Skip to main content

Claiming your armchair

Wether in need of examples to bolster the fight for same-sex marriage or boost one's spirits in the face of disillusioning high-profile failures of monogamous marriage, one need only look to Judith Stacey.

The sociology professor at New York University is something of an expert on alternatives, having spent more than a decade studying everything from "monogamish" arrangements among gay men in California to polygamy in South Africa to nonmonogamous, matriarchal households in southwest China.

[. . .]

She isn't recommending a break from tradition for everyone and, while she may have utopist leanings, she doesn't actually expect Americans to suddenly reject amorous restriction in favor of free love. She just wants people to be a little more honest, with themselves and their partners, about what they want and need -- regardless of whether that's a "Big Love"-esque arrangement or strict sexual exclusivity. In that sense, she falls right in line with Dan Savage who preached about the same ideal of romantic truthfulness in a much-talked-about piece in last weekend's New York Times Magazine. (Tracy Clark-Flory, “Scouring the globe for sex advice,” Salon, 9 July 2011)

There is no way that Judith Stacey was going to look at other "cultures" and find anything actually mostly sickly. No matter what she found there, you know all she would allow herself to see was variation we can learn from. This is not a person who is going to learn much from experience because experience is under the control of her expectations -- or rather more precisely, of her INTENTIONS. She is not an armchair anthropologist/sociologist, but something worse: someone whose truths suffer not from not actually being there, but from mostly being there to entrench her a more comfortable claim to her armchair.

Other "cultures" essentially are now mostly spiritual places in which liberal anthropologists draw mana to inflate their own privilege and deflect the masses. You are there to collect a predictable resource. It's not about learning, science, but recharging and sacred rite.

I think at this point, most of us actually sense this -- even many liberals who go along with her. What she offers are "truths" that can be expected to irritate monogamy-worshipping mundanes -- you can hear their shreaks while you soberly lay out your arguments; ostensibly blunt truths that ACTUALLY SEEM, that MOSTLY SCREAM transcendent ideals rather than fact. Grounded in to-the-earth anthropology, but the point is to make one feel afloat and removed. "Yes, these conclusions are actually completely untethered to reality; but since they give such ground for authority, we are nevertheless ably existing amidst them. Alas, not so with you, my friend. And note, if we catch sight of you, know that we know we possess the art to abstract you out or to obliterate you within a quick massing of your ignorances and prejudices."


@_bigguns, @Patrick McEvoy-Halston

_bigguns:

Totally.

And your excerpt regarding her "fact-free exposition" - I almost pulled that one myself. Great minds think alike! Or sane ones.

Speaking of examples from the animal kingdom, a good friend of mine studied physical anthropology in the 80's. She told me how in the late 80's, all of a sudden, all of the animals became gay. In other words, the Leftists began to use zoology to support the gay agenda. "Oh, look, two male bonobos are fucking, that must mean that we are all gay!"

Patrick McEvoy-Halston:
You nailed it.

-------------------------------------

Salon has become a parody of itself. This is a very strange phenomenon, but I now come to Salon Letters for the same reason that I used to come to Salon - for stimulating conversation, and new and interesting ideas, and insights. None of that comes from Salon staff anymore. Instead, Salon staff writes the stupidest, most insane bullshit this side of Lenin, and the readers contribute interesting, insightful, stimulating conversation. It's like sitting at a table with world-class chefs at McDonalds, poring over McRib sandwiches and Big Macs. Oh, how these burgers could be so much better! (An expert)

Link: Scouring the globe for sex advice (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...