laurenfelton

projectqueer:

Elizabeth Hasselbeck: Lesbians Just Can’t Find A Man

Project Queer: Thanks for sharing this!

My favorite part of the article:

Hasselbeck told viewers that lesbians link up for companionship, not sex—a claim which her co-host, Joy Behar, called “ridiculous.” “Being gay is not just holding hands and walking through the tulips,” Behar says. “Oh Elisabeth,” quips Pop Crunch, “it takes real work to make Sarah Palin look like the smartest Republican with a vagina.”

That is such a ridiculous claim. I can only hope that Hasselbeck was kidding. (I do not watch TV at all really so I could not tell you what kind of personality Hasselbeck has). Either way, props to Joy Behar for telling it like it is.

I don’t watch The View, but I watch most of the clips about LGBTQ-related issues. I typically disagree with Hasselbeck, and this is no exception, but I must say I’m pretty put off by all the criticism she and other women on the show face. They certainly make a lot of ignorant comments about homosexuality (as do the majority of people I know), but those comments are always attributed to the fact that they’re idiotic women rather than the fact that they’re not particularly well-versed in queer theory.

I don’t like what Hasselbeck is saying, but I also don’t like the fact that no one can offer an intelligent critique of what she’s saying without making a quip about her vagina. The fact is: she’s not an expert on sexuality and neither is Joy Behar. I could write an entire essay here about why Behar’s view is just as problematic as Hasselbeck’s, but because she appears to be defending lesbians, a lot of gays are blindly defending her and dismissing Hasselbeck as stupid, as a dumb blonde, as another idiotic Republican with a vagina.

I think this clip is pretty important in that these women reflect the variety of misguided views out there on sexuality — both Hasselbeck’s idea that lesbianism is about a lack of options and Behar’s idea that shifting sexual attraction is all about societal pressure and embracing one’s ‘true’ sexuality later in life. Hasselbeck is dismissing lesbianism as a last resort, but Behar is dismissing all older, recently out lesbians as women who have been suppressed their whole lives, longing for another woman while suffering though unhappy heterosexual relationships. It is possible, you know, for people to have fulfilling relationships with the opposite sex and fulfilling relationships with the same sex.

A lot of the people I know are so resistant to the idea that this can happen because they’re frightened by the idea that sexuality is fluid. Perhaps they’re worried the “ex-gay” religious crowd will use these kinds of examples to validate the idea of gay conversion therapy, or perhaps they’ve got a bad taste in their mouth from years of hearing: “it’s just a phase; you’ll settle down with a nice [man/woman] eventually.” Whatever the case, it’s a dangerous mindset to trap ourselves into. You can’t fight ignorance with ignorance. Although I’m sure there are a lot of women out there who have finally embraced their lesbianism after years of unhappy heterosexual relationships, that’s not true for everyone, and attempting to invalidate a person’s past experiences and feelings by attributing their life choices to societal pressure does nothing to advance our community. There’s really no reason to keep shoving ourselves into boxes when it comes to defining our sexuality.

coffeefortwo asked: Why don't you like marriage? Do you feel the same about civil unions and such?

A few reasons. I think marriage plays a huge role in perpetuating misogynist white male culture, that its deeply rooted in a number of different privileges (meaning that allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn’t truly translate to “marriage equality”), and the fight for “gay marriage” enforces the existing social hierarchy even within the LGBTQ community.

Just look at some of the traditions we associate with weddings — the brides being given away by their fathers to their husbands, for example. They are basically passed down from one man to another. This might not be the exact case with same-sex marriages, but marriage is still a heteronormative institution that queers are attempting to assimilate to, therefore replicating and enforcing the patriarchy. Furthermore, marriage is something that does not affect every member of our community, and yet it is still seen as a measure of the public’s view on  queer acceptance. It is seen as the LGBTQ issue of today. Meanwhile, a lot of people remain blind to the unique oppressions faced by trans members of our community, by queer people of color, etc. Even bisexuals are often marginalized by the language of marriage equality — what if two bisexuals are in a same-sex partnership and wish to marry? Neither of them are gay, but we’ll still refer to their union as a gay marriage.

It just goes to show that white, gay men are still the face of our community and that our goals therefore have a very homonormative focus. Even beyond the implications marriage has for the social hierarchy, there’s one thing marriage privileges above all else that many completely ignore: coupledom. Our society is so structured around couples that it becomes increasingly difficult, as a person grows older, to actually live as a single person (or even as a person in a polyamorous relationship). Think of all the protective benefits of marriage when it comes to taxes, health insurance, etc. These are things that are basically necessary for us to live, yet they’re not afforded to single people in the same way.

There’s a lot more I could elaborate on, but it would probably turn into an entire essay. Check out the article “Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?” by Kenyon Farrow and “Why I Hate Gay Marriage, or, Notes on Queering Black Gay and Lesbian Politics” by Frank Leon Roberts for some more interesting commentary on the implications of marriage for the queer community and people of color.

Civil unions obviously don’t have the same history that I’m referring to when it comes to marriage, so I don’t feel quite the same way about them. I’d rather see civil unions in this country (for heterosexuals as well) than marriage.

(via allthatis)

Agreed… though I don’t like the institution of marriage to begin with, and obviously wouldn’t marry any man, lol.