Tag Archives: Gay

Lonely Planet

5 Sep

José Quiroga


    1. From the onset, lawyers for the plaintiff argued that “Ronell created a false romantic relationship between herself and Reitman and by threat of, among other things, not allowing him to advance his Ph.D., asserted complete domination and control over his life.” The link between this “false romantic relationship” and the domination she exerted over this student is not entirely clear. But the same point is made in the “factual evidence” section of the lawsuit, where once again the “fictitious romantic relationship” is linked to “complete domination and control” over Reitman’s life. For any student of literature, the main problem with this argument is how conservative its notion of authorship is. For the “romantic relationship” just happens to unfold over emails both parties wrote separately, and then exchanged. One could imagine that in a different court of law—say, copyright law—the plaintiff would have argued for his rights as co-author. In such a case, Reitman’s lawyers would have insisted that he deserved a share of the profits of Future Miniseries X given the considerable efforts taken, on his own account, in order to keep up the narrative momentum. At this point, twenty or thirty years ago, any graduate student would have quoted Stanley Fish: “Disagreements are not settled by the facts, but are the means by which the facts are settled.”  One text understood as authored by one person is used as evidence of control and domination in a sexual harrassment case. The same text (sic), understood as a collaboration, has multiple authors that deserve to be credited in copyright law.
    2. I don’t recall a teaching assistant ever telling me that sometimes “analysis is simply denial with more words,” nor do I recall an administrator cutting graduate lines in the Humanities arguing that interpretation was unnecessary since “the text just means what it says it means.” This is because most graduate students and some administrators understand that most of the times, the text never means what it says it means. The text in the Ronell / Reitman exchange could very well stand for the absence of any romantic relationship other than the one that takes place on the page. One does not need a PhD in Literature to know this, just as one does not need to be a lawyer to understand that when the lawsuit states that there was “groping, roughing, and kissing on a regular basis” or that “Ronell would touch, grab, fondle and kiss Reitman” it doesn’t mean that at each and every instance all of these acts took place. Not every author is a lawyer, but some lawyers are authors—and some can even recall the occasional undergraduate course on D.H. Lawrence. To put it simply: this is a case about the possibility that writing alone can create facts. Thus it is, ultimately, a case about literatureDH-Lawrence.jpg
    3. In the slow-moving August news cycle, the case caught on. Or, as rendered in the ominous lead sentence of Andrea Long Chu’s essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education, “[t]he humanities are ablaze.” Chu is referring here to what Jacques Derrida would have called the “dissemination” of the case. But as Derrida himself would have warned us—and Borges before him—dissemination tends to multiply errors of fact. This point is evident in the very first paragraph where Chu states that Judith Butler, Lisa Duggan and Jack Halberstam have defended Avital in writing. That no such thing ever happened as Chu has recounted it should be clear by the time you read this text online. And it baffles the mind to believe there is really a lot of abuse in expecting teaching assistants to read the work of their supervisor. Would you go to an interview at the NYT op-ed section without at least familiarizing yourself with the work of Maureen Dowd? Would you be an intern at The Nation never having read Katha Pollit? There are photocopier assistants at The Washington Post who know about Bernstein and Woodward although they were born decades after these two penned All the Presidents Men. And Chu’s complaints about life under Ronell pale in comparison to the treatment suffered by a young intern (Anne Hathaway) under the despotic rule of a famous fashion magazine editor (Meryl Streep) in The Devil Wears Prada.rs_500x206-160624105104-500-devil-wears-prada-thats-all-062416-1485457517
    4. In this sorry proxy for the death of academia we are all living, where the stakes are so low and so inconsequential, I find myself doing a lot of extra (uncredited, unpaid) labor: from reading stacks of tenure and promotion files for institutions around the country and abroad, to serving as external referee for academic journals, and making sure that—over and beyond their work in my classes–graduate students have peace of mind and time to do the work they want to do. Yes, graduate students teach courses, which means they are workers within the university. And yes, they are also students and they are mentored by faculty. For years I find myself directing four and five dissertations, writing untold number of rec letters, correcting innumerable dossiers, reading more than my share of tenure files, and recommending others for grants when I myself should be applying for them. That this is all entirely my fault it goes without saying. “I should be meaner,” I say to myself, “I should protect the little time I have. I should not cover for those who think that advising a grad student simply means reading a completed, camera- ready chapter that someone else has edited.”
    5. I suppose like many of my colleagues I am an obsessive advisor. I will push and push students, but I know that at some point I have to let them go. So even if I think the dissertation should have four chapters and not three, I understand the pressures of the job market, the very real anxieties of student loans, and the fact that when a good job shows up at the MLA and you have a good chance at it, we all have to make our way back to the reality principle pronto. Graduate school is a challenge on many levels in the new, corporatized university–with its mid-level administrative bloat and reduced faculty lines– and I don’t blame those students who think that I can give or withhold job offers. But I’m revealing no secret by stating that this is part of grad student myth-making. The reality is much more complex, which is something I imagine Reitman heard at some point because it’s something I tell all graduate students, again and again. Most often than not, at the other end of the interview process there is a department with ten or fifteen independent minds that need to achieve a consensus. And surely, the more of an “academic superstar” you are, the more there’s people out there who resent you for a lot of things that are really beyond your control. It’s not always in your best interest to have a superstar as mentor—everybody knows that, including “academic superstars.” Hence the tact shown by Avital Ronnell meeting with Andrea Long Chu in order to make sure that “you and I are OK.” But why does Chu then turn around at a moment of public humiliation for Ronell, and cast this as a cheap Game of Thrones-like scene? It befuddles the mind of anyone who ever suffered viewing the depiction of law school in The Paper Chase.the-paper-chase
    6. Like the majority of my peers, Ive been rejected from many jobs, accepted a couple,and I myself have rejected one or two–not without regrets. I’ve had better luck than many, and have done worse than others. The times in which I’ve been forced to choose between my ambition and my principles, my ambition has taken a hit. But then again, my principles have also taken a hit every once in a while. And yes, there have been periods when I’ve spent my life in purgatorio. That’s academia these days. All of us who have worked on gender and sexuality, or on “deconstruction” or even on telenovelas and popular culture, have had to navigate through a lot of difficulties and misunderstandings in our careers. But it hasn’t all been despair, and for that we have to thank students, both graduate and undergraduate. When nothing else makes sense, I go into a classroom where I have the rare privilege of sharing some time and space with twenty, or thirty different, diverse minds. Let me give just one example among many: when the “romantic fiction” that Ronell and Reitman created via email first came to light, I remembered the joy I felt when I suggested to a brilliant graduate student the work of a man, now deceased, who was the most important Cuban writer still alive then. For many years, as an older man, the poet worked as a bagboy in a Miami Publix supermarket, and then retired and lived in a modest Miami house with his wife and their middle-aged daughter. My student and the poet hit it off, and he proposed that they write a joint epistolary “novel” based on what he called the japanese principle of the “zuihitsu” in which, according to rules which he himself had set, he would start off writing something, and then the student would continue writing whatever she wanted, and vice versa. Now that the poet is fully recognized as one of the Great Poets in an island of superb writers, this work has assumed its place as one of the last books he wrote in his life. The young woman who at that point was my student took a risk and worked on this on her spare time, while teaching her regular graduate student courseload. I can’t promise all my students that this will happen to them. But sometimes good things happen if you are receptive to the possibility of being surprised by people—and that includes French intellectuals, German philosophers, and bag boys at Publix. Here is a link to the final entry of that blog a deux Margarita Pintado wrote with Lorenzo Garcia Vega: images-2.jpeg
    7. I wish I could produce an equally beautiful ending for the Reitman / Ronell saga. I’ll let the lawyers do that, since they always end up having the final word. And in the aftermath of the messy election of 2016, we seem to have abdicated everything to them. But let me just say one thing: given the chance at writing such a perfect volume as The Telephone Book, I’d give a couple of fingers of my right hand. Go and live in that book for a while if you can. Immerse yourself in that mess, take a chill pill as you plunge in the midst of its typography wildness, in the lunacy of its ideas that are also evidence of the highest philosophical rigor, brilliantly turned upside down. And thank the higher powers that you never wrote such a book just as you were coming out of grad school. Because yes, you’ve put your brilliance out for display, but we know how stupid that is, how naïve. For the challenging work of a sharp, young woman, thirty years later turns into fodder for twitterati attacks by one segment of what is thankfully a much broader feminism. Then again brilliance, like social media, was never meant to be aligned with justice. But that’s what we old farts are supposed to be doing, no? Reminding you about history, or juggling your memory. Some fuddy-duddy thing like that. While we solemnly open our dog-eared copy of a translated Borges and have you stare for the next hour at the following phrase from his story “Tlön Uqbar, Orbis Tertius”: “At first it was believed that Tlön was a mere chaos, an irresponsible license of the imagination, now it is known that it is a cosmos and that the intimate laws which govern it have been formulated. . . “

September 1, 2018


Wedding and Engagement Announcements Welcome!

4 Jul

mabel&argosPlease send your wedding and engagement photos and announcements, for Freedom to Marry Our Pets, to bullybloggers@gmail.com.  Visit our FtMOP Society Page for currently posted announcements.

Freedom To Marry Our Pets

4 Jul

Freedom to Marry Our Pets or What’s Wrong with the Gays Today? A Midsummer Blog in E-epistolary Form

Announcing the Engagement of Karen K and Mabel

Announcing the Engagement of Karen K and Mabel

Dear Lisa-
I just walked by some of those kids with binders shucking and jiving for HRC on a NYC sidewalk. “Do you have a moment for gay rights?” “Do you have a minute for gay marriage?” This time I didn’t have the energy to let them know that I, a gay, had serious reservations about HRC’s agenda, especially its emphasis on gay marriage. Of course I, like you, am old school and think marriage rights have hijacked the gays. I still think the goal is to create and sponsor an emotional situation where marriage itself was no longer the model of ideal relations between people. Call me a crank but I think abolishing marriage altogether is a better agenda. This isn’t exactly a pragmatic political agenda but I think gay pragmatism has not gotten us much.  Certainly nothing approaching the real political gains that previous in-your-face gay politics have given us.
The inescapable counter-argument of course boils down to marriage rights equaling tax breaks, insurance and other real material advantages for gay couples. My response to that has always been to poke fun at Evan Wolfson’s website “FreedomToMarry.org.” My favorite response to this particular use of the word “freedom” is to mock it in a little dinner party/bar routine where I declare that none of us will ever be free until we are allowed to marry our pets! Freedom to Marry Our Pets! Here I am adopting the right’s argument that gay marriage is a slippery slope to bestiality. I recently tried this bit out at a fancy lesbian dinner party in San Francisco when talking to an acquaintance who is a dyke activist and filmmaker. She really wasn’t having my line and didn’t seem to see the humor or the strange truth to it. I get this response all the time. I ask you Lisa, from my cranky lefty position, what’s wrong with the gays today?

Yours in Struggle,

Dear Jose,

I remember, back in the day, when the gays and especially the lesbos were asking the state to butt out of our sex lives.  We were against state regulation of sexuality and love.  Joni Mitchell was singing that she didn’t need no piece of paper from the city hall…..   Freedom meant breaking out of social norms and conventions, to connect in new ways.  Those were the days. But these young people today, what are they doing Jose?  Asking the state to legitimate their utterly conventional couplings?  WTF?  I shake my head.

You are right about all the benefits that come with marriage, that so many homos would like to have.  But gee, why should those benefits be tied to state legitimated monogamy?  Why aren’t the young ones on the barricades for universal, single payer national health care, rather than hoping to get private insurance through marriage?  Why not march for more open immigration policies rather than hope to bring just their legal spouse into the country?  Why not allow everyone to choose their next of kin for medical decision making and all that, regardless of the nature of the relationship?  And why enshrine the couple form at the top of the gay agenda, when we used to want to mix things up in the world of possible significant intimacies.  So yeah, why not get rid of the churchy sanctified idea of “marriage” all together?  FreedomToMarry.org argues that having the homos get married will lead to separation of church and state.  Say *what*?  If we want to separate church and state, let’s have non conjugal and/or polyamorous next of kin recognition for the hospitals and all (call it, um, Best Buds or Golden Girls status?), and universal social benefits not tied to sex or love or jobs!  Wouldn’t that be fun?  Why that would be almost just like……social justice!

But it looks like we’re stuck with this stultifying marriage movement for awhile.  What to do?  How about we lobby for Same Sex Adultery, Bigamy, Gold Digging and Divorce–aka Real Marriage Equality!  Or, if we want the state to legitimate our deepest love and intimate relationships, I’m with you on Freedom to Marry Our Pets!  Love Makes a Family, Jose!  And Scully, Mulder and I are worthy of inclusion in the glorious diversity of our narrowly pursued legal relations.  I am who I am, I love who I love.  I demand the Freedom to Marry Our Pets, because the slippery slope is a fun ride when you’re bored to death on the narrow “high” ground of conventional normality and conservative policy goals.

Yours in struggle,


Dear Lisa-
Totally. I hear you. I know that friends who we once felt we were squarely aligned with have expressed reservations about our cranky hard line. I was recently on a panel where one friend in the audience, an artist and writer who I deeply respect, closed the panel’s hour and a half Q & A/gripe session (mostly about the normative politics of marriage) by saying we should not make “marriage the straw man for our collective sense of self-righteousness.” He went on to explain that he went to weddings, that he went to his friends’ weddings and that he even read poems at weddings. My panel fatigue meant I was going to let him have the last word but looking back, had I been made of sturdier stuff, I would have quipped that my own personal sense of self-righteousness and those of my dearest allies like you, Lisa, expands far beyond marriage. (It seems like it is hard at this moment to have politics and not open oneself up to the charge of self righteousness.)

But seriously, I know all sorts of people have all sorts of different relationships under the sign of marriage. Some of them are cool, some of them are progressive, some are lame, some are fun, some are boring, some are repulsive, and some are cute. That’s not our issue. It is more nearly the unbearable monolithic focus on marriage as the gay agenda or at least its primary concern. All the broader economic issues you mention around universal health care and immigration seem a lot more urgent to me than marriage. Some of our friends who where there for the nastiness of Prop. 8 in California remind us that we didn’t see how hateful the anti-gay marriage campaign became. Point taken. But I also see that kind of organized mass hate routinely aimed at poor people in this country every day of my life.
But let’s get back to Freedom To Marry Our Pets or the families we really actually super choose. Like you, I find real joy in what I call the companion species good life. Let’s roll with the pro-marriage gays for a minute. If marriage is the way you can be sure that our bonds count in the world then I might as well be married to my princess of a bulldog Dulce. And along the way I would like to marry a whole bunch of my friends and maybe even some objects that I cherish like favorite books or my new pair of age-inappropriate Vans.  It would be nice to be able to marry some our own feelings and thoughts that we feel especially attached to. Maybe even marry a very vague yet poignant sense of hope for a future in which all our relations will matter and marriage itself will eventually become irrelevant. Why not? Once we leave Adam and Eve behind it really becomes everything goes and that’s actually a good thing.  Right?

Yours in struggle,


Dear Jose–

Alice and Eve, Adam and Steve–they should all get a room and stay out of the city hall!  Unless they are there to lobby for ….  Freedom to Marry Our Pets!  About material interdependencies, we can be serious.  We need the state to offer benefits and recognize relationships (only when needed, as in child care and medical situations).  But if we’re out there yammering about wanting the state to recognize “love,” a patently ridiculous and reactionary goal, then let’s be democratic about it.  Who and what do we love?  With whom do we have the deepest intimacy?  For some of my friends, I think it may be reality TV.  But for many of those who are dykes, it is definitely the companion species.  We must demand the Freedom to Marry them!  Petco needs a gift registration system and a special wedding outfit section, next to the leashes and harnesses of course!  We want to be part of the industry as well as the legal system!  My own wedding will need to be polyamorous as well–I love *both* my cats (even though they don’t especially love each other, so it’s complicated, as they say on facebook).    And while we’re on the Slippery Slope, we can go ahead and advocate consensual incestuous and intergenerational marriages too!  What *is* the age of consent for a puppy, do you think?

I worry that gay marriage proponents will feel that our campaign demeans theirs.  They will want to write in and say so.  But we don’t mean to demean the marriage campaign, we mean to ridicule it in order to expunge it, yes?  Fat chance we have, but we can vent a bit trying.

Yours in (seemingly endless) struggle,