BunnyBlinks

I can’t mention enough that I’m not a Hillary Hater. If she had won the primary fair-and-square, I would’ve spent the next seven months explaining out of one side of my mouth to my Madison friends how Hillary’s not Joe Lieberman in drag, and how while comparing her to Lieberman might in some ways be appropriate, calling her a man in drag is something that should only be laughed at privately, in pro-drag, pro-fem circles. Meanwhile, out of the other side of my mouth, I’d have to make the argument to friends back in Ohio that she’s not not the liberal demon their hate-spam makes her out to be. My profound respect for Hillary Clinton only began to erode during her race-based campaign leading up to the South Carolina primary, and with subsequent reminders of her campaign’s continuing acceptance of that sort of thinking.I’m with Althouse on this one. Although where she seems to say “fair is fair” –

Yes, of course, some of that stuff is awful, but political fighting is harsh, and if women are going to be in it — really in it, as Hillary is — they’ll have to get knocked around. I’m not going to wring my hands over this. It’s part of progress. Males are savaged too. It means they’re taken seriously.

– I’m inclined to say “unfair is unfair.” In the Hillary video, the editors intersperse “MSM” clips with reactionary, redneck, and indisputably misogynistic non-mainstream propaganda that’s much more offensive than anything from the mainstream media. I’m thinking, for example, about 3:15-3:25 in the Youtube clip, which includes the very non-mainstream dropping of the “c-bomb.” MSM? I don’t think so. (Well, maybe there was this one time.)

No one can argue Barack hasn’t been effectively slandered by the ignorant, hateful, racist, bigoted, intolerant non-MSM, and to a similarly chilling extent. Hasn’t just about everyone been subjected to this email?

It’s clear to me we need to start pulling together. If, as seems likely, our pro-Clinton friends want to drag this out longer, I hope we can all remember that most haters out there aren’t fans of Hillary or Barack. In fact, they’re counting on us to win the election for McCain.Obama is wise, I think, to always try to be “very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology.”

A running (and perhaps somewhat childish) inside joke in my inner circle of Madison friends involves no more than a scripted, indignantly delivered one-liner: “Why do you always have to label me?” Other variations include “Why do you have to label everyone?” or “What’s up with you and your categories?”

It started with “Poolboy,” who earned his nickname in part with his handiness and helpfulness, but mostly, to be sure, on account of his appearance. Poolboy rolls with lots of different folks, including his young, cute, and clever kids, and a large, diverse group of friends and family. Perceptions of Poolboy vary remarkably from person to person and situation to situation, and he’s well aware of this phenomenon. So frequently it’s surreal, he’s asked oddly personal questions by strangers and acquaintances alike.

“Are you gay? But don’t you have kids? and wasn’t there a girlfriend?” he might get asked in the local gay bar.

Then there’s the just-as-frequent line of questioning: “You’re straight? But the purple hair!” someone will ask when they notice his lingering glance at a physically attractive woman I somehow failed to notice. (The hair, I’ve observed, is a conveniently mentionable symbol for any confidently expressed flamboyant mannerisms that usually go unmentioned.)

Generally, acquaintances feel forced to conclude, usually in a whisper, that “he must be bi.” All this unnecessary–and to him, pointless– speculation gets to be a little much for Poolboy. If pressed, he’d probably admit that his resistance to these categories is partially a political response. Mostly, though, the questions just annoy him. “I’m a doer, not a labeler. Can’t I just be ‘Poolboy’?”

Of course, without labels we’d have no language; without categories, education as we know it would be impossible. (We might, however, pay more attention to which sorts of words make for the best labels, describing processes, not things.) Moreover, many of us feel that gay (somewhat more so than lesbian) politics is based in the knowledge that people are born gay, and so “gay” must be a category.

In academic circles, there’s a push to embrace more and more narrowly defined labels as we specialize in ever smaller areas of expertise. I will admit to consciously resisting this trend in my own scholarly and pedagogical endeavors. But there’s no denying that labels–some helpful, many meaningless–are at the heart of “music analysis,” whose apparently jealous sibling discipline, “music theory,” constantly strives to label bigger and better systems.

Academic careers can be built on the coining of a new term or theory, especially once people adopt and/or reproduce it. This might not be a musically sensitive process, but it’s power. After all, academics are capitalists, too; especially, so it sometimes seems, when they claim not to be.

Admittedly, in talking about labels and categories we could be talking about any cultural phenomenon. Think: advertising and political demographics, like “Soccer Moms,” “Nascar Dads,” “Green-collar workers,” and “Obamicans.” How many tags–or should I say labels?–should I affix to this post? and why?

Poolboy, I think, is right to resist. Sure, the rest of us initially teased him, throwing what we first heard as trivial protest back at him. Now, though, questions like “Why do you have to label her a ‘bartender’?” have become a way of poking fun at each other while embracing the absurd. The childlike banter has evolved beyond the “your mom” joke into surprisingly sophisticated real-life sketch comedy.

A lot of power lies with those who frame a debate. We can, however, challenge and teach the debate framers, and refuse to answer with a simple, confirming or denying “yes” or “no.” We’re better off reformulating those questions that serve no purpose other than to divide us.

Poolboy reminds us that we can fight the power by playing around it.