscious of the larger issue of gender dynamics doesn't mean they're not in play."
Tell me, specifically, how these larger issues are in play in Jessie's and my everyday life. And please, do so without making assumptions about details you're ignorant of.
For starters, according to the Trib article, her name is now Jessie Christensen. She has relinquished her "maiden" name. Her legal identity has become part of your personal AND legal identity.
And that's just for starters, the really easy bit. If you were willing to read anything on gender, you'd discover all kinds of ways in which these issues are in play in your life.
See, the thing is, I was writing a personal essay, not an argumentative essay. The only argument central to my essay was, again, that I exist. Because you have chosen to view it as an argument, you have deemed it a failure.
Ben, if you can't read any race theory, at least get a hold of George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" and read it thoroughly and carefully. It's less than 20 pages long, but it might really help you see some of what you're missing about yourself and your writing.
As arguments go, though, the point I was trying to make
Oh! So another argument was in the essay after all!
with the line about women's lib and civil rights was that it is ridiculous for people who are fighting for the right for gay men and lesbian women to choose whom they marry (and I am one of these people) to say, "No, Ben, YOU can't choose to marry Jessie (even if she wants to marry you), because that doesn't fit our idea of what gay men should be and do." You've made it quite clear that I did not succeed in making this point, but you've also done a good job of illustrating it.
As I say in my remarks at Sunstone, "While I acknowledge the right [Christensen] and his wife have to do as they please, I have the right to find their efforts foolish and destructive rather than admirable. Why should he settle for a partner he doesn't desire? Why should his wife settle for a partner who doesn't truly desire her? The fact that they're willing to doesn't strike me as adequate justification."
"And however ignorant, naive and unimaginative you might or might not be in real life, in your writing, you come off as extremely ignorant, extremely naive, extremely unimaginative, as well as glib, provincial and appallingly entitled."
I have to admit, it hurts more that you're criticizing my writing than it would if you were just criticizing my life. If nothing else, you've succeeded in convincing me to be more self-conscious of how I portray myself in writing (and believe me, I was already pretty self-conscious).
Well, that's good to know. I think such efforts are appropriate.
And, at this point, the argument degenerates into nonsense. It's apparent that you are unable to see anything except through the lens of feminist theory, and unwilling to see gay-straight relationships from any perspective but your own limited experience. I'm sure you will have the last word here, as it is your blog, and I'm imagining something like the oh-so-imaginative "fuck off," and I may check in at some point to see what it was, but not today.
Have a good life, Holly.
And, at this point, the argument degenerates into nonsense.
The real problem is that your argument was nonsense from the beginning. Someday, if you are ever willing to grow up, you'll admit that.
unwilling to see gay-straight relationships from any perspective but your own limited experience.
My experience of gay-straight relationships is far less limited than yours.
Fuck off or don't--but please, grow the fuck up.
About a year ago, I had a conversation with Holly in which I said, rather flippantly, that I was not a feminist. Holly didn't get angry or anything, she just asked me why I thought that. I explained that it had to do with the academic conferences I tend to go to, where a lot of not very interesting feminist papers can be presented and are insulated from criticism because to criticize them would be sexist and patriarchal. I certainly have done my share of shoddy work but it seems to me that the whole purpose of taking it to a conference is to hope to be lucky enough to find people who will take enough of an interest to point out the problems and help me decide how, or whether, the work should progress.
But Holly showed me that this is not an argument against feminism and over time, I think I have come to understand what the real reason was that I was uncomfortable with feminism. Looking at the world through a feminist lens helps me see things that ought to have been obvious, like how referring to the whole human species in terms that refer to only half does a harm to the other half.
I'm in no position to enter this disucssion with regard to substance because I haven't read Ben's article or the news item in the SL Tribune. But there are two things about the way Ben responds to Holly's criticisms that stand out to me. One is the difficulty he has in navigating the problem of separating a criticism of writing from personal criticisms. We try to teach ourselves that the two should be separate, that the writing ought to be critiqued without recourse to ad hominem (and we do note the gender here) attacks. The problem is that it is never so simple to separate the two. This is not just because almost none of us has such an abstract relation with our writing that we would find it easy to see it criticized without taking it personally. It is also because of something that feminists have to keep pointing out to all of us because we never seem to get it: what we write can be dangerous and harmful when it unselfconsciously reproduces the prejudices taught us by social and cultural worlds that are sustained by patriarchy as common sense.
So Ben thinks the argument "degenerates" because he takes Holly's criticisms of his writing as personal attacks -- as if Holly were violating the ad hominem rule -- but he can't acknowledge that the things he wrote could be read by a sensitive feminist reader through a lens that highlights the harm done to women when the writing relies on and/or masks patriarchal assumptions. But Ben, this is what "the personal is political" means; and you can't rely on that notion to take your personal story public on the one hand, and then deny it if someone finds the politics less than helpful.
The second thing that jumps out at me is the way Ben's arguments end: the problem, as he sees it, is that Holly can only see things through a feminist lens. So the problem is feminism! Probably all of us have tucked away somewhere a stereotype of feminists as shrill, hyper-critical, and bitter. But maybe feminists are just exasperated. How many times does the obvious have to be pointed out before it gets taken seriously? If a medical doctor pointed out to a patient at every office visit that smoking was damaging the patient's health and the health of anyone who lived in proximity to the smoking, almost no one would write the doctor off as narrow-minded: no one would say that the doctor only sees things through an anti-smoking lens. After all, cigarrettes kill -- duh! At least as long ago as the 1930s, they were called "coffin nails." It's obvious. But if a feminist tries to point out the ways that patriarchy conveys privilege and how that privilege shapes the ways we think and act and the harm this does to women, well, it's just the result of an obsession with feminism.
Rather than getting defensive, I have tried to take feminism seriously again, to scrutinize the things I write through a feminist lens even if what I'm writing about is not obviously connected to feminist issues and even if feminism isn't the only kind of critique I try to use. I got that from Holly, when she got me to re-examine the reasons I felt hostile to feminism.
Looking at the world through a feminist lens helps me see things that ought to have been obvious, like how referring to the whole human species in terms that refer to only half does a harm to the other half.
Thank you, Spike. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
It is also because of something that feminists have to keep pointing out to all of us because we never seem to get it: what we write can be dangerous and harmful when it unselfconsciously reproduces the prejudices taught us by social and cultural worlds that are sustained by patriarchy as common sense.
Yes. I still find it striking that Ben allows absolutely no gender-based critique of his choices. As I pointed out in my response to him, he's such "lucky boy, who chafes at Mormon Social Taboos with regards to sexual orientation, but is completely above them when it comes to gender!" There are all these problems with how the church and the world perceive orientation, but gender--oh, that's fine! Or rather, in those few areas where it's not, individuals can easily transcend the attitudes and habits they were raised with--not a problem!
Ben protests that he "never thought [he] would be involved in a serious conversation in which someone accused [him] of being a 'male defender of patriarchy.'"
And yet, someone must have raised this issue of Ben's insensitivity to and disregard for the concerns of gender, since the recent searches that have led someone (most likely Ben, since he admits he was doing searches on himself, but someone else might have searched the topic too) to my blog were
That's right: ben christensen misogynist--three searches on those words! It appears I'm not the only person to accuse him of misogyny. And however much he is bothered by the charge, I don't think he's bothered nearly enough. And I don't accept as sincere his protestations that he is astonished by the assertion that he is a defender of patriarchy.
But I do accept as sincere his declaration that he finds my arguments "nonsense." That's not a reflection on the strength or validity of my argument, but on Ben's lack of fluency in the language of difference and critical analysis. He writes, "I have no problem hearing opinions that differ from mine," but it's simply not true: he cannot hear what I am saying. I might as well be speaking Chinese, and I think he'll react that way to your comments, Spike: he simply won't be able to make sense of a statement like
much less muster the maturity or psychological strength to confront the criticism of his actions it contains.
Ben writes,
it is ridiculous for people who are fighting for the right for gay men and lesbian women to choose whom they marry (and I am one of these people) to say, "No, Ben, YOU can't choose to marry Jessie (even if she wants to marry you), because that doesn't fit our idea of what gay men should be and do." You've made it quite clear that I did not succeed in making this point, but you've also done a good job of illustrating it.
I have always acknowledged the right he and Jessie have to do whatever the hell they want. He CAN marry a woman; he just can't expect many people to respect that decision, and what he really seems to want is not permission (which he already has) but respect and admiration (which he ain't never gonna get from most of the world, particularly outside of Mormondom--which I bet is one reason he still lives in Orem: at least there people understand why he'd do such a thing, another example of his provincialism). Still, if he were simply a private guy living a private life, I wouldn't offer a direct critique of his choices. But he chose to publish an ill-conceived essay about his ill-conceived choices, and thus gave me the right to criticize his choices, his justifications for those choices, and his writing.
And Ben has certainly illustrated my point:
So he can continue to google himself in relation to misogyny and then reject what he has gone looking for. Seems like a miserable life, but I'm sure it's of a piece with the rest of his existence. Hopefully he won't be hanging out here too much, since I'd rather talk to people like you, Spike, who can recognize the value of gender-based critiques, and can admit when they've been wrong.
That's right: ben christensen misogynist--three searches on those words! It appears I'm not the only person to accuse him of misogyny.
Wishful thinking. I, by myself, may have constituted those three searches. And it's not because I think Ben is a misogynist. It's because I had a bugger of a time Googling your posts the first time, and you made it much easier for me to Google the relevant ones by throwing in a less common word like "misogynist."
And frankly, your arguments about patriarchy as they relate to Ben just don't hold water. If you choose to make Ben Mr. Patriarchy and Jessie someone who was victimized, deceived, and lacking free will, you're objectifying Jessie. Not, I think, a very pro-feminist thing to do.
Moreover, I am a straight female, and I consider it my right to take as a partner any consenting male I wish, and procreate with him. So, am I supporting a matriarchy? Or simplying wishing to be dominated by the existent patriarchy? And what about the lesbians who choose to marry heterosexual males? Are they as selfish and wrong as you've accused Ben of being because they want to raise a family the old-fashioned way (sans artificial insemination, etc., etc.)?
A man's wanting a marriage, heterosexual or otherwise, doesn't necessarily constitute anti-feminism, patriarchy, or oppression. If you're going to take issue with Ben and Jessie's choice, why single them out? Why not address all the people who feel it is their right to have a relationship with a consenting partner? If what you're concerned about here is lack of equality, address all the parts of the issue, not just one.
Of course, maybe you'll never see this--last time I tried to comment, it didn't post.
Moreover, I am a straight female, and I consider it my right to take as a partner any consenting male I wish, and procreate with him. So, am I supporting a matriarchy?
If you are a straight Mormon woman who has married a gay Mormon man, you're sure as hell not supporting a matriarchy.
Or simplying wishing to be dominated by the existent patriarchy?
That would be my best guess, based on what you've written. I admit I'm not interested enough in you to check your blog and find out any details about you.
Certainly it is the right of Mormon women to marry gay Mormon men if that's what they want to do--witness the frequency with which it happens! Ain't no legislation stopping it.
But it's also my right to point out how pathetic and sad that choice is, and to argue for education and understanding that makes choices like that less likely for women in the future.
If you're going to take issue with Ben and Jessie's choice, why single them out?
Ben published an essay and I responded to it. If he objects to having people respond to his work, he shouldn't publish it.
Why not address all the people who feel it is their right to have a relationship with a consenting partner? If what you're concerned about here is lack of equality, address all the parts of the issue, not just one.
I fully intend to. Check back on Wednesday or Thursday.
It's because I had a bugger of a time
interesting phrase, isn't it, coming from a woman who advocates marriages between gay men and straight women.
I BET you have a bugger of a time, and I bet it gets worse.
I had a bugger of a time Googling your posts
Wow, these people make not only spectacularly bad marriage choices, but spectacularly bad word choices. I've been trying to work out what the phrase ACTUALLY means: probably something between "I was anally raped" and "I moaned in joy as my sphincter released and my tender lover firmly but patiently filled me in an unexpected way." It's hard to imagine google ACTUALLY providing either experience. So out of the realm of overstatement, brozy seems to be saying: "I engaged in an uncomfortable and unpleasant sex act that I did not want to do, but my partner (ben?) was interested," rather than, in South Park fashion, "I had an ass-poundingly good time."
Holly--
I said a week and a half ago that I wasn't interested in making an enemy, and it appears that's exactly what I've done. I apologize for that.
Though I don't agree with all your points, I take your critique of my writing seriously. You pointed out, for instance, that it was unimaginative of me not to foresee a feminist critique of my essays. Upon further reflection, I've concluded that you're right about this. In my admittedly naive, oversimplified view of the world, I've always naturally seen straight men as my enemy, and thus assumed that women and particularly feminists were my allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. You've convinced me that it's silly to take such things for granted, and I'll keep that in mind in future writing endeavors.
As for your critique of my character, there are many, many people more qualified than you to make that judgment--people who know me beyond what two essays, a handful of blog comments, and a truckload of assumptions can tell them. Yes, I can be immature, but I can also be mature, once in a while. One of the things I love most about Jessie is her ability to see people--me, particularly--as more than a collection of labels and stereotypes. Ultimately, it's her evaluation of me and our relationship that matters most, not yours. And as sure as you seem that sooner or later she will decide she hates me for dating her for two weeks before telling her I was gay, keep in mind that you know next to nothing about her.
That's all I have to say. I sincerely wish you a happy life. Take care.
--Ben
PS I haven't worn temple garments in over a year, but I'm sure if I did, they would have been in a knot this past week. :)
You have not made an enemy in the past two weeks. As I said earlier, I am sure there are many ways in which you're a lovely person. But the glib male sense of entitlement and indifference to the concerns of women expressed in your essay marked you from the beginning as someone whose agenda is inimical not only to feminism, but to the full citizenship of women.
Even in your most recent comment, you didn' t say, "I always felt that because I actively worked to better the lives of women, I thought women would support me when I upped and claimed, as a gay man, the privileges of STRAIGHT MEN"--no, you glibly, naively and selfishly figured that since your enemy was straight men in the collective, you could count on women and feminists in the collective to support you, even as you BEHAVE just like a straight man--the only difference your writings reveal about you is that you don't feel a sexual attraction to women's bodies. But hey, somehow you thought, women and feminists would be down with that!
Do you REALLY get it now? Can you see just how untenable that assumption was?
You didn't become an enemy, Ben; you pretty much always were one, at least on a political level. If that bothers you, do something to change it.
Ben later wrote, And as sure as you seem that sooner or later she will decide she hates me for dating her for two weeks before telling her I was gay, keep in mind that you know next to nothing about her.
I never said she'd hate you; I asserted that she'd "take up with you" your decision to court her even though you're gay. I don't hate my gay ex; I love him quite devotedly. But there was a time when we had to hash out exactly what happened in our courtship and engagement--and I knew from the beginnng that he was gay. Furthermore, even if I don't know Jessie, I know a HELL of a lot of women who dated and/or were engaged to and/or married gay men, and they all go through the same thing as well, after they split up.
I'm sorry, Ben, but I really do have a pretty clear sense of what's in store for you, especially now that you've given up wearing the special underwear.
a bugger of a time
SIM--It's called a colloquialism. Admittedly, used in poor taste. And it means exactly the same thing as "a damn hard time" or "an exceedingly difficult time." Unless, SIM, you would translate "damn hard" to mean "progress-stoppingly, eternal fire & brimestonely hard," "bugger of a time" shouldn't be translated so literally, either.
Holly, you are not the only one to ever date a gay man. And frankly, my experience ended poorly. Instead of telling me he was gay, he said I wasn't pretty enough. I would have been thrilled if he would have, like Ben, just told me he was gay. Then I would have been happy to either try to make things work or let him go on to a relationship that would make him happier. I didn't have that option, though.
If my desire to get married to a straight man is evidence that I support a patriarchy, and Jessie's choice to marry Ben is evidence that they support patriarchy, I'm not sure in what case you wouldn't consider a sexual relationship between a man and a woman patriarchy.
I think it's unfortunate that the bulk of your messages on feminism and sexual relationships between men and women are so consistently vitriolic. You have, in some of your past posts, made good points. I agree that it's selfish and wrong of gay men to marry straight women for the purpose of concealing their sexuality. And I agree that the story about the Benjamite and his concubine is horrifying. You have some important things to say. But they're so deeply buried in bitterness and misandry that you're going to have little luck with your most important audience--the people who are neither mortally opposed to what you say nor already staunchly supportive of your viewpoint. If you're writing solely for the further enlightenment of your supporters, you're doing a great job. If you were hoping to persuade the moderates, I'm afraid you're largely going to fail.
I fully intend to. Check back on Wednesday or Thursday.
I appreciate your willingness to address the issue now, despite your overlooking it initially, but if you're doing it to satiate my curiosity, please don't. After reading several entries and your comments, I can now safely number myself among those you will never convince. I deal with enough closeminded people in my life already, though normally from a different end of the spectrum. I won't be back to your blog. (Which should sharply decrease the Google hits for "Ben Christensen" + "misogynist.")
I admit I'm not interested enough in you to check your blog and find out any details about you.
And that is a relief.
but if you're doing it to satiate my curiosity, please don't.
Trust me. You've had little effect on my intentions.
I won't be back to your blog.
thank christ.
I'm turning off comments here. I'm tired of people who show up, leave a nasty comment on one post, and THEN read the other relevant stuff on my blog. I'm continuing my discussion of this issue in a new post here, and if anyone has anything further to say, they can say it there.